This attitude annoys me.
Many people believe “The better it sounds the less Real it is”.

Another say to say this: “The better a system is, the worse it sounds”.

That the ‘Absolute Sound’ produced by a audio reproduction systems [aka hifi] should usually sound aggressive and unpleasant and, conversely, if the music produced by a sound system is enjoyable and engaging - it must not be the Absolute Sound, it must not really be sounding like the real thing.

This sentiment has been a commonly held doctrine since solid-state mugged audio in the 60s, and wildly expounded and pontificated upon [albeit implicitly] since digital smashed into audio in the 80s.

It has two underlying extremely pessimistic assumptions:

1. that the current state of high-end audio reproduction is so poor, that if it actually attempts to be accurate, it will of course sound unpleasant most of the time, and

2. that the quality of the source material is so poor, that even were the reproduction to be flawless, the sound would not often be all that pleasant to listen to

There are many, many people who believe this, people in important positions in our industry, and they are a very vocal group. In a large sense, they are the ones who, after selling this idea to themselves to explain all the horrible sounding gear that passed for ‘the best’ for so many years - they then proceeded to sell it to everyone else.

This is not just “Krell on Wilson”, that was only a symptom. This is JV’s snidely comments about ‘As You Like It’ systems that actually [can you imagine?] sound good. This has even impacted JA and Mike Fremer, as one looks at their choice of systems over the years. [HP has been less infected, IMHO]

What does it do to an industry when the most prominent figures think that, by-and-large, the goal of the products produced by that industry should NOT be enjoyable? Maybe it does to that industry the same thing that, uh, has happened to ours?

Seriously, if we somehow just sent all the press, dealers and manufacturers who think this way to Tahiti for 5 years and only presented and sold systems that actually sounded good [and, I would argue, actually sounded like music], it would be [I hypothesize] the start of another Golden Age for our hobby.

[in the next post, we will talk about how it is perhaps the misshapen and gnarled misinterpretation of the Absolute Sound that has kept the industry in this cul-de-sac, sonically if not economically]

Joe Roberts commented, back a few posts, that “…there is more detail coming out of many speakers than was in the original musical performance…” and that “balance is the key”.

This is a commonly expressed sentiment - and this post is not directed at Joe [ ], but to all of us who enjoy music reproduction and wonder about why we enjoy the things we do, and don’t the things we don’t.

I think [I hope] we can all agree that balance is the key.

But is there indeed more detail?

Hopefully we can also agree that there is not MORE detail [the software and computing power to do this is not something your typical high-end audio manufacturer is capable of] but that the detail has added emphasis.

I would suggest we try and break the question up into several easy questions:

a) Do some systems make detail easier to hear than others. Yes.

b) Do some systems make detail HARDER to hear than the original musical performance (OMP). Yes. In fact most.

c) Can some systems make detail too easy to hear (over emphasizing detail). Yes [even if they have LESS detail than the OMP].

So these easy questions aside, we are left with the crux of the issue:

1. Can a well-balanced system emphasize detail and still be well-balanced?

2. If so, is this such a bad thing?

I want to suggest that these two questions are related and that for a set of listeners whose membership includes people besides myself - I hope! - a well-balanced system can emphasize [but not OVER emphasize] detail and be a good thing.

As an example I want to use the single pluck of a guitar string of an acoustic guitar. The amount of information, detail, is enormous as the other strings vibrate in harmony and dis-harmonies and their sound echos and reverberates in and out of the guitar body cavity, the vibration of the string against the frets [if struck hard enough], the change in harmonics during the long long decay. The strings, the GUITAR! actually throbs as it resonates [you can feel it through your body if you are holding the guitar].

So now, what if we have a system that is quiet enough, and sensitive enough to not only pick up this guitar throbbing but makes it easy for us to hear. But is it TOO easy? Or should we have to strain to hear what is there?

If you go to Guitar Center and go into their humidity-controlled room and play with the acoustic guitars there, especially old used ones - just walk up to each one and pluck a string with your finger, then listen, then go to the next, pluck it, …

There is an amazing amount of difference and some [my favorites ] will resonate, throb, much, much more than others. I LOVE this.

