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

Interesting indeed to compare the writing styles of JGH and HP.

I mostly agree with bdp24’ s comments about the two writers (and their associated reviewers) on “technical” grounds (credentials?). However, I strongly disagree with the implied relative relevance and importance of their actual writing.

For me, what made HP (and TAS in general) stand out above most other audio reviewers at the time and since was, wordiness and all, his ability to write about the way that equipment was reproducing music in a way that clearly showed a level of understanding of aspects of the sound of a musical performance that most reviewers simply don’t have a very good grasp of; or choose to not write about it. A passing comment in a review about the bass of component A being tighter or a few hertz deeper than that of component B only scratches the surface of all that can be heard on a recording.

Now, HP’s thing was Classical music. He reviewed some Pop and non-Classical recordings, but to me it was obvious that Classical music was the genre that he understood best. He held subscriptions to Carnegie Hall Classical music series’ and it showed in his writing. When was the last time we have read a review that talks about the unique sound of the reverberation off the back wall of the stage when the French horns play, for instance? Or, the unique way that the sound of triangle floats above the rest of the percussion section of an orchestra. Writing about these things may seem flowery, but are real aspects of the sound of live and what can be on a recording.

I liked JGH’s writing very much, but IMO he did not write about the relationships between the performance and the sound on the same level as HP. A reader may not be interested in such things, but those are the details that give credence to the idea of “the absolute sound” and “the sound of unamplified instruments in a real space as the standard which TAS adhered to. IMO, the recent departure from this notion in the audiophile press and audio forums is unfortunate. As editor, HP shaped the “mission” of TAS in a direction that, to me, demonstrated a deeper appreciation of the more nuanced and ephemeral aspects of the sound of a musical performance as it relates to assembling an audio system than any other audio publication.

Then there were the great concert halls of the world surveys, surveys of the great pipe organs of the world, HP Suoer LP lists and much more. All this made it much easier for me to forgive HP’s tendency to be a bit of a blowhard.

Consider me a fan. I look forward to reading your book, MK.

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.

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.

**** HP's absolute sound is effectively meaningless for most listeners. ****
 

Sadly, probably true.  Most audio enthusiasts seek little, if any, exposure to that sound.  They attend few, if any, performances of unamplified music.  Moreover, the more that technology becomes part of the fabric of music media as is the trend, the less that they will.  This unfortunate reality does not invalidate the concept which is still invaluable for some.