         | |||||||
 SHIBBOLETHS OF STEREO by H. R. Weiner I. Sunday Morning Sermonette We hold certain truths to be self-evident in high fidelity. Certainly "the music lives in the midrange" is so widespread, so easy to agree with, that no one has ever questioned it. It’s like a secret handshake, except that everyone knows it. We reviewers flesh out our reports by citing it: "the midrange, which is the heart of music, was full and rich." What in blazes is "full and rich" midrange? A stocky tenor who earns a big salary? Our common wisdom ignores the fact that truly realistic reproduction of musical events does not depend any more upon midrange fidelity than it does on Pace, Rhythm and Timing (another of those hoary clichés) or continuity – that perfect but never defined property that shows up in reports all the time – any more than it resides in deep bass, airy treble (as opposed to dank, airless treble?), or any other single property. Trying to nail down the single most important quality of music is like trying to find the best part of the Rocky Mountains: if you can identify one item better than all the others, what you’ve really got is an inventory of failure in other categories. I’ll give you an example. There is an electronics company whose amplifiers are synonymous with deep, powerful bass. This has been a constant of the past several decades, to the point that we may summarize by saying "Krell bass" whenever a product has deep, well-controlled low frequencies. I can’t recall a reviewer commenting on "Krell treble," and I don’t know anyone who chooses these amplifiers for their midrange. The problem, obviously, is that we audiophiles deal in compromises: we try to identify the part of music which matters most, and strive to optimize that part. No one doubts that Quad 57s get the range from about 70 to 7 kilohertz right; and since the heart of music resides in this span, Quads are cited as a reference – even though the majority of people have never heard them. And that leads us to another hoary hifi cliché: "electrostatic speed." Oscilloscope tracings show that electrostatic and ribbon transducers respond quickly to impulses – but not faster than modern moving coil drivers. And yet I bet that not a month goes by that some speaker is described as "fast like an electrostatic." Isn’t it time that we considered music as a totality, not as an assemblage of discrete parts? This would make reviewing harder because we wouldn’t be able to fill a third of our reports with blather about the bass, a third about the midrange, and a third about the treble. We might actually have to deal with music as we experience it: whole. II. The Virtues of Vintage This magazine’s editor has written extensively on how replacing some capacitors and resistors in thirty-five year old components – sometimes from companies no longer in existence – can produce excellent sound. Art Dudley at Stereophile has contributed articles on refurbishing speakers and turntables. I admired the writers’ artisanship, but I questioned the ultimate value of these endeavors. Why should I spend a lot of personal time to achieve the same level of performance I can get from current gear, and without burning my fingertips on a soldering iron, or sniffing insulation and resin? There’s a flood of Chinese gear rolling into the market, and it’s often pretty cheap. When you add in the cost of paying someone to rebuild an old amplifier (or spending your weekends doing it) do you get something you couldn’t get with a credit card? The bottom line, whether you pay in money or in time, is this: what does the old stuff have that we can’t buy brand new? Hifi reviews often sink back on automotive analogies, so here’s one. Let’s imagine that Ebenezer, your kindly old grandfather, bequeaths you a 1975 Mercedes sedan. After you replaced the belts, hoses, clamps, fluids, the tires, windshield wipers – and that’s just the little stuff, not tearing apart the transmission – you’d discover that old Daimlers ride like tractors and shift like trucks. Wouldn’t you be better off with a nice, late-model Honda, which will serve comfortably for the next decade? III. Antiquarian Exploration Midway upon the journey of our life Marty sent progress reports on the Accuphase, and you can read what he found in a recent issue. I was grateful for his hard work, but I wanted to know one thing: how did this relic sound? Marty doesn’t attempt to prejudice my listening experience. I kept asking, but Marty told me that I should form my own opinion. And a few weeks later, a fairly heavy box landed on my doorstep. My first impression on opening the lid was: look at all the tone controls and filters on this thing! Everyone knows that those degrade the signal. On the back I found a variable damping control, a weird power connector that wouldn’t accept my thick-as-your-forearm power cord, and little screw terminals that wouldn’t accept my thumb-thickness speaker wires. Everyone knows these features must be bad. The female RCA connections were machined steel! Holy Shibboleth! Where were the indium/rhodium plated gold-over-Tellurium