Sound

In the 1960s, I heard new music on the radio.

The best DJs turned me on to new stuff all the time. Next best source was friends--I'd go over to their house to check out their new LPs. Record reviews in Rolling Stone and The Village Voice flagged intriguing up-and-comers. I used to find new music in record stores, but that rarely happens anymore.

Nowadays it's Sirius satellite radio and Pitchfork. And just snooping around the Internet, including artists' Web sites, I luck onto new music. My latest find: a quirky little band by the name of Clem Snide. … Read more

It's pricey. The "Neil Young Archives, Vol. 1: 1963-1972" Blu ray box goes for $349; the DVD is $250; and the CD set a mere $100. The Blu-ray box contains a sprawling 11-disc collection. Young's been working on this set for what feels like decades; was it worth the wait?

There's a beautifully bound, embossed-"leather," covered book with tons of cool pictures. Hard-core fans will love it, everyone else will look through it once and be done with it.

There's only one unreleased live disc, "Live at the Riverboat 1969." The Blu ray box also includes "Live at Canterbury House" (not a Blu-ray, just a DVD and CD), "Live at the Fillmore East 1970," and "Live at Massey Hall 1971," which have been individually released over the past couple of years. I already bought them, as I'm sure many fans have. What a rip off to make us buy them again.

Most discs have music running times of under 60 minutes, so why oh why didn't Neil fill up more of the discs' capacity, or did he just need to justify an exorbitant MSRP? $350 for 11 discs? Strange, Hollywood movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make retail for under 20 bucks a pop, so why does Neil charge $31 for a disc for music he made nearly 40 years ago? Rip off.

The Blu-ray features ultrahigh resolution 24-bit /192 kHz stereo sound, which you can play over some newer AV receivers, but I'm not so sure that any high-end electronics can access the superduper-sounding PCM tracks. Surround sound? Only one disc has surround. Blu-ray sound quality is about the same as the previously released 24 bit/96 kHz sound on the DVDs that came out years ago. Don't buy the Blu-ray box for the sound; the DVDs are fine.

I had a rough time navigating the Blu-rays' stupidly designed menus and accessing some of the "bonus" material and "hidden" tracks. Hey, I paid my money, why do I have to go round and round to find the music I paid for?

As for video "content," I don't know about you, but watching an LP playing on a turntable or reel-to-reel tapes spinning gets old really fast. Reading pages of text off my TV is also less than entertaining. The photo galleries are nice.… Read more

I know, I know, you don't have room for a decent set of speakers.

I've tried to tell you guys that when it comes to speakers, size still matters. Bigger speakers have tremendous size and performance advantages over pipsqueak models.

But since my pal Brent Butterworth wrote up the new Super Mini Cube speaker for the Sound & Vision Web site I figured something was up. The Super Mini Cube is supertiny; it's less than an inch cube, with a 0.75-inch driver, and better yet, it's powered by a built-in lithium battery. There's also … Read more

I get letters about this all the time.

They usually go something like this: "I'm no audiophile, but can you explain why all of the new, slim, pretty, thin HDTV's sound so bad? I bought a 46-inch Samsung LN46A850 for its great picture, but when I got it home, the sound was tinny. So I bought a sound bar but it had its own issues and I don't want to use multiple remotes. Any ideas?"

The problem is mostly caused by just how skinny these TVs are: There's no room for decent speakers. More than that, I'm sorry to say that sound quality isn't a priority for TV manufacturers, and they know that most buyers accept "good enough" sound. So there's no real demand from consumers to get better sound from TVs. And I guess the manufacturers assume anyone who really cares will spring for a better sound system.

My advice: Check out Zvox speakers; I've reviewed many over the years for CNET. The best bang for the buck model is the 315. It sounds great for $199, and since you can hook it up to the TV's audio outputs, you won't need to use a separate remote (that's also true for some other manufacturers' soundbars).

Consider the 315 only if your TV has a headphone jack--or if its audio output jacks can be set to "variable." Then you'll be able to control the 315's volume with your TV's remote (the 315 doesn't have its own remote).

To learn more about the 315 check out my CNET review.… Read more

NAD is a lesser well-known brand than Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Pioneer, or Sony, but in my opinion NAD makes better-sounding electronics.

Introduced in the late 1970s, NAD's 3020 quickly became one of the best-selling integrated stereo amplifiers of all time. Not just because it sounded better than anything going for two or three times its humble MSRP, the 3020 had that special something that made it, well, lovable. Over the years NAD maintained its leadership position by consistently designing great-sounding, unpretentious products.

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending an advance preview of NAD's upcoming Master Series M2 Direct Digital Amplifier ($5,999). Yikes, the price was a lot higher than I expected, but don't worry, NAD still makes affordable electronics. Its 40 watt per channel C 315BEE stereo integrated amp goes for $349. It's impossible to beat for the price.

But the M2 is something else again. NAD claims it's not just another digital amplifier, and that's a good thing. I've heard some really nice digital amps over the years, but most don't cut it for serious audiophiles. It's not so much that they sound bad, just kind of bland. They gloss over detail and make everything sound the same.

So the first thing I noticed about the M2 was its resolution and clarity. In other words if I didn't know it was digital, I wouldn't have guessed. It's right up there with the better high-end amplifiers. The M2 is a 250 watt per channel stereo integrated amp.… Read more

Editors' note, October 3, 2012: This is an update of a poll from May 16, 2009.

