The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound
With all due respect to some of our venerable members whose advices and comments I usually enjoy, music is an art but music reproduction is all science and engineering. Hi-Fi is about high fidelity. That doesn't mean we are not supposed to adjust the sound of our systems to our tastes, moods and budgets. However, when I buy a Kind Of Blue album, I expect to hear what Miles Davis intended for me to hear, not what the recording engineer thinks it should sound like. There is no room here for compromise. Music reproduction should not be like a painting, it should be like a photograph. The higher the resolution, the better the lenses, the better the result. We are allowed to pick the filters to our liking but not to change the composition. We do have a lot of liberty as to what filters we like but we should thrive to stay close to the original. |
| Post removed |
Inmho, striving to achieve the 'same' sound at home like on some live concert (even 'unplugged') is missconception in start, for many reasons. Stereo reproduction beeing the first and obvious one. (there is no stereo sound in the nature, or 'pin point' imaging)...mono guys could glove, but not for long... I believe that at home you can reproduce the tone(s) with a great accuracy, but thats about as close or as much you will get to 'copying' the actual event. Everything else is just us enjoying our own illusions Just recently there was a nice article about the subject, posted on Audiogon as well. Hope you dont mind me posting it again https://medialux.blog/2019/10/27/true-to-the-source-some-thoughts/?fbclid=IwAR0ZqQND7gHbWovl7BvHe5uR... |
@frogman 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.Why should it rock my boat? I agree with your 1st post. Don't know why you didn't understand. My comment was to reinforce your idea. Everyone has different priorities. **** Music enjoyed in one’s living room (or music room) is, in many ways, actually superior aurally to almost any live performance. **** This is NOT my quote. |
@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. |
Yeah, well said, snilf. Thinking about the question from the other day about favorite rock concerts brings to mind how awful they can sound. But that's hardly the point, is it? Who goes to see a rock band perform live for the acoustic experience? It's a social thing. The crowd, the anticipation, the participation in a shared celebration of something you're all into; isn't that what matters most? That first Who show I saw did sound fabulous to me, in part because the band was brilliant. Tight. Entwistle one of the greatest bass players ever. But it was also the thrill of seeing them walk onto the stage, and seeing strangers as excited as I was, and screaming at the top of our lungs. But the Joshua Tree shows sounded horrible. Couldn't even discern that "In God's Country" was being played till Bono began singing. Everything was buried under shrill amplification. So what, though? The ethos was the thing, the camaraderie. Singing every song together with 17,000 other people, and ending with "40." Does it even matter whether it "sounds good"? Snilf's point about memory is again on point here. For me, listening to music in the living room is mostly a solitary pleasure. That gives me a measure of control over the acoustics that is lacking in a concert hall. I actually enjoy the music much more this way, and I'm unwilling to accept that I'm missing something crucial to the experience, because it's a very different kind of thing, sui generis. I like how a few respondents have emphasized the artistry involved in recorded music. This is, I think, hardly a secondary form of art, but essential to our engagement, and, even if only a little bit, we get to help the creative process. Choosing this-or-that amp, speakers, or to toe in or not to toe in. Where do I sit, how far away from the speakers? All of that contributes to the visceral pleasures of home listening, and none of it is meant to be pure reproduction. |
I agree with snilf. A record (or CD, SACD, DVD-A, stream, etc) is an artifact all to itself. Not an exact representation of an event. It has it’s own sonic characteristics necessarily different from the event, and must be treated thusly. We play this artifact as a “happening” similar to but not the same as the event. It may indeed be more enjoyable and sound better to our ears. |
Thank you, russ69, for posting this provocative and essential question. For a long time, I've shared the dogma of "the absolute sound": that the goal of a fine audio system is to recreate the aural experience of a live (acoustic) concert. Perhaps for this reason, I've considered good recordings of solo instruments (e.g., piano, cello, violin, guitar) or small ensembles (string quartets, chamber orchestras) as the "gold standard" by means of which to judge musical reproduction. Rock concerts are already electronic events, after all, and so subject to amplifier distortion, poor hall acoustics, crowd noise and many other factors beyond one's control, while large orchestras in grand concert halls produce a sheer size of sound not realistically achievable in one's living room. Expecting otherwise is a little like expecting to be as impressed by a photograph of a mountainscape as one would be by the real thing: sheer scale