Words and photos by Rafe Arnott. Photo above, a unique tome and an engaging read: Experiencing Gigli with Quality Audio.
Sometimes a book enters one’s life and changes or affects our lexicon on a subject, and how we lens the world around us in relation to that subject. Experiencing Gigli with Quality Audio, authored by Paul James is just such a book for me. The volume contains a solid dose of common sense, which in my experience, isn't necessarily common when discussing high fidelity. Indeed, the author’s approach is grounded in what I accept as simple facts which makes me acknowledge it as a ‘must read’ for anyone who puts tonal and timbral naturalness at the fore of their criteria of what makes great hi-fi sound. As always, YMMV. James is to be commended for his down to earth approach to a socially complicated, and oft-argued subject: That “music is a foundational language of being human.”
The book covers everything from the way, as a species, we have learned to hear and listen to music, the type of source/amplification/loudspeaker best suited for reproducing the human voice, to how music physically and emotionally affects us. James reiterates that there is a way for everyone to hear what the artist intended when the music was recorded, albeit with the caveats that some modes are overlooked – and also appreciated – more than others. In this particular case it is less about how hi-fi components measure, and more how they connect emotionally with the listener. Utilizing the recordings of opera singer Beniamino Gigli as a touchstone throughout the book for his examples, James draws the reader through the full circle of how certain music types and the playback devices inherent to listening to them have been marginalized in the current hi-fi dogma of ‘newer is better.’ James also goes into the difficulty involved in reproducing the human voice to begin with and how it is a noble pursuit to attain ultimate fidelity to source. To quote the writer; “To do adequate justice to and fully appreciate a singing voice as consummately beautiful as Gigli, an audio system needs to be free of numerous vices, shortfalls and imbalances.”
To discuss these vices, shortfalls and imbalances I reached out to Paul James, and the man whom turned me on to Gigli, Audio Note UK chief Peter Qvortrup. Both men kindly took time out of their busy schedules to answer questions on the book, intentional listening, and the current state of high fidelity.Photo above: Listening to '60s vinyl with era-appropriate components. The Empire 398 turntable and a Shure M44G moving-magnet cartridge.
Resistor Mag: Please describe the premise of your book “Experiencing Gigli with Quality Audio. What was the impetus to write it?
Paul James: “With the passage of time invaluable music such as that by Gigli has been forgotten, overlooked, or misunderstood. Beniamino Gigli was recognised as a worthy successor to Enrico Caruso. He had a long and distinguished career as an opera star, even having a star on the Hollywood walk of fame. My book explains why Gigli’s singing is still valuable, why it can still benefit contemporary audiences. The other reason to write the book was to explain why it is difficult to reproduce the human voice and singing voice well with audio equipment. To do adequate justice to and fully appreciate a singing voice as consummately beautiful as Gigli, an audio system needs to be free of numerous vices, shortfalls and imbalances. It also needs to have ‘sonic virtues’ so it can adequately convey the vocal inflections nuances and emotional shadings involved. Yet, when reproduced well the ethereal and magical qualities of Gigli’s voice shine.”
Resistor Mag: Did amplification and speaker designs in high fidelity peak in the 1930s and not return until the SET (single ended triode) renaissance in the 1990s?
Paul James: “Owning an original 1930s RCA amp used in movie theatres and experimenting with early chokes and transformers I have found first hand that they have surprising sonic virtues. Under conventional wisdom many might be quick to dismiss them because they can have a more limited frequency response. Yet they can take you closer to the music, provide a more intimate experience than many contemporary designs.”
Peter Qvortrup: “Small comment here. The best sounding principles were most certainly refined to the point that the sound quality of the best examples of that era challenges the notions we have about how good the present crop of audio products are. The introduction of the single-ended directly heated triode in the late 1980s (although it should be said here that in Japan the DHT amplifier was generally regarded as the best since some time in the late 1950s) and the re-emergence of field coil loudspeakers is a clear sign that a re-evaluation is in progress and this can only be as a result of enough engineers and listeners realising that not all is well with current technology, something I have been an advocate of for a great many years.”
Resistor Mag: Why is it important to recognize the contribution to modern culture of the 78rpm record?
