As our former readers will remember, and as our new readers should understand, this column is more like a constitutional democracy than a lawless anarchy. There is freedom, certainly, but there are also rules, in order to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility. To wit: Letters from manufacturers in response to our reviews or other editorial comment about their equipment are published unabridged and unedited here, unless some very special reason exists to the contrary. The same goes for the correspondence of audio professionals on subjects specific to their expertise. Letters of general interest from readers may or may not be excerpted, at the discretion of the Editor. Ellipsis (...) indicates omission. The following are unwelcome and can be depended on to remain unpublished: Scurrilous or maliciously defamatory attacks on any individual, be it the Editor or anyone else. Untutored and undocumented technical disagreements with our findings by individuals without technical credentials. Elementary technical questions for which answers can be found in the "My First Book of Electricity" type of reference ("what is a volt?" ). Other inanities. Letters should be addressed to The Editor, The Audio Critic, Box 392, Bronxville, NY 10708.

The Audio Critic:

Hi, Peter! I'm one of the original subscribers--from Volume 1, Number 1 back in '77--and yes, you do owe me some issues.

Now that I've said that, let me tell you how many of us feel out here. First off, let me tell you, you were absolutely, positively the best in these areas:

(1) your ears, (2) your journalistic ability-absolutely magnificent and never, to this day, equaled-and (3) your recommendations, which were always, al ways correct, up until the last issue and the 3 Bulletins (or the point Mitch left the scene?). To this day, I still go back to those magical early issues, with greats like the LS3/5A, the T-1, the Vandersteens, the PQ-LP1 and of course the NAD 3020, and I say to myself, I was really happier with Peter's recommendations, more than anybody else's, to this day! All of the other "undies" never gave me concrete advice which they believed in (except P. Moncrieff- and occasionally he has hit it in the right direction).

We used to go into our local hi-end dealership (Chestnut Hill Audio in Philadelphia), and we would hear customers walk in and say to Jack, "What do you mean you don't have it in stock? I just read in The Audio Critic that this is the best there is and, damn it, that's what I want!!!" Now Peter, that's power. And power is what you had-before you blew it. Nobody, but nobody, was more upset than me that The Audio Critic was out of business-hell, we were even going to call Fourier and try to talk you into staying in reviewing.

As far as the original Fourier-we bought a pair without even listening to them. What a disappointment! Peter gave up all this-for this? We kept saying, what a shame, now all us "poor audio slobs" would have to rely on someone who uses Infinity speakers to judge his equipment-and those speakers are obviously happy with amplifiers that have 30-year-old technology inside of them. Amazing-and pitiful.

Oh, don't get me wrong, there's a lot of angry people out here-angry be cause (1) we didn't get any explanation when the issues stopped (please don't ever go back to those ridiculous Bulletins) and (2) it was obvious you had a fight with Mitch and it showed in the last issue. Nothing was the same, gone was that literary magic-yes, Peter, we even expected entertainment after you had given it to us in those Emmy award-winning 8 issues. But again, the biggest disappointment was the Fourier speaker company. Correct design, I guess, isn't everything after all. "Live and learn." Now that you're trying it again (thank God), please try and recapture that greatness you had. It's going to be tough convincing everybody, but only you have a shot at it-someday you might even be a monthly like Stereophile is now. But the main thing is, let's have an explanation of what really happened to The Audio Critic. I'd like to see it in issue #1, and yes, we have a right to know.

Yes, Peter, you owe me some is sues, but I like you and your style so much that I'm going to donate $10.00 to The Audio Critic anyway, to get you going again. After all, "the best is the enemy of the good," and sure as hell you were the best. God bless and good luck.

Sincerely, Frank A. Pulli

Lansdale, PA

P.S. Keep the damn politics out, please.

Thank you, Frank, for your high opinion of us. Modesty prevents us from agreeing with you too vigorously. Your $10.00 will be gratefully applied to your unfulfilled subscription for three additional issues on top of what we owe you. (Other old subscribers who have likewise sent us money are getting the same deal, of course.) We trust that our prefatory statement on page 2 and the article on the fate of Fourier Systems in this issue are sufficiently "disclosive" to satisfy your rightful curiosity. The decline in quality You discerned in our last full-length is sue totally escapes us; we have no idea what to tell you. As for Mitch Cotter, he was never on the staff of The Audio Critic, and our published opinions did not necessarily coincide with his. He was, however, a highly valued friend and informal technical advisor on a number of subjects, who in the end let us down terribly. We did not have a fight; we merely caught him, almost by chance, fabricating a web of blatantly false information about himself and his work, not so much with the intention to deceive or harm us, but rather for the purpose of professional and intellectual self-aggrandizement. We made no reproaches to him whatsoever, but when he realized that we had had a glimpse of him with his psychosocial pants down, he lost all interest in our friendship and began to stay away. That, apparently, has been the story of his life; he is in capable of dealing with anyone who has got his number and, from what we hear, he is running out of friends and wide-eyed disciples.

