• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

“The Sensible Sound” magazine the ASR forum of pre-internet days?

I just re-read thru the review of my loudspeakers in vol. 20(pg 38) & I was mistaken sating Azcel had the same(MonitorAudio Studio 6). It was David Rich who reviewed them favorably and then bought a set. Azcel was still referencing Spica TC50s for standmounts. Also a nice speaker fwiw.
I wanted the Studios after having had a pair of MA R700s that were roughly the same dimensions. They also rocked
Peace
 
I wanted the Studios after having had a pair of MA R700s that were roughly the same dimensions. They also rocked

The more I reflect, the more I'm convinced that loudspeaker selection remains subjective in the final analysis. It's what you like, what you can afford, and what trade offs you don't mind. Possibly what your wife will put up with.

Howard Ferstler was one of the Sensible Sound reviewers (S$S as they shortened it, using the dollar sign $ meaning 'value', as opposed to, say, Microsoft's abbreviation--M$ :)). Ferstler was known for a pretty vast knowledge of recorded music--his thing was cataloguing and rating recordings by 'sonic merit' . One of his articles talks about his first introduction to 'quality' hi-fi. Encountering the AR 3a 'sound'. It was the New England or East Coast sonic presentation, which eventually led Howard to embrace Roy Allison's loudspeakers.

For his part Aczel never thought much of those designs (once calling audio loudspeaker guru Henry Kloss 'a legend in his own mind'). Nor was he enamored with the loose low-end (or no low end) with enhanced midrange West Coast style (Hear that boom, hear that tinkle? You've obviously got a JBL!) Aczel's ideal was to have the loudspeakers 'disappear'--making you think you didn't have a loudspeaker. It's why (I believe) he was enamoured with Harold Beveridge's electrostatic, which 'bathed' you in floor to ceiling (and wherever else) sound--a weird experience for sure. Because of that ideal he eventually settled on the Linkwitz invention.

FWIW, I never understood the appeal of anything AR, but always gravitated to the West Coast JBL type of sound. It was more of what I called 'live' music. At least what I experienced when I listened live. I went to concerts (jazz or classical, or small clubs) and never heard 'imaging', and 'front to back depth', and the other stuff reviewers were talking about. I didn't understand their sonic language in relation to live music.

Over the years I lived with the AR 3a, and subsequently owned KLH and Advent clones. Couldn't relate to any of them, much. But I was glad for the experience.

I remember telling Aczel that of all the loudspeakers I've owned (and I've owned so many that I should be embarrassed over it) the one set I always kept with me, even if it was boxed up due to lack of space, was a pair of JBL L100 I bought in or around 1976. I knew what he was thinking, but graciously replied, "Well, if it makes you happy..." He was right about that-- my L100s (paired with a Pioneer SX-1980) made me happy. Still have the speakers, but sadly not the 1980.

In a closet somewhere I have one of the well-known NRC designed small boxes. Said to be based upon Dr. Toole's research, but I don't know that for a fact. It was in their advertising, I think. And while I have nothing against them--they sound nice, I don't use them at all. For me it's just a variation on what Howard Ferstler was writing about. At the same time I'll die listening to my refrigerator sized horn loudspeakers. A large horn loudspeaker is what I want, and what I have. Every time I read something in print about why I shouldn't like them, I crank up the Victrola and immediately know that I am right, and the rest of the world is wrong! :cool:

The problem today is that it is difficult (almost impossible) to find a place where you can demo a variety of loudspeakers--take them home and live with 'em. Back in the heyday of hi-fi consumers had a dozen dealers within driving distance, each selling half a dozen different brands. So you could easily pick and choose. Now, for the most part, you have to read a review and pick what you think you might like. But first you have to understand the reviewer's sonic point of view. What they are searching for in sound, and then try and associate theirs with whatever you personally are looking for.

Secondly, you should make sure and get a return shipping label if later, after your in-home demo, you decide you don't like what they sent and want to send them back.
 
