advertisement


Chris Frankland

At current list prices:

TT/arm/cart/phonostage 55%
Streamer 15%
Pre/power Amps 26%
Speakers 4%

Makes me think! Especially as the electronics in the middle were all s/h, so cost me relatively less.
 
A quick guesstimate:

Sources: 20%
Amp/DAC: 60%
Speakers: 20%

But complicated by secondhand/ex-dem prices.
 
For me, currently:

Sources [TT/streamer] 30%
Pre/Power 50%
Speakers 20%

Although all except the streamer [Pi with dac] were s/h. I'm not sure that reflects my priorities, though, so much as the relative cheapness of s/h speakers relative to say, turntables. The new price of my speakers was almost double the new price of my turntable [adjusting for inflation].
 
I certainly believed in the source first when my main source was a turntable. Having worked in the industry I knew how much difference resonating arms, feeding back plinths and wow and flutter make, and there is an amazingly big difference between cartridges, both in frequency response and distortion character.
OTOH I did a test between various DACs 4 years ago, none cheap but between £1000 and £10,000 and the differences were tiny compared to the just the difference between cartridges never mind the whole assembly.
 
CF once championed the Thorens TD124. And there was a notorious review of the STD305 Scottish Nationalist TT, 'better than an LP12'.

It was all over in the mainstream audio press by 1982 or so, enter ever more exotic Koetsu front covers and heavier Krells. With Belt just around the corner...

Paul
 
F1eng said:
I certainly believed in the source first when my main source was a turntable. Having worked in the industry I knew how much difference resonating arms, feeding back plinths and wow and flutter make, and there is an amazingly big difference between cartridges, both in frequency response and distortion character.
OTOH I did a test between various DACs 4 years ago, none cheap but between £1000 and £10,000 and the differences were tiny compared to the just the difference between cartridges never mind the whole assembly.
Click to expand...
My findings mirror yours F1eng
 
Joe Hutch said:
In terms of Chris Frankland, I went right off him and his ideas when his response to a reader who'd written in to one of his magazines to say he preferred his Dual turntable to an LP12 was 'Clearly your ears aren't ready to hear true hifi' (or words to that effect). It summed up the whole arrogant, dogmatic, 'we know best' attitude of the flat earth (funda)mentalist.
Click to expand...

That's what I did like about him, he wasn't afraid of being honest. The trouble was his taste in music undermined his position somewhat.

mat
 
Mine is all mooshed into Streamer/Amp into Active Amps/Speakers downstairs and Streamer/Amp thing into Passive Speakers oopstairs (almost all recreational listening is in bed and work* stuff is downstairs)

I'd say for the upstairs thats totally "flat earth" 80%/20%

But the living room 20/80 (if don't include the mixing desk DAC and monitor switcher but include DIY Centre Channel and DIY turntable for occasional plays of my 40LPs)

Less than 1% on music as its almost all streamed... Almost zero ownership of music. So sneer at me, please. None of it is Jazz at the Pornstore though

I paid way way way over the odds in terms of health, but wow, what a relief its all over, both "it" (and the upgrade thing). 10 years with ATCs this October. Good stuff.


*hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
 
So in essence system building in a "flat earth" context is all based on how much you spend and where to spend it in terms of percentages... and this was proselytized by magazines and flat earth specialist dealers.

ooo-kay

g5hfz.jpg
 
CliveGrace said:
So in essence system building in a "flat earth" context is all based on how much you spend and where to spend it in terms of percentages... and this was proselytized by magazines and flat earth specialist dealers.

ooo-kay
Click to expand...

There were even folks who spent a great amount of their budget on angle iron and glass to support their gear.... Who would of thought?
 
paskinn said:
I believe it did great harm, which the UK industry has still not fully recovered from. Two 'brands' were relentlessly elevated above all other products, not because they were superior products but because of ideological...and ultimately money-making.....positions.
Other, better products (sometimes) could not get a fair hearing. It was audio's version of Mao's little red book. If you didn't buy Linn and Naim you were nothing. Even worse, superior products from other nations (not least Japan) were patronised and ignored. the result was an insular, uncompetitive British audio industry. Frankland was right in the middle of all this.
You still see the backround radiation in the pfm forums; lost souls still clinging to the wreckage of the LP12, Naim-guys desperate to find a new boat to sail in (Teddy Pardoe seems the likely beneficiary).
We do achieve great brands, but they are not the ones that create the followers; Harbeth, Spendor, Rega, SME, Michell, Roxsan, Avid and so on. Still mainly British owned too. I hope we never return to that 'I'm in with the in-crowd ' nonsense.
Click to expand...

