LATEST ADDITIONS

Judging absolute sound quality under the unfamiliar circumstances of an audio show is always fraught with difficulty. If a system sounds bad, there are so many possible reasons for it to do so that pointing a finger of blame at the components is possibly unfair. Conversely, when a room sounds good at a show, it is probable that the components being used deserve some recognition. Such was the case at Home Entertainment 2002 in New York last May, when Dynaudio's Confidence C4 made its debut.

One of the age-old audio battles is whether or not a component needs to be "broken-in" first to sound its best. Does it help to break in a component and, if so, what is the most dramatic example you've experienced?

Dick Olsher and various other writers take a spin with the <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//loudspeakerreviews/789/">Apogee Stage loudspeaker</A>, whose "resemblance to the rest of the Apogee family is unmistakable" in spite of its small size. But the real story is that, "surprisingly, the sound quality does not take a back seat to its more expensive relatives."

Audiophiles constantly seek the next level in musical realism, as any reader of this website would acknowledge. The world at large, however, can't get enough of low-fidelity audio, as evidenced by the continuing popularity of the MP3 format.

In some ways, entrepreneurs resemble the folks who fix your roof: When they see a hole somewhere, their job is to find a way to fill it. Long-time high-end audio veterans Mel and Howard Schilling and Doug Goldberg say they have spotted a hole in the audio market and are getting ready to launch a new company to fill it.

Combine the challenge of establishing a start-up with the launch of an entirely new consumer electronics market and you've got the recipe for a highly volatile and explosive brew. But news of a successful $1.2 billion re-capitalization announced last week indicates that three-year old digital radio pioneer <A HREF="http://www.sirius.com">Sirius</A&gt; will likely remain intact&mdash;at least for now.

There's a widespread myth that writers who get published are more talented than writers who don't get published, and that musicians who make records are more talented than musicians who don't make records. But anyone with any talent who has ever tried to earn a living as a writer, a musician, or any other kind of artist understands that the correlation between merit and success is, at best, loose. Some successful artists are talented, and some talented artists are successful. But for every talented artist who manages to make a living there are a dozen more, equally deserving, who have no choice but to keep their day jobs.