Audio fact vs fiction

I may be out on deep water, but Í think if testing e.g. a cap against placebo, the perceived quality of the placebo cap must be tested against the perceived quality of the real cap. Two different test groups is needed I think. Rather much work needed.
Well it´s not going to happen.

 

When I receive a new to me piece of vintage gear one of the first things I do is clean out all the RCA's with deoxit. T

Connector contacts were always a point of failure in electronics in general. They have to be clean and have good contact tension or they become resistive. I always ensure my vintage gear RCA's are cleaned well with deoxit and trust me, they do get tarnished over time.

 

A special case, don't you think , and already mentioned.

 

I find that cleaning contacts helps the sound and helps preserve gear so I think it is good to do this every 6 months at a minimum.

 

Audiophoolery has even permeated the computer audio builders:

http://jplay.eu/forum/computer-audi...c.-post-photos-here-of-how-you-did-it/#p18004

They are discussing applying sheets of 3M EMI/RFI shielding to the inside of a metal computer case and various IC chips and other motherboard electronic components including memory chips and the CPU itself while claiming audible results

It's as hilarious as

 

Have you tried it yourself?

 

I'd rather waste my time and money on a cheap date and shot of Stoli.

 

He may have been cheerful in person with you, but the 2007 interview in particular (the 2nd transcript reproduced below) sure sounds like despair to me. I know he had a dry sense of humor, though. Here are two things from Gordon. The first item below is from a transcript of a speech he gave in 1992 at a Stereophile-hosted dinner at the Consumer Electronics show in Chicago.

“We seem to have come to a tacit agreement that it’s no longer necessary, or even desirable, for a home music system to sound like the real thing. We speak in hushed and reverent tones about reproduction of the ineffable beauty of music, when in fact much real music is harsh and vulgar and ugly. We design the all-important midrange out of our equipment in order to try—vainly, I might add—to recreate the illusion of three-dimensional space through what is essentially a two-dimensional reproducer. And whenever we hear a loudspeaker or a CD player that shows subversive signs of being 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! The idea that all we are trying to do is make equipment that gives the listener some sort of magical emotional response to a mystical experience called “music” is all well and good, but it isn’t what the High End is all about. In fact, high fidelity was originally a reaction to the gorgeously rich-sounding console ‘boom boxes’ that dominated the home music market in the 1940s! We’ve lost our direction…The High End in 1992 is a multi-million-dollar business. But it’s an empty triumph because we haven’t accomplished what we set out to do. The playback still doesn’t sound ‘just like the real thing.’ People, let’s start getting back to basics. Let’s put the “re” back into ‘reproduction.’ Let’s promote products that dare to sound as ‘alive’ and ‘aggressive’ as the music they are trying to reproduce.”


Then 15 years later, in November 2007, the retired J. Gordon Holt gave Stereophile editor John Atkinson the following interview (conducted via e-mail) on the occasion of the magazine’s 45th anniversary.

JA: Do you still feel the high-end audio industry has lost its way in the manner you described 15 years ago?

JGH: Not in the same manner; there’s no hope now. Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what the “real thing” had sounded like. Today, “good” sound is whatever one likes. As Art Dudley so succinctly said [in his January 2004 “Listening,” see “Letters.” P.9], fidelity is irrelevant to music. Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different people rarely agree about sound quality. Abandoning the acoustical-instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science, were not parts of my original vision.

JA: I remember you strongly feeling back in 1992 that multi-channel/surround reproduction was the only chance the industry had for getting back on course.

JGH: With fidelity in stagnation, spatiality was the only area of improvement left.

JA: As you were so committed to surround, do you feel that the commercial failures of DVD-Audio and SACD could have been avoided?

JGH: I doubt it. No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. Your generation will probably be the last to even think about fidelity.

JA: Judging by online forums and by the e-mail I receive, there are currently three areas of passion for audiophiles: vinyl playback, headphone listening, and and music servers. Are you surprised by this?

