Thoughts on the future of HiFi

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Agree, and measurements are not good at determining what is good or bad sounding - zero ability in fact.

Dr. Floyd Toole, John Dunlavy, Jim Thiel, would strongly disagree with you here. Dr. Toole white papers document over 10,000 listeners in double blind listening test show that measurements correlated directly to what sounds good, and sounds bad. Measurements alone do not tell the story, but they are a major criteria in deciding what sounds good or bad.

Some of these turntables are better than cutting machines. Audio Note is in possession of a great number of master tapes, they cut vinyl, and their top turntable takes the cutting lathe to new heights. It is beyond what is used to cut records.

Unfortunately Audio Note does not cut all vinyl, and one could dare say what they do cut probably makes up less than 1% of the total vinyl cut each year. Bernie Grundman and Doug Sax are the go to men in the recording industry when it comes to mastering and cutting vinyl. Even if Audio Notes turntables are better than all cutting machines in the world, you cannot cut a lathe on them, and they cannot make a flawed product sound any better than a flawed product sounds.

An important aspect here is the word Accuracy. Crap word. Nothing in audio is accurate and terms like "more accurate" is also dubious unless you have a 100% perfectly accurate solution that you can look to as a basis then you have zippo.

Accuracy in this case is not 100% perfect. It is getting as close to sounding like the master tape as you can. In this situation my master tapes are 100% perfection, and the source to which copies should be compared, as it is the reference.

Trying to be more accurate to a solution when nobody has the solution to compare how close you got is idiotic. And throwing numbers around and saying well this stereo has flatter response so it is more accurate is also dubious. And it has to match with what is actually heard. For instance a speaker with a 5db dip at 40hz and a 15db dip at 19khz with 3% distortion is technically less accurate than a speaker with a 2db rise at 2khz and 2db rise at 10khz with .05% distortion but the latter may drive everyone listening to it screaming from the room because they sound terribly fatiguing.

You are not really describing accuracy here, you are describing inaccuracy. Keeping things in context here, If I record the Oakland Symphony Orchestra in DXD, and transcode the mix into 24/192khz PCM, it will sound exactly like my master. That is accuracy. When I downcovert it further to 24/96khz only careful listening will reveal a slight loss of air around instruments, that is pretty close to accurate, and to some accurate. When I covert it to analog and master for vinyl, it will sound too rich in the mids, have a truncated soundstage, and in some cases bloated bass when compared to my DXD based master. That is inaccuracy. When I convert it to redbook CD, there is a noticeable loss of air, and truncating of the soundstage, and a noticeable washing of some timbres on certain instruments. That is inaccuracy. When you play this DXD based recording through a tube amplifier, transients are slight blunted and blurred, the mids overly warm and rich, and the highs sound rolled off.(this is a real scenario). That is not representative of what is on my master tape. It may be pleasing to the ear, but it is not accurate when compared to the master file.

You can put 100 top of the field loudspeaker designers with engineer cum laudi degrees in a room and you can't even get them to agree on whether the speaker should be omni-directional, Transmission line, horn, panel, single driver etc. Trust the experts?

But would that put Audio Note, a brand you so richly(no pun intended Rich) lather with glowing comments fall into that catagory as well?

They probably wouldn't agree because each has their own design philosophy that they use to obtain accuracy from their designs. They don't have to agree, they just need to design accurate products. The old adage "there is more than one way to skin a cat" plays heavily in this case.

I certainly won't argue the technical merits for CD versus vinyl - I am not an engineer but I know enough that the technical merits heavily favour CD. Same with SS and Tube. SACD to CD. The fact that that is completely irrelevant is the issue. As with most things it needs to be addressed in the audibility spectrum.

Agreed. And in my experience(and it has been pretty profound and lengthy on this issue) has been I don't care for the sound of vinyl, tubes, and to be quite frank CD as well. Now I will say that I really do like analog sound, and analog 3" tape with Dolby SR noise reduction sounds heavenly, and much better than vinyl, CD, and anything encoded with the lossy formats. I say this not based on any measurements, but based solely on what I have heard in my studio, Disney Studios, Capital Records studios, and Bernie Grundman and Doug Sax's studios(and countless more) over the last 25 years.

The point Colloms made - and by the way there is no one better on the planet in audio engineering than him. No one said vinyl or SET was accurate. That however doesn't mean CD or SS is more accurate. It simply means that some numbers are technically more accurate and some numbers that most SS CD makers rarely publish are glossed over. marketing is a bigger aspect than science and when the science comes from the large "sellers" then science is corrupted. Americans unfortunately have a tough time accepting the notion of a conflict of interest and just believe whatever a biog corporation tells them.

