When I got married, my mother pulled my bride aside and said, "Now it can be <I>your</I> fault!" You see, I have always practiced blame-avoidance. Now I get to do it again.

When I got married, my mother pulled my bride aside and said, "Now it can be <I>your</I> fault!" You see, I have always practiced blame-avoidance. Now I get to do it again.

When I got married, my mother pulled my bride aside and said, "Now it can be <I>your</I> fault!" You see, I have always practiced blame-avoidance. Now I get to do it again.

It is a truism that audiophiles love music. What distinguishes us (footnote 1) from the vast majority of music lovers is the importance we ascribe to the high-quality reproduction of recorded music. But what, exactly, constitutes high-quality sound reproduction? To many audiophiles, the answer relates to accuracy. Useful indices of accuracy include many of the parameters that editor John Atkinson routinely measures: flat frequency response, time and phase accuracy, and low distortion, to name a few. On the other hand, many audiophiles apparently have little interest in these aspects and instead seek nothing more&mdash;or less&mdash;than a romantic and pleasant sound. Such individuals are unfazed by demonstrable inaccuracies in their systems; as long as it sounds good to their ears, they are happy. Are these two schools of thought both compatible with the notion of high-end audio? If so, is one "more correct" than the other? Are they mutually exclusive? What brought this issue to mind was, of all things, a digital transport. Actually, two transports.

It is a truism that audiophiles love music. What distinguishes us (footnote 1) from the vast majority of music lovers is the importance we ascribe to the high-quality reproduction of recorded music. But what, exactly, constitutes high-quality sound reproduction? To many audiophiles, the answer relates to accuracy. Useful indices of accuracy include many of the parameters that editor John Atkinson routinely measures: flat frequency response, time and phase accuracy, and low distortion, to name a few. On the other hand, many audiophiles apparently have little interest in these aspects and instead seek nothing more&mdash;or less&mdash;than a romantic and pleasant sound. Such individuals are unfazed by demonstrable inaccuracies in their systems; as long as it sounds good to their ears, they are happy. Are these two schools of thought both compatible with the notion of high-end audio? If so, is one "more correct" than the other? Are they mutually exclusive? What brought this issue to mind was, of all things, a digital transport. Actually, two transports.

I am writing this copy on a venerable Radio Shack TRS-100 portable computer while flying via TWA from St. Louis to Albuquerque, the very fact of doing so having reminded me of what I wanted to write about in this month's column: hardware reliability. J. Gordon Holt touched on this subject in last June's "As We See It," but I felt it worth readdressing in light of recent events.

<I>Big Rock Candy Mountain</I> has posted two of Owens' best: "Close Up the Honky Tonks" and "Streets of Bakersfield." Listen and remember.

Really, really good advice.

When Dorothy Parker left her estate to MLK and the NAACP, she didn't expect one detail to have such long lasting consequences: Appointing Lillian Hellman as executor actually affected her literary reputation. Marion Meade unravels a tangled tale.