Forums, Comments Sections, Videos, etc.

“Tom, what about the argument that the engineers had to make the records sound good on the equipment of the day?”

More Letters from Customers and Critics Alike

OK, what about it?

Let’s dig in.

One of our good customers had some questions about a commentary we wrote entitled a kinder, gentler approach to record reviewing.

Tom, what about the argument that the engineers had to make the records sound good on the equipment of the day? Now that we have better gear, these guys can make the record sound the way it was originally intended. I think Chad said this about Rudy Van Gelder at some point in the video.

For the benefit of the reader, the video in question can be found on youtube under the title “Michael Fremer, Chad Kassem, Geoff Edgers: A Journey Back to Vinyl.”

Edgers was invited, apparently under pretext as it turns out, to talk about his article, but instead he was pressed into defending me most of the time. Kassem and Fremer — two individuals whose talents, such as they are, could not be more ill-suited to the work they have chosen for themselves — beat up on Edgers for about two hours.

As an aside, Geoff is a good guy and he certainly didn’t deserve this kind of mistreatment. Fremer and Kassem won’t apologize to him — that’s not something they are known to do — so please allow me to apologize to Geoff on their behalf.

I’m sure he has trouble understanding to this day why he was forced into acting as a spokesman for Better Records. Regardless of how he feels about it, we thank him for his service to the cause. (To be clear, he didn’t exactly take my side, which is the right thing for a reporter to do. He wanted to know why our disagreements upset them so much.)

For those of you who like to watch bickering and sniping from a couple of thin-skinned egomaniacs who can’t stand the fact that someone doesn’t think the records they like — or in the case of Chad, produce and sell — are any good, have I got a video for you. If you want to undertand how seriously you should take these two guys, both at the top of their respective mountains, watch the video and make your own judgments.

Our letter writer continues:

Suppose, that the RL cut of Zeppelin 2 had never existed, because Ludwig knew better than to cut it that way, knowing that most stereos couldn’t play it? And then Chad released something that sounded like that. Or, the argument that albums were engineered for listening to on the AM radio.

I think these guys believe they are improving on the mastering, and giving it the sound it should have had all along.

Dear ab_ba,

Yes, you are correct, this is indeed their position. They think these newly remastered pressings are a big improvement over earlier editions, and on quieter vinyl to boot!

Allow me to quote Michael Fremer, a man who apparently cannot get enough of the new records, even though his shelves are stuffed.

With all of the reissues coming from questionable sources or proudly proclaiming their ‘digital-ness’ ala The Beatles Box, we’re fortunate to have labels like Analogue Productions, Mobile Fidelity, ORG, IMPEX, Rhino and the others cutting lacquers from analog tapes…

So, we are lucky to have these companies that are doing things correctly lavishing vinyl goodies on us all year long. Sometimes we wish they’d stop long enough for us to catch up, but then we come to our senses and say “more please!” even when the shelves are stuffed.

Fremer was discussing a Stevie Ray Vaughan box set that Analogue Productions had recently put out.

One of my customers made the mistake of believing all the rave reviews he read from Fremer and his ilk and ordered the set. He quickly learned that his $400 had bought him some of the worst sounding Heavy Vinyl he’d ever heard in his life.

Did Chad manage to improve upon the sound of the originals, like the ones we sell? According to this customer, he did not.

“So the results are in … after comparing to the White Hot Stamper versions of the same albums I can say… as a musical experience it’s incomprehensible. It just doesn’t rock, doesn’t uplift, and it’s veiled, so you lose the whole meaning of this music, the energy, soul, life.”

If these companies are “doing things correctly,” then perhaps you can explain to me why their records sound so bad.

Let’s get down to brass tacks. Which of these records do you think is an improvement over the best earlier pressings?

And that’s just a small sampling of the rock and pop. There are plenty of awful jazz and classical titles I could mention.

I would expect that even fans of modern mastering would be at pains to defend these mediocre-at-best and mostly-abominable releases on the merits. Outside of Mr. Fremer, who in his right mind thinks these are good records? And if they do, have they had their hearing checked lately?

I could go on about the sound of these pseudo-audiophile pressings — our Heavy Vinyl disasters section currently boasts 181 entries — but why beat a horse that’s been dead for more than two decades?

