As we go into our fourth issue, we realize that some of our sub scribers still don't perceive us as we really are and don't quite know what to expect of us. Hence this continued exposition of our philosophy and of the facts of life in our delirious business.

Although what follows is only loosely connected with the two previous editorial discussions of our point of view, we prefer to continue the sequential numbering of topics for convenient reference.

Just because our publication doesn't make 16 a totally amateurish impression in looks and contents, please don't assume that the publisher is McGraw-Hill or some other such multi million-dollar operation. We despair when, after having tested and reviewed more than 30 pre -amplifiers and preamp accessories in a little over four months, we get letters saying, "I'm shocked that you failed to include the following 11 models." How big and efficient do these letter writers imagine we are? The fact is that we're about the same size, in available space and personnel, as other audio reviews that don't carry manufacturers' advertising. What distinguishes us from the others is that (a) we work harder-or at least generate more output in a given time, (b) we were willing and able to make an initial capital investment in a completely equipped, in-house laboratory facility, and (c) we try to correlate what our ears tell us with the laws of physics and mathematics rather than techno-folklore or wishful fantasies.

None of these distinctions enable us, however, to test 600 pieces of equipment in a year or even to meet deadlines with unfailing punctuality.

Our basic limitation is, of course, economic, and it's intrinsic to our noncommercial format. Let's say we decided to hire a full-time staff engineer with a reasonably sophisticated audio background (rather than using part-time staff consultants as we do now). His salary would wipe out the proceeds of about one thou sand new subscriptions, right up front. An experienced full-time managing editor would wipe out another thousand. How many thousand subscribers do you think we have? Now if Audio magazine wanted to hire the same engineer, they could do it with the income from one full-page ad per month. See the difference? There, in a nutshell, is also the reason why we can't sell The Audio Critic at a dollar a copy. Or even two dollars.

You must remember that the original concept behind noncommercial audio reviews was that testing exclusively by listening can be highly revealing in a relatively short period of time and requires no test instruments other than educated ears. Therefore the operation can be started with minimal manpower and overhead, with sufficient income from subscriptions and possibly dealer advertising to maintain a reason able publishing schedule.

Now here's the paradox: The Audio Critic's way of testing is, on the face of it, in comparably more time-consuming than anyone else's, since we keep hopping back and forth from listening room to laboratory, trying to find a correspondence between what we hear and what we measure. This also dissipates a much greater percentage of subscription income on overhead before editorial and publishing expenses. By all rights we should be the slowest, most plodding noncommercial audio journal of them all. The fact that we aren't, that we cover more ground more thoroughly in a shorter time than the strictly golden-ear boys, is one of the best arguments for parallel golden-ear and laboratory testing. Because, in the long run, the scientific (or call it technical) approach actually saves more time and energy than it uses up.

We could spend weeks trying to determine purely by listening tests whether an elusive low frequency resonance we hear in a speaker is inherent in the design itself or is caused by some subtle interaction with the room, the walls, the furniture, the rest of the system, or whatever.

Five minutes of spectrum analysis with the proper frequency span and resolution bandwidth will, on the other hand, provide an unequivocal answer. Occasionally it may not even be necessary to perform a laboratory test to save listening time; simple inspection by someone who understands the applicable design principles will suffice. For example, a tone arm with wobbly bearings can't possibly sound as good as one with tight, preloaded bearings (other things being equal). It's an obscene waste of time to let several keen-eared people listen to such an arm for weeks and weeks only to have them report that there's something not quite right with the sound. So, an equipment reviewer who is into bearings as well as Mozart and Pink Floyd can confidently say "Forget it!" ten minutes after unwrapping the arm, instead of staging an elaborate blind A-B test against a reference standard.

We recently gave a somewhat oversimplified summary of this point of view to someone who asked us how we perceived the difference between our procedures and those of another noncommercial audio review. Suppose, we said, that a manufacturer came out with a turn table he claims to be a perpetual motion ma chine. The other publication would say, "A perpetual motion machine? Let's have a look." We'd say, "A perpetual motion machine? Get the hell out of here." We have no time for audio designers who defy the laws of nature.

Our special CES issue (Volume 1, Number 18 3), in which several such scofflaws were pointed out and dismissed out of hand, provides another illustration of how our departures from the expected practice of noncommercial audio publications can be misconstrued by certain sub scribers. We published this issue with the firm conviction that it filled an important need (way in advance of commercial magazine coverage!) and was fully up to the standard set by our previous two issues. We felt that, quite aside from their news value, our CES commentaries shed some interesting bits of light on a number of subjects ordinarily shrouded in mythology, such as stylus shape, tone-arm geometry, woofer design, the bandwidth-limiting controversy, and others.

We were enthusiastically praised for this by more than a few distinguished members of the audio community, not to mention advanced audiophiles. Nevertheless, about 1% of our sub scribers turned out to be extremely unhappy about the whole thing. (To be precise, 1.4% communicated with us specifically in regard to the change of pace set by the third issue: 0.4% pro, 1% con, 98.6% silent and presumably unruffled.) It was our distinct impression that the majority of the complainers didn't really dig into the issue but took one quick bite, found that the flavor was different than last time and start ed to holler. They certainly seemed to be un aware of the aforesaid little raisins and chocolate chips inside. Sorry, guys, we never said it would be vanilla every time. Nor did we ever promise 48 or 52 or any other number of pages per issue for your $4.67. We use up as many pages as we feel is necessary to cover the subject.

In the future, there will undoubtedly be 64-page issues as well as 24-page issues. We sell information and advice, not yard goods.

To keep everybody happy, however, we don't plan to publish a separate CES issue in 1978 but will probably cover the CES in one of our long surveys within the framework of a normal (i.e., fatter) issue.

The subscriber who gets belligerent about the number of pages per dollar, the number of words per page (our type size is large, see?) and that sort of thing seems to be the same one--representative of a very small minority, mind you-who would like us to run long laundry lists of recommendations without any fancy guff about slew rate or sidebands or Q. Preferably twice a month. (Mark Levinson ML-1-good, Dynaco PAT-5-bad, Dahlquist DQ-10-good, Janis W-1-bad . . . Next!) We hate to disappoint such seekers of predigested simplicity, but that's not our idea of a serious audio journal.

We'd much rather coax, cajole, browbeat, lecture and just plain educate our subscribers (at least those that aren't hardened professionals) to the point where they'll trust their own judgment, even about products they've never seen reviewed. If we can accomplish that, the difference between 52 and 24 pages, or $4.67 and $3.50 per issue, will begin to appear rather irrelevant.

And when that day comes, we'll get no more letters saying, "I just can't wait till you review the Schmidlapp C-95-TI've owned one for six months." The last thing an enlightened audio enthusiast should need is a review of a product he already knows intimately.

All right. We'll stop biting the hand that feeds us and present herewith what we believe is our best, most useful issue so far. Read it, and then see if the above comments have helped to clarify who we are and where we stand.

Editor's Note: Consultation by telephone on individual purchasing decisions or installation problems emphatically isn't part of the services offered by The Audio Critic for the price of a subscription, even if you're resourceful enough to track down the Editor's home phone number.

By Peter Aczel, Editor and Publisher

---------

[adapted from TAC, Vol.1, No.4: July/August /Sept 1977]

---------

Also see:

Sophisticated Speaker Systems, Large and Small: A Comparative Survey

The Present State of CD Player Technology: Who Is Doing It Right? By David A. Rich, Ph.D. Senior VLSI Design Engineer, TLSI, Inc. Adjunct Assistant Professor, Polytechnic University