On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:46:18 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:


We have a number of high-power studio grade SS amp,
Crown, Amcron and Carver. I demonstrate the alternatives using
an up to date showreel. Usually the Radford is chosen.

I'm not sure that any of the alternatives are particularly known for their
sound quality. Yes - they're good at putting out plenty of power and I've
seen the Crown/Amcron demo where they try to drive a signal through a
screwdriver connected across the output but that doesn't really have much
to do with how accurately they amplify the audio signal.

Now if you were comparing makes like Bryston or Cello then it might be a
different matter.

Cheers.

James.

In article , John Phillips
wrote:
On 2005-04-28, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Stewart
Pinkerton wrote: BTW I have during the last few
days been re-listening to some old LPs.

Just been enjoying the Grieg/Schumann Piano Concertos. LSO / Previn /
Lupu. Decca SXL 6624. According to the blurb: Kingsway Hall 1973.
Producers Woolcock / Raeburn, Engineer Wilkinson.

Enjoyable. :-)

Available in CD too. The Gramophone reviewer's opinion (IIRC) was that
it's a top quality Kingsway Hall recording and a fine example of just
why the Kingsway Hall is sorely missed.

Based on the LP (via a Shure V15/III) I'd agree with the above.

FWIW I was comparing/contrasting it with a lesser-known later recording of
the Rachmaninov 2nd on EMI (Temirkanov and Fowke). This also sounds very
good, but in a different way. Also on LP here. Apparently recorded in the
Henry Wood Hall in 1985. Producer: Andrew Keener, Eng "Mr Bear". (Is that
Tony Faulkner? IIRC it was someone doing work which they prefered to
anonomise at the time... They were successful in that I can't be sure of
the actual name.)

I have been re-listening to some LPs recently. Prompted to do so by a
hiatus in transferring old R3 cassette recordings whilst I waited for the
arrival of my new (old!) Nakamichi deck. It confirmed my feeling that
*good* LPs can sound very enjoyable. However it also reminded me that some
LPs (not the ones I have mentioned) can be less satisfactory.

One thing I had forgotten is the pitch insecurity of some LPs, due to
things like off-center holes and small warps/ripples. I suspect I notice
these more easily nowdays as I have become used to sources like CD...

The arrival of the Nak yesterday[1], however, has given me a chance to
rediscover yet again how surprisingly good old cassette recordings from R3
can be. Just transferred a R3 Royal Festival Hall concert from 1981.
Mendelssohn Italian symp and violin con - London Chamber Orch with
Zuckerman. Then compared this with the first half of the 1st night of the
proms from 1984. BBCSO and Pritchard performing the VW London symphony.
The acoustics of the halls seem fairly distinct and convincing and the
levels of hiss, etc, are not really noticable despite being cassettes. Now
transferred to CDR for convenience and to avoid the risk of becoming
unplayable due to the virtual loss of cassette decks as a user item...

I assume that the BBC have kept copies of the old concerts I taped. However
given the loss of Dr Who, etc, I wonder if this is correct... :-)

[1] Hooray! I can now resume transferring cassettes to CDR! :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Firstly we need balanced line input on XLR.

As does an original Radford? It was a domestic amp.

The STA 100 was a studio amp, with baanced line on XLR factory fitted.
It was not sold through retail outlets.

Still begs the question. There is nothing intrinsically different between
a decent power amp with a balanced or unbalanced input. So called pro amps
have a balanced input simply because that's the standard for pro gear. It
offers no benefit in most domestic environments.

In any case, feeding an unbalanced load off a balanced source at line
level is no big deal. If you get hum you've done it wrongly. If you
know what you're doing. There's no magic about balanced lines for most
domestic applications. Unless you're using ancient equipment designed
for 600 ohms loading.

Our console has 600 Ohm balanced line output for monitor.

Crikey. It must be ancient. Most balance line outputs these days are 50
ohms or less.

We usually set up an additional listening room for extra people, and
soloists who are not actually performing al the time. The cable run to
this room might be long. Hence our need for balanced line.

That's the advantage of balanced lines. They can go long distances. Like
telephones. But no magical properties other than this. Indeed, they'll
invariably involve extra components over unbalanced - transformers or ICs,
etc. So I'd be interested why you find them essential?

