Speakers, like a baseball glove, need to be broken in before you get the best performance from them.
Simon Côté of Audio Plus Services, the North American distributors for the Focal XS system I recently reviewed, gave me a shortcut for doing that: “pink” noise.
No, I hadn’t heard of that either. But this is the Internet age and Googling “pink noise” not only gives you an explanation -- basically pink noise is a jumble of all frequencies -- but also sample pink noise sound files. Open a file in your computer’s music player, set the player to loop endlessly, and then head out the door because the static sound is awful to listen to. Do that for up to 48 hours and your speaker system will be broken in. You would get the same effect after using the speakers normally over time; this just speeds up the process.
Côté says what happens is that the suspension parts in the speaker loosen up and let the components that vibrate to generate the sound do so more easily. The practical effect with the Focal system was that its initial brightness (excessive high frequencies) went away, proper frequency balance was achieved, and the XS delivered smoother, more natural sound.
So now you know: pink is the answer.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Stick THIS in your ear
Sticking things in your ear used to be something you outgrew somewhere between kindergarten and the first grade. But then along came the iPod and its earbud headphones, and the universe of in-ear audio devices expanded.
Apple’s standard earbuds (which rest in the users’ earlobes) deliver good sound. Doing better requires an audiophile earplug-type design which you put in your ear canal. Developed originally for musicians, in-ear phones both deliver high fidelity sound and also shut out outside noise.
A lot of people like that design, but I hated it. The feeling of something stuck inside my ear was uncomfortable and kept me from wearing them for any length of time.
Shure, which long has been a leader in this market, has changed all that.
Its magnificent SE530 earphones (above) set a new benchmark for the earplug-style design. These have three drivers (the devices that makes the sound) for impressive fidelity across all frequencies. They are one of the few earphones I’ve every heard that matches up to conventional over-the-ear headphones in sound quality.
But the Shures add something more: They set a new standard for comfort. Through a combination of smart design (the tube that channels sound into your ear is kept small) and smart materials (new foam tips that slip into your ears easily and then fit themselves to the ear canal), the SE530 can be worn a long time with full comfort. I even have drifted off to sleep while wearing them.
This Fall, in fact, they were the solution to my neighbor-with-the-loud-annoying-laugh problem. Said neighbor was routinely out on her balcony committing noise pollution in late evening when I was trying to doze off. I put in the Shures, which blocked out the annoying laugh and provided some lovely bedtime music.
Some serious comparative shopping is in order here. Prices on headphones vary widely from vendor to vendor -- and even at the same vendor. Just in the course of researching this article, I have seen prices swing up and down by 30% or more.
The list price for the SE530 is $500, but street prices range from $450 to as little as $275. If that’s still too steep for your taste, take a look at the Shure SE310 (above) – list price is $250, with street prices $50-100 lower. This is Shure’s top single-driver earphone. It delivers excellent sound and matches up well with iPods. Still too pricey? Then go with Shure’s SE210 or SE110, with street prices in the $130-140 and $75 range respectively.
Added bonus: Shure makes a Music Phone Adapter (street price is about $35) with a microphone that lets you use your earphones with BlackBerries, iPhones, and other major music-enabled smartphones. It also provides excellent voice clarity on phone calls. Users can answer calls by tapping a button on the adapter, which also doubles as a play/pause control when listening to music. There are two different adapters, so make sure you get the one that works with your phone.
There are various all-in-one earphone/microphone designs out there for smartphones (Shure even makes one itself), but they do not offer the same sound quality or utility.
Apple’s standard earbuds (which rest in the users’ earlobes) deliver good sound. Doing better requires an audiophile earplug-type design which you put in your ear canal. Developed originally for musicians, in-ear phones both deliver high fidelity sound and also shut out outside noise.
A lot of people like that design, but I hated it. The feeling of something stuck inside my ear was uncomfortable and kept me from wearing them for any length of time.
Shure, which long has been a leader in this market, has changed all that.
Its magnificent SE530 earphones (above) set a new benchmark for the earplug-style design. These have three drivers (the devices that makes the sound) for impressive fidelity across all frequencies. They are one of the few earphones I’ve every heard that matches up to conventional over-the-ear headphones in sound quality.
But the Shures add something more: They set a new standard for comfort. Through a combination of smart design (the tube that channels sound into your ear is kept small) and smart materials (new foam tips that slip into your ears easily and then fit themselves to the ear canal), the SE530 can be worn a long time with full comfort. I even have drifted off to sleep while wearing them.
