Preservation of the arts

November 1, 2021
 by Paul McGowan

Our former director of engineering, Dave Pannanen, hand carves wooden spoons—a little-known skill handed down over generations of Pannanens. He whittles away in the quiet evening hours crafting gorgeous works of art. He is keeping alive an art form.

Some art forms are worth preserving. Take, for example, the art of crafting master recordings.

The heyday of master recordings began blossoming in the 1930s: a time when the UK’s Abbey Road Studios was first formed; and into the 1950s when record companies built great monuments to their art forms, like the Capital Records Building; and into the 1960’s and early 70’s with the opening of Hendrix’s Electric Lady Studios in New York City.

Of course, those were the standouts. There were hundreds more, each devoted to honoring the art of the recording, capturing the souls of both music and the artists that crafted it.

And like most art forms, over time it morphed from art to an industrialized production line model where masters were replaced with expendable cogs.

And it is at this point where art becomes a commodity, paint by numbers, no longer expressing the essence of human creative skill and imagination.

But, over time, we miss our art. And if enough people miss something the pendulum sometimes swings back in the other direction.

Small groups of people look to revive that which once touched our souls.

This is why Octave Records exists: Not to relive the past and all of its weaknesses (tape, low dynamic range, limited frequency response), but to honor the intent of the masters: To make recordings and capture music in all its glory by stretching the state of the art in the hopes of building a new standard.

The arts that matter—the ones that reach deep into our souls—are the ones worth preserving.

Subscribe to Paul's Posts

51 comments on “Preservation of the arts”

  1. Wow Paul; that was a moving post…really!
    I’ve spent my day listening to 7 or 8 CD’s through my new SA-12SE that converts everything to DSD before it brings it back to analogue & the resulting ‘everything aural’…dynamics, clarity, transparency, soundstage, etc, (Oh God, look who I’m telling) has just blown my f mind &
    then you go & write a post like that..I nearly cried.
    Kudos to you my friend.

    1. I think it speaks volumes that Marantz did not sell the SA-12 in the USA, only the more expensive SA-10. The SA-12 was I think initially a special edition for Japan and was then released in Europe, proving a success with die-hard disc spinners.

      I recall reading that, besides using their latest transport, a major innovation was to use extensive galvanic isolation to separate the transport and DAC, improving the performance as a disc spinner and making it a very good DAC option for those people spinning only the occasional disc. Basically, two isolated devices in one box. It seemed to me good thinking, both technically and for marketing purposes, giving it wider appeal.

      1. Yes Steven, you are correct.
        Apparently they have a few Marantz – ‘SA-KI Ruby’s left in The States…
        Theo’s after one.
        All of the allotted KI Ruby’s are gone down here; only SA-12’s & SA-10’s
        are available now.
        The 10’s have a recommended retail price of AU$11k, whereas the 12’s
        are AU$6k…I got mine for AU$4k 😉

        1. The SA-10 launched the new transport and was a no-holds-barred machine with loads of copper shielding etc. As they were selling the transport OEM (including latterly to PSA), I assume they wanted to make the best machine as well, but it was expensive. The SA-12 and the success of the new 30n have proven the popularity of multi-function digital devices, spinning discs, as a standalone DAC and now with streaming included.


      I was not sure where your prior posts were headed.Now I know for sure. You really went big time with this piece of equipment. Congratulations! Wishing you thousands of hours of Super Quality digital music. Keep us posted.

    3. FT, when I saw this comment, I went looking for an SA-12SE..
      Lots of options for purchasing from Japan, or even AU – with the associated premium, and the risks involved.

      Previously, I had purchased a Denon DVD-A110 Anniversary Edition – I actually ordered one, but the supplier had their inventory mixed up, so I ended up receiving a silver graphite one. We cross-shopped twice, and the 3rd one was still silver – at 47 pounds shipping cost got stupid, but they paid return each time. I found an open box DVD-1600 which is stunning, but will be my interim player until I can sort out what to do.
      The Denon had all I wanted…

      1. Hi JW,
        As long as you’re happy with the sound sir.
        And I’m assuming that you are 😀

        *Interestingly the same weight as my SA-12SE
        & by the looks of that open disc drawer; the
        same SACDM-3 drive unit.

