| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Julian Hirsch, RIP
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/arts/03HIRS.html
Julian Hirsch, an Engineer Who Wrote About Audio Gear, Dies By WOLFGANG SAXON ulian Hirsch, an electrical engineer and writer who was among the first to help a growing audience of audiophiles sort through the good, the bad and the indifferent in electronic sound equipment, died on Nov. 24 in the Bronx. He was 81 and lived in New Rochelle, N.Y. Starting in the 1950's Mr. Hirsch began to keep track of the hi-fi hobby as it bulged into a billion-dollar industry. By his own count he wrote about 4,000 laboratory test reports for various publications by the time he retired in 1998. .... -- ha |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
Julian Hirsch, an electrical engineer and writer who was among the first
to help a growing audience of audiophiles sort through the good, the bad and the indifferent in electronic sound equipment, died on Nov. 24 in the Bronx. He was 81 and lived in New Rochelle, N.Y. He did nothing of the sort. Reviews of bad products were suppressed or never written in the first place. Reviews of indifferent products were written to avoid saying anything obviously embarrassing. Like most reviewers -- including a big percentage of "underground" reviewers -- Julian Hirsch did little or nothing to advance either audio criticism or the audio art itself. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
Julian Hirsch, an electrical engineer and writer who was among the first to help a growing audience of audiophiles sort through the good, the bad and the indifferent in electronic sound equipment, died on Nov. 24 in the Bronx. He was 81 and lived in New Rochelle, N.Y. He did nothing of the sort. Reviews of bad products were suppressed or never written in the first place. If they were suppressed then the comment in the first paragraph stands. However, one need not publish bad reviews in order to "...help a growing audience of audiophiles sort through the good, the bad and the indifferent in electronic sound equipment..." This help can be provided by several means that Hirsch used. Positive reviews of good equipment and other positive comments are a "carrot" approach to guiding people away from bad equipment. Just because he was less likely to use the "stick" approach doesn't mean that he didn't provide guidance. Hirsch made a number of general and specific comments that guided people away from a very significant problematic area in audio equipment, namely snake oil products. He didn't flog that issue hard enough to keep me from getting caught up in a fair amount of audio snake oil, but he did lay the groundwork for the influences that finally got me back on track. Reviews of indifferent products were written to avoid saying anything obviously embarrassing. I'd like to see some impartial evidence of that. There's lots of people who go around saying what horrible things certain products are, but yet on closer investigation, at least a few of them are really pretty good, at least in certain applications. For example, I've seen way too many people blow long and hard about the nasty sounds purportedly coming out of certain power amps, only to see them reduced to random guessing while listening to said amp in their system with their recordings at their liesure. It very much seems like they were hearing their prejudices, not what the amp was really doing. Been there, done that! Like most reviewers -- including a big percentage of "underground" reviewers -- Julian Hirsch did little or nothing to advance either audio criticism or the audio art itself. If we decided to discuss the negative reviews that show up in the high end press, we'd have a darn short discussion, or a long discussion over a very few examples. There just aren't a lot of bad formal reviews. Furthermore, I've written and published a fair number of them at my web sites, so it's not like I favor whitewashing bad products. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
Arny Krueger wrote...
William Sommerwerck wrote... Julian Hirsch, an electrical engineer and writer who was among the first to help a growing audience of audiophiles sort through the good, the bad and the indifferent in electronic sound equipment, died on Nov. 24 in the Bronx. He was 81 and lived in New Rochelle, N.Y. He did nothing of the sort. Reviews of bad products were suppressed or never written in the first place. If they were suppressed then the comment in the first paragraph stands. However, one need not publish bad reviews in order to "...help a growing audience of audiophiles sort through the good, the bad and the indifferent in electronic sound equipment..." This help can be provided by several means that Hirsch used. Positive reviews of good equipment and other positive comments are a "carrot" approach to guiding people away from bad equipment. Just because he was less likely to use the "stick" approach doesn't mean that he didn't provide guidance. Hirsch made a number of general and specific comments that guided people away from a very significant problematic area in audio equipment, namely snake-oil products. He didn't flog that issue hard enough to keep me from getting caught up in a fair amount of audio snake oil, but he did lay the groundwork for the influences that finally got me back on track. No offense, Arny, but I think you're trying "to have it both ways." There are several good things one can say about JH's work. He was a fine writer, and consistently technically correct. I learned a lot about electronics and sound reproduction reading his columns. He also handed out a few pieces of excellent advice, such as "Never pay for a difference in sound you can't actually hear." It was good advice then, and it is now (though it can be rationally reversed to justify spending huge amounts of money on questionable products). But it's not enough that JH guided people away from "snake-oil" products. What about poor products from major manufacturers? Gordon Holt founded "The Stereophile" because "High Fidelity" (or more precisely, its advertising department) wouldn't let him publish reviews of bad-sounding or unreliable equipment. I discussed this point with him the other day, and he said that if a poor review of such products causes their manufacturers to go out of business -- too bad. The Bose 901 is a classic example of why _insightful_ reviews of bad products are necessary. There were only two negative reviews of the 901, one from "Consumer Reports," the other from "The Stereophile." As negative as Gordon's review is, it only _implicitly_ explains why the 901 is such a poor speaker (in the technical sense, not just in the "I don't think it's an accurate reproducer" sense). Reviews of indifferent products were written to avoid saying anything obviously embarrassing. I'd like to see some impartial evidence of that. Well, how about one of Julian Hirsch's own reviews? In 1979 I was working at Barclay Recording in PA, and knew a number of salesmen from other stores. Julian Hirsch had just published a review of a mediocre E-V speaker system in which he said it "sounded about as good as one might expect a speaker to sound." WHAT...? You mean it sounds perfect? It has no "sound" of its own? That's what _I_ expect from a speaker! A salesman from another store was equally exercised at what also seemed to him an obviously waffling review, and invited me over to hear this speaker. We agreed it was obviously colored and nothing special. "What is Julian Hirsch trying to say?," the other salesman wondered. The answer, of course, is what he was trying _not_ to say. Like most reviewers -- including a big percentage of "underground" reviewers -- Julian Hirsch did little or nothing to advance either audio criticism or the audio art itself. If we decided to discuss the negative reviews that show up in the high-end press, we'd have a darn short discussion, or a long discussion over a very few examples. Agreed. But did you see my review of a ReVox tape deck that nearly got their agency to pull its advertising? And that was mostly about the deck's dated ergonomics and incorrect factory setup. (They also didn't like the fact that I said it didn't sound any better than an Otari, even though it measured better.) There just aren't a lot of bad formal reviews. Furthermore, I've written and published a fair number of them at my web sites, so it's not like I favor whitewashing bad products. The reason, I think, is that the overall quality of audio equipment has improved drastically in the past 30 years. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote... William Sommerwerck wrote... Julian Hirsch, an electrical engineer and writer who was among the first to help a growing audience of audiophiles sort through the good, the bad and the indifferent in electronic sound equipment, died on Nov. 24 in the Bronx. He was 81 and lived in New Rochelle, N.Y. He did nothing of the sort. Reviews of bad products were suppressed or never written in the first place. If they were suppressed then the comment in the first paragraph stands. However, one need not publish bad reviews in order to "...help a growing audience of audiophiles sort through the good, the bad and the indifferent in electronic sound equipment..." This help can be provided by several means that Hirsch used. Positive reviews of good equipment and other positive comments are a "carrot" approach to guiding people away from bad equipment. Just because he was less likely to use the "stick" approach doesn't mean that he didn't provide guidance. Hirsch made a number of general and specific comments that guided people away from a very significant problematic area in audio equipment, namely snake-oil products. He didn't flog that issue hard enough to keep me from getting caught up in a fair amount of audio snake oil, but he did lay the groundwork for the influences that finally got me back on track. No offense, Arny, but I think you're trying "to have it both ways." Or, I'm looking for some ground that's closer to the middle. There are several good things one can say about JH's work. He was a fine writer, and consistently technically correct. I learned a lot about electronics and sound reproduction reading his columns. He also handed out a few pieces of excellent advice, such as "Never pay for a difference in sound you can't actually hear." It was good advice then, and it is now (though it can be rationally reversed to justify spending huge amounts of money on questionable products). But it's not enough that JH guided people away from "snake-oil" products. What about poor products from major manufacturers? Gordon Holt founded "The Stereophile" because "High Fidelity" (or more precisely, its advertising department) wouldn't let him publish reviews of bad-sounding or unreliable equipment. I discussed this point with him the other day, and he said that if a poor review of such products causes their manufacturers to go out of business -- too bad. Given that JGH quickly returned to wailing and gnashing his teeth at the mention of the phrase "Blind test" after a momentary lapse with an early ABX box, I don't really know what he means when he says "bad-sounding". The Bose 901 is a classic example of why _insightful_ reviews of bad products are necessary. There were only two negative reviews of the 901, one from "Consumer Reports," the other from "The Stereophile." I look at it this way. I know why I don't like the 901, and even the two negative reviews you cite didn't really nail the issues the way I think they needed to be nailed. As negative as Gordon's review is, it only _implicitly_ explains why the 901 is such a poor speaker (in the technical sense, not just in the "I don't think it's an accurate reproducer" sense). We may be even agreeing here. However, I don't think its fair to judge JH based on a tiny percentage of his work. Reviews of indifferent products were written to avoid saying anything obviously embarrassing. I'd like to see some impartial evidence of that. Well, how about one of Julian Hirsch's own reviews? In 1979 I was working at Barclay Recording in PA, and knew a number of salesmen from other stores. Julian Hirsch had just published a review of a mediocre E-V speaker system in which he said it "sounded about as good as one might expect a speaker to sound." WHAT...? You mean it sounds perfect? It has no "sound" of its own? That's what _I_ expect from a speaker! A salesman from another store was equally exercised at what also seemed to him an obviously waffling review, and invited me over to hear this speaker. We agreed it was obviously colored and nothing special. "What is Julian Hirsch trying to say?," the other salesman wondered. The answer, of course, is what he was trying _not_ to say. I see no evidence of objectivity or impartiality. Just another anecdote based purely on opinions with unknown basis. Like most reviewers -- including a big percentage of "underground" reviewers -- Julian Hirsch did little or nothing to advance either audio criticism or the audio art itself. If we decided to discuss the negative reviews that show up in the high-end press, we'd have a darn short discussion, or a long discussion over a very few examples. Agreed. But did you see my review of a ReVox tape deck that nearly got their agency to pull its advertising? And that was mostly about the deck's dated ergonomics and incorrect factory setup. (They also didn't like the fact that I said it didn't sound any better than an Otari, even though it measured better.) Not really. If it was in Stereophile I dropped my subscription to it long ago, after being a charter subscriber. There just aren't a lot of bad formal reviews. Furthermore, I've written and published a fair number of them at my web sites, so it's not like I favor whitewashing bad products. The reason, I think, is that the overall quality of audio equipment has improved drastically in the past 30 years. In 1996-1998 I still found a lot of absolutely horrific PC multimedia hardware to complain about, some of which was not exactly cheap. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
As negative as Gordon's review is, it only _implicitly_ explains why
the 901 is such a poor speaker (in the technical sense, not just in the "I don't think it's an accurate reproducer" sense). We may be even agreeing here. However, I don't think its fair to judge JH based on a tiny percentage of his work. The problem is that this "tiny percentage" pretty much puts the lie to the rest of his career. A salesman from another store was equally exercised at what also seemed to him an obviously waffling review, and invited me over to hear this speaker. We agreed it was obviously colored and nothing special. "What is Julian Hirsch trying to say?," the other salesman wondered. The answer, of course, is what he was trying _not_ to say. I see no evidence of objectivity or impartiality. Just another anecdote based purely on opinions with unknown basis. I suggest you find the review and read it. If you think Hirsch's statement is NOT an attempt at mealy-mouthing... Then I think you need to come to better understanding of what words connote. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
I read an article of his that inflated a two-watt power amp into a 200-watt amp,
to illustrate why the FTC had to step in and define the way testing would be done. William Sommerwerck wrote: Julian Hirsch, an electrical engineer and writer who was among the first to help a growing audience of audiophiles sort through the good, the bad and the indifferent in electronic sound equipment, died on Nov. 24 in the Bronx. He was 81 and lived in New Rochelle, N.Y. He did nothing of the sort. Reviews of bad products were suppressed or never written in the first place. Reviews of indifferent products were written to avoid saying anything obviously embarrassing. Like most reviewers -- including a big percentage of "underground" reviewers -- Julian Hirsch did little or nothing to advance either audio criticism or the audio art itself. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Julian Hirsch, an electrical engineer and writer who was among the first to help a growing audience of audiophiles sort through the good, the bad and the indifferent in electronic sound equipment, died on Nov. 24 in the Bronx. He was 81 and lived in New Rochelle, N.Y. He did nothing of the sort. Reviews of bad products were suppressed or never written in the first place. Reviews of indifferent products were written to avoid saying anything obviously embarrassing. Hirsch is pretty much universally reviled in the high end audio community, and he did a lot to almost singlehandedly drive people into believing that measurements were useless. His promotion of accurate and objective but generally meaningless measurements did a lot to convince people who actually listened to equipment that there was not only something wrong with his measurement methodology, but with measurements in general. This is truly inexcusable. Like most reviewers -- including a big percentage of "underground" reviewers -- Julian Hirsch did little or nothing to advance either audio criticism or the audio art itself. If anything, I think he set audio criticism back tremendously. He was a very nice person, and a good guy, and I agreed with his philosophy in a lot of ways. But I think he set the cause of objective testing back decades. I think he also originated the whole practice of puff reviews in the audio community, and he and Stereo Review are possibly responsible for the consumer audio industry having evolved into the mess that it now is. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
There just aren't a lot of bad formal reviews. Furthermore, I've written
and published a fair number of them at my web sites, so it's not like I favor whitewashing bad products. The reason, I think, is that the overall quality of audio equipment has improved drastically in the past 30 years. Well, that opens up an entirely different kettle of worms. It may have improved drastically in the world of consumer electronics (though one could argue that point, given the prevalence of boomboxes out there), but in some ways the world of recording equipment has lagged. The truly professional stuff has indeed gotten better -- witness Great River, Millennia, etc.. In many ways it begins to approach the performance of high-end (non-snake-oil) home audio gear. But most of the recording stuff out there, at the low end, is designed to the same standards as home-audio gear from Radio Shack. Not even Kenwood and Onkyo, but Radio Shack. There are exceptions, like the RNC, but if you look inside most of the stuff with pricetags under $500, it's Shack quality all the way. Yes, it does a lot for its price, but it still, mostly, sounds like dog crap. It's nice when you discover a piece of inexpensive gear that doesn't mangle the sound, or at least doesn't mangle it as badly as the competition. But there's a generation doing recordings now who have never heard a better-than-Shack piece of gear in their lives. So has the quality gone up? Yes in the high bracket, no in the bracket where the vast majority of stuff is sold. That said, there *are* some nice bargains out there, so I guess I having it both ways too. End of rant; time for a bagel. Peace, Paul |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
Scott Dorsey wrote...
