Given the lack of Heavy Metal of Seattle Grunge audiophile recordings, can adventurous audiophiles still enjoy “unseemly music software” being played on their systems?
By: Vanessa Uy
When the high-end hi-fi market became established during the 1970s, believe it or not, stadium rock from the same era used to hold audiophile demo disc status. Not-so-old-timers (or is that anoraks?) used to remember the time when both rock bands Boston and Heart as the preferred audiophile demo disc. Unlike today where the de rigeur audiophile demo discs are The Ultimate Demonstration Disc: Chesky Records’ Guide to Critical Listening (UD95) or the Stereo Review Chesky Records Gold Stereo and Surround Sound Set-Up Disc (CHE151). But as we enter into the second decade of the 21st Century – hopefully not kicking and screaming – how many of us hardened audiophiles still get enjoyment from playing “mainstream” recordings in our well-sorted audiophile approved audio set-ups?
Believe it or not, veteran audiophiles could easily get bored with their de rigeur audiophile demonstration and test discs. Despite of using them to impress their non-audiophile (civilian?) neighbors and audiobuddies to show how their latest hi-fi tweaks managed to make the recorded sound of the snare and cymbals played on their system sound more real. But how often does he takes out yet again that Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab pressing of Nirvana’s Unplugged in New York when the mood strikes? So hang on to your audiophile demonstration and test discs cause here’s a list of my personal favorite Top 5 Unseemly Audiophile Demo Discs:
1. Gov’t. Mule – Dose; If David Chesky ever wants to release an audiophile quality American Classic Rock album, he should collaborate with these guys and their recording engineer. A very good example of how electric guitar recordings recorded in a recording studio should sound.
2. The Gathering – How To Measure a Planet?; Quite a contrast to the Gov’t Mule’s guitar-based rock because this particular The Gathering album shows how a Gibson Les Paul and Marshall amplifier sounds when played in a Classical Music concert hall as opposed to an acoustically-treated recording studio. Check out the song Travel to know what I’m talking about. Postscript, the band’s recording engineer could have used an excellent sounding digital reverb but his or her efforts should be commended for producing an inexplicably good result.
3. Veruca Salt – Eight Arms to Hold You; An excellent album – especially the American pressing of the CD - for testing your audio system’s slew rate and transient intermodulation distortion capabilities. In short, your audio systems capabilities of differentiating between Nina Gordon and Louise Post (transient intermodulation distortion) and if you can play this album without giving you a headache at garage-band sound pressure levels (slew rate capabilities). Probably the best album to show off the capabilities of a Michell Argo HR pre-amp to those Veruca Salt fans fortunate enough to afford one.
4. Just Say Noël - Christmas Album; a collaborative effort of Christmas tunes from Sonic Youth and company for the benefit of Peter Gabriel’s Witness. The CD sounds as if it is HDCD encoded even though it is not (it is that good sounding!). A good balance between songcraft and audio production values makes this CD unfatiguing over long listening sessions. Probably the most eclectic – in terms of musical genre – Christmas album ever. Not to mention the “least tacky” – aesthetic wise - contemporary Christmas album ever.
5. Lunachicks – Pretty Ugly; Even though their Jerk of All Trades is the better album in terms of sound quality. As an audiophile demo disc, Lunachicks’ Pretty Ugly is a good CD to check your system’s subwoofer’s bass capabilities. Believe it or not, the song What’s Left managed to misalign / destroy a Velodyne subwoofers accelerometer when one of my older audiobuddies used this particular track in testing subs back in 1998.
So there you have it, there probably is no accounting for taste but these five CD’s represent my current often used unseemly demo discs in evaluating hi-fi systems. I could go into detail about my current often used unseemly vinyl audiophile demo discs. Like the Japanese 45-RPM vinyl pressing of Avril Lavigne’s Basketcase – which is by the way a remake of Greenday’s - sadly only available in neon / day-glow fuchsia pink-colored vinyl. Or my Minty Fresh vinyl pressing of Veruca Salt’s American Thighs, but that’s for another day.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Was the Cassette Tape Good Enough?
Is the current popularity of on-line downloadable music a sure sign that most of us are content with the “good enough” sound quality when it comes to hi-fi, like the cassette tape did 40 or so years before?
By: Vanessa Uy
Had Philips got it right back in 1963 when they decided to promote the cassette tape – a somewhat lo-fi speech-only recording medium – as a domestic prerecorded music format? Well, given everyone and their dog’s fascination and the indisputable popularity (commercial success?) of on-line digital music downloads on the Internet, it is now safe to say that the music industry probably achieved musical playback perfection – sound quality notwithstanding – back in 1963. Way before the introduction of Philips’ and Sony’s digital compact disc into the global commercial music market back in 1983 – a full 20-year head start.
Haying experienced first-hand comparison tests of a state-of-the-art (in sound quality terms?) a late 1980’s Sony Walkman to that of a 2007-vintage i-Pod. It is quite safe to say that when it comes to the musicality of the analog medium, our wiper-snapper digital sound engineers – who happen to be way older than me – are utterly clueless when it comes to ultimate sound quality. The only redeeming factor of an i-Pod music player is the sheer ease – if you are a trigger-happy private security contractor – to listen to Tori Amos’ Precious Things or Little Earthquakes while you mow down innocent Iraqi civilians with your 5.56mm squad automatic weapon.
Given that my hi-fi / audiophile acquaintances – who’s hearing I can personally trust – have lately admired the World-Music savvy of cerebrally-hip on-line music download sites like We7. I – more often than not – fall back to listening to “physical media” – like compact discs in order to find out how much of the sound quality has been decimated as it travels down through the Internet’s infrastructure. As one of my audio-buddies have the good fortune of acquiring Susana Baca’s Travestías album – in CD format, it has lately become our audiophile community’s version of an audio objet d’ art. As a standard to compare the degree of sound quality degradation that can occur with its We7 downloaded counterpart. The CD – for all intents and purposes had become our de facto version of the Six-Eye pressing of Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue LP.
