Peter Aczel? he's basically a quack. I used to be a big fan of that rag, until I realized you can't listen to graphs. Graphs can't tell you how you will be moved (or not moved) by the music. He used to recommend decent stuff like Bryston, but now recommends cheap junk made in China. A lot of people have taken his mantra and ran with it. You see most of these types on you tube and other sites. But, then again, most of the big name audio journalists are quacks too.
52 responses Add your response
Back in the 80's, TAC was a very highly respected magazine and Aczel's word could make or break a company. It seems to me his earlier work was very different, as he gushed over certain high-end brands like Rappaport and Cotter. (Who?) Later on, he got into this "all stuff sounds the same" mode, which no hard-core audiophiles want to hear, so he sort of faded out. Whatever anyone thinks of him, he was definitely one of the forefathers of high-end reviewing. |
He's local to me in the Philadelphia area... A friend of mine knows him well, as they live close to one another, and have had to deal with each other professionally. Ten year ago, he told me Peter's an old guy, who cannot hear you during a conversation, and constantly tries to cup his hand around his ear, and asks you to repeat everything. I don't expect the past decade has improved anything. Yep, just the guy I want to get my audio advice from. |
A rarity in Audio. A man of absolute integrity. A honest researcher and truth seeker. A breath of fresh air. When the voodoo priests and snake oil crowd took over Audio, his days were numbered. The fact that he causes 'audiophiles' to foam at the mouth and howl at the moon is proof that he speaks the truth. Ranks right up there with Julian Hirsch and Len Feldman. Try to find copies of his magazine and keep them as a reference to be consulted whenever you feel as if you are drowning in BS. Cheers |
People have true religious faith based on what they believe in their heart and mind. Audio is a different matter, you can believe in what your ears tell you or what a reviewer tells you. If your ears don't hear a difference, well then I suppose you would be interested in listening to a reviewer that hears like you do. If you DO hear differences you would be interested in reviewers that can articulate best what they hear. I'm not too familiar with Azcel but based on Rokid's comments he doesn't hear differences so I would say that he is irrelevant to me. This isn't to say he isn't a man of integrity, he very well may be. |
I suppose, like everything else, we can debate what constitutes "integrity." I for one would not call someone "[a] man of absolute integrity" when that man wrote a rave review of a speaker system (Fourier 1) in the Audio Critic without first disclosing he was one of the owners of the company that made the speaker. I don't doubt that he liked his speaker, but, I doubt that the ethical requirements for disclosing his relationship to the product merely slipped his mind. |
A lot of people have taken his mantra and ran with it. You see most of these types on you tube and other sites. That would be you, Rok2id. You have a belief too, whether you like it or not. Integrity or not, gold ol' Pete is still a quack. Again, you can't listen to graphs, and using a $250 Chinese made receiver to drive $10k speakers is ludicrous. |
The hostility towards Pete is based on ONE issue. Has nothing to do with reviews or company ownership. He has to be trashed because his truths, and his courage to state them, threaten the entire con. He didn't play right, so he has to be expelled from the sandbox. If he was not a man of integrity, he could have been one of the most celebrated gurus at any of the 'high- end' rags. All he had to do was say, I can hear WIRE, and All amps have their own unique sound, and humans can hear that uniqueness. I am not an 'audiophile' nor an engineer. I have normal human hearing. My thoughts and questions are as follows: Wire is the simplest of electrical components. IF, a person can hear the differences between Wire, shouldn't that person be able to hear the difference between something loaded with devices and as complex as an audio amp? of course they would be able to do that. THEN, If you can hear wire, shouldn't you be able to hear the difference between the two channels in a stereo amp? Lot more stuff there to affect sound than found in wire. Surely you would be able to hear the difference between mono blocks. What about amps on the same assembly line, serial # 1 vs Amp serial #2 ?? The differences there are surely greater than between two pieces of wire. My point is, if you can hear wire, you should be able to hear EVERYTHING!! Of course you can't. It's called self-delusion. But, you can make some quick cash, one million, by demonstrating that you can hear amps and wire. That money has been of the table forever. BTW, if you know of someone who has demonstrated he can hear wire and amps, inform us please. The statement "I can hear a difference" don't count. But the reason I even bother is that, I just hate to see a bunch of loud mouthed know-nothings trash the founders of this hobby. They were there when it was a real hobby. Guys built their systems. Ordering a ready made mega buck stereo component, is not a hobby. Cheers |