Haven't been on this site for a while -- suddenly I've landed on a thread about T$S! Obviously I'm biased, as I edited the darn thing for many years. Those were the fun days of audio, so may things going on at once, so many personalities. We used to really enjoy CES in Chicago, that was quite a show. Many interesting personalities who are sadly gone now -- Bud Fried (once talked about sending my daughter to Harvard -- hah!), John Iverson (dropping his amp on the floor to demonstrate its build quality), Dick Shahinian (slicing deli meat while playing Sibelius). That was back when a preamp that cost $2,000 seemed really expensive (yeah, I know it was long time ago and there has been inflation and I am an old fogey now, but still...) and there were all kinds of audio magazines, both mainstream and "underground." Of course there was no internet, no cell phones, no PCs (geez, I really am sounding like an old fossil!)

Anyway, I really appreciate what Amir is doing with this site. I'm not here often -- I tend to binge watch every once in a while. These days I review mostly classical and a few jazz CDs for Classical Candor, a blog that John Puccio (who was the Music Editor at T$S) started and then retired from recently. I subscribe to TAS and Stero[hile just because they are relatively cheap and I want to keep up with what is going on -- but I am appalled by the craziness of the high end, which has pretty much gone cuckoo. I think T$S could have remained viable had the publisher not let the business side of it wither, but that's water under the bridge -- and long ago. I had my fun, and am forever grateful for the experience. I got to interact with a number of fascinating people and play with some really fun gear while enjoying music -- what could be better?!
 
The more I reflect, the more I'm convinced that loudspeaker selection remains subjective in the final analysis. It's what you like, what you can afford, and what trade offs you don't mind. Possibly what your wife will put up with.

Howard Ferstler was one of the Sensible Sound reviewers (S$S as they shortened it, using the dollar sign $ meaning 'value', as opposed to, say, Microsoft's abbreviation--M$ :)). Ferstler was known for a pretty vast knowledge of recorded music--his thing was cataloguing and rating recordings by 'sonic merit' . One of his articles talks about his first introduction to 'quality' hi-fi. Encountering the AR 3a 'sound'. It was the New England or East Coast sonic presentation, which eventually led Howard to embrace Roy Allison's loudspeakers.

For his part Aczel never thought much of those designs (once calling audio loudspeaker guru Henry Kloss 'a legend in his own mind'). Nor was he enamored with the loose low-end (or no low end) with enhanced midrange West Coast style (Hear that boom, hear that tinkle? You've obviously got a JBL!) Aczel's ideal was to have the loudspeakers 'disappear'--making you think you didn't have a loudspeaker. It's why (I believe) he was enamoured with Harold Beveridge's electrostatic, which 'bathed' you in floor to ceiling (and wherever else) sound--a weird experience for sure. Because of that ideal he eventually settled on the Linkwitz invention.

FWIW, I never understood the appeal of anything AR, but always gravitated to the West Coast JBL type of sound. It was more of what I called 'live' music. At least what I experienced when I listened live. I went to concerts (jazz or classical, or small clubs) and never heard 'imaging', and 'front to back depth', and the other stuff reviewers were talking about. I didn't understand their sonic language in relation to live music.

Over the years I lived with the AR 3a, and subsequently owned KLH and Advent clones. Couldn't relate to any of them, much. But I was glad for the experience.

I remember telling Aczel that of all the loudspeakers I've owned (and I've owned so many that I should be embarrassed over it) the one set I always kept with me, even if it was boxed up due to lack of space, was a pair of JBL L100 I bought in or around 1976. I knew what he was thinking, but graciously replied, "Well, if it makes you happy..." He was right about that-- my L100s (paired with a Pioneer SX-1980) made me happy. Still have the speakers, but sadly not the 1980.

