A Follow-Up To "The Magic of Design and Synergy"
Scott Frankland & Brian Hartsell

Preface

We expected some resistance when we wrote "The Magic of Design and Synergy"1, and so far we have not been disappointed. Our idea for a new synergy differs from the orthodox notion of synergy in that we explicitly elevate the recording to a level co-equal to that of the playback equipment. From the standpoint of values, therefore, we consider music and sound to be aesthetically equivalent.

This is akin to saying that Stradivarius is no less great than Mozart. This may seem like a shocking juxtaposition to many music lovers. Nonetheless, it must be remembered that audiophiles tend to value sound quality to a degree that is no less shocking. Taken in this light, our revaluation cannot be viewed as extreme, but rather, as a meeting half-way.

Despite the axiomatic flavor of our previous article (see Positive Feedback, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 32-40), it was not our intention to overturn orthodoxy; but rather, to redirect its path from the abstract to the practical. Our hope in writing the article was to set the stage for a productive dialog between recordists and audiophiles. To that end we remain faithful in what is to follow.

Audiophiles have for many years debated the issues of accuracy vs. musicality. The conflict between what is musical and what is accurate will continue so long as recordings — and the equipment used to play them back — are imperfect. Until then, we feel that the best purpose for a high-end system should be to honor the best that recorded music has handed down to us. Make the shoe fit the foot, in other words. Do we sound like stick-in-the-mud traditionalists? Let us hasten to add that we are not dogmatic old farts defending our tired old memories. On the contrary, we listen to new music on a daily basis.

Others, however, seem content to wait until the recording art is perfected, and until everything good about our musical heritage has been superseded. There already exist thousands of recordings unique in their musical content; and, in many cases — given minor defects here and there — they are superbly recorded. It is this legacy that we seek to discover. We call it the search for the buried plum.

Our search begins when we acknowledge the rather grim truth of Axiom 12: "The use of a diverse body of recordings to optimize a playback system can only lead to compromise when any one catalog is played back." We call this the "catch-22" of audio.

The solution we proposed in our previous article was to optimize an audio system so as to bring out the hidden glories of the most worthy catalogs of our recorded musical heritage. We argued that this is the only way to play back the great recordings to their full effect, and thus to resolve the catch-22. Not a very practical solution, we admit, but it does drive the point home. Clearly, then, there is a dilemma here; and we have sought to raise it to a fine point. At the end of the present article we shall propose a far more practical solution.

The aim of our previous article was stated in the opening line: "The following chain of reasoning constitutes a fundamental reassessment of what is commonly known as a reference system." What we clear out along the way are some preconceptions folks have about their audio systems.

We are most interested in knowing what constitutes a reference system. To answer this question we must first divine its purpose. Is it (1) to be as accurate as possible; (2) to give pleasure and enjoyment; or (3) to allow us to connect at the deepest possible level with the recorded material currently available to us? Can it possibly be all three, given the dilemma that Axiom 1 presents — i.e., that all recordings, to one degree or another, are imperfect?

Consider this: a perfect playback system will render an imperfect recording in a perfect manner; thereby producing an imperfect result. Likewise, an imperfect system will render a perfect recording imperfectly; also producing an imperfect result. It is only when both are perfect that we obtain a perfect result. Axiom 8 states the consequence of this dilemma: "Recordings reveal the system as much as the system reveals the recordings."

What if, due to imperfections, an "accurate" system somehow prevents us from connecting fully with the music? How do we justify accuracy if it diminishes what John Atkinson calls the "musical communication"? In posing this dilemma it is immediately apparent that the notion of a reference system must be a two-sided coin; that is, there must be two kinds of reference system: (1) the neutral system; and (2) the optimized system.

In view of the foregoing, we believe the question "What constitutes a reference system?" to be the single most compelling question in audio. The answer will necessarily depend upon the state of the recording art. This dependency implies that the best judge of a reference system will be a person, not only with a wide experience of audio components, but of recording catalogs as well.

Our entire argument is grounded upon this fundamental codependence. Without both kinds of knowledge, we have found, audiophiles cannot make reliable judgments about reference systems. Axiom 9 goes further: "A true reference system must be built up around the world’s best recordings or it cannot be considered a reference system." But how can we distinguish the best recordings in light of Axiom 8? This essay will begin to lay the groundwork needed to properly address this question.

