Thursday, October 22, 2015

Remembering my old Newcomb phonograph

A "Throwback Thursday" memoir.

When I was growing up, my mother and I often visited thrift shops. You never knew what great treasure might turn up, priced at next-to-zero. (A sad commentary about our throwaway society: today's expensive item is tomorrow's $1 find at the thrift shop!) One very memorable treasure I found was an old Newcomb phonograph.

The Newcomb might well have been an old school phonograph. Certainly, I remembered seeing many Newcomb phonographs at school. A Newcomb phonograph with a brown case was standard equipment on the back counters of my elementary school classes, and they were a common sight in junior high and high school. But the one I found was far older than any I'd seen before - it probably dated to the monophonic LP era, and it had a tube amp.

The tube amp was probably the selling point. I liked tubes! They seemed so neat in an old technology way. (I now wonder about my love of modern audiophile tube amps. How much of it is sound quality? How much are secondary issues, such as liking the glow of tubes?) Needless to say, the phonograph "followed me home" that day.

There was, however, one small, itsy-bitsy problem. The phonograph was equipped with a cartridge that could not play anything newer than a mono LP. (Stereo cartridges can play mono LPs, but a mono era cartridge will totally destroy a stereo LP.)

So...I knew I needed a mono LP. Fortunately, as I dug through my record rack, I found I had one. Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, which had come from a used book sale. Today, I have no idea why I bought it. This was before I listened to classical repertoire - apart from a Hooked on Classics record. Indeed, as far as I can recall, I had not listened to that record, not even for a second, since buying it. But that day I was happy I had it - it was something I could play on my new-to-me phonograph!

I powered up the phonograph, and let the tubes warm up. (Back then, I was totally unaware of old electronics safety, including the thought that you don't just plug in something and turn it on. It may be a miracle I never burned our house down.) Once the phonograph amp was warm, I started the record.

And, at some point, I got hooked. I mean really hooked. While normal kids my age were playing some rock recording, in stereo, with the volume set to rattle the windows of the house across the street, I'd be playing my Beethoven record at fairly moderate volume. And so the phono gave me one gift: my first real, extended, enjoyable experience listening to classical repertoire.

In time, something went wrong, and the phonograph refused to turn on one day.

After that phono stopped working, I lost interest in the Beethoven record. I did make a couple of attempts to make cassette copies on newer stereo systems. (Back then, like many kids of the 80s, I'd typically play a record only to make a tape copy. Indeed, one big shock I gave my mother was when I told her that when I got my first good turntable, I'd actually play records. For real. No cassette copies.)

But I never really liked listening to the cassette copies. I never really felt like playing the record itself, either.

I don't know if I questioned this back then. Why did a favorite record suddenly end up collecting dust? I might have said that I'd probably just listened to it too many times, and lost interest. This is certainly possible.

But today I wonder if there also isn't another answer. Perhaps that old phonograph performed better than either modern system I had access to in the late 1980s.

Many would, of course, find this thought laughable. An old school phonograph (with who knows how many hours on the tubes?!) is better than a fairly new mass market stereo system? 

And to be sure, this phonograph was not an audiophile product. It also would seem hopeless to the average mass market system buyer. It wasn't stereo. It didn't have 100 watts of output power. It didn't have big speakers. It didn't - 

No, it didn't have a lot of that. But somehow it managed to communicate something important on that record. And it did a better job of communicating that than either modern system.

I now vaguely recall something else. I tried other classical works on the modern stereo systems. I found some things that interested me, but I seem to recall it was harder listening. It was harder getting interested in the works.

That school phonograph helped teach me an important lesson, although I didn't understand it until years later. The lesson is that a lot of technical and performance issues so important in the audio industry are really secondary issues. You can have the best transparency and stereo imaging in the world. You can have massive amounts of power. You can have many technical features that have been marketed to death over the years. But if the system doesn't convey the musical soul of the performance, then it's really no better than a cheap transistor radio at KMart.


Edited 10/23/15 and 11/7/15. Editing was minor, mostly for clarity in the last paragraph.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Inexpensive but decent systems are important

I remember reading an article in a British audio equipment review magazine about fifteen years ago that has stuck in my mind ever since. It discussed low cost audio systems. It was aimed at college students (although most of the article would apply to anyone whose budget was limited). They had systems assembled at different price points, starting at a level where one would normally expect the only option to be mass market crap equipment. Each system appeared to be assembled with care. For example, one system started with a particular speaker/amp combination that - together - apparently really sung. They had some upgrade hints. And my Inner Vinyl Die-hard was happy to note that the best system was based around a turntable.

