Audio Critic the 24 r schematic

Retail price: U.S. $7.50, Can. $8.50

Meet the egghead. It's an exceptionally smart

speaker design. (See the loudspeaker reviews.)

Issue No. 24

Display until arrival of

Issue No. 25.

In this issue:

We take an unequivocal stand on who the good
guys and the bad guys are in the audio world.

We review a costly but not insanely priced speaker
system which pretty much has it all, plus the world's

smallest good subwoofer, and other transducers.
Our survey of FM tuners continues, with further

proof of performance differences unrelated to price.
We bring you more than our usual quota of think

pieces, including a continuation of the multichannel

story and another David Rich "tweako buster."

Plus lots more test reports, all our
regular columns, letters to the Editor,

and a nice assortment of CD reviews.

pdf 1

9

11

16

25

42

55

65
73
75
77
82

3

Contents

pdf 2

From the Editor/Publisher:

Once again we have broken our own late­ness record. It is now fairly obvious, after
numerous Band-Aid attempts at improve­ment, that we are never going to have a
normal publishing schedule in our present
mode. What is that mode? Basically a one­man operation. One man does all of the
laboratory work (except RF), nearly all of
the writing, all of the editing, all of the
desktop publishing, all of the administra­tive work (except subscriptions). Yes, there
are some contributors, but their copy is at
least as time-consuming to edit as writing
original articles. One advantage of the sys­tem is that there is hardly any overhead, so
we cannot possibly go bankrupt like some
other audio publications. We are here to
stay. But we must become part of a larger
organization, whether an expanded version
of our present one or some already exist­ing outside one. That is what we are cur­rently working on. Do not worry about our
editorial autonomy, however; we are not
going to give it up as part of some deal.

Issue No. 24 Spring 1997
Editor and Publisher Peter Aczel

Contributing Technical Editor David Rich
Contributing Editor at Large David Ranada
Technical Consultant Steven Norsworthy
Technical Consultant (RF) Richard Modafferi
Columnist Tom Nousaine
Cartoonist and Illustrator Tom Aczel
Business Manager Bodil Aczel

The Audio Critic® (ISSN 0146-4701) is published quarterly for $24
per year by Critic Publications, Inc., 1380 Masi Road, Quakertown, PA

18951-5221. Second-class postage paid at Quakertown, PA. Postmaster:
Send address changes to The Audio Critic, P.O. Box 978, Quakertown,
PA 18951-0978.

The Audio Critic is an advisory service and technical review for
consumers of sophisticated audio equipment. Any conclusion, rating,
recommendation, criticism, or caveat published by The Audio Critic
represents the personal findings and judgments of the Editor and the
Staff, based only on the equipment available to their scrutiny and on
their knowledge of the subject, and is therefore not offered to the reader
as an infallible truth nor as an irreversible opinion applying to all extant
and forthcoming samples of a particular product. Address all editorial
correspondence to The Editor, The Audio Critic, P.O. Box 978,
Quakertown, PA 18951-0978.

Contents of this issue copyright © 1997 by Critic Publications, Inc. All rights
reserved under international and Pan-American copyright conventions. Repro-

duction in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written permission of
the Publisher. Paraphrasing of product reviews for advertising or commercial
purposes is also prohibited without prior written permission. The Audio Critic
will use all available means to prevent or prosecute any such unauthorized use
of its material or its name.

Subscription Information and Rates

First of all, you don't absolutely need one of our printed subscrip­tion blanks. If you wish, simply write your name and address as legibly
as possible on any piece of paper. Preferably print or type. Enclose with
payment. That's all. Or, if you prefer, use VISA or MasterCard, either
by mail, by telephone or by fax.

Secondly, we have only two subscription rates. If you live in the
U.S., Canada, or Mexico, you pay $24 for four consecutive issues
(scheduled to be mailed at approximately quarterly intervals but often
late). If you live in any other country, you pay $38 for a four-issue sub­scription by airmail. All payments from abroad, including Canada,
must be in U.S. funds, collectable in the U.S. without a service charge.

You may start your subscription with any issue, although we feel
that new subscribers should have a few back issues to gain a better un­derstanding of what The Audio Critic is all about. We still have Issues
No. 11, 13, 14, and 16 through 23 in stock. Issues earlier than No. 11
are now out of print, as are No. 12 and No. 15. Please specify which
issues you want (at $24 per four).

One more thing. We don't sell single issues by mail. You'll find
those at somewhat higher cost at selected newsdealers, bookstores, and
audio stores.

Address all subscriptions to The Audio Critic, P.O. Box 978,
Quakertown, PA 18951-0978. VISA/MasterCard: [phone].
Fax: [phone].

2 THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 3

Box 978

Letters to the Editor

Unlike those enormous electronic toilet walls on the Internet on which any lowlife can write his
name and effusions, this is definitely a "moderated" column. We welcome intelligent and relevant
commentary, especially when typed or word-processed. Address all editorial correspondence to the
Editor, The Audio Critic, P.O. Box 978, Quakertown, PA 18951-0978.

The Audio Critic:

There is a common misunderstand­ing of sound imaging, perpetuated in
Daniel Sweeney's article "Twice Shy: On
Reencountering Multichannel Music For­mats" in Issue No. 23, which I would like
to address. Sweeney bemoans the pres­ence of "interaural crosstalk" in surround
sound systems in general, and Ambison­ics in particular, as if there is something
inherently wrong about each ear hearing
all the loudspeakers. This fallacy can be
traced right back to a common belief that
one of the defects of stereo reproduction
is that each ear hears both loudspeakers,
and that the ideal would be that the left­channel signal be heard only by the left
ear, and the right-channel signal only by
the right ear. Such a situation (which can
be achieved by the use of headphones, or
crosstalk-cancelling signal processing feed­ing the loudspeakers) would represent
binaural reproduction and would require
a binaural ("dummy head") recording as
the source. But Sweeney is not discussing
binaural sound, and both stereo and Am­bisonics are predicated on the existence
of this crosstalk.

Ambisonics goes further than stereo
in that what it does (to first order) is to

sample the acoustic field in such a way

that the combination of the signals from

all the loudspeakers in the array produc-

es, in a region of space around the center

of the array, a reconstruction of the origi­nal acoustic wave field (both travelling­and standing-wave components). If a lis­tener puts his or her head in this sound
field, then, because the wave fronts are
similar to the original, the perception of
directionality and space should corre­spond to the original too. It is a "wave
front reconstruction" scheme in the small.
The ear signals (crosstalk and all) will be
correct if the reconstructed wave fronts
are correct. This is just like natural hear­ing. Increasing the number of loudspeak­ers in Ambisonics (each fed its correctly
decoded signal) increases the accuracy of
the reconstruction and the region over
which it holds up. The interaural arrival­time differences also correspond to natu­ral hearing in Ambisonics.

All these aspects are correctly cap­tured to first order by Ambisonics. It is
incorrect to reason that, because the Cal­rec "Soundfield" microphone uses a sin­gle-point multichannel pickup, it cannot
take into account the spacing of the hu­man ears. There is no logical connection
between the two: if the wave fronts are
right, the listener must hear correctly. It's
as simple as that!

Sincerely,

Stanley P. Lipshitz
Department of Applied Mathematics
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

As our readers know, I don't shrink

from confrontation or debate, but even so

I have two unbreakable rules: (1) don't
mess with the Lone Ranger and (2) don't
argue with Stanley Lipshitz.

Dan Sweeney is braver than I am, so
I'll let him answer the above letter, as
well as the following two on the same
subject. Obviously, he dropped his left

just a little bit when he tried to dispatch

Ambisonics in the first round, but I think
he is still well ahead on points. If I didn't
think so, I wouldn't have asked him to do
a sequel on multichannel formats for this
issue.

—Ed.

The Audio Critic:

In his article "Twice Shy: On Re­encountering Multichannel Music For­mats," Daniel Sweeney, Ph.D., reveals that
he does not hold a doctorate in surround­sound technology. [It was I who inserted

his degree, earned in a totally unrelated
discipline, out of sheer snobbery and elit­ism.—Ed] Permit me to correct his mis-

statements specific to Ambisonics. Dr.

Sweeney begins his commentary by com­paring the fate of Ambisonics to that of
the California condor. I would hasten to

add, however, that Ambisonics has yet to
become extinct because, like the condor,
it is an elegant evolution!

Dr. Sweeney's most glaring mis-

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

3

pdf 4

statement is his claim that Ambisonics "is
in a real sense the last survivor of the
quadraphonic experiment." The most ele­mentary understanding of Ambisonics be­lies that characterization. Quadraphony is
nothing more than stereophony doubled;
Ambisonics, on the other hand, is a math­ematically proven system predicated
upon the encoding of the direction of

sound as it arrives at a single point in
space from every azimuth and eleva­tion—hence the name "ambi," which
means "around"—and the reproduction
of that sound field based upon psycho­acoustic theory. In quad, 4 microphones
oriented at 45, 135, 225, and 315 degrees
feed 4 "transmission channels" (the chan­nels which convey the sound field to the
listening room), which in turn feed each
of 4 respective loudspeakers located at
45, 135, 225, and 315 degrees. According
to Ambisonic theory, however, it is im­perative that there be fewer transmission
channels than loudspeakers! In the case
of full horizontal surround (called "pan­tophony"), 3 transmission channels are
sufficient to reproduce the sound field via
upwards of 4 loudspeakers. For full
spherical surround (called "periphony"),
requiring upwards of 6 loudspeakers,
only 4 transmission channels are neces­sary. Furthermore, unlike quad, which by

definition comprises only 4 loudspeakers,
there is theoretically no limit to the num­ber of loudspeakers that can be employed
in Ambisonic reproduction. Four speak­ers are the absolute minimum for pan­tophony, while at least 6 are needed for
periphony. Decoders are currently availa­ble which provide 5-, 6-, and 8-channel
pantophonic playback. (Decoders can be
daisy-chained to allow 16 loudspeakers
for large installations.) In addition, Ambi­sonic decoders are designed to accommo­date any geometric layout of loudspeak­ers, e.g., a square, rectangle, pentagon,
hexagon, octagon, etc. In this respect,
Ambisonics differs from all other current
multichannel surround systems that are
designed to employ a fixed number of
loudspeakers, such as Dolby 5.1. Because
actual sources of sound are more realistic
than phantom ones, the more loudspeak­ers, the merrier.

Dr. Sweeney is quite confused about
the various Ambisonic formats. B-Format
is not the consumer format as he states
but, rather, the professional format. To
record a sound field, a specially designed
microphone called the "Soundfield" is
generally employed. The Soundfield con-

tains a tetrahedral array of 4 subcardioid
condenser capsules whose respective out­puts (called "A-Format") are added and
subtracted to produce the following
acoustically equivalent microphone sig­nals: W, X, Y, and Z, where W is an
omni pattern, X is a forward-facing
figure-eight pattern, Y is a side-facing
figure-eight pattern, and Z is an upward­facing figure-eight pattern (collectively
called "B-Format"). Thus both incidents
of sound—pressure and direction—are

sampled at a single point in space. (I note
in passing Dr. Sweeney's criticism of
Ambisonic's failure to record time-of­arrival localization cues. This criticism is
misplaced, for a space can be encoded to
B-Format without the use of a coincident
microphone such as the Soundfield; that
is, B-Format can be derived from a multi­plicity of spaced microphones. However,
I would refer him and other interested
readers to an Audio Engineering Society
article by noted mathematician Dr. Stan­ley Lipshitz entitled "Stereo Microphone
Techniques," wherein he argues that any
recording technique departing from the
single-point approach as idealized by the
Soundfield is a fundamentally flawed, al­beit sonically pleasing, representation of
space. (See Journal of the Audio Engi-
neering Society 34 [September 1986]:
716-44.)

What most people have heard of
Ambisonics is the 2-channel consumer
version called "UHJ" or "C-Format" and
made somewhat popular by Nimbus

Records as well as other European com­panies (Finlandia, Ondine, Unicorn­Kanchana, etc.). Like Dolby Pro Logic,
UHJ is a matrixed version of the discrete
multichannel B-Format. While UHJ is
compatible with stereo reproduction, it is
designed to be decoded Ambisonically;
however, it is no substitute for the soni­cally superior B-Format. UHJ is a thing
of the past, since the delivery of B­Format into the home is now technologi­cally feasible with the advent of the mul­tichannel DVD format. The raison d'etre
of Ambisonics is 360-degree localization:
the musicians are heard before you, the
audience behind, and ambience and re­verberation all around. It is ironic that the
high-end press should rail against digital
because it fails to encode the sonic infor­mation between each ¼8,000-second
sample, yet they entirely ignore the fact
that stereo itself is a grossly lossy system
inasmuch as five sixths of the sound field
is forsaken. Not only does Ambisonics

reproduce a space with high fidelity, but
the timbre of the instruments so decoded
is not compromised by the effect of comb
filtering produced by the summing of the
direct and indirect sound fields, as is the
case with stereo. This fact is rarely appre­ciated by those in the high end defending
stereo as the end-all-be-all.

...When more recordists experiment
with surround sound, Ambisonics, I am
confident, will be found to provide the
most convincing and palpable illusion of
"being there." (See Furlong, D. J., "Com­parative Study of Effective Soundfield
Reconstruction," 87th Convention of the
AES, New York, NY, October 18-21,
1989: Preprint 2842.) Before he dismiss­es it, Dr. Sweeney would do well to give
Ambisonics a full listen...Dr. Sweeney is

correct in pointing out that there is a
worldwide fraternity of "True Believ­ers..."

Very truly yours,
Jeffrey Silberman
The Surroundworks™
Mill Valley, CA

I feel moved by Dan Sweeney's
"Twice Shy" article in your Issue No. 23
to point out that it is full of errors. I'm
afraid his "wide-ranging knowledge of
the multichannel scene" with which you
preface the article has a number of "holes
in the middle" in it.

I found Mr. Sweeney's article in Au-
dio on the same subject to have some
very strange and important omissions in
it—such as no mention whatever of the
ARA group's activities or HQCD—but
the Audio Critic article is much more bla-

tant. Time doesn't permit my going into
each one, and I'm sure others closer to
Ambisonics than myself will detail all of
them at length, but to name just a few:

Ambisonics has little or no connec-

tion with any Japanese developments.
UMX is something else entirely. Mr.
Sweeney has B-Format and UHJ format
confused, or else he appears to not know
about UHJ at all. All the commercial re­cordings issued so far in Ambisonics on
Nimbus, Unicorn, etc., have not been B­Format at all but UHJ, which is the two­channel version. B-Format is three or
four channels.

The "two significant factors in the
recording/playback process" that have
been ignored according to Mr. Sweeney
are not at all significant to the results with
Ambisonics, but I'll let others fill in the
technical specifics on that matter. While

4

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 5

it is true that many UHJ recordings when
heard via two stereo speakers sound over­ly reverberant, that can be remedied with­out necessarily requiring a dedicated Am­bisonic decoder. The simplest passive
Hafler circuit can extract the surround in­formation and feed it to surround speak-

ers, which instantly gives a drier, more

accurate acoustic to the venue and places

the performers with quite precise locali-

zation (though not as perfect as with an

Ambisonic decoder).

As for your review in the same issue
of the Onkyo TX-SV909PRO receiver
with Ambisonics decoder, there was a
good reason why there was "little or no
interest in its Ambisonic decoding capa­bility." Onkyo didn't promote it at all,
and on top of that they left out the "Ste­reo Enhance" function that other Ambi-

sonic decoders have had. This creates the
most natural and musical surround to be

had from any standard stereo recording

(surpassed only by an enhance function

in Meridian's 565). And it means owners
of the 909 wouldn't have had to purchase
special Ambisonic CDs in order to expe­rience much of the surround magic.

I don't know why Mr. Sweeney
would think Ambisonics to be a "horrible
name," but it certainly has had its share
of horrible promotion, marketing and dis­tribution. One of the many counts against
it has been the poor-quality circuitry of

most of the consumer-level decoders

such as the Minims. However, there is an
excellent professional Ambisonics decod­er available for around $3000, which han­dles both UHJ and B-Format, and com­petes with the Meridian, Lexicon, and
other highest-end processors.

I have had various varieties of sur­round sound in my listening room/studio
for 35 years now, and to my ears UHJ
Ambisonics is hands down the best that
can be delivered with two channels, and
B-Format Ambisonics the best if more
channels are available. Pitted against Dol­by Pro Logic and using music sources
rather than soundtracks, there's no con­test whatever. Only true binaural via
headphones surpasses it in sonic realism.

Sincerely,
John Sunier

Audiophile Audition

Ross, CA

Dan Sweeney replies to Stanley Lipshitz,

Jeffrey Silberman, and John Sunier:

In regard to Dr. Lipshitz's letter, I

must admit I erred in supposing that Am-

bisonics cannot capture time-of-arrival
cues. In regard to his other point on
crosstalk cancellation schemes (such as
Carver Sonic Holography, for example), I
have read his previous remarks on the
subject. I remain unconvinced. Loud­speaker arrays add an overlay of time and
amplitude differences on top of those in
the recording. I am at a loss to understand
how those wouldn't make a difference—
wouldn't contaminate the data, so to
speak. Incidentally, I am perfectly well
aware that binaural recording avoids the
problem, and I think that that is a strong
point in its favor.

For those who are unacquainted
with the specifics of the discussion, I
should mention that Dr. Lipshitz asserts
in his 1986 AES article that classic mini­malist stereo techniques take into account
the interaural crosstalk produced by pairs
of loudspeakers, thereby obviating the
need for crosstalk cancellation schemes.
But how precisely do they take that into
account? That wasn't explained in the ar­ticle, and frankly I don't see it, though I
might be missing something. By the way,
an extended discussion of the crosstalk

problem is included in Durant Begault's

3D Sound for Virtual Reality and Multi­media, a recent publication dealing with

sound localization theory and practice,
and I would refer interested readers to
that text. One might also review Ralph
Glasgal's privately printed Ambiophon-
ics, which contains an extensive review
of the literature. If I am in error here, I

am not alone.

* * *

Mr. Silberman's letter manifests pre-

cisely that carping tone that led me to
give such short shrift to Ambisonics in
the first place. Any mention of the subject
is sure to summon up legions of ghosts
ready to refight battles that were lost long
ago. At the risk of reanimating those
ghosts, let me state very plainly and un­equivocally the obvious: Ambisonics is
dead—dead as a boot. How many new ti­tles were released this year, or last year,
or the year before? How many decoders
are on the market? Ambisonics makes
HDCD look like a howling success. It
had its day in court fifteen years ago, and
the community of recording engineers re­jected it decisively. And unlike vinyl or
vacuum tubes, Ambisonics isn't enjoying
even a modest revival.

As for Ambisonics's relationship to

quad, that is real. Ambisonics grew out of
the Nippon Columbia UMX system back

in the middle seventies, and both UMX
and Ambisonics fought it out with SQ,
QS, and the rest for market share—and
failed even more spectacularly, I might
add. I will say, however, that Mr. Silber­man's description of Ambisonics is gen­erally accurate. Ambisonics is appealing
on conceptual grounds, and it does differ
from the other multichannel music for­mats of the seventies in that the channels
on the recordings do not coincide with
speaker feeds. But so what? Like SQ and
QS, Ambisonics was (note I said was be­cause it is virtually dead) a low­separation, matrixed multichannel format
depending on amplitude and phase pan­ning to create phantoms in all quadrants.
Yes, it could support any number of
speakers, but separation went down,
down, down when speakers were in­creased. Ambisonics supporters claim
that doesn't matter, but the recording
community sure thought otherwise.

And that's all I have to say. Let Sil­berman continue to flog Ambisonics on
the Internet. History has passed it by.

* * *

Regarding John Sunier's letter, point
by point:

When I wrote the article in Audio,
the ARA had published little. In any
event, what they have published to date
has little to do with recording techniques
other than the fact that they endorse—
you guessed it—Ambisonics.

UMX is cited as predecessor to Am-

bisonics in a number of early articles on
the subject.

I do know about UHJ, though Sunier

and others are correct: I misidentified B­Format with UHJ. Incidentally, two chan­nel UHJ is all that is available, or ever
has been available, commercially. B­Format has never been anything but a
mastering format. I disagree strenuously
with Sunier and others that UHJ sounds
wonderful. To me it's unlistenable, which
is one of the reasons I grow impatient
with Ambisonics boosters. Until DVD of­fered the possibility of a commercial B­Format, most of them insisted that UHJ
was damned near perfect. Such pro­nouncements just don't accord with my
experiences, and I'm not alone there. The
fact is it failed in the marketplace, and if
that's due to botched promotion, then the
responsibility falls squarely on the shoul­ders of its boosters, not me. Hey, I didn't
kill it, guys, you killed it. But then, as Os­car Wilde famously noted, we always kill
the thing we love.

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

5

pdf 6

As for the localization cues ignored

by Ambisonics theory not being sig-

nificant, if they exist, how could they not
be significant? Let's create a Procrustean
model of human perception based on a
twenty-year old theory and ignore every­thing since.

I have a proposition to make to all
you Ambisonicists out there who are
reading this and are preparing to write
more letters or flame me on the Internet.
Instead of further grousing, pool your re­sources and start issuing B-Format re­cordings on DTS disc. That will give you
up to five totally discrete channels to
work with and 20-bit resolution, at the
cost of four-to-one compression. If the B­Format is everything you say it is, then
the market will embrace it in that form.

Won't it?

Daniel C. Sweeney

Burbank, CA

The Audio Critic:

Thanks for the kind words in your

"Hip Boots" remarks. Calling us a "pleas-

ant little journal" and acknowledging that
at least some of what we do has merit is
good enough for me. You could have
been much nastier.

We will never be as single-minded
as The Audio Critic, but I do hope that we
will be seen as helping audiophiles and
music lovers to spend less and get more,
which is a goal that I believe our two
publications have in common, even
though we go about things differently in
some respects.

At any rate, I am not writing to
grouse about being termed a "light­weight" when my doctor is threatening to
enroll me in Weight Watchers; rather, I
want to point out that one of the things I
really enjoy about The Audio Critic is the
amount of space you devote to music re­views and the perspective you offer on
recordings. We need more CD reviews in
future issues, Peter, not fewer—your lat­est issue seemed a bit skimpy (light­weight?) in its coverage of music.

It always amazes—and disap­points—me that I get so few letters from
readers about music, in comparison with
the letters I get taking me to task for not
being a "believer" in cable differences
and other such subjects. I'll bet you have
felt the same way from time to time.

Keep up the good work, Peter, and
keep putting plenty of CD reviews in
each issue. I really appreciate your ef­forts, and I wish you the best in getting

6

your publishing schedule on track.

All my best,
Karl W. Nehring
Editor

The Sensible Sound

Ostrander, OH

Graciousness will get you nowhere,

Karl. We do indeed go about things dif-

ferently. The main problem I have with

your publication is, as I said, your policy
of "equal time" for scientific truth and
golden-eared nonsense, and you seem to
be unwilling to address that issue.

If you want more CD reviews, read
Fanfare and American Record Guide; we
are certainly no better than they are in
that area, whereas when it comes to cred­ible audio reviews...hey, don't let me get
started on that subject.

As for our publishing schedule, we
need a small full-time core staff, not good
wishes. Believe me, I'm working on it.

And thanks for the kind words.

—Ed.

The Audio Critic:

I am pleased that your magazine is
still being published. I have subscribed to
two of the new magazines—Fi and an-

other glossy one whose name I have for­gotten. I canceled both subscriptions.
They both seemed to like the high end
when it was high-priced, and they had
such a strong subjectivistic "placebo­effect" driven bias that I could not afford,
or trust, their judgments.

I look for quality that is value. I
want the product that represents the in-

flection point of the asymptotic curve
linking cost and performance. I want to
know where the point is when an addi­tional dollar spent results in very little in­crease in sound quality, but when spent
elsewhere can make a big difference.
Your magazine comes closer to address­ing these issues than any of the others.

I appreciate your intellectual para-

digm for the evaluation of audio.

I do subscribe to Stereo Review to

maintain an overview of the field, and I
do read Stereophile because they do a
good job of keeping up with the technical
issues and technology of audio. However,
I almost never read their product re­views—unless it is the rare item that I am
interested in which also represents good
value.

Sincerely yours,
James M. Larson, M.D.
San Diego, CA

You clearly have a good, and much

appreciated, handle on where we 're com-

ing from, doctor—but Stereophile as a re­liable source of information on audio
technology? Read David Rich's review of
their technical editor's book (page 82).

Read it and weep.

—Ed.

The Audio Critic:

There has been a lot of hot chatter
on the E-mail circuit over the past couple
of months about the Steve Maki and
Steve Zipser challenge in Miami. I
thought you would appreciate a complete
recount of the events. Zipser, a high-end
salon owner, had issued a challenge that
he would pay the airplane fare of any in­terested party who wanted to see him
prove he could hear the differences be­tween amplifiers.

On Sunday afternoon, August 25th,
Maki and I arrived at Zipser's house,
which is also Sunshine Stereo. Maki
brought his own control unit, a Yamaha
AX-700 100-watt integrated amplifier for
the challenge. In a straight 10-trial hard­wired comparison, Zipser was only able

to identify correctly 3 times out of 10

whether the Yamaha unit or his pair of

Pass Laboratories Aleph 1.2 monoblock
200-watt amplifiers was powering his

Duntech Marquis speakers. A Pass Labs

preamplifier, Zip's personal wiring, and a

full Audio Alchemy CD playback system

completed the playback chain. No device
except the Yamaha integrated amplifier
was ever placed in the system. Maki in­serted one or the other amplifier into the
system and covered them with a thin
black cloth to hide identities. Zipser used
his own playback material and had as
long as he wanted to decide which unit
was driving the speakers.

I had matched the playback levels of
the amplifiers to within 0.1 dB at 1 kHz,
using the Yamaha balance and volume
controls. Playback levels were adjusted
with the system preamplifier by Zipser. I
also determined that the two devices had
frequency response differences of 0.4 dB
at 16 kHz, but both were perfectly flat
from 20 Hz to 8 kHz. In addition to me,
Zipser, and Maki, one of Zip's friends,
his wife, and another person unknown to
me were sometimes in the room during
the test, but no one was disruptive and
conditions were perfectly quiet.

As far as I was concerned, the test
was over. However, Zipser complained
that he had stayed out late the night be-

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 7

fore and this reduced his sensitivity. At
dinner, purchased by Zipser, we offered
to give him another chance on Monday

morning before our flight back North. On
Monday at 9 a.m., I installed an ABX
comparator in the system, complete with
baling-wire lead to the Yamaha. Zipser
improved his score to 5 out of 10. How­ever, my switchpad did develop a hang­up problem, meaning that occasionally
one had to verify the amplifier in the cir­cuit with a visual confirmation of an
LED. Zipser has claimed he scored better

prior to the problem, but in fact he only

scored 4 out of 6 before any difficulties
occurred.

His wife also conducted a 16-trial
ABX comparison, using a 30-second
phrase of a particular CD for all the trials.

In this sequence I sat next to her at the
main listening position and performed all
the amplifier switching functions accord­ing to her verbal commands. She scored 9
out of 16 correct. Later another of Zip's

friends scored 4 out of 10 correct. All lis-

tening was done with single listeners.

In sum, no matter what you may
have heard elsewhere, audio store owner
Steve Zipser was unable to tell reliably,

based on sound alone, when his $14,000

pair of class A monoblock amplifiers was

replaced by a ten-year old Japanese inte­grated amplifier—in his personal refer­ence system, in his own listening room,
using program material selected personal-

ly by him as being especially revealing of

differences. He failed the test under hard-

wired no-switching conditions, as well as
with a high-resolution fast-comparison
switching mode. As I have said before,
when the answers aren't shared in ad­vance, "Amps Is Amps" even for the
Goldenest of Ears.

Tom Nousaine

Cary, IL

I was the one who asked Tom, our
columnist, to write up this information in
letter form, just for the record, in antici-

pation of distorted versions of the story.
Both he and I knew all along, of course,

that all such challenges by Golden Ears
are unwinnable, but there are still some
wide-eyed audiophiles out there who
haven't received the word. Since anyone
who has sampled Zipser's foul exudations
on the Internet must realize that the man
is a pathetic loser, it should come as no
surprise that he lost his hopeless chal­lenge, just like all others who have tried.

—Ed.

The Audio Critic:

I am a happy subscriber and appre-

ciate your efforts to demystify the repro­duction of music. The Audio Critic has
been a needed voice of late in the mystic

wilderness the High End has become. My

system choices have been constructively
influenced by your publication (Carver
"Amazings" and Sunfire amp, for exam­ple—thanks!). After reading your [Peter
Aczel's] letter to the editor in the Novem­ber 1996 Audio, I have a few thoughts on
the subject of ABX testing for your con-

sideration. I hope you welcome these ru-

minations as I intend them: a rational at­tempt to understand a possible weakness
in our current level of understanding.
They came about as a result of asking the
question: if ABX testing is, as many lis­teners feel, inherently flawed, a rational
reason would exist—what would it be?

I have personally experienced the di­minishment of audible differences that
matching output levels introduces into
sighted A/B comparisons, and then the

further elimination of differences intro­duced by making the same test blind. It's
quite an education for an open-minded
audiophile to do matched-level blind
comparisons for the first time. After read­ing and thinking about both sides of this
debate for years, it occurred to me where
the flaw in matched-level blind compari­sons may lie. Certainly not in matching
levels, or any other of the methodologies
you refer to in the aforementioned Audio
letter—save one: blind listening condi­tions.

The need to eliminate the so-called
"placebo effect" in critical listening is

clear, but I have begun to question wheth­er it can be done with no diminishment to
perceptive ability. Consider that the term

"placebo effect" originally refers in medi-

cal research to the effect unconscious
processes have on the physical body; that
is, psychological cause, mechanistic ef-

fect. Under those conditions the double-

blind test protocol proves invaluable. But
in listening tests, blind conditions have
been used to eliminate delusional

thoughts arising from the unconscious.

This is accomplished by disallowing as-

similation to the conscious (and hence,

unconscious) which component is pres-

ently listened to. The question is this: can
we do this with no deleterious effect?
Isn't perception a process as likely en­hanced as damaged by the conscious/un­conscious linkage? Doesn't it seem a
self-evident notion that, in fact, when any

perceptive activity is at its most acute,
unconscious processes invariably play an
integral and enhancing role? Have we, in
a well-intentioned attempt to eliminate
the delusional component in critical lis­tening, thrown the baby out with the bath
water?

In simplest terms, perhaps hearing
acuity is improved when we know what
we're listening to. Critical perception of
audible cues seems improved, perhaps
due to memory enhancement in long­term comparisons. (Diminishment to the
effect of memory may explain why some
listeners characterize blind tests as
"stressful" and "confusing.") If this is
eventually shown to be true, we move
backwards somewhat in our belief in rig­orously established quality differences
with blind comparison tests, since we
then appreciate there may be no precise
way to differentiate negative and positive
unconscious effect on perception. Even
so, we wouldn't be back to square one:
we know that ABX comparisons give
more information than not. The magni­tude of audible differences falling below
the ABX detection threshold are compar­atively small. But even these magnitudes
might explain the differences listeners,
nearly universally, have disappear under
blind conditions. The relative importance
assigned to those differences in aesthetic
terms would be back in the subjective
realm, and of course worthy of investiga­tion and debate.

In summation, I think we should be-

gin to question the assumption that blind
comparison testing is predicated upon:

that the inadequately termed "placebo ef-

fect" can only have negative impact on
the activity of critical listening. Perhaps a

few parallels that might work to illustrate
the general type and magnitude of phe­nomena in question is that of fuzzy intel­ligence in recent powerful digital pro­grams, or in audio, dither improving the
audibility of very low-level signals in
digital processing. Subtle, perhaps—
important, perhaps.

Dave King

New York, NY

I am publishing your letter here only
because I have never heard a more des-

perately convoluted expression by an ob-

viously intelligent and sincere audiophile
of the same old basic fallacy, which more

primitively stated goes: "Since we all

know that the Krell sounds better than

the Pioneer, what's wrong with all those

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

7

pdf 8

ABX tests that cover up such an obvious

truth?" I'll call it the Harley Fallacy, a

classic case of petitio principii—taking

for granted the truth of something that re-

mains to be proved. The fact is that we do
not all know that the Krell sounds better;
only the brainwashed among us know.
Read your own words carefully—you are
assuming up front that what "many lis­teners feel, " what they "nearly universal­ly " perceive, is true. Wrong! Where's the
proof?

In addition to the Harley Fallacy,
you also seem to be laboring under a mis­apprehension of what goes on in a prop­erly conducted ABX test. It is not like a
blind A/B test at all. You are at all times
allowed to listen to fully identified A and

fully identified B, "delusional compo-

nents" and all. When you switch to X,

you are not asked to evaluate its sound,

with or without delusions. All you are
asked is to match its sound to A or B. You
can switch back and forth between A and

X, or B and X, as many times as you like.

Does X match A, or does it match B? It's
like matching a color swatch to the paint
on two different walls. Does it match or

doesn't it? Where does delusion come in?

It is true, of course, that your mental
image of the beautifully engineered and

gorgeously packaged Krell—your delu­sion, if you will—represents "value add­ed. " I would never stop an orthopedic
surgeon, or a hedge fund manager, from
buying the Krell. It will make him feel
more important. (It will also look more
handsome on his shelf and probably last
longer.) Still, the only way to prove that
the Krell "sounds better" than the Pio­neer is to identify it by its sound alone, at
matched levels, without peeking. Why
can't you live with that?

—Ed.

The Audio Critic:

I am sending you two reprints from
Science and Nature that discuss "stochas­tic resonance." You have probably heard
of this already. The latest one from
Science has a section under the subhead
"Electric results," the gist of which is
summarized in the quote: "...the more
noise, the greater the membrane's ability
to sense the field." After reading the
Nature article I made a copy to send to
you but just didn't get it done. Then the
Science article came out and reinforced
the ideas I discuss next.

Our ears must work much the same
way as the shark organs that sense elec-

tric fields, except in our ears hair cells are
stimulated mechanically. According to
these articles, if there is some back­ground noise we are probably able to
hear minute sounds better than in a dead
quiet background. Quite possibly the rea­son for vinyl's "superior sound" is that
the vinyl surface provides this back­ground noise. Perhaps a live concert's
sound is enhanced because of soft noise
coming from the audience (and because
it's live). I once read in Stereophile (sor­ry) just after CDs came out that one edi­tor, I forget who, thought CD sound
might differ from vinyl sound perhaps be­cause vinyl's background noise enhanced

the sound—so he added vinyl noise to the
CD sound and thought it now rivaled
vinyl's. But he had no scientific grounds
for this idea, nor did he try in any way to
test the notion further (as usual), or ask
others to listen.

I would just like to know what you
and your colleagues think about the role
of stochastic resonance, record and tape
hiss, the relative lack of all background
noise on CDs, and how we normally hear
sound. Has the dead quiet background
sterilized CDs?

Don't tell too many people about
this, otherwise we shall have to buy noise
generators to fix our hi-fis.

Phil Brandt
Professor

Columbia University

New York, NY

"Stochastic resonance " is becoming
a buzzword, but I knew well before the
digital era that a small amount of white
noise added to the signal can create an
impression of greater spaciousness and

transparency. I always believed this to be
a psychoacoustic gimmick rather than the
extraction of actual additional informa­tion, but then the whole subject is far

from being my long suit.

I don't quite see how vinyl's "snap,
crackle, and pop " could possibly reveal,
rather than cover up, low-level informa­tion, but what you say about the soft
background noise of a live musical event
may very well be true. I know this: when
such residual hall noise is used by the

producer for the pause between CD

tracks, the result sounds more natural
and less "sterile," as you say, than digi­tal silence ("infinity zero"). In the '50s
and '60s, analog tape hiss was more than
enough to do the psychoacoustic job.

—Ed.

The Audio Critic:

... You are to be commended for op­erating one of the best magazines in the

audio journalism business....

One problem. In all, or at least most,
of your speaker tests you limit your off­axis measurements to no more than 30
degrees. If you read my essay on loud­speaker matters in the April 1995 issue of
Stereo Review, and study the hemisphere
diagram ("Radiation Pattern") and its
caption, you can see why I believe it is
important for a system to deliver uniform
response well beyond 30 degrees. Any
decent system can do well out to 30 de­grees but only very well-engineered mod­els have uniform response beyond that
angle, and those sounds are very audible

in normal rooms....

Sincerely,
Howard W. Ferstler
Tallahassee, FL

With regard to your paragraph one:

you 're right. With regard to your para­graph two: you 're right.

I wish I had some kind of fancy
turntable and tilt mechanism for speaker
measurement, so I could conveniently ex-

plore the entire front hemisphere of radi-

ation with one microphone. Even so, I
think I manage to identify all the good
ones and bad ones that cross my path.

—Ed.

The Audio Critic:

...I was reading your Issue No. 23
and came across your comment on page
73: "...not counting independent colum­nists like Larry Klein and Bob Pease."

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Yes, I am an independent SOB. Yes, I

like Mr. Nousaine's work. Yes, I like

your work.

Best regards,
R. A. Pease

Electronic Design

Our readers may not know that Bob

Pease is a veritable legend in the elec-

tronics industry. His praise means a lot.

—Ed.

"An exemplary existing design is

The Audio Critic, which is remarkable,

given its one color (black) printing, and
essentially one typeface (Times Roman
and its bold/italic variants)."

—From Steve Marston's publication

on typography, Feb. 1996. [How about
that, tweak-magazine art directors?—Ed.]

8

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 9

Paste This in Your Hat!

(What Every Audiophile Should Know

and Never Forget)

By Peter Aczel

Editor and Publisher

If you don't know the ground rules—and you won't find
them in the tweako magazines—you'll play a losing game.

All of the following could be proved in court audiophile press and high-end audio dealers. In
before a jury of degreed professionals—physicists, controlled double-blind listening tests, no one has
electrical engineers, acousticians, university pro- ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two
fessors, researchers in major electronics laboratories. amplifiers with high input impedance, low output

impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low

What is the number one determinant noise, when operated at precisely matched levels
of sound quality in an audio system? (±0.1 dB) and not clipped. Of course, the larger

The recording you are playing, without the your room and the less efficient your speakers, the
slightest doubt. The recording microphones, acous- more watts you need to avoid clipping.
tical conditions, and engineering decisions at the
recording site introduce much greater sonic vari- What about the preamp, CD player,
ability than any hardware component in a half and other line-level electronics?
decent playback system. Buy well-recorded CDs. As long as they meet the fairly exacting spe-

cifications expected these days—and most of them

What is the number two determinant? do—they will sound the same, regardless of price.

The speaker system, again without the That does not mean, of course, that some are not
slightest doubt. Even the finest loudspeakers ex- far superior in measured performance (well below
hibit small irregularities in frequency response, the threshold of audibility) and construction quality.

the smaller the better but always audible. Sig­nificant differences in f3 (bass cutoff frequency), How important are wires and cables?

efficiency, power handling, distortion, wave launch No more important than the wiring inside
geometry, and other characteristics result in easily your electronics and speakers, over which you have
distinguishable sonic signatures from model to absolutely no control. Speaker cables and inter-

model. This is a subject worth studying. connects that cost thousands of dollars are a

shameless fraud. Radio Shack's reasonably priced

What is next in importance? top-of-the-line cables are good enough for anyone.

The listening room. So important, in fact,
that it is hardly distinguishable from the quality of Where do vacuum tubes come in?

the speaker system itself. It would probably be Nowhere, unless you are a tweako cultist.
more accurate to say that the speakers, the room, There is nothing in audio electronics that cannot

and the placement of the speakers within the room be done better with solid-state devices than vacuum
constitute a single system second in importance tubes. (Maybe—just maybe—the RF stage of an

only to the program material. FM tuner is an exception.) Yes, there exists some

very nice tube equipment, but the solid-state stuff

What about the amplifier? is better, cheaper, and more reliable. As someone

Vastly exaggerated in importance by the on the Internet said, "tubes are for boobs."

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997 9

pdf 10

A man's ambition must be mighty small

To write his name on a toilet wall.

A tweak's ambition is smaller yet

To post a dumb message on the Internet.

10 THE AUDIO CRITIC

In Your Ear

pdf 11

The Good Guys in the White

Hats and the Bad Guys in the Black

Hats: a Guide for the Perplexed

By Peter Aczel

Editor and Publisher

In audio, as in life, there are good guys and bad guys—good and
bad manufacturers, designers, dealers, publishers, reviewers,
editors, etc. Here you have them conveniently listed for reference.

Who's a good guy? Who's a bad guy? A good guy
in the audio world is a practitioner whose efforts, in word
or in deed, are aimed at the most accurate sound repro­duction possible, at a price commensurate with the means
to achieve it. A bad guy in the audio world is a practitioner
who has any kind of agenda, overt or covert, contrary to
the aforesaid aim of the good guys. It's as simple as that.

Many, if not most, of the names that appear below
have been discussed in our pages before, but a consoli­dated summary of our pantheon and of our demonology
appears to be good idea at this point, as we have picked
up a large number of new readers in the course of the last
few issues. The list is, needless to say, far from complete;
there are more good guys and bad guys out there than we
could possibly be aware of. The idea here is to answer
briefly the incessant questions we get that start with
"what do you think of or "how do you rate" or "do you
agree with" or "should I believe" and so forth. Of course,
those who are familiar with our audio philosophy will
readily relate to these lists; the rest of our readers will get
the hang of it before they turn the page.

The White Hats

The following audio people have our trust. When
you see one of these names, you don't have to proceed
with caution. (Please note that our own contributors, such
as David Rich, Tom Nousaine, David Ranada, Richard
Modafferi, etc., are not incorporated in the list because
their White Hat ranking is self-evident—they wouldn't
be with us otherwise.)

Robert Adams (Analog Devices, Inc.)

Digital audio's voice of authority and silicon jock­ey supreme. In contrast to those who have only opinions

on digital technology, Bob Adams has solutions. Since
he designs chips rather than complete audio gear, his so­lutions affect our audio life only indirectly but nonethe-

less significantly. On the journalistically and promotion­ally abused subject of jitter, he is the compass that points
true north. Believe him, not the tweako pundits.

John Bau (Spica)

Living proof that a typical audiophile can intellec­tually bootstrap himself to the level of professional engi­neers. He parted company with the dilettante speaker­builder crowd about 15 years ago and has developed into
a thoroughly scientific loudspeaker designer with a valid
engineering rationale for every theoretical and practical
aspect of his designs. A veritable role model. (Unfortu­nately, Parasound closed their Spica division after operat­ing it only a couple of years, but I am sure we shall hear
from John Bau again.)

Bob Carver (Sunfire Corporation)

Possibly the most brilliant audio designer of our
time, an inventor rather than just an engineer. His work is
nearly always on a level of technological creativity that
makes one forgive his P.T. Barnum taste in product nam­ing, advertising, and publicity. His specialty is solving
the "impossible" design problem, which he does often.
He also happens to be a warmhearted and highly tolerant
human being who seldom uses his vast intellectual ad­vantage over not-so-bright critics and adversaries.

Edward Cherry (Australia)

Strictly an academic rather than an audio industry
person but important to all amplifier designers to this day
for helping to straighten out the serious confusion about
feedback that existed back in the '70s and early '80s.
One of the seminal thinkers in audio electronics.

David Clark (DLC Design)

Mr. ABX himself, designer of the original ABX
comparator and the earliest apostle of double-blind listen-

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997 11

pdf 12

ing tests at perfectly matched levels. That makes him the
tweako camp's Beelzebub, but to my knowledge he has
never been proven wrong about what is audible and what
isn't. Today his work is mostly in car audio, where ABX
comparisons reveal audible differences quite often.

Bob Cordell (David Sarnoff Laboratories)

The other great feedback revisionist of the 1980s,
together with Professor Cherry (see above). A superbly
clear thinker, he is still interested in audio although not
part of the industry. His 13-year old prototype MOSFET
power amplifier has never been surpassed (nor commer­cially produced).

Mark Davis (Dolby Laboratories)

One of the keenest minds in the industry. He is do­ing so much highly advanced audio-of-the-future work at
Dolby that I am almost embarrassed to remember him
mainly for being the first (at least in my experience) to
point out that all well-designed electronic signal paths
sound the same under controlled listening conditions.
That was twenty years ago, when he was still part of the
Boston audio mafia, and I didn't believe him. Now I be­lieve all the far more radical things he is saying.

Mike Dzurko (ACI: Audio Concepts, Inc.)

The hobbyist manufacturer/marketer who redefined
value in loudspeaker systems. Thanks to his excellent

taste in sound, his respect for science, and his direct­from-the-factory distribution, ACI speakers have a histo­ry of performing like much costlier units sold by dealers.
At the moment Mike is working as a schoolteacher again,
and the company is in a somewhat austere holding pat­tern. I trust the situation is temporary because no one is
more deserving of audiophile support.

John Eargle (Delos International, Inc.)

The Compleat audio expert, a veritable Renaissance
man of audio. He has been president of the AES; he has
designed loudspeakers for JBL; he has written textbooks
and engineering papers on recording techiques, micro­phones, etc.; he plays the organ and the piano; his credits
as a recording engineer go back to the golden age of Mer­cury and RCA; but today he is best known for making
state-of-the-art recordings for Delos. I have never failed
to get an erudite, realistic, levelheaded answer from him
on any audio question, no matter how controversial.

R. A. (Dick) Greiner (University of Wisconsin, retired)

The E.E. conscience of the audio world. We have
all learned from him over the years on the subject of
amplifiers, wires and cables, polarity—you name it, the
list is endless. He makes life a little simpler and easier
for those of us who trust science because he is a great ex­plainer. To tweako cultists he is a nemesis because his
calm professorial logic devastates their agenda.

David Hall (Velodyne Acoustics, Inc.)

The emperor of subwoofers and defender of the
faith (not shared by all practitioners) in low-distortion
loudspeaker design. His motional-feedback subwoofer

design of 1989 signaled the beginning of a new era in

bass reproduction. He is very much a hands-on engineer,

and his latest stuff is still ahead of the competition.

Ken Kantor (Now Hear This, Inc.)

Another original whose unconventional ideas on

sound reproduction, more specifically on loudspeaker de­sign, must be taken seriously. He is so smart that he has
gained entree into, and the confidence of, tweako circles
without being a tweak himself. Neat trick.

D. B. (Don) Keele, Jr. (Audio magazine)

The most honest, thorough, knowledgeable, and

commonsensical of loudspeaker reviewers. (Present com­pany excepted? Hell, no.) He is responsible for the highly
reliable and accurate nearfield method we all use now to
measure woofers. Unfortunately, just because he is a to­tal objectivist, it does not follow that Audio shuns tweako
reviewers of questionable credibility.

