REPRODUCED FROM THEOCCASIONAL
A sim ilar com parison should be m ade between older, and newer models of diferent m anufacturersproducts,to establish whethertheir claim sto have actualym oved forward,orwhether (as m ightbe suspected)theirclaim s ofcontinual progres ring holow. Loudspeaker technology was only invented in 1924,and isconsidered to have peaked in the late 1930s.Ithasto be rem em bered thatloudspeaker technology is by far the m ost expensive audio technology to research, and develop, and that m ostofthe realyseriousdevelopm enttookplace in cinem a sound,notin hom e m usic reproduction system s.Itisonlywiththebenefitofhindsightthat this becom es realy obvious. To m e, a sole loudspeakerproductstood outin the 1980s:the SnelTypeA/I.Thisiswhyspeakertechnologydid notdrag the resultdown even further.
averycrude stage in itsdevelopm entatthe tim e of the introduction of the m icrogroove m ono LP in 1948/49,and developed very slowly untilthe early 1970s.In m y estim ation,itrealy only reached its peak about1985,with the introduction ofthe Pink Triangle, and Voyd three-m otor turntables, the Helius tonearm ,the van den Huldiam ond stylus shape,and M r.Kondo’sIo cartridge with itstitanium cantilever.Itis therefore fairly easy to understand why record com paniescould reduce the quality of the LP-software (in m any casesthiswasactualy an “im provem ent” in the sense that you could now playthe record withoutsevere m istracking)without noticeable quality los . Anyone who has tried to play a Dec a orRCA opera record like the Dec a recorded RCA release of“The Force ofDestiny,” withtheRom eO peraconducted byPrevitali,and di Stefano/M ilanovon RCA wilseriouslywonderhow this could posibly have been tracked by an average 1959 tonearm /cartridge com bination.No wonderDec a had such a high return rate oftheir LPsatthe tim e. Am plification reached itspeak earliestofal in the 1920s orearly 1930s,and only by 1989/90 had it re-established or exceeded the quality levelwith the re-introduction of the single-ended triode am plifier(SET). Asa side note here,ithasalways am azed m e that no m agazine has ever m ade a chalenge of the decades, where they com pare whatcould be considered the bestam plifieratthe end of each decade, to see if we have indeed m oved forward in absolute term s.Ihave done this com parisononseveraloc asionswhichisoneofthe reasonswhyIdecided to write thisarticle. Ican tel itisam ore educating experience than anyreview.
Sim ple wooden boxes. In reality,ifyou com pare the very bestproducts available during each decade from about1930 on, very litle progres has taken place. This is undoubtedlydue to the widelydisparate levelsof developm ent (or in som e cases refinem ent?),in each ofthe branches ofthe “audio reproduction tree” at any given tim e,as wel as increasingly com m ercialconsiderations regarding cost,finish, and appearance,as the audio industry started to aspire to com m ercialism in the late 1950s and 1960s. M ost of these later decisions have not benefited or furthered the goals of “Higher Fid elity.”
Itisalm ostparadoxicalthatanim provem entinone
90 MUSICATHOME+
www.partim eaudiophile.com
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter maker