TAS. The Absolute Sound?

If anyone is interested, @audio_is_subjective64 is the former @jacobsdad2000, jeffrey125, recklesskelly, jerryg123, earlflynn, juanmanuelfangioi, skypunk, etc. etc. etc.

All banned.

@viridian: I’m in complete agreement with your opinion and statement.

I had already been reading J. Gordon Holt’s reviews in his essentially 1-man operation Stereophile Magazine when Harry Pearson started TAS. Holt’s number one priority in assessing the reproduction of recorded music was accuracy of vocal and instrumental timbre, freedom from what he termed "vowel coloration." His second priority was transparency, the freedom from a thin gauze being introduced between the recording and the listener. JGH also addressed imaging in his reviews, but it was Pearson and the other TAS reviewers who elevated the ability to create a "sound stage" to a very high priority in their assessments of component quality.

While many recordings of Classical music contain an audible sound stage---the locations of the instruments in an orchestra to one degree or another "visible", more so in recordings made in the 1950’s and early-60’s---very few recordings of Pop, Rock, Country, etc.---particularly those recorded in studios, do. The reason for that is studio recordings have no sound stage to "capture" in the first place; in studio recordings each instrument is recorded with it’s own microphone (drumsets typically recorded employing a half dozen mics), the artificially-created imaging created during the mixing process. In many studio recordings, some instruments are recorded in isolation closets.

The late, great Art Dudley was head of reviews at TAS for a while, eventually leaving and starting his own fantastic mag Listener---and later joining the staff of Stereophile---ranked sound stage towards the bottom of his priority list. He dismissed sound stage imaging as "parlour tricks" 😆. Like JGH, Dudley considered the ability to reproduce the timbre of acoustic instruments and vocals a very high priority, but went further and introduced the relatively-new issue of "touch" (the physical playing of an instrument) in his reviews. That concept was missing from both HP’s and JGH’s reviews. That, as well as the ability of a component (or full system) to recreate the "forward momentum" of a musical ensemble. That concern may have been a result of Dudley being a musician.

Interesting takes; thanks for the comments. I'm just getting back to music enjoyment and part of my effort for good sound is learning from the various reviewers; and of course my (asylum :)  classmates here at Audiogon and elsewhere. The Wadax "tone control" is something us long experienced listeners have used-- and then determined was ultimately detimental to the sound. OK, what's old is new again. Interesting to see the intense effort on power supply. It has been and will continue to be a focus for me as my background as a Yamaha supported Grand Prix motorcycle racer has instilled the fact that "the Juice" is foundational for performance. Wilson Audio must still be foundational for TAS or Mr.Harley as we observe their "far from top of line" speakers - associated - with all these extraordinary and expensive components. Surely an indication that even Wilson's basic efforts are worthy of such esteemed company. I find the whole presentation interesting and certainly informative. Certainly Bob gets a view from a unique  perch virtually no one else will experience.   

Michael Fremer charming?