I contacted Sunfire, told them of the situation, one that they were already fully aware of, and they assured me that the problem had been remedied in production. It has, and it hasn't. Two amps later, I have the Sunfire in the Big Rig and it is still obliterating 820 on the AM dial. Fortunately, everything above and below the designated frequency still comes in rather clearly, though I have to wonder what the FCC thinks of Bob having his own army of mini jamming stations scattered across the country. (Can we somehow point them at Cuba?). But, l still don't understand how the high pride meter reader mags out there missed this one. I guess we sent them to school this time.

The circuit inside. Bob Carver is the kind of guy who fears not to spit in the eye of conventional wisdom. The man of a million innovative circuits, Bob has to be revered as one of the truly original and innovative thinkers in the industry. He's also not afraid to take on the audio establishment as his amplifier nulling tests of the 1970s and 1980s prove. And if there was a man in this industry capable of making an amplifier for the future at a price point out of the past, it is Bob Carver.

Now, I could go over the technology in the amp setting out for you the information given in the owner s manual, while regurgitating what I have read about the design in the other mags that have reviewed it prior to the final word in BFS. This not being a techno rag, let's just talk about those things that are really important as long as you don't listen to much AM radio.

The design is remarkable in that it seems to part with the norm in audio amplification theory, to wit: 1) It generates an incredible amount of power with minimal heat. In other words, it is extremely efficient. 2) It is load invariant, in that it will drive everything from the wildest Apogees to the cast iron fry pan in the sink. To which end, Bob declares that all speaker cables sound the same with this amp, he wisely recognizing that most wires don't sound different in themselves, but that the differences one hears when using different cables is the sound of the power amp reacting to the changing loads presented by the various combinations of cables and speakers. 3) The amp reacts like a true voltage source. Because of the incredible (but still noisy) power supply, this amp will double its output as impedance is cut in half all the way down to I ohm!! Which means that this amp is capable of putting out 2400 wpc momentarily into those old Apogee Scintillas you have sitting in the garage. Awesome. 4) That the amp retails for $2,175.

Set-up. It's got its own power cord attached (a short one), so that aspect of tweakery is disposed of. It would be nice if the cord were a few feet longer however. The amp comes with a nice smoked glass shelf upon which to place it. The back of the amp is somewhat unusual in that it has two sets of input jacks and two sets of speaker terminals. In itself, having two sets of speaker terminals is not all that unusual in these days of biwiring. In this case though, each set is configured so as to sound different than the other. One set of terminals is labeled "current, and the other "voltage". If you have seen the ads run by Sunfire, you know that the difference in these terminals has to do with the output impedance of each. The "current' terminals are supposed to sound like tubes due to having a higher output impedance of around one ohm (low damping factor). The 'voltage" terminals are direct coupled and are alleged to have an output impedance of about zero (very high damping factor). During my listening I stuck primarily to the zero impedance terminals for greater driver control over full range systems. Bob indicated to me that the basis for the two sets of terminals was primarily for bi-wire systems and satellite systems. The zero terminals going to the bass drivers, and the high impedance terminals to the high frequency drivers. I must admit that using the amp in this fashion was much more successful than running full range off of the high impedance terminals alone. Though for reasons psychoacoustic, or otherwise, I still preferred the zero, or, low impedance terminals most of the time. Some readers have inquired as to why Bob chose the terms "current" and "voltage" for the two types of terminals, for it would seem more logical that the terms be reversed considering that the one termed "current" is the high impedance output being driven through a I ohm resistance. The "current" terminals are after all being touted as the ones more likely to sound like tubes, but we know that tube circuits are basically voltage" based having very little current capability. You tell me?

There are also two sets of input jacks. One of these sets of jacks is labeled 'Lab", which means that the input is direct coupled and without a filtering capacitor or servo to stop the input of potentially destructive DC. If your preamp is aging, or if you are not certain that it is DC free, use the standard input. Considering the rather low input impedance, one would be well advised to use a current capable preamp, i.e. transistor or buffered tube.

The sound of Sunfire. Like the Bryston 4B ST reviewed two months ago and the Polyfusion this month, you can feel the power. But in this case even more so, as the Sunfire seems ever more eager to deliver the mega transient into any kind of load. It is explosive! Having this kind of power at hand is kind of like being on a high powered Japanese motorcycle for the first time. A real rush, as it is so easy to twist the throttle and zoom past anything in front of you - but speed kills. And too much power used unwisely can kill speakers. The temptation is to go for the high dB experience of being part of the real thing, whether it be orchestral or rock. Unfortunately, some speakers don't want to do life-like amplitude sound pressures and break. Use a steady hand on the volume control, and be leery of jack rabbit starts.