For those keeping score at home, the winners number 69 and the mediocrities number 62, for a grand total of 312.

Now, listen up all of you out there in audio land: if you personally have critically auditioned more than 300 Heavy Vinyl pressings, please raise your hand. (Not you, Mikey, you get paid to play these records in order to make sure everybody knows just how much better they are than the other copies you have randomly at hand.)

I’m talking about rank and file audiophiles. Who has played more Heavy Vinyl titles head to head with the best originals and vintage reissues than we have?

There can be no one, for the simple reason that the best originals and vintage reissues can only be found using these two methods: in small numbers by luck, and in large numbers by doing shootouts.

300 is a large number, and we seriously doubt there is anyone who has managed to 300 comprehensive shootouts for records in their own collection. The cost, in time and money, would be prohibitive unless you’re getting paid to do it.

We don’t get paid to review these modern pressings. We do it as a public service.

Our job is to find the records that beat the pants off them.

Cui Bono?

If you want to know how good the quality of modern records is, you don’t ask someone who gets paid to make them and you don’t ask someone who gets paid to review them.

You buy some and you play them. That’s how you go about determining if they are any good.

The “null hypothesis” is our friend here. If someone were to ask “Why are new records better than old ones?,” we would simply say that since there is no evidence to support the proposition that they actually are any better, the question does not need to be answered.

To take just one example, not one of them can hold a candle to this Mercury produced in 1958.

(more…)

Heretics and Believers Clash on the Battlefield in Cyberspace

Pursuing Perfect Sound with ab_ba

More Letters from Customers and Critics Alike

Seems like ab_ba has something to get off his chest.

Hi Tom,

Suppose somebody wanted to know if your claims about the records you sell are true. How could they find out? They’d have to buy a record from you. There is very little independent commentary or reviews available online, and now I know why.

I started a forum thread, hoping to find some other Better Records enthusiasts, and just sort of have a place where I could share what I’ve discovered, in case anybody else found it of value.

After two weeks and 13 pages, the thread got shut down. This was after skepticism, hostility, and very little sincere curiosity.

They tried to explain to me how wrong I was. They told me I was gullible. They insisted I must work for you. One guy asserted I must *be* you. After all, who, other than you, would ever say the things I was saying?

They seemed particularly irked by two things:

First, the markups you charge.

Second, the fact that you are so vocal about the sound quality of modern pressings.

Regarding the first, what seems to particularly bother some people is that you used to go into used record shops in the LA area, pay the price they were asking for a record, and then for some of those records, you would come to the conclusion that based on its sound it was worth a lot more than they charged you for it.

Tom, they are still upset that you did this. Anybody could have done it. To this day, anybody could still do it. Nobody else is doing it.

People may resent you for now selling for $1000 a record that went for $2.98 40 years ago, but that’s simply how markets operate. I watched an old jazz record sell for $7000 on ebay last week, without a single comment on how it actually sounds.

Regarding the second source of ire, apparently you changed your mind about how some records sound, and you were willing to be very vocal about how you thought they sounded, even if those records were made by good friends of yours.

I get it that a lot of people who found themselves in your situation would have just kept their mouth shut about it, but this was all 20 years ago, and here we are today, and I’ve got a fantastic-sounding shelf of records and a great stereo to play them on, all because I decided to see if I could trust your advice.

ab_ba

ab_ba,

Thanks for writing.

I’m surprised you haven’t been excommunicated by now.

What you are doing, in the eyes of the members of the forum, is spreading a false gospel. They used to burn people like you at the stake. Now we just delete the threads they start. Saves firewood.

You are an apostate. Nothing you say can change the fact that you don’t believe what other members of the Hoffman forum believe. Trying to convince them that there is a better way is a fool’s errand. All you end up doing is making enemies.

Welcome to my world. Everything we do and say irks the people who don’t buy records from us.

Those who actually buy records from us seem fairly pleased if I do say so myself. They write us lots of nice letters.

To be fair, if someone were to post a comment on my blog along the lines that “everybody knows that digital is far superior to the outdated 75-year-old technology of the vinyl LP,” I would not reply to it. I would just delete it. Some folks can’t be saved. (The truth is they will never save themselves because it takes twenty years and many tens of thousands of dollars to build a good system, and for 99% of all the music lovers in the world, that is journey they are not prepared to take.)