  2. More off topic than usual.

    Lexicographers at the Oxford English Dictionary have chosen vax as the word of the year 2021.
    The vacuum cleaner manufacturer of the same name must be delighted 🙂

  3. Spoon carving is not dead yet. Visit Barn the Spoon’s shop in Shoreditch, get his book, watch his videos or join his spoon carving club. Apparently he founded an international spoon carving festival called Spoonfest.

    Likewise, I think the recording industry is as strong as it’s ever been with a huge amount of talent out there with a boom in independent recording studios. The fundamental change has been streaming, because it gets rid of the need for a recording contract with a record company, you can go to an independent studio, hire an engineer and release your music on Bandcamp.

    I know next to nothing about DSD as it completely passed me by, as it did virtually everyone. I believe it failed commercially because of Sony’s digital rights management and because multi-channel audio facilitated by SACD was a flash in the pan (too many speakers and cables).

    I just see Octave as repeating what Linn Records did 20 years ago. They produced world class recordings using DSD for over a decade, winning numerous prestigious awards, and were the largest user of the SACD format. As I mentioned the other day, their chief engineer was made a Visiting Professor of Recording at the Royal Academy of Music, to foster the relationship between the musical talent and technology, funded with several million dollars. Ultimately they reverted to 24/192 as their standard.

    DSD may be a standard for some audiophiles, and it’s fine if that is a sustainable business, but it seems extremely wishful thinking to expect the music industry to accept as a standard a format that is not streamed, the vast majority of recording studios are not equipped to produce, is near impossible to edit in native form, almost no one has equipment to play back, relies on two pressing plants globally and is fiendishly expensive.

    I wish Octave well, but I cannot see it being anything other than an audiophile bubble, using a format that the music industry ignored for good commercial reasons two decades ago.

    1. Hello Steven,

      You’re back on to your DSD rant. You state you know next to nothing about DSD as it passed you by, and you assume almost no one has the playback equipment. Thus you draw the conclusion that DSD is BS and use the same examples over and over as proof. So in the realm of reality how many threw their DVD players away? CD’s themselves are now a relic. How many people want to devote the cash for the cost of Proper Vinyl playback and the storage of a large vinyl collection?

      I won’t disagree with your premise of why DSD hasn’t been a commercial success. (Say Beta Max)
      That doesn’t mean DSD shouldn’t be pursued. The fact that your beloved Linn Records settled on a a 192 format (as did you) probably has more to do with business than technical superiority.

      You don’t want anything to do with DSD so it comes across that you believe no one else should either. It seems to me what you despise about it the most is the price.

      As far as streaming goes, the overall convenience of it is slowly going to eliminate the need and desire for any physical media. Why not the rant against any kind of player that spins? What a waste of the earth resources for the ‘privileged’ few.

      Maybe the DSD recording process is not worth most peoples consideration especially since some of that process (at least at Octave) still relies on tape. Maybe immersive audio is just a fad also. Maybe the best purpose of DSD is for archival and restoration of what ever old recordings remain after fires and deterioration…
      Then again the latest trend seems to be that history is being changed or at least ignored to spare human feelings, so why save anything?

      In the end there seems to be niche markets for virtually everything. Participate in them or not. Stomp on the ones you don’t like. Why not a rant on spoon carving?

      Many have a belief in the DSD format, Whether it be for playback, recording, or archiving. Time will tell, and who knows, maybe it’ll go the way of Betamax…. Those who have taken the time to listen to DSD on equipment designed specifically for DSD have noticed a difference and enjoy it.

        1. Barsley,

          I’ll agree with your comment. I will say that walking into any given unknown set-up that the differences become extremely hard to pick out between formats. On the other hand listening to the same system (especially for long duration listening times) the differences can become noticeable. IMO and experience.

          What I was talking about was much more rooted in generalities. Some people hate tubes, some people hate horns, some people think anything audio is a waste of time. Yet niche inside of niche all exist in the world of audio. At some point they all have some degree of profitably due to that niche demand. So rather than condemn based on what an individual perceives as mass market demand potential stop trying to burst bubbles and let the niche succeed or fail.

          Maybe the UN should add an audio body and dictate world wide rules as to what is acceptable or not in the world of audio.

    2. You may be right, Steven, but I fear you’ve missed the point. Our aim is not to change the world. Not to have others follow in our footsteps with respect to technology, but rather as a beacon of light to help set a reference point. A standard from which those who care can move towards.

