What were considered high end audiophile components in the 50's?

True, Garrard was never considered a high-end product like we see today. Whether or not, you prefer one with a more modern arm is a matter of personal preference. The high-end market started with companied like Linn and Levinson. Whether you like those products, or not...the early 70's is when things started pointing towards the stratosphere.

 

Not True. The High End audio market existed by 1959. What do you think those huge Klipschorn speakers were?
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-276232.html

 

The "high end" was not categorically in existence yet. But in retrospect, we can regard the Klipschorns as high end.

As I understand it, the hi fi market comprised of mostly more affluent professionals who actively searched (and knew where to look) for catalog parts, surplus stuff, and the ready to play audio components. (mix and match turntables, arms, preamps, speakers, separate power supply, etc) Complete systems were not around yet... or not that I am aware of. (the complete systems were the record players and consoles.) If anyone wanted a true high fidelity console, it had to be custom built. Eventually a "mid-fi" market opened up into the "Golden Age of Solid State" from approx. 1969-1979 .. all the wonderful silver-face receivers, Pioneer, Sansui, Kenwood, Sherwood, Sony, etc.

 

Certainly Klipschorns were state of the art speakers. I wouldn't, however, consider them high-end in the same context of what we see today. That doesn't lessen their impact or quality.

 

I'm not sure how you are defining "High End". "High End" should be defined as the more/most expensive component in its class.

That would define the Klips, Altec Voice of The Theatre, Garrard 301, and Scott, Macintosh as High End in their time.

 

While he may not have been employed by the folks selling the most expensive components--I'm a fan of Stu Hegeman http://www.itishifi.com/2011/01/stewart-hegeman-interviewed-by-norman.html

 

Not really.

I already explained where I've read high end, as we know it started.

 

My folks put toghter a system in the 40's with a garrard tt changer 78's only a McIntosh amp 50 or more watt output big push pull, tubes were huge, great superhet tuner in a custome furniture cabinet driving thru a 15" altec lansing speaker in a custom speaker box by a sound enginner my dad new from the Navy. Truly awesome sound I remember we always had to put two of the wood boxes with the 78's in to keep the speaker from walking across the floor when we turned it up for swing or boogie woogie. Had to get another tt when lp's came out to play 78's and 33 mono's. Spent a lot of time listening to radio shows back then too. We had 100's of 78's them still have most of them, one that my folks used to see if the newer stuff was any good was to plaw Artie Shaw's concerto to a clarinet to see if it would produce the last HIGH note ours did most didn't.

Jim

 

That was the beginning of a second era, the "esoteric audio" or "high end" as we know it today, and in that sense was a new phenomenon after 1970. Linn was a turntable vendor whose initial offering (ironically, a clear derivative of the older Ariston table) was marketed under the ageis that the source was the most critical part of the reproduction chain, as opposed to the speakers...which was hi-fi doctrine after about 1970 when solid state reproduction electronics were considered "Perfected" by all "authorities", such as Julian Hirsch, since all now offered measurements equal to or exceeding any commercially available units in the tube era. The John Curl designed ML gear (ML being then famous as a recording engineer and later as the co-author , with ((now, ex-)) wife Kim Cattrall, of what used to be euphemistically referred to as a marriage manual) and other small production, expensive equipment sold in dedicated shops to a select clientele, was distinct from "high fidelity" in that it claimed to provide increased sonic performance in ways not measurable objectively by test equipment. In this it was a new phenomenon.

However, by this definition, companies like McIntosh were not "high end" because they explicitly claimed that the superiority of their equipment was "strictly scientific" due to excellent measured performance and also that their equipment was more reliable, serviceable and longer lived than competitors. For that reason, Mc did not advertise in the journals published by J. Gordon Holt and his successors, who, like Robert M. Parker in the world of fine wines, had come to define what this world of "esoteric" or "high end" audio was.

In that respect, the "High End" world after the late 1970s or early 1980s was distinct from its predecessor, although, with sufficient diligence antecedents can be found before then. There was a small triode cult from the 1950s onward, but the only commercially manufactured such amplifier was the Brook, and that firm-headed by Lincoln Walsh, later the designer of the loudspeaker sold posthumously as the Ohm Walsh driver-was out of business before 1957. Authors such as Curtis Schafer and Charles Boegli (the latter the real designer of the essential concepts used in most or all Audio Research power amplifiers) published triode amp designs into the early 1960s, and Robert Fulton was advocating both triode amplifiers and esoteric cabling ideas as far back as 1970. (These were all for push pull designs using negative feedback, however.) Meanwhile, Julius Futterman marketed and sold (beam power pentode, often TV sweep type) output transformerless, high feedback amplifiers and specifically claimed superiority because the design allowed a lot of feedback as opposed to conventional vacuum tube designs.

