FORUM.

"Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Laura ..."

Mr. Ferstler needs a good slap. In the Polk RMDS system review, Ferstler states "he doesn't know why AM is included in stereo systems any longer." What cave has he been in during the '90s? AM has continued to be a source of entertainment and news for the entire country IN SPITE OF its lack of fidelity. As a matter of fact, any medium as poor-sounding as AM has no right to prosper, yet it does. Some of the most well-known names in our society are the result of AM's broad reach. Rush Limbaugh, Stern, Imus, Art Bell, and that lady shrink (name escapes me) entertain hundreds of millions weekly. Ferstler's own lack of culture should not be showered down on your readers. I enjoy turning out the lights and getting lost in music; but I also like to be informed and amused by the magic of talk radio. Tell Howie to flick the switch occasionally, he might enjoy it!

Matt Romano
via e-mail

Let me guess: "Long-time reader, first-time writer," right? This IS a joke, right? Maybe some of our readers will get a kick out of it ...

Oops!

I just picked up T$S number 80 and am writing to tell you how pleased I am with the overall quality of this issue and the general direction of your magazine. I've been reading T$S for 15+ years and am delighted to see that Howard Ferstler has become a significant contributor. His articles and reviews are a sane and measured antidote to the rubbish published in other sectors of the audio press. David Moran's occasional reviews are also welcome; can we please have more equipment reviews by him? I remember reading his column in Speaker Builder many years ago and never understood why it was discontinued. In any case it is good to see him in print again, albeit occasionally.

On a more serious note, now that Audio magazine has gone under can you, perhaps, make an effort to fill in the void? In particular, there is no longer any publication that does in-depth technical reviews of the sort that Audio once did. Look at an Ed Foster or D.B. Keele review to see what a comprehensive test report should be like. Would you kindly ask your reviewers to give more test data on components they review. Best of all, why not entice Foster or Keele to write for T$S? Surely it would not be too difficult to publish more technical test reports and, if my circle of Hi-Fi friends is typical, there is a fair bit of pent-up demand for such reviews.

Turning now to DRM's article on dipoles in issue 80, I believe there is an error in fig. 3 on page 41. There is no way that a point-by-point subtraction of the two curves in fig. 2 will yield the curve in fig. 3. You might want to draw his attention to this point.

Akhil Lal, Ph.D.
Via e-mail

To do the kind of measurements and so forth that you would like to see would require a budget that we simply don't have. The fact that Audio has gone under and The Audio Critic publishes only sporadically are pretty good indicators that there just isn't much of a market out there. We prefer to stay in business by keeping our costs down; however, we also strive to publish as much good information as we can within those constraints, hence the articles by folks such as Mr. Moran and Dr. Rich. Regarding the faulty graph in DRM's Issue 80 Polk speaker commentary, please see his correction elsewhere in this issue.

A Rare Quality

If KWN is a huge Arthur Blythe fan, he won't want to be without Today's Blues, a duet disc with cellist David Eyges. This is on the Creative Improvised Music Projects (CIMP) label and available from Cadence Magazine, www.cadencebuilding.com. It's excellent and I wouldn't want anyone to miss it, especially since Arthur has been under-recorded since those great Columbia LPs.

Also, thanks for a great mag. I did stay away from expensive cables, tweaks and things from reading but, more interestingly, your magazine convinced me to give classical music another shot. I'm a big jazz and blues fan but I've done my own Beethoven/ Mahler shootout based on your review (I came to a different conclusion, however!) and, sorry again, I prefer the Decca Fitzwilliam to the Emerson quartet reading of Shostakovich's string quartetsV But I'm just a beginner, what the hell do I know ... :-)

But more so than equipment, the music is the most important thing and your reviews are concise, intelligent and make me want to listen to more music. As the cliche goes, the music's the thing.

I really appreciate the honesty of T$S. Other mags, retailers, the trade, etc should take note. Honesty in audio is very rare. Thanks again.

Dan Kerr
via e-mail

Thanks for the kind words, Mr. Kerr. We're always tickled to get positive feedback from music lovers. Please note for the record, however, that we did not compare the Emerson and Fitzwilliam boxed sets of Shostakovitch string quartets in Issue 81C the comparison was to the Eder Quartet's version on Naxos. However, I do mention both sets in my column elsewhere in this issue.

