The myth of "The Absolute Sound"

[STC]

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.

 

It is a myth to believe that a recorded sound is the exact sound of the original event. It is not. The recording captures the soundwaves hitting the microphone's diaphragm at a given point in space. This particular sound at the spot where the microphone captures the sound cannot be the exact sound where the listener hears them at a different location. 

Audiophiles already knew that even a few cms difference in the speakers or listeners position the sound changes. It is the same with microphones and recordings. You are hearing the sound that happened at a very different place where you nor the recording engineer would have heard. And we are by nature always try to decode sound to have a definition (accuracy and even placement) based on prior knowledge . They or the musicians may perceive it to be true to life sound but a person who wasn't there may perceive otherwise.

 

Treat the speakers as a musical instrument. Think along the line how you can make the sound of a musical instrument to sound as good as possible in your room.  That would give you a realistic sound like the actual music heard at the given place.

 

There is no rule where it says that the recording must sound exactly like how it sounded in the live performance.  It is impossible to capture the sound of an instrument from every angle of the sound radiating surface. It is a myth to claim that a recording could capture all of the sounds of the performance with microphones placed arbitrally during the recording stage. 

 

The only way for you the hear absolute sound to the original event is to capture them with microphones that placed close to your eardrums and record them. This sound the closest reference to the actual sound heard by you and only by you; provided you hear them with earphones. That too not 100 percent accurate but close enough for most.

 

 

[STC]

19 minutes ago, Allan F said:

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.

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. 
 

Electrical signal does not produce music. It produces kinetic energy to move the cone.  The music is reproduced by the vibration. Just like a guitar.

 

 

[STC]

15 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

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.

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? 

[STC]

All audiophiles could as long as they are not asked to do under double blind test. Never mind even the musicians themselves couldn’t. 
 

Interesting that this thread ran into 6 pages without clear definition of soundstage or amplified sound and most importantly what is the sound you are comparing with. 

[STC]

9 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Anyone see a Fair Use problem here?

Then how come scientists and professional violinists were so incompetent? 
 

But Claudia Fritz (a scientist who studies instrument acoustics) and Joseph Curtin (a violin-maker) may have discovered the real secret to a Stradivarius’s sound: nothing at all.

The duo asked professional violinists to play new violins, and old ones by Stradivari and Guarneri. They couldn’t tell the difference between the two groups. One of the new violins even emerged as the most commonly preferred instrument.

[STC]

15 minutes ago, barrows said:

Of course we all know the answer: Audiophiles know more about sound and music than mere musicians and scientists...

They actually believe that is true.  
 

 

[STC]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

Just as with live, unamplified sound, one can move around freely with a competent rig, and the subjective impression of what one is hearing does not vary -

 

In live the position of the sound source doesn't change but with stereo reproduction the position of the sound source collapse the moment you are out of the median line of the two speakers. That's how stereo works. If you cannot perceive this then your stereo isn't working in the first place.

[STC]

4 hours ago, ARQuint said:

I've done the experiment using my own system, the "subjects" being audiophiles, violinists, a recording engineer student, and several others. My procedure was been to play a series of the Sibelius snippets, identifying the make of violin. The participants are allowed to take notes. I then play a random series of unknowns, all of them not duplicating the identified violins.

 

I'd love to enlarge the "N" - though I would use a smaller number of examples than I did with earlier tests.

I'd provide 18 of the the one minute Sibelius extracts

 

 6 identified as to violin - 3 Strads and 3 Guarneri del Gesu

 

12 unknowns (and not necessarily 6 Strads and  6 GdGs!)

 

Anyone see a Fair Use problem here?

 

AQ

 

 

I congratulate you for being objective. But you can do the experiment to be more reliable by stating:-

 

1) How were the Sibelius snippets recorded? Different microphones, the distance of the microphones and venues can cause significant difference.

 

2) Did you witness the recording process?

 

3) Would you post the 18 samples here?

 

 

[STC]

22 minutes ago, semente said:

Amplified sound is sound that doesn't exist in nature, which cannot be created without the use of electric power.

Sound can be stored and retrieved and amplified without electricity. 

[STC]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

I can't think of a single instrument that would to this; on the other hand

 

Piano, guitar......,.,,

[STC]

28 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I know about piano rolls, but guitars?

 

Anyway, I'm sure you won't find many of those being or having been used live or in recordings...if any. That was my point.

 As far as I know most acoustic instruments amplify sound by design so that the resonance amplify the sound. If that is not the case then I am wrong from the very beginning.

[STC]

50 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

 

The engineer for this project was none other than Mark Levinson. The recordings were made in the Recital Hall of the Performing Arts Center at Purchase College in NY. The same microphone was used for all 30 snippets and I'm sure that the soloist maintained the same relationship to the microphone for all—photos, and the sound, demonstrate that he was recorded close-up.

