| Home | Audio mag. | Stereo
Review mag. | High
Fidelity mag. |
AE/AA mag.
|
 The response to our first issue has been simply overwhelming. We're still in the process of digging ourselves out from under a mountain of love letters. We're reproducing a few of them here (call it an ego trip) before proceeding to the meatier stuff you're likely to be looking for in this column. The letters we publish may or may not be excerpted, at the discretion of the Editor. Ellipsis (...) indicates omission. Address all editorial correspondence to: The Editor, The Audio Critic, Box 392, Bronxville, New York 10708. The Audio Critic: I have just finished reading your first issue and I am greatly impressed. I subscribe to six other magazines and yours is by far the most comprehensive and straight forward of them all . . . Sincerely, Greg Hergott; Islington, Ont. The Audio Critic: Before paging through your first issue I was very skeptical about your ability to live up to your prepublication promises. I now see that you are as good as StereOpus, Sound Advice, Stereophile and The Absolute Sound combined (I subscribe to all four of them). Your evaluations are fair and thorough without going through page after page of meaningless comments . . . I look forward to your next issue. Sincerely, Len Hupp Ferguson, MO The Audio Critic: I'd just like to congratulate you on the quality of the first issue of The Audio Critic. It's readable and informative, intelligent and witty. I'm glad I'm a subscriber. . . Keep up the good work. Mike Stewart Galveston, TX The Audio Critic: . Your first issue was great just as I had hoped . . . Keep it up as I can't wait to mainline the very next issue as soon as possible. Those who complain about the price are just looking for something to gripe about. The Audio Critic is worth twice, that's right, twice the price ; . . Ralph T. Feath, Charleston Heights, SC The Audio Critic: Your magazine is really stunning. For the first time I find a correlation between the theoretical and the practical basis of reviewing philosophy in an "'ear-oriented" magazine . . . Sincerely, Gerard Harjadi Aachen, West Germany The Audio Critic: Congratulations! You done it, by damn! (Of course, I knew you would. Anyone with guts enough to launch a journal of opinion on such a basically esoteric subject-at that price, too!-would have no way of knowing it couldn't be done.) All the best, Oeveste Granducci Virgin Islands The Audio Critic: I have just completed reading the first issue of your analysis (I am aware that calling your publication a magazine causes you displeasure, and as a result I will refrain from doing so) and must comment that I am indeed pleasantly surprised to find that you have refused to succumb to the general fallacy that if a product measures well in relation to laboratory tests, it follows that it will be a musical-sounding component. For too many years | have stood alone in this area by stating that such products as Marantz preamplifiers were better suited for book ends than as a means of musical reproduction. I have cooled many relationships when asked to critique a friend's system by commenting, "Hear that boom? Hear that tinkle? You've obviously got a JBL." I realize that many people attach a great deal of personal sentiment to a particular piece of equipment merely because it has served them well (or so they thought) in the past. I think this is best illustrated by the large number of people who equate McIntrash, excuse me, McIntosh with state-of-the-art. It is indeed a pleasure to find a publication that calls 'em as you see 'em. I have never read a bad review of any piece of equipment in any of the so called "slick" audio magazines. If I were completely naive the only conclusion I could reach would be that (a) only state-of the-art equipment was tested, or (b) anything I happened to purchase as a result of these reviews would have to be good. I have reached two conclusions that differ some what from these. (a) The reviewers were biased because of the manufacturer's purchase of advertising, and to a smaller degree because of the free equipment they had received from the company in question. (b) Why should I take the word of people who as yet have not proven themselves qualified in that they have not even stated their philosophy of what criteria were used in their analysis. In short, keep on givin' ‘em hell. Dave Nichols, WGAD United Press News Network Gadsden, AL The Audio Critic: My hat is off to you! I was a skeptic (aren't we all now), but now I believe. Keep it up-your honesty is so necessary in today's market. I was very close to parting with a few kilobucks for "high-end" equipment when I decided to go ahead and spend $28. What a smart investment. I am convinced I'll wait a while, read a few issues and save many times my initial output. I'm so glad you folks are not afraid of any big toes. The equipment critiques are clear, analytical and fair, even though I detect a note of awe for serious, high-order scientific methods . . . I can only say I am anxiously awaiting every issue. Keep it going! Sincerely, Capt. Douglas S. Stoll Spokane, WA The Audio