It's a pity that this comparison or A/B test must be listened through the "bottleneck" of such a low sampling frequency-low bitrate mpeg audio channel that Youtube offers, because this conditions makes completely useless the test.
The typical "gliiliilgliii" of variable bitrate mpeg recordings or streamings coming from beats between high frequencies from program signal and sampling frequency masks differencies at all.
You are so lucky to can hear both great machines "in situ" during A/B test.
yup you can hear the digital embarrasement on the dash!! anyone not hearing that chunk of sound put together on a bit limited frequency range needs real speakers, monitors or ears. In the studer you can hear everything right on it's place in sound frequency, in digital you get all the sounds invading eachother to get a fair psace in that limited virtual place of I/O's. listen to the vocal reverb and echo and stereo wide range, it would be even more evident if there was a drums in the recording.
I love your demonstrations. I do find it odd that one with such an affinity for antique tape recorders generally likes the most digital of all digital productions (sampled dance music).
I also think live sound would be the way to go (a drum kit and sax) but to the folks out there, do this at home! didn't you notice that Youtube sound is crap????
if the STUDER is in original condition then the comparison is useless, the difference between a recapped machiene and an original is HUGE!!!, i've recapped a few machienes myselve and all i can say is that the charactaristics of the STUDER will change DRASTICALLY, 16khz should wound like a nice silver layer on top of the music , pretty much the same as the SONY but softer, PSU recap is also VERY important, is this your machiene?
I do agree, this machine could do with a capping, the PSU is noisy and there is a lot of hiss from the amps once they warm up, its one of thoes projects I havent got around to yet.
For even a chance to hear any difference you have to start with original quality way better than a 16 bit 44.1kHz sampled CD. Even an analog LP will give better quality than a 16 bit CD. Maybe an SACD would be a better original for comparison.
For even a chance to hear any difference you have to start with original quality way better than a 16 bit 44.1kHz sampled CD. Even an analog LP will give better quality than a 16 bit CD. Maybe an SACD would be a better original for comparison.
Most records roll off at 16KHz due to limitations of their design, both these machines are mastering machines which are used to make records from so the only real rue test is a live source though a high quality microphone. I will be doing a video sometime this year which will feature a live recording, but even then the limitations are with the compression of Youtube, cant win!
@thomhidd , why do you say you'd need much more than 16/44.1 at the source to be able to hear any difference, sounds like you are assuming the Sony is more capable than that. But isn't the Sony's limit just the same:16/44.1? I understand that there is always a minor loss, even with the finest recorders, but your sentence made me aks for some clarification, which I would appreciate. Thank you.
@thomhidd On the other side, definitions like "much more" or "much better" sometimes may make some confusion; someone may even be lead to believe that a machine which needs "much more" in order to deliver "the same" is less than ideal. It may make believe the Sony is not that precise: if it needs much clearer information from the start in order to output with good fidelity, than i might be not as hi-fi. But it's hard to think so about the Sony. Although none of my DDD cds sound good.
@thomhidd ... or you were saying that just because the older Studer can't reach the same frequency response, in which case I perfectly understand your point and agree that in order to hear a difference, we need a source that at least actually carries any difference that a recorder may show against the other.
Try being a professional musician for 44 years and then listening.
Piece of cake,double blind,triple blind,quadruple blind.What valves does the C37 take?The sonic signature of the machine will be dependent on the tubes,caps and resistors,to a large degree.
@raanan17 I agree. I can hear the differences on my Imac speakers!!.... but then again I do this for a living. Know what to listen for !! Dont get me wrong - I actually thing the Sony format was good too - just not in the same way. If you want the sound of the C37 - then thats what you need to use!
The Studer had nicer sounding mids. You really couldn't notice until the "jump cut" toward the end where the vocal and instrumentation were louder. . I'd still like to have a DASH machine tho. Its gonna be a forgotten format before too much longer.
