Superseded during the 1990s owing to the increasing popularity of vintage low-powered tube amps and very sensitive loudspeakers, is the Flat Earth ideology a vital part of audiophile history?
By: Ringo Bones
Back in the middle of the 1980s, a prominent audiophile sect staunchly believes that the only boxes – i.e. loudspeakers – to have at the end of a righteous audio system should have the word "Linn" written at the back. This somewhat “extremist” hi-fi ideology was aided by enthusiastic hi-fi dealers of the period who are also audiophiles. Not to mention a certain since-defunct periodical / hi-fi magazine called The Flat Response. Thus allowing the hi-fi maker Linn to harbor the ideology that the first priority of a loudspeaker should be the way it played rhythms and the current long-standing global audiophile community’s perception of what is the British Sound was born. Though a Thomas Dolby song from the period titled “Flat Earth” is often played through these systems, reinforcing the need of spot-on rhythm and timing when playing eighties-era synthesizer-based music, but countless others probably use theirs to unravel the rhythmic complexity of Iron Maiden’s The Number of the Beast album.
The most uncompromising embodiment of this hi-fi ideology was the Kan, a tiny box manufactured by Linn. Equipped with treble and mid drivers similar to that used in Linn’s flagship brand the behemoth-sized Isobarik loudspeakers. Back around the middle of the 1980s, the Linn Kans was capable very captivating performance. These loudspeakers sounded extremely fast and extremely tight, with an “uncanny” ability to disappear into their own soundstage. Linn’s bigger – and more efficient – loudspeaker models never convincingly displayed the ability of the smaller Kan’s hi-fi slight-of-hand.
The Kan also has a profoundly fussy approach to matching ancillary components, ironically the little speaker’s “soul-mate” is an equally fussy solid-state power amplifier made by Naim called the NAIT that produced only 30 watts into an eight-ohm load. But during that era in the 1980s, the little Kan – if you wanted more than a squeak from these relatively inefficient speakers - was often paired up to a large muscular solid-state full complementary direct coupled amplifier with a power output of around 80 to 100 watts into an eight-ohm load. The hi-fi community’s renewed obsession with flea-powered tube / valve amps and Maytag washing machine-sized horn loudspeakers were still a decade away.
On the front-end side of things, Flat Earth systems didn’t like inferior source components. CD players circa 1983 was excruciatingly painful-sounding when played through the Kans, plus the early CD’s still suboptimally designed output filters produced so much rhythmic and timing anomalies that it negates the idea of having a Flat Earth system in the first place. Meaning in those days, it was Linn’s pre-braced plinth Valhalla LP12 with LVX+ and Basik cartridge, a Roksan Xerxes, or nothing.
The “dark side” of the Flat Earth ideology is that it made every audiophile – especially in merry old England – harbor the belief that tube / valve amps (especially low-powered ones) from the Golden Age of Stereo were deemed obsolete during the go-go eighties. The Flat Response hi-fi magazine didn’t helped matters either because reviewers of the Flat Earth disposition showed scant knowledge and interest when it comes to the science – and art – of loudspeaker matching. Using quintessentially 1980s era hard to drive loudspeakers with which most tube amplifiers played through them had to struggle. Maybe it was the sound of Leak Stereo 20s wheezing and groaning under the load of a pair of Linn Saras that many Flat Earth-leaning audiophiles conclude that tube amplifiers are now – in the mid 1980s – obsolete. Thus benefiting hordes of East Asian vintage audio enthusiasts.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Vintage Audio Gear: More Hype Than Hi-Fi?
Given that the laws of progress dictates that the latest technology is surely better than yesterday’s, are some audiophile’s obsession with old / vintage audio gear beyond common sense?