Now say you have a friend drive you to guitar center, because you have been imbibing your favorite mood-alerting substance. Now, NOW your brain will resonate along with the guitar, the walls will throb along with the guitar like the walls at the end of The Matrix, the decay will last weeks and weeks [YMMV ].

This is because, if you imbibe the right stuff, , you will find yourself much more focused on the particular sounds, so focused it kind of hurts. The fact that your license expired 2 months ago and you are still driving around anyway? Not something no way no how as important as the the observation that the harmonics of each guitar seems to complement the patina of their wood. The sound has not changed at all - just your quality of focus.

It has been my experience that at most live events it is extremely difficult to focus on the sound and it is much easier to focus on various aspects of the sound in private at one’s leisure.

So 1) if you can Itzhak Perlman in your living room, playing and stopping, rewinding himself, playing some more, adjusting volume to your liking, etc. then there would be a lot more subjective detail than what one hears when sitting in the middle a live performance with several hundred other soft protoplasmic blobs wrapped in soft cloth distracting us with their unfamiliarity.

And 2) if you were able to focus much more intently - or cheat [e.g. wine lending much more harmonics] - there would be a lot more subjective detail than what one hears in a more casually focused, mindset.

So A) in some sense Druglike sound - for those of us not imbibing - requires the sound to emphasize reproduction of those things that are special, that are there somewhere in the OMP, that trigger interesting mental states of mind…

And B) I forgot what B was supposed to be

The main complaint about hyper fidelity, like all complaints about sound reproduction, is that it can sound unnatural. That it detracts from the Believability Factor. But I think what is ‘natural’ depends on one’s state of mind and one’s expectations [is the guitar an ancient Gibson or a new Stella?].

In a large sense, for me, a hyper fidelity system allows one to focus on ANY part of the music, stone cold sober having driven home after a hard day’s work in 2 hours of stinky traffic, and see it in as much awesome vivid wonderful living detail, as one would be able to do after imbibing a liberal amount of one’s favorite substance while on vacation for a month in Hawaii [or as one would hear it if Miles Davis was your closest friend, cracking jokes about your appearance, playing at his best while you put your feet up on your fave couch in your holey underwear].

One can compare this to photography - where a great professional photo of, say, Einstein [usually] brings out so much more - so much more depth and character and … detail… than an amateur photo taken with a Brownie camera. Same reality, just different technique and hardware. There is a zone where, with just the perfect amount of lighting and shade, it is still ‘real’ and yet communicates so much more than even a typical face-to-face with the Professor in real life [well, assuming he was still alive, of course].

We usually use the term ‘Enjoyable’ for sound that is by definition not hyper fidelity, and is not designed to trigger adrenaline rushes (Boy Toy) nor altered states of mind (Druglike). Just something to listen to music on and enjoy for what it is.

A lot more to say about this… but later….

Noticed a lack of response to our lists of Bests and Most Respected…

Is it because:

1. Everyone is overwhelmed with 100 pages of 10 referenda per page voting materials?

2. Everyone agrees 100% with the lists of Best and Most Respected we have proposed?

3. Everyone does not know why the heck we are even talking about this?

To try and clear up those who classify themselves firmly with #3 above…

We have talked over and over about how different people are seeking different kinds of sound: Druglike [me ], Boy Toy [boom and sizzle], Gee whiz [cool tech, often related to Boy Toy], Enjoyable, etc.

We all have components sometimes that we love so much we expect to be buried with them… but as often as not, these components do not actually match our sonic preferences. Strange… but oh so true.

—–

OK. Now let’s pick on everyone’s favorite [at least it was 6 months ago] speaker d’jour, the Magico Q5.

What if…

This prototypical Gee Whiz speaker was paired with front-end equipment and made to sound… sweet (say)? Or Enjoyable? Or Druglike?

In my experience and to a large degree, this is indeed possible.

What if when an audiophile went into a dealership, and was looking for the Q5, they were presented with several systems with this speaker: with one sounding Enjoyable, one Druglike, one Boy Toy-like?

Then they could hear what the speaker sounds like in systems 1) designed to show off various strengths of the speaker and 2) with a sound that appeals directly to their particular preferences [assuming their preferences lie pretty squarely in the Enjoyable, Druglike, or Boy Toy-like sound categories].