Siegfried Linkwitz (Audio Artistry)

One of the truly serious thinkers on the subject of

loudspeaker design, with impeccable academic and pro­fessional credentials. His widely quoted work on cross­over networks provided the antidote to the simplistic
first-order cult. His current work on large speaker sys­tems shows considerable originality.

Stanley Lipshitz (University of Waterloo)

Arguably the keenest intellect in the audio commu­nity. He is not associated with any specific audio product
but has mathematically analyzed just about every impor­tant audio design problem and written a paper about it
(usually with fellow savant John Vanderkooy—see be­low). If we don't understand something about a new
technology, we ask Stanley. He knows. As David Clark
(see above) once said, "The audio world doesn't deserve
Stanley." That's probably true, but as Clint Eastwood
said in Unforgiven, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."
We have him, and he is indispensable.

E. Brad Meyer (The Boston Audio Society, CompuServe)

One audio journalist who makes a serious effort to

be objective. His tests and his writings evidence both
technical knowledge and intellectual honesty. If he has
an audio-political agenda, I am not aware of it. His well­documented article on the CD vs. vinyl controversy in
the January 1996 issue of Stereo Review is a case in
point. He is also a recording engineer and producer.

Ed Mutka (B&K Components, Ltd.)

A circuit designer after our own heart. He does

12 THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 13

pretty much everything right, even though he must oper-

ate within budget constraints. What's more, he is not
afraid to express strong opinions about the right and the
wrong way to design audio equipment. His boss, John

Beyer, also deserves full credit for the intelligent guide-
lines that allow Ed to do his thing.

John Ötvös (Waveform)

Not an engineer but an audio perfectionist advised
by some of the best engineering brains. Almost painfully
honest and uncompromising, he takes the high road of
scientific loudspeaker design without heed to trendy di­rections or commercial pressures. Possibly the most self­less, idealistic man of audio.

Ken Pohlmann (University of Miami, Stereo Review)

The straight talker of the digital domain. Read his
textbooks if you want to be genuinely savvy on digital
matters; read his magazine articles for general insights;
in either case you will be totally safe from the digital
drivel that permeates so much of the audiophile press.
His academic specialty is actually "music engineering."

Chris Russell (Bryston Ltd.)

The incorruptible amplifier designer. His designs
combine engineering elegance with moral rectitude
(meaning the simplest solutions that will yield maximum
performance, no expense spared where it counts, not a
penny for tweako fetishes). That goes double, with little
bells on it, since Stuart Taylor (ST) became his engineer­ing associate.

Jim Thiel (Thiel Loudspeakers)

The high priest of the doctrine of coherence
through first-order crossovers in loudspeaker systems. I
do not even agree with his doctrine but nonetheless
admire him for his engineering talent and uncompromis­ing integrity. The man's devotion to scientific design and
quality construction cannot be questioned. On top of it he
is a true gentleman.

Floyd Toole (Harman International Company)

The man who codified the controlled subjective
testing of loudspeakers and the listening/measuring cor­relation. His scholarly work at Canada's National Re­search Council laboratories was so basic and ground­breaking that Sidney Harman, whose appetite for audio
talent is insatiable, just had to have him and his associate
Sean Olive. At this point I'm still waiting for JBL,
Infinity, Citation, and/or other speakers from the Harman
group that fully reflect his input. They ought to be good.

John Vanderkooy (University of Waterloo)

Physicist partner of Stanley Lipshitz (see above).
They are team; their names appear as coauthors on AES
papers; however, John maintains a much lower profile

vis-à-vis the audiophile world, so that only a professional
inner circle is regularly exposed to his awesome intellect
and urbane charm. I have seen him in action as a B.S. de­tector and audio-issue clarifier, and I am a believer!

Kevin Voecks (Harman International Company)

Long associated with Snell Acoustics, now em­barked on Sidney Harman's latest high-end project,
Revel loudspeakers. I identify with his evolution from
wide-eyed audiophilia to hard-nosed scientific objectiv­ism because it paralleled mine. His last few Snell speaker
systems have been nothing short of world-class.

Max Wilcox (independent producer/recordist)

The name that guarantees integrity in the interface
of music and sound. As a fine musician, Max is able to
steer a recording session to the highest performance level
obtainable with the given talent, and as a recordist of un­failingly good taste he will tape the performance in utter­ly natural, accurate, unexaggerated sound. His recordings
(on RCA, Elektra/Nonesuch, MusicMasters, Teldec,
DGG, etc.) seem to wear better on repeated listening than
the work of the hotshot, razzle-dazzle engineers.

Sao Zaw Win (Win Research Group, Inc.)

Who says there is a conflict between aesthetics and
science in audio? This Burmese-American technologist
excels in both. His creations are invariably beautiful (in
looks and in sound) and scientific (in concept and in exe­cution). If all practitioners were like him, the audio world
would be Camelot. Among other things, he is probably
the number one authority on materials science as it re­lates to transducer design. Paradoxically, he seems to be
irresistibly attractive to the tweako community, whose
pundits are constantly courting him and whom he con­stantly rejects! I have written so much about him in the

past that this much should be sufficient here.

The Black Hats

This is a much more difficult list to put together be­cause, on the one hand, I have no desire to pull any

punches and, on the other hand, I want to avoid being

grossly unfair. Needless to say, the commentaries below
are simply opinions, my own opinions, although in most
instances they are shared by the audio people I respect.

Larry Archibald (Stereophile)

The arch- in his name signifies archenemy—the
principal, most powerful enemy of scientific discipline in
equipment evaluation and of accountability in audio jour­nalism. No, there's nothing fiendish about him as a per­son; he is a nice, intelligent guy to have a drink with; but
he is a total opportunist as a publisher. His magazines tell
you what he believes you want to hear, because that's
where the money is, not what you ought to know, namely
the unvarnished realities of the subject matter. I am con-

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

13

pdf 14

vinced he knows what those realities are; he just doesn't
think they are moneymakers.

John Atkinson (Stereophile)

Highly intelligent, extremely competent, transpar-

ently insincere. I don't know when the hypocrisy started;

maybe in his earliest days at Hi-Fi News & Record Re-
view in England he actually believed the tweako B.S. he
now redacts and asseverates in Santa Fe; but I refuse to
believe that he still believes it. He has been exposed to
too much overwhelming scientific evidence to the con­trary and he just can't be that dense. (See also Issue No.
22, p. 10.) At this point he mechanically reiterates the

party line and comes up with progressively more tortured

sophistries to bolster it. Why? Because his job at Larry's

place requires it, and it's a good job. The trouble is, he
has too many readers who still take all that rubbish at
face value.

Bruce Brisson (MIT: Music Interface Technologies)

Grand master of the specious technical argument
promoting insanely expensive tweako cable. I find his ap­proach particularly sleazy because he uses intimidating
buzzwords and icons of science and mathematics to lead
the audiophile to false conclusions—he hopes you won't
grasp the total irrelevance of his highfalutin general anal­ysis to the transfer of audio frequencies over short dis­tances in a domestic audio system. He knows exactly
what he is doing, and that makes him despicable.

William Conrad & Lewis Johnson (Conrad-Johnson)

The duo chiefly responsible for, or at least heavily
contributory to, the cult of formatted vacuum-tube sound,
achieved with deliberately high output impedance (i.e.,
low damping factor) and lots of second harmonic distor­tion. In his famous/notorious "t-mod" soundalike experi­ments of the mid-1980s, Bob Carver had to screw up a
perfectly neutral solid-state signal path to make it sound
exactly like a Conrad-Johnson tube job. Not much has
changed since.

Anthony Cordesman (Audio, formerly TAS)

I have had my say about him in "Hip Boots" (Issue
No. 20, pages 62-63), but he is a major Black Hat and
needs to be be listed here. He illustrates the intellectual
tragedy of a tweako audio culture that can ensnare a
highly intelligent and widely respected expert in another
discipline (military analysis, national security) to the
point where he writes crashing stupidities about audio
equipment. An unforgivable shame.

Michael Fremer (Stereophile, formerly TAS)

Possibly the most unattractive individual in the
American audio community. In his writings and in his
personal contacts, he is vulgar, abusive, bigoted, and in­tellectually dishonest. A real charmer. His favorite cause

is the superiority of vinyl to CD, an argument he pursues
to the limits of absurdity and animosity, making a total

jackass of himself in the process. A perfect example of

the excesses engendered by tweako cultism and a highly
suitable addition to the Stereophile stable.

Corey Greenberg (Audio, formerly Home Theater)

Talk cool, think tweak—that seems to be his creed
as an audio journalist. He obviously believes that semi­educated, unaccountable subjective reviewing is more
credible if the style is late-1960s Rolling Stone gonzo.
The trouble is that in the mid-1990s such a style is no
longer cool; as Lou Reed (who really is cool) would say,
stick a fork in it and turn it over, it's done. Occasionally I
discern a faint glimmer of technical insight in Corey's
undisciplined opinionfests, suggesting that he might have
the potential to be a good reviewer if only his intellectual
environment were totally different. It remains to be seen
whether his mid-1996 switch to Audio magazine consti­tutes a corrective environmental change. Time will tell.

Dennis Had (Cary Audio Design, Inc.)

The single-ended triode amplifier man. That con-

cept is such an outrageous piece of stupidity in the con­text of mid-1990s technology that any technical debate

about it is merely embarrassing. Meanwhile such highly

innovative and sophisticated amplifier designs as those of
Bob Cordell and Mark Alexander (see Issue No. 20, p. 22
and p. 25) go without commercial implementation. Hope­less marketplace...

Robert Harley (Stereophile)

The most influential and, at the same time, least

qualified writer on digital audio (among other subjects).
He got his job at Stereophile by winning an essay con­test, for crying out loud! There seems to be no evidence
that anyone asked him for his academic/technical creden­tials. His blunders on the test bench and on the printed
page are the laughingstock of degreed engineers and aca­demics; he has been skewered and punctured both in
print and face-to-face so many times that he resembles a
sieve; but he keeps plowing right ahead with his flawed
tests and reviews—and his publisher (Archibald) and edi­tor (Atkinson) let him! He appears to believe every half­baked tweako cliche ever put forth, and in his case I am
almost certain he is sincere. (The more the pity—but a
deluded Black Hat is still a bad guy.)

William Z. Johnson (Audio Research)

Take all the vacuum-tube B.S. you have ever been
exposed to, trace it back—who heard it from whom, who
read it where, who said it first, etc.—and I think you'll
end up with Bill Johnson as Genesis 1:1. (I don't mean
the electronic theory, which goes back to 1907; I mean
the tweako amplifier bandwagon.) It is also my impres­sion that he was the very first manufacturer to realize, in

14 THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 15

the late 1960s, that you can charge a hell of a lot more
for a piece of audio equipment than its true value in
terms of parts, labor, and R&D. That insight started a
whole industry based on image and style rather than sub­stance. His black hat is therefore size XL.

Ray Kimber (Kimber Kable)

A pair of 4-foot speaker cables for $15,000? Yes,
that's the man. He is totally shameless. What would go
better with those spiffy cables than a nice black Stetson?
(I must add that there's nothing wrong with the more or
less reasonably priced cables he also makes.)

Noel Lee (Monster Cable Products, Inc.)

Father of the tweako cable industry. He was the
first to realize that you can make lots of money in high­end audio without a factory, without engineers, without a
technological innovation, without any talent other than
salesmanship—in other words, without significant over­head. All you need is a marketplace of gullible audio-

philes, a steady stream of B.S. promising amazing sonic

improvements, and an account with an established maker
of wires and cables (Alpha, Belden, Canare, Mogami, or
whatever). You specify various tweako configurations,
your supplier delivers the cable with your brand name on
the insulation, you set an astronomical price, you give the

dealer 50-plus points, and—voila!—you are a legend of

the audio salons. Noel Lee adds a sophisticated credibili-

ty device to the formula: he also sells perfectly normal,

conventional, high-quality wire, cable, and connecting

hardware to the trade, at a fair price. His black hat is cov-

ered by a white hat on the outside. Smart boy, that Noel.

David Manley (Vacuum Tube Logic)

One of the chief technical apologists of the tweako
vacuum-tube cult. He wrote a book on the subject and he

does, or at least used to do, some heavy proselytizing at

the trade shows. Nice shtick; too bad he is dead wrong.

Arnie Nudell (Genesis Technologies, Inc., Eosone)

Ask him about making a silk purse out of a sow's
ear. He has perfected the technique. The "heart" of the
Genesis I, his $90,000 flagship speaker system—i.e., the
driver that determines its basic sound—is the five-foot
ribbon from the old Carver "Amazing Loudspeaker." It's
an excellent transducer; it sounds great; but it's ingeni­ously fabricated out of cheap parts and was originally de­veloped for a speaker system which, in its most expensive

form, sold at about 3% of the Genesis I's price. I estimate
that Arnie gets the ribbon from Carver Corporation at an
OEM price of maybe $100 each, certainly well under
$200. Yes, there are many other drivers in a Genesis I
(that's one of its problems, actually) and very handsome
cabinetry, but $90,000? Designed around the Carver rib­bon? If at least they admitted it—but when I first pointed
it out more than two years ago, they freaked. And that's
not the only skeleton in Arnie's engineering closet...

Harry Pearson (The Absolute Sound)

After my full-length portrayal of the man in the last
issue (No. 23, p. 72), I don't want to belabor the point
here. He is the most grotesque embodiment of half-assed,
tweako cultism in audio. At this point in his dismal decline
I'm not even sure he is playing with a full deck. Next!

George Tice (Tice Audio Products, Inc.)

The original power-conditioner flimflam man. Not
to mention the clock you plug into your wall for a mirac­ulous improvement in sound. One must admire the un­mitigated gall of the man while dismissing his B.S.

David Wilson (Wilson Audio Specialties, Inc.)

An unlikely Black Hat because he is a nice, intelli­gent, highly civilized gentleman and a super recordist.
But he also happens to be the godfather of the mega­priced speaker racket. The Wilson WAMM system costs
$147,000 and has nothing in it that justifies even a frac­tion of that price. The 40-odd rich audiophiles who
bought it over the years ended up with truly superior
sound, such as you can get with a (say) $15,000 speaker
system, and thus remained perfectly happy because the
$132,000 overcharge (all right, a few thousand less at
earlier prices) didn't mean a thing to them financially but
boosted their audiophile egos tremendously. That doesn't
make David Wilson a White Hat, however, nor does it
put clothes on the emperor.

* * *

I must add that nearly all of the very high-end
dealers from coast to coast are Black Hats because they
are stuck with the tweako party line. They have to tell
you that the upper midrange is more liquid with single­ended triodes or that the silver cable has better rhythm

and pace, otherwise they can't sell the stuff. I hesitate to

single out the stores that have personally nauseated me,

as there may be others unknown to me that are just as

bad or worse.

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

—SAMUEL JOHNSON (April 7, 1775)

"Musicality" is the last refuge of a tweak.

—PETER ACZEL, The Audio Critic (in a long-ago issue)

I regard "double-blind comparative listening tests" as the last refuge of the agenda-driven scoundrel.

—JOHN ATKINSON, Stereophile (December 1996, page 23)

[Draw your own conclusions. So Clark, Toole, Olive, Lipshitz, Bech, Nousaine, &c, are scoundrels?—Ed.]

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

15

pdf 16

Consumer and Designer

Prejudices in High-End Audio:

A New Way to Examine Them

By David A. Rich, Ph.D., Contributing Technical Editor

and

Peter Aczel, Editor and Publisher

We look at high-end audio circuitry not from the testing point of

view but as an engineering discipline—and find no consistency.

Editor's Note: This article is based on two engineering

papers delivered by David Rich in 1995 before two dif-

ferent professional societies. The first was an advanced

tutorial at the DSPx '95 conference in San Jose, CA,
addressing the question: "Are there any design consider­ations in audio that go beyond standard measurements?"
The second, coauthored by your Editor, was presented at
the 99th Convention of the Audio Engineering Society

(October 1995, New York) under the title "Topological
Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Ap­proach to Show that Modern Audio Electronics Are
Acoustically Transparent" (Preprint 4053). What follows

here is a digest of these two professional papers, revised
and edited for the audiophile consumer. Technical de-

tails left out here can be found in the AES paper. We ask

our readers' indulgence for the few audiophile common-

places that have been left in; these are not always obvious

to professional engineers who don't read the consumer
magazines. The professional perspective, on the other
hand, is one of the benefits the audiophile can derive

from this material.

* * *

Degreed electrical engineers tend to regard the de­sign of audio electronics to be trivial compared to other
design challenges of consumer electronics, yet it is more
complex than appearances would suggest. Some of the
design challenges may not relate to measured perfor­mance but instead to consumer expectations and beliefs.

For example, it is not possible to sell an audio
product with a sharp-cutoff analog reconstruction filter.
Consumers have been told by dealers, sales literature,
and audiophile magazines to believe that the asymmetric
ringing on square waves associated with such a filter has
a detrimental effect on the audible quality. As a result, in­terpolating digital FIR filters placed before the DAC are
used for the reconstruction function. This digital ap-

proach results in symmetrical ringing of the square

waves, which consumers have been informed is insig­nificant. In this example, we see the first occurrence here

of those troubling words that keep coming up in audio

design: believe and audible.

Controlled vs. open-loop listening tests.

The problem with audio design is that the perfor-

mance is assessed by listening to the unit. The subjective

nature of the assessment of audio components makes it
possible to make outlandish claims for the audible char­acteristics of a piece of audio equipment. Outlandish
claims are more easily made for comparisons involving
hearing than those involving vision. When people claim
that they see something different, they can physically
point to the difference to substantiate that the difference
exists. This is not possible when someone claims to hear
something that another listener cannot [Eargle 1995]. Au­dio dealers constantly invoke the phrase "Can't you hear
that?" as they attempt to close a sale. Fortunately, con-

trolled listening-test methodology can be used to elimi-

nate much of the uncertainty of making a subjective eval-

uation.

Unfortunately, comparisons of audio equipment at
the consumer level are never done with double-blind
tests. The "buff books" that consumers of audio equip-

ment read are also not using controlled subjective listen-

ing testing (except The Audio Critic). They instead use

unreliable open-loop testing. The brands of the equip­ment are known to the reviewer, and levels are not care­fully matched. As a result, elaborate descriptions of the
sound quality of the equipment appear in print. As would
be expected, given that the testing methodology is so
sloppy, little correlation exists in the descriptions of the
sound of a component from reviewer to reviewer. Indeed,
even those who support the open-loop listening method
can only cite loudspeaker reviews as consistent in de­scribing the sound of a given product [Harley 1991]. The

16

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 17

only thing that does appear to correlate in the reviews is
that more expensive equipment is felt to sound better
than less expensive equipment.

Why should the magazines want to perpetuate such
sloppy testing? The answer has two parts: (1) The high­end audio industry depends on convincing consumers
that large differences in components exist and that expen­sive components are clearly better than cheaper ones.
Buff books expounding this philosophy have increased
the number of their advertising pages from both dealers
and manufacturers. (2) Controlled listening tests may be
difficult to set up, and doing multiple listening trials rep­resents real work. Most of the writers in consumer maga­zines are having too much fun doing open-loop listening
tests to want to change to a methodology that requires
real work.

Controlled listening tests have consistently shown
that electrical components will be audibly indistinguish­able if the have: (1) flat frequency response, (2) noise and
distortion levels below audible thresholds, (3) high input
impedance and low output impedance [D. Clark 1982].
So how can the audio magazines justify the differences
they report, when the measurements they make on the
equipment show that well-designed audio electronics
have virtually flat frequency response and noise plus dis­tortion 80 dB or more below the fundamental test signal?
The answer is that they use pseudoscience. Consider the
following quote from Stereophile magazine [Harley

1990], discussing modifications to CDs that make no

technical sense.

"I see CD tweaks as a Rosetta Stone to an audio en­gineering establishment that dismisses the possibility that
freezing a CD, or painting it black, or putting green paint
around the edge, or making it from a different material,
could affect its sound. Because these treatments are con­sidered the epitome of audiophile lunacy and because
they are readily audible, some measurement-oriented sci­entists may, if they listen for themselves, realize that au­diophiles are not always the demented mystics they are
often accused of being."

This idea that undiscovered phenomena are respon­sible for the discrepancy between measurement and audi­ble observations is commonly expressed in the audio­phile press. It should be noted that none of the items

discussed by Harley have ever been shown to be audible
in controlled listening tests.

Often the semitechnical (to use a kind word) audio
writer may try to claim that a measurement that can be
made only inside the equipment is responsible for the
sonic performance. For example, it has been reported—
once again in Stereophile [Harley 1994], but there are

also other examples—that CDs which have more eye pat­tern closure at the photo detector output of the CD player

have poorer sound. The fact that the designers of the CD

playback system designed the system to be insensitive to
eye pattern closure, as a result of reclocking of the data

by a stable crystal reference, is never discussed. Because
the signal is reclocked, it is impossible to see any effect
of the closure of the eye pattern at the CD player's output

jacks. Other examples of this kind of untutored reporting

are discussed in [Aczel 15, 17].

Disinformation for the innocent consumer.

It is important to keep in mind that "technobabble"
concerning audio equipment is not confined to the buff
books but has spread to such highly respected business
publications as Forbes and Business Week [Aczel 16,
22], which have both published articles claiming that
tube amplifiers produce sound quality superior to that of
solid-state units. As a result, consumers who are not di­rectly involved in the hobby may still be led to believe
many of the strange notions of the audiophiles. Just as in
the audiophile press, these articles quote no electrical en­gineers to give a plausible explanation of why a tube
amplifier might sound different, such as the high distor­tion and high output impedance measured in typical tube
amplifiers.

Improperly conducted subjective testing methodol­ogies have given rise to an entire industry that produces
what can only be described as consumer rip-offs. These

products cannot possibly affect the sound quality of a

system. They exist because it is possible to convince the
purchaser through techniques of salesmanship that a son­ic change has occurred when no real change has oc­curred. Examples include: (1) a $400 LED clock claimed

to improve the sound of a system when it is plugged into

the same power line as the stereo, (2) brick-shaped ob-

jects of wood filled with ferrous metal inside that are

claimed to improve the sound quality when placed on a
stereo component, (3) a device which generates signals to
be sent through an interconnect or speaker cable for the

purpose of "burning the cable in" to obtain better sound,

and (4) the CD "tweaks" mentioned by Robert Harley in
the quote above.

Although it is possible to sell consumers the above

products despite the fact that they do nothing, it becomes

even easier to sell products if they do change the sound,
and it turns out that some audiophile products can yield a
definite sonic change which is observable in controlled
listening tests. Audiophiles have a tendency to assume
that if a product sounds different it must be better, but in
most cases the differences can be attributed to the intro­duction of frequency response errors or the addition of
distortion. The single-ended low-power class A triode
amplifier craze is an example of this.

One easy way to introduce frequency response er­rors is to increase the output impedance at the amplifier­loudspeaker interface by inserting a series inductance or
resistance. This is exactly what is done by very expen­sive speaker cable. These cables, which can cost over

$1000, do nothing but add a series inductance and series

resistance. Expensive power amplifiers often have very

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

17

pdf 18

high output impedance, which will affect the system
transfer response in a similar manner. Cable manufactur-

ers often take advantage of the high output impedance of

such power amplifiers to further modify the transfer func-

tion. This is done by designing the speaker cable to have

significant parallel capacitance. Frequency response plots

showing these effects can be seen in Issue No. 16 [Aczel

16]. Significant errors in the RIAA equalization curve of
a phono preamp are often present in designs preferred by
audiophiles. Similar things can be done in the digital do­main. For example, coefficients in a digital filter have
been derived in the time domain, using spline functions,
by manufacturers such as Wadia [Moses 1987]. It is
claimed that better sound results from this. While such a
claim is highly debatable [Lipshitz 1991], it is not debat­able that this technique results in the frequency response
being down by 3 dB at 20 kHz, and that response change
is audible.

Nonlinear distortion mechanisms are often present
in designs preferred by audiophiles. One recent fashion
that has proved popular among audiophiles is a prefer­ence for single-ended amplifiers. Such amplifiers have
significantly higher levels of distortion than push-pull de­signs. Distortion well over 1% is observable in these
amplifiers. Audiophiles have often shown a preference
for amplifiers with little or no feedback because they be­lieve that feedback somehow makes the sound quality
worse. In the real world, amplifiers using little or no
feedback will exhibit increased distortion, especially at
lower frequencies. Again distortion of 1% or more has
been observed in low-feedback designs, although careful
use of local feedback and other innovative techniques
can bring the distortion below the level of audibility.

The designer's dilemma.

Given the confusing trends and frequent irrationali­ties of the consumer audio market, how is a designer to
respond when assigned the task of designing consumer
audio components? Three approaches can be taken by the
professional engineer: (1) Modify the frequency response
of a product, or add distortion to the product, so that it
will have a different sound characteristic and thus
achieve a competitive advantage; (2) ignore any consid­erations of sonic issues and design to achieve a design
with flat response, low distortion, low noise, high input
impedance, and low output impedance; (3) design the cir­cuit so that it is judged to be transparent under controlled
listening tests, and let the sales and marketing department

justify that the design is superior.

A key question for the designer to answer is wheth­er or not approaches 2 and 3 will lead to the same results.
If they do not, then what are the design parameters re­quired to achieve sonic transparency? This is the ques­tion that we seek to answer here. Our own experiences
have shown that when a piece of stereo equipment passes
the traditional set of measurements (distortion, noise, fre-

quency response, input impedance, output impedance),
then it will not show any acoustic signature in a con­trolled listening test. But the marketing department must
be aware that audio components that achieve excellent
specifications at relatively low price points are often not

the market leaders. Indeed, one of the most remarkable
products we have tested, the Boulder 500AE stereo pow­er amplifier, based on a topology discussed in [Jensen

1980], achieved distortion levels as low as a perfect 16­bit converter at full power across the audio band, but it
has not been a major success. We can see the problem in
the reaction to the excellent measured performance of
this amplifier by one reviewer, who wrote the following

[Harley 1992]:

"...the 500AE was designed on paper, rather than in

an iterative listen/design/listen process. ...I believe the

Boulder 500AE to be good, but not extraordinary..."

Contrast the above reaction, to an amplifier that
measures really well, with the following quote, from a re­view of a Jadis tube amplifier [King 1986]:

"So why do these amplifiers sound so good? Now
my job gets tough. The bottom line: I don't really know.
The only really good measurement is of its harmonic
structure. Output impedance and amount of harmonic
and IM distortion are OK, but, the gross slewing or re-

duced high frequency power output is bad. The truth is
that the measurements most of us make are not very rele-

vant to the sound of circuits and I've spent a good part of

my career looking for ones that do with little success so
far."

In no other field would this statement be taken seri­ously. It appears very likely that this amplifier was per­ceived as sounding good because it falls into category 1.

It should be noted that one possible approach for
the designer is to work in category 1 and then disclose
what he is doing. This is the approach that has been used
by Bob Carver. He modified the transfer characteristics
and output impedance of a low-cost solid-state power
amplifier to match a very expensive tube amplifier that
the audiophile community thought had the best sound
quality. In double-blind listening tests he then demon­strated that the two amplifiers sounded identical. Unfor­tunately, the consumer audio press and the distribution
channels reacted very negatively to Bob Carver's ap­proach. Their reasoning was obviously that if Mr. Car­ver's approach were given legitimacy, it would no longer
be possible to sell the expensive tube amplifier and other
very expensive audio components. Bad publicity from
the audiophile press reduced the sales of the Carver am­plifier dramatically. Understanding how a given engi­neering approach will be accepted by the press and the
public is an important issue for the marketing depart­ment, but should not be the concern of the designer.

If the designer wants to work in category 2, he
needs to know what are the limits on the electrical spe­cifications that must be achieved for a unit to be audibly

18 THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 19

transparent [Olive 1995]. There is a wide range of an­swers, depending on which investigator's result you are
reading. Signaltonoise ratio clearly needs to be better
than 98 dB if one wants to pass a 16bit digitally encoded
signal without degradation. It has been shown that in
some cases a dynamic range greater than 98 dB may be
required to capture the full dynamic range of music

[Fielder 1989]. Because the ear is more sensitive in some
frequency bands, noise shaping can be used to increase
the subjective dynamic range of a 16bit system. If noise
shaping is used, the signaltonoise ratios of the D/A and
analog sections may need to be in the range of 110 dB

[Benjamin 1993] if the noise in these sections is flat over
the audio band. With respect to distortion, most studies
have shown that 0.1% distortion is inaudible even when
using test tones. Other studies have shown that distortion
on the order of 2% is not audible on music signals [D.
Clark 1982].

The ear appears to be very sensitive to level differ­ences, and overall level mismatches larger than 0.1 dB
may be perceived. Localized deviations of frequency re­sponse may require larger deviations to be audible. The
upper frequency response limit is typically determined by
the sampling rate of the signal if it has been, or will be,
digitized. At the low end, the loudspeaker usually rolls
off well before electronic components. One consideration
that causes some designers to place the lowfrequency
rolloff at a very low frequency is phase errors at 20 Hz. It
has been shown that the ear is slightly sensitive to phase
errors in the bass spectrum [Fincham 1985].

Input and output impedance specifications are prin­cipally determined by frequencyresponse considerations.
In most cases these errors are most likely to occur at the
amplifierspeaker interface, but it is possible to observe
highfrequency rolloff at lowlevel signal interfaces

[Aczel 17]. This is almost always due to a component
with a very high output impedance (3 to 50 kΩ) driving a
cable with very high capacitance (1 nF).

A new way to evaluate design differences.

Is it possible that a design accomplished with the
approach in category 2 will not lead to a transparent au­dio component? One way to answer this question is to
look at already existing designs that are claimed to have
excellent sonic qualities on the basis of openloop listen­ing tests. By examining the circuit topologies, we should
be able to determine if some new design approach is be­ing used that would not have been used if the design had
been developed simply to achieve good results in tradi­tional bench measurements. Such examinations [Rich 15,

18, 20] have shown that these designs do not show any
particularly unique circuitdesign topologies. Further­more, little commonality can be seen among the designs'
topologies.

It is a reasonable assumption that a superior audio

circuit concept would slowly but surely recruit a much

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

larger following than an inferior one, so that eventually
there would be some kind of consensus among practition­ers and a discernible convergence toward the superior to­pology as new designs emerge. Total randomness in the
choice of topology would indicate that no single ap­proach is clearly superior to any other, in much the same
way as total randomness in the results of a doubleblind
ABX test indicates that there is no clearly audible differ­ence between A and B. It's basically the same statistical
criterion. Thus, if a designer had discovered a unique to
pology that sounded better but did not measure better, we
would expect that topology to spread to other companies
through "reverse engineering" of the product with the su­perior sound. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is
actually happening.

Although nothing especially unique can be found
in the design of audio components as distinct from other
electronic products, a number of circuitdesign tech­niques can be seen in highend audio equipment that are
distinct from common design practice. As stated previ­ously, we have found that none of them yielded a product
with superior sound quality, but it is still interesting to
look at them to see if they can reveal any clues regarding
the thought processes of the designers of the equipment.

Note that the summary below has been generated on the

basis of many different pieces of audio equipment, with
no single one of them using all or even most of the tech­niques outlined.

1. Discrete circuit design. Highend audio design-

ers tend to shun integrated opamps. This gives them the

added flexibility to design circuits such as are discussed

below, which they would not have designed with a single

monolithic device. The principal advantages of discrete
design from a measurement point of view are reduced
noise levels and increased output drive capability. The
downside is that the circuit will be slowed down because

of larger parasitics, and it may cost more. The former
problem is not a significant concern at audio frequencies.

Of course, many highend products still have inte-

grated operational amplifiers in the signal path. The op

amps may often precede or follow the more exotic dis-

crete circuitry favored by the highend designers. Since

the opamps have none of the design features that these
designers believe are required to prevent sonic degrada-

tion, such practice appears very strange. For example,

highend designers who hold that an amplifier must use
very low levels of feedback to prevent sonic degradation
may use opamps that have high feedback levels at low
frequencies in the signal path [Rich 21]. Despite their de­viation from the "politically correct" techniques common
to highend design, electronics with integrated operation­al amplifiers in the signal chain often receive very favor­able reviews. Go figure.

2. Extensive use of FETs. Designers' typical ex-
planation for this is that FETs perform more like tubes. A
more scientific explanation involves the fact that these

19

pdf 20

devices increase the input stage's dynamic range (see 6.
below) and that they are more robust into short circuits
(see 3. below). Some IC manufacturers often encourage
the use of BiFET op-amps for better sound quality using

the explanation that they have a distortion characteristic

more like tubes [Burr-Brown 1992]. This begs the ques-

tion that, if the distortion numbers are very low, why
does it matter what the characteristics of the distortion
are.

3. Class A output stages. Audiophile folklore has

always stated that class A amplifiers sound better. This
can be carried as far as biasing the output stage of a pow­er amplifier into class A. Clearly, crossover distortion is
possible in class AB stages, but this can be minimized
[Sandstr0m 1983] in good designs. If the designer is us­ing an op-amp, he may put a load resistor from the output
to the negative supply rail to cause a large dc current to
flow. This dc current forces the npn output transistor on
for the full swing of the output, yielding class A opera­tion [Jung 1986]. One design we have examined got this
backwards by placing the resistor to the positive supply

rail, forcing the slow pnp transistor on instead. Despite
this the amplifier has received good reviews. (The old

football-team adage "what the ref don't see don't bother
the ref appears to apply to high-end audio reviewers as
well.)

Some power amplifiers are stated to be class A by
manufacturers so that audiophiles will think they "sound
good," even when they are in reality class A/B amplifiers

with high quiescent currents levels. Other amplifiers use
dynamic biasing circuits which keep the output device
that is not driving the load biased to a small constant
quiescent current. This technically fits the definition of a
class A amplifier, but since the output devices still expe­rience wide variations in current flow, the problems iden­tified by Sandstr0m still apply. This dynamic biasing ap­proach has been adopted in nonaudio applications that
must run at low power-supply voltages [Sakurai and Is­mail 1995]. The designers of these dynamically biased
output stages still refer to them as class A/B and never
class A. Audiophiles are not aware of such distinctions
and in open-loop listening tests they find amplifiers la­beled class A to have excellent sonic qualities in compar­ison with class A/B amplifiers—even if the so-called
class A amplifier passes into class A/B above a certain
signal level or if the amplifier labeled class A uses dy­namic biasing.

Other design trends in output stages can also be
seen. In low-level signal stages, current limiting circuits
are not often used. Resistors in series with the output pro­vide the current limiting. In power amplifiers, current
limiters may still not be used, with designers relying on
rail fuses to protect the amplifier. If current limiting is
used, it will not be the simple one-transistor foldback de­sign. It can be shown, using some novel test procedures,
that an improperly designed current protection circuit can

activate prematurely into real loudspeaker loads [Otala

1987], [Baxandall 1988]; thus, relatively sophisticated

protection circuits are required. The effect of carefully

designed current-protection circuits can be measured by
checking to see if the voltage output is reduced when
driving reactive loads. Often these tests must be done on
a dynamic basis because the amplifier may have inade­quate heat sinks for steady-state testing [Rich 20]. It

should be noted that many amplifiers said to "sound
good" in open-loop listening tests have protection circuit­ry that operates poorly.

4. Low levels of global feedback. One of the pa-

rameters often identified as important is the amount of
global feedback that may be applied in the circuit. This
concept was first identified in [Otala 1970], although Ota­la's analysis has not been accepted by some peer review­ers [Cherry 1982], [Cordell 1980], [Cordell 1983]. In its
simplest and most common form, the open-loop gain is
made constant up to the 10 kHz to 50 kHz range. This is
accomplished by resistively loading the voltage-gain
stages in the amplifier. This approach increases distortion
at low frequencies, since the return-loop gain is held con­stant across the frequency band. Gain stages often have
large amounts of emitter or source degeneration in an at­tempt to linearize the gain stages with local feedback, so
that global feedback rates can be reduced. It is well
known from feedback theory that multiple small feed­back loops will not be as effective as one global loop, so
the local feedback approach cannot be justified on pure
engineering grounds [DiStefano 1990]. Some designs
may have no global feedback or very small amounts of
feedback (6 dB or less). In these cases designers must
move beyond local feedback and use more exotic meth­ods of error cancellation [Cordell 1984].

5. Fully complementary circuits. These circuits are

designed to be fully complementary from the input stage
onward. This technique may be useful in reducing distor­tion in amplifiers that are run at low feedback levels be­cause even-order harmonics are canceled. One reason
this is helpful in low-feedback designs is that, when large
amounts of local feedback are used in the second gain
stage, the voltage swing at the input of the stage must be
larger, since the stage's gain is reduced. As a result, the
first gain stage's output swings are higher, and this stage
can now contribute significant distortion. The downside
of a fully complementary amplifier is increased noise, dc
offset, and decreased CMRR.. Another clear disadvan­tage is increased parts count.

While a fully complementary amplifier may be
overly complex and may not always yield the best perfor­mance, one aspect of its design can lower distortion over
the standard topology. This aspect of the design is the
push-pull second stage. This is especially true in power
amplifiers, where a large voltage swing occurs at the out-

put of the second gain stage. Achieving a push-pull sec­ond gain stage while retaining the high low-frequency

20

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 21

gain in the first stage is not a trivial design problem.
There exists a published circuit which does this [Cordell

1984]. This circuit, combined with cascodes in the sec­ond stage and a buffer stage between the first and second
stages, results in an amplifier with remarkably low distor­tion levels. Despite its many advantages, the amplifier
has never found a commercial realization—perhaps be­cause it measures too well to "sound good" to the indoc­trinated open-loop listener.

6. Input stages with very wide open-loop linear

range [Jung 1987]. A designer who searches the litera-

ture will see the term transient intermodulation distor­tion. In brief, this effect occurs when an amplifier slew

limits. Early work suggested that transient intermodula­tion distortion could be eliminated only if small levels of
global feedback were used [Otala 1970]. Later work
showed that the effect could be eliminated if the input
stage linearity was made large enough so that under
worst-case conditions the summing junction is never
moved outside the linear range of the input stage [Leach

1981]. Designers will use FET devices and/or degenerate
the gain device in the front-end differential pair to
achieve the wide linear range.

Some researchers have suggested that this require­ment results in significant overdesign and that the tran­sient intermodulation effect cannot occur with band­limited music signals [Cherry 1986]. This explains why
bipolar op-amps with no degeneration of the differential
stages are acoustically transparent in controlled listening
tests. Also note that sophisticated tests are not required to
test for transient intermodulation distortion. If an ampli­fier has low levels of THD at 20 kHz on full voltage
swings, it is free of transient intermodulation distortion.
If an inband test is required, then some unusual three­tone intermodulation tests can be used [Borbely 1989].
Examining the input stages of amplifiers said to "sound
good" will show that the amount of degeneration varies
significantly from no degeneration on a bipolar stage to
orders of magnitude beyond the emitter (or source) resis­tance of the active device.

7. Radically overdesigned power supplies. It is not

uncommon to see power transformers and rectifiers much
larger than required to drive the power supplies. Multiple
stages of regulation are often used [Jung 1995]. Some­times this is carried to the point where each op-amp has
its own local regulator. Discrete regulators are often used
in places where a cheaper monolithic device would have
been sufficient. Designers will explain that the regulator
has to be "fast" to improve PSRR. Exactly why simple
bypass caps are not as good is never made clear.

Again, no consistent design practice is observable,
since inexpensive monolithic regulators often drive com­plex, discrete, active electronics in some designs. On the
other hand, very complex discrete regulators often are
used to drive low-cost op-amps. This approach is com­mon in high-end Japanese designs. One interesting fea-

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

ture in the high-end Japanese designs is the use of a com­plete push-pull output stage in the regulator. It is unclear
why a positive regulator should ever be required to sink
current. One assumes that it has a role in reducing tran­sient noise signals on the supply line.

Sometimes high-end discrete regulator stages use
no global feedback. This approach, perhaps an attempt to
mimic the low-feedback design of the active stages, re­sults in a less capable regulator with much higher output
impedance. Some high-end designs will be dual-mono
right to the power cord. Other designers will use supply
rails for both channels derived from a single voltage reg­ulator.

Perhaps the greatest deviation in power-supply de­sign occurs in power amplifiers. Some amplifiers will
have complete regulation of all active elements, includ­ing the output stage. Holding the output-stage voltage
rails constant is counterproductive if a purely engineering
analysis is applied. A much more logical approach would
be to dynamically vary the power supply voltage to the
output stage so that the VBC (or VDS) of the device could
be held constant. This would linearize the output stage
and allow for the use of faster devices with lower

V

BCO

(or V

DS(max)

). Despite the technical quicksand that power
amplifiers with regulated output stages stand on, the
open-loop sonic descriptions have often been very favor­able.

Most power amplifiers do not have regulated out­put-stage supply rails, but some have regulated rails for
the voltage-gain stages. This approach improves distor­tion performance, reduces crosstalk if the power-amp
channels share the same power supply, and increases im­munity to power-line noise. The downside of regulating
the voltage-gain stages is a significant increase in com­plexity because the regulated voltage must be higher than
the unregulated voltage applied to the output stage if the
available output-voltage swing is not to be limited by the
regulated supply. This requires additional transformer
windings for the regulated power supply. Again, so­called "good-sounding" power amplifiers use no consis­tent power-supply design.

8. Exotic materials. Parts like 10 µF polypropylene

capacitors and Teflon boards are just a few of the strange
things that may be found in a high-end audio design. Oth­er weird stuff may include silver wire and very expensive
bulk metal resistors. These parts are justified on the claim
that they sound better, although some measured differ­ences have been reported [Curl and Jung 1985]. Many
designers impose the requirement on themselves that the
circuit must be flat to subsonic signals. Often these de­signers will not place electrolytic capacitors in the signal
path [Jung and Marsh 1980]. As a result, parts cost for
capacitors can become very high. Often a mix of electro­lytic and film capacitors is used to reduce cost. The elec­trolytics are typically in those places in the circuit that
would be most sensitive to capacitor nonlinearities, such

21

pdf 22

as feedback loops. It appears illogical to assume that film
capacitors in the less sensitive locations will improve the
sound of the circuit if the electrolytics do indeed affect
sound quality. One way around this is to eliminate
coupling capacitors altogether. The dc offset is reduced
with trim pots or active circuitry in the feedback path [B.
Clark 1982]. Sometimes circuits are claimed to be direct­coupled because capacitors have been removed in the
noncritical direct paths, but electrolytics are still found in
the sensitive feedback loops. Such designs have received
rave reviews from audio journalists whose ears are heavi­ly influenced by simplistic technical claims.

Is there a conclusion to be arrived at here?

The examination of the topologies of audio equip­ment said to "sound good" has shown little commonality
in the designs. Some designs use no feedback, others a

small amount, and yet others a large amount at low fre­quencies. Some designers include the output stage in the
feedback loop; others do not [Dalzell 1995]. Some de­signers use no capacitors in the signal path; others use
only expensive film caps, while still others use less ex­pensive electrolytics. Some designers use complex pow­er-supply regulators, while others use no regulation at all
in power amplifiers. Some designers will work mostly
with FETs; others use only bipolar devices. Some design­ers use fully complementary circuits, while others use
only single-ended circuits that are the latest vogue. Some
designers use ICs in the signal path or for voltage regula­tion; others only use discrete designs. Some designers
may even mix design styles within a given unit.

The random nature of the designs strongly suggests

that no "X factor" parameter is being optimized. Instead,
we can assume that the designer, using open-loop listen­ing tests, has convinced himself that the changes he is
making to the circuitry are affecting the sound. In this
process—design, listen open-loop, design—the circuit
designer has no checks and balances to guide him in his
work. Open-loop listening is to a very great extent sub-

ject to the biases of the listener, and a designer wanting

to prove that his new idea is better-sounding is clearly
biased. Controlled blind listening tests would show if a
sonic change were truly happening when a circuit change
was implemented, but designers are unhappy when a new
circuit idea is shown by such tests to be of no conse­quence. They thus try to dismiss the controlled test re­sults, instead of facing the reality that electronics exhibit­ing proper measurements are sonically transparent.

This can often work in reverse. A designer might
not use in his circuit an expensive component that would
result in a measurable change in the device's perfor­mance because he has convinced himself through open­loop listening tests that the better component produces no
sonic change. That is probably the reason why a lot of
very expensive high-end equipment uses inexpensive
D/A converters or digital interpolation filters. Consider-

ably less expensive mainstream components, often said
to sound less good in open-loop listening tests, use much
better-performing parts.

The results of the study of the circuits discussed

above confirm the results of controlled double-blind tests,

which have shown that no sonic differences exist in au­dio electronics that measure well. When double-blind lis­tening test are performed, random answers occur to the
question "Which component sounds better?". When cir­cuits that are claimed to "sound better" are analyzed, ran­dom design techniques are noted. Both analysis tech­niques, approaching the subject from opposite ends,
converge to the same conclusion: audio electronics that
measure properly will sound acoustically transparent. No
"X factor" exists. Designers are wasting their time devel­oping audio equipment using the "design, listen, design"
approach because they are not using controlled tech­niques in the "listen" part of the process. If controlled
techniques were used, the designers would discover that
audio design is no different form other electronic design.

It is done with a set of specifications, with paper and pen­cil, with computer analysis programs, and with laborato­ry measurements.

It should also be noted that audio—high-end audio
in particular—appears to be the only technological disci­pline suffering from the peculiar attitudinal syndrome
analyzed above. You will not find automotive engineers,
for example, claiming that one brand of spark plug (or
ignition wiring or distributor) with exactly the same spe­cifications and measured performance as another "feels
better" when driving, and certainly not that it makes the
car go faster!

We are faced with so many real problems in audio
design. It is time for the designers of audio electronics,
when they are not accomplishing anything, to recognize
it and move on to the solution of those real problems.

Goals for the audio designer.

In the final analysis, the designer of audio equip­ment should attempt to design the most transparent cir­cuit consistent with cost goals and reliability require­ments. Careful analysis of the literature and competitive
designs will help him in this goal, as will controlled lis­tening tests.

We believe that the design process can be relative­ly straightforward. Our recommendation is to design an
audio product in such a way that its measured perfor­mance exceeds the target specifications. In this case the
target specifications come from psychoacoustic studies of
human hearing. Value added can be achieved by bringing
out a significantly overdesigned product that well ex­ceeds specifications, offering enhanced build quality and
improved reliability. It is not the designer's job to worry
about the delirious condition of the consumer audio in­dustry. That should fall to the marketing department,
which must come up with a plan to sell a well-designed

22

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 23

product in a difficult market. In consumer audio the mar­keting department may have to work harder than the de­signer. That might be something of a first.

