Armchair Nostalgia

I'm going to take a little detour this morning into one of my other hobbies, jazz....

Well, not jazz exactly. Something related to jazz. Specifically, the gearhead side of audio, or at least a subcategory of it. Partly because I think it relates to a couple of questions that have come up here on T.O.P. in the past few days, and partly because I'm just...preoccupied.

To begin with, I thought I'd explain the origin of the "Befriend a Forgotten Camera Challenge," which you can see the first fruits of here. A day or two before I posted that, y'see, I bought a new toy.

Well, an old toy, actually. And not literally a toy.  I bought a rebuilt Marantz "silverface" receiver from the 1970s, the era of my youth. (This is a generic picture, courtesy of classicaudio.com.) I did it on impulse, and I sort of, well, shocked myself. Did I need such a thing? No, absolutely not. Why'd I do it? Because it seemed like it would be...fun, I guess. That, and it was cheap.

If you suspect nostalgia (once amusingly described as "annoying armchair narcissism"), you're probably perfectly correct. When I was 15, the same age my son is now, I worked all summer cutting grass (at $2.50 to $5.00 per lawn) and bought a Marantz 2015, which was subsequently my pride and joy. Unfortunately, it "broke" in college. "Bad cap," said the tech at the local fix-it shop. (Remember fix-it shops?) I had no idea what "bad cap" meant, other than that when he said it, he spoke in a sad, slow voice. Maybe that was just the way he talked. He wanted $30 to fix it, and, alas, I didn't have $30 (alas, a lack). So I sold my previously beloved 2015 to an older cousin, who paid to have it fixed and then put it in a cabinet in her home and used it for playing "easy listening" music* in the background all day.

Twenty years later I visited her and...same music, same receiver, still playing night and day except when she went on vacation. Wow. Good cap.

For me, it's all been downhill since I sold that Marantz. (I have a secret belief that everybody's best stereo is the first good one they buy, and everybody's favorite camera is the one they used the most when they were the youngest.) Anyway, there are sure a lot of old Marantzes to choose from—dozens of models, starting at well under $100 on Ebay. You can also find them at garage sales and Goodwills and flea markets. There are enthusiast websites in the audio world too, naturally, just like there are in photography, where you can parse all the offerings and read peoples' opinions. There's the popular model (2270), the super-duper models (2285 and 2325), and the obscure models the collectors go after—guys who have forty old receivers in racks in their basements and are looking for that elusive rarity. It's not as bad as old Leicas or Japanese rangefinders, but it's the same cult of activity. (Sorry, I meant to type kind of activity.)

Me, I didn't have too much trouble deciding. I always wanted a 2225. Why? Well, because it was one I aspired to but couldn't afford back then. (I didn't cut enough lawns.) What's adulthood for, if not to achieve teenage aspirations?

I bought my Marantz 2225 from a guy named Robert Bowdish, who lives in Grass Valley, California. He's working on it this week, or next. Rob, whom I don't know past a few emails, has a website called irebuildmarantz.com. He, um, rebuilds Marantzes. He does the work part time, but he's been getting what he calls "amazing" response to his work and his website from Marantz silverface aficionados the world over.

To perform a rebuild, he replaces all the capacitors,  hand-resolders every circuit board, replaces the old lamps with new LEDs, replaces the speaker protection relay, cleans every contact, switch, connector, potentiometer and slip contact, performs all factory service modifications (plus a few of his own), then does testing and burn-in. As he says on his website, "I was so amazed at the improvement in sound after performing several restorations on my own Marantz gear, it became clear to me that others had to hear their Marantz gear this way, too."

Rob Bowdish in native habitat

Anyway, that old Marantz is a pure indulgence for me. I know that. Rampant, unregenerate nostalgia. I sit at my computer most of the day, so I mostly listen to MP3's and Apple lossless files on my computer speakers. It's not music we're talking about here, really...it's, well, fun. I figure I'll either have lots of fun with the Marantz and enjoy it immensely, or it will quickly establish itself as proof of a mid-life crisis and six weeks from now I'll be staring at it wondering what in the hell I was thinking. Jury's still out on that one. (I'll let you know what I think when Rob's done with mine and I've actually listened to the thing.)

At least it was cheap. Extremely cheap, if you compare it to what they want for decent-quality audio gear these days. When the commercial photography market collapsed in 1991, I moonlighted briefly as a salesman in a high-end audio salon on weekends. The entry-level, cheap-but-decent brand we carried was called Creek, made in England by a talented designer named Mike Creek. When I hunted up the current Creek top-of-the-line model, I discovered to my surprise that they want $2,300 for it. The next one down goes for $1,600. Times have changed.

-

-                     (Continued below the break)
==========================================
A surprising amount of work goes into these little articles.
Want to help keep 'em coming? Please just bookmark our
Amazon links     -------->
And every time you buy something from Amazon, we'll get
a little commission. Hey, it's not much, but it adds up.
==========================================

-

I paid Rob about double what an unrestored 2225 one goes for, but it was still a small amount compared to a new Creek. I don't know how he manages to pay his time, what with the extensive amount of work that obviously goes into his rebuilds—never mind payment for his expertise. Maybe the market just won't allow him to charge more. Whatever, for all that expert work, it's a screaming bargain. (Good thing I don't have a wife to weigh in on that matter. As it is, I can almost hear a phantom wife being sarcastic.)

