Julian Hirsch; The Godfather of Reviewing Art
Nousaine
all stand in his shadow, for he invented the 3rd party independent audio
product review. According to his obituary his first published review at Stereo
Review appeared in 1961 although he had been conducting and publishing
evaluations for several years prior to that. He retired in 1998 for health
reasons although his personal wish would have been to die with "his hands on
the knobs."
In some circles he was criticized; apparently for not trashing products in
print, but truth be told, NO ONE has ever done that, not even the most ardent
high-end poets. Indeed one of his most useful characteristics was a refusal to
invent sonic attributes that didn't exist in the acoustical domain.
Mr Hirsch was a great man, with high technical qualifications, a keen ear and
impeccable integrity. I'll miss him.
GRL
ears for his trust in measurements and inability to hear differences in
electronic components performance that were not there. I recall reading (on
the Usenet, so buyer beware) that he very rarely gave a "bad" review simply
because, he said, he was not going to waste editorial space on reviews of
bad equipment. Makes sense to me.
It's pleasing to read that he led not only a productive life, but a very
long one. I wish I still had all my old Stereo Review issues to re-read his
work.
--
- GRL
"It's good to want things."
Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PYrxb.128378$Dw6.562969@attbi_s02...
randyb
A true legend. He will be missed.
S888Wheel
the Usenet, so buyer beware) that he very rarely gave a "bad" review simply
because, he said, he was not going to waste editorial space on reviews of
How on earth does that make any sense? If a magazine withholds bad reviews on
products they deem bad they are doing the public a huge disservice. Are we
supposed to assume that all products not reviewed are bad because a bad review
may have been withheld? It makes no sense at all to me.
Nousaine
Indeed; and we forget that he "invented" the 3rd party audio evaluation. All
the reviews (subjective and otherwise) followed in his footsteps.
Scott Gardner
It would be silly to assume that a product is bad simply because it
wasn't reviewed. It should be obvious that no magazine can review
every product out there, so it would be fallacious reasoning to infer
anything about a product from the absence of a review.
Given that magazines cannot review everything, I think a potential
buyer is better served by a good review than a bad one. A
particularly good review might cause me to add a product to my short
list of ones to further investigate and evaluate, whereas a bad review
would just give me one more product to add to the much-longer list of
ones I've already ruled out. That doesn't get me any closer to making
a final decision.
In general, my attitude is that the number of stellar performers is
much, much smaller than the number of mediocre products out there.
Why waste time on reviewing the mediocre-or-worse products. If a
magazine DOES decide to publish a clearly negative review, I think
they should keep it as short as possible, to make more room for other
evaluations.
Scott Gardner
Bruce Abrams
news:oJLyb.273922$275.969823@attbi_s53...
Makes sense to me, especially when you have to balance the profit motive of
a publication with journalistic integrity. Not reviewing a piece of
equipment that you deem bad simply allows you to devote more words to
products that you deem good, while eliminating the necessity of publishing a
bad review and the possible loss of advertising revenue that would follow.
Mkuller
>Indeed; and we forget that he "invented" the 3rd party audio evaluation. All
>the reviews (subjective and otherwise) followed in his footsteps.
>
I think we can credit Mr. Hirsch even more directly for the founding of the
'underground audio review' magazines (like TAS and Stereophile in the early
1970s). I recall reading an issue of 'Stereo Review' in 1972 where he actually
assigned letter grades to components - the small Infinity speaker with the
electrostatic tweeter got an A-. Then, that abruptly stopped and his reviews
became nebulious. If it weren't for his wishy-washy conclusions such as, "of
all the amplifiers I have auditioned, this is certainly one of them", there
would have been no need for other reviewers to describe the actual 'sound' of a
component reproducing music. It was his apparent unwillingness to offend
advertisers that gave birth to the journals which used 'observational
listening' rather than measurements to evaluate audio components. For this we
also thank him.
Regards,
Mike
Harry Lavo
> Indeed; and we forget that he "invented" the 3rd party audio evaluation.