References:

Aczel, P. "Hip Boots: Wading through the Mire of
Misinformation in the Audio Press." The Audio Critic 15:
58-59; 16: 59-60; 17: 53-55; 19: 66-67; 20: 62-64; 21:
60-61; 22: 50-51.

Aczel, P. "The Wire and Cable Scene: Facts, Fic­tions, and Frauds." The Audio Critic 16: 51-57; 17: 50-52.

Baxandall, P. J. "A Technique for Displaying the
Current and Voltage Output Capability of Amplifiers and
Relating This to the Demands of Loudspeakers." Journal
of the Audio Engineering Society 36 (January/February

1988): 3-17.
Benjamin, E. "Effects of DAC Nonlinearity on Re-

production of Noise-Shaped Signals." 95th Convention
of the AES, New York (7-10 October 1993): Preprint

3778.
Borbely, E. "A Multi-Tone Intermodulation Me-

ter." (Parts I, II, and III; Part III titled "Measuring Non­linear Distortions.") The Audio Amateur 20.2 (April

1989): 7-15; 20.3 (August 1989): 13-29; 21.3 (August

1990): 8-25.
Burr-Brown IC Data Book. Vol. 33c. OPA2604.

Burr-Brown Research Corp., 1992: page 2.221.

Cherry, E. M. "Feedback, Sensitivity, and Stability

of Audio Power Amplifiers." Journal of the Audio Engi-
neering Society 30 (May 1982): 282-94; 31 (November

1983): 854-57.
Cherry, E. M. and K. P. Dabke. "Transient Inter-

modulation Distortion—Part 2: Soft Nonlinearity." Jour-
nal of the Audio Engineering Society 34 (January/
February 1986): 19-35.

Clark, B. "DC Servo Loop Design for Audio Amp-

lifiers." The Audio Amateur 13 (August 1982): 14.

Clark, D. "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Us-

ing a Double-Blind Comparitor." Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society 30 (May 1982): 330-38.

Cordell, R. R. "Another View of TIM." (Parts I and

II.) Audio 64.2 (February 1980): 38-49; 64.3 (March

1980): 39-12.
Cordell, R. R. "Phase Intermodulation Distortion

Instrumentation and Measurements." Journal of the Au-
dio Engineering Society 31 (March 1983): 114-24.

Cordell, R. R. "A MOSFET Power Amplifier with

Error Correction." Journal of the Audio Engineering So-
ciety 32 (January/February 1984): 2-17.

Curl, J. and W. Jung. "A Real Time Signal Test for

Capacitor Quality." The Audio Amateur 16.4 (October

1985).
Dalzell, L. "On Amplifiers and Feedback." The

Audio Amateur 26.1 (January 1995): 20-25.

DiStefano, J., A. Stubberud, and I. Williams. Feed-

back and Control Systems. 2nd ed. Schaums's Outline

Series, McGraw-Hill, 1990: 221.

Eargle, J. JBL Consumer Products. Private Conver-

sation, 1995.

Fielder, L. D. "Human Auditory Capabilities and

Their Consequences in Digital Audio Converter Design."

The Proceedings of the AES 7th International Confer­ence: Audio in Digital Times (May 1989): 45-62.

Fincham, L. R. "The Subjective Importance of Uni­form Group Delay at Low Frequencies." Journal of the
Audio Engineering Society 33 (June 1985): 436-39.

Harley, R. "As We See It." Stereophile 13.10 (Oc­tober 1990): 5-11.

Harley, R. "The Role of Critical Listening in Eval­uating Audio Equipment Quality." 91st Convention of
the AES, New York, NY (4-8 October 1991): Preprint
3176, p. 4, 1st paragraph and footnote 1.

Harley, R. "Follow-Up: Boulder 500AE Power
Amplifier." Stereophile 15.4 (April 1992): 244-46.

Harley, R. "The Analog Compact Disc." Stereo-

phile 17.12 (December 1994): 84-95.

Jensen, D. "JE-990 Discrete Operational Amp­lifier." Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 28 (Jan­uary/February 1980): 26-34.

Jung, W. G. Audio IC Op-Amp Applications. 3rd
ed. Howard W. Sams, 1986.

Jung, W. G. "Op Amp Meets CD ." The Audio Am-

ateur 17.3 (August 1986): 7.

Jung, W. G. "The Magnavox 16-Bit Series: Mak­ing Good Players Better." Audio 71.6 (June 1987): 75-80.

Jung, W. G. "Regulators for High-Performance Au-

dio, Part 1." The Audio Amateur 26.1 (January 1995): 8.

Jung, W. G. and R. N. Marsh. "Picking Capaci-

tors." Audio 64.2-3 (February and March 1980).

King, B. H. Equipment review of the Jadis amp-

lifier. The Absolute Sound 41 (Spring 1986).

Leach, W. M. "An Amplifier Input Stage Design

Criterion for the Suppression of Dynamic Distortions."
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 29 (April

1981): 249-51.
Lipshitz, S. P. Letter to the Editor. The Audio Crit-

ic 16 (Spring through Fall 1991): 6.

Moses, R. W. "Improved Signal Processing for

Compact Disc Audio Systems." MONTECH '87 Pro-

ceedings: Conference on Communications (9-11 Novem­ber 1987): 203-11.

Olive, S. "Separating Fact from Fiction through

Listening Tests." Proceedings of the DSPX '95 Technical

Program, San Jose, CA (15-18 May 1995): 454-63.

Otala, M. "Transient Distortion in Transistorized

Audio Power Amplifiers." IEEE Transactions on Audio
and Electroacoustics AU-18 (September 1970): 234-39.

Otala, M. and P. Huttunen. "Peak Current Require-

ment of Commercial Loudspeaker Systems." Journal of
the Audio Engineering Society 35 (June 1987): 455-62.

Rich, D. A. "The Present State of CD Player Technol-

(continued on page 41)

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997 23

pdf 24

An Assortment of

Conceptually Original

Loudspeaker Systems

By Peter Aczel

Editor and Publisher

There are me-too speakers and there are me-different speakers.

Both kinds can be good, but the best performers are usually a little
more creative in concept than the plain-vanilla designs. As follows.

I have touched upon this before, but it needs to be

repeated frequently—that no loudspeaker system, no

matter how brilliantly designed, can be better than the

theoretical model of the ideal electroacoustic transducer

it tries to emulate, and that there is more than one such
theoretical model. The arguments about point source vs.
line source, monopole vs. dipole vs. bipole, wide disper­sion vs. controlled narrow dispersion, flat frequency re­sponse vs. flat power response, minimizing reflections vs.
deliberately introducing reflections, etc., etc., are endless
and still unresolved. Thus, the world's most perfectly ex­ecuted point-source speaker may not be as good as a
slightly flawed but basically well-designed line-source
speaker—if indeed the line-source concept is inherently
superior, which it may or may not be. And that's just one
example.

Then there are other considerations, such as the

speaker's dynamic capability and distortion characteris-

tics, which may or may not be in conflict with the choice

of the ideal wave-launch model. Also, as I have pointed
out several times in the past, testing the speaker's perfor­mance is not nearly as cut-and-dried as measuring an
amplifier or a CD player. The latter have one input and
one output per channel. A speaker has one input but an
infinity of outputs. Which of these outputs do you com­pare with the input to test the speaker's accuracy? And
even if the answer is, "As many of them as possible,"
how many are enough? Needless to say, the best minds
in audio have sensible, practical answers, choices, and
recommendations with respect to these various dilem­mas, but there is certainly no such thing as the one design
that satisfies all criteria of perfection. The best one can
say about a loudspeaker design is that it is based on a
highly credible concept and that the engineering imple­mentation of the concept has total integrity. Are there

such speakers? Not many, and they aren't cheap.

It should also be pointed out, to head off any kind

of apples-versus-oranges controversy, that in stereo play­back the apparent size of the soundstage at a given listen­ing distance depends on the wave-launch geometry. A
tall planar or line-source speaker puts the listener in the
farfield even when he sits fairly close. A point-source

speaker needs some distance to allow the spherical wave
front to expand to quasi-planar farfield proportions. Thus
there will be considerable differences in soundstage per­ception at typical listening locations in typical rooms.

Such differences should in nearly all cases be attributed
to the wave-launch geometry rather than the crossover
configuration or the presence/absence of "time align­ment" or any other design feature.

Hsu Research HRSW12V

(Part II)

Hsu Research, 14946 Shoemaker Avenue, Unit L, Santa Fe
Springs, CA 90670. Voice/Fax: [phone]. HRSW12V
powered subwoofer, $850.00 each (factory-direct, including
shipping/handling). Tested sample on loan from manufacturer.

This was an unfinished review in Issue No. 23.
Meanwhile (yes, I know, it's a long meanwhile between
issues) the improved Model HRSW12Va is supposed to
be almost ready to ship, and we have been promised an
early sample. The 12V is still the current model of this
outstanding powered subwoofer as I am writing this but
on its way out. The coming improvements are said to in-

clude an even more advanced 12-inch driver and two

large ducted ports instead of one, with flares terminating

the ducts (to eliminate port-noise complaint—sorry Mr.
Roth).

My measurements of the 12V yielded excellent re­sults, as expected. The small-signal frequency response
of the system, with the dedicated outboard amplifier in

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997 25

pdf 25

the loop, is dead flat (±1 dB or better) down to 20 Hz and

3 dB at about 17 Hz. The contribution of the equalized

amplifier to this response is an 8.5 dB boost at 20 Hz.
The amplifier is designed to deliver 150 watts into the

3.2Ω driver and is rather low in distortion: 83 dB
(0.007%) just before the onset of clipping at 20 Hz, the

maximumgain frequency.

The acoustical distortion of the 12V is also quite
low. I measured THD + N in the nearfield, placing the
microphone in the floorloaded space right under the
speaker, at 1meter floorplane SPLs of 90, 96, and 100
dB. The lowest distortion was around 60 Hz (0.2% to

0.3% at all levels) and the highest around 24 Hz (1.4%,

2.3%, and 3.7% at the three rising levels). At 100 dB the
20 Hz distortion was 2.5%. I am fully aware that a slight­ly different methodology would have yielded slightly dif­ferent results, but these figures show the general trend.

It is a reasonable expectation that the 12Va will be
even better, but the 12V is certainly an outstandingly fine
sub woofer, fully competitive with costlier highend units.
I have the greatest respect for Dr. Poh Ser Hsu, both as a
resourceful technologist and as an audio manufacturer of
integrity. He wouldn't know how to be a tweako/mystico
highend sleazoid if you held a gun to his head. Trust

him to give you the best possible bass in the simplest and

most costeffective package. Just make sure you have the

space—even his smaller subwoofers are pretty big.

[Flash! Long after the above was written and

shortly before this unconscionably delayed issue was

ready to go to press, the 12Va arrived. It is indeed slight­ly better in every respect, including the amplifier, but still

basically the same design, exactly as that lowercase a in­dicates. If you already have a 12V, don't consider your­self deprived, especially since the price has also gone up
with the performance. Followup in the next issue.]

JosephAudio RM7si

JosephAudio, 2 Pineridge Road, White Plains, NY 10603. Voice:
(800) 4744434. Fax: (212) 7242509. Model RM7si 2way
minimonitor loudspeaker system, $1299.00 the pair (rosewood

finish $200.00 extra). Tested samples on loan from manufacturer.

The "Infinite Slope" technology is back. Remem­ber the JSE speakers from the mid1980s? They were
based on the same crossover design, conceived and pat­ented by Richard Modafferi, our recently recruited RF
consultant. (Yes, he knows filter theory like the back of
his hand. Yes, this is a serious engineering concept, not a
marketing gimmick.) For reasons that had nothing to do
with the inherent merit of the design, JSE went out of
business. Now JosephAudio (headed by Jeff Joseph) has
taken on the cause and is determined to put the Infinite
Slope crossover back on the map again. With Rich Mod­afferi's help, the company has developed new and signif-

icantly improved models, of which this one represents
the bottom of the line.

The Joseph RM7si consists of a bookshelfsize (15
by 9 by 11 inches deep) vented box, a 1inch silkdome
tweeter, a 6½inch woofer with fiberglass cone and
"phase plug," and the Infinite Slope network. See David

Rich's sidebar for an explanation of how the crossover

works. Here I shall restrict myself to the performance of

the speaker.

My alleged curmudgeonly inclinations notwith­standing, I am always happy to come across an audio de­vice that performs in every way as represented by its

makers, and this is one of them. The RM7si may be a bit
pricey for a small speaker with OEM drivers, but the
sophisticated filter technology it incorporates probably

justifies that, and the sound it produces is truly excellent.

I cannot think of any comparably small speakers in my
recent, and even not so recent, experience that pleased
me as much.

The quasianechoic (MLS) frequency response of

the speaker, taken at 1 meter, shows basically flat charac­teristics (±1.5 dB) for both woofer and tweeter, except
that the woofer appears to be set 2 or 3 dB higher than
the tweeter. I couldn't tell for sure whether this was de­liberate "voicing" or some sort of step in the response of
the 6V2inch driver itself. The Vifa silkdome tweeter
(also used in a number of ultrahighpriced speakers) re­mains dead flat right out to 20 kHz. The crossover fre-

quency is approximately 2 kHz. The filter skirts are very

steep indeed but not "infinite"—42 dB per octave was the
steepest I could read with an admittedly crude electro

acoustic nearfield measurement. The vented box is tuned
to 41 Hz, and the maximum output from the ducted port
is at 52 Hz. The summed response of woofer and port is
dead flat (±0.25 dB) down to 55 Hz and 3 dB at 43 Hz.
There is still useful output (12 dB) at 33 Hz This is very
respectable bass response for a 6½inch driver in a box
of this size. The box itself is very solidly built and ap­pears to be quite dead when knucklerapped.

The impedance curve of the RM7si is unusually
flat in magnitude above the boxinfluenced frequencies,
varying only from 7Ω to 12Ω in the entire audio range;
the phase variations are also small, with ±20° the biggest
swings above the tunedbox range. I bet Rich Modafferi
did that on purpose, to allow you to use just about any
half decent amplifier to drive the speaker. (In fact, David
Rich connected our test samples to his bargainbasement
Pioneer SX203 receiver—which he reviews in this is­sue—and obtained the same audible results as he did
with his bigbucks amplification system.)

I took distortion readings only on the woofer, since
I know from previous experience that the Vifa silkdome
tweeter has entirely negligible distortion in the range
used here. Over its midrange band, namely 200 Hz and
above, the woofer stays in the 0.2% to 0.35% THD range
at 1meter SPL's of 90 to 95 dB (I generally don't mea

26

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 26

What Exactly Is an "Infinite Slope" Crossover?

It is time for our lesson in net­work theory. Today's talk is on poles
and zeros. I am not going to tax your
understanding with complex transfer

functions in the s-plane and stuff like
that. I'll just treat poles and zeros as

system elements that cause declines
and rises in frequency response. As
you recall from last time, a simple

pole will cause a rolloff at 6 dB per
octave, and the signal will be down 3
dB at the pole frequency. You will

also recall that a complex pole pair

has a pole frequency and a Q. The Q
tells us the damping in the system.
No damping and the system oscil-

lates. Now the frequency response of
a complex pole pair rolls off at 12 dB

per octave, just like two simple
poles, but its action around the pole
frequency is very dependent on Q.
For a Q of 0.5 the response is just

like two simple poles of the same fre­quency. For a Q of 0.7 the response
is down 3 dB at the pole frequency,
and no peaking occurs. Beyond a Q

of 0.7 we get peaking. For high Q's

we can get very large peaking.

Now, in today's lesson we learn
about zeros. Zeros are the opposite of

poles. A zero that is not located at 0

or °° is called a finite zero. A simple
zero rises at 6 dB per octave and is

up 3 dB at the zero frequency. Com­plex zeros rise at 12 dB per octave,

with the response around the zero

frequency again determined by the

Q. Just as in the case of a complex

pole, Q = 0.5 when the response is
like two simple zeros of the same fre-

quency. For a high Q we get a dip at
the zero frequency, the opposite of

the peak we had with the poles. If the

Q is infinite, the dip goes to a null

point where no signal gets through.
Infinite-Q zeros are still stable and

usable, unlike poles. (Remember
that, because it will be on the final
and lots of people are going to get
that question wrong.)

A simple highpass circuit has all
its zeros at 0. That's why the re­sponse starts rising from dc. When

By David A. Rich, Ph.D.

Contributing Technical Editor

the frequency exceeds the pole fre­quency, the response flattens out as
the falling response of the poles can­cels the rising response of the zeros.
A simple bandpass circuit has half its
zeros at 0. The response starts rising
from dc. Since twice as many poles
will be crossed as the number of ze­ros we started with, the response
starts falling at the same rate at
which it was rising once the incom­ing frequency exceeds the pole fre­quencies.

As you recall from a pervious
class, we can place poles to give us
sharp filter responses, using a variety
of pole placement methods. Bessel
gives good time response, Butter­worth is the flattest response you can
have, and Chebyshev has a sharp
transition band but at the cost of
passband ripple. But what happens if
we add zeros to the mix? In a low­pass filter, if we add a pair of imagi­nary (infinite-Q) zeros above but near
the transition band, then the transi­tion band will be very steep as the
signal falls into the infinite dip
caused by the zeros. Since the zeros
will increase signal level past their
zero frequency, the price to be payed
for using the zeros is that the stop­band will not roll off as steeply. In­deed, if the number of finite zeros
equals the number of poles, the re­sponse will flatten out after the tran­sition band. But if we are down 40
dB or 60 dB, does it really matter
that we will go no lower?

Using finite zeros in filters is not
a new idea. It was developed many
years ago at Bell Labs. Every tele­phone call you make goes through
filters that have finite zeros. So why
do we not use zeros in crossover de­signs? Well, you recall from that
long homework assignment I gave
last week that the synthesis of pas­sive filters is much more difficult
than active-filter synthesis. Adding
finite zeros makes the passive synthe­sis problem even harder. In another
long homework I gave you, I re-

quired you to match a highpass and
lowpass filter so they summed to flat
frequency response. Remember all
the trouble you had figuring how to
stagger the highpass and lowpass sec­tions? Think how hard that would be
if we added finite zeros to the mix!
Also, you will all recall from my lec­ture on sensitivity that component
variations will change the filter's re­sponse, causing all sorts of ripples,
and the addition of finite zeros will
make this worse. [Hey, Dave, what if

the guy reading this is not an under­graduate E.E. student type but a
salesman in a cream-colored poly­ester suit trying close a sale on a
JosephAudio speaker?—Ed.] And

since the transition band is steeper
when we add in finite zeros, the time­domain response is going to be worse
also.

Well, if you have a very good
understanding of network theory,
have a good knowledge of computer
optimization and are very clever, you
can use finite zeros in a passive
crossover network. Of course, the
aforesaid job requirements are not
going to be met by your typical loud­speaker-company designer. It took
someone called Richard Modafferi to
figure out how to make a practical
crossover network with finite zeros.
The method of synthesis is so clever
(it uses a transformer, among other
things) and elegant that it is patented,
and Rich derives an income from the
royalties. Now, the slope of the Mod­afferi crossover is not "infinite" but it
goes down real fast. It comes back up
real fast too, but the marketing de­partment never reports the response
that far out, so most people assume
that the response drops to infinity and
stays there forever. Never mind the
marketing mentality; despite the
hype and the fudging of the curves,
this is a major advance in crossover
design. I will discuss how to deal
with marketing people in your design
class. Time's up; class dismissed;
let's go listen to some loudspeakers.

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

27

pdf 27

sure at unbearably high sound pressure levels). Below
200 Hz the THD climbs rapidly but is still in the 0.25%
to 1.4% range at 90 to 95 dB, right down to 57 Hz, at
which point it shoots upward and passes the 10% mark at

40 Hz. Again, this is quite respectable (and then some)

for a bookshelf-size unit. If you were to cross the RM7si
over to a subwoofer, I would suggest a crossover fre­quency of 80 to 90 Hz, where the speaker is still very flat
and the THD is low.

The audible outcome of all these good design char­acteristics is very favorable; the speaker has a basically
neutral tonality, with very smooth highs, a thoroughly
transparent midrange, and a surprisingly solid, satisfying
bottom end. The soundstage is open and plausible; the
imaging is all it should be. The total noninterference of
the two "brick-walled" drivers is clearly an advantage,
with no negative aspects that I can discern. (All you first­order crossover cultists take note—maybe you've got it
all wrong, huh?) The totally low-end-protected tweeter
can be played louder, and the absence of interference pat-

terns in the crossover region appears to remove a layer of

veiling that I often hear in speakers with lower-order

crossovers. So—what we have here is indisputable high­end loudspeaker sound in a compact package, at a price

still well below the loony category. Only the deepest bass

is missing, but you know that coming in, just by looking
at the size of the box. The Joseph Audio RM7si is there­fore highly recommended.

Newform Research R8-1-30

Newform Research Inc., P.O. Box 475, Midland, Ont., Canada
L4R 4L3. Voice: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. Model
R8-1 floorstanding 2-way loudspeaker system with R30 ribbon,
$2095.00 the pair (list price) or $1236 the pair (delivered di­rect from factory). Tested samples on loan from manufacturer.

The concept implemented by this ribbon-based
loudspeaker system is the monopole line source. Designer
John Meyer has developed 8-inch and 15-inch ribbon
modules consisting of a very narrow (0.75-inch) film dia­phragm, tightly suspended in a magnet structure and
blocked in the rear. The modules are mounted end to end
to form upper-midrange/treble drivers of different dimen­sions. The model reviewed here incorporates two 15-inch
modules forming a 30-inch ribbon, mounted as a free­standing pole on top of an enclosure housing an 8-inch
woofer and a ducted port made of granite. The crossover
is at approximately 1 kHz. The highpass filter appears to
have a slope of 18 dB per octave, the lowpass 12 dB per
octave (these being the combined results of the electrical
and acoustical components of the crossover).

John Meyer claims "the deepest and most focused
soundstage in the business," as well as "openness, trans­parency, smooth frequency response and wide band-

width," for the Newform ribbons. I can confirm that the
soundstage is as precisely defined and the overall sonic

presentation as open and transparent as any audiophile

could possibly wish for. The tall, narrow wave-launch

source works as it is supposed to. Furthermore, the bass
reproduction is remarkably good for a vented box using
only a single 8-inch driver. And, let's not forget, the
price is right. Then why am I not happy?

On every sizable dynamic peak involving the treble
range, the speaker turns harsh, edgy, nasty—and my ears
go ouch. It is not a subtle, debatable effect but an obvious
characteristic that will bother some listeners more than
others. It will probably be tamed to some extent by a
very dead room with minimal reflections at the higher
frequencies; my listening room is not as dead as all that,
although quite a bit deader than typical contemporary liv­ing rooms and family rooms. For my own use, this fault
disqualifies the speaker, even though its many virtues
made me initially root for it. It is a fault, however, that
not every audiophile appears to be sensitive to.

My quasi-anechoic (MLS) measurements of fre­quency response were taken at a distance of 2 meters,
since the speaker is too tall and spread-out for the stan­dard 1-meter setup. The overall response is indeed
smooth, as claimed, but not flat. There is a preponder­ance of energy in the two octaves between 1 kHz and 4
kHz, almost regardless of how high or low the calibrated
microphone is aimed. This could very well account for

the aggressive edge on dynamic peaks. From 4 kHz to 20

kHz, the response is reasonably flat, with a slight down­ward trend that flattens out in the top octave (10 kHz to

20 kHz). The ripples in the response shift around consid­erably as the height of the microphone is varied. (A point

source is certainly easier to measure.) On the other hand,

at 30° off axis horizontally, the response is barely differ­ent from one at the same height on axis, thanks to the
narrow line source. The theory is confirmed.

Bass response was measured with the nearfield
method. The summed output of woofer and vent is flat
within better than ±1 dB down to approximately 40 Hz;
the -3 dB point (f3) is at 33 Hz. You can't do better than
that with an 8-inch driver in a box of acceptable size and
still have adequate efficiency left. The tuning of the vent­ed box appears to be somewhat unconventional, as there
is no clear null in the output of the driver (only a clear
peak output from the vent at approximately f3), and the
bass rolloff slope is only 12 dB per octave. Today's bass
alignment software offers more possibilities than I can
sort out.

Distortion measurements (THD + N versus frequen­cy) were taken right off the woofer cone and the ribbon,
with 1-meter SPL readings normalized to 200 Hz and 2
kHz, respectively. The woofer at approximately 90 dB
and 94 dB varied very little in distortion, which was nev­er lower than 0.25% nor higher than 1% down to about

80 Hz. Below that the distortion rose rapidly, as it does in

28

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 28

nearly all conventional designs. At 30 Hz, it reached the
4% to 5% area, which is normal. The ribbon also drew
rather similar curves at 90 dB and 94 dB, but these were
much more like a roller coaster. Above 8 kHz the curves
shot skyward, reaching 3% at 10 kHz and still climbing.
Minimum distortion at the levels tested was in the 3 kHz
to 8 kHz band, where it remained between 0.25% and

0.8%. At approximately 2 kHz there was a big distortion

peak, 2.3% at 90 dB and 4% at 94 dB. (A further con-

firmation of the "ouch" experience?) In the crossover re­gion the distortion dropped to about 0.7%. All in all,
these figures are not as good as can be obtained with the
best conventional speakers.

I also detected some ringing at 3.5 kHz as I ex­plored the ribbon with tone bursts. Nothing dramatic but
quite noticeable and well within the "ouch" range. Of
course, that kind of correlation doesn't prove cause and
effect, but then I'm only a reviewer, not the R&D man

for Newform.

As for impedance, the magnitude swings between 6

ohms and 30 ohms (the latter only at the crossover), the

phase between 30° and +45°. That's not exactly like a

resistor, but it's a load that doesn't require a highcurrent
amplifier, only a reasonably stable one.

Can I recommend this loudspeaker system? Only if
you value soundstaging, focus, and transparency over
easeful dynamics, sweet tonality, and low fatigue. If
that's where your head is at, the Newform Research
R8130 is very good value. To me, as I said, its short­comings outweigh its virtues.

Signet SL256

Signet, 25 Esna Park Drive, Markham, Ont., Canada L3R 1C9.

Voice: (905) 4749129. Fax: (905) 4749812. SL256 compact
2way loudspeaker system, $360.00 the pair. Tested samples on
loan from manufacturer.

I am always looking for lowpriced speakers of
credible design and respectable performance, but they are
hard to find. To the best of my recollection, I have never
reviewed any speakers as low in price as the Signet

SL256 from Canada, not even back in the relatively unin

flated 1970s. I thought I'd give the SL256 a try because it

appeared to duplicate all the basic design features of
higherpriced compact speakers. Such a speaker is made
possible today by the availability of good massproduced

OEM drivers.

The trouble is that I have the highend speaker

sound in my ear at all times and find it difficult to think
in terms of perdollar sonic quality. The SL256 sounds
quite decent as far as tonality is concerned; it is never

harsh or overbright or otherwise unpleasant; the music

sounds like real music; but there is a hollow, congested,

boxy quality, not very obtrusive but present on all pro-

gram material, that says "cheap speaker." Is that par for
the course at $180 per side? I really don't know.

The speaker consists a 6½inch polypropylene
cone driver and a inch softdome ferrofluidcooled
tweeter in a small vented box (ducted port in the rear).
The crossover is at 3 kHz. Thus all of the fundamental
tones of music are assigned to that one 6V2inch diver,
and only the overtones are handled by the tweeter—not
exactly a recipe for perfectly balanced, uncolored repro-

duction. No cone driver can cover six octaves with equal

quality. The frequency response of the SL256 is quite

rough; the 1meter quasianechoic (MLS) measurement
cannot be interpreted, even with the greatest goodwill, as

better than ±4 dB up to 20 kHz. There is a wide, ragged

dip from 1.3 kHz to 6.4 kHz, about 5 dB at its deepest,

which may be "voicing" to prevent edginess. The vented

box is tuned to about 54 Hz, and the bass response starts
rolling off in earnest at around 45 Hz. I measured distor-

tion only at a 1meter SPL of 90 dB, where it remains be-

low 0.5% down to 140 Hz, at some frequencies even
quite a bit lower than that, but rises rapidly in the bass.
The impedance curve is a roller coaster: 4.6Ω to 55Ω (at
the crossover) in magnitude and 55° to +55° in phase.

I can't work up too much enthusiasm for this de­sign; on the other hand, I must admit that the speaker is
very attractively priced considering the fairly decent driv­er complement, the solidly built cabinet (surprisingly
dead in response to knuckle rapping), and little quality
touches such as felt padding around the tweeter. I sup­pose this is what you can expect to get for your money
from a good speaker company.

Sunfire "True Subwoofer"

Sunfire Corporation, 5210 Bickford Avenue, Snohomish, WA
98290 or P.O. Box 1589, Snohomish, WA 982911589. Voice:
(206) 3354748. Fax: (206) 3354746. "True Subwoofer"
2700watt powered subwoofer, $1250.00 each. Tested samples
on loan from manufacturer.

When Bob Carver enters the arena in a product cat­egory entirely new to him, you can be sure of something
highly original and creative. He would rather die than
come out with a metoo audio component. It should be
no surprise, therefore, that the Sunfire "True Subwoofer"
is a tour de force. I don't think anyone else in the audio
community could have designed it. Certainly none of the
tweako lightweights who gather at every highend event
and act as if their mutual admiration society were conver­sant with a higher truth than the Bob Carvers of this
world could possibly fathom.

I don't want to create the impression that I believe
this is the best subwoofer of all time. Far from it. It is

merely the smallest, by far, as well as the most ingenious,

by far, of all the subwoofers in existence that deserve

audiophile consideration. Now you can have highSPL

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

29

pdf 29

Inside the Sunfire "True Subwoofer"

By David A. Rich, Ph.D.

Contributing Technical Editor

In Bob Carver's original concept
for this subwoofer, he was going to
supply the amplifier power necessary
to make an 0.8-cubic-foot speaker—
outside dimensions, not volume!—

produce 20 Hz at high SPL. The
problem was that the amount of pow­er required could not be dissipated in

the voice coil. In a typical driver,

99% or more of the power is dissipat­ed as heat; only 1 % is transformed to
acoustic energy. Greatly increased
power means too much heat to be dis­sipated in a limited space; it cannot
be dealt with. The efficiency of the
driver had to be increased. But how?

The 10-inch driver was as big as
one could get in the box. Bob was al­ready using a passive radiator to im­prove the efficiency, and increasing
the box size was not negotiable.
What he discovered was that if he
used a really huge magnet he could
increase the woofer's efficiency, but
there was a price. The large field in­creased the back EMF (the voltage
that results as the voice coil cuts the
magnetic flux in the gap of the mag­net). All loudspeakers have back
EMF, but the giant magnet made for
a very large value. The back EMF
voltage is 90° out of phase with the
current flowing through the voice
coil. That means no power is dissi­pated at the loudspeaker. At the pow­er amp it is another mater. The volt­age difference between the power­supply rail and the speaker-terminal
voltage, multiplied by the current be­ing sent to the loudspeaker—that is
the power that must be dissipated by
the amplifier's heat sink. For this rea­son, an amplifier gets hotter when
driving reactive loads than when
driving a pure resistance. With a
purely resistive load the big current

flow occurs when the output voltage
is high and the drop across the pow­er-amplifier output device is low.
With reactive loads you can get high
current and high voltage across the
output devices at the same time. Be­cause of this problem, back EMF is
limited in typical production loud­speakers in a tradeoff against
efficiency. Just like your power com­pany, power amp designers do not
like driving loads with bad power
factors.

But Bob Carver had the solution
to the power-supply dissipation prob­lem: use a tracking power supply and
keep the voltage across the output de­vices low. The same technology al­lows him to build a power amplifier
with very large voltage swings. Even
though the amplifier can drive the
load to very large voltages, the out-

put devices never see that voltage be-

cause the power supply tracks the
output. So Bob had what he need­ed—a woofer that was efficient but

one that required a very high work-

ing voltage, plus a power amplifier to

create the voltage. Most of the volt-

age was dropped across the lossless
back EMF, but it had to be sourced
by the power amp. And Bob had just
the power amp to do the job.

The electronics of this unit are
very complex. The first thing to un-

derstand is that the amplifier is line­powered, yielding rail voltages of

165 V. The input signal circuitry
must be isolated from the line. A dig-

ital optocoupler does this. Driving a
digital optocoupler with an analog

signal results in distortion. The fixed
single-pole highpass filter at the Hi-

Pass Out jack of the subwoofer is un-

buffered. The input impedance of the
satellite power amp will move the

pole. This highpass filter is all but
useless. The lowpass filter is a sixth­order design. The filter passband is
varied by changing one component in
one section of the filter. As a result,
the effective width of the transition
band changes with the cutoff fre­quency. It would take a six-gang po­tentiometer to move all the poles at
the same time and keep the transfer
curve constant. A phase-shift circuit
with trim pot is also in the signal
path, and so is a second-order sub­sonic filter. A sharper highpass filter
than the latter, with a 29 Hz cutoff,
can be evoked by activating the THX
switch. This would be nice for small­er rooms, but the THX mode also
boosts the bass before the cut occurs.

A master protection circuit con­sisting of eight op-amps and fifty
passive components monitors over­shoot, clipping, excess low frequen­cies (what the subsonic filter failed to
attenuate sufficiently), thermal run­away, and excessive excursions. The

power amplifier itself is essentially
similar to the Sunfire power amp.
The supply rails are higher but cur­rent-sinking capability is lower (we
know the load we are driving). Three
parallel MOSFETs on each down­converter drive a pair of output de­vices per side. The amplifier itself is
as simple as it gets—Pioneer SX-203
simple. A single differential pair has
a resistive load and a resistive current
source. The second gain stage is
loaded by a bootstrapped resistor.
This is a circuit that brings back
memories of the '60s amplifiers, in­cluding the original Phase Linear
amplifier. This circuit trick allows
the second-stage output to move
above the supply rail, so the output
stage can be driven with more cur-

bass all the way down to below 20 Hz, the kind you wish
you had the space for, out of an 11-inch cube, complete
with electronics. That's 11 inches, i.e., 28 centimeters, in
all three dimensions, plus a little bulge on two sides
where the active and passive radiators are. Amplifier in­cluded; all controls and terminals on a third side. Now

30

then, tweaks, could Dave Wilson have done that? Could
Arnie Nudell? Yeah, sure.

How did Bob do it? That's a long story. He tells it
in an elaborate "white paper," obtainable for the asking
from Sunfire Corporation The paper, which I have so far
seen only in its 13-page draft version, is full of math

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 30

rent on positive excursions. Modern
amplifiers use active pullups. The
output of the second gain stage
drives one set of predrivers, which
then drives the output stage. No go­fast circuit is present in this imple­mentation, since the input is bandlim­ited to 100 Hz by the sixth-order low­pass filter. (That's why Bob gives us
such steep slopes.) Low distortion is
not the long suit of this amplifier de­sign.

The Sunfire amplifier is perfect,
however, for this application. No RFI
(radio frequency interference) prob­lems from the switching regulators in
the downconverters occur because
the speaker signal never gets out of
the box. One should note that a class
D amplifier would also work well in
this application (the tracking down­converters connected directly to the
load) because of the bandlimited na­ture of the subwoofer signal. Con­struction quality of the system is
nice. The boards are double-sided
and filled with reliable if not excep­tional components. For example, the
op-amp in the signal path is the Mot­orola quad MC34004. The signal
goes through 11 stages of the
MC34004 before it gets to the amp.
The build quality of the electronics is
closer to high-end US stuff than Far
East mass-market items.

The sixth-order filter in this sub-

woofer actually gives you a chance

to blend its output with that of a port­ed woofer in the main speaker. A
hole or peak will occur in the transi-

tion band, but it will be narrow and,

since room response is far from flat
below 100 Hz, probable not notice-

able. This works especially well if

the main speaker has some bass ex­tension. Minimonitors are more prob-

lematic because the crossover must

occur at a higher frequency. Sealed

systems present a bit of a problem.

They need to be highpass filtered. As

stated above, the Sunfire fixed filter

is pretty useless for this. You can do

a roll-your-own 6 dB per octave filter
between the preamp and power amp
if you know your power amp's input
impedance, but you may need a high­er-order crossover. If this sounds like
you are being asked to become a
speaker designer, you are correct.

Let's get back to the case of a
full-range ported speaker. I would
recommend the following procedure.
You will need a test CD with low­frequency warble tones. I used the
Stereophile disc. (Why do I hear
screams from the Editor?) You will
also need a sound-level meter. The
cheap Radio Shack unit is just fine.

Step 1. Disconnect the subwoof­er and run the main speaker with a
tone in its passband (80-100 Hz).
Measure the level.

Step 2. Disconnect the main
speaker and reconnect the subwoofer.
Set the subwoofer to its highest
crossover frequency. Set the level
control of the subwoofer to give the
same sound pressure level with same
tone you used in Step 1.

Step 3. With both the subwoofer
and the main speaker connected,
measure the level of the tones at the
available frequencies. Because the
crossover is set too high, you will
have a peaked response. Adjust the
crossover control to get the smooth­est response.

Step 4. Use the phase control to
make the response even smother. It
has its biggest effect at the crossover
frequency. You can iterate between
the crossover and phase controls.
Keep your hands off the level con­trol ! It was set correctly in Step 2.

Step 5. Listen to the subwoofer.
Resist all temptations to turn up the
level control. Play something with
really deep bass to confirm that your
subwoofer is working. On normal re­cordings you will have very little
coming out of the subwoofer—an oc­casional double-bass growl or a deep
percussion instrument. These little
outputs do count because the overall

foundation of the orchestra is brought
up in level. It is a small but percepti­ble difference. Is it a $1250 differ­ence? That is something for you to
decide. [Dave, are you aware that

people buy subwoofers to hear the

low frequencies in Jurassic Park, not
in Bruckner?—Ed.]

The Sunfire True Subwoofer is
small enough for anyone to add a
subwoofer to any room. That is a ma-

jor advance in the state of the art of

such designs. Many (including me)
who do not have listening rooms
large enough to allow a normal sub­woofer with 20 Hz response to be
brought into the room—whether the
room will support such a frequency
is a separate issue—will find the
Sunfire True Subwoofer makes this

possible for the first time. I obtained

good results matching it to a pair of
Sound Lab Quantums (electrostatic

panels with dynamic woofers). Less

good results were had with the Moni­tor Audio Studio 6 minimonitors be­cause of the higher crossover fre-

quency. Minimonitors really need a

dedicated crossover design if the bass
quality is to be unaffected when
matched to a subwoofer. For some,
the addition of two octaves of bass
will be worth the coloration of the
midbass, but having the cellos mud­died up to hear the basses better is
not a trade I would make.

One bad feature for apartment
dwellers is that the asymmetry of the
two drivers causes a lot of floor
shake. A good feature is that the
amplifier will shut down when signal
level drops below a certain low val­ue. Because of the effect of the
equal-loudness contours you are not
going to hear the subwoofer at low
levels, but people in adjacent rooms
may well hear it, so it is nice that it
turns itself off.

The True Subwoofer satisfies
one of my audio fantasies: 20 Hz in
the small rooms that real people live

in. I am a very happy camper!

(nothing frightening, just a few derivatives and trig func­tions) plus a bit of Carveresque hyperbole, but it explains
very clearly how and why a complete rethinking of con­ventional engineering precepts regarding the interdepen­dence of bass extension, enclosure size, and efficiency
leads to the conclusion that an "impossible" design like

the Sunfire subwoofer is indeed possible and perfectly
logical. David Rich, who is his own running white paper
on most engineering subjects, tells the story from his per­spective in the sidebar on pages 30-31. Here I shall deal
only with the barest fundamentals. Rest assured, in any
event, that the laws of physics have not been broken,

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997 31

pdf 31

only very artfully reshuffled.

Bob's basic insight was that you can keep making
the enclosure smaller and smaller, thereby lowering the
efficiency, and the woofer motor structure bigger and
bigger, thereby counteracting the loss of efficiency but
also creating humongous back EMF, until there is no
amplifier that can drive such a load—except his! The

Carver/Sunfire amplifier circuit with its tracking down­converter (see Issues No. 22 and No. 23) is capable of
producing the very high-voltage output needed to over­come that large back EMF, yet it takes up so little room
that it can fit into that 11-inch cube. Without the ampli­fier, which looks more like a computer motherboard, the
subwoofer would not be possible. Luckily, the system is
vastly more efficient than conventional engineering
thinking would likely have predicted—that was part of
Bob's contrarian brainstorm—so that the slimmed-down,
heat-sinkless, high-output amplifier is more than ade-

quate for the job. That's the story—a sweeping over-

simplification, but did I promise you anything else? Let

David explain the details.

The 10-inch (o.d.) driver is unlike any other; I'm
almost certain that the OEM supplier's marching orders
from Bob were something like "don't think, just do it my

way." The magnet weighs almost as much as a men's
shot put; the surround looks like a garden hose slit
lengthwise and bent into a circle; the diaphragm is so
thick and heavy you can sit on it; the excursion capability
is huge. The passive radiator (this is a vented sytem)
looks almost identical to the driver, except that it has an
even more massive diaphragm and can actually withstand
a solid blow with the fist (Bob's favorite demonstration).
I have deliberately left out the numerical driver specs be-

cause (a) I am not in a position to verify them accurately

and (b) they are meaningful only if you are familiar with
the less impressive numbers of other bass drivers. It
should be pointed out, however, that this is not the kind

of overdesign intended to dazzle the wide-eyed audio­phile; the truth is that with just a little less of said over­design the system wouldn't work at all. What we have

here is not a deluxe audio component but rather a bare­bones component just sufficient to do a high-performance

job reliably. In that sense it is also in a unique category,

in addition to the big-bass-in-a-small-box consideration.

On the input/output/control panel that takes up an

entire side of the cube, there are three control knobs: vol-

ume, crossover frequency, and phase. You can juggle

these until you get a good match to your main speakers,
but remember that the crossover frequency is in effect the
corner frequency of the steep lowpass filter—120 Hz
down to 40 Hz—there being no crossover circuit as such.
The highpass outputs jacks are a joke—passive circuit,
series capacitor, 6 dB per octave attenuation, turnover

frequency varying with load impedance. Definitely not

for the control freak (maybe for very small satellite

speakers with poor bass-power handling?). The variable

lowpass filter has 36 dB per octave slopes in the stop­band, but in the transition band the Q gets lower and low­er as you turn the control toward 40 Hz, at which point it

doesn't look like a very steep filter anymore, until it gets
past 100 Hz. Thus the overlap with the main speakers de­pends to a large extent on the setting of the control knob.
Luckily a subwoofer crossover of, say, 70 or 80 Hz does
not have to be super precise for listening satisfaction—I

say luckily because a crossover that will mathematically
reassure a student of filter theory can only be achieved, if
at all, with a woofer fixed in position relative to the other
drivers.

The frequency response of the Sunfire subwoofer is
the sum of the outputs of the opposite-firing active and
passive radiators, which are of the same size and look
quite similar. With the unit on the floor, I found a very
good acoustical summing junction just above the box,
slightly closer to the passive radiator, at which point the
microphone read an almost dead flat response: ±1 dB
down to 18 Hz. With a more sophisticated measurement
technique—vectorially adding the active and passive out-

puts, with compensation for radiator area if necessary—I

think the response would have been amplifier flat. Below

18 Hz the response plummets like a stone; there is no

"useful response down to" any lower frequency.

The distortion performance of the Sunfire subwoof-

er raises some questions. At frequencies down to almost
40 Hz, measured my usual way (away from the walls, on
the floor, microphone right on the active diapragm), at
my usual levels (90 to 100 dB SPL @ 1 meter), the dis­tortion is quite reasonable: 3% or less second harmonic,

1% or less third harmonic. But—going down from the

low 40s to 20 Hz (with the microphone on the passive di­aphragm below 25 Hz), the distortion rises dramatically,
even at these less than outrageous levels, reaching worst­case figures in excess of 10% second harmonic and 2%
third harmonic. Now—hold your horses. The user's man­ual that comes with the subwoofer unequivocally recom­mends that the unit be placed in a corner of the room.

That means it will radiate into one fourth the solid angle

it sees when placed on the floor away from the walls, as
it was for the above measurements. Needless to say, the
efficiency goes way up with corner placement (which

yields a quasi horn), the drive required for a given SPL

goes down, and so does the distortion produced at that
level. Indeed, with corner placement, we are back to
(very roughly, give or take a bit) the 3% second harmon­ic and 1% third harmonic maximum readings, this time
all the way down to 20 Hz, in the same range of levels.
Once again respectable but not outstanding distortion

performance.

Yes, I know your next question. Why should the

Sunfire subwoofer have the advantage of being measured
in the corner, when this journal routinely measures dis­tortion at SPL readings away from the walls? The answer
is simple: the Sunfire fits neatly into the corner, whereas

32

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 32

the bigger subwoofers do not. The Sunfire has the inher­ent ability to take advantage of the quasi-horn effect of
the corner; the bigger subwoofers much less so. Let each
device be used to its best advantage. You're not satisfied
with that answer? Then show me an 11-inch cube with
lower distortion at the same SPLs.

As for the maximum SPL the Sunfire subwoofer
can produce, it varies with frequency, room placement
(i.e., loading), excitation time (since the limiters prevent

prolonged excitation at SPL/frequency extremes), and the
position of the Flat/Video-Contour toggle switch (higher

SPL but less extended bass in the video position). I have
verified that a single unit placed in the corner of my larg­est listening room (22 by 20 by 9 feet) is able to generate
unbearable (to me) sound pressure in the 20 Hz to 40 Hz

octave and rattle all the windows and shelves. I am not
enough of a masochist to get involved in extensive meas-

urements at triple-digit SPLs. I'll let Bob Carver and his
competitors argue about the ultimate SPL capabilities of
the Sunfire subwoofer; for the typical user it won't be an
issue.

Are you now asking me how the Sunfire subwoofer
sounds? That's almost as naive a question as how a well­designed amplifier sounds. A well-designed subwoofer
sounds exactly the way it measures. The lowest frequen­cies are not at all mysterious. This subwoofer is flat down
to 18 Hz, can produce very high SPLs, and has average
distortion characteristics. That's precisely the way it
sounds. If I blindfolded you and told you it was an 18-

inch woofer in a 20-cubic-foot enclosure, you would
probably believe me. If that's the kind of sound you want

and you have no room for a big subwoofer, the Sunfire is

the only game in town. If you have lots of room, you ob-

viously have other options, but the unique high-tech chic
of the Sunfire may still prove to be a fatal attraction.
There is nothing else like it.