Hirsch is pretty much universally reviled in the high end audio community, and he did a lot to almost singlehandedly drive people into believing that measurements were useless. His promotion of accurate and objective but generally meaningless measurements did a lot to convince people who actually listened to equipment that there was not only something wrong with his measurement methodology, but with measurements in general. This is truly inexcusable. I pretty much agree with Scott. Many years ago I wanted to buy a good cassette deck, and on the basis of JH's favorable review, I bought a TEAC 450, rather than a Nakamichi 700. Much to my surprise, the 450 was noticeably flat and grainy-sounding. You could plainly hear the loss of quality between the original and the playback. It was this that finally soured me on JH's reviews. I later bought a Nakamichi 700 II, and it was much better-sounding. Indeed, it was the first tape recorder I'd owned that didn't obviously alter the sound. (In fairness, I must admit that I'd never owned a really good open-reel machine. Even my Pioneer "semi-pro" RT-2022 didn't sound as good as the Nakamichi.) One of JH's attempts at objective reviewing was a clever live-versus-recorded technique that recorded the output of a decent (but not large or expensive) speaker playing in an anechoic chamber. The idea was to compare that recording played through the speaker under test with the output of the smaller speaker playing in the listening room. Ignoring differences in dispersion, this technique should clearly show whether the speaker under test is accurate, because you have the "original" sound to compare it with. JH used this system for a year, and then abandoned it without explaining why. The reason should be obvious. The better speakers he tested had little or no trouble reproducing the sound of the reference speaker. The _implication_ of that is that the speaker under test must be nearly perfect, or nearly so. But to even a cloth-eared listener, it's obvious it just isn't so. JH must have realized that this system didn't provide any really useful information, but he didn't have the guts (???) to explain its abandonment to the readers. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
Nousaine wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Hirsch is pretty much universally reviled in the high end audio community, and he did a lot to almost singlehandedly drive people into believing that measurements were useless. His promotion of accurate and objective but generally meaningless measurements did a lot to convince people who actually listened to equipment that there was not only something wrong with his measurement methodology, but with measurements in general. This is truly inexcusable. This is a common, misguided viewpoint. Measurements have seemingly become "useless" only because with electronic gear they so often eclipse thresholds of audibility by orders of magnitude. Then they aren't the RIGHT measurements. A lot of measurements are useless because they aren't measuring anything important. It matters not only that you make good measurements, but that you measure something important, and you know what the measurements mean. But, people, give Hirsch a bad rap in that respect. He pioneered the use of solid measurements that most consumers would have never had access to. When you wanted to know how many real watts separated the Dyna 400 and the Heathkit AA-1640 you had to do no more than trek toi the local library and look it up. This is absolutely true, and he does deserve a lot of credit for this. But the Dyna 400 sounds awful, and he never warned anyone about that. Why does it sound awful? There are a lot of measurements you can make now that will tell you, from TIMD to distortion spectra. Back when those amps were new, it wasn't possible to make a lot of those measurements, so you could not rely exclusively on measurement. You still cannot. He started with this in the early 50s when the Audio League Report was an under-ground publication. And he was still doin git in the 60-70s when a few crybaby publications that lacked the expertise eschewed measurements altogether because they failed to relate to observations gathered under conditons without even a pretense of neutrality. Yes, but what is the sense of being neutral when you are providing no useful information? Promoting THD as a valid measurement to distinguish between amplifiers was valid back in the thirties when it was a huge step forward toward objective measurements that explained subjective effects. Promoting the same measurement in the seventies when it had turned into a useless bit of specsmanship was offensive. "Puff" reviews? That's the baliwick of the undergrounds in spite of hand-waving to the contrary. Ever read a review of a product in Stereophile that didn't appear on the RCL? Not many. I'm not holding Stereophile reviews up either. They took the alternate view completely and relied entirely on subjective listening tests. This is also reprehensible. You cannot just listen and you cannot just measure. You have to do both and correlate the two or you are wasting your time. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
Scott Dorsey wrote: Back when those amps were new, it wasn't possible to make a lot of those measurements, so you could not rely exclusively on measurement. I am sure there will be some new measurements in the future that tell us things that can currently not be measured, especially in digital audio. You cannot just listen and you cannot just measure. You have to do both and correlate the two or you are wasting your time. Most definitely! |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
I'm not holding Stereophile reviews up either. They took the alternate
view completely and relied entirely on subjective listening tests. This is also reprehensible. You cannot just listen and you cannot just measure. You have to do both and correlate the two or you are wasting your time. Although "reprehensible" is too strong a word, you are qualitatively correct. But nobody wants to go to the trouble of developing truly valid measurements, because a huge amount of listening and measuring, probably taking the better part of a decade, would be required. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
I'm not holding Stereophile reviews up either. They took the alternate view completely and relied entirely on subjective listening tests. This is also reprehensible. You cannot just listen and you cannot just measure. You have to do both and correlate the two or you are wasting your time. Although "reprehensible" is too strong a word, you are qualitatively correct. But nobody wants to go to the trouble of developing truly valid measurements, because a huge amount of listening and measuring, probably taking the better part of a decade, would be required. You're saying such a time would be required to discover *meaningful* measurements (and measurement methods) themselves? Is a decade not a relatively short time considering the advances it could bring to the industry? |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 6:03:38 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in message ): Positive reviews of good equipment and other positive comments are a "carrot" approach to guiding people away from bad equipment. Just because he was less likely to use the "stick" approach doesn't mean that he didn't provide guidance. --------------------------------snip---------------------------------- I think Bill Sommerwerck is a lot closer to the truth in this, Arny. What is true is that, behind-the-scenes, editorial and advertising pressures oftened resulted in Julian Hirsch's reviews getting re-edited after they were written -- either to soften the message or at least dilute the negative aspects, to avoid angering advertisers. (I know this only because I knew Len Feldman during the 1980s, when he and I were technical editors of VIDEO REVIEW magazine.) There was a time during the 1970s when Hirsch practically perfected the art of writing reviews where there would be thinly-veiled criticisms of certain products (particularly speakers), but you had to really look between the lines to see what he was really saying. I was very vocal in my own criticism of his work during that time -- when