What's Best? The Absolute Sound or today's High End Systems?

Back in the day of Harry Pearson and the evolution of the High End Audio, Pearson, in the pages of The Absolute Sound, defined the "absolute sound" as unamplified acoustic instruments and/or vocals performed in a real space, usually a concert hall. The evaluation of reproduction systems (HiFi equipment) was a based on a subjective comparison to the "absolute sound." The best systems came the closest to the sound of a live performance in a real space.

Over the last several years I have been a regular attendee of live music in San Francisco at Davies Symphony Hall and The Metropolitan Opera House. I have come to the realization that, in my opinion, the best sound and musical enjoyment happens at home with my highly evolved system, and I question weather it's worth the expense and effort to attend, other than for the occasional performance of a favorite artist.

I've tried various seating choices, always seeking the best. But more and more I have come to the conclusion that the best seat in the house (at least sonically) is at home! Do other WBF members share this view?

 

Oh dear .... Again, without intent of disrespect, I don't think you understood what I said in my initial post and follow-up about basis for preference. I'll take that on myself for not being sufficiently explanatory to you but the post is for any forum member. I don't want to keep repeating myself because that takes a lot of energy from me.

Too many items for a response to each. So a couple brief remarks others may want to skip and then the caravan moves on.

==> My post and my point is not about the word 'natural' or what counts as 'natural sound.' <==

Of course "what sounds live to one person isn't always what sounds live to another." Almost no one will disagree. ('Almost' because, well, we're audiophiles.) But what we should not be able to disagree over, despite VR, is whether a person is listening to a live acoustic event - however that sounds to them. Whatever one hears, the Naturalist uses that experience as a reference for assessment and has a general preference for it over reproduced music, when those are his choices. There's wiggle room for mediocre performers and poor performances.



Synthesist is not derogatory. I use it to denote those who generally prefer the sound of their own or some system over a live experience when given that choice, and adopt what in their view makes that system good or right or enjoyable as their basis for making choices about it and what it contains. More detail, better imaging, more comfort, whatever, than they might experience from the live experience. Perhaps they see or prefer what they've created or are working toward as an ideal of what music (or even the live experience) should be. Or perhaps not. (Yes I could have used 'Idealist' but other connotations there.)

These are not opposing views but a ground, a fundament, on which one's approach to audio stands. Where I stand or where you stand cannot be wrong.

Sidebar: but of course that won't prevent us from 'arguing' or at least saying "neener neener I'm better." I have some good ideas for arguments but won't take those up here.

'Idealist' would have been better than 'synthesist', which may come with negative connotations.

 

Tima, I understand what you're saying. I just completely disagree with the nomenclature - nomenclature that I think also muddies the overall forum. It's not a comment against you.

What percentage do you think people would fall into each group you've designated? I think the problem here is you'll find almost every single person lands themselves in the N, even if you would never know until they told you.

100% agree, it's a semantics thing, if you don't want "natural" sound then the alternative is "unnatural".

It's all ddk's fault!

 

If I become a 'naturalist' audiophile, can I at least wear my shoes?

 

I think the intention of the recording is important, if it uses multiple mics, some close-mic'ed content mixed in, etc. then the intent is NOT to sound just like the live performance, it's simply a fantasy, illusory listening experience that can't really be replicated live. With this type of recording of course you're getting info you don't live, but the comparison is apples to oranges.

If the recording is simply 2 mics in front of the soundboard then I don't see how the recording can sound better than putting your ears in the same place.

 

If I become a 'naturalist' audiophile, can I at least wear my shoes?

LOL

 

. Was the recording made mid-hall? Probably not...

I went to a rehearsal at the BSO last season with Madfloyd. It was open seating and we found center seats in about the 7th row. After a break, I suggested that we try some seats further back. We sat just past the orchestra section, center on the main floor, far in front of the first balcony. The sound was much more diffuse, less energetic, and more congealed, just like MikeL described his experience. I sometimes hear more of the music from recordings at home too given that reference.

