Signals & Noise (Letters to Editor) (Feb. 1995)

Brand-Similarity Recognition

Dear Editor:

Ever since A/V receivers have been on the market, I have noticed how similar many models look, regardless of their brand. But now I'm wondering if there's more to it than meets the eye.

Last fall, I purchased a Pioneer VSX D602S receiver. When I saw the "Equipment Profile" of the Optimus STAV-3400 in the April 1994 issue, that unit's uncanny resemblance to my Pioneer made me realize this was way beyond the A/V receiver similarities I'd seen in the past.

Except for the "Power" switch, every single thing on the front panels of the two models was identical, even down to the tiny gold buttons for surround mode, the display, and all the specs. But what really got me was your photo of the STAV-3400's remote, which is exactly my remote but for the word "Optimus" replacing "Pioneer." Can you tell me what gives? Did Pioneer buy from Tandy [parent company of Optimus] or vice versa? Did some other manufacturer crank these products out with no name plate, ready to sell to whoever wanted them? If that is indeed the case, how many other distributors are selling this fine instrument, perhaps having more cleverly disguised it?

-John R. Peterson; Pleasant Grove, Utah

Editor's Reply:

The odds are that Pioneer built the Optimus for Tandy. Considering the companies involved, it's unlikely (though not impossible) that some third manufacturer built both. And it's very likely that the remote handsets came from yet another company.

Nobody--even companies big enough to build their own ICs--builds everything from scratch. Companies routinely buy parts (capacitors, line cords, knobs), sub assemblies (tuner modules, tape or CD transports), or even entire components from other companies. Unless you plan to make a heap of something, it's cheaper to buy it from outside-and selling it outside helps raise production to the economical "heap" stage.

A company's own-brand products and what they sell to others aren't always identical, however. Buyers often specify circuits and features that they want added or omit ted to suit their own markets or price points; suppliers sometimes withhold proprietary circuits and features to maintain a marketing edge. Such differences may or may not show up in specs-and identical products may have slightly different specs if, for example, one company chooses to rate an amplifier at a very low distortion point while another rates it at a distortion level higher up the curve in order to claim a few more watts.

As for the remote, such ancillary devices are very commonly purchased from specialist companies. For example, I've noticed strong similarities between the re motes of a Luxman surround decoder and a Denon tuner, which have nothing else in common.

The odds are, no one is selling a better disguised version of your unit; front-panel tooling costs are high.-I.B.

Tube Sources

Dear Editor:

I inherited a Hallicrafters TW-500 four-band radio from my grandfather. It contains tubes with the following markings: 1V5, 3V4, 1V4, and 1L6. All of the tubes are imprinted "Hallicrafters." Do you know of a source for such tubes or a place that can test them? Additionally, I would be interested in hearing from any reader who has (or knows where I can obtain) the instruction or repair manual, preferably both. Only the AM band appears to pick up any stations, and I would like to restore the unit to working condition, for sentimental reasons.

-Steven Tadlock

1080B Cold Stream Circle

Emmaus, Pa. 18049

Editor's Reply:

Our own "Classified Advertising" section carries ads for tube purvey ors. In a recent issue, I saw ads for the following:

AccuTech Audio, 87 Church St., East Hartford, Conn. 06108; 203/290-8979.

BWS Consulting, 5609 North 23rd St., Arlington, Va. 22205; 703/536-3910.

Michael Percy, Box 526, Inverness, Cal. 94937; 415/669-7181.

Sonic Frontiers, 760 Pacific Rd., Unit 19, Oakville, Ont., Canada L6L 6M5; 905/847 3245.

Some other tube purveyors that I know of include:

Antique Electronic Supply, 6221 South Maple Ave., Tempe, Ariz. 85283; 602/820 5411.

ARS Electronics, P.O. Box 7323, Van Nuys, Cal. 91406; 818/997-6279.

New Sensor, 133 Fifth Ave., New York, N.Y. 10003; 800/633-5477.