——

OK. Back to the lists of Best and Most Respected.

The idea here is that when people come in looking for a product, say ‘X’, to be able to be able to show them, not a system thrown together to kind of sound ‘OK’ [usually a boom and sizzle Boy Toy] that happens to have ‘X’ as a component, but to show off ‘X’ in its best light, in fact in several different ‘best lights’.

This is opposite to the unethical well-worn cross-sell strategy where you show off ‘X’ in its WORST light in order to sell them ‘Y’ instead.

This is also different from the optimal strategy of trying to illuminate the audiophile about what components out there match their sonic preferences. Teaching is thankless job #1 in all the universe.

Here, we go ahead and sell them ‘X’ [or encourage them to keep ‘X’], which they actually seem to want [people often being reviewer- and forum-driven in their decision making process and get pretty damn convinced], and at the same time show them how to get the most out of it in a way that suits their individual taste.

For a more concrete example, say an audiophile is like me, they want a druglike sound, but they also want the Magico Q5, being impressed, like me, with the build-quality and design approach. Instead of just sending them home with the Q5, having them be unhappy because their current system does not generate a druglike sound using the Q5, and all that wonderful information on the web is geared toward, guess what?, making Boy Toy sounds with the Q5 - we show them an actual druglike system with the Q5 - they go home happy knowing they can have the Q5 *AND* the sound they actually like.

Are all speakers [or amps, or…] created equally able to be Boy Toyish, or Druglike, or Sweet? Not exactly, but perhaps more so than is commonly portrayed.

Can all be made to be druglike, or Enjoyable, or Boy Toys? If you spend enough money I am certain the answer is yes. [Otherwise, it takes a lot of work and experimentation, which might cost the same in the end]

——-

OK, back to the lists.

The idea is that, for cost no object systems, a person can actually purchase a component somewhat unsuited to their actual tastes [because they just freaking want to - i.e. they are a common, garden-variety human being], and still achieve a system sound that they really like [if they tailor the rest of the system, accordingly].

The lists, then, are the superset of all components that people either 1) want, or 2) need in order to get the sound they desire from the components they want.

—–
Hope this helps explain what the Best/Most Respected lists are about anyway…

This chain of logic is actually just common sense, if somewhat audacious and kind of upside down to the way people usually think about all this …

Hedge Funds, Investor Groups buying high-end audio manufacturers? Why? As an investment [do they know something we do not?] or as a hobby [trying to relive their 2nd, or like me, their 19th childhoods?].

I believe ARC, Krell, and Sonus Faber are in this category.

Then a few weeks ago Focal bought [reading between the lines] Naim.

Can we blame these troubles on the ipod? I saw a stat that 16 billion songs have been bought on itunes. That is 16 billion dollars that could have bought a decent system or two - but probably would have gone into CDs a decade ago.

Cisco, of all companies, conducted a survey of our youth and they would rather hang out on the internet than go on a date and rather own a smart phone than a car. That old ‘pendulum’ has swung kind of far from where it was when I was young[er].

Who knows what the future brings, but right now the sector of the market that was setup to be attractive to college students probably isn’t doing very well.

On the other hand, our part of the market, the ultra, uber, stratospheric part of the market is doing OK [would do better if so many people weren’t ’short’ America deliberately trash talking the economy for personal gain (most large corps are reporting a bettering economy, and even the real-estate market locally is picking up, albeit our home here is still unsold - hint, hint .].

As for high-end audio ‘for the rest of us’ [get it? This is Apple’s old slogan], something like a wireless system headed by an iPad with DAC and Amps in the speakers might be ‘cool’ to the next generation [now Neli tells me that something like this was also proposed on c|net earlier today], the generation who will not know what to do with a CD and more than they know what to do with an LP.

… and those hedge funds must be doing this as a hobby - or a write-off - or are looking at a awfully long time-frame which has that pendulum swing back…… back to where we are

Some music genres are more dependent on various kinds of musical fidelity more than they are other kinds. If one listens primarily to one, or just a few, genres one may be able to get away with a system that has less fidelity overall, and cost a lot less.

It is always true that the more fidelity the better, but these are tough times, and sometimes we gotta do what we gotta do. For example, two of the genres we talked about last time, Folk and Opera, to not need deep tight bass as much as most other genres.

