The Interface Upgrade Thing:

ecc83 said:
Can't edit but forgot...

Peeps bang on about "converters" and their giblets but totally forget the electronics in their monitors! I have only seen schematics for a couple of common active monitors but they were nothing special. Bog S 4558 op amps, chip power amps.

Dave.
Click to expand...

My outlook, also. I hook-up whatever amp I feel like - plus it gives me MONO-left, MONO-right, MONO-left+right, Stereo, and reverse. None have chips. I have one self powered co-ax, but its old mullard push-pull and transistor free. It's a good MONO point source.
 
CoolCat said:
transistor free....
what year is that piece?
Click to expand...

It's the same era as my tube TEACs ?? 1963 ???. With the transistor, it was much easier to put the monitoring amp in the recorder. Having the single 6bq5 for each channel onboard was common, but doubling the power is another story. The tube TEAC is 11 tubes -= where do you put another 5 tubes and transformer ?

That was back when open reel was square, though
 

Attachments

  • squaretape.jpg
    squaretape.jpg
    97.3 KB · Views: 1
ecc83 said:
You tell (and give peer reviewed data) me? Ever since the days of the Quad 303 progress in DETECTABLE audio problems have largely stalled for anything of a competent design and build and run within its ratings.
Click to expand...

And yet designs and circuit topologies are all over the map. As with any gear that passes audio, there's a range of choice available. Also a range of application. I'm not sure that absolutism in trying to adhere to one master set of specifications is a worthwhile pursuit.

If we want to be competent, I don't think we'd be using an SM57 to measure and spec a speaker system. At the same time we're not seeing B&K microphones on snare and guitar cabs much. You can substitute a KM84 or something for the SM57 if you don't like that example.

With converters there's the idea that transparency is sterile, so there are products designed to be different. People in certain areas of the field have used certain products and come to their own conclusions as to what they like. I'm inclined to reserve judgement on how intelligent it is.

Hard to say that Purdy made the gold standard paint brush when Picasso had different ideas.
 
CoolCat said:
interesting, no transistors...tube land, tubeish, TEAC.
History timeline. good stuff..in 63
Click to expand...

The transistor stuff that followed is just as much fun

The excitement extends to surface mount, but a lot of it looks the same(sounds the same)
 
.."With converters there's the idea that transparency is sterile"...


At the time, I was thinking marketing felt they could sell sterile(cheap-ass) as clean
 
garww said:
At the time, I was thinking marketing felt they could sell sterile(cheap-ass) as clean
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if something like an Aurora would fit any of those descriptions. What seems to be interesting is that they make their own output connector that can adapt to multiple formats.

Maybe the best time to upgrade converters is when you can't plug them in anymore?
 
"
Quote Originally Posted by ecc83

You tell (and give peer reviewed data) me? Ever since the days of the Quad 303 progress in DETECTABLE audio problems have largely stalled for anything of a competent design and build and run within its ratings.
And yet designs and circuit topologies are all over the map. As with any gear that passes audio, there's a range of choice available. Also a range of application. I'm not sure that absolutism in trying to adhere to one master set of specifications is a worthwhile pursuit. "

But that is my whole point. Amplifier topology does not matter so long as it is done well. A hi grade power amp ia a "black box" device, what goes on in the box is immaterial, it is how the output is that matters and that is identical to the input save voltage and current delivery.

Power amps and speakers are the final links in the monitoring chain and to me should be beyond reproach, i.e. as near transparent as possible. Then, personally I would push that transparency right back to the mic input XLR and so of course that means the converters as well.

We all know that certain microphones flatter some voices and not others but mics are easily swapped and chosen on merit, for a specific task.

If I could play guitar like Bream I would NOT want some guy behind the glass imposing HIS subjective choice of less than "perfect" gear on MY performance!

Dave.
 
snow lizard said:
I'm not sure if something like an Aurora would fit any of those descriptions. What seems to be interesting is that they make their own output connector that can adapt to multiple formats.

Maybe the best time to upgrade converters is when you can't plug them in anymore?
Click to expand...

That is kinda funny. Anyway I prefer to think of sterile as appearing clean, but it's missing the true fidelity. "Can this do Bass ? Oh, ya. Plenty of Bass (kinda)"
 
What's with the 303 ? Long standing conversations ? hahah It certainly deserves respect, but I've never felt the need to get in the chase. As a Luxman dealer, I got to sell one m-05. Good because we had to listen to it all the time.

I don't need anything perfect anymore - with my hearing. It just has to be good enough to not feel cheated. I'm running a Sanyo DCA-411 in the music room right now. I couldn't find anything better for cheap at the time and this had the switching I wanted. also 73/74-era Harmon Kardon 330b and Akai aa-6300. In storage a Marantz 2245. And I'm sitting at the Sony STR-V5 which is far from as open as my previous Lux products, but I have no problems with it.
 
garww said:
I prefer to think of sterile as appearing clean, but it's missing the true fidelity. "Can this do Bass ? Oh, ya. Plenty of Bass (kinda)"
Click to expand...

