Talk:Dual CS 714 Q

Hello, to my modification of the models of the same series the following.

The Dual brothers Steidinger named their turntable and record changer series with the four-digit changers after the first two numbers, e.g. 12XX, or 10XX.

For the three-digit changers, the first number indicates the series, e.g. 721, 704, 714 etc. are the seven-digit series, all of which were Dual's reference units at the time and all of which were direct drive.

A 522 for example, is a belt drive unit, belongs to the 5 series and was not a reference unit. That's why I changed that in my version.

The designation CS refers to the player in conjunction with a corresponding frame and is not a type designation.

To my knowledge, the current listing, which has been changed again, is not correct, the commonality of the listed units refers to the years of manufacture 1979 - 1981, but not to the series.

However, please explain why it has been changed again.

--Giradischi 18:32, 2 Jan 2007 (CET)

By models of the same series I mean the models that were in the range at the same time as this model. With the CS 714 Q just the CS 731 Q, CS 650 RC, CS 626, CS 606 etc.. For the CS 741 Q the CS 728 Q, CS 627 Q, CS 617 Q, CS 607, CS 528 etc.

A CS 750 and a CS 701 are more than 10 years apart and are neither visually nor technically comparable, even if they both have a type designation that starts with 7.

When I look at a turntable and want to know which model from the "series" is the next smaller or larger model, I don't get anywhere with the systematics "7-series", "6-series" etc.. The next smaller model from the 714 Q is the 650 RC, but I can't find it in the "7 Series" system.

By the way, it is not true that all 7s have direct drive and were the top model. The CS 750 and CS 750-1 have belt drive and they were not the top model! Above the 750 there was the Golden 1, Golden Stone and Silver Stone. And at the time of the CS 5000 there was no 7 leno, the CS 5000 was the top model and the next smaller model was the CS 630 Q.

Greetings Roman

The designation is a bit ambiguous I'm afraid I have to admit.... From me it was meant like Roman said, so to classify the corresponding device performance-wise (smallest model -> top model of a "vintage"), similar to e.g. here Pioneer SX-424. -- Gero 15:54, 3 Jan 2007 (CET)

Hello,

to understand the matter better, you need to know a little about the Dual history. The first 7 was the 701, that was in 1973. The 721 was the logical progression in 1976, along with its semi-automatic brother, the 704. In 1979 came the 731Q with semi-automatic 714 Q. Why I go so far: These are all machines from Dual-Gebrüder Steidinger, which I also noted under manufacturer: Dual-Gebr. Steidinger. In 1982, Dual-Gebrüder Steidinger went bankrupt and the irrevocably last unit of the 7 series from Steidinger, the 741Q, was released one year before, in 1981. The units mentioned here were all! top models from the house of Gebrüder Steidinger and all are direct drive models (EDS 1000; EDS 1000/2; EDS 900; EDS 920; EDS 930).

Dual then went to the French company Thomson Brandt, which launched the CS 5000, a belt-driven model, in 1985. On this basis, another top of the range model, the Golden one is launched in 1987. Of course, there was no 7 series at that time, because the company Gebrüder Steidinger had long since ceased to exist and because the further development of the large direct drives was no longer worthwhile, after all, the CD had been around for a few years.

Then Schneider took over the reins and launched the CS 5000, the CS 750 and then the CS 750-1, the designation probably meant to remind of the former top devices of the traditional company. Strictly speaking, these are already 7s, but they have nothing to do with the 7s from Steidinger, because they are basically CS 5000s. The last top models are the 1991 Golden Stone and Silver Stone, which cost about 3000 DM. Nevertheless, the CS 5000s and their further developments are counted among the 7s on most websites, or there is no separate category for them.

So I mean, if I'm looking for the next smaller model of the 714Q, it might be the 650 RC, but it's not part of the 7 series. That's how it is handled in all internet forums and Dual collector sites.

Look for example here: http://hometown.aol.de/alflanger/

So I wouldn't recommend to build up a WIKI-specific classification here, that just confuses.

Common is for example with cars like BMW also the designation 7 series and 5 series. The 5 series is the smaller 7 series, but nobody would count the 5 series to the 7 series.

No offence. Greetings Peter

--Giradischi 20:26, 3 Jan 2007 (CET)

You should make things consistent across manufacturers here on the wiki. And there it is this systematic. The "7s", "6s" etc. system already doesn't fit with Dual's hi-fi equipment. Sometimes the top model of the amplifiers was called CV 1600, sometimes CV 1700, sometimes CV 1450, sometimes CV 440 etc.. The system should be identical for all device groups including turntables.