I was just a reader -- but in looking back, I now believe that Hirsch was doing the best he could to tell the truth, given his lack of real editorial freedom. When you got used to his writing style, you could see when he was saying a certain product wasn't up-to-snuff; and there was no doubt when he said something was a knockout. True, it was kind of in "code," which is silly and stupid, but I think that was the only way he could work within the parameters STEREO REVIEW gave him. On the issue of negative reviews: I fought for years to get negative reviews published in VIDEO REVIEW, but invariably, the editors would opt to just kill them, rather than risk antagonize the advertisers. The explanation given to me was usually, "even if we do give Product X a really bad review, there will still be readers who'll go out and buy it anyway, just to prove us wrong, so it won't really stop anybody from buying it. It just gives them extra publicity. Besides, it takes up too much space that we should be devoting too reviewing good products." I argued that they should print *brief* negative reviews of bad products, but they said that manufacturers would be irate, and claim we were giving them short shrift. You can't win. The only time I ever saw either STEREO REVIEW or VIDEO REVIEW (owned by different companies, BTW) give products bad reviews were when they were made by companies who never advertised. I can recall STEREO REVIEW slamming a fairly expensive ($500+) Radio Shack receiver in the mid-1970s, and thinking, "well, that's one way to get a bad review published -- make sure it doesn't ****-off any advertisers." --MFW |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
Scott Dorsey wrote:
I'm not holding Stereophile reviews up either. They took the alternate view completely and relied entirely on subjective listening tests. This is also reprehensible. You cannot just listen and you cannot just measure. You have to do both and correlate the two or you are wasting your time. To be fair, quite a number of the Stereophile reviews during the '90s made an effort to do just this. It was perhaps most successful with speakers (as Arny noted) and I frequently found the reviews useful. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
Tom Nousaine wrote...
But, people, give Hirsch a bad rap in that respect. He pioneered the use of solid measurements that most consumers would have never had access to. When you wanted to know how many real watts separated the Dyna 400 and the Heathkit AA-1640 you had to do no more than trek toi the local library and look it up. Yeah, it's so horribly difficult to connect an amp to a load resistor and drive it with an oscillator... He started with this in the early 50s when the Audio League Report was an under-ground publication. And he was still doing it in the 60-70s when a few crybaby publications that lacked the expertise eschewed measurements altogether because they failed to relate to observations gathered under conditons without even a pretense of neutrality. It was, a others have pointed out, Julian Hirsch who was one of the main contributors to the belief that measurements were meaningless. How many readers of this posting bought something praised by JH, only to discover it didn't sound very good? It was J. Gordon Holt who was the first to embody, in a magazine, the "weird" idea that, because hi-fi equipment was supposed to be listened to, that's the way it should be judged. Tell us, Tom... When you select equipment for your hi-fi system, what is the final consideration... How it measures, or how it sounds? Surely he did. His largest contributiuon is steadfastly refusing to 'invent' language to describe in-audible sounds. If his work lacked anything it was an active audio-imagination. My initials... Do you know utterly stupid that sounds? I'm not going to waste my time criticizing it. The most damning thing you can say about JH was said by him, himself. He once said that he heard differences among electronic components, but "they didn't matter." Then what the ****ing HELL is the point of reviewing the equipment? To confirm that it meets its specs? Jesus H. Christ. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
"S O'Neill" wrote in message ... I read an article of his that inflated a two-watt power amp into a 200-watt amp, to illustrate why the FTC had to step in and define the way testing would be done. Jeez, I was in high school when I read that article! You gotta love the "wiggle room" that IPP (Instantaneous Peak Power) gave the marketing department! There certainly were some shameless claims back then. dave |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:27:02 -0600, Rob Adelman
wrote: I am sure there will be some new measurements in the future that tell us things that can currently not be measured, especially in digital audio. If I may propose some to the EAS Standatds Committee - SP-IPQ - ****ty Plug-In Performance Quotient - (scale of 0-100) URSSCD - Unlistenable Radio Shack Signal Chain Damage (scale of 1-5) IWA - Irritating When Audible (Pass / Fail) Just a start. Kurt Riemann |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
Scott Dorsey wrote: Back when those amps were new, it wasn't possible to make a lot of those measurements, so you could not rely exclusively on measurement. It might be good to contemplate what we loosely call "measurements". They are really three-step operations: (1) Data Capture (2) Decomposition (3) Analysis In this context, it's arguable that the Data Capture step is pretty much a done deal. The output of any piece of audio gear is one, or a collection of time-dependent variables. We can now collect this data with ridiculously high levels of precision. We can capture so much of this data that storing it can still be a practical problem, even with terabytes of disc storage at our disposal. Think I'm kidding? Contemplate a complete set of data for a microphone or speaker on 5 degree intervals in three dimensions. The Decomposition step also seems to be pretty well settled in general. Various applications of FFT-based and related kinds of analysis seem to rule. Audio signals exist in the frequency domain and the time domain, and data can be transformed from one to the other, pretty much at will. That leaves the Analysis step, and that's where I think the major progress will come. In many senses, this isn't measurement at all. It's analysis. The general things we call Measurements (i.e., capture+decompose+analyze) come together as mathematical analogs of hearing. Hearing takes place in the time domain and the frequency domain and we now pretty much rule both domains. We don't know everything about hearing but most of what we've learned in the past 10 years says that hearing isn't as sensitive as we once thought it was. As we discover more things about the process of hearing, we discover more about how to analyze. But we really aren't developing new means for measuring, we're discovering better ways to analyze and understand the measurements we've been doing for years. In electronics, we are deep into an era where raw technical performance can be so good that detailed analysis is usually not required. The imperfections in analog and particularly digital electronics are often way less than what the ear can reliably perceive, and that is pretty much that. Simple bypass tests show this to be true, but not many people seem to be interested in doing serious bypass testing. There do seem to be a few technological blind spots, such as what happens when you turn the gain on a mic preamp all the way up or all the way down. There are however two very thorny areas and audio, and they relate to microphones and speakers. We really don't have much of a clue about how to use them to do a good job of capturing and recreating sound fields. Mics and speakers have proliferated like crazy because none of them are head-and-shoulders all-around better than the best of the rest, and none are arguably sonically transparent in a meaningful way. BTW, how do you do a practical bypass test of a microphone or speaker? I am sure there will be some new measurements in the future that tell us things that can currently not be measured, especially in digital audio. More likely - we'll learn more about how to evaluate what we already measure. You cannot just listen and you cannot just measure. You have to do both and correlate the two or you are wasting your time. Most definitely! Key to the listening part of equipment analysis is reliable listening, where the test results are as free of personal bias as possible. Listening can now be pretty much a standardized process, but only a relatively few exceptional people try to work anywhere near the standards. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the relationship between using equipment and testing equipment. So, most people still seem wander around in the dark when it comes to listening tests. I keep trying to collect and reflect some light. It seems to be getting a little brighter around here. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