While the small physical size and slow tape speed will always serve to limit the ultimate performance of the “lowly” cassette tape despite of improvements over the years. Like the use of exotic magnetic media – i.e. super Avilyn, high coercivity metal particle tape, ferrichrome etc. – or the employment of various Dolby noise reduction schemes like the B, C, and S variants. Not to mention the Dolby HX Pro or headroom extension to enable the “lowly” cassette tape record signals with a little more decibels that it supposed to achieve.
Though a handful of audiophile purist view the cassette tape as musically superior midrange wise when compared to downloaded digital music media, the consistency of cassette’s sound quality is another thing. While the sound quality of cassette tape will slowly – really slowly – degrade over time the more often it is played, we can always rely on the consistent sonic mediocrity of downloaded digital music. Looks like my 78-RPM shellac of Billie Holiday’s Strange Fruit could be sold on E-Bay at Harrier Jump Jet prices before I die.
By: Vanessa Uy
Had Philips got it right back in 1963 when they decided to promote the cassette tape – a somewhat lo-fi speech-only recording medium – as a domestic prerecorded music format? Well, given everyone and their dog’s fascination and the indisputable popularity (commercial success?) of on-line digital music downloads on the Internet, it is now safe to say that the music industry probably achieved musical playback perfection – sound quality notwithstanding – back in 1963. Way before the introduction of Philips’ and Sony’s digital compact disc into the global commercial music market back in 1983 – a full 20-year head start.
Haying experienced first-hand comparison tests of a state-of-the-art (in sound quality terms?) a late 1980’s Sony Walkman to that of a 2007-vintage i-Pod. It is quite safe to say that when it comes to the musicality of the analog medium, our wiper-snapper digital sound engineers – who happen to be way older than me – are utterly clueless when it comes to ultimate sound quality. The only redeeming factor of an i-Pod music player is the sheer ease – if you are a trigger-happy private security contractor – to listen to Tori Amos’ Precious Things or Little Earthquakes while you mow down innocent Iraqi civilians with your 5.56mm squad automatic weapon.
Given that my hi-fi / audiophile acquaintances – who’s hearing I can personally trust – have lately admired the World-Music savvy of cerebrally-hip on-line music download sites like We7. I – more often than not – fall back to listening to “physical media” – like compact discs in order to find out how much of the sound quality has been decimated as it travels down through the Internet’s infrastructure. As one of my audio-buddies have the good fortune of acquiring Susana Baca’s Travestías album – in CD format, it has lately become our audiophile community’s version of an audio objet d’ art. As a standard to compare the degree of sound quality degradation that can occur with its We7 downloaded counterpart. The CD – for all intents and purposes had become our de facto version of the Six-Eye pressing of Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue LP.
While the small physical size and slow tape speed will always serve to limit the ultimate performance of the “lowly” cassette tape despite of improvements over the years. Like the use of exotic magnetic media – i.e. super Avilyn, high coercivity metal particle tape, ferrichrome etc. – or the employment of various Dolby noise reduction schemes like the B, C, and S variants. Not to mention the Dolby HX Pro or headroom extension to enable the “lowly” cassette tape record signals with a little more decibels that it supposed to achieve.
Though a handful of audiophile purist view the cassette tape as musically superior midrange wise when compared to downloaded digital music media, the consistency of cassette’s sound quality is another thing. While the sound quality of cassette tape will slowly – really slowly – degrade over time the more often it is played, we can always rely on the consistent sonic mediocrity of downloaded digital music. Looks like my 78-RPM shellac of Billie Holiday’s Strange Fruit could be sold on E-Bay at Harrier Jump Jet prices before I die.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Is the BBC Sound the British Sound?
Praised by audiophiles and hi-fi enthusiasts around the world for it’s “upbeat” – i.e. pace, rhythm and timing oriented - sound, is the British Sound ultimately defined by the “dead” BBC sound?
By: Vanessa Uy
Maybe it’s because the UK has been making and marketing hi-fi kit for a longer period of time and in greater variety when compared to other nations. Or is it more likely that the UK had a “certain size and construction of there average living rooms” – i.e. medium-sized in global terms, wooden floored with a plaster on brick wall construction. Either way is the concept of the “British Sound” – which is characterized by an emphasis on pace, rhythm and timing – in other words a more upbeat sound in comparison to nations outside Europe, ultimately defined in the end by the “tonally dead” BBC Sound? Given that the concept of the British Sound can be defined by a single sentence containing the words: pace, rhythm, and timing while the concept behind the “Dead BBC Sound” has a somewhat “epic history”, the discussion on what is the BBC Sound warrants further discussion.
Even though the BBC – or the Beeb as it is affectionately called - was recently embroiled in a controversy when it’s principle of “journalistic neutrality” was challenged by its decision in refusing to air that politically charged Gaza Aid advert. The concept of tonal neutrality behind their famed BBC Sound is world renown by audiophiles and hi-fi enthusiasts. Sometimes commonly referred to as the “Tonally Dead BBC Sound” - which is meant as a term of endearment of course – can trace it’s origins in post-World War II Britain.
Beginning in the late 1940’s, the BBC’s Loudspeaker Research Department conducted serious studies of what was wrong with most commercially available speakers at that time. As it turned out, there was plenty. The concept of high-fidelity or hi-fi was nonexistent. Off-the-shelf commercially available speakers were not high-fidelity because an overwhelming majority of people played records through their radios. The luck few that had more serious sound systems typically made their own, good sound – back in the “good-old-days” - was rather a do-it-yourself affair. Open-baffle loudspeakers – those with drivers that were drilled into a plank of wood larger than the drive-units themselves - reigned supreme.
High-fidelity as a marketing concept – rather than the genuine article – came along at about the same time when Rock & Roll was born. Or when Elvis became a worldwide phenomenon as remembered by most people back then during the early to mid-1950’s, spurred in part by the introduction and latter popularity of the long-playing record after it was introduced in 1948. So did the practice of putting speaker drivers in closed cabinets.
The BBC started to gain interest in sound quality when the need arises to monitor the sound quality of their broadcast – especially their live concert broadcasts – using high-fidelity equipment that’s portable, thus making the BBC famous for their in-house designed minimonitors like the LS3/5A minimonitor and its licensed commercially manufactured variants. Even though it was the Quad ESL electrostatic loudspeakers and its related variants that was became “inexplicably” linked to the current definition of the BBC Sound. And the rest of the BBC Sound saga – as the saying goes – became a major part of the hi-fi history.
