The Absolute Sound Complete Issue 126 - BM

The Hybrid Wisdom Audio System:HP Tells a Tale

Survey: Four Integrated Amplifiers

Digital Signal Processors – TACT RCS 2.0

Guilty Pleasures – “Disreputable” Music We Love

T H E H I G H E N D J O U R N A L O F A U D I O & M U S I C ™

I S S U E 1 2 6 • O C T O B E R / N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 0

www.theabsolutesound.com

10 Loudspeaker Reviews –Wilson Maxx to Quad 989

$7.95 US / $9.95 CAN

Wilson MAXX loudspeaker

T H E H I G H E N D J O U R N A L O F A U D I O & M U S I C ™

ISSUE 126 • OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2000

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFHARRY PEARSON

EXECUTIVE EDITORSALLIE REYNOLDS

EQUIPMENT SET-UP & ACQUISITIONS MANAGERSCOT MARKWELL

SENIOR EDITOR & TECHNICAL CONSULTANTROBERT E. GREENE

ASSOCIATE EDITORSJONATHAN VALIN, NEIL GADER

ASSISTANT EDITORBOB GENDRON

SENIOR WRITERSARTHUR S. PFEFFER, JOHN W. COOLEDGE, JOHN NORK, ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN

THOMAS O. MIILLER, PAUL SEYDOR, ROBERT HARLEY, J. GORDON HOLT

REVIEWERSALICE ARTZT, ARTHUR B. LINTGEN, MICHAEL KULLER, MICHAEL ALAN FOX, DAN SCHWARTZ,

AARON SHATZMAN, JOHN HIGGINS, ANDREW QUINT, PETER H. BRAVERMAN, PAUL A. BOLIN, MICHAEL SILVERTON, ROMAN ZAJCEW, ADAM WALINSKY,

STEPHAN HARRELL, FRED KAPLAN

CONTRIBUTING WRITERSDAN DAVIS, DAVID DENBY, FRANK DORIS, ARIC PRESS, DAN SWEENEY,

ANNA LOGG, JOHN MARKS, LARRY ALAN KAY, DAVID MORRELL, MARK LEHMAN, THOMAS KAY, DON SALTZMAN, ALLAN KOZINN

ART DIRECTIONNANCY JOSEPHSON FOR DESIGN FARM

ARTISTSGARY OLIVER, JOHN GREEN

PROOFREADERAUBIN PARRISH

ABSOLUTE MULTIMEDIA, INC.CHAIRMAN AND CEO

THOMAS B. MARTIN, JR.

PUBLISHERMARK FISHER

FINANCE & ADMINISTRATIONTRISH KUNZ

ACCOUNTINGSCOTT PETTIT

ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVESCHERYL SMITH

CIRCULATION MANAGERSTEVE WAYNER

LEGALJIM ROBINSON

ADVISORSVITO COLAPRICO (PRINTING), RICHARD SABELLA (HP’S BUSINESS),

HOWARD ARBER (HP’S LEGAL AFFAIRS)

SUBSCRIPTIONS, RENEWALS, CHANGES OF ADDRESS Phone (888) 732-1625 (U.S.) or (973) 627-5162 (out-side U.S.) The Absolute Sound, Subscription Services, Box 3000, Denville, New Jersey 07834. Six issues:in the U.S., $42; Canada $45 (GST included); outside North America, $75 (includes air mail).Payments must be by credit card (Visa, MasterCard, American Express) or U.S. funds drawn on a U.S.bank, with checks payable to Absolute Multimedia, Inc.

EDITORIAL MATTERS Address letters to: The Editor, The Absolute Sound, Box 235, Sea Cliff, New York11579, or by e-mail to [email protected]. Address all other editorial matters to: The ExecutiveEditor, c/o Editorial Department, Absolute Multimedia, Inc. See address below. Fax (530) 823-0156, e-mail: [email protected].

DISPLAY ADVERTISING Contact Cheryl Smith at the address below.

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING Please use form in back of issue.

NEWSSTAND DISTRIBUTION AND LOCAL DEALERS Contact Eastern News Distributors, Inc., at 250 West55th Street, New York, New York 10019, phone (800) 221-3148.

PUBLISHING MATTERS Contact Mark Fisher at the address below or e-mail: [email protected].

ABSOLUTE MULTIMEDIA, INC. · 7035 BEE CAVES ROAD, SUITE 203 · AUSTIN, TEXAS 78746PHONE (512) 306-8780 · FAX (512) 328-7528 · E-MAIL [email protected]

COPYRIGHT© Absolute Multimedia, Inc., Issue 126, October/November 2000. The Absolute Sound (ISSN #0097-1138) is publishedbi-monthly, $42 per year for US residents, Absolute Multimedia, Inc. 7035 Bee Caves Road, Suite 203, Austin, TX 78746. PeriodicalPostage paid at Austin, TX, and additional mailing offices. Canadian publication mail account #1551566. POSTMASTER: Send addresschanges to The Absolute Sound, Subscription Services, Box 3000, Denville, NJ 07834. Printed in the USA.


2 • THE ABSOLUTE SOUND • ISSUE 126

VIEWPOINTS

6 Editorial

11 LettersSurround Sound Controversy: JGH and the Readers…The Impor-tance of Component Matching…Price vs. Performance…The Blues in the Night…The LaLa Land of High End Audio…Their Guilty Pleasures

16 ErrataG. computerii Again

TAS JOURNAL

Features23 Arranged by Nelson Riddle David Morrell

Nelson Riddle’s distinctive arrangements for Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Peggy Lee, Judy Garland, Rosemary Clooney, are part of what we love in these great singers.

37 What’s Wrong With Loudspeakers? Robert E. GreeneMost designers, reviewers, and consumers aren’t worried about the right things in speakers.

Music Up Front39 Guilty Pleasures: Guilty as Charged Staff

HP asked the music writers to send us something on those musical selectionsthey adore but play only in secret. (HP himself started this surprisingly popular series in his editorial, Issue 125.)

THE SOUND

Upstairs49 Quad 989 Loudspeaker: Updating a Classic Paul Seydor

Comment Robert E. GreenePeter Walker & the Original Quads Barry Rawlinson

57 Horning Alkibiades Loudspeaker Scot Markwell65 Acarian Systems Alón Lotus SE Mk II Loudspeaker Aaron Shatzman69 Green Mountain Continuum 2 Loudspeaker Mike Kuller

Comment Roman Zajcew75 Lamm M1.1 Monoblock Amplifier & L1 Line-stage Preamplifier

Fred Kaplan79 Wilson Audio Maxx Loudspeaker Anthony H. Cordesman

Comment John Nork

The Landing87 Plinius M14 Phono Stage & M16 Line Stage Paul Bolin

Comment on M14 Dan Davis97 Audio Art Jota Amplifier Stephan Harrell

Comment Scot Markwell101 Digital-Signal Processing Devices – Part I: Tact RCS 2.0 Digital

Preamp & Room/Speaker Correction Device Robert E. GreeneWhat DSP is and what it does.

Downstairs107 Four Over Two: Paul Seydor & Neil Gader

Survey: Four Integrated Amplifiers – Magnum IA170, Roksan Caspian, NAD Silver Series 300 (plus a Bonus), Electrocompaniet ECI 3

117 Plinius 8100 Integrated Amplifier John MarksComment Neil Gader

119 PMC FB-1 Loudspeaker John MarksComment Mike Kuller

BreviTAS123 Krix Equinox and Totem Model One Signature loudspeakers

Neil Gader127 Yamaha CDR1000 CDR Recorder John Marks131 Waveform MACH MC Loudspeaker Robert E. Greene

HP’S WORKSHOP135 Wisdom Audio M-75: A Planar/Magnetic Hybrid System

Inside the “Brain” Scot Markwell

THE MUSIC

Sounds Absolute147 Chesky Records: Christy Baron & Clark Terry; EMI: Ravel’s Piano

Concerto in G & Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No. 4; Mahler’s Symphony No. 2; SLCC (Saint Louis Chamber Chorus): Rome’s GoldenPoets; Louis Armstrong; Sonny Rollins

Featured Label153 MA Recordings Neil Gader

157 Curmudgeon’s Corner: Audio-Audio, Video-Audio Arthur S. Pfeffer

Classical161 Webern; Creston; Le Cinéma (Chaplin, etc.); Shchedrin; Gesualdo;

Waxman; Berlioz; Wierén; Purcell; For Children: Telarc’s Dance ona Moonbeam

173 DISCoveries: Neglected Composers Dan Davis

Pop & Rock175 The Magnificent Seven: New Artists Emerge from the Fringes

Bob Gendron

FINALE

182 Where To Buy The Absolute Sound183 Ad Index

Last Page184 Math Test for Musicians

Front Cover: The Wilson MAXXEpigraph: Imagination is evidence of the Divine. William Blake

Contents

TAS VIEWPOINTS • 3

Horning Alkibiades Wilson Maxx Quad 989 Green Mountain Continuum 2


The reaction to last issue’s editorial on GuiltyPleasures caught me by surprise. Contrary to what many ofyou might suspect, we seldom get mail about any givenarticle, and less than seldom specific responses to eitherreviews or, gulp!, editorials (a notable recent exceptionbeing Jonathan Valin’s tribute to the courage of Dr. RogerA. West).

We had, quite evidently, struck a resonant chord. Andset me to thinking.

Meanwhile, the first batch of essays (but far from thelast) from select members of the staff on their GuiltyPleasures arrived and I found myself, as I trust you will,deliciously surprised. Who’d have thunk that Robert E.Greene, that rigorous analyst and mathematician, would gofor Julie London? Or that the august Dr. Andy Quintwould find comfort in the musical arms of Eminem (a.k.a.Marshall Mathers).

Such have set me to thinking about another kind ofguilty pleasure, musical first loves: Those pieces of musicthat first turn us on to music’s power to shape the imagi-native life.

In my case, the first that I remember was Prokofiev’sPeter and the Wolf, which I was exposed to at the tender ageof five. My parents loved to go out dancing to Big BandMusic, and their collection of recordings (played back on alarge-ish Zenith console) were mostly these. Don’t ask why(unless one can be a reincarnation of a “future” self), butfrom the age of three or so, I became fascinated by thisdevice and within no time, since I couldn’t read (despitemy entreaties), had learned to distinguish among their sin-gles by the color of the record label, the amount of printon it, and the size and spacing of the grooves. There werealso three, possibly four, albums. Including the Prokofiev,at the tail end of which – when the captured Wolf is beingparaded through town – you hear the unforgettable minor-key melody for the duck, earlier swallowed by the wolf.And the narrator tells you, as the orchestra executes adiminuendo, that the duck is still swimming around inthe wolf’s stomach because, in his hurry, the wolf had swal-lowed him (pause, for dramatic emphasis) “alive.” A quickchord ends the piece, leaving the young Harry not justtroubled and upset, but somehow wounded. I could haveaccepted the fate of an eaten duck, but not one still alive.

I hadn’t thought of this in some years, but as I did now,and thought of other pieces of music that have stuck inmind, the idea of an unresolved ambiguity has endured.During my later childhood, I loved a song on RCA called“Bermuda” by a female duo, The Bell Sisters, who had twohits and vanished. You learn at the outset that she (or thetwo sisters) went sailing with a guy she loved and that shelost “her loved one there on the blue.” She sees his hair inthe sunlight, “his eyes in the water blue” – but as

the song wraps up, she tells you “in Bermuda waters, soclear and cold, I await my loved one, as I grow old.” Shedrowned? And she beckons? Not he?

A bit later, on Decca, Peggy Lee released a song shewrote called “Sans Souci” (without sorrow), in which thechorus is chanting “Rowboat, go, go” in the background, asLee pipes out elliptical lyrics, like, “They got no roomhere/for someone like me.” Here? Nobody has mentioned aspecific place. Someone like me? Whatever does this mean,since she has not defined herself, directly, as an “outsider?”Play it as often as I would, I could find no answer to the rid-dles the song posed. Guess you’d called it an example of thePearson Principle of the Specific Vague (PPSV). And what,dear hearts, has Phil Collins been “waiting for all of mylife” in “The Air Tonight?” Or Jimmy Spheeris [Isle of View,Columbia 30988] in “I am the Mercury” when he sings “Ihave been bought, I have been sold in the city/I’ve dinedwith the demons and drunk of their fear.”

Devoid of a specific context (the Spheeris being a bril-liant example), I found my own creative imagination setloose to take wing and, to quote Spheeris from the samesong, “weave light where it’s storming.”

Ofttimes, the music itself, minus words, would set thescene and I would, imaginatively, paint the picture. Thisbegan with the arrival of adolescent hormones, I suspect.And the very first classical piece to strike up those fancieswas Respighi’s Pines of Rome. Funny isn’t it, how we tend tolook askance, if not down upon, those earlier classicalenthusiasms, and just as odd how the first interpretation wehear of a piece is the one by which we’ll judge all futureinterpretations? In this instance, it was Toscanini (Reiner’slater version is a carbon copy, by the way), and theCatacombs I imagined were one scary place. Vampires.Brain-sucking demons. Revenants. Or later yet, Munchconducting Daphnis & Chloe, where, to “Sunrise,” I was,cloud-like, floating over the European countryside, watch-ing the blue shadows stripe the green landscape. And writ-ing to the accompaniment of the music, using it to evokethe moods I wanted to invoke. I think of these as “guilty”pleasures because they are such intensely personal ones. Aswe grow more sophisticated, or so we think, we tend todetach the personal from our appreciation of the music, tothe point that we experience music in a more absolute way,as a pleasure unto itself without much reference to theimagination. Rather we enjoy it in a way approaching purefeeling. Our musical roots, though, first thrive in the soilof guilty pleasures, those pieces we remember becausethey’ve spurred a longing for something outside of, beyond,and greater than ourselves. The nice thing is that theseencounters are not necessarily confined to the past – we yetcome face-to-face with them through the love of music.

E D I T O R I A L

The Guilty Pleasures of a First Love


Surround Sound Controversy I. Does JGH Have a Pointless Pen?Editor:

Thank you so much for printingmy letter (Issue 124). I was initiallydelighted to see a reply, only to be dis-appointed in the end. I found Mr.Holt’s usual pointless pen to havedegraded into condescending brable[sic]. No challenging exchange ofideas there!

I could have made comments like,“Mr. Holt must never have heard a mod-ern stereo system” or “He must have aseason ticket in the brass section,” butwhat do I know about his life?

To answer Mr. Holt’s ignorantinsults, let me first say that I did men-tion I am a professional classical musi-cian. I have vast experience with dif-ferent aspects of concert-hall acoustics,including many most music listenershaven’t thought of. Secondly, I failedto mention my day job, whichincludes acoustic-treatment installa-tions for custom-built surround-soundrooms stocked with names such asLynn, Lucas, Meridian, and othernosebleed-level systems.

TERRY PHIPPS

LA MESA, CALIFORNIA

JGH Responds: My apologies. I did notintend to insult or offend. It’s just that Isometimes find it difficult to comprehendhow so many people have trouble seeingthings that seem self-evident to me.

An example: Since the ambience wehear in a concert hall is surround-sound,would it not seem to follow that the realismof the sound must increase when the repro-duction is in surround sound? Can anyonereasonably dispute that?

II. JGH in the Doghouse, er, Lobby, AgainEditor:

For Mr. Holt, a profound andrespected veteran of this industry, to

refer to stereo sound as “like listeningfrom the lobby through an open door”is absolutely and utterly idiotic. I’veseen new technologies influence mag-azine writers before, but this is anextreme case of pushing the new. Iknow that pushing surround sound isgoing to generate a truckload of salesand ad dollars, but please, do it whenit makes sense. We are nowhere nearacoustically accurate surround soundand, to be quite honest and a littleskeptical at the same time, I don’tthink that we ever will be. I ask [you]to put Mr. Holt’s talents to better use.Right now he is wasting my time, hisown time, and precious space in thismagazine. I’m sorry, Mr. Holt, butTerry Phipps’ analogy [comparingJGH to Julian Hirsch, we assume. –Eds.] is right on the money (Letters,Issue 124). Please – do something con-structive with your time now that youare at a better magazine. Cheers!

GEORDY DUNCAN

RED DEER, ALBERTA, CANADA

JGH Replies: Mr. Duncan, as someonewho probably gets to hear more live sym-phonic music than any other reviewer, I feelqualified to recognize “acoustically accu-rate” reproduction when I hear it, and Ihear a lot more of it from good surround sys-tems than I ever did from any stereo system.

It seems obvious to me that a reproduc-ing system that can only deliver hall rever-beration from the front cannot possibly ren-der the full performing space as accuratelyas one that delivers side and rear reverbfrom the sides and rear. (Certainly, no homelistening room can do it, because small-roomreverb doesn’t sound like concert-hallreverb.) If the simple truth of that proposi-tion outrages stereo Luddites, so be it.

I’m not claiming that surround soundmakes reproduced music sound just like thereal thing, although, for the last few weeks,I have been living with a system that comesawfully close (more about this in Issue 127).What I am saying is that surround repro-

duction can bring reproduced realism to alevel that no mere stereo system can aspire to.

III. Give Surround Sound theBenefit of a ListenEditor:

After reading the numerous arti-cles written by the esteemed J.Gordon Holt in both The AbsoluteSound and Stereophile on the topic ofsurround sound, I feel compelled tocomment. Years ago in Stereophile, hereviewed an interesting piece of equip-ment manufactured by Audio Re-search, the SDP1 Spatial DefinitionProcessor. No other single piece ofaudio equipment I have owned has sochanged my listening habits. It is sadto see that the SDP1 (or a successor) isno longer offered by Audio Research. Isuspect it never really sold becauseaudiophile purists believed that musicmust be heard through only two chan-nels. I give Audio Research credit,however, for trying to challenge “nor-mal” listening habits.

With J. Gordon Holt’s recentseries of articles on surround sound(“The Surround We Own,” Issue 125,the latest), I recommend music lovers(I hope there are a few audiophiles wholike music) to finally take his argu-ment for surround sound seriously.There is much ambient informationon many LPs, CDs, and DVDs, and acapable processor offering sophisticat-ed surround modes will present a con-siderable realism in music. The senseof space (ambience) can bring a three-dimensional reality to the listeningexperience.

Although I have a considerableinvestment in audio equipment, aswell as a dedicated custom-built audioroom, it’s the music that matters. Myfriends, many of whom are naive onaudiophile equipment (and believe Iam in need of psychiatric assistancegiven some of my equipment purchas-es), consistently hear the benefits of

L E T T E R S


ambient information extraction. So give J. Gordon Holt the benefit

of doubt, and give surround music lis-tening a try!

DR. NED F. KUEHN

SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN

JGH: Thanks. I needed that.

The Importance of ComponentMatching: A Real-Life StoryEditor:

I recently purchased a used pair ofAvalon Eidolons, thoroughly brokenin, I have been told. They replacedAerial 7Bs, a nice speaker, thoughlacking the refinement, accuracy, fre-quency extremes, and in many waysthe musicality of the Avalons. Asexpected, the equipment that workedso nicely with the Aerials have stunkup the room. These speakers are sorevealing that unless proper compo-nent matching is obtained, the idio-syncrasies of the upstream unitsbecome all I notice.

I presently have a Classé 301 amp(ballsy and quite musical with theAerials. Actually they are remarkablyfast [dynamic?] with the Eidolons.Slightly toward white and too for-ward. Everything is there, only notmusically.), Jadis JP80MC preamp,Sony SACD, Purist Audio Dominusspeaker wire, Siltech gold cables, andElectra Glide expensive power cords.

A friend, who purchased my oldAvalon Ascents and subsequentlymoved to the Eidolons, lugged hisLamm M2.1s over. These amps, whichI have read nothing but exemplaryreviews of, fell short in almost all cate-gories powering my system. In all butstaging and warmth, these beautifulamps failed. The speed, delineation,bass tautness, etc. [were compromised].The highs rolled off, the bottom slug-gish. Some improvement in the mids,but not nearly enough to draw myattention from all that was lost.

Now, to my point. My buddy, whohas gone to tremendous lengths tofine-tune his system, was surprised tohear speakers identical to his, poweredwith his amps, offer such a differentpresentation. His source differs, asdoes his cabling, which we understandis not to be casually dismissed. Thus,comes my concern about reviewingcomponents. How can any piece ofstereo equipment, especially in theHigh End, be critiqued withoutaffording the reviewer many, if notcountless, pieces to bring the best outof a specific component? I know the

Lamm is an excellent piece. I believe itto better the Classé in nearly all [waysin absolute terms] – but not in my sys-tem. My friend’s system reached itspinnacle only after several wirechanges, swapping of tubes, and otherneurotic tweaks. The sound is musical,hard-driving, intensely accurate, and,most importantly, a joy to listen to.

I, on the other hand, have a way togo. In Milwaukee, auditioning certainequipment is [often] impossible. Ihave, over the years, somewhat trustedyour ears to lead me toward sonicbliss. I now understand the difficultyof achieving such an undertaking. Asmy friend hauled the amps back intohis car, I realized how assessing piecesof someone else’s components was notsomething I would or could have any-thing to do with.

I feel quite sure that nothing Ihave written here is new. After all, weare all looking to the gods for theunattainable, slippery truth.

Thanks for trying. It makes forgreat reading and allows my heart tobeat just a bit faster when a new, allencompassing piece of wire makes itsdebut on your cover, spreading the joyof music to one and all.

STEVE NEUFELD

BAYSIDE, WISCONSIN

HP Replies: One of the reasons I try tokeep a variety of equipment on hand, anduse at least two listening rooms, is to sub-ject any component to as many variables asI can. This is one of the reasons that theobservational reviewing technique is notquickly accomplished. We know, and alltoo well, the dangers of incompatibilityamong components and how easy it is tomiss the boat. One component that springsimmediately to mind: our experience withthe Thiel CS-7, which only performed itsbest with high-powered amplifiers. Muchthe same is true, for example, of the WilsonAudio speakers of yore, which need eitheran amplifier of high power or one relative-ly insensitive to severe droops in a speaker’simpedance curve. We could go on with this,i.e., the impedance mismatches that occurbetween tubed and solid-state equipment.Even so, we can only cover so many of thepossible combinations, as you have percep-tively noted. And sometimes we findstrange incompatibilities, ones we wouldnever have suspected – say, the unhappycombination of the Atma-Sphere OTLamplifier with the hybrid Wisdom Audiospeaker’s planar/magnetic panels: Whowould have known? I, for one, would neverbuy a component until I had had a chanceto insert it into my own system to make sureits new home would be a happy one.

The (Lousy) Sound of DG’sShostakovich QuartetsEditor:

I am a new reader, and I alwaysenjoy your magazine. However, I musttake exception to the review of theEmerson Quartet’s recordings of theShostakovich String Quartets. I boughtthe DG single recording with theEighth Quartet. As it was only $5.99, Ithought that it would give me an ideaas to what to expect sound-wise.

Well, I started with my rathermundane home system – listening ses-sion No.1: Performance – 5 stars.Sound – 1 star.

Then I took the CD to my local hi-fi shop and played it on several sys-tems that ranged from about $8,000to $25,000. Performance – still 5stars. Sound – 2 stars.

As we – myself, three salesmen,and several customers – listened, wewondered if the group had beenrecorded in a closet. There was noambience, sparkle, space, depth, air. Infact, it sounded like the microphoneshad been placed right on top of theplayers! I know that Apsen’s stage isnot huge, but the recording makes itsound tight and closed.

Was this an effort to prevent audi-ence noise?*

I am a fan of the Emerson Quartet,but I am going to have to decide if Ican get past the rather poor sound toget into the wonderful performance.

Finally, Andrew Quint mentionsthe Fitzwilliams Quartet recording onDecca. Now that’s a great recording!But the DG/Emerson the best soundof them all? mmmmm....

MARK WAGNER

AUSTIN, TEXAS

* Surely.

Andrew Quint Replies: My sense isthat Mark Wagner and I have similar pri-orities when it comes to the Shostakovichquartets. I gather he values this musichighly, and was impressed with theEmerson’s way with it, at least based onhis audition of the Eighth Quartet. It’son the matter of the sound that we partways. There is, of course, always more thanone valid way to make a recording, andthis is never more true than when it comesto chamber music. An engineer can seek tocommunicate the nature of the venue inwhich the performances were realized. Or,with a small number of musicians playingrelatively small instruments, he can trans-port the event to our listening rooms.

continued on page 16


Without a doubt, the London/Decca CDs –not to mention the LPs – documenting theFitzwilliam Quartet’s Shostakovich havemore “air” and a feel of the space in whichthe group was recorded (a church). One is inthe audience at a great performance. Mr.Wagner is probably right: A more distantsonic perspective on the DG effort couldhave resulted in distracting audience noise.But even ignoring that issue entirely, it isthrilling to have the Emerson spread outbefore you, in an almost palpable fashion –the immediate sound serves well the widedynamic excursions and dramatic intensityof their readings. The tonal truthfulness ofthe recording is notable and ensemble bal-ances are unassailable. Mr. Wagner is enti-tled to prefer the approach heard on theFitzwilliam’s discs, but to characterize theEmerson set as having “rather poor sound”is to overstate things considerably.

Price vs. PerformanceI. In a Fog Over the Pricing of Audio CablesEditor:

I just started reading your maga-zine and it is a refreshing change fromthe other “High End” publications.While others seem to try andimpress/befuddle readers with all sortsof techno-jargon, you simply tell itlike it is, and skip most of the infor-mation that most people do not under-stand – and if they do understand it,and are not electronic engineers, thenthey have simply too much free time.

To me, the High End audio mar-ket, like the High End car market, is asubjective thing. One may prefer onebrand over another for personal reasons,while both are exceptional performers.What I enjoy about your magazine isthat your writers seem to recognize thisaspect in their reviewing.

One thing that has me in a fog,though, are interconnects and speakercables. I understand the reasoningbehind the construction. Where is thepoint of diminishing returns? Are$2,400 speaker cables worth it or arethey just the emperor’s new clothes?

TOM NEILSON

ROCHESTER, NEW YORK

HP Responds: Sad to say, in most cases,there is a correlation between the price of thecable and the excellence of its sound. Notalways, of course. And this is where thesnake oil comes in. Often, cable and connectormanufacturers will mark up their productsmore than 80 points, thus allowing yourOlde Audio Shoppe to make a killing, or ineffect, to discount the price of an entire system

(and in a business that frowns on steeply dis-counted component prices). But there is littlepoint in paying high prices for interconnectsin a system that does not exhibit the lastword in resolution. The reviewer is at seahere because he cannot possibly guess the levelof resolution of any reader’s system and musttherefore evaluate the performance of connec-tors on an absolute basis (in other words, heattempts to determine the excellence of thecabling based on his own reference system,which, in all too many cases, may not be thelast word itself in resolving information).Making all of this more difficult is the pecu-liar way in which connectors, of all kinds,tend to react to an individual system, whichcan be unpredictable. In my own case, I refuseto evaluate cabling that sounds differentfrom system to system during the evaluationprocess. I want interconnects that sound thesame no matter the system in which they findthemselves.

continued from page 13

G. computerii — AgainSharp-eyed reader Wolfhard Schulzuncovered one of several strangeerrors in Dan Sweeney’s Recom-mended Music piece, Issue 124(page 143). Si Vous Passez Par Là wascredited to a group called 3Moustaches 3, who really call them-selves 3 Mustaphas 3. (Our Grem-lins have a sense of humor, at least.)What Schulz didn’t catch, butSweeney alerted me to, is that theTurkish saz, a long-necked lute, gottransmogrified into the “Turkishsax.” What neither knew: Whenthat article came in, the title of thispiece was completely garbled. Wecaught that, but not the others. TheGremlins don’t speak French orTurkish, and changed words theydidn’t recognize, spell-checker-like,into words they knew, however non-sensical the context. (Gremlins don’tcare a fig for context.)

Not content with messingaround with Mr. Sweeney in 124,the little monsters struck again inhis review of the McIntosh in Issue125, page 81. The correct numberfor the Water Lily CD Saltanah,which he cites as reference, shouldbe WLA-ES-51CD. WLA-CS-47CD is the number for Bourbon &Rosewater, also cited in that review.(Okay, okay, Gremlins. That mis-take was mine, in the process ofediting.) – SR

E R R A T A

Price vs. Performance II. If Price Is No Object, What Is?Editor:

In [Issue 123], you printed my let-ter. However, I believe my intent wastaken slightly out of context with thetile “When Price Can Be The Object.”My suggestion to use two pairs ofJoule Electra Marquis OTLs to drivethe Genesis speakers for the samemoney as one pair of AtmaSphereOTLs is about the music. Having gonefrom a single to a bi-amp systemmyself, my experience has been that abi-amp system does improve perfor-mance. Although you indicated thatyou do not want to get involved inmaking price versus performance com-parisons between components, I findthis at odds with reality in the market-place. People do consider what musicalperformance they can acquire for themoney they sacrifice, if only becausewhat they save can be more wiselyspent on records, trips to the concerthall, or piano lessons. Indeed, DanielSweeney’s reply to another letter inthat same issue states: “The PS Audio1200 is less than half the price of theAccuphase,” drawing a possibleprice/performance comparison. In fact,you have also made a price/perfor-mance comparison, as I recall. I do notremember what issue, but you stated,if memory serves me correctly, that youthought the Merlin speakers soundedgood but were pricey for what theywere and did right.

PAUL PERSICH

NEW YORK CITY

HP Replies: This is a most sticky issue.Unless I were a mind-reader (which, giventhe colorful history of this magazine, I oftenwish I had been), I could not possibly eval-uate how any person would weight the valueof similarly priced components, since allcomponents have shortcomings in reproduc-ing or trying to reproduce the absolute. Howcould I tell which shortfalls you could livewith? It is best, I think, simply to point outthe shortfalls. Sometimes a component withfar fewer colorations, distortions, and thelike is priced lower than its more expensivebrethren, in which case, we point out theobvious, and that is, of course, a price/per-formance judgment.

The Blues in the NightEditor:

I just read Issue 124, on the rec-ommendation of a friend. I had neverbefore read your magazine. Most of itwas over my head. I am in the marketfor some new equipment. I read sever-al great reviews of different systems.

The drawback was that at the end ofeach there was a reference to the sys-tem not being for “rock,” “hard rock,”“electric blues,” etc. It seems that allof the music you use to test this stuffis basically unamplified. Usually it isclassical, chamber, jazz, or folk.Robert Harley writes, “Because ofthese characteristics, this recom-mended system is better suited tosmaller scale music and vocals than tohard rock or electric blues” (page117). Paul Seydor says, “I thinkthey’re just fine on what little rock Ilisten to; but if you’re a real head-banger, you might want to destroyyou’re hearing with something else”(page 114). Problem is the blues is allI listen to, acoustic from the Twentiesand Thirties, and electric from thatpoint forward. The vibe I got fromMr. Seydor is that maybe my musicisn’t worthy of “audiophile” qualitycomponents. Is it? You guys are theexperts. My room is my living roomand kitchen, which combined are 13x 40. I want to spend about $3,500on a set of speakers and an integratedamp. I need help. There are too manychoices. Any suggestions? Remember– I listen to amplified music.

MARK NEFF

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

JV Replies: This letter really touched anerve with me. Sure, Mr. Neff, your musicis worthy of a High End system. The pointisn’t that your music isn’t “musical.” Thepoint is that your music (at least in itselectrified form) has a lot of mid-to-deepbass information (drumkit, Fender,Hammond B-3, etc.) that won’t be repro-duced articulately or powerfully by manyof the Basement and Downstairs speakersrecommended in our feature (which arelimited in this regard by their size anddriver complement). Given your taste, Iwould suggest a subwoofered system (agood mini-monitor with a powered sub).You may not be able to achieve the ulti-mate in driver “integration” going thisway, but you will enjoy superior mid-to-upper bass rhythmic clarity and dynamicimpact – and that is crucial to “feeling”the pulse of the music you love.

The LaLa Land of High End AudioEditor:

Mike Silverton’s chagrin at thereviewer’s Catch-22 [Last Page, Issue124] is correct on one point at least:In relation to the escalating prices ofHigh End gear, the market votes. Butthe High End market is also fickle,punishing, and unconcerned. It isLaLa Land for the “Irrational Exuber-


ance” of the over-enthusiastic and out-of-touch, the spendthrift, the irra-tional, the uninformed, the confused,and those who have nothing better todo with their money or time.

If the buyer perceives that a com-ponent is priced unreasonably high,suggests Silverton, he’ll pass. Fromwhat I’ve read in TAS and Stereophile,however, many readers complain andare outraged with “unreasonable”prices and with many reviewers’ andmanufacturers’ unwillingness to justifysuch high prices and over-engineering.Clearly, some readers are sourpusses:They just can’t afford High End gearand will deny until the Third Comingthat High End is superior. Others,though, see no real value! This is espe-cially true for the experienced travelerwho knows that price and sound qual-ity do not always ride the same tracks.One often finds amps, speakers, car-tridges, and cables that outperform thehigh-priced spread…

Moral outrage notwithstanding,many High End components are hand-built, limited-production instruments,and deserve to be priced accordingly.

Should reviewers expound on theworthiness and reasonableness ofprices? I think that is a personal mat-ter. I would, and I have, because I am,by profession, an appraiser and a trad-er: Value has always been integral inmy world view. Others may emphasizecharacteristics other than value. Thisemphasis, however, benefits only themanufacturer and seller, not the cus-tomer. Judgment of value, therefore, iscritical for the reader, and the abilityto determine value is morally andfunctionally valuable to commerceand the marketplace – for all goodsand commodities.

Seen in this fashion, then, “what themarket will bear” is often unfair to atleast one person – the buyer, who maybe more or less informed. As my fathersaid: “A good business deal is whereboth parties benefit equally.” Balance.

Because readers are also buyers,the reviewer’s ability to determinevalue for what he recommends is aserious responsibility, and, in and ofitself, of substantial value to readers.And I say to reviewers: “Guide your-selves accordingly.”

Additionally, I say to readers:“Demand of reviewers that they ‘value’the component under review againstothers, and determine its place in themarketplace.” Of course, reviewerswho have little knowledge of the mar-ket price of parts and components,

machinery and chassis building, sub-assemblies, advertising and publicity,and factors relating to manufacturingand marketing overhead, are clearly ata disadvantage. The reader/buyer paysthe penalty for that deficiency.

ANDREW G. BENJAMIN

QUEENS, NEW YORK

AGB is a sometime contributor to thepages of The Absolute Sound.

Their Guilty Pleasures: IDear Harry:

Among my guilty pleasures areSpike Jones’ Dinner Music for PeopleWho Aren’t Very Hungry, and A SpikeJones Christmas. [See HP’s editorial,Issue 124.] The owner of the summercamp I went to as a young childinfected me with Spike Jones fever,causing me to buy his 78s and watchhis TV show.

Bob & Ray are another guilty plea-sure of mine and I often reflect on MaryBackstage, Noble Wife, Wally Ballou,Einbinder Fly Paper, and dozens of otherpriceless characters and routines. I alsofondly remember Homer & Jethro’s “Iwoulda wrote you a letter but I can’tspell (Bronx cheer),” and a Children’sGarden of Stan Freberg (the same sum-mer-camp owner turned me on to Fre-berg with St. George and the Dragonnet).

I still miss your Leicaflex pix.STUART NORDHEIMER

NEW YORK CITY

Their Guilty Pleasures: II Dear Harry:

I just finished reading momentsago your editorial about GuiltyPleasures. Your closing remarks aboutStan Freberg’s magic brought backmany wonderful memories of howmany hours of guilty pleasure I hadlistening to him years ago. Do youremember his creation of the characterProfessor Herman Von Horn, thenoted authority on High Fidelity?

PETER MCGRATH

COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA

HP Responds: Yes, Peter, and I alsoremember his other memorable characters,Edna St. Louis Missouri (the authority onTarzan and the Apes and his influence onTwentieth Century culture, from Face theFunnies), Jett Crash, a test pilot (hello,boys and girls, my name is Jett...Crash. Iam a test...pilot.) who is selling PuffedGrass (50 million moo cows can’t bewrong). Oh, do I remember.


TAS JOURNAL • 23

These days, when recorded popular music isn’t somuch performed as assembled from various tracks, soundengineers have taken the place of arrangers. But therewas a time, primarily in the 1950s and 1960s,when certain arrangers had fans of their ownand their names on album jackets were anadded attraction. Billy May, GordonJenkins, Don Costa, Richard Wess (onBobby Darin’s big-band hits, especial-ly “Mack the Knife”), and QuincyJones (perhaps the last of the line)come readily to mind. The best,however, the most well-known andmost highly regarded by his col-leagues was Nelson Riddle.

Riddle’s distinctive work com-bines his love for the French impres-sionist composers, particularly De-bussy and Ravel, and his equalenthusiasm for big-band jazz. Thisunique juxtaposition is a reflection ofhis childhood. He was born in 1921 inHackensack, New Jersey. His father, anamateur musician who knew how to playthe piano only on the black keys, encouragedyoung Nelson to accompany him on the trom-bone, playing (Riddle later said) “such hit tunes of theday as ‘Harbor Lights’ and ‘Red Sails in the Sunset,’ whichmade my toes curl because they were so boring.”Simultaneously, his mother and his aunt fostered his inter-est in serious music. A gift of an old wind-up phonographcame with a large Victor Red Seal disc that had a Debussypiano piece on each side, “Reflets dans l’eau” and “LaCathédrale engloutie.” Riddle wore out numerous cactusphonograph needles, listening repeatedly to the way theFrench composer created effects with tone color as much asmelody. Debussy’s La Mer so inspired Riddle that he stud-ied a copy of the score to try to learn the piece’s secrets.

In the end, popular music won Riddle’s attention. Byage 17 in 1938, he was spending his summers away fromhome in nearby Rumson, New Jersey, where he played withseveral “kid bands” and where an up-and-coming arranger,Bill Finnegan, gave him lessons in orchestrating – forexample how “to write a chorus of ‘Swanee River’ for fivesaxes (2 altos, 2 tenors and 1 baritone).” After a fewmonths, the lessons were interrupted when Finnegan went

to work for the Glenn Miller band, but their teacher-stu-dent relationship continued on-and-off for the next decade.

Meanwhile, at the age of 19 in 1940, Riddle lefthome to work with clarinetist Tommy Reynolds’

dance band as trombonist and arranger. Soonafter, he was traveling with trumpeter Charley

Spivak’s band, doing arrangements for $5each ($7.50 if he made a copy of eachmusician’s part). In 1943, he got a par-tial reprieve from the draft in the SecondWorld War when he joined theMerchant Marine. Working with itsband at Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, helearned a good deal about writing forstrings. Released in 1944, he joinedthe Tommy Dorsey band, where helearned even more about strings and,equally important, how to get similareffects without strings (Dorsey wanted

backup arrangements in case he fired thestring section).

Finally drafted in 1945, Riddle spentthe remainder of the war working with a

military band in Fort Knox, Kentucky. Therea bizarre accident forced him to give up the

trombone in favor of arranging – a garage door fellon him, knocking out his front teeth. The “pivots” that

replaced them made it impossible for him to blow on thetrombone without weakening his dental repairs.

T A S J O U R N A L

Arranged by Nelson Riddle

A brilliant arranger, like a brilliant moviedirector or the famous fiction editors ofthe Golden Age of American letters, helpsform the artistic identity of the musicianshe works with. Nelson Riddle’s distinctivearrangements for Sinatra, Nat King Cole,Peggy Lee, Judy Garland, RosemaryClooney, are part of what we love inthese great singers.

In 1946, he moved to Los Angeles to work for singingbandleader (and Dorsey alumnus) Bob Crosby. A subse-quent job as a staff arranger for NBC radio gave Riddle thetime to study string orchestration with the Italian compos-er Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco. Simultaneously, he studiedconducting with Victor Bay, an alumnus of Russia’s St.Petersburg Conservatory and the string section of thePhiladelphia Orchestra. But no matter how skilled Riddlewas becoming, his career needed a boost, an assignmentthat would get him noticed, not to mention better-payingwork so he could support his growing family.

That opportunity came in 1950 when Les Baxter, incharge of an ambitious Nat “King” Cole project, subcon-tracted Riddle (who was then 29) to write an arrangementof a song called “Mona Lisa.” For years, Baxter took creditfor that arrangement, along with those for “Unforgettable”(1950) and “Too Young” (1951), but eventually Riddlereceived his proper due. Cole, who had started his career asa virtuoso jazz pianist, was by 1950 drifting from his ori-gins. Partly out of bitterness for the way some segments ofAmerica discriminated against him, hewas determined to make as much moneyas he could, and one way to do that wasto record lushly orchestrated balladsthat appealed to audiences, especiallywomen, regardless of his race. “MonaLisa,” a love song about the famouspainting, was especially suited for Cole’sintimate, throaty, resonant voice.

The way Riddle treated the song,however, is astonishing, for he backedCole only with a mandolin and a stringsection. No rhythm section. No drums.No bass. And most astonishing of all,given that the piano was Cole’s trade-mark instrument and is used in virtuallyevery other arrangement in his career –no keyboard. The strings provide vibrantfills behind Cole’s hypnotic voice, butwith no overt rhythm, the effect isalmost as if he is singing a cappella.

When word spread about whatRiddle had done, more work came his way, much of it fromCole himself who, until 1960, used Riddle as musical direc-tor and an arranger of more than 250 recordings, not to men-tion as arranger for his TV show. Their most intriguingalbum is 1955’s The Piano Style of Nat “King” Cole, in whichCole concentrates exclusively on playing the piano with alarge orchestra. Half the tunes are slow, half up-tempo. Somesound bland, but most have the feel of jazz, and in all ofthem, Cole uses the piano as if it were his voice, while Riddlebacks him superbly. The album sold barely a copy, however,which may be why, for most of their association, Cole caredless about theme albums and more about singles. While thearrangements for the break-out hits “Mona Lisa,” “Unfor-gettable,” and “Too Young” are memorable, Riddle’s workfor Cole soon became formulaic, with oversweet strings andpiano supporting Cole’s make-no-waves, bland, balladeerpersona.

Those singles earned a lot of money for Capitol, and itsexecutives looked for other ways to use Riddle. In 1953,they decided to pair him with a once-famous singer whosepublic had turned against him when he left his wife andchildren for a glamorous movie star. Almost unemployable,Frank Sinatra needed an image change, and the arrangerfirst chosen to help him was trumpeter Billy May, whose

TAS JOURNAL • 25

Riddle in Recordings

N elson Riddle was a Gerald Moore for popular singers,his instrument not just a piano but a full orchestra andmost combinations of instruments in between. Unlike

Moore, he was never an accompanist only, but a kind of “sec-ondary” composer, his charts filled with countermelodies near-ly as beguiling as the melodies themselves. I’ve often thoughtit was the particular achievement – perhaps even the sly joke– of his most famous original composition, the “Route 66”theme, that it sounds less like a theme than a countermelodyin search of a theme.

So many albums in which Riddle participated are out ofprint (or in that limbo called “out of stock,” meaning listed inprint, but effectively unavailable) – most of his recordings sanssingers, and his superb Academy Award winning score for TheGreat Gatsby – that the following list cannot be definitive. Butseveral of these albums are essential and all contribute to aricher appreciation of the art of this remarkable musician.

Sinatra It is soberingto think that if CapitolRecords had been asadventurous as RCA inembracing the newmedium of stereo inthe mid-Fifties, some ofthe greatest albums ofpopular music scoredby the greatest arran-ger for the greatestsinger would be instereo. Not that there’smuch wrong with themonophonic reproduc-tion on such classics asSwing Easy [72434-96089-2-4], In theWee Small Hours[72434-94755-2-6],Songs for Swingin’

Lovers [72434-96226-2-3], and Close to You [72434-CDP7-46572-2]: vibrant, colorful, exceptionally clear and dynamic,nothing except that stereo would be better, as is readily demon-strated by Only the Lonely [72434-94756-2-5], one of the rarepopular recordings that actually sounds “realistic,” that is, repro-duces the effect of a singer standing in front of a large orches-tra spread out behind him. The chamber album, Close to You,featuring the Hollywood String Quartet and perhaps the mostpath-breaking of all the Sinatra/Riddle collaborations, is nolonger available, which I hope means that it is due for re-releasein Capitol’s inexplicably stalled 20-bit remastering of all itsSinatra material.

Much of the Riddle/Sinatra Reprise work I find competentrather than inspired, a notable exception being The ConcertSinatra [Reprise 9 47244-2] from 1963, which can stand withthe best of the Capitol years in concept and execution (con-taining Sinatra’s tour de force “Ol’ Man River”). At the time itwas promoted as a sonic spectacular owing to the use of theWestrex 35mm recording system. Unfortunately, the LP sound-ed harsh and congested. According to Charles Granata’sSessions with Sinatra (1999), the original 3-track tapes werespectacular, but something went amiss in the mixdown thatwas never corrected. The original masters seem to have been

dance-band hits made his name familiar to record-buyers.But May’s success put him on a performing tour while hewas supposed to be in the recording studio with Sinatra, sofor a second fateful time, Riddle was subcontracted to dothe work. The agreement was that Riddle would arrangetwo singles in the style of May (“South of the Border” and“I Love You”), along with two in Riddle’s own manner(“I’ve Got the World on a String” and “Don’t Worry ’BoutMe”). With their raucous brass and slurpy saxophones-in-unison, the first two sounded enough like May to fool themusicians, but there is no mistaking that the arrangementsfor the second two are by someone else entirely.

The bright trumpets and joyful rhythm of “I’ve Got theWorld on a String” (indeed the song’s title itself) were anannouncement of Sinatra’s comeback. But the gem of thesession and the indication of where Riddle’s genius wouldlead is the arrangement for “Don’t Worry ’Bout Me.” Fromthe Capitol years onward, Sinatra wanted most of hisarrangements to have a story-like construction: Introducethe piece, establish its theme, build to a climax, and thentrail off. This approach contrasts sharply with the unmod-ulated arrangements that Axel Stordahl wrote for Sinatraduring his previous Columbia years. It also contrasts withRiddle’s similarly unmodulated work for Cole’s singles.

Riddle’s approach to “Don’t Worry ’Bout Me” wasbased on what he’d learned from the French impressionistcomposer, Ravel, whose “Bolero” is famous for its accumu-lating intensity. In an unusual choice for an arranger knownfor his melodic introductions, Riddle decided against aninstrumental opening. Instead, he begins directly and min-imalistically with Sinatra’s voice, which is immediatelyjoined by mellow saxophones. A guitar strums in time witha bass. A piano tinkles in the background. The saxes stop.Trombones take over. The trombones stop. Muted trum-pets take over. Except for the piano and the rhythm section,no instrument plays simultaneously with another. Therhythm section consists solely of the guitar and the bass.No drums. Then suddenly, as the song’s 32 bars come to agentle close, we hear a subtle ding-ding of cymbals in thebackground. Having been silent from the beginning, thedrummer now comes dramatically into action, joined byevery instrument – saxes, trombones, no-longer-mutedtrumpets – playing for the first time simultaneously andexuberantly. It’s a huge effect after the quiet control thatcame before. With equal suddenness, after eight bars, thedrummer stops. The instruments return to playing insequence rather than overlapping. The bass and the guitaragain act as the rhythm section. Regaining the control ithad at the start, the arrangement comes to a subtle close.

“Find the peak of the song and build the wholearrangement to that peak,” Riddle said. When the singerhas something to do, “get the hell out of the way. Whenhe’s doing nothing, move in fast and establish some-thing.” This approach is nowhere more evident than inthe 1956 arrangement that is widely considered Riddle’sbest, certainly his most famous, and arguably the greatestarrangement for any American song: Cole Porter’s “I’veGot You Under My Skin” (from Songs for Swingin’ Lovers!).There, Riddle again uses Ravel as his model, and again atrick with the rhythm section achieves the arrangement’smajor effect.

Rhythm. Riddle enjoyed songs that had the rhythm ofthe heartbeat, a pace that he associated with sex (just as thestructure he preferred can be described as foreplay, climax,and afterplay). Certainly it is the rhythm of “I’ve Got YouUnder My Skin” that we first notice – a light, bouncy, play-

TAS JOURNAL • 27

lost, as the 20-bit remastering isn’t much of an improvement.(See “Sound of Sinatra,” Issue 120.)

Ella Fitzgerald Sings the George and Ira GershwinSongbook [Verve 314 539 759-2] is sonically and musicallythe high point of the Ella/Nelson collaborations (some of thesesongs never better realized), all in early Verve stereo: astonish-ing clarity, definition, and transparency, wonderfully atmospher-ic with first-class digital remastering and packaging.

Rosemary Clooney was the revelation of this assignment forme, rediscovering one of the really great popular singers. Allthree of these albums can stand easy comparison to the bestof Riddle’s work with Sinatra; and like Sinatra’s Capitol albums,Rosie Solves the Swingin’ Riddle [Koch KOC-CD-7991] andLove [Reprise 9 46072-2], both dating from the early Sixties,are also built around tight concepts. Swingin’ Riddle is in earlystereo, which is to say that while the vocalist is focused in thecenter, the instrumental separation is a little exaggerated; still,the recording captures all the vitality of an absolutely terrific col-lection. The string-colored Love is an altogether more mutedrecording, separation still exaggerated but with lovely sonorities,the strings especially sweet-toned. The fragile lightness ofClooney’s reading of “Someone To Watch Over Me” and thedelicacy of Riddle’s instrumentation are enough to make youcatch your breath. Twenty-five years after this collaboration andten years after Riddle’s death, Clooney returned to CapitolStudios in 1995 and recorded Dedicated to Nelson [ConcordJazz CCD-4685], a tribute to her best arranger and former lover,using his painstakingly reconstructed arrangements. Every cuton this marvelous album is special; but go to “LimehouseBlues,” which Clooney owns lock, stock, and barrel, to hear howeffortlessly she and Riddle bridge the worlds of pop and jazz.The reproduction is close to state-of-the-art digital: supercleanand smooth, with superbly delineated textures that yet don’tfeel coldly analytical, and excellent presence and warmth toClooney’s voice.

Peggy Lee is a superb singer, even if she does apply her laid-back approach rather indiscriminately (how does she manageto be restrained on “Something Wonderful”?). No matter, thistwo-fer (only The Man I Love part is by Riddle) is required lis-tening not just for Lee’s singing and Riddle’s charts, but for theconductor, the Chairman of the Board himself, who is unusual-ly sensitive to the needs of his singer (all the more impressivewhen you consider how different a singer she is from him).Observe how carefully Sinatra shades the orchestral dynamicsaround her soft, pastel readings; no doubt Riddle’s carefularrangements were helpful, but they couldn’t have done it all.Vintage Capitol mono sound [The Man I Love/If You Go. EMI7243-8-55389-2-6].

The Piano Style of Nat King Cole [Capitol CDP-0777-7-81203-2-2, mono] is highly regarded by some; in the linernotes (written with Dick Katz), the admirable Will Friedwald trieshis best to advance its strengths and minimize its weaknesses.But once Cole left jazz for popular music, his playing acquireda kind of “easy listening” patina that in my view it never lost.This album teeters too much between superior cocktail-loungejazz and background music, while Riddle’s arrangements don’texactly hold thoughts of Percy Faith at bay. The over-miking ofthe strings doesn’t alleviate this impression.

Oscar Peterson & Nelson Riddle [Verve V-6 8562, the cat-

ful, moderate tempo that is established with a four-barintroduction in which a bass, a saxophone, muted trum-pets, and a piano (possibly in unison with a harp) play offeach other. A version of that introduction is repeated asSinatra enters, strings gradually joining him. While thearrangement is intricate, it is never crowded. Riddle does-n’t go to the extreme of keeping the instruments separate,one group never playing over another as he did in “Don’tWorry ’Bout Me,” but the effect is the same. Even whenone group of instruments does overlap another, the two feelseparate. As the first verse ends and the second starts, herepeats the pattern, with saxophones replacing the trum-pets, slightly increasing the volume as if the instrumentswant to break loose but something is holding them back.The saxophones continue into the bridge, pulsing but incontrol. An alternate verse concludes the song, the orches-tra seeming to grow and get louder.

Now comes the miracle. One of the puzzles about thisarrangement is how a song so moderately paced can keepbuilding until it feels as if it’s being played at double thetime while the basic tempo remains the same. The effect isaccomplished with the bass, which throughout the firstpart of the arrangement emphasizes two beats in a four-beatbar. When the arrangement finally builds to its peak andRiddle introduces the blaring trombones which he’s beenholding in reserve, the bass suddenly switches to a verysolid four beats per bar. Meanwhile, as in “Don’t Worry’Bout Me,” the trumpets (unmuted) and the saxophonesplay simultaneously with the trombones, with such inten-sity that the musicians seem in danger of blowing theirbrains out. Sinatra reenters and supplies his own intensity,building and building until, at once, the arrangementresumes the quiet, gently pulsing manner it had at thestart, the bass returning to two beats per bar. Strings endthe song almost with a sigh.

While Ravel is the primary influence, a second is thebig-band part of Riddle’s musical passions. Given a shorttime to write the arrangement and stuck for a way to han-dle the all-out climax, Riddle phoned his trombonistfriend, George Roberts, who suggested using the trom-bone-based Afro-Cuban rhythmic pattern from the 1952Stan Kenton recording 23 Degrees North – 82 Degrees West(the latitude and longitude of Havana, Cuba), written andarranged by William Russo. Riddle took the idea and madeit his own. The sound of the trombones is similar in bothpieces, but the nature of the two compositions (23 Degreesis Latin) takes them in vastly different directions. Roberts,who participated in the Kenton session, also worked on“Skin” but didn’t get to do the famous trombone solo inRiddle’s arrangement, that honor going to Milt Bernhart.Twenty-two takes were needed to get the piece done prop-erly. When the session was finished, the musicians paidRiddle the rare compliment of applauding.

Riddle and Sinatra collaborated on 15 albums, severalmovie soundtracks, numerous television shows and con-certs, and so many singles that they fill a crowded four-CDset, Frank Sinatra: The Complete Capitol Singles Collection.Their favorite album together was Only the Lonely (1958), acollection of ballads in which Riddle expanded the saxo-phone section and used the “misty, velvety” French impres-sionistic feel of two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, andtwo bassoons. Their most experimental album was Close toYou (1957), another collection of ballads in which a smallsubtle rhythm section backed the Hollywood StringQuartet in what amounts to popular chamber music. Hereagain, Riddle used combinations of instruments to create a

mood, each song tending to have a different instrument(oboe, clarinet, flute) enhancing the quartet.

While Riddle’s work with Sinatra is what he’s mostknown for (see Will Friedwald’s Sinatra! The Song Is Youand Charles L. Granata’s Sessions with Sinatra), there werenumerous other major singers with whom Riddle collabo-rated. In 1956, the same year he arranged “Skin” (he was34), he did an album with Judy Garland called Judy, andfollowed it two years later with Judy in Love. An arrangeralways has to keep in mind the persona of the singer.Garland’s parents were minor vaudeville performers, whotrained her in that tradition. Her model was Al Jolson, andher instinct was to belt out songs so that someone in thetheater’s back row would pay attention. Thus, some ofRiddle’s work on Judy is generic big-band support (“AprilShowers”). Only when she pays attention to the nuances of

TAS JOURNAL • 29

alog number of the LP, never remastered for CD] I list in thehope that Verve will be encouraged to dust it off via one of theirsuperb remasterings. The very conception here seems an oxy-moron: How do you arrange jazz, which is improvisational, foranything, let alone an orchestra, which needs a written-outscore? Riddle and Peterson brought it off somehow. This isRiddle’s most Ravel-influenced work since Only the Lonely andClose to You. Indeed, the first cut, “My Foolish Heart,” suggestsa lower-case, Americanized La Valse, the ghostly ballroom shift-ed from Vienna to Atlantic City during the war. Differentlyimpressive is “Someday my Prince Will Come”: Riddle laysdown a string-colored bed (with brass accents) that keeps themelody present while Peterson does arabesques above it; thebrass gets ever more aggressive until, when it becomes clearthe pianist will not be ruffled, soloist and orchestra jointly bringthe piece to an abrupt halt. No wonder Peterson singled this cutout for special praise. My LP, acquired used, is in poor condi-tion, nor is it an original pressing; but it is in self-recommend-ing vintage Verve stereo. Verve, JVC XR, Classic Records, some-one should reissue this ASAP.