I'm not holding Stereophile reviews up either. They took the alternate view completely and relied entirely on subjective listening tests. This is also reprehensible. You cannot just listen and you cannot just measure. You have to do both and correlate the two or you are wasting your time. Although "reprehensible" is too strong a word, you are qualitatively correct. But nobody wants to go to the trouble of developing truly valid measurements, because a huge amount of listening and measuring, probably taking the better part of a decade, would be required. As long as so many people are fighting against bias-controlled listening tests, the clock can't even start ticking on those ten years. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
It was, a others have pointed out, Julian Hirsch who was one of the main
contributors to the belief that measurements were meaningless. How many readers of this posting bought something praised by JH, only to discover it didn't sound very good? I've never met one who could prove that under bias-controlled listening conditions. You are promulgating an old Urban Legend that is simply just bull****, if you don't mind my saying so. And Julian Hirsch's ears are the final judge of audio quality? That if he said something was good (if only by not saying it's bad) it's good? Come off it, Tom. NO reviewer is that good, or that consistent. I ask anyone reading this who had a similar experience to post it. Let me repeat my defining experience... The TEAC A-450 I purchased did not sound very good. Specifically, it had a flat (ie, lacking in depth), "grainy" sound that was once (but no longer) considered typical of solid-state equipment. No amount of tweaking the bias for flat response, etc, would fix this. This seems to have been a common problem with TEAC equipment of that era, including open-reel machines, something I was not aware of at the time I bought the A-450. (See, for example, the StereOpus review of the R-2240 [sic].) But, quite frankly he seldom "praised" anything. That was what was so special. His data showed what the product could do and I never had to sort through a bunch of "this machine takes 3 weeks before it will bend to your will and let you into it's secret world." poetry crap. Hey, Tom... I reviewed for a subjectivist magazine, and I never pulled crap like that. Tell us, Tom... When you select equipment for your hi-fi system, what is the final consideration... How it measures, or how it sounds? Nice try at a strawman argument. I expect any electronic piece that I buy will transport a signal from input to output with complete transparency (gain if needed; warpage if requested) and measurements will tell me if a component will do that. Okay, Tom. Tell me which measurements (type and threshold) guarantee than an amplifying device will not audibly color the sound. I'm waiting. [tapping finges impatiently] What are they? This is NOT a rhetorical question. Tell me. Right now. Inquiring minds want to know. I can think of two significant measurements (though only one is readily provable). First, an amplifier should produce nothing other than second- or third-order harmonics. This is John Curl's design practice, and as he has an excellent reputation, I'm inclined to believe it's correct. The second is that an amplifier's frequency response should not only be flat, but should not vary with the load. Many tube amps break this rule, and if I were the editor of any audiophile mag, such amps would get a Not Recommended rating (at least, for anyone who wants accurate, rather than euphonically colored, playback). I'm not saying measurements are useless. It's just that nobody has ever done the really difficult work needed to correlate measurements with what we hear. One of the problems I have in attacking the UTTER AND TOTAL INTELLECTUAL STUPIDITY on both sides of this issue is that I can't attack or defend either position without painted as being a slavish adherent to that particular point of view. The inability of most people to reason clearly, and their lack of curiosity and ability to think critically is appalling. Which is "why" I don't test electronics and concentrate on speakers. I learned from Julian Hirsch 25 years ago that any reasonably competent amplifier can do this with no degradation of the 'sound.' How did you learn this? By what means was this information conveyed? Because Julian Hirsch SAID SO? Oh, my. Even the most modest of amplifiers I've purchased since 1976, approximately 2 dozen, of which I still own 10, including the first, have never been shown to sound different, to me and other enthusiasts (although I haven't booted the Heath in 18-months) from any of the others, or other competitive units when compared by the owners, under bias controlled conditions when not being driven into hard-clipping. Julian Hirsch knew this and I forever thank him for letting everybody KNOW this basic true-ism. You are conveniently overlooking the fact that JH said he DID hear differences among amps and preamps. Only "they didn't matter." What kind of intellectual shmuck does that make Hirsch? (I confess this is not at all a nice thing to say. If I didn't have the guts to say it to his face when he was alive -- and I could have, on several occasions -- what right to have to say it behind his back, when he's dead?) Julian Hirsch was a dull, boring person lacking in intellectual vibrancy or depth. Talking with him was like talking to a piece of wallboard -- without even peanut butter for flavor. Please tell me... At what point in the evolution of amps and preamps did they all start sounding alike? Are you saying that every preamp and every power amp made since the hi-fi boom started after WWII sounds like every other one? And if a division can be made between "competent" and "incompetent" designs, then tell me the factors that determine these. THIS IS NOT RHETORICAL QUESTION. Tell me. Have you ever heard the Audio Research SP-3, one of the darlings of the audiophile crowd (25 years ago, at least)? It sounds AWFUL. It is such a bad-sounding preamp -- so highly colored -- that you can instantly hear what's wrong with it, without even comparing it with anything else. Surely he did. His largest contributiuon is steadfastly refusing to 'invent' language to describe in-audible sounds. If his work lacked anything it was an active audio-imagination. My initials... Do you know utterly stupid that sounds? I'm not going to waste my time criticizing it. Good. Because you'll look pretty stupid trying to criticize it. I'll repeat; one of the best characteristics of Hirsch was his steadfast reistance to describing the 'sound' of components that had no innate sound of their own. What a moronic explanation. How did Julian Hirsch KNOW that these components had "no innate sound" of their own? Tell me! Was it because he believed, a priori, that they didn't? What method or technique did he use to guarantee the accuracy or correctness of his listening tests? (This same question can be applied to every other listener as well, of course.) Tell me, I want to know. The most damning thing you can say about JH was said by him, himself. He once said that he heard differences among electronic components, but "they didn't matter." Then what the ****ing HELL is the point of reviewing the equipment? To confirm that it meets its specs? Jesus H. Christ. What the hell is the point of reviewing "components" that have no intrinsic sound of their own in sonic terms? By what proof? Julian Hirsch's word? Is he the Aristotle of audio? I guess, then, that heavier objects fall faster than light ones, right? Mr. Nousaine, your inability to reason clearly is startling. You need to speak with someone whose intelligence you respect -- preferably someone who is NOT an audiophile -- to explain the errors in your reasoning. Until a manufacturer, reviewer, seller or enthusiast shows that they can "hear" the sound of nominally competent amps/cables, even their own... Why should we listen to the bull****? Julian Hirsch put the lie to audio poetry thirty years ago. Thank Goodness. Bless him. Whenever YOU're willing to show that YOU can 'hear' audio Urban Legends in public let us know at the earliest opportunity. I've got a better offer -- a much better one. Let me pick out some bad-sounding equipment, and in a blind listening test, you demonstrate to me that you DON'T hear a difference. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
