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?

 

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

The ceiling directly above the head can be a real issue at both Carnegie and Chicago. It's why for both of these, the front row of the Boxes are best. The 2nd and 3rd row have the the boxes on the next vertical tier directly above them so they have a ceiling which isn't present above the front row of the Box seats. Big difference in sound.

 

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. Surprisingly, this might 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.

Thanks, Marty, for the excellent and detailed write-up. Much appreciated.

Al

 

my perspective is really the only one i think we can have if we aspire to optimize our systems; and that is i want to hear what the recording engineer did. which can be all over the board. i do recognize that tastes can vary and some want or value that more typically diffuse imaging live experience (Naturalists) and some want the cookie cutter imaging and detail (Synthesists). but to me choosing then becomes the wrong guide to optimizing each recording.

the recordings themselves should tell us which they are. and it's those unique presentations from each recording that are one proof of concept.

and as i said earlier, i generally musically prefer what my system does for the music, compared to live.

Thanks for your thoughtful follow-up.

Yes, most of us do want to optimize our systems - achieve the optimal of which they are capable within the context of our preference. Many don't just optimize what they have but hope to improve on that through new acquisitions as well. I'm suggesting two broad approaches based on how we guide ourselves.

In response I'll suggest what the recording engineer did is not a guide we can use. It may be a fact. The representation of his work is a on a physical record or a disc, etc. At best if one is familiar with the original event and the engineer's approach to capturing it, maybe what the engineer did could be known. But It's largely a thing in itself. How would we know when we had discovered what the engineer did? What the engineer did is not a guide - the guide is your choice to try to know it, but I daresay in a very real sense that may be close to impossible.

One might say "I'm getting more information from the recording with my system x configuration. My system is not adding that information - it does not create - so it must come from something the recording engineer did that causes its inclusion in what I perceive. I like that and the fact that my system reveals this information is not by accident - I chose and built my system to give me as much of what the engineer did, and if I find some change I can make that gives me more of what the engineer did, then I'll consider it."

Fair enough. That's the synthesist camp.

Using the exact same media (the same product of the engineers work) a person who uses their experience of live music as their guide may have a different, possibly very different system. (Though not necessarily.) They might say something like "The detail the synthesist seeks no doubt exists because it was captured by a microphone and inluded in a recording. If I had microphone ears in the concert hall and sit where the microphone sat, maybe I would perceive it as part of my live concert experience. I don't have microphone ears. I listen with the ears that I have. (My ear/brain mechanism does not ride gain on a mixing board.) I like and prefer what I experience in the concert hall and use that experience in choosing and building my stereo system. The fact that I could build a system that pulls out information that my ears did not perceive in the concert hall makes my live experience no less enjoyabie and desirable."

One approach is no less valid, / true / honest than the other though members of each camp are confident in where they're coming from. And that's fine. One of my points is that having a sense of where someone's basis of preference lies may help explain their point of view in what otherwise may come across as an argument about what is 'right' or 'wrong' in the many many discussions/debates we have. For example, parse the recent Daiza discussion through this lens. (But please not here.)

It may come down to what we want for ourselves in high-end audio, and the way we go about achieveing it. Do I want my stereo to enhance my listening experience, maximize it, optimize it in the way that pleases me most, or do I want my stereo to give me an experience close to what I get from listening to live music because that's what I prefer.

 

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

At least you should do bare feet in your listening room to qualify for one.

 

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.

Okay. I don't know the answer. If what you say is true, that means "almost every single person" prefers the sound of live music to the sound of their stereo. I'm just reading this thread which asked the question. I do see responses from both directions.

If you agree with the theory and only disagree about the names, then we're close.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful follow-up.

Yes, most of us do want to optimize our systems - achieve the optimal of which they are capable within the context of our preference. Many don't just optimize what they have but hope to improve on that through new acquisitions as well. I'm suggesting two broad approaches based on how we guide ourselves.

In response I'll suggest what the recording engineer did is not a guide we can use. It may be a fact. The representation of his work is a on a physical record or a disc, etc. At best if one is familiar with the original event and the engineer's approach to capturing it, maybe what the engineer did could be known. But It's largely a thing in itself. How would we know when we had discovered what the engineer did? What the engineer did is not a guide - the guide is your choice to try to know it, but I daresay in a very real sense that may be close to impossible.

One might say "I'm getting more information from the recording with my system x configuration. My system is not adding that information - it does not create - so it must come from something the recording engineer did that causes its inclusion in what I perceive. I like that and the fact that my system reveals this information is not by accident - I chose and built my system to give me as much of what the engineer did, and if I find some change I can make that gives me more of what the engineer did, then I'll consider it."

Fair enough. That's the synthesist camp.

Using the exact same media (the same product of the engineers work) a person who uses their experience of live music as their guide may have a different, possibly very different system. (Though not necessarily.) They might say something like "The detail the synthesist seeks no doubt exists because it was captured by a microphone and inluded in a recording. If I had microphone ears in the concert hall and sit where the microphone sat, maybe I would perceive it as part of my live concert experience. I don't have microphone ears. I listen with the ears that I have. (My ear/brain mechanism does not ride gain on a mixing board.) I like and prefer what I experience in the concert hall and use that experience in choosing and building my stereo system. The fact that I could build a system that pulls out information that my ears did not perceive in the concert hall makes my live experience no less enjoyabie and desirable."

