[Sonnova]

I have the sad duty to report, that J. Gordon Holt, the "father of the
High-End", passed away yesterday at the age of 79. Gordon, who believed in
the worth of double-blind evaluations and eschewed the cultist trappings of
high-end audio such as cables having a sound, and elevators for speaker
cables making the cables sound better, was the originator of the "underground
audio press" and the founder of Stereophile. He had been suffering from
emphysema for some time, a result of being a life-long chain smoker.

I am proud to to have known Gordon and having been a close friend. I shall
miss him.

[Ed Presson[_2_]]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
I have the sad duty to report, that J. Gordon Holt, the "father of the
High-End", passed away yesterday at the age of 79. Gordon, who believed in
the worth of double-blind evaluations and eschewed the cultist trappings
of
high-end audio such as cables having a sound, and elevators for speaker
cables making the cables sound better, was the originator of the
"underground
audio press" and the founder of Stereophile. He had been suffering from
emphysema for some time, a result of being a life-long chain smoker.

I am proud to to have known Gordon and having been a close friend. I shall
miss him.

I subscribed to JGH's Stereophile in the very early 70's when the
publication schedule was very erratic. I stayed loyal through these times
because I found his views always
of interest. I finally dropped my subscription when it became evident that
Stereophile was becoming a very different publication, published on schedule
but without Mr. Holt's common sense and questioning of high-end nonsense.
If he strayed off course, he usually self-corrected in a few issues. He'll
be missed by those of us who knew him only in print.

Ed Presson

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:10:09 -0700, Ed Presson wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
I have the sad duty to report, that J. Gordon Holt, the "father of the
High-End", passed away yesterday at the age of 79. Gordon, who believed in
the worth of double-blind evaluations and eschewed the cultist trappings
of
high-end audio such as cables having a sound, and elevators for speaker
cables making the cables sound better, was the originator of the
"underground
audio press" and the founder of Stereophile. He had been suffering from
emphysema for some time, a result of being a life-long chain smoker.

I am proud to to have known Gordon and having been a close friend. I shall
miss him.

I subscribed to JGH's Stereophile in the very early 70's when the
publication schedule was very erratic. I stayed loyal through these times
because I found his views always
of interest. I finally dropped my subscription when it became evident that
Stereophile was becoming a very different publication, published on schedule
but without Mr. Holt's common sense and questioning of high-end nonsense.
If he strayed off course, he usually self-corrected in a few issues. He'll
be missed by those of us who knew him only in print.

Ed Presson


Thanks, Ed.

[[email protected]]

Gordon died on July 20:
http://www.stereophile.com/news/j_gordon_holt/

We have gathered all of his writings that are available
on-line in one place: http://www.stereophile.com/j_gordon_holt/

We will have an appreciation in the October issue of
Stereophile, which goes to press next week.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 21, 4:45*pm, Sonnova wrote:
I have the sad duty to report, that J. Gordon Holt, the "father of the
High-End", passed away yesterday at the age of 79. Gordon, who believed in
the worth of double-blind evaluations and eschewed the cultist trappings of
high-end audio such as cables having a sound, and elevators for speaker
cables making the cables sound better, was the originator of the "underground
audio press" and the founder of Stereophile. He had been suffering from
emphysema for some time, a result of being a life-long chain smoker.

I am proud to to have known Gordon and having been a close friend. I shall
miss him. *

I'm not so sure JGH was always such an advocate of DBTs.
http://stereophile.com/j_gordon_holt/index1.html
"The blind leading the deaf"
I don't know about cables but you can find a plethora of reviews by
JGH in which he reports dramatic differences between the sound of
various electronics such as amps and preamps.
I am surprised how some folks from the objectivist camp have now taken
him in as some kind of hero for their cause. He was after all, the
father of subjective reviewing in audio.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:30:30 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 21, 4:45*pm, Sonnova wrote:
I have the sad duty to report, that J. Gordon Holt, the "father of the
High-End", passed away yesterday at the age of 79. Gordon, who believed in
the worth of double-blind evaluations and eschewed the cultist trappings of
high-end audio such as cables having a sound, and elevators for speaker
cables making the cables sound better, was the originator of the
"underground
audio press" and the founder of Stereophile. He had been suffering from
emphysema for some time, a result of being a life-long chain smoker.

