AS WE HEAR IT: Moving forward as audiophiles & a plea for higher dynamic range music (to Epica). [Plus highest DR Oasis - Definitely Maybe.]

Well, this weekend is Pacific Audio Fest 2024 and I figure since it's nearby in Seattle and they've decided to make it every 2 years (next in 2026), I'll pop down for a look and listen for a couple days. It's fun staying incognito for the most part as a "more objective" audiophile even if this might not be the prevailing culture at these shows to get a sense of how the megabuck systems perform, what's potentially exciting, and observe the trajectory of the hobby. Given the busyness of work these days, I'll just take my time this year on the show reports with pictures, sharing some thoughts over the next couple weeks.

For this post, it's time for an "As We Hear It" article based on reader E-mails.

I. First Watt Amplifiers & Progressing as Audiophiles

June 26, 2024

Hi Achi:

Your blog took me here (ie. E-mail address) and thanks for all your wonderful work to make the audiophiles' world a better place. Here is my little story.

I have been an audiophile for as long as I can remember. But only recently decided to get serious about the equipment side of things. Thanks to the YouTube channel called Audiophiliac by Steve Guttenberg, I quickly decided to get a pair of Magnepan speakers. That was wonderful, due to planar construction, the transparency and soundstage is amazing. 

And because of that I had become a fan of Steve, and of course he seems like a trustworthy guy with years of experience, so I trust what he claims in the video. So not long afterwards, I paid $4000 for a First Watt SIT-3 amplifier, which he made very exaggerated claims about. Only after I received it and AB tested it, it sounds the same as my $600 integrated class D amp, I simply can’t hear any difference! I have sent a comment to Steve and asked about it, he is no longer making the claim anymore, just left a vague reply. So I did a bit of searching online and stumbled on your blog, then I realize it's all marketing. For the technology in audio we have now, the only things that make a difference in listening to music is completely different speaker technology and room treatments, the rest of the equipment is just so good now even for a fairly cheap one can do the job adequately.

That experience left me confused. Seemingly trustworthy people and trustworthy YouTube channels, making exaggerated claims, sometimes false claims. Then I dug deeper and realized the magazine like Stereophile and the like have been making exaggerated claims for decades.

I wish your blog can be read and seen by more people. This snake oil business should be stopped.

Thank you for taking time reading this. All the best to you and keeping up the good work.

Regards,
MT from Sydney

Hey MT, your E-mail is certainly far from the first of this kind that I have received over the years. You're in good company among frustrated audiophiles questioning the claims out there. I think there are a couple of issues at play with much of the typical subjective-only, especially old-skool audiophile way of talking about the products as Guttenberg does:

    1. Stagnation.
    2. Exaggeration and hype.

Despite their years of writing and listening to hi-fi, I've often wondered whether that older generation of audio reviewers (Guttenberg, Reichert, Fremer, etc. most quickly come to mind) actually learned much about the technologies they have been writing about for decades. One wonders about the sound quality they're actually experiencing, especially when I see images of their sound rooms and how small and cluttered they appear. They often will almost idolize older technologies like tube amps and turntables that are not actually capable of modern high-fidelity performance, and don't seem to show an understanding of their own limitations at such advanced age (discussed in the last AWHI). As such, is Guttenberg then utilizing facts and knowledge to drive his recommendations, or is it that just because there's the Pass name and his buddy Herb Reichert gave it a positive review, he's positively predisposed to the SIT-3?

Objectively, this amp performs poorly as a high-fidelity device (BTW, previously, I've played with the SIT-2). With something like 8W/8Vrms into 8Ω at 1% THD, and >0.2% by 1W, it simply does not deserve accolades like Reichert's claim that "The First Watt SIT-3 seemed to preserve the geometry of the original harmonic relationships better than any amp I can remember, and thus made instruments sound quite real." when clearly it's adding distortions to those "harmonic relationships" he waxes poetic about. As usual, there is nothing wrong with liking this kind of sound, but what's happening is simply not as he describes - the idea of "preserving" the "original harmonic relationships". Much less "better than any amp I can remember" in all his decades of reviewing?! How does he even know this is the reason he thinks it sounds good, unless he measured, would his ears actually quantify exactly how much 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. harmonic is in the signal given that he is attributing the sound to its harmonics?!

