Letters [Nov. 1992]

A WORD FROM HERSELF

Editor: I do not use TARA Labs speaker cable.

SHE WHOSE NAME Is Not To BE TAKEN IN VAIN

Everywhere DOES HER MONEY SMELL DIFFERENT?

Editor: A copy of your October '91 issue was given to me by a woman owner of a mostly mid-fi store in my area. It was very interesting. So high-end audio equipment is considered "boys' toys,' eh? I am a professional classical musician wanting to upgrade into low high end equipment. To support my consumer ism, I also work as a government employee.

I am, or was, planning to spend between three and four thousand dollars to better hear the music that is so important to me.

My experiences so far have been quite interesting, as I have found myself "invisible" as a customer in several stores. (I want to state right up front that I was treated wonderfully in the best store I visited, Altair Audio in Albany, NY.) At this moment I am sitting here at the computer, typing this letter, because I made an appointment with a merchant-a very definite appointment-to deliver nearly $2000 worth of amplification and ancillaries to my home at 9:30 this morning. No show, no communication. Obviously, I am not going to do business in such a situation. There will no doubt be a phone call with an excuse, at some point. It should be quite easy to have the deposit charge removed from my credit card. However, my time is important. I had to take some time off from work in reliance on this delivery. I made arrangements to have the balance due on the purchase put into my checking account, advertised my old equipment for sale, etc., etc.. . . Probably something came up that was "more important" to this missing merchant (he was going to personally make the delivery). Without the facts, it is difficult to say whether the gender issue entered into it. What I am finding, however, is that my being female has everything to do with the failure of many audio merchants to treat me with the respect which I am due.

This morning I made a long-distance call to another audio store, asking for an appointment to audition two specific speakers. The salesman discussed the merits of some equipment briefly, then said he had to cut me off because he had customers in his store. He never really addressed the appointment re quest, which I had made in the beginning of the conversation. Etc., etc.

Does my money smell different because I am female?

MANDY KENT

Bennington, VT

MUSIC VS RECORDS

Editor: The letter from David Marks (Audiophile, Vol.15 No.8, p.16) really got my dander up.

From Mr. Marks's letter I infer that he believes the emotional impact of the music (the performance) is more important than the sonic quality of the recording. I also fervently believe that. However, I do not read the American Record Guide or other magazines devoted to reviews of current recordings. To me, these magazines are useless for the following reasons:

1) The recordings reviewed are almost al ways digital. Digital is not perfect, as Sony's announcement of Super Bit Mapping clearly indicates. While LPs have their own problems, to my ears, LPs are musically and emotionally much more satisfying than CDs. I do own over 300 CDs, since some music can only be obtained this way. However, when I want to experience at home the emotion of a concert-hall or rock-concert performance, I always listen to LPs. 1

2) The recordings reviewed are usually from the six Mega-Distributors whose manufactured house sound/performers all sound alike. Szell/Cleveland, Reiner/CSO, Bern stein/NYPO, Dorati/Minneapolis, Karajan/ BPO, Monteux/Paris, Boult/LSO, Furtwangler, Kempe, Stokowski, Toscanini, etc., do not sound alike There was a distinctive sound to each orchestra and conductor.

Where are the brilliant, idiosyncratic performances: e.g., Bernstein/NYPO/Stravinsky/ Rite of Spring (Columbia MS-6010); Stokowski's own orchestration of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition; and Beecham's grandiose Messiah? Today, most recordings are emotional pablum. You have to search very hard for a distinctive, individualistic, non-sound alike performance.

3) The recordings reviewed are usually ex pensive ($12-$15). Even bargains such as the Mercury Living Presence reissues at $8.99 are still expensive for the average, middle class Audiophile reader who has just spent $9100 on equipment. Used LPs are cheap: $1-$4 if you avoid collectible Shaded Dogs, Blue-backs, Mercs, etc.

By reading back issues of audiophile magazines I have created a "want list" of LPs with excellent to superior performances with above average or better sonics. This "want list" contains over 1300 LPs and is still growing. During the last year I have purchased over 400 of these LPs for an average price of $3 each.

[1 For additional thoughts on this subject, read Neil Young's "Digital is a Huge Rip-Oft" in the May '92 issue of Guitar Player. ] [Neil Young's comments on digital sound were also described in Audiophile, Vol.15 No3, March '92, p.41.-Ed.]

Why buy new (or even used) CDs when LPs are emotionally more involving, contain more distinctive/individualistic performances, and cost a fraction of the CDs you read about in American Record Guide? Mr. Marks, please don't feel sad for me because I don't read the magazines that tout the latest and greatest new recordings. Re member, most of these same magazines touted, and continue to tout, the "perfect sound" of digital? Perhaps in their enthusiasm for technology and the "new and improved," they have forgotten the sound and the emotional impact of live music and how much closer LPs bring one to that experience than CDs.

For my part, I will continue spending a fraction of what you do to purchase the great recorded music treasures of the last 50 years.

I hope you are happy with your new recordings. I know that I am happy with my expanding collection of LPs.

ROGER S. GORDON; San Diego, CA

HAVE WE LOST OUR MINDS?

Editor: Have you lost your collective minds?! I've been a subscriber for about five years.

I still look forward to receiving the magazine each month. I used to read it cover to cover. Every article, every review. I don't any more. Why not, you ask? Because of Robert H.'s goddamn redundant reviews of D/A converters. Every friggin' issue! Who gives a shit? Yeah, I've got a CD player, a Rotel piece of Jap crap it took me two years to find cable for. No, I am not going to buy a D/A converter, ever! How can I? H. finds new perfection every month. I've never heard of most of the manufacturers. I'll never see or hear them here in the bayous. Honestly, how many of these things are sold every year by each manufacturer? Twenty? A hundred? If Levinson sells five of their $14,000 jobbies in a year, I'd be real surprised.

If H. has to be heard each month, just give him a column. Don't waste major amounts of review space on crap that no one buys. When I think of all the important stuff, like music reviews, cartridges, turntables, amplifiers, speakers, etc., that are being shoved aside for this digital claptrap, The Absolute

2, This is understandable; if magazines did not "sell" digital, they would have nothing to sell.

Sound becomes a lot more appealing.

May I ask why you devote so much space to a recording medium you deride in each issue? There's RH singing the praises of the latest, greatest, most wonderful D/A converter I've heard in the last 10 minutes, and then Tom Nor ton deriding the "Spin Doctor" If you don't like it, why devote so much space to it? Please, please, pretty please, stop the confusing, repetitive D/A reviews before I lose what little of my mind is left. Sorry about the profanity, but, my God, I thought you would cut down on this D/A crap by now-I just reached the end of my cable.

