Steely Dan Re: The Absolute Sound

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I was poking around the official Steely Dan site and was amused to find this exchange in their
fan email archives. (What ever happened to old Siegfried D-B anyway?)

http://www.steelydan.com/steelymail.01.html

Subj: Future Steely Dan recordings
Date: 95-11-27 13:37:06 EST
From: SDuraybito
To: STEELY DAN

In Issue 99 of The Absolute Sound magazine, I surveyed Steely Dan's superbly-recorded LPs from
the 1970s. In each case, the LPs outperform the CD re-issues in terms of sonic quality with a
sense of "you-are-there" that CDs can't match.

On behalf of audio enthusiasts and Steely Dan lovers around the world, I urge you to record
subsequent Steely Dan works all-analogue (preferably through tube mastering decks) and to
issue coincident LP versions of all releases.

Thanks for your time,

Siegfried P. Duray-Bito


Dear Siegfried:
Yeah, and maybe we should write the lyrics with a quill pen on parchment?

Thanks for your lavish praise and your no-doubt scholarly appraisal of our recorded ouvre.
Think we'll pass on the "all-analogue (preferably through tube mastering decks)" deal. MCA is
interested in rereleasing some of our catalog on vinyl, and this may indeed happen soon. I'll
hang on to my CD's - just the thought of that flimsy little phono stylus twitching along in
that scratchy plastic groove makes my fillings hurt.

By the way Absolute Sound is, IMHO, one nutty mag. Fads, feuds, crackpot tweeks, purple
prose-laden gear reviews - it's all there. Although I am not familiar with your work
specifically, I salute you for the great work you are doing on behalf of "golden ear"
audiophiles and followers of the "high end". If there's any coupons left after you shell out
for those x-thousand dollar speaker cables, you might want to consider buying yourself a life.




--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thatsright@excite.co>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Dennis Moore" <dmoore@bham.rr.com> wrote in message news:<ccei15018v1@news1.newsguy.com>...
> I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
> for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?

No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
the tests that showed the real performance. And such is about
all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
couple of years.

Dennis

"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
> "Dennis Moore" <dmoore@bham.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<ccei15018v1@news1.newsguy.com>...
> > I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
> > for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?
>
> No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
> in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you all
> need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
> had such poor measured performance.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Buster Mudd <mr_furious@mail.com> wrote:
> "Dennis Moore" <dmoore@bham.rr.com> wrote in message news:<ccei15018v1@news1.newsguy.com>...
> > Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
> > it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
> > second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
> > with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
> > different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
> > sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
> > distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
> > wasn't an improvement.

> Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
> used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
> chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
> these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
> listening & testing.

> The results of both were elucidating:

> - These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!

> - And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
> roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
> more money than he'd bought all 6 for.

> No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
> them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
> owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
> both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement" ).

> Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?

Then again, the very fact that they were spiffy
little chrome McIntosh tube amps may have affected their judgement.
Looks and brand have such effects. It would have been interesting
to see which amp people would prefer in level-matched trials,
without knowing which one they were listening to. In that case
the sound would have been the deciding factor.

--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Sounds like a broken Mac to me.

I have owned some of those. Pleasant to listen to of course.
But 8-10% indicates a problem, probably a tube of course.

Mac's had lower measured distortion than many tube amps.
And would run clinics to bring them up to the spec if they
weren't. And the spec was way lower than 8-10% unless
you were overdriving them.

Dennis

"Buster Mudd" <mr_furious@mail.com> wrote in message
news:cch4aj01e0v@news1.newsguy.com...
> "Dennis Moore" <dmoore@bham.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<ccei15018v1@news1.newsguy.com>...
> > Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
> > it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
> > second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
> > with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
> > different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
> > sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
> > distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
> > wasn't an improvement.
>
> Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
> used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
> chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
> these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
> listening & testing.
>
> The results of both were elucidating:
>
> - These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!
>
> - And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
> roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
> more money than he'd bought all 6 for.
>
> No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
> them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
> owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
> both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement" ).
>
> Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message news:<ccjlu0026be@news3.newsguy.com>...
> Buster Mudd <mr_furious@mail.com> wrote:

> > Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
> > used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
> > chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
> > these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
> > listening & testing.
>
> > The results of both were elucidating:
>
> > - These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!
>
> > - And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
> > roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
> > more money than he'd bought all 6 for.
>
> > No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
> > them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
> > owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
> > both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement" ).
>
> > Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?
>
> Then again, the very fact that they were spiffy
> little chrome McIntosh tube amps may have affected their judgement.
> Looks and brand have such effects. It would have been interesting
> to see which amp people would prefer in level-matched trials,
> without knowing which one they were listening to. In that case
> the sound would have been the deciding factor.