Route 66: That Nelson Riddle Sound [Telarc DSD CD-80532]: I wonder what Riddle would have thought of his cur-rent high-reputation among the cognoscenti or this Telarc trib-ute to his arrangements, tweaked so that instrumentalistsreplace vocalists? As an experiment, it’s off-center rather thanoffbeat, Eric Kunzel, his Cincinnati Pops “Big Band” Orchestra,and a stellar group of jazz instrumentalists managing to make acrackerjack show of it. The only piece that doesn’t work is “I’veGot You Under my Skin,” because Sinatra’s voice is so indeliblyassociated with both the song and this particular arrangement.Otherwise, it’s entertaining stuff, concluding with Riddle’s signa-ture Route 66. I’d recommend it even if it had it been broughtoff less well, because for the first time Riddle’s orchestrationsare accorded state-of-the-art sound. Telarc has been turning outone splendidly recorded CD after another lately, Cincinnati anespecially rewarding venue. What a pleasure to hear a popularorchestra recorded like a good classical one: slightly set back,lots of air, a true soundstage with soloists and concertante-likesections emerging from a sustained wholeness of perspective.Of course, no amount of superior reproduction can supplantthe original arrangements with the singers for whom they werewritten, nor is that the intent. But if you want to hear the Riddlesound recorded clearly enough to be able to transcribe thecharts by ear, and have a high time along the way, this is a goodplace to start.

PAUL SEYDOR

the lyrics, as in “Memories of You,” is Riddle able to pro-vide a distinctive background. His favorite arrangement onthat album was a double-time version of “Come Rain orCome Shine,” with bongo drums driving the rhythm. Theexperiment dates the arrangement, but once the listeneradjusts, the device is effective. The pace of the song was tootaxing for Garland, so instead of singing live with theorchestra, she performed with recorded tracks. The semi-submerged arrangement “killed a great deal of the driveand excitement,” Riddle felt. In the second album, Judy inLove, she is much more in control, providing sensitiveinterpretations (“More Than You Know”) that give Riddleroom to work his magic. In his effort to find a fresh way toarrange “Day In – Day Out,” however, he blends cha-charhythms with those of jazz and produces a schizoid arrange-ment that’s one of his oddest. These two albums are almostimpossible to find. The best way to get a sense of them isto play Spotlight on Judy Garland [Capitol CDP 7243 829396 2 7], which includes five songs from Judy and fourfrom Judy in Love.

In 1957, between the Garland albums, Riddle did aquite different, more satisfying, and artistic album withPeggy Lee, called The Man I Love. It’s an indication of howstrongly everyone felt about the project that Sinatra agreedto help publicize it by putting his name on the album asthe conductor of the sessions. According to musicians whowere there, Sinatra was more skillful than expected at thepodium. Indeed, a year earlier he had commissioned andconducted Tone Poems of Color, in which various composerswrote mini-suites inspired by the color poems of NormanSickel. Riddle had written two of those pieces, “Gold” and“Orange.” It couldn’t have escaped him that “tone poems of

color” is a way to describe French impressionist music.Certainly, “Gold” has an accumulating intensity borrowedfrom “Bolero.”

Now, on Lee’s The Man I Love, Riddle had a chance(even more than on Close to You) to arrange an entire albumimpressionistically. No matter how large the orchestra, hismusic seems buoyant, always rising. He achieves this light-ness by carefully positioning his categories of instrumentsso that some form a base upon which others float. Thustrombones are lifted by saxophones, which in turn arepulled up by muted trumpets. Above them hover thepiano, the flutes, the strings, and the harp, always comingin whenever an arrangement threatens to become heavy. Atthe same time, Riddle was careful not to orchestrate at thesinger’s pitch. Fills occur above and below that pitch, butthe middle is left open for the singer, which is one of thereasons that Riddle’s arrangements never feel congested.

On The Man I Love, these elements come together in asequence of ballads that feature some of the most colorfulorchestrations that Riddle ever wrote: oboes, harps, flutes,cornets, chimes, a lush string section, and a delicate hornsection. It’s so satiny and multi-toned that it almost temptsthe listener to smoke dope. Lee’s voice is itself multi-toned,her whispery confiding cadences filled with multiple reso-nances. Listeners familiar only with her finger-snappingrenditions of songs like “Fever” will be surprised by herdelicacy as she interprets what amount to dramaticmonologs about a woman’s complex relationship with aman: “Happiness Is a Thing Called Joe,” “He’s My Guy,”“If I Should Lose You,” “There Is No Greater Love.” It’s dif-ficult to overpraise the album.

No discussion of Riddle’s work can avoid his relation-


ship with Rosemary Clooney, with whom he had a romancein the late 1950s. He was the arranger for her 1956-57 tele-vision show and collaborated with her on a collection ofstandards, Rosie Solves the Swingin’ Riddle! This was a depar-ture for Clooney, whose early career was based on noveltytunes like “Come On-a My House” (1951) and “Botch-a-Me” (1952) as well as a series of successful children’salbums. Her pairing with Bing Crosby in 1954’s WhiteChristmas typifies her cheerful, likable, wholesome persona.But in 1955, she married José Ferrer, a domineering egotistwith whom she had five children in the nextwearying five years. Simultaneously,she began to seem old-fashioned tocontemporary audiences. Swing-in’ Riddle (1960), it washoped, would reinvent her.Unfortunately, her beam-ing wholesome personamakes the material(“Get Me to the Churchon Time” and “Shine onHarvest Moon”) soundso corny that evenRiddle’s usually hiparrangements suffer.

Their second albumtogether, Love, was anothermatter. Recorded in 1961 asClooney’s career was fallingapart, it was never released by thecompany that made it (RCA) andappeared only in 1963, thanks to Sinatraand his new company, Reprise. This album features a quitedifferent Clooney. Not only her career but her relationshipwith Riddle was collapsing. As she faced her soon-to-be-ex-lover who conducted some of his most lovingarrangements (especially “How Will I RememberYou”), she somehow managed to sing while tearsstreamed down her face. Despite over-bright soundreproduction, the heartbreaking emotion on thisset of ballads is palpable. The most interestingorchestration is for “Black Coffee,” which com-bines a low string section with a bassoon, adding aguitar for good measure. But despite its inventive-ness (the major tone-painting influence was RalphVaughan Williams), Love found no audience in thechanging pop culture of the 1960s.

The pills and alcohol to which Clooney had becomeaddicted led to a nervous breakdown during a perfor-mance in Reno, Nevada, in 1968. Her career and perhapsher life would have ended if not for the encouragement ofCarl Jefferson, founder of Concord Records. It wasJefferson’s idea that, beginning in 1977, Clooney would doan album a year for the label. Thus the reinvention that shehad hoped for in 1960 finally occurred. By now, her once-smiley voice had thickened and weakened, evoking sadnessand hard years that gave her interpretations authenticity,the readings amazing depth. In 1996, long after Riddle’sdeath, she recorded Dedicated to Nelson, a tribute based ontranscriptions of arrangements (the pages now lost) thatRiddle had written for her mid-Fifties TV show. One,“Come Rain or Come Shine,” will sound familiar to anyonewho knows Judy Garland’s first Riddle album. Pressed fortime, he wrote basically the same double-time bongo-dri-ven arrangement for Garland that he had earlier written forClooney’s TV show.

Throughout the 1950s, Riddle worked with othersingers: Billy Eckstine (his ten-inch 1952 tribute toRodgers and Hammerstein is said to be wonderful, but Ican’t find its title, let alone a copy of it), MargaretWhiting, Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, Dinah Shore, KeelySmith (the Collectors Choice “Politely Swingin’” is recom-mended), Johnny Mathis, Mel Torme, on and on. An undis-covered treasure is the work he did for once-famous butnow-forgotten Ella Mae Morse, who had a voice like PatsyCline and who combined delightful big-band blues withcountry and boogie-woogie. See The Very Best of Ella Mae

Morse, for three hits Riddle arranged for her, including1952’s “The Blacksmith Blues” in which a big band

is accented by a drum key hitting a glass ashtrayin imitation of a hammer on an anvil.

Except for Sinatra, though, no singer ismore associated with Riddle than EllaFitzgerald. Norman Grantz, Fitzgerald’smanager and the founder of VerveRecords, decided that Fitzgerald shoulddo various albums celebrating the workof American songwriters. The greatest ofthese was Ella Fitzgerald Sings the Georgeand Ira Gershwin Song Book. Originally it

was a five-LP set and is now on four CDs.The 1959 project involved 59 songs. And

yet, in spite of all the other work Riddle wasdoing, he managed to find ways of making

the entire 59 never repetitive or weary. Arranging for Fitzgerald had its challenges.

Exuding naïvety and good-nature, she has no personaexcept that of a wonderful musician. As a conse-

quence, cynical or sex-laden lyrics don’tsound authentic. Her musical phrasing

and the quality of her voice are solelywhat we care about. But whilemany singers remind us of aninstrument, Fitzgerald has achameleon’s ability to sound likenumerous instruments. Thus itwas difficult for Riddle toachieve his customary lightnessby placing the orchestra aboveand below her voice, leaving herown register open. Because she

had a range of almost two-and-a-half octaves, he couldn’t avoid plac-

ing instruments at her pitch. But hisarrangements for her don’t feel crowd-

ed because he switched to a different tac-tic and relied on the buoyant effect of the phe-

nomenon of bell tones. Put simply, if you play a sequenceof octaves on a piano, holding them so that they build onone another, their combined resonance will cause sympa-thetic vibrations in the higher octaves, although thosehigher octaves haven’t been struck. Riddle often achievedthese “phantom notes” by playing different instruments inunison (a harp and a piano, for example) octaves apart. Thecombination produces a new note that is lighter and with adifferent color from the two notes played separately. TheFitzgerald-Riddle album that most relies on this techniqueis The Johnny Mercer Song Book (1965).

Riddle also did a Jerome Kern song book withFitzgerald (1963), this one emphasizing stereo effects, parts

TAS JOURNAL • 31

Pictured: Riddle with Clooney; Fitzgerald

of the orchestra speaking to each other from the right andleft. Between the song books, he collaborated withFitzgerald on two other albums: the Grammy-winning EllaSwings Brightly with Nelson (1962) and EllaSwings Gently with Nelson (1963). The firstis as advertised, a delightful example ofRiddle’s famous rhythmic bright style.But the second, much of which wasrecorded in the same sessions asBrightly, is so gentle as to make a lis-tener feel on Prozac and creates a sus-picion that Riddle might have beenweary from too many projects.

Certainly he had plenty to do. In1963, he arranged his favorite album,Oscar Peterson and Nelson Riddle (alternatetitle: That Special Magic). An extension of ThePiano Style of Nat “King” Cole (Peterson was greatly influ-enced by Cole’s technique), this album takes advantage ofPeterson’s classical training to produce symphonic jazz. Acombination of five flutes, five horns, ten cellos, and a harpcreate what Riddle called a velvet cushion for Peterson’sremarkable piano sound. Peterson’s long-time trio mem-bers, drummer Ed Thigpen and bassist Ray Brown, aremost welcome here. Riddle’s favorite selection was “MyShip,” which was “played more slowly than most peoplewould consider tasteful,” he said, permitting “Oscar toweave a spell the likes of which I’ve seldom heard.” (Thismasterpiece has long been out-of-print, but a good place tolook for copies is As The Record Turns, 1-323-466-8742.)

Meanwhile, Riddle also wrote music for the TV shows“The Untouchables,” “Naked City,” and most important,“Route 66” (1960-64), a Jack-Kerouac-influenced dramaabout two young men in a Corvette in search of Americaand themselves. For that show, Riddle composed a newtheme every week, in addition to the pulsing-piano titlemelody that became a Top 40 hit for him in 1962, one ofthe few since his million-copy single, “Lisbon Antigua” in1956. He went on to be musical director for “The SmothersBrothers Comedy Hour” and “The Julie Andrews Show.”All told, he scored some 30 films, including The PajamaGame, High Society, Pal Joey, and Guys and Dolls, eventuallyreceiving an Academy Award for The Great Gatsby (1974).

Far from feeling gratified by his achievements, Riddle,worn down by overwork, suffered from almost chronic dis-couragement and low self-esteem. He was especiallydepressed that he never achieved the financial success ofHenry Mancini. These days, arrangers negotiate for residualpayments, but during Riddle’s prime, arrangements soldfor a one-time fee. It has been estimated that he got around$150 for his arrangement of “I’ve Got You Under MySkin.” Nat “King” Cole used his $52 “Mona Lisa” chart sooften that Riddle calculated his pay averaged out to lessthan one cent per performance. Even when Riddle won theOscar, he found a way to see the dark side, claiming thatproducers no longer wanted to hire him because theythought that his fee would now be higher.

His career was in limbo when in the early EightiesLinda Ronstadt asked him to write some Sinatra-stylearrangements for an album on which she diverged fromrock-and-roll and sang standards. (A similar cross-over pro-ject involved the opera singer Dame Kiri Te Kanawa: BlueSkies, 1985.) The Rondstadt collaboration was so commer-cially successful, it extended into three albums: What’s New(1983), For Sentimental Reasons (1984), and Lush Life (1986).But one can only imagine Riddle’s dismay as he listened to

the singer take a week to record snippets of tracks thatwould have taken Sinatra a couple of hours, live, withoutresorting to tape splices. Rondstadt attacks the songs soloudly that she almost shouts, while constantly going flatand allowing her vibrato to wander all over the place.Ironically, Riddle’s association with this inferior project

brought him the financial success he craved, for instead ofa flat fee, he earned royalties, and the first album alonesold more than three-and-a-half-million copies.

By the time the last Rondstadt-Riddle album wasreleased, Riddle was dead. Although he didn’t abusealcohol, in 1980 he’d had an operation for liver prob-lems. In 1985, the liver problems returned and killed

him. He was only 64. Riddle survived long enough to com-plete a definitive textbook, Arranged by

Nelson Riddle, from which many ofmy observations about his tech-niques are taken. It’s hard to find,but musicbooks.com has copies.When his family went to hisoffice to gather his belongings,they found a new arrangementthat he’d been writing for Sinatra.

Perhaps he achieved a measure ofsatisfaction when, not long before

his death, he attended a party thatJonathan Schwartz gave to celebrate the

renewed interest in Riddle’s work. From a stereo, “I’ve GotYou Under My Skin” filled the room. Everyone turned andapplauded.

DAVID MORRELL&

TAS JOURNAL • 33

Pictured: Riddle; Peterson

What’s Wrong With Loudspeakers

People who design, review, or even just buy loudspeakers worryoften and about many things. But sometimes they don’t worryabout things they should worry about. Here are some problems withspeakers and their performance in rooms that seldom receive theattention they deserve, or in some cases, any attention at all. Theirexistence is a matter of fact. Whether you will think they are real-ly important – well, you need to think, experiment, and most of alllisten for yourself.

1. Speakers are not smooth enough in the top end.A smooth, flat top end has been a nominal goal of audio forso long that it might seem boring to mention it. But theadvent of digital EQ devices like the Z-System’s rdp-1 hasmade it possible for the first time for everybody to checkout what is really going on here. Before, we could onlycompare different speakers or different crossover adjust-ments in the same speaker. Now we can make specifiedsmall changes of frequency response in a fixed speaker andsee what happens. The rdp-1 will let you punch in and outpeaks and dips as small as 0.2 dB and of varying widths(“Q” factor). Trying this out with pink noise is startling.The +/- 0.2 dB changes are quite obvious, especially in theregion of maximum hearing sensitivity centered around 3to 4 kHz, from 1 to 10 k, say. And the kinds of errors thattweeters, even quite good tweeters, typically make, on theorder of +/-1dB, are gross. On music’s ever-changing sig-nal, it takes longer to hear the effects. But you’ll get there.And once you have heard what music sounds like with thepeaks in your tweeter massaged out by DSP, once you haveheard the marvelously relaxing and beautiful sound of atruly smooth top end, you won’t want to go back. The besttweeters nowadays are good, but even the best can be madea little better. And others are really in need of help, orreplacement (bad ones cannot be fixed even by the DSP).We have all lived too long with abuse where our ears carethe most. And +/-1 dB is not good enough, not when +/-0.2 is so easy to hear.

2. Speakers are too noisy. When a speaker has no input, it is silent, so we tend not tothink of it as a source of noise in the sense that a hissingpreamp is. But as soon as a speaker gets an input signal, itstarts doing things it shouldn’t and starts making noise,not just the music it should be making. Cones and sur-rounds flexing, mechanical structures vibrating, cabinetsflexing in unpredicted and unpredictable ways, air flowingturbulently, electrostatic diaphragms vibrating chaoticallyon the scale of small areas even if they are moving regular-ly on a large scale, such sources of noise are everywhere. Youcan see all this in the chaotic tail ends of “waterfall” plots,after the big signal and the resonance ridges have decayed.

You can see (and hear) it in the decay of the sound if a largesignal input to the speaker is suddenly switched off. Andyou can see it in the “spectral noise contamination test,”devised by the late Deane Jensen and Dr. Gary Sokolich, inwhich the input is a number of sine waves at spaced fre-quencies that are notched out of the measuring mike pick-up signal, leaving the noise exposed as a broad-band, lower-level signal. (This test is available commercially in theSys/Id software.)

How much noise are we talking about here? A lot, awhole lot by the standards of noise levels in electronics andrecording systems. Speaker noise appears only 20 to 30 dBdown from signal in some cases, and even the cleanestspeakers I know do not get the noise down much more than55 dB or so. (See my review of the Mordaunt Short MS30,Issue 103, for a discussion of what happens in a good situ-ation.) In a world where we worry about noise products inelectronics 80, 90, 100 dB down, maybe we should worrya little more about the noise of speakers that is much loud-er than that.

3. Speakers are not flat enough in rooms from themidrange down.This is a familiar problem I have mentioned often, espe-cially in terms of using digital-signal processing to correctit. (See my review of the SigTech, Issue 113; Accuphase,Issue 120; Tact RCS, this issue.) Still, it is shocking to mea-sure the actual performance of systems whose owners areassuming that because their speaker is anechoically flat, itwill be reasonably flat in-room. All you have to do is tolook at in-room response curves to see what an illusion thisusually is. Try it yourself, with warble tones and an SPLmeter (even a non-calibrated inexpensive one will be suffi-cient to reveal the gross problems that usually occur).Remember how sensitive the ear is to response errors, andbe appalled. If you can get +/-2 dB from 1 kHz on down toabout 40 Hz, count yourself wildly lucky. And thenremember that that is nowhere near flat enough for perfec-tion in audible terms. Without DSP correction, it is nearlyhopeless to expect reproducible high fidelity in any reason-able sense. Lest we forget.

ROBERT E. GREENE

I am indebted to Richard Black, Ole Christensen, and JormaSalmi for their comments on these subjects, and to Black for shar-ing his as yet unpublished noise measurements. – REG

&

TAS JOURNAL • 37

HP asked the music writers to send us something on those musicalselections they adore but play only in secret – their GuiltyPleasures. (HP himself started the series in his editorial in Issue125.) Well, plainly, we touched a nerve – you could almost feelthe writers blushing! Some couldn’t believe that we’d believe they’dbe a little shamefaced about anything they listened to. All theirpleasures are on the up and up, how dare we hint otherwise?Others – well, the list here is short, so somebody’s not confessing…

ANDREW QUINT

Love at the Movies. Michael Chertock, pianist. Telarc CD-80537

Eminem: The Marshall Mathers LP. Aftermath/Interscope Records069490629-2

H ere’s a paranoid thought. What if my editors are justsetting me up? What if I’m actually the only writerbeing asked to admit to potentially humiliating

musical fetishes? It would be rather like a moonlit night atthe lake when someone suggests skinny-dipping and, five

minutes later, you emerge from the bushes to find you’re theonly one who is naked. Well, I’ll just have to take mychances, for my path as a record collector is littered withguilty pleasures. I even mentioned one as such – Mercury’sBalalaika Favorites in Issue 124’s best-sounding recordingsfeature. And that’s just one indiscretion among dozens,maybe hundreds. How about the time I mortified my 16-year-old daughter by playing Crash Test Dummies (“MmmMmm Mmm Mmm”) to show off my system to a dozen ofher friends (who, it turns out, would rather have heardRespighi) because the bass locked into my room so well? Imay as well just recall the two most recent instances andacknowledge that many others preceded them, and manymore will follow.

Telarc’s Love at the Movies programs 18 “romanticmelodies,” played on solo piano by Michael Chertock. Mostof the selections derive from films of the last 15 years,though some of this familiar fare dates back to the Sixties:“A Time for Us,” from Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet or thetheme from Spartacus. I definitely check to be sure there’sno one around to catch me enjoying the more treacly mate-rial, like “The Wind Beneath My Wings” or (gulp) “My

TAS JOURNAL • 39

Guilty As Charged

M U S I C U P F R O N T

Heart Will Go On” from Titanic. It must be said thatChertock is quite good at this sort of thing (he’s made threeother CDs of movie music for Telarc). His arrangements areimaginative, with spiced harmonies and slight dissonancesthat are miles away from the realm of the hotel lounge, orthe overwrought pounding of some Liberace wannabe.Chertock, who does have serious classical credentials, playswith a refined touch and has an even, confident technique.Moreover, he is recorded spectacularly well. You won’t heara more natural piano recording – a perfect blend of hammerhitting string and a glorious wash of sound when the play-er uses the sustain pedal. So, perhaps, creative arrange-ments, first-rate musicianship, and sonic excellence redeemG.P. No.1. But what can I say about No.2?

I’ve always tried to share my love of music with mychildren. When my younger daughter was little, she’d askfor Peer Gynt in the car and I was in heaven. Now, the kidlikes rap. I try, really I do, to detect positive artistic sensi-bilities in the material she provides for my listening plea-sure as I take her to a sleepover or the mall, nodding alongin the interest of a good father-daughter relationship when,actually, it’s all I can do to keep from turning into oncom-ing traffic. Her current passion is Eminem, aka MarshallMathers, or his alter ego Slim Shady. Slim does have a dis-cernible sense of humor and an oddly appealing wise-guyvoice, but the content of 95 percent of his – ah – oeuvre isjust awful: ungenerous; violent; misogynist. My 13-year-old glances over at me from the passenger seat every sooften to be sure I’m suitably appalled. Then she got me myown personal copy of Mathers’ newest parental-advisory-if-there-ever-was-one mega-hit: The Marshall Mathers LP.

I’m driving to work, alone, and don’t really have to lis-ten to it, but I find myself somehow drawn to the CD. Justone selection, in fact, as most of the disc is too brutal forme: “The Real Slim Shady,” the cut used for the heavy-rota-tion music video. In it, Slim proclaims his uniqueness andgeneral superiority (“I’m Slim Shady, yes I’m the realShady/ All you other Slim Shadys are just imitating.”) Overa repeating, arching bass figure in C minor (shades ofBach’s Passacaglia, BWV 582), Slim’s verbal elaborationsdance lightly and knowingly over, around and inside theinsistent beat. There’s a kind of majesty to the chorus when

it comes up each time, an almost baroque feel with organ-like chords heard faintly. I struggle to understand myattraction to this music. Perhaps it’s post-modern Mozart:the sexual bravado of Don Giovanni’s title character, or thesputtering, vengeful viciousness of Osmin, the harem’s pro-tector in The Abduction from the Seraglio. Maybe? I don’tthink so, as I drive on, another fortysomething gangsta in asuit and tie. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

DAN DAVIS

Phillip Kent Bimstein: Garland Hirschi’s Cows; The LouieLouie Variations; Dark Winds Rising; The Door; Vox-Dominum. Modern Mandolin Quartet (The Louie LouieVariations); Turtle Island String Quartet (Dark Winds Rising).Phillip Bimstein, producer. Starkland ST-205

Iwas inclined to ignore the editor’s request for a “guiltypleasure…a recording you love and listen to a lot, butare a little ashamed of liking so much.” I don’t have oxy-

moronic guilty pleasures since I’m arrogant enough tothink that if I like something and the rest of the worlddoesn’t, the fault lies with those whose taste, refinement,and understanding are inferior to my own. But then, wan-dering around midtown New York one summer’s day, Ifound the Big Apple littered with fiberglass cows. Really.Five hundred of them, scattered in public places through-out the five boroughs in a delightful summer-long art fest.That’s a lot of cows and they reminded me that I do indeedhave a listening pleasure I no longer seek to share with oth-ers, since my enthusiasm for that serious, thoughtful workwas too often met with scornful disbelief.

It’s a piece called Garland Hirschi’s Cows [Starkland ST-205] by Phillip Kent Bimstein, whose curriculum vitaincludes a stint as rock band leader, composer of concertand dance pieces, and mayor of Springdale, Utah. Throughcomputerized digital sampling techniques, Bimsteinmanipulates real-world sounds, spoken texts, and conven-tional instruments to convey the emotional impact centralto any valid musical experience.

In Garland Hirschi’s Cows, described as “a concerto inthree moovements [sic],” Bimstein combines sound sam-ples, farmer Hirschi talking about growing up in a smallcow town and various aspects of cows, and of course, lotsof mooing by cows, as individuals and in chorus. It’sfunny, a real leg-slapper, as moos come at you from alldirections. But it’s a lot more. The first moovement is anallegro, with Hirschi asking “You wanna know a little bitabout my cows, huh?” Bimstein loops that line and oth-ers so it’s repeated, fragmented, speeded, and slowed. Thesecond moovement, titled “Pasturale” is a moving paeonto a lost way of life. Hirschi talks of growing up in a two-

room house in a smallUtah town whereeveryone had cattle.He tells of the daysbefore refrigerationwhen meat from cowswould be hung out-doors at night tokeep cold. Mournfulmoos and instrumen-tal interjections turnthis section into arequiem for the

TAS JOURNAL • 41

Eminem

slaughtered and those soon to become steaks. The finalmoovement is a scherzo, a bouncy, foot-tapping, smile-inducing piece that swings. The piece as a whole is anaffirmation of Hirschi’s life and values. More than just afunny romp, it’s a serious work with a universal message.

The rest of the disc is as worthy. My favorite is “TheDoor,” which transforms the creaks and squeals of Bimstein’sstudio door into a stunning collage of sound and rhythm. Itdoes what all art should do – make you see and hear every-day things in new ways, bringing new perceptions.

Bimstein’s disc is indeed a pleasure I indulge in. Try it.Distributed by Albany, its also available direct fromStarkland at P.O. Box 2190, Boulder, CO 80306.

MICHAEL ALAN FOX

I ’ve walked down the Guilty Pleasures road before. Fiveyears ago, I talked with HP about doing a piece on theshameful pleasures of surrendering to bad music, and got

the go-ahead to proceed on this irresistible topic. I lost heartpartway through, and I’ll take a moment to tell you why.

It started a few months after Henry Mancini’s death,when I found a long-forgotten copy of The Music from PeterGunn [RCA LSP-1956] in the backwaters of my recordshelves and decided to play it as a kind of mini-memorial.I had enjoyed the TV series in college days, but it had beena very long time since I listened to the record. As I listenedto that once familiar music, I was struck by the fact that Ihad heard its cousins over and over again in later years, andI suddenly realized that Blood, Sweat and Tears andChicago owed a tremendous debt to the Mancini sound.

I played “25 or 6 to 4” from the second Chicagoalbum [Chicago II, Columbia KGP 24], which I remem-bered as a major wowser. Well yes, but I was brought upshort by that chorus, “Sitting cross-legged on the floor, 25or 6 to 4,” and asked myself how I managed years ago tooverlook the fact that the lyrics, as in the case of mostChicago stuff, are just silly.

The next step was to see where the pursuit of bad musicwould lead. From Chicago and BS&T, no great leap wasneeded to reach all kinds of lyrical lameness and music thatteetered on the edge of self-parody and occasionally did apratfall. Rare Earth and a couple of Vanilla Fudge albumswere an essential part of this journey, and even the BeachBoys played their part: It would be hard to improve onthese immortal lines from “Little Honda”:

It climbs the hills like a Matchless ’cause my Honda’s built really light,

When I go into the turns, hang on me and hold really tight,I’d better turn on the light so we can ride my Honda tonight.

But what might have been a fairly amusing articlefoundered on the rocks when I happened across a copy ofZager & Evans In the Year 2525 [RCA LSP-4214].Wondering if the title track could be as truly awful as Iremembered, I brought it home, and yes, 30 years’ marchtoward the target year had not cured this timeless stupidi-ty. Worse, it didn’t suggest anything further that I mightlisten to maintain the madcap spirit of bad music. No, itwas a dead end; I could no longer listen to proudly badmusic with any sense of enjoyment, and I certainly didn’twant to write about that kind of dreck.


After that chastening experiment, I’ve learned somerestraint, and I no longer push the envelope of truly badmusic. But the two records I’m about to confess to are notexactly Olympian in stature.

Despite excellent reasons not to, I like The Singles 1969-1973 [Carpenters, A & M SP 3601, mostly the songs pro-duced by Jack Daugherty] and The Best of The Guess Who[RCA LSPX-1004, produced by Nimbus 9/Jack Richard-son]. In both cases, only Side One will do and the first twosongs should be skipped (in the case of Carpenters, makethat a must: “We’ve Only Just Begun” is repulsive and“Top of the World” not much better). But tracks 3-6 arestandouts (Carpenters: “Ticket to Ride,” “Superstar,”“Rainy Days and Mondays,” and above all, “Goodbye toLove.” Guess Who: “Undun,” “No Time,” “AmericanWoman,” “No Sugar Tonight/New Mother Nature”). Theoverdubbed background vocals and strings on Carpentersare a bit much, and although you might not want KarenCarpenter as your drummer, she had some kind of alto andshe knew how to use it. Combined with Tony Peluso’s bril-liantly angry guitar solo on “Goodbye to Love,” it makesfor one of the best pop songs ever. With The Guess Who,“Undun” might be the standout, but it doesn’t go down-hill. Very few rock records have ever sounded better: Thereis no presence peak, and the midrange may even berecessed, but because of that, both “No Time” and “NoSugar Tonight” are major anthems that stay clean evenwhen played just as loud as you’d like – remarkably goodstudio recordings. “No Sugar Tonight” as a single was notThe Guess Who’s greatest hit, but combined on the albumwith “New Mother Nature,” it makes for a terrific song,with one of the killer bass/drum riffs of all time – the loud-

er the better. If you’re going for guilty pleasures, theymight as well sound good. These do.

ARTHUR S. PFEFFER

Strauss: Don Quixote; Death and Transfiguration. METOrchestra. James Levine, cond. DG 447762-2

I n our society of extreme self-indulgence and extremeguilt, I should have no trouble disclosing a rueful plea-sure of my own. But – talk shows take note! – I never

feel guilty or ashamed at any musical pleasure, if it truly isa pleasure (actually guilt and shame are not synonymous;guilt is moral, shame is social). The best or worst I can sup-ply here is a recording that should make me feel guilty: aDG CD from HP’s Super CD list, Strauss’s Don Quixote andDeath and Transfiguration with the MET Orchestra underJames Levine.

No, I don’t disagree with HP. It is a super-recording.What induces guilt isn’t disloyalty or even DG’s reputationamong audiophiles but its engineering methods: maximummulti-track digital processing, the antithesis of my – andHP’s? – purist preferences. I witnessed for myself how such“4D Audio” recordings are made, at a DG recording ses-sion, same orchestra, conductor, and location, theManhattan Center. Stanley Kubrick could have designedthe control room. Dozens of individual tracks, each fed byits own microphone, meet and mingle in DG’s enormous,glitzy digital console. Virtual software hands invisibly slidethe faders up and down, algorithms shaping musicalrhythms in real-time. Out in the auditorium, a central

TAS JOURNAL • 43

array of stereo mikes perches above the conductor’s head,but scores of individual mikes are spotted all around theroom in front of the players’ noses, the signals panned intoappropriate stage positions by the console. Small satelliteA/D converters sit right on the mike stands so that onlynoise-resistant digital data passes through the long cablesto the mixer. The console even calculates how much rever-beration each individual track needs to simulate spatial dis-tances. What C. Robert Fine and Lewis Layton did withthree tracks, natural air, and good taste, DG engineers fab-ricate electronically, a virtual recording.

What’s more, though this part is ancient history, theensemble never actually plays through the entire score orany large part of it. A few bars at a time are repeated overand over, and the snatches are assembled later into a virtu-al performance. And I supposedly dislike virtual recordingsand virtual performances!

It’s all under control, you see, automatic, antiseptic.Nothing can go wrong . . . nothing can go wrong . . . noth-ing can go wrong . . . and none of it should work. Thesound should be airless and the performance mechanical.But HP is not deluded. Levine, his well-MET orchestra,and DG’s expensive circuitry synthesize a convincing illu-sion of a live concert, with detailed, lifelike images andtonal textures, vivid dynamic power, airy spaces, and spir-ited, idiomatic playing. The CD is not fragmented or alien-ating but about as close to reality and genuine musical val-ues as DDD recordings get these days. DG’s formula works,or worked in this instance. This is good news for sound-conscious listeners, because digital engineering isn’t goingaway. Better illusory realism than none at all. If I hadn’ttold you, would you have known?

SCOT MARKWELL

Elgar: Caractacus. Sir Charles Groves and the LiverpoolPhilharmonic Orchestra. John Willan, producer; ChristopherParker, engineer. English EMI SLS 998

I routinely play stuff I would not be caught dead listen-ing to with card-carrying audiophiles. I guess I hide thethings that reach me, one way or another, on a deep

emotional level, when those things are considered “hoaky”or “poor music.” I don’t like to see people groan and rolltheir eyes when I put on something I really like, so I stickwith “safe” stuff acceptable to most, even if it’s vapid orbores me – and I have plenty of that that sounds just great!One of my favorite “secret works” is Elgar’s Caractacus. Thisis, quoting from the recording’s notes, Elgar’s “fourth andmost ambitious choral work composed within the space offive years in the 1890s,” and is based on Maurice Hewlett’slate Nineteenth Century, shamelessly romantic novel The

Forest Lovers.This is a stunning

three-in-one record-ing, which gives yousuper-disc quality in atwo-disc set with su-perb choral and orch-estral sound and someof the most powerfuland well-defined or-gan-pedal interludeson record. Side Two,which is also Act Two,


is my favorite. It is described as “Thesacred Oak grove by the Tombs of theKings; Arch-Druid, Orbin, Druids,Druid Maidens, and Bards round thesacred oak” (to give you a taste of theromantic flavor) and is both lyricaland powerfully emotional. When thesoloist sings

Bear your torches through the gloom,

Quench them on the hero’s tomb,Where the stones are wet and red,With the blood of victims red

and the music takes off into wander-ings of organ, choral passages, andmega-organ rifts, you know you are infor something special.

This is a great system test-disc, soclean and full of dynamic and fre-quency contrasts that it can serve as aquick overall check to see if your sys-tem can handle so much information.Some refer to Elgar, and particularlythis work, as just so much noodlingby another one of those “out there”English numb-nuts, but every time Ilisten to Caractacus, I come awayinvigorated and energetic, knowingthat all the problems I had been hear-ing in the system were software-relat-ed. These discs show me that I am onthe right track.

I remain an unabashed fan of thisrecording, and recommend it if youare even the smallest bit adventurousmusically. Good luck finding a copy,although fortune smiled on me in theNYC area thrice. Two copies I gaveaway to friends with taste as romanticas mine.

FRED KAPLAN

James Taylor

H is voice can be nasal and sac-charine. He’s not much of alyricist (one of his songs

begins, “Gosh almighty, baby/ Yesindeed/ You supply the satisfy/ AndI’ll supply the need”). When he triesto sing the blues (rarely, thank Gosh),the results are wincingly wimpy (isthere a more white-bread ex-heroinaddict in all musiciandom?). And yet,there’s something about James Taylorthat moves me and soothes me – early-to-mid-period James Taylor, anyway,from his eponymous 1968 debut onApple through his Greatest Hits of ’76on Warner Bros [BSK 3113]. I evenlike about half of Gorilla [WarnerBros. 2866-2 on CD]. Do I prefer him

to the other big folk-rockies of the era– Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, CarlySimon, Crosby Stills & Nash? Ofcourse not. This assignment is aboutembarrassment, not idiocy. Still,what’s going on here? Maybe, I ratio-nalize, it’s the audiophile in me. Theearly recordings were produced byPeter Asher, the mid-period ones wereengineered by Lee Herschberg, theGreatest Hits LP was mastered at A&Mby Bernie Grundman – all top-notchknob-twiddlers – and they sound ter-rific. The guitars strum, the drumssmack, the cello glows, the voicebreathes.

But no, that may be part of thestory, but it’s not the whole deal, oth-erwise I’d like Amanda McBroom, too(and, just to clarify matters, I don’t, Idon’t). There’s no getting around it: Ijust like James Taylor, and (isn’t thisthe thing about guilty pleasures?) Idon’t know – I’m not sure I want toknow – why.

ROBERT E. GREENE

Harry Nilsson: A Little Touch ofSchmillson in the Night.RCA APLI-0097

Roger Williams playing anything at all.Kapp Records

Doris Day and Julie London

I ’m reminded of a story about aninterviewer who tried to soften upOtto Klemperer’s stern musical

presence by some “human interest”questions: “What do you read, Dr.Klemperer?”

“I read what everyone reads,Goethe, Schiller, Shakespeare.”

“I mean, what do you read torelax?”

“Oh. For relaxation, I readNietzsche.”

I am not as rock-ribbed as that.But I really do listen mostly to musicthat falls in the category of “classical,”even to relax, only on the lighter side– J. Strauss, Lehar, Gilbert andSullivan. Still, some things lie a longway from the music I usually mentionor write about explicitly. Things Itend to keep to myself. . .

Nilsson’s nasal, reedy vocal pro-duction on this recording of great oldvocal standards (“As Time Goes By,”“You Made Me Love You,” ”What’ll IDo”) leaves unclear whether he hasany voice at all by usual criteria. Butlike Louis Armstrong or Rex Harrison

TAS JOURNAL • 45

in My Fair Lady, Nilsson triumphs by style alone. To gofrom his “Makin’ Whoopee” to the version by, say, Sinatraor indeed anyone else (male) except Armstrong is to feelthat sheer vocalism gets in the way of the song. Operasingers from Caruso (“Over There”) to Te Kanawa (“BlueSkies”) and onward have shown over and over how havinga Voice can be an impediment in the world of popular song.(Of course, Fitzgerald shows how you can have the voiceand still do a great job of the songs, but it requires real art.)No one can accuse Nilsson of letting his (non)voice carryhim away from the songs, and in its own way, his singinghere is oddly perfect – and unforgettable. He also singsthese great songs entire, which few others do. An indis-pensable record. Also available on CD (which I haven’theard – somehow the vinyl seems right for the spirit of thething). Look for the gatefold cover.

No one who knows the piano will accuse RogerWilliams of being short of pianism in the usual sense. Achild prodigy and Julliard student, Williams on classicaldisc for Kapp is more than respectable. But it is as perhapsthe world’s greatest master of the style that one can onlydescribe as “cocktail piano” that Williams became the bestselling pianist of the Fifties, and I think, ever. And no won-der – Williams could play simple, even infantile, melodies(“I Believe [for every drop of rain that falls]”) in such a waythat they became hypnotic. The arrangements are some-times just a bit too, too Fifties – what excesses we wereprone to then! But at his best, Williams reminds me ofRichard Strauss’ remark about Johann’s waltzes: “the onlymusic of which I never tire.”

The sound of Kapp was bright and not always free ofdistortion. For all their erstwhile abundance, it is not easyto find pristine copies of these records. People listened tothis music till they wore out the vinyl. But they are worthseeking out. Williams was at his best with songs from thefilms and from the Fifties (Songs of the Fabulous Fifties –“Unchained Melody” as a piano solo for instance). Andwhen Christmas rolls around, Christmas Time must not bemissed. Williams’ version of the “Christmas Song”(“Chestnuts roasting on an open fire…” – that one) is partof my holiday every year – four minutes of perfection in ourimperfect world.

The bewitching power of a woman’s voice is an ideathat goes back to ancient myth – the Sirens’ song, the

Lorelei. And during the period between the end of WorldWar II and the rise of rock music, the myth came toAmerica, with sirens abundant. Before she becameHollywood’s goody-goody actress, or in Oscar Levant’swords, “before she was a virgin,” Day had a big career asa torch singer, beginning with Les Brown and his Band ofRenown. Hurray for Hollywood, with Frank de Vol and hisorchestra, was her later high-water mark among manysuperb records she made for Columbia. The combinationof impossible vocal lushness and a bit of cynical bite (thetitle song, “Blues in the Night”) is captivating. Thatlushness literally is impossible: It is accomplished via theuse of one of the old mikes that juices up the voice withresonances. No one ever actually sounded like this, more’sthe pity. Garland fans will no doubt object to Day’ssmoother, less overtly heart-rending version of “Over therainbow,” but taken on its own terms it is gorgeous. Andthe record is a sonic stunner, realism be damned. TheColumbia Special Products reissue is fine, but the originalis even better.

Day is vocally smooth as butter and smart, too. Butthe flower of all the torchers, the nonpareil Julie London.Never mind how she looked. I fell for her voice on theradio long before I knew how perfectly she fit the part inappearance. And what a voice it was, with that combina-tion of huskiness, almost to the point of hoarseness, and apitch purity comparable to Marni Nixon (well, almost).The mode of expression is artlessness. Julie sings to you,and you alone. The soft, slow songs are far superior to theupbeat or raunchy ones, and the commercial attempt tomove London from her natural style into a harder-edgedjazzier mode was a mistake. Liberty, Julie’s recordingcompany, seemed not to know how to let more than wellenough alone. Overblown arrangements and artificialreverb can get in the way of the phenomenon that was hersinging. The great performances are scattered, though for-tunately numerous, though the CD collection (The Best ofJulie London) contains fewer of my favorites than I hoped.So you really need to hunt down all the records, especial-ly Lonely Girl, with guitarist Al Viola. Until you haveheard Julie’s “How Deep Is the Ocean” and “What’ll IDo,” you don’t really quite know what can be done withpopular song. Incomparable. Enough to make anyone feelguilty of something. &

TAS JOURNAL • 47

“Quad: The Closest Approach to theOriginal Sound.” This blurb next to aphotograph of a speaker in a shape I had

never seen before was my introduction to Quad elec-trostatic loudspeakers 30-some years ago. I was ajunior in college, just getting interested in audio;but all I could afford, let alone fit into a tiny apart-ment, was a three-piece Harman Kardon compactthat I thought offered good sound. I can’t rememberhow many systems I’ve had through the years –including the original Quad ESL (bought and soldthree times over) and the ESL-63 (twice, before itsettled in as my personal reference these last sevenyears) – but I’ve never forgotten that blurb, still thebest one-liner I’ve read for an audio component, notjust because it’s memorable, but because it is a suc-cinct statement of design philosophy.

One of the big differences between the greatBritish audio designers and their American coun-terparts is that the former seem never tohave harbored the illusion that it was pos-sible or desirable to bring musical eventsinto one’s listening room. For PeterWalker, the founder of Quad, the applicablemetaphor was that of a window onto theconcert hall – the purpose of a good high-fidelity system to transport the listener tothe orchestra. To that end, Walker concen-trated on transparency, linearity, low col-oration, and low distortion, rather than loud-ness capability, dynamic range, and low-fre-quency extension. It is a tribute to thelongevity of his two models that, whatevertheir limitations, they not only have acquiredclassic status but remain among the handful ofspeakers actively used as reference standards,unsurpassed in certain aspects of performance.

But like many small, privately held compa-nies, Quad found it increasingly difficult toremain competitive in a global marketplace. Inthe Nineties, the company foundered, eventuallypurchased by the Verity Group, which also ownedWharfedale, another old British loudspeaker com-

pany. When Verity proved unable to rejuvenateQuad, and the Wharfedale line was also in trouble,Stan Curtis, then chairman of Wharfedale, decidedto buy them himself. But no one was interested ininvesting in either company – if Verity couldn’tresuscitate them, who could? When things lookbleakest, Curtis managed to raise the money from agroup of Chinese venture capitalists called Jetop,Ltd. Thus was born the International Audio Group.

Curtis did a brilliant job of turning Quadaround. He oversaw the updating of the 63 to the988 (not yet available for review), the developmentof the larger 989, and the completion of the 99Series electronics. But owing to internal disputesthat have not been made fully public, the Quaddesign team and management were recently let go,then Curtis himself resigned. A story initially circu-lated in the British press seemed to make the

Chinese the villains,but my sources suggestthe situation is morecomplicated. The Chi-nese investors neverwanted Quad to beanything but British

T H E S O U N D

U P S T A I R S

Quad 989 Loudspeaker: Updating a Classic

THE SOUND • 49

Quad 989 and 988(988 not reviewed)

designed, run, and produced, to which end theentire production and service staff, some of whom goback three decades with Quad, were left in placethroughout the Curtis affair, while many of thedesign and management personnel have since beenreinstated. Though Curtis is gone, for the nonceQuad is in good health, with several new productsplanned, including a home-theater preamp/proces-sor and the long-awaited updatings of the originalQuad II all-tube power amps and preamp.

Conceptually, the new models remain in theirbasics the same speaker as before: a diaphragm ofMylar panels driven by a delay line of concentricannular electrodes designed to imitate the theoreticalideal of a “pulsating sphere” point source. The newspeakers are also physically similar, except for somecosmetic details and the 989’s standing about 15inches taller to accommodate the extra pair of basspanels.1 The principal philosophical differencebetween Walker and Curtis, et al., is that Curtis et al.were willing to pay more attention to what has sincebecome widespread audiophile thinking (wire effects,rigid mounting, parts quality as opposed merely totheir specs, etc.).2 Curtis also evidently consideredevery criticism of the 63; not that he acted upon themall, only that he listened. Throughout the process, allchanges were referenced against the 63.

Even in its beefed-up US version, the 63’s hous-ing never inspired the greatest confidence. Theentire frame is now considerably sturdier, the metalgrille both more transparent and much stronger,extrusions in the grille itself replacing the spindlyuprights that can’t have been a good thing. The bot-tom plate now comes tapped for spikes (supplied).Other significant changes include better transform-ers and power supplies, oxygen-free copper wire ofgreat purity throughout the delay lines (for Walker,wire was wire), and a higher-quality Mylar withsuperior batch-to-batch consistency. The ingeniouscircuit that protects the panels from being overdriv-en remains identical, except that the 989 has a high-er-rated polyswitch in keeping with its greaterpower-handling.

So how does the 989 sound? Is it really just a 63with better bass and dynamics? Does it need a sub-woofer? Can it play really loudly? Let me say rightoff that the 989 is a Quad right straight through,with all the virtues of its classic heritage: peerlesscoherence; openness; transparency; holographicimaging; low coloration; and quite low (i.e., essen-tially amplifier-level) distortion. It can still pass avirtually perfect square-wave and still sounds as ifthere’s next to nothing between listener and pro-gram. The absence of all the usual spurious cabinetresonances and response and phase anomalies of dri-vers and crossovers still results in reproduction ofsuch clarity and purity that it can seem eerie; butcome to them from live music and you appreciatethe essential rightness of the sound.

But while the 989 and the 63 are recognizably ofthe same lineage and sound similar, they do notsound identical, particularly in tonal balance.Robert Greene, who has taken measurements onboth speakers, will comment on these differences inmore technical detail; what follows are my subjec-

tive impressions. Starting at the bottom, the 989s play deeper,

louder, and much cleaner than the 63, which,despite its many virtues, never had real bass author-ity. The 989 does. Its performance on most organmusic, large-scale Nineteenth Century symphonicmaterial, and chamber, jazz, folk, and popular musicwith low-lying percussion and string-bass is now onpar with the upper range. For the first time, Quadlovers can enjoy deep bass cut from the same soniccloth as the rest of the speaker. Symphonic music isespecially impressive in its weight, foundation, anddynamic range. Bass drums approach that combina-tion of power and definition familiar from the con-cert hall, with none of the showy “tightness” thatcries “audiophile,” nor any of the overhang familiarfrom woofers that prize quantity over quality. You’llalso hear all the air, dimensionality, and hall ambi-ence the source permits (on the St. John’s ChristmasCD [Chandos CHAN 8485], traffic coming andgoing outside the building is clearly audible).

Does the 989 need a subwoofer? Let me put itthis way: With –6dB spec’d at 30 Hz, the 989 willplay right down to the bottom octave at any naturallevel. In this sense it is a full-range speaker that nomore needs a subwoofer than any similarly extendedfull-range speaker. Like all but a few, however, itwill not reproduce, at much amplitude, the bottomhalf- to two-thirds octave: 20-35 Hz. For that youwill need a subwoofer.

One of the raps against the 63 is that it had nohigh end. This is, of course, untrue. By design, the63 was a directional loudspeaker with a narrowresponse window that mandated on-axis listening.There it exhibited a perfectly natural high end thatappeared, subjectively, slightly down in top-octavelevel and extension. Curtis and company addressedthis “deficiency” by giving the 989 what sounds likeslightly elevated high-frequency energy on-axis, inorder, I am guessing, to increase the top-end powerresponse. This is a perfectly acceptable design deci-sion. Not only do you not have to position yourselfdead on axis with the 989s, it’s probably better ifyou don’t. Graphs supplied by Quad suggest that10-20 degrees off axis yield the flattest response uptop, which also has the advantage of letting both youand a friend occupy the sweet zone. Mind you, the989 is still a directional speaker, nor should anyoneinfer that the 989 sounds bright. It merely has aslightly brighter profile than its predecessor (thetilt-control on the Quad 99 preamplifier can be usedto address this rather effectively).

Which do I like better? Can’t answer that untilI spend more time with the 989. The 63 has been alive-in for seven years now, and it takes a lot to makeme change partners. Though I really like the high-end balance of the earlier speaker, feeling that most

THE SOUND • 51

1 The black polymer top-trims replacing the wood of yore have already garnered complaints.“Plastic in speakers selling for eight grand a pair?” someone harrumphed. Theoretical sonicadvantages notwithstanding, Quad made an executive decision à la Henry Ford that until pro-duction has stabilized, the consumer can have any color so long as it’s black. The next 18months, however, will see wooden caps in several finishes and different colored grille stockings,both field-retrofittable. (I find the black-on-black cuts an elegant figure.)

2 Given the almost unparalleled sample-to-sample uniformity of the 63, it is not easy to dis-miss Walker’s dismissal of these concerns.

speakers and recordings are altogether too toppy, Ialso know that for many the 63 didn’t sound flat,either. Just know that recordings on the verge ofedginess through the old speaker now cross the linethrough the new – that may be greater accuracy foryou – and recordings with smooth, extended highs(try some recent Cheskys) display their wares morefelicitously – that may also be greater accuracy.Audiophiles who felt the 63 was a little dim are like-ly to be delirious over the 989, while everyone elsecan rest assured that the quality of the highs is as fineas ever, revealing even more detail with no glare,glassiness, or hardness, with telltale signs of ambi-ence immediately available (compare the EmersonQuartet playing the Beethoven and the Shostakovichquartets and you’ll have no trouble discerning thedifferences in recording technique and locale).

Another reason for the altered high-frequencybalance is the addition of the two bass panels them-selves, which would certainly alter polar-responsepatterns and impact the midrange. About themidrange, 989 literature is quite forthcoming, ifnonspecific, speaking of “enhanced performance inthe mid-band.” This worried me; how do you“enhance” a midrange that was already practicallyflawless? It is rumored that Peter Walker put in atiny peak around 4 kHz, which the 989 retains, onlyit appears to have shifted down an octave or so.Otherwise, what I hear is a richer lower-midrangeand more brilliance in the upper. Voices sound as ifthey have more body and, when appropriate, more

size. Indeed, overall the 989 is capable of projectinga much bigger, more spacious and authoritative pre-sentation than the 63.

Best of all, the 989 retains all the matchless presenceof the 63. I’ve become tired of speakers that recess themidrange to cater to the fashionable craving for more“depth.” Voices on the 989 emerge in all their glori-ous, palpable presence: front and center, if they’rerecorded that way, set back if they’re not. Hint: mostrecordings, especially popular ones, place singers wellforward; likewise featured instrumentalists. Quadsbring Jacintha so close it’s almost indecent [Here’s toBen; Groove Note GRV2001-2]; when the incompara-ble Ben Webster plays “How Long Has This BeenGoing?” [Columbia CS 8691, Classic Records reissue],his sax is right out front in all its throbbing, shame-lessly voluptuous glory; and in Harmonia Mundi’sAnonymous Four recordings, the singers, though setsomewhat back to capture more of the acoustics, arestill present within the perspective. Here’s the mainproblem with recessed midranges: When there is realrecorded depth, the presence of those placed at a dis-tance is diminished and true perspectives are compro-mised. This never happens with the 989s.

What about dynamics and loudness, and suchmundane matters as placement and power require-ments? About the former, let me make the point byway of exaggeration: If you want to play at cleanlevels loud enough to damage your hearing, the989s will do the job nicely, even in large rooms; butif you want to play so loud as to destroy your hear-


ing, the speakers will have sense enough to shutthemselves down. This new loudness capability plusthe unsurpassed ability of Quads to play really qui-etly without tonal drop-out should answer themacrodynamic question. As for microdynamics,since this Mylar diaphragm is as low-mass asdiaphragms get, pick an instrument as common asa lute or guitar or as recherché as the psaltery onHarmonia Mundi’s Bitter Ballads [HMU 907204]or the rainstick on Christy Baron’s “Mercy Street”[Steppin’; Chesky JD201], and you’ll hear dynamicgradations of such ravishing delicacy they makemost other speakers sound coarse.

Power requirements? That Neil Gader and Iused the 989 for our integrated amplifier survey istestimony enough to its resolving capabilities (dif-ferences instantly audible) and to its compatibilitywith most good amplifiers of 70/70 watts, thoughyou’d want more for large rooms and high volumes.In my 22’ x 15’ x 8’ room, clean levels loud enoughto force me to cover my ears were obtained with

Marsh’s MSD A400S and Sunfire’s Signature.The subject of placement is always vexing with

dipoles, Quads being no exception. Or are they?Here’s where I’m supposed to warn that you’ll haveto spend hours moving the speakers inch by inch toget good sound. Well, much as I hate to disappointthe proactive contingent out there, my experiencewith these new Quads goes like this: (1) Place themseveral feet into room. (2) Establish a listening tri-angle. (3) Enjoy music.

The 989s are much more flexible about orienta-tion than their predecessor. Begin on axis and toethem out by degrees until you achieve a musicallysatisfying combination of tonal balance and imag-ing; I predict you’ll find 10-20 degrees off axis aboutright. They can also be placed within 18 inches or soof the side walls, which means you can spread themquite wide (adjusting the toe-in accordingly) with-out incurring the dreaded hole in the middle. Youcan even put them pretty close to the back wall.Years ago, Peter Walker suggested that a meter out

THE SOUND • 53

L eonardo da Vinci observed that an arch iscomprised of two weaknesses that, leaning

upon each other, combine to give an enormousstrength.

This concept was exploited by Peter Walkerand Theo Williamson in developing their ampli-fier; they contrived to have the weaknesses ofprevious designs oppose each other, thusyielding the improvement in performance. Ofcourse there were no computers then, so allcalculations had to be performed using pencil,paper, and slide rule. This brings us to anothergeneral concept: The more restricted themeans, the greater the likelihood of achievingan elegantly simple design solution.