      Linn is a great example. They’ve done (and continue to do) great work. Ours is another voice with more of a technical voice to it. I do hope we can craft a new recording standard that the few who care will be able to take advantage of, but certainly, I do not expect the industry to follow us. That would seem a fool’s errand.

      Somewhere in all endeavors, there needs to be a guiding light of what’s desirable and possible. We’d like to add our voice to that.

      1. Paul,

        That is very nice but it is just your opinion. I don’t know of any evidence that supports the “inherent” superiority of DSD over PCM. It doesn’t exist, it does only in the opinions of some people.

        But there are great recordings of music made with even simple settings. You have to focus on the music and not the system. I was amazed at a version in the NPR Tiny Desk (at home) from Ed Sheeran. Make it Rain sounds fabulous. Even on Youtube. The balance of singing, instruments and back up singers is terrific. Live. All together.

        It is more about the person behind the knobs and that does the set up than the equipment itself. If you have to concentrate too hard to listen or find any potential differences, then you are not enjoying the music. Is this about the music or the “toys”?

        1. Carlos, I don’t know that it’s in the spirit of community to suggest “it doesn’t exist”.

          Maybe try softening your approach just a bit. I know I say it does, something that is clearly obvious in a blind listening test, but to say it “doesn’t exist” I think is counterproductive.

          1. Paul, I don’t ask this to doubt what you said, in contrary I generally believe in the superiority of DSD against PCM.

            But, what is a suitable setup to compare DSD to PCM?

            I think a DAC that converts both to DSD isn’t.
            I think a DSD DAC against a completely different non DSD DAC isn’t either.

            How can it be meaningfully compared in a studio or at home?

            1. It’s a good question, Jazznut. Here we have of course the DS that does convert everything first to 50 bit long upsampled PCM and then through an SDM into DSD. There’s no question how much better DSD sounds.

              We also have the Meitner DACs which do not change everything to DSD and the results are the same.

              So the test we are doing is recording from a microphone feed into a DAC outputting 192/24 PCM and a DAC outputting DSD 64. Then comparing the sound of the two to see what levels of details are preserved and which are ignored.

              1. Thanks Paul, so if I understood correctly and there’s no Meitner DAC which does both, DSD and non converted PCM, then you compared the DS to a Meitner DAC with two different formats. It seems there’s no other way.

            2. As a beginning basis, one simple experiment would be to record the same source onto a Tascam or Korg Digital recorder that formats in both PCM & DSD and then compare the two formats on playback.

              1. Yes, something like this I expected as preconditions, as otherwise everyone comparing formats, also compares different DACs in each case, too, with differences in characteristics that may be related to the DACs rather than the format.

              2. I have a TASCAM hi-res digital recorder and have done needle drops of the same vinyl track in redbook, 24/48, 24/96, 24/192 and DSD. The unit has a toggle button that allows you to go between hearing the source or recorded. To my ears there is no real difference between redbook ( CD ) and 24/48 ( I mostly listen to rock, if you listen to classical there may be a difference ). The biggest difference is between 24/48 and 24/96. The doubling of the sample rate makes the music sound so much clearer. There is further improvement when you go to 24/192 but it is not as noticeable as the first doubling. There is a difference between 24/192 and DSD but it is hard to say what the difference is until you go back to the source. Comparing DSD to the source it is essentially identical. DSD comes very, very close to analog sound.

          2. Paul,
            I am sorry you took it this way. My point is that there is no controlled evidence of the superiority of DSD over PCM. The only apparent superiority is in open testing. Not blinded.

            And to Jazznut, of course, there are properly designed methods to make these comparisons. You just have to make sure that the voltage coming out of the two DACs, whether DSD to analog or PCM to analog are identical. There are other things to make sure it remains blinded. It is complicated and this is why people prefer their subjective methods.

            1. Aside of the voltage thing I think it makes no sense to compare two completely different DAC designs while comparing two formats. Or to compare two formats with one DAC design, but both internally converted to DSD.

              1. There are inherently two DAC designs. One converts from DSD to analog and the other converts from PCM to analog. You just get the signal from the microphones to the two recorders, one in DSD the other in PCM. Then you play the two signals.

                Of course, it is not easy. Doing this correctly is always going to be complicated. But if the superiority were so obvious, then the DSD manufacturers would have done this multiple times.