It is almost impossible evalutate the difference here due to digital compressed formad used in you tube. The only thing I can hear is that revox has a more round reproduction, that sound sweeter at my ears. Sony is more sharp. Peraphs a better test should be done with live music recording, CD's just sound digital by theirselves! Nice video. Do you have any information about EMI 1950's portable recorders? I have here a pair, one with valves and other transistorized, and I like to restore...
Thank you! there is very little difference once Youtube has added its compression but at a later date, I should be able to do a HD video test. The EMI's, I have almost all the different ones, the ones you speak of are more than likely the L2's and the RE321's (Or an L4), lovely machines, check my other videos and you will see them.
Hard to tell listening on YouTube with crappy headphones. Did notice a subtle difference in the Studer's low end. Its a good thing... Dynamic range seems a little sweeter on the Studer, easier on the ear.
I did do a blind test, had the speakers in another room, out of 5 people, 1 thought the C37 was the master, 3 couldnt tell the difference but one worked them all out saying the Sony sounded as sharp as the original where the Studers dynamic range was warmer but at the same time not as accurate, these tests were performed over many different recordings and source, including one from mic of a guitar player and some speech.
While it's fun to see these vintage machines working, anyone who thinks they can make a meaningful comparison of the audio performance is kidding themselves. The audio here is compressed AAC digital at 125 kbps, and can't come close to providing the full fidelity of either recorder.
Also, by using a redbook CD as the original source (16bit 44.1 kHz), you aren't even close to exploiting the full performance of the analog machine.
A direct recording of a live performance would be more meaningful
Interesting comparison, I could not hear much difference. It would good to hear the test with some more dynamic music. Youtube has really improved and uploads everything in stereo now with an optional High quality link to it.
tape actually usually sounds better than cds, so the quality on the tape recorder cant get any better than your original source, so the tape will sound identical to the cd. also its difficult to tell the difference between the two machines because youtube audio is so compressed, however i bet both machines sound excellent, however the sony seems to have some nice usability features that would makes it a much nicer unit in a studio.
Cheers, I find these all over the place, the DASH was off Ebay, of a shady character, the C37 came from a private studio, I often get offered machines like these, I just cant take everything.
I could't really tell the difference, but if you uploaded a wav PCM file it would probably be better.
The Studer was probably designed for vinyl record production and the Sony was probably designed for CD production. Which makes it a bit like comparing a vinyl record to a CD.
If you could get a source which was 24 bit rather than 16 bit, the Studer would probably sound better.
Thank you for this video! I'm from Russia, I love analogue machines and would buy Studer C37, if not for it's large sizes. I remember there was a "compact" version of C37.
Yes, C37 sounds much warmer and more realistic that Sony. I have Studer A710 and ReVox G36, and I can say that they left CD well far behind.
Great machines, and great test, but i think, the studer is better. Maybe this test would be more interesting, if the source is a high(er) definition ( 96 or 192khz) sound. Sorry for bad english
What kind of tape can the C37 use? I finally got mine in and I'm looking to try it with the new +9 formulations, like the SM900 or ATR Magnetics tape, but I think that might be wishful thinking for the electronics.. what's been your experience?
I like both machines but ultimately the warm and saturated sound of analogue will always be my pick. I have various reel to reels myself and would love to try the Sony DASH 3402 someday. I have a Tascam 52 Omega loop direct drive Reproduce/Recorder, but I like your Studer C37. Wow what a machine. My pick listening on my audio system the Studer C37.
Cheers, the C37 is something else, the Sony DASH is still here, and faulty, I have given up for now with keeping it working and aim to get a second or third 3403 and make the best out of them, once I have done that I will probably use it more.
Hi Seblington, it appears that the Dash presents a relatively 'isolated' top end range whereby the C37 sounds more musically integrated and overall more 'embracing' - and this even through the sonically limited Youtube outlet. The above phenomena shows quite often when switching & listening between digital & analogue sound carriers. P.S. Nice piece of music! Excellent taste!