So what is the “Tonally Dead BBC Sound” and why do an overwhelmingly large number of audiophiles and hi-fi enthusiasts the world over liked it? Well, the BBC Sound is characterized by a sound quality that is accurate, pure, clear, and free of overt tonal coloration. Chances are that if you happen to be a professional musician who more-or-less uses a world-class recording studio as his or her 9 to 5 “office”, the audio equipment that is used so that you can hear yourself sing probably has this sound quality. Or just listen to the drums on Iron Maiden’s “The Number of the Beast Album” – assuming of course you have a “sufficiently neutral” domestic audio system.
What I like about commercially sold audio equipment designed around the British Sound / BBC Sound is that they have a very good price-performance ratio – i.e. very good bang for the buck, which is a very good example of that good old British sense of post-World War II frugality in practice, which is not bad by the way. My only reservations is that if you are lucky enough to own very-expensive – and very likely esoteric – audio equipment that can realistically play a very hardly struck ride cymbal. Then you might find those kinds of entry-level audio equipment – especially solid-state / transistorized ones - designed around the concept of the British / BBC Sound a bit dull and neutered.
A case in point is my own magical experience of listening to Veruca Salt’s “Loneliness is Worse” using a preamp whose brand-name starts with “Michell” – prized for displaying a “sense of the artist’s urgency” when playing tracks like these. You’ll probably start to notice in your side-by-side comparison that there’s this “lack of urgency” characteristic in entry-level solid-state equipment designed with the British Sound / BBC Sound in mind. But as it is of all things as it is in hi-fi, you can always get something better by spending a little bit more. Given that the BBC never fails to apologize to their worldwide audiences whenever their broadcasts are technically plagued – temporarily at least - by poor sound quality, then the BBC Sound is for all intents and purposes is the “literal” definition of the British Sound.
By: Vanessa Uy
Maybe it’s because the UK has been making and marketing hi-fi kit for a longer period of time and in greater variety when compared to other nations. Or is it more likely that the UK had a “certain size and construction of there average living rooms” – i.e. medium-sized in global terms, wooden floored with a plaster on brick wall construction. Either way is the concept of the “British Sound” – which is characterized by an emphasis on pace, rhythm and timing – in other words a more upbeat sound in comparison to nations outside Europe, ultimately defined in the end by the “tonally dead” BBC Sound? Given that the concept of the British Sound can be defined by a single sentence containing the words: pace, rhythm, and timing while the concept behind the “Dead BBC Sound” has a somewhat “epic history”, the discussion on what is the BBC Sound warrants further discussion.
Even though the BBC – or the Beeb as it is affectionately called - was recently embroiled in a controversy when it’s principle of “journalistic neutrality” was challenged by its decision in refusing to air that politically charged Gaza Aid advert. The concept of tonal neutrality behind their famed BBC Sound is world renown by audiophiles and hi-fi enthusiasts. Sometimes commonly referred to as the “Tonally Dead BBC Sound” - which is meant as a term of endearment of course – can trace it’s origins in post-World War II Britain.
Beginning in the late 1940’s, the BBC’s Loudspeaker Research Department conducted serious studies of what was wrong with most commercially available speakers at that time. As it turned out, there was plenty. The concept of high-fidelity or hi-fi was nonexistent. Off-the-shelf commercially available speakers were not high-fidelity because an overwhelming majority of people played records through their radios. The luck few that had more serious sound systems typically made their own, good sound – back in the “good-old-days” - was rather a do-it-yourself affair. Open-baffle loudspeakers – those with drivers that were drilled into a plank of wood larger than the drive-units themselves - reigned supreme.
High-fidelity as a marketing concept – rather than the genuine article – came along at about the same time when Rock & Roll was born. Or when Elvis became a worldwide phenomenon as remembered by most people back then during the early to mid-1950’s, spurred in part by the introduction and latter popularity of the long-playing record after it was introduced in 1948. So did the practice of putting speaker drivers in closed cabinets.
The BBC started to gain interest in sound quality when the need arises to monitor the sound quality of their broadcast – especially their live concert broadcasts – using high-fidelity equipment that’s portable, thus making the BBC famous for their in-house designed minimonitors like the LS3/5A minimonitor and its licensed commercially manufactured variants. Even though it was the Quad ESL electrostatic loudspeakers and its related variants that was became “inexplicably” linked to the current definition of the BBC Sound. And the rest of the BBC Sound saga – as the saying goes – became a major part of the hi-fi history.
So what is the “Tonally Dead BBC Sound” and why do an overwhelmingly large number of audiophiles and hi-fi enthusiasts the world over liked it? Well, the BBC Sound is characterized by a sound quality that is accurate, pure, clear, and free of overt tonal coloration. Chances are that if you happen to be a professional musician who more-or-less uses a world-class recording studio as his or her 9 to 5 “office”, the audio equipment that is used so that you can hear yourself sing probably has this sound quality. Or just listen to the drums on Iron Maiden’s “The Number of the Beast Album” – assuming of course you have a “sufficiently neutral” domestic audio system.
What I like about commercially sold audio equipment designed around the British Sound / BBC Sound is that they have a very good price-performance ratio – i.e. very good bang for the buck, which is a very good example of that good old British sense of post-World War II frugality in practice, which is not bad by the way. My only reservations is that if you are lucky enough to own very-expensive – and very likely esoteric – audio equipment that can realistically play a very hardly struck ride cymbal. Then you might find those kinds of entry-level audio equipment – especially solid-state / transistorized ones - designed around the concept of the British / BBC Sound a bit dull and neutered.
A case in point is my own magical experience of listening to Veruca Salt’s “Loneliness is Worse” using a preamp whose brand-name starts with “Michell” – prized for displaying a “sense of the artist’s urgency” when playing tracks like these. You’ll probably start to notice in your side-by-side comparison that there’s this “lack of urgency” characteristic in entry-level solid-state equipment designed with the British Sound / BBC Sound in mind. But as it is of all things as it is in hi-fi, you can always get something better by spending a little bit more. Given that the BBC never fails to apologize to their worldwide audiences whenever their broadcasts are technically plagued – temporarily at least - by poor sound quality, then the BBC Sound is for all intents and purposes is the “literal” definition of the British Sound.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Dynamic Loudspeaker Cones: What’s Best?
