Listening #166 Page 2

The result is that, in certain aspects of their performance, many audio products made in the 1930s through the 1960s outperform virtually everything made since that time, often by generous margins. Those breathtaking levels of realism have yet to be matched, let alone exceeded.

I was about to add my usual, polite qualifier: It all depends on whether those performance parameters are important to you. But screw that. The fact is, contemporary audio consumers are even worse than contemporary audio designers when it comes to letting go of the things they think they know, in an effort to learn something new about music playback—something new that is, in fact, very old. Modern designers and modern consumers alike must learn how to ignore what they already know in the hope of gaining new ground.

Of the performance aspects in question, the most common by far is one that early hi-fi consumers virtually took for granted, and contemporary consumers scarcely ever experience: the ability of playback gear not only to suggest lifelike dynamics but to do so with ease and speed that, to ears coddled by generations of sluggish, overpowered amplifiers and sluggish, undersensitive loudspeakers, seem impossibly close to those of real instruments and voices.

And although neither I nor anyone else can tell you all of the precise characteristics that are responsible for those distinctions, I can tell you one thing that many (but not all) of the punchiest vintage loudspeakers had in their corner: instead of permanent magnets, they used electromagnets—referred to in audio circles as field coils, presumably to distinguish their seriousness and importance from the toys that you and I made in our fourth-grade science classes, with nails and dry-cell batteries and copper wire. Field coils—so important I had to write it twice.

1016listen.mando.jpg

In the 1930s, prior to the development of permanent magnets of sufficient flux density and reasonably low mass, field-coil loudspeakers were commonplace. Indeed, that era was uniquely kind to such drivers: during operation, a field coil requires a continuous supply of DC—something that represents to the modern audio enthusiast an extra layer of trouble and expense. But in the first half of the 20th Century, the tube amplifiers used in domestic console radios and professional movie-theater sound systems alike all required hefty inductor coils for their power supplies. In these systems, the speaker's field coil and the amp's power supply were wired for symbiosis: the former served as a choke for the latter while the latter energized the former.

Contemporary listeners who are vintage-savvy and have conducted such comparisons usually credit field-coil speakers with reproducing music with far more physicality and force than similar drivers that are energized by permanent magnets, even when the latter are made of alnico, an alloy of aluminum, nickel, cobalt, and iron (and/or copper or titanium) that many prefer. Listeners also describe field-coil sound as having more immediacy and detail yet, at the same time, less harshness and grain. My own experiences, though utterly lacking in scientific rigor, mirror those findings. I also note, also anecdotally, that of all the speakers I've heard that are based on Altec 604 coaxial drive-units, the best by far was a pair that the late Ken Shindo had fitted with field coils. (Yes, that can be done.)

My opinions about this distinction are strong, my explanations for what causes it less so. Does the flux density of a field coil "sag" less than a permanent magnet in response to signal variations? I don't know. Is the distinction explained by the Barkhausen effect, in which permanent magnets are observed to create audible noise, caused by transitions between pockets of lesser and greater magnetism? I don't know that, either.

And how was it that companies in the 1930s could offer, for reasonable prices, technologies that all but a few modern manufacturers declare are "too expensive"? Were they freed by the blankness of their slates, the relative paucity of competitors, or the potential offered by a new, huge, unsaturated market?

Beats me: strangely little aid, I know. (Robert Frost also observed: "Some mystery becomes the proud.")

I sing the magnet electric
I can't predict the sort of person who'll fall in love with a vintage hi-fi system. But I can predict, with iron accuracy, the sort of person who'll have no use for the stuff. People who use their expensive hi-fi systems primarily for background music will likely consider vintage gear to be worse than useless. For one thing, because the stuff is old and rare, those users' minds will be gnawed at, rightly or not, by the worry-rat who squeaks: Overuse will turn your old gear into dead gear. For another, as with a relatively few exceptional contemporary audio products, music reproduced by most vintage gear cannot be ignored. Making background music with a vintage system is like making wine spodiodies out of a 1961 Château Latour.