Kits and Bits

I would like to commend you on reviewing the Assemblage DAC kits. Most of the time, kits either aren't reviewed or the review is so technical (a la Audio Electronics) that you have to have a background in electrical engineering to understand the review. There is a great middle ground occupied by people such as myself who would like to build kits, either for fun, education, or to save money, but need more basic reviews. Bravo!

Claude Dickson
Boston, MA

And thank you, too, Mr. Dickson. Kind words from audiophiles are always appreciated.

Win Some ...

Enough is enough! I don't mean to appear to be condescending but I'm really so very tired of comments like Mr. Robert Perlson's [in Issue 80's "Forum"]. This whole argument of amps having these vast differences in sound had its genesis in the days of tube amplifiers with their incredibly high output impedance, and has wrongly been carried over to today's solid-state devices. Mr. Perlson obviously has never participated in a double-blind, matched levels (that is, matched to within .1dB at the speaker terminals) amplifier test.

I am way beyond being so tired of, to the point of being really angry at publications like "Stereopiles" (pun intended) for doing a disservice to the audio community at large by repeating this bull-oney that amp A has great soundstaging but amp B has better overall timing and slam.

Can't the public see what's going on here? They are appealing to your ego when they tell you objectivists simply can't hear like you can. The Sensible Sound and The Audio Critic should be commended for telling the truth that your money is best spent on a good set of speakers after you have purchased a solid-state amplifier with the features you most desire and the most watts per dollar. Outlaw Audio makes an excellent home theater amp and of course Bob Carver also designs great stuff for the money. Professional amps such as QSC are very good amps that will give the option of balanced inputs at prices that will be hard to beat by the likes of the so called "high end" companies ... and these are built for "roadies," so they will take a lot more punishment both physically and electrically than those amps with "snob appeal."

As far as tube amps go ... get serious! I just love it when I say to some tube freak, "you can have the same sound as your tube amplifier by buying a stereo 31-band EQ for $250 (and that's with balanced inputs, also) to go with your solid-state amp." "ANATHEMA," they shout, even though their tube amp is a filter just the same as my combo. At least mine is adjustable, and at least three times as reliable.

Bottom line is this: Anyone who can distinguish between two modern solid-state power amplifiers used correctly within their power ratings, at matched levels, in a double-blind test to a statistically significant level of say 78%, I've got a thousand bucks for you. I know I have nothing to worry about as Tom Nousaine does this all the time and no one, that's right, nada, NO ONE has done it yet! Thank you KWN for not buckling under the pressure to make more advertising money at the expense of truth. In the long run, it is not only better for us, the consumers, but the industry as well. BravoCand long live The Sensible Sound.

Mark Romani
via e-mail

And thank you, Mr. Romani, for taking the time to write, although I must admit that when I read your first sentence, my heart sankCthat should teach me not to jump to hasty conclusions!

... Lose Some

I am a subscriber that WILL NOT renew. I find that your editorial policy is outlandish and completely at odds with the rest of the magazine. In the editorials and responses to readers letters, you go to exaggerated lengths to promote DBT as the only possible way to evaluate audio equipment, and go to great lengths attempting to trash any opinion that differs from your own.

However, when I start to read the reviews of equipment and music, there is no mention whatever of DBT! The reviews do read like your other favorite mag Stereo ReviewClots of description of the knobs and buttons and little to nothing about what the device sounds like!

After a while in each issue, I realize that your editorial position vis-a-vis the rest of the magazine is really just one big put-on and that you aren't serious about the DBT. Then I realize that with all those venomous replies you must be serious. When someone lies more than 3 sigma from the mean they are too extremist for my taste.

Mike Klein
via e-mail

We have never said that DBT is the only possible way to evaluate audio equipment. But we have asked that people who make outlandish claims about the "differences" between, say, amplifiers, be willing to demonstrate their claims by subjecting the equipment to level-matched double-blind testing, which certainly seems to be the best way we know of to try to establish claims of differences between the sound of two amplifiers. Double-blind testing is tedious and expensive (no free lunch alas), and our reviewers use the methodology only infrequently.

As far as your finding my editorial replies to be "venomous," I can only say that I have gone out of my way to avoid personal attacks and invective, even when the letters I have received have been insulting, boorish, and hostile. My patience with some of this stuff may have run thin from time to time, and if so, I apologize to our readers, but I do hope that I have never given the impression of ill will.