We moved back up to our 7th row seats and enjoyed the rest of the concert. Listening perspective and where the mics are located can have a dramatic impact on how the performance is perceived. I'm not surprised by Mike's experience in general terms.

Al M. and I tend to prefer sitting fairly up close. This is more like what we hear on our recordings, and it serves as a more accurate reference to how the recording usually sounds. That is the energy from the instruments as captured by the mics is usually more easily heard when sitting closer to the musicians. At least in my experience.

 

I remember an odd exchange I had on Audio Asylum years ago. I was trying to parse the outlook of a member who was pretty religious about the need for an entirely neutral, objectivist sound system. I was confused by some of his contributions so I 'got into it' with him to find out where he was coming from.

He was a mastering engineer as it turned out. He had no interest in the 'absolute sound'. He regarded the sound snippets he recorded as nothing more than clay for HIS artwork, the final mastered oeuvre. He did not particularly care for the 'raw materials' that he recorded, only his final mix and manipulation, which he regarded as the final art. His attitude toward the music was what a painter would have toward his paints.

He didn't care about the original sound or its nominal 'accuracy' so much. He was only interested that a completely neutral system convey his mixing art without flubbing it up.

So he became angry with audiophiles who had the audacity to engage in their own audio manipulations after the fact of his mastering.

 

I remember an odd exchange I had on Audio Asylum years ago. I was trying to parse the outlook of a member who was pretty religious about the need for an entirely neutral, objectivist sound system. I was confused by some of his contributions so I 'got into it' with him to find out where he was coming from.

He was a mastering engineer as it turned out. He had no interest in the 'absolute sound'. He regarded the sound snippets he recorded as nothing more than clay for HIS artwork, the final mastered oeuvre. He did not particularly care for the 'raw materials' that he recorded, only his final mix and manipulation, which he regarded as the final art. His attitude toward the music was what a painter would have toward his paints.

He didn't care about the original sound or its nominal 'accuracy' so much. He was only interested that a completely neutral system to convey his mixing art without flubbing it up.

That would solve a lot of problems, I agree...

Toole coined the term "Circle of Confusion":

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

The issue would be agreeing on exactly what system is going to be a reference....


This is also why I mentioned this discussion, without the context of the recording, is apples to oranges... and we don't know who is talking about exactly what fruit. Recordings are not often intended to capture exactly what you hear live, so isn't there an issue comparing live to a recording that has no intent whatsoever to capture the live performance the same way you'd hear it in a concert hall?

 

With all due respect,

First part. Obviously. DUH.

Second part. Emotional connection beside the point? If you don't react to music emotionally, you must be a robot.

With all due respect, the lesson seems lost on you. We are discussing real sounding or not real sounding and not whether the music moves you or not, which can happen for a myriad of reasons live or recorded.

 

. Was the recording made mid-hall? Probably not...

why was this asked in this context?

 

That would solve a lot of problems, I agree...

Toole coined the term "Circle of Confusion":

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

The issue would be agreeing on exactly what system is going to be a reference....

This is exacerbated by the human interface. The mastering engineers want to please the subjectivist demands of their musician clients. The clients want a certain spin on their performance, and the engineer is often no more than an ambassador generating a product that is a consensus. Original sound or even intent are not always part of that process. The engineer wants return business, clients want their finger painting projected in a certain way. Lots of conflicting etiologies there.

 

This is exacerbated by the human interface. The mastering engineers want to please the subjectivist demands of their musician clients. The clients want a certain spin on their performance, and the engineer is often no more than an ambassador generating a product that is a consensus. Original sound or even intent are not always part of that process. The engineer wants return business, clients want their finger painting projected in a certain way. Lots of conflicting etiologies there.

That has nothing to do with the thought of using a reference system, if anything it'll make the artistic choices made by the production engineer more consistent and closer to what the client wants.

