I am back as my alter ego Jasonbourne52! Today we have an arms race among DAC designers with the subjectivists claiming superiority for their favorite 4 and 5-figure DACs. While the objectivists pursue lower cost and increasingly linear DACs.
When the Audio Critic was subjective.
I was reading through this old issue of TAC and it is quite amazing to see how subjective Peter Aczel was in his earlier days before the "all amplifiers sound the same" kick. Yes I know he didn't say exactly that, but you know what I mean.
I think I liked the magazine much better when he presented a more balanced combination of measurements and subjective listening.
http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/mags/The_Audio_Critic_V1-2.pdf
I think I liked the magazine much better when he presented a more balanced combination of measurements and subjective listening.
http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/mags/The_Audio_Critic_V1-2.pdf
14 responses Add your response
roberjerman I would best describe Peter Aczel as a rationalist ... He would always want to know "why" and questioned established dogma regarding music systemsActually, Aczel created his own personal brand of dogma. That was his problem. |
Aczel was also the first to publish a comprehensive chart for determining proper alignment for a wide range of tonearm lenghts, stylus-to-pivot distance, offset angles and overhang distances. This chart was for the Baerwald alignment. And he discussed VTF and stylus rake angle, along with the importance of stylus shapes (conical, elliptical, Shibata ...) for maximizing music retrieval from those vinyl grooves! |
I have followed The Audio Critic from the beginning (1977) to its end. For the most part Peter Aczel's recommendations were spot on! He made a serious attempt to reconcile measurements with listening trials. Unlike the all-over-the-map conclusions of the "golden ear" reviewers at Stereophile and TAS. And was the first to stress the importance of proper tonearm/cartridge alignment for LP playback - when LPs were the most common music source! |
Aczel was just a run-of-the-mill subjective reviewer, certainly no J. Gordon Holt, or even Harry Pearson. I don't recall what lead to his "objective" transformation, but was thereafter an obnoxious jerk. His ethics came into serious question when he used the mag to promote his own loudspeaker, his credibility when it became known his hearing was seriously impaired. Good riddance. |