Anti-ASR gear

[saturnaal]

I've got some ancient (1971-1972) Dynaco equipment that I'm sure would earn a headless panther if put to the meter. I got these pieces for no other reason than I thought they were cool. The published specifications are something like...

Dynaco PAT-4 Preamplifier
THD: 0.05%
SNR: 85dB (line)

Dynaco Stereo 120 Amplifier
THD: 0.5%
SNR: 95dB

If I did my math right, this translates to a SINAD of about 66. Certainly nothing to write home about, though still somehow placing it above the bottom of the list of tested equipment. There are very few details about these published specs, and my equipment is going on 50 years old. Some of the internals have been replaced over the years as needed, but there's a good chance it would measure even worse.

Using this equipment, it's easy to identify the shortcomings. The high noise floor produces audible hiss at most listening volumes, and when compared with modern gear with SINAD >100 quite obviously produces audible distortion. Still, it doesn't give me any anxiety to play an album through it now and then. Think of it like an instagram filter for your music. Is it less precise? Of course. Does that automatically make it less enjoyable? Well, no. Especially with source material from the same era or earlier. You don't expect a 50 year old Polaroid to have the same color accuracy and resolution as a modern DSLR portrait.

I find this early transistor equipment has a charm of its own. This is from the era where stereo audio was just starting to become standard in the American household. I'll always choose my modern, precise desktop headphone setup for critical listening. When all you need is some ambience though, the Dynaco does just fine.

 

[watchnerd]

I've got some ancient (1971-1972) Dynaco equipment that I'm sure would earn a headless panther if put to the meter. I got these pieces for no other reason than I thought they were cool. The published specifications are something like...

Dynaco PAT-4 Preamplifier
THD: 0.05%
SNR: 85dB (line)

Dynaco Stereo 120 Amplifier
THD: 0.5%
SNR: 95dB

If I did my math right, this translates to a SINAD of about 66. Certainly nothing to write home about, though still somehow placing it above the bottom of the list of tested equipment. There are very few details about these published specs, and my equipment is going on 50 years old. Some of the internals have been replaced over the years as needed, but there's a good chance it would measure even worse.

Using this equipment, it's easy to identify the shortcomings. The high noise floor produces audible hiss at most listening volumes, and when compared with modern gear with SINAD >100 quite obviously produces audible distortion. Still, it doesn't give me any anxiety to play an album through it now and then. Think of it like an instagram filter for your music. Is it less precise? Of course. Does that automatically make it less enjoyable? Well, no. Especially with source material from the same era or earlier. You don't expect a 50 year old Polaroid to have the same color accuracy and resolution as a modern DSLR portrait.

I find this early transistor equipment has a charm of its own. This is from the era where stereo audio was just starting to become standard in the American household. I'll always choose my modern, precise desktop headphone setup for critical listening. When all you need is some ambience though, the Dynaco does just fine.

Now I'm curious what the SINAD is on my 15 IPS reel to reel decks....

The SNR is probably no better than the Dynacos above.

THD might be worse, given wow & flutter + tape saturation.

Yet it can still sound good.

 

[watchnerd]

Okay, Revox PR-99 MK II:

Freq. Response 30-22000Hz +2/-3dB (38 cm/s) 50-18000Hz +-1,5dB (19 cm/s) Wow & Flutter 0.06% (38 cm/s) 0.08% (19 cm/s)
Distortion: <1.5% @ 0VU, 7.5 ips
Signal to noise ratio: >66dB @ 7.5 ips
>66dB @ 15 ips
Crosstalk: >45dB @ 1kHz

I'm not sure how to translate that to SINAD.

 

[MattHooper]

I gather my Harbeth SHL5+ measure oddly off-axis, and may not be up-to-speed on the latest directivity tech. I listen to them every single night and love it.

the electronics, however, would measure well by ASR standards.

I’ve gone by the idea that speakers are the last subjective arena for hifi.

I don't think you have too much to be ashamed of. Look at the measurement section in this review:

http://i.nextmedia.com.au/Assets/harbeth_super_hl5_plus_speakers_review_test_lores.pdf

Comment from the measurements section: "To reiterate what I said in the introduction, the extension and linearity of the Harbeth Super HL5plus’s frequency response is in my memory, unprecedented."

Maybe they don't measure as great off-axis as a Revel, but I had the Harbeth SuperHL5plus and they sounded fantastic!

