Welcome to my biography. I could make this really short, give you some quick, boring details and then move on and concentrate on the equipment I have as a way to share musical expression that may profoundly change your life. That really is the heart of the matter but you still don't know the who, what, and why about me. For those of you curious about the details please feel free to read on. For the rest of you, move on, skip the remaining paragraphs and get to the great articles contained in Spintricity.
My name is Brian Boehler and I'm a member in good standing of the audiophile experience we call the High-End. I'm really not sure what that means, but I'm pretty sure that I'm there. I've always enjoyed the equipment aspect of our hobby, not for the sake of the equipment but as a vehicle to transport me to the music that I love. Generally, the better the equipment, the more involved I am in the music. While I appreciate the cost-no object aspect of our hobby, I'm not able to indulge in this arena. I tend to enjoy the best of a given technology for a given price range that can be justified. My ultimate interest is the finest musical reproduction that can be afforded thus ultimately defining my view of “High-End Audio”.
The more mundane facts are that I'm an Aerospace Engineering Senior Manager involved in the high technology manufacturing arena for 30 years. I oversee Quality Engineers and Inspectors who build satellites, launch vehicles, and articles that I can't talk about. I have been in the audio arena, for the same 30 year period, working in audio retail part-time for about 10 years. I've been involved at ten CES shows and five RMAF events with all aspects of setting-up, tearing down, running the rooms, and helping with event planning and execution. I have been a member of the Colorado Audio Society since the early 80's and I've kept close ties with many people in the industry mostly because I respect them and enjoy their company.
For the more curious, I wanted to share my feelings of the “High-End Industry”. I have always appreciated the industry, the manufacturers, celebrities, and veterans of our cottage industry. While I always enjoyed working in the industry, I never could see it being my ultimate calling in life. However, one downside was seeing people that I really respect getting into the mechanics of the business and loosing their love of music. As a salesman, I wasn't willing to sell my soul to move another piece of gear by stretching the truth, pushing the item because of a spif, or coercing a person to buy it because it was a certain brand with status and appeal. I was about the music, the love of the overall discovery process and letting the music sell the equipment for me, that became my passion – letting the equipment become a pathway to the overall music experience. I chose early in my career search to always treat the “High-End Industry” as a hobby versus my vocation. I have never regretted my decision and believe it was the best approach for me as a person. Please, don't take away from this that all dealers are on the take, many are great people with a mission to educate, share, and hopefully sell some great equipment that enables you to undertake a musical journey that will last the rest of your life. However, I chose to enjoy it from a sideline/hobby perspective due to my negative experiences.
While I am an engineer by trade, I really don't get jazzed by the technology surrounding the gear. Whether vinyl versus digital or solid state versus tube, I really don't care. My concentration is on the musical experience and I've not discovered any technology that gets it right in all circumstances. I'm finding more enjoyment in exploring the acoustic, psychological, and environmental aspects of the equipment. I don't care about double blind objective reviewing any more than I care about the subjective evaluation process. My main goal is to just listen and see how the music affects me, my attitude, and how I change as a result of the experience. Life is too short to argue, convince others that your approach is best, or defend a particular technology. Sorry, not interested!
I am looking forward to sharing and exploring thoughts and ideas about our industry. My articles will cover multiple topics including the musical experience, on-line versus the traditional magazine, the audiophile life and evolution of our listening habits and experiences as we mature, high-end retail from a fence sitting perspective, and high-end equipment manufacturing issues. I'll throw in how my friends, audiophile buddies, children, wife, and life experiences have affected my choices and approach to the High-End experience. Hopefully, we will share some ideas that may inspire you to explore and experience equipment and music in a new and potentially more meaningful way.
Good Listening & Journey!
Brian Boehler
you still don't know the who, what, and why about me. For those of you curious about the details please feel free to read on. For the rest of you, move on, skip the remaining paragraphs and get to the great articles contained in Spintricity.
My name is Brian Boehler and I'm a member in good standing of the audiophile experience we call the High-End. I'm really not sure what that means, but I'm pretty sure that I'm there. I've always enjoyed the equipment aspect of our hobby, not for the sake of the equipment but as a vehicle to transport me to the music that I love. Generally, the better the equipment, the more involved I am in the music. While I appreciate the cost-no object aspect of our hobby, I'm not able to indulge in this arena. I tend to enjoy the best of a given technology for a given price range that can be justified. My ultimate interest is the finest musical reproduction that can be afforded thus ultimately defining my view of “High-End Audio”.
The more mundane facts are that I'm an Aerospace Engineering Senior Manager involved in the high technology manufacturing arena for 30 years. I oversee Quality Engineers and Inspectors who build satellites, launch vehicles, and articles that I can't talk about. I have been in the audio arena, for the same 30 year period, working in audio retail part-time for about 10 years. I've been involved at ten CES shows and five RMAF events with all aspects of setting-up, tearing down, running the rooms, and helping with event planning and execution. I have been a member of the Colorado Audio Society since the early 80's and I've kept close ties with many people in the industry mostly because I respect them and enjoy their company.
For the more curious, I wanted to share my feelings of the “High-End Industry”. I have always appreciated the industry, the manufacturers, celebrities, and veterans of our cottage industry. While I always enjoyed working in the industry, I never could see it being my ultimate calling in life. However, one downside was seeing people that I really respect getting into the mechanics of the business and loosing their love of music. As a salesman, I wasn't willing to sell my soul to move another piece of gear by stretching the truth, pushing the item because of a spif, or coercing a person to buy it because it was a certain brand with status and appeal. I was about the music, the love of the overall discovery process and letting the music sell the equipment for me, that became my passion – letting the equipment become a pathway to the overall music experience. I chose early in my career search to always treat the “High-End Industry” as a hobby versus my vocation. I have never regretted my decision and believe it was the best approach for me as a person. Please, don't take away from this that all dealers are on the take, many are great people with a mission to educate, share, and hopefully sell some great equipment that enables you to undertake a musical journey that will last the rest of your life. However, I chose to enjoy it from a sideline/hobby perspective due to my negative experiences.
While I am an engineer by trade, I really don't get jazzed by the technology surrounding the gear. Whether vinyl versus digital or solid state versus tube, I really don't care. My concentration is on the musical experience and I've not discovered any technology that gets it right in all circumstances. I'm finding more enjoyment in exploring the acoustic, psychological, and environmental aspects of the equipment. I don't care about double blind objective reviewing any more than I care about the subjective evaluation process. My main goal is to just listen and see how the music affects me, my attitude, and how I change as a result of the experience. Life is too short to argue, convince others that your approach is best, or defend a particular technology. Sorry, not interested!
I am looking forward to sharing and exploring thoughts and ideas about our industry. My articles will cover multiple topics including the musical experience, on-line versus the traditional magazine, the audiophile life and evolution of our listening habits and experiences as we mature, high-end retail from a fence sitting perspective, and high-end equipment manufacturing issues. I'll throw in how my friends, audiophile buddies, children, wife, and life experiences have affected my choices and approach to the High-End experience. Hopefully, we will share some ideas that may inspire you to explore and experience equipment and music in a new and potentially more meaningful way.
Good Listening & Journey!
Brian Boehler
close ties with many people in the industry mostly because I respect them and enjoy their company.
For the more curious, I wanted to share my feelings of the “High-End Industry”. I have always appreciated the industry, the manufacturers, celebrities, and veterans of our cottage industry. While I always enjoyed working in the industry, I never could see it being my ultimate calling in life. However, one downside was seeing people that I really respect getting into the mechanics of the business and loosing their love of music. As a salesman, I wasn't willing to sell my soul to move another piece of gear by stretching the truth, pushing the item because of a spif, or coercing a person to buy it because it was a certain brand with status and appeal. I was about the music, the love of the overall discovery process and letting the music sell the equipment for me, that became my passion – letting the equipment become a pathway to the overall music experience. I chose early in my career search to always treat the “High-End Industry” as a hobby versus my vocation. I have never regretted my decision and believe it was the best approach for me as a person. Please, don't take away from this that all dealers are on the take, many are great people with a mission to educate, share, and hopefully sell some great equipment that enables you to undertake a musical journey that will last the rest of your life. However, I chose to enjoy it from a sideline/hobby perspective due to my negative experiences.
While I am an engineer by trade, I really don't get jazzed by the technology surrounding the gear. Whether vinyl versus digital or solid state versus tube, I really don't care. My concentration is on the musical experience and I've not discovered any technology that gets it right in all circumstances. I'm finding more enjoyment in exploring the acoustic, psychological, and environmental aspects of the equipment. I don't care about double blind objective reviewing any more than I care about the subjective evaluation process. My main goal is to just listen and see how the music affects me, my attitude, and how I change as a result of the experience. Life is too short to argue, convince others that your approach is best, or defend a particular technology. Sorry, not interested!
I am looking forward to sharing and exploring thoughts and ideas about our industry. My articles will cover multiple topics including the musical experience, on-line versus the traditional magazine, the audiophile life and evolution of our listening habits and experiences as we mature, high-end retail from a fence sitting perspective, and high-end equipment manufacturing issues. I'll throw in how my friends, audiophile buddies, children, wife, and life experiences have affected my choices and approach to the High-End experience. Hopefully, we will share some ideas that may inspire you to explore and experience equipment and music in a new and potentially more meaningful way.
Good Listening & Journey!
Brian Boehler
While I am an engineer by trade, I really don't get jazzed by the technology surrounding the gear. Whether vinyl versus digital or solid state versus tube, I really don't care. My concentration is on the musical experience and I've not discovered any technology that gets it right in all circumstances. I'm finding more enjoyment in exploring the acoustic, psychological, and environmental aspects of the equipment. I don't care about double blind objective reviewing any more than I care about the subjective evaluation process. My main goal is to just listen and see how the music affects me, my attitude, and how I change as a result of the experience. Life is too short to argue, convince others that your approach is best, or defend a particular technology. Sorry, not interested!
I am looking forward to sharing and exploring thoughts and ideas about our industry. My articles will cover multiple topics including the musical experience, on-line versus the traditional magazine, the audiophile life and evolution of our listening habits and experiences as we mature, high-end retail from a fence sitting perspective, and high-end equipment manufacturing issues. I'll throw in how my friends, audiophile buddies, children, wife, and life experiences have affected my choices and approach to the High-End experience. Hopefully, we will share some ideas that may inspire you to explore and experience equipment and music in a new and potentially more meaningful way.
Good Listening & Journey!
Brian Boehler
What is active versus passive listening? We all experience music in different ways, at different times, and in different environments. Sometimes the focus of our activity is on the music with few outside distractions. You may be in a darkened room listening to music, doing nothing but sitting there attentively listening. You block outside distractions by letting the phone go to the answering machine and you ensure others are out of your way.
This is active listening.
At other times, you are actively engaged in other activities and the music is in the background. You might be typing a paper or playing on the Internet with music streaming in the background. This is passive listening. Both of these are real examples, but don't really address the heart of active versus passive listening. It would be easy to postulate that if the focus of our activity is listening to music then we must be active participants. We could also surmise that if we are engaged in other activities and we have music in the background then we must be experiencing music in a passive fashion.
Flawed Logic?
To my way of thinking, these views are flawed and really don't address the heart of the matter. Both active and passive listening are attitudes that you pursue to achieve a final goal or state. If you pursue a passive listening experience my guess is that you will get a passive or benign experience. Bear with me on this one and hear me out before you write me off as a looney tune!
Lets take the first example. You can do many things to address your environment such as darkening the room, participate in no other activities, and make sure outside distractions such as a phone, kids, or the significant other can't interfere with your goal of listening to music. But................... what about where your mind is at. If you have a hard issue at work and your mind is focused on this issue, you may never really hear the music. The difference is that you may hear the notes and words but not experience the music and the mood it elicits in your inner being. You can set up your environment to seem like you have the opportunity to actively listen but in fact be far away and not even passively listening if the truth were told.
Lets look at the second example. You may be surfing the web and apparently not really listening very carefully but actually hear the words, melodies, and interplay of the music. You may be inwardly connecting with the music and message but to the outside world your just playing around, surfing the net, and listening to music as background filler. Do you get the point? Active and passive listening are mindsets and attitudes in addition to external environments that affect you. Your attitude has a greater impact on how you connect with the music and experience the message of the music than the external environment. You have to look at the whole package versus just trying to manipulate your environment and surroundings.
Ohmmmmmm...............
How do you clear your mind, focus your attention, and get in a state where the music can sink into you and affect a transformational experience in your life? This isn't necessarily easy to accomplish but it can make the difference between actively connecting with the music and just passively listening to the music. There are many methods that are used to clear the mind and focus our energy toward a specific goal. You can use anything from physical exercise, to meditation, to yoga, to prayer. We all have different ways of tuning out the outside world and focusing inward to elicit peace, focus, and a sense of rejuvenation.
My point is that you have a choice to make. Sometimes passive listening is fine and serves a purpose. I much prefer active listening and the potential to experience peace, joy, happiness, rejuvenation, and sometimes something transformational that makes me a better person.