 

With all due respect, the lesson seems lost on you. We are discussing real sounding or not real sounding and not whether the music moves you or not, which can happen for a myriad of reasons live or recorded.

Sorry but I totally disagree. The essence of enjoying and connecting with music is not a clinical, objective exercise. Everyone hears differently and connecting with music (either live or reproduced) is an entirely subjective experience.

I see you are a retailer / importer for Aerius Cerat . That probably explains our different views.

Best.

 

Mike the way I read naturalist and synthesist is a bit different. Not necessarily with or without cookie cutter imaging and diffuse imaging. If you ever travel to Milan and/or UK, will be happy to show you. One is just core components (speaker, amp, basic cables, analog) placed in the room. Changing the amp can break the system. There is no emphasis on room treatment, isolation, or toe in, not saying that doing that might not improve the sound, but it just sounds so real anyway which is closer the live reference at any time, even if the system is under development, it is never synthetic.

Your system is built additionally on cabling, isolation, power supplies, Herzan, equitech, Tania, Daiza etc... The toe in or treatment can make or break it. Yes then you add a lot of textbook hifi attributes that make your system sound real. In many cases these textbook attributes are negative. When your system was under development, it might not have sounded as real, and was just components together, rather than with a live feel. Until it all came together.

I am 100 percent certain if I get General's or Pietro's system (entire system) in another room, I will get excellent sound as long as the room is sufficiently large. In your case, if I get the system in another room it will probably not work.

I don’t understand most of this. What does “add a lot of textbook hifi attributes that make your system sound real” mean?

I agree that if zerostargeneral’s exact system in copied in a large room it will sound great.

 

Commenting on the differences in SQ between live and reproduced music at home is not productive for me due to the many comments already made. Let’s not show this thread to any musicians please or they would probably post something on social media asking to burn down the site. Let’s also dispense with the most obvious differences that cannot be captured in a reproduced environment; namely the humanism factors including the ability to see the orchestra players' faces, the audience’s reactions that range from rapt attention to falling asleep, the conductors abilities to shape the performance, etc. and just focus in the sound in the hall. It can’t be emphasized adequately how great the variations are in SQ depending on where one sits in a given hall. If I may, I’ll illustrate using Carnegie Hall as an example with 4 seating locations.

View attachment 59501

View attachment 59502

Position 1- mid parquet dead center. This might surprisingly be the worst sound one can possibly hear even in a good hall. To begin, you are generally sitting below the level of the players on stage. If the sound were coming from their shoes, you might have a chance of hearing some detail and direct sound that is in balance with the ambient sound of the hall. It’s no surprise to me that Mike wasn’t impressed with his experience there (in his hall). I’m also pretty sure that if he were at David Geffen Hall he would have liked it even less. That location is just terrible. Better to be in a muffled submarine.

Position 2- First tier, a bit off of dead center to the right. One of my regular seats for the concerto series. Excellent sound, plus the ability to see the pianist’s hands make this a particularly desirable location. Great clarity of sound, very good instrument localization, excellent hall ambience.

Position 3. First tier, about a quarter of the way around to the left. Another regular seat of mine for smaller groups, chamber, soloists, etc. but sometimes larger pieces (I just saw M4 from these seats). I completely understand what Al and Ian said about their somewhat similar seating experience in Boston regarding their ability to “hear everything.” And where “complex orchestral music is extraordinarily well presented in all its intricacies of texture and detail”.

In Carnegie, a big difference between position 2 and 3 is that the latter is 30 feet closer to the stage due to the horse shoe configuration of the lower balcony. That 30 foot difference makes a world of difference in the immediacy of sound that one hears. Position 3 is over row Q whereas position 2 is over row Z. Even though you can see and hear the entire stage from position 3, you are not dead center and there is no way to get dead center 30 feet in front of position 2 unless you can float in space somewhere above the parquet seats. If that’s the position you covet, you’ll have to fly west to Chicago or St. Louis. The Chicago Symphony Center and Powell Hall in STL are shorter halls, so their balconies allow the unusual combination of center seating, elevation above the stage and an immediacy of sound that is not available even at the great Carnegie. At Chicago, the Lower Fadim balcony (and more expensive Box Seats just below the Fadim lower balcony) are probably not only the best overall concert hall seats in America available at reasonable prices, but allow great sound to be shared by hundreds of concert goers, and not just a handful as in the best boxes at Carnegie.