As you might know if you've been reading me for a long time, I'm philosophically in favor of the restoration of nice old stuff, even if it doesn't make strict economic sense. I once bought a $5 pair of pants at a thrift store and paid $40 to have them tailored. I don't mind taking a $60 Spotmatic and treating the old girl to a $175 CLA, even if I can get a technically "better" camera elsewhere for the same $235. (If I want a Spottie, I want a Spottie. And if I want a Spottie I want a proud, buff Spottie lubricated in all the right places, not some bedraggled flea market refugee.) Sometimes, old stuff deserves respect. That's my take.

My new toy, pre-refurb, on Rob's bench somewhere between Yuba City and Reno

So anyway, I figured I'd encourage people to do with old cameras what I did with the old receiver—just pick up something purely for fun and try it.

Are you like me? Do you feel...well, lucky when you find yourself in the grip of a new enthusiasm? I've gone just a little nuts lately immersing in the lure and lore of "vintage" audio. Back to cameras again, that was my goal with the challenge. I've had a lot of fun with old cameras over the years, and I figure if one out of a hundred, or one out of fifty readers make a personal voyage of discovery with a pawnshop or flea market camera and have an experience they find memorably fun, well, my work is done. Having fun is what it's really all about.

'A thing of beauty is a toy forever'
So anyway, it turns out that that Marantz was just the beginning. If the silverface Marantz is just a lark, bought for nostalgia and because it was cheap, then what should I feed it?

A turntable seems natural. I've got a closet full of old LPs, after all.

And this is where I find myself looped back into a familiar old dilemma, a true shopping conundrum. Where turntables are concerned, I'm remarkably...stuck. I'm in a situation that's almost silly, but that has proved amazingly resistant to getting solved.

You see, I already have a perfectly good turntable. Perfectly good on paper, at least. I spent a pretty penny on it back when I had a real job. It's just that for some reason I've never taken to it. It's called a VPI HW-19 Jr. I bought it new, with a special-order walnut base (I have a thing for walnut) and an upgraded Mk. III platter...both added, I admit, for looks. The model I bought has a crude, basic suspension (it involves nothing more than a slab of MDF perched on a few Sorbothane pucks), and for some reason it has just never sounded very good to me—not as lively as the Rega-style el-cheapo deck it replaced. I keep thinking, maybe it's because it's unsuspended, maybe it's the arm (AQ PT-8, essentially a rebadged Jelco SA-250ST with a silver phono cable), maybe it's the cartridge (Goldring 1042 MM). Maybe it's because the arm and cartridge don't go together. Who knows? Having been an on-again, off-again audio enthusiast for 36 years now, it's been permanently established that I'm never going to completely understand the mystery at the heart of turntables, the guild secrets of which are as arcane as any ancient Masonic ritual.

I was told when I bought it that the VPI was "infinitely upgradeable" at any time. New suspension, new this, new that, no problem, no problem. Anything you want, any time you want it. So I planned to acquire the proper suspension upgrade in due course. Naturally, Murphy's law being what it is, right after I bought it the company that made it stopped supporting it.

So now, every time I think about getting a new arm for it, I first look at the daunting prices for new arms. Starting at $395 for an entry-level Rega RB300, which of course might not even be better than what I have—and the prices go up precipitously from there. (My dream is to find a Technics EPA-100 tonearm on an old Technics SL-1000 turntable in a thrift store, for next to nothing. Then I wake up.) Next I think, well, what's the point in getting a new arm if I don't have the sprung suspension with the separate armboard? But then I look into getting the suspension parts to upgrade it to full Mk. III status, and pretty much everybody agrees that the only way to do that is to buy a used Mk. III (for a minimum of $500 and probably significantly more) and strip the parts I need. That seems silly too. Or at least wasteful. Or at least redundant.

So then I think about selling it and starting over. At that point I research the going prices for HW-19 Jr.'s and calculate the smallish fraction it represents of what I've got sunk into the thing.

I've even considered parting it out. It might actually be worth more that way. I'm just not sure of the morality of that, though. What does the Law of Stuff say? Is there a "thou shalt not desecrate a perfectly good working turntable" carved on the stone tablets somewhere? Still, it would certainly ease my pain somewhat to lose, say, 45% of my investment instead of 70%.

At the end of this process, I always conclude it's cheaper to keep 'er, and I do nothing.

See what I mean? There's not even a good way to get rid of this thing.

I go through this thought process over and over again. Same thought process, each time. Same conclusion, each time. (Metaphor of skipping record too easy.)

So now it sits there, balefully, atop my equipment table, like a high-maintenance trophy wife...gorgeous and sexy but cold-hearted, and getting very little in the way of attention. (I'm assuming all the women in the audience stopped reading this piece long before they made it this far, so I'm not offending anybody.) My point is, where's the fun in a piece of gear that's supposed to be just for fun but just isn't fun?

The VPI has me trapped. I don't care for it, but I can't unload it, and I can't upgrade it. So what to do? Keep hoping I'll be able to buy the proper suspension parts someday? Pour more money into it in pursuit of the fading promise of its alleged delights? Bite my tongue and take the loss?

