The myth of "The Absolute Sound"

[barrows]

10 hours ago, gmgraves said:

This is a marketing ploy, and not at all necessary to SQ. Having designed and built many amplifiers, both valve and SS over the years, I can say with confidence that +/- 10% for resistors and +/-20% for capacitors make absolutely no difference to performance. After all, before about the mid 1970’s, engineers used slide rules to design electronics. Slide rules are very imprecise, most resistors were 10-20%  off of their designated values and the design calculations were “guestimates” at best.

In the case of resistors, this is most definitely not the case for balanced circuits.  Same applies to matching transistors in some balanced circuits.  For capacitors, matching is only important in some filter circuits. 

 

Still not sure what any of this has to do with the topic though...  

[barrows]

52 minutes ago, Kyhl said:

Funny, the PA speaker that Margo sang into was a Klipsch Heresy.  If I'm not mistaken.

One can compare track 1 which was not through the PA system, with the rest of the album, to decide the influence of the PA on Margo Timmons' voice.

[barrows]

36 minutes ago, semente said:

1 - barrows said there wasn't in practicality such a thing as an absolute sound, because you wouldn't know the exact sound of, for example, an acoustic guitar as it was played live in the studio, nor of room effects or whatever else changed the mic feed from that live sound.

 

In my view, the absolute sound is live unamplified music played live in a space with natural decay characteristics.

But I don’t see why prior knowledge/exposure to a particular model or individual acoustic guitar should be a requirement when listening to a recording when the goal is to determine the realism of its reproduction; all that’s needed are recordings made using adequately distance minimalist mic’ing and not having been subject to objectionable levels of manipulation or processing.

No recording is perfect so it’s important to average the assessment using a sufficient amount of recordings. A varied sample of instruments and vocals, solo, small and large scale is important to provide as much challenge to the system as possible.

The point I am trying to make is that virtually no one has an "absolute" reference.  Because of the differences in recording technique, instrument sound (one guitar sounding different from another) no one has that reference.  High end systems are already good enough that the differences we are talking about are relatively small.

 

Here is what I feel would be a good (but still not perfect) reference:

 

1.  the individual must be present at the time and place of the recording, it is not enough to "know what a guitar sounds like", one has to know what that guitar sounds like in that recording.

 

2. One would need to hear the recording take place, live in room, unamplified.  Then one would need to verify the difference between the live in room sound, and the recording, and note those differences (because no one can expect the playback system to produce anything more than the recording)-this is important_ the playback system cannot be expected to retrieve information which was not recorded, as that would be an additive coloration.  So really what we are looking for is a perfect playback of the recording, and not the live in room sound.

 

3.  Then one would need to have perfect aural memory: if anyone does a little research on this, it appears that aural memory is rather poor.  Perhaps the research is flawed though, and people who train themselves to do so can achieve better aural memory than the research suggests...

 

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

 

Some kind of "average" understanding of instrument sounds is not accurate enough, as high end systems are already good enough that these differences are rather small.  The differences in sound caused by recording techniques, different instruments, and styles of playing are much larger than the inaccuracies in our playback systems.

 

I have no problem with the concept of "The Absolute Sound" as a goal (as stated in the first post) my point is that in practice it is virtually impossible to actually apply in system evaluation, giving the problems above, even with a "decent" reference.  In practice, this concept is so flawed as to be meaningless for nearly all audiophiles. 

[barrows]

47 minutes ago, semente said:

P.S. the reason I think for some people not to like the way Mario's recording of the drum kit or the rock band is because it doesn't sound like a recording but a lot more like live music.

This is a great point....  I would even posit that for some music, why bother trying to make a recording sound like "live" music?  My POV is that the live experience is so different from listening to a recording in its very nature, that it is pointless to try and make a recording sound like live.  There is room for many kinds of music, and many kinds of recordings...

 

While it may not be appropriate for some kinds of music, using the recording studio as tool to make fantastic, interesting, meaningful recordings, which serve the intent of both the musicians and the muse is totally valid.

 

Ever since "Pet Sounds" and "Sgt. Peppers'..." the approach of using the studio as a way to create an artistic expression has been with us, even much earlier recordings use things such as artificial reverb.  While I would prefer that not all music is recorded this way, there are plenty of studio recordings which indeed do serve the artistic intent of their creators, and I am glad for that.  And playback systems still have to be very, very good to get the best out of these recordings.