By: Ringo Bones
Since the 1970s, people who buy aggressively marketed 500 dollar audio gear then listen to them with 10,000 dollar audio analyzers had been ridiculing us audiophiles who buy reasonably-priced audio gear of several years vintage then listen to it with our own two ears. Sadly, this vulgar act of “bullying” resulted in a minor – albeit tragic – disaster of vintage audio gear being diverted into the Far Eastern markets. This “disaster” affected mostly American and West European audiophiles and it took twenty years – more or less – to mitigate.
It is safe to point the blame at mainstream consumer electronic manufacturers who probably discovered during the 1970s that audio gear that measures perfectly on the test bench is far cheaper to manufacture than a really good sounding one that measures slightly worse. Thus, the mainstream consumer electronic manufacturers began aggressively marketing their latest audio gear – especially audio amplifiers – based on specs like total harmonic distortion, power output, etc. instead of ultimate sound quality and / or musicality.
During the 1980s vintage audio gear – especially vacuum tube-based audio amplifiers – began to skyrocket in price, especially in America where vintage audio gear manufactured during the Golden Age of Stereo began to appear in garage sales and weekend swap meets. It is not just trusty tube-based receivers, like the venerable Fisher 500-C that gained sacred cow status. Not to mention McIntosh tube-based audio gear. Even vacuum tubes, especially new old stock (NOS) versions of 12AX7 pre-amp tubes, Western Electric 300B tubes, KT-66, KT-88, EL-34 output tubes. And even the 7591A output tubes used in the Fisher 500-C receiver began to skyrocket in price soon after because American electronic manufacturers find that it is not economically viable - during the Reagan Administration - to manufacture vacuum tubes in quantities that would only cater audiophiles and electric guitar players. Exotic capacitors, like Sprague Vitamin Q paper-in-oil capacitors, also followed suit into cult status. Add to that the inherent unreliability of tubes manufactured in t People's Republic of China during the 1980s when compared to NOS American types - thus producing the Perfect Storm of "criminal pricing" of vintage audio gear from the Golden Age of Stereo.
Sadly, your typical Far Eastern vintage audio enthusiast had been busy swallowing up these under-appreciated aspects of Americana – if you’re willing to believe the hype in the hi-fi press anyway. Not just American-made vintage audio gear, even tube-based ham radios and electronic test equipment had already become hot collector items in Japan and other affluent parts of the Orient. Maybe there are plans in Japan for a musical based on the movie Frequency. You know, that move where James Caviezel’s character managed to contact his father played by Dennis Quaid using a tube-based ham radio 30 years in the past due to a freak solar storm.
But in reality, not everyone in Japan is a vintage audio enthusiast. Only those who have the time, money, and living space to indulge – and enjoy – choose vintage audio gear as their hobby. Because a typical pre-global credit crunch salaried employee in Japan who earns a middling income usually lives in a cramped 425 square-foot apartment. Thus very unlikely to invest – and indulge – in a vintage stereo system that costs more that a third of his annual salary and takes up most – if not all – of the space in his living quarters. So PX25 tube amps and 1950s-era Tannoy horn loaded speakers are out of the question.
The good news is that from a financial perspective, indulgence in vintage audio gear is no longer comparable in cost to a two-week working vacation in the International Space Station like it did during the 1980s – it is much, much cheaper now. Not to mention the availability of solid-state amps that sound just as good as tube-based amps since the mid 1990s – well, good enough if you consider the retail price anyway. But the primary reason why vintage audio gear had become a way less expensive hobby during the 21st Century is that some well-meaning folks and manufacturing firms have restarted making vintage audio gear and their associated parts – not to mention better-sounding audiophile-grade compatible replacement equivalent parts – at very reasonable prices. Like the Electro-Harmonix version of the 7591A output tubes by Sovtek of Russia so that everyone can restore their Fisher 500-C receiver without having to spend family car prices.
Looks like 2009 is going to be a very good time for the vintage audio enthusiasts. Unless some speculative swine starts to create hype over discontinued and rare solid-state components, like the AN214 IC amplifier, or the XR2206 Monolithic Function Generator IC and its related kit. And the bad news is that it has already begun because since 2001, the AN214 IC – if you can still manage to find one – was being sold at prices above what a Telefunken 12AX7 pre-amp tube used to sell. Maybe you should hold on to that Sansui AU-a707DR integrated amplifier before selling it to this Sunday’s garage sale.