And whether the turntable is from the Steidinger-era, the Thomson-era, the Schneider-era or from Fehrenbacher is of interest only to Dual freaks, but not to the broad mass of HiFi enthusiasts. They are only interested in the fact that the device says "DUAL" on it.

Greetings Roman

I don't think you should generally label the masses as not being interested in (even historical) details. I think that the person who informs himself about Hifi-Wiki already has to decide for himself what he is interested in. That's why I think it's important to provide as objective and comprehensive information as possible. It can't be the task of the authors of a database to decide what people are interested in and what they are not. What is sold today under the name Dual is cheapest mass-produced goods, with the exception of Fehrenbacher products. For this reason alone, differentiation is important.

Incidentally, here in Hifi-Wiki under the entrepreneur profile Dual in short form also refers to the company history.

The fact that devices of a series, which are produced over 10 and more years, have different designations according to the series code number (7xx) is probably compellingly necessary, otherwise one could not differentiate them. In 1973 the top model was the 701, in 1979 it was the 731Q. But today the 701 is still the top model from 1973 - that's history, which even Hifi-Wiki can not turn upside down, because it is based on technical progress.

The fact that devices from different series, which Dual had in their range from 1979 to 1981, for example, are thrown together into one series at Wiki may be understood by anyone who wants to, but certainly not a Dual freak and also not the broad masses. If this is common practice at Wiki, then I don't understand the whole system. Someone who informs himself here at Wiki and then comes across a Dual collector's page, he really doesn't understand anything anymore.

Greetings Peter

--Giradischi 17:38, 4 Jan 2007 (CET)

This system has already proven itself. There have been questions in various HiFi forums, for example, which is the larger model of the series to which the CS 528 belongs. And then the correct answer is CS 628 (or as semi-automatic CS 607) and not e.g. CS 530.

With a 7, 6 etc. System no normal person can find out the bigger or smaller models of the same period.

I personally don't care much about the history of a make either. A CV 440 comes from the Thompson era, but that still doesn't make it bad, in fact it is, next to the CV 441, the best integrated amplifier ever to bear the Dual logo.

Incidentally, some Dual players are almost identical in construction despite clearly different designations, for example the aforementioned CS 528 with the CS 1268. The 1268 has only the automatic record changer more. If one would now claim that the two units belong to a different series, this might be true for the type designation, but not technically. Both devices even have a common service manual.

Greetings Roman

I can see what you mean. But the correct way is to look for the next smaller series. The next smaller series to the 7 is the 6 series. Then, starting from the 714Q, I come to the 650RC, the turntable of the smaller series that was in the range during the same period.

The crux of the matter is that this is the dual program 1979-81. So Wiki makes a single series out of all the units in that program. Very informative!

In the program 1977/78 e.g. the changers and players CS 430; CS 1224; CS 1225-1; CS 502; CS 510; CS 601; CS 1249; CS 704; CS 721 are represented. All devices of one series.

Have I understood this correctly now?

Greetings Peter --Giradischi 20:19, 4 Jan 2007 (CET)

I think you can satisfy both sides despite the different views. I'd like to keep the division by devices as it is (because of comparability with models of the same vintage). A division according to model series (7xx, 12xx, etc) as Peter prefers can already be found on the overview page (Dual Turntable), there you can also enter additions or comments on the different series.

Both are certainly information that could interest a visitor, and I think we should not give up one of them in favor of the other. -- Gero 10:06, 5 Jan 2007 (CET)

True, I hadn't thought of that either. On the record player/disc changer overview page, the devices are listed in ascending order by type. And there you can see which 7 or 6 turntables were available. At the device itself then all devices that were in the program at the same time period, so that you can jump directly to the chronologically matching larger or smaller model.

Greetings Roman

OK. probably the expectations of Hifi Wiki users are different than I thought. Or maybe I really am too much of a dual-insider. Just one more suggestion:

Why not like this?

Comments

Other models from the 1979-1981 vintages:

• CS 506
• CS 522
• CS 606
• CS 626
• CS 650 RC
• CS 714 Q MC
• CS 731 Q
• CS 731 Q MC

There you would have the different series staggered by size and the comparison within a Dual program (here 1979-1981). That would combine both requirements into one and you wouldn't have to abandon one in favor of the other. In my opinion, it would be less misleading and clearer than before.

I just mean, if not it is also ok.

Greetings Peter --Giradischi 17:49, 5 Jan 2007 (CET)