Often seen as the “final frontier” when it comes to the hi-fi playback chain. Can the judicious choice of the right dynamic loudspeaker cone material really do wonders for sound quality?
By: Vanessa Uy
As we headlong into the 21st Century, dynamic loudspeakers as a whole is probably the only hi-fi component that did most progress – sound quality wise. And yet the choice of the “perfect” cone material is still a contentious “political” issue when it comes to designing a loudspeaker that not only sounds excellent, but also displays good marketability and salability as well. The following are a sampler of the most widely used cone materials currently on the market.
Paper, as a loudspeaker cone material, has been around probably since the invention of the loudspeaker itself. Paper’s advantages are ease of manufacture, good cost to performance ratio. Its disadvantages are lack of stiffness - which could be a problem when the loudspeaker is forced to play louder than its intended design, generating unwanted resonance and harmonic distortions. Despite of paper’s disadvantages as a loudspeaker cone material, I’m very much in love with oil impregnated paper cones due to it’s lovely midrange tonality and excellent damping properties – provided they’re not played louder than their design intended. Though various schemes of paper composites – like aquaplas - had managed to make paper still one of the most widely used loudspeaker cone materials to date. Though potential hi-fi loudspeaker buyers with very deep pockets tend to avoid paper coned speakers due to its “old fashioned” image.
Polypropylene (later turned into mineral reinforced polypropylene or MRP cone) - commonly referred to as “plastic cones” - was developed during the start of the 1970’s to replace paper as a loudspeaker cone material. Hi-fi buffs fell in love with them because they can be played louder – in comparison to their paper counterparts - without distorting easily. The problem is that when polypropylene loudspeaker cones distort, they don’t distort in a musically consonant manner. Instead they produce a vulgar sounding “quack”. Thus the reason why you don’t see polypropylene cones being used as an electric guitar loudspeaker cone material. But in car stereos, polypropylene cones are often de rigeur.
When kevlar was first manufactured into a loudspeaker cone material, many in the hi-fi community hailed it as the perfect loudspeaker cone material given that it is stiff enough to be used in bullet-resistant body armor. But it is not cheap to manufacture and deteriorates fast when exposed to ultraviolet light, precluding its use outdoors and even in cars that frequent the beach. Though I love it’s neutrality of tone which is very useful when it comes to listening to a well-recorded jazz performance, many hi-fi buffs that I know of – who coincidentally are long-time professional musicians – tend to dislike loudspeakers with kevlar cones because they’re tonality is “too dry”.
Carbon fiber was also hailed by hi-fi buffs when it was first used as a loudspeaker cone material. It is stiff, lightweight thus very low inertia and unlike kevlar, carbon fiber is resistant to ultraviolet radiation – i.e. direct sunlight. Might carry a somewhat stiff price premium, but many seasoned “music lovers” tend to dislike loudspeakers with carbon fiber cones as having a dry tonality. But love them or hate them, carbon fiber coned loudspeakers have gained scores of accolades by respected reviewers and critics in the hi-fi industry and on loudspeaker systems that range from entry level price to the flagship models of seasoned loudspeaker manufacturers.
Thankfully for us in the Free World, aerogel technology wasn’t given to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980’s by former US President Ronald in order to “tweak” those Soviet-era Scud missiles. Known in the hi-fi community as high-definition aerogel, a speaker material with serious aerospace pedigree due to its air-like lightness and aircraft-grade aluminum-like stiffness. High-definition aerogel has been hailed throughout the 1990’s as the best – if not the best – loudspeaker cone material. Light, stiff, and tonally neutral to a fault it was supposedly the perfect loudspeaker cone material, but I still have reservations. Though I often “view” the “perspective” of paper coned loudspeakers as a “duller” version of reality, loudspeakers using high-definition aerogel to my ears sounds as if Mother Nature or God Herself were telling me “you are listening to an abomination of natural order”. I mean aerogel-coned speakers have this very, very, very, very low-level digital-esque “swoosh” / modulated white noise that is there to remind me that what I’m hearing is not the “natural sound” Mother Nature intended me to hear.
Although metal coned loudspeakers also started to become popular during the 1990’s, this technological concept was also cursed with the not-so-easily-acquired-taste syndrome. I mean metal coned loudspeakers are very, very good within their power handling / loudness envelope. But push them a tad too far and you’ll be greeted by the distortions of ringy metal. Probably due to the “oil can” resonance that they exhibit –i.e. metal domed tweeters resonate with a vengeance near 30,000 Hz. That’s why since the revival of the vinyl LP, I’ve been avoiding metal coned speakers – especially with metal dome tweeters – like the plague. Given that even low-cost LP cartridges are flat up to 40,000 Hz and I could still hear with extreme acuity sounds above 20,000 Hz, metal coned speakers are simply just not for me. Plus they also suffer high reject rate during manufacture making their retail price more expensive than their counterparts.
So there you have it, one’s choice for the “perfect” loudspeaker cone material is not just about hard science and engineering, but also of personal taste and artistic inclination. Though the progress in sound quality terms was mostly made via innovations in loudspeaker design toward the end of the 20th Century, designing an excellent sounding loudspeaker and selling enough of it to keep your company and your personnel gainfully employed is still probably the blackest of all arts.
By: Vanessa Uy
As we headlong into the 21st Century, dynamic loudspeakers as a whole is probably the only hi-fi component that did most progress – sound quality wise. And yet the choice of the “perfect” cone material is still a contentious “political” issue when it comes to designing a loudspeaker that not only sounds excellent, but also displays good marketability and salability as well. The following are a sampler of the most widely used cone materials currently on the market.