The arguments you make are what are referred to as Strawman Arguments, I.e., logical fallacies. For example, if a person can hear the differences in cable or the directionality of wire and someone else can't, the explanation is very simple - there are reasons why a person sometimes can't hear differences. You do realize that many audiophiles DO hear differences in wire, no? The person that can't hear differences either (1) has a problem with his system, (2) has a problem with his hearing, (3) lacks experience in what differences to listen for, or (4) his system is fine but not revealing enough for him to discern the differences. The same argument can be made for just about anything in audio, from CD treatments to Mpingo discs to the Tice Clock to tiny little bowl resonators to the differences between tube amps and solid state amps, you name it. |
It must be quite the burden being the only sane person in a world full of delusional people. I must I have deluded myself into thinking that the ethical lapse of Mr.Aczel mattered; I was really against the religion he preached. It is amazing that he continued to publish so long given that the only message was that it really did not matter and one is wasting money when buying anything but the cheapest stuff out there--that should have been a one-issue publication (the notable exception would be stuff that he has a vested interest in--with that stuff one could really hear the difference). |
"I have normal human hearing." Everyone's hearing acuity varies, just as every other of the senses. ie: The palette & tongue must be trained to discern in what region of the World a certain wine's grape was grown. Yet(even if trained); some have a sense of taste, more acute than others. A good man understands his own limitations. Only a fool thinks everyone else is thus limited. One of the most ludicrous statements, in the History of Audio HAS to be, "In controlled double-blind listening tests, no one has ever (yes, "EVER") heard a difference between two amplifiers with high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise."(YEP: he said that) I say, "One of the most ludicrous," because I still remember Julian Hirsch stating, in Stereo Pee-yoo, "I never listen to live music, but- I have a pretty good idea what it sounds like." Aczel was NOT one of, "the founders of this hobby." He was a speaker builder, a critic and utterly disregardable. |
GEoff what you just said is logically consistent but logic alone achieves nothing without facts. The fact would be that there are differences possible and that any individual may or may not hear it in any particular case. One case means nothing other than two different outcomes with two different people. Now expand the scope to consider many similar cases, and then at least statistically there is a basis perhaps to draw some conclusion. Still does not prove anything though about any particular case. Only that something expected might be likely or not. |
Geoffkait: I am not saying you, you personally, cannot hear wire. I am not saying any particular individual cannot hear wire. I am saying IF, they can, why don't you/they demonstrate that ability? This whole so-called debate in audio, would and could be ended forever. In 20 minutes tops. Just ONE PERSON has to demonstrate they can hear wire or amps. No one is OBLIGATED to do so, but I cannot imagine why they would not want to do so. Not to mention the million bucks. Also, since you can hear wire, it seems a given, that you should be able to hear ANY Component more complex than wire. Can you? Ever owned mono blocks? Did you hear a difference in the two? Can you detect a difference between stereo amp channels? Can you hear a difference between two amps of the same brand and model ? I would think that a person with the hearing acuity to hear wire should be able to hear all of the above, and more. It also seems to me, that person would be miserable as an audiophile. Question: When you change wire, why do you do so. Is wire sold stating the changes it will make in your system's sound? If not, how do you know wire to buy? What claims are made by the wire makers? What do you listen for after installing a new wire? Thanks Cheers |
*****It is amazing that he continued to publish so long given that the only message was that it really did not matter and one is wasting money when buying anything but the cheapest stuff out there-***** The last review of a power amp I recall seeing in TAC, was on the Parasound A-21. MSRP, $2500 USD. Hardly the cheapest out there. Does he own Parasound also?? He gave it a very positive review. Measurements were outstanding. Build quality excellent. Said it had that "High End" look and feel. How did he say it sounded? It had no sound, just like any other well designed stereo amp. Sorry. Better luck next time. Cheers |
Avoid noise and distortion and all should sound as good as possible. Its that simple. Many ways to do it. It takes focus and time mainly. The rest is largely subjective. But nobody benefits from noise and distortion. Sometimes it is very subtle. Making a change changes that plus other subjective things. Hard to sort through.... Just focus on minimizing noise and distortion and it will all be OK. Need not cost much. However good full range performance on a larger scale will always cost more than on a smaller one. |
