The myth of "The Absolute Sound"

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

This is a thread on what's needed for, or the myth of, TAS - IME, highly focused attention to detail is vital, and the closer you get, the easier it becomes to assess in any situation whether the playback is nailing it, or not. George wants what I'm after also, in terms of the SQ, but while he keeps poo-pooing my "way" he will keep missing the opportunity to make greater headway ... that's just the way it is, from my POV.

 

Obviously Blackmorec is on a very similar wavelength to me, but because everyone is an individual their approach, and thinking will differ; so he won't see eye to eye with me on a number of things. And one of them is an attitude I've built over many, many years - that the recording is King; and it's up to me, and the system to get the best of of it ... an attitude that any poor playback is the 'fault' of the recording kneecaps the thinking that is necessary to achieve TAS ... IME.

 

After 5500+ posts essentially saying the same thing, we all know what your approach is.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

He's just articulating what others are thinking.

 

or quoting lyrics that articulate what others are thinking....

 

the Frank-bot should be given a rest

[fas42]

And then, on a fairly regularly basis 🙂, someone pronounces that "I never say what I do!!" -

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see ... 😈, 😄.

 

You see, it's all about the attitude - not the precise things that get done.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

the Frank-bot should be given a rest

  

Cut him a deal.  

 If the Ralf -bot takes a rest , he may agree to do the same.

[fas42]

Just to return to the OP,

 

Quote

While I appreciate the intent, the myth of "The Absolute Sound"  concept is terribly flawed on its own and should be discarded.  For those who do not know, "The Absolute Sound" is way of describing the performance of a home audio system to deliver: the sound of acoustic instruments playing in a real space.

 

Terribly flawed? Not in the slightest ...

 

Should be discarded? Why ... because "it's too hard"? - shame about Man getting to the moon - upset a lot of people I guess at the time ... should have had more respect for their feelings, and thinking, perhaps? 😜

[kumakuma]

13 minutes ago, sandyk said:

  

Cut him a deal.  

 If the Ralf -bot takes a rest , he may agree to do the same.

 

Unlikely to work. The Frank-bot appears to be fueled by the sound of its own voice.

[Teresa]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Would be quite difficult -  over the years I have gone through a lot of borrowed CDs, from the libary, etc - this is some years back - Harmonia Mundi is a reasonable guess; two female, Chinese violinists - someone else may know the album ...

 

It's quite simple don't discuss the sonics of music where you can't name the artist, title and recording company. Without this information your posts mean absolutely nothing whatsoever!!

[fas42]

36 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

It's quite simple don't discuss the sonics of music where you can't name the artist, title and recording company. Without this information your posts mean absolutely nothing whatsoever!!

 

Teresa, note the original post,

 

Quote

I can give you an "every kind of wrong" - recent, classical, recordings where there was poor attention paid to making sure the recording gear was at the same circuit stability for each take. Short violin snippets, many tracks - successive items were dramatically different in tonality, disturbingly so ... lousy track, excellent track, good track, poor track, ..., ... - "recording is liike a boox of chocolates" ...

 

That is, multiple instances ... the violin snippets recording was a more extreme version of this characteristic, which is why I noted it. Overall, I find there is generic, or regular occurring, quality with recently recorded, borrowed, classical CDs - this may be purely bad luck on my part, on what I've borrowed, of course - sometimes there's a 'self-consciousness', sometimes the technical side will show some overt lack of attention to, yes, the sonics 🙂.

 

Just enough to annoy me ... simply put: I will always aim to buy a classical recording made before, say, 2000, then one after ...

[Soothsayerman]

[semente]

Sound at most rock and pop concerts is too loud and the dynamics are often heavily compressed.

 

At one time I couldn't stop myself from booing my lungs out at a gig when the lead artist presented the sound engineer (only to be angrily told off by my wife and sister)...

 

The Absolute Sound of poorly mastered recordings?