Critic: In a day and age when $28 doesn't even buy a decent dinner or an evenings entertainment, your publication's price seems quite reasonable. In an industry that does indeed scrabble for superfluous things and then does battle to defend what it doesn't need, yours is a welcome light. Keep up the good work. Dr. H. M. Masek, Copperas Cove, TX The Audio Critic: I must admit . . . in seeing your advertisement in Audio, 1 said to myself "This guy (or guys) must be crazy." Well, I've just spent an evening reading your publication. You know something? You are crazy!!!! Enclosed is my check for the required amount. As you may well know, money is getting tighter all the time. Somehow I feel that this is going to be the best $28 I've spent in many a year. Good luck. Michael Avery; Brooklyn, NY The Audio Critic: I applaud your first issue. You seem to have met your objectives clearly-and, as an editor myself, may I congratulate you on the literateness of your copy. You have a good copy editor on the job . . . James N. Rogers; Indianapolis, IN We don't have no copy editor. What do you think this is-one of them pansy literary magazines? -Ed. The Audio Critic: Congratulations on your new magazine. It's far better written and laid out than the usual run of things. But I did find one tiny error. There is a straight arm with a detachable shell: the Connoisseur arm used on the BD1 and BD2 turntables, and imported by Hervic. Regards, Ivan Berger Senior Editor, Popular Electronics The Audio Critic: Careful! As I read you, on page 13 of Volume 1, Number 1, you are guilty of clairvoyance--prejudging that a group of imported preamps cannot be worthwhile, without listening to them. Understand that I am not saying these are good products. It's just that I haven't heard them, thus can make no judgment at all. I don't believe you can either, until you listen to them. A product must be judged on its objective merits, not on advertising bullshit. Thus you must not prejudge that a product cannot be good just because its advertising is all bullshit. You may be disgusted with the ad copywriter, but that doesn't mean that the engineering department isn't trying to do its honest best. The proof can only be in the objective performance-does it reproduce music in a worthwhile manner? I have no great arguments with your preamp ratings, except for two. I wonder if the Advent is really that good. We have compared it here with the phono sections of ordinary receivers, such as the Rotel RX 150 at $150, and find the Rotel wins. I suspect you are caught up in Mr. Holman's impressive writings to a certain degree. We don't really think the PAT-5 deserves such a harsh critique either. First of all it is inexpensive, about $170 at many discount houses, and the customer's alternative is to spend two or three times as much for something better. Second, Dyna has had for some time a quality improvement program through their warranty stations where any PAT-5 will be improved free of charge with new phono transistors and output IC's, which go a long way towards making all of them sound like J. Gordon Holt's early samples. In the past I have found underground magazines to tend to overemphasize the differences between components and The Audio Critic is no exception. (Commercial magazines tend in most cases to underemphasize differences.) I think we all hear the same differences; it's just how we relate to them, whether small sonic improvements are worth the money, and how much weight we put on differences that is important. After all, some people love Klipschorns, others love Magneplanars: the two couldn't be more different sonically, and I defy you to tell a K-Horn lover that Maggies are better, or vice versa. Issue 1 had interesting engineering thoughts. We agree with Mr. Rappaport that TIM is critical, but disagree that a preamp need be slow to work with most amplifiers. The Van Alstine Preamp is damn fast, but still drives a Dyna ST-70 tube amp beautifully. We agree with Mr. Deneen of Paragon that any RF filtering does bad things sonically (we ought to tell the Feds that before they screw up our products), but lack of RF filtering need not cause RFI problems. The Van Alstine Model 1 preamplifier will soon be sold on the East Coast. You will probably hear about it when it gets there. Sincerely, Frank Van Alstine Van Alstine Audio Systems, Burnsville, MN Since Frank Van Alstine is an acknowledged expert who is certainly entitled to his technical opinions, we have only some broadly philosophical comments to make. One is about the "page 13" issue (our dismissal of the Pioneer-Kenwood-Sansui category of preamps). Let's put it this way: If we were trying to determine which is the world's fastest land animal, we'd investigate the cheetah, the Thoroughbred horse, various gazelles and antelopes, some hounds like the greyhound and the whippet, and so forth. We wouldn't bother with the yak or the baboon unless a very reliable observer assured us that he has seen them traveling at comparable speed. No one whose ear we trust has ever suggested to us that the sound of, sav, a Pioneer comes anywhere near that of