Name a 'beautiful' amplifier.

[Darmok]

7 pages in, and more of the same-old same-old, and precious little innovation.

Radford STA23/3

Frequency Response 20 Hz-60 KHz

Tis why the Radford STA25/3 wiped the floor with all the other competitors in the review below...

Future Without Feedback? Martin Colloms, January, 1998 ………………………………………………………

As a reviewer for some years, I have tracked the swings of opinion and popularity of various audio ideas and technologies. Amid a sea of advanced designs that achieve powerful technical performance and laudable specifications, I'm reminded of a major blind listening test of 18 power amplifiers that I set up for the long since-defunct UK magazine Hi-Fi for Pleasure back in 1975. We had "advanced technology" then: the transistor amplifier had matured and was well accepted by audiophiles. Prices of the review samples ranged from $300 to $3000 (equivalent to $1000-$10,000 in today's dollars). The auditioning sessions were graced by the presence of many industry leaders, among them the late Spencer Hughes of Spendor, Julian Vereker of Naim, Philip Swift then of Audiolab, Alan Harris then of retailer Audio T., Bob Stuart of Meridian, and John Wright of IMF (now TDL in the UK). On the suggestion of Alan Harris, a serious tube amplifier fan, I introduced a ringer to those tests: an ancient (over 10 years old) 25Wpc tube amplifier, the Radford STA-25 III, worth perhaps $100 at the time on the used market. I used a selection of master tapes as the source. When the results of the blind test were analyzed, the tubed Radford had come in first, despite showing the poorest measured performance. (Needless to say, its second-hand value soared after the review appeared.)

https://www.hificritic.com/uploads/2/8/8/0/28808909/classic-sc3-future_without_feedback.pdf

A little more persuasion...

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/Radford/revisited.html

 

[Ali T]

Electronluv. Completely bonkers but I love it.

 

[Darren L]

Straight out of Flash Gordon ^^^

 

[foxwelljsly]

Me too! Maybe not beautiful (IMO), but simple, intuitive controls, and something different from all the black or silver. This is my stack:

I had a a Nad monitor series Tuner for years. One of the best am/fm tuners I've ever used, could drag a great stereo signal out the air with a coathanger and sounded fabulous.

 

[foxwelljsly]

FWIW, IMHO, Quad and Braun made same nice looking boxes but few other hi fi boxes belong in a nice looking living room.

 

[stevec67]

Radford STA23/3

Frequency Response 20Hz-60Hz

Tis why the Radford STA25/3 wiped the floor with all the other competitors in the review below...

Future Without Feedback? Martin Colloms, January, 1998 ………………………………………………………

As a reviewer for some years, I have tracked the swings of opinion and popularity of various audio ideas and technologies. Amid a sea of advanced designs that achieve powerful technical performance and laudable specifications, I'm reminded of a major blind listening test of 18 power amplifiers that I set up for the long since-defunct UK magazine Hi-Fi for Pleasure back in 1975. We had "advanced technology" then: the transistor amplifier had matured and was well accepted by audiophiles. Prices of the review samples ranged from $300 to $3000 (equivalent to $1000-$10,000 in today's dollars). The auditioning sessions were graced by the presence of many industry leaders, among them the late Spencer Hughes of Spendor, Julian Vereker of Naim, Philip Swift then of Audiolab, Alan Harris then of retailer Audio T., Bob Stuart of Meridian, and John Wright of IMF (now TDL in the UK). On the suggestion of Alan Harris, a serious tube amplifier fan, I introduced a ringer to those tests: an ancient (over 10 years old) 25Wpc tube amplifier, the Radford STA-25 III, worth perhaps $100 at the time on the used market. I used a selection of master tapes as the source. When the results of the blind test were analyzed, the tubed Radford had come in first, despite showing the poorest measured performance. (Needless to say, its second-hand value soared after the review appeared.)

https://www.hificritic.com/uploads/2/8/8/0/28808909/classic-sc3-future_without_feedback.pdf

A little more persuasion...

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/Radford/revisited.html

Thank you for making my point for me. I asked for innovation, and you come up with a design that wasn't new 55 years ago. In a thread about beauty, you show us something that looks like a fridge with valves.

I'm not saying it's not a good amplifier, it's a classic and one of the greats. However it is not beautiful, and whatever innovations it may have boasted in the late 60s they are hardly relevant today.

Are you a member of the BSA owners' club?

 

[linnfomaniac83]

Nait 2 the only Naim CB model with an illuminated logo, 33 years old and doesn't look out of place with time.

Yes, those look superb!