[Teresa]

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

Teresa, note the original post,

I can give you an "every kind of wrong" - recent, classical, recordings where there was poor attention paid to making sure the recording gear was at the same circuit stability for each take. Short violin snippets, many tracks - successive items were dramatically different in tonality, disturbingly so ... lousy track, excellent track, good track, poor track, ..., ... - "recording is liike a boox of chocolates" ...

 

That is, multiple instances ... the violin snippets recording was a more extreme version of this characteristic, which is why I noted it. Overall, I find there is generic, or regular occurring, quality with recently recorded, borrowed, classical CDs - this may be purely bad luck on my part, on what I've borrowed, of course - sometimes there's a 'self-consciousness', sometimes the technical side will show some overt lack of attention to, yes, the sonics 🙂.

 

Just enough to annoy me ... simply put: I will always aim to buy a classical recording made before, say, 2000, then one after ...

 

In that case either post the names of the offending artists, titles and recording companies or post nothing. IMHO current classical SACDs and high resolution downloads from PentaTone, Reference Recordings, Channel Classics, BIS, SFS Media, Chandos, etc. are among the best I have ever heard.

 

That is the problem with your generalizations is it turns your posts into false statements. Either give specifics or don't post. Your condemnation of the music I love is unwelcome by me.

 

For my specifics listen to preview tracks as NativeDSD.com.

[Allan F]

6 hours ago, semente said:

Sound at most rock and pop concerts is too loud and the dynamics are often heavily compressed.

 

In smaller venues, the sound volume is often inversely proportional to the quality of the musicians.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

In that case either post the names of the offending artists, titles and recording companies or post nothing. IMHO current classical SACDs and high resolution downloads from PentaTone, Reference Recordings, Channel Classics, BIS, SFS Media, Chandos, etc. are among the best I have ever heard.

 

That is the problem with your generalizations is it turns your posts into false statements. Either give specifics or don't post. Your condemnation of the music I love is unwelcome by me.

 

For my specifics listen to preview tracks as NativeDSD.com.

 

Teresa, there is no need to take this personally - this is a forum where people post their experiences with recorded music, and their thoughts on various matters - I note your very strong distaste for the sound of CDs, and other than audiophile labels; I strongly disagree, but I'm not offended by your posting of your opinions.

 

This is a thread about the matter of creating a sense of live music happening - well, it just so happens that some recently recorded classical recordings I've come across put a foot or two wrong, for me, as regards just allowing me to enter the world of the music captured, without distracting me in technical and production issues. Put it this way - a recording 50 years old I can excuse; something less than a decade old has nowhere to hide, as regards getting "everything right".

 

Overall, I'm pretty sure there is no overlap with the labels you mention, with those I came across - and, I am not "condemning the music"; I am just remarking that I'm irritated by what I consider sub-optimal, or poor, production decisions, or procedures - at a time when there are no reasons, after from saving money, for that being so.

 

 

[STC]

On 10/8/2019 at 10:32 PM, Blackmorec said:

Hi STC,

I think the expression is ‘They are here’ where the performers sound like they’re in your room and ‘You are there’ where it sounds like you’ve been transported to the original venue. 

 

Both require that the artistes are very well reproduced because in both cases they are ‘heard to be present either in your room or theirs. 

 

In my opinion, ‘They are here’ is what I get from recordings that do a stellar job with the artistes but capture no venue information like reverb, audience noises etc. In such a case there’s no acoustic information to create the impression of a venue, so by omission of any other information they sound like they’re playing in my room. 

However, as soon as there’s any venue acoustics information reproduced my room is replaced by the impression created by the venue. 

 

‘You are there’ are the recordings I very much prefer. The very best are able to create a very accurate sonic picture of the venue, with the right reverb and decay times to indicate walls and ceilings, with audience noises and air with a texture and atmosphere. Typically the venue thus created will have very different dimensions to your listening room and listening to such recordings often feels like a sudden change in reality....you’re in a different space, with a different acoustic, there’s an audience present and there are musicians playing great music.  This can be especially weird  at the beginning of a listening session when you go from zero to -14dB in a heartbeat. 

