Project Genie Review

On review today is the Project Genie. Priced at AUD $429.

Straight to it. I fitted this turntable with a new old stock Nagaoka XXXXX (edited)  cartridge which comes with a shibata stylus.  I've listened to this cartridge on a few different turntables and it really is an excellent cartridge. The cartridge motor is a 1970's design, but really who cares? Some of the most highly acclaimed cartridges come from the 1970's - Grace, Shure etc. Being old doesn't mean bad or obsolete!
People in the 1970's could still hear up to 20khz and amplifiers were able to reproduce the full range of frequencies with suitable detail.

OK, the sound. Compared to a variety of 1970's and early 1980's "affordable" turntables that I have in my collection, what can I say about the build quality?

The main bearing is very good. It uses an inverted bearing with  stainless steel center, and a ball bearing contact surface. Rumble and platter rotational noise is very low. Good!

The tonearm is not that great. Being an S shaped arm its static balance is off, and since there is no weight to correct for this static balance issue, that is a bad thing, though only a few 1970's tonearm manufacturers did actually provide this weight, most don't. Is it necessary? Yes!

The tonearm bearing also has a lot of play in its vertical bearing. The tonearm can physically be pulled up and down. The horizontal bearing seems fine.

The stock mat that comes with the Genie is a dog. It sounds really bad. The material is too soft and can be folded in half easily. This turntable doesn't like a soft mat. I tried a few mats and ended up with a firm felt mat that I have owned for many years. This mat makes the sound much more dynamic, and makes everything clearer from treble to bass.

The sound of the Genie is a dark sound. Bass is fairly strong, but not particularly tonally rich. Treble is rather soft. In my opinion the treble of a vinyl record is one of LP's stronger points when compared to digital. The sound stage is rather limited. The sound is tight and controlled, but in my opinion too tight and controlled. To me the sound is reminiscent of the original Rega Planar with the glass platter, and in some respects that isn't too bad a thing. I admit that I have a preference for the sound of suspended chassis turntables like Thorens and Linn, and a variety of "affordable" 1970's  turntables with suspended chassis. I find that the suspension gives a "musicality" that non suspended turntables often dont have. When I say musicality, I dont mean resonance, distortion, bloated bass or anything like that, I mean, they sound musical and enjoying to listen to, with clarity, rhythm,  "swing" and dynamics to the sound. The Genie, sounds very much like an "average" CD player, and this is the problem.
If someone wants to hear vinyl at its best, they need a musical deck. As far as I'm concerned the Genie, does not exceed the sound of an average CD player in terms of dynamics, musicality, sound-stage or detail. The sound is rather flat and closed. My missus walked into the room looked at the Genie, and commenting about the sound said "I thought that was a CD"

In its favour: good quiet main bearing.
Against:
Flat and un-dynamic sound.
Plastic sounding - due to the material used to make the platter and also probably the tonearm.

The Genie is a competent deck, but I've heard so many affordable used "vintage" decks that can be bought on ebay for far less than the Genie. I'm talking 1970's Pioneer or Pioneer style decks that can be had for around $150 - $250 that can annihilate the Gennie in terms of musical enjoyment, that i cant really recommend this deck even as an entry level model.

So who might this deck suit?
Well considering the belt needs to be manually switched between 33 1/3 RPM and 45 RPM, the power switch is in an awkward position. When swapping cartridges, the tracking weight is adjusted by operating a hex head screw on the weight and requires fiddling for far too long trying to get the weight just right - Its neither easy to set up, doesnt have a dust cover, and it also has limited "tweaking" potential.

Basically what you buy is what you get. Its neither a "tweaker" and "upgraders" deck, nor is it awesome "out of the box" so , really, if you are looking for a "cool" and different looking turntable perhaps this is for you, but otherwise, I'd rather spend my $429 elsewhere. It just doesn't have any special quality for me to give it any particular recommendation whatsoever. Even if I needed to save up for a long time to be able to afford this, I would much rather keep on saving until I reached $1,000 and then buy something with much more going for it, or buy  a vintage deck with a half decent reputation for lesser money!