Mapman wrote, "GEoff what you just said is logically consistent but logic alone achieves nothing without facts. The fact would be that there are differences possible and that any individual may or may not hear it in any particular case. One case means nothing other than two different outcomes with two different people. Now expand the scope to consider many similar cases, and then at least statistically there is a basis perhaps to draw some conclusion. Still does not prove anything though about any particular case. Only that something expected might be likely or not." Mapman, as the kids say these days, What ev. I suspect intentionally or unintentionally you're over thinking it. |
Rock, don't you know that nobody can demonstrate anything? If anybody could there would be no more audio debates as you suggest. This way we'll never run out of things to argue about. There would be no arguments about wire purity, cable geometry, conductor material, dielectric material, fuse direction and alternating current, Mpingo discs, the best material for audio feet, whether CDs are better than cassettes, whether a portable CD player really better than a high end player, is quantum mechanics a hoax? Things of that nature. |
Without having ever heard of this guy before, if the facts are as Larryi represents, then that should be all one needs to dismiss his opinion as untrustworthy. Not saying he is right or wrong, but such a person has no credibility. I'm not going to get into the great wire debate but I do have a quibble with Geoffkait's post You do realize that many audiophiles DO hear differences in wire, no? The person that can't hear differences either (1) has a problem with his system, (2) has a problem with his hearing, (3) lacks experience in what differences to listen for, or (4) his system is fine but not revealing enough for him to discern the differences.There are at least two other possibilities, Geoff: 1. The person who heard a difference was mistaken. 2. The "test" was flawed. Before you flame my butt, remember I'm questioning the logic of the argument, not the truth of it. And per my comment above, I would not place any weight on statements made by someone whose ethics/honesty/integrity are as reported. |
I don't think Aczel or anyone else ever said that "all wire sounds the same". I believe the statement was that any differences in wires can be attributed to their electrical characteristics of resistance, capacitance and inductance. In other words, wires with the same electrical properties will sound the same. In fact, TAC has a lengthy article on the huge changes in frequency response resulting from cables with different electrical characteristics. While we're here, Aczel also never said all amplifiers sound the same. He said that amplifiers of similar design, ie, modern solid state, will sound the same when operated below clipping and level-matched to within some percentage of 1 DB. So a 100-watt SS Bryston and an 8-watt 300B SET will not sound the same, even by Aczel's rationale. At least that's how I remember it. |
@Chayro: "While we're here, Aczel also never said all amplifiers sound the same".....maybe not verbatim! Copy/paste this in your search bar, for the article from which I quoted: (http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/critic1.htm) His first three points, in this article; I agree with completely. From there; he's driven himself off a cliff. |
Regarding Mr. Aczel's credibility as a reviewer, it is perhaps noteworthy that over the years there were in effect two Peter Aczel's. There was the Peter Aczel who published "The Audio Critic" prior to its nearly seven year hiatus between early 1981 and late 1987 (that period closely coinciding with the existence of the Fourier Systems speaker company, of which he was President and part owner). And then there was the metamorphosed Peter Aczel who resumed publication of "The Audio Critic" following that period. During that second period, as noted above by Mr. Rodman, Aczel fervently maintained that all amplifiers meeting certain basic criteria sound identical. And much of what he had to say in each of his issues was devoted to attacking the high end community and its publications. Prior to that hiatus, however, his reviews were typified by statements such as the following, which I've extracted at random from a couple of his issues: [The Amber Series 70 amplifier] has a nice, solid bottom; a midrange that lacks the ultimate transparency obtainable at much higher prices but is open and musical nonetheless; and a clearly etched top end that doesn't harden or smear even when the program material has a wide dynamic range and is rich in high-frequency energy.Regarding the conflict of interest with the Fourier company, what Larry said is essentially correct. In fairness, though, the first TAC issue published following the long hiatus, and following the demise of Fourier systems, included a lengthy and very detailed recounting