The Receiver
On the several occasions (most of which involved poker), I'd been over at Oliver's, I'd taken notice of the vintage receiver he had. I didn't remember it sounding very good. At first it was hooked up to some Bose speakers; they didn't sound good, which is not surprising since they're Bose. They might have been vintage, though, in which case they were probably pretty decent but maybe just getting old, or it might have been them not being set up properly. Later on he bought some active Sony speakers, which was almost assuredly even more of a step down.
Point being, the old thing had never really impressed me. So when he offered it to me because he was getting some sort of iPod speaker system...
Tangent: iPod speaker systems are rather silly things. Unless you're very space-challenged, or you're buying them to be portable, that is. Generally, they're bad speakers and bad electronics. With a few exceptions, you're better off with an iPod dock and a set of good computer speakers. But hell, people love 'em. Who am I to argue?...I wasn't quite sure what I was going to do with it, but hell, if he was getting rid of it anyway, I'd at least be interested in playing around with. Especially since he said it had vacuum tubes.
Which it really didn't, as I discovered when I got it home and popped the top of the case off. This after lugging the surprisingly heavy thing up the stairs. It looked to be in pretty good shape, actually.
Rather than set it up in my living room with the main system, which would have been difficult for several reasons (tons of gear hooked up to my home theater receiver, wouldn't have worked well with my subwoofer, etc.), I set it up in my bedroom with the speakers that I have in there. Normally, I run them as a "B" set of speakers off of the main amp in the living room, but that leaves me without the ability to do things like choose music and adjust volume, both of which are handy things.
The Speakers
These speakers started out being a pair of big Technics with 8" woofers. They were a fun speaker, but not really an audiophile-quality one, so at some point when someone posted to the NHT message board that he was selling a pair of their classic SuperOne speakers, I offered to buy them. And I was too late. But the seller noted that
OneCall, one of NHT's few authorized internet retailers, had SuperZeroes on clearance for $130 per pair.
Sadly, they were the "Xu" version, in plastic cabinets instead of their standard piano black-painted fiberboard. But hey, the sound would still be there. The SuperZero is really a
classic loudspeeker, giving unbelievably good sound for their original 1993 retail price of $230 (and
Corey Greenberg's review in Stereophile of the SuperZeroes is really a
classic bit of audiophile literature). Of course there has to be a catch; with their small 4" woofers and sealed cabinet design (I'll explain that one in another post), they don't put much bass out. Well, really, they don't put any bass out.
So after I got them and set them up and realized I couldn't exactly handle that (I like a realistic amount of bass), I posted again on NHT's board looking for an inexpensive (under $300) subwoofer, and, as luck would have it, "Chip" was selling an NHT SW1P and matching amplifier/crossover for $175 or so, which was designed to mate with the SuperZeroes.
So, take the full range speaker signal from the B outputs of my receiver, run it through the crossover and then run the outputs to the sub and the speakers, and I had an amazingly kickass bedroom set of speakers for $300.
Back to the Receiver
So anyway, I switched the speakers from running off the main system to running off the Pioneer receiver. I hooked up my iPod to the inputs on the back of the 30-year-old receiver (hah!) powered it up, and pulled up some Okkervil River (a favorite for audio testing).
Holy shit did it sound good! That old receiver was amazing. Everything was nice. I took a look at the model number on the front panel; it was a
Pioneer SX-737. It was rated at 35 watts per channel, which must be a very honest rating because the SuperZeroes are a little power hungry and it drives them nicely.
So I decided to get a little work done on it. It's a beautiful piece of gear. Reminds me very much of a Kenwood that my parents owned when I was a kid, which I really wish they had kept. Anyway, I figured it was worth putting a little money into, and ultimately it was around $100. Couple that with my $300 in speakers and assorted gear, and I had an incredible system for a super cheap $400. There are crappy mini systems that cost that much! And this was something that I wouldn't be embarassed to have as my main stereo.
