They’re still at it. A recent issue of Stereophile featured a sidebar on “13 Products Julian Hirsch Got Right” — implying, of course, that Hirsch got most products wrong. Poke around audio websites and you’ll probably see his name mentioned, often with scorn. But the man retired as technical editor of Stereo Review (Sound+Vision’s forebear) way back in 1998, and passed away five years later. What did he say so long ago that continues to attract attacks?
To find out, I took the chance to (re)read selections of Hirsch’s work from vintage audio dealer Innovative Audio’s extensive collection of audio mags dating back to the 1960s. (If you’ve never read Hirsch, check out this sample of one of his later columns.)
I remember revering Hirsch back in 1976, when I first encountered Stereo Review in my high school library. He used technical terms I barely understood, and with his bald head, short-sleeve shirts, and pocket protector, he looked like (and may well have been) the prototypical audio dork. But it was obvious he knew what he was talking about. Fourteen years later, after I launched my own career as an audio/video writer, I began to spurn Hirsch’s work as I heard him criticized so often and realized that some of his statements didn’t square with my own growing experience. (Because his career was winding down as mine was ramping up, I saw him only at a couple of press events and never actually met him.)
“My impression of him was that every product he reviewed got a glowing recommendation,” one vintage audio enthusiast responded when I asked him what he thought of Hirsch. A couple of others answered by lampooning Hirsch’s conclusions as little more than, “Of all the audio products I’ve reviewed, this is one of them.”
My reading of dozens of Hirsch’s reviews and columns in Stereo Review confirmed his reluctance to make strong statements about products. But it became obvious to me that his reluctance stemmed not from fear of offending manufacturers, as most people seem to assume, but from a humble and honest concern that his personal impressions of a product — or any reviewer’s personal impressions of a product — wouldn’t necessarily square with the readers’.
Here’s a revealing quote from his October 1977 “Technical Talk” column: “A purely subjective reaction to an audio product tells a reader only what that particular reviewer thought of the product when he ‘heard’ it in a given room, with certain associated equipment, at a particular time, and under particular conditions. Such an evaluation is bound to be highly personal and limited in scope.”
The subjectivist audio reviewers Hirsch criticized certainly imply that their opinions of audio products will be largely shared by their readers; what, otherwise, would be the purpose of reading them? But 35 years after Hirsch wrote the above quote, subjectivist audio magazines still have presented little, if any, evidence that their writers’ opinions of the products they review reflect what readers will think. Most audio reviews remain, as Hirsch described, “highly personal and limited in scope.”
Hirsch was infamous among audiophiles for believing that all audio electronics — amplifiers, CD players, etc. — sound the same. For example, in April 1977, he stated: “I do not believe that any amplifier that is reasonably good and operating as intended has any sound quality of its own, at least not in the sense that phono cartridges, speakers, and listening rooms have their distinctive sounds.”
Notice, though, that he was careful to write “I do not believe…” rather than proclaim that differences in sound among such products absolutely do not exist. In fact, he was more tolerant of dissenting opinions than many believe, as can be observed in his October 1986 column on the subject of analog vs. digital audio: “To the extent that individual preferences in sound — digital, analog, or live — arise from a listener’s personal idiosyncrasies, one can hardly take issue with anyone else’s beliefs about sound quality. . . Listen for yourself. If you agree with those who say that CD sound is ‘unmusical,’ don’t make the change.”
From my reading of Hirsch’s work, I gathered that he was bothered not so much by the fact that some reviewers claimed to hear differences he couldn’t hear, but by those reviewers’ frequent (and still common) failure to put those differences in perspective. I love this quote from the October 1977 “Technical Talk”: “Calm judgment and judicious language serve us best in the world of hi-fi. Some audiophiles insist on calling a flaw ‘serious’ when it takes hours of listening to discover it. I don’t.”
There’s no question that Hirsch’s work warrants some criticism. He could occasionally be belligerent, as in May 1979 when he referred to subjective reviewers as “irrational, technical ignoramuses.” He could be narrow in his outlook, as in October 1979 when he dismissed the importance of stereo imaging because one can’t hear pinpoint images in orchestral concerts — even though precise imaging is common in the rock, jazz, folk, and chamber music performances that surely constituted most of Stereo Review readers’ listening fare.
And he was, like all of us, afflicted with sporadic lapses of judgment, as in a November 1993 column in which he suggested that speakers had improved to the point where, except for the amount of deep bass response, units with similar driver complements sounded essentially the same. Even more puzzling was his source device for this test: FM radio, which eliminated the possibility of repeating the same musical segment on different speakers. But as I encountered this slip-up, I questioned not so much Hirsch’s judgment as I did the diligence of the magazine’s editors, who in my opinion should have been more willing to question some of the statements that damaged his reputation in the minds of many audiophiles.
