State of the Art, UHF No. 62

You know the word that is the biggest enemy of high fidelity? It's the word "almost." And the runner-up for this sorry trophy? "Near"...as in "near-CD." Recognize it?
     Like me, you probably ran across the n-word for the first time when Sony launched its MiniDisc system, with what was alleged to be near-CD quality. The doomed DCC cassette came with the very same adjective attached. It's an odd claim for systems that discarded over 80% of audio information! More recently, you've seen digital radio praised as being of near-CD quality, as are -- incredibly enough -- MP3 downloads. Not even deejays believe that one.
     The major media (major in audience and readership rather than technological sophistication) have trouble getting even simple terminology straight. And "near-CD quality" is hard to type, so it quickly got shortened to "CD quality." Which is almost the same.
     About that word "almost"...
     It's been with us for a lot longer. You see it in magazine reviews, in which you can read that the $375 JGG CD player is almost as good as the $12,000 Niblet MX. Let's put aside the question of the reviewer's experience with better digital (or with live music!), his point of reference, and the resolution of his system. What does it mean when we say that something is almost as good?
     Does it mean that even after intensive listening it is difficult for an audiophile to determine which player he is listening to? Does it mean people can't instantly identify the players in one of those meaningless A-B-X tests? Does it mean the reviewer would buy the cheaper player and stay with it happily unless the price difference was trivial? Does it mean the reviewer's own player is a JGG, and not only is he used to its sound, but he would like some reinforcement for his feeling that he is a really smart shopper? As you'll recognize, only the second last is meaningful to you if you want to use the review as a basis for your own purchase.
     What happens if you put a whole lot of "almosts" in a row?
     Let me explain that. Some years back, a columnist in a Canadian electronics magazine (long-since dead, and deservedly so) was making fun of the idea that some audio cables were better than others. He noted that the coil in a microphone is composed of a very long length of wire of (presumably) non-audiophile source. Why did we think that, after going through a quarter kilometer of this stuff, the music would be harmed by going through another few centimeters of non-audiophile wire? Surely this cheaper wire was almost as good.
     So now let's put together a system using all the "almosts" we can get our hands on. We've got a CD player that's almost as good as a really good one. Let's add a major brand amplifier that's almost as good as expensive audiophile separates. And a pair of speakers that are almost as good as the speakers UHF reviewed. And then some inexpensive wires that are almost as good as...
     And you wind up with a system that is almost enjoyable to listen to.
     This sort of dumbing down is the reverse of the way good designers develop products. They're always looking for something that is slightly better. Perhaps it's a resistor, or a switch, or an input jack, or just the way a circuit is grounded. It may be the sort of improvement that can be heard by only a few experienced listeners, about 2 a.m. when everyone else is gone and the room is still. Gradually, tiny parts are exchanged, their positions are altered, the assembly techniques are refined. With each improvement, it's the old version that was almost as good.
     But a great product -- CD player, amplifier, speaker, cable -- is the result of a lot of those late night sessions, a lot of tiny improvements. With each one, what comes out of the system is a little more like live music, a little less like an electronic copy. Few new hi-fi products are actual inventions. Most are refinements of what we have known for years.
     The belated answer to the columnist of that deceased magazine is that the use of better wire in the microphone might have been a good idea too. But flaws don't hide each other, they add up. Most of us aren't fortunate enough to be able to control what's on the record, but we can strive to play back whatever has been put there as well as modern technology (and budget) allows.
     Sure, the budget is an important factor. Most of us can't afford the best and most expensive components, and I know that. Remember only this. "Almost as good" is not as good.

(To read the entire issue, just order issue 62 at our secure server.)

