This came up in another forum but it is quite relevant here. Lirpa Labs

[gene_stl]

So at another forum, Audio magazines' recurring April Fool Joke came up. The guy I built my speakers with and I had a lot of sophmoric humor about it and in the late eighties when I represented a computerized engraving machine company I made some Lirpa Labs nameplates engraved on brass for his and my amusement.

Naturally google allows you to find everything but the original Lirpa reference was not in the goog search.

So for the amusement of ASR members who might not be old enough to remember Dr.s I and Loof Lirpa here is the original April 77 issue of Audio with the review of the Lirpa One receiver. The reason I decided to repost this over here is this; look at the buttons the guys at Audio put on the Lirpa One. It was right about the time when the audio hobby was starting to have a little too much sheet of the bool.

April 1977 issue of Audio magazine. The review starts on page 60 and would fit right in here.

Enjoy

 

[amirm]

Very clever. Got a kick out of this spec:

 

[Blumlein 88]

Here is a screen shot of the first of several pages. Also note the A+B+C+CCIR noise weighting.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks to the OP.

This reminds me of way back when. I read Audio some in those days. But I didn't know beans about electronics. Audio did do some explanations I could understand, but their excellent test regimen was something to make my eyes glaze over. My natural bent is to figure out how and why something works. I thought if I knew enough I'd be able to separate the wheat from the chaff in stereo gear. I didn't know much of anything however. I sure wanted to know which tests told me if something was to sound good or not. Sound familiar? We've at least a few threads asking that question right now.

Into the early 80's, the rise of people saying, "not all measurements matter, listening matters, and we can tell you which are really good". Well sounded like just what I needed. So I read those people who are talking about non-mainstream gear you didn't just go hear at the local stereo emporium. When I later had the chance to hear a couple or three items talked about in the alternative press, well it did sound really good, much better than I'd heard. Had I known then, what I know now, I'd not have been quite as impressed though the gear was genuinely good. At the time it just gave those guys instant credibility in my mind. So for some time I listened to what they had to say which in context made plenty of sense. Unfortunately the info gained was rather adulterated.

Now I know quite a fair bit about electronics, and could hungrily devour something like a full on Audio review with detailed testing. Alas, until this site was born, such info had become an afterthought and rarely done. This bit of nostalgia brings back my state of mind then, and how that has to be the state of mind of many millions of people. With the prevalence of listen and describe audio coverage it isn't a surprise many will go that route, and these do provide a service to those looking for clarity who don't know how to get it for themselves. Just like I was back then.

So I don't know how to help steer people in a better direction. The advice they get does give them clarity even when it is wrong, and that clarity has value. In something non-life or death like stereo the bad advice isn't costly in ultimate terms.

I think a constant harping on two fronts will work.

Front number one is transducers are where important differences exist. Put your money on transducers.

Front number two is virtually everything not a transducer is a solved problem. Look at features, appearance, convenience and don't think more money means more performance.

While not perfect, I think the pro and semi-pro recording market gets this much more than mainstream playback markets do.

 

[pozz]

Front number one is transducers are where important differences exist. Put your money on transducers.

Front number two is virtually everything not a transducer is a solved problem. Look at features, appearance, convenience and don't think more money means more performance.

While not perfect, I think the pro and semi-pro recording market gets this much more than mainstream playback markets do.

Only thing I'd add is that these markets are mixing really openly, and businesses have rushed in to take advantage of the opportunity to sell old established product lines and accompanying ways of thought from one to the other.

 

[gene_stl]

I had been a reader of Radio-Electronics and Popular Electronics for a long time, (about ten years) when I got interested in music and audio. I began teaching myself about audio electronics (I had done some Ham Radio and short wave listening stuff and built a two tube "phono oscillator" in the ninth grade). Radio Electronics always had very technical articles on everything.

But Audio magazine was the one that I waited for the postman for in the seventies. I would read it from cover to cover and then take it to my pal if he hadn't already bought one from the newsstand. I still like magazines on those rare ocassions when a good one falls into your hands.