How do you get ready to experience music? What can you do to help take you to a place of musical inspiration? Maybe a darkened room, maybe a glass of wine (or milk for some of you), or have spent time with the family and cleared your mind of the days worries/troubles. Find a way to relax physically, mentally, and spiritually as a way to prepare yourself to experience music. Take an active role and pursue listening in an proactive manner.
I hope these thoughts inspire you to try some new things. Maybe the old approach isn't really working and a new way is what you need. Go ahead, give it a try. The worst that could happen is nothing really changes. The best that could happen is that it opens your eyes and allows you to step deeper into the music and yourself.
Good listening!
Brian
Lets take the first example. You can do many things to address your environment such as darkening the room, participate in no other activities, and make sure outside distractions such as a phone, kids, or the significant other can't interfere with your goal of listening to music. But................... what about where your mind is at. If you have a hard issue at work and your mind is focused on this issue, you may never really hear the music. The difference is that you may hear the notes and words but not experience the music and the mood it elicits in your inner being. You can set up your environment to seem like you have the opportunity to actively listen but in fact be far away and not even passively listening if the truth were told.
Lets look at the second example. You may be surfing the web and apparently not really listening very carefully but actually hear the words, melodies, and interplay of the music. You may be inwardly connecting with the music and message but to the outside world your just playing around, surfing the net, and listening to music as background filler. Do you get the point? Active and passive listening are mindsets and attitudes in addition to external environments that affect you. Your attitude has a greater impact on how you connect with the music and experience the message of the music than the external environment. You have to look at the whole package versus just trying to manipulate your environment and surroundings.
Ohmmmmmm...............
How do you clear your mind, focus your attention, and get in a state where the music can sink into you and affect a transformational experience in your life? This isn't necessarily easy to accomplish but it can make the difference between actively connecting with the music and just passively listening to the music. There are many methods that are used to clear the mind and focus our energy toward a specific goal. You can use anything from physical exercise, to meditation, to yoga, to prayer. We all have different ways of tuning out the outside world and focusing inward to elicit peace, focus, and a sense of rejuvenation.
My point is that you have a choice to make. Sometimes passive listening is fine and serves a purpose. I much prefer active listening and the potential to experience peace, joy, happiness, rejuvenation, and sometimes something transformational that makes me a better person.
How do you get ready to experience music? What can you do to help take you to a place of musical inspiration? Maybe a darkened room, maybe a glass of wine (or milk for some of you), or have spent time with the family and cleared your mind of the days worries/troubles. Find a way to relax physically, mentally, and spiritually as a way to prepare yourself to experience music. Take an active role and pursue listening in an proactive manner.
I hope these thoughts inspire you to try some new things. Maybe the old approach isn't really working and a new way is what you need. Go ahead, give it a try. The worst that could happen is nothing really changes. The best that could happen is that it opens your eyes and allows you to step deeper into the music and yourself.
Good listening!
Brian
make. Sometimes passive listening is fine and serves a purpose. I much prefer active listening and the potential to experience peace, joy, happiness, rejuvenation, and sometimes something transformational that makes me a better person.
How do you get ready to experience music? What can you do to help take you to a place of musical inspiration? Maybe a darkened room, maybe a glass of wine (or milk for some of you), or have spent time with the family and cleared your mind of the days worries/troubles. Find a way to relax physically, mentally, and spiritually as a way to prepare yourself to experience music. Take an active role and pursue listening in an proactive manner.
I hope these thoughts inspire you to try some new things. Maybe the old approach isn't really working and a new way is what you need. Go ahead, give it a try. The worst that could happen is nothing really changes. The best that could happen is that it opens your eyes and allows you to step deeper into the music and yourself.
Good listening!
Brian
Signature Silver and Statement Silver Powercords
These cables feature Oyaide P-004, C-004 connectors. European Schuko version is also available. Standard length is 5 or 6 feet. (1.5 to 1.8 meters)
Signature Silver powercord Retail: $2,300.00
Statement Silver powercord Retail: $2,900.00
Signature Gold and Statement Gold Powercords
These cables feature Oyaide M1and F1 connectors. European Schuko version is also available. Standard length is 5 or 6 feet.( 1.5 to 1.8 meters) These are cost no object designs for ultimate performance.
Signature Gold powercord Retail: $4,500.00
Statement Gold powercord Retail: $5,500.00
Signature Gold and Statement Gold Interconnects
Our interconnect line is available in both RCA and XLR versions. Connectors used are the magnificent Bocchino's. BAXLR XLR's are used for balanced. B11 and B2 RCA's are used for single ended. Standard length is 5 or 6 feet.( 1.5 to 1.8 meters).
Signature Gold interconnect Retail: $4,500.00
Statement Gold interconnect Retail: $7,500.00
Signature Gold and Statement Gold Speaker Cables
Our speaker cable line is equipped with the Bocchino FM 27 spades. Bocchino Alpha banana'a are also available. Standard length is 6 to 8 feet. (1.8 to 2.4 meters) Internal bi-wire is available at extra cost.
Signature Gold speaker cable Retail: $9,500.00
Statement Gold speaker cable Retail: $21,000.00
As an audiophile, I’ve certainly got music for different situations. The hot seat at home calls for different music than you might throw on your ipod at the gym, in the car, scuba diving, whatever.
Dear Science, the third studio offering from Brooklyn based TV on the Radio, seems to defy all these categories. Every once in a while we’re blessed with music that’s catchy enough to dance to, with enough depth to go sonic deep sea diving with the ol’ hi-fi. This one delivers.
Production guru and band member Dave Sitek uses 1970’s analog synths provide a brainy, distant background for the fast drums and the “oh so easy to sing along” falsetto. The lyrics had me unconsciously tapping my feet and the dreamy, chopped up soundscapes kept me captivated for the extra listens. It’s satisfyingly deep and interesting, without sounds being obnoxiously piled on top of each other.
Much of the tracks have an upbeat industrial blend of drums, unrecognizably distorted guitars, and catchy lyrics. Afrobeat mixed with Peter Gabriel? David Bowie and Fantasia withTrent Reznor? Maybe………The sound is hard to pin down, but uniquely their own, becoming more precise and refined with every album. And who doesn’t like a little whistling here and there?
The sonics on the CD version are surprisingly good, considering the extent of machinery most of the sound has been filtered through; the picky soundies may still complain. The 180g vynil version should have landed in your local shop by now. Turn on solid state amplifier, apply volume liberally….enjoy
is hard to pin down, but uniquely their own, becoming more precise and refined with every album. And who doesn’t like a little whistling here and there?
The sonics on the CD version are surprisingly good, considering the extent of machinery most of the sound has been filtered through; the picky soundies may still complain. The 180g vynil version should have landed in your local shop by now. Turn on solid state amplifier, apply volume liberally….enjoy
Elrod versus Acrolink versus Valhalla versus ODIN
We listened to these power cords in various combinations on a simple, very high-quality system composed of a EMM Labs CDSA CD/SACD player connected to an Audio Note U.K. Ongaku integrated amplifier into the Marten Coltrane loudspeakers.
Speaker cables were Nordost ODIN throughout the listening sessions.
Interconnect between the CDSA and Ongaku was either the Jorma Design PRIME and, on the last few tests, Nordost ODIN
The ODIN PC was the 1.25m length. This is actually 56" long, just a hair less than 1.5m. It is fairly stiff and it takes about 8 inches of its length to make a non-stressful 90 degree turn, i.e. to plug it into something, like a wall or component.
-----
This was not a shootout to determine the 'best' power cord, per se, and Acrolink makes a better power cord than the 7100N, which is the least expensive of their Mexell series - now distributed by Esoteric, and the latest Elrod power cords now come with Oyaide connectors. It was instead a process to determine whether the significantly more expensive Nordost ODIN power cord, by roughly a factor of four, was really significantly better than the others, and, if so, in what ways was it better.
For most of the tests, a Valhalla powercord was on the CDSA. This would not be our usual choice of powercord for the CDSA - we prefer a very balanced sound - and the basic signature of the Valhalla PC: fast, clear, detailed, and neutral harmonically is too much like the signature sound of the CDSA. But in this case we wanted to identify, if possible, any synergy between the Valhalla and its bigger brother, the ODIN.
The first battery of tests were performed by Neli and I. We tried 3 PCs on the Ongaku: the ODIN and the ELROD.
Brothers in Arms - title track, Bronco, Chopin
It takes a while to get our ears warmed up. We started with the ODIN. Listened to our 3 test songs, then moved to the ELROD.
The ELROD was bigger sounding, a bigger soundstage. Imaging was less distinct. Leading edge to notes was not as clearly defined. Rounder. Not as tight, edgier [made us think about changing the PC on the CD player]. Not as much emotion, nor separation. Not as even top-to-bottom. Not nowhere near as much resolution. Left to right soundstageing a little more pronounced? Blotchier? Neli says less pure, not as open, sound stage depth not as deep, noisier. Bigger slam.
Back to ODIN
ODIN more delicate. Almost Lamm ML3 resolution. Hear the effort and care vocalist is putting into each word. Neli says is more pure.
Way more sense of care and delicacy. Same PRaT as ELROD. Way blacker background. More emotion. Less slam. Better presence and imaging. Not as room filling.
The next evening we decided at the last minute to invite Kevin and Steve up to hear the PCs. Only Kevin was able to make it. We again started with the ODIN. Then we moved to the Acrolink.
We played a Back Cello piece, Dire Straits, and an Elton John outtake
Acrolink: More recessed. Again a different treatment of left-to-right soundstage information, just like the ELROD. Not as much body. Some percussive noises where highlighted, like the clacking of a bow on a cello. Less resolution. Not as much separation or presence. Not to make fun of Kevin, but to point out the difficulty hearing differences without going back and forth a few times, and especially starting out with the better sounding component first, his initial impressions during this part of the shootout was that the Acrolink was sweeter on top, and had more body on the bottom, and he liked the AcroLink and ODIN about the same. It was not much later that his opinion was somewhat, a little bit, completely and radically transformed.
On Dire Straits, the AcroLink had a deeper slam, less resolution, not as much delicasy, lower bandwidth, not as engaging, not as much separation - notes run together in a sort of cloistered, unpleasant fashion. Can't hear decay as well, not as black. I like to focus on cool sounds in this piece, but couldn't, the sounds were too mixed up.
On Elton John, I first thought that the smoothing the PC was doing helped make this somewhat rough sounding piece nicer - more accessible. The reduced dynamics made piano seem less real. Sounds more like a stereo system.
Switched back to ODIN.
On Elton John: In first few seconds it was overwhelming the difference and improvement the ODIN made. The ELton John was Kevin's CD and he became glued to the sound, I think trying to hear all of the nuances he has been missing all of these years. We all came away with a MUCH greater appreciation of Elton John's expertise with vocals and piano. My notes are pretty brief at this point. Presence. Delicacy. Subtleties. The excruciating care with which Elton played the piano at the beginning of the song was revealed [much like the ML3 reveals these little things musicians are doing on these CDs and LPs that we hardly ever, if ever, hear in the listening room].
Switched to Valhalla [now on both EMM Labs CDSA and the Ongaku]
[We started playing only the Elton John song - yes many, many times. As our ears learned to hear farther and farther into this system, we could switch something in and out and hear what it did quicker and quicker. Which was good, because even so, this test took 6 hours, with about a 1/2 hours break upstairs to eat Vietnamese carryout and listen to vinyl on the big system]. Blanched, compressed, thread bare, voice more forward, piano more recessed. Flatter soundstage. More like a stereo. Stereo sound more familiar, more accessible. Easy to listen to and understand [see forthcoming article on 'worse is worse but a lot more familiar']. Less resolution. Kevin: Thinner, glassier, piano monochromatic.
Guess I should say here that even though the Valhalla came out badly in this test, we did come to prefer it over the ELROD on the CDSA [with the ODIN on the amp, and having not tried the AcroLink on the CDSA].
Switched to ELROD on Ongaku [Kevin hadn't heard this yet, only Neli and I had heard this, on the night previous]
Bigger sound. Bigger images. More forward. Rounder. Color about the same, but fewer shades. Kevin thought the voice was emphasized above the other sounds [see later test with ELROD on CDSA - a characteristic of the ELROD is that it emphasizes bass, like male voices].
ODIN now on CD player, ELROD on Ongaku integrated
More or less same quality added to system as ODIN on amp except: guess that only 50% as good for music as putting ODIN on amp. Guess about 90% as good for voices as putting ODIN on amp.
Swap: ELROD on CDSA, ODIN on Ongaku
Slightly smoother? Slightly more body? Less separation. Less precise.
Changed interconnect between CDSA and Ongaku to ODIN from Jorma Design PRIME
The voice! Elton John's voice was magnificent. Big. Present. Real. Quite an indelible impression was made by the voice. I thought, however, the piano has less body. However, Kevin thought [uninfluenced by my opinion. I write my notes and then ask everyone else’s opinion before I say anything] that the piano was more beautiful.
In any case, we want to congratulate Elton John. Neli and I aren't big fans like Kevin is - and that is largely because we have seemingly only heard his music on inferior equipment. He is quite skilled.
