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

@frogman: You entirely missed my point regarding "inappropriate": Of course "the use of the sound of unamplified instruments in a real space" is "the best way to judge accuracy (naturalness) in the sound of a component." I didn’t say otherwise (reread what I wrote if you wish). That is the basis of hi-fi, after all!

What I DID say was that metric can not be used when the source material used in the evaluation of components is not a recording made with the intention of capturing "the sound of unamplified instruments in a real space", but is instead a recording made to merely sound "good". What does "good" mean? In the world of Pop music recording, if you think good means "the sound of unamplified instruments in a real space", well then you obviously haven’t spent much time in a recording studio.

Beside the obvious fact that most instruments in Pop music recordings are not unamplified, they are very rarely recorded in "a real space", and certainly not one that resembles what you hear in most studio recordings. Electric guitars, for instance, are often recorded with the amplifier placed in a small isolation booth. To create the illusion of the sound being produced in a larger space, electronic reverb is then added to the signal. Electric basses are often recorded plugged straight into the board, not an amplifier. Same with electronic keyboards.

Another example: The most commonly-used microphone for recording snare drums in studios in the Shure SM-57. Why the 57? Because the mic has a built-in presence peak; the mic was designed as a vocal mic for use in PA systems. The presence peak helps vocals to "cut through" the sound of loud instruments on stage. In the studio, engineers use it to create a snare sound that "pops" in the mix.

Another example: The better studio engineers apply compression to the overhead mics employed to capture the sound of drumset cymbals. The compression makes the drumstick tip hitting the cymbal have a more pronounced percussive "click" sound. The first time I recorded at Flora Recording & Playback Studio in Portland Oregon (where Bill Frisell has recorded a lot---a great studio), I played on the house set---a nice DW kit with Zildjian A cymbals. After the first take we listened to the playback, and I was startled by how different was the in person sound of the cymbals compared to how they sounded on tape. I instantly recognized the sound of compression, and verified it’s use with the engineer. When mixing all the tracks, he then added electronic reverb and considerable amounts of equalization. While the results sounded "good", you can’t really consider it "the sound of unamplified instruments in a real space", now can you?

As for the use of the term "sound effects": the quotation marks were intended to convey the subtle employment (apparently too subtle ;-) of humour. I’ve seen the term used in hi-fi critique before, by writers better than myself (perhaps even by Art Dudley. Oops, there I go again ;). I guess I should have used the much less subtle ;-) to convey my intent. But the idea does raise a valid concern: TAS reviewers quantified the ability of a component to reveal low-level detail as an indicator of the components’ degree of resolution. Okay, fine. But what if that ability comes at the expensive of other, more musically relevant characteristics? I mean, I want to hear the sound of Tony Rice’s fingers sliding across the strings of his Martin D-28 acoustic guitar, but what if that sound is being exaggerated by a component? How does a listener know how "much" of that sound is contained in the recording, versus what the component is doing to the signal?

Anybody know anything about Kevin Conklin, one time writer for TAS?

In the early 1980's, the recession found me out of the film business and biding my time as a poverty-stricken Classical Records clerk at the Tower Records in Panorama City CA.  Kevin showed up, roamed the stacks of LPs, and we developed a friendship. I like to think I introduced him to the world of high-end audio and its magazines but who knows?

bdp24, too much subtlety for this simple mind, I guess. Read everything you wrote again…..again.

Less is often more as they say. What seemed to come through very clearly in what you wrote was the putting of JGH on a higher plane than HP as far as their relative importance as audio reviewers; not to mention their styles. I can’t agree with that. After all, what is the point of pointing out that HP’s concept of the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space is not appropriate for judging studio recordings? Obviously, it is not and pointing it out the way it was done comes across as just a way to diminish the importance of the concept; a concept that you then go on to admit is “the basis of hi-fi”.  Again, maybe too much subtlety for this simple mind.

Anyway, glad we agree on what is “the basis of hi-fi”. I suppose an argument could be made for HP’s unsurpassed relevance on that basis alone. However, no point in going there. Both writers were ground breaking and extremely influential. Enough room on that mantle for both. Regards.

Harry Pearson definitely added to the hi-fi lexicon, raising the bar in hi-fi critique. But it irks me when I see him given all the credit for creating "high end" reviewing (Steve Guttenberg does so regularly). As the saying goes "He stood on the shoulders of giants". In this case, those of J.Gordon Holt. But it is my opinion that Art Dudley raised the bar even higher (if I’m allowed to speak his name).

Holt had his shortcomings (for one thing, his musical taste was pretty much exclusively Classical), but I found Pearson more than a little pompous (Dudley felt the same, and in one of his Stereophile reviews comically threw in an expression Pearson was known for, Dudley doing so as an example of the reason for his distain of the man. Dudley quit TAS when he could no longer stand to be around Harry).

As my momma useta say: "Each to her own, said the lady as she kissed the cow."

Unless you were physically at the mastering session you cannot know what the recording is supposed to sound like.  If this is true, then HP's absolute sound is effectively meaningless for most listeners.  Still HP's impact on home audio reproduction is immense.  He added to the vocabulary and got us away from primarily frequency response issues.  But truth be told, he lost me at continuousness.