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

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. 

Holt sure was a tiny little guy, wasn’t he? Sharp dresser, too ;-) .

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.

@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?