Waveform Mach 17

Waveform, RR #4, Brighton, Ont., Canada KOK 1H0. Voice:
[phone]. Fax: [phone]. Waveform Mach 17

floor-standing 3-way loudspeaker system with electronic cross-

over, $5995.00 the pair (direct from Waveform, to be raised to
$6995.00 in 1997). Tested samples on loan from manufacturer.

Before anything else, it should be pointed out that
the price of this speaker would be closer to $14,000.00
the pair if sold through dealers instead of directly from

the factory. Then I should add that no $14,000 speaker
I'm aware of comes even close to it when all aspects of

performance are considered. And then I should add...
well... that no speaker I'm aware of, at any price (be it
$14,000 or $140,000), equals it in transparency and lack
of coloration—but now I'm getting ahead of myself.

As I pointed out above, every theoretical model of
the "ideal" loudspeaker system has its nonnegotiable

electroacoustic givens, and no speaker can be "better"
than its theoretical model. In this case the theoretical
model is the point source. The Waveform Mach 17 is in
my reviewing experience the most highly perfected full­range electrodynamic speaker system based on the point­source concept. In many ways it is at the limit of what is

possible with available drivers and the best textbook

knowledge. That does not mean, however, that Martin-

Logan or Magneplanar or Sound Lab or Carver "Amaz-

ing" fans will hail it as the cat's meow. It is, and sounds
like, a highly accurate point source, not like a planar or
line source. Imagine a truly superb minimonitor, much
more dynamic than any other and extended on the bottom

by a very fine bass system. That will give you a general

idea of what to expect sonically.

The design is totally different from earlier Wave­form models. About the only similarity is the truncated
pyramid look. It is a big speaker, nearly four feet high,

with a footprint close to two by two feet, but not so big
as to fall automatically into the "over my dead body"
category of spousal opposition. Furthermore, it disassem-

bles into two manageable modules, each under the maxi-

mum UPS shipping weight. Piano movers will not be
needed, but don't try to move it around too much before

you've had your Wheaties.

The heart of the Mach 17 is the egg-shaped head
module, which houses a 1-inch silk-dome Vifa tweeter
and a rather unusual 7-inch (o.d.) Audax midrange driver

with plastic cone, flat surround, and a rubbery-looking
phase plug. The Audax was designed strictly as a mid­range unit, not as a midrange/woofer for small systems.
The tweeter is the current darling of speaker designers;
the $19,000 Snell Acoustics Type A also uses it. Wave­form gets it with a custom faceplate cut off at the bottom,
to get it as close to the midrange as possible. What makes
the Mach 17 unique, however, is the enclosure for these
two drivers. It is made of special fiberboard laminations
(16 layers!), lathe-turned into a beautiful egg shape, with
about a quarter of the egg cut off flat to create a mount­ing surface. You've never seen anything like it. The idea
is to minimize diffraction to the nth degree, the egg being
definitely one up on the usual rounded box edges in that
respect. What's more, such a laminated structure is total­ly dead acoustically. The egg is mounted on top of the

woofer cabinet much the same way as a computer moni­tor, so you can tilt it up and down and swing it from side
to side. The top of the woofer cabinet is padded with

acoustic foam rubber to prevent reflections from the egg.
The whole thing is so unusual that some owners will un­doubtedly leave off the standard grille-cloth hood just to

keep the egg exposed. It's so cooool...

The bass system consists of two Philips 12-inch
woofers mounted in a vertical array and two 3-inch­diameter ducted ports. The cabinet has 0.75-inch walls
and isn't exactly light, as I said, but when the head mod­ule is removed a retracting handle appears, providing a

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997 33

pdf 33

convenient handhold. John Ötvös, the owner and presi­dent of Waveform, is a master cabinetmaker and has
thought of everything packagingwise. He made no at­tempt, however, to create a showpiece cabinet for the
Mach 17, as he did for earlier models; the emphasis here
is on solid craftsmanship and simple good looks, leaving

more money for the engineering features. That was the
department of Dr. Claude Fortier, physicist, acoustics
professor, and circuit designer. He and John have been
working together off and on for ten years.

One engineering decision was to have no passive
crossovers anywhere in the system. They are too variable
from unit to unit, almost impossible to quality control
within ±0.1 dB. Driving the tweeter, the midrange, and
the woofers directly, with three separate amplifier chan­nels, is a much purer solution. The full damping capabil­ity of each amplifier is utilized that way. Dr. Fortier is an
electronic crossover specialist, and the crossover/control
unit he specified for the Mach 17 is unique. The circuit
implementation is by Bryston, with pretty much the same
topology as the classic Bryston 10B. (Bryston actually
manufactures the unit for Waveform.) The uniqueness of

the design is in the control functions, as I'll explain in a

moment. The crossover frequencies are 325 Hz and 1850

Hz; the filters are of the fourth-order Linkwitz-Riley
configuration with 24 dB per octave slopes; the gain for
each of the three channels per side is internally set to
match the efficiency of the corresponding driver—all
very pure but not adjustable by the user. The adjustable
controls are for (1) midbass level, centering on about 90
Hz, with a range of 6 dB; (2) a very subtle midrange
"presence" boost, up to 2 dB; and (3) treble attenuation,
4 dB or less. These are extremely sophisticated controls,
almost comparable to those on a Cello Palette (hey, I said
almost), and they serve the same purpose: to touch up the
frequency balance of recordings that do not necessarily
sound best when played back flat in a particular listening
room. Since the Mach 17 is an extremely accurate loud­speaker without a sonic signature of its own, every re­cording played through it sounds a little different—that's
only logical—and may or may not need a slight correc­tion unique onto itself. Waveform supplies tiny stickers
to mark each CD with the preferred bass/midrange/treble
setting.

Six power amplifier channels with exactly the same

gain are needed run a pair of the Waveform speakers.
The electronic crossover unit provides no compensation
for amplifiers with different gains. Furthermore, it has
balanced inputs and outputs only. Thus it is somewhat
unlikely that the potential purchaser already has all the
required electronics. I used a three-channel Bryston 5B
ST (120 watts per channel) on each speaker, with the bal­anced output of my trusty old Boulder MS preamplifier
feeding the electronic crossover. (Many a high-endnik
would call that a medium-priced system.) I also tried the
Mcintosh MC7106 six-channel power amplifier, using

XLR-jack-to-RCA-plug interconnects, with equal results.

John Ötvös is rather proud of the fact that he and

Dr. Fortier did not even listen to the laboratory prototype

of the Mach 17 until the measurements appeared to be in­capable of further improvement. That coincides very
much with my own audio philosophy—measurable, i.e.,
provable, accuracy is where it's at. (In your face, Bob
Harley.) Thus the measurements tell the whole story—
and it's quite a story. Now, the audio measurement facili­ties of the National Research Council in Ottawa, Canada,
where the speaker was developed, are among the finest in
the world (not to mention their blind listening setup and
protocols). The laboratory of The Audio Critic is very
good but not that good. Among other things, we have no
anechoic chamber. Thus, I tend to trust the official mea­surement printouts of the NRC even more than I trust my
own. I verified the NRC test results as conscientiously as
I knew how, using the MLS capability of the Audio Pre­cision System One (which yields quasi-anechoic curves),
as well as all the other test methods I have previously
described in my loudspeaker reviews. My measurements
tracked those of the NRC quite closely, just as I expected
on the basis of past experience, so I dispensed with the
grain of salt I always keep handy for manufacturers'
specs.

The frequency response of the Mach 17 is almost

as flat as that of an amplifier. I have never seen flatter re-

sponse on axis. The NRC curve shows ±1 dB from below
30 Hz up to 20 kHz. My own curve departs from that by

less than 0.5 dB. I'm willing to buy the NRC version.
The off-axis response is equally remarkable. The mid­range doesn't change at all at 15° and 30° off axis hori­zontally. The tweeter holds up equally well up to 11 kHz,
then rolls off 12 dB per octave at 30°. (The Snell Type A
has the same tweeter, so I was already familiar with this
type of response.) At 60° off axis the midrange barely
budges and the tweeter still holds nicely up to 7 kHz,
above which it falls precipitously. This wide-dispersion
characteristic is a very important part of the design, as it
determines the power response into the room. Vertical
movement of the measuring microphone results in a
notch or trough at the 1.85 kHz crossover as one leaves
the ideal measurement height, but that is to be expected.
The effect is more obvious when the microphone is too
low (i.e., below ear height when seated) than when it is
high (i.e., ear height when standing). The design intends
to accommodate both seated and standing listeners. (I
happen to stand as much as I sit when listening.) For
some reason, the Waveform/NRC literature does not deal
with the variability of response in the vertical plane,
although the speaker stands up very well in that respect.

As for the bass response, I am more comfortable
with my own nearfield measurements than with the
NRC's anechoic ones, in which I suspect the chamber
size dominates the true inflection point and rolloff char­acteristic, at least to some degree. I found the bass to be

34

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 34

±1 dB from 60 Hz down to 21 Hz when I summed the

two woofers and two vents at a certain nearfield point

(which may or may not have been the most representa­tive point), with the midbass control at the 0 setting and
midrange at maximum. A 6 dB per octave low-frequency
boost is always in the circuit from about 90 Hz down;
that's part of the design for flat bass. That plus the two­woofer/two-vent configuration and the variable midbass
level make it a little more complicated than usual to
measure the true response, but I also took a few in-room
farfield measurements and could see that the response is
never down more than 2 or 3 dB at 20 Hz. That's not
quite like having a super subwoofer in the system, but
it's about good as it gets with a monolithic speaker. If
you want totally flat response down to the bottom limits
of audibility, John Ötvös is not going to sue you if you
add a big Velodyne or Bag End to the Mach 17, but at
that point the price tag is beginning look less amazing,
and the musical pleasure increases only minimally. (Yes,
there is a small difference, but only on music containing
a great deal of energy at the lowest frequencies. And
even that perception may be due to my surreptitious habit
of setting my subwoofers for slightly tipped-up response
below 30 Hz—I'm addicted to those lowest of the lows.
Don't tell anybody.)

What about distortion? Here I must distinguish be­tween the NRC method of measurement and my own.
Regardless of the SPL at 1 meter or 2 meters, I must
measure the THD + N right off the driver diaphragms be­cause at 1 meter or 2 meters the background N of the
room totally swamps the measurement. That is not the
case in the NRC's dead-quiet anechoic chamber. They
are able to measure the distortion at the same location as
the frequency response and SPL. I think that's preferable,
so I tentatively accepted the NRC data and then followed
up with my own measurements to make sure there were
no gross differences. There weren't any, but remember
that what matters in this case is the general trend of the
numbers, not some kind of Bureau of Standards level of
accuracy.

Overall, the distortion of the Mach 17 stays below

0.8% from 70 Hz up at 85 dB SPL at 2 meters and below

0.6% from 70 Hz up at 91 dB SPL at 2 meters. (The 1­meter SPL equivalents are 91 dB and 97 dB, repectively.)
At the higher level there is a packet of distortion center­ing on 4.5 kHz and peaking at 2.5%, but the tweeter is
quite unlikely to be driven that hard at that frequency.
These figures are very respectable but not quite Velodyne
DF-661-like. They could be lower. At most frequencies

and SPLs that will probably make no difference, but at
the ear's maximum sensitivity to second-harmonic distor­tion, in the neighborhood of 2 kHz, it could be audible.
There exist various divergent opinions and estimates as
to the ear's thresholds, so I tend to favor the Velodyne

approach just to be on the safe side, but that doesn't

mean the difference between low distortion (Waveform)

and very low distortion (Velodyne) is all that obvious.

Below 70 Hz, the Mach 17's bass sytem is no low­er in distortion than other good woofers, rising to 3% in
the 30 to 40 Hz band at the lower SPL cited above and to
6% at the higher SPL. That includes the 6 dB per octave
low-frequency boost which is always in the circuit. It is
my understanding that ultralow-distortion motional­feedback woofers from Velodyne were considered for the
system and would have been available on an OEM basis,
but their 100 Hz upper limit just did not fit the system ar­chitecture, not to mention that they would have required
dedicated power amps.

Now I'm ready to tell you more about the sound. In
some ways it's my favorite sound since I started testing
loudspeakers. It's not tall and wide and reverberant, be­ing essentially a point source, as I already said. It's just
dead accurate and utterly transparent. It has a thereness
that you immediately know is right. Somebody said,
"like a giant pair of headphones," which is true as far as
the absolute immediacy of the sound is concerned but not
true insofar as headphones are a pain in the tushy and
tend to jam the soundstage into the back of your skull. Au
contraire, the Mach 17 presents a gorgeous open sound­stage with marvelous localization. Not only that, but it
gives you that relaxed, reassuring feeling that all is well,
exactly as things should be. Some listeners have told me
that the speaker is a bit lacking in upper bass, but in my
opinion they were merely disagreeing with my setting of
the controls on certain CDs. Ideally one should reset the
controls for best balance on each recording and note the
settings on one of those bass/midrange/treble stickers
supplied with the speaker, as I already explained. I'm too
lazy and insufficiently geeky for that. I leave the controls
in a generally satisfactory all-purpose position, from
which I depart infrequently. If the Mach 17 is lacking in
anything, it is the lowest bass, not the upper—but I have
already dealt with that. There may also be excessive
brightness or edgines if the room isn't dead enough. The
extremely wide dispersion of the speaker involves the
reflective surfaces of the room much more than you may
be used to. I deployed sound-absorbent screens near the
sidewalls close to the speaker and was very happy with
the results—not a trace of edginess, just delicate and airy
highs. The treble control has a relatively narrow range
and should be used only to compensate for the recording,
not the room. In general, "people who live in glass hous­es" should think about extensive room treatment if they
want a Mach 17.

Readers of the last issue know that my favorite
loudspeaker system until then was the Snell Acoustics
Type A. Since the entire Ötvös-Fortier effort started,
evolved, and was finalized at the NRC facility, it seemed
only natural that I should do a listening comparison of
the Mach 17 against the Type A in accordance with the
NRC protocol, as suggested by Floyd E. Toole. That

means mono versus mono, mano a mano, side by side, in

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

39

pdf 35

the middle of the room, at matched levels. That way the
seductions and distractions of stereo do not intrude; it's
the strictest possible test of tonal quality. At the NRC
they do it double-blind, but I have no acoustically trans-

parent black screen as they do. I did match the SPLs as

accurately as I could, however (with a sound level meter,
not by ear). Well, what do you know, the two sounded

much more alike than I expected, but then again both
have the same tweeter, and the Snell is also based on the
NRC philosophy, so maybe I shouldn't have been sur­prised. I thought that the Snell with its spread-out driver
complement "editorialized" about its input a wee bit
more than the Waveform, which just rendered a crystal
clear replica of the signal right in your face; the differ­ence, however, wasn't at all dramatic and might have
been even smaller if more room had been available to lis­ten from further back. I'll take either speaker, and at one
third the price of the Snell the Waveform is of course the
more attractive buy. Indeed, a steal. (That doesn't mean
the vested interests of the Ultrahigh End, including the
usual suspects in the tweako reviewer community, will
not be tempted to badmouth the Mach 17, as it is a threat
to speakers in the upper five and six figures. What I'm
telling you is that you can safely ignore such reviews.)

My bottom line recommendation: Instead of being
a sucker and spending thousands of dollars on a high-end
preamp or other shiny new toy that can't possibly change
your audio life, call John Ötvös and start negotiating for
a Waveform Mach 17. It will cost you less than a Krell
CD player, even at the 1997 price, and it will change
your audio life. I guarawntee you (as the Cajun TV cook

Justin Wilson would say).

Transducer Miscellanea

by David Rich

ACI Sapphire III

Audio Concepts, Inc., 901 South 4th Street, La Crosse, WI

54601. Voice: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. Sapphire
III compact 2-way loudspeaker system, $999.00 the pair (direct

from ACI). Tested samples owned by reviewer.

This is the latest version of the continuing revisions

of the Audio Concepts (now called ACI) Sapphire series.
When we tested the previous version, the Sapphire IIti,

we found it to be a step backward because of a change of
tweeter. It sounded bright and edgy. ACI traded my IIti's
for a pair of cosmetically damaged IIIs. The damage

40

must have been visible only with a tunneling microscope
because they looked perfect to me. It was a good deal for
me because the IIti's were sitting in the garage waiting to
be sold. The IIIs are back in one of my listening rooms
and they are going to stay right there.

In the Sapphire III the tweeter is changed again,
this time to a simple soft dome found in many top-of-the­line speakers preferred by the high end community. Our
measurements show that the performance of the speaker
is similar to that of pervious incarnations except that the
tweeter level has been reduced by about 2 dB. Since it
was flat before, this seems like a misguided attempt to
make the speaker sound less bright. I think it was the res­onances of the titanium Focal tweeter that caused me to
find the IIti so unpleasant.

The sonic result is a speaker that sounds very simi­lar to the what I remember the original Sapphire II
sounded like. Since the speaker continues to have first­order crossovers, placement is very critical. Big suckouts
in the frequency response occur is you are not on the cor­rect woofer axis. When set up correctly, the speaker
sounds good but it does not have the transparency of the

Monitor Audio Studio 6. The Monitor Audio is more

forward than the ACI, and that might tip the balance to­ward the ACI for some, but to me the Monitor Audio is

the clear winner. The comparison between these two

speakers used to be very unfair, but ACI has meanwhile

raised the price of the Sapphire III to $999.00 the pair,
factory-direct before shipping charges (shipping is free at
the moment), whereas the Monitor Audio has actually
dropped in price to $1999.00 the pair—but that is the full
retail price and discounts from list are a reality. Add to
this the fact that you have to pay reverse shipping charg­es if you do not like the Sapphire, and we see this is not
as unfair a comparison as it used to be.

Comparison with the JosephAudio RM7si brings

things closer in price. (The RM7si lists for $1299.00 the
pair.) I am somewhat more impressed by the quality of
the ACI box, but in crossover design the comparison
clearly favors the Joseph. The Joseph's bass tuning
makes it a better stand-alone speaker, but the ACI would
have the edge in a satellite/subwoofer system. The better
crossover of the Joseph resulted in a much more balanced
sound quality, with much less finicky setup, and its flatter
frequency response yields more definition and detail. On
the other hand, in my room the ACI speakers produced a
warmer, more spacious sound than the Josephs. (Not in
the larger room of the Editor, however.) The reasons for
this may have been quite mundane, such as for example
the slanted baffle of the Sapphire III, which adds to the
reflected energy in the room. Also, some of the frequen­cy-response effects associated with first-order crossovers
may have entered the picture. I found the Spica TC-50
and Vandersteen 2C to create a similar warm, spacious
effect.

If you held a gun to my head and said "Pick!"—I

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 36

would cop out. For a bedroom setup with no subwoofer,
go with the Joseph. Optimal placement required by the
Sapphire is not going to happen under these conditions,
and the Joseph will have more bass. If you have the room
to place them optimally and have a sense of adventure
(or a low tolerance for frustration in case you do not like
them and have to send them back), you might want to try
the Sapphire III + Titan (the powered version of the Sub

1 we tested long ago). Do not confuse this with a mix­and-match satellite/subwoofer system. The manufacturer
has designed these two units to work together so you will
not have to play speaker designer, and that is a very, very

big plus. I have never heard a satellite/subwoofer system
work correctly that was not designed from the ground up
to do that function. Crossing over a three-piece system at

100 Hz is not something that can be done without very

careful design and integration. When a skilled designer
does it (the Spica TC-50 plus Spica Servo subwoofer for
example), it can work very well. Roll your own and I

guarantee trouble.

So for a total price of $1800 ACI will sell you a
full-range high-end system that is phase-coherent (so the
tweaks will respect you), has the "boxless" sound quality
of a satellite/subwoofer system, and is capable of playing

with full dynamics. Other priorities would lead to other
choices. While I did not have the Titan, I did try the Sap­phire III with the Sunfire subwoofer. No way would I
trade that setup for my Sound Lab Quantums. For me, 20
Hz bass and big dynamics just are not as important as
transparency and freedom from colorations.

The ACI Sapphire III is still a very well­constructed product made with quality drivers and a
rock-solid cabinet. Its relative lack of transparency prob­ably has to do with the low-order crossover. This causes
the drivers to work very hard outside their passband. It
also causes the polar response of the speaker to be poor,
and that must affect the farfield response. I suggest that
ACI try a high-order crossover for the Sapphire IV.

Grado Laboratories SR125

Grado Laboratories, Inc., 4614 7th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY

11220. Voice: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. The Pres­tige Series SRI25 dynamic headphones, $150.00. Tested sample
on loan from manufacturer.

We do not have our objective measurement setup

for headphones in place yet, but I did not want to wait to

tell you about these nice headphones. John Grado would
tell you they do most of the design on a subjective basis,
so he would not be concerned about objective test results
anyway. I suspect that the frequency response of these
phones may not be perfectly flat because of this (the Gra­do cartridges, designed by John's uncle, never challenged
Shure in this respect), so I would not use them as a moni­tor during recordings. But whatever John Grado has done
works very well when you use these phones to listen to
CDs in a home setting. They sound very transparent. This
is especially noticeable in comparison with the head-

phones that come with portable CD players. Ambience is

well reproduced on the SRI25. The top end is very clean,
with none of the burn-your-ears-off quality found on
many headphones, but the highs by no means sound
rolled off. Low end is subjectively flat to about 50 Hz; 40
Hz is still quite audible but 30 Hz is gone. Cheap phones
are often bumped up in the midbass and then the re­sponse dives out of sight.

You can listen to these headphones for hours, both

because they are comfortable to wear and because the

sound is clean and subjectively flat enough not to intro-

duce listener fatigue. They are sensitive enough to be
used with portable equipment. My only complaint is the
thick cord used by Grado, which makes the phones heav­ier and more clumsy than they have to be. This is prob-

ably some tweako this-cable-sounds-better move.

At $150 I highly recommend you give these a lis­ten. You might also want to look into the SR60 at $69. It
has a different voice-coil design and diaphragm, as well
as a less expensive headband spring.

* * *

Editor's Note: Measuring headphones accurately re­quires a dummy head with microphone ears, something
we are definitely not getting in the near future. The appli­cation is too narrow for the high cost of such a device. I
did measure the SR125, however, in my own crude way,

just jamming a microphone into it in various open and

blocked positions. That will indicate a general trend
without yielding accurate numbers. The phones appear
to be more or less flat from about 2 kHz down to the bass

region, where a gentle rolloff begins at approximately 90
Hz or 80 Hz or a little lower, depending on the tightness
of the seal. There is a weird and very steep rise from 3
kHz to 4 kHz, above which another gentle rolloff begins.

There is still considerable response at 14 kHz but not

much at 20 kHz. That's how vague I'll have to leave it.

These are clearly not superflat headphones.

HD7725 and Krell Studio. The Audio Critic 21: 46-50.

Sandstrøm , T. "Distortion in Class AB Power
Amplifiers." Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 31
(November 1983): 858-61.

Sakurai, S. and M. Ismail. Low-Voltage Operation-
al Amplifiers. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995.

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

41

References (continued from page 23)

ogy: Who Is Doing It Right ?" The Audio Critic 15: 8-41.

Rich, D. A. "Reasonably Priced Preamplifiers for

the Reasonable Audiophile." The Audio Critic 18: 12-38.

Rich, D. A. 'A New Look at Medium- and High-

Priced Power Amplifiers." The Audio Critic 20: 14-37.

Rich, D. A. Reviews of the Harman Kardon

pdf 37

Catching Up on

Sophisticated Audio

Electronics, Analog and Digital

By Peter Aczel

Editor and Publisher

Although no well-designed electronic signal path for audio has a

sonic signature of its own (down, tweaks, down!), there are still

many reasons to prefer one particular design over another.

I am sure we have some new readers to whom it is

still a strange new idea that any correctly engineered
piece of purely electronic (viz., not electroacoustic) audio
equipment, be it analog or digital, is indistinguishable in
sound from any other when each is used within its

intended output capability. Such readers will look for ful­some descriptions of the upper midrange, front-to-back
depth, imaging, etc., of the equipment reviewed below

and won't find any. I recommend back issues of this jour­nal, all the way back to No. 16, as a rehab course for
these brainwashed audiophiles. (See also the "Paste This
in Your Hat!" piece on page 9 of this issue.) Sorry, all
you longtime readers, for constantly repeating myself on
this subject, but the tweako magazines also repeat them­selves and new ones keep coming out of the woodwork.

Compact Disc Player

Accuphase DP-55

Accuphase Laboratory, Inc., Yokohama, Japan, through Axiss

Distribution, Inc., 17800 South Main Street, Suite 109, Garde­na, CA 90248. Voice: [phone]. Fax: [phone].
DP-55 compact disc player with RC-18 remote control,
$3995.00. Tested sample on loan from distributor.

This is Accuphase's new bottom-of-the-line CD
player. Whaaaat? Bottom of the line at almost $4000?
That's right. Their top-of-the-line CD player lists at
$7495.00. (Accuphase also has a $16,495.00 preampli­fier, and other such goodies.) Now, what does that tell
you? Yes, limited production, obviously, and a big chunk
for the distributor, inevitably (not to mention an unfavor­able yen exchange rate)—but what else? I'd say they
want to sell a few CD players to audiophiles who are
merely well-to-do and a little crazy, instead of super rich
and stark raving mad. They want the Accuphase cachet
to rub off on "modestly priced" equipment, if you'll par-

don the expression.

Well, the DP-55 has gorgeous metalwork, cosmeti­cally equaling the impact of the top-priced Accuphase
models, but it's another story when you remove the cover
and look inside. There the quality is on the level of a
standard brand-name Japanese product. Single-sided PC
boards are stuffed with good commercial-grade parts.
Nothing wrong with that—everything is neatly construct­ed and nicely laid out, but it isn't "electronic jewelry"
like the highest-priced Accuphase equipment. We expect­ed a little more for $4K.

In terms of circuit design, however, there are some
quality touches. Preeminent among these is the use of
three paralleled DACs per channel. (The higher-priced
Accuphase CD players use even more, up to 16 per chan­nel.) Theoretically, this should reduce the noise floor, but
there's a catch. The DP-55 uses the 20-bit Burr-Brown
PCM 1702 surface-mounted DACs—without any grade
markings. That seems to indicate they are not the highest
(K) grade, raising the question whether a single K-grade
PCM 1702 per channel would not be actually preferable,
as regards both noise floor and linearity. Furthermore, the
surface-mounted DACs appear to be hand-soldered (low

tech) rather than wave-soldered (high tech). The digital
filter is the NPC SM5843AP, not quite the best. The

transport appears to be a plain-vanilla Sony OEM unit,
without linear tracking. A quality feature, on the other
hand, is the processor mode—a front-panel button turns

the DP-55 into an outboard D/A converter with inputs,
coaxial and optical, for digital signal sources such as a
DAT recorder, MD recorder, etc. There are also the usual
digital outputs, coaxial and optical, in addition to the ana-

log outputs, both balanced (XLR) and unbalanced
(RCA). At $1800 it would impress the hell out of me.

On the lab bench the measurement results were ex-

cellent but didn't break any records. In the 16-bit CD
playback mode, full-scale THD + N across the audio

42 THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 38

spectrum was the usual (for highend equipment, that is)
4 to 4.5 dB short of the theoretical limit of98.08 dB , as
against only 1 to 2 dB in the case of Sony's best (for less
money). Once again this proved to be gainrelated analog
distortion; on a 24 dB track the excess distortion went
down to virtually zero. Most other testCD measurements
were close to perfection. Quantization noise:  97.8 dB in
the better channel, 96.5 dB in the other. Dynamic range:

97.7 dB. Channel separation: 118 dB to 128 dB, depend­ing on frequency and the channel measured. Spectrum of

1 kHz tone at 90 dB with dither: no trace of harmonics.
Just a little less perfect were the lowlevel linearity error,
about 0.3 dB at the 90 dB level and below, and the
monotonicity pattern, which at a couple of points showed
insufficient differentiation between adjacent LSB steps.
(K grade would have prevented both of these minor boo
boos.)

In the processor mode, with a 16bit input, the
above results remained the same—not surprisingly. I did
try the bynowtrivial "Rob Watts test" (FFT spectrum of
a dithered 1 kHz tone at 60 dB) and obtained a plot with
very small second, third, and seventhharmonic glitches
rising out of a 128 dB noise floor, in contrast to some
squeakyclean plots and 130 dB noise floors in a few
past instances. Increasing the input word length to 20 bits
(and/or the sampling rate to 48 kHz) produced only very

slightly improved results. Excess distortion at full scale
got better by less than 2 dB; the irreducible noise floor
went down by just a very few hardtoread dB; that's
about it.

One more thing. I generally don't test the transport

mechanism of a highend CD player for error correction
because in presentday units it's not an issue, but in this
case I did, in view of my remark above about the OEM
transport. Dropouts of 0.75 millimeter or smaller were
handled without a glitch; dropouts of 1.00 millimeter or
larger were troublemakers. I would call that good but not
exceptional performance.

Overall, I see little or no temptation for an audio
phile to spend $3995 on this unit. The last three topof
theline Sony ES players I tested were all slightly better
performers, less costly, with more advanced electronics

and mechanics.

Headphone Amplifier

Audio Alchemy HPA vl.O

Audio Alchemy, Inc., 31133 Via Colinas, Suite 111, Westlake

Village, CA 91362. Voice: (818) 7078504. Fax: (818) 707

2610. HPA vl.0 headphone amplifier, $259.00. Tested sample
on loan from manufacturer.

Audio Alchemy appears to have assumed a very

low profile lately in the audio community, for whatever
reason. All I know is that they sent me this unsolicited re­view sample some time ago, and I happen to like it

sufficiently to report on it here.

This is a modemsized unit with linelevel inputs
and an outboard ±14 V power supply. It accepts a single
pair of headphones via a standard stereo phone jack, and
it also incorporates the HeadRoom "audio image proces-

sor," designed to make headphones sound less "head
phoney." (But who held a gun to your head to make you
listen to headphones if you don't like their sound?)

The HPA vl.0 is definitely a lowdistortion device.
Into 150Ω, which is reasonably representative of a head­phone load, minimum THD + N is 90 dB at 20 Hz and 1
kHz (6 V out), and 80 dB at 20 kHz (3 V out). That in­dicates a small amount of dynamic distortion, not enough
to worry about. The distortion is completely noise
dominated. Switching on the HeadRoom processor raises
the 20 Hz and 1 kHz distortion by 5 dB but leaves the 20
kHz distortion unchanged. What does the processor actu­ally do? It inserts a shallow Sshaped equalization curve

(maximum boost 2.6 dB at 9 kHz) into both channels, in­troduces frequencydependent phase differences between
left and right, and reduces channel separation drastically.
With the processor off, channel separation is 42 dB at 20
kHz and increases by 6 dB per octave with decreasing
frequency, until it reaches 83 dB at 20 Hz. With the pro­cessor on, channel separation is 10 dB at all frequencies
below 1.5 kHz and increases slightly at the higher fre­quencies, until it reaches 20 dB at 20 kHz.

The sound of the HPA vl.0 is of course perfectly
clean and neutral with the processor off. With the proces­sor on, it sounds—well, different. I don't feel strongly
about it one way or the other. I happen to believe that
only true binaural recordings, recorded with a dummy
head, are fully compatible with headphones. Standard
stereo recordings, intended to be heard through loud­speakers, all sound a little weird through headphones,
with or without processing. I'll leave it at that. If your
stereo system does not have a convenient headphone out­put, the Audio Alchemy unit is a wellengineered solu­tion worthy of recommendation.

Power Amplifier

Bryston 8B ST and 5B ST

Bryston Ltd., P.O. Box 2170, 677 Neal Drive, Peterborough,

Ont., Canada K9J 7Y4. Voice: (705) 7425325. Fax: (705) 742

0882. 8B ST 4channel power amplifier, $2995.00. 5B ST 3

channel power amplifier, $2465.00. Tested samples on loan

from manufacturer.

Regular readers of this journal know that a Bryston

power amp is always a completely predictable performer.

There are very few audio equipment brands about which
I can say they are as good as money in the bank, but
Bryston is one of them. Chris Russell's basic amplifier
circuit concept, frequently discussed in our pages, has
changed very little over the years; in this instance it has

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

43

pdf 39

undergone some refinements. Chris's engineering asso­ciate Stuart Taylor (ST) is recognized as a layout guru,
and he has come up with entirely new physical layouts
for these multichannel amplifiers in order to simplify the
signal paths and bring distortion, hum, and noise down to
new low levels. Another improvement has to do with
what Bryston calls their inputbufferwithgain, also de­signed to lower distortion and noise, but certainly not a

major change. In all essentials, a Bryston is a Bryston is a
Bryston—just specify how many channels you want on
one chassis and how much power per channel. Whatever
configuration you choose, you'll have an amplifier on the
leading edge of the art.

The rated power per channel of the 4channel 8B
ST and 3channel 5B ST is the same: 120 watts into 8Ω.
My measurements showed 150 watts to be available at
extremely low distortion: between 96 and 98 dB (bare­ly over 0.001%) at any audio frequency. Into 4Ω the out­put did not quite double but reached 225 watts with 90
to 96 dB distortion, the least good figure being the 20
kHz reading (90 dB = 0.003%). The THD + N curves
were entirely noisedominated and indicated extremely

low noise even at only 10 milliwatts output (61 to 64
dB, depending on the load). With two channels bridged, I
measured 400 watts into 8Ω with distortion that dipped
as low as 100 dB at 1 kHz and 93 dB at 20 kHz.

The PowerCube test (see Issue No. 20, pp. 1617,
for a complete explanation and illustrations) painted a
pretty decent picture, with 39.5 V into 8Ω/0° (195 W),
quite gently declining voltage into all the purely resistive
loads down to 1Ω, and always slightly higher voltage
into the reactive loads than into pure R. Into 1Ω/00 there
was still 22.3 V (497 W) available. (Remember—the
PowerCube uses 1 kHz bursts of 20 ms duration, limiting
the amplitude at 1% distortion.) For better performance
you would have to go to one of the megapowersupply
amplifiers. With two channels bridged, the PowerCube
slopes much more steeply, since 2Ω and 1Ω loads are not
a good match to the bridged output stages, but there are

still no anomalies into reactive loads. Into 8Ω/0° the
PowerCube reading was 72.5 V (657 W) in the bridged

mode.

Needless to say, the frequency response of each

Bryston channel is dead flat. At approximately 1 watt
into 8Ω I measured 0.0 dB deviation from 10 Hz to 2
kHz, 0.04 dB at 20 kHz, and 0.22 dB at 50 kHz. Chan­nel separation as measured at the same output level is
OK but not great: 40 dB at 20 kHz, increasing by 6 dB
per octave at decreasing frequencies, reaching 64 dB at 1
kHz and 90 dB at 20 Hz.

The obvious comparison that comes to mind here is

with the Mcintosh MC7106, which is a 6channel model
listed at $3500.00. The Bryston amps do quite a bit better
on the PowerCube, indicating a power supply advantage,
but the Mcintosh is even lower in distortion (though not
at 20 kHz in the bridged mode) and slightly higher in

power output before clipping. The noise floor is a very
close contest, but in channel separation the Mcintosh
wins. The Brystons both have balanced (XLR) inputs in
addition to the standard RCA phono jacks; the Mcintosh
does not. On the other hand, the Mcintosh is dead silent
mechanically and electrically, whereas both Brystons
have a slight mechanical hum coming directly from the

power transformer, especially when cold, and produce

small but audible on/off thumps through the speakers. As
for warranties/guarantees, Bryston is way ahead with
their free and unconditional 20year deal, but the Mcin­tosh amp offers more complete electrical protection
against failure and abuse. On balance, I'd say the audio

purist will lean toward the Brystons and the convenience

seeker toward the Mcintosh, but overall it's a winwin
situation.

In any event, I rate both the Bryston 8B ST and the

Bryston 5B ST in the tiptop category of power amps.

Power Amplifier

Carver Research

Lightstar Reference

Carver Corporation, P.O. Box 1237, Lynnwood, WA 98046

1237. Voice: (206) 7751202. Fax: (206) 7789453. Lightstar
Reference dualmonaural power amplifier, $3995.00. Tested
sample on loan from manufacturer.

This is the amplifier Bob Carver almost finished
before he bowed out of Carver Corporation and started
his new Sunfire enterprise. His old engineering depart­ment finished the job but left the basic design alone. As a
result the Lightstar and Sunfire amplifiers are virtually
identical. Both are very conservatively spec'd at 300/600
watts per channel into 8Ω/4Ω. David Rich went over
both circuit schematics with great care and reported only
minuscule differences. (See his analysis of the Sunfire
circuit in Issue No. 22, pp. 31 and 49, and my report on

the Sunfire amplifier's measurements in Issue No. 23, pp.

2526. I shall try not to be repetitious here where the
same comments would apply.) The differences worth
noting are the two entirely separate power supplies of the
"dualmonaural" Lightstar (with two separate line cords

for emphasis), as against the shared power supply of the

Sunfire, and the much more luxurious sculptured metal

work of the Lightstar Reference, for which you pay plenty.

(Carver Corporation also offers a strippeddown Light

star for $1500.00 less.)

Since two separate power supplies and a gorgeous

chassis are certainly not undesirable, I would prefer the
Lightstar Reference as a birthday present, but with my
own money I would be more likely to buy the $2175.00

Sunfire. In general, it would appear that Bob Carver is

more intense about maintaining a performanceperdollar
competitive edge, and his Sunfire product shows it. The

44

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 40

Lightstar Reference clearly wins the beauty contest, how­ever, as well as the techie showoff match.

As for measurements, you will recall that the
Sunfire didn't exactly shine (no pun intended) when it
came to THD + N. Interestingly enough, the Lightstar
Reference measured at least 10 dB better at nearly all fre­quencies under nearly all test conditions, and in a few in­stances a lot better than that. At the lower frequencies the
Lightstar is almost a "normal" highend amplifier. Would
you believe 20 Hz distortion of 96 dB (into 8Ω before
the onset of clipping) with a 22 kHz filter, rising to 78
dB with an 80 kHz filter? The Sunfire falls 15 dB short of
that. On the other hand, there is a convergence toward
higher distortion in both amplifiers at the higher frequen­cies. At 6.5 kHz the Lightstar is still ahead by a few dB,
but the 0to80kHz FFT spectrum of a 19.5 kHz test sig­nal at 200 W into 8Ω looks pretty much the same through
both amplifiers. (The Lightstar is actually still a little
cleaner up to 40 kHz but not into the next octave.) The
circuit schematics offer no explanation for these basically
not very important differences.

The PowerCube test also appeared to indicate that
the Lighstar Reference is virtually identical to the
Sunfire. Whatever minor differences I recorded were due
to the slightly different test setups for the two amplifiers,
and I don't want to trivialize the basic issues here by nit­picking those differences. Both amplifiers are very happy
with loads of 8Ω, 4Ω, and 2Ω, regardless of phase angle,
and neither amplifier is able to maintain its top voltage
output into 1Ω loads, resisitive or reactive, with less than

1% distortion—for whatever reason. Even so, I cannot
imagine any realworld loudspeaker load that either am­plifier couldn't drive with aplomb. Just for the record, the
PowerCube reading into 8Ω/0° was 55.1 V (380 W) for
the Lightstar Reference.

Channel separation, i.e., crosstalk, is another valid
point of comparison. The Lightstar is not quite as good in
this respect as the Sunfire but almost. At the lower fre­quencies separation is of the order of 70 dB; in the vicini­ty of 1 kHz it is 66 to 68 dB; above that the left channel
leaks into the right much more than vice versa. Worst
case: 44 dB at 20 kHz, but the other channel never gets
worse than 57 dB. I have no serious problem with that.

One thing the Carver engineers did differently after
Bob had left was to leave out the 1Ω series resistor that
makes one pair of terminals a "current source" on the
Sunfire amp. The Lightstar has two pairs of paralleled
terminals per channel, all lowoutputimpedance voltage
sources. If you've read my Sunfire review, you know I'm

not going to fault the Lightstar on that count. In fact I
have no reason to fault it at all, once I have accepted the
unorthodox design principle, except maybe on price. I

still don't know what will become of "Hamlet without
the Prince of Denmark," viz. the Carver Corporation

without Bob Carver, but this power amplifier is a fine
product.

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

Third-Generation MiniDisc Recorder

Sony MDS-JA3ES

Sony Electronics, Inc., 1 Sony Drive, Park Ridge, NJ 07656.

Voice: (201) 9301000. Fax: (201) 9304748. MDSJA3ES
MiniDisc deck with RMD2M remote control, $1200.00. Tested
sample on loan from manufacturer.

The MiniDisc is now about four years old and
hasn't really taken off yet. Nor is it dead. I understand
they love it in Japan and that's what seems to be keeping
it alive. I must say I love it too, at least as a physical for­mat. It's small, cute, and cuddly, as well as ruggged and
practical, and also delightful to edit and trackaccess. If
the digital era had been launched in this format, or better
yet, if the digital era had come earlier and this format had
emerged instead of the Philips cassette, we would all be
better off today. (Of course, I'm also assuming that some
kind of incredibly early engineering wizardry—blue la­sers, etc.—would have made the 5tol data compression
unnecessary, so that the audibility/inaudibility of percep­tual coding wouldn't be an issue. Hey, I'm allowed to
dream...)

The trouble with MiniDisc as a recording/playback
medium for consumers is that after four years a blank
disc still costs about six times as much as a topquality
blank audio cassette. That's outrageous and simply not
competitive, no matter how much more attractive the
MiniDisc may be. Sony has insisted from the beginning
that the MiniDisc is an improved successor to the Philips
cassette, not the CD, but under the circumstances it is
neither. It is merely a promise and a rather costly techie
toy. Lots of fun, though.

In Issue No. 21, I reviewed in some detail Sony's
secondgeneration MiniDisc deck, the MDS501, and
presented my views on the then fairly new MD format,
the ATRAC compression algorithm, and the procedure to
test an MD deck. I see no reason to cover the same
ground all over again in this review (No. 21, which also
contains Bob Adams's timeless tutorial on digital jitter, is
still available to our readers at the prorated subscription
price), so the following is basically an update rather than
a complete MD treatise.

The JA3ES is the ultimate MD deck, the highend
embodiment of what was originally conceived to be a
massmarket technology. It incorporates thirdgeneration
ATRAC, which is allegedly more nearly transparent in
sound than its predecessors, and it costs $200 more than
the already pricey MDS501 it replaces. It is without
question an impressive piece of gear; what I wrote about
the lookandfeel and various features of the MDS501
goes in spades for the JA3ES. Sony took the ES ("Ele-

vated Standard") suffix seriously when they added it to

the model number.

Just as an example, the highly touted CXD8504M
digital filter chip used in Sony's $3000 topoftheline

45

pdf 41

CD player also appears in the JA3ES. (Don't look for a
David Rich autopsy of the circuit boards, however. I
wouldn't dare send him something as crass as a perceptu­ally coded digital device.)

As I explained in my MDS-501 review, I don't see

much point in measuring what the ATRAC circuitry

does, since the performance criteria are psychoacoustic

and have little to do with I/O accuracy. I suppose one
could measure adherence to the specified codec protocol,
but I didn't think that was worth the trouble. I did per­form, however, the usual analog and digital accuracy
tests. The JA3ES handily surpassed the second-generation

product in these straight-through measurements.

Both the A/D and D/A converters are extremely

linear; the delta-sigma DAC has ±0.2 dB gain-linearity

error down to -110 dB (!) and the ADC is off by only
+0.6 dB at -90 dB. Full-scale THD + N is in the -92 to

-93 dB range over most of the audio spectrum with a 16­bit input (improving by only 3 to 5 dB with a 20-bit in­put, although the front panel advertises 20 bits). Reduc­ing the digital input from 0 dB to -20 dB results in only a

1 dB improvement in excess THD + N above the theoret-

ical minimum, eliminating gain-related analog distortion
as the source. Indeed, the purely analog line-in/line-out
distortion of the JA3ES is of the order of -85 to -89 dB
at all frequencies, right up there with the best. Here's one
for the book: the Rob Watts D/A test (FFT spectrum of a
dithered 1 kHz tone at -60 dB) shows the JA3ES to be

just a little cleaner than the $3995.00 Accuphase DP-55

CD player! There is no glitch whatsoever rising from the

-126 dB noise floor.
As for the subjective transparency of the perceptual

coding used in the JA3ES, I did not set up in-depth ABX

comparisons with listening panels because, as I said,

Sony claims no parity for the MD with CD, DAT, or any
other uncompressed digital or analog medium. I did,
however, try to confound the ATRAC with tricks I had

learned at the October 1995 convention of the AES in
New York. (There was a professional workshop there
called "Listening Test Standards for Evaluation of Low
Bit-Rate Codecs," in which all data-reduction methods
were asserted to be in need of improvement and "killer"
signals were demonstrated.) I must say that I was unable
to trip up the Sony even with evil intentions. That doesn't
mean it can't be done, but I just couldn't find the signals
to do it with. My admittedly limited listening tests have
revealed no obvious obstruction of transparency in third­generation ATRAC. This statement is based on digital­to-digital copying of good CDs with the JA3ES, not on
comparing any prerecorded MD release with the CD ver­sion.

The long and the short of it is that I like the MD a
lot, certainly at the JA3ES level of performance, and
wish its survival could be assured by lower blank-disc
prices and generally better U.S. marketing. Failing that,
the Betamax scenario is inevitable.

Compact Disc Player

Thorens TCD 2000

Thorens of America, Ltd., 84-05 Cuthbert Road, Kew Gardens,
NY 11415. Voice: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. TCD
2000 compact disc player with TFB 2200 remote control,
$2500.00. Tested sample on loan from manufacturer.

Nearly every graying audiophile like me has owned
a Thorens turntable at one time or another in the course
of the phono era. Thorens apparently believes that the
turntable image will sell CD players because this unit is
made to look like a miniature but very high-tech phono
turntable. The platter, fully visible at all times under the
plexiglass lid, has a gold mirror finish and quivers like

jelly on a soft suspension that must be screwed down for

transit. What's more, the whole black-and-gold affair is
about half the size of a normal CD player, matching a
complete line of cosmetically coordinated Thorens mini­separates. Is it an appealing look? Yes, in a sort of Euro­trashy way. I'd be more impressed if the line cord were
standard U.S. instead of just-off-the-boat Continental
with an add-on adapter.