We don't know everything about hearing but most of what we've learned in
the past 10 years says that hearing isn't as sensitive as we once thought it was. As we discover more things about the process of hearing, we discover more about how to analyze. But we really aren't developing new means for measuring, we're discovering better ways to analyze and understand the measurements we've been doing for years. One of the objective facts that has been overlooked is the ability of the brain to make gross alterations in what it hears, according to what it expects. For example, when you suddenly recognize a person's voice on the phone, the sound of their voice abruptly alters to match what you expect it to be. In electronics, we are deep into an era where raw technical performance can be so good that detailed analysis is usually not required. The imperfections in analog and particularly digital electronics are often way less than what the ear can reliably perceive, and that is pretty much that. Simple bypass tests show this to be true, but not many people seem to be interested in doing serious bypass testing. I disagree. I've done a lot of uncontrolled bypass testing, and the differences can be plainly audible. Some equipment has little sound of its own. Products using high-quality op-amps or transconductance amps tend to be very slightly soft and sweet-sounding, with no other obvious errors. The difference is sufficiently small that it is not usually audible except with very good playback. On the other hand, the original Sony "digital" preamp was not very good-sounding. You could plainly hear the difference between input and output, which was presumably due to the A/D + D/A conversion all inputs went through. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
As long as so many people are fighting against bias-controlled listening
tests, the clock can't even start ticking on those ten years. You are assuming DBT is bias-controlled. It isn't. It's possible to do tests that are TRULY bias-controlled, but no one wants to. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
We don't know everything about hearing but most of what we've learned in the past 10 years says that hearing isn't as sensitive as we once thought it was. As we discover more things about the process of hearing, we discover more about how to analyze. But we really aren't developing new means for measuring, we're discovering better ways to analyze and understand the measurements we've been doing for years. One of the objective facts that has been overlooked is the ability of the brain to make gross alterations in what it hears, according to what it expects. For example, when you suddenly recognize a person's voice on the phone, the sound of their voice abruptly alters to match what you expect it to be. I don't think that's been ignored at all. What is sometimes ignored is the vast difference between casual listening for the purpose of communication, and critical listening for the purpose of hearing differences between audio products. I find it interesting to note the big differences in how the speech people do ABX tests and the way the equipment evaluation people do ABX tests. In electronics, we are deep into an era where raw technical performance can be so good that detailed analysis is usually not required. The imperfections in analog and particularly digital electronics are often way less than what the ear can reliably perceive, and that is pretty much that. Simple bypass tests show this to be true, but not many people seem to be interested in doing serious bypass testing. I disagree. I've done a lot of uncontrolled bypass testing, and the differences can be plainly audible. Well, do some controlled bypass testing and get back to us... ;-) Some equipment has little sound of its own. Products using high-quality op-amps or transconductance amps tend to be very slightly soft and sweet-sounding, with no other obvious errors. The difference is sufficiently small that it is not usually audible except with very good playback. On the other hand, the original Sony "digital" preamp was not very good-sounding. You could plainly hear the difference between input and output, which was presumably due to the A/D + D/A conversion all inputs went through. That was then... I think that these tests are very relevant in the here and now. http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm Please take this as my invitation to do better than I have done so far. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
As long as so many people are fighting against bias-controlled listening tests, the clock can't even start ticking on those ten years. You are assuming DBT is bias-controlled. It isn't. Thanks for proving my point by means of a practical example. It's possible to do tests that are TRULY bias-controlled, but no one wants to. Sure I do, just tell me a practical way to do so. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote: I'm not holding Stereophile reviews up either. They took the alternate view completely and relied entirely on subjective listening tests. This is also reprehensible. You cannot just listen and you cannot just measure. You have to do both and correlate the two or you are wasting your time. Although "reprehensible" is too strong a word, you are qualitatively correct. But nobody wants to go to the trouble of developing truly valid measurements, because a huge amount of listening and measuring, probably taking the better part of a decade, would be required. No, plenty of people are developing valid measurements. The latest in a grand tradition is Geddes and Lee's papers, _Auditory Perception of Nonlinear Distortion_, is well worth checking out. It not only shows a distortion measurement that actually is useful, it shows testing in which they correlate it with listening tests. The problem is not developing good measurements that correlate well to hearing. It's a slow and difficult process, but it's one that has been going on ever since Sabine and Helmholtz. The problem is getting people to use them. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
It was, a others have pointed out, Julian Hirsch who was one of the main contributors to the belief that measurements were meaningless. How many readers of this posting bought something praised by JH, only to discover it didn't sound very good? I've never met one who could prove that under bias-controlled listening conditions. You are promulgating an old Urban Legend that is simply just bull****, if you don't mind my saying so. And Julian Hirsch's ears are the final judge of audio quality? That if he said something was good (if only by not saying it's bad) it's good? Come off it, Tom. NO reviewer is that good, or that consistent. I really have to really wonder about the reading comprehension abilities of someone who reads "I've never met one..." and talks like they read "Julian Hirsch". I ask anyone reading this who had a similar experience to post it. Obviously, William, you've never seriously investigated www.pcabx.com. Let me repeat my defining experience... The TEAC A-450 I purchased did not sound very good. Specifically, it had a flat (i.e., lacking in depth), "grainy" sound that was once (but no longer) considered typical of solid-state equipment. No amount of tweaking the bias for flat response, etc, would fix this. This seems to have been a common problem with TEAC equipment of