Good evening,
I'm going to show my age here and state that while much of what has been said about Julian Hirsch and his over-emphasis on the empirical side of audio reviewing has lead to many misconceptions, particularly among those who would rather measure than listen, he also performed a great service to hi-fi and to the hobby we love.
Please remember that at the time he began to write for Stereo Review the industry was in need of standard measurements. His work as a proponent of RMS amplifier power measurements and of FM tuner performance went a long way to weed out much bad equipment from good in the 1960's and early 1970's. Many "average" people bought receivers, turntables, phono cartridges and loudspeakers based on his advice with confidence. This directly lead to the explosion of the audio industry in the late 1960's. True, JH doesn't deserve all the credit, and his over-reliance on the "measure it, don't hear it" drove many to audiophile publications like TAS, but his writings allowed the hi-fi industry to grow and diversify in ways I think might not have happened so readily without his monthly lab reports, columns etc. in Stereo Review. It is also ludicrous to state the audiophile press sprung up as a result of the "everything's great" reviews in Stereo Review. J. Gordon Holt had been writing Stereophile since the early 1960's, and other small publications had been long targeting the home audio enthusiast with DIY electronics and speaker articles.
So, while it is true he was guilty of many accesses, he also contributed to the growth of the home audio industry.
BTW, he did have a way of sayijng things between the lines, particularly in his loudspeaker reviews in the early 1970's. Brave and ground-breaking, no, but as with so many of us, he wasn't just a one-dimensional figure as an audio writer. he was certainly a product of his time and education. As are we all.
