Stereophile Article - Holt telling it like it is.

Mrt's favorite song and credo:
"Living in the Past"
-Jethro Tull

MrTennis, I like your steadfast ways. I can honestly say I could happily share a glass of your favorite with you listening to either of our systems.

A toast to you!

hi muralman1:

i infer from your post that you disagree strongly with my opinion. it is my contention that most current production components are not very good.

if two stereo systems are assembled in the same room, namely the one i previously mentioned and any one of your choice. there is no doubt that i would prefer the vintage system, in a blindfold test. this does not mean either stereo is superior or inferior in an absolute sense, but, rather i prefer a more classic tube sound and quad 57 speakers, to anything currently available today.

one man's treasure may be another man's trash.

i respect modern designs. i just don't like them.

as you said, there is no arguing. there is listening and taste.

$3000 in 1967 dollars is about $18,000 today. I don't have that much invested today.

Dave

I had a choke fit reading this quote from Mrtennis

"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."

I really don't know what to say...... maybe just that no arguing will do any good.

hi shadorne:

back in 1967 my stereo system consisted of 2 pair of stacked quads, 4 mono quad tube amps, a mac c22 a thorens turn table and ortofon cartridge. the total cost of the stereo system was less than $3000.

i dare say i have not heard a stereo system i have heard in the last 5 years that i prefer to what i owned in 1967.

at todays dollars, i suppose this stereo system might cost $30,000 plus today. it is to my ears a reference system which is unsurpassed. i suspect there are many other stereo systems that were configured during the 60's and 70's that are far superior to many of todays so-called high quality components.

I just love it when a magazine editor bitches about what's going on in the marketplace. Magazines that write articles about audio gear, cars, wines, whatever, have a huge amount of power within their industry. People read them and buy accordingly. So to bitch about the market conditions is certainly complaining about themselves. Look at the value of using, "rated Class A by Stereophile", this still has huge marketing value today. If their readership is falling, I would say it is due to them not taking a stance on much of anything any more. People read these articles looking for guidance.
I agree with others that feel this a good time to be into audio. I love my Ipod when traveling and do not listen to it and think about how lame it is. Its certainly better than the portable music of yesterday. For stereo equipment, you can get incredible gear here on the 'Gon for a fraction of its original cost. Just last weekend, I listened to a friends system all bought used - B&W 801, Threshold, Oppo CD, total investment under $2K. It sounds terrific. Not as good as mine at $15K but really close.
Its true that the industry in the US has shrunk. Just like most US manufacturing has done. A great deal of this has to do with the expense of manufacturing in the US and the globilization of markets. This issue is much larger than audio.
As far as new generations being ambivalent to our hobby, what's new? People step into my wine cellar and say, "what are you doing to do with all this wine"? They shake their heads at my mono block amps and large speakers. High end audio has never been cool. But nobody complains when the corks pops of the music starts. Cheers all, Merry Christmas!

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...

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 !!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

mr fleschler:

on what basis are you criticizing the quality of musical compositions ?

there are no absolute standards. as in audio, the only standards are those imposed arbitrarily by so-called experts.

what is wrong with ; "if i like it is good music, otherwise it is not" ? the experience of good music determines its quality, not some objective criteria of good or bad composition which is no more valid than some other criteria of good or bad composition.

it is a myth to think that any current production gear produces "lushness". it doesn't exist. there is very little "beautiful" most of today's stereo systems and components are highly resolving, ruthless in revealing the flaws of recordings.

when i go to ces shows or listen to stereo systems in a variety of venues very few are euphonically colored.

however, very few sound real. real is what you get when you hear musicians perform on their unamplified instruments.
stereo systems are imperfect reproductions of imperfect recordings--a copy of a copy and the copy of the copy is an inexact copy of the copy.

I recently drove an old Chevy pickup, maybe a 1960 something ... and the radio/speaker struck me as something I remembered seeing/hearing some years ago when I was a teenager ... someone who simply couldn't wait to jump into my own car to go here/there listening to music ... times made even more memorable by my fuzzy memory ... and the sound was like listening through tin cans linked by twine ... incredulous that anyone, myself included, could have enjoyed what we were hearing at the time. We did, but with time we discovered that not all audio equipment is created equal. The music might live on, but the technology ... no comparison.