And that's because music reproduced by the best vintage gear is dynamic. It's punchy. It's tactile. It's passionate and colorful and corporeal. It wants to make love to you the minute you wake up in the morning, and it usually wants to be on top. And it usually leaves you amazed.

And, yes: vintage audio puts more demands on the enthusiast than bog-standard high-end audio. (Frost again: "It asks of us a certain height.") Music reproduced by vintage gear is loaded with information you're not used to getting, but it leaves out some things you're used to having. It tells you more than you thought was possible about the people who wrote and performed your music, as opposed to telling you more than you thought was possible about where the engineers who recorded your music placed the microphones.

Some—but far from all—vintage loudspeakers also leave out entire swaths of notes and their overtones. Take, for example, another well-loved Altec drive-unit, the 755. Introduced in 1948 by Western Electric, the 6"-diameter 755 was designed primarily to amplify voices, and so ignores frequencies below 70Hz and above 13kHz. What the 755 does it does with virtually perfect ease and impact and coherence and clarity and touch and nuance and physical presence. But listeners who are spoiled by generations of more modern loudspeakers that play notes from 20Hz to 20kHz—but with virtually none of the 755's ease, impact, and coherence—are usually deaf to the older driver's magic, until such a time as they can jettison musty expectations in favor of fresh ones. New expectations and old products go together nicely.

This
I was already pondering these things when, in mid-July, I attended this year's Grey Fox Bluegrass Festival, in the foothills of New York's Catskill Mountains—an annual tradition for me since 2002. I could get away for only one day and night, and I wanted my time there to be audio-free: just music, with trace amounts of beer and food. It didn't occur to me until the next day that of all the acts I saw and heard—including the Earls of Leicester (featuring Jerry Douglas on Dobro) and the wonderful Del McCoury Band—the most essential music came from the duet of mandolinist Mike Compton and banjoist Joe Newberry. They played old-time songs like "Lazy John" and "Red Rocking Chair," the latter a doleful tune in F that reminds me of Greil Marcus's musings on "the old, weird America." These two pros brought to the music a depth of knowledge that transformed what could have been an hour of potboilers into a too-short set of emotional transcendence. The slightest nuance—one player reaching unexpectedly for a subdominant chord, the other shifting his emphasis from ahead of the beat to behind it—was fraught with meaning. As I listened from my seat in the shade, I was moved to the verge of tears by two pickers and singers performing a dozen or so songs, most so old that everyone who performs them today knows them a little bit differently.

1016listen.grandpas.jpg

One day later, the thought occurred to me that neither a mandolin nor a banjo (frailed, not picked Scruggs-style) has notes below 130Hz or so. And since there was noise coming in from outside this performance area—there are four or five different stages at Grey Fox, with performances taking place simultaneously on all—and since I was hearing a 50:50 mix of sound from the PA system and from the performers themselves, and since spatial cues were unnecessary (I could already see where they were sitting), I figured that the regions beyond 12kHz were also beyond my concern.

That said, I love the idea of hearing at home notes lower and higher than the above—not because I've developed my own late-20th-century addiction to same (although I suppose I have), but because they're important to other kinds of music: They are pivotal to experiences no less valid than that of Mike Compton and Joe Newberry tearing up "Sally Goodin," a one-chord song that, in the right hands, can induce a rare ecstasy.

I claim no prescience, nor have I done the heavy lifting one associates with people of greater-than-average curiosity and ambition regarding vintage gear (or any other such endeavor). But I have been lucky to spend the past six months with a currently manufactured loudspeaker that has one foot planted firmly in the world of vintage audio and the other in the realm of modern design and manufacturing. It's a remarkable product, experience of which has reinforced much of the above—and poked at and punctured some of it, too. I look forward to describing it in detail next month.

ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
rt66indierock's picture

First fly fishing is more objective. Have you hiked above 10,000 feet on the Kern River in California and caught a native Golden Trout? And have you caught a native Steelhead in the “holy water” (upper 50 miles) of the Rogue River in Oregon? Skill trumps equipment.