All
> the reviews (subjective and otherwise) followed in his footsteps.
>
Are you sure of this? I thought Len Feldman, Herman Burstein, Joseph
Giovanelli, and others were doing this for Audio before Hirsch started with
Stereo Review. I know they were active in 1966-67. Also, High Fidelity ran
technical analysis of every piece of equipment from their own labs in Great
Barrington before Stereo Review started and Len Feldman did tuner work for
them, I believe.
Harry
Tom O'Malley
>Indeed; and we forget that he "invented" the 3rd party audio evaluation. All
>the reviews (subjective and otherwise) followed in his footsteps.
Tom,
Do you have a URL on his obituary? I've tried various searches and
have come up empty.
Regards...
Tom O'Malley
randyb
I don't follow your logic. Why would you assume that all products not
reviewed or bad? There are so many products that no magazine could
review them all. I don't see that many really negative reviews in any
of the magazines anymore anyway. Frankly, I don't think a magazine
(especially when it contains subjective reviews) could survive with
really negative reviews. Just post a bad review of anything (Bose may
be an exception but even THEY have their supporters) and see the
flames rise in the air.
Peter Irwin
>>snip, not relevant<
>
>> Indeed; and we forget that he "invented" the 3rd party audio evaluation.
> All
>> the reviews (subjective and otherwise) followed in his footsteps.
>>
>
> Are you sure of this? I thought Len Feldman, Herman Burstein, Joseph
> Giovanelli, and others were doing this for Audio before Hirsch started with
> Stereo Review.
Julian Hirsch wrote for the Audio League Report starting in 1954 or 55.
I'm not sure if he was really the first "third party" reviewer. I think
it may depend on your definition.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Chris Scebelo
say this his reviews made interesting reading.
Tim Britt
interesting to read at times were the very rare occasions when he would
wax eloquently about a particular product he was testing or about some
characteristic of the product. And he did not reserve this writing style
for so-called "break through" products.
I cannot cite any specific examples at the moment, but there were a few
items over the years that passed through his labs that really seemed
to "float his boat" and this would come out in his review in the manner
in which he finished the write-up.
Whether it was intentional or not, I guess we'll never know, but it was
a close as he ever got to praising a component outside its test boundaries.
Nousaine
Actually Hirsch's influence dates back to the 50s. He was dealing with audio
product evaluation before many of the current generation were even born.
---MIKE---
recall a bad review. It was the Velodyne full range speaker. Velodyne
was so angry that they wrote a letter and cancelled their advertising.
It DOES happen!
-MIKE
S888Wheel
> How on earth does that make any sense? If a magazine withholds bad reviews on
> products they deem bad they are doing the public a huge disservice. Are we
> supposed to assume that all products not reviewed are bad because a bad
review
> may have been withheld? It makes no sense at all to me.
I don't follow your logic. Why would you assume that all products not
reviewed or bad?
You shouldn't. The logic is simple we cannot assume that no review means a bad
review withheld. So withholding reviews simply because they are bad is a
disservice to the readers. It is a disservice because potentially valuable
information is being withheld. Take it to an extreme. Should the reports that
Pintos would explode when rear-ended not have been published since it was
negetive? Obviously this is an extreme but the idea is the same.
There are so many products that no magazine could
review them all. I don't see that many really negative reviews in any
of the magazines anymore anyway.
So?
Frankly, I don't think a magazine
(especially when it contains subjective reviews) could survive with
really negative reviews. Just post a bad review of anything (Bose may
be an exception but even THEY have their supporters) and see the
flames rise in the air.
Magazines have, in the past, survived despite printing some negative reviews.
>><BR><BR>
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>Are you sure of this? I thought Len Feldman, Herman Burstein, Joseph
>Giovanelli, and others were doing this for Audio before Hirsch started with
>Stereo Review. I know they were active in 1966-67.