by Mr. Aczel of his side of the story. He maintained, among other things, that when the Fourier I review was written, about two months prior to publication, the company was in the very early stages of being formed, and at that point: ... there was no working capital to speak of and no idea who would end up owning the company by coming up with the capital. Thus the disclosures made in the article regarding the involvement of "The Audio Critic" and its Editor in the Fourier project were as complete and forthright as the few established facts of the case permitted."One more thing worth noting about the Fourier I speaker, in relation to Mr. Aczel's credibility as a reviewer: Just a few months after its introduction the design he had so raved about underwent major modification, including substitution of a different midrange driver and a different tweeter. The stated reason being that "some driver-related problems that had eluded our attention in the laboratory made its interface with certain rooms unpredictable." (Issue 10, Fall/Year End 1987). If I recall correctly, btw, "The Sensible Sound," not exactly the most hypercritical of audio publications, had panned the original version of the speaker in their review. Also, fwiw, I auditioned the revised version of the speaker at Lyric's store in White Plains, NY, I believe in early 1983. I recall it as being a decent performer, but not one that particularly excited me. Aczel was no doubt an extremely gifted, intelligent, and persuasive writer. As I recall his day job was in the advertising business. He was a reviewer that I WANTED to like and respect. Ultimately, though, between the attitude and beliefs he manifested in his later period, his total inconsistency pre-hiatus vs. post hiatus, and the unsettling Fourier saga, I found it impossible to do so. Regards, -- Al |
The last review of a power amp I recall seeing in TAC, was on the Parasound A-21. MSRP, $2500 USD. Hardly the cheapest out there. Does he own Parasound also?? But not without the typical Aczel caveats and a jab at 'Stereophile'; "Yes, all well-engineered amplifiers sound the same" "I know there are some of you out there who just cannot listen to low-priced mass-market audio components (Pioneer, yecch!) no matter how they sound. It goes against your grain and you dont want to know about it. To you I heartily recommend the Parasound Halo A 21 because it will satisfy your high-end cravings without bankrupting you." "Longtime readers of The Audio Critic know the drill that comes at this point: I repeat, for the nth time, that all amplifiers having high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, and low noise floor sound exactly the same when operated at matched levels and not clipped. (Those who are unable to stomach this simple truth, proved over and over again in double-blind listening tests, should stick with Stereophile.)" Now, if that isn't a mantra, I dunno what is...and the cult following of Aczel repeat that mantra...over and over and over again! |
Rodman - "no one has ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers with high input impedance, low output impedance..low distortion..." Aczel is saying is that amplifiers of similar design will sound similar. I believe, although I'm not sure, that modern SS amps have high input impedance and low output impedance. I believe that SET amplifiers do not have these characteristics. He considers SETs to be an idiotic design, but that's another issue. |
As to the Fourier issue, as I recall, and I am willing to be corrected on this, Aczel believed that most speakers were riddled with fundamental errors that a "C+ student in engineering" would never make. He was of the opinion that a speaker designed without these flaws would sound better than anything out there and he became involved with Fourier to help design such a speaker. Again, to the best of my recollection, I knew that Aczel was involved with Fourier when he reviewed that speaker and that he was just saying "I told you so". But many others seem to remember it differently. |
@ Chayro- He didn't say, "similar." He said, "NO one has EVER HEARD a difference...." and yet, even he heard differences in solid state amps, and made recommendations based on such, quite often. And then; Dave's post contains one of his quotes, "all amplifiers having high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, and low noise floor sound exactly the same." Regarding wire: all someone needs is Rat Shack? "Tubes are for boobs?" Like I said, "utterly disregardable." |
Exactly. And he's a hypocrite calling audiophiles "tweako cultists" when he is a cult leader himself. He's a god to die-hard objectivists who repeat his mantras over and over again. The whole thing is a sham. Then again, some subjectivist reviewers do go over the top calling $10k and up components as bargains. Compared to $50k components, but not in itself. |
