10 August2019nstereophile.com
100Au FEEDBACK TO THE EDITOR
TAKE HEED!Unlessmarkedotherwise,allletters
tothemagazineanditswritersareassumed
tobeforpossiblepublication.Pleaseincludeyour
nameandphysicaladdress.Wereservetheright
toeditforlengthandcontent.they may leave the hobby, which is a loss
for everybody involved.— Dave Banowetz,
Weyanoke, LAAudio is indeed a big church — but even in a big
church people believe what they believe, often
zealously. Just please know that even if we do
sometimes express ourselves with — um — enthu-
siasm, we do respect other informed points of
view. I too worry — a little — that some readers
may be put off by our more enthusiastically
expressed opinions. I worry more, though, that
in our efforts to avoid causing offense, we’ll end
up being boring. That, to me, is a far more seri-
ous risk.— Jim AustinEditor:
Stereophile’s new editor puzzles in this
review about bits or major pieces of
equipment being inserted into an elec-
tronic channel and making things sound
better. The puzzle is of course that noth-
ing is perfect, and therefore such addition
must in some absolute sense degrade
reproduction. Yet this seems to occur for
experienced listeners.
There are several possible explanations
for this. One is that it is well established
that some human ears like some imper-
fections. Another is that such insertion
might offset some other slightly annoying
imperfection already present.
While I tend to be an objectivist
regarding sound reproduction, I am loath
to reject the observations of those who
spend a lot more time and effort listening
than I do. My beef is that this back and
forth of continual “improvements” seems
to result in rather astronomical increases
in prices for electronic hi-fi, while elec-
tronics in general improve performance
at lower prices. Would it not make more
sense to explore whether these improve-
ments (or more correctly “differences”)
might be achieved by less costly manipu-
lations facilitated by our now-brilliant
digital technology?
Is the industry, or part of it, just throw-
ing ever more expensive components
into the mix and we end up calling the
differences, or at least some of them,
“improvements”? — Dr. Bruce N. Stram,
Houston, TXOn the Border
Editor:
Thank you to Herb Reichert for review-Help wanted: tonearm reviewer
Dear Editor;
As always, I enjoyed reading Mr. Dudley’s
column, this time on the Wand tonearm
(which sounds like something I’d like to
have). But I felt compelled to write as
I read of Art’s struggles with the Wand
lying on its back, rolling about helplessly.
I have to ask, where was the Plasticine?
The Silly Putty? The Blu Tack? Surely,
all that was needed to have the tonearm
hold still was a few gobs of stuff. Of
course, no one likes an armchair quarter-
back, but still! — Chris Hermansen,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Dizzying digital
Dear Editor,
I am beginning to see the wisdom in
going full vinyl in the next phase of my
life as a lover of music. I’ve had it up to
here with DACs, streaming services, and
anything else that the sinister world of
digital audio throws at us.
Since going full streaming (by neces-
sity, downsizing and decluttering), getting
music properly delivered to my ears has
been nothing but a nuisance. Endless
updates from Tidal, which requires me to
reset my settings every damn time; end-
less tweaks to the seemingly simple signal
path (MacBook to DAC to powered
speakers—what could go wrong?), and
constant doubt whether I’ve made the
right choices. (Does that AudioQuest Jit-
terBug really clean up the sound, or was I
taken for yet another $60?)
I yearn for the simple pleasures of a
turntable-based existence: remove LP
from sleeve, place on platter, watch it go
’round. As I say, in my next life.— Mark F.
Montimurro, Montclair, NJ
Broad-minded
Editor:
First and foremost, congratulations to
John Atkinson on the completion of his
term as editor in chief. He has done a
marvelous job. One example from the
June issue was his response to Mr. Sager-
man’s letter regarding mixed signals from
different Stereophile reviews. His response
that “audio is a broad church” in which
none of us has “a complete picture of
what matters most in sound reproduc-
tion” matches my views.
Unfortunately, I only had to turn nine
pages to run headlong into an opposing
world view. In the span of one very long
sentence, Michael Fremer dismisses SET
amps, single-driver speakers, and non-
oversampling, nonfiltering DACs. Worse,
his concluding phrase—“never mind such
products’ serious shortcomings, sonic
and otherwise”—implies that people who
enjoy such equipment are either ignorant
or hearing impaired.
I have owned high-powered tube
amps, low-powered tube amps, high-
powered solid-state amps, low-powered
solid-state amps, multidriver dynamic
speakers, large planar speakers, single-
driver speakers, highly advanced upsam-
pling/oversampling DACs, and NOS
DACs, as well as topnotch analog rigs. I
have settled on a system built around afantastic pair of single-driver speakers, a
collection of six low-powered amplifiers
(four tube, including one SET and one
OTL, and two solid-state designed by
a fascinating engineer who lives in Sea
Ranch, California), and a NOS ladder
DAC for my digital source.
Dismissing entire categories of audio
gear as unworthy is wrongheaded. If I
were just getting into the hobby, and I
read Mr. Fremer’s opening paragraph, I
might never bother listening to low-
powered single-driver systems. This can
make our hobby very intimidating to
people just getting involved, particularly
younger people. All newcomers know is
whether a given system produces music
in a way that they enjoy. And in the end,Dismissing entire
categories of audio
gear as unworthy
is wrongheaded.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR should be sent
as e-mails only. E-mail: STletters@
stereophile.com. Please note: We are
unable to answer requests for informa-
tion about specific products or systems.
If you have problems with your
subscription, call (800) 666-3746, or
e-mail Stereophile@emailcustomerser-
vice.com, or write to Stereophile, P.O. Box
420235, Palm Coast, FL 32142-0235.