Know Your Audio Critic: A Continued Discussion of Our Philosophy (March/April 1977, Vol. 1, No. 2)

By Peter Aczel, Editor and Publisher

As a sequel to the introductory statement in our first issue, we cover a number of points that have come up in response to our debut.

Let's just continue the laundry list format of the first article, itemizing our points in no particular order. We'll even continue the numbers where we left off, for easy reference in the future.

11. We have come under criticism by about 1 1 0.1% of our readership (three persons, to be exact) for the professional involvement of some of our staff consultants in the audio industry. Doesn't that constitute a conflict of interest, we were gleefully challenged, in view of our simon-pure posture of independence? Ah, that's a good one. The basic reason for the amateurishness of the "underground" audiophile reviews is that they are staffed by amateurs. It would be very nice if one could come to valid conclusions about, say, the transient response of an amplifier by consulting music-loving dentists, accountants and shoemakers. Unfortunately, such independent experts seldom know what they're talking about. That's why we have a professional record producer, a physicist/audio engineer, an audio-electronics technician and other qualified professionals on our staff. Sure, some of these people derive part of or all of their income from the audio business, but not one of them is a chief executive officer or majority stock holder, so that the worst that can happen is that the views they privately communicate to us deviate from the self-interest of their bosses.

Tough. It just so happens that The Audio Critic has already dealt rather severely with products made or sold by said bosses.

The important thing is that the management of The Audio Critic is completely divorced from commercial audio. The Editor/Publisher deliberately severed all connections with the industry before coming out with the first issue.

Our subscribers are our sole business interest.

As a matter of fact, if you hear any malicious gossip about The Audio Critic's conflicts of interest, or especially about our taking bribes for favorable reviews (one of the ever recurring fabrications about nearly all audio reviewers, perpetuated by a few pathetic little would-be authorities), we suggest you let us know, provided you're willing to identify the source. There's nothing a Hungarian loves better than a good lawsuit.

We must also reiterate and amplify our 12 previous statements about our publishing schedule. It's quite obvious that some of our subscribers haven't read Point 5 on page 3 of Volume 1, Number 1, where our position is explained. "It's March 1st. Where's my March/ April issue?' they write. It doesn't work that way.

As we said before, our commitment is to six issues in 1977. This issue is a little late; we're doing everything in our power to get the third 1977 issue out before the midpoint of the year (June 30th). Then we'll get out three more issues in the second half of the year. If it's October and you haven't received Number 4 (July/August) yet, then you'll have cause to worry-we won't be able to catch up. But it isn't going to happen. On the other hand, you must understand that investigative techno journalism against completely unyielding dead lines is virtually impossible-unless you're the size of Consumers Union. It's the kind of work we must split into six unequal portions; some tests and write-ups just take longer than others.

12. We realize that our prepublication ads and correspondence were a bit more optimistic on this subject; we also made the mistake of for getting that magazines carrying our ads are often published almost a month ahead of their cover date, so that some of our announcements appeared prematurely. But the important thing is that you'll still get six issues for your money and you'll get them in 1977.

One thing we must disclaim all responsibility for is the credibility gap created by the totally irresponsible publishing schedules of various audiophile reviews that long preceded us. We can't help it if you're a subscriber to a quarterly that turned into a yearbook; we didn't make you do it. It's your problem and their problem, not ours. We have absolutely nothing to do with them, and we refuse to share their guilt. So please don't mention our delays of a few weeks in the same breath with their missing winters and springs. Okay?

13. In case you haven't noticed, a definite polarization seems to be taking place in the attitude of high-end manufacturers toward the kind of sound they want to sell you. The lines are being drawn to split them into two distinct camps. (We're talking about responsible manufacturers; there's also a third camp of common opportunists who just want to cash in on the high-end explosion.) One faction, exemplified by Mark Levin son and Dahlquist, is devoting its efforts to designing equipment that reproduces the input as accurately as possible, whether you like it or not. If the Neumann microphones used in a recording have a peak, these manufacturers give you the peak loud and clear. If the recording is smooth as silk, so is the reproduction. In other words, the equipment gives and asks no quarter.

The other faction, also defensible and best represented by Bongiorno's GAS Company, appears to believe that when the customer pays so much money he must be protected from all nasty sounds, no matter where they come from.

Detail must still be reproduced realistically, but that peaky recording must be made to sound a little nicer. In fact, everything must sound nice and round and "musical." If the input is cruddy, the output must be a little less so. Of course, it's all done very subtly, with a great deal of engineering finesse, so that even the keenest ears will have to admit that with good program material the sound is "good." But not quite like the input.

This design philosophy is far from contemptible; it could easily be argued that it constitutes the perfect adjustment to an imperfect world. Many musicians, suspicious of "hi-fi" to begin with, are more comfortable with this type of equipment. We aren't. Because when we play our very best records and tapes, the first category of reproducers will make them sound clearer, more real, more detailed. And that's what high fidelity is all about. Accuracy. The second category of equipment lets the software makers off the hook and delays the day of reckoning when only accurate recordings will be marketable.

Once you realize and accept the existence of these two categories, most high-quality equipment can be readily assigned to one or the other, although some will of course tend toward the border line. For example, the D B Systems preamp is definitely category one, whereas the Fulton J speaker fits quite nicely into category two.

14. Our insistence on accuracy, rather than just "the best sound," makes our job both easier and more difficult. Easier because the opinions of listening panelists who are obviously into euphonious colorations or soft-focus pleasantness can be quickly discounted. More difficult because, as we explained in Part I of our preamp survey, there's no objective method of determining the total sonic content of a record groove or tape, i.e., what it ought to sound like. It helps, however, to have access to live recording sessions, the resultant master tape, the subsequent mixes, the test lacquers, as well as the eventual vinyl disc. A generalized concept of accuracy emerges, supported by repeated experience with such program sources using a particular cartridge, preamp or what have you. It's not quite the same as matching two color swatches (Ed Villchur's original ex ample to illustrate that accurate reproduction isn't a matter of opinion), but it goes a little deeper than "hey, I like that." The relevance of laboratory measurements to all this is fairly obvious. If a piece of equipment sounds ''good" but shows serious anomalies when measured, it can't be accurate and the "good" sound becomes suspect. If it sounds obviously inaccurate but passes all lab tests with flying colors (a perfect example is the Dynaco PAT-5), there must be a missing measurement, even if nobody knows what it is.

Only when the accuracy is both audible and measurable are we dealing with a genuinely accurate reproducer.

15. The frequent difficulty of correlating measurements with sound quality-or, if you will, science with art-brings us to one of our pet subjects. Have you noticed how differently various practitioners react to this dilemma? Some find it very painful and are doing everything in their power to hasten the day when all audible differences will have a technical explanation that can be verified in the laboratory. (Much the same way as visible differences in photography can be pretty well accounted for in today's optical laboratories.) Others seem to be pleased as hell with the situation because it gives them sorcerer status-or call it artistic freedom in engineering-without the necessity of studying the latest research on the subject.

Adherents of the latter school of thought jauntily tap the old ear with an index finger and say, "That's my spectrum analyzer, baby." We feel that even if some of these golden-eared wizards do come up with excellent results from time to time (regularity being automatically precluded by their method), their days are definitely numbered. The new generation of audio engineers and acousticians, having discovered that differential equations don't make you deaf, will wipe them off the map. We can hardly wait.

Enough of this lovemaking. Let's take a look at some audio equipment.

-------

[adapted from TAC, Vol.1, No.2]

---------

Also see:

Records and Recording: The Ears Minus the Eyes, By Max Wilcox

Various audio and high-fidelity magazines