 

Where this whole thing breaks down, is when your room has a strong sonic identity of its own, which will tend to dominate proceedings and create mainly ‘They are here’  performances, with the replay room dominating the acoustics you hear.  You’ll know if this is the case, because most recordings will lack a unique sonic venue in which the performance happens and all recordings will sound like they were recorded in a similar venue. 

The other way this breaks down is when your system loses a lot of subtle information about the venue’s acoustics, so cannot create that sonic ‘space’ 

I some how missed this post. I have reiterated many times that a recording will not capture all the venue acoustics unless you have the means to reproduce them from the angle from where they are arrive. A musical 5.1, attempts to reproduce the rear ambiance using a set of speakers placed at the rear half. And more realism of “You are there” when more speakers are added where each carrying/producing the sound from the direction where they originated. 
 

Let’s be realistic, it is impossible to capture the full venue acoustic of a classical recording. If you believe there exist such recording then a single note of the piano should last around 2 seconds long. You will never find such recording because to produce such a long RT you need to reproduce them from many many direction. You can notice the long reverbs in the rear speakers of multi channel recordings. 
 

However, there is another was to reproduce “You are there” experience. “ You are there” means you are in a concert hall or whatever venue the live music would have sounded nice. It need not be the identical hall. For an example, you may have a recording made in Boston Symphony Hall but you can make them sound like playing in Sydney Opera Hall by using the real impulse of the Sydney Hall. In this case “ You are there” is the reference of playing the classical recording in a concert hall. 
 

Then you will having a Rebecca Pidgeon recording which most probably made in a studio with artificial reverbs. The studio is ideal for recording but may not sound musical enough for enjoying live show. The ambiance in a live show is different which can be around 1second long. This kind of music played in our room can give the impression of “They are here”.  

 

 

[semente]

10 hours ago, STC said:

I have reiterated many times that a recording will not capture all the venue acoustics unless you have the means to reproduce them from the angle from where they are arrive.

 

It took a lot of effort to convince you of that. 😋

[fas42]

What a bizarre concept - trying to make a  recording made in Boston Symphony Hall sound like playing in Sydney Opera Hall ... I'm perfectly happy with hearing the Boston location come through loud and clear, from the recording ... an apples and oranges listening experience, getting both at once, 😉.

[STC]

28 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It took a lot of effort to convince you of that. 😋

Really? 

[STC]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

What a bizarre concept - trying to make a  recording made in Boston Symphony Hall sound like playing in Sydney Opera Hall ... I'm perfectly happy with hearing the Boston location come through loud and clear, from the recording ... an apples and oranges listening experience, getting both at once, 😉.

With the PC speakers you have, you will hear not only the actual Boston acoustics but tell the mics position. In case you are still confused, recordings only have reverbs of the hall and no human could identity a hall based on the reverbs. The only information that you could get is the relative size of the space where the recording was made. If you are still adamant, I can give recording made in different halls and you take a guess. 

[fas42]

The point is not to identify the hall - for me at least, 🙂. Rather, it's not to confuse the acoustic that one is aware of, that's coming through from the recording - adding aural cues that are 'faking' where the sound was recorded to me can't be a good thing, if they contradict to some degree what one hears in the playback, that was picked up by the microphones at the time.

 

With a system in good shape, before a note is played one can sense the space where the musicians are sitted, or standing - there is always a background murmur of room 'sound'; which sets the mood for what follows ... it''s a shame to then contradict this 'information', by throwing up another, simulated room ambience.

[STC]

19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The point is not to identify the hall - for me at least, 🙂. Rather, it's not to confuse the acoustic that one is aware of, that's coming through from the recording - adding aural cues that are 'faking' where the sound was recorded to me can't be a good thing, if they contradict to some degree what one hears in the playback, that was picked up by the microphones at the time.

 

With a system in good shape, before a note is played one can sense the space where the musicians are sitted, or standing - there is always a background murmur of room 'sound'; which sets the mood for what follows ... it''s a shame to then contradict this 'information', by throwing up another, simulated room ambience.

