The Audiophiliac

The Woo WES: eight tubes on top, two in the lower half.

(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)

Lucky me, I've reviewed most of the world's very best headphones, including the Audio Technica ATH-W5000, Denon AH-D7000, and Sennheiser HD 800. But now there's something even better: the Woo Audio WES headphone amplifier ($4,500) and Stax SR-007Mk2 headphone ($2,410). The complete review can be found on the Home Entertainment Web site.

Yeah, it's a lot of dough, but the Woo/Stax combo creams the other contenders for world's best headphone sound, and the pair goes for less than the price of a world class, high-end camera, like the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III. The camera's great now, but in a couple of years it'll be hopelessly out of date. Great audio is simply a better long-term investment.

Stax headphones use a very different operating principle than dynamic headphones (pretty much every headphone from lowly earbuds to full-size headphones are dynamic designs). Stax has been making electrostatic headphones since 1960 in Japan, and the company's current flagship model, the SR-007Mk2, is what I'm using with the Woo WES amplifier. The Stax is a big and comfy design.

The Stax SR-007Mk2 headphone

(Credit: Stax)

The Woo WES is an all-triode tube drive, fully balanced design; the prototype unit I'm reviewing has a total of 10 tubes (four EL34 power tubes, four 6SL7 drive tubes, and two 5AR4 rectifier tubes), but production models will have 11 tubes. It works with Stax and Sennheiser electrostatic headphones only. The machined, all-metal dual chassis is beautifully crafted.

The WES, like all Woo amps, was designed by Wei Wu, and handcrafted in Woo Audio's factory in New York City. Each WES will be built to order over a four-day period; it's slated for release in October 2009. The preintroduction price is $4,500, and full retail is expected to be $4,990. Woo prices start at $470 for the WA 3. All Woo Audio electronics are sold direct from the factory, the waiting list is three to four weeks.

A look inside reveals no circuit boards; all wiring will be "point to point." That's a very expensive way to manufacture amplifiers, but Woo Audio thinks point-to-point wiring makes for better-sounding amps. The amp also features handmade inductors, and even the machined cone feet are designed specifically for the WES.

The clarity of the Woo/Stax combo with acoustic jazz mimics the way live, unamplified music sounds in a good concert hall or club. The Woo/Stax is the closest thing to being there I've heard to date.

Offbeat, melodic, and pretty, Clem Snide stays in heavy rotation at my house.

In the 1960s, I heard new music on the radio.

The best DJs turned me on to new stuff all the time. Next best source was friends--I'd go over to their house to check out their new LPs. Record reviews in Rolling Stone and The Village Voice flagged intriguing up-and-comers. I used to find new music in record stores, but that rarely happens anymore.

Nowadays it's Sirius satellite radio and Pitchfork. And just snooping around the Internet, including artists' Web sites, I luck onto new music. My latest find: a quirky little band by the name of Clem Snide. Their new album "Hungry Bird" is sweet and melodic, and their odd tunes have real staying power. Sounds pretty decent too.

So how do you find new music? Vote in the poll. And if I missed any options, let me know in the TalkBack section below.

The worst sounding recording of 2007, so far.

Iffy sound quality isn't a new problem. Bad sound can't directly be blamed on digital, analog, vinyl, CD, or even MP3. Those are release formats; the quality of the recording itself is what I'm talking about.

Granted, personal taste plays a big part in defining good or bad sound. For every person who says the sound is clear and detailed, there's another who thinks it's ragged and harsh.

That said, the trend of late is toward spitty distortion, the kind that obscures the sound of the vocals and instruments, and buries them in grunge. I'm not opposed to grit that adds an edge to music, but I can't stand recordings made by people who either don't know what they're doing or are too deaf to notice the error of their ways.

Bob Dylan, of all people, agrees with me.

"You listen to these modern records--they're atrocious, they have sound all over them. There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like--static," Dylan said in a Rolling Stone interview with Jonathan Lethem in September 2006.

He's not just referring to other people's records; he included his own record, "Modern Times," in his rant: "Even these songs probably sounded 10 times better in the studio when we recorded 'em." I believe Dylan. That album was a blurry wall of sound. You can hardly hear individual instruments.

The worst recording of 2009 so far--it's still early--is the Heartless Bastards' "The Mountain" CD. It's too bad because I really like the music. It rocks hard, and I love Erika Wennerstrom's strange voice, but there's severe distortion whenever she sings loud.

The distortion was so incredibly annoying that my speakers' tweeters sounded broken. If the distortion just appeared on the hard-edged, bluesier numbers, I might have thought that it was intentional, but the sound was just as ragged on "So Quiet," in which Wennerstrom is accompanied by violin.

There are a million ways to experience music, but for the purpose of this blog let's just break it down to two categories: live and recorded.

I don't know about you, but if I get to hear live music more than twice a month, that's pretty good. Sure, I can look back and remember some great concerts in my life, like the Rolling Stones at Madison Square Garden in 1969, Miles Davis in a tiny club in Greenwich Village in the early '70s, and Stevie Ray Vaughan in the '80s. The Pixies in the '90s were definitely a high point.