I can't guarantee that any of these sup pliers will have the tubes you seek, as I don't think I've ever seen these tubes used in audio, as opposed to radio, circuits. We are therefore running your letter, in hopes someone will be able to help.

If the radio picks up the AM broadcast band as is, it's likely that the tubes are working, though perhaps not well. The radio might be able to pick up other bands if you added a proper antenna. Check your local library for books on short-wave or amateur radio, or get a book catalog from the American Radio Relay League ( Newington, Conn.).-I.B.

AM Bandwagon

Dear Editor:

As a longtime fan of AM broadcasting, I have been delighted with the number of letters in this column expressing interest in the subject. Unfortunately, just as interest in nighttime listening of those clear-channel powerhouse stations seems to be in creasing, we are now witnessing the trashing of the entire AM band by the FCC at the behest of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).

In spite of the fact that in many markets across the country there are far too many AM (and FM) stations splitting the advertiser's dollar, the FCC has accommodated virtually every rule change proposed by the NAB to allow ever more stations to be licensed in a given market. Approximately 10 years ago, new "short-spacing" rules were adopted that allow nighttime co-channel stations to operate on the same frequencies as those of the traditional clear-channel stations. For example, a station licensed here in Denver may operate at night on the same frequency as Chicago's WMAQ, effectively ending the latter's status as a clear-channel broadcaster.

Is the public interest truly being served by this "whoring" of the AM broadcast band? Only if the present situation of stations going bankrupt and off the air is. Only if the proliferation of cheap, shoddily produced programming with maximum shock value to suck in listeners is. And only if the lousy technical quality of broad casts (due to maximum compression techniques, overmodulation, or even lack of routine maintenance) that are designed to sound loud, and nothing more, on a Walkman is.

An unfortunate fact also appears to be that as more and more clear-channel stations are bought up as leveraged investments by corporate conglomerates, they are no longer interested in the out-of-town listener who doesn't show up in the all-important Arbitron surveys that make or break a station in terms of what can be charged for an ad spot.

In order to save what's left of the AM band, there's little listeners can do but write their favorite clear-channel station be it KNX, WBAP, WLW, or WCBS-and tell them they do have listeners in the sticks and that those listeners buy their advertised products. I'd also suggest writing the FCC (Chief, Mass Media Bureau, FCC, Washington, D.C. 20554) and telling them that the trashing of today's AM broadcast band is a consequence of the Commission's actions. A copy of listeners' correspondence sent to the head of the House of Representatives' Telecommunications Committee might be helpful.

The NAB, like any kid, has gotten all the candy it wants at the FCC for years, and as a direct result, the broadcast industry is sick. More public involvement in decision-making is long overdue.

-Bill Kleronomos; Lyons, Colo.

Buy for the Sound, Not the Name

Dear Editor:

I am one who loves music. My library is home to Eric Clapton, John Mayall, B.B. King, Ray Charles, Benny Goodman, Art Blakey, The Mills Brothers, and many more. Reproduction of such music is, for me, fascinating. Trial and error, with time, has been an excellent instructor. Appropriate literature answers questions of how and why. My music system today is excellent the best system I have owned, the best sys tem I have listened to.

In years past, my living room, and my ears, have grown familiar with names such as Yamaha, Sony, Altec Lansing, Dual, JBL, Kenwood, Nakamichi, Akai, Tandberg, Bose, etc. For the most part, a very pleasant experience. For the most part. Here and there, not so pleasant. To be specific . . .

Sony and JBL. In one word, pitiful. Looking back, my mistake is easy to find: Sony and JBL were judged by my eyes, not my ears. I bought the name, not the sound.

The common magazine, such as Audio, endorses these brand names 100%. Consumer, buy the component for the sound, not the name.

- Lawrence O'Connor; Norman, Okla.

