What is "THE ABSOLUTE SOUND" (TAS) as Defined by HP and accepted by many audiophiles?

[Mike Mcsweeney]

[h=1]Harry Pearson, Founder of Absolute Sound, Dies at 77[/h]

He wrote about recorded music with the conviction and nuance that food critics brought to haute cuisine, assessing qualities of depth, naturalness and “three-dimensionality” in the sound made by some stereo components and not others.

 

When all those intangibles came together in the right way, he said, they produced “absolute sound,” which he defined as “the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/bu...ies-at-77.html

[Mike Mcsweeney]

Originally Posted by Mike Mcsweeney I don't know why the reference couldn't be any sound.

THe goal should be able to reproduce any sound as accurately as possible.

 

 

Daudio>>Consider electronic music (which I love BTW). It is created inside electronic devices and rendered into the sound that we humans can hear, only by our audio systems. There is no accessible prototype to those sounds, no way to know what they should sound like exactly, without playing them through the equipment that we are trying to evaluate. Therefore they cannot tell us what we want to know, they are not a reference, only another output signal with nothing to compare to. **

 

Only the sounds that we can know in their original forms (live, acoustic) are useful for evaluating the accuracy of our electronic audio equipment. There we can know how they sound to our ears, as preciously as we are capable of, and use that knowledge to compare with the sounds that come out of the equipment we wish to evaluate.

 

If you use the best sound references (tas) to determine which designs and implementations come the closest to those reference sounds, then the other types of sounds (electronic, studio, sound reinforced, etc.), which cannot be heard in their theoretical accuracy, should come through that equipment just as accurately as the live acoustic stuff.

 

 

MIKE>> As others have stated and I agree with, You can't know any music in their original forms...different seats, different levels, and even as HP said himself, the moment it hits the mic, it is no longer absolute. There is no accurate way.

 

It's all concept....

To me, it would seem more feasible to design the gear to reproduce electronic sounds where it can be controlled and measurable to ensure perfect reproduction. If the gear can accurately (and measurably) reproduce every frequency to nth in a controlled environment, then it (as you say "should" be able to reproduce everything accurately....jmo.

[Mike Mcsweeney]

^^^ But beyond that, I am probably in a minority that would suggest our ears and hearing are far more capable than audiophiles give God credit for. I believe there are harmonics and complex waveforms that can be heard but not measured. I don't buy into some of the theorems. I give God far more credit than science and math will ever know.

[gmgraves]

Harry Pearson, Founder of Absolute Sound, Dies at 77

 

 

He wrote about recorded music with the conviction and nuance that food critics brought to haute cuisine, assessing qualities of depth, naturalness and “three-dimensionality” in the sound made by some stereo components and not others.

 

When all those intangibles came together in the right way, he said, they produced “absolute sound,” which he defined as “the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/bu...ies-at-77.html

 

 

Since HP coined the term, he certainly would have known what it meant. Gordon used it too, and his definition was the same as HP's. At the risk of being seen as repetitive, I don't see how it can be defined in any other way.

[realhifi]

^^^ But beyond that, I am probably in a minority that would suggest our ears and hearing are far more capable than audiophiles give God credit for. I believe there are harmonics and complex waveforms that can be heard but not measured. I don't buy into some of the theorems. I give God far more credit than science and math will ever know.

 

A minority? Hardly. And audiophiles needing science and measurements to quantify their own opinion of what they hear?! Not sure what sect of audiophiles you are thinking about!

LOL!

[jianchuse]

good,I don't buy into some of the theorems. I give God far more credit than science and math will ever know.

[gmgraves]

Originally Posted by Mike Mcsweeney I don't know why the reference couldn't be any sound.

THe goal should be able to reproduce any sound as accurately as possible.

You are right. The absolute sound would be any real sound that anyone would be interested in listening to. It is not, however, any sound that has been captured and reproduced simply because those processes are not and by definition, cannot be, perfect reproductions. The original sound, the absolute sound, is, OTOH, as perfect as any sound can be. That's why it's called the absolute sound.

[4est]

If we are looking at how good a system can play electronically produced signals, one might want to look at how good a system can reproduce a square wave. Peter Walker did that with his Quads. Beyond that, I am not sure what the issue is. HP coined that phrase as part of discussing his pursuit of perfect audio reproduction. It has spread and persisted due to its value as a concept in that. One is by all means free to choose their own path.

 

WTF does god have to do with this? No, wait, please do not respond...