Are some of us the last to find out that audio as a hobby is dying? If so there is going to be alot of snobby audiophiles that will be sucked into that void as well. That will leave music lovers like myself to continue business as usual, enjoying the music!

P.S. I greatly admire Mr. Holt and have met him at audioshows in the 80s. He was ahead of his time when he recognized the potential/value of digital recording, among so many other aspects of audio. He's one of a kind.

I disagree with Mr. Holt concerning today's equipment or even fine solid state gear from 25 to 35 years ago. My system has what in 2005-6 was moderately high priced gear (EAR 890/864/324/Acute now 25% higher priced) which sounds somewhat superior to much older equipment. My modified Dynaco 70 in my living room represents the best of older gear, about 85% as good as the 890. My speakers used are a bargain, the Legacy Focus (and Sig IIIs in the living room), usually found at $2,500 or less on Audiogon. HDs are relatively affordable when compared to top end speakers. Holt is wrong concerning front end gear with my VPI VI/modified SME IV/Benz Ruby 3 on a seismic sink (could by DIYed inexpensively) and the Acute CD player-they among the best for the price which isn't cheap.

The one item which almost didn't exist in audio equipment was interconnects and speaker wire. Designs continue to evolve from the 70s (Fulton), although prices bear little sense with value (I use Grover IC and speaker cable exclusively-relatively inexpensive 2007 SC 1 designs are at the low end of cost). The difference the speaker and ICs make on all of my systems, including my TV systems using Yamaha CR 620 & 1020 receivers is utterly amazing. So Mr. Holt doesn't see the fantastic improvements.

Every era has its dross and overpriced so called "improved" audio gear. The classics are great as are much of the present day gear.

My problem is with the recordings. My friends include Robert Pincus (Cisco) Kevin Grey (Acous Tech) & Steve Hoffman (formerly DCC). The recording technique of the past was superior. The new technology would allow for great recordings but in the case of mass marketed rock and pop, it's the producers that won't allow great sound. Compression is the name of the game as is the lack of good music. I now enjoy my wife's 70's and 80's rock with my good equipment but then about 1995, producers and music went downhill. More like pablum. The taste is missing. (Although I do get to hear great new classical music from lesser known currently alive composers and perform with an orchestra that dedicates itself to new music-mostly melodic, not 12 tone or weird stuff).

Mr. Holt, the problem has more to do with the lack of great music composition, even if it were simplistic (lot's of pop crap from the 20th C. is memorable because of the music line-a melody, harmonies, etc. with non-sense lyrics). Today's music is just boring. My friends say the same thing and my daughter's (teen-age) friends are always astounded when they hear earlier rock (forget the opera) and jazz on my various audio systems.

It's the music. The audio gear is mostly, just fine and has gotten better.

No, I don't like MP3s generally-compression is the reason. I do like CDs now, because I get so much music out of them when they use the master tape and don't erred in transferring (often, just misaligned tape heads or not using the correct tape e.q. ruins a transfer).

That's my five cents (cause I covered a lot, not two cents). Enjoy your music.

My music selections are based on desire when it comes to new fare. I look for re-mastered old fare. The Christmas music I have tell the story. Some discs containing old favorites, like Bing Crosby, are simply atrocious sounding. There is a re-mastered Nat King Cole that is amazing. Newer ones, like with Diana Krall are beautifully recorded to start with.

As for a warm lush sound, spare me please. Friends with all tube gear wonder why I don't wish to go there. It's simple. They want, "Beautiful." I want, "Real."

I don't have anything advertised in the main mags. I would not exchange any component I have with anything they do advertise.

