Stereophile Article - Holt telling it like it is.

to quote Mr. Holt:
"we haven't accomplished what we set out to do.The playback still doesn't sound 'just like the real thing'"

Not to be too critical,but,anyone sitting close to an orchesta in full swing(that means loud & soft) will know this would truly be a "monumental" achievement for a few pistons flapping wildly. Does anyone else out there have the feeling it "may- my baby finger & tongue stuck firmly into right cheek-"not" even be 'remotely' possible with todays-fine as they are- speaker technologies(within economic & size constraints.
I believe his "we" relates to a miniscule percentile of the already minute numbers of purveyors of "high end audio". Perhaps if the financial & manpower resources of NASA were used toward this end the advances might be quicker?

But I also understand Gordon from a different perspective and agree wholeheartedly. I have collected records & now CD's,since ~1965; I thoroughly enjoy music.
In the 60's my 1st self assembled Dynaco and Wharfedale 3 way speaker kit with 12 inch woofers- in my own "mighty" solid box playing a Marantz tuner & Dual record changer, provided me a great amount of basically "non annoying" 'rocking' listening from Heifetz, Jazz to the Beatles .
When I stepped up to Quad 33/303 with Quad ELS speakers, Hitachi FT920 tuner and a Thorens turntable in the 70's there was more of the same (I mailine classical dialy).
Forward to more of the same going to my next step up the
"ladder of enhanced enjoyment" in the 80's with a Goldmund Studietto, CJ pre/Krell KSA100 and mighty JBL 250Ti's.
On & up to Spectral/MIT in mid 90's & 'thoroughly' modded 250Ti's (still dynamic & emotive)--and this is where I was forced to go to CD to listen to new music---and honestly it has been an uphill struggle with the s----y CD sound ever since. (Let me say I'm "very happy" I retained my Goldmund & my analog 920 Tuner & even my Thorens & SME tonarm with Shure cartridge.) It's the "almost painful" CD reproduction that has forced me to "monumental" AC conditioning & isolation to make it 'acceptable'-- but even then without the unalloyed relaxing enjoyment of the best plain black vinyl reproduction. And of course the multi miking (read 'realistic' ambience destroyers) and 'processing' of many post '70s classical albums reveals itself clearly to those with capable systems-often leading to startling appreciation of those 'older' classical, jazz, folk, blues and (few) rock albums that were cleanly, clearly & reasonably dynamically recorded('even' mono) providing what I consider a sense of 'purity'.
Yes, there have been many improvements to the recording chain & there many 'spectacular' modern recordings(Reference Recordings among others) but Gord is right in that there has been a tremendous & unnecessary amount of junk foisted upon us by greedy, uncaring technicians & businesspeople with wooden ears.
Fondly, I like to consider his tirade generated 'primarily' by the ubiquitous CD where from which view I can wholeheartedly agree with many of his comments- it is "shameful" we had to step backward in the enjoyment of recorded music due to Sony/Phillips and there ilk creating demonstrably "c----y" CD Hardware,including reproduction equipment & Software-all in the name of quick profit!.
Records played on good systems very rarely hurt the ears(remember the odd mistracking violins); that couldn't be said when CD's came in. Annoyance with virtually "every single CD" if your ears have evolved with a clean reproduction system & analog sound.
I think Gord will be a 'happier camper' if he restricts himself to listening to well recorded vinyl in a well tuned room. I am not exagerating in the least.
His (erroneous in my opinion)espousal of multi channel I believe also arose primarily from the muddled & fuzzy(can I say "harsh") non-recreation of detail sound on countless CD's and virtually "every" CD player. Even here I think a good records portrayal of ambience in a well tuned room will placate him immensely. Most people of musical background & the fussiest Classical,Chamber,Jazz & solo instrument listeners that I know think multi-channel is a
"bizarre joke" for serious listening for those applications. Those of us who enjoy live music find it enjoyable virtually anywhere its played, indoors or out. Recorded music the same-music is music. No venue is perfect-but a nice quiet living room-of any dimensions, with or without tuning- is far better than most places for serious listening to the magic & depth of a musical performance by a serious artist---through a plain 2 channel stereo system.

Yeah, JG Holt is a real genius.

Let me see, he thinks I should buy gear that I don't like to listen to, instead of gear that makes beautiful music, IMHO, because he thinks the former is more accurate?

That concept should have new listeners flocking to the high-end.

Tom:

I think his point is nothing extraordinary has happened in high-end in the last 25 years. To an extent he is right when you compare advancements made in other entertainment areas such as computers, gaming, televisions etc...

Part of the reason is because Hi-Fi switched from trying to reproduce sound too making 'nice sound'. I prefer nice sound as most of the music I continue to purchase are new tittles. But I can see his point. If we re-winded back 25 years and asked people what they thought Hi-Fi would be like in 2007 I doubt very much people would believe that tubes, vinyl and 'boxes' would still be the preferred playback devices.

I don't think new listeners are flocking too high end because of 'nice sound'. I think you'd be surprised how many would if there was a new break-thru much like HD has done for television and Pentium chips have done for computers.

Lush,

I think that the sound quality that a person with an ordinary income can buy today is miles ahead of what that person could buy 25 years ago and is getting better all the time. If that's not revolutionary enough for JGH let him sit in his messy house and be bitter.

I think the main reason that more people aren't buying high-end gear is that you have to sit still and listen for a little while to appreciate it. People either can't or won't do that these days.

hi lush:

i think you have it backword. about 30 odd years ago, the sound was nice, i.e., euphonic.

today the sound is not nice. it is aggressive and unpleasant in many cases and the focus of manufacturer's is accuracy.

in my opinion the sound of the early 70's is superior to what is available today. back then, there were great electrostatic speakers, tube amps and preamps and no digital.

so, the sound is worse today than it was in the 70's. i can assemble a stereo system based upon components from the 70's that is way more satisfying to my ears than anything that is manufactured today. period !!!