IS there an absolute sound?

[mep]

This thread started out as somewhat interesting although I knew it was doomed to failure. Elliot’s tone and content has now degenerated into an argumentative stance that borderlines on inferring that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is a dolt.

One thing that I have learned over the years is that audiophiles can’t agree on anything and that’s why audio gear comes in more flavors than Baskin Robbins. NO ONE has ever devised a complete system that I’m aware of that was run up the flag pole as the “absolute sound” and everyone saluted it. Hell, we can’t even agree what the “absolute sound” is let alone agree on a system/component/speaker/wire that will bring you the mythical “absolute sound.”

Now, do I think it would be cool if we all had a standard list of recordings that we could say were good enough to be reference recordings and we could use those recordings to bounce off of each other and see if we are close to hearing the same thing? Sure, it would be a fun exercise. But based on gear, room size, etc., the recordings are never going to sound the same from one person’s system to another.

I think each of us makes a decision on how close we think we are to achieving fidelity to the source based on our experience with hearing music played live (or not) and our memory of how our reference recordings used to sound on past gear we owned.

With regards to chasing the “absolute sound,” I’m beginning to think that is as mythical as chasing Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster. HP gave everyone his definition of the absolute sound many years ago. To paraphrase, it was something like the sound of live unamplified instruments played in a real space. Back when HP was king and ruled the audio landscape with an iron typewriter, he was able to get that definition to stick and be accepted as “the truth.” Nowadays, I don’t think we could get a consensus of non-consensual audiophiles to buy into that definition. I think it would devolve into fisticuffs and comments about whose mama was working which street corner.

 

[Elliot G.]

This thread started out as somewhat interesting although I knew it was doomed to failure. Elliot’s tone and content has now degenerated into an argumentative stance that borderlines on inferring that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is a dolt.

One thing that I have learned over the years is that audiophiles can’t agree on anything and that’s why audio gear comes in more flavors than Baskin Robbins. NO ONE has ever devised a complete system that I’m aware of that was run up the flag pole as the “absolute sound” and everyone saluted it. Hell, we can’t even agree what the “absolute sound” is let alone agree on a system/component/speaker/wire that will bring you the mythical “absolute sound.”

Now, do I think it would be cool if we all had a standard list of recordings that we could say were good enough to be reference recordings and we could use those recordings to bounce off of each other and see if we are close to hearing the same thing? Sure, it would be a fun exercise. But based on gear, room size, etc., the recordings are never going to sound the same from one person’s system to another.

I think each of us makes a decision on how close we think we are to achieving fidelity to the source based on our experience with hearing music played live (or not) and our memory of how our reference recordings used to sound on past gear we owned.

With regards to chasing the “absolute sound,” I’m beginning to think that is as mythical as chasing Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster. HP gave everyone his definition of the absolute sound many years ago. To paraphrase, it was something like the sound of live unamplified instruments played in a real space. Back when HP was king and ruled the audio landscape with an iron typewriter, he was able to get that definition to stick and be accepted as “the truth.” Nowadays, I don’t think we could get a consensus of non-consensual audiophiles to buy into that definition. I think it would devolve into fisticuffs and comments about whose mama was working which street corner.

Gee Sir, I am sorry you don't like my tone. Wow I am talking to my mother now. My point was that we should find some ideas to help all of us have a common thread with which to have an educated dialogue. I suggested some "reference recordings" of some instruments recorded in a simple manner in a standardized location. PERIOD.
I got all the reasons that audiophiles give for not doing anything.
Funny I did not hear any positive suggestions.
Its like my kids with their schoolwork... I can't do it....waaaaah
I apologize for my tone I am a street kid from NYC and I don't deal with this crying really well.

 

[Ron Party]

Is not the Circle Of Confusion relevant here?

 

[mep]

Gee Sir, I am sorry you don't like my tone. Wow I am talking to my mother now. My point was that we should find some ideas to help all of us have a common thread with which to have an educated dialogue. I suggested some "reference recordings" of some instruments recorded in a simple manner in a standardized location. PERIOD.
I got all the reasons that audiophiles give for not doing anything.
Funny I did not hear any positive suggestions.
Its like my kids with their schoolwork... I can't do it....waaaaah
I apologize for my tone I am a street kid from NYC and I don't deal with this crying really well.

See Elliot, it's that tone of yours. I didn't hear anyone crying when I read their responses. I didn't hear anyone saying it was "too hard." I did hear lots of people give legitimate reasons on why your ideas are not very practical.

We are never going to boil this down into a simple stew based on a common set of ingredients. And even if we used the same ingredients, it wouldn't sound the same unless we all had identical rooms which is never going to happen.

We can’t get people who love SS to agree on what is the best sounding SS and who makes it. We have Class A, Class A/B, and Class D to name but a few. They all sound different, so they all can’t be “right” or represent the “absolute sound.”

