WTH TAS?!

I started myAbsolute Sound subscription with issue 4, and it was a revelatory experience reading it. So different than Julian Hirsch, who fundamentally did not understand audio design (“ belief in slew-induced or transient inter modulation distortion is the same as belief in the tooth fairy”). Nor did he listen.

Harry Pearson, and the many of the early TAS crew, were characters are deeply flamboyant. But they had good ears. I most miss PHD and JWC as they seemed the most grounded. I think AS went sideways with the “yin and yang “ anaologies, they lost me then.
 

These days when I read Absolute Sound, it’s often hard to discern what the reviewer thinks, in that everything is good value and reviews are carefully edited so as to avoid offending the manufacturer and advertiser. What my own ears tell me often does not coincide with what AS reviewers will say when I am in the store or Hifi show. But when Harry Pearson wrote something, my ears would get corroboration with what he said.

"Mr Johnson---who can and should be credited with single-handedly creating the high end audiophile market as we now know it"....You’re kidding, right???

Ever hear of a few guys like Peter Walker, Henry Kloss, Paul Klipsch, James Lansing or Bob Carver, ??? Many different talented people "created" the high end audiophile market as we now know it...not one person. It’s like saying Charlie Parker "invented" modern jazz....He was indeed on the ground floor but some guys named Gillespie, Monk, Tadd Dameron and Gil Evans to mention a few had a big impact as well ....

Dear bdp24:

Thank you for the good writing. I agree with you 100% except the following.

Please write plain English.

EX:

(You wrote)

Bill had Harry return the pre to ARC, whereupon he checked it out, accessing there was not a thing wrong with it

(Recommended)

Bill asked Harry return the pre to ARC, ..., there was nothing wrong with it.

Mixing last name and first name = Please use only one style.

Bill, Johnson, Harry, Pearson = 4 names for two persons, not a good writing

Geez, is there nothing a person can say that someone else won't take issue with? ;-)

Sure, before Bill Johnson formed The Audio Research Corporation, there had been the QUAD ESL, the KLH 9 ESL, the Klipschorn, the Marantz Model 7 tube pre-amp and Models 8 and 9 power amps, and plenty of other state-of-the-art contenders. But let's revisit the statement I made by which Chris was so offended:

".....single-handedly creating the high end audiophile market AS WE NOW KNOW IT." I didn't think I needed to emphasize those highlighted words, but I often give people too much credit. ;-)

When Bill Johnson in 1970 formed ARC and introduced the SP-2 tube pre-amp and models D-50 and D-100 tube power amps, the Marantz Models 7, 8, and 9 had been replaced with solid state models. When you went into a good hi-fi shop (San Jose had one), you did not see QUAD, KLH 9, or Klipschorn loudspeakers, you saw Acoustic Research 2's and 3's, JBL 100's, Rectilinear 3's (a forgotten classic), and Bose 901's. You did not see McIntosh MC75 power amps, MR71 tube tuners, C24 tube pre-amps, Dynaco PAS-3 tube pre-amps, or Stereo 70 tube power amps. You saw Mac 2105 amps, MR73 tuners, C26 and C28 pre-amps, and Dynaco PAT-4 pre-amps and Stereo 120 power amps, all solid state. 

A year later (after J. Gordon Holt had reviewed the ARC SP-2 and D-50 power amp, as well as the Magneplanar Tympani T-I magnetic-planar loudspeaker), high-end shops were popping up all over the U.S.A., selling ARC tube electronics (the only ones on the market) and Tympani Loudspeakers (as well as the new Infinity Servo-Static 1 ESL), followed by all the high end names that came into existence only after ARC had changed the nature of the high end market. When Harry Pearson introduced his The Absolute Sound Magazine in 1972---which was inspired by the resurgence in the higher end hi-fi products sector, the market for those products exploded, dozens and dozens of new companies whose goal was to advance the state of the art starting introducing new designs. Levinson, conrad-johnson, Wilson, Vandersteen, Linn/Oracle/VPI/SOTA tables and arms, moving coil cartridges, and many many more. These all became mainstream companies and products, their beginnings all attributable to the revolution Bill Johnson started in 1970.

When I visited one of these new high end shops in the spring of '72, the shop's owner said to Bill Johnson (who was visiting and bringing a complete ARC system to install in the shop's listening room): "Thanks for bringing a sense of excitement back into the hi-fi business." I stand by my statement. 

@r27y8u92 (what the heck kind of "name" is that? ;-) :

I understand your points, but I intentionally went out of my way to write the way I did.

So you think "there was nothing wrong with it" reads better than "there was not a thing wrong with it"? Perhaps my phrase is a little too "artistic"? Maybe I’ve read too many books by authors who liked to use a less obvious phrase. In this case I think it’s just a matter of taste.

"Bill asked Harry return the pre to ARC". I’m sure you meant to say "Bill asked Harry TO return the pre to ARC", and just forgot the "to". Correct? I put it thusly: "Bill had Harry return the pre to ARC". Again, in this case I believe that to be just a matter of taste, no right or wrong. (another example of a choice in language: Instead of saying "...to be just a matter of taste", I could have instead said "...to just be a matter of taste." I prefer the former, you may prefer the latter. Again, no right or wrong.).

As for intermingling first and last names, again that was quite intentional. Using the same names over and over and over again to me gets boring. Again, perhaps you just don’t care for my writing style. Not a problem ;-)

"Bill, Johnson, Harry, Pearson = 4 names for two persons, not a good writing." Not to be snarky, but "not a good writing" = not good writing ;-). And if you demand consistency (in the use of names, for instance), you should listen to your own admonishment: You should write either "4 names for 2 people", or four names for two people." No mixing and matching, right? ;-)

Thanks for your comments. My replies are made in the cause of good humour. After all, we are each of us here because of our love of music, and its high quality reproduction, right?