[bob]

Goodness me:

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

A few tidbits:

"Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound
of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to
achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never
heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real
thing" had sounded like."

"Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
different people rarely agree about sound quality."

On multichannel:

"With fidelity in stagnation, spatiality was the only area of
improvement left."

And then there's this choice bit:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal."

A lengthier diatribe is apparently in the works.

I never saw Stereophile in its samizdat days, so Holt to me was just
an occasional byline, and I assumed he was just as cracked as the rest
of them. Maybe not.

bob

[willbill]

bob wrote:

Goodness me:

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

A few tidbits:

"Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound
of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to
achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never
heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real
thing" had sounded like."

BIG snip!

i have the issue but hadn't read this part
of it until now. thanks for the post/ref!

at 1st read, it is disturbing coz i think
well of JGH (past and present)

imo, there's certainly more than a bit of
truth in it; which is why it's disturbing

otoh, my long term interest in hi end audio
sez to me that hearing is lower on the
totem pole than sight and feel, down there
with taste and smell

which to me is why hi-end audio is
currently riding the coattails of
multichannel-audio movies

bill

[Steven Sullivan]

bob wrote:
Goodness me:

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

A few tidbits:

"Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound
of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to
achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never
heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real
thing" had sounded like."

"Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
different people rarely agree about sound quality."

On multichannel:

"With fidelity in stagnation, spatiality was the only area of
improvement left."

If reproduction of the sound of real music in real space is the goal,
'spatiality' is a REQUIREMENT Of fidelity. ANd much of the most forward
thinking research into the 'perfection' of audio is in this area now.

And then there's this choice bit:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal."

Bravo J Gordon.

A lengthier diatribe is apparently in the works.

I never saw Stereophile in its samizdat days, so Holt to me was just
an occasional byline, and I assumed he was just as cracked as the rest
of them. Maybe not.

Stereophile got loonier in the wake of 'The Absolute Sound', which
set the loony standard.

I liked this bit of curmudgeonliness.

"JA:Judging by online forums and by the e-mail I receive, there are currently three areas of passion for audiophiles:
vinyl playback, headphone listening, and music servers. Are you surprised by this?

JGH: I find them all boring, but nothing surprises me any more. "

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

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:43:31 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

Goodness me:

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

A few tidbits:

"Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound
of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to
achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never
heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real
thing" had sounded like."

"Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
different people rarely agree about sound quality."

Gordon Holt is one of my dearest friends, and we have spoken about this
subject often. I happen to agree with him. Where we disagree is that with as
much equipment available to the consumer at all price points today, it is
possible to pick and choose amid these different perspectives of audio
nirvana and to choose equipment that does sound close to music. I feel that
with so many different opinions available about what sounds good, one can
find equipment that sounds like music.

On multichannel:

"With fidelity in stagnation, spatiality was the only area of
improvement left."

And then there's this choice bit:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal."

A lengthier diatribe is apparently in the works.

I never saw Stereophile in its samizdat days, so Holt to me was just
an occasional byline, and I assumed he was just as cracked as the rest
of them. Maybe not.

J. Gordon Holt is probably one of the most honest and caring people in the
whole business of audio. He KNOWS what hi-fi is about and his judgement is
unerringly correct. He's disgusted about where the Hi-end has gone, and while
I share some of his angst, I'm a bit more positive about it, that's all.


bob

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

Goodness me:

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

A lengthier diatribe is apparently in the works.

I never saw Stereophile in its samizdat days, so Holt to
me was just an occasional byline, and I assumed he was
just as cracked as the rest of them. Maybe not.

I was a charter subscriber to Stereophile. Like a number of other early
adopters, I think that Stereophile's credibility set course for the bottom
of an infinitely deep hole, once Holt started loosening his grip on the
reins.

BTW, being a charter subscriber to Stereophile was a very interesting
experience. I've never had a longer lasting "1 year" subscription to a
magazine, ever. ;-)

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:

J. Gordon Holt is probably one of the most honest and caring people in the
whole business of audio. He KNOWS what hi-fi is about and his judgement is
unerringly correct.

wow, a Pope of audio.

who knew?

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

[bob]

On Nov 29, 10:39 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote:
Goodness me:
http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
A few tidbits:
"Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound
of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to
achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never
heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real
thing" had sounded like."
"Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
different people rarely agree about sound quality."
On multichannel:
"With fidelity in stagnation, spatiality was the only area of
improvement left."

If reproduction of the sound of real music in real space is the goal,
'spatiality' is a REQUIREMENT Of fidelity. ANd much of the most forward
thinking research into the 'perfection' of audio is in this area now.

Exactly. Holt is provocative here, but not always coherent.

And then there's this choice bit:
"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal."

Bravo J Gordon.

In context, he seems to be talking about blind side-by-side speaker
comparisons. Not necessarily ABX tests of amps.

A lengthier diatribe is apparently in the works.
I never saw Stereophile in its samizdat days, so Holt to me was just
an occasional byline, and I assumed he was just as cracked as the rest
of them. Maybe not.