Tube lovers can’t agree on anything except the fact they love tubes. Now we have broken down into single-ended Class A, push-pull Class A, push-pull Class A/B, triode vs. pentode, octal vs. 9-pin, feedback vs. no feedback and on and on. Each sounds wildly different from the other. Again, they all can’t be right and there is another fisticuff session waiting to spill out into the street on whose “right.”

And while we are mentioning gear, there is no consensus on balanced or unbalanced, but each camp damn sure thinks they are right.

Speakers-where do I start? Planar magnetic, electrostats, acoustic suspension, ported, transmission lines, horns, bipolar, dipolar, omni, and on and on. Again, all these technologies sound wildly different and they can’t all be right.

So if everyone has a system with nothing in common with anyone else, what good is a “reference” list of recordings that have no chance of sounding the same on each of these systems? And this doesn’t even take into account how we all hear different. And to think I didn’t even mention source material and the on-going digital vs. analog food-fight…

 

[fas42]

Elliot, thank you for kicking off this thread and running hard with it. As you can see, you've stirred up the hornet's nest and they're buzzing pretty noisily at the moment. Of course the buzzing has a very realistic, high end tone to it, doesn't sound like it's emerging from a cheap PC speaker! :b

Anyway, this is just to let you know that I'm on your side. I agree 100% on there needing to be reference recordings, epecially ones deliberately recorded or mastered for the very purpose of highlighting system qualities. Art Noxon's MATT sample is an excellent example of what can be done in this area. Another I have considered doing is to add a highly discordant audio signal to an existing track, such that simple measuring techniques can be used: say, having a voice reciting the integers from zero to 9 in a very long, random sequence and mix that in with pink noise, or a high energy rock track; then have a test of how many integers people can get right when listening at a certain volume level. This sort of technique can be extended into all sorts of directions, and helps to bypass the nonsense of saying things are right because they "sound right". My own, personal test is to use the "worst" recordings I have, because they beautifully expose every deficiency to the setup ...

Some people have systems that are working at a very high level, and "know" they've reached a certain plateau significantly above most people's. Robert's, who's just posted, Roger's, my own humble effort in certain key ways. But it's hard to convey the key qualities, because of the limitations of language; and egos of all concerned! The value of what these people have achieved is high, but it will take quite some doing for the benefits of their "work" to filter through ...

So thanks again for making this effort!

Cheers,
Frank

 

[treitz3]

IS there an absolute sound?

Simply put? Yes, the original performance.

 

[jazdoc]

BTW, someone tried to 'establish a common analog listening bias' a couple of years ago on Audiogon to no avail:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1246451558&read&keyw&list+recordings&&st0

Elliot, perhaps it would be helpful for your to direct the discussion by providing a proposed list of reference recordings to serve as a jumping off point for further discussion?

 

[microstrip]

Is not the Circle Of Confusion relevant here?

Yes, it is.very relevant It is why I and some other suggested they it would be nice if when we debate we state the recordings we are using to illustrate our views. Unhappily most people prefer to ignore this aspect.

 

[fas42]

Simply put? Yes, the original performance.

Yes, but what if there is no such animal: as many like Tim point out, in many cases the recording is of an event that occurred in multiple little spaces, over time, in a recording studio, or totally in electronics, Kitaro for example.

My extremely simplistic definition is a sound quality level that subjectively completely removes the reproduction system from the picture: that is, in every sense the hifi disappears, one's mind does not connect the sound you're hearing in any way with the mechanism that's doing the job of generating the air vibrations. Of course, being a highly subjective interpretation this level of reproduction is extremely hard to quantify, or "objectify", but people who experience it certainly know it ...

Frank

 

[audioguy]

I confess to not reading every post in this thread. That said, part of the reason we won't be able to get to the "absolute sound" is we all hear/perceive differently.

Let's all go to the same symphony and sit in the same seat (go along with me here!!) . Then let's go out in the lobby and discuss what we heard. I'm reasonable comfortable that we will NOT have all heard the same thing. Some will be focused on the violins, while others the piano, others the horns, others the harp and then we will change our focus to some other part of the orchestra. And we all won't be listening to the same thing at the same time, even though we are all listening to the same symphony at the same time.

Same thing can happen in your listening room.

Furthermore, we all have different hearing abilities (i.e. different frequency responses).

We all have "preferences" for different kinds of tones that are more comfortable to us individually (e.g. I LOVE the sound of brass)

So the chance of coming up with an agreed upon definition (Harry Pearson notwithstanding) is between slim and none.

 

[microstrip]

Some of these I have heard "live" and compare to my memory (but then there are some who say that our sonic memory is no longer than 3 seconds), others I balance to achieve what I think would be the "correct" mix. This way, all my products from the smallest speaker to the largest have the same sonic signature. My point is that there is no "absolute sound" because what I think is the absolute sound is different from what another designer would regard as the absolute sound, and there can be no determination of who is right.

