Stereophile Article - Holt telling it like it is.

Lush,

They don't make 'em like Gordon anymore. In some way he reminds me of Canadian Hockey icon/legend "Don Cherry" - also a straight shooter - take or leave it - he says what he has to say and you get the message loud and clear (even between the lines stuff is pretty clear). I like Gordon's current choice in speaker in his home - proof he puts his money where his mouth is.

I am curious does anyone know what gear Gordon Holt owns and currently uses at home? I know what speakers he uses already but I lost track of the other pieces after he left Stereophile. Given his strong opinions and vast experience and the fact that he has no affiliation anymore it might be interesting to compile a list of what does he use himself (rather than slam the baby boomer generation...)?

Or does nobody care...is Gordon completely irrelevant in todays audiophile world of "lush" and "sugar-coated" sound.

Brianmgrarcom,

Why don't you start with sharing what the speakers are?

According to the grapevine, Gordon Holt is happier than the proverbial pig with his ATC SCM 50ASL's. I also read somewhere that he had Sound Lab electrostatics in the past (may still have them for all I know). I am more curious to know what other gear he uses - does anyone know?

Today's audiophile world is a lush and sugar-coated sound? What components/speakers precisely are you referring to?

I have been to three major high-end audio shows in the past two years, and nowhere was a lush and sugar-coated sound to be heard.

Tvad,

I would not dare list any components, as this would bring on an onslaught of verbal abuse. I suspect most people on these forums would agree with your statement "nowhere was a lush and sugar-coated sound to be heard".

My statement was simply intended to paraphrase Gordon Holt's views.

Let me explain...

If you read his recent rants (internet or magazine articles) he fears that most audiophiles have forgotten what real sound is like, conditioned as it were to the polite sound by market forces and reviewers that sold out to a new approach: nice sound.

According to Gordon, it apparently all started more than twenty years ago with the "BBC dip" in the mid range which became immensely popular and showed manufacturers what to do and how to increase sales over competitors. The "BBC dip" gave a more laid back or polite sound; less sibilance, less edge and less immediacy. Gordon believes this was the start of the new movement towards "nice sound" rather than the previous movement towards "accurate sound". Previously, in his mind, the audiophile world had mostly been about accuracy but since the mid 80's it has drifted towards finding a nice flavor for one's tastes.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is the way I interpret Gordon's past statements and especially in a couple of recent articles I have seen by him. I think Gordon actually uses the word "lush" in one recent article but I may be incorrect and he may never have actually used the word "sugar-coated", which would be a bit of hyperbole on my part ;-)

Is it me or people making too much out of Atmashperes' comments?

I was interested to learn about the Sound Labs....surely that was worthwhile. I enjoyed Macrojacks anecdote post too - great info on the TT and Tanoys.

I think a very messy room and smoking with cig butts everywhere is distasteful to many people (this was no doubt all Atmasphere meant)...it is, however, an anecdotal tidbit that adds color to the man who is somewhat of a legend in the audiophile niche world. So thx Atmasphere!

Any more on what gear he has used? I am interested considering he critically reviewed so many over such a long period. No doubt he owned many different components at different times - like many of us.

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

Sure....but isn't this akin to throwing in the towel and giving up on the pursuit of an ideal ? Mediocrity...isn't that what Gordon Holt fights against?

...systems voiced to sound nice rather than accurate
...ecstatic reviews for every flavor of sound because surely it will suit someone's tastes, pocket book or aesthetic requirements!

Funny, that BBC dip thing. IMHO it works very well in closely recorded, often multi-miked and mixed, music. Sort of balances out and can sound a bit more realistic.

What it does do is make the music sound more distant - as if your seat is far back from the band or orchestra. (Distance filters out this audio band to a listener anyway) Indeed it can sound realistic.

I suspect the reason it works so well is that a small two way when played at higher levels will compress in the bass quite rapidly (loses its dynamics very quickly or simply does not represent bass transients properly or fully) - Rogers L33/5's come to mind. A very low cost speaker and a highly popular example of the "BBC dip".

The end result is that a small two way speaker that does not have a "BBC dip" in the mid range will sound very much out of balance, especially so at higher levels where bass transents fail to keep up. They present the kick drum "slap" but the punch or impact of the "bottom" is missing.

There are two popular ways manufacturers achieve the dip;
1) Direct field: Direct on axis response with a dip in the upper mid (easily seen on frequency plot)
2) Reverberant field: A dip in the off axis response more pronounced in the upper mid range than other frequencies. Often this is the inevitable result of using a 6" driver too high in frequncy (beaming) or a tweeter crossed over quite low where it can't keep up. (harder to see of a frequency plot - more subtle way to achieve the same thing)

Basically the presentation gives you the feeling you are further from the action and therefore it can be a convincing balanced sound with less dynamics (you hear more of a smooth reverberant field in the bass than the impact from being close up)

In order to present flat upper mid range response of a close miked vocalist, IMHO you need very powerful dynamic bass...all but impossible in most small two ways.
Hence the attractiveness to manufacturers of the "BBC dip"...nice balanced sound in a low cost system and a presentation that gives a deep soundstage or impression of sitting at a distance. Bose seem to have got it right on their very popular Acoustimass line...again pretty good sound for very low cost. IMHO, it is the low cost of this design and form of audio presentation which has made it so popular with speaker makers. If you can keep costs down you can increase your target market.

As I said a bunch or crap from a very old wind bag who thinks his opions matter but realy knows deep inside noone cares, like a scream in the dark, a last gasp...from the failing mind and ears of holt

Wow, this just proves that Gordon Holt magic is still alive even today - he polarizes people and gets them fighting their corner! If this is the kind of reaction he can still cause perhaps he is not so irrelevant after all - perhaps this is why Stereophile still invites him over for a rant! It actually help keeps the hobby alive - it shows people care!!

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...