R. E. KIRKPATRICK; Baton Rouge, LA

Each to his or her own regarding digital "crap," Mr Kirkpatrick We merely reflect the world as we find it. Out of interest's sake, I asked Madrigal's Mark Glazier how many No.30s they had sold since its introduction at the beginning of this year. Whereas Mr. Kirkpatrick says he would be surprised if they sell five a year, Mr. Glazier's answer was that, up to the summer of '92, over 400 Mark Levinson No.30s had been sold worldwide, with five alone going to Portugal.

–JA

BRAVO!

Editor:

The June 1992 issue "Letters" section immediately turned me from a speculative sub scriber to an out-and-out devotee of Audiophile.

First, as I read RL’s rebuttal to the criticisms launched at him for his review of Enya's Shepherd Moons album, I was immediately struck by the similarities of some of my own experiences to his on discovering and enjoying various types of music. Though my original perspective on "real music" was a bit different from his, I too had the good fortune of being exposed to a variety of styles and genres of music while at university. Over time, I became quite humbled at the thought of my own narrow-mindedness. I am now continually amazed at all the music that is available to enjoy, and I am afraid that I'll run out of time before I get to hear it all. What keeps me going is that I know there is always some thing new to discover. I may not necessarily like all of it, but then again that's the beauty of it: you never know what new gems are lurking around the corner.

The last paragraph in RL's comment in June conveys my own thoughts much better than I could ever hope to express. Thanks for showing that all music exists for all of us to simply enjoy. Bravo! I was also very much interested in the subject of Audiophile's questionable abundance of reviews dedicated to costly high-end audio equipment. Though I may feel your balance between expensive and modestly priced equipment to be just fine, I would also like to clarify that I am not that type of person who can buy the likes of Krell and Martin-Logan with pocket change. And although my audio purchases need to be strictly budgeted, I have discovered that in order to be able to maximize the enjoyment I get from listening to music in my own home, the equipment I choose to buy eventually reflects that added cost in terms of dollars and cents.

It is my belief, after talking with a number of people who are interested in buying quality audio gear, that, given the availability of a reasonable amount of disposable in come, there are many potential consumers of true hi-fi who turn gun-shy at the thought of spending any more than a given dollar amount. Of course, many are justified to limit their spending. But after you eliminate those people who have other financial priorities (such as the trivialities of paying the mort gage and feeding the kids), and those who are only interested in owning a stereo to use as a living-room ornament that plays their favorite tunes, you wind up with a segment of the consumer population that is short changing itself. In my opinion, this is a result of both misinformation and the lack of information.

Pardon my indulgence in the following analogy: If someone enters the car market with, say, $12,000, that person would not expect to come home with a brand-new Corvette. By the same token, if that individual buys a Ford Tempo, he or she will not try to convince themselves or their friends that it is just as good as a Corvette. With all due respect to the designers, retailers, and owners of Tempos, I am sure that it can provide safe, comfortable, and reliable transportation. But it does not offer the performance of a Corvette, the luxury of a Cadillac, or the engineering of a Mercedes-Benz.

I hope I am not coming across as an audio snob. Would you consider someone who appreciates the attributes of a well-crafted auto mobile, or home, or piece of furniture, or tool as being a snob as well? As much as I would like to, I cannot afford the new Linn CD player. But spending $1500 for a pair of speakers recently brought some strange looks and raised eyebrows from a few friends. The point I am trying to make here is that many people have a narrow knowledge of the avail ability of quality audio gear.

A magazine such as Audiophile exists in order hopefully to bring attention to that equipment which offers what is important: that is, quality reproduction of music. Unfortunately, the best of this equipment is expensive be cause quality design, engineering, and manufacture are expensive. But if listening to and enjoying music are important to someone, then they are doing themselves a favor by exploring all the possibilities available to them.

Audiophile allows that search to be a little bit easier, in a variety of price ranges. Then again, would you want to read a car magazine full of articles on Skodas and Yugos?

HENRY HUSAR

Ontario, Canada

You HEARD THE MAN

Editor: Flipping through the pages of an old Audiophile (October 1989), I stumbled upon an indignant reply to one of my letters-a letter in which I agreed with J. Gordon Holt that classical music is the only standard for judging the absolute sound of a component. The writer called me an "elitist snob!' Thank you.

I'll go even further: classical music-Western or Eastern-is the only music worthy of being called music. Sorry, folks, but I just turned 44, and you know what? I don't give a damn what Bob Dylan has to say about anything? Eric Clapton is as dead as Tutankhamen. The Dead are as dead as, well, Bob Dylan. Rock is either for the angry, drugged, hormonally hysterical young or the emotionally regressed, intellectually disadvantaged middle-aged.

And if someone doesn't like my point of view they can write a letter to this magazine and call me an elitist snob.

PETER REICHELT

Flushing, NY

HOLT ON CLARIFICATION

Editor: I would like to clarify two statements that I

[ 3 Dylan = William Blalcè ("Letters," October 1991). Get sober, RL! ]

made in my brief Summer CES report (Vol.15 No.8, p.90). First, I said "I have never cared about how something works, only about how it sounds." Almost true but not quite, because things other than sound alone can affect one's reaction to a product. What I should have said was ". . . only about how well it works." That would include everything from how easy it is to use, to whether or not it blows up when you turn it on. (Besides, the revised version reads better.) Second, I referred to Deutsche Grammophon as "a record company not exactly known for its great recordings!' Although that is generally true today, during the '60s and '70s European DGs were excellent, even by 1992 standards. But for domestic distribution, copies of DG's original tapes were re-equalized "to the American taste" and recut here. They were thin, strident, and restricted in dynamic range. Did American consumers really have such bad taste in sound?

J. GORDON HOLT

Boulder, CO

HOLT ON ROWLAND

Editor: I own one of the largest Jeff Rowland Design Group dealerships in the United States. Favorable or less than favorable mention of JRDG products in Audiophile touches my business. J. Gordon Holt's recent CES treatment of a marvelous man and his products diminishes all of us.

I have had the pleasure of listening to music played through Jeff's wonderful gear for hundreds of hours. I have been privileged to be able to discuss music and the art of its reproduction with Jeff extensively.

I know Jeff Rowland to be the type of listener who reserves final judgment until he has thoroughly and exhaustively tested a component.

I know Jeff Rowland to be a disarmingly honest, truly caring, and keenly sensitive man. Jeff Rowland is the epitome of what is right and good about high-end audio.

Judging by the recklessness of your CES report, you, Mr. Holt, are no Jeff Rowland.

DR. HOWARD M. HOROWITZ

President, Audio Center, Inc.

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

I read Dr. Horowitz's letter with puzzlement as I couldn't actually remember a passage in JGH's CES report where he had summarily trashed Jeff Rowland the man or Jeff Rowland the components.

All I could find from JGH in our August issue were the following passages: "Although I've heard the [Avalon] Ascents a number of times in Boulder, mostly with Rowland amps (all the rage here, it seems), I had been properly impressed but never bowled over The speakers just never seemed to come to life. . . I also confirmed, in the Rowland room, something I had long suspected: Rowland's amplifiers tend to sound rather recessed. In Rowland's CES room, the Ascents sounded detailed enough, but because of the backed-off midrange, they never really came to life-just as they never had in my previous experience" "Recklessness," Dr Horowitz? It seems like fair reporting of one man's experience to me.