I recently attended a concert with the Chelsea Symphony at St. Paul's Church in Manhattan. Sitting in the top balcony, the sound was simply awesome; I've never heard anything close to that sound reproduced by even the very best high-end audio systems. The orchestra certainly didn't need amplification; it was definitely loud enough. Not quite rock concert loud, but the Chelsea Symphony's eight percussionists can make a strong impression.

Better yet, the sound never hurt my ears. But the orchestra was far more viscerally dynamic than any rock band, and the sound of strings, woodwinds, brass, and percussion filling the acoustic space of the church was a thrill I won't soon forget. That is, you don't so much hear the sound of each instrument, you hear it filling the church. The sound of the entire orchestra floated, like a cloud, above the pews. The sound was beyond what I've ever experienced from an orchestra in a large concert hall.

In those and other experiences, the music connection was stronger than it could ever be from recordings, but for the most part I actually prefer recorded music. First and most obviously because it's a repeatable pleasure I can have any time I want it. Next, recorded music is, after all, perfected and approved by the artist(s)--live music is subject to the vagaries of chance.

Recorded music's production can't necessarily be duplicated in concert. Depending on where you sit, and how good or bad the sound system is, live music is a crap shoot. With a decent hi-fi at home, you can get better sound than most live gigs. Oh, and you can play it at exactly the volume you want.

"Live" recordings fall between the two extremes, and if the band's up for it, may be the best of live and recorded.

Went to see Martin Scorsese's new concert film Shine A Light with the Rolling Stones, and I have to admit the aged rockers put on a good show. Sure, Mick and Keith's life-long love affair with the blues is still going strong, but their music has become strangely soulless. They jump around, make faces, and the energy level is high, but I didn't care. I've seen it all before, better--the Rolling Stones are now just a machine, reveling in their own outlaw, devil-may-care ethos, a mere simulation of their former selves. Kinda makes me glad the Beatles never got back together, that band stays forever young. The Beatles' music remains fully intact, pure, and blemish free.

The Beatles' film catalog is uneven all right, but as musical documents, they're all pretty amazing. A Hard Days Night remains a light romp; the tunes come fast and furious, the Beatles are having a blast. Help hasn't aged as well as a film, but the song sequences are still fantastic, Yellow Submarine is still trippy as all get out, Magical Mystery Tour is mostly awful cinema, redeemed with strong tunes. Let It Be has yet to make it to DVD, but even in the Beatles' twilight, the magic was still there.

If you want to see the Stones at their peak, check out Gimme Shelter, a documentary film covering the last days of their 1969 tour. Scorsese's high-speed editing of Shine A Light doesn't help the film, it just fritters away the band's true grit. Scorsese spends way too much time dishing out close ups of Jagger, and rarely covers the complete band. They're mere backup musicians to the star. That's sad, because the Rolling Stones, even now, are much greater than the sum of its members.

The CD may be on its way out, but music and concert DVDs are doing just fine, thank you very much! Late last year I wrote a feature for Home Entertainment magazine running down some of my favorite music DVDs of all time. They were all "live" recordings--there wasn't a single MTV style "music video" in the bunch. This is an abridged version of the article, check the Home Entertainment website to check out the complete article. Oh, and I've added a few DVDs that didn't make the article.

Led Zeppelin

With a combined running time of five plus hours over this two-disc set, with shows ranging from Royal Albert Hall, 1970 to Knebworth, 1979, it's the mother lode of filmed 'Zeppelin concerts. Jimmy Page presided over the film transfers and audio mixes, and considering most of them are more than 30 years old the Dolby and DTS sound is truly awesome. Led Zeppelin is also one the rare DVDs I've seen that starts to play as soon as it's loaded! You don't have to slog through FBI warning, coming attractions or menus. Why can't all DVDs and Blu-rays work like that?

The Rolling Stones: Four Flicks

I haven't seen the new Martin Scorsese 'Stone film, Shine a Light, but this four-disc set features three complete concerts from the 2002/2003 tour. My favorite is my hometown show at New York City's Madison Square Garden. The band is in great shape and Jagger's vocals sound stronger than they had in decades. The DVD looks and sounds great.

Bruce Springsteen: Live in Dublin

These shows from late 2006 when Springsteen was touring to support his Seeger Sessions CD are a hoot! The Boss is clearly having a ball and his large band, fleshed out with strings and horns sound fabulous. Fans will be happy to hear the song list features a large helping of tunes from Springsteen's back catalog, and includes "Highway Patrolman," "Atlantic City," and "Growin Up."

The White Stripes: Under Blackpool Lights

If the 'Zep isn't your bag, maybe this White Stripes DVD will rock your world. Recorded in the Empress Ballroom in England in 2004 with 8mm cameras, the look perfectly mirrors the Stripes aesthetic. The duo's live sound is even more stripped down than their records, and the sound of this DVD captures the Jack and Meg's onstage synergy. The energy is astounding. Clearly, Jack White has studied at the feet of 'Zeppelin and learned his lessons well.

