By Julian D. Hirsch
Does Everything Have a "Sound"?
FOLLOWING the publication of the report F on the Shure V 15 Type V cartridge (STEREO REVIEW, June 1982) I received several letters from readers asking why I did not comment on the sound of the cartridge. Actually, this question could frequently be asked about my reports on al most every other type of component (speakers being the principal exception), and I would like to clarify my position on the matter once and for all.
There seems to be a widespread feeling among, shall we say, the more fundamentalist audiophiles that every type of audio component (and sometimes even particular parts such as resistors, capacitors, connect ors, and wire within the components) con tributes a distinct coloration to the final sound. This belief is difficult to counter with any logical argument--if I hear some thing and you do not, it is prima facie evidence of a flaw in your hearing! However, there is another side to this coin. If you say you hear some special sound quality but others do not, and if controlled double-blind tests do not confirm your claims, then it is probable that you are demonstrating the nearly limitless human capacity for self-delusion. After all, if you expect, with sufficient intensity, to hear these effects, then (in your mind) you doubtless actually do. Such views have become virtually an article of religious faith on the part of some audiophiles, who naturally lose no opportunity to denounce all heretics and unbelievers.
Please understand that I am not denying the existence of small sonic differences that could be caused by a variety of things, not all of which can be satisfactorily explained.
Also, individuals differ widely in their hearing acuity, and I have no doubt that many people can hear effects that I cannot (and vice versa). What I am trying to do is put the question into perspective. Such small differences, detectable or not by any given individual, can hardly be characterized by adjectives like "huge," "drastic," "enormous," or any of the others used with abandon by some hyperbolic audiophiles. I have only sympathy-not empathy-for those who are so sensitive to the real or imagined sonic aberrations attributed to such things as the normal wires and connectors in a system that they are driven to spend large sums of money to "correct" them.
I have been listening to and evaluating high-fidelity components for nearly thirty years, and I have never heard a significant difference between two supposedly similar electronic components that could not be explained by measurable electrical differences. In the case of the electromechanical transducers, such as phono cartridges, microphones, and speakers, the situation is quite different. There are most certainly differences between products in these categories, and not all of them are readily explainable by conventional measured performance. I emphasize the "readily" since a knowledgeable person with access to complete measurement data and the skill to interpret them can often explain effects that would baffle most engineers.
Even in this product category, the magnitude of the differences is often greatly exaggerated. Phono cartridges tend to sound pretty much alike these days since so many of them have nearly identical, flat frequency-response characteristics. The real differences (those that can be demonstrated in blind listening tests) are almost always related to those (usually) minor frequency-response differences that really do exist. As with amplifiers, all of this assumes linear operation, meaning that the amplifier is never driven into clipping and the tracking ability of a cartridge is never exceeded.
Although I have never conducted or personally participated in properly controlled double-blind listening tests of phono cartridges, such a test was described in the April 1980 issue of Audio-Scene Canada (now Audio Video Canada, 481 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5W 1A7, Canada). The test organizers found that, while subtle differences could be detected, they could not only be closely correlated with the cartridge frequency response but were also strongly influenced by the specific records used. Their conclusion, like mine, was that the mysterious differences sup posed to exist between moving-magnet and moving-coil cartridges were largely in the area of frequency response-if they had any objective existence at all.
This brings me back to the letters that led me to this discussion. Despite my plain statement that this cartridge was the finest, in just about every respect, that I had ever tested, one reader voiced the suspicion that it might have sounded mediocre or worse, and that I had deliberately avoided mentioning this fact because of the simultaneous advertising campaign launched by its manufacturer. He also felt that it was incumbent upon me to report on what any item I test sounds like.
With respect to the first suggestion, let me state flatly that I am subject to absolutely no commercial pressures as to what I say (or do not say) about any product I test.
I generally avoid the "best of its kind" appellation since it is rarely justified, and even when it is, it may not be true six months down the road. In this case I made an exception. I have tested a great many cartridges, and a large proportion of them in recent years have been excellent by any standard. Even so, the subject of the report was completely outstanding in almost every area of test, and I said so in almost those words. It is amusing, in a way, that in this case I am accused of evading a forthright judgment when I was in fact absolutely specific about the product's performance.
What about the suggestion that I should comment on the sound of everything I re view? I cheerfully do so when the products do have a specific sound quality-but, in general, they do not. For years I have tried to hear significant differences in amplifiers, tuners, turntables, and so forth. But such differences, when they exist, are generally so minute and/or so transitory that it seems unnecessary or even misleading to comment on them. When I do find a genuinely significant difference, I say so.
Even in that rare event, how does one de scribe a totally subjective experience so as to convey its essence to another person? When I read that some coloration is analogous to a particular physical texture or color, I rarely feel that I understand exactly what the author is trying to convey. Frequently, when I test the same product (typically a speaker, since I have seldom seen these rare qualities attributed to other components), I do hear an apparent "coloration," but I can rarely relate it in any way to the unique-and frequently far-fetched-verbal imagery used by others to describe (presumably) the same effect.
And so I am afraid I will have to continue to disappoint those who want to be told how an amplifier (or almost anything else except a speaker) "sounds." If it doesn't have a sound, how can I comment on it? If, as in the case of a speaker, I do hear a distinct coloration, I will continue to try to characterize it verbally, but I have little confidence that I can do so with great success except in the case of gross defects. And keep in mind that it is absolutely certain that what I (or anyone else) hear or measure from a speaker in my room will not be duplicated audibly or measurably in your room even if we use the same program material or test procedures.
Also see:
Source: Stereo Review (USA print magazine)