Though his magazine was always The Audio Critic (with the same typeface), Peter Aczel had two very different lives as a consumer audio journalist. Initially, from 1977 through early 1981, The (small-circulation ) Audio Critic was in thrall to, and catered to, the commercial consumer ’high-end’ audio business, based on casual subjective listening to audio systems and components. The high circulation consumer audio press (High Fidelity, Stereo Review), on the other hand, based their judgments on engineering and physical measurements of the components. In early 1981 Aczel dropped, or, as he would later say, suspended, the publication of The Audio Critic to go into the loudspeaker business. His speaker company, Fourier Systems, attracted some positive attention for a few years, but eventually closed for lack of interest. Aczel became friends with Bob Carver,founder of Carver corporation, producer of inexpensive audio electronics. Aczel followed Carver’s dispute with Stereophile, in which Carver claimed he could make a transistor power amp whose sound the editors of Stereophile would be unable to distinguish, under blind listening conditions , from a tube power amp of Stereophile’s choosing.Needless to say, Carver won the dispute. This impressed Aczel to the extent that he had a ’road to Damascus’ conversion to the engineering side of consumer audio, replacing casual listening tests with double-blind ABX comparisons. In late 1987, his attempt at being a speaker manufacturer having ended badly, Aczel revived the The Audio Critic magazine, but this time he would stick to hard-nosed detailed physics-based analysis and evaluation of audio components. He wanted to establish a special niche where he would subject ’high-end’ consumer audio components to rigorous tests and engineering analysis and compare them with garden-variety mass-produced audio components. Aczel’s specialty was loudspeaker reviews, where the listening tests would still be subjective (because double-blind listening tests of loudspeakers were impractical without large-cap corporate support), but Aczel would trace the deficiencies and strengths he heard back to the measurements. He associated with the best audio engineers he could find and delighted in exposing the ignorance and superstition of the ’high-end’ audio business. Love him or hate him, he couldn’t be ignored, because, most of the time (following his conversion), he was right. |
.... just thought I would take some time this Saturday afternoon to research and answer some questions I have to try to get a direction on some new stuff I'm going to buy. After plowing through piles of quasi-ads and related - I reflected on The Audio Critic (pre Internet) and what those pages revealed to a much younger audiophile. The style - was very aggressive and opinionated (sound familiar?), .... but the opinion / info always was born out to be right by what I actually heard. I'm taking a chance on getting flamed here - but hopefully there are others out there that (now) will also be willing to be heard too. Anyone out there that uses a new The Audio Critic with similar accuracy today? |
Okay. I think that's long enough. I work in an industry that sells opinions. Where you have a bad or flawed opinion it CAN bring one to the brink of loosing a business more times than not. Errors and Omissions insurance is definitely required there. Careful conclusion / directions evolve also as a natural result of trying to survive, This question on Aczel etal (currently) is far less significant certainly in the big picture. I believe in good Alpha experience based thoughts here. Omegas not so much. If anyone with integrity of thought has a TAC replacement recommendation - please post it here. I do return occasionally. Thanks. I remain hopeful. |
Peter Aczel was years ahead of his time and told it like he saw it. Sometimes I despair of reading magazine reviews. Just the other day I was looking for a new tyre inflator for my car and checked out several magazine reviews. I thought it was a little strange that different publications all seemed to recommend the same few inflators. Nevertheless I headed over to Amazon UK to check out prices and see reviews there. The first customer review I read immediately drew attention to the fact that inflators with screw on valves inevitably have the problem of the tyre deflating as you attempt to remove it after inflating. So naturally I bought one with the lever type connector. This did leave me wondering how could these different magazine reviews all have failed to spot this elementary design fault with their so called recommended screw on inflators? |
Good reviewers see and publish opinions on the perceived needs of normal users. Some reviewers are driven by their own professional standards that they hold dear. Some are driven by their own internal spins and Cabal programming. .... and some are driven to just fit in and not be disagreeable to the monitors. We can choose which to follow. Challenge is in the choosing. I try to confirm what is read in reviews by what I heard in use (audio). |
Me too. Unfortunately, more often than not, the result has been a lasting disdain for much of whats been written on the page. Much, if not all of it, simply boils down to little more than an endless stream of advertising driven flavour of the month empty endorsements. However, when it comes to the likes of Peter Aczel, Floyd Toole, Amir from ASR, the guys at Audioholics etc I haven't found too much to disagree with.