Swap: Valhalla on CDSA [ODIN still on Ongaku and between CDSA and Ongaku]
Piano is more delicate, more separation. More real. Voice a little less body. Less real? Or just less spectacular?
As a farewell to the shootout, we played Dire Straits. So open. So much separation. So much fun to listen to.
Synthesis
We learned a lot of things during this shootout.
We learned to hear the telltale signature of the ELROD PC in a system. We like and use ELROD quite a bit here. And listening to those systems, we can now hear the slight emphasis on the bass frequencies and the slight overhang of each note as its decay lasts the tiniest bit too long. This slight overhang causes there to be a correspondingly slight lack of separation and the perception of a, again, slightly higher noise floor.
We learned that, in a partially ODIN-power-corded system, the Valhalla power cord's telltale signature was much harder to detect - that it sounds like a dynamically compressed ODIN, and it's specific sound does not call attention to itself.
We learned to hear the AcroLink's telltales - a highlighting of the upper midrange, which we knew, but now also the corresponding lack of emphasis everywhere else.
We learned that the ODIN helped the Ongaku sound a lot more like the Lamm ML3 in terms of linearity and the revealing of many subtleties in the sound. Linearity in terms of the dynamic, harmonic and timing responses being much more even across the frequency band. Subtleties in terms of a lot of information present at a live show were now evident - not because certain frequencies were spotlit, like some speakers do, but because there is a blacker background. A lower noise floor not because information, subtleties are removed, like most conditioners and vibration controls and other tweaks, but because - well, I am not sure why. Apparently power cords impart their own noise to the system.
We learned to wonder, if the ODIN made the Ongaku sound more like the ML3, what would the ODIN on the ML3 sound like?
We listened to these power cords in various combinations on a simple, very high-quality system composed of a EMM Labs CDSA CD/SACD player connected to an Audio Note U.K. Ongaku integrated amplifier into the Marten Coltrane loudspeakers.
Speaker cables were Nordost ODIN throughout the listening sessions.
Interconnect between the CDSA and Ongaku was either the Jorma Design PRIME and, on the last few tests, Nordost ODIN
The ODIN PC was the 1.25m length. This is actually 56" long, just a hair less than 1.5m. It is fairly stiff and it takes about 8 inches of its length to make a non-stressful 90 degree turn, i.e. to plug it into something, like a wall or component.
-----
This was not a shootout to determine the 'best' power cord, per se, and Acrolink makes a better power cord than the 7100N, which is the least expensive of their Mexell series - now distributed by Esoteric, and the latest Elrod power cords now come with Oyaide connectors. It was instead a process to determine whether the significantly more expensive Nordost ODIN power cord, by roughly a factor of four, was really significantly better than the others, and, if so, in what ways was it better.
For most of the tests, a Valhalla powercord was on the CDSA. This would not be our usual choice of powercord for the CDSA - we prefer a very balanced sound - and the basic signature of the Valhalla PC: fast, clear, detailed, and neutral harmonically is too much like the signature sound of the CDSA. But in this case we wanted to identify, if possible, any synergy between the Valhalla and its bigger brother, the ODIN.
The first battery of tests were performed by Neli and I. We tried 3 PCs on the Ongaku: the ODIN and the ELROD.
Brothers in Arms - title track, Bronco, Chopin
It takes a while to get our ears warmed up. We started with the ODIN. Listened to our 3 test songs, then moved to the ELROD.
The ELROD was bigger sounding, a bigger soundstage. Imaging was less distinct. Leading edge to notes was not as clearly defined. Rounder. Not as tight, edgier [made us think about changing the PC on the CD player]. Not as much emotion, nor separation. Not as even top-to-bottom. Not nowhere near as much resolution. Left to right soundstageing a little more pronounced? Blotchier? Neli says less pure, not as open, sound stage depth not as deep, noisier. Bigger slam.
Back to ODIN
ODIN more delicate. Almost Lamm ML3 resolution. Hear the effort and care vocalist is putting into each word. Neli says is more pure.
Way more sense of care and delicacy. Same PRaT as ELROD. Way blacker background. More emotion. Less slam. Better presence and imaging. Not as room filling.
The next evening we decided at the last minute to invite Kevin and Steve up to hear the PCs. Only Kevin was able to make it. We again started with the ODIN. Then we moved to the Acrolink.
We played a Back Cello piece, Dire Straits, and an Elton John outtake
Acrolink: More recessed. Again a different treatment of left-to-right soundstage information, just like the ELROD. Not as much body. Some percussive noises where highlighted, like the clacking of a bow on a cello. Less resolution. Not as much separation or presence. Not to make fun of Kevin, but to point out the difficulty hearing differences without going back and forth a few times, and especially starting out with the better sounding component first, his initial impressions during this part of the shootout was that the Acrolink was sweeter on top, and had more body on the bottom, and he liked the AcroLink and ODIN about the same. It was not much later that his opinion was somewhat, a little bit, completely and radically transformed.
On Dire Straits, the AcroLink had a deeper slam, less resolution, not as much delicasy, lower bandwidth, not as engaging, not as much separation - notes run together in a sort of cloistered, unpleasant fashion. Can't hear decay as well, not as black. I like to focus on cool sounds in this piece, but couldn't, the sounds were too mixed up.
On Elton John, I first thought that the smoothing the PC was doing helped make this somewhat rough sounding piece nicer - more accessible. The reduced dynamics made piano seem less real. Sounds more like a stereo system.
Switched back to ODIN.
On Elton John: In first few seconds it was overwhelming the difference and improvement the ODIN made. The ELton John was Kevin's CD and he became glued to the sound, I think trying to hear all of the nuances he has been missing all of these years. We all came away with a MUCH greater appreciation of Elton John's expertise with vocals and piano. My notes are pretty brief at this point. Presence. Delicacy. Subtleties. The excruciating care with which Elton played the piano at the beginning of the song was revealed [much like the ML3 reveals these little things musicians are doing on these CDs and LPs that we hardly ever, if ever, hear in the listening room].
Switched to Valhalla [now on both EMM Labs CDSA and the Ongaku]
[We started playing only the Elton John song - yes many, many times. As our ears learned to hear farther and farther into this system, we could switch something in and out and hear what it did quicker and quicker. Which was good, because even so, this test took 6 hours, with about a 1/2 hours break upstairs to eat Vietnamese carryout and listen to vinyl on the big system]. Blanched, compressed, thread bare, voice more forward, piano more recessed. Flatter soundstage. More like a stereo. Stereo sound more familiar, more accessible. Easy to listen to and understand [see forthcoming article on 'worse is worse but a lot more familiar']. Less resolution. Kevin: Thinner, glassier, piano monochromatic.
Guess I should say here that even though the Valhalla came out badly in this test, we did come to prefer it over the ELROD on the CDSA [with the ODIN on the amp, and having not tried the AcroLink on the CDSA].
Switched to ELROD on Ongaku [Kevin hadn't heard this yet, only Neli and I had heard this, on the night previous]
Bigger sound. Bigger images. More forward. Rounder. Color about the same, but fewer shades. Kevin thought the voice was emphasized above the other sounds [see later test with ELROD on CDSA - a characteristic of the ELROD is that it emphasizes bass, like male voices].
ODIN now on CD player, ELROD on Ongaku integrated
More or less same quality added to system as ODIN on amp except: guess that only 50% as good for music as putting ODIN on amp. Guess about 90% as good for voices as putting ODIN on amp.
Swap: ELROD on CDSA, ODIN on Ongaku
Slightly smoother? Slightly more body? Less separation. Less precise.
Changed interconnect between CDSA and Ongaku to ODIN from Jorma Design PRIME
The voice! Elton John's voice was magnificent. Big. Present. Real. Quite an indelible impression was made by the voice. I thought, however, the piano has less body. However, Kevin thought [uninfluenced by my opinion. I write my notes and then ask everyone else’s opinion before I say anything] that the piano was more beautiful.
In any case, we want to congratulate Elton John. Neli and I aren't big fans like Kevin is - and that is largely because we have seemingly only heard his music on inferior equipment. He is quite skilled.
Swap: Valhalla on CDSA [ODIN still on Ongaku and between CDSA and Ongaku]
Piano is more delicate, more separation. More real. Voice a little less body. Less real? Or just less spectacular?
As a farewell to the shootout, we played Dire Straits. So open. So much separation. So much fun to listen to.
Synthesis
We learned a lot of things during this shootout.
We learned to hear the telltale signature of the ELROD PC in a system. We like and use ELROD quite a bit here. And listening to those systems, we can now hear the slight emphasis on the bass frequencies and the slight overhang of each note as its decay lasts the tiniest bit too long. This slight overhang causes there to be a correspondingly slight lack of separation and the perception of a, again, slightly higher noise floor.
We learned that, in a partially ODIN-power-corded system, the Valhalla power cord's telltale signature was much harder to detect - that it sounds like a dynamically compressed ODIN, and it's specific sound does not call attention to itself.
We learned to hear the AcroLink's telltales - a highlighting of the upper midrange, which we knew, but now also the corresponding lack of emphasis everywhere else.
We learned that the ODIN helped the Ongaku sound a lot more like the Lamm ML3 in terms of linearity and the revealing of many subtleties in the sound. Linearity in terms of the dynamic, harmonic and timing responses being much more even across the frequency band. Subtleties in terms of a lot of information present at a live show were now evident - not because certain frequencies were spotlit, like some speakers do, but because there is a blacker background. A lower noise floor not because information, subtleties are removed, like most conditioners and vibration controls and other tweaks, but because - well, I am not sure why. Apparently power cords impart their own noise to the system.
We learned to wonder, if the ODIN made the Ongaku sound more like the ML3, what would the ODIN on the ML3 sound like?
we prefer a very balanced sound - and the basic signature of the Valhalla PC: fast, clear, detailed, and neutral harmonically is too much like the signature sound of the CDSA. But in this case we wanted to identify, if possible, any synergy between the Valhalla and its bigger brother, the ODIN.
The first battery of tests were performed by Neli and I. We tried 3 PCs on the Ongaku: the ODIN and the ELROD.
Brothers in Arms - title track, Bronco, Chopin
It takes a while to get our ears warmed up. We started with the ODIN. Listened to our 3 test songs, then moved to the ELROD.
The ELROD was bigger sounding, a bigger soundstage. Imaging was less distinct. Leading edge to notes was not as clearly defined. Rounder. Not as tight, edgier [made us think about changing the PC on the CD player]. Not as much emotion, nor separation. Not as even top-to-bottom. Not nowhere near as much resolution. Left to right soundstageing a little more pronounced? Blotchier? Neli says less pure, not as open, sound stage depth not as deep, noisier. Bigger slam.
Back to ODIN
ODIN more delicate. Almost Lamm ML3 resolution. Hear the effort and care vocalist is putting into each word. Neli says is more pure.
Way more sense of care and delicacy. Same PRaT as ELROD. Way blacker background. More emotion. Less slam. Better presence and imaging. Not as room filling.
The next evening we decided at the last minute to invite Kevin and Steve up to hear the PCs. Only Kevin was able to make it. We again started with the ODIN. Then we moved to the Acrolink.
We played a Back Cello piece, Dire Straits, and an Elton John outtake
Acrolink: More recessed. Again a different treatment of left-to-right soundstage information, just like the ELROD. Not as much body. Some percussive noises where highlighted, like the clacking of a bow on a cello. Less resolution. Not as much separation or presence. Not to make fun of Kevin, but to point out the difficulty hearing differences without going back and forth a few times, and especially starting out with the better sounding component first, his initial impressions during this part of the shootout was that the Acrolink was sweeter on top, and had more body on the bottom, and he liked the AcroLink and ODIN about the same. It was not much later that his opinion was somewhat, a little bit, completely and radically transformed.
On Dire Straits, the AcroLink had a deeper slam, less resolution, not as much delicasy, lower bandwidth, not as engaging, not as much separation - notes run together in a sort of cloistered, unpleasant fashion. Can't hear decay as well, not as black. I like to focus on cool sounds in this piece, but couldn't, the sounds were too mixed up.
On Elton John, I first thought that the smoothing the PC was doing helped make this somewhat rough sounding piece nicer - more accessible. The reduced dynamics made piano seem less real. Sounds more like a stereo system.
Switched back to ODIN.
On Elton John: In first few seconds it was overwhelming the difference and improvement the ODIN made. The ELton John was Kevin's CD and he became glued to the sound, I think trying to hear all of the nuances he has been missing all of these years. We all came away with a MUCH greater appreciation of Elton John's expertise with vocals and piano. My notes are pretty brief at this point. Presence. Delicacy. Subtleties. The excruciating care with which Elton played the piano at the beginning of the song was revealed [much like the ML3 reveals these little things musicians are doing on these CDs and LPs that we hardly ever, if ever, hear in the listening room].