I have old Stereo (HiFi/Stereo and HiFi) Reviews from the 50s and
early 60s with Hirsch's column along with technical articles by JGH
and some really nice collective technical/subjective series' on phono
cartridges, turntables and full systems at various prices.
>Also, High Fidelity ran
>technical analysis of every piece of equipment from their own labs in Great
>Barrington before Stereo Review started and Len Feldman did tuner work for
>them, I believe.
My memory is that they were more or less contemporary but my favorite
mag of the early hifi era was Audiocraft. Anyone else remember that?
Kal
>Harry
Nousaine
Hirsch began publishing audio evaluations in 1954 (Audio League Report) and his
first evaluation in what became Stereo Review appeared in 1961.
Ed Presson
to the "Hirsch-Houck (sp?) Labs" in the very late fifties, explaining that
H-H Labs had greater technical capability than their own labs.
Julian Hirsch later moved to Stereo Review. During the sixties, as I was
succumbing to my own "golden ear" syndrome; I wrote Mr. Hirsch a letter,
polite but quite critical, about his refusal to describe the nuances he
heard while testing the equipment.
To my surprise, he replied with a most courteous note, quietly addressing my
criticisms and providing his rationale for his approach. I wish that I had
saved it; the note was an wonderful example of civil conversation;
understanding my concerns, but explaining his testing and writing guidelines
for his reports.
Ed Presson
Harry Lavo
news:5pWyb.278981$ao4.989508@attbi_s51...
>snip, not relevant to my comments<
> In general, my attitude is that the number of stellar performers is
> much, much smaller than the number of mediocre products out there.
> Why waste time on reviewing the mediocre-or-worse products. If a
> magazine DOES decide to publish a clearly negative review, I think
> they should keep it as short as possible, to make more room for other
> evaluations.
>
The downside to this is that possibly the reviewer is in error or his system
has a serious mismatch, and the lack of supporting information makes it
almost impossible to judge that (it may not be possible in any case, but
sometimes there are clues.)
An example of the dangers of this approach appears in October/November issue
of TAS, in the "HP's Workshop" column. Harry Pearson (who's ears I
generally trust) writes this (and only this) of the Grammy-award winning
Norah Jones album "Come Away With Me" and puts it under the heading "don't
bother".
"She deserves better than the thin, anemic, and utterly unspectacular 5.1
sound she gets here".
Thin? Anemic? Not on my system. Her piano is realistic, the bass is as
prominent and natural as I've ever heard, her voice is marvelously present.
And the 5.1 effects are used judiciously in support of the music. In my
system, this album lives up to all of its hype and the Grammy award for
engineering that it garnered.
So did Harry not like the arrangement?
Was he suffering equipment problems?
Did he make a change in his reference system?
Did he get out of bed on the wrong side?
We'll never know. Well, perhaps never. I intend to write an email to The
Abso!ute Sound editor about this review and perhaps Harry will answer.
In my opinion a negative review, no less than a glowing one, deserves
context. I've changed my mind on this over the years and now believe that
*not* reviewing bad stuff (unless it is insufferably hyped) is probably the
wisest course for all concerned.
Harry Lavo
news:bqim0...@enews2.newsguy.com...
In '54 I was still reading "Boys Life" but began to eye High Fidelity
Magazine and Audio not too long after. :-) Thanks for the info.
>
> Peter.
> --
> pir...@ktb.net
Penury
>My memory is that they were more or less contemporary but my favorite
>mag of the early hifi era was Audiocraft. Anyone else remember that?
Hi Kal:
Yep, still have a couple copies somewhere around here. I liked
ETC's writing style in Audio a lot. He approached "hi fi" equipment
from a musical perspective.
-=Bill Eckle=-
ab...@wmeckle.com
Vanity Web pages at:
http://www.wmeckle.com
Kalman Rubinson
>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 04:52:29 GMT, Kalman Rubinson <k...@nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>>My memory is that they were more or less contemporary but my favorite
>>mag of the early hifi era was Audiocraft. Anyone else remember that?