Beginning audiophiles, in particular, are unequipped, untrained, and unprepared to make such distinctions. Indeed, a beginner would not even know how to begin. It would be like asking a 21-year-old to pick out the best of ten Chardonnay’s — and then watching while he took two or three sips from each glass; swallowing each mouthful as he went along. At the end, he will have quite forgotten the taste of the first wine, and would have to begin all over again (and quite willingly no doubt).

Axiom 1 states the fundamental problem: imperfect recordings. Axiom 3 then takes the first step toward a solution: "We take the corpus of recorded music to be a given." From Axiom 3, we may skip, for brevity, to Axiom 11: "Given that recordings are imperfect, it follows that, in order to reproduce a given recording to its full potential, the playback system must provide the inverse of the recording imperfections."

In his criticism of our previous article Tom O. Miiller (TOM) of The Audio Adventure disagreed; believing that distortions compound one another.2 That is certainly true for ordinary distortions, but not necessarily for deliberate distortions. A familiar example of a deliberate distortion is the RIAA characteristic; wherein the signal as it emerges from the cutter-head amp is deliberately distorted with respect to its frequency response. This distortion is later offset by an inverse characteristic built into the phono stage of the playback system. The net result is a flat frequency response. This technique reduces distortion at high frequencies by making it easier for the cutter-head stylus to maneuver in the groove (given the sharp twists and turns made by high frequency waveforms). The RIAA system is an example of frequency shaping.

A more striking form of deliberate distortion is negative feedback. Negative feedback takes a portion of the output signal, inverts it, and then feeds it back to the input. The inverse distortion of the feedback signal then reshapes the input waveform. The net result is a less distorted output signal. Negative feedback is an example of waveform shaping.

Deliberate distortions are also used in digital processing — dither, for example. Dither is white noise added in parallel with the mic-feed so as to noise-modulate the pulse train. In so doing, the quantization steps are scrambled into quantization noise. High-order distortion products are then randomized.3 The audible result is a more benign form of distortion. Dither is an example of noise shaping.

Frequency shaping, waveform shaping, and noise shaping — these are but a few of the ways in which one distortion may offset, and even reduce, another distortion in audio components. This shows that the principle expressed by Axiom 11 can work, when skillfully applied.

Because audio design is a study in ideal compromises, deliberate distortions offer a means whereby certain problems faced by audio designers may be optimized. That is what we are attempting to do with record catalogs. TOM makes the point that a wide variety of recordings are needed to correctly evaluate a playback system for neutrality; and he is careful to include CD’s as well as LP’s. We agree. But Axiom 8 begs the question: how do we really know whether we are hearing flaws in the source material or in the playback system? Such is the difficulty that TOM seeks to overcome by diversity.

TOM goes further, believing that a reference system must always be neutral. The new synergy that we propose, on the other hand, views recordings as constants and attempts to tune the system to suit the records. Our reasoning ultimately leads to Axiom 13: "The new audio synergy is best served when we tune our playback system to one or another of the great record catalogs."

TOM argues that an adherence to Axiom 13 by manufacturers will lead to a screeching halt to progress. Taken as a general rule, we would agree. On the other hand, so long as a manufacturer declares his intentions (as, for example, M.I.T. has done with their tube-oriented cable line), we see no particular road block to progress. Indeed, we feel that alternative means of exploring the limits of the art can be useful stimulants to progress. Axiom 13 is meant to offer such a stimulant; and is by no means intended to supplant traditional methods.

We feel that every audiophile can benefit from such exercises; reviewers and manufacturers included. It was not our intention to restrict the paths to musical meaning trod by audiophiles, but rather, to multiply them. Our previous article proposed a new method for approaching record catalogs. That method is expounded by a series of 15 axioms complete with arguments and commentaries. The convenience of our format should be self-evident by now. We shall continue, therefore, along the path we forged in our previous article, by offering further axioms:

Axiom 16: Every reference system is contingent upon the current state of the component art.

Argument: The status of a reference system thus changes from day to day; and the definition of neutrality remains forever tentative (that is, until such time as perfection is achieved in componentry).

Commentary: The word "neutral", therefore, when used to describe a reference system, must be considered conditional in what is to follow.

Axiom 17: The pursuit of optimization must begin with a full range, neutral system.

Argument: Without such a system, we would not be able to correctly assess our recorded musical heritage; a necessary first step in the optimization process.

