Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators

[phillip holmes <insuranceman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The Technics (the one Tom mentions) is the way to go.  For better sound, 
keep the Technics and use nicer/better electronics and maybe custom 
heads.  That Technics transport is super gentle and it's got good 
looks.  Also, the Technics turntables are still state-of-the-art when 
combined with a good plinth and tonearm.  Matsushita put way more 
money/time/engineering into those products than any high-end audio 
garage outfit will be able to do (or Ampex for that matter).  I'm not 
saying there aren't other great tape decks and turntables (or that Ampex 
engineers sucked).  What I am saying is that if you want a great machine 
for your home, the Technics is the way to go. 

I semi-disagree (or semi-agree) with Tom about digital.  I think CD 
digital has some limitations.  SACD or DVD-A would've been the best 
consumer format, but hey, none of the major labels gave a shit about 
that.  Audiophile vinyl, cut at 45rpm, by people who know what they are 
doing, sounds pretty close to a master tape (33rpm, less so).  I don't 
like the high frequencies on many CDs I own.  SACD or DVD-A might sound 
better than anything, but those formats are dead, as far as I'm 
concerned.  When you can't get "regular music" on a format, then it 
doesn't really count.  Vinyl apologists (like me) can get more major 
releases now than 15 years ago.  Also, since the major label guys like 
to compress the hell out of the recordings, it's not like you're going 
to get worse sound from a record (the distortions particular to analog 
playback might be able to dress up a pig in some cases).  The only SACD 
or DVD-A players that make SACD/DVD-A discs sound way better than CD are 
too expensive for me.  I can put together a vinyl rig for under $2k that 
can get 95% of what a $40,000 turntable can do and it makes every record 
I play sound better.  You put a crappy CD on a mega-buck CD player, and 
it still sounds like crap. 

But Tom is right.  A well engineered CD on a good player does sound 
good.  Anyone who says that "CD sucks" is whistling through the graveyard.
Phillip

Scott Phillips wrote:
> Again I am with Tom on this one. If I had the money and was determined
> to have a RTR machine, I'd take the ATR... but I have no personal reason
> other than actual studio use to own one. For home use..? Naaaaa.... I
> don't think so. Too many other worthwhile places to spend the money at
> home...  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:46 AM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators
>
> Ya know, this is probably blasphemy to whatever audiophile-types lurk on
> this list, but I think you get a lot more bang for the buck investing in
> a really good CD playback system. More "golden ears" 
> I've met than I care to say rail on about how "digital sucks" or "CD's
> sound terrible." Then, when I ask them about their system, it turns out
> they are using either a first-generation CD player from the early 80's
> or they are using some dirt-cheap on-sale DVD/CD player from the local
> big-box. CD players are NOT all the same and furthermore external D-A
> boxes are NOT all the same. If you combine well-mastered CD's with a
> stable mechanism and an excellent D-A unit, you'll push your amp and
> speakers (and ears) as far as they can go.
>
> Now, just as in the LP era, the majority of CD product on the market is
> not well-mastered, so the garden-variety CD has a bad rap for sounding
> awful through no fault of the technology. This was the same thing with a
> lot of rock and jazz LPs back in the day. Overuse of
> dynamics-compression, bad EQ choices, and bad mixing or mic-placement
> choices at the session are nothing new. But, the difference with CD's
> and even more so with higher-resolution digital formats, is that there
> aren't the built-in distortions and limits of analog formats. No matter
> how superb your analog setup is, output is audibly different from input.
> If you like the output better -- ie the distortions are euphonic to your
> tastes -- that's one thing. But the truthful assessment is, a
> well-designed digital system can get as close to output = input as the
> vast, vast majority of ears can hear (and certainly the overwhelmingly
> vast majority of home-listening setups can reproduce).
>
> If I had the thousands it costs to buy and maintain an ATR Services
> machine, and this were simply for a listening hobby, I'd spend that
> money on a mechanically-superb mid-line DVD/CD player, a top-line DAC
> and then take the other 2/3 of the money and invest in great speakers
> and room treatments so I had a top-rate listening environment. If I
> already had that in place, I'd invest the
> 2/3 of the money I had left in a diverse collection of great listening
> software, paying attention first to my musical tastes and then to sound
> quality since great music should soar above a crappy recording (although
> it doesn't in all cases).
>
> This is probably not the answer some want to hear, but I submit that
> it's by far the most bang for the listening-pleasure dollar.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Phillips" <scottp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators
>
>
> Ken,
>
> I have overhauled several of these machines for clients over the years
>
> <snip>
>
>