Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?

Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?

Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?

Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?

Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?

Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?

Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?

Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?

Why had a high-end hi-fi magazine felt the need to produce a classical <I>LP</I> when the thrust of real record companies in 1989 is almost exclusively toward CD and cassette? Why did the magazine's editors think they had a better chance than most experienced professional engineers in making a record with audiophile sound quality? Were they guilty of <I>hubris</I> in thinking that the many years between them spent practicing the profession of critic would qualify them as record producers?

"Test We Must," cried <I>High Fidelity</I>'s erstwhile editor, Michael Riggs, in a January 1989 leader article condemning the growth of subjective testing. (See the sidebar for Peter Mitchell's obituary of <I>HF</I> magazine, now effectively merged with <I>Stereo Review</I>.) With the exception of loudspeakers, where it is still necessary to listen, he wrote, "laboratory testing (properly done) can tell us pretty much everything we need to know about the performance of a typical piece of electronics...We know what the important characteristics are, how to measure them, and how to interpret the results."