Long story short (unless it's already too late for that), I started thinking this weekend that maybe I could do the same thing with an old turntable that I did with the Marantz. Do an end-around on my turntable problem. I'm thinking I'll put the Marantz, a "new" vintage 'table, and some vintage speakers in the bedroom and use it as a second system. I'm sure I'll go on listening to my computer speakers most of the time. And if I really like the vintage turntable, maybe I'll get another, better one, and finally replace my VPI.

Does any of this sound familiar? Ever found yourself in a dilemma with stuff? But this is the other thing that relates to something that came up on the blog recently, namely, if you should love the camera you have or whether it's just a tool. I hope to be weighing in on that matter in these pages sometime soon.

Not so fast
Buying a vintage turntable, it turns out, is really seriously daunting when you get right down to it. I already have a hobby, so I'm not going to make a second hobby out of identifying which SME 3009 tonearm is which by trying to evaluate the size of the counterweight from a blurry Ebay photograph, or learning how to mount a Stax UA-7 to an AR XA, or figuring out how not to put a high-compliance cartridge in a low-compliance arm or vice versa. (I will never understand that damn "compliance" business. To match a cartridge to a tonearm, here's what I need: someone to tell me what goes together and what doesn't go together.) I'm not...confident about buying an old turntable. I'd like a nice bargain, sure, but I'd also like it to work right, and not be, unbeknownst to me, a dog that real initiates understand is the one awful variant in a line of nearly identical stellar models, or a great turntable with the wrong headshell on the tonearm, or one that has a missing "guide white" or a hair trapped in the bearing making everything sound awful, that sort of thing. The potential pitfalls are many and varied.

I realize a lot of people go through this with their photographic equipment, too. I feel like I'm reasonably well versed in photography. I do get bored of the technical stuff, but still, I know my way around. I'd rate myself as maybe an 8 or 9 in terms of general expertise. (There are very few true 10's because almost everybody ends up specializing in certain areas they're interested it, to the inevitable neglect of others. The more of an expert you are in one area of knowledge, the less likely it is that your expertise in all other areas will come up to that same level.) But stereo gear ranks as maybe fourth or fifth on my list of hobby/enthusiast interests, and my expertise is maybe a 4 or 5—I read the magazines and I know my way around the subject much better than the average man on the street, but it's not my main hobby and there's an awful lot I don't know. I'm sure there are lots of people who read T.O.P. to whom photography is a lot like audio is to me—a persistent interest and a source of satisfaction, but their second or third or fourth hobby rather than the most important thing in the world to them, and their expertise is a 4 or a 5 rather than an 8 or 9. I sympathize.

Maybe I need an expert, like Rob. I should look for a guy who can sell me an old but reconditioned turntable for twice or three times the price of the same piece as an Ebay or garage sale bargain. To me it's worth it to have somebody vet it first before it gets into my hands. Somebody who knows its a good model, knows where all the parts are supposed to go, knows it has the right headshell etc., knows what carts work with it properly, and can tell me how to set it up if it doesn't sound right. That's worth a lot.

In closing...
About that crack above about the sarcastic phantom wife? Audio as a hobby is even more relentlessly male than photography is (98% vs. maybe 85%), but every now and then a spouse is heard from out of the background. Here's a line that made me laugh: I was poking about in the archives of an audio forum last Sunday and I came across a long, lively explanation from a friendly-sounding fellow who talked about salvaging a tonearm from one turntable to mount on another, which, it turned out, he'd done multiple times. I found it very interesting. Then at the very end, he closed with: "...This is just my 2 cents and my wife says I should mention that I am nuts."

To which I can only say: bro'.

____________________

Mike

*Not easy for me!

Back to the main weblog page

Featured Comment by Graham Miles: "Mike, your thoughts make me wonder if photography and audiophilia do go hand-in- hand, since both have been alternating passions for me over the years. My first camera was an OM-1 and my first serious hi-fi a Hafler/Rogers/Linn combination. As I was seduced by digital, the analogue sound  and film cameras were discarded; replaced by a Nikon D70S and Creative/Ipod clone that pumps infinitely variable playlists around the house. What came as a pleasant surprise was returning to my near dormant reference system which sat in the living room gathering dust; it's an exotic British CD player that feeds music into a pair of single-ended tube amps that are hard pushed to reach 5 watts per channel. Silver cables and high-efficiency speakers complete the setup. My hearing is fading due to age, so I had let this system go dormant in favor of the background music of the mp3 player. Then recently, I picked up a cheap music streamer from Netgear. No longer available it came for less than $40. I could attach it as a source to my tube amps and have access to all the music on my PC. Since I had ripped the stuff at a decent bit-rate, I thought it might sound acceptable and sat down for a test run. I didn't get up for two hours, roughly at a point 10 minutes into Keith Jarrett's Köln Concert. I knew if I didn't tear myself away I would be stuck there all night. I had totally forgotten what this system could sound like and with a happy marriage between digital streaming and 70-year-old tube technology I was quite mesmerized by the experience. I still have the vinyl too. I know it has it's own special beauty. But I can resist it. Happy listening."