Back to our story.

The fact that you have evidence to support your beliefs doesn’t change anything. You are doing the work of the devil and your writings must be banned lest they cause other acolytes to lose their faith and suffer the damnation that is sure to come their way (the excommunication referenced above that awaits those who spread malicious lies).

Your threads will never stay up. Best to go to other forums. Hoffman’s does not allow heretical beliefs such as yours.

The guys on the forum are Mid-Fi guys. They cannot understand what you are saying because they do not have the systems to play records at the level you play them, nor do they have the money and inclination to build a better system than the one they have.

Why would they build such a system? To show them that the records they’ve collected and told they were the best aren’t the best?

If they betray their idol, where will they fnd new internet friends to hang out with in cyberspace?

The real world is a lonely place for the typical audiophile. There just aren’t that many of us.

The Hoffman forum gives these people a place to hang out and be with others of a like mind.

It’s their sandbox. They seem to enjoy sitting in it. I say let them play to their heart’s content.

(more…)

The Million Dollar Stereo

He spent his life building a $1 million stereo. The real cost was unfathomable.

Ken Fritz turned his home into an audiophile’s dream — the world’s greatest hi-fi. What would it mean in the end?

Geoff Edgers has written a highly entertaining story about an extremely misguided audiophile who went “searching for perfect sound” in ways that practically guaranteed he would never find it.

There are a number of lessons to be learned from this fellow’s mistakes.

Just to take one obvious example, this picture of some of the records in his collection speaks volumes, at least it does to me.

He built a million dollar stereo to play records like these?

No amount of money can make most of these titles sound good, and failure to appreciate that fact is just one of the many fundamental errors the late Mr. Fritz made in his approach to both records and audio.

Further Reading

(more…)

Robert Brook’s Guide to Legrand Jazz on Impex

Robert Brook has a blog which he calls

A GUIDE FOR THE DEDICATED ANALOG AUDIOPHILE

Robert tries to remain positive when choosing the words that would best describe the award winning Impex release of Legrand Jazz. In the end he goes with the spoken word over the written one.

Years ago I wrote about how important the Legrand Jazz album was for me in my growth as a critical listener. It’s yet another example of an album that helped make me a better audiophile by showing me the error of my tweaking and tuning ways.

Let’s watch the video and see what Robert has learned about Impex’s recent release.

Legrand Jazz (featuring Miles Davis) – the 2019 IMPEX Double 45 rpm

Michael Fremer gives the Impex pressings an 11 for sound. He writes (bolding added by me):

“This IMPEX reissue is sourced from an “analog mix-down transfer of the original 1958 work tape by Mark Wilder at Battery Studios” and cut by Chris Bellman and Bob Donnelly at Bernie Grundman Mastering on Grundman’s all-tube mastering system. I have a clean, original 6-Eye pressing that this superbly pressed reissue betters in every way. This will make both your stereo and your heart sing. Some of the greatest jazz musicians of that or any era wailing and clearly having a Legrand time. Limited to 3000 copies. Don’t miss it!”

Who are you going to believe, the Self-Appointed Vinyl Experts of the World and Bestowers of Prestigious Audio Awards (which you may have never heard of; I sure hadn’t), or some guy who’s just dedicated to being an Analog Audiophile and knows a good record when he hears one? (Or doesn’t hear one, as the case may be.)

Like Robert, I tried being kinder and gentler, but it didn’t take. I may resolve to try harder in 2024. Then again, I may not. If we’re nicer to the people currently making Heavy Vinyl records, aren’t we running the risk, a la P.J. O’Rourke, of encouraging them?

Various and Sundry

We just finished a shootout for the originals of Legrand Jazz and will be listing them soon.

We’ve also played the Impex pressing and will be discussing its sound at some point.

More on Robert’s system here. You may notice that it has a lot in common with the one we have.

(more…)

It’s the Image, Stupid

Top Quality Audio Is Key to Finding Good Records 

There is a truism (a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting) that frequently pops up in the comments section commonly found on audiophile forums.