Switched to Valhalla [now on both EMM Labs CDSA and the Ongaku]
[We started playing only the Elton John song - yes many, many times. As our ears learned to hear farther and farther into this system, we could switch something in and out and hear what it did quicker and quicker. Which was good, because even so, this test took 6 hours, with about a 1/2 hours break upstairs to eat Vietnamese carryout and listen to vinyl on the big system]. Blanched, compressed, thread bare, voice more forward, piano more recessed. Flatter soundstage. More like a stereo. Stereo sound more familiar, more accessible. Easy to listen to and understand [see forthcoming article on 'worse is worse but a lot more familiar']. Less resolution. Kevin: Thinner, glassier, piano monochromatic.
Guess I should say here that even though the Valhalla came out badly in this test, we did come to prefer it over the ELROD on the CDSA [with the ODIN on the amp, and having not tried the AcroLink on the CDSA].
Switched to ELROD on Ongaku [Kevin hadn't heard this yet, only Neli and I had heard this, on the night previous]
Bigger sound. Bigger images. More forward. Rounder. Color about the same, but fewer shades. Kevin thought the voice was emphasized above the other sounds [see later test with ELROD on CDSA - a characteristic of the ELROD is that it emphasizes bass, like male voices].
ODIN now on CD player, ELROD on Ongaku integrated
More or less same quality added to system as ODIN on amp except: guess that only 50% as good for music as putting ODIN on amp. Guess about 90% as good for voices as putting ODIN on amp.
Swap: ELROD on CDSA, ODIN on Ongaku
Slightly smoother? Slightly more body? Less separation. Less precise.
Changed interconnect between CDSA and Ongaku to ODIN from Jorma Design PRIME
The voice! Elton John's voice was magnificent. Big. Present. Real. Quite an indelible impression was made by the voice. I thought, however, the piano has less body. However, Kevin thought [uninfluenced by my opinion. I write my notes and then ask everyone else’s opinion before I say anything] that the piano was more beautiful.
In any case, we want to congratulate Elton John. Neli and I aren't big fans like Kevin is - and that is largely because we have seemingly only heard his music on inferior equipment. He is quite skilled.
Swap: Valhalla on CDSA [ODIN still on Ongaku and between CDSA and Ongaku]
Piano is more delicate, more separation. More real. Voice a little less body. Less real? Or just less spectacular?
As a farewell to the shootout, we played Dire Straits. So open. So much separation. So much fun to listen to.
Synthesis
We learned a lot of things during this shootout.
We learned to hear the telltale signature of the ELROD PC in a system. We like and use ELROD quite a bit here. And listening to those systems, we can now hear the slight emphasis on the bass frequencies and the slight overhang of each note as its decay lasts the tiniest bit too long. This slight overhang causes there to be a correspondingly slight lack of separation and the perception of a, again, slightly higher noise floor.
We learned that, in a partially ODIN-power-corded system, the Valhalla power cord's telltale signature was much harder to detect - that it sounds like a dynamically compressed ODIN, and it's specific sound does not call attention to itself.
We learned to hear the AcroLink's telltales - a highlighting of the upper midrange, which we knew, but now also the corresponding lack of emphasis everywhere else.
We learned that the ODIN helped the Ongaku sound a lot more like the Lamm ML3 in terms of linearity and the revealing of many subtleties in the sound. Linearity in terms of the dynamic, harmonic and timing responses being much more even across the frequency band. Subtleties in terms of a lot of information present at a live show were now evident - not because certain frequencies were spotlit, like some speakers do, but because there is a blacker background. A lower noise floor not because information, subtleties are removed, like most conditioners and vibration controls and other tweaks, but because - well, I am not sure why. Apparently power cords impart their own noise to the system.
We learned to wonder, if the ODIN made the Ongaku sound more like the ML3, what would the ODIN on the ML3 sound like?
Way more sense of care and delicacy. Same PRaT as ELROD. Way blacker background. More emotion. Less slam. Better presence and imaging. Not as room filling.
The next evening we decided at the last minute to invite Kevin and Steve up to hear the PCs. Only Kevin was able to make it. We again started with the ODIN. Then we moved to the Acrolink.
We played a Back Cello piece, Dire Straits, and an Elton John outtake
Acrolink: More recessed. Again a different treatment of left-to-right soundstage information, just like the ELROD. Not as much body. Some percussive noises where highlighted, like the clacking of a bow on a cello. Less resolution. Not as much separation or presence. Not to make fun of Kevin, but to point out the difficulty hearing differences without going back and forth a few times, and especially starting out with the better sounding component first, his initial impressions during this part of the shootout was that the Acrolink was sweeter on top, and had more body on the bottom, and he liked the AcroLink and ODIN about the same. It was not much later that his opinion was somewhat, a little bit, completely and radically transformed.
On Dire Straits, the AcroLink had a deeper slam, less resolution, not as much delicasy, lower bandwidth, not as engaging, not as much separation - notes run together in a sort of cloistered, unpleasant fashion. Can't hear decay as well, not as black. I like to focus on cool sounds in this piece, but couldn't, the sounds were too mixed up.
On Elton John, I first thought that the smoothing the PC was doing helped make this somewhat rough sounding piece nicer - more accessible. The reduced dynamics made piano seem less real. Sounds more like a stereo system.
Switched back to ODIN.
On Elton John: In first few seconds it was overwhelming the difference and improvement the ODIN made. The ELton John was Kevin's CD and he became glued to the sound, I think trying to hear all of the nuances he has been missing all of these years. We all came away with a MUCH greater appreciation of Elton John's expertise with vocals and piano. My notes are pretty brief at this point. Presence. Delicacy. Subtleties. The excruciating care with which Elton played the piano at the beginning of the song was revealed [much like the ML3 reveals these little things musicians are doing on these CDs and LPs that we hardly ever, if ever, hear in the listening room].
Switched to Valhalla [now on both EMM Labs CDSA and the Ongaku]
[We started playing only the Elton John song - yes many, many times. As our ears learned to hear farther and farther into this system, we could switch something in and out and hear what it did quicker and quicker. Which was good, because even so, this test took 6 hours, with about a 1/2 hours break upstairs to eat Vietnamese carryout and listen to vinyl on the big system]. Blanched, compressed, thread bare, voice more forward, piano more recessed. Flatter soundstage. More like a stereo. Stereo sound more familiar, more accessible. Easy to listen to and understand [see forthcoming article on 'worse is worse but a lot more familiar']. Less resolution. Kevin: Thinner, glassier, piano monochromatic.
Guess I should say here that even though the Valhalla came out badly in this test, we did come to prefer it over the ELROD on the CDSA [with the ODIN on the amp, and having not tried the AcroLink on the CDSA].
Switched to ELROD on Ongaku [Kevin hadn't heard this yet, only Neli and I had heard this, on the night previous]
Bigger sound. Bigger images. More forward. Rounder. Color about the same, but fewer shades. Kevin thought the voice was emphasized above the other sounds [see later test with ELROD on CDSA - a characteristic of the ELROD is that it emphasizes bass, like male voices].
ODIN now on CD player, ELROD on Ongaku integrated
More or less same quality added to system as ODIN on amp except: guess that only 50% as good for music as putting ODIN on amp. Guess about 90% as good for voices as putting ODIN on amp.
Swap: ELROD on CDSA, ODIN on Ongaku
Slightly smoother? Slightly more body? Less separation. Less precise.
Changed interconnect between CDSA and Ongaku to ODIN from Jorma Design PRIME
The voice! Elton John's voice was magnificent. Big. Present. Real. Quite an indelible impression was made by the voice. I thought, however, the piano has less body. However, Kevin thought [uninfluenced by my opinion. I write my notes and then ask everyone else’s opinion before I say anything] that the piano was more beautiful.
In any case, we want to congratulate Elton John. Neli and I aren't big fans like Kevin is - and that is largely because we have seemingly only heard his music on inferior equipment. He is quite skilled.
Swap: Valhalla on CDSA [ODIN still on Ongaku and between CDSA and Ongaku]
Piano is more delicate, more separation. More real. Voice a little less body. Less real? Or just less spectacular?
As a farewell to the shootout, we played Dire Straits. So open. So much separation. So much fun to listen to.
Synthesis
We learned a lot of things during this shootout.
We learned to hear the telltale signature of the ELROD PC in a system. We like and use ELROD quite a bit here. And listening to those systems, we can now hear the slight emphasis on the bass frequencies and the slight overhang of each note as its decay lasts the tiniest bit too long. This slight overhang causes there to be a correspondingly slight lack of separation and the perception of a, again, slightly higher noise floor.
We learned that, in a partially ODIN-power-corded system, the Valhalla power cord's telltale signature was much harder to detect - that it sounds like a dynamically compressed ODIN, and it's specific sound does not call attention to itself.
We learned to hear the AcroLink's telltales - a highlighting of the upper midrange, which we knew, but now also the corresponding lack of emphasis everywhere else.
We learned that the ODIN helped the Ongaku sound a lot more like the Lamm ML3 in terms of linearity and the revealing of many subtleties in the sound. Linearity in terms of the dynamic, harmonic and timing responses being much more even across the frequency band. Subtleties in terms of a lot of information present at a live show were now evident - not because certain frequencies were spotlit, like some speakers do, but because there is a blacker background. A lower noise floor not because information, subtleties are removed, like most conditioners and vibration controls and other tweaks, but because - well, I am not sure why. Apparently power cords impart their own noise to the system.
We learned to wonder, if the ODIN made the Ongaku sound more like the ML3, what would the ODIN on the ML3 sound like?
were too mixed up.
On Elton John, I first thought that the smoothing the PC was doing helped make this somewhat rough sounding piece nicer - more accessible. The reduced dynamics made piano seem less real. Sounds more like a stereo system.
Switched back to ODIN.
On Elton John: In first few seconds it was overwhelming the difference and improvement the ODIN made. The ELton John was Kevin's CD and he became glued to the sound, I think trying to hear all of the nuances he has been missing all of these years. We all came away with a MUCH greater appreciation of Elton John's expertise with vocals and piano. My notes are pretty brief at this point. Presence. Delicacy. Subtleties. The excruciating care with which Elton played the piano at the beginning of the song was revealed [much like the ML3 reveals these little things musicians are doing on these CDs and LPs that we hardly ever, if ever, hear in the listening room].
Switched to Valhalla [now on both EMM Labs CDSA and the Ongaku]
[We started playing only the Elton John song - yes many, many times. As our ears learned to hear farther and farther into this system, we could switch something in and out and hear what it did quicker and quicker. Which was good, because even so, this test took 6 hours, with about a 1/2 hours break upstairs to eat Vietnamese carryout and listen to vinyl on the big system]. Blanched, compressed, thread bare, voice more forward, piano more recessed. Flatter soundstage. More like a stereo. Stereo sound more familiar, more accessible. Easy to listen to and understand [see forthcoming article on 'worse is worse but a lot more familiar']. Less resolution. Kevin: Thinner, glassier, piano monochromatic.
Guess I should say here that even though the Valhalla came out badly in this test, we did come to prefer it over the ELROD on the CDSA [with the ODIN on the amp, and having not tried the AcroLink on the CDSA].
Switched to ELROD on Ongaku [Kevin hadn't heard this yet, only Neli and I had heard this, on the night previous]
Bigger sound. Bigger images. More forward. Rounder. Color about the same, but fewer shades. Kevin thought the voice was emphasized above the other sounds [see later test with ELROD on CDSA - a characteristic of the ELROD is that it emphasizes bass, like male voices].
ODIN now on CD player, ELROD on Ongaku integrated
More or less same quality added to system as ODIN on amp except: guess that only 50% as good for music as putting ODIN on amp. Guess about 90% as good for voices as putting ODIN on amp.
Swap: ELROD on CDSA, ODIN on Ongaku
Slightly smoother? Slightly more body? Less separation. Less precise.
Changed interconnect between CDSA and Ongaku to ODIN from Jorma Design PRIME
The voice! Elton John's voice was magnificent. Big. Present. Real. Quite an indelible impression was made by the voice. I thought, however, the piano has less body. However, Kevin thought [uninfluenced by my opinion. I write my notes and then ask everyone else’s opinion before I say anything] that the piano was more beautiful.
In any case, we want to congratulate Elton John. Neli and I aren't big fans like Kevin is - and that is largely because we have seemingly only heard his music on inferior equipment. He is quite skilled.
Swap: Valhalla on CDSA [ODIN still on Ongaku and between CDSA and Ongaku]
Piano is more delicate, more separation. More real. Voice a little less body. Less real? Or just less spectacular?
As a farewell to the shootout, we played Dire Straits. So open. So much separation. So much fun to listen to.
Synthesis
We learned a lot of things during this shootout.
We learned to hear the telltale signature of the ELROD PC in a system. We like and use ELROD quite a bit here. And listening to those systems, we can now hear the slight emphasis on the bass frequencies and the slight overhang of each note as its decay lasts the tiniest bit too long. This slight overhang causes there to be a correspondingly slight lack of separation and the perception of a, again, slightly higher noise floor.
We learned that, in a partially ODIN-power-corded system, the Valhalla power cord's telltale signature was much harder to detect - that it sounds like a dynamically compressed ODIN, and it's specific sound does not call attention to itself.
