[electricbear]

If any of you are looking for a cheap or second turntable check out Music Direct. They have a Musical Fidelity table built by Project for $299.
It includes cartridge. This table used to retail for $999. I ordered one, it arrived today. I haven't listened to it but it looks stupid good for the money. I'll be ditching the stock cartridge and putting on a good mc.

[Baumli]

Master Tim,

Thank you for the recommendation, but since I'm considering a fourth turntable now, I'm looking to buy an old Denon here locally that used to be in a Record Exchange store. They only want $90 for it. The motor is burned out but I saw one go for a mere $40 on eBay a couple of years ago so I suspect I could find what I need for about the same amount of money. Its tonearm is broken clean in two, but I would guess I can find an old Grace or Sumiko that I could get to mount in somehow. You can get the old ones cheap, sometimes for only a little over a hundred. I would give it a good rewire job. For a cartridge I would probably use an old Stanton heavy-tracker, or maybe an old Shure DJ cartridge. By the end I would have only about 50 hours in it, but I would have that vintage sound. Why would a person go the route you did when, with some extra hours and the same amount of money, you could get that vintage sound?

One of the herd,

Francis Baumli

[electricbear]

Damn, I never thought of doing that. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow.

[Baumli]

Dear GAS patricians,

Early afternoon today I really got my butt blistered by a phone call. It came from a fellow here in town I'd never heard met, or heard of, before. He felt "personally insulted" (his words) by my little spoof on vintage gear. Well; it's true I was being humorous. And what also is true is that I very much believe in the words of the philosopher Robert D. Nagle: "If you can't laugh at yourself, then you aren't taking yourself seriously."

First of all, let me be clear about one thing. I am using a tar brush to paint a picture stating that all vintage gear is bad. Not at all. Some of the best gear ever made is vintage--in fact, by now is very vintage. Spend a mere five minutes in Dave Sheckleton's house and you will know this. Some of the vintage gear I've been well acquainted with is the old Apt-Holman amp and preamp. Also the Essence gear, both electronics and speakers. And one of my favorites involve the old JBL speakers. I had a pair of 4406 Studio Monitors which I bought back around 1990, and used with a subwoofer, they had superb sound. With some slight mods, their sound was superb. And I still claim that there was a sound in those older JBL's that has never been equaled in one respect: Trimbral accuracy. They had a natural accuracy in the midrange that put you right into the middle of an instrument. You would never mistake an oboe for a clarinet. You could tell the difference between a trumpet and a cornet every time. Or between an alto sax and a tenor sax. You would never hear a Baldwin piano and think it was a Steinway. No speaker, to this day, matches those old JBL's in timbral precision. They didn't have the soundstaging, the dynamic speed, the upper and lower extension of the Dunlavy's I now use. But they did beat out the Dunlavy's in timbral accuracy.

[Baumli]

(Continuing--a brief flickering of the power here where I live caused what I was typing to post. We have terrible current supply here in Des Peres.)

What is crucial here, and I'm not going to back down from this position, is something I find ridiculous in some people's attitudes. And before you get your hackles up, allow me to readily admit that in earlier years I have indulged in this position myself. It involves a sentient equation: If it's old, it's vintage. If it's vintage, then it's wonderful and sounds better than anything modern.

Well; that isn't true. If it's vintage, and you replace some of the old parts as needed, maybe put on better connectors, then it may have a sound that equals or even betters just about anything you can buy today. Plus you'll save a ton of money doing it this way if you are good at assessing weaknesses in a component and replacing parts. But don't assume that it will always be better. Shop around, and talk to people who have done it. Just as you would do (I hope) in buying a new piece of audio gear. It makes me sick to think of all the money I spent on replacing bad tubes for the ARC DM-120's I had for years (16 tubes every time I re-tubed it, which was about every 500 hours). That amp, with my ARC SP-10 (15 tubes!), meant I had no audio budget for anything else. And the truth is, while the preamp was wonderful, I now realize that the monoblocks weren't that special. At least not in my system. They were powerful, they looked impressive, but they were costly. And it makes me sick to think of having spent all that money on all those tubes, and then I walk through the door at Dave Sheckleton's, and his Sun--the first amp that greets you--sounds twice as good, has less power but still has all the power I myself ever needed, and only uses a handful of tubes. There, unquestionably, is an instance where vintage gear and common sense beat the pants off of more modern gear.

