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?

 

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???

just the one your quote was responding to....for a smart guy like you not that complicated. but...here, let me help you out.

i posted this....

exactly.

'out of the way'.

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

you responded with this....ignoring my qualifier......

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

which then prompted me to post this.......

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

or just chose to ignore it?

so please now that i've made it easy for you, answer my question (s).

 

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.

Well, I can't completely disagree with the thought, but like I said it's moot because most people are doing whatever they can to make their stereo sound more like live music, despite the fact that one person's approach is utterly different from another's and they get totally different sound. So I don't see the point...

And also I think a lot of things that people do to make music sound more live results in sound that is much more S in your description. A lot of studio albums simply won't ever sound live, but people are trying really hard to do it... and often it makes the stereo sound very unnatural to me - kitty litter boxes are a prime example. I just think it's preposterous to propose that you're a synthesizer if you do LESS manipulation to the sound. It makes no sense. Nearly everything you go on about requires a "truth" to be a supported thought/claim, like there is a "truth" of live sound that acts like a guiding light... There isn't.

BTW a stereo with less manipulation will make a live recording sound more live than a manipulated one IMO.

I appreciate you're wanting to go down a road of understanding, I just don't think you've spent the time to formulate the data you do have to a point where a solid theory/categorization is produced. So far I think the nomenclature is just confusing, and while I say it's too inclusive, I think the very thought is so inclusive that it's not useful either. "100% of people who drink water die" that doesn't tell us anything about water or how it's used.

 

just the one your quote was responding to....for a smart guy like you not that complicated. but...here, let me help you out.

i posted this....


you responded with this....ignoring my qualifier......



which then prompted me to post this.......





so please now that i've made it easy for you, answer my question (s).

I think the "but its a big part" was much more your point...not the qualifier...

 

Is it possible for a system to sound 'like live music' and be neither 'true to the mastering' OR 'true to the source'?

 

Is it possible for a system to sound 'like live music' and be neither 'true to the mastering' OR 'true to the source'?

Exactly, for some yes, others no.

 

Well, I can't completely disagree with the thought, but like I said it's moot because most people are doing whatever they can to make their stereo sound more like live music, despite the fact that one person's approach is utterly different from another's and they get totally different sound. So I don't see the point...

And also I think a lot of things that people do to make music sound more live results in sound that is much more S in your description. A lot of studio albums simply won't ever sound live, but people are trying really hard to do it... and often it makes the stereo sound very unnatural to me - kitty litter boxes are a prime example. I just think it's preposterous to propose that you're a synthesizer if you do LESS manipulation to the sound. It makes no sense. Nearly everything you go on about requires a "truth" to be a supported thought/claim, like there is a "truth" of live sound that acts like a guiding light... There isn't.

BTW a stereo with less manipulation will make a live recording sound more live than a manipulated one IMO.

I appreciate you're wanting to go down a road of understanding, I just don't think you've spent the time to formulate the data you do have to a point where a solid theory/categorization is produced. So far I think the nomenclature is just confusing, and while I say it's too inclusive, I think the very thought is so inclusive that it's not useful either. "100% of people who drink water die" that doesn't tell us anything about water or how it's used.

I don't think you are right that most audiophiles are trying to make their stereos sound like live. Many on this forum in fact think this is an irrelevant anachronism...and that "It sounds good to me" is a sufficient standard.

 

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?

If the system was not transparent to the source, different recordings would sound similar, not different

 

I don't think you are right that most audiophiles are trying to make their stereos sound like live. Many on this forum in fact think this is an irrelevant anachronism...and that "It sounds good to me" is a sufficient standard.

But that depends, live from a studio recording or live from a live recording?

It’s almost like saying one group wants music to sound like music, and the other wants it to sound like something else, because the variables are endless. Just because language allows you to make distinctions doesn’t mean they’re real, have purpose, etc.

How do we define live? Live rock concert? Live house show? Live bar show? Live in the park?

 

If the system was not transparent to the source, different recordings would sound similar, not different

This is a bit rhetorical. Just because a system makes different recordings sound different does not necessarily mean that it is 'transparent to the source'. It could also mean it applies an emphasis that exaggerates the perception of difference. There is no routine way to determine such transparency.

