Rants

High-end audio prices are getting crazy lately, but this $1,000,000 speaker--the Ultimate--may be the most expensive speaker in the world.

Please understand that $1 million buys one speaker, so you'll need to shell out $2 million for stereo, and at least $5 million for your Ultimate home theater.

The Ultimate is a rather large speaker--each one consists of six, seven-foot tall panels. Each Ultimate houses a total of forty 15-inch subwoofers, twenty-four 8-inch woofers, and massive arrays of 2-inch wide and 1-inch wide ribbon tweeters. All of this is for a single channel/speaker, double those numbers for stereo! A pair of Ultimates are nearly forty feet wide!

That pretty much rules out my chances of getting the Ultimate for review in my Brooklyn apartment, oh well.

Each Ultimate speaker comes with its own power amplifiers, with an output of 31,000 watts, and the manufacturer claims the Ultimate can generate up to 146dB SPL, that's a lot louder than a jet plane taking off. And just because it can play that loud, doesn't mean it has to. Just because a Ferrari can go 200 mph, doesn't mean it can't cruise at 55.… Read more

I know what's wrong with high-end audio: it's a secret.

Unlike high-end cars, watches, clothing, etc., 99 percent of potential high-end audio buyers are completely unaware of its existence. It's interesting, car magazines regularly plaster shots of cars that only a miniscule number of readers could ever buy, apparently because guys who drive Dodge Caravans love to read about Ferraris. Even the New York Times runs fawning features about the glories of exotic cars and not a peep about high-end audio.

High-end audio magazines and Web sites are only read by folks already in the game; the … Read more

We've all read those blogs that "reveal" the parts cost of a fill-in-the-blank, Kindle, iPod, or Palm Pre. If you ask me, this simplistic, by-the-numbers gambit overlooks most of the costs of bringing a product to market.

First and foremost, products, all products, are priced to what the market will pay. I don't care if it's a 16-ounce bottle of Poland Spring water, Coldplay concert tickets, or a Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, retail prices are determined by what the market will pay. And luxury products have higher profit margins than mass market stuff. Oh really?

But the mindless rash of blogs that purport to add up the parts costs, for example $39.51 for the display, $15.96 for 8 gigabytes of flash memory, $15.41 for components, and $12.39 for the 3-megapixel camera, to calculate the cost of anything are hugely misleading. The writer merely subtracts the parts cost from the retail price and concludes the difference is the "profit."

Does the writer assume the company's factory doesn't pay rent or for electricity or heating and air conditioning? And that the factory labor force works for free?

These articles completely ignore other costs, such as research and development and engineering expenses associated with creating say, a Kindle. Manufacturers also pay significant licensing fees for technology used in their products.

Shipping costs of large products such as flat-screen TVs must be factored in before determining the final cost to the consumer.

Oh, and what about the online or brick and mortar retailer? They have their own set of expenses for rent and employees. Some of whom might need health insurance. … Read more

It's interesting. Tens of millions of homes are equipped with multichannel home theater systems, but multichannel music is a dead issue. Stereo rules the roost, for going on 50 years.

Ten years ago it looked like stereo's days were numbered--the two new multichannel formats, SACD and DVD-Audio, were on track to be the next big things. Funny, it didn't work out that way. I cover the subject in detail in my "Whatever happened to 5.1-channel music?" article that appeared in the July issue of Stereophile magazine.

Obviously, 5.1-channel sound makes sense for movies and home theater, mostly because 5.1 was an outgrowth of theatrical film-sound technologies stretching all the way back to the 1950s.

Every attempt to bring surround music into the home without video has flopped, big time. Are you old enough to remember the rise and fall of quadraphonic in the 1970s? What was needed was a surround format that didn't require music lovers to invest in new playback gear. Surely such a format would prove the viability of music surround...wouldn't it?… Read more

A good friend of mine is still fuming over picking HD-DVD over Blu-ray. He's held the grudge so long he just recently dumped the player and even some of the discs and bought a Blu-ray player.

I know another guy who's steamed that his $2,000 6-year-old receiver doesn't have HDMI switching, so to get Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio he plays his Blu-ray over the receiver's 5.1 channel analog inputs. Fine, but the receiver doesn't do any sort of bass management over its analog inputs. The sound isn't so hot.

Do you know anybody who bought a plasma TV in 1999 for around $10,000 who still uses it as their primary display? I don't, but I'd bet most of those buyers are on their second or third display by now.… Read more

It's the hi-fi's job to produce the sound of music encoded in a recording.