                The overwhelming difference in sound quality of recordings is due to the microphone choices, their positioning and the mixing. The rest is just random. And remember, it is virtually impossible to edit in DSD unless you do a conversion to PCM in between. And as you know, most recordings these days have lots of studio manipulation. These cannot be done in DSD. This clearly limits the ability of modern music makers if they want to use pure DSD.

                1. Re. Editing:
                  Yes, I understood analog editing is definitely superior to PCM editing, which is why Paul does it.

                  I also struggle with the usual PCM editing of DSD recordings and why it doesn’t reset everything to PCM quality.

                  Does analog editing limit things again to analog standard? I guess no, but why? So much to ask and answer to really understand simple claims. But most are fine without understanding deeper or already understood;-)

  4. Mike, in 1979 16/44 PCM on 120mm discs was set as a standard for CD. PCM has remained the standard coding for 40 years and is used for 100% of lossless music. About 1% is also issued on DSD. SACD passed me by, DSD did not. I did try DSD, I bought a DSD player, some downloads, and then sold it. My current device converts DSD to 40/384 PCM, which is close to 30/384 DXD, what many DSD releases start at or are edited in.

    I have no doubt that DSD will remain for some time, also on SACD if the two factories survive, but as a niche. What I find extreme wishful thinking is that it does so “in the hopes of building a new standard”. It’s been tried and failed. I refer to Linn because no one tried harder than Linn to make it succeed. They had already built over 20 years a successful record label with a superb roster of artists before SACD emerged in the early 2000s.

    I have no idea what record companies in the USA pursued SACD/DSD, but it speaks volumes that SACDs can no longer be made in the USA.

    I just take exception to the idea that Octave has some unique pool of talent who know how to record music and no one else does, like it’s the last remaining spoon-maker.

    I have never criticised the sound quality of DSD, I just think the idea of it becoming some an industry standard and that a significant number of people beyond a few thousand audiophiles will all of a sudden adopt it is just in the land of the fairies.

    The irony is that 16/44 is once again reasserting itself as the standard amongst music distributors after MP3 and AAC started to dominate 15 years ago. I would be more concerned for 24 bit PCM, because the numbers of people who are actually willing to pay for it are incredibly small.

    1. Steven,

      All your points are fine and understood. Lossless recordings were a way to get more music into a compact environment based on the technology available. Then the abuse of distribution became the norm again based on technology.

      While it may appear that 16/44.1 is the ‘standard’ again, that may have more to do with the fact that bandwidths for streaming have expanded. I notice more and more recordings being done in 24 bit formats with pricing being very similar to standard cd prices, (For downloads). As far as streaming goes, 24 bit may become the norm if demand persists and studios / home recordings upgrade their systems as the older technology fails and becomes harder to replace.

      Like you I never joined the SACD ‘group’. When I say DSD I refer to files in that format for some form of computer playback.

      So if the future of music playback depends on having physical media it may all go away. If it depends on streaming then those services will ultimately dictate what survives and becomes main stream.

      So we’ll see where it all falls out. In the mean time settle on what best fits you and your vision.

      1. So much of the thinking here seems to be in the audiophile bubble, which is not what drives the music industry. My observation is that other for classical and jazz, a lot of HD is 24/44 PCM, because the bit depth increase from 16 to 24 is what impacts dynamic range (for those who consider 16 bit insufficient). 24/96 PCM seems to be the marker for classical and jazz as the current balance between technical requirements and practicality. It seems that many classical labels use 24/96 PCM for their masters, 24/192 seems to be very much the exception.

        Outside of the audio bubble, I suspect the introduction of lossless Bluetooth audio will be a game changer, the streaming platforms are going lossless, but it will require people to get new wireless headphones and phones with the required Bluetooth chip. It was only announced a month ago, will be available this year, so it may take a few years to become commonplace.

        This may benefit the HiFi business if people get used to listening to music over wireless headphones with greater dynamic range.

        If you read Qualcomm’s recent Snapdragon press release, there is a pent-up demand for lossless streaming. So if this all works out, increased demand for better should quality will be driven by the mass market with wireless lossless enabled devices.

        I have discarded my DVD machine and have an immersive sound and light system (20 speakers so far). I use it with Alexa, which I can use to control other things, like my alarm system, soon my blinds and turn on the coffee machine. In a few months the bezels of the lights will include a microphone so I don’t need an Alexa Dot or phone handy. Peleton seems to be putting gyms out of business. Like it or not, people like things that make their life easy and it is not at the expense of quality. Usually the products have to be better, not just more convenient.

