Audiophile bulls**t & final thoughts about nine reviews

Hallo meine süßen Lieblinge!

During the last few weeks I´ve reviewed the following units: Kenwood DP-5090, Pioneer DV-610, Sony CDP-470, Pioneer BDP-140, iRiver IMP-550, Sony MZ-R 55, Sony MZ-R 37, Sony NW-A 1000 and the Sansa Clip+. You might have wondered where I was getting at with all these reviews; I usually have an overarching theme or reason for my articles, haven´t I? Well, I planned to feature all reviews in just one article, in the end stating my conclusions - of course, that would have enlarged that article into gross proportions. So I seperated the already written article into ten singular parts, the one you´re about to read contains my conclusion and opinion.

For as long as I can think I wanted to read a review where units from different classes are compared to each other. Why not comparing a portable player playing lossy music to an SACD player spinning high resolution media? I mean their goal is the same: playback with a-good-as-possible quality. But have you ever read a review where something like that happens? I have not and I assume peoples' misconceptions about compression, size, weight, number of parts and price have something to do with it. Ask yourself: why should a tiny, portable player be worse than a much bigger stationary player? Can less available space really be a reason for worse sound? I also wanted to know how well ancient players would hold up to more modern devices, a universal disc player for example. You only have to take a look at eBay where more than 20 year old CD players are able to reach high prices; something that also applies for units that were not even top-of-the-line back then. Yet recent universal players are derided as being far away from high fidelity sound by magazines and the public alike. People seem to believe that everything was better in the old days... a curious thing really when you think about it: assuming modern units contain more advanced parts why should they be worse? Common conceptions therefore are:

• old units have better built quality
• they contain much more parts - good for sound, isn´t it?
• ancient units are heavier - must sound better
• small units with their space restrictions must sound worse
• older technology sounds less 'digital'
• huge, conservative power supplies are vital for perfect sound
• lossy media cannot ever be competitive against high resolution material

I could extend this list to infinity but it wouldn´t make much sense in light of the contents of this article. I could for example mention the recent craze about NOS (Non OverSampling) D/A converters... there are so many things wrong with this approach that it´s very confusing that people even consider it as an option while ignoring 30 years of technical progress. Or tubes... no, I won´t start. I´d rather talk about audio magazines  seemingly confirming those conceptions about quality as stated above. You see, magazines only compare units from their respective classes, they also support the view that smaller gadgets must sound worse simply because of their size. But the biggest thing they are claiming is that High End audio sounds much better than 'normal', standard audio. For some years now I have the opinion that High End audio isn´t really better, only different. Expensive media players for example are more or less tweaked to sound a certain way, a sound pleasing to the common audiophile. Companies subsequently tweak their units towards sonic goals such as warmth, precision, punch, snap etc. Will those expensive toys sound like the original? Of course not. They will sound well with Rock or classical music and not so well with anything else - but that doesn´t matter since few audiophiles actually branch out of the musical genres they usually listen to. I have to admit though that heavy units look and feel better, you extend a considerable trust towards them by assuming that weight and complexity are good traits for players.

Let´s ignore my own and your prejudices and take a look at the actual thing. In this article you won´t have any of the prejudices or certain preferences with me because as I´ve stated many times before I don´t compare any unit to another one, I compare directly to the master used for the creation of the testing media itself. No one else does this and I believe my approach to be genuine and also to be the only methodology coming close the precision of DBTs without their disadvantages. Regarding my reviews I didn´t know what to expect or what I´d be ending up with. I thought it possible that all the conceptions above might be true while also accepting the opposite. Naturally, this article reflects my findings, with different hardware it could have turned out different. So you have to be aware that I don´t regard my conclusions as written in stone, they could change depending on experiences with other units. I also accept that you, dear reader, won´t agree on a comparison of high resolution to lossy material. But think about it: the advantages of high defintion might be swallowed by the imperfections from the device playing it back so that in the end lossy material coming from a superior unit might be the better representative.

Four stationary players: Pioneer DV-610, Sony CDP-470, Pioneer BDP-140, Kenwood DP-5090

For better comparison of all the reviewed units I have calculated the average of the points they earned, these are subsequently used for a ranking (this is a first for my blog). Be advised that those averaged numbers obscure the differences between the units, a unit like the MZ-R 37 for example might not have a sonic character suitable for you despite receiving a high number of points. For the described details and difference please have a look at the respective articles linked on the top of the page. The results were surprising on some occasions, on others however they were not:

1st place

Pioneer DV-610, SACD:

4.6 Points

2nd place

Pioneer BDP-140, CD/SACD:

4.4 Points

3rd place

Pioneer DV-610, CD:

