Gordon Holt telling it like it is.

LuSh

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

I agree with 100% of what he's said. I once made a thread on Audiogon asking how far we really came; I fell over laughing at the responses. My contention is that the audio industry has been going in circles for some time now. I look forward to the full article. I will actually buy (first time for me) the Stereophile issue in which the full article is printed in. I'm surprised John Atkinson had the gumption to print it; I guess sales are down.

hearingimpared

I read it in the hard copy issue of Stereophile. It is a great and eye opening interview.

mhardy6647

If you listen to some of the premier equipment of the 1950s (and, in rare cases, as far back as the 1930s), you'll realize that, as the writer of Ecclesiastes said, "There is nothing new under the sun".

'Cept digital, of course, about which the less said the better :-)

WilliamM2

Very good article, it does seem like there has been no major advance in audio over the last 20 years or so.

Did you agree with this part? Seems few here do.

As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit 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 derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me,

LuSh

In the example he used William yes; he used DBX testing as an example citing that often trained reviewers would pick the same speakers. The test wasn't used to confirm or deny changes within speakers but that listening preferences would be chosen with ears instead of a name.

hearingimpared

I knew that that little snippet would be brought up out of context!

WilliamM2

LuSh wrote: »

In the example he used William yes; he used DBX testing as an example citing that often trained reviewers would pick the same speakers. The test wasn't used to confirm or deny changes within speakers but that listening preferences would be chosen with ears instead of a name.

Right, he did use speakers as an example, but I think he meant all components should be chosen on sound, and not the name. He also made this statement:

Abandoning the acoustical-instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science, were not parts of my original vision.

WilliamM2

hearingimpared wrote: »

I knew that that little snippet would be brought up out of context!

How was that out of context? The example he used was to show that blind testing does in fact work.

hearingimpared

We all know J. Gordon Holt was God's gift to audiophilia!:rolleyes: Wasn't it he who predicted that multi-channel would over take two channel for accurate music reproduction??:rolleyes::rolleyes: How'd that work out?

PolkThug

lol we got a Holt hater

jakelm

hearingimpared wrote: »

We all know J. Gordon Holt was God's gift to audiophilia!:rolleyes: Wasn't it he who predicted that multi-channel would over take two channel for accurate music reproduction??:rolleyes::rolleyes: How'd that work out?

Worked out great in my house. :p

SolidSqual

I'm 25 and went from surround to 2 channel . . . this isn't the norm, but perhaps there's still hope.

dorokusai

I believe his comments are also spot-on. The industry is commited to nothing but profits and the carrot will lead the masses. The vinyl comment was awesome and its nice to see some discussion based in reality.

I'm also suprised they published it.

BottomFeeder

Sheesh! I feel sorry for the guy - though my few times around the audio block tell me that he might be right - the future of audio doesn't look so bright for those who care about quality sound.

Hope he's found something else to lift his spirits!

hearingimpared

I think the problem with Holt is that he finds everything boring that doesn't sound or strive to sound like, or is reproduced like live, acoustical (non-amplified) classical music. That is not the real world. I love classical music. I love classical music that is recorded "live" but that is not what I judge ALL my musical reproduced sound from my rig by. Since he started Stereophile way back that is what he judged EVERYTHING by, acoustic classical music. I disagree with him in that regard.

dorokusai

Stereophile was a better magazine back then, then it is now. They usually realized they were on the planet Earth and not a slave to advertisments.

You don't have to like what he says but it certainly doesn't take away from it in the end. At least it's an industry pundit saying it instead of a generic user forum member. I'm part of that generic group and welcome the response.

This hobby is filled with too much BS.

lightman1

He's got some valid points. Think about it. I can go to Wendy's, buy a large soda and get a code # on the cup itself! to download to my i-pod,latest phone craze, bluetooth enabled,MP-3 compressed,cool **** wallpaper...You eat a cheeseburger and get a song that nobody will care about in three weeks. Do they care about the sound of the song, or the smiple fact that they have it with them wherever they go?
Just a thought.
But there's more.

hearingimpared

dorokusai wrote: »

Stereophile was a better magazine back then, then it is now. They usually realized they were on the planet Earth and not a slave to advertisments.

