I would never overtly diss a legendary Groundhog, but six more weeks of winter? It's going to be 68 deg F here in Boulder today---and 70 tomorrow! I think the weather cadre got together and bribed Phil, for their own nefarious purposes....(Oops: plenty of folks in America are freezing right now. Never mind.)
We also have an unseasonably-warm issue ofCopper, this go around. We're happy to present a piece by yet another new contributor, industry veteranEthan Winer. In the past we've presented pieces byKenKantorandJim Smithon what they see as common misconceptions or fallacies in audio, and Ethan discusses Audio Mythsthat just ain't so. I look forward to reading the comments that Ethan's piece will undoubtedly initiate.
Also featured in this issue, our guyDarren Myers wraps up the"CNC" DIY phono stageproject, with circuit boards you can buy direct from us, parts lists, everything you'll need to build it, aside from a hot soldering iron. Jim Smithis back, probing the group psyche and asking,what do you want to read about?
From our usual crew,Dan Schwartzis wrapped up in the music ofSteve Reich; Professor Schenbeckcontinues his series on musical elements with a look atstyle;Richard Murisongets all metaphysical aboutmetadata;Duncan Taylorintroduces the amazing spectacle that isDirty Bourbon River Show--- imagineTom WaitsmeetsLouis Primameets The Mighty Mighty Bosstones, and you'll kinda get it;WL Woodwardlooks into four decades ofSteely Dan; and finally,Ikvetch about theIoTand look back at another beloved brand:Spica.
Recently, I was thinking about the many topics that myGet Better Soundaudio seminar attendees have liked most over the years. The list is fairly long, but there has been a general pattern.
It took a while, but I managed to narrow that list down to those that have proven to be the most popular. It occurred to me that instead of just submitting a topic, perhaps you could choose from those topics that interest you most and post a reply below. That way we can discuss your favorite.
Here is my list – in no particular order:
If different loudspeaker manufacturers use fundamentally different set-up guides, who is right?
Could your chair or sofa be damaging your music reproduction?
Why an equilateral loudspeaker setup can detract from your musical experience
Precise Imaging vs. Tone?
Depth vs. Presence?
When exotic speaker feet, spikes, isolation devices, etc. can negatively affect your sound.
Why you should remove unused speakers from your listening or short/cover them
Why wide dispersion for loudspeakers might be a bad idea for home audio
The one thing that your system must have to be musically satisfying
What are audiophile “sound effects” – and how do they affect our listening?
Why you shouldn’t place equipment or furniture between your speakers
The “around-the-corner” test
How to determine the acoustic transparency of a material to be used for room treatments or speaker grille cloths
How to know when you’ve gone too far with room treatments
The Top Three most important places for room treatments
How to avoid the worst sounding location for your system electronics and sources
Fine-tuning your system’s tonal balance and stereo imaging with speaker placement
How to use toe-in (speaker angle) to make your speakers seem to “disappear” sonically, as well as to affect their tonal balance
What happens when you listen at different seating heights ?
Why you shouldn’t consider speaker placement final until you’ve discovered the correct AC polarity for all components
When you should consider trying an asymmetrical speaker/listening positioning for the best bass response
When you should consider a 45-degree placement for difficult rooms
Why you need to have an audio system “road map”
The one thing you must do to make sure your vacuum tube electronics perform at or near their peak
Vertical vs. horizontal bi-amplification
Bi-amping with similar amps vs specialized/different amps
Can you adjust spectral balance to +/- .5 dB with your electronic crossover?
When adjusting bass levels with a bi-amplified system, can you shift the crossover point to compensate for the lower or higher level you just selected?
Looking forward to seeing what interests you!
Note: These potentialCopperarticles will be excerpted and edited from existingGet Better Soundtopics, as well as from their accompanyingQuarter Notesnewsletters.
What better image to express winter than a wolf? I ran across this composite photo on a download site and fell in love with it. Both images were originally shot with a Canon 5D, the unnamed photographer surely worked hard in bitter cold to capture this gorgeous expression of winter’s wonder.
Not only are room design and tuning important, but having dedicated 30 amp circuits on the same phase are important as well.
My audio room was built with several and separate 30 amp circuits, each one utilizing wires in metal conduit. I used PS Audio Power Ports as the outlets.
The room is 15′ x 25′, with 10′ ceilings. I used Michael Green’s Room Tune elements all over the room. I use a PS Audio P300 Power Plant to power my CD player, DAC and preamplifier: an Audible Illusion 3A Pre with phono Gold Board for my turntable, an old MSB DAC, and a Cambridge Audio CD player. I also use a Richard Gray conditioner to power the amplifiers and the subs of my Vandersteen 5A speakers. The Vandersteens sit about 9″ into the room.
Have a system you’d like Copper to share with the world? Send us pictures and text throughemail here.
[As reported in last issue’sIndustry News, Mauro Grange, CEO of the McIntosh Group, departed. Longtime McIntosh President Charlie Randall was named CEO of the group, and Sonus Faber’s CFO was named CEO of Sonus. —-Ed.]
Filippo Fanton Named CEO of Sonus Faber
McIntosh Group is pleased to announce that Filippo Fanton has been named the new CEO of Sonus Faber effective immediately. Fanton has served as the CFO of Sonus Faber for the last eight years and will continue to hold that position as well until further notice.
“Filippo has done an excellent job serving as CFO and I’m looking forward to working with him in his expanded role as CEO of Sonus Faber. Sonus Faber has a bright future under Filippo’s leadership,” said McIntosh Group CEO Charlie Randall in a statement.
“I am honored to lead such a prestigious company as Sonus Faber. I am equally eager to not only preserve but expand its prominent standing in the high-end audio industry in order to provide our customers with the very best Italian handcrafted speakers,” said Fanton.