Mike replies: Digital source is where it's at both literally (i.e., because that's what everybody uses) and figuratively (because it's both very effective and very convenient). In fact, I think the Benchmark DAC1 (USB) is probably the Component of the Decade for the '00s, simply because it has a volume control, meaning it takes over the preamp function for your digital sources. I chose a cheaper alternative that does the same thing, which I wrote about here, and there are many more expensive USB DACs out there that don't include the volume control, so you need to run them into a conventional preamp.

The Benchmark DAC1 USB. Don't be fooled—it's tiny, only 9+ inches wide. Also available in silver.

You have to be a little careful buying a Benchmark DAC1, as there are three of them. The first is non-USB, and acts as a conventional DAC (digital-to-analog converter, or 1/2 of a conventional CD player, the other half being the disc transport—the part with the drawer that makes the disc spin). With that one, you connect your digital source using the digital-out function on your CD player or transport. The DAC1 USB adds USB connectivity so you can connect to your computer (and the Benchmark uses your computer's built-in drivers, so there's no messing with drivers to worry about). That's the one you want. The DAC1 USB also has the digital inputs for connecting your CD player or transport, of course. And they all have headphone jacks, so they're headphone amps as well.

The fact is, with a Benchmark DAC1 USB you don't need to run to computer speakers at all. You can put it between your computer and a stereo amplifier of any vintage or type (including your single-ended triode tube amps), thence to speakers of any description or location. When comparing the lovely convenience and excellence of a hard-drive based system to a vinyl-based one, the simplification to the end-user is really formidable: that little Benchmark unit replaces not only the line-level preamp, but the turntable and its isolation base, tonearm, cartridge, and the phono stage (since most stereo preamps don't come with that part nowadays). And assuming you're interested in getting the best out of vinyl, you'd have to include the speed-stabilizing electronics as well. The cheapest one of those I know of, for Pro-Ject's turntables, costs $160, and many are more expensive than that, some much more. If anyone thinks it's hard to connect the Benchmark their computer (it isn't—it's virtually plug 'n' play) or find a source for high-quality digital files that goes beyond MP4's and Apple lossless files from iTunes, I sympathize, but consider it in contrast to the difficulty of setting up a turntable and cartridge properly, and there's just no contest. It's like planning a six-city foreign vacation vs. planning a trip to the grocery store.

Vinyl vs. a hard-drive-based music system is very analogous to the difference between 8x10 contact prints and a high-quality digital SLR. Let's see, I can buy a very expensive, large, bulky camera that's difficult to master and has to be used on a tripod, where every shot is expensive and time-consuming to process and 500 exposures a year represents heavy shooting, or I can use a hand-holdable, high-speed camera where every individual exposure costs me nothing and takes no time to process (at least to get it to the stage where I can see it), and the sky's the limit in terms of exposures per year. You can argue all you want about the aesthetic advantages of the 8x10 contact print, but most peoples' choice is not only obvious, it's sensible.

Although I don't read much about this in the magazines (probably my fault, since I don't read all the magazines), audiophilia in general is probably at a crossroads right now. We've been arguing about source quality for 26 years now, since the CD came on the scene. The focus of that argument has usually been CD vs. vinyl, but I seem to remember that even before that, audiophiles were arguing over open-reel tape vs. vinyl, with vinyl usually the loser. What's happened now is that we've all taken for granted the Progress Fallacy—the tendency we humans have to assume that succession is advancement, and that things only improve—and we're assuming that the CD will be replaced by something better. The evidence suggests otherwise! SACD and DVD-A, which were a small but distinct improvement over Redbook CD, fizzled. (About like Quad sound in the '70s or, in photography, APS in the '90s.) Now the home-theater industry has settled on Blu-Ray, and Blu-Ray as a carrier for stereo music would be, as the kids used to say, totally awesome. Except it's not very likely that stereo audio on Blu-Ray is ever going to get here. Certainly, it's not arriving on the scene like CD did in the early '80s. I suspect that at best we'll have multichannel audio and mixed media with music thrown in as a sidelight or an afterthought. That's not what I want—I'm a stereo music listener, period. Don't have a home theater, and am not interested in multi-channel hoo-hah for music, even assuming there will be a decent selection of titles and that the source files would be skillfully implemented for music, neither of which I'm very optimistic about. What I'd like is for Blu-Ray as a stereo music carrier to totally take over from CD, giving me a digital carrier that is better than CD, better than "vinyl done right," better than open-reel tape, etc.—but I won't be holding my breath.

No, the future of audio content appears to be downloading—even for audiophiles. Presumably, as bandwidth goes up, there's no reason why content providers can't make really high-quality music files available, for a price, to those who really want them. There's already a smattering of CD-quality downloads available, but there's no reason to stop there. I predict that in ten years, we'll either be downloading huge, glorious music files over the tubes of the internets, or we won't be getting really high-quality source material at all.

One thing's for sure—the future is not vinyl records, no matter how nostalgic we might or might not feel. But one more thing—you might have noticed that earlier I said there were three Benchmark DAC1's, but I only mentioned two of them. What's the third? Well, it's called the Benchmark DAC1 Pre—and what's so different about it is that it adds a pair of analog inputs! Naturally you still need a phono stage—that's not built in—but the analog inputs allow you to use the Benchmark with a turntable. So as long as you can handle the physical siting of all your equipment (which might not be trivial), you could use a DAC1 Pre as a single preamp for a system that includes your computer, your CD player, and a turntable.