More importantly as it relates to audiophiles “cowed by the nerds in the white lab coats?” Why I didn’t see any especially knowledgeable people at Newport this year. Maybe you could point out me in the direction of some knowledgeable people who will be at RMAF? Any bully on an audio chat site is similarly unknowledgeable. As for “the swindlers who browbeat us into semiannually buying revised versions of the same overpriced shit at the audio salons” remember what Herb Reichert wrote “buying a satisfying music playback system from a high-end audio salon is nearly impossible.” So why do it?

Anton's picture

I love high altitude fishing.

We used to spend spring breaks at Thunder and Lightning Lake at 11,500 or so feet and that time of year, the trout (planted the previous year(s) were so hungry we could use dental floss and tin foils with our hooks.

Tasty, but peaked out at about 9 inches.

Thanks for triggering the thought!

doddsa-in-oz's picture

Thank you again Mr Dudley for some more wonderfull writing and insite into our hobby. Your "think pieces" are always something for me to look forward to each month.Iv'e just spent the afternoon listening to Yamaha's new (retro) NS-5000 speakers might be everything old can be reborn, no matter how modern they may be there is a link to the past in them.

A. Hourst's picture

I’m always surprised by how stagnant this debate about blind A/B testing can be, but, in the same time, still draw a constant amount of interest from reviewers like Art Dudley who constantly punch it from the same angle. The men in white coat and his measuring tool vs the artist and his intuition. They never fail to place themselves in the second category... What saddens me in this dualist vision of the world is the implication, first, that scientists are necessarily immune to the sensual and poetic nature of things, and secondly, that artists who can think logically don’t exist. You either measure a Stradivarius or listen to it (but not blind!). I don’t have an explanation why someone would find comfort in these stereotypes, all I know is they are harmful for the honest and sensible search for the truth. Blind A/B testing tells us about the fallibility of human perceptions and the possibility of being seduced by hype rather than substance. Why someone would laugh at that, I don’t know.

rt66indierock's picture

Blind A/B testing is a good place to defend against testing that disrupts the production of the magazine. To properly compare components the person comparing must level match the components and competent review would include a statement such as “level matched at 72 dB +/- .2 dB.” Level matching is never going to happen since it is too time consuming. Similarly there is no consistently used music by reviewers because it would be boring reading.

The comfort in the stereotypes is they are harmful to an honest sensible search for the truth. High-end audio is all about maintaining the status quo. Sensible searching for the truth will disrupt the status quo and must be resisted.

Jon Iverson's picture
When reviewing and comparing DACs I always match levels first and often perform blind tests with both me and volunteers from our local audio club. Both are noted in my reviews.

About the blind tests - I've found that educated audiophile listeners always do better. Also, once we've figured out the nature of the differences between DACs we can nail which is which 100% when testing each other. But there is a learning curve until we hit this point, which can vary depending on the nature of the differences. However, sometimes we get stuck and can't pick anything out. I'll always note if that happens in the review.

John Atkinson's picture
rt66indierock wrote:
Blind A/B testing is a good place to defend against testing that disrupts the production of the magazine.

Why do we need to defend how we test at all? If you don't trust our testing methodology, then please don't read our reviews.

rt66indierock wrote:
To properly compare components the person comparing must level match the components. . .

Which is what we do and why I included a 1kHz tone at -20dBFS on all the Stereophile Test CDs. I aim for 0.1dB maximum difference in my own testing. I believe you are projecting your own stereotypes on to us.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

A. Hourst's picture

So what you're telling us is that when Kalman Robinson compared the Bel Canto Ref600M to the NAD Masters Series M22 and the Theta Dreadnaught D, in his Bel Canto review, he did it with the level matched to 0.1 dB?
http://www.stereophile.com/content/bel-canto-eone-ref600m-power-amplifier#kYzGOQ7EwRI2gwu8.97

John Atkinson's picture
A. Hourst wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
I aim for 0.1dB maximum difference in my own testing.
So what you're telling us is that when Kalman Robinson compared the Bel Canto Ref600M to the NAD Masters Series M22 and the Theta Dreadnaught D, in his Bel Canto review, he did it with the level matched to 0.1dB?