Working similarly to Godwin’s law, the longer an audiophile thread goes on, the more likely it is to be said. A quick recap of Godwin’s law:

“Godwin’s law, short for Godwin’s law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

The truism I’m talking about is commonly phrased, “It’s the music, stupid,” an echo of James Carville’s “It’s the economy, stupid,” from Bill Clinton’s campaign. (I prefer not to use the word “stupid” when discussing my fellow audiophiles’ comments, but the play on words does not work without it, so there it is.)

Who would be foolish enough to take up the other side of this “argument,” if we can call it that?

Allow me to have a go at it.

So, if I understand correctly, it’s all about the music, right? Not the sound?

What about other kinds of art? What is it about there?

Christopher Nolan shoots on IMAX film, which I believe in its current iteration is either 65 or 70mm.

If his movies are about a story and its characters, why not shoot them on 35mm? Or 16mm. Or Super 8? Or, gasp, digital?

Same story, same characters.  But it sure wouldn’t be the same experience.

And nobody has trouble understanding that. Here’s Nolan on 70 mm.

“[The] sharpness and the clarity and the depth of the image is unparalleled. The headline, for me, is by shooting on IMAX 70 mm film, you’re really letting the screen disappear. You’re getting a feeling of 3-D without the glasses. You’ve got a huge screen and you’re filling the peripheral vision of the audience. You are immersing them in the world of the film.“

But music is different for some reason? To paraphrase Joe Pesci, different how?

Music is nothing but sound, so without good sound, what do you really have?

When it comes to pop and jazz tunes, the broad outlines of a song can be understood even through very bad sound. I grew up listening to The Beatles on my transistor radio. Their music sounded amazing to me.

But is that true of symphonic music? Can you possibly understand The Rite of Spring by playing it through a computer speaker or iphone?

In no other aspect of life outside of music does anyone want to put up with the lowest possible quality.

Bad food, bad clothes, bad cars, bad TVs — none of these are acceptable, at least not to anyone I know.

But bad sounding music? MP3 sound? CD sound? Heavy Vinyl sound?

Not a problem! 99.999% of the music listeners of the world accept that level of quality every day. They don’t care about the quality of the sound and they think that those who do are fools who are conmpletely missing the point. We’ve all run into these people. Who can say that our way of listening is any better than their way?

It Can’t Be

The one place where it cannot just be about the music is on an audiophile thread. Audiophiles are lovers of sound, not lovers of music. (Lovers of music are, I’ve just learned, “melophiles.”)

The one place such a tiresome truism as “it’s about the music” has no business is where audiophiles are talking about the sound of recordings. The music has to be secondary to the quality of the sound. The sound of whatever is being described — a heavy vinyl pressing, an original LP, a CD, a cassette — is what is of interest to those of us who go to audiophile websites and forums.

The “value” of these places — a word we would never use in this context without scare quotes, as we do not find much value to be had there — is to be pointed in the direction of music, any music, as long as it has good sound.

What pressing sounds better than what other pressing? What mastering engineer did a better job on an album than some other mastering engineer?

Whether you like the music on Album X is of much less concern to me than what you say about its sound.

If, in your audiophile opinion, you prefer the sound of one pressing over another, that is something that might have some value to me. I’m always looking for higher quality sound.

I don’t care what you think of the music; that’s your business and none of mine. I’m perfectly capable of making my own judgments about the music I listen to, thank you very much. All I want to know is which version of the album conveys the music we are discussing better than others.

Except in some rare cases, the music is the same for all the pressings of it. How on earth can it be about the music if the music is always the same?

You can choose to watch Oppenheimer on your phone. You have the right to make that choice. If you do make that choice, can you talk about the experience of seeing the movie the same way that someone who saw it in an Imax theater is able to talk about the experience? Would you be in a position to comment on how powerful the image was, or how powerful the sound was? How either of them, or both, made you feel?

You can play records back on bookshelf speakers shoved up against a wall in a back bedroom, but should you really be talking about the experience of hearing the music in such compromised circumstances?

Sure, you heard the music, but some rather large percentage of the sound was not conveyed to you, so why would you want to discuss the pros and cons of sound that you barely heard?

As you will see in the commentary reproduced below, I want to hear recorded music sound like live music.

I don’t have much use for bad sounding music. If the music doesn’t sound good, then I probably don’t want to listen to it. (If I go to a live venue and the sound is bad, more often than not I just leave.)

