Just came back from my first audio show and oh boy

[Frank Dernie]

Fess up, Frank! How'd you sneak everything past your wife?

It had nothing to do with my dearly beloved wife.
I get a few rolled eyes and disappointed looks but she doesn't complain what I spend my money on.
She was much more bothered by me collecting cameras and watches, which I use far less, but the cameras have been sold as part of our pension now.

 

[Julf]

Not only your friend. For Holden read GM.

Wow!

 

[Julf]

Before I joined an internet forum I had spent more on my hifi than my car for decades and nobody knew

I used to have cars like that.

 

[anmpr1]

1) Only if he claimed it was a technically better amp.

2) Patek Phillipe watches cost...

3) I don't have a problem with someone paying stupid money for a SET...

4) We all only get one ride, and it's a short one....

I'll number your points to make reply easier.

1) You've hit on an interesting thing. Audio is one of the few handful of hobbies where someone can make an idiotic claim and people actually buy in to it. For instance, if someone installs low-profile tires and carbon ceramic brakes on a Beetle, tripled the price, and then claimed it was a somehow a 'better' car for it (in magical mysterious ways undefined), they'd be ridiculed. But if someone builds an expensive 8 watt tube SET with magic wire and wonderful caps, prices it through the roof, and then claims it 'sounds' better than an AHB-2, you can be sure that some 'reviewer' and his wife will agree that it is better, and true believers will lay down dollars for it.

2) Both watches will tell time accurately, although you might have to adjust the Swiss mechanical watch every couple of days, compensating a for a few minutes of time. And most recognize an intrinsic artistic, aesthetic, and miniature engineering value inherent in a hand made Swiss watch. In audio, maybe something analogous to what Nagra is doing. On the other hand, an 8 watt SET is not and will never be in the same design or engineering class; although it could have nice fit and finish-- it will always be an 8 watt SET. Alternately, if were talking about, say, Bob Carver's hand made Silver Seven 900 tube amplifier, you could certainly and, I think, legitimately equate that to a hand made Swiss watch. And probably make the case that, for toobs, it is technically better to anything else that comes in a bottle.

One thing about the watch: ask your kid whether he'd rather inherit your hand made Swiss watch, or your hand made 8 watt tube SET, and you'll get an immediate idea of intrinsic worth and value!

3) Me either. I just kind of marvel at the thinking that goes behind it.

4) Apart from being short, which is true, some think otherwise. Who knows how it will be? Back from the Intermediate Stage bardo, if I have to glow, I want to be born into the Silver Seven 900 group [eternal salvation], and not the 8 watt SET crowd [eternal damnation].

 

[watchnerd]

2) Both watches will tell time accurately, although you might have to adjust the Swiss mechanical watch every couple of days, compensating a for a few minutes of time. And most recognize an intrinsic artistic, aesthetic, and miniature engineering value inherent in a hand made Swiss watch. In audio, maybe something analogous to what Nagra is doing. On the other hand, an 8 watt SET is not and will never be in the same design or engineering class; although it could have nice fit and finish-- it will always be an 8 watt SET. Alternately, if were talking about, say, Bob Carver's hand made Silver Seven 900 tube amplifier, you could certainly and, I think, legitimately equate that to a hand made Swiss watch. And probably make the case that, for toobs, it is technically better to anything else that comes in a bottle.

One thing about the watch: ask your kid whether he'd rather inherit your hand made Swiss watch, or your hand made 8 watt tube SET, and you'll get an immediate idea of intrinsic worth and value!

I don't quite get where your line is between a ridicule-worthy SET and an artistic work of art-Silver-Seven But here is the Nagra 300i:

Here are specs:

Electronic Amplification class A Power 2 x 20 watts RMS stereo into 4, 8 and 16 Ω Bandwidth 14 Hz at 56 kHz, +0/-3 dB Channel separation > 70 dB Signal-to-noise ratio: Typically 105 dB (ASA-A weighted) THD 0.8% @ 20 W Input impedance > 48 kΩ Start-up protection «Soft start» circuit Security circuit Incorrect mains voltage (115V or 230V) Output transformer removed Error in tube anode current <15mA or >180mA Consumption 120 W continuous, <1 W stand-by Mains power 100, 115, 230 V ± 10%, 50-60 Hz

Pretty decent for a tube amp, but still a tube amp.....