Commentary: There are thus two steps to creating an optimized system. The first step leads to a confirmation of accuracy; the second step to optimization. In the optimized reference system, the object is to reproduce the great recordings of the world to their full potential. In the orthodox reference system, the object is to use a diverse body of recordings in order to distinguish neutral components. Once we have distinguished neutral components we can then proceed to distinguish the great recordings. Here we begin to discern the dichotomy that often divides music lovers and hard-core audiophiles. This dichotomy will be addressed in Axiom 18, below.

We know that a perfectly accurate system will not alter the input signal in any way other than to amplify it. What if, by means of such a system, we discovered that all of our records were so bad that we could no longer stand to listen to them? What if? Would we listen anyway? Probably not. We would immediately begin to search for a way to make our records sound musical.

We need a check and a balance, therefore, by means of which we can prevent obsessive sonic perfectionism from overwhelming the more pertinent goal of creating an exquisite musical experience in the home. In the absence of such perfection, let us attempt to define a practical reference system.

Axiom 18: To be regarded as reference quality a system must fulfill three basic criteria: (1) it must be capable of revealing minute differences between recordings; (2) it must reveal the true character of each recording; and (3) it must be capable of showing what is grand about the great recordings [4].

Argument: Regarding the first criteria, if a system cannot reveal the differences between, say, the various stamper runs of a given recording, then, ipso facto, it cannot be considered a reference system. At best it might be considered a pleasantly homogenized system.5 This criteria demands that the system behave as a powerful lens, in order to resolve the finest threads of information buried within the groove (or the pits, as the case may be). We can summarize the first criteria as resolving power.

The second criteria is constrained by Axiom 8 (inherent relativity). Inherent relativity makes it difficult to know the true character of any recording. We can overcome this difficulty by "proving" the record. This process must proceed piecewise; by a series of successive approximations. We prove records by listening to them on a wide variety of playback systems. This reiterative process allows us to create a system so transparent that it "transcends" Axiom 8. We can summarize the second criteria as neutrality.

The third criteria demands that a playback system honor the great recordings. This criteria clashes, to some extent, with the second criteria. Axiom 12 explains why: "The use of a diverse body of recordings to optimize a playback system can only lead to compromise when any one catalog is played back." Until such time as perfect recordings are available, the third criteria serves as a reality check. We can assume that the optimized system will best fulfill the third criteria because in this case we are able to "focus the lens".

This criteria will be controversial because it views the playback system as the complement of the great recordings, rather than as an absolute standard of accuracy. Inherent relativity, as stated by Axiom 8, justifies this view. Our notion of the ultimate playback system follows from: (1) elevating our recorded musical heritage to a higher level than has previously been accorded it by audiophiles (see Axiom 14); (2) taking that heritage as a given (see Axiom 3); and (3) placing a bigger burden of proof on the recordists and mastering engineers (see Axiom 5). This last will be addressed toward the end of this essay. First, however, we need to establish the primacy of our "film & lens" analogy.

Now that we have defined the reference system, and gathered something of its relativity and mystery, it remains to define what constitutes a superb recording. Is it the music, the sound, or some golden ratio of each? A method whereby recordings may be ranked or otherwise rated is something we hope to address in a future article as time permits. We did not intentionally skip over this very important subject.

Indeed, the main intent of the axioms is to help music lovers and audiophiles focus their search for the musical meaning of life. It is this very search that led us to discover the axioms in the first place. Our essay is merely a formulation of those discoveries. Our recommendation to the music-loving audiophile is to first seek the truth about your favorite recordings via a neutral system. You can then proceed to learn the catalog colorations. Having achieved this much, you can, if you wish, begin to search for ways to bring the hidden glories out of your record collection. That is the meaning of our film & lens analogy (see Axiom 12), whereby a known great recording or catalog is used to tune and focus one’s audio system.

For those of you who can’t stomach the thought of tuning your audio system around a family of catalog colorations, we say to you — fine! Think of it as a theoretical truth. That, after all, is the main point of our series, that is, to establish the film & lens analogy as a working theory. We can then proceed to determine what can be done about this dilemma.

We progress toward neutrality only when we compare a great variety of recordings in a highly reiterative process. It is by this process that we learn the catalog colorations; i.e., the distortions that are most typical of each catalog. In addition, a truly great recording will include what we call magical moments; i.e., moments during the performance when one seems to be in the presence of real musicians playing real instruments.

