search
The growing acceptance of the NCCAM, however, suggests that there's a difference between the skeptics in audio and those in medicine. Could hard-nosed skeptics in medicine be just a tad more open-minded than their audio counterparts? If so, there's a reason. Despite its modern, scientific credentials, medicine's codes and techniques have evolved over centuries, and have always taken into account the fact that different people react differently to diseases and treatments. Case studies teach students to expect common patterns in patients, but also to expect surprises. Some people will beat a…
A letter in response appeared in September 2000:
Blithely unaware of the simple truth?
Editor: Even though I am a confirmed objectivist when it comes to high-fidelity systems, I continue to enjoy Stereophile. Your coverage of music and transducers (mostly speakers) is valuable enough for me to continue my subscription. It would be nice if you took a more balanced view and tested more modest components, but I'm sure that I'm in the minority of your readers in this request.
Having said all that, George Reisch's "Undercurrents" in the May issue really shows a complete lack…
George Reisch's September 2000 "Undercurrents" column addressed issues raised by Mr. Salinger
Pornography or audio journalism?
I knew that someone would find the Achilles' heel in my musings on medicine and subjective testing in May's "Undercurrents." As Ross Salinger notes in his letter in this issue, the parallel I drew between medicine and audio goes only so far. To be admitted to the halls of medicine, alternative medical techniques are tested with blind tests. But subjective audiophiles usually eschew blind tests.
For Mr. Salinger, that's a problem, and he generously…
Now, before objectivists go to their computers and fill John Atkinson's e-mail account with letters about how stupid I am, I am not claiming that listening to recordings and the pleasures of the flesh are equivalent (though there's something to the idea of aural sex). I'm saying instead that this test would interfere with the behaviors it attempts to measure in much the same way, and for similar reasons, that Mr. Salinger's test would make it harder to hear the effects of tweaks and cable swaps. In both cases, most test subjects would fare poorly. But that would have less to do with their…
More letters in response appeared in the November 2000 issue of Stereophile:
In awe of George
Editor: I am in awe of George Reisch's response to the idea of blind testing ("Undercurrents," September 2000). Let me see if I can summarize his argument:
Blind testing will never work because there are too many uncontrolled variables: bad power, lousy mood, I'm not holding my mouth right, whatever...
The whole purpose of blind testing is to remove these variables to the extent possible. However, the problem with Mr. Reisch's position is that he has this inexhaustible…
The following letter was received too late for publication:
Ross Responds
Editor: I read George Reisch's response to my letter carefully, and have decided that George's writing is more interesting to read than mine is. Alas, however, his thinking is not so good as his style. This is also the opinion of the elves who have been diligently working at his house substituting Radio Shack cables into his system for several months now. On a more serious note, I hope you'll let me reply to the points George makes one by one. I thank you for allowing those of us whose opinions do not agree…
One of the things that distinguishes a dedicated audiophile from Joe Q. Public is that he has some notion of what audio fidelity is all about.
The typical buyer of a "steeryo" is seeking nothing more than pleasant or exciting sounds, and is easily satisfied because he has no greater expectation of audio than this. The audiophile, however, is aware that reproduced sound can resemble (more or less) real, live sound, and he is driven in a continual search for that ultimate truth ("fidelity to the original") even while realizing, intellectually at least, that it is unattainable.
…
The CD has all along been touted as an absolutely accurate recording/playback medium, no doubt to the embarrassment of those manufacturers who so promoted it. Even the mass circulation hi-fi magazines have been reporting that some players sound better than others, and that the best are getting better as time goes on. But another question that has assumed growing importance is just how good the Compact Disc system actually is, because the answer to that question will determine how far the CD can go towards needs of the audiophile who cares about accuracy (footnote 2).
Numbers of…
It was 20 years ago today that Sgt. Michaelson taught the band to play. I was living in London when Antony Michaelson launched Musical Fidelity in an attempt to make a major statement in the area of affordable, high-quality, high-value electronics. Other Brits at the time were doing the same—companies such as Creek, A&R Cambridge (now Arcam), and DNM began to compete for the destitute audiophile's dollar.
I was living in London back then, and being paid in US dollars during the pound sterling's historical high. This meant I was chronically broke, and thus fascinated by the…
The A3.2's exemplary midrange performance combined with superb and continuous low-level dynamics to make it an excellent match for singer-songwriters. On "Hey, Sweet Man," from Madeline Peyroux's Dreamland (CD, Atlantic 82946-2), the vocalist's naturally breathy presence was perfectly captured with all subtle dynamic nuances intact, as was Marc Ribot's quirky dobro accompaniment.
The Musical Fidelity deviated from neutrality only in the midbass, where there was a slight warmth or ripeness. Although this didn't detract from my enjoyment of any of the classical or jazz recordings I used,…