The overall system design, other than the transport,
appears to be Philips-based, with Bitstream conversion
and somewhat rudimentary control functions. I say that

because my bête noire when it comes to CD remote con­trols is one that lacks index search buttons, and that's

what we have here—absolutely unforgivable in a $2.5K

player. Does Thorens imagine that high-end component
buyers listen exclusively to rock/pop CDs? Another par­simonious touch is just one digital output, coaxial only,
no optical.

My measurements revealed some serious shortcom­ings in this unit. To begin with, the frequency response
starts rolling off at 4 kHz and is -0.4 dB at 20 kHz. That
would be terrific in a phono cartridge but is a bit strange
in a CD player. No big deal, but there's more. Full-scale
THD + N hovers between -84 and -86 dB at most fre­quencies across the audio band, meaning excess distor­tion of 12 to 14 dB above the theoretical minimum of

-98.08 dB. The quantization noise test yields -85.6 dB.
Those are not good numbers. How much of the distortion
is due to analog amplification became rather irrelevant
when I looked at the monotonicity test pattern. There are
D/A conversion problems here. The "stairway" goes up­down-up-down instead of up-up-up-up. That despite the
typically perfect Bitstream gain linearity (less than 0.25
dB error all the way down to -100 dB), showing once
again the limited significance of the gain-linearity test
(see also David Rich on the subject in Issue No. 15, page

10). Wideband noise in the absence of a digital signal
("infinity zero") is quite high: -85 dB at 200 kHz and be­tween -110 and -120 at most audio frequencies. Channel
separation is pretty good: 86 dB at 20 kHz and improving
to as much as 110 dB at the lower frequencies. On the

46

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 42

other hand, a positive-going pulse on CD comes out neg­ative at line out; such polarity inversion is extremely rare
in today's CD players.

It is somehow my impression that Thorens wants
you to plug the digital output of the TCD 2000 into the
better-performing TDA 2000 processor (see below) and
use the TCD 2000 only as a transport (i.e., CD "turn­table"), with its straight-through mode relegated to a
backup system. That would give you a $4300 CD player
with two free digital inputs (one coaxial, one optical),
one digital output (coaxial), two analog outputs (unbal­anced only, one main, one backup), and no index search
facility.

Any takers?

Outboard D/A Converter

Thorens TDA 2000

Thorens of America, Ltd., 84-05 Cuthbert Road, Kew Gardens,
NY 11415. Voice: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. TDA
2000 outboard D/A converter, $1800.00. Tested sample on loan

from manufacturer.

I am assuming that this unit represents Thorens's
statement on the subject of correct D/A conversion. As
such, it redeems the disappointing DAC of the TCD 2000
(see above) to a considerable degree. Indeed, if this were

the only device available to me for playing my digital
program sources, I'd be quite happy.

Unfortunately, the TDA 2000 has a minor defect,

probably very easy to correct. Three LEDs on the front
panel are labeled 32 kHz, 44.1 kHz, and 48 kHz to indi-

cate the sampling rate of the digital input signal. Only the

44.1 kHz LED is ever lit, even when the input rate is 32
kHz or 48 kHz. At first I thought this defect was unique
to my original sample, so I asked for a second one. Same
thing. An entire production series appears to suffer from
a manufacturing error. I found no other QC problems,
however.

The TDA 2000 matches the size and styling of the
TCD 2000; even the cockamamie wall-plug adapter is

the same. The silicon complement appears to be Philips's

best dual Bitstream push-pull chip set—I say "appears"
because most of it is potted in two flashy Thorens-labeled
modules and no circuit schematic was available. In this
case full-scale THD + N measured a much more respect­able -93 dB across most of the audio band, meaning 5 dB
excess distortion above the irreducible 16-bit minimum.
With the digital input level reduced, excess distortion of
only 0.6 dB was achievable, which is close to perfection
and proves the full-scale readings to be due to gain­related analog distortion. Increasing the word length to

18 bits and then 20 bits—since the system is claimed to
have 21-bit resolution—resulted in a maximum improve­ment of 7 dB (just a little more than 1 bit) after excluding
gain-related analog distortion. The 4 "marketing bits"

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

don't bother me at all; I can live happily with a 17-bit
processor.

Gain linearity is absolutely perfect with this partic­ular Bitstream architecture; I measured ±0.0 dB error all
the way down to -100 dB. I've never seen better. The
"Rob Watts test" (FFT spectrum of a dithered 1 kHz tone
at -60 dB) showed a bin-by-bin noise floor of -126 dB
with a single second-harmonic blip of -105.8 dB. Not

perfect but good enough. One little peculiarity: the fre-

quency response has a peak of 0.1 dB at around 16 kHz;
don't ask me why. My dogs can't hear it, and neither will

you. I could have gone on trying to wring out this proces-

sor with endless other tests but I stopped. Why? Because
(1) its basic performance characteristics were quite suf-

ficient to establish it as a good, clean unit, and (2) I don't

believe in outboard D/A converters anymore. Today's
best CD players and other digital devices have good

enough built-in DACs for the most demanding applica-

tions and have the advantage of being free of the possible

pitfalls of the S/PDIF and AES/EBU interface. At this
point the outboard D/A converter is being kept alive by
high-end marketing rather than genuine need.

If you disagree with me, the Thorens TDA 2000
will most probably satisfy you and is recommended—as

long as you need only a single unbalanced analog output

because that's all you get. And, of course, they'll have to

fix that sampling rate indicator.

...and now, two

little surprises from

David Rich:

Budget-Priced Stereo Receiver

Pioneer SX-203

Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc., 2265 East 220th Street, Long
Beach, CA 90810. Voice: [phone] [PIONEER]. Fax:
[phone]. SX-203 stereo receiver, $225.00. No longer a
current model; tested sample purchased by reviewer for
$100.00 at Circuit City.

Yes folks, this is a review of a Pioneer receiver.
"Pioneer receiver" is a dismissive term used by audio­philes to indicate lowly junk in comparison with their
wonderful high-end stuff. Well, we know most high-end
stuff is not wonderful but is instead the true junk. So, is
the Pioneer receiver wonderful? Well, in many ways,
yes. I paid $100.00 for the unit at Circuit City. I needed a
receiver for an auxiliary system in my town house. For

51

pdf 43

fun I also tried it in my main system, and it passed the
ABX test, provided the level was held to below clipping.
Before you declare me deaf, let's look inside to under-

stand what is going on.

What is going on is that modern IC technology has
allowed dramatic cost reductions to take place, just as in
computers. The RIAA section is formed with an
NJM4558 opamp. It has much more gain and bandwidth
than a lowcost discrete design found in old preamps. In
better units you would see a lowernoise part, but I as­sume the designers are not expecting someone to connect
an expensive movingcoil cartridge to this receiver. The
tolerances of the passives that form the RIAA are not as
tightly specified as in more expensive equipment, but
modern manufacturing appears to keep them pretty tight
anyway. From 1 kHz to 20 kHz the RIAA was flat within
a 0.1 dB strip. It rose 0.5 dB from 1 kHz to 100 Hz and
then backed off 0.1 dB when it hit 20 Hz.

Ergonomics of the receiver are very good. For ex­ample, you can directly enter a station frequency and
tune to that station on the tuner. Speaking of the tuner, it
uses a modern Sanyo chip (LA1836) for all functions ex-

cept the FM IF and RF front end. With only two IF
filters, this is a widemodeonly tuner. If you have two
close stations, forget it. The RF section is only a two
gang affair. The RF input is untuned. This is clearly in­tended for indoor antennas, with the hope that no local
signal is going to overload the front end. Difficult signals
are simply not going to be received, and many weak sta­tions may come in only in mono. On the other hand, local
signals can sound very good because that Sanyo chip has
some stateoftheart stuff. The VCO of the multiplex
PLL is crystalbased (the $900 Pioneer Elite F93 tuner
we review in this issue does not have this feature). No
birdie filter is required because of the Walshfunction
based multiplex decoder. On the downside, filtering on
the audio path is minimal, so make sure you use the
MPX filter on your tape deck.

One true pain about this product is that the 75Ω an-

tenna input (the only antenna input) uses pushterminal
connectors. I could find no adapter to connect to this.
You have to strip the coax cable yourself to the bare ends
and try to push these in the terminals. A sales person at
Radio Shack (they sell rebranded versions of Pioneer re­ceivers with the same problem) suggested using a 75Ω to
300Ω converter .That would have significantly decreased
sensitivity and increased noise. (It looks like Radio
Shack should change its motto to "You've got questions,
we've got wrong answers.")

And now on to the line stage. The selector func­tions are done with Toshiba CMOS switches. Unlike
switches made with older technology, these never wear
out and are placed at the rear of the unit, so interconnect
distances to the RCA jacks are short. Contrast this to the
old mechanical selectorswitch technology. Solidstate
switching also adds to the good feel of this unit. Nothing

about it says cheap.

The 300Ω resistors in series with each input pre­vent latch of the CMOS selector in case of a fault condi­tion at the input. The tape monitors are not buffered, but

2.2kΩ resistors are placed in series with the record out­puts as a lowcost solution to the problem of having the
tapeouts loaded by the tape recorder when the recorder
is off. Two record outputs are available. They are separ­ately selected in the CMOS switch bank, so you cannot
create selfoscillations like so many preamps we have re­viewed that sell for ten times this receiver's price.

Another NJM4558 buffers the output of the CMOS

selector switch. Then come the tone controls. You cannot

defeat them, but the controls have center detents. These
are well designed, including a treble control that uses a

single transistorbased synthetic inductor. The active

amplifier is another 4558. The volume control (motorized
in the SX203R remote version of this receiver) and bal­ance control follow. These controls are buffered by yet
another 4558, which also performs a bassboost function
for the kids that Pioneer calls Super Bass. Four electro
lytics are in the signal path from line in to speaker out.
Note that no gain is supplied by the linelevel signal path.
All gain comes from the power amp (41 dB). In the dis­continued Pioneer SX31, which listed at twice the price,
Super Bass is out and a normal loudness function is in.
The stage that does the loudness function (which is de
featable, as are the tone and balance controls) has 20 dB

of gain. The poweramp gain is reduced to 20 dB in the

SX31.

The SX203 power amplifier section is all discrete

and has a topology that for the most part is like that of a
megabuck power amp. A differential pair with resistor
tail and resistor load drives a currentsourcebiased sec­ond stage with a VBE multiplier for the bias circuitry. A
complementary pair of emitterfollower predrivers then
drives the single complementary output pair. A higher
end circuit design in some slightly more expensive re­ceivers would include a current mirror load for the first
stage (as done for example in the Pioneer SX31 referred
to above) or a complementary drive to the second stage,
using a unitygain inverting stage. Other circuit tricks,
such as a bias circuit that prevents the nondriving device
from fully turning off, might also be included. Again, we
are not talking megabucks here because the Pioneer SX
31 adds just such a circuit. One problem with the power
amp in the SX203 is the small size of the capacitor in
the feedback loop (22 µF). This results in a pole at 8 Hz
and as a result the frequency response is down 1 dB at 20
Hz. The 0.2 dB points are 70 Hz and 22 kHz. Between
200 Hz and 10 kHz we are talking ±0.025 dB. The top
end rolloff occurs because of the high gain levels in the
power amp. If the gain had been less, the bandwidth
would have been greater.

The big difference between the SX203 and the

bigger welldesigned power amps is the iron. The trans

52

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 44

former puts out about 55 V but it has a high winding re­sistance that limits current capacity. Heat sinks are small,
as is the fullwave rectifier. The single pair of output de­vices is not designed for operation at high current levels,
and 8200 µF capacitors are all that are used for the pri-

mary filter capacitors. Power for the lowlevel circuits
comes from a zenerdiode regulated supply for the 12 V
rail (are they following highend practice?). The +12 V

rail gets an IC regulator. Separate halfwave rectifiers on

separate supply taps of the transformer supply the unreg-

ulated voltage for the lowlevel circuits.

The layout of the receiver is well done because

crosstalk stays below 60 dB for frequencies lower than 1

kHz. At 20 kHz the worstcase number is 37 dB from
line in to speaker out at a 1watt level. I can name many
highend products that do much worse.

The SX203 has a complex dc and overdrive pro-

tection circuit with 6 active components, 27 passives, and

a relay at each speaker output connection. No el cheapo

singletransistor foldback circuit here. Such circuits are
found in most highend products, but Pioneer left them
behind long ago. As a result, the PowerCube looks very
good. The voltage supplied into reactive loads increases
relative to the resistive load, just as you would expect of

a welldesigned amp. The unit had no problem driving

1Ω loads on a dynamic basis. Can your singleended

triode do that, tweaks?

Into an 8Ω resistive load the amplifier of the SX

203 will deliver 31V rms. That declines to 25 V rms into
4Ω, 17 V into 2Ω, and 9 V into 1Ω. These numbers are

limited by the current this amplifier can supply. The limit

is 9 amps. As I said, it is the iron that got thrown over­board in this design. You may not be able to drive a high
end speaker with a crazy impedance, but most speakers
will be driven to very loud levels by the SX203. One
must note that this unit will not pass 4ohm FTC power
tests because it cannot pass the preconditioning tests,
again as a result of the missing iron and output transis­tors. Lack of an FTC 4ohm rating on any piece of audio
equipment is a sure indication that it is underdesigned.
Meeting this test requires that some real money be used
in the design.

That skimpy power supply shows up in the distor­tion measurements. With one channel driven, the ampli­fier drops to a THD of 70 dB. It clips just above 110

watts at 1 kHz and 20 kHz. No dynamic distortion is seen
in the 20 kHz measurement (do you see red faces on
some highend amplifier designers?), although it may be

hidden by the static distortion level. The 20 Hz distortion

starts rising at the 40watt level—half the value of the 1
kHz and 20 kHz conditions. Here the power supply limi­tations are starting to show. As the frequency gets lower,
more current must be supplied at the maxima and minima
of the sine waves because these peaks and dips exist for a
longer period of time. The filter capacitors get drained
and the power supply collapses. With both channels driv

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

en, the power levels at 1% (40 dB) distortion drop to 90
watts at 40 Hz. At 20 Hz only 80 watts are produced.
Overall, distortion becomes 5 to 10 dB worse with both
channels driven. Dropping the load down to 4Ω with
both channels driven produces a 20 Hz to 20 kHz power
level of 100 watts at 1% distortion, and a bestcase dis­tortion number of 60 dB (0.1%) at 70 watts. Pioneer
rates this as a 70wattperchannel unit at 1% distortion
into 8Ω. It clearly exceeds this specification. Can all the
highend amplifiers claim to meet their specs?

The SX203 may represent a little too much slum­ming for most audiophiles because of its limited power
supply and output stage, as well as the bandlimiting in
the power amplifier because of its high gain. Most of
these problems appear to be resolved in the somewhat
more expensive SX31. But the SX203 does some re­markable things on its own, including driving complex
loads down to 1Ω, showing no dynamic distortion, and
producing good crosstalk numbers. That is why it has no
perceptible sonic signature within its power limits. In
many respects this receiver puts much of the highend
equipment to shame. Professional engineers designing to
specifications win over tweaks designing to an agenda.
We intend to spend more time in the bargain basement in
future issues to see how much one really has to spend on
electronics.

This unit is discontinued now, but I do not think it
is a magic design; in fact, it is fairly typical. Most major
brand Japanese receivers are of basically similar design.
Look for a discrete power amp. You also want a direct
path switch to bypass the cheap balance and tone pots.
FTC power ratings down to 20 Hz and THD numbers be­low 0.1% are also good signs. Consumers Reports can
also help steer you to a good unit, especially when it
comes to tuner performance. They test more samples of
lowend receivers at one time than I can ever attempt to.

* * *

Editor's Note: The SX203 was dropped from the Pioneer
line shortly after Issue No. 23 came out, but we figured it
was still worth testing for this issue as an illustration of
what is obtainable these days for peanuts. The SX205, at
$220.00, appears to be an improved replacement. As for
ABX doubleblind listening comparisons, I set one up in
our lab against a $3K power amp canonized by Stereo
phile (in a slightly different version) as "Class A." Three
highly experienced audiophiles, of whom I was one, com­pared the two amps for hours. The correct blind iden­tifications were the usual 50%, give or take a couple of
points—in other words, completely random. Interesting­ly, my two fellow auditioners (not I) actually expressed a
preference for the SX203 as long as it was known as B.

When they switched to X, however, they got nowhere. To
me the outcome was predictable, but the test had to be
performed because until then we had never ABXed real-

ly cheap electronics against the multikilobuck highend
stuff. Sound taps for the tweako belief system...

53

pdf 45

Integrated Amplifier

Yamaha AX-570

Yamaha Electronics Corporation, USA, 6660 Orangethorpe Av­enue, Buena Park, CA 90620. Voice: (714) 5229105. Fax:
(714) 6700108. AX570 integrated stereo amplifier, $499.00.
Tested sample on loan from manufacturer.

Consider my Pioneer SX203 review above. While it
is remarkable for what it is, the Pioneer has limited current
sinking capability, sloppy RIAA equalization, a lowfre­quency rolloff in the power amp, etc. It does not have a
tone defeat switch or a record selector switch, and you
cannot separate the preamp from the power amp. The log­ical question is—what can you get if you take one step up
from the bottom of the line? Well, in receivers the next
step up turns out to be a multichannel receiver of about
the same quality and left/rightchannel performance. If
you then look into integrated amplifiers, you may very
well be surprised to find out that there is no inexpensive

integrated amplifier in the line. (Yes, I know, the situa­tion is different in Europe.) Which brings us to the Ya­maha AX570. At $499 it represents about the least you
could spend without making significant compromises.

Build quality is good enough to ensure long years
of service but it is not in the audiophile jewelry class.
The unit is made in Malaysia. The chassis uses thin metal
held together with sheetmetal screws; resistors are car­bon; the switches are not sealed; the PC boards are sin­glesided and filled with jumpers; indeed, on some parts
of the board large 10gauge jumpers run above 20gauge

jumpers mounted directly on the PC board. (It looks like

some sort of multidecked highway structure.)

The audiophile—actually, industrial—class of de­sign really does cost a lot more, and forcing the prices
even higher is the fact that those highend units sell at
low volumes, since most people do not see the need to
spend that kind of money in order to own equipment that
will last 20 years and look as if it were ready to fly on the
space shuttle. A car analogy may help at this point. The
Pioneer SX203 is a Ford Escort. The Aragon, Bryston,
and Mcintosh are the BMWs of the audio world. The Au­dio Researches and ConradJohnsons are equivalent to
suppliers of reconstructed Ford Model T's. The Yamaha
AX570 is the Toyota Camry of the audiophile world.

Given the thin sheet metal, most of this unit's 24
pounds come from the transformer and the heat sinks
(separate for each channel). Mounted on each channel's
heat sink are four output devices. Each side of the class
A/B output stage uses paralleled devices. This unit does
have the ability produce some current, unlike the Pioneer,
which has a smaller transformer and heat sinks and does
not have paralleled output stages. Of course, even more
current is available in separate power amps that have
even more iron. In most cases the voltage and current ca­pabilities of the AX570 should be more than adequate.

The rest of the power amp shows similar thinking.
The allbipolar circuit uses a differential pair with active
loads. An emitter follower connects the signal from the
input stage to the singleended second voltagegain stage
with a singletransistor current source. Another emitter
follower follows this stage and it drives the aforesaid pair
of output devices. The only electrolytic capacitor in the

power amp is at the input. This design may not produce

the lowest distortion theoretically possible, but the distor­tion levels are surprisingly low, only marginally higher
than the best we have measured on any unit and in any

event well below the distortion levels produced by some

megabuck amplifiers canonized by the highend crowd.

The power supply for the power amp has 12,000
µF filter capacitors. The output devices are monitored
with an overcurrent protection circuit similar to that of

the Pioneer SX203. When overcurrent conditions occur
long enough to cause the output transistors' safe area of
operation to be exceeded, the relays in series with the
output are opened and the signal at the input of the power
amp is muted. Unfortunately, our PowerCube test system
was temporarily down when the AX570 was on the lab
bench, so we were unable to obtain a complete picture of
maximum output into the widest range of resistive and
reactive loads, but we did determine that it took a little
over 11 amperes of steadystate current at 1 kHz to make
the amplifier go into protection. That's not half bad.

There are a separate relays for speaker pairs A and
B (which have fullsize banana output jacks, not the
cheap connectors used by Pioneer). This eliminates the
need to route the output of the power amp back to the
front of the unit where the speaker selector switches are.
The switches just drive the relays. One interesting idea
unique to the AX570 is that the ground at the speaker
terminal is sensed and compared with the ground used at
the lowlevel electronics. The output of the opamp
forms the ground reference for the power amplifier. This
approach ensures that no hum or distortion is introduced

by drops in the ground line that occur when signal cur­rent flows through ground wires connecting the speakers

to the power supply. It also functions as a dc servo, elimi­nating the electrolytic cap in the feedback path. Another
nice touch along a similar line is the placement of the

preamp's gain stage on the same auxiliary PC board that

supports the volume control. This allows a low

impedance signal to be routed to the power amp.

The opamp used is actually a pair of opamps.

Both sections of an NJM2068S are used for each chan-

nel. Each opamp is wired with a pair of resistors as a

noninverting amplifier. A pair of 470Ω resistors sums the

signals from each opamp. This approach improves the

noise of the circuit by 3 dB. Using a lowernoise opamp

would appear to be a simpler approach, but it looks like

the economies of scale involved in mass purchases of the
NJM2068S makes acquisition of a separate opamp for

(continued on page 64)

54

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 46

FM Tuners:

The Continuing Survey

By David A. Rich, Ph.D.

Contributing Technical Editor

Not all tuners are created equal, not even in the same price range.
Here is the opportunity for the audiophile to find genuine perfor­mance differences. Or are amplifiers that much more interesting?

This is the second part of our tuner survey. We in­tend to have a third part to bring in a couple more models
but we pretty much have all the top-of-the-line produc­tion tuners covered between these two installments. That
tells you how high-priced tuners are selling these days.

Your Editor has asked me to give some indication
of how a high-end tuner should be designed. The ques­tion implies that the designers of these tuners know less
than I do, which is not the case. Each of the tuners has
been designed to emphasize the specifications felt impor­tant by the designer, under the constraints of how large
the bill of materials would be allowed to get. The ulti­mate tuner would cost somewhere around $3000 to
$5000 these days. Day Sequerra is working on such a de­sign for introduction in the summer of 1997, but no oth­ers are on the horizon because manufacturers believe
they will never recover the cost to create the tuner, given
the falloff of this market.

James Bongiorno has shown me his prototype de­sign and it looks really really good on paper, but as of
this writing it is a piece of paper and may remain so.
(Bongiorno also has some novel amp and preamp designs
that stand a much better chance of seeing the light of day.
He also showed me some of his work that predates my
involvement with The Audio Critic. I would have praised
these designs for their innovation if I had known about
them.)

Having hedged sufficiently, I'll tell you what I
would do if I were assigned to design a super tuner. My
priority would be to design a tuner that minimized adjust­ments. Almost every tuner we have seen has been out of
alignment. I would implement everything past the FM
demodulator in a digital signal processor. Keeping the
demodulator in analog form makes the requirement on
the A/D similar to audio A/D. I should note that work on
bringing the demodulator into the digital domain is very
much a current research topic, with some promising re-

sults, but for this discussion let's keep things simple and
digitize after the demodulator.

The passband of a composite FM signal runs out to
about 60 kHz, so the sampling rate needs to be higher
than for an audio ADC, but the dynamic range is a lot
less so we can still use the same front end of the delta­sigma modulator but we need a different decimator. Once
we have our signal decimated, we can perform all sorts

of mathematical operations that are very difficult in ana-

log land. The neat ideas of the Pioneer Elite F-93 (see be­low) could be made to work reliably in the digital do-

main, for example. Properly done, signal-to-noise ratios,
distortion levels, and channel separation figures would be

much better using the DSP approach. Once the DSP has

produced the stereo signals from the composite signal,

the data could be sent out of the tuner as an S/PDIF sig­nal or it could be converted to analog by an internal pair

of DACs.

So what about all those adjustments in the front
end, IF strip, and demodulator? (The latter has adjust-

ments only if we go for the ultimate performance of the
PLL demodulator instead of the zero-adjustment pulse­count detector.) Well, once we have DSP on board we
can do self-test and alignment. The DSP engine can do

level measurements across frequency and it can do dis-

tortion and noise measurements. The DSP can be con-

nected to DACs that can generate dc voltages to drive va-

ractors to change the resonant frequency of tuned

circuits. The DSP in conjunction with a DAC and an up-

conversion mixer would form an RF test generator that

could be used for the autoalignment and self-test process.
Research papers have been published on the use of these
techniques in cellular phones.

OK, time to stop dreaming and look at the reality
of what is available today.

(Please note that all stations discussed in the use
tests were tuned in and received at Richard Modafferi's
test facility near Binghamton, New York, unless other­wise noted. The number of these use tests has been in­creased this time around. Additional details are in the re­views.)

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

55

pdf 47

Accuphase T-109

Accuphase Laboratory, Inc., Yokohama, Japan, through Axiss

Distribution, Inc., 17800 South Main Street, Suite 109, Garde­na, CA 90248. Voice: [phone]. Fax: [phone].
Model T-109 quartz-lock synthesizer FM tuner, $2995.00. Test­ed sample on loan from distributor.

(The following is a fly-on-the-wall view of the

Accuphase tuner test at Richard Modafferi's lab.)

Hey, Rich, for three thousand dollars this had bet­ter be the world's best tuner. Oh, you tested one already
and you think it is the world's best. I guess that's proof
that there is no free lunch in this world. Yes, Rich, I tried
to get schematics but Accuphase would not send them, so
let's get directly to the use tests. What do you mean I'm
going to have to wait for you to realign the front end?
How could a three-thousand-dollar tuner be out of align­ment? Wait a minute, you are saying you also have to
touch up the stereo separation trim pots? Well, at least
you won't have to do anything to the FM detector be­cause pulse-count demodulators require no adjustment.

Finally, you're finished. Let's try that 3/4-wave­length indoor antenna first. Gee, it gets signals 120 miles
away. OK, let's connect it up to the antenna tower. Hey,
we can get 91.3 MHz with a little splatter even though it

is at 100 µV and 91.5 MHz is at 30 mV. Yes, Rich, I
know your dear old MR-78 gets this signal cleanly but
Mcintosh doesn't make that one anymore. Look, we have
a very slight cross-modulation caused by the 1 V signal
on 92.1 MHz. Remember, the Onkyo and the MR-78 are
clean in the local mode but they have some cross­modulation in the DX mode. And note the Accuphase
has a 2f1±f2 spurious at 106.3 MHz (f1 and f2 are 105.7
and 105.1). Despite this, you can hear a weak signal at

106.3 MHz on the Accuphase, but no signal is heard on

the MR-78 and Onkyo.. Let's try the killer 89.5 MHz test
(140 miles away). That's the station surrounded by 89.3
MHz (4 miles away) and 89.7 MHz (2 miles away). Looks
like the Accuphase has some splatter. Yes, your MR-78
is better than the Accuphase on this test but not by much.

Hey, Rich, I told you we don't have the schematic

but you can reverse-engineer it if you want to. What do
you mean it is a very ordinary design? So you found dou­ble-tuned RF circuits are used on the RF input and mixer
input. What else did you find out? The RF transistor is a
JFET 2SK241 and the mixer and oscillator is a 2SC2668.
But that's just ordinary semiconductors. Rich, look
again, it says right here in the literature on this thing that
it has a double-balanced mixer, so you missed a transis­tor. You're sure it has no double-balanced mixer? But
Rich, this front end has excellent noise quieting, very
good spurious rejection, and therefore wide dynamic
range, so something must be different. Oh, it is just good
design with ordinary parts. So that's why RF folks get
paid so much because RF design is a black art. While

you are in there, what multiplex decoder chip does it use.
Sanyo LA3401? Oh, that's the one that Mcintosh uses. I
wonder why they did not use the better LA3450.

OK, let's put it on the bench and see what it will
do. Look, the 1 kHz stereo THD is only -74 dB in the
wide mode and your stereo IM test is also at -74 dB.
Aren't those the best you ever measured? Separation
looks good too, with 50 dB at 1kHz and 36 dB at 10 kHz.

And look, the broadband noise is below -80 dB. The nar­row mode is not as good, but this is a very narrow filter

similar to the one in the Onkyo T-9090II. Oh well, 22 dB
channel separation is OK across the band, as is a 1 kHz

THD of -46 dB and a stereo IM of -49 dB, but doesn't
the Pioneer Elite F-93 do better than that? (OK, I know,

the F-93 has a bad RF section, so it doesn't matter how
well it does in the narrow mode, and its wide-mode per-

formance was real bad.) Rich, did you know that Accu­phase guarantees its specifications? Some of them are a
little better than what you measured—maybe you need a
better FM generator. OK, please calm down; I will not
say anything else about your FM generator, and I know
the sample we got did not come anywhere close to specs
until you aligned it.

Look, this multipath meter function is really useful.
It measures the AM modulation on the signals that are
caused by multipath and interfering adjacent signals. I
bet my cable FM will make the needle move out of the
good zone. Rich, you have any idea why they could not
give you a separate meter for signal strength instead of
using this pushbutton switch to go between the two func­tions? It does cost $2995, you know. Yes, I know, it has
a separate meter-circuit IF, so strong signals don't just

pin the meter, but so do the Onkyo and the Elite, and

they cost a lot less. I know, I know, they don't have the
look and feel of this unit. It does look a lot more expen­sive, but I don't see three thousand dollars' worth of

parts in there, even if it has higher build quality than On-

kyo and Pioneer. Why is it built with single-sided PC
boards? Yes, I know, the metalwork on this thing is very
expensive, and that big shielded power supply is not
something you see every day.

By the way, did you notice that if you tune in a
weak signal in the wide IF mode, the stereo/mono indica­tor goes out? You cannot tell if it's stereo or mono.
Looks like a logic error to me. Yes, yes, the problem

does not happen in the narrow mode, but this thing is

three thousand dollars. And did you notice it has no an­tenna selector? Oh, and do you know why it beeps every

time you move the tuning knob that's connected to the
rotary encoder? You say it's for blind people. Very inter-

esting, but I wish they'd give you a defeat switch. I don't
like to be beeped at. Did you notice that the tuning knob
has such a great feel because they put that big flywheel
on it? And at least they give you a remote control and
balanced outputs for your $2995.

I wonder how long we can keep it. What's that?

56

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 48

Peter is on the phone and he wants the tuner sent to the
home office as quickly as possible? You didn't tell him it
was any good, did you? Yes, I know, it is the world's
best production tuner, and you know it's the world's best,
but Peter didn't have to know!

Followup (Discontinued Model)

Harman Kardon TU9600

Harman Kardon Incorporated, a Harman International Com­pany, 80 Crossways Park West, Woodbury, NY 11797. Voice:
[phone]. Fax: [phone]. TU9600 "active track­ing" AM/FM stereo tuner with remote control, $449.00. Tested
sample on loan from manufacturer.

This is the followup report on the TU9600 I de-

scribed and analyzed (qualitatively) in the last issue.
Since it is now discontinued, with no tuner of compara­ble quality in the current Harman Kardon line, you will
find out whether you got a bargain if you bought one or
missed a bargain if you did not.

The RF section is no bargain, with single-tuned cir­cuits at the input of the RF and IF. This is typical at this
price point. An earlier, more expensive, and also discon­tinued tuner (Citation 23) had double-tuned circuits. It
came as no surprise that the external-antenna torture test
resulted in the entire dial being filled with spuriae from
the 1 V signal at 92.1 MHz and the 250 mV signal at

105.7 MHz. Weaker 100 mV signals were also audible as
spuriae. But do not get too depressed; with an indoor or

simple outdoor antenna you are not going to get the same
signal levels as Richard Modafferi does. What you want
is sensitivity and the TU9600 has that in spades. Richard
got a mono signal form Canada that was 220 miles away.
At my place in Pennsylvania the TU9600 did as well as
any other tuner I have had my hands on, as long as it was
in the Active Tracking mode. Using the plebeian quadra­ture detector was a disaster, however. One very minor
problem Richard found in the Active Tracking mode was
that a very strong AM signal (measuring 5 V/m, from a
station 600 feet from his house) could be heard at a dead
spot in the FM band. If an FM signal were present, it
would override this spurious.

One neat feature of the Active Tracking circuit is
the ability to create a static offset at the VCO input. This
shifts the PLL lock range. A close interfering signal may
thus be ignored by the PLL when the lock range is pre­vented from extending into the band that the interferer
occupies. This feature is called Fine Tuning by Harman
Kardon. We did not find this feature helped under our
signal conditions but it might help under yours. It is a
very clever, low-cost idea.

The IF strip has three ceramic filters. The IF amps
are one-transistor discrete circuits. Such a circuit may be
less expensive than an integrated-circuit IF amp. No
phase adjustments are available in the IF strip. The result

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

of this (and perhaps misadjustments in the quadrature de­tector) is higher distortion, -54 dB in the normal mode
and -48 dB in the Active Tracking mode. Do not feel too

bad, though; the $900 Pioneer Elite with the world's

most complex detector circuit has only 2 dB better distor-

tion. The Sanyo LA3450 multiplex decoder did strut it

stuff. Stereo IM was a state-of-the-art -75 dB in normal

mode, dropping to a very good -60 dB in Active Track­ing. Channel separation was better than 40 dB across the
board. The frequency response of the tuner was up about

1 dB at 15 kHz. AM was typical for tuners of today,

which is to say an ancient five-tube table radio would
blow it away.

This little tuner even includes A/B antenna switch-

ing, as well as high blend. As I said, in the Active Track­ing mode it did as well as anything in my system. If it
were still around, I would include it under my recom­mendations. I hope Harman Kardon, makers of a number
of great tuners in the past, will replace this unit as well as
the more expensive Citation 23.

Followup

Mcintosh MR7084

Mcintosh Laboratory, Inc., 2 Chambers Street, Binghamton, NY

13903-2699. Voice: [phone]. Fax: [phone].
MR7084 AM/FM stereo tuner, $1500.00. Tested sample on loan

from manufacturer.

Mcintosh's only currently made tuner was intro­duced and given the once-over by the Editor in the last
issue. This is the promised followup after use tests and
measurements.

The FM has an audible 500 Hz beat note on signals
from 87.9 to 90.0 MHz. It is about 50 to 60 dB down. It
may be a PLL loop-filter problem in the electronic tuning
system. FM selectivity was good enough to get a station

140 miles away at 91.5 MHz between a station 75 miles
away at 91.3 MHz and a station 50 miles away at 91.7
MHz. This test was done at night, when the station that is
4 miles away at 91.5 MHz is off the air. We run the test
with that station on the air when testing the super tuners.
With the MR7084, forget it; its selectivity is not good
enough. The tuner could get a station 220 miles away,
showing it has good sensitivity if not selectivity. No spu­rious problems occurred with a 250 mV signal at 105.7
MHz. A weak signal at 105.3 MHz could not be tuned in
because of the lack of selectivity (recall the tuner has no
narrow IF mode) but not because of a spurious problem
that affects so many other tuners here. With a 1 V signal
at 92.1 MHz cross-modulation at 91.7 MHz is audible,
but it looks like that may be a problem with the tuner's
sensitivity, not the RF section. We look for a 2f1±f2 spuri­ous signal (f1 and f2 are 105.7 and 105.1 MHz) that can
cover a weak station at 106.3 MHz. The weak spurious
signal at 106.3 MHz could not be heard but 106.1 MHz

57

pdf 49

came in noisily at that location. Insufficient selectivity
prevented us from seeing if the spurious signal was
present. The 106.1 MHz station was clean when we
tuned to it because of the good spurious response rejec­tion of this tuner. Other tuners might not get this station.
Given the ordinary components in the RF section, perfor­mance is remarkably good. Only the Onkyo T9090II, Ac­cuphase T-109, Yamaha TX-950, and Rotel RHT-10 are
in the same class. This again shows that superior RF de­sign is achieved by good engineering and black magic.
Overall, our use test of the MR7084 showed that the RF
spirit is willing but the IF flesh is weak.

On the bench, the THD performance was good,

with 1 kHz stereo distortion at -63 dB and 10 kHz IM at

-67 dB. What's more, channel separation was state-of­the-art, measuring better than 50 dB across the audio
band. Maybe those IF filters do have superior phase char­acteristics, just as Mcintosh claims.

The AM section was badly misaligned. Once
aligned, AM performance was very good. A 1560 kHz
station 220 miles away came in with no spuriae, even
with a 1430 kHz station broadcasting just 600 feet from
the test site.

In the area of ergonomics, the preset pushbuttons
have a 1 to 2-second delay, which is a pain. Features
such as A/B antenna switching, rotary knob tuning, and a
serious signal-strength meter are absent here. It is hard to

recommend a tuner that has a low whistle on stations be­low 90 MHz and lacks a narrowband IF mode. If you lis­ten to well-spaced stations above 90 MHz and have al-

ways wanted a Mcintosh tuner, this might be the one for

you, but I would consider a used MR-78 instead. In most
cases it will cost less and is so much better than the
MR7084.

Pioneer Elite F-93

Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc., 2265 East 220th Street, Long
Beach, CA 90810. Voice: [phone] [PIONEER]. Fax:
[phone]. Elite F-93 AM/FM stereo tuner, $900.00. Test­ed sample owned by reviewer.

Pioneer has an interesting philosophy in the design

of top-of-the-line tuners. With each generation they make
a major advance—but they remove the advance they
made in the last tuner. Take the Pioneer Elite F-99X (and
the similar Pioneer F-90) introduced in 1985. It had a
highly innovative baseband signal processor using two
Pioneer ICs (PA5006 and PA5007). A pulse-count de­modulator controlled a switch that chopped a 38 kHz
sine-wave carrier signal. This system was discussed in Is­sue No. 23. Audio magazine (November 1985) measured
this tuner's stereo THD to be -76 dB at 1 kHz and -60
dB at 10 kHz. Stereo separation was 53 dB at 10 kHz. In

1988, the F-91 was introduced. This had the active-

tracking IF strip that offered sharp transition bands and

good phase characteristics (again, see Issue No. 23). In
addition, it allowed the station to be slightly detuned

without incurring a distortion penalty. But for some un­known reason Pioneer had removed the stereo decoder
they had had in the F-99X. Instead, they used a PLL de­modulator and what appeared to be an analog multiplier
for generating the L-R signal. By doing this they re­tained the approach they had used in the F-99X, demodu­lating R+L and R-L, and then forming the sum and dif­ference to get L and R. As explained in Issue No. 23, a
switching MPX decoder gets L and R directly from the
composite FM signal. The sinusoidal 38 kHz carrier tone
required when an analog mixer is used to generate L-R
came from the same chip as used in the F-99X (the
PA5006). The result of the change in MPX decoder tech­nology was THD which measured twice to five times that
of the F-99X, as reported in the August 1988 issue of

Audio. Strangely, no mention of this backward progress

was made in the review.

Now we have the F-93 with a novel stereo noise­reduction filter and stereo decoder, but the active tracking
IF is gone. Also gone is the PLL, replaced by a (oh no!)
quadrature detector. Actually, three quadrature detectors.
Two Pioneer PA5008 FM demodulator chips are run par­allel to reduce noise by 3 dB. (The Sanyo LA1235 ap-

pears to be a lower-noise device, and one LA 1235 does

the job about as well as any quadrature detector can be
expected to.) The analog multiplier block for the genera-

tion of the L-R signal is also in the Pioneer chip

(PA5008), as are the final stage of the IF strip, the mixer

for the quadrature detector (for L+R generation), the sig-

nal meter circuit, and the mute circuit (these last items

are also part of the LA 1235 and similar chips).

In the PA5008 the analog multiplier actually has

three inputs: one for the output of the IF strip, one for the
delayed signal from the LC filter that is part of the quad­rature detector, and one for the 38 kHz sine-wave tone.
This suggests that this block demodulates the L-R signal
directly from the IF signal by combining the mixer func­tion of the quadrature detector with the analog multiplier
function required to decode L-R (I think this is what Pio­neer means by direct decode), but I do not have the cir­cuit details of the PA5008 to say exactly what is going on
inside the chip. The other mixer in the PA5008 produces
the L+R signals from the output of the IF strip and the
delayed signal from the LC filter. This is the standard ap­proach for a quadrature detector.

The third quadrature detector employs a strange

distortion-canceling system. This third quadrature detec­tor uses a much simpler phase-shift circuit that results in
more distortion. The output of this quadrature detector is
subtracted from the main quadrature detector output
(coming from the two paralleled PA5008 chips) to yield
the distortion. This distortion is then summed into the
left- and right-channel audio signals at the output of the
tuner (after L+R and L-R have been combined to make L

58 THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 50

and R). A pot adjusts the level and polarity of the distor­tion being introduced. The object appears to be to cancel
some of the distortion in the main signal path. Separate

pots are included for narrow and wide mode. But wait,

there is more kludge to come! Another set of distortion­reduction pots forms a feedback loop from the output of
the analog multiplier in the PA5008 back into the input
port along with the 38 kHz carrier signal that is normally
connected to this port. The pots are adjusted for best dis­tortion. The exact function of the feedback is unclear,
since I do not have a schematic of the analog multiplier
inside the PA5008 chip. Different pots are used for the
narrow and wide mode.

You would think this complex mess would not
work over time and temperature, and you would be cor­rect. High Performance Review (Winter 1991-92) meas­ured between -60 dB and -54 dB stereo THD out to 3
kHz. At 10 kHz the number was -40 dB (1%). Once
again, a two to five times doubling of the THD over the
F-91, or four to ten times over the original F-99X. Now, I
thought it was possible that the High Performance Re-
view unit had been out of alignment, so I asked Pioneer
to align our test sample before shipping it out. It did not
help. Our sample measured -56 dB at 1kHz in stereo and
our 10 kHz stereo IM test was at -54 dB. These were just
about the poorest numbers we got in this survey. Stereo

separation was 49 dB at 1kHz and only 36 dB at 10 kHz.

That is better than High Performance Review's 32 dB

and 28 dB, respectively, so it looks like our sample was

better aligned, but even the aligned numbers are much

worse than those obtained with the old F-99X.

Let's summarize. In 1985 Pioneer produced a tuner

with state-of-the-art FM demodulator and MPX demodu­lator performance, even by today's standards (only the
Accuphase matches it—see above). It had 5 adjustments.
The current product has performance that would have
been average in 1980. It requires 14 adjustments and uses
twice the number of components. Is something wrong

with this picture? Pioneer must have thought so because

they use a Sanyo chip in their new receivers (see my SX-

203 review elsewhere in this issue) instead of their own
parts. That Sanyo chip has a higher-speed, adjustment­free VCO that is missing on the F-93 MPX decoder chip

(the original PA5006 from the F-99X). It is interesting to

see that this low-end Sanyo chip can take on the complex

F-93 setup. For example, I had a station with a low-level

19 kHz pilot tone that would not go into stereo on the F­93 but did so with the Sanyo-based tuners we were test­ing.

One nice thing on the F-93 is the use of individual
pots to adjust separation in wide and narrow mode. An­other nice thing is that the MPX filters in the audio chain
are a GlC-based 5th-order elliptical ladder design using 4
op-amps. That kills the 19 kHz pilot and subcarrier very
well. Audio reported problems with the F-91, which had
a simpler 2nd-order circuit with one op-amp. Audio,

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

however, in the typical fashion of the commercial press,
reported that they suspected the problem "was peculiar to

[their] sample." The circuit used in the F-91 provided
only a theoretical 6 dB of rejection at 20 kHz. Even if the
pilot-tone canceler was misadjusted, it would have taken
divine intervention to make any sample of the F-91 have
good subcarrier product rejection.

The RF front-end design of the F-93 looks more
promising than the demodulator and decoder, with dou­ble-tuned filters for both the RF stage and the mixer. The
mixer is double-balanced, with two TV-tuner front-end
chips used in the mixer section. Unfortunately, the power
supply voltage for the RF stage is 8.5 V, which is lower
than in most tuners (usually 12 to 15 V). Perhaps that
was why the tuner's performance on our outdoor antenna
torture tests was so poor. Another reason may have been
that the F-93 does not modify the RF circuits in the local
mode as Rotel and Onkyo do but instead has just a 4­position signal attenuator at its input.

Our 1 V signal received at 92.1 MHz caused seri­ous cross-modulation at ±0.5 MHz from the signal fre­quency. A signal at 91.7 MHz could not be heard clearly.
The 91.3 MHz signal that is only 100 (µV and adjacent­channel to the 30 mV local signal at 91.5 MHz was receiv­able but of only fair quality. The 250 mV local signal at

105.7 MHz caused cross-modulation from 105.1 MHz to

106.9 MHz. Activating the RF attenuator eliminates this,
but a weak desired signal will also be attenuated. With
the attenuator on, we were still able to receive a 10 µV
signal at 105.3 MHz. A serious 2f1±f2 spurious occurred
at 106.3 MHz (105.7 MHz interacting with 105.1 MHz,
which could not be received). We did not find 2f1±f2 spu­riae resulting from the even stronger 92.1 MHz, however.

The front-end problems made it impossible to see
how well the very complex IF filter worked because the
worst-case desired signals were covered with cross­modulation and spurious signals. The IF strip has 8
(count them, eight) filters and amplifiers in the signal
path. The first 3 filters are swapped in narrowband mode.
I strongly suspect that the last 5 filters are used as band­pass limiters, accounting for this tuner's very high AM
rejection of 80 dB. (This is the manufacturer's spec. We
did not measure AM rejection.) That specification just
would not happen if the tuner had a simpler IF and quad­rature detector. Somebody at Pioneer is clearly familiar

with the work of Baghdady, since the concepts of nar-

rowband limiters and tracking filters in FM both origi-

nate with him. I still cannot understand why Pioneer

punted on the tracking bandpass-filter-based IF in the F-

91. They claim part of the problem was the number of

adjustments required to make it work, but the F-93 IF
strip also requires lots of adjustments. It has 6 phase­tweaking adjustments, 3 for wide and 3 for narrow, to
correct the phase response of the strip. The F-91 did not
need to be phase-tweaked.

On our indoor antenna tests in Pennsylvania the

59

pdf 51

tuner did as well as the other super tuners in this survey
because the smaller signals did not overload the front
end. The IF strip in the narrow mode brought in weak
adjacent-channel signals as well as, but not any better
than, the rest of the pack.