Peter Walker had become accustomed tothe elegant symmetries of the opposing, bal-anced forces of the push-pull circuit, and anadept at spotting the complex terms that, inpush-pull working, would appear on both sidesof the equations and could be dropped out. Henotes that a simple expression governs the far-field axis pressure of an electrostatic speaker,eliminating many terms required to modeldynamic-coil performance, such as the drivermass that must be accelerated to speed andthen stopped. He writes: “The result, depen-dent on only two simple electrical measure-ments and two simple dimensional measure-ments, independent of frequency, area, orshape of the loudspeaker element, is inmarked contrast with our usual experience inthe field of loudspeakers!” (JAES, November1980, Vol. 28, No. 11)

In 1954 Walker and Williamson filed apatent describing the means of controllingcharge migration on the diaphragm, theAchilles heel of previous attempts in this field,and in 1955 published a series of articles inWireless World, “Wide-Range ElectrostaticLoudspeakers” (Vol. 61, Nos. 5, 6, 8). Walkerand Peter Baxandall met regularly with

Williamson, and the three often talked far intothe night about the right way to approach bothamplifier and loudspeaker design. After onestrenuous weekend in the garage, a workingprototype electrostatic loudspeaker appeared.

By 1957, the design had been completed,and it shows Peter Walker’s thoughts clearly.The polar pattern was made to resemble a car-dioid, when fitted with a felt blanket behind thediaphragm. The factory now wanted to put thedesign in production, but Walker was reluctant.New thoughts were stirring in his mind.

Meanwhile, the design had met with strongcriticism from hi-fi folk conditioned by years oflistening to big dynamic cones in massive enclo-sures. As time passed, though, people recog-nized that these speakers had to be positionedwell into the room, and their reputation andsales grew. Still there was no new model Quadelectrostatic to build on that success.

Walker had been sketching ideas for devel-opment for some years (his attitude wasalways that new solutions would be readywhen they were ready), and in 1963 heresolved the principal drawbacks that had pre-vented any electrostatic loudspeaker from real-izing the full theoretical potential. This came intwo parts that depend upon each other to suc-ceed. First, he could approximate the acousti-cian’s dream, the infinitely small point source

that radiates sound equally over an expandingsphere. From the diagram below, you can seethat if you make the diaphragm ripple like thesurface of water when an object is droppedinto it, you have recreated an expanding spher-ical wavefront. Second, by controlling the pat-terns of charge influencing the movement of avirtually massless diaphragm operating in a lin-ear system, it was possible to model any wave-front and dispersion pattern. Furthermore, youcould measure this by monitoring the chargeflowing at any point, through any of the sectorsof the stator panels, and adjust it with the samecomponents used to delay the signal andshape the wavefront. Acoustic distortions willalso be revealed by the patterns of charge flow,and are adjustable by the same means!

In 1963, however, Walker only had anidea, and work commenced on the Dartboard,as it was affectionately known in the family, forits annular rings of conductive wire. That workcontinued for the next 17 years until, in 1980,the product was finally ready for release as thefull-range electrostatic doublet (or Fred). RossWalker remembers Peter staying up night afternight, making vector calculations, inching hisway toward a product that ordinary customerscould use in untreated rooms. This led himfinally to modify the directivity as a function offrequency so that, at the higher frequenciesreflected by plastered and wallpapered walls,the stereo image would not be confused bymultiple ghosts. As he once said, “With electro-statics, it is easy to get it 95 percent right – theother 5 percent is murder!”

I remember digging out Walker’s papersfrom the stacks of the Science library inLondon, and laughing at the audacity of the firstone I examined, which proposed replacing theentire back wall of the listening room with onehuge electrostatic diaphragm: The dispersioncharacteristics would provide complete cover-age of any conceivable listening position!

BARRY RAWLINSON

Peter Walker & the Original Quads: A Valentine

Stator rings of a Quad 63

is adequate. I tried this, and be damned if thedesigner didn’t know what he was talking about(heresy to many audiophiles, I know, but true). Thepresentation remained open and clear, with gooddepth, the principal penalties a very slight nasality(probably correctable with back-wall treatment,such as Echobusters) and heavier bass (not unpleas-ing), offset by greater overall warmth (very pleas-ing). And yes, I’ll come clean, whether they’re ameter, two, or three out, you’ll have to work a littleto get the bass optimized. But being true dipolesand thus exciting fewer room modes than normalspeakers, the 989s retain far more of their essentialsound from spot to spot.

The only aspect of the 989’s imaging that’s like-ly to cause concern is height. Vertical image-posi-tion is determined mostly by tweeter height; sincethe acoustic center of the 989, where the highsemerge, is only a little over two feet off the floor,some audiophiles may find that performers don’tstand tall enough. Though much less of a problemwith the 989 than the 63, I already see a cottageindustry of stands to “correct” it. It will, but at theexpense of introducing floor reflections that’ll put

holes in the mid- and upper-bass response. Use themas they are intended: Peter Walker and his successorsknew what they were doing.3

One of the silliest spectacles that audio review-ing affords is watching reviewers pronounce this,that, or another component the best, as if the veryidea of a “best” were even conceivable, withoutmediating among a component’s strengths andweaknesses. If I have seemed circumspect about the989, it is partly because I’ve tried to balance someobjectivity with an enthusiasm for a product I find,for the most part, absolutely fabulous. Yet muchmore time, not to mention the perspective of the988, is necessary to gain anything like the full mea-sure of this extraordinary speaker.

Until then, I shall take my respite wrapped in anice, cozy subjectivism. Those characteristics thatQuads possess in abundance are for me those mostessential to the convincing reproduction of music inthe home, whereas those few things they do not dowell are unimportant to me or irrelevant to mydomestic situation. Which is a roundabout way ofsaying that Peter Walker’s 20-year-old designremains for me the closest approach to the originalsound. This latest iteration preserves most of itsvirtues, extends them into areas where it was notpreviously strong, and augments those with stillothers. If the path is not quite identical, theapproach, on balance, is perhaps even closer.

PAUL SEYDOR


3 I’ve heard all the famous after-market Quad modifications and to my ears they serve mere-ly to turn one of the most musically satisfying speakers ever made into an “audiophile” speakerin the worst sense. The only “modification” I recommend, if your aesthetic sensibilities aren’toffended, is pulling the grille sock down for improved transparency. However, you should never,ever let anyone talk you into bypassing the protection circuit or removing the protective metalscreens and cellophane dust covers. The manufacturer has made this product safe and essen-tially bullet-proof. Respect that.

IMPORTER INFORMATION

IAG America

180 Kerry Place, Norwood, Massachusetts 02062

Phone: (877) 440-0888; fax: (781) 440-0333

www.quad-hifi.co.uk/home.htm

Source: Importer loan

Price: $8,000/pair

SPECS

Sensitivity: 86dB/2.83V RMS

Impedance: 8 ohms nominal

Maximum program input: 40V

REG COMMENTS:

T he Quad ESL63 remains one of the world’s best speak-ers, almost 20 years after its introduction. The original

Quad ESL demonstrated in 1957 that a full-range electrosta-tic was a practical possibility, but the ESL63 pushed the con-cept further by attacking the fundamental problem of planarradiators: their radiation pattern is dependent upon frequen-cy. The ESL63 dealt with this problem by synthesizing a vir-tual point source. The speaker consisted of concentric rings,with those further out successively delaying signal arrival rel-ative to the innermost ones. To understand the logic of this,imagine listening to a real point source through a circularwindow. The sound from the source outside reaches thecenter of the window before it reaches the edges, with inter-mediate times at intermediate distances from the center. It’sbeen known for centuries that the wavefront from the win-dow could be obtained by imitating the time delays in ringsaround the central axis (this is a special case of what isknown as Huygens’ Principle, which dates from theSeventeenth Century). But carrying this out in practice wasnot simple: The ESL63 was almost 20 years in the making.The result was an extraordinary speaker offering essentiallycomplete coherence, phase linearity, quite flat frequencyresponse, a well-controlled radiation pattern, and extremelylow harmonic distortion (see my review, Issue 52).

And yet the ESL63 had certain problems. A peak around4 kHz and some irregularities further up gave a bit of “glare”to the sound. It had severe dynamic limitations in the bassand lacked full bass extension. Perhaps most disconcertingly,the ESL63’s sound was a little too lean as a result of adepressed in-room response from around 125 to 300 Hz orso. This was a feature in all the set-ups I have heard. A roomeffect, indeed, but an essentially universal one, exacerbatedby putting the speakers on stands. The bass problem couldbe solved admirably by the dedicated subwoofer fromGradient, and the slight glare and leanness could be tolerat-ed in exchange for the speaker’s other virtues or solved bysome equalization, either analog or via DSP. (A DSP-correct-ed pair of ESL63s plus Gradient subwoofers is still, within itsloudness limitations, one of the most accurate and pleasingspeakers available.)

I wish I could say that the 989 was sonically an ESL63with its problems solved. But I did not find this to be so.Certainly the bass extension and loudness potential havebeen enhanced by the addition of extra bass panels. But thebass is not very good. The speaker sounds as if it had a sub-stantial resonant peak around 50 Hz, with a rather drummyquality, and overall its bass is considerably less satisfying thanthe really good bass the Gradient SW63 subwoofer suppliedfor the ESL63 (review, Issue 73). Moreover, in my room, the

speaker remains lean through the upper bass and lowermids. And it is rather more inclined to glare than before, hav-ing been given more treble energy. In my room, the overallresponse was smooth, as most speakers go, but it had anodd and not pleasing nature: After the bass prominencearound 50 Hz, it dipped gently to an overall depression in thelower midrange, rising to a comparatively elevated plateaufrom around 1 kHz on up, albeit with a dip at 5k. These upsand downs were not large, but they were broadband andgave the speaker a “light” balance. The measurement oflarge planar speakers quasi-anechoically is a tricky business,because the sound is affected by floor loading, and my usualtechnique of elevating the speaker out of doors gave resultsnot connected in detail to the in-room measurements any-where but in the top two octaves. But the measured in-room(im)balance was much like what I heard. Of course, youcould correct this by equalization, and when I did, the resultwas a speaker with smoothness, coherence, low distortion,and intrinsic clarity. But without this, the 989 is too lightweight in balance to be pleasing in the long term, to me. The989 essentially never sounded rightly balanced on any mate-rial, especially not on orchestral music, which had a thumpybottom attached to a leaned-out lower mid and a consider-ably elevated top half of the spectrum. Smooth and more orless uncolored, yes, although there is a little nasality. But cor-rectly balanced, no. I believe this will occur in all rooms, notjust mine, which is on the flattering side for high frequencies,with its bookcases, heavy carpet, and upholstered furniture.

If you come to the 989 without experience of theESL63, you may well be so stunned by the intrinsic virtuesof the whole Quad sound that you can ignore the balancequestion. But the venerable ESL63, plus a pair of its dedi-cated Gradient SW63 subwoofers (one under each 63)formed to my ears a considerably better sounding speaker.1

The irony is while the ESL63s were designed primarily byscience and measurement, the 989s were designed on thebasis of extended listening tests. But listening tests have tobe conducted extremely carefully to avoid an effect likeGresham’s Law (bad money drives out good). The audioGresham’s Law seems to be that more brightness (andmore loudness) tends to drive out truth. The Quad ESL63shad an essentially correct top: flat on axis (to 18 kHz),except for some narrow-band irregularities related to theextended radiating area, and a correct and natural (to myears) reverberant-field high-frequency content. The 989sare considerably less flat through the upper mids and thelower treble than the ESL63s, according to Quad’s ownmeasurements as well as my own – flipping down at 3-5kHz, followed by a peak at 8k and another flip up in thetop octave. Some of these detailed ups and downs areprobably not serious in-room, being smoothed out by roomeffects and by the fact that the ear and a microphone reactsomewhat differently to a large radiator. However, the over-all top-end energy is increased in the 989s compared to theESL63s , and the ESL63s are more accurate.

No one can be blamed for falling for the Quad sound,and the 989 is, as PS says, identifiably a Quad in many ofthe good senses of that phrase. But the original ESL63sound more like music to me. Further investigation of themore direct replacement of the 63, the 988, will follow in alater issue.

1 I am going on memory for the subwoofers, but not for theESL63, a pair of which were on hand for the review.

&

THE SOUND • 55

The Alkibiades Signature Golds from HorningHybrid Corner Horn Production are the finestfull-range high-sensitivity loudspeakers I have

heard under controlled conditions. This 77” tall, 198-pound, three-way, 99 dB/watt

Lowther driver-based system is a snap for any ampli-fier of at least 8-10 watts rating to drive to room-filling levels. It plays music convincingly even as itserves as an excellent tool for evaluating and expos-ing colorations in other links in the audio chain.

The Alkibiades is Tommy Horning’s top regu-lar-production offering. The one model in his lineabove it, the Algame Signature, is a built-to-orderproduct that differs from the Alkibiades only in thatit has a larger cabinet (and therefore slightly lowerbass cut-off). Fashioned from a combination of nice-ly finished veneered medium-density fiberboard andsolid wood (with an integrated molded fiberglassbase that is both a support platform and part of thevented cabinet’s bass-tuning system), the Alkibiadeslooks simply built and not particularly special atthat. It is, however, the mature product of a dedicat-ed, tenacious, and inventive mind.

Horning first began experimenting withLowther drivers in the 1970s, when he met DonaldChave, then Chief Technician for Lowther SpeakerCompany. He listened to Chave’s TP1 system, builtaround the Lowther drivers of the time, and came tobelieve that the speakers could reproduce thedynamic realism of music much better than anyother design. But the Lowther drivers themselves heconsidered problematic: flawed in tonal balance,with a tendency to ring, and lacking in naturalmusical warmth. Still, he so liked the dynamic real-ism he decided to try to overcome their limitationsand make a warmer, more natural-sounding system.In virtually every area, he has succeeded.

Not a true horn-loaded speaker in the conven-tional sense, the Alkibiades makes use of a modifiedcabinet design Horning developed called HorningAsymmetric Quarterwave Cabinet System(HADQCS).

Horning thinks every other type of bass-loadingenclosure system on the market does not provide asatisfactory musical experience. Bass-reflex, he says,is a failure because of the cabinet’s tuning to one fre-quency in the bass, thus sacrificing other notes andmaking unacceptably high levels of coloration at fre-quencies under 200 Hz. Acoustic suspension he dis-likes because of what he cites as its lack of true tran-sient ability and a loss of dynamics and speed ofresponse. Open-baffle he dismisses as having tran-sient control problems and often the need for equal-ization under 200 Hz for proper extension thatinduces phase shift, diminishes realistic dynamics,while adding distortion via high cone excursion. He

notes that conventional horn-loading contributes toexcellent dynamic realism but, he writes, almostalways results in an over-damped, dry bass. So hedevised HADQCS, which, like a horn, uses the cab-inet to amplify the low frequencies under 200 Hz,while exhibiting more of the sonic characteristics ofan open-baffle design (both low-frequency driversare open to the air on each side, avoiding many of thehorn characteristics he dislikes). This arrangement,he thinks, allows each driver to operate optimally,especially in their range of overlap. He notes that hissystem works by combining the two free-air reso-nances of the Lowther mid/bass unit and the Beymawoofer, and he tunes the cabinet so that both driversdevelop the same amount of internal air pressure.This configuration, he says, allows the Lowther tofunction at lower frequencies as if it were a muchlarger driver. And indeed, the 8” driver does seem asunflustered as a 12-15” woofer. He also employswhat he calls his Horning “Variator,” an adjustabledisc fitted in an arrangement that physically resem-bles a rear-firing port which can be opened or closedto vary part of the airflow out of the cabinet, tuningthe bass response to different rooms and positions.The difference between the Variator system and aconventional port in a bass-reflex design is that thereis, in addition to the adjustable output from theVariator, airflow in and out of the bottom of thespeaker via the specially-shaped fiberglass pedestal,and the system is not tuned to a set frequency.

THE SOUND • 57

Horning Alkibiades Signature Gold Loudspeakers

Unlike other Lowther-based systems, Horning’sdesign eliminates the usual “whizzer” cone (he foundit produced several resonances in the audible range).Instead he focuses on the DX-4 unit, an 8-inchpaper-cone driver that uses a neodymium magnetassembly with anywhere from a 2.1-2.4 Tesla fluxdensity rating (depending on the model).1 The DX-4 is paired with a modified Peerless polyethylenecone tweeter that was, according to Horning, firstavailable in 1955, called then the “whistling dome”tweeter. He keeps the diaphragm, but replaces thefactory-supplied magnet with a Lowther-manufac-tured neodymium unit of more than double thepower, for improved sensitivity and lateral disper-sion. All his current speaker systems make use of apaper-cone Beyma woofer, fitted to the top rear ofthe cabinet.

Horning uses a single 6-microfarad capacitor tocontrol the tweeter’s response, which is eased intothe sonic picture at 6 db/octave, starting at 4,000Hz, no crossover at all for the DX-4 mid/low driver(he allows it to respond from its natural low-fre-quency capability to its high-frequency acousticroll-off, beginning about 3,000 Hz), and a simpleair-core inductor to gently roll off the 15-inchBeyma woofer above 200 Hz. Horning uses a pair ofnotch filters (simple coil, capacitor, and resistor net-works) to tame a 4-dB peak around 2,500 Hz andanother at around 8,000. Horning believes that aconventional crossover would significantly degradedynamic response, while notch filters control thetwo problem areas without sonic penalty.

Of course, the real question is how this all trans-lates into the perceived sound of the system. In lis-tening, I am unable to tell where one driver stopsand another begins. I can hear, if I stand at the rearof the cabinet, that the woofer runs up in the fre-quency spectrum much higher than is normal, butfrom the listening position, there is a seamless inte-gration with the front-firing drivers.

These speakers take a horribly long time to breakin. I listened for almost three months before thesound relaxed and lost a nasal honk in the midband.Those who know Lowthers tell me this is a normalcharacteristic of the drivers. Once set, though, thesespeakers are incredibly open, lucid, and transparent,with a smooth and natural tonal balance. Their life-like dynamic agility and freedom from compressionare wonders to hear. They don’t possess the lastdegree of “snap” or that almost instantaneous accel-eration/deceleration that top electrostats do, butthey are warm and full-sounding, with excellentbody on voices and brass instruments.

Their bass characteristics are going to be thesubject of debate, I think. While the speakers arecapable, in my room, of audible response into themid-to-low 30s, from the lower mid-bass down theyare a bit rolled-off in my preferred location for them,which is about 2.5 feet from the back wall. Horningadvocates corner loading for generating the lowestbass, but I prefer the openness and speed of bassresponse when the speakers are well out in the room.I use a pair of subwoofers of my own design operat-ing below 50 Hz, so I have no complaints on thatscore, but for those without a sub, a slight compro-

mise is required. Truth to tell, the losses are notsevere with the speakers positioned toward the cor-ners, but I am crazy for depth and air, so I opt for mysubs and forego a bit of deep bass from the mainspeakers. Depending on the size of the room, prox-imity to the side walls is another variable. In my oldroom, which had a much higher ceiling and waslonger and wider than my current room, the speak-ers were happy about two feet out from the sides and7-8 feet from the rear wall, with a small toe-in anglethat had the tweeters’ output “crossing” a bit behindmy head. This arrangement created a soundstagethat seemed wall-to-wall, with good focus and cen-ter-fill. In my current, smaller room (about 12’ x 10’x 8’ high), the speakers like to be as far apart as pos-sible, with the edges barely a foot from the sidewalls, only about three feet off the back, and toed-insharply, so that the tweeters’ point of crossing isabout a foot in front of my nose. This concentratesthe music field between the two speakers, with greatdensity of center-fill information and laudable depthrendition. Stage width is truncated a bit, however,never venturing beyond the outside edges of thespeakers. I have not liked a set-up like this before –it was too confining for the music. But in thisinstance, the speakers, while not able to transcendtheir boundaries, render a credible facsimile of arecording’s original acoustic signature.

Now, if I venture out of two-channel, and installthe Chase Technologies’ passive-surround decoder (amodern version of David Hafler’s old Dynaquad sys-tem that extracts ambient information from record-ings, whether or not they employ surround encod-ing) and run it at its lowest volume into ceiling-mounted Linaeum LFX surround speakers in therear of the room, the soundfield expands laterally tospread beyond the outer edges of the speakers onmuch material and creates an enhanced ambienteffect, with improved depth perception across theboard – spectacularly on some recordings, such asElgar’s Coronation Ode (British EMI ASD 3345,recorded in the gigantic chapel of King’s College,Cambridge).

The Alkibiades really shine in several areas.Below 200 Hz or so, there is an airiness and nimble-ness I have not heard in other speakers that allowsyou to hear more deeply than normal into the foun-dation of musical lines. It is almost as if notes aredeeper and better-defined than they are with otherspeakers. Listen to the organ pedals at the end of the“Saturn” in Holst’s The Planets [London CS 6734,with the LA Philharmonic and Zubin Mehta], andyou can clearly hear the rush of the air in the pipesas a note begins, the modulation of the note and thesound of the vibrations of the air within the pipes asit is being played, and the release and decay as it islet go. This speaker allows you to pinpoint almostthe exact fundamental frequency of pedal points, ifsuch is your pleasure. The highs, though not as

THE SOUND • 59

1 Flux density depends on several parameters, including the type and strength of the magnetassembly, the number of windings in the voice coil, and the width of the magnetic gap. There isno such thing, really, as a “normal” or “standard” flux density rating, so it can be confusing todelve deeply into this. For the purposes of this discussion, it will suffice to say that the driversunder consideration exhibit a particularly high relative figure, and that these stout ratings allowthem to exhibit both a high sensitivity and an exceptional degree of control of cone movement.

extended at the very top (above 14-15 kHz) as somespeakers regarded as having flat high frequencyresponse, are exceptionally fast, smooth, and naturalsounding, and I am never aware of a separate tweet-er playing with the rest of the system. The linearityand tonal accuracy of the midband is so high that itcan sometimes be a liability, as when an associatedcomponent or a recording is less than first-class.

I believe that true tonal faithfulness to realmusic has been given short-shrift for some time bymany speaker designers. Any number of designshave measured well in frequency response, exhibitedexcellent phase characteristics, performed miracleswith square waves, and so on, but still did not soundlike actual music. Not so the Alkibiades. Whilealmost ruthlessly revealing of shortcomings else-where in the chain, when the system hardware syn-ergy is right and a first-class LP or CD is spinning,the results are tonally magical.

On Billy Holiday’s re-mastered Lady in Satin[Classic Records LP CS 8048], I feel as if a timemachine had planted her and her orchestra in myroom and she were singing in front of me, fullyfleshed out, with every inflection, breath, andinstrument clearly heard and felt. On the Bach-Stokowski: Symphonic Transcriptions [Chandos LPABRD-1005], the lustrous growl and rosiny bite ofthe double basses and cellos is rendered as authenti-cally as I’ve heard. High violins played en masse havea thrilling “rushing” sound that raises goosebumpsand makes me grin like a Cheshire cat. The rum-

bling of the bass drum, and its dynamic ebb andflow, is eerily realistic. Vocal music is similarly wellserved. The creamy tone of the San Francisco ChoralArtists on Reference Recording’s Star of Wonder [RR-21], recorded in the acoustically wonderful SaintIgnatius Church, is convincingly reproduced, withthe deep organ pedals in “O Come, All Ye Faithful”cleanly and powerfully resolved. My Mo-Fi UHQRcopy of Cat Steven’s Tea for the Tillerman [MFQR 1-035] sounds so clean and smooth, you suddenly real-ize that those components you thought were grainyare actually clean – the deficiency was in the disc.

Digital playback, despite often being exposed bythe speakers as not as life-like as top analog, can alsobe compelling. Bob Dylan’s Unplugged [ColumbiaCK 67000] boasts some of the most natural-sound-ing vocals and acoustic guitars I’ve heard, analog ordigital. Through the Hornings, you can, once more,almost imagine he is in the room with you. And bigorchestral works are not shortchanged: HansZimmer’s two masterworks of potboiler music, TheThin Red Line [BMG 09026-63382-2] and Gladiator[Decca/Universal 289 467 094-2] are reproducedwith both nuance and full bombastic glory, as themusic demands, with naturally authentic instru-mental colors and dynamic footprints. This is also anexcellent speaker for modern “Techno” electronicmusic, hip-hop, and reggae. The tight, coherent,well-defined bass allows you to hear every inflectionand dynamic nuance of real and synth drum kits, asone visiting manufacturer demonstrated (quite loud-


ly and mercilessly) when he stopped by with hisunusual collection of records.

The Alkibiades, though quite sensitive, are notat all delicate. Tommy Horning recommends thatmaximum input power be limited to 30 watts (forsafety), which translates to about 114 dB at 1 meter.However, a number of owners use big solid-stateamps (Krells and Mark Levinsons), and routinelypump 100 watts or so into the speakers. Horningcited one record-shop owner who plays the speakersduring exhibitions in his store at over 120 dB forextended periods! I had no need of such capabilities(my room will not support levels much over 90-95dB before it begins to sound unpleasant), but it isnice to know that the system is rugged.

Shortcomings? Of course. Because the Lowtherdrivers operate within a narrow magnetic gap, theslightest misalignment of the voice coil there can leadto clicking and scraping noises on hard transients atcertain frequencies, in my system usually around 500-1,000 Hz. This does not damage the speaker, but isdisconcerting and aggravating. This problem can befixed, but it involves removing the driver and physi-cally adjusting it by ear with the aid of a sine wavegenerator. Most consumers wouldn’t want to dealwith it. Distributors and dealers are supposed to testthe drivers for this anomaly before they are bolted intothe speakers, since shipping the cabinets without theLowther units installed until set-up seems necessary ifthe drivers are to escape the shipping-induced shocksthat can cause voice coil misalignment.

The Alkibiades demand sonically excellentpower amps. Any thinness, dryness, or grain is mag-nified to unacceptable levels. I tried them with aPlinius SA-50 class-A solid-state stereo unit as a“control,” and this provided the best bass extensionand overall linearity. But for the most liquid midsand crystalline highs, tubes worked best. Thesespeakers are so friendly to single-ended triodedesigns that I auditioned several. Best of the bunchwere the Art Audio Jota, the Wyetech Labs Topaz572, and the Vaic 52B ST. The Manley Labs Retro300B and Antique Sound Labs ASL-1006-845monoblocks also worked well. I could easily detectthe strengths and weaknesses of each amplifier,although doing that occasionally spoiled some of themusical fun.

Horning’s enclosure is not as inert and “dead” assome other modern designs, and occasionally a notewill resonate with the cabinet and stand out slight-ly. But the entire system is designed and tuned takeadvantage of the acoustical characteristics of the cab-inet, so this, for me, is a small quibble. The sound isaffected far more by the full-length panel of cloth-covered MDF used as a grille cover. I removed thecover immediately and left it off – in place, it ruinedmuch of the system’s openness and imaging. Thecover’s recessed mounting flange causes audible dif-fraction effects, and may be the main reason thesoundstage has a hard time developing beyond thespeakers’ edges. I tamed this to a large extent byattaching a few layers of felt to the baffle around the

THE SOUND • 61

tweeters, but the effect is still audible. I believe thatif the cabinet were redesigned so that the driverswere flush to the outer surface, this complaint wouldbe history. Also, the speakers sound better when thefronts are elevated by about three-quarters of aninch, which allows the two forward-facing drivers toblend better. Horning does not address this in hisliterature and provides no spikes.

Occasionally, I become slightly fatigued listen-ing to the speakers, but only at high levels. Almostinvariably, however, if I play the best software andam mindful of my room’s limitations, this is not aproblem. But it is a little depressing that some ofmy favorite music is rendered unlistenable. Theculprit here, I think, is both the strongest and theweakest point of the system: the Lowther driver.While extremely fast, articulate, and dynamicallyunrestricted, it suffers from a couple of audible res-onances (see above). Not on all material, and not allthe time, but when musical material excites thedriver at the 2.5 kHz resonant area or the cabinetsings along with the odd note, the resulting soundscan be a little ugly, as when Kiri te Kanawa hits herhighest, loudest notes in her aria from Hermann’sCitizen Kane [LP, British RCA RL 42005].

These criticisms, however, take nothing awayfrom my enthusiasm. The Alkibiades’ overall col-oration is extremely low. In day-to-day use, it isjust plain fun to listen to. Well-recorded materialof any genre has a wonderful lustre and sheen, espe-cially on vocals, strings, and brass; the music is ren-dered with a solidity that is bewitching and emo-tionally compelling. The system’s natural tonalbalance, grainless clarity and effortless power,impressive dynamic life and transparency (especial-ly in the midband), articulate and detailed bassreproduction, combined with a superbly open tre-ble and a particularly high level of coherency andcontinuousness throughout the audible range com-bine to make it a winner. With a great number ofrecordings, the speakers just get out of the way.Their particularly high sensitivity and benignimpedance curve make the Alkibiades suitable foralmost any amplifier, including all but the verysmallest SET designs. At $16,000, they represent aconsiderable investment, but I believe them to be afair value, particularly in light of the fact that theyare limited-edition Danish imports. I will not sellmy treasured Shahinians, but I could live happilywith the Alkibiades Signature Golds.

SCOT MARKWELL

IMPORTER/DISTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Luxor Group

9132 Keeler Avenue, Skokie, Illinois 60076

Phone: (800) 795-8975; fax: (847) 329-9207

Source: Distributor loan

Warranty: 5 years

Price: $15,995/pair

ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

EAR 864 and Plinius M-16 preamplifiers; Plinius M-14 and “The

Groove” phono preamplifiers; Wyetech Labs Topaz 572, Antique

Sound Labs ASL-1006-845, and Vaic VV52 B ST SET amplifiers;

Plinius SA-50 SS amplifier; Siltech andCreative Cable Concepts by

Luxor and Custom Power Cord Top Gun and Top Gun HCFi A/C

cords, Super power block A/C conditioner; Arcici Suspense rack;

VPI HW-19 Mk IV turntable with JMW Memorial arm &

Lyra/Scantech Evolve 99 MC cartridge; EAD Theatre Master DAC,

JVC XL-Z1010 CD player/transport; Chase Technologies surround

decoder with Linaeum LFX surround speakers; Crown Macro

Reference amp for subs

MANUFACTURER’S RESPONSE…Mr. Markwell has placed the speakers’ performance in acarefully crafted and well-defined context that should allowthe reader to mentally assess their…capabilities with accu-racy prior to hearing them. Far too often, reviews are littlemore than “raves” or “pans” that do not inform the readeras needed to make sensible audition choices.

Among the criticisms mentioned were front-baffleedge-diffraction effects, lack of front baffle slope affectingtime coherency, lack of floor spikes, and cabinet reso-nances. Both Tommy Horning and myself wish to assurepotential listeners that these problems will be addressedbefore retail introduction of these speakers into the US thiswinter. Voice-coil alignment of the Lowther driver will bedone by dealer technicians trained by the disributor at thetime of customer delivery…

DAVID BLAIR

LUXOR GROUP, INC.

&

THE SOUND • 63

Though the prospect of auditioning any newMarchisotto speaker would entice, given a his-tory of brilliant designs that extends back to his

tenure at Dahlquist, what piqued my interest in theAlón Lotus SE Mk II was that it was created to ful-fill an audiophile vision that had long defied realiza-tion at a “real-world” price – a full-range speakerthat could display the unique, and seldom-heard,virtues of low-output (say, 10 watts a side), triode,single-ended amplifiers.

I was also promised a bevy of triode amplifiers touse with the Lotuses – another incentive. Severalmonths earlier, David Berning told me he’d designeda 5-watter that might work with minuscule Britishbookshelf speakers. His goal was to create a whollyinvolving amplifier that would nurture delicate musi-cal signals. I mentioned that to Carl Marchisotto, whoagreed that “one of the negative consequences of largeamplifiers is a loss in delicacy.” He had chosen thename “Lotus” for his new speaker, he said, in homageto the Japanese who “in some ways are way ahead of[Americans] in recognizing that little amplifiers haveadmirable qualities that big amps lack.”

Marchisotto’s goal for the Alón Lotus, his vision,was to create a speaker system to display the virtues ofsmall low-output amplifiers without being limited bythe amps’ shortcomings. The Lotus aims at perfor-mance that rivals what one hears from audiophile-grade speakers driven by high-output push-pullamplifiers: high volume; deep, fulfilling, solid bass;believably sized images; and “comfort” in large rooms.

I have auditioned the Lotus SE over an extendedperiod, mated to four quite different amplifiers: ArtAudio Diavolo; EAR 834 Integrated; ManleyStingray Integrated; Viva. The most “powerful” ofthese units make 50 watts a channel, while theDiavolo and Vivas produce 13. I have used two lis-tening rooms – an 11 x 20-foot basement room withan 8-foot acoustic-tile dropped ceiling, and my cur-rent 13 x 21-foot “tower” room with a drywall/plas-ter ceiling that slopes from 8 feet at the speaker endto 15 feet behind my chair.

The Lotus SE is a “classic” Marchisotto design. Itemploys his sculpted open baffle on which the 1”aluminum dipole tweeter and 5.25” tri-laminatecone, cast-frame Alnico (cobalt) magnet midrangedriver are mounted. This baffle, so nicely finished Ionce mistook the wood for some exotic polymer,mounts above a sealed enclosure (“infinite baffle”)that holds a special 14-ohm impedance 8” long-throw woofer. (Another version of this speaker, forhigh-output amplifiers, carries Acarian’s standard 4-ohm impedance 8” woofer.) Each speaker, covered inblack “sonically transparent” cloth, weighs 70pounds and measures 49” x 9” x 13”. Each has adedicated external crossover (passive, at 400 Hz and

3,500 Hz). This is to facilitate upgrades and modifi-cations, if such are offered, and to simplify bi-ampli-fying. The unit is tri-wired, and accepts Acarian’sBlack Orpheus cable without protest. Extensive lis-tening confirmed the manufacturer’s assertion thatthe system’s response extends from 35 Hz to some-where beyond my ability to hear.

With those big black boxes (the crossovers) sit-ting behind, attached with a mess of wires, thespeakers make a profound visual statement. Whenmated to any amplifier meant to work with them (allof which will display tubes and transformers), theLotus speakers will attract enough notice to satisfyany audiophile ego. No one who buys them will careif they displace the sofa, or a chair or a table, sincethese are speakers for those whose passion is musicand who are happy to give priority in room decora-tion to audio requirements.

The biggest surprise of my experience with theAlón Is was that their much-heralded performance inthe bass, though every bit as good as rumored, was notwhat I found most endearing. That experience pre-pared me to approach the Lotus without preset expec-tations. Nevertheless, I could not resist addressing thedesign challenge Marchisotto had set for himself, soearly sessions found me listening to rock LPs, to see ifa 13-watt amp could make convincing sound. Yaz’

THE SOUND • 65

Realization of an Audio Vision: Acarian Systems Alón Lotus SE Mk II Loudspeaker

Don’t Go [Mute Sire 29886] can sound anemic or itcan overwhelm, and with the Lotus/Diavolo, it sur-passed all prior auditions not merely in the sheerpower of the presentation, but also in the size of theimages. The image was proportionate to the stage,unlike that crafted by some mini-monitors, whichcreate a large soundspace filled with tiny images, orvice versa. This was all coherent.

No matter what amplifier or source I used, theLotus delivered bass, including low bass, that defiedcriticism. The Vivaldi Lute Concertos LP [HungarotonSLPX 11978] delighted me with the panoply ofdetailed delicate images, and seized my attentionwith bass that was solid, full, rich, warm – character-istics this disc had never before revealed to me. On themagisterial Mussorgsky Pictures at an Exhibition[Reiner; RCA Victrola VICS 2042], the bass wasalways explosive, but now genuine waves of soundrolled over me. There was a presence, a physicaldimension that reminded me of old Audio Research-driven systems. The great Berglund/BournemouthShostakovich Eleventh [EMI SLS 5177] gave pluckedbass entries at ppp that were felt as much as heard. Iwas able to hear clear differences in volume as the bassplayers supported the orchestra, rather than an indis-tinct indiscriminate lump of sound. On Klemperer’sMahler Resurrection with the Philharmonia [EMICDM 76962 2], the gentle arc of basses and cellispread before me made the most beautiful, rich,warm, mellow tones – I found this so riveting that Ibecame fixated on the quality of the bass and ignoredthe distinctive performance.

Time and again, the Lotus allowed me to hear basslines on familiar discs that previously had gone unno-ticed. With the Manley Stingray, the old (1961)Fleisher/Szell Beethoven Emperor [Columbia SBK-60499] revealed subtle bass-drum accompaniment tothe piano that I had never heard on disc. Similarly, theWeavers Reunion [Vanguard VMD-2150 CD], arecording well-known for subtle bass thumpingbehind the singers on the Carnegie Hall stage, nowdisplayed bass support lines I’d never known werethere. Thus, at high or low dB, with in-your-faceslamming rock bass, or subtle low-level support lines,Marchisotto’s Lotuses not only met expectations aboutbass performance, but surpassed them.

Satisfying, even superlative, bass would not ful-fill the design goal Acarian established for the LotusSE. The whole point of designing a speaker to beused with low-power single-ended triode amplifierswas to take advantage of the way such amps are saidto nurture the delicate side of music.

From tubes one expects (hopes) to hear clarity,openness, a rich harmonic structure, ethereal beau-ty, accompanied by fullness and body. In an idealaudio world, one would hear detail without grain,clarity without edge. On the Beethoven Fifth[Hogwood; L’Oiseau Lyre 417605-2], the soundwas dry, clear, tight, lean, bright. I noted incredi-ble detail. The sound was clean, etched, with a hintof edge, but after all, this was Hogwood and theAcademy of Ancient Music on period instruments.To consider a different sound, I auditioned thePersuasions’ We Came to Play [Collectables COL CD5234]: Again, the sound was pure, vivid. Lawson’s

highs were gossamer-covered. And for yet anothertype of musical experience, as Tate and the Dresdentraversed the Schubert Great C Major [BerlinClassics BC 1083-2], I heard vivid bloom – rich,dark, harmonics. The sound had a solid, hefty qual-ity, a fullness. And finally, through the Lotusspeakers, my cherished Rutter rendition of theFauré Requiem [Collegium COL 101] transportedme to a state of audio ecstasy. The delicate“Sanctus” was appropriately heavenly, ethereal,soaring, angelic. Caroline Ashton’s “Pie Jésu” wasotherworldly, her modulation from pp-ppp-p-pppprendered perfectly. The sound overall had an airi-ness I cannot recall hearing before. Yet it was at thesame time so clear, defined, precise, etched. Thedelicacy of music was what the system captured.

Yet to highlight the Lotus’s excellence with musicthat is essentially “delicate” would hardly do thespeakers justice. During a recent listening session, Irevisited an old favorite performance, the Jocum/Berlin 1967 recording [DG 449 718-2] of theBruckner Fourth. Cataclysmic swings in volume arethe essence of Bruckner, and few amplifier/speakercombinations can come close to recreating the experi-ence of a live performance. In my room, this dynami-cally compressed recording, through the Lotus/Vivacombination, displayed a dB range so wide, and so freeof restriction or congestion, that, days later, the expe-rience lingers with me. Bruckner, a church organist,strove to create massive cathedrals of sound. The Lotusis the first speaker in my experience to make me feel asif I were hearing a cathedral (as opposed to a ruralchurch) during a recording of Bruckner. The speakerand amp together crafted a cavernous space, and filledit with glorious, rich, resonant sound.

Poulenc’s Concerto in D for Two Pianos [OlympiaOCD 364] poses a similar set of challenges, for thecomposer’s jazz-inspired score is full of sudden per-cussive surprises that demand speed, power, andtonal faithfulness beyond the capability of mostcomponents. The Lotus/Viva combination again cap-tured the “snap” of the percussion entries with a pre-cision that was as startling as the music itself, andgave each instrument its own special tonality. Andall accomplished under severe demands for instantshifts in volume as the score called for bursts or snip-pets of sound calculated to amuse, shock, jar, or jolt.The Lotuses are sensational at sonic extremes.

Among audio’s greatest myths is that all elec-tronics sound the same and that it is the loudspeak-er that “shapes” what one hears. Hence, some argue,speakers are the most important audio component.Of course, the opposite is closer to, but far from thewhole, truth. Speakers are windows through whichour ears perceive what has come earlier in the audiochain. They ought to be “transparent,” but seldomare, since the load they present to amplifiers createsa host of interactions. What is perhaps most remark-able about Marchisotto’s Lotus SE is the degree towhich it not only works well with a variety of quitedifferent tube amplifiers, but allows each to displayits own inherent character. It was easy to distinguishamong the amplifiers I used with the Lotus speakers.Yet each performed beautifully, and I believe dis-played its signature traits faithfully. Through the

THE SOUND • 67

Lotuses, the Diavolo and Viva amplifiers performedat a level that equals the best I have heard. The EARand the Manley never made me think I was hearingcutting-edge amplification, and neither of thoseintegrated amps makes any pretense at providingthat level of performance. But I doubt that eitherwould perform better were it connected to a differ-ent speaker. My sense is that the Lotus SE will notlimit most tube amplifiers, but will allow exoticSETs to display all the virtues associated with suchdesigns. This is a must-hear speaker for all who lovemusic and value faithful reproduction. Heard whendriven by a single-ended triode amplifier, the Lotuswill illustrate why so many music lovers consider thetriode the source of musical truth.

AARON SHATZMAN

MANUFACTURER INFORMATION

Alón by Acarian Systems

181 Smithtown Blvd., Ste. 104, Nesconset, New York 11767

Phone: (631) 265-9577; fax: (631) 265-9560

www.alonbyacarian.com; [email protected]

Sensitivity: (2.82 volts) 90 dB @ 1M (89 dB for 4-ohm version)

Source: Manufacturer loan

Price: $3,700/pair


Berning TF-12 preamplifier; Art Audio Diavolo, Viva Mono, Manley

Stingray, EAR 834 amps; JVC XL 2050 CD player/transport;

Metronome Technologie DAC; Oracle Delphi Mk II turntable fitted

with Magnepan Unitrac arm and Crown Jewel phono cartridge;

Acarian Black Orpheus cable configured for tri-wired application

MANUFACTURER’S RESPONSE…Four different amplifiers, two different listening rooms,and a variety of source components means a great deal ofeffort on the part of the reviewer in order to come to gripswith the sound quality of the speaker under review. Weappreciate this level of commitment and integrity on thepart of Aaron Shatzman and The Absolute Sound.

I would like to shed some light on the two versions ofthe Lotus SE Mk II. We developed an 8-inch 14-ohmwoofer for use with low-power amplifiers. Typically, SETamplifiers of low power operate with little or no feedbackand exhibit a relatively high output impedance. This meanswe do not have a lot of current output or loudspeakerdamping capability to rely on. The 14-ohm woofer will haveabout three times the damping and control when com-pared with our 4-ohm woofer, when driven by a low-powerSET amp (say, 10 watts). However, life is not that simple inthe world of High End audio. So what happens when youconnect the 14-ohm Lotus to a high-power, high-dampingamplifier of either tube or solid-state construction?Generally, over-damped bass and a thin dry sound. This iswhy we offer the Lotus with the 4-ohm woofer – for thosewith higher power feedback amplifiers. This is a no-costoption that is selected at time of purchase through one ofour authorized dealers.

CARL MARCHISOTTO

PRESIDENT, ACARIAN SYSTEMS

&


Your assignment, class, is to take the commonmulti-driver dynamic loudspeaker and re-design it. Think “out of the box” – consider

how you would eliminate boxy colorations and reso-nances that color the sound. Make it a full-rangeloudspeaker and add some user-adjustable features totailor its response to the room. Before you begin,let’s take a look at some of the speaker designers whohave addressed this problem in the past.

In 1973, Jon Dahlquist mounted the drivers ofthe DQ-10 in a “phased array” utilizing an openarchitecture, with a rectangular group of staggereddrivers (for time alignment) attached to small baffleson top of the bass enclosure. In the late Seventies,Richard Vandersteen went Dahlquist one better anddesigned his Model 2 with its drivers arranged ver-tically in their own minimal “baffle-less” enclosures.In the design for his original Wamm in 1980, DavidWilson made the multiple-driver arrays (includingelectrostatic tweeters) adjustable to the listeningposition. B & W later put the three drivers of their801 in individual stacked enclosures, with the flexi-bility of adjusting the axis of the tweeter enclosurerelative to the bass and midrange.

Creative DesignNow let’s take a look at Roy Johnson’s design forGreen Mountain Audio. Here we have a 14.5 x20.75 x 27-inch bass-reflex style enclosure housinga 12-inch high-compliance woofer. On the top of thebox at the rear is a 25.25-inch aluminum pole stick-ing up. Mounted on it, with a sliding collar, is a hor-izontal, 13-inch pole pointing forward. Attached tothis are two more collars, one connected to thetweeter enclosure and the other to the midrangeenclosure. Designer Roy Johnson has tailored thissystem for maximum flexibility: Each of the twosmaller drivers can be moved up and down or for-ward and back, to achieve the best integration ofsound at the listening position. The whole assemblyswings inward or outward on the vertical pole fortoe-in. When the adjustments are completed and allthe clamps and the collars are tightened, you have arigid structure optimized to the location of your ears.

Set-up – The Devil in the DetailsAs you might imagine, with such a design, set-up iscritical. The C-2s require more user adjustment andtweaking than most. I advise you to begin by plac-ing them where you would normally in your room,well away from the walls, and then adjust them for-ward or back a few inches at a time to get the bestbass response. Once you have the bass soundingright, you can begin the more critical midrange andtweeter adjustments, which require two people.First, the height of the horizontal pole (supportingthe midrange and tweeter) will have to be adjusted

up or down relative to your ear-height when you arein the listening position. The midrange driver willend up at about ear height. Then, using the distancefrom your ear to the center of the woofer as a refer-ence length, you will adjust the midrange andtweeter backward or forward to the correct distancesfrom where you sit. Distances are specified to one-sixteenth of an inch, so moving a driver a very littlecan make a difference (not to mention if you moveyour head forward and back to the music).

THE SOUND • 69

Green Mountain Audio Continuum 2 Loudspeaker

Driver Array

The small tweeter and midrange enclosures are made from high-density castmarble to reduce resonances and are shaped to minimize diffraction. The

enclosures are connected to Sorbothane pads, through which they are mount-ed to the aluminum poles to isolate them from any vibrations above 10 Hz. Thetweeter is a 1.1-inch Morel cloth dome and the midrange driver is 5.25-inchAudax Aerogel with a phase plug. The bass cabinet is constructed from 1.16-inch particle board, which Johnson says is more rigid than MDF. It features spe-cial corner joints and an internal brace of an unusual shape to create pressurecancellations within the box. The feet are also a little unusual – they are madefrom three 1.8-inch wooden dowels that extend up through the bottom of theenclosure and are secured internally, acting as a type of resonance control.

Another unusual feature is the large (4 inch) bass-reflex port (Aeroport) thatvents out of the top of the woofer cabinet. It is tuned to 34 Hz and put where itwould not interfere with the woofer’s direct output. The C-2’s bass response israted as down 3 dB at 30 Hz. The speaker uses simple first-order crossovers at270 Hz and 3 kHz with as few parts as possible. Phase accuracy is one of theprimary goals in the design. The speaker’s impedance curve is spec’d at a prettyflat 7.5 ohms, with sensitivity rated at 90dB/1watt/1meter. The owner’s manualis thorough in its discussion of speaker set-up, placement, and room acoustics.Although the curved speaker grilles are designed to be as acoustically transpar-ent as possible, I did most of my listening without them. – MK

Roy Johnson, designer

I set the C-2s up using the detailed instructionsfrom the manual – and was not impressed with theresulting sound. The drivers did not seem to blendcompletely; at some frequencies, the individual dri-vers called attention to themselves, especially thetweeter, and in other frequency bands, informationwas missing. Some weeks later, Roy Johnson visitedand fine-tuned the speakers by ear, significantlyimproving driver blend and smoothing frequencyresponse. Even so, the overall coherence could havebeen better; I still heard the tweeter occasionally,and there was some roughness in the upper frequen-cies and a little nasality in the midrange.

Recently, Johnson revised the set-up measure-ments for the C-2. With the new alignment, themidrange driver is moved back a fraction of an inchand the tweeter is back almost two inches. Again,this brings the C-2’s sound toward greater coher-ence, with a smoother and more uniform responsefrom the three drivers. Johnson has now cured mostof the problems I heard in the C-2s (with no feed-back from me, I should add) by making these adjust-ments in the relationship of the drivers to each otherand the listening position.

The most difficult part of the C-2’s set-upprocess is measuring the exact distance between yourears and the drivers. It is difficult to measure dis-tances this far with the tape up in the air, at anangle, to a sixteenth-inch accuracy. I recommendusing two sets of strong arms – and check your mea-surements a couple of times.

Impressive SonicsThis speaker’s performance is a little difficult todescribe. All loudspeakers have their own character,but good ones don’t call attention to themselves. Bythat measure, the C-2s are a success. Tonally, they areneutral, balanced, and without serious problems,once they are properly set-up.

My first impression of the reconfigured C-2s wasone of an expansive openness, which the best largebox designs can only approach. With the tweeterand midrange in small rigid enclosures suspendedabove the bass box, they are like mini-monitors intheir ability to disappear and provide a deep, wide,open soundspace, completely detached from thespeakers. The images float in space with excellentdimensionality and in good relief. This is demon-strated well on Patricia Barber’s latest live CD,Companion [Blue Note/Premonition 7743 5 2296323], which places you inside the intimate environ-ment of a small club. On “Touch of Trash,” there isa cacophony of percussion instruments, some ofwhich are moving around the stage. These comethrough the C-2s in very lifelike fashion as theirclanging and ringing punctuate the open space. Onspeakers without such precise phase coherence, thefundamentals and overtones of these sounds are notso well connected and the images not as clearlylocated on the soundstage.

Years ago, I heard Jon Dahlquist give DavidWilson some speaker design advice: “If you can getthe transition from the midrange to the bass right,the rest is easy.” The lower midrange and mid-basscoherence of the C-2 seems to be just about right. It

is neither too lean and dry nor too warm. Vocalists,both male and female, have a good balance betweentheir upper and lower ranges. The first movement ofTrittico [RR 52CD] features some dynamic brass in asmall orchestra. Through the C-2s, the trumpetshave all of their bite, yet retain their body and sizethrough the lower mids, creating a realistic sense ofthe instrument. The tympani at the opening of thesecond movement really come to life through the C-2s, thanks to their response down into the secondoctave. You need to turn up the volume a bit to getthese speakers to sound their best; then they areimpressive on music with wide dynamics. They liketo be pushed hard.

One of the areas where the Continuum 2s fallshort of the best is in revealing inner detail and thetonal colors provided by subtle harmonic overtones.Listening to “Counting on You” from Tom Petty’sEcho [Warner Bros. 9 47294 2], I marveled at theseparation between the rich harmonic textures ofBenmont Tench’s keyboard work and the guitars.But some of the lower-level overtones on bothinstruments were missing through the C-2s. OnBarber’s Companion, I noticed the acoustic bass wasnot as well defined as I have heard, missing some ofthe detail of Michael Arnopol’s fingering, althoughit goes deep and provides a good foundation for hermusic. And on Trittico, the brass, chimes, and bellslose some of their upper-frequency harmonics andair. This loss of inner detail seems to be consistentthroughout the speaker’s range – and is not unusualfor a loudspeaker in this price range. There arespeakers that will allow you to gain a bit more of thelast 10 percent of the music, but these generally costtwo or three times more. The C-2s add nothingobjectionable to the music and omit just a little.This is what makes their character difficult todescribe.

Colorado Shoot-OutDuring the time I had the C-2s, I also had a pair ofDunlavy Alethas, which, at $5,995, are priced simi-larly. Both manufacturers are based in ColoradoSprings, which has nothing to do with the fact thatthe two speakers are quite neutral and their perfor-mance is close in many ways. The Dunlavy Aletha isone of the most coherent multi-driver dynamicdesigns I have heard. It is also a timbral-accuracychamp, seamlessly integrating detailed instrumentalovertones with the fundamentals, especially in theupper octaves. The Continuum 2’s three drivers donot blend as coherently or have quite the tonal puri-ty and inner detail. However, the bass goes deeperthan does the Aletha’s in my room. The C-2s alsoprovide a little more dynamic life and excitementacross the board, particularly at ff and above. Inaddition, they are more open, their sound is a littlemore forward, and they provide greater three-dimensionality to images on the soundstage. Youtrade a little timbral accuracy and inner detail withthe Alethas for the openness, added bass extension,and excitement of the C-2s. People often ask whichloudspeakers are better for rock or classical music.Usually I reply that neutral and accurate speakerswill serve best for any type of music. But in this case,

THE SOUND • 71

I would choose the Alethas for smaller classical andacoustic music, where timbral accuracy is of vitalimportance, and the Continuum 2s for rock andlarger scale music.

Graded on the CurveOnce a loudspeaker designer deals with the math,physics, materials, electronics, and other scientificparameters of design, the real work begins – the artof fine-tuning the speaker to make it sound likemusic. Roy Johnson seems knowledgeable and capa-ble in both areas. With these speakers, the final set-up by the buyer makes the difference betweenachieving a sound that is so-so and realizing theirfull musical potential. Once the set-up is right, thesespeakers distinguish themselves by their open,dynamic sound, which is a little forgiving andemphasizes musical enjoyment over the last bit ofinstrumental detail. When I switched from theContinuum 2s to my reference Thiel CS-7.2s, Imissed the C-2s’ expansive openness and the waythey floated the images in space.

The Continuum 2 loudspeaker utilizes a uniquedesign that eliminates many of the problems inher-ent in standard multi-driver dynamic designs. Iwould give Mr. Johnson a solid “B” for his efforts,with points deducted for lack of resolution. To putthis in perspective, the Thiel CS 7.2 gets an “A” andthe Dunlavy Aletha an “A-” because of its bass defi-ciency. Nice work, indeed.

MICHAEL KULLER


Green Mountain Audio

111 South 28th Street, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80904

Phone: (719) 636-2500; fax: (719) 636-2499


Warranty: 5 years, parts and labor

Price: $6,500/pair (cherry finish standard)


Digital Front End: Theta Data Basic II Transport; Audio Alchemy

Pro-32; Sonic Frontiers SFD-2 Mk II D/A converter; Line Stages:

ARC LS-16; Joule Electra LA-100 Mk III; Reflection OM-1;

Amplifiers: Manley Reference 240/100; Conrad-Johnson SA-400;

Edge M-8; Cables: Digital – Kimber/Illuminati Orchid; D-60

Interconnects – Nordost Blue Heaven; Cardas Neutral Reference.

Speaker Cable – Nordost Blue Heaven; Accessories: ASC Tube

Traps, Room Tunes; Shun Mook Room Tuning Disks; Black

Diamond Racing Shelves and Cones; VPI Bricks; Seismic Sinks;

Bedini Ultra Clarifier; Monster Reference Power Center HTS200

MANUFACTURER’S RESPONSEThe tape does require two people and steady hands, andwe included “the Stick” to mark your ear’s position, using atripod. This is the only complication to the set-up. Youreport no placement or equipment difficulties – our expe-rience as well. The final settings were correct. Using them,the tweeter arrives just 40 microseconds sooner than MK’ssecond setting; the mid, four microseconds later. As youreport, such short timing differences are audible, whenfreed from cabinet reflections. We did go through a perioddetermining if one might benefit by altering these small

intervals. Thanks, RZ, for trying the new bass damping forthe one note.

C-2 tonal deviations are less than 1-dB ripples; slightlyaudible because they are not smeared by diffraction andphase shift. Flattening them further wasn’t worth the loss ofdynamics, imaging, and coherence.

Detail is always enhanced by tweeters leading in phase,true of all the speakers RZ mentions, except the electrostatic– detail is its strong suit. That you report the small lack ofdetail in the C-2 is uniform across the spectrum indicates tous system characteristics, not a speaker dysfunction. Moredetail appears everywhere with system fine-tuning. Finally,the impression of the speaker needing to be pushed a littlehard does change after extended break-in.

Hint: If Mercury’s Samuel Barber classical re-issue andthe All-Star Percussion Ensemble from Acoustic SoundsCDs sound clear and involving, you’ve got a fine system.Here [in response to a reader’s suggestion in Issue 124,lead letter “Manufacturers and the Voicing of TheirComponents”], is Green Mountain’s reference equipment:Digital – Birdland; CEC; EAD; Theta; vanAlstine; Illuminati.Analog – Micro-Seiki with van den Hul/Rowland straingauge; VPI with Graham and Crown Jewel; Well-Temperedwith Grado; half-track original masters on Ampex, Studer,Teac. Electronics – Air Tight; Audio Note; EAR; Edg; Manley;Presence Audio; Reflection; Rowland. Cables: Audio Magic;Kimber; Sahuaro; Wireworld. Power – vansEvers.