Early "High End" products were marketed with the concept that they provided superior musical reproduction over mainstream commercially available products, while still maintaining a high level of measured performance. Audio Research published performance data for their amplifiers that rivaled the scope and methodology of that of McIntosh, and other manufacturers claimed similar results for the most part.

The second era of High End products partially or completely dispensed with claims of high measured performance in favor of subjective listening exclusively. This began with the introduction of commercially manufactured, single ended triode amplifiers running open loop (without feedback), following a flurry of DIY designs introduced in the wake of an article in a DIY publication by a noted antique radio historian bringing attention to the phenomenon in Japan, which had theretofore been absolutely unknown in the United States. I can remember this part of the historical narrative clearly from firsthand observation.

In this regard, the modern high end audio phenomenon has aspects not found in the 1950s, or indeed, up until the 1990s. However, the concept of products offered asserting superior performance and quality via specialized channels of marketing at higher prices than mainstream products is an unbroken one in consumer electronics going as far back as the early days of radio broadcast reception. There will always be a Wal-Mart (Woolworth's, WT Grant, Kresge), a Sears Roebuck, an upscale off the rack clothing store and a custom bespoke tailoring industry, and a Timex and a Rolex.

 

A good article, I only wish he'd put it up as a .pdf.

 

Thank you Burt for the historical synopsis on high end audio. I am on a learning curve for what life was like in the hifi world before 1970. I became a hi fi enthusiast in 1974 at age 21. Before then, we had Dad's RCA SHF-4 hifi set from 1957 (one of the better mass produced consumer sets) and later in my teens a Voice of Music portable record player (the RCA changer had stopped working) I see via the late 50's catalogs posted by "action pact", that various hifi systems were packaged, however the components matched up according to their quality and pricing from various manufacturers. It was later (maybe during the 60's) that complete systems were packaged by the same manufacturer, ie: Kenwood, KLH, Pioneer, etc. But these would be at a more affordable price range. I do recall a complete Linn system advertised in Stereo Review, I think about 1975. The system featured the Linn Sondek LP-12, a minimalist integrated amplifier.. I think no tone controls, and Linn's own speaker system. (built by?)

It was in 1968, I salvaged the 6v6 amp from the RCA SHF-4 hifi set, and speakers to be installed in a pair of solid mahogany cabinets with blue sparkle grille cloth. I built these as a project in high school wood shop and got an A on it. The drivers sounded better to me in the mahogany cabinets than they did in the RCA console, cleaner bass. (the mahogany cabs were rectangular, more ideal for smoother bass resp .. just a stroke of luck.. the orig RCA cabinet square and boomy) The shop teacher would not approve the project citing the cost of the material. What did I know? My parents agreed to chip in $50.00. However my focus was the band and our original material. We needed a good vocal mic, so I traded the mahogany speakers to a neighbor for an EV-664. He got the better part of the deal since the oiled mahogany cabinets were beautiful and large... about the size of a Rectilinear highboy.

That same year, we scraped up some money to buy an open reel deck, a Sony TC-255 that had the ability to record sound with sound. I still have some of the band tapes recorded on that machine. The playback system was a Fender Deluxe reverb amp, and an Ampeg B22X amp, not very hifi. (we later used the Coral PA syst which was near full range) By 1969, I had purchased Jeff Beck "Truth" 7.5 ips reel. Our high school music room had a nice system installed, (I recall with some accuracy) a Pioneer SA-600 amplifier, Bogen turntable, Teac 4010 open reel (I know it was a Teac) and unknown coaxial speakers mounted on the wall in smaller cabinets. I didn't know they were coaxial at that time, but had to be since the cabinets were so small. The system produced great sound. Well, we had the coolest music teacher, Thomas Duane, bless his soul, now deceased. One day before class, I had Jeff Beck playing on the system, the volume turned UP! Kids began filing in, then my poor music entered the room, literally pulling at his hair, shouting, "Turn that down, you're going to blow the speakers"! He was a classically trained pianist, so I suppose that system never reproduced any rock music up to that point, but it sounded great! (the speakers did not blow)

It wasn't until 5 years later I caught the audio bug, thanks to a friend who auditioned his Sansui system.. "Who's Next", side 2.

