This subject comes up periodically on the forums and recently on this blog - the subject being how can modern music be used to test the sound of a sound system - and are we not really dependent on comparing what unamplified acoustical instruments sound like on our systems versus what they sound like in reality?

I.E. do we need a reference ‘perfect’ sound with which to determine just how much fidelity our high-fidelity reproduction systems have?

Definitely an aesthetically pleasing argument. But does it hold up? Is this the ONLY way to ascertain fidelity of a system?

Personally, I find it too limiting.

First, one can argue that there is no ‘perfect’ sound - that our recordings of, say, a piano are so very far from sounding like a real piano and that we cannot ask our systems to sound like a piano if the source material does not sound like a piano. A corollary to this is that 99% of people have no idea what a piano sounds like. And much fewer what the particular piano sounded like that is being recorded - in that particular hall - at the location of the particular microphone(s).

Second, that many people cannot tell the difference between a modest stereo system’s reproduction of a live band and the live band itself. I think Dunlavy used to hold these demos [using very modest albeit dynamic systems] in their factory. [I am very familiar what an acoustical guitar sounds like from 2 to, say, 10 feet away. I can be ‘fooled’ sometimes because my ear will focus on a limited number of cues: the note attack and note decay and note harmonics (of the guitar body and other strings, as well as buzzing against the pick and or frets, etc) ].

Third, music like Radiohead is recorded better and has a higher fidelity to the original music because so much of the original music is electronically generated - this is its natural medium. It doesn’t have to go from vibrations to sound to microphone to weak electrical signals. Radiohead is great for testing - and fairly unique - because it is both complex and recorded very very well. Classical music, when complex, often has issues because the instruments are so spread out they are hard to record with a single microphone - and multiple microphones introduce problems, etc. etc.

So a conclusion here, it seems , is that one has to pay freaking close attention to the sound of the reproduction even if it is purportedly of an acoustical instrument. Are the notes rendered well, how does the music make us feel, etc. And we also compare to other music we have heard on this system as well as this same music we have heard on other systems as well as other music by the same band as well as how other sources (LP, CD, Tape, SACD, etc.) of this same music has sounded in the past.

It is all about triangulating and interpolating and comparing and re-comparing sound to other sounds - and whether that sound is an acoustic instrument or a electronic keyboard or a voice or whatever - it hardly matters IMHO.

OK. My usual argument went like this: very, very few people give a darn whether their music is from an acoustical instrument or not - they just care about the MUSIC and THAT is what has to sound good and have high-fidelity. The question of whether a piano can be reproduced well, and whether reproducing a piano well means it can also reproduce Hendrix’s guitar well, is fine to debate but one could just as well shirt-circuit the whole mess and just listen to a recording of Hendrix’s guitar. I.E. one listens to music one likes and if that sounds correct, with respect to memories of live performances and memories of similar music on the system and similar systems, then one is happy happy.

A new Radiohead album was released by the band:

The King of Limbs

Last night we heard the uncompressed WAV file burnt on to a black CD at 10X speed. We played it on both the Audio Note CDT-5 transport with the Fifth Element DAC, as well as the Emm Labs XDS1 CD player. Both digital front ends were going through the Audio Note M9 Phono and Audio Note Ongaku into the Coltrane Supreme loudspeakers.

The MUSIC

There are 8 songs for a total of about 38 minutes. They are a pretty direct descendant of their last album ‘In Rainbows’. Most of the songs have the recent signature Radiohead sound vis-a-vis an evident extreme attention to the detail of every single note and sound.

There is with a lot of stuff going on in these songs. creating an enveloping sonic ocean that, for me, appeals to the heart in equal proportions to the mind. The last song was a little different from the others - sounding a lot like Cocteau Twins but with the addition of a drum machine.

We liked it quite a bit, although it was much too short.

