The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound

Of course it is for one’s enjoyment. Who said otherwise? What some if you guys miss is the fact that, for some, when the reproduced sound gets as close as possible to the sound of real that is, in fact, when there is the most enjoyment. Enjoy your music any way you want. Me? I want realism.

Well said, mahgister.  

Please read my posts a little more carefully; if you care.

Excluding your last sentence, which will thankfully not be applicable for too much longer, what you correctly point out is the reason that unamplified acoustic performances remain the standard for judging how close our systems get to the sound of live. As I’m sure you know that was the basis for the term “the absolute sound”.

Good post, Inna,

I have zero interest in judging how anyone listens to music; and, that includes the kind of sound that they want from their sound systems. If a “personalized” sound pleases someone, so be it. However, it is obvious to me that some very high end systems sound much closer to the general sound of live music than others do. No system sounds exactly like live music and none ever will; but some get surprisingly close. It is a very worthy goal.

So, are we to simply throw in the towel and, because perfection will never be achieved, not even try to get as close as possible? Makes no sense to me. For me, a sound that approaches the sound of live is, in fact, the most enjoyable.

How do we know what is “the absolute”? How do learn to recognize it? The simple fact is that extensive experience attending live performances is the only way for most. Some may not have the time nor inclination to attend live performances, but it is an approach to the listening experience that has tremendous benefits. IMO.

Boy, how times have changed!  AKA, “I’m showing my age”. 😊

Happy listening, all.

**** Indeed I do but that is about .01% of the type of music I listen to, so why use that as a standard? ****

No one is saying that you have to use anyone else’s standard. Everyone is free to enjoy his favorite music in their own way. However, I can tell you that well recorded unamplified acoustic music contains more information of the kind that allows one to more fully appreciate and understand what is possible in music reproduction and from one’s sound system. There is far more variety and detail in the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance in a well recorded orchestral performance or acoustic Jazz quintet, for example, than the vast variety of amplified/processed music. Don’t get me wrong, I still like and listen to a fair amount of amplified/electronic music, but I find that with amplified music “the standard” is too much of a moving target.

I don’t buy the notion that a system that can do justice to a good orchestral recording cannot do the same for R&R. Those who think that it cannot have never heard the power and dynamics of a good orchestra going full tilt in the last section of “Rite Of Spring”, for instance; or Elvin Jones’ drumming in Coltrane’s last quartet. Additionally, I like being able to hear what the producer and engineer did to the music post mic feed; warts and all. I don’t want to make every recording sound the way I THINK music SHOULD sound based on my tastes. Call me weird, but I find the total experience to be more interesting this way; part of understanding the recording art.

Different strokes for different folks.

Like I said, different strokes for different folks. If you have spent any significant amount of time listening to the recordings of Kenneth Wilkinson, for instance, it is obvious that the man had a very good sense of what “live” sounds like. Problem is many can’t or have no desire to experience a significant amount of time attending live performances; perhaps because of genre preferences. What we are talking about is voicing a system that, ON BALANCE, sounds closer to live unamplified music. No chasing of unicorns here at all; and no “fighting” of anything. Quite the opposite.

**** You may think you have achieved the "pinnacle" in sound reproduction with your system within your own environment. However, I may hear it and think otherwise, vice versa....****

I can pretty much assure you that if you are someone who has extensive experience attending live acoustic music performances and you were to hear my system, that you would think otherwise.  

@artemus_5

**** Good point. I used to wonder why so many liked Pioneer. I never heard one that I liked. ****

Please read my very first comment here. If that kind, or any other kind of sound rocks your, or anyone else’s boat that is fine with me. I find my approach far more satisfying and a much better way to reach an audio system’s true potential based on my sonic priorities.

