Jump to content
IGNORED

The myth of "The Absolute Sound"


barrows

Recommended Posts

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. :)

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment

To be clear, (again).  I appreciate the concept of the "absolute", my point is that the concept is entirely flawed in practice and cannot be reliably used in evaluation of playback systems (with the possible exception of some very rare cases).

 

For example, anyone who thinks that because they see live music regularly, that they can "remember" the EXACT qualities of a given (timbre, dynamic expression) instrument and then apply that memory to their playback system hours (days, weeks?) later is fooling themselves.  For example, one can take a violin,  and make it sound very different in a "pure" recording, just by the distance of the microphone to the instrument.  This does not even take into account the make/model of the microphone itself.

I call BS on anyone, including reviewers, when I hear statements such as "these speakers are so accurate;  they have a silvery tone on the violins just like heard at Avery Fischer Hall last night".  This is not to mention the unreliability of aural memory (try a Google search if you are not aware of this).

 

I will allow, perhaps some exception to my reservations: for example, if one has the opportunity to compare a live mike feed of a "purist" recording session (the actual stereo live feed being captured to a two channel recording) to that recording being played back through a system I would consider this a valid approach to a relatively "absolute" reference.  But note that this is different from the standard, accepted view of the "absolute", as the reference is the mike feed and not the sound of acoustic instruments in the space.  This approach takes into account the fact that the sound of the live acoustic instruments is ALWAYS changed by the recording process.  Even with this approach there are problems, most notably the quality (accuracy if one prefers) of the monitor speakers. 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
18 hours ago, gmgraves said:

What I see is that you are looking at the question in the wrong light. The seat is not important. 

Like most people, I suspect that you know what a live trumpet sounds like, and you know that when you hear a recording of a trumpet, that it never has the bite or the presence of the real thing. But recreating that sense of realism is the avowed goal of high-fidelity. I’m sure there are many instruments that we all know the live sound of, but few aspects of those instrument’s actual sound make it from our speakers. Now, enough of those sonic signatures exist, even on a cheap table radio, for us to recognize these instruments when we hear them, but they don’t sound real, even on megabuck systems. Whether it’s the microphones used in the recording, or the recording gear or process, most of the time, the realism is not captured. Add to that the distortions added on playback, and the “Fi” we get in our playback is still severely limited. There must be a standard by which to measure our progress, and it can’t be that it “sounds good”. It must be a comparison to the real thing or the entire construct is flawed.

Again, you are looking at this wrong. If the playback chain is accurate to the sound of real instruments, playing in a real space, then it will be accurate to the sound of electronic or electric music as well. It cannot help but be because it means that the playback system is adding nothing and taking away  nothing from the signal it’s fed. The type of music being listened to doesn’t matter. Get the acoustic stuff to sound REAL, and by real, I mean that reproduced is indistinguishable from the actual instrument being reproduced, and all music will be accurate to the original, or absolute sound.

Now, to be honest, here, with what I call “Studio Music” where it is all electronics and over-dubbing and different tracks laid down at different times and often in different venues, the reality is that if you weren’t there at the mix, listening through the same studio monitor speakers in the same room as those who made the mix, you will have no idea how the producers and artists wanted their music to sound. In that case there really is no “Absolute Sound”. That’s why I personally don’t think that this kind of music should be used to evaluate audio gear. If no one has ever heard this performance (because it doesn’t exist outside of the studio), how can one judge the “Fi” of the playback? But, then, that’s just my opinion.

 

On this subject I totally agree with @gmgraves and what he wrote here.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, barrows said:

To be clear, (again).  I appreciate the concept of the "absolute", my point is that the concept is entirely flawed in practice and cannot be reliably used in evaluation of playback systems (with the possible exception of some very rare cases).

 

For example, anyone who thinks that because they see live music regularly, that they can "remember" the EXACT qualities of a given (timbre, dynamic expression) instrument and then apply that memory to their playback system hours (days, weeks?) later is fooling themselves.  For example, one can take a violin,  and make it sound very different in a "pure" recording, just by the distance of the microphone to the instrument.  This does not even take into account the make/model of the microphone itself.