In a closet somewhere I have one of the well-known NRC designed small boxes. Said to be based upon Dr. Toole's research, but I don't know that for a fact. It was in their advertising, I think. And while I have nothing against them--they sound nice, I don't use them at all. For me it's just a variation on what Howard Ferstler was writing about. At the same time I'll die listening to my refrigerator sized horn loudspeakers. A large horn loudspeaker is what I want, and what I have. Every time I read something in print about why I shouldn't like them, I crank up the Victrola and immediately know that I am right, and the rest of the world is wrong! :cool:

The problem today is that it is difficult (almost impossible) to find a place where you can demo a variety of loudspeakers--take them home and live with 'em. Back in the heyday of hi-fi consumers had a dozen dealers within driving distance, each selling half a dozen different brands. So you could easily pick and choose. Now, for the most part, you have to read a review and pick what you think you might like. But first you have to understand the reviewer's sonic point of view. What they are searching for in sound, and then try and associate theirs with whatever you personally are looking for.

Secondly, you should make sure and get a return shipping label if later, after your in-home demo, you decide you don't like what they sent and want to send them back.
AR was very much a Massachusetts thing. That's the market they were aiming for, and they hit the bull's eye.
 
I agree and you are welcome. I had forgotten how much gear I had purchased directly or indirectly because of testing by Stereo Review. I preserved the sound of my vinyl collection with a Sony TC-K555ES 3-head cassette deck because of a positive review.
I received Stereo Review from 1970 to 1998. Most of my music was purchased from their reviews. The rest from combing the cutout bins in Chicago.
 
Well Speaker Builder wasn't really a review magazine, but it was the first audio magazine I subscribed to. They even published a couple of articles I wrote, I think the years were 1986 and 1987.
I regret I don’t have those!
1718167800008.jpeg

It was a great mag.
 
I just re-read thru the review of my loudspeakers in vol. 20(pg 38) & I was mistaken sating Azcel had the same(MonitorAudio Studio 6). It was David Rich who reviewed them favorably and then bought a set. Azcel was still referencing Spica TC50s for standmounts. Also a nice speaker fwiw.
I wanted the Studios after having had a pair of MA R700s that were roughly the same dimensions. They also rocked
Peace

I’ve owned a couple of brands that Azcel was fairly gaga over: Waveform and Joseph audio. Both excellent.
 
I regret I don’t have those!
View attachment 374702
It was a great mag.
That, and The Audio Amateur and Glass Audio. I subscribed to all 3 of them. Too bad there's nothing like them today. Audio Express strikes me more as a professionally oriented magazine rather than a home hobbyist builder/experimenter sort of publication, although it does occasionally publish a hobbyist-oriented construction article. I let my subscription lapse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
IIRC Winslow Burhoe was the designer of the original EPI/Epicure line of loudspeakers. The EPI 100 was an outstanding bookshelf at an affordable price. The magnificent M1000 (an omnidirectional design ) was one of the best speakers I have ever heard. Much later he was involved in ZVOX.

First "real" speakers I owned, early 80s were Epicure. That was the first time I become more interested in clarity, imaging, etc over SPL per se, though they could play fairly loud. I had a Sony receiver and techniques record player. I was quite happy with that simple system.
 
I regret I don’t have those!
View attachment 374702
It was a great mag.
I still have all my issues, and am still listening to the one system from SB that I actually built - back in 1990:
1720210911382.png

Back when I built it, wasn't happy with the tweeter he specified - so I replaced it with a Dynaudio D-28AF, which was a big improvement.
About a year ago, I put new ferrofluid in the Dynaudio's, (they were dry ) and replaced all the crossover caps with Solens,
I also made some mods to the crossover based on a crossover calculator, found on DiyAudio, called XSim.

They sound great, I'm so satisfied with these I'm not interested in any other speakers.
 
Last edited:
Sensible Sound - good mag. Back in the 72-90 period I read all of it from TAS, Stereophile, Boston Audio Society, The Audio Critic, Sensible Sound, and more. I built kits, designed and built subs, modified/built listening rooms professionally, and yes sold equipment too.

More recently DIY Audio, SBAF, Head-Fi, AVS, here, Reddit

I think the extremes of both measurement over all and audiophile are counter productive. I do believe in A/B blind level matched testing. I also believe in the hierarchy
of: transducers, room/placement/treatment, DAC, power/pre.