Please do not put words in my mouth. I was clearly talking about what level match I aim for. With different amplifier sensitivities and the fact that preamplifier volume controls don't often have steps of less than 1dB, this goal can't always be reached. But if you read, for example, my comparisons between the Ayre Codex and Pass Labs HPA-1 in our July issue - www.stereophile.com/content/pass-labs-hpa-1-headphone-amplifier - I was able to achieve a level match within 0.1dB.

Level matching is good reviewer tradecraft and the original poster's blanket declaration that this magazine's reviewers don't do it was incorrect.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

A. Hourst's picture

You wrote "Which is what we do and why I included a 1kHz tone ..."
It appears that level matching is only done when convenient after all. The example you provide is clearly an exception, rather than the norm. I don't think that rt66indierock's comment was that much off-track. Most of the time, stereophile staff reach conclusions without level-matching...

John Atkinson's picture
A. Hourst wrote:
The example you provide is clearly an exception, rather than the norm.

I don't recall you sitting next to me when I level-match electronics components for comparisons.

A. Hourst wrote:
Most of the time, stereophile staff reach conclusions without level-matching...

I am sure you are not sitting next to the magazine's reviewers when they do comparisons also. As I said to the original poster, you are incorrectly projecting a generalized criticism of reviewers on to this magazine. And this is despite my pointing to an example that contradicts what you write.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

A. Hourst's picture

Someone says "you should brush your teeth every day". You reply "I brushed them yesterday". Well, that's not exactly an answer...
Did Herb Reichert proceded to level-matching when he compared the different combinaisons of First Watt amplifier and speakers? What is the ratio of level matched reviews vs not in stereophile magazine?
http://www.stereophile.com/content/first-watt-j2-power-amplifier#tdFpyLAqwrXFopXy.97

ChrisS's picture

you take an Oath Of Truth.

Otherwise, what you say, never happened.

John Atkinson's picture
ChrisS wrote:
A. Hourst Must Have you take an Oath Of Truth.
Otherwise, what you say, never happened.

I guess so. Mr. Hourst reminds me of the skeptic who when asked what color a cow was on the hill facing him answered "Brown - on this side."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

A. Hourst's picture

I just wanna know if your experience of level-matching is the only occurrence in the last fifteen years. Please prove to me that I have no reason to be skeptical...

John Atkinson's picture
A. Hourst wrote:
I just wanna know if your experience of level-matching is the only occurrence in the last fifteen years.

Every direct comparison I have done between electronic components, not just over the past 15 years but since I started reviewing audio products in the late 1970s, has been with levels matched as close as I can get to the 0.1dB goal.

A. Hourst wrote:
Please prove to me that I have no reason to be skeptical...

Why do I have to prove anything to you? If you are that skeptical of what appears in Stereophile, why do you even bother subscribing to the magazine?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

A. Hourst's picture

ok

rt66indierock's picture

John,

Don’t forget my comment about a competent review including a statement about level matching. If the reviewers are level matching it will be easy for you to report it.

Rereading your Crystal Cable Arabesque Minissimo Diamond Loudspeaker review you wrote about eight pieces of music. And you are telling me you level matched every piece of music to an average dB level you consistently use. And if you did what was the average dB level? I ask because “the speakers ran out of steam” with a 25 watt amp and “the peaks measured around 93 dB”.

Continuing on you misplaced the speakers and spent part of the review using an amplifier with half the recommended power. Leading to questions such as if “the 50Hz and 40Hz tones shelved down” does the speaker produce enough sound at 40Hz to be considered Class A? And “when it came to tonal quality, getting a handle on the Minissimo Diamonds was less straightforward.” Would assessing the tonal quality been straightforward if the speakers were placed properly and you used an amplifier with enough power to drive them properly in your room?

John Atkinson's picture
rt66indierock wrote:
Rereading your Crystal Cable Arabesque Minissimo Diamond Loudspeaker review you wrote about eight pieces of music. And you are telling me you level matched every piece of music to an average dB level you consistently use.