Finding good music with good sound on vinyl is not a problem, because the record world is overflowing with thousands and thousands of great sounding pressings, many of which I have yet to discover.

I can easily find great sound for the music I already love, because a very large part of what makes my favorite music so emotionally satisfying to listen to is the fact that it is exceptionally well recorded. Emotionally satisfying and exceptionally well recorded are not independent of each other. They work together and reinforce each other.

If you find yourself on a forum, and you feel the need to remind the other posters there that “it’s about the music,” check to see if it’s a forum dedicated to audiophile sound, and if it is, consider saving your breath. Surely you have something more interesting to say.

The section below is reproduced from this post and talks about what I was aiming for in building my stereo system and room.

In Geoff Edgers’ Washington Post article about audiophiles, somebody asks “why would you want to go into a room and just play a record by yourself?”

I would answer the question with a question of my own: why would you go to a museum and just look at a painting by yourself?

You don’t need anybody around you to help you understand a painting.

You just look at the painting and that’s the experience of looking at a painting.

When I listen to a record, I want the experience of listening to the record. I don’t need anybody else around. I don’t need anybody talking to me. I just want to hear that record, and as Nathan said, I want it to take me from the beginning to the end. And at the end I should feel like I still want more.

For me, that’s what a good record and a good stereo is all about. That’s the reason some of us describe ourselves as audiophiles.

The shortest definition of an audiophile is a “lover of sound.” I love good sound and I’ve spent more than forty years building a stereo system that has what I think is very good sound. (What others think of it has never been of much concern, nor should it be.)

It’s in a dark room with no windows because music sounds better in a dark room with no windows. Keet the door closed, too.

There is one chair and it is located in the sweet spot in the room. (Yes, there can only be one sweet spot.)

I go in there to put myself in the living presence of the musicians who performed on whatever records I choose to play.

Music is loud and so I play the stereo at levels as close to live music as I can manage.

The system creates a soundfield that stretches from wall to wall and floor to ceiling. With the speakers pulled so far out into the room, they have often been known to disappear, leaving only three-dimensional imaging of great depth and precision (especially in the case of orchestral music).

By listening this way, I am able to completely immerse myself in the music I play, with no distractions of any kind.

This way of listening is more intense and powerful and transportive than any other I have known (outside of the live event of course).

That’s what I am trying to achieve with my system and the best records I can find to play on it: an experience that is so intense and powerful that I find myself completely transported out of the real world I exist in, and into the imaginary world created by the producers, engineers and musicians responsible for making the record.

If you want this kind of experience, you need more than good music. You need a good recording of that music, and, if you’re an analog sort of person with high standards, you need an exceptionally good pressing of that recording.

At the highest levels of sound quality, for us audiophiles it can’t just be about the music. You really do need all three.

Depending on your tastes and standards, good music can easily be found most everywhere. Good music with good sound, at least on vinyl, is much more rare, and good sounding music reproduced well is, in my experience, very rare indeed.

Some people are upset and put off by what they consider to be our “extreme” approach to records and audio. It bothers them that we constantly say that doing records and audio well is harder than it looks. To them it seems so easy.

Naturally, we believe there is ample evidence to support our views on the subject.

And, to paraphrase Jesus, the upset will always be with us.

Robert Brook has given this subject some thought as well: My system, what it’s built for, and why

(more…)

Some Questions Just Don’t Have Good Answers

Yes, that is a real puzzler all right!

Further Reading

To learn more about records that sound dramatically better than any Half-Speed mastered title ever made (with one exception, John Klemmer’s Touch), please go here.

People sometimes ask us how come we don’t like Half-Speed mastered records?

Below you will find our breakdown of the best and worst Half-Speed mastered records we have auditioned over the years.

(more…)

The Audiophile Roundtable Returns with Port’s Picks

Steve Westman invited me to appear again on his youtube channel chat with the Audiophile Roundtable.

At about the 39 minute mark, we discuss my picks for what I would rate as the Five Best Sounding Records I know of.

I wanted to go with more variety, so I picked two rock records, two jazz records and one classical album.

A rough transcription with corrections and additions follows:

Before I did my top five, I wanted to say something along the lines of, if you want to know where somebody’s coming from in audio, you don’t ask them what their stereo is, you don’t ask them what their room is like, and how their electricity is done, and what their history with audio is, because they’re not going to tell you, and they just don’t want to go down that road.