a Mark Levinson or even an AGI. If someone of the stature of Frank Van Alstine should report that, we'd certainly look into it; otherwise life is just too short for such academic exercises in open-mindedness. As for the Dynaco PAT-5, the free overhaul policy is news to us, it appears to be not only a tacit admission of the faults we observed in the product but also a form of tokenism in assuming responsibility. Why hasn't the availability of this service been pointed out to customers who are suffering their substandard PAT-5 in silence? We haven't heard a peep out of Dynaco since we published our review. Mark Levinson recently saw fit to institute an official recall of JC-2's for incomparably less important reasons. Lastly, if the Klipschorn and the Magneplanar sound totally different with the identical input, at least one of them is wrong. Or both are wrong. Accuracy isn't a matter of personal preference. Just a problem in verification. -Ed. The Audio Critic: Congratulations on your first issue. You have almost lived up to your advance claims and that is high praise. You did however break your own 'golden ear" avowed purpose when you took a cheap shot at the William Watkins dual-drive woofer based upon hearsay theory. I have heard the Watkins woofer in a number of configurations, in addition to the QLS, and in my opinion it is a distinct improvement over other leading woofers. I know of no woofer of equivalent size that will deliver as low-distortion acoustic power in the 24 to 36 Hz range and remain flat up to 500 Hz. Yours truly, James A. Mitchell Kingsport, TN Only the language of the reported put-down was hearsay (although recently confirmed). The theory itself is there for anyone to study in the numerous recent engineering papers that analyze loudspeakers mathematically in terms of filter analogies. It now appears, however, that not all theoreticians are equally opposed to the Watkins woofer, so that both sides of the controversy will have to be covered in a forthcoming test report. Infinity has promised us a QLS to compare against other high-end speakers. The Audio Critic: I was disturbed by your knuckle rap of the BIC Venturi advertising tactics. Perhaps if you knew some thing of the history of the company you'd have a bit more respect. (Pronounced ARE-EEE-ESS-PEE-EEE SEA-TEE.) The Venturi principle was discovered simultaneously in Woodbridge, Connecticut,. and Terminal Annex, California, giving rise to the expression 'East Coast sound vs. West Coast sound." (Anyone who doesn't know that the East Coast sounds different from the West Coast obviously hasn't been around.) Contrary to popular opinion, the Principle was not named after world-class miler Ken Venturi, although Ken did con tribute much to speaker design philosophy with the observation that people (and yes, speakers) breathe in and out alternately in a one-to-one ratio! The Principle was named after its inventor, the famed Israeli mystic Uri Garragin, who was designing a new speaker cabinet when his Poppa walked into his workshop and said, "By you dot's a vent, Uri?' The Garragin atelier turned out both single-vented and double-vented enclosures from its Seventh Avenue factory before it was acquired by British Industries and Uri retired to the mountains to count his money. British Industries itself acquired its name when Penny Peapecker, Eastern Airlines' star stewardess, suggested to Prime Minister Heath that he could revive the flagging British economy by "flicking the Bic." The company has been trying to isolate itself from its ball point-pen-and-cigarette-lighter French cousins ever since". By the way, I think you are the MLAS of publications: expensive, holier-than-thou, and worth every penny. Keep up the good work. Mike Randall New York, NY The Audio Critic: Having read your first issue, I agree with every thing you say, especially your procedure for making fine comparisons between fine components. However, about that procedure, what of the deformations in discs, after being played, that are supposed to persist for 24 hours or so. If you play the same music over after five minutes as you say, these deformations will be there after the first playing, not having had enough time for the resiliency of the vinyl to "bounce back" . . . Dale M. Smith, Reno, NV Theoretically, you may be right (although very few sophisticated audiophiles we know seem to suffer from vinyl deformation hypochondria). In practice, the difference in sound between any two components appears to be greater than between a 'deformed' and a "rested" groove. If you give the theoretical average to the less good component, it still won't sound better. -Ed. The Audio Critic: A most interesting debut, and well worth the $4+ it cost. I appreciate your plans to test many products at one time. Until the day that reliable bypass or objective tests are developed, we will still be picking components because one 'sounds better" than another; testing many units at one time should increase the usefulness and reliability of the comparisons. I cannot judge your honesty by whether or not you accept store ads, but by whether or not I