About McIntosh Group: McIntosh Group is one of the largest groups in the global Hi-End sector. It is comprised of some of the biggest and oldest names in the industry: McIntosh Laboratory Inc., Sonus faber, Audio Research, Wadia, Sumiko Subwoofers and Pryma. The common denominator of all the companies that make up McIntosh Group is the aim of making recordings generate all the excitement of live music. Sophisticated electronics, avant-garde technology, refined design and selection of top quality materials are the ingredients that make McIntosh Group a reality that knows no equal.
About Sonus Faber: Founded in 1983 in a small workshop in the hills of Vicenza, Sonus Faber (Italian for “handcrafted sound”) is the fusion of cutting edge loudspeaker design and innovation with Italian craftsmanship, values and techniques taken from the high art of musical instrument making. The passion of Sonus Faber combined with these principles has paved the way for iconic designs that have influenced the art of speaker making – perhaps more than any other manufacturer – over the last quarter century.
####
[CEDIA, the Custom Electronics Design and Installation Association, is the industry group for custom installers of home entertainment systems and home integration experts. Their annual trade show is considerably smaller and more focused than CES; the 2016 CEDIA Expo in Indianapolis was attended by roughly 18, 750 folks, whereas this years CES drew nearly 170,000. Following this press-release, a story appeared stating that Emerald Expositions, the buyer mentioned below, was itself being sold. That has been neither confirmed nor denied. Ah, business.—Ed.]
CEDIA Show to be Operated by Emerald Expositions
INDIANAPOLIS (January 26, 2017) – CEDIA today announced that it has sold ownership of the CEDIA show to Emerald Expositions, the largest trade show operator in the United States. CEDIA will continue to be deeply involved in the show, working hand-in-hand with Emerald on overall show direction, as well as retaining control and ownership of all educational programming.
“CEDIA first and foremost serves its members, and as home technology continues to proliferate, our members need comprehensive tools, resources, and support to assert their position as the single point of contact for technology in the home. Emerald acquiring and consequently taking over the operational responsibilities of the show will allow CEDIA to reallocate staff to develop programs and initiatives that will drive member success across the board,” said Vin Bruno, CEDIA CEO.
CEDIA Chairman Dennis Erskine adds, “More than half of the CEDIA professional staff spends the majority of their time annually preparing for the show; as the board and CEDIA leadership considered Emerald’s offer, we saw this as an incredible opportunity to concentrate on bolstering the year-round CEDIA member experience.”
Bruno continued, “With the resources we will now have available, CEDIA will seek to address the most important needs of our members: workforce development, education delivered more conveniently to members, consumer awareness, industry outreach, and providing more robust digital tools that will drive business to CEDIA members. At the same time, Emerald will bring considerable expertise, energy and fresh ideas to the show, helping to improve the experience for all participants in the years ahead. The future is bright for CEDIA members and the show.”
David Loechner, President and CEO, Emerald Expositions, said, “We are excited to add the CEDIA show to our portfolio. It is very successful with a rich history, which is a testament to the CEDIA organization and its members. I am confident that the combination of Emerald’s deep experience, professional capabilities, and unrivalled scale in operating trade shows, together with CEDIA’s clear vision, market affinity, and preeminent educational content will propel the show forward for the benefit of the entire industry.”
2017 will be a transitional year operationally as CEDIA will continue to manage many facets of the show, working alongside the Emerald team. Beyond 2017, Emerald will be responsible for all operational aspects of the show excluding educational programming and the CEDIA Awards event. Emerald has deep knowledge of the trade show business as the largest show operator in the United States. They run shows in numerous industry sectors, including gift, home and general merchandise, sports, design, construction and technology.
“CEDIA will continue to be incredibly involved with the direction of the show to ensure that it continues to be our industry’s leading trade event. It won’t lose its character and will continue to be an amazing environment for networking and friendship. Whether an exhibitor or an attendee, your expectations will continue to be not only met, but exceeded,” said Bruno.
CEDIA members will continue to enjoy complimentary access to the show floor, special savings on all CEDIA education and training, and preferential access to hotel blocks based on join date. Exhibiting member companies will continue to enjoy savings on their booth space and accrue priority points for booth selection. The 2017 CEDIA show will take place September 5-9, with the tradeshow floor open September 7-9, in San Diego, with future show locations identified and space booked through 2023.
“The stage has been set for so many exciting opportunities for CEDIA to amplify the support we provide to our members. Our agreement with Emerald lets CEDIA concentrate on our members’ needs, while allowing a professional trade show company to deliver a premier trade show for all attendees,” said Bruno.
The financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed.
In issues21and23, we featured a DIY phonostage by Jim Langley known as the “CNC” Phono. After losing our first round of printed circuit boards in the mail, we finally have “CNC” PCBs available for purchase on ourwebsite.
ADigikeypart list can be accessed by clickinghere. Remember, you will still need to pick out a chassis and hardware for your phonostage. Digikey has a wide variety of inexpensive encloses that would be perfect for this project.
If you have any questions about the project, feel free to post on the PS Audio “CNC” forum thread. Additional information and design examples can also be found on the original Audiokarmathread.
Special thanks tomuffsy.comfor the PCB design, and my close friends Jim Langley and Bill Ennis for making this DIY project available to so many.
I’ve been involved with audio technology since the 1960s, and I’m still surprised—and a bit dismayed—to see the same myths repeated again and again. How “wire” functions is understood fully, yet I continue to see fantastic claims that defy basic audio science. Indeed, too much of what I read online and in the mainstream audio press is simply wrong. For example, the notion that audio gear can measure well but sound bad is a common belief that’s easy to disprove. Of course, this assumes the right things are measured.
Likewise, unless you believe pioneering mathematician Joseph Fourier was wrong, music is in fact composed entirely of sine waves, so measuring audio gear using sine waves is perfectly acceptable. But again, the right things must be measured. For example, you can’t only measure the distortion of a power amplifier outputting 1 watt at 1 KHz, as is common. Distortion often rises at lower frequencies, especially with tube amps that use transformers. It can also rise at higher, or lower, power levels, depending on the nature of the distortion.
