
search
Heaven forbid that anyone interpret Gordon's essay as being a statement of Stereophile's policy, as I feel that this vision of the role of hi-fi is too narrow, even self-defeating. As I see it, there are two major flaws. First, when he talks about the use of nonclassical music in equipment reviewing—and many writers, including myself, do make considerable use of rock and jazz—he is confusing what hi-fi components are for with a writer's need to choose program material that reveals aberrations or performance virtues. As the editor of this magazine, I would rather…
The disagreement
Editor: I'd like to have a say concerning the disagreement between JGH and JA on choice of sources for equipment evaluation. My musical taste is eclectic, but I do critical listening to equipment using familiar folk and classical pieces. I find records of acoustic music easier to compare to their live counterparts than is the grungy (you don't need a "d"!) rock'n'roll that I actually listen to more often. I know that if a component contributes minimally to the sounds of acoustical instruments, then it will…
Editor: J. Gordon Holt's editorial on the acoustic standard in October was one of the best in a long time. I also find real sound to be the only comparison to judge by, but I believe you must measure your equipment too, to prevent opinion, whim, or Mercury retrograde from affecting your decisions. Measurements are important in identifying the problems in equipment.
Stereophile, however, seems to emphasize the very subjective preference JGH condemned in his article, and it is subjective preference that has resulted in the current hysteria over cables. Most…
Editor: I have often heard and read people's arguments for using their favorite music to test music systems. I have never seen such an effort cloaked in such opaque terms as Mr. Holt did in "The Acoustical Standard" (October 1988). Why was he trying to hide the fact that he likes to use his favorite music to test out components?
It is easy to find fault with his analysis. It is well known to anyone who studies acoustics that concert halls have the deadest, and some of the most peculiar balances of any listening chamber. In concert, the reverberant soundfield…
STEREOPHILE November 1988, Vol.11 No.11
John Atkinson
"When you read...that an electronic recording has 'excellent' sound [it] does not mean you can use that record as a system evaluation tool," wrote J. Gordon Holt in October's "As We See It." Yet, if you are a regular reader of Stereophile, you will be aware that the magazine's equipment reviewers do 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.
"The pursuit of…
More of a frontal assault?
Editor: Mr. Atkinson's rebuff of Mr. Holt's argument ("As We See It," November and October '88, respectively) seemed more a frontal assault than a well-reasoned reply. But for whatever reason, the reply misses the point. Taken by itself, Mr. Atkinson's position is simple enough, and undoubtedly quite correct. People, singly as consumers and hobbyists, or collectively sitting on a "relatively formal listening" jury, can and will make value judgments about the quality and likeability of the reproduced…
STEREOPHILE March 1989, Vol.12 No.3
John Atkinson
It is inarguable that the quality of magnetically recorded sound has improved immeasurably in the last 101 years. 101 years? Yes, according to a fascinating account in the May 1988 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, it was in 1888 that the Cincinnatti-based engineer Oberlin Smith experimented with recording information on steel wire by drawing it across the corner of an electromagnet around which a coil had been wound. Smith only carried out experiments without producing a…