One approach is no less valid, / true / honest than the other though members of each camp are confident in where they're coming from. And that's fine. One of my points is that having a sense of where someone's basis of preference lies may help explain their point of view in what otherwise may come across as an argument about what is 'right' or 'wrong' in the many many discussions/debates we have. For example, parse the recent Daiza discussion through this lens. (But please not here.)

It may come down to what we want for ourselves in high-end audio, and the way we go about achieveing it. Do I want my stereo to enhance my listening experience, maximize it, optimize it in the way that pleases me most, or do I want my stereo to give me an experience close to what I get from listening to live music because that's what I prefer.

I don't think a naturalist approach necessarily takes a close mic'd recording and makes it sound like mid-hall perspective to "simulate" live. A close up recording should sound very present and relatively upfront (unless the engineer has taken the multi-mic'd recording and added in ambience from other mikes and/or added artificial reverb) BUT it should be lacking in telltale artifacts of synthesis so that it still feels like you are sitting there next to the performers and not just getting the details of being up close etc. It should feel like you are up close in a concert and if one doesn't know what that feels/sounds like then this is an experience all audiophiles should have because that is how a lot of recordings are actually made.

 

I don't know enough about microphone technique and placement to gauge it from a recording. One must sit somewhere but for orchestra I don't want a recording that represents what's heard from a particular seat, unless its a center seat for a small group recording. For a small venue, say a living room, where one sits seems to matter far less.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful follow-up.

Yes, most of us do want to optimize our systems - achieve the optimal of which they are capable within the context of our preference. Many don't just optimize what they have but hope to improve on that through new acquisitions as well. I'm suggesting two broad approaches based on how we guide ourselves.

In response I'll suggest what the recording engineer did is not a guide we can use. It may be a fact. The representation of his work is a on a physical record or a disc, etc. At best if one is familiar with the original event and the engineer's approach to capturing it, maybe what the engineer did could be known. But It's largely a thing in itself. How would we know when we had discovered what the engineer did? What the engineer did is not a guide - the guide is your choice to try to know it, but I daresay in a very real sense that may be close to impossible.

One might say "I'm getting more information from the recording with my system x configuration. My system is not adding that information - it does not create - so it must come from something the recording engineer did that causes its inclusion in what I perceive. I like that and the fact that my system reveals this information is not by accident - I chose and built my system to give me as much of what the engineer did, and if I find some change I can make that gives me more of what the engineer did, then I'll consider it."

Fair enough. That's the synthesist camp.

Using the exact same media (the same product of the engineers work) a person who uses their experience of live music as their guide may have a different, possibly very different system. (Though not necessarily.) They might say something like "The detail the synthesist seeks no doubt exists because it was captured by a microphone and inluded in a recording. If I had microphone ears in the concert hall and sit where the microphone sat, maybe I would perceive it as part of my live concert experience. I don't have microphone ears. I listen with the ears that I have. (My ear/brain mechanism does not ride gain on a mixing board.) I like and prefer what I experience in the concert hall and use that experience in choosing and building my stereo system. The fact that I could build a system that pulls out information that my ears did not perceive in the concert hall makes my live experience no less enjoyabie and desirable."

One approach is no less valid, / true / honest than the other though members of each camp are confident in where they're coming from. And that's fine. One of my points is that having a sense of where someone's basis of preference lies may help explain their point of view in what otherwise may come across as an argument about what is 'right' or 'wrong' in the many many discussions/debates we have. For example, parse the recent Daiza discussion through this lens. (But please not here.)

It may come down to what we want for ourselves in high-end audio, and the way we go about achieveing it. Do I want my stereo to enhance my listening experience, maximize it, optimize it in the way that pleases me most, or do I want my stereo to give me an experience close to what I get from listening to live music because that's what I prefer.

It is quite simple to know what the engineer is doing. If, as discussed before in transparency to recordings discussion, your records start sounding mostly the same, it is your system making them sound the same, as different recording engineers across various labels and across various concerts can't sound similar.

If your records sound quite different to each other, your system is getting out of the way and you are hearing what the recording engineer wanted you to. You might even find consistency among The engineers. You don't need familiarity with the original event for that.

The better engineers will do it better. That's why their records are sought after. And their recordings will sound more live than what a system can make sound live by coloring records to a system sound

 

It is quite simple to know what the engineer is doing. If, as discussed before in transparency to recordings discussion, your records start sounding mostly the same, it is your system making them sound the same, as different recording engineers across various labels and across various concerts can't sound similar.

If your records sound quite different to each other, your system is getting out of the way and you are hearing what the recording engineer wanted you to. You might even find consistency among The engineers. You don't need familiarity with the original event for that.