One of the best examples from the early 1980's of this "Linn/Naim" mob culture as promoted by the Flat Earthers such as CF and his conspiring dealer cronies was the affect on smaller companies such as Pink Triangle. Arthur Khoubesserian designed an innovative turntable with stiff and light sub-chassis, acrylic platter, a clever inverted main bearing and promoted the use of a DC motor.

Despite these decks sounding lovely, several dealers and reviewers spread rumours that a DC motor could not possibly work on a turntable.......forcing Pink Triangle to introduce an AC motor version to have a chance in the market.

Luckily, they re-introduced their DC motor drive on later decks such as the Anniversary which in terms of sound quality is in a different universe to an LP12.

The ultimate irony is that the top spec LP12 now uses a DC motor........the Radikal !
 
Immunity to timbre and soundstage/stereophony makes the Flat Earth sound a non-starter for me.
 
merlin said:
The system hierarchy thing is interesting.

Suddenly the flat earth preached source first and legions of British listeners upgraded their tables at the expense of having decent speakers. Most of these people declared themselves delighted and then spent the next twenty to thirty years constantly seeking upgrades.

Meanwhile I've met a number of people who got off the bandwagon and bought a dirty great big pair of quality loudspeakers. From the likes of large ATC, Tannoy, JBL et al. Almost all of them pretty much immediately got off the upgrade ladder and just started enjoying and appreciating their music. Many have lost interest in the "hobby" entirely and now enjoy their music whilst focusing on sport or photography.

A lesson to be learned there?
Click to expand...

I survived and thrived in the Flat Earth wars and I don't recognise much of what you say. People I know upgraded their turntables and then their amps and speakers. I don't recall anyone (actually having or) staying with an LP12/NAD/KEF type of system. LP12s and mid price amps like Nytechs yes but not systems with big proportioning differences.

Of course people went off and away from Flat Earth systems, even at the time this was only ever part of the world of hi-fi. I do remember that there was a lot of press support for it but would anyone here accuse Gramophone of being Flat Earth? Hi-fi for Pleasure? I think of it as a fashion. As mentioned elsewhere a current fashion is for big Japanese DDs. There was a trend for Mac'n'DACs Lavrys etc. Current crossover to the pro world for some 2 way actives such as Event Opals, Rocks etc. A while back in the early CD days there were external DACs, then onto multi-box players, then onto big Wadias and so on and so on.

Also as people get on in life and have families they don't all stick to having music as such a large part of their lives. I have seen plenty of peers using docks when they used to have real hi-fis. I am sure a lot of these will try something like buying up a dream system of their youth once the ankle biters have gone.
 
Using turntable, amp & speakers only my system is around 30%/20%/30%. Digital side is much less expensive than the TT.
 
merlin said:
The system hierarchy thing is interesting.

Suddenly the flat earth preached source first and legions of British listeners upgraded their tables at the expense of having decent speakers. Most of these people declared themselves delighted and then spent the next twenty to thirty years constantly seeking upgrades.

Meanwhile I've met a number of people who got off the bandwagon and bought a dirty great big pair of quality loudspeakers. From the likes of large ATC, Tannoy, JBL et al. Almost all of them pretty much immediately got off the upgrade ladder and just started enjoying and appreciating their music. Many have lost interest in the "hobby" entirely and now enjoy their music whilst focusing on sport or photography.

A lesson to be learned there?
Click to expand...
The thing missing from the hierarchy at the time was environment.

Small dinky loudspeakers are invariably more sensitive to placement/installation to give their best, and their best tend to be a long way behind grown up loudspeakers plonked almost anywhere in a room because they tend to be more forgiving.

Anyone seriously interested in hifi could do a lot worse than take the time to find/build/modify a home that has good acoustics.
 
CliveGrace said:
I like what I have. I feel very lucky in some ways to be where I am and constantly feel I don't deserve any of it
Click to expand...

Yeah, obviously.

That's because you have... oh, hold on, I've forgotten what it is you have, for the time being. Maybe you could remind me. Is it those awful, ported, active speakers, which are quite obviously no good at all? The ones that don't come up on wiki or Google? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top