has a lot to do with the impact. But I've since come to a different view. Music enjoyed in one's living room (or music room) is, in many ways, actually superior aurally to almost any live performance. The holographic presentation of "soundstage," for example, can be pretty astonishing on a good stereo in a room with favorable acoustics: with eyes closed (or even with eyes open!), one can "see" each instrument in spatial relation to every other, enabling the listener to follow a particular musical voice most easily by somehow "keeping one's eye on" the performer producing that melody or line of counterpoint. I've tried to do this when attending live concerts; it's rarely as vivid as it can be in my living room. And as for rock music, "concert volume" is, in my experience, almost always so loud, and so distorted, as to be painful. Listening to a well-recorded studio rock album at high volume (110 db or more) is thrilling, visceral, and yet also crystal clear: the same detail as at modest volume, undistorted by crowd noise, overdriven amplifiers, and who knows what. None of which is to say that we should not patronize live performances. But the difference between attending a live performance and listening to a good recording on a fine audio system at home is a little like the difference between attending a live stage play and watching a filmed version of a live stage play in a well-appointed media room. The frisson of the crowd, the sense that those are real people up there, the tension of knowing mistakes could happen...these things add an excitement to the "live" event that, of course, no "canned" version could hope to even approximate. Not to mention that it represents a demonstration of respect for the artists who produce the music we love when we go to "see" them in person, a fleeting experience we can't possess except in our memories. |
@frogman 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.... Good point. I used to wonder why so many liked Pioneer. I never heard one that I liked. @barts Many times this comes down to reproducing the bass properly, not a simple task. Bingo! Thus the need for good subs. |
@Russ69 I never did chase or attempt to massage my system to sound live. Essentially what I have always been after is correct timbre, pitch and intensity. A very very close second is weight and dynamic range. All of us or nearly all have been to a rock concert in a great sounding venue and the person running the soundboard also got it right. Plenty of electronics going on there as well as many decisions. I don't expect my system to reproduce it exactly as I remember it, but I do expect that all of my criteria in the paragraph above be met. Many times this comes down to reproducing the bass properly, not a simple task. Example: I saw Sting at Radio City Music Hall and the CD came out some time later. "Bring on the Night". Fabulous music, fabulous venue, awesome CD. Makes me know all the work was worth it. Please listen to the track "I Burn for You". Several mega-dollar systems I've heard choke on that track. Russ, we're on the same page. Regards, barts |
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. |
The end result of Every recording ever produced was based on someone’s subjective view on how it "should" sound. Therefore, there are no recordings that will ever sound like the real thing. So why fight it? Go after the sound that "sounds" good to your ears. Otherwise, you are chasing unicorns. 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....ultimately, it must please your ears and no one else's. |
**** 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. |
I am afraid that with no live performances of any kind due to current situation we become more painters than photographers. At least we have the memories of live and people voices talking to us. Of course we induce our colour and shading in the pallet but can follow some rules that would make something having sense. Continue hunting the absolute for having the best enjoyment and be able to paint. G |
it all sounds fake and miniaturized -- just pick the flavor and color of fake and miniaturized that makes you happy but just as with photos and videos of life events with friends and loved ones, the purpose is to bring fond memories, good feelings, joy and comfort - to teleport to the actual event, the real thing, is too high a standard to realistically achieve thus, as such, it makes the energetic pursuit of a good system that we thoroughly enjoy no less worthwhile |
@russ69 "...unamplified acoustic performances remain the standard for judging how close our systems get to the sound of live. Indeed I do but that is about .01% of the type of music I listen to, so why use that as a standard? I agree. Why voice your system for something to which you don't listen? I listen mostly to classic rock. Fortunately, I also played (drums & vocals) in classic rock bands for years. So I have a good idea of the sound I am looking for. Now IF I put on a piece of acoustic and it doesn't sound correct, I then re-access. I can't remember that ever happening though. |