I recently visited EarsNova, a high-end store in NYC, and heard one of the best-sounding hi-fis in my experience. The store's big Rockport Technologies speakers, Constellation Audio amplifiers, and dCS Digital gear reached beyond merely reproducing music, and with my eyes closed, the music sounded as close to lifelike as I've heard. The sound floated free of the speakers; it was effortlessly clear. The illusion worked best with orchestral music, but a few purely acoustic singer-songwriter CDs were almost as palpably realistic. And that's the goal: blurring the line between hi-fi and real, live music; that's what great sound sounds like to me. Lifelike rock recordings are harder to pull off, mostly because they almost always are so heavily processed and compressed they can't sound realistic.

You don't need to be an audiophile to hear the difference between average-sounding and great-sounding recordings, but you do have to listen. Really listen.

First try this experiment and set a benchmark: Listen to someone playing an acoustic guitar, in your room. Then play a recording of an acoustic guitar. Notice any difference in the sound quality between the two? Yeah, it's not even close. If your real, live guitar player can sing, next compare the sound of that person's voice to the recording's vocal. The recording's singer will most likely sound small, tonally thin, like the voice is coming out of tiny boxes. It might be hard to tell the singer has a flesh-and-blood body connected to that voice. The live guitar sounds big and clear -- very clear -- without any edge or harshness. Few recordings of guitar sound like the real thing.

My point here is to first establish a standard of what good sound sounds like to me. I like recordings that sound realistic. After all, if the musician on the record is playing a Gretsch Synchromatic 400 Acoustic Archtop guitar, I'd like to hear its unique sound. But if the producer and engineer recorded the Gretsch through a pickup instead of a microphone, equalized its sound, compressed its dynamic range, added digital reverb, and processed it to death -- there won't be much left to the Gretsch's sound. Then it's just a generic guitar, which is why I would describe the sound of the recording as "bad." … Read more

Last year's HDTVs are yesterday's news, but great audio designs, like Vandersteen's Model 1C floor-standing speaker ($995/pair) stick around for decades.

Richard Vandersteen designs speakers for buyers who care more about sound than fashion. His stuck-in-the-1980s styling isn't a calculated stab at retro. The handsome 1C tower speaker was originally introduced in 1981 as the Model 1, and the "C" iteration debuted in 1996. No matter, it still sounds better than any speaker I've heard near the 1C's price. It's as good as it gets for under a grand.

Change for the sake of change isn't an option at Vandersteen, and that extends to bucking the industry stampede to move production offshore. Vandersteen still builds all of his speakers in Hanford, California, and every speaker is tested and measured in the factory's anechoic chamber. That's commitment.

It's a two-way design featuring a 1-inch alloy dome tweeter mounted just above an 8-inch woofer. The speaker is 36 inches high and weighs 44 pounds. Build quality is absolutely superb.

As you can see from the picture, the 1C isn't a conventional "box" speaker; the baffles supporting the drivers were designed to be as small as possible to reduce the reflections that are (unfortunately) part of the sound of conventional speakers.

The audible differences between box speakers and the 1C aren't subtle, so the very first thing you'll notice about the Vandersteen sound is that it's remarkably "open" and dare I say it, it approaches the purity of some high-end panel speakers. It's simply more natural sounding than any box speaker near the 1C's price.

The Vandersteens' soundstage depth is positively addicting; the spacious image isn't just wide and deep, it's also taller than average, which adds to the believability of the sound. … Read more

How's the Sirius XM satellite radio monopoly working out for subscribers? Not so well. Now that Sirius XM is the only game in town, it's nudging up fees for subscribers. Nice!

The one and only satellite radio company's boasts of its ever-increasing subscriber base are gone now, and the decline is significant. The number floating around the Internet is a loss of 400,000 subscribers. That still leaves 18.6 million, but there's no way of knowing how many of that number are full-price-paying subscribers.

Could the subscriber losses be attributed to recent price hikes? The … Read more

Today's receivers are jam-packed with features, but the one thing they lack is power.

In fact, most $500 receivers never come close to delivering their rated power into all channels.

Some can barely manage a third of their claimed wattage. Right now, your 100 watt per channel receiver might be pumping out only 30 something watts.

People ask me about this stuff all the time--"Steve, Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony and Yamaha receivers all boast up to the nanosecond surround processing modes, connectivity options up the whazoo, and fancy shamncy remotes--so what exactly would a brawny multichannel amplifier get me?" My answer to these queries is always the same: "Just two things, the power and the glory."

The problem: Receivers, even big ticket, $2,000+ models can't spare enough internal real estate to house humongous transformers and hefty power supply capacitors--the compromises inevitably start there. Separate power amplifiers have room for all of that good stuff.

Enter Emotiva Audio's XPA 200 watt, five-channel amplifier ($799), 1,000 watts total. It's actually a lot more powerful than just double your average 100 watt per channel receiver; the XPA amplifier can deliver up to 350 watts to each of its five channels with four-ohm speaker loads. You'll look far and wide to find a receiver that can drive low-impedance speakers like a separate power amp can. And it'll cost a whole lot more than the Emotiva XPA will.

Oh, and please don't worry that the XPA is too powerful for your speakers. Too much power doesn't harm speakers, playing them too loud with an underpowered receiver is far more likely to do your speakers in. … Read more