I have, "Celtic Women Christmas," on now. Great recording, but the content gags me. :)

The more I read the responses the more wide I see the gap in this hobby between two camps.
In one camp we have the "enthusiasts", who read the mags, check out the gear and tweaks and buy if it meets their own expectations, money is not always the deciding factor.
Then there are the "musiclovers" who scoff at the prices of todays gear, don't believe in tweaks and feel vintage gear is all you need to spend your money on.
At one time there wasn't so much polarization, even I could afford a top of the line CJ system ,Premier Two and MV75A-1 amp with an Oracle table and Acoustat 3, Janus sub system.Not so today.I can't even afford some of the entry level CJ stuff, so I can see where the vintage people's heads are at.They can achieve apiece of the dream. But that was the dream of 1985.There are a lot more good sounding components at entry level price points than there was in 1985.Back then if you wanted good sound you had to pay for it, and the only difference between then and now is that more people could afford the top shelf gear.
Sour grapes and not having the means to buy the "best"is at the core of the anti- Hi End movement.
Holt I fear has lost his hearing if he feels the trend today is to a lush sound.What he is not hearing is the distortions of those flawed systems of the past.

I am inclined to agree with the opinion that most modern recordings suck.Why do you suppose so many have gone the vintage route? Surely the opposite of what Holt is stating.
The vintage gear sugar coats the bad overly compressed and thin digital recordings we have today.The best of the new stuff only reveals all the warts.
The companies who may be guilty of trying to make silk out of a pigs ear of modern recording can not really be faulted. They are trying to make this dredge palatable.
I would rather listen to good old recordings on new gear than bad new recordings on old gear.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

I think one of the things that makes a discussion of the goal of high end audio tricky is the models we use for the result.

IMO, the room is part of the result. My model is that the stereo can 'graft' the wall of your room onto a musical event in progress. This model allows for the technology striving for the 'absolute' while at the same time accounting for the listening environment.

I think the industry is doing great progress in reproduction- we have equipment now that is far more neutral that what was possible ten years ago.

Gordon Holt is saying that the audio hobby became the audio industry in the 1980s. The emphasis was moved from audio performance to sales performance. The components became products. The days when we cared more about sound than appearances are forgotten by most of us.
Our entire society has become commodified. Movie reviews, if there are any, are buried in the entertainment section but the movie grosses are front page.
So, as the audio industry matures, it becomes more mainstream. And, as it becomes more mainstream, it caters ever more to the median demographic. You guys have complained about music offerings declining in quality because of too little demand for quality recordings. This trend will continue to worsen. And you will eventually notice that it is happening to your hardware also.
The American corporation behaves like Pacman, gobbling up everything in its path. The only reason we haven't been gobbled yet is our meager dollar value. But just watch .......... Apple is coming. Computer audio is the future.

I'm surprised so many people agree with this fellow. I’m sorry, but as one of the younger folks on A-Gon he sounds to me like nothing more than a bitter old man who’s pissed off because the world of hi-fi didn’t adhere to his very narrow vision of this hobby. He also seems to think that there was a time when he was the only voice and vision of all audiophiles and as contentious as the debates on this forum are I highly doubt that. His dogged insistence that the only goal of hi-fi should be “perfect reproduction of the sound of real music in a real space” is silly.

I like listening to my system because I love music. The sound quality is certainly important but not always paramount and I don’t have any foolish notions of being able to recreate Carnegie Hall in my 18x15 family room. I just like to listen to music.

Is the industry suffering under its own inaccessibility? Yes, certainly. It’s completely lost its appeal as something that most people aspire to own because most people don’t see the value in it. It’s the same reason most people choose a Chevy over a Rolls Royce. Both perform the same basic functions but for most people one is justifiable and one is not. For most people playing music on any old thing is good enough, and the more stratospheric hi-fi becomes the more people are simply going to settle for “good enough”.

That’s what happens when you put your manufacturing dollars into smashing the last 99th percent out of a system instead of making something that’s merely “really good” and packaging it in a way that people want to live with. Someone will buy that highest performance piece, it might even be me, but it won’t be most people. And then we’re really going to wring our hands because sales are declining? Really?