Cost: 22,000 CHF / USD

So is this an object of ridicule like the hypothetical 8 watt SET or worthy of praise like the Silver Sevens?

 

[anmpr1]

I don't quite get where your line is between a ridicule-worthy SET and an artistic work of art-Silver-Seven But here is the Nagra 300i:

So is this an object of ridicule like the hypothetical 8 watt SET or worthy of praise like the Silver Sevens?

No. I wouldn't ridicule a Nagra. Generally speaking. It may be kind of goofy, electrically--I mean 20 watts and all. But I was thinking really about their art of compact, almost miniature design. Especially their little analog open reel deck. I think that is analogous to the Swiss watch.

Bob Carver's design is really over the top, but I can't think of any tube amp that matches it for power and aesthetics. Although I'm sure there are some out there--maybe not at Carver's price point.

 

[Julf]

No. I wouldn't ridicule a Nagra. Generally speaking. It may be kind of goofy, electrically--I mean 20 watts and all. But I was thinking really about their art of compact, almost miniature design. Especially their little analog open reel deck. I think that is analogous to the Swiss watch.

Pre 1997 Nagra produced mechanically brilliant tape recorders. After that they unfortunately "reinvented" themselves as a "high-end" audiophile brand.

 

[anmpr1]

Pre 1997 Nagra produced mechanically brilliant tape recorders. After that they unfortunately "reinvented" themselves as a "high-end" audiophile brand.

That is kind of my impression. Back then their gear seemed to me to be more goal oriented--for the on location pro. Portable. When I mentioned them, it was in the context of the Swiss watch thing. The idea that someone can make something so complicated so small, and with such precision. That was what I was referencing.

The stuff they make still looks nice. It retains the Nagra aesthetic. I really don't know much about them, other than that.

 

[sergeauckland]

Nagra's tape recorders were made under the late Stefan Kudelski's ownership and were super examples of mechanical engineering. Their performance was state-of-the-art for something portable.

Nagra's consumer products are made under the same brand, but not the same company. I understand Nagra's HiFi is operated by Stefan's daughter, and there is little state-of-the-art engineering, just trading on her father's industrial design and reputation.

S.

 

[GrimSurfer]

Pre 1997 Nagra produced mechanically brilliant tape recorders. After that they unfortunately "reinvented" themselves as a "high-end" audiophile brand.

I sometimes worry about this happening to Benchmark. Then I wake up screaming and go back to sleep.

 

[watchnerd]

No. I wouldn't ridicule a Nagra. Generally speaking. It may be kind of goofy, electrically--I mean 20 watts and all. But I was thinking really about their art of compact, almost miniature design. Especially their little analog open reel deck. I think that is analogous to the Swiss watch.

Bob Carver's design is really over the top, but I can't think of any tube amp that matches it for power and aesthetics. Although I'm sure there are some out there--maybe not at Carver's price point.
View attachment 36535

I'm actually shopping for a Nagra IV these days....

I love my dual Revox PR-99s in my home studio, but they're a bit overpowering in my living room.

There is a version of the IV that is 7" capable.

 

[watchnerd]

Bob Carver's design is really over the top, but I can't think of any tube amp that matches it for power and aesthetics. Although I'm sure there are some out there--maybe not at Carver's price point.

I don't really get the point of super high power tube amps. Aside from the insane energy signature / heat waste, isn't SOP with tube amps to use them with efficient speakers?

As for aesthetics, the Luxman MQ-88uC (KT88) is not as powerful as the Silver Seven, but I think the aesthetics are good, and I bet the build quality might be better:

So now this thread is turning into audio porn....

 

[anmpr1]

I love my dual Revox PR-99s in my home studio, but they're a bit overpowering in my living room.

There is a version of the IV that is 7" capable.