Ever confuse jazz brushing for tape hiss? Which leads you to wonder why the drummer is doing that in the first place? I’ve learned that it’s an effort to enlarge the sense of ambience. It’s a drummer practicing the art of illusion. Even live music resorts to sonic illusions. Then the producer does. Then the engineer. The pressing team. Then our equipment puts a few illusion kisses on things. As does the room. As do our ears and brains. Performance-wise, a total team effort. You’re not just hearing the sound of live music, you’re hearing something arguably cooler: multiple layers of coordinated performance, infused with all kinds of human touches, artistic or otherwise. When I consider it that way, the question sorta answers itself. Sometimes you hear wine types talking tasting the terroir (the dirt), but you never hear them say they want to taste JUST the dirt. |
frogman, Of course, the ideal would be comparing live performance of non-amplified music with whatever we have at home. I was mentioning rock'n'roll because it seems to me that most of the members here (Audiogon, not necessarily only this thread) lean towards electrified performances. At some point, I recorded a piano. As simple as simple gets, no fancy recording equipment, technique, or conditions. Portable MiniDisc with a microphone (around $70-100, I forgot details) in the room. It was surprising how close that recording actually came to the live piano on a relatively, for Audiogon, modest system. Maybe the secret was that both were in the same room, much smaller than any venue one usually listens to piano at. Our regular recordings are, as millercarbon pointed out, processed to resemble what many people along the way wanted them to resemble. Not always the faithful recreation of the event. Recordings bear some room imprint and attempting to recreate that in a living room may make things more complicated. |
Frog, how are you ? We always have an unamplified instrument with us - voice. If system doesn't reproduce voice reasonably well it is no good. Record your voice on tape and play it. Next step play an acoustic guitar, just strike a few accords, record it and play. If you only listen to amplified and 'synthetic' music, that's easier, though still it is hard to get dynamics right in a small room, and almost any room is small. |
Live like sound is always what what I find most satisfying. The more live like the better. It’s why it seems no conventional speaker can ever wean me off Ohm Walsh “Omni” speakers. Everything sounds live to some extent, not like a studio recording. I find conventional box speakers that feature very wide dispersion can come close. The kef ls50 metas (+ powered sub) I added recently are a good example. |
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”. |
"No system sounds exactly like live music and none ever will; but some get surprisingly close." Do not forget that some (most?) of the current live music/events are also playing through the electronic system. When listening to, let’s say, rock’n’roll and trying to have it sound like a live event, you are really trying to match that electronics/venue combination. Having said that, there has not been much live music to compare our systems with lately. |
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. |
I'm much happier now and all my music collection can be enjoyed for what it is: Recorded music. Right. Hardly any recordings are trying to be "true to the event" anyway. That would be like an artist with a paintbrush trying to produce a Polaroid. What we have with recorded music is essentially a lot of different art created by a lot of different artists. It happens to be in an electronic format where a lot of the artistry is performed with microphones and other electronics, all of which is done behind the scenes. As if that wasn't bad enough we make it worse by calling a lot of these artists engineers. This creates the false impression we are dealing with objective reality. Because a bridge or a building, it either stands or falls. A recording on the other hand, it can be a Rembrandt or a Picasso. Hell it can even be a Jackson Pollock. Too many of us seem to think our job is to make all these different works of art look like a Polaroid. Except of course for the mono guys. They all want Ansel Adams. No wonder everyone is so running neurotically running around trying to make everything perfect. There is no perfect! How do they display art in a museum? With nice, even neutral lighting. No glare. In a decent size space, enough to get some perspective. We say we visit the museum, but is that really right? I don't think so. I think we visit the art. That happens to be in a museum. What you really did then, the way I see it, is set your system up to provide just the right amount of lighting and space to enjoy your art. You aren't listening to your system. You are enjoying your recordings. That happen to be playing on your system. To go from being constantly frustrated to consistently satisfied, that tiny little shift in thinking is all it takes. |
Wise move.... I never suffered from this illusion, i am lucky.... I did never enjoy lived event much, being "allergic" to crowd, a crowd being for me more that 4 persons... I know it is a "disease" but an uncurable one... I love people very much but only on very small scale.... Then i never entertain the illusory superiority of lived event with the nostalgia of past lived collective concert for example.... Lived event and recorded one, it is not the same thing at all.... The only link between the 2 ,eyes closed, are the music, not the sound.... |
