What is Our Reference?

I look at it differently Myles. I think of music reproduction like special effects in a movie. If the sonics are good I can forget about it and let myself build up the flow and setting of events using my imagination. I guess what I'm saying is I'm after getting myself "there" rather than getting the musicians into my room. Again like special effects, if listening to a guitar becomes the visual equivalent of seeing a zipper going down King Kong's back, I'm just thrown out of the moment. I'm just trying to stay out of Uncanny Valley.

Setting this goal and actually achieving it consistently has been in my experience much more demanding than using the aforementioned references, particularly with acoustics. Sonically it requires that anything that might be distracting be exorcised so all effort goes into doing so. Paradoxically the more you do so, the more attuned you become to unwanted distortions. I must say that the rewards are great. It's never perfect but it makes for a recipe for long stretches of enjoyment.

I don't want to use live as a reference other than dynamically because when I watch concerts what I hear differs drastically depending on where I'm seated. I don't want to use the master as the reference because I don't have the luxury of actually hearing that master.

I'm not a believer in the term "absolute sound". I find it pretentious and misleading. It comes from an era where hawkers claimed they knew more about what you heard than you did, in order to promote expensive components that few could own.
"Relative Sound" would be more appropriate.
To me, audio is a "lock in key" phenomenon, not an electronics measurement phenomena, meaning the electronics open up the gateway to perception. Some systems hit more tumblers than others, none is a perfect match.
I regard my system as a form of abstract expressionism, a musical instrument that plays groups of musical instruments in space. I hope it gets the essential spirit of the performance and as much nuance as possible, but it will never sound like the original and will always be different in some way. That does not mean it can't sound pretty darn good and do a better job than most other systems at conveying the essence.
I also believe that a system requires some embellishment, like it or not, to sound like actual music i.e. to get saturated tone and flow, ambience etc.
This is my own belief and I don't consider it binding on any other audiophiles, who may make different choices. But "absolute sound" designations always give me a headache.
Plus most observers who hear studio recordings being made don't find the studio performance to much resemble the final commercial package, anyway, what we hear is as much the artifice and manipulation of studio engineers as musicians.
That doesn't mean that the experience of music on an audio system is invalid.
I suppose I would vote that the reference would have to be the studio master, insofar as it is an accessible goal, and how best to represent it on a home system for ones own tastes and preferences.

Hi

I would call myself a purist. I would like to see the reproduction chain adding nothing to what is on the medium. I am of the opinion of doing the least amount of editorializing. I don't want my black and white films colorized. I wann to hear what the Artists, the Mastering Engineers, Performing Artists, Composers, PRODUCERS, intended. I want my system, to be just the messenger. Llately there has been a rise in Audio Relativism for the lack of a better term : Whatever one likes is then good according to this new view of Audio things. From this, there is no set standards of excellence, simply what the given person or group like ... The same group of persons would likely find a lot to criticize about those who use a crude EQ or a mid-Fi system or the kids with a car with Bass only coming out but their gear which sometimes is colored and not cheap is very much accepted, sought after and cherished ... IF we come to that there is no High End , nor mid-fi everything is good ...

There is to me a reference and it is what we perceived from live music , amplified or not. Few systems are capable of such. By systems I don't mean the electronics but the ROOM-equipment SYSTEM. I also understand that we are far fro that and that some of us favor some part of the spectrum or the way some equipment reproduce well some part of the Audio realm and to me that where the preferences should be. I believe also that as in any thing in life there is an education process .. One should learn and want to learn what it is and what the standards should be.

Signing off for today

Frantz

"Relative Sound" - Hey, I like that!

I'm with FrantzM too but perhaps not as much a purist as I like neutral with just the slightest touch of added warmth or sweetness to make bad recordings listenable and great recordings hedonistic.