that era, including open-reel machines, something I was not aware of at the time I bought the A-450. (See, for example, the StereOpus review of the R-2240 [sic].) William, maybe you had a bias against teac equipment. Where are any kind of bias-controlled test results that would shed light on this very real possibility? But, quite frankly he seldom "praised" anything. That was what was so special. His data showed what the product could do and I never had to sort through a bunch of "this machine takes 3 weeks before it will bend to your will and let you into it's secret world." poetry crap. Hey, Tom... I reviewed for a subjectivist magazine, and I never pulled crap like that. Does this isolated piece of opinion really shed any light on Tom's statement? Tell us, Tom... When you select equipment for your hi-fi system, what is the final consideration... How it measures, or how it sounds? Nice try at a strawman argument. I expect any electronic piece that I buy will transport a signal from input to output with complete transparency (gain if needed; warpage if requested) and measurements will tell me if a component will do that. Okay, Tom. Tell me which measurements (type and threshold) guarantee than an amplifying device will not audibly color the sound. I'm waiting. [tapping finges impatiently] What are they? This is NOT a rhetorical question. Tell me. Right now. Inquiring minds want to know. Keep all kinds of noise, distortion and spurious responses 100 or more dB down and you've got sonic transparency for sure, or so said Jim Johnson when he was at AT&T labs. I can think of two significant measurements (though only one is readily provable). First, an amplifier should produce nothing other than second- or third-order harmonics. This is John Curl's design practice, and as he has an excellent reputation, I'm inclined to believe it's correct. He's easy to prove wrong. Add enough second and third nonlinear distortion and you get audible differences. http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/index.htm . The second is that an amplifier's frequency response should not only be flat, but should not vary with the load. *every* power amps response varies in amounts that are quite easy to measure given a suitably nasty load. Yet many power amps are sonically transparent with many speakers. I find that the beauty of statements like these is in the quantification. Many tube amps break this rule, and if I were the editor of any audiophile mag, such amps would get a Not Recommended rating (at least, for anyone who wants accurate, rather than euphonically colored, playback). So do many SS amps, but its obviously a matter of how much and why. I'm not saying measurements are useless. But you did. It's just that nobody has ever done the really difficult work needed to correlate measurements with what we hear. Lots of work has been done and more and more keeps getting clarified. However just like many people are still fighting the war of bias-controlled listening tests, many people are fighting the war of Fletcher and Munson in a Zwicker and Fastl world. One of the problems I have in attacking the UTTER AND TOTAL INTELLECTUAL STUPIDITY on both sides of this issue is that I can't attack or defend either position without painted as being a slavish adherent to that particular point of view. I surely can relate to that. So can Tom. How many times have we been accused of being adherents of the "sameness" or "double deaf" school of thought? Yet our real-world activities are dominated by trying to find stuff that sounds different and we often succeed. Do you know how many of the listening tests at www.pcabx.com develop positive outcomes for audible differences, even when done in a fairly humble listening environment? The inability of most people to reason clearly, and their lack of curiosity and ability to think critically is appalling. struggling mightily to be kind Which is "why" I don't test electronics and concentrate on speakers. I learned from Julian Hirsch 25 years ago that any reasonably competent amplifier can do this with no degradation of the 'sound.' How did you learn this? By what means was this information conveyed? Because Julian Hirsch SAID SO? Oh, my. So tell us about your bias-controlled power amp straight wire difference tests, William. 5 of mine are a matter of public record and can all show positive results for audible differences. Even the most modest of amplifiers I've purchased since 1976, approximately 2 dozen, of which I still own 10, including the first, have never been shown to sound different, to me and other enthusiasts (although I haven't booted the Heath in 18-months) from any of the others, or other competitive units when compared by the owners, under bias controlled conditions when not being driven into hard-clipping. Julian Hirsch knew this and I forever thank him for letting everybody KNOW this basic true-ism. You are conveniently overlooking the fact that JH said he DID hear differences among amps and preamps. Only "they didn't matter." Isn't there at least a small range of acceptable sound quality that is associated with at least a few audible parameters? Or is this a black-and-white world where everything either sounds a certain way, or is utter sonic garbage? What kind of intellectual shmuck does that make Hirsch? In my book that makes him an insightful listener. (I confess this is not at all a nice thing to say. If I didn't have the guts to say it to his face when he was alive -- and I could have, on several occasions -- what right to have to say it behind his back, when he's dead?) Julian Hirsch was a dull, boring person lacking in intellectual vibrancy or depth. Talking with him was like talking to a piece of wallboard -- without even peanut butter for flavor. I've talked to Julian Hirsch in person and listened to him lecture. It was all fun and all informative. I guess that makes me dull, boring person lacking in intellectual vibrancy or depth. So be it. Please tell me... At what point in the evolution of amps and preamps did they all start sounding alike? Not all of them, first some, then more, and then... Are you saying that every preamp and every power amp made since the hi-fi boom started after WWII sounds like every other one? Wow, William is this a rhetorical question or what? BTW, how does it relate to audio in the 21st century? And if a division can be made between "competent" and "incompetent" designs, then tell me the factors that determine these. The most important one relates to how it does in a bias-controlled straight-wire-bypass test with a relevant loudspeaker load. THIS IS NOT RHETORICAL QUESTION. Tell me. I'm still waiting to hear about your bias-controlled straight wire bypass tests of power amps William. When you answer my question, I think you'll know my answer to yours. Have you ever heard the Audio Research SP-3, one of the darlings of the audiophile crowd (25 years ago, at least)? It sounds AWFUL. It is such a bad-sounding preamp -- so highly colored -- that you can instantly hear what's wrong with it, without even comparing it with anything else. And in the 21st century this means what? Surely he did. His largest contribution is steadfastly refusing to 'invent' language to describe in-audible sounds. If his work lacked anything it was an active audio-imagination. My initials... Do you know utterly stupid that sounds? I'm not going to waste my time criticizing it. Good. Because you'll look pretty stupid trying to criticize it. I'll repeat; one of the best characteristics of Hirsch was his steadfast resistance to describing the 'sound' of components that had no innate sound of their own. What a moronic explanation. Get back to us when you've done your homework, William. That would be today's homework not the homework you did 25 years ago. How did Julian Hirsch KNOW that these components had "no innate sound" of their own? Tell me! Was it because he believed, a priori, that they didn't? Frankly, I don't think that the listening tests that Hirsch did in his salad days at Stereo Review were as good and sensitive as some of the tests that Tom and I have done in the past few years. What method or technique did he use to guarantee the accuracy or correctness of his listening tests? (This same question can be applied to every other listener as well, of