Stereophile Article - Holt telling it like it is.

I'm surprised so many people agree with this fellow. I’m sorry, but as one of the younger folks on A-Gon he sounds to me like nothing more than a bitter old man who’s pissed off because the world of hi-fi didn’t adhere to his very narrow vision of this hobby. He also seems to think that there was a time when he was the only voice and vision of all audiophiles and as contentious as the debates on this forum are I highly doubt that. His dogged insistence that the only goal of hi-fi should be “perfect reproduction of the sound of real music in a real space” is silly.

I like listening to my system because I love music. The sound quality is certainly important but not always paramount and I don’t have any foolish notions of being able to recreate Carnegie Hall in my 18x15 family room. I just like to listen to music.

Is the industry suffering under its own inaccessibility? Yes, certainly. It’s completely lost its appeal as something that most people aspire to own because most people don’t see the value in it. It’s the same reason most people choose a Chevy over a Rolls Royce. Both perform the same basic functions but for most people one is justifiable and one is not. For most people playing music on any old thing is good enough, and the more stratospheric hi-fi becomes the more people are simply going to settle for “good enough”.

That’s what happens when you put your manufacturing dollars into smashing the last 99th percent out of a system instead of making something that’s merely “really good” and packaging it in a way that people want to live with. Someone will buy that highest performance piece, it might even be me, but it won’t be most people. And then we’re really going to wring our hands because sales are declining? Really?

I wonder if Mr. Holt, is really all at the point where he can’t enjoy a record because the sound quality is mediocre? Am I missing something? Should I toss my Charlie Parker recordings because the acetate pops? The first time I heard Coltrane was out of a single speaker in a really loud 1979 F-150 but it still grabbed my attention.

And frankly, what’s wrong with “”good” sound is whatever one likes”? Otherwise you’re presuming that there is some perfect, agreed upon standard of what “good” sound is. Two people sitting right next to each other in a concert hall can hear totally different components of the music and take away a vastly different “live” experience. Suggesting that there is some attainable perfect reproduction of live music is fallacious for a lot of reasons and very few of them have anything to do with hi-fi technology.

I don’t care if this guy is a legend in the industry. He’s a crank.

I think, Holt is right. But it is no secret, everyone knows that who is interested in music (not Show). Of course, there are a few manufacturers, who really try to push the curtain, but let's be honest, the most gear out there is crap.
I see - or hear - it all the time when I go to Shows etc. Good looking, nicely made stuff which is normally over hyped and at the end of day it is more or less wasted time to listen to it.
Money makes the world go round and the customer "has to" spend his bucks, no one is interested in "real sound" or "natural presentation". I agree, this is a endless discussion, but I listened to so much gear, which isn't able to bring out all details and they are endless hyped from their distributors or dealers.
And when a customer writes about that, he is a bad guy, or his speakers suck, or he is deaf, or his System is bad or the cartridge does not match with "his" tonearm .....
Depressing.

I think one of the things that makes a discussion of the goal of high end audio tricky is the models we use for the result.

IMO, the room is part of the result. My model is that the stereo can 'graft' the wall of your room onto a musical event in progress. This model allows for the technology striving for the 'absolute' while at the same time accounting for the listening environment.

I think the industry is doing great progress in reproduction- we have equipment now that is far more neutral that what was possible ten years ago.

Gordon Holt is saying that the audio hobby became the audio industry in the 1980s. The emphasis was moved from audio performance to sales performance. The components became products. The days when we cared more about sound than appearances are forgotten by most of us.
Our entire society has become commodified. Movie reviews, if there are any, are buried in the entertainment section but the movie grosses are front page.
So, as the audio industry matures, it becomes more mainstream. And, as it becomes more mainstream, it caters ever more to the median demographic. You guys have complained about music offerings declining in quality because of too little demand for quality recordings. This trend will continue to worsen. And you will eventually notice that it is happening to your hardware also.
The American corporation behaves like Pacman, gobbling up everything in its path. The only reason we haven't been gobbled yet is our meager dollar value. But just watch .......... Apple is coming. Computer audio is the future.

I am inclined to agree with the opinion that most modern recordings suck.Why do you suppose so many have gone the vintage route? Surely the opposite of what Holt is stating.
The vintage gear sugar coats the bad overly compressed and thin digital recordings we have today.The best of the new stuff only reveals all the warts.
The companies who may be guilty of trying to make silk out of a pigs ear of modern recording can not really be faulted. They are trying to make this dredge palatable.
I would rather listen to good old recordings on new gear than bad new recordings on old gear.
Two wrongs don't make a right.