@snilf

**** Music enjoyed in one’s living room (or music room) is, in many ways, actually superior aurally to almost any live performance. ****

I could not disagree more. Moreover, I would make a distinction between “aurally” and “musically”. Consider the fact that composers did not intend their music to be so hyper holographic; and they composed accordingly. They composed with the idea in mind that the type of exaggerated hyper detail that some audiophiles crave would not happen, should not happen, and that the blend of different instrumental (or vocal) textures would create, from a distance, the desired sound for the composition’s intent. Consider also, just how much effor an instrumentalist puts into perfecting just the right tone in order to serve his personal musical vision. It seems to me that this should be the purview of the artist, not the listener’s.

Does it cross anyone’s mind that it is this personal customization of the sound of music with its inevitable deviation from the nuance of timbre and textural detail heard at a good (!) live performance is the reason for the endless stream of threads asking “Am I an audiophile or music lover?”, “SQ or the music?”, etc. Not to mention, the endless equipment churning?

Of course recordings will always be an “artifact”. However, this fact is actually the best testament to just how much nuance and information exists in a live performance. To not strive to get as close as possible to that sound strikes me as convoluted and backwards. To honor the music is to honor its sound.

IMO, of course.

Easy, artemus_5. No disrespect intended. No, your post did not strike me as agreement, but I am glad that you clarified.  Thanks. 

Re the other quote: simple oversight and corrected.

Regards.

It’s not easy communicating exactly what is meant with the written word. In classic fashion for an Internet forum we end up “talking” past each other, making inaccurate assumptions about what is meant by someone else and digging our heels in when taking positions on the subject at hand. So, what exactly is the point here? Better still, what exactly is meant by “the sound of live”?

I think there is agreement about two things: Reproduced music, no matter the genre, will never sound exactly like live and reproduced music is for enjoyment (duh!).

FOR ME the components of music that suffer the most as a result of the record/reproduce process are timbre and dynamic nuance. Not, dynamics in the sense of how loud things can get, but in the sense of how alive the music sounds; even (especially) when very soft and how seamlessly it moves from, for instance, very very soft to just very soft; and between all the other steps in the dynamics scale. For purposes of this thread (and for me, generally) imaging, sound staging, holography and their ultimate scale are completely irrelevant to me; and not very important in general. Why? Because if one is sitting outside our audiophile designated “sweet spot”, all that goes to hell anyway. I hope that there is also general agreement that anyone who can’t enjoy a recording if sitting outside the sweet spot probably should reconsider his priorities. Besides, timbre and dynamic nuance is where the music is. Everything else is audiophile stuff that many confuse for components of music. Think that’s wrong? Look up any meaningful text, book, article, etc. on the subject of MUSIC and find the chapter on “sound staging”. Good luck.

In my experience the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance are precisely the areas where most “audiophile systems” fall short. The deviations from what is heard live are sometimes grotesque. Excessive and often harsh highs, overblown and discontinuous bass and sometimes a kind of hyper detail that simply does not occur in live music. That kind of sound can be impressive and even the most pleasing for some. So be it. I prefer to work at voicing my system so that, first and foremost, the end result moves the sound in the direction of what I hear live in the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance. It is, in fact, possible to get surprisingly close sometimes. Soundstaging? A distant third concern; if at all. It has little to do with music. So, no concerns about parking space 😉.

Going back to the first point of agreement, that reproduced music will never sound EXACTLY like the sound of live. True, but much can be done to voice a system so that, overall, it moves the reproduction of timbre closer, not further away, from the general sound of live. To me, that is a far better choice for reaching enjoyment. Why? Because more of the MUSIC is preserved.

To borrow the sign off used by one of our more controversial Audiogon members:

Enjoy the music, not distortions.

(I think that’s how it goes 😊)

**** Whoever it was, remain in hiding, because it makes no sense.****

Isn’t projection a fascinating thing? Moments before reading the most recent posts here I stumbled across a series of comments on another thread about the author of the above comment; a, er..., “popular” subject of discussion, btw. In one of those comments it was pointed out how said author “goes into hiding” when confronted and called out for his typically demeaning attitude. I won’t bother; always better to keep idiocy out in the open.

@audiorusty,

**** I am a tad confused. When I read about those that use an acoustic performance as their standard for measuring their system. When you are listening to the performance at a venue, are you not hearing the combination of the performer(s) and the venues acoustics? ****

Fair question which goes to the meat of the OP’s question.