Even though I disagree with Hirsch on many issues, the couple of afternoons I spent reading his old columns renewed my respect for him, and left me regretting that I never got to know him. As I looked at the pictures of him at his test bench, I shuddered at the thought of the tedious, manual measurement procedures he had to endure; today’s tech editors enjoy the luxury of having all that stuff built into one automated, computer-controlled instrument. As I read his columns and test reports, I appreciated the fact that the things he said weren’t merely his opinions, they were statements he could back up with data.
And finally, as I read the Wikipedia page about him, I realized that Hirsch got something every writer hopes for but almost none earn: an obit in The New York Times. His opinions about audio remain at least as worthy of consideration as any other writer’s, especially in an era where too many audio reviewers sound the same and think the same.
For more on Hirsch, see also http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/remembering-julian. Something that is not widely understood about Julian is how important he was to the development of high-fidelity sound reproduction as we know it today. Standards were poor or nonexistent when he began writing about audio. His passion and expertise were instrumental in moving the technology forward. Without him, we might all be listening to Motorola consoles today. As for his many "golden eared" detractors, I am reminded of something Larry Daywitt, then at ADS, once shared with a newly hired associate, who expressed doubted that he could hear all the stuff high-end pundits were going on about: "Don't worry," Larry said, "they can't either."
Very nice piece, and fair, I think. And poster mdriggs make a great point, because I fully suspect no two people hear the same. I know my 71-year-old ears hardly are "high end" and certainly not "golden." Doubtless, one can be far more critical — legitimately — when one is listening with 18-year-old ears.
I enjoyed reading Julian Hirsch's columns. I have purchased equipment that he said was good and was very satisfied. I used to subscribe to many magazines in addition to Stereo Review. I remember reading a review in Stereophile about an amplifier that they declared the best. This was about 30 years ago so I have forgotten the brand of amplifier. When I read the review, they had to obtain special cables and find just the right placement for the speakers and other equipment such as the turntable that they were using. It dawned on me that I could have purchased the amplifier but never been able to get it to sound as the reviewer did. I realized that the review was totally subjective with results being unobtainable in the real world. I cancelled my subscription to Stereophile and have never looked back. Thank you for reviewers such as Julian Hirsch. I let my subscription to Stereo Review lapse but started subscribing to Sound and Vision several years ago and have thoroughly enjoyed it.
Over the years I read many of Julian's reviews. It seemed like his reviews were always accompanied by a large advertisement of the brand that was being reviewed. My thought was which came first the Advertisement or the Review?
@Fredaudio: Advertisers often request for their ads to be in the gear review section because that tends to be the one where readers spend the most time. More eyeball time = better exposure. At any magazine, the reviews are written weeks or even months before the map (the chart that shows what ads and what editorial are on what pages) is created. So the review definitely comes first.
Not having worked on Stereo Review, I can't say what the policies were. But I did work on Sound+Vision when it was owned by Hachette, the same company that owned Stereo Review in the 1990s. I was surprised (and remain surprised) that Sound+Vision has never asked me to cover a particular advertiser or do a favor for an advertiser.
I've worked for three other A/V mags and on all of the others, there was at least some pressure to cover advertisers, although that pressure ranged from mild/occasional to intense/unrelenting.
I remember reading Stereo Review, High Fidelity and Audio back in the late 60's and early 70's while in high school. I was interested in audio equipment and electronics in general. I was fascinated to read about equipment tests and measurements and how the equipment sounded. Well, there wasn't all that much correlation between the two back then, but even back then, I believed that measuring audio equipment was at a very primitive level.
There has been a great deal of progress in measuring audio equipment, and the prose to describe how the equipment sounds has flowered immensely. However, from a measurement point of view, there is still a great deal of progress to be made before merely "measuring" a piece of equipment will give a real clue as to how it sounds. We just don't have enough relevant measurements yet. Having said that, I am greatly impressed with Stereophile's equipment measurements and how Stereophile puts these measurements in the context of what the equipment sound like when possible ... sometimes.
Thanks for the retrospect on Julian Hirsch. In some ways, he was ahead of his time. The primitive
state of the measurement art in his day, I think, held back relating the sound of a piece of equipment to how it sounded.
Things progress.
Paul
My problem with Julian Hirsch is that he did not fulfill the role of reviewer very well, certainly not in the modern sense. If he could not hear consistent difference between amplifers, perhaps he should have figured out why others did. The magazine was not called Stereo Testing. The process of reviewing requires the ability to confidently take a positiion beyond "I can't hear the difference."
In some ways the inability to do so should have disqualfied him as a reviewer, but not a tester.