I hear dry grain in the sony, although well detailed and, just slightly more hollow than the Studer, which punch, presence and air surrounding a more fluid sound. VERY well done. Thanks for sharing this!!!
the studer sounds more lifelike realistic and thick the sony sounds like a good recording. as good as youtube can be im sure. i listened 3 times back to back thru beyer dt770p. i would love to have either. nice kits.
How on earth you all think you can hear the characters of these machines is beyond me though. This is a youtube video, 90% of what im hearing is the audio compression alg used to make the video.
Not to mention that it seems like the machine output levels arent matched either, the sony being louder than the studer. I love how people form such strong opinions based on these hugely flawed tests.
Maybe the C37 sounds better because it looks better? it's very difficult to hear a difference between the two machines especially on YouTube but when you hear the live recordings made which have not been re digitized, there is a noticeable difference between the two recorders and in the end of the day both sound amazing, it's all down to preference really, digital clarity or warm valves.
Interesting video Stuart. I used to use the C37's at LBC in London before we upgraded to the A810's - and indeed at Trident recording studios in the late 70's. Lovely machines - All the Genesis recordings done at Trident would have been mastered on them. Thanks for reminding me!
WOW! I just did this AGAIN, this time thru my JBL 4311's, and the Sony is way harsh, and the Studer sounds like it has a slight High Freq roll off. Kick ass for 1961, tho. Studer wins again! The Sony is HARSH beyond tolerance.
Though its through this web-site........I can hear a slight high frequency distorting on the Sony where as the Studer duzn't seem to have it....it seems a little richer.
Studer had more character. Sony on the other hand was closer to cd sound - more neutral. Great comparison video. These posts are fun to watch and listen!
Say, what's the model of that Technics power amp with the huge VU meters? It looks a lot like one I repaired back in high school for a teacher. Bloody thing weighed a ton! MASSIVE toroid transformer. Awesome vid, BTW. I enjoy all your RTR vids, as usual. :)
Nice video again! I think there is a little difference between the STUDER and the SONY. The STUDER sounds in my opinion a bit "warmer" as the SONY. The SONY seems to be something louder and more clear in the highs... I'm curious about other opinions!
You need to to listen on headphones you can hear the difference much more clearly and for me the Studer wins hands down. I agree it would benefit from the replacement of a few of the capacitors, it will make all the difference as might checking the actual anode load resistors might be way out of spec and a change of valves might make a whole heap of difference as well.
This has been flagged as spam show
Skvělý přístroj.Vždy jsem si ho přál mít. A teď ho mám. Je ve skvělém profi stavu. Pásků mám taky hodně,tak už se těším na toho mazlíka.
Pity153 5 days ago
It's a pity that this comparison or A/B test must be listened through the "bottleneck" of such a low sampling frequency-low bitrate mpeg audio channel that Youtube offers, because this conditions makes completely useless the test.
The typical "gliiliilgliii" of variable bitrate mpeg recordings or streamings coming from beats between high frequencies from program signal and sampling frequency masks differencies at all.
You are so lucky to can hear both great machines "in situ" during A/B test.
Germannio 4 months ago
yup you can hear the digital embarrasement on the dash!! anyone not hearing that chunk of sound put together on a bit limited frequency range needs real speakers, monitors or ears. In the studer you can hear everything right on it's place in sound frequency, in digital you get all the sounds invading eachother to get a fair psace in that limited virtual place of I/O's. listen to the vocal reverb and echo and stereo wide range, it would be even more evident if there was a drums in the recording.
washysama 9 months ago
I love your demonstrations. I do find it odd that one with such an affinity for antique tape recorders generally likes the most digital of all digital productions (sampled dance music).
wado1942 9 months ago
I also think live sound would be the way to go (a drum kit and sax) but to the folks out there, do this at home! didn't you notice that Youtube sound is crap????