4.0 Points

4th place

Sony NW-A 1000

3.8 Points

4th place

Sansa Clip+

3.8 Points

5th place

Sony MZ-R 55

3.6 Points

5rd place

Sony MZ-R 37

3.6 Points

6th place

Kenwood DP-5090

3.0 Points

7th place

iRiver IMP-550

2.6 Points

8th place

Sony CDP-470

1.2 Points

If you´re a believer in high end units you are probably crushed now, right? A multidisc player playing SACDs is the winner (it really sounds close to the reference) while another multidisc player follows closely. Both multidisc units are lightweight, not manufactured that well, have very few parts and cheap plastic drives. Their power supply doesn´t seem to have received much care at the design stage, they 'only' have those dreaded and efficient switching power supplies supposedly known for causing bad sound quality on PCs. Likewise, small portable players are not necessarily worse in sound quality - as proven by the two 4th places, the Sony NW-A 1000 and the Sansa Clip+. The NW-A 1000 is especially interesting since it has to use lossy material - who would´ve thought that mp3 would sound that well? Most disappointing were the results for the iRiver IMP-550, the Sony CDP-470 and the Kenwood DP-5090. The latter was surprising because it contains many parts (some of high quality), has a decent power supply, a well built CD drive and a good overall built quality. It also received favourable reviews from magazines when released in 1997. But its sonic signature favors 'shrill' and 'piercing' way too much, it´s not neutral and introduces very audible differences though all of these could be pleasing for a certain target audience. The Sony CDP-470 was supposed to have a good old school sound... it does indeed sound old school - but in a bad way. It´s a very digital and harsh sounding player, the numerous parts on the PCB and the reliable drive are not helping. The Sansa Clip+ is beloved everywhere but doesn´t hold up to its reputation, due to age related imperfections it shows enormous amounts of audible distortions. The best gadget for the price would be the Sansa Clip+; while it´s not perfectly balanced its dynamic and slightly more aggressive sound signature will appeal to many people.

What does these results tell us then? Not as much as I´d hoped but nonetheless they pose some interesting questions: when a cheap multidisc player sounds close to the reference how can a high end unit have superior sound? Answer: it can´t. It probably changes sound into something different with a more charming character, appealing more to the intended audience it was designed for. When a player using as few parts as possible can sound so well and refined why are many, high quality parts even necessary? Answer: they aren´t. Both Pioneer players achieve their goal of good audio quality with a layout that only seems to lack sophistication, yet in reality it works well. If lossy material (mp3 or MD) holds up so well against lossless or SACD, are those even necessary? Answer: Yes and No. High resolution is indeed able to extract the last little detail and crispness - the real question is if it´s audible for everyone which I´d answer with a 'No'. It certainly isn´t audible on every unit as proven by the BDP-140. Generally, sonic disadvantages of lossy audio are exaggerated as well as advantages of lossless or high resolution audio. Are portable personal players worse than their stationary counterparts? Answer: not necessarily. The NW-A 1000 or the Clip+ perform well while the two stationary players (DP-5090 and CDP-470) really fucked up. Are ancient players any better than more recent counterparts? Answer: No. The last place is occupied by the oldest player, also sounding 'old'. If you want to listen to an example of the supposedly digital and distorted sound of the CD go for that model. Can units playing back lossy material be superior to units playing back lossless quality? Answer: Yes. Three players, using mp3, AAC or MiniDisc are superior or equal to four others using lossless material. The codec therefore doesn´t decide about sound quality, the device itself does (provided that one uses well encoded material).

All of this should prompt you to think carefully about purchasing an ancient unit, it should also create skepticism regarding fantastic reviews of high end gadgets and their supposedly gorgeous sound quality. Many parts or heavy units don´t automatically guarantee perfect sound. You should also regard the recent craze about high resolution with serious doubts; it can have an advantage and better sound quality but the differences are so small that many people won´t ever hear them. The Pioneer BDP-140 comes extremely close to the sound of the Pioneer DV-610 (using SACD) with CDs only. So please, think twice before you buy something or trust someone, go out there yourself and don´t stop comparing and being skeptical.

Last update: 17.06.15

Review: FiiO E6

EDIT 16.01.2013: I´ve received a FiiO E07K a few days ago and the experience I made with it prompted me to alter this article. I´ve therefore updated / changed it considerably.

I bought the FiiO E6 in November 2011 and since then this tiny, little headphone amp has made me extremely happy. I´ve always loved its pleasant sound. Some weeks ago I started to think about this and asked myself: "Why do I like its pleasant sound so much? Should it really be this pleasant? Is it really neutral?" Should you be a faithful follower of my blog you already know that I´ve been using it for almost every review I´ve written for this blog, I´ve used it for my portable CD players, I´ve used it for my Sansa Clip+, I´ve used it at home, I´ve used it when I was outside, I´ve occasionally even used it with my ASUS Xonar Essence ST. The FiiO was the only thing during those months that was able to make me truly happy without showing any flaws whatsoever. And that´s where I have been wrong because it sadly colours the sound, neutrality really isn´t an advantage it has. My original conclusion to this article was:

"By now it should be clear to you, dear reader, that you won´t necessarily need an ultra-expensive headphone amp in order to experience sonic bliss, the FiiO E6 will do just nicely with headphones ranging from 32 to 150 Ohms. You shouldn´t trust someone who describes the FiiO being inferior to other amps because of its low price. I cannot imply you to buy it, you have to make that decision yourself. Will you like the additional little box attached via another cable to your portable player? I myself don´t mind but what about you? I´m afraid you have to find that out on your own. You might be in for a sonic surprise, a surprise you maybe won´t like: bass you were expecting from your iPod may now be absent just because the problem of mismatching output impedances has disappeared. In my opinion however you should try it out anyway, $ 25 won´t really hurt and you might be eternally rewarded with something you´ve never experienced before with portable players: almost perfect neutrality, nice design and more gain than ever before."