Another place I see specs either misused or simply missing is loudspeaker isolation products. If you want to know how (or even if) the sound has improved after placing a speaker on an isolation pad, you need to measure the sound in the room using software meant for that purpose. Showing that a neoprene pad blocks vibration is meaningless if a speaker cabinet doesn’t vibrate enough to create any sound in the first place. Indeed, there are myriad ways people can be misled, either on purpose by equipment sellers, or by well meaning but misinformed audio journalists.
Two common myths that have been soundly debunked, yet are still often repeated, relate to the need for sample rates higher than the CD standard 44.1 KHz. Tsutomu Oohashi et al reported in 2000 the results of experiments they claimed proves people can perceive ultrasonic content, thus confirming for both audiophiles and sellers of “high definition” products that CD quality audio is inadequate. Unfortunately, they made a fatal mistake: They used only one loudspeaker to play several ultrasonic frequencies at once, so IM distortion in the tweeters createddifference frequenciesin the audible range. When the Oohashi experiment was repeated a year later by Shogo Kiryu and Kaoru Ashihara using six separate loudspeakers[1], none of the test subjects were able to distinguish the ultrasonic content. From their summary:
“When the stimulus was divided into six bands of frequencies and presented through six loudspeakers in order to reduce intermodulation distortions, no subject could detect any ultrasounds. It was concluded that addition of ultrasounds might affect sound impression by means of some nonlinear interaction that might occur in the loudspeakers.”
Audio engineers have been investigating ultrasonics for decades, yet no legitimate tests have ever found that people can hear or otherwise perceive frequencies higher than around 20 KHz. Another researcher, Milind Kunchur, thought he found a different way to prove that high sample rates are needed:temporal resolution. He claimed that ears can detected arrival time differences as small as 5-10 microseconds, which is true, but wrongly concluded that reproducing such small timing offsets requires a sample rate higher than 44.1 KHz. What Dr. Kunchur didn’t consider is that bit depth also affects timing resolution, and 44.1 KHz at 16 bits is in fact perfectly adequate to resolve timing to as fine as anyone can hear. This is elegantly proven in a video by Monty Montgomery of Xiph.org. The link below goes directly to that part of the video, though I encourage people to watch the entire video because it debunks several other common myths about digital audio:
Another incorrect belief is that the 96 dB dynamic range of 16 bits is inadequate. I’ve been an professional audio engineer and musician for nearly 50 years. I’ve heard hiss from analog tape and cassettes plenty of times. I’ve heard surface noise and crackles on vinyl records. But I’ve never once noticed background noise from a CD. If you analyze recordings with audio editor software, you’ll see that the ambient room noise is usually the dominant factor. Sometimes circuit noise from the microphones or preamps is louder, but the source noise is always greater than the -96 dB noise floor of CDs. With most recordings, if you play a silent passage the VU meter reads around -70 to -80 at best, which is equal to 11-13 bits. So there’s simply no audible benefit to 24 bits. Theonlything bit depth affects is the noise floor. It doesn’t affect resolution, clarity, imaging, or anything else—only residual noise.
As you can imagine, some companies have a financial interest in proving that CDs are inadequate. But when tested properly,nobodyhas ever been shown to reliably identify a difference between CD quality audio and higher sample rates or bit depths. Again, this has been researched for many years, always with the same conclusion. As we skeptics say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,” and so far there has been no such proof.
So whatdoesaffect audio fidelity? How can we know if a device offered for sale is really worthwhile or just snake oil and false promises? I saw in the comments for another Copper Magazine article someone ask for a list of “what matters” with audio. I can tell you that only four parameters are needed to defineeverythingthat affects audio fidelity: Noise, frequency response, distortion, and time-based errors. But there are also subsets of these parameters.
Noiseis the background hiss from analog tape or electronic circuits. A close cousin isdynamic range, which defines the span (expressed in decibels) between the background noise and the loudest level possible before the onset of gross distortion. CDs and DVDs have a very large dynamic range, so any noise you hear is either from the original analog tape, was added as a byproduct during production, or was present in the room and picked up by the microphones when the recording was made. Subsets of noise are AC hum and buzz, electronic crackling, vinyl record clicks and pops, cross-talk between channels, and even windows that rattle and buzz at high volume levels.
Frequency responseis how uniformly an audio device passes a range of frequencies. Errors are heard as too much or too little bass, midrange, or treble. For most people, the audible range extends from about 20 Hz at the low end, to just shy of 20 KHz. Subsets of frequency response are physical microphonics, electronic ringing and oscillation, and acoustic ringing. These subsets are less necessary for consumers to understand, but they’re important to design engineers and acousticians.
Distortionis the common word for the more technical termnonlinearity, and it adds new frequency components that weren’t present in the original source. When music passes through a device that adds distortion, new frequencies are created that may or may not be pleasing to the ear. The design goal for high fidelity audio equipment is that all distortion be so low in level it won’t be heard. However, in some contexts a modest amount of distortion can sound pleasing, which is why phonograph records and tube-based electronics are still popular. Of course, distortion is tolerable and even desirable in guitar amplifiers, but that’s musiccreation, not high fidelity reproduction.
There are two basic types of distortion—harmonic and intermodulation—and both are usually present together. Harmonic distortion adds new frequencies that are musically related to the source. In layman terms, harmonic distortion adds a slightly thick or buzzy quality to music. All musical instruments create tones having harmonics, so harmonic distortion in a power amp merely changes the instrument’s character some amount.