Position 4. Nose bleed section, top balcony. Why would I even mention these seats? Who would ever want to sit there? Well, it turns out, a lot of people. It’s no accident that Harry Pearson thought these were the best seats in the hall.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-sound-at-carnegie-hall.20911/

In summary, as in real estate, it’s all about “location, location, location” when it comes to the sound one hears in any concert hall. Making generalizations about the sound of any given hall has limitations but more importantly, the listening enjoyment one can derive in any given hall can vary widely from seat to seat.

Marty, this layout is unlike the chamber and the orchestral halls in London (we have small halls that mostly do chamber and the bigger ones like southbank and barbican do big orchestra)

However this is a lot like Royal opera house, and also some of it is like Birmingham and concertgebouw. In the sense that the stalls are below stage level. I dislike that as the sound goes over the head, like David said. In Barbican, in stalls we have steps that rise up like in a cinema so you soon get past stage height in the mid of the hall's

Royal opera house, unlike our other concert halls is not cheap and seats cost 250 quid in a few areas. However, the seats right at the top, which cost 30, are the best... Because the sound rises up. That's similar to your balcony.

The other tiers are boring where they have the ceiling right above the head

 

That would solve a lot of problems, I agree...

Toole coined the term "Circle of Confusion":

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

The issue would be agreeing on exactly what system is going to be a reference....


This is also why I mentioned this discussion, without the context of the recording, is apples to oranges... and we don't know who is talking about exactly what fruit. Recordings are not often intended to capture exactly what you hear live, so isn't there an issue comparing live to a recording that has no intent whatsoever to capture the live performance the same way you'd hear it in a concert hall?

As I often say, there is no full agreement in stereo - at best we have a statistically determined "preferred by a majority" in defined conditions. The high-end as we live it in WBF is essentially individualist - it is why our posts are mostly in confessional style.

 

'Idealist' would have been better than 'synthesist', which may come with negative connotations.

Folsom thinks an association to 'synthetic' is not good; is that what you're getting at?

FWIW from my angle, 'synthesist' derives from 'synthesis'.

To devolve...
Thesis -> Antithesis -> Synthesis. For some synthesis is forward movement, eg. In history. An outcome, a coming to resolve, as in a 'solution'. Hegel saw himself as a proponent, going beyond Kant, the Idealist.

 

If I become a 'naturalist' audiophile, can I at least wear my shoes?

Of course - but you know they're a tweak.
You can even wear a parrot (or as John Lennon would say, a parable) on your shoulder.

 

Folsom thinks an association to 'synthetic' is not good; is that what you're getting at?

Yes, I am.

FWIW from my angle, 'synthesist' derives from 'synthesis'.

To devolve...
Thesis -> Antithesis -> Synthesis. For some synthesis is forward movement, eg. In history. An outcome, a coming to resolve, as in a 'solution'. Hegel saw himself as a proponent, going beyond Kant, the Idealist.

I see. I know the philosophical concepts, but I would not have made that sophisticated connection.

To me, 'synthesist' also evokes an association with 'synthesizer'. I *love* synthesizers as musical instruments, but they 'put together new sounds', which I would perceive as antithetical to what a "high fidelity" stereo system should do.

'Idealist', the alternative term that you proposed, would seem more appropriate. It signifies, as you say, the search for an ideal, how music should sound -- an idealized version of reality. Yet this in itself very much implies a connection with, since dependence on, reality, not something entirely new.

 

Of course - but you know they're a tweak.