The myth of "The Absolute Sound"

[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?

 

 

[semente]

7 hours ago, barrows said:

On the other hand, when it comes to music being reproduced by a PA live, or by an engineer in the studio creating a sound stage, remarkable and enjoyable effects can be created which, when done well, increase the enjoyment and meaning of the music.  I see no need to chastise this approach as some kind of heresy!  This is the use of the recording studio as a part of the creative process.  Such things can be done well, or they can be done poorly (as is the case with any creative venture).  But the notion that musical expression which is created/manipulated in the studio somehow has less validity than a "pure" recording of only acoustic instruments (perhaps with only two microphones, etc) is a bunch of BS.  Just as is the idea of some classical music snobs that classical music is the only "real" music.   What kind of music would Bach be making today if he were of our time, go ahead Bach scholars, have at it... 

 

Applying this to the topic, there is no reason why acoustic instruments are any better than electric, or even electronic ones, for evaluating system performance.  While folks here will argue it, the fact is, one can just as easily (that is, it is very difficult to have) an "absolute" reference of the sound of a Fender Rhodes as they can a Yamaha Grand Piano.  Given that the Yamaha has to be recorded to hear it through the system, and the Rhodes has to be played via a speaker.

 

I have nothing against processed music, effects, etc. Even though I listen mainly to classical music I also play a tad of alternative folk rock etc. and quite a bit of late '50s and '60s jazz.

 

What I don't agree is that studio produced music is adequate for judging realism because it's hardly ever comparable to listening to the same music live.

Cowboy Junkies' The Trinity Sessions is one such exception:

 

 

November 27, 1987

The pews and all seating had previously been removed so we had a choice of where to set up our equipment and recording gear, but since Peter had done some recording in the church he had a general idea of where he felt was the most acoustically sound spot. This was at the far end of the church hall away from the altar which would act as an enormous bass trap if we got too close to it.

The first order of the day was to set up all the gear and try and get a balance between the four of us, that would be the ultimate key to the recording. Once we were balanced properly the other instruments could be layered on top with a lot more ease. Peter set up the mic and we set up as we had for the Whites session in our garage with drums on one side facing the bass and guitar off to the side. As fate would have it we had a great stroke of luck that day. Whoever had been using the church before us had had the need of a PA system which they had left behind. It was head and shoulders above the one that we had brought from our rehearsal space and meant a huge difference in the final recording. Margo's vocals, like during the Whites session, had to be run through a PA speaker and some guardian angel had seen fit to leave us a high quality system. The "vocal" or speaker was placed on top of the bass cabinet, Margo then stood about six feet outside the circle and sang through a separate mic.

It took us about six hours of fussing to finally capture a sound that we were all happy with. This time was spent readjusting the microphone, moving an instrument five inches closer and then another instrument five inches further, turning one thing up and another down etc.. The process was far from simple and for a while it looked like we weren't going to be able to reign in the acoustics of the church. The natural reverb of the hall was overpowering our instruments. Finally after a few more adjustments we ran through a version of a song and adjourned to the small office (maybe it was one of the confessionals) where Peter had his playback equipment set up. The playback revealed Petes drums simmering softly in the background, Alan's bass rumbling underneath, my guitar airily chiming and Margo's voice floating easily above it all. We had found our sound.

[semente]

5 hours ago, Jud said:

 

It would be interesting to see how many people have elite systems after a little practice without knowing the answers beforehand - which sample of 5 or so belong to one violin, which to a different violin.

 

I agree with Quint that a transparent system is one that better discriminates differences between recordings, recording techniques, violins...

[semente]

4 hours ago, STC said:

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. 

 

I think that there's been ample reference to both soundstage and amplified sound.

 

 

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

 

Studio production is a collage of assortment of takes of different instruments and vocals which has been mixed together to create a musical "recording".

