ByJulian D. Hirsch
THE PITFALLS OF SUBJECTIVITY: Criticism, in general, tends to arouse strong emotional responses. This is a natural byproduct of the process, of course, and I must admit that I enjoy receiving an occasional heated letter from a reader who takes issue with my perception (or, in his view, my lack of perception). Insofar as is possible, my evaluation of audio components is based on measurements as accurate and objective as I can make them, and I rarely go off the deep end, so to speak, into the world of purely subjective reactions.
This may be because there is something in my nature that causes me to be singularly unimpressed with much of the "expert" criticism I have read in such diverse areas as music, drama, art, literature, food, wine-and, of course, hi-fi. There have been just enough published accounts of "experts" in all these fields who have been completely taken in by frauds--or simple self-delusion--to lead me to doubt their absolute reliability as guides to the "truth." As may be imagined, I approached my recent comparison between the Harman-Kardon Citation 16 and 16A power amplifiers (STEREO REVIEW, August 1977) with some trepidation. If, indeed, I heard a distinct "improvement" in the sound of the new model over the old, it might prove to some die-hard audio purists (who are frequently my most severe critics) that I was not totally devoid of auditory perception. And it would also shatter one of my own long-held beliefs. In nearly thirty years of deep immersion in the hi-fi world, including the testing of literally hundreds of amplifiers, I have never found an audible difference between amplifiers that was not readily explainable by a measurable difference (or differences) if I really searched for it. I would, in fact, almost welcome the chance to be proved wrong, since it can be very lonely where I, Larry Klein, and some others stand, seemingly out of step with a large segment of the hi-fi design, manufacturing, and critical world.
On the other hand, if I heard no differences between these two amplifiers (assuming that I also found no measurable differences), I would be faced with two possible conclusions: (1) that my perception or listening approach was so flawed or inadequate that I could not hear qualities that were glaringly obvious to everyone else (what a blow to my ego!), or (2) that there was indeed no difference between the two amplifiers to be heard.
As the review showed, I found neither audible nor significant measurable differences be tween the Harman-Kardon 16 and 16A, leaving conclusion No. 2 as the only possible one for me. Of course, I expected some reaction, and I was not disappointed.
A letter from Robert Greenberg, president of Harman-Kardon, presented a reasoned and rational challenge to my findings. Space does not permit extensive quoting from his letter, which had no quarrel with my measurements and other factual comments but did disagree with my listening judgment. Mr. Greenberg stated that Harman-Kardon uses double-blind listening tests, under carefully controlled conditions, designed to disclose whatever sonic differences exist between various versions of their own products and between their products and those of competitors.
Let me slightly paraphrase some of his comments. Like others in H-K's listening juries, Mr. Greenberg regularly heard differences between amplifiers in such tests. The Citation 16A is one response to those perceived differences. Mr. Greenberg goes on to acknowledge that not everybody at Harman Kardon has the ability to make these distinctions, and that not everyone who hears the differences values them equally. Nevertheless, there is a growing audiophile audience that continues to hear and seek such improvements, and Harman-Kardon intends to build equipment for that audience. In addition, H-K is attempting to establish a scientific basis for what it admits is (at the moment) an unpredictable relationship between measurements and subjective judgments.
No reasonable person could take exception to the attitudes expressed by Mr. Greenberg. However, I have several questions about Harman-Kardon's approach. When the reproduction is "improved" by the improved amplifier, what does that mean? I assume that some listeners report hearing greater definition of transients and others hear greater clarity, greater depth, greater transparency, or other factors, none of which can be easily correlated with measurement. And these can be heard only with master tapes, played through certain special speakers, and even then only by some listeners.
Assuming that there is some objective factor in the sound that produces the subjective reactions (if there isn't then all bets are off), then there are several more questions to be re solved. If the reported differences objectively exist, do they represent an increase in fidelity or simply a special effect that is at times more pleasing to some ears? How valid are audibility tests that require special listening equipment and program material that is not available to the home listener? If the task is to determine the best-sounding amplifier when playing master tapes through specially de signed speakers, whatever the jury decides may have some meaning. But if these special speakers and tapes are marshaled in the cause of choosing the best-sounding amplifier to be used in the home with excellent but normal speakers and program material, has anything of value been determined? And, as Mr. Greenberg says, not everyone values sonic differences identically. I confess I am startled by the over-reactions of those who describe minute differences in quality as "tremendous," or the sound of any product but the "best" (by their criteria) as "terrible" or "unlistenable." Surely a little moderation in describing such differences would help to clarify a very confusing situation.
To help resolve some of the outstanding questions about the "goldenness" of the ears of those of us who don't regularly hear differences among amplifiers, we have arranged to be part of a listening test session at Harman-Kardon when their listening room presently undergoing modification is once more in shape. I'm sure that the procedures and results, conclusive or otherwise, will be of interest to all parties concerned.
---
POPULAR DISCS and TAPES (Nov. 1977)