Stereophile Article - Holt telling it like it is.

it is a myth to think that any current production gear produces "lushness". it doesn't exist. there is very little "beautiful" most of today's stereo systems and components are highly resolving, ruthless in revealing the flaws of recordings.

when i go to ces shows or listen to stereo systems in a variety of venues very few are euphonically colored.

however, very few sound real. real is what you get when you hear musicians perform on their unamplified instruments.
stereo systems are imperfect reproductions of imperfect recordings--a copy of a copy and the copy of the copy is an inexact copy of the copy.

mr fleschler:

on what basis are you criticizing the quality of musical compositions ?

there are no absolute standards. as in audio, the only standards are those imposed arbitrarily by so-called experts.

what is wrong with ; "if i like it is good music, otherwise it is not" ? the experience of good music determines its quality, not some objective criteria of good or bad composition which is no more valid than some other criteria of good or bad composition.

hi lush:

i think you have it backword. about 30 odd years ago, the sound was nice, i.e., euphonic.

today the sound is not nice. it is aggressive and unpleasant in many cases and the focus of manufacturer's is accuracy.

in my opinion the sound of the early 70's is superior to what is available today. back then, there were great electrostatic speakers, tube amps and preamps and no digital.

so, the sound is worse today than it was in the 70's. i can assemble a stereo system based upon components from the 70's that is way more satisfying to my ears than anything that is manufactured today. period !!!

hi shadorne:

back in 1967 my stereo system consisted of 2 pair of stacked quads, 4 mono quad tube amps, a mac c22 a thorens turn table and ortofon cartridge. the total cost of the stereo system was less than $3000.

i dare say i have not heard a stereo system i have heard in the last 5 years that i prefer to what i owned in 1967.

at todays dollars, i suppose this stereo system might cost $30,000 plus today. it is to my ears a reference system which is unsurpassed. i suspect there are many other stereo systems that were configured during the 60's and 70's that are far superior to many of todays so-called high quality components.

hi muralman1:

i infer from your post that you disagree strongly with my opinion. it is my contention that most current production components are not very good.

if two stereo systems are assembled in the same room, namely the one i previously mentioned and any one of your choice. there is no doubt that i would prefer the vintage system, in a blindfold test. this does not mean either stereo is superior or inferior in an absolute sense, but, rather i prefer a more classic tube sound and quad 57 speakers, to anything currently available today.

one man's treasure may be another man's trash.

i respect modern designs. i just don't like them.

as you said, there is no arguing. there is listening and taste.

the sound of stereo systems is far removed and inferior to the sound of live music. it is that way now and was the same 30 years ago.

audio is a subjective, aesthetic medium. while there may be standards of sound quality, they too are subjectively imposed.

since it is all subjective, what one likes = quality.

don't confuse facts with value. quality is not objective. quality is assigned by human beings to a set of conditions. it is arbitrary and there is more than one concept of quality.

live and live and don't worry about what other people think. it is irrelevant. just enjoy the music, regardless of the judgment of others.

gordon holt's view is just one of many. he sounds very dogmatic to me.

current production high end equipment is not neutral. even if claims are made as to accuracy the claims are false. many so-called neutral and/or transparent compoents are not balanced. there is too much energy in the upper midrange/lower treble.

why not acknowledge that electronics and speakers are flawes and attempt to voice one's stereo system consistent with one's sonic preferences ?

while some audiophiles prefer an "accurate" presentation, it is an unattainable goal. it is more realistic to select a "coloration" rather than be victimized by some other coloration.