I generally thought Julian Hirsch added genuine value to equipment reviews. Many audiophiles found it impossible to accept his reviews because they thought his standards were not stringent. Others criticized him for relying on measurements to make his assessments. He was a classic example of the old-school reviewer. In his view, objective measurements were important while subjective judgement was not often worth printing simply because subjective judgement varies from one person to the next so you can't quantify it.
In retrospect, I think Julian served his purpose extremely well for Stereo Review. His words were practical assessments of equipment for quality-conscious consumers who were not necessarily hardcore audiophiles. His job was to provide objective measurements of the common man's equipment and correlate what he heard with the measurements and readers would gain a valuable lesson in understanding the measurements. So Julian accomplished his tasks perfectly.
Most current audiophile magazines produce reviews of little value because they are purely subjective. Measurements have been replaced with non-quantifiable audiophile terminology. Example: "neutral". Yet reviewers like Julian still become convenient targets of ridicule.
Make no mistake, great specs don't guarantee accurate sound but objective measurements that support subjective judgements is the sanest and still the most reliable approach. For the most part, it's Julian's approach.
Having spent tons of money on audio equipment since about 1985, and as a musician with pretty decent "ears," you'd think I'd have increasingly seen the importance of subjective testing. I haven't. I've come to think that time of day, mood, temperature and a million other things impact how we hear music. We all know that minor changes in volume will make a recording sound "better."
You would think that ABX testing methods would have proven these golden eared reviewers chops in ascertaining "neutrality." But, like the failure of international wine experts, I suspect rigorous testing under controlled circumstances would lead to dismal results in accurately identifying equipment (at least not to the degree that spending tens of thousands more could be justified)
I had the opportunity to take an audio course with Mr. Hirsch back in the '70s. For a while there was an audio showcase on 5th Avenue in NYC. I always assumed manufacturers and retailers in the audio trade funded it. "Hi Fi" was really coming into its own and there were many retailers and audio chains in NY. They gave a general audio course and Julian Hirsch was the main presenter. It’s hard to remember a lot of the details after all this time, but some things stayed with me.
He was extremely opinionated and clearly had no respect for subjectivists. Besides electronics, he didn’t believe there was any audible differences between turntables not attributable to rumble, wow and flutter, which were measurable. Like loudspeakers, he did believe in sonic differences between cartridges. This was pre CD so the sources used were LP and tape. What really surprised me is that he did not believe in cleaning records. When he said it, I was so shocked I asked him about it. He said he only cleans records when they are so dirty that they can't be tracked. Even in with my limited knowledge and experience at that time, I couldn’t believe an audio "expert" would make such a statement.
Over the years after reading his reviews each month, as well as the reviews of others in various publications, and comparing them to my own experiences, I came to the conclusion that his overall understanding and appreciation of high end audio was very limited by his prejudices.
Brent wrote: "My reading of dozens of Hirsch’s reviews and columns in Stereo Review confirmed his reluctance to make strong statements about products. But it became obvious to me that his reluctance stemmed not from fear of offending manufacturers, as most people seem to assume, but from a humble and honest concern that his personal impressions of a product — or any reviewer’s personal impressions of a product — wouldn’t necessarily square with the readers’."
You make a distinction without substance. Readers that aren't challenged, whose prejudices and lack of training are not challenged and improved are less likely to be judgmental toward and demanding of advertisers about their products. Hirsch was in effect promoting mass market sound quality. Moreover, it wasn't just that Hirsch didn't judge, he actively opposed those who did. Call it cowardice or being a whore for the advertisers, or integrity if you can truly find any there, but what he did to the pursuit of better quality audio equipment and sound, and those who worked for those, was a very bad deed. That he was a publicist for audio shouldn't be ignored, just placed in the context of his actual character and deeds.
"Moreover, it wasn't just that Hirsch didn't judge, he actively opposed those who did."
I agree this was his major flaw as a reviewer. Whether amp A sounds better than amp B is a matter of opinion except in extreme cases, and I'm sure he felt that adding yet another opinion to the mix was of no worth to his readers. However, his evaluation of speakers could have and should have been much better.
I would argue that Hirsch did challenge his readers. Many of his columns are still technically challenging for me.
"Call it cowardice or being a whore for the advertisers...."
Cowardice, maybe. Being a whore for advertisers, no. Stereo Review was an extremely lucrative business, with about 650K subscribers and no significant competitors when I got into this biz in 1989. They were not desperate for advertisers. When I joined S&V in 2008 (still at the time owned by Hachette, which published Stereo Review during its last decade), I was shocked that there was so little pressure from the sales side.
Your statement also implies that subjectivist magazines are less prone to make concessions to advertisers than Stereo Review was. Try as I might, I cannot compose a polite reply to that assertion. Until you know what you're talking about, please don't suggest that someone is/was a whore. And you might be careful about using an alias to accuse of cowardice someone who published under his own name for nearly 40 years.