ROY JOHNSON

GREEN MOUNTAIN AUDIO

ROMAN ZAJCEW COMMENTSAs Mike Kuller notes, setting up these speakers is trouble-some. The tricky part of the alignment consists of makingthree mid-air measurements with a tape, one from the earto the woofer cone, one from the ear to the phase plug ofthe midrange, and one from the ear to the soft dome ofthe tweeter (holding a tape measure directly against a softdome tweeter is not a confidence-building exercise). Theselengths are typically greater than 10 feet, and must beaccurate to the nearest one-sixteenth of an inch. DesignerRoy Johnson has recently promised a spreadsheet intowhich the listener could enter a listening height (accurateto one-eighth inch) and a distance to the speaker cabinet(accurate to one-half inch); the result will be exact andeasy set-up instructions for each speaker.

The Continuum 2s are sensitive to driver alignment.When I received the speakers, there were two sets of instal-lation instructions – Roy Johnson’s initial set-up and revisedinstructions – and I did not know which was which. Beforegetting clarification, I listened to the speakers in each con-figuration. I found that moving the tweeter as little as aquarter-inch relative to the woofer was clearly audible (thewoofer to midrange/tweeter alignment I found less critical),and the second set-up suggests moving the tweeter awhole inch! With initial set-up, the speakers sounded quitelifeless, except for occasional peaks of excess treble ener-gy. With the revision, the crossover region between themidrange and tweeter (3 kHz) developed an unpleasantpeak that was evident on some recordings and the tweet-er appeared to be much farther away from the listener thanwas the midrange. When I called Johnson to discuss this,he said that he had just formulated a third set of instruc-tions. My listening conclusions are based on these finalinstructions (MK never got to listen to the speakers set up

THE SOUND • 73

according to this third set of instructions).During the latter part of my time with the speakers, Roy

Johnson sent me some additional stuffing material he nowprovides, to put into the speaker through the port to cure a“one-note bass” problem that was evident on some CDs,such as the double bass on Diana Krall’s All For You.

After all the fine tuning, I had a speaker that soundedquite different in some respects from the one MK listenedto. Despite the differences, though, I reached many of thesame conclusions MK did.

The integration of drivers is extraordinary. One of mytorture tests for this characteristic is “You Look Good to Me”from the Oscar Peterson Trio’s We Get Requests [Verve V8606]. The bowed bass moves quickly up and down itsrange; some of the notes are shared between the wooferand the midrange, and some are exclusive to the midrangedriver. With most non-electrostatic speaker systems, youcan hear the tonal differences – the woofer seems to becut from a different sonic cloth. Not so with the Continuum2s; the transition was seamless. The midrange-to-tweetertransition was also well handled.

These speakers can handle enormous dynamic peakswithout strain (in order to take advantage of this I had to hookup my Sunfire amplifier – my others were driven into clippingbefore the Continuum 2s even started sounding strained).

As did MK, I found that the speakers lacked the finalword in inner detail – they are no slouches in this respect,but they are not on a par with the latest dynamic-driverdesigns from Harbeth, Dali, or von Schweikert (or my ref-erence speaker, the electrostatic AudioStatic DCIs). They

have superb imaging and soundstaging capabilities, withthe final set up. The reproduced soundstage was admirablydeep and wide.

The speakers stray a bit from tonal neutrality. There isnot quite enough energy in the warmth region and there aresubtle deviations through the whole frequency range.Designers who use first-order crossovers (especially in two-way or three-way designs) face problems in getting the ulti-mate in flat frequency response and tonal neutrality – eachdriver has to cover such a wide frequency range that thedesigner sacrifices some flatness for wider frequencyresponse. Johnson has chosen to go for maximum coheren-cy and phase alignment with his design, and the colorationsare pretty minor (to his credit, he has not implemented thequite-common frequency response dip at 1 to 2 kHz, whichmakes many bright recordings a bit more tolerable).

The timbral balance of these speakers varies enor-mously with listening height. Stand up (or even slouchbadly), and all the magic is gone (being able to adjust forlistener height is a nice feature). This phenomenon is com-mon to some degree with all non-line-source speaker sys-tems, but the Continuum 2’s first order crossovers, com-bined with its having only three drivers, makes it particular-ly vulnerable to listening-height variations.

This is a serious speaker design. Once I had them setup correctly, I enjoyed them. They are capable of produc-ing a better soundstage than most mini-monitors; they areremarkably coherent; they are relatively neutral; they havegreat bass extension and will play as loudly and brashly asyou like. &


In an interview a few years back with a RussianHigh End audio magazine, Vladimir Shushurin,proprietor and engineer of Lamm Industries, said,

“From my point of view, the ideal audio review iswhen the reviewer has nothing to say.” After a fewmonths of listening to his M1.1 amps and L1 line-stage preamp, I’m tempted to take his cue and call ita night. For these pieces of gear – to some degreeseparately, but especially together – capture music ofall sorts, in all aspects, so wonderfully, so truthfully,that there really isn’t much to say except, “You likemusic? You’ll like Lamm.”

There are many pieces of audio gear that makeyou sit up and go, “Wow, listen to that bass drum,”or “Jeez, I’ve never heard that tiny bell over in thecorner before,” or “Damn, I can understand everyword Rickie Lee Jones is singing.” With the Lammgear, you hear all these things – no less than withsomething that makes you go “Wow” – but theydon’t stick out from the rest of the music. They’rejust another part – a clear, vital, effortlessly eruptingpart – of everything else that’s going on.

When you go to a concert, you don’t note howdeeply the bass goes or how the singer sounds likeshe’s in the same room with you. Instead, you marvelat how deftly the bassist plays or how the singer’svoice makes you shiver. That’s the difference, quiteoften, between going out to hear live music and stay-ing home to have a hi-fi “listening session.” And it’sthe difference between listening to Lamm’s gear andlistening to just about anything else I’ve run across.

The M1.1 is a pair of monoblock amps, pump-ing out 100 watts of Class A power to 8 ohms or 4ohms. (They can also drive speakers below 1 ohm,though not in pure Class A.) They’re powered main-ly by MosFETs, except for a single 6992 triode tubein the second stage of amplification (whichShushurin considers the most important). The L1 issolid-state except for a single tube powering thevoltage-regulator. And yet, these units give up littleto pure-tube amps in the way of depth or dimen-sionality, or to pure-transistor amps in the way ofdetail, definition, dynamics, or extension of highand low frequencies. I’m not talking about runningdown a checklist of audiophile categories. I’m talk-ing about the stuff that makes the music come alive.

On “There’s Never Been a Day,” from KendraShank’s luscious Afterglow [Mapleshade 02132], lis-ten to drummer Steve Williams swirling his brush-es around on the snarehead. With many excellentcomponents, the whooshing is identifiable as brush-strokes (as opposed to a vague hiss); but with theLamms, I can also hear the 4/4 time he’s keeping, thesubtle accents on the shifting beats, and how thoseaccents shape his interplay with pianist Larry Willis.

Something similar happens with AnalogueProductions’ LP-reissue of Bill Evans’ Waltz forDebby [APJ 009].1 I hear, much more than before,the subtle accents in Evans’ piano playing and the

way bassist Scott LaFaro embellishes, and drummerPaul Motian plays off, those accents. In other words,the Lamms let me hear this group create music as acohesive, interacting trio, not just as three musi-cians. The dynamics of Motian’s stickwork or brush-strokes, the clarity of LaFaro’s bass, are also morelifelike than I’ve heard before. By “dynamics,” Imean dynamic range (the difference between theloudest and softest sounds) and dynamic contrasts(the subtle gradations marked by the smallest thrustof a violin’s bow, the slightest pressure on a piano’spedal, the hint of modulation in a singer’s voice). Onboth measures, the Lamms perform superbly.

Or check out “Maqam Hedjaz,” from theEduardo Paniagua Group’s Danzas MedievalesEspanoles [MA Recordings M034A], which featuresan oblique flute and a huge hand drum called abendir. An excellent stereo system can tell you howhard or soft, and exactly where, the player is hittingthat drum. But I’ve never heard just how these dif-ferences alter the pitch and tone-colors of the drum,or how they affect the duration and the specific over-tones of the reverberation in the church where thedisc was recorded.

Well, I could go on. We all have our “referencediscs” that we fetch out to test how a componenthandles this or that aspect of sound. The Lammsaced them all. On Count Basie’s 88 Basie Street [JVCXR 00210-2], the hammer and the reverb of thepiano, the muted trumpet in the back, the sumptu-ous saxophone section across the wall, the slap andsizzle of the trapset – they’re all there. On KDLang’s Ingenue [Sire/Warner Bros. 9 26840-2], do thedrum-thwacks make my eyes blink, can I distin-guish the different kinds of guitars, can I see all thebackground singers, are the diphthongs enunciatedwhen she sings the line “beneath my skin?” Yes, yes,yes, yes. On the Reiner/Prokofiev Lt. Kije [RCA LSC

THE SOUND • 75

Lamm M1.1 Monoblock Amplifier & L1 Line-stage Preamplifier

1 The L1 has no phono stage. For LPs, I plugged the Audible Illusions Modulus 3a (using theTape Output) into the L1’s Direct input.

2150, especially Classic Records’ 45 rpm reissue],the mournful double-bass solo, the silky violins, theovertones of the reeds, the cymbal crashes that bil-low forth a gigantic cushion of air – oh, yes.

The only area where the M1.1s fall short is in veryloud peaks, for instance the climactic moment towardthe end of the first movement of Gorecki’s ThirdSymphony [Nonesuch 799282-2]. It sounds a little bitstrained, a little bit tightened. This is where I coulduse 200 or 300 watts per side, at least with my HalesTranscendent 5 speakers, which have a rather modestsensitivity (87 dB). Still, the Lamms stir up a biggerstorm than their 100-watt rating suggests.

I’m also left wondering a bit about the M1.1’sspeed at very high frequencies. I’ve heard faster,higher amps, but the Lamms are no slouches in thisregion, and what goes on up there is so supremelywell integrated with everything else. One note:With certain preamps (in my experience, the KrellKRC-HC), the M1.1s are particularly constricted inthose ethereal realms. However, with others, forinstance the Audible Illusions Modulus 3a and theLamm L1, the noose not only loosens, it falls away.

I have not drawn much distinction between thesound of the M1.1 and that of the L1, becausethey’re pretty much the same. They both impart lit-tle color of their own, besides this slight (and I domean slight) darkening of the highest frequencies.They seem to pass along the character of the record-ing and the front end (turntable, CD player, cable,whatever) that they are amplifying. For instance,when I replaced my Nirvana SL-1 interconnect witha sample of Nirvana’s new SKGs, another veil wasstripped away. Everything, which had been vividenough, was more vivid still, though not at alletched or electronic-sounding.

Finally, tonal colors, ensemble blooms, seamless-ly wide and deep soundstages, images right there,behind, in front of, or to the left or right of, thespeakers (depending on how the recording was made)– the Lamms are spot-on in all these aspects, too.

So, what’s going on here? Shushurin says hebuilds his equipment to fit a mathematical modeldescribing how the human ear responds to soundpressure. He devised this model in the Soviet Union,when he was working in the military avionics indus-try, which had civilian applications in audio and video(though, for economic and technical reasons, hecouldn’t test the theory till he came to the States). Inour talks, he did not delve into the differential equa-tions involved (and I wouldn’t have understood them,if he had), but apparently they had a profound impli-cation for his design of audio equipment. One obser-vation was that, whatever distortion an amplifier has,it should be the same at all frequencies and all levelsof power output. He has designed his circuit-topolo-gy to conform to this rule and built the gear withcomponents of the most exacting tolerances to ensurethe least possible deviation. I cannot evaluate hisargument (which I’ve oversimplified). But the owner’smanual for the M1.1 contains a set of measurement-curves, taken by an independent lab, that are flatterthan any I’ve ever seen and consistently flat at variousfrequencies and watts. Slew rate, rise time, and otherspecs are similarly about as fast as they come.

Another novel aspect of the M1.1s is a switchthat lets you match them to a speaker’s impedance.

Tube amps with output-transformers have such aswitch, but nobody has ever stopped to think itwould matter in solid-state. Well, it does matter. Ilistened to the Hales first with the 1-6 ohm option.Switching to the 8-16, I noted that the qualitychanged noticeably: less air, less dimension, less clar-ity at the frequency extremes. The point of thisswitch is to let the amps pump 100 watts of pureClass A power into 8 or 4 ohms. Without the switch,it would, by necessity, deliver 100 watts of Class Ainto 8 ohms, and 200 watts of Class AB into 4. ToShushurin’s mind, 100 watts of A sounds better than200 watts of AB.

It is also worth noting that the amps are rugged-ly built. The toroidal power transformer is suspend-ed in a special capsule, making no mechanical contactwith the chassis and absorbing mechanical vibra-tions. There are two sets of brass, gold-plated, six-way binding posts (for bi-wiring). There are single-ended and balanced inputs (they sound the same).On-off switches are situated in the back, which canbe a pain (sitting idle, they consume 300 watts ofelectricity each – warm-up takes about 45 minutes).However, the L1 has a switch and a remote wire thatlets you turn the amps on and off from there.

The L1, besides boasting similar specs, has sin-gle-ended and balanced outputs, and seven pairs ofgold-plated inputs, one of which is labeled “Direct.”This bypasses all the switches (for phase-inversion,stereo-reversal, tape-monitoring), except for the vol-ume knobs. The difference is so dramatic, in fact,that I recommend using the Direct input for every-thing you feed into this thing, even though it’s apain to get behind the unit and switch cables. Oneminor complaint: The Mute switch is a waste; unlessyou turn the volume all the way down first (makingMute moot), it makes a loud clicking noise thatsometimes shuts down the amps and the preamp.

A final note. At nearly $16,000 a pair for theamps and $7,000 for the line-stage, these are expen-sive pieces. But if you’re interested in what hi-fi cando, in how close we have come to that elusiveabsolute, you must at least listen to the Lamms.

FRED KAPLAN

MANUFACTURER INFORMATIONLamm Industries2621 E. 24th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11235

Phone: (718) 368-0181; fax (718) 368-0140

E-mail: [email protected]

Price: M1.1 amps – $15,890/pair; L1 preamp – $6,990

SPECSM1.1 ampsOutput Impedance: 130 ohms

Power Output: 100 watts Class A into 8 or 4 ohms; 200 watts

(50 Class A) into 2 ohms; 300 watts (25 Class A) into 1 ohm; 20

Hz- 20 kHz @ 0.3 percent THD (8 ohms); 1 percent (1 ohm)

ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENTClearaudio Pentagon CD-70 CD player; VPI HW-19 Mk 4

turntable, VPI JMW Memorial pick-up arm, Clearaudio Gold-Coil

Signature cartridge; Audible Illusions Modulus 3a and Krell KRC-

HC preamps, Classé CA-150 amp; Hales Transcendence 5 speak-

ers; Nirvana SKG and SL-1 cables

&

THE SOUND • 77

Let me be clear from the start. The Wilson Maxxis one of the best speakers I’ve ever auditioned,and if I had the money and were not a reviewer,

I’d buy it. It does virtually everything extraordinar-ily well; it allows you to get the best out of yourcomponents; it works in real-world listening roomswithout dominating them; and it provides greatmusical pleasure along with great musical insight.At the same time, at $38,000 a pair and counting,the Maxx should do everything well. A single signif-icant fault in any speaker costing more than $10,000is inexcusable.

Of course, you get great dynamics and deep bass.An expensive speaker weighing 400 pounds a sidehas no right to sit anywhere in the listening roomunless it can be spectacular. The Maxx earns thatright without strain. You can throw any sonic spec-tacular at it, and it will give you just as much ener-gy and sonic impact as the source material permits –and it will not add euphonic touches of coloration.At the same time, you get exactly what’s on therecording – which is not always an act of mercy inthe sonic-spectacular world. Musically, “spectacular”often means loud, and far too often this turns out tobe musically lousy.

Where the Maxx really shines, however, is inreproducing musical nuance, and its superiority hereis hard to describe – particularly with words that areat best devalued coin in comparison to actually lis-tening. What struck me most about the Maxx afterlistening to hundreds of diverse recordings was howdeeply it allowed me to listen into the music, howoften it compelled me to actually pay attention andlisten for the pure pleasure of it, and that thisoccurred with so wide a range of music.

With proper set up, timbre is exceptionally neu-tral. Bass is exceptionally musically natural, tightlydefined and controlled without losing life and ener-gy. The midrange is sufficiently revealing so that nocoloration emerged on male or female voice, andstrings, woodwinds, and brass sounded realistic andcoherent. The soundstage is as natural and three-dimensional as the recording permits. Low-leveldetail and dynamics were as excellent as the abilityto reproduce loud passages, and the harmonicintegrity of music was similar to that sound you hearfrom the best electrostatics and ribbons, as was over-all transparency.

At the same time, the Maxx is not a demanding orfussy speaker in terms of recording quality. It doesn’tmake any given recording sound better than it is, butit is remarkably free of the colorations that reinforcethe problems in bad and mediocre recordings andmake them sound worse. This ability to consistentlyget the best sound out of an extremely wide range ofrecordings is also the reason why I have emphasizedthe phrase musical nuance in praising the Maxx.

Many of the nuances that distinguish the soundof High End equipment are of comparatively littleaesthetic value in terms of perceived musical real-ism. Often you trade new sonic colorations for old,and one musically unnatural – or at least question-able – sound for another. The real question in com-paring different equipment is almost never, “Canyou hear the difference?” The answer is almostalways, “Yes.” Unless nuance can meet the test ofbeing musically accurate, it is a waste of money.More than that, nuances that don’t meet this testalmost always lead you to start unconsciouslyfavoring recordings that are enhanced by a givencoloration, and you start choosing your other com-ponents to match. The thing about the WilsonAudio Maxx that really matters to me, then, is thatthe hours, weeks, and months I spent with thisspeaker consistently made the listening experienceseem more musically real. The Maxx gets countlesslittle trade-offs in sound quality musically right,and preserves an overall sound balance that isremarkably neutral.

This kind of performance, however, is somethingyou ultimately have to hear for yourself. The most areviewer can do is give you the motivation to closethis magazine and go out and listen for yourself.Now, let’s talk about how serious that motivationshould be. The answer is easy if you have the money.The Maxx is not only intensely musical, it is beauti-fully made, and finished like an Aston Martin. For a

THE SOUND • 79

Wilson MAXX Loudspeaker: Some Dreams are Worth the Price!

speaker of its mass and sound quality, it is also notvisually obtrusive. Its beauty is of the form-follows-function variety. The chief merits of its visual impactlie in “techno-awe.” No one is going to call it pret-ty, but any one who sees it will know you are a seri-ous audiophile.

“Techno-awe,” however, goes far beyond theMaxx’s visual profile. The enclosure is a molded poly-mer that has immense mass and ability to resist vibra-tion, and a great deal of complex internal bracing.Packing 400 pounds of enclosure, speakers, andcrossover into a package 63 x 17 x 22 inches allowsWilson Audio to create an extraordinarily well-damped speaker and rigid surfaces for mounting thedrivers. This almost certainly contributes to the factthe Maxx is one of the most transparent speakers I haveever heard, and has extraordinary low-level resolution– rivaling the best ribbon speakers in this respect.

The drivers are custom-made to Wilson’s speci-fications. The Maxx boasts five drivers per speaker: a12” and 10” woofer, two 7” midranges, and a 1”inverted-dome Titanium tweeter, all superbly craft-ed. The crossover is also beautifully made, with top-notch components and wiring.

The Maxx is not perfectly time- and phase-aligned, but its D’Appolito driver configuration andcrossover give it a coherence and precision that out-performs anything I’ve heard from speakers that toutfirst-order crossovers and superior time and phasealignment.1 The depth and realism of the imagingand the stability of image size and placement at dif-ferent levels of loudness are truly outstanding.

The Maxx is also unusually efficient, with arated sensitivity of 92 dB at 1 watt per meter.Wilson says it can be driven with a minimum of 7watts. Well, I wouldn’t go for 7 watts, but then, I’mnot a single-ended-triode fan (unless it’s matched toa suitable horn speaker), but you can get away quitenicely with a 25-watt triode tube amplifier, but onlyif you are willing to give up the damping and poweryou need in the deep bass.

The Maxx has a nominal impedance of 8 ohmsand a rated minimum of 3. You can hear the value ofevery increase in power and bass control in an ampli-fier. The Maxx deserves the very best amplification. Itis a joy on organ recordings with true deep funda-mentals, and bass viol and drum are equally excellent.

Wilson specs this speaker at 20-21,000 Hz fre-quency response at –3 dB. No in-room measurementcan really assess such a specification, but the overalltimbre and deep bass extension and control of theMaxx are superb, and the measurements I performedwith the Tact 2.0 and a professional one-third octaveRTA were as good as any I have obtained.

You can also fine-tune the Maxx to your listen-ing position and taste, which is another reason I findit difficult to talk about the sonic colorations in thisspeaker. The vertical angle of the tweeter andmidrange unit can be adjusted precisely to suit theheight of your listening position. There are otheradjustments, as well. Set-up is critical, but WilsonAudio has an excellent training program to helpdealers choose the right placement so the speakerwill produce a soundstage that is almost holograph-ic in its precision.

A word about compatibility. You are unlikely tohave amplifier load problems, though, as I said, thespeaker deserves high-powered amps for the mostdynamic music. But you will certainly hear the col-orations in your other components more clearly. Thisspeaker masks almost nothing, including the soundof cables and interconnects. I recommend a speakercable that is capable of providing really tight andpowerful low bass.

I have found that this is the area where the inter-actions between speaker cables, amplifier, and speak-er are particularly audible and often go beyond thesubtle. The better the speaker, the more audiblethese interactions are. I normally use Dunlavy andKimber Select speaker cables, and some minor prob-lems showed up with both. These are extremelygood products, but the Dunlavys do not providequite the control I’d like, at least in terms of mid-bass tightness. The Kimber Selects come closer toideal performance, but don’t have quite the ultimatein deep bass extension. This showed up more clearlywith the Maxx than with other speakers I’ve audi-tioned, and after checking around, I tried theTransparent Reference XL Series.

The synergy between the Wilson Audio Maxxand Transparent Reference XL Series is impressiveand occurred with my reference Pass X600, an olderpair of Krell 200 watt mono amps, my small home-built triode tube amp, and the Plinius 250A. TheTransparent Reference XL interconnects added anextra touch of transparency (although the KimberSelects were possibly a bit more faithful in timbre).

Now, does the Maxx have some limitations? Ofcourse. They produce the same kind of focusedsoundstage as any other speaker that is not a dipoleor that lacks rear-firing drivers. As a result, thesound has a touch less air and is slightly less open,and the soundstage does not seem as large. Someother top speakers have a bit more apparent upper-octave air (although usually at the cost of less accu-rate timbre). The best ribbons offer a different andsometimes superior sounding detail and transparen-cy, although not consistently better or more musi-cally realistic. Some ultra-efficient horns have atouch more apparent dynamic life. A few speakersprovide more of the deepest bass – although not nec-essarily with more accuracy.

Let me close where I began. The Wilson Maxxrepresents the best mix of sound qualities I’ve heardso far in a speaker small enough to be practical in mylistening room. It is the most musically accuratespeaker I’ve yet heard, on a wide range of recordings.Above all, at the end of a hard day, it provides atouch of magic in the night.

ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN

THE SOUND • 81

1 The jury is scarcely in on this aspect of speaker design because the speakers I’m referringto cost less than half the price of the Maxx. But it was clear to me that the advantages of morecomplex crossovers in minimizing the load on a given driver and allowing an easier match cancompensate for some problems in time and phase alignment.


Wilson Audio

2233 Mountain Vista Lane, Provo, Utah 84606

Phone: (801) 377-2233

www.wilsonaudio.com


Price: $38,900/pair

JOHN NORK COMMENTS:

To purloin the punch line from an otherwise forgettablecar commercial, this is not your father’s Wilson loud-

speaker system.Like many grizzled audio scribes, I have closely moni-

tored the evolution of Wilson Audio speakers over theyears. My first substantive contact with a Wilson designoccurred way back in 1987 when I reviewed the originalWilson Audio Tiny Tot (Watt) in these pages. The Tiny Tothas proven hardier than most of its larger brethren, and sur-vives to this day in its sixth iteration.

Wilson has also focused on larger full-range systems,starting with the venerable (and venerated) Wilson AudioModular Monitor (Wamm). It too exists today, in its seventhincarnation, with a price tag of $225,000.

Irrespective of these differences in scope and design,there has been a discernible “family sound” to the pastWilson products I have auditioned. To be fair, this is true (toa greater or lesser extent) of all long-standing High Endloudspeaker companies. Such organizations are often guid-ed by a single visionary architect who has specific (some-times idiosyncratic) ideas of how the Perfect Speakershould operate. Like reviewers, designers have their own“listening biases” that guide them in their work and causethem to focus on certain aspects of reproduced sound.One can often extrapolate from a designer’s past productsto future offerings. Not this time.

It is not semantic hyperbole to say that I was stunnedwhen I first heard the Wilson Maxx. Although reviewers rou-tinely transcend human limitations and approach productswith absolutely no pre-existing bias, I fell short of that idealon this occasion. Given the sonic disparity between theMaxx and past Wilson models, one might expect a radicalshift in design criteria. Based on the product documenta-tion and extensive discussions with designer David Wilson,that does not seem to be the case. The Maxx flaunts its400-pound cabinet, fashioned from ultra-dense, damped,rigid, low-vibration materials. A robust knuckle-wrap test onthe cabinet leads only to pain, not aural artifacts. Theexpected Wilson obsession with banishing spurious reso-nance is very much in evidence in the Maxx. Like AHC, Ihave no doubt that the extremely low “noise floor” of theMaxx contributes mightily to its noteworthy neutrality andredoubtable resolution. The system is virtually free of the“drivers-in-a-box” sound that drove so many of us to dipolescreen speakers in the past.

In my experience, Wilson Audio speakers have tendedtoward the analytical/“neutral” pole of the sonic continuum(as opposed to the romantic/“musical”). Some woulddescribe them as ruthlessly revealing. Others would saythey exaggerate (or at least highlight) flaws in ancillarycomponents and source material. Given David Wilson’sprofessional recording background (where everything onthe mastertape must be heard), this is understandable,perhaps even laudable. I found the Watts to be invaluabletools in my own recording work. When it came to the

deceptively simple act of listening to music for pleasure,though, they could be a bit relentless.

“Relentless” is a word that I would never apply to theMaxx. Given proper set-up and associated equipment, theMaxx is unfailingly smooth and natural, no matter how hardit is pushed.1 Unlike the older Watts, it is marvelously easyand enjoyable to listen to for extended periods of time. LikeAHC, I never grew tired of listening to music on the Maxx.It was always an enjoyable, enriching experience. Suchlong-term musical satisfaction is perhaps the most daunt-ing task for an audio component. The Maxx succeeds withaplomb and distinction. It serves the music well.

The spectral balance of the Maxx is nearly ideal. Theharmonic balance of music is very well conveyed. The tim-bre of a wide array of musical instruments is convincinglylifelike (e.g., trumpets and French horns, acoustic guitars,violins and viola, piano and harpsichord).

In my listening room, though, there were some mildfrequency aberrations. First, although bass quality wasexcellent, the quantity was a bit excessive. This was partic-ularly true of the deep bass. Perhaps surprisingly, this is acommon problem with today’s super-speakers. It’s almostas though the designer needed to aurally boast that his cre-ation can forcefully re-create the subterranean depths ofmusic. As a result, the listener receives ongoing remindersof this prodigious accomplishment.

To be sure, judicious augmentation of deep bass canbe musically enjoyable, even exhilarating. It is ultimatelydistracting, though, in that it is not an innate part of the livemusical experience. At live acoustic concerts, the listener’sattention is rarely drawn to the bass the way it is in manyaudio systems.

The Maxx also exhibited minor elevation in the middlebass in my listening environment. However, bass definitionwas so good that this was not a significant problem.

At the other end of the frequency spectrum, the Maxxis slightly deficient in high-frequency air (as AHC reported).The top end is exceptionally smooth in-room, but a bit ret-icent and polite. When coupled with the mild low-endemphasis, the result is a subtle (but most un-Wilson-like)richness or ripeness. Compared to live music, the Maxx cansound ever-so-slightly dark on occasion. Please be awarethat I am describing a rarefied tonal phenomenon here, notsomething overt or intrusive.

Still, just as I would never apply the word “relentless”to the Maxx, I certainly would not describe the past Wilsondesigns I have auditioned as “rich.” The Maxx represents asignificant departure in speaker “voicing” for the company,even though the objective design criteria appearunchanged.

The midrange of the Maxx is extremely good. It doeslack that last bit of aliveness attainable with the finest rib-bon and electrostatic systems, however. At their best, thesedesigns can suggest the live experience in this area a bitmore convincingly than the Maxx does. In isolated ways,they are more “transparent” in the broadest sense of theterm (i.e., they allow certain musical characteristics toemerge with less imposition by the speaker). They also arebeset by other problems that do not mar the Maxx.

The dynamic range of this speaker is awesome. Evennow, after many hours of listening, I’m not sure which ismore impressive, the Maxx’s surprising skill at the quiet end

THE SOUND • 83

1 Three commercial recordings were used as reference in this review: The Winter Consort:Road. [A&M SP4279 LP]; Helicon Ensemble: Vivaldi for Diverse Instruments. [ReferenceRecordings RR-77CD]; Crosby, Pevar, and Raymond: CPR. [Samson Music GC0145 CD].

of the dynamic continuum or its effortless ease duringmusic’s loudest passages. The former is often impaired inlarge-scale speakers. In terms of the latter, the Maxx is one ofthe few speakers I have heard that undergoes no qualitativeor character change when taxed by demanding musical for-tissimos played at concert-hall volumes. Impressive, indeed.

Like AHC, I found the soundstage of the Maxx first-rate.Stage depth and width are bountiful. Image placement (evenduring densely congested musical passages) is precise andnatural. Although certain dipole designs have more va-va-va-voom bloom, the Maxx’s soundfield is more accurately anddistinctly rendered. In addition to CDs and albums, I relied onmy own recordings in arriving at this judgment.

Although the Maxx does not spotlight flaws the waysome past Wilson products have, it does demand associatedcomponents of requisite quality. Every change I made in myreference system was clearly audible through the Maxx. It isa high-resolution device that will sound no better than thelinks preceding it in the audio chain. Although the Maxx pre-sents a challenging low-impedance load at certain frequen-cies, I attained glorious results with the superb AudioResearch VT200 tube amplifier. Like AHC, I also experiment-ed with a variety of cables. I too found that the Maxx workedexceptionally well with the Transparent Reference XL cables.

The Maxx is a beautifully crafted product. Every aspectof its finish and construction is superb (right down to themachining of the woofer port and the alignment block).Many non-audiophiles visiting my home remarked on thegorgeous finish and obvious quality of the system. Perhapsthis should be commonplace with components of suchcost, but that is not always the case. I have had other sim-

ilarly priced speakers over the years whose build qualitypales next to the Maxx. All too often, extravagantly pricedHigh End audio components are exercises in engineeringgenius, mated with poor production skills. The result is awonderful laboratory concept that falters crossing thethreshold into product reality. With the Maxx you get supe-rior design and execution, in a fully realized product thatsets an enviable standard of excellence.

This is not to say that the aesthetics of the Maxx will beuniversally appealing. The speaker is of the futuristicroboto-pod look that has always characterized the compa-ny’s wares. Although some will be captivated, those withpre-Jetson (as in George) décor may vigorously balk.

The Wilson Maxx is not an “exciting” speaker. Otherthan the slight bottom-end heft noted above, it does notdraw attention to itself in any way. Rather it “simply” pass-es along the majestic beauty of music. In this sense it is aneminently natural loudspeaker system. Even jaded long-term audio critics like AHC and JN found sanctuary in itsmusically consonant sound. Tellingly, we both derivedmany hours of genuine musical fulfillment from the Maxx.It is a superior speaker system in every sense.

Long-time readers are familiar with John Nork, who in the olddays was one of our most valued reviewers. New readers willbe interested to know that John is a musician who has per-formed in many types of ensembles and today still plays witha band. He is a trained recording engineer, with a 16-trackrecording studio of his own. Since 1986 he has been presi-dent of Infinity Software Systems, a software and consultingfirm that specializes in computerizing retailers.

&

THE SOUND • 85

Both the Plinius M14 and M16 are substantialcomponents. Their handsome, straightforwardstyling looks rather like an Audio Research

design executed by Krell, with chunky handles,large rotary switches, and a small inset at the bottomcenter of the thick front panel, where switches forabsolute phase and standby mode flank a blue statusLED. There is one odd quirk to the construction: thethick, machined aluminum tops slide into groovesin the side panels and are secured at the back withthree Allen bolts, but the tops do rattle when rappedwith the knuckles. Knocking anywhere else on aPlinius is like knocking on a large tree.

The M14 phono stage accommodates only sin-gle-ended inputs, but provides both balanced andsingle-ended outputs. High- and low-gain settingsare selectable on the front panel, as are a range ofloading selections from 22 ohms to 47 k/ohms. Thisunit is designed to provide sufficient gain for anycartridge of more than .20 mV output. The match-ing M16 line stage’s front panel is clean and wellorganized, with balance and volume controls andfree-spinning selectors for input and record. The vol-ume pot is a high-quality Alps unit, motor-drivenvia the remote control.1 Six sources can be connectedto the the line stage, though only one input, labeledCD, is balanced; this seems odd given that thephono stage provides balanced outputs. Another setof balanced ins would be appreciated. Both balancedand single-ended outputs are provided. Both com-ponents also offer detachable power cords.

The units are meant to be left on at all times,and their power switches are located on the rear pan-els to discourage turning them off. There is a goodreason for this that both HP and ASP have men-tioned: Plinius electronics will sound hard, hazy, andgrainy when they are first powered up. A day laterthey will be better, but not until a week to ten dayshave passed will they begin to sound their best, andthere is incremental improvement for at least amonth. Incidentally, they must be left on, in mute(not standby!), all the time, or you have to gothrough the whole process again.

The M14 Phono StageOnce properly warmed up, the M14 immediatelymakes its presence known with its ability to producebellowing, wall-flexing low bass from any recordthat demands it. Brutal bass demo-discs likeFrederick Fennell’s Pomp and Pipes [Reference RR-

55] and Mickey Hart’s Däfos [Reference RR-12] aregreat fun with the M14 – it never seems to be work-ing hard on even the most demanding of deep bass.I was even moved to dig out seldom-played organrecords for the sheer pleasure of hearing its amazinggrip on and control of the lowest octave. The M14’sbass is not only about sheer brute force. In mostmusic, the bass-to-upper-bass range, and not thebottom octave, provides the foundation. The M14has authority and articulation on bass guitars/fid-dles, drumkits, and piano. On “Come Together” and“Something” from The Beatles’ Abbey Road [MobileFidelity 1-023], Ringo’s tom-toms and Paul’s bassguitar were superbly delineated and richly full-bod-ied. The M14’s ability to keep up with flurries oftransients in the lower reaches makes the interplaybetween Jaco Pastorius and Don Alias a propulsiveentity on Joni Mitchell’s “In France They Kiss onMain Street” [Shadows and Light, Geffen BB-704].

THE SOUND • 87

T H E L A N D I N G

Plinius M14 Phono Stage and M16 Line Stage

1 The M16’s remote deserves special mention: it is large and heavy, but provides handy but-tons for all functions but balance. Special kudos to Plinius for putting the absolute phase switchon the remote, where it belongs.

M14 (top); M16(bottom)

The Plinius does not stop with world-class bassperformance; midrange is treated equally well –with fluidity and timbral generosity. Even today, thetransistor most often makes its presence felt onmassed strings, where a steely or harsh quality canstill sometimes be heard overlaying the true sound ofthe instruments. On Malcolm Arnold’s English,Scottish and Cornish Dances [Lyrita SRCS.109], theM14 spun out strings with splendid presence andharmonic wholeness. The M14’s one notable short-coming does emerge in the treble range: While mas-sive treble transients are generally well-handled,there is occasionally a slight papery-sounding coars-ening of texture on high-frequency transients ofgreat intensity, such as monster cymbal crashes andup-front tambourine rattles. For the greater part,honesty is also a primary Plinius trait – it does noth-ing to sweeten mediocre records, but lets pass near-ly everything to be had from the best LPs.

The M14’s dynamic performance places it square-ly in the top echelon among the phono sections I haveheard. While it is exceptionally distinguished in thebass ranges, there is a lively, responsive qualitythroughout its full bandwidth. The M14 does a par-ticularly creditable job when the going gets veryloud. It exhibits none of the slight compression ondynamics from ff upwards that I found on theRowland Cadence. The Plinius just keeps gettinglouder and louder with no strain. Even a full-tiltassault like the great Eugen Jochum performance ofCarmina Burana [DG SLPM 139 362] or Reiner’smonumental Pines of Rome [Classic/RCA LSC-2436]doesn’t make the M14 lose its control or focus.

The M14 also excels at capturing the core of themusic that passes through it. Listening to RoxyMusic’s Manifesto [Polydor POLH 001 (UK)], I wasstruck anew by the strange, moody darkness of thealbum. This is an album of decadence and regretwith an almost between-the-World-Wars feel, andyou hear it through the M14. The Plinius also recap-tured the tension and drama of Carlos Kleiber’s epicBeethoven Fifth [DG 2530 526], reinvigorating thispeerless performance.

In a phrase, the M14 is a deal – and then some.It is flexible, anvil-solid, and yields only a tad ofultimate high-frequency finesse to the very bestphono stages I know. It also costs less than its clos-est sonic competitors – the Rowland Cadence,Aesthetix Io, and Audio Research Reference Phono.Anyone looking for a phono stage to live with for thelong run would be foolish not to give the M14 anextended audition.

The M16 Line StageSince it shares the same basic circuit with the M14phono stage, the M16, no surprise, sounds quitesimilar to its sibling. It reprises the phono stage’ssuperb bass performance, allowing the superiority ofthe best digitally recorded bass to make itself feltand heard on CDs like Moby’s Play [V2 63881-27049-2]. Atop this exemplary bass, the M16 linestage presents a well-balanced and continuousmidrange. The luscious, slinky sax of The PinkPanther’s title track [RCA LSP-2795] is vividly pre-sented, and voices are natural and uncolored. In the

top octaves, the Plinius shows essentially none of thetraditional transistorized failings, and in this respectis slightly superior to the phono stage. The delicatemix of sweetness, satin, and rosiny bite that bringsstrings to life is there on Van Cliburn’s performanceof Rachmaninoff’s Second Concerto [BMG 619-61-2].Upper harmonics of string and brass instrumentsnever jump out aggressively from the fundamentals;there is no discontinuity or raggedness, even duringdemanding crescendos.

The M16 is particularly good at capturing theway instruments and voices project into an acousticspace. Timbral characteristics aside, one reason apiano does not sound like a saxophone is because ofthe differing ways they project sound into space. Thekey word here is “project,” because in reproducingsolo instruments, the size and shape of the sourcefrom which the sound originates controls the way thesound is radiated. The Plinius electronics are uncan-nily good at maintaining the distinctive ways thatdifferent types of instruments, including the humanvoice, behave in space, projecting not just forward,but three-dimensionally into a definable space and inunique individual ways. Moreover, there is no senseof physical disconnection of the source from thesound. Part of the M16’s way with this trait can belaid directly at the feet of its excellent dynamic per-formance. Like the phono stage, the line stage hasplenty of dynamic vitality and forcefulness.

The M16 also casts a very good soundstage. Itdoes not take recordings of modest spatial propor-tions and turn them into wraparound spectaculars;neither does it diminish recordings that require aCinerama-style presentation. Top tubed units andthe Jeff Rowland Coherence II provide slightly moredepth and a bit of extra definition to the back cor-ners of the stage, but the M16 is a solid performer.In all cases, the M16 gives you the perspective theengineer and producer put on the recording, with noartificial constriction or sweetening. Dynamics andsoundstaging converge when it is necessary to main-tain instrumental separateness during moderatelyloud to very loud passages. The M16 keeps things intheir proper places, with no defocusing of imageboundaries even in demanding passages, such as themost taxing portions of Philip Glass’ complete andremastered Koyaanisqatsi [Nonesuch 195062].

Compared to the far more costly Coherence II,the M16 shaves just a bit of immediacy and snapfrom the leading edge of the most dynamicallydemanding transients, as when all four Romeros areplaying at once on “Sevillanas” [The Royal Family ofthe Spanish Guitar, Mercury 434 385-2]. The M16’stransparency, low-level detail retrieval and palpabil-ity are all good, though it is not quite the equal ofthe Coherence – hardly an unforgivable failing, sincethe Coherence costs three-and-a-half times as much.

A more appropriate comparison is with theAudio Research LS25, which I have owned for twoyears. The M16 line stage establishes itself as a wor-thy contender or alternative to the ARC. The tubedunit ekes ahead of the Plinius, with slightly superi-or image palpability and a non-euphonic liquidityand airiness in the far field. The ARC is also themore versatile unit, providing complete sets of bal-

THE SOUND • 89

anced and unbalanced inputs, selectable overallgain, and processor loop for home-theater applica-tions; it is also $800 more. The M16 establishes itssuperiority in the areas of superb bass, a broadbandmacrodynamic presentation, and an unusual knackat projecting the focused sound of instruments andvoices into space. Both are superb overall perform-ers and the choice between them will come down topersonal taste or your need for the ARC’s excep-tional flexibility.

One measure of a component’s ultimate capabil-ities is whether it responds to non-invasive tweak-ing. Neither the line stage nor the phono stagechanges character when used with judicious vibra-tion isolation and the best power cords, but theimprovements that can be realized by such tinkeringare made clear – the units become more clearlythemselves. They also allowed the sonic characteris-tics of different footers and isolation components tobe heard, and showed just how much difference agood power cord such as the CPCC Top Gun canmake on an otherwise well-engineered piece of gear.

Ultimately there is a commendable sense of easeand composure about the sound of the M16. Thebroad strokes of music’s paintings are sketched bold-ly and confidently, while fine dynamic and timbraldetails are a naturally integrated part of the whole.The M16 has no significant liabilities and manypraiseworthy strengths.

Summing UpThere is nothing in the sound of either the M14phono stage or M16 line stage to indicate what typeof electronics are at work inside their sturdy boxes.While there is a slight dash of dryness to the Pliniussound, it shows up as little more than a slight reduc-tion of the last bit of airiness and shimmer in theupper midrange and lower treble, exemplified by therecorded reverberation on the best orchestral record-ings and well-recorded cymbals on jazz or rockrecordings. This slight failing emerges only whenthe Plinius components are compared either to thesound of live music or the finest audio components.

The Plinius electronics suggest that the $4-5thousand price point is where the law of diminish-ing returns sets in with a vengeance. At this level,the serious listener can obtain components that aresignificantly surpassed only by the very finest avail-able, and getting that last bit of sonic excellence willin most cases cost far more. The outstanding valueand excellent sound offered by the M14 and M16illustrates the sort of real progress that should be theHigh End’s hallmark.

PAUL BOLIN


Advanced Audio Technologies

1280 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 230

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Phone: (404) 872-2564; fax: (404) 872-0817

www.plinius.com


Prices: M14 – $3,495; M16 – $4,195


Analog sources: Sota Cosmos turntable; Graham 2.0 pick-up arm;

van den Hul Grasshopper IV-GLA, van den Hul-Shinon Red Boron

and Transfiguration Spirit cartridges; Digital sources: MBL 1511

and Metronome T-20 transports; MBL 1521 and Metronome C-

20 DACs, Kimber Illuminati Orchid interconnect; Electronics: Jeff

Rowland Cadence phono stage; Jeff Rowland Coherence II and

Audio Research LS25 line stages; Audio Research VT100 Mk II,

Jeff Rowland 8T, Atma-Sphere MA-1 Mk II.2 and VTL TT-25 Tiny

Triode amplifiers; Speakers: Apogee Duetta Signature, Coincident

Speaker Technologies Super Eclipse and Silverline Sonata; Cables:

Nordost Quattro Fil and Siltech SQ-80B-G3 interconnects; Nordost

SPM shotgun, Siltech LS-288 Gold, LS-120 G3 and LS-80 G3

speaker cables; Luxor Group/CPCC Top Gun and Model Eleven

power cords; Accessories: Ultra Resolution Technologies Bedrock

equipment and amp stands; RadPad isolation platforms; Nordost

Pulsar Points; Shun Mook IsoQubes, Tube Resonators and Mpingo

Discs; Polycrystal footers; Solid-Tech Feet of Silence; Caig Labs

ProGold; Nordost Eco 3 antistatic spray

DAN DAVIS COMMENTS ON THE M14 PHONO STAGE

M y heart belongs to analog, though you’d never knowit from the way once-lengthy LP sessions have

become relatively rare. My excuse is that I’ve got to reviewnew CD releases. But in the dark hours of the night, whensoul-searching dredges up ultimate truths, I’ll admit that theease and convenience of CD are factors. Pop it into thetransport and play. No elaborate cleaning rituals. No ago-nizing over which record clamp sounds best with whichrecord. No fussing with VTA.

So, asked to comment on Paul Bolin’s review of thePlinius M14 phono stage, I leapt at the opportunity tobeam myself back to analog heaven. My enthusiasm wasfurther whetted since I’ve had several Plinius products inmy system over the years and, despite my predilections fortubes, found them satisfyingly musical.

That observation holds true for the M14. It’s deadsilent, even in my RF-drenched neighborhood, built like atank, lightning-fast, and has frequency extension I’ve onlydreamed of, with powerful, nuanced bass and sparkling tre-ble. I can live happily with euphonically colored equipment.With the M14, I don’t have to. With the M14 in combina-tion with the extraordinary Wyetech Opal line stage, LP afterLP proved that on the best electronics, musicality and neu-trality go hand in hand. Well-recorded LPs sounded won-derful, poorly recorded LPs sounded poorly recorded – theM14 doesn’t perfume garbage.

And despite my impatience with the lengthy rituals ofprepping and playing LPs, I appreciated the M14’s front-paneltweaking capabilities, including a phase-invert switch that max-imized the sound of many LPs. Cartridge loading, oftenenabled through DIY soldering and similar atrocities, is accom-plished via a knob that offers six options, sufficient for most car-tridges. I tried various settings for my Koetsu Rosewood Mk II,finally settling on a wide-open 47K, which gave me thedynamic oomph and wall-of-sound stage I craved.

Every Plinius product I’d encountered had killer bass,so after an extensive break-in period, I hunkered down withthe kind of music audiophiles use to break leases. Solti’sVerdi Requiem is a long-time favorite for evaluating equip-ment. I used two versions, London OSA 1275 and theCisco Super Analogue audiophile reissue, KIJC 9228/9. Abig test is the great bass drum in the “Dies Irae,” tepid ontoo many recordings. Through the M14, those bass ham-

THE SOUND • 91

mer blows were hair-raising, far more powerful than I’dever heard them in my system. Another test is the repro-duction of the chorus. The M14 superbly differentiated thechorus’ sections, and conveyed crisp attacks and clearlyarticulated text.

Marilyn Horne’s rendition of the “Liber scriptus” isanother test. Her fabulous mezzo voice has a distinct reg-ister break. On good electronics, you should hear thatgap, but it should still sound as if one voice, albeit farfrom seamless, is producing the sound. On too many sys-tems, when Horne sings the word “judicetur,” it sounds asif a soprano stopped singing and a baritone took over.None of that with the M14. A bonus was that the M14-Wyetech combination clarified the differences betweenthe two pressings, revealing that the Cisco’s greater trans-parency was bought with a degree of leanness not evi-dent on the London original.

I played many soprano and violin recordings, listeningfor treble grain. It wasn’t evident on my system, not evenon such dynamic fare as Reiner’s Spain [Classic RecordsRCA LSC-2230], where castanets and bells sparkled andmassed strings in their upper registers had the rightamount of bite without the glare or harshness I’m espe-cially sensitive to. A similar grainless treble added to thepleasures of Sonny Rollins’ Our Man in Jazz [ClassicRecords RCA LSP-2612], where Don Cherry’s cornet,

Rollins’ sax and Billy Higgins’ drum set came across withcrystalline clarity and punch. And on Aretha Franklin’s fabu-lous Amazing Grace [Atlantic SD2-906], recorded live at aLos Angeles church in 1972, the M14’s clean, extended tre-ble captured the sense of space, and its generousmidrange caught every moan, whoop, and holler ofAretha’s gospel singing.

Since it’s against my nature not to find some nit to pick,I’ll echo Bolin’s comment about the M14’s top panel: Iadded weights to dampen it, but a unit as well-built as thisone really should have a ring-free, internally damped toppanel bolted to the frame. But that’s all I could find togrumble about. It’s a cliché of audio reviewers to say theequipment they’re reviewing is so good it made themrediscover their records. But that’s what happened. I’mback to playing LPs, thanks to this wonderful unit. If you’rein the market for a phono preamp, the M14 should be atthe top of your audition list.


Wyetech Opal line stage; Jadis JA80 amplifier; von Schweikert VR4

GenII speakers; Siltech and Harmonic Technology interconnects,

cables, and AC cords; Harmonix footers; Harmonix and Shun

Mook record clamps, resonance control devices

&

THE SOUND • 93

Many audiophiles have an over-simplified –and negative – view of single-ended triodeamps. But it’s time for them to start listen-

ing. Whether it’s playing back big bands or stringquartets, the Art Audio Jota bumps up againststereotypes: There’s no over-ripe midrange, mushybass, roll-off at the frequency extremes. In fact, withthe exception of the overall smoothness and theinherent organic quality of the sound, I would neverhave guessed this amplifier was an SET.

The Jota is a pure class A, 20-watts-per-channel,transformer-coupled, single ended tube amplifierdesigned around the KR Enterprises VV 32B outputtriode tube. The output tubes are mounted on a spe-cial isolation plate assembled with vibrationdampers to isolate them from chassis vibration. Thesockets themselves are ceramic with silver-platedpins. The dual mono design also features an auto-matic biasing circuit.

The amp is named for a type of folk dance fromAragon, Spain, that consists of hoppy steps in 3/4time. The image of a folk dance is apropos, here, forthe Jota will get your feet tapping in no time.Musical? Yes. But not in the double-speak definitionof this word you may have heard before – “musical-ity” as an excuse for shortcomings in detail retrieval,dynamics, and performance at the frequencyextremes. Indeed, the Jota excels in these and otherareas. I was hard-pressed to find any manifest defi-ciencies. And its temperament does not require thetalents of a live-in mechanic.1

Its physical appearance is striking: gleaming,polished, non-magnetic stainless steel and blacktransformers with gold-plated caps to match the ArtAudio badge. The blue-crystal power status lights arerecessed on front of the unit and have an almost neon-light effect that complements the rest of design.

In performance, it’s dynamic, to say the least.Whether fleshing out the mids, scaling the highs, orplumbing the depths, the Jota’s ability to conveydynamic gradients surprised me. I had expected themidrange to be somewhat lush, but it was not. Andthe rest of the frequency spectrum offered more thanI imagined possible.2 Indeed, my push-pull referenceneeds to be seriously goosed to get a comparablesense of presence. Sadly, when played in back-to-back comparisons, and loudly enough to bring thelife back into the presentation, that reference ampstill sounds relatively hard and mechanical.

Low-level resolution was unsurpassed, in myexperience. The amp can crank out serious volumeand still come across as sounding effortless. Sounused to the unusually smooth sound was I thatduring my first week with the unit, I often foundmyself cranking up the volume in an attempt to getthat edgier push-pull sound to which I was accus-tomed. The Jota refused to deliver, until forced to

clip. Even then, the clipping was gentle and the ampalways recovered quickly.

On the Shadowlands soundtrack [Angel CDQ55093], the Choir of Magdalen College made deli-cate, yet fully energized entrances. Articulation wasprecise, yet full and well rounded, and trianglestrikes that were difficult to distinguish on otheramps rang out clearly.

In the intro to “Brother,” from Bill Frisell’sNashville [Nonesuch 79415-2], Frisell slides his fin-ger up the string of his guitar, and I heard it movetwo frets farther, and sustain longer, than everbefore. The entire album (which can get somewhatraucous while remaining musical) was much moreliquid than I recall from many previous listenings. Italso offered a better view into the details generatedby the harmonics of many stringed instruments, lay-ered across the soundscape. Subtle murmurs, bites,growls, twangs, and snaps all came into aural focus.

The soundstage offers excellent depth and verti-cal aspects. Width was most appropriate, but the

THE SOUND • 97

Art Audio Jota Amplifier

1 That said, I must disclose that had a bit of trouble with the unit. It arrived with a non-func-tioning output tube, which the ebullient importer/contributing-designer, Joe Fratus, replacedovernight. About three weeks into the audition, a rectifier diode failed; this required the talentsof an expert to repair. According to Mr. Fratus, Jota got a batch of bad diodes from its supplier.Upon hearing of my problem, he had all affected units recalled for quick replacement of thefaulty part. I used the amp for another four months with no further problems.

2 Understand that this type of performance does not come on the cheap. Aside from thecost of the unit itself, replacing the pair of VV KR32 output tubes will set you back $400. If youare choked as you read that, I can empathize. When I learned of this, I did the same. At thetime, I had not had a chance to listen to the Jota and professed that nothing would ever com-pel me to drop that kind of money for a set of two tubes. Color me wrong. (I subsequentlylearned that cost of tubes for the Jota is not egregious when one considers that certain WesternElectric tubes for 300B-type amps go for twice that amount.)

Besides, these tubes should live a good, long life. Mr. Fratus says he has “original sets thathave been running for three years now and the linearity still measures good.” Interestingly, hebelieves the “older sets sound better than those just six months old.” Of course, there’s more tothe amp than the tubes, and Fratus was emphatic when he said, “Believe it or not, the power sup-ply and transformers account for 50% of the Jota’s sound.” Beyond saying that they are customwound and of a proprietary split core (and not the typical single-ended) type, he remained mum.

coherence between it and the depth this amp revealswas most interesting. Overall, soundspace createdwas quite different from anything I was familiarwith. The sense of immediacy, with loads of hall andstudio ambience, seemed, at first, incongruent. It’shard to describe – it’s certainly not the usual “I heardthings I have never heard before.” Here, I am talk-ing about a different realm, where immediacy, depthof field, and energy within the room conspire to cre-ate an entirely different experience of the eventunfolding. Then, it clicked. The stage is full, withappropriately sized and spaced performers. Thissounded right.

The frequency extremes were the biggest sur-prises. Pristine, yet delicate and extended highs. Thehigh Japanese bells in “Sagrada Familia” fromRobert Rich’s Gaudi [HS11028-2] were easier thanever before to identify. And on the other end, MaryBlack’s No Frontiers [Gift Horse D2-77308] took myDunlavys to a new level of nuance and depth. Thebass guitar’s foundation at the bottom and the buzzat the top were palpable. The Jota also extractedmore than a bit of warmth, fullness, and weightfrom the bottom end of these speakers. Since theDunlavys are more analytical (overall) and leaner inthe bottom (particularly) than, say, the CabasseCatalanes, these are good things; they benefitedfrom the solidity and depth of the bass offered bythis amp by offering a few more Hertz and even bet-ter articulation than usual. Considering that theyalready excelled in the latter, I was impressed by theimprovement.

On Weinberger’s Polka and Fugue [RR-58CD]and other orchestral works, bass drums soundedwhacked (as they should), timpani revealed thenuances of their limited range, cellos murmured andbloomed, and the lower register of the piano wasclear and well weighted. Loud and complex passagesunraveled admirably.