To reach this conclusion I´ve beforehand spent precious time on explaining what a headphone amp is, gave examples why you won´t need a costly headphone amp, why the FiiO E6 would also work for a headphone as expensive as for example the Beyerdynamic T50P... blablabla. But everything changed with the arrival of the FiiO E07K: To review that headphone amp / USB DAC I wanted to find out how it would behave against a reference, something that appeared to be impossible for me before. When I wrote the original review for the E6 I couldn´t think of a method to reliably compare it to an ideal reference and I´ve always hated that I seemed unable to find out how it really sounds, if it colours the sound, if it introduces errors... when all of it could have been so easy.

FiiO E6

This feeling of being unsure about my rating for the E6 and the aforementionend original conclusion has been nagging me since publishing this article in June 2012. But now I´ve found a way to come close to an objective-as-possible review. My E-MU 0202 USB broke down during the last days of December 2012 which has robbed me of my basic ingredient for my testing methodology. It not only forced me to devise a new method for comparing units like portable CD players to my reference files, it also prompted me to alter my testing chain for such an occasion so that I could finally perform listening tests with headphone amps. The solution for latter cases was the Creative Soundblaster X-Fi HD USB: by recording its lovely output with my ASUS Xonar Essence ST I would create a new reference against which the FiiOs would have to be compared. Therefore my usual reference files for the FiiOs wouldn't be the sources for the testing material themselves, instead I´d use the playback from the X-Fi HD recorded with the Essence ST. After that I would insert one of the FiiOs into the signal chain between the Creative and the ASUS to record the same material again. Have a look:

Reference:

Creative Soundblaster X-Fi HD USB -> ASUS Xonar Essence ST = Reference files

Compared to:

Creative Soundblaster X-Fi HD USB -> FiiO E6/E07K -> ASUS Xonar Essence ST = FiiO results

Having done both steps I now would be able to compare the results from the FiiOs to my reference files. The sonic characteristic of the X-Fi HD USB embedded in the reference files would ideally be completely retained by the FiiOs and in case they´d colour the signal it would be incorporated as well. There are some obstacles which again might colour the results: the line-in of my Essence ST is electrically not comparable to a headphone which is what the FiiOs were designed for in the first place. From what I´ve read a line-in is a much easier load for a headphone amp than a headphone with an impedance of for example just 15 Ohms. Which means that when one of the FiiOs is driving the line-in of the Essence ST it could theoretically be 'easier' to 'hide' possible colourizations. But I nevertheless think that this method enables me to reliably spot differences compared to unplugging/plugging headphones from one amp to the next. To do it this way also made it feasible to create crude measurments; I wanted to see how these would compare to the professional measurments NwAvGuy did for his wonderful article about the FiiO E6.

FiiO E6 from below

To shorten this article I´ve partly removed the long & boring explanations about headphone impedances, gain and possible advantages of having an extremely low output impedance. Some of those sections can now be found in the article about the FiiO E07K; albeit shortened much. Reason: there are much better articles to be found anywhere else, much better than I could ever write them. Just a few words about the features the FiiO E6 offers: its high input impedance gets rid of every impedance mismatch error a headphone amp can possibly produce. It sports an output impedance of just 0.25 Ohms (according to NwAvGuy´s measurment) which should be perfect for any headphone and certainly doesn´t pose any problem for my Sennheiser HD-448 or my Superlux HD-668, even though these aren´t very susceptible to high output impdances anyway. I bought the E6 to rid myself of any possible impedance problem I could ever encounter with portable players. For example: most of the headphone amps inside my portable CD players or MiniDisc recorders have a fairly high output impedance and other obstacles not advantageous for good sound. Then there is the amp inside my X-Fi HD USB which supposedly has an output impdance of 36 Ohms and the one built onto the Xonar Essence mainboard (11 Ohms) - both are not suited for difficult IEMs. Connected to their headphone outputs the FiiO E6 simply renders this problem moot. But this tiny headphone amp can also be used with line-outs from stationary sources, for this purpose it is equipped with a special low-gain setting (2 Volt mode). However, you might run into problems should you be using it with one of those louder-than-usual sources I described in this article: instead of the quasi standard 2.0 V (which the FiiO adheres to) they sometimes output with 2.2 or 2.5 V, supposedly leading to severe input distortions when used with the FiiO. But now off to my own measurments and audio rating, yes?