 

[saturnaal]

Okay, Revox PR-99 MK II:

Freq. Response 30-22000Hz +2/-3dB (38 cm/s) 50-18000Hz +-1,5dB (19 cm/s) Wow & Flutter 0.06% (38 cm/s) 0.08% (19 cm/s)
Distortion: <1.5% @ 0VU, 7.5 ips
Signal to noise ratio: >66dB @ 7.5 ips
>66dB @ 15 ips
Crosstalk: >45dB @ 1kHz

I'm not sure how to translate that to SINAD.

I believe that's a SINAD of about 36, but I'm not sure what other factors might play into measuring something like this.

https://www.analog.com/en/design-center/interactive-design-tools/snr-thd-sinad-calculator.html

 

[MattHooper]

+1
The melancholy truth is that a new amplifier will not change your audio life.

Actually, I would say that some amplifiers have changed my audio life. Twice at least I went from thinking I had lost interest in high end audio but
putting some tube amps in my system made me do a 180 back in to the hobby.

(But I believe I wrote about that before, so won't repeat).

 

[MattHooper]

Although everyone here is grown up enough to acknowledge that preference is ok so long as the technical claims aren't B.S....

On the theme of the OP:

I'd guess my turntable would apply.

And then my tube amps/pre-amp. (Conrad Johnson).

Worst offender would be my Eico-HF 81 tube amp (read the stereophile measurements. Yikes! But to me it makes many of my speakers sound glorious).

 

[NAYRA]

Skull Candy "Grind" Bluetooth headphones. Love em cause they are convenient, comfortable and sound good enough.

I've also listened to several tubes which can't possibly measure well. my ip birthday wishes tneb

 

[JJB70]

I am using a Technics SC550 all in one lifestyle type system with Technics C700 speakers. The speakers are excellent, properly good, and despite the centre unit being the sort of unit that is met with disdain by audiophiles it is transparent and drives the speakers entirely satisfactorily while being a nice looking unit.

 

[BillG]

I have a tube preamp that adds some coloration but I absolutely love it.

There's nothing anti-science about that, particularly since you're aware that it's altering the signal in a manner that you find pleasing to your ears. I do the same on occasion, by the way, via digital signal processing software.

What would be anti-science, and this is typical of boutique marketing, is for you to start spouting off nonsense like "this is the way music is supposed to sound", or "this preamp recovers the hidden information in digital recordings to present music in all of its original analog glory". Humm... Why does that sound like PS Audio marketing to me?

 

[digicidal]

One of the biggest general differences IME (so yeah, not necessarily accurate due to cognitive/selection bias) between subjectivists and objectivists lies in the breadth of their application - and it's counter-intuitive to some extent. I find that while an objectivist will obviously have some concrete evidence to support their choices... they also are usually more ready to accept subjective preferences that violate them (especially in others).

On the other hand, it's usually a subjectivist perspective to say "I know that everyone hears and loves the same things I do - either that or their ears are broken." (Despite usually having no ability to even quantify what they like about the device in question beyond flowery prose).

 

[valkeryie]

Hooray for Dynaco amplifiers. I have a set of original ST-70s (from kits built in the sixties),, hard wired to be mono-blocks, rebuilt with new "orange drop capacitors" (loved by guitar players for their "tone"), rare Svetelana EL-34s, new driver tubes (JD-8 replacement for the 7199), and rewired. Those things hiss, pop, bump, and have a high level of self noise. But you know what? I LOVE THEIR SOUND. How do they measure? Probably VERY POORLY. How do they sound? LIKE ANGELS SINGING.

Caveat - those old tube amps sound their BEST with a golden toned Marantz 22xx receiver doing the preamp honors - that way you can "bump the bass" and "tweet the treble" - with those delicious tone controls on the Marantz. Have them driving a set of AR-91 speakers, circa 1981 and that set of kit will put any "Modern" schitt to shame. Playing RBCD off a Sony DVD player from 1992. Delicious music - every one that hears it offers to buy it - of course thinking they can get it for a song - it being nothing more than a bunch of "old gears".

This is "anti-ASR" gear - old junk, obeying NONE of the objectivist commandments - measures HORRIBLY - sounds MAGNIFICENT. Try that old gear - suitably brought up to date - and you will be AMAZED.

 

[Killingbeans]

Playing RBCD off a Sony DVD player from 1992.

Are you sure? The DVD format was developed in 1995

 

[valkeryie]

Are you sure? The DVD format was developed in 1995

My bad - get old and memory fails. Must have been an "early" DVD player - maybe '96?