I think of my gear as performers and I want them to give me a great performance. Live is not necessarily a good reference because often the sound is muddy the venue has acoustic problems, the audience makes noise. It's tough to have a reference. At various times, I've thought I heard reproduced music sound as good as it possibly can and then I'll do something like go to OB's or Grelman's and realize that I couldn't even imagine it sounding that good -- until I actually heard it. Then, I half don't believe it until I go back and verify -- yes, it really was that good.

Had a similar experience in my theater recently.

I had the acoustically designed room all tuned up with the calibration and room correction software in my surround processor, but my acoustician (Keith Yates) still had to finish the acoustic design job by bypassing the surround processor's room correction, installing his own (Dolby Lake) and then tuning the room with his own tools and ears (about twenty microphones, a computer and some of the best ears in the business). I seriously thought to myself, "come on, how much better can Keith possibly make this system/room sound?" The answer was/is, a lot better. Once again, I couldn't imagine it until I heard it myself.

A mind that's open to what's possible in a given space or in the world might be more important than a reference.

I know a lot of people whose minds would be blown by a trip to OB's.

I was often puzzled by this question...
The whole moto that Hi End audio is after reproducing the actual event/recording as truthfully as it gets is pure bu....it to me.
After attending many audio shows in Europe,after auditioning all this high end gear i have come to a conclusion that suits me well.
I am NOT after the reproduction of the original event or the sound that the conductor had in his mind or whatever "prototype" you can imagine.
Audio is about pleasing myself and making all these wasted money and personal efforts (wife's words) sing the way I WANT them to.
I PAYED for my illussion and if i want it ornated in pastel or intense colors it's perfectly ok!
That is why there are so many companies out there with their own "sound".Because we all have different ears and different perceptions about music.
And we all have to be pleased!
IMHO that is why so many people who spend big amounts of money on gear, stay unsatisfied and sell them the next year to try the next big thing!
It's because they haven't crystallised in their minds WHAT "sound" pleases them.
There is a very nice short film on youtube by Ken Barnes named "GREEK AUDIOPHILE". It describes some very interesting people from the Audiophile Club of Athens.
I helped him with this and i think it portrays very well the good and bad things about our beloved hobby.
Please watch it-there's some great music too!
I bet all of us will become affiliated to one or another of the characters displayed in there...and maybe rethink our behaviour!

John

MylesBAstor said:

should the fidelity be to live music

Click to expand...

Yes where possible, which is why "neutral" and "accurate" playback does not interest me all that much.

Music is about feeling, and if the playback system adds a little spice to trigger those feelings like salt or sugar in your food, then so be it.

I'm not afraid of using spices in my cooking or in my audio system.

Let the endorphins flow!

My reference is what the mixing engineer/talent heard in the process of creating the music at hand. That is what is being stamped on disc and sent to you and you can do no better.

Problem is, as mentioned, there is no way to know that you are actually achieving that. In video, we have references that recording is set to. So to the extent we match the playback to the same standard, we are pretty close to a neutral end to end presentation. With audio, it is hugely subjective. I suspect most people use for reference a "better" sound they heard at someone else's home or place of business as the closest approximation of the "master."

If one attends any live large un-amplified orchestral performance, it only takes 0.0043 nano seconds on any audio system at any price to recognize that there is no home audio system that can even come CLOSE to reproducing what we hear live --- particularly with 2 channels. While live small jazz ensembles have a better chance at being, in some small sense, duplicated in the home, that comparison also falls far, far short.

Once I was willing to accept that there is not enough money in the galaxy to actually (mechanically) get the equivalent of live sound in my home, I decided that my absolute sound was my own enjoyment. That said, my prime objectives include an image that is a large as possible (and sometimes that means having some sort of "synthetic" surround processing which really helps the enjoyment factor for live recordings but not so much with studio recordings); image specificity on all three axis as detailed as possible; frequency response as smooth (not necessarily as flat) as possible; bass response with realistic impact as possible; all done at whatever price point one can afford. I should add things like great macro and micro dynamics, etc. but the point is, once you have acheived all of that, it still does not sound like the live performance. Maybe it DOES sound like the Master Tape! One could then get philosophical and ask "what do the Master Tapes" actually sound like ... and that would depend on what the reproducing chain did or did not do to the sound ---!! And here we go again.

