Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Critic's Corner ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

In defence of JGH ... just more consequences of silly affairs.

Posted by bjh (A) on September 21, 2005 at 21:41:32

In Reply to: Instead I'll give JGH himself the final word: posted by Jim Austin on September 21, 2005 at 18:30:00:

Firstly we must place this quote in it's proper context. Picture a scenario where some seemingly irrational, from a scientific point of view, tweak(s) are gaining currency in your favorite hobby. Despite the apparent absurdity many members of the critical press appear to be jumping on the bandwagon, i.e. picture this (all quotes from AWIS - L'Affaire Belt, J. Gordon Holt, December, 1987, except where noted):

"This guy is clearly a three-layer nutcake, right? That's exactly what I thought when I first started hearing about all this. But then I heard more. Mr. Belt, I learned, has been demonstrating his devices to various audio people, individually and in groups, and most of them were reporting that his gadgets do in fact improve the sound. Martin Colloms, for example, and his associate Paul Crook felt that differences could be perceived when a sheet of Mr. Belt's electret foil was placed under a CD player. John Atkinson felt that he heard a difference between when an LP was "polarized" correctly and incorrectly in a demonstration run by the English magazine Hi-Fi Answers at the show. Jimmy Hughes, chief reviewer of Hi-Fi Answers, was—despite admitted skepticism—so impressed by what he heard that he extolled the virtues of the Belt devices across four pages in the October 1987 issue of the magazine! Jimmy also demonstrated to our own Alvin Gold much of the effects claimed (see "Pure Gold," Vol.10 No.6)."

Recognize any names? We then learn that JGH had no such luck with the miraculous devices:

"I am still damned if I can hear them doing anything at all. But then, I didn't expect to. And maybe that's the key to this whole phenomenon."

He then proceeds to make hay of Belt's 'scientific' thinking and for that matter his ethics, makes some very interesting observations on the topic of scientific objectivity and subjectivity featuring wonderfully lucid thinking that at least entertains the possibility of cause and effect, but concludes:

"There may indeed be something to all this, but I have a gut feeling that it's utter nonsense."

I'm guessing JGH didn't have a PhD as he apparently didn't have the confidence to completely rule out a 'something'. But as to a more practical 'something' we have: "I submit that the reason is because of another kind of potent although unmeasurable energy source: that of suggestion."

This then leads directly to the first quote:

"Differences among the best high-end components are becoming so small ..." [see previous post]

So why this? Go study 50-60 of JGH's and if you conclude that his subjective observations are in concert with the claim in the quote. I content you will be left shaking you head and going ... "but, but, he said" ... very likely stupefied if in romantic zeal he has achieved demi-god status in your mind.

But the quote proceeds a summary of what science has revealed about the unreliability of human perception, and the claim of small differences along with the known science of perception provides the device to solve one of the dilemmas that Holt clearly finds so unsettling ... that "veteran listeners who have built professions on their ability to hear what's going on in reproduced sound", those "supposedly rational, technically savvy individuals" (from the second quote) are reporting the effectiveness of the Belt tweaks.

What do I think? I think he got a little carried away, got swept up by the tide as it were. I mean in the quote you get the impression that products in the hi-end are damn near indistinguishable.

But just the month before he gave the ARC SP9 a good spanking. Well OK the quote did say "the BEST high-end components" (emphasis added), no harm done. But in that same review we have:

[http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/739/index.html]

"By critical consensus, the SP11 is the best-sounding tube preamp Audio Research has ever made; certainly it has few, if any, peers."

Hmmmm ...? Few if any peers? But weren't there any number of hi-end manufacturers around at the time that had their own statement pre-amplifiers? Seems like a discordance with the 'best damn near indistinguishable' statement.

I could go on, pulling statements from Holt reviews to prove the point but why bother. Point is that when the industry is going through one of its spectaculars lots of mistakes are made and a great deal of stupid and regretful statements are made. There couldn't be a better time to understand this I might add.

But I'd like to conclude with an observation. When JGH decided that a stance in favor of rationality and science was warranted he had the balls to do so himself. He didn't need some PhD with crapolla audiophile experience to stand in for him. He made his own appeal and his own mistakes. That why we respect his legacy wouldn't dear suggest that the odd transgression here or there has any real bearing on the big picture.

Best,

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---