5196105899

vening years; for this issue ihey are $600. $1,000, and $1,500. In a sense, i hal poses a tougher problem for ihe authors. be-cause they can allow themselves few flights of wishful fancy. At the same time, ii prevents them from taking a tack so radical that few readers would find in it an appropriate role model.

We were hesitant about the 1976 ar-ticle because—far from representing a balanced, lucid overview of the best components and values that high fidelity had to offer-the experts* choices seemed dounright quirky in sonie respects. Sonie authors insisted on om-of-the-way equipment that few readers would find in local Stores; some models and brands emerged as “in,” while equally worthy alternatives went unmentioned. Should we try for a morę balanced approach, we wondered. Should we, for example. ask .sonie of the authors who had chosen the “in” brands to find substitute niodels elsewhere? Certainly this would better represent the wide variety of legitimate choices available to the componen(-system shopper.

It became obvious. however, that the process of choosing, rather than the choices themselves. was the crux of the matter. The six experts had all taken dif-ferent approaches—in sonie ways. radi-cally different ones—and the real sub-stance of the article lay in expressing these diflerences. This u as what we had hoped for: We wanted to demonstrate that the starting point in assembling a system always niust be the priorities of the musie listener lor whom it is being assembled and that the choice is pro-foundly aflected by thosc priorities, even though some components. taken individ-ually. have near-universal appeal.

Because it is not our purpose to rec-ommend systems (however responsibly arrived at. such recommendations tend to inhibit. rather than promote. the inter-ests of intelligent choice, in our opinion) and because the individuali(y of our authors wasso important a part of the over-all story, we finally decided that our in-ter\ention in theselection process would be out of the question. In editing what our cxperts had written, we therefore tried to leave intact what they had ex-pressed and address only the way in which they had expressed it—in one case taking morę ideas from an author'$ cor-respondence than front his manuscript.

The response, once the article was published. confirmed both our decision and the misgivings that had preceded it. Soniecorrespondentsdid insist on seeing these as six recommended systems. de-spite what we had written in an editorial introduction similar to this one. But most of the voluminous commentary ap-plauded what was seen as a provocative and illuniinating approach. We hope that our latest return to the format will be read in that spirit.— Robert Long. Au-dio-Video Editor.

Len Feldman: Though hisseminars for neophyte audiophiles helped thousands, here he questions his own advice.

1

•A. *.

i

drive turntable systems. but I had to find a player with a suggested retail price of no morę than $100. That meant a manuał model and, even from Technics. one with beli drive. I have always felt that the only reall) good direct-drive systems are those using the heavier, morę costly mo-tors. At Iow er price levels, Tli take belt drive everv time. Technics* SL-BI01 is about as basie a turntable as you could find. but the Controls are up front.'and speed change is electronic. rather than mechanical. This. I leli, would at least prolong belt lite I never use a pilch con-trol as such. but having it and an illumi-nated Strobę does enable setting precise rotation speeds regardless of motor or belt aberrations.

Audio-Technica*s AT-I20E phono cartridge carries a suggested list price of $90. bul I don’t expect most shoppers to pay anvw here near that much for it w hen theyTe buying it as part of a w hole system. The Stylus is elliplical. and I expeci it to track reasonably well in the SL-BIOTs tonearm with a forceofabout 1% erams-at the middle of the recom-

w

niended rangę for this pickup. It prelers a capacitive loading of no morę than 200 picofarads for fiattest overall frequency response. so !'d keepcable runs from the turntable to the phono inputs lairly short.

That leaves us w ith the most diffi-cult choice of all: the loudspeakers. After a great deal of listening and agonizing, I was fortunate to find ones madę by a company called Phase Technology Corporation. Ordinarily. I miglu well have ignored these speaker systems. (I rarely can spend much time listening to “new-comers*’ until colleagues who do niore speaker testing than I do e\tol some newly dtscovered “breakthrough ”) In this case. however. I knew the designer (Bill Heeht, who previously stayed be-hind the scenes. designing systems for manulacture by others) and had an op-portunity to hear the design. The PC-60s. at a suggested retail of $150 each. are iwo-way phase-coherent systems that stand only 13% inches high by 8 wide by 8 deep. but their response actually gets down to 40 Hz. Thevcan handle as much as 80 watts [ l9dBW|of musie pow er and are ‘4" medium efficienc). Best of all. I hked their musical accuracy and overall ba lance. Thev will serve well m a fairly smali room driven by the NAD receiver if vou don’t demand 110-dB sound pres-sure Ievels.

If your lasie does run to such loud listening levels. you can start with the Phase Tech PC-60s while you save up lor a heftier pair. or you can skip the speak-ers aitogether for now and settle for my favorite stereo headphones: the AKG Model k-340. at a suggested retail of S195. That option w ill not only keep you well within budget. but vou‘ll be able to reach 104 dB SPI. and even peaks at higher levels w ith less than l%distortion. The t'requency response of these phones is superb. at least to my ears. and al-ihoutzh thev are the kind that seal around

C    *

the ears. I don’t find iheni particularlv tiring to wear for long periods.

Choosing the Phase Tech speakers. the total suggested list price of niv budget system comes to an e\en $800. I suspect that it wouldn'1 be difficult to find dealers who would part with these components at a 25% overall discount. which would exact!y meet the $600 budget allotted for the system t..F.

39

DECEM BER 1981