RMAF Affordable Audio Systems

John H. Darko (@darkoaudio) has pointed out that Rocky Mountain Audio Fest (RMAF) has set aside 5 rooms at RMAF specifically for "affordable hi-fi".   These systems cover the range of $500 - $5000 and include digital, analog and headphone systems -- in all 15 systems will be highlighted.  

I will be going out of my way to take a look at these and some of the equipment that they recommend.  Stay tuned!  And read John's article here for more information:

RMAF To Show 15 "affordable" systems.

Rocky Mountain Audio Fest Coming Fast!

October 7th through the 9th the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest is coming to Denver, Colorado.  I'll certainly be attending, probably with a notebook or more in tow in order to give some first impressions of some of the gear that I'll be seeing there.  If you're local to the Denver area, it's a must see.  The tickets are inexpensive at $25 for a three day pass (seniors and active military get in at half price).  

The list of exhibitors is over 300 and includes huge names such as Avalon, Jeff Rowland Design Group, Wilson, Ayre, PS Audio and more.   It's taking place at the Denver Marriot Tech Center at 4900 S. Syracuse St.

There's some pretty interesting sounding seminars that will be taking place, including "How to buy a HiFi System: The process of price." which sounds particularly intriguing to me. 

Check out their page and register here.   Drop me a note if you're going!

Rocky Mountain Audio Fest

The Problem with new music and poor listening

Having spent a lot of time interacting with Avalon Acoustics in the past few months -- whose speakers range in price from $7000 to $360,000, and owning an amp and pre-amp that come from Jeff Rowland who produces the electronics ranging in price from $9500 to $58,000 I've been learning a lot and thinking a lot about music reproduction and how things like the law of diminishing returns applies (does a $9500 amp sound $48,500 worse than the expensive one?). Anyway, an individual replied with the idea that Millennials are just Uncool (and by implication don't make good music).

This got me to thinking about writing this overly long diatribe. So I'm ready to wax philosophical on why the state of Music sucks so bad today.

January 22nd of 2016, the sales of OLD music outpaced the sales of NEW music. I think there's some solid reasons why. Follow along, and apologies in advance for any snobby tone.

Algorithmic Music

First, lets start with algorithmic music: That's right, music made via algorithm. By algorithm, I mean computers that write songs. You've heard it and you don't even know it. See, some folks think that a computer can write a song to match the qualities of other popular songs that appeal to certain audience. This has been surprisingly effective at creating some big hits from newer artists (think Ke$ha and the Cast of Glee -- who had more billboard hit songs than Elvis). The products have names like "Band in a Box" or "Automated Composing System" and can even be used in conjunction with automated lyric creating software such as the "TALE-SPIN" and "MINSTREL". Once a song is "written" (generated?), some are run through software like "Hit Song Science" which predicts its probability of being a hit. "I Gotta Feeling" by the Black Eyed Peas is one such song and it hit the top of the Billboard pop chart after scoring 8.9 out of 10 on the "Hit Song Science" software, meaning that it got the honor of being released as a single.

Do We Listen Wrong?

Secondly, lets look at "listening to music". You ask anyone if they listen to music and they almost invariably say yes. But no. No they don't. Most people play music while they do something else. But listening to music is setting aside all other activities to sit down, in order to JUST listen to music. So, not to be snobbish about it, but odds are you don't listen to music. You clean the house and dance around and sing along and play music in the background. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. I do it! But it's a very different experience than sitting down and really listening. Audiophiles are a small group of consumers, so studios/engineers mix for "the masses" which means loudness (more on that later).