More than once was I startled by the attack ofinstruments and vocals on Dead Can Dance’s Into theLabyrinth [4AD 9 45384-2]. Both male and femalevoices are pure – well-rounded, liquid and, at thesame time, exceptionally detailed. Cymbals andgongs lingered longer before they disappeared intoblack space. I often caught myself tapping along tothe tunes, which tells me it reproduces transientinformation very well. “WBAI,” on Oregon’sEcotopia [ECM 833120-1], practically snapped myneck with blindingly fast, fluent drums.

On “Loisaida,” from Joe Jackson’s Body and Soul[A&M SP5000], horns were delivered with pres-ence, that is, more than just bite, and with a depthof body that went beyond the visible. The basscame in sooner than I was used to and the weightof the drums allowed me to hear them deeper intothe mix, with the walls of the hall supportingthem. The piano was crystalline, but not sterile –its percussive nature was exceptionally conveyed; asthe keys moved, hammers and hammers struckstrings. “Heart of Ice” fades in with a bass drum,which, although far in the back of the stage, sim-ply won’t relent. With the Jota, it stayed recessed,but never released its grip on the fore of the mix.

The dynamics portrayed by the Jota on this songwere compelling, going from a subtle piano solo,building in horns (that could easily be mistaken foroboes, so delicate is the entry) to a buildingcrescendo, complete with a mantra-like, simplelyric, to a wall of sound that is nothing less thanarresting. The Jota delivered, again.

In short, the Jota took my system to a new levelof musical realism (and enjoyment). I have suffi-cient symptoms of sleep deprivation to prove it. Iwanted to review it because my curiosity about thesingle-ended sound was roused, but I didn’t havethe proper speakers for the some of the flea-pow-ered gear that dominates that market. It has beensaid that the lower-powered triode amps, matedwith appropriate speakers, are capable of even morenuance and emotional engagement. I’d like to trythem for myself, though if it gets better than theJota, you’ll find me in a puddle of tears. If, at thismoment, I had to pick one amp to spend the rest ofmy life with, the choice would be an easy one.

STEPHAN HARRELL


Art Audio USA

34 Briarwood Road, Cranston, Rhode Island 02920

Phone: (401) 826-8286; fax: (401) 826-3903

[email protected]

Price: $7,995

SPECS

Output power: 20 watts per channel, class A

Input sensitivity: 400mV for full rated output

Input impedance: 180 k/ohms

Output impedance: 1.1 ohms

Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz - 0.5dB (full rated output)

Tube Compliment: two KR VV32B output tubes; two Mullard CV

378 (GZ 37) rectifier tubes; two 6922/ 6DJ8 gain stage; two 12

BH7 additional gain and cathode follower

NOS tubes are an available option for driver stages


VPI HW-19 Jr./PT-6 pick-up arm/AT OC-9 cartridge; CAL Delta

Transport driving CAL Alpha DAC (with 24bit/96k upgrade and GE

5751 tubes) via Illuminati D-60; Nakamichi RX-202 deck; Audible

Illusions M3A preamp (MC phono board) w/ Edichron 7DJ8

tubes, C-J Premier 11a; Dunlavy SC-III speakers; Cabasse Catalane

500 speakers; REL Strata II sub; Tice Elite Power Conditioner;

Argent Room Lens; Tara Labs RSC Reference Gen 2 interconnects;

Tara Labs RSC Prime 500 cables; Belden 17504 power cords;

Rosinante Dark Matter equipment stands; Bright Star air mass;

Townsend Seismic sink; Sound Organisation amp stand; Mana

Soundframe; VPI 16.5 record cleaner

MANUFACTURER’S RESPONSE. . .This review is based on the standard version of theamplifier, but Art Audio has recently introduced a higherpowered version based on the KR 52BX output tube. Thisversion of the Jota is capable of 40 percent more currentdelivery and a higher damping factor to accommodate thecustomer who owns a speaker system that needs greater


control (larger woofers in dynamic speak-ers). We can also install, by special order,output transformers that accommodateimpedance loads down to 2 ohms, with noloss in maximum output power. These spe-cial order, hand wound output transformersare [for] customers who already ownspeakers with difficult impedance curves orfor someone who wants to pair the Jotawith an efficient electrostatic or ribbon typespeaker system. Finally, for further flexibility,either version is available in a monoblockconfiguration.

JOE FRATUS

ART AUDIO, USA

SCOT MARKWELL COMMENTS I concur with Harrell’s findings on thisamplifier. The Jota truly is an excellentexample of a properly executed SET. Ifanything, I believe that he has understat-ed what the unit does well. I listened to itfor a couple of weeks on the HorningAlkibiades Signature Golds, a friendlyimpedance match (6-8 ohm load) and aneasy drive, at 99 dB/watt. I confess that Iwas almost irritated that the Jota soundedas good as it did, in that it put to shamealmost every other SET amp I had onhand for my survey, with the exception ofWyetech Labs Topaz 572, a superb stereounit from Canada, which costs almost$4,000 more than the Jota and offers 23,rather than 20 watts per channel. TheTopaz has deeper, better articulated, andmore powerful bass, and a more linearoutput throughout the full frequencyrange, but could not match the midrangecreaminess of the Jota on massed orches-tral strings – amazing to hear andunmatched in all my experience withSETs. For example, I played the BrittenFour Sea Interludes [Previn; EMI SLS5266], and never have I heard this selec-tion’s beautifully recorded massed violinsbetter reproduced. The comparably pricedVaic 52 ST integrated amp has moredynamic impact when pushed, but couldnot reach as deep into the bass nor ren-der such an extraordinary string tone. Boththe Wyetech and the Vaic have more of asolid-state type of midrange signature(fine solid-state, to be sure), which indi-cated to me more of a true, honest “accu-racy,” in a technical sense, but the Jotawas simply ravishing, despite sounding asif it were looking just a bit through rose-

colored glasses. OK, this is not quite reali-ty, but it is a quality I could live with andcherish, especially since this exquisitestring reproduction seemed to hardly colorany other part of the spectrum – and I lis-ten to an awful lot of orchestral strings.Play string quartets or a sonata, and theamp sounds clean, lustrous, and grain-free. But those massed groups – man,what a treat! Its bass reproduction is alsoalmost top-flight for an SET. I thought,however, that when pushed, it showedsome signs of distress in the reproductionof powerful low-bass transients morereadily than in any other portion of the fre-quency spectrum. But kept within its(admittedly high) limits, it held togetherwell. This is not the best amp for thosewhose tastes run to loud, driving rock orhip-hop bass compositions, but for mostorchestral, pop, and jazz, it is well suited tothe task at hand.

I also was pleased at the low level ofdistortion, especially at higher listening lev-els and on high-frequency percussion tran-sients; as Harrell intimates, the Jota wascapable of lightning attack and delicate,sweet decay, without blurring or ringing.And its ability to produce a credible sound-stage, whether of a studio for pop music, alive rock venue, or differing orchestral halls,was first-rate. My reference solid-statePlinius SA-250 can create a more majestic,properly scaled spatial perspective, but itcan’t match the sheer beauty of the Jota’smidband reproduction.

In sum, I was extremely impressed withthis amplifier. On a properly matched speak-er system, this is an SET that can play alltypes of music with aplomb. The key here is“properly matched” speakers. When I firstheard the Jota, I was attempting to drive a setof Burmester B97 speakers in HP’s Room 1,which would seem an ideal situation, giventhe Burmesters’ 97 db/watt sensitivity. Butthe speakers’ cruel impedance dip to 2 ohmsin the low bass made the amplifier bottomout and sound weak and spineless.

But this is not what this kind of ampli-fier is designed to do. If you stick with a 6to 8 ohm load (or even slightly higher), usea full-range, low-coloration speaker withfirst-class midrange and high-frequencycapabilities, stay above 91-92 dB/watt sen-sitivity, and do not try to play at 110 dB lev-els, you will be hard-pressed to find a bet-ter amplifier. &

THE SOUND • 99

There’s nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do ishit the right keys at the right time and the instrumentplays itself. J. S. Bach

Sometimes great ideas arrive too soon.* In 1991,when SigTech introduced the first digital-signalprocessing (DSP) unit for the correction of in-

room performance of speakers, professional record-ing people took to it readily. They needed to findout what their work actually sounded like toachieve high-fidelity reproduction. The SigTechoffered the first chance to replace the analog EQ thepros had used for speaker correction with somethingthat worked vastly better. For the first time, youcould hear what was actually on recordings withdemonstrable accuracy. The consumer public, how-ever, was less ready to take up the idea. The SigTechseemed expensive, although it was cheaper thanmany far less-effective High End nostrums. But thereal difficulty lay deeper. Audio consumers had thenotion that if the equipment they bought was goodenough, truthful reproduction would follow.Unfortunately, this is not true. Rooms – even thebest – take their toll. Today, this basic truth hascome through to more and more people, as has theidea that DSP can help the problem. The SigTechhas been joined by other units with similar inten-tions, from Accuphase, Tact, and Perpetual (expect-ed, though not yet on the market). The 2.0 is Tact’slatest version of such a device.1

What DSP DoesAll these room-speaker correction devices share abasic mode of operation. With external PC control(SigTech, Tact) or without (Accuphase), they “listen”through a microphone to the sound of test signals atthe listening position, in order to “know” what theroom-speaker combination does. Then they computea correction program. Then, with this programinstalled, the device modifies the music signal in“real time,” as the music plays, so that when it isconverted to analog and amplified, it will produce asonically improved result. For instance, if the bass ofthe room-speaker combination is deficient, thedevice will raise the bass level of the signal to com-pensate. This sounds like the “slider” EQ devices ofthe old days, which audio consumers have been toldto look down on. But since the EQ is being done inthe digital domain, it can be done without all theills that analog EQ is heir to. And the whole processcan be carried out with a resolution and precisioninconceivable with analog EQ.

When you set out to evaluate such a device, youare entering a new world. The ones I have encoun-tered do what they do correctly. DSP is quite sophis-ticated, nowadays, and everyone appreciates theimportance of expanded word length to control

round-off error, redithering to truncate to ordinaryword length, etc. Taking this for granted – and it isall done right in the RCS 2.0 – you are really tryingto evaluate the effectiveness of the correction algo-rithm itself, checking that it produces improve-ments in perceived performance and that is does notintroduce audible artifacts. Digital filters can intro-duce things you might not want to hear, even whenthey are correctly implemented technically.

How the measured performance of a speaker in aroom is connected to what you hear is both compli-cated and controversial. The designer of a DSPdevice has to pick a pyschoacoustic model of theroom/speaker/listener process, and how the correc-tion program will work out in practice depends onthis model and on how and how much the user canadjust the process. What the program actually doesis most important, since it will do perfectly what itis supposed to as far as the signal processing goes.All the programs work, and all of them make sonicimprovements. The real issues are what they do andwhich model gives the best sound. In Part 1, I amgoing to explain what the Tact algorithm does, tothe extent that I have been able to determine that.(Designers are naturally a little cagey about details –you have to experiment and infer to some extent.)

RCS Measurement and Correction ModelThe best way to understand what the RCS unit doesand why it works so well is to imagine first, for con-trast, an idealized version of the old “slider” band-by-band analog EQ devices and figure out why theydid not work right. By “idealized” I mean I am goingto suppose that the device simply does what it issupposed to do operationally, with no distortion.The old idea was this: Run a broadband, steady-statetest signal through each channel (separately) of yoursystem. Measure the steady-state response at the lis-tening position in frequency bands corresponding to

THE SOUND • 101

Digital-Signal Processing DevicesPart I: Tact RCS 2.0 Digital Preamp and Room/Speaker Correction Device

What DSP is and what it does – and how the RCS works.

1 The admirable Z-System’s rdp-1 does digital EQ, too, but it is intended for different purposes and does not program itself to the room/speaker automatically, so it is not included in the list.

* In my experience, they always do. Vide: The Perfect Vision! – HP

the sliders’ frequencies. (The highest resolution, tomy knowledge, had 30 bands, each one-third octavewide.) Move the various “sliders” up or down asneeded to get the measured steady-state responseessentially flat. Do this for each channel. Now yoursystem is “flat” and the channels match.

In reality, this process often produced worseresults than what you started with. While, contraryto what most audiophiles think, improvements couldbe made by a judicious version of it, an unthinking,mechanical application of the idea was usually a dis-aster. First, the frequency resolution of the device inthe bass was usually not sufficient to deal with theactual bass problems. If you needed to boost a bandto deal with a dip, you often ended up pushing someother frequency within that band up to the point ofmaking an audible peak, with accompanying boom.There isn’t much wrong with using steady-stateresponse as the measure in the bass. The problem isthat you didn’t have narrow enough bands.

The second problem is a little harder to under-stand because it involves a surprising property ofhow we hear. In the bass, we really have no way totell the difference between the “first arrival” andlater, reflected sound. You cannot really get a handle,even mathematically, on the energy at, say, 100 Hz,in some sound until that sound has been going onlong enough to produce a cycle or two at that fre-quency. You need somewhere between 10 and 20milliseconds. And we are unable to treat reflectionsthat arrive during that rather long window separate-

ly from the direct, first-arriving sound. This is truefor microphones and computers, too. That is whyyou cannot readily separate the effects of the roomfrom the response of the speaker when you do mea-surements in your listening room: The room gets inthe picture before you have time to latch onto theenergy content of the bass in the direct sound.

In the higher frequencies, this changes: If youare interested in how much energy there is at, say, 5kHz. For that, you need only 0.2 to 0.4 milliseconds– you have plenty of time before any reflectionsarrive, typically. You can measure the high-frequen-cy response of a speaker in a room without “hearing”the room at all. You can get the “anechoic” reflec-tion-free response by just chopping out everythingafter the first little bit of the direct arrival of, say, animpulse signal.

The surprising thing is that this is pretty muchwhat your ear-brain system does, too. Otherwise thetimbre of a person’s voice would change as theywalked closer to or further from a wall, since thereflection off the wall interferes with the direct soundto produce all kinds of peaks and dips in the literal“steady-state” frequency response. But your ear-braincombination edits out this “comb-filter” effect of thereflection, and just hears the voice in natural timbre.Except in the bass: As a man walks into a corner, youwill hear the bass content of his voice rise.

Now you can see what is wrong with the old-style steady-state EQ: It did not “hear” right. Thebass was heard correctly, but the microphone picking


up the steady-state noise signal was lumping thewhole sound together in the higher frequencies,treating reflections and direct arrival as a unifiedwhole. But the ear-brain was taking the direct arrivalmore seriously than the reflections, and ignoring (atleast to some extent) the peaks and dips that arisefrom reflections. (Much experimental work has beendone on the thresholds for this phenomenon.)

Another problem with the old style “slider” EQ,though not an intrinsic defect of the process, wasthat people believed “flat is truth.” But in steady-state response, flat is way too bright. Most record-ings were made with the idea that the steady-statewill roll off, even though the direct arrival is sup-posed to be flat. This is related to the fact that theear has a rising frequency response to diffuse sound-fields compared to frontal direct-arrival sounds, sothat the sound will be much brighter if there is asubstantial “flat” reverberant soundfield present.(The reverberant field response of concert halls rollsoff very fast in the top octaves, so this effect is nottroublesome in live music. See “Records and Reality:How Music Sounds in Concert Halls,” Issue 38.)

The Tact RCS 2.0 has been designed to takethese effects into account. It sends an impulse (soundof very short duration) through each speaker, anduses that to compute its equalization corrections.But as the frequency rises, it uses a smaller andsmaller “time window.” That is, it looks at smallerand smaller time intervals measured from the arrivalof the direct sound to the microphone. Thus in the

higher frequencies, the “tail end” of the sound, thelate reflections, and the reverberant field are effec-tively factored out of the picture.

Now, choosing a shrinking window of this sortinvolves a smoothing out of the response curve. Justas a long “window” is needed to “hear” low frequen-cies, so a long window is needed to tell one frequen-cy from another nearby frequency (this is how vio-linists manage to play fast passages really well intune: They have no time to correct their micro-errorsof pitch the way they do on long notes. On the otherhand, the audience does not have time to hear theerrors, either.). And this smoothing out producessomething that could be fairly well fixed by “slider”EQ, if you knew what curve you wanted to fix it to.Knowing the curve is the hard part, though. Youneed to measure with the “windows.”

The RCS 2.0 allows the user to choose “targetcurves,” the curve to which the unit will match itstime-windowed interpretation of the sound you hearin actual listening. The manufacturer suggests, and Ifound it to be true, that the most natural sound occurswith a curve a little up in the bass and the top rolledoff somewhat. (Similar observations have been madeby many, especially in steady-state room response.) Inpractice, the final result has steady-state responsequite close to the target curve except in the very top.Presumably this is because, in my damped room, withthe directional speakers I have been using (Gradient1.3s), the late reflections and reverberant field make asmall contribution to the steady state.

THE SOUND • 103

The EQ process is done with “minimum-phase”filters. The mathematical explanation of what thatmeans is tricky – the literal definition, that thephase response is the Hilbert transform of the ampli-tude response, is not going to be illuminating unlessyou are a mathematician or engineer. The easiestidea of it is that a system is minimum phase only ifit would be phase-linear if you made it flat with a“slider” EQ device that had an infinite number ofbands – and such things don’t exist in the real world.

What is important to understand is that roomeffects on speakers almost always introduce “mini-mum-phase” errors. This means that when you cor-rect them to flat by minimum-phase EQ, you notonly improve the frequency response, you alsoimprove the phase response. (The old audiophilecanard that EQ messes up the phase is wrong here.)Now, room effects are minimum phase, but onlyspeakers with first-order crossovers or one driver are.And the RCS 2.0 has some additional “all-pass fil-ters” that shift phase without shifting frequencyresponse to deal with some phase errors outside theminimum-phase world. These are limited in opera-tion. The RCS is not intended to phase-linearizespeakers completely, as did the speaker-only Essexunit (see review, Issue 106).

How It Sounds: A Preliminary ViewA detailed comparison of the RCS 2.0 with the mostrecent incarnation of the SigTech and the Accuphaseunit will appear in Part 2. That will be a tricky busi-ness; the meaning of the target curves is different,since the systems use different measurement tech-niques. There is much to compare, when you thinkabout the nearly infinite variety of target curves inall the units! Meanwhile, let me say a few wordsabout the RCS 2.0 in absolute terms.

A critical audiophile friend described theGradient 1.3s corrected by the RCS unit as “audioheaven.” The Gradients are very nearly flat in-roomto begin with and very directional, so that not toomuch work has to be done to control reflections.Even so, the correction made a conspicuous improve-ment. It is hard to exaggerate the extent to whichDSP devices in general, and this one in particular,are capable of increasing the level of fidelity of aplayback system. The Gradients are superbly accu-rate speakers by the usual standards of speaker accu-racy, and offer neutral response and independence ofdegrading room effects all on their own (review,Issue 109). And yet the RCS pushed them to a yethigher degree of accuracy, which I have never beenable to achieve by room-acoustic treatment or repo-sitioning. To go further, much further, with such anexceptional speaker is a positive sign, indeed.

All the effects were positive: smoother and moreaccurate tonal character; improved imaging andsoundstage behavior; an overall sense of hearing notspeakers in a room but the original performance. Allthis added up to something startlingly good. On theextraordinary Byron Janis recording of theRachmaninoff Third Piano Concerto on Mercury, oneof the finest of all Mercurys, the sense of hearingactual music was extraordinarily strong. And thedefects of the old microphones, minimal though

they are on this recording, seemed even less obtru-sive because everything else was so smooth and ele-gant in presentation. Digital artifacts from the RCScorrection process itself were nonexistent, as far as Icould tell. The correction was all improvement.

So, the Tact RCS 2.0 has scored a great success inbringing this type of technology into a more reason-able price range, and in such a way that everyone canhear why correction of speaker-room interface is theway forward for audio. Which company has the“best” program remains for next time. But the Tactunit is a worthy addition to the ranks of this all-important technology.

ROBERT E. GREENE


Tact Audio, Inc.

201 Gates Ferry Road, Unit G

Little Ferry, New Jersey 07643

Phone: (201) 440-9300; fax: (201) 440-5580

[email protected]

Prices: “Core unit”, digital in, digital out only, with digital volume

control (includes remote control and calibrated microphone) –

$2,950; A to D module for analog input – $599; D to A module

for analog output (volume adjustable) – $699

SPECS

16-24 bit, 44/48/96 kHz sampling (upgradable to 192 kHz)

Computer Requirements: IBM PC compatible; Windows 95,

98, NT, or 2000; three-button mouse; 16 megabites minimum

memory

&

THE SOUND • 105

The British Magnum IA170 has garneredpraise through the audio grapevine and it didnot disappoint. The more I played music

through the Magnum, the more I appreciated itsbare-bones approach. With its chromed-steel face-plate, black-stamped steel case, and hefty knobs, itconjures up a more traditional era, its clean, unob-trusive physical lines nearly paralleling its sonicqualities. It features five line-level inputs, a tapeloop, and (surprisingly) a phono stage suitable formoving-magnet cartridges. It has an IEC mainssocket for power-cord substitutions. There are nopreamp outputs. Dual pairs of binding posts allowbi-wire hook-up. A headphone jack is located on thefront panel, where volume, input and balance knobsjoin a mute button and mono and tape monitor but-tons. There is no remote control.

The Magnum is a “smoothie.” It’s a likeablenon-abrasive amp that is slightly dark andmidrange-oriented, with a smooth but gently rolledtop and the classic signature of 60-watt tube amps ofyore. Clearly, it’s not going to rattle windows or peelpaint, nor is it the last word in extension or trans-parency. But within its comfort zone, it’s got all thefeatures an audiophile needs. For an extra C-note,

THE SOUND • 107

D O W N S T A I R S

Four Over Two: Neil Gader and Paul Seydor Survey Four Integrated Amplifiers

Magnum IA170Roksan CaspianNAD Silver Series 300 (plus a Bonus)Electrocompaniet ECI 3

Neil and I believe in level-matched comparisons, but that was not practical for this survey. Nor does A/B testing gener-ally reveal those sonic characteristics that make for long-term satisfaction. We finally decided on a more concentrated vari-ant of the standard TAS commentary system: We each listened to the amplifiers on our own, took notes, but did not revealour findings to each other. Then we listened to the amplifiers together, again taking notes but not revealing them until thesessions for each amplifier were concluded. The joint sessions were carried out at my place and used Quad 989 speakers,Meridian 508 and Sony SCD-777ES players, and interconnects and cabling by Kimber, Musical Design, and Hovland.Neil’s room is smaller and his associated equipment, including ATC’s superb SCM20SL compact monitors, is perhaps moreappropriately matched to this category of component. He was able to make detailed comparisons to a Plinius 8150, hisreference and widely regarded as one of the best integrated amplifiers made.

Our method has shortcomings and limitations, but also its own validations. First, we were pleased to discover howclosely our impressions tallied. Neil and I rarely find ourselves in sharp disagreement, but as my commentaries on hisShearwater and Rogue amplifier reviews attest, we don’t always agree. Second, the way we evaluated these amplifiers isa more structured and controlled form of the way most of our readers must do it, either in an accommodating shop or athome with equipment they are familiar with. Finally, this experience has consolidated our faith in TAS’ commentary sys-tem. To be sure, people can as easily be mistaken together as apart; but the emergence, with some regularity, of consistentpatterns of impressions justifies a certain restrained confidence.

I shall not anticipate the specifics of our findings, but I want to offer two observations, with which Neil concurs. First,anyone who thinks that solid-state has not come of age – indeed, been of age for at least a decade and a half now – is a vic-tim of prejudice or hearing loss. Second, it is no longer valid to make gross generalizations about the so-called “sound” of solid-state. It’s been so long since I last heard a solid-state amplifier by a reputable manufacturer that could be accused of “tran-sistoritis” that I can’t remember the product or the occasion. The units here do not sound identical, and each occupies its ownplace along the yin/yang continuum; but none exhibits any of the transistor nastiness of the early years of solid state. – PS

Neil Gader Reviews the Magnum IA170 & Roksan Caspian

Magnum will add a phono stage, and you’re stillunder a grand. It handily drove moderately sensitiveloudspeakers such as the Audio Physics Tempo IIIand the compact Sehring 502.

The IA170’s midrange is tonally right on theball. On the Mahler Third Symphony [Salonen; LosAngeles Philharmonic. Sony SK60250], I noted nat-ural woodwind timbres, with clean but unsteelybrass transients that lent that section a golden hue.Plucked stringed instruments, such as the psaltery,were reproduced with air and instrumental body, butlacked a bit of the string “speed” and definition.That was reserved for the NAD and, to a lesserdegree, the ECI-3. Still in the realm of macro-dynamics and transient capability, it got the broad-er brush strokes right, making it a notably pleasantlistening experience.

On vocalists I found a recessed soundstage place-ment – a few rows back in comparison to what I havejudged as neutral. On Frank Sinatra’s In the WeeSmall Hours of the Morning, his lower register seemedslightly thinned out and recessed compared to themore chesty richness provided by my referencePlinius 8150 or the smaller but potent SimAudio I5.The accompanying bass line was tonally full but notas precise in pitch as I have earlier noted. The stringsection, however, sounded smooth, with just theright amount of studio-style spotlighting. On tran-sient-busy recordings, such as Holly Cole’s “JerseyGirls” or “Train” [Temptation. Alert Records], wherepercussion information sings out from every corner

of the soundstage, the Magnum is a tenaciousretriever of detail and nuance. The slow fade of“Train” draws the listener deeper and deeper into therecording venue, as the track grows ever quieter; ifyou listen alertly, you can hear all kinds of informa-tion in and around Cole’s microphone. If theMagnum does miss some of this very low-levelinformation, it’s not by much.

Perhaps the largest difference between theMagnum and the higher priced entries was how itdefined space. First, what the Magnum conveysabout where the musical image is (the player orsinger, in most cases) and second, how it reproducesthe remaining “empty” space, both near and far fromthat player. On Dvorák’s “Carnival Overture” fromNature’s Realm [Water Lily Acoustics], the Magnumgave a greater impression of center-stage informa-tion. It was a brighter, clearer focus that grew a bitdimmer as the stage widened. When the dynamicsreally began, a little congestion revealed itself as lessdistinct placement of images and some smearing.On Audra McDonald’s “Lay Down Your Head”[How Glory Goes], the Magnum narrowed the sound-stage slightly; the left-of-the center violin and theright-of-center cello moved closer to the middle, andthe overall sense of air and images in real space grewa bit more vague. Reference amplifiers like thePlinius and Sim seemed to radiate acoustic energythroughout the soundstage, at even the quietest lev-els. With the Magnum, that energy lacked three-dimensional continuousness. When McDonald sang


ˆ

“Lay down your head and sleep, sleep,” the sibilantshad a slightly thicker, more forceful quality, anattribute unique in this survey.

The biggest restriction on the Magnum is thatyou need to pay more attention to speaker/roominterface than with the more powerful NAD andElectrocompaniet. I can’t stress enough that this iswhere critical mismatches often occur. The Magnumand the Roksan are designed for intimate environ-ments or higher sensitivity loudspeakers. I wasreminded of this repeatedly as I compared impres-sions in Paul’s moderate-sized listening room withmy own much smaller one. A power-output differ-ence between otherwise comparable amplifiers isnearly nullified in a smaller listening environment.

If you think I’ve been hard on the Magnum,don’t lose this overriding point: It competed suc-cessfully at the highest levels with units costingmuch more. It revealed subtle distinctions betweenassociated components. It never failed to make greatspeakers sound great, and with less than the best,was forgiving. It need not apologize to anyone.

The Roksan Caspian is one unit in the remote-controlled Caspian system, whose componentsinclude a stereo amp, a CD player, tuner, a five-chan-nel AV amp, digital surround processor, and DVDplayer. The look is industrial simplicity, with1.6mm steel casework and a low-profile, beveled-aluminum faceplate. The case has a thin rubberizedcoating that reduces resonances and affords a suregrip. The Caspian has 70 watts per channel at 8

ohms and should have little difficulty with moder-ately sensitive speakers. In my small listening room,it (and the Magnum) could even drive the 83-dBinsensitive ATCs to reasonable levels. (Not optimally,of course.) The back panel includes binding posts fora single pair of speakers, has five inputs, a tape loop,and a pair of pre-outs. The power cord is removable.

The front-panel provides input and volume knobs;mode- and tape-selector buttons are driven bymicro-processors. The mouse-style remote fits com-fortably in the palm and controls inputs, volume,tape, and mode (muting or standby).

Sonically, the Caspian resides on the darker,warmer side of neutral. Like the Magnum, it has asweetness through the midrange that is heightenedin part by a smooth, unetched treble that’s slightlyrolled at the top. Outside of the frequency extremes,it’s as balanced as they come and imparts innerdetails on a more sophisticated level than theMagnum. Otherwise, these amps have a similar

THE SOUND • 109

tonal character. The most interesting example of theCaspian’s tonal balance occurred on the A&M CDreissue of Cat Stevens’ Tea For the Tillerman. Thisparticular reissue is a cool, lifeless effort that lacksthe harmonic richness and dimensionality of the leg-endary LP. But Paul and I noted that the Roksanremoved some of the brittleness that initially set ourteeth on edge and “defrosted” Stevens’ voice to someextent. This attribute proved consistent when weswitched to Audra McDonald, a mezzo-soprano whois just as likely to sing a Broadway standard as a clas-sic aria. On the Roksan, her muscular performance ofthe title track, “How Glory Goes” [Nonesuch79580-2], was strong on harmonic integrity and theweight and foundation of her voice were preserved.It was a warmer, more recessed sound than theMagnum. Transient details and lyrics with sibilancewere slightly softened. I never felt I was missinganything; I just had to listen more closely. This ampproved a good match with compact, stand-mountedloudspeakers, and with compact speakers that have aslight treble bias, the Caspian will surely have theright character.

Still, it was more recessed than either the I5 orthe 8150, a characteristic that’s more noticeable onan electrostatic like the Quad 989 than on conven-tional dynamic drivers. It took a little air out of theQuads and dampened their otherwise lightningreflexes on transients.

The Roksan had a buttery texture. The subtletransient impact of rosin on a bow or the clatter of a

flat-pick striking steel guitar strings was a bitrounded and softened. This made for smooth andsoothing violins and string quartets, but subtractedsome of the gritty textural energy at the moment thestrings were bowed. It’s easy to acclimate to thispleasant subtraction. On “Carnival,” the stringsretained a similar golden glow; the triangle’s attackwas attenuated a bit; and the piccolo’s melodic line,soaring above the orchestra, was not as easy to fol-low. While the soundstage was impressively wide,the imaging was not up to the standards set by theNAD or the reference Plinius or the Sim I5.Dynamics, such as the explosive flugelhorn playedby Clark Terry on “Misty” [One on One; CheskyRecords] was a bit subdued and wouldn’t stand yourhair on end.

The Roksan reproduced inner detail on a rathersophisticated level. The degree of refinement hereis a subtle one, and occurred in microdynamics.The very tiny acoustic “ripples,” like the ripplesfrom a rock thrown in water, are most difficult toget right in an audio system. Perhaps it’s the moresophisticated power supply, but the Roksan rarelysounded congested or smeared information, evenwhen pushed. Listen to McDonald singing “LayDown Your Head.” Indeed, I listened to this on allthe surveyed amps. The first verse begins a cappellaand is delicately joined by a harp and viola. A celloand bass viol enter the second verse, a violin andclarinet fast on their heels. Finally, the full orches-tra follows into the bridge and last verse. The well-


recorded track is valuable as a study in micrody-namics, natural timbres, and precision layering andimaging. Following solo instruments as theyappear was never difficult, but the Roksan wassuperior in maintaining focus on each player as thearrangement grew more complex. The final lines ofthe last verse leave McDonald nearly alone centerstage. A small, poignant crack in her voice and thelast delicate ripple of her vibrato reinforced one ofthe Roksan’s strong suits – its ability to revealsmall dynamic gradations.

Like the Magnum, the Roksan has speaker androom restrictions. Well beyond the Magnum, itsbuild quality is exemplary, its internals first rate.Some may call it too refined, but its supporters willsurely brag about this attribute. The Roksandemands even greater care in the selection of a loud-speaker, given its more mellow tonal character. It’san integrated amp for the genteel classicist whoinsists on music reproduction that’s neitheroverblown nor brittle.

Paul Seydor Comments on the Magnum and Roksan:

Neil has done such a good job of incorporating myimpressions that I have little to add, so I’ll concentrate

on our few differences. If the NAD S-300 is yang with avengeance, the Roksan Caspian is yin with a vengeance; I’mtempted to call it the Valium of this survey. But even at$1,500, it strikes me as uncompetitive. If you want the kindof sound it delivers, but much less veiled and dulled out,another $500 gets you the Electrocompaniet ECI 3, whichhas all the refinement Neil so eloquently ascribes to theCaspian, yet is more involving and dynamic.

It is unfair of us to consider the Magnum IA170 along-side amplifiers costing three times more, but it acquits itselfhandsomely. I’ve two observations to add. One, most ofthe IA170’s failings occur at loud levels; ease back a bit,and several of them fall vertiginously away, which is whatyou’d expect from an amplifier in this price/power rangecalled upon to drive Quad 989s. Two, I found it more diffi-cult to characterize the Magnum as dark or light than anyother unit in the survey. If you think that’s a circuitous wayof saying it’s the most neutral, you’re not far off the mark.Very impressive for a $750 integrated that tosses in arespectable phono stage for just $100 more.

THE SOUND • 111

Paul Seydor Reviews the NAD Silver Series 300 and Electrocompaniet ECI 3

Apparently tired of its mere good-value reputa-tion, NAD recently introduced an upscale lineof electronics designated the “Silver Series”

(after the silver-gray fascias, in contrast to the com-pany’s familiar gray-brown), designed in Scan-dinavia, and aimed squarely at the audiophile mar-ket. I knew NAD meant business with the S-300when I lifted it off the FedEx handcart: At over 60pounds, this is the heaviest integrated amplifier I’veever tweaked a back hoisting. Sporting an extreme-ly rugged chassis (with quarter-inch thick face-plate), six high-level inputs (one pair balanced),gold-plated jacks, 100 watts per channel, no globalnegative feedback, three power supplies, dual-monoconfiguration, isolated remote-control circuitry, youname it – the S-300 tries to touch all the audiophilebases. (An NAD-Link connector daisy-chains theamp with other Silver Series components, enablingone remote to control all.)

The S-300 taught me a lesson about break-in: Icooked this thing for about 80 hours before first lis-ten, which nevertheless was a huge disappointment.Using speakers by Spendor (SP-1/2 and S3/5) andSehring, I got shrillish highs, loose, woolly bass, anda thin, edgy midrange. In sum, yang with avengeance. I put it aside.

Several weeks later, I broke the S-300 in foranother 60 hours, as it had been dormant for a while.My, what a difference. Bold, powerful, impressivecontrol, with a fuller midrange, smooth, extendedhighs, and bass that was still big but far betterdefined. Here are some of my notes. On the SalonenMahler Third: “biggest, widest, deepest soundstageof the group. Excellent spatial separation in mutedbrass against strings just after opening.” On

“Kiltory” from Bitter Ballads: “room galore, holisticimaging, beautiful colors from psaltery.” On HollyCole: “Robust bass, very 3-dimensional. Yields toreference set-up in ultimate detail, but not by a lot.”Re Sinatra’s Wee Small Hours: “Catches the slightnasality of the mike better than others; strings love-ly.” I’d still not describe the midrange as warm, butstrings on the Sinatra and the solo violin passages inthe Mahler came across quite sweetly, painted inessentially true colors; I couldn’t fault it on vocals.

According to the watts-to-dB-watts formula,100/100 doesn’t translate into much more acousticpower than the 70/70 of the Electrocompaniet or theRoksan, but the numbers don’t tell the whole story.Here size really does seem to matter (weight too,apparently): The Quad 989s took to the S-300’sreserves like a BMW to high octane, with explosivedynamics and superb dynamic contrasts, handlingwith ease and authority the constant shifts from fullorchestra to chamber-like scoring in the Mahler. Indirect comparison to the reference set-up, the S-300was still a touch fat at the very bottom and its extremehighs were a little tipped up – there was a touch morehigh-frequency emphasis on Christy Baron’s Steppin’

[Chesky JD201] than I heard from anything else – butit is plainly the pick of the group for power-hungryspeakers. It is also for me the pick of the group, peri-od, though not without a couple of caveats.

First, in a departure from past practice, NADhas made it impossible to operate the amp and pre-amp sections independently. Doubtless there aregood sonic reasons for this, but it does seem an oddlimitation for an audiophile unit: You can’t dostepped upgrades; the only place you can insert anexternal processor is via the tape loop; and the onlysubwoofers you can use are those that tap the signaloff the speaker terminals.

Second, if you expect the S-300 to sound likeNAD’s past amplifiers, only better, you may be dis-appointed. To my ears, the brown-faced amps havealways been emphatically yin: dark, chocolatymidrange, highs a little rough and rolled, and arobust bass that wasn’t the last word in definition,but all listenable trade-offs given the extremely highperformance-to-dollar ratio that’s been NAD’s stockin trade. Even fully broken in, however, the S-300remained yang all the way – excellent yang, mindyou, but still light, air, clarity – all masculinepower allied to masculine grace. If you desire a bit ofthe eternal feminine, but don’t want to go all theway to the Roksan, then you’d better read on.

Neil gives the Electrocompaniet ECI 3 thebeauty prize, and it’s easy to see why. A thick pieceof clear Plexiglas gives the black faceplate a high-gloss polish that sets off the gleaming gold buttons;and the way the blue indicator light inscribes a cir-cle as volume is raised and lowered is certainly trick.Rated at 70 watts per channel, the ECI 3 featuresDC-coupling from input to output, balanced cir-cuitry permitting balanced or single-ended use, sixhigh-level inputs, a remote control, and an excep-tionally solid chassis. The preamp section can beoperated independently (but not the amp), whichgives it a strong leg up on the NAD S-300.

I found it difficult to come to one mind about theECI 3, though. It’s very refined, it never does any-thing unpleasant, it’s always nice and polite and wellbehaved. But should those muted trumpets at thebeginning of the Mahler so lack bite? (It’s a funeralmarch, and the trumpet is muted precisely to give itssound a pinched, piercing character.) The phrase“inter-transient silence” is not typically part of myvocabulary, so when it pops into my head during alistening session, I pay attention. Where is the shim-mer of cymbals, the gossamer delicacy of the rainstick, the almost etched clarity of the rest of thathigh-lying percussion behind Christy Baron on“Mercy Street” that I know is on the recording, andwhy does she sound at once ever so slightly veiled andsibilant? Whatever’s going on, you hear fractionallyless air between the notes than with the reference.The bass on the Holly Cole album is much drier here,


Bonus – NAD 317

Recommended in my Basement System, Issue 124,the NAD 317 integrated is not formally part of this

survey; but I have heard it in conjunction with theMagnum, Electrocompaniet, and NAD Silver. At $750,this three-year sleeper in NAD’s line comes into directcompetition with the Magnum, lacking a phono stagebut featuring a remote. Sonically the two are just differ-ent enough to make a choice meaningful, the 317missing some of the Magnum’s refinement and airi-ness, yet compensating in ruggedness, dynamic range,and a low-down tastiness evocative of real music. With80 watts per channel and a tilt toward the yin, the 317is more powerful than the Roksan and Electrocom-paniet and only 20 watts shy of its bigger brother. Onan absolute, all-things-considered basis, this little bug-ger gives these higher-priced strutters a run for themoney. When a symphony gets loud, only the S-300 ofthis group hangs in there longer; while for sheer musi-cality, none of them (including the Plinius) puts the317 in the shade. With independent operation of ampand preamp sections, only the Roksan is its match foradaptability; so if an integrated is a stepping-stonetoward separates, look no further. Only the captive ACcord and the tone controls are likely to draw a curl ofthe lip from audiophiles. Disregard. The tone controlshave well chosen characteristics that work under real-world listening conditions to ease aggressive recordingsand bring up the bottom end of bass-shy speakers. Insum: an outstanding unit for those on a tight budget.

– PS

but Cole herself is listenable. I find the AudraMcDonald album rather hot and slightly hard, so theECI 3 softened it in a pleasing way. But there I amusing another variant of that word: “pleasant.”

To put these observations in the perspective ofthis survey, the Electrocompaniet is nowhere near assoft as the Roksan, compared to which the ECI 3practically sounds as if it’s on Viagra. Indeed, thebiggest surprise was how it did not disappoint whenthe going got loud in the Mahler. Though it fore-shortens both depth and width, it surrounds theorchestra with a nimbus both warm and grand; oneof my notes reads: “extremely pretty with enoughguts not to leave you dissatisfied with the big stuff”;another: “on orchestral material, marvelous grace &dynamic contrasts.”

The curse of a survey is that it puts you in a con-stantly comparative frame of mind. I’m far from sureI’d come down quite this hard on the ECI 3 by itself,as it certainly let me listen for long stretches with-out contributing any fatigue. In conductors’ terms,if the NAD S-300 is a something of a martinet, say,George Szell, then the Electrocompaniet suggestsEugene Ormandy, a man ever loath to let his orches-tra produce an unpretty sound. Perhaps I should addthat I really like the sound Ormandy drew from thePhiladelphia Orchestra.

NEIL GADER COMMENTS ON THE NAD S-300 ANDELECTROCOMPANIET ECI 3:

Tonally, the S-300 is doubtlessly the whitest and mostextended in the survey. After growing accustomed to

the sweet, warm character of the Magnum and Roksan, Iexperienced the extended high frequencies and clinicalnature of the NAD with something of a shock. On theSalonen Mahler Third, the brassy weight of the trombonesand the piercing blast of the muted trumpets could not becharacterized as either too soft or too aggressive – “bal-anced” came to mind. Clean, crisp transients, robustmidrange, and delicate low-level resolution make the S-300 fit for any kind of duty – detailed, with excellent bassdefinition at low levels. When Holly Cole sings “Looking forthe Heart of Saturday Night,” the meaty piano chordsdirectly behind her are resolved with a pleasing combina-tion of individual note detail and extended decay. TheNAD’s reproduction of the resonant, refined acoustic bassand hand claps to the right of the artist are so wonderfullyresolved, they left finger prints on the speakers. Still, hervoice was not quite as three dimensional – definitely a lit-tle flatter than on Paul’s resident preamp/amp combo fromMarsh Sound Design and Quad.

On McDonald’s “How Glory Goes,” the sound is artic-ulate but slightly constricted, at volume thresholds, lackingthe air of the Marsh or Plinius. To compete at the highestlevels, the S-300 needs that final bit of treble bloom, acharacteristic hard to define, although the word “effortless”comes to mind, that trait that allows an amplifier to nearlytranscend its electronic nature. Finally, the attenuatedopenness and air were isolated during McDonald’s “LayDown Your Head.” As the orchestra welled up and thearrangement increased in complexity, the Plinius andSimAudio found daylight and transparency betweenimages that the lightly veiled NAD could not quite match.

One nitpick was the econo remote control, obviouslyculled from the mid-priced series. At this level, a machined

aluminum control would be a graceful compliment to theclean, muscular Silver Series. Finally, I want to emphasize thatthe S-300 exemplifies superior fit and finish. It feels as if ithad been machined from a single billet of alloy. The impres-sive looking heat sinks were a necessity, since the S-300 runshotter than a crock pot. Well-ventilated placement is a must.

As likeable as the ECI-3 was, I agree with Paul that therewas an underlying darker character to the presentation, cou-pled with a general softness and lack of transient speed. Thetreble seemed not as purely extended as the Plinius 8150,the SimAudio I5, or for that matter, the NAD. But it wassmooth and grain free. When Holly Cole sang “Train,” hervoice didn’t have quite the airiness of the two references. Thegritty, sandpaper-like texture from the wood blocks weresmoothed over, substituting No. 400 sandpaper when thecoarser No. 220 would have been more accurate. In thelower treble, though, I felt Cole’s sibilance had a bit too muchenergy. My impressions on the Mahler echo Paul’s: The trom-bones sounded impressively rich and warm (to this I’ll addSinatra’s voice in “In The Wee Small Hours”), but the crisptransient attack of the muted trumpets were – well, reallymuted. And less involving, though at the same time, quitepretty and lacking residual edginess. Paul calls it refined. Letme add: forgiving. I also noted, after listening through all theintegrated amplifiers to “Kiltory” from Bitter Ballads [HarmoniaMundi], how the psaltery would morph from the moreaggressive treble drive reminiscent of a banjo to that of asmaller, more reverberant, warmer signature of a harpsichord.The NAD suggested more speed and a whiter, brightersoundstage in this example, while the Electrocompaniet low-ered the ceiling above the instrument and gave up to theNAD a bit of soundstage width and depth.

THE SOUND • 113

One thought kept recurring as I listened to theElectrocompaniet ECI-3 at our two listening venues. WhenI listened to orchestral music, I’d find myself gravitatingtoward the ECI-3. But throw some pop or rock in the mix,and I’d veer away. It’s a common audiophile dilemma:Some components excel at some genres of music and lagin others. Rock is all about drive, speed, crunch. Classical ismuch more about sophistication and nuance. And the ECI-3 is especially well suited to the more natural timbres ofacoustic music.

Finally, as Paul pointed out, for me, the Electro won the“swimsuit” phase of the competition. While I could toss mostcomponents into a cabinet and slam the door, cobalt blue illu-mination against black Lucite is just too “McIntosh” to resist.Though, as with the NAD S-300, I wished the remote controlhad taken its design and materials from the amplifier.

ConclusionAs our commentaries are sufficiently descriptive to skipthe usual scorecard, I’d like instead to place our surveywithin the current marketplace. While the Magnum is asuperior value at $750, the others, priced from $2,000to $2,500, face the stiffest possible competition fromPlinius, whose 8150 has raised the performance bar highfor this category of equipment. At $3,000, the Pliniusmay not seem competitive, but it offers 150 watts perchannel, a superb phono stage, and superior sonics.Moreover, Plinius has redesigned its $2,200 integrated,the 2100i Mk II (see review), so that it is in effect an8150 with two-thirds the power and no phono stage,which raises the value bar another notch.

An additional hurdle integrated amplifiers face isthe proliferation of separates offering superlative perfor-mance at prices easily competitive. Neil’s reference is hisPlinius, but for most of this survey mine consisted of aQuad Series 99 preamplifier ($1,349, including a phonostage) driving either the Series 99 stereo amplifier($1,149) or Marsh Sound Design’s MSD A400samplifier ($2,000). Good as the integrateds are, none(including the Plinius) is as good as either combinationof separates. And I could easily have chosen others, say,Placette’s passive preamps, Marsh Sound Design’s newpreamps, several models by Bryston, Musical Design,Monarchy Audio, and Rogue Audio. I’ve not heard allthese, but if I were spending two grand or more on anintegrated, I’d sure try to hear as many comparablypriced separates as I could.

At one time, audiophiles bought integrated amplifiersbecause they were less expensive and smaller than sepa-rates. But given the cost and size of some integrateds, thisis plainly no longer the case (the Quad stack occupies lessshelf space than most of them). If I’ve learned anythingfrom this survey, it is that the integrated amplifier hasfinally come into its own as a fully franchised High Endcomponent. I suspect that now when audiophiles elect tobuy one, it is because they specifically want the single-boxformat. If I am right, and the integrated amplifier hascome of age, then its performance must be judged by thesame standards we employ for separates. That is what wehave tried to do in this survey. – PS

MANUFACTURER/DISTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Magnum IA170

Magnum Amplifiers

PO Box 5143, Wheaton, Illinois 60189

Phone: (888) 625-4620; fax: (630) 462-9414

www.magnumaudio.com

Price: $750 (phono $100 option)

Roksan Caspian

Distributed by May Audio Marketing, Inc.

2150 Liberty Drive, Unit #7, Niagara Falls, New York 14304

Phone: (716) 283-4434; fax: (716)283-6264

www.mayaudio.com

Price: $1,500

NAD S-300

NAD Electronics of America

6 Merchant St., Sharon, Massachusetts 02067

Phone: (781) 784-8586

www.nadelectronics.com

Price: $2,195

Electrocompaniet ECI 3

Distributed by: Jason Scott Distributing, Inc.

8816 Patton Road, Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania 19038

Phone: (215) 836-9944

www.electrocompanient.no

Price: $1,995

MANUFACTURER RESPONSE – NAD…Unlike previous NAD amplifiers, the S-300 is based on anunusual circuit topology that does not rely on global feed-back to reduce distortion. So while the sonic character of theS-300 is somewhat different from other NAD designs, itsdesign concept remains true to the primary tenets of our phi-losophy: the belief that an amplifier should remain stable,with very low distortion, when driving real loudspeakers (theway we listen to amplifiers as opposed to the way we mea-sure them). Amp designs without global negative feedbackare noted for their excellent stability and low transient distor-tion (although they are more costly to produce).

After 25 years of successful budget designs, we wanted tolet NAD’s talented design and engineering staff create someproducts that were not tightly constrained by having to hitmoderate entry-level price points… We thought faithful NADenthusiasts would appreciate the concept of Silver Series’ tak-ing the philosophy of NAD to the next price level while stillretaining an extremely high price-to-performance ratio.

To address Neil’s comments on the pros and cons ofIntegrated Amps vs. Separates, I would like to point out thatwhile not as conducive to incremental upgrades, there canbe sonic advantages to this configuration. The S-300 hasextremely short linear signal paths from source input tospeaker output (this is why we do not use pre/out main/inon this model) that could not be achieved with separates. Itis also a true dual mono design, which would be impossi-ble to produce for this price point as a separate preamp andamp. Additionally, an integrated amp does not require aninterconnecting cable between preamp and amp, which cansave a few hundred dollars at this performance level. Thereis also the sheer simplicity and uncluttered look of a well-designed integrated that many people find appealing…

GREG STIDSEN

DIRECTOR OF SALES AND MARKETING

NAD ELECTRONICS OF AMERICA

&

THE SOUND • 115

Plinius has revamped the workings of its entry-level ($1,995) integrated amplifier, the 8100,until recently called the 2100i Mk II. The 100-

watt 8100 is now an entirely viable alternative to itsmore expensive ($2,990) sibling, arguably best ofclass, the integrated 150-watt 8200, which you knowas the 8150. The names have been changed – butaccording to Peter Thompson at Plinius, nothing else.

The 8200 and the 8100 both part company fromthe rest of Plinius’ amplifiers, in that their outputsoperate only in Class A/B bias mode. Plinius’ power-amp separates (50, 100, and 250 watts per channel)are designed for pure Class A operation, althoughthey are switchable to Class A/B to reduce powerconsumption. The 8150 has been quite a success (seereview, Issue 115, a Golden Ear award, and men-tioned frequently by a number of writers). PeterThomson and the gang at Plinius have based the new8100 on the 8200, leaving out some features whilereproducing the 8150’s essential sonic character.

The list of features left out may make the deci-sion for you between the 8200 and the 8100. The8100 omits the 8200’s phono stage. If playing LPs isstill part of your musical life and you do not have astand-alone phono stage, well, that’s that.

The 8100 is rated at 100 watts per channel, areduction from the 8200’s 150. (The 8100’s trans-former is smaller and its power supply has less capac-ity — no surprises there.) For most listening, thiswill not be a real-world consideration, but it doesmake some difference when you want to fill theroom with big symphonic music at levels that areprobably larger than life. (The contra case is thatadding a powered subwoofer to your system willlessen the demands on your main amplifier.)

Apart from the issues of phono section andpower rating, the remaining differences are not like-ly to matter. The 81 omits the 82’s “processor loop.”The record loop does not have a “standby” setting.The 81’s chassis is slightly smaller, and the amp islighter in weight.

The similarities to the 8200 are substantial. The8100 has two sets (for bi-wiring) of the same solidall-metal speaker binding posts as the 82. An IECsocket allows the use of detachable power cords,again a worthwhile endeavor. Both use a rotary knobto control volume, the clearly preferable means. The8100 now has the 8200’s remote control of volumeand muting, although, as in the more expensive amp,source selection is made only by a manual rotaryknob. The 81 has the same clean minimalist look andis available in black or brushed aluminum casework.

The similarities to the 8200’s sound are remark-able. The 81 has the same ability to “lock on” to themusic and deliver it in startlingly realistic focus.Within 20 minutes of frosty-cold delivery, the 81was sounding like a clone of the 82. (Neither of the82s I had here, nor the 81 appeared to need much in

the way of breaking in, and the sonic consequencesof powering them down are not as dire as reportedwith Plinius’ Class A power amps.)

Reproduction of spatial phenomena is quitegood. The 8100 is articulate in both space and timewithout causing fatigue. Dynamics and tone colorsare full but not bloated. The dynamic range is lifelikewithout being overbearing. The balance of the entirepresentation is slightly “front of the hall” in terms offocus and liveliness, rather than reposeful in the senseof letting great slow waves of music wash over you.

A guilty-pleasure musical example that show-cases the Plinius family sound in general, and that ofthe 8100 in particular, is “Tariqat,” from A Prayer forthe Soul of Layla [Alula Records ALU-1005]. ThisCD splits the difference between Europop and eth-nomusicology in rather stunning (studio, post-pro-duced, but still stunning) sound. Keyboardist/syn-thesizer whiz/producer Jamshied Sharifi combinesMiddle Eastern melodies, West African percussion,and a pop sensibility to stir up a sonic cocktail withquite a wallop. “Tariqat” has extraordinary synthbass, pounding live percussion, and layers of vocaliz-ing. The 8100 retrieves bits of detail (a softly spoken“Inshallah,” perhaps?) from deep within the mix, inmuch the same way as the 8200 did from Enya’srather comparable recordings.

The 8100’s ability to appear to convey “moremusic” does not seem to be the result of gamesman-ship in the frequency or time domains. The magicseems to be in its exceptional performance at repro-ducing very small dynamic gradations throughout itssubstantial dynamic range. That there are a greaternumber of finer dynamic levels for the music to movebetween seems to give a more realistic impression ofthe liveliness of live music both in space and time.

Brief comparisons to two other wonderful integrat-ed amplifiers are probably in order. The Jeff RowlandDesign Group Concentra ($5,600) has a stately andmore nuanced sonic presentation. And build qualityand ergonomics commensurate with its price point.The Electrocompaniet ECI 3, in the 8100’s $1,995price range, has a sonic presentation that is the perfectyin-yang complement to the Plinius’. The Electroco-mpaniet lights the stage with warm incandescent light,at times seeming almost like candlelight, but the fullmeasure of detail is nonetheless present.

The Rowland is in a class to itself. But betweenthe Plinius and the Electrocompaniet, the choice hasto be made on the basis of room acoustics, loud-

THE SOUND • 117

Plinius 8100 Integrated Amplifier

speakers, program sources, program material, andpersonal expectations. Reducing things to bumper-sticker dimensions, the Plinius is more lively andneutral; the Electrocompaniet voluptuously richerand more tube-like.

With the exception of the last quanta of oomphand bass drive, everything previously published inTAS about the Plinius 8200’s sound applies to the8100, at a savings of about $1,000 – quite anachievement.

JOHN MARKS

IMPORTER INFORMATIONAdvanced Audio Technologies1280 West Peachtree Street, Suite 160

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Phone: (404) 872-2564

www.plinius.com

Price: $1,995

NEIL GADER COMMENTSAs JM points out, the family resemblance between the8150 and the 2100i is uncanny. These siblings have thesame rich midrange, muscular harmonic energy, deep pitch-defined low frequencies, and extended treble that have keptthe 8150 at the top of the integrated-amplifier heap thesemany months. And as I discovered during a recent LosAngeles heat wave, it also runs decidedly cooler.

The decision to buy this or the 8150 will be contingenton the need for a phono input and the luxury of the addi-

tional headroom the 8150 affords. Unless you have high-sensitivity speakers, the greater reserves of the 8150 mightprove useful. At levels above 90dB, the 8150 soundeduntaxed and fairly bored with the demands placed upon itsprodigious reserves. Less so the 2100i, but not by much,and this was with an 83dB low-sensitivity speaker, the ATC.In “Carnival” from Nature’s Realm [Water Lily Acoustics],the 2100i presented greater tonal resolution from the tym-pani thwacks, and a more pleasing combination of impactand pitch. The blat of the trombones had added weightand expansiveness. In fact, the 2100i’s sense of a some-what larger and deeper soundstage, set a row or two fur-ther back, was the single largest distinction I could hang myhat on. Elsewhere in the frequency spectrum, there was lit-tle to distinguish one amp from the other. Low-level reso-lution and transient behavior remained exemplary on bothunits. And switching to a moderately sensitive speaker likethe Audio Physic Tempo III well nigh eliminated the earlierreservations I experienced with the ATCs.