Intermodulation (IM) distortion requires two or more frequencies to be present, and it’s far more damaging because it creates new content that’s not related musically to the original. Even a small amount of IM distortion adds a dissonant quality that can be unpleasant to hear. Another type of distortion is calledaliasing, and it’s unique to digital audio. Like IM distortion, aliasing creates new frequencies not harmonically related to the original, and so is unpleasant and irritating to hear. Fortunately, in most modern audio devices,alldistortions are too soft to hear.
Time-based errorsaffect mainly pitch and tempo. When the hole in an LP isn’t quite centered, you’ll hear the pitch rise and fall with each revolution. That’s calledwow. Analog tape recorders have a different type of pitch instability calledflutter. Unlike the slow pitch change of wow, flutter is more rapid giving a warbling effect. Digital audio has a unique type of timing deviation calledjitter, but with all modern sound cards jitter is so much softer than the music that you’ll never hear it.
Room acoustics could be considered a fifth audio parameter, but it really isn’t. Nearby room boundaries can create frequency response errors due to wave reflections combining in the air. Reflections can also create audible echoes and reverb, but those are time-based phenomenon that occur outside the equipment so they don’t warrant their own category either. Likewise, with power amplifiers, maximum output power is important. But that’s not related to fidelity—it merely defines how loudly the amplifier can play.
The above parameters encompasseverythingthat affects audio fidelity. If a device has noise and distortion too soft to hear, a response sufficient to uniformly accommodate the entire range of audible frequencies, and time-based errors too small to be heard, then that device will be transparent to music and other sound passing through it. However, clarity and stereo imaging are greatly affected by room acoustics. Without question, the room you listen in has far more effect on sound quality than any of the audio components.
One final myth I’ll address is the notion that there are aspects of audio that “science” doesn’t know about, or might miss when measuring. This too is easy to disprove using thenull test. A null test compares any two audio sources, and combines them at equal volume with the polarity of one source reversed. So as one wave goes positive the other is negative, thus canceling completely. After nulling the two sources, any residual signal that remains reveals their difference, and that includes artifacts you might not even think to look for. Nulling has been used to measure audio devices since the 1940s. If there really was some aspect of audio that was unknown, it would have shown up long ago in a null residual.
No story abouttheDancan be told without raising upRoger Nichols. Nichols won 4Grammyawards forBest Sound Engineeron fourSteely Danrecordings, three of which are studio albums worthy of an article on the art of sound engineering each on their own,Aja,Gaucho,andTwo Against Nature.Audiophiles rarely mention these albums in their lists of recordings they use to judge systems, but any one of these three are black book tools in judging the worth of a sound system.
And this is why I’ve chosen Steely Dan for a column usually given to influences in my musical life. Certainly the Dan was a heavy influence for me, being primarily a bass player and any music written or co-written by a bass player will have fat finger curls and dark turns through the spell of the swamp. But a constant lurking elephant in this fascinating band is the care and obsession with how the songs are recorded. Roger Nichols was undoubtedly their George Martin and as critical to the success of the art of their obsession as Martin’s was toThe Beatles.
From 1972 to 1980 Steely Danreleased 7 studio albums with varied success, ending withGauchoin 1980. They then went 20 years before sending upTwo Against Naturein 2000.Twowon three Grammy awards, Best Pop Vocal Album, Album of the Year, and Best Engineer Non-Classical for Roger Nichols. There was a lot of talk at the time that the Grammys were given more or less as lifetime achievement awards. In the 20 years betweenGauchoandTwo Against Naturethe Dan had become FM radio/classic rock darlings. You couldn’t listen for an hour without hearing something from these guys, and albums that were not commercially successful likeCountdown to Ecstasybecame must-listen material.
However. Any casual listen toTwoprovides an insight into this obsession with doing recordings over and over until the track is perfect. Walter Becker and Donald Fagen ( the main men of Dan) used 53 musicians in the studio and only 26 made the final cut including 6 drummers (featuring Vinnie Colaiuta and Ricky Lawson) and Amy Helm onwhistle. These guys were famous for laying down preliminary tracks, then bringing in drummer after drummer after drummer, then lead guitar after lead guitar after lead guitar, until they had the perfect cut. Didn’t matter if you were Larry Carlton, Lee Ritenour, or Hugh McCracken (all regular contributors). The end result was the divinity and commanded no indecision and brooked no appeal.
The astounding result is as spare as if there were four people in the studio. The attention to each instrument is palpable and perfect. Here is the first track offTwo, “Gaslighting Abbie”. This is a great example of the singular attention to each instrument as it builds from guitar/kick and cymbal/bass and adding as it goes. Pay attention to the attack of the snare when it comes in. You can hear the dynamic of the stick as it fwaps the snare head each time. As vocals are added the back vocals have a real percussive quality as does the horn arrangement. Throughout the recording you can hear each instrument with clarity and presence. Then a neat bass/piano break, followed by a filthy guitar solo by Becker. Ricky Lawson on drums and Tom Barney on a bass with a tone looking to mug you in a dark alley. Nothing lost and everything gained.
Shiver me timbers.
My first listen of a Dan song was in the spring of ‘73. I had begun a life of study at UConn the previous fall which quickly spiraled (upwards) into a series of freedom experiments that had less to do with attending classes and more to do with keg parties and the pursuit of the psychedelic bus. But I still had to maintain, and I ran through a series of student jobs that included wringing the necks of chickens and student union dishwashing. I clearly remember working in the dishroom on a clean spring afternoon when “Reelin’ In The Years”came on the radio. I hadn’t started playing guitar yet but I’d been listening plenty, and the opening guitar lick of that song got my full attention while the pots and pans Iwasworking on floated through the back door of my consciousness.
This song has been played so any times on classic rock stations I don’t have to put a copy here. Everyone who knows this song, and the licks of Elliott Randall, can hear every bar in their head. I believe this to be in the top 5 guitar solos ever recorded. This song is all over YouTube in various live versions but you will never hear it done quite with the same bite and tone as this studio version. Randall was an absolute monster and this captures his best moment.