>
>Hi Kal:
> Yep, still have a couple copies somewhere around here. I liked
>ETC's writing style in Audio a lot. He approached "hi fi" equipment
>from a musical perspective.
Not Audio, Audiocraft, Bill. And, fwiw, I liked ETC early on but he
became repetitive and superficial. I had the impression he was at a
loss for things to say. He also made errors but was honest enough to
admit/correct them. A gentleman.
Kal
Mkuller
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/300573.html
Regards,
Mike
L David Matheny
speakers some years ago. I don't remember how much stink ensued.
Norman Schwartz
affair with letters (published) from all quarters flying to and fro. Julian,
may he rest in peace, must have had a great big laugh.
Roscoe East
>
> In some circles he was criticized; apparently for not trashing products in
> print, but truth be told, NO ONE has ever done that, not even the most ardent
> high-end poets.
What does this sentence mean? NO ONE has ever trashed products, or NO
ONE has ever NOT trashed products? And how could either be true,
plenty of instances of both abound in print.
Nousaine
wrote:
Excellent point. You're right I'm sure we can all point to an instance or two
that illustrates that point. Indeed I've personally been attacked by
manufacturers who felt that I was "trashing" a product that deserved no more
than a mildly positive evaluation.
But, in general, no publication has ever been significantly less-positive than
Stereo Review. If that were not true than why does "nearly every" product
evaluated by the leading "Underground" magazine end up on the Recommended
Components List?
I say "nearly every" only because I've not tracked down every product in every
category in the 2 times I referenced the Products Reviewed in the Past Year
(January Issue) to the April RCL but in the categories I did I was unable to
find ANY product covered in the past year that was NOT on the list.
But thank you for pointing out a statement that went too far.
CCSman
>speakers some years ago. I don't remember how much stink ensued.
>
And there was the bad review on the Dynaco ST70 II by Stereophile (Corey
Greenberg) that prompted anger from the manufacturer. What else? The Tice
clock, Richard Grey got trashed by J. Scull (That was a particularly nasty
review- almost sounded like there was an agenda). There have been other as
well, but the basic editorial policy seems to be that there's limited print
space, so only good gear gets reported on. Usually.
Kalman Rubinson
>There have been other as
>well, but the basic editorial policy seems to be that there's limited print
>space, so only good gear gets reported on. Usually.
The editorial policy is that everything reviewed gets published.
Kal
CCSman
>
No disagreement here, but isn't it also true that only 'promising' gear gets
reviewed because of limited editorial space ? I suppose my choice of word in
"reported" wasn't the most accurate indicator-
Kalman Rubinson
OK. I took one particular meaning but, to address that other meaning,
yes.
I only want to review gear that I regard as 'promising' and not waste
time with stuff I am not likely to like. Is that not reasonable? For
example, I will be going to CES in a few weeks and one of my purposes
there is to find stuff for review. What I will request will be items
that have impressed me positively, based either on their actual
performance or on design/feature/philosophy. I think of it as a
necessary pre-screening since there's so much out there.
Kal
Bruce J. Richman
are
speaking?
IME, while most of the reviews I've read in either Stereophile, The Absolute
Sound, or Sensible Sound are generally positive, I've certainly found that the
careful reading someitmes uncovers negative comments about certain specific
aspects of a given product's performance or of its ergonomic design. Sometimes
this is also done in the context of the price of the product as well and
whether, in the reviewer's opinion, the relative strengths and weaknesses
described are "reasonable" at the product's price point.
Bruce J. Richman
Kalman Rubinson
wrote:
>As a newcomer to this thread, could you identify the magazine about which you
>are
>speaking?
Yeah. I can no longer access the relevant preceding posts. I was
speaking about Stereophile.
Kal
Chris Campbell
> A good man. I remember reading his reviews for so many many years. I will
> say this his reviews made interesting reading.