This is a fair time to mention that while neither Pliniusmodel is in any danger of replacement, there are still somecutting-edge gains to be made. I don’t find their upper tre-ble entirely convincing. While undoubtedly extended, bothPliniuses suggest an element of constriction or leanness inthis area that is not evident on top-rung separates. It revealsitself in massed string sections that ultimately lack theeffortless sensation of the infinite. And that’s essentially thedifficult goal: reducing the sense of effort we hear in repro-duced music. Of course, a fix like that would have the mod-est integrated amplifier encroaching ever closer into pre-amp-amp territory. But it never hurts to dream. &


Britain originated the concept, the archetype,and the bulk of the compact loudspeakerdesigns whose goal is to pass on, in unadulter-

ated form, an acoustical version of the input elec-trical signal. The British Broadcasting Corpora-tion needed tools to ensure consistent broadcastsound quality, regardless of the origin or destina-tion of the broadcast, and prime among these toolswas the “monitor” loudspeaker. Britain’s culture ofindividualistic tinkering responded to that chal-lenge, and the tradition continues today. The FB-1 is PMC’s first speaker designed specifically forhome use, although it has already gained favor as acomparatively affordable pro speaker for five-chan-nel recording and mixing. It is the usual tall rec-tangular-column shape, available in several woodveneers at standard or extra cost, with a black-fab-ric detachable grille fitted to the upper quarter ofthe front face (the back panel is matte black). Thefront vertical edges are slightly chamfered. Fitand finish are good for the price. PMC some timeago purchased the cabinetmaking concern theyhad been using, in order to get better control ofcost and quality. The only unusual aspect of theFB-1’s appearance is the full-width rectangularport (with black foam insert) at the very bottomof the front face.

The FB-1s overall sonic character is surprising-ly “large,” in bass extension, soundstage size, andmacro dynamics, but first, some background on theFB-1’s nearly unknown maker, PMC. PMC standsfor Professional Monitor Company, which wasestablished by two BBC alumni in England in theearly 1990s. PMC started out making studio mon-itors for the mixing, mastering, and film and TVproduction and broadcast industries.

PMC’s first product, the BB5, a large cabinetspeaker with a fearsome-looking 15-inch radial-bas-ket (exoskeleton) woofer, had all the characteristicsborne by nearly all PMC’s products: transmission-line woofer loading; high-order crossovers; flat (notcontoured) frequency response; high power-handlingcapacity; and an industrial-design esthetic. PMCmonitors have, over the past decade, establishedthemselves as respected contenders in the pro field inEurope. Now Bryston, the Canadian electronicsmanufacturer that provides the power units forPMC’s tri- and quad-amped self-powered pro mod-els, is importing PMC’s extensive line, and distrib-uting it through pro and consumer channels inNorth America.

Bryston has decided to include the round-cornered,matte-black, three-quarter-inch composition-boardplinths on all FB-1s at no additional charge (they are anextra-cost option in the UK). The plinths make for anice visual balance, provide a welcome degree of tip-ping resistance, and bolt on very precisely.

The FB-1s’ driver complement is a Vifa metal-dome tweeter and a seven-inch plastic-doped conewoofer that also appears to be from Vifa. Hook-up tothe amplifier is by two pairs of sturdy brass bindingposts in a recess on the lower back panel. These comewith jumpers that are removable to allow bi-wiring.Carpet-piercing spikes are included.

Above the hook-up recess, the back panel hasthreaded inserts to allow the bolt-on attachment ofBryston’s “Powerpac” basic amplifiers. These slenderunits, in effect, convert the speakers into active (self-powered) monitors. The Powerpacs come in 60- and120-watt denominations, and provide for RCAphono, TRS phone, or XLR balanced connections.The FB-1s present a 90 dB sensitivity rating, andseemed an easy load to drive.

The engineering feature that separates this two-way speaker from just about all its price-tier com-petitors is transmission-line loading of the bass dri-ver. Real transmission-line loading is difficult andtime-consuming to engineer and manufacture.1 It isin those respects similar to horn design. So, what wehave here is a speaker, well-built, affordable, withwell-regarded raw drivers, but using a minority-enthusiasm woofer-loading design.

How do the FB-1s sound? Well – smashing.(Smashing, of course, within context.) For starters,

THE SOUND • 119

PMC FB-1 Transmission-Line Louspeaker

1 Many manufacturers have futzed around with “quasi”-transmission line loading that usuallyboils down to a piece of foam blocking a rectangular slot underneath an internal shelf. No go.

they are revealing, almost up to the point of dimin-ishing returns, past which you get fatigue. Theysound crisp, clear, articulate, and most of all, dynam-ic. The claimed benefits of transmission-line loadinginclude a frequency response that is more nearlyindependent of volume level, and that appears to bethe case here. These speakers do not have to be playedat high average levels to sound full or lively, specifi-cally in that the bass level does not drop off fasterthan the higher frequencies, as the music gets quieteror as input volume is lowered. The microdynamicperformance, especially in the vocal range, was good,but by no means revelatory. (But at this price range,I am unaware of any microdynamic revelationsamong speakers with fully extended bass.) Some ofthe liveliness can be attributed to a slight high-trebleemphasis, in the comparatively narrow triangle andcymbal range, not the broader analog tape-hiss range.And some can be attributed to PMC’s stated disincli-nation to “contour” midrange frequency response bya dip in the 1 to 2.5 kHz region.

PMC apparently also favors flat room responseover flat on-axis response, and that leads directly tothe one set-up requirement I discovered. The speak-ers should face straight ahead; minimal toe-in is themost that should be used. Toeing in the FB-1s topoint straight at the listening position resulted inimage instability and too much treble. Listener headrotation resulted in apparent motion of instrumentson the soundstage. Straight-ahead speaker orienta-tion, on the other hand, produced a stable sound-

stage slightly favoring height and width over depth.Not a requirement but still a factor is listening dis-tance. I found mid- and far-field listening distinctlymore enjoyable than near-field.

Properly set up, the FB-1s combined extended tre-ble and neutral, comparatively low-coloration midrangewith excellent bass extension. The organ pedals on ArvoPärt’s “Beatitudes” from the excellent new PanufnikWestminster Mass CD [Teldec 3984-28069-2] werereproduced to a depth I haven’t heard before in similar-ly priced speakers. The timbral and spatial character ofthe low bass was slightly discontinuous with the mid-bass. But for a music lover who wants to hear more ofthe music yet stay within budget, a trifling discontinu-ity in the bass is better than a lack of bass.

Perhaps the highest praise I can give the FB-1sis that, listening to the Brahms German Requiem (theearlier Telarc, with Robert Shaw), I did not feel I wasmissing out on the orchestral or organ bass. The FB-1s conveyed a convincing and enjoyable musicalgestalt. Even more luscious was Dagmar Pecková’snew release featuring the Brahms “Alto Rhapsody”and Wagner’s “Wesen-donck Lieder.” (SupraphonSU 3417-2-231). The Shahinian Obelisks soundweightier and airier, but for the $500 differential,they should. And for listeners who are particularlysensitive to the Obelisks’ slight plummy to velvetycoloration from upper bass to midrange (as thoughPavarotti really needs any extra weight), the PMCFB-1s might just be their first choice.

JOHN MARKS



Bryston, Limited

677 Neal Drive, Peterborough, Ontario

Canada K9J 7Y4

Phone: 1-800-632-8217; fax: (705) 742-0882

www.bryston.ca

Serial numbers: 000557 and 8


Price: $2,295/pair

SPECS

Frequency response: 22 Hz to 20 kHz ±3 dB (flat at 27 Hz)

Sensitivity: 90 dB

Impedance: 8 ohms nominal, 6 ohms minimum


Marigo active power-line conditioner; Yamaha CDR-1000 CD

recorder/player; Nordost Blue Heaven interconnect; Plinius 8150

integrated amplifier; Custom Power Cord Company Model 11

power cord; Nordost Blue Heaven speaker cables; RPG Skylines

acoustical diffusion panels

MIKE KULLER COMMENTS

I found John Marks quite accurate in his description of thePMC FB-1 loudspeakers. Like him, I found the speakers

to sound crisp and detailed, with surprisingly good dynam-ic contrasts and bass extension. In two words: clean andlively sound. I also preferred the speakers set back about10 feet from my listening spot and aimed straight ahead,with no toe-in for best image stability. The FB-1s also pre-sented a larger soundstage than I expected – tall, wide,deep, and reasonably coherent. In my relatively large room(27 x 17 x 10.5feet), they are able to play at satisfying lev-els with a good balance of low-frequency energy, even withtheir six-inch woofer and small cabinet. They are impressivesounding, indeed.

The FB-1s seemed to bring out the best in the ampli-fiers I mated with them. Using the Manley Reference 240s,the FB-1s highlighted their open, airy spatial characteristics,while the amp’s lower-midrange warmth fleshed out vocalsand instrumental timbres nicely. With the Carver Signature,percussion instruments came to life with its transient speedand there was added control and impact to the lower fre-quencies. Between the two, my choice would be the moreexpensive Manley amps with FB-1s because of the combi-nation’s richer harmonic detail and greater three-dimen-sionality. The Carver/FB-1 is a more likely combinationbecause of the price, and it is one I could live with.

If these were $5,000 speakers, I could nitpick variousareas of their sonic performance that should be better (JMidentified most of them), but at their price, the FB-1s’shortcomings are minor and their overall presentation ofmusic is convincing.

Certainly there are two-way, stand-mounted smallmonitors that cost much more than the FB-1s but that havenowhere near its bass extension. If you’re in the market forsuch a speaker, I strongly suggest that you listen to the FB-1s first. In addition, there are numerous other speakers onthe market in the FB-1’s price range that may come closeto its performance. Vandersteen 3As come to mind,reviewed by Robert Harley, Issue 122. &

THE SOUND • 121

Transmission Lines

A transmission line is an open-on-one-end acoustical struc-ture, usually folded into a labyrinth for compactness, thatpresents a complex variable load to the rear of a bass dri-

ver. Its cross-section and length, and therefore the internal volume,must be calculated with respect to the behavior of the bass driver,especially resonant frequency. It is not strictly necessary to positionthe driver perpendicularly to the near end of the line, and the FB-1s’ driver taps into the line nearly one-third down its length.

The labyrinth, as it progresses away from the rear of the driver,is filled with an increasing amount of acoustical material (wool orfoam or both) intended not so much to reduce sound pressure asto present frictional resistance to the velocity of the air as it moves.For this reason the “effective length” of a transmission line is oftenquoted as longer than its measured length. A transmission line isusually configured to terminate in the same plane and direction asthe system’s woofer.

The effective mass of air within a properly-designed transmis-sion line increases as the frequencies being reproduced go lower,due to the damping material’s diminishing frictional losses.1 If thedesign approaches the theoretical ideal, at the lowest frequencies,where the frictional losses are lowest, the air at the end of the trans-mission line acts as a piston that propagates bass in phase(because of the time delay) with the woofer. Not surprisingly, trans-mission-line design involves a lot of “you squeeze it here, it bulgesthere” design trade-offs, and much trial-and-error listening.

This augmentation of bass frequencies by means of a variablyconstrained air mass to lower the effective resonant frequency ofthe woofer, and also by having the back wave emerge into the lis-tening environment in phase, results in an extra octave of bassextension over ported designs employing a similar woofer.Furthermore, the roll-off in the bass is less abrupt than with porteddesigns, and the impedance curve the woofer presents to theamplifier is usually less erratic.

So why are ported speaker designs and not transmission linesthe majority choice among speaker manufacturers? Well, there arethe afore-mentioned issues of cost and complexity. And the result-ing cabinets will always be larger than ported designs using com-parable woofers. The starting point for transmission-line design isone-quarter the wavelength of the driver’s resonant frequency.Many designers seem more inclined to put money into a largerwoofer than into a larger and more complex cabinet. And, indeed,all but the most elegantly and expensively engineered transmissionlines impart a characteristic sound to the bass, especially as itmakes the transition from above the woofer’s free-air resonance tolower regions where the design relies upon the augmentationeffect to achieve flat response.2

In a perfect world, transmission lines would only be used foraugmenting true low bass (by which I mean A = 55 Hz and below).PMC’s designs that are not cost-compromised are three-ways withlarge dome midranges, and woofers from 10 inches to 15. In thecase of a 15-inch woofer, the range of frequencies relying upon theaugmentation effect for flat response is obviously narrower and lessaudible as such than in the case of a 7-inch woofer/mid. –JM

1 Although all frequencies propagate through dry air at the same speed (the“speed of sound” is the speed at which the pressure differential travels), thespeed of the motion of the air itself in front and behind the woofer varies withthe frequency reproduced. The transmission line’s damping material (sheep’swool or a synthetic substitute) presents a frictional-loss load to the air behindthe woofer that diminishes as the frequency decreases. The losses are substan-tial at the midrange and insubstantial at the lowest bass. It is precisely here thattransmission-line theory and practice is farthest away from horn design.

2 Perhaps this discontinuity arises in part because the transmission-line-loaded driver’s behavior above its resonant frequency is comparatively free ofinternal box-reflection colorations, while the lower frequencies are reproducedby a shifting balance of sounds from two sources.

Krix Loudspeakers of Adelaide, South Australia,has been producing systems for movie theatersand homes for more than 25 years. A family-

run operation headed by Scott Krix, its consumerline includes speakers for both home theater andHigh End audio, with floor-standers, subwoofers,and center-channel speakers. The Equinox is itssmallest, a two-way, bass-reflex design about 12inches high. With rear venting and an 88-dB sensi-tivity it is an easy load to drive. It uses a one-inchFerrofluid-cooled tweeter with a doped-fabric domeand a six-inch doped-paper cone woofer with a castmagnesium basket, a one-inch voice coil, and an alu-minum former. The crossover point is 1.9 kHz witha third-order (18-dB per octave) slope. Impedance isa nominal 6 ohms. A single pair of five-way bindingposts are in back. The cabinet material is 17mm cus-tom board with a lacquered wood veneer.

The sonic character of the Equinox is a mostlyneutral blend of midrange richness and mellowness.It possesses a darker and more liquid balance that ismore reflective of the yin nature as compared to theTotem’s dryer, leaner yang. The Equinox playsimpressively deep, with a slightly soft mid-bass andwith upper-frequency detail that avoids the artificialetch of cut glass – an attribute that might be con-vincing during an audition but fatiguing on long-term ownership. The bass is warm with good pitchdefinition and gives the impression of having percep-tible response into the low 50s Hz; that is, enoughbass and dynamic life to give the impression that theEquinox is more than your average mini. There seemsto be a slight plumpness in the mid-bass, not at alluncommon for speakers of this dimension, but it’s asubtle effect that doesn’t encroach on an overallimpression of frequency spectrum in balance.

In keeping with its movie-theater heritage, theEquinox handles dynamics and fairly extreme vol-ume levels with ease. Attaining ear-splittingcrescendos is so easy, you should proceed with cau-tion. (Owners of the fabled Rogers LS3-5a, producedunder license from the BBC, might remember how

easy it was to pin the little woofer to its basket.) TheEquinox is a small speaker that likes to be chal-lenged. And it got one when I cued up AudraMcDonald’s debut album [Audra McDonald;Nonesuch 79482-2]. “A Tragic Story” is spare oninstrumentation, but long on dynamics and tran-sients. The thunderous staccato bursts from thepiano match note for note McDonald’s powerfulmezzo. The Krix delivered a stunning portion of thelower register weight and impact of the concertgrand. McDonald’s voice is at full throttle when shedelivers the song’s final note. Generally I reduce thevolume until I understand a speaker’s capacities, butthis time it was too late. Fortunately, my fear of fry-ing an Equinox driver was unfounded. The speakersailed through with minimal compression and just atrace of peaky behavior and sibilance in the treble.

The equally challenging CD Clark Terry, One onOne [Chesky JD 198] features trumpet player ClarkTerry and various piano greats aboard a Bösendorferconcert grand playing jazz classics. On an exquisiteinterpretation of “Misty,” the Equinox excelled in itsreproduction of the demanding lower octaves, cleanswift transients, and warm, full bodied decay charac-teristics. This difficult octave range sometimes grew alittle thicker and lost some pitch precision as thepiano’s energy attempted to overpower the ability ofthe port to control its output. Treble arpeggios in

THE SOUND • 123

B r e v i TA S

Seven Liters of Sensational Sound:Krix Equinox Loudpeaker & Totem Model One Signature

Not all of us aspire to own the biggest, meanest loudspeakers in the audiophile jungle. A pair of refrigerator-sized loud-speakers loafing in the listening room might even be an impediment to great sound, unless critical variables fall into place,compatible amplification and room size primary among them. I continue to trumpet and own compact speakers that fitmy small listening room as comfortably as they conform to my musical tastes. (Not to mention that they can be taken downand put away if the listening space must accommodate a house guest.) Here is a small loudspeaker (about seven liters,internally) for enthusiasts who understand that every choice has built-in limitations but who are reluctant to “settle.”This makes the Krix Equinox a great place to begin, and the Totem Model One Signature a great speaker to aspire to.

Krix Equinox

Billy Taylor’s solo were clean, but a bit harder andcooler in character in the octaves below middle C. Thegeneral image placement was more forward than myreference ATC loudspeaker, consistent with a tweeterthat is not overly extended and lacks air. The Equinoxwas impressive on this track in the way it delineatedthe warmer, more golden sound of the flugelhornfrom the brighter, punchier trumpet on some of theothers. It reproduced well the acoustic halo aroundTaylor’s piano and the lower-level dynamic gradations.

Naturally if you push the Krix too hard onorchestral or organ passages, it will reach its limits.Hans Zimmer’s soundtrack for Gladiator has cuesthat will certainly tax smaller speakers. On suchoccasions, the Equinox gently compressed dynamics.Images smeared slightly and soundstaging suffered aloss of focus, if only to a modest degree. All in all,terrific performance underscored by surprisingdynamics and a balanced middle range.


Totem Acoustics Model One Signature

Totem Acoustics was founded in 1987 bydesigner Vince Bruzzese in Montreal. In 1989,the Model One became Totem Acoustics’ first

offering and was a success from the start. The TotemModel One Signature was introduced more recentlyand continues a High End tradition in which suc-cessful products are optimized or “hot rodded” for aneven more discriminating enthusiast. Like the stan-dard Model One, this edition is a two-way bass-reflex design with a rear vent. It has a sensitivity of87dB and a nominal impedance of 4 ohms. Thecrossover point is 2.7 kHz. It uses a specially modi-fied Seas metal-dome tweeter and a Dynaudiowoofer with a hefty three-inch voice coil (large forthis size driver). Cabinet construction is exemplary,with lock miter joints and a carefully executedradius on the edge of the port. Multi-borosilicateinternal damping is used and veneers are applied

internally as well as externally to equalize tensionoutside and in. The Signature edition includes amodified crossover network and silver wiringthroughout, with larger gauge for the woofer thanthe standard version. Exquisite WBT binding posts,a double pair for bi-wiring and a small “Signature”medallion complete the back-panel layout.

Laura Branagan sang about it in the Eighties andit catapulted Janet Jackson to platinum-record sales– and “Control” is what the Totem Acoustics ModelOne Signature is all about. Its sonic character istightly focused, clean, and as precise as NASAtelemetry. While the Equinox is mellow and honeycolored, the Totem is on the brighter side of neutral.It has a dryer sound versus the darker yin-like per-sonality of the Krix. From top to bottom, the Totemhas a unified quality that extends pitch definitionthroughout the frequency spectrum. Muddiness or

lack of speed don’t seem to be part of this speaker’svocabulary. It provides an extra level of refinementthat isn’t easy to come by at any price. TheDynaudio drivers are clean and free from audible dis-tortion. Transients are nimble and dynamic shadingsin the midrange and treble are enticingly subtle. On“A Tragic Story,” it displayed a more lively pianothan the Krix – the Totem seemed to recover faster.The staccato attack of the piano was utterly cleanand free from smearing. The Signature has the tran-sient speed and transparency to bring to mind thegreat strengths of an electrostatic.

The brighter spectral balance was in evidence witha mezzo-soprano like McDonald. A powerful singerwhose voice is equally rooted in her chest and her head,she lost a bit of weight and warmth through the ModelOne Signature. Her voice sounded beautifully detailedbut slightly spot-lit. Soundstage position was backslightly in comparison to the Krix, maybe a row or twoback of neutral. On “Lay Down Your Head,” theSignature displayed sophisticated layering whenMcDonald’s voice was joined by instrument afterinstrument until the entire orchestra appeared. Me, I’dopt for greater neutrality in the lower treble range, butI listened to a wide variety of material and found thedeviation easy to listen through and compensated forby the speaker’s other virtues.

The character of the Totem’s mid-bass offeredtonal control, rather than loosely creating the illu-sion of bass. In the battle sequence from the sound-track to Gladiator, where one crescendo dynamicallytops the previous one, the Totem never lost its com-posure. There was no audible port noise or cabinetresonances; the soundstage remained complete anddimensional. It probably didn’t descend quite asdeep as the Equinox, but the added degree of pitch-definition was musically more satisfying. And eventhe taxing juxtaposition of trumpets and stringsanswering one another was handled with ease – a fourletter word that might summarize the Signature’smanner in negotiating difficult passages.

The Signature also showed further refinement inthe manner in which it handled dynamics. It waspreternaturally stable under pressure. While theKrix will play at levels that will endanger your hear-ing, there are changes in its sonic character as thevolume rises. Ultimately. I believe the Totem’s care-ful and expensive cabinet engineering and premiumconstruction quells resonances better. Its port hasless of a signature, and its drivers, particularly thetweeter, behave with greater linearity under stress.

Like the Krix, the Totem will stumble a bitreproducing the weight of brass. During the produc-tion number “NYC” from Disney’s television remakeof Annie, the Totem reduced the impact of tapdancers pounding the wooden stage floor. Largerspeakers present a satisfying whump when they makecontact, but it’s in the difficult upper-bass regionwhere many small speakers lack the necessary energy.

All in all, the Model One Signature is a sophis-ticated, high-resolution design with leading-edgetransparency.

Closing ThoughtsBoth of these moderately efficient speakers revel

in the presence of good amplification of 100 watts

per channel. They will operate on less, but theyachieve greater low-frequency extension and controlwhen they can tap a deep power reservoir. TheMagnum Dynalab MD-208 receiver (review, Issue125) fits the bill exceedingly well.

Another point is room size. Smaller rooms willdramatically reinforce the lower frequencies andmaximize the capabilities of these small speakers.For those determined to wring the last octave of bassout of their systems, both Krix and Totem offer pow-ered subwoofers.

These speakers are two sides of the same coin –though one will set you back more of the coin thanthe other. The finesse and transparency of the ModelOne easily justifies the premium. If musical refine-ment can be compared to the artistry woven into atapestry, I’d conclude that the Totem has crafted asonic picture with some of the finest thread in myexperience. While not the Totem’s equal, theEquinox should nevertheless give price-point com-petitors like Dynaudio’s Audience and Energy’sConnoisseur Series some nerve-racking fits down theroad. Within their price parameters, the Equinoxand the Model One Signature both provide greatmusical satisfaction in this size class. And equally asimportant – unless you value speakers purely by thenumber of drivers they contain – both make you feelas if you’ve gotten a bargain. Building an audio sys-tem is a long journey, but as this pair of speakersdemonstrates, seven liters will take you a good waydown the road.

NEIL GADER

MANUFACTURER/DISTRIBUTOR INFORMATIONKrix EquinoxMoondance Imports

1881 S. Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80210

Phone: (303) 777-4449; fax: (303) 871-0376

Source: Distributor loan

Price: $599/pair

Totem Model One SignatureTotem Acoustics4665 Bonavista Avenue, Montreal, Quebec H3W 2C6 Canada

Phone: (514) 259-1062; fax: (514) 259-4958

www.totemacoustic.com


Price: $1,995/pair

&

THE SOUND • 125

Yamaha’s CDR1000 combines a rugged profes-sional CD transport with audiophile-qualityhigh-bit recording and processing technology

in one box, at a remarkably low price. This meansthat anyone with enough technical skill (andpatience) to make good analog cassette tape copiescan transfer analog-sourced music (from LPs ortapes) to CD copies, clone or compile music fromdigital sources, and even make high-quality livestereo recordings. What makes all this possible isblank optical-media discs that contain a dye thatchanges color when activated by the special high-intensity laser in a CD recorder. The dye dots rep-resent the digital data like a pressed CD’s pits.

Over the past year or so, according to statisticspublished by the consumer-electronics industry, CDrecorders have racked up surprisingly robust sales.Several trends combined to produce this growth.First, the price of CDR recorders has spiraled downto well under $1,000. Second, the price of blankrecordable CDR discs has dropped even more.Third, the advent of rewritable CDR discs (CDRW)and machines that can erase and re-record them,reduces the waste of blank discs, although at the costof limited playback compatibility. Finally, majorsectors of society, at work, school, or home, haveaccess to increasingly sophisticated computers, andenough people are now acquainted with computerCDROM drive recording (“burning”) that recordingmusic on a CDR recorder at home is not as dauntinga task as it was.

There are two classes of CDR recorder. Nearly allthose intended for the consumer market have, untilfairly recently, required the use of copyright-clearedblank discs labeled “For Music.” These cost morebecause their price includes a generic royalty, whichis supposed to be distributed to record labels to com-pensate them for lost revenue. There seems to be atrend among hardware manufacturers, though, tomake new consumer machines that can use genericrecordable CDs, such as you would use in a CDROMburner. In any case, make sure the machine you buycan use non-copyright-cleared blank discs. Being aprofessional unit, the Yamaha CDR1000, of course,uses regular blank discs.

Rewritable blank discs, which the CDR1000can also use, constitute another story. Recorded andfinalized CDRW discs will play only on CDRW-compatible CD players, which are new and few,whereas recorded and finalized CDR discs will playon all CD players (but not on most DVD players).Whether it makes sense for you to use CDRW discsfor all your recording will depend upon where thediscs will be played. However, in some cases, it maymake sense to use a CDRW disc as an intermaster, toget a program sequence glitch-free, before you thentransfer it to CDR.

My advice to potential CDR recorder purchasersformerly was to evaluate the quality of the transportmechanism, then the quality of the digital and ana-log electronics, and then the interface, that is, thearrangement of buttons, knobs, switches, and read-outs by which you tell the machine what you wantit to do, and it tells you what it is doing.

But that was before I encountered a CDRWrecorder with an interface that seemed designed bysadists out of sheer perversity. A single large knobthat could turn left or right, or hard left or hardright, or be tapped inward, or held in, controlledcompletely different functions depending onwhether the program source being recorded was ana-log or digital. I am sure that once you got the hangof it, it was merely excruciating, but life is too short.After 30 years in this game, I prefer my electronicsto be of the PhD variety – “Push here, Dummy.”

The Yamaha Professional CDR1000 CDRrecorder’s interface is not quite that simple, it doestake some manual-reading, but its interface is cer-tainly more intuitive and easier to use than theNAGRA D’s. The manual is clearly laid out andusually unambiguous, certainly less ambiguousthan is the norm. In Yamaha’s defense, let me pointout that the CDR1000 has so many features andcapabilities that giving each one a push-button ofits own would require a huge faceplate, or micro-scopic buttons.

I also applaud Yamaha for including a remotecontrol at no extra charge, for having no functionsthat are remote-control only, and, because theremote control is of the infrared variety, for allowingthe machine’s receptivity to remote-control com-mands to be disabled by use of the front panel’scatchall “Utility” function. This exemplifies thelevel of practical detail that went into this product’splanning. Yamaha’s engineers gave thought to thepossibility that in a studio, a live-recording environ-ment, or a home, a bounced infrared ray from someother electronic device’s remote control just mightruin an important recording, and so they providedprotection against it. Good work.

THE SOUND • 127

Yamaha CDR1000 CDR Recorder

Good work sums up just about every aspect ofthis unit. In those few areas where the CDR1000might lose out against similarly priced playback-only machines, when evaluated only for playback ina home music system, two reasons are apparent.First, there is no free lunch, and second, theCDR1000 is a no-compromise design intended forprofessional environments. However, I can easilyenvision the High End customer who would be rap-turously happy with the CDR1000: the musician ormusic lover who wants to make live two-micro-phone recordings and needs a machine that can dodouble-duty as a good CD player.

There are two reasons that the CDR1000 imme-diately becomes a benchmark for affordable live dig-ital stereo recording. Its onboard analog-to-digitalconverters are high-quality 20-bit, 64-times over-sampling, which means that the 16 bits that end upon the CDR will have greater linearity. Even better,to go from 20 bits to 16, the CDR1000 includesApogee Electronics Corporation UV-22 encoding.When this first entered the pro market in a stand-alone unit, it cost more than twice what theCDR1000 does. So, if the CDR1000’s capabilitiesfit your needs, it is a phenomenal bargain.

Many engineers prefer UV-22 over PacificMicrosonics’ HDCD process as a means of going fromhigher bit rates down to 16. I have experienced bothin professional use. I am not ready to state a generalpreference; projects differ. But without question, UV-

22 is an extraordinarily good-sounding process. It hasan analog-like warmth, and requires no decoding atthe player end. As it is a steady-state and not dynam-ic process, it engenders no spurious artifacts.

Where UV-22 goes its own psychoacoustic wayis that, in parallel with its redithering operations, itadds to the signal being recorded a proprietarysteady-state random digital noise signal at about 22kHz. This is like the bias signal in analog taperecording, which, by jolting the magnetic particles,allows for better dynamic linearity. However, that isat best an imperfect analogy. Suffice it to say that theproof of the pudding is excellent. Digital through-put and external digital clock sync mean that with ablank disc in “record pause,” the CDR1000 could beused as a UV22 processor for recording with otherdevices, such as hard disc recorders. Nifty!

As a practical matter, with the CDR1000, agood-quality single-point stereo microphone such asAudiotechnica’s AT-825 ($379), and a good stand,you will have a 20-bit live acoustical recording rig ofenviable simplicity and quality. The CDR1000’srecording quality is so good, the limiting sonic fac-tor will likely be the microphones. The CDR1000’sonly limiting practical-use factors are that DATdecks are not limited to CDR’s 74-minute maxi-mum length, and rewinding a DAT is quicker andeasier than erasing a CDRW track. On the otherhand, the CDR1000 has something I have neverseen on a DAT recorder: a digital input buffer that


can store up to nearly five seconds of input when thedeck is in “record-pause.” Hit “record” and yourrecording starts with the previous 4.9 seconds. Themonitor feed will be similarly delayed, but that’s asmall price to pay for a second chance that saves thebeginning of a live event.

The CDR1000 dubbed live recordings and CDtracks faultlessly,1 and with several welcome fea-tures. In addition to one- and all-track sync record-ing, the CDR1000 can be set to “autofinalize,” aCDR upon completion. (Finalization is the processby which the table of contents is written at the headof the disc.) This allows set-and-forget operation.

Evaluated solely as a player, the CDR1000’sdynamic and detailed sound quite bowled me over.A touch timbrally cool, perhaps, but not dry, andinvolving despite the coolness. The CDR1000’s ana-log outputs are on XLR balanced jacks, so mosthome equipment will require the use of adapters orcables that are XLR to RCA. I also found the soundfrom the CDR1000’s headphone jack unusuallygood, with plenty of drive, detail, and about asmuch imaging as you can get out of conventionalstereo heard with headphones.

The only fly in the ointment is that theCDR1000’s cautious engineers, realizing that a lotof these babies will share racks with hot-runningpower amps, provided a fan that runs all the time,and cannot be defeated short of snipping wires. I

found the fan noise distracting, and had to place theCDR1000 to minimize it. For a live recording, I’dmake sure that the CDR1000 was at a distance, withthe fan pointed away from the mikes, and with apiece of acoustic foam as a lean-to roof over its rear.

The CDR1000’s High End recording capabili-ties would be under-utilized in most consumerapplications, but its attractive price may tempt youinto amateur live recording. Factoring in itsrespectable playback performance, it is clear thatYamaha has come up with a winner.

JOHN MARKS


Yamaha Corporation of America

6660 Orangethorpe Avenue

Buena Park, California 90620

Phone: (714) 522-9105; fax: (714) 670-0180

[email protected]

Serial number: PZ01106


Price: $1,799

&

THE SOUND • 129

1 I do not have a digital audio workstation/editing suite, and that is the only way to performa bit-to-bit verification to confirm that there is 100 percent data integrity between master andclone. I can report that there was no audible degradation with straight digital copies, and thatthe UV22-enhanced digital copies sounded slightly more alive.

Listen to this speaker at your peril. Because onceyou have heard it, you will never be able to for-get that with almost every other speaker you lis-

ten to, you are hearing colorations conspicuouslymissing from this one.

Why an egg is a better shape than a box for aspeaker enclosure has been understood in theory for along time. And indeed there was an egg-shapedspeaker some 20 years ago from F3 Lyd in Denmark(“lyd,” pronounced more or less like “Luther” with-out the “er,” means “sound” in Danish). But eggs areharder to make than boxes, and the idea has lan-guished since then. The theory is easy to understandin general outline: The acoustic relationship of a boxto a sound wave varies with the frequency of thewave in an irregular way, because the two dimen-sions, length and height, of the front of the box aredifferent multiples of the wavelength as the fre-quency changes. An egg, by virtue of its curvedshape, has many characteristic lengths attached, con-tinuously varying diameters in different directionsacross the front, in a way that makes the relationshipto the wavelength vary more smoothly as the fre-quency (and hence the wavelength) changes.Naturally, the details of this are messy – the stuff ofnumber-crunching computer programs and compli-cated mathematics, not audio reviews. But the soniceffect is conspicuous, to say the least.

The MC is an enclosed speaker. But its egg-shaped enclosure makes it sound completely unlikean ordinary rectangular box. My motto “acoustics iseverything” seems to apply here. This egg businessreally works. Not only is enclosure-induced col-oration vanishingly low, but also invisibility of thespeakers as sound sources is so nearly complete thatthis speaker almost redefines the idea of this audiogoal. Only the late and much lamented SoundwavePS 3.0 and a few others – like the GradientRevolution – with specialized work on radiationpatterns, can compete with the MC for absence ofradiation-pattern coloration and invisibility assource.1 The whole experience of listening to the MCis startling, as far as these important things are con-cerned. And associated with them is a quite star-tlingly excellent stereo imaging performance. Everyaudio review nowadays seems to promise this, butthe MCs actually deliver.

Otherwise, the speaker has certain limitationsand problems. It has no real bass (-3 dB at 70 Hz),although a little bump at 100 Hz in LS3/5 fashionadds warmth. For low bass, a subwoofer is a necessi-ty. Waveform’s top model adds a bass unit to a sim-ilar mid/tweeter unit, and one hears why immedi-ately. The top end of the MC is not as smooth as itmight be, with some small peakiness in the 3-6 kHzregion, and the middle of the midrange around 800

Hz is a little prominent over the lower mids. TheCanadian 24-dB-per-octave crossover (it seems to bea national dedication) takes its usual toll of purchas-ing low distortion via steep slopes (the speaker doeshave very low distortion) at the price of integration,with the tweeter sounding a bit separated, an effectincreased by that peak. The MCs are certainly “flat”as speakers go, according to the Canadian NRC mea-surements provided by Waveform and my own aswell. But ironically, the deviations, small thoughthey are, combined with the crossover, actually makethe speakers not entirely true to timbre, in spite of

Waveform MACH MC: The Egg Comes First

1 An at least equal lack of enclosure coloration can be obtained from speakers that use thewhole wall as a baffle, in the manner of the amp-speaker set-up of Christensen and Ladegaardthat I described in Issue 124. That, however, is not just a speaker, but a construction project,albeit a worthwhile one.

THE SOUND • 131

their low-coloration enclosure. Try, for example, EllaFitzgerald’s Let No Man Write My Epitaph collection.The MCs coarsen her voice a little, giving it a some-what hoarse quality not usually present and, I think,not present on the recording (the peakiness of theold mikes lies further up than the frequency range inquestion here). The sound of her voice on the MCs isnot unpleasant or blatantly unnatural. It just is notquite right. A little DSP EQ from the Z-System’srdp-1 to make the speaker truly flat according to theNRC (or my measurements) does wonders for this.As Peter Ace once said, all speakers are (more or less)flat nowadays except for little zings and sags, but itis where the zings and sags occur that makes all thedifference.

Once the speaker is made truly flat, it reproducesmusic with a compelling naturalness. The Water LilyPhiladelphia Orchestra recording [Water Lily WLAWS66] sounded amazingly realistic, save for lack ofdeep bass. Vocal music had a surprising rightness, inunexpected directions. For instance, the Germanicvowel sounds of the soloists in Bruch’s Das Lied vonder Glocke [Thorofon DCTH 2291/2] were unprece-dentedly correct, revealing that most speakers do notquite reproduce complex vowel sounds properly.Without the EQ, the strings on the Bach/SitkovetskyGoldberg Variations [Nonesuch 79341-2] were again alittle hoarse, but with the EQ, they snapped intosomething quite close to exact tonal correctness, in anuncolored and expansive sound picture. One of thestriking things here is the stability of such sound-scapes. If you move from side to side, of course, theimages shift. But you have to go to extremes to “hearout” the speakers as sources at all. Over a windowmany feet wide, far wider than usual, the speakersremain inaudible as separate sources. The egg enclo-sure seems to be extremely effective at generating auniform radiation pattern, at least across themidrange, broadly conceived. All the speaker reallyneeds is a little adjustment as to exact response andcrossover. (The 24-dB Linkwitz-Riley crossover hasalmost never worked, in my experience. The(unequalized) room sound of the MCs at large dis-tances is truly strange through the crossover region,and one hears this even relatively close to the speak-ers as well.)

And yet, with that little EQ to straighten thingsout – or even without it – something emerges herethat you really need to encounter. Waveform is a fac-tory-direct manufacturer, without dealers. But it par-ticipates in shows, and you could perhaps arrange tohear a demonstration at the home of an owner (try theweb). If you are interested in low-coloration sound,the last word on sound from speakers that does notsound like sound from speakers, I urge you to listencarefully to the Waveforms. What they do well – andit is something really important – they do well almostincomparably. If you can tolerate 24-dB-per-octavecrossovers and don’t mind adding a subwoofer, youcould even take a chance on ordering the things soundunheard. Waveform says no one ever sends them back,although returns for full refund are allowed. One wayor another, listen to it. Long live the egg!

ROBERT E. GREENE


Waveform

R.R.4, Brighton, Ontario KOK 1H0 Canada

[email protected]

Phone: (613) 475-3633; fax: (613) 478-5849


Price: $1,085 each (available individually for surround use);

stands – $495 each

SPECS

Dimensions: 11.75” diameter, 15.25” height (exclusive of stands)

Weight: 27 pounds

Stand height: 23” plus 3.25” thick base

Impedance: 8 ohms, nominal; 6 ohms minimum

Drivers: 1” silk dome, 6” pulped paper cone

Head material: Cast aluminum

Crossover: 4th order, 24 dB/octave Linkwitz-Reilly;

crossover frequency 2,200 Hz

Sensitivity: 84.5 dB/2.83 volt input/1 meter

Frequency response: 85 Hz-20 kHz, +- 1 dB

Room response: 70 Hz-20kHz, +-3 dB

Warranty: 10 years, manufacturer’s defects

Guarantee: 30-day money back guarantee, including freight

MANUFACTURER’S RESPONSEIssue 124 has REG alluding to reconfiguring his listeningspace somewhat like the LEDE (live end-dead end) situa-tion he encountered in Denmark. Hints of LEDE or RFZ(Reflection Free Zone) rooms are not at all recommendedfor the MC. The three-dimensional output of a loudspeak-er is a function of its baffle area. In order to make a speak-er reproduce the directivity of a talking human, the dimen-sions must be similar to that of a human head. Below 1kHz, there is little reinforcement from the elliptical baffle.

When such a loudspeaker is auditioned in a “normal”domestic listening environment, much of the off-axis soundis returned to the listener from the side and rear walls, aswell as from the ceiling, and this contributes to the overallnatural timbre… In a selectively absorptive room, outputcan become seriously skewed and is not returned to thelistener evenly, since the materials in the room absorbmuch of the dispersion at peculiar frequencies. This cor-rupted output would occur when listening to a real personspeaking in this environment as well.

Loudspeakers don’t sound like the real thing, eventhough some people have at times been convinced theydo. To compare a speaker to some absolute is thus fraughtwith risk from the outset and why it’s imperative to com-pare speakers to each other. I sent REG a copy of ETF 4(Energy Time Frequency 4, an acoustic software program)over a year ago, and it is a disappointment to still have noknowledge of his room’s RT 60 (Reverberation Time) orEDT (Early Delay Time). Since “acoustics is everything,” wehope that in future, Waveform loudspeakers will be audi-tioned in normal rooms where timbre nits are not apparentand music reigns.

JOHN ÖTVÖS

PRESIDENT, WAVEFORM

&

THE SOUND • 133

This review has turned out to be an investi-gation of the Wisdom Audio Model 75speaker system. It was evident almost fromthe start that this hybrid moving-coil/pla-nar-magnetic system was a chameleon.

And the mystery that we had then to solve was this:The speaker is either far more neutral than anythingin our reviewing experience, or it could, in some waywe could not divine (without a measurements pro-gram), interact with the electronic components thatprecede it in the audio chain to highlight, evenexaggerate the inherent characteristics of those othercomponents. Complicating matters and causing usto go off the track and on intriguing side trips weresome underlying issues that, until the last day of our

listening sessions, made us fear that we had come upagainst one of audio’s most fundamental dich-otomies: Would we, as pursuers of the absolute,rather have an honest and uncolored speaker thattickled the intellect, or a more colored simulation ofthe real thing that moved the soul?

That question is one we have danced aroundwithout ever reaching a resolution, because ourunspoken assumption has always been that wecouldn’t have both.

Speaker systems have, historically, always beenthe most highly colored players in audio’s chain ofcomponents. Each has its own quite distinctive per-sonality – a concatenation of character “traits” thatinteract in surprising and quite often flattering ways

HP’S WORKSHOP • 135

W O R K S H O P

The Wisdom Audio M-75: A Planar/Magnetic Hybrid System

with those parts of the chain that precede the speaker.Let me come at this from another perspective:

Consider the speaker as the narrator of the audio sys-tem. The teller of the tale. The question thenbecomes: How reliable is this Scheherazade? Wehave accepted, in principle, the notion that the nar-rator should tell the truth and nothing but, like theFair Witness in Robert A. Heinlein’s Stranger in aStrange Land. But do we ever know better: Speakersystems have been wildly unreliable narrators sincethe dawn of recorded sound.

You might attribute their lack of reliability,analogistically, to each speaker’s individual biases,i.e., their own set of highly idiosyncratic “character”tics and traits, much like those that separate youfrom me, they from you, and each from the other.We might further analogize these as bendings of thetruth, rather like the warps and weaves of imperfectwindow glass, which can make it sticky going whenyou’re trying to see clearly what the “characters” ofthe things on the other side of the window are real-ly like. The inherent sounds of any other compo-nents in the system are thus subject to the speaker’sinterpretations of the truths the other elements aretrying to tell. (Imagine someone who doesn’t likeyou trying to write your biography, or someone whodoes like you smearing the preserves on thickly witha knife.)

The best designers in the field and their enviablebrethren, the most commercially successful, haveover time devised narrators that tell a good story, not

necessarily one that is truth, but one that is emo-tionally and maybe aesthetically satisfying. Theseare the stories that all of us, as audiophiles, havegrown up on and incorporated into our way of per-ceiving reproduced sound in the home. Thus, wehave swallowed the hook with the fish. In otherwords, the speaker systems we cherish tell the mostalluring lies. Or selected half-truths, as in, say, a sys-tem like the early Quad electrostatic. Isn’t the Devilthe master of the selectively told truth?

It took us a long while to rule out a serious inter-action between the M-75 system and the amplifiersthat drive this two-way system. And given that thesystem has an electronic “brain” filled with ICs(some are op-amps), we cannot be certain, beyond areasonable doubt as they say in jurisprudence land,that there is not some potential for mischief here.But, as the Red Queen said, verdict first, evidencelater. The verdict: If there is a more neutral trans-ducer (top to bottom) commercially available in themarketplace, I haven’t heard it. And in all probabil-ity, this system could be made even better.

I

The Adrenaline M-75 is one of three modelsmanufactured by Wisdom Audio, a CarsonCity, Nevada, company. There is a smaller

one-piece (per side) version of the speaker, the M-


50, and a more upscale version called the“Adrenaline Rush” that has a much larger wooferarray than the M-75, and an extensively hand-tweaked midrange/tweeter tower. The M-75 costs$38,000 in the lacquer finish we had for evaluation,which, considering that it is large, and imposinglywell-built, sounds like something of a bargain inthe High End speaker sweepstakes. Depending, ofcourse, on how “good” it sounds.

Its main attraction is a 75-inch tall, 1.25-inchwide push-pull planar/magnetic element housed inan infinite-baffle backward-sloping cabinet with aquite narrow footprint. No dipole this.

I’m not going to call this element a “ribbon” andneither should you, since it is similar, in operatingdesign, to other planar units on the market andquite dissimilar from the trickier design of a trueribbon (for example, the tweeter element of the top-of-the-line Magnepan speakers). Earlier versions ofthis planar/magnetic unit were first manufactured inl996 by Bohlender & Graebner, a separate companythat preceded Wisdom and that sold – and still sells– custom-made and dipolar models to other manu-factures (e.g., VMPS and Genesis). Tom Bohlender,the chief honcho, started Wisdom two years ago asthe outlet for a speaker system of his own design.

The M-75 has two woofer cabinets, each contain-ing two heavy-duty under-hung (short voice-coil/longmagnetic gap) 12-inch drivers and a separate elec-tronic “brain” of considerable complexity that allowshim to personally tune both the woofer and planarsections for flattest performance in any room. And tomake sure there are no mistakes, Bohlender himselfcomes with the system to do the tuning.

The system, as you may deduce, must be bi-amplified. Its sensitivity, says Bohlender, is 88 dB at1 watt/1 meter and this means it “likes” power.Situated in Music Room 3 here in Sea Cliff, we foundthat 140 watts (tubed) was the minimum we couldget away with, and then not cleanly on the biggestorchestral peaks played fortissimo. We’re talking 140watts on the midrange/tweeter planars. For the bass,we hooked up the mighty Krell FPB 600 STc, whoselow-frequency performance is little short of stunning,and left it in place throughout the long and nearlyalways revelatory listening sessions. For purposes ofour sanity (such as it is), we kept the cabling as a con-stant, and that means, throughout the days, weeks,and months of testing, we used Nordost Quattrofil(single-ended and balanced) as interconnects, andDavid Blair’s Custom Power Cord Company TopGun HCFi as the power cord for all the amps save theKrell, which comes with its own non-detachable ACcord. The only exceptions to the Nordost rule, other-wise, were a length of Siltech SQ-80 B/G3 XLR cablebetween the digital-to-analog converter (theBurmester 969) and the line stage, along with a sin-gle-ended Forsell Air Reference digital cable betweenthe Burmester 970 CD player and its decoder. Oops,almost forgot – we used the Nordost SPM Referencespeaker cables between the amplifiers and upper andlower sections of the system.

Scot Markwell oversaw Bohlender’s preliminaryset-up. I took over for the last hour and the fine-tun-ing. With one exception, the settings that yielded

the flattest frequency response were those thatsounded best to me. (One of the tricks we learnedalong the way was to keep the rotary controls on the“Brain” either below or at their “0” points, lest weinvoke amplification from the dreaded op-amps.)According to Bohlender’s microphone/meter set-up,that response was flat (within one dB) way out past20 kHz. However, when Bohlender set the systemfor the flattest frequency response at the other end ofthe spectrum, so response could be extended belowcirca 32 Hz, the bottom octave sounded overblown,wobbly, and “plummy” (as the British once werewont to say). To get the bass as taut and articulatedas that I hear in the hall, we had to sacrifice flatresponse in the very bottom octave.

Well, not exactly sacrifice, since, as soon asBohlender left the premises, we installed the CarverSunfire Signature Cube (our old standby when wewant those subterranean rumblings and organ pedalpoints), set to roll off above 30 Hz with a minimalphase angle. You laugh? Four 12-inch woofers equal-ized in two fairly substantial cabinets and we have toadd a $1,995 sub-woofer? Right. At this point, weachieved, by slightly cheating, a truly full-range sys-tem, for about half the cost of several super systemswe have auditioned of late.

II

Now we come to the tricky part. And I shallnot, in the space available, be able to docu-ment the step-by-step progress of our adven-

tures in trying to settle the conundrum this speakerset for us. Just keep in mind: If we had stopped thereviewing process at any point along the way, includ-ing our listenings on the last day before deadline, wewould have been dead wrong about this speaker.

Our first impressions of the system were that itwas a dramatically good reproducer, fully living upto the best advance word we had heard about it, andbelying much of the bad stuff simultaneously circu-lating, some of which was centered on its earlier con-figurations.

Then as now, the Wisdom reproduced the stageupon which the orchestra players sit, and the dimen-sions of that stage, with a precision quite unknownto us. Oddly, the effect was mostly confined to thestage and its shell’s acoustic, not to the ambience ofthe hall itself, where the Nearfield Acoustics’PipeDreams reign supremely and seductively withan almost wrap-around, near-surround effect that istheir chief calling card. By way of contrast, the M-75s reproduced the depth and width of the stagewith a precision that was uncanny, so much so thatevery other speaker system in my experience soundsas if it is adding fake or false depth, a simulation oflayering, rather than distinct rows of players withclearly defined seats (or positions), with “air” andspace to the front, side and rear of each. When other“good” speaker systems present layering, they do somore amorphously, so that you may think, “oh heav-enly Hannah, that depth goes into the back yard,”but is a further kind of depth instead of a farther kind,


in other words, distance you can only guess at, ratherthan feel you can measure.

What am I saying here? Something like this:The M-75 captures the “volume” of the stage itself(not the volume of space of the hall in front of theplayers, which is only ordinarily in evidence, com-pared with the PipeDreams) that is the essence ofcontinuousness. By contrast, when other speaker sys-tems reproduce the soundstage in front of the mikes,they impressionistically create strands of depth, lay-ered, but somehow separated (as in strands) asopposed to being part of a continuous texture, notonly folded but wrinkled in time/space. (Watch out,here comes another analogy: Suppose you imaginethe players on a rubbery stretchable material, like aballoon’s surface, versus the players in fixed positionson a genuine wooden floor of fixed dimensions.)

One startling consequence of this fixity of stag-ing and imaging is that orchestral instruments,given a minimally miked recording, stay the samesize and are not subject to the yo-yo dieting effectthat seems to occur in the interface between otherspeaker/amplifier combinations. What this means isthat when played loud, the instrument doesn’t getbigger – but its soundfield does. Given that, arecording, like Dave Wilson’s of Debussy Sonata forViolin and Piano (played here on the cello), gains real-ism from the focused and consistent size of bothinstruments. And when the cellist rocks aroundsideways, you hear this instead of a bulging too-close-to-the-mike effect. [Wilson W-8722. Find it;

it’s worth the search.] More fascinating yet, thepiano, such a living bitch to record, is so exactlypositioned that you can tell, even without referenceto Wilson’s notes, which way it is oriented.(Hyperion Knight, in his electrifying reading ofStravinsky’s Petrouchka for solo piano, also on Wilson[8313], has, until now, sounded a bit indefinitelypositioned, when it comes to the spatial deploymentof the keyboard. No more. Another recording worththe search.) Even on certain kinds of popular anddance music (“Don’t You Want Me, Baby” [Virgin466-12B, a 45 rpm single] or Propaganda’sMachinery [Virgin/ZTT 12-ZTAS 12]), there is clearpleasure to be taken in the precise construction ofthe sonic soundfield, where the dimensions of depth,width, and placement are manipulated for maxi-mum emotional effect. Maybe not absolute, but oh-so-spectacular in that pancreatic way.

Another aspect of the speaker’s performanceindependent of any of the associated equipment withwhich you use it is the fine-tuned balance betweenthe woofer and the planar units, centered in the 150Hz range. I have no idea what kind of jiggerypookBohlender hath wrought here; the crossover point issonically seamless, although the “character” of thewoofer isn’t quite. But this is no case of a troublingdiscontinuity. The woofers complement, in a waythat interlocks convincingly, the planar/magneticpanels. In listening, one accepts a certain amount ofdifference between the two sections – and notbecause they sound exactly alike, but rather because


each enhances the sound of the other.* For those whothink in conventional design terms, the satisfyingblend I observe here is puzzling, given the proximi-ty of the crossover point to the middle frequencies(that l50 Hz range) and the difference in the materi-als used in the drivers’ construction. Could it be, Ihave come to wonder, that Robert E. Greene in hislust for flat frequency response über alles has a gen-uine point to make? Unlike him, I do not have per-fect pitch and so small frequency deviations, taken aspart of a bigger picture that includes dynamic con-trasts, frequency extension, continuousness, et al.,have never bothered me as much as they do him.

From the start, it wasn’t a question of whetherthe M-75s were neutral – they are startlingly so.What we had to determine was just how neutral.

III

At the outset of testing, the system consisted ofthe Audio Research Reference Two line stage,an early version of the Plinius SA-250 Mk IV

amplifier, and the Burmester CD player and its dig-ital decoder.

After we had recovered from the first rush ofexcitement (that is, hearing the system’s strengths),we began to hear little “peculiarities” and worse,began to find the sound a bit monotonous in itsbland sameness. To add to it, I had received (at myown asking) a long detailed letter from a reader ofstartling perceptivity who had given up on thespeakers because, he thought, after all was said anddone, they just didn’t sound like live music.

I concluded that I was hearing inherent col-orations in the planar/magnetics, colorations notuncommonly found in quasi-ribbon designs like this:a fine-grained sandy texture in the upper midrange;a resonant, broadband frequency emphasis there thatsounded somewhat glazed in texture, with a midbassI decided was not as complementary as I had at firstthought, one that sounded slightly “fat” in the waythat so many woofer designs of years past had (par-ticularly notable in early Infinity “big” speakers).

At this time, one of our reviewers (MikeSilverton), had begun hounding me to see what Ithought of his latest “protégé,” the QuantumSymphony Pro, a kind of metaphysical and upscalesystem “conditioner” whose effects on his WilsonWatt/Puppy Sixes (with Levinson electronics) wassubtle and, as he heard it, a worthy enhancement ofthe musical experience. We had the unit in house, soI decided to take a listen, little realizing that theQuantum was already in the system and that theadventure would be in taking it out.

In the next listening session, I played a few barsof the new Classic Records issues of the Saint-Saëns“Organ” Symphony (the justly famous Munch/BSO


Inside the Brain

Tom Bohlender of Wisdom Audio borders on vehe-mence about the “Active Brain,” the crossover unit

that is the heart of all three speakers in his line-up: The(mandatory) bi-amped systems cannot be correctlyrun without it.

The Brain is an almost infinitely adjustable activedevice. He says that only an active unit is capable ofmaking the speakers “right” in terms of spectral bal-ance and the ability to easily absorb large powerinputs. He believes a passive crossover network wouldentail component saturation and distortion, resulting incompromised performance.

“The Adrenaline Active Brain,” says his literature,“is a fourth-order constant-voltage crossover that pro-vides both low-pass and high-pass outputs. Thecrossover network is implemented as a fourth-orderstate-variable filter. The slope of each output is 24db/octave and, because of the fourth-order design,the high-pass and low-pass outputs are always inphase with each other . . . All . . .crossover work is doneat the low end (sic) preamp level and then distributedto the designated amplifier, which allows for betteramp load preference.”

On the surface, the Brain is similar to the deviceused in the Nearfield PipeDreams speaker system, butthe M-75 Adrenaline unit is more complex andadjustable, able to fine-tune the frequency response ofthe system to individual room acoustics and the sonicpreferences of the owner.