In whatever mode of operation chosen, the strength of this amp is in its lower frequencies. From the bottom note right up through the lower mids the amp has a grip on the music that is tight in terms of control, but fluid and quick in the realm of detail and responsiveness. In the mids, the control is still there, wonderfully so. The amp does a lot right in the middle range, but it was in this range that I also thought that I heard a slight loss of finesse. For example, despite the incredible power that the amp has, when the music was busy and dense, the amp didn't sort things out in the way of the Wolcott. All of the fundamentals were right for sure, but the low level stuff tended to be a little less distinct and in its place. For example, after playing the Chesky system killer (Tchaikovsky#5 and Swan Lake CD 94) through the Sunfire, and liking it I might add, I then went to the Symfonia Opus 10 power amp. The Sunfire had more sinew and drive, but the Symfonia was closer to the original performance in little ways, particularly in the mids. Both amps did a superb job on the strings at center left and right, and the Sunfire did a credible job on the trombones at right rear, very good actually. But it was the trombones that told me that the Symfonia had a bit of the super amp in its heart as the brass was big and powerful, while still maintaining a tactile presence at the right rear of the stage - they were immovable and majestic at the same time. The spacing of the presentation was minutely more precise with the Symfonia giving the music a slightly more right and relaxing aura about it. Other than that, the amps were very similar in the mids, the Sunfire holding its own in every way. Which surprised me.

I expected the Symfonia and the Bryston 4B ST to be more dimensional than the Sunfire, to round out an image with a better sense of body. They didn't. All three amps were champs in that regard. Where I did notice a difference between these three was in the amount of intertransient silence. In this area of performance the Sunfire was merely good. There was a small amount of mesh noise in the sound of the Sunfire that the other two simply didn't have. I think this is the price paid for the efficiency of the design and the use of a switching circuit in the power supply. Switching makes noise, there is no way around it short of going all out in terms of shielding and isolation that I am presently aware of. With the Bryston and the Symfonia there was more music outside of the noise realm, though again, I'm really nitpicking.

Checking out the highs revealed a crystalline clarity that allowed cymbals just the right combination of edge and bloom. The highs were able to cut through congested scores, bringing a focus to triangle, cymbal, etc., that was missing in the other amps to a degree. Another listener thought the highs to be a little forward and aggressive, though not dirty or "shishy". His preferences are for a more laid back presentation overall than are mine, and I felt that the Sunfire was merely brave enough to show the clarity of its convictions by going for the highs, and not trying to play it safe by toning down the upper frequencies. Ninety-nine percent of the time this is an advantage. I will say, however, that when the energy levels in the high frequencies on the recording became extremely excited and energized, the lack of finesse spoken of earlier became apparent to a degree in the form of some hardness. This, the Symfonia and Bryston never bespoke.

Conclusion. I hate to praise the Sunfire in this way because it's like going to the Westminster Kennel Club dog show and telling an exhibitor that their animal would make a fine pet. But I can't think of an amplifier better suited for a home theater system and a high-end system both. Its ability to drive low impedance loudspeakers in tandem, and the low frequency power that the amplifier possesses makes it the perfect companion for explosions, gunshots, etc. Which is not to sell the unit short when it comes to reproducing music. It does so with gusto and precision, not lessening the excitement of the performance in any regard. My nit is with a certain lack of delicacy and sonic refinement that will be a matter for concern only in the highest of fidelity systems.

Head-to-Head with the Bryston. The Dussun comes off a bit cooler and more distant than the warm-n’-cozy Bryston… listening to Mahler Symphony No. 5 (Zander/Philharmonia Orchestra, Telarc SACD), the Dusson puts you about 2/3rd of the way back in the hall, vs. 1/3rd on the Bryston. Perhaps due to its forwardness, the Bryston also tends to communicate the rhythm and pace of the music more convincingly. The Dussun’s soundstage is slightly narrower, but with a bit more air and clarity to winds and brass at the back of the stage – individual voices are a little less homogenized. Midrange completeness and richness goes to the Bryston, while bass definition and extension goes to the Dussun.

The Stello was hands down the most complete and refined package, and had it been a tad more transparent and emotional it could have taken the crown as the finest integrated of the bunch. It’s a good-sounding amp, clean and powerful with a slightly cool take on the music that caters more to the cerebral classical or acoustic jazz listener than the tube-loving romantic or head-banging rocker. For the price, I was hoping for more in the areas of harmonic completeness and dynamic richness, and at less than 1/5th the price the Dussun had the edge in midrange purity and openness, and to a lesser degree bass response. Nevertheless I’m sure the Stello will appeal strongly to those looking for something more upscale and flexible, particularly in a rig that also sees home theater duty.

* MGD comments: I find this statement by Marc extremely gratifying. Gratifying, in that while Marc has been a dedicated supporter of SACD, he was able to hear and describe the sonic ailments of the NuForce in terms of the similar technology used in it and SACD. He was obviously able to hear in the NuForce what I hear in the SACD digital format. The fact that both technologies are so similar was lost on me until reading Marc’s article, and yet, knowing what I now know, it all makes sense. The SACD format as a whole is necessarily colored due to the high frequency filtering and digital reconstruction required, a filtering absolutely mandated by the technology itself. It is incident to, and endemic of the format itself and as of this point in audio time, no one, not Sony, not NuForce, not Ed Meitner can overcome the sonic problems that so devastate the sonic qualities of every product based on some form of PWM technology. Bravo Marc Yun, your insights have proven beyond value.

