IS there an absolute sound?

[fas42]

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

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

Awwww, shucks, Bob ... just doin' my bit to make the world a tastier place .... :b

Frank

 

[DaveyF]

A very interesting thread Elliot, thank you for starting it.

I believe that when HP coined the term "The absolute sound" he was attempting to set an end point goal which he suspected could never be realized. ( which is why he began with the word 'absolute')

Having various reference recordings to refer to as being closest to what one's expectation ( and this word 'expectation' is where the variation of opinion lies) of what a live/unamplified instrument sounds like in a natural setting is,IMO, a very subjective situation.

What we have been experimenting with in my a'phile group is listening to a 'live' instrument play and then AB'ing said instrument against a recording that we feel represents a lifelike rendition of said instrument.
I have stated on several occasions that when we do this, the result is that the playback is a VERY poor rendition of the real. However, the ultimate goal, at least to me, is to be able to get close enough to this rendition(of the real) that i am fooled into thinking that I am in the same room as the real. Unfortunately, as a musician, I know that what i hear of the real, isn't necessarily what the less trained ear or shall we say less acute ear will hear. Many times, it has been demonstrated to me that what appeals and is audible to me, doesn't necessarily appeal to or is audible to another listener. As an example of this, the other day I was playing a guitar piece to two different non a'phile friends, the first ( a lady...BTW ladies typically have a MUCH greater ability to hear upper frequencies than us guys-believe it or not) tells me that she can hear the overtones and the slight intonation issues that I was having that day and suggest that I re-adjust the intonation.....the other listener, who happens to be a local composer (male) states that the piece is spot on....who's right and who's wrong? ( I happened to agree with the dear lady, but I think one can see my point).

Therefore, perhaps the answer in our hobby is to strive for a sound that simply 'fools' most of the people most of the time.....which is what the best systems that we have are getting better at---BUT still have a long way to go, just IMHO.

 

[JackD201]

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

I'm still game for that Lee. I've also heard great things about Marty's evaluation CD. I'd love to have a copy of that too.

 

[Robert]

Voice analysis software can identify the person based upon a set of characteristics. Perhaps a series of basic test conditions can be put together, and then have a computer analyze the sound to identify how close the match. While the computer programming would need to analyze certain elements based upon human construct, it has the advantages of removing subjectivity at that level once those elements have been agreed upon.

 

[Robert]

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

With orchestral pieces, I have a soundstage that is around 50 feet wide, 30 feet deep, and set forward 30-60 feet from the listening position. With choral works, the stage is perceived to be even deeper. When looking at the system, there is a disconnect because the eyes are at odds with the ears. The speakers and room no longer exist.

I feel the most important elements are the source and the speakers, but the entire system contributes. The quality of the power is extremely important. Recordings matter a bit, but not as much as one would think.

 

[steve williams]

I'm still game for that Lee. I've also heard great things about Marty's evaluation CD. I'd love to have a copy of that too.

FWIW, Marty has 3 terrific test CD's

 

[Elliot G.]

I will try to make my tone more mellifluous for those it offends.
To say that we can not find an agreed upon list of things to use as a starting point to evaluate the gear we all love and use is INHO absurd.
It matters not what speakers, or amps etc. one uses since this is not the beginning of our discussion.
I believe that you need to start with some basics. I realize that perfection is unobtainable here but without a starting point we have no shot at discussing this intelligently.
For those of you who want to be negative towards every suggestion there is no hope for you.
Having been in hundreds of homes listening to many systems put together by audiophiles all I can say is THEY NEED HELP.
IMHO the best way to help is to try to develop some basic, underlines basic, recordings to be used as a starting point.
For example in a defined space, with pictures guys, a piano is recorded. We tell everyone what piano. Dewfine the mics, etc. that are used. I think that if commissioned we could get a terrific person to do this and there would be enough sales of such to pay for it. Heck I am not a pessimist as others posting here.
Then a solo guitar- again with pictures and brand
a solo violin.
This is a starting point for imaging, size , spacial cues etc,
We would need others of course for power, dynamics. etc etc.
I don't need to explain every detail.
If we as a group could start this I know that he industry would have to follow since for the most part there are a lot of sheep.NO Offense to anyone.

I started the thread for ideas and opinions.....

 

[ack]

I will try to make my tone more mellifluous for those it offends.
To say that we can not find an agreed upon list of things to use as a starting point to evaluate the gear we all love and use is INHO absurd.

Just curious... this is your toned-down rhetoric?

 

[Elliot G.]

Just curious... this is your toned-down rhetoric?

Yes it is Mom!

 

[ack]

Yes it is Mom!

And this is how you also address your customers at the store?

 

[Elliot G.]

And this is how you also address your customers at the store?

wow and no sense of humor either...

 

[Alan Sircom]

There are four competing models for an audio system:

1. 'I don't care how it sounds, just so long as it's cheap enough'
2. 'I don't care what it does, just as long as it sounds good to me'
3. 'I want it to conform to an objective series of benchmarks'
4. 'I want it to conform to a subjective series of benchmarks'

HP's original 'Absolute Sound' goal (#4) came about in part as a reaction to the unemotional response of #3 and seeing that the alternative was either #1 or #2.

In most cases we got #1 or #2.

Harry's Absolute Sound approach is demanding. It demands time researching or finding the recordings suitable for equipment evaluation, and then more time evaluating that equipment. It also often runs counter to the original intentions of the person embarking on the quest for better audio - someone who is about to invest in good audio to make their dubstep or death metal collection sound better is unlikely to actively choose a system designed to better resolve an acoustic instrument in a live setting.