I call BS on anyone, including reviewers, when I hear statements such as "these speakers are so accurate;  they have a silvery tone on the violins just like heard at Avery Fischer Hall last night".  This is not to mention the unreliability of aural memory (try a Google search if you are not aware of this).

 

I will allow, perhaps some exception to my reservations: for example, if one has the opportunity to compare a live mike feed of a "purist" recording session (the actual stereo live feed being captured to a two channel recording) to that recording being played back through a system I would consider this a valid approach to a relatively "absolute" reference.  But note that this is different from the standard, accepted view of the "absolute", as the reference is the mike feed and not the sound of acoustic instruments in the space.  This approach takes into account the fact that the sound of the live acoustic instruments is ALWAYS changed by the recording process.  Even with this approach there are problems, most notably the quality (accuracy if one prefers) of the monitor speakers. 

 

This is a very strange argument.  Baseball must be an "entirely flawed" game because no one has yet to bat a perfectly.  Indeed, all human endeavor and art must be "entirely flawed" because nobody as of yet has ever created the perfect gizmo, the perfect artist expression, the perfect human act.

 

Also, the whole "aural memory" is used and abused by radical subjectivists.  If I can't remember what my wifes voice sounds like, or a violin, or even an artists particular playing such as Avery Fischer, how could I possibly hear and identify anything at all?  It's another truth taken to absurdity.

 

Radical objectivism is just as much a fallacy as radical subjectivism, but you have yet to properly identify radical objectivism. Hint:  It ain't "the absolute sound".

 

 

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
17 hours ago, barrows said:

Sure, but at what distance?  In what room?  Played how?  Which trumpet?  These all can sound very different.  This is my point, that there is no absolute.

 

Agreed.  This again supports the idea of no real absolute.  Since the vast majority of all recordings are made this way, including most classical music and jazz.  Only a very few, so called "audiophile" recordings are made differently, and even many of those are not so "pure".  Even Jared Sack's work with Channel Classics is mixed through a console (albeit in analog) and recorded using many mikes.  Consider Allison Krauss' "Paper Airplane", certainly an audiophile favorite, and then go look on the Internet at the recording details, especially on her voice, the amount of processing applied was quite shocking to me, punching in and out different plug ins multiple times even just on single syllables.

 

The difference you are talking about is real and is of course important as well. The distance you sit from the musicians and the acoustics of the hall all has a great impact on sound, but in a totally different way, if you know what I mean. Obviously if you sit on a really lousy seat far far away it want sound very good, so not a good reference of how good real live sound like.   

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, barrows said:

I call BS on anyone, including reviewers, when I hear statements such as "these speakers are so accurate;  they have a silvery tone on the violins just like heard at Avery Fischer Hall last night".  This is not to mention the unreliability of aural memory (try a Google search if you are not aware of this).

I agree with that.

 

And since we're on the subject of bulldung and speakers:

 

 

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment

Stereo speakers are unable to reproduce the original soundfield.

So what we get is an illusion of being present at a live event (in the case of there having been one in the first place).

 

I find that the concept of absolute sound makes sense in that it can be used as reference to gauge the realism of reproduction. But as mentioned previously it is very much dependent on the recording itself.

 

A good recording will be useful to evaluate many aspects of performance like dynamics, transient response, frequency response, harmonic and intermodulation distortion, etc. A bit like measuring with one's ears.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, semente said:

Stereo speakers are unable to reproduce the original soundfield.

 

What exactly is an "original soundfield"?

 

Just pointing out that the language leads the mind to a complexity and diversity that does not in fact exist.  There is but one waveform to rule them all... 😉

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Allan F said:

However, it can be used as a reference to assess how accurately a system can reproduce sound. 

 

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.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

What exactly is an "original soundfield"?