Having learned the catalog colorations, and experienced the moments of realism that are contained within, we can then determine whether a given playback system both reveals and honors these characteristics. This process is what we call proving the playback system (as explained above for recordings). Thus, neutrality itself is a kind of optimization; i.e., a kind of educated guess based on the listener’s ability to distinguish distortions in reproduced music.

It may seem strange that we place so much emphasis on studying distortions. So far as we know, however, this is the only way to prevent being fooled by euphonic colorations. There is a passage from the famous Radiotron Designer’s Handbook, under the subhead: "The ear as a judge of fidelity", that is appropriate here: "It is common practice to regard the ear as the final judge of fidelity, but this can only give a true judgment when the listener has acute hearing, a keen ear for distortion, and is not in the habit of listening to distorted music. A listener with a keen ear for distortion can only cultivate this faculty by making frequent direct comparisons with the original music in the concert hall."6 Shades of HP!

That, apart from the enjoyment, is one of the best reasons to attend live concerts on a regular basis. Even if one chooses to ignore the paradigm known as the absolute sound — i.e., that our reproduced music should imitate as closely as possible what we hear live — we can still benefit by making the comparison. That is because, in so doing, we will learn to distinguish distortions in reproduced music. It goes without saying that distortion can only detract from the goal of perfect accuracy.

It is important to realize that component signatures in the recording chain are every bit as audible as those in the playback chain. We view the storage media (be it tape, LP, or CD) as the bridge that connects the recording to the playback system. The bridge is what allows us to judge either system.

Axiom 19: To get at the truth of any recording, it is necessary to distinguish between colorations that are imparted to the source material by the recording system, and those that are then overlaid by the playback system.

Argument: This axiom starkly highlights the inherent relativity of Axiom 8. The fact that it is difficult to distinguish the truth of a recording does not make it any less desirable, however. It is merely a matter of finding the right approach.

Commentary: An excellent tool for distinguishing recording system colorations is the reissue. By means of reissues of the same recording, one is enabled to more accurately assess the signature of the components in the mastering chain. That is because each issue of a given recording is often produced with "updated" components — such as the tape head; the tape electronics; the cutter-head amplifier; and the cutter heads. Indeed, you can be sure that each of these components will duly engrave its signature upon the source material. These colorations may be difficult to isolate, as to their specific source, but they are nonetheless easily heard en masse.

The recording engineer (the man with the mics) is where the buck stops; because, once the music has filtered through those mics, there is nothing that can be done to improve signal definition. The original recording is thus "a given" (as per Axiom 3). It is the job of the tape editor to preserve whatever is good of the original recording and to offset whatever is bad about it. In that task he is assisted by the mastering engineer and the producer. Once completed, the source media comes into our hands. We can then either accept what the producers have given us or we can attempt to focus the film and offset the colorations.

Axiom 20: When the recording system is of like quality to the playback system, the state of the audio art will have reached critical mass.

Argument: Audiophiles have spent years learning to distinguish the colorations of their playback components. The time has come to distinguish the colorations in the recording chain as well. It is clear that any difference in quality between the two systems will impede the state of the art.

Commentary: So long as recording engineers continue to regard themselves as "the professionals" in our industry — and audiophiles continue to be technophobic — progress in the recording arts will be sporadic. It is important for the recordist to realize that his best ally is the audiophile. And because audio is as much science as art, it is well for the audiophile to respect the formal knowledge of the recordist.

We have found that the exercise of optimization can lead one to new discoveries about one’s system by providing a deeper understanding of the nature of the source material. A key finding is that great recordings respond well to optimization and run-of-the-mill recordings do not. For example, when trying to optimize the sound quality of multi-miked recordings of musicians in isolation booths, one quickly runs into a stone wall — beyond which one cannot go anywhere but sideways in the tuning process. With great recordings, on the other hand, the sound is like an acoustic hologram that rewards the right adjustment by popping into focus.

In our previous article we praised the concept of the "tailored system"; and cited the examples of Linn and Spectral. Each of these companies is attempting to create a fully harmonized audio system that not only considers the playback system, but the recording chain as well. In this category we can also include Cello, Naim, and Atma-sphere, among others. We feel it is useful for everyone that such companies and such philosophies exist. There is no problem so long as we know the manufacturers’ intentions. These intentions, clearly stated, are what prevent the "train wrecks".

Axiom 21: No component can be evaluated in a vacuum.

Argument: Assigning rank to individual components is merely the beginning of the reviewer’s task. In any evaluation process, it is necessary to take interactions into account. This is especially true for interactions between cartridge/tonearm; transport/dsp; amp/speaker; and speaker/room.