Final thoughts: 
Perhaps this cartridge isn't the best match for this deck. Considering this deck has a tendency for flat sound perhaps an Audio Technica cartridge with a more "in your face" dynamic and vibrant sound would be a better match. Such as the AT95 E or AT3400 E etc. After further fine tweaking of cartridge VTA, I did manage to get a more satisfying sound out of it, although my earlier comments still stand.

If we purely think of this in terms of where it sits in the market place of new turntables its a cleverly priced unit that has sound commensurate with its price. Its probably better than Project's cheaper decks, and not quite as good as turntables that are double its price. So in terms of market positioning its pretty spot-on.

Its competent, but in my opinion its not a great deck.

Little Bear T10 phono stage vs Rod Elliott PO6 phono stage

Well, I usually write about digital, but why not write about analog?

Analog sounds awesome, vibrant, and natural. It has certain bass, midrange and high frequency qualities that digital does not seem to be able to reproduce. I wont say one is better than the other. Both are enjoyable in their own way. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

On review today is the Rod Elliot PO6 op-amp phono stage and the Little Bear valve phono stage.
Both are DIY kits, the Little Bear comes fully assembled, and the P06 requires assembly.



Of the two kits, the most DIY friendly is the P06, after soldering, it just works. It is silent, and it accurately goes about its business of applying the inverse RIAA curve and amplifying the small signals from your turntable.

The P06 is a very neutral sounding phono stage. This actually goes in it favor. It does not over emphasise any frequency, and gives a very tidy and clean presentation to the sound. If there is a quiet passage, its quiet, and if there is a dynamic passage the sound jumps out. It doesn't sound restrained, it provides good high frequency reproduction, and the bass well extended, tidy, clean, and clear.
Its probably like an excercise in technical perfection. If you check out Rod Elliots site you will see the engineering effort that went into it. Rod seems to be a straight down the line kind of guy, calling a spade a spade. He has a very technical approach to audio, designing his gear to achieve low noise and a flat frequency response (or in this case, an accurate inverse RIAA curve), and really, what more do you need?

The P06 sounds great!

The Little Bear phono stage comes from China and can be ordered from eBay or Aliexpress.
I know nothing about its designer, or the engineering philosophy. I have created an  RIAA curve using software and checked the performance of the Little Bear. It was close enough for me to give it the thumbs up. I'd say it was designed to provide an accurate inverse RIAA curve.

Straight out of its cardboard box the Little bear is a big disappointment. It's 100Hz noise is terrible, but, through that noise it is possible to hear the potential.  Now I just needed to fix that noise!

The high gain required for a phono stage, along with un-sheilded valves results in the valve picking up every bit of noise from the ether that it possibly can, including transformer radiated noise, and noise from the mains wiring in the house.

The solution was to put it into a metal box. Problem solved (- well, almost see far below) Now I could get on with listening to some music.

The Little Bear is a vibrant sounding unit. The valves seem to be giving that extra bit of "valvey" goodness. The mid range is luscious and forward, the bass is very strong and tonally rich, and highs explode from the speakers in a smooth and satisfying way, and despite the forward sound there is never  any harshness to mention. There is also a great deal of clarity, but not quite as much as the P06.

On review here today are two excellent phono stages which come from opposite ends of the spectrum - the technically perfect P06, and the problematic humming Little Bear.

Both offer a sound which presents analog at its best. If you are able to assemble a kit without killing yourself or blowing something up, It really comes down to a choice between, valve sound, and solid state sound.

Op-Amps are technically perfect, and go about their business quietly and correctly. Valves are always "boiling off" electrons,  always vibrant, glowing in their box (even if you can't see them) and will eventually wear out, -a  very natural and organic trait, and perhaps this is what is reflected in their sound.

The P06 gives a slightly cleaner and more pin-point sound. Notes start and stop very cleanly. The Little Bear is more gentle in its starting and stopping, but when an instrument jumps out, it really jumps out with a vivacious lust to be heard.
 
Taking into consideration that an off the shelf "reasonable" phono preamp you can buy in a shop tends to start around the $150 mark for something quite basic, and the next step up is around $250-300. For this sort of money, you can try both the P06, and the Little bear.