DESUBICA 10 months ago
great test thank you!
lol i'm probably the only one who prefer the DASH :D
all say the Studer sound have more saturation, warmth and punch, ok but for me the DASH sounds more real, clean and clear....
sorry for my crappy english
gbiHighContrast 11 months ago
if the STUDER is in original condition then the comparison is useless, the difference between a recapped machiene and an original is HUGE!!!, i've recapped a few machienes myselve and all i can say is that the charactaristics of the STUDER will change DRASTICALLY, 16khz should wound like a nice silver layer on top of the music , pretty much the same as the SONY but softer, PSU recap is also VERY important, is this your machiene?
capstancappy11 1 year ago
I do agree, this machine could do with a capping, the PSU is noisy and there is a lot of hiss from the amps once they warm up, its one of thoes projects I havent got around to yet.
Seblington 1 year ago
@capstancappy11 16khz at 240p is almost imposable to hear anyway
Threemicsrecords 9 months ago
Didn't hear any difference (listened through Tascam VL-X5).
Parkinson9999 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For even a chance to hear any difference you have to start with original quality way better than a 16 bit 44.1kHz sampled CD. Even an analog LP will give better quality than a 16 bit CD. Maybe an SACD would be a better original for comparison.
thomhidd 1 year ago
For even a chance to hear any difference you have to start with original quality way better than a 16 bit 44.1kHz sampled CD. Even an analog LP will give better quality than a 16 bit CD. Maybe an SACD would be a better original for comparison.
thomhidd 1 year ago
Most records roll off at 16KHz due to limitations of their design, both these machines are mastering machines which are used to make records from so the only real rue test is a live source though a high quality microphone. I will be doing a video sometime this year which will feature a live recording, but even then the limitations are with the compression of Youtube, cant win!
Seblington 1 year ago
@thomhidd , why do you say you'd need much more than 16/44.1 at the source to be able to hear any difference, sounds like you are assuming the Sony is more capable than that. But isn't the Sony's limit just the same:16/44.1? I understand that there is always a minor loss, even with the finest recorders, but your sentence made me aks for some clarification, which I would appreciate. Thank you.
donpirla 2 weeks ago
@thomhidd On the other side, definitions like "much more" or "much better" sometimes may make some confusion; someone may even be lead to believe that a machine which needs "much more" in order to deliver "the same" is less than ideal. It may make believe the Sony is not that precise: if it needs much clearer information from the start in order to output with good fidelity, than i might be not as hi-fi. But it's hard to think so about the Sony. Although none of my DDD cds sound good.
donpirla 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
donpirla 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thomhidd ... or you were saying that just because the older Studer can't reach the same frequency response, in which case I perfectly understand your point and agree that in order to hear a difference, we need a source that at least actually carries any difference that a recorder may show against the other.
donpirla 2 weeks ago
Try being a professional musician for 44 years and then listening.
Piece of cake,double blind,triple blind,quadruple blind.What valves does the C37 take?The sonic signature of the machine will be dependent on the tubes,caps and resistors,to a large degree.
The SONY looks great,until you listen to it.
raanan17 1 year ago
@raanan17 I agree. I can hear the differences on my Imac speakers!!.... but then again I do this for a living. Know what to listen for !! Dont get me wrong - I actually thing the Sony format was good too - just not in the same way. If you want the sound of the C37 - then thats what you need to use!
narcoman2 1 year ago
The Studer had nicer sounding mids. You really couldn't notice until the "jump cut" toward the end where the vocal and instrumentation were louder. . I'd still like to have a DASH machine tho. Its gonna be a forgotten format before too much longer.
Gtrtech 1 year ago
@Gtrtech .... then you should have been at the Sony Whitfield sell off a couple of years ago. You could have had one for £50.
narcoman2 1 year ago
What song is that? I like it.
swollenpickle09 2 years ago
It's called Say You Don't Mind by Colin Blunstone from 1972.