Paper, as a loudspeaker cone material, has been around probably since the invention of the loudspeaker itself. Paper’s advantages are ease of manufacture, good cost to performance ratio. Its disadvantages are lack of stiffness - which could be a problem when the loudspeaker is forced to play louder than its intended design, generating unwanted resonance and harmonic distortions. Despite of paper’s disadvantages as a loudspeaker cone material, I’m very much in love with oil impregnated paper cones due to it’s lovely midrange tonality and excellent damping properties – provided they’re not played louder than their design intended. Though various schemes of paper composites – like aquaplas - had managed to make paper still one of the most widely used loudspeaker cone materials to date. Though potential hi-fi loudspeaker buyers with very deep pockets tend to avoid paper coned speakers due to its “old fashioned” image.
Polypropylene (later turned into mineral reinforced polypropylene or MRP cone) - commonly referred to as “plastic cones” - was developed during the start of the 1970’s to replace paper as a loudspeaker cone material. Hi-fi buffs fell in love with them because they can be played louder – in comparison to their paper counterparts - without distorting easily. The problem is that when polypropylene loudspeaker cones distort, they don’t distort in a musically consonant manner. Instead they produce a vulgar sounding “quack”. Thus the reason why you don’t see polypropylene cones being used as an electric guitar loudspeaker cone material. But in car stereos, polypropylene cones are often de rigeur.
When kevlar was first manufactured into a loudspeaker cone material, many in the hi-fi community hailed it as the perfect loudspeaker cone material given that it is stiff enough to be used in bullet-resistant body armor. But it is not cheap to manufacture and deteriorates fast when exposed to ultraviolet light, precluding its use outdoors and even in cars that frequent the beach. Though I love it’s neutrality of tone which is very useful when it comes to listening to a well-recorded jazz performance, many hi-fi buffs that I know of – who coincidentally are long-time professional musicians – tend to dislike loudspeakers with kevlar cones because they’re tonality is “too dry”.
Carbon fiber was also hailed by hi-fi buffs when it was first used as a loudspeaker cone material. It is stiff, lightweight thus very low inertia and unlike kevlar, carbon fiber is resistant to ultraviolet radiation – i.e. direct sunlight. Might carry a somewhat stiff price premium, but many seasoned “music lovers” tend to dislike loudspeakers with carbon fiber cones as having a dry tonality. But love them or hate them, carbon fiber coned loudspeakers have gained scores of accolades by respected reviewers and critics in the hi-fi industry and on loudspeaker systems that range from entry level price to the flagship models of seasoned loudspeaker manufacturers.
Thankfully for us in the Free World, aerogel technology wasn’t given to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980’s by former US President Ronald in order to “tweak” those Soviet-era Scud missiles. Known in the hi-fi community as high-definition aerogel, a speaker material with serious aerospace pedigree due to its air-like lightness and aircraft-grade aluminum-like stiffness. High-definition aerogel has been hailed throughout the 1990’s as the best – if not the best – loudspeaker cone material. Light, stiff, and tonally neutral to a fault it was supposedly the perfect loudspeaker cone material, but I still have reservations. Though I often “view” the “perspective” of paper coned loudspeakers as a “duller” version of reality, loudspeakers using high-definition aerogel to my ears sounds as if Mother Nature or God Herself were telling me “you are listening to an abomination of natural order”. I mean aerogel-coned speakers have this very, very, very, very low-level digital-esque “swoosh” / modulated white noise that is there to remind me that what I’m hearing is not the “natural sound” Mother Nature intended me to hear.
Although metal coned loudspeakers also started to become popular during the 1990’s, this technological concept was also cursed with the not-so-easily-acquired-taste syndrome. I mean metal coned loudspeakers are very, very good within their power handling / loudness envelope. But push them a tad too far and you’ll be greeted by the distortions of ringy metal. Probably due to the “oil can” resonance that they exhibit –i.e. metal domed tweeters resonate with a vengeance near 30,000 Hz. That’s why since the revival of the vinyl LP, I’ve been avoiding metal coned speakers – especially with metal dome tweeters – like the plague. Given that even low-cost LP cartridges are flat up to 40,000 Hz and I could still hear with extreme acuity sounds above 20,000 Hz, metal coned speakers are simply just not for me. Plus they also suffer high reject rate during manufacture making their retail price more expensive than their counterparts.
So there you have it, one’s choice for the “perfect” loudspeaker cone material is not just about hard science and engineering, but also of personal taste and artistic inclination. Though the progress in sound quality terms was mostly made via innovations in loudspeaker design toward the end of the 20th Century, designing an excellent sounding loudspeaker and selling enough of it to keep your company and your personnel gainfully employed is still probably the blackest of all arts.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Motor Effects of Dynamic Loudspeakers: Stifling Sound Quality?
Most can say that progress in dynamic loudspeaker technology had been moving sideways for over 30 years now. Given that dynamic speakers operate like electrical motors, does this make them flawed in sound quality terms?
By: Vanessa Uy
Probably 97% - or more – of the loudspeakers being sold on the market today have inner workings based on dynamic loudspeaker operating principles. But since dynamic loudspeakers can be thought of as an electrical motor that moves back and fourth in order to produce sound, does this make then “inherently flawed” when faced the task of converting an electrical signal from a recording (analog or digital) or a live mike feed into sound. Not only just “intelligible” sound, but a sound whose quality is indistinguishable from the “captured” real event.
To test this out for yourself, get a small motor, or better yet a very small low-powered motor that would rotate slowly when connected to the “X1” part of your analog multimeter in it’s ohmmeter mode / resistance measuring mode. If your multimeter’s batteries are fresh, the small motor is now being rotated via 150 milliamperes or milliamps or mA of current. If you look at the multimeters display, it is now probably reading between 15 to 20 (ohms) or so as the motor rotates freely. If you try to touch gently the tip of the small motors rotating shaft to slow it down slightly / loading the motor, the measured resistance across the motor’s terminals would fall to between 10 or 8 or so. If you’ll hold the shaft to make the motor completely stop rotating, the resistance reading across the motor’s terminals would now read 5 or a bit lower. Don’t worry about burning out the motor because the ohmmeter function of your multimeter / multitester produces only a miniscule level of current as noted previously. But don’t do it for too long because it unnecessarily depletes the multimeter’s battery.