Have you ever been walking down the street and heard the sound of a musician practicing his instrument (or a singer vocalizing) wafting out of an open window? Even from a block away one can tell that it is the sound of a live person playing his instrument and not a recording. Perhaps it is a Jazz quartet practicing. Or, one is at a street fair and from a good distance away, still out of sight, one can hear a band playing. Talk about different venues!! What is it about that sound that so immediately tells us that it is the sound of live and not a.recording? It is the immediacy of the sound, the sense of aliveness (richness of dynamic nuance) in the music and the richness of timbral detail; all without the addition to the sound of the electronic artifacts which are the inevitable byproducts of the amplification/ “sound reinforcement” and record/reproduce processes. Even if that band at the street fair happens to be a Rock band playing electronic instruments, the immediacy of the sound and absence of ADDITIONAL electronic artifacts tells us that the sound is live and not a recording.

The case for the use of recordings of acoustic instruments as “standard for measuring their system” is simply because there are far fewer variables to confuse matters. In amplified performances, not only does one have the sound of the instruments themselves (yes, a Strat has a different timbral signature than a Gibson), but one also has the variables of the amplifiers, cabling, mics, PA, sound board, etc.; not to mention the engineer’s whim.

You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification.  In the absence of all that amplification gear, the sound remains closest to and with the immediacy and richness of timbral detail of that sound wafting out the window.

I hope that helps.

**** No. Just no. #1 effect is speakers. #2 is usually the microphones. #3 is acoustics of the concert hall, #3b is where you are sitting. The electronics of amplification would be somewhere, comparatively down around 10.****

As usual, missing the forest for the trees in the rush to nit pick and get your digs in. As painful as it may be, please read my posts in their entirety. If you take my quoted paragraph literally and out of context, yes (maybe), speakers MIGHT be #1; depending on the particular gear in question (“Crown”, anyone? 😊). In the context of my overall comment, “electronics of amplification” refers to the totality of amplification gear; the process of amplification. If you read and consider the total post, it is perfectly clear what is meant.

Regardless and more importantly, thanks for making and confirming my general point with your hasty comment and its stated “hierarchy”. Glad you agree with me on the general point. How nice it would have been, instead, to agree with the general idea as you did anyway and then go to the specifics; or, God forbid, ask for clarification in a friendly manner. 
Regards. 

Well said, mahgister; once again. 

**** . I only expect to try and reproduce whatever medium I’m listening to with as little coloration as possible. ****

We are in agreement.

IOW, what does “with as little coloration as possible” mean if not trying to get as close as possible, as concerns timbre, to the sound heard live? Of course, also accounting for the medium’s influence on the original (live) sound.  

As I have pointed out, I would add detail of dynamic nuance as a second priority. In a sense, distortion of dynamic nuance is a “coloration” of sorts.....in the realm of dynamic performance. Components have a signature not only as concerns timbre and the amount and type of coloration that they add to timbre, but also in their dynamics performance; how they convey rhythm.

Fool’s errand? Not in my book.

**** One is either satisfied or not. ****
Couldn’t agree more.  

We all do the best we can do and thanks for addressing my comment. I understand your point, but it is obvious that I didn’t do a good enough job of explaining that point. I see it as a contradiction because as I said before: how do you know? How do you know that those “perfect” measurements are absolute and reflect precisely what the medium is “saying”; that they tell, not only the whole story, but the true story. I realize that those measurements are all we have to “prove” the technical side of things, but in my experience they often don’t tell the whole story. I prefer to use measurements as a guide, but let my ears have the final say; and my ears often tell me a different story. Example of one area where you and I would definitely disagree: FOR ME, good tube gear, those “distortion generators”, while having their own issues let me hear nuances in the areas of timbre and sense of aliveness that I don’t hear from most solid state and the result, to my ears, is usually closer to what I hear live; and, yes, I’ve heard and owned some pretty good solid state gear. I believe Ralph Karsten has done a very good job here of explaining the technical reasons for some of this. Way above my (technical) pay grade,

As I said before, I don’t think we disagree fundamentally. You want to get closer to the medium; I want to get closer to the original event. The medium is closer to the original event than anything that can be achieved by going in the other direction with manipulation of the sound in order to meet a personal ideal. I call it getting as close as possible to the sound of live. You call it adding as little coloration as possible. I’m good with that.