I had a look at this Guttenberg preview video for the SIT-3 and marveled at how he can so easily rattle off claims like how much "juicier", "bolder", "richer", "harmonically" impressive, "body, soul, soundstage is massive" compared to the Pass Labs XA25 (25W into 8Ω). He claims the SIT-3 is "about beauty". And "magic" in the later video. Personally, I find these kinds of descriptions meaningless because they do not really convey the experience in any concrete way; more likely hyperbolic, haughty bloviation of impressions that do not correlate to actual sound waves - highly probable mental fabrications. Let us not forget that the "magic" and "beauty" of music is derived from the albums created by the artists and studio engineers. Sonic editorialization imparted by the amplifier or other reproduction hardware which Guttenberg seems to eulogize is by definition running counter to the hi-fi hobby that historically has strived for transparency.

So let's get concrete. MT, since you're willing to spend $4000 on the amp, I assume the Magnepans are one of their higher end models, let's say something like the $9000 Magnepan 3.7i. IMO, never spend more on the amp than your speakers unless the amp is a collector item, which could be the case for the SIT-3. We can see that those Maggies are rated at 4Ω impedance with sensitivity of only 86dB/m/2.83V. Assuming the speaker impedance is relatively flat around 4Ω  and we want to keep distortion below 1%, if you're sitting 10 feet away (3m since these are tall 6' dipole speakers - not a good idea to skimp on space), being driven by the First Watt SIT-3 (~18W into 8Ω, doubling to 16W into 4Ω), the peak amplitude would be around 92dB SPL for both speakers driven, or only 89dB for a single speaker in a typical room with the speakers away from the walls (we can use calculators like this and this to get the estimates).

Since we don't want to go deaf but still want some hi-fi headroom, for medium-loud reference playback, it would be nice to be able to reach at least 85dB average with transient peaks of at least 15dB which puts us over 100dB SPL both speakers when you hit some really dynamic orchestral recordings for example. To achieve this, you should consider about 250W amps for the Maggies to hit those transients! (By nature, the Magnepans are not known for massive dynamic impact, all the more reason to make sure we feed it enough current to get the best out of them.)

Rather than listening to people like Guttenberg to start, I would recommend seeing what the manufacturer says first. While Magnepan seems to be a bit cagey about recommended amps for the 3.7i, here's what they say in the 1.7i manual which has similar specs:

"These speakers should be paired with high-end audio equipment for the most ideal effects. A powerful and/or high-current amplifier(s) is best---certain exceptions apply but generally an amp ought to be able to produce at least 120 watts per channel (RMS) into 4 ohms in order to properly drive the MG1.7i's. Within reason more power and/or higher current is better; there isn't really an upper limit. In addition to the system components, the input signal should also be high-quality. Subpar components and/or input(s) will be sonically evident."

Sounds reasonable. Personally, for power-hungry higher end Maggies in a comfortable sized room, I would check out some Bryston, Parasound Halo A21(+), maybe the Pass X250.8 if you don't mind splurging. Heck, for fun, you might even want to try the inexpensive 2 x Fosi Audio V3 Mono PFFB (~US$140 each, capable of over 200W/28Vrms, 4Ω, 0.1% THD discussed in the last 2 weeks) and have a shoot-out going! I bet you'll hear more "oomph" and clarity compared to the Pass SIT-3 at a fraction of the price.

This is all to say that the First Watt SIT-3 is underpowered for these kinds of speakers but would be fine with high-sensitivity horns for example. If Guttenberg made such a recommendation, well, maybe he's assuming that everyone lives in a small apartment with tiny sound room, Maggies pushed closer to walls, and noise sensitive neighbors. One more thing, the output impedance for the SIT-3 at 0.25Ω isn't impressive when matched with low-impedance speakers. 🤨

As per Lord Kelvin:

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science."

That's what it takes to be progressive in any scientific and technological endeavor. As far as I can tell, this is not within the ability of people like Guttenberg who make opinionated claims without evidence or even audiophile common sense to suggest evolution in understanding over the decades. I believe that we need to leave these kinds of reviews behind if we actually want to learn how this works; or at least just view them as mainly non-serious performative entertainment - nothing wrong with that I suppose. There is nothing in audiophilia that cannot be measured and demonstrated to be real, avoiding the dramatic language, with absolutely no need to resort to "magic" if what we're after is reality-based value as hi-fi consumers. Let's be insightful (starting with ourselves and what we can actually perceive), let's be honest, and of course, let's be real.

Good luck MT! Wishing you great times ahead with your music enjoyment and hardware explorations!