You might now from our experiment the explanation on why a loudspeaker system's measured impedance across the audio band varies widely like those snazzy graphs and tables published on leading hi-fi magazines. For example, a speaker system’s impedance is rated at 8 or so, It’s measured impedance can vary widely from as low as 2.7 ohms to as high as 40 ohms across the audio band – i.e. from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Thus speakers whose impedance dips to very low levels – approaching 1 ohm – coupled with a nasty phase angle usually spell bad news for tube-based amplifier designs.
But the “motor effects” inherent in dynamic speaker operation is not the only problem plaguing our quest for hi-fidelity. Materials used in the speaker’s cone construction can have an affect on sound quality too. Paper has been a de rigeur material for cones for a very long time because it “flatters” the inherent tonal qualities of the majority of musical instruments that hi-fi enthusiasts listen to. Like Stradivarius violins for example. Or a Gibson Les Paul played through a Marshall Amplifier stack in anger can really sound lifelike on a well-constructed paper cone speaker. When plastic cone – or more properly known as mineral filled polypropylene - speakers were first marketed during the 1970’s due to their “attractive” measured responses and high power handling, they have an “unintentional” benefit of flattering / beautifying a cello recording’s tonal properties.
But other materials did become fashionable in speaker cone use during the end of the 1980’s, other exotica like aerogel – an aerospace material so light that Saddam Hussein coveted it for Scud Missile “tweaking” in the run-up to Operation Desert Storm – came into use. Followed by carbon fiber and cones made of ultra-lightweight magnesium metal composites all for the quest of better sound quality. Despite it’s inherent limitations, dynamic loudspeaker design did make significant progress since the 1970’s. It’s just that good sound don’t come cheap and your local discount bin is very unlikely to stock quality hi-fi speakers, even those entry-level value-for-money models priced under 400 US dollars or so.
By: Vanessa Uy
Probably 97% - or more – of the loudspeakers being sold on the market today have inner workings based on dynamic loudspeaker operating principles. But since dynamic loudspeakers can be thought of as an electrical motor that moves back and fourth in order to produce sound, does this make then “inherently flawed” when faced the task of converting an electrical signal from a recording (analog or digital) or a live mike feed into sound. Not only just “intelligible” sound, but a sound whose quality is indistinguishable from the “captured” real event.
To test this out for yourself, get a small motor, or better yet a very small low-powered motor that would rotate slowly when connected to the “X1” part of your analog multimeter in it’s ohmmeter mode / resistance measuring mode. If your multimeter’s batteries are fresh, the small motor is now being rotated via 150 milliamperes or milliamps or mA of current. If you look at the multimeters display, it is now probably reading between 15 to 20 (ohms) or so as the motor rotates freely. If you try to touch gently the tip of the small motors rotating shaft to slow it down slightly / loading the motor, the measured resistance across the motor’s terminals would fall to between 10 or 8 or so. If you’ll hold the shaft to make the motor completely stop rotating, the resistance reading across the motor’s terminals would now read 5 or a bit lower. Don’t worry about burning out the motor because the ohmmeter function of your multimeter / multitester produces only a miniscule level of current as noted previously. But don’t do it for too long because it unnecessarily depletes the multimeter’s battery.
You might now from our experiment the explanation on why a loudspeaker system's measured impedance across the audio band varies widely like those snazzy graphs and tables published on leading hi-fi magazines. For example, a speaker system’s impedance is rated at 8 or so, It’s measured impedance can vary widely from as low as 2.7 ohms to as high as 40 ohms across the audio band – i.e. from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Thus speakers whose impedance dips to very low levels – approaching 1 ohm – coupled with a nasty phase angle usually spell bad news for tube-based amplifier designs.
But the “motor effects” inherent in dynamic speaker operation is not the only problem plaguing our quest for hi-fidelity. Materials used in the speaker’s cone construction can have an affect on sound quality too. Paper has been a de rigeur material for cones for a very long time because it “flatters” the inherent tonal qualities of the majority of musical instruments that hi-fi enthusiasts listen to. Like Stradivarius violins for example. Or a Gibson Les Paul played through a Marshall Amplifier stack in anger can really sound lifelike on a well-constructed paper cone speaker. When plastic cone – or more properly known as mineral filled polypropylene - speakers were first marketed during the 1970’s due to their “attractive” measured responses and high power handling, they have an “unintentional” benefit of flattering / beautifying a cello recording’s tonal properties.
But other materials did become fashionable in speaker cone use during the end of the 1980’s, other exotica like aerogel – an aerospace material so light that Saddam Hussein coveted it for Scud Missile “tweaking” in the run-up to Operation Desert Storm – came into use. Followed by carbon fiber and cones made of ultra-lightweight magnesium metal composites all for the quest of better sound quality. Despite it’s inherent limitations, dynamic loudspeaker design did make significant progress since the 1970’s. It’s just that good sound don’t come cheap and your local discount bin is very unlikely to stock quality hi-fi speakers, even those entry-level value-for-money models priced under 400 US dollars or so.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Can Radioactivity Affect Your Hi - Fi?
When high-end audio manufacturers publicly profess the practice of aging the lead and silver components used in their products, is this a sign that there is truth about radioactivity – especially alpha particles – can affect sound quality?
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since Audio Note publicly announced during the 1990’s that they practice aging the silver used in their most expensive tube-based power amplifier for 20 years, almost everyone keeping up with the trends in the hi-fi world instantly showed their skepticism. Especially when all of the silver that was mined during the previous 5,000 years or so was formed countless millions of years before – probably in the nuclear processes of the interior of our present Sun’s predecessor. But a “fortunate few” hi-fi enthusiasts who have a working knowledge of nuclear physics have also voiced their concerns whether the Weinberg - Salam Theory of Weak Interactions has an audible effect on an audio component’s sound quality in a negative way.
Given that the main purpose of aging silver and other metals is to wait out for the unstable radioisotopes present in this metals to decay into something more stable. And since these unstable radioisotopes emit alpha particles when they decay, thus causing interference with the electron flow that makes electronic devices function. Sometimes I wonder though if precious metal mining firms ever used nuclear devices to mine silver inadvertently contaminating the silver with strontium 90, which has a half-life of 29 years.
