advertisement


Amazing Troughline, first variant.

calorgas said:
It's a lovely looking thing and great that it also performs well (within its constraints).

I have a Quad FM1 sitting on the shelf that I bought mainly because I like the look of it, but I do have a little mono valve 'n speaker combo in the loft and one day when I have some spare money I'd like to get them all serviced and installed in my bedroom. One day.
Click to expand...

I was given a Quad FM1 and a friend built a power supply and decoder for it.
I was amazed how good it sounded, but moved on to an FM4.
I’ve a recollection someone on PFM bought it.
 
Martyn Miles said:
I was given a Quad FM1 and a friend built a power supply and decoder for it.
I was amazed how good it sounded, but moved on to an FM4.
I’ve a recollection someone on PFM bought it.
Click to expand...

I had half a dozen of these... wasn't impressed. I had a decoder etc etc. Ended up selling them on cheaply. Still have an original Quad stereo decoder for one of these....

I've yet to try my Troughline like the one in the thread but the best all valve UK tuner I've tried in terms of sound quality was the Rogers switch tuned ones. Worse than the quad or Leaks in terms of sensitivity and selectivity but they do sound very good. Wide frequency range and good dynamics from memory.
 
I have had Quad FM3 and a mate had an FM2 that I sold, cheaply, on his behalf. I should have kept the FM2, it sounded lovely. I do like the Troughline 3 as a mono tuner, I have a stereo one too but the Leak decoder isn't great.
 
Strange that others seem to like the Quad FM1/2 (FM2 is FM1 with built in stereo decoder).... I've had several of both and been unimpressed. At least Quads decoder is much better then the awful Mullard one in the Leak! IMHO a stereo Troughline is unusable as the decoder is so bad it makes it sound like an AM radio....

I should maybe point out that when I seem harsh on much vintage gear it's maybe because I compare performance to today's standards.... something that does a reasonable job, has no obvious distortion or noise but just seems rather "muddy" or "shut in" or obviously hasn't got much below 50Hz or above 12KHz will get a resounding "unimpressive" from me...

Unless collecting vintage gear for its historic significance, or for retro looks, or to preserve it for the future, I see little point in gear which works well enough but would be trounced by a modern budget offering from Richer Sounds for £89....
 
Arkless Electronics said:
Unless collecting vintage gear for its historic significance, or for retro looks, or to preserve it for the future, I see little point in gear which works well enough but would be trounced by a modern budget offering from Richer Sounds for £89....
Click to expand...

...that will likely sound thin, forward and etched (as so much modern kit does), will have been made with cheap Chinese labour in horrible conditions, will be full of dreadful capacitors that will likely pop within a couple of years along with non-replaceable LCD displays, bespoke logic arrays etc, and will have zero lasting value in the unlikely event it actually escapes landfill.
 
Tony L said:
...that will likely sound thin, forward and etched (as so much modern kit does), will have been made with cheap Chinese labour in horrible conditions, will be full of dreadful capacitors that will likely pop within a couple of years along with non-replaceable LCD displays, bespoke logic arrays etc, and will have zero lasting value in the unlikely event it actually escapes landfill.
Click to expand...

It will outperform most vintage kit though. Where did I mention longevity, repair-ability or working conditions? Strawman argument there...
There are very few vintage items of the performance of the ESL57, more that perform very well and are "practical classics" but not that difficult to beat with modern kit (Stereo 20 and Quad 303 for example:D) and many more still that will give entertainment but easily beaten by even budget modern gear (Quad 33, Troughline, Quad FM1/2....).

FM tuner wise the Leak Stereofetic is a sleeper. Still very cheap to buy, reliable and sounds good.
 
Martyn Miles said:
I was given a Quad FM1 and a friend built a power supply and decoder for it.
I was amazed how good it sounded, but moved on to an FM4.
I’ve a recollection someone on PFM bought it.
Click to expand...

Martyn - That was me; and I still have & use it :) and actually, as a pre 'QUAD' Acoustical FM1 - that makes it rather over 60yrs old now.
The psu I'm afraid cooked itself out in very short order, so I built another. It sounds lovely still a decade or so later; I still have the large bag of spare valves you generously provided - because none have needed changing! I removed the stereo decoder and just run it in mono in preference.

I liked it so much I found a mint(and working) AM2 just to look at/fondle - I don't use it, but they remain a simply lovely bit of industrial design:

AM2.jpg
 
martin clark said:
Martyn - That was me; and I still have & use it :) and actually, as a pre 'QUAD' Acoustical FM1 - that makes it rather over 60yrs old now.
The psu I'm afraid cooked itself out in very short order, so I built another. It sounds lovely still a decade or so later; I still have the large bag of spare valves you generously provided - because none have needed changing! I removed the stereo decoder and just run it in mono in preference.

I liked it so much I found a mint(and working) AM2 just to look at/fondle - I don't use it, but they remain a simply lovely bit of industrial design:

AM2.jpg
Click to expand...

Ah yes some of the pile of those I flogged were "Acoustical"! I believe the AM ones are much rarer...
 
Arkless Electronics said:
It will outperform most vintage kit though. Where did I mention longevity, repair-ability or working conditions? Strawman argument there...
There are very few vintage items of the performance of the ESL57, more that perform very well and are "practical classics" but not that difficult to beat with modern kit (Stereo 20 and Quad 303 for example:D) and many more still that will give entertainment but easily beaten by even budget modern gear (Quad 33, Troughline, Quad FM1/2....).
Click to expand...

All depends on your perspective and personal definition of “perform”. I walk round modern audio shows with the ability to buy much of what I see should I wish to, but end up sitting there feeling that what I have just kills it. I just do not like the aggressive tipped-up sound of so much modern audio, it just doesn’t sound like a piano, string quartet or jazz band to my ears, let alone what I remember from the many studios I’ve visited over the years. My guess is I am nowhere near as deaf/treble recessed as most audiophiles these days in what is clearly an ageing market!