 

Just pointing out that the language leads the mind to a complexity and diversity that does not in fact exist.  There is but one waveform to rule them all... 😉


The room response of the venue(s) in which the original recording took place is what I understood as the “original soundfield.”

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
1 minute 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 just it, we do know how it sounds.  The absolute (i.e. accurate) sound truly exists.  We "know" it by multifarious experiences of it, that gives us a precision if not 100% accurate knowledge.  The assertion that a 100% accurate knowledge of something is necessary to be able to use it as a measurement for precision (i.e. fidelity) is fallacious...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Jud said:


The room response of the venue(s)...

 

Is captured in the recording to a greater or lessor fidelity depending upon several factors (technical, methodology, etc.).

 

These realities do not convict "the absolute sound" in any way...

 

 

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
15 hours ago, barrows said:

One can only achieve above with access to (fairly good, especially the microphone) recording gear and the free time to record that acoustic guitar to then be able to compare the sound of the guitar live in the room and the recording.  A comparison of an acoustic guitar one owns at home with a different guitar on a recording is not a valid comparison.  Even two guitars of the same make and model will have different timbres.  This is my point, as stated in the first post I appreciate the intent of the concept, it is flawed in practice.

And, even with a recording of the same guitar for comparison, this will not tell one that much about how well the system will do with a trombone...

 

BTW: I listen to everything form Bach to TOOL and have no bias for or against acoustic instruments.  I just acknowledge that there is lots of great music which includes electric and electronic instruments as well. 

You have some good points for sure and I agree with them.  I will say however that it depends on the person.  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.

 

If you can't do that however, then I think what you say is more applicable.  However, it all falls apart when you have to rely on a recording chain to record the event. You must do it from memory which requires repeated exposure to get a good handle on it I think.  I think your point about the fact that the "Absolute Sound" is an objective tool may be a stretch because everyone is different, but where do you start? I do think however, that if you are a professional audio reviewer that has some integrity, hopefully you attend live music events to provide you with a touchstone.   I guess my point is in a way, you have to put a stake in the ground somewhere to understand what fidelity is.

"Let's pick a tune and get out of this mess"  - Earl Scruggs

"There are simply two kinds of music, good music and the other kind ... " - Duke Ellington

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Is captured in the recording to a greater or lessor fidelity depending upon several factors (technical, methodology, etc.).

 

These realities do not convict "the absolute sound" in any way...

 

 

 

Yes, I agree.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

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.

 

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.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Precisely!

  

 

Right!  Upstream @barrows admits (ironically) that his is an metaphysical critique, and taken on its own he is right in that we don't possess absolutely the Platonic ideal of "the absolute sound".  It's also quite besides the point because we do in fact possess multifarious experiences of it, even if these themselves are but shadows on the wall...taken together they allow us a degree of precision that itself is very practical and keeps us from falling into the relativism of emotive subjectivism...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Allan F said:

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.

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.  

I have a Taylor 12 string here which belongs to my GF, which I play a bit from time to time.  I know what it sounds like, both up against my body as I play, and from a small distance as she plays it.  But this is no "absolute" reference for the sound of some other guitar in a recording.

 

It appears here that some seem to think all guitars, or pianos, or any instrument really, sound alike!  Of course we all know that is not true.  Then you add in the additional differences which are the result of recording techniques, and it is easy to see that there is no "absolute" reference for the sound of anything.  We are talking about high end systems here, certainly anyone can tell the difference between a guitar (what is a guitar supposed to sound like...) and an Oud, for example, even on a cheap bedside clock radio.  Those are huge differences and not relevant for evaluating a high end system.

 

 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

What exactly is an "original soundfield"?

 

Just pointing out that the language leads the mind to a complexity and diversity that does not in fact exist.  There is but one waveform to rule them all... 😉

 

When you are sitting in a venue there is direct sound from the instruments and reflected sound from the surrounding surfaces and room reverberation. You are immersed in sound.

 

At home both direct sound and the reflected sound and room reverberation are coming from the same plane between the speakers, hence the systems inability to recreate the original soundfield.

 

y21SLnd.png

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...