MISSED BRAHMS

Editor: Mortimer H. Frank's "Building a Library" on the Brahms Piano Concerto 2 in September would have benefited from discussing the recent release by Ivan Moravec and the Czech Philharmonic Orchestra (Supraphon 1109532-031). This unusual performance differs strikingly, and convincingly so, from the ones dis cussed.

P. HES SEMER; Chicago, IL

MISSED MAHLER

Editor: It's understandable how Kevin Conldin might have been led to believe that Deutsche Grainmophon's audio and video releases of Mahler's Symphony 8 with Leonard Bernstein and the Vienna Philharmonic (Vol.15 No.8) were taken from the same performance Had he been on his toes, however, he would have discovered that they are, in fact, different performances in different cities.

While the audio release was taped at the Salzburg Festival in August 1975, the video was recorded in Vienna in the Konzerthaus in September 1975. Also, the lineup of vocal soloists is somewhat altered: on the video, Edda Moser and Ingrid Mayr replace Margaret Price and Trudeliese Schmidt, respectively.

To make matters even more interesting, the Vienna performance is better than the Salz burg one in every way-even more fervent (if that can be imagined), more cohesively played and sung. The laserdisc version of the video is also far more attractive sonically, without the glare of capsized balances that mar the CDs.

Frarddy, DG should have issued the audio portion of the video performance on CD, as they did with the fragment of Symphony 10 elsewhere in the set.

RICHARD GINELL Beverly Hills, CA

MA! COREY TOLD A FIB ON ME!

Editor: "Hush, son. You be one tattletale" But MA! Corey said he did "every CD tweak in the book;' but he never tried mine and he badmouths it to everybody! Ma, Corey used to be fun, now he POKES fun.

Please, do something. He's become a regular Misstra-Know-It-All (No-Need-ta-Listen): "If we want digital to get better, we need to start focusing on real improvements, not fiddly-ass little 'tweak o' the week' Band Aids" (Audiophile, August 1992, pp.85-87). Ma, don't that sound jes' like some AES honcho tryin' to talk way cool? Corey show himself no true scientist, else he wonder how and why BandAids work, which even Digital Lad cannot explain. Suppose Coreyman do get that new Sony SBM disc collection for Christmas like he want, my trusty Benjamin still gonna degauss 'em to a purer realm and the Corybant4 still won' know why 'cause he obviously happy as shit droppin,' like every lemming, "another ten bucks [per disc] for CDs of this kind of quality." What a scene! Boy Corey fronting Corporate Culture Club! From his roost as Young Contributing Editor he may well ridicule cheap tweak gizmos-but to the everlasting detriment of physical science. For here we have an unaccounted major malefactor in CD reproduction, intensely audible on every sys tem; a tweak that subsumes most others; a miracle solution to low-level compression, headachey glare, and fuzzy bass; designers and reviewers who refuse to listen; and this bambino with a chip on his shoulder.

Mark my word, history will confirm that in every CD to date, whirling embedded static charge erects a Maxwellian field that some how tilts the read mechanism. Call it perhaps another form of LIM (Logic Intermodulation) distortion, which just last year at this time no one knew about either. Yet Mr. Green berg, who never solicited an explanation from me, appears adamant that Benjy won't touch his rave new Sony 20-bit-supermapped discs.

[4 The Corybant?! Look it up! "Class. myth. Any of the spirits or secondary divinities attending Cybele with wild music and dancing and following her over the mountains by torchlight. Corybantic: agitated; unrestrained. Also, Corybantine" I rest my case.]

For all he knows, Sony has discovered de gaussing! Thus we get classic hubris entwined with advance PR for rollout of CD Mk.II, which years ago I dourly predicted was already on the drawing boards and would be made compatible with MILL-unlike the upcoming Mk. III, which will have us buy another whole disc collection plus different players.

And the groovy new kid on Delgado with street smart quill and H.

-A. T-shirt falls for it!

GET REAL.

Nasty child! Ma, my little brother needs bathing and a good spanking. Or willya unbox his ears? Better yet, take away his she key!

NNYAAHH!

'Couple other things about last August, for all you mothers out there. Bob H.'s response to readers Paprocki and McCartney on audiophiles vs recording engineers de serves bravos! We all play on the same team, pro good sound, no need to bash each other when the tone-deaf Money Power truly controls the industry. Nevertheless, their obvious pandering to lowest-common-denominator taste fails ridiculously at times. "To the listener with a table radio, the bass-shifting trick increases the ability to enjoy music:' we read.

Beg to differ! Agreed, "many in the recording community just don't know what a high-end system can do" I find, however, that whatever plays best on my Big Rig also sounds great on my mono car radio. Figure it! Kevin Conklin scores heavy too, thank frilly recovered from his recent burnout. Yes, Mitropoulos and Horenstein are the guys to beat in the Mahler Eighth ("Symphony of a Thousand" to you underachievers), and he exhibits considerable courage saying so in Audiophile since Dmitri comes in mono and Jascha, a stunning rarissima BBC transcription, fell into very few lucky hands. (A 1984 Discophile edition, made by playing the BBCs with a V15, was a sonic washout.) Kevin only omitted the third top contender. Forget Mehta, Sold, Tennstedt, Bernstein, Ozawa, Haitink, Shaw-they don't make 'em like Hermann Scherchen any more! The conductor with the greatest-sounding Mahler symphony in ste reo! (The Second!) Anyone care to join my Hermann Scherchen Society?

CLARK J OHNSEN

The Listening Studio, Boston, MA

BLAME THE MUSICIANS

Editor: A recording engineer who would poorly mike an instrument to create extra mixing sessions (in view of the infinite potential for excess time in mixdown sessions) certainly has no couth. It is unlikely that, without the help of accountants, MBAs, and knob twisting wannabes, there would be as much equipment used at a recording session. PBS produces really great orchestral recordings on the radio mostly with two or three micro phone setups, often permanently mounted in the recording hall for that purpose.

But in RH's August "As We See It," "A Clash of Values," he misses what every recording studio knows: that it is the musicians who demand multi-track.

Try talking to a singer who wants a 32 track recording of his guitar and his voice, "because more tracks are better since all the pros use it."

DONALD BISBEE, Columbus, OH

BLAME H.

Editor: I would like to compliment Robert H. on a very decent tutorial for the newer mem bers of the audiophile community ("A Clash of Values:' August 1992). It must become tedious to periodically repeat fundamental material for the new readers. Mr. H. seems to have striven to maintain balance on his presentation of two sides of a long-running debate.