A case in point is Audio Note’s Ongaku Amplifier – famed for being one of the most expensive tube-based audio power amplifier in the world – is also famous for using silver that has been aged for 20 or more years in the critical components (audio signal processing paths) in it’s construction. Given that this particular amplifier’s price (manufacturer’s suggested retail price) has managed to stay within 250,000 US dollars for the past 13 years can be considered a “sensible” purchase compared to items of it’s ilk.
Pertaining to the silver used in the Audio Note Ongaku Amplifier, it is made up of medically pure silver. Using silver prices back in October 20, 2008 – the last time I checked – at US$ 9.50 an ounce (Troy ounce) or 9.50 dollars per 31.1035 grams in metric. The 9.3 kilograms of silver used in the amplifier costs US$ 2,850. Given that Audio Note aged the silver used in construction of the amp – probably to reduce stray alpha particles since our planet’s interior is naturally radioactive. And given this particular amplifier’s very, very excellent sound quality, the amp’s quarter of a million price tag seems that more reasonable – if you can afford it. Maybe alpha particles and other ionizing radiation can really affect the sound quality of your audio components.
But basing on what is currently known – in reality based on studies done in the 1990’s – vacuum tubes are not easily affected by ionizing radiation. This is the reason why during the Cold War that the Soviet Union seems cavalier when it comes to concerns about the electromagnetic pulse – or EMP – produced by a nuclear explosion “frying” transistorized / solid-state electronic equipment many miles away from the point of detonation. This is so since the Soviets still used vacuum tube-based technology until their collapse in 1991. Vacuum tubes are resistant to EMP onslaught and can be reset if they manage to shut down when an H – Bomb explodes near its vicinity.
So is the use of “aged” silver in vacuum tube-based amplifiers merely just “gilding the lily”? Well, it depends. Given the Audio Note Ongaku’s 250,000 dollar price tag, using 3 grand’s worth of 20 year old (or older) silver – probably sourced from the Hunt Brother’s silver hoard back in 1980 – can serve as a unique selling point for such a luxury item. But since vacuum tubes – especially ones designed during the 1920’s like the 300B – handle very robust signals compared to their transistor / solid-state counterparts, the engineering merits of such design considerations can become controversial. Since good engineering is based on the principle of doing something for a dollar when another person is doing the same thing for five.
Currently, the largest users of silver in the manufacture of “modern” electronic components are digital camera manufacturers. In practice though, audio components using silver tend to have a bright sound – i.e. boosted toward the high frequencies. Since vacuum tube-based amplifiers tend to sound warm in nature, then the use of silver – especially aged ones for consistency and just to be sure – tend to make tube amps sound more natural or balanced.
By: Vanessa Uy
Ever since Audio Note publicly announced during the 1990’s that they practice aging the silver used in their most expensive tube-based power amplifier for 20 years, almost everyone keeping up with the trends in the hi-fi world instantly showed their skepticism. Especially when all of the silver that was mined during the previous 5,000 years or so was formed countless millions of years before – probably in the nuclear processes of the interior of our present Sun’s predecessor. But a “fortunate few” hi-fi enthusiasts who have a working knowledge of nuclear physics have also voiced their concerns whether the Weinberg - Salam Theory of Weak Interactions has an audible effect on an audio component’s sound quality in a negative way.
Given that the main purpose of aging silver and other metals is to wait out for the unstable radioisotopes present in this metals to decay into something more stable. And since these unstable radioisotopes emit alpha particles when they decay, thus causing interference with the electron flow that makes electronic devices function. Sometimes I wonder though if precious metal mining firms ever used nuclear devices to mine silver inadvertently contaminating the silver with strontium 90, which has a half-life of 29 years.
A case in point is Audio Note’s Ongaku Amplifier – famed for being one of the most expensive tube-based audio power amplifier in the world – is also famous for using silver that has been aged for 20 or more years in the critical components (audio signal processing paths) in it’s construction. Given that this particular amplifier’s price (manufacturer’s suggested retail price) has managed to stay within 250,000 US dollars for the past 13 years can be considered a “sensible” purchase compared to items of it’s ilk.
Pertaining to the silver used in the Audio Note Ongaku Amplifier, it is made up of medically pure silver. Using silver prices back in October 20, 2008 – the last time I checked – at US$ 9.50 an ounce (Troy ounce) or 9.50 dollars per 31.1035 grams in metric. The 9.3 kilograms of silver used in the amplifier costs US$ 2,850. Given that Audio Note aged the silver used in construction of the amp – probably to reduce stray alpha particles since our planet’s interior is naturally radioactive. And given this particular amplifier’s very, very excellent sound quality, the amp’s quarter of a million price tag seems that more reasonable – if you can afford it. Maybe alpha particles and other ionizing radiation can really affect the sound quality of your audio components.
But basing on what is currently known – in reality based on studies done in the 1990’s – vacuum tubes are not easily affected by ionizing radiation. This is the reason why during the Cold War that the Soviet Union seems cavalier when it comes to concerns about the electromagnetic pulse – or EMP – produced by a nuclear explosion “frying” transistorized / solid-state electronic equipment many miles away from the point of detonation. This is so since the Soviets still used vacuum tube-based technology until their collapse in 1991. Vacuum tubes are resistant to EMP onslaught and can be reset if they manage to shut down when an H – Bomb explodes near its vicinity.
So is the use of “aged” silver in vacuum tube-based amplifiers merely just “gilding the lily”? Well, it depends. Given the Audio Note Ongaku’s 250,000 dollar price tag, using 3 grand’s worth of 20 year old (or older) silver – probably sourced from the Hunt Brother’s silver hoard back in 1980 – can serve as a unique selling point for such a luxury item. But since vacuum tubes – especially ones designed during the 1920’s like the 300B – handle very robust signals compared to their transistor / solid-state counterparts, the engineering merits of such design considerations can become controversial. Since good engineering is based on the principle of doing something for a dollar when another person is doing the same thing for five.
Currently, the largest users of silver in the manufacture of “modern” electronic components are digital camera manufacturers. In practice though, audio components using silver tend to have a bright sound – i.e. boosted toward the high frequencies. Since vacuum tube-based amplifiers tend to sound warm in nature, then the use of silver – especially aged ones for consistency and just to be sure – tend to make tube amps sound more natural or balanced.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sounds Above 20,000 Hz: Are They Important to Audiophiles?