Way back when when there were more very difficult speaker loads and few very stable amps - kludges like cables did make a difference. Those situations are largely gone and have been for 30-35 years. But the subjective descriptions/voodoo of cables remain - to the detriment of the wallets of some.

OTOH the all DAC's sound the same because NOS DS DACs for the great majority of cases do sound alike thing is easily seen as false when talking about analog side filtering such as Schiit employs.

I do stick to the initial TAS mantra. Reproducing non amplified music in great spaces/Halls is the target. I do stick to the ethose of Sensible Sound that I don't need $75k amps, and $10k cables to attain a believable levels of that goal.
 
Downloads

Mea Culpa.....it was the Audio Critic. Peter Aczel. Sorry for the mixup. NOT the Skeptic. You can download some issues at the above link.

BTW, I intended no malice in the omni thread. Sorry if it seemed that way.

Ah yes, Audio Critic. I bought several issues at the newstand. Not bad as hi-fi mags went but still purely subjective.

Based on the B&M DM7 review in Volume 2, Number 7, 1979, I bought these speakers; see page 29. They were my main speaker for over 20 years, but I was glad to see the end of them ... maybe they degraded over time but eventually I concluded that the were excessively dull and "laid back", perhaps typical of British speakers of the era. I drove them with a ~200 wpc Phase Linear 400 so I doubt amp power was the issue.

In fact the DM7 lack dynamics as it seem to me; it don't know if this is a quality that can be measured? Maybe 'step response'? 'Group Delay'? Dunno.

image_2730e6d3-d9ef-4ea7-b955-389da89305a9.jpg


BTW, the Phase Linear 400 was another ghastly sounding component I lived with for over 20 year. I think I sold both the B&W's and the Phase to the same guy ... Sorry, Bud, but no regrets; at least he got them for cheap.
 
Last edited:
Ah yes, Audio Critic. I bought several issues at the newstand. Not bad as hi-fi mags went but still purely subjective.

Based on the B&M DM7 review in Volume 2, Number 7, 1979, I bought these speakers; see page 29. They were my main speaker for over 20 years, but I was glad to see the end of them ... maybe they degraded over time but eventually I concluded that the were excessively dull and "laid back", perhaps typical of British speakers of the era.

In fact the DM7 lack dynamics as it seem to me; it don't know if this is a quality that can be measured? Maybe 'step response'? 'Group Delay'? Dunno.

image_2730e6d3-d9ef-4ea7-b955-389da89305a9.jpg
Aczel's piece on tonearm geometry was steeped in measurements.

He also observed that the Carver Amazing speaker did change over time (the magneostat portion - which backs up what observed with various early Maggies - and that's what Jim Winey told me in person as well. I observe that with planar headphones as well. I and many other measure differences in subwoofers to - Xmax and FR changes after break-in. Important that one of the originators of the 'sound science' crew observed these differences that so many claim don't exist.
 
Aczel's piece on tonearm geometry was steeped in measurements.

He also observed that the Carver Amazing speaker did change over time (the magneostat portion - which backs up what observed with various early Maggies - and that's what Jim Winey told me in person as well. I observe that with planar headphones as well. I and many other measure differences in subwoofers to - Xmax and FR changes after break-in. Important that one of the originators of the 'sound science' crew observed these differences that so many claim don't exist.

Peter Aczel was a good guy despite a lot of contempt that came his was from golden-ears.

Speaking of tonearms, my recollection is vague going back so many year, but I suspect that Audio Critic's Volume 1, Number 4 review of the Grace 707 tonearm, page 58, was the main factor in my buying the component back in the day ... I haven't listen to LPs on regular basis for over 25 years.
 
Last edited:
Peter Aczel was a good guy despite a lot of contempt that came his was from golden-ears.

Speaking of tonearms, my recollection is vague going back so many year, but I suspect that Audio Critic's Volume 1, Number 4 review of the Grace 707 tonearm, page 58, was the main factor in my buying the component back in the day ... I haven't listen to LPs on regular basis for over 25 years.
I walked about from vinyl in 2016. No regrets.
 
Back
Top Bottom