SIGNALS & NOISE (Letters to Editor) May 1985

Do You Hear What I Hear?

Dear Editor:

By the tone of his letter (see "Signals & Noise," December 1984), Richard D. Kelly seems convinced there is negative bias (attitude, if you will) on the part of some Audio reviewers toward solid-state amplifiers as exemplified in the phrase, "transistory sound." He cites writing by Bert Whyte and Anthony H. Cordesman. To quote Mr. Cordesman, "this is reflected in a slight drying out of the sound and minor loss of life."

Well, now, one really must be able to do some serious listening for oneself in order to gain true insight (earsight) as regards the heart of the matter. I would suggest that among persons reading Audio magazine now, many have probably never had the chance to hear music through high-quality, vacuum-tube amplifiers and preamplifiers at all.

Unfortunately for Mr. Kelly, this is the only way possible to form an educated opinion as to the relative merits of tubes versus solid-state. I would hazard a guess that he has not had the chance to listen over a period of time, via quality, vacuum-tube components, to a variety of recorded music. I believe that if Mr. Kelly would do so, his point of view as expressed in his letter may well change.

In a world where ultra-sophisticated, integrated circuits abound, it may seem incongruous that an amplifier employing thermionic emission de vices with glowing heater elements should sound in any way better than a state-of-the-art, solid-state amplifier, but there you are.

Granted, there are plenty of audio gurus, wags, and hypesters as well as grand audio pooh-bahs out there, lurking in the world of audio ready to have you crowd around and absorb their particular point of view at any given moment, but so what? You will have to make your way as best you can.

Also, part of what makes audio interesting is the fact that different people do hear things differently, can hold other opinions, and so forth. That leaves experimentation open to the amateur.

And, yes, components do sound radically better in certain combinations than others. In addition, all is not known about the best circuit designs for audio amplification.

I say bravo to Mr. Whyte and Mr. Cordesman for speaking their minds on the subject and to Audio for publishing it.

Mr. Kelly, get thee to some good tube equipment and listen for yourself.

Robert Rosenow; Address unknown

True Confession

Dear Editor:

'Fess up. Did Bert Whyte really write the column attributed to him on the Philips vs. Meridian CD players (see "Behind the Scenes," December 1984)? Or did Prof. Lirpa sneak in and play his usual tricks? Or, worse yet, did someone from an underground magazine sabotage you? As I recall, the early reactions to CO from such above-ground magazines as Audio and Gramophone declared that CD represented perfection itself.

Only fools and naysayers, of which one category includes reviewers in the undergrounds, could hear any flaws in music reproduced by the CD process.

Then in July 1984, the venerable Gramophone's John Borwick, John Gilbert and Geoffrey Horn, while conceding nothing of their earlier comments on CD, reported that engineers at Phil ips made improvements that overcame imperfections once heard only by fools and naysayers. Now Bert Whyte re ports that not even Philips' improvements are enough; Meridian is able to make still more.

A purple haze (or perhaps a velvet fog) seems to be settling on the distinction between above-ground and underground magazines' perceptions of CD-reproduced sound. Next thing you know, someone will be claiming that the undergrounds were right all along. I shudder at the implications of that possibility.

Everett B. Young; Santa Ana, Cal.

Realistically Speaking

Dear Editor:

Regarding an item in December's "Spectrum" ("Timer, Timer, Glowing Bright . ."), well, sir, there is an answer. You're just not looking "low" enough. That's often the trouble with some of you esoteric, high-end affectionados [sic]. However, I'd have a lot fancier system myself if I weren't the mild-mannered, modestly compensated church worker that I am. But, by necessity, I'm forced to look for solutions I can afford. As a result, I have a finely developed "Volkswagen" taste last year's models, no-frills equipment, and good used stuff. My system includes an older Dual turntable with a Shure 97HE cartridge, a nice little NAD receiver (now discontinued), a couple of JVC 03 speakers (that sound at least adequate to me), and a JVC DD-66 three-head deck that I picked up at a steal.

I regularly tape classical programs off the air, both for enjoyment and education. I finally added a Sony FX51.0R tape deck to accommodate programs over 45 minutes long. What to do when I'm not home to tape? A timer, of course. I chose a Radio Shack 24-hour programmable timer, and it's been working perfectly for about 9 months. I am now considering the purchase of the new seven-day programmable model. At $50, it seems to do every thing one would need.

I enjoy Audio very much and have received a valuable education from its pages. But, as I'm sure you know, price is often more a matter of prestige than a return (in terms of quality) on the investment made. I don't care for the Realistic name plates, but darn, it, I'm getting those recordings made!

-Jon B. Oakleaf; Moline, Ill.

On the Case

Dear Editor:

Having read with great interest the article by David Lander, "The Untold Story Behind the Bose-CU Case" in the December 1984 issue, I would like to comment that, despite Mr. Lander's pro-Bose attitude throughout, the reader can only conclude Consumers Union is the wronged party. Dr. Bose's attitude seems to be that he will sue anyone who publishes something about his speakers of which he does not approve. His concession that re viewers may publish negative opinions under their own bylines is a canard:

Unsigned editorials and reviews are, by long tradition, considered the opinions of the editorial board of the publication, and can be considered to be published under their bylines.

The absurdity of Dr. Bose's claims against CU are brought into harsh focus by the nature of the lawsuit: De spite Bose's claims of wildly irresponsible reporting on the part of CU, the entire lawsuit hinged on one subjective opinion in the review (three words long!), having little or nothing to do with objective speaker-testing procedure. Bose Corporation's attitude to ward testing, however, seems to be that the only fair tests are those which produce results favorable to Bose speakers. Threatening to sue a magazine (as Dr. Bose did with Physician's Life Style) for libel because their re views did not agree with other, positive opinions, is absurd: Should a record manufacturer sue a reviewer who has published a negative opinion, claiming that, since nine out of ten reviewers liked the record, the one negative opinion must be due to defective musical taste? And this from a company which refuses to release its testing methods as proprietary! I have not auditioned Bose speakers, and have no reason to believe that they are anything but superior. I do, however, have strong reason to believe that Bose Corporation has any thing but superior scruples when the reputation of their products is involved.

Christopher Pettus; Los Angeles, Cal.

Designated Clearinghouse

Dear Editor:

I have a great suggestion: Audio could serve as a clearinghouse for oldies-but-goodies-those great analog master tapes, currently sitting some where in someone's vaults, that should be transferred to CD.

Readers could write in to suggest their requests for such reissues. You could then send the results to the respective manufacturers. (Incidentally, Polygram just did a mono CD reissue of an EmArcy jazz recording made during the '50s.) My requests? Easy! My choices are the Mercury releases (engineered by C. R. Fine), Hi Fi Record classical and pop organ recordings (remember them?), RCA Reiner/CSO Orchestra Hall vintage discs, and Crystal Clear's Virgil Fox (not really an oldie) and Sonic Fireworks, with the Atlanta Brass.

James F. Kregg Evanston, Ill.

(Source: Audio magazine, May 1985)

= = = =