copper plugs that we all know are necessary for signal transfer? After I regained my composure, I saw that Marty had included speaker wire with this fifty-pound heresy – but it was lamp cord, the stuff you buy for a few cents a foot at the hardware store. Had Marty lost his mind? Still, the item was on the rack, and I saw no harm in turning it on. And now we arrive at the moral of this story. The Accuphase E-202, for all its heretical, extremely unfashionable features, sounded better than any solid state integrated I’ve tried in the past ten years. The sound was clear and open from top to bottom, without a trace of editorializing. I could stack all the errors it didn’t commit, but that’s not the point. Simply stated, this was a great amp, an amp that made a lot of others built since its time (mid 1970’s) sound bad. Kevin Carter, who used to work at VAC, liked the window analogy. Some VAC products, he told me, removed a layer of obscurity from the music that you hadn’t ever noticed. That’s what the Accuphase did for me that afternoon. I didn’t think about how the treble was extended and airy, or how the midrange was lush and round. I marveled at how clear the presentation was. I am fortunate to live in a city with a university music school, a private conservatory, a fair regional orchestra, and the Chicago Symphony is not far away. None of the performances I have attended at any of these institutions had extended and airy treble, &c. In fact, I have been to performances that reminded me of Gordon Holt’s comment that live music lacked the treble he heard from loudspeakers. That’s exactly right, and that’s what the Accuphase provides: not the exaggerated high frequency detail or overstated bass of most equipment, only an honest rendition of the source. The window I had not been aware of had been flung wide open. After I calmed down about the 18 gauge (!) wire in the screw terminals (!!), I even tried the tone controls. Oh, the simple temptations that lead us from audiophile purity to sinful sonic corruption. Truth is, in my room, with the speakers at hand, a gentle bass enhancement was beneficial, and I couldn’t detect any sonic degradation. I’ve tried integrating subwoofers with a lot less success, and a whole lot more problems. The next step was comparing this elderly transistor unit to some modern tube gear. You don’t need me to tell you that the Accuphase was different than a modern single-ended triode amplifier running 300B tubes. The latter was very pleasant, with a creamy rightness in the midrange (where music lives, remember?) and sweet upper octaves. But did it sound more lifelike than the Accuphase? I went back and forth between amps. I would be happy with either one, and I was happy to have both. Which was more "true"? On balance, I had to judge the Accuphase as more honest. Does that mean that one version is right and the other wrong? I don’t think we can make that sort of assessment. We can assert that one amplifier, in one system, produces a sound which is closer to live music than another. But what if you don’t want the warts-and-all presentation? What if you’d like your music sweetened just a little? That’s what the SET did: imposed a small amount of its own lovely character upon the music. Is that a bad thing? Again, I think this is a matter of personal preference and I wouldn’t blame you for adding a bit of charm; and if you have a peaky tweeter that runs out to 50 kHz, or a sterile midrange, tubes may be just what you need. Of course, that begs the question: what are you doing with a nasty tweeter and a fleshless midrange? The answer to those questions is another question: what has high fidelity done since about 1980? We’ve driven deeply into retrieving detail, but neglected tonality and timbre; or we’ve made the opposite mistake and emphasized warmth at the expense of clarity. I’m sad that I had to reach back nearly forty years to find equipment that balanced these priorities, but I’m glad that I did.
Don’t Forget Our Web Site We don’t include in our printed reviews anywhere near the number of photos taken of a reviewed product. While we may print one or two photos with the review, space prohibits the inclusion of all the photos we have of any component. Our web site (www.boundforsound.com) we have many additional photos of every component reviewed. There we can publish as many photos as we desire. It’s also a great source for images of old vintage gear that is difficult, or impossible, to find. Take, for example, the Setton amp and preamplifier covered in issue #204. Those close ups and interior shots can’t be found anywhere on the internet except BFS. Same for the JBL SA 660 integrated in this issue – no one has those shots and photos except for us. And they are in beautiful color. I’m still working on a "Vintage Showcase" for the web site which will contain not only the photos of the gear we review, but photos of vintage components owned by our readers. Please don’t hesitate to e-mail us pix of your vintage or exotic gear for inclusion. With some time, it could become a superb informational resource.
