"Time to write another equipment report," thought the Great Reviewer, aware that the IRS would soon require another small donation to keep the country running on track. Deftly donning his Tom Wolfe vanilla suit, he sat at the antique desk acquired on one of his many all-expenses-paid research trips to Europe, patted the bust of H.L. Mencken that invariably stood by the word processor, ensured that his level of gonzo awareness was up to par, arranged his prejudices and biases in descending order of importance, checked that the requisite check was in the mail, coined a sufficient number of Maileresque factoids appropriate to the occasion, and dashed off 3000 words of pungently witty, passionately argued, convincingly objective, and deeply felt prose.

"When you read...that an electronic recording has 'excellent' sound <I>it</I> does <I>not</I> mean you can use that record as a system evaluation tool," wrote J. Gordon Holt in October's "<A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/111/">As We See It</A>." Yet, if you are a regular reader of <I>Stereophile</I>, you will be aware that the magazine's equipment reviewers <I>do</I> make use of a considerable number and variety of recordings, including many which would appear to be totally electronic, to reach value judgments about hi-fi components.

"When you read...that an electronic recording has 'excellent' sound <I>it</I> does <I>not</I> mean you can use that record as a system evaluation tool," wrote J. Gordon Holt in October's "<A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/111/">As We See It</A>." Yet, if you are a regular reader of <I>Stereophile</I>, you will be aware that the magazine's equipment reviewers <I>do</I> make use of a considerable number and variety of recordings, including many which would appear to be totally electronic, to reach value judgments about hi-fi components.

"When you read...that an electronic recording has 'excellent' sound <I>it</I> does <I>not</I> mean you can use that record as a system evaluation tool," wrote J. Gordon Holt in October's "<A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/111/">As We See It</A>." Yet, if you are a regular reader of <I>Stereophile</I>, you will be aware that the magazine's equipment reviewers <I>do</I> make use of a considerable number and variety of recordings, including many which would appear to be totally electronic, to reach value judgments about hi-fi components.

"When you read...that an electronic recording has 'excellent' sound <I>it</I> does <I>not</I> mean you can use that record as a system evaluation tool," wrote J. Gordon Holt in October's "<A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/111/">As We See It</A>." Yet, if you are a regular reader of <I>Stereophile</I>, you will be aware that the magazine's equipment reviewers <I>do</I> make use of a considerable number and variety of recordings, including many which would appear to be totally electronic, to reach value judgments about hi-fi components.

From time to time in this column, I have alluded to what appears to be a loss of direction in high-end audio. It's not that the state of the audio art has stopped advancing; the technology is improving in many ways, as is obvious every time we listen to a new preamplifier or cartridge or loudspeaker that has better this, that, or the other thing than anything which has come before. The problem is that these improvements don't really seem to be getting us anywhere. And I believe the reason for this is that the audio community no longer agrees about where audio is supposed to be going in the first place.

From time to time in this column, I have alluded to what appears to be a loss of direction in high-end audio. It's not that the state of the audio art has stopped advancing; the technology is improving in many ways, as is obvious every time we listen to a new preamplifier or cartridge or loudspeaker that has better this, that, or the other thing than anything which has come before. The problem is that these improvements don't really seem to be getting us anywhere. And I believe the reason for this is that the audio community no longer agrees about where audio is supposed to be going in the first place.

From time to time in this column, I have alluded to what appears to be a loss of direction in high-end audio. It's not that the state of the audio art has stopped advancing; the technology is improving in many ways, as is obvious every time we listen to a new preamplifier or cartridge or loudspeaker that has better this, that, or the other thing than anything which has come before. The problem is that these improvements don't really seem to be getting us anywhere. And I believe the reason for this is that the audio community no longer agrees about where audio is supposed to be going in the first place.

From time to time in this column, I have alluded to what appears to be a loss of direction in high-end audio. It's not that the state of the audio art has stopped advancing; the technology is improving in many ways, as is obvious every time we listen to a new preamplifier or cartridge or loudspeaker that has better this, that, or the other thing than anything which has come before. The problem is that these improvements don't really seem to be getting us anywhere. And I believe the reason for this is that the audio community no longer agrees about where audio is supposed to be going in the first place.

From time to time in this column, I have alluded to what appears to be a loss of direction in high-end audio. It's not that the state of the audio art has stopped advancing; the technology is improving in many ways, as is obvious every time we listen to a new preamplifier or cartridge or loudspeaker that has better this, that, or the other thing than anything which has come before. The problem is that these improvements don't really seem to be getting us anywhere. And I believe the reason for this is that the audio community no longer agrees about where audio is supposed to be going in the first place.