FiiO E6, 1 Volt Mode (High Gain)

FiiO E6, 2 Volt Mode (Low Gain)

FiiO E6, Total Harmonic Distortions, 1 Volt Mode (High Gain)

FiiO E6, Total Harmonic Distortions, 2 Volt Mode (Low Gain)

FiiO E6, Intermodulation Distortion, 1 Volt Mode (High Gain)

FiiO E6, Intermodulation Distortion, 2 Volt Mode (Low Gain)

Click on one of those pictures and scroll trough them using your mousewheel, you´ll find that differences between them are not that big. In low gain mode the FiiO does have less high frequency distortions but I really don´t know if they´re audible or not. But low frequency distortions seem pretty strong to my layman eye, these could be responsible for its pleasant sound by adding something that doesn´t belong there. Everything else looks fine though, especially when you consider how small this amplifier is and that it is selfpowered - there must fit a battery somewhere into the small case. What I couldn´t find however was the overload problem NwAvGuy described in his article about the E6... strange. Well, I have to consider the possibility that my X-Fi HD USB simply isn´t loud enough on its line-out (I have to change the volume by +2.5 dB after recording anything that has been played back by it if I want to have 0 dBfs) to distort the input of the FiiO. It´s also possible that his unit behaved a bit different, who knows.

FiiO E6 power/EQ/voltage mode button

At this section you formerly could find sentences like "...seems to warm up the sound ever so slightly (...) sometimes it sounds a tad boring...". Being now able to compare the FiiO to my reference files good and proper I have to say that those sentences have been the understatement of the century because the biggest problem of the FiiO E6 are dynamics. It removes much of the impact transients have, bass punches disappear into nowhere and high frequency attacks loose their bite. This is very evident when the FiiO-derived results are compared to my reference tracks from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Episode II soundtracks; both show an extreme amount of very high frequency attack diminished quite a bit by the E6. Deep bass impact is decreased as well, all of this reduces the impression of dynamics, snap and punch. Madonna's track "Skin" sounds mellower than usual, its timing is noticeably slower when amplified by the FiiO. Well, at least speed is reduced consistently throughout the whole frequency band. People call this lack of dynamics a 'laid back' sound, I call it wrong. Resolution and definition are other areas where this amp fails: cymbal hits by an orchestra are close to being reduced to simple noise, the characteristic noise of a bow striking the strings of a violin quite audible on the reference tracks sounds unintelligable through the FiiO. Rendering the depth of a virtual stage correctly is equally problematic because it flattens the stage considerably, the impression of a holographic recording disappears. On the other hand, sonic balance and character of a recording are retained decently. While deep bass and highest frequencies are diminished, this isn´t very noticeable because it is compensated by adding a small amount of upper bass even though this also thickens up frequency areas that shouldn´t be thickened up. This is very audible on the organ recording I always use (Vierne, Michael Murray)... in fact, the organ almost sounds as if having distortions (there are none of course on my reference files). I´m very sorry but here are my reconsidered ratings for the FiiO E6:

Sonic Balance:

Dynamics:

Resolution:

Stage / Ambiance:

Character:

FiiO E6: black beauty

As it turned out in the end people deriding the FiiO for sounding boring were right - but I wouldn´t see it. Maybe because I didn´t want to or because I lacked a convincing method for comparing it. I´m not ashamed to rectify this error but have you noticed how many of my articles have been rewritten recently? First the one about the X-Fi HD USB, then the Sansa Clip+ and now this one. And then the articles about USB cables which in hindsight feel like a hoax... I really have to be more careful in the future when reviewing some audio gadgets. I have to measure what I can measure and I have to get rid of any error that could possibly happen. And I have to find and maintain valid methods for objective comparing before I´m writing a review. Anyway, sonic signature of the FiiO E6 is not as disadvantageous as it sounds because it can be used to create exemplary synergy effects with audio players or headphones. Take my Sansa Clip+ for example: combine it with this FiiO to achieve much more gain and you´d have a balanced sound you wouldn´t expect when listening to the Clip+ alone. The explosive dynamics of the Clip+ are a perfect fit for the mellow sound of the E6, its sonic disadvantages will compensate the ones from the FiiO. During the last days I´ve tried this combination and it indeeds sounds very well. Besides: both of them are tiny and don´t cost much. On the other hand, a combination of the FiiO E6 and the Sony NW-A 1000 has to be avoided; you´d drown in mellowness and boredom. This little amp would also be a good choice for overly dynamic or 'sounded' headphones (from Beyerdynamic for example). The FiiO doesn´t fit the signature of my Sennheiser HD-448 - but the opposite happens with my Superlux HD-668B. In the end it all comes down to your preferences: if you like a dynamic, very crisp and bassy sound signature you´ll have to shun it. But if you know what you are doing and if you plan to compensate for an aggressive sound signature the FiiO E6 will be perfect for you.

Last update: 16.01.2013

Mythbusting with Marlene: The green Marker Tweak

The craze for the green Marker began in the late '80s when some guy wrote about this tweak in a newsgroup post, allegedly he was trying to make an Aprils Fools' Day Joke. According to other people it happened this way: an audio magazine wrote a quite serious article about the effect of a green felt marker on a CD. Whoever it was presenting this idea first started a discussion that has been going on to this day: as usual objectivists claim that no measurment a CD can be exposed to shows significant change while subjectivists claim that there are audible improvments regardless of the measurments. The green felt marker can also be accused of starting a new trend in audio tweaking, the trend of treating the CD itself with several fluids, stabilizing mats, etc. All these tweaks work towards one goal: optimizing the reading process of the disc, usually by improving the readability and therefore reducing the need for error correction inside the player itself. Optimizing the readability of a CD is of course a curious goal when one considers that CD technology already posesses an almost perfectly working error correction, a mechanism that´s built into the CD standardization itself - so it cannot be "turned off" by something external. But  the companies still argue that avoiding error correction reduces jitter, the evil of our digital age. There are roughly three basic tweaks around:

• Coating the outer and inside edges of a CD with a green felt marker
• Placing a mat onto the CD before it vanishes inside the player
• Applying a cleaning fluid to get rid off traces of production wax left on the CD

As usual, tweaks like this tend to be very expensive when some company decides that they want to make a few bucks with it. For example, the CD Stoplight Pen costs $ 25. Stupid really when a "normal", not audiophile-approved pen with the same effect would cost just $ 4 - they both are nothing more than usual felt markers. A CD mat like the Millenium CD mat even costs $ 119. A fluid like the L'Art du Son costs $ 45. Yes, you can spend much money on these tweaks! But why would you buy those? Exactly: you won´t need to of course because everything can be achieved with much less investment. As I´ve said above, just use a green felt marker (water resistant) for $ 4. As for the fluid you will have the same effect when you bathe your CDs in warm water with a bit of liquid dis(c)h soap. Or you choose not to try any of these tweaks because you believe that a CD only contains 0 and 1 - computer data - which either works or not. With an opinion like that you are of course prejudiced, exactly like people like me probably believing the opposite. Why don´t you try it out? Maybe you do hear something - or maybe you won´t.

Don´t worry, it´s just a green felt marker

Anyway, since I first read about the green pen tweak in german AUDIO magazine 18 years ago I have been using it. Believe it or not, I always heard an effect when I played such treated CDs with my old Technics SL-XP 300. Yes, this effect could have been a by-the-book placebo effect of course. But the effect of the green marker disappeared when I started ripping my collection to my HDD eight years ago in order to play all my music with my computer. I´ve often ripped a CD twice, once brandnew without the marker and the next time washed in warm water (with dishwashing liquid) with green paint coating the edges. When I compared these rips I always thought at first that I were hearing something but when I listened a bit closer the effect disappeared or was so small that it could have indeed been a placebo. But here´s my dilemma: I cannot stop painting the edges or washing the CDs, even though I know that there probably isn´t any effect at all. I simply grew accustomed to this process during those ten years prior when I was using normal CD players, it´s an addictive compulsion to treat all my new CDs because if I´m not doing it I´m growing nervous. Still, even then I had the nagging thought if it would be possible to measure the effect of a washed and green coated CD. With my recent interest in vintage portable CD players I became aware that I had the ideal tools at my disposal to do some tests with subsequent measurments; I assumed that portable CD players with their need to conserve power as much as possible (-> an underpowered laser) would be more suceptible to green coated discs compared to big home components. My reason to do the test wasn´t trying to disprove objectivists, I simply wanted to find out if there would be any difference at all.

So I devised a relatively elaborate test routine: I created a disc with five test signals (made by RMAA), five tracks for jitter measurment and two tracks with music. I used five tracks for measurment and jitter because I wanted to rule out any deviations I might encounter, deviations created by the possibly unreliable equipment I have to use: my PC in combination with the E-MU. I also used a brand new disc (The Perfect Storm by James Horner) I had purchased recently (the purpose of the music examples will be explained later). My test setup hasn´t been changed since the last test, I´m still using my E-MU 0202 USB with a recording samplerate of 192 kHz and a bit depth of 24 Bits, recording is done via ASIO with Sound Forge. The RCA cable still is the same for every step: an Audioquest King Cobra. For the tests I used the following three CD players:

• Technics SL-XP 300 (1991) as an example for an old CD player
• Sony D-465 (1996) because it reacts unreliable to some CD-Rs
• Sony DE-J 915 (1999) because it´s the newest of all my players

I then recorded the untreated discs played back by these three players with my E-MU. Then I washed the CDs and painted their edges with the green felt marker you can see above. After the paint had dried I repeated the tests in exactly the same way with the treated discs. I then edited the recordings so that they could be analyzed by RMAA (I could only use four of the five test tracks for the charts below) and to measure the amount of jitter. The final step was resampling the tracks to 44.1 kHz, I kept the bit depth of 24 Bit. Here are the results:

Technics SL-XP 300, untreated

Technics SL-XP 300, washed and painted

Sony D-465, untreated

Sony D-465, washed and painted

Sony DE-J 915, untreated

Sony DE-J 915, washed and painted

"GM" means Green Marker. And as you can see, RMAA revealed that there weren´t any differences. Even the graphs showed no differences, in the following pictures all tests for the respective players have been combined into one graph and in order to improve the visibility I changed the colour for all lines to the same green. I will present to you the graphs for Intermodulation distortion of the D-465, these two shall serve as a placeholder for all the other graphs RMAA produced:

IMD, Sony D-465, untreated

IMD, Sony D-465, washed and painted

As you can see there still is nothing to see. All three players produced similar pictures for noise, dynamics, THD, IMD, crosstalk and frequency response, whether the discs had been treated or not apparently didn´t matter. Needless to say that I was surprised, I expected to see differences with the Technics because it was the first CD player with which I´ve heard the effects all those years ago. But the graphs for the Technics were similar all the time. By now you must be thinking that I was a victim of an exemplary placebo effect all those years ago. The jitter tests should therefore provide more insight to the effects because jitter always is proclaimed to be influenced the most by the green marker:

