From: Richard D Pierce <DPierce@world.std.com>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: Antique Audio Equipment & A Minor Musical Essay
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 09:59:34 -0500 (EST)
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


I replied to this message privately, but I though it was of general interest:

On Sat, 21 Nov 1992, Robert Sczech wrote:
> 
> there is no question that the original posting was simply wrong. However,
> I believe that your response is also exegerated. It is true that modern
> electronics made many measurements possible which were very difficult in
> the fifties. However, this does not mean that every equipment of that 
> time was bad. For instance, I still use at home the original electro-
> static speaker made by Quad. The quality of their valve amplifiers wasn't
> that bad in comparison to modern products. I am sure a similar
> remark does apply to McIntosh amplifiers and other top products of that
> time. 

Mr. Sczech managed to come up with one of the very few exceptions. The
Quad speakers were indeed quite good for their time, and remain a very
isolated example of high-quality work done before 1960. However, the
people at Acoustical Manufacturing, along with a small handful of other
British companines were working closely with researchers at the BBC in an
attempt to design and build accurate reproduction systems. They were one
of the very few counterexamples to the kind of mish-molly engineering I
was talking about.

> The fact that you do not understand how to analyze and calculate
> designs mathematically (on a computer) does not mean that you are inca-
> pable of designing competent products. 

No, what it does mean, though, is that without the tools and knowledge, your
chances of stumbling upon a competent design are seriously reduced. And
even the chances of you knowing that you may have stumbled upon such a
design are handicapped by the lack of measurement and analysis tools
available. Why has stuff advanced? More happy accidents? No, because our
tools and our sophistication has improved.

> The best example might be the art of designing musical instruments where
> past generations despite insufficient knowledge did manage to produce
> excellent instruments. I do not have to quote past famous makers of
> violins and organs in order to make the point.

While I won't dispute the violin argument, I can knowledgably address the
organ point, as I studied organ and worked as a part-time repairmen here
and studied quite a few ancient instruments in Belgium and Holland while I
was there.

It certainly can be argued that by the middle of the 18th century, the art
of organ building throughout Europe had reached a pinnacle, then saw a rapid
decline, descending eventually into what is now considered the nadir of
the immense and unwieldy Romantic and theater period in the early 20th
century. And there is no arguing the fact that the revival of the
instrument led to the near wholesale adoption of the architectural
principles finalized 200 years earlier.

But this, I believe, is quite a different situation then the nostalgic
yearning for antique audio equipment. The organ declined not because of
some technological forces. It declined because the secular orchestra and
the music written for it were now becoming the predominant musical force
across the land, replacing the church as the pre-eminent musical
institution. Yeah, Mozart and Haydn composed masses and requiems, but they
composed far more operas and symphonies. It wasn't long before such music
composed for religious services all but ignored the use of the organ.

Then, with the rush of the industrial revolution and the expansion of the
Western Hemisphere, new demands were put on the organ that simply couldn't
be met: the organ became a substitute orchestra. It led to the wholesale
destruction of the tonal integrity of an instrument once unique unto
itself. It tooks the work of luminaries such as Albert Schweitzer (yeah,
the doctor) and others to revive the understanding of the instrument.

So the old instruments were wonderful, yes, but not because they knew
netter back then, but because their decendents wanted something much, much
different, so the knowledge was deliberately abandoned.

The case with antique audio is much different. We have a very accurate and
detailed record of the past, in the form of technical journals and such,
and these journals clearly show that people didn't have a clue, in most
cases. 

|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX)      |