The Gear is Stacking Up Some of you have already figured this out. Purchasing (or borrowing), and reviewing the relatively high number of vintage components covered with each issue has left me with a lot of gear sitting around. When I committed to doing the number of vintage reviews we do in each issue I didn’t really think about the equipment that would be left over when the reviews were done. I knew that the equipment so generously loaned to me for audition by EDI in Peoria would not be a problem… when done with a piece, I simply take it back to Don and Bake for them to sell or whatever. But when the gear I had personally purchased started building up, I had what I perceived to be a dilemma. I didn’t start doing this (the vintage reviews) for the purpose of opening up an audio resale shop for vintage equipment. Selling the gear would give me a monetary reason for wanting to see the equipment sell for a profit when the review was over – we all can see the potential for conflict there. As a matter of honor I’ve diligently examined my own findings on every piece reviewed for the purpose of weeding out any statement or comment that didn’t perfectly conform to my heartfelt conclusions after the auditions. Still, after all was said and scrutinized, I had shelves of equipment sitting idly by not being used. I’ve resolved the situation this way. Most components, after the review has gone to print have been taken to EDI for them to sell on consignment. Some components, those that I still use for comparison purposes to new gear I keep here. Some I have given away to friends who appreciate such things. Hence, the full disclosure here. I honestly don’t know what to do with this vintage overflow. In years past, the rap against reviewers was that they would automatically give positive reviews to expensive components on loan from manufacturers. How often have posters at the Asylum complained of reviewers not buying the equipment found in their listening rooms? Let me tell you, purchasing the components one reviews has its own set of drawbacks, which people don’t want to recognize… selling the gear when you are done with it. Maybe I should simply say that MGD is emptying out his audio closet and be done with it… Instead, I’ll say this. If you think you might be interested in purchasing one of the vintage components covered in these pages, contact me or the guys at EDI in Peoria (309.497.0100) about taking some of this stuff off of my hands. I’m not looking to make big profits off this equipment, only enough to cover the expense of it and then use the money to purchase something else for review. Let me know what you think. ________________________________________ This is very difficult to write. On Wednesday, November 17, 2010, Rich Rodgers (aka "Big Jim, as big as all outdoors") passed away in Sequals, Italy. He is survived by his wife, Maria. Rich was a very close friend of mine and someone that I knew to have a kind and gentle heart while always being ready with a huge laugh. He was a Southern boy transplanted to San Francisco. Taking his love of audio with him cross country, Rich combined the rare qualities of down home humanity with San Francisco savvy. He had the ability to make people feel relaxed with his southern drawl and easy movements, while keeping you on your toes with insightful comments and a razor sharp mind. He understood complicated things easily and quickly, always being able to distill the most complex situation into a few words or appropriate illustration – he loved to teach and he had a memory for persons, places and things that was my envy. Rich loved people, and if you were his friend he was as loyal as an old bloodhound. He and his wife were a refuge for homeless cats, blind dogs and lame horses, whenever possible taking the animals into their home (or finding a home for them), making the orphan their pet while keeping it comfortable for the rest of its days. Not looking to take from a relationship, Rich could be called a giver, always offering a helping hand or a kind word. Rich wrote for BFS for nearly 15 years and during that time refused any sort of payment other than I send copies of the issues he was in to some of his friends so they could see his handiwork or lighten their spirits. He truly was a Southern gentleman… I have several entries of the Rodgers Report on file here that are yet to be published. I am going to edit and print them as if Rich were still in eager anticipation of seeing them in BFS. With each issue of BFS he received in Sequals, Rich would e-mail me minutes after he got it just to tell me it had made it to Italy and how much he enjoyed it. I can’t tell you how much I am going to miss those e-mails. ______________________________________________
And while on the subject, there is a way for you to know the issue number of the last issue of your subscription. Simply look at the label on the outside of your envelope. Just to the right of your name is a number. That number corresponds to the number of the last issue of your present subscription. So, if it says 208, this would be your last issue. If, however, you don’t pay attention to the expiration number on the envelope, we always send two notices of expiration before you run out. After all, we want you to stay current …
|
ISSUE #208 CAST OF CHARACTERS Contributors
-
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
It’s been a source of confusion
in the past, and I think a word here can remedy the situation. On the front
page of every Bound for Sound is an issue number and a publication date. For
this issue the number is 208. The publication date is September 2011. Even though
I would like to, we do not come out on a monthly basis. Hence, you will not
see covers with publication dates that closely correspond with consecutive
months. So, don’t be surprised when one issue says "July" and
the next one says, "September." It means nothing other than one issue
came out in July and the other in September. It doesn’t mean that you missed
the August issue. On the other hand, the issue number means everything. We
number our issues consecutively. Our last issue was #207 and this one is
#208. If you are missing #207, you have missed an issue. It’s as simple as
that.