Commentary: We feel that reviewers spend too much time evaluating individual components, and not enough time seeking synergies. After all, who is more qualified than a professional listener to create synergies? That, after all, is the art of the audiophile.

Axiom 22: Creating magical synergies is best accomplished by a coalescence of two factors: (1) the audiophile adept; and (2) the experienced record collector.

Argument: Here the concept of the audiophile collector arises. The audiophile collector is a music lover, yes — but more than that, he is a connoisseur of music played back. The connoisseur is a person who, among other skills, knows intimately the colorations inherent in the various record catalogs. This knowledge is necessary in order to avoid violating Axiom 9: "A true reference system must be built up around the world’s best recordings or it cannot be considered a reference system."

Commentary: We would encourage all audiophiles, therefore, to seek alliances with record collectors (and vice versa). What emerges is a more balanced listener (and therefore a more discriminating listener). The audiophile collector is exhorted to gather recordings from all catalogs (whether on tape, LP, or CD), and to note their strengths and weaknesses.

Does this mean we should all become completists and seek to complete each catalog or artist, as many collectors do? Not at all. Rather, we should strive to obtain the best issue of the great recordings. That is the holy grail of the audiophile collector. Indeed, owning a collection of such issues is what justifies the expense of a reference system in the first place!

In addition, we exhort collectors to be eclectic. Please do explore all catalogs in all genres of music. That is what our musical heritage is for. We only paused at the RCA pinnacle (Axiom 15) because we have already explored the other peaks and found them to be smaller in stature and less panoramic in view. But don’t take our word for it — by all means, make your own journey and arrive at your own conclusions.

So where does the discriminating collector begin? In classical music one must often choose between performance and sound. RCA’s, however, often provide both — and in abundance. In popular music there is but one performance (aside from outtakes and live concerts). For popular music the goal, therefore, is simply to find the best sounding transcription of the master tape. It may be the original LP or CD; or it may be a reissue. Mastering is an art — even where CD’s are concerned. All too often the listener will find house painters in charge of restoring the equivalent of Michelangelo’s ceiling for the Sistine Chapel!

One is therefore constrained to ferret out the best copy of a given recording; and the only way to do so is to try every issue. That is the main activity of the audiophile collector; and is one of the most rewarding activities in audio. This activity leads naturally down the path to connoisseurship because it gives as much emphasis to the software as it does to the hardware. Comparing reissues of the same recording is one of the surest ways to obtain the most complete knowledge of one’s playback system (not to mention the most complete enjoyment of one’s system).

Tom Miiller summarizes what is wrong with the search for sound quality alone: "It is the human element in the performance that we exalt. The emotion. The meaning." Positive Feedback’s Tom Davis calls this essential element the "claim" of a work of music; a claim that is explored in a dialog of "address and response" between the listener and the music.7 A dialog is possible because of what Jonathan Valin of Fi calls the "grammar" of the music.8 We call the product of such dialogs the message of the music.

Our job as listeners is simple: seek the message. To which we add: seeking out the best pressing of a given recording is one of the best ways to manifest the message; because, the better the sound, the clearer the message. The message is thus the best reason to seek optimization. Indeed, the message is where optimization and accuracy converge.

Most music lovers tend to prefer the component or system that puts their favorite recordings in their best light. Think about it. How many times have you gone over to a friend’s house and seen a stack of records leaned up against the turntable? CD’s you say? Very well. That stack of CD’s is the "pet stack". The average audiophile, often without knowing it, tunes his system around that stack. So long as software is imperfect, this eventuality remains predictable, and the outcome of this activity remains dubious.

Will our software ever attain perfection? Not likely, given the vagaries of recording spaces and the limitations of microphones. That being the case, designers are often led to make compromises. Always, these compromises will be subject to the designer’s personal biases and preferences. In other words, if a designer feels his sound errs too much toward the analytical, then he may inoculate the sound with an extra measure of musicality (as "insurance"). This happens all the time, and in many different forms.

So, while we agree with Tom Miiller that it is counterproductive for manufacturers to intentionally bias their sound toward one record catalog, we think it should be acknowledged that this sort of thing happens all the time with regard to the designer’s pet stack. God only knows what some designers feel is acceptable reference material. It bears repeating: high-end audio design is different precisely because it distinguishes — and honors — the great recordings.

