Conference hips::uk_audioo

    I'll kick off.
    
    My first vote goes to the A&R Cambridge (now ARCAM) A60 integrated Amp.
    
    My Dad bought one of these in 1980 and it has worked like a dream ever
    since. The only problem we ever had was a dickie volume pot , which
    developed a crackle, as they are inclind to do. This amp has been in
    constant use for 13 years, often at high volume levels.
    
    The sound quality IS very good, on the slightly warm side of neutral,
    partly due to the house sound of the TIP3055 output devices used
    (common to the aforementioned NAD 3020). The Phono section could be
    altered with the addition of cartridge loading modules for different
    impedences and was considered fairly good in it's day.
    
    The other thing I like about this amp is the styling. It's a wide
    shallow box with a real wood top and sides, making it look like a CREEK
    that has been squashed. Very unobtrusive and still attractive. Lets
    face it how much japanese HiFi from 1980 still looks good.
    
    It's still produced all be it in a modified form . The ARCAM DELTA 60
    is a souped up/minimalist version of this beauty, and you will see it
    still gets very favourable reviews, especially on the line-inputs
    making it great for CD.
    
    Second hand I think they still command around #100 and I would
    certainly rate them. The matching tuner is a beaut as well with it's
    simple green and red led tuning.
    
    Now who's next

    Oh good, another note I can go on about Isobariks in :-)
                
    I bought my 'briks as a slight second form the man himself 10 years ago
    for �850 (I think they were about �1100 new at that time). I sold them
    the middle of last year for �800. So then edned up costing me �5.00 per
    year !
    
    They sounded as good (If not better) when I sold them as when they
    were bought.
    
    As an aside Linn would have upgrated them to current spec for �300 +
    price of external Xover. - not bad.
    
    	Rik
    
    Talking of Hi-Fi I spend a few hours at a frields house compairing
    LP-12 to Karik/Numerik on a Keltik + _new_ xover + 2xKlout , 2xLK100
    system. The results were interesting :-
    
    The new crossover has a slight bass roll off (from 25Hz) which hade all
    the difference the the Keltiks which now easily outrank any speaker
    I've heard - but they do take a bit of getting use to - more like being
    at a concert (classical) than listening to Hi-Fi - you can't 'hear' the
    speakers - only the music.
    
    As for the analogue .v. digital -
    
    	No winner !
    
    Both sounded different but on some albums LP would win, on others CD.
    
    Peter Gabriel 'Realworld' sounded _much_ better on CD. I've never liked
    this on my system - I even took the first CD back as faulty. but
    through the Kark/Numerik/Keltiks all was cleak - but the LP sounded
    like thge CD does on my system - muddled.
    
    Roger Waters 'Amused to Death' was the other was around. First the CD
    on 'Three wishes' - amazing the 'genie' jumps out of the space between
    the speakers - but put on the LP and - words fail me - it really was
    much better.

What a marvellous topic!

I will make a pitch for Quad ESL 63's being an audio classic.

I had always heard great things about electrostatics in general,  however 
the first time I managed to audition an example was in a very small room
using the following equipment :-

Garrard Turntable, Quad II amps, and ELS (gold radiators!)

Now this was a revelation to someone brought up on Sony midi systems etc..

I must admit to being a cd/digital audio bigot,  however during this 
audition I was introduced to the subject of psychoacoustics by the owner
of the equipement,  who was a professional audio engineer/designer. He made
some very interesting points about what actually sounds good, rather than
being accurate on an audio test set. The main crux of his argument in favour
of vinyl,for himself, was that he had always listened to vinyl,  and his
brain had adjusted to inherent, and no doubt debateable, problems with this
method of sound recording,  and he now preffered the characteristics of sound
reproduced using this medium.  This argument seemed much better than the
entrenched my box is better than your box wars that seem to rage on this
subject.

....anyway back to the electrostats...

I have now managed to realise my dream of owning a complete Quad 66 series
stack,  however I do not fool myself into thinking it will ever become an
audio classic,  some people like Quad,  others don't etc...

However the ESL 63's have surpassed all my expectations,  until owning these
devices I was quite unaware of the problems box colorations can induce,  and
that soundstage imaging can be quite staggeringly accurate using these 
speakers,  in the past I was only aware of a 'wall' of sound.  I can't wait
to upgrade the next part of the system to complement these devices and give
them the scope to deliver even more,  yes you are right,  I need to upgrade
the house and get myself a dedicated audio room!!