Evidently this article was inspired by John McCortney's reaction to a letter I had written a few months ago. Not having seen his letter, I can only react to what is evident through RH's essay. I think that Mr. McCortney loses points for not recognizing a Tom Maglioni/ Corey G.-style rave when he sees one. And he really should have been able to figure out that, as a hi-fi-literate member of the Audiophile readership community, he probably wasn't the object of my concerns.

Mr. H. was talking about me, though, by name. And he badly misrepresented me and what I believe. I do feel obliged to try to repair the record on a few points.

RH: "I share Mr. McCortney's frustration with Mr. Paprocki's dismissal of. . . close miking . . . and therefore the skills of all re cording engineers?' All of them? Every single little bitty one, all the way around the world? This is a pretty darned unlikely interpretation, isn't it? Would anyone outside of a mental institution actually mean to say something as irresponsibly absolute as that? What I said was "Recording engineers.. That could mean any number of them greater than one, but suggests a substantial subset of them. Let's try reading this as "the majority of recording engineers?' If one can infer from RH's statement regarding the vast majority of recordings, it looks like he and I are right in sync on this one.

RH: "A blanket condemnation of.. close miking techniques is clearly wrong, particularly when issued by someone without practical experience in the matter?' Oh, man, what am I going to say about this? Boom, there goes half of my life.

I hate this credentials stuff What am I sup posed to talk about? About almost 25 years of part-time stage, soundboard, studio, 'scope, and soldering-iron experience? About almost 35 years of idolizing the art of the 45rpm single? About building my own racks to take studio gate modules on the road (before there were good portable ones)? About regularly direct-injecting everything on stage, including lead guitar, in order to punch in near subliminal illumination onto hooky phrases? About the recordists I've witnessed at work, good and otherwise? About . . .

RH: "It isn't the engineer's prerogative to stop the session to experiment with tweaky techniques . . ." So just what the heck is so tweaky about dropping a mike stand on the floor 2' east of where you dropped it yester day? I even took the trouble to include in my letter a rule of thumb for hi-fi miking as it could be done, so it's already a no-brainer.

And as for the different kinds of music for different purposes, please note that I most distinctly specified ensemble playing. Not jingles. Not Ministry records. Not dance mixes. Not every crank-it-out gig a studio ever gets. I think I was adequately clear on this point, assuming cultural literacy on the part of the reader.

I know where RH was trying to go with his article. There are plenty of audiophiles around with no sense of context5 and no knowledge of technique. But geez, why did you have to appoint me as their spokesman? I'm scarcely your best choice in that matter, and my years of fairly intelligent correspon dence (and a few raves) in your magazine and others should attest to that.

So am I steamed? Yeah, a little. I should be.

But misunderstandings don't always wreck acquaintanceships. Sometimes they're the shared experiences from which friendships grow. I'll be looking forward to the opportunity someday to shake Mr. H.'s hand.

HILARY PAPROCKI

Rochester, NY

RIGHT?

Editor: 7pm, August 24, 1992, The Big Apple: Klick, klack. . . Shlack.. . I stuck my right hand into the deep, narrow mailbox. My mind raced through the monthly bills, wondering which one(s) ar rived today and wishing that Audiophile were as regular as Con-Ed and New York Tele phone in their monthly dispatches! Then I felt a smooth, glossy object under the pile of envelopes. What could this be? Can't see it yet, but I can feel it. . . wait a minute-no way! I don't Corey believe it.

Well, guys, it happened. For three months running, I received my copies of Audiophile on time, and that was only the beginning. I scanned the cover page, and what did I see? Budget equipment! No, I am not one of those guys who rant about insufficient budget equipment reviews or the lack thereof in Audiophile but even if I were, this issue would have been enough to placate me 'dl thy kingdom come. Featured were some new and old equipment by manufacturers whose products make up a good chunk of my budget system: Kinergetics Research, PS Audio, and Dynaco.

The latter was added two nights ago after losing one channel in my workhorse Perreaux! Have you guys been watching me or what? Now, if you really, really want to shock me, you would have Corey G. tell me about the Dynaco--like I like it! So,

[ 5 Lately I find this business of cultures more engaging than messing with the Victrola. I disagree with your anthropologists. (All anthropologists? Every single little bitty one?) Every judgment is made in some context. Depending on the context, there will generally be winner and loser cultures within any single comparison. The results of all non-frivolous comparisons can ultimately be summed up. The sums will not all be equal. Probably, for instance, Santa Fe beats Haiti.

6 As far as I am concerned, Audiophile is in the fast and safe lane as long as quality is the driving fuel.]

let's see. . . [flip, flip] . . . here we go: equipment review. . .Dynaco Stereo 70 Mk.II . . . Corey!! No, wait . . . maybe his name was on a different line. Let's eyeball the line s-l-o w-l-y . . .eeerrrhhhh... .yeah!!! Whew! Let me Tellig to you guys, I like my soup with plenty of curry and spice in it. This time, Audiophile really whipped it up. I knew this was going to be another sleepless night when, on p.123, Corey said he was going to let the geezers sort it out in the funny pages! For starters, I need some advice. I am thinking about getting married-someday! How do you married men out there handle a situation like this? I mean, what do you do when you have a Corey-hot-Audiophile in your hands and she is feeling honey? Congratulations to you, Audiophile, for Tel hg it like it is and, yes, for all the controversies you whip up, intended or not.

PETER OBANOR; New York, NY

RIGHT and WRONG?

Editor: Strangely, I find both protagonists in the latest Gunfight at the Austin Corral to be both right and wrong. The shootout I refer to is, of course, contained in the gunsmoke of Corey G.'s review of the Dynaco Stereo 70 Series II and Bob Rapoport of Panor's corresponding "Manufacturer's Comment" (Audiophile, September 1992). Mr. Rapoport's criticism of CG's utilizing only the one set of rather inefficient speakers is certainly not without merit. This amplifier should be reviewed primarily with ancillary equipment that the average Dynaco buyer might use. Then, additional auditions with other speakers can be revealing and informative. Frankly, re-reading the review and the letters from Panor would seem to indicate that multiple speakers should have been used, if only to further test and comment on the effect that the frequency-limiting circuits had on different amplifier/speaker interfaces Such information would have been of great help to potential customers of a $1000 tube amplifier. . . Where I disagree with him is his petulant "you won't play by my rules, so I'll take my ball and go home-so there!" attitude. This does not seem consistent with the persona of the mature person who helped conceive of the marketing potential of reviving an old and very honored marque.

Mr. Rapoport is also partially in error in stating that no dealer has the original Dyna cos to compare with the new. I personally know of a dealer handling the "new" Dy naco product who also handles some used gear, and on my last visit had at least six original or modified ST70s on the shelf. If needed, any one of these could be hooked up for a comparison. Indeed! I have heard one such comparison, and the new ST70 was clearly the winner-with the correct amplifier-to-speaker interface.

When I was much younger, I was advised by parents that whenever you wrote a very serious letter, the ideal was to put it into a drawer for a couple of days; then, after this cooling-off period, reread it before mailing.

