General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

agreed

Posted by Bruce from DC on February 25, 2007 at 15:22:35:
At the time, I was also an avid reader of Stereo Review, High Fidelity and, occasionally, "Audio."
By and large, the equipment reviewers for those magainzes focused exclusively on "the numbers." If "the numbers" were good, these guys said, "Wow! Terrific numbers! Sounds good, too." There was a tremendous reticence, a distrust really, by those reviewers to use their own ears. They used their ears, if at all, to validate the measurements. I think that's backwards.
JGH and the boys, of course, started out without any numbers at all; they just listened.
If you want a great illustration of what I'm talking about, compare JGH's review of the Bose 901 with Julian Hirsch's. (I've read both.) Here's a really unorthodox approach to speaker design but, frankly, Hirsch tells you very, very little about how it sounds say, in comparison to an AR-3A, a "conventional" speaker of good reputation at about the same price. And even he admits that his "numbers" don't mean much. JGH does a good job of describing the speaker's sound. (Yeah, I also heard the 901 in 1968 or 1969; although it was "ahead of its time" in that its aggressive equalization in the bass range required more drive than the amplifiers of the time could deliver.)
I do like the fact that Stereophile measures things. But I think they have their priority straight; listen first, then measure.
I'm really uninterested in whether HP first "discovered" Audio Research Corp., Magnepan, etc. BFD. For one thing, if TAS didn't start until 1973, I beat them to the punch on those brands. First time I knew about Magneplanars (driven by ARC electronics) was when I heard them in 1972, in Baltimore where I was a TA at Johns Hopkins. And yes, they were a "revelation."