After reading this article, my immediate thought: this would never run in the US. High end US magazines didn't seem too likely to want to review inexpensive systems. The cheapest system in this article probably cost less than a single pair of some US high end reviewers' interconnects!

Of course, there were US magazines that would have happily reviewed inexpensive systems. But they might have refused to touch stereo, except maybe - and I say maybe - on the lowest level system. (About that time, I saw one suggestion for college students that basically said: "Buy a surround receiver, and add more speakers later!") And the last time one of these magazines would have suggested a turntable? Ronald Reagan was still in office, and that turntable would have been in the cheapest system for those who couldn't afford "the perfect sound forever." And, of course, those mass market magazines were often unable to hear any differences between equipment, anyway.

In the days after reading that article, I did a little probing, and found that even assembling those systems in the US would have been impossible in most cases. Many suggested products weren't available here. Japanese makes, for example, had stereo in the UK, but had all but abandoned the idea here in the US. In some cases, I'd speculate that some equipment didn't make it to this side of the pond because it was "too cheap" for many specialist stores, and not enough power/bass/flashing lights to make it in chain stores. Or...

In the end, I think only one of the systems could have been assembled in the US, buying through standard retail channels. Even that one system was problematic - I recall the amp was recently discontinued here, and the turntable's standard cartridge was different than in Britain. But...with a little extra work, that system could happen.

What probably disturbed me then - and certainly bothers me now - is that many buyers were out of luck in most of the US market. If you are interested in a good, inexpensive stereo music system, your equipment options can be seriously limited. And if you are a younger buyer, you might be less than welcome in some stores. ("Huh. College kid. Not much chance of getting enough to make my next Mercedes payment!")

I have always felt that people should be able to have decent audio even if their budget is limited.

Yes, that rock bottom system profiled in this review magazine article is not something many long term, seasoned audiophiles would dream of owning. But there is no doubt in my mind that such a system would probably prove to be considerably better, and more satisfying than some craptastic mass market bookshelf system.

Also, looking at the bigger picture, I think basic, inexpensive systems help the audio world. I'd guess that few people get a start by dropping five grand on a "starter system" at Snobby Audio Emporium. It's more likely that someone will start with a much less expensive basic system, and grow from there.

Even those who never see any reason to upgrade from rock bottom have importance. They may influence others to likewise buy into quality audio. They also might help exert pressure on the recording industry to encourage quality. If 99% of the market is using lousy audio equipment, what incentive is there for a recording company to make anything better than the sound quality of 8-track?

Yes, inexpensive but decent systems are important. I think the writers of that article 15-some years ago understood this. I just wish more in the US audio industry of today would understand this.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Got rid of a surround sound receiver

Like many, I have too much clutter, and it's time for the excess to go bye-bye. So recently I've been trying to do a little downsizing.

The decisions of what goes, however, are often difficult. More than once I've ended up thinking something like this:  When did I last use it? Oh, that long ago?!? Will I use this again? If I get rid of it, and find that I do need this item, how hard will it be to replace? Maybe I'd better keep it just in case... Oh, wait! I thought that last month ago, and decided if I were still flip-flopping this month, it would go. But...am I sure...

Sometimes I wish I had a set of the complete recordings of Lawrence Welk. On 8 Track. Just to have one easy downsizing decision.

One of the easier decisions was a surround sound receiver.

I've never really done anything with home theater. Indeed, I was solidly stereo for many years. Around 2000, if you had asked me if I'd do home theater, I'd probably have said: "Not in the foreseeable future. If I make any investments in audio equipment, it would make more sense to improve the existing stereo system."

Obviously, my attitude changed when I got this surround sound receiver. Well, my attitude didn't really change. What did change was that home theater receivers had become dirt cheap in thrift shops. The shelves that once groaned under a plethora of old, well-worn stereo receivers now often held surround sound receivers. It was possible to pick up a receiver that was $500+ new for less than $20.

Of course, these receivers aren't going to be what audiophile types would look for when creating a reference surround sound system. But I do see decent receivers that are the sort audiophiles might buy for a second system that will mostly be used for movies and maybe background music. And this was what I ended up getting.

Of course, before I could do surround sound, I'd need more than a dirt cheap receiver. I would need speakers, any required stands, and cabling. My intention was to go cheap. I didn't want orphaned used bookshelf system speakers, of course. But I definitely wanted low cost. However, the right products never seemed to come along at the right price.