Inside the chassis, one finds bank after bank ofdipswitches used to effect the changes needed for theset up of the Adrenaline M-75s. These control the inte-grated circuits (which are basically just resistor-capaci-tor arrays) that make up most of the active part of theBrain. Bohlender says that, for the planar portion, thereare three banks of adjustment per channel, with 12switches per bank. For the bass region, there are sixbanks per channel, each with 12 switches. For fine-tuning of the crossover region, there are another twobanks of 12 per channel.

Bohlender gave me a simplified explanation ofhow this tuning circuit works: Each dipswitch turns aresistor in the ICs on or off. Most of the time, themajority of the switches are off. When one is activated,it causes a resistor on the shunt side of the circuit to“pull” on a capacitor via a predetermined voltage dropto effectively cause the cap to change value, thus alter-ing the frequency response in the discrete band of thatswitch’s domain. The signal, meanwhile, does nothave to travel through any extra parts to “feel” this tun-ing; the altering of the cap’s value by shunting it to aresistor effects the slight equalization needed.

In toto, there are almost 10,000 possible settings,but Bohlender says he rarely uses more than 200-300. Still, this is more than a handful for most of us,and is why Bohlender sets up every system he sells. Iwatched him do this at HP’s with a microphone and apink-noise generator-equipped real-time analyzer foralmost eight hours. He had to repeatedly refer to athick sheaf of papers to make sure that he was hittingthe right switches for the changes he wished to effect.

* Such is an example of one of those byways, about which youmay wish to speculate. Is there perhaps some merit to the idea ofnot matching woofers and the upper range in a hybrid system, butrather aiming for a kind of complementary set of colorations that locktogether so well that they synergistically make the more convincingwhole?

recording), then asked Markwell to take theQuantum out. And put it back in. And take it out.Not that the repetition was necessary; without theQuantum, the most flagrant colorations simplydisappeared. What I had thought to be planar/magnetic colorations, the pseudo-ribbon “sound,”was mostly gone, and the midbass was appreciablytightened.

I am not talking subtleties here. The differenceswere plainly, dramatically evident. I had beenexpecting “subtlety.” Zip that.

I still thought the reissue left something to bedesired, for, among other things, the highs weren’tquite as I remembered, being a bit hot and solid-stately on the strings and high percussion, with thetight cymbal crashes, in particular, spraying insteadof sounding almost “cupped,” with little or no decaytail. The player can make them “spray” by hittingthem off each other, or by hitting them softly andhead on, he can give them a fireworks-like cuppingsound. (Imagine, if you will, clapping your handswhen they are cupped, as opposed to smacking thempast each other, palms flat.) As I had before I waslaying the blame on the speaker. It was clear therewas a narrow spike of some kind involved and Ithought it was occurring at the point where the highfrequencies (not around 5 kHz as I had surmised,but close to 7 kHz) came in.* By chance, we had just

become the temporary heirs of a $2,500 all-tube linestage from Deutschland, the Audiovalve Eklipse,which, for the cat’s curiosity’s sake, we decided tosubstitute for the Audio Research.

Pause for reflection: We in the business of writ-ing reviews often find ourselves hung out to dry bythe very phrases and clichés we use almost withoutthinking. You know the sort I’m talking about: “Inever knew it could be like this” (meaning: “I neverknew the record could sound like this, all that detail,all those inner voices”), or “I stayed up all night lis-tening to my new Bose speakers,” or “it brought mecloser to the music itself,” or “it was like a windowthrough which I could listen back to the original.”That these phrases, the Bose excluded (substitutesomething more likely), describe real listening expe-riences isn’t what I find annoying. It’s the fact thatwe have all used such clichés to excess, leaving uswithout an original turn of phrase when the experi-ences described in such clichés take on a new impactand intensity. To borrow a visual analogy, the differ-ence was like that between standard television andwidescreen High Definition Television. That obvi-ous, yes. And not completely flattering to theAudiovalve. The differences were as distinctive andeasily distinguishable as the sound of the voices ofpeople close to us. Distinctive, and as if highlighted,as in sky written. In Issue 123, Jonathan Valin (p.83) had, after some listening, nailed the sound theWisdoms revealed instantly. He wrote: “With theexception of a bit of reticence in the very top treble


*There are six aluminum wires running much of the length of the panels,two of them dedicated, via a shunt, to the top two octaves.

and just a slight bit of added energy (typical forARC) in the upper midband...this is the mostdynamically neutral preamp ARC has made in manya moon” and “only in the very deep bass...does theRef 2 sound a bit out of whack, a bit overgenerousand undefined” which he describes as a “slightly big-gish deep bass.” (Not that I remembered his exactwords; truth to tell, I had forgotten them until wecompared notes.)

When I made the switch with the Audiovalve, Iheard instantly what JV had been talking about.Those cymbals (near the beginning of Side Two ofthe Munch/BSO disc) weren’t tightly “cupped” butsprayed, evidence of that narrow spike, one thatadded glamour to the sound and a bit of extradynamic “snap,” but also obscured the slight roll-offin the top-most highs he describes. Ditto for thebottom bass (say below 50 Hz to about 30), which isbigger than life, and acts as a disguise for a loss ofenergy in the bottom octave, also making the 30 to50 Hz range sound less than finely articulated.

By contrast, the Audiovalve was flat down intothe very bottom octave, with considerable definitionand articulation (listen to the massed strings at thebeginning of Mehta’s traversal of Holst’s “Saturn”from The Planets, Decca SXL 6529) and it got thefast transient cymbal attacks just right on the Saint-Saëns, allowing its top end, which I found justslightly dark and closed in, to be heard. The Eklipsemaintained tight control over the decay tail of thosetransients. Alas, the Audiovalve was audibly shy ofthe kind of dynamic blossoming and impact of theARC, sounding restrained in a way that made youwant to turn the thing up to get more “impact.”

One more small substitution that afternoon beganto convince me that the M-75s were so decidedly neu-tral that they allowed each preceding part of the sys-tem to speak at full voice. The Eklipse came with brassfeet padded on the bottom with soft felt. We put theNordost Pulsar Point isolation devices (the titaniumversion) under the chassis and, behold, the dynamicfootprint of the tubed line stage sharply improved.

And if that comparison was a shock, the laterinsertion of the Plinius M-16 line stage provided abigger one: We went from the dark to light and neu-tral, from the dynamically somewhat compressed todynamics with the swagger and vigorousness of thereal thing. The Plinius had a low frequency alivenessand “authority” alien to the Audiovalve and the RefTwo. The M-16, like all Plinius products we hadpreviously auditioned, wasn’t entirely “cooked”when we substituted it into the system, so a top-octave softness and fine grain were there. And heard,need I add, with perfect clarity and zero ambiguity.(Such, I have both been told by those veterans of thePlinius warm-up wars and learned for myself withother Plinius components, would disappear in duecourse.) Even the difference between Nordost alu-minum Pulsars and their titanium ones took me bysurprise, and hardly had I recovered from that thanCharles Hansen of Ayre Acoustics showed up withsmall isolation blocks made of wood, which soundedyet again different and distinctively so through theWisdom system.


Clearly this is not a system that can be set up by anaverage owner. Bohlender has begun to train dealersin this procedure, but for the moment he is the LoneRanger for this critical portion of the installation.

According to the literature, the set-up and adjust-ment of the Brain involves several steps. First, bothchannels’ controls must be set to their initial startingpoints. There are four adjustments for each channel:The damping control raises and lowers the volume ofthe Planar driver and the LFR (Low FrequencyRegenerator) in the vicinity of the crossover point, nor-mally around 125-250 Hz (this effectively adds or sub-tracts vocal chestiness and perceived “roundness” ofinstrumental sounds), and is set to 0 dB; the Qb con-trol knob, which affects how tight or loose and howdeep and visceral the bass response from the LFRs willbe and allows a bit of adjustment to rooms and con-ditions, is initially set to a value of .55; the Planar andLFR knobs control the amount of gain/output levels ofthe planar magnetic driver and the low-frequencyunits, respectively, and are set to “Zero” to start. Attheir 0 positions or below, the Planar and LFR controlsdo not add gain to the system and are totally passive.Bohlender advocates never raising the level of eitherpast 0 unless the amplifiers in use are so mismatchedin sensitivity or power rating that adding active gain isnecessary to bring the system into proper balance. Opamps in the crossover are used to add this gain ifneeded, but the cleanest signal path is maintained ifthey are not invoked.

Next, Bohlender begins to examine the in-roomresponse at the listening position. As he looks at thepink noise trace on the RTA, he uses the adjustablesettings to achieve his desired in-room response.Generally he likes to set the system up so that theresponse at the listening position is slightly rising from30 to 15 Hz (for best low-end impact), then as flat aspossible from 30 Hz out to about 5 kHz. At this point,he likes to shelve down the response 1-2 dB andmaintain flat response out to 20 kHz. Here the banksof dip switches come into play, and are activated asneeded to smooth the response of the system.Bohlender also includes a 3-position toggle switch onthe rear of each tower that may be used, once systemsetup has been finalized, to alter the output of thespeakers between 10 kHz and 20 kHz; the centerposition is deemed to be “normal” with neither boostnor cut; the “up” position adds a 2 dB boost, and the“down” position makes a 2 dB cut. This allows somemild tailoring of the highs without futzing aroundinside the Brain.

When the results are properly achieved, one canthen substitute amplifiers for either the low- or high-frequency sections with only minor alterations to theBrain’s level controls, which we did throughout thereview period (actually we used the Krell FPB 600 STcamp for the bass throughout the testing and tried anumber of other amps, both tubed and solid-state, forthe planar magnetic panels).

Bohlender says that the M-75 system exhibits aparticularly benign, purely resistive load of about 4.8ohms to the amp driving the planar portion and either3 or 12 ohms to that driving the bass, depending on

continued on page 143

It took us awhile to get our collective feet on theground where the amplification was concerned. Andwe were tempted to tear down the road toward amore critical and general assessment of the interfaceproblems that characterize the mating of amplifiersand speaker systems – but that was, as a prof used tosay to me in college, “Not within the scope of thiscourse, Mr. Pearson.” Um-huh.

During the set-up procedure, Scot Markwell,who had intended to use the high-powered Atma-Sphere MA 2 Mk II O(utput) T(ransformer) L(ess)amps, found an incompatibility that had us lookingfor possible reactance problems with the towers.After some little research, we found that the imped-ance of our particular pair of towers ran at 4.8 ohms,with a .5 to .8-ohm dip at the 7-kHz transition tothe top octaves. (For the resolution of this, seeMarkwell’s sidebar to this essay.)

I am leaving out, as I said I would at the outset,many of the interim steps as we tried one componentafter another to see if we could determine the degreeof neutrality of the system. And we worked with thesix high-powered amplifiers we had on hand.

If you didn’t push it, the Innersound ESL amp,designed to work with electrostatic speakers, sound-ed unusually pure and sweet (thus, quite, quitemusic-like) and had it had a power supply largeenough to accommodate the intense demands wemade upon its output, it might well have ranked ator close to the top of the list. But push it we did, andtoward or into clipping, it fell apart, seemingly

transposing the entire weight of the frequency rangeupward and into hard clipping (like jangling, ice-coated piano wires). Hansen’s Ayre Electronics V-1xamplifier drove the speaker beautifully, but sounded,to these ears, a bit opaque in the upper middle fre-quencies. Listening with us, Hansen heard a grainstructure in the system that we were hard-pressed todetect, until I realized the contact points throughthe entire assemblage of components hadn’t beencleaned. As soon as this was done (after Hansen wentback to Colorado), that “grain” was entirely gone.Zero problems with another Audiovalve, the Baldur140 wpc, class-A monoblock tube amps, save for theneed for slightly more (3 dB?) output to accommo-date the murderous HP power-music tests. Twoamps performed flawlessly on the system: thePlinius SA-250 IV (which we did not test at length,preferring to await the arrival of a current produc-tion model) and the new Edge NL-10 amplifier,which sounded like, but better than, the bestGoldmund electronics I’ve heard (none, I must add,of recent vintage) and also like the Spectral M-360,which I wish I had been able to keep on hand as areference, so pure was its sound.

One of the jerkazoid things I did during thetesting was to abandon my reference (full-featured)preamplifier, the Burmester 808 Mk V, which,inserted into the system during the final days of test-ing, popped the competition in virtually everyrespect. I came away with new respect for its perfor-mance and it allowed me to hear into the Edge in a


way that was revelatory (but don’t think I’m givingaway all my findings just yet). Along the way, weincreasingly listened to LPs on the ClearaudioMaster Reference turntable with the Lyra HelikonMC cartridge and ran through a number of phonostages, starting with the Aesthetix Io, which hasserved as a reference for some time, moving to aBritish-made solid-state unit, The Groove (at$2,400 a steal, but one that could be bettered witha 47 k/ohm load for moving-coil cartridges, insteadof the 1 k/ohm load supplied with the unit). Youmoving-coil folks will know what loading down agreat cartridge will do – and these listening testsproved the Helikon is more than a match for itsyounger sister, the limited-edition Evolve 99reviewed in these pages some time back – and thatis shear off the high-end air and bloom, which canleave the Wisdoms sounding bland and boring.Finally, we moved back to the Io, and then, just forkicks, the moving-coil stage in the Burmester.Another revelation. By contrast, the Io introducedwhat sounded like a mist into all the spaces of thesoundstage – which made something approaching amuddle of the quartet and choral group on thePergolesi Magnificat [Argo ZRG 505], a recordingthat, reproduced well, is one of the most thrilling tohear (but difficult to play back cleanly with correcttimbral differentiations of each section of the choir).With the Burmester back in the system, the vocalquartet stood out against the choir, as it hadn’t withthe Io, and the boy sopranos acquired that uniquetimbre that can give you the shivers when they aresinging way up high and above a mezzoforte.

The Burmester/Edge combination, on thisspeaker, brought the system to life. Some compo-nent combinations, played back through the M-75,made it sound not only lifeless, but far removedfrom sonic reality, as a run-through of Brad Miller’sthunder and lightning storm [on The Power and theMajesty, Mobile Fidelity MFSL 004] had depressing-ly demonstrated.

I decided that the system was a wonderfulreviewer’s tool, but it didn’t make me want to listento music. And on that note, this review, in its firstdraft, would have originally ended, with me waf-fling because I knew I should have more than justrespect for it if it were the reliable narrator I hadfound it to be.

IV

During these extended listening sessions, I had,at one point, substituted the Danish Gamutamplifier (as close to a single-ended solid-state

device as you can get, with its single MosFET out-put per channel). Before the Wisdom system hadarrived, I had done enough listening to this amplifi-er to recognize it as one of the great ones, with anunheard-of fidelity to the contours of a music event.To me, it took solid-state design to a new level ofachievement. But when I first inserted it into thesystem, I didn’t take care to adjust the output of thetweeters to match the sensitivity of the amp and


whether the woofers are wired in parallel or series.This implies that the system should be adaptable to afairly wide range of amplifiers, depending on one’ssonic preferences, and indeed this seems to be so.

The one exception we observed in Sea Cliff is thatif we try to use the tubed Atma-Sphere MA 2 Mk IIOTLs, the treble energy above about 7 kHz is shelveddown several dB relative to the rest of the spectrum.1

To use the Atma-Spheres, the Brain would have to bere-set in a somewhat different pattern than for mostsolid-state and transformer-coupled tube amps. Ifdialed-in for the Atma-Spheres (and probably otherOTLs as well), we could not use non-OTL amps with-out resetting the Brain’s dipswitches (a major under-taking), but at least the flexibility is there.

SCOT MARKWELL

1 There is a slight wrinkle in the main driver’s portion of theimpedance “curve,” in that each set of planar magnetic driversthat Bohlender assembles into a system are individually adjust-ed to achieve the proper balance between the main portion ofthe drive element (which uses four conductive aluminumtraces), and the high frequency portion at the center of eachdriver (which uses 2 traces; Bohlender refers to this area as the“Smart” portion of the driver, meaning that he manages tomake it behave as if it were a dedicated, separate element,when it is, in fact, physically part of the same driver). At 7000Hz, where the “Smart” portion takes over, the impedance ofthe driver can (depending on the individual drivers’ manufac-turing tolerances) drop just a little (.5-.8 ohms between 7 kHzand 8 kHz), thus causing an OTL design such as the Atma-Sphere to have a slight power response droop, causing theshelving down of apparent response referred to above.

BACK ISSUESFor availability,

please visit


or send your orders

directly to

[email protected]

thus had a mismatch that sounded unpleasantenough to cause us to dwell on the amp/speaker mis-match problem, which, thanks to episodes like this(during the early sessions), we thought more impor-tant than it later turned out to be.

I am not suggesting that finding an amplifierthat allows the speaker to show its stuff isn’t impor-tant. It is critical. The Wisdom speakers, in mostshowrooms and demo set-ups, are going to sounddisappointing, possibly even atrocious, with thewrong gear further up the audio chain. And thespeakers will be blamed.

At the end of the tests, we gave the Gamutanother whirl, this time, taking care to match theplanar units’ output to the amps’ output. I dug deepinto my record collection (the last several weeks oflistening were done exclusively with LPs) to find oldfavorites, long unplayed, including that magnificentArgo recording of Pergolesi’s Magnificat (the perfecttest of how the electronics will decode both solo andmassed voices, from baritones up to boy sopranos)and the wondrous Three Worlds of Gulliver from TheFantasy Film World of Bernard Herrmann [Decca PFS4309]. (The Burmester 808 was on the front end,being fed by the Clearaudio Reference arm/table, setup with the Helikon cartridge.)

And the speaker not only came exploding (okay,overstatement, but that was the subjective effect) tolife, but the veil that had seemed to be there duringthe early weeks of the testing was nowhere in evi-dence, and the entire instrumental and vocal ensem-

bles had that quality of “thereness” rare in any audioexperience. The Gamut actually reminded Markwellof the best in triode amplification, while to me it didall the things that tubes do, without any evidenttube-like footprint, and had the clarity and trans-parency of the best solid-state. Indeed, this was thefirst time the system exhibited real transparency,knocking me off the fence and making me want tospend time just listening to music for the fun of it.

This said, I am still troubled by the complexityof the “Brain” and by its reliance on devices that arethought to be, by general consensus, inherently lessthan state-of-the-art. Which occasions the thoughtthat the Wisdom Audio system might be signifi-cantly improved upon. And in its “AdrenalineRush” model, the “Brain” is considerably more com-plex and sophisticated in its design.

We are not able, at this point, to speculate aboutthe true potential of this system, or the sound of itsbigger and much more expensive brother. On theface of it, there would seem to be room for growth.But, one may ask, exactly how much of its present“character” is the fault of the speaker itself and howmuch the fault of the gear in front of it? TheBurmester/Gamut combination shows the speaker atits very best, but how many such combinations arewe – or more specifically, you – going to find thatwill bring out that best?

The M-75 has to be turned up (unlike some ofthe electrostatics we’ve tested, notably the Beveridgeof yore and the modified Quad ESL-63s) to create its


full effect. Its resolution does not, like so many ofthe early Magneplanar units, extend deeply into thepianissimos of the sound, though with the Gamut(particularly on the Herrmann and on theRCA/BMG “hp” CD of Mahler’s Third withLeinsdorf and the BSO), it goes further into thepianissimos than I had thought possible. If I had tocall a shot on an overall coloration, particularly ofthe planar unit, I’d say it is slightly to the tan sideof neutral and of this I’m fairly certain. There is akind of very low-level texture hard to hear and hard-er yet to describe that may well originate in theBrain and may slightly “veil” the lowest level infor-mation, unless you crank it.

I believe the Wisdom M-75 to be perhaps,metaphorically speaking, an order of magnitudelower in overall coloration than virtually any otherspeaker. Simultaneously, I believe, on the basis ofpurely observational listening, that it also is, in part,an unreliable narrator in somewhat compressinglow-level dynamics and in its hard-to-describe“character.” (I have no idea how one would “mea-sure” such degrees of coloration, hence, the wordmetaphorically.)

Given the “right” amplifier, this can be a dreamspeaker, as our late listening finally demonstrated.And the price is right. Up until the tail-end of lis-tening, I thought the choice here for those interest-ed in the M-75 would be between a colorful simula-tion of the real thing from a less truthful speaker ora more neutral, if somewhat unlifelike, approach tothe absolute. But in fact, if you are willing to bearwith it and search out the components that give youwhat you conceive as the closest replica of what wecall the absolute, then this is one of the few systemsjust may, like Scheherazade, thrill you for a thousandand one nights.


Wisdom Audio

3140 Research Way, Suite 72, Carson City, Nevada 89706

Phone: (775) 887-8850; fax: (775) 887-8820

[email protected]

www.wisdomaudio.com

Serial Numbers: M75-2006/D12-2006


Price: $38,000/set in lacquer (as tested); $42,000/set in veneer

&


Christy Baron: Steppin’. Christy Baron,vocals; Didier Rachou, arrangements. DidierRachou and David Chesky, producers; BarryWolifson, engineer. Chesky JD201

Clark Terry: One on One. Clark Terry, trum-pet; various soloists. David Chesky, producer;Barry Wolifson, engineer. Chesky JD198

“To me, standards aren’t standardsbecause they’re from a certain

era. They’re standards because they’resongs that people enjoy on a regularbasis. They’re the popular songs oftheir day.” Thus Christy Baron on theconcept behind Steppin’, her secondalbum for Chesky and one that’s beenspending an inordinate amount oftime in my CD player of late. I use theword “concept” deliberately, becauseBaron honors the Sinatra tradition ofrelating the individual numbers the-matically and/or stylistically, finding away to make songs such as “Mer-cy Street” (for me, the album’s hypnot-ic highpoint), “Tomorrow NeverKnows,” “Thieves in the Temple,”“This Must Be Love,” and “Delays onthe Downtown Six,” cohabit so har-moniously you’d never guess theyspan almost four decades. (Only theotherwise always welcome “Shadow ofYour Smile,” done quite nicely, seemsout of place here.) The arrangementsare all what, for want of a better word,I’ll call “jazz”; but with so many cross-currents and influences, includingpop, R&B, electronics, fusion, evenTuvan throat-singing and traces ofIndian music, the results are prettymuch unclassifiable. Which suggestspastiche, but Baron and her arrangerDidier Rachou somehow manage tobind it all together with an integrityall its own, and a sound that evokestwilit cityscapes and night scenes ofcontemporary urban life in shades of

blue and magenta with neon flashes ofpink and yellow. Baron’s exceptionallypretty, reed-like voice finds a perfectcomplement in Rachou’s instrumenta-tion, which is intoxicating in its com-bination of timbres and colors (includ-ing a rainstick and who knows whatother percussion); and the reproduc-tion is typical of Chesky’s “HighResolution Technology” at its best –which is to say, about as good as it gets.

The sonics on Clark Terry: One onOne may be even better in tactilevividness, transparency, and holo-graphic immediacy; and you couldcalibrate your system with this onebecause the instruments are acoustic.I began with the sound for conve-nience of transition, but the musicdeserves the primary attention. Terryperforms scintillating duets with 14distinguished jazz pianists, each dueta tribute to a jazz hero of the soloistinvolved. These include MontyAlexander, Tommy Flanagan, EricReed, Marian McPartland, SirRolland Hanna, and Eric Lewis, whiletributees range from Blake andTatum to Ellington and Monk.

Definitely a pair to draw to, these.PAUL SEYDOR

Ravel: Piano Concerto in G. Rachmaninoff:Piano Concerto No. 4 in G Minor. ArturoBenedetti Michelangeli, piano. PhilharmoniaOrchestra, Ettore Gracis, conductor. PeterAndy, producer; Christopher Parker, engi-neer. EMI 67258

This is one of the most remarkablerecordings ever made. Since its

first release in 1958, as one of the firstAngel stereo recordings in this coun-try, it has never been out of the EMIcatalog. It has been shifted to variousbudget labels but now really gets its

due in the Great Recordings of theCentury series.

Much has been written of pianistMichelangeli’s odd life and his reluc-tance to record owing to his perfec-tionist nature. The Ravel is exacting,but luminous as well. There is not anote out of place in the openingmovement, yet the mood is saucy andsultry, insinuating jazz without actu-ally ever breaking into it. The slowmovement is one of the most beauti-ful instrumental arias ever created,and Michelangeli suspends themelody over a gently undulating left-hand figure, then accompanies thewinds with shimmering, complimen-tary figures. The last movement is adazzling, virtuoso romp for piano andorchestra that finds soloist and con-ductor in unusually tight rapport.

The Rachmaninoff is often con-sidered the least of that composer’sfour works in the concerto form, butMichelangeli and Gracis make itsound like the best. There are noapologies for the nervous figure thatstarts the opening movement or thearch romanticism of the piece, as eachdramatic fragment of voluptuousmelody is treated as if it were the onlyone. The finale blazes with fire andcontrolled abandon.

THE MUSIC • 147

SOUNDS ABSOLUTE

The recording, one of the firstAngel early stereo, releases here, didnot sound good. Later pressingssounded better, indicating that themastertape was good. The new ARTprocessing used on this CD revealssound that is highly detailed, yet richand full. The stage depth is good, thestereo separation excellent, the balanceof piano to orchestra nearly perfect.There are so many incredible audiomoments that they would take toomuch space, but there is a place goinginto the cadenza in the first movementof the Ravel where the harp, which isplaced back in the orchestra, accompa-nies the foreground piano with rip-pling figures. Though the instrumentsare heard with distance between them,each has a presence and roundness thatis completely natural. What an engi-neering triumph! If this recording isnot in your collection, it ought to be.

RAD BENNETT

Rome’s Golden Poets. The Saint LouisChamber Chorus; Philip Barnes, conductor.Barry Hufker, engineer; Philip Barnes, MarthaShaffer, producers. SLCC05

Latin, it has been said, is a dead lan-guage. An ability to read it or

speak it won’t help you ask directionsor order dinner – not in Rome, Italy orRome, New York. But the language isvery much alive, of course, even fol-lowing its curtailment in CatholicChurch services a generation ago. Itlives on as the basis of the Romancelanguages (and much of English) andsurvives in the poetry and prose thatare part of the bedrock of Western lit-erature. It should come as no surprisethat composers have long beeninspired by this material. But I’ve notbefore encountered a program as bril-liantly conceived and executed asRome’s Golden Poets.

Philip Barnes is perhaps uniquelyqualified to lead this collection of acappella settings of Latin verse. Born inManchester, Barnes was trained in theEnglish cathedral choral tradition, per-forming and recording with suchensembles as the Consort of St.Martins-in-the-Fields and John Rut-ter’s Cambridge Singers. He is also aClassics scholar and left Great Britainin the late 1980s to take a teachingposition in the American Midwest. Formore than a decade, Barnes has beenArtistic Director of the Saint LouisChamber Chorus, a semi-professionalgroup active since 1956. The SLCCperforms six subscription concerts

annually; Rome’s Golden Poets repro-duces the content of a program fromthe 1998-1999 season.

Barnes presents two dozen choralsettings of Latin texts by Catullus,Virgil, and Horace, spanning more than500 years, though most of the musicdates from the Sixteenth and TwentiethCenturies. (The odd-man-out here isthe one Romantic composer, PeterCornelius, who was a buddy of RichardWagner.) Wonderfully, the programjumps from one period to another, asthe SLCC sings music by Jacob Handl(1550-1591) then by Randall Thomp-son (1899-1984), or moves from a pieceby the visionary Renaissance composerJosquin Des Prez to one from a livingBrazilian, José Antônio de AlmeidaPrado. Such transitions seem especiallymiraculous – and not in the least jarring– as the tone, mood, and vocal texture ofthe modern pieces are often strikinglysimilar to those of the earlier ones. Atthe outset of Gian-Francesco Malipiero’sexquisite Passer Mortuus Est, there’s noobvious clue to what era we’re in as thework opens with a single line in thetenor voice – it’s only when a secondpart joins in that more recent intervalicrelationships declare themselves. In oneinstance, we hear settings of the samepoetry by four composers, an excerptfrom Virgil’s Æneid – Dido’s orationbefore she kills herself. Not everythingis serious business: The CD closes witha version of “Old MacDonald Had aFarm.” In Latin, of course. Texts areprovided with English translations.

The Saint Louis Chamber Chorushas 45 members, but they sing withthe agility and refinement of a muchsmaller group, especially in subtlemodulations of dynamics. Phrases areartfully shaped and diminuendos enmasse can be breathtaking. Articula-tion is precise and intonation excel-lent. This is choral singing of thehighest order.

It’s an audiophile cliché to exultthat one can pick out individual voic-es in a choir. Well, this is not the expe-


rience I hope to have at a real perfor-mance – if I do, I’m sitting too close,or someone’s singing too loudly. In lifeor on a fine recording, one gets a senseof individual voices comprising agroup, blending coherently. That’sjust what this disc delivers. Rome’sGolden Poets was recorded in the sanc-tuary of the Third Baptist Church ofSt. Louis by Barry Hufker, who has hisown small company. Hufker used twospaced omnis – a pair of B & K 4006solid-state condenser microphones.The A/D converter was a Symetrix620 (a 20-bit unit). The performanceswere encoded on a Macintosh Centris610 computer with a 4-gigabit harddrive, and stored in 24-bit SoundDesigner (Digidesign) data files.Hufker told me he prefers this format“because of the greater error correctioncapability computer systems have overtape-based digital recorders.” Thesonic results are impressive. The lis-tener can easily follow individual linesin this often-polyphonic music.Dynamically, the recording is justright: The softest singing is quiteintelligible and loud sections don’tbecome hooty, shouty, or in any wayunpleasant. The sound has bothimmediacy and great ease. Sibilantsdon’t annoy.*

This CD won’t be in retail storesoutside the St. Louis area, but can beobtained from the SLCC (P.O. Box11558 Clayton, Missouri 63105.Phone: (636) 458-4343 or go to thewebsite: www.iwc.com/slcc).

ANDREW QUINT

* HP, on his system, was not impressedwith the sonics of this recording.

Mahler: Symphony No. 2 in C Minor“Resurrection.” Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, sopra-no; Hilde Rössel-Majdan, mezzo-soprano.Philharmonia Chorus, Wilhelm Pitz, ChorusMaster. Philharmonia Orchestra, OttoKlemperer, conductor. Walter Legge, WalterJellinek, Suvi Raj Grubb, producers; DouglasLarter, Robert Gooch, Francis Dillnutt, engi-neers. EMI 67255

There are sections in the MehtaVienna Philharmonic and Walter

New York Philharmonic recordings ofthis work that I would not want to bewithout, but were I sentenced to adesert island and could take onerecording of the Mahler 2nd, thiswould be the one. Seldom has arecording had so much going for it.There is Klemperer, of course, who

leads an exacting, propulsive, yetexceptionally lyrical reading thatavoids cutesy, folk effects and conveysa profound, spiritual sense of mysteryand wonder. The chorus was the one ofthe greatest in the world at that time.Its singing of the unaccompanied“Aufersteh’n, ja aufersteh’n wirst du” inthe last movement is one of the mostmagical moments in the history ofrecording. This section is capped bySchwarzkopf’s floating high soprano,incredibly beautiful, as is her singingthroughout. The mezzo-soprano solosare almost equally well sung, and thePhilharmonia Orchestra plays like theworld-class ensemble it was, its play-ers, individually and collectively,turning in one astonishing momentafter another.

The American LPs sounded awful.I had a four-track reel-to-reel tape,which more accurately represented theglories of the mastertape. But nothingI have heard prepared me for the won-der of this new ART CD! This perfor-mance now sounds like one of themost wonderful recordings ever madeof anything, anywhere. It has detail inabundance and every instrument, nearor far, has correct presence. The stagedepth is so realistic, you can close youreyes and find yourself in its venue,Kingsway Hall. When the trumpetjoins in counterpoint to the sopranosolo in the last movement, Schwarz-kopf is right in front of the conductor,the trumpet back stage right, and theviolins enter left ever so slightly infront of the singer. You can feel thespace between these performers, yetyou know it was not put there by amixer – it is the living space there atthe session! The offstage effects aremagical, and the full chorus andorchestra in the finale make a blendthat is rich, full, and clear. This is notonly a great recording of this master-piece, it is one of the best recordingsever made.

RAD BENNETT

THE MUSIC • 149

Louis Armstrong: Satchmo Plays King Oliver.Armstrong, trumpet, vocal; Peanuts Hucko,clarinet; Trummy Young, trombone; Billy Kyle,piano; Mort Herbert, bass; Danny Barcelona,drums. (No production credits.) AudioFidelity/Classic Records (LP) ST-91058

H ere’s the sort of product that shouldearn Classic Records a medal. Satchmo

Plays King Oliver was recorded in the fall of1959 – they heyday of early stereo – and,had it come out on Columbia, it would bean enduring favorite in the Armstrongcatalog. Had it been released on RCA orMercury, it would be roundly hailed asone of the best-sounding jazz albums ofits time. Instead, it was made by AudioFidelity, a small, gimmick-laden label(one of its most notorious jazz LPs fea-tured a Benny Golson band on the leftchannel and a Wayne Shorter group onthe right channel – two, two! LPs in one);it’s been out of print for decades and neverappeared on CD. Now Classic, the LA-based audiophile label, has reissued it on a180-gram slab of vinyl – and, as a bonus,has pressed two of its songs on an LP-sizedalbum cut at 45 rpm. Either way, it’s atreasure.

Pops appears here with his regularquintet of the day, playing from thesongbook of Joe “King” Oliver, thebandleader who gave him his start backin New Orleans in the Twenties. It musthave seemed old-hat at the time –Ornette Coleman was laying downChange of the Century that same month –but, seen in the vast retrospect of jazzhistory, it too deserves a cherished place.

The music is infectiously lively, andthe sound is just extraordinary. In itstime, the album was intended as ademonstration of Telefunken’s MSmicrophones. An informative technicalessay appears on the back cover; the frontcover emblazons the words “A Study inHigh Fidelity Sound,” and so it is. Theclarinet and trombone are particularlyvivid; the air around and between all theplayers is palpable; and, at the start of“St. James Infirmary,” when the bandmournfully sings, “Yeah, yeah, yes-s-s,”you can practically see them in the room.(On the 45rpm, the effect makes youjump out of your chair.) This isn’t thebest late-era Armstrong (for that, seePlays W.C. Handy on Columbia, the fourElla Fitzgerald collaborations on Verve,and portions of the Duke Ellington face-off on Roulette),1 but musically it’s adelight and sonically it’s a wonder.

FRED KAPLAN

1 Reissued as a 96/24 DAD by Classic and, hotoff the presses, as a regular CD (with much previ-ously unissued material) by Blue Note.


Sonny Rollins: Our Man in Jazz. Rollins, tenorsax; Don Cherry, cornet; Bob Cranshaw, bass;Billy Higgins, drums. George Avakian & BobPrince, original producers; Paul Goodman, orig-inal engineer. No reissue credits. RCA/ClassicRecords LSP-2612 (4 single-sided 45rpm LPs)

M any times in these pages, I havetouted Our Man in Jazz as one of

the best live jazz albums ever – and, inits original RCA “shaded-dog” press-ing, the best-sounding. A 33rpm Classicreissue of a few years back beat the orig-inal for bass and dynamics, but fell a bitshort on high-frequency air. Now, withthis new 45rpm version, Classic wins onall counts. This is the only version ofthe recording you need ever hear again.

Rollins recorded it live at theVillage Gate in 1962. Like many musi-cians, he was intrigued with OrnetteColeman’s “new thing,” and hired hiscornetist and drummer for the gig. Thisis adventurous music of the highestorder, Rollins and Cherry trading callsand choruses, Higgins goosing the pacewith his hi-hat. I still remember listen-ing to the album’s 25-minute renditionof “Oleo” for the first time, my jawagape, unable, unwilling, to get up toanswer the phone. Rollins soon backedaway from this direction (though hetoured with the band in Europe the fol-lowing year, captured on the bootleg,Rollins Meets Cherry [Moon Records],and, in ’66, recorded with Coltrane’srhythm section for the even farther-outEast Broadway Run Down, on Impulse).The sound is as close to you-are-there asthey come. If there are still copies instock (it’s a limited edition of 5,000),order it now. 1-800-4-LSC-LPS. (Cau-tion: Ignore RCA’s own CD reissue ofthis album; it’s bleached and blurrybeyond the point of recognition.)

FRED KAPLAN

The Site for Sound.www.theabsolutesound.com

THE MUSIC • 151

Neil Gader interviews Todd Garfinkle,founder of this small recording label.

NG: What does “MA” signify?

TG: MA is one of the Japanese pro-nunciations for the Chinese characterthat means space or interval. Since liv-ing in Japan, I have learned about thevarious profundities of the concept ofspace. It would make more sense tosomeone who has studied Japanese orChinese, since the character is usedwith others to create different butsomewhat related words. For example,MA is used with the character thatalone means “man” or “homo sapiens”to create the two-character concept of“human being. “ In Asia, they knewlong ago that one has to have space tobe human. One should also rememberthat when two homo sapiens have arelationship, the space between them,either physical or conceptual, takes onreal meaning. No space, the relation-ship doesn’t exist.

NG: Tell us a something about yourbackground and what led you to cre-ate MA Recordings.

TG: I was born in Los Angeles inJanuary 1956 and lived there until Iwas 13, at which time I went to liveon a kibbutz in Israel, which as youmight know is one of the few placeswhere pure Communism was prac-ticed. Actually, I was in a one-yearhigh-school program with supposedaccreditation from the state of NewYork. Who knows, but it worked out.

After that one year in the North,where they are the sometimes recipi-ents of rocket fire, I moved to anotherkibbutz in the Negev desert, wheremore than 30 years ago, petty cattlethieves from Gaza stole livestock. Ispent five years, altogether, living in akibbutz environment, where besidesgoing to high school, I worked in thefields, picked fruit and worked in adairy milking and feeding cows. Manytimes I had to pull calves out of theirmothers who were not able to finishthe birth process by themselves.

All during the time I was in kib-butz, I played the piano, wherever Icould find one in an unlocked publicroom. I say this because most privaterooms were left unlocked as well. Notany more, I think . . .

Then I spent about a year inJerusalem, studying piano (I startedlearning piano when I was about 7).In the summer of 1974, I had a

chance to go to Cambodia – and thereI first connected with Asia. When Ireturned to Israel, I began to seeJapanese films and became interestedin Japanese culture.

At the end of 1975, I came backto the US and went to California StateUniversity at Northridge, where Imajored in piano and composition. Istill maintained my interest in Japanand took courses in the language fortwo years. Then I moved to Japan.

NG: When did you form the label?

TG: I started MA in the spring of1988. Before that, I had becomeinvolved in organizing a few tours ofthe musicians that I later recorded onthe label: Milcho Leviev (piano), DaveHolland (bass), Sheila Jordan (vocal),and Harvie Swartz (bass). I thinkgrowing up during the sleazy VietNam years distanced me spirituallyfrom a largely shallow culture, thenmoving at an early age to the kibbutzin Israel, where you really get a senseof the need to survive, and finallyexperiencing other cultures to theextent that they didn’t feel foreign, inother words, being able to feel part ofthat culture, listening, not just hear-ing, the music of the Sixties and earlySeventies, modern avant garde,Takemitsu, Steve Reich – and beingexposed to other labels, such as ECM– I came to the realization that ethnicmusic is one of the oldest, purist, yetmost personal forms of human expres-sion. These things have brought mespiritually to where I am now with

THE MUSIC • 153

“In Asia, they knew longago that one has to havespace to be human. Whentwo homo sapiens have arelationship, the spacebetween them, physical orconceptual, takes on realmeaning. No space, therelationship doesn’t exist.”

T. Garfinkle

FEATURED LABELMA Recordings: Human-Created Sounds in Human Space

music. There is so much more toexplore, but so little time. And thisbusiness is quite hard.

NG: Do you think your recordingspossess a signature sound?

TG: I think they do, for the most partbecause I have been using the samemikes from the beginning. Therecorder has changed for the betterover the years, as have the cables.Originally, the idea was to recordeverything in a certain hall, HarmonyHall in Matsumoto and indeed almosthalf the label was recorded there. Since1994, I have been leaving Japan,much to my wife’s chagrin (Garfin-kle’s wife, Mariko, is Japanese), torecord in churches in Europe mostlyand sometimes in New York City.

NG: So how would you describe thequality or character of the sound youachieve?

TG: This is really hard to describe,although I do think that the sound isreally open, because of the physicalspatial factor. You cannot avoid hear-ing that space reverberating. I try toget a good balance between all instru-ments and all registers – a tight lowend, mellow middle, and open highend – although I do not always getwhat I want.

NG: You don’t have the advantage/disadvantage of sweetening a record-ing later on. When you record in ahall for the first time how much ofthe process is based on experience anddo sheer instinct and feel play a largepart?

TG: Well, that’s not all true. I can doEQ, and sometimes do. I can com-press a bit and bring things out thatwould otherwise be masked com-pletely. But I won’t do it unless thereis a problem, which does happen,especially if the space is chosen by oneof the musicians beforehand and thereis no other place to work in. Actually,this happened once and I was able toget a different space with one phonecall. Amazing and it all worked out.That was Mauro Refosco’s Seven Waves[MO43A].

In general, I think a lot before-hand about how I’m going to set themikes up. Sometimes I have to waituntil I get there to see what the spaceis like. Then, of course, I have to usemy experience and common sense,

what’s left of it. Of course, working inthe same space over and over helps asI get to know its characteristics. Andthe space is often chosen according tothe type of music. In Lisbon, I use alarge Gothic church for the slow,dreamy things, such Luz Destino[M039A] and Senhora da Lapa[M046A], and a smaller, Anglicanchurch for the jazz records, such asJoão Paulo’s O Exílio [M045A] andAlmas [M049A].

NG: One of your most recent record-ings, Será una Noche, was recorded in amonastic church in Argentina. Howdid that come about?

TG: This is one of my favorites, forsure. Everyone was so musical and hipto the situation and what we were try-ing to achieve. And we got somethingI am always amazed at when I hear it.I originally went to Argentina to do aproject with Yugoslavian guitaristMiroslav Tadic (most recently, half ofthe guitar duo on Krushevo [M044A])and Argentinean percussionist San-tiago Vazquez. I told Santiago that Iwanted to do something with tango,but not just another tango record. Isent him Luz Destino, a project done inPortugal, and he really dug it. Sera isnot really like Luz Destino, but takingthe music to a very different place iswhere both of these projects excel.Whereas Luz Destino examines tradi-tional fado song, arranged in theBaroque style, Será mixes tango andArgentinian folklore, as well as percus-sion instruments from other places.Santiago’s tabla playing is really great,for example.

Santiago had to do a lot of home-work and asking around to find thespace, which is about two hours out ofBuenos Aires. There is a large dairyproduct plant in the area, but nothingelse except train tracks that go off intothe horizon. The church is on thePampas, those famous flats thatstretch for more than 1,000 kilome-ters.

NG: Are there any recordings in par-ticular that you’ve tried to emulate?

TG: I don’t think there are any partic-ular recordings, but I do appreciatethe sound ECM created. ManfredEicher seems to be interested in pre-senting the music in a perfect, yetartificial acoustic world. In my case, Iwork only in the natural world andtry to perfect an illusion, if you will,


so that the music does not sound likejust another recording in a church orhall, or whatever space. I consider thespace an active part of the recording,an active “member” of the group...

NG: You wear two hats – producerand engineer. Is it hard to separatethem?

TG: For me producing is really noth-ing, except that I have to pay foreverything. I don’t often get involvedwith many musical decisions because,when I do a project, everyone involvedknows what we are after. Of course,sometimes, there are differences, butfor the most part, my role as produceris more of a coordinator. I do feel thatI have to be sure about how a recordstarts, because that sets the tone forthe whole record. The first tracknowadays can either make or break arecord sale. The stores all have listen-ing stations and that set-up is veryinstrumental in selling a new release.

And you audiophile guys – alwayschanging the track after the first 10seconds of a tune. This drives me nuts,this impatience to get that audiophilehit. And so many people say, “We’reonly in it for the music!”

The engineering part involves set-ting up all the equipment, includingdealing with technical problems,putting the music together, makingsure the sound is right; but you knowall of that. In my case, I also take allthe equipment to the recording ses-sion, except perhaps a mike stand ortwo, which I usually buy and leave inthe country I record in for the nextproject, or borrow...

NG: What about us audiophile guys– what do you think we listen for?

TG: Of course I am generalizing, butsome audiophiles I meet want to hear(not necessarily listen to in a musicalcontext) an extremely loud, low endthat will impress themselves, theirfriends, and may get the women out ofthe room... My basic problem with the“audiophile syndrome” is that some of“you guys” want to hear sound morethan just listen to music. Ultimately,the sound is the music, as one singlesound can be extremely musical.Sometimes I see “you guys” just hear-ing – perhaps listening as well, butseeming to be detached from the ini-tial reason for the existence of thatsound, which of course is most likelyto be a musical idea, which sometimes

takes more than five or six seconds todevelop. I am thankful for audiophilesupport. when it exists, but sometimesit would be more encouraging to seeincreased patience in letting the musicdevelop, naturally...

NG: Do you know when you’ve got anaudiophile hit?

TG: The “hit” for me here refers tothat metaphorical shot of audiophileadrenaline “you guys” get when youhear “that impressive sound.” As far asthe possibility of my recordings beingaudiophile hits, in the more conven-tional sense, I assume that if there issome tight, loud, low end, I am on theright track. Of course, the sound hasto be natural and fast. Musically how-ever, I sometimes find that the mater-ial is too advanced for many audio-phile tastes.

NG: When you hear the finished CD,how does it compare to the master?

TG: There is no comparison.

NG: What is specifically lost in theprocess?

TG: Not lost, but there is a decreasein: depth of field, spatial quality interms of width; in other words thespace gets narrower, smaller...Theinstruments seem closer...If we are in ahigh-ceiling environment, for exam-ple, the ceiling gets lower...

NG: You record digitally…

TG: Sorry it’s not analog! But at leastit’s at 96 kHz, anyway. I’ve beenrecording at 96K since 1992, wheneveryone was squawking about 20-bitrecordings. Sounds great at 96K.

NG: Do you still like analog?

TG: Sure, I like analog, but not thehiss.

NG: What are analog’s limitations foryou?

TG: The recording equipment is real-ly heavy. The other stuff is the samefor me. I carry around monitoringequipment anyway, as well as mikesand cables. And, of course, the dynam-ic range is very wide with the96K digital in comparison to analog.

NG: What about the new formats like

THE MUSIC • 155

DVD-Audio and SACD? How do theyperform to your ears and will you berecording with them anytime soon?

TG: I am interested in a higher-bit96K or 192K playback format morethan SACD, because I think that theone-bit SACD doesn’t present a tightlow end. It is a bit top heavy. As forrecording at a higher word lengththan 16 bits, the hardware is reallyexpensive and for a 96K or 192K play-back software format, one must editon a computer, something I think can

be detrimental for the sound. But per-haps I am a bit narrow-minded in thisarea. I do think though that recordingto tape is the most robust format still.So, the next generation of my record-ing equipment will go from 16/96DAT to 24/96 (or 192) in some othertape format.

NG: What are the unique challengesfacing small labels like MARecordings?

TG: Survival . . .


Será una Noche. M052A

One of the label’s latest effortsdeserves special mention for its

musical excellence and most natural useof acoustic space. The music is essence oftango infused and gently shaped with jazzand native Argentine folk music. SingerPedro Aznar adds romantic and soothingvocals. Recorded in a monastery inArgentina with a pair of B&K mikes and ahighly modified Pioneer high-samplingDAT, this recording captures just the rightbalance between acoustic space and dis-tinct images. Beautiful detail and spa-ciousness abound without sounding cold-ly artificial. How good does it sound? Well,had it been issued on LP a few years ago,it would have made Golden Disc Lists allover the known audiophile world. – NG

Begoña Olavide: Salterio. M025A

This was Olavide’s debut recording,performed at La Monasterio de la

Santa Espina, Valladolid, Spain. She playsnumerous medieval works on sevenpsalteries, all beautifully handcrafted byher husband, world-renowned luthier,Carlos Paniagua.1 Also participating arepercussionist Pedro Estevan and JuanCarlos de Mulder and Daniel Carranza onvihuela, Baroque guitar, and thiorba. It’smedieval music that is exotic yet modernin feel. The sound is translucent. Thesoundstage and the reverberant envelopeabout each instrument are fully definedand perfectly in balance with the precisionimaging and natural tonality of the deli-cate harpsichord-like psalteries. This is astate-of-the-art recording of enchanting,mysterious music. – NG

Michel Godard: “Sous les voûtes, leSerpent. . .” M048A

Among the most haunting of record-ings in the MA catalog are these nine

tracks featuring the valvelesss ancestor ofthe modern tuba, the serpent. A pair oftubular esses melded together, the instru-ment resembles a writhing boa. The titlemeans either: under the arches, as of aCathedral, or on the path, or way. In eithercase, we seemed to be warned that theserpent lurks. It is accompanied by per-cussionists Mark Nauseef and PedroEstevan and the evocative vocals of LindaBsiri, and the original compositions echoGregorian plainsong, primal landscapes ofunending space, and dreamlike medita-tions. The music is challenging, full ofdynamic and percussive surprises, thoughbeautiful in its simplicity. Recorded in thesame cathedral as Salterio, the disc hassimilar sonic virtues, albeit with a slightlygreater soundstage depth. – NG

Peter Epstein: Solus. M047A

Recorded in Italy’s San MartinoCathedral, Epstein’s solo saxophones,

alto and soprano, float and waft on Bach’s“Partita No. 2 in D minor,” as well as sev-eral original compositions. Epstein’s gen-tle, classicist approach to the music allowsus to hear nearly all of his shifts. Highsring like chapel bells – forward-bearing onattacks, but then drifting back into a vastcorridor. We hear the cathedral’s dimen-sions, and a pleasant, no-bleed auralaftertaste, even as Epstein’s sax breathesnew passages. Listen for the rapid keytaps and tone blending on Epstein’s “PI” –it’s like lying in a field of prairie grass, lis-tening to nature’s creatures swarmingaround us. – BG

1 Brilliant musicians all, the Paniagua familyplaying as the Atrium Musicae de Madrid,include Carlos, Gregorio, Eduardo, and Luis. Theyhave been heard on such Harmonia Mundi titlesas Musique Arabo-Andalouse [HM 389] and LaFolia de la Spagna [HM1050], as well as thatstrange, notorious LP (HP Super Disc Listee):Musique de la Grèce Antique [HM-1015].

Some MA Recordings of Note

THE MUSIC • 157

How little there’s been to gripe about! Forexample, some recent CD issues and reis-sues deflect even a curmudgeon’s dudgeon.BMG’s “HP” series of “silver age of stereo”reissues carries on with a stunning Orff

Carmina Burana from Boston [BMG 09026-63590-2,CD]. This is my nominee for conductor Seiji Ozawa’sfinest recording. My original RCA Red Seal LP [LSC3161] is a not-bad representation of the complex choralpiece with its constantly mutating vocal groupings andkaleidoscopic percussion and instrumental effects. Butthe new CD makes the old Dynafloppy wafer’s com-promises and colorations surprisingly obvious. Listento the CD’s ear-boggling clarity, wide stage spread,expressive voices, volcanic bass pulses and rumblings,the joyous eruption ofsection 10, Were DiuWerit Alle Min, andthe electrifying per-cussion jolts thatpunctuate the roastedswan’s lament at 0:30in Track 12. The bellsand cymbals bashingwildly behind bari-tone Sherrill Milnesin Track 13 shouldmake your scalp tin-gle as they probablydid his (if he wasactually there in thehall and not dubbedin later as sopranoJudith Blegen was – Iwas told – in MichaelT i l s o n - T h o m a s ’Cleveland recordingon Sony MK 33172,CD). For once, record-ed dynamics actuallysuggest a live perfor-mance, and SymphonyHall envelops you inits air and space. The1969 tape is none theworse for a littlemulti-miking by pro-ducer Peter Dellheim

and engineer Bernard Keville. The huge ensemble isarrayed in contrasted planes and images, with solovoices focused in front of the chorus but not too far for-ward. I haven’t yet heard SACD, but if it improves onthis level of sonic realism, it has to be remarkableindeed.

Another BMG “HP” issue is a shade less successful:Jean Martinon’s Ravel program with the ChicagoSymphony [09026-63683-2]. This brings togetherseveral sessions of varying quality, and either the orig-inal recordings or the transfers are brash. I dislike theraggedly played and shrilly recorded full-orchestra ver-sion of the normally ethereal Introduction and Allegro.But Alborada del gracioso is very fine, with an intimate,open acoustic. So is the 1968 Rapsodie espagnole, though

C U R M U D G E O N ’ S C O R N E R

. . . . .

A R T H U R S . P F E F F E R

THE MUSIC • 159

more overt and objective than Reiner’s languorous1956 version with the same orchestra [different hall;BMG 09026-61250-2, CD]. The Martinon recording,nicely detailed with full-bodied images, is also flatterand harder. The constancy of RCA’s corporate ears evenamong different production teams in different decadesis evidenced in the wide left-right separation of violinsand cellos in both versions. Martinon’s 1964 Daphnis etChloë Suite No. 2 comes closest to Living Stereo soundcharacter, the best performance and recording on thisgenerous but not consistently pleasing disc.

Two solo recitals by young artists on Sony are wellworth attention. The first [Sony SK 68344, CD] pre-sents Austrian mezzo-soprano Angelika Kirschlager ina fascinating program of songs by Korngold, Mahler,and Frau Mahler – Alma, that is. Alma’s repression asa budding composer by her insecure husband, depictedby Ken Russell in his eccentric 1974 film, Mahler,deprived us of a genuine if minor musical talent. Herhauntingly beautiful songs, in the turn-of-the-centurystyle of Wolf, Zemlinsky, and her husband, are a realdiscovery. They, and the remainder of the program, aresensitively presented by Kirschlager and pianistHelmut Deutsch in natural and very close recitalsound. The second program is Arkady Volodos, Live atCarnegie Hall, a 1998 recital by a gifted Russian pianistwhose performances alternate volcanic energy withmercurial lightness [Sony SK 60893, CD]. Again,

first-rate close-up (and live) piano sound, the CD’sdynamic range just managing to encompass thepianist’s. The program is idiosyncratic: short pieces byScriabin and Rachmaninoff, Schumann’s rather earnestBunte Blätter, Op. 99, and some fireworks of Liszt, aHungarian Rhapsody and Variations on Mendelssohn’sWedding March with further embellishments byVladimir Horowitz and perhaps Mr. Volodos himself.Not the typical thunderous virtuoso recital and highlystimulating.

A couple of video-audio tracks for sonic relief. Agood-sounding recent classical video is ItalianFestival [Naxos/DVD International DVDI 0993,DVD]. This uses the same audio track as the similar-ly entitled Naxos CD [8.550087], which has beenaround a long time. These two discs allowed me tocompare DDD on the CD with the DVD’s (com-pressed? doesn’t sound that way) Dolby 2.0 digitaltransfer downconverted into 48K PCM for my DAC.The DVD also offers DTS and Dolby 5.1. I have noidea whether the surround tracks come from Naxos’original CD audio or were synthesized. The DVD isone of a series of “Musical Journeys,” with musicdrawn from the Naxos CD catalog and scenery fromthe European landscape. I wondered how the DVDsound would compare to the not-bad 44K CD, wherethe stage is quite wide, though well set back, in anairy hall, with fairly wide dynamics and a bit of dig-

ital hardness in the violins and woodwinds. The DVDaudio was, via DAC, not much different from the CD,though transferred at a substantially lower level. Imight have heard a less wide stage and a harder edge tothe sound, but barely. On the other hand, listening tothe DVD signal converted internally to analog by thePioneer deck was inexplicably a superior experience. Iheard a somewhat better presentation than the CD inhall and stage airiness, audibility of the reverberationtail, firmer imaging with slightly enhanced dimension-ality, and more energetic dynamics. Tonal edge was cer-tainly no worse, and the DVD even had possibly a rich-er harmonic texture. The transfer engineers cut offsome audio tracks too soon at the end, disconcertinglychopping away the last second of hall decay. But other-wise, happily for those who enjoy music videos playedover High End audio systems, this DVD is most agree-able. Performances by one of those Czechoslovakianradio orchestras with too many letters in their abbrevi-ations are sprightly, the program of short works wellchosen and not as hackneyed as that of Spanish Festival[DVDI 0995]. The street price of this inexpensiveseries is around $14, and the 1.33-ratio images arelovely, particularly the striking scenes of a snow-coatedVenice in winter.