I have heard some really really great audio systems that truly provide great musical enjoyment. But not one has ever even momentarily convinced me that I was at a live event or the performers were in my room. The closest that ever came to happening was when I thought I heard from a large distance a live piano playing in a large mall and it turned out to be a pair of large Maggies driven by large Audio Research amps in an audio store located in that mall.

1. I have never been in a recording studio and listened to music in that environment.
2. I have never heard a master tape played in a mastering studio or anywhere else.

3. I have heard live music before.
4. I have listened to many stereo systems before.

I'm pretty sure I have the two things I need for a basis or reference point.

Yes, ignorance is bliss.

absolutely

a reference. to denigrate the idea of an 'absolute sound' by saying it was devised to lure you to buy more costly equipment is an invalid stance. in the early days of tas they reviewed such items as the ADC XLM and stacked advents, with which you could easily hear EXACTLY what they described that they were hearing.

those were AFFORDABLE not stratospherically priced. the round buoyant full sound of an upright bass, spatially accurate, and detailed but unexaggerated top end where cymbals reside were all present for $28!!! of COURSE i owned an XLM!

the 'absolute' is a paradigm to be sought, not a religion that requires you to listen to only unamplified acoustic music. if a component reproduces 'unamplified acoustic music' the it will do an exemplary job on just about anything else.

i for one have been seeking that more accurate sound piece by piece since i began hearing differences in the sound of component reproduction.

reproducing a live event is an impossibility but seeking that illusion is part of what our hobby is about, at least for some of us. one attendance to a live event will prove to you that this never going to happen at home.

Hi

Some very interesting points here.

A reproduction cannot be equal to the original, it can only approach it .. I think we are in agreement with that. None of our media can .. Movies, Photographs, Audio can only approximate the real thing, be it amplified or not. Now would be it interesting that our equipment is able to get to a point where we are often fooled .. That is what great equipment coupled with great recordings should be able to do.
Reproducing reality in a satisfactory required the capture, processing and reproduction of a vast amount of information. Our reproduction chains cannot possibly capture and reproduce it all.. IMO there are areas on which the artists, recording engineers and Audio designers focus more than others, maybe because of their own tastes or the limitations of available equipments, venues, medium, etc. I think that what our tastes are about . Tastes often pre-suppose a familiarity, an education, an acceptance of often novel notions ( Escargots or Civet dung coffee beans require an open mind to really appreciate, they have to be learnt, our tastes morph and change ... If we simplistically state: THAT IS WHAT I LIKE then .. we get to the flat earth theory ..then Everything from the cheapest receiver is good and great .. everything !! We know from our audiophile expereince and, yes, education, that it is not so. if to reprise an example James Taylor starts sounding like Barry Manilow or Barry White .. You may like these artists and wish that every song ever composed were sung by them but I think there is a .. problem somewhere ... Don't you think ? When because of a loved increase or (familiarity with a sharp peak in the mid-bass) a Steinway conistently sound like a Bosendorfer and Bosendorfer like an organ .. There is a problem...Purist or not ..
And that what's it comes to .. There is notwithstanding the new and rampant Audio Relativism point of view .. There is an objective reality and approaching it is what Hi-Fidelity is about thus its highest expression, High End Audio should be about ... I repeat we all know that it is not possible for gears to reproduce everything but they should stick to let the things sound the way they usually sound when in front of them be it James Taylor or Biggie Smalls ... So Equipment that put too much of themselves in the way of music, which "perform" are not ideal in my view ... They are not even trying to playing THE music , only their OWN music and they will add the same to EVERY piece of music they play, they don't posses the intelligence to do otherwise.. The message is most likely to be lost somewhere ..

