Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
What a contemptuous and incoherent op-ed this was. So many condescending, incorrect and just plain rude assumptions. I can understand Holt's frustration with audiophilia nervosa, and I can appreciate that some of this drivel was probably meant in jest. Whatever his beef was at the time, it's ancient history and no one really cares.
I won't even try to tackle the concert-attendance-police premise. Certainly I agree that it's important for music lovers to know what instruments really sound like, in person. At least, the instruments they enjoy hearing. I have to ask though. Did he really believe that all "audiophiles" should be aligned on the sound of "the real thing" based on a subjective experience in some orchestral concert hall? If so, which orchestra? Which hall? What composition and performance? Whose ears, judging which criteria? Did JGH really think that audio equipment designers were all working from this same roadmap? What about the recording engineers? Or the producers and mastering engineers? Does their vision and technique count for anything?
It's staggering to think that someone of Holt's position in the audio press should need to be reminded that unamplified acoustic performances, amplified performances, recordings of performances, and home playback of recordings are all distinct events and that there isn't a single "correct" way to regulate or experience them. Carry on, and enjoy the music.