The Editor-in-Chief's Reply:

Mr. O'Connor, I think you mean we endorse Sony and JBL. Curiously, prior to an item that appeared in last month's "PlayBack," we had not done a review of a JBL product for at least two years. In any case, we agree with your motto: Buy for the sound, not the name-or the looks.

-E.R

Reel-to-Reel Request

Dear Editor:

I want to thank you for the superb magazine you publish month after month. You offer almost everything: New product re views, interviews, technical help, critiques of new and old CDs of various types of music, and questions and answers for various audio problems.

For years I've been trying to locate an Akai 1722W reel-to-reel, and any Ampex machine with a built-in amp and detach able speakers. My first recorder was a Radio Shack 909 reel-to-reel. Obsolete? Of course! Nostalgic? Definitely.

Hence, one area I wish you would discuss occasionally is reel-to-reel equipment and tapes. They were the backbone of the industry until recently. By adding this, you would truly cover all audio from cover to cover, with no publication able to touch you. I know many others still love those reel-to-reels.

Nevertheless, I deeply appreciate your magazine, as it is enjoyable to read and relieves me of the stress I experience as a pas tor. Thank you very much!

-Don Vincent; Bald Eagle St., Box 203 Blanchard, Pa. 16826

Kudos to Boston Acoustics

Dear Editor:

I recently ordered from Boston Acoustics a replacement woofer for my A70 Series 1 loudspeaker system. I was told it was out of stock and would have to be manufactured-but I was perfectly willing to accept this, since a year ago I went through a similar situation.

I had ordered the same part through the service department of Pittsburgh's most established audiophile retailer and waited for more than two months to receive the item. They gave numerous excuses, and when the woofer finally arrived at the shop by UPS, it was severely damaged. The shop was more than an hour from my home, so it was frustrating to have to make yet another trip to pick up the next woofer. The shop was unwilling to ship the woofer to my home and made no apologies for the inconveniences.

When the woofer in my other A70 went down (the speakers are more than 10 years old), I called Boston Acoustics directly. I ordered the item, delighted to hear it would arrive at my home within a week.

When the speaker did not arrive, I called about its status. I was told it would have to be manufactured, and the service representative assured me that the situation would be addressed promptly.

Three days later, the woofer arrived via UPS overnight delivery, and I noticed that it had been manufactured just two days previously. Furthermore, Jeff Litcofsky, customer service supervisor, enclosed a note stating the item would be free of charge. I was astonished.

In my experiences as the director of a private university's audio/visual center, I have dealt with many electronics companies and repair centers. I am always befuddled by major manufacturers spending in ordinate amounts of capital on their public image, only for it to be destroyed by care less repair shops. I encourage all readers to take the bull by the horns and deal directly with the manufacturer, not with these re pair shops.

It is quite refreshing to encounter a company that truly cares about its customers and is willing to do whatever it takes to make them happy. Boston Acoustics, you've a friend and customer for life.

-Mark Wydareny; Pittsburgh, Pa.

Manuals Wanted

Dear Editor:

I have several pieces of equipment for which I don't have owner's manuals. I was hoping your readers could help me obtain them. The equipment is as follows: dbx: SNR-1 single-ended source noise-reduction system, 1BX-DS one-band dynamic range expander, and 120X-DS sub-harmonic synthesizer.

SAE: Two P10 power amplifier and Two PAIO preamplifier.

I would appreciate any help. Thank you.

-James T Jones; 969 Broadhead Lane St. Louis, Mo. 63138

DCC: No Love Lost

Dear Editor:

I'm sorry to read that the Philips DCC system is selling poorly-but it doesn't surprise me. With only 45 minutes of continuous recording time before there is an audible gap while the system changes direction, DCC is essentially useless for live recording. This was incredibly shortsighted engineering. A small digital buffer would have allowed 90 minutes of gap-free recording. Why Philips failed to include such a buffer is beyond me.

-Norm Strong Seattle, Wash.

[...]

( Audio magazine, 02/1995)

= = = =