Even though a disparagingly large number of people say that only dogs or bats care about sounds about 20,000 Hertz, but is there any truth in this? Does ultrasonic sound belong in hi-fi?
By: Vanessa Uy
Dogs, bats, and those “10-year old Classical Music wünderkinder” are probably the least-explored and exploited high-end audio market on Earth. And yet nobody ever – not even the multinational consumer electronic manufacturers – admit on the mainstream press about how difficult it is to digitally record sound waves with frequencies above 20,000 Hertz. Despite of over 15 years worth of anecdotal evidence among the hi-fi community that sounds above the “supposedly 20 thousand Hertz human audibility limit” or ultrasonic frequency sounds indeed has a bearing on sound quality.
Despite of a widely publicized (or is that declassified?) during the 1990’s US Army research on psycho-acoustics that identified parts of the inner ear capable of detecting airborne sound waves at 80,000 Hertz (four times the oft accepted 20,000 Hertz limit). Many of the biggest sound-equipment manufacturers still kept assuring their customers that sounds with frequencies above our threshold of hearing is of no consequence to their product’s sound quality. But we the audiophile community soldiered on. We even experimented with piezoelectric supertweeters capable of producing airborne sound waves above 20,000 Hertz.
Technically, the problem of digitally recording sound waves with a degree of faithfulness to the original sound or fidelity is no way much easier than the analog recording systems of yore that digital recording intends to replace. Even standard compact discs whose highest frequencies reach only 22,050 Hertz and yet it requires almost 800 megabytes of storage space to save 80 minutes worth of music. SACD s and other high-resolution audio formats whose frequency bandwidth are twice to five times that of redbook CD requires four times the data space, which necessitates the use of a visible-light red laser for playback. Despite the state-of-the-art sound quality and technical tour de force most high-resolution digital music formats have been relegated to the curiosity museum; Either due to lack of promotion or fear of music piracy. Isn’t the cause of music piracy is that the non-audiophiles – i.e. 99.9999% of the population – has wholeheartedly adopted the good enough mentality when it comes to sound quality?
Another problem of the quality improvement in wide-bandwidth digital audio is that most of the sound quality improvement occurs far from the frequency of interest, like SACD s and DVD-Audio recordings of purist acoustic Classical and Jazz music are often praised by audiophiles for their grain-free midrange frequencies and tight bass. Only on music that contains strongly struck cymbals like Heavy Metal Rock Music reissues is the improvement on high-frequency reproduction is noted during listening sessions.
To me, the hi-fi industry today – especially those that are just mere subsidiaries of gigantic consumer electronic companies – will forever be reluctant to promote the concept of audio systems. Especially those capable of faithfully reproducing sounds above 20,000 Hertz because kids, teen-age girls, dogs, bats or anyone with ultrasonic hearing are not so willing to pay the seven digit telephone-number price tags these high-ticket items are likely to be priced. It is one of Mother Nature’s ultimate act of cruelty, by the time you can afford the audio system of your dreams the onset of age-related hearing loss starts to manifest itself. So say goodbye to ultrasonic hearing. Especially once you’ve reached the wrong side of thirty, and no your Veruca Salt CD s are not getting worn down or getting to sound duller.
By: Vanessa Uy
Dogs, bats, and those “10-year old Classical Music wünderkinder” are probably the least-explored and exploited high-end audio market on Earth. And yet nobody ever – not even the multinational consumer electronic manufacturers – admit on the mainstream press about how difficult it is to digitally record sound waves with frequencies above 20,000 Hertz. Despite of over 15 years worth of anecdotal evidence among the hi-fi community that sounds above the “supposedly 20 thousand Hertz human audibility limit” or ultrasonic frequency sounds indeed has a bearing on sound quality.
Despite of a widely publicized (or is that declassified?) during the 1990’s US Army research on psycho-acoustics that identified parts of the inner ear capable of detecting airborne sound waves at 80,000 Hertz (four times the oft accepted 20,000 Hertz limit). Many of the biggest sound-equipment manufacturers still kept assuring their customers that sounds with frequencies above our threshold of hearing is of no consequence to their product’s sound quality. But we the audiophile community soldiered on. We even experimented with piezoelectric supertweeters capable of producing airborne sound waves above 20,000 Hertz.
Technically, the problem of digitally recording sound waves with a degree of faithfulness to the original sound or fidelity is no way much easier than the analog recording systems of yore that digital recording intends to replace. Even standard compact discs whose highest frequencies reach only 22,050 Hertz and yet it requires almost 800 megabytes of storage space to save 80 minutes worth of music. SACD s and other high-resolution audio formats whose frequency bandwidth are twice to five times that of redbook CD requires four times the data space, which necessitates the use of a visible-light red laser for playback. Despite the state-of-the-art sound quality and technical tour de force most high-resolution digital music formats have been relegated to the curiosity museum; Either due to lack of promotion or fear of music piracy. Isn’t the cause of music piracy is that the non-audiophiles – i.e. 99.9999% of the population – has wholeheartedly adopted the good enough mentality when it comes to sound quality?
Another problem of the quality improvement in wide-bandwidth digital audio is that most of the sound quality improvement occurs far from the frequency of interest, like SACD s and DVD-Audio recordings of purist acoustic Classical and Jazz music are often praised by audiophiles for their grain-free midrange frequencies and tight bass. Only on music that contains strongly struck cymbals like Heavy Metal Rock Music reissues is the improvement on high-frequency reproduction is noted during listening sessions.
To me, the hi-fi industry today – especially those that are just mere subsidiaries of gigantic consumer electronic companies – will forever be reluctant to promote the concept of audio systems. Especially those capable of faithfully reproducing sounds above 20,000 Hertz because kids, teen-age girls, dogs, bats or anyone with ultrasonic hearing are not so willing to pay the seven digit telephone-number price tags these high-ticket items are likely to be priced. It is one of Mother Nature’s ultimate act of cruelty, by the time you can afford the audio system of your dreams the onset of age-related hearing loss starts to manifest itself. So say goodbye to ultrasonic hearing. Especially once you’ve reached the wrong side of thirty, and no your Veruca Salt CD s are not getting worn down or getting to sound duller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