I'd like to see the specs of your Radford driving a typical speaker
load at all frequencies and power outputs. Ie, as in normal use.
Because it will be poor.

There is a technical manual, written for the BBC, which gives the info
which interests you.

Well, yes. But it will be awfully old. I somehow doubt the BBC have
specified any new valve power amp for some 30 years.

A local dealer, who comes to sauna and music listening sessions quite
often has asked me many times to sell this amp to him. He wants it for
his own personal listening room. I have told him I will consdider it
when he can find me something better. He admits that to date he has not
been able to do so.

All I can say is ok. ******s like Keith G spring to mind. The only tests
I'm willing to consider with a power amp is how transparent it is. If it
is adding colouration that somehow makes *my* output better to the client,
I'd rather find a way of making that output 'better' to the average end
listener who won't be using your particular valve amp.

YMMV, of course. But then I don't work in your peculiar area.

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Now transferred to CDR for convenience and to avoid the risk of becoming
unplayable due to the virtual loss of cassette decks as a user item...

Heh heh. Many are reporting CDR as having too short a life for archive
purposes.

--
*I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
Now transferred to CDR for convenience and to avoid the risk of
becoming unplayable due to the virtual loss of cassette decks as a
user item...

Heh heh. Many are reporting CDR as having too short a life for archive
purposes.

I have heard anacdotal or hearsay reports to that effect, but not really
found any data that cause me undue worry at this point. I suspect you could
say much the same about C90 cassettes. :-) Indeed, one of my concerns has
been that the cassettes are mainly of performances which will probably
never be commercial releases, so if the cassettes deteriorate I may lose
the only available copy. I feel lucky that the 25 year old cassettes I am
copying seem OK - although at least one has already shown problems.

I am aware of the saga of Ampex and 'tape bakeing' as well as PDO and
'brown rot', so expect any data storage to have its risks. Ozymandias...

I did spend some time a year or two ago trying to run down relevant data on
CDR, but was left with feeling that they would probably be OK for a
lifetime similar to my own. Like myself, though, this will depend on luck
and conditions of storage/use. ;-

I decided that TDK CDRs stored with care were probably OK, but ask me again
in 5, 10, 20, etc, years. If I am still around I may be able to comment. By
then, though, I may have copied them on again to 'blue ray' DVD or
something else that isn't even a gleam in the maker's eye as yet. :-)

Nor will I be throwing away the cassettes. TBH my main problem so far has
been failure or deterioration of the cassette *players* and the recent
tendency for new ones to vanish from the market.

The CDRs are also much more convenient to use, and this gives me an
'excuse' to rediscover many performances that I've not heard for years.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

On 2005-04-29, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The arrival of the Nak yesterday[1], however, has given me a chance to
rediscover yet again how surprisingly good old cassette recordings from R3
can be. Just transferred a R3 Royal Festival Hall concert from 1981.
Mendelssohn Italian symp and violin con - London Chamber Orch with
Zuckerman. ...

I have a few cassette tape recordings of live R3 broadcasts dating back
to 1978 (the earliest is Walter Susskind conducting Handel's Messiah at
the Proms). I agree that even on cassette they can sound remarkably good.

... Now
transferred to CDR for convenience and to avoid the risk of becoming
unplayable due to the virtual loss of cassette decks as a user item...

I too have been transferring the most "valuable" to CD before it's
too late. I wonder if the CD-Rs will still be as perfectly playable
after 27 years as the cassette tapes.

However I see from viewing the waveforms and from hearing an occasional
spurious "breathing" sound that my 1977-vintage Aiwa AD6550 has a fault
in one channel of the Dolby decoder. So I will either have to fix that
or get hold of a "new" deck.

--
John Phillips

On 01 May 2005 08:01:35 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

I too have been transferring the most "valuable" to CD before it's
too late. I wonder if the CD-Rs will still be as perfectly playable
after 27 years as the cassette tapes.

If you're concerned about this, rip them to new CD-Rs (or whetever
medium comes along next) every ten years. That's the real archival
advantage of digital - copies are *perfect*, no generation loss.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Now transferred to CDR for convenience and to avoid the risk of
becoming unplayable due to the virtual loss of cassette decks as a
user item...

Heh heh. Many are reporting CDR as having too short a life for archive
purposes.