No, and nor have I claimed to. I have been very clear about matching levels when performing comparisons of electronic components. It is not necessary to match levels between different pieces of music when auditioned serially, In fact, given music's constant-changing loudnesses and crest factors, how would that even be possible? Please note that when I compare speakers, I do match levels using pink noise. However, given the "bounce" in the spl reading with a noise source, it is not possible to do so within 1dB or so.

rt66indierock wrote:
you misplaced the speakers...

No, I did not set the speakers up in the wrong places, just further out from the wall behind them than the manufacturer recommends due to practical restraints. You can see from the in-room response that this did not unduly compromise the tonal balance.

rt66indierock wrote:
. . .and spent part of the review using an amplifier with half the recommended power.

Because I felt that was useful information for those with small rooms that might expect the Crystal would work well with such an amplifier, especially as this speaker has a sufficiently high impedance that it should be a good match with the First Watt amplifier. The First Watt is a superb-sounding amplifier, just not powerful enough for a speaker with such a low voltage sensitivity.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

rt66indierock's picture

I disagree about level matching music, too easy to draw the wrong conclusions if you don’t. How is it possible to level match music? In the digital world use ReplayGain and a decibel meter to match music volume.

Not a comprehensive test but after your response I moved my office speakers to the positions recommended for Arabesque Minissimo Diamond speakers and listened to a couple of reference albums. That changed the sound slightly; moving them out from the wall four feet reduced the bass output. It was not in my plans to visit Crystal Cables room at RMAF but now I’m going to and listen for myself.

I view preplanning as an important part of properly testing stereo equipment and using an amplifier without adequate power when it is obviously under powered is poor planning and unfair to the manufacturer .

ChrisS's picture

What possible wrong conclusion can one draw if you don't level match Bill Evans "Waltz For Debby" with the Moscow Symphony Orchestra playing "Pomp and Circumstance March No.1"?

rt66indierock's picture

Actually a very good question, I often listen very close to the point the room is pressurized. If one of your examples is quieter than the other by a couple of dBs then when I play louder one it will pressurize the room and cause slight smearing of some instruments if the Moscow Symphony Orchestra is louder or some of the bass if Bill Evans is louder.

As for the wrong conclusion one can draw if you don’t level match. Read Harry Pearson’s first review of stacked Advents ten of us have tried over the years to recreate the slight smearing he discussed. We could only do it with high volume heavily pressurizing the rooms. Not the way we listen so to me an erroneous conclusion.

ChrisS's picture

I had to read this several times, even out loud a couple times, but I'm not sure I get it.

What did rt66indierock actually say?

(rt66indierock, are we "sort of" talking about level matching?

Like John "sort of" doing blind testing?)

rt66indierock's picture

Even when I am listening casually I at least use the frequency analyzer and decibel meter on my phone. I always use an actual decibel meter to level match components and regularly use it for music not in my digital library so no “sort of”.

To back up a bit if you play music loud enough you will pressurize the room. As rooms are pressurized sound issues increase rapidly and the cost to fix them rises exponentially. So I avoid doing it. I get better sound and avoid unnecessary cost by keeping my average sound level at 72 dB or less. All my testing is done at 72 dB average for consistency
This morning I put on “Hungerstrike” covered by Halestorm and Corey Taylor in the office and set the sound level to 72 dB average. It sounded great. Next I fired up “Gimme Shelter” covered by Stone Sour and Lizzy Hale. Without level matching the average volume rose to 75 dB. I just left the volume as it was. The bass was now off as were the lower notes the rhythm guitar. What I’m saying is things get distorted and smeared when the room is pressurized as they did in Harry’s first review, as I heard at Newport this year and will hear at RMAF because the volume is cranked up to an average of over 80dB.

ChrisS's picture

...acoustics may easily be "treatable", and may not cost much, if anything, at all.

rt66indierock's picture

Sorry this is late but I went to RMAF and had some other time consuming issues last week.

If you don’t pressurize the room the acoustic tools are needed are inexpensive and the way you would treat the room can be more about planning and small adjustments.

Bump average sound level up to 77 dB and the issues multiply. Now I need more expensive acoustic tools, the room treatments become more complex and expensive and I need more amplifier power to allow instantaneous peaks to reach 107 dB. And I may need different speakers as well.

