Absolute Sound is Rubbish

[tomelex]

Tom,
Your view. Mine is that you are attacking with violence since post one something you have shown not to know, as it does not show in the Webster dictionary and you ARE NOT