But you can ask them about music, and that will tell you a lot about where they’re coming from, so here are my questions for people if I wanted to know more about their understanding of records (and, by implication, audio):

    • One: what are the five best sounding records you’ve ever heard?
    • Two: what are your five favorite records of all time?
    • Three: what five famous recordings never sounded good to you?
    • Four: name five recordings that are much better than most of your friends or audiophiles in general think?

In my world, you would have to tell me what pressing you’re listening to. If you said “I love the new Rhino Cars album,” I think we would be done, but if you told me that you love the original, then I would say yes, I love that record too. I bought it in 1978 and I’ve played it about 5000 times. Never gotten tired of it.

At about the 48 minute mark I reveal the best stampers for Ry Cooder’s Jazz album.

At about the 50 minute mark someone asks about my system. This would be my answer:

All that information is on the blog., I actually do a thing about my stereo where I take it all the way from 1976 to the present, which I’m sure bores people to death, but you know, there was a lot to talk about there.

There were a lot of changes that I went through and I even talk about how my old stereo from the 90s, which I had put together after having been an audiophile for 25 years, was dark and unrevealing compared to the one I have now, so all my opinions from 25 years ago are suspect, and rightly so.

I feel the same thing is going on in the world of audiophiles when you have systems that aren’t very revealing and aren’t tonally accurate, yet are very musical and enjoyable the way Geoff would like, but they’re not good for really knowing what your records sound like because your system is doing all sorts of things to the record that you’re playing in order to keep the bad stuff from bothering you.

That’s the opposite of what we have.

All the bad stuff just jumps out of the speakers, and that’s why these heavy vinyl records don’t appeal to us anymore, because we hear all the bad stuff and we don’t like it.

At 1:03 I’m asked if I like any modern mastering engineers, and the only one I can think of is Chris Bellman, because he masterered one of the few Heavy Vinyl pressing I know of that sounds any good, Brothers in Arms, released in 2021. I played it when Edgers brought it by the studio when he first visited me in preparation for his article.

My best copy was clearly better in some important ways, but Bellman’s mostly sounds right, and that surprised me because most of these modern records sound funny and weird and rarely do they sound right.

(Geoff brought over three records that day: Brothers in Arms, the remastered Zep II, and a ridiculously bad sounding Craft pressing of Lush Life, which was mastered by Kevin Gray, and one which I have not had time to review yet. It was my introduction to the Craft series, and let’s just say we got off on the wrong foot. I told Geoff it sounded like a bad CD, and that’s pretty much all I remember of it. The average price for that pressing on Discogs is roughly $69 these days. The CD is cheaper and there is very little doubt in my mind that it would be better sounding to boot.)

At 1:04 I mention the biggest snake oil salesman in the history of vinyl, the man behind The Electric Recording Company.

Patrick mentions an ERC Love record which he likes, but we played one that sounded about as bad as a bad record could sound. That Love record will never get any love from us. He says he’ll never buy another ERC pressing, but that doesn’t sound like the kind of thing someone who really likes a record would say, does it? I suppose you can ask him in the comments section why that would be.

At some point I talk about the studio we play records in, not exactly spouse-friendly but good for hearing what’s really in the grooves of the records we play:

The reason the sound room is the way it is is because you’re not there to be reading magazines and looking at your phone. You’re just in there to sit in a single chair in front of two speakers, not talking. Nobody else is in there. They have no business being in there. It’s just you and the music and that’s the way I like it.

This next section has been fleshed out quite a bit. I took the question posed and ran with it:

In Geoff Edgers’ Washington Post article about audiophiles, somebody asks “why would you want to go into a room and just play a record by yourself?”

I would answer the question with a question of my own: why would you go to a museum and just look at a painting by yourself?

You don’t need anybody around you to help you understand a painting.

You just look at the painting and that’s the experience of looking at a painting.

When I listen to a record, I want the experience of listening to the record. I don’t need anybody else around. I don’t need anybody talking to me. I just want to hear that record, and as Nathan said, I want it to take me from the beginning to the end. And at the end I should feel like I still want more.

For me, that’s what a good record and a good stereo is all about. That’s the reason some of us describe ourselves as audiophiles.