Audio is not medicine. If someone is faced with their chosen genre of music sounding good through a poor system, or sounding bad through a good system, they will take the first option. And, faced with music that is increasingly clipped and compressed so that the range from 0dBFS to a whole two decibels below that constitutes a good recording, with instruments time corrected to remove the human element from a track and people so unused to a voice without Auto Tune correction that they wince at Sinatra's passing tones, this is only likely to get worse.

I agree that a set of standardised recordings would seem like a good place to start, but I would find it very difficult to publish the findings of so lofty a set of standards. We are already locked away in our ivory tower according to the wider population. Citing the same recordings over and over again would only serve to reinforce that opinion of audio and its followers. I don't think all music cited in print should have been recorded within the last two years, and classical music citations are to be strictly controlled, but I know of titles that do apply such rules.

You could probably create a standard set of classical and jazz recordings very easily. You could also produce a series of contemporary recordings that deliver similar properties, but the chimeric nature of contemporary music today would mean you would have to revise this increasingly vital part of the toolkit to stay current. And the concern there is you might struggle to find recordings that consistently deliver the properties you seek to analyse in contemporary music.

Ultimately, Harry's quest for the Absolute Sound is a good one, but it's like trying to root out corruption in politics - a valid and worthwhile goal, but an impossible task.

 

[Elliot G.]

There are four competing models for an audio system:

1. 'I don't care how it sounds, just so long as it's cheap enough'
2. 'I don't care what it does, just as long as it sounds good to me'
3. 'I want it to conform to an objective series of benchmarks'
4. 'I want it to conform to a subjective series of benchmarks'

HP's original 'Absolute Sound' goal (#4) came about in part as a reaction to the unemotional response of #3 and seeing that the alternative was either #1 or #2.

In most cases we got #1 or #2.

Harry's Absolute Sound approach is demanding. It demands time researching or finding the recordings suitable for equipment evaluation, and then more time evaluating that equipment. It also often runs counter to the original intentions of the person embarking on the quest for better audio - someone who is about to invest in good audio to make their dubstep or death metal collection sound better is unlikely to actively choose a system designed to better resolve an acoustic instrument in a live setting.

Audio is not medicine. If someone is faced with their chosen genre of music sounding good through a poor system, or sounding bad through a good system, they will take the first option. And, faced with music that is increasingly clipped and compressed so that the range from 0dBFS to a whole two decibels below that constitutes a good recording, with instruments time corrected to remove the human element from a track and people so unused to a voice without Auto Tune correction that they wince at Sinatra's passing tones, this is only likely to get worse.

I agree that a set of standardised recordings would seem like a good place to start, but I would find it very difficult to publish the findings of so lofty a set of standards. We are already locked away in our ivory tower according to the wider population. Citing the same recordings over and over again would only serve to reinforce that opinion of audio and its followers. I don't think all music cited in print should have been recorded within the last two years, and classical music citations are to be strictly controlled, but I know of titles that do apply such rules.

You could probably create a standard set of classical and jazz recordings very easily. You could also produce a series of contemporary recordings that deliver similar properties, but the chimeric nature of contemporary music today would mean you would have to revise this increasingly vital part of the toolkit to stay current. And the concern there is you might struggle to find recordings that consistently deliver the properties you seek to analyse in contemporary music.

Ultimately, Harry's quest for the Absolute Sound is a good one, but it's like trying to root out corruption in politics - a valid and worthwhile goal, but an impossible task.

Thank you Alan
Perhaps we can now start a discussion to nominate some to begin to assemble a list of existing recordings and maybe in the future to attempt to produce others to fill a needed void.
Your input is greatly appreciated

 

[microstrip]

Maybe we can go back to the year it all started (1973) (scan of first page of TAS issue 1 editorial illustrated with part of the front cover)

 

[JackD201]

Yes it is Mom!

Hahahhahahaha. Nice one Dad. No Offense.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Maybe we can go back to the year it all started (1973) (scan of first page of TAS issue 1 editorial illustrated with part of the front cover)

Seeing Issue 1 of and WBF members revisiting the idea of establishing a list of "reference quality" recordings (that most have access to) to serve as a point of comparison is highly interesting Those who go back to the early years of TAS might remember that the early product reviews didn't include references to the recordings used in the equipment evaluation. That only happenened if I remember correctly, in the TAS late teens.

And who can't like Harry's unparalled ability to slice and dice with the English language, comparing audio measurements to the MMPT and astrology (hell people still use the MMPT and argue about it ).

 

[aln]

Perhaps the time has come to put a series of audio files on the web and use them as a reference. I think that the recordings should include not only music, but sounds common to all, doors slamming, cars going by, crowd sounds, the whole gamut of shared experiece. However, each audio file would have a description of the recording technique and would be "juried" so that it represents a valid acoustic moment and shows a facet of the listening experience. If we start a site (perhaps here) of common sounds and performance sounds, and people begin to use them in reviewing, we are starting a common discussion area-one not inhibited by accessing a particular record or audio file. This would not prevent anyone from using their favorite recordings or sounds in voicing their system-just a way to start a shared experience.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I think that the recordings should include not only music, but sounds common to all, doors slamming, cars going by, crowd sounds, the whole gamut of shared experiece. (...)

Mike Skeet slamming his garage door again?

 

[RBFC]

Mike Skeet slamming his garage door again?

"I'm standing here in my garage with a Cal-Rec Soundfield microphone in order to demonstrate the dynamic range of real life."

Lee

 

[NorthStar]

For me, The Absolute Sound
begins the moment you start enjoying the Music and stop analysing it. :b