Paul James: “Any recording is a time capsule of the era which it was recorded. It can allow us to notice things about past eras and also what we might have gained or lost in ours. Some of the music recorded on 78 has an intimacy that is rarely found with contemporary recordings. While the style of music played may no longer be in fashion, or seem strange at first, an attentive listener may still be able to appreciate the humanity, the human presence that can jump out of these recordings, and the musicality of some of the performances.”
Peter Qvortrup: “The importance of historical recordings should be no less than the importance of other human art of the past. Like our literature, paintings, architecture or archaeological artifacts they tell us about who we are, they are part of our common heritage and as such they have immense historical value. Given the fact that they also hold within their grooves performances of some of the greatest artists in human history, that should make them far more cherished than they are.”
Owning an original 1930s RCA amp used in movie theatres and experimenting with early chokes and transformers I have found first hand that they have surprising sonic virtues. Under conventional wisdom many might be quick to dismiss them because they can have a more limited frequency response. Yet they can take you closer to the music, provide a more intimate experience than many contemporary designs.”
–Paul JAmes
Photo above: "On a poor-quality system the subtleties contained in the music may be clipped, cut off, or lost entirely. As a result they may be stuck on a repeat cycle of superficial sounds, of muzak.” – Paul James
Resistor Mag: Have high fidelity components, like so many products, been victimized by economic considerations superseding what could be argued as the historical quality of the stereo system?
Paul James: “The objective for manufacturers to make as much profit as possible, both in terms of numbers sold and to increase profit made on each unit. In a competitive audio market responding to economic, social and cultural changes companies may devote more money to increasingly sophisticated marketing campaigns than to developing the product in a way that improves audio quality. An example of this is greater focus on the finish, style and ease of use of audio products. In many cases newer audio products are superior in these aspects. As few people have compared them with earlier designs they may be unaware that may also have inferior sound quality to earlier designs.”
Resistor Mag: Thanks to streaming services, earbuds, computer speakers and mobile phones as listening platforms, is the average person capable of recognizing quality audio playback? Do they even care?
Paul James: “In a majority of cases no. This not just due to the limitation of the listening platform and music being played, it is also due to changes in the way people interact with music. Many people are not listening to music, they are hearing it. A poor attention span and multi-tasked musical experience in a way renders quality audio moot. Most people therefore don’t care. Though this does not mean that a person’s musical experience cannot be changed.
Photo above: Listening via vintage loudspeakers (Altec 604e/612) and contemporay ones (Harbeth M30.1), the enjoyment of music should always take priority."No one ever died from poor sound quality, although one might argue that mental health is not improved by it either." – Peter Qvortrup
Resistor Mag: Why should the average music consumer care about great sound?
Paul James: “Because they may be robbed of much of the meaning, insights and wisdoms of good music. On a poor-quality system the subtleties contained in the music may be clipped, cut off, or lost entirely. As a result they may be stuck on a repeat cycle of superficial sounds, of muzak.”
Peter Qvortrup: “Unfortunately, I think most people do not care about the quality of the music they listen to, mostly because they do not realise how much improvement is available, but often also because their listening habits are on the “go” on a portable device or as background to whatever they are doing; working, washing the dishes, whatever it may be. Quality of sound really only matters, if you sit down and listen with the purpose of listening to music as the sole, or should I say, main activity, this for me is where the quality of reproduction really matters.”
Resistor Mag: Commodification and ubiquity of music via streaming platforms, it could be argued, has ultimately led more people away from experiencing great sound. What, if anything can be done about this on a scale which would have any meaningful impact?
Paul James: “There are already some examples that scale, such as the initiative ‘playing for change.’ However, the first step is to understand where we are and how we got there. That is the subject of my current book. Change doesn’t get leveraged unless there is a desire for it and the benefits of any change in experiencing music differently are made clear.”
Peter Qvortrup: “It is in the nature of our economic system to commodify and commercialize everything it touches, which means bringing it down to the lowest common denominator possible, as cost is the driving principle in everything in our economic system, quality is generally only available in areas where Governments set standards mainly to protect the population from exploitative, deceptive and/or dangerous goods and music is not on that list. No one ever died from poor sound quality, although one might argue that mental health is not improved by it either.