It is regrettable that you bought the first-generation Fourier 1. It had some problems, as our article explains.

You could have had it retrofitted to the second-generation format; many owners did. Not that there are any valid excuses for not getting it right the first time, but even Shakespeare messed up when he wrote the atrocious Titus Andronicus just before he came up with Romeo and Juliet and long before Hamlet. Let no one compose a condescending epitaph for Fourier without having checked out the Fourier 8e, which definitely vindicates "correct design." Yes, Frank, we blew it. But as you can see, we are trying to un-blow it.

-Ed.

The Audio Critic:

Some years ago, shortly after a decision was apparently made to "fold" The Audio Critic, I sent you a check for a subscription which, despite repeated requests, was never returned but apparently invested in your speaker business. Obviously, I never received any interest or dividends for what amounted to a loan.

I note with some interest, there fore, your intention to revive the journal, and since I don't have any choice in the matter (you still are not offering to return the money, which I would prefer), I want to have the money applied to a subscription. I'm not sure, however, how much I can respect the opinions of an individual who treated his subscribers so shabbily. Your interests are obviously more along commercial lines (such as Carver).

You have my permission to repro duce this in your "letter" column (" Box 392"), but I'm sure you won't.

Sincerely, Heinz F. Eichenwald, M.D.

Dallas, TX So, Herr Doktor, you were sure but, as you see, you were wrong. You are also sure about the non-fulfillment of your subscription, and again you are wrong. Our records show that you did indeed receive a number of full-length issues as well as all Bulletins, and that on a refund basis we owed you exactly $12.50. (On a fulfillment basis, you get this issue and two more, since the Bulletins are not counted in that case.) Your expressed desire to have your letter published is the reason we have not answered you privately; two letters would be, after all, a bit too much to expect from us in a matter of $12.50, which is now reduced (since our pub lished answer has reached you within the covers of a new issue) to $7.50. Do you still want it, and if you do, how much is the accrued interest on it according to your CPA? (Frankly, our plan was to spend it mostly on women and liquor.) No, Fourier never paid any dividends, and even if it had, you were not a captive investor by deceitful stratagem; the grotesqueness of that suggestion is addressed in our separate article on Fourier.

Our readers may be wondering why we are devoting editorial space to such petty and boring garbage. Ah, because your letter raises an issue that is very close to our heart. We happen to be old-fashioned enough to regard the practice of medicine as one of the exalted fiduciary professions, more like the calling of a priest than a mere busi ness occupation. It disturbs us greatly to see an M.D., presumably a serious minded and dedicated healer, reveal his preoccupation with the nasty backstairs gossip, rumors and infighting of the hi fi trade, as if he were the merest audio store cowboy. If you have the time to write studiedly acrimonious letters to high-end audio journals, when do you catch up on the staggering volume of new medical information? When do you read, let alone write to, the medical Journals? We are glad we are not among your patients.

As for those so-called commercial interests, Carver's profit margins are almost certainly narrower than, say, Audio Research's or Monster Cable's.

Or, for that matter, physicians'.

-Ed.

The Audio Critic:

...Welcome back, we missed you...

Don't be afraid to charge enough to keep the magazine profitable. It was always worth more than you were get ting, and with high-end equipment priced in the stratosphere, what differ ence would it make to an audiophile to spend a few dollars more for a magazine that was honest and reliable? Good luck-give em hell, Peter! Yours truly, Michael R. Loreti, M.D.

Wyckoff, NJ Thanks, doc. Your brevity allays our fears expressed above about the pre emption of medical time by audiophilia and audio politics, and your kindness is in the Hippocratic tradition. Our new

subscription rate represents only a 10% increase over the last one, long ago;

we hope we can hold the line. As for giving 'em hell, we can only repeat what Harry Truman once said: "I have never deliberately given anybody hell.