My biggest eye opener was to read the Harbeth User Group forum. Nothing else altered my way of thinking as much as reading the words of one Alan Shaw. It took a fair bit of time and a certain amount of discomfort, but in the end I'm more or less in accord with the great man's opinions on amplifiers, cables, stands, connectors etc. My only remaining issue is with his belief in the superiority of digital over analogue. He's probably right in theory, but not, at least in my experience, in practice. There's far too many LPs which sound superior to their digital counterparts for me to fully endorse that. |
When I first got into this hobby 20 years ago The Audio Critic had a bunch of guides/courses teaching you the hobby, how to select equipment and so on. The theme was - all amplifiers sound the same, choose your speakers via measurement graphs not listening e.t.c Total nonsense IMO, but if you are into that go ahead. |
You may be right or you may be wrong. However when such respected figures as Peter Walker, Siegfried Linkwitz, Peter Aczel, Alan Shaw and many others all allude to the same opinion regarding amplification, then perhaps we ought to respect that opinion at least?
In my experience with amps ranging from the NAD 3020 to the Naim 32/110 the amps I have owned have made insignificant sonic difference. In fact my last 2 amps, a Magnum IA 170 and a Creek integrated sounded uncannily similar when I was able to swap one for the other. This was a disappointment as I was labouring under the illusion that the far more expensive Creek was a vastly superior amp. I had previously read that it had a more sumptuous, warm and rich sound.
As we know the human perception system is subject to all kinds of illusions, yet it's still a disconcerting feeling when it's demonstrated in such a direct fashion.
|
I have every copy of Audio Critic. Peter was right on although I still like tube sound. Those comments with personal insults are from people who cannot win a rational argument and do the obvious-they respond with personal insults. "a quack! a joke!" Now that settles the issue! I do lust over the beautifully designed expensive audio gear but will never buy it. I do not understand reviewers who resort to the other senses when describing the sound they hear-how it tastes for instance. Can a graph describe sound? No but it will be useful for comparison between audio gear. A-B testing is the only way to prove you can hear the difference.
|
I have every copy of Audio Critic.
Wow, that’s impressive! A complete set must be quite rare these days I can’t think of any other magazine that I’d want to keep as a reference. The few that I do still have are there mainly for nostalgia and entertainment. Thankfully copies of The Audio Critic are still available online. http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/audio_critic_down.htm It's posssiby the only audio magazine where the copy still rings true years later. There’s a good write up of the audio press, including The Audio Critic, from a few years back here. http://high-endaudio.com/magaz.html
Here’s a few choice quotes:
Stereophile is now basically a commercial marketing engine for established brands, and those rare new brands which can afford an extravagant marketing (advertising) budget, meaning hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Absolute Sound has also seriously deteriorated. Here’s one simple example: In issue # 114, they ’reviewed’ the VPI Aries Turntable with the JMW tonearm, with a total cost of $ 4,995, and the Jadis 845 triode amplifiers. What did they compare the VPI Aries with? The Rega Planar 3 at $ 695. (Yes, I’m serious.) Guess which was better? It’s safe to say that no one (in the audio business) was upset at the result of such a comparison. More important, no prospective purchaser, of either turntable/arm combination, was enlightened about its relative audio performance and value.
"Magazines---all magazines--exist on the basis of advertising. That’s all that counts. Magazines are "sold" simply to have circulation which can then be used to sell advertising at prices commensurate with the circulation. IN FACT most magazines LOSE money on circulation. It doesn’t matter since they make their money on advertising." - Michael Fremer of Stereophile
|
If nothing else he opened my eyes to several truths, a coat hanger is just as good in delivering soon (properly shielded) as any $500 cable. The electrons or wave energy do not differentiate. Good connections only part to be concerned with. Also its the speakers and recording quality that matter the most.
|
The Audio Press review disputes the "every properly built amp" sounds the same or that solid state can be made to sound the same as tubes. Nobody but nobody, however, will ever take the challenge and do the ABX testing to disprove his claims. If they measure the same they will sound the same-take the test to prove otherwise. |