Regards.

Apology to all who “happened” to be subjected to the silliness of the argument above.

Many interesting comments and responses to the OP’s question; and, for whatever it may be worth, I will take one last stab at explaining my position on the topic. (“oh, goody”, is heard form the peanut gallery 😊).

I think that the reason for some of the disagreement is the lack of overall consistency in the meaning of the terminology used to describe what we hear and/or strive for. This leads to lack of understanding of a poster’s comment and what are, for me, obvious contradictions in many of those comments. Just two examples of the contradictions, and apology for paraphrasing a bit:

”Striving for the sound of live is a fool’s folly”. Yet, in the same post the same poster goes on to state: “I want my system to have as little coloration as possible”.

Or, the most misused and abused term in audio: “accuracy”. “I want my system to sound “accurate”. Or, “I DON’T want my system to sound accurate”. Accuracy to the true sound of music, warts and all, can never be a bad thing in my book

Or, a poster states that he he doesn’t want his sound to resemble live, but wants it to sound “natural”. Huh?!

Some of these terms sound great and all, but just what do they mean? “As little coloration”, compared to what?! “Accurate”, compared to what? “Accurate” does NOT mean thin and sterile. It means like the sound of music; sometimes sharp and even ugly and sometimes warm and lush. I think that if the terms are to have relevant meaning the answer is obvious: the sound of live acoustic music and we should strive for more consistency of meaning. Only acoustic (unamplified) music is free of the colorations of electronic amplification/processing. Yes, different venues have different “colorations”, but that is a different story and those colorations are not as egregious as those of introduced by amplification.

It has been correctly pointed out that “The only thing you’re going to get in your room is reproducing what’s on the medium not what was originally live in the studio or live in a concert venue.” True, but at that point in the chain of reproduction the sound is still a huge step closer to the sound of the original event and will be far more “accurate” and far less “colored” than what we end up hearing come out of our systems. So, why compound the problem by adding colorations in an effort to make the sound “more pleasing”? This begs the question, how do we know what the sound really is like at that step in the chain? We don’t. What we do know with certainty is that it will be a heck of a lot closer to the sound of the original event; and, if that event happens to be an acoustic event, all the better. Why all the better?

Again, putting aside the issue of soundstaging which has little to do with music, when the recorded music is acoustic it will have suffered the least from the effects of electronics and more of the timbral texture and rhythmic signature that are what define a musician will be preserved. FOR ME, even if the recorded music is electronic in nature, a system that is voiced to do justice to acoustic music will ultimately be more pleasing. It will better let me hear what is on the medium.

Happy listening to all.

@audio2design

Let’s see:

As I said, we are in agreement about the main topic of discussion here, so I’m not sure what the problem is. I’m glad we agree. Here are three of the most relevant (to this silly tiff) comments in my post; the third being the one which you feel necessary to call “vastly wrong”.... while still agreeing with the main point:

**** What is it about that sound that so immediately tells us that it is the sound of live and not a.recording? It is the immediacy of the sound, the sense of aliveness (richness of dynamic nuance) in the music and the richness of timbral detail; all without the addition to the sound of the electronic artifacts which are the inevitable byproducts of the amplification/ “sound reinforcement” and record/reproduce processes. ****

**** .... but one also has the variables of the amplifiers, cabling, mics, PA, sound board, etc. ****

**** You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification. In the absence of all that amplification gear, the sound remains closest to and with the immediacy and richness of timbral detail of that sound wafting out the window. ****

You then go on to quote me.....