By: Ringo Bones
Since the 1970s, people who buy aggressively marketed 500 dollar audio gear then listen to them with 10,000 dollar audio analyzers had been ridiculing us audiophiles who buy reasonably-priced audio gear of several years vintage then listen to it with our own two ears. Sadly, this vulgar act of “bullying” resulted in a minor – albeit tragic – disaster of vintage audio gear being diverted into the Far Eastern markets. This “disaster” affected mostly American and West European audiophiles and it took twenty years – more or less – to mitigate.
It is safe to point the blame at mainstream consumer electronic manufacturers who probably discovered during the 1970s that audio gear that measures perfectly on the test bench is far cheaper to manufacture than a really good sounding one that measures slightly worse. Thus, the mainstream consumer electronic manufacturers began aggressively marketing their latest audio gear – especially audio amplifiers – based on specs like total harmonic distortion, power output, etc. instead of ultimate sound quality and / or musicality.
During the 1980s vintage audio gear – especially vacuum tube-based audio amplifiers – began to skyrocket in price, especially in America where vintage audio gear manufactured during the Golden Age of Stereo began to appear in garage sales and weekend swap meets. It is not just trusty tube-based receivers, like the venerable Fisher 500-C that gained sacred cow status. Not to mention McIntosh tube-based audio gear. Even vacuum tubes, especially new old stock (NOS) versions of 12AX7 pre-amp tubes, Western Electric 300B tubes, KT-66, KT-88, EL-34 output tubes. And even the 7591A output tubes used in the Fisher 500-C receiver began to skyrocket in price soon after because American electronic manufacturers find that it is not economically viable - during the Reagan Administration - to manufacture vacuum tubes in quantities that would only cater audiophiles and electric guitar players. Exotic capacitors, like Sprague Vitamin Q paper-in-oil capacitors, also followed suit into cult status. Add to that the inherent unreliability of tubes manufactured in t People's Republic of China during the 1980s when compared to NOS American types - thus producing the Perfect Storm of "criminal pricing" of vintage audio gear from the Golden Age of Stereo.
Sadly, your typical Far Eastern vintage audio enthusiast had been busy swallowing up these under-appreciated aspects of Americana – if you’re willing to believe the hype in the hi-fi press anyway. Not just American-made vintage audio gear, even tube-based ham radios and electronic test equipment had already become hot collector items in Japan and other affluent parts of the Orient. Maybe there are plans in Japan for a musical based on the movie Frequency. You know, that move where James Caviezel’s character managed to contact his father played by Dennis Quaid using a tube-based ham radio 30 years in the past due to a freak solar storm.
But in reality, not everyone in Japan is a vintage audio enthusiast. Only those who have the time, money, and living space to indulge – and enjoy – choose vintage audio gear as their hobby. Because a typical pre-global credit crunch salaried employee in Japan who earns a middling income usually lives in a cramped 425 square-foot apartment. Thus very unlikely to invest – and indulge – in a vintage stereo system that costs more that a third of his annual salary and takes up most – if not all – of the space in his living quarters. So PX25 tube amps and 1950s-era Tannoy horn loaded speakers are out of the question.
The good news is that from a financial perspective, indulgence in vintage audio gear is no longer comparable in cost to a two-week working vacation in the International Space Station like it did during the 1980s – it is much, much cheaper now. Not to mention the availability of solid-state amps that sound just as good as tube-based amps since the mid 1990s – well, good enough if you consider the retail price anyway. But the primary reason why vintage audio gear had become a way less expensive hobby during the 21st Century is that some well-meaning folks and manufacturing firms have restarted making vintage audio gear and their associated parts – not to mention better-sounding audiophile-grade compatible replacement equivalent parts – at very reasonable prices. Like the Electro-Harmonix version of the 7591A output tubes by Sovtek of Russia so that everyone can restore their Fisher 500-C receiver without having to spend family car prices.