Now increase the average volume up to 82 dB. There enough issues to require changes to the structure. Different amps and speakers will definitely be needed to reach instantaneous peaks of 112 dB. As for room treatments well they are going to make room unusable for other activities. The acoustic tools will now cost thousands dollars.

ChrisS's picture

...you need to do.

No one else does.

rt66indierock's picture

I never minded being the only one. I’ve guarded goals in soccer and hockey. I’ve played golf in front of galleries in the hundreds and taught tax classes to hundreds of CPAs. And I was able to moonlight as a consultant in the broadcasting industry because of my hearing and knowledge of testing. Something I generally did by myself.

And the seminar with the largest attendance at RMAF this year was about measuring rooms so I’m not the only one who does this or interested by the topic.

ChrisS's picture

...help others to set up or optimize their systems, rooms, and listening experience?

rt66indierock's picture

Of course I help people. A large number people helped me learn about audio. They wouldn’t have spent the time to teach me if I wasn’t going pass the information along. And I’ve started to write about how make my audio decisions see KIH#35 for an example.

ChrisS's picture

What's nice about this "hobby" is all the different ways we go about it.

John Atkinson's picture
rt66indierock wrote:
I disagree about level matching music, too easy to draw the wrong conclusions if you don’t.

Reviewers are not comparing pieces of music, they are comparing components. You agreed with this in your original post when you wrote:

rt66indierock wrote:
To properly compare components the person comparing must level match the components...

As long as you match the levels to the components being compared, whatever music you choose to play will therefore also play at comparable levels.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

rt66indierock's picture

Specifically when testing components the music should be level matched. The recordings I use to evaluate soundstage give me different results based on the volume they are played. In general instruments should have spacing I want when the volume is slightly softer than the volume that would start to pressurize the room. Specifically I don’t want the drum kits stretched and Lisner Auditorium in Washington, DC should have the width and depth I expect. I know it well. I’ve been listening to my soundstage reference recordings at various volumes in preparation for RMAF.

ChrisS's picture

People (only some) insist on blind testing audio equipment.

But, no one, in the entire audio retail and consumer industry, does.

Why even bring it up?

rt66indierock's picture

John Atkinson did in his Listening to MQA posted August 18, 2016. Scored 4 out 7.

ChrisS's picture

Just the average consumer does not shop by doing "blind testing"...

mink70's picture

Thank you, Art, for this fun and well-written reminder about where things stand in our hobby. This morning, beside your column on this website I spotted John Atkinson's review of a $20,000 tiny two-way speaker with 83.5dB/2.83V/m sensitivity. I'm not picking on it particularly; I'm sure it sounds fine. But it's a reminder of the tradeoffs that were made decades ago, tradeoffs that to my ears are not at all consonant with enjoying music in the home (particularly for us members of the economic 99%). It always amuses me to play my Garrard 301/SME 3012/SPU, tube electronics, and Tannoy Ardens—a system that can still be acquired today for less than the price of those tiny speakers—for audiophiles and watch their reactions. Please keep writing the terrific essays.

PS. Someone at Rodale should build a palanquin for the great Herb Reichert, so he can be transported like a Moghul prince.

Anton's picture

It seems a little like Art is in an audio rut. The hobby has its own cycles and we all have peaks and troughs and is not a good/bad thing; we are following him on his audio journey via his column.

I think Sam had it before he left, talking about "exit level" gear and such.

Hi Fi is a pursuit as much as it is a destination. I can see Art getting sick of the usual thing and responding to something different. Why not? Art is on a different path this cycle. I like it.

There is one big pit any of us can fall into, however: Different is often confused with better. I'll be interested in seeing how things go the next few years, or is Art at exit level?

One last added thing: How many of you double blind A/B types shop that way?

Anton's picture

"And how was it that companies in the 1930s could offer, for reasonable prices, technologies that all but a few modern manufacturers declare are "too expensive"?"

"It's a remarkable product, experience of which has reinforced much of the above—and poked at and punctured some of it, too. I look forward to describing it in detail next month."

So, how 'affordable' should we expect these to be?

What 'reasonable price?

I will guess 20k+ and chuckle about "reasonable."

X