The Clayton Audio M-100 mono power amplifiers, $6,500. 8151 Stratford Ave. Clayton, MO., 63105. ph 314.862.6017; fax 314.862.0765; e-mail claytonamps@aol.com.; www.erols.com/tri/clayton. PUBLISHED June 2001.

This mono amplifier is a good one, about as good as it gets, and the best power amplifier reviewed to date in these pages. Well....at least until I get to the review of the Sierra Everest mono amps which retail for around $20,000. Though, for those who are expert at reading between the lines, that last sentence does not mean that the Everest is necessarily a better power amp than the M-100s.....that conclusion is yet reserved. But reserved for only so long; I fully intend to give my comparative conclusions once the full measure of the Everest is taken. As far as the M-100 goes however, I’ve got it in the bag.

Tale of the tape. Each M-100 mono amp weighs in at 47 lbs., is 9" x 9.25" x 20" (HWD), and cannot be converted to stereo use. Bias is true class A, and in that mode it runs hot, but the amplifier has a low bias switch which drops the heat sink temperature a good 15 degrees Fahrenheit, it also cuts Class A output by 50% (though overall output remains the same). Class A output into 8 Ohms is 100 wpc, and 200 wpc into 4 Ohms. Circuitry is discrete. Input impedance is 47,000 Ohms. One set of speaker terminals (WBT). RCA and XLR inputs for single ended and balanced operation. Each amp has a 1,000 VA toroid transformer with 120,000 uf of capacitance. The M-100 also has 8 Motorola high current bipolar output devices per channel. The use of the high current devices result in this amp having an amazing current capability - 200 amps continuous! There are no capacitors in the signal path. A "power on" sequence keeps the amp from damaging the speakers upon turn-on. Each amp has 26 volts of gain, and AC polarity is correct from the factory.

Set-up. Preamps with the M-100s should probably be solid state. The input impedance of 47 kOhm doesn’t totally preclude tube preamplification, but to get all the dynamic life this amp can deliver, I’d go solid state. During my auditioning, excellent sound was attained with the Aloia, and Symfonia preamps. Both of these preamps have brutish power supplies, and for them, the 47 kOhm input impedance of the Clayton was exactly what the music doctor ordered. So, if you be using a Blowtorch, a Reflection, a McCormack, a Klyne, or anything quality coming from the solid side of silicon valley, it will work with this amp. Speaker-wise, the M-100s can dump some current into a speaker, and it will keep dumping that current down to 1 Ohm! Yes, 1 Ohm!!....part of that story being the high current Motorola bi-polar output devices — they are high speed and they can pound out the juice. We, as audiophiles, tend to throw around the phrase "high current" sometimes when it isn’t really warranted; it sounds snappy though, like we know some technical stuff. However, in this case the phrase is appropriate. This amp is Krell-like in the current department, which means that it loves a low impedance loudspeaker, absolutely going into a feeding frenzy on loads that hover around 2-6 Ohms. Yet, it’s not so muscular in the power supply department that 10 to 16 Ohm loads strangle it at the outputs. Stay away from high impedance loudspeakers, though, if you want this amp to do its very best. There’s something special at work when this Clayton is doing its thing into a 4 Ohm load that has to be heard to be believed. I just wouldn’t use this amp into a load over 8 Ohms for optimum performance. Clayton has a nice little specialty power cord for the M-100, but I liked the JPS Kaptovator the best in this application. Interconnects used during auditioning were from JPS and Mapleshade.

Sonics. Sometimes the most accurate way of describing the sound of a component is to pass along an experience. Had several with this amp, but the most telling was clearly the "Clapton - Cat" night visit. The Clayton amps had been breaking in for over two months, and serious listening had just begun a night or two before. This night had been reserved for the old chestnuts in the collection; Red Norvo, Drink Small, Eric Clapton, The Allman Bros, Tchaikovsky, and Stan Rodgers were all in place. These recordings have what I need to get a true reading on a component, and while I listen to many recordings, these come out at prime time. On this occasion, I’d been listening since 7 p.m. and at around midnight I walked into the bedroom where my wife was reading one of her Nero Wolfe mysteries. Standing in the doorway all I could tell her was ... "I’ve never heard Clapton before". And indeed I hadn’t. This time the music was different than every time before....It was his voice, and it came to me with the arrival of the M-100s.

