Inexpensive
headphones
June 29, 2004
Hi Wes,
I've read your review of
the Etymotic ER-6 in-ear headphones. I liked it very much. I enjoy it when audiophiles
write about how to listen to music.
Well, I want to change my, I quote, "offensively
nasty" headphones, but maybe for me to spend $129 for a pair of headphones is too
much, so I was wondering if you could recommend something cheaper -- let's say, more or
less $50-$70.
Do you have any idea of what I can buy?
Andrea
I got your letter while I was in Indiana, recording
Cantus on location. As it so happens, bass singer Tim Takesh played me a few tracks on his
iPod through Sony MDR-V700 headphones, which he paid about $75 for -- and I thought they
sounded fantastic, with tons of deep bass and beautifully liquid midrange detail. They
were also extremely comfortable.
There are also several models of Grado between $50 and $70,
which many audiophiles feel are the headphones to beat in the price range.
Focus Audio questions
June 27, 2004
Hi Wes,
In your review of the
Focus Audio Signature FS-888s from last year you said that you needed to sit a little
farther back from them than you normally do. Do you think that it's a function of the
relatively high tweeter positioning of this speaker? How far back did you have to sit in
order to achieve optimal sound? What problems did you encounter when you sat closer than
that?
I heard them at HE2004 in NY a few weeks ago and was
extremely impressed. However, your comments make me wonder if one needs a very large room
to accommodate these speakers.
Chris
Yes, I suspect that the tweeter placement on the
FS-888s is the reason I needed a little extra room between my seat and the speakers, but
it wasn't a matter a yards, just an extra 18-24", if I recall correctly.
I also liked the sound of the FS-888s at HE'04. I
thought Phil Lamm did an excellent job of showing what they could do -- and that
room wasn't all that big. If yours is similar in size, I think you'll do OK.
And there are setup tricks that can get the most out of
speakers even when you don't have all the space you'd ideally like. Check out my article in which I
discuss the setup procedure of Immedia’s Alan Perkins and Audio Physic’s Joachim
Gerhard. This novel method uses your room's boundaries to take advantage of the Haas
precedence effect. If you have a largish speaker like the FS-888 Signature and a small
room, it can be a life saver.
Taken with vintage tubes
June 24, 2004
Hi Wes,
I've very much enjoyed your writing for some time
and now wish to pose my own question -- or rather, seek the benefit of your
wisdom/experience!
After various "upgrades" I finally found
myself with a Quad 44 control (preamp) unit and a Quad 405 power amp. I acquired a second
405 and, while they were sent away for modification by Quad, to make them a mono pair, I
imported to the UK from the States an Eico ST70, having decided I wanted to find out what
all the fuss was about with tubes.
Boy, did I find out! What a glorious beast is that
Eico ST70! Sure, maybe it's a bit more colored than some solid-state amps I've heard, but
it reproduces the tonal colors of woodwind instruments and captures voice timbre damn near
perfectly. And there's nothing booming about the bass from an Eico ST70 (not played
through my Yamaha NS1000Ms) -- that amp, unlike some tubes I have heard since, can handle
rock music just as well as it does acoustic music, orchestras, and jazz. So I bought
myself a tube preamp to try with the newly converted 405s, a TL1 from the Trevor Lee's
stable in Oz. Apparently, it's built around the Dyna PAS3 model with no tone controls.
That makes a damned-good sound, and the phono stage is excellent.
But that Eico still does things that little bit more
for me with voice and woodwind, even if it may sometimes seem a little bass heavy.
So I'm playing around with a couple of ideas. First
is to get that Eico modified and upgraded -- and made prettier (as it's as ugly as a dog
with mange). I was thinking of cutting out the tone controls and the loudness circuits,
putting new caps everywhere, adding new sockets and a new power cord. On the other hand, I
was also thinking about getting a pair of tube power amps, maybe an old pair or something
new, on a budget of about £300 ($550). I notice some of those Antique Sound amps sell
very cheaply, but I'm worried that the transformers in them must be lightweight, or I
could go for a pair of Dyna ST70s as a mono pair, or maybe a couple of mono Heath W-4s?