 

I did not witness the recording sessions, in December of 1994. But I've learned that being present for a session doesn't guarantee first hand exposure to the sound the musicians are producing, especially with a studio recording.  I've covered several recording sessions for TAS articles, and no producer will let you sit in the same room as the players. I sat in the control room for sessions at Mechanics Hall in Worcester, MA (for a Reference Recordings SACD) and AIR Studios in London (two Chasing The Dragon D2D recordings—I think that feature's running in the December issue, unless crenca shuts us down😉). The closest I've got is when I accompanied Peter McGrath as he recorded a visiting Russian orchestra in three Miami-area venues.  I heard the performances as an audience member and  had Peter's m-c recordings to compare. He nailed the differences in the orchestra's sonic presentation, as heard in the different halls.

 

As above, I'd love to provide the samples but, as Jud notes, I'd better get permission. The recordings appear to be owned by Bein & Fushi, the rare instrument dealer in Chicago who sponsored the book and accompanying recordings. I'll try reaching out to them.

 

Andy Quint

Thank you so much for your indulgence. 
 

I agree with you that it is not advisable for you to have any prior knowledge due to the simple reason that we by nature are wired to decode sound to have a meaning based on our prior exposure. 
 

The only part I am concerned with your experiment is that you allowed the listeners to familiarize themselves with the different violins’ sound which defeats the purpose to know whether one can really tell if they are hearing to a particular violin based on its own sound signature as I showed in my link. 
 

Looking forward listening to the snippets and preferably they are labeled in such a way so that the identity is not known. 
 

Thank you once again. 

[STC]

19 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Nope. That's how stereo nominally works, but when the accuracy of the playback is sufficient the brain unconsciously compensates, IMO for a high percentage of listeners, to ensure that the perceived position never collapses. This is what very specifically gave me a great shock when it first occurred for me, that 35 years ago - what particularly reinforced the lesson of that experience was that the system was hovering right on the edge of the necessary competence - as soon as the slight edge of better SQ was lost this illusion completely vanished; there was a constant seesawing between the two states, and the first 'battle' was to try and get this under control. Which I didn't succeed at, back then - there was endless frustration, eventually causing me to ditch audio altogether for many years ... it was all too hard ... 😒

 

Ahhhhh.....the brain part. I missed that. 

[STC]

48 minutes ago, semente said:

 

 

One of us got lost...

Sorry for that. My GPS wasn’t working. 

[STC]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Yep. The thing that makes conventional stereo playback work, as you have stated many times. I'm just saying that this inner processing can switch into a higher mode of decoding, given the right circumstances.

 

I note that your hearing doesn't allow you to hear some effects, that others can experience. Which very likely means that you will never be able to perceive this illusion - there will always be a percentage of people for whom the 'trick' will never work; it's all to do with how the brain is wired.

In that case my brain works better as I perceive 3D sound with image when listening through a $10 transistor as I can switch to an elevated state of mind. Sometimes, I could do that even without music at all. Just make sure to remember to solder the batteries. Contact is very important. 

[STC]

51 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Careful. When I read one such study, the loudest instrument was preferred. Without controlling for loudness, all bets are off.

That is another quote that often used by objectivists without knowing when the loudest instruments or speakers preferred.   A loudest instrument is preferred when everything else is equal. Most of my samples/demos were deliberately set at about 3dB different to ensure that loudness was not the criteria for preference. 
 

Anyway, the experiment I quoted was whether the players could recognize the so called sound characteristics of the violin. There was another example where a speaker manufacturer who couldn’t identify his own speakers despite pages of reviews by audiophiles who claimed that this particular brand had its own sound signature. 

[STC]

46 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

You can eliminate everything after "preferred." We prefer louder, period. So in fact it is the reverse: Only when loudness is equal can everything else be fairly evaluated.

 

 

As noted in my response to your first quote, loudness trumps everything. The overwhelming likelihood is that the players chose in the order of loudness, equating what they thought sounded best - i.e., the loudest violin - to the best reputed instrument, the Strad.

Which paper are you referring to?  
 

Human prefer louder sound but that is a qualified statement. Going by your argument, violinists preferred Stradivarius because they were louder than all other violins?  😂 😂 😂 

[STC]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

do planes fall out of the sky because the best pilot wasn't in command, the engines weren't big enough, or the hostesses weren't in sexy enough uniforms ... or because some worker neglected to check some little item, because the pressure was on to finish what he was doing?

But you are telling in the in the hands of Frank -  the pilot - with few solder tweaks, could make a tiny Cessna reach 35000ft outperforming even the 777 or 747. 

[STC]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I don't know how much further you could stretch yourself to completely miss the point ... 😜.

You are thinking I am missing the bullseye but I am trying the best to miss the bull s#%€. 

[STC]

That’s another myth. Came across several times where caps were way off the specs in “carefully selected and measured” boutique equipments. 