I was thinking of sterile more like trying to use surgical grade mastering stuff to track with, when there's other stuff out there that might be trying to impart more harmonic richness or something. RADAR systems come to mind where they're trying to emulate tape to an extent. "appearing clean but missing the true fidelity" sounds more like the cheap-ass stuff with the phase problems. Certainly "sterile" comes to mind with that as well...

What was the saying? Talking about audio is like dancing about architecture?
 
ecc83 said:
But that is my whole point. Amplifier topology does not matter so long as it is done well. A hi grade power amp ia a "black box" device, what goes on in the box is immaterial, it is how the output is that matters and that is identical to the input save voltage and current delivery.

Power amps and speakers are the final links in the monitoring chain and to me should be beyond reproach, i.e. as near transparent as possible. Then, personally I would push that transparency right back to the mic input XLR and so of course that means the converters as well.

We all know that certain microphones flatter some voices and not others but mics are easily swapped and chosen on merit, for a specific task.

If I could play guitar like Bream I would NOT want some guy behind the glass imposing HIS subjective choice of less than "perfect" gear on MY performance!
Click to expand...

Given the application of a monitoring chain I agree that the goal should be accuracy and transparency. I also agree that amplifier topology doesn't matter so long as it is done well. Where we might differ in opinion is in thinking the goal should always be accuracy and transparency. How about trying to flatter the source? We all know that certain mics can do that but is that not true of everything in the chain?

A 1073 preamp isn't exactly transparent. Would it hinder your Bream? If someone's using converters that help make the drums sound fat without killing everything else is it an intelligence issue?
 
.." surgical grade mastering stuff to track with"..

I can see that, but I think that is clean. The regular processing stuff is what it is because people like what it does. I think sterile with my interfaces - no bass capacity, mediocre separation and imaging
 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure my interface has mediocre separation and imaging as well. Seems like those are the main obstacles to overcome to get to the next level. But it suits my needs. Way better than the cassette 4 track days anyway. Can't see myself upgrading unless my needs change or I can't plug it in anymore.
 
" What's with the 303 ?" Just an example is all. The Quad 303 was the first transistorized power amplifier that had distortion levels low enough to be considered subjectively "perfect" (check out "null" testing. I shall in a mo') .
Acoustical waited a long time before releasing a sstate amp. They were confident that the KT66 Qll was good enough (and remember it drove perhaps THE most revealing speaker ever made! Maybe still is!) But speakers were getting smaller an less sensitive and valve amplifiers above 20watts were fork lift jobs. Their main rival, Leak released a sstate amp well before them. It was a much less sophisticated design and suffered from crossover distortion and was prone to blow up. Fixed a few.

At the time the 303 was probably THE best 45W per ch amp in the world (though of course I don't know of them all!) and universally acclaimed. A decade or so later the beardy, subjectivist tweaks slated it mercilessly. Today they pay silly money for them! They also love the Quad ll and it IS a very good VALVE amp but not a patch on the best solid state can offer and WAY under powered for modern speakers.

A 1073 on classical guitar Snow? Don't have one but I doubt an acoustic guitar would drive it hard enough to elicit much "attitude" and I have already said, mics can always be selected to EVERYONE'S taste? Same goes for pres I suppose.
Classical guitar and rock drums are not likely in the same production?

See, I am an old. OLD fart who is locked into a time when the MUSICIANS decided how THEY wanted to sound! Not some guy widdling the knobs who probably can't read music. (no, I can't either).

Dave.
 
hahaha I mean, Cassette has to be tuff for an expanded soundstage. And to think they did that kind of track spacing on open reel. I can like bass compression on cassette. I still have four regular stereo cassettes - sony 3-head, Technics dbx and Lux DBX, and a sony portable maybe a TEAC in storage. I have no problem with acoustic guitar and some vocal grunting on those
 
Bobbsy said:
A big regret in my life was selling my Quad 405 amp before moving to Australia,
Click to expand...

Ha! I have an abiding memory of the first time I heard CD. The album was Bat out of Hell and the amp was a 405 driving a pair of Castle Acoustics speakers, the big jibs with the 10" woofer.
From a zero noise level this fantastic sound burst upon me and I thought "I have GOT to get me one of those!" Never could afford a 405 but did quite well with a 60W pch home build amp using ILP modules. The power transformer was actually a hefty C core jobby salvaged from a Philips 2000 VCR, anyone remember those? That amp is still under the bed!

Dave.
 
Quad got plenty of press, but we were not flooded with product. They were still making it when I got around to Chicago's CES in the early '80s, but they may of had 200 demo suites of "High Endless" to run through in 2-3 days. The speakers, I would of wanted to hear, but I have no memory of QUAD - I can't see it in my mind. But ya, QUAD is on that mental list retained over the years. I remember Hyapatia Lee the **** star, though.

Probably the most exotic thing in our small town bunch of drinkers club was Glen's Conrad-Johnson setup. Me, I'm messing with Heathkits;
Heathkit SP2 Preamplifier
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top