course.) Tell me, I want to know. More relevant, how do we establish the accuracy and correctness of listening tests we do today? The most damning thing you can say about JH was said by him, himself. He once said that he heard differences among electronic components, but "they didn't matter." Then what the ****ing HELL is the point of reviewing the equipment? To confirm that it meets its specs? Jesus H. Christ. What the hell is the point of reviewing "components" that have no intrinsic sound of their own in sonic terms? By what proof? Julian Hirsch's word? Is he the Aristotle of audio? I guess, then, that heavier objects fall faster than light ones, right? Get back to us when you've done your homework, William. Mr. Nousaine, your inability to reason clearly is startling. struggling mightily to be kind You need to speak with someone whose intelligence you respect -- preferably someone who is NOT an audiophile -- to explain the errors in your reasoning. struggling mightily to be kind Until a manufacturer, reviewer, seller or enthusiast shows that they can "hear" the sound of nominally competent amps/cables, even their own... Why should we listen to the bull****? Julian Hirsch put the lie to audio poetry thirty years ago. Thank Goodness. Bless him. Whenever YOU're willing to show that YOU can 'hear' audio Urban Legends in public let us know at the earliest opportunity. I've got a better offer -- a much better one. Let me pick out some bad-sounding equipment, and in a blind listening test, you demonstrate to me that you DON'T hear a difference. Get back to us when you've done your homework, William. This IS the 21st century and almost everything either of us did 25 years ago w/r/t listening tests has less than perfect relevance to the decisions we make today. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
Kurt Riemann wrote:
Rob Adelman wrote: I am sure there will be some new measurements in the future that tell us things that can currently not be measured, especially in digital audio. If I may propose some to the EAS Standatds Committee - SP-IPQ - ****ty Plug-In Performance Quotient - (scale of 0-100) URSSCD - Unlistenable Radio Shack Signal Chain Damage (scale of 1-5) Excellent, except you forgot the minus sign ahead of the scale values. Postive numbers shall not be used for those factors. IWA - Irritating When Audible (Pass / Fail) Excellent. Just a start. But a grand one, indeed. -- ha |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
I was too. Specs were pretty *marketable* in those days. The tests they came
up with were pretty amazing, too: you gotta cook it for what, four hours at half power, then measure full power for half an hour? I've forgotten the details, but the test procedures became pretty rigorous. I wonder why they let computer speaker manufacturers get away with "150-watt speakers" powered by a 15-watt wall wart. Maybe its Instantaneous Peak Music Power (IPMP), one channel driven into a shorted load which destroys the amp after they get the measurement, then multiply by two to predict the power with both channels driven. I guess because it's not "stereo equipment". Dave wrote: "S O'Neill" wrote I read an article of his that inflated a two-watt power amp into a 200-watt amp, to illustrate why the FTC had to step in and define the way testing would be done. Jeez, I was in high school when I read that article! You gotta love the "wiggle room" that IPP (Instantaneous Peak Power) gave the marketing department! There certainly were some shameless claims back then. dave |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote... Reviews of indifferent products were written to avoid saying anything obviously embarrassing. I'd like to see some impartial evidence of that. Well, how about one of Julian Hirsch's own reviews? I see no evidence of objectivity or impartiality. Just another anecdote based purely on opinions with unknown basis. It's unfair to blame Julian for this, IMO. At the 1990 "Sound of Audio" AES Conference, as thwich I was a panelist, Larry Klein, who was for many years Stereo Review's Techical Editor, addressed this point directly. LK would discuss the wording of Julian's reviews with the manufacturers, to resolve any issues they might have with Julian's findings. If no common ground could be reached, then the review would be spiked. All this from LK in person! John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
m (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message ... I'm not holding Stereophile reviews up either. They took the alternate view completely and relied entirely on subjective listening tests. This is also reprehensible. You cannot just listen and you cannot just measure. Hi Scott, you might be surprised to learn that Stereophile's reviews have been accompanied by relatively complete sets of measurements since the beginning of 1990. I agree with you here. Not entirely true since entire classes of products such as cables and vinyl playback equipment have long been *exempt* from measurements. Ironically, JGH measured the frequency response of some vinyl playback equipment back in the day of, but somehow SP lost that capability along the way. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
... There was a time during the 1970s when Hirsch practically perfected the art of writing reviews where there would be thinly-veiled criticisms of certain products (particularly speakers), but you had to really look between the lines to see what he was really saying. I think you hit on the correct analysis here. Think of Julian Hirsch as an American engineering version of Dmitri Shostakovich. Jerry Steiger |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
There was a time during the 1970s when Hirsch practically perfected
the art of writing reviews where there would be thinly-veiled criticisms of certain products (particularly speakers), but you had to really look between the lines to see what he was really saying. I think you hit on the correct analysis here. Think of Julian Hirsch as an American engineering version of Dmitri Shostakovich. The E-V review I mentioned was an excellent example. But "thinly veiled"? Come on. It was as plain as a custard pie on a clown's face. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Julian Hirsch, RIP
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Julian Hirsch, an electrical engineer and writer who was among the first to help a growing audience of audiophiles sort through the good, the bad and the indifferent in electronic sound equipment, died on Nov. 24 in the Bronx. He was 81 and lived in New Rochelle, N.Y. He did nothing of the sort. Reviews of bad products were suppressed or never written in the first place. Reviews of indifferent products were written to avoid saying anything obviously embarrassing. From what I recall having read of his work I disagree. I found his writing style informative, clear and helpful and with a reasonable focus on verifiable facts, time and magazine style considered. Yes, whatever magazine it was I read him in - and I plain can not remember - did have a "popular focus" rather than a scientific or audiophilistic one, and he did a good job of writing within their style, but I don't think he misrepresented facts. Perhaps he simply respected and trusted his readers. Like most reviewers -- including a big percentage of "underground" reviewers -- Julian Hirsch did little or nothing to advance either audio criticism or the audio art itself. I disagree. And he also had a nice, terse sense of humour. Some may recall his testing of whether a subwoofer as claimed would handle being connected to US mains power. "The result was a very loud noise". Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ************************************************** *********** * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ************************************************** *********** |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Julian Hirsch; The Godfather of Reviewing Art | High End Audio | |||
| Google Proof of Unprovoked Personal Attack from McKelvy | Audio Opinions | |||
| Julian Hirsch | High End Audio | |||
| So the deaf old cocksucker Hirsch kicks the bucket... | Audio Opinions | |||
| Julian Hirsch, RIP | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