Now, to understand the importance of such a statement, one has to know that I’ve been using Clapton’s "Unplugged" as a reference since it came out in 1992. Its pulses and organic, natural tones have been a part of every appraisal made with the Big Rig from the day of its issuance, and if I’ve heard Malted Milk and Old Love once, I’ve heard them a thousand times - literally. Not only have I heard it in the Big Rig, I’ve heard it at shows and demonstrations with systems costing as much as a townhouse in Midtown. But I’d never actually heard Clapton’s voice before (!) - I was a little bit dazed. Upon hearing my proclamation, all Laura said was, "Try Cat Stevens, then report back". Turns out I’d never heard Cat either. At least not until the M-100s were in the system.

From time to time, I stumble across a sound that is practically impossible to describe other than say it is "right". I think back some years to an experience that I had with the Sci-Fi Crown Joule loudspeakers, RE Designs power amp, and Metaxas preamplifier. I don’t recall the specifics of the set-up, but the sound from that combination was "right", unbelievably so. I knew it the moment I heard it, but I’ve never been able to adequately describe it; one of those "you know it when you hear it" things. And it’s when you hear a system that is "right" that the words to describe the performance disappear. They disappear because you realize that all the old adjectives and descriptive terms used so many times before simply won’t work anymore...they don’t fit. There was a rightness with the M-100s in the midrange and the human voice that made description very difficult - it was "right" in so many ways, but of course, not perfect. More on nits later.

From power amp to power amp, the colors of the human voice change subtly, even with the same recording. Usually, the change is little more than just that - a change. There may be a difference in tone or character that fails to improve or detract at a fundamental or human level. Different generally is not better, though it may create some temporary excitement until the ear figures out what’s really going on. But with the M-100s the sounds recreated were not only different from what I had heard from other power amplifiers, they were more human sounding, hence, more realistic and accurate than what I had been listening to. Our auditory systems are incredibly discerning when it comes to identifying and sorting out nuances within the human voice because we are so familiar with it. The human voice produced in this case had more humanity in it when using the Claytons than with any amp I’d heard. But why was that? I’ll have to ask Wilson.

The Clayton mono amplifiers have tremendous bass response, very much in the same league as the best that have been in the Big Rig. So, which companies does that include? I’ve had amps in from Krell, Coda, Polyfusion (the 960 was a monster), Counterpoint, RE Designs, Sunfire, Sierra, Plinius, etc. And the Clayton M-100 mono amps are as tight, deep and fundamentally correct as any, and that’s true in spite of the somewhat limited power rating ascribed to the amps of only 100 wpc. Watts are not watts, and the current and control that are part of the Clayton formula make it one powerful amplifying mutha’. Not to trash the makers of other well respected brands, but there is something special about the bass from a power amplifier with a ton o’ power supply and multiple super high current bi-polar output devices. In the case of the M-100s tight visceral bass does not mean restricted or light as it can in some solid state designs. I guess, in terms of bass tone the Clayton amps are a bit tubey in terms of the spectral balance (great timbre), but never loose or ill defined as tube amps generally tend to be.

Listening to Red Norvo’s "Forward Look" provides the standard for percussion and tone colors. I compared the M-100s at length to the SimAudio Moon W3, and the NTA OTLs. The Naked Truth Audio mono OTLs were incredible at doing one thing, and good in other respects. What the OTLs did wonderfully was impart to the music an amazing sense of musical immediacy. Having heard many a tube in my day - including C-J, ARC and VAC - the dynamic presence that the NTA displayed in the mids was more than a matter of simply using tubes, or an OTL circuit. If it were just that, then all tube amps would possess the same stunning presence, which they do not. The Clayton mono amps were within a bat’s eyelash of possessing that same dynamic spontaneity, i.e., the feeling of being at the mic and of having the leading edge dynamics leap at you from nowhere. The Claytons were a tich down in that regard from the NTA. But, while being only a tich down in that respect, the M-100s maintained its immediacy over a much wider swatch frequency wise....from the depths of the bass through the lower treble. Quite an accomplishment.

Compared to the Moon W3 from SimAudio, there were some strong similarities, especially in the major aspects of the sound, i.e., bass definition, midrange presence and treble. But the W3 couldn’t drop my jaw with the human voice the way the Clayton did. As fine as the SimAudio is, even when used with the Triphasers, it ended up missing some of the intangibles, the little things that the M-100s excelled at.

In addition to that, the M-100s had a presentation that was at the same time detailed and grainless; allowing the natural textures of a recording to come through in an uncanny way. The combination of which (leading edge dynamics, spontaneity, musical immediacy, and an utter lack of an overlying grain artifact) allowed me to hear Eric and Cat in ways that I had never heard them before. In the simplest of terms, this amp let through a little more of the music through a wider window than the others by imposing less of its personality on the performance. Because of it, this is a reference quality device.

Lest you think this the perfect amplifier, I should add a few nits and picks at this point. Like other amplifiers, the M-100s have an overall coloration. Unlike other amplifiers, its coloration does not reduce the total transparency of the amp....it just shades it. Like Clayton amps I’ve heard in the past (S-40), there is a shading toward darkness, call it a moody flavoring. I’m not referring to warmth, or the warm audio nest sensation. There is a difference between warm and dark. Warmth is cuddly, dark is brooding. Hey, for now, that’s the best I can do. And while the Clayton M-100s are not prohibitively so, there is a touch of darkness to the sound. Almost gothic like, these amps have a little bit of an aura. Bad? Not so bad that I wouldn’t purchase them in a minute, for the coloration is minor, and for the most part sympathetic to the musical replay process (meaning it doesn’t impede it).