OK, is anything really good about this tuner? Well,
yes, it has a proprietary MPX noise reduction system that
is the only serious attempt, other than Carver's, to deal
with noisy FM signals. In the Pioneer, as explained in the
last issue, the L-R signal is split into 8 bands. A voltage­controlled amplifier (VGA) block determines how much

L-R signal in each band will be subtracted from the L+R
signal when the final L and R signals are formed. The
VGA is controlled by a noise detector. The more noise in
the band, the less L-R signal is allowed out. Two LSI
ICs and 18 op-amps are needed in this circuit. Those LSI
circuits each have another 22 op-amps plus the 8 VGAs.
The good news is that it works. Noise is reduced much
more than with a high-blend circuit, and the stereo effect
appears to remain intact. The bad news is that even
though noise is dramatically reduced, the signal is still
more distorted than it is in mono, and you can hear the
signal clean up if you switch to mono. How important
this feature is to you depends on how important stereo on
weak signals is to you. This is the only super tuner that
has this kind of function now that the Carver TX-11 is
discontinued.

Another neat trick on the F-93 was also explained
in Issue No. 23. The L-R signal can be generated using
only the lower sideband of the subcarrier in the F-93.

This is done using a single-sideband demodulator. Pio-

neer calls this the S-MPX mode. In a normal double­sideband demodulator you multiply the carrier (for FM
stereo the 38 kHz sine wave generated from the 19 kHz

pilot tone) with the signal to be demodulated (the com­posite FM signal). In a single-sideband demodulator you
do that and then add in a 90° phase-shifted version from
a second multiplier. The input to this multiplier is the
composite signal and a 90° phase-shifted version of the
carrier. It is very difficult to phase-shift the broadband
multiplier output (it is easy for the single-frequency 38
kHz signal), and a circuit that requires 12 op-amps and
38 passives is used in the F-93. The two PA5008 chips
are used for the two multipliers. Instead of being paral­leled together as they are in normal operation, one
PA5008 gets the inphase 38 kHz signal and the other
gets the phase-shifted version. A simple one-op-amp cir­cuit generates the 90° phase shift of the 38 kHz signal in
the S-MPX mode. In the normal mode the circuit is re­configured so that no phase shift occurs, allowing the

second PA5008 to be paralleled with the first (when in

the S-MPX mode, the L+R of this second PA5008 goes
unused). True nerds who get the service manual will note
errors in the schematic around the 38 kHz phase shifter.
You have to trace the board to figure out how it works.

Now we get a clue to what this tuner is about. It

looks like the S-MPX circuit was designed first and then
they backfilled to get the normal circuit. The normal cir­cuit does not work so well, but the S-MPX is excellent
when considering its job of bringing in weak signals with
nearby interference. With the S-MPX and narrow filter
enabled, we obtained 1 kHz THD of -44 dB, and the 10
kHz IM was -50 dB. Stereo separation was also very
good, running about 44 dB at 1 kHz and 36 dB at 10
kHz. These are very impressive results considering that
the upper sideband of the multiplex signal is not being
used. In practice we did not find the S-MPX mode made
much difference under our signal conditions, but it may
be just the thing in your signal environment. One is left

to wonder how well the circuit would work in a digital
implementation, where the nonideal effects in the phase
shifters and mixers of this analog implementation would
not exist.

The ergonomics of this tuner are very good. Includ­ed are all the super-tuner goodies, such as a tuning knob
with rotary shaft encoding and a signal indicator that
gives signal levels in dBV. There is a separate IF strip, a
detector circuit (another PA5008), plus an A/D converter
to make this work. The LED display that gives the signal
level also shows the preset station number. Why for $900
you cannot have separate LEDs for each function is be­yond me. Other goodies include 10 kHz fine tuning
(which can sometimes help under bad signal conditions
by allowing the tuner to move away from a strong sig­nal), variable and fixed line outputs, A/B antenna selec­tion, and a tuning mode that allows direct entry of a sta­tion's frequency. The autoselect operation mode does not
appear to do as well as that of the Onkyo T-9090II. It
never went into MPX noise reduction or mono mode
even when the signal clearly needed it. It also will not
update automatically if signal conditions change, the way

the Onkyo does. Oh, and I forgot to mention the F-93
does not have a remote control, although you can control
it with other Pioneer equipment.

The F-93 has AM, which Richard Modafferi tested.

He notes it has variable selectivity, and the noise figure is
good. From his upstate New York site he could get To­ronto and New York City. Richard has a station broad­casting at 1430 kHz 600 feet away. That wiped out
everything above 1100 kHz. He notes that any 1950s
vacuum-tube table radio would have no spuriae.

When you open up the F-93, you see one of the

most complex tuners ever made. Construction is typical
of mass-market Japanese equipment, but you can see
$900's worth of stuff. Now, engineers have a principle
called KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) and the Pioneer F­93 violates KISS with a vengeance. The result is perfor­mance that is mediocre at best in normal operation or
with strong signals. On the other hand, it can under some
weak signal conditions deliver better reception than any
other tuner currently available, and it does that for me. I
actually bought this thing. But purchaser beware! Get a

60

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 52

home trial before you use your credit card. The F-93
could do great things for you or it could make things

worse. If you are using an outdoor antenna, or trying to
receive a strong clean signal, then worse is more likely
than better. Also note that this tuner has more adjust­ments than any other. At least 50—count them, fifty.
Many of the adjustments interact, so it takes a long time
to adjust this set, and adjustments will drift with time and
temperature. What you get out of the box may not be
properly adjusted. I asked Richard (a true believer in
KISS) to tweak up my unit, but he declined. I was not
surprised by his answer.

Rotel RT-990BX

Rotel of America, Equity International, Inc., 54 Concord Street,
North Reading, MA 01864-2699. Voice: [phone]. Fax:
[phone]. RT-990BX stereo FM tuner, $749.90. Tested
sample on loan from manufacturer.

This is the lower-cost "stripped" version of the
Rotel RHT-10. The folks at Rotel decided to send us one
after they calmed down about the review we had given
one of their power amps. The tuner is almost identical to
the RHT-10. The high-blend function is gone. The sig­nal-strength display is a set of 5 bars instead of the nu­merical readout of the RHT-10 (the separate meter amp
is still included, only the display has changed). Board
construction and layout are almost identical, with most
parts on the board identical between the two units, in­cluding the critical stuff like the IF filters. Resistors re­main metal film. Pioneer, Sony, Onkyo, and Yamaha use
carbon resistors. The RHT-10 does have a better enclo­sure and a toroidal transformer, but nothing I saw would
lead me to expect a difference in performance between
the two tuners.

One nice feature of the RF section of both the RT­990BX and the RHT-10 was not explained correctly in
my RHT-10 review in the last issue. I wrote that the RF
section can be bypassed as in the Onkyo. In fact, it is not
like the Onkyo. In the local mode the RF section remains
active but another LC circuit is connected at the RF in­put. This triple-tuned filter improves selectivity at the RF
input but at the cost of some insertion loss and hence re­duced sensitivity.

In actual use, the RT-990BX turned out to be as
good as, or better than, the RHT-10 in some respect but
not others. On our killer 91.3 MHz test only slight splat­ter was heard from the 200 times larger signal at 91.5
MHz, provided the RF attenuation was engaged. Similar
results occurred with the RHT-10. The RT-990BX cross-

modulated badly on the 1 V signal in our 92.1 MHz killer

test, and 91.7 MHz could not be received even with the

attenuator on. The RHT-10 had no problems with the 1 V
signal at 92.1 MHz and 91.7 MHz could be received. We
also found serious 2f1±f2 spurious signals (f1 and f2 are

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

105.7 MHz and 105.1 MHz) at 106.3 MHz. The station
at 105.7 MHz produces a 250 mV signal. Obviously the
very weak 106.3 MHz could not be received, but in addi­tion the signal at 106.1 MHz could not be received either.

The attenuator again made no difference. Notes on the

106.1 MHz signal are not in the evaluation of the RHT-

10, which probably indicates the RHT-10 received it.
The signal at 105.3MHz (10 µV) was received on the
RT-990BX. So cross-modulation from 105.7 MHz was

not a problem. The tuner did get a 3 µV (75 miles away)

signal at 88.3 MHz that was surrounded by adjacent­channel local signals, but crosstalk from the signal at

88.5 MHz was heard. These results were good, but why
the RHT-10 did much better is a mystery. Perhaps the
board layout changes (which would have to be very

small, since the layout looks the same to me) caused
some coupling that does not occur on the RHT-10. Per­haps an alignment problem in the RT-990BX caused the
differences, although the tuner did not appear to be out of
alignment. It could also be due to variations in the RF
components between the two samples.

On audio performance things were reversed.
Measured performance showed a 1 kHz THD of -72 dB,
but recall that the Rotel RHT-10 did only -60 dB. Vari­ability of the quadrature detector coil is responsible for
these very different results. With age, drift will occur and
that low distortion may not last. Even changes in temper­ature could change the results. The 10 kHz IM was also

very good at -71dB. In the narrow mode the 1 kHz dis­tortion was -45 dB and the IM distortion was -58 dB.
Channel separation was 44 dB at 100 Hz, 55 dB at 1kHz,

and 38 dB at 10 kHz. Narrow-mode numbers were only 3
dB worse, a very good result. The RHT-10 was less
good in all these tests. The RT-990BX has the same very
sophisticated MPX decoder as the RHT-10 except for a
change of output op-amp. They went from an AD847 to

an NE5534. No big deal, since the change, if anything,
helped the performance of the RT-990BX. The high pilot
tone of the RHT-10 was not present in this tuner. The
canceler circuit must have been better adjusted. The out­put filter is still 2nd-order with no finite zeros. That will
let a lot of subproduct out the end of the tuner.

The quadrature decoder in this sample of the RT­990BX is about the best we have seen but it is the luck of
the draw, since our RHT-10 sample had worse perfor­mance. Contrast this to two samples of the Accuphase T-

109. Both had near identical performance because a

pulse-count demodulator was used. It requires no adjust-

ment. It is impossible to tell whether the less good RF

performance of the RT-990BX is due to component vari-

ations and alignment, or a systematic change from the
RHT-10 in the RF stages' performance. Despite this, as
only very large input signals give the RT-990BX prob­lems, it still is a lot of tuner for the money provided you
do not need some of the features found on other tuners
(multiplex noise reduction, A/B antenna selection, tuning

61

pdf 53

with a knob, AM, or a signal-strength meter calibrated in
volts), and it is therefore highly recommended.

Sony ST-SA5ES

Sony Electronics, Inc., 1 Sony Drive, Park Ridge, NJ 07656.
Voice: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. ST-SA5ES AM/FM
stereo tuner, $800.00. Tested sample on loan from manufacturer.

Often readers will ask which companies produce
the best products. Unfortunately it does not work that
way. While some companies, such as Sony, produce
more than their share of winners, and most high-end

tweako companies can almost be guaranteed to produce
products that are losers (at least from the engineering
point of view), you still cannot tell what an individual
component will do until you test it. So we had to test this
top-of-the-line Sony tuner to see if it is a winner or not.

The ST-SA5ES tuner is similar to the 10-year old
ST-S700ES. New features such as A/B antenna switch­ing and rotary knob tuning have been added. Retained is
the IF stage, which uses two ceramic filters in the wide
mode with two more added in the narrow mode. Two of
the IF amps are µPCl 163 ICs. The remaining stages are
discrete circuits. Separate phase-tweaking coils are pro­vided for mono and stereo operation.

Retained is the PLL FM demodulator. The loop
bandwidth is changed in the narrow mode, trading distor­tion performance for better capture of weaker signals.
The VCO is a surprisingly simple one-MOSFET affair

that uses a single varactor. It is surprising that this VCO
can have good linearity when it is not balanced. In addi­tion to the VCO, a standard diode bridge mixer is used as
the phase detector. An M5220P op-amp is used in the
loop filter and PLL output buffer. The PLL mixer is driv­en by a µPCl163H IF amp that in turn is driven by the IF
amp/limiter in the Sanyo LA1135. This chip also forms
the meter drive circuit. No separate meter-amp path is in­cluded. This is a surprise for such an expensive tuner.

The Sony CXD1064S multiplex decoder is retained

form the earlier design. This chip looks identical to the
state-of-the-art Sanyo LA3450. I strongly suspect it was
a codesign between the two companies. Sony had the
CXD1064S out first. Often, in these IC development ar­rangements, the chip cannot be sold in the open market
until after some period in which the developers have ex­clusive rights to it. In the ST-SA5ES, a new hybrid low­pass filter module is added for improved subcarrier rejec­tion.

What has been removed from the ST-SA5ES is the

tracking bandpass filters in the RF section. In the older
tuner these filters were being shifted to correspond to the
instantaneous frequency of the incoming signal. It is un­clear why this feature was removed. It may have been a
manufacturability problem or an attempt to reduce cost.
In any case, it left only four tuned elements. In front of

62

the RF stage there is only a single tuned circuit. A dou­ble-tuned circuit precedes the mixer that is not balanced.

New in the ST-SA5ES is an RF attenuator. That is
something required for a front end that has poor dynamic
range. It did not help. The tuner failed all our difficult
outdoor reception tests. Bad spuriae were observed. The
signals at 91.7 MHz, 106.1 MHz, and 106.3 MHz dis­cussed in the reviews above could not be received. The
stations in our tough selectivity tests were also not re­ceivable. Included in the selectivity tests were stations at

88.3 MHz, 89.5 MHz, and 91.3 MHz that have been dis­cussed above. As already explained in this survey, poor
RF performance prevents accurate assessment of a tun­er's real-world selectivity since, by definition, a selectivi­ty problem also involves signals with large dynamic-

range differences.

Indoors things were better, but not much better. We

could still not receive 91.3 MHz because 91.5 MHz was

still too strong. Furthermore, 96.3 MHz, 106.9 MHz, and

107.1 MHz were noisy. Since 96.3 MHz is the 9th har-

monic of the IF and 107.1 MHz is the 10th harmonic, this

noise is an indication that the tuner tailbites. Tailbiting

happens when harmonics generated in the IF (which has
lots of harmonics because of all the limiting action) get
back into the RF stage.

It is unlikely that the tuner was defective or mis­saligned, since our instrument-based tuner tests came out
OK. In the wide mode, 1 kHz distortion was -67 dB and
in the narrow mode -47 dB. The 10 kHz IM results were

-71 dB and -54 dB for the wide and narrow modes, re­spectively. Channel separation is 40 dB or better in the
wide mode and 34 dB or better in the narrow mode.

AM use test results showed good selectivity and
quieting, but like the FM section the AM had poor per­formance with respect to spurious responses and cross­modulation. The tuner was able to receive 770 kHz
(WABC, New York City) at a distance of 195 miles in
Binghamton, NY, but above 1200 kHz everything was
wiped out by the very strong local signal at 1430 kHz.
The tuner did receive the strong signal well, however, in-

dicating good AGC action. The AM selectivity switch

also proved useful.

Obviously, Sony needs to reengineer the front end
of their top-of-the-line tuner to improve dynamic range
and eliminate the tailbiting before we can recommend it.

Yamaha TX-950

Yamaha Electronics Corporation, USA, 6660 Orangethorpe Av­enue, Buena Park, CA 90620. Voice: [phone]. Fax:
[phone]. TX-950 AM/FM stereo tuner, $429.00. Tested

sample on loan from manufacturer.

It was not our intention to save the clear bargain in
this survey until the end, but it so happens that this Ya­maha tuner is it, and we do things alphabetically around

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 54

here. At a mere $429 we have here a tuner that is clearly
inferior only to the $2995 Accuphase T-109 and no oth­er. The FM front end has a very wide dynamic range.
Perhaps it should be no surprise that the topology of the
front end is similar to that of the Accuphase. Double­tuned circuits are used before and after the RF stage. The
mixer is not balanced. An RF attenuator can be engaged
at the input, and with that function activated we had no
cross-modulation or spuriae to interfere with reception of
stations that could be received by this tuner.

The IF stage consists of discrete IF amplifiers
whose complexity varies from one to six transistors. Two
ceramic filters are used in wide mode, with another add­ed into the IF section in narrow mode. Selectivity of the
IF strip was good enough to receive 91.3 MHz with some
audible splatter. The Accuphase and Onkyo have more
selective filters and less splatter. The old Mcintosh MR­78 has still more selectivity and no splatter. The very weak
signal at 106.3 MHz that is normally covered up with
spuriae was still not receivable because the local signal at

106.5 MHz interfered as a result of inadequate selectivi­ty. For the same reason the difficult stations at 88.3 MHz
and 89.5 MHz also could not be received. Moving indoors
produced closer to excellent results. All Pennsylvania tor­ture tests were passed. In Binghamton, NY, performance
was also good indoors, although lower adjacent-channel
selectivity did prevent the tuner from receiving at least
one station that those with greater selectivity could get.

The demodulator and stereo decoder also show ex­cellent performance. In the wide mode the 1kHz distor­tion in stereo was -71 dB. That is a hairsbreadth away
from the Accuphase. In the narrow mode the 1 kHz dis­tortion rose to -61 dB. Recall that the unit's narrow
mode is not as narrow as that of the best super tuners;
thus these distortion numbers are better than in the nar­row mode of those tuners. This is the reason why Onkyo
has three IF modes. Stereo IM test results were also ex­cellent (2 dB better than on the Accuphase!), with -76
dB in the wide mode and -68 dB in the narrow mode.
Channel separation over the full band was 46 dB or bet­ter in the wide mode and 40 dB or better in the narrow
mode, also very good results.

The excellent performance of this tuner is no doubt
due in part to the Sanyo LA3450 multiplex decoder used
in the design. The 4th-order passive filter that follows
also helps by doing a good job suppressing subcarrier
products. But the low distortion numbers also result be­cause the FM demodulator is doing its job well. At this
tuner's price you would think you could only get a quad­rature detector, but it turns out that an even older tech­nology, the ratio detector, is used!

Those old enough to run for president may recall
all the ink that was spilled in discussing the advantages

and disadvantages of the Foster-Seeley "discriminator"
and the ratio detector. These two detectors, along with
the quadrature detector, use similar methods to demodu-

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

late FM. A time-delay circuit approximates a differentia­tor that converts the frequency-modulated signal to one
that is both frequency- and amplitude-modulated. An
AM demodulator then recovers the signal. In the quadra­ture detector, the AM demodulator is a balanced synchro­nous detector. In the Foster-Seeley, it is a balanced enve­lope detector that uses a lot more passive components.
The transition from detectors like the Foster-Seeley to
the quadrature detector occurred because the latter detec­tor requires fewer passive components, but it needs a
mixer circuit that became easy to manufacture only with
the onset of IC technology.

The ratio detector looks very similar to the Foster­Seeley detector—one diode is reversed and a large capac­itor added. But those changes make a big difference. The
ratio detector performs the function not only of an FM
demodulator but also of a dynamic limiter. It has internal
AM rejection unlike other circuits in the time-delay­differentiator/AM-demodulator category. The downside
of the ratio detector is that it is not balanced. That should
translate into more distortion but it does not in the case of
the TX-950. Careful selection of the passives, a time­delay differentiator design that is accurate over wide fre­quency deviations, and a modified topology that uses an
op-amp (NJM2068S) as differencing amp in the demodu­lator account for such an amazing performance in this
classic circuit. Please note that the circuit works well
only if it is precisely adjusted. It turned out that the Ya­maha was one of the few tuners that did not need any
tweaking to get it to perform well.

One more reason for the low distortion of the TX­950 is that it uses a high-tech form of automatic frequen­cy control. The PLL frequency synthesis brings the sta­tion in. Then, once the station is acquired, control of the
varactors in the front end of the tuner is switched over to
the AFC system. Even if the incoming signal is slightly
mistuned, the AFC system will still ensure that the IF sig­nal is centered around 10.7 MHz, where minimum distor­tion occurs. The AFC system also has the potential to
create a local oscillator signal with less phase noise be­cause the control voltage to the varactor can be more
heavily filtered. This could improve signal-to-noise ratios
and reduce spurious interference.

The AFC system is not the same as found in your
old '60s tuner. It is built with a totally separate IF strip
and FM discriminator. Yamaha uses the Sanyo LA1266
AM/FM receiver chip to do this (they also use this for the
AM section). Yamaha's AFC used to have the problem of
switching between the two tuning systems on weak sig­nals—at least my 10-year old Yamaha T-70 liked to do
this. The TX-950 has a more advanced design that does
not have this problem. The meter circuit of the TX-950
also uses the LA1266 to provide a wide range of signal­strength indications, just like the state-of-the-art tuners.

Despite its low price, all the high-end features are
on the Yamaha. They include A/B antenna selection, a

63

pdf 55

tuning knob that drives a shaft encoder, callletter display

option, 40 presets, etc. (One small omission is the ab-

sence of threads on the 75Ω antenna jacks; they accept
only pushon connectors.) Even the AM tuner is good.
No spuriae or overload occurred from the local 1430 kHz
signal, and the weak signal from WQEW in New York

City could be tuned in. Richard notes that the AM tuner

section works as well as 1950s vintage sixtube radios.
How comforting that modern electronics has made no

progress in 40 years.

Recommendations:

The best production tuner is the Accuphase T-109,
and at its price it had better be. The Yamaha TX-950
comes quite close to the Accuphase at a much lower
price. Lacking only the ultimate in selectivity (but
achieving better audio performance in the narrow mode

this one application too expensive. Electrolytic capacitors
are in the input, output, but not the more capacitor
sensitive feedback loop, of the line stage.

In between the linestage output and the power

amp input lies the Pure Direct switch. With it engaged,

we have completely described the signal path. The signal
at the input plugs flows through the input selector to the
volume control to the line amp and then into the power
amp. If Direct is not engaged, the signal ends up going

through a cheap balance control (with detent) and then on
to the tone control stage (more cheap controls). If you

want to put an active crossover between the preamp and

the power amp, you will need to keep the Direct switch
disengaged because the loop is not in the direct path. The
Pre Out is active all the time to allow connection of a
subwoofer in a system that does not need a highpass filter
in the main signal path. All lowpower circuits are pow­ered from taps on the main transformer. A separate
bridge rectifier drives 3300 µF of filtering capacitor. The
regulator is in the highend style, with a simple pass tran­sistor driven from a zener diode reference.

Our measurements yielded the following results:

In the power amplifier section, THD + N reaches a

minimum of 94 to 96 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz (mean­ing virtually no dynamic distortion) with a load of 8.15Ω.
Clipping occurs at 115 watts. Into 4.17Ω, the 20 Hz to 20
kHz minima are in the 90 to 94 dB range, and clipping
occurs at 200 watts. Channel separation, measured at 1
watt output, is 100 dB at the lowest frequencies, decreas­ing to 70 dB at 20 kHz. Most remarkably, the above
figures barely change, certainly no more than a dB or
two, when the preamp line stage is included in the loop—
with the Direct switch engaged, of course. When the Di­rect switch is disengaged and all the controls are in the
signal path, at least 12 dB of deterioration is observable.

The phono preamp uses a discrete differential pair

64

as a result), the Yamaha is clearly a best buy. Obviously,
the build quality and appearance of the TX950 are those

of a typical Japanese audio component. The only tuner in
this survey, other than the Accuphase, that uses higher
quality parts and can be recommended is the Rotel RT-

990BX. That tuner also puts the emphasis on highend
audiocircuit design, if you care about such things. To

achieve the low $750 price point and still use quality
parts, Rotel had to leave something out, and what they
left out were features. The Onkyo T-9090II is still the
DX champ at a price under a thousand dollars, but this is
an old design and the multiplex decoder does not perform
as well as those of the other recommended units. The
Onkyo's build quality is similar to the Yamaha's. The
Magnum Dynalab 205 'Signal Sleuth' RF front end is
also recommended for potentially improving weak signal
reception when using good indoor antennas. •

driving a UPC4570 opamp. Distortion and frequency re­sponse are respectable but would be better if twogain
stage topologies and better passive components were
used. Our measurements in the MM mode showed THD
+ N minima of 85 to 87 dB at maximum output (ap-

proximately 7 V at Tape Out) in the entire audio band

from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. In the very highgain MC mode,
on the other hand, the minima were only in the 60 to

64 dB range. RIAA equalization accuracy was ±0.15 dB

up to 10 kHz, but at 20 kHz there were inexplicable er-

rors of0.6 dB (left) and 0.3 dB (right).

Separate wafers on the function selector are used
for each tapemonitor output. This prevents self
oscillations. The tape monitors are not buffered, but by

setting the tape selector to a position other than the main
selected program, you can ensure that the selected input
will not be loaded.

The AX570 comes with a remote control that also
controls the CD player, tuner, and two tape decks, pro-

vided they are also by Yamaha. One remote instead of

five. What a novel idea. The volume control and selector

switch are motordriven for remote operation. A semi­conductor switch approach (B&K) offers more reliability
but may cause distortion. Engineering involves a lot of

tradeoffs, with no single "right" answer. In this case, the
Yamaha engineers went for the low distortion figures.

Measured results and use tests of the AX570 show

that $499 will purchase as much electronics as most of us
will ever need. That does not mean that spending more is

not a rational decision, but it does mean that you are on
the steep part of the curve of diminishing returns. Per­haps the only real design flaw is that the ventillation slits

in the cover are large enough to allow a child to drop
change inside the unit.

As for those of you who want to know "how it

sounds"—well, we must not be getting our point across.•

THE AUDIO CRITIC

David Rich on Yamaha AX-570 (continued from page 54)

pdf 56

Thrice Shy:

Multichannel Music Formats

Further Considered

By Daniel C. Sweeney, Ph.D.

Freelance Contributor to The Audio Critic

This is the second part of a critical examination and evaluation of
mutichannel audio technology, with regard to both hardware and

software, present and future, fact and hype.

In this, the second in a series dealing with the is-

sues of multichannel music reproduction, I will examine

what are perhaps the two key considerations for music
lovers: (1) the adequacy of multichannel recording tech­niques in terms of what is known about localization by
the human ear and (2) the fidelity of multichannel play­back systems according to the same criterion. I will also
have a few words to say concerning the use of music sys­tems in video applications.

FIVE-CHANNEL RECORDING
Antecedents: the Two-Channel Models

Within the realm of stereo recording practice, sev­eral distinct approaches have been developed for deriving
differential inputs from the wavefronts representing the
performance itself and then distributing the information

so obtained between two channels, so as to create spatial
effects upon playback. Without being in any way exhaus­tive, one can cite various binaural techniques (arguably
not stereo at all in strictest definition), M-S stereo record-

ing (also known as intensity stereo), the crossed figure­eight method associated with Blumlein, angled cardioids,

spaced omnis, and synthetic techniques whereby a multi­tude of microphones is assigned to a number of musical
instruments and voices in any of an infinite number of ar­rangements. It should also be noted that the last tech-

nique or family of techniques, ubiquitous in popular re­cording and derisively dismissed by purists as multiple
mono, can be combined with minimalist techniques so

that the minimalist core engenders the overall spatial per-

spective, while the additional microphones provide ac-

cents, so to speak.

While cogent arguments have been persistently ad-

vanced to the effect that only the original Blumlein tech-

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

niques constitute true stereo, such positions have retarded
not at all the diversification of two-channel recording
techniques, and today extreme pluralism characterizes
musical recording practice for all forms of music. And,
correspondingly, extreme pluralism also characterizes the
playback array, with loudspeakers exhibiting all manner
of directivity characteristics vying for consumer alle­giance, and consumers themselves deploying such speak­ers in all manner of listening spaces.

With such extreme diversity existing at both ends
of the signal chain within the two-channel realm, little in
the way of precise matching of pickup to playback sys­tem is possible, though on a strictly rational level there is
indeed something to be said for matching speakers to mi­crophones—for example, playing spaced omnimiked re­cordings over omnidirectional loudspeakers, or crossed
figure-eight Blumlein recordings over toed-in dipoles.
Still, we enjoy satisfactory listening experiences despite
this rampant heterogeneity, and we are accustomed to ex-

pect acceptable stereo without too close attention being

paid to the establishment of correspondences between the
recording setup and the playback system.

From Two to Many

Here the question must be asked, what does such
heterogeneity within the two-channel universe portend
for multichannel? Will similar centrifugal tendencies
manifest themselves in the age of multichannel, and to
what effect?

Damned good question, in fact the key question in
the whole discussion, because it immediately gives rise
to at least two other crucial questions. Just how do we
use these extra channels when we can't come to any con­sensus on how to use two? And what happens when we
try to juggle intensity and phase relationships among sev-

65

pdf 57

eral channels?

Now one might suppose that with all the
confidence being expressed within the hardware industry
about the benefits of multichannel, definite answers to
such questions would have been framed. But sadly the
opposite is the case. The general level of insight on the
problems and possibilities of multichannel is lower than
was the case a quarter century ago when the abortive
quad revolution was launched, and of all the many indi­viduals I've interviewed on the subject over the last year,

only two, John Eargle and Tom Holman, seemed to have

steeped themselves thoroughly in the theoretical under-

pinnings of multichannel recording and to be proceeding
on the basis of a well-defined model of human hearing.
And, interestingly, both individuals were quick to admit
that much remains to be learned regarding recording for
multichannel playback.

In other words you, gentle reader, will be part of a

grand experiment should you add channels to your music
system at this early date. Multichannel recordists of vari­ous persuasions will present you with a vast melange of
program material embodying a dizzying profusion of
"takes" on the deployment of five channels, and you'll be
left with the task of sorting it all out.

But lest this scenario appear unrelentingly grim, let
me hasten to point out that multichannel boosters—who
include nearly everyone on the hardware side—are quick
to object that subjectively successful two-channel record­ings have been made with any and all of the common
techniques, and that therefore no reason can be adduced
that five-channel formats should not prove equally adapt­able.

On the surface that argument seems plausible
enough, but ignored is any due consideration of the fun-

damental change that occurs when the listener is sur­rounded by loudspeakers rather than facing a pair of

them. Ignored as well is the much greater precision af­forded by five discrete channels over two, which is to say
that the information density of the recording becomes
correspondingly greater, and directional cues are brought
into play that scarcely exist in a stereo system. And
finally there is the weighty issue of multichannel pans,
where phase and intensity differences are juggled to pro-

duce phantoms between adjacent pairs of speakers, or

even steered into the interior listening space described by

the circuit of speakers, rather than being confined to the
periphery as is always the case with two-channel stereo.

What I'm saying is that we may find two-channel

stereo acceptable precisely because it is a loose and lossy

approximation of what we actually hear in an actual per­formance space, and further that this approximate nature

of two-channel may be what permits the multiplicity of
techniques. To cite an analogy, it is a far more difficult

and exacting task to make a 3-D motion picture that pro­vides an acceptable illusion of reality than it is to accom-

plish the same goal with conventional single-camera flat-

perspective movie footage, the 3-D format imposing

upon the film maker a myriad of highly frustrating con­straints as a price of the added dimensionality. At least
some of the available evidence suggests that multichan­nel may be similarly problematic and that five-channel
may prove to be less than the unalloyed enhancement
that industry spokesmen would have you believe. But I
mention this only as a possibility. The fact is that we sim­ply don't know with any certainty how five-channel will
accommodate different recording techniques, because no­body has enough experience to speak definitively on the
subject.

If this statement appears remarkable, consider the
fact that a mere handful of recordings were specifically
miked for multichannel back in the quad era. Almost
everything released in quad was simply remixed from the
same multitrack master used for the stereo release, with a
quad pan-pot being used in an attempt to place sounds at
intermediate positions between speakers. True, during
the last few years, quite a bit of mixing has been done for
movie formats utilizing five full-range channels, but the

recording of motion-picture sound tracks diverges in both
its aims and its techniques from the modes that define
purist music recording. Movie sound tracks place their

stress on arbitrary effects, not on the recreation of a spe-

cific performance event, and, moreover, film sound is
characterized by extremely layered compositions far ex­ceeding most multichannel pop recordings in density and
complexity. Thus it is fair to say that, in regard to music,
the art of recording for multichannel is still in an em­bryonic state of development.

I should mention here that in the researching of an­other article on this same general subject I went to great
lengths to interview recording engineers with a clear
commitment to multichannel playback and with exten­sive experience in the same. Unfortunately, I found that
only a small minority of recordists have a clear commit­ment, and almost no one has much experience, John Ear­gle and Brad Miller being just about the only individuals
who can really be considered veterans. Lots of people
have experimented at one time or another, but these two
individuals are the only true gurus, and, since neither is
regularly employed by major labels anymore, you won't
get the benefit of their experience—if 5.1 or some other
multichannel standard ever does become the dominant
music format.

Bedrock: the Sampling of Acoustic
Space with Two or with Multiple Channels

A sense of space is created on a recording princi­pally by two means: by capturing localization cues that
enable listeners to identify the positions of instruments
and voices within a recreated acoustic space, and by cap­turing the pattern of reflections and reverberation that
conveys the hall sound (even to the approximate dimen­sions of the recording venue). Bear in mind that these

66

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 58

two perceived aspects of spatiality are not at all the same
thing and should be clearly distinguished in discussions
as to how an audio system recreates the space of a perfor­mance, though, unfortunately, they are often confused in
subjective discussions of loudspeaker imaging.

First let's discuss sound localization.
I will assume that most individuals reading this

journal are aware that interaural arrival-time differences

and interaural amplitude differences constitute the most
significant localization cues for humans (if you're unfa­miliar with terms, consult any standard text on record­ing). Although most members of the audio press appear
to remain ignorant of the fact, there is a large body of ev­idence for the existence of a third important localization

cue known as the HRTF (head related transfer function),

a psychoacoustic phenomenon resulting from the diffe-

rential diffractive effects imposed by the structures of the

head and outer ears on sounds arriving at varying angles

of incidence. Less conclusive evidence may be cited for

the existence of one other major cue arising from interau­ral phase differences.

Several other localization cues have been posited
as well, but the above mentioned three are surely pri­mary, with phase differences occupying an insecure and
ambiguous position.

In stereo recording, amplitude cues are stressed,
and often they are the only cues provided; however,
among the classic techniques, spaced omnis and angled
cardioids capture arrival time differences effectively as
well. Interestingly, coincidental techniques such as
crossed figure eights or M-S normally do not capture arri­val-time differences. Significantly, no microphone tech­niques other than binaural techniques utilizing dummy
heads with dummy ears can capture the HRTFs, though
these can be synthesized by appropriate postequalization.

Now what about recording for multichannel play­back? Do the recording techniques devised for the new

media improve upon the situation and provide full em­ployment for all localization cues?

The answer to that is a qualified no, and to under­stand why this is the case one must realize that for all the

hoopla surrounding 5.1, relatively little research has been

devoted to tapping its possibilities. (Here it must be said
that various individuals and organizations such as the
ARA [Acoustic Renaissance for Audio], Tom Holman,
and John Eargle have proposed an open standard that
would allow for selectable channel number as well as
variable bit and sampling rates.)

In fact, no really new recording techniques have
yet been developed for 5.1, though John Eargle has sug­gested some of the directions in which recordists might
proceed. The two individuals who have been most active
in 5.1 music recording, Brad Miller of Mobile Fidelity
International and Tom Jung of dmp, both use techniques
dating from the quad era, and it is safe to say that record­ing for multichannel, such as it is, represents no sig-

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

nificant advance over the quad experiments. People are
talking about a revolution, but the basic recording tech­nology is stuck in the '70s.

And just how did our distant ancestors back in the

'70s record for four-channel playback?

Several formulae are mentioned in the literature,
including three-channel matrix techniques which I will
disregard here as having no direct application, but basi­cally two approaches obtained.

The first approach, owing much to purist stereo
techniques, was to use a fairly conventional minimalist
miking setup such as angled cardioids up front and then
to place another pair of mikes—often widely spaced om­nis—in the rear of the hall. A variant was the use of car­dioids in the rear, facing away from the back wall. Most
of the purists thought that rear channels should be chiefly
used for reproducing ambience, and some even suggested
recording left rear and right rear out of phase to inhibit
the formation of a rear phantom image.

The second approach was an extension of the pan­potted multitrack methods which had become the norm
in popular recording by 1970. As in stereo multitrack re­cording, each instrument and voice was assigned a separ­ate track, and performers might even be recorded apart
from one another in booths or gobos. The performance,
which could be entirely synthetic, was essentially assem­bled during mixdown, and performers were distributed
about a synthesized acoustic space via the mixing con­sole and the pan-pot. Extending the approach to quad
meant simply mixing down to four rather than two chan­nels and involved similarly arbitrary decisions as to what
went where.

The first approach, building on classic stereo re­cording techniques, was explored by many eminent audio
professionals, including Eargle, F. Alton Everest, Peter
Scheiber, and E. Roerback Madsen, but it chiefly found
expression in their published ruminations rather than in
actual recordings. Later though, at the close of the decade
of the '70s, one particularly dogmatic form of the purist
approach represented by the Ambisonics camp did result
in actual recordings, albeit only a few dozen altogether.
Unhappily, the cult tendencies and tendentious prosely­tizing of its advocates served to marginalize the Ambi­sonics format, and today it seems unlikely to exert much
influence on five-channel music recordings. Neverthe­less, the purist approach lives on in Dolby matrix record­ings put out on the Delos label and in the Mobile Fidelity
International recordings engineered by Brad Miller, and
it is fairly certain to see some future applications at least
in the realm of audiophile recordings.

The second approach, i.e., the synthetic approach,
resulted in recordings which, by and large, significantly
detracted from the credibility of multichannel. Rear chan­nels were given equal weight to those in front, and place­ment of instruments in back of the listening space was
frequently sought. Circumferential dynamic pans were

67

pdf 59

also attempted. This type of treatment was the norm in
the hundreds of quad remixes of popular releases.

During quad's heyday, such as it was, these aggres­sive surround mixes invariably came to naught due to the
very poor rear-channel separation of the dominant SQ
format, and today quad defenders are quick to marshal
the low-separation argument to explain all of the failings
of quad as a popular medium. Certainly low separation

effectively thwarted any attempt to place sources at
points beyond the frontal soundstage, and yet I believe
that limitations of the low-separation matrices were not
the only factor in the mass rejection of quad in popular
music. The real problem lay with the listener.

If current scientific theories of human localization

are even remotely correct, the interaural amplitude, arri­val time, and phase differences only permit pans in front
or in back of the listener. Images cannot be panned be-

tween a front left and rear left speaker or a front right and
rear right speaker because, in the case of amplitude dif­ferences, the opposite ear is completely shadowed for all
positions, while arrival time and phase differences vary
by too small a degree to produce stable phantoms. Fur­thermore, in the case of pans behind the listener between
rear left and rear right speakers, the precision of phantom
localization appears to be far less than in the front quad­rant. Simply put, four- and five-channel formats, used
like pan-potted stereo, demand a kind of listener who
doesn't exist, a listener whose localization abilities are
uniform throughout the horizontal plane.

If humans indeed lack the ability to form stereo
phantoms in all quadrants, then the only option open to
the recordist who wishes to emphasize the rear channels
and provide the multichannel convert with his money's
worth is to localize sounds at the rear speaker locations—
hard left back and hard right back. And that will give us
the same hole-in-the-middle effects and ping-pong later­alization that was popular in the earliest days of stereo.

None of which augurs well for a multichannel renais-

sance in the field of popular music.

Not unexpectedly, most marketing people in the

hardware industry grow very cross when presented with

such information because for them pronounced back-

channel effects are crucial in the promotion of the for­mat. Indeed I've been told by such types that I'm disloyal
to the industry for even presuming to mention scientific
studies that produce these negative findings, and that
even if the studies are accurate, DSP will solve the prob­lem. But it seems to me that all the industry loyalty in the
world isn't going to change the nature of human percep­tion, and if pop-music producers attempt to make record­ings that flout the laws of psychoacoustics, as they did in
the '70s, a successful reintroduction of multichannel be­comes unlikely. And as for DSP solving the problem, the
problem lies in the way human beings construct a
soundfield from a finite number of channels. What
they're asking for is a software fix for a wetware (neuro-

logical) limitation.

And that human limitation is worth examining.

What normally happens when one attempts to pan
in every quadrant is that the soundfield becomes highly
unstable, with the formation of inside-the-head phantoms
similar to those experienced in headphone listening and
sounds seeming to pop up in unpredictable places like
shells falling on a battle field. The effect is interesting
enough on first listen, but whether it will continue to be­guile even the mass of unsophisticated consumers is
questionable. It has been said that no one has ever lost
money by underestimating the taste of the American pub­lic, and here we have an excellent test case.

To Market, to Market...

Obviously I feel very strongly that the aggressive
use of rear channels in pop recordings will result in crass­ly gimmicked presentations, with little appeal to serious
listeners. But of course serious and sophisticated listeners
form a tiny minority, while the Beavis and Butt-head sen­sibility is overwhelmingly dominant. Knowing this, five­channel boosters suggest that gimmicked, ping-pong

presentations will not only prove satisfactory but will
eventually be insisted upon by the great American listen­ing public.

Perhaps they're right, and such multichannel mon­strosities will become the norm in music reproduction.
But in the sunny pronunciamentos of the 5.1 camp I see
several key questions being begged.

One of those questions has to do with the way lis­teners will set up systems in their home. Multichannel
playback systems are not forgiving of haphazard place­ment, and the familiar consumer response to stereo—put
one speaker behind a sofa and the other on a bookshelf—
is not going to provide much of anything when extended
to five full-range channels. Of course today, if industry
sales figures are to be trusted, most of the new audio sys­tems going out the door are already multichannel combi­nations, albeit designed for Dolby matrix playback, but
no one knows exactly how these systems are set up in ac-

tual use or how many such systems are really operating

at anything close to their potential. How many people,

for instance, actually connect surround speakers to their
Dolby Pro Logic AV receivers? And of those that do,
how many have the speakers where they can produce a
surround effect? Clearly such questions demand answers
because if 5.1 is presented on systems consisting of three
front speakers around the fireplace and a couple of eight­inch-high rear speakers somewhere on the floor in the
back of the room, the results will do little to justify the
overheated hype being generated by the industry.

Other unanswered questions pertain to marketing
considerations—considerations which may ultimately be
more important.

In introducing any multichannel playback format,
one inevitably has to deal with the matter of backward

68

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 60

compatibility, always a major concern to record produc­ers in the past. Ensuring full stereo and mono compatibil­ity in a five-channel mix isn't easy, and yet radio sta­tions, which are not equipped to transmit 5.1 and may
never be, are not going to stand for incompatible mixes.

There's also the issue of industry support on the

software level. The fact is that no prominent recording
artist or music producer has come out in support of 5.1
for music, and no major label has said a word about issu­ing music recordings in that format. The support is com­ing strictly from the hardware side and from a few indi-

viduals working for small audiophile labels.

Hardware supporters of 5.1 counter by arguing that
five-channel music recordings can simply ride on the
coattails of video, and they point out, correctly, that 5.1
is already available on laser disc. But that's a weak argu­ment because laser disc itself is a format with negligible
penetration after more than fifteen years on the market.
The popular-music recording industry is not going to
content itself with addressing the universe of laser disc
supporters. The numbers just aren't there. For 5.1 music
recording to piggyback on video, either HDTV (which
will support discrete multichannel) is going to have to
come on a lot faster than anyone expects, or the as yet
unreleased [now just barely released—Ed.] DVD (digital
versatile disc) is going to have to succeed magnificently.

Most 5.1 boosters in fact pin their hopes on DVD,
but its success cannot be considered a foregone conclu­sion—witness the failure of Philips's current 5¼-inch
digital video disc, which bears many points in common
with DVD, industry protests notwithstanding. And, real­ly, why should either small-disc video format succeed?
The initial target market of early adopters already has a
video disc, the venerable 12-inch laser disc, and it al­ready has 5.1 on the 12-inch format. Why then should
such buyers opt for a new format and one that is bur­dened with the uncomfortable issue of video compression
to boot? And why should the specialty retailers who have
loyally supported laser disc for two decades come out in
favor of something designed to obsolesce the older for­mat instantly and put them in ruinous competition with
mass merchandisers, who are the primary target for DVD?

Representatives of the Japanese majors blithely
brush such objections aside by saying that there's plenty
of room for multiple formats in the specialty market, but
the history of the industry has in every instance proven
otherwise. What this means in terms of marketing strate­gy is that the DVD forces are going to have go straight to
the mass market, push the hell out of the thing, and some­how convince all the video store owners to get into dual
inventory or perhaps just scrap tape altogether. And may­be that will happen. Maybe the Japanese and the software
manufacturers will initiate the aggressive—no, give­away—pricing necessary to gain the consumer critical
mass quickly, though they've certainly never done so

with any previous format. Anyone want to pay me to do

a video-software retailer survey on the subject?

In all the years I've been writing about consumer

electronics, I've never encountered a tougher call than

5.1. I wish I could predict its fate with certainty because I
think the response of the music lover ultimately has to
hinge on market considerations involving this new for­mat. If DVD fails, then where will 5.1 be? If Delos, dmp,
and the like are the only ones who are going to be issuing

5.1 music recordings, are you prepared to revamp your
music system? And what if some of the audiophile labels
go for the Dolby AC-3 version and others for DTS?
That's already happening now, with John Eargle favoring
Dolby, and Brad Miller and Tom Jung solidly behind
DTS.

Five-Channel Vaporware?

Might we now stand back for a moment and at-

tempt to summarize the situation at the software end?

Recording techniques have not solidified, nor is
past recording practice for multichannel generally in ac­cord with what is currently understood about human lo­calization capabilities. And even where recording tech­niques are informed by present-day science, the
resources available to the five-channel recordist appear to
be insufficient to map a three-dimensional acoustic space
with total verisimilitude.

Correspondence between pickup and playback sys­tems has scarcely been investigated systematically at all,
either during the quad heyday or at the present. It goes
without saying that detailed recording/playback standards
are not in place—except in the case of the nonstarter Am­bisonics format. (Ambisonics is being heavily promoted
by the ARA group as the recording standard for the pro-

posed audio-only high-density disc; my bet is it won't
fly, but that's another article.)

Finally, a well-organized marketing campaign is

not in evidence. Instead, 5.1 enthusiasts have simply as­sumed the inevitability of multichannel dominance and
have not gone to the trouble of enlisting music-industry
support, nor of educating the public beyond placing puff
pieces in a few audio buff books.

Compared to the cogent, disciplined, and energetic

promotional activities of the Compact Disc Group, the ef­forts of the 5.1 camp have been amazingly weak. Such
slackness speaks highly of the latter group's confidence
but does not reflect historical realities. During the last
fifteen years nearly twenty new consumer software for­mats have appeared, but, of those, only a couple have
succeeded, suggesting that concerted marketing efforts
are well-nigh indispensable.

In sum, the software situation of multichannel mu-

sic playback is disorganized in the extreme, at least as
disorganized as the quad revolution was twenty-five
years ago. True, in quad the format rivalry was infinitely
worse, though SQ was heavily dominant, but, on the oth­er hand, software support was certainly there along with

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

69

pdf 61

a powerful publicity campaign. If quad failed with the
full resources of both the software and hardware manu­facturers behind it, what are the chances of 5.1 with ad­mittedly better technical specifications but with little
marketing impetus? I don't know.

