Stereophile Article - Holt telling it like it is.


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

Gordon Holt telling it the way it is. I have to tell you; I agree almost with 100% of what he's said. I look forward to the Stereophile print where a full article is too be written. I will purchase that issue.
lush
Is it me or people making too much out of Atmashperes' comments?

I was interested to learn about the Sound Labs....surely that was worthwhile. I enjoyed Macrojacks anecdote post too - great info on the TT and Tanoys.

I think a very messy room and smoking with cig butts everywhere is distasteful to many people (this was no doubt all Atmasphere meant)...it is, however, an anecdotal tidbit that adds color to the man who is somewhat of a legend in the audiophile niche world. So thx Atmasphere!

Any more on what gear he has used? I am interested considering he critically reviewed so many over such a long period. No doubt he owned many different components at different times - like many of us.
You'll find Oscar Madisons in every office, laboratory, showroom, concert hall, etc. etc. you visit.

And Felix Unger is probably sitting right beside him.
I'm missing something here, (not surprising actually) but I thought the industry was trending towards a more accurate / neutral presentation, characterised most definitively by the newest speakers from Sonus Faber and tube gear from Conrad Johnson.....
The problem with surround isn't the format, but inability to record great artists economically. Hardly anyone can afford to record a symphony orchestra in two-channel, much less surround.

Most people are happy with processed, synthetic surround, so the demand for high isn't sufficient for the producers to cater to audiophiles.

So I think surround, as an audiophile format, is DOA with no prospects for high rez development.

Meantime, the vinyl meisters have a giant treasure trove of high quality reissue material. The artists and performance quality matter way more than format, next comes resolution and finally format (with resolution maintained, not compromised).

Resolution of vinyl has reached incredible heights. Digital potential is equally good (my 1-bit recordings at 5.6MHz are stunning) but I think that vinyl will prevail, surprisingly, due to ease of operation. After the commercial failure of DVD-A and SACD who wants to commit to a new gamble on 5.6MHz digital? No one, I suspect.

Sorry if Gordon is "bored" with vinyl, but his quest for "spacial" aspects is likely doomed, in my estimation. I hope he's right, but I doubt it.

Dave
Holt's comment about missing midrange is right. After 17 yrs I had to replace an amplifier and what I discovered was bizarre. Interconnects filtering out overtones and increasing pitches. Amplifiers filtering out sound trying to sound more musical. While eliminating midrange and tonal qualities helps get rid of harmonic distortion from poorly mastered cd's and transitorized equipment, most of what makes music sound good is the overtones from the musical instruments, most of which is in the midrange. I've listened to systems worth in the $10,000 that have 80% of the sound missing. Soundstage is a nice effect, but not worth sacraficing high fidelity. If you want your recordings to sound musical, buy quality recordings by competent artists.