This I totally agree with this. I still have some old Stereophile mags, you know the little ones the size of a steno pad, that didn't have ads in them and I also have some where Holt couldn't keep the magazine afloat without ads and only permitted them in the very back of the magazine.

I do think that today it is a rarity in Stereophile to see a reviewer totally or partially pan a peice of gear.

I was annoyed today reading a Fremer reveiw of the Merrill-Scillia Research MS21 turntable, $24,000! He compared it to two other turntables one around the same price the other his reference $100,000 table and still the only thing negative he could find was that it "doesn't pack the bass wallop of the best mass-loaded designs, it does produce fine bass extension" . . .

WTF??

TroyD

Let me preface by saying that I agree with SOME of the things Holt says. Not all, but some.

My observation is that Holt is a bitter old man. He is bitter that the audio industry doesn't conform to HIS ideal. The guy is an egomaniac (and a bit of an ****). The perfect reproduction of unamplified classical music is such a narrow view of a niche market to begin with that it's unsustainable from a practical standpoint. In the grand scheme, does that make the hobby any less valid? No, I think not because not many know what unamplified classical sounds like anyway and B. unamplified classical music is also a moving target because every venue sounds different. Again, it's all sour grapes on Holt's part.

I do agree that the high end is in danger

No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. Your generation of music lovers will probably be the last that even think about fidelity

Again, fidelity was never a concern for many people to start with. EVER. Holt is deluding himself. No, as I stated previously, the danger is that the high fidelity format is going away. A certain, small segment was always curious about fidelity, the REAL problem is that the available amount of high resolution media is going to evaporate over the long term. THAT is the danger.

As far as his diatribe on double-blind. Who the **** cares? J. Gordon Holt sure as **** didn't back in 1985. If Holt was so enamoured of double blind testing, he would be a Bob Carver disciple. What a crock of horseshit. Now, Holt was always a fan of measurements...and I agree with that. However, Holt, nor Stereophile has ever made the leap that good measurements guaranteed good sound.

I agree with Mark, there is a lot of BS, hocus pocus and voodoo in the industry. However, we are farther along than he wants to admit. Yes, basic speaker and amplifier technology hasn't evolved a lot in the past 50 years. Physics is physics. However as far as attaining better fidelity? Pffffffft. How many people are running source components from the 1950's or 1960's? ****, even the 1980's or even 90's?

It's not that the industry lost it's way.....it's a case of it didn't follow J. Gordon Holt's way. Which, if I think if it did, you could count the days until every audio company folded.

BDT

treitz3

TroyD wrote: »

Again, fidelity was never a concern for many people to start with.

Troy, I cringe whenever I hear statements like this. It kills me if not just by a little bit every time a statement like this is made. Over time, there will be nothing left but..............

Crap, am I talking about me or the audio industry?

TroyD

It's a true statement. Very few people EVER gave a **** about sound quality or high fidelity (which are two different schools of thought).

The danger isn't that a certain number of people won't care or won't be curious enough to pursue better sound. That's a given. I'd also say that there are probably MORE people interested in it now than ever before.

No, the problem, as I keep saying, is that the paradigm will shift. Right now, we have, as the standard...CD, a relatively high resolution format. That is going away and is being replaced with a low resolution format. The problem is that people WILL figure out that the more revealing the gear you play it on, the WORSE it will sound. THAT is what will kill audio as we know it...or drive it even further underground (making it more expensive in the process).

BDT

treitz3

Thanks Troy. Now I'm thoroughly depressed. The truth hurts sometimes and you reminded me of the truth.

It's killing me.

Crap, am I talking about me or the audio industry? :eek:

TroyD

Don't be depressed, hell, like George said, I've got enough gear and music to last me until I assume room temperature.

Plus, Holt's premise is flawed to start with. Faithfully reproduce unamplified classical music. That goal is perverted FIRST by the recording process. Now, Holt may have had access to unedited master tapes but he would have been one of the few. Even HE knows that recordings were manipulated. That being the case, his premise is already shot. Now, if fidelity to the RECORDING is what he's after...that's different story and one that we can discuss but it's a fundamentally different premise that his original premis.

