advertisement


what really happened during the late 70s early 80s in the hifi press

@Tony L - a bit off topic, but for all your talk of 63s, how come you’ve never tried a pair? I’m really at what I consider end game now with mine and the simple mods I’ve done, certainly within their currently small operating space - they now sound better than I remember them in a larger space in Dublin I had prior to this.
 
I wonder if 3D printing might make some designs possible now, that were previously too difficult to manufacture?

There is a lot of interesting technology coming through in other fields for sure, e.g. the first thing I thought when I heard about graphene was ‘planar speaker membrane’!

PS I do really think that if you design a box with a tweeter, mid, bass unit or whatever in it you’ve already failed. There is just no way around the phase and timing issues of that layout. Concentric drivers obviously improve matters significantly, but there is still a real issue getting the time domain right, plus most are served up in ported boxes, so another massive compromise right there.

@Tony L - a bit off topic, but for all your talk of 63s, how come you’ve never tried a pair? I’m really at what I consider end game now with mine and the simple mods I’ve done, certainly within their currently small operating space - they now sound better than I remember them in a larger space in Dublin I had prior to this.

I’ve never owned a pair, but I’ve heard them many times over the decades since they were introduced so do know their strengths and weaknesses well. To be honest the original ESL (57) is the one still on my bucket list as I’ve wanted a pair since I was about 13! Again I’ve heard lots over the years so understand their strengths/weaknesses. One of those components that if a genuinely mint boxed fully-working pair came up at the right price I’d likely take a punt.

My problem with both is the lack of dynamics and scale compared to the Tannoys (or other big efficient horns). I love them, but the LS3/5As or JR149s actually get very close to their core skillset to my ears. At the moment I really like having that contrast between systems. The next issue is where the hell would I park the Tannoys if I bought another main-system speaker?! I have a feeling I’m where I am until I need to rationalise stuff when I eventually retire to a smaller house.
 
Growing in the 70s and early 80s, I loved HiFi from a young age, my dad had a passion, so I guess I got it from him.

Reading the press in the Uk, Garrard 401 (idle driven) was bad, Linn LP12 was the best turntable, Japanese Direct Drive was ok, but belt driven and 3 point suspension was really the only way to go.
....

Thoughts?
Going back to the original question, I remember the late 70s and early 80s as an impressionable hi-fi buyer with lots of time to read magazines and little money to buy equipment.

Some magazines like Practical Hi Fi and Hi Fi News & Record Review were quite neutral. They just reviewed equipment in an matter-of-fact way. There were others like Popular Hi Fi and Hi Fi Answers that, as far as I remember, preached with great enthusiasm and conviction a fairly narrow route to nirvana. One of them had a “ladder” which got brought up in response to every query. They were so enthusiastic and convincing that it had to be the right approach. In the area I could afford it involved an A&R A60 on one rung and the Nytech CTA 252 on the next one up. On the turntable ladder it went Rega Planar Two, Planar Three on the next rung and LP12 on the top. It was a short ladder, though, and pretty much every system ended up being recommended with an LP12. There were similar ladders for speakers. Naim appeared but at the time they were out of my budget and (I thought at the time) looked terrible. Later when I heard a Naim system at a dealer it sounded like it would be better used to strip the wallpaper off the walls. Other makes didn’t really get a look in. They reviewed other equipment but you had to buy the models on the ladder. I wish I could go back and read the mags I had at the time (No, I’m not going to buy them at the high prices being asked on Ebay). I remember a friend buying a TD160 and thinking that this was an example of failure. Utter nonsense, of course, but I believed it and couldn’t see I was being manipulated. When I bought a new system at Grahams Electrical in 1979 they sold the products on the ladder so I was reassured that this was the correct way. I didn’t follow the ladder completely though – the LP12 was far too much money (£299) and went for the Planar 3 instead (£138) which I still have today.

So in answer to the question, blame it on the magazines and certain dealers.
 