Do we listen wrong.  Part II -- Earbuds

Earbuds: Besides the fact that numerous studies have shown a clear link between earbuds and hearing damage -- millennials are the primary victims of this -- and the fact that they're just awful, they remain very popular. But there's another reason to eschew earbuds. That's not how music is meant to be heard. Music is designed to be heard in stereo. The philosophy is that on a fair stereo, it should replicate the band playing in front of you. On a superb stereo, you can get a spacial sense of where the trumpet player is standing, and where the saxophone player is standing on the virtual stage in front of you. It's how great quality music is mixed and mastered and how it's intended to be listened to. Using earbuds or headphones puts the sound in the middle of the inside of your head and that experience is lost. There is one notable exception and that's Binaural recordings, which are recorded with microphones placed inside the ears of a model of a human head. The results can absolutely stunning, but nobody really records that way because who buys music that's really only MEANT to be listened to on headphones. Now -- media with both a binaural mix and a stereo mix, that might be interesting. There's impressive examples on Youtube. Surround Sound suffers some of the same problems as above. You listen to a band playing in front of you, not whilst sitting in the middle of the band with the drummer behind you and the lead singer in front of you. Music is recorded, mixed, mastered and released primarily in stereo for a reason. Surround sound is for movies.

Audiophile or AudioFool

Audio Equipment: As an Audiophile, I listen to high end equipment, nothing says that great sound has to be super expensive. But as a general rule, a $250 stereo will sound nothing at all like a $3000 stereo (not always the case!). Don't walk into a store and buy on features and how many buttons and lights and watts it puts out (some of the finest amps in the world put out numbers like 8 watts). Go to an audio store and actually listen to what you want to buy before you buy it. Take your favorite CD with you and demo the gear. Most audio stores are very happy to oblige. You wouldn't buy a car without test driving it, would you? Same with Stereo's. That is unless you've decided only to have music as your background sound, in which case, go right ahead and buy those bose or yamaha speakers and amps. I purchased my gear used, it was a few years old and one person called them "vintage". The speaker designer said they weren't vintage they were classics. Even so, they're high end and they sound great and they're 1/3 the cost than they were new. I don't buy into the $100/foot speaker cables, or any cable that carries digital that costs more than a few bucks. People who don't understand digital buy that crap.

Audio Setup

The tv show Elementary drives me absolutely nuts. Sherlock Holmes owns a McIntosh C2300 -- a vacuum tube pre-amp that sells for $4500, an $8000 MT10 McIntosh Turntable, and a $4500 McIntosh MC152 amplifier. With that kind of gear he uses Energy CF-70's speakers (at $500/pair) arguably the most important part of the system and probably used because they look okay. But putting THOSE speakers on a $15000 plus set of equipment? Insane. He should be running speakers that more closely match the level of equipment he has in the rest of the system. There are great speakers that are inexpensive... but those, in my opinion, are not even close to being them. They are what audio nuts call "Mid-Fi" whereas the McIntosh gear is consider "Hi-Fi". He did it exactly backwards.

But none of this matters, because the smartest man in the world has his speakers set in the corners of the room facing each other. So really, even the best of the best speakers (which, by the way come from Avalon Acoustics but I'm TOTALLY biased) are going to completely lose that sense of the band "playing right in front of you" (imaging) in that configuration. He's using them as noisemakers and that's all.

Your listening position and your speakers should be in a triangle with the distance between the speakers being roughly 85% of the distance to the listening area. In other words, if you're sitting 10' away from the speakers, the distance between the speakers should be roughly 8.5 feet apart. Refer to the manufacturer and your ears to determine how much you should toe-in each speaker (i.e., point them towards the listening position).


Processing of Music

AutoTune and Vocoders: Making people who can't sing singers, since Cher brought AutoTune to the world with her song "Believe" in 1998, and the Vocoder that cursed the world with hits from The Black Eyed Peas. Hey guys! -- We hear it, it sounds like crap and we know it probably means you can't sing. As Autotune improves with technology, our artists will be picked more and more by their looks and fashion than their actual talent and they'll write even less of their own music than they do now -- which is not insignificant.


Even more processing, this time of some of the good stuff.