Well, there you are,  I think the ESL 63's are audio classics,  and will be
for a very long time to come.

_Richard

    Philips CD104.
    
    for many here (including me) their first CD player. 14x4 oversampling
    and built like the preverbial brick outhouse.
    
    I bought one second hand from a friend and then passed it on to my dad
    when I upgraded . It's still running and is 8 years old.
    
    It has'nt developed the standard problem of the boards warping with the
    heat and opening up joints (as mention elsewhere in this conference )
    
    The sound of these things was crude compared to most current CD
    technology especially when you consider it cost #400 new (i think ).
    
    It could be improved by replacing the captive output leads with
    something more suitable. I also found that reversing the mains polarity
    at the 13 amp plug end improved things.
    
    Early CD sound was considered very poor, in part I feel due to people
    overdriving unsuitable Tuner/Aux inputs (typically 100mv) with the 2v
    output of one of these beasties so a degree of attenuation also helps
    the sound along (9K Ohm in series and 3K Ohm in parallel).
    
    Outclassed in sound quality by todays #150 players ? Certainly .
    But that all-metal construction! You have to pay a lot of money to get
    that now. and the satisfying clunk as the door slid in.
    
    resale value today about #20 judging from this conference, but oh the
    build quality........

    .... and a pretty minimalist design by CD standards- open/close; stop;
    next; previous; program; and that big plastic 4-way slab on the right
    hand corner. Certainly no need of an instruction manual.
    
    That 'slab' and having to wait 2 seconds for the drawer to open gave it
    a certain character.
    
    Expensive? Well mine was 250 quid in 1985, but 'budget' models were
    200-220 then. It's now been replaced by a 200 quid Technics 520 with
    all the bells and whistles on.
    
    Paul

    And then there was the Pioneer PL12D turntable......reputedly built
    with as good bearings in the arm as an SME, and able to track a Shure
    V15MkII.
    
    A good buy at the time at around 45 pounds + cartridge if my memory
    serves me well.
    
    Tim

    Damn, you mentioned the REGA planar III, but I have to mention my very
    own Planar II.
    
    This will probably be the last bit of hifi that I decide to upgrade. I
    bought it in 1985 from West Midlands Audio, and it has since had A&R
    C77, E77, Rega Bias and now Rega Elys cartridges, whilst the amp has
    moved from a lowly Yamaha to a very nice Onix OA21-S.
    
    The Rega has endured comparison with a Yamaha CD player bought 9 months
    ago, and is still the preferred sound source, especially since I got
    the Rega Elys!
    
    I bought the Rega because my Granddad had an old rega with the S shaped
    arm. He had that connected to an A&R A60 (Old classic!) and Chartwell
    Speakers (based on the BBC design used by Rogers). I loved the idea of
    the glass platter, and the very neat black design.
    
    It still looks very neat and modern, and is much more timeless than
    anything from Bang & Olufsen (often touted as Design experts, but in
    practice, their stuff dates easily!)
    
    So, what about the old BBC design speaker then ???
    
    Mark.

>    Oh good, another note I can go on about Isobariks in :-)

	very appropriate, too - i saw a snippet in Hi-Fi Choice
	that said that Linn are stopping production of Isobariks
	
	jack 

    Shame,
    	The nicest music I ever heard was a master tape playing through
    'briks whilst up at Linn Products at their old factory.
    
    	Rik
    
    PS What about Linn Kans.
    
    PPS Has anyone heard anything more 'impressive' than FGTH - Two Tribes
    through 'briks (or The Cure - Faith through Kans)

    re last: "PS What about Linn Kans."
    
    Ah yes. The old ones were more "classic" than current ones. Bitches to
    drive properly, but when so driven, oh bliss. 
    
    The new models are sanitised and easier to drive, but they don't strive
    for excellence the way the old ones did. I guess that makes them less 
    "classic".
    
    Speakers are a bit like wine. Difficult ones are often considered
    better, like those revolting wines that are so dry they'd take the
    varnish off your table, but if you don't appreciate them your taste is
    obviously under-developed....
    
    Rathole alert....
    'bariks are being dropped as KEF will no longer make the BF190 bass
    unit. Apparently the machine is worn out; KEF were only using the BF190
    for the OEM market, using a newer model in their own speakers (same as
    in the Keltiks?). A decision was made not to stand the cost of
    refurbishment, especially when better units are now available.
    