Forgive my touting a very special release in anobsolescent format. It is MGM’s hefty 1996 laserdisccollector’s box of That’s Entertainment I-III [MGMML105216, 5 LD]. Try to find one before all copies

vanish forever. If a DVD ever appears, its compressedsound may not equal the laser’s uncompressed. Carefulsound restoration was a feature of this set, whichincludes such goodies as portions of The Wizard of Ozand other films with “accidental” stereo soundtracks.To me the most striking musical selection is “StraussFantasy” (Side 10, Track 5), an unexpected treat fromthe Golden Age of Stereo flawlessly preserved in aTechnicolor short subject. Johnny Green conducts thegigantic MGM Symphony Orchestra – a genuine one,no Sousaphones! – in a medley of Johann Strausswaltzes and polkas. The first time I played this mes-merizing 1954 track, I was powered right off my seatcushion by the opening surge of glorious string tone.Such depth of midbass energy is unequalled in manyaudio-only stereo recordings of that or any era, even theLiving Stereo RCA’s, which it resembles in its fine spa-tial characteristics. When I listened to my first stereoLP on my new stereo system in 1962, after many monoyears, I exclaimed, “I can’t hear the cellos!” That wholefundamental region of sound, lower midrange to mid-bass, so prominent in mono, seemed thinned out, evis-cerated, in stereo. I’ve never changed my mind.(“Strauss Fantasy” also boasts superb visuals, a sadlyignored model of how a classical orchestra can be pre-sented attractively without too many close-ups.)Amazing to think that one of the best early-stereosound recordings was made (by engineer WesleyMiller) in a movie studio for a short subject!


Anton Webern: Complete Works. PierreBoulez, editor. Berlin Philharmonic,Ensemble InterContemporain, BBC Singers,Boulez conducting. Christiane Oelze, sopra-no. Françoise Pollet, soprano. Mary AnnMcCormick, mezzo-soprano. Gerald Finley,bass. Piano: Pierre-Laurent Aimard, EricSchneider, Gianluca Cascioli, OlegMaisenberg, Krystian Zimerman. GidonKremer, violin. Clemens Hagen, cello.Emerson String Quartet (Eugene Drucker,Philip Seltzer, violins; Lawrence Dutton,viola; David Finckel, cello). DeutscheGrammophon 457 637 (six CDs with 204page booklet)

Several years ago, I met with a groupof corporate folk to discuss the

establishment of an Internet recordreview under their organization’s spon-sorship. I proposed covering new andmodernist art music as the webzine’sprincipal direction. The meeting wentwell. As we left the conference room,though, one of the party, walking bymy side, hissed his opposition to theemphasis I’d suggested with the vehe-mence of a Cromwellian on the subjectof the papacy. His loathing was inremarkably supple form – Bartók,Stravinsky, all of them, vermin! In mypresentation I’d mentioned WitoldLutoslawski, whom my interlocutorrenamed Lutoslobski. Despairing of acommensurately witty riposte, Iexcused myself.

Had I sounded the fellow’s opinionof Anton Webern, he’d likely havegone into a seizure. Webern, even now,can have that effect. (The composer

was shot dead in 1945 not far fromSalzburg by a nervous GI of the occu-pation force, though we’ve no reason tobelieve the shooting reflected the sol-dier’s aesthetic disdain.) I recall aFanfare colleague referring to Webernas a con man. A con man? European artmusic’s then leading edge propelled bya scammer – what a stimulatingthought! The superintending forcebehind this superb, beautifullydesigned six-disc set, Pierre Boulez,without the luminous foundation ofWebern’s music, would have devel-oped as a composer along quite differ-ent lines, if at all. (The sturdy slipcasebears a celebratory “Boulez 2000”sticker.) There can be little questionthat Webern is a giant, more influen-tial, all told, than the other two figuresof the School of Second Vienna troika,Arnold Schoenberg and Alban Berg.Relative to Schoenberg’s angst-besetExpressionism, Webern’s crystallinecool – that is, in those compositionsconceived at a distance from histeacher’s profound influence – is bettersuited to have sired a musical stylenowadays diminished but far fromdefunct. This DG set goes greatlengths to solidify an opinion of worth,if not for the specialist, at least for thegeneral listener.

It isn’t the first Webern compila-tion under the Boulez mantle. SonyClassical issued a three-disc set on CDin 1991, incorrectly labeled complete(opp. 1-31), the bulk of it recorded in1969 and first issued on the Columbialabel. This significantly larger DG col-lection, recorded in the Nineties,offers, for example, Webern’s versionfor string orchestra of Five Move-ments, op.5, along with its counter-part Five Movements for string quartetof 1909. As another example of thor-oughness, the DG set includes ImSommerwind, Idyll for Large Orchestra(1904), along with a number of worksabsent opus numbers, several of whichserve to trace Webern’s creative jour-ney from tonality through atonality toserialism. While clearly derivative, theearly tonal music is competent enoughto suggest a brilliant career in that

direction, had Webern chosen toremain among the conservatives. Itwas not to be for this philosophical fel-low. Wagner’s chromaticism prefig-ured atonality as an inevitability.Serialism, necessarily atonal, goes theextra step in formalistic manipulationsof the 12-tone row – strictures thatdrove a good many younger composerstoward freer means of expression.

To put that another way, nobodyhas ever surpassed Webern in the senseof poise and perfection serial music iscapable of imparting. Alban Berg sure-ly achieved dramatic heights wellbeyond Webern’s scope, e.g., the oper-atic masterpieces Wozzeck and theuncompleted Lulu. Webern’s nine-and-a-half-minute (!) op.21 Symphonyhas nothing whatever about it ofMahler, whom Webern admired. In-deed, coexistence seems inconceivable,and yet both men made huge contri-butions to a contiguous milieu. Here,perhaps, is where high culture’s centergave way. Later composers – Boulezsprings to mind – have in their own,often marvelous terms, taken Webern’sspirit of filigree clarity to other, if notnecessarily higher, locales. Like allauthentic art, music is a protean force.In so demonstrating the allegation inthe loveliest of terms, DG’s Webernsurvey is a thing of inestimable value.

And yet I arrived at my conclu-sions regarding the DG set’s superiori-ty without troubling to listen again tothe Sony set, which I’d not played forabout a year. When I suggested thisreview to Jon Valin, he assumed I wasdiscussing a reissue of that set’s vinyloriginal, the Columbia recordings heholds in high regard. In our firstexchange of e-mails, Jon hoped thatBoulez et al. had not filed off themusic’s sharp edges (presumablytoward greater palatability). Jon alsomentioned the Columbia issues’ finesonics as a high-water mark.

Not to worry. The 30-or-so-year-newer DG set is the better recorded,pace digiphobes. Both sets present aspaciousness I find inappropriate tosmall-scale music, the greater part ofwhich this is (a matter of personal pref-

THE MUSIC • 161

CLASSICAL

erence, not to be construed as a pan).The remarkably fine KrystianZimerman’s performance of Variationsfor Piano, op.27, along with the othersolo piano works on DG’s Disc Six,sound as if taped in a large, empty hall.For the op.27, the technical note iden-tifies a church. In comparing theSymphony performances, the Sonyplays behind a relative fog. Perfor-mancewise, the Symphony’s interpreta-tion is as I recall it, and as much can besaid of these sets as a whole: The morerecent reading largely centers aboutlucidity. Webern has become more hisown man rather than Schoenberg’slong-term acolyte. This is not to sug-gest sturm und drang’s wholesale evic-tion. It’s there, where need be. Anothercomparison demonstrates how extraor-dinarily fine these DG performancesare: Four Songs for Voice and Orchestra,op.13, with soprano Françoise Pollet, Ijudge vastly more apt than its Sony ver-sion, with soprano Heather Harper. It’sa question again of an Expressionistictension taking second place to a celes-tial feather’s touch. Soprano ChristianeOelze is no less fine. No one with aninterest in modernist music should passup this set.

MIKE SILVERTON

Creston: Symphonies 1, 2, and 3 – “ThreeMysteries.” National Symphony Orchestra ofUkraine, Theodore Kuchar, conductor.Alexander Hornostai, producer; AndrijMokrytsky, engineer. Naxos 8.559034

Hot dog and a round of firecrackers!This smashing CD arrived just in

time for the Fourth of July, and it’s areal cause for celebration to have suchmusical fireworks in house. PaulCreston (1906-1985) was much invogue 40 years ago; his music wasplayed second only to Barber,Gershwin, and Copland. I ran into hisworks on National Symphony concertswhen I moved to Washington, DC in

the Sixties. But lately, little has beenheard of him. I hope this CD sells beau-coup copies and starts a revival.

What’s all the excitement about?This is just about the most accessible,tuneful, dramatic, and thoroughlyAmerican music around. The FirstSymphony bustles with that curiousenergy that seems to brand a composi-tion “American.” Its movement titlessay it all: With Majesty, With Humour,With Serenity, With Gaiety. Thebeginning of the first is arresting andthe last is jolly good, virtuoso fun. TheSecond Symphony is a two-movementmasterpiece devoted to song and dance.The song movement, the first, is elo-quent and lyrical; the dance movementsparkles with vibrant melodies andsnappy, pungent rhythms. The Thirddepicts the life of Christ in music, itsmovements aptly named The Nativity,The Crucifixion, and The Resurrection.Here Creston expresses his deep faithand his love of Gregorian chant. There’sa magic moment in the last movementwhere a solo trumpet (brilliantlyplayed) expresses hope and adoration,that is, for me, one of the great effectsin all music.

Theodore Kuchar, conductor ofseveral American orchestras, is thor-oughly grounded in American idioms.His Russian musicians play quite well.The winds are secure, the percussiondoes everything correctly, and the lowerstrings are solid. Only the upper violinsshow insecurity, mostly in the thirdmovement of the Third Symphony, andnothing glaring at that. The recordedsound is resonant with an excellentstage depth, the brass and percussionproperly sounding at the rear of theorchestra. No matter where an instru-ment is placed, it has good presence.The highs are nicely transparent andthe bottom is solid, with some impres-sive bass drum. A wonderful CD.

RAD BENNETT

Le Cinema. Chaplin: Smile. Rota:Improvisations from Un Diavolo sentimentaleand Amanti senza amore. Dunayevsky andDreznin: Fantasy. Piazzolla: Tanti Anni Prima.Takemitsu: Nostalghia. Desyatnikov: Absalom’sDeath and Tango. Shostakovich: Romance.Milhaud: Le Boeuf sur le toit. Kancheli: Rag-GIDON-time. Gidon Kremer, violin; OlegMaisenberg, piano. German Symphony ofBerlin, Andrey Borekyo, conductor. UlrichRuscher (engineer). Teldec 17222

Le Cinema begins with sentiment: themelting tenderness, the unfath-

omable longing, the glorious transcen-

THE MUSIC • 163

dental schmaltz, of Charlie Chaplin’s“Smile” (from his film Modern Times) –played as you’ve never heard it beforeby Gidon Kremer’s heartbroken Balticviolin (with Andrey Boreyko’s com-forting piano by its side).

With shamefaced grimace and lift-ed eyebrow, I admit I’ve been en-thralled, enraptured – nay, seduced –by this astonishing display of bitter-sweet poignance, dreamlike fantasy,forlorn mystery, timbral audacity, andthrill-seeking bravura that runs thegamut from the sublime to the sub-limely ridiculous, without once resort-ing to any less-than-inspired fillers orpredictable chestnuts. In all honestyI’ve never heard a violin “recital pro-

gram” that comes close to Le Cinemafor range of mood and interpretivechutzpah. Nor, I might add, have Iheard a better recorded one. Kremer’sviolin has enough tactile immediacy(the piano is a little less there) to quali-fy as an audio test-recording.

On this disc, comic relief (saltedwith irony) is furnished by LeonidDesyatnikov’s “Tango” (but it soundsYiddish!) from Sunset, Nino Rota’s“improvisations” on themes from acouple of his movie scores, and a screw-ball, super-slo-mo caprice, written forKremer by Giya Kancheli, called Rag-GIDON-time, that as far as I can tellhave nothing to do with the movies –but what the hey.

Darius Milhaud’s evergreen Le Boeufsur le toit (The Bull on the Roof), however,actually does have a film connection:Milhaud wrote it in 1919 for an imagi-nary movie. This astounding rendition(for violin and piano) ratchets up boththe bi-tonal irreverence and inebriatedjoy of this half-surreal, half-farcical bar-room rondo on Brazilian popular tunes,tangos, maxixes, sambas, and fados.Kremer – never much interested insuave decorum or bloodless technicalperfection – rolls out everything in thearsenal: raucous double-stopped major-

sevenths; spun-glass harmonics; grape-shot spiccatos; spring-loaded pizzicatos;and a bizarre cataract of thirty-second-notes that could be a cadenza on a run-away speedboat.

Kremer’s Boeuf resonates all themore for having followed Takemitsu’sNostalghia, a threnody for solo violinwith (gorgeously recorded) stringorchestra that the great Japanese com-poser wrote in memory of Russianexpatriate film director Andrey Tar-kovsky. This ghostly post-tonal music– a timeless 11 minutes long – is rivenwith a pain so beautiful, so pure, itseems heavenly. Imagine Berg’s ViolinConcerto sung by the angel herself.

MARK LEHMAN

Carlo Gesualdo: Tenebrae. Taverner Consort &Choir, Andrew Parrott, conductor. SonyClassical CD SK 62977

Don Carlo Gesualdo, Duke ofVenosa (c. 1560 – 1613) was a

Renaissance holdover whose passionatecomposing style thumbed its nose atthe conventions of the period, as exem-plified by the cool, stately style ofPalestrina. A member of the nobility,Gesualdo began his composing life


under a pseudonym. He was soonforced into the open by the notoriety hegained for killing his wife and herlover. He was not prosecuted for thisdeed, which was apparently legal inItaly at the time.

No doubt he was able to get awaywith some of his more bizarre musicalideas because, unlike most composersof the day, he was not dependent onpatronage, having the luxury of fund-ing his activities through his ownmeans. His very individual composingstyle may also relate to the tendency forcomposers in the dying years of a par-ticular genre to push its stylistic enve-lope. Rather than embarking on anearly Baroque style, as Claudio Mon-teverdi (1567-1642) was doing by thistime, Gesualdo chose to continue com-posing more or less in the manner ofthe Renaissance.

What is it about Gesualdo’s writ-ing that makes him such an iconoclastof Renaissance conventions? PeterPhillips, conductor of the Tallis Scho-lars, aptly summarizes:

He often found it necessary to distortthe music in the interests of yetgreater expression: the melodic linesare given unusually wide leaps, therhythmic flow is violently interrupted,the harmony is twisted out of any pre-dictable pattern. With Palestrina thereis an overall mood, with Gesualdo themood can change word by word. WithPalestrina the smooth movement ofthe music and balance of the vocalparts ensures a kind of idealized beau-ty which can never be tiresome, withGesualdo the basses may sing abovethe sopranos, the melodies may leapover an octave or by diminished inter-vals, the underlying rhythm and tonal-ity be destroyed to produce the mostvivid colors a renaissance musicianever conceived.1

While Gesualdo’s church musicshows more self-discipline and restraintthan his madrigals, which comprisedthe great bulk of his output, it camelate in his career and by then his well-developed musical personality couldnot be suppressed. Whenever the musicisn’t stunning you with its sensualbeauty, it’s crackling with excitementand dramatic intensity.

Gesualdo published two books ofmotets in 1603, followed by his set-tings for Tenebrae in 1611, some ofwhich are featured in this new record-ing by the Taverner Consort and Choir.He often chose texts of a penitentialcharacter. “Tenebrae,” meaning shad-ows or darkness, refers to an office sungduring Holy Week. Gesualdo com-posed settings for Tenebrae on MaundyThursday, Good Friday, and HolySaturday. This recording features hisnine Good Friday motets, placed intheir liturgical context by the inclusionof most of the plainsong2 propers.

Gesualdo’s style is perfectly cap-tured in this newly released recordingby the Taverner Consort and Choir. Theconsort, which sings all of Gesualdo’smotets here, consists of seven malevoices (three altos and tenors and onebass). The choir sings antiphonallywith the consort in the psalms andother plainsong propers. This is plain-song singing of the highest order – ithas a very monastic flavor but thesingers are highly trained professionalswhose sense of ensemble is remarkable.And in Gesualdo’s motets, which areinterspersed throughout, the TavernerConsort combines great virtuosity andpitch accuracy with silky sensuality(achieved though subtle crescendi anddiminuendi) and pointedly dramaticdelivery, according to the demands ofthe music. I can’t imagine a more per-fectly realized account. It’s superior tothe more refined approach of the TallisScholars, which makes the music soundtoo much like Palestrina, and even tothe stylish and dramatic singing of LesArts Florissants in their excellentrecording of Gesualdo’s madrigals[Gesualdo: Madrigaux, Les Arts Flor-issants, Harmonia Mundi CD 901268].Somehow Parrott and the Tavernergroup find a balance between theseextremes that serves the music well.

While not as vivid as the very best,this recording is quite successful sonical-ly. It was recorded in St. Bar-tholomew’sChurch, London, England, evidently afairly resonant venue. It’s miked a bit

THE MUSIC • 165

1 From Phillips’ jacket notes for Gesualdo: Tenebrae Responses for Holy Saturday, The Tallis Scholars,Gimmell LP 1585-15 (also available on CD as (52.04) 454 915-2).

2 “Plainsong” is the generic, and generally more correct, term for the kind of unison chanting oftencalled “Gregorian chant.”

closely but this has the advantage of dis-playing the voices and their characteris-tics in great detail. Placement is welldefined. There is plenty of hall sound,most noticeably in the plainsong sec-tions. Transparency is good.

It’s rare to find a recording thatcombines artistic excellence with suc-cessful engineering. This one does, andas a result, I will play it often. I can’toffer higher praise that that.

JOHN HIGGINS

Bizet-Shchedrin: Carmen Ballet. Shostakovich:Incidental Music to Hamlet. Glazunov:Carnaval Overture. Boston Pops Orchestra,Arthur Fiedler, conductor. Peter Dellheim, pro-ducer; Bernard Keville, engineer; NathanielJohnson’ HP Series producer. 24/96 digitalremaster. BMG 09026-63308-2

Franz Waxman: Peyton Place. Royal ScottishNational Orchestra, Frederic Talgorn, conduc-tor. Robert Townson, producer; Jonathan Allen,recording engineer; Bruce Botnick, masteringengineer. Varese Sarabande 302 066 070 2

It is critically fashionable to dismissShchedrin’s Carmen Ballet as a cheap

and theatric perversion of Bizet’s mas-terpiece. But if Liszt could write flam-boyant piano paraphrases of Wagneroperas, and Ravel could orchestrateMussorgsky’s Pictures at an Exhibition tocritical acclaim, why couldn’t Shchedrinadapt Carmen into a highly effective bal-let? If you examine the repertoire of ourleading ballet companies, it’s apparentthat this sort of thing is done frequent-ly, though rarely as well.

The Carmen Ballet works in everyconceivable way far beyond the inge-nious device of repeating a series ofnotes and making the melody of the“Toreador Song” resonate in the mind.The orchestration for strings and 47percussion instruments is as spectacularas it is original. This is not just a pas-tiche of melodies for dancing. It is adramatically seamless and symmetricalwork that opens and closes unforget-tably with low strings underliningcrisply and delicately plucked violinsand tolling bells playing fragments ofthe “Habañera.”

This work might have been com-posed for Fiedler, his performance is soincandescent. RCA’s 24/96 remasteredsound is a revelation, with clarity, fineinner detail, and sizzling percussiontransients, even on this version down-sampled for standard CD machines.Yes, it is aggressively multi-miked andthe cymbals could easily take out a

tweeter, but the Carmen Ballet wasdesigned to be flamboyant. The soundserves the music perfectly. The CD iselectrifying and musical.

Peyton Place qualifies as a guiltypleasure because of the notoriety of thesordid best-selling novel. The film,though, was done with considerabletaste. The most memorable thingsabout it are its music and sumptuouscolor cinematography.

Franz Waxman could have beenexpected to produce a masterly score. In1957 he had already composed scores forThe Spirit of St. Louis and Sayonara. Herehe responded to the stunning photogra-phy with a lyrical, pastoral portrait ofNew England that contains more strik-ing melodies than synthesizer techni-cians like Hans Zimmer will write in alifetime. This rerecording is a mixedblessing. There are about eight minutesof music not present on the originalsoundtrack, which contains 39 of the 53minutes of music that Waxman wrotefor the movie, available to my knowl-edge only on a well-packaged but diffi-cult to find Spanish RCA CD [RCA74321720522]. That 1958 soundtrackrecording has surprisingly dynamic andlistenable sound, but the prominentstrings are pretty harsh.* This one ismuch more softly focused, indeed, to thepoint where the gauzy sound con-tributes to the overall blandness of theconducting. Waxman was an excellentconductor. His tempos are consistentlyfaster, more dynamic and sharply point-ed, and his instrumental textures aremuch lighter. This gives a chamberlikequality to the music. Talgorn cannotresist reverentially over-romanticizingthe score.

But just listen to the gorgeous horncall over waves of luscious and ripplingorchestral sound at the end of the“Swimming Scene.”

ARTHUR B. LINTGEN

* But not on the Varese Sarabande reissue ofthis recording [ERS 6515-ST], which isgood enough to make the Super Disc List –no harsh strings here. Keep in mind that the1958 soundtrack [RCA LSO 1042] wasissued at the dawn of the stereo age, whenhigh-level string passages were impossible tocut onto an LP.

Berlioz: Requiem. Cinq pièces sacrées. JohnMark Ainsley, tenor; Chorus of the MontrealSymphony Orchestra, Montreal SymphonyOrchestra, Charles Dutoit, conductor. ChrisHazell, producer; Jonathan Stokes, SimonEadon, balance engineers; Graham Meek, loca-tion engineer. DDD. Decca 289458921-2

THE MUSIC • 167

There was a time when a new record-ing of the Berlioz Requiem was a

major event. I will never forget CharlesMunch’s RCA recording of this mam-moth masterpiece. For once, anticipa-tion of a wondrous musical discoverydid not exceed realization. In the next45 years, only Robert Shaw’s Telarcversion, with its exemplary choral exe-cution and phalanxes of tympani andbass drums recorded with unprece-dented impact, and Colin Davisemphasizing the classical side ofBerlioz on Philips have matchedMunch. Now a significant new record-ing with credible performing forces ona major label barely causes a ripple inthe musical press.

Berlioz’ music embodies a uniquecombination of restrained classicismand grandiose romanticism. Nowhereis this more evident than in theRequiem, which alternates moments ofquiet and ethereal beauty with some ofthe most staggering choral-orchestralclimaxes ever written. I recently heardSir Simon Rattle conduct the Phil-adelphia Orchestra in an excellent liveperformance of Schoenberg’s Gurre-lieder. This work calls for even moremassive performing forces than theBerlioz Requiem, but in comparison, it

sounds bland and dramatically static. The Requiem (and Berlioz’ more

rarely performed Te Deum) juxtaposegrandiosity with refined and delicatemusical poetry in dramatically cohe-sive settings. The Requiem’s orchestra-tion is stunning. Indeed, Berlioz’ star-tlingly original orchestrations pavedthe way for Rimsky-Korsakov, Mahler,and Richard Strauss. The climaxes ofbrass, tympani, bass drums, and chorusmake an even greater effect becausethese full forces are so sparingly uti-lized in three of the work’s ten sec-tions. Perhaps even more effective arethe widely spaced flute-trombonechords of the “Hostias” and “AgnusDei,” the flute-string harmonics andsoft cymbal-bass drum touches of the“Sanctus,” and the haunting choral“Amens” over rising and falling stringconfigurations punctuated by gentletympani beats at the end. In fact, thewhole tradition of French orchestralmusic evolved from Berlioz, just as vir-tually every composer who followedWagner’s Tristan and Isolde had to dealwith it in one way or another.

Dutoit’s consistent emphasis ontransparency and orchestral color, oftenat the expense of drama, make himplainly a successor to Colin Davis in

presenting the classical side of Berlioz,with special emphasis on the music’slyrical flow. However, Davis was some-times willing to confront the wildromantic. Dutoit, not unexpectedly,gives us Berlioz lite, but this is superi-or to his prosaic Les Troyens [Decca 443693-2]. Here the quiet parts are out-standing. The soft and eerie flute-trombone chords make a stunningeffect. His integration of the chorus,tenor soloist (well sung by John MarkAinsley), and the restrained orchestrain the “Sanctus” are just about perfect.The “Agnus Dei” with its modal chordprogressions and remarkable orchestra-tion provides a haunting conclusion.

The massive climaxes are not asgood. The “Dies Irae – Tuba Mirum” iswell paced and achieves an adequateamount of power, but the “Lacrymosa”misses the impression of an implacablemusical juggernaut.

Sonically this Requiem rivals theTelarc. Any lack of impact can proba-bly be attributed more to Dutoit thanthe engineers. The climax of the “TubaMirum” is encompassed spatially witha sense of ease and head room to spare.The bass drums have warmth and ade-quate impact. The flute-trombonechords have never sounded better. The


flute-string sonorities in the “Sanctus”possess a refined and delicate crys-talline clarity. The recording has anexcellent sense of ambient space in asuitably churchy acoustic that does notblunt the high end or any other aspectof Berlioz’ transparent orchestration.The only substantive defect is that thesopranos in the chorus occasionallyhave a glassy sheen that makes themsound a little flat.

Despite the fact that Dutoit doesnot achieve the last word in drama anddynamics, this Requiem is excellentlyrecorded, and the playing of the morerestrained sections is ravishing. Theresulting musical and sonic listeningexperience is so pleasurable that thisrecording can take its place near thelegendary recordings of Munch, Shaw,and Davis.

ARTHUR B. LINTGEN

Wirén: Symphonies 2 & 3; Concert Overtures1 & 2. Norrköping Symphony Orchestra,Thomas Dausgaard, conductor. Lennart Dehn,producer; Tomas Ferngren, TorbjörnSamuelsson, engineers. CPO 999 677-2[German label distributed by Naxos]

D ag Wirén is known for his tuneful,zippy little Serenade for Strings. In

England, the last movement of thiswork became a popular BBC signaturetune. This CD proves that Wirén isanything but a one-shot composer. Hismusic is neo-classic and economical instructure. It has sentiment withoutbeing sentimental and is by turnscharming and powerful. The composerhe will remind you of most is CarlNielsen, who was one of Wirén’s idols.

The symphonies are impressiveand disarming. The Second has a partic-ularly transparent and refreshing slowmovement, with a scherzo in the mid-dle. The invigorating last movementopens over a pulsing ostinato andbuilds to a fugal section that alternateswith radiant lyrical passages. Butalmost all of this movement, even inits angrier mood, exhibits a lyricaltouch; there always seems to be anoverlying feeling of optimism in thiscomposer’s music. The Third Symphonyis even more spare than the Second, butjust as radiant, with an exceptionallybeautiful Adagio. Storm clouds dot thethird movement as the main themes ofthe preceding sections are set into con-flict, with a happy and optimistic end-ing on the horizon. The two concert

overtures are succinct and wonderfullyconstructed, the first full of bustlingenergy and the second a happy, bounc-ing piece along the lines of the com-poser’s famous Serenade.

Every time one turns around,another good Nordic orchestra popsup. The Norrköping, the youngest ofSweden’s seven professional symphonicensembles, is excellent. The wood-winds are virtuoso, the brasses areexceptionally mellow, and the stringsplay with good ensemble and unforced,natural tone. Thomas Dausgaard pacesall of Wirén’s music with an unerringsense of timing. The recorded sound isalso quite good. There is less stagedepth than I usually like, but this is

THE MUSIC • 169

compensated for by a notable clarityand near perfect frequency range anddynamic balance. Near, because thepercussion does seem slightly buried ina few congested tuttis, thoughabsolutely clear in more transparentlyscored ones. All in all, this is a superblyplayed, well-recorded disc of delight-ful, seldom-heard music.

RAD BENNETT

Purcell: Dido and Aeneas. Dido: Janet Baker,mezzo-soprano; Aeneas: Raimund Herincx,baritone; Belinda: Patricia Clark, soprano;Sorceress: Monica Sinclair, contralto; Sailor:John Mitchinson, tenor; the St. AnthonySingers; John McCarthy, chorus master; EnglishChamber Orchestra, Anthony Lewis, conductor.Ray Minshull, producer; Kenneth Wilkinson,engineer. Decca Legends 289 466-387-2

This recording was made in 1961,when the early-music revival was

just getting started. It is much to thecredit of Anthony Lewis, ThurstonDart, the harpsichordist, and the otherexcellent musicians involved in thisproject that it still sounds fresh andvital. There has been much debateabout what Purcell intended in this

opera. But even those performancesthat seek greater accuracy pale in com-parison to the innate musicality andhigh energy of this one.

At its core is the Dido of DameJanet Baker, then just beginning hercareer, but already at the height of hervocal powers. I do not think anyone hassung Dido better on a recording. As amezzo, Baker brought a darker qualityto the role, yet was perfectly capable ofreaching all the top notes, since thepart does not go that far into the sopra-no stratosphere. More important, Bakerbrought a thorough dramatic under-standing to the role and used her voicewith supreme intelligence to achieve

her dramatic vision. The events leadingup to Dido’s death are illustrative:Aeneas says he is leaving, and Baker’sDido dismisses him in vocal anger wor-thy of Tosca. “Away, away,” she hurlsout. After he has gone, her tone iscowed, she mutters, “But Death, alas! Icannot shun.” Then comes the crown-ing moment, the famous lament,“When I am laid in earth,” which asBaker sings it, is heartbreaking. This istriumphant artistry.

The rest of the cast is also quitegood. The sorceress and her attendantwitches relish their work more thanthe norm, taking great delight in suchlines as “Our plot has took, theQueen’s forsook!” Raimund Herincx isa virile, robust Aeneas, sounding morelike a hero than most others. And thechorus is beyond reproach. You cansense an intake of breath that allowsthe opening “h” in “Harms ourdelight” to explode in an incrediblemanner, and it colors its tones beauti-fully. Listen to the way it flavors theWitches Chorus with Echo, “howdreadful a practice.” Dramatically deli-cious. The English Chamber Orchestrawas the best in the world in the Sixties,and plays like it.


The recording was done whenDecca and RCA were doing sound-stage recording of operas, includingmovement and perspective to give animpression of stage performance. Theproducer wisely recognized that hecouldn’t have too much ping-pong-ing in a such a work, but there issome effective spacing. In the open-ing act dialog and duet between Didoand Belinda, both are center, Didojust slightly right and Belindaslightly left; they are close, but donot share exactly the same space. Thespirit that speaks to Aeneas is heardfrom the right rear, almost offstage.The chorus sounds a bit too close, butsince it sings so well, not too manypeople will mind. Thurston Dart’sharpsichord is balanced nicely withthe strings; you can hear it clearly,but it is not overbearing. As withmost Wilkinson recordings, the bassis a bit unrealistically solid, butmany will actually like that.

If you want original instrumentsand the scholarly information that hassurfaced since the Baker recording wasmade, I recommend a recording onVox [7518] with Jennifer Lane as Didoand I Musici di San Cassiano. Con-

ductor Bradley Brookshire performsthe piece in Venetian style (one upperstring to a part, continuo with twobass instruments – cello and viola dagamba, here – two harpsichords, twobaroque guitars), which Purcell surelywould have known. It is wonderfulsounding, competently sung andplayed (and a version I love). But thefact remains that this Decca Legendcontains singing of a higher order.Baker’s Dido is an artistic triumphthat has weathered the years and comeout, thanks to Decca’s new processing,as vibrant as ever.

RAD BENNETT

FOR CHILDREN

Dance on a Moonbeam: A Collection ofSongs and Poems. Bill Crofut, voice andbanjo; Julianne Baird, Benjamin Luxon, DawnUpshaw, Fredericka von Stade, vocalists. MerylStreep, speaker. London Symphony Orchestra,Joel Revzen, conductor. Chorus Angelicus,Paul Halley, conductor. Telarc CD 80554

In through the window flies therarest of avians, a CD for children

that doesn’t patronize. Meryl Streep,

for example, recites as beautifully asever I’ve heard brief passages fromShakespeare as relevant segues amonga delightful assortment of sungitems. No cause for parental concern:The Shakespeare morsels and songsare simple enough in language, andenchanting enough to keep theyoung engaged (five years and up,say?). The mood is largely banjo-folksy, a category in which I find fewattractions. Yet, given what thishandsomely produced release sets outto do – entertain the kids – let’s giveit a perfect ten. The orchestra andchorus’ role is secondary to that ofsmall ensembles. On Track Ten,Julianne Baird (an early music spe-cialist of high repute) sings RobertLouis Stevenson’s “The FriendlyCow” to an accompaniment of banjo,string bass, guitar, and recorder.Ravishing! The collection alsoincludes the Shaker hymn “SimpleGifts,” which Aaron Copland appro-priated so affectingly in AppalachianSpring. The disc I’m working withgoes to one pair of grandkids. I needanother for the other pair.

MIKE SILVERTON

THE MUSIC • 171

Neglected Composers

Much of the music encountered in recordstores is absent from concert programs.There seem to be two distinct areas of reper-tory – one embalmed in plastic jewel cases,the other in concert halls – and they rarely

overlap. When was the last time you heard a piece byWilliam Alwyn in concert? Audiophiles know his sym-phonies from superbly recorded Lyrita LPs and film buffsknow his film scores, but for concert audiences, he neverexisted. Chandos has recorded much of his orchestral andchamber music. The Schwann Catalog still lists JohnOgdon’s 1985 CD of his Fantasy-Waltzes [Chandos 8399]and recently I’ve been listening with enormous pleasureto a new recording of Alwyn’s piano music, played byJulian Milford [Chandos 9825].

Both discs feature Alwyn’s major keyboard work, theFantasy-Waltzes, but Milfordadds recorded premieres of fourother works including the sub-stantial Sonata alla toccata andMovements for Piano. In Move-ments, written in 1961 after afallow period and a breakdown,Alwyn’s dammed-up emotionsburst through in a first move-ment marked by troublingmood shifts. The second move-ment, Evocation, has an other-worldly cast, and the final,Devil’s Reel, is appropriatelydiabolic.

I thought Ogdon’s versionof the Fantasy-Waltzes, one ofthe century’s great works forpiano, was unbeatable, butMilford’s is as good. He’s quiteclose to Ogdon in most of thework’s dozen pieces, but has hisown valid take on others. HisVI, allegro giacoso, is more highspirited. In the extraordinaryIX, marked Lento e lugubre, he ismore searching, which suits apiece reminiscent of some ofSchubert’s late sonata slowmovements, where themes alsoflow gracefully, falter, and dis-integrate. Ogdon’s version isslightly more neurotic andghostly, even at a faster speed,but Milford captures the unset-tling mystery. Alwyn fans will

want both, for Milford’s premieres and for Ogdon’s TwelvePreludes, a major work. Ogdon gets closer, more immediatesound that flattens dynamics; the microphones are moved abit further back on Milford’s CD, capturing more ambienceat no cost to presence.

Closer to home, the generation of American com-posers swept away by changing fashion is enjoying arevival on CD. Roy Harris was once a presence on concertprograms; today, only his Symphony No. 3 is played. But hewrote nine, and they have some wonderful music. That’sa reasonable conclusion after hearing his Eighth andNinth by the Albany Symphony Orchestra, led by DavidAlan Miller [Albany; Troy 350].

The disc opens with the delightful Memories of aChild’s Sunday, which captures the joys and anxieties ofchildhood in a sparely orchestrated, relaxed 12-minutework. The Ninth Symphony is tougher stuff. The titles of

its three movements are drawnfrom the Constitution, and thethird movement’s sections aretitled with phrases from WaltWhitman’s poetry. Portentous?Yes, but not pretentious. It’smelodically rich and full ofshifting textures and rhythms.Especially outstanding is theslow movement, “to form amore perfect Union,” tingedwith sadness and anxiety, andending with a brief, question-ing string cadence, suggestingthat the vision of perfectionremains elusive. The Eighth,subtitled “San Francisco Sym-phony,” is loosely based on thelife of Saint Francis. Its bright,shimmering percussion, lighttextures, and ripe harmoniesreflect Harris’ pantheism.There’s a significant piano part,dashingly played by AlanFeinberg.

The proficient Albany bandgives its all, doing justice to themusic, even if it leaves you hun-gering for the juicy strings ofthe Philadelphia Orchestra,which premiered the Ninthunder Ormandy. The sound,from the Troy Savings BankMusic Hall, has enormousdepth and tonal integrity.

The Harris disc is only one

THE MUSIC • 173

D I S C O V E R I E S

. . . . .

D A N D A V I S

of a series of important releases of American works onAlbany. Three CDs released over the past year or two givespecial pleasure. George Perle’s often knotty but alwaysfascinating music, including his Piano Concerto No. 1 bril-liantly played by Michael Boroskin, is on Albany Troy 292.Troy 260 features the Fifth and Sixth symphonies of PeterMennin, again featuring Miller and his Albany Symphony,who also perform works by Morton Gould on Troy 300. Allhave important music well performed with informativenotes and excellent sound.

Naxos’ American Classics series is another source forneglected native repertory. It’s remarkably inclusive, rang-ing from Sousa marches to Walter Piston’s great violin con-certos, which were an instant sensation when JamesBuswell’s recording was released [Naxos 8.559003]. LatelyI’ve been listening to a Naxos disc of Paul Creston’s firstthree symphonies, surprisingly idiomatic as played by theNational Symphony Orchestra of the Ukraine under thebaton of its American conductor, Theodore Kuchar(reviewed elsewhere, this issue) .

Another major composer heard in concert halls onlywhen some touring cellist performs his sure-fire hit,Schelomo, is the Swiss-born naturalized American, ErnestBloch, whose finest works reflect his Jewish heritage, hisAmerican modernism tinged with Old World influences,and his love of Bach. These are displayed in a notable releasegathering his major works for solo cello played by PeterBruns [Opus 111 OPS 30-232]. With pianist Roglit Ishay,he plays several of Bloch’s shorter “Jewish” works, includingan arrangement of “Baal Shem,” originally written for violin.These are emotionally direct, poignant pieces containingmovements that will have you snapping your fingers andtapping your toes.

The main attraction is Bruns’ technically stupefyingaccount of the three Suites for solo cello. Written in 1956and 1957, they are among Bloch’s finest works. It’s hard toimagine better performances. Bruns clarifies their complexstructures, bringing them to life with tonal and rhythmicvariety and breathtaking technical wizardry. As usual,Opus 111 provides state-of-the-art sound that puts Brunsin your listening room.

Shostakovich is a frequent presence on orchestral pro-grams, but why do violinists shun his magnificent lateViolin Sonata Op. 134? Perhaps because the piece is ownedby David Oistrakh, whose live recording with SviatislovRichter at the piano was considered unlikely ever to bematched. Well, it has been, by two young Brits new to me,violinist Daniel Hope and pianist Simon Mulligan[Nimbus 5631]. No, Hope hasn’t a hope of matchingOistrakh’s infinitely variegated tone, but his fiercelyfocused playing is riveting. The strange, elusive first move-ment is horrendously difficult to bring off, but the paircreate such tension, you find yourself holding your breath.The wild second movement, full of slashing attacks anddriving rhythms, leaves you limp. And they admirably sus-tain the third movement’s troubling intensity. The engi-neering underscores the impact of this music, with a close-up, powerful sound that captures Hope’s upper treble har-monics and the rich bass notes on Mulligan’s piano.

Two additional pieces by Alfred Schnittke on thisdisc are also interesting. His Violin Sonata No. 3, complet-ed in 1994 just before his final stroke, is an emotionallypowerful work, suffused with mystery. It’s followed by hisStille Nacht, which turns the familiar “Silent Night” themeinto a broken, painful shell. Schnittke called it “a light-hearted Christmas present.” It’s anything but.


The Magnificent Seven: New ArtistsEmerge from the Fringes

The year 2000 has proved, so far, abanner year for pop and rock

records, though, owing to the lack ofpromotion, many don’t get the atten-tion they deserve. Here are sevenchoice releases from newer, lesser-known music-makers who, while notsuperstars, repeatedly catch my earand remind me why I love music.

I’m magnetically attracted toSeattle’s Murder City Devils. Manyof the songs on its third record, InName and Blood [Sub Pop 497; LP andCD], sound as if they belong to noir’sdirty alleyways, and dim, smoke-filled, alcohol-soaked rooms whereunder-the-table deals are cut. It seemsto me that this group finds inspirationin classic films like Kiss Me Deadly andNight and the City for the killers,whiskey, guns, and nooses that litterthe songs’ landscapes. Despite theband’s street-tough nature, there’s anold-world class to the performance.This is largely owing to band chem-istry. But it’s also because of a magicweapon – a haunting organ – that,along with two guitars, a bass, drums,and vocals, completes the group’ssound. Popular in the late Sixties, theorgan is the dinosaur of contemporarypop music, but when you hear it driveMCD’s songs, you’ll wonder why itdisappeared. As the organ pipes outdirges, vocalist Spencer Moody shoutsand howls as if he were running for hislife. An assortment of bombastic,melodic guitar riffs, ranging in stylefrom surf instrumentals to overdrivenpower chords, pair with stinging basslines, and give the impression thatJudgment Day is near. Coady Willis’aggressive drumming happens to bethe best sonic quality of the record;every beat, accent, and cymbal istransparent, clean, and defined. InName is well-recorded, and no aspect,be it highs, lows, or bass, is short-changed in the name of commerciality.Be assured, these guys can play, andwith every album, improve tenfold.

On its self-titled third release[Touch and Go 214; LP and CD], TheFor Carnation comes as close to estab-lishing tangible precision and perfec-tion through sound as anything I’veheard. Because of the music’s complexi-ty and extensive, calculated arrange-ments, some critics brand it “mathrock.” It is tonally precise, non-impro-vised, and systematic in nature, blendedwith grandiose, Seventies-era prog-rockcomplete with electronics and orches-trations (think King Crimson, earlyYes) – though TFC injects what canloosely be described as “space music”into the mix, making for a fascinatingpatchwork of sound. When I considerChicago’s architectural assertiveness,and math rock’s roots in Chicago, TheFor Carnation strikes me as a geometricmusical reaction to the mazes of side-walks, bold ranges of square, trape-zoidal, and triangular skyscrapers, andornamental Frank Lloyd Wright glassdesigns found in the city. How is thispossible? Well, thick-skinned drumsare gently whacked in a methodical,metronomic fashion, and provide thesongs’ foundations. Then, there’s a min-imal number of bass notes, which unit-ed with a constant, stirring keyboarddrone, give off an up-and-down, angu-

lar vibe that mimics postmodern art,the delicate urban balance betweenchaos and control, and the Chicago sky-line itself (its skyscrapers are sharperand more angular than, say, New YorkCity’s vertical but softer Art Deco mon-uments). As TFC manipulates eachinstrument’s tone and pitch, it conveysthe sonic impression of raw materials; asingle guitar note may be held for min-utes, causing it to metallically ring orsoftly vibrate, as mist seems to do whenit solidifies briefly against a steel frame.In the slow, deliberate music, you canhear the buildings speaking, the rawsteel of the I-beams and concrete bond-ing, and the sound of rolling clouds col-liding with the structures themselves.Birdlike electronic fills spiral aroundcirculating percussive loops, recreatingthe human echoes and industrial hic-cups that occur between buildings andrebound off the miles-high glass andsteel surfaces – only to be softened ormuted when low-lying clouds and fogdrape the steel structures. The songs –musical sculptures – are trancelike, andthough occasionally topped off withwispy, murmuring vocals, their stat-uesque framework shifts attention awayfrom the lyrics and toward the instru-ments, an assembly of guitars, drums,

THE MUSIC • 175

POP & ROCK

Murder City Devils

echoes, keyboards, cellos, violas, bells,and electric and acoustic bass. The senseand dedication TFC devotes to themusic applies to the album’s produc-tion: We hear the music structurally, asit is carefully assembled, chord bychord, note by note, a quilt of dynamiccontrasts, making the lyrics seem asmere afterthoughts.

Those who long for the sweet, per-colating country tones of the unforget-table Dusty Springfield owe it tothemselves to listen to Beneath theCountry Underdog [Bloodshot 62; CD],Kelly Hogan and the Pine ValleyCosmonauts’ latest recording. Hoganreaches deep into tradition: warmvocals, big-band back-up (includingpedal steel, mandolin, fiddle, piano),and call-and-response vocals. Thesemusicians are in a league few bandsever reach; established players like JonLangford (guitar), Steve Goulding(drums), and Tom Ray (bass) remindme of the great studio musicians fromthe Sixties who provided the rhythmicbackbone for so many of producerBerry Gordy’s memorable Motownalbums (i.e., the Temptations, theSupremes). On any other record, theCosmonauts would be the main attrac-tion, but there’s no escaping the

attractiveness of Hogan’s voice. Sheweds gospel and honky-tonk, andjoined with the solid backing of theCosmonauts, refuses to be pigeonholedas country or anything else – likeJohnny Cash, she simply makesAmerican music. Hogan’s beautifulvoice distinguishes her from today’scountry one-trick ponies. An arc of airsurrounds her, allowing us to hear hernuances, breaths, and active approachto the material. There’s wide separa-tion among the musicians, and consis-tent levels of bass and midrange,which make the Cosmonauts sound allthe better. Here, original songs, aswell as music by Willie Nelson, TheBand, and others, dazzle your soul.

Like labelmate Hogan, Neko Casedid time in several pop/rock bandsbefore returning to her first love, coun-try. While Case’s first offering, TheVirginian [Bloodshot 028], is occasional-ly musically dry, her spirited voice andpersonalized lyrics showed tremendouspotential, which she reaps on FurnaceRoom Lullaby [Bloodshot 050; CD]. Bycomparison, Case’s voice is more “coun-try” than Hogan’s, and while it lacksHogan’s soul-and-gospel qualities, itallows Case to veer toward country’sedgy side, occasionally flirting with

pop-punk and acoustic folk elements.Furnace’s tunes drip with regret, disap-pointment, and tear-in-my-beer emo-tion, but there’s also a mysteriousness in

THE MUSIC • 177

the lyrics, shifty rhythms, and most ofall, in Case’s feverish voice. On bothrecords, Case has great vocal control,knowing just when to employ restraint,and when to let her chords rain down;she uses her voice the way a detectiveuses eyes, her vocals always confrontingus – we’re surely guilty of something, ifonly she knows. Case’s band, called HerBoyfriends, plays everything from swingto shuffle, periodically echoing the rock-ing sound of Bruce Springsteen’s EStreet Band, and at other times, theplayfulness of Bob Wills’ TexasPlayboys. The first time I heard Case’s“Thrice All American,” I just froze. Itsdark, bare-boned pensive similarities toBob Dylan’s 1962 territorial classic,“North Country Blues,” are startling.Then, and now, I think of Case as anextension of the “lost” folk, country, andjug-band music that’s being rediscov-ered, her music fitting in no particulartime period, its lyrics, which speak ofdemons, knives, and lost souls, docu-ments of small, forgotten towns andtheir inhabitants. The considerabledepths to which the lows plunge, andthe moody background vocals that sub-tly rise from the soundstage’s rear, inten-sify this impression. With Furnace, Casemakes a bridge between typical music-genre boundaries.

We also have offerings from twoemerging bands on Epic Records thatearn their place among the year’s mostintriguing records. Here’s why.Undoubtedly, the “biggest” artistmentioned in this article is Travis, aScottish quartet that, on its first USrelease, The Man Who [Epic 62151],attains the pop greatness its UK con-temporaries, the overhyped Oasis,never realized. Travis’ breakthrough isits contemplative first single, “WhyDoes It Always Rain On Me,” andwhile it’s a fine single, it doesn’t clueyou into the band’s comfortable,melodic style. The Man Who is evi-dence of how a band can utilizeLennon and McCartney’s understand-ing of chords, tones, and delicate har-

monies without seeking tobe the Beatles. Travis’music gives no indicationof ego or attitude thatwould prohibit it frombeing embraced on bothshores. What we hear ismusic that’s heavily lacedwith treble, pop that’salmost embarrassingly cat-chy, and high-pitched, sun-soaked vocals that oozesympathy while theymock self-pity – you’ll besinging along in no time.Some may find the record-

ing a bit warm, with too many highs,but digital pop has a history of accent-ing the highs, not the lows, so it’s real-ly no big deal. Any such reservationswill vanish once you hear that gor-geous music. (Hint: Man lists 10tracks, but if you let the CD continue,you’ll discover an EP-worth of materi-al lurks past Track 10.)

For a moment, imagine the soundsof pop over the last 30 years placedinto a blender, pureed, chopped, thenpoured into the grooves of one record;now hit “play.” Portland trio ModestMouse has been active since 1995,releasing three successful albums onindie labels. Its Epic debut, The Moonand Antarctica [63871], showcases thegroup’s swarmy, quirky compositionswith sonics that illuminate the band’smulti-faceted instrumental nature.Following no preset pattern or fittingany general mold, Moon is one of themost diverse pop or rock albums you’llget from a major label. MM followsthe musical path established byIdaho’s Built to Spill (see review, Issue118), in that the album’s core soundsare made by drums, basses, and gui-tars, and assisted by keyboards, man-dolins, percussion, and hordes of noisepedals. Isaac Brock’s talking-out-the-side-of-his-mouth vocals may sound asif they need a dose of TheraFlu, butvocals aren’t MM’s specialty. Concen-trate instead on the trippy, squigglysoundscapes. You’ll hear the wiry gui-tar warble of the Buzzcocks, atmos-pheric head-in-the-clouds pop of theFlaming Lips, and muffled speak-and-say effects of early Pink Floyd. Thosewho say all new music “sounds thesame” haven’t encountered Moon; nosong is like another, whether it be theflaming disco-queen groove of “TinyCities Made of Ashes” or the acoustic-grunge rumble of “I Came as a Rat.”Producer Brian Deck opts to configureMM’s music like a movie soundtrack,so rather than sounding “live,” Moonunfolds as a cautious piece of 3-D art –

where the storyline lyrics become thevisual, and the music, which swarmsand surrounds the visual in a giantsoundfield, provides depth, perspec-tive, and borders.

Arriving just in time to beat dead-line is Ghost of David [Sub Pop 507;CD], the third record from singer-songwriter Damien Jurado. Jurado’stwo previous albums feature remark-able lyrics, but lack musical distinc-tion. That’s changed now. On Ghost,the self-touted “urban-folk” musiciandelivers the first bedroom classic of thenew century. Ghost is a modernizedversion of Springsteen’s 1982 cut-and-dry acoustical commentary, Nebraska.While Nebraska starkly speaks of theaftermath of a failed American politicaladministration and trickle-down econ-omy that led to lost factory jobs andrampant homelessness, Ghost is a per-sonalized work that, in its sparsenature, communicates the mentaldrowsiness and hanging-on-a-threadfeelings of the fringe characters depict-ed in the lyrics. Even if you don’t thinkyou relate, Jurado’s music resonates;the bare echo of piano chords, resilientvocal calls, and stalwart guitar-stringpicking make a lasting impression.Like Lou Reed, the preeminent urbanfolk/rock songwriter, Jurado drawsupon a bevy of musical styles that setthe stage for his city-dwellers’ lives.For example, on “Ghost of David,”Jurado plays a crawling folk shuffle topull us in, but then abruptly shiftsdirection and by continuously strum-ming one chord, takes us on a one-manmarch. Jurado’s vocal approach is across between Neil Young’s smoggyballadeering, Lou Reed’s street-smartNew Yorker stiffness, and JamesTaylor’s reassuring gentleness; thevocal personality arises from the indi-vidual song. Because this is a home-made recording, we’re closer to thesound – indeed, Jurado could haverecorded Ghost in our own rooms, soclose is the music. I occasionally gotgoosebumps. If you can tolerate song-by-song sonic shifts that have Juradosounding more defined and focused onsome songs than others, and infrequentcold-textured electronic drum beats,you’ll find Ghost a tender recording,and the imperfect sound a properaccompaniment to the songwriting.

Postscript: Noteworthy releases thatbarely missed my Magnificent Seven cutinclude Jill Scott’s Who Is Jill Scott?[Hidden Beach 62137], Kina’s Kina[DreamWorks 50113], and Dechard’sStereodreamscene [Reprise 47352]. Lookfor capsule reviews on the web.

BOB GENDRON&

THE MUSIC • 179

Damien Jurado

Math Test for Orchestra Members1. Armando is the dynamic new conductor of an orchestra and has increased the ticket sales for the classical

series 95 percent. If the concert hall holds 3,200 people, and the concerts begin promptly at 8:05 pm,how many digital watch alarms will go off within one minute of 9 pm? Within 5 minutes?

2. Richard has been a professional timpanist for 35 years. In his personal kit, he owns 32 different yarn mal-lets, 12 different wool mallets, 5 different rubber mallets, and 2 different polished brass tack hammers.What are the odds that a conductor will ask him to use different mallets at the first rehearsal of a Haydnsymphony? A Mahler symphony?

3. Julinda’s orchestra performs Dvorák’s “New World” symphony every 6 years, Sibelius’ Swan of Tuonelaevery 4 years, and Berlioz’s Overture to Benvenuto Cellini every 3 years. What are the odds that, in anygiven year, the program notes will include the sentence “The English Horn is neither English nor a horn”?

4. Sandy is tired of paying for clarinet reeds. If she adopts a policy of playing only rejected reeds from hercolleagues, will she be able to retire on the money she has saved if she invests it in mutual funds (yield-ing 8.7 percent) before she is fired from her job?

5. Jethro has been playing the double bass in a symphony orchestra for 12 years, 3 months, and 7 days. Eachday, his inclination to practice decreases by the equation: (total days in the orchestra) x .000976.Assuming that he stopped practicing altogether 6 months ago, how long will it be before he is completelyunable to play the double bass?

6. Wilma plays in the second violin section, but specializes in making disparaging remarks about conduc-tors and other musicians. The probability of her making a negative comment is 4:7 for any given musi-cian and 16:17 for conductors. If there are 103 musicians in the orchestra and the orchestra sees 26 dif-ferent conductors each year, how many negative comments does Wilma make in a two-year period? Howdoes this change if 5 of the musicians are also conductors? What if 6 of the conductors are also musicians?

7. Horace is the General Manager of a symphony orchestra. He tries to hear at least four concerts a year.Assuming the orchestra plays a minimum of 3 pieces at each concert, what are the chances that Horacecan avoid hearing a single work by Mozart, Beethoven, or Brahms in the next 10 years?

8. Betty plays in the viola section. Despite her best efforts, she is unable to play with rest ofthe orchestra and, on average, plays 0.35 seconds behind the rest of the viola sections, whichis already 0.16 seconds behind the rest of the orchestra. If the orchestra is moving into a newconcert hall with a reverberation time of 2.7 seconds, will she be able to continue playing this

way undetected?

9. Ralph loves to drink coffee. Each week he drinks 3 morecups of coffee than Harold, who drinks exactly one-third theamount the entire bass section consumes in beer. How muchlonger is Ralph going to live?

10. Rosemary is unable to play in keys with more than threesharps without making an inordinate number of mistakes.Because her colleagues in the cello section are also struggling in

these passages, she has so far been able to escape detection. Whatis the total number of hours a day they would all have to practice toplay the complete works of Richard Strauss?

SUBMITTED BY NICK JONES

PROGRAM EDITOR/ANNOTATOR

ATLANTA SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA


L A S T PA G E

ˆ

The Absolute Sound Complete Issue 126 - BM

Documents