The myth of "The Absolute Sound"

[Allan F]

11 hours ago, barrows said:

Our systems should be evaluated on the basis of how much they allow each of us to connect with the music that is important to us, individually, and not on the basis of some impossible tp evaluate "standard" which does not even really exist or relate to most music in the world.   

 

I too disagree. According to you, there should be no "standard" for comparison other than a subjective "connection" with the music. That is meaningless insofar as it does take into consideration a system's accuracy of reproduction. While the live "experience" is unique, so are the sonic characteristics or timbre of acoustic instruments. One may not have been present for any particular recording and therefore cannot know how it sounded in the studio, but the assessment of a system is not based on any individual recording. Rather it is assessed by listening to a sample of many acoustic recordings. Anyone who listens to live music frequently or, for that matter, who plays an acoustic instrument knows what acoustic instruments sound like. With that knowledge, one can evaluate whether a system is capable of accurately reproducing those sounds. The same, of course, cannot be said of amplified music. 

 

As has often been repeated, the "absolute sound" is a goal. It is not intended to duplicate the live experience. But, it provides a far superior standard to some vague emotional response.

[Allan F]

32 minutes ago, Jud said:

What we actually use to determine the "absolute' is, I think, precisely what barrows is describing - how much the music we play on our systems speaks to us. That can vary with hardware, software, room, mood, even whether you are right or left handed. This seems like anything but a uniform reference.

 

How a system involves us in the music is, of course, important. But since we are, by definition, dealing with a music reproduction system. its relative ability to accurately reproduce what is on a recording is fundamentally important. One is not to be considered to the exclusion of the other. Proper PRAT (pace, rhythm and timing) combined with accurate timbre all contribute to that emotional connection to the music.

[Allan F]

 

57 minutes ago, STC said:

A loudspeaker is just like a musical instrument like everything else. It is an acoustic instrument which produces sound through vibration like a guitar, piano, vocal cord, or a violin, to name a few.

 

No, a loudspeaker is a transducer that converts an electrical signal into sound. Unlike an acoustic musical instrument, It does not have a unique sonic characteristic or timbre that identifies it to the listener. It reproduces sound. It does not create music.

 

Those who look at the term "absolute sound" literally miss the point. It is merely an expression of an ideal. It is not used to suggest that the live experience can be duplicated by a home audio system. However, it can be used as a reference to assess how accurately a system can reproduce sound. 

 

Of course there is "no rule where it says that the recording must sound exactly like how it sounded in the live performance". Harry Pearson, who coined the term "the absolute sound" never suggested that there was. But the closer a system can come to approximate the "sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space", the higher its fidelity. And isn't high fidelity the name of the game!

[Allan F]

10 minutes ago, STC said:

Maybe I am wrong but I always thought speakers do have their own sonic signature. ESL sounds different from a box speaker and among the box speakers each of them have their own sonic signature.

 

Loudspeakers have different sonic signatures because they are not perfect transducers. But they do not have a unique characteristic or timbre that identifies them to the ordinary listener. For example, most people can readily identify the sound of a piano or an acoustic guitar. They cannot, however, readily identify a Wilson Sasha or a Revel Ultima Studio 2.

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, STC said:

Ok. I agree unless people like Alan Shaw who could tell if a transducer is a Radial by tapping and listening to its sound. I actually tried it and I have to say that when I tapped the Radial cone they indeed sounded very much different than others but mostly were the cheap speakers. No one would let me tap their Wilson, KEF ....   will that qualify as their own sonic signature? 

 

No one I know taps on a loudspeaker while listening to music so I can't answer your question.

[Allan F]

33 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I suppose I am not getting how something can be used as a reference if you don't know how it's supposed to sound. That's like using a TV anchor's face as a reference for a monitor's color reproduction when you don't know her skin complexion or what makeup she's wearing. It may reveal gross errors, but you really have no way of knowing with any precision how accurate that monitor is.

 

Most people, including you I suspect, do know what acoustic instruments sound like, and can therefore judge whether what they are hearing from an audio system closely matches what they know. In my previous post, I attempted to emphasize that the assessment is not based on any particular recording - the sound of which may not be truly known - but rather on a sample of many recordings of acoustic instruments. With respect, in view of the foregoing, IMO your analogy is not appropriate.

[Allan F]

9 minutes ago, Soothsayerman said:

...I used to go to classical guitar concerts once a week that were held in a very small auditorium or in someone's home.  After a while, you get a very good idea of what the sound is supposed to be.  I think if you go see live music on a regular basis, you will have a better foundation to build upon.

 

Precisely!

[Allan F]

58 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

How many times in your life have you seen a woman wearing makeup? Certainly far more often than you have heard any musical instrument played live. If the analogy is not appropriate based on frequency of general experience, it would then be because one ought to be far more able to assess the quality of a monitor vs. that of an audio system.

 

Simply, I play acoustic guitar and hear the sound of that instrument virtually every day. I also regularly attend piano concerts. I know what an acoustic guitar and a piano should sound like. I can therefore tell whether the output of an audio system, over a sample of recordings, corresponds to what an acoustic guitar or a piano sounds like. This is not intended as an absolute judgement, for example, to the extent that one should be able to readily distinguish a Martin from a Gibson acoustic guitar or a Steinway from a Yamaha concert piano. It refers to the unique timbre of the instrument, generally, as opposed to that of any particular brand, and whether that timbre is reproduced faithfully.

 

Makeup has no relevance to this assessment. Guitar polish is not a factor. IMO, your analogy illustrates why acoustic rather than amplified music is used as the reference.

[Allan F]

26 minutes ago, barrows said:

The above is simply incorrect in practice.  What you actually know, is what the sound of your guitar is like, up against your body, as you play.  this has very little relationship to the sound of someone else's guitar, as heard in a recording.

 

Wrong. I also play with other acoustic guitar players and listen to live acoustic guitar music. Moreover, you are getting hung up on a literal meaning of "absolute" when the term "absolute sound" as defined by Harry Pearson was not intended to be used that way. You are ignoring ordinary audible judgments that can readily be made over a sample of many acoustic recordings. In essence, your position is that the whole notion of high fidelity is meaningless, that the fidelity of an audio system cannot be evaluated by listening, and that the only relevant "standard" is one's emotional response to the music. IMO, that is simply wrong as well.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

if you listen to a live musician playing, then no matter how 'bad' the place is for him, and no matter how 'bad' the place is for you, it never just sounds like a bad "hifi" 

 

I hope you intended to limit the above to an unamplified live musician playing, because a poorly set up sound amplification system - and I have heard too many - can make a live performance sound absolutely unbearable and much worse than any home hifi system.

[Allan F]

5 hours ago, semente said:

 

Now I'm sure we are not talking about the same things.

 

You are one up on me. I haven't got a clue what he is talking about.

[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.