[semente]

21 minutes ago, barrows said:

Some kind of "average" understanding of instrument sounds is not accurate enough, as high end systems are already good enough that these differences are rather small.  The differences in sound caused by recording techniques, different instruments, and styles of playing are much larger than the inaccuracies in our playback systems.

 

I have no problem with the concept of "The Absolute Sound" as a goal (as stated in the first post) my point is that in practice it is virtually impossible to actually apply in system evaluation, giving the problems above, even with a "decent" reference.  In practice, this concept is so flawed as to be meaningless for nearly all audiophiles. 

 

I agree in general with what you've written.

 

But if we are to use listening as a sound assessment tool then the flawed "absolute sound as reference" will have to do. Of course there are aspects of performance which may not need such reference but evaluating with one's ears is comparing with references.

And as you say, audio memory is quite short, hence the importance of continuous exposure to live music.

Most of us have at one time or another become so habituated to our system's sound that listening to other systems sounded wrong, even when perhaps those systems were more accurate.

 

A well recorded violin sounds more like a (generic) violin in a more accurate system. But in order to determine this one must be acquainted with the absolute sound.

[semente]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

While it may not be appropriate for some kinds of music, using the recording studio as tool to make fantastic, interesting, meaningful recordings, which serve the intent of both the musicians and the muse is totally valid.

 

I agree.

My comments regarding recordings and recording techniques are to be read in the scope of sound assessment through listening.

 

And since you've mentioned The Beatles:

 

How the Beatles Took Recording Technology to a New Level in ‘Abbey Road’

An expert in sound recording details how the band deployed stereo and synthesizers to put a unique artistic stamp on this iconic album

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/how-beatles-took-recording-technology-new-level-abbey-road-180973262/

 

 

[semente]

I've just remembered about this interesting story from the Stereophile archive chest:

 

Are Audiophiles Music-Lovers?

Keith Yates  |  Nov 27, 1991

 

Most of us desperately want to believe in this "absolute sound," but is it possible that for the majority of our tribe it remains a ritualistic chant, intoned by many and practiced by few? There is fresh and troubling evidence. Peter McGrath, a friend, fellow high-end dealer, and noted recording engineer, estimates that, as a group, audiophiles spend 100 hours reading about tone cones, speaker cables, and audio miscellany for every hour spent in the company of a flesh-and-blood orchestra, chamber ensemble, jazz trio, or blues group. Says one industry guru, who insists on anonymity (nearly all of them insist on it), even disgraced televangelists show more integrity: They may have trash cans full of empty booze bottles, and bimbos scattered around town, but at least they show up to church every Sunday.

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/29/index.html

[barrows]

That is a sad story.  I cannot speak for all audiophiles, but personally I enjoy live music regularly, from rock concerts in theaters, to string quartets in churches, to small intimate performances in coffee shops.

I am surprised he could not make that venture work with all the interest he reports having, just the concert venue alone should have been reasonably profitable with or without audiophile involvement?  And it sounds like his venue also would have been a good place for fine recordings to be done as well...  In any case I doubt the "failure" had anything to do with whether or not audiophiles showed up...

[semente]

6 hours ago, barrows said:

One can compare track 1 which was not through the PA system, with the rest of the album, to decide the influence of the PA on Margo Timmons' voice.

 

I missed this post. Interesting idea.

[Teresa]

On 10/1/2019 at 5:35 PM, fas42 said:

My collection of classical recordings is nearly all from the European side of things - no problems here. However, I acquired a couple of ex-library CDs, of nominally audiophile labels, of classical pieces - they are, to my ears, fairly bizarre ... weird tonal manipulating, strange acoustic spaces - they were as "produced" as any funky 😉 pop recordings ...

 

I am curious, which audiophile labels were those? And which recordings?

[Confused]

On 10/2/2019 at 1:35 AM, fas42 said:

 

My collection of classical recordings is nearly all from the European side of things - no problems here. However, I acquired a couple of ex-library CDs, of nominally audiophile labels, of classical pieces - they are, to my ears, fairly bizarre ... weird tonal manipulating, strange acoustic spaces - they were as "produced" as any funky 😉 pop recordings ...