hear what you claim to hear when I audition. If accepting store ads lets you buy more equipment for testing, then I approve. I rather like vituperative letters. Bongiorno's are a pip, and it's amusing to think that he might single handedly destroy his own company with them! You may be amused by my reply to his letter in the third issue of Sound Advice. Dick Calderhead's drawings are just not nasty enough to go with the incisive captions they accompany. (Is that what HP looks like?) I see a lot of preamps that should have been included: Analog Engineering, Bose (don't be prejudiced against the amps just because the speakers are crummy), Bravura, Bozak, Crown, Heathkit, Nakamichi, Spectro Acoustics. Your reasons for rejecting "low-end" manufacturers' products is reasonable, but why should a company's failure to claim that their product is SOTA be a reason not to test it? If you believe that most high-end equipment is overpriced, you owe it to yourself to test as much moderately-priced equipment as you can. I'm glad to see you are looking for measurements which correlate with what we actually hear. You could put yourself out of business! First you say "shit", then you say 'built like a brick outhouse." Please don't be hypocritical. Either use all euphemisms or all Anglo-Saxonisms. (We never use four-letter words editorially, only when we're quoting somebody else. And anyone who doesn't appreciate such fine stylistic distinctions can go fornicate himself.-Ed.) This business of matching the slew rate of the pre amp to the power amp is silly. An. amplifier's slew rate is merely a potential; it does not mean that all signals coming out of the amp will have that slew-rate. What Mr. Rappaport really should have said was: "The slew rate of any stage in a chain of amplifiers must be no less than the product of its gain, times the maximum possible slew rate of the signal which can be applied to it from the preceding stage." Let's take an example: Ignoring equalization, suppose that a preamp has a voltage gain of 200, and that the highest slew rate from some cartridge/disc combination is .01 V /uS. The greatest slew rate of the preamp will then be 2 V/uS. The fact that the preamp may have a capability of 200 V/uS is completely beside the point; we have to match the slew rates of the signals, not of the components. There is, however, another angle to this problem. A preamp with excessive TIM may produce very high slew rate distortion components. If the power amp cannot amplify them, injury will be added to insult. Under such conditions, lowering the slew rate of the preamp may be of benefit, but only because the design is inherently faulty. Since both Messrs. Rappaport and Curl have fine preamps, they both can't be completely right. (According to Tom Holman, the highest achievable disc/cartridge signal slew rate is currently 0.026V/uS. Multiplying that by the gain of typical home music systems from the phono input to the speaker terminals suggests that slew rate limiting of the signal itself may not be an uncommon occurrence somewhere along the signal path, most probably in the power amplifier. That's why a fast power amp is generally a good idea. -Ed.) I recently heard the Advent and Quad preamps. The Advent does indeed win: less hardness, more ex tended high end, much more open and spacious. It might be a good idea to let Advent thoroughly exploit your favorable review-it would really put other manufacturers on the spot! It might also encourage Advent to produce a separate preamp with really versatile tone controls, filters, and switching, to sell at a reasonable price. The Phase Linear Andromeda is a dreadful speaker. It has a distinctly nasal sound, which I heard both from PL's records and my own. A well-known speaker designer said he couldn't stand to listen to it for more than a few seconds. I've heard the Infinity QLS, although not with my own records. The high end seemed distinctly "sharp". I was not tempted to trade my DQ-10's. I object to line radiators, for the laws of physics suggest that they will have response aberrations, for the same reasons that a large tweeter has an inherently rougher response than a small one. (Although the aberrations are confined only to the vertical axis, of course.) The Beveridge Cylindrical Sound Electrostatics are about the most uncolored speakers you'll ever hear, but most people will find them too "polite"-sounding. They, too, are line drivers, and they seem to be lacking the aberrations I accuse line drivers of having. Well . . . If you ever get around to bypass tests, I hope you can do them as long-term comparisons, rather than with rapid switching. Like you, I have my doubts about rapid A/B comparisons. Do I need to add that I am anxiously awaiting your next issue? Sincerely, William Sommerwerck Baltimore, MD P.S. This mess (eleven lines crossed out-Ed.) occurred because I've run out of paper and time. I decided that some of my remarks were not suitable for publication, and rather than asking you to remove them if you should publish this letter, I have bodily excised them. Since you look like you're going to be very