Who invented high-end audio?
The rarely photographed Harry Pearson.
(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)Harry Pearson, who coined the term "high end," spoke at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest 2009, held last week in Denver. "High end" has long since spread to cars, cameras, jewelry, real estate, boats, and a gazillion other categories, but audio is where it all started.
Pearson's magazine The Absolute Sound, The High End Journal, and J. Gordon Holt's Stereophile magazine created an audiophile community.
Starting in 1973, Pearson's flamboyant writing style and deep love of gear and music helped prod the state of the art forward through the 1980s. The Absolute Sound's tiny circulation and sporadic publishing schedule didn't hurt its prestige and importance in the industry. A rave review, especially by Pearson, could put a start-up company on the map.
Pearson made people curious about, well, the absolute sound. That is, the sound of musicians and vocalists, recorded in an appropriate acoustic space. We all wanted a hi-fi system good enough to put us in that space. That's impossible, but the goal, reproducing the absolute sound, still drives at least some audiophiles.
"The Absolute Sound" magazine didn't accept advertising from manufacturers for the first five years (or so) of its existence. When the CD was introduced in the early 1980s, Pearson was skeptical. Digital recordings failed to capture the essence of the absolute sound; CDs were too sterile, two-dimensional, and failed to engage the listener--all the things that high-end analog systems of the time did so well. Point being, Pearson didn't drink the digital Kool-Aid; he listened to digital and found it wanting.
Pearson had the courage to say so, while the mainstream audio press, such as "Audio," "Stereo Review," and "High Fidelity" heaped praise on the first generation digital machines. They raved about the perfect sound forever CD, and immediately ceased coverage of turntables. Those magazines ignored high-end audio, or worse, mocked it. Strange, can you imagine what would have happened if "Motor Trend" or "Car and Driver" vowed never to test a Ferrari or Maserati, and stuck with Chevy and Ford?
"Audio," "Stereo Review," and "High Fidelity" chimed in unison, "All properly designed amplifiers sound the same!" and "Speakers that measure well are all good speakers." "The Absolute Sound" and "Stereophile" reviewers actually listened, in depth, and reported on what they heard. And they weren't shy about giving negative reviews. The readers devoured those reviews, and even if they didn't agree, their passions were aroused. Once I found "The Absolute Sound" and "Stereophile" I gave up on "Audio," "Stereo Review," and "High Fidelity." Apparently, so did their readers, they're all gone (but "Stereo Review" continues as "Sound & Vision" magazine).
Over the decades Pearson found no shortage of great sounding digital components, but the early ones were truly awful. He once said, "The best way to enjoy digital is never listen to analog," and that's still true.
Pearson continues to write for "The Absolute Sound," but in Denver he hinted that he might soon be striking out on his own.
Steve Guttenberg is a frequent contributor to magazines and Web sites including Home Entertainment, Playback, and Ultimate AV. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
I write this with some trepidation; I know most audiophiles will disagree with me. But Pearson's discerning taste, along with his courageous intolerance of mindless specsmanship, must be balanced against his egregious ethical lapses, anti-scientific magical thinking and purple prose. For me, the scale weighs against him. - - Mark
Inconvenient truth hurts, doesn't it? You just don't want to read that the monies you just spent on a super-sooped amp are for nuthing?
Stereophonic sound reproductioin is a sonic illusion like an optical illusion. Just as optical illusions are not 3D vision so stereo is not binaural hearing. Like optical illusions which sometimes you see and sometimes you don't depending on lighting etc., the stereo illusion (phantom center, etc.) will be very different for different listeners on different days, at different ages, with different sound sources, with different levels, etc.
There is also the artistic element. That is in photography there are those who think black and white photography is a superior art form to color, or that black and white movies are by definition more artistic than any made in color. Likewise one can view stereo media such as LPs or CDs and the stereo loudspeaker triangle as an superior art form despite its lack of "color" or in technical jargon, binaural verisimilitude.
J. Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson, are essentially both examples of art critics or in this case stereo art critics. An art critic can comment on how the artist has used color or brush strokes to create an illusion of depth or a realistic cloud but we all know the painting is not stereoscopic and we know the critic knows this. But we learn to value the views of the best critics when it comes to artifice.