We learned to hear the AcroLink's telltales - a highlighting of the upper midrange, which we knew, but now also the corresponding lack of emphasis everywhere else.
We learned that the ODIN helped the Ongaku sound a lot more like the Lamm ML3 in terms of linearity and the revealing of many subtleties in the sound. Linearity in terms of the dynamic, harmonic and timing responses being much more even across the frequency band. Subtleties in terms of a lot of information present at a live show were now evident - not because certain frequencies were spotlit, like some speakers do, but because there is a blacker background. A lower noise floor not because information, subtleties are removed, like most conditioners and vibration controls and other tweaks, but because - well, I am not sure why. Apparently power cords impart their own noise to the system.
We learned to wonder, if the ODIN made the Ongaku sound more like the ML3, what would the ODIN on the ML3 sound like?
ODIN now on CD player, ELROD on Ongaku integrated
More or less same quality added to system as ODIN on amp except: guess that only 50% as good for music as putting ODIN on amp. Guess about 90% as good for voices as putting ODIN on amp.
Swap: ELROD on CDSA, ODIN on Ongaku
Slightly smoother? Slightly more body? Less separation. Less precise.
Changed interconnect between CDSA and Ongaku to ODIN from Jorma Design PRIME
The voice! Elton John's voice was magnificent. Big. Present. Real. Quite an indelible impression was made by the voice. I thought, however, the piano has less body. However, Kevin thought [uninfluenced by my opinion. I write my notes and then ask everyone else’s opinion before I say anything] that the piano was more beautiful.
In any case, we want to congratulate Elton John. Neli and I aren't big fans like Kevin is - and that is largely because we have seemingly only heard his music on inferior equipment. He is quite skilled.
Swap: Valhalla on CDSA [ODIN still on Ongaku and between CDSA and Ongaku]
Piano is more delicate, more separation. More real. Voice a little less body. Less real? Or just less spectacular?
As a farewell to the shootout, we played Dire Straits. So open. So much separation. So much fun to listen to.
Synthesis
We learned a lot of things during this shootout.
We learned to hear the telltale signature of the ELROD PC in a system. We like and use ELROD quite a bit here. And listening to those systems, we can now hear the slight emphasis on the bass frequencies and the slight overhang of each note as its decay lasts the tiniest bit too long. This slight overhang causes there to be a correspondingly slight lack of separation and the perception of a, again, slightly higher noise floor.
We learned that, in a partially ODIN-power-corded system, the Valhalla power cord's telltale signature was much harder to detect - that it sounds like a dynamically compressed ODIN, and it's specific sound does not call attention to itself.
We learned to hear the AcroLink's telltales - a highlighting of the upper midrange, which we knew, but now also the corresponding lack of emphasis everywhere else.
We learned that the ODIN helped the Ongaku sound a lot more like the Lamm ML3 in terms of linearity and the revealing of many subtleties in the sound. Linearity in terms of the dynamic, harmonic and timing responses being much more even across the frequency band. Subtleties in terms of a lot of information present at a live show were now evident - not because certain frequencies were spotlit, like some speakers do, but because there is a blacker background. A lower noise floor not because information, subtleties are removed, like most conditioners and vibration controls and other tweaks, but because - well, I am not sure why. Apparently power cords impart their own noise to the system.
We learned to wonder, if the ODIN made the Ongaku sound more like the ML3, what would the ODIN on the ML3 sound like?
Music and the life experience, is there a connection? Whether you consider yourself an audiophile or just a person who enjoys music, does the act of listening to music affect your life or is it just noise to fill in the blank spaces? Now.......I'm not saying that you have a blank space in your head, I'm just offering a view based on my experiences over the years.
I have to assume if your reading this e-zine article you believe music matters in some way. In my experience, listening to music can be a transformational event. The music enters your being, affects you, and moves you to reach beyond what you were and transports you to where you are going. I know this might sound a little “deep” but why would you sit and listen to music if it 's just noise to fill in the silence?
How I see it, music should change you, take you a little bit deeper into yourself and ultimately affect who you are and how others perceive you. Hopefully, the musical experience will make you a better person than you were before. It provides healing for your soul/body and enriches your spirit or life force. Whatever it is that music means to you or does to you, I bet it affects you in more ways that you may have ever considered.
While the equipment can help enhance the musical experience, it really plays a small role in allowing you to have the musical experience at all. Whether a table radio, a high end system, or a live concert, the music, words, and emotional response are real. The high-end/audiophile experience should allow you to build a system that makes the experience as real as possible for YOU! There is no minimum entry fee to gain entrance to this musical enriching experience. An iPod can be just as effective as a half million dollar analogue system. I know this might be heresy for some but I believe it to be absolutely real in my perception of music and the life experience.
When I completed my dedicated audio room, I sat down and came up with a saying that expressed my thoughts about what music meant to me. I put these words on the wall outside my audio room as a way to share with people and hopefully, elicit some conversation. Often, I am asked why these words are on the wall and where the words came from. I share I wanted to convey why music was important to me and how it affects me as a person. None of the words are an original thought on my part, but were brought together from bits and pieces I found to produce a message that speaks to me and hopefully others as well.
In the coming weeks, I plan to explore and share many thoughts about music. Topics will include
active versus passive listening, how to choose & buy music, and how you can organize your music collection. I also want to share how you can keep in touch with new music, explore different genres of music, and how my listening habits and experiences have changed as I've aged. I'll share with you how my friends, audiophile buddies, children, wife, and life experiences have affected my choices of music. Hopefully, this will give you some ideas that may inspire you to explore and experience music in a new and potentially more meaningful way.
Please join me on this journey. Feel free to give me some feedback. You may agree, disagree, or just plain think I'm a out there. My desire will be to open a few eyes, expand some views on music, and ultimately engage you to action that results in music being more meaningful to you and those around you.
Good listening!
Brian
In the coming weeks, I plan to explore and share many thoughts about music. Topics will include
active versus passive listening, how to choose & buy music, and how you can organize your music collection. I also want to share how you can keep in touch with new music, explore different genres of music, and how my listening habits and experiences have changed as I've aged. I'll share with you how my friends, audiophile buddies, children, wife, and life experiences have affected my choices of music. Hopefully, this will give you some ideas that may inspire you to explore and experience music in a new and potentially more meaningful way.
Please join me on this journey. Feel free to give me some feedback. You may agree, disagree, or just plain think I'm a out there. My desire will be to open a few eyes, expand some views on music, and ultimately engage you to action that results in music being more meaningful to you and those around you.
Good listening!
Brian
After breaking in the TSD1 (pictured) and DAC2 on the main system for 700 - 1000 hours, we figured they were battle-ready and took them downstairs for the shootout.
Emm Labs CDSD SE/DCC2 SE two-box CD/SACD transport and DAC [silver badge] with older non-German transport versus
Emm Labs TDS1/DAC2 two-box CD/SACD transport and DAC [black badge]
The system: Emm Labs into Audio Note U.K. Ongaku integrated amplifier into Marten Coltrane loudspeakers. ODIN speaker cables, and ODIN power cord on the Ongaku. Valhalla power cords on the Emm Labs pieces.
This test comes on the heels of the 'Best bang for the buck: ODIN power cord or ODIN interconnect?' shootout [which will be published shortly, oops.] and right before the CDSA with ODIN power cord versus the TSD1/DAC2 with Valhalla power cord [that appeared on the Audio Federation blog].
This test is complicated by the fact that we are also testing the Nordost ODIN power cord and interconnect at the same time.
Why?
Because we are nuts? Or because there are too many of us and people keep coming up with more tests they want to perform? Or maybe because *some* of us have been at the brewskis?
Not sure we will get to all of the tests, but at least we are driving ourselves crazy wondering about them.
Test #1 Going from Valhalla interconnects on the DCC2 to Ongaku connection to ODIN interconnects
More separation, much more like the CDSA, which has very good separation and midi-dynamics [aka lively]. Tighter, better decay, better balance of bass and effects. Less maximum dynamics. Steve: better sense of space. Neli: Better voices. Being very familiar with the CDSA and this sliver badge pair - I could still hear, without switching back and forth, the tell-tale slightly compressed maximum dynamics and higher noise floor of the pair versus the CDSA. Otherwise the silver-badge pair is better in all other ways: resolution, sound-stage, presence, solidity, etc.
The Shootout: The TSD1/DAC2 black badge pair in comparison with the Silver Badge pair
A. We first played an acoustical set - by someone famous who I am not familiar with.
Easier to understand words. More delicacy. Hear more threads in the music. Hear shape of mouth as part of song [this just wasn't a 'I heard them turn the page' type irrelevant detail, the shape of the mouth communicated the emotion and technique of the singer, yet
another technique by which the brain uses subtle parts of the sound to register, interpret and unconsciously understand what the ears are hearing. Yet another way humans communicate with each other beyond just the 'words' themselves.]
Pacing is more natural. Again, this is something that is almost independent of what we usually descibe as 'tendancy towards foot-tapping'. This had more to do with the 'flow'. There was something to do with the very minute parts of the timing that seemed very natural, reminding me of live acoustic music. That the beat is spread out over time - not just a one-a-two-a-three but there are synchronizations between players at other times of the song, not always on the beat. It was these that were being revealed in a subtle manner but increased the realism and enjoyment of the music.
The screech of the higher notes on a guitar where more real. Why? I wasn't able to figure it out completely - to figure out how this was different than the Silver Badge pair. Perhaps the sound was more refined and got more of that 'squeakiness' right. Maybe because the decay was better - these squeaks decay differently than the main notes. Maybe because the squeak and primary note were in better balance - that they were more part of the single act of playing a note, instead of just a set of frequencies splattered at the listener. I think all these are true to some extent - but perhaps may not be the primary reason the sound of the squeaks seemed more real.
Steve: Decay is much better. Lower noise floor. There is a natural flow to the music.
B. Radiohead 'In Rainbows' - House of Cards
More space around things. Not just in the soundstage - but in all other ways as well. Notes are allowed to finish their thing. So much more to listen to - the song is much less repetitive, you can hear how they changed each stanza. Another
dimension in the music opens up. This is something we will explore more here, and in future articles.
Steve: System sounds like it is not trying very hard.
C. Opera / Choirs
Many voices instead of a soup of voices. This added more of the human-to-human element, which is probably more important in choirs than in other types of music. Well, not more important, but it is usually missing and adds a familiarity and immersiveness that is quite heartwarming. More lip in sound of trumpet.
Neli: More harmonics, richer.
Steve: You could hear how the voice, in the opera or solo parts of the choir piece, naturally got closer and farther from the resonance frequencies of the hall [these pieces have a LOT of hall information]. The volume of certain frequencies of the voice was accurate enough that you could hear how the hall was influencing those frequencies in this way.
D. Perfect Circle - eMOTIVe, Fiddle and the Drum [many voices singing a'capella]
It was fun to hear them going in and out of sync with each other. Yes, other effects to
do with very accurate timing and lots of low level information being preserved. Voices real and personal. Harder to ignore voices when they sound like they are right there - before they were kind of buried and blurred into all the other voices.
E. Radiohead - Amnesiac. First track.
Sounds grow and decay in their own little spot. Not swamped by other sounds. Everything, all the many, many sounds Radiohead puts in this [all :-)] song, could be easily followed. Each sounds decay into final nothingness was there to enjoy. It was not swamped by the other sounds. We have heard this song 1000s of times - on all kinds of systems. This is NOT something that we have been able to hear and enjoy before. Yes, it is probably evidence of how Radiohead put the song together on tape. But is sure is entertaining - and adds a whole new dimension to enjoying music. How many times have we all gone to a live show, and just followed one musician's playing for awhile, kind of ignoring the other players? This is apparently harder to do on a home audio system than when listening to music live - or at least it was until now.
F. Elton John
Getting late. Very tired. This is the 3rd shootout this evening - [after the earlier ODIN Bang-for-the-buck shootout we got side-tracked into a little shootout of 4 power strips :-)]. Less bass than the shootout last week with this song? Don't know. Spent a lot of time listening to the various parts of the music. Neli: the piano and voice seemed much more in balance [I think do to the fact that one did not periodically dominate the other as much, that times when the voice was soft it could still be heard in its entirety. And vis-a-versa].
I will summarize the shootout involving several power distributors (aka power strips) quickly. Oh boy do they sound different from each other and the Office Depot $60 special , although gritty and uneven - retains at least most of the dynamics and is cheap. Very cheap. The two outlet $1500 Acoustic Revive sounded better - looked better - and didn't tip over as easily. But it is also more expensive. [OK, I have this thing about paying a lot of money for power strips. Sorry.] The less expensive ones really added too much and took away too much. But this made me wonder if a $10 'power strip'-like thing similar to one of the tools we used as a reference during this shootout might just beat about anything. More on this as soon as I remember to press buy in my stupid cart sitting in my stupid browser tab for over a month now because my stupid memory just ain't what it used to be [and it’s not like I did it any good during my misspent youth].
One [or several, can't tell them apart yet] spider cruised the listeneing session several times and returned to attend several other shootouts.