JGH: I find them all boring, but nothing surprises me anymore.

JA: Do you see any signs of vitality in high-end audio?

JGH: Vitality? Don’t make me laugh. Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless dirisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment to me, because I am associated with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don’t matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don’t always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing. Remember those loudspeaker shootouts we used to have during our annual writer gatherings in Santa Fe? The frequent occasions when various reviewers would repeatedly choose the same loudspeaker as their favorite (or least favorite) model? That was all the proof needed that [blind] testing does work, aside from the fact that it’s (still) the only honest kind. It also suggested that simple ear training, with DBT confirmation, could have built the kind of listening confidence among talented reviewers that might have made a world of difference in the outcome of high-end audio.

JA: You achieved so much, Gordon.

JGH: I know I did, and my whole excuse for it—a love for the sound of live classical music—lost its relevance in the US within 10 years. I was done in by time, history, and the most spoiled, destructive generation of irresponsible brats the world has ever seen. (I refer, of course, to the Boomers.)

 

I remember doing this at a collage party with vodka. I don't remember the exact brands we used were, but basically someone would sample the cheapest vodka we could find, then compare it to the same vodka in the bottle of a very expensive name brand. Every person who tried the samples raved about how much better the very expensive name brand vodka was compared to the cheap stuff. Of course it was the same vodka

 

Although... I once won a $20 bet by being able to distinguish 5 different colas. And this was back in 1975, when $20 was actually worth $20.

Gordon definitely had a very wacky sense of humor. I saw him go through moments of despair, particularly when his marriage broke up and he no longer had control of Stereophile, but he was also capable of seeing the ironic humor of a lot of situations. I confess I didn't know him well, but I knew him well enough that we spoke on the phone a few times a year, I stayed over at his house in Santa Fe a couple of times, and we always made a point to touch base at CES conventions over the years. A lot of those conversations revolved around, "oh, god -- can you believe what these high end nuts are doing now?" So he was exasperated to some extent. Despair would not be the word I would use. Annoyed and bewildered, certainly. More of a "WTF" vs. a "my world is ending" kind of thing.

I told him I thought all the newsstand mags had completely lost it by the mid-1990s, when the advertising shifted, when high-end mags started reviewing brand-new $599 receivers, and when they'd slip in video coverage into an audio-only magazine. I was so incensed, I actually wrote an angry letter to Perfect Vision (a magazine for whom I worked for a couple of years) when they did a review of Sirius Satellite Radio and never once talked about sound quality, in the early 2000s. That filled me with despair enough that I let my subscription lapse and never read the magazine again. And they folded a few years afterward.

 

I kinda agree with him.
Audio has lost it's way. It has become shrouded in voodoo, and over priced stuff that often has only some tiny degree of Certainty of actually re-creating sound more realistically.

It has to me, and many others such as gordon, become a bit laughable and not advanced. Sure there are some advancements technology wise, but overall as a science, it has lost a lot of credibility.

 

Wow, he does seem rather bitter, particularly in the 2007 comments.

 

Old guy crabbing syndrome.
The World has changed and he is pissed. Mainly if the changes were not what folks wanted... then the companies offering the 'new' style/ way etc.. would fail.
Since they all seem to flourish with the 'voodoo style'.. then I guess it is what people want.

If folks do not want his version of the 'truth' then i guess his version is just out of luck.

I personally think it is more about what people are listening FOR withing the sound.
For example Cardas has introduced new interconncets which are tuned to present 'clarity' instead of the traditional Cardas 'wamth'. I hear Cardas sales were declining because the classic Cardas sound was no longer interesting to the cable buyers.
Folks move on.
Like when I listen to any new McIntosh gear it has that same old 'muddy crap' sound. I guess that means I LIKE the 'new' clarity sound, where you can hear the detail, even though it no longer has any warm rich midrange sound. (which is also not real, just what folks used to 'like'.)