Finally: The Loudness War. Remastered disks are always better than the original, right? Wrong. Since the 1990's the trend in poor quality audio engineering has been to greatly increase the loudness of music. This causes clipping and distortion and compression of the dynamic range. It exploits instantaneous perception to the human ear that louder is better. If you play an original recording and then a newer "remaster" back to back without touching the volume knob -- if it's a victim of the loudness war -- you'll notice the newer "remaster" sounds a LOT louder (frequently in the range of 6db or roughly 50% louder in perceived volume). The trade off is that the already loud parts (drums or other aspects the artist intended to be louder) get cut off on the high and low end, meaning that they end up sounding "the same or similar loudness" as everything else in the song, which was not the artists intent and flattens out the song, compressing it and making it sound less dynamic. Fine if you're having a dinner party with music in the background. Terrible if you're sitting and actually listening to music.


tl;dr version of all this? Modern music sucks because we don't listen, when we do listen, we don't do it "right," the artists frequently do lack talent and are often chosen to be famous for reasons other than their musical ability and the music is so compressed that even the best of songs sound absolutely craptacular.

Mr. Robot Season 2, episode 1, McIntosh?

I do think that Mr. Robot is about the best show on TV right now, but that probably results from the fact that I have a history with some of the older "groups" on the Interwebs.  I was introduced to the internet in 1989, at Colorado State University in Fort Collins.

Pirating and warez were de regueur, and since the statute of limitations has long expired I can confess to less-than-ethical stuff along the lines of grabbing our own VMB's (voice mail boxes) and rapidly hacking the 4 digit pin numbers that certain phone companies provided.

When I see Eliot, from Mr. Robot, fire up the BitchX IRC client, it sends waves of nostalgia through the TV  to me.  It's a world that few can recall.

So, all that aside, Mr Robot Season 2, Episode 1.    

Without being too spoilery, the crew end up in the house of "E-Corp's" primary attorney, known as "Madam Executioner".    As you can see in the picture, it's very McIntosh heavy.

I've never been a fan of McIntosh, but I will also admit that I have not spent a lot of time with their gear.   So, in this instance, I am agnostic.

However, I love it!   The CBS show "Elementary" features both Mcintosh and Energy speakers (in a configuration that will make you think less of the genius detective).  

I believe that there is a real advantage to bringing the population at large into the audiophile realm.  For one, from an economics perspective, more buyers necessarily drives down prices. A quick google shows a lot of people trying to ID Sherlocks Speakers.

Should shows highlight high end audio?    YES.     Should they do it accurately?  Who cares?  

Surely, Energy and McIntosh assumed that they would get some attention from the serious "fan boys" of the show (of which, i am one).    It has worked, and I have no doubt whatsoever that Energy has sold speakers as a result of "Elementary"

In the case of Mr. Robot, all the focus was on the amp.  Close ups, decorative music in an environment that was specifically designed to be about the noise.    As far as product placement goes, it's the right way to do it.  Most people would watch and wonder and maybe google.  The audiophiles see it and collectively freak out in joy that something sorta-kinda-maybe audiophile ends up in the show.   

I know I got excited.

Starting at the top...

So I'm one of the lucky few to have heard the Avalon Acoustics Tesseract live and in person with a 1-on-1 demonstration (sort of.. I did bring my nephew).   This is not an ideal review, as I did not walk in with the intent of reviewing the Tesseract; I was there for an upgrade to my speakers and the Tesseract happened to be there.  For that reason, I'm calling this a mini-review.  

For those of you not in the know, the Tess (as it's known inside Avalon) is the flagship of their product line.  The best of the best.   I'm not sure how many people in the world have been able to hear them, and I was only able to hear them for a very short amount of time -- for which I am most grateful.  With an expected overall production of ~20 units, the odds of finding a set to listen to are not great.

I will confess up front to being completely biased towards "The Avalon Sound."  I fell in love with it in the 90's with the Avalon Ascent running on a pair of Jeff Rowland Model 7's, and I still listen to Avalon today, with my own pair of Arcus running on a Jeff Rowland Model 5.  