And so the receiver collected dust. At some point, I began losing interest in the idea of surround sound. I have limited space. I like having one system that handles both music and movies. I don't want to make large compromises in musical integrity. I don't have a pile of cash to throw at the problem. And right now I'm tending to like a KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) philosophy.

The only good argument I had for surround sound was "artist intention." Modern movies are intended to be viewed with surround sound. Yet, even that wasn't a compelling argument. I don't have much interest in those movies that are nothing but 90 minutes of special effects, as air planes crash into each other, and monsters terrorize downtown LA. The movies I tend to watch would benefit less. (For that matter, some would not benefit at all, since they predate surround sound!)

So I came to realize the benefits of surround sound weren't enough. At least, not at this point in time. So the receiver went on its merry way. Irritating, because even though I got it for next to nothing, I got zero use out of my investment.

Or did I get zero use?

Perhaps there was value in one way: I probably wouldn't have given so much thought to the value of surround sound for me if I hadn't had that receiver. The questions I asked myself - and the realizations I made - are incredibly valuable.

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Watching YouTube videos

I have a confession to make. Even though it may ruin my credibility as an audiophile. Ruin my credibility even more than being an audiophile living in a less than audiophile ideal mobile home. My confession is...is...is...

I sometimes watch music videos of various sorts on YouTube.

Wait. There's a question in back. Yes?

Do you at least use a $2,000 DAC?

Ah, err...

We deserve to hear all the details.

Well...no. I just use the DAC built into my computer. My computer speakers are decent, but not great computer speakers.

Better be careful what you say! Or else your readers will go to the blog of Snooty Audiophile Review Magazine.

I suppose so.

And yes, I will admit that YouTube is not an audiophile's dream come true, even sticking with professionally done, official videos of some sort. And I definitely know my computer sound could be improved.

But this isn't about sound quality. Instead, it's about variety - there is seemingly everything imaginable on YouTube. And YouTube is also hugely convenient - it's always there and available on my computer. And it's available on other people's computers, too, so I can suggest videos to others.

YouTube has allowed me to make a few discoveries I might not have otherwise. And some of those discoveries have led to further interest, and me buying a used record that gets played on the good system. And I'm sure many others would have this same story to tell.

Of course, there are other resources (such as Spotify) that are arguably better in various ways. However, YouTube seems to work better for my particular situation. I've played with the free version of Spotify, and find the variety of their library impressive. That said, videos work better for my situation because they me something to watch while I listen. If I only listen, I become too conscious of the serious limitations of my computer sound system.

Perhaps one day I'll have a good DAC with my good audio system. At that point, Spotify might well become my preferred choice.

But until that "someday" arrives, I'm happy occasionally using YouTube as a source of discovery.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Once upon a Tandberg

A "Throwback Thursday" memoir

One night in early 2000, I went went through the electronics department at Goodwill. That was an almost guaranteed waste of time - that Goodwill seemed to have nothing but components from blown-up rack systems. Still, one might win Goodwill Electronics Lottery, and find a pair of Quad ESL-57 speakers. One never knows.

That night, I did find one of my rare finds: an old Tandberg TR 2025 receiver.

I recognized the Tandberg name (maybe because I'd heard of their open reel tape decks). It was clearly an older receiver - it had veneer sides, and a light up tuning dial. (Later, I'd learn the model was mid/late 1970s.)

Finding the Tandberg receiver wasn't like winning the Mega Millions, but it was at least like winning a $100 in the state lottery. Maybe more. At the time, I was having trouble with my existing amp, and maybe the Tandberg could tide me over.

I can't imagine I expected much. Indeed, I probably could have come up with a list of Audiophile Approved Reasons to expect nothing:

  • It was old (1970s) and newer is better!
  • Plus at 15-20 years old some components were probably worn and not performing optimally.
  • It was a receiver, and we know that most receivers are compromised products!
  • It had lots of controls, and we know that the simpler the signal path, the better!

But I hoped the Tandberg could allow me to play a few records. If I could listen to it - without running for the door, covering my ears, and screaming - it would be worth it.

It certainly was a better bet than the cheap receivers with integrated 8 Track players that were common at that Goodwill.

I got the Tandberg. Then started the long process of getting it installed in my system. It used DIN connectors, and so I had to craft adapters. The worst part was finding someone who had the speaker connectors. But I tracked a couple down at an old TV repair shop. They were something like half of what I paid for the Tandberg. Yikes! This was running into Big Money by thrift shop standards!