[STC]

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

Of course you need to know the test methodology.  Professional violinists hear their instruments under their chin, which isn't how the audience hears them, and isn't how the instrument itself is intended to be heard. And hundreds of years ago, the violin was mostly played in chamber settings, which isn't how we often hear it today. 

 

All of that makes a difference.

They also conducted the experiment with over 130 listeners judging the two violins played by world class violinists. 

[STC]

18 hours ago, barrows said:

Then that recording could be used as a reasonable reference, but still given the problems above, one can see it is still not "absolute"

Just sharing my daughter’s perspective of the real piano sound. Her reference of real piano sound is to feel the rich ambiance enveloping her. The kind of sound she is familiar based on where the piano is placed in the house. A spot close to wall, and hard surfaces around it. She also plays the piano in a class but in a studio like environ. 
 

When she listens to closed

mic’d piano recordings in my system, she complains about lack of realism if I were to play them without the ambiance turned on. The piano sound, in her opinion, to be real is to have rich ambiance where the ratio is 1:1. Where the loudness of from the main speakers and the surround are the same. Maybe slightly higher. It can’t be measured accurate. 
 

That sounds like a real piano to her from her playing position perspective. 
 

Sometimes, when I play the piano recordings ( only closed mic’d recordings) I would play them like how I have been listening to them with moderate ambiance but when I turn on the “bright piano” ambiance  and compared to the real piano in the living room, visitors finds that the high ambiance sound like real piano. That also means that they sound loud like sitting next to the piano. 
 

Which of the two sound should be the correct piano sound? It always sound real to me before and it now sounds real too. The two setting with and without the ambiance speakers are world apart but despite that I never sense what was missing before and it sound real enough until adding the ambiance surround. 
 

Absolute is relative to your perspective and imagination. 

[STC]

2 hours ago, Teresa said:

Also you just contradicted yourself, over and over you have said that If you get your rig properly sorted any recording no matter how poorly engineered will sound like the and real thing and you can fully connect with the essence of the music. So what is you excuse for not being able to do this with Telarc and Sheffield Lab recordings?

I have seen the contradiction many times. But on many occasions what he said were true and those points were mentioned by others elsewhere. 
 

I believe we all hear and focus on different aspect of the sound and he could be focusing on something that others overlooked. I have always tried to understand and put myself in their shoes to understand their observation but Frank despite writing thousands of post, yet to provide one concrete evidence that we could imitate and  hear the quality he has been describing. 
 

Recently, I have been listening to @John Dyson decoded files and I realized that we are focusing on different things and therefore the feedback became subjective and probably not relevant to him. 

 

2 hours ago, Teresa said:

agree @fas42's Sharp boombox speakers either cannot reproduce high frequencies very well, or he likes exaggerated highs.

I have the same speakers and one good thing about those speakers is they are not resolving enough to reveal distortion and clippings. Some of my 80s CD sounded better with those than in any high end system. No matter how much you tweak, you cannot make a $20  driver to be anywhere near to even the low end of a , say, Vifa. 

[STC]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

can't quite hear..

These three words stringed together now make sense. 

[STC]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's obviously hard to "pass on" what a person is experiencing, in the listening. But I'll try again, 😉. People who have heard the MBL "watermelon" speakers working to a high standard know what the effect is - the sound picture completely floats in space,

 

I am also familiar with MBL watermelon and know of people who worked extensively with those to create "sound picture completely floats" whatever that means.  You are giving the impression that the rest of us in possession of sound stuck to the speakers. Maybe, we are not an expert to turn a Sharp "boom box" into a SOTA system but at least give us little credit that we too may know a thing or two about audio production. And at least, give me some credit that I actually posted a video of Sound Lab and those Sharp speakers which you are using asking the listeners to guess.

 

So tell me, what's so special about the watermelon?

 

Quote

 

 

 What happens is that lifting the standard of the signal being fed to the speaker driver overcomes, unless there is an obvious problem with the unit, most of the normal shortcomings of the driver. As an example, at one stage I was playing with two sets of those typical, small pairs of speaker monitors that came with desktop packages - one was bigger, had an impressive brand name, more controls, specs that said it "was better" ... guess which was the dud? 😉 ... Yep, far too many issues; wasn't worth putting the time into it.

 

As usual, no names and no specific details where one excelled over the other.

 

Quote

 

So, that poor quality monitor would always betray its limitations, no matter what one tried. But, a decent $20 driver can easily reveal where a $100,000 chain driving it is getting things wrong - because the type of distortion anomalies that matter are very clearly reproduced on such a speaker.

 

 

Have you seen the research and measurement of drivers, cone materials and etc etc. There is nothing you could do that could change the physical properties of the cones and the colouration will exist whether you are feeding an accurate signal or a compromised speakers like from your thousand screws laptop.

 

Speaking of the 1000 screws laptop, mind identifying what laptop is that because I am familiar with dismantling a few and hardly recall seeing more than 50 screws. I am very curious to know why you laptop got so any screws.