PJDooWop 1 year ago
It is almost impossible evalutate the difference here due to digital compressed formad used in you tube. The only thing I can hear is that revox has a more round reproduction, that sound sweeter at my ears. Sony is more sharp. Peraphs a better test should be done with live music recording, CD's just sound digital by theirselves! Nice video. Do you have any information about EMI 1950's portable recorders? I have here a pair, one with valves and other transistorized, and I like to restore...
tetrodobeam 2 years ago
Thank you! there is very little difference once Youtube has added its compression but at a later date, I should be able to do a HD video test. The EMI's, I have almost all the different ones, the ones you speak of are more than likely the L2's and the RE321's (Or an L4), lovely machines, check my other videos and you will see them.
Seblington 2 years ago
I agree with tetrodobeam on basically all of that.
16mmDJ 2 years ago
Comment removed
btown2011 2 years ago
what is the top unit on top of the amp? and how did you boost up the output.
btown2011 2 years ago
It's pretty hard to tell with youtube's audio compression...
invalidbuffalo 2 years ago
i heard that youtube was mono still.
btown2011 2 years ago
Hard to tell listening on YouTube with crappy headphones. Did notice a subtle difference in the Studer's low end. Its a good thing... Dynamic range seems a little sweeter on the Studer, easier on the ear.
DangerousBastard 2 years ago
the studer sound more natural!... *listened with a reference headphone*... I know youtube is also digital. .but def.. the studer!
paranormaalutrecht 2 years ago
I did do a blind test, had the speakers in another room, out of 5 people, 1 thought the C37 was the master, 3 couldnt tell the difference but one worked them all out saying the Sony sounded as sharp as the original where the Studers dynamic range was warmer but at the same time not as accurate, these tests were performed over many different recordings and source, including one from mic of a guitar player and some speech.
Seblington 2 years ago
I'm musician I can tell you that analogue sounds is far better in the basses and the s sounds. .
Also with these recordings.. the s sounds are much, much better on the studer!!!
paranormaalutrecht 2 years ago 2
agreed
toth1971 2 years ago
While it's fun to see these vintage machines working, anyone who thinks they can make a meaningful comparison of the audio performance is kidding themselves. The audio here is compressed AAC digital at 125 kbps, and can't come close to providing the full fidelity of either recorder.
Also, by using a redbook CD as the original source (16bit 44.1 kHz), you aren't even close to exploiting the full performance of the analog machine.
A direct recording of a live performance would be more meaningful
gotham61 2 years ago
cassette could still be in use had it be developed to take up ONE lp side on a "c30"!
and as if that wasnt trash enough they had to invent cd, dcc, minidisc...
another very interesting thing is the dynamic compression of lps!!
synttalk 2 years ago
Interesting comparison, I could not hear much difference. It would good to hear the test with some more dynamic music. Youtube has really improved and uploads everything in stereo now with an optional High quality link to it.
fhussain44 2 years ago
i can still here the whine on the dash.
btown2011 2 years ago
how can you possibly compare the studer if it's got leaky caps!!
fix it and do the test again with an analog unrecorded source recording to both machines at once!
acortot 2 years ago
tape actually usually sounds better than cds, so the quality on the tape recorder cant get any better than your original source, so the tape will sound identical to the cd. also its difficult to tell the difference between the two machines because youtube audio is so compressed, however i bet both machines sound excellent, however the sony seems to have some nice usability features that would makes it a much nicer unit in a studio.
pastryhat 2 years ago
Great demo, I certainly couldnt tell the difference under the test conditions at least.
Studer c37s were still very much in evidence at BBC radio Manchester in the 80s.
I wonder where you found all of this gear? I can remember when the first ¼in DASH machines appeared in the 80s and they were hugely expensive.
olli7776 2 years ago
Cheers, I find these all over the place, the DASH was off Ebay, of a shady character, the C37 came from a private studio, I often get offered machines like these, I just cant take everything.
