Most of you will think this a waste of time, but due to my interest in audio history and culture, I've acquired (very cheaply) a long run of old Absolute Sounds. While the magazine has a strong point in taking note of the importance of pressings of lps on sound, most of their sonic priorities are bunk, with paragraphs devoted to the details of soundstage portrayal, some words from issue 44 (Nov/Dec 1986) stick out like a sore thumb.
"The ( ) is an amazing amplifier only in the sense that the subtleties of music are unfailing amazing. Its ability to clarify musical rhythm seems entirely different from the abilities one expects of other good components....The analytic vocabulary developed largely by HP and my worthy colleagues does not seem to have a specific term for this temporal quality, but everyone who listens to this amplifier notices it instantly, provided the music has rhythmic subtleties to hear."
Interestingly, Martin Colloms was a TAS correspondent at the time.
Secondly, an interview with Paul McGowan of PS Audio echoes the Naim philosophy of preamp and power amp design. But is completely ignorant of Naim.
"We think the power supply is the most important thing, and the amp is subservient to it. If you look at an amplifier, what does it really do? It modulates the power supply. If you look at all the successful designs in audio--the Krells, te Audio Research--which are things I've heard that I admire--you see they're power-supply intensive....
Look at the 4.5 [the PS Audio preamp which at the time was $500]. It has a separate transformer. It's about ten times larger than anybody else's in the industry. Most are tiny little transformers that have very high source impedance. Most are about 30 ohms. Ours are about .1."
By the way, McGowan discovered the importance of a large transformer to a preamp by accident, putting a power amp transformer in a prototype preamp because it was the only one handy. I wonder how Naim came upon it.
--Eric
Posted on: 23 April 2001 by Keith Mattox
I still read that magazine by the by; it's a fun read if you don't take them in the least bit seriously. I stopped doing that about 15 years ago in the Cordesman days; what did it was an assessment of several turntables that he reviewed at once, complete with drawings of the approximate soundstage that each turntable depicted.
Cheers
Keith.
Posted on: 24 April 2001 by Markus
For an example of superb reviewing and writing look through your TAS issues numbered right around 39-42 for articles or reviews by Neil Levenson. I think I've got the spelling of his name correct. He was also an audio equipment reviewer for Fanfare magazine for many years and his approach to listening, evaluating and writing about equipment is exemplary.
I think maybe you're being a little harsh on TAS. Back in the late '80's when I decided to buy a new "record player" and ended up with an LP12 I started reading TAS and S'phile. Both provided value for me, though I do think that the magazine has gradually become a little ponderous and perhaps too "puffed up" in it's opinion of itself. I no longer subscribe, never buy it but sometimes look at it on the newstand. Some of it looks kinda good. Tho' I'd rather read Listener. Or buy more music...
Posted on: 24 April 2001 by Todd A
Good to see others' relatively low opinion of the magazine. I recently bought a copy, and as skewed and hyperbolic as Stereophile is, the issue of TAS I got is much, much worse. Every component reviewed was the best ever in its respective class. And every recording, too. There were actually several citations of how some "audiophile" discs have the best ever performances of core repetoire - the MacKerras Brahms set on Telarc sticking out most vividly in my mind. Now don't get me wrong, I love Chuck's work, but his Brahms is the best ever? Not even close. First and last issue for me.
Posted on: 24 April 2001 by Ron The Mon
Eric,
Don't give P.S. too much credit. I sold their products when the 4.5 was current and it did sound better with the big supply. They even came out with an optional "bigger" supply which sounded even better yet, but when you disconnected the supply altogether it sounded best in straightwire mode. When I talked to McGowen about it and suggested he run the signal through the supply a la Naim, he didn't have a clue. He was convinced that power supplies helped because of their impedance on the circuit and that grounding and size of the supply were irrelevent.
Ron The Mon