I am proud to to have known Gordon and having been a close friend. I shall
miss him. *

I'm not so sure JGH was always such an advocate of DBTs.
http://stereophile.com/j_gordon_holt/index1.html
"The blind leading the deaf"
I don't know about cables but you can find a plethora of reviews by
JGH in which he reports dramatic differences between the sound of
various electronics such as amps and preamps.
I am surprised how some folks from the objectivist camp have now taken
him in as some kind of hero for their cause. He was after all, the
father of subjective reviewing in audio.


Gordon believed in both. He thought that if DBT showed NO differences, that
was the end of it. But if they showed some differences, these could be best
identified and characterized by long-term listening.

[Harry Lavo]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:30:30 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 21, 4:45 pm, Sonnova wrote:
I have the sad duty to report, that J. Gordon Holt, the "father of the
High-End", passed away yesterday at the age of 79. Gordon, who believed
in
the worth of double-blind evaluations and eschewed the cultist trappings
of
high-end audio such as cables having a sound, and elevators for speaker
cables making the cables sound better, was the originator of the
"underground
audio press" and the founder of Stereophile. He had been suffering from
emphysema for some time, a result of being a life-long chain smoker.

I am proud to to have known Gordon and having been a close friend. I
shall
miss him.

I'm not so sure JGH was always such an advocate of DBTs.
http://stereophile.com/j_gordon_holt/index1.html
"The blind leading the deaf"
I don't know about cables but you can find a plethora of reviews by
JGH in which he reports dramatic differences between the sound of
various electronics such as amps and preamps.
I am surprised how some folks from the objectivist camp have now taken
him in as some kind of hero for their cause. He was after all, the
father of subjective reviewing in audio.


Gordon believed in both. He thought that if DBT showed NO differences,
that
was the end of it. But if they showed some differences, these could be
best
identified and characterized by long-term listening.

Keep in mind he did most of his reviewing back in the sixties, when there
was much greater differences among gear than there is today, and
double-blind testing for audio gear had not yet become the burning issue it
has been in the ninties and thereafter.

[Steven Sullivan]

Scott wrote:
On Jul 21, 4:45?pm, Sonnova wrote:
I have the sad duty to report, that J. Gordon Holt, the "father of the
High-End", passed away yesterday at the age of 79. Gordon, who believed in
the worth of double-blind evaluations and eschewed the cultist trappings of
high-end audio such as cables having a sound, and elevators for speaker
cables making the cables sound better, was the originator of the "underground
audio press" and the founder of Stereophile. He had been suffering from
emphysema for some time, a result of being a life-long chain smoker.

I am proud to to have known Gordon and having been a close friend. I shall
miss him. ?

I'm not so sure JGH was always such an advocate of DBTs.
http://stereophile.com/j_gordon_holt/index1.html
"The blind leading the deaf"
I don't know about cables but you can find a plethora of reviews by
JGH in which he reports dramatic differences between the sound of
various electronics such as amps and preamps.
I am surprised how some folks from the objectivist camp have now taken
him in as some kind of hero for their cause. He was after all, the
father of subjective reviewing in audio.


Are you unfamiliar with the phenomenon of a true believer
coming to realize the flaws in his previous belief system?

It can be rather heroic.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:10:45 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:30:30 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 21, 4:45 pm, Sonnova wrote:
I have the sad duty to report, that J. Gordon Holt, the "father of the
High-End", passed away yesterday at the age of 79. Gordon, who believed
in
the worth of double-blind evaluations and eschewed the cultist trappings
of
high-end audio such as cables having a sound, and elevators for speaker
cables making the cables sound better, was the originator of the
"underground
audio press" and the founder of Stereophile. He had been suffering from
emphysema for some time, a result of being a life-long chain smoker.