Finally, it went into service in my system. Back then, I had a late 80s/early 90s era system, with an entry point Linn LP12/Linn Intek amp/Linn Index II. Proving I wasn't Linn or die, I did have a pair of Sound Organisation speaker stands.

As I said, I did not expect much. And at first it did sound pretty bad. (Not surprising since the TR 2025 might not have been used in years.) But as I used it more, I became more impressed.

I can't remember the exact sound, but I do recall that at the best of times it was quite listenable. I seem to recall it having a warm sound. It had good enough tonal coloration that one could tell instruments apart.

The biggest failing was when the volume went up to a certain point, its control of the speakers seemed to suffer. Although I never heard outright clipping - it was, as I recall, more of confused sound. The TR 2025 was rated at 25 watts in one Tandberg catalog; I suspect it would have been its happiest with power efficient, easy to drive speakers. The sound wasn't crystal clear, either. It could be even grayish sounding.

Another thing I noted: the phono input was not as good as my Linn Intek. Using the Intek as a phono stage got a noticeable improvement. Part of that was not unexpected - when the Intek shipped, Linn was very heavily into turntables. I also have to wonder if the adapter I was using wasn't a problem. A cable from the turntable, terminated with a DIN connector, would probably be easier on the delicate signal than my flung-together RCA to DIN adapter.

Flaws aside, the Tandberg served me well. I was able to play records without cringing. And I found myself really liking the radio tuner.

Meanwhile, I was questioning whether I'd fix the Intek. That questioning started well before the Tandberg came along. However, I seem to recall that the Tandberg did so well that it added fuel to the fires of Intek discontentment. Yes, the Intek was better - but frankly I thought at times the difference should have been a lot more dramatic, given that the Intek was newer, and a more purist product.

Today, I wonder something: what would my impressions have been had I tried the TR 2025 in a carefully matched system?

Back then, I did think of the TR 2025 as a keeper of sorts. Not for the main system - I expected to get a used modern amp. However, I had a vision of the TR 2025 as the base for a second system. Indeed, one vision I had was a system in a living room. The TR 2025 could be a conversation piece, work for TV sound, and supply background if I were having guests.

Unfortunately, though, disaster struck. In order to use the radio tuner, I had a cheap rabbit ear antenna. One day, that fell down. It didn't just fall - it flew, and hit the TR 2025 AC plug. It somehow knocked it loose enough for the antenna to hit the live prong on the plug. There was spectacular electric storm inside the Tandberg. And with that, it fell silent forever.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

A joke?

"Is this blog a joke?"

I can imagine that this will be the first reaction of many who come here. Mobile home and audiophile aren't words you'd usually see in one sentence. Mobile homes tend to be for those who are looking for a cheap place to live. And audiophile equipment is not known for its, er, restraint in pricing.

Past mere dollars and cents, there is often a certain view - putting it nicely - of the sort of person who lives in a mobile home. "Trailer trash" doesn't seem likely to have any interest in anything better than a 1985 rack system, which is complete with an equalizer permanently set to juice the bass up, and a turntable with a stack of pennies duct-taped to the headshell.

All in all, the two worlds seem far apart.

So let's get this out of the way: this blog is not a joke.

I've been interested in quality audio since the late 1980s. Nearly 30 years now. (Wow! That long? Time does fly when you're having fun, I guess!) I've never had the chance to own a very exotic system; however, I have had very good real world systems over the years, with components from companies like Linn, Rega, NAD, Rotel, and Grado. I have had a chance to hear much better systems, too. In the last year alone, I've heard systems with higher end components from Rega, PrimaLuna, Harbeth, and more.

I am currently living in an old mobile home. It is not my dream come true. However, it had some practical selling points. My current cash flow sadly demands low rent, which I can get with the mobile. This mobile also was easily available when I needed to move. That move was one of those that needed to be done ASAP. So ASAP it couldn't be "S" enough! And there are some pluses, like isolation from neighbors. (The mobile is on a piece of regular land, not a mobile home park with a pretentious name, like Gracious Mobile Home Manor Estates.) With isolation, there is no one to complain if the audio system volume is too high!

The place has drawbacks, of course. It is not my dream come true on any number of levels. As far as audio is concerned, the living room is one of the worst rooms I've had. My current cash flow also doesn't support a lot of things I'd like to do with the system. But I am doing the best I can so I can continue listening to and enjoying music. And isn't listening what really matters?