These guys can really book - criss-crossing the middle of the floor a dozen times forcing the more timid of us [which was everybody] to have to move our feet out of the way lest we get crawled.
We were lucky enough to have a guest in our home for a week or so this October, followed by several days at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. This rather prestigious guest was the Lamm ML3 Signature amplifiers.
For technical details, I refer the reader to the Lamm Industries' website. Suffice it to say here that the ML3 is Lamm's flagship 4-box amplifier (two boxes per channel, one of which is a power supply) that sells for $139,290.00.
This review is more of a thinking piece than most magazine reviews. Let's face it, a amplifier at this price point, from a company with extremely good price/performance on all of their other products [not a clunker in the bunch], is bound to sound pretty good, right? Not only that, it is bound to sound good in ways that are hard to explain in terms that we normally use to describe most other components.
Perhaps we'll write a follow-up review with all the "Wow!"s and "This song you never heard of before sounded like THIS"es. But for now, we are going to look at just what amplifiers were supposed to have been doing all along - and how the ML3 is actually very close to finally accomplishing this.
To try and explain the depths to which we listened to and analyzed the ML3, I present a little background on how we analyze the sound of components here [a categorization that has been refined quite a bit recently, both because of the ML3, and also the Audio Note Kegon Balanced amplifiers, the EMM Labs TSD1/DAC2, and Nordost ODIN cables - all of which are break-through designs. Designs that make previous designs look clumsy and haphazard].
Audio Amplification
Definition: Taking a small signal and making it large enough to drive a wide variety of loudspeakers.
Evolution: Amps. Amps. Amps. Thousands. Tens of thousands. Decades. More decades. Sweat. Frustration. Compromises. Theories. Contrivances. Hyperbole. Failure.
Failure because the listening experience was unsatisfactory. Unpleasant, Unconvincing.
The goal was redefined. Improved. It was not enough anymore [for some] to just be able to drive a speaker. Not enough [for a few] just to minimize a marketing-driven chimera... Total Harmonic Distortion.
Now: 1. Contribute nothing to the signal but gain. 2. Control speaker so well that the sound produced is an exact facsimile of the signal entering the amplifier [that the speaker-amplifier subsystem work well together is the most important part of high-end audio system design].
Looked at another way - it is all about transforming information from one domain to another. Transforming information present in a small electrical signal on a wire into sound waves that carry the same information. It is all about preserving information, the information present in a small electrical signal that is specific to sound reproduction.
Information theory is a dense subject - and it is unlikely that many audio amplifier designers take information theory into account when they design their amplifiers.
But as listeners we all do indeed understand which information is absent, and which has been mangled, if only subconsciously. Or emotionally.
Types of musical information [this is a work in progress]:
Dynamic information. 1st order. Magnitude of a note. Is the loudness we hear what it is supposed to be. 2nd order. Rise and fall of the loudness. Is the way the notes gets louder, and then decays into nothingness what it is supposed to be. 3rd order. Are the associated harmonic frequencies of the note also rising and falling correctly. 4th order. Notes interaction with other notes. Is the way the notes interact with other notes, occurring during or immediately before/after a note, behave correctly.
Timing information. 1st order. Are note leading edges occurring when they are supposed to. Do we hear a beat. 2nd order. Are all parts of the notes, crests, decay, end and various subparts of the notes occurring when they are supposed to. 3rd order. Are notes occurring when they are supposed to at all volumes, all frequencies, all levels of musical complexity.
Harmonic information. 1st order. Are the basic tones at the correct frequency? Does it 'sound right'. Are the under and over tones present and correct? 2nd order. Are the various subtle changes to the tone, from natural instruments, present and correct?. 3rd order. Are the tones correct at all volumes, all frequencies, all complexities?
Types of flaws
The reverse side, the dark side perhaps, of analyzing what we are hearing is to understand and classify the many ways that the result of the information transformation from the electrical domain to the acoustical domain [i.e. the sound we are hearing] differs from perfection. To talk about how a component differs from perfection, rather than how great it sounds. To talk about flaws. This is only useful if the number of flaws is small - there is only one way to do something right, and unaccountably many to do them wrong [sometimes I think the internet isn't big enough to describe all the flaws in some systems, and I'm certainly too lazy to try... ergo the Flaw Categorization scheme below].
Usually people just measure frequency response: how the 1st order of dynamic information differs from what it should be for a given frequency. There is a heckuva lot more to enjoyable sound reproduction than this.
Types of flaws: Dynamic, Timing or Harmonic.
Magnitude of flaw. How large, how egregious, is the flaw.
Linearity/Proportionality: Is a flaw in the correct proportion to the flaw elsewhere in the musical stream. Elsewhere in the frequency spectrum. Elsewhere in the dynamic spectrum (louder/ softer). Elsewhere in the complexity spectrum [when lots of notes are happening at once]
Non-linear flaws call attention to themselves much more than linear flaws. They make the music sound strange. Not real.
Emotional responses
Suffice it to say here that, when listening analytically or otherwise, emotional responses complete the feedback loop. If something doesn't sound 'good', that means we are reacting emotionally [negatively] to it. That there are flaws afoot. If one cares to, and the system is not completely useless, one can listen more deeply and find out WHY the sound is flawed.
Process
The point of presenting this way of analyzing what we are hearing [More on this way of looking at and listening to audio in a future article] in a review of the ML3 is to show to the extreme depth to which the ML3 is performing as the prefect amplifier. Able to transform an electrical signal into something that, in this case the Marten Coltrane Supreme loudspeakers, can reproduce as sound waves that bring us back to our roots - what we expect [hope and pray!] an amplifier to sound like.
That is, when we analyze the sound of a component here at Audio Federation, we listen very deeply into the music, listening to the various orders of dynamic, timing and harmonic information, then try to characterize how this information has been mutilated [flaws], and finally to our emotional responses.
The ML3
And the point is that, vis-a-vis the ML3, the flaws are exceedingly small; much, much smaller in comparison with other amplifiers, and the flaws that exist are very linear.
In fact, the flaws are so small and well-distributed, that it is unclear to me whether the flaws should be attributed to something else, and are in fact an intrinsic part of our media, cables, sources or speakers.
For one example, let's look at dynamics. Specifically the flaws in dynamics as heard on our system here and at RMAF. To my ears, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order information was preserved so well it was a transfixing experience. This is a credit to the entire reproduction chain - but specifically the amps, because this kind of 'correctness' is very rare and it hasn't smacked us in the face like this before [but see our forthcoming Nordost ODIN power cord review - we are starting to hear shades of this correctness elsewhere.].
But the 1st order dynamics, magnitude, is still not correct. No amplifier speaker combination can yet reproduce the real dynamics of a hitting of a single key on a piano, for example [one can quibble about whether a live electric guitar is by definition always correct later. Much, much later. :-)]. But given the linearity of the dynamic response of the system across various media, and given what we know about cables' effect on dynamics [re: ODIN], how some digital players tweak dynamics in a non-linear fashion [see previous shootouts on the Audio Federation blog], and of course the speakers, which like all speakers are not 100% efficient, the amps appear to be completely linear, and are reproducing in exact correct proportion the magnitude of the signal they are given - EVEN IN THE REAL WORLD OF PLAYING REAL MUSIC.
This is the point I am trying to make. What an amplifier does is extremely simple. But it is dealing with a very subtle and complex signal - music - and the ways it can mess this up are extremely numerous and complex. The ML3 doesn't mess up in the ways that amplifiers usually mess up. I am arguing that the ML3 is, like the Coltrane Supremes and the ODIN before it - the first, truly competent, amplifier.
Designing systems around these components is different than around other components. Their own flaws are not only so very small [given the real-world limitation of physical laws and the conventional implementation of these audio components], but they are also NOT designed to compensate for inherent flaws elsewhere in the system or media.
These 'competent components', these perfectionists, just reproduce the sound they are given. With much, much better success than most other components. They don't play 'games' with the sound. Now a system of all perfect components may not be for you. Maybe just one or two will be preferred. Some people seem to find the media itself, whether digital or analog, to still be missing something and want an extra zing. Others just prefer the sound to be 'better than real' and want some extra zoom. For most people, a system filled with perfect components might only be a start - followed by tweaks of special cables and components to tailor the system to fit their personal, and doubtlessly idiosyncratic and unique, taste, exactly.
Or should I say... perfectly.
To try and explain the depths to which we listened to and analyzed the ML3, I present a little background on how we analyze the sound of components here [a categorization that has been refined quite a bit recently, both because of the ML3, and also the Audio Note Kegon Balanced amplifiers, the EMM Labs TSD1/DAC2, and Nordost ODIN cables - all of which are break-through designs. Designs that make previous designs look clumsy and haphazard].
Audio Amplification
Definition: Taking a small signal and making it large enough to drive a wide variety of loudspeakers.
Evolution: Amps. Amps. Amps. Thousands. Tens of thousands. Decades. More decades. Sweat. Frustration. Compromises. Theories. Contrivances. Hyperbole. Failure.
Failure because the listening experience was unsatisfactory. Unpleasant, Unconvincing.
The goal was redefined. Improved. It was not enough anymore [for some] to just be able to drive a speaker. Not enough [for a few] just to minimize a marketing-driven chimera... Total Harmonic Distortion.
Now: 1. Contribute nothing to the signal but gain. 2. Control speaker so well that the sound produced is an exact facsimile of the signal entering the amplifier [that the speaker-amplifier subsystem work well together is the most important part of high-end audio system design].
Looked at another way - it is all about transforming information from one domain to another. Transforming information present in a small electrical signal on a wire into sound waves that carry the same information. It is all about preserving information, the information present in a small electrical signal that is specific to sound reproduction.
Information theory is a dense subject - and it is unlikely that many audio amplifier designers take information theory into account when they design their amplifiers.
But as listeners we all do indeed understand which information is absent, and which has been mangled, if only subconsciously. Or emotionally.
Types of musical information [this is a work in progress]:
Dynamic information. 1st order. Magnitude of a note. Is the loudness we hear what it is supposed to be. 2nd order. Rise and fall of the loudness. Is the way the notes gets louder, and then decays into nothingness what it is supposed to be. 3rd order. Are the associated harmonic frequencies of the note also rising and falling correctly. 4th order. Notes interaction with other notes. Is the way the notes interact with other notes, occurring during or immediately before/after a note, behave correctly.
Timing information. 1st order. Are note leading edges occurring when they are supposed to. Do we hear a beat. 2nd order. Are all parts of the notes, crests, decay, end and various subparts of the notes occurring when they are supposed to. 3rd order. Are notes occurring when they are supposed to at all volumes, all frequencies, all levels of musical complexity.
Harmonic information. 1st order. Are the basic tones at the correct frequency? Does it 'sound right'. Are the under and over tones present and correct? 2nd order. Are the various subtle changes to the tone, from natural instruments, present and correct?. 3rd order. Are the tones correct at all volumes, all frequencies, all complexities?
Types of flaws
The reverse side, the dark side perhaps, of analyzing what we are hearing is to understand and classify the many ways that the result of the information transformation from the electrical domain to the acoustical domain [i.e. the sound we are hearing] differs from perfection. To talk about how a component differs from perfection, rather than how great it sounds. To talk about flaws. This is only useful if the number of flaws is small - there is only one way to do something right, and unaccountably many to do them wrong [sometimes I think the internet isn't big enough to describe all the flaws in some systems, and I'm certainly too lazy to try... ergo the Flaw Categorization scheme below].
Usually people just measure frequency response: how the 1st order of dynamic information differs from what it should be for a given frequency. There is a heckuva lot more to enjoyable sound reproduction than this.
Types of flaws: Dynamic, Timing or Harmonic.
Magnitude of flaw. How large, how egregious, is the flaw.
Linearity/Proportionality: Is a flaw in the correct proportion to the flaw elsewhere in the musical stream. Elsewhere in the frequency spectrum. Elsewhere in the dynamic spectrum (louder/ softer). Elsewhere in the complexity spectrum [when lots of notes are happening at once]
Non-linear flaws call attention to themselves much more than linear flaws. They make the music sound strange. Not real.
Emotional responses
Suffice it to say here that, when listening analytically or otherwise, emotional responses complete the feedback loop. If something doesn't sound 'good', that means we are reacting emotionally [negatively] to it. That there are flaws afoot. If one cares to, and the system is not completely useless, one can listen more deeply and find out WHY the sound is flawed.
Process
The point of presenting this way of analyzing what we are hearing [More on this way of looking at and listening to audio in a future article] in a review of the ML3 is to show to the extreme depth to which the ML3 is performing as the prefect amplifier. Able to transform an electrical signal into something that, in this case the Marten Coltrane Supreme loudspeakers, can reproduce as sound waves that bring us back to our roots - what we expect [hope and pray!] an amplifier to sound like.
That is, when we analyze the sound of a component here at Audio Federation, we listen very deeply into the music, listening to the various orders of dynamic, timing and harmonic information, then try to characterize how this information has been mutilated [flaws], and finally to our emotional responses.