I am proud to to have known Gordon and having been a close friend. I
shall
miss him.

I'm not so sure JGH was always such an advocate of DBTs.
http://stereophile.com/j_gordon_holt/index1.html
"The blind leading the deaf"
I don't know about cables but you can find a plethora of reviews by
JGH in which he reports dramatic differences between the sound of
various electronics such as amps and preamps.
I am surprised how some folks from the objectivist camp have now taken
him in as some kind of hero for their cause. He was after all, the
father of subjective reviewing in audio.


Gordon believed in both. He thought that if DBT showed NO differences,
that
was the end of it. But if they showed some differences, these could be
best
identified and characterized by long-term listening.

Keep in mind he did most of his reviewing back in the sixties, when there
was much greater differences among gear than there is today, and
double-blind testing for audio gear had not yet become the burning issue it
has been in the ninties and thereafter.



Very true.

[bob]

On Jul 27, 9:01*am, Sonnova wrote:

Gordon believed in both. He thought that if DBT showed NO differences, that
was the end of it. But if they showed some differences, these could be best
identified and characterized by long-term listening.

That may have been his belief in later years. I don't think it was
reflected in Stereophile even in its pre-commercial phase.

As I understand it, Holt's basic philosophy was that the subjective
listening experience should be the measure of audio quality. That
philosophy has informed an audiophile subculture that embraces cables,
tweaks and other snake oil, whatever Holt's eventual views on those
items. That's a significant part of his legacy, I think.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:01:24 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 27, 9:01*am, Sonnova wrote:

Gordon believed in both. He thought that if DBT showed NO differences, that
was the end of it. But if they showed some differences, these could be best
identified and characterized by long-term listening.

That may have been his belief in later years. I don't think it was
reflected in Stereophile even in its pre-commercial phase.

As I understand it, Holt's basic philosophy was that the subjective
listening experience should be the measure of audio quality. That
philosophy has informed an audiophile subculture that embraces cables,
tweaks and other snake oil, whatever Holt's eventual views on those
items. That's a significant part of his legacy, I think.

bob

Well, as someone else has pointed out, Gordon's philosophy was formed when he
was working a "High-Fidelity" Magazine in the late 1950's and changed
somewhat, subsequently. At that time, HF's editorial policy was that if a
component met it's published specs when tested on the bench, that it "had no
sound of it's own" and was, therefore, perfect. Gordon noticed that this
wasn't true. Just because an amp or preamp met it's published specs didn't
mean that it sounded just like every other amp or preamp which met it's
published specs and in fact, there was a wide difference between almost every
device he listened to. He started "Stereophile" because he felt that if
measurements didn't explain the differences in the sound of this equipment,
then they were of little use to someone who was trying to choose between the
different brands and models available. Add to that the fact that the average
audio hobbyist usually didn't have the resources to make these measurements
themselves, and he felt that listening was the only way to separate the wheat
from the chaff.

As audio equipment began to evolve in the 1970's with the founding of the
high-end movement which started, in no small part, to Gordon's magazine and
the new kid on the block, Harry Pearson with "The Absolute Sound" (Harry
Pearson always maintained that he started TAS solely to pressure Gordon into
publishing more regularly. This is a nice story, but it has always occurred
to me, that if that was HP's intent, why did he not just invest in Gordon's
venture rather than start his own magazine. IOW, I don't buy it), Gordon
started to notice a convergence of sonic characteristics in electronics. A
demonstration of DBT showed Gordon that this was useful for finding out if
any differences REALLY existed between two components and he became an
advocate for that. I have been involved with more than one DBT where Gordon
was also a participant. In his latter Stereophile years, he became
increasingly suspicious of a lot of the audiophile lore such as cables, cable
elevators, green pens, and the like. Unfortunately, by that time he had sold
the magazine to Larry Archibald, a serious Santa Fe New Mexico audiophile and
businessman (high-end foreign car repair). Larry's interests were much more
commercial than Gordon's and under his ownership, commercial advertising
became a much more important part of the magazine. Gordon who now had been
demoted from owner/publisher to merely editor had less and less say in the
editorial policy of the magazine. Where money was concerned, Archibald was
now calling the shots. You can't say that cable sound is bunk because cable
manufacturers bring in advertising dollars. Larry finally hired a managing
editor from England named John Atkinson, who had, formerlly been the Editor
of "Hi-Fi News and Record Review" and Gordon's role in the magazine's
day-to-day activities waned. Eventually, he lost interest in the undertaking
altogether (as did Larry Archibald, who finally sold Stereophile to a large
magazine publishing conglomerate) and resigned.