Stereophile got loonier in the wake of 'The Absolute Sound', which
set the loony standard.

Well, it all grew out of the Golden Ear Myth, for which I think Holt
deserves a share of the blame. (See "real music in real space.")

I liked this bit of curmudgeonliness.

"JA:Judging by online forums and by the e-mail I receive, there are currently three areas of passion for audiophiles:
vinyl playback, headphone listening, and music servers. Are you surprised by this?

JGH: I find them all boring, but nothing surprises me any more. "

Music servers, yeah. But a guy who cares about "real music in real
space" ought to be intrigued by the relative virutes of speakers vs.
headphones. And vinyl? It may not be technically better than CD, but
it's definitely mroe interesting.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


J. Gordon Holt is probably one of the most honest and
caring people in the whole business of audio. He KNOWS
what hi-fi is about and his judgement is unerringly
correct. He's disgusted about where the Hi-end has gone,
and while I share some of his angst, I'm a bit more
positive about it, that's all.

Well, then there's the slight matter of how JGH embraced blind listening
tests. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Stereophile got loonier in the wake of 'The Absolute
Sound', which set the loony standard.

Agreed. I'm ashamed to admit that I had to invent ABX to wrest my mind free
from TAS's fatal grip.

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

I liked this bit of curmudgeonliness.

"JA:Judging by online forums and by the e-mail I receive,
there are currently three areas of passion for
audiophiles: vinyl playback, headphone listening, and
music servers. Are you surprised by this?

JGH: I find them all boring, but nothing surprises me any
more. "

Other than headphone listening, none of them are about improving sonic
accuracy. And headphone listening is too limited.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:29:22 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

Goodness me:

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

A lengthier diatribe is apparently in the works.

I never saw Stereophile in its samizdat days, so Holt to
me was just an occasional byline, and I assumed he was
just as cracked as the rest of them. Maybe not.

I was a charter subscriber to Stereophile. Like a number of other early
adopters, I think that Stereophile's credibility set course for the bottom
of an infinitely deep hole, once Holt started loosening his grip on the
reins.

Absolutely. When Larry Archibald bought Stereophile, it essentially finished
it. Gordon needed the money and was never very good at keeping schedules, so
he thought that the injection of some outside money would help. Of course, we
all know that outside money always comes with strings attached. One of the
strings that got attached to Larry Archibald's money was John Atkinson who
wanted to turn Stereophile into "Hi-Fi News and Record Review." We all know
the result of that,

BTW, being a charter subscriber to Stereophile was a very interesting
experience. I've never had a longer lasting "1 year" subscription to a
magazine, ever. ;-)

That's because Gordon couldn't get an issue out on time if his life depended
on it. Pearson has often said that he started TAS in an effort to shame JGH
into publishing on a regular schedule. Don't know if it's true or not.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"bob" wrote in message

Goodness me:

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

A lengthier diatribe is apparently in the works.

I never saw Stereophile in its samizdat days, so Holt to
me was just an occasional byline, and I assumed he was
just as cracked as the rest of them. Maybe not.

I was a charter subscriber to Stereophile. Like a number of other early
adopters, I think that Stereophile's credibility set course for the bottom
of an infinitely deep hole, once Holt started loosening his grip on the
reins.

BTW, being a charter subscriber to Stereophile was a very interesting
experience. I've never had a longer lasting "1 year" subscription to a
magazine, ever. ;-)

Not even with Peter Akzel??

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"bob" wrote in message

Goodness me:

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

A lengthier diatribe is apparently in the works.

I never saw Stereophile in its samizdat days, so Holt to
me was just an occasional byline, and I assumed he was
just as cracked as the rest of them. Maybe not.

I was a charter subscriber to Stereophile. Like a number
of other early adopters, I think that Stereophile's
credibility set course for the bottom of an infinitely
deep hole, once Holt started loosening his grip on the
reins.

BTW, being a charter subscriber to Stereophile was a
very interesting experience. I've never had a longer
lasting "1 year" subscription to a magazine, ever. ;-)

Not even with Peter Akzel??

Never subscribed to Akzel's rag. Tom Nousaine is a personal friend, so I
just talk to the author of the best articles directly. ;-)

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"bob" wrote in message

Goodness me:

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

A lengthier diatribe is apparently in the works.

I never saw Stereophile in its samizdat days, so Holt to
me was just an occasional byline, and I assumed he was
just as cracked as the rest of them. Maybe not.

I was a charter subscriber to Stereophile. Like a number
of other early adopters, I think that Stereophile's
credibility set course for the bottom of an infinitely
deep hole, once Holt started loosening his grip on the
reins.

BTW, being a charter subscriber to Stereophile was a
very interesting experience. I've never had a longer
lasting "1 year" subscription to a magazine, ever. ;-)

Not even with Peter Akzel??

Never subscribed to Akzel's rag. Tom Nousaine is a personal friend, so I
just talk to the author of the best articles directly. ;-)

It's Aczel. His rag is online now

www.theaudiocritic.com/

My online subscription came with a set of 15 print back issues...
that was some interesting reading.