You probably want to know which one is my favorite -  It was the Little Bear for quite a while, but now is the P06!. 
Sound is very personal and subjective and I like the vivacious presentation that the Little Bear provides, but after a couple of years, I now much prefer the P06 for a few reasons.
I can't completly eliminate the hum from the Little Bear, and hum really is very distracting. Nobody wants hum in their audio. After doing some AB comparisions with classical music its pretty obvious to me that the P06 has far more detail, and accurate tone. The Little bear is "nice" sounding. The P06 is more accurate, has much lower noise, and gives me more long term satisfaction.

The P06 gets my highest recommendation for people who want excellent sound. Its amazing budget price, and low voltage for safety is icing on the cake. I give it 10/10 for sound. 10/10 for price. Perfect! I'd like to point out that I've never before thought that something was good enough to rate it a perfect 10, so this is very high praise from me.

It may be too much work for the casual DIY person to get the Little bear into a case and sounding good? The P06 appeals to my electronics engineering background, for  - its excellent engineering, low noise, and it works out-of-the-box! The Little bear appeals to my "musical" side because it is a bit more "fun" and "musical" to listen to, but the hum that refuses to go away is a problem for me. I have to take points off it for that. If it didn't hum, I'd score it a 9/10. With the hum reduction techniques I employed i'll give it a 7/10. As supplied from ebay - without case and humming as it did, I'd give it a 5/10 becuase hum totally wrecks your listening experince. Hum has no place in a modern audio system. Don't hope or think or assume the hum is fixed. Don't assume you wont get some hum. Depending upon your skills, it can reward you or can annoy you. Think very carefully before buying the Little Bear.

Some people may be wondering if the valves give a "colouration" to the sound. I don't believe that they do. I believe that the difference in sound is simply due to the technology used. Valve or transistor. Each has its own sonic signature. Valve guys might say that op-amps give a colouration to the sound. Both opinions are probably correct. But the op-amp has far lower distortion and gives a more truthful insight into whats on the recording.

When the Little Bear was first sold a few years ago, with the high Australian dollar, and lower overall price, it was worth a try. These days the price has gone up, and I no longer think it is the bargain it used to be. For someone wanting a top notch phono stage, the DIY P06 phono stage is a no brainer.
It will give higher sound quality at half the price of the Little Bear.

Below a spectral content shots of the same song recorded on the Little Bear (top) and the P06 (bottom) Also please note the Little bear has a hotter output than the P06 and this may have affected the colours in the spectral content. The audio recording was made at 88.2Khz 16bit to capture any high frequencies present on the LP.

There are two theories with regard to digital audio

Basically there are two theories with regard to digital audio.

1) Bit perfect transports all sounds the same.
2) There are many bit perfect transports but some sound better than others.

If you are a subscriber to #1 then everybody else is wrong or their gear is broken.

If you are a subscriber to #2 then you don't understand why subscribers to #1 cant hear it!

What amp to choose for my Audioline speakers?

Amps are difficult to choose. These days options are limited when going into a store and hoping to find a two channel amplifier, that is affordable and of good sound quality, and reasonable power.

In order to give an example of what not to choose -
My Sherwood home theatre 5.1 amp (which I purchased very cheaply from Cash converters- just to try out the surround sound thing)  is rated at 100 Watts per channel. It says so in the user manual. The amp weighs about 6kg. ( that says it all)

When I connected it to my Audioline AL-1400, AL-600 or AL-3210 speakers they just sound lifeless and completely flat.
Well - its not the speakers! It's the darn amp. That amp just sounds horrible. it uses a digital volume control, and I think that circuit is just sucking the life out of the music. I can run that amp at 100% volume and the sound is flat, undynamic, boring, and the speakers dont seem to play very loud.

I can remove that amp, and install my Kenwood KM-208 amp (weighs 8.8kg - and only has two channels)  which is 150 Watts per channel, and that amp makes the sound jump from the speakers. Very dynamic, lively, clear and LOUD :)

I wouldnt even dare run it at full power, it would break my ears and probably the speakers. :)

I've also connected my Audioline speakers up to some 25 Watt, and 16 Watt vintage Sansui amps, and they also sound very dynamic and clear. they wont play as loud as the 150 W Kenwood, but they still have all the dynamics and detail that I want and need for 90% of listening.