Looks like 2009 is going to be a very good time for the vintage audio enthusiasts. Unless some speculative swine starts to create hype over discontinued and rare solid-state components, like the AN214 IC amplifier, or the XR2206 Monolithic Function Generator IC and its related kit. And the bad news is that it has already begun because since 2001, the AN214 IC – if you can still manage to find one – was being sold at prices above what a Telefunken 12AX7 pre-amp tube used to sell. Maybe you should hold on to that Sansui AU-a707DR integrated amplifier before selling it to this Sunday’s garage sale.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Do Musicians Make Better Audio Gear?
Given that they are familiar with music on a regular basis, do musicians – with the requisite electronic engineering skills - make better sounding audio / hi-fi gear than their non-musician counterparts?
By: Ringo Bones
Academic researchers have shown that the great mathematicians – or mathematically literate scientists and engineers - of the past are also accomplished musicians, or at least playing a musical instrument on a recreational basis. A good example would be Albert Einstein relaxing while playing the fiddle. But given that designing really great audio gear requires electronic engineering skills that are derived from mathematics, would “musically literate” audio engineers have an edge over their non-musical counterparts when it comes to designing great-sounding audio gear?
Before he became famous as a recording engineer and creator of probably the best-sounding solid state amplifiers in the world, Mark Levinson once played upright acoustic bass with Paul Bley back in the mid-1960s. Mark Levinson amplifiers are not only praised for their excellent bass performance, but also for their excellent portrayal of the soundstage of the recorded music being played back. Every Mark Levinson audio gear was often cited to be able to create surround-sound playback from just two speakers. Really someone whose audio engineering skills deserve a Nobel Prize if there was a category for one.
Musical Fidelity’s managing director Antony Michaelson not only designs great sounding audio equipment that is sold across the hi-fi price range, from the US$500 Musical Fidelity X-A1 amplifier to the US$6,500 Musical Fidelity kW DM25 two-box CD player (though I don’t think this is Musical Fidelity’s priciest product). But he also plays clarinet. He’s even on the Mozart Clarinet Concerto K622 in A Major CD as the clarinet soloist. Even though Antony Michaelson is a Classical Music-based musician, his audio gear is “eclectic” enough to handle every genre of music known to mankind, from Central Asian acoustic folk music to extremely high-decibel stadium Heavy Metal.
Interestingly, manufacturers of electric guitar amplifiers have entered into the hi-fi business too. Randall Smith of Mesa Engineering - more famous for their vacuum tube-based electric guitar amplifiers with vacuum tube-based rectifying diodes in the power supply – has introduced the Mesa Engineering Baron and the Tigris as “domestic” hi-fi amps. His designs may not make “decent” engineering sense in the 21st Century when high speed solid-state devices that can be used to construct a RADAR system that can “see” stealth aircraft is now commonly available (and surprisingly cheap), but for us music-loving audiophiles, there’s just no substitute. If Randall Smith can design audio gear of such beauty sound quality wise while probably wailing away with his preferred electric guitar and amp combo, then maybe the executives at Sony or any major / mainstream consumer electronic manufacturers should start giving their audio engineering staff music lessons.
If you’re into music that’s been recorded during the Golden Age of Stereo – i.e. late 1950s to early 1960s – there’s just no substitute for tube amps with tube rectifiers. Like the recordings of such soulful artists like Nina Simone. Whose voice can range from crystal clarity to a throaty roar even in the same phrase; In order to appreciate this kind of music you need an audio amplifier that “sweats with the music”. Check out “Break Down and Let it All Out” or Nina Simone’s Francophone opus “Ne Me Quitte Pas” being played on a tube amp with a tube rectifier section, and you’ll swear that she’s alive and in your listening room.