So no; the word "vintage" doesn't yank my tail. But it is one choice, and it is a very fertile choice, if you have the persistence and knack someone like Dave Sheckleton has for ferreting it out. I don't possess either of these traits, so I have gone more modern, but with fewer presumptions than I once had. I use my ears, and don't assume that high dollar means good sound. A telling experience in this realm was when a fellow I know, needing cash, was willing to sell his FM Acoustics crossover (original cost was around fifty grand) for about twenty grand. I didn't have the money, but he wanted me to try it, so I did. Well; it sounded okay, but not great, and most of all it just didn't sound "right"--whatever that means. My Marchand, which cost about $1500, sounded much better and it did sound "right."

So please, no more angry phone calls thinking I am impugning the merits of all vintage gear. I'm not doing that. If you're angry and need to call me out to give me an ass-chewing for something I deserve, then please do it. (I have a long list of infractions, and I need to be set aright every now and then!) But don't accuse me of impugning vintage sound per se. One of the 10 best systems I have ever heard in my life was simple: It used a Dual turntable, a Shure cartridge, cheap wire, a JBL Energizer integrated amp, and a pair of JBL speakers. I can't remember the model number of the speakers (Scott Faller could tell you off the top of his head what they were) but they were a three-way using a 14-inch woofer (yes; 14, not 15), a 3-inch midrange (I think it was 3), and a 1-inch aluminum-dome tweeter. No tape, no CD, just vinyl. And it was one of the best systems I have ever heard. In my group of the 10 best systems I have ever heard was one which cost over half a million. I think the vintage system sounded just a little bit better.

So you see? I think there is great sound to be had from vintage gear. I'm just not one to reflexively say that if it is vintage then it must be wonderful. And truth be know, I am tired of hearing people say this.

In fact, there is one thing I have never quite understood. People talk about "vintage sound." I don't know what this is. There is vintage gear that sounds good, and vintage gear that sounds bad. These distinctions I can make. But what exactly (yes; exactly) is "vintage sound." If someone can answer this question, I'll make sure you get to consort with a virgin once you get to heaven. But just keep one thing in mind: She will be a vintage virgin.

Lucidly,

Francis Baumli

[electricbear]

Well I for one found your response brilliant. 

[Johnny2Bad]

A lot of what I see advertised as "vintage" would not qualify in my opinion. For example, there is no such thing as a "vintage" CD player. It's just old, and probably very bad sounding at that.

Vintage turntables are the Empires and AR's, maybe a Mark I Technics (which are decent, some with a good double-isolating suspension, but outperformed in every other respect by any Mark 2, which are not vintage, just old). If it is Vacuum State it's probably vintage, if it's test-equipment styled face plate Audio Research it's vintage, if not, it's not.

And then there's Classic, which does not mean "old" and it's perfectly common to be Vintage and not be Classic. And you only want to buy Classics. So a Kenwood KD-550 is a Classic but not Vintage, and no SONY turntable is ever a Classic.

A QUAD ESL might be old, it might be Vintage, or it might be neither but even 80's production units always will be Classic.

[Johnny2Bad]

" ... But what exactly (yes; exactly) is "vintage sound." ..."

It's a mid-priced Japanese receiver, with the tone controls maxed, two large speakers on the floor in the corners, and howling feedback controlled by turning the volume control down just enough to stop it but not enough to stop it.

It's bad sound remembered as good, and brought back Phoenix-like to torture us a second time.

[Scott F.]

Jr Member,

I just so happens, earlier this evening, prior to reading your reply(s), I mentioned to Laura that, in some form or fashion, I really want to incorporate the 'vintage' system we're using at the condo, into the living room, when we move back into our house. From top to bottom, it's your old Merrill with The Cartridge Mans cartridge, a small computer with my FLAC library attached, an HH Scott 299 integrated (6BQ5 version) and one of my old MHDT tube DACs. I'm using generic zip cord for speaker wires and cheap, crappy interconnects.



The more I listen to this system, the more absolutely smitten I become with it. It isn't overly accurate. It's rolled on the top. The bass is a little fluffy. The mids aren't overly defined but, oh dear Lord does music flow from this thing. It is absolutely intoxicating. The sound is full and round and just oozes passion.

One thing. This system will drive an 'audiophile' crazy. I've got it set up in a corner, there's nowhere to park a chair and sit in the sweet spot, it doesn't have a hope of 'soundstaging'....and then there are the bass, treble and loudness controls...all of which I use liberally....and you know what? I love it...because it plays music...all music, not just the stuff 'audiophiles' get hung up on.

What to hear a vintage system? Give me a buzz. The four of us can have dinner, visit and spin some vinyl...and BTW I just picked up some nice new County on vinyl (Jamey Johnson, Rascal Flatts and Eric Church), all of which sound great BTW. 