[Sam Lord]

HP's definition for his use of the phrase is simple, I won't repeat it. But he largely ignored the most important part of the recorded music business: recording. He didn't bother to learn how the recording process limited and affected playback, nor did he learn the basics of electronics. But he ran a useful and enjoyable magazine.

[semente]

I think this discussion needs a few more definitions (taken from the Merriam-Webster website):

 

High-fidelity - the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original

 

It is generally accepted that Hi-Fi was born in the 1930s.

Among others, Bell Labs, RCA and, latter, the BBC (all telecommunication companies) did a lot of scientific reasearch that brought us to were we stand now.

 

Objective - based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

Pearson wasn't a "techie", he said so himself.

So I guess he tried to develop his subjective evaluation skills and method as best as he could; and he did stress that sound evaluation or listening should be observation-oriented and not purelly subjective.

But for this to work, one would need to compared reproduced sound tih live sound, "the absolute sound".

 

Scientific Method - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

 

Audiophile - a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

But somewhere along the way, the train derailed and people begun using taste as one or the main criteria...

 

R

[Allan F]

HP's definition for his use of the phrase is simple, I won't repeat it. But he largely ignored the most important part of the recorded music business: recording. He didn't bother to learn how the recording process limited and affected playback, nor did he learn the basics of electronics. But he ran a useful and enjoyable magazine.

 

Knowledge of recording and/or electronics might be useful to explain why music reproduced by equipment under review does not sound accurate or "real", but why is it necessary to evaluate whether or how close it sounds to the real thing, or the "absolute sound?" The latter is what Harry was about.

[gmgraves]

HP's definition for his use of the phrase is simple, I won't repeat it. But he largely ignored the most important part of the recorded music business: recording. He didn't bother to learn how the recording process limited and affected playback, nor did he learn the basics of electronics. But he ran a useful and enjoyable magazine.

 

 

The recording or playback process has nothing whatsoever to do with the absolute sound, per se. What HP was saying is that if one is familiar with the absolute sound of live, unamplified music (by attending as many performances of same as possible), then one will have a better idea of how close (or distant) the state of the art in audio reproduction comes to getting reproduced sound right.

[gmgraves]

I think this discussion needs a few more definitions (taken from the Merriam-Webster website):

 

High-fidelity - the reproduction of an effect (as sound or an image) that is very faithful to the original

 

It is generally accepted that Hi-Fi was born in the 1930s.

Among others, Bell Labs, RCA and, latter, the BBC (all telecommunication companies) did a lot of scientific reasearch that brought us to were we stand now.

 

Objective - based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

Pearson wasn't a "techie", he said so himself.

So I guess he tried to develop his subjective evaluation skills and method as best as he could; and he did stress that sound evaluation or listening should be observation-oriented and not purelly subjective.

But for this to work, one would need to compared reproduced sound tih live sound, "the absolute sound".

 

Scientific Method - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

 

Audiophile - a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

But somewhere along the way, the train derailed and people begun using taste as one or the main criteria...

 

R

 

 

+1

[sandyk]

+1

 

I love the last sentence particularly about personal (implied) taste.

Alex

[Sam Lord]

The recording or playback process has nothing whatsoever to do with the absolute sound, per se. What HP was saying is that if one is familiar with the absolute sound of live, unamplified music (by attending as many performances of same as possible), then one will have a better idea of how close (or distant) the state of the art in audio reproduction comes to getting reproduced sound right.

Knowledge of recording and/or electronics might be useful to explain why music reproduced by equipment under review does not sound accurate or "real", but why is it necessary to evaluate whether or how close it sounds to the real thing, or the "absolute sound?" The latter is what Harry was about.

Pearson wasn't a "techie", he said so himself. So I guess he tried to develop his subjective evaluation skills and method as best as he could...

 

My argument is that Harry did not earnestly seek the absolute sound of _his_ defining. Instead, like most of us, he wanted playback systems that generated strong emotions. A lot of people in the industry, including many of his writers, were needlessly harmed by his machinations towards that end. He claimed to want to change the industry, but he only dealt with the easy part. I state this unpleasant opinion after hearing from *many* of those affected. He could have had a big impact on the recording world like Michael Fremer or John Atkinson have, but his actions did not earn the same degree of trust from innovative people in the music industry.

 

Why I am being harsh towards someone who recently passed away? I cannot say I would have done better. Harry clearly believed in the good, restorative power of music. But I believe he missed a great opportunity to spread those benefits.