Technics SL-XP 300, untreated

Technics SL-XP 300, washed and painted

Sony D-465, untreated

Technics SL-XP 300, washed and painted

Shall I go on and bore you with basically the same pictures for the Sony DE-J 915? It seems that the proponents of the jitter theory have been wrong all these years. But there´s one test still ahead, I´ve said I wanted to find out if the output produces differences with normal music, differences RMAA was unable to detect because it´s entirely possible that RMAA doesn´t measure everything with the effect that some things go by unnoticed. For that purpose I used a software called Audio DiffMaker. According to the author this software does the following: "Audio DiffMaker is a freeware tool set intended to help determine the absolute difference between two audio recordings, while neglecting differences due to level difference, time synchronization, or simple linear frequency responses." I won´t bore you with technical explanations, I just would like to add that it seems to do its job well enough so that a person attempting to find differences will be presented with evaluable results, results this person can listen to. That´s when the music tracks came into play, I recorded them just for the purpose of extracting their differences with the Audio DiffMaker. For your convenience I made these differences - or lack thereof - visible with iZotope's spectrogram:

Extracted audio differences between treated/untreated discs, Sony D-465

Extracted audio differences between treated/untreated discs, Sony DE-J 915

Extracted audio differences between treated/untreated discs, Technics SL-XP 300

As you can see, both Sonys sounded the same both times, the two pictures above are only two examples because as with the measurments above every musical track looked equally "empty". The picture showing the diffmaker result from the Technics however is the interesting one because it does indeed show differences. Again, I extracted the differences of three musical pieces, the result always looked similar to the one above. When listening to the extracted audio signal I was clearly able to make out the music, it just was stripped of bass and mids, leaving treble only. This is a strong indication that the Technics is suceptible to the effect of the green marker, whatever the effect is and despite the RMAA measurments not producing any results. It also explains why I could hear differences when I used the green marker on my CDs all those years ago. Before you ask: yes, I did a null-test after I reviewed the results from the Technics (no differences).

Conclusions

Judging from my experience and my measurments I think it´s safe to say that the green marker does have a small effect... somehow. But before anyone starts to scream "I was right!" let me remind you that my results should be taken with a grain of salt. First of all, the Audio DiffMaker could work imprecise, it´s even possible that it won´t differentiate every sonic aspect between two files. The software seems to differentiate frequency responses but what about staging? Staging in a musical piece is a complex construct not only influenced by frequency response but by several other factors like perfect impulses, timing etc., does it extract those differences too? Another possible explanation is that - despite my null test - the resolution of the differentiation process isn´t high enough with the result that the program produces differences where none exist (even though I tweaked the process to be more thorough). It could also mean that my Technics is faulty and cannot read a CD properly - although I doubt that since it reads CDs that another player won´t even accept. Another explanation is that older CD players react more strongly to the green felt marker and newer ones don´t. One thing however is crystal clear: the differentiated signal is very low in amplitude, even if it shows on a spectrogram and is audible on its own it still doesn´t mean that it´s audible every time. However, after writing this article I feel as smart as I did before, I´m not very lucky with myself. It would have been better to have no differences with every player or to have differences with all of them. Whatever the reason behind the effect, I will continue coating the edges of my CDs, simply because I am addicted to it without any logical reason. Call me deluded or ill, it doesn´t matter: I cannot be calm without doing it. Why don´t you try it out for yourself and comment about your experiences? I´d love to read about it - but not now because I´m going to undress my stockings to go to bed. Good night, my dear readers.

EDIT 04.02.14: Almost two years have passed since I wrote this article and something has happened... well, I make it simple: I´ve stopped coating the edges of CDs. Yes, I don´t use the green marker anymore. The reason is that the Technics SL-XP 300 is the singular player reacting to it, none of the others is susceptible to the 'effects' of green colour coating the edges of a CD. Really, one player out of 30 or so is not enough to merit the time needed for the procedure. I´d rather spend my days listening to music.

Last update: 04.02.2014

The ten best sounding organ recordings of all time!

Hello my süße, kleine Schweinehunde! Today I´m gonna talk about the best ever organ recordings - again from my very own point of view. This part of the classical recording industry sadly seems underrepresented, that´s one of the reasons why I´m gonna devote two seperate articles to it. It´s also one of my favourite classical genres and one can make me very happy with music such as this. I´m in no way a religious person, I just enjoy the sound of an organ which just happens to stand in churches mostly. An organ is also the most difficult musical instrument to record: not without reason this instrument is called "King of the instruments" (in Germany we call it "Queen"). The problem isn´t so much the organ itself but the room it stands in. You see, an organ and the room it occupies are one wholesome unit - an organ is built and engineered for this particular room, church or concert hall only. Which makes organ transplantation a rather difficult task: an organ that sounds perfect in a cathedral will probably sound truly awful inside a concert hall. Anyway, this "organ hobby" of mine started when a friend played one particular CD to me in 2003 and my quest for beautiful organ music has been continuing ever since. Organ music also was responsible for rediscovering my love for TELARC releases those years ago (the recording responsible is part of this list). Untypical for a German music lover I much prefer the romantic organs from France with their voluptious, orchestra-like sound instead of cold and mechanical recordings of Bach on fitting instruments (organs from the baroque period). The most famous romantic organs were built by Aristide Cavaillé-Coll, a french organ builder. Their sound is highly unique and immensely beautiful. Thankfully, several of these have been preserved in excellent condition without being changed too much by the historical renaissance in the mid-20th century. But to every rule or every taste there are exceptions, I will state them if necessary. But on with the show, shall we?