 

 

I can copy a few relevant definitions from the Stereophile glossary:

 

ambience (pronounced "ambee-ints") The aurally perceived impression of an acoustical space, such as the performing hall in which a recording was made. In the case of a studio production the ambience is fabricated

 

phantom image The re-creation by a stereo system of an apparent sound source at a location other than that of either loudspeaker.

 

soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it.

 

stereo imaging The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width. See "soundstaging," "vagueness," "wander."

 

stereo stage The area between and behind the loudspeakers, from which most phantom images are heard. with real stereo the images can only exist in the space between the speakers and will not contain any height information

https://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

[semente]

4 hours ago, STC said:

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.

 

One can easily argue that some instruments sound more beautiful than others because of the way they wer designed and of the materials used.

 

Who is to say which is more beautiful since beautiful is in the eye of the beholder? I'm sure that there are educated people who will know more than the average Joe or violinist.

 

Secondly, a violinist has the instrument against her ear. She cannot possibly know how it will sound from a distance. A previous neighbour of mine was an advanced amateur an used to change the pages for a top tier pianist fried. He like close mic'ed piano recordings and very bright, overly lively-sounding venues.

 

Thirdly, soloists now have to play in overly large venues for commercial purposes which are not adequate for the type of music they are playing. They have to play too loud. One of the violinists I listen to often at a local church's lunchtime recitals plays so loud that I now always seat at the back.

 

 

Instruments produce sound/music. beautiful

 

Hi-fi reproduces the signal/music recordings. accurate

 

 

Different goals, which audiophiles often confuse.

[semente]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Playing with sow's ears, in my case, is investigating "what matters!" - you learn so much more when you can be ruthless with the gear, and hack it to the point of it not working anymore ... its "sacrifice" has yielded much information, and so its passing will be remembered in a good way, 😉. Doing this with some status, 'Porsche', bit of kit is perhaps not the smartest move ...

 

This is where we disagree.

 

I have no doubts that some of your interventions do improve the performance of your gear, but to say that you can make your extensively modified and prepared for racing Fiat 500 lap the Silverstone track faster than a Porsche Cayman is preposterous.

[semente]

8 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 - the ear/brain does the job that it's been trained to do over the decades of hearing things, and automatically compensates for all the technical variations in the structure of the waveforms, as they impinge on the ear.

 

This is wrong because speakers are directional (most) and because stereo creates the pahntom images between the two speakers.

 

You must either raise your standards of quality reproduction and/or listen more attentively to live unamplified concerts and recitals.

[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. 

[semente]

15 minutes ago, STC said:

Sound can be stored and retrieved and amplified without electricity. 

 

Correct. But how often has this been done with live music?

 

I can't think of a single instrument that would to this; on the other hand, we can talk about reproduction and the gramophone would be a good candidate...

 

Instruments produce.

 

System reproduces.

[STC]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

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

 

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

[semente]

The BBC Research Department, which developed a wide array of broadcasting equipment including a ribbon microphone and a series of monitor loudspeakers, actually used The Absolute Sound of Classical Music and voice as references.

 

The importance of the Research Department, which included prominent engineers such as, D.E.L. Shorter H.D. Harwood (Harbeth) or Spencer Hughes (Spendor), in loudspeaker development is seldom mention, even though they did extensive testing in cabinet and driver materials and researched ways to correlate measurements and listening, which included blind listening tests performed by their highly experienced personnel.

 

 

 

They are one of the few if not the only loudspeaker developers to have used live orchestral music as reference, which may in part explain why Graham, Harbeth, Spendor and Stirling speakers are so popular amongst lovers of acoustic music.

 

In one of the report papers available from the archive I found this piece which makes reference to the subjective evaluation of loudspeakers (my bolds):

 

Experience shows that comparative judgements of loudspeaker quality can be made more consistently than absolute ones.

An absolute assessment of a new design is something which emerges gradually out of weeks or months of use in control rooms.

Often, a pair of new loudspeakers sent out for 'field trial' will be received with cautious approval, yet returned after a month or two with a list of criticisms detailing points that have emerged only gradually from continuos use. 

