• Home
• Forums
• Archives
• Dealers
• About

The Vinyl Anachronist: Pride and preference

“You could be strung up in these parts for doing that”

By Marc Phillips

December 2005

Let’s face it, we audiophiles are at our worst when discussing matters of preference. I’m not even referring to the broader debate issues, such as digital vs analog, or solid state vs tube, or even multi-channel vs two-channel. I’m talking about a preponderance of hi-fi enthusiasts who believe in The One True Way, their way, a narrowly-defined series of tenets that make Julian Vereker look like Julian Hirsch.

Over the years, I’ve received my share of questionable audio advice, delivered with the adamantine furor of a Pentecostal minister. I’ve been told that it’s impossible to “get music” with any pair of loudspeakers that retail for less than $6000. I’ve been told that all turntables that use Plexiglas are fundamentally unlistenable, because that specific material sucks the life out of the music.

I’ve been told that the only musical amplifier is a vacuum-tubed McIntosh, while the only musical loudspeaker is a Quad ESL. (So why isn’t a combination of the two better than it is?) And speaking of Quad, I’ve heard from the ’57 camp that the ’63s are worthless, I’ve heard from the ’63 camp that the 988s offer no improvement over the older model, and I’ve heard that you shouldn’t even consider a Quad ESL unless you use an OTL amplifier.

All of this came to a head for me a couple of years ago, when I decided to explore the world of vintage tube amplifiers. I had the Fisher crowd, the Scott aficionados, the Dynaco enthusiasts, the McIntosh snobs, and the Eico fans all give me an earful, and of course they showed utter disdain for anything coming from the rival groups. It got downright nasty.

And it got me thinking about why a group of generally well-educated, successful, middle-aged males would suddenly eschew logic, reason, and science when it comes to audio preference. I mean, aren’t everyone’s ears shaped a little differently? Aren’t our brains wired a little differently? Or, most importantly, aren’t our listening environments, which vary dramatically from home to home, part of the equation?

The closest approach is the closet approach

So I purchased a 1961 HH Scott 299B integrated amplifier, listened to it seriously for about six months, and then deciding that while it was fun to have it in my system, I didn’t quite trust it, considering all of the strange sounds and smells that came out if it. I also decided that my next amplifier purchase wouldn’t be quite so public. I spent some time with the new Naim Nait 5i, and I did enjoy its stability and reliability when compared to the Scott. Overall, however, I felt it was a step backward from the amplification I owned prior to the 299B (LFD, Aloia, and of course other Naims).

I had also been spending some time thinking about new speakers, especially the Harbeth Monitor 30s, since my Spendor SP100s were a getting a little long in the tooth, and they were a bit too big for my new listening room. Suddenly, I was sidetracked by the availability of a show pair of Quad 988s for a nice low price. The pair turned out to have some problems with them, so another pair was offered. They, too, had problems, which sent up red flags everywhere, and made me wonder if Quad still thought having their stuff manufactured in China was a good idea.

I was all set to fall back on my default, the Harbeths, when it suddenly occurred to me that I was still using a $1425 integrated amplifier with a $10,000 analog rig, and that my Spendors were probably the least of my problems. I’ve always been one of those audiophiles who believe in the supremacy of the source (especially when it comes to turntables), and that amplifiers, while important to a degree, still couldn’t make or break a system unless there was something seriously wrong already.

But I was never really that satisfied with the Nait 5i. I felt that its sound had grown rough around the edges, and while I enjoyed the deeper bass and the improved imaging over the old Scott amp (and over the older Naim amps I’ve owned as well), I knew upgrade fever was going to strike soon. So, I thought, why don’t I just take the money I had set aside for the 988s, and see what kind of long-term improvements I could make in terms of amplification?

Now for my next trick… a new equipment rack!

My final swap turned out to be a bit surprising. I’ve been pushing integrated amps for years, because they’re so simplifying to a system, and because they’ve gotten so much better over the last decade or so. But when it came time for me to lay my money down, I not only wound up with separates, but with monoblocks, and three-box preamplification to boot! Five components replaced two. It took me most of the day to hook everything up. My living room floor was covered with owner’s manuals, Styrofoam wedgies, and stray power cords. But I got it all up and running the first time, and after a week or so of break-in, I was in audio heaven!

Then came the time to tell everyone else about the purchases I made…about trading my Naim Nait 5i and LFD Mistral PhonoStage for a Naim 112x preamp, a Naim Stageline phono preamp, a Naim Flatcap 2x power supply, and the most surprising pick of all, the new/old Quad II Classic monoblock tube amplifiers.