That's what I know. There may be more too it than that, but from my
conversations with Gordon over the years, that's the gist of his journey
through the world of audio "philosophy". The personalities involved are
simply not germane to the topic.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Keep in mind he did most of his reviewing back in the
sixties, when there was much greater differences among
gear than there is today,

Exactly. Audio in the 50s and 60s was pretty horrific - all we had was tubes
and vinyl.

If you listen to artists who worked steadily from the 60s to the 90s, there
is a magnificent improvement in general sound quality, which was pretty much
fully manifest in the late 70s and early 80s.

and double-blind testing for
audio gear had not yet become the burning issue it has
been in the nineties and thereafter.

90's? DBTs were such a relevant issue in the mid-70s that they obliged us
to invent ABX.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 27, 3:27*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Jul 21, 4:45?pm, Sonnova wrote:
I have the sad duty to report, that J. Gordon Holt, the "father of the
High-End", passed away yesterday at the age of 79. Gordon, who believed in
the worth of double-blind evaluations and eschewed the cultist trappings of
high-end audio such as cables having a sound, and elevators for speaker
cables making the cables sound better, was the originator of the "underground
audio press" and the founder of Stereophile. He had been suffering from
emphysema for some time, a result of being a life-long chain smoker.

I am proud to to have known Gordon and having been a close friend. I shall
miss him. ?
I'm not so sure JGH was always such an advocate of DBTs.
http://stereophile.com/j_gordon_holt/index1.html
"The blind leading the deaf"
I don't know about cables but you can find a plethora of reviews by
JGH in which he reports dramatic differences between the sound of
various electronics such as amps and preamps.
I am surprised how some folks from the objectivist camp have now taken
him in as some kind of hero for their cause. He was after all, the
father of subjective reviewing in audio.

Are you unfamiliar with the phenomenon of a true believer
coming to realize the flaws in his previous belief system?

It can be rather heroic.

First of all I was merely correcting what seemed to be a
mischaracterization of JGH's beliefs. I did not place any value
judgement on it. But I must have missed this alleged act of heroism.
When did JGH discuss the realization of *his* alleged "previous"
belief system? Being heroic was there any great danger and were lives
saved?

[bob]

On Jul 28, 8:51*am, Sonnova wrote:

As audio equipment began to evolve in the 1970's . . . Gordon
started to notice a convergence of sonic characteristics in electronics. A
demonstration of DBT showed Gordon that this was useful for finding out if
any differences REALLY existed between two components and he became an
advocate for that.

As I understand it, Peter Aczel went through the same learning
process, at roughly the same time. Wonder what would have happened to
Stereophile—and the high end in general—if Holt hadn't sold the
magazine to Archibald.

bob

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:52:15 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Keep in mind he did most of his reviewing back in the
sixties, when there was much greater differences among
gear than there is today,

Exactly. Audio in the 50s and 60s was pretty horrific - all we had was tubes
and vinyl.

Both of which could be excellent (Vinyl and possibly FM was all most
audiophiles had as signal sources), but there was a lot more variability in
electronics then than there is now. Today, there is little difference between
a good tube amp and a good solid-state amp.

If you listen to artists who worked steadily from the 60s to the 90s, there
is a magnificent improvement in general sound quality, which was pretty much
fully manifest in the late 70s and early 80s.