I wonder if Mr. Holt, is really all at the point where he can’t enjoy a record because the sound quality is mediocre? Am I missing something? Should I toss my Charlie Parker recordings because the acetate pops? The first time I heard Coltrane was out of a single speaker in a really loud 1979 F-150 but it still grabbed my attention.

And frankly, what’s wrong with “”good” sound is whatever one likes”? Otherwise you’re presuming that there is some perfect, agreed upon standard of what “good” sound is. Two people sitting right next to each other in a concert hall can hear totally different components of the music and take away a vastly different “live” experience. Suggesting that there is some attainable perfect reproduction of live music is fallacious for a lot of reasons and very few of them have anything to do with hi-fi technology.

I don’t care if this guy is a legend in the industry. He’s a crank.

I think, Holt is right. But it is no secret, everyone knows that who is interested in music (not Show). Of course, there are a few manufacturers, who really try to push the curtain, but let's be honest, the most gear out there is crap.
I see - or hear - it all the time when I go to Shows etc. Good looking, nicely made stuff which is normally over hyped and at the end of day it is more or less wasted time to listen to it.
Money makes the world go round and the customer "has to" spend his bucks, no one is interested in "real sound" or "natural presentation". I agree, this is a endless discussion, but I listened to so much gear, which isn't able to bring out all details and they are endless hyped from their distributors or dealers.
And when a customer writes about that, he is a bad guy, or his speakers suck, or he is deaf, or his System is bad or the cartridge does not match with "his" tonearm .....
Depressing.

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!!

Holt it was so much better back in the day and we have made no progress since the 90s come on what a bunch of crap.Many audio products have made progress since old Holt.Hes just one of those grumpy old audiophiles that feels everything was better back in da day.As seen through rose colored glasses.Why care what old tin ears thinks anyway ? He proclaims that Audios dying but he doesnt even give a thought to upcoming markets like a small country called china.These types always say the hobbie is dying this they want for its then more exclusive and they can say how right they are.Not even giving thought to other markets beside US shows a very closed mind and ignorance. More audiophiles world wide than at any time in history but if you read the old white reviewers take where all doomed.....Hobbies dead.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.

Emailist, that is a fabulous system, carefully and thoughtfully assembled.

On orchestra, I adjust the volume to suit my seating. My speakers are 7.5' apart. That puts me first balcony at our music hall.

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.

Pubul57, it appears that you have attached meaning where none existed. My description of Holt's living conditions were merely accurate, not a judgment of his character nor listening ability.

Also, the comment about Audio Research earlier is something to mull over; their equipment is *way* better now than it was at any time in their history. I credit a lot of that to Warren Gehl, who is the 'golden ear' of the company.

FWIW I don't know of any amplifier manufacturer that makes an amplifier that downplays the midrange. I suspect that has more to do with speakers than amplifiers (but I think a lot of speaker manufacturers avoid tonal colorations as much as possible too).

IMO there is a lot to be excited about in 2 channel high end audio, JGH or no.

Good thoughts Emailists,

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. But if the music is recorded with a mike from a more distant location such as might be used in binural recordings by 'audiophile producers' it will sound dull. IMHO Gordon must have liked hearing all of the sibilence one would pick up from a 'mike in the mouth' so long as the speaker's FR was flat. His choice. He was also fond of ambiance systems, made it more 'realistic' for him - wonder what he did to compensate for the the ambiance already mixed into the recording. Personally I would seek out a different audio god if I wanted to deify someone.

Just some of my random thoughts on the subject- If reproduction was nothing more than an exact science, there would only be a need for probably 5 audio companies making only different price points.

Optical lens manufacturers (which require science to balance out distortions, chromatic abberrations, etc) balance science with aesthetics. They choose how their different products will reproduce reality.

I have posted this before, but I have friends who often host parties where they invite talented bluegrass musicians over to jam. They even have a stand up bass in the apartment since that is a bit hard to lug over.

So I often can tune my ears to the sound of acoustic music in a space much more similar to most of our homes than clubs or theaters.

I listen from close range (2-4 feet) as well as far back. It is quite interesting to hear the room colorations on live instruments, similar to hearing them on stereo gear when I'm further back in the room. I often close my eyes and pretend I'm just sitting at home listening, which helps remove the visual sense and excitment of being in the presence of live performers.