Your thoughts on these musings would be most
welcome!
Graham
It doesn't sound like you need any input from me
-- I'd say you're doing fine on your own. You're trusting your ears and you're keeping it
fun -- and I think that's what it's all about.
Almost all of the amps you've mentioned will be
"colored" compared to solid state, but so what? Flat ain't necessarily where
it's at.
The plus side of the Dynas is that they're cheap
and easy to mod, but as basic and simple as that circuit is, there are contemporary tube
amps that are a lot less "tubey" and probably more reliable -- a Conrad-Johnson
MV-50, for example.
And I like the Antique Sound stuff an
awful lot. Maybe you can get heftier power supplies, but the ones they come with have
impressed me sonically, so I'd strongly consider that option as well.
I'd end with the advice to keep on having fun --
but you seem to have that one sussed out on your own.
Active crossovers
June 22, 2004
Hi Wes,
First of all, thanks for a great site. I've learned
lots from it.
I'm curious about active crossovers. As far as I can
understand they are quite an improvement on passive crossovers (I've been reading the
Elliot Sound Products website, among others -- lots of interesting information). But,
having read a fair number of audio magazines and review sites, I can't recall a single
reference to them. Nor are they ever mentioned in the many questions regarding how to
upgrade a system. Is there some great, dark secret that I'm missing? I thought that most
studios used powered monitors (with built-in active crossovers), and that they are
suitable, even preferable, when making a recording in the first place. Why then do they
receive so little mention in home audio? Powered speakers (with built-in active
crossovers) are sometimes reviewed, but there's never a mention of active crossovers (as
separate units) being added to a system.
What sort of improvements might be had with even
good-quality budget speakers and a separate active crossover? Could it be comparable to
buying better speakers, or is it misdirected money? In what cases would it be money well
spent?
Gordon
Active crossovers can sound superior to passive
ones, since they allow you to separately amplify the individual drivers with amps best
suited to their requirements.
But there's a problem Most loudspeakers have their
crossovers permanently connected to the drivers so you can't use an outboard active
crossover -- not even with biwirable models (since biwirable crossovers are still in the
circuit).
It's not common now, but there have been
loudspeakers designed to employ active crossovers. Some classic Linn, JBL, and Apogee
models were designed to utilize standard passive (and) aftermarket active crossovers.
Linn's top-of-the-line models still use 'em.
In an active loudspeaker that uses separate
amplifiers for the woofer and tweeter, the crossovers are, by definition, active and it is
true that many studios use active monitors, but just as many do not.
If you build your own speakers, purchasing or
assembling an active crossover can be beneficial and even cost-effective, but as a speaker
upgrade on the average budget loudspeaker, active crossovers are neither recommended nor
even practical.
NAD CD players
June 18, 2004
Hi Wes,
I'm going to buy a new CD player, and I'm thinking
about the NAD 542 and S500i. Is there a big difference between them for the price? What do
you think about them? My amp is an Onkyo A9711 Integra and my loudspeakers are Tannoy R3s.
I listen to pop/rock music. Do you recommend any other CD players?
Audi O'Phile
I haven't directly compared the two. The 542 is a
very good player and it sounds a lot more expensive than its price would indicate.
The S500i seems to be even more solidly constructed
and it specs out better, but the proof of the pudding is in the, umm, listening, in this
case. Its heftier power supply and build-quality should also translate into longer life,
but since I haven't put one through long-term testing, that's simply speculation.
If you're seriously considering the S500i, I'd also
listen to the Arcam DIVA CD82 I recommended to Sean below.
Sub-$1000 CD player
June 16, 2004
Hi Wes,
I really dig your website. Very cool -- many thanks.
