WTH TAS?!


I just watched on YouTube the first in a proposed series of videos The Absolute Sound has initiated, entitled "Learning From Audio History". The man on screen in this video is Tom Martin, Executive Publisher of the company that puts out TAS and two other hi-fi magazines.

The subject of this video is the AR-4x and KLH Seventeen acoustic suspension loudspeakers, both introduced in the 1960’s. The AR-4x just happens to be the first speaker I bought, way back in 1969. I don’t know why being a Publishing Executive would necessarily make one a hi-fi authority, and this video provides ample evidence that it in fact does not.

Mr. Martin begins the video by giving a very amateurish and confused explanation of what an acoustic suspension loudspeaker is, and how it differs from the non-as designs that were the norm before the invention of as. He makes matters worse by attributing that invention to The Acoustic Research Corporation itself, giving no credit to the engineer who did the actual inventing: Edgar Villchur.

He continues with this statement: "The AR was an 8" 2-way, and I think the KLH was an 8 or 10" 2-way." You think? You’re making a video entitled "Learning From Audio History", and you don’t know (and can’t be bothered to find out) whether the loudspeaker you are describing has an 8" or a 10" woofer? And the viewer is supposed to be learning from YOU?!

But far more troubling is Mr. Martin’s statement after his rather inelegant (and ultimately inaccurate---read on) description of the basis concept of the acoustic suspension bass design: "The spring effect (my note: of the air trapped inside the sealed enclosure of an as loudspeaker) lowered the resonant point of the bass system." WRONG! First of all: resonant "point"? You mean resonant frequency, obviously. But more importantly, the resonant frequency of the woofer in an acoustic suspension loudspeaker is not lowered, it is raised. The truth is the exact opposite of what Mr. Martin understands to be true!

The Absolute Sound and technical knowledge have long had a very weak relationship. TAS founder Harry Pearson was a professional photographer, with no education or self-taught knowledge of electronics. Stereophile founder J. Gordon Holt, on the other hand, was Technical Editor of High Fidelity Magazine, quitting that position after his unfavorable reviews of hi-fi products were deemed unsuitable for publication (the companies making those products threatened to pull advertising from the mag if the bad reviews were published). But Holt had not just technical knowledge, he was an excellent recording engineer, and an expert listener and product evaluator. In 1962 to invented "subjective" reviewing, starting Stereophile and serving as it’s only equipment reviewer for many years. I and many other older audiophiles miss him greatly. I see red when I hear Harry Pearson credited with being the founder of audiophile critique, i.e subjective reviewing. TAS followed Stereophile by over a decade.

I attended a hi-fi shop seminar where the guest was Bill Johnson of Audio Research Corporation, sometime in the late-80’s I believe it was. Mr Johnson---who can and should be credited with single-handedly creating the high end audiophile market as we now know it---related an amusing story about Pearson. ARC had sent a new pre-amp to him for review, and after a few weeks Harry called Bill, telling him the pre-amp was defective. Bill had Harry return the pre to ARC, whereupon he checked it out, accessing there was not a thing wrong with it. Johnson called Pearson to get to the bottom of the mystery, and after a few questions had his answer: Pearson had installed shorting plugs---used to block noise from entering a pre-amp through its unused input jacks---into the pre-amps OUTPUT jacks! Is a person that ignorant really entitled to be considered qualified to be a hi-fi critic/reviewer? That’s up to each of us to decide.

As for Mr. Martin: no, he is not.

128x128bdp24

The only "absolute" about this hobby is the gear's technical data.

After that, anyone can be an "expert."

 

 

@dinov: Shorting plugs inserted into the input jacks of a pre-amp results in the output of that jack being sent to ground, preventing noise from getting into the circuitry. Shorting plugs inserted into the OUTPUT jacks of a pre-amp, on the other hand, does just that: short out the pre-amp! Just like the two sides of a speaker (or car battery) cable touching. It can cause the pre-amp to become unstable, oscillate like crazy, and even blow itself up. Bill Johnson said considering the pre-amp had had shorting plugs inserted into its output jacks, he thought the pre-amp had acquitted itself rather well, with no permanent damage, or even blown tubes.

Should a professional hi-fi critic/reviewer know that the above is the case? Or is having highly-trained ears all the job requires? I wouldn’t presume to answer that for you.

One could also ask if a knowledge and deep understanding of music makes for a more valid opinion about the ability of a component (or complete system) to reproduce music. One thing that made Art Dudley such a good hi-fi reviewer was his musical knowledge, which allowed him to ascertain how the unit being evaluated affected not just the sound of recorded music, but the music itself. IMO THAT kind of critique (which imo began with the introduction of the Linn Sondek turntable) is a major advance in the art and science of the evaluation of hi-fi components. By the way, Dudley knew one should NEVER insert shorting plugs into the output jacks of a pre-amp ;-) .

Not often, but I have been at a few demonstrations where shorting plugs in the preamp output jacks would have improved the system's overall sound quality.

@jw994ts: I anticipated someone might make your argument, which is imo not quite "right". But first, allow me to point out that I was not "dismissing HP’s ears." Go ahead, re-read my post; what I just stated will prove to be true. I did, however, pose the question of whether or not a hi-fi critic should be expected to possess a "certain" level of technical knowledge before he or she should be considered a professional.

No, an art critic need not be an accomplished artist him/her-self. But the critic is expected know about paint, brush stokes, canvases, etc. And a film critic is expected to have an understanding of the process of film exposure, lighting, editing, etc. A critic of photography is required to know about depth-of-field, the effect of color filters in B & W photography (a favorite subject of mine), composition, etc. The critics need not be able to DO all the above, but should know the technique that allows the artist/film maker/photographer to create what the viewer sees. It makes for a more "informed" opinion.

So a Stereophile reviewer listens to a component---say a power amp---and writes a review. As a reader, I don’t know WHY that component sounds as the critic described it, and/or if I will hear it the same way. But when I look at John Atkinson’s test bench results, I get a glimpse behind the curtain (or face plate ;-). A subjective opinion is just that: subjective. That’s not "good enough" for me. Until, that is, I compare my impression of the same power amp with that of the critic, and learn how the two align.

If Atkinson’s bench results show how the high output impedance of the power amp interacts with a wildly-varying loudspeaker impedance load, I know what speaker to not use with that amp, and visa versa (unless I like non-linearity ;-). Likewise, if I learn a critic is ignorant in such matters, his opinion of such an amp is of little interest to me.

But that’s just me.