1977 Audio Critic Vo

Volume 1, Number 4 July/August/September 1977 In this issue: The speaker survey at last, with 15 systems from $224 to $5200 a pair compared in this first go-around. (The $5200 one sounded best, alas.) Our power amplifier survey continues in a rather positive vein, especially since this second batch includes our new reference standard. We launch what may be our most important and, to some, most disturbing inquiry so far: an updated investigation of the cartridge/arm/turntable relationship. Including 10 tone-arm and turntable reviews for openers. Plus, of course, our regular features. A Vol. 1, No . 4 July/August/September 1977 (titie Editor and Publisher Peter Aczel Associate Editor Max Wilcox Graphic Designer Dick Calderhead Business Manager Bodil Aczel Assistant to the Publisher Elizabeth Tinsley Consulting engineers and other technical advisers are engaged on a project basis, some contributing under their by-lines, others working anonymously. The Audio Critic is an advisory service and technical review for con sumers of high-priced audio equi pment. It is published six times a year by The Audio Critic, Inc., and is available by subscription only. To maintain total dedication to the consumer's point of view, The Audio Critic carries no advertising by equi pment manufacturers, distributors, reps, dealers or other commercial interests. Any conclusion, rating, recommendation, criticism or caveat published by The Audio Critic represents the personal findings and judgments of the Editor and the Staff, based only on the equipment available to their scrutiny and on their knowledge of the subject, and is therefore not offe red to the reader as an infallible truth nor as an irreversible opinion applying to all extant and fo rthcoming samples of a particular product. Address all editorial correspondence to The Editor, The Audio Critic, Box 392, Bronxville, New York 10708. Contents of this issue copyright© 1977 by The Audio Critic, Inc. All rights reserved under international and Pan-American copyright conventions. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written permission of the Publisher, which will be auto matically denied if the reproduced material is to be juxtaposed to advertising copy or any other additional text serving a commercial purpose. Paraphrasing of product reviews for advertising or other commercial purposes is also prohibited. The Audio Critic will use all available means to prevent or prosecute any such unauthorized use of its material or its name. For subscription information and rates, see inside back cover. · Contents 18 Sophisticated Speaker Systems, Large and Small: A Comparative Survey. By the Staff of The Audio Critic 21 Acoustat X 23 Beveridge Model 2SW 25 Braun 'Output C' 25 Braun L200 25 Canton LE 400 26 Cizek Model # 1 27 Cizek Model #2 28 DCM 'Time Window' 29 Fundamental Research 30 Infinity QLS 32 Koss Model One/ A 34 Ohm F 35 Pyramid 'Metronome' 37 Rogers LS3/5A 38 Snell Acoustics Type A 40 A Comparative Survey of Power Amplifiers: Part II By the Staff of The Audio Critic 41 Bryston 4B 43 CM 914 44 D B Systems DB-6 44 Electrocompaniet (Part II) 45 Futterman H-3aa (Part II) 46 Quatre DG-250 (follow-up) 46 RAM 512 47 Threshold 800A 49 Cartridge, Arm and Turntable vs. the Groove: Who's Winning? 57 Dual CS721 57 Dynavector DV -505 58 Grace G-707 58 Grace G-940 59 Harman Kardon Rabco ST-7 59 Infinity 'Black Widow' 59 Kenwood KD-500 60 Luxman PD-121 60 Mayware Formula 4 61 SAEC WE-308 NEW 14 The Realities of Noncommercial Audio Journalism By Peter Aczel, Editor and Publisher 62 Records & Recording 65 The Admonitor Comments on Current Ads 3 Box 392: Letters to the Editor 67 Classified Advertising Publisher's Note n our Number 2 issue (March/April 1977), we made the following ill-considered I editorial statement: "... Then we'll get out three more issues in the second half of the year. If it's October and you haven't received Number 4 (July/August) yet, then you'll have cause to worry-we won't be able to catch up. But it isn't going to happen." Well, October has come and gone, and you haven't received ... but wait a minute, you're holding Number 4 in your hand, so it couldn't be as bad as all that. Of course, it's perfectly true that we won't be able to catch up-not in 1977. When we wrote those words in April, we sincerely believed that we could publish three times as many issues as any other audio review that carries no advertising (the short est interval we had ever observed between two successive issues of these having been six months). Well, in the sober gray light of October, it appears that we're able to publish only twice as