This Fall, in fact, they were the solution to my neighbor-with-the-loud-annoying-laugh problem. Said neighbor was routinely out on her balcony committing noise pollution in late evening when I was trying to doze off. I put in the Shures, which blocked out the annoying laugh and provided some lovely bedtime music.
Some serious comparative shopping is in order here. Prices on headphones vary widely from vendor to vendor -- and even at the same vendor. Just in the course of researching this article, I have seen prices swing up and down by 30% or more.
The list price for the SE530 is $500, but street prices range from $450 to as little as $275. If that’s still too steep for your taste, take a look at the Shure SE310 (above) – list price is $250, with street prices $50-100 lower. This is Shure’s top single-driver earphone. It delivers excellent sound and matches up well with iPods. Still too pricey? Then go with Shure’s SE210 or SE110, with street prices in the $130-140 and $75 range respectively.
Added bonus: Shure makes a Music Phone Adapter (street price is about $35) with a microphone that lets you use your earphones with BlackBerries, iPhones, and other major music-enabled smartphones. It also provides excellent voice clarity on phone calls. Users can answer calls by tapping a button on the adapter, which also doubles as a play/pause control when listening to music. There are two different adapters, so make sure you get the one that works with your phone.
There are various all-in-one earphone/microphone designs out there for smartphones (Shure even makes one itself), but they do not offer the same sound quality or utility.
And now, for your listening pleasure…
Getting high-quality computer speakers at a relatively affordable price is always a challenge. Until now.
(I should note that I started the product testing for this piece before the bottom dropped out of the economy. So these items are markedly less “affordable” than they were earlier this year.)
There are an endless number of pretty good speakers for $100 or less. Then there are a few $400 systems from such companies as Bose that are somewhat disappointing – better than mainstream systems but not so much better that the extra expense seems worthwhile.
The past year, however, has seen the arrival of two alternatives to meet the needs of discerning listeners without being totally outrageous.
France’s Focal-JMLab has introduced the Focal XS system (above - $600), a sleek silver and black three-piece system (two satellite speakers and a subwoofer) that matches the styling of Apple’s current generation iMac computers and – just in case you didn’t get the idea – includes an iPod dock in the right-hand speaker. It has its own onboard audio circuitry, bypassing the noise of PC or Mac circuit boards, and plugs into your computer via USB.
California-based NuForce Inc. has produced its Icon component system, also USB-based. This one is a la carte – the Icon amplifier (below, right) is $250. You can use it with small bookshelf speakers of your own or with NuForce’s purpose-built S1 speakers (below, left -- $250 for the pair). That puts its price below Focal’s. But it does not have a subwoofer – and in my testing, the sound lacked depth without one. That adds about $100-$150, and NuForce also recommends an upgraded power supply ($45), bringing the total price up to nearly $700.
On the esthetics side, the edge goes to Focal XS, which is sleek and compact and complements most modern PCs and Macs. NuForce S1s have uncovered speaker cones (some will find that a high-tech look, some will see it as garish) and the speakers are large bookshelf-style designs that take up a lot of desktop real estate.
Sonically – which, after all, is the object of the exercise – it is an even battle. What you are paying for here is clear, accurate sound that reproduces a wide range of frequencies and does so at all volume levels.
Both systems deliver. Strings sound like strings. The twang of electric guitars and the punch of the drums are lifelike. You can hear vocalists who actually enunciate sound out their syllables. (A favorite test: in Bob Seger’s anthem “Like a Rock,” can you hear the emphasis he puts on the “k” in “rock”?) At low volumes, the clarity makes for a pleasing listening experience, and you also can crank up the volume to room-filling levels without distortion.
In reviewing audio components, I rely a lot on jazz recordings from Mapleshade and classical from Telarc -- both labels are known for their almost obsessive high fidelity engineering. These recordings have a you-are-in-the-room quality that is an acid test for good sound, and both speaker systems passed.
Which one sounded better depended entirely on the particular recording I was playing, in many cases on the specific track. If pressed, I would give the Focal XS a slight edge in clarity while NuForce had better sound staging (spatial placement of the music – you hear sounds coming from left, right, center, not some muddled mix).