iconoclastic, I don't want to provide any possible verbal ammunition for my own or anyone else's embarrassment. Note the High Fidelity review of the Advent 300. One of the problems with not telling the truth about bad components is that it encourages not telling the truth about really superior components, especially when they're cheap. Christ. The Audio Critic: I just received your issue number one. Thanks for 48 pages of the most self-congratulatory prose I've encountered since my last issue of Sound Advice. Actually, I haven't read anything this smug since Harry Pearson's EMT review. "Sucked out midrange," indeed! Why do all of you people have to write as though you had just invented truth? That's what's so refreshing about J. Gordon Holt; he gives his opinions as opinions and not as Papal Encyclicals. So, you tested all the preamps using that model of transparency, the DQ-10? Wonderful! Outside of a hard, irritating top, funny bass and a few midrange anomalies. the perfect speaker. No reason to try any other speakers with the preamps-what the hell. What happened? Did you run out of money after you bought all those preamps? "Our speaker . . . a purist device." You didn't have to buy pedestals for your DQ-10's: I'm sure you have them mounted on an altar in your living room. Do you have evening services instead of listening sessions? Did it ever occur to you at all that there might be some connection between the Dahlquist's problem areas and the faults you attribute to the SP-4? I guess every new periodical (try that word) has to "discover" at least one great, unknown component. Further, consider "The Admonitor." Please leave this filler out of the next issue. Boy, talk about that little David Audio Critic taking on those big, old audio Goliaths. Talk about beating a dead horse. You know very well no self-respecting audiophile takes seriously or even gives a second glance to Pioneer gatefolds or B.1.C. speaker ads. Yes, sir, you've really exposed them for the shameless, commercial giants that we all knew they were. Finally, I am not interested in three pages of Max Wilcox's reminiscences. Record reviews? Yes. A short paragraph on his credentials? Perhaps. I found his "in sight" into the recording industry very un-fascinating. Moreover, under EMI he could have included Pathe Marconi and Electrola, both companies that have truly had *'consistent"-and excellent-sound for a number of years. Please accept the above as constructive criticism. It is a little acerb, perhaps; but then, I've been snowed in here in Buffalo for over a week. Sincerely, L. P. McGovern Buffalo, N.Y. The letters in response to our first issue ran well into three figures, but this was the only totally negative one. We searched our pages for self-congratulatory prose and dogmatic revelations of truth, but found only repeated disclaimers of infallibility. (Including the infallibility of the DQ-10-see pages 10, 39 and 40.) The "sucked-out midrange'' phrase simply wasn't there-nor in the EMT review referred to! It seems to be a figment of L. P. McGovern's imagination. We can only conclude that (a) he deeply dislikes all strong opinions other than his own or that (b) the asperities of the high-end audio scene have so rigidly programmed his resentments that a code word like "purist" will automatically trigger him into aggression, a la Manchurian Candidate. -Ed. The Audio Critic: Congratulations on keeping (so far) your first promise. Having been finally seduced by your ads, I ordered my subscription in late January fully expecting the "normal" delay of months associated with other "underground" publications. Less than ten days later, however, the little gem (Volume 1, Number 1) arrived on my doorstep-keep up the good work. I believe, however, that the jury is still out on the content of your "service" as to which I offer the following comments: There is no indication of any dissent among your staff concerning judgments made as to any of the units tested-a situation which, in my eyes, stretches your credibility somewhat. The most useful publications I have found have been those which contain several reviews (sometimes dissenting) of one unit. In terms of useful ness, | have found that I have been able to align (more or less consistently) my opinions, "taste", likes and dislikes of various units with those of a particular reviewer. I am able, therefore, to "weight" the respective reviews of a unit for my own purposes. If reviewer A with whom I agree tells me that a certain combination of components is synergistic, resulting in a good sound, and I am unable to listen to that particular combination- which happens more often than not-I tend to put a great amount of faith and trust in his conclusion. Dissent can, therefore, be a useful tool for the consumer- which leads to my second comment. While several reviewers may agree on "objective" sonic characteristics of a particular unit (i.e. top end roll-off or brightness, midrange hump, ultra-tight bass, etc.), their differing conclusions as to which unit is "better" often are based upon what they "subjectively" perceive as the most natural (musical) sound. Although