**** You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification.****

.....and declare:

**** No. Just no. #1 effect is speakers. #2 is usually the microphones. #3 is acoustics of the concert hall, #3b is where you are sitting. The electronics of amplification would be somewhere, comparatively down around 10.****

However, you leave out for the last sentence of same comment with which I, AGAIN, make it clear that I am referring to the TOTAL effect of ALL the gear of the amplification process. Not to mention, you ignore all my previous similar comments.

So, back to the silliness at hand.

“Vastly wrong”? I don’t think so. Your own comment shows that you believe I am correct in my main point. Good. So, again, not sure what the problem is then. Yes, I think that your reaction is “nitpicking” considering that, yes, it is abundantly clear what it is that I am referring to.

“Insult” you? Who is insulting whom?

Peace.

Russ69,

As pointed out by others, and something that I absolutely agree with, whether one is satisfied with the sound of our audio system is really the bottom line of all this. If the sound pleases us, then who is to argue? There are different approaches to reaching the sound that we want as we all have different priorities when it comes to music and this hobby. However, there is a tendency on the part of all of us to want agreement and to take disagreement as to which approach is best unnecessarily personally. This is the reason that it is always best to not be absolutist about a point of view which may not work for anyone except ourselves. I think that it is fantastic that you have found an approach that works for you. I and others don’t find it at all “impossible” to achieve our ideal sound by pursuing a sound that is “closest to real live music”. It’s not about being right or wrong in our approach; except for ourselves.

So, thanks for an interesting subject of discussion. Threads like this always have the potential to teach us how to better understand the point of view of others and even to become better listeners.

I will leave the thread with this personal viewpoint Re one of your quoted comments and one which may help clarify my point of view:

**** ...the recreation of live unamplified music. I think that is the low hanging fruit, that’s a very simple task, playing complex music is where good systems shine. ****

Simple task? From my point of view it is the most complex of all. In fact, the highest hanging fruit and the reason why it is worth pursuing.

Regards.

Take the test 😊.  Even on an iPad the differences can clearly be heard:

https://www.thestrad.com/video/put-your-ears-to-the-test-can-you-pick-the-stradivarius-violin/4446.a...

Apology if anyone is offended that after writing that I would “leave the thread” I should post again. The most recent comments re “Strads vs new” is a little too close to home to ignore; and prompted me to comment and add to mahgister’s excellent comments.

“Reviews” and related commentary such as on the linked blind test proclaiming the supposed superiority of modern instruments are maddening in their lack of depth and, as usual, ignorance of what superiority in an instrument truly means to a musician. Any accomplished musician will tell you that very often for a superior instrument to reveal its superiority the player needs to spend a considerable amount of time with it; not just minutes or even hours. Often, the instrument that is easier to play when first picked up, as is often the case with new instruments, will reveal itself to have limitations in complexity of timbre and will, long term, limit the player’s expressivity. The lack of innate complexity of timbre in many new instruments doesn’t offer the player as much potential to shape a very personalized tone. Conversely, instruments such as a great Strad or Guarneri will often feel far more resistant and constrained when the player first makes the acquaintance and the player (even world class) needs time to learn how that particular instrument likes to be played before it will open up and reveal its superiority in the areas that matter to a great player. Often, it is a matter of, instead of forcing the instrument to respond, of relaxing one’s technique and getting out of the way of the instrument. Initial impressions of tonal qualities of instruments in a blind tests consisting of little playing time with the instruments mean little and it is not surprising that some of the musicians taking part in the blind test would “prefer” the modern instruments.

As an aside, I have had extensive playing experience (I am not a string player) with a major East coast symphony orchestra which through a highly publicized arrangement with some benefactors was able to procure a collection of thirty (!) antique Italian string instruments (not only violins) including several Strads, Guarneri’s, del Gesu and Amatis for use by the players in the orchestra. All the players in the orchestra are first rate players with very fine, mostly modern, personal instruments. The impact on the sound of the string section as a result of the inclusion of the antique instruments was remarkable and transformative.

Yes, some modern luthiers are making fine string instruments today, but there are very real and legitimate reasons why Strads and Guarneri’s fetch the prices that they do. For many accomplished players they remain unsurpassed; and not because of expectation bias.