Somehow you have gotten the impression that my conclusions on vinyl, SET, CD and SS are based strictly on numbers. Nope, it is based solely on listening to them, and comparing them on media where I have access to the master files or tapes. The last people in the world I listen to are marketing people(I do work for Disney you know), and people with self interests. However, my experience in the studio has led me to conclude that SS amps allow the sound to get closer to my master tapes, as does CD to an extent. Vinyl and Tubes impart their own signature, even when the source is analog. That has been my experience in 25 years of recording and mixing audio. Now, I do not mind or object when somebody enjoys my mixes with a little salt or sugar sprinkled in, but that is not representative to what is on my file, tape or drive. Now without that reference SET and Tubes would probably sound pretty good, but I do have access to that reference, and that is what drives my opinions.

You might say it but it isn't the case according to blind level matched auditions. Even if we just stay with SS - in the blind level matched auditions held at Hi-Fi Choice the Single Ended zero feedback Sugden A21a was chosen by the entire panel over every other SS amplifier in their tests.

Different location, different test, different equipment, different ears. This does not really convince me of very much. I read Stereophiles review of that amp, and the reviewer did not seem over enamored with the amp. The reviewers description of the sound of the A21a leads me to believe that amps in this double blind probably were not very good sounding in their own right. The funny thing that I found while reading that review is how close the measurements correlated to what the reviewer actually heard. The measurements conclude that this amp can not be partnered with a variety of speakers, and that is a big negative in my book.

Colloms has noted the same thing with all of the major established Big Boys moving to lower their feedback. They know as well - but they have to "get there." All of these engineers know how to make an amplifier that exhibits astounding technical specifications. Good sound comes from quality listening and to make decisions that may "unpretty" the spec sheet but decide that it sounds better and NOT make the pure marketing decisions.

I think it is might presumptuous to say that designers use negative feedback for marketing reasons. There are some very good reason for it or it would not be used. It is also equally presumptious to say that amplifier designers don't listen to what they design. Keep in mind, Colloms has his opinion, others have theirs. His does not cancel out others, and others do not cancel out his. When I draw opinion from others, I balance it off with more opinions from knowledgeable folks. I would be curious what he would say to this question

How bad can feedback designs be when Mr. Colloms could achieve a "dawning" of such fine sounds from zero-feedback amplifiers when he used recordings bearing the imprint of any number of feedback circuits?

You see now your argument makes no sense. NOBODY in a Double blind test will tell the difference between a 4B NRB and a 28b SST - NOBODY. The difference is at best subtle. The numbers of the original Brystons were Staggeringly good and so are the new ones. My dealer has sold Bryston for years and work with Bryston day in and day out for years listening to every match-up they can. Not one of the people working there actually own it in their own homes. And they carry the SST line-up.

I beg to disagree with you, but there is no point in belaboring this. I have heard both amps played through my SC-V's, and clearly there is a improvement in sound quality between the 4B and the 28b SST. Yes subtle, but it is definitely audible. Not going by the numbers, but what I heard. The designs are clearly different, and the 28B clearly sounds better than the 4B at low volume levels, which is where the difference in sound actually shows up quite well.

Why not read the whole article. Colloms is an engineer - he was the technical editor of most of the Audio Magazines out there - he measured ALL those amplifiers in great nauseating detail. I think he makes it pretty clear and unlike every other reviewer on the planet has auditioned, and measured, all of the best of them. The correlational factor seems to me to be that "in general" the amps that used less feedback (which he measures) sound better. That doesn't mean that any given amp won't beat any other given amp. Correlations are not absolutes their correlations that will have exceptions.

This is HIS opinion, not fact. If his correlations are not absolutes, and have exceptions, then he cannot say with any certainty negative feedback is the culprit 100 percent of the time. There are other design perimeters that play a part in the sound quality of any amp.

He is not talking about Tubes versus SS he is talking about negative feedback - that indicates to me he is talking about it regardless of whether there are tubes. In fact he does say that in the article which is why he notes that the likes of Krell and Mark Levinson when they make "better" sounding amps they tend to have lower feedback and they don't make tube amps.