[Allan F]

My argument is that Harry did not earnestly seek the absolute sound of _his_ defining. Instead, like most of us, he wanted playback systems that generated strong emotions.

 

What factual basis do you have to support your "argument" that HP did not "earnestly seek the absolute sound"? It certainly does not accord with what Barry Diament and others have written.

 

A lot of people in the industry, including many of his writers, were needlessly harmed by his machinations towards that end. He claimed to want to change the industry, but he only dealt with the easy part. I state this unpleasant opinion after hearing from *many* of those affected.

 

Harry was certainly no Dale Carnegie when it came to his personality and how he, at times, treated others. But that doesn't support your argument regarding the substance of Harry's commitment to the "absolute sound" while he headed the magazine of that name. OTOH, as Michael Fremer candidly writes in his recent tribute to HP in the Analog Planet, Harry's business acumen left much to be desired. http://www.analogplanet.com/content/audio-legend-harry-pearson-passes-away

[semente]

My argument is that Harry did not earnestly seek the absolute sound of _his_ defining. Instead, like most of us, he wanted playback systems that generated strong emotions. A lot of people in the industry, including many of his writers, were needlessly harmed by his machinations towards that end. He claimed to want to change the industry, but he only dealt with the easy part. I state this unpleasant opinion after hearing from *many* of those affected. He could have had a big impact on the recording world like Michael Fremer or John Atkinson have, but his actions did not earn the same degree of trust from innovative people in the music industry.

 

Why I am being harsh towards someone who recently passed away? I cannot say I would have done better. Harry clearly believed in the good, restorative power of music. But I believe he missed a great opportunity to spread those benefits.

 

I find that the role of a system is to reproduce Art (in this case Music) and it's the Music that is supposed triggers emotions, although better sound quality can help.

The only playback generated emotions I can conceive of are pride of ownership or taking pleasure in looking at some beautifully designed gear.

 

By the way, I had no idea that either Fremer or Atkinson had any impact in the recording world...where did you get that information?

 

R

[gmgraves]

originally posted by sementepearson wasn't a "techie", he said so himself. So i guess he tried to develop his subjective evaluation skills and method as best as he could...

 

In fact, he looked upon technical types with some disdain as I recall. He called them "technofreaks".

[gmgraves]

By the way, I had no idea that either Fremer or Atkinson had any impact in the recording world...where did you get that information?

 

I can't speak to Fremer's contributions, but Atkinson records a lot. He's been the recording engineer on almost all of Stereophile's CD releases, and has also recorded for several independent labels, IIRC. Now whether or not Atkinson's recording activities constitute any "impact" on the recording world, is, of course, open to interpretation.

[Sam Lord]

I find that the role of a system is to reproduce Art (in this case Music) and it's the Music that is supposed triggers emotions...

 

Nicely put.

 

By the way, I had no idea that either Fremer or Atkinson had any impact in the recording world...where did you get that information?

What factual basis do you have to support your "argument" that HP did not "earnestly seek the absolute sound"? It certainly does not accord with what Barry Diament and others have written... ...But that doesn't support your argument regarding the substance of Harry's commitment to the "absolute sound" while he headed the magazine of that name...

In fact, he looked upon technical types with some disdain as I recall. He called them "technofreaks".

 

I had two main points. First, I criticized Harry's relations with TAS staff and vendors. But that impression was skewed towards his later years, when I was active in the audio equipment manufacturing. Fremer related some of his experiences to me at a show. FWIW his homily exactly matched what he told me. Stories from the vendors came from many of the "good guys" in the industry, who eventually refused to grant special terms for equipment loans that Harry was insisting on--again in the later years. So those memories do not cover the long the arc of HP's work; I should have said so.

 

Second, if you pronounce that you care about the sound of recorded music, as Harry did, you bear some responsibility, IMO, to look at the whole chain. Harry to his great credit did champion the work of the Fines and others, but for the most part he ignored the hard work and science of recording. In contrast, several other individuals and publications made real efforts address recording and the measurement. I think Fremer and Atkinson in different ways have contributed to the art and science of recording, mostly through their willingness to examine the industry as a whole.

 

I entered this discussion to speak of the stated topic and Harry's role in helping us achieve "the absolute sound" at home. I should not have added the peripheral criticism, it wasn't helpful.

[gmgraves]

I entered this discussion to speak of the stated topic and Harry's role in helping us achieve "the absolute sound" at home. I should not have added the peripheral criticism, it wasn't helpful.

 

 

Not a problem for me.