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

[Walt]

bob wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:39 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
bob wrote:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal."

Bravo J Gordon.

In context, he seems to be talking about blind side-by-side speaker
comparisons. Not necessarily ABX tests of amps.

While he cites Loudspeaker shootouts as a good example of DBT working, I
don't read anything in his comments restricting DBT to speakers. The
way I read it is that *everything* should be subject to DBT for the
reason of "basic honesty".

As long as the industry continues to reject basic scientific methods of
validation, it will (and should) be held up for ridicule.

//Walt

[bob]

On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, Walt wrote:
bob wrote:

In context, he seems to be talking about blind side-by-side speaker
comparisons. Not necessarily ABX tests of amps.

While he cites Loudspeaker shootouts as a good example of DBT working, I
don't read anything in his comments restricting DBT to speakers. The
way I read it is that *everything* should be subject to DBT for the
reason of "basic honesty".

In the past, he's pooh-poohed ABX tests, and last I read he was hardly
a skeptic on the question of cable sound. My interpretation of his
remarks is consistent with his past statements. Maybe he's undergone a
conversion recently, but I'll believe it when I see it.

As long as the industry continues to reject basic scientific methods of
validation, it will (and should) be held up for ridicule.

And as much as Holt grouches now, he is as responsible as anyone for
the state of the field today.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, Walt wrote:
bob wrote:

In context, he seems to be talking about blind
side-by-side speaker comparisons. Not necessarily ABX
tests of amps.

While he cites Loudspeaker shootouts as a good example
of DBT working, I don't read anything in his comments
restricting DBT to speakers. The way I read it is that
*everything* should be subject to DBT for the reason of
"basic honesty".

In the past, he's pooh-poohed ABX tests, and last I read
he was hardly a skeptic on the question of cable sound.

His signals on ABX tests were a bit mixed, but his initial reaction to an
ABX Comparator prototype was very favorable.

Some cables are screwed up enough to sound different.

My interpretation of his remarks is consistent with his
past statements. Maybe he's undergone a conversion
recently, but I'll believe it when I see it.

If you say so. ;-)

As long as the industry continues to reject basic
scientific methods of validation, it will (and should)
be held up for ridicule.

And as much as Holt grouches now, he is as responsible as
anyone for the state of the field today.

Responsibility requires the ability to act somewhat freely. In a sense
nobody in the high end press has it because they are prisoners of what
they've already said.

[Walt]

bob wrote:
On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, Walt wrote:
bob wrote:

In context, he seems to be talking about blind side-by-side speaker
comparisons. Not necessarily ABX tests of amps.

While he cites Loudspeaker shootouts as a good example of DBT working, I
don't read anything in his comments restricting DBT to speakers. The
way I read it is that *everything* should be subject to DBT for the
reason of "basic honesty".

In the past, he's pooh-poohed ABX tests, and last I read he was hardly
a skeptic on the question of cable sound. My interpretation of his
remarks is consistent with his past statements. Maybe he's undergone a
conversion recently, but I'll believe it when I see it.

I grew up on Stereo Review, not Audiophile or High Fidelity, so I'm
actually not all that familiar with Holt. If by "context" you mean the
context of his entire career, you would know more about that than I.
Restricting our attention to the context of the article, I'll stick with
my take on it, but allow for the fact that perhaps what he appears to be
saying is not what he really means.

//Walt

[bob]

On Dec 4, 6:59 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

In the past, he's pooh-poohed ABX tests, and last I read
he was hardly a skeptic on the question of cable sound.

His signals on ABX tests were a bit mixed, but his initial reaction to an
ABX Comparator prototype was very favorable.

True, so why didn't he start using it, or insisting that his magazine
start using it?

Some cables are screwed up enough to sound different.

True, but not what I meant by cable sound. Here's Holt ten years ago
on cables:

"Well, cables do have physical properties, most of which are
measurable. Except for such things as trying to line up the electrons
and that kind of thing, you can pretty much measure what cables are
doing. That doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be able to
look at the measurements and know what the cable's going to sound
like. Because we still don't really know what some of those
measurements mean. If anyone is doing basic research into that, I
haven't heard about it."

This sounds a bit like a guy who wants to have his cake and eat it,
too. But it doesn't sound like a guy who would agree with your (or my)
view of cables.

My interpretation of his remarks is consistent with his
past statements. Maybe he's undergone a conversion
recently, but I'll believe it when I see it.

If you say so. ;-)

As long as the industry continues to reject basic
scientific methods of validation, it will (and should)
be held up for ridicule.
And as much as Holt grouches now, he is as responsible as
anyone for the state of the field today.

Responsibility requires the ability to act somewhat freely. In a sense
nobody in the high end press has it because they are prisoners of what
they've already said.

No one with any integrity is a prisoner of what they've already said.
Holt was, instead, a prisoner of his magazine's business model, which
depended and still depends fundamentally on the assumption that what
the ABX Comparator tells us is wrong.

bob