While I have no doubt the McIntosh brand added quite a bit of cache to
the eventual sell price, you will note I never used the word "spiffy".
In fact, these amps had apparently spent the previous year in the
trunk of a Buick, and looked it. No one who participated in the
listening evaluations mistook them for anything other than the pile of
tubes in desperate need of a refurb job that they were.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Buster Mudd <mr_furious@mail.com> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message news:<ccjlu0026be@news3.newsguy.com>...
> > Buster Mudd <mr_furious@mail.com> wrote:

> > > Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
> > > used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
> > > chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
> > > these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
> > > listening & testing.
> >
> > > The results of both were elucidating:
> >
> > > - These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!
> >
> > > - And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
> > > roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
> > > more money than he'd bought all 6 for.
> >
> > > No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
> > > them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
> > > owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
> > > both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement" ).
> >
> > > Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?
> >
> > Then again, the very fact that they were spiffy
> > little chrome McIntosh tube amps may have affected their judgement.
> > Looks and brand have such effects. It would have been interesting
> > to see which amp people would prefer in level-matched trials,
> > without knowing which one they were listening to. In that case
> > the sound would have been the deciding factor.

> While I have no doubt the McIntosh brand added quite a bit of cache to
> the eventual sell price, you will note I never used the word "spiffy".

Yes, I will note that too, but the brand effect of Macintosh, to those
who care, maps well enough to 'spiffy'.

> In fact, these amps had apparently spent the previous year in the
> trunk of a Buick, and looked it. No one who participated in the
> listening evaluations mistook them for anything other than the pile of
> tubes in desperate need of a refurb job that they were.

Really? Did you do a product perception evaluation before the listening
sessions? Was the brand masked? HAd anyone mentioned the fact that they
were Macintoshes? DId any of the listeners have any particular positive
feelings about tube amps?

--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:

> I just found this list:
> http://www.stereophile.com/images/ [...] tamps.html
>
> that confirms such brands are rarely (or never) reviewed.
>
> I got the impression from this editorial:
>
> Stereophile: "Where's the Real Magazine?"
> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/313/
>
> that the readers won't accept such reviews (because high-end Japanese
> amplifiers/receivers are multi-channel ? * **), so Stereophile doesn't
> review them. They are reviewed in Home Theater Magazine (sister magazine ?)
> but not with the same detail:
> http://www.hometheatermag.com/
>
> * although they can be used with only 2 speakers connected.
>
> ** and there are some high-end stereo-only models. For instance,
> the Yamaha MX-D1 (digital (PWM) amplifier).
>
> Well, I suppose the
> NAD C370 integrated amplifier
> http://www.stereophile.com/amplifi [...] index.html
> is normal enough.
>

A comparison with the NAD integrated amp shows how spectacularly bad
that WAVAC amp really is. Now there is one thing that I thought the
reviewer should have been able to catch: the line spurs (hum) of the
WAVAC. Looking at the measurements, the 180 Hz component is only 60dB
down, and the 420 Hz at -62dB. I would have expected these components to
be quite audible. Also note the strong 3rd and 5th harmonics, at a low
1W output. So much for the sweet even tube harmonics. Contrast those
numbers to the NAD's. You have to wonder if those heavy, expensive power
supplies weren't designed only for their looks and weights. No doubt we
have seen high school science-projects audio amps with better hum
performance. And lower distortion, too. And how about that 10dB peak at
70 Hz? Or the tremendous peaking at 100KHz and 150KHz? Is that what it
takes to sound like live music?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message news:<ccov6t02a3o@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
> Really? Did you do a product perception evaluation before the listening
> sessions? Was the brand masked? HAd anyone mentioned the fact that they
> were Macintoshes? DId any of the listeners have any particular positive
> feelings about tube amps?

1) Yes. I'm serious.
2) Yes, of course. Doesn't everyone?
3) Yes, of course. Wouldn't be a fair evaluation if they weren't,
would it?
4) No, that info would've unfairly biased the listeners, no doubt.
5) No. In fact, *all* feelings, either positive or negative, about
anything and everything in general, were forcibly removed from the
participants via a combination of mind-altering drugs and precise
nuerosurgical procedures. Any evaluation which does not take this
critical step is IMHO invalid, as the listener's feelings inevitably
will bias their perceptions.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" <rps@rena.mat.uc.pt> skrev i melding
news:IbEIc.63015$MB3.50731@attbi_s04...
>
> that the readers won't accept such reviews (because high-end Japanese
> amplifiers/receivers are multi-channel ? * **), so Stereophile doesn't
> review them. They are reviewed in Home Theater Magazine (sister magazine
?)
> but not with the same detail:
> http://www.hometheatermag.com/

No, its this http://www.guidetohometheater.com/

Apparently both is published by Primedia Magazines.


Esp1