Back to the future!

_____________________________ 

Send this article to a friend

_____________________________

Original contents copyright 2008 by Michael C. Johnston. All Rights Reserved.

_____________________________

RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE

Comments

[Seth Glassman]

I hate to be a party pooper, but keep in mind that no quantity or quality of playback equipment will make bad music good.

[Amy]

When I was in college in the early 70s most of my male friends were very much into those classic Marantz receivers, and I was dazzled by their blue glow. I did not have much money back then, but I’ve always been kind of picky about technical stuff (computers, cameras, and audio), so my first stereo components were a low-end Kenwood KA-2002A amplifier (about 10w RMS per channel) and a Dual 1216 turntable. It wasn’t until 1978 that I got a (still low-end) Yamaha CR-220 receiver and a Technics SL220 turntable. It may be a sad statement that I don’t have a nice stereo at home any more (everything went to my spouse in the divorce 8 years ago), but I did splurge to put a very nice stereo in my car.

Where I tend to accumulate vintage technology is with Apple Macintoshes, as I bought one of the first 10,000 ever made and have kept my retired machines (original 128K, LCII, IIcx, 8500) plus one or two others. I want to get the software / hard drive cleaned up on a Mac Classic II I inherited so that I can play some of the old Mac computer games (primarily Arkanoid and Super Tetris). I keep all my original software disks and manuals. However, this project is on a far, far backburner.

Regarding the Befriend a Forgotten Camera challenge, your post has already done what you’ve intended at least in one person’s life, Mike. For several months recently I’d toyed with the idea of buying an old Kodak Retina IIIc, as that was the model of camera my parents had and was the only 35mm camera I had access to while I was growing up. Your challenge motivated me to buy one on eBay, and I’m now in the process of shooting a test roll. Using this camera does bring back a lot of memories from when I was a kid. So I thank you for starting this challenge.

I have extra rolls of film, so I guess I’m also going to have to test the Nikon F100 I bought on Craigslist in February. I’ve been way too busy for that.

At this stage in my life I’m *trying* to let go of stuff -- to give away things I no longer use -- so I’m having to figure out if I’m hanging on to (or accumulating) stuff for its sentimental value, collector value, or practical value -- and what I can actually live without. Things that are simply nostalgic might not be worth the added clutter to my house and garage. I’m still trying to figure all this out.

~Amy

[eric mac]

It's funny you should write about the Marantz, I recently passed on a Marantz 2218 at the church rummage sale. I am always on the outlook for stuff at our sale having furnished my workshop and darkroom systems with Denon and NAD equipment with B&W speakers. Every year I upgrade to older equipment and donate back the previous years stuff. I probably should of grabbed the unit but how much stuff do I need? I really don't need racks of Marantz receivers cluttering up the basement, although it would be fun.

[Eolake]

Very nice.
I've made a comment and expansion:
http://snipurl.com/no-stalgia [eolake_blogspot_com]

[Adam Isler]

Mike,
I left behind my audiophile nerdiness behind a long time ago when I got rid of my second-hand Dyna pre-amp and power amp and the AR fully manual turntable, all purchased with funds earned sccoping ice cream. I'm just about your exact age and, until quite recently, lugged around about an equivalent size LP collection every time I moved.

I also have large collections of reel to reel tapes and cassette tapes which contain marvelous mixes put together by a jazz-guitarist friend of mine starting from when we were about 14 years old. I've kept them not just because his sense of melange was brilliant, but some of the music is no longer available and I felt I had a duty to posterity to archive it.

However, I no longer owned a reel to reel deck; seldom listened to the cassettes, since after a painful period of adjustment my ears were converted to CD-sound, I now found old cassette sound remarkably muddy and hissy (or maybe it's just their ferric oxide molecules deteriorated over the course of 30 years); and putting on my LPs required making everyone, including children, creep aroung the house in gum-soled shoes.

So under threat of a 50% rent increase and an imminent move I bought a $50 device that would allow me to digitize anything off my stereo. It took a while to figure it all out and find a place I could plug in a laptop near enough to the stereo that everyone wouldn't be tripping over cables (Manhattan apartment, you know, no den in the basement). So then your hit the pause record button on your screen, drop the needle, check your levels manually (remember that?) with an on-screen slider. Then reset the arm at the beginning and release the pause. 20 minutes later, after making sure no one has run across the floor, hit pause, flip the album, drop the needle, un-pause and guard the floor for another 20 minutes. When this is all done you have a gigantic WAV file. The software has a built in "cut estimator" which tries to figure out (based on amplitude?) where one cut ends and another begins but it has a hard time with slow quiet passages and since my collection includes a lot of instrumental jazz I basically had to manually find where each cut begins and ends. When that's done you get to convert the 10 new WAV files into MP3 files. And of course, they contain no metadata, so you get to type in all the discography, 1 cut at a time. Takes about an hour and a half per LP.