My question, whilst simple, has me confused. I am
looking for a good-sounding CD player for under a thousand bucks! Seems simple enough, and
yet with over a hundred to choose from, and a dozen really good ones to choose from, I am
lost. I also can't tell the difference between using a cheaper CD player as a transport
and then running it through a good DAC, or using the same amount of money and just buying
a good CD player.
Sean
At the sub-$1000 level, I don't think there's any
question that a single-chassis unit is the way to go. Actually, in general, I tend to
prefer one-box players, since you get better sound and build quality with them than with
two separate equal-priced units. Of course, when you reach the cost-no-logic portion of
the market, all bets are off -- but I like expensive one-box players, too.
At under $1000, you'd be hard-pressed to do much
better than the Arcam DIVA CD82. It's a killer.
Back to analog
June 15, 2004
Hi Wes,
I'm getting back to analog after many years of
almost exclusively listening to CDs, and I'd appreciate your advice.
I have already ordered an Oracle Delphi Mk V
turntable ready for a Rega RB-300 tonearm (also purchased), but I'm having trouble
deciding what cartridge to use -- a MM or MC?
I'll be using a phono preamp, Pro-Ject The Tube,
that handles both types; the preamp I have is an ARC LS25 Mk II (then comes the Krell
FPB-300c and the MartinLogan Prodigy speakers).
There are far too many options on MCs (MM is easier
I guess: Shure V15 or Rega Exact -- would you agree?) -- low or high output, with sky-high
prices. What to do? Which cartridge and type do you think would be a good combo for the
setup I have?
Marcelo
Your 'table and 'arm could handle just about
anything you might want, so they aren't going to limit you to a handful of candidates.
Yes, moving coils get pretty pricey -- and they
can be confusing. However, they are popular for a reason and that is that they tend to
offer more detail and inner voicing than MMs. The question is always whether or not you
value those qualities enough to pay for them.
The V-15 and the Exact are really good and you
may decide that the extra you would spend on a moving coil takes you beyond the point of
diminishing returns -- and that's certainly an understandable response. But try to get a
dealer to give you a demonstration of a good MM and a "step up" MC using the
same 'table and 'arm. It can be an ear-opener -- or it might convince you that MMs are
plenty good enough. Either way, only you can make that decision.
Reasonably priced MC cartridge
June 10, 2004
Hi Wes,
I noted in the archives that you're fond of the
Klyne phono preamp. I just today took possession of a used one, and I am using it with a
Shure M97xE cartridge and Cary SLI-80 tubed integrated amp. As all that I've read about
the Klyne includes references to MC cartridges, am I not using it to its best advantage
with the Shure MM?
If that's the case, is there a reasonably priced MC
cartridge that you feel mates well with the Klyne?
Ron
One of the things the Klyne has going for it is
its adjustability, which makes it ideal for a wide range of moving-coil cartridges which
require different levels of gain and lots of options for capacitive loading. Since you
don't need those options, I suppose someone could argue that you aren't using it to its
"best advantage."
But that person wouldn't be me -- the Klyne also
shines because it just flat out sounds good, which I am sure it does with your Shure.
Of course, you do have the option of trading up
to an MC some day and if you choose to exercise it, the Klyne won't limit your options. As
to which cartridge to buy, I'd consider buying a used cartridge and having it
retipped/rebuilt through Stanalog, which gives you a "better than new" cartridge
at a very reasonable price.
Who spends that kind of money?
June 8, 2004
Dear Wes,
I love music. I love good sound -- and bad sound
bugs the hell out of me.
But I don't consider myself an audiophile. I like
putting systems together and playing music on them without worrying whether I incorporate
the latest "tweak of the week" or not. I'm still using original Advent
loudspeakers that I bought new in 1978, because I like the way they sound.
Another reason I don't consider myself an audiophile
is money. Why on earth would I pay $29,000 for a turntable? That's half of what I paid for
my house 12 years ago!
I suppose this is an age-old hi-fi question.