Disclaimer of subjective bias out of the way, these are the finest speakers that I've ever listened to.  Bar none.  The demo took place at Avalon Acoustics Boulder factory in a room that's somewhat similar in footprint to your standard racquetball court...high ceilings and very good sound treatment.  

I'm very familiar with Avalon speakers and have listened to many of their products over the years, and this rightly deserves the crown of flagship.   Clearly, with the sheer size of these beasts which stand up nearly 6 1/2 feet and weigh nearly 1000lbs each, one would expect that the sound would be as big as the speakers, and it is.   The speaker is almost intimidating when you walk into the room, and felt like it towered over me (at 5' 10").     I was able to listen to Rimsky-Korsakov for about 20-30 minutes, and that's it.  My request to take pictures was flatly denied.

While the sound was big, and the imposing nature of the speakers gave the sense that at any moment they could melt the listening position with some sort of sonic death ray, what was most striking was how precise and subtle they were.   Small and delicate sounds were, as they should be, small and delicate.  Enormous, bombastic, crushing sounds were projected with absolute ease and I never got the sense that I ever came even close to hearing the capabilities of these speakers.  They felt amazingly relaxed.  Despite the looming vision of them in front of me, the illusion of a sound-stage actually behind them was most notable to me.  They seemed sonically invisible, as if they themselves actually emitted no sound, but the stage resided around, within and behind them despite their physical presence.  The sound is markedly different from other Avalon products, but still retains "The Avalon Sound(tm)" that I learned to love so many years ago.

The size of them precludes the idea of me ever owning a pair.  They honestly wouldn't fit in my basement, and my second story would require reinforced joists to hold them and the several hundred pounds of amplification and miscellaneous other equipment.  

The price, of course, is the other gotcha.  For me to buy a speaker that costs more than my house, I would have to find a clever way to live in the shipping crates and STILL find a place to set up the speakers.  Don't get me wrong, I thought about it.   At $300k+ they should provide much larger shipping crates that can be converted into a very nice listening room. 

The law of diminishing returns always applies to these things and the question becomes "is it worth that much money?"   This is the first time of many when I'll say this, I'm sure -- If you have the money, and you love them like I did?  Yes.  If you don't have the money, then why ask?  You'd be in good company, I also do not have the money -- in fact most speakers in the low 5 figure range would be a hard sell indeed to my wife and my retirement account.  However, when it comes to sound, it's head and shoulders above anything else that I've ever heard from Avalon -- or anyone else -- however, I have not heard the new SAGA yet, which clocks in at 1/3 the price and retains much of the technology introduced in the Tess. 

Technically it's suitably impressive.  It has a measured flat response between 16hz and 50khz.  This is relevant primarily for measurement equipment, as human hearing is generally limited to 20hz to 20khz.   If you have a ferret for a pet, it will appreciate the extended range (they hear 16hz to 44khz).   Each speaker contains a 2.3 Kw fully push-pull class A/B amplifier, the crossover is mounted in the top unit and the power supply and amplifiers are in separate shielded chambers outside of the bass cabinet.  Unlike other Avalon products, the black piano finish is the only finish available on the Tesseract.  The traditional premium veneer finishes are not available -- Avalon indicated that veneering this speaker would not just be difficult but effectively impossible because of some of the tight inside angles.  It would also increase production time of each pair an unacceptable amount.  If there's one thing Avalon has always cared about, it's fit and finish.  

Last but not least....the shape.  The folks at Avalon can explain precisely why the shape is justified in terms that are well above my pay grade.  The designer, Neil Patel, has always used various forms of facets within his designs to great effect. While I can't say, one way or another, if this facet reasoning is all technically correct, theoretical, or just hogwash -- I will say that they look spectacular, if not mean.  Kind of a cross between a Ferrari and a good ole American Muscle Car that gives you the initial impression of, "wow... this could kick my ass."

And it could.