 

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but I'd say the beginning of high-end audio was the publication of J. Gordon Holt's Stereophile magazine in 1962. Gordon had been a staff writer for High Fidelity magazine in the early 1960s, but quit when a negative review of an advertiser's product had gotten yanked at the last minute, for fear of losing the ads. Gordon vowed to start up a new audiophile magazine that would be ad-free, and thus be spared any editorial influence by advertisers. (Soon after, he did start taking ads anyway, but kept advertising separate from the editorial department.)

Gordon was terrific as a writer but not-so-terrific as a businessman, so after he fell behind in getting the magazine out for a year or two in the early 1970s, Long Island-based newspaper writer Harry Pearson decided to start publishing his own competing magazine, The Absolute Sound. As far as I know, Pearson was the one who coined the term "high-end audio" to characterize costly sound gear made solely for high performance, and it caught on very quickly.

 

No, what I posted is a buyer's guide published in a hardcover book; the consumer would have to purchase the individual components and assemble it at home.

 

OIC

 

Yep, they were a buck more than mono.

 

Did radio stations back then use turntables that were considered High End?

 

What are you talking about?
For one thing Levinson never made a turntable.
The upper end Thorens are more highly regarded than Garrard, but Garrard made some excellent, well-priced turntables.
The Linn-Sondek is a nice TT, old Ivor loves to $500 and $1000 people to death with the various groovy spelled upgrades.

I've been in a room at a Linn dealer where several people oohed and aahed at the upgraded bearing and how the background was "blacker" than before. A black noise floor on a vinyl record?
Please.

TTs are somewhat akin to power amps in that it just doesn't cost a fortune to make a really good one.
AR and several other companies proved that.

 

Many of them certainly, at least when you consider that the same tables done up with some upgrades and heavier plinths are still considered to be high end today by many.

 

A friend of mine's Dad owned a station that played Top 40 in the evening, 1460 on your radio dial, in our little town,
I don't know what brand the 2 TTs were but they had platters that were a good inch in diameter larger than the LPs.
Seemed like the material on top was cork.
I'm sure they were industrial type units that were designed to play for hours and withstand abuse that would make home audiophiles cringe.

 

...and time changes all things. Now, those same audiophiles go on hunts to find those exact turntables... I'd kick grandma in the butt for a Gates CB-500. Yes, I would... hard, too...

 

The heavy duty rim drive Fairchild, Russco, BE, Lenco, Gates/Harris turntables used in broadcasting until the late 70s or early 80s are now of interest to collectors, but with motors and transmissions like those of washing machines and usually high wow and flutter, they generally are not really very good sounding. The same is true of the huge tonearms and "pickups" as cartridges were called.

Most stations went to carts (broadcast cartridge tapes, derived like 8 tracks from consumer 4 track tape but not co-interchangeable) by the mid-80s and tables were used primarily to record the song once on a cart. AOR stations usually played the vinyl live because of longer track lengths and a wider playlist. (Times have changed!) But they went to Japanese direct drive tables sold for home use and disco DJ work because it was cheaper to buy a new one every year as to maintain the old washing machines, which needed frequent greasing, replacement of rubber drive parts, etc. They also no longer needed to deal with 16 inch transcriptions and so forth. That stuff came in on open reel tape.

 

Yes, but if you don't CHARGE a lot people do not take them seriously.

 

http://www.russcoturntables.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektro-Mess-Technik

http://kjq.us.com/turntables.html

http://www.modestoradiomuseum.org/microphone man 6.html

 

It's important to note that JGH probably never would have started Stereophile had not Ed Dell and he been involved in a short-lived but much-loved spinoff of High Fidelity, Audiocraft.

http://www.stereophile.com/historical/712/

Dell was the instigator of the then-considered rebarbative Winter 1966 Stereophile special that in turn inspired Dell to create Old Colony Sound Lab and The Audio Amateur and its multiple spinoffs. There is no question that on a per-subscriber basis that this was the most influential audio magazine in history. In much the way that the Beatles and the Velvet Underground may be said to have inspired a number of successors similar to a first order of approximation while the Beatles sold magnitudes more albums, TAA-never sold at news stands-made at least an equal impact on the thinking of people who actually designed and built stereo equipment as did Stereophile and The Absolute Sound and in some ways more. I am pretty sure that not one word was written in either of the latter publications about single ended triode amplifiers before Dell published Alan Douglas' explosive Tubes In Japan.

 

For the record, I really liked, even admired JGH.
He was never a slave to any audiophile dogma. Whether it be cables or tubes, SS, CD or any other of the audiophile sacred cows.
He embraced 5.1 early on and of course was excoriated for it.
He was always about the sound regardless.
One of the good ones in my book.