Absolutely.

and double-blind testing for
audio gear had not yet become the burning issue it has
been in the nineties and thereafter.

90's? DBTs were such a relevant issue in the mid-70s that they obliged us
to invent ABX.

But in the 50's and 60's DBT was all but unheard of in the audio community.
It existed, of course, having been used in such things as pharmaceutical
testing for decades.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:50:41 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 28, 8:51*am, Sonnova wrote:

As audio equipment began to evolve in the 1970's . . . Gordon
started to notice a convergence of sonic characteristics in electronics. A
demonstration of DBT showed Gordon that this was useful for finding out if
any differences REALLY existed between two components and he became an
advocate for that.

As I understand it, Peter Aczel went through the same learning
process, at roughly the same time. Wonder what would have happened to
Stereophile—and the high end in general—if Holt hadn't sold the
magazine to Archibald.

bob


Good question. Of course, Gordon was not a rich man, and he started (and ran)
Stereophile on a shoestring. His publishing schedule was erratic and I doubt
seriously if would have ever gotten any better. But the content sure would
have been interesting.

Gordon I were speaking one time about a editorial device that would consist
of picking a "reference" model of each class of electronics devices: A
reference pre-amp, a reference power amp, perhaps a reference integrated and
receiver and a reference CD/SACD player as well as interconnects and speaker
cable. Then use a DBT with a listening panel to compare new equipment that
came-in for review with the reference stuff before evaluating it with long
term listening. Of course this was all hypothetical as Gordon had long since
retired from Stereophile.

[Mr. Finsky[_2_]]

On Jul 28, 10:43*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:50:41 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 28, 8:51*am, Sonnova wrote:

As audio equipment began to evolve in the 1970's . . . Gordon
started to notice a convergence of sonic characteristics in electronics. A
demonstration of DBT showed Gordon that this was useful for finding out if
any differences REALLY existed between two components and he became an
advocate for that.

As I understand it, Peter Aczel went through the same learning
process, at roughly the same time. Wonder what would have happened to
Stereophile—and the high end in general—if Holt hadn't sold the
magazine to Archibald.


First of all, we all a debt to JGH for emphasizing the concept that
equipment should be listened to instead of reading a series of
potentially meaningless specifications. Whether or not the differences
between every piece of equipment are perfectly detectable by pure
listening or testing is not as important as the concept of listening
versus reading numbers.

Secondly, I think we can agree that JGH was not meant to manage a
magazine or a publishing empire. His strength was in advocating
concepts, not in getting out a professionally produced magazine. Had
not Stereophile been sold, it would have been a distant memory on the
trash heap of semi-forgotten magazines published by amateurs about
subjects they loved. Other magazines have come and gone; sometimes you
need pros with money to keep them going.\

Finally, as much as JGH is beloved, much of his recent writing
descended to the crackpot level. For example. he recently ranted about
how multi-channel audio was so obviously superior and that people were
crazy not to see this. He never even mentioned that listeners would
have to time travel to the 50's or 60's to get many fabulous
recordings redone in 5.1 tapings. In addition, he went overboard
against listeners who desired soundstaging versus dynamics from their
speakers. A discussion in depth about the contrast in belief systems
would have shown the wisdom that his late writings lacked. Finally, I
was personally insulted when JGH stated that Baby Boomers were
responsible for all the evil in the world (or words to that effect).
If we are all so evil, how can Baby Boomers make up most of the high-
end world? If you want to criticize people, dump on those who advocate
fast food and MP3's so that convenience outweighs quality.

Thanks for the great innovations and career JGH, but you were hardly
perfect.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 18:21:34 -0700, Mr. Finsky wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 28, 10:43*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:50:41 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Jul 28, 8:51*am, Sonnova wrote:

As audio equipment began to evolve in the 1970's . . . Gordon
started to notice a convergence of sonic characteristics in electronics. A
demonstration of DBT showed Gordon that this was useful for finding out if
any differences REALLY existed between two components and he became an
advocate for that.