We're out in Ballwin until we complete the house. Hope to be back in around June.

[sunnydaze]

.......it's your old Merrill with The Cartridge Mans cartridge, a small computer with my FLAC library attached, an HH Scott 299 integrated (6BQ5 version) and one of my old MHDT tube DACs. I'm using generic zip cord for speaker wires and cheap, crappy interconnects......

......The more I listen to this system, the more absolutely smitten I become with it. It isn't overly accurate. It's rolled on the top. The bass is a little fluffy. The mids aren't overly defined but, oh dear Lord does music flow from this thing. It is absolutely intoxicating. The sound is full and round and just oozes passion.

I have a Cartridge Man Music Maker 3 cart installed on my Hadcock 242 arm, and the same cart w/ SoundSmith level 2 retip on my Linn Ittok arm.  Tables are Eurolab Premier mk2 and Townshend Rock 3 respectively.  The cart does not get much love here in the states, but man is it good!   Naturally detailed with nice separation and flow, immersive and highly musical.

I also own a Scott 222 B and previously owned a MHDT Paradisea DAC,  so I know exactly of which you speak.  I know you are getting massive tone and an engaging presentation that just sucks you in and makes the hours slip by.

I know your rig sounds great!  Congrats!     

PS:   what are the speakers?

[Scott F.]

Oh, that's right...those are ADS L780 Type II, one of my favorite vintage speakers.

[charmerci]

Oh, that's right...those are ADS L780 Type II, one of my favorite vintage speakers.

Dontcha wanna pull out that corner speaker out about 6-8" from the corner? That would help a lot.

[Scott F.]

Dontcha wanna pull out that corner speaker out about 6-8" from the corner? That would help a lot.

...nope, that would be too 'audiophile'. 

[charmerci]

 

[daves]

Francis, I have an old Grace tone arm if you need one.

[Batsong]

It's too easy to confuse the technology with the implementation.  Being old is simply not enough.  There's a big difference between models of old cars, old fishing rods and stereos.  Though they may use the same steel, bamboo or tubes, that does not mean they are the same.

[Baumli]

Dear GAS gentry,

This discussion has become most variegated, instructive, and also quite humorous. I especially liked the statement by Johnny2Bad regarding vintage that, "It's bad sound remembered as good, and brought back ... to torture us a second time."

And thank you, Dave, for the offer on the Grace arm. I believe I'll pass. Actually I'm not setting up a fourth turntable; in fact, I'd like to get rid of my Mission 775 and be content with my big Merrill and my Thorens TD-124. (Next question's answer: "No.")

But my curiosity continues to grow. You see, part of what I do--in my work--is lexicography. Working on dictionary definitions. Many people think my Ph.D. is in lexicography, etymology, or philology given my interest in language. Actually my Ph.D. is in philosophy, but as an undergraduate, I specialized in medieval philosophy, which meant also specializing in medieval theology and medieval Latin. From the latter study grew my interest in language.

As a Contributing Editor to the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY I write up the information for new definitions. Usually this information is given to the Senior Editors to write up the actual definitions, although sometimes I write the definitions. (They wanted me to become a Senior Editor, but no--that would have paid well, but it also would have meant moving to London, and I didn't want to do that. Plus, as much as I enjoy lexicography, I couldn't stand doing it 40-60 hours a week. It's too pedantic and uncreative. I would become like a mummy in a museum that needs to be dusted once a week.)

However, I would like to come up with a definition for, not "vintage," but "vintage high end audio equipment." This would not be for a dictionary since it is a phrase, i.e., it is neither a word nor even a brief phrase. It is an entire concept; but still, I would like to achieve a precise definition. As Gabe Batson suggests, this definition can't mean merely that it's old. There is implied a view of how the equipment is implemented, or as one might otherwise put it, what the particular sound is. What is pertinent here is that in "ordinary parlance," as language philosophers like to put it, there is commonly used the phraseology, "vintage sound" or "vintage high end sound." People seem to believe it exists, is recognizable, and is different from "modern high end sound." I don't want to discount this perception or terminology. Maybe I've been missing something, but I don't hear vintage versus modern high end sound. I hear bad and good sound, whether vintage or modern. But as I note: I may be missing something here. I do know that as we become more modern, we always run the danger of losing something. This is what Scott Faller is getting at when he points out that with his vintage gear the sheer music comes flowing out and "audiophile sound" often gets in the way. So having a precise definition for "vintage high end audio gear" or "vintage high end audio sound" would help us know what we have achieved when we manage to get it with old equipment, and also help us avoid what is perhaps enticing but, in the end, deceptive and nonmusical sound that we too often get with some of the modern equipment.