Only fitting that my first place goes to the recording of the 122 years old Cavaillé-Coll Organ at St. Ouen in Rouen with music by Louis Vierne. This recording from 1993 boasts the most stupendous stage impression you´ll ever hear on a 2-channel-recording. Dynamics are pristine and bass is plentiful - both are characteristics not surprising when one considers that it was built for a huge cathedral and that this organ shows a sonic characteristic typical for romantic organs. Interpretation by Michael Murray is flawless, albeit a bit slow and a bit too controlled: as always he seems to celebrate the notes he is playing. He always was one of the most transparent players in the world and it is quite apparent here (Ben van Oosten interprets these symphonies with more passion). This can be a bit distracting because sometimes he seems to loose himself in all the notes - but I love it anyway, it sounds just perfect and the interpretation still is impressive enough.

The same organ as above, this time on a new SACD with playing by Daniel Roth, himself titular organist at St. Sulpice in Paris (you know, the cathedral from "The DaVinci Code"). Just like the disc above the sonics present the organ in its most glorious light with warmth and colour - and stage. The latter is only a tad less impressive then on the recording above. Of interest are also the short improvisations Monsieur Roth does at the end of this disc: they serve to explain the different pipes and their resulting colour and sound. Highly recommended, I´d play the 2-channel SACD layer because it improves the stage further.

These three discs are highly expensive gems - but they are worth every penny. Never before has César Franck's work been recorded in its entirety, these three discs are the first to do so. The Goll-organ is brandnew and an extremely versatile instrument: it can be adjusted to play romantic material as well as baroque material - both with their particular requirements. What can I say, the sound of these discs is simply marvellous. Although it seems to exaggerate the "romantic sound" a bit, the warm sonic colour and timbre of the organ are wonderful and perfectly represented by those SACDs. Bass is plentiful and although the recording seems to loose resolution it does not, thanks to the astonishing engineering (the SACD layers are even better). These recordings have received many prizes and plenty of praise from critics - deservedly so. The interpretations by Hans-Eberhard Roß are lovely too although I cannot agree on everything he does (but that may have something to do with me being used to another style; see below). In any case this was a mammoth undertaking and it should be rewarding to anyone. Simply phenomenal recordings.

This is the organ I´ve described in my introduction: it´s the recording responsible for discovering organ music and also for rediscovering TELARC. At the time of the recording the organ was 100 years old and since it hadn´t been renovated for over 70 years everything us humans connect with old age has been preserved on this masterful recording by Jack Renner: this organ breathes, works, groans, creaks and uses pipes it´s not supposed to - it sounds like a beautiful, charming and powerful old lady reaching out for attention. The recording is surprisingly noisy and you can also hear the barker levers clicking and moving - but all of these seemingly important shortcomings doesn´t matter, it´s just the way the organ sounded at the time of the recording. I also find it very peculiar that this recording sounds so, well, "analogue" despite being recorded digitally. But why is this recording so perfect? Because it also boasts a stupendous amount of timbre, sonic colour, crispness - and a terrific bass! This dynamic and powerful bass is a thing on its own, it even has punch (which is almost impossible for an organ), it´s a Leviathan of power and might (responsible: the 32'' bombarde). The en chamade mounted spanish trumpets are lovely too even though they seem to be underrepresented slightly on this recording - although they´re still screaming at you. All other pipes seem to sound a tiny bit too crisp, the recorded stage appears to be too wide, every other recording of this beautiful and most beloved organ displays a smaller stage. Mr. Renner obviously made this organ a tad more impressive then it really is. But I don´t mind when the result is that perfect. Michael Murray's playing is equally perfect: again he seems to celebrate the notes though this time with so much loving care and plenty of emotions that every piece has its own inner suspense. To this day I haven´t heard any interpretation of César Franck that comes close to this one. Mr. Murray doesn´t do the errors all other organists seem to do with the Grande Piéce Symphonique, he does not get faster to fake musical suspense, he does not get slower either. Thank God he is no Marie-Claire Alain! In short: this recording makes it easy to get started with organ music and I´ll love it until the day I die.

This is the one baroque modelled organ I´ve talked about in my introduction. It´s a relatively new instrument and it showcases the thin and piercing sound baroque organs are famous for - perfect for the music of Johann-Sebastian Bach. BTW, this is the only recording of Bachs' organ music I can listen too. One reason is that the playing by Michael Murray is beautiful (the "celebrating" of notes again), the other reason can be found in its sound. This recording is so crystal clear withtout being brittle or tinny that it´s breathtaking: there is no discernable noise on this recording, just the pure pipe sound and the sound of the church the organ stands in. If one recording would deserve the adjective "pristine" then it would be this. There´s also plenty of deep bass and a tasty sonic bloom. Recorded by Robert Woods (founder of TELARC) in 1985 in Germany. Highly recommended if you want to hear the sound everyone talked about when describing the positive aspects of the CD format when it was introduced in 1982. It really showcases everything the format is capable of in the best possible way.