I suspect the only thing we actually agree on are that Quad 57s are fine things, and it always makes me giggle that someone so obviously touting for business spends their life slating and slagging off classic audio kit on a leading classic audio site! How’s that working out for you?
 
martin clark said:
Martyn - That was me; and I still have & use it :) and actually, as a pre 'QUAD' Acoustical FM1 - that makes it rather over 60yrs old now.
The psu I'm afraid cooked itself out in very short order, so I built another. It sounds lovely still a decade or so later; I still have the large bag of spare valves you generously provided - because none have needed changing! I removed the stereo decoder and just run it in mono in preference.

I liked it so much I found a mint(and working) AM2 just to look at/fondle - I don't use it, but they remain a simply lovely bit of industrial design:

AM2.jpg
Click to expand...

Thank you, Martin.
Memory stimulated.
I remember selling it to you...
 
Most more recent tuners treated MW and LW as an afterthought. They could have done much better with distortion and filtering, but could not be bothered
 
Arkless Electronics said:
Strange that others seem to like the Quad FM1/2 (FM2 is FM1 with built in stereo decoder).... I've had several of both and been unimpressed. At least Quads decoder is much better then the awful Mullard one in the Leak! IMHO a stereo Troughline is unusable as the decoder is so bad it makes it sound like an AM radio....

I should maybe point out that when I seem harsh on much vintage gear it's maybe because I compare performance to today's standards.... something that does a reasonable job, has no obvious distortion or noise but just seems rather "muddy" or "shut in" or obviously hasn't got much below 50Hz or above 12KHz will get a resounding "unimpressive" from me...

Unless collecting vintage gear for its historic significance, or for retro looks, or to preserve it for the future, I see little point in gear which works well enough but would be trounced by a modern budget offering from Richer Sounds for £89....
Click to expand...

I don't think that will apply as much with tuners Jez. I'm willing to bet that after alignment a Yamaha T-2/T-85, Kenwood KT-917 or L-1000T, Audiolab 8000T, any Accuphase tuner, or a Pioneer F-91, just to give a few examples, will outperform many of the few recent tuners made in the last 10 years. Some of the Japanese tuners from the mid 70s-late 80s were truly excellent, and were designed and built when a tuner was an important part of an audiophile's system. Since this thread's subject is a tuner, I thought it was worth pointing out.
 
I took the Troughline for servicing yesterday. To a friend of a friend. He is officially retired but still works on old valve equipment, as he said, to keep it going as well as when new.

It should be ready in two or three weeks, and I'll report back.

The thread has proven interesting to me to read the various strands of opinion. For myself, I admire and love any first quality [back in the day] old school equipment - be it my classic English steel framed road cycle, or anything music replay related ... I would love to have a fifty year old car. So easy to work on and fettle, but the cost is too high for parts so often nowadays. About twenty years ago I completely rebuilt a 1941 Royal Enfield military dispatch motor cycle. It took a couple of years, and in the end I never had it MOT'ed. A friend really wanted it and he got it on the road within a fortnight! Still going as far as I know!

It was certainly not a profit making effort!!!

In that case the pleasure was to do the work rather than really aim to use it. M/cycles really scare me on the road, though it was great fun on the meadow at the time.

I expect this to be my last expenditure on replay as such, except for servicing what I have. Few people seem to really find replay that they like well enough to stop looking over the hedge at the latest and greatest novelties, and also endless tweaking.

I am not too worried that the resultant replay probably does not measure as well as its modern counterparts, because the quality is exactly what I want from replay. "Unimpressive" is exactly what I want. Put some Bach on the player, or listen to a good live radio relay of a concert, and simply be drawn into the music. Not be "impressed" by the bass slam or the perfect high frequency response or the dynamics. Rather the old kit makes for a domesticated version of a concert, such it it is easy to live with the knowledge that the neighbours are hardly going to be disturbed by it! And yet un-erringly draw the listener towards the music rather than its own "impressiveness."

All the best from George
 
Last edited:
PS: Mind you, I don't think of a 1957 made Troughline with its variable volume control acting directly onto a Quad II Forty and then a 1957 made ESL could be called anything other than a very fine radio set! As the old boy said of it, "That will be a very fine wireless when it goes back together."

The suitable complement for my Audiolab MDAC as my digital source ...
 
Nick_G said:
I don't think that will apply as much with tuners Jez. I'm willing to bet that after alignment a Yamaha T-2/T-85, Kenwood KT-917 or L-1000T, Audiolab 8000T, any Accuphase tuner, or a Pioneer F-91, just to give a few examples, will outperform many of the few recent tuners made in the last 10 years. Some of the Japanese tuners from the mid 70s-late 80s were truly excellent, and were designed and built when a tuner was an important part of an audiophile's system. Since this thread's subject is a tuner, I thought it was worth pointing out.
Click to expand...

I count all of those as modern!!!! Yes Japanese tuners from the late 70's early 80's are the best that were ever made and will never be beaten now FM is not a priority for manufacturers.
 
Work has started. Some parts on order, and then to really get it finished.

I am full of anticipation!

Best wishes from George
 
I am interested by your mono plan, George - especially with a digital front end. I want to try an open baffle speaker, but could not accommodate a stereo pair in my small room, so had been thinking about trying mono. Our musical tastes seem to be similar. Two questions:

How (if at all) will you convert the stereo output of your DAC to mono?

Given that current recordings are mixed with stereo presentation in mind, do you anticipate using tone control or DSP somewhere in the line to make them sound satisfying through a mono system?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top