As for added features, as noted the Focal XS has the iPod dock that allows you to sync with your computer as well as play from the iPod. However, it only has an iPod dock connector; there’s no auxiliary jack for other sources. It lacks a headphone jack, so users cannot benefit from the USB sound system when they want to listen privately. The Icon, in contrast, bristles with connection options: there’s a headphone jacks, plus in addition to the USB link to a computer, it will accept RCA inputs (to connect a stereo component) as well as an auxiliary jack (for music players). A large knob on the front lets you choose the input source.
All-in-all, the Focal XS is probably the better choice to set up next to your computer while the Icon is what you want if you need a multipurpose audio system.
Bear in mind that speakers of this caliber are a total waste of money if you do not have high-caliber audio sources to play. I converted a big batch of my CD collection to Apple’s “Lossless” format using iTunes. Microsoft also has a lossless format, and there is the free FLAC lossless format. All of these cut file size down to roughly 50% of a CD but preserve all audio information so the sound is identical to the CD. So a XS or Icon can show off a full frequency range. If you are using MP3 or like formats that compress files by discarding some data, however, that lost data can negate the speakers’ higher fidelity.
(I should note that I started the product testing for this piece before the bottom dropped out of the economy. So these items are markedly less “affordable” than they were earlier this year.)
There are an endless number of pretty good speakers for $100 or less. Then there are a few $400 systems from such companies as Bose that are somewhat disappointing – better than mainstream systems but not so much better that the extra expense seems worthwhile.
The past year, however, has seen the arrival of two alternatives to meet the needs of discerning listeners without being totally outrageous.
France’s Focal-JMLab has introduced the Focal XS system (above - $600), a sleek silver and black three-piece system (two satellite speakers and a subwoofer) that matches the styling of Apple’s current generation iMac computers and – just in case you didn’t get the idea – includes an iPod dock in the right-hand speaker. It has its own onboard audio circuitry, bypassing the noise of PC or Mac circuit boards, and plugs into your computer via USB.
California-based NuForce Inc. has produced its Icon component system, also USB-based. This one is a la carte – the Icon amplifier (below, right) is $250. You can use it with small bookshelf speakers of your own or with NuForce’s purpose-built S1 speakers (below, left -- $250 for the pair). That puts its price below Focal’s. But it does not have a subwoofer – and in my testing, the sound lacked depth without one. That adds about $100-$150, and NuForce also recommends an upgraded power supply ($45), bringing the total price up to nearly $700.
On the esthetics side, the edge goes to Focal XS, which is sleek and compact and complements most modern PCs and Macs. NuForce S1s have uncovered speaker cones (some will find that a high-tech look, some will see it as garish) and the speakers are large bookshelf-style designs that take up a lot of desktop real estate.
Sonically – which, after all, is the object of the exercise – it is an even battle. What you are paying for here is clear, accurate sound that reproduces a wide range of frequencies and does so at all volume levels.
Both systems deliver. Strings sound like strings. The twang of electric guitars and the punch of the drums are lifelike. You can hear vocalists who actually enunciate sound out their syllables. (A favorite test: in Bob Seger’s anthem “Like a Rock,” can you hear the emphasis he puts on the “k” in “rock”?) At low volumes, the clarity makes for a pleasing listening experience, and you also can crank up the volume to room-filling levels without distortion.
In reviewing audio components, I rely a lot on jazz recordings from Mapleshade and classical from Telarc -- both labels are known for their almost obsessive high fidelity engineering. These recordings have a you-are-in-the-room quality that is an acid test for good sound, and both speaker systems passed.
Which one sounded better depended entirely on the particular recording I was playing, in many cases on the specific track. If pressed, I would give the Focal XS a slight edge in clarity while NuForce had better sound staging (spatial placement of the music – you hear sounds coming from left, right, center, not some muddled mix).
As for added features, as noted the Focal XS has the iPod dock that allows you to sync with your computer as well as play from the iPod. However, it only has an iPod dock connector; there’s no auxiliary jack for other sources. It lacks a headphone jack, so users cannot benefit from the USB sound system when they want to listen privately. The Icon, in contrast, bristles with connection options: there’s a headphone jacks, plus in addition to the USB link to a computer, it will accept RCA inputs (to connect a stereo component) as well as an auxiliary jack (for music players). A large knob on the front lets you choose the input source.
All-in-all, the Focal XS is probably the better choice to set up next to your computer while the Icon is what you want if you need a multipurpose audio system.