This can be looked at from multiple angles. The post will take one approach. Please feel free to correct or augment.

< --- LESS important ---- MORE important --->

Folk
deep bass, tight bass, dynamics… resolution in the voice band, harmonic richness in the voice band

Reggae
high resolution, high frequencies… PRaT, harmonic richness in the voice band, dynamics and resolution in the percussive band,tight mid bass, deep very dynamic bass

New Age, Some Electronica
deep bass, dynamics, tight bass, …. harmonic richness, harmonic and frequency resolution

Rap
harmonic richness, harmonic and frequency resolution (just enough to make the snare drum listenable, or, conversely, roll off the frequencies in the snare drum region) … dynamics, deep tight bass.

Rock & Roll
[demands seem to be even across all audiophile attributes, however, uber fidelity in any attribute does not lend as much improvement as the uber fidelity would in several other genres - because the recording qualities are typically low]

Orchestra
Deep bass… [everything else is pretty important]

Choral
Deep bass, dynamics… harmonic and frequency resolution [love when the voices resolve into individual voices]

Organ Music
Frequency resolution… harmonic resolution, deep bass

Jazz Fusion
Deep bass, tight bass… dynamic, harmonic and frequency resolution [Jazz fusion can easily become a mish mash without enough resolution]

3 or 4-piece Jazz, Simple Pop
[everything] … harmonic resolution.

By harmonic resolution we mean tonal richness and accuracy - approaching the Real.
By frequency resolution we mean loudness accuracy
By dynamic resolution we mean that notes reach their loudness level in a realistic, true-to-life fashion.

The idea then is to say, well, I am on a budget and I mostly play New Age , so I do not *need* deep tight bass, so I can get smaller speakers, smaller amps, a high-resolution amp [as opposed to a beefy one], clear sounding cables and sources [as opposed to those that are designed to hide, smother atrocities in other parts of the system].

During much of recent history, there has been a organization or group that was kind of the standard bearer - which kind of influenced the immediate future of high-end audio: hardware, attitudes, evaluation techniques, etc.

I wonder if this is no longer true - that we as a culture, and especially we as a hobby, have been fractured so much that we are just composed of a lot of different groups, based on some [I would say fantasy] of shared interests - and I ponder if most or all of these are just cul-de-sacs, and lot of niche dead-ends.

In the past [and correct / assist me if need be] we had:

Stereo magazine - Measurements are king

Stereophile - Measurements are still king, but the king is wearing shorts

The Absolute Sound/HP - subjective listening is King

Audiogon - pluralism and shills are king

Audio Asylum - pluralism and nastiness are king

Audio Circle - Discounts, pluralism and disinformation shills are king

…

Lately though, I think none of these sites is any longer dominant. HP reviews and Stereophile reviews and Audiogon and Audio Circle pumps no longer sell that much product. They are no longer guiding the industry.

Perhaps that is because the economy and politics are so dominating the culture these days [the middle class is too poor to buy anything and the wealthy are buying things left and right when they are not scared out of their wits]. So we have lots of very expensive gear and lots of very cheap gear - not much in-between.

And, somehow, the social networks got people hearing lots and lots of opinions, often believing and valuing what a complete stranger tells them.

The only way I have seen out of this mess, this tower of Babble [but better than the old days of a single dominant player!] is to rate things based on many different aspects. Not sure if this would work for Yelp or other rating sites - but we got whole spectrums of lean < --- > warm, dynamic < --- > closed-in, accurate versus non-accurate, etc. etc. and many more which we have talked about and listed on this blog and website many times.

That way instead of ‘it sucks’ we can get ‘it is warm sounding’ and instead of ‘its the best’ we can get them to say ‘it has good dynamic bass’. This would result in the neutering the shills [and the rest of the hyperbole-generating hordes ] because, although their goals is to convince everyone that a products is the best for everyone on this and every other planet, all they can now say is, for example, is that it has ‘great dynamics’ - letting all the people who like a more laid back presentation know that this is not for them.

Anyway, our hobby/industry is getting swept up along with all the other more modern industries by what is happening outside the listening room. Sure is fun to watch

Did that component just start sounding better? That component I thought sucked a few years ago now sounds great. Are they building them better now?