So if your Audioline speakers arent sounding that great, its probably your amp. Power isn't necessarily the issue, unless you like playing music super loud. A quality amp of even modest power should make any Audioline speakers sound clear and dynamic, because Audioline speakers are very sensitive. Meaning they will play loud with only a small amount of power running into them.
10-15 Watts will be enough power for most people during daily listening at safe levels. For "party" volume levels a 150 Watt amp is more appropriate to prevent clipping the audio waveform and burning out your drivers.

Suggestions are hard to make, but I'd err on the side of saying that any home theatre multi channel amp isnt going to be great because they are trying to pack in 6 cheap channels into the space where you can only fit two (good) channels.

So, my suggestion to power your Audioline speakers is to go with a second hand two channel amplifier of between 100 and 150 Watts. Something from the 1980's or early 1990s.

Generally I'd recommend Kenwood. Technics. or Pioneer based on their price for performance ratio. -If you find an amp that looks the business, read some reviews on them. Audiokarma website usually has good reviews and personal stories about older gear.

If you want to buy an amp from the 1970's make sure it has been professionally serviced and that it is working 100% perfectly.

Valve amps are a potential option for Audioline speakers but their (generally) low power is only suitable for people who listen at low to moderate levels. Valve amps generally have a less grainy sound than transistor amps, and often succeed in presenting more fine detail than the average transistor amp. The amp shown below is currently manufactured and puts out 20 Watts per channel and costs $3,999.
The boutique nature of modern valve amps make them suited to people who have the money to buy one, and the time to fidget around with finding the best sounding valves. Their high voltages, hot and often exposed valves make them, in my opinion, not recommended for people with young children around (although covers are available)  

 It's difficult to find new two channel amps these days with a decent quality to price ratio. They seem to be either cheap and nasty or very expensive. There is not much in between, which is why I'd recommend a second hand amp bought locally.  If you really want something brand new,  I very apprehensively mention the online only brand - Emotiva. Their price to performance ratio is very good, but my apprehension is due to that if something goes wrong with it, and you need to send it back to USA for warranty repair, given the weight and size of the amps, this is often going to cost you over AUD $300. Even with their "reasonable" prices, buying one is certainly a gamble. Tread with caution, and dont blame me if something goes wrong.

CD masters vs Vinyl masters

Many years ago, before I bought a CD player I listened to almost all of my music using a record player. I had a few players, nothing really "high end" but they were competent solid performing record players with wooden bases, metal platters and metal tonearms. I was perfectly happy with their sound.

When I bought my first CD player I was immediately struck by how wrong the music sounded. Even at the time I recall describing the sound to others as being harsh, steely, artificial, and having excessive high frequncy energy, and a distinct lack of bass.

This all happened around 1993. Right around the time that CD was really starting to take over as the dominant format. New vinyl was being sent to the tip to be crushed and was reported on the news. ( I think this was more of a marketing stunt by the record companies). I advocated to friends and family and anyone who would listen, that CDs didn't sound very good. I only bought CD's if the LP wasn't available.

A few years later I discovered by accident that some CD players did sound acceptable. The CD player that changed my mind was the Akai CD-A7. It used the Burr Brown PCM53 DAC chip.
I liked this player because it had really huge dynamics, strong realistic bass and treble that wasn't overpowering, and this resulted in a fairly natural sound. It sounded closer to LP than any other player I had heard.

Now that I had come to the realisation that digital audio could sound OK, I set upon finding the most analog sounding player.  This search has taken many years and is a search that still hasn't finished.

I've owned or auditioned a great number of CD players and stand alone DACs, from commercial products through to kits.

One thing I have learned is that the overall design and associated components does greatly affect the end result. All "flagship" DAC chips can sound great if the circuit around the chip is designed intelligently and sympathetically to highlight the strengths and address the weaknesses of the chip.

Even though I own a couple of players and DACs that meet my objective of "closest sound to analog possible" I am still left with a problem, and this is where I come back to the topic of this article. CD masters vs Vinyl masters.