    So, bye bye, 'barik.
    
    Dave

    I never had any problem drivin my (very old) Kans with a Naim 160 (Or
    the pair of 250's I borrowed for a while...)
    
    Rik who-sold-his-Kans-for-a-loss-of-�40-to-his-then-girlfriend-now-wife.

    Well, this is fortunately not the first reply voting for a Japanse
    product...
    
    		Technics SL10 turntable
    
    The first turntable as small as a stack of albums. Unlike all other
    smallish devices that were released by other vendors this one has real
    hifi quality. It contained an MC cartridge (Technics) as well as its
    own built-in MC pre-amp.
    
    I bought mine secondhand from someone who had bought and (ab)used it
    in Hong Kong. It is not entirely rustfree (it's made of alloy or so),
    but it still sounds good. It has only one irritating drawback: even
    when switched off, a 50Hz tone comes out. Leaving the lid slightly ajar
    or disconnecting it from mains solves the problem.
    
    They are hardly available secondhand here in the Netherlands. The last
    one I noticed fetched some 500 Guilders (175 Pounds).
    
    Jelle Kooi @APD
    

    well I love the old LS3/5a speaker.
    
    Designed around 1970 to a very tight BBC specification, these have been
    licenced to Rogers, Harbeth, Spendor, Goodmans, RAM and Chartwell in
    their day. Each manufacturer has to guarantee that they can build to
    this exacting spec and theoretically test each pair against a
    rewference BBC pair.
    
    Today only Spendor and Harbeth make them, as they are not to everyones
    taste and are very expensive to make.
    
    Anyone who has seen a pair of KANS will recognise the LS/35a as they
    are physically the same size and external appearance. they use two KEF
    drivers for treble and mid-range/bass in a plywood enclosure which is
    damped with bitumen panels on the inside.
    
    The crossover is amazing. I counted 25 components including 4 chokes,
    the complete opposite of modern crossover's with one tiny cap.
    
    Sound is characterised a having a beautifull mid-range, not surprising
    as they were intended for monitoring primarily spoken word broadcast on
    the BBC. They have a strange hump in the frequency response in the
    upper bass which on good stands can give the impression of more bass
    than would otherwise be possible. Also the trble can sound bright with
    the wrong amplifier/front end. valves are ideal as they also better
    suit the 16Ohm/82db characteristics of this speaker.
    
    new they are around #390 depending on finnish but second hand they go
    for around #150, which is more or less what I payed.
    
    Like all speaker you either love or hate them , but for me they are
    still the first and best 'bookshelf' monitor and influeced dozens of
    other designs such as the KAN.
    
    You often see them come up in the equipment for sale section of the
    Gramaphone as they suit classical vocals best IMHO

Anybody have an Armstrong amp?

I have a 626 still going strong. Design still pleasing to the eye
and performance excellent. In fact my whole setup is archaic...

Thorens TD125/SME/Shure V15
Armstrong 626
CD104...

-Mike-

    I remember it. Gloss Black with a long row of slender switches across
    the whole of the front.
    
    What ever you do DON'T get rid of that turntable.
    There is a company that do repairs/rebuilds of the Thorens and the
    Garrard 301/401. They still sound very good, and the mechanics of it
    with the clutch mechanism is something else.
    
    Most TD125's are sold by people thinking they are outdated, then
    re-sold in Japan for LARGE amounts of money. A country that appreciate
    Audio Classics.

    re: .14
    
    I still use an Armstrong 625 Tuner/amp (same as 626 but FM only) with
    JR149 loudspeakers (based on the previously mentioned BBC monitor
    design). It's a good combination and makes for a very enjoyble second 
    system.
    
    The JR149s are round in shape and in my biased opinion - classics.
    

    re.14
    
    I had the 500 series Armstrong (good teak cabinet!), and followed it up
    with a 600. The 500 had its headphone socket wired back to front.
    
    I always thought the switches were a bit naff, but the 'loudness'
    device was quite good, as it cut the volume by 90%, and you could wack
    up the volume therefrom. (also volume control worked on a logarithmic
    principle I recollect)
    
    Do I also remember correctly that the tone controls affected the signal
    to the tape - sort of a graphic equaliser!
    
    Biggest problem........a big "thump" when switched on.....hence my
    switch to Japanese amps with delay-start circuitry !
    
    Tim