I owned a ReVox B-77. Honestly, I didn't think it handled tapes better than my Pioneer, Teac, and Akai decks, although it was certainly built better than any of those. When Studer was in Nashville I got a quote for an overhaul--with heads it would have been over half the price of a new one. And new ones weren't cheap, I'll tell you for sure.

I only used open reel to tape FM broadcasts, and since FM was becoming less an issue for me, I sold all my open reel gear and tapes. Used to use TDK and Maxell UD/UDXL tape. I could get it at a guitar store. Then both companies ceased tape production, and I went with Quantegy (the old Ampex, I believe). That came mail-order. Then Quantegy went south.

I admit to like watching the reels go around, and the meters doing their thing. But I don't really miss the format much. I can say that.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I owned a ReVox B-77. Honestly, I didn't think it handled tapes better than my Pioneer, Teac, and Akai decks, although it was certainly built better than any of those. When Studer was in Nashville I got a quote for an overhaul--with heads it would have been over half the price of a new one. And new ones weren't cheap, I'll tell you for sure.

I only used open reel to tape FM broadcasts, and since FM was becoming less an issue for me, I sold all my open reel gear and tapes. Used to use TDK and Maxell UD/UDXL tape. I could get it at a guitar store. Then both companies ceased tape production, and I went with Quantegy (the old Ampex, I believe). That came mail-order. Then Quantegy went south.

I admit to like watching the reels go around, and the meters doing their thing. But I don't really miss the format much. I can say that.

I still have my B77 but hardly use it.
I keep thinking I should digitise my tapes but haven't.
It was replaced by a DAT machine that was massively better.

 

[watchnerd]

I owned a ReVox B-77. Honestly, I didn't think it handled tapes better than my Pioneer, Teac, and Akai decks, although it was certainly built better than any of those. When Studer was in Nashville I got a quote for an overhaul--with heads it would have been over half the price of a new one. And new ones weren't cheap, I'll tell you for sure.

I only used open reel to tape FM broadcasts, and since FM was becoming less an issue for me, I sold all my open reel gear and tapes. Used to use TDK and Maxell UD/UDXL tape. I could get it at a guitar store. Then both companies ceased tape production, and I went with Quantegy (the old Ampex, I believe). That came mail-order. Then Quantegy went south.

I admit to like watching the reels go around, and the meters doing their thing. But I don't really miss the format much. I can say that.

I have the PR-99 pair mostly for transferring old live concert recordings, many of which are dying from sticky shed, to digital.

I don't do any tape-based editing, so delicate tape handling is less important to me. I'm usually just playing straight through.

I like the tank like build of the Revoxes, the availability of parts, and the modular nature of the PR-99 that makes it easy to take the board out and generally work on them.

 

[anmpr1]

I like the tank like build of the Revoxes, the availability of parts, and the modular nature of the PR-99 that makes it easy to take the board out and generally work on them.

Revox used to advertise a 'lifetime warranty' (not including heads). At the time it looked like a good selling point, but back then no one realized that meant the life of the company, and not the actual machine! LOL

 

[anmpr1]

I still have my B77 but hardly use it.
I keep thinking I should digitise my tapes but haven't.
It was replaced by a DAT machine that was massively better.

Better do it soon. Some of my old tapes became unusable due to backing problems, and oxide turning to dust. And that was 30 years ago! I really miss some of the radio shows I taped. Now, just memories. Not sure how DAT holds up.

 

[watchnerd]

Better do it soon. Some of my old tapes became unusable due to backing problems, and oxide turning to dust. And that was 30 years ago! I really miss some of the radio shows I taped. Now, just memories. Not sure how DAT holds up.

Are DAT formulas any better?

It's still metal oxide on a film, even if digital.

 

[Julf]

Are DAT formulas any better?

It's still metal oxide on a film, even if digital.

The DAT tapes I have are in pretty bad shape - fortunately I transferred them to computer storage long ago.

 

[watchnerd]

The DAT tapes I have are in pretty bad shape - fortunately I transferred them to computer storage long ago.

Okay, dumb question:

I assume that tape splicing doesn't work as well on DAT, right?

Or is it fine with with just a momentary digital glitch?