People like me who own the same album on both vinyl and CD will probably have performed this experiment. You play the LP and CD simultaneously, and swap between each source. Generally what I find is that the LP sounds more preferable to my ears. However the opposite is sometimes true.
I generally find the LP (being the first "version" of the music that I heard) to have a particular sound or "mix" or "mastering" that I am familiar with, and that I like. I also find that the LP is generally mastered with a greater level of bass and quieter treble, which is a sound that I prefer.

I've found that LPs sound better when the album is an analog recording from the 1960s up to the mid 1980 or early 1990's. Post 1990 digital recordings I find to sound better on CD than LP, (but not always)

 I began to wonder if the difference in sound between the LP and the CD was due to the format, or due to something else. In order to narrow down the point of difference, for experimental purposes, I digitally recorded a few LPs.

What I found is that playing back a digital recording of the LP sounds basically the same as the LP played back directly.(Note 1)

I've found that the predominant difference in sound between the same album on LP and CD is the way the disc is mastered.

I've recently learned that when cutting the LP master, the cutting engineer would have to make adjustments to the equalization of the music in order to make sure the needle would stay in the groove, and he would also make subjective equalisation choices that sounded good to him. The cutting engineer would also spend more time on albums where he personally enjoyed the music. So, what this means is that the master tape was mixed relatively "flat" with the knowledge that each LP master cut in different countries was going to sound different, and that each cutting engineer would impart his own sound upon the record. This is one reason that record collectors seek out pressings from other countries. With certain pressings being more prized than others -due to the equalization choices made by the cutting engineer.

This raises a few questions with regard to CD reissues of albums originally not released on CD such as music from the early 1980's and before.

• Have record companies been providing us with the "flat" two-channel mix down versions or something else?
• Do record companies realise that these versions don't sound the way people wanted or expected them to sound?
• Have the record companies deliberately given us the "flat" versions knowing that at a later date they would release a "remaster" which contains a more "ear friendly" mix?

When CD was first released it was advertised as "perfect sound forever". Capitalism dictates that providing any consumer with the "perfect product forever" is not conducive to making more money.

The reader can make up their own mind if this is a deliberate act by the record companies.

Note 1 - A digital recording of an analog source can sound very good, but it does not sound identical to the original nor sound as good as the original analog source. The analog source always sounds better!

  







 

USB SPDIF WARS - Audiophileo vs Yellowtec PUC 2 review.

I have just compared two USB spdif converters. This is the review

In one corner, the extremely well reviewed Audiophilleo 1.

In the second corner the relatively unknown, in hi fi circles - Yellowtec PUC 2.

Yellowtec, distributed in Australia by Production Audio Video Technology, is a German company that is well known in the professional broadcast industry.  The Yellowtec PUC 2 has been around since around 2006.

The PUC 2 is a USB to AES converter, providing 24 bit 192khz playback and recording. It provides AES input and output, and a pair of balanced analog inputs and outputs. This means it really is aimed at the professional market, which is the primary user of balanced signals and XLR connectors.

My DAC has an RCA SPDIF input so I had to make up an XLR to RCA adaptor.  I used a female XLR connector with pins 2 and 3 connected to a digital transformer and the secondary connected to a female  RCA cable. Ideal? Yes, no, maybee? It did the job!

The comparison was done using a stock standard un-optimised XP desktop computer. Software used was Foobar, and cPlay (running on the desktop - not in CMP mode).

A low noise external aftermarket linear power supply, powered both converters, by "injecting" power into the device-end of a home-made USB cable. External power is the best way to power any USB audio device.

The review:
The Audiophilleo 1 is a really good sounding converter. It is nicely balanced, smooth and detailed, and clearly has low jitter, and exceptional clarity. I don't think I need to say much more. It has been reviewed before in so many other forums and online places. Just do an internet search.

The Yellowtec PUC 2 in direct comparison, gave that little bit extra of everything. Deeper cleaner more defined bass. Cleaner mids and highs. We did listen to a few test tracks but one that increased the obviousness of the improvement was German band "Focus"  the track "Hocus pocus" typically using a lower fidelity source with this 1970's (by today's standards - low-fi) recording, the separation between bass guitar and bass drum is usually very hard to pick. The bass frequencies usually sound murky.