As with all math-driven endeavors, engineering audio equipment – like engineering a weapons system that can throw a 4-gram projectile 938 meters per second with a guaranteed head shot accuracy at 800 meters – is still for all intents and purposes more of an art than a science. Given that we listen with our own ears – as opposed to a US$9,000 audio analyzer – how a piece of audio gear sounds is more important than how it measures on the lab bench. Maybe audio designers who think that it’s all about engineering should try working as an apprentice at Alexander Arms or Knight's Armory.
By: Ringo Bones
Academic researchers have shown that the great mathematicians – or mathematically literate scientists and engineers - of the past are also accomplished musicians, or at least playing a musical instrument on a recreational basis. A good example would be Albert Einstein relaxing while playing the fiddle. But given that designing really great audio gear requires electronic engineering skills that are derived from mathematics, would “musically literate” audio engineers have an edge over their non-musical counterparts when it comes to designing great-sounding audio gear?
Before he became famous as a recording engineer and creator of probably the best-sounding solid state amplifiers in the world, Mark Levinson once played upright acoustic bass with Paul Bley back in the mid-1960s. Mark Levinson amplifiers are not only praised for their excellent bass performance, but also for their excellent portrayal of the soundstage of the recorded music being played back. Every Mark Levinson audio gear was often cited to be able to create surround-sound playback from just two speakers. Really someone whose audio engineering skills deserve a Nobel Prize if there was a category for one.
Musical Fidelity’s managing director Antony Michaelson not only designs great sounding audio equipment that is sold across the hi-fi price range, from the US$500 Musical Fidelity X-A1 amplifier to the US$6,500 Musical Fidelity kW DM25 two-box CD player (though I don’t think this is Musical Fidelity’s priciest product). But he also plays clarinet. He’s even on the Mozart Clarinet Concerto K622 in A Major CD as the clarinet soloist. Even though Antony Michaelson is a Classical Music-based musician, his audio gear is “eclectic” enough to handle every genre of music known to mankind, from Central Asian acoustic folk music to extremely high-decibel stadium Heavy Metal.
Interestingly, manufacturers of electric guitar amplifiers have entered into the hi-fi business too. Randall Smith of Mesa Engineering - more famous for their vacuum tube-based electric guitar amplifiers with vacuum tube-based rectifying diodes in the power supply – has introduced the Mesa Engineering Baron and the Tigris as “domestic” hi-fi amps. His designs may not make “decent” engineering sense in the 21st Century when high speed solid-state devices that can be used to construct a RADAR system that can “see” stealth aircraft is now commonly available (and surprisingly cheap), but for us music-loving audiophiles, there’s just no substitute. If Randall Smith can design audio gear of such beauty sound quality wise while probably wailing away with his preferred electric guitar and amp combo, then maybe the executives at Sony or any major / mainstream consumer electronic manufacturers should start giving their audio engineering staff music lessons.
If you’re into music that’s been recorded during the Golden Age of Stereo – i.e. late 1950s to early 1960s – there’s just no substitute for tube amps with tube rectifiers. Like the recordings of such soulful artists like Nina Simone. Whose voice can range from crystal clarity to a throaty roar even in the same phrase; In order to appreciate this kind of music you need an audio amplifier that “sweats with the music”. Check out “Break Down and Let it All Out” or Nina Simone’s Francophone opus “Ne Me Quitte Pas” being played on a tube amp with a tube rectifier section, and you’ll swear that she’s alive and in your listening room.
As with all math-driven endeavors, engineering audio equipment – like engineering a weapons system that can throw a 4-gram projectile 938 meters per second with a guaranteed head shot accuracy at 800 meters – is still for all intents and purposes more of an art than a science. Given that we listen with our own ears – as opposed to a US$9,000 audio analyzer – how a piece of audio gear sounds is more important than how it measures on the lab bench. Maybe audio designers who think that it’s all about engineering should try working as an apprentice at Alexander Arms or Knight's Armory.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Unseemly Audiophile Demo Discs
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