Once again, this is HIS opinion, and cannot be construed as fact, especially since his opinion is not absolute and has exceptions. He is not free of biases, nobody is. One thing I have noticed, is that audio goes through these periodic "this is better" and "less of this makes an amp sound the best". Remember the THD argument? Or how about the slew rate and TIM distortion craze? Well this year it is zero negative feedback designs. I wonder which way the audio wind will blow five years from now.

Look I agree - there are tons of reasons to like one thing over another. However, the vast majority of people who debate these things have not IMO heard the best examples of the technology. Listening to a Rega P3 is not indicative of what vinyl is remotely capable of. Nor is Clearaudio Emotion. They're mediocre examples. Tubes are a little more common but most people listen to one or two of the mainstream brands - which may or may not be very good. I find Cary for example to be sweet but drive shy. A person listening to that will say - nice midrange but not much else and rather mushy sounding. Right they say - that's SET and make a value judgment on the entire technology. I have directly compared two $1300 EL 34 tube based amps with the same preamp and power amp tubes. The Jolida 302B and the Antique Sound Labs AQ 1003 DT. Same price same tube type similar power - completely different sounding amplifiers. Not even REMOTELY in the same ballpark. The Jolida is dark and warm and a little thick sounding. The ASL is fast open and thinner (a little SS like). Depending on which one a person tries their view of tube amps can be wildly different.

You make an excellent point here, and you actually drive a point home that I was trying to make earlier. You cannot make blanket statements when no two products sound the same, are designed exactly the same. And that also stretches to what is good and bad about certain audio technology when it comes to the individual. No two ears hear the exactly the same things, so no one person can decide what is good, that negative feedback properly implemented is bad, or that all SET, SS or Tubes amps sound bad.

SS amplifiers of big power and damping factors and feedback are not wildly different (not enough to really wow me). If you think there is a big difference between the Bryston models then SET amp differences are at least 100,000 times more different. The Grant Fidelity Rita will blow you into next week with all that speed and crackling reserve power anyone could want. And this from a guy who used Bryston in the recording studio for decades. And the Rita is built way the hell better than any Bryston.

You know, I don't mind that you have an opinion on particular things, but it is the absolute statements you make that drive me crazy. I have actually heard the Fidelity Rita, and I agree with your assessment totally, but one to add my own. It imparts a tube like sonic character on anything it reproduces, which why I don't care for tube amps and like SS amps. I also think any amp that flatters a bad recording( the Rita does) betrays accuracy to a high degree IMO.

No because you will accept all the added low grade switches that impact sound with the use of Equalizers.

The equalizers I use don't have switches, it is software based.

If you think you can hear a difference between a 4b and a 4NRB and you can't hear what adding artificial frequency correctors are doing then I don't get it.

Unlike a tube or SET amp, the Audyssey does not color the sound at all.

The frequency response issues we're talking about is 2db down at 20khz or -.5 db at 23hz. Big deal. Sure if you are using badly matched speaker SETs have issues - but hard to drive loudspeakers are BAD loudspeaker designs so who cares about not driving bad loudspeaker designs? I'd rather avoid those at the outset.

Deflection is never an attractive option. So when a SET has a problem driving a speaker, it is the speakers fault not the amp. Oh great........ In trying to get my head around the SET mania a few years ago, I had several amps brought into my studio for some critical listening. I do not remember which model it was, but it was by Cary. It sounded great until you turned up the volume when paired with my SC-V. It sounded great even with the volume up on my custom Klipschorns until some deep bass crept into the mix. Mush would be an understatement. Since those two speakers didn't have any problems with other amps, it couldn't be their fault the amp couldn't drive them.

SS feedback amplifiers are measured at full power where their distortion is best - they perform very badly at the point of first entry (some mistakingly call the first watt).

Hmmm, more generalization not support by facts. The SST models of the Brystons are designed to be distortion free at the first watt, something the 4B was not. And when you actually measure them, the designers were successful with their design approach. Secondly, how often do amps run at 1 watt in the presence of a signal. I would advance not very often.

The error (distortion) begins and is fedback and the distorted sound runs through the circuits over and over - makes the graphs look like same in same out - it is a FACT that they are not. SET amps perform their best at the point of entry and at their lowest power figures. They distort as the volume goes up but again if you have very very easy to drive speakers you will NEVER push these amps to audible distortion.