My wife, who has the patience of a saint for the teenage-boy carapace I drag around with me, was growing testy. I went through our LP collection and got rid of all the crap - albums we'd picked up from ex boyfriends and girlfriends along the way, our parents cast off monaural classical albums, Charlie Brown's Christmas, my wife's girlhood favorite Monkee's Greatest Hits, the demo album a fiend had cut in 1976, and put all of them on Craigs List. A nice opera singer from Brooklyn bought a few but expressed real interest in the good stuff. I told him, call me in a few months - after I move I'm digitizing them all; then you can have them.

Next. I'd been paring down the reel-to-reel tape collection for some years so that all that was left was the really essential stuff. After we moved I bought a Teac 3300 on eBay for $85. All the text had been worn off the buttons and guages by use. I scoured the internet for readable images so I'd know which buttons were which. I cleaned the heads lovingly with cotton swabs daubed in witch hazel. Guess what? All those ancient shamrock tapes sounded like crap. Also, at some point the quartered looseleaf sheets with my jazz friends copious discography had obviously been mixed up. The tapes I had were not the essentials listed on the sheets; they were Simon and Garfunkel and other readily available stuff.

By then we had moved, months had passed; the opera singer called to tell me he was going on a South American tour and would be gone for months - was I ready to sell? No, I told him, give me a few more months.

Nothing has happened. So when he returned I let him come over with a friend and, at $0.50 each, I sold him virtually every album I still owned. I gave the Technics auto-turntable to my mother, who's still listening to the scratchy monaural classical music of her youth. The tape deck and the tapes still sit athwart the living room floor gathering dust - out of inertia I have failed to get rid of them.

In the meantime, for my 50th birhtday my brother and sister bought me a Logitech Wireless DJ. It gives me an iPod-like remote control that lets me play my iTunes music collection wirelessly over my stereo. It's far from perfect, but yesterday afternoon while wife and daugher were out, I cranked up the Mahavishnu Orchestra's Inner Mounting Flame (circa 1971) and relived the 14-year old inspiration I had with those soaring guitar lines; then followed up with the more mature The New Classics from Herbie Hancock. In the meantime, I've held on to all the discographies and I trawl the net for them. Every few months, I recover another old treasure - most recently a Bill English Vanguard re-release.

Mike, this could be your future. I know it may sound sad, and a great loss; but as with cameras, I now try to spend more time taking and making picutes than worrying about whether I have the best gear (that's why I read your blog more often than DPReview!). Just listening to my music is more important to me now than doing it on the right equipment. This represents a loss, but also a gain (in maturity?)

Now does anybody know where I can get Joe Byrd and the American Metaphysical Field Hippie's album online?

Adam
(http://islerphoto.zenfolio.com)

[Mike C]

Mike,

Very nice post - I really enjoyed reading it, this Sunday morning here in California. I am sure I understand how you feel about giving a new life to these old machines - I think of my 2 old Zeiss microscopes, my Mac Pismo.

When I was young (that's getting to be a longer and longer time ago heh), and before college, I knew I wanted to be a scientist. Well, I got a bottom-of-the-line Zeiss microscope, my dad gave it to me as a gift.

We went to the dealer (that was in Sao Paulo, Brazil) and he was this big German guy, speaking (Portuguese) with a heavy accent. He seemed so immensely proud of the microscopes. He showed we how to adjust the achromatic condenser in the one I was buying.

It was really expensive, and I wanted a mechanical stage, you know, the plate with knobs where you put the microscope slide, that thing is built like a micrometer, smooth, precise... but that was way beyond what my dad should spend on my first microscope anyways - and the German said so. He didn't try and push _any_ accessories. We trusted him.

Anyways, to make a long story short, a year ago I saw on ebay (by "casually" browsing for Zeiss parts) a stage which was exactly the one I lusted for. So, I bought it, for a fraction of what it would have cost back then.

Am I using the microscope again? Nope, I plan to, but not quite yet. But it is sitting on my computer desk (a huge Anthro) and I glance at it every now and then, and I feel _really_ good about "it." It seems happier than ever.

Just like your Marantz. Someone still loves them. Hm, do mechanical gadgets have a soul?

mike c

[Chris Y.]

Well, that does it. I am snapping up the very next Campagnolo Record equipped 57cm Masi Super Corsa I see on ebay.

[Dennis Allshouse]

Mike, maybe this is irrelevant, but you didn't comment on the sound quality of the Marantz.

[Ed Richards]

I am with Adam on this. Unless you have serious money, you cannot do audio and photography. While I still subscribe to Stereophile, I realized a long time ago that I can either take pictures and deal with photography, or I can mess with audio. They are parallel obsessions, with the difference that there is no active side to being an audiophile, other than becoming a repairman. Photography gets you out of the house, audio is an especially dangerous addiction when you live in places where staying in the house is easy. Vinyl is the worst, those folks are never happy and phone cartridges cost more per gram than cocaine.:-)

Going fishing does not mean shifting obsessions. Go out and take some pictures.

[Jim]

Still have and use as our main stereo the JBL 88's and Marantz1120 i bought from Stereo Warehouse in San Luis Obispo in 1973. Quite a step, both moneywise and trust for me back then. The only things you bought through the mail were from Wards, Pennys, or Sears!
So when my wife and I built our shed a couple of years ago out to EBAY i went for another, well it turned out to be two, 1122 and a pair of JBL 100's, yeah it turned out to be two pair of those as well! THEY WERE SO CHEAP! and they sound great! I have my computer wired in and cant believe how good streaming internet radio sounds but you swich over to a cd.... WOW my seven year old daughter frequently tell me to Turn it Down Daddy. No i-pods or ear-buds for me. Which brings up another issue, the multiple generations of kids who have grown up listening to music "alone" ear-buds and who are experiencing photographic images only on a monitor.