My guess is that a real conversion from stereo to
multichannel is not in the offing as regards music pro­gramming. In the longer term—say, five years from
now—it may occur, but absent a coordinated marketing
campaign I can't see how it can happen now.

Of course, I could be wrong. Of the two runaway
format successes of the last fifteen years, Dolby Pro Log­ic did in fact succeed without the disciplined promotional
efforts that marked the progress of the other winner, the
compact disc. But Dolby encoding was already present
on most stereo movie software anyway and was fully
backwards compatible, and thus Pro Logic could be pro­moted successfully from the hardware side alone, since
the software was already taken care of. A similar situa­tion does not obtain with 5.1.

We shall see. My advice is to ponder long and hard
before rethinking your music system for five discrete

channels. It may be a long time coming.

THE PLAYBACK CHAIN

Even if 5.1 remains a minority video-only for­mat—a distinct possibility—the enthusiast listener is still
confronted with the dominance of matrix surround
throughout the video realm and with the decision of
whether to attempt to use a single system for stereo mu­sic listening as well as for home-theater sound reinforce­ment.

Much ink has been spilt in blathering on the suita­bility or lack thereof of audiophile speakers for movie
sound and, conversely, home-theater rigs for music lis­tening, and indeed the contention has grown rather ugly
of late, with old-line audiophiles dismissing the home­theater crowd as tin-eared Philistines, while the latter
mark the former as irrelevant fogies. And while one
might wish to stand above the fray, doing so becomes
difficult in a journal whose allegiance is clearly to the
cause of promoting serious music. Still one can attempt
to avoid the acrimony and to concentrate on the design
issues, which should be the focus of the discussion.

Can One System Do Both?

To begin to answer the questions concerning the
efficacy of dual-use systems, let us pose a hypothetical
that surely applies to many of our readers.

Let us suppose that you as a music lover already
own a high-priced, well-reviewed pair of stereo loud­speakers. It could be a pair of Avalon Ascents, or Quad
ESL-63's, or Infinity Epsilons, to name just a few cur­rently popular contenders embodying various design
models. Let us further assume that you have a large sum

of money in amplification. How might you retrofit this

system for video applications, or need you retrofit it?

Or might a better strategy be simply to build an en­tirely separate system for video? Or just sell off that audi­ophile relic and buy an ambitious dual-use system, such
as the JBL Synthesis or the Snell THX Reference?

Or is a retrofit even necessary when an audiophile
system is pressed into service as a video PA?

Certainly, you can play stereo video material in
straight two-channel form instead of decoding the center
and surround channels, and that sort of makeshift would
relieve you of the task of making modifications in your
existing system. But, at the very least, such a strategy
would rob you of surround effects and would compro­mise lateral pans across the front for all but the listener in
the sweet spot. In my view, an optimal dual-use system

perforce must include multiple speakers.

That being the case, could such a multispeaker sys­tem be built using an existing stereo music system as its
core? Undoubtedly something could be done along those
lines, but I believe that the results would be less than
ideal.

To understand why this might be so, one must ex­amine three areas: speaker matching, program require-

ments, and room interactions.

In terms of speaker matching, the user faces two

distinct sets of problems— integrating a center speaker

with the stereo pair and matching the surround speakers

to all three front speakers.

Most people who've seriously investigated multi-

channel playback agree that the frontal array takes prece­dence, and that matching of front speakers is of para­mount importance in achieving credible soundstaging.
Indeed, listening experiments indicate that when the cen­ter speaker is not timbrally matched to left and right,
pans—both static and dynamic—are seriously degraded.
On this basis, center-channel augmentation would appear
to require a single speaker of the same model designation
as those used for stereo, or else something that is very
closely matched in timbre.

Obviously, with mirror-imaged music speaker sys-

tems you're screwed. There's simply no easy way to add
a center channel with the right characteristics. But even
when both speakers are the same and the manufacturer is
willing to sell you a single speaker, you may have prob­lems.

The problems arise both from the differing natures

of multichannel movie sound and stereo music program­ming, and from the loudspeaker directivity characteristics
best suited to either application.

What follows here is controversial but cannot be

avoided on that ground, as it is central to the whole dis­cussion.

Stereo music software, particularly the purist re-

cordings of acoustical music which we cherish, contains
three basic types of spatial information: the direct sound

70

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 62

at two locations represented by the stereo microphone
pair, the early reflections from the front of the hall (gen­erally captured by the same pair of microphones), and the
diffuse reverberant soundfield from the back of the hall,

which often is picked up by auxiliary ambience mikes. In
consort these three types of spatial information suggest
both the dimensions of the acoustical space and the
placement of performers within it.

In two-channel stereo all of this information is
folded together into two channels, where it is imperfectly
decoded by the ear-brain. On the other hand, in film re­cording ambience is allotted to the surround channel,
while early reflections are generally not an issue, due to
the synthetic nature of the recordings. In five-channel
music recording the channel allocation of early
reflections is anyone's guess.

In actual two-channel playback in the home, the
natural ambience in the music recording is usually sup­plemented by room reflections stimulated by the off-axis
output of the loudspeakers themselves. The alternative,
the LEDE (live-end-dead-end) concept whereby early re­fections from the front of the listening room are sup­pressed and supplemental simulated ambience is provid­ed by rear-wall diffusion, has much to recommend it
from a theoretical perspective but has never gained much
popularity outside of the recording-studio milieu because
of the expensive and ungainly room treatment accesso­ries necessary to achieve it. (One might add that the

speakers deemed appropriate for LEDE applications are
such as are scarcely to be found in the consumer market­place—combining, as they must, phase linearity with nar­row directivity characteristics; the old Win SM-10 fits
the bill nicely, but nothing else of which I am aware.)

Here I must point out that, strictly speaking, the
front-wall, side-wall, floor, and ceiling reflections engen­dered by a wide dispersion stereo pair are not really anal­ogous to the diffuse soundfield one experiences in a large
listening space because of the uneven temporal and spa­tial distribution of acoustic energy. But in subjective

terms the two are sufficiently alike to create favorable re­actions among the majority of sophisticated listeners.

Within a normal listening environment, wide-dispersion

stereo speakers are generally deemed more natural­sounding than their beamier counterparts, though they

cannot equal the imaging precision of narrow-directivity

designs. There's also evidence that the acoustical cross­talk produced by wide-dispersion speakers is conducive
to the creation of a more stable phantom center.

In the two-channel stereo mode, where such mat-

ters have been extensively studied, the off-axis output of

the loudspeaker exerts several significant effects in addi-

tion to affecting apparent source placement and spatial
perspective. Off-axis output influences listener percep­tions of overall tonal balance, determines the width of the
stereo window, and, in the lower frequencies, affects the
coupling of the speaker with the room and the incidence

of room modes and wall resonances. Furthermore, for
reasons we needn't examine here, optimization of direc­tivity characteristics for one purpose, such as achieving a
fairly uniform perceived frequency response in varying
domestic listening environments, is almost always had at
the cost of compromised performance in other areas, hence
the endless unresolvable debates on the relative merits of
dipoles, bipoles, monopoles, and omnis. In toto, off-axis
response virtually defines the subjective character of a
loudspeaker and for that reason is subject to the most
careful attention from competent loudspeaker designers.

Now, in multichannel systems the issue of directiv­ity becomes vastly more complicated (as if it weren't
complicated enough) due to the fact that ambience is
chiefly assigned to side or rear speakers, a fact which, ac­cording to some, eliminates the need for or desirability of
wide-dispersion speakers up front. Indeed, according to
the folks at THX, who have probably researched the sub-

ject more extensively than anyone else, wide-dispersion

designs for the front speakers are to be positively avoided
in a multichannel playback system.

So what happens to all those carefully crafted om­nis, dipoles, and bipoles which have found such favor
with audiophiles in the past? According to Tony Grimani
of Lucasfilms, such designs are apt to wane in acceptance
as more and more customers warm to the idea of dual­use systems. In other words, you can consign your Quad
ESL-63's to the dustbin of history. Instead you're en-

joined to embrace the THX concept for front speakers,

which is essentially that of a short line source—albeit
only an approximate one.

And what happens when you use such narrow­directivity speakers for stereo music listening? That's
where opinions differ. Those in THX fold, which in­cludes most of the mainstream audio press, assert that
THX speakers surpass conventional designs in all appli­cations, but there are numerous dissenters, including
many members of the subjective press. One can certainly
argue that narrow-directivity designs, by avoiding floor
and ceiling bounce, are inherently capable of better
fidelity, but that isn't going to make people love them.
The fact is that THX speakers sound identifiably differ­ent than the quasi-point-source radiators that comprise
the bulk of the well-regarded audiophile music speakers,
and that, I think, accounts for the rejection of THX de­signs in the audiophile press.

I find it interesting in this regard that JBL, in de­signing their supposedly state-of-the-art Synthesis systems,
endowed the front speakers with dual driver arrays—one
set for video and one for music—and that the directivity
characteristics of the two arrays differed markedly. And
the fact that Floyd Toole has been involved in the design
of the Synthesis series gives us reason to believe that the
notion of different directivity characteristics for different
program material is not altogether unfounded.

So what does all this tell us about the feasibility of

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

71

pdf 63

dual-use systems?

I have already indicated the difficulties of modify­ing a traditional music system for video use. As for
scrapping the music system and going for a designated
dual-use system, such as any of the THX-certified sys­tems, I'd say audition the dual-use system carefully on
music before you do so. I've never heard a video system
that I considered an ultimate music system, but that's a

personal opinion. Most of my peers would disagree. I
would note, however, that video-oriented speakers, aside
from having directional characteristics that are arguably
ill-suited for two-.channel reproduction, never seem to
approach the build quality of the best audiophile speak­ers. Really premium drivers are not used, cabinet quality
is so-so, and crossover components are not of the highest
quality. Of course, there are those who will argue that
top-quality drivers and inert cabinets are needless extrav­agances, and that no one can hear the difference between
a carefully designed system using average components
and one where cost is no object. But then, if you believed
that, you'd have never bought audiophile speakers in the
first place.

Terra Incognita: the Anterior
Portion of the Listening Space

Now what about the rear speakers?
For some reason the industry has fixated on the rear

(Freudian overtones here?), and both speaker manufac­turers and the audio press have become embroiled in two
related disputes—whether the rear speakers should be of
the same type as the fronts, and whether the rears should
produce an output characterized by a preponderance of
direct or diffuse sound.

Lucasfilms THX has taken a very clear and careful­ly reasoned position on the matter, advocating diffuse di­polar rear speakers having directional characteristics that
are obviously different from those of the front triad. On
the other hand, multichannel advocates with roots in the
quad era, such as Gary Reber (editor of Widescreen Re-
view) and Brad Miller of Mobile Fidelity International,
insist that like speakers be used in all positions. Certain
prominent high-end speaker designers, most notably Jim
Thiel, also support the notion of like speakers all around.

While the dispute may appear to represent a classic
clash of reason against mysticism, pitting the modern,
scientifically informed THX gang against an unlikely al­liance of fuzzy-minded high-enders and quad-era relics,
in fact the roots of the controversy go all the way back to
the earliest days of quad, and the issues are nowhere near
as simple as the above construction might imply.

Most early researchers of multichannel playback
assumed that, as a matter of course, like speakers would
be used all around. Quad was seen as an extension of
two-channel stereo, and like speakers appeared desirable
and even necessary. And this attitude was not confined to
scientific ignoramuses by any means. The mathematical-

ly minded prophets of Ambisonics always assumed that
like speakers would be used.

However, within the laboratories of those two stal­warts of the Boston sound, AR and Advent, experiments
were conducted in which omnidirectional rear speakers
were used along with conventional monopole front
speakers. Whether Tom Holman, the architect of THX,
was directly aware of those experiments I can't say, but
living where he did at the time he must have absorbed the
notion that rear-channel output should be diffuse, a no-

tion which found further expression in the a/d/s delay­derived rear channel, which often was assigned to small
bookshelf speakers supplementing a main pair of towers
in the front.

So who's right?

If matrix surround were all we had, diffusive rear
speakers would clearly hold the advantage, despite the
fact that the reverberant characteristics of a large hall can
only be approximated in the home. But with 5.1 we have
the capability of isolating sounds in left and right loca­tions toward the rear of the listening space. Wouldn't
more conventional speakers be more appropriate in that
instance?

Lucasfilms says no, but it seems to me here that
their usual rigorous logic is less in evidence here. If THX

rear speakers are specifically designed to thwart localiza­tion to the speaker position, which they certainly are,
how in the world can they reproduce sources that are spe­cifically intended to be localized at the speaker positions?
Mr. Grimani suggested to me that, after initial experi­mentation, mixers will end up using the rear channels
pretty much as they always have, eliminating the conflict,
but I tend to think that the very presence of split rears in
the format is always going to encourage their use. They
simply add an additional element of razzle-dazzle.

But to return to our discussion of music systems,

should one then attempt to supplement one's expensive
pair of stereo speakers by adding another pair of the
same make and model in the back of the listening room?

I am certain that most of the manufacturers of ex­pensive stereo music speakers would heartily encourage
you to do just that, but I am not certain I can recommend
that approach as either cost-effective or just plain effec­tive. Experimental evidence suggests that there is indeed
a problem of localizing even diffuse back-channel infor­mation at the rear speaker locations, which of course con­duces to an unconvincing simulation of ambience. If this
is the case, why then would you want to pay an addition­al five to fifteen thousand dollars for another pair of pre­mium speakers which ultimately won't give you what
you want? Especially when you can simulate rear­channel ambience by much less expensive means, by in­vesting in a set of diffusive room-treatment devices from
such manufacturers as RPG, ASC, or Systems Develop­ment Group. (Such devices will work with any speakers

(continued on page 74)

72

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 64

Major improvements in any per­formance-based technology, especial­ly audio, come in quantum leaps.
Fundamental leaps for communica­tions were made possible by major
advancements such as negative feed­back, stereo, solid state, microelec­tronics, and digital storage formats.
The architecture of the Home Theater
system popularized by Dolby Pro
Logic programs and high-quality
multichannel decoders like the Lexi­con have laid the basic foundation
for the next major leap forward: dis­crete multichannel recordings. DVD
is right around the corner.

Many folks will recoil at the sug­gestion of new formats because it
suggests trashing all their existing
equipment. Not true. Multichannel
will be phased into existing systems

just like stereo recordings and CD

players. Some stuff eventually gets
dumpstered (like my record-playing
equipment), but most of it would be
turned over eventually anyway. Just
because.

So what's so special about multi­channel?

First, Home Theater, with its ba­sic multichannel architecture, has
broken the "stereo as motorcycle"
model. Second, the multichannel ar­chitecture brings better system imple­mentation and setup, which improve
even two-channel performance; and
finally, it can be seen that the new
format follows basic laws of natural
progression in playback improve­ment. In between breakthrough de­velopments, progress is seen through

progressive changes that mainly re-

duce the price and improve the func­tionality and reliability of products.
CD players, for example, have be­come much less expensive and

sprouted improved functions like re­mote control and multiple play. They
still all sound fantastic, although re­cordings have gotten much better be­cause they are now recorded, mas­tered, and mixed for the new format.
The first CD recordings were just re­issues of stuff made for LP format re­lease.

All you bikers know two-

channel stereo is much like a motor­cycle. You can have a passenger on a
motorcycle, but only one person real­ly gets the full experience. Stereo is a
one-person party. Sweet-spot listen­ing is the only way a stereo system
can reach full potential. Period! Fur­thermore, using a top-quality stereo
system is not a trivial task—how
many of us have Do Not Touch and
No User Serviceable Parts signs plas­tered all over our precious equip­ment? How many have family mem­bers who can actually use it? How
many have families that are afraid to
use it? How many have secreted the
stereo in a separate room just to pro­tect it from the prying fingers of fam­ily members? How many have family
members who resent the money spent
on Dad's toy? Most, or maybe all, of
us. The parallels with the motorcycle
are painfully obvious.

Home Theater is different. The
system is installed in the family
room, where style isn't an issue. Ev­erybody uses it. Family members,
even the wife, encourage resource
deployment for Home Theater sys­tems. You can even get home build­ers to include some of the basics in
the price of the house!

Home Theater systems also

bring important performance advan-

tages with them because of their vis­ual screen-based nature. First off, ev­erybody agrees that a bigger picture
is better. Bigger pictures mean bigger
screens, which takes the heat off
speaker size. A 50-inch tower speak­er overwhelms the average living
room but looks perfectly natural
flanking a 50-inch rear-projection
TV. Speakers are usually much more
effectively installed in a Home Thea­ter. The center channel is always on
top of or under the screen, which
gives new meaning to left and right.
Because the TV sticks out into the
room, speakers tend to be installed
away from the rear wall in Home

Theater systems—all without com­plaints from the family style consul­tant.

Listeners also become better
placed. Because the system has a vis­ual aspect, listening seats are dragged
out into the room so viewers can see
the screen. This means all listeners
are facing the primary sound sources
and may even be away from a nearby
wall. Can you think of a time in the
living room when putting a speaker
or a chair out into the room wasn't
contested? And—the big improve­ment comes with having multiple lis­tening seats, all with an acceptable
image perspective. No more herding
special guests into the sweet spot. No
more grappling or fighting for the

good seat.

The separate subwoofer architec-

ture also brings performance advan­tages. Placing a full-bandwidth loud-

speaker in locations that provide

optimal spectral and spatial rendition
compromises bass in most rooms.
Because room modes are widely
spaced at low frequencies, the best
stereo locations also deliver a big
hole in response somewhere between
30 and 50 Hz. For example in my
room (12 by 22.25 by 8 feet) the best
left, center, and right locations leave
a big suckout at 35 Hz because the
two lowest room modes occur at 25
Hz and 47 Hz. The fix is to put the
subwoofer in a closed corner, where
it excites enough multiple wall
modes to fill in the hole at the main
listening positions. Without a separ­ate subwoofer you cannot position
both the main channels and the bass
optimally.

Finally, to get a major step func­tion in performance we need more
than two channels. It can easily be
seen that two channels are better than
monaural. Most of us have forgotten
that stereo, as invented at Bell Labs
in the '30s, was a three-channel for­mat. Home Theater gave us the third
channel back. What's the next natu­ral progression? Five channels. Then
ten. The multichannel formats now
available use five channels. So will
DVD. Five channels are a major step
forward in realism in the living room.

The move to five channels is far
more important than all the sam­pling-rate and bandwidth haggles go­ing on, such as 96 kHz with 2 chan-

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

73

pdf 65

nels—no better than 44.1 kHz and
stereo. DVD will use 48 kHz, which
is more than adequate. Do we need
more bits? Not for a media release.
Sixteen has been more than adequate
for over a decade now. More bits
may be needed for production but not
for consumer release formats. Loss-

less coding? Not an issue. Data re­duction? No problem. What we need
is a minimum of five playback chan­nels. Five discrete playback channels
provide a solid, deep frontal image
that remains stable for a number of
listening positions, allows listener
head movement, and fills the room
with hall ambience that envelops the
listener instead of clustering around

the front channels.

Multichannel is the next big
thing. It provides a major step up in
playback performance and realism.
The first programs will come from
the movie people, as always. They
dragged us into stereo in the '50s,
matrix surround in the '80s, and are
now dragging us into discrete multi­channel with DTS and Dolby Digital.
The established recording industry
can be expected to drag their feet.
Most of the several thousand extant
recording studios are already at ca­pacity making two-channel record­ings, jingles, and commercials. They
will see no reason to change anything
until the multichannel recordings be-

ing made on new digital workstations
steal enough of their business to
create excess capacity. When that

juncture is reached, you will see a

wholesale changeout.

How long will that take? Well,
in 1984 we were predicting that CD
would surpass LP in sales in a little

over 10 years...about 1995. How
long did it really take? Maybe five! I
would say that by 2005 two-channel
recording will be history. We will be
having stereo "revivals" where the
excess production capacity of fully
amortized plants will have folks
squeezing out the last few dollars
from a dead technology, as they are
now with tubes and LPs.

Daniel Sweeney on Multichannel Formats (continued from page 72)

and eliminate matching problems.)

Best Bets

Multichannel music recording is in an early state of

development and may well remain in that state for years

to come. From my view, the scanty software and in-

sufficient format specifications should indicate extreme

caution in making sizable investments in hardware at this
time—if music listening is your primary use for your au­dio system.

If you wish to enjoy video surround-sound tracks,
you are better off obtaining a dedicated system than at­tempting to retrofit your music system. Should that sys­tem be THX? I am reluctant to suggest that no uncertified
system will do, but I will say that THX-certified systems
enjoy the special advantage of being through-engineered
in every particular and thus being relatively easy to set
up and calibrate. No non-THX system that I am aware of
reveals the same attention to every aspect of the signal
chain. On the other hand, I am not sure that the THX ap­proach to rear channels is ideal for the new 5.1 format.
Unfortunately, no one else is attempting to design for the
new format with anything approaching the thoroughness
of Lucasfilms, so you can't assume that the THX ap­proach has been automatically obsolesced by the appear­ance of the new format.

Finally, I would mention again that to obtain the
full potential of multichannel playback we need more
than five full-range channels. Six would be better, eight
would be much better. Extra channels could be obtained
by combining matrix technology with 5.1, and John Ear­gle has in fact suggested that approach. Recently, as I in­dicated, many of the backers of an audio-only version of
DVD have come out in support of an open standard that

would permit more than five channels at the discretion of
the recording engineer. Nevertheless, the feeling is wide­spread that the dominating presence of video will dictate

the general use of a five-channel configuration for music

as well as movies.

On a practical level, any attempt to introduce multi­channel in the perfectionist market must inevitably come
up against critical cost constraints. High-quality stereo
systems are already inordinately expensive, and very few
individuals are likely to treble their expenditures to ob­tain the extra channels. Hardware manufacturers realize
this and many propose to address the problem by lower­ing speaker quality on the grounds that listeners will be
so awed by the extra channels as to ignore nuances of
sound reproduction. Indeed, the same attitude is already
manifest in the some formats themselves, where extra
channels have been obtained at the cost of severe data
compression.

I will end by noting that in my many conversations
with manufacturers, both high-end and mass-market, the
prevailing note in the discussions has been how 5.1 is go­ing to make a killing in the marketplace, while, sadly,
few individuals were inclined to mention the specifics of
how they were going to exploit the potential of the for­mat to create more convincing musical reproduction. In
the midst of these discussions I was frequently reminded
of my duty to remain unfailingly enthusiastic about the
benefits of the new format—for the good of the industry.

Unfortunately, I remain at some level a consumer
and I can't help suspecting that in the frantic effort to
cash in, musical ends may be slighted. But in the words
of one manufacturer who will go nameless, "You have
no right to put your own selfish listening pleasure above
the good of the industry." And I guess he's right. •

74 THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 66

Hip Boots

Wading through the Mire of Misinformation in the Audio Press

Editor's Note: The unprecedented epidemic of self-indulgent subjectivism and untutored expertizing
that has infested the audio press (and, on top of it, spawned dozens of worthless new publications)

puts this column in a dilemmatic position. What's the point of hacking away at one or two tentacles

of the beast when all the others are out there writhing and grabbing? When we started this, the
situation was not yet completely out of hand; now it is. I have decided that this time, for a change,
we are going to focus on perverse lapses from scientific objectivity by those whom we generally

trust—the good guys. If you crave one more fix of bad-guy bashing, see pages 13-15.

Here is the ultimate example of a good guy going
off the deep end and landing in bad-guy territory. Indeed,
this is such a heartrending story of a highly regarded aca­demic gone tweak that we can't think of anything to fol­low it with as an encore, so it will have to stand alone as
a solo Hip Boots item. David Rich wanted to do this one;
he has the floor:

The Essex Yecch-o (Et Tu, Malcolme?)

Only in the The Audio Critic would you be likely

to see a critique of an article that ran in Stereophile well
over a year ago, in the October 1995 issue to be exact.
(Do not look at me but instead please talk to the Editor

about our publishing schedule.) In the case of "The Essex
Echo 1995" by Professor Malcolm Omar Hawksford,
Ph.D., the situation is so strange and bizarre that even
this late critique is still entirely relevant. [I was ready to

publish this in Issue No. 23 but David wasn't. Hey, I keep

him around for extra circumspection—Ed.]

The Stereophile piece is apparently based on an
earlier article with the same title, published in the Eng­lish magazine Hi-Fi News & Record Review in August

1985. (There its subtitle was "Malcolm Hawksford looks
at Maxwellian theory & interconnect memories.") Al-

though the article is highly technical, it was never pre-

sented at a technical conference and was never published

in an engineering or science journal. Now, in the publish-

or-perish world of the university that Dr. Hawksford in­habits, this is hard to explain. Here is an article filled
with equations that purports to explain why audio cables
sound different—oh yes, quite independently of RLC in­teractions—and its author presents it only through the

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

consumer press! If the conclusions of the article were
true, it would be just the thing to bring in grants, best­paper prizes, and bright graduate students. Just the things
you need to get to be the head of the department or even
the dean of the school.

A close look at the article shows why it never was
submitted to a professional journal: it would never stand
up to peer review in any such technical journal. Some

professional conferences require only that an abstract of
a proposed paper be submitted. Under those conditions
this work could have been presented. Did Dr. Hawksford
not want to stand on the podium and take the questions
that would result from the presentation of this work at
any professional conference? Why Hawksford should
want to be associated with work so full of holes is unex­plainable, given that he has done much significant work

which has been published in various technical journals

and is for the most part highly respected. It looks like he
published it in consumer magazines because he knew it
could be published nowhere else, but would it not make

sense not to publish it at all and not let his reputation be
affected by publishing poor-quality work?

Although the intended audience would appear to be

the audio consumer reading an audio magazine, the math-

ematics of this article are at a level that can only be un­derstood by junior-level applied mathematicians, electri­cal engineers, or physicists. Advanced methods of vector
calculus, including curl and divergence, are used. [That's
curl with a small c, audio freaks; it has nothing to do
with John Curl.—Ed.] Partial differential equations are
derived. On top of this, concepts that take weeks to be
taught in a junior-level electromagnetics course are pre-

75

pdf 67

sented in a small sidebar. This course is typically consid-

ered the most difficult in the whole E.E. course sequence.

Despite John Atkinson's introductory statement
that the article is "not as hard to grasp as it looks," I can­not see how a normal reader who has not been exposed to

this material could have any idea what is going on. Given
the audience, we must guess the intent here is not to
teach but to impress—with the knowledge of the author
and the complexity of the subject mater.

When the audience is totally uncomprehending of
what is going on, as must surely be the case here, it is
easy to slip in fiction between the facts without the slight­est risk that the reader will feel it going in. Indeed, most
professional E.E.s could get fooled. It is interesting to
note that much of the argument that is made by Dr.
Hawksford was also made David Lindsay of the Lindsay­Geyer cable company. A patent was even awarded to Dr.
Lindsay, showing the patent examiner could be fooled by
EM sleight of hand.

We can confirm the theoretical analysis is flawed
because we cannot find the predicted echoes when we
look for them experimentally. We have to go no further
than the June 1991 issue of Stereophile to find that out.

Believe it or not, John Atkinson ran the experiments and

had to admit he found no echoes or dispersion effects.
Hawksford's article does claim to show experimental re­sults that confirm his theory, but his work is not of the
same quality as Atkinson's. (I cannot believe I wrote that

last sentence. Wake me up; this must be some kind of

bad dream.)

The graphs shown in Hawksford's article lack
scaled vertical and horizontal axes. [Shades of Bruce
Brisson's old MIT ads!—Ed.] Important information on
the computer simulation and the experiment is not dis­closed. For example, the response characteristic of the
transconductor and its gm are not given. Neither the R, L,
and C values of the cable under test nor even its length
are disclosed. Independent replication of the experiment
is not possible under these conditions. Another important
point to note is that Hawksford's cable is terminated into
a short, not a resistive load. Atkinson ran his experiment
with a normally terminated cable corresponding to real­world use.

Driving the virtual short that the cable represents in
the Hawksford experiment requires the transconductor
circuit to source and sink a lot of current. High current is

required to make the signal levels at the cable's input

high enough to be measurable. In Figure 5 of Hawks-

ford's Stereophile article the differentiator is shown in

great detail but the transconductor is only shown as a
block.

I ran a SPICE circuit simulation of Figure 5 and
found I could create a plot similar to Figure 7, modeling
the cable only as an RL network. The key was to limit
the bandwidth of the transconductor to 10 times the tone­burst frequency. Without any details from Hawksford we

do not know enough about his circuit, but I bet my esti­mate is close and he is observing not a novel cable distor­tion but merely problems in his experimental setup.
[Shades of cold fusion!—Ed.]

Note that the Hawksford computer simulation is
clearly not at steady state before the tone burst is cut off.
This is unexpected and makes me think his simulation is
flawed, since the effect is not seen in his experimental re­sults nor in my computer simulation

Now then, EM is not my field of expertise, so the

Editor and I consulted an expert in the field to give us a

better understanding of the sleight of hand used in the an-

alytical part of Hawksford's paper. Our consultant is a
tenured professor of considerable distinction, the author
of many highly regarded professional papers, who is
merely doing us a favor and has no reason to get person­ally embroiled in a controversy with either the audiophile
community or Dr. Hawksford. We were therefore asked
to keep the professor's comments anonymous. They are
as follows:

Interestingly, the author's equations, his
basic analysis, and the numbers he calculates
are correct. It is his interpretations of the
meaning of the numbers that are nonsense.

The problems start in the second column

on page 55. He refers to Table 2 and the sig-

nificance of the skin depth and velocity of

propagation varying at audio frequencies.
This is true. However, the velocity of propa­gation in the conductor is not relevant, since
in electromagnetic theory all of the wave that
penetrates the conductor is lost as heat. The
velocity of the wave in the conductor is in a
direction perpendicular to the surface. This
wave is called the Poynting vector and is en­tirely lost as heat. If the conductor is perfect
and lossless, all of the Poynting vector is
along the direction of the conductor and none
is lost in the conductor, and thus there is no
heating. With a finite conductivity, there is a
small electrical vector along the direction of
the conductor, the IxR drop; this results in a
small Poynting vector into the conductor, and
it is the Poynting vector component in elec­trodynamic term that causes the wire to get
hot.

The heating is not a physical effect as we
normally think of it. That is, we normally
think of heating in the wire to be due to elec­trons moving in the conductor and giving up
heat of motion to the molecular structure of
the wire. But in electrodynamics we do not
have to consider such details. We simply use
the equations and they give the correct result.

The fact that the velocities of propaga­tion of the axial Poynting vector are tiny has
nothing whatever to do with the propagation
velocity of the electrical wave moving down
the length of the conductor. This velocity is
determined only by the properties of the insu­lating medium which surrounds the conduc­tor and is always a good fraction of the speed

(continued on page 81)

76

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 68

David Ranada has been
listening to CDs with

score in hand, taking

notes, and planning re­views, but none of it has
reached my desk as of

press time (despite the un-

conscionable delay of the
latter). He assures me that
his reviews are timeless
and will be just as good in
the next issue. Meanwhile
my admittedly less schol­arly and probably less
durable capsule reviews

will have to suffice. Feel

free to disagree with me; I

don't have a degree in mu­sic like David.

Celestial Harmonies

This Arizona-based

company, which is also
behind the Black Sun la­bel, has all kinds of spe­cial-interest and ethno-

graphic projects, such as,
for example, "The Music
of Armenia" and "The

Music of Vietnam," in

many volumes, and authen­tic Australian didjeridoo
recordings. I picked just
one release for review

here because I can relate
to it.

·

"¡Cante Gitano!" (Nine
flamenco selections.) Ra­fael Jiménez, vocals; Ca-

nito, guitar; Paquete, gui-

tar; et al. 13112-2 (1996).

Flamenco, the music

of the Andalusian Gyp-

sies, may very well be the
most complex and sophis-

ticated European folk mu-

sic. My flamenco educa­tion goes back to Carlos

Montoya, Sabicas, Mani­tas de Plata, that sort of
thing. Listening to this
very contemporary fla­menco release I realized
that flamenco has changed
as much as jazz and rock.
Rafael Jiménez "Falo" is a
Gypsy singer now in his
early thirties, performing
in the flamenco clubs of

Madrid. His singing is still
basically traditional but

shows more non-Spanish

influences than I expected

(such as Indian tabla ac-

companiment, Gregorian
chant, etc.) He is a very
impressive performer, with
great vocal equipment and
powerful phrasing. The
Madrid recording may
possibly have been made
on analog tape but has
great presence and detail.
Very quiet background,
too.

Delos

If John Eargle were
not the engineer behind
the new Virtual Reality
Recording (VR2) series of
Delos, I would be inclined
to dismiss the whole thing
as a marketing gimmick.
After all, there has been
no change in microphones
and other recording equip­ment as listed in the CD
brochures. My complete
trust in John, however,
leaves me persuaded that
he has indeed started to
record subtle cues that
provide additional sound­stage information, even in
plain-vanilla stereo but es­pecially in—pardon the
expression—Dolby Sur­round. The VR2 discs do
have a wonderfully spa­cious, three-dimensional
quality without any loss of
up-front detail. But then
John was making that type
of recording for Delos
back in 1987! (Well, al­most.)

•

J. S. Bach: The Six Bran-

denburg Concertos. The
Chamber Music Society of
Lincoln Center, David.
Shifrin, artistic director.
DE 3185 (2 CDs, 1995).

These are wonderful
musicians, none better, but
their performance here is a
bit lackadaisical, perhaps

just because they can play

this music faultlessly in
their sleep. I like my Bran­denburgs played with a lit­tle more drive and exhilar­ation. The VR2 recording
is as good as it gets, but
the technique makes less
difference in chamber mu­sic than with large orches­tral or choral forces.

"Double Forte!" Featur-

ing The Alexander Varia-

tions by Calvin Hampton,

plus works by Saint-Saëns,

Wagner, Mozart, and J.C.

Bach. The Organs of the

National City Christian

Church, Washington, DC;
Todd Wilson and David
Higgs, organists. DE 3175
(1995).

A church with two or­gans is the shtick here, and
the beautifully crafted,
highly accessible modern
work by Calvin Hampton
is the centerpiece. This
one you should really hear
in Dolby Surround to ap­preciate the interplay of
the two organs. The John
Eargle recording (not a
VR2) has very nicely de­lineated organ bass and
sounds perfectly natural
despite the complex sonor­ities. I would have been
happier with other modern
organ pieces, however, not
the "Ride of the Valky­ries" transcribed for two
organs. Please!

·

Rodion Shchedrin: The

Carmen Ballet. Georges

Bizet: Carmen Suite No. 1.

Orchestre Philharmonique
de Monte Carlo, James

DePriest, conductor. DE

3208 (1996).

John Eargle meets Gene

Pope; James DePriest meets

Mark Gorenstein (see Is­sue No. 23, pp. 79-80).

My vote goes to this new
VR2 release, but not by a
wide margin. I think the

Delos sound has a bit

more immediacy, as well
as better bass definition,
and the old-line casino
capitalists play a bit more
securely than the young
ex-socialists. The Delos
CD also has the advantage
of more imaginative pro­gramming than the all­Russian one, as the con­trast between ur-Bizet and
spiced-up Bizet is lots of
fun—the pairing is a natu­ral. See also my comments
under PopeMusic below.

·

Dmitri Shostakovich: Sym­phony No. 8 in C Minor,

Op. 65. Dallas Symphony
Orchestra, Andrew Litton,

conductor. DE 3204 (1996).

From Dorian to Telarc
to Delos—has the excel­lent Dallas orchestra found
a permanent home for its
recording affiliation? I hope
so because John Eargle
has made them sound bet­ter in their supposedly

state-of-the-art concert hall
than anyone else. What's
more, Litton himself has

said so—in print! This lat­est VR2 release is better
played and at least as well
recorded as the earlier

Tchaikovsky CD reviewed
below. This is one of Lit­ton's favorite pieces of
music and it shows. (Un­der any conductor, No. 8
is a much finer work than

the cornball No. 7.) The

steamroller third move­ment in this recording is
an unbeatable audio demo.

•

Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky:

1812 Overture, Op. 49
(with chorus); The Sleeping
Beauty, Op. 66 (9 excerpts,
arr. Andrew Litton); The

Voyevoda, Op. 78; Moscow
(cantata). Dallas Sympho­ny Orchestra & Chorus,
Andrew Litton, conductor.
DE 3196 (1995).

This is one of the ear­lier 20-bit Virtual Reality
Recordings and it's good
enough to test and/or dem­onstrate the finest play­back equipment. Absolute­ly stunning, in tonality and
in dynamics. The 1812
Overture is played in the
arrangement by Igor Bu­ketoff, in which the three
Russian vocal pieces quot­ed instrumentally by the
composer are are actually
sung by a chorus—hey,
why not? The best music
here is The Sleeping Beau-
ty, played a little four­square but not enough to
hurt it. (Litton has yet to
prove to me that he is a
conductor of the first
rank.) The other pieces are
interesting but not great.
It's the recording here
that's great.

Denon

Is this label (Nippon
Columbia) less active in
classical recording than it
used to be? Somehow,
without quantitative infor­mation, that's my impres­sion. Whatever they do re­mains of high quality, in
any event.

•

Édouard Lalo: Symphonie
espagnole, Op. 21. Ca-
mille Saint-Saëns: Violin
Concerto No. 3 in B Mi­nor, Op. 61. Chee-Yun, vi­olin; London Philharmon­ic Orchestra, Jesús López­Cobos, conductor. CO­18017(1996).

Absolutely breathtak­ing fiddling. This lovely
young Korean-American
woman has grown into an
artist of major importance.
Her tone is her long suit—
pure silk, velvet, and pol­ished rosewood—and she
hits every note square in
the middle, with dazzling
facility in the rapid pas­sages and never, never a
strained or even momen­tarily unpleasant sound. I
could fault her for the
"wow" style—loads of vi-

brato, portamento, rubato,
and every other -to—but
this is wow-style music,
not Johann Sebastian
Bach, so all of it is appro­priate. Is she as good in
Beethoven? I don't know,
but this is a hugely enjoy­able CD, with outstanding
orchestral work and gor­geous sound at all levels
from ppp to fff. (Yes, a
"Mastersonic 20-Bit Re­cording," but good by any
other name.)

Deutsche Grammophon

DGG's classical sound
used to be awful but now,
with 4D Audio Recording,
it's really quite good, al­most on a level with De­los, Telarc, and the like.
No longer hesitate to buy
the new CDs of their great
artists because of the sound.

•

Achille-Claude Debussy:

Nocturnes; Premiere
Rhapsodie pour orchestre
avec clarinette principale;
Jeux; La Mer. The Cleve­land Orchestra, Pierre
Boulez, conductor. D108521
(1993).

Grand slam! Boulez is,
in my opinion, the best
conductor of French mu­sic, certainly the most pre­cise and idiomatic. The
Cleveland is all in all the
best orchestra on standard
repertory, with the most
precise ensemble work.
Do you think Boulez
would bother to make new
recordings of played-to­death orchestral staples if
he weren't after a world
record? You have never
heard these pieces played
like this. Overwhelming.
Even if you own only 20
classical CDs, I suggest

that this be one of them.

Antonio Vivaldi: The Four
Seasons (Spring, Summer,
Autumn, Winter). Fritz
Kreisler: Concerto in C
Major in the Style of Vi­valdi. Gil Shaham, violin;
Orpheus Chamber Or­chestra. D 208093 (2
CDs, 1994-95).

There are many ways

to play this much-played
music. What we have here
is the powerhouse ap­proach—driving rhythm,
speed, dynamic contrasts,
stupendous precision. The
already legendary young
Shaham and the incompa­rable Orpheus both have
the "chops" to make such
an approach 100% con­vincing. This is a very ex­citing performance, the
one I prefer to listen to
these days. The same art­ists also made a video of
the three "Winter" move-

ments, and there is a bo-

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

77

pdf 69

nus CD-ROM (Mac/PC)

about the video included
with the set. It made my
totally au courant Power
Macintosh crash. I don't
care. This is a great re­cording, with or without a
giveaway.

dmp

Tom Jung, the techno­factotum of this label, re­mains the master of ultra-

high-definition, in-your-face

audio with small and me-

dium-sized groups. Perfect

hi-fi show material.

•

"The Robert Hohner Per-

cussion Ensemble World

Music Tour." Percussion,

lead vocals, & chorus.

Robert Hohner, director.

CD-514 (1995).

An interesting sequel

to the "Different Strokes"
CD I favorably reviewed
in Issue No. 19. This is a
little more ethnic/tribal in
program material, featur­ing West African, Haitian,
Afro-Cuban, Trinidadian,
and (surprise!) Japanese
banging, clanging, and
booming, not to mention
grunting, mumbling, and
chanting. It's more fun
than a barrel of monkeys
and it's recorded with the
expected Jungian impact
in Circle Surround, yet an­other stereo-compatible
matrix technology. The
only thing I miss here is
some very deep (16 to 32
Hz octave) boom-boom­ing, but then I'm an incor­rigible subwoofer nut.

•

"DMP Big Band Salutes

Duke Ellington." Dave

Glasser, alto saxophone;

Lew Soloff, trumpet; Britt

Woodman, trombone; Dan
Rosengard, piano; Lynn
Seaton, bass; John Riley,

drums; 10 other instru-

mentalists. CD-520

(1996).

I inserted this literally

hours before we went to
press because I was totally
blown away by this new
release and wanted to be
the first reviewer to call
your attention to it. I have
never heard a big band re­corded with such unbe­lievable fidelity. The in­strumental presence and
timbral accuracy are sim­ply overwhelming. Most
amazing is the quality of
the brasses—red-hot and
penetrating but without
the slightest irritation fac­tor, brilliantly etched and

sweet at the same time.

That I have never heard
before. All the other in-

struments are also detailed
to the nth degree and pal­pably there. What a speak­er test disc! But that's not

all. The 16 musicians are
New York's best, playing
with breathtaking virtuosi­ty and recreating the El­lington sound and perfor­mance style as credibly as
I have ever heard—and I
am generally not in favor
of nostalgic ersatz mimic­ry. Audiophiles, big-band
aficionados, Ellingtonians,
drop everything, go out,
and buy this CD!

Dorian

This label deals with
the flagging interest in
classical recordings by re­leasing a large number of
not-quite-mainstream and
outright niche-market
CDs, most of which in­volve relatively low over­head. The idea is that a lot
of different low-volume
sales will add up to a satis­factory bottom line. You

and I are the beneficiaries
of their highly varied—
shall we say Greek-diner
style?—menu.

•

"An American Tapestry."

Orchestral works by Wil-

liam Schuman, Griffes,
Ives, Hovhannes, and Pis­ton. Dallas Sympnony Or-

chestra, Andrew Litton,
conductor. DOR-90224
(1995).

Dorian's last hurrah
in Dallas, and maybe Lit­ton was right—this is
probably not the sound of
the orchestra from the best
seat in the hall. The re­cording is far from bad,
needless to say, but there
is a certain lack of imme­diacy, as if you were in a
good cheap seat, up there
somewhere. Aside from
that, Litton does not have
quite the same feeling for
these robust, no-nonsense
American works as Gerard
Schwarz, for example.
This gets a grade of B mi­nus from me.

•

Edvard Grieg: The Three

Violin Sonatas. (No. 1 in F

Major, Op. 8; No. 2 in G
Major, Op. 13; No. 3 in C
Minor, Op. 45.) Ivan Ze­naty, violin; Antonin Ku­balek, piano. DOR-90234
(1995).

These lovely violin so­natas used to be frequently
played but today they are
neglected, perhaps because
of their unsophisticated
Romanticism. If all per­formers had played them
the way these two Czechs
do, they might have re­mained popular. I have
long ago formed the opin­ion that in nineteenth­century Romantic music
one Czech is worth seven
Austrians, and this record­ing confirms that. Irresist-

ibly charming and stylish
playing. What's more, the
violin is so accurately re­produced on this CD that
you can use it as a tweeter
and midrange test. What
more can you ask for?

"The Italian Lute Song,"

featuring works by Monte-

verdi, Frescobaldi, Cacci-

ni, Carissimi, et al. Juli-

anne Baird, soprano; Ronn
McFarlane, lute. DOR­90236 (1995-96).

This one is easy to
like. Julianne Baird would
sound utterly enchanting

just singing "Three Blind

Mice," and nobody plays
the lute more musically
and authoritatively than
Ronn McFarlane. The mu­sic here ranges from pretty
to superlative, whereas the
performances are uniform­ly wonderful. Baird's voice
remains a miracle, at least
in this tonal and dynamic
range, and McFarlane is
likewise orphic. The re­cording is absolutely crys­talline, one of the finest
Dory/Troy efforts, demo
quality and then some. I
promise you this: when
this CD is over, after 70
minutes, you will not have
had enough.

"Lullaby Journey," Custer

LaRue, soprano; Chris
Norman, wooden flute;
Kim Robertson, Celtic harp.
DOR-90232 (1995).

I discovered this col-

lection of traditional lulla­bies at the CES, where the
CD was used by an exhibi­tor as a resolution test. On
the opening track, LaRue
vocalizes ppp under the
pungent tones of Nor­man's wooden flute. You
can just barely hear it and
only on the best systems.
The unique timbre of the
wooden flute on the vari­ous tracks is an audio feast
by itself. On top of it,
these are excellent musi­cians; LaRue has a very
sweet voice; and the music
is invariably charming. It
is almost superfluous to
add that the Dory/Troy re­cording is state-of-the-art.

•

Heitor Villa-Lobos: Sym­phony No. 4 ("Victoria");
Cello Concerto No. 2; Am­azonas. Simón Bolívar
Symphony Orchestra of

Venezuela, Enrique Arturo

Diemecke, conductor; An­drés Díaz, cello. DOR­90228(1995).

If you only know the
Bachianas brasileiras of
Villa-Lobos, check out this

huge symphony (1919) for
huge orchestra. Interest-

ing, at the very least, and
occasionally powerful. The

concerto (1953) is finely
crafted and very accessi­ble. Díaz is an excellent
cellist. The recording is
very good, but Dorian can
do even better (maybe not
in Caracas). The least im­portant, highly derivative
Amazonas ballet music is
actually the best recorded.

Erato

Atlantic Records, dis­tributors of this label (and
of Teldec and Finlandia),
are now restricted, I've
been told, to 13 review
copies of each new release
for the entire USA, as an
economy measure. I am
clearly not included in that
apostolic number. (I think
they save approximately
the price of a Big Mac
with each withheld CD.)
The release reviewed here
is left over from the prodi­gal old days.