Axiom 23: The process of ranking the great recordings and identifying the catalog colorations is fundamental to progress in high-end audio.

Argument: Axiom 9 explains why: "A true reference system must be built up around the world’s best recordings or it cannot be considered a reference system." Axiom 10 explains why: "A recording of less than reference quality used as a reviewing tool cannot help but color the judgment of the reviewer as well as the component under review."

Commentary: Axiom’s 8, 9, and 10 state the central thesis of our argument. These three axioms encapsulate the fundamental chasm that equipment designers and music lovers alike must cross if a true reference system is to be assembled or even defined.

Axiom 13 (re: "tuning") is merely a narrowing of Axiom 9 to its logical conclusion. The crux of the problem is reached when we try to rank recordings; because here we run into the dilemma of Axiom 8: "Recordings reveal the system as much as the system reveals the recordings". Due to the relativity of systems and recordings, we must use the inverse approach we used in proving the playback system; i.e., we must listen to each recording on a variety of playback systems.

Axiom 24: Each recording is imperfect in a different way.

Argument: There are so many variables involved in making a recording, and reality itself is so complex, that it is virtually impossible to duplicate (even if we wanted to) the precise circumstances from one recording to the next.

Commentary: Besides, recordists themselves militate against duplication; for the simple reason that, like all good perfectionists, they are constantly striving to supersede their previous efforts.

Audiophiles habitually tune their systems around their pet stack; often in blissful ignorance of the sound quality of their preferred recordings. If it so happens that every record in the pet stack is a dud, then more than likely the owner will prefer a system that will not reveal their problems — a homogenized system, in other words. On the other hand, those owning superb recordings will be more prone to pursue a true reference system (Axiom 18).

Those audiophiles who are aware of the tuning process are often ashamed to admit it because they are taught by the gurus that "high end" means "hands off". Nevertheless, it is every audiophile’s secret wish to have his favorite recordings spring to life in his listening room. Bruce Brisson states as much in his Audio Adventure interview. When asked about his personal motivations as a designer, and about what got him started in high-end audio, Brisson candidly replied: "I kept trying to make the old blues recordings sound better."9 Brisson simply took the family of blues recordings as a given and set about to optimize them.

Once audiophiles are willing to admit to their musical fantasies, it makes sense to consider using every means possible to optimize one’s favorite recordings — including the use of treble and bass controls. There is no harm in doing this so long as the benefits of shaping the frequency extremes outweigh any other colorations that might be introduced by their use. That it is possible to do this without affecting the midrange was amply demonstrated in the early 60’s by Saul Marantz.

Tone controls were given a bad rap when the abso!ute sound condemned them in their Harmon-Kardon Citation 11 preamp review in 1974. That was in TAS Vol. 1, Issue 2. In Issue 3, TAS condemned them again in the Audio Research SP-3. Unfortunately, the SP-3 was not a good test-case for tone controls, as the SP-3 tone controls incorporated additional gain stages. Using the SP-3 tone controls is thus akin to inserting a redundant line stage into your system (they were subsequently dropped in the SP-6). The SP-3’s predecessor, the Marantz 7C, wisely employed the existing gain stages to provide EQ (e.g., the cathode load resistor was bypassed to provide treble boost).

Moreover, the filters in the Marantz were controlled by means of a rotary switch, not a potentiometer as in the SP-3. If Audio Research had followed Marantz’s lead, then TAS’s condemnation could well have been a recommendation. That no high-end company since has had the stones to include treble and bass controls in their preamps is evidence of the power of the press to: (1) influence public opinion; (2) intimidate manufacturers; and (3) misinterpret technology.

One popular tone control used unashamedly by audiophiles is the bi-amped system. In the bi-amped system one is allowed the luxury of a volume control on the bass half of the system. This control allows one to adjust the woofer output and thus also the warmth region of the upper bass/lower midrange. Recordings that were once too cold or too forward suddenly bloom and unfold in our listening rooms; providing a glimpse of the amazing potential for optimization that looms within our grasp.

We have shown that optimization is possible because deliberate distortions can be synergistic when intelligently applied. This series is about synergy and alternative reference systems. The general concept of optimization is simple. The first task is to identify the world’s great recordings. For this "work" we will need a full-range, neutral reference system. Once having established the hierarchy of the catalogs, we can, if we so desire, proceed to assemble playback systems that are optimized for each catalog (or set of sonically-related catalogs). An optimized system is created by focusing the system (the lens) around a specific catalog (the film). We have found this exercise to be both enjoyable and enlightening (while admittedly impractical).