The Audiophilleo did a good job, but the PUC 2 was so much better. I could hear the bass guitar being picked, the "twang" of the strings, and the hit of the mallet on the bass drum even more clearly. The Audiophilleo just didn't do this as well - the murk was still there!

Many times when I have tried a cleaner audio transport, there seems to be the perception of less bass, but with the PUC 2, you get to have your cake and eat it too. Bass gets cleaner, deeper, and more tonal, yet maintains the same perceived amplitude.  Perhaps giving even a little more perceived bass.

The PUC 2 presents a more forward detailed midrange,  in a way that seems to strip back layers of muck, that I never knew was there, revealing the full clarity on the recording, yet without ever sounding harsh or clinical.

In conclusion, the PUC 2 retains all the smooth grain free sound of the Audiophilleo, but takes clarity, musicality and tone to a higher level, right across the frequency spectrum.

Professional users will be delighted with its robust functional exterior, and highest quality sound. The domestic audiophile will be suitably impressed with never before heard detail, and lowest jitter performance from a USB audio converter.

To me, at first it seemed strange that this professional device would out perform the highly reviewed and widely advertised Audiophilleo. I guess the marketing hype had got to me. However after thinking about it for a while, it makes perfect sense - the professional audio industry requires and demands the highest standards of audio capture and reproduction.

Sometimes there can be confusion regarding professional audio products. It can be difficult to know which ones are the real deal.

"Prosumer"  (Professional products for the domestic consumer) come at a budget price and have XLR connectors, they "look" professional, and they do the job, but sound like nothing special.

Then you have real professional products, with real electronics engineering behind them, striving to push the boundaries, and developing new technology and techniques to beat the competition. Yellowtec falls into this category. Underneath the PUC 2's functional exterior lies a finely engineered circuit,  designed to give the ultimate audio performance.

The PUC 2 comes supplied with a low latency ASIO driver developed by Ploytec. Even though the device is plug and play, and does not need a bespoke driver, use of the supplied driver provides even higher sound quality when running a windows operating system. The PUC 2 is not officially supported with a Linux driver, however it has been tested with the latest Vortexbox software and works perfectly and sounds wonderful.

For those who don't need analog inputs and outputs, Yellowtec also make a PUC 2 lite . I suspect this might sound even better than the unit reviewed, due to the lack of power demands from the analog circuitry.

The PUC2 sounds better in all areas, and there are no compromises to be had.. The PUC2 costs less as well, and the Lite version is even cheaper!

Australian Pricing:

Audiophilleo 1 is  $986 delivered. 
PUC 2 is $761.00 inc 10% GST (Recommended retail price)
PUC 2 Lite is $599.00 inc 10% GST (Recommended retail price)

I guess its possible to get them cheaper than this, because no-one pays retail price anymore. Do they?
And I guess if you are in the industry you could probably get "dealer" (=cheaper)  pricing.

If you would like to read another review of the Yellowtec PUC 2 see this blog:
http://2channelaudio.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/audiophilleo-1-vs-vlink-2496-yellowtec.html

Original vs Remastered CD

I have compared a few remastered CD's to the original 1980's releases.

I have found that on most occasions, the original CD's sound so much better than the remasters.

I will list a few reasons why I think this is so:

1) Take any 1970's album. - When the album was first recorded, it was mixed in a way that was the best that could be achieved, and probably done by a competent and (now) famous engineer / producer. - It is not required to repaint the Mona Lisa in more contemporary style.

2) A 1985 CD was pressed only 10 years after a 1975 recording - the tape was fresh and in good condition.

3) A 1990's or 2000's remaster is using a tape which is 20-30 years old. Tape does not get better like a fine wine - it gets worse! The hiss is worse on an older tape, and extra digital noise reduction needs to be applied to remasters of older recordings. Digital noise reduction can be very good, but generally I can still hear if it has been applied to a recording.

4) Sometimes modern engineering attempts to present the sound in a modern way. Sometimes this is done  by compressing the bass guitars and bass drums, and making them louder in the mix. Boo!

5)Sometimes (more often than not) a remaster will have clipped (brickwalled) audio, reducing the dynamic range of the recording. = epic fail

If this article has been of interest you may be interested in my article on CD masters vs Vinyl masters