Stereophile Article - Holt telling it like it is.


http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

Gordon Holt telling it the way it is. I have to tell you; I agree almost with 100% of what he's said. I look forward to the Stereophile print where a full article is too be written. I will purchase that issue.
lush
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 !!!
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.

I agree.

JGH beef seems to be with a large portion of the high end which has gone euphonic and nice sounding in preference to accuracy (according to JGH). You may have put your finger on the issue...digital and CD and cheap transistors brought excellent sound cheaply to the masses. This squeezed a portion of the high end towards a struggle for differentiation given much higher prices which may have led to the euphonic nice retro high end approach that contrasts with much of the regular low cost fare. Kind of like how Rolex survives today against cheap digital/quarttz watches.

Of course there are many exceptions even in the high end. For example, Evolution Acoustics MM3 looks like a serious attempt towards further accuracy...