        1. Hard not to agree that audiophiles don’t run the music industry even though they wish they could ?!
          They are a unique breed who value equipment and playback as much as music itself. Formats are a small part of that.
          Once a new generation values lossless as the best way / format to listen to, then it will become the norm.

          It’s all about convenience 1st and then overall quality.

          As far as home automation goes I’m old school enough to run appliances, blinds and the rest without smart device help. To me it adds more complexity to something that was easily done with a minimal human intervention. Plus living out in the country reliable internet service and electrical power can be a challenge at times. So automation can easily become a hindrance.

          1. Yes, to gain simplicity (of convenience) it seems we need to add complexity. Back to cars I’m afraid. There’s just too many options and choices available. “What colour would you like the footwell lighting sir?” I can’t say it’s something I’ve ever really thought about. I’m just happy to have a footwell and not a rusting patchwork of holes like some cars of the 60’s. Convenience great, but where do we draw the line? The less to go wrong the better.

            1. There’s hitting the nail on the head Richtea

              convenience of operation to make the mundane more simple to operate.
              That is until the technology fails for what ever reason and the morning cup of coffee or tea isn’t ready on cue. God forbid a person would have to know how to bowl water over an open flame….. 🙂

              So technology is a double edge sword. It moves society along until it fails….(either society or the device 😀 )

        2. Good points. I think that 24/44 will be the set up as most recording use 24 for dynamic range. When people talk about higher resolution, they do so with the assumption they can pick them in blind conditions. That is not necessarily so. Even if Paul doesn’t “like” to do ABX, this is how you can really tell.

          I have said many times before that new technologies will make the “traditional” audiophile equipment obsession disappear. Personally, I don’t have any issue with light switches. Our home is only limited in integration. Mostly sprinklers, entry ring and heating/cooling. The rest are stand alone. No Alexa telling Putin what we are listening or watching.

          There will always be people obsessed with the toys, I get that, but toys are not the superiority. It is how we use them that matters. You can have a Lamborghini and be a bad driver.

  5. I will never forget the day that I walked into Red Rose Music, a short-lived Mark Levinson attempt to bring out a new line of audio equipment and to introduce the Sony Phillips SACD format. When he played me the red rose sampler CD It was one of those rare jaw dropping moments in my life and I was fortunate enough for Mark to hand me one of the last copies that he had as a gift. Every once in a while I will pull it out of my collection and play it in complete silence still not believing my ears. This recording was an ethereal attempt as IMO a success at true art.

  6. I will never forget the day that I walked into Red Rose Music, a short-lived Mark Levinson attempt to bring out a new line of audio equipment and to introduce the Sony Phillips SACD format. When he played me the Red Rose sampler CD it was one of those rare jaw dropping moments in my life and I was fortunate enough for Mark to hand me one of the last copies that he had. Every once in a while I will pull it out of my collection and play it in complete silence still not believing my ears. This recording was an absolute success at creating a true work of art.

    The only thing I can say to you Paul is to never give up improving this format based on what I heard over 20 years ago. I believe you already got off to a great start but there is always more refinement ahead.

    FYI: Much of this music was recorded at Red Rose by having the musicians travel to his Eastside NYC location.

  7. I enjoyed “Out of Thin Air” and am all for high end CD recordings. Last week I attended Toronto’s Audiofest where I met Montreal based jazz artist, Anne Bisson. I purchased two of her ultimate high quality CDs. These CDs were made in Japan and use FORS master sound. The CDs sound superb – very natural and detailed. Are you familiar with Q-Tec’s recording process? How does it compare to your high end recordings? Are we likely to see a rebound in CD sales as the recording and mastering process improves?

  8. I’ve recorded at Capitol. That building just oozes musical history. From the awards and album covers on the walls to never knowing who might be in the next studio. Good times.

  9. Most of you know by now that I have a digital pipe organ that utilizes a computer program called Hauptwerk, which allows hi-rez samples of pipes of organs from around the world to be “played” real time with MIDI-capable keyboards/pedalboards, and with virtual consoles that replicate the original organ console controls, including stop tabs/knobs, combination actions, division volume modulation and other settings.