Now I'm not saying my system at home is 100% accurate in any sense, but what I hear live from close range is really not that far off from what I am getting at home. There is not as much detail at home, but obviously the recording process can't capture all the detail of the original waveform.

Sure there are additional colorations in my system (or recording) but the live instruments really sound like perhaps just the model or two up from my system, not a pale comparison.

I think getting the gestalt of live music is they key. Sure we may be missing some detail, a bit of air, the staging might be off or completely different, but at least for the type of music I listen to (smaller acoustic rock/jazz/vocals) realistic reproduction is possible within the limits of current recording technology.

Hi fi has never been better than it is today. The level of fidelity I am getting was simply unobtainable when I first started out in this hobby in the late 80's.

Interesting about the BBC dip reffered to. Didn't MFSL create a peak in the upper midrange to get more presence in their 80's remasters?

Ditto Audiofeil.

Mrtennis and friends, go out to the audio shows and feel the difference.

My own Scintillas give me all the real satisfaction I need. They need to do that, because I will settle for nothing less.

Holt ever do any serious recording? When I hear my instruments ( both electric and acoustic Basses ) tracks recordings played back the overall sound is remarkably lifelike. Along with knowledgeable engineering the chain, including the microphones and the speakers, is doing a very good job.

Some recording engineers work with absolutely horrible playback equipment but when you hear the take in a well equipped post production room the original tracks are stunningly life like.

The degradation begins during post production and goes downhill ending with the finished media. Unfortunately, I can't speak of the direct to disk method of recording.

Vic

One of the reasons people are concerned about reviews is the impact they have on resale.

"Dcstep, a audio club recently did and discovered they could not hear any difference between items under test. Interesting comment by them-but what does it say?"

Well Psacanli, maybe there was no difference; however, some will say the test was flawed. I say that doing the test correctly is, indeed, difficult. I'll start another thread where I propose a methodology for repeatable DB testing, using 1-bit 5.6MHz sampling.

Dave

" No more so than some reviewers and their reviews. "

Exactly!!!

12-02-07: Mrtennis
Why not acknowledge that electronics and speakers are flawed?<<

No more so than some reviewers and their reviews.

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!

I have several DVDA which I claim do produce the effect of a live performance with frightening accuracy. They are TACET DVDA of classical chamber music where each channel of the multichannel program carries (predominantly) one instrument. The performers are in the room with you. The audio quality is first class, but, as Holt suggested, it is the spatial effect that makes it real.

Dcstep, a audio club recently did and discovered they could not hear any difference between items under test. Interesting comment by them-but what does it say?

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.

I wish I had a $ for every time a dealer told me about some piece of equipment that no one would listen until there was a review on it.

"I need to know what it sounds like so that I can decide whether or not it is worth my time to audition it."

I realise that not everyone who is interested in "high-end" thinks that way, but the sad fact is that too many do. The magazines exist for those types, and those types live for the magazines. Between the 2 of them..........well, fill in the blanks to your satisfaction.

My take on their attitude is a bit more cynical. My premiss is that they have to know what it is SUPPOSED to sound like. Whether it does or not is not important. The real matter is that the people who live and die by reviews need to be reassured that they can hear just as well as the next guy.

Yeah, call it insecurity. Call it pack mentality.

When you spend as much time in high-end stores as those of us who build this stuff, hearing the same song-of-the-month, over and over again, in every city that you go to, you will come to the same conclusion.

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

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

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.

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?

Is there an inverse relationship between equipment that can produce good soundstaging (the visual) and producing accurate and balanced sounds - ar the two at odds when designing an amplifier? a necessary tradeoff?

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.

Don't really understand all the hype on " Hardware ". We could spend Ginormous amounts of $$$$$ and if the recording was badley made it is going to sound even worse. Let's spend a little more time and effort on making "GOOD"
recordings to play on these Megabuck systems everybody is trying to sell us and claiming how great they are.
Remember basics "Garbage In Garbage Out"