[Seth Glassman]

"that there is no active side to being an audiophile, other than becoming a repairman"

Sure there is - being a studio musician, a recording engineer, a producer. And if you think photography is an expensive hobby check out professional recording equipment.

What has always struck me as the disconnect between audiophiles and people who make records is that, save for a few small audiophile labels, ultimate audio quality is relatively low on the list of priorities among record makers. That unfortunate fact is due to the brutal shrinking of recording budgets in the last twenty-five years. Other than the very biggest-selling artists, budgets are a fraction of what they used to be. An albums' worth of 2" analog tape can cost $6,000.00 or more. If the choice is that or $400.00 for two hard drives, how do you justify the difference to the label? That difference could pay for another day or two in the studio with good musicians. We try to make the best-sounding records we can, but often it's a struggle just to finish 10 or 12 good songs. It can be frustrating to read reviews of how a $25,000.00 album sounds on $70,000.00 speakers.

[Bill]

Mike -

Fortunately for me (I think) and much to the dismay of my wife of 38 years, I still have my first audio system on a shelf in the basement, so I don't have to go looking for a Fisher X-101-B integrated amp, HH Scott LT-111 FM tuner, Dual 1010 changer and Utah 12" coaxial speakers in home made enclosures.

Occasionally, I have the urge to set the old system up and play it, but then I think about the possibility of having to clean up the mess of newly ruptured old electrolytic capacitors and decide to leave it for another day.

Anyhow, enjoy your new old audio system.

------------- Bill

[WeeDram]

Mike: Find a young, eager and poor audio enthuiast who is handy and will treasure the VPI. Sell it to him or her for what is comfort for both of you. Good karma makes for good music.

[Amy S]

Mike C: “Well, that does it. I am snapping up the very next Campagnolo Record equipped 57cm Masi Super Corsa I see on ebay.”

Ah. Inspired by this, I need to keep my eyes open for a 56cm Miyata 1000 touring bicycle. I’m still brokenhearted I wasn’t able to buy one back in the 80s. I settled for a cheap (but not to me) Miyata 215st, which I still own.

[Amy S]

Oops. I misattributed my quote earlier. Should have been Chris Y. Sorry, Mike/Chris.

[Robin P]

First: - So very glad you're feeling better Mike.

Second:- You don't need a new turntable, just change the pickup cartridge for an Ortofon MC with tiny Ortofon transformers rather than a MC preamp.

Third:- For anyone considering a TLR for their Forgotten Camera project - look for a 75mm lens rather than 80mm, then don't be afraid to crop to whatever size & shape seems best for the image.

Cheers, Robin

[John Roberts]

Thanks for the memories, Mike. My first "real" stereo system was a Marantz 20 watts/channel receiver (don't remember the model number), a low-end Marantz turntable, and a pair of Advent bookshelf speakers, all purchased for my dorm room back in 1978. The receiver and turntable were sold off long ago, but I still own and use the Advent speakers (and they still sound great!). The photo of the Marantz receiver brought back some sweet memories!

[Don W.]

What another wonderful trip down my college years, great memories...in my case it was a Dual turntable, Pioneer amp and preamp, JBL L100s also. Loved those speakers for over 20yrs until the foam grills and woofer surrounds started rotting off, and connector wiring started failing, there they stood for several years without use, until my wife finally had me haul them outside for a garage sale...she never told me but they sold for like $5 to someone...I couldn't watch...

Still love audio, but do have a surround system, albeit not Class A from stereophile, but better then I deserve with a more serious photo hobby. It is not the same, but it isn't too bad either, found out too late that those L100s could have been repaired back to like new shape...:-(...

[Mark Ditter]

For me the fascinating thing about this is not the audio equipment itself, but rather the realization that an era, sadly, seems to have passed.

For the baby boomers who came of age in the 60's and 70's music was much more important than it has been for subsequent generations.

Having a cool stereo was of course a very important thing in those days. Everyone had to have one, and when you weren't talking about music and the latest album by so-and-so, or who was coming around on tour, you argued about audio equipment.

I remember when I was in college my apartment was burglarized and the loss of my stereo caused me to walk around in a state of mourning for about two weeks.

When it came time to replace it, I wanted one that would sound good, but my budget was only $200. At first all I could afford was a receiver and two speakers. I borrowed a turntable and then had to wait a few months before I could get my own. I still have the stuff stored away, along with two big boxes of vinyl LP's.

Nowadays, there are too many other "must haves" out there. Computers, ipods, cell phones. I don't think an audio system is really even on most people's lists any more, unless it's part of a home theater system.