The SOUND

With all the evidence that CDs burnt from LPs and Reel-to-reel tapes can sound better than commercial CDs, I had wondered before I heard this whether this CD burnt directly from the WAV files directly from Radiohead might sound better than the typical commercial Radiohead CD.

In my opinion, this CD did not sound better than the typical Radiohead commercial CD. We need to do more back and forth listening, and I will update this if my opinion changes, but this CD is more reflective of the CD quality of, say, circa 1997-99. Plenty good for listening to - and enjoying - but not outstanding [for example, things like soundstage depth and harmonic purity were just average… actually a little below average].

Follow us on High End Audio Mattters

A little update on the state of things here…

The Audio Note Ongaku integrated is on the Coltrane Supreme speakers. Those are the Lamm ML2.1 waiting in the wings. They were used as part of a recent out-of-towner audition. [Yes, the speaker cables are taking a shortcut over the Marten crossover - a little cable dressing no-no but, well, it ain’t going to reach otherwise].

The deathstar [mixing movie metaphors here, I know] Audio Note digital is on the left: The CDT-5 transport, the Fifth Element DAC and Fifth Force power supply. On the right is the Brinkmann turntable, the Audio Note S9 step up transformer and the Audio M9 Phono preamplifier. On the bottom there is the Emm Labs XDS1 CD/SACD player.

Downstairs we have the Audio Note Kegon amps driving the Audio Note AN/E SE Signature speakers.

On the side we have a lot of stuff. We have the Audio Note CDT-3 transport and DAC 4 Balanced into the Emm Labs PRE2 linestage. We also have the Walker turntable into the Lamm LP2 phono preamplifier. Other components - not hooked up - and the Audio Note Kegon Balanced amps and M3 RIAA phono preamplifier.

In the small room we have the Audio Aero Capitole CD player and the, I think Neli has the P1 hooked up, driving the AN/E SPe HE speakers.

A new Radiohead album is being released by the band:

The King of Limbs

It is downloadable (MP3 and uncompressed WAV) on Saturday. We hope to hear it Sunday [thanks Mike!] burned on a CD. We will be playing it through the Audio Note CDT-5, Fifth Element and Fifth Force digital and perhaps also the Emm Labs XDS1 and 1) see how it compares to ‘CD quality’ and 2) hear their new album

OK, I threatened to do this… so let’s try to do it without getting us all in too much trouble.

Worthwhile Review

Sound of the piece under review is actually described - in terms of what it does well and what it does not so well.

Clueless Review

Sound is not actually described and instead there is a lot of meaningless hyperbole like: Wonderful vocals, awesome bass, band XYZ sounded extremely good, etc.

Worthwhile Review

Sound is compared to competition [note that some summary of the characteristic sound of the various competition is required otherwise the comparison is worthless / clueless] and to other components from the same company - both above and below the component under review

Clueless Review

It is so common for the phrase “best I’ve heard” to slip into reviews where the reviewer has heard nothing from the competition in this price range or above - i..e this is also the most expensive component the reviewer has ever heard. This type of Clueless Review is also commonly highlighted when the reviewer insists that his modestly priced system, with the less modestly price component under review, sounds better [better is sometimes qualified as ‘highest resolution’ or ‘best dynamics’ or etc.] than any system they have ever heard in their life.

—————————

Let’s see. These two characteristics of Clueless Reviews certainly apply to 90-95% of all reviews in both print and online. Some sites only publish Clueless Reviews like this and nothing else.

Some Clueless Reviews DO have some redeeming value in that they might include historical information about - or an interview with - the manufacturer. Or cool info about the CD they are using to test with. Or whatever, something else unrelated to the supposed actual review of the relative quality of the component under review [like pricing… or photos]

“The 1st CAF went so well that we are having a second! We had approximately 500 people in attendance not including the vendors and manufacturers and plan to have many more for this event.