The first Dan song I learned when I started playing bass was “Kid Charlemagne”.This tune fromTheRoyal Scamfeatures Bernard ‘Pretty’ Purdie on the kit and Chuck Rainey on bass. These two had done a lot of session work together prior to this track and it shows. The funk stunk up and down this cut, and Rainey’s bass was hot and added significantly to my chop shop. (Side Note 1: This song was inspired by Owsley Stanley, Grateful Dead sound man and LSD chemist extraordinaire). But my true favorite to play was not a heavily bass oriented cut. It was fromCountdown to Ecstasyand titled “My Old School”.
A semi-autobiographical track with memories from Becker and Fagen’s school days at Bard College in Annandale-On-Hudson (Side Note 2: Chevy Chase attended Bard at the same time and played drums in Becker/Fagen’s first band,the Leather Canary),the line-up was basically the original Dan band fromCan’t Buy a Thrillwith Becker still on bass. In the mid-70’s I was enamored with horn bands and loved, completely gator-boogied, playing with big horn bands. This particular band I was in,The Pass The Hat Band,had morphed drastically from doing country folk Jimmy Buffet/John Prine to getting more aggressive as we added more members, always looking to expand into more challenging material. This in fact broke the original band up as some originals either didn’t have the chops or didn’t dig the muse. We went from three acoustic guitars and bass to two electric guitars, bass, drums, percussion (RIP Rob Fried), piano and horns and started playing the stuff we were all loving at the time. And a perfect example was “My Old School”.
Playing that song live with a full band was the most fun I’d had outside the back seat of Mom’s Bonneville. The horn arrangement was a true percussive beauty, a classic specimen of the best a horn section can do. And we had a lead guitar player John Spencer who could play Skunk Baxter’s nasty solo perfectly. I came close to falling over every time we did this, it just knocked me out.
I’ve said this in another article, but you cannot experience getting to break open the bottle of a song quite like having to learn it to play live with great musicians. You discover all the little treasures a song like this tries to keep to itself. As great a song as “My Old School” is to listen to she still has her dirty little secrets that are revealed when you have to learn it and you’re dedicated to getting it right. One of the true pleasures of playing any instrument. We ended up playing a lot of great R&B material, including Otis/Blues Brothers arrangements of the greats/Little Feat/Tower of Power/Elvin Bishop, but “My Old School” was always my favorite. A slappin yer mother arrangement, right down to the vocals.
I’m trying to get tight with you that Steely Dan,despite only 9 albums in a 30 year span, are worth the study. From a pure musical journey to the obsessive studio work that produced some of the most interesting engineering ever done, this band, these guys, Becker, Fagen and Nichols created something that you overlook or dismiss at your jeopardy. Like an earlier article on Zappa, I had to cut this short for the column’s sake, but the study of how these songs were put together, whipped, worked, searched and stretched, then pushed back into the genie’s flask is a discovery of true art and a reward in itself. Join us at the edge of a grey lake where bodies surface like ghosts in a glass. Then do it again.
Ha. Got you. That was fromGaucho. Couldn’t resist.
[I hate to disagree with Woody, but when he says that audiophiles rarely mention Steely Dan albums… every true-blue audio geek I’ve ever known has had multiple copies ofAja, agonized over the awfulness of that remastered CD, hoped for the best from the new remaster, and yadda yadda yadda: all the trappings of a true fetish piece. Donald Fagen’s solo albumThe Nightfly, also recorded by Nichols, will be found on most of those same shelves, and “I.G.Y.” is often heard at audio shows. One final thing that I can’t resist: Jeff “Skunk” Baxter. Who else, in the history of rock ‘n’ roll, has gone from being a Steely Doobie to a well-respected authority onmissile defense,while still wearing that goat-roper ‘stache?!? It’s like something out ofBuckaroo Banzai. You couldn’t make this stuff up!—Ed.]
There are some brands that linger in the memory with a special fondness: I’ve previously said that ofWeathers, and it certainly applies toSpicaas well. Unbelievably enough, Spica closed up shop over twenty years ago, in 1995. Why are Spica’s products still sought-after, preserved, restored, and not just appreciated butappreciating, according toeBay?
I would say that Spica speakers (saythatten times fast!) offered more of the sense and shape of live music than anything remotely close to their price or size, combining cutting-edge acoustical and electrical design with an aesthetic unlike anyone else’s. Spica’s founder and designerJohn Bauoften used the term “two-channel holography” to describe the goal of his designs. Today, he whimsically explains the resurgence in brand interest: “[given] the former company’s association with the star in the constellation Virgo, it is not just coincidence that this little ‘surge of interest’ is happening just now… Jupiter is exactly conjunct Spica, and will remain so for another couple months…
“Spica is the star in the hand of the Virgin, associated historically with harvest time in the autumn. In mythology and star lore, some say she is holding shafts of wheat in her hand, the fruition of past labors. And some say she is holding a sickle or sword in her hand, to separate the wheat from the chaff. These images are what moved me to choose Spica as the name of the company.” [The photo atop this page shows the double star Spica below the Moon.–-Ed.]
Bau discussed the beginnings and aspirations of Spica in a lengthy 1988Stereophileinterviewwith John Atkinson. For me, the most striking aspect of the company’s origin and growth, as detailed in the interview, was the almost-offhand nature of it all. A musician, Bau became involved in recording at a number of studios around the country. In order to have a familiar monitor available to him at all times, Bau developed a neutral, portable speaker—the speaker that became the company’s first product, the squashed-cylinder SC-50.
If you think that story sounds familiar, you’re right: it’s the same path that recordist David Wilson followed in developing his WATT speaker as a portable monitor for recording. Continuing along the casual path, Bau played the speakers outside his home near Santa Fe, and began selling them to passers-by. Following a departure from the music world, Bau considered selling the speakers in larger numbers—but had little idea how to go about doing it.