Another example is the reviewing of TV sets. One can say the resolution and color fidelity is terrific and indicate a sense of 3D viewing because of these properties, but it is still a flat screen and we all understand that. Since the color is not perfect, each one of us may adjust the set differently to taste and to compensate. The same thing happens with stereo adjustments since our phantom imaging and pinna functions are like fingerprints with no two alike. These stereo illusion hearing functions are also quite imperfect in the binaural technology sense.
Flat paintings can be enhanced or tweaked with lighting, frames, or sometimes restoration. But seldom will all art viewers agree on the merits of a particular viewing arrangement. Likewise stereophonic sound recording and reproduction are subject to a lot of tweaking by recording engineers, equipment reviewers, and audiophiles. There is no logical reason why even a majority should agree that any particular change to a stereo "art" piece is better or worse or simply just different. When viewing a painting in a new frame half the viewers may not notice that the frame has been changed. Likewise in stereo, a tweak change may not be audible to everyone.
The moral is that you should regard stereo sound critics in the same way you relate to the visual art ones.
Ralph Glasgal
www.ambiophonics.org
Thank you for the recognition of Harry Pearson and his Absolute Sound. With the passing of J. Gordon Holt recently (founder of Stereophile), we are reminded of the great contributions made by these pioneers of audiophilia, and what they have given us as a community. These gentlemen should be properly recognized as you have graciously done in your article. Here here!
Mark Leuba
Ellicott City, MD
Thank you for the recognition of Harry Pearson and his Absolute Sound. With the passing of J. Gordon Holt recently (founder of Stereophile), we are reminded of the great contributions made by these pioneers of audiophilia, and what they have given us as a community. These gentlemen should be properly recognized as you have graciously done in your article. Here here!
Mark Leuba
Ellicott City, MD
If Harry and Gordon hadn't existed, I fear we'd be listening to the equivalent of mid-1980s CD players and mid-1960s amps - except made a lot cheaper 'cause everything sounds the same so why bother with good parts? I wonder if home audio would still be a hobby had Harry and Gordon not appeared.
Harry's embrace of some of the wacky tweaks - or more often, his embrace of writers who promoted those tweaks - may have led some to spend their money unwisely, but most of the people I know who use that stuff swear by it and don't feel ripped off.
And there is no question that Harry's approach made for much better reading. He got people far more excited about audio than the "scientific" guys ever could.
Two things he said during his talk stood out. The first was his mention of running into John Curl at the show, where John said, "F--- you!" (probably a reaction from irreparable harm due to a negative review precipitated by ignoring an explicit technical setup tip about the product from the manufacturer), and then Harry characteristically did his best to make him look bad (well, after that expletive we know it doesn't take much for John to cast himself in that light). John wasn't there to explain and defend himself, so guess what? It only made Harry look unprofessional. I don't question his literary abilities.
The second remark, in two different parts of his talk, concerned sources. Starting off the part about the future of high end audio, Harry held up and waved his iPhone, firmly saying it (iPod, etc.) is the future and every retailer needs to embrace it. A rather bold statement, especially coming from HP. OK, we get your point, Harry. But then during the Q&A period at the end someone asked if he preferred to listen to CDs or records. Without apology said something like, "I've got to have my EMIs, my Mercurys, my ..." It took a great deal of self control not to raise my hand and ask why he doesn't practice what he preaches, in other words, if you're going to imposing your opinions upon people that strongly about iPods and similar stuff, effectively compelling them to change their sources to them, why aren't you doing the same yourself? Is this some sort of "dumbing down" agenda he was forced to recite by TAS? Had I raised the question I might have been viewed as a heckler, but in hindsight it should have been asked. Steve, did such a thought pass through your mind?
- by Vesicant November 6, 2009 1:42 PM PST
- >Strange, can you imagine what would have happened if "Motor Trend" or "Car and Driver" vowed never to test a Ferrari or Maserati, and stuck with Chevy and Ford?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(10 Comments)And yet, strangely enough, it's OK for the audiophile magazines to always and only review Ferraris and Maseratis and never Chevy or Ford.