"The Audio Critic" B.S. or what?

Well now, we have a good subject for diversity of opinion which is at the heart of the subjective/objective debate. I have alot of audio software and hardware,some of it, comparatively expensive. I have been enjoying this hobby since the early '60s. I agree that, if you believe that some intangible manifestation exist, it does, FOR YOU, exist..whether or not its existence can be reliably demonstrated to anyone else. I don't agree with many of the above characterizations of The Audio Critic (TAC). TAC, unlike many publications, has been consistent in their philosophy and has continued to call it like they test and hear it. Isn't that essentially what Stereophile(e.g.) attempts to do? I see TAC as a breath of fresh air in a room filled with emanations of garlic, onions, and occasional fruity mouthwash. TAC has consistently attempted to remove some of the mysticism and pseudo-science which seems, at times, to permeate this hobby (surely, most of you agree that these are characteristics which exist within audiophilia). Having participated in this hobby for many years with the added experience of high-end sales and as a full-time professional musician for many of those years, I long ago recognized the highly subjective nature of equipment evaluation sans any testing apparatus. The great advantage of objective evaluation is that it doesn't rely upon the very variable results of ears-only testing. Just read the Letters To The Editor section of Stereophile, or for that matter, these forums, to see the obvious disparity of opinions regarding audio hardware. Naturally, most of us prefer to have our tastes and decisions reenforced by the agreement of a perceived authority. A number of us are susceptable to what is referred to as the placebo effect. This effect essentially allows for a belief in some of our expectations having been fulfilled. This psychological characteristic, has been verified in many areas of human experience, including the subjective (and sometimes objective) evaluation of audio equipment. This is acommon human trait and I suspect that it influences all of us occasionally. This is a powerful justification for the use of the relatively consistency of the machines. The truth they reveal to us might not be preferred or even palatable. But it is usually consistent. As an example; objective testing might indicate high distortion within a component. This high distortion may be preferred (tubes?). As a matter of taste though, preference is all that is required. So, TAC is criticized by those who subjectively disagree with some of its conclusions. I would conjecture that some of those same critics, if they are owners of products by Arragon, HSU, Marantz, Sunfire, Velodyne, Legacy, Bryston, BK, Paradigm, McIntosh, Sony, and others would have agreed with TAC's favorable comments regarding some of these mfrs. products. BTW, these and other well-reputed mfrs. have indeed advertized in TAC. In addition to the dispelling of certain objectively unproveable audio mythologies, TAC attempts to demonstrate that at a certain point, money can and is being wasted on highly questionable product benefits, overpriced products of inherent lower value, and overbuilt, highly priced hardware. If you can find a copy, try to read it without bias. You might find the counterbalance of their perspective to be ultimately beneficial to you. I have. And if for no other reason, cherish it for the technical descriptions and comments of Dr. Rich. I also agree with the above comments of Jostler.

John 1: Respectfully, I suggest that it's difficult to grow when we limit ourselves to those in agreement with us. There is occasional emotion within the pages of TAC. Much of it, I believe, is engendered by frustration with the deception which is perpetuated by many of the predominately subjective enthusiasts periodicals (you know of which I mean). I do understand how unappealing criticism of personal belief systems can be. It took several years in the past for some of mine to fall. But, if a claim cannot be reliably demonstrated to others, then that claim must be considered untenable.

John 1: Sounds like you're having fun. Great! I don't think that I'd characterize TAC as being uniquely contrarian. E.g., search out issues of the AES journal or the erstwhile AUDIO magazine. In Audio you will find occasional forays into serious audio objectivism as is usually the case in the AES journal. Articles such as these are distinctive in that they are written by people who actually know what they are talking about...beyond simple opinion. I'm talking about credibility. TAC has credibility. We all have opinions which are, at the very least, valid for ourselves. Whether or not opinion (subjective) can be meaningfully tranferred to another is questionable since we're dealing with aurally subjective observations involving variables which are unique to each of us. I'm suggesting that if you give at least equal weight to what you read in TAC and fairly test out any claims from where-ever they might come, you will ultimately benefit. It seems that we share certain approaches to this hobby in that I also have a large collection of hardware which covers the full spectrum. As near as I can figure, I have about 70 years of audio technology represented and I have quite as good a time listening to old tube gear as with recent solid state. BTW, I wouldn't think of smashing your Beatles albums. You might check out the CD issue of their complete BBC recordings, if still available.

Jostler: Thank you for your feedback. You will note that I stated "TAC...to call it as they test and hear it". I do believe that, while having significantly more reliability than sighted evaluation, double blind "testing" absent accurate measurements, is not at all consistently reliable. This has been demonstrated repeatedly by those who claim reliable accuracy under double blind conditions and fail, often to the point of preferring a sample to itself. In well controlled tests comparing the influence of the visual aspect,it was found that the Brand name of the product was the strongest influence upon listener preference. The more subtle the distinction becomes, the more difficult it is to reliably recall or identify that distinction. And communicating those distinctions via totally verbal descriptives is far too subjective to be truly useful. I am, of course, not referring to gross differences, which can be difficult enough for some.