 

[Jono_13]

Nice! Was momentarily tempted too...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bang-Olu...d=link&campid=5338728743&toolid=20001&mkevt=1

I had no idea about that listing!

 

[herb]

Metaxas power amp. The rest of the range is equally bonkers.

 

[linnfomaniac83]

There seem to be three schools of audio design; a) don’t try at all (lazy black boxes with no discernible aesthetic design or ergonomics), b) get it right, which is anything from vintage Braun, Quad, Lescon, B&O, Meridian, silver-face Pioneer, Marantz, chrome-bumper Naim etc, and c) try way, way too hard and fail catastrophically, e.g. all the hideous oligarch bling-fi Daytona600 is posting. Some of it looks like the design team was Donald Trump and Homer Simpson FFS!

As ever good design tends to be form dictated by function and ergonomics. That has never changed and just because it is incredibly easy to CNC bizarre shapes does not make it a good idea! The best audio design is a real asset to any room and timeless IMO, e.g. you could put say a Pioneer SX980 or a Quad 34/306 in any room decor and they would look great IMO. Same with a lot of proper vintage valve power amps (Leak, Quad, McIntosh etc) as they are beautifully executed form dictated by function design.

Black boxes can be done right, these will never age in my opinion!

 

[paulfromcamden]

@linnfomaniac83 - username checks out

 

[linnfomaniac83]

@linnfomaniac83 - username checks out

That’s the tip of the iceberg!

 

[paulfromcamden]

Except lots of iconic designs don't follow function. An Alessi lemon squeezer is useless

@Tony L did say good design not iconic! The Alessi lemon squeezer is indeed iconic but, as you point out, more commonly used as a kitchen objet d'art than for squeezing lemons

 

[chartz]

Metaxas power amp. The rest of the range is equally bonkers.

Uuuugly!
Steve Jobs.

 

[paulfromcamden]

Metaxas power amp. The rest of the range is equally bonkers.

You're not kidding!

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Metaxas power amp. The rest of the range is equally bonkers.

Ahem

 

[Ian Austen]

 

[Tony L]

@Tony L did say good design not iconic! The Alessi lemon squeezer is indeed iconic but, as you point out, more commonly used as a kitchen objet d'art than for squeezing lemons

The best audio is both. I’ll cite a couple of examples from my own kit:

Thorens TD-124. Introduced in the late-50s and has every feature you could possibly want for playing records: all four speeds, pitch adjustment, strobe, a clutch for easy record changing/broadcast fast start, a built-in adapter for ‘dinked’ 45s (it just pops up), a built in spirit level for levelling along with easy to adjust levelling edge-wheels, arm board removable from above so you can swap arms in five minutes tops (assuming you have the next arm ready mounted on another board).

The SME arm is just as radical. That is the point easy tracking weight adjustment, bias, VTA, azimuth etc all came together with coherent design and did so in a beautiful timeless way that still looks modern (the original Series I was introduced in 1959, the one on the deck is from the late ‘60s).

Form, function, ergonomics. Everything is there for a reason, yet it is pulled off with the form and grace of a Henry Moore sculpture. It astonishes me how much we have forgotten since this time. So many modern decks are just horrible ergonomically IMO.

I’ll go back to the Leak TL12 Plus I mentioned upthread. It is a mono valve amp. Everything that it needs to function as a mono valve amp is out on display in a totally honest, yet aesthetically pleasing manner. Mains and output transformers, smoothing capacitor and valves along with an input socket. 100% form dictated by function, yet it doesn’t look like a piece of lab gear.

The underside is an object lesson in good logical electronic layout and long-term serviceability. It comes with a schematic in the manual and is the very definition of ‘Right To Repair’. This is exactly what good design looks like. I can’t imagine much if any of today’s kit will be serviceable in 60+ years, let alone as desirable as either of these items!

 

[paulfromcamden]

I can’t imagine much if any of today’s kit will be serviceable in 60+ years

Sadly I agree. I'm hoping my point-to-point soldered Croft amp will outlive me. Though it's looks are are more understated and utilitarian than beautiful.

 

[Marchbanks]

Thank you for making my point for me. I asked for innovation, and you come up with a design that wasn't new 55 years ago. In a thread about beauty, you show us something that looks like a fridge with valves.

I'm not saying it's not a good amplifier, it's a classic and one of the greats. However it is not beautiful, and whatever innovations it may have boasted in the late 60s they are hardly relevant today.

Are you a member of the BSA owners' club?

I have to say I find the Radford SC22/STA15 rather beautiful too. But then I think this is the most beautiful car ever made, so I’m obviously way out of my depth in the 21st century!