I almost forgot imaging. The M-100s have some of the densest, most solid images this side of Mt. Rushmore. With even more power one might get a little more rounding out and dimensionality on the seamless stage. But in this regard, the Claytons have the lateral spread of the McCormack DNA-225, and the precise 3D layering of the Aloia. Those are some pretty impressive credentials.

Conclusion. Again, a great power amplifier. The M-100s are not as pretty on the inside as the SimAudio Moon W3; for that matter it’s not as pretty on the outside either. But sonically, the M-100 is a superior product in pretty much every way, and without the assistance of the Tritium Triphasers being an absolute necessity (though it was a plus).

Compare this amp to an amplifier of the past? Not easy. In all honesty, when looking for a sonic comparison I keep coming up with the Monarchy SE 160 mono amps. They too are all discrete, and operate in the class A mode. The SE 160 however, has a tube front-end and MOSFET output devices, while the Clayton is all solid with bi-polar outputs. Both are just a tad dark, both are dynamic to the hilt, and each amp images like a bandit. However, the Clayton is better in the bass and projects a more powerful persona. The Clayton is more finely resolute, and slightly more revealing of super subtle textures while ever staying in control. But it’s close, both are exceptionally gifted designs. Also, in comparing the Clayton to the SE 160 instead of the Aloia amp, I am acknowledging the Clayton’s heightened ability to catch the flash and energy of a performance. You may recall last month when I made reference to the SE 160 as a "flashy" sounding amplifier, the M-100s have that same panache and verve...they can replicate the electricity of the moment.

I understand that there is an upgrade from the M-70 mono amps to the M-100s. It costs about $1,600, and can be retrofitted into the M-70 chassis. It involves a larger transformer, and more filtering in the power supply. According to Wilson at Clayton the sonic improvements with the upgrade are most obvious at the frequency extremes. I’m sorry, I’ve never had the M-70 mono amps in house, and for that reason can’t comment specifically on what the upgrade means sonically. But I know this, the M-100 is in many ways a sensational sounding amplifier that to these ears set some new naturalness standards, especially regarding the human voice. The extra transformer power and capacitance involved with the upgrade cannot be bad things - so why not? MGD

Over a year ago (June 2000) the idea of a "100" best of all time listing began to bounce around in my head like a ping-pong ball between two hard surfaces. I knew it had been done before, but in my mind, while many of the listings had been appropriate, a certain amount of political correctness had crept into the selection process. We had to do something different, the BFS top 100 listing would be based on one thing: the music, and no amount of politicking would push a recording up the ladder even one position.

Another consideration was that this listing would be for "rock" albums. Not rock and roll, not Motown, not folk, not metal, not jazz, not rap, not the blues, not anything except good old fashioned "rock". Granted, excluding other closely related forms of music would keep some of the world's best loved favorites out of this listing. As a result, the likes of Miles Davis, Buddy Guy, Junior Wells, Stevie Wonder, Joan Baez, Carole King, Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison, Robert Johnson, Count Basie, on and on.... would not be included. Some wonderful performers would, by definition, be casualties of my desire to set parameters and limits on how far this listing could reach. And indeed, I thought the failure to set boundaries was the primary reason the recent listing on VH-1 was a complete failure. And fortunately so...

After starting this project two Junes ago, my heart hit the floor when I heard that VH-1 was doing a Best of Rock listing wherein the top 100 rock recordings of all time would be listed. My thunder had been stolen I fretted. How could I come out with this listing after them and not appear to be anything other than a copy cat compiler? As it would happen, however, they did me a great favor by allowing people such as Britney Spears assist in the selection making process, and for the sake of political correctness included noteworthy performers such as Miles Davis and Aretha Franklin, who, as notable as they were, had nothing to do with rock. They have their own categories founded in the blues, jazz, folk and Motown. With classical and country, I hope to someday compile top 100 listings for all the major musical forms, but not here... this is rock.

This listing is not a personal pick of my favorite recordings, or the personal favorites of anyone here at BFS. Artistically, I don't care for some of the recordings chosen for inclusion, but included they were, for I consider this effort to be historical in nature, even archival, and objective in that the recordings chosen were chosen for what they meant to the genre' as a whole during it's birth, growth and maturation. In other words, what we are doing here is to report, in a manner as fairly as possible, on the recordings that formed the music which came to be known as rock music.

