| Print | |
Page 1 of 5
World mail March 2010 issue
Letters are published first in the magazine, then here in our web archive. We cannot guarantee to answer all mail, but we do manage most!
Or comment in the Comment section at the bottom of each page.
Your experts are - CHI-FI Regarding DP’s remarks, while bowing to his obvious greater experience, his comments are highly generalised and certainly shouldn’t be taken to apply to all such brands. Many Chinese manufacturers produce products re-badged as much better known brands, e.g. Aria as Sophia Electric (Baby) and Korsun as Red Rose (Rosette). I myself have a Korsun U2, which I imported directly from Hong Kong and which I have found excellent quality, both for sound and build. Korsun T2 amplifier, imported from Hong Kong by Stephen Murray. It has now become the Dussun T2. I would point Niels (and yourselves) to some of the online sites, such as TNT Audio and 6 Moons which often cover Chinese brands and highlight in particular the good reviews that Yarland have been getting recently. I, like Niels, would welcome more coverage of such equipment and would be happy to accept the constraint that it had to be available from an E.U. source. Finally, DP’s comment about the ‘noise’ that Niels is getting from his equipment cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. While, I hope, it may have been somewhat ‘tongue in cheek’ (?), I don’t think it is acceptable to criticise another enthusiast's choices or taste in this way, at least not without personal experience of the actual set-up. Even then, sound quality is highly subjective and ‘one mans meat . ..' etc.
Auranote "looks like my old Alba record player from the 60s!" says Eric. "No, it's retro chic" says David, "like Sophia Loren"! I admire your ears, Dave. They’ve brought me the truth on loads of gear over the years. But your eyes, mate, your poor eyes! Mentioning dodgy quality of the early Beatles stereo mixes, especially Rubber Soul, misses the point, says Peter Norrie. I do, however, feel that they are really going too far with their recent releases in trying to fleece the public, by trying to get us all to buy them again! These are just re-issues, the cost behind the new transfers must be minimal. Even if they had to get a couple of engineers to work with them, why the full price? Furthermore, why muck around with the equalisation? I may be cynical but I am sure that this is similar to the old show-room trick of increasing the volume in A/ B comparisons. It sounds louder, it's better – must buy! By comparison, the really excellent 60s Beach Boys re-issues on Capitol include both the stereo and mono mixes on one disc, and I can see absolutely no reason why EMI didn't do this, except to try and extract more cash from their customers, once again. Perhaps this is one reason why the re-issues haven't really set the charts on fire, and if so it serves them right. Your review highlights the dodgy quality of the early stereo mixes, especially Rubber Soul. I think this is missing the point - this is what the sixties sounded like. These are period pieces and not modern, multi tracked, digital stereo (which quite often sound ghastly anyway); listen to Run for Your Life on Rubber Soul, Lennon's vocals are blistering, miked up close, hissing out of the right speaker on their own. Staggering stuff! Lastly, which ones should we buy? I don't think we should replace any of the original 80s transfers, which to my ears sound clean and dry, a bit BBC 3 in their balance rather than Classic FM, but none the worse for that. Anyway, the gullible amongst us will have to start saving up for the re-mixes, which are undoubtedly being worked on even as we speak, in the depths of Abbey Road. They will be issued at full price, trust me. On purely sound terms, I would argue that, in fact, the eighties’ releases “mucked around” with the sound to a greater degree. They may be more benign but the new re-issues restore much of the clarity, drive and energy of the original master tapes. The eighties releases masked a lot of original detail. The problem is that, in my view, the stereo ‘enhancements’ of the new reissues went too far in certain, but by no means all, areas. As for my comments on early 60s mixes? This is a perennial audiophile argument. Many original 60s stereo mixes were produced by inexperienced engineers on deficient equipment for playback on anaemic Dansettes and transistor radios. We now have the technology to restore that music to the artists’ original wishes. We should always take advantage of it. If you want a slice of the sixties, buy an original LP second-hand. PR "How can I get LP to sound better than my Naim CDX?" asks Timothy Cook. Next up I need to decide on a vinyl spinner/cartridge set up. I have to confess I am at a total loss. Most puzzling I think is even where to begin in terms of allocating money in a balanced way to the constituent parts of the turntable, tone arm and cartridge. And I am really unsure of what budget I should begin serious consideration of potential purchases at. My one over riding requirement is that this set-up should not be significantly inferior to my CDX CD player. And this has to remain true when I upgrade the speakers too. I don't suddenly want new loudspeakers exposing the weakness of my vinyl set up when compared to CD. I have considered partnering a Rega Planar 3, new RB301 arm with power supply, with a really good MM cartridge such as the Dynavector DV10X 52003 or even the Ortofon 2M Black. This would cost in the region of £800-£900. Although I am aware that some claim that the Planar 3 is capable of shaming CD players far more expensive than itself, would I be right in assuming that the CDX would ultimately prove a substantially better all-round performer than this proposed set-up? If that is correct how much more money would I seriously need to invest, in order to attain a level of vinyl playback which would not leave me feeling marginally disappointed? How about the Planar 5 with power supply? Is this a considerable improvement over the revamped Planar 3? The planar 5 with one of the aforementioned cartridges would be costing me around £1100-£1200 mark. To be fair I was hoping to keep my spending to under £1500. Is that realistic? And although I have already allocated money for the Stageline, I cant quite fully decide whether I should go for a MM or MC model? Help, I am confused! If I need to I am prepared to extend my budget to higher level decks if you feel anything less would sound a poor second to the CDX. More expensive decks which have caught my eye include the Rega Planar 7, the Roksan Radius 5 or the Avid Diva II. Could you advise me on the relative merits of these designs and how they might fit in with my present amplification? However, if you don't want to go down the Technics route, but do want something better than the Rega, something that's comprehensively better sounding to the Naim CDX CD player, then I refer you to an answer I gave some years ago! Yes, I still think Michell's GyroDec is still the benchmark for 'entry level high end' vinyl playback. In its latest SE form, this deck offers a blissfully expansive and open midband, a deliciously subtle and sweet treble and a bouncy, propulsive bass. The build quality is superlative; some decks five times the price aren't as well finished; and the Gyro is easily upgradeable to near-Orbe spec when you're feeling flush. The Gyro, in my view, is the basic 'start point' for top notch vinyl. These days, some other rivals sound as good, or even better, in some respects, but its combination of qualities is still hard to beat. Were you to go this way, you'd make your CDX's laser last a lot longer! DP In view of the quality of your system and your obvious desire to have the best, a Moving Magnet (MM) cartridge will leave you hankering for what you will know to be better – a moving coil or MC cartridge. The question is – which one? An Ortofon Rondo Bronze comes to mind, or possibly an Audio Technica AT OC9-MLII, both costing around £500. I'll note quickly that the OC9 will be upgraded to MLIII status soon. And finally from me. I do not agree with the view that LP 'shames' digital. The two are different and good digital has its merits. I happen to prefer LP and with a top quality MC cartridge it is a lovely aural experience, natural, enveloping and deeply communicative. Digital is generally (and I am generalising) more pristine, colder and more mechanical, sometimes quite unconvincing. So I would not expect to 'shame' the CDX; it may just be however that you'll find LP a more convincing and fulfilling experience. |