Gary,

Although I recognize this is dangerous game, as I do not know exactly how it was recorded, I have a few recordings of performances of non-amplified music that I have listened life and use my remembrance of these sessions to listen to a system. Then I look for aspects that recreate the image I keep from the life performance. With great systems, it is usually something that comes unexpectedly - the proper size of orchestra sections, the inter-play of the performers, the natural attack and proportion of the voices, the feeling of movement, or the correct dynamics. I know I am particularly concerned about the proper decays and crescendos - other people will have other priorities. .

 

[fas42]

Let's all go to the same symphony and sit in the same seat (go along with me here!!) . Then let's go out in the lobby and discuss what we heard. I'm reasonable comfortable that we will NOT have all heard the same thing. Some will be focused on the violins, while others the piano, others the horns, others the harp and then we will change our focus to some other part of the orchestra. And we all won't be listening to the same thing at the same time, even though we are all listening to the same symphony at the same time.

To continue with this thought experiment: if a reasonably high quality, minimalist recording setup was installed at that performance and then you replayed the recording through a system for each of those people in the same listening chair in the playback room, and then they discussed amongst each other again. If they then made effectively the same comments as per the "real thing" then you have absolute sound ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

With great systems, it is usually something that comes unexpectedly - the proper size of orchestra sections, the inter-play of the performers, the natural attack and proportion of the voices, the feeling of movement, or the correct dynamics. I know I am particularly concerned about the proper decays and crescendos - other people will have other priorities. .

There is a simple, encompassing word for this: it sounds "real". A good "weasel" word, but when a system gets it right it's a very definite, Yes/No, switch. At a more ambitious level, this same switch is set to Yes for relatively "poor quality" recordings ...

Frank

 

[treitz3]

.....but absolute, not with stereo, never.

Not in our lifetime.

 

[Robh3606]

ie the scale

I never got the scale bit. How could everything fit between your speakers or a bit beyond the edges?? How can you ever hope to get a orchestra if 15" of space?? I guess no one sits in the 10th row.

Rob

 

[fas42]

I never got the scale bit. How could everything fit between your speakers or a bit beyond the edges?? How can you ever hope to get a orchestra if 15" of space?? I guess no one sits in the 10th row.

Rob

Basically, if the system works well the subjective impression is that the soundscape occurs in an area beyond the speakers in every sense. At low volume the orchestra is quite some distance away, so no trouble fitting "between" the speakers: at higher volumes, this space extends well beyond the sides of the speakers, and beyond side walls if they happen to be close. It's as if the end of the listening area directly in front of you completely disappears, and is now attached to the acoustic space encoded in the recording, whatever that was. This is all about the trick played by the ear/brain on your mind if fed with the right acoustic cues, but they have to be of sufficient quality, or otherwise manipulated, Ambisonics comes to mind, for your head to say internally, "OK, I'll go along with this illusion ..."

Frank

 

[garylkoh]

Gary,

Although I recognize this is dangerous game, as I do not know exactly how it was recorded, I have a few recordings of performances of non-amplified music that I have listened life and use my remembrance of these sessions to listen to a system. Then I look for aspects that recreate the image I keep from the life performance. With great systems, it is usually something that comes unexpectedly - the proper size of orchestra sections, the inter-play of the performers, the natural attack and proportion of the voices, the feeling of movement, or the correct dynamics. I know I am particularly concerned about the proper decays and crescendos - other people will have other priorities. .

micro, I believe that is totally valid. It is the sound you know and you remember, and hence when you use that to listen to a system, then it is your absolute sound. I just don't believe that we can have a universal absolute sound. We all have different tastes, priorities, and experiences.

 

[fas42]

I just don't believe that we can have a universal absolute sound. We all have different tastes, priorities, and experiences.

Hmmm, I wonder ...

I'm reminded of the stories of audiophiles with mega-expensive setups, who accidentally get everything to sync sound-wise, they can't believe how remarkable it sounds; and then another member of the family, who's not the slightest bit interested in the hobby, intrudes and remarks, "Gee, what did you do? It sounds pretty good at the moment ..."

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Frank, you add some 'fruity' spices in our Sound world. :b

And that, is Absolutely true. ...In the most positive way of course.

 

[RBFC]

Early in the infancy of WBF, we discussed producing a "WBF test CD" with cuts that highlighted different aspects of musical reproduction. Our own Bruce B. graciously offered to assist, but the project got almost no interest at the time. While we may not place the most "perfect" tracks on it, a test CD would allow us to discuss the sound of the system under examination from a common ground. Perhaps this CD is an idea whose time is approaching.....

Lee