As stated above, you will not see listed here selections from what is known as heavy metal, death metal, black metal and rap. Not that people don't listen to those forms of expression, but as we were talking to people about the recordings to be included here, and obtaining various opinions, I felt that the content of the above were not right for inclusion. The dehumanizing subject matter that is a regular part of heavy metal and rap scene has no place here. And for that matter, rock recordings delving into the satanic or dark beliefs have not been included here either. If those things interest you, go elsewhere.

So, how were these recordings chosen? Billboard charts for the last thirty, or so, years were scoured to determine the impact each recording had on the buying market. People in the industry, recording and playback, were consulted and asked for suggestions. Day long listening sessions were conducted to see how the music held up today. And for me, this latter aspect of the selection process was one of the most important. Did the music sound dated? If so, it dropped in rank, which would explain why some of the Beatles and Rolling Stones recordings slipped. As notable as their recordings were, they sound dated in comparison to the recordings listed in front of them. Music is timeless, and to be included here it had better sound that way.

Impact. How much did a certain recording impact the music scene at the time it was released? Also considered here, was to what extent the recording reflected the climate of the times. For those reasons alone, Sergeant Pepper's has a place in the top twenty, whereas, if the only criteria were musical accomplishment, it would probably be much lower. Did any recording reflect the rebellious spirit of the young in the late sixties and early seventies more accurately than Woodstock? That's why it is here.

Musical accomplishment. For obvious reasons this criteria was the most difficult to apply, while being the most fun to contemplate and debate. And yet, along with whether or not the music retained a contemporary feel to it, the ultra subjective notion of just how "accomplished" the music was ultimately determined where a recording ended up on the list. One thing that we tried not to do was allow one good song on an album mean de facto inclusion here just because of that one good song. Initially, I was expecting to include many more albums from the early sixties; Turtles, Boxtops, Hollies, Dave Clark Five... stuff like that. In going over those recordings though, two things emerged: By any standard, the music sounded dated, incredibly so. By my own criteria, that wasn't good, and could not be easily overcome. The other thing that bothered me about many of the early sixties recordings was the preponderance of many to have just one extremely fine song, and seven clunkers to go with it. In some instances, two or three worthy songs would surface, with the rest being so hoaky sounding that I couldn't force myself to include the album. After all, we are looking for consistently excellent results throughout the album... not just a song or two.

Another consideration was whether it was thought that another band could have made the same album, and had it come out as good or better than the original band. For example, no one could have made "Dark Side of the Moon", with the same mood, art and expression as did Pink Floyd. Could anyone other than the Beatles pulled off "Sergeant Pepper"? But that's not always the case even with what are thought to be monumental works of music. Two Stones tunes for example. It is arguable, and I believe true, that Grand Funk's version of "Gimme Shelter" is the better of the two. The same for Leon Russel's version of "Jumping Jack Flash." And while those were actual instances of a superior remake, the thinking here was that if it seemed a band's performance in recording an album, as great as it may have been, could have been improved upon by someone else doing the same material, the original sunk. This aspect of consideration didn't really enter into the factoring until well into the list.

Lastly, we did on some occasions stretch the envelope style wise where a performer was slightly something other than true rock, but still impacted the future of rock music. Joni Mitchell comes immediately to mind in this regard, as does Tracy Chapman, Peter Gabriel, Linda Ronstadt and Poco. They are here because they deserve to be even if they don't perfectly fit the mold as defined by the word "rock".

