RPM, I don't remember the criticism being any more sexist than today when she touched a nerve. In those days, I used to read TAS and Stereophile for the articles - not the pictures - and I was always fascinated with her reports. And, she didn't back down. She heard what she heard and that was that. For the younger readers in the crowd, in the time-frame of 25 to 35 years ago, there were no products on the market to address cable dressing. There were no fancy brass cones. Feet on most components were some kind of cheap rubber compound. There were a few lost voices in the wilderness claiming that different wire dielectrics changed the sound of AC cords. Racks were primarily furniture. Worst of all, it was common knowledge that CDs could reproduce "perfect sound forever." There were arguments that all CD players must sound identical since they all read identical data and so must have identical-sounding output. Some of the biggest legacy fan magazines at the time were written by experts who proved month after month that only measurable differences between components could influence sound. The audiophile media at the time were responsible for maintaining an attitude that upgrading one's equipment frequently was the only path to an improved stereo system. Components were king and Enid challenged all that conventional wisdom as well and she backed it up with evidence based primarily on her own subjective hearing. Fortunately for her, and all of us in modern times, TAS provided her a platform and sufficient editorial support to change the audiophile world and launch an industry to fill the need to maximize the gear we already own.