The ML3
And the point is that, vis-a-vis the ML3, the flaws are exceedingly small; much, much smaller in comparison with other amplifiers, and the flaws that exist are very linear.
In fact, the flaws are so small and well-distributed, that it is unclear to me whether the flaws should be attributed to something else, and are in fact an intrinsic part of our media, cables, sources or speakers.
For one example, let's look at dynamics. Specifically the flaws in dynamics as heard on our system here and at RMAF. To my ears, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order information was preserved so well it was a transfixing experience. This is a credit to the entire reproduction chain - but specifically the amps, because this kind of 'correctness' is very rare and it hasn't smacked us in the face like this before [but see our forthcoming Nordost ODIN power cord review - we are starting to hear shades of this correctness elsewhere.].
But the 1st order dynamics, magnitude, is still not correct. No amplifier speaker combination can yet reproduce the real dynamics of a hitting of a single key on a piano, for example [one can quibble about whether a live electric guitar is by definition always correct later. Much, much later. :-)]. But given the linearity of the dynamic response of the system across various media, and given what we know about cables' effect on dynamics [re: ODIN], how some digital players tweak dynamics in a non-linear fashion [see previous shootouts on the Audio Federation blog], and of course the speakers, which like all speakers are not 100% efficient, the amps appear to be completely linear, and are reproducing in exact correct proportion the magnitude of the signal they are given - EVEN IN THE REAL WORLD OF PLAYING REAL MUSIC.
This is the point I am trying to make. What an amplifier does is extremely simple. But it is dealing with a very subtle and complex signal - music - and the ways it can mess this up are extremely numerous and complex. The ML3 doesn't mess up in the ways that amplifiers usually mess up. I am arguing that the ML3 is, like the Coltrane Supremes and the ODIN before it - the first, truly competent, amplifier.
Designing systems around these components is different than around other components. Their own flaws are not only so very small [given the real-world limitation of physical laws and the conventional implementation of these audio components], but they are also NOT designed to compensate for inherent flaws elsewhere in the system or media.
These 'competent components', these perfectionists, just reproduce the sound they are given. With much, much better success than most other components. They don't play 'games' with the sound. Now a system of all perfect components may not be for you. Maybe just one or two will be preferred. Some people seem to find the media itself, whether digital or analog, to still be missing something and want an extra zing. Others just prefer the sound to be 'better than real' and want some extra zoom. For most people, a system filled with perfect components might only be a start - followed by tweaks of special cables and components to tailor the system to fit their personal, and doubtlessly idiosyncratic and unique, taste, exactly.
Or should I say... perfectly.
Harmonic Distortion.
Now: 1. Contribute nothing to the signal but gain. 2. Control speaker so well that the sound produced is an exact facsimile of the signal entering the amplifier [that the speaker-amplifier subsystem work well together is the most important part of high-end audio system design].
Looked at another way - it is all about transforming information from one domain to another. Transforming information present in a small electrical signal on a wire into sound waves that carry the same information. It is all about preserving information, the information present in a small electrical signal that is specific to sound reproduction.
Information theory is a dense subject - and it is unlikely that many audio amplifier designers take information theory into account when they design their amplifiers.
But as listeners we all do indeed understand which information is absent, and which has been mangled, if only subconsciously. Or emotionally.
Types of musical information [this is a work in progress]:
Dynamic information. 1st order. Magnitude of a note. Is the loudness we hear what it is supposed to be. 2nd order. Rise and fall of the loudness. Is the way the notes gets louder, and then decays into nothingness what it is supposed to be. 3rd order. Are the associated harmonic frequencies of the note also rising and falling correctly. 4th order. Notes interaction with other notes. Is the way the notes interact with other notes, occurring during or immediately before/after a note, behave correctly.
Timing information. 1st order. Are note leading edges occurring when they are supposed to. Do we hear a beat. 2nd order. Are all parts of the notes, crests, decay, end and various subparts of the notes occurring when they are supposed to. 3rd order. Are notes occurring when they are supposed to at all volumes, all frequencies, all levels of musical complexity.
Harmonic information. 1st order. Are the basic tones at the correct frequency? Does it 'sound right'. Are the under and over tones present and correct? 2nd order. Are the various subtle changes to the tone, from natural instruments, present and correct?. 3rd order. Are the tones correct at all volumes, all frequencies, all complexities?
Types of flaws
The reverse side, the dark side perhaps, of analyzing what we are hearing is to understand and classify the many ways that the result of the information transformation from the electrical domain to the acoustical domain [i.e. the sound we are hearing] differs from perfection. To talk about how a component differs from perfection, rather than how great it sounds. To talk about flaws. This is only useful if the number of flaws is small - there is only one way to do something right, and unaccountably many to do them wrong [sometimes I think the internet isn't big enough to describe all the flaws in some systems, and I'm certainly too lazy to try... ergo the Flaw Categorization scheme below].
Usually people just measure frequency response: how the 1st order of dynamic information differs from what it should be for a given frequency. There is a heckuva lot more to enjoyable sound reproduction than this.
Types of flaws: Dynamic, Timing or Harmonic.
Magnitude of flaw. How large, how egregious, is the flaw.
Linearity/Proportionality: Is a flaw in the correct proportion to the flaw elsewhere in the musical stream. Elsewhere in the frequency spectrum. Elsewhere in the dynamic spectrum (louder/ softer). Elsewhere in the complexity spectrum [when lots of notes are happening at once]
Non-linear flaws call attention to themselves much more than linear flaws. They make the music sound strange. Not real.
Emotional responses
Suffice it to say here that, when listening analytically or otherwise, emotional responses complete the feedback loop. If something doesn't sound 'good', that means we are reacting emotionally [negatively] to it. That there are flaws afoot. If one cares to, and the system is not completely useless, one can listen more deeply and find out WHY the sound is flawed.
Process
The point of presenting this way of analyzing what we are hearing [More on this way of looking at and listening to audio in a future article] in a review of the ML3 is to show to the extreme depth to which the ML3 is performing as the prefect amplifier. Able to transform an electrical signal into something that, in this case the Marten Coltrane Supreme loudspeakers, can reproduce as sound waves that bring us back to our roots - what we expect [hope and pray!] an amplifier to sound like.
That is, when we analyze the sound of a component here at Audio Federation, we listen very deeply into the music, listening to the various orders of dynamic, timing and harmonic information, then try to characterize how this information has been mutilated [flaws], and finally to our emotional responses.
The ML3
And the point is that, vis-a-vis the ML3, the flaws are exceedingly small; much, much smaller in comparison with other amplifiers, and the flaws that exist are very linear.
In fact, the flaws are so small and well-distributed, that it is unclear to me whether the flaws should be attributed to something else, and are in fact an intrinsic part of our media, cables, sources or speakers.
For one example, let's look at dynamics. Specifically the flaws in dynamics as heard on our system here and at RMAF. To my ears, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order information was preserved so well it was a transfixing experience. This is a credit to the entire reproduction chain - but specifically the amps, because this kind of 'correctness' is very rare and it hasn't smacked us in the face like this before [but see our forthcoming Nordost ODIN power cord review - we are starting to hear shades of this correctness elsewhere.].
But the 1st order dynamics, magnitude, is still not correct. No amplifier speaker combination can yet reproduce the real dynamics of a hitting of a single key on a piano, for example [one can quibble about whether a live electric guitar is by definition always correct later. Much, much later. :-)]. But given the linearity of the dynamic response of the system across various media, and given what we know about cables' effect on dynamics [re: ODIN], how some digital players tweak dynamics in a non-linear fashion [see previous shootouts on the Audio Federation blog], and of course the speakers, which like all speakers are not 100% efficient, the amps appear to be completely linear, and are reproducing in exact correct proportion the magnitude of the signal they are given - EVEN IN THE REAL WORLD OF PLAYING REAL MUSIC.
This is the point I am trying to make. What an amplifier does is extremely simple. But it is dealing with a very subtle and complex signal - music - and the ways it can mess this up are extremely numerous and complex. The ML3 doesn't mess up in the ways that amplifiers usually mess up. I am arguing that the ML3 is, like the Coltrane Supremes and the ODIN before it - the first, truly competent, amplifier.
Designing systems around these components is different than around other components. Their own flaws are not only so very small [given the real-world limitation of physical laws and the conventional implementation of these audio components], but they are also NOT designed to compensate for inherent flaws elsewhere in the system or media.
These 'competent components', these perfectionists, just reproduce the sound they are given. With much, much better success than most other components. They don't play 'games' with the sound. Now a system of all perfect components may not be for you. Maybe just one or two will be preferred. Some people seem to find the media itself, whether digital or analog, to still be missing something and want an extra zing. Others just prefer the sound to be 'better than real' and want some extra zoom. For most people, a system filled with perfect components might only be a start - followed by tweaks of special cables and components to tailor the system to fit their personal, and doubtlessly idiosyncratic and unique, taste, exactly.
Or should I say... perfectly.
loudness we hear what it is supposed to be. 2nd order. Rise and fall of the loudness. Is the way the notes gets louder, and then decays into nothingness what it is supposed to be. 3rd order. Are the associated harmonic frequencies of the note also rising and falling correctly. 4th order. Notes interaction with other notes. Is the way the notes interact with other notes, occurring during or immediately before/after a note, behave correctly.
Timing information. 1st order. Are note leading edges occurring when they are supposed to. Do we hear a beat. 2nd order. Are all parts of the notes, crests, decay, end and various subparts of the notes occurring when they are supposed to. 3rd order. Are notes occurring when they are supposed to at all volumes, all frequencies, all levels of musical complexity.
Harmonic information. 1st order. Are the basic tones at the correct frequency? Does it 'sound right'. Are the under and over tones present and correct? 2nd order. Are the various subtle changes to the tone, from natural instruments, present and correct?. 3rd order. Are the tones correct at all volumes, all frequencies, all complexities?
Types of flaws
The reverse side, the dark side perhaps, of analyzing what we are hearing is to understand and classify the many ways that the result of the information transformation from the electrical domain to the acoustical domain [i.e. the sound we are hearing] differs from perfection. To talk about how a component differs from perfection, rather than how great it sounds. To talk about flaws. This is only useful if the number of flaws is small - there is only one way to do something right, and unaccountably many to do them wrong [sometimes I think the internet isn't big enough to describe all the flaws in some systems, and I'm certainly too lazy to try... ergo the Flaw Categorization scheme below].
Usually people just measure frequency response: how the 1st order of dynamic information differs from what it should be for a given frequency. There is a heckuva lot more to enjoyable sound reproduction than this.
Types of flaws: Dynamic, Timing or Harmonic.
Magnitude of flaw. How large, how egregious, is the flaw.
Linearity/Proportionality: Is a flaw in the correct proportion to the flaw elsewhere in the musical stream. Elsewhere in the frequency spectrum. Elsewhere in the dynamic spectrum (louder/ softer). Elsewhere in the complexity spectrum [when lots of notes are happening at once]
Non-linear flaws call attention to themselves much more than linear flaws. They make the music sound strange. Not real.
Emotional responses
Suffice it to say here that, when listening analytically or otherwise, emotional responses complete the feedback loop. If something doesn't sound 'good', that means we are reacting emotionally [negatively] to it. That there are flaws afoot. If one cares to, and the system is not completely useless, one can listen more deeply and find out WHY the sound is flawed.
Process
The point of presenting this way of analyzing what we are hearing [More on this way of looking at and listening to audio in a future article] in a review of the ML3 is to show to the extreme depth to which the ML3 is performing as the prefect amplifier. Able to transform an electrical signal into something that, in this case the Marten Coltrane Supreme loudspeakers, can reproduce as sound waves that bring us back to our roots - what we expect [hope and pray!] an amplifier to sound like.
That is, when we analyze the sound of a component here at Audio Federation, we listen very deeply into the music, listening to the various orders of dynamic, timing and harmonic information, then try to characterize how this information has been mutilated [flaws], and finally to our emotional responses.
The ML3
And the point is that, vis-a-vis the ML3, the flaws are exceedingly small; much, much smaller in comparison with other amplifiers, and the flaws that exist are very linear.
In fact, the flaws are so small and well-distributed, that it is unclear to me whether the flaws should be attributed to something else, and are in fact an intrinsic part of our media, cables, sources or speakers.
For one example, let's look at dynamics. Specifically the flaws in dynamics as heard on our system here and at RMAF. To my ears, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order information was preserved so well it was a transfixing experience. This is a credit to the entire reproduction chain - but specifically the amps, because this kind of 'correctness' is very rare and it hasn't smacked us in the face like this before [but see our forthcoming Nordost ODIN power cord review - we are starting to hear shades of this correctness elsewhere.].
But the 1st order dynamics, magnitude, is still not correct. No amplifier speaker combination can yet reproduce the real dynamics of a hitting of a single key on a piano, for example [one can quibble about whether a live electric guitar is by definition always correct later. Much, much later. :-)]. But given the linearity of the dynamic response of the system across various media, and given what we know about cables' effect on dynamics [re: ODIN], how some digital players tweak dynamics in a non-linear fashion [see previous shootouts on the Audio Federation blog], and of course the speakers, which like all speakers are not 100% efficient, the amps appear to be completely linear, and are reproducing in exact correct proportion the magnitude of the signal they are given - EVEN IN THE REAL WORLD OF PLAYING REAL MUSIC.