Sadly, even the flimsy consumer protections we currently enjoy are now being challenged by commercial corporate interests. I have several issues with virtual media, whether streaming, downloading or whatever, here are some thoughts: The only real benefit I can see of streaming is that it does allow you to listen to a lot of new music, however, and there is a major caveat here, which is that most of what is available is decided by majority “choices” or sponsored by someone in whose commercial interest it is, which means mostly the recording companies who produced the recordings, so whilst there is a huge amount of “choice” on the surface it is not really genuine choice. My greatest objection to virtual media is that it commodifies art and by doing so it degrades the perceived “value” of most music to a consumable “noise” which is hardly desirable even for the most modest aspiring artist. Downloads suffer from the same issues, in addition to the fact that in spite of paying for each download you do not own what is downloaded, so as far as I am concerned it is better to simply buy the physical format containing the music, this can be listened to time and again and passed on to your children or sold.
Physical media are also not subject to the vagaries of a computer industry that believes progress consists of never ending “improvements” (read here upgrades) one of which is certain to corrupt, delete or lose the files with your precious stored music. The likelihood of someone creating enough interest in sound quality is very small indeed in my view.
Photo above: Listeing to quality audio may put one is a Zen-like state of being. Always prefential to the stress-induced state many of us find oursleves for the various reasons prevalent in modern society.
Resistor Mag: With the public perception that modern conveniences and modern technologies are best, so it follows advances in recording techniques mean the latest recordings have to be best. True or false? Do the earliest analog recordings hold up to modern ones?
Paul James: “The overall premise of modernity, and for technology in particular, is newer is better. As Aldous Huxley said, a lie repeated 100 times becomes the accepted truth. In audio, as in other fields, there may be some advances, there may also be some losses as past knowledge and capability was lost. A good example of recognition of the value of past performance is Western Electric’s huge investment to manufacture valves again. Modern technology may make recording and mastering process hugely more efficient, some remastering may improve an earlier recording, though this may not always be the case. A good analogue recording has a presence that may not be realised in subsequent digital versions. I have heard some early recordings that are nothing short of remarkable, that allow you to ‘be at one’ with the music.”
Peter Qvortrup: “False, there are reasons why the recordings from the golden era of recording, from 1949 to approximately 1970, give or take a few exceptions, are so highly prized and valuable. It is not just that the musicians are more interesting, it is mainly because the recordings have a sonic quality that is rarely, if ever, matched by modern recordings, especially since the introduction of digital recording techniques that allow the use of an almost endless number of mics. I think the thing to acknowledge here is that real quality, if mostly only recognised long after it has been replaced by something inferior, is that time is the ultimate judge. I think given that convenience and cost/profit will remain the driving forces, when combined with the current idea of progress being a time line, so it is believed that new is always better than what it replaces.”
Resistor Mag: Following the previous question, and despite often inchoate protests to the contrary, in your opinions, are vintage pressings of 78s just as valid to use for evaluating high fidelity gear as any modern analogue recording?
Paul James: “They may be useful as they help identify whether the system is capable of intimacy. If it is there in the music, rather than the system being able to produce a sterile carpet of sound. Modern hi-fi test tracks may fail to evaluate the intimate capability.
Peter Qvortrup: “The quality of criteria have shifted over time, what brought us the lovely world of digital was the culmination in the endless search for no “noise” and wide dynamics (in the mistaken belief that dynamics and loudness are somehow closely related, if not actually the same) when it became obvious that 16/44 Redbook was not wideband enough, the search for “higher resolution” started, I shall refrain from expressing my opinion on these “improvements.” What is highly interesting, as far as the second part of your question is concerned, is that the answer is generally yes, certainly as far as the Likhnitskiy 78 transfers are concerned, we have found over the past many years that the subtlety of differences that we can hear using these CDR transfers is even greater than what we hear on pretty much every other recording we have used in the past (and may I add here that given the size and depth of my music collection that is not a small statement).