Bear in mind that speakers of this caliber are a total waste of money if you do not have high-caliber audio sources to play. I converted a big batch of my CD collection to Apple’s “Lossless” format using iTunes. Microsoft also has a lossless format, and there is the free FLAC lossless format. All of these cut file size down to roughly 50% of a CD but preserve all audio information so the sound is identical to the CD. So a XS or Icon can show off a full frequency range. If you are using MP3 or like formats that compress files by discarding some data, however, that lost data can negate the speakers’ higher fidelity.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Is this the new look of "print"?
The possible future of print turns out to be something that could have been the future of the print media.
Last holiday season, Amazon.com unveiled its “Kindle” reader – a trade paperback-sized electronic reader. Since then sales of the device and of content for it are, according to numerous published reports, growing at a solid pace. Amazon does not disclose sales figures, and a spokeswoman responding to my inquiries probably got a little tired of repeating that. However, she did provide an interesting factoid: “Of the 135,000 books available on Amazon.com as a physical book and on Kindle, Kindle books already account for over 12 percent of units sold.”
Therein no doubt lies the commercial success of Kindle where Sony and others have failed. Amazon brings enormous content resources to the reader – books, newspapers, magazines, specialty publications – without which Kindle would just be an expensive paperweight. The unit comes with a built-in high-speed wireless service (using Sprint’s network) for downloading content directly to the device. There’s also a USB cable for getting content from a computer.
The $360 device will not win any design or beauty contests. It’s a slab of white plastic with a mini-keyboard at the bottom, and big tabs on either side of the screen for changing pages, and a scroll wheel for working the unit’s control menus. It was not the most user-friendly layout of all time. The menus are clunky to use, and there is an extra “next page” button to the left of the screen (the main one is on the right) that I inevitably hit when I actually wanted the “previous page” button above it. It’s very much a “1.0” product. (In fact, gadgetry web sites have been showing pictures recently of a purported second generation Kindle that’s a little sleeker looking.)
Limitations aside, I tested one for a couple of weeks and found it to be a very capable book substitute. The experience was little different from reading a paper version, with the added advantage of being able to blow up the text size when I didn’t feel like using my reading glasses. Content delivery by the wireless service was fairly reliable. (Like anything cellular, there always are dead spots somewhere.)
Kindle was less successful for newspapers. The 6-inch (diagonal) screen seemed cramped for that use, navigating through sections was awkward, and the newspapers’ Kindle versions were short of graphics. Magazines fell somewhere in between – heavy text publications came closer to matching their print versions that such periodicals as newsmagazines that have more photos and graphics in print.
Still, Kindle was a very attractive alternative to lugging a stack of books around on a trip or finding a place on your bookshelf to store books after you’ve finished reading them. The unit has a slot for postage stamp-sized SD cards, which can be your “bookshelf.” Another enticing feature is that you can sample the first chapter of books or get a short subscription to periodicals so you can try before you buy. It isn’t hard to imagine that a couple of evolutions from now, this kind of device is the way you read “print” publications.
At the heart of a Kindle is a screen made by Cambridge-based E-Ink Corporation. It uses encapsulated pigment particles to form text and images. Unlike conventional computer displays such as LCDs, E-Ink’s “Electronic Paper Display” consumes much less energy and, equally important, remains highly visible in bright light.
Equally as interesting as the technology, though, is E-Ink’s back-story. In the ’90s, a consortium of major news organizations partnered with MIT’s Media Lab to create the “News in the Future” program intended to help publishers and broadcasters adapt to the challenges of the then-nascent Internet. In retrospect, the project developed a lot of technologies that did help commercialize providing content on the Web. Unfortunately for the news business, it was companies such as Google and Amazon that commercialized them.
E-Ink came out of MIT Media Lab research, and some of its founders were researchers and officials at the lab. Of the many media partners who might have wanted a piece of this action, the only one that is currently an E-Ink investor is the Hearst Corporation, whose properties include WCVB, Channel 5 in Boston.
One issue the News in the Future project grappled with was finding some kind of electronic substitute for paper.
For newspapers at least, one of the considerations was whether it made any sense in the electronic age to undertake the costly capital expense of building new presses or replacing existing ones. Lab experts calculated that it could well be less expensive for a paper to instead supply its readers with some electronic device instead.