If you get your rig properly sorted you will find that these recordings are perfectly normal and you will be able to fully connect with the essence of the music.🙂

[fas42]

6 hours ago, barrows said:

In the case of resistors, this is most definitely not the case for balanced circuits.  Same applies to matching transistors in some balanced circuits.  For capacitors, matching is only important in some filter circuits. 

 

Still not sure what any of this has to do with the topic though...  

 

A great deal, actually ... the ongoing interest I have had in the audio scene is understanding what really matters as far as "conjuring up" convincing sound is concerned - obviously, for me, The Absolute Sound is the material encoded in the recording, no matter how it's been recorded - and the goal is to eliminate any audible artifacts added by the playback mechanism.

 

Turns out that poor implementation of the overall electronic circuitry is a vital factor in this - so the obvious question is, what matters most? And the stuff most worry about is of minor importance, merely adjusting the 'tonality' of the unwanted anomalies - what one wants to do is completely eliminate undesirable distortion.

 

TAS is only possible if one does something about this - relying on the manufacturers to get it right is a peeing into the wind approach.

[gmgraves]

16 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Hi George

 I disagree as far as Input capacitors go such as high quality Polypropylene etc. , in that the type and tolerance of the capacitors can cause some imaging problems, or even quite noticeable differences in SQ.

 I feel certain that Alex Crespi would agree too, with their range of MusiCap Film + Foil capacitors.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

Never noticed that tolerance on cap values made any appreciable difference. Cap types, OTOH, are very important. Polypropylene caps replace paper and Mylar caps, and Polystyrene to replace ceramic.

The biggest rebuild I ever did was to “resto-mod” a Harman-Kardon Citation I preamp. Using low-noise film resistors, premium low DA caps, Alps pots, gold-plated single-hole RCA jacks, etc. I kick myself every time I think about allowing myself to sell it. It sounded unbelievably great. It was pretty too. I had the oiled walnut cabinet for it!

[fas42]

28 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

I am curious, which audiophile labels were those?

 

I think we've been here before, Theresa 😉 - Sheffield Labs and Telarc are the worst offenders I've come across; in the case of the former, all the treble of the violins had been carefully excised - the instruments might as well have been made out of cardboard. With Telarc, I can think of a piano concerto where the width of the orchestra has been squashed into a narrow tunnel in front of me, with a tiny, toy piano tinkling away in a separate box from the rest of them.

 

All well and good if one wants to have fun doing a Jarre exercise in playing with sound - but little to do with what one would hear in the actual place of playing the instruments.

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, Confused said:

If you get your rig properly sorted you will find that these recordings are perfectly normal and you will be able to fully connect with the essence of the music.🙂

 

You see, if the producer is too obsessed with some aspect of the production, and is trying to make some technical aspect work His Way - rather than just capturing the music ... then it becomes obvious. And silly. Sort of like someone on the stage "overacting" .. it's embarassing to watch ... 😕.

 

The textures are still there - but the overall thrust of the piece has been mangled, at the creative end.

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, Jud said:

 

If someone made a recording with the carbon fiber violin and told you it was a newly restored Heifetz, I wonder if you'd have the same description of the sound.

I dunno. I heard an interview with the head of a string quartet who had replaced all their conventional wooden instruments with Luis & Clark carbon fiber instruments. He said that not only do the carbon fiber instruments travel MUCH better than the wooden instruments that they have replaced, but that they compare very well with the 17th-18th century Cremonese instruments, sound wise. I can’t say, because I’ve never heard a carbon fiber violin except on Internet Radio, nor have I heard one compared directly to a Stradivarius. 
I do know that Heifetz “Dolphin” Strad, on the Rozsa Concerto sounds Jaw-droppingly more musical than whatever the violinist on the 1980’s Telarc recording of the same piece is playing, and that was my only point.

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, barrows said:

In the case of resistors, this is most definitely not the case for balanced circuits.  Same applies to matching transistors in some balanced circuits.  For capacitors, matching is only important in some filter circuits. 

 

Still not sure what any of this has to do with the topic though...  

None of that kind of “matching” is necessary in audio circuits, and makes no difference to performance. Even balanced circuits are not compromised by 10-20% tolerances on caps and resistors.