 

[Sal1950]

This is "anti-ASR" gear - old junk, obeying NONE of the objectivist commandments - measures HORRIBLY - sounds MAGNIFICENT

Magnificent, maybe to you,
But not anywheres near accurate to the source.

 

[valkeryie]

And how Dear Sal can you say that? You haven't heard the old junk - you are MERELY SPECULATING BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE READ - NOT WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD. Lots of uninformed hot air circulating in the "high end" arena. LOTS. Maybe we could harness that bizarre bloviation and have a new energy source? Could power our stereos with the wind energy.

But maybe you are correct. Maybe I don't care? Maybe you are completely wrong and what I hear is far closer to what the artist intended than some sterile, desiccated, analytical, skeletal sound with way too much upper midrange energy? Maybe? Unfortunately many - not all - "high end" systems do seem more than a little analytical - no textures, off beat timbres, lean tonality - not particularly enjoyable to hear. Though these skinny puppies are highly praised for their "transparency" and "accuracy to source".

I wonder how anybody can even say anything about "accuracy to source" - UNLESS THEY WERE IN THE ROOM WITH THE ARTISTS WHEN THE RECORDING WAS MADE. If not? Then, dare I say, there is a complete lack of transparency and accuracy in the statement.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I wonder how anybody can even say anything about "accuracy to source" - UNLESS THEY WERE IN THE ROOM WITH THE ARTISTS WHEN THE RECORDING WAS MADE. If not? Then, dare I say, there is a complete lack of transparency and accuracy in the statement.

The recording was presumably produced by the recording engineer to the artists requirements and endorsed by the artist who listened to it in the studio,=.
The ONLY way to get a reproduction pretty well identical to that produced by the label and approved by the engineer when listening at home is to listen to the CD on a transparent system, that is all there is to get as close as possible to what they released.
You speculating wildly about what it may or may not have sounded like in the studio is pointless.
What we are sold is what the artist them self approved for release.

 

[Sal1950]

Those things hiss, pop, bump, and have a high level of self noise.

How do they measure? Probably VERY POORLY.

Caveat - those old tube amps sound their BEST with a golden toned Marantz 22xx receiver doing the preamp honors - that way you can "bump the bass" and "tweet the treble" - with those delicious tone controls on the Marantz.

And how Dear Sal can you say that?

I think you answered your own question in earlier post.
Funny thing is I've owned all the gear mentioned except the AR speakers and well know their weaknesses.
I'm glad you enjoy your older gear, but it wasn't SOTA in the 1960-70s, let alone today.
I know, I was there.

 

[gene_stl]

When I made the jump from a "record player" to an "audio system" the absolute first thing I bought was a DynaKit PAT-4. (from Best Sound Company) I built it and used it to drive two Mark IIIs driving some home made boxes with ElectroVoice spikkers. I hated the sound of it. Maybe it was too accurate. I decided I had made some kind of error even though it measured fine at the dealers. So I sold it and built another one. It sounded exactly the same.
So I picked up a McIntosh C-20 tube amp. That sounded much better. The Pat 4 s had a harsh grating sound that I could not stand. This was the result of listening. Nobody was whispering discouraging words in my ears. (I was a college freshman and the high end had not been invented yet, 1968-69. It is also possible that expectation bias had not yet been discovered.)

If anyone wants to restore a Stereo 120 I have one with one channel removed (one channel blown) and a bunch of replacement transistors not yet installed. I used to use it for the 100 to 1000 Hertz channel which I figured it was more than adequate for. I don't want to finish the project which is in a cardboard box. It was a a factory built unit and is cosmetically a good one.

 

[valkeryie]

The recording was presumably produced by the recording engineer to the artists requirements and endorsed by the artist who listened to it in the studio,=.
The ONLY way to get a reproduction pretty well identical to that produced by the label and approved by the engineer when listening at home is to listen to the CD on a transparent system, that is all there is to get as close as possible to what they released.
You speculating wildly about what it may or may not have sounded like in the studio is pointless.
What we are sold is what the artist them self approved for release.

You, my dear sir, are arguing in circles. The question is; what constitutes a "transparent" system that is accurate in reproducing "sources". The fact of the matter is that YOU DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DOES ANYBODY ELSE. So you cannot make any all encompassing statements about "transparent' and "accurate" systems. Jeez Louise - give it a break already.