 You don't have system in good shape to begin with.  

 

Firstly, you told you will be happy with Boston acoustics as if you know what Boston acoustics is. Now you are telling there is no point identifying the hall when you were asked to identify the halls. Now you are claiming that even before a single note is played you could sense the space. Do you even know what is reverbs and background noise? 

 

And then you are contradicting yourself again by saying that throwing another ambiance is shameful while just before that you admitted you couldn't identify the hall. All in room listening is throwing up another room ambiance unless you are in anechoic chamber. The point is you do not know the difference while I could demonstrate different room acoustics with a click of the mouse. The listeners now know the difference and not one single person liked the studio like dead ambiance despite for tens of years that was the sound of the high end setup. You are giving opinions after opinion without having heard the difference and all that with a laptop speakers too. 

[fas42]

We'll never see eye to eye, ST. You want the recording to sound like something that you've decided on; I just want the recording to sound like itself ... turns out that the acoustic that's contained in the recording is interesting in its own right, and that is what I get the pleasure from - hearing what is happening in the spaces, that were perhaps very creatively manipulated; that changes from recording to recording.

 

Note, you're not keeping up ... current laptop is right down on SQ, not useful except for the most obvious things. And I am always referring to a proper setup, not the laptop, when I talk about the subtleties of acoustics, etc.

[STC]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

We'll never see eye to eye, ST. You want the recording to sound like something that you've decided on; I just want the recording to sound like itself ... turns out that the acoustic that's contained in the recording is interesting in its own right, and that is what I get the pleasure from - hearing what is happening in the spaces, that were perhaps very creatively manipulated; that changes from recording to recording.

 

Note, you're not keeping up ... current laptop is right down on SQ, not useful except for the most obvious things. And I am always referring to a proper setup, not the laptop, when I talk about the subtleties of acoustics, etc.

I would like to see eye to eye and therefore asking you to come up with one workable solution. 
 

 

[fas42]

Okay, as a real world, "workable solution" - if I had the money, I would go out and buy Dutch & Dutch 8C active speakers ... from all reports, this is mighty close to a one box solution. Then I would see how sensitive it was to the qualities of the digital feed, and select the best approach there - next step, how sensitive to mains supply, and other electrical interference; and do what was necessary to give adequate robustness. On the way, work out the best approach for mounting the cabinets on a surface, that gave best stability.

 

Then, step back and have a good listen .. what weaknesses still remain? I would prefer not to have to dive into the box; but if it is clear that something has to be sorted, internally - then such would be necessary. And what happens there is completely unknown; because it would depend on what I found ...

[STC]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

Okay, as a real world, "workable solution" - if I had the money, I would go out and buy Dutch & Dutch 8C active speakers ... from all reports, this is mighty close to a one box solution. Then I would see how sensitive it was to the qualities of the digital feed, and select the best approach there - next step, how sensitive to mains supply, and other electrical interference; and do what was necessary to give adequate robustness. On the way, work out the best approach for mounting the cabinets on a surface, that gave best stability.

 

Then, step back and have a good listen .. what weaknesses still remain? I would prefer not to have to dive into the box; but if it is clear that something has to be sorted, internally - then such would be necessary. And what happens there is completely unknown; because it would depend on what I found ...

 

So a studio monitor is your reference. For someone who claimed that they can hear the essence of the recording from any position now suggesting a studio monitor. And now DSP is okay in the playback chain? You are amazing, Frank!

 

 

 

[fas42]

Not quite sure why, ST, 🙂 ... I'm interested in solutions; and digital in, active speakers make a lot of sense - so many areas of weakness can be eliminated; noting of course, that having all the electronics in close proximity to energetic drivers adds another dimension to the design exercise - I was roughing out some ideas on doing my own some fifteen years ago. Don't have to worry about that anymore - a ready made one that ticks a lot of boxes is a good shortcut.

 

What's wrong with studio monitors? What's wrong with DSP? As regards the latter, every DAC is doing this already - my first CD player had digital volume, which was an important part of my achieving convincing sound, that first time.