The Audio Critic

Mapman wrote,

"GEoff what you just said is logically consistent but logic alone achieves nothing without facts.

The fact would be that there are differences possible and that any individual may or may not hear it in any particular case. One case means nothing other than two different outcomes with two different people.

Now expand the scope to consider many similar cases, and then at least statistically there is a basis perhaps to draw some conclusion. Still does not prove anything though about any particular case. Only that something expected might be likely or not."

Mapman, as the kids say these days, What ev. I suspect intentionally or unintentionally you're over thinking it.

Rock, don't you know that nobody can demonstrate anything? If anybody could there would be no more audio debates as you suggest. This way we'll never run out of things to argue about. There would be no arguments about wire purity, cable geometry, conductor material, dielectric material, fuse direction and alternating current, Mpingo discs, the best material for audio feet, whether CDs are better than cassettes, whether a portable CD player really better than a high end player, is quantum mechanics a hoax? Things of that nature.

I don't think Aczel or anyone else ever said that "all wire sounds the same". I believe the statement was that any differences in wires can be attributed to their electrical characteristics of resistance, capacitance and inductance. In other words, wires with the same electrical properties will sound the same. In fact, TAC has a lengthy article on the huge changes in frequency response resulting from cables with different electrical characteristics.

While we're here, Aczel also never said all amplifiers sound the same. He said that amplifiers of similar design, ie, modern solid state, will sound the same when operated below clipping and level-matched to within some percentage of 1 DB.
So a 100-watt SS Bryston and an 8-watt 300B SET will not sound the same, even by Aczel's rationale.

At least that's how I remember it.

@Chayro: "While we're here, Aczel also never said all amplifiers sound the same".....maybe not verbatim! Copy/paste this in your search bar, for the article from which I quoted: (http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/critic1.htm) His first three points, in this article; I agree with completely. From there; he's driven himself off a cliff.

Regarding Mr. Aczel's credibility as a reviewer, it is perhaps noteworthy that over the years there were in effect two Peter Aczel's. There was the Peter Aczel who published "The Audio Critic" prior to its nearly seven year hiatus between early 1981 and late 1987 (that period closely coinciding with the existence of the Fourier Systems speaker company, of which he was President and part owner). And then there was the metamorphosed Peter Aczel who resumed publication of "The Audio Critic" following that period.

During that second period, as noted above by Mr. Rodman, Aczel fervently maintained that all amplifiers meeting certain basic criteria sound identical. And much of what he had to say in each of his issues was devoted to attacking the high end community and its publications.

Prior to that hiatus, however, his reviews were typified by statements such as the following, which I've extracted at random from a couple of his issues:

[The Amber Series 70 amplifier] has a nice, solid bottom; a midrange that lacks the ultimate transparency obtainable at much higher prices but is open and musical nonetheless; and a clearly etched top end that doesn't harden or smear even when the program material has a wide dynamic range and is rich in high-frequency energy.
(Volume 2, Number 3, Spring through Fall 1980)

[The Bedini Model 45/45 amplifier] is supposed to be a scaled-up version of the Model 25/25, with everything essentially the same except the bigger power supply. Well, there's one other thing that isn't the same in our opinion, and that's the sound. The Model 45/45 isn't even unequivocally superior to a good sample of the Hafler DH-200, at one third the price, let alone the smaller Bedini or the JVC. Where the Model 25/25 is utterly smooth and edgeless, the 45/45 exhibits that characteristic little transistory zing and hardening, and its midrange transparency and delineation of high-frequency detail are merely good, not great.
(Volume 2, Number 2, Summer/Fall/Year-End 1979)

Regarding the conflict of interest with the Fourier company, what Larry said is essentially correct. In fairness, though, the first TAC issue published following the long hiatus, and following the demise of Fourier systems, included a lengthy and very detailed recounting by Mr. Aczel of his side of the story. He maintained, among other things, that when the Fourier I review was written, about two months prior to publication, the company was in the very early stages of being formed, and at that point:

... there was no working capital to speak of and no idea who would end up owning the company by coming up with the capital. Thus the disclosures made in the article regarding the involvement of "The Audio Critic" and its Editor in the Fourier project were as complete and forthright as the few established facts of the case permitted."

One more thing worth noting about the Fourier I speaker, in relation to Mr. Aczel's credibility as a reviewer: Just a few months after its introduction the design he had so raved about underwent major modification, including substitution of a different midrange driver and a different tweeter. The stated reason being that "some driver-related problems that had eluded our attention in the laboratory made its interface with certain rooms unpredictable." (Issue 10, Fall/Year End 1987). If I recall correctly, btw, "The Sensible Sound," not exactly the most hypercritical of audio publications, had panned the original version of the speaker in their review.

Also, fwiw, I auditioned the revised version of the speaker at Lyric's store in White Plains, NY, I believe in early 1983. I recall it as being a decent performer, but not one that particularly excited me.

Aczel was no doubt an extremely gifted, intelligent, and persuasive writer. As I recall his day job was in the advertising business. He was a reviewer that I WANTED to like and respect. Ultimately, though, between the attitude and beliefs he manifested in his later period, his total inconsistency pre-hiatus vs. post hiatus, and the unsettling Fourier saga, I found it impossible to do so.

Regards,
-- Al