This is the point I am trying to make. What an amplifier does is extremely simple. But it is dealing with a very subtle and complex signal - music - and the ways it can mess this up are extremely numerous and complex. The ML3 doesn't mess up in the ways that amplifiers usually mess up. I am arguing that the ML3 is, like the Coltrane Supremes and the ODIN before it - the first, truly competent, amplifier.
Designing systems around these components is different than around other components. Their own flaws are not only so very small [given the real-world limitation of physical laws and the conventional implementation of these audio components], but they are also NOT designed to compensate for inherent flaws elsewhere in the system or media.
These 'competent components', these perfectionists, just reproduce the sound they are given. With much, much better success than most other components. They don't play 'games' with the sound. Now a system of all perfect components may not be for you. Maybe just one or two will be preferred. Some people seem to find the media itself, whether digital or analog, to still be missing something and want an extra zing. Others just prefer the sound to be 'better than real' and want some extra zoom. For most people, a system filled with perfect components might only be a start - followed by tweaks of special cables and components to tailor the system to fit their personal, and doubtlessly idiosyncratic and unique, taste, exactly.
Or should I say... perfectly.
Process
The point of presenting this way of analyzing what we are hearing [More on this way of looking at and listening to audio in a future article] in a review of the ML3 is to show to the extreme depth to which the ML3 is performing as the prefect amplifier. Able to transform an electrical signal into something that, in this case the Marten Coltrane Supreme loudspeakers, can reproduce as sound waves that bring us back to our roots - what we expect [hope and pray!] an amplifier to sound like.
That is, when we analyze the sound of a component here at Audio Federation, we listen very deeply into the music, listening to the various orders of dynamic, timing and harmonic information, then try to characterize how this information has been mutilated [flaws], and finally to our emotional responses.
The ML3
And the point is that, vis-a-vis the ML3, the flaws are exceedingly small; much, much smaller in comparison with other amplifiers, and the flaws that exist are very linear.
In fact, the flaws are so small and well-distributed, that it is unclear to me whether the flaws should be attributed to something else, and are in fact an intrinsic part of our media, cables, sources or speakers.
For one example, let's look at dynamics. Specifically the flaws in dynamics as heard on our system here and at RMAF. To my ears, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order information was preserved so well it was a transfixing experience. This is a credit to the entire reproduction chain - but specifically the amps, because this kind of 'correctness' is very rare and it hasn't smacked us in the face like this before [but see our forthcoming Nordost ODIN power cord review - we are starting to hear shades of this correctness elsewhere.].
But the 1st order dynamics, magnitude, is still not correct. No amplifier speaker combination can yet reproduce the real dynamics of a hitting of a single key on a piano, for example [one can quibble about whether a live electric guitar is by definition always correct later. Much, much later. :-)]. But given the linearity of the dynamic response of the system across various media, and given what we know about cables' effect on dynamics [re: ODIN], how some digital players tweak dynamics in a non-linear fashion [see previous shootouts on the Audio Federation blog], and of course the speakers, which like all speakers are not 100% efficient, the amps appear to be completely linear, and are reproducing in exact correct proportion the magnitude of the signal they are given - EVEN IN THE REAL WORLD OF PLAYING REAL MUSIC.
This is the point I am trying to make. What an amplifier does is extremely simple. But it is dealing with a very subtle and complex signal - music - and the ways it can mess this up are extremely numerous and complex. The ML3 doesn't mess up in the ways that amplifiers usually mess up. I am arguing that the ML3 is, like the Coltrane Supremes and the ODIN before it - the first, truly competent, amplifier.
Designing systems around these components is different than around other components. Their own flaws are not only so very small [given the real-world limitation of physical laws and the conventional implementation of these audio components], but they are also NOT designed to compensate for inherent flaws elsewhere in the system or media.
These 'competent components', these perfectionists, just reproduce the sound they are given. With much, much better success than most other components. They don't play 'games' with the sound. Now a system of all perfect components may not be for you. Maybe just one or two will be preferred. Some people seem to find the media itself, whether digital or analog, to still be missing something and want an extra zing. Others just prefer the sound to be 'better than real' and want some extra zoom. For most people, a system filled with perfect components might only be a start - followed by tweaks of special cables and components to tailor the system to fit their personal, and doubtlessly idiosyncratic and unique, taste, exactly.
Or should I say... perfectly.
The ML3
And the point is that, vis-a-vis the ML3, the flaws are exceedingly small; much, much smaller in comparison with other amplifiers, and the flaws that exist are very linear.
In fact, the flaws are so small and well-distributed, that it is unclear to me whether the flaws should be attributed to something else, and are in fact an intrinsic part of our media, cables, sources or speakers.
For one example, let's look at dynamics. Specifically the flaws in dynamics as heard on our system here and at RMAF. To my ears, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order information was preserved so well it was a transfixing experience. This is a credit to the entire reproduction chain - but specifically the amps, because this kind of 'correctness' is very rare and it hasn't smacked us in the face like this before [but see our forthcoming Nordost ODIN power cord review - we are starting to hear shades of this correctness elsewhere.].
But the 1st order dynamics, magnitude, is still not correct. No amplifier speaker combination can yet reproduce the real dynamics of a hitting of a single key on a piano, for example [one can quibble about whether a live electric guitar is by definition always correct later. Much, much later. :-)]. But given the linearity of the dynamic response of the system across various media, and given what we know about cables' effect on dynamics [re: ODIN], how some digital players tweak dynamics in a non-linear fashion [see previous shootouts on the Audio Federation blog], and of course the speakers, which like all speakers are not 100% efficient, the amps appear to be completely linear, and are reproducing in exact correct proportion the magnitude of the signal they are given - EVEN IN THE REAL WORLD OF PLAYING REAL MUSIC.
This is the point I am trying to make. What an amplifier does is extremely simple. But it is dealing with a very subtle and complex signal - music - and the ways it can mess this up are extremely numerous and complex. The ML3 doesn't mess up in the ways that amplifiers usually mess up. I am arguing that the ML3 is, like the Coltrane Supremes and the ODIN before it - the first, truly competent, amplifier.
Designing systems around these components is different than around other components. Their own flaws are not only so very small [given the real-world limitation of physical laws and the conventional implementation of these audio components], but they are also NOT designed to compensate for inherent flaws elsewhere in the system or media.
These 'competent components', these perfectionists, just reproduce the sound they are given. With much, much better success than most other components. They don't play 'games' with the sound. Now a system of all perfect components may not be for you. Maybe just one or two will be preferred. Some people seem to find the media itself, whether digital or analog, to still be missing something and want an extra zing. Others just prefer the sound to be 'better than real' and want some extra zoom. For most people, a system filled with perfect components might only be a start - followed by tweaks of special cables and components to tailor the system to fit their personal, and doubtlessly idiosyncratic and unique, taste, exactly.
Or should I say... perfectly.
combination can yet reproduce the real dynamics of a hitting of a single key on a piano, for example [one can quibble about whether a live electric guitar is by definition always correct later. Much, much later. :-)]. But given the linearity of the dynamic response of the system across various media, and given what we know about cables' effect on dynamics [re: ODIN], how some digital players tweak dynamics in a non-linear fashion [see previous shootouts on the Audio Federation blog], and of course the speakers, which like all speakers are not 100% efficient, the amps appear to be completely linear, and are reproducing in exact correct proportion the magnitude of the signal they are given - EVEN IN THE REAL WORLD OF PLAYING REAL MUSIC.
This is the point I am trying to make. What an amplifier does is extremely simple. But it is dealing with a very subtle and complex signal - music - and the ways it can mess this up are extremely numerous and complex. The ML3 doesn't mess up in the ways that amplifiers usually mess up. I am arguing that the ML3 is, like the Coltrane Supremes and the ODIN before it - the first, truly competent, amplifier.
Designing systems around these components is different than around other components. Their own flaws are not only so very small [given the real-world limitation of physical laws and the conventional implementation of these audio components], but they are also NOT designed to compensate for inherent flaws elsewhere in the system or media.
These 'competent components', these perfectionists, just reproduce the sound they are given. With much, much better success than most other components. They don't play 'games' with the sound. Now a system of all perfect components may not be for you. Maybe just one or two will be preferred. Some people seem to find the media itself, whether digital or analog, to still be missing something and want an extra zing. Others just prefer the sound to be 'better than real' and want some extra zoom. For most people, a system filled with perfect components might only be a start - followed by tweaks of special cables and components to tailor the system to fit their personal, and doubtlessly idiosyncratic and unique, taste, exactly.
Or should I say... perfectly.
Welcome to Spintricity - High-end Audio Adventures
OK. The big question.... Why do we need another high-end audio magazine?
The reason... when you get right down to the chewy center... is because the current crop of magazines are just plain boring (as we outlined in this magazine's pre-announcement found on the main page of the 2008 Rocky Mountain Audio Fest Show Report).
How boring are those magazines?
They are so boring that, listening to Diana Krall, for the 1000th, on a Bose system, is only marginally worse.
Well, maybe we exaggerate. A little.
Why are magazines so boring? One is the way reviews have been conducted for these last few decades (the tag-team reviews in Audio Musings excepted).
Reviews
An audiophile visits a magazine and sees the list of equipment being reviewed, and as they look at each component being reviewed they say to their self 'I bet they like it'.
[A manufacturer/distributor sees their equipment reviewed and says to their self "I hope we get it back" and "I hope nobody drops it down a flight of stairs"
To most of us, this is just really hard to swallow - making the review itself worthless and boring, and the reviewer and magazine itself untrustworthy, manufacturers stressed-out, and audiophiles wondering where the beef is.
So what are we going to do about it? First, we have no reviews. Or to be more precise, we have no reviewers.
Instead we encourage manufacturers and dealers, perhaps in conjunction with a writer or photographer, to submit articles about their equipment. Articles will be screened to maintain a high level of information content and a low level of marketing speak [we sell advertising space for those].
This brings the manufacturer or dealer who wants to take advantage of this opportunity and the audiophile community closer together - there is no longer a persnickety reviewer or publisher in between gumming up the works. Audiophiles will get to understand a brand better, and to get to understand the people behind the brand better.
So how is this different? Aren't all these 'reviews' still going to be positive? Won't the manufacturers and dealers writing the reviews focus on the good and ignore the problematic?
Right. And at its worst this is exactly the same as it is now with those 'other' magazines.
Except...
Other magazines represent their reviewers as paragons of impartiality and competentcy - and in the vast majority of cases, we would argue, this representaton is misleading.
At Spintricity, we do not pretend that the reviews are completely impartial and factual. There is no pretense of the all-seeing all-knowing reviewer.
Opinions
Our writers have opinions. Strong opinions. They are free to express their opinions in our magazine as long as they try to explain how and why they reached this opinion. They are free to disagree with each other. [In fact, I sometimes think it would be very rare that they would ever agree on anything :-)]
The more strong opinions people read in our magazine, the more people will realize that they are going to have to spend the time to figure out who has a clue, and who doesn't, and where their own personal preferences lie.
And the more fun the magazine will be to read. Fun, exciting, thought-provoking, weird, obnoxious. But not boring.
More about us next month. Now on to the show!
Enjoy!
-Mike
persnickety reviewer or publisher in between gumming up the works. Audiophiles will get to understand a brand better, and to get to understand the people behind the brand better.
So how is this different? Aren't all these 'reviews' still going to be positive? Won't the manufacturers and dealers writing the reviews focus on the good and ignore the problematic?
Right. And at its worst this is exactly the same as it is now with those 'other' magazines.
Except...
Other magazines represent their reviewers as paragons of impartiality and competentcy - and in the vast majority of cases, we would argue, this representaton is misleading.
At Spintricity, we do not pretend that the reviews are completely impartial and factual. There is no pretense of the all-seeing all-knowing reviewer.
Opinions
Our writers have opinions. Strong opinions. They are free to express their opinions in our magazine as long as they try to explain how and why they reached this opinion. They are free to disagree with each other. [In fact, I sometimes think it would be very rare that they would ever agree on anything :-)]
The more strong opinions people read in our magazine, the more people will realize that they are going to have to spend the time to figure out who has a clue, and who doesn't, and where their own personal preferences lie.
And the more fun the magazine will be to read. Fun, exciting, thought-provoking, weird, obnoxious. But not boring.
More about us next month. Now on to the show!
Enjoy!
-Mike
to express their opinions in our magazine as long as they try to explain how and why they reached this opinion. They are free to disagree with each other. [In fact, I sometimes think it would be very rare that they would ever agree on anything :-)]
The more strong opinions people read in our magazine, the more people will realize that they are going to have to spend the time to figure out who has a clue, and who doesn't, and where their own personal preferences lie.
And the more fun the magazine will be to read. Fun, exciting, thought-provoking, weird, obnoxious. But not boring.
More about us next month. Now on to the show!
Enjoy!
-Mike
