• Home
• Forum
• About
• Products
• Audition
• Order
• Bargain Bin
• FAQs
• Support
• Links
• Rants
• Raves
• Owners
• Contact

The only meter you need to read

After a conversation with a customer and friend, I started thinking about peer pressure, audio reviews, and how we go about deciding whether an audio component is any good ...

It comes as no secret that an audio system, irrespective of its price and ambitions is inherently compromised - in no small part due to the listening room. Until such time that when we can dial in the acoustics of Avery Fischer or Carnegie Halls for example, we will be chasing an elusive goal - one that disappears through our grasping fingers like smoke into the air.

Having said that, we all pick and choose the best means of fooling ourselves to derive the most pleasure from our hi-fi systems. While I'm all for fidelity, I seriously wonder whether having Carnegie Hall in our living room is something we're really after. This might be a case of "be careful what you ask for". This idea will take some time to develop, and I'll leave it for another day.

As far as painting a musically satisfying illusion is concerned, for some, it's all about tone, dynamics, and moving large quantities of air. For others, it involves creating a believable spatial illusion with pinpoint imaging. For others, the reproduction is incoherent without PRaT (pace, rhythm, and timing). It don't mean a thing, if you ain't got that swing.

All too often, a system which emphasizes one sonic "trick" over others is imbalanced, dishonest, and not worthy of your consideration.

• An imaging and soundstaging champ may emphasize certain frequencies or suffer phase anomalies which enhance the illusion of space.
• A system with great rhythm and timing may have frequency imbalances which emphasize the leading edge transients.
• Many large speaker systems which move huge amounts of air with seemingly unlimited dynamics frequently present small ensembles completely out of scale.

After living with any of these systems for a period of time, their flaws will manifest as you find yourself not being in the mood to listen to music. This has nothing to do with your mood, and everything to do with the integrity and balance of the system. Years from now, I suspect that we'll look back at this period of hi-fi with the same amusement that we currently look back at dad (in the 1950's) listening to his hi-fi demo disks with reproductions of things like locomotives passing through the living room.

None of this is meant to say that a system which is phase correct (to the extent possible), quiet (low noise floor), and tonally accurate cannot do space, PRaT, dynamics, and tone colors in a satisfying manner. It most certainly can.

When you consider a change to your system, ask yourself how you approach the real thing. When you go to a concert, do you ponder the placement of the piccolo player in the rear, or that of the oboe player? Do you think about the midrange character of the hall? Do you close your eyes and try to locate that odd looking violinist in the first section in your mind's eye? Do you feel the movement of the air - that charged sound in the hall even when no music is playing? What about the explosive dynamics of that fellow playing his '59 Strat through his Twin Reverb?

All of the above sensations play a part in your sonic and musical experience, and only you can take this back home and translate it into assembling a system that is musically meaningful to you. I ask myself one critical question when evaluating a change: does the system communicate the musical intent of the performer to me?

In spite of the fact that Avery Fischer sounds more "live" than Carnegie (in either of its incarnations), the two halls are more alike than they are different. By this, I mean that their differences become minimized as your attention is drawn to the performance. You don't walk home afterwards and say "boy! I could really locate that piccolo player when I closed my eyes!", or "can you believe that 120 Hz mid-bass hump?". Certainly, there are bad rooms (and I'm not arguing in favor of them), but hopefully, you take the performance home with you and not the room.

More than one individual has commented to me that they needed to get used to this or that component. I'm referring to the user adapting to the component and not to component break-in. I realize that major system changes like shifting from mini-monitors to full-range speakers will require a period of adjustment. Let's not however, take this to an extreme and allow peer pressure to dictate the sonic fashion du jour that you have to "get used to" while draining your checking account balance.

After you integrate a component into your system, you are ultimately faced with a "thumbs up" or a "thumbs down" decision. The gear either serves the music or it doesn't. You shouldn't have to dig into your analytical side to decide this. I realize that some attributes can fool you temporarily. A phase anomaly which renders a false perception of space is but one example. Over time, you will notice how this distortion corrupts other aspects of the presentation - it might kill the PRaT, for example.

After taking some time to get the "grok" on a component, it should become fairly obvious to you whether it is serving the music. While accurately reproducing the live event is an elusive task, holding onto the idea of serving the music will keep you on the right path.

Many highly regarded (and high-priced) components are so flawed by any musical standard that they should immediately be eliminated from consideration for placement in your listening room. Alternatively, there exist modestly priced components that get "it" right. Price has very little to do with it.

The concept of nutrition comes to mind. We are after a balanced nutritious, musical diet, and not empty calories. You should not have to get used to these components any more than you should get used to crash diets or junk food.