Were you an audiophile in the 1980s and 1990s?


If so you will probably recognize a lot of the anecdotes in my new book about the music, the equipment and behind the scenes in some of the audio journals.  It's "The Lucky Audiophile - Anecdotes from High End Audio".

"Mike Kuller’s book, part autobiography, part musical history, chronicles his life and journeys in the world of high-performance audio during the 1980’s and 1990’s with Harry Pearson and The Absolute Sound magazine. His reminisces bring back memories of what could be considered the “Golden Age” of audio. His concert lists document many of the important and influential artists of the last thirty years. If you ever wanted to peer behind the curtain of The Absolute Sound during its heyday, give Mike’s book a read."  Steven Stone, reviewer and columnist for The Absolute Sound and FutureAudio.com

"It's a fascinating and engrossing tale of the journey he has taken.  An enjoyable read."   John Atkinson, Technical Editor Stereophile

https://www.amazon.com/Lucky-Audiophile-Anecdotes-High-End-Audio/dp/B0BT79V6SS/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3C11H2HWOXJ9T&keywords=lucky+audiophile+book&qid=1678391980&sprefix=%2Caps%2C410&sr=8-1

mikekuller

@jjss49 I really enjoyed reading Corey Greenberg.  I wish he had stayed writing longer.

Tony Cordesman (AHC) was another one of my favorites.

Excellent comments, all.

Pearson did indeed go much further than Holt in describing the purely "sound effects" contained in recordings (including the infamous sound of subway trains running under the streets in recordings made in NYC, for instance). But Holt, being a recording engineer, knew far better than Pearson that the sound contained in a recording is not necessarily what the music sounded like when performed live. And for studio recordings, Pearson’s "rule" is completely and utterly inappropriate. Capturing the natural sound of acoustic instruments in real space is not at all what the vast majority of studio engineers are attempting to achieve.

The reason I value Art Dudley’s reviews above all others is that he was listening for how the piece of gear under review affected not just the sound of the music, but the music itself (plus, he had great musical taste, including a love of Bluegrass, which he also performed). Yes, PRAT and all the other musical concerns. Gordon Holt was definitely from the original generation of audiophiles (WWII generation), which considered the freedom from "vowel coloration" (a term coined by Holt) in the reproduction of instrumental and vocal timbres the first priority of a hi-fi system. I, having a very low tolerance for such coloration, shared with him that point of view. Loudspeakers in the 1950’s and ’60’s were plagued by it (easily heard in the sound of vocals, with which we are all very familiar), which is why I was knocked out when I heard music reproduced by an electrostatic loudspeaker. Far more transparent than non-ESL’s, but more importantly far less colored. Horns? Way, way, WAY too colored for me.

Rode an elevator with Holt once at a Show in LA in the mid 80's.  I didn't say anything mainly because a person on the car asked question after question and Gordon was getting slightly irritated.  Me, I thought the guy was gonna bend over and kiss his hand. When we reach our floor and the doors open he looked my way and smiled and raised in eyebrows. 

 

bdp24, to characterize the focus of HP’s writing as “sound effects” is inaccurate and a bit of a cheap shot. He wrote about all aspects of, as I wrote, the relationship between performance and sound. This necessarily includes what you credit Dudley for; not withstanding the two examples that I used which are themselves much more than “purely sound effects”. Besides, I thought the comparison was between JGH and HP, not Dudley 😊.

I disagree that the use of the “sound of unamplified instruments in a real space” as a reference is “inappropriate”. It is in fact the best way to judge accuracy (naturalness) in the sound of a component. I’m not sure what the fact that, as you mention, studio engineers don’t use this as a standard has to do with anything. This goes precisely to the point. The standard to be used is that of the sound of unamplified instruments in a hall (real space), not a studio. Moreover, the idea that because a recording can never sound exactly like the original event we should abandon any attempt at comparison seems to me to be shortsighted. While no recording will sound exactly like the original event we can certainly make a determination as to which recording and which component reproducing it sounds closer to that standard. How? A listener intimately familiar with the sound of, for instance, Carnegie Hall can certainly use a recording made in Carnegie Hall for purposes of comparison. Not to mention that there are enough aspects to the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space that are constants no matter the venue, or the player which transcend the inevitable variables. Variables which are fewer and less influential than those in most studio recordings and especially those of amplified instruments.

My contention has always been that the component that does the best job of reproducing the “sound of unamplified instruments in a real space” will also do the best job of reproducing what is actually on the recording of amplified (electronic) instruments. Whether we like that sound or not is a different matter.