I hate to bring this to you, but deep bass signals can often push an amp well above 100-200 watts depending on where the volume control is set. I would not consider my Klipschorns a particularly difficult speaker to drive, but the Cary failed miserable in the presence of deep bass. I cannot say that for the Rita, but the guy that owned it was not exactly pushing it all that hard. Loud transients require a lot of power, or it will sound blunted. A amps has to be able to deliver high amounts of power to reproduce sharp high level transients like brass instruments being played using double tonguing techniques. This is where quite a few SET designs fail IMO. You cannot expect a 5-25 watt SET amp to reproduce a clean 20hz at any level above the lowest setting on the volume control, which makes it quite useless for usage in any of my listening rooms.

Consider your own premise. A High efficiency speaker system SHOULD in theory reveal far more NOISE than any LE loudspeaker. And SET amps have the HIGHEST rated distortion (and so do Audio Note CD players for that matter) - so in THEORY, a very high efficiency horn system would let you hear all that awful noise more readily than any other kind of system. No one would EVER connect such high distorting CD players and ADD to that high distorting SET amps to such speakers - and that is precisely what they do and they don't exhibit high noise.

The distortion they add is complimentary, hence the euphoria. Euphoria may mean good sound to some, but not to me. I like accuracy, because coloration changes what I hear when I compare it to the source. IMO distortion is distortion, complimentary or not.

At full power SETs stink. At the point of entry they are very very low. Guess where the industry measures - full power - to put SS in the best possible light and SET and tubes and SE SS amps in the worst possible light. They are selling numbers.

At any occasion a amp may be driven very hard. If it can't take it, it is not very good IMO. The industry actually measures at third power, not full power.

I agree, I like the Sugden SS amplifier more than I like the Jolida or the ASL tube amps mentioned above. I recently reviewed a tube hybrid power amp - that in some respects deifies placement into either camp. Remember I am not saying that one is better than the other I am just saying that the absolute best system I have heard is from a SET vinyl rig. That does NOT mean that every SET vinyl rig won't be beat or even at the same prices or different makes etc. And the one system I hold in that spot is priced such that it is largely moot. A bughatti is better than any car in my price class - but that is moot since what I can afford forces me to make another choice.

Finally you quantified a statement. The best system YOU heard was from a vinyl and SET rig. I would say you probably OD on euphoria listening to that system.

Take the Soolos system - I am FAR more likely to be able to afford this than the SET/Vinyl rig I heard. And I would be happy as all get out with it.


There are several aspects here to be clear. Only one aspect of the Audio Note CD player is that it has no error correction. remember the others are no filtering, tube output stage, and zero oversampling. These in tandem is what is being discussed. Only the manufacturer would be able to say which has more and less impact on the resulting sound.

Since I have heard digital audio without error correction when an error was actually present, I would say in some cases that Audio Note CD player will sound like utter crap when confront with it. Error correction is benign and not audible, and no digital devices should be without it. I have learned the hard way that no disc stamping line is perfect 100 percent of the time when stamping discs. Any player playing redbook CD must use filters, especially anti aliasing filters, or they will sound like hell even with tubes. A player that uses no oversampling has to use brickwall filters. They ring!

That may be true. I would need to hear it in my system. Can you recommend a commercial playback system. The Meridian Soolos doesn't sound as good as my turntable or the CD player I am reviewing - is there something you know of that is considerably better than that set-up.

Since I do not know what you are using, that is an impossible question to answer.

I just think you give far too much credit to Solid State that is giving you the Lemon Water. If it truly did give you exactly the lemon water you claim it does then why would the new SST version be "more perfect" that you claimed the first version gave you. perfect sound forever keeps adding to the perfection? Huh?

I don't think I was referring to SS as lemon water. I was referring to my master files and tapes.

Some SETs will add sugar some will add a grain of it and some will add 5 spoonfuls. I think I would agree that SETs and tubes and turntables are much bigger offenders at deviating that SS and CD. But then that is why nobody can tell the difference between a $1,000 NAD and an $18,000 Bryston or $30,000 Krell, or tell the difference between a $600 CD player and $20,000 CD player in blind tests. The truth is this stuff sounds a lot more similar than it should given the price differences. Meanwhile, stick and Audio Note CD player in against anyone else and you'll hear the difference in blind tests. SETs - most of them ditto. Good or bad preferable or not, at least there are REAL audible differences between a SET, turntable rigs, and unique CD players.

I can answer this in short order. SS designs are pretty consistent sounding from model to model, and SET and tubes are not. SET and tubes add a unique sonic character, and SS don't in many cases. This is not flattering endorsement for Tube and SET designs for sure.
One could add, at least they know what they are getting into with SS, you cannot say that for SET or Tube designs.