It was 20 years ago that I began audio reviewing as a second career. It was also 20 years ago that I made my first very expensive audio purchase: a pair of Infinity RS-1b speakers. The RS-1b was a landmark speaker in its day, and very costly for the time at $5500/pair. (I think my dentist has just spent more than that on a TV.) In retrospect, the RS-1b was an extraordinary value. With four large towers, more than 30 drivers, and a servo network and a passive crossover, the Infinity RS-1b resolved a significant amount of detail, was capable of large dynamic swings, had pinpoint image specificity on a wide, deep soundstage, and was capable of reproducing a convincing bottom octave in the right room when paired with the right associated equipment. Its main weaknesses were a relative lack of coherence due to its use of three different types of drivers to cover the various frequency ranges, and both the midrange/tweeter towers and woofer columns were picky about amplifier matching.

It was 20 years ago that I began audio reviewing as a second career. It was also 20 years ago that I made my first very expensive audio purchase: a pair of Infinity RS-1b speakers. The RS-1b was a landmark speaker in its day, and very costly for the time at $5500/pair. (I think my dentist has just spent more than that on a TV.) In retrospect, the RS-1b was an extraordinary value. With four large towers, more than 30 drivers, and a servo network and a passive crossover, the Infinity RS-1b resolved a significant amount of detail, was capable of large dynamic swings, had pinpoint image specificity on a wide, deep soundstage, and was capable of reproducing a convincing bottom octave in the right room when paired with the right associated equipment. Its main weaknesses were a relative lack of coherence due to its use of three different types of drivers to cover the various frequency ranges, and both the midrange/tweeter towers and woofer columns were picky about amplifier matching.

Unless you've been on active duty in the Middle East, you're aware that Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab is back in business. During <I>Stereophile</I>'s Home Entertainment 2003 show in San Francisco last June, <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround">Kal Rubinson</A> and I played hookey to visit MoFi mastering engineer Paul Stubblebine's recording studio, at 1340 Mission Street. As we sat spellbound, Paul played the original four-track, &#189;", 1-mil master tape of Stanislaw Skrowaczewski and the Minnesota Orchestra's legendary 1974 recording of Ravel's <I>Bol&#233;ro</I> and <I>Daphnis et Chlo&#233;</I> (footnote 1). Stubblebine fed the four discrete channels from the specially modified ReVox reel-to-reel deck to a modern surround system. The master tape produced the cleanest, purest sound I had heard in a long time.

Unless you've been on active duty in the Middle East, you're aware that Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab is back in business. During <I>Stereophile</I>'s Home Entertainment 2003 show in San Francisco last June, <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround">Kal Rubinson</A> and I played hookey to visit MoFi mastering engineer Paul Stubblebine's recording studio, at 1340 Mission Street. As we sat spellbound, Paul played the original four-track, &#189;", 1-mil master tape of Stanislaw Skrowaczewski and the Minnesota Orchestra's legendary 1974 recording of Ravel's <I>Bol&#233;ro</I> and <I>Daphnis et Chlo&#233;</I> (footnote 1). Stubblebine fed the four discrete channels from the specially modified ReVox reel-to-reel deck to a modern surround system. The master tape produced the cleanest, purest sound I had heard in a long time.

Unless you've been on active duty in the Middle East, you're aware that Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab is back in business. During <I>Stereophile</I>'s Home Entertainment 2003 show in San Francisco last June, <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround">Kal Rubinson</A> and I played hookey to visit MoFi mastering engineer Paul Stubblebine's recording studio, at 1340 Mission Street. As we sat spellbound, Paul played the original four-track, &#189;", 1-mil master tape of Stanislaw Skrowaczewski and the Minnesota Orchestra's legendary 1974 recording of Ravel's <I>Bol&#233;ro</I> and <I>Daphnis et Chlo&#233;</I> (footnote 1). Stubblebine fed the four discrete channels from the specially modified ReVox reel-to-reel deck to a modern surround system. The master tape produced the cleanest, purest sound I had heard in a long time.

Unless you've been on active duty in the Middle East, you're aware that Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab is back in business. During <I>Stereophile</I>'s Home Entertainment 2003 show in San Francisco last June, <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround">Kal Rubinson</A> and I played hookey to visit MoFi mastering engineer Paul Stubblebine's recording studio, at 1340 Mission Street. As we sat spellbound, Paul played the original four-track, &#189;", 1-mil master tape of Stanislaw Skrowaczewski and the Minnesota Orchestra's legendary 1974 recording of Ravel's <I>Bol&#233;ro</I> and <I>Daphnis et Chlo&#233;</I> (footnote 1). Stubblebine fed the four discrete channels from the specially modified ReVox reel-to-reel deck to a modern surround system. The master tape produced the cleanest, purest sound I had heard in a long time.

Unless you've been on active duty in the Middle East, you're aware that Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab is back in business. During <I>Stereophile</I>'s Home Entertainment 2003 show in San Francisco last June, <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround">Kal Rubinson</A> and I played hookey to visit MoFi mastering engineer Paul Stubblebine's recording studio, at 1340 Mission Street. As we sat spellbound, Paul played the original four-track, &#189;", 1-mil master tape of Stanislaw Skrowaczewski and the Minnesota Orchestra's legendary 1974 recording of Ravel's <I>Bol&#233;ro</I> and <I>Daphnis et Chlo&#233;</I> (footnote 1). Stubblebine fed the four discrete channels from the specially modified ReVox reel-to-reel deck to a modern surround system. The master tape produced the cleanest, purest sound I had heard in a long time.

Loudspeaker design is an art <I>and</I> a science. Anyone who tells you it's only one or the other is probably building or listening to some awful-sounding speakers. Design a speaker in an anechoic chamber for the "theoretical" world, and there's no guarantee it will sound good in the real one. Even building a speaker that excels at "real-room" measurements doesn't guarantee that it will sound all that convincing when reproducing music. We can't measure everything, and what we <I>can</I> measure can't be reliably ranked in terms of what's important to most listeners.

Loudspeaker design is an art <I>and</I> a science. Anyone who tells you it's only one or the other is probably building or listening to some awful-sounding speakers. Design a speaker in an anechoic chamber for the "theoretical" world, and there's no guarantee it will sound good in the real one. Even building a speaker that excels at "real-room" measurements doesn't guarantee that it will sound all that convincing when reproducing music. We can't measure everything, and what we <I>can</I> measure can't be reliably ranked in terms of what's important to most listeners.

Loudspeaker design is an art <I>and</I> a science. Anyone who tells you it's only one or the other is probably building or listening to some awful-sounding speakers. Design a speaker in an anechoic chamber for the "theoretical" world, and there's no guarantee it will sound good in the real one. Even building a speaker that excels at "real-room" measurements doesn't guarantee that it will sound all that convincing when reproducing music. We can't measure everything, and what we <I>can</I> measure can't be reliably ranked in terms of what's important to most listeners.