many issues as anyone else in our business, our aver age interval thus far being three months.That doesn't mean, however, that we have no potential for improvement. Here's our plan: To reflect reality, we're dating this issue to cover three months: July /Aug ust/September 1977. (We'll probably do the same thing in 1978, since the summer seems to be inevitably our period of lowest output.) Our Number 5 issue will be dated October/November 1977, and we're reasonably confident that we can mail it out in December. That leaves Number 6, which will be dated Year-End 1977 and (you guessed it) won't be mailed out before we're well into 1978. There's just no other way.Number 6 will be worth waiting for, however,· we plan to make it � very special reference issue that audio enthusiasts will be brandishing around throughout the coming year, making life difficult for their friends and local dealers. After that, we'll see. Maybe we'lll have our act together to the point where we can have our twelfth issue out before the end of 1978. But this time we won't promise ... So the question, from our subscribers' point of view, is this: What's the dif ference between spending $28 for six issues over a period of twelve months and spending $28 for the same six issues over a period of, say, fourteen or fifteen months. If you feel that the first is a good deal and the second is a bad deal, then you have a legitimate quarrel with us. We think it's exactly the same deal, since we're selling you six issues either way, not a time-limited contract. We were, how ever, unrealistic when we committed ourselves to a time limit, and for that we owe you an apology. One more thing. So far, we've religiously answered every where's-my-last issue-I-didn't-get-it-yet letter.As of the day this issue is being mailed, we're ending that time-wasting and costly practice.Since 99.8% of our mailings reach their destin ation (that's an exact figure), please consider no reply to that kind of inquiry to mean: "We haven't mailed it yet." Thank you. 2 Box 392 Letters to the Editor In addition to editorial correspondence of general interest, we're including two special categories of letters this time. One has to do with clearing the air after a particularly fo ul-smelling anonymous communication circulated about The Audio Critic; the other covers exhaustively the "Mark Davis syndrome" originally brough t up in our first issue as a kind of aside in Part I of the preamp survey. Th e Mark Davis correspondence is reprinted here in 8-point type fo r those who are sufficiently motivated to plow through it; we didn 't fe el we'd be justified giving it more space. Th e letters we publish in this column may or may not be excerpted, at the discretion of the Editor. Ellipsis ( .. J indicates omission. Address all editorial correspo ndence to Th e Editor, Th e Audio Critic, Box 392, Bronxville, New York 10708. In the last week of June and throughout most of earthed. July, the anonymous missive reprinted below was being But even if these suspected alliances prove to be sent out to literally hundreds of high-end audio dealers, untraceable, The Audio Critic has misrepresented itself manufacturers, reviewers, editors and other high-end to the audiophile-consumer. Where is the line between audio practitioners from coast to coast. The anonymous misrepresentation and fraud? commentator had invested 24 cents first-class postage per Just as important-can anything written by The mailing, as each fat envelope also contained Xeroxed Audio Critic be believed? copies of our allegedly misleading ads and of trade-press We think not. clippings documenting that two of our part-time staff The Audio Critic is, to us, severely compromised. consultants made their daily living in the audio business, A publication with no credibility serves no other pur one in retailing, one in manufacturing. All of these pose than to make someone a lot of money. envelopes were without a return address and postmarked Peter Aczel, the Editor and Publisher, has a lot of either in Hartford, Connecticut, or Manchester, Con answering to do. necticut (a suburb of Hartford). In the wake of the anonymous mailings, the follow ing exchange of letters took place: The Audio Critic-A Ripoff? Dear Mr. Aczel: Another "little magazine" has appeared. No doubt you have seen the anonomous (sic) let This one bears watching. ter that is being circulated, accusing your publication of Initially, our hopes were high. The price ($ 28.00 having "substantial ties with the audio industry," and for a year's subscription) was high but then so was the supplying what appears to be some documentation of promise.

Load more