If you project different images at different sizes and color balances, you get a different emphasis, and you might be able to tell the differences between the images with some, with no image necessarily any truer to the source of the image. You see that all the time in imagery at different wavelengths and resolutions to see differences that are not apparent in raw images.

It is a tremendous burden to declare that a system is 'transparent', yet it is common to hear it as declaration fiat.

 

No, you won't get 10 recordings different if it isn't transparent to source. If you start projecting images at different sizes and color emphasis, it will start applying that size and color to all them with a common brush.

It is not a burden at all. It is very easy when you hear it. Very obvious

 

But that depends, live from a studio recording or live from a live recording?

It’s almost like saying one group wants music to sound like music, and the other wants it to sound like something else, because the variables are endless. Just because language allows you to make distinctions doesn’t mean they’re real, have purpose, etc.

How do we define live? Live rock concert? Live house show? Live bar show? Live in the park?

Live sounds like live...even when amplified for the most part; however, I am talking more about unamplified acoustic instruments in real space as being the primary reference.

Speaking of sounding quite a bit like live with a very good live Jeff Beck recording, there is a German brand of speaker called "Live Act Audio", which did a VERY convincing demo with their model Reference 408 at a show I heard earlier this year. The speaker uses an 8 inch coax driver from Radian and three 8 inch woofers in some kind of vented box. I heard them also in Munich and the sound was pretty convincing there as well. Very live sounding (using tube amps I had never heard before but clearly not bad at all)...not dark, bright or what have you...quite real...the right markers for brain recognition were there.

 

I don't think you are right that most audiophiles are trying to make their stereos sound like live. Many on this forum in fact think this is an irrelevant anachronism...and that "It sounds good to me" is a sufficient standard.

No, they know that our own personnel perception of what matters more to give us an emotional connection to the music differs from person to person. And that someone particular view of what is real is can be irrelevant to us, in spite of what that say.

There is a large difference between sound like live and sound like what we feel live should sound.

And yes, you are right there no subjective standards in high-end. Even groups with apparently similar objectives of sounding live disagree deeply on their preferences. But it is always gratifying to say that our systems sound like live - no one can contradict us or prove we are wrong. It is just a question of who says it with nicer words, louder or lasts longer saying it.

 

No, they know that our own personnel perception of what matters more to give us an emotional connection to the music differs from person to person. And that someone particular view of what is real is can be irrelevant to us, in spite of what that say.

There is a large difference between sound like live and sound like what we feel live should sound.

And yes, you are right there no subjective standards in high-end. Even groups with apparently similar objectives of sounding live disagree deeply on their preferences. But it is always gratifying to say that our systems sound like live - no one can contradict us or prove we are wrong. It is just a question of who says it with nicer words, louder or lasts longer saying it.

Perhaps this is your opinion because no one has ever reached a consensus of what live sounds like with you. In my audiophile circles there has been a significant convergence on what sounds natural and right and what sounds synthetic and this shows in the gear choices.

 

I don't think you are right that most audiophiles are trying to make their stereos sound like live. Many on this forum in fact think this is an irrelevant anachronism...and that "It sounds good to me" is a sufficient standard.

Exactly and "sounds good to me" is more than a sufficient standard for me. And what does "sound like live" really mean? Depends on your hearing acuity, room acoustics, seat position, and other variables. As I said before, everyone processes what they hear differently and the individual sonic impression (good, bad, or indifferent) is totally subjective. IMHO, this whole discussion is an irrelevant anachronism and one big rabbit hole.

 

Ah yes, we seek not the philosopher's stone but the audiophile's alembic.

And for some reason i want to hear Van Morrison now Why has he not reissued that album on vinyl yet ?

 

The original poster quoted:

"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."

This was rather more succinctly defined by Peter Walker of Quad as an aspiration to achieve "the closet approach to the original sound"

This, in my opinion, is more easily defined (than the Pearson approach) in terms of the stages that sound goes through in various equipment routes.

