SIGNALS & NOISE (Letters to Editor) Oct. 1985

Reliable Reporting

Dear Editor:

Thank you for producing a quality audio magazine. In particular, I would like to echo the feelings of William W. Menz. His letter, in your August "Signals & Noise" column, refers to (but doesn't name) another audio magazine which never seems to find fault with the equipment it tests. Menz and I must be reading the same magazine, for I have long felt the same way toward one of your competitors. Their reviews are always complimentary and never mention any shortcomings of the equipment they test. Audio's test reports, on the other hand, tell of both the strong and weak points of components and are always accurate and informative. Congratulations to you and your excellent staff. Keep up the good work.

Kevin Bradley; Fairfax, Va.

High-Priced Spreads

Dear Editor:

I admit I am a bit confused. I have been reading the review of the Technics SP-10MK3 turntable (February 1985). I have also seen reviews in years past on the Sequerra tuner and read about Mark Levinson's extrapolations ad infinitum. Then there are the Infinity speakers at a mere $31,500 plus or minus a few sesterces.

I understand the idea to sell ultimate quality, as McIntosh attempts to do.

But why do we need such extravagantly priced hardware if the software we can buy does not warrant it? The weakest link determines the quality of the end product. As long as multipath exists, the very best tuner possible will not solve the problem. We have to wait until music is digitally transmitted and computer-driven filters can filter out the later-arriving signals. FM may be dead by then, under the same slow-death warrant which has been signed for the 12-inch LP with the advent of CDs. The Technics SP-10MK3 is therefore equally moribund. The high-priced product is an overkill as long as we have records that produce pops and ticks after only the second playing, not to mention record wear, limited dynamic range, and those thousands of discs that have pops and ticks from birth.

Multipath, and the deterioration of the LP, are inherent problems of the system. I guess until nonmechanical ROMs are developed with enough storage capacity we will always have mechanical-wear problems.

So, I wonder. These manufacturers, do they do any market research? Mark Levinson obviously did not. Technics can afford one loser, since Uncle Matsushita has many millions of sesterces stashed away. The simple logic behind all this escapes me, however.

Paul A. Elias; Fountain Hills, Ariz.

Mixed Emotions

Dear Editor:

I didn't know whether to laugh hysterically or run screaming out of the house after reading the March issue with its articles on FM quality. For about five years we were one of the better sounding FM stations in the area. Recently, new owners took over our only FM competitor in town. There is one AM station. The new owners decided to buy some new equipment which would give them greater loudness (with greater distortion). Our manager and/or owners felt the necessity to compete, so a new piece of audio processing equipment was purchased and adjusted to do battle with the dreaded competitor. Wonderful? We still aren't louder than they, even though both stations are using the same audio processor/exciter combination, but we do sound as bad as, or worse than, they do. Our modulation monitor needle very seldom varies more than 1 dB! In the midst of all this, our owner/manager extols the quality sound of our station compared to brand "X"! Shortly after the "rape" occurred, I noticed that stereo shops in town were playing records or running our station at low volume. One dealer even spent half an afternoon trying to find a defect in his antenna system that he thought was causing the distortion! Our "consulting engineer" was unable to exert enough influence to preserve some of the quality sound we once had, and he feels frustration. A friend of mine commented on the "flat" sound we have.

He covers several states as a salesman, getting into our area every few weeks or so, and is not a hi-fi buff! As far as I'm concerned, as long as salesmen out of the ranks of the AM world are in the positions of power, most FM stations will be little more than bastardizations that would probably send Major Armstrong out of the window again.

The kicker on this whole thing is that we are an Adult Contemporary FM station with Rock at night, and the competitor is Country! The AM station has far more dynamic range than either FM station. Why our manager is concerned about dynamic range on the AM and isn't bothered by the lack of it on the FM is beyond me.

I commend those FM stations who are interested in allowing people to enjoy the program over a long period of time, and who respect the fact that a lot of people spent a lot of money on their systems so they can enjoy music.

It seems to me that those are the people to keep for the benefit of the advertisers. (By the way, I am in sales.) Thank you for allowing me to blow off some steam.

Name and address withheld by request

Repairman Wanted

Dear Editor:

I am looking for someone who might be able to repair an old stereo, a Stewart Warner model number R457. Would you possibly be able to give me some information regarding this? I would be most grateful.

-James S. Jordan; Houston, Tex.

Editor's Note: Can anyone help Mr. Jordan? Let us know, and we'll relay your reply to him.

-E.M.

Static on FM Fidelity

Dear Editor:

The article "FM Fidelity: Is the Promise Lost?" which appeared in the March issue was very interesting. Having worked with lots of FM station operators, I can assure you that very few of them are concerned with "quality." Most of them are more concerned with their bank accounts, and, as such, simply will not spend money for good equipment. Many stations have equipment which is far inferior to most home systems these days.