    When Hauptwerk first came out over 20 years ago (a time when some of us were making our own musical samples on very expensive rudimentary samplers with limited RAM), recorded stereo samples were typically no more than 44.1 kHz 16-bit PCM–standard CD quality. In those days for a medium sized three-manual organ you had to have a (then whopping and astronomically priced) computer RAM of 4 to 6 GB, and the samples had to be kept relatively short and reverb tails truncated. Even so, the sound was exceedingly convincing, enough to draw me into the program and start building my digital pipe organ system around it. Today most Hauptwerk organ samplings are 48 and 96 kHz 24-bit, which is much more realistic. Medium sized three-manuals at that sample rate and resolution requires 18 to 24 GB at a minimum (up to 40 GB or more for the largest organs), especially with multiple release samples per pipe and separate recordings for pipes played with tremolo, and very long sample tails in cathedrals with several seconds of reverb time. The higher sampling rates, longer sampling loops and reverb tails demand not only vastly more RAM but also much faster computer processing power. Just think of having instantaneously available several seconds-long hi-rez recordings of thousands of individual organ pipes recorded with different touches (staccato, medium, legato) from different locations in the recording space. That’s what Hauptwerk does. Moreover, many pipes are recorded more than once to capture the random variability of pipe speech, since a pipe does not sound identically each time it is played. The number of samples and sampling rates will probably become even higher as RAM becomes cheaper and computer processing speed becomes even faster.

    As the sampling rates became higher and higher over the years, I had to continually upgrade my audio system to take advantage of the increased resolution. Now everything matters even more: the computer, the sound card (I use an externally linearly powered Faun I2s module), the DAC with I2s input, the amps and the loudspeakers. Even the cables makes a huge difference in how realistic the organ sounds, particularly in the replication of the complex acoustics. As the reverb is recorded and reproduced with finer detail, the equipment and cables need to be able to render that accurately. While most “audiophiles” upgrade their systems for higher resolution streaming and disc formats, I am doing essentially the same thing when I upgrade for the playback of Hauptwerk organ pipe samples.

    Most organ sample sets now come with six channels, each miked from a different location in the hall. The program allows the sound of each channel to be sent to separate dedicated speakers, or mixed for one or two pairs of stereo speakers. This means you can hear the pipes as they would sound close to the console or alternatively at different locations out in the concert hall or nave.

    My digital pipe organ has been the driver of my audio quest, with continual upgrades in response to technological improvements in the format and recording processes. The upgrades in my other “CD listen only” audio system have been a second priority. I typically assign the very best sounding equipment and cables to my organ system. The pipe organ has all the same characteristic sound qualities as an orchestra: high-to-low frequency range (16,000 Hz down to 16 Hz), body, harmonic variation, texture, transients, air, even instability and randomness of the pipe voices. Each organ is an organism with its own vitality, breathing and demeanor, impossible to perfectly capture with ordinary recording techniques, equipment and playback.

    My priorities are clearly different from, but not altogether dissimilar to, those of most other audiophiles who sit in a chair and do not actively play the music with their hands and feet. To me, making music is a lot more fun than simply listening to it, perhaps giving some justification to the expense and effort I have put into my system. To each his own.

    Technological improvements in SQ that exceed the standard? Bring it on!

  10. “But you will never get close to the sound of live # insert, in your house.’
    #eg a live pipe organ

    Yeah, we serious audiophiles can.

    KEF tried it once They hired two halls in Scotland. In one an organist palyed the Saint Saens 3 (‘Organ symphony’).

    Via cables they took the microphone feed across town where they had set up a live concert with some fearsome KEF 105.2 speakers and the top QUAD amps of the time. The orchestra played along with the amplified organ part.

    Thing is, how many speakers do you think it took to sound convincing? Two, four, eight…? Who remembers?
    I think it required twenty or so!

    THIRTY-SIX. Berlioz TeDeum. Quad 405 double bridged 400watts/channel ought to do it.

    “You got the story wrong” — my wife
    “I got the feeling of the story right and that is what matters” — me.

Leave a Reply

Stop by for a tour:
Mon-Fri, 8:30am-5pm MST

4865 Sterling Dr.
Boulder, CO 80301

Join the hi-fi family

Stop by for a tour:
4865 Sterling Dr.
Boulder, CO 80301

Join the hi-fi family

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram