[Steven Sullivan]

there's a fine and fairly wide-ranging interview with the man in the
online May '06 issueof The Audio Critic (circa his 80th birthday). (it
requires a subscription to read, though)

e.g., concerning groundbreaking components in the history of hi-fi:

"The earliest Ampex and Magnecord tape decks because they demonstrated for
the first time just what genuine high fidelity sounded like. The Dynakit
60 of the early 1950s because it was the first adequately powered
high-quality amplifier at an affordable price. A. Stewart Hegemans
Lowther-Brociner corner horn (c. 1951, also its
plaster-of-Paris-and-plywood prototype) because no loudspeaker ever
sounded as good before. The original Quad ESL, for obvious reasons. Bob
Carvers Amazing Loudspeaker because it was so amazingly clever (why did it
have to disappear?). And, in a more fundamental sense, the Westrex stereo
cutter head because it made stereo sound easily available in every home."

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
there's a fine and fairly wide-ranging interview with the man in the
online May '06 issueof The Audio Critic (circa his 80th birthday). (it
requires a subscription to read, though)

e.g., concerning groundbreaking components in the history of hi-fi:

"The earliest Ampex and Magnecord tape decks because they demonstrated for
the first time just what genuine high fidelity sounded like. The Dynakit
60 of the early 1950s because it was the first adequately powered
high-quality amplifier at an affordable price. A. Stewart Hegemans
Lowther-Brociner corner horn (c. 1951, also its
plaster-of-Paris-and-plywood prototype) because no loudspeaker ever
sounded as good before. The original Quad ESL, for obvious reasons. Bob
Carvers Amazing Loudspeaker because it was so amazingly clever (why did it
have to disappear?). And, in a more fundamental sense, the Westrex stereo
cutter head because it made stereo sound easily available in every home."

I concur with the Ampex / Magnecord comment, kinda. Although I'm not sure I
would call it high fidelity as we know it, but it did greatly expand the
locations that could be recorded easily, and was vastly superior in all
audio respects to the wire recorders available in those days. With few
exceptions, the disk cutting lathes were restricted to studios. My dad had
the Magnecord franchise for the entire northeast from 1948-mid 50's, and
he/we travelled all over the region to install Magnecord's in radio stations
and studios.

We had a Viking deck at home, and he did as much live recording with the
Magnecorder as his time permitted, usually for pay. And of course,
Magnecorders also supplemented the two Presto cutting lathes in his studio.
The big problem were the location mic's, which weren't nearly as advanced as
the recorders or the studio mics. Somewhere I have buried tapes that
include a high school district orchestra (done in 1948). If you want to
hear what it sounded like, listen to J. Gorden Holt's recording made that
same year, also of a high school band (original Stereophile CD Test Disk 1,
track 6). p.s. The district orchestra could play better....but not by much.

I'd take issue with the Hegeman-Lowther-Brociner comment, though. We had a
1950 massive JBL corner horn in the living room that sounded better than
Klipshorns, the EV Patrician, and the equivalent University and Jensen
models, all of which he had in his showroom at one time or another. It
would be hard for me to imagine the Hegeman-Lowther-Brociner system sounding
better....perhaps Peter is recalling that because it was his first taste of
really fine sound...the JBL and large corner horns had the same effect on
all who heard them, and to this day they remain a fine choice for mono
systems.

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
I'd take issue with the Hegeman-Lowther-Brociner comment, though. We had a
1950 massive JBL corner horn in the living room that sounded better than
Klipshorns, the EV Patrician, and the equivalent University and Jensen
models, all of which he had in his showroom at one time or another. It
would be hard for me to imagine the Hegeman-Lowther-Brociner system sounding
better....perhaps Peter is recalling that because it was his first taste of
really fine sound...the JBL and large corner horns had the same effect on
all who heard them, and to this day they remain a fine choice for mono
systems.

His first taste of what he considered fine sound (in his early 20s) was
a pair of big Altec Lansings. That's in the interview too.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Stuart Krivis]

On 17 Aug 2006 02:49:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


I'd take issue with the Hegeman-Lowther-Brociner comment, though. We had a
1950 massive JBL corner horn in the living room that sounded better than
Klipshorns, the EV Patrician, and the equivalent University and Jensen
models, all of which he had in his showroom at one time or another. It
would be hard for me to imagine the Hegeman-Lowther-Brociner system sounding
better....perhaps Peter is recalling that because it was his first taste of
really fine sound...the JBL and large corner horns had the same effect on
all who heard them, and to this day they remain a fine choice for mono
systems.

My father had an EV Georgian. I see someone who was trying to sell
them for way too much money on ebay, but at least the pics are
interesting.
http://cgi.ebay.com/PAIR-EV-ELECTROV...QQcmdZViewItem

He switched to stereo and a pair of AR3s when I was about 4, so I
don't really remember much about the Georgian. I do remember it in the
living room, and it was much bigger than I was. :-)

I heard a pair of Klipschorns back in the early '80s at the local
Klipsch dealer. They were remarkably dynamic, and could blow you right
out of your seat, but I didn't feel like I wanted to own a pair or
anything.

[mp]

Harry Lavo wrote:

I'd take issue with the Hegeman-Lowther-Brociner comment, though. We had
a 1950 massive JBL corner horn in the living room that sounded better than
Klipshorns, the EV Patrician, and the equivalent University and Jensen
models, all of which he had in his showroom at one time or another. It
would be hard for me to imagine the Hegeman-Lowther-Brociner system
sounding better....perhaps Peter is recalling that because it was his
first taste of really fine sound...the JBL and large corner horns had the
same effect on all who heard them, and to this day they remain a fine
choice for mono systems.

Speaking of mono systems, there is a interesting character living in Japan
whose idea of audio nirvana is designing triode amplifiers to drive his
custom Lowther and Altec horns. His front end is an old Garrard 401 mated
to an oil damped Grace tonearm and Denon DL-102. I guess being a bit
modern, he also seems to own a CD player!

http://www10.big.or.jp/~dh/codo/index.html

mp

[Jenn]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
there's a fine and fairly wide-ranging interview with the man in the
online May '06 issueof The Audio Critic (circa his 80th birthday).."
(snip)

Does he discuss the Fourrier speaker controversy?

[Stuart Krivis]

On 18 Aug 2006 02:26:25 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
there's a fine and fairly wide-ranging interview with the man in the
online May '06 issueof The Audio Critic (circa his 80th birthday).."
(snip)

Does he discuss the Fourrier speaker controversy?

No, but there's an interesting discussion on audioasylum about it. I
didn't read the discussion completely, but it looks like it started
with someone accusing a reviewer of having a business relationship
with a company whose product he reviewed. Then suddenly Peter Aczel
got accused, and then J. Peter Moncrieff got accused of similar
things.

I don't know whether or not I should post the link to the AA forum,
but it shows up near the top when you search on Google for fourier
peter aczel.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogle+Sea rch

One thing that is interesting about Aczel is that he has basically
written himself out of a job. All amps, preamps, and CD players sound
the same. No need for fancy wire. The Linkwitz Orions are the best
speakers on the planet.

There's really nothing left for him to review other than CDs or DVDs.

Note that I do actually think that a lot of people would be better off
if they just got good speakers and decent, inexpensive electronics
(with the speakers being the much more critical part), and then spent
their time and money on recorded media.

There is more difference between the Ozawa 4 Seasons and the Bernstein
4 Seasons than there will ever be between 2 brands of speaker cables.
:-)

[Steven Sullivan]

Jenn wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
there's a fine and fairly wide-ranging interview with the man in the
online May '06 issueof The Audio Critic (circa his 80th birthday).."
(snip)

Does he discuss the Fourrier speaker controversy?

No. He does talk about Ohm though. It's funny how 'your guys' always brings up Fourier, as
if that, even in its worst interpretation, would somehow invalidate what Aczel says about
audio generally. To make an extreme analogy, Ken Lay, for all his dubious business ethics,
would still be right if he said V = I*R, right?.

From what I understand, Aczel in 1980 or so published a 'review' of the Fourier speakers,
which he admitted *in the review* to having helped design. It later came out that he had a 50%
share in the company as well, at the time of writing the 'review'. He then went on hiatus,
devoting himself entirely to said speaker company, which eventaully went belly up. During the
hiatus, TAC subscribers were left in the lurch, but upon resumptuion of publication, were
given credit towards new issues. He also apparenlty published an explanation of the whole
affair in the resumptive issue (which I have not read).

Have you ever read the original 'review'? I haven't, but I'd really like to,because
subjectivie warriors like your pals mkuller and Atkinson -- who are always quick to leap in
whenever Aczel's name is mentioned in forums they frequent -- claim it was a 'rave'. Yet I
find this post on Audio Asylum:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...ages/5094.html

//

Posted by mp72 (A) on December 05, 2004 at 14:07:31

In Reply to: Would you call his Fourier review "very honest"? (nt) posted by Rob
Doorack on November 12, 2004 at 16:14:11:

"I recommend that you get all the back issues of Audio Critic too. Aczel's review of the
Fourier speaker is considered by many audiophiles to be the most egregious ethical violation
in the history of audio magazines." -Rob Doorack

There was no "review" in the usual sense of the word. Only the design specifications were
actually discussed. The closest thing to what most people would call a review was the
concluding statement which I have copied since the issue in question is no longer available.

"In view of our role as godfather to the [speaker]...we've decided not to review it here
in the subjective sense. The objectively verifiable design data presented should be
sufficient. It's large-signal bass response alone, not to mention its time-domain
characteristics make the usual comparisons unnecessary."

Next is a statement admitting that they are using it as one of several speaker references,
but they advise that if anyone is really interested they should go hear it themselves when it
becomes available.

The magazine did, in their "reference" advice section, state that the Quad/Janus speaker
combination was better sounding than the Fourier prototype design; an odd thing for Aczel to
say if he was somehow looking to be untruthful about the speaker.

As far as being some ethical violation, I would concur if the magazine had not come out
and stated up front what they were doing. I find it no different than when Brock Yates had his
creation recently featured in Car and Driver, the magazine he writes for. The article stated
up front that the car was a project which might be manufactured for resale, and then it was
put through the paces.

Ethical violations happen when people are not honest about their intentions. Now, you may
not like what Mr. Aczel prints, but I don't think he was ever not open regarding the speaker.
When I first read the piece (many years ago) my thought was, so what? I knew that the market
would sort all this out and that it would be pretty clear soon enough regarding his
conclusions about the goodness of the speaker.

//

So, if what I read in that post is true, we had Aczel writing a description of the design of
the Fourier prototype, admitting upfront that he was involved in said design, and in the same
issue, citing another speaker as sounding *better* than his. AIUI, this was also at a time
when PA was still somewhat 'subjectivist' and hadn't adopted the hard line he later did.

Meanwhile, Atkinson still publishes 'raves' about equipment where the *accompanying bench
tests* tell a different story. He manages to wave the disparities away. He still publishes
editorials about the non-utility of blind tests. Still pushes the megabuck audio jewelry whose
makers advertises in Stereophile. Gee, how *conveeenient*.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Stuart Krivis]

On 18 Aug 2006 18:26:51 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:


Meanwhile, Atkinson still publishes 'raves' about equipment where the *accompanying bench
tests* tell a different story. He manages to wave the disparities away. He still publishes
editorials about the non-utility of blind tests. Still pushes the megabuck audio jewelry whose
makers advertises in Stereophile. Gee, how *conveeenient*.

I do feel that there is something not quite right with a lot of the
reviews. You get all of these pages of a subjective reviewer effing
the ineffable, and on the whole not really saying anything worth
reading. (These subjective reviews are _so_ boring. They all read the
same. Read a couple of Stereophiles and TASs, and you'll have enough
of this to last a lifetime.)

Then JA measures the equipment, and some of the results look
interesting. Maybe there are some obvious problems with the product.
But JA then shrugs his shoulders and says the reviewer liked it, so
it's all good.

I'll pass on commenting on blind tests for now.

I really haven't seen anything that proves that there is some monkey
business going on at Stereophile, with the magazine playing footsie
with advertisers. Yes, there's certainly a chance there could be a
bias, but I can't say for sure. I simply don't have enough
information.

As for the megabuck equipment, there was an audio magazine that
concentrated on equipment with sensible price tags. I can only note
that Stereophile is doing much better than that other magazine, so I
guess the customers want to read about the really expensive audio
jewelry.

To some extent, I feel Stereophile and TAS are lifestyle magazines,
like those glossy, expensive coffee-table magazines that people spread
out to impress the yokels. So you've got a recipe for a dessert using
fresh pears and raspberries, a bathroom with a bathtub large enough
for the 7th Fleet, and a $90,000 turntable.

[Steven Sullivan]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 18 Aug 2006 02:26:25 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
there's a fine and fairly wide-ranging interview with the man in the
online May '06 issueof The Audio Critic (circa his 80th birthday).."
(snip)

Does he discuss the Fourrier speaker controversy?

No, but there's an interesting discussion on audioasylum about it. I
didn't read the discussion completely, but it looks like it started
with someone accusing a reviewer of having a business relationship
with a company whose product he reviewed. Then suddenly Peter Aczel
got accused, and then J. Peter Moncrieff got accused of similar
things.

I don't know whether or not I should post the link to the AA forum,
but it shows up near the top when you search on Google for fourier
peter aczel.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...oogle+Sea rch

One thing that is interesting about Aczel is that he has basically
written himself out of a job. All amps, preamps, and CD players sound
the same. No need for fancy wire. The Linkwitz Orions are the best
speakers on the planet.

Now, as regards speakers, that's not quite accurate. Aczel says he's not interested in typical
suspension 'box' type speakers any more -- doesn't feel anything of further interest can be
eked from that technology. He *is* interested in DSP-coupled speakers (e.g. those B&O
thingies that look like Daleks) , and non-boxes like the Orions. DSP-coupled/powered speakers
are probably the wave of the future anyway, so I think his instincts are correct. I'd be
curious to read his review of the new NHT line (which I think is hideous, btw, though I'd
love to *hear* them ; )

There's really nothing left for him to review other than CDs or DVDs.

Nope, see above. There's also room treatments and DSP-based correction,
of course. And if he gets articles from Rich and Nousaine, I'm there.

While I'd rather not become a 'conduit' for what's written on the web zine...I do urge
interseted RAHE readers to check it out, since I think it's right up their alley.

___

-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 18 Aug 2006 18:21:18 GMT, Stuart Krivis
wrote:

There is more difference between the Ozawa 4 Seasons and the Bernstein
4 Seasons than there will ever be between 2 brands of speaker cables.
:-)
Agreed, and those two seem almost identical when compared with Il
Giardino armonico!

Kal

[bob]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

One thing that is interesting about Aczel is that he has basically
written himself out of a job. All amps, preamps, and CD players sound
the same. No need for fancy wire. The Linkwitz Orions are the best
speakers on the planet.

Yeah, but he's 80 years old, so he doesn't really need a job.

bob

[bob]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

I do feel that there is something not quite right with a lot of the
reviews. You get all of these pages of a subjective reviewer effing
the ineffable, and on the whole not really saying anything worth
reading. (These subjective reviews are _so_ boring. They all read the
same. Read a couple of Stereophiles and TASs, and you'll have enough
of this to last a lifetime.)

Then JA measures the equipment, and some of the results look
interesting. Maybe there are some obvious problems with the product.
But JA then shrugs his shoulders and says the reviewer liked it, so
it's all good.

Plus it goes on the Recommended Components List. Automatically.

I'll pass on commenting on blind tests for now.

I really haven't seen anything that proves that there is some monkey
business going on at Stereophile, with the magazine playing footsie
with advertisers. Yes, there's certainly a chance there could be a
bias, but I can't say for sure. I simply don't have enough
information.

There doesn't have to be any monkey business. The job of EVERY
commercial magazine is to produce copy that will attract readers that
advertisers want to reach. Stereophile's advertisers don't want to
reach readers who think that watts are watts. They want to reach
readers who will buy the dream. So Stereophile helps them dream.

As for the megabuck equipment, there was an audio magazine that
concentrated on equipment with sensible price tags. I can only note
that Stereophile is doing much better than that other magazine, so I
guess the customers want to read about the really expensive audio
jewelry.

Well, that sensible magazine is perhaps the worst-edited rag in the
U.S. That might also have something to do with it.

bob

[Steven Sullivan]

bob wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:

One thing that is interesting about Aczel is that he has basically
written himself out of a job. All amps, preamps, and CD players sound
the same. No need for fancy wire. The Linkwitz Orions are the best
speakers on the planet.

Yeah, but he's 80 years old, so he doesn't really need a job.

And, too, even for the most hard-core objectivist, there's plenty of variation between latter
day preamp/amp combos (now usually called 'AV receivers) in terms of *features* that will
*definitely* manifest as audible difference(e.g. room correction).

(Not that a 'true' purist would even dream of running them in anything but
'passthrough' mode ; )

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

bob wrote:

As for the megabuck equipment, there was an audio magazine that
concentrated on equipment with sensible price tags. I can only note
that Stereophile is doing much better than that other magazine, so I
guess the customers want to read about the really expensive audio
jewelry.

Well, that sensible magazine is perhaps the worst-edited rag in the
U.S. That might also have something to do with it.

Heh. That and the bloody Mahler fixation. And too, there's schizophrenic
objectivist/subjectivist thing going on there, given the various contributors. Still, I plan
to keep reading $ensible $ound. Never know when they might run a David Rich article. Now if I
could just find a store that carries the July/August issue...

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[mp]

Stuart Krivis wrote:

One thing that is interesting about Aczel is that he has basically
written himself out of a job. All amps, preamps, and CD players sound
the same. No need for fancy wire. The Linkwitz Orions are the best
speakers on the planet.

There's really nothing left for him to review other than CDs or DVDs.

There is more difference between the Ozawa 4 Seasons and the Bernstein
4 Seasons than there will ever be between 2 brands of speaker cables.

For the usual run of the mill audiophile you are probably right. They would
rather be told about magic cables, tube dampers, and so forth. So the
magazine is likely not for them. But within Audio Critic's editorial
philosophy, and within the pages of the Webzine, there's room for
interesting things.

If you want to find a cheap amplifier (because you are poor, or just don't
want to spend the money on gear more expensive) you can always find
something helpful. If you are looking for a truly SOA DAC (because you are
rich, or don't mind spending the money) it is there. Finally, if you like
to read about interesting speakers, you will not be disappointed.

However, if you are looking for record player reviews, forget it. I
still listen to a lot of records (since that is what I have). So there is
nothing in Audio Critic to help me in this pursuit. But what really needs
to be said about record players, these days, that has not already been
said? Although my analog gear is very old it still works fine, so I am
content to stay decidedly unmodern in this area. Besides, I am not looking
to replace anything. I find most modern turntable and cartridge reviews
goofy; the best ones were in the old Audio magazine. But it is a good
thing for me, since I don't know if I could ever decide between the $5000
onyx, or the $7000 jade cartridge.

I am a bit old fashioned, but even I have limits. Unlike Sakuma-san (see my
earlier post)I would never think of playing Bud Powell on a DL-102 ball
point pin using some coins taped to a Grace tonearm. On the other hand, I
would not mind going to his restaurant and listening to Wagner through one
of his Altec or Lowther horns.

mp

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
bob wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:

One thing that is interesting about Aczel is that he has basically
written himself out of a job. All amps, preamps, and CD players sound
the same. No need for fancy wire. The Linkwitz Orions are the best
speakers on the planet.

Yeah, but he's 80 years old, so he doesn't really need a job.

And, too, even for the most hard-core objectivist, there's plenty of
variation between latter
day preamp/amp combos (now usually called 'AV receivers) in terms of
*features* that will
*definitely* manifest as audible difference(e.g. room correction).

(Not that a 'true' purist would even dream of running them in anything but
'passthrough' mode ; )


You're right. If you are a purist, you work to get the room correct and the
speaker placement correct, and you use pass through. Result: better sound.
That's what being a purist is all about.

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
bob wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:

One thing that is interesting about Aczel is that he has basically
written himself out of a job. All amps, preamps, and CD players sound
the same. No need for fancy wire. The Linkwitz Orions are the best
speakers on the planet.

Yeah, but he's 80 years old, so he doesn't really need a job.

And, too, even for the most hard-core objectivist, there's plenty of
variation between latter
day preamp/amp combos (now usually called 'AV receivers) in terms of
*features* that will
*definitely* manifest as audible difference(e.g. room correction).

(Not that a 'true' purist would even dream of running them in anything but
'passthrough' mode ; )


You're right. If you are a purist, you work to get the room correct and the
speaker placement correct, and you use pass through. Result: better sound.
That's what being a purist is all about.

So let's follow this line of reasoning...what is the 'correct' room and the
'correct' speaker placement?

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[BEAR]

mp wrote:

Stuart Krivis wrote:


One thing that is interesting about Aczel is that he has basically
written himself out of a job. All amps, preamps, and CD players sound
the same. No need for fancy wire. The Linkwitz Orions are the best
speakers on the planet.



There's really nothing left for him to review other than CDs or DVDs.



There is more difference between the Ozawa 4 Seasons and the Bernstein
4 Seasons than there will ever be between 2 brands of speaker cables.


For the usual run of the mill audiophile you are probably right. They would
rather be told about magic cables, tube dampers, and so forth. So the
magazine is likely not for them. But within Audio Critic's editorial
philosophy, and within the pages of the Webzine, there's room for
interesting things.

If you want to find a cheap amplifier (because you are poor, or just don't
want to spend the money on gear more expensive) you can always find
something helpful. If you are looking for a truly SOA DAC (because you are
rich, or don't mind spending the money) it is there. Finally, if you like
to read about interesting speakers, you will not be disappointed.

However, if you are looking for record player reviews, forget it. I
still listen to a lot of records (since that is what I have). So there is
nothing in Audio Critic to help me in this pursuit. But what really needs
to be said about record players, these days, that has not already been
said? Although my analog gear is very old it still works fine, so I am
content to stay decidedly unmodern in this area. Besides, I am not looking
to replace anything. I find most modern turntable and cartridge reviews
goofy; the best ones were in the old Audio magazine. But it is a good
thing for me, since I don't know if I could ever decide between the $5000
onyx, or the $7000 jade cartridge.

I am a bit old fashioned, but even I have limits. Unlike Sakuma-san (see my
earlier post)I would never think of playing Bud Powell on a DL-102 ball
point pin using some coins taped to a Grace tonearm. On the other hand, I
would not mind going to his restaurant and listening to Wagner through one
of his Altec or Lowther horns.

mp

Western Electric horns, iirc...

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
bob wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:

One thing that is interesting about Aczel is that he has basically
written himself out of a job. All amps, preamps, and CD players sound
the same. No need for fancy wire. The Linkwitz Orions are the best
speakers on the planet.

Yeah, but he's 80 years old, so he doesn't really need a job.

And, too, even for the most hard-core objectivist, there's plenty of
variation between latter
day preamp/amp combos (now usually called 'AV receivers) in terms of
*features* that will
*definitely* manifest as audible difference(e.g. room correction).

(Not that a 'true' purist would even dream of running them in anything but
'passthrough' mode ; )


You're right. If you are a purist, you work to get the room correct and the
speaker placement correct, and you use pass through. Result: better sound.
That's what being a purist is all about.

So let's follow this line of reasoning...what is the 'correct' room and the
'correct' speaker placement?

That depends completely on the speaker. I have dipoles. IMO the
"correct" room has enough size to give the speakers and the listener
plenty of room off of their back walls. You need enough height and
width to prevent the speakers from forming their own proverbial wall.
Near field listening works best and the room should be as dead as
possible. Speakers should be symetrical. The speakers and listener
should roughly form an equaladeral triangle. The room should be as well
isolated from outside sound as possible. No room dimensions should be
the same. IMO each dimension should be as dissimilar as possible from
one another to avoid complimentary standing waves and each wall should
be broken up as much as possible with solid objects that will reflect
sound in odd directions for diffusion.

Scott

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
bob wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:

One thing that is interesting about Aczel is that he has basically
written himself out of a job. All amps, preamps, and CD players
sound
the same. No need for fancy wire. The Linkwitz Orions are the best
speakers on the planet.

Yeah, but he's 80 years old, so he doesn't really need a job.

And, too, even for the most hard-core objectivist, there's plenty of
variation between latter
day preamp/amp combos (now usually called 'AV receivers) in terms of
*features* that will
*definitely* manifest as audible difference(e.g. room correction).

(Not that a 'true' purist would even dream of running them in anything
but
'passthrough' mode ; )


You're right. If you are a purist, you work to get the room correct and
the
speaker placement correct, and you use pass through. Result: better
sound.
That's what being a purist is all about.

So let's follow this line of reasoning...what is the 'correct' room and
the
'correct' speaker placement?

Depends on the speaker and room. Requires knowledge of and application of
good acoustic principles, which can be learned from various sources. The
aim, and usual end result when the above is applied, is a reasonable flat
bass response in room, with whatever peaks and valleys that remain of modest
and not obtrusive importance, particularly in light of the "naturalness" of
the bass response obtained.

[Jenn]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
there's a fine and fairly wide-ranging interview with the man in the
online May '06 issueof The Audio Critic (circa his 80th birthday).."
(snip)

Does he discuss the Fourrier speaker controversy?

No. He does talk about Ohm though. It's funny how 'your guys' always brings up Fourier, as
if that, even in its worst interpretation, would somehow invalidate what Aczel says about
audio generally. To make an extreme analogy, Ken Lay, for all his dubious business ethics,
would still be right if he said V = I*R, right?.

From what I understand, Aczel in 1980 or so published a 'review' of the Fourier speakers,
which he admitted *in the review* to having helped design. It later came out that he had a 50%
share in the company as well, at the time of writing the 'review'.

Which he DIDN'T state *in the review^. You don't consider that to be
important?

He then went on hiatus,
devoting himself entirely to said speaker company, which eventaully went belly up. During the
hiatus, TAC subscribers were left in the lurch, but upon resumptuion of publication, were
given credit towards new issues. He also apparenlty published an explanation of the whole
affair in the resumptive issue (which I have not read).

Have you ever read the original 'review'?

Years ago, yes.

I haven't, but I'd really like to,because
subjectivie warriors like your pals mkuller

Sorry, I don't know who that is.

and Atkinson -- who are always quick to leap in
whenever Aczel's name is mentioned in forums they frequent -- claim it was a 'rave'. Yet I
find this post on Audio Asylum:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...ages/5094.html

//

Posted by mp72 (A) on December 05, 2004 at 14:07:31

In Reply to: Would you call his Fourier review "very honest"? (nt) posted by Rob
Doorack on November 12, 2004 at 16:14:11:

"I recommend that you get all the back issues of Audio Critic too. Aczel's review of the
Fourier speaker is considered by many audiophiles to be the most egregious ethical violation
in the history of audio magazines." -Rob Doorack

There was no "review" in the usual sense of the word. Only the design specifications were
actually discussed. The closest thing to what most people would call a review was the
concluding statement which I have copied since the issue in question is no longer available.

"In view of our role as godfather to the [speaker]...we've decided not to review it here
in the subjective sense. The objectively verifiable design data presented should be
sufficient. It's large-signal bass response alone, not to mention its time-domain
characteristics make the usual comparisons unnecessary."

Next is a statement admitting that they are using it as one of several speaker references,
but they advise that if anyone is really interested they should go hear it themselves when it
becomes available.

The magazine did, in their "reference" advice section, state that the Quad/Janus speaker
combination was better sounding than the Fourier prototype design; an odd thing for Aczel to
say if he was somehow looking to be untruthful about the speaker.

Not really, as the Quad/Janus was at a much higher price point IIRC.


As far as being some ethical violation, I would concur if the magazine had not come out
and stated up front what they were doing.

It didn't, IMO.

I find it no different than when Brock Yates had his
creation recently featured in Car and Driver, the magazine he writes for. The article stated
up front that the car was a project which might be manufactured for resale, and then it was
put through the paces.

Ethical violations happen when people are not honest about their intentions. Now, you may
not like what Mr. Aczel prints, but I don't think he was ever not open regarding the speaker.
When I first read the piece (many years ago) my thought was, so what? I knew that the market
would sort all this out and that it would be pretty clear soon enough regarding his
conclusions about the goodness of the speaker.

//

So, if what I read in that post is true, we had Aczel writing a description of the design of
the Fourier prototype, admitting upfront that he was involved in said design,

But not that he stood to gain financially if you bought the speaker
under review.

and in the same
issue, citing another speaker as sounding *better* than his. AIUI, this was also at a time
when PA was still somewhat 'subjectivist' and hadn't adopted the hard line he later did.

I'm not being critical of what Peter writes in general, because I
haven't read anything that he has writen since the mag went away for
awhile. In fact, I feel that I owe him my gratitude, because he turned
me on to the fact that that there was more out there than the stuff one
gets at the big-box stores (at the time, Pacific Stereo, Federated,
etc.) I wandered into a store in Santa Ana, CA called Absolute Audio
circa 1980, heard the Quads and picked up a copy of The Audio Critic; I
had discovered "the high end". So thanks, Peter. I wrote to him not
too long ago and thanked him. But, what I know of the Fourrier
situation does not cast him in a good light, IMO.

[bob]

Jenn wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
From what I understand, Aczel in 1980 or so published a 'review' of the Fourier speakers,
which he admitted *in the review* to having helped design. It later came out that he had a 50%
share in the company as well, at the time of writing the 'review'.

Which he DIDN'T state *in the review^. You don't consider that to be
important?

Incomplete disclosure is a whole lot less egregious than nondisclosure.
If he described himself as a co-designer, any reader with an IQ above
sea level should have and would have understood the piece as a
descriptive article by a product's designer, not an objective review. I
agree that he should have disclosed his financial interest (although
I'd assume that any designer would have *some* financial interest in
the product, direct or indirect). But knowing of that interest wouldn't
have made me any more skeptical than I would have been based on the
disclosure that was there.

He then went on hiatus,
devoting himself entirely to said speaker company, which eventaully went belly up. During the
hiatus, TAC subscribers were left in the lurch, but upon resumptuion of publication, were
given credit towards new issues. He also apparenlty published an explanation of the whole
affair in the resumptive issue (which I have not read).

When a magazine ceases publication, postal regulations require it to
reimburse subscribers for missed issues. This is commonly done by
paying for partial subscriptions to another magazine. From this
description, it looks like Aczel was for a time in violation of those
regs. After all, what would have happened if the speaker company had
been successful? But he made good in the end, which is what ought to
matter most to the affected readers.

snip

There was no "review" in the usual sense of the word. Only the design specifications were
actually discussed. The closest thing to what most people would call a review was the
concluding statement which I have copied since the issue in question is no longer available.

"In view of our role as godfather to the [speaker]...we've decided not to review it here
in the subjective sense. The objectively verifiable design data presented should be
sufficient. It's large-signal bass response alone, not to mention its time-domain
characteristics make the usual comparisons unnecessary."

In view of the above, I would say that any critic who calls the article
a "review" is being disingenuous, and maybe ought to think twice
before complaining about anybody else's ethics.

snip

But, what I know of the Fourrier
situation does not cast him in a good light, IMO.

Certainly not in a perfect light. But his critics doth protest too
much, IMO.

bob

[Stuart Krivis]

On 18 Aug 2006 22:03:46 GMT, "bob" wrote:

As for the megabuck equipment, there was an audio magazine that
concentrated on equipment with sensible price tags. I can only note
that Stereophile is doing much better than that other magazine, so I
guess the customers want to read about the really expensive audio
jewelry.

Well, that sensible magazine is perhaps the worst-edited rag in the
U.S. That might also have something to do with it.

I read it during the '80s and actually enjoyed it. Yes, the writing
and editing wouldn't win any prizes, but I learned a fair bit.

[Jenn]

bob wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
From what I understand, Aczel in 1980 or so published a 'review' of the Fourier speakers,
which he admitted *in the review* to having helped design. It later came out that he had a 50%
share in the company as well, at the time of writing the 'review'.

Which he DIDN'T state *in the review^. You don't consider that to be
important?

Incomplete disclosure is a whole lot less egregious than nondisclosure.
If he described himself as a co-designer, any reader with an IQ above
sea level should have and would have understood the piece as a
descriptive article by a product's designer, not an objective review. I
agree that he should have disclosed his financial interest (although
I'd assume that any designer would have *some* financial interest in
the product, direct or indirect). But knowing of that interest wouldn't
have made me any more skeptical than I would have been based on the
disclosure that was there.

I have to disagree, but I understand that individuals have different
levels of tollerance on these issues.


He then went on hiatus,
devoting himself entirely to said speaker company, which eventaully went belly up. During the
hiatus, TAC subscribers were left in the lurch, but upon resumptuion of publication, were
given credit towards new issues. He also apparenlty published an explanation of the whole
affair in the resumptive issue (which I have not read).

When a magazine ceases publication, postal regulations require it to
reimburse subscribers for missed issues. This is commonly done by
paying for partial subscriptions to another magazine. From this
description, it looks like Aczel was for a time in violation of those
regs. After all, what would have happened if the speaker company had
been successful? But he made good in the end, which is what ought to
matter most to the affected readers.

snip

There was no "review" in the usual sense of the word. Only the design specifications were
actually discussed. The closest thing to what most people would call a review was the
concluding statement which I have copied since the issue in question is no longer available.

"In view of our role as godfather to the [speaker]...we've decided not to review it here
in the subjective sense. The objectively verifiable design data presented should be
sufficient. It's large-signal bass response alone, not to mention its time-domain
characteristics make the usual comparisons unnecessary."

In view of the above, I would say that any critic who calls the article
a "review" is being disingenuous, and maybe ought to think twice
before complaining about anybody else's ethics.

snip

But, what I know of the Fourrier
situation does not cast him in a good light, IMO.

Certainly not in a perfect light. But his critics doth protest too
much, IMO.

bob

Again, we simply disagree. What would be your thoughts if this
happened in, say, Stereophile?

IIRC, The Audio Critic of that time didn't accept ads, claiming the
high road of complete insulation from being affected by the revenue.
And, again IIRC, every piece in TAC had the same "look" (i.e. low
"production values"): one color on white paper, one font, etc. It
looked like a review. He sang it's praises, and only later revealed
that he makes money from the sale of the product. Not smart, IMO.

[bob]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 18 Aug 2006 22:03:46 GMT, "bob" wrote:

As for the megabuck equipment, there was an audio magazine that
concentrated on equipment with sensible price tags. I can only note
that Stereophile is doing much better than that other magazine, so I
guess the customers want to read about the really expensive audio
jewelry.

Well, that sensible magazine is perhaps the worst-edited rag in the
U.S. That might also have something to do with it.

I read it during the '80s and actually enjoyed it. Yes, the writing
and editing wouldn't win any prizes, but I learned a fair bit.

You can still learn a lot, at least from David Rich's articles. (Which
I highly recommend, and for which I subscribe.) But don't expect much
beyond him.

bob

[Steven Sullivan]

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 18 Aug 2006 22:03:46 GMT, "bob" wrote:

As for the megabuck equipment, there was an audio magazine that
concentrated on equipment with sensible price tags. I can only note
that Stereophile is doing much better than that other magazine, so I
guess the customers want to read about the really expensive audio
jewelry.

Well, that sensible magazine is perhaps the worst-edited rag in the
U.S. That might also have something to do with it.

I read it during the '80s and actually enjoyed it. Yes, the writing
and editing wouldn't win any prizes, but I learned a fair bit.

The most recent issue has interesting speaker, AVR and amp reviews, and
a short-ish essay on SACD/DVD-A and HDMI, by David Rich. Also a curious
reply (to a letter from Howard Ferstler),
wherein the editor seems to hint that he occasionally prints
woozy subjectivist claims by certain of his reviewers on the assumption
his readers will realize how silly they are!

It's gotten more professional looking over the past decade, and I don't recall
too many typos this time around, but some of the writing could be tightened up
and made clearer.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[bob]

Jenn wrote:

Again, we simply disagree. What would be your thoughts if this
happened in, say, Stereophile?

Exactly the same. That you think it might be different says something
about how you come to your own judgment, however.

bob

[Stuart Krivis]

On 22 Aug 2006 02:32:36 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:


But, what I know of the Fourrier
situation does not cast him in a good light, IMO.

Certainly not in a perfect light. But his critics doth protest too
much, IMO.

bob

Again, we simply disagree. What would be your thoughts if this
happened in, say, Stereophile?

I wasn't actually aware that there had been an "incident" until
recently. I also have not seen the original review or any further info
on it in TAC.

I don't think it would matter whether it happened at Stereophile or
TAC (or TAS or...). I'd feel the same.

What strikes me about this though, is that a certain editor seems to
be bringing it up quite a bit on the net. Why is that? :-)

[bob]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 18 Aug 2006 22:03:46 GMT, "bob" wrote:

As for the megabuck equipment, there was an audio magazine that
concentrated on equipment with sensible price tags. I can only note
that Stereophile is doing much better than that other magazine, so I
guess the customers want to read about the really expensive audio
jewelry.

Well, that sensible magazine is perhaps the worst-edited rag in the
U.S. That might also have something to do with it.

I read it during the '80s and actually enjoyed it. Yes, the writing
and editing wouldn't win any prizes, but I learned a fair bit.

The most recent issue has interesting speaker, AVR and amp reviews, and
a short-ish essay on SACD/DVD-A and HDMI, by David Rich. Also a curious
reply (to a letter from Howard Ferstler),
wherein the editor seems to hint that he occasionally prints
woozy subjectivist claims by certain of his reviewers on the assumption
his readers will realize how silly they are!

It's gotten more professional looking over the past decade, and I don't recall
too many typos this time around, but some of the writing could be tightened up
and made clearer.

The biggest annoyance for me is the lack of any discernible editorial
philosophy. Be objectivist, be subjectivist, or cover the controversy.
But I hate starting a review and not knowing whether it's going to be a
technical tour de force or a load of subjectivist claptrap. At least
with Stereophile I know which parts to skip. (Most of them!)

For several issues, Rich and Ferstler were going back and
forth--sometimes by interjecting side comments into articles on other
subjects--about which speaker measurements correlated best with
perceived sonic quality. Now, Howard's a little out-matched here, but
if you've got a disagreement like that, put them both on the same page
and let them go at it.

Besides, the music reviewers are incompetent, and I hate two-column
formats.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"Stuart Krivis" wrote in message
...
On 22 Aug 2006 02:32:36 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:


But, what I know of the Fourrier
situation does not cast him in a good light, IMO.

Certainly not in a perfect light. But his critics doth protest too
much, IMO.

bob

Again, we simply disagree. What would be your thoughts if this
happened in, say, Stereophile?

I wasn't actually aware that there had been an "incident" until
recently. I also have not seen the original review or any further info
on it in TAC.

I don't think it would matter whether it happened at Stereophile or
TAC (or TAS or...). I'd feel the same.

What strikes me about this though, is that a certain editor seems to
be bringing it up quite a bit on the net. Why is that? :-)

Probably because he has been accused of that here, and effectively
demolished the claims against him using factual data.
And because he is proud of his professionalism as an editor. Would you wish
less?

[Steven Sullivan]

bob wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 18 Aug 2006 22:03:46 GMT, "bob" wrote:

As for the megabuck equipment, there was an audio magazine that
concentrated on equipment with sensible price tags. I can only note
that Stereophile is doing much better than that other magazine, so I
guess the customers want to read about the really expensive audio
jewelry.

Well, that sensible magazine is perhaps the worst-edited rag in the
U.S. That might also have something to do with it.

I read it during the '80s and actually enjoyed it. Yes, the writing
and editing wouldn't win any prizes, but I learned a fair bit.

The most recent issue has interesting speaker, AVR and amp reviews, and
a short-ish essay on SACD/DVD-A and HDMI, by David Rich. Also a curious
reply (to a letter from Howard Ferstler),
wherein the editor seems to hint that he occasionally prints
woozy subjectivist claims by certain of his reviewers on the assumption
his readers will realize how silly they are!

It's gotten more professional looking over the past decade, and I don't recall
too many typos this time around, but some of the writing could be tightened up
and made clearer.

The biggest annoyance for me is the lack of any discernible editorial
philosophy. Be objectivist, be subjectivist, or cover the controversy.

Well, Sound & Vision does the same thing...Dave Ranada and Ken Pohlmann
and Ian Masters in the same issue as some Kool-Aid quaffer writing of the
'warm' sound of this or that amp or CD player.

That's still better than the skew in Stereophile or TAS.

But I hate starting a review and not knowing whether it's going to be a
technical tour de force or a load of subjectivist claptrap. At least
with Stereophile I know which parts to skip. (Most of them!)

If you read a few issues back to back it becomes clear who's loopy
and who's not; then it becomes a matter of remembering the names from
month to month. But I agree that the fallacy of 'equal time' journalism applies
too often in 'white hat' audio magazines. Aczel's the only one to draw
the hard line, bless him.

Besides, the music reviewers are incompetent, and I hate two-column
formats.

Music reviews, especially of rock/pop, in audio mags are almost uniformly
embarrassing to read, IME.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[bob]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote:

The biggest annoyance for me is the lack of any discernible editorial
philosophy. Be objectivist, be subjectivist, or cover the controversy.

Well, Sound & Vision does the same thing...Dave Ranada and Ken Pohlmann
and Ian Masters in the same issue as some Kool-Aid quaffer writing of the
'warm' sound of this or that amp or CD player.

Yeah, but S&V doesn't directly compare the sound of components (other
than speakers, occasionally). They may describe a CD player as "warm,"
but not as "warmer than some other CD player." Their subjective reviews
come down to, "This sounds great!" without mentioning that every other
decent component on the market sounds equally great. That doesn't
bother me as much. S&V is an objectivist publication that gives its
readers a subjectivist thrill. Similarly, S-phile is a subjectivist
publication with measurements. T$S is just all over the lot.

OTOH, S&V seems to have virtually eliminated measurements from the
print publication. You have to go to the Web site to see the
measurements. Which is a shame, because it misses a chance to educate
the broader audio market (i.e., not hard-core audiophiles) about the
technical side of things.

bob

[Steven Sullivan]

bob wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote:

The biggest annoyance for me is the lack of any discernible editorial
philosophy. Be objectivist, be subjectivist, or cover the controversy.

Well, Sound & Vision does the same thing...Dave Ranada and Ken Pohlmann
and Ian Masters in the same issue as some Kool-Aid quaffer writing of the
'warm' sound of this or that amp or CD player.

Yeah, but S&V doesn't directly compare the sound of components (other
than speakers, occasionally). They may describe a CD player as "warm,"
but not as "warmer than some other CD player."

Once in awhile, they do. I remember being annoyed by it. It is the
exception, though.

OTOH, S&V seems to have virtually eliminated measurements from the
print publication. You have to go to the Web site to see the
measurements. Which is a shame, because it misses a chance to educate
the broader audio market (i.e., not hard-core audiophiles) about the
technical side of things.

Indeed. It was nice to see Ranada getting more space in the last issue,
but I suspect S&V is still trying to find its stable balance.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote:

The biggest annoyance for me is the lack of any discernible editorial
philosophy. Be objectivist, be subjectivist, or cover the controversy.

Well, Sound & Vision does the same thing...Dave Ranada and Ken Pohlmann
and Ian Masters in the same issue as some Kool-Aid quaffer writing of the
'warm' sound of this or that amp or CD player.

Yeah, but S&V doesn't directly compare the sound of components (other
than speakers, occasionally). They may describe a CD player as "warm,"
but not as "warmer than some other CD player." Their subjective reviews
come down to, "This sounds great!" without mentioning that every other
decent component on the market sounds equally great. That doesn't
bother me as much. S&V is an objectivist publication that gives its
readers a subjectivist thrill. Similarly, S-phile is a subjectivist
publication with measurements. T$S is just all over the lot.


Thrill, hell. That magazine (I am a subscriber) is almost totally worthless
when it comes to audio.

OTOH, S&V seems to have virtually eliminated measurements from the
print publication. You have to go to the Web site to see the
measurements. Which is a shame, because it misses a chance to educate
the broader audio market (i.e., not hard-core audiophiles) about the
technical side of things.

The broader public could care less.

[mp]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Music reviews, especially of rock/pop, in audio mags are almost uniformly
embarrassing to read, IME.

That is because rock/pop music is almost uniformly embarrassing.

mp

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

OTOH, S&V seems to have virtually eliminated measurements from the
print publication. You have to go to the Web site to see the
measurements. Which is a shame, because it misses a chance to educate
the broader audio market (i.e., not hard-core audiophiles) about the
technical side of things.

The broader public could care less.

That's rather presumptuous. Besides, the broader public can learn
things even when they couldn't care less. And at least with S&V, unlike
the high-end rags, they have a chance of learning something that's
actually true.

bob

[Steven Sullivan]

mp wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Music reviews, especially of rock/pop, in audio mags are almost uniformly
embarrassing to read, IME.

That is because rock/pop music is almost uniformly embarrassing.

LOL. OK, daddy-o.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

OTOH, S&V seems to have virtually eliminated measurements from the
print publication. You have to go to the Web site to see the
measurements. Which is a shame, because it misses a chance to educate
the broader audio market (i.e., not hard-core audiophiles) about the
technical side of things.

The broader public could care less.

That's rather presumptuous. Besides, the broader public can learn
things even when they couldn't care less. And at least with S&V, unlike
the high-end rags, they have a chance of learning something that's
actually true.

No Bob you are wrong as can be. There is plenty they can learn in the
high end magazines that is true. Here let me get out a fork lift so you
can paint with a broader brush next time.

Scott

[Stuart Krivis]

On 23 Aug 2006 23:22:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


What strikes me about this though, is that a certain editor seems to
be bringing it up quite a bit on the net. Why is that? :-)

Probably because he has been accused of that here, and effectively
demolished the claims against him using factual data.
And because he is proud of his professionalism as an editor. Would you wish
less?

So casting aspersions at Aczel is because he is proud of his
professionalism? And it's because he himself was accused of similar
things?

I'm sorry, but the impression I got was that he was slinging mud.