Or conversely, did that component just start sounding terrible? Are they just building that component that I used to think was great, and now I think sucks, with worse parts than they used to?

Or is it just me?

We all run into these circumstances where our impressions of sound quality change. Some changes in our perceptions occur over years. Some over days. Some take just a few minutes

Oh, and the answers to the introductory questions are… yes.

There are all sorts of reasoning we use to describe such a topsy-turvy apparently wishy-washy situation…

1. The quality of the power changes in direct relation to the quality of the changes in the sound [I have always been suspicious of this one, and instead prefer #2]

2. Our emotional state affects how we enjoy most kinds of music - it taking perhaps an hour or so to relax and enjoy many kinds of more ‘laid back’ music genres if it has been a hectic day

3. If we do not have a lot of experience listening to different equipment, first impressions - which may last weeks - are just not reliable, and long term impressions are only relevant compared to what we had previously

4. Our ears do change and grow more experienced and we are able to hear more - we educate our ears just like wine lovers educate their palette [this reasoning is often used in a derogatory manner by non-audiophiles to explain why THEY can’t hear, or taste, something.]

5. Manufacturers do actually change equipment without telling everybody, usually for the better

6. Our preferences change. [This is the most interesting subject, for me personally]. As we hear better and better equipment for long periods of time, as our ears grow to trust that we are not going to attack them with aggressive and annoyingly obnoxious exaggerations or parodies of sound - we start to hear things… the mind - ear interface becomes more and more efficient, and we start experiencing other states of mind more and more often.

It is not just drug-like sound that many of us are looking for, but the ability for the drug-like sound to affect us deeply. This is opposite to a typical addiction where one becomes less and less sensitive to a drug. Here, as we open ourselves to the music more and more frequently, and achieve a drug-like ‘high’ from the music more often, the more easy it becomes. [This is why it is a good thing that the faster I drive, the louder the wind noise, and the less able I am able to hear the car radio .. ]

This increased sensitivity to drug-like sounds, and this, what we have been calling the drug-like music state, if pursued with some diligence over time, is a great thing. It is independent of the cost of the system making the drug-like sound. Expensive systems can deliver a more powerful druggish sound, and more frequently [ sometimes every time you play them! Danger Will Robinson! ], but otherwise it is an experience that is available to just about everybody who cares to try and achieve this musically altered state-of-mind.

As we look at expanding Audio Federation’s footprint, we often think about whether to expand the distributorship side of the business or to expand the dealership side of the business. When we talk to people about this, everyone sure does seem to have figured it all out but it is all in great fun and full of good-willed optimism and I thought I would try and share some of that here.

There are several goals here - financial, of course. And stability. Building the Audio Federation ‘Brand’. And also just the day-to-day, which is the most fun versus being somewhat boring or a royal pain-in-the-butt. Oh yeah, and which are we better at?

Essentially,: Which will we be more successful at, both in terms of earnings and personal enjoyment - an expanded dealership or an expanded import business?

First - being a dealer is WAY more fun. We get to meet a lot of nice people, play a lot of music, get to hear a lot of new music. I mean, in some sense, this is the ultimate can’t-really-be-a-job-can-it job. And Neli is really, really good at the customer interface thing - she is always so patient and understanding and helpful. But on the practical side [ick. HATE that side ] one has to look at the rise of the internet and the used gear racket and the decreasing loyalty people feel towards their dealers [less so for older folk, but still, it ain’t like the olden days]. Stability wise, I think dealers are able to hang onto a product line longer than distributors, on average [and as distributors, this is a perception we will have to fight all the time - we want to be the distributors for something, once we decide to take it on - for, like, forever].

Anyway, on the ‘this is fun and something we really want to do’ side of the equation, expanding the dealership wins [and we have some rather unique ideas, we think, to make it a heckuva lot more fun - for everybody - once we get down out of the mtns].

On the other hand - some people feel that being a distributor is the only way to be a success in this business [Actually, being a cable manufacturer has a much higher probability of financial success, but I digress…]. But, as one looks at successful distributors versus dealers, what does one see? Well, I do not know what people see, and there is not much actual data here that I am 100% sure of - but I see Sumiko on one hand, apparently successful importer [judging by by the number of their reps and success of the brands they carry, along with the premium they charge for importation] and I see Listen Up, apparently successful Colorado dealer [based on the number of their stores and large advertising budget -they also have strong pro and Home Theater arms of the business ].

