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

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?

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.