The Audiophiliac

That blurry thing under the display is the SR-H2000.

(Credit: Sirius XM)

I went to Sirius XM's New York City headquarters on Wednesday to see what's new. They showed a bunch of docking units and the like, but the only new product that got my juices flowing was a new home tuner, the sleek-looking SR-H2000.

You might think a brand new Sirius tuner (not a table radio) intended to be used with a stereo or home theater system would also offer access to all XM channels, but that's not the case. Sirius subscribers can add "The Best of XM" package for a small upcharge on their monthly bill.

The SR-H2000 includes a wired 12-volt IR input, a menu-selected RS232 control, and an F-type antenna connector. By adding a SIRIUSConnect Tuner or Home Dock, the SR-H2000 can play two different channels simultaneously in separate rooms.

The SR-H2000 features a video output that can be used to display the user interface and programming information on your TV. The included rackmount hardware allows the SR-H2000 to be mounted flush with the front of a rack. You can pause and replay up to 44 minutes of live satellite radio.

No one at Sirius mentioned sound quality, and why would they? It's pretty miserable and I doubt the SR-H2000 will improve my opinion of Sirius' sound.

The new SR-H2000 will be available in the fall primarily through custom installers and specialty retailers for a suggested retail price of $349.

You don't need to be an audiophile to hear the difference between average-sounding and great-sounding recordings, but you do have to listen. Really listen.

First try this experiment and set a benchmark: Listen to someone playing an acoustic guitar, in your room. Then play a recording of an acoustic guitar. Notice any difference in the sound quality between the two? Yeah, it's not even close. If your real, live guitar player can sing, next compare the sound of that person's voice to the recording's vocal. The recording's singer will most likely sound small, tonally thin, like the voice is coming out of tiny boxes. It might be hard to tell the singer has a flesh-and-blood body connected to that voice. The live guitar sounds big and clear, very clear, without any edge or harshness. Few recordings of guitar sound like the real thing.

My point here is to first establish a standard of what good sound sounds like to me. I like recordings that sound realistic. After all, if the musician on the record is playing a Gretsch Synchromatic 400 Acoustic Archtop guitar, I'd like to hear its unique sound. But if the producer and engineer recorded the Gretsch through a pickup instead of a microphone, equalized its sound, compressed its dynamic range, added digital reverb, and processed it to death--there won't be much left to the Gretsch's sound. Then it's just a generic guitar, which is why I would describe the sound of the recording as "bad."

It's a small island, populated by audiophiles, but please don't look down on us for our devotion to good sound.

Yes, it might seem a little strange to outsiders, but we like to hear music the way the producers and musicians did when they recorded it. If they put a whole lot of blood, sweat, and tears into creating it, it might be worth listening to. Sure, you can play and enjoy music over freebie headphones or $20 computer speakers, just don't kid yourself that you're hearing everything, or more important, the emotion that went into the music.

Computer speakers vs. the real thing.

(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)

But don't get the wrong idea, we're not elitists, we just place a higher priority on listening than most people. That is, we listen, most don't. Sure, they have music on all the time, as background sound while they work, drive, exercise, read, etc, but never just listen. For those that do occasionally listen, well, I'd say they're audiophiles. So you see, it's a state of mind. Listening, appreciating music should be enough, if it's great music why relegate it to the background?

Being an audiophile doesn't mean you're into vinyl, vacuum tubes, or that you're made of money. No, we audiophiles just love the sound of music. So if you listen please join us on the island and whatever your budget, get better sounding gear.

The speaker on the right is an Usher S-520 ($400/pair). It's 12 inches high; the small round speaker came with my old iMac.

Producer T Bone Burnett talked passionately about sound quality, or lack thereof on a radio program, Soundcheck, from WNYC on Monday. Burnett produced Robert Plant and Allison Krauss' awesome Raising Sand CD; the O Brother, Where Art Thou soundtrack; as well as records by Bob Dylan, Los Lobos, Elvis Costello, and Counting Crows.

Turns out Burnett's no fan of CDs or downloads, stating that CD's inadequate sampling rate loses too much of the sound he heard while making and mixing records. He put it this way, "We've been fighting digital sound since it came out twenty years ago...music's gotten to a place that's harder to listen to."

Wow, the guy sounds like an audiophile to me, and he goes on about the degradation of sound from what he heard in the studio, "It's stepped down from tape to digital to compressed digital, so people are now listening to a Xerox of a Polaroid of a photograph of a painting." Tell it brother, but it's interesting Burnett never brought up vinyl or analog, though he did mention that it's only in the last few years that digital's gotten really good. I agree.

Digital losses have all taken their toll on the way people relate to music, so it's mostly background to other activities instead of the primary focus. Digitized sound is diluted to the point is ceases to connect with people on a visceral level. It's just there, a ghostly shadow of its original intent.

I've heard 'em all and I'm here to tell you there's a hierarchy of fidelity. The pipsqueak iPod speakers (pretty much everything under $100) sound tinny, screechy, with zero bass and can't play at all loud. They're all different shades of awful. Sure, some $300 iPod speakers are way better, more or less on par with a decent sounding table radio, I'm thinking here of my favorite Boston Acoustics Receptor, Tivoli, and Cambridge SoundWorks models. Then again, the better radios and iPod speakers are priced upwards of $500 or more, and for that kind of dough you could pick up a HTIB.

For a great tabletop radio, let's take a look at Cambridge SoundWorks i765 iPod/Video Entertainment System ($500). It comes with a nifty integrated iPod dock, plays CDs and DVDs, has a terrific AM/FM radio, and sound pretty good, for a table radio (my CNET review will be posted later this month).

Or you could buy an Onkyo HT-SR700 HTIB ($500 SRP, but street prices are closer to $350). It comes with a 5.1 channel A/V receiver, five satellite speakers, and a 230 watt, 10-inch subwoofer. Granted, you still have to add a DVD player, maybe a Philips DVP5982 that comes with HDMI/1080p connectivity for around $60. Got an iPod? Toss in a $6 mini-plug to stereo RCA cable so you can play your iPod over the HT-SR700's speakers and sub. Or treat yourself to Onkyo's dedicated dock, the DS-AS2 ($109 SRP).

You get a lot for your money.

(Credit: Onkyo)

Now sure, the Cambridge i765 is far more compact, doesn't require a mess 'o' wires, and is easier to set up, but sonically the Onkyo HTIB is miles ahead for music, and there's simply no comparison for movies. The Onkyo's bona-fide surround and powerful subwoofer are so much more satisfying than any table radio could ever be. Hey, the table radio and HTIB are nearly the same price, choose sound quality or a lifestyle solution. Just don't kid yourself that they sound the same, they don't.

What's so good about good sound? Who gives a crap? Strolling around Apple's oh-so-cool Fifth Avenue emporium in Manhattan, taking in the screechy din of countless cute-as-a-button iPod speakers, you'd have to conclude no one. Apple's temple is flush with style, but the sound is, in my opinion, flat out dreadful. OK, it's a showroom and hardly the sort of environment conducive to a quality listening experience, but even so, the priorities disparity is jarring. With most iPod speakers hovering around $100 to $200, you'd have to conclude that's what sells: a tinny sound from a speaker system that doesn't take up a lot of space. Yes, Apple's iPod Hi-Fi speaker is a big step up from the little critters, but is that all there is?

Apple's glass house looms large

(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)

Maybe it's just me; the place is jammed with giddy Apple worshippers, oohing and aahing over every expensive Mac gadget. Steve Jobs knows where the action is, and sound quality ain't it. That's too bad.

By the way, I'm no Apple basher, I just bought a new 24 inch iMac and love it.