The shortest definition of an audiophile is a “lover of sound.” I love good sound and I’ve spent more than forty years building a stereo system that has what I think is very good sound. (What others think of it has never been of much concern, nor should it be.)

It’s in a dark room with no windows because music sounds better in a dark room with no windows and the door closed.

There is one chair and it is located in the only sweet spot in the room. (Yes, there can only be one sweet spot.)

I go in there to put myself in the living presence of the musicians who performed on whatever record I choose to play.

Music is loud and so I play the stereo at levels as close to live music as I can manage.

The system creates a soundfield that stretches from wall to wall and floor to ceiling. With the speakers pulled so far out into the room, they have often been known to disappear, leaving only three-dimensional imaging of great depth and precision (especially in the case of orchestral music).

By listening this way, I am able to completely immerse myself in the music I play, with no distractions of any kind.

This way of listening is more intense and powerful and transportive than any other I have known (outside of the live event of course).

That’s what I am trying to achieve with my system and the best records I can find to play on it: an experience that is so intense and powerful that I find myself completely transported out of the real world I exist in, and into the imaginary world created by the producers, engineers and musicians responsible for making the record.

If you want this kind of experience, you need more than good music. You need a good recording of that music, and, if you’re an analog sort of person with high standards, you need an exceptionally good pressing of that recording.

At the highest levels of sound quality, for us audiophiles it can’t just be about the music. You really do need all three.

Depending on your tastes and standards, good music can easily be found most everywhere. Good music with good sound, at least on vinyl, is much more rare, and good sounding music reproduced well is, in my experience, very rare indeed.

Some people are upset and put off by what they consider to be our “extreme” approach to records and audio. It bothers them that we constantly say that doing records and audio well is harder than it looks. To them it seems so easy.

Naturally, we believe there is ample evidence to support our views on the subject.

And, to paraphrase Jesus, the upset will always be with us.

I finish up with a talk about the one and only Heavy Vinyl record that has won a shootout, an Original Jazz Classic of all things, and what it would take to find another OJC title that might win the next one. The odds are not good, and the cost to find such a record would be sizable, perhaps prohibitive, but who knows? We might just get lucky again.

(more…)

Our Filmed Tapestry Shootout Was a Real Shocker

More of the Music of Carole King

Reviews and Commentaries for Tapestry

The Washington Post article that Geoff Edgers wrote includes a video of a little shootout we did for Tapestry, using, without my knowledge, the MoFi One-Step, a Hot Stamper pressing, and a current, modern, standard reissue of the album. Could I spot the Hot Stamper without knowing what record was playing?

First up (and of course unbeknownst to me), the MoFi. My impressions from the video:

That’s probably tonally correct for this record. It’s just missing everything that’s good about this record, which is a meaty, rich piano. And the vocal sounds very dry. There’s no Tubey Magic. It’s tonally correct. If you were playing me a CD right now, I wouldn’t be able to tell you weren’t. 

Next up, the cheap ($20?), current reissue:

Piano’s better.

Voice is better!

Richer and smoother.

That’s what this is supposed to sound like.

Her voice sounds mostly correct.

This might not be a particularly good record. If I played a real one for you, you might just say, oh, my God, there’s so much more.

But this is not a wrong record. It’s not awful. It’s doing something… I don’t know if I would say most things right. I’ll just say something right.

At least the person understands what she’s supposed to sound like.

Then the Hot Stamper (a Super Hot copy as it turns out):

She sounds pretty right on this copy.

I think there’s more space.

You hear more space, more three-dimensional space.

The piano: there’s more richness to the tone of the various notes that she’s playing.

I would probably pick this one.

Jeff sums it all up as follows:

So we have a winner, and I couldn’t fool the Hot Stamper king.

Without knowing what he was listening to, he chose the hot stamper of Tapestry.

If he still had it, that copy would be sold for about $400 on the Better Records website.

When we went back and played each of the pressings again, the differences were much more pronounced. The MoFi still sounded like a CD, the current Columbia reissue was still no better than passable, and the Hot Stamper became even better sounding than it had been earlier, with sound the other two could not begin to offer.

Our grades for the three pressings would have been F, C and A, in that order.