Well, in praise of Guttenberg, at least he was disappointed in the sound of the Bose 901 Series VI speakers which should not be a surprise. A friend owns some Bose 901 Series V and they've always sounded boringly dull, projected a diffuse unfocused soundstage, tonally lacking, with very unrefined treble. I also personally don't like how they look, stand and all, yuck. (Bose 901 measurements here and here.)

--------------------

II. Poor Dynamic Range Albums: Mad As Hell, and I'm Not Going To Take This Anymore! 😡

June 29, 2024

Hi Archimago,

I'm a fan of yours and have been inspired by your blog to write complaint emails to as many labels and bands as I can find regarding record labels' overuse of compression in heavy metal. However, after six months of emailing, I haven't had any success. While I have no interest in social media, I believe a public approach might be more effective.

As someone who clearly enjoys social media and public writing, you are in a much better position than I am to make an impact. Would you consider writing a blog post encouraging your readers to publicly post on the bands' and labels' social media pages? I believe this is the only realistic way to bring about real change.

I am willing to help in any way I can.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

Hey there Dan, well, let's talk about this topic. To be honest while I like writing and putting ideas on the blog, I'm not active in the world of social media. Just not enough time in the day with the full-time job and kids.

Over the years, there have been various attempts at improving the dynamic range quality from artists and music labels. For example, mastering engineer Ian Shepherd started Dynamic Range Day back in 2010. And there's also the Bring Peace to the Loudness War petition from 2016.

I'm not sure how much impact they have had to the music industry. For years, I've criticized the mainstream audiophile press that they have not adequately addressed the topic of dynamic range compression for their readers. Also a reader once suggested "Full Dynamic Range" as a marketing slogan that could be used.

Indeed, maybe grassroots messaging and comments to the artists and labels might have more of an impact assuming there are enough of us wanting to raise our voices.

July 17, 2024

To ensure our efforts align effectively with our goals, I've outlined clear objectives: 

1) Gain recognition from the band and label,

2) Foster professional and courteous discussions, 

and ultimately 3) Advance towards improved mixes.

To achieve these goals, I propose a focused approach: Let's initiate thoughtful and well-articulated discussions on Epica's social media pages. By doing so, we aim to capture the attention of both the band and their label, thus progressing towards gaining recognition. Moreover, we should encourage others to join the conversation, sharing their viewpoints whether they support or challenge our perspectives. This approach not only promotes engagement but also demonstrates that our concerns resonate with a wider audience.

By initiating these discussions in a respectful manner, we lay the groundwork for achieving our objectives.

Here is a template to use for posting on Epica's social media pages:

I've been diving into the audio dynamics of Epica's "The Second Stone" (from album Quantum Enigma) and noticed something striking. The compression levels here are far more aggressive than what you'd find in death metal bands like Wormed and Defeated Sanity. Peaks ranging from 0.00 dB RMS to -7.10 dB suggest clipping and distortion issues.

Let's discuss in the comments!

Wormed's "Virtual Teratogenesis" maintains a DR9, with peaks at -1.00 dB and RMS at -11.68 dB, demonstrating a broader dynamic range and clearer sonic details throughout its duration. Similarly, Defeated Sanity's "Propelled Into Sacrilege" also exhibits a DR9, with peaks at -0.10 dB and RMS at -10.14 dB, showcasing a wider dynamic range compared to "The Second Stone". 

The aggressive compression in "The Second Stone" obscures its intricate details under overwhelming volume, thereby diminishing its potential impact. A more spacious and dynamically varied mix could significantly enhance listener engagement and allow each element to shine more brightly.

My original email needs updating as I've learned a lot more since then. Producers read album reviews, so this is definitely worth acting on. It would be worthwhile to email reviewers, asking them to speak more about the album mix.

Specific examples of overly compressed albums would be Epica's album The Quantum Enigma. Another example is comparing Judas Priest's 30th-anniversary British Steel release with tracks included in the 50 Heavy Metal Years of Music collection.

It's great that you've built up a large following, but I feel like at this point, all we're doing is agreeing with what's already agreed upon. To progress to the next stage, we need to start engaging with those who haven't considered how an album is mixed, including the people involved in the mixing process. That's why it's best to encourage your readers to publicly post their complaints on Epica's social media.

