Jim Thiel sounded almost bored. "Almost everything about the CS2.4 is pretty standard stuff&mdash;short-coil, long-gap, low-distortion drivers, aluminum diaphragms, polystyrene capacitors, spatial coherence, time coherence, reduced diffraction baffles, reduced cabinet vibration, etc., etc. Of course, <I>I</I> think the execution of the 2.4 is more successful than our previous models, but in terms of what's really different, that mechanical crossover is what's special."

Michael Fremer's review of the AudioPhysic Caldera III loudspeaker in this issue (p.81) reminded me of a subject I have written about many times in the past: what happens when a manufacturer submits a faulty sample for review. I formalized Stereophile's policy on this matter in late 1988, following both an unfortunate series of reviews in which the samples either arrived broken or broke during the auditioning, and my learning about how much went on behind closed doors at other audio magazines, where reviewers and editors too often appeared to collude with manufacturers.1 I wrote back then that:

"The large peak at 16kHz reported by <I>Stereophile</I>...was nowhere in evidence...The most probable explanation of this discrepancy is that the [Waveform supertweeter's] very light ribbon depends on the air load for damping, and that load is much smaller in the thin air up there at 7000' in Santa Fe than at altitudes where less lightheaded and scientifically more accountable reviewers dwell." Thus spake Peter Aczel (footnote 1), erstwhile loudspeaker designer and Editor/Publisher of the reincarnated <I>The Audio Critic</I>, a publication that advertises itself as having "unusual credibility among the top professionals in audio."

"The large peak at 16kHz reported by <I>Stereophile</I>...was nowhere in evidence...The most probable explanation of this discrepancy is that the [Waveform supertweeter's] very light ribbon depends on the air load for damping, and that load is much smaller in the thin air up there at 7000' in Santa Fe than at altitudes where less lightheaded and scientifically more accountable reviewers dwell." Thus spake Peter Aczel (footnote 1), erstwhile loudspeaker designer and Editor/Publisher of the reincarnated <I>The Audio Critic</I>, a publication that advertises itself as having "unusual credibility among the top professionals in audio."

NORTH MISSISSIPPI ALLSTARS: <I>Electric Blue Watermelon</I><BR>
ATO (According To Our) Records 0026 (CD). 2005. Jim Dickinson, prod.; Roland Janes, Pete Matthews, Kevin Houston, engs. AAD? TT: 49:23<BR>
Performance <B>****</B><BR>
Sonics <B>****</B>

As audiophiles, we all started somewhere, and the important fact is, we all started with a love of music. When it came to music playback equipment, more than a few of us remember the fold-up record player stacked with 45s, or the little transistor radio tucked under our pillow at night with a low-fi, one-channel earpiece attached.

"Subwoofers are boring," whined John Atkinson when we were dickering about column inches for my <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1105thiel">review</A&gt; of the Thiel CS2.4 loudspeaker in this issue. "I know they're important, but I just don't get excited reading about them."

"Subwoofers are boring," whined John Atkinson when we were dickering about column inches for my <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1105thiel">review</A&gt; of the Thiel CS2.4 loudspeaker in this issue. "I know they're important, but I just don't get excited reading about them."

The holiday season is upon us, and if you have someone on your gift list&mdash;especially a youngster, but really, anyone&mdash;whom you'd like to introduce to the wonders of world music, I've got just the ticket. And even if not, read on, because this story will do you good.