More to the point, people vilify Stereo Review simply because they fixate on Julian Hirsch. Anyone who took his writings as gospel is either easily lead or fooled (your choice). I started reading Stereo Review in 1970, simply for the music reviews and artists' profiles, the added bonus for me, was that the magazine provided a quick way to find out what was new in audio through both articles and advertising.
Julian Hirsch's part of the magazine was intriguing only because he was attempting to use a quantified method to evaluate equipment. But, if you were "into" audio, it became readily apparent that, although the measurements could quantify certain aspects of performance, the measurements didn't tell you anything about how the equipment sounded.
I looked at the equipment reviews simply as a method of seeing relative performance measurements that might be applicable to a piece of equipment. As an example, wow and flutter are certainly applicable to the sound of a tape machine. Finding out the performance differences between a TEAC versus an Akai, Sony, or Pioneer would give a starting point in evaluating the overall sound.
However, measurements can go beyond simply quantifying chosen performance characteristics if you know what measurement are important, and more importantly, know how to apply them. This was demonstrated in the mid-1980's by Bob Carver through the Stereophile Challenge when Bob made a solid state amplifier sound like a tube amp and the "golden ears" finally gave up trying to find a difference in sound and conceded he'd won.
One of the problems with anecdotal equipment reviews sans any type of measurements is that people's ears are as variable as their eyes. People have "tin ears" just like some people have color perception problems. This was proven to me nearly daily when I worked in an audio store and would demonstrate a very expensive system versus an inexpensive one and the person would say, "I can't hear the difference."
The opposite to that are the people who think they can "hear" every change no matter how small - like the direction a fuse is installed. That's when I question the real reason they have an audio system. Are they interested in listening to music or do they simply want to use the music to listen to the equipment for imagined faults that need improvement? When that happens, the pursuit of perfection seems to be the point of the equipment rather than a way to listen to the art involved in making music.
I've had the same system for nearly 20 years at this point. When I go listen to new equipment I find it provides a different, not necessarily better sound - so, I keep what I have and enjoy the music.
Julian Hirsch's part of the magazine was intriguing only because he was attempting to use a quantified method to evaluate equipment. But, if you were "into" audio, it became readily apparent that, although the measurements could quantify certain aspects of performance, the measurements didn't tell you anything about how the equipment sounded.
I looked at the equipment reviews simply as a method of seeing relative performance measurements that might be applicable to a piece of equipment. As an example, wow and flutter are certainly applicable to the sound of a tape machine. Finding out the performance differences between a TEAC versus an Akai, Sony, or Pioneer would give a starting point in evaluating the overall sound.
However, measurements can go beyond simply quantifying chosen performance characteristics if you know what measurement are important, and more importantly, know how to apply them. This was demonstrated in the mid-1980's by Bob Carver through the Stereophile Challenge when Bob made a solid state amplifier sound like a tube amp and the "golden ears" finally gave up trying to find a difference in sound and conceded he'd won.
One of the problems with anecdotal equipment reviews sans any type of measurements is that people's ears are as variable as their eyes. People have "tin ears" just like some people have color perception problems. This was proven to me nearly daily when I worked in an audio store and would demonstrate a very expensive system versus an inexpensive one and the person would say, "I can't hear the difference."
The opposite to that are the people who think they can "hear" every change no matter how small - like the direction a fuse is installed. That's when I question the real reason they have an audio system. Are they interested in listening to music or do they simply want to use the music to listen to the equipment for imagined faults that need improvement? When that happens, the pursuit of perfection seems to be the point of the equipment rather than a way to listen to the art involved in making music.
I've had the same system for nearly 20 years at this point. When I go listen to new equipment I find it provides a different, not necessarily better sound - so, I keep what I have and enjoy the music.