[Ragnar Hartman]

Talk about nostalgia! Great post! I still use my Pioneer SX9000 receiver and Sansui SP2000 speakers which I purchased at the PX in Vietnam in 1970. I did give away to a friend the Akai GX365 reel to reel tape deck and Dual 1219 turntable, so I am limited to CD or Sony MD input, but as I'm not a very knowledgeable afficionado, it sounds great just in my small minilab setting. When I recently took the receiver in for repair (a local VCR repair shop), the elderly gentleman at the desk looked at it and commented "finally, a real piece of electronics to work on". I have a picture of about 6 or 7 tape decks linked together dubbing tapes from the original, one evening in our hootch in Vietnam (luckily, our area was relatively pacified then); the most popular music then was CCR, Buffalo Springfield, The Beatles, and some classical.

[photogdave]

I hate my iPod. It seems impossible to get consistent levels, even with "Sound Check" on (setting individual track levels in iTunes is hit and miss). There are no hard buttons so you have to wake it up to perform any functions, like turning it down when the next track tears through your ear drums. The battery life sucks (older 15GB hard drive version) and it's starting to skip a lot. It's convenient for camping when I plug it into an external speaker system, but that's all I like it for.
Sony's MiniDisc system was brilliant. High quality audio in digital format, the mini players run forever on one AA battery, easy to make mixes direct from your home stereo. My DJ friens still swears by the system! I broke my original player and thinking I was getting a good deal, bought a refurb off eBay, only to find it's anew one that has no line out and only works with Windows software. So now I can only play from my existing discs.
My Dj friend agreed to make a mix for a friend and put it on her iPod Nano. After he was all done and plugged the iPod into his G4 it told him that the nano was incompatible and he has to upgrade the OS! I said "I'm glad I'm buying records again!"
And this is the truth. Last year my girlfriend got me a turntable for my birthday. It's an American Audio DJ direct drive unit, similar to a Technics 1200. I'm neither a DJ nor an audiophile but when I drop the needle on my 180 gram reissue of "Fear Of A Black Planet" you can't tell me that the sound pumping through my B&W 303s isn't sweeter than any CD or MP3!
Best of all, no compatibility issues! Turn on stereo, put record on platter, hear music! And records are cheap! I'm picking up really nice pressings (usually 150 or 180 gram) brand new for $9-$19.
Having said all that there are some really nice sounding CD remasters out now. I've been enjoying the Rhino releases of the first Chicago albums.
I have also long believed that audio and photography are traveling parallel lines. This weekend I was shooting with a Canon G7 and kept getting frustrated because I was always inadvertently pressing buttons when I was just trying to hold the damn camera! After many unwanted menu accesses and being forced to hold the stupid little thing by my fingertips the battery finally died and I said "screw this" and got out my 40-year-old Leica. No compatibility issues. Just put in film and take pictures!

[George Hazelton]

I enjoyed your ruminations on audiophilia. I currently treasure a Harmon-Kardon HK-590i receiver, only 45 watts per channel, but a good phono stage and excellent tone controls. It matches well with my AR-ES1 with a Shure V15, microridge pickup. The Klipsch Fortes make a pleasant sound. All this gear is 10 years old or older, save the Shure. Someday I may resurrect the EICO tube gear languishing in the garage.... I also enjoy my Pentaxes, a K-1000, a ME-super, a MX and a LX. Plus the K10D. Nothing is cutting edge, but to echo a comment you made on Luminous Landscape, its just...good enough. Good enough so that I can't blame poor pictures on the equipment. I'm not planning on "up-grading," but learning to get the most out of the gear, and whatever talent I might have. Keep the faith, Mike.

[Martin Jangowski]

In my opinion, lovers of audiophile gear and (analogue) photography are in about the same position: both are (very) mature technologies and the last real advances were made several years ago. Yes, there are differences between a hifi setup from the 1970s and 2008 (remote controls, a special input for the cd player), but most, if not any new features are there to make the thing cheaper (replace expensive multi-pots with one cheap chip) or to follow fashions like dolby surround sound (has nothing to do with music). Similarly, medium fast cameras with manual focus were replaced with slow working AF cameras (I don't talk about the latest 35mm Canon EOS, but the typical point-and-shoot cameras).

So, one has nothing to lose and much to gain when buying (once) very expensive audio gear from ebay for a few coins. By now, I got a nearly complete lineup of TOTL Yamaha gear from the 1970s and my cupboard is full with Leica-, Zeiss- and Rollei gear from yesteryear. Ok, after several years of usage, a CLA is usually required, but there is nothing like the build quality of better gear from yesteryear.

Martin

[Hifiturk]

good article
thanks.

[Pomona]

Hi everyone. To lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals. Help me! Help to find sites on the: She started selling baby looking for great ideas for baby girl bedding.. I found only this - turbo tax. Brands include banana fish,berkshire,cocalo,cotton tale,disney,eddie bauer,glenna jean,jj cole,kids line,lambs ivy,migi. Save on silk bedding and more at puresilkbedding. With respect ;-), Pomona from Republic.

[Todd Bartlett - Cinevidia]

I love the old equioment from the 70's. I recently picked up a '73 Pioneer and cleaned it up. That old sound and retro look just adds to the right room.

[Cinevidia Home Theater Systems]

I bought a 1973 Pioneer receiver a few months ago and like you said there's a fun aspect to picking up the old quality equipment and breathing new life into it.

[Nike Dunk Sb]

Thank your for display me so fantastic notion as part of your blog. I am really gree with you. Your viewpoint is amazing. In our lives, there's nothing can beat us.