 

yes an no, I know a bunch of old school types, they don't buy into all the fancy new gear and swear by their old thorens TT and dynaco speakers etc. I think it's great that there are lots of options and plenty of people restoring and working on old gear to keep them alive.

 

I do not see it as bitter, but let down. Things were really progressing, over many decades and audio did kinda come to a standstill in SOME regards.

Many are happy to see audio remain a semi-magical hobby about sound, and most of the more serious about really re-creating realistic sound, and none of the mumbo jumbo stuff have vanished.

To me, the end result is moving better audio into some realm that some see as kinda cringe worthy stuff that many roll their eyes at.

It has not filtered into everyday life, but moved to the upper atmosphere.

I used to be able to find well over a dozen audio stores in the early 80s, and even the more high end ones, were not shrouded in things that did not make total sense. They seemed rooted in stuff that was logical, and an extension of what we knew at the time.

 

Exactly. You have to wonder why he was so bitter. Was it related to personal circumstances? Not being in charge of the magazine any more?

Maybe failing hearing did not allow him to hear the improvements from audiophile advancements so he did not understand that as well.

 

I think J. Gordon was pretty gravely ill in his last years. And apart from that, everyone- from entertainers, to writers, to scientists- eventually reaches a point where they become less relevant for a variety of reasons. Same thing happened to HP at The Absolute Sound (remember his diatribe after he left? It wasn't pretty). That said, both of them advanced the art of home reproduction of music.
I think we live in a new golden age. Forget the hype- it's always been there to a degree. Yeah, the kilo-buck products can rub people the wrong way, but who cares how someone else spends their money? If the product doesn't deliver, it will eventually fail in the marketplace.
There are plenty of reputable products, made by good companies, large and small, that deliver great sonics at everything from bargain basement to stratospheric prices today. Did two channel audio lose its way? Perhaps. But there was a huge cultural shift away from conventional two channel listening of physical media. Despite that, the industry is remarkably rich with a huge array of products from a huge number of different manufacturers. A lot may be 'me too' products- cashing in on the tube or vinyl revival, but even in the 'good olde days' I'm not sure how many products actually advanced the state of the art. The ones that did, are, for the most part, the small handful of products that remain legendary today.

 

I think you are right Bill. We are in a Golden Age of Audio.

The entry level products today are the best they have ever been and far better than even five years ago.

The middle segment of high end audio has become more affordable as well.

The ultra-luxury segment offers up great sound even though prices are very high.

And we have three promising areas of growth in turntables & vinyl, portable audio & headphones, and computer audio playback.

And the icing is perhaps increasing selection of very high quality high resolution downloads.
We need to sit back and enjoy the music.

 

If you're a old fashioned audio hobbyist who likes to open up stuff and play with its guts, this is the Golden Age. There's more used and essentially discarded audio gear of really good quality now than ever before and it's easier to get your hands on it thanks to Ebay, Craigslist and the like. There's still plenty of gear to be found at thrift stores and yard sales as well, one has to know what to look for. And it's a lot easier to get parts these days too.

 

Nothing beats chronic pain for non-stop bitterness. Getting old isn't for sissies.

 

I think manufacturers now are much more guarded about how they implement their technology. My first reasonable amp had schematics that were released. There was no mystery about the build. Now, a small manufacturer who has figured something out must attempt to keep people from copying whatever makes it unique. This leads to a market that is full of soft and fuzzy language that hides the source of real innovation and also allows more fakery. This applied to everything though. It is more a function of the information age, IMO.

 

it's this and the fact that no one wants you to fix stuff anymore, everything is disposable, they want you to go out and buy a new one, so who needs schematics.

 

About to commit blasphemy. My short response....dude lost his marbles in these interviews.

 

Unfortunately I am getting old and I am a sissy.

 

Speaking as a Boomer let me say I vehemently represent that!

I don't think Holt lost his marbles but there's 99 kinds of crotchety in there, ain't one of them mine.