If I listen to piano concerto "A" in concert hall "B" with orchestra "C", conductor "D" and pianist "E" I can leave with an aural imprint which creates an emotional impression and, if I am lucky, that performance will be recorded and available to me to reproduce at home some time later.

In taking that performance from live state X to digitally encoded state Y, I have no control over, and little knowledge of, the precise process which the recording engineers follow. I just hope they try to maintain "the closet approach to the original sound" in getting to state Y, and therefore when I try to have a home process to change Y to X, I follow the same philosophy.

This gives me the best chance, albeit a pretty difficult one, to deliver in my home the closest approach to what I heard originally.

 

I agree like live can mean many things. Some people incorrectly assume it is only about the timbre. It is about the balance of many aspects that gives the whole realism. It is easiest to get by simplicity and timbre. Does not mean that a lot of effort in getting complexity right, like you have, will not get it right, even surpass simplicity. Because your system adds many other elements. The one thing that all these systems have in common are the guys behind it have OCD, talent, and have fine tuned their approach.

And good ears ! Plenty of us on WBF have OCD

 

No, you won't get 10 recordings different if it isn't transparent to source. If you start projecting images at different sizes and color emphasis, it will start applying that size and color to all them with a common brush.

It is not a burden at all. It is very easy when you hear it. Very obvious

The 'common brush' could very well reveal differences in recordings, but not be anything like what was heard in the studio or at the performance. This could just be an inappropriate emphasis.

Again, declaration fiat doesn't make it so. What is obvious to one observer might not be so obvious to another. I would not assume consensus. With everything sounding different (ALL systems are colored), how can there be a consensus on what is 'transparent'? 'Transparency' is conceptually attractive with no real world generalized experiential analog in the vast majority of playback systems. Most objectivist 'transparent' systems based on measurements don't sound so hot.

The same is true of 'absolute sound'. To actually have 'absolute sound' imposes a set of conditions that make it either impracticable or inappropriate for the vast array of real world recordings or listening set ups, much less using the term as another anointment fiat to declare superiority.

You could have clarity and resolution at the expense of tone, and call that 'transparent' because of the detail perceived ( like x-ray sound). You see sharp skeleton in bold black and white relief, but the flesh, blood and color are shadows. Revealing in one sense, imbalanced in another.

Mastering engineers often use those raspy monitors kicked up in the 2khz range to burn in the 'detail' when adjusting, on the assumption that dialing it back in a typical listening environment will make it sound 'good'.

 

No, they know that our own personnel perception of what matters more to give us an emotional connection to the music differs from person to person. And that someone particular view of what is real is can be irrelevant to us, in spite of what that say.

There is a large difference between sound like live and sound like what we feel live should sound.

And yes, you are right there no subjective standards in high-end. Even groups with apparently similar objectives of sounding live disagree deeply on their preferences. But it is always gratifying to say that our systems sound like live - no one can contradict us or prove we are wrong. It is just a question of who says it with nicer words, louder or lasts longer saying it.

No system sounds like live. At best, a system can create, to some extent and depending on the listener, the illusion of a live event.

 

Exactly and "sounds good to me" is more than a sufficient standard for me. And what does "sound like live" really mean? Depends on your hearing acuity, room acoustics, seat position, and other variables. As I said before, everyone processes what they hear differently and the individual sonic impression (good, bad, or indifferent) is totally subjective. IMHO, this whole discussion is an irrelevant anachronism and one big rabbit hole.

It is no standard and changes whichever way the wind blows. It is fine if that is all you care about and there are millions of Bose wave radio owners who would agree with you ( I know my Dad said something similar when he bought one a long time ago). Sounding like live has not much to do with anything you listed. Have you ever mistook a recording played back through a PA for live? Have you ever heard live from blocks away and just KNEW it was live even without seeing or even just barely hearing it? It is not about sonic impressions it is hard wired in your senses. Doesn’t matter how loud, how quiet, how clear , sited or not. A rabbit hole ? The real rabbit hole is “ sounds good” because guys I knew like this changed gear like their underwear because that standard changed daily.