My Morning Jacket: Okonokos

If you dig their records, you love the DVD from 2006. Lead singer Jim James' vocals are outstanding. To me the guy sounds halfway between Neil Young and Roger Daltrey, which makes him the best of his generation. The band rocks plenty hard, and the extended jams have a nice jazzy feel. The sound is extremely dynamic, so on a great home theater it can approach the sound of a live concert.

James Brown: Live at Montreux 1981

If the sound of the Live at Montreux 1981 DVD doesn't get your mojo working, the sheer spectacle of a sweat soaked James Brown and his 14 piece funk band will. The DTS and Dolby 5.1 tracks' sound absolutely nails the music's "live" energy. The horns' sound is brassy and the rhythm section's heavyweight grooves will keep your subwoofer busy. I'm not sure why, but this one only sounds best fully cranked up. It's a remarkably punchy, powerful sounding recording, so if your system is lacking in the oomph department you're going to miss half the fun. The band is staggeringly tight and impeccably arranged, but it's Brown's vocal pleading on "Try Me" that elicits gasps from the audience. The DVD is packaged with a CD of the same show.

Larry Coryell: A Retrospective

Larry Coryell first grabbed my attention almost 40 years ago when he was the first jazz guitarist to use distortion and feedback like a rock musician. Coryall was clearly inspired my Miles Davis' In a Silent Way and Bitches Brew, but possibly because Coryell's music was guitar based it was more accessible to rock audiences. The Jimi Hendrix comparisons are also obvious, and there were times watching this DVD where I imagined this is what Hendrix would have sounded like if he lived. On "Spaces" Larry's son Julian plays guitarist John McLaughlin part from the original 1970 Coryell recording.

Thiel's CS3.7

(Credit: Thiel)

Here's the concept: It's no secret young consumers don't get high-end audio. It just seems like either total BS or an extravagance for the rich. Yes, it can be both of those things, but there's a lot of great, affordable high-end audio that's available to anyone who's truly passionate about music. Here's one quick example, Usher Audio's staggeringly good S-520 speakers that go for $400 a pair (I'll review them in this space soon).

Anyway, a high-end publicist friend of mine proposed this reach out to the youth concept through Rolling Stone magazine. He wanted to blow the magazine's writers away with high-end sound and convinced two of his clients, Canadian electronics manufacturer Bryston, and Thiel, a speaker company from Kentucky, to loan Rolling Stone $40K worth of gear for their reviewers to enjoy for three months. Seems like a great "what if" idea to me. Obviously, the reviewers know music, and I can't wait to hear how they're affected by hearing music like never before.

It's a killer system, with a Bryston BCD-1 CD player, Bryston BP-26 preamp, and Bryston 28B-SST power amps mated with Thiel's astonishing CS3.7 speakers and SS2 subwoofer. For guys used to hearing music over $29 PC speakers it's the equivalent moving up from a skateboard to a Chevy Corvette. Now they'll actually get to hear the music they're critiquing at least as well as the people who recorded the tunes in the first place. Who knows, maybe they'll communicate that experience to their readers. Point is, sound matters, and hearing it with the best possible speakers and electronics is a good idea. We'll see.

The gear, installed at Rolling Stone's NYC office

(Credit: Bryston)

It's one of those as you like it stories. We like the music that we like. Me, I hated the sound of Bob Dylan's "Modern Times" CD that came out last year, and Bob wasn't too crazy about it either. "You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them. There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like--static." That's what Dylan told Jonathan Lethem in Rolling Stone magazine, September 7, 2006.

I dissed Modern Times for its muddled sound. Dylan's vocal was upfront, maybe too loud relative to the instruments, and the overall sound irritated me to the point it distanced me from the music. Oh well, Modern Times hit #1 on the charts and was one of Dylan's best selling albums of all time. So "atrocious" sound doesn't seem to affect sales. And that's a good thing since almost everybody who listened to Modern Times heard it either over pipsqueak computer speakers, the freebie earbuds that come with iPods, or in the car. Hardly the sort of environments where sound quality would be appreciated. Me and Bob, we bemoaned the sound of modern music. It's too often an overly compressed, intentionally ear-shredding noise that doesn't sound like any sound heard in nature. Yes, that might be cool for electronic music or hard-core rock, but ear-shredding static ain't a nice adjective to apply to acoustic music. CD, MP3 or iTune, Modern Times didn't cut it.

Real music from say, an acoustic guitar played in your bedroom, doesn't sound anything like that. Ah, but slip on Dylan's "Bringing it All Back Home" CD or better yet the LP, and check out "Mr. Tambourine Man" or "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue," and listen to the guitars. They sound like strings and wood. That entire album was recorded in three days--January 13, 14, and 15, 1965. Now, return to 'Times, and see if there's something going very wrong with the sound. The four decades of recording technology have taken their toll. Static, yeah, Bob summed it up nicely.

I'd be the first to admit that sound quality is entirely subjective--we like what we like--but the aesthetic has shifted. And the Audiophiliac and Bob don't like it one bit.