•

J. S. Bach: Mass in B
Minor, BWV 232. The
Amsterdam Baroque Or­chestra & choir, with solo­ists; Ton Koopman, con­ductor. 4509-98478-2 (2

CDs, 1994).

I am attuned to the
Bach performance style of
my neighbors, the superb
Bach Choir of Bethlehem
(Pennsylvania, that is), so
that the pinched period­practice rendition of the B
Minor by the Amsterdam­mers leaves me somewhat
cold. The ensemble sonor­ities are quite beautiful,
the textures are crystal
clear, the choir sings well,
but the soloists are medio­cre (the countertenor is a
disaster), and the overall
impact leaves a lot to be
desired. The recording, on
the other hand, is wonder­fully transparent.

Harmonia Mundi

The following CD was
sent to me (and presum­ably to other reviewers)
completely unsolicited, a
most unusual gesture by
this label. Their usual poli­cy is to send a "digest"
disc with sample snippets.
Obviously they expect
Part to play an important
part in their sales. (Sorry!)

•

Arvo Pärt: De Profundis

(Psalm 129); Missa Sillab­ica; Solfeggio; "And one
of the Pharisees"; Cantate
Domino (Psalm 95); Sum­ma (Credo); Seven Mag-

nificat Antiphons; The
Beatitudes; Magnificat.

Theatre of Voices, Paul

Hillier, artistic director.

907182 (1996).

If I'm going to buy
into the current chant
craze, I might as well buy

into Arvo Pärt, whose neo­medieval/postmodernist
chants are more interest­ing than most. This is the
kind of music that either
fascinates you or turns
you off totally. These
works cover the period
from 1964 to 1990 (Pärt
was born in 1935) and are
beautifully sung, Hillier is
a Pärt specialist, and the
composer was there at the
recording sessions. The
sound is superbly transpar-

ent, as it usually is when

Robina Young is the pro­ducer. Good test CD for
massed voices.

London

A London (i.e., English
Decca) recording is always
a known quantity audio­wise; we know it will be
nonminimalist, with lots
of microphones, as well as
a bit on the bright side, but
almost surely the best of
that kind, detailed and eu­phonious.

Richard Wagner: "Orches­tral Favourites." Prelude
to Die Meistersinger; Ride
of the Valkyries; Dawn,
Siegfried's Rhine Journey,
& Siegried's Funeral Mu­sic from Götterdämmer­ung; Tannhäuser Overture
and Bacchanal; Lohen­grin Act III Prelude. Royal
Concertgebouw Orchestra,
Riccardo Chailly, conduc­tor. 448 155-2 (1995).

The last thing the mu­sic world needs is another
recording of these played­to-death orchestral stan­dards—except when the
performances are this good.
Wow! Why does it take an
Italian conductor to play
Wagner with this kind of
rectitude, clarity, and rhyth­mic sophistication? Shades
of the Old Man! The Mei-
stersinger prelude is paced
and phrased exactly right
for a change, and the Tann-
häuser Bacchanal (Paris
version) is nothing short
of dazzling. I could praise
the other pieces equally.
Of course, it helps to have
a great orchestra. The
brasses of the Concertge­bouw are weightily warm
and brilliant at the same
time, a unique sound. The
strings are marvelous. On
top of everything else, the
recording in the Grotezaal
has rounder edges than is
usual for Decca and John
Dunkerley; that really puts
the icing on the cake.
Wagnerians, add this dupli­cation to your collection.

•

Richard Wagner: Das
Rheingold. Robert Hale,
Wotan; Hanna Schwarz,
Fricka; Kim Begley, Loge;

78 THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 70

Peter Schreier, Mime;
Franz-Josef Kapellmann,
Alberich; et al. The Cleve-

land Orchestra, Christoph
von Dohnányi, conductor.
443 690-2 (2 CDs, 1993).

Yet another complete
Ring in the offing, but I'll
wait for Die Walküre be­fore I develop too strong
an opinion about this one
because Das Rheingold is
basically just an orchestral
piece (a long, long one)
with some singing actors
thrown in. No heldentenor,
no bigtime fat lady. We'll
have to see whom they
pick for the rest of the cy­cle. As far as the orches­tral performance goes, the
Cleveland is America's
best, so naturally they play
magnificently. Dohnányi's
pacing is excellent; the re­cording in Severance Hall
is first-rate Decca; thus
there are no serious de­merits so far. The compe­tition is fierce, however.

Mapleshade

I must confess that I
don't have much affinity
for the particular type of
jazz and blues cultivated
by this label—that's my
problem, not theirs—but I

stand in awe of Pierre
Sprey as a recording engi­neer. I don't even share
his proanalog ideology—
he starts with a live-to-2­track analog master tape—
but I can't argue with the
sound he obtains. I have
never heard more start­lingly lifelike recordings
of small groups playing
this kind of music. Perfect
audio testing and demo
material—pick any title at
random from their catalog.

•

"Sweetman with his South
Side Groove Kings: Austin
Backalley Blue." Sweet­man, tenor sax, and his
band. Wildehild MS 02752
(1992).

"Bad Influence." Live at

the Bad Habits Cafe.

Whop Frazier, vocals &
electric bass; Junior Tash,
electric guitar; et al. Wild­child MS 03152 (1993).

Wildchild is Maple­shade's alternative label,
subtitled "Raw Music, No

Additives." That says it
all. The Sweetman disc is
a studio recording of a tru-

ly raunchy-sounding Tex­as blues band, with an in­credibly sleazy '50s strip­joint style tenor sax in the
lead. The Bad Influence
disc is an on-location re­cording of an equally
slummy type of blues/rock
band, playing at a beer-

and-ribs joint in the Wash-

ington, DC area. I have no

idea how connoisseurs of

this sort of music would
rate these groups against
the competition; for me
they are a perfect escape
into surrogate squalor and
great junk food for my ref­erence stereo system.

Marco Polo

This label is now en­tirely under the control of,
and virtually indistin­guishable from, Naxos, so
all my applicable general
comments will be found
under that heading.

•

László Lajtha: Orchestral

Works. Vol. 1: Symphony
No. 7, Op. 63; Suite No. 3,
Op. 56; Hortobágy, Op.

21. Vol. 2: Capriccio (Suite
de ballet), Op. 39. Pécs
Symphony Orchestra, Nic­olás Pasquet, conductor.

8.223667 and 8.223668
(1994).

It's a ha-ha in a Sein-

feld episode that the char-

acters can't recall the
name of "the third tenor."
Quick, who was the third
Hungarian composer of
the 20th century? Lajtha
(pronounced approximate­ly like loiter without the
r), that's who. Bartók was
an immortal genius; Ko­dály was a master; Lajtha
(1892-1963) was a superb
craftsman, as this no long­er very new pair of CDs
shows. Almost any music
lover will hugely enjoy
the pungent rhythms and
colorful orchestration of
this music. It isn't boring.
Great originality? Maybe
not, although the 7th Sym­phony has moments of
genuine eloquence. The
provincial orchestra is
amazingly competent
here, and the Hungarian
recording is on the Telarc
level.

Melodiya

BMG Classics (own­ers of RCA Victor) contin­ue to distribute their high­tech restorations of impor­tant performances from
this great Russian catalog.
(See also Issue No. 23.)

•

MRAV1NSKY EDITION,

Volumes 11-20. Featuring:

Beethoven, Brahms,

Bruckner, R. Strauss,
Shostakovich, Ovsyaniko­Kulikovsky, Tchaikovsky,
Glazunov, Rimsky-

Korsakov. Yevgeny Mravin-

sky, with the Leningrad
Philharmonic Orchestra.
74321 29459 2 (10 CDs,
1947-73).

The second set of Mra­vinsky reissues dates
much further back than
the first, so you can expect
less good but still quite ac­ceptable recording in the

1947 Shostakovich Eighth
(the authoritative reading)
than in the completely up­to-date-sounding Brahms
Fourth of 1973 (glorious
performance). The great
conductor and his great or­chestra continue, posthu­mously, to astonish; some­thing vital is happening in
every bar of every piece
here. Definitely hall-of­fame stuff, not to mention
a triumph of remastering.

MusicMasters Classics

One thing I like about
this label (another prov­ince of the BMG Music
empire) is that they have
no fluff in their catalog, at
least none that I'm aware
of. They seem to record
only important music, as
performed by important
artists. Can you make a
living that way?

•

Ludwig van Beethoven:

Sonatas for Violin & Pia­no. Vol. I: A Major, Op.
47 ("Kreutzer"); D Major,
Op. 12, No. 1. Vol.

11:

A
Major, Op. 30, No. 1; C
Minor, Op. 30, No. 2; G
Major, Op. 30, No. 3.
Claude Frank, violin; Pam­ela Frank, piano. 01612­67087-2 (1992) and 01612­67106-2 (1995).

The Franks are a fa­ther-and-daughter team of
great distinction. Their
playing is unfailingly mu­sical, lovely in sound,
technically secure and then
some, but not without oc­casional fussy manner­isms. There is so much
competition in this music
that I can't possibly rate
these obviously excellent
performances against the
rest of the field. Max Wil­cox was the producer and
engineer, and that means
utterly natural audio, with
a high degree of resem­blance to live sound.

•

W. A. Mozart: String Quar­tets, Volumes I to III. The
American String Quartet:
Peter Winograd & Laurie
Carney, violins; Daniel
Avshalomov, viola; David
Geber, cello. 01612-671xx­2 (3 CDs, 1992-95).

There may exist more
brilliant or scholarly tra­versal of the Mozart string
quartet repertoire but none
better-sounding, I'm sure.
These four excellent musi­cians play on a matched
set of Antonio Stradivari
instruments, on loan from
the Smithsonian Institute
especially for these record­ings. The resulting string
tone is incredibly beauti­ful, always sweet on top
and darkly warm in the
lower ranges. The three

volumes issued so far cov­er nine quartets, with a
balanced program of one
early, one middle-period,
and one late work on each
CD. Three of the famous
six dedicated to Haydn are
here (K. 387, K. 421, and
K. 428), as well as the su­perb K. 499 from the same
period. The performances
are uniformly lucid, idio­matic, and unexaggerated.
Judy Sherman produced
and engineered the record­ings, with obvious compe­tence as manifested by the
gorgeous Stradivari tone.

Igor Stravinsky: The
Composer, Volumes I to

VIII. The Orchestra of St.
Luke's, Robert Craft, con­ductor, with soloists, cho­ral groups, etc. 01612­67xxx-2 (10 CDs, 1991-95).

Robert Craft, as every­body knows (well, every­body I associate with),
was Igor Stravinsky's mu­sical Boswell, from 1948
until the composer's death
in 1971. They were practi­cally inseparable. A Rob­ert Craft performance of a
Stravinsky composition is
the nearest thing to a Stra­vinsky performance. That
doesn't mean Craft is a
great conductor—nor was
Stravinsky—but we are
very lucky to have these
unchallengeably authorita­tive interpretations in
1990s sound. St. Luke's is
a virtuoso orchestra of
New York freelancers and
moonlighters, and Craft
doesn't have to be a Fritz
Reiner or Pierre Boulez to
make them play with spirit
and precision. Eight vol­umes on ten CDs cover a
lot of ground, but the se­ries is far from complete;
indeed, more than a few
major works are still miss­ing, such as Petrouchka
and Le baiser de la fée.
We have more to look for­ward to. (Speaking of
Reiner, his incomparable
and Stravinsky-approved
1958 recording of the Di­vertimento from Le baiser
may be one reason for
Craft's postponement of a
new recording.) All eight
volumes issued so far
were produced and engi­neered by Gregory K.
Squires. The sound is clean,
dry, and precise through­out (just like the music
and the conducting). I
have no problem with
that; I actually prefer the
"analytical" kind of re­cording when it suits the
program material, and this
is a fine example of the
genre. Bottom line: the
Stravinsky devotee obvi­ously has other options in

individual opuses here and
there but none in a "com­plete works" set. This is
the one. And that's far

from regrettable.
Naxos

While the classical CD
business founders, scrimps,
and kvetches, Naxos
thrives, bigtime. There
must be a reason, right?
The Naxos formula is, to
paraphrase the advertising
slogan of Mamma Leone's
New York restaurant:
"Record good classical
music and give people
plenty of price incentives.
They'll come." A student
who can't afford the DGG
recording of a favorite
symphony will buy the
Naxos version at a frac­tion of the price, and it is
likely to be a very respect­able performance, in state­of-the-art sound, quite
possibly better recorded
than the DGG. I recently
visited the Phoenix Studio
in Budapest, one of the
busiest Naxos contractors.
The equipment used by
the Hungarians is as up­to-date as anything I've
seen anywhere. They just
charge less than the West­ern studios.

•

Ludwig van Beethoven:

Symphony No. 1 in C Ma-

jor, Op. 21; Symphony No.

6 in F Major, Op. 68
("Pastoral"). Nicolaus
Esterházy Sinfonia, Béla
Drahos, conductor.

8.553474 (1995).
Symphony No. 3 in E-flat
Major, Op. 55 ("Ero­ica"); Symphony No. 8 in
F Major, Op. 93. Nicolaus
Esterházy Sinfonia, Béla
Drahos, conductor.

8.553475 (1995).

It is an essential part
of the Naxos credo not to
record and release any
piece of music more than
once, but here they made
an exception. Their origi­nal Beethoven symphony
series (conducted by Mi­chael Halász and Richard
Edlinger) wasn't really
competitive with all the
world-class performances
available on full-priced la­bels. These new record­ings definitely are. Drahos,
who was a highly regarded
flutist before he became a
conductor, is a truly super­ior musician. I endorse his
readings of No. 1, No. 6,
and No. 8 without any res­ervations. Every phrase is
lovingly inflected and in
perfect balance with every
other phrase. Every bar
dances and sparkles, may­be in a somewhat Haydn­esque way (Drahos has re-

corded a lot of Haydn) but

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

79

pdf 71

very appealingly in any
event. The "Eroica" is an­other story. It sounds like
Haydn's greatest sympho­ny here; the titanic rheto­ric is minimized. Maybe
that's authentic 1803
style, but I'm used to the
monumental interpreta­tions of the great modern
conductors. The miniatur­ized impression is partly
due to the meager string
section of the orchestra,
but not entirely. Drahos
wants it that way. His
woodwinds, on the other
hand, are nothing short of
world-class. The best wind
players in the country are
moonlighting here for
their former colleague.
The recorded sound is in
every way exemplary; I
used it to demonstrate to a
friend the timbral accura­cy and imaging of an out­standing speaker system.
It would seem that the

Phoenix Studio recording
team has solved the far
from inconsiderable dif-

ficulties of the Budapest
hall where the recording
was made (called the Ital­ian Institute).

PopeMusic

Gene Pope III is the
ideal recording guru for
audio tweaks. Like them,
he is a True Believer. He
believes in a single pair of
B & K omnis and Cello
electronics, and that's that.
If it works—and in many
cases it works beautiful­ly—he is a hero. If it
doesn't work—and in cer­tain cases it can't—he'll
never admit it. His audio
ideology and rhetoric will
always be strutting, and
sometimes stumbling, one
step ahead of the pragmat­ic realities of the concert
hall. Give me an engineer
who doesn't believe in
anything except the end
result...

•

Peter llyich Tchaikovsky:

Symphony No. 6 in B Mi­nor, Op. 74 ("Pathétique);
Francesca da Rimini (Sym-

phonic Fantasy), Op. 32.
Russian Symphony Orches-

tra, Mark Gorenstein, con­ductor. PM 1006-2 (1995).

Here is a case in point.
It is extremely difficult to
get such richly orchestrat­ed music exactly right
with just two micro­phones. The recording
sounds thin and shallow,
with wimpy bass, in many
passages but, strangely, not
all. It's almost as if they
had experimented with the
microphone placement in
the middle of the sympho­ny—is it possible? Or
could it be level related?

The Francesca is a 20-bit
recording versus 18-bit in
the symphony—it doesn't
seem to make too much of
a difference. Gorenstein is
poetic and highly eccen­tric by turns, almost as

baffling as the engineer-

ing. The young orchestra
plays quite well but lacks
the refinement of the top-

notchers. I'd give the total
effort a squeak-by B mi­nus.

•

Ludwig van Beethoven:

Concerto for Piano and
Orchestra No. 5 in E-flat
Major, Op. 73 ("Emper­or"); Piano Sonata No. 14
in C-sharp Minor, Op. 27,
No. 2 ("Moonlight").
Naum Starkman, piano;
Russian Symphony Or­chestra, Mark Gorenstein,
conductor. PM 1004-2
(1995).

I deliberately departed
from the alphabetical or­der of composers here to
be able to point out that
this is different from the
above. The minimalist re­cording technique works
very well with Beetho­ven's simpler, more nearly
monochrome orchestra­tion. The strings have
proper weight and the pia­no is nicely focused.
What's more, the veteran
Starkman is a very fine pi­anist who should be better
known in the West. These
performances are competi­tive with just about any. If
you want to try a Gene
Pope production, I recom­mend this one.

RCA Victor Red Seal

The sound engineering
has been getting better and
better on this venerable
(and now BMG-Music­owned) label. Until recent­ly one could rely on them
for OK but not great audio,
but slowly the audiophile
labels competing in the
same market are begin­ning to have reason to be
worried.

•

Aaron Copland: Sympho-

ny for Organ and Orches­tra (1924); Dance Sym-

phony (1929); Short Sym­phony (1932-33); Orches-

tral Variations (1957).

Saint Louis Symphony Or-

chestra, Leonard Slatkin,

conductor. 09026-68292-2
(1993-95).

This is terrific, nonbor-

ing 20th-century music,
played by an orchestra
that deserves to be ranked
with the Big Five to make
it the Big Six—but the

CD's current reputation is

based on the engineering.

I have to dissent, albeit
only mildly. The record-

ing does have tremendous
presence and lower mid­range impact, as well as
superb bass, but the treble
is edgy when it gets loud.
That's a very common
failing of the big commer­cial labels, probably the re­sult of trying to make

everything sound good on

every system, including
car stereo. Other than that

the sound is indeed out-

standing, but I favor the
recording because of the
unique artistic quality of
early Copland and the vir­tuoso playing.

Richard Wagner: Lohen­grin. Ben Heppner, Lohen­grin; Sharon Sweet, Elsa
von Brabant; Eva Marton,

Ortrud; Sergei Leiferkus,
Friedrich von Telramund;
Jan-Hendrik Rootering,

The King; Bryn Terfel,
Herald. Bavarian Radio
Symphony Orchestra and

Chorus, Sir Colin Davis,
conductor. 09026-62646-2
(1994).

What if Wagner had
stopped with Lohengrin
and had never composed
the Ring, Tristan, Meister-
singer, and Parsifal? How
great a composer would
we consider him to be?
Maybe as great as Weber?
Or Meyerbeer? Or Gou­nod? Think about it. This
is basically a rip-roaring
grand opera requiring
some good singers. The
Grail music (in the prelude
and elsewhere) foreshad­ows the Wagner to come,
and the orchestral mastery
throughout is a given, but
what an incredible leap the
Ring was! I like the plot,
though; intervention by a
masked stranger (isn't he?)
to help the innocent in dis­tress always works for me.
This is a very good perfor­mance indeed. Ben Hepp­ner is arguably the best
tenor around; his voice
does not possess the steel
of a true heldentenor but it
always sounds beautiful,
and that's a lot better than
some shrill mediocrity
shouting his head off. Ev­erybody else is also good,
except Marton (but that
isn't sufficient cause to
turn me off as it did some
critics). Davis is a highly
sophisticated conductor,
and the Bavarian orchestra
is excellent. What more do
you want? Even the re­cording is very close to the
best work being done in
opera today. I have no
problem recommending
this set.

Telarc

Yes, there is definitely
such a thing as "the Telarc

sound," and not every­body likes it as much as I
do. It puts texture before
structure (tonality before
imaging would be another
way of saying it), and it
tends to be on the dry side.
Those happen to be my
preferences; I have a bit of
a problem with the typical
audiophile partiality to the
"wet" sound. Two-channel
reproduction loses too
much information in all
that "wetness." (Five­channel/discrete will prob­ably be another story.)

•

Joseph Haydn: Quartet in
D Major, Op. 76, No. 5.
John Corigliano: String

Quartet (1995). Cleveland
Quartet: William Preucil &
Peter Salaff, violins; James

Dunham, viola; Paul Katz,

cello. CD-80415 (1995).

It seems this is every­body's favorite chamber­music CD among the more
recent releases. The Haydn

quartet is one of those

astonishing later works that
presage Beethoven; the
Corigliano is a stunning
post-Bartókian composi-

tion, full of arresting string
effects and recorded for
the first time here. The
Cleveland Quartet dis­banded (amicably) in 1996
to pursue individual ca­reers; this is titled "The
Farewell Recording." I
must say they play as if
their lives depended on
it—magnificent perfor­mances. Their Beethoven
quartet series (which I
also recommend as one of
the best) will soon be
completed with new re­leases recorded before the
breakup. Judy Sherman
was the producer of all the
Cleveland recordings and
Jack Renner the engineer.
This last effort is probably
their best; the sound is tru­ly beautiful.

•

Zoltán Kodály: Háry János
Suite; Dances of Galánta;

Variations on a Hungarian

Folksong (The Peacock).
Atlanta Symphony Orches­tra, Yoel Levi, conductor.
CD-80413 (1995-96).

You should check out
this CD mainly on account
of the Peacock variations,
a near masterpiece in what
is probably its best digital­ly recorded version. The
Háry suite has had more
amusing interpretations.
The orchestra plays beau­tifully, and the audio is a
20-bit Michael Bishop
job, which is hard to beat
if you like the Telarc
sound.(I do.)

•

Edward MacDowell: Pia­no Concerto No. 2 in D

Minor, Op. 23. Franz Liszt:
Piano Concerto No. 1 in
E-flat Major; Piano Con­certo No. 2 in A Major.
Andre Watts, piano; Dal­las Symphony Orchestra,
Andrew Litton, conductor.
CD-80429 (1995).

We all know that An­dré Watts can play these
Romantic piano concertos
in his sleep, with virtuosi­ty and panache. That's a
given, but here he "kicks
it up a notch" (as Emeril
would say), and the results
are exciting. What is not a
given is that the recording
is by Telarc. They ended
up being a halfway house
for the Dallas orchestra
between Dorian and Delos.
I think the reason must
have been Litton, not the
work of Michael Bishop,
because the sound is won­derful. Too much "generic"
Telarc and not enough hall
specifics? Maybe. Person­ally, I like my CDs a little
dry and don't want more
hall sound than this, but
the Dallas people are pret-

ty chauvinistic about their
McDermott Hall (at the
Meyerson Symphony Cen­ter) and probably disagree
with me.

Gustav Mahler: Sympho­ny No. 9. Cincinnati Sym-

phony Orchestra, Jesus

López-Cobos, conductor.
CD-80426-A/B (2 CDs,

1996).

I listen to Mahler with

a great deal of pleasure
but I am not one of those
who believe he was a co­lossus. His colossal effects
come with too much pant-

ing and sweating for my
taste, especially in the lat­er symphonies. That doesn't

mean I don't admire his

craftsmanship, melodic in-

vention, and orchestration.

Since I am not willing to

go to the barricades about

Mahler issues, I refuse to

start a controversy regard­ing the relative merits of
this new recording in com-

parison with famous

Ninths by Karajan, Bern-

stein, Walter, etc. I think

López-Cobos does a great
job clarifying this difficult

work, and his orchestra
plays very well indeed.
The Spatializer-enhanced

20-bit recording is credit­ed to Erica Brenner as pro-

ducer and Thomas Knab

as recording engineer, an

apparent changing of the

guard at Telarc. The sound

is superb, regardless; I

can't remember another

Mahler recording with this

kind of presence and bass.

•

W. A. Mozart: Don Gio-

vanni, K. 527. Bo Skov-

80

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 72

hus, Don Giovanni; Ales­sandro Corbelli, Leporel­lo; Christine Brewer,
Donna Anna; Jerry Had­ley, Don Ottavio; Felicity
Lott, Donna Elvira; Nuc-

cia Focile, Zerlina; Um­berto Chiummo, II Commen­datore/Masetto. Scottish

Chamber Orchestra &

Chorus, Sir Charles
Mackerras, conductor.

CD-80420 (3 CDs, 1995).

This is the fourth in
Mackerras's monumental
series of Mozart operas,
recorded within a four­year period with basically
the same very consistent
and reliable group of per­formers and equaling in
many respects the immor­tal Glyndeboume 78-rpm
recordings of the mid-

1930s. My comments in
the last issue about the
Figaro performance apply
here equally—Mackerras
has no truly great voices at
his disposal, but the sing­ing always remains on a
high level of technical

competence and musician­ship. Thanks to the con­ductor's masterful grasp
of the score, the music is
imbued with unflagging
vitality and polished grace
from bar to bar and phrase
to phrase. The style is
halfway between period
practice and the grand tra­dition, and that suits me

just fine. Vocal lines are

highly ornamented, and
fortepiano (rather than
harpsichord) continuo is
used. In the title role, Bo
Skovhus is quite suave
and authoritative but still
no Pinza or Siepi. The
best voice in the cast is
probably the fresh, young,
secure soprano of Chris­tine Brewer as Donna
Anna; the usually excel­lent Jerry Hadley, on the
other hand, is a little
coarse as Don Ottavio.
The Jack Renner sound is
a known quantity from the
previous three recordings
in the series: it is close to
perfection. Even if this is

not the greatest Don Gio-
vanni ever, as a "matched"
set of four Mozart operas
in the same interpretive
mold the Telarc series is
unbeatable.

"Bop! Frank Morgan with
the Rodney Kendrick Trio."
Frank Morgan, alto saxo-

phone; Rodney Kendrick,
piano; Curtis Lundy, bass;

Ray Drummond, bass (last
cut only); Leroy Williams,
drums. CD-83413 (1996).

This capsule review
was initiated by subscriber
Robert Burko of Milwau­kee, WI, who thought that
my affinity for 1940s and
1950s jazz might favor­ably dispose me toward
this new CD. Well, Frank
Morgan is probably the
last giant left over from
the classic bop days and
he is still a joy to listen to,
as good as ever. The sup­port he gets here, howev­er, isn't what he deserves.
Bop is supposed to be
driven by the rhythm sec-

tion, and they are a bit
tame (lame?) here. The pi­ano is likewise so-so. Only
in the last cut, Thelonious
Monk's famous "52nd
Street Theme," does the
pulse pick up, thanks to
the cameo appearance of
the bassist Ray Drum­mond (see also Issue No.

16, p. 68). Morgan's gor­geous tone and superbly
authentic bop style are
worth the price of admis­sion, in any event. Also,
Jack Renner's recording is
as natural and transparent
as you'll ever hear.

Teldec

See my comments un­der Erato regarding the
difficulty of getting CDs
for review from Atlantic
Records. The one below
came in before the ration­ing went into effect.

•

Franz Liszt: Mazeppa;
Mephisto Waltz. Zoltán
Kodály: Theatre Over-

ture; Háry János Suite.

New York Philharmonic,
Kurt Masur, conductor.
9031-77547-2 (1992-95).

What we have here
proves a number of things.
One is that the New York
Philharmonic is once
again a great orchestra un­der Kurt Masur. Another
is that producer Martin

Fouqué has an uncanny
knack for obtaining audio-

phile-quality recorded
sound in that utterly

dreadful Avery Fisher
Hall. Yet another is that
the best part of the Háry
János music, now called
"Theatre Overture," is
hardly ever played. The
CD is worth getting just
for that. Is the Suite itself
better performed here than
by Levi/Atlanta on Telarc
(see above)? Well, yes;
it's an even better orches­tra, for one thing; but Ma­sur is a bit too serious
(Kodály wasn't). The Liszt
pieces have splendid sweep,
their vulgarity redeemed
by the great playing. 0

Hip Boots (continued from page 76)

of light (typically 80% or more). Thus any
dispersion is negligible, as has been pointed
out by others many times in the past.

In the same way, the skin depth is irrele­vant since it is only a measure of the depth to
which the Poynting vector penetrates the con­ductor. That is, the heat is generated in the
region of penetration. However, all of the en­ergy still turns into heat and is lost forever.

By these same concepts, all of the elec­tromagnetic wave (energy or information)
that reaches the far end of the wire travels in
the space outside of the conductor. This may
seem a strange concept, but when using Max­well's equations, one must obey all the rules
and also interpret the results using electro­dynamic concepts. Grungy stuff like elec­trons bumping about in the conductor are not
needed and are not part of electromagnetic
theory. Isn't this interesting? I repeat. All of
the energy travels by means of the electro­dynamic fields in the space outside of the
conductor! The conductor simply guides the
energy. Now you understand why students
hate electrodynamics and go into circuits and
computers instead.

Similarly, anything that takes place in­side the conductor such as boundaries,
grains, and all that junk are irrelevant, since
any energy that enters the surface of the con­ductor is lost as heat anyway. It does not mat­ter how it is lost, since it never again contrib­utes to the information traveling along the
axis of the conductor.

As for the author's conclusions, they are
for the most part nonsense based on a serious
misunderstanding of electromagnetic theory
and incorrect interpretation of its results. I
find it hard to believe this was written by a

Ph.D. who is a tenured professor, since it is
such garbage.

What is particularly interesting is that this is not the
first time John Atkinson will be hearing the above cri­tique. Dick Olsher said basically similar things in a fol­lowup to his Lindsay-Geyer cable review (Stereophile,
August 1991). Of course, Olsher continued to believe the
cables sounded as good as he had thought they did when
he still believed the incorrect analysis given to him by
the manufacturer. Some people just will not give up their
belief system but will keep insisting that cables sound
different even when theory and experimental evidence
crash right before their eyes. Perhaps this is the same be­lief system that drives Dr. Hawksford to want to present
work he knows would never make it into a professional

journal.

At a time when 6 Mbits of data can be sent down
normal phone lines using the new ADSL systems, any
unknown phenomena that distorted signals through wires
would have been identified and reported in technical

journals. (The speed limit for normal modems is not the

wire but the data converter used in the central-office line
cards that sample 8 bits at 8 kHz. In ISDN and ADSL
systems the speech line card is replaced with a line card
designed to receive high-speed data.) These data commu­nication systems would not work if the phenomena dis­cussed in Dr. Hawksford's paper existed.

Once again we see that the high-end audio cable in­dustry is a giant fraud that depends on the fallibility of
hearing in open-loop listening tests, frequency response
changes due to RLC effects, and finally pseudoscience
such as presented in "The Essex Echo."

—David Rich

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

81

pdf 73

The Complete Guide to

High-End Audio

By Robert Harley
Self-published, 450 pages, $29.95

Reviewed by David Rich

The writings of Robert Harley in

Stereophile come under scrutiny in

almost every issue of The Audio
Critic. Much of the misunderstand-

ings and misconceptions in high-end

audio can be traced to the pen of Mr.
Harley. Since Stereophile has so
many more readers than this maga­zine and comes out regularly every
month, Harley has a large and power­ful pulpit to spread his pseudo­science. I feel it is important for The

Audio Critic to point out Harley's

mistakes, lest they become a perma­nent part of audio lore. Look at the
mess he has made of the subject of

jitter.

Now Bob Harley has written a
book called The Complete Guide to
High-End Audio. The book is self­published; Bob's wife Evalee runs
the "publishing company." She was
smart enough not to give me a copy
for review but she did sell me one.
Bob even signed my copy for me, so
he cannot blame his wife for handing
me the knife that I will use to lay him
bare. Evalee tried to make the point
that the book is good for the industry,
so I should not review it negatively,
and that is clearly true right down to
the subchapter "Your Relationship
with the Retailer." This is a book that

has as its goal the promotion of the

high-end industry, not aiding the con­sumer to get the best-performing

products at the lowest cost. What
Mrs. Harley does not understand is

that I am not part of the industry. I

am a consumer advocate and I have
no interest in seeing this book do
well so it can act as some sort of
growth enabler for the high-end in­dustry.

The book has been heavily pro­moted in Stereophile, is blurbed by
members of the Stereophile staff, and
appears to be a success. A page-by-

page analysis of the errors in this

book would consume this whole is­sue of our journal. Anybody who

purchases the Guide gets what is
coming to him. It is filled with the

audiophile nonsense that we expect

from subjective audio reviewers:
"Many cables overlay the treble with
a coarse texture," etc., etc., etc. How
could anybody believe in this stuff?
Well, The Complete Guide to High-
End Audio actually shows you how
somebody can believe in this stuff. It
has nothing to do with golden ears
and everything to do with lack of
knowledge of the subject one is en­gaged in.

This book clearly shows that
Harley does not command even ele­mentary concepts in electrical engi­neering—or in pedagogy. Let's start
in the preamp chapter. Figure 5-6 is

his block diagram of a preamp. Miss-

ing are the input selector, the tape

monitor loop, the volume and bal-

ance controls, and all other major

functional blocks like filters and tone
controls. Instead what is shown is a
block diagram of an amplifier, not a
preamp. .Harley does not understand
the difference. But wait, his amplifier
(a.k.a. preamp) has no basis in reali­ty. We are told the input stage has no
gain; it only does impedance trans­formations. We are told that FETs
may be used in this stage for low
noise. Just on the basis of these two
explanations we realize that Harley
has no knowledge of basic amplifier
design or device physics.

Figure 5-7 is a schematic of a

line-level amplifier. Harley chooses
the truly weird and complex circuit
from Audio Research. The input
stage has significant gain, but Bob is
happy to identify the second stage as
the one with all the gain. He then
states the next three devices in the
schematic are a constant current
source. All wet! Two of the transis­tors are protection devices for the
third, which is the output source fol-

lower. He identifies the next transis­tor as the output stage, but that one is
the current source! He states that a
single blocking capacitor (C40) pre­vents dc at the output, but the sche­matic shows two paralleled capaci­tors C40 and C42. It is clear that he
has no idea what is in this schematic.
He took notes form someone else and
then got it all wrong. The errors Bob
Harley is making are very, very ba­sic. A high-school student with an in­terest in electronics could tell him he
got it wrong.

As I said, the circuit Harley uses
is about as weird as they come. Why
does Harley choose it? It makes it
impossible for the reader to under­stand what is going on. One would
want to choose a simple circuit if one
were trying to explain to someone
new to electronics how a line stage
works. In the circuit Harley uses, a
unity-gain buffer is in the feedback
loop (do not look at me, this is an

ARC design). The buffer is formed
by an op-amp and a 6-transistor FET
output stage. Normally the feedback
loop is made with two resistors and
maybe a compensation capacitor. In
the ARC design the feedback loop is
more complex than the amplifier it­self. Harley spends two lines on what
feedback is but makes no attempt to
explain how it works (does he
know?). He leaves the reader with
the impression that a complex circuit
is required for implementing feed­back and then moves on to explain
that a differential amplifier converts
balanced signals to unbalanced sig­nals—wrong again. Trust me, this is
what he thinks, as Figure 5-9 shows
an XLR input connected directly to a
block he marks "Differential Ampli­fier." It must be Harley's goal to
make his reader as confused as possi­ble, or else the reader will question
statements like "At the very highest
level of music reproduction, there's
not even a debate: LP is musically
superior to CD."

To make sure the reader remains
confused, there follows the schematic
of the power supply for the preamp.
Again, a weird ARC design which
has very high voltage drops on the
pass transistors is shown. We are told
"The power supply, shown in Fig. 5­8, is quite elaborate—in sharp con­trast to the audio circuit's apparent

82

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 74

simplicity." Much of the complexity
in the circuit shown is in the time­delayed muting circuit not discussed
at all by Harley. He then moves on to
discuss fully balanced preamplifiers.
Figure 5-10 shows two completely
separate signal paths for the positive
and negative signals. It is clear, after
one looks at his figure, that Harley
has no concept of common-mode sig­nals or balanced amplification in the
context of a balanced preamp.

Bob mangles power amplifiers to
equally hilarious effect. We are told
that an amplifier's driver also func­tions as a phase splitter. Now, if we
were talking about quasi-comple­mentary output stages, we would
need a phase splitter, but in comple­mentary stages one is not needed.
Figure 6-4 is a complementary bipo­lar circuit. A common emitter stage
is loaded by a resistor, and a pair of
diodes in series with the transistor
and resistor biases the output stage to
class AB (Harley does not mention
what they do at all). The output stage
of Figure 6-4 is a complementary
pair of bipolars. Harley tells us that

"one phase [of the phase splitter]
drives the PNP transistor, the other
phase drives the NPN." It is clear he
cannot read a schematic because his
figure shows the bases of the npn and

pnp shorted together by the diodes.

No time-domain diagrams of the cur­rent in the output devices are shown
to give the reader an understanding
of class B operation.

If you want to know more, turn
to 'Appendix B: Audio and Electron­ics Basics." To teach us amplifier cir­cuits, he uses a bipolar device with
the classic discrete biasing circuit (3
resistors and a capacitor). Below the

figure that is in every electronics text,
we find "Copied with permission
from Audio Technology Fundamen-
tals by Alan A. Cohen." It is clear
that Harley is copying from this text
with no knowledge of the subject.

Why is he using such a complex cir-

cuit that involves stabilizing the bias
current in the presence of shifts in
transistor parameters? Why is he us­ing a bipolar at all, since this intro­duces the complication of base cur­rent? Why can he not draw this
common-as-muck circuit himself
without the need to use copyrighted
material?

ISSUE NO. 24 • SPRING 1997

We again see that Harley cannot
read a schematic. He tells us the
emitter is at ground potential, but the
figure shows the emitter goes through
a parallel combination of a resistor
and a capacitor before it is connected
to ground. The emitter is even
marked 2.50 V in his figure. If the
capacitor were large, the emitter
would be at an ac ground, but now
we are far beyond Bob Harley's
knowledge and we are adding unnec­essary complications for a reader
whom we are trying to teach the fun­damentals of amplification.

Harley then goes on to talk about
bias currents (he picked a bipolar de­vice, remember), but the figure he
shows is marked bias voltage on the
x axis. Cutting and pasting from oth­er texts without any knowledge of
what you are discussing causes em­barrassments like this.

To explain amplification to a
layman, you have to use a lot of
figures to get across the concept of

active amplification and the need for

biasing the device. Circuit diagrams

need to be as simple as possible.

MOSFET or JFET devices are prefer-

able because you do not need to deal

with base current. Harley does none
of this because he has not gotten to
the point of understanding concepts,
let alone the thorough grasp needed

when trying to explain the concepts
to others.

One could go on and on and on.
Mistakes are repeated again and
again. We are shown another com­plementary output stage on page 407

and told it has a phase splitter. And
the big howlers keep coming. Slew

rate is an input-referred specification

in his eyes, and to make sure his foot
is firmly inserted in his mouth he
then goes on to say, "Slew rate is of­ten referred to as an amplifier's

'speed.'" According to Harley, npn
and pnp devices are called bipolar
"because current can flow in two di­rections through the transistor."
Clearly Harley has no idea about
drift, diffusion, and the concept of
holes. JFETs in Harley's world are
quieter than bipolars and good for
circuits that need lots of gain. The
concepts of thermal noise, transcon­ductance, and output conductance are
clearly beyond Bob Harley. Digital
circuits get half a page of discussion

and no schematics. Harley says
MOSFETs are sometimes used in
power amplifiers. I guess he has not
figured out what is used in the Pen­tium. He also has not figured out
what a differential pair is, a PLL, or
the cause of distortion. Although the
names come up again and again in
the text, they never get explained.

I think you get the point by now.
This book lays Bob Harley's lack of
training bare for all to see. Once we
understand that he has no grounding
in the fundamentals, we can under­stand how he can talk the talk of the
High End so easily. It is easy to say,
"Excessive feedback produces lower
distortion figures, but often makes
the amplifier sound worse," when
you have no understanding of feed­back or stability. (In the book virtual­ly no words are spent on how feed­back works, and there are no figures
on the subject. It is clear he does not
understand feedback.) It is easy to
say a class A amplifier "generally
sounds better" than class AB when
your understanding of an output
stage is so messed up that you see a
phase splitter in every circuit. It is
easy to see how someone can talk
about a tubed amplifier's "spectacu­lar soundstaging and beautiful ren­dering of timbre" when he hasn't the
foggiest idea what the term bipolar
refers to in a transistor.

The conclusion is simple. If you
do not understand chemistry and
physics, you may think you can turn
lead into gold. If you do not under­stand electronics, you may think
amps and preamps sound different
and color the sound more than loud­speakers.

The Complete Guide to High-

End Audio is an important document

because it makes it clear that the "ex­perts" in high-end audio are not ex­perts at anything but B.S. and charla­tanism.

* * *

Editor's Note: David Rich puts the
emphasis on Bob Harley's ignor­ance, rather than his True Believer's
subjectivistic delusions, but rest as­sured, there are more of the latter in

this book than in half a dozen issues

of Stereophile. It's just that we've

been over that same ground so many
times.

Tom Nousaine wants me to pass

83

pdf 75

on this suggestion to Bob and his

friends: Get rid of the cheap batter-

ies in all your remote controls. Re-

place them with mercury batteries.

You'll be amazed how much better

everything sounds!

Seriously, though, are all you

peaceniks, antinegativists, and non-

confrontationists beginning to see
now why "Harley bashing" and

"Stereophile bashing " aren't just a
gratuitously hostile pastime? Would
you have considered it possible that
a 450-page book, potentially a
sourcebook for future practitioners,
would be lovingly prepared and pub-

lished with nothing but the most
egregious technical misinformation
in it? Aren't you just a little bit glad
that now you know what the score is?
Don't you want to know about simi­larly flagrant instances of audio
charlatanism in the future?

Recently I gained additional in-

sight into why Stereophile continues

to rely on such an inexcusably un­qualified technical editor as Harley. I

found out that a degreed E.E. with

impeccable professional credentials

applied to John Atkinson for a part­time job as the magazine's technical
consultant and engineering "con­science. " Atkinson blew him off—just
wouldn't have anything to do with
him. It is quite clear at this point that
Atkinson doesn't want anyone on his
staff who knows more than he does.
Harley is a good workhorse who pro­duces reams of technical copy; no­body seems to care that most of it is
horse excrement; publisher Larry Ar­chibald either doesn't know any bet­ter or cares only about circulation
and ads; pages get filled; deadlines
are met; and John remains the man
who knows everything. In the immor­tal words of Ira Gershwin, nice work
if you can get

it.

•

High Definition
Compact Disc Recordings

By Howard Ferstler
McFarland, 258 pages, $29.95

Reviewed by Peter Aczel

The long subtitle on this book's
cover is "Sound Quality Evaluations
of Over 1,400 of the Most Technical­ly Excellent Digital Recordings."

That tells you what the book is; it
doesn't tell you what it is not, which
may be more important to you.

It is not a music lover's guide.

No music is discussed; no perfor­mance is critiqued; no pleasure other
than sonic gratification is communi­cated. Not that I intend to hold this
against Howard Ferstler. As audio
writers go, he is definitely one of the
good guys in the white hats—sane,
accountable, basically reliable. It's

just that no one, not even a freaked-

out audio nut, should buy a CD strict­ly on the basis of sound. (Remember
the Opus 3 "Test Record 1: Depth of
Image"? Remember that dreadful
Swedish pop song "Tiden bara
går"? It sounded incredibly lifelike
and it drove me up the wall every
time I heard it as a demo. Music is
not a vehicle for audio engineering.
It's vice versa.)

What Ferstler does is to grade
each CD as B, B+, A, or A+ in sound
quality, at the conclusion of a very
short audio evaluation, about 6 to 8
per page. (Obviously there are no C's
and D's because those would be the
ones to avoid.) In just a very few of

these capsule reviews, he indicates

that the CD might deserve an A++ if

he were using such a rating.

The list of 1447 recordings is

heavily dominated by the smaller au­dio-oriented labels that are generous
to the audio press with review CDs

(e.g., Delos, Telarc, etc.). Are these
the best-sounding or just the most
easily available to a reviewer? Yes
and yes, at least in more instances
than not.

On the whole, I have no serious
disagreements with Ferstler's ratings.
He knows good sound when it comes
out of his speakers. The question is—
can he tell good from very good and
very good from extraordinary? Some
of his quasi-A++ designees are the
Zinman/Baltimore Berlioz Fantas-
tique on Telarc, the Mehta/NY Mah­ler 5th on Teldec, and the Bob Min­tzer "Art of the Big Band" on dmp.
That tracks my own assessments

pretty well as far as it goes (I have re­viewed the latter two) but raises the
question why the super recordings
are all brass-heavy spectaculars? The
truth is that the difference between A
and A+, or A+ and A++, could be
strictly a creature of Ferstler's stereo
system and/or listening room. But
I'm quibbling.

The book is light on voice re­cordings; furthermore it lists mostly
single CDs, very few multidisc sets.
It ignores some labels that often
come up with excellent sound, such
as Naxos. Its main weakness, howev-

er, is the aforesaid severance of

sound from music. He doesn't even

identify the conductors of the orches­tras named in the reviews! A collabo­ration with a music critic as coauthor
would have made the book consider­ably more valuable.

I will say this, though, for Fer­stler's evaluations: he knows more

about genuinely good sound on CDs
than any of the music critics in the
various magazines and newspapers.
If all you want is a "recommended"
list of recordings for sound alone, I
don't know of anything better or
even comparable. •

Acoustical Treatments

Echo Busters

Echo Busters, P.O. Box 247, Beth-

page, NY 11714. [phone].

Just a quick postscript.
This is a company that makes
acoustical treatments for home
use. The prices are not at the
rip-off rates some charge. The
24-inch by 52-inch panels I
tested cost only $75.00 each.
High-quality acoustical foam
is put in a wood frame and

covered with cloth. The panels
are designed to be hung on the
wall, or they can be freestand­ing with the optional stands.

This is not some tweako
product that effects no measur­able changes. The panels are
very absorbent above 400 Hz.
I deployed six of them in my
room and dramatically im­proved the sound. They were
mandatory behind the Sound
Lab Quantum electrostatic
speakers (not yet reviewed),

and I suspect that other panel

speakers would also benefit.

Placed strategically else-

where in my overly live room,
the panels enabled me to dead­en it. For the price of cables
that may change the sound but

not improve it, you can do
something that really will im­prove things. The only down­side of the panels is that they
will change the way your
room looks. Here, in my bach­elor pad, people say "Cool!"

when they see them. Your sig­nificant other may not have the
same positive reaction.

Echo Busters is run by Mi­chael Kochman. He is very
knowledgeable about room­treatment issues and is a great
help in figuring where to place
his products. The company
also makes other room­treatment products; you may
want to give them a call and
discuss your needs.

—David Rich.

84

THE AUDIO CRITIC

pdf 76