Let us not forget that several small companies, in the UK particularly, who were making perfectly good kit, were put out of business, or only just managed to stay trading but at hand to mouth level for years whilst surviving on exports, due to the entire UK hi fi marketing machine for enthusiast gear, driven by the mags of the day, insisting that basically only gear from Linn, Naim, Rega, plus a few things like A & R A60, Nad 3020, Dual 505 etc, were worth considering!

I expect even some long standing makes like Quad and Sugden probably had some fallow years whilst they were untrendy but at least they had a good export performance to keep them going.

The Japanese invasion had already done for many UK brands of course...

If you were running a SME business making a TT or amplifiers you were surely between a rock and a hard place with your home market and beyond. Don't send it for review and miss out on all the publicity, maybe a picture of your TT on the front cover etc... but send it for review and you knew it would get the death knell of being damned with feint praise that "the Acme sounded good in most regards and can be given a recommendation but with the caveat that we felt that the LP12 was just more foot tapping and simply better and for only £35 more than the Acme it is still our firm recommendation in this price range.....blah blah"
 
Some magazines like Practical Hi Fi and Hi Fi News & Record Review were quite neutral. They just reviewed equipment in an matter-of-fact way. There were others like Popular Hi Fi and Hi Fi Answers that, as far as I remember, preached with great enthusiasm and conviction a fairly narrow route to nirvana. One of them had a “ladder” which got brought up in response to every query. They were so enthusiastic and convincing that it had to be the right approach. In the area I could afford it involved an A&R A60 on one rung and the Nytech CTA 252 on the next one up. On the turntable ladder it went Rega Planar Two, Planar Three on the next rung and LP12 on the top. It was a short ladder, though, and pretty much every system ended up being recommended with an LP12. There were similar ladders for speakers.

I’ve got a few of the late-70s & 80s magazines blurred in my mind now and can’t remember exactly which was which, who wrote for what. I haven’t got anything of that era left and I always flitted about buying the one that looked interesting that month rather than subscribing.

IIRC HiFi Answers was the one with all the tweaks & tips stuff, I think that is what I was buying when I was filling my Lenco plinth with plasticine, using twin & earth mains wire for mains cables and speaker cable. It might have been the one that went all Peter Belt and gave me little black stickers to stick on everything. If a tweak was free/cheap I’d likely try it! Was Answers the one where Ken Kessler started raving about Audio Research, Krell and LS3/5As with an AR turntable as source? Then there was Jimmy Hughes who fired his Impulse horns at the back wall for some unfathomable reason. I remember HiFi News being far more middle-ground and detached from fashion, but good, and I bought that fairly regularly too. Practical Hi-Fi was earlier I think, but very good as I recall. I think of that one as a ‘70s mag.

The real fundamentalist wing was Flat Response and later HiFi Review. They were obnoxious and quite funny with it. That was all the ‘Linn Basik better than a Koetsu’, a reader’s letter page advising someone with an Audiolab amp seeking speaker recommendations not to bother as it sounded far better without etc. Utterly obsessed with 80s smooth jazz fusion too, e.g. David Sanborn, Joe Sample, Earl Klugh, Ben Sidran etc. I think that was Chris Frankland. I hated the stuff at the time (I was into new-wave, shoegaze, indie, Krautrock, synth-pop etc), though I do have a copy of Sidran’s Bop City bought out of curiosity (which isn’t bad in its own way, and is a great dynamic recording).

Again I don’t see the ‘80s as the conspiracy some do. Speaking to some dealers decades later it becomes clear that some of the loudest and most paranoid voices from ‘also-ran’ companies actually produced badly made and unreliable kit or didn’t meet supply targets etc. A couple of brands come effortlessly to mind!

I expect even some long standing makes like Quad and Sugden probably had some fallow years whilst they were untrendy but at least they had a good export performance to keep them going.

Judging by the sheer numbers of 34, 44, 306, 405/2, 606 and ESL63s still floating around the UK used market today I suspect Quad did fine pretty much everywhere. SME, Spendor etc too.
 