Obviously, others in the high-end world think differently, or there wouldn't be so many
small, esoteric (and large, esoteric) companies out there that no one's ever heard of
making $80,000-per-pair speakers and $20,000 CD players and who knows what else that costs
five figures.
But I still wonder how they stay in business. Surely
there aren't that many people out there able (or willing) to pony up that much for hi-fi
components, are there?
Just something I've wondered about. Thanks for
listening!
Dan Strayer
It's an interesting question and I've wondered
about it too.
There are small companies that make expensive,
esoteric components simply because they believe that's the only way to do it -- companies
like Spectral, for example, which never went "big-time" because its principal
insists on personally inspecting every unit that goes out the door.
But there are other companies that exhibit at
trade shows and get reviews, but you never run into their products in the real world. I
think of these firms as "members of the club," since they seem to be in the
business just to hang out with other hi-fi types.
As to prices, I try not to contemplate them. Yes,
many of them seem quite absurd to me. But the same is true of cars, watches, and even
fountain pens. I was looking at a pair of Pearl Izumi cycling shorts today and found
myself attempting to justify $200 for 6.5 ounces of Lycra. (I resisted, but I did bookmark
the page, so I'm not out of the woods yet.)
We used to have a saying when I sold hi-fi:
"Never put your wallet in somebody else's pants." I only know what stuff is
worth to me. I try not to dictate what someone should be allowed to spend.
Since I have a lot more love of music than I have
money, your value system sounds about right to me -- for me, that is.
Then again, I really hate paying $9.50 to go to
movie, but I almost paid $200 for cycling shorts, so what do I know?
Musical Fidelity headphone amp
June 4, 2004
Hi Wes,
I currently use a pair of AKG 340 headphones through
a Musical Fidelity X-Can V1. I was considering the Sennheiser HD 650s with the new V3
X-Can, but I wasn't sure whether the stretch to the Sugden Bijou was worth the extra
bucks.
As far as musical preferences go, I'm a blues,
blues-rock listener through a Mark Levinson/Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy system. Is there
anything you can recommend that would delight?
Ray
Tough question, and the answer comes down to what
type of audiophile you are. Judging from your ownership of a Levinson/Wilson system, I'd
guess you're pretty particular -- and aren't we all?
On the one hand, the Sugden has the quality and
detail you're used to from your Levinson rig, but the X-Can offers that tube sweetness and
presence. If you want to mix things up a bit with your headphone rig, the Musical Fidelity
will give you a nice change of pace.
"Audiophile" sound
June 2, 2004
Dear Wes,
What does an "audiophile" listen for in a
system that makes him determine whether or not a system is "audiophile" grade or
not?
I know that personal preference has a lot to do with
it and simply if you like the way a system sounds or not. But there has to be a common
quality or property (for lack of a better way to describe it) to all this equipment that
makes an audiophile say "this is good" or "this is junk."
I'm a guitar player and used to teach guitar years
ago, so I do know how to listen to something and pick out minute details that would go
unnoticed by the usual listener unless pointed out to them. Are these minute details
simply easier to hear or much more apparent on audiophile-grade equipment, or is there
another quality (build/construction quality aside) to all this equipment that is the
determinant of good or bad?
Mark
"Audiophile" is really just a marketing
term. It came into use to distinguish well-made limited-production equipment from
mass-market gear, but it gets thrown about a lot to mean "better than the other guy's
products."
Since there's no "Audiophile Council"
setting standards, anybody can call their products "audiophile quality."
If I had to come up with a definition, it would be
that a product that stressed construction quality and was designed from a viewpoint of
maximizing musical enjoyment (as opposed to being made cheap to sell cheap) is one that
stresses audiophile qualities.
There are inexpensive products with an audiophile
ethos, just as there are super-expensive products that are just big, dumb mass-market
products with thick faceplates.
In that, hi-fi is a lot like guitars. Some
manufacturers get it -- and know what their consumers want and need. Others just know what
they sell at a given price point.
|