We are now looking to fill the rooms for the 2011 CAF and have lots of interest for the 2nd event. The 2010 CAF went as planned being a casual fun-filled event for audiophiles, music lovers, music media and vintage audio gear collectors, dealers and manufacturers. Families and many couples came to the event which you don’t see that often. Yes the WAF was felt by all. Great food and beverage (Adult beverages too!) were enjoyed by many. The event included high quality vacuum tube and transistor audio equipment, analog and digital playback sources, buying and selling of vinyl LP records and CDs, and retailers and manufacturers of quality audio gear from the Baltimore - Washington DC Metropolitan Area and beyond. Saturday night we had a live Jazz show with DC native master drummer Nasar Abadey and Supernova and even the host joined in for two numbers (They humored me)! The Sunday Audio Swapmeet went off well with many early morning risers prowling the tables for gear. ”

OK.

Done with the photos and I hope people can see that:

1) There just were not a lot of contenders for best of show
2) Of those, many were using laptops as sources, which almost always severely compromises the sound quality of a system at this show
3) Of the remaining, many were just trying to attract attention and did not focus on the creating the best sound that they could.

So…. better than RMAF, sound wise, as usual, but not as good as previous CES’s…

I think I detected a more relaxed attitude about the defacto train-wreck that is high-end audio and the doom and gloom dire predictions of the future are now almost as quaint and boring as playing Diana Krall all day long.

All the people using laptops to demonstrate the sound of their equipment (as opposed to just demonstrating that it, in fact, works) are like car dealerships sending a sales associate with bad breath and B.O. along with every person taking a test drive. It ain’t helping your case, people.

Let’s see, what else….

Clueless show reports by 2nd and 3rd tier magazines are still all the rage [I’ll let them decide if they are 2nd or 3rd tier ]. Jeez I wish these people would get a different job - perhaps even a job they are actually good at? Hmmmm… maybe the next post should be about how to detect a clueless review?

One of these days we have to stop buying crazy audio gear for just a darn minute and get me a decent camera [Yeah right ].

I like Las Vegas a lot better when it is warm, say 70 degrees during the day. Maybe next year…?

This is the second and last part of the photos for the rooms at the Flamingo this year. As you can see, THE Show is continuing to grow - and traffic this year, which was up, was more or less commensurable with that at the Venetian, whose traffic was down.

Surprised we did not see the Joachim Gerhard speakers here in this room with the Spiral Groove turntable - they are certainly the equal of Vienna Acoustics and usually appear in the same room as the Spiral Groove turntable [Silly me, this is a room Vienna Acoustics was sharing with Immedia and of course they would prefer to show their own speakers. Duh. Thanks for the comment Patrick].




These amps are big. Expect to see a ‘Biggest… Amps… EVER’ cover story…

TAD had their own electronics here this year. After a quick listen I thought they would do quite well on our list of amps vis-a-vis micro-dynamics. All in all I liked them - although the sound here was lifeless - which could have been due to cables, the stupid laptop, setup, whatever - it had not the purposeful soullessness that typifies so much of the Boy Toy systems elsewhere.








Silbatone always tries to do something interesting, and it is always fun to talk to Joe Roberts.










Audio Power Labs put their unpriced $100K - $200K amps on the Vandersteen 3A speakers and driven by a cheap front end. It was interestingly good enough that I came back here with my own CDs. With my own CDs the flaws in the Vandy and source were obvious and significant, but, albeit though these filters, I did not hear and problems with the amps.








A few people [Jim and Wes] sent me down to hear this room on Level 2 - something about out-of-this-world dynamics. I went down with Jim. These people do the sound for Avatar and stuff for Radiohead - they were name-dropping left and right - but the sound in this room had a lot of [untight] bass and was totally confused everywhere else. Not sure what went wrong or what was even supposed to go right.




The sound here was relatively pleasant and music - not in a surprising way but in a way that made me think that a lot of rooms at the show this year had quite a few more things wrong than this room [which DOES surprise me, given the laptop source etc.]

[Just photos. No commentary].