I just tell the truth... and they think it's hell."

- Ed.

The Audio Critic:

...I was... overjoyed to read of The Audio Critic's resurrection. Your return to publishing comes not a moment too soon, for not only must we dedicated audiophiles contend with unparalleled levels of mediocrity in music reproduction (i.e., CD's), but we have also been without a journal which gives us a meaningful, lucid, critical examination of the design and performance of serious high-end audio equipment. Stereophile, TAS (especially TAS) and the others just don't cut it.

Unfortunately, I fear that you might once again have to introduce to a whole new younger generation of audiophiles and audio salespersons the seminal work of Bazrwald on VTA (Whoa!-Ed.) and proper cartridge alignment. Go into any high-end store with salespersons in their twenties, and invariably they will not know a thing about this. In addition, I have noticed in my travels that salespersons of high-end equipment have lazily taken to demonstrating their wares to custom ers with any CD that happens to be handy rather than properly selecting, cleaning and playing a well-recorded disc. I don't know if this deplorable practice is prevalent in your area, but if it is, perhaps a few of the famous Aczel rejoinders on this subject might make an appreciable and much-appreciated difference.

...Welcome back and best of luck.

Sincerely, George Evans Haslett, MI No situation is ever entirely black and white, but on the whole we share your lack of enthusiasm about the high end audio journals. One of the principal motivations for our comeback is best expressed in the words of a Hungarian novelist of an older generation, who said, "When I want to read a good book, I write one for myself." As you will see from the article summarizing our views on current audio equipment, we are very much in favor of the best CD's when played on the best CD players and appreciate the marvelous convenience that makes them so appealing to those lazy salespeople.

That does not mean that a competent analog LP demo should not be part of a serious presentation to a customer in a high-end store.

We interrupted you reference to Berwald because he never wrote about VTA, only about lateral tracking error.

Our new article on the subject, which is probably the most important part of this issue, opens a smallish Pandora's box with an alternative, and probably superior, alignment; this may perhaps be what is needed to make those young whippersnappers pay attention. They love to tweak around with all kinds of ritualistic little add-ons and adjustments that make little or no audible difference; why would they resist something just as fussy but more important?

-Ed.

The Audio Critic:

I was very pleased to hear that you again are back to reviewing. I have always subscribed to The Audio Critic and have enjoyed every issue, but more than that, I felt like I was learning something. If some component is reviewed and sounds wonderful, I want to know why it sounds wonderful. The Audio Critic always tried to do that...

Sincerely, Tom Hartvigsen

Tullahoma, TN

You may or may not be conscious of it, Tom, but that happens to be a real down-home, Tennessee sour-mash gem: "If some component is reviewed and sounds wonderful, I want to know why it sounds wonderful." That says it all and should be on the label of the stuff those subjective reviewers out there are drinking.

Of course, sometimes it is a mystery why it sounds wonderful-or not so wonderful. What makes us different is that we hate mysteries, so we always try to get rid of them.

-Ed.

The Audio Critic:

I was a subscriber to your magazine, and I was convinced that it was the only audio mag that reviewed equipment without a bias toward one "sound" (i.e., tube) or another. I am pleased you are starting up again...

Robert Barry; Los Angeles, CA

We do have a bias in favor of one sound: the sound that originally entered the microphones. The problem with that sound is that it can only be heard through the intervening medium of the recording and playback equipment. That is why each piece of equipment in the recording-playback loop must be separately evaluated for accuracy from input to output and the likelihood of hearing the original "catch" of the microphones determined from that evaluation. In the right hands, tubes and transistors are just about equally likely to produce accurate results.

-Ed.

The Audio Critic:

Hurrah! I wasn't ripped off-it was just an investment in the future that has finally come due...

Lloyd Madzel

Arlington Heights, IL

You see? The immortal Samuel Johnson, whom we venerate as one of our spiritual ancestors, got himself into the same kind of pickle when he took subscriptions for his announced edition of Shakespeare and then delivered the superb eight volumes many years later than he had promised. Before he did, a nasty poet named Charles Churchill penned these lines about him:

He for subscribers baits his hook, And takes their cash-but where's the book? Here's the book!

-Ed.

-------

[adapted from TAC, Issue No. 10]

---------

Also see:

Analog Miscellany: A Roundup of Not Necessarily Related Equipment

Various audio and high-fidelity magazines