Frantz

To assist young girls with the task of maintaining a proper sense of self, a video was prepared documenting the preparation of a model to be photographed for the purpose of appearing on the cover of a magazine. She was a reasonably attractive young lady. You might imagine that a team of hairdressers, cosmetologists, and fashion designers descended upon her. Everything was prepped and enhanced for the purpose of maximizing her beauty. No doubt a number of individuals had gotten together and decided what maximum beauty was. After her preparation was complete. the photographer took over. Taking her picture from all different angles with different lighting. He used film and digital cameras. A video was taken of the entire procedure. Once the pictures were complete they were submitted to the editorial board. They then requested additional editing to eliminate the undesirable features and enhance the good ones. A sample cover was prepared by the printer. A final picture was prepared by the printer. Comparing the picture to the model she was barely recognizable.
What is our reference?
Human appearance in general?
The unaltered model?
The model who sat in front of the camera?
From what perspective of her photograph?
Before her photograph was altered?
Id there is an absolute? Is it what the camera saw? Or is it what the pre- make- up model looked like.
Given the inevitable alterations should we even care about the quality of the camera?

I guess the question that should be asked is whether or not the video actually helped young girls in maintaining a proper sense of self. Everything else was just a means to that end right?

Myles, if I would have to pick just one of the two options I would go for the first one, but in practice none of them works for me, since a live performance happens in such a different scenario, mood and momentum that things like laws of physics play their inevitable role.

The engineered product also possess lots of intrinsic variables, like his/her personal tastes, technical manipulations at the console, limiters, expanders and a large list of inevitable evils that transform the raw material at the recording session.

I go for the emotions, for a system ( not component ) capabilities to break that thin line of just reproducing music to match the intention of the artist inside us thru his work.

MylesBAstor said:

Is there such as thing as the absolute sound?

When we're listening to our systems/software, should the fidelity be to live music -- or the hard disc or master tape from which the CD or LP is derived?

Click to expand...

Very provocative thought... I've always thought that whatever the recording medium is, it should be true to the live sound; then the reproducing chain should follow the same. I look at what Reference Recordings and Dorian have been able to achieve, and I think it can be done.

JackD201 said:

I guess the question that should be asked is whether or not the video actually helped young girls in maintaining a proper sense of self. Everything else was just a means to that end right?

Click to expand...

If I had a a teenage daughter I certainly would want her to see the video. The question is of course is there an absolute beauty? I think there is. It gets perverted by the profit motive. I can't think of her name but a wise young star said the various industries "... strip us of our beauty and then sells it back to us.
The point I'mtrying to make is that all the things done to recordings "to make them sell" does not destroy the absolute sound. There will always be a WIlma Cozart out there. We just have to find her and reward her with our money.

I'm all for meritocracy my friend, I get what you're saying.

I want my system to deliver the message not interpret it. For 44 years I've been slowly and steadily working to make my system and room do less interpretation. I believe I've been able to achieve a small measure of success. When I come home from a concert at the Kimmel Center and play some music I'm not too disappointed with what I hear. I'm certainly less disappointed than I used to be or with what I hear on most other systems..

A concert hall experience in my listening room is something I can't rationally expect. Who can? However, I desire and have a reasonable expectation of sound that evokes what I hear in a concert hall. Good recordings coupled with a neutral system/room give me this. Of course this means that some recordings sound "God awful". There's nothing that can make "bad" recordings sound better other than using a less revealing room/system. Unfortunately, less revealing means that "good" recordings wouldn't sound their best. As a result I've learned to live with less than stellar recordings because the good ones sound really good.

No matter, I thoroughly enjoy all my recordings. Realizing and hearing that some sound better than others is the price one must pay for a revealing system/room. The good recordings and the greater pleasure they produce more than compensate for the "bad" ones. After all, even the bad ones give pleasure although most times it's accompanied with "large warts and boils".