So I ask: Could anyone come up with a precise, concise, incontrovertible definition for "vintage high end sound" that would fit into, for example, the book J. Gordon Holt put out years ago on terminology for the high end? I can't do it, but that's because long ago I squandered my brain cells by consorting with women. No; come to think of it, this depletion didn't happen because I was consorting with women. It happened because I was consorting with what was called high end gear back in the late '60s. I invited musical ruination at a young age. And also poverty.

Atavistically,

Francis Baumli

[daves]

Francis, the problem with THAT definition is that vintage high end sound does not exist, at least not as a design end product like it does today.

Back in the day, varied manufacturers were defined by their singular design engineers, and not by their position in midfi of hifi sound quality. You had the major design houses such as Western Electric, RCA, and Bell, who had a tremendous stable of incredible engineers, and the quality manufacturing capacity in spades. They set the bar for superb quality way, way, way up in the clouds. You also had a small but burgeoning home radio market, with stellar products making it to fruition, such as McMurdo, EH Scott, Armstrong, et al.

WWII came along, and the radio/stereo market turned to dust for close to a decade, with every resource pivoted to the war effort. Following the war, with the return of the GIs, there was a multitude of small cottage manufacturers who again grabbed the flags. Many of the technical designers had sharpened their skills in the military, and used them to their advantage in the new civilian markets. Reknown names like REL, Browing, Karg, Gray Research, Interelectronics, Regency, Acrosound, Lafayette, Pedersen Electronics, Brook, Sherwood, Madison Fielding, Marantz, Fisher, Radio Craftsman, HH Scott, Fairchild, McIntosh, Rek-O-Kut, Klipsch, Electrovoice, and others were started, funded, and survived in no small part by military experiences, and former GIs who were fascinated by being able to have music in their new home at their beck and call.

While most of these companies did not make the transition successfully from mono to stereo, and even fewer from tube to solid state, much of their product line is very solid to some range of spectacular, and without exception they are all musical. People were not concerned with where their stereo was sorted and fell back in the day - that marketing delineation arose sometime in the early 1980s by my ken - but I think people had more time and specific inclination to enjoy music in the 1950s through the 1970s.

[Baumli]

Dave,

Your letter is so full of information it seems that it should all be sorted out in conversation rather than in letters. But I do want to make a few comments.

You are right that back in those very early days much reproduction gear (note I do not use the phrase "stereo gear) was made by people who simply enjoyed music, and had the support of tremendous engineers, plus the backing of companies that were ambitious, competitive with other companies, and not least, competitive with themselves--always trying to get better sound and products as the engineers themselves envisioned it rather than as was envisioned by people in marketing.

The end of WWII did make for a transition; during the late '40s and all the '50s people had time and money, even if it was only a modest amount of money, to go in the direction of enjoying music at home. Part of this move toward music, I think, is simply that video gear, mainly TVs, had not yet reached much more than an acceptable level of reproduction capability.

Realize, I was born in 1948. I graduated from high school in 1966, and the following decade essentially was the birth, and evolution, of what would be called high end gear. I was right in the middle of that evolution, saw and heard its every incarnation, managed to spend too much money the entire time, and I tell you, it sure was exciting. I hate to come across as an old sage (or old fart?) but I lived through the emergence of what was becoming, and would become, the high end. In my earliest days of experimenting with high end, people hadn't even thought of using good wire. The focus was on better speakers, amplifiers, and (lest we forget) tape recorders and tape players.

All the comments you make nudge my thinking in what may be, but isn't yet, a fertile direction. Maybe it makes sense to think of vintage high end gear as the gear we now can go back to, and hear high end sound, while realizing that when this gear was made no one was even thinking of "high end sound." They were still groping, producing great tubes (mainly because of military demand, and what was learned from that market), and there wasn't even an audio language until J. Gordon Holt came along and then Harrry Pearson somewhat refined what Holt had done. In 1966 when I was just getting into better equipment, the term "high end" wasn't yet in use. No one was distinguishing between midbass and bass, and words like "soundstage" or "dynamics" or "liquid" as applied to music weren't in existence as far as I know.

So I shall ponder what you have said, and I daresay, you may have put me on a path that will yield good exploratory results.

All the best,

Francis Baumli

[Mitsuman]

I'll just leave this here. 

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?13795-Origins-of-high-Fidelity-in-first-Life-Magazine-article-on-the-subject-from-1953