BDT

PolkThug

High Fidelity is alive! My digital cable risers will be here tomorrow!

reeltrouble1

excellent news Thug.

RT1

DarqueKnight

There was a time, around 25 years ago, when high end audio was a cottage industry that was known for gear that sounded wonderful but spent most of its time in the repair shop. Many, if not most, of the major players in the high end market operated on the bleeding edge of business failure. Lots of them went under.

Some high end manufacturers learned how to efficiently run a business, and successfully manufacture and market a product. Some of those "garage based" audio businesses survived and grew to become thriving multimillion dollar businesses. Various survival strategies were employed by the survivors. Some got a clue and learned how to market to those most likely to buy their product. Others were acquired by larger corporate entities. Another successful strategy was a shifting in focus to mass market audio/video while retaining a limited line of premium audio gear. One very bright idea was the licensing of inventions and innovations from high end audio to the general consumer market.

"No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. Your generation of music lovers will probably be the last that even think about fidelity." --J. Gordon Holt

I do not share J. Gordon Holt's pessimism about the future of high end audio. Maybe he needs to get out more. He sounds very bitter. There are a number of national and international audio conventions and trade shows that demonstrate unequivocally that the high end audio industry is well funded, offers many commercially successful products of exceptional quality, and is supported by professional audio researchers and business people.

The quality, variety, and features of today's high end gear is truly mind boggling. Yet, the high end is more accessible and more affordable than ever before. The Internet has facilitated a thriving world wide trade in used, but like new, high end gear at a fraction of its retail cost. Some high end manufacturers use the Internet to sell directly to consumers and avoid the traditional multilevel retail distribution schemes with high markups at each level.

"...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.)"--J. Gordon Holt

Spoiled? Destructive? Irresponsible? Brats? I would like to know the names of just a few of the "Baby Boomer" generation who contributed to Holt's, and by extrapolation, the high end's, demise. Nelson Pass (Pass Labs), Mark Levinson, Paul McGowan (PS Audio), Bill Lowe (Audioquest) etc. and et. al. are Boomers, as are most of the current players in the high end market. I have never read any statements attributed to them lamenting the sad and sorry state, and imminent demise, of the high end.

With regard to the spoiled/destructive/irresponsible brat charge. I would respectfully disagree. The Boomer generation is widely regarded to be the most innovative, well educated, and materially successful generation that this country has produced.

I wish Mr. Holt peace and long life in his retirement/self-imposed exile. Hopefully, he will take an opportunity to get out and listen more. The Denver-Boulder, Colorado area, where he resides, is host to a number of annual high end audio shows.

***Mini Rant***I have never understood why high end audio is held to a higher standard than other product segments. Statements to the effect that "most people do not care about high fidelity and high resolution sound" imply that the high end should just dry up and blow away because "most people" are not interested in it. But really, are "most people" interested in the high end of any product segment? Should Lambourghini, Ferrari, and Maserati fold up because "most people" are not interested in owning their products? Should Trump stop developing high end real estate projects because "most people" are not interested in living in a Trump Tower? Should Ralph Lauren and Georgio Armani start designing clothes for Walmart because "most people" are not interested in owning a limited edition article of high end clothing?***Rant Over***

hearingimpared

PolkThug wrote: »

High Fidelity is alive! My digital cable risers will be here tomorrow!

Can't wait for the unbiased, double blind tested review!:D

Yashu

I don't think affordability to the average consumer should drive innovation, I think innovation should be about the least compromise, best performance possible, and then take that no-compromise solution and work to make an affordable version.

The computer industry learned this a long time ago... Intel and AMD build their flagship product, and the 'budget' version is just the exact same thing with a few things disabled, either purposefully, or due to manufacturing error. Essentially, they are only creating one product. This drives the industry forward, as the different brands try to top the other's flagship. It is almost like audiophile brands actively AVOID competition in every way they can, and that is where the problem is. Nobody is trying to be better than anyone else anymore, they assume that either their brand will carry them, or some strange technology will somehow make them different. I don't say better, because there aren't many true benchmarks out there anymore to even try to shoot for, or shoot beyond.