The Source
I suggested in my "Hi-Fi 101" post that you could toss the CD player, instead using the computer as a "transport" (something to supply the bits encoding the music on the CD) and read the music as files on a hard drive instead of tracks on a CD. There are advantages to this, such as taking multiple shots at getting an error-free stream of data off of the CD once rather than having to do it in real time, every time.
CD audio is large; a CD holds 800 MB. You can compress it to mp3 or another "lossy" format which removes data that you're not likely to hear (extreme frequencies and quiet things that get covered up by louder sounds, for example), but I find that best for non-critical listening, like in a car or in the background at home or work. For use on my hi-fi rig, I go with a lossless format (Apple Lossless), which simply removes redundancies in the music and, when it gets decoded to be played back, you get an exact copy of the original signal. You can cut out about 40% of the data that way, as opposed to 90% for an mp3. Sacrifices must be made.
Now, if you don't have your computer sitting next to your stereo, you can run a long cord (lame!) or, better, you can have something hooked up to your stereo that can wirelessly pull music off of your hard drive, decode any compression you've applied, and send the signal along to a DAC, or run it through its own DAC and send the analog signal on to your pre-amp.
Which is what I have. In the main system, it's accomplished by the Apple Airport Express. Basically, the AX is a wireless router which also acts as a wireless receiver for iTunes. iTunes does the heavy lifting, decoding mp3s and whatnot, but re-encoding in Apple Lossless to transmit over the air to the AX, which decodes this, and then outputs a digital or analog signal. It works well in that setting where I always have my laptop nearby.
I considered that option for my bedroom system. But I'd have to have a computer in my bedroom to choose songs and so forth, or would have to walk into the living room to do it. I could also just use an iPod, but that's lame, if for no other reason than that I have to dig it out of my bag and hook it up at bedtime when I want to listen to music.
Instead, there are things that do heavier lifting, such as the
Roku Soundbridge and the
Slim Devices Squeezebox. These also pull music over your wireless network, but give you an interface for browsing and choosing songs, and can also decode any compression you may have.
The Roku can act as a client for iTunes' built-in music sharing, which is a nice, simple solution. Plus it could read Apple Lossless natively—when the player can't read a format natively, the computer has to translate it into a format the player can read before sending it over the network, which introduces its own set of problems. Plus, it was $150 (on sale), half the price of the $300 Squeezebox.
So I ordered and bought the Roku, and while I like the product a lot, it relies on the older, slower 802.11b wireless networking. This has a maximum throughput of 12 megabits per second, much higher than the 600 or so kilobits per second that losslessly compressed audio requires, but the Roku just could hack it, and I got very frequent skips in the music when the player couldn't get the data fast enough. This is, frankly, unworkable and inexcusable. So back it went. Plus,
Stereophile's review of the Roku found some major design flaws in things from an audio perspective.
And instead, I ponied up for the Squeezebox. The Squeezebox relies on its own server software run on the computer, which is open source and quite flexible. It adds a layer of complexity but also means there are a ton of things that I can configure to my perspective. For example, El Ten Eleven: do they get filed under "El" or under "Ten"? It's my choice.
The Squeezebox doesn't decode Apple Lossless natively, but the transcoding works quite well, only using 5% of my CPU time. Only thing is you can't fastforward and rewind within tracks, just skip from one to the next or previous. The Squeezebox also has a far better DAC built in (
so says Stereophile), which is important when you use the analog outputs since your 30-year-old receiver was around before the days of digital audio.
There was one more issue. I can pick music via remote control, but the Pioneer has no remote control, so no volume control... on the receiver. The Squeezebox has a volume control, though. It's not ideal, as it's done digitally, which means that some low level musical detail can be lost, but if I'm in bed going to sleep, I can handle that to have the option of adjusting the volume from the comfort of my pillow.
Conclusion
So there you go. A wonderful stereo at $100 of work on a free receiver, $300 worth of speakers and associated electronics, and then a splurge of a $300 networked music player. I'm super proud of it. Now if only that backlight in the receiver had a dimmer...
Labels: hi-fi, music, technology