9. "Exile On Main Street", The Rolling Stones

10. "Pet Sounds", The Beach Boys

11. "Close to the Edge", Yes

12. "The Yes Album", Yes

13. "Fragile", Yes

14. "Every Picture Tells a Story", Rod Stewart

15. "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", The Beatles

16. "Woodstock 1969", Various

17. "Abraxas", Santana

18. "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road", Elton John

19. "Tea For the Tillerman", Cat Stevens

20. "Deja Vu", Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young

21. "Unplugged", Eric Clapton

22. "LA Woman", The Doors

23. "Crime of the Century", Supertramp

24. "Are You Experienced?", Jimi Hendrix

25. "ZoSo", Led Zeppelin

26. "Never Mind", Nirvanna

27. "Blonde on Blonde", Bob Dylan

28. "In the Court of the Crimson King", King Crimson

29. "Chicago Transit Authority", Chicago

30. "Hotel California", Eagles

31. "Who's Next", The Who

32. "Auqualung", Jethro Tull

33. "Machine Head", Deep Purple

34. "And Justice For All", Metallica

35. "The Wall", Pink Floyd

36. "Rumours", Fleetwood Mac

37. "American Beauty", The Grateful Dead

38. "Survival", Grand Funk Railroad

39. "Days of Future Past", Moody Blues

40. "Purple Rain", Prince

41. "Blind Faith", Blind Faith

42. "Layla, and Other Assorted Love Songs", Derek and the Dominos

43. "American Pie", Don McLean

44. "Hasten Down the Wind", Linda Ronstadt

45. "Blue", Joni Mitchell

46. "Love Over Gold", Dire Straits

47. "Book Ends", Simon & Garfunkle

48. "Back in Black", AC/DC

49. "Blood on the Tracks", Bob Dylan

50. "Selling England by the Pound", Genesis

51. "Chicago II", Chicago

52. "Katy Lied", Steely Dan

53. "Stand", Sly and the Family Stone

54. "The Kick Inside", Kate Bush

55. "Some Girls", The Rolling Stones

56. "The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust", David Bowie

57. "Electric Ladyland", Jimi Hendrix

58. "John Barleycorn Must Die", Traffic

59. "Born to Run", Bruce Springsteen

60. "Blood Sugar Sex Magik", Red Hot Chili Peppers

61. "Appetite for Destruction", Guns and Roses

62. "Outlandos D’Amour", The Police

63. "In Color", Cheap Trick

64. "Madman Across the Water", Elton john

65. "Couldn’t Stand the Weather", Stevie Ray Vaughan

66. "Bridge Over Troubled Waters", Simon & Garfunkle

67. "Low Spark of High Heeled Boys", Traffic

68. "Tracy Chapman", Tracy Chapman

69. "Free For All", Michael Penn

70. "Between the Lines", Janis Ian

71. "Thick as a Brick", Jethro Tull

72. "Wish You Were Here", Pink Floyd

73. "Sweet Baby James", James Taylor

74. "Get Your Wings", Aerosmith

75. "School’s Out", Alice Cooper

76. "Tommy", The Who

77. "Part One", The Kinks

78. "The Captain and Me", The Doobie Brothers

79. "Joan Armatrading", Joan Armatrading

80. "Pronounced Leh-Nerd Skin Nerd", Lynard Skynard

81. "Superfly", Curtis Mayfield

82. "Ten", Pearl Jam

83. "OK Computer", Radiohead

84. "Three Friends", Gentle Giant

85. "Ambrosia", Ambrosia

86. "Gordian Knot", Gordian Knot

87. "Fun House", Iggy Pop and the Stooges

88. "Get Ready", Rare Earth

89. "A Night at the Opera", Queen

90. "Emerson Lake & Palmer", Emerson, Lake & Palmer

91. "Blow by Blow ", Jeff beck

92. "Lights Out", UFO

93. "Steppenwolf", Steppenwolf

94. "Illusions on a Double Dimple", Triumvirat

95. "Song for America", Kansas

96. "Carney", Leon Russel

97. "From the Inside", Poco

98. "All the Young Dudes", Mott the Hoople

99. "Twelve Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus", Spirit

Ultima by Altis $10,000. Outboard digital to analog processor. Outboard power supply, tube analog section, three digital Inputs switchable from the front panel, RCA and glass inputs, phase invert, 128x bitstream digital architecture. On loan from manufacturer. Altis, 34 Tunnel Rd., Newtown, CT 06470.

 It isn't often that a reviewer has the opportunity to say that a product he is reviewing is "The Best". The inability to hear everything available, the existence of some super expensive exotic unobtainium, and the existence of a competing unit with similar capabilities oftentimes preclude a designation as "The Best". In addition to that it takes real guts to hang your hat on a product knowing that when you do, everyone from your mother to the minister down the block are going to take issue with your proclamation. And to be fair, most of the opinions that take issue with you will be well grounded and sincere. For that reason, the term The Best is seldom applied here.

 There are some exceptions to this guideline, however, and oddly enough, the other exception is also an outboard digital to analog processor (ODAP). About a year ago, Stereophile took a stand (admirable) on the Madrigal ML 30 processor, proclaiming it to be in a class all its own. And while I often take issue with what I see as influence laden opinions from the Santa Fe Bugle, I have to give 'em credit for putting their eggs on the table. Only one thing - with the introduction of the Ultima, them eggs been rolled in hot sand.

You've stayed with me this far, so let me say it: I think the Altis Ultima "The Best" ODAP one can presently buy. I accept the possibility that the Krell Reference or maybe the Vimak might perform at a level of competence equal to or better than the Ultima. But, that's the only possible caveat that I see. Still, I've heard at one time or another, those processors and every other world class contender under conditions that must be considered at least decent to excellent. Not one, I repeat, NOT ONE processor (including the much overrated Madrigal ML 30) listened to by this wide eyed boy has ever done what I have heard the Ultima do. As a fact, I have never heard an analog system do some of the things that the Ultima can; and I'm talking real good things.

First of all, if you want the best from this machine your set-up must be top notch. That means the best

instead of feeling like the performers are in your room, you feel like your stereo has taken you back to the monitoring room where the recording was made. It's like listening directly to the mic feeds without the euphonics that make the sound realer than real or sonic detractions brought on by the playback process. And while I've talked about other products sounding like music off the mic (NEAR 50m), or going back to the source (a number of things), the Ultima traverses new transparency frontiers.