This organ... oh, wait, these organs (there are two) are impossible to capture. The organs in the gigantic Cologne cathedral were built in the '50s (the transept organ) and in the '90s (this second organ is hanging at one side of the nave 30 meters above the floor) by organ builder Klais and they have the close to impossible task of filling the largest gothic structure in the world with sound. The reverb tail alone takes roughly 13 (!) seconds to disappear completely and the sound inevitably ends up being confused and immensely airy. To record this is a daunting undertaking and while this recording fails a little of preserving the awe inspiring size of the cathedral it shows very well how these organs sound. To make it short, they are aggressive monsters! They burn a sonic firework that is hard to believe and if I wouldn´t have been there on several occasions myself I´d think that this recording would exaggerate. I can tell you, dear reader, these organs have plenty of colour, their range is vast, their dynamics are virtually unmatched. They´re able to reach ear-shattering volumes at one minute only to be so very gentle the next. The recording preserves all this as close as possible but sounds a bit too distant and too flat - that´s all. Everything else is there: the aggressiveness, the earthquake like bass, the almost piercing high frequencies and the timbre. The playing of titular organist Winfried Bönig could be better though, he likes to present "his" organ in the most spectacular light and while he succeeds at that he always plays too fast, the enormous room surrounding the organs simply cannot follow. Still, this is a lovely and impossible recording.

Another recording of an aggressive beast this SACD shows that a highly modified Cavaillé-Coll organ can still sound wonderfully unique. It occupies the probably most famous cathedral in the world: Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. This organ sounds metallic (with all the rust on the pipes) in the most positive sense, when it gets loud you almost fear that the pipes will explode because they attempt to blow away your ear. Still, the organ sounds warm like a typical romantic organ. This warmth, combined with plenty of possible aggressiveness results in a colourful and rightfully famous, wonderful sounding instrument. The recording captures this perfectly - even though sounding like being too closely miked, the reverb or the imaginary room of the cathedral seems to be missing a bit. One example are the spanish trumpets: on several occasions they are standing several meters in front of the organ which sounds a bit strange. But everything else... oh Boy! Wonderful... colour is plentiful, bass and dynamics too. This relatively dry recording shows something I´ve never heard before on an organ recording: one is able to pinpoint several pipes. Talk about staging... simply gorgeous. The dryness is reduced a bit on the SACD layer which also sounds a bit crisper.

Of the Symphony No. 8 by Charles-Marie Widor there doesn´t exist any superior recording in the whole wide world. Ben van Oosten is an expert with Widor's music and it is displayed to the max on this recording, he simply is perfect. The recorded sound could be a tiny bit better though. Organ recordings by MDG always display the typical sonic characteristic of diminished bass and pronounced treble that people all over the world connect with recordings coming from Germany. Admittedly, on this CD it´s not as severe as on others by the label from Detmold as it combines this sound with lovely staging and plenty of dynamics. Still, compared to my first two examples of perfect organ sound (it´s the same organ) it´s missing bass, volume and warmth. Thankfully this can be corrected and if one doesn´t want to do this it still serves as an example of an organ recorded with another sonic taste at the highest quality possible. There even might be some people who prefer this different taste even though I think it underepresents this mighty instrument. Anyway, it´s a wonderful recording.

Here we have another recording of the organ at St. Sernin in Toulouse. This one was done in 2002 by the small Dutch company festivo with engineering by Henk Jansen. Recording quality is perfect although a bit timid and not very spectacular compared to the recording above by Jack Renner with material by César Franck. This might have something to do with the fact that the organ was renovated in 1995, since then it partly seems to have lost its aggressive, colourful and thunderous sound on every recording I´ve heard. Staging is impeccable, this is just one example where this organ doesn´t sound as wide as on the recording from TELARC. I believe this to be its true sound although I don´t know for sure since I´ve never visited the basilica of St. Sernin myself. This release is part of five seperate CDs presenting the Pièces dans différent styles by Alexandre Guilmant, I own the first three discs and all sound alike, their quality is high and consistent. The organist Herman van Vliet could play a bit more fluid but it´s possible that I´m wrong about this since I´ve heard never an interpretation from another organist. Very recommended.

There it is again... the German sound from MDG... this time a bit more mid-centric without too much highs or lows. Still, staging is impressive, sonic colour and dynamics are too. The romantic organ (not "romantic" as in French romanticism) from 1855 looks beautiful and sounds beautiful, the recording captures this perfectly albeit a bit too friendly and not very engaging. But for music to be heard when you come home from a hard days work I can recommend this. The interpretation of Liszts' works by Michael Schönheit are equally friendly. This recording comes as an SACD - but don´t bother playing the SACD layer if you´re looking for enhanced frequency response, the frequency band beyond 22.050 Hz contains no information at all (apart from DSD quantization noise). You can also buy this at HDTracks - but the same is valid there. Apart from this still recommended.