Stereophile Article - Holt telling it like it is.

While I admire JGH for his past contributions to the field, his dark and pessimistic view today is not only a sweeping generalization but wholly incorrect. The majority of highly respected gear today is more neutral and transparent than in previous decades. Atmasphere is right, there are plenty of manufacturers that aim for neutrality and resolution above all else. Are there exceptions? Sure, but there always have been. Progress marches forward, sometimes rather circuitously, but forward nonetheless. 3 steps forward and 1 step back.

Even amplifiers from companies like Conrad Johnson, always known for their "golden" sound have become dramatically more neutral over the years. Listen to an ARC REF amp today and compare it to the ARC offerings from the 80s or 90s and it will make you giggle. B&W 801's, once a standard setting speaker sound quite antiquated (as do most speakers of that time) compared with todays best and even mid-level speakers.

We take in used gear all the time and it's always fascinating to compare a legendary amp or speaker from the 80's or 90s to the better gear today. In nearly every case the older equipment sounds much more colored, less extended at both frequency extremes, less controlled, more opaque....in short less real and less like live music.

I used to see one major division in what constituted "Hi Fi".

Some folks wanted their system to transport them to the recording venue. It should sound like you were sitting in the "best" seat at the famous concert hall. Hall ambiance and random coughs on the recording were welcome.

Other folks wanted their system to transport the musicians into their home. It should sound like the musicians are in THEIR room, playing just for them. Studio recordings are preferred.

Nothing wrong with either philosophy. I consider them both legitimate. But they are very different points of view--and--I think that different equipment (especially speakers) would be preferred as "more accurate" by the two groups.

Now there are so many different philosophies that I can't keep track of them all. I understand Holt's "bitterness" if in fact he is bitter. First Guess: He's just trying to shake people up.

I resent the reviews of ultra-expensive equipment; yet thirty years ago I couldn't understand why a publisher would waste paper printing a road test of a Ford or Chevy or Toyota--it was easy enough to go to the dealer and DRIVE IT YOURSELF. So bring on the Astons, Lotus, Porsche, Ferrari, etc.

Not using double-blind testing of SOME form has hurt the hobby tremendously. Nut-Job tweako crap would never have gotten going. People actually BUY expensive new power cords for their equipment and think they hear a difference! And they sell wood blocks to put on your equipment, and silly ceramic "cable holders" that are just industrial insulators with fancy paint and the decimal point on the price tag two places over from where it should be.

In regards to the new equipment sounding "better" than the old: How much of that is due to the "old" equipment having degraded over the years? Put new capacitors and such into it; tune up the bias and such; would the old stuff still sound worse than the new stuff? (i.e., is it the circuitry or inherent parts quality that makes the difference--or just the fact that the old stuff "has been around the block" too many times?

current production high end equipment is not neutral. even if claims are made as to accuracy the claims are false. many so-called neutral and/or transparent compoents are not balanced. there is too much energy in the upper midrange/lower treble.

why not acknowledge that electronics and speakers are flawes and attempt to voice one's stereo system consistent with one's sonic preferences ?

while some audiophiles prefer an "accurate" presentation, it is an unattainable goal. it is more realistic to select a "coloration" rather than be victimized by some other coloration.

DANLIB... your far out man, holy shizzel. What happened to make you so up tight. Chile out, have a puff, sit in the sun, whatever. You've got to get back in the groove brother. Some people need a little help, don't get down on them. It's cool man. Dig?

Vic

Camino, I think that subjective testing is partially in response to people like Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review, claiming that if you couldn't measure a difference there would be no audible difference. We now know that he wasn't measuring everything.

We still can't measure everything, hence the use of blind and double blind testing. Even A-B comparisons are valid, it's just a matter of degree and the experience of those testing.

I do agree that lack of objective evidence has led to marketers taking advantage of insecure audiophiles. I'm amazed, in all fields, at how few people make their buying decisions based purely upon their own senses. MOST people want to be told what to buy.

I can hear the differences between power cords and you can't, so you shouldn't spend any money in that area. I'm willing to spend money in that area, but only a little bit. As I listen to more and more expensive power cords, I hear less difference. In fact, occasionally a hyper expensive cord will sound way, way worse than my $99 cords. Lots of people will spend $1000 on a really bad cord because someone claimed it to be ne plus ultra. Sad but true.

It's amazing how much energy goes into advocating double-blind testing and yet it seldom is done. I wonder, if some audio club would dedicate themselves to DB testing and posting the results on the www, what would happen. I think it could actually be done, if a group were willing to get together twice a month and commit to a routine. We'll see, maybe.

Dave