Methinks Mr. Rapoport's parents lacked this parental advice. Writing a letter to Audiophile's advertising rep and stating that its editor treated him like an "asshole" has its ironic humor. This is not the way to make friends in a very small, closed industry; the irony is that in making such a remark, Mr. Rapoport employs the same writing style that got CG in hot water some time back. Maybe that thought is a fitting commentary on this whole issue: "If you can't lick 'em, join 'ern.' If Mr. Rapoport sincerely believes this is the manner in which JA treated him, then such a comment might be barely permissible over a cocktail to a friend, but my personal rule is never to call someone an obscenity in print unless you are prepared to go behind the barn and defend yourself. Gloves, anyone? As a long-time subscriber to Audiophile, TAS, and other publications, it is my considered opinion that these silly little cat-fights have no place in audio review journalism. I can't seem to get the Royal Family or Woody Allen off the front pages of my daily news paper, so why should I put up with petty bickering in the pages of allegedly respectable special-interest publications? There is no place for this here! Article after article in the audio press decries poorer sales, the lack of a mass audience that understands or appreciates, and now-valuable space devoted to bickering is not right.

I don't envy any reviewer's task. Basically, it is a no-win situation. In spite of admonitions to the contrary, many readers take a re viewer's comments as gospel buying recommendations, something that isn't helped by the mentality of "sell the Mercedes and move your wife into White Slavery" so you can afford this week's "in" product. The bottom line, however, is that the product should speak for itself. Corey G. . may find flaws in a product; it is his duty as a reviewer to point out said flaws, and also the strengths.

I am a little dismayed that his reviewing pro cess did not allow for the aforementioned multiple speaker choices. It would have added impact to his report.

I have listened to the Stereo 70 Series II and found it to be everything that Steven Stone described in his TAS review (Issue 75/76, January '92). My personal opinion is that this amplifier does everything it purports to do--admirably. The differences, as we all know, in going up in price are incremental gains in refinement. If you can afford to do so-then go for it! But if a product such as the new editions of the PAS3 and ST70 can gain some converts from department-store rack sys tems, then a great leap forward will have been made in converting a segment of consumers from Japanese Bells & Whistles junk to at least an enticing view of what high-end audio is all about. T ONY GLYNN Salem, OR

WRONG?

Editor: In response to Bob Rapoport's ranting, raving, holding his breath, and laying on the floor kicking and screaming: Puh-lease. Hose this man down before his head explodes.

I was considering the Dynaco for my next amp-I've got about a thousand busks and I'm hot for tubes. I respect Corey G.'s opinions, but even if he had said the Stereo 70 SUUUUUUUCKED, that wouldn't have stopped me from auditioning it. Hey, 7 A little over a year ago. I had occasion to write directly to Audiophile’s resident enfant terrible when I took issue with him over some comments he had made about someone in an article. In return, I received a very nice response, well-reasoned and -thought-out, explaining the purpose of his article May I also add that his response was not couched in the excessive "street" language that brought such a deluge of reader response. Yet, in further defense of Corey, may I note that over the past year his writing style has matured significantly, so overall I welcome the addition of CG to the ranks of Audiophile reviewers. The early lapses into certain vulgar excesses, I think, can be chalked up to the testing of the envelope by a young, new writer, and also to one who is seriously defending his First Amendment freedoms. It now seems that CG has realized that the review is the focus of an article, not dever coining of phrases (except when necessary) or writing like the chief scriptwriter on an Eddie Murphy movie Hell, you only need three words for that anyway.

Mr. Rapoport, I've read the good reviews too.

And I know that the first rule of audio is listen with your own ears, for your own tastes, and make up your own damn mind. Much to the credit of all the high-end journals, this is stressed over and over in their pages. Mr. Rapoport should give audiophiles a bit more credit. His attempted character assassination of Corey G. misses the target and sprays verbal bullets into the crowd of innocent bystanders: us, his potential customers.

He really steps over the line in his letter to Ken Nelson where he claims that Corey's choice of music is suspect. I don't know what "boomers" he's referring to, but I was born in '55 and I still like to rock and I like to hear it on good gear. Mr. Rapoport's elitist hissy fit brings me to this: I won't be auditioning the Dynaco after all. Any manufacturer that insults my taste in music, fills my favorite magazine with hateful spite, and tries to financially punish those who dare dislike his product will not receive any support from me now or in the future.

BRAD ADAMS, New York, NY

AN EASY CHOICE

Editor: On occasion I am fortunate to accumulate enough money to be able to purchase good stereo equipment. On such occasions I have difficulty in making my choices, because there is so much good equipment available.

For this reason, I thank the Panor Corporation and Mr. Rapoport for making my deci sion a bit easier: I have removed Dynaco from my list of equipment candidates.

HARRY ICLUGER Reading, MA

FLAWS?

Editor: I read CG's review of the new Dynaco Stereo 70 II amplifier with great interest. I have used Stereo 70s for several years, and my own experience confirms his. The unmodified Stereo 70 has somewhat mushy bass and a soft, dull high end with low resolution. It doesn't stand up to comparison with today's state-of-the art tube amplifiers.

A few years ago, after encountering much hearsay and little substantial information about Stereo 70 modifications, I decided to tear one apart to find out why it didn't equal the best modern amplifiers and what could be done about it. I began by disconnecting the negative feedback loop, which masks circuit weaknesses. What I found was a serious but little-known flaw in the original design: Because of the very high plate resistance of its 7199 pentode input stage, it had extremely poor frequency response: down 13dB at 20kHz with the original circuit. The output transformer, which has sometimes taken blame for the Stereo 70's limitations, was excellent.

After much experimentation, I found that when I made the input stage function as a triode (by connecting the 7199 plate to the screen grid through a capacitor), the frequency response radically improved. Since this reduced the gain, I added a pair of 12AU7 dual triodes with cathodes connected together for additional amplification and to operate as drivers for the output tub& Curiously, this approximated the classic Williamson amplifier circuit, first published in 1947, the year of that other great electronic break through, the transistor.

The bottom line is that the sound of the modified Stereo 70 is absolutely stunning.

It also measures better: Response is down only 2dB at 100kHz, and 10kHz square waves really look like square-waves (even without negative feedback). In comparison to the Audio Research Classic 30, it lacks only the last degree of image stability. I recently had a Krell owner tell me that my system sounded better than his-the ultimate audiophile ego trip! I would hope that we soon see a Dynaco Stereo 70 III that corrects the major weak ness of the original Stereo 70. Such an amplifier would have a Williamson-type circuit with a real dual-triode front end (probably a 12AX7). Panor and Van Alstine may argue it out about who originated the bandwidth limiting circuits on the Stereo 70 H's front end, but such crippling circuits have no place in a high-end design! The original Stereo 70 had many virtues, but the dull, low-resolution high end was not one of them, and has no place in a modern amplifier with high end aspirations.