So, I am not sure distributors do any better than dealers do in achieving financial success. Opening a recreational goods store would be a much better idea - in Money mag or somewhere they report that this is a quickly growing area of the economy and the average store makes about $500K in revenue [we do not do so bad here -thanks everybody! - but the average dealership makes way less than this].

OK. the $64M question: Is being a distributor any fun? No. It really ain’t. But it does have its satisfactions: Neli loves talking with and helping dealers a lot. We like helping products get into the U.S. and becoming more and more successful. We get a hand in helping way more audiophiles get their hands on high quality gear - albeit indirectly - and this is very rewarding [although we are very honored to be dealers for all of our lines, being the Audio Note importer/distributor is ultimately more rewarding, as the dealer network magnifies the impact of our efforts to get people to replace the Bad Sounding with the Good Sounding].

So where does that leave us?

Yes, we are going to expand.

Yes, we are going to move the store somewhere more appropriate [not sure when, but there are few places less appropriate than here in the foothills above Boulder].

Yes, we want to expand our showrooms [It’s where the most fun is. We had 4 large systems setup here before we decided to move - which is more than most large dealers. We would like to bump this up a notch or 2… and this time get a place with corners so we can also show off the Audio Note speakers to their best effect ].

Yes, we are going to have a magazine once again. Although Spintricity is currently mothballed, we will revisit this magazine idea…

Yes, we are going to…

[OK. Hope this non-audiophile business-centric post was not too darn boring. But it is a topic that has been on our minds a lot lately - and just thought I’d give you a peek behind the scenes here a little].

I was reading this paper on how attractive websites do better with users than usable websites:

Visual Appeal vs. Usability

Well, that article refers to an extreme example, but this is something that has been difficult for me to comes to terms with, geek that I am, but it is really hard to overestimate the value of appearance when an average person makes a decision about something.

From presidents to cars to websites and … yes… to high end audio gear.

I would say the list of important criteria looks something like:

price - what is this going to cost me relative to the other choices?
convenience - how much work must I do for one choice versus another?
appearance - how attractive is one versus the others
…
competency - how well does one perform relative to the others.

——————————–

With this list I think one can explain why MS Windows beat out Apple, why the ipod and iphone beat out their competitors, why Facebook beat out WAY better designed competitors… and why some products in our industry actually sell a few units, no matter how competent they are vis-a-vis their competition - and why some others don’t do as well.

I don’t really have any specific products in mind. We can all think of wonderful looking amps and racks and speakers that seem to be doing OK in this over-crowded marketplace - and perhaps their very attractiveness is the reason why.

I do think it is something ALL manufacturers here should pay attention to - though I feel few actually do. They feel as I do, of course, that competent products should rise to the top.

I was listening to classical music on the car radio - which is pretty much what I listen to, and not just because it is more or less commercial-free, which is nice, and not just because it is more or less news-free, which is also nice.

Anyway, I noticed that much of the individual instruments of the particular piece, I forget which, could be heard echoing in the hall where the recording was made. And, you know, a LOT of recorded classical music has along with it the sound of the hall. I like this. It makes the instruments feel fuller and the decay is more interesting and natural.

Funny how a LOT (all?) of popular music has no ambient hall sound at all, either recorded in a studio, and the sound of the studio is edited out if it exists at all, or, if recorded live, the sound of the hall is again edited out, often along with editing out the sound of the audience.

What cinches this for me, personally, is that many bootlegs, recorded live in concert, have an abundance of hall sound… and I really like this. Again on the car radio, this time the Fort Collins station, they were playing a country rock band playing in what sounded like a largeish stadium. The lead guitar was echoing slightly in the hall there… and I loved it.

But back to classical music… it is hard to think of any that we have here where I can recall it having no concert hall sound effects. Maybe this is like science fiction book covers having certain styles and colors, and mystery novels a similar but different style and color… i.e. this is the way it has always been done and we are used to it and the people who record the music just continue to do it the same was it has always be done, and, well, here we are with posts like this commenting on it.