Seblington 2 years ago
I could't really tell the difference, but if you uploaded a wav PCM file it would probably be better.
The Studer was probably designed for vinyl record production and the Sony was probably designed for CD production. Which makes it a bit like comparing a vinyl record to a CD.
If you could get a source which was 24 bit rather than 16 bit, the Studer would probably sound better.
bumtownv2 2 years ago
Thank you for this video! I'm from Russia, I love analogue machines and would buy Studer C37, if not for it's large sizes. I remember there was a "compact" version of C37.
Yes, C37 sounds much warmer and more realistic that Sony. I have Studer A710 and ReVox G36, and I can say that they left CD well far behind.
Vladislaw81 2 years ago
Great machines, and great test, but i think, the studer is better. Maybe this test would be more interesting, if the source is a high(er) definition ( 96 or 192khz) sound. Sorry for bad english
nadix001 3 years ago
What kind of tape can the C37 use? I finally got mine in and I'm looking to try it with the new +9 formulations, like the SM900 or ATR Magnetics tape, but I think that might be wishful thinking for the electronics.. what's been your experience?
ceridwenmarian 3 years ago
never use atr tape it sheds!
btown2011 2 years ago
got an a80 plus ferrograph test set if anyone fancies buying
christians1 3 years ago
I would be, I will send you a PM
Seblington 3 years ago
I like both machines but ultimately the warm and saturated sound of analogue will always be my pick. I have various reel to reels myself and would love to try the Sony DASH 3402 someday. I have a Tascam 52 Omega loop direct drive Reproduce/Recorder, but I like your Studer C37. Wow what a machine. My pick listening on my audio system the Studer C37.
vincedog3 3 years ago
Cheers, the C37 is something else, the Sony DASH is still here, and faulty, I have given up for now with keeping it working and aim to get a second or third 3403 and make the best out of them, once I have done that I will probably use it more.
Seblington 3 years ago
Hi Seblington, it appears that the Dash presents a relatively 'isolated' top end range whereby the C37 sounds more musically integrated and overall more 'embracing' - and this even through the sonically limited Youtube outlet. The above phenomena shows quite often when switching & listening between digital & analogue sound carriers. P.S. Nice piece of music! Excellent taste!
®©
PyePye7 2 years ago
Gorgeous track. Gonna buy the CD.
albertusj 3 years ago
...fantastic
Shurbovi 3 years ago
Cheers!
Seblington 3 years ago
Many people say the same, the C37 sounds even better in real life.
Seblington 3 years ago
yeah the studer is better
GUTZY1989 3 years ago
I hear dry grain in the sony, although well detailed and, just slightly more hollow than the Studer, which punch, presence and air surrounding a more fluid sound. VERY well done. Thanks for sharing this!!!
toastyplatters70 3 years ago
which *has* punch, lol...Yeah, I am very taken by the sound of that Studer :)
toastyplatters70 3 years ago
As it has already been written, it is very hard to tell from youtube video, but:
C37 has more breath (if I can say), the sound has beauty, while PCM is more detailed and focused.
It would be fine to record a live session (simply with a stereo mic pair) with both machines, and then make a comparison.
Anyway interesting video, especially for the youngsters. Respect.
dubware 3 years ago
sony seems to have a fraction more middle then the C37, but then what do I know.
LF0 3 years ago
the studer sounds more lifelike realistic and thick the sony sounds like a good recording. as good as youtube can be im sure. i listened 3 times back to back thru beyer dt770p. i would love to have either. nice kits.
djchrisdubs 3 years ago
Cheers! I love both these recorders, the C37 though is one I prefer.
Seblington 3 years ago
Thanks for the vid, v interesting.
How on earth you all think you can hear the characters of these machines is beyond me though. This is a youtube video, 90% of what im hearing is the audio compression alg used to make the video.