In the video, you can see that it took me a few minutes to get deep into the sound, but once I was there, it turned out to be no contest. The Hot Stamper was the only pressing capable of showing us just how good Tapestry can sound.

Colorations Are Bad Now?

The MoFi was by far the worst sounding of the three. As I said, it sounded to me like a CD.

How shocking is it that the most colored label in the history of audio produced a record with no colorations, one that sounds like a bad CD. I would not have predicted the possibility!

I would have thought just the opposite, that they would monkey with the sound and make it richer and smoother, maybe boost the shit out of the top end, but instead they apparently just took a CD and transferred it flat.

The worst of all possible worlds, and at a premium price no less.

Chad may make awful sounding records, but they are recognizable as records, just not very good ones.

Mobile Fidelity, at least in this case, made a record that doesn’t even sound like a record. That is quite a feat.

(more…)

Julie Is Her Name – Now on Youtube

More of the Music of Julie London

Reviews and Commentaries for the Music of Julie London

One of our good customers has a blog which he calls

A GUIDE FOR THE DEDICATED ANALOG AUDIOPHILE

In the video below, Robert discusses how Tubey Magical his system is when playing an All Tube Chain recording from 1955, this without the benefit of any tubes in his system whatsoever. Quite the trick!

Everything was fine until he decided to track down a clean, quiet, good-sounding copy of the album for a friend. As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished, and after buying scores of copies of Julie London’s records off the internet ourselves, we know firsthand how painful it is to have one noisy record after another arrive on our doorstep.

Years ago I was in my favorite record store in Los Angeles, Record Surplus, and Neil, the owner at the time, made what I thought was an especially perceptive remark about Julie London’s albums on vintage vinyl: “They’re either mint or beat, rarely in-between.” He’d seen a hundred times more Julie London than I had, and he knew whereof he spoke. (I would add that by now I have critically listened to an infinitely larger number of her records than he ever would, as critical listening is not what record store owners get up to all day.)

Once you’ve played one of Julie’s amazing early albums, you tend to want to keep it near the turntable. If you were given the record back in the day, perhaps because you were in the record business, you stored it on a shelf with all the rest of the albums you could not be bothered to listen to.

JULIE IS HER NAME: Worth the Effort!

More on Robert’s system here. You may notice that it has a lot in common with the one we use.

(more…)

The Search for the Perfect Sound Wins the 2023 Excellence in Audio Digital Storytelling Award
Winner: 2023 Excellence in Audio Digital Storytelling, Use of Audio Storytelling

Apparently readers could not get enough of this old man and his speakers.

For the story behind the story, and the award it has now won, please click on the link below.

More on the Shootout Video

The Washington Post talks more about the project:

In “The search for the perfect sound,” arts reporter Geoff Edgers explores the boom in vinyl record sales and the often contentious world of extreme audiophiles through an immersive mix of video, interactive audio and narrative reporting. This multimedia feature revealed the characters behind this growing subculture, from audio elites hunting down rare pressings to populists sharing their hobby with their community.

Edgers had rocked the audiophile world earlier in the year with his reporting on a record company scandal. Through more than two dozen interviews and over a year of reporting; original photography and video; and interactive audio, this project took both newcomers and experts into the debates and technicalities of this growing market — and captured the artistry that make fans so passionate to begin with.

To open the story, Edgers and video journalist CJ Russo joined the controversial audio entrepreneur Tom Port during one of his “shootouts,” sessions in which Port listens to many pressings of the same record to find the best-sounding version.

How could we re-create this scene for readers? Nothing could match the experience of sitting in front of one of these deluxe sound systems.

With the help of contacts in the music world, the team designed the next best thing. Edgers and audio producer Bishop Sand traveled to Brooklyn with a binaural microphone and a stereo microphone to record the same tracks, the Miles Davis Quintet’s “Oleo” and Neil Young’s “Out on the Weekend,” playing once as a digital file and once on vinyl through Jonathan Weiss’s $363,000 Oswalds Mill Audio speakers. Sand matched the loudness of the recordings postproduction.

The team embedded those tracks as audio quizzes in the story, challenging readers to listen and guess which version was the digital file and which was the vinyl track. After meeting the characters who organize their lives around the search for the perfect sound, readers could get a taste of the difference for themselves.

Further Reading