"The Audio Critic" B.S. or what?

The Audio Critic, in its current incarnation, is the foremost proponent of the notion that high-end audio is subject to the laws of psychoacoustics, a branch of psychology that studies auditory perception. The most basic principle here is that sighted listening is an unreliable means of judging a sound because your brain is taking in and processing other information as well. Hence, only blind listening tests can truly determine whether two cables sound different, for example. Needless to say, this view (and it's more than just a view--there's a damned lot of peer-reviewed journal articles to back it up) doesn't sit well with the manufacturers of certain products, or the magazines which rely on those manufacturers for advertising revenue. By the way, Aczel and his crowd are audiophiles, too. It's just that they pursue "the absolute sound" by concentrating on the things that really matter, particularly speakers and speaker-room interaction.

Drubin. You can find it at Barnes & Nobles Bookstores. It is interesting reading. I agree with Onhwy61 that it reinforces our core audiophiles values. Its true that cables and interconnects can improve your sound system, but you dont have to spend the kind of money that some of these manufacturers charges us. Go to some of the DIY Sites and make your own. I made some of my own Speakers and IC Cables and it sounded as good, if not better than some of the ultra-expensive cables, for a fraction of the costs

TAC doesn't have a Web site, but any search engine will turn up plenty of reviews posted by manufacturers (obviously only the positive ones, of which there are fewer than for other mags). Note: reviews from the 70s and early 80s pre-date TAC's embrace of objectivism, so won't reflect its current thinking. Subscriptions ($24/4 issues) can be ordered from PO Box 978, Quakertown, PA 18951. The publication schedule has been spotty (to say the least), but there's a new publisher with the promise of more regular issues. You should read it even if you don't agree with it, for the same reason that liberals should read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal--it broadens the mind.

Well now, we have a good subject for diversity of opinion which is at the heart of the subjective/objective debate. I have alot of audio software and hardware,some of it, comparatively expensive. I have been enjoying this hobby since the early '60s. I agree that, if you believe that some intangible manifestation exist, it does, FOR YOU, exist..whether or not its existence can be reliably demonstrated to anyone else. I don't agree with many of the above characterizations of The Audio Critic (TAC). TAC, unlike many publications, has been consistent in their philosophy and has continued to call it like they test and hear it. Isn't that essentially what Stereophile(e.g.) attempts to do? I see TAC as a breath of fresh air in a room filled with emanations of garlic, onions, and occasional fruity mouthwash. TAC has consistently attempted to remove some of the mysticism and pseudo-science which seems, at times, to permeate this hobby (surely, most of you agree that these are characteristics which exist within audiophilia). Having participated in this hobby for many years with the added experience of high-end sales and as a full-time professional musician for many of those years, I long ago recognized the highly subjective nature of equipment evaluation sans any testing apparatus. The great advantage of objective evaluation is that it doesn't rely upon the very variable results of ears-only testing. Just read the Letters To The Editor section of Stereophile, or for that matter, these forums, to see the obvious disparity of opinions regarding audio hardware. Naturally, most of us prefer to have our tastes and decisions reenforced by the agreement of a perceived authority. A number of us are susceptable to what is referred to as the placebo effect. This effect essentially allows for a belief in some of our expectations having been fulfilled. This psychological characteristic, has been verified in many areas of human experience, including the subjective (and sometimes objective) evaluation of audio equipment. This is acommon human trait and I suspect that it influences all of us occasionally. This is a powerful justification for the use of the relatively consistency of the machines. The truth they reveal to us might not be preferred or even palatable. But it is usually consistent. As an example; objective testing might indicate high distortion within a component. This high distortion may be preferred (tubes?). As a matter of taste though, preference is all that is required. So, TAC is criticized by those who subjectively disagree with some of its conclusions. I would conjecture that some of those same critics, if they are owners of products by Arragon, HSU, Marantz, Sunfire, Velodyne, Legacy, Bryston, BK, Paradigm, McIntosh, Sony, and others would have agreed with TAC's favorable comments regarding some of these mfrs. products. BTW, these and other well-reputed mfrs. have indeed advertized in TAC. In addition to the dispelling of certain objectively unproveable audio mythologies, TAC attempts to demonstrate that at a certain point, money can and is being wasted on highly questionable product benefits, overpriced products of inherent lower value, and overbuilt, highly priced hardware. If you can find a copy, try to read it without bias. You might find the counterbalance of their perspective to be ultimately beneficial to you. I have. And if for no other reason, cherish it for the technical descriptions and comments of Dr. Rich. I also agree with the above comments of Jostler.

Waldhorner: You've set up a distinction between measurement and what you call "ears-only testing" that I think is misleading. TAC does do measurements (as does Stereophile), but it also does "ears-only testing." What it doesn't do (and what S-pile does) is "eyes-and-ears testing." It's the eyes that get you into trouble, if you're trying to make judgments based solely on sound. Otherwise, your comments are right-on.