For some reason, a friend told Bau, “you should talk to PS Audio.” Paul McGowan and Stan Warren suggested to Bau that he needed to show his speakers at CES—which Bau had never heard of. Long story short, he appeared at the summer CES in Chicago, 1979, and went home with 30 dealers signed up. It’s hard to imagine such a casual path to success taking place today.
A few years later, the wedgy TC-50 appeared, and was destined to become Spica’s best-selling product. Meticulously designed to make the most of good but relatively mundane drivers, the ’50’s soundstaging and imaging outclassed anything near its size or price. Along with the evergreen LS3/5A, the ’50 became the go-to speaker for serious music listeners with limited space. The ’50 continued in revised TC-50i form until the early ’90’s, with around 18,000 pair sold, according to Bau. Rave reviews fromIARandAudio, amongst others, kept the little speaker that could, popular. InStereophile‘s 40th Anniversary selection of100 Hot Products, the TC-50 is #75. A Servo Subwoofer was offered to flesh out the ’50’s low end, complete with an amplifier designed by the rascals at PS Audio.
Spica’s most elaborate and unusual product, the Angelus, was launched in 1988. Asymmetric and unlike anything else, the Angelus were the result of Bau’s extensive research into making the best $1000 speaker in the world. In his 1988reviewof the Angelus, John Atkinson wrote, “…the Angelus is not only the best speaker John Bau could design to sell for $1000, it is one of the best speakers I have heard…” The Angelus took the holographic sound of the TC-50 and did everything possible to improve imaging, linearity, bass…everything. The Angelus are still highly sought-after, and prices are climbing in the used market
.The least-angular Spica ever—aside from the boxy servo sub—was released in 1988. The SC-30 was “normal” looking, and was designed to play louder, lower, and higher than previous Spicas: a “party Spica”. In spite of that product definition, it was namedStereophile‘sBudget Product of the Yearin 1992., and was good value at $399/pair.
Entering the ’90’s, the two-channel audio market diminished, and that for home theater grew. Spica’s last product was the TC-60, clearly kin to the TC-50 but even taller and wedgier, and designed to be more dynamic. Bau sold Spica to Richard Schram’sParasound, and for a number of reasons, Spica was shut down in 1995. For 22 years now, Bau has worked in technical fields, but stayed away from audio.
Might he ever return? We’ll explore that and a million other topics in Copper #27, as I interview John Bau.
I’ve worked in tech fields most of my life: high-performance audio, racing engines, and medical imaging. In spite of that, I admit that in some ways I am aLuddite.
The term originally referred to mill-workers in 19th century England who destroyed weaving machines, fearing that such machines would eliminate their jobs (foreshadowing the robotized 21st century, no?). Meaning of the term has broadened through the years, and now refers to anyone who is resistant to technological change, with perhaps an implication that such a person is old-fashioned and out of touch. You know, like the look your kids give you when you can’t figure out how to download an app.
This year’s CES was overrun with self-driving cars (perhaps another verb would’ve been a better choice), drones, and products proclaiming their connectivity and connectedness. I’m not talking about computers or things that audio-types could view as being usefully connected to the internet, like music streamers. I’m talking about household appliances, cars, every damn thing you can possibly imagine.
Now, I grew up watchingThe Jetsonsas a kid. In the early ’60’s, the idea of automated houses and domestic robots seemed remotely possible, given the rate of technological advancement during the space race. Such things were viewed with a touch of whimsy, and an awareness that “smart” devices could, on occasion, work against their human masters.
AfterThe Jetsons, I grew up reading science fiction, and the dystopian warnings of Asimov’sI, Robothave always been in the back of my mind.
Fast-forward half a century to now. A friend told me that she had received an email from herdishwasher.Dishwasher said, “Help, my filter needs changing!!”
Pure and simple, thatfreaked me out. Who knew that dishwashers had filters?
All kidding aside, I’m both an introvert and a control freak, and there may be just a tiny,tinybit of OCD in the mix, as well. I don’t even like electrical outlets that are controlled by wall switches: give me the reassuring ka-CHUNK of a mechanical lamp switch or on/off button, any day. I also take my responsibilities wayyyy too seriously, and feel guilty when my dogs give me the stink-eye when I’m late feeding them. The last thing I want in my life are the kind of horrors presaged by that dishwasher, whereevery freaking device in my lifecan berate me for neglecting their needs.
This, friends, is the alleged glory of the connected universe, annoyingly dubbed the “Internet of Things”, or “IoT”. Read anything in the fields of consumer electronics or home integration over the last several years, and you’ll discover vital necessities like bathroom fans that can be turned on by an iPhone app even before you do your business. “Lack of enthusiasm” doesn’t even begin to describe my feelings for such things. Think somewhere between “bored disdain” and “extreme contempt”.
A few years ago thisWiredpiece gave an overview of the phenomena of the IoT, but if anything, it understated the level of connectedness that’s being pitched today. Later that year, the darling-of-the-moment of connected tech, theNestthermostat, sold to Google/Alphabet for $3.2 Billion–that’s with a “B”. A couple years later, reality has set in, the CEO was dismissed, and the corporate equivalent of “what the hell were we thinking??”has set in. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to not gloat.
Did I mention that I might be the teensiest bit paranoid, as well? Having seen the FBI bugging mobsters’ Cadillacs via theOn Starsystem, I predicted that wholeAlexa-bugthing ages ago. And in the near future, every guest at theWynnhotel will be blessed by/subjected to that level of non-privacy. Yippee.
So, that’s my take on this whole IoT deal. I’d be happy if it went the way of another tech non-event,3D TV—but that seems unlikely. I’m not as tech-averse as Jay Leno’s parents—who put a remote control in a drawer because they “didn’t want to start a fire”—but it has taken me a while to appreciate some of the benefits of computer-based audio and a few other developments we now take for granted. Maybe you’re a fan of the IoT. If so, that’s fine.