I recognize that sonic characteristics are certainly inter twined with the ultimate musicality of a unit in terms of it sounding "real", the definition of reality in sonic terms is not singular. Boston Symphony Hall (my favorite) "sounds" different than, say, Carnegie. To use a grossly oversimplified example-the Maggies (in an all ARC system) sound more like the Boston Hall than do the Fulton J's (Ampzilla II, JC-2 system), which sound more like Carnegie. The point is, TAC (Ouch! Let's not start an inside-dopesterish alphabet soup. Please? -Ed.) does not indicate whether your conclusions are based upon your collective agreement as to sonic characteristics, your agreement as to 'liking" the sound of a unit-colorations and all, or both. My own experiences in critical listening have generally resulted in agreement as to characteristics but much less so with respect to individual tastes (he likes Carnegie but I like Boston)--which leads to my third comment. The senior editor of one underground publication has admitted (in print) his "feeling" that tubes some how sound (to him) inherently better than transistors. That statement as to his personal preferences establishes his bias in terms of his reviews. I therefore take his reviews of transistor units with a grain of salt-but at least I know where he stands. In reading the first issue of TAC (Double ouch!-Ed.), 1 sense the implication that you folks (collectively, individually or just the Ed.?) prefer a good transistor over a good tube. *. . . It tends to soften piano transients. . . . In other words, it's still a tube preamplifier . . ."" (Review of Paragon Model 12, emphasis mine.) Are you really trying to tell us some thing or am I overreacting? Now, I am not a "tube freak" (I happen to be in love with the Rappaport PRE-1--with Maggies--for me the combo is synergistic), but the sound of the Boston Hall also softens piano transients. In fact, to me, the entire upper end in that hall is somewhat "'soft"'-but beautiful. Logically, then, one has to make a value judgment concerning the "reality" when one makes such a judgment concerning the sound of a particular unit or system. I have yet to see an audio publication articulate the former when setting forth the latter in a review. That type of analysis would be useful for us who are not able to make such judgments because of obvious limitations of equipment availability. Finally, I would like to see an amended review concerning the ARC SP-3A-1, with the latest mod. While the difference is not as satisfying as I had hoped, the difference is not ''subtle" as claimed by the manufacturer (at least one other publication so agrees). I questioned ARC's claim in that respect in light of their new line of "state-of-the-art" equipment released close in time to the announced SP-3A-1 modification. Their money maker by design is now solid state and not the old "continued" tube line. I hope that you will fulfill all of your lofty expectations for your new publication. Good luck-I really do like what you have done so far. Sincerely yours, Roy D. Toulan, Jr. Beverly Farms, MA Should there ever be serious dissent among our staff regarding the sound of a component, we'll certainly spell it out. The point is, though, that so far there has been no such dissent. We're inclined to believe that strong differences of opinion in this area are due mainly to a lack of knowledge and/or experience. As we said in the introductory article of our first issue, an intense interest in audio equipment is insufficient qualification for judging it. A group of enthusiasts gathered in a room doesn't constitute an expert panel. Do they know an oboe from an English horn? Or a condenser microphone from a ribbon? Or a capacitance from an inductance? Or are they just looking for sonic lollipops that agree with their palates? The Boston Symphony Hall/Carnegie Hall analogy is most unfortunate. An accurate audio component should have no acoustical personality. (That most components do have one is completely beside the point and mustn't influence the search for accuracy.) If a recording was made in Carnegie Hall with, say, Neumann microphones and your speaker makes it sound as if made in Symphony Hall with AKG microphones, you've got a bad speaker even if you like the sound. In other words, accuracy isn't a matter of taste. It isn't a matter of taste whether the body shop has correctly matched the color of your repainted car door to the color of the car. Either they did or they didn't. The fact that it's very difficult to make such determinations in audio has nothing to do with the basic validity of this point of view. -Ed. The Audio Critic: You are so quick to pick on commercial advertisements, which seems to me to be a waste of time as most audiophiles are sophisticated enough to deal with their distortions and hyperbole. On the other hand you completely ignore an equally questionable practice. In your very first issue you recommend the purchase of the Rappaport preamp. When I first heard this preamp a few months ago it cost $475; now it costs $575, a rise of over 20%-but that was not enough for