I assume that the two pictures of towers on page 49 were supposed to represent FM station towers. However, those shown are microwave relay towers, with no visible FM-transmitting antenna bays.

Also, the issue of FCC-mandated proofs is now moot; they are no longer required by the FCC. A few quality conscious stations (like WFMT) will probably continue with them, but rest assured that 99% of all FM operators will use this as an excuse to save even more money. After all, why spend $20,000 for a new control board to replace the old one that couldn't pass the proof? That money can be used for more important things, like a new car for the owner or a cruise for the general manager's family.

-Larry Fuss, Broadcast Consultant; Contemporary Communications, Jackson, Ga.

At Your Service

Dear Editor:

This letter is to inform you of the outstanding service I have received from one of your advertisers. Mr. David Wasserman, of Stereo Exchange in New York City, purchased a set of old McIntosh tube equipment from me last week. David promised to send payment for the articles upon receipt. He was true to his word; I received payment in full within 24 hours after talking with him on the telephone.

Such forthright service is rare in the stereo industry these days. As a snowbird I'm impressed with the service you give to your northern neighbors. We could use your kind of business acumen here in Canada.

-W. J. Donnelly; Edmonton, Alberta Canada

Push/Pull

Dear Editor:

I would like to cast my vote of approval over your publication of the interplay between David L. Clark and Laurence L. Greenhill regarding the subjective sound of the Sansui C-2301 preamp and the B-2301 amp (April 1985 "Equipment Profile"). While it may be difficult to present such discussions without making one or the other look bad (different readers will probably draw different conclusions), it is worth involving subjective influences since listening to music is about as subjective as you can get. The obvious flaw in leaning too heavily on subjective data is that it will tend to reflect the taste of the reviewer. As such taste is developed through personal experience, the yin/yang approach of Clark/ Greenhill has merit.

-John H. Roberts; Phoenix Systems Stone Mountain, Ga.

Rave Review

Dear Editor:

Upon receipt of the May issue of Audio I promptly rushed over to the Rock/Pop record reviews. My eyes were amazed to see the form of Laurie Anderson staring out of the slick page of your glorious magazine. I was amazed that a mass-market magazine would give a New Music artist as unusual as Anderson a full page of review. This reinforced my faith in your publication and increased my respect for Michael Tearson.

So many times, we New Music devotees (who are not Devo fans) get the shaft from the "average" publications. I can now say that Audio is not one to run and hide when something unique rolls around.

Now, how about a review of JeanMichel Jarre's new album, Zoolook, that will really freak 'em out?

-Steven Sawyer; Miami, Fla.

For Sale

Dear Editor:

As a long-time subscriber to Audio, I have a 10-year accumulation of the magazines which I must dispose of.

These are in excellent condition and are complete for the years 1974 through 1983. I would appreciate knowing of anyone who would be interested in these issues.

-H. L. Messerschmidt; Clarendon Hills, III.

Editor's Note: If there are any takers, please send your responses to us here at Audio and we will be happy to forward them to Mr. Messerschmidt.

-A.P.

Component Comparisons

Dear Editor:

Bravo for your use of the ABX comparator for double-blind tests of audio equipment! Your procedures should be the industry standard. As a former empirical psychology major I am acutely aware of how easily a desired result may appear to be real.

May I suggest an improvement to your procedure? You compare the test component to your reference unit. This is probably a neutral and high-priced unit, chosen without the benefit of ABX tests. How about adding to each test series a good, moderate-priced, widely sold component (maybe a $450 to $600 receiver--a Carver, perhaps?), and a "bargain" component (maybe a $300 receiver, like an NAD or Proton or Radio Shack)? Similar choices could easily be made for other components.

In my experience, the results of this modification are sure to be embarrassing to "golden ears" and "experts." (The test subjects should not know which pair of components are under audition at any time.) Please abandon the type of "It sounds okay to me" review that characterized your test of the Stax Lambda Pro headphones (January 1985). Jeffrey Asher Professor of Consumerism Dawson College Montreal, Quebec Canada Point of Reference Dear Editor: I'm writing to applaud Audio's new directions. Contrary to Roy Allison ("Signals & Noise," April 1985), I don't get the impression that two different magazines are trying to inhabit the same covers. I feel the "Auricle" reviews (especially Anthony Cordesman's) make an interesting contrast to the regular scientific, technical ones.

I also thoroughly enjoy the reviews by Richard Heyser, Bascom H. King, Greenhill and Clark, and Ed Long.

Keep them on the staff at all costs! Now to pick a few nits: Would it be possible to get Richard Heyser and Ed Long to identify the reference equipment they use in subjectively reviewing? Greenhill and Clark, as well as Mr. King, already do this and I feel it gives the readers of Audio some insight into the objective as well as subjective preferences of various reviewers.

Thanks again for one of the best commercial audio publications.

-Robert F. Joyce; Jackson, Mo.

(Source: Audio magazine, Oct. 1985)

= = = =