**** Wasn’t that test about how audience hears it and not how the player feels while playing it? ****

It was both; the article made that clear. Perhaps I was not clear in what I wrote; although I feel I am just repeating myself:

When a player first picks up an instrument (new or old), the feeling created is a major contributor to the resulting sound. If the instrument feels free and non-resistant, easier to play, the resulting sound could very well be a more appealing sound to some listeners as the player feels and sounds more at ease and can, in fact, coax a pleasant tone out of the instrument. However, this is often also a limitation. If the instrument is more resistant and offers the player more “fight”, as is the case with many antique instruments, the ultimately superior sound of the instrument will not manifest itself until the player has had a considerable amount of time with the instrument; much more than is the case in a typical blind test. This is a good thing and a quality sought out by many players.

This concept may be difficult to grasp for a non instrumentalist, but it is reality and is the reason that those old instruments are held in such high esteem. There is more potential in store.

**** What’s sad is how some people either refuse or can’t seem to grasp how biases influence human behavior. ****

It is true that biases exist, but this does not negate what I described. What is even sadder, IMO, is to be locked in a mindset that says that reactions are the result of bias and to refuse to be open minded about the possibility that it is not bias at all that is at play. Seems to me, that the person who is enlightened enough to understand bias should also be the one most open to the possibility that it is NOT always bias that is at play.

There has been a trend in the world of instrument making (all instruments, not just strings) to produce instruments that are brilliant, faster and more incisive sounding; not surprising, considering the similarly changing aesthetic sensibilities of our modern society. Many of the vintage instruments are held in high esteem and sought out by great players for their complexity and richness of tone, and other subtle and elusive qualities. They offer greater potential to a great player.

**** You assume the new instrument is easier to play. That’s a false assumption even just for the nature of the instruments tested. You assume they won’t get better on the new instrument as well, again a false assumption. You assume that playing ability can coax a change in the fundamental sonic characteristics which is not guaranteed and again assumes the old instrument must have hidden capability. All instruments were played blind. No one even knew what they were playing. ****

As I have encouraged you to do previously, please read my comments more carefully. Your comments and knee jerk contradictions demonstrate a very simplistic and frankly, sophomoric grasp of all this. Not a good thing, especially for someone who claims to be in the business of capturing the sounds that we are talking about.

I have performed with what must be literally hundreds of professional string players over the years in various orchestras and other professional ensembles; never mind, other types of instrumentalists. I have spoken at length to many of these on the subject; it is what musicians do, constantly and sometimes to a fault. What I wrote is absolutely true; not in every single case, but often the case. The same principle applies to many other families of instruments. Some professionals do, in fact, prefer the ease of play or other traits of some modern instruments; many do not. Many players seek out the special qualities that some of these old instruments possess and is why they are willing to pay those prices.

What is your experience playing an instrument in a professional capacity and how often have you had the opportunity to discuss this issue with accomplished professional players? Opportunity knocks.

The OP mentions his wonderful experience listening to Nigel Kennedy perform live. Does anyone think that an artist of this caliber cares more about the cache of playing a rare instrument such as his Guarneri more so than playing the instrument that is best for him and his artistic vision; and, is willing to compromise his artistry (and pocket book) by playing an instrument that is not? Anyone who believes that simply doesn’t understand what musicians do. There is a running joke among players about receiving payment or other renumeration for endorsing and “playing” a particular brand of new instrument while playing his/her vintage instrument when performing.

Once again, interesting and with a different result from the audience; no audiophile audio system required to clearly hear the differences:

https://www.thestrad.com/video/put-your-ears-to-the-test-can-you-pick-the-stradivarius-violin/4446.a...

Interesting reading:

https://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20175/21158/

The silence is deafening! ☺️

**** However, absolutes are transferable, and yes, there are absolutes. ****

NOW you’re getting somewhere.  

**** The original comment wrt Strads was wrt bias something lost on you likely due to bias. ****

Not a chance.