I have heard anacdotal or hearsay reports to that effect, but not really
found any data that cause me undue worry at this point.

Same here. And I've been burning my own pretty well since CDBurn came out
(for RISC OS)

I suspect you could say much the same about C90 cassettes. :-) Indeed,
one of my concerns has been that the cassettes are mainly of
performances which will probably never be commercial releases, so if the
cassettes deteriorate I may lose the only available copy. I feel lucky
that the 25 year old cassettes I am copying seem OK - although at least
one has already shown problems.

I am aware of the saga of Ampex and 'tape bakeing' as well as PDO and
'brown rot', so expect any data storage to have its risks. Ozymandias...

Yes. Although I've a feeling only some fairly recent 'pro' tapes were
effected. All my reel to reel stuff is on tape 'nicked' from work, but non
of the companies I worked for used Ampex. I've got BASF, AGFA and Zonal
some of it dating back to the '70s, and it all still plays fine. We did
have problems with AGFA PEM 468 oxide shedding on 2" tapes, but it didn't
seem such a problem on 1/4". Dunno why. Perhaps the back tension required
isn't so great.

I did spend some time a year or two ago trying to run down relevant data
on CDR, but was left with feeling that they would probably be OK for a
lifetime similar to my own. Like myself, though, this will depend on
luck and conditions of storage/use. ;-

Heh heh. I know what you mean...

I decided that TDK CDRs stored with care were probably OK, but ask me
again in 5, 10, 20, etc, years. If I am still around I may be able to
comment. By then, though, I may have copied them on again to 'blue ray'
DVD or something else that isn't even a gleam in the maker's eye as yet.
:-)

Nor will I be throwing away the cassettes. TBH my main problem so far
has been failure or deterioration of the cassette *players* and the
recent tendency for new ones to vanish from the market.

Yes. And the likelihood of a worn/faulty machine chewing up the tapes.

The CDRs are also much more convenient to use, and this gives me an
'excuse' to rediscover many performances that I've not heard for years.

I've never been into cassettes, strangely. Far preferred LP or 1/4". Then
MiniDisc for where I might have used cassette. I was rather surprised
MiniDisc didn't become the format of choice for home use before CD
recording came along.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, try management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2005-04-29, Jim Lesurf wrote:
I have been re-listening to some LPs recently. Prompted to do so by a
hiatus in transferring old R3 cassette recordings whilst I waited for the
arrival of my new (old!) Nakamichi deck. It confirmed my feeling that
*good* LPs can sound very enjoyable. However it also reminded me that some
LPs (not the ones I have mentioned) can be less satisfactory.

Once an audio reproduction system reveals how good or bad the source is
then that's my definition of "good enough".

I am sure this applies to LP reproduction just as with CD. Although with
precision mechanical kit I am fairly sure it was the case when I bought
my Thorens TD160 / SME3009II / AKG P8ES you did have to spend a lot to
get there - and my experience with that lot was probably I had not spent
quite enough (or had not selected wisely).

In my sort of philosophy, complete system "transparency" cannot be
achieved by even the best home kit if the processing to make the LP or
CD introduces as much distortion as a period crown glass window distorts
light. Using a home audio system to tune the sound significantly doesn't
ever fix a source problem.

One thing I had forgotten is the pitch insecurity of some LPs, due to
things like off-center holes and small warps/ripples. I suspect I notice
these more easily nowdays as I have become used to sources like CD...

Probably a much cheaper modern deck / arm / cartridge is better these
days than the kit I bought. Although I still own the hardware and the
collection of LPs, the convenience of the CD is so much better (for me
I add hastily to avoid provoking a flamewar).

--
John Phillips

On 2005-05-01, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 01 May 2005 08:01:35 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

I too have been transferring the most "valuable" to CD before it's
too late. I wonder if the CD-Rs will still be as perfectly playable
after 27 years as the cassette tapes.

If you're concerned about this, rip them to new CD-Rs (or whetever
medium comes along next) every ten years. That's the real archival
advantage of digital - copies are *perfect*, no generation loss.

The CD-R manufacturers' estimates of lifetime are getting to be
significantly long these days. If they are right I do indeed expect to
be copying to new media types before the old media deteriorates.

--
John Phillips