Technics SL1200/1210 debate

Did you just give up or deliberately miss

fulsome & tuneful
oodles of detail
midband was spacious
airiness
sweet as honey
dark smoky & velvety

 

I kind-of lost the will to continue, about halfway through. I loved "dyed-in-the-grain", though, and was determined to include it.

 

Come on what about ,'musical' and 'broken'.

 

James, in expressing such positive vibes (except 'nasties' of course) what kind of expressions would you offer as a suitable alternatives?

How might a McPeake review of an SME 20 or impending discoveries of downloaded music playback look?

Remember that the reader needs to be given some insight into your listening priorities - accurate retrieval of information on the recording versus insight into the performance i.e. the intended message of the artist etc. (just as an example) and how your system manages to convey these and whatever other priorities you may hold dear.

 

The SME sounds great, buy one. If you can get a discount, buy two.

I think it's a bit daft to think that accurate playback means you lose "insight" or the "intended message" of the artist. What's the intended message in "Octopus's Garden" anyway? Did Ringo really want to be under the sea?

 

Unnecessary compromises: avoidance of clichés versus not being obtuse is another.

 

Do you think a little distortion helps you to decipher this rather odd concept of <ahem> the "musical message"? No, of course it doesn't.

If you were listening to some music where some thought might have been involved in its composition, then I might take you seriously, but Celine Dion, Atomic Kitten & Madonna seem fairly message-free, unless the message is: "if you know nothing at all about music, try this crap".

 

Eliminating distortion is but one factor in faithful reproduction of music, James. You are beginning to sound like another active monitor proponent called James although his first name begins with A.

You have no idea what music I listen to.

 

Well, you chose Celine Dion for your triumphant posting about your giant-killing valve amplifier, and Madonna/Atomic Kitten have often been mentioned in despatches. Have you some other CDs?

What else is involved in "faithful reproduction of music"? Does a TT which "struggles with really low bass" help? Or perhaps the "slight lack of dynamic articulation" is the key to true musicality.

 

Dynamics, bandwidth, phase coherence, speed, linearity, absence of microphonic feedback...

Yes I have other CDs. The Céline belongs to the wife and happened to work nicely for a spot of 6SN7 tube rolling at that time when she was listening.

Using McPeake logic all valves will sound the same especially with Céline Dion.

 

Dynamics and bandwidth are two areas where the Technics was criticised by David Price.

I have no interest in valve amplifier technology, which in my opinion became obsolete in the 1960s. In all probably, though, they all sound as hopeless, in slightly different ways, as each other.

If you are looking for absence of microphony, are you certain valves are the way forward?

 

Good point. They don't measure terribly well in terms of distortion either but bandwidth, speed, linearity and dynamics are superb. I was a long time in being convinced of their virtues although there are good and bad as with everything else.

 

Near perfect amplifiers with enough power for most domestic situations have existed for many years, for not much money.

Deliberately choosing one with inbuilt limitations strikes me as odd.

 

Me too but subjective listening won the day. There may be more measured distortion but the sound is perceived as being less distorted, better defined, more vivid and the grain of solid state amps is absent. It isn't a warm 'n cuddly sound, far from it. It is quite ballsy, well defined and very explicit. Solid state amplifiers on the whole sound rather dull and flat in comparison as well as a bit slow.

I hope I've not used too many clichés here. If anything, the valve sound I've become accustomed too is anything but cliché.

 

Your whole hypothesis falls at this clause.

Paul

 

How? In any case it is not a hypothesis it is an observation.

 

Valves are voltage controlled current amplifiers, and ideal for audio use. They're generally extremely linear over the audio bandwidth (and beyond). unlike transistors, and so because of their 'natural' linearity, the circuits can be simple with very little negative feedback required.

Transistors are the opposite, they work within a smaller range, requiring many in a circuit, requiring in turn more complex circuits with all the attendant power supply/ground path issues. They also switch (in Class AB) which causes lots of distortion, mainly nasty gritty 3rd harmonic. To slash this back, negative feedback is applied, which gives that 'sat upon' sound.

Valves, by contrast, produce lots of distortion but it's mainly second harmonic, which is actually euphonic as taken by the human ear.

Neither system is perfect, but the benefits of valves (well done) in a circuit often outweight the pitfalls, in my opinion.

Non linear transistors were never designed for audiophile use; almost like trying to drive a car with square wheels, some would say. But fascinatingly there was one transistor designed to work just like a triode valve, giving great linearity and lots of current (hence simple circuits and low feedback). It's called the V-FET; designed by Sony and Yamaha in the early 1970s. It's back!

http://www.digital-do-main.com/product/index.html

Personally, I use the Sugden Class A amps, which are extremely low measured distortion (no switching goes on, the transistors are powered up and on all the time). It's very clear, much more so than Class AB, but still a little less 'free' sounding than valves, likely explained by the circuit's relative complexity.

 

You need to define 'use' - for example, valves are certainly not ideal when it comes to driving loudspeakers which is why output transformers are necessary. Of course those introduce a whole new set of issues. You can go the OTL route but then you have a huge output impedance and very little current capability, so again not ideally suited to driving loudspeakers.

You also need to define 'smaller range' - are you talking about voltage, bandwidth, current or something else?

I've never accepted the simple circuits are best argument because that is purely visual. What matters is what that circuit is doing to the signal passing throught it, and on that basis you cannot just split simple and complex into good and bad.

 

So are transistors. Except that valves follow a square law and transistors exponential. In their native state neither could be called 'linear'.

(Voltage controlled current amplifier is a contradiction, but I think
I know what you meant)

I think the rest of your post is not even wrong.

Paul

 

Sand is made of silicon. So are transistors. This really doesn't mean solid state equipment sounds 'grainy'.

You appeared to be stringing a whole stream of observations together.

Paul