I knew the Quads would be the most controversial of my choices, mostly because I’d been spending the last month publicly expressing my disappointment about those “Chinese” 988 ESLs. The Classic II, after all, was also assembled in China, although there was quite a bit of press about the entire engineering staff of Quad going to China to oversee the transition. But I picked the Quads because the very idea of them excited me, the whole vintage sound/modern technology paradox.

But the Quads themselves weren’t the problem. Matching Quads with Naim, however, was a long-standing no-no in the audio world.

“You could be strung up in these parts for doing that,” AudioEnz editor Michael Jones told me. For years, Naim and Quad have offered very different philosophies about music reproduction, with Naim pushing the whole PRAT thing, and Quad offering a lusher, more romantic alternative. Yet many of the Quad-philes I’ve known have told me that while the various ESLs prefer tubed amplification, if you have to use solid-state, use Naim (or even Exposure). And while PRAT, in its pure, unfettered, NAP250-ish form, is at odds with a Quad Classic II amp, the post-Julian Vereker Naim has made significant advances in making their gear more compatible with other brands.

I had a few other people question me; one seemed to think there was a definitely compatibility issue concerning gain between the amp and the preamp, that when I turned the volume up, it would get really loud, really fast. I received a set of specifications that dictated that this was going to be the case, but guess what…the silky, remote-controlled volume knob on the 112x is as smooth and as gradual as can be.

It comes down to this. I read and I researched and I listened and I read some more, and I still couldn’t find what I needed. And this amp popped out of nowhere, and it suddenly seemed like a perfect fit. So I listened to preamps to pair it with, including Quad’s own Twenty-Four, which was underwhelming. I even tried the Naim NAC202, which is supposed to be a step-up from the 112x, and it was closer, but still not quite there. My conclusion, pure and simple, is that the Naim 112x with the Flatcap 2x power supply is a sublime match for the new Quad II Classic. I get the smooth, classic tubed sound of the Quad, coupled with the impressive silence of the Naim. When I listen to rock and jazz, I get all the PRAT I could ask for. When I listen to string quartets and solo piano music, I am gently lifted into another world.

What’s vinyl got to do with it?

Of course, all these issues with preference, with audio rights and wrongs, got me thinking about analog again. Take all those differently-shaped earlobes, those inconsistently-soldered synapses, and those precariously-engineered listening rooms, and add in some good old-fashioned conditioned learning, and we’re a long way toward explaining why some people still prefer the sound of vinyl to compact disc (or SACD, or DVD-A).

Some vinyl lovers are more adept at filtering out surface noise, inner-groove distortion, and VTA discrepancies than their CD-loving brethren. Then again, I have a brother who loves to jump up out of his seat whenever he hears the slightest pop on an LP, and declare digital the clear victor.

There’s an analogy, however, that I like to trot out every time I’m confronted with one of those digiphile nay-sayers. For me, vinyl is a diamond-in-the-rough. Sure, it may be covered with dirt and goo, but underneath there’s a brilliance that has yet to be matched. Digital, on the other hand, is like a cubic zirconium. Sure, it’s all pretty and shiny on the outside, but when you look close enough… well, you see what I’m getting at.

The same could be said for all of our audio preferences. SET lovers can get past various measurable distortions in order to appreciate a sound that, while not accurate, is certainly beautiful and rewarding. PRAT-lovers can do without imaging and soundstaging in order to feel the drive and momentum of the music. Those who love planar speakers, or single-driver speakers, can certainly live without the highest of highs and the lowest of lows in order to appreciate a pure, musical midrange.

I had one of those fierce audio objectivists corner me once, saying that as long as I preferred vinyl to CD, I couldn’t really call myself an audiophile or a hi-fi enthusiast, because the very definition of our hobby is fidelity, and anything that ventures away from being totally accurate is contrary. He added that it was distortion that dictated my preferences, that it was distortion that made me like what I liked. I thought about it for a minute, and replied, much to his surprise, that he was right. “I’d rather be known as a music-lover than an audiophile anyway,” I said to him. He was non-plussed by that, and he left me alone after that.

You can’t argue with personal preference.

Marc Phillips has been writing about hi-fi and music under the Vinyl Anachronist banner since 1998. His earlier columns can be found on the Perfect Sound Forever website. You can discuss vinyl with Marc at Vinylanach@aol.com