I want to see metrics that we can put hundreds of products up against in every catagory of audio. Give manufacturers a clear path, or perhaps it is they do not want one, and are happier to live within the snake-oil obscurity marketing speak that sells their products. I don't want to see hifi fall into even greater irrelevance.

The used market is booming because, for many things, what was made 10-20 years ago is basically just as good as what you can get today. What other electronic markets have such stagnation, and in some cases, reversing trends?

MGPK

there aren't many true benchmarks out there anymore to even try to shoot for, or shoot beyond.

---

There has only been one benchmark: Live sound - the ultimate in dynamic range and no cables requiered.:rolleyes:

LuSh

BDT,

I disagree, I think the industry has been technologically stagnant for some time now. With the exception of a few company's namely Meridian and TacT there are very few that are pushing the state of the art forward.

I use a DAC from 1992; I don't think there is a DAC out today that can really 'beat it'. In fact I remember posting a thread on Audiogon about a year ago asking members to post their reference systems of 15-20 yrs ago. It was an impressive list with most stating it was the best setup they had heard when reflecting back. I'd argue that with enough time I could peace together a system from the 70's and 80's that would sound as dynamic and realistic in comparison to live music then anything on the market today. I think Holt's point was that HiFi started investigating aspects to sound reproduction which weren't needed and more a personal taste. Detail was replaced with warmth and 'tonal character'. Dynamics replaced with sound-stage depth.

How many speakers are on the market today that can faithfully reproduce the sheer glory and dynamics of 70's rock or classical music? Ever read posts where a would be owner would say 'great for jazz' or 'I listen to vocal music mostly and these speakers...". The seductive mid-range was of great focus during the collapse of Hi-Fi. What ever happened to a good sounding speaker that wasn't a niche driven musical preference.

Tone controls were removed from equipment many moons ago; now we use cabling to combat the effects of 'thin or edgy sound' present in our music. All these new products were developed to sound slightly different with a glorious mid-range. I will say a speaker today is typically NOT worse or as bad then speakers of yesterday. But how much better are dynamic speakers vs high end dynamic speakers of 30 years ago? Everything in the 90's was said to be built to sound 'good' but not great. I think that's Holt's point. Because everything was designed too make everything sound good; overall sonic advancements were cut short because sound from equipment today is probably more colored then it was even 20 years ago.

It boggles my mind that sound and system integration still comes from a box with woofers; which still uses passive crossovers in an analog domain. It really floors me when I think about it. How active DSP room correction isn't built into every speaker from $3000 and up in today's market is mind boggling. When I compare the advancements made in television and computers or even cars; and then compare it too music reproduction products in the high end domain its laughable. I try not to think about it too much as I've invested too much money into my system to think that perhaps I could have gone to a yard sale and dug up carefully selected vintage gear and enjoyed my music just the same.

Oh one last thing;

DarqueKnight:

Most people cannot afford Ferrari, Trump real estate or Armani. The difference here is that if you asked a typical American or Canadian would you like to own a Ferrari car, a Trump built condo or an Armani suit the inevitable answer would be 'yes'. If I asked my friends or family would you like to own a Mark Levinson, Jeff Rowland or Linn the inevitable answer would be "huh" followed by "are they as good as Bose" once I had explained the profile of each company; which would then finally be followed by this final statement. "I'd take it but sell it and buy a Sony or Pioneer flat panel and hang it on the wall".

VR3

I think speaker drivers have REALLY advanced in the last 20 years...

Don't believe me? lol

Take for instance a Seas Excel Midbass and then a midbass from like... 1980 or w/e...

Put them side by side

the midbass of today is lighter, the cone material is lighter, its faster, produces more bass, far clearer...

I would say from the standpoint of what a singular driver/tweeter and so forth can do -- has advanced quite a bit...

Look at the 1.2Tl vs. the SRT system

1 tweeter vs 4 tweeters

ETC etc