Some Thoughts on Hi-Fi, Vinyl, and.CD

[SweatLaserXP]

I was at the bar the other night, having a discussion with my older friend about audio gear. I had overheard him talking about McIntosh with a friend of his, and we all had a discussion about recording tech. as well as hi-fi playback. My friend is an independent recording technician, and in some ways I have more respect for him than some of the folks I've brushed up against in the hi-fi community, whether they are sales reps, both agreeable or full of b.s., or neurologists who have $40,000 systems (who often are amiable guys themselves). I have, though, met plenty of down-to-earth, level-headed sales reps and doctors who truly love this expensive, nebulous, and sometimes frustrating hobby.

It's one of those dirty secrets that many (but of course not all) of the folks who consume the more expensive hi-fi gear do not actually have a very good ear, or they very well may not even enjoy listening to music much. They may get bored or nod off to sleep while sitting at the Metropolitan Opera. They may fire up their B&W 800Ds once every three months. It's kind of like a rich but lousy driver who buys a Ferrari 550 Maranello- obviously, a 550 Maranello is a marvelous beast, but unfortunately, without those lousy millionaire drivers, Ferrari would not be able to stay in business. The engineers and staff at the numerous high-end audio companies are passionate, brilliant, and tireless people who love this thing called hi-fi, but they all know that their livelihood depends on patrons who are often apathetic to their raison d'etre.

There are also those who can hear quite well, but they are obsessed with the technology, with sound of their own particular gear, and not the beautiful music flowing from the speakers. They may see their five-star recordings as tools to demonstrate the transparency of their system. They are constantly swapping components and cables, tweaking things, moving things around, constantly listening "into" their system rather than sitting back with a wine, closing their eyes, and allowing the music to envelop them. These people are often wealthy as well, but they don't fit the previous category because, as I said, they are perfectly capable of distinguishing a Conrad from a Krell. Some of the people on this forum fit this description, but they serve a certain role in hi-fi audio. At least they are quite aware of the complexities of their expensive circuitry and acoustical treatments. Trial-and-error, incessant tweaking, and modification are the modus operandi of circuit design.

There is a third category, and many of us belong to it- those who are involved in this hobby because they love music, and they see the equipment as a means for sheer enjoyment. They are not blowing their wad to impress their rich associates, or to achieve absolute precision, but to be moved and entertained by the music coming from the system. They appreciate the essence of the music, which is simply embellished by their nice hi-fi system.

Getting back to my buddy, who records for a living- he's always listening to real instruments, and accounting for many factors of acoustics, choices of microphone, microphone preamp, etc., and trying to relate that to what the mix will sound like through speakers. What this means is that he probably has a better idea of what, say, a cymbal actually sounds like, or how to tell when he's properly set up to record a bass kick, than what some hi-fi folks may perceive as accurate sound. People often are very confused about this- they prefer a speaker that smooths out the sound of a trumpet, when in fact, trumpets, well, sound harsh in small spaces. I am a conservatory student in violin, and I am around a plethora of instruments all week. Violins are not necessarily "smooth" or "lush" sounding. They actually have a very piercing tone, especially in close proximity, and very much so when right underneath your left ear. Like many instruments, the sound becomes beautiful and dimensional when it flourishes in a large space.

My friend and I got into a long discussion about analog and digital. As a 48-year-old recording tech., he has embraced digital since its entry into mainstream recording. His love of digital is the convenience of working with a digital studio, and the S/N ratio and low noise floor of CD. We talked a long time about this, but I eventually admitted to him that, though I really only listen to CD, the most exquisite and engaging sound I've ever heard from hi-fi systems has always been exclusively through vinyl playback. Period.

He had some half-baked theories about why vinyl "fools" the ear into thinking that the sound is more warm and continuous: that a higher noise floor and needle friction created background noise and thresholds that the listener is not consciously aware of during playback. I didn't fully understand what he was trying to say- he may indeed have no idea what he is talking about in this corner of audio. Digital playback certainly has its share of sonic flaws that are only resolved in the finest players available, which most of us can't afford. I explained to him that silent backgrounds are only one virtue of good sound. He, of course, agreed wholeheartedly because he's a good sport. A much greater virtue- indeed the most important one- is an open, natural, and involving midrange. It's the most important frequency range for loudspeakers. Vinyl can be a very expensive, high-maintenance format, but the vinyl enthusiasts are engaged in a noble cause because even a very modest analog playback system has an easy, continuous, engaging sound that digital playback always struggles to contend with.

Even at the highest eschelons of the hi-fi industry, whether it's the big-wig reviewers or the lousy Ferrari drivers, there seems to be a deep, basic awareness that recreating every nuance of a musical performance, in its entirety, is an exercise in futility. Someone at TAS commented that the $47,000 MBL 101e's, when complemented by all of MBL's reference equipment- the $20,000 preamp, the $75,000 monoblocks, the $XXX transport and DAC- sounds "fool-you real on select cuts at select moments", which means that it very occasionally sounds like a real venue. Only after the consumer has spent $200,000 (not including cables, power conditioning, and acoustical treatments). Also note that reviewers constantly, constantly remark that though a component may lack in detail, or low-end authority, or [insert quality here], it is highly "musical", or it is "immensely pleasurable".

I think that the deepest satisfaction in audio playback has little to do with venturing to create holographic images of recording venues. The studio engineers and the component manufacturers designing $1000 amps knows this. The most successful stereo systems have have an almost imperceptible quality about them that, every time one sits down, with any kind of music, makes them immensely pleasurable, relaxing, and very involving. They can be systems costing well under $5000, even budget systems. It's that "special something" that happens when the components synergize with the right speakers in the right room. This pleasure is not commensurate with the amount of money spent. I was more moved listening to a system with B&W 803s, Pathos Classic One MkII, and Rega Jupiter, than I was by the Wilson Alexandria X-2s with a complete Spectral front-end. I'm not criticizing the higher-end of hi-fi- a lot of the components are remarkable designs and a lot of brilliant ideas and experience is necessary to create this stuff. New ground is usually only broken in the state-of-the-art. Also that technology trickles down into the more affordable circuits.

I am a poor college student, and my system can only barely pass as hi-fi. I'm also aware that for many of you, I'm simply preaching to the choir. But, I think that it's important that the hi-fi community remember how this industry came into being. It wasn't because McIntosh, Dynaco, or Marantz were perfectly re-creating live venues. It was because the gear was capable of projecting the "essence" of the music.