“So one might then speculate as to why this may be the case and my main thought has to do with the fact that pretty much all pre-1935 78s are direct cuts where the “distance” between the event and the laying down of the information is very short indeed, it seems to me when I listen to these old recordings that they have a coherence, integrity and authenticity that is, broadly speaking, lacking in recordings after 1935 when the tape recorder came into general use which allowed recordings to be manipulated. This observation, or should I call it experience, is then further supported by the fact, that to me at least, the acoustic recordings have some elements which makes both the musicality and authenticity present in electric (1926 onwards) as superior to my ear, and of course the path travelled by the sound in an acoustic recording is so short, so even though the acoustic recordings suffer from phase, bandwidth and other issues they also have a more integrated and focused sound.
Image right: Opera singer and young bon vivant Beniamino Giglo in this undated photo.
“The frame of mind of the listener shapes what they notice in the music and what it means to them. Shaping the intentions of the listener as was done sometimes in music appreciation initiatives is valuable and important. A person can buy a system of outstanding quality and may miss many of its virtues due to their intentions which might involve hearing not listening."
–Paul James
Resistor Mag: Paul James writes that listening perceptions can be affected by listening intentions. Why is this important when it comes to music playback?
Paul James: “The frame of mind of the listener shapes what they notice in the music and what it means to them. Shaping the intentions of the listener as was done sometimes in music appreciation initiatives is valuable and important. A person can buy a system of outstanding quality and may miss many of its virtues due to their intentions which might involve hearing not listening.”
Peter Qvortrup: “I completely agree with Paul here (not that I have disagreed with Paul so far I might add!) so I have nothing to add here.”
Resistor Mag: Why is the strong mental impact of music so often diminished by hi-fi manufacturers in favour of pursuing ever vanishing measurements of distortion, and further fetishism of gear?
Paul James: “Measurements suits a scientific world view and the desire to proclaim one product as better than others according to a factual scale. By turning in better measurements manufactures want to take a high road and avoid the perceived risks and debates that arise in a subjective view of audio quality. Measurements may also seek to reduce buyer uncertainty as better measurements are to be perceived as providing better audio quality.”
Peter Qvortrup: “Most consumers see measurements as factual and the numbers game is a very effective marketing tool, as Thomas Edison said about his invention, “ the areas of improvement are bandwidth, noise and distortion” and these are what the audio industry has continued to chase by developing techniques that by and large cheat the test equipment (but not the human ear, if one cares to listen).
“Subjectivity suggests opinion, not factual assessment, where in reality audio measurement results are also subjective, as they are relatively easy to manipulate, just take amplifier distortion and bandwidth as an example, all that is needed is to add negative feedback to the circuit and voilá both improve markedly, not realising that this behaviour is dependent on the signal on the input and output of the circuit has to be the same to achieve this feat, which music of course never is.”
*Further reading on the subject: The Negative Effects of Feedback.
Resistor Mag: While hearing is a primal part of survival, could it be said our hearing, as humans, is evolving in a way unique from other species because of our exposure to music?
Paul James: “In part yes, though this a complex area as we have created very noisy soundscapes that people have to respond to whether they like it or not as we can’t turn off all the sounds that we hear in the modern environment.”
Photo above: Early example of an EMG broadcast grammophone.
Peter Qvortrup: “I think it is questionable whether our hearing system is better today than it was 10,000 years ago, so my reply would be no. What I will say though is that the development of natural musical instruments must have taken place as a result a developing need to “hear more.”
Resistor Mag: It’s been more than 90 years since 78s changed the way humans listen to music, what could we expect in the next 90 years?
Paul James: “Further refinements to make song selection and playback even easier, ‘as mindless as possible’ and increasing sophisticating in targeting music to consumers based on their past likes. Increased focus on audio to fit into contemporary décor and environments. A small counter culture niche that seeks deeper musical experience and people creatively using technology to help share these experiences.”
Peter Qvortrup: “Actually it has been over 100 years, the first 78 appeared in the 1890s. I would say that mindless technology will continue to intrude into our lives and make it harder and harder for most people to find enough mind space to appreciate the amazing sonic spectacles available on the lesser known and promoted music spheres.”
Buy Experiencing Gigli with Quality Audio HERE.Think of this like an online subscription. Your donation supports a unique space for me to smash-up music journalism, alternative culture, high fidelity reviews and give volume to those stories and voices lost in the white noise of mainstream hi-fi media. Plus, beer money.