As I understand it, Peter Aczel went through the same learning
process, at roughly the same time. Wonder what would have happened to
Stereophile—and the high end in general—if Holt hadn't sold the
magazine to Archibald.


First of all, we all a debt to JGH for emphasizing the concept that
equipment should be listened to instead of reading a series of
potentially meaningless specifications. Whether or not the differences
between every piece of equipment are perfectly detectable by pure
listening or testing is not as important as the concept of listening
versus reading numbers.

Secondly, I think we can agree that JGH was not meant to manage a
magazine or a publishing empire. His strength was in advocating
concepts, not in getting out a professionally produced magazine. Had
not Stereophile been sold, it would have been a distant memory on the
trash heap of semi-forgotten magazines published by amateurs about
subjects they loved. Other magazines have come and gone; sometimes you
need pros with money to keep them going.\

Finally, as much as JGH is beloved, much of his recent writing
descended to the crackpot level. For example. he recently ranted about
how multi-channel audio was so obviously superior and that people were
crazy not to see this. He never even mentioned that listeners would
have to time travel to the 50's or 60's to get many fabulous
recordings redone in 5.1 tapings. In addition, he went overboard
against listeners who desired soundstaging versus dynamics from their
speakers. A discussion in depth about the contrast in belief systems
would have shown the wisdom that his late writings lacked. Finally, I
was personally insulted when JGH stated that Baby Boomers were
responsible for all the evil in the world (or words to that effect).
If we are all so evil, how can Baby Boomers make up most of the high-
end world? If you want to criticize people, dump on those who advocate
fast food and MP3's so that convenience outweighs quality.

Thanks for the great innovations and career JGH, but you were hardly
perfect.


Who is perfect? Gordon was a fan of surround sound, that is true, but he
realized that except with synthesized channels there is no way to add it to
older recordings, so I'd have to say that he was not a "crackpot" about it,
just an enthusiast. I also have to say that as close as we were, I never
particularly shared his enthusiasm for multi-channel sound. I always figured
that it was difficult enough to get two channels right.

[bob]

On Aug 16, 9:21*pm, "Mr. Finsky" wrote:

First of all, we all a debt to JGH for emphasizing the concept that
equipment should be listened to instead of reading a series of
potentially meaningless specifications. Whether or not the differences
between every piece of equipment are perfectly detectable by pure
listening or testing is not as important as the concept of listening
versus reading numbers.

Pity he couldn't have devoted more time to the interpretation of
*meaningful* measurements. Might have done more for audiophiles than
leading them down the subjective rabbit hole.

Secondly, I think we can agree that JGH was not meant to manage a
magazine or a publishing empire. His strength was in advocating
concepts, not in getting out a professionally produced magazine. Had
not Stereophile been sold, it would have been a distant memory on the
trash heap of semi-forgotten magazines published by amateurs about
subjects they loved. Other magazines have come and gone; sometimes you
need pros with money to keep them going.\

True. Sadly, as he got wiser, his former magazine did not.

Finally, as much as JGH is beloved, much of his recent writing
descended to the crackpot level. For example. he recently ranted about
how multi-channel audio was so obviously superior and that people were
crazy not to see this.

Crackpot? That's been accepted in the field since the 1930s.

He never even mentioned that listeners would
have to time travel to the 50's or 60's to get many fabulous
recordings redone in 5.1 tapings.

Yes, thank goodness we still have those wonderful 2-channel releases
of all the great 3-channel recordings made in those days. And I
imagine somebody with access even to good stereo masters could put
together a quite convincing MC recording today.

snip

Finally, I
was personally insulted when JGH stated that Baby Boomers were
responsible for all the evil in the world (or words to that effect).
If we are all so evil, how can Baby Boomers make up most of the high-
end world? If you want to criticize people, dump on those who advocate
fast food and MP3's so that convenience outweighs quality.

And just which generation do you think is running the McDonalds
Corporation today?

bob