 In more detail, the mind starts to see a large opening six inches behind the loudspeakers. The opening goes from the floor to three or four feet above the tweeters; it goes from a foot or two outside of one tweeter to the same distance outside the other tweeter. From there the stage widens and grows taller as you look deeper into the original recording venue, sort of like a rectangular telescope... the perfect soundstage. But, know this, this soundstage always has a back wall, unless the recording is made outside. There's always a limit to depth, there's always a finite area within which the music is made, just like reality. Then the music emerges from that finite space with brilliant suddenness. Contrasts are striking. For the first time you hear source material without micro blurring -the focus and presentation of the smallest details seem to go to the very floor of resolution.

Mesh distortion, the meshing of noise and distortion together with the musical signal, is negligible; the lowest around. Don't misunderstand, this unit has distortion specs which indicate the existence of such things; the specs are not 0.000 ad infinitum. But, like other great audio products of our time, the distortion element of the signal does not interfere with the musical element of the signal; the music and the distortion do not mesh. A thing that seems more natural to tubes than transistors, though some transistor amplifiers and a preamp or two, are capable of presenting the music in this way.

Above, I indicated that the Ultima didn't necessarily bring performers into the room, instead taking you to the performer's original venue. The exception that I referred to is when a recording is made in such a way that the recording venue is closer to a living room than a studio (Mapleshade recordings), and some recordings which don't have enough low level information on them to give a true indication of what the original venue was like.

If I seem overly enthusiastic in the writing of this review, I hope you understand that this processor made my listening sessions extremely happy ones. If this processor, once inserted into my system, resulted in great emotional contentment - a feeling of, yes that's right (!), for the first time -why shouldn't I write the review in a fashion similar to the way the performance of the processor made me feel? It expanded my concepts of what the preamp, amplifier and speakers in my system were capable of. Then my thoughts turned to the notion of how wonderful my system might sound if all my components had the resolving power of the Ultima.

 At this time I would usually go into a dissertation on the technical aspects of this Altis design -there are many. But this review is long enough, and I want to highlight only the most unusual aspect of this processor. Part of the expense of the Ultima results from the micro-processor inside. It has the power of a highline DSP, but it's not a DSP processor. The Ultima has the unique ability to choose from several different digital filters, including no filter at all, when the musical signal can utilize it. And while you cannot hear the changes, this unit goes from one filter to another largely dependent on the amplitude of the signal at any one given time without a chirp. Quite frankly, I don't understand it, but the processor sounds incredible and for that reason, I don't care how it works. It's the music baby, it's the music!

From here I could go on in a number of directions, be it build quality, sonics or technical. But, I'm afraid that to do so would only dilute what has been written so far. I accept the fact that my proclamation of the Ultima as "The Best" will be fraught with challenges and attacks, but, rest assured that what I'm saying is not motivated by outside influences such as advertising or a free gift of the unit. (I can't even get one on long term loan so great is the demand in excess of the availability, and as for a purchase, it's beyond my budget.) The Ultima from Altis was here for about five weeks, and I hated to see it go. The memory of what it did sonically, though, will remain within these walls for a long time.

BFS is reprinting this review of the Altis Ultima ODAP as a memorial to Howard Mandel, owner of Altis, who died on September 27th, 2001.

Some people have real nerve. Call it audacity, call it the unmitigated gall required to mislead the American music buying public for no reason other than spew out self serving propaganda, all the while expecting one and all to believe them. Can the RIAA say this with a straight face?

As proof of the extent to which we fully understand the real reasons behind the dilemma the RIAA is presently in, and why we, the people, can’t be deceived by the meretricious behavior of the RIAA, Bound for Sound introduces its first TOP TEN LIST: REASONS FOR THE DECLINE OF CD SALES IN 2002:

10. By endeavoring to squeeze out "indie" label sales, while not picking up "indie" label talent, the overall talent level in the music industry has shrunk drastically (see # 2).

9. The RIAA intentionally doesn’t include the sales of DVD-A, SACD and DVDs in its sales calculations, all of which significantly contribute to the lower CD sales while having absolutely nothing to do with pirating.

8. The compact disc has been around for more than twenty years, the newness has worn off and people are looking for something different. There is much more competition for out leisure time now.

5. The RIAA would rather beat down and destroy on-line music file-sharing services with monumental law suits, instead of understanding that these services have taken the place of the "top 40" AM music radio stations of the 70’s and 80’s whereby listeners discovered new music for free.

4. That the RIAA doesn’t really want to sell you CDs, that takes work, outlets and a marketing strategy. They’d actually rather have us download music while paying them $3 a song.

3. CDs cost too much for what is being provided. The average CD costs less than $2 to make including all artwork. After Enron, people are tired of corporate robber barons ripping them off!! (Let’s talk about that kind of ripping.) In addition to that, a used CD (they don’t wear out you know) can be bought and sold for $5 - $6, over and over again.

2. Britney Spears, 98 Degrees, The Backstreet Boys, N’ Sync, Goo Goo Dolls, et al. The major labels are crowding out the real talent in favor of musical dullards designated "sure bets" that dominate their bottom-line mentality. And it’s all our fault.