^^I do remember HiFi Answers being very much on the axis Tony describes here, but Kessler’s obsession with Audio Research, LS3/5a and the rest was HFN&RR as I recall, and a few years later. He also got very excited about Pathos and Gryphon, ISTR.

Jez, I take your point too, but distinctly recall that the Musical Fidelity A1, A100 and A1000 were also very much the darlings of the press, back in the day, and I was personally recommended a Sugden A21 amp by HiFi Answers, in response to a reader query.
 
Some companies are just better at selling & building brand equity. It’s not enough to design & build a good product; people have to want to own it.

Was ever thus.
 
but Kessler’s obsession with Audio Research, LS3/5a and the rest was HFN&RR as I recall, and a few years later. He also got very excited about Pathos and Gryphon, ISTR.

Yes, I’m sure you are right there. I liked KK’s columns, I wasn’t on the same page as him at that time (or maybe ever), but he wrote well, was funny, and I remember quite a few reviews. He was likely a key factor in my buying HFN&RR at that time. I liked that he used little speakers in the nearfield as I always have right from my very first JR149s in the late-70s. That perspective has always been so important to the way I enjoy hi-fi and I bet his LS3/5A system sounded amazing.
 
I don't have much to add to this thread except that when I see the thread title, it always reminds me of:

 
Judging by the sheer numbers of 34, 44, 306, 405/2, 606 and ESL63s still floating around the UK used market today I suspect Quad did fine pretty much everywhere. SME, Spendor etc too.
I keep an eye ope for a pair of ESL63s or later versions, but never see them in Malaysia. Tropical humidity seems to be incompatible. I see plenty of the amplifiers still in circulation.
 
I keep an eye ope for a pair of ESL63s or later versions, but never see them in Malaysia. Tropical humidity seems to be incompatible. I see plenty of the amplifiers still in circulation.

Don't the dust covers protect against humidity?
 
Hot humidity and glue don't mix, so the diaphragms get unstuck. I have not heard ESLs for 30 years now, but I have heard Maggies at exhibitions here
 
I keep an eye ope for a pair of ESL63s or later versions, but never see them in Malaysia. Tropical humidity seems to be incompatible. I see plenty of the amplifiers still in circulation.

That sounds like exactly the recipe for a dead 63, and I’m not convinced the 57 would fair any better! Do Quad import the current range? I assume they use more modern glues etc.
 
In the early 80s Hi-Fi Answers used to bill itself as something like "The technical magazine that solves your buying queries". And it was true, they had articles explaining the technical side of things. However they were also always plugging the Dual/Rega/Linn ladder described above. Slowly the magazine changed, as JMH went Peter Belt and cables became as important as the equipment they connected together... The technical content disappeared and the strapline became "Defines state of the art". I gave up buying it at that point.

You could also see how this viewpoint had steered the readership as letters went from "I have A, B & C and it doesn't sound good, do I need a better amplifier" to "I have A, B & C and it doesn't sound good, do I need to spend more on cables?"
 
Let us not forget that several small companies, in the UK particularly, who were making perfectly good kit, were put out of business,

The magazines weren't the only factor. The big problem was that those in the UK with money to invest in the UK realised that 'property' and 'office space' was more lucrative and reliable than manufacturing. That was why the old Armstrong factory wasn't replaced. The backers took their money elsewhere. Given the lousy state of component manufacture in the UK by then - also due largely to lack of investment - it made financial sense from their POV. Although not for people who lost their jobs.

That said, if the review of the 700 units in HFN hadn't been so absurd the company may well have continued. The two backers would have stuck with it. But the 'review' made them decide it simply wasn't worth further risk or effort.

If you look back at that period you can see various other perhaps good UK items that appeared and then vanished again. Quite possibly for much the same reasons. It's impossible to quantify the damage it did to UK hifi design and making.
 


advertisement


Back
Top