B&O and Ford

B&O (Bang Olufsen) and Ford have conspired to give us a new sound system in Ford vehicles.  Yes, B&O is probably not considered by most to be an "audiophile" brand, it's still worth noting that automakers are trying to appeal to the consumer "high end".   This started with Not-At-All-Related-To-The-Man-Mark-Levinson audio systems in Lexus vehicles.  Volkswagen has Fender and Dynaudio.  

B&O PLAY is the consumer headphone division of B&O, which makes me wonder why this would fall under the B&O PLAY umbrella.  Perhaps the intent is to render vehicle audio more like headphone audio?  That wouldn't be a bad thing.

Bias alert!  I'm of the mind that audio systems in cars are, and always will be, sub-par.  The name on the faceplate almost doesn't matter.   It may be able to give an interesting surround experience in the right circumstances, but who cares?   The seating arrangement of a vehicle makes it impossible to achieve any sort of imaging at all.  You may get some interesting left-right effects from music, but you won't get decent imaging, and road noise will always destroy any possibility of real detail.

Having said that, Americans spend on average 101 minutes per day driving.  Over a lifetime, they spend about 37,000 hours.   This very likely means that even for most audiophiles the time spent listening in a vehicle will greatly outweigh the time spent listening in front of your super-duper-mega-audiophile system.  This doesn't bother me all that much, as I consider them very different types of listening.  

Let me know in the comments your thoughts on car audio and the trend of adding costs to a vehicle in order to provide big names on a faceplate in a car.   

Ford to offer B&O PLAY in vehicles in 2017

Peter Gabriel's new song, "The Veil"

This morning (September 15th, 2016) Peter Gabriel released a new single called "The Veil." This is a song written specifically for the movie "Snowden," and the lyrics are pretty clearly about the Snowden story.  

I'm a huge fan of Peter Gabriel, although his recording/mastering quality isn't always up to snuff and is sometimes a victim of the Loudness Wars ('So' remaster for example) It's worth noting that Peter Gabriel is also a celebrity spokesperson for B&W speakers, and also uses B&W's for his personal listening.  

The track itself is pretty good.  The lyrics strike me as a bit awkward and my immediate impression after just two listens is that it, too, is a bit too compressed.    The recording quality is actually pretty "blah".   I could happily listen to this in my car, but on my home system, unless it was background music, it would bother me.

Decide for yourself and let me know in the comments what you think.

Is this thing on?...

Welcome to the beginning.  I've started this blog with a few ideas in mind.  First of all, I would like to review audio equipment, both old and new, and pontificate wildly about my own biased beliefs surrounding audiophilia, and I presume to do so in a skeptical, reasoned manner.  

What does "reasoned" mean in this context?    

That's the hard part, isn't it?   I intend to review and evaluate "audiophile" equipment from a skeptical and hopefully rational perspective.   When I describe intangibles, I hope to point out that they are A). intangible and B). opinion.    I hope to be able to challenge a lot of the hokum, nonsense and pseudoscience that plagues the audio industry.

This necessarily makes enemies from the outset from certain manufacturers that depend on the hokum, and I expect little to no cooperation from them.   

From the outset, I won't be "reviewing" any speaker cables.  I will, however, point out why manufacturers are taking advantage of their customers (or not!), how their science is not sound (or is sound!), etc.  I won't be reviewing mpingo disks, tice clocks or cable lifts.  I won't argue analog vs. digital.   What I hope to do is be able to look at the core of an audiophiles system.   From the music itself in terms of recording quality and production, to the media devices, the amplification and, the most important part, the speakers. 

I hope to be able to enumerate the law of diminishing returns when it applies, and I won't partake in price shaming.  We all have different budgets, and we're all willing to pay what we're willing (and able) to pay.  Price will largely take a back seat here, except for when value is objectively terrible for the price.

I don't mind being challenged at all, and consider outside input a bit like "peer review," as no one person should be seen as authoritative on the subject.  Especially when much of what we listen to is so subjective to begin with.  I have my preferences, and surely you will too.