Me? I just don’t need a single thing more in my life telling me what I’m doing wrong. I may be a masochist, but even I have my limits.
When I was 17, I discovered the compositional style called Minimalism.
I remember the moment very well. It was 1974, the spring of 11thgrade, and my mother was downstairs teaching Hungarian to a student. I put on what had become my favorite radio show (remember them? Sort of like a podcast but meant for thousands, rather than “personal”) –– “Diaspar”[1], on Philadelphia’s University of Pennsylvania FM station, WXPN. I recall that the subtitle was “Energy Music”, though that might be wrong.
Out of my Sony tape recorder speakers flowed this tone cluster of dense pianos — pulsing, gently hammering. I was dumbstruck. I had never heard anything like it — it was as if I was awash in a pointillist mist of slowly-evolving sound.
Suddenly, the sound of a great beast came thumping up my house’s stairs, and my mom’s (somewhat tall) student burst into my room: “I didn’t know you likedSteve Reich!” “Is that what this is? Who’s Steve Reich?” I suppose everyone has a moment of discovery of something that hits him or her like this (minus the large student).
I listened for the next 15-or-so minutes, rapt. The piece was announced as“Six Pianos”[2]on the just-released 3-record Deutsche Grammophone set calledDrumming[3], and as soon as I could, I was in Philly and hunting for it. I can even remember when I found it – it was a major score.
I had been vaguely aware of a form of art music that wasn’t exactly modern classical, that wasn’t any form of rock or jazz, that used electric instruments unashamedly (like I did). And here it was, fully formed, in Reich’s album. The piece “Drumming”, played out over 4 LP sides, is a study in phase music, in which each of the sections (tuned bongos; marimbas and women’s voices; glockenspiels, whistler and piccolo), featuring gradually increasing numbers of players, articulates the pattern, until by the 4th section, it’s all there. (Yes, it takes a while.) Let me turn to the Wiki page on the record, for an explanation of phasing:“The piece employs Reich’s trademark technique ofphasing[4]. Phasing is achieved when two players, or one player and a recording, are playing a single repeated pattern in unison, usually on the same kind of instrument. One player changes tempo slightly, while the other remains constant, and eventually the two players are one or several beats out of sync with each other. They may either stay there, or phase further, depending on the piece.”
So what I heard on “Six Pianos” was exactly that, spelled out on pianos. This turns out to be a little bit of genius — an elegant example of how to layer an ultimately complex texture from fairly simple materials. His “Music for Mallet Instruments, Voices and Organ” (the 6thside of the album), is, like the 4thsection of “Drumming” likewise taking these same thoughts out into a more full scoring. And his rescoring of “Six Pianos” as “Six Marimbas” was an inspired choice (I can recall listening to the LP in the late 80s through a Moscode Super-IT phono preamp — it was noisy, it was imprecise, but man, was it holographic!)
I’m unsure as to whether it takes a certain inner ear to hear beauty in this kind of music — certainly, there’s something akin in this to Indian music; a sense of motion within stillness. I just know that I hear it like I hear little else. I heard Indian music at 10 (as I wrote early last year) and thought, “Aha! Music IS art!” I heard the minimalists at 17 and knew the truth of the idea.
As I write this I’m listening to an early 70s release on Shandar ofFour Organs / Phase Patterns[5]. There’s something about hearing raw sound, spooled out over time; an appealing texture, and little else — the context IS the content, and vice-versa. Listen to Shem Guibbory’s transcendent take on “Violin Phase, for violin and tape (or 4 violins)” on ECM[6], written in 1967 and recorded in 1980.
Reich would (of course slowly) evolve in his compositions to embrace full orchestra (“The Desert Music, for small chorus and large orchestra”, 1984) and more complex content, like “Nagoya Marimbas, for 2 marimbas” (1994) — without losing anything of his signature identity. The third part of his “New York Counterpoint (for clarinet, bass clarinet and tape)”(1985) gets a jaunty stride going – you can feel the pulse of Manhattan in it — but it’s composer is unmistakable.
If you’ve read this far, the most effective way to get a lot of his work is to acquire the 10-disc setWorks 1965-1995[7], though you’ll still have a few holes. Also of special note is the recent high-resolution release by percussionist Kuniko Kato on Linn Records,Kuniko Plays Reich[8].
Do I seem like a fan boy? I am (that’s the virtue of having a column in which I get to wax enthusiastic about whatever I want). At my 1994 wedding, we closed the ceremony with the composer’s “Tehillim”, his setting of Hebrew psalms[9]. I’ll discuss how weopenedthe ceremony, next time.
[1]The name comes from Arthur C. Clarke’s “The City and the Stars”
Okay, we’ve done some work withRhythmandMelody. Time to tackle Style, right?
Maybe not. Style iswaymore complicated. When we talk about style in classical music, we’re referring to a music’s particular way of presenting itself—hi, I’m Handel, not Mendelssohn. Or,I’m Romantic, not Classic.Experienced listeners can tell, often in 30 seconds or less, when something’s by Fauré and not Saint-Saëns. But to explain it? We pick the wings off that butterfly only by discussingcombinationslike phrase length, texture, melodic structure, timbral emphases, overall form, and more. (The precise technical language for this isit all depends.)