All the best, 

Dan

I feel your pain, Dan! Looks like you're a big fan of the symphonic metal genre and Epica in particular but sick and tired of the dynamic range compression ("loudness war"). I think you're right. Those of us already in the know about dynamic range compression have agreed for years that this is a problem... How do we now assert some influence toward a wider discussion with other music lovers and those who do music production? I agree with the need to foster professional and courteous discussions in order to effectively influence change. 

I had a look/listen to The Quantum Enigma and see that it's an average DR6 which is indeed a bit too compressed for my liking as well. For readers wondering, this is what the waveform looks like for "The Second Stone" that Dan's complaining about:

Alas, limited variability throughout the track and there's clipping near the start. Unnecessarily fatiguing.
BTW: Do not buy the 24/96 "hi-res" version. It's just upsampled stuff, easily downsampled to 16/44.1 and you lose nothing (another example that we should be "post-Hi-Res" in our thinking).

Cool track and I can certainly imagine how a more dynamic mix/master would have added a lot more power and articulation to the piece, allowing the percussion to hit harder, more nuances in those high-speed complex guitars, with less overall unnecessary distortion, thus allowing the artist to convey climactic moments over those 5 minutes. I noticed on the album there are tracks like the more gentle Asian-inspired "The Fifth Guardian" (BTW, this track sounds beautifully holographic when I listened using X-talk Shaper DSP). Given the intended drama and scale inherent in the operatic symphonic metal genre, for sure, better use of wider dynamic range could further improve emotional engagement for fans!

Alas, just one example of so many lost opportunities over so many years. 😒 I believe this is mainly the fault of record labels who chose loudness over quality, certain mastering engineers, although artists must also take some blame since this is their work ending up like this. I hope that artists will look at their legacy and consider whether the sound they leave behind is going to be a source of pride rather than done for short-sighted "I'm louder and got more attention" gain.

These days, with sharing and feedback to artists available over social media on X/Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Pinterest, Reddit, etc., by all means readers, send a note out and see if the artists respond to complaints about the quality of their productions. This could send a powerful message and provide necessary pressure to inform change.

As an audiophile community, we're simply not a huge group, but sometimes it only takes a few loud voices to convey a strong message. Don't be afraid, be that agent of change! Shout it out from the rooftops if you have to like this: 😁

For Epica fans like Dan, here's what I see - leave a note at these places:

@epicaofficial on Instagram

Epica on Facebook

@Epica on X/Twitter

r/epica on Reddit

Epica on Patreon - definitely let them know if you're a paying patron!

Good luck Dan and other fans on sending out the messages to your preferred bands/artists. Hope they, the label, and their support people hear the feedback and maybe with upcoming albums you'll see at least DR9; that'll be a good start before maybe even double digits. 😐

Don't forget that money talks so sometimes the best thing to do is just not buy higher margin products like deluxe sets or the physical releases like their CDs or LPs - and let them know why.

On a positive note, there are metal bands out there that understand the importance of "Full Dynamic Range". Dan sent me this link of Mithras' On Strange Loops [The Hi-Res Full Dynamic Range Edition]. Nice, I hope more artists can appreciate the issue and release versions like these! And looking at the comments, we can see that many fans appreciated the improved quality.

--------------------

One last thing, as I mentioned last year, we can achieve significantly better dynamic range by taking a multichannel/Atmos mix which adheres to Dolby's -18dB LKFS/-1dB TP loudness guidelines and fold down to 2-channel stereo. For example, I see that Darko recently lamented on the loss of DR in Oasis' recent Definitely Maybe 30th Anniversary remaster. Well, let's take a look at the multichannel/Atmos rip folded into stereo and normalized to 100%:

As you can see, for this track, dynamic range from the multichannel mix (DR10) is even better than the original 1994 release (DR6) which is better than the current 30th Anniversary CD (a mere DR5).

Oasis is not known for great sound quality, but at least the difference with improved dynamic contrast is obvious. This downfold would also be superior sounding IMO than the noise and obvious distortions on vinyl rips even with higher DR values which could be mainly artifactual.

Here's a look at the DR for the full 2024 Definitely Mainly multichannel album converted to 2-channel stereo:

NOTE: Just a quickie conversion to show the DR values. If I seriously wanted this album in stereo, would fine-tune the multichannel fold-down parameters and normalize the peak levels back to ~100%.

Average album DR10 - I don't think I've ever seen a digital release of an Oasis studio album with that much dynamic range! Now that, my audiophile friends, should be the direction of future remasters to get me even mildly interested in repurchasing the same music again.

Hope you're enjoying the music, audiophiles!