>
using various free hand-me-down components (mono Bogen amp, Garrard
RC-80 TT, homemade speakers from plans in Stereo Review). My first
stereo amplifier was a Heathkit AA-22. Mr. Hirsch's review noted that
it exemplified the "transistor sound" (he intended that as a
compliment) and ended the review by saying "any enthusiasm I may seem
to express for this unit is entirely intentional." The review also
pointed out that the Heath amp met or exceeded all its specs. That
was back in the day when specs were most often developed in the
advertising department, not in the lab or engineering stations.
Soon after building the Heath, I took it to a McIntosh amplifier
clinic. It met or exceeded its specs (one of very few that did so,
except for the Macs). A friend took his Olson (a chain like Lafayette
or Radio Shack) amp to the clinic. It had advertised power of 80 or
100 watts. It couldn't meet specs except at excessive distortion
levels and then only at mid-frequency band--a big U-shaped curve.
I'd love to compare my AA-22 to current equipment, but it's got a
left-channel ailment and is retired until I can attend to that some
day.
I always assumed that a good review from Mr. Hirsch meant that the
unit was OK, and an enthusiastic one meant that it had some special
merit.
It's important to note that Stereophile now runs a sidebar to the
reviews with rigorous test specs. Those who rely entirely on their
ears can ignore the objective info, but I'd prefer to make decisions
based on sound AND test results. The history of subjectivity as a
criterion is filled with embarrasments, just as the history of
"objectivity" is filled with error. By attending to both aspects, we
can acquire a salutary skepticism.
Chris Campbell
Wylie Williams
respect for his reviews, but
I am of two minds about the contribution of Julian Hirsch. Back in 1965 I
was in the Army in Germany and was building my first stereo system without
benefit of audio stores. Using Julian Hirsch's reviews I winnowed my
amplifier choice down to two- Heathkit's first transistor kit (the A-22, as
I recall) and the Dynaco Stereo 70).
I chose the A-22 because the reviews presented the two as having
equally excellent sound, and I didn't want the expense of replacing tubes.
I recall that the review noted that the A-22 had none of the "transistor
sound", which puzzled me because I had not heard about a different
"transistor sound". I think that the comventional audiophile wisdom of
today would be that the two sounded different enough that Julian Hirsch
should have heard the difference and commented on it, but the reviews
essentially said "these are both good amps, and all good amps sound the
same".
Although I never compared the two amps in the same system, I heard
Stereo 70's in the intevening years, read many comments about the difference
between tubes and transistors, and decided that there probably were
differences that should have been noted and published. Eventually I became
skeptical of the reviews of Julian Hirsch and maintain the same skepticism
of similar viewpoints today.
Wylie Williams
"GRL" <GLitw...@chartermi.com> wrote in message
news:5nAyb.371721$HS4.3105186@attbi_s01...
> You're right, Tom. He was a good guy that was disliked by many of the
golden
> ears for his trust in measurements and inability to hear differences in
> electronic components performance that were not there. I recall reading
(on
> the Usenet, so buyer beware) that he very rarely gave a "bad" review
simply
> because, he said, he was not going to waste editorial space on reviews of
> bad equipment. Makes sense to me.
>
> It's pleasing to read that he led not only a productive life, but a very
> long one. I wish I still had all my old Stereo Review issues to re-read
his
> work.
>
> --
>
> - GRL
>
> "It's good to want things."
>
> Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
> Visual Basic programmer)
> "Nousaine" <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:PYrxb.128378$Dw6.562969@attbi_s02...
> > Julain Hirsch passed away on Monday at 81 after a long battle with
> illness. We
> > all stand in his shadow, for he invented the 3rd party independent audio
> > product review. According to his obituary his first published review at
> Stereo
> > Review appeared in 1961 although he had been conducting and publishing
> > evaluations for several years prior to that. He retired in 1998 for
health
> > reasons although his personal wish would have been to die with "his
hands
> on
> > the knobs."
> >
> > In some circles he was criticized; apparently for not trashing products
in
> > print, but truth be told, NO ONE has ever done that, not even the most
> ardent