It’s not about memorizing a checklist of characteristics and then applying them. Real style from real musicians sometimes offers as many violations as confirmations. The best way (painless, organic, social) to develop style consciousness is by listening to music—alotof music—with a friend and then discussing what you heard. For example:
00:00 / 01:30
What did we hear? Solo piano. Regular march-like rhythms; a firm accompanimental “drum bass”; in the right hand a sprightly tune; in 10 seconds a strong, simple cadence; then an immediate repeat of the cadential phrases. But, in lieu of a second strong cadence, the music breaks off to launch a new tune: flowing scale passages launched with grace notes, already present in the first tune but now energizing the scales. Thesepassaggiare repeated and varied, leading to extended play that ends with another simple cadence—much simpler than the first—at 35”. Now comes another new tune, the one you’ll remember, even though it’s little more than a quick triadic flourish. This new tune sounds even fresher than it otherwise might, because at the end of the first theme group’s extended play wemodulatedto a new tonal center. This music now leads into further play. Following that, the whole section draws to a close with an extended series of cadential phrases. At 1’17” the music literally starts over; we hear an exact repeat of everything we’ve heard so far. (That’s customary for theexposition.)
How much of this matters? It depends. The man who created this piece lived in a culture that expected music to appeal to both connoisseurs and amateurs. Amateurs might have been amused by that mock-pompous first cadence, or delighted by the second theme’s colorful flourish. Connoisseurs may have enjoyed the way the composer mixed, matched, and transformed bits of material to create those extended-play areas, including various fiddlings with the “drum bass” motive throughout the movement (seeherefor the whole piece). The more you listen, the more you hear. (One of the reasons I like this music is that its themes behave as if they were making conversation in a Jane Austen novel.)
We have been listening to Joseph Haydn’s Sonata No. 44 in F (Hob. XVI:29), written in 1774, relatively early in the Classic Era. It comes with Haydn’s fingerprints all over it. I’ve described a few of them above: simple themes, frequent repetition, clear sections, predictable overall narrative (sonata form) but full of little surprises, like raisins in a pudding. A charming new album from pianist Einav Yarden (Challenge Classics CC72742;SACDandDSD download) features six such sonatas from the 1770s. I got a kick out of hearing them, partly because they don’t get as much public play as Haydn’s later piano works. Well done, Einav!
Here’s something quite different:
00:00 / 01:46
Solo clarinet and string quartet, a combination used by Mozart and Brahms. Long-breathed, lyrical melodic lines. A“sigh” motive that pervades the theme’s repeated fragments, rounding off the first section before a second, more urgent theme takes over. It’s tonal, with aching, slightly dissonant harmonies in its pungent cadences and other phrase endings. They sound familiar. Brahmsian, perhaps, but emotionally more generous while providing less in the way of development. The music encourages us to relax, to luxuriate in its timbral beauty, its nostalgia and regret. Form is obviously not as important as feeling.
This isSouvenirs de voyage,the final concert work from American composer Bernard Herrmann (1911–75). Its style? Neo-Romantic, for sure. Like fellow neo-Romantics Erich Wolfgang Korngold and Dimitri Tiomkin, Herrmann was better known for his film music. There he brought a command of Romantic language not only to main-title music but also to the art of underscoring, i.e., telegraphing the emotional thrust of a film scene to a mass audience. Those pungent cadences may have made you think of Kim Novak and James Stewart: somewhere in the soft-focus distance, she wanders; he watches.Souvenirsis brought to us by clarinetist Michel Lethiec and the Fine Arts Quartet in an enjoyable new album (Naxos8.559796) that includes another clarinet quintet, David Del Tredici’sMagyar Madness,originally commissioned by klezmer-mad clarinetistDavid Krakauer. Live performances, enthusiastically received by the audience.
Finally:
00:00 / 01:43
Whoa! Obviously Modern. The orchestra seems to be tuning up, trying to establish a tonic note, a beacon in the fog. But what’s that instrument raising its own distinctive tone? Inching up towards E-flat from the ensemble D, its keening voice calls out so forcefully that the half-step between D and E-flat seems to stretch a half-mile. Then down it goes,beyond D, to D-flat.And back up. Gradually the orchestra finds its voice too, dispersing and regrouping with all manner of glissandi, buzz tones, stings, stutterings, fusillades, toccatas. Through it all, the solo instrument continues its incantations.
This isMana,a one-movement concerto for bassoon and orchestra by Sebastian Fagerlund (b. 1972), played by the Lahti SO under Okko Kamu (BIS-2006;SACDanddownload). The intrepid bassoonist is Bram van Sambeek, who poses with his instrument, sporting Chuck Taylors, a biker jacket, and a smirk. I’d smirk too, if I could play the bassoon like that.
Let’s wield a checklist on this one. Fagerlund’s style is recognizably Modern because (1) the bassoon is asked to execute difficult technical passages and new techniques unheard of a hundred years ago; (2) the relationship between soloist and orchestra is fluid, not locked into roles assumed by Tchaikovsky, Bruch, or Brahms; (3) although this music’s harmonic language is not pointedly “atonal,” its pitch combinations, tension-and-release patterns, and counterpoint don’t follow the rules generally evident in Vivaldi or Barber. From Kimmo Korhonen’s excellent liner notes: “Here the soloist is a powerful, shamanistic figure. . . . at times a magnificent virtuoso, elsewhere meditative, as if fallen into a trance. . . . Like a mediator between reality and the spirit world, with his gestures [he] opens up new worlds for the orchestra.” Good to know.
The album’s other major offering is a 2004Concerto for Bassoon and Orchestraby Kalevi Aho (b. 1949). It’s a substantial four-movement work in more conservative style by a well-established member of Finland’s flourishing music community. His works, including his many concertos, have been praised in this space before. By rights this piece deserves as much or more attention asMana.If you get this recording (and you should!) you’ll probably return to Aho’s piece more often than Fagerlund’s. Both have received top-notch treatment from BIS. Here is a bit of the Vivace:
00:00 / 01:28
I’ll be back in two weeks with more thoughts about Style, Style Disrupters, and Style Aggregators.
Choosing a selection results in a full page refresh.
Opens in a new window.
We care about your privacy
We use cookies and similar technologies to provide the best experience on our website.
Privacy Policy