The better engineers will do it better. That's why their records are sought after. And their recordings will sound more live than what a system can make sound live by coloring records to a system sound

exactly.

'out of the way'.

differences showing transparency to the source is not the only proof of performance, but it's a big part.

 

It is quite simple to know what the engineer is doing. If, as discussed before in transparency to recordings discussion, your records start sounding mostly the same, it is your system making them sound the same, as different recording engineers across various labels and across various concerts can't sound similar.

If your records sound quite different to each other, your system is getting out of the way and you are hearing what the recording engineer wanted you to. You might even find consistency among The engineers. You don't need familiarity with the original event for that.

The better engineers will do it better. That's why their records are sought after. And their recordings will sound more live than what a system can make sound live by coloring records to a system sound

Now you sound like Peter Q from Audio Note UK

 

exactly.

'out of the way'.

differences showing transparency to the source is not the only proof of performance, but it's a big part.

A system can sound very much "out of the way" and still be far from realistic sounding...

 

I went to hear a fusion band the other day. I have never in all my years heard any system at any price sound like that. No system can sound like a real drum kit played loud. its just not possible. However with smaller ensembles, it may be possible to get a pretty good picture of the real thing.

 

Now you sound like Peter Q from Audio Note UK

His stuff is too colored

 

His stuff is too colored

And yet, this is his stated philosophy that he strives to achieve maximum differntiation between recordings, which in his own way it seems what guys like Mike L try to do too. It also again proves that you can have superb resolution and differentiation capabilities in a system and STILL not sound realistic. Peter Qs stuff is arguably (I tend to share your opinion but not all do) too colored in a warmish sort of way (although his top end stuff with Silver everywhere sounds decidedly less so) but many more systems lean towards the "warts and all" ueber resolution that is all detail and no substance (or quite limited substance and 3d for lack of a better term) and limited tone.

These kinds of systems show very clearly all that is on the recording but in a disconnected and amusical manner...ie. synthetic and not natural or realistic. Not saying any one person's system here is that extreme but I have heard too many that way to count. Realism depends on detail and resolution for sure but the manner in which it is delivered (the additives and/or subtractions from the real thing) matters very much and most do it wrong, which becomes obvious when you hear a live unamplified concert...even if the seats/hall/performers are not that great.

I recently attended my daughter's first trumpet concert (she is 7) in a smallish church near Zurich. The church was pretty bare but the walls were solid and the ceiling high and the acoustics were not bad (we sat maybe 4 meters from the front of the stage)...surprised me. The performers weren't very good (again these were basically beginners) but the sound and presence was LIVE and cool despite a lot of of key notes and poor timing. I love to listen to my daughter practice here very basic music lessons because she can now make clean notes and it reminds me of what a real, live trumpet should sound like (Her teacher is a joy to listen to because he is a very good player).

All the elements of "Realness" can then be assessed against what your system does or does not do right. Finding appropriate recordings is an important task for the use of this mental comparison. Once you can be convinced that appropriate recordings achieve some degree of "realness" then you can be pretty confident that whatever a given recording then gives is really in the most realistic light...if it sucks then it is likely the recording was pretty poor once you have achieved that confidence.

 

I went to hear a fusion band the other day. I have never in all my years heard any system at any price sound like that. No system can sound like a real drum kit played loud. its just not possible. However with smaller ensembles, it may be possible to get a pretty good picture of the real thing.

I have had similar experiences recently when I went to hear Nik Baertsch in his relatively small club. The drum kit is just...kickass!

 

If you don't stringently cater to the notion that live sound is the Grand Audio Goal, you have branded yourself a blithering audio Neanderthal without credibility or sensitivity. Good luck with that. Standards are standards.

Certain perversities and tendencies need to be kept to oneself. Repentance and forgiveness are costlier than silence.

I read one of HP's old reviews a month ago. I was surprised that it sounded like nonsense to me. I used to like the poetry.

You have to use the emoji when you use irony on WBF, or you can likely be misunderstood
P.s. and i have to learn to read the rest of the thread when i answer an 3 day old post !

 

A system can sound very much "out of the way" and still be far from realistic sounding...

did you not read the "not the only proof of performance" part?

or just chose to ignore it?

 

I went to hear a fusion band the other day. I have never in all my years heard any system at any price sound like that. No system can sound like a real drum kit played loud. its just not possible. However with smaller ensembles, it may be possible to get a pretty good picture of the real thing.

I agree, but nobody is going to record a drum kit without compression, or pretty much anything for that matter...

However, I have heard an uncompressed drum kit recording played back on big line-arrays and it's very realistic. I think it's difficult to separate the performance of the system from the limitation of the recording, especially since we don't know how the recording was made often times.

 

How could one possibly know that a system is 'transparent to the source' because 'recordings sound different from each other'? They sound different from each other because they have different music and mastering.

Or is this just an oddball elitism that relegates all but one's own system to the ash pile of baleful homogenization?

 

did you not read the "not the only proof of performance" part?

or just chose to ignore it?

If you are expecting me to memorize all your posts I am sorry but you will just have to be disappointed...who knows what you are referring to exactly and from which post???