NORMAN KOREN Encinitas, CA

The complete details of this modification were published in the January 1992 issue of Glass Audio, available by writing P.O. Box 176, Peterborough, NH 13458, or by phoning (603) 924-9464. A sample issue is $4.

UNDISCIPLINED SUBJECTIVE REVIEWING?

Editor: I continue to be amazed at Robert H.'s defense of-and indulgence in-undisciplined "subjectivist" reviewing. Never mind that he's chummy with the manufacturers, who often lend him the equipment and even personally install it in his system. Never mind that he brings all sorts of preconceptions and expectations to his listening sessions, based on the name of the manufacturer, the price of the unit, and the promotional literature he reads first. All of this, Mr. H. assures us, he ignores when he writes about the sound.

Even if that were true, what about his ultimate lack of standards or criteria for judging the sound? Take his recent review of the EAD DSP-7000 D/A converter (September 1992), a product I happen to own and a product that has been showered with praise from other reviewers, including several at Audiophile.

Mr. H.'s critique of the DSP-7000 often bordered on the unintelligible. Example: "It was hard to pinpoint exactly what the DSP-7000 was doing wrong, but its synthetic, unnatural character was unmistakable." Come again? What does he mean by "synthetic" sound? Example: "[It] was somewhat analogous to the difference between real vanilla ice cream and vanilla-flavored ice cream!' Did Mr. H. eat his review sample? This kind of self-indulgent blather fails to inform the reader. I gather that Mr. H. preft.acd the converters made by Kinergetics and Bitwise, which is certainly his prerogative, but I learned nothing from the review about how well the DSP-7000 measures up against any meaningful standard or criterion for judging reproduced sound. Isn't that what component reviews are supposed to be about?

MICHAEL W. STEINBERG; Bethesda, MD

HIGHLY ILLUMINATING REVIEWING?

Editor: The Audiophile review of the EAD DSP-7000 was highly illuminating and will enable me to better judge the sonic filters, aka ear-brain responses, of Bob H., your top digital reviewer. For the first time I am now able to accurately gauge his sense of what sounds good to my own sense of same. They are not equal.

As an avid reader of Audiophile, and having read virtually all of Bob's reviews on the subject of digital, I have been struck many times by differences between his taste and mine. This first carne to light with the reviews of the Theta DSPs. These processors have been raved about by H. and others. Some time after reading these reviews I decided to audition them in my system, beginning with the Prime, moving to the Basic, and ending with the Generation II DS Pro Balanced. At first I was favorably impressed with these processors, noting a heightened sense of thereness. But time is the best judge of the best, and with time these processors began to grate on my nerves. What initially sounded like "so much more music" was, after extensive auditioning, an overly detailed "hi-fi in your face" rendition of music that caused my head to ring. It was enough to drive me from the room. Not on all music, but enough so that with certain frequencies it verged on pain. On many tunes, though, these processors were spectacular. This characteristic was more true of the Basic and DS Pro than the Prime, which I found to be a little boring. Having been a musician for many years, playing cello, string bass, and keyboards, I have strong views of what instruments sound like. It is in this domain that I found these processors to fail the most. Take Shostakovich's Viola Sonata on ECM," with Kim Kashkashian and Robert Levin. The piano sound during the ff to fff pages often verged on synthesized, and to my ears sounded un realistic. Having a piano in my house and having heard this piece live, I know what it should sound like; even allowing for piano differences and acoustics, a piano it ain't. The Thetas also gave me the impression on much music that the resolution of the digits was so high that it appeared like a photograph (aural graph?) enlarged to the point where the grain is perceptible. I do remember Bob once de scribing the Theta sound as having a "Technicolor" presentation that was not a problem for him. It was a problem for me. In fact, I recall one review where the issue of neutrality was called into question with respect to Theta's sonics and those of another processor (Wadia 2000, I think). Other DSP processors I auditioned before settling on the EAD included the Proceed PDP 2 (also reviewed by H. and considered Class C), the Wadia 2000, and the Krell 32 SBP. My impressions ranged from okay (PDP 2) to not enough of a positive differ ence heard (Krell, Wadia). Is the price asked worth the differences in sound gained? For the Wadia and Krell, I did not think so. For the PDP 2, the sound was just too boring.

I found the EAD DSP that H. "could not recommend" to offer the best combination of realism and non-irritation. I have chosen it for my reference complementing my Sony 608-soon to be an EAD T-7000 trans port with AT&T Glass, my Krell KBL/KPA, Rowland Series IV Model 7s, Thiel CS5s,11 SOTA Star/SME V/Monster Genesis II, AudioQuest Clear, Lapis, Emerald, MIT cabled system. . . With the EAD I am now able to listen to digital for prolonged periods of time without the fatigue I felt from the other DSPs. What the EAD does that I appreciate most is mitigate the differences between the sonic "Ge stalts" of the analog and digital mediums.

With the EAD I can move between analog and digital with minimal differences in my ear-brain set. This I view as a major break through. I concede that this could be unique to me, but, given the word-of-mouth reputation of the EAD, I do not think so. It does this without calling into the question the price/performance dilemma that is a major hurdle in considering many high-end DSPs today. Does it sound better, and is it worth it, is the key issue for the audiophile to ad dress. The EAD does what I expect from it --improve my sound-without asking that I take out a second mortgage on my home or sacrifice what is important to me musically. We should applaud EAD's technical achievements and their pricing model as the way things should be but seldom are.

Readers would do well to audition the EAD and compare what sounds the most natural and most musical. We should bear in mind that it's always a balancing act in any case. It is, after all, the rare component that sounds bad with all music. Generally, we have to make decisions based on what sounds best with the widest range of our music. The perfect component does not exist. If it did, I doubt we could get agreement on it between Audiophile and The Abso!ute Sound! In my mind, and at this stage in digital evolution, the EAD represents one of the best values on the market today. . . Having reached this conclusion about Bob H.'s taste, will this stop me from taking his or Audiophile's reviews seriously? Of course not. I read it, as well as TAS, mainly to find out what's new in audio, not for what components sound good. What this does, however, is give me a benchmark for H.'s reviews. I now know that what he often does not like, I will, and what he raves about is likely to be problematic to my tastes. Which is right? We both are. That's what makes this hobby so much fun.

DAVE WILLIAMS

Portland, OR

---

9 At the time, I attributed this sound to the one-bit nature of the Prime. In my experience, these processors share common traits of shrunken soundstage and "polite" highs.

10 An excellent performance combined with a very believable "space" for the two instruments. Instead of the performers being in your living room, you are in the hall where the music was performed. Highly recommended "reference" discs.

11 My choice of the Thiel CS5s was based on their ability to "image" a piano in a room. Their broad frequency range and small drivers give the piano on many recordings the quickness and weight of the real thing. A stunning achievement. I should point out that Audiophile’s enigmatic review of the Thiels (June '90) was not a factor in my choosing this speaker.

----

POLITE BUT CAUSTIC REVIEWING?

Editor: I have carefully read your polite, but caustic, review of the EAD DSP-7000 and am disturbed by the contents. I define myself as a dedicated music-lover in pursuit of excellent sound... I have lived with the '7000 for about a month (without the AT&T jacks) and have been favorably impressed with the unit's overall musicality and unobtrusive presentation of performances. I found no truth in the vitriolic opinions of RH and JA relative to the performance of the unit that I purchased. Most of all, I trust my ears and believe that most of my components allow me a glimpse into the window of exceptional musical reproduction that we strive to achieve.

Based upon this, I cannot hold with the opinions that were published. More disturbing was the review in The Absolute Sound, which was 180° different from the carefully worded presentation in your magazine. Some thing must be inherently wrong with the hi fi world when two respected publications end up in decidedly different camps on the identical piece of equipment. Who should the novice trust on these matters? I say their ears, but then all people have not developed their aural organs to a sufficient degree to be the discriminating consumers that this passion demands. It seems to me that there should be some sort of minimal consensus that responsible journalists adhere to in order to insure that the buying public is best served.

In the case of the dueling '7000 reviews, someone is being less than honest in their appraisal of a fine piece of equipment. I side with the positive review the product received in TAS simply because I own the particular component and am familiar with its attributes.

ATHEIL L ASHLEY ; Taylors, SC

JUST PLAIN WRONG REVIEWING?

Editor: To quote from J. Gordon Holt's critique of high-end audio in the September issue: "And whenever we hear a loudspeaker or a CD player that shows subversive signs of sounding more 'alive' or 'realistic' than most, we dismiss it out of hand as being too 'forward' or 'aggressive.' As if a lot of real music isn't forward and aggressive!" In the same issue, Robert H. criticizes Enlightened Audio's DSP-7000 digital processor for being "overly aggressive and brittle" (italics mine). The main criticism of the unit by RH and JA seemed to be that the '7000 was too "hi-fi sounding!" How curious. Could Mr. Holt possibly have had Messrs. H. and A. in mind when he leveled his criticism of critics? Having been once married to a pianist who practiced at home, I can assure you that pianos are not polite instruments. Played forte, they are pushy, strident, harsh, loud, and even aggressive That's what they are supposed to be. That is what I hear through the DSP 7000. On music that is genuinely shy and retiring, so is the DSP-7000. Come on, guys. The DSP-7000 is just fine, and so is my hearing. In fact, it is a great unit drawing the best out of all the music I play.

LOUIS BENCZE; Ridgefield, WA

DON'T CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION

Editor: I am joining the inevitable onslaught of readers who are puzzled (notice I did not say "outraged") by RH's and JA's review in September of the EAD DSP-7000. I do not agree with anything they wrote about the EAD. I purchased an EAD for reasons that contradict its description in these pages. I find that music does indeed flow from the EAD, and is not forced in any way.

I feel that its treble is one of the best of the digital processors available today. Also, while the EAD's bass may not equal that of a Theta Generation III or the Mark Levinson No30, it is certainly not slow and fat.

I burned my EAD in for a week before serious listening and discovered that the sound improved even more after a week's worth of CD playing. I found the DSP-7000 to be extremely cable-sensitive. I tried the Aural Symphonics Digital Link, TARA Labs Dig ital Reference, Simply Physics Byteline 111, XL0 Type 4, Kimber Kable KCAG, and Sil tech HF-6. The Siltech won, and by a wide margin. I found the Aural Symphonics and TARA Labs to be poor choices for the EAD due to reasons that parallel some of RH's criticisms of the processor. . . It is a possibility that some of RH's criticisms stem from auditioning the EAD in 8x-oversampling mode. I have to agree with RH's dislike of the 8x mode. However, although RH heard that, "Running at 4x, the DSP-7000 had a greater openness, less treble hash, and was overall more musical," he only performed "nearly all" his auditioning and comparisons with the Bitwise and the Kinergetics in 4x mode.

He should have done all his listening in this mode... Remember, Audiophile, that this is not an angry letter. Your opinions are as valid as mine. I am just a confused reader who is eagerly awaiting your "Follow-Up" on the EAD. And, no, I will not ask you to cancel my subscription.

MICHAEL SHIBATA; Sacramento, CA

I shall ignore Mr. Steinberg's groundless attacks on Robert H.'s integrity--why is it that some people are not content just to disagree with someone, but also have to attempt to assassinate their character? However, when I listened to the EAD DSP 7000for myself last July, I knew that RH's review was going to upset quite a few apple carts, witness the letters above. This was a hot product with a lot of word-of-mouth recommendation going for it. Yet compared with the similarly priced PS UltraLink, for example, I agreed with RH that ultimately it was a non-contender. Things are not as black and white as the above correspondents imply, however.

Mr. Steinberg comments in his letter that the '7000 had been "showered with praise from other reviewers, including several at Audiophile." To put this latter hafl-truth to rest, the positive mentions in this magazine concerned the sound in the Hales/ EAD/MFA/Versa Dynamics/Audio Power room at the 1992 Winter CES, which several Audiophile writers, including myself; thought to be a high light of that show.12 For someone to point to EAD's involvement as being the sole reason for the good sound of that room would be rather unfair to the other exhibitors, in my opinion. (Jack English also notes that his published praise for the room was based solely on auditioning analog program.) Readers should also be careful not give as much weight to a magazine's published comments on sound quality at shows compared with comments resulting from more prolonged experience in the writers' own listening rooms. Given the unfamiliarity of the show environment, any comments on sound quality, whether enthusiastic or condemning, must be regarded as provisional. I am never surprised, therefore, when later experience can result in a different conclusion Jivm the initial impressions gleaned under show conditions.

In their "Manufacturer's Comment" in September, EAD mentioned that the unit had had 15 reviews in other publications, all of which had commented on its "remarkably smooth, distortion-free 'analog' sound," though they didn't specifically mention in what magazines those reviews had been published. The first English-language review that I am aware of was that by Martin C., in the July 1992 issue of the UK magazine HFN/RR In that review, the conclusion of which was hardly positive, MC stated that the DSP-7000 a) overall does sound exceptionally smooth, b) has a tendency to mid-treble glare that is very much recording-dependent, c) has rather an exaggerated bass, with a tendency to a one-note character, d) sounds better in 4x than in 8x mode (as also noted by Mr. Shibata above, as well as by RH), and e) lacks much of the essential feeling of pace that leads to directive musical communication. (See his article on pace elsewhere in this issue.) Readers should note, therefore, both that Martin basically agreed with both RH and myself over every facet of the character and quality of the unit's sound, and that none of us would disagree with EAD's characterization of the '7000's sound as "smooth." (Mr. Bencze should note that RH was more bothered than Martin or myself by the unit's mid-treble glare, but that his characterization of the unit's treble in his review as "tizzy" was specifically linked to occasions when the music

12 See Audiophile, Vol.15 No.4, April 1992, pp.117 ik 143.

had a lot of high-frequency content, the '7000 other wise sounding smooth.) The only other English-language review I have found other than those in Audiophile or HFN/RR was that by Les Linton in issue 81 of The Abso!ute Sound (July/August 1992), with a "Follow Up" in the same issue by Michael Fremer. While Mr. Linton was effusive in his praise of the DSP 7000, Mr. Fremer was decidedly more equivocal.

While he found the '7000 to sound not as light as the Audio Alchemy and was impressed with its performance on kick drum, suggesting that he agreed with MC, RH, and myself over the unit's bass, he was not as enthusiastic overall, going on to write "A 'breakthrough,' though? I don't know why it should be so characterized by LJL. . ." Most of MF's review, in fact, appeared to be devoted to EAD's T-7000 transport.

Also in their "Manufacturer's Comment," EAD stated that it is ".standard scientific practice to suspect any data point. . . that stands far removed from the bulk of the data." I agree, but would point out to readers that, given the consensus among three of the published reviews, those written by MC, RI-1, and myself; and the reserved nature of MF's comments, it is actually Mr. Linton's rave review that is the "rogue" data point.

Why should Mr. Linton have come to a value judgment opposite to those of three experienced reviewers (and why, indeed, should the impressions of those readers whose letters appear above be so contrary to ours)? I don't agree with Mr. Lashley that ".someone is being less than honest in their appraisal." Rather, as Jack English pointed out to me in a private communication, the apparent discrepancy can be traced to the differing contexts of the reviews. RH, MC, and I compared the DSP-7000 with top-rated competitors. RH and MC have also listened to pretty much every other processor available in all price ranges, while MF has reasonably wide experience of what digital has to offer. Mr. Linton's review, however, was surprisingly devoid of comparisons, though he did mention his previous experience of an inexpensive Magnavox 473 CD player which had subsequently been modified by EAD. I suspect that, given his apparent lack of experience of competing units, Mr. Linton had "fallen in love" with the smoothness of the '7000's sound, as I suspect that I had done at the '92 WCES, ears beaten in by a day's worth of Show sound. He had also probably been impressed by its exaggerated bass character, which I feel many audiophiles will be more tolerant of than we professional Puritans here in Santa Fe I suspect that most of the above correspondents have also been overwhelmed by the '7000's smoothness. (As Mr. Williams points out, this smoothness can be a welcome relief after the irritating nature of so much digital sound.) I also note that the speakers with which LJL performed his review auditioning were NEAR 50Ms (our review appears next month), which Julian Hirsch's measurements in the September Stereo Review indicate to have a significant lack of energy in the exact frequency region where the '7000's sound tends to develop glare. (I note that Mr. Hirsch took care to point out that he didn't hear this suckout, though MF, in TAS #77, did report its presence.) The review conclusions in the magazines are not as opposed as they might appear on the surface, therefore. To sum up: as Mr. Linton discovered, the DSP-7000 produces a very much better sound than an inexpensive Magnavox CD player. No one at Audiophile would disagree. On the other hand, while this is certainly a valid conclusion for those upgrading from inexpensive players, in comparisons with the best CD sound at the same price level, the EAD falls short, having a smooth but ultimately uninvolving character, with some music-dependent problems in the treble However, if you like the sound of your '7000 in your system, nothing we have said or will say invalidates your opinion, as pointed out by RH in this month's "As We See It." I mentioned in September that we will be publishing a "Follow-Up" on the EAD DSP-7000. As Mr. Williams states, putting together an optimum system around any given component is a balancing act. Guy Lemcoe is currently auditioning the '7000 with EAD's 7:7000 and will be report ing the conclusions from his balancing act in the December Audiophile. I have also sent copies of these letters and my response to Les Linton and Michael Fremer at TAS so that they, too, can respond in our December issue if they so wish.-JA

WHEN DOES THE BUF 0 CROAK?

Editor: Regarding the pin outs of BUF-03 described in Audiophile, February 1992, p.19, for Aunt Corey's buffer/preamp, your description starting with "looking up at the base of the can, the pins are numbered," should read: "the pins are numbered consecutively from the one to the right of the metal tab, which is . ." Even after rewiring to correct the clockwise pin arrangement when viewing the pin-side, and using a cool 14.6V instead of 18V, the resulting buffer/preamp has some serious sizzling sibilants.

I've built three buffers over the last three years, starting with a discrete version by Christopher Paul (Audio Amateur, Jan. '88), three versions of the Gary Galo design (Audio Amateur, Feb. '90), and Aunt Corey's. Of the three Galo versions, the one with the dual JFET front end is irritatingly awful; another version with unity gain (open at R3) is okay -like Aunt Corey's, but without the sizzle.

But the best version, with gain, is more dynamic and has the palpable presence of image that I like.

Image can also be improved by reversing the plug on some CD players (and other components, I presume). While reading Aunt Corey's reviews of power-line conditioners (Audiophile, Vol.14 No.11, p.171), I was shocked that no experimental controls were made for plug polarity, nor was there even a hint that plug polarity made any difference. Yet in several reviews of CD players (eg, Rotel 855), sonic differences were found by reversing the AC plug. My procedure is to plug in each component individually, reverse the plug, and use the plug polarity that gives the lowest AC voltage from the chassis to third wire or earth ground [with no interconnect attached- Ed.].

After marking each plug, I plug in all six components and start the listening test by reversing the plug of each component.

Then, next, you should (I don't) test interactions by pairs of reversed plugs. Then three way interaction, etc. This could get rather labor-intensive, considering the permutations involved, which is perhaps why Corey avoided the question entirely. Corey? Are you there? Cooooooo-[Doppler she] -rey?

RAY ICRIPPNER, PH.D.

Cedar Rapids, IA

See Corey's further thoughts on his buffered passive preamp in this issue.

–JA

POLARITY TESTED

Editor: I am writing in response to the review of the Elfix Polarity Tester, which was reviewed in Audiophile, Vol.15 No.6, by J. Gordon Holt.

The device is offered by the Audio Advisor for $29.95. Your readers will be interested to find that the same device may be purchased from many builders' supply and electricians' supply outlets, as well as some of the larger discount/department stores, for around $10-$12. (I purchased mine at the local Furrow's Builders' Supply for $10.99. It is also available at Meijer's.)

KENNETH BEERS, J R., M.D.

Yellow Springs, OH

--

We regret that resources do not permit us to reply individually to letters, particularly those requesting advice about particular equipment purchases. Were we to do this, a significant service charge would have to be assessed--and we don't have time to do it anyway! Although all letters are read and noted, only those of general interest are selected for publication. Please note, however, that published letters are subject to editing, particularly if they are very long or address more than one topic.

--

[adapted from Nov-1992 issue]

Also see:

Industry Update (Nov. 1992)