[fas42]

I agree about exposure to the real thing - do shopping at an Aldi, and there is a perfect amphitheatre of concrete ramps for buskers to do their thing. Any PA would be grotesquely OTT, the natural reverb is already massive - a regular hit of sometimes brilliant playing, and singing on the way up to the shop - so-called high end rigs are so far away from nailing this energy ... it's pretty pathetic ...

[barrows]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

He said that not only do the carbon fiber instruments travel MUCH better than the wooden instruments that they have replaced

Carbon fiber is a wonderful material, certainly they will travel better and not have all of the problems associated with wood in terms of humidity levels especially.  I have some experience working with carbon fiber, I would expect that in the right hands, with the right level of expertise and experience, absolutely fantastic sounding acoustic instruments could be made with it.  But of course it is a relatively new material, so it will take some time before luthiers develop all the experience and techniques necessary for the performance potential of carbon fiber instruments to be fully realized.  After all, there are centuries of experience in the making of wooden instruments.

Of course we have the issue of many woods being nearly "extinct" as far as availability goes as well...

[barrows]

3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

None of that kind of “matching” is necessary in audio circuits, and makes no difference to performance. Even balanced circuits are not compromised by 10-20% tolerances on caps and resistors.

Balanced circuits require precise matching to take advantage of their potential (cancelling of distortion/noise), I am sure you realize this.  Good news is, these days, we have quite affordable 0.1% and even better resistors with quite good sound quality, so actually hand matching may not be necessary.

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I do know that Heifetz “Dolphin” Strad, on the Rozsa Concerto sounds Jaw-droppingly more musical than whatever the violinist on the 1980’s Telarc recording of the same piece is playing, and that was my only point.

 

One comes across real treasures at times - bought a new CD for a couple of dollars, from one of those nothing labels, an East European orchestra I had never heard of, a violinist who meant nothing to me as a name - pure magic! Huge tone, superb playing, as good as it gets - makes Menuhin when he's grinding away, trying to saw his strings into two, even more uninteresting than he usually is ... 😜

[kumakuma]

25 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You see, if the producer is too obsessed with some aspect of the production, and is trying to make some technical aspect work His Way - rather than just capturing the music ... then it becomes obvious. And silly. Sort of like someone on the stage "overacting" .. it's embarassing to watch ... 😕.

 

The textures are still there - but the overall thrust of the piece has been mangled, at the creative end.

 

[sandyk]

40 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Sheffield Labs and Telarc are the worst offenders I've come across; in the case of the former, all the treble of the violins had been carefully excised - the instruments might as well have been made out of cardboard.

Frank

 Given your preference for the undecoded Dolby -A versions of Abba, as an example, perhaps you simply prefer added HF detail, over accuracy  ?

 

Alex

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Frank

 Given your preference for the undecoded Dolby -A versions of Abba, as an example, perhaps you simply prefer added HF detail, over accuracy  ?

 

Alex

 

Alex, the ABBA 'sound' is what was intended. By the people creating it at the time. I have little interest in what the raw sound of a particular, say, voice is; because that's not what the creative process was about, back then. ABBA should sound like ABBA. Period.

 

At the other end of the spectrum, I have an Odetta at Carnegie Hall CD - raw voice, raw guitar ... as basic as it gets - but just as entrancing as the "ABBA sound", in its own way. A competent rig can nail both ends of styles of creative output, effortlessly ... that's the 'magic' of having TAS in the room, 😉.

[sandyk]

58 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

None of that kind of “matching” is necessary in audio circuits, and makes no difference to performance. Even balanced circuits are not compromised by 10-20% tolerances on caps and resistors.

 

 Hi George

 I strongly disagree, and I feel sure that Barrows and many others will too.

Very close balance of the Collector currents in a differential pair having close matching for both HFE and VBE (LM3811A , LS352 etc.) does result in an audible improvement. 

Even respected U.K. Audio Designer and Author Douglas recommends close matching in this area to 1% and shows distortion measurements in this respect in his Audio Power Amplifier design handbooks too. (Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook 5th ed - D. Self (Focal, 2009) WW)

See also the attached thread link in DIY Audio forum where Nelson Pass was also a participant.

https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/133018-current-mirror-discussion-15.html

 

Kind Regards

Alex