Does how well or how accurately it produces the sound affect musical enjoyment? I'm not so sure about measurements; they just define distortion levels, power rating, and frequency response, but they don't have all that much to do with good sound. Good sound is much harder to nail down; we like what we like. You know good sound when you hear it.

Studio recordings rarely sound "live," or even realistic. How could they? Chances are the band never played the entire tune together "live" in the studio. Their music was patched together from bits and pieces, overdubbed, pitch corrected, rhythm corrected, EQ-ed, dynamically compressed, and processed in a gazillion ways. Of course, a lot of that also goes into modern "concert" recordings. So what constitutes a good sounding recording is pretty impossible to define. Play it back over a great system and what do you hear? Does it get your blood pumping?

So the question really is, does the music fully engage the listener? Sometimes, the better the hi-fi, the more music the listener hears, the more they like the music. Why that is? I don't know. … Read more

Stern loves to count the 20 million Sirius XM subscribers as listeners, and his rabid fan base believes him!

Come on, that's a huge stretch, even for the former "King of all Media." Intentionally equating potential audience with actual listeners is classic Stern BS. The former King never made another movie or wrote another book. He's the King of Satellite Radio, and he works for a company that NEVER posted a profit during his reign (it continues to post losses every quarter). Sirius XM stock has been lingering around thirty-three cents a share for the past month or so.

I'm just waiting for Stern to advise his buddy, Sirius XM CEO Mel Karmazin, to boost profitability by eliminating all of the other channels. Stern is the big draw, so why waste resources with all those other channels? I wonder how fast the 20 million number would plummet.

Before the Sirius XM merger "Daily News" writer David Hinckley reported that "Arbitron has released its first-ever ratings for XM and Sirius, covering April-June 2007, and they show that in an average week, 1,225,000 listeners at some point heard Stern." That's the TOTAL for the week, so at any given moment, Stern has maybe a few hundred thousand listeners. Anyway you look at it, that's a sorry ratings number for the former terrestrial radio god.

Arbitron also said that one other satellite channel--XM's "Top 20 on 20" - topped a million during that April-June 2007 ratings period. Since Sirius XM doesn't release its internal ratings, we don't have any way to verify Stern's claims, or other satellite radio shows' numbers.

On today's show Stern admitted that, yes, he has fewer listeners than he did when he was on terrestrial radio, but wouldn't go so far as to say lots of terrestrial radio personalities have far more listeners than he does now.… Read more

Here at CNET we write about all sorts of gadgets and toys, but I've noticed that when I write about high-end gear I get the biggest reaction.

I like hearing about stuff I can't afford, like the recent road test of the $80,000 Jaguar XFR. The big sedan can hit 162 mph, can stop from 150 in 6 seconds, and it's a ball to drive fast. Funny, the road tester never mentioned fuel economy. There you go, people don't buy $80,000 cars for their practicality, they buy them to be seen in and for how well they perform.

High-end audio isn't so different, but it's more private. High-end buyers' families and friends are the only ones who'll ever get to be bowled over by the sound and looks of their spectacular audio systems. So while you've probably heard of Jaguar, chances are you're less familiar with high-end audio brands. I'm here to help raise awareness of quality audio.

I write about the world's best audio gear for "Home Entertainment" magazine, and I recently had the pleasure of testing the Burmester 032 integrated stereo amplifier ($22,495) and B25 speakers ($11,995/pair). Burmester is based in Berlin, Germany. The company builds the sort of hi-fis a Jaguar owner would buy.

The 032 amplifier's sculptured metalwork is drop-dead gorgeous. The amplifier's front and sides are covered by machined heat sinks. They provide optimal cooling for the stereo 240-watt-per-channel amplifier's output transistors, eliminating the need for noisy fans. Burmester components, fully decked out in chrome, are a startling sight to behold. … Read more

Let's face it: Musicians' income from CDs and downloads is on the wane, so they have to make a buck where they can.

Ticket prices for local venues in New York City can be pretty steep. Small jazz clubs can easily run $30, plus a two-drink minimum.

Steve Knopper's "High Ticket Prices Could Hurt Concert Business" article in Rolling Stone at least pointed to relative "bargains" among the big summer tours. Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen's shows have ticket prices under $100; Dave Matthews Band's seats go for $32 to $75; Pearl … Read more