For comparative tests, a reference loudspeaker is of course needed.

This is provisionally selected during the early stages of commercial production as being a typical unit of acceptable quality; once production is well established, a new reference may be adopted as a clearer picture emerges of what is 'typical'.

In fact, at least three such units are selected in normal BBC practice, to provide a working standard for acceptance testing: a spare (which is carefully stored): and a standard by which the manufacturers can assess the consistency of their output, whether by listening or by measurement.

An established standard is also of course the only reasonable reference available in appraising a new design.

 

In listening tests, it is important that the listener should begin with as few preconceived ideas as possible.

For example, a look at a response plot may cause him, consciously or otherwise, to listen for some expected peculiarities.

Normally, an A/B switch is provided, and the loudspeaker to be used as reference is indicated.

The loudspeakers are placed behind an acoustically transparent but optically opaque curtain, especially if any aspect of the units under test might be visually identifiable.

To help eliminate room effects, the test may be repeated with the loudspeaker positions interchanged.

If several units are to be tested, it is useful to include one twice — anonymously — to test the listener's consistency.

(Experienced listeners expect this.)

 

Finally, it is essential that the listener delivers his judgement before any additional information is given to him; not (one would trust) that he might 'cheat', but rather that he might re-interpret what he thought he had heard in the light of further knowledge.

Subsequent discussion may well prove valuable, but must be subsequent. 

 

Formal tests involving a number of listeners may need further care, particularly if, as is likely, they permit less in the way of personal communication between subjects and test organiser.

Past experience suggests that a particular hazard is the use of descriptive terms whose meaning seems obvious to everyone, but which can actually mean different things to different people.

 

 

The Research Department's white paper for the development of the LS5/8 monitor starts with the following rather curious abstract:

 

A new studio monitor is described which can provide high-quality sound at sufficiently high levels to fulfil the complete range of monitoring requirements from pop to serious music.

[semente]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

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

 

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.

[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.

[ARQuint]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

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?

 

 

 

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

[semente]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

 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.

 

2 hours ago, STC said:

Sound can be stored and retrieved and amplified without electricity. 

 

One of us got lost...

[fas42]

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

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.

 

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 ... 😒

[sandyk]

1 hour 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.

 

[semente]

49 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

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 agree.

 

I attended a performance of Sa Chen playing Grieg's Piano Concerto and the recording (second video) made in the previous or ensuing days sounds a lot less like what I experienced that the minimalist mic'ed video of the live event (see below). I am talking about the soundscape as well as the timbre and relative balance between the soloist instrument and the different groups which constitute the orchestra.

This is because the producers have spread a dozen of mics all over the stage. (and I wonder if the mixing, EQ'ing and othe processing doesn't affect sound quality as well)

 

Live:

 

 

 

Recording:

 

 

 

The same is true for the other Pentatone recordings of the same orchestra that I own.

[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. 

[fas42]

An album I came across, by a local crowd, recorded live at a boozing venue, which really impressed me was this,

 

 

The sense of atmosphere is fabulous, and it's recorded extremely well - as something that truly gives one a sense of being there, I would put it up there with the others around. Interestingly, I took it to the last proper audio show we had, and nearly all rigs I tried it on did a terrible job of conveying the feel that was captured; even the best setup there was far, far short of what I knew was possible ... still quite a ways to go ... 🤨.

[STC]

48 minutes ago, semente said:

 

 

One of us got lost...

Sorry for that. My GPS wasn’t working. 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

This is where we disagree.

 

I have no doubts that some of your interventions do improve the performance of your gear, but to say that you can make your extensively modified and prepared for racing Fiat 500 lap the Silverstone track faster than a Porsche Cayman is preposterous.

 

You misunderstand ... I was merely saying ruining the commercial, resell value of some expensive gear would not be an intelligent move.

[fas42]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

 

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

 

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.