Not to mention that it seems like the machine output levels arent matched either, the sony being louder than the studer. I love how people form such strong opinions based on these hugely flawed tests.
Long live audio opinion.
moogus8000 3 years ago
Maybe the C37 sounds better because it looks better? it's very difficult to hear a difference between the two machines especially on YouTube but when you hear the live recordings made which have not been re digitized, there is a noticeable difference between the two recorders and in the end of the day both sound amazing, it's all down to preference really, digital clarity or warm valves.
Seblington 3 years ago
Interesting video Stuart. I used to use the C37's at LBC in London before we upgraded to the A810's - and indeed at Trident recording studios in the late 70's. Lovely machines - All the Genesis recordings done at Trident would have been mastered on them. Thanks for reminding me!
cransley 4 years ago
WOW! I just did this AGAIN, this time thru my JBL 4311's, and the Sony is way harsh, and the Studer sounds like it has a slight High Freq roll off. Kick ass for 1961, tho. Studer wins again! The Sony is HARSH beyond tolerance.
turntablesrock 4 years ago
Though its through this web-site........I can hear a slight high frequency distorting on the Sony where as the Studer duzn't seem to have it....it seems a little richer.
GOOD STUFF
MATE
CHEERS
producer73 4 years ago
Cheers!
Seblington 4 years ago
hi
in our student radio we have a J37 and C37 (quiet few of them) but actualy, only 2 C37s are working :(
i would love to make them all work, especially the J37, but most of them are only suitable for spare parts (only torso, switches, motors are left)
if you have a information source like schemes, spare part dealers or so, if you be so kind and send it to me.
the more of these wonderful machines are saved today, the better ;)
very nice vid
deekaysk 4 years ago
Hello, will send you a pm
Seblington 4 years ago
Studer had more character. Sony on the other hand was closer to cd sound - more neutral. Great comparison video. These posts are fun to watch and listen!
Thanks Seblington.
satinlaama 4 years ago
Cheers! i must do some more vids soon.
Seblington 4 years ago
great video!
i would go with the studer any day!
it got that magic tape glue ...
just got myself a studer a271.
not quite what you have.
but more easy to use and it spices digital mixes very nice.
have a great day!
don
ozorg 4 years ago
Cheers! you too!
Seblington 4 years ago
I would have to say that the Studer wins hands down. My replay system was a fully refurbed Onkyo TX-4500 and Acoustic Research AR-4x speakers.
GREAT JOB, as usual!
turntablesrock 4 years ago
Cheers! I would love to get a second Sony and Studer to make the ones I have better (Noise no the capstan on the Sony and paint job on Studer).
Seblington 4 years ago
Say, what's the model of that Technics power amp with the huge VU meters? It looks a lot like one I repaired back in high school for a teacher. Bloody thing weighed a ton! MASSIVE toroid transformer. Awesome vid, BTW. I enjoy all your RTR vids, as usual. :)
Orcinus24x5 4 years ago
The Technics is the 900s Reference, I have 3 of these stereo blocks, I like the big meters :-)
Seblington 4 years ago
Nice video again! I think there is a little difference between the STUDER and the SONY. The STUDER sounds in my opinion a bit "warmer" as the SONY. The SONY seems to be something louder and more clear in the highs... I'm curious about other opinions!
technikfans 4 years ago
Cheers! its hard to tell on these videos, I tried to keep the volumes the same to make the tests fair.
Seblington 4 years ago
You need to to listen on headphones you can hear the difference much more clearly and for me the Studer wins hands down. I agree it would benefit from the replacement of a few of the capacitors, it will make all the difference as might checking the actual anode load resistors might be way out of spec and a change of valves might make a whole heap of difference as well.
Stevie342000 4 years ago
Thats something I will do soon, with so many projects on though it may take a while to getting round to replacing the caps.
Seblington 4 years ago