Complete articles from this issue:
Vecteur I-4 integrated amplifier, Antique Sound Lab passive preamp, State of the Art

Excerpted articles from this issue:
Copy Right!, DVD for Your Future, Vecteur L-4 player, Musical Fidelity Nu-Vista amplifier, Moon Attraction processor, Creek OBH-12, Two Interconnects, Antique Sound Lab amplifier


		(Reprinted from issue 62 of UHF Magazine. To purchase the issue, click here. Or click here to subscribe to UHF) State of the Art by Gerard Rejskind
If you like what you see in these sample articles, get all of UHF by subscribing Do the concepts of high end hi-fi give you a headache? Take 20 minutes for the UHF Hi-Fi Course. Trying to reach UHF? Our contact page tells you how to find us.
		You know the word that is the biggest enemy of high fidelity? It's the word "almost." And the runner-up for this sorry trophy? "Near"...as in "near-CD." Recognize it? Like me, you probably ran across the n-word for the first time when Sony launched its MiniDisc system, with what was alleged to be near-CD quality. The doomed DCC cassette came with the very same adjective attached. It's an odd claim for systems that discarded over 80% of audio information! More recently, you've seen digital radio praised as being of near-CD quality, as are -- incredibly enough -- MP3 downloads. Not even deejays believe that one. The major media (major in audience and readership rather than technological sophistication) have trouble getting even simple terminology straight. And "near-CD quality" is hard to type, so it quickly got shortened to "CD quality." Which is almost the same. About that word "almost"... It's been with us for a lot longer. You see it in magazine reviews, in which you can read that the $375 JGG CD player is almost as good as the $12,000 Niblet MX. Let's put aside the question of the reviewer's experience with better digital (or with live music!), his point of reference, and the resolution of his system. What does it mean when we say that something is almost as good? Does it mean that even after intensive listening it is difficult for an audiophile to determine which player he is listening to? Does it mean people can't instantly identify the players in one of those meaningless A-B-X tests? Does it mean the reviewer would buy the cheaper player and stay with it happily unless the price difference was trivial? Does it mean the reviewer's own player is a JGG, and not only is he used to its sound, but he would like some reinforcement for his feeling that he is a really smart shopper? As you'll recognize, only the second last is meaningful to you if you want to use the review as a basis for your own purchase. What happens if you put a whole lot of "almosts" in a row? Let me explain that. Some years back, a columnist in a Canadian electronics magazine (long-since dead, and deservedly so) was making fun of the idea that some audio cables were better than others. He noted that the coil in a microphone is composed of a very long length of wire of (presumably) non-audiophile source. Why did we think that, after going through a quarter kilometer of this stuff, the music would be harmed by going through another few centimeters of non-audiophile wire? Surely this cheaper wire was almost as good. So now let's put together a system using all the "almosts" we can get our hands on. We've got a CD player that's almost as good as a really good one. Let's add a major brand amplifier that's almost as good as expensive audiophile separates. And a pair of speakers that are almost as good as the speakers UHF reviewed. And then some inexpensive wires that are almost as good as... And you wind up with a system that is almost enjoyable to listen to. This sort of dumbing down is the reverse of the way good designers develop products. They're always looking for something that is slightly better. Perhaps it's a resistor, or a switch, or an input jack, or just the way a circuit is grounded. It may be the sort of improvement that can be heard by only a few experienced listeners, about 2 a.m. when everyone else is gone and the room is still. Gradually, tiny parts are exchanged, their positions are altered, the assembly techniques are refined. With each improvement, it's the old version that was almost as good. But a great product -- CD player, amplifier, speaker, cable -- is the result of a lot of those late night sessions, a lot of tiny improvements. With each one, what comes out of the system is a little more like live music, a little less like an electronic copy. Few new hi-fi products are actual inventions. Most are refinements of what we have known for years. The belated answer to the columnist of that deceased magazine is that the use of better wire in the microphone might have been a good idea too. But flaws don't hide each other, they add up. Most of us aren't fortunate enough to be able to control what's on the record, but we can strive to play back whatever has been put there as well as modern technology (and budget) allows. Sure, the budget is an important factor. Most of us can't afford the best and most expensive components, and I know that. Remember only this. "Almost as good" is not as good. (To read the entire issue, just order issue 62 at our secure server.) Complete articles from this issue: Vecteur I-4 integrated amplifier, Antique Sound Lab passive preamp, State of the Art Excerpted articles from this issue: Copy Right!, DVD for Your Future, Vecteur L-4 player, Musical Fidelity Nu-Vista amplifier, Moon Attraction processor, Creek OBH-12, Two Interconnects, Antique Sound Lab amplifier [TABLE OF CONTENTS] [BACK HOME]