All the old issues of Stereo Review are online!!


And available here:   https://www.americanradiohistory.com/HiFI-Stereo-Review.htm

The infamous Clark amplifier test is January, 1987, if anyone wants to re-live that.  I remember reading that when it came out (I was just out of college, but, having worked at an audio shop when I was 14, was already well into the hobby).  That was when I began to be aware of how I might be suckered by appearances.

Lots of things to love or hate, but oh, the advertisements!
ahofer

Showing 6 responses by larryrs

I grew up with and subscribed to Stereo Review, High Fidelity, and Audio magazines, and avidly read Stereophile, TAS, IAR, Sensible Sound publications, etc. when they arrived on the scene.  I have, for years, heard and read many vilifications of Julian Hirsch and other reviewers that based most of their reviews on technical measurements - and now read that they ruined audio for years.  In my opinion, the position of those that unbendingly criticize the approach are no more (and likely less) accurate in their assessment of these reviews than H-H Labs was of the reviewed equipment.  See, for instance, the quote below from Stereo Review's review of the Philips RH 532 speaker in the March, 1975 issue. 

LarryRS


"We are aware that even experienced listeners can become accustomed to the specific sound idiosyncracies of any speaker that overall is reasonably accurate - and then to accept its particular qualities as the "norm." We are also aware that among experienced listeners judgments may differ when they are asked to select "the best" among a number of excellent, but slightly different-sounding, speakers. Since the audible bass quality of the Philips speaker is distinctly different from that of the other fine speakers we had at hand, we solicited the reactions of other members of STEREO REVIEW'S technical staff. By and large, there was general agreement that the overall sound from the RH 532 was as smooth and uncolored as anything any of us had ever heard. The disagreements, as expected, centered almost entirely on the quality of the system's bass performance. Whereas H-H Labs found the Philips to have an accurate, tight, and absolutely boom-free bass, other members of STEREO REVIEW'S technical staff, auditioning the system in different acoustic environments, judged the bass to be clean, but thin and lacking robustness or warmth. (H-H's view is that the "lack" of bass warmth is simply an absence of spurious upper -bass resonances.) There was, however, general agreement that the speaker did not deliver much output in the very lowest bass octaves, nor could it play rock at discotheque sound levels. 

In summation, there is no question that the Philips RH 532 is a high -quality, high -accuracy reproducer with a particularly smooth, flat, and extended mid-range and high -frequency response. The quality - not quantity - of the bass may particularly appeal to some listeners (as it did to us) and perhaps disappoint others. The choice then becomes a matter of taste. But if your taste in bass performance agrees with that of H-H Labs, you'll love the Philips RH 532." 


I'm not absolutely sure how many entendres allowable, but to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, "the argument that Julian Hirsch relied solely on objective measurements is sound, nothing but sound."  
Does it though?  Perhaps there are some who are interested in both the measurements and the listening.  I know I certainly enjoy John Atkinson's objective analyses of equipment that have long accompanied other reviewer's subjective evaluations in Stereophile.
But not germane to the allegation that he relied only on measurements.  There are many in the audiophile community who don't listen to live music. 

The measurements have little to do with opinion/references/experience or aural acuity - quite the opposite.  If the measures are validly obtained they provide information that I can choose to regard or not.  That's my, or anyone else's, prerogative.  It was true in the days of Stereo Review and remains true today.
That Julian Hirsch did not rely exclusively on measurements in his reviews is fact, not opinion.  The point of my initial post.  Why so hyperbolic?