A more pragmatic approach is to make the adjustments prior to playback — i.e., in the mastering studio. We can envision the audiophile dream studio. Let’s say that a producer is interested in remastering a typical 60’s rock recording — Having a Rave-Up with the Yardbirds, for example. This record, even on the tube-mastered UK original, has a lean, raw sound that is often hard to take. The ideal mastering chain, in this case, might include a single-ended tube amp with minimal feedback. This kind of amplifier, used as a cutter-head driver, might provide the inverse colorations needed to offset the colorations of the master tape.

Indeed, Steve Hoffman at DCC has recently remastered Willy and the Poor Boys and "Fresh Cream" by means of such an amplifier and the results are extremely promising. Mobile Fidelity has had similar luck with their Nelson Pass-designed cutter-head amp. Such experiments are watched from these quarters with the greatest interest.

What is being resolved here are problems that mere frequency equalization cannot address. Recording studios have traditionally relied on frequency equalization to turn out a uniform product. Unfortunately, the equalizers used in today’s recording studios often cause more problems than they solve.

We recently had the opportunity to compare several test pressings of Classic Records’ reissue of Ravel’s Daphnis and Chloe; one of which was equalized by Bernie Grundman. It was plain to us that the equalizer added a gritty texture to the sound and caused instruments to blend together into tense clumps, rather than spreading out the sections and localizing the individual instruments as on the unequalized version (or on the original).

Certain other Classic Records’ reissues that went unequalized are also superb.10 Like RCA before them, we’re not convinced that the folks at Classic have yet figured out what’s coloring the sound of their problem records. The ideal solution would be to have on hand several types of cutter-head amplifier; each with a specific set of designed-in attributes (an electronic smorgasbord, as it were). The equalizer, if still needed, should be of the highest quality; and should be used sparingly, and preferably only at the frequency extremes.

The mastering engineer thus acts as an "artful engineer"; matching the appropriate cutter-head amp to a given recording and producing a true work of art. In this task, the mastering engineer would do well to involve audiophiles. This is one connotation of what we mean by the term "synergy": specialists working cooperatively to find ideal couplings between the various elements in the chain.

Marty DeWulf often speaks of "crossing a threshold"; whereby the listener is enabled to suspend his disbelief and become involved with the music as music instead of as audio.11 There is, we feel, yet another threshold: one where the sound/music12 reaches out to stake a "claim" upon us, as Tom Davis is wont to say. The word we use to indicate this musical communion is awe. To us, crossing the threshold into awe is what a "big rig" is all about.

1 Positive Feedback, Vol. 5, No. 6; also published as a 3-part series in The Audio Adventure (Chevy Chase, MD), Vol. 2, No’s. 8, 9, & 10, Aug/Sep/Oct 1995.

2 The Audio Adventure (Chevy Chase, MD), Vol. 2, No. 10, Oct 1995, pp. 16–18.

3 Nakajima, H., et al, Digital Audio Technology, Tab Books, Inc., Blue Ridge Summit, PA, 1983, pp. 66–69; 74–76.

4 Note that these are completely subjective criteria that do not rely on objective criteria at all. This is not to say that objective criteria are without merit. In fact, they are indispensable for design purposes. The tube manuals, for example, would not exist

if not for objective criteria.

5 In the "Summation" section of our previous article we had included a third type of reference system — the homogenized system. This was done for contrast only. In the strict definition of a reference system, the homogenized system does not qualify because it does not reveal small differences among recordings. This does not keep it from being a "musical" system.

6 F. Langford-Smith, ed., Amalgamated Wireless Valve Co. Pty. Ltd., Sydney, Australia (Dist. in U.S.A. by RCA) 4th ed., 1953, pg. 632.

7 "On the Margins", Positive Feedback, Vol. 6, No. 1.

8 "Music and Meaning", the abso!ute sound (Sea Cliff, NY), Issue 103, pp. 32–46.

9 "I’m Listening to Bruce Brisson," The Audio Adventure (Chevy Chase, MD), Vol. 2, No. 12; p. 15.

10 See Brian Hartsell’s comprehensive coverage of Classic Records in recent issues of Positive Feedback.

11 Martin DeWulf edits and publishes Bound for Sound (Kewanee, IL).

12 What we call the sonus.

POSITIVE FEEDBACK ONLINE © 2002 - HOME