I attended a few meetings of the consortium on behalf of my then-employer the Times-Mirror Company (now part of the Tribune Corp.) and saw researcher struggle not only with the technological issues but also with resistance from its media industry sponsors to major departures from their business models.
That Amazon is the company profiting from E-Ink and Media Lab wizardry while my former newspaper company is defunct speaks volumes to me about the state of the news business today.
Last holiday season, Amazon.com unveiled its “Kindle” reader – a trade paperback-sized electronic reader. Since then sales of the device and of content for it are, according to numerous published reports, growing at a solid pace. Amazon does not disclose sales figures, and a spokeswoman responding to my inquiries probably got a little tired of repeating that. However, she did provide an interesting factoid: “Of the 135,000 books available on Amazon.com as a physical book and on Kindle, Kindle books already account for over 12 percent of units sold.”
Therein no doubt lies the commercial success of Kindle where Sony and others have failed. Amazon brings enormous content resources to the reader – books, newspapers, magazines, specialty publications – without which Kindle would just be an expensive paperweight. The unit comes with a built-in high-speed wireless service (using Sprint’s network) for downloading content directly to the device. There’s also a USB cable for getting content from a computer.
The $360 device will not win any design or beauty contests. It’s a slab of white plastic with a mini-keyboard at the bottom, and big tabs on either side of the screen for changing pages, and a scroll wheel for working the unit’s control menus. It was not the most user-friendly layout of all time. The menus are clunky to use, and there is an extra “next page” button to the left of the screen (the main one is on the right) that I inevitably hit when I actually wanted the “previous page” button above it. It’s very much a “1.0” product. (In fact, gadgetry web sites have been showing pictures recently of a purported second generation Kindle that’s a little sleeker looking.)
Limitations aside, I tested one for a couple of weeks and found it to be a very capable book substitute. The experience was little different from reading a paper version, with the added advantage of being able to blow up the text size when I didn’t feel like using my reading glasses. Content delivery by the wireless service was fairly reliable. (Like anything cellular, there always are dead spots somewhere.)
Kindle was less successful for newspapers. The 6-inch (diagonal) screen seemed cramped for that use, navigating through sections was awkward, and the newspapers’ Kindle versions were short of graphics. Magazines fell somewhere in between – heavy text publications came closer to matching their print versions that such periodicals as newsmagazines that have more photos and graphics in print.
Still, Kindle was a very attractive alternative to lugging a stack of books around on a trip or finding a place on your bookshelf to store books after you’ve finished reading them. The unit has a slot for postage stamp-sized SD cards, which can be your “bookshelf.” Another enticing feature is that you can sample the first chapter of books or get a short subscription to periodicals so you can try before you buy. It isn’t hard to imagine that a couple of evolutions from now, this kind of device is the way you read “print” publications.
At the heart of a Kindle is a screen made by Cambridge-based E-Ink Corporation. It uses encapsulated pigment particles to form text and images. Unlike conventional computer displays such as LCDs, E-Ink’s “Electronic Paper Display” consumes much less energy and, equally important, remains highly visible in bright light.
Equally as interesting as the technology, though, is E-Ink’s back-story. In the ’90s, a consortium of major news organizations partnered with MIT’s Media Lab to create the “News in the Future” program intended to help publishers and broadcasters adapt to the challenges of the then-nascent Internet. In retrospect, the project developed a lot of technologies that did help commercialize providing content on the Web. Unfortunately for the news business, it was companies such as Google and Amazon that commercialized them.
E-Ink came out of MIT Media Lab research, and some of its founders were researchers and officials at the lab. Of the many media partners who might have wanted a piece of this action, the only one that is currently an E-Ink investor is the Hearst Corporation, whose properties include WCVB, Channel 5 in Boston.
One issue the News in the Future project grappled with was finding some kind of electronic substitute for paper.
For newspapers at least, one of the considerations was whether it made any sense in the electronic age to undertake the costly capital expense of building new presses or replacing existing ones. Lab experts calculated that it could well be less expensive for a paper to instead supply its readers with some electronic device instead.
I attended a few meetings of the consortium on behalf of my then-employer the Times-Mirror Company (now part of the Tribune Corp.) and saw researcher struggle not only with the technological issues but also with resistance from its media industry sponsors to major departures from their business models.
That Amazon is the company profiting from E-Ink and Media Lab wizardry while my former newspaper company is defunct speaks volumes to me about the state of the news business today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)