them. Making a separate power supply for this preamp gave them the opportunity to make an even greater rise in price. The new power supply costs $200 (while let me note that the DB Systems power supply costs a reason able $75, less than half the cost of the Rappaport's), thus allowing them to raise the total price of the original unit, $475, to a new high of $715; in other words around a 50% increase for virtually the same electronic components. I understand that there are costs involved in Re search and Development, and costs involved in initiating production of a new item, but of course it seems reason able to assume that the initial price took into account such expenses. Therefore, while small price increases due to inflation are acceptable, I can't help but feel that large price increases are simply an attempt to soak the audiophile, to take advantage of him after a piece of equipment has gained a following. Though I have no personal knowledge of the actual facts involved, I think it fair to mention that I heard that the Paragon preamp also underwent an astronomical price rise; the reason, so I was informed, was that a rave review in an audiophile publication made it irresistible regardless of price, a situation the company could not restrain themselves from taking advantage of. Not every lover of music is rich (the great com posers themselves, were they transposed to our time in their respective economic situations, would not, for the most part, be able to afford much of this audiophile equipment); in other words, many people must make financial sacrifices in other areas to buy the best equipment; their purchase, in addition, may represent a lifelong investment. I think therefore that it is incumbent upon The Audio Critic to expose and comment upon such practices as I have brought to your attention so that the purchaser of audio equipment may be in a position to assure himself that he is getting fair value for his expenditures. Sincerely, Jeffrey Panken New York, NY First of all, your summary of the Rappaport preamp's price increases is somewhat simplistic; we refer you to the Rappaport PRE-1A/MC-1 review in this issue for the full story. Then you err in assuming that the current Paragon Model 12 is the same unit as the original and cheaper Paragon Model 10. It isn't. But the most interesting assumption in your letter is the music lover's inalienable right to super equipment at a reasonable price. Come on, Jeffrey. A Rappaport or a Paragon is still a material possession, although certainly of greater humanistic value than, say, a mink coat. But, as food for the musical soul, it just isn't in the same category with cheap concerts, student tickets, second-hand instruments in good condition, dedicated music teachers who don't overcharge, etc. As a boy, the Editor worshipped Toscanini through a $9.95 table radio and didn't consider himself deprived. The Rappaport and the Paragon do sound a lot better, and as far as The Audio Critic is concerned, their makers can charge for them whatever the traffic will bear. If they get carried away and price themselves out of the market, that's their lookout. At least they make outstanding equipment. What incenses The Audio Critic is a $500 unit like the Marantz 3600 that just plain sounds bad-at any price. And that's a totally different kind of indignation. -Ed. The Audio Critic: While sharing my copy of Volume I, Number 1 with a co-worker, he presented me with some questions regarding your basic system and your listening environment which only you can answer. 1. Do you consider your listening room to be a "perfect" listening room? Shape? Dimensions? Reverb time? 2. Is your basic system equalized? What equipment? What (or whose) method of equalization is employed? 3. Do you equalize the system for each piece of equipment under test? These questions are born of the consideration that an unequaled system in a less-than-perfect room can make the "bad" peaks in a chain of not-so-good equipment sound good, and can make really good equipment sound inferior. While awaiting your reply, congratulations on still another idea whose time has come. I consider my 28 bucks well invested even though I may never afford the audio-freak prices of the stuff you critique. Sincerely, Mark Scoville Commercial /Industrial Division Alco Paramount Electronic Corp. San Jose, CA No listening room is perfect and ours is no exception, although it's pretty good unequalized and, more important, we're thoroughly familiar with its characteristics. Active equalization is no panacea, as it can introduce as many problems as it solves. What good is a flatter frequency response in the room if the equalizer circuitry adds a sound of its own? Every little "black box' in the signal path can hurt. In extreme cases, active equalization may be the only answer, but we'd be inclined to try acoustic treatment first. -Ed. --------- [adapted from TAC, Vol.1, No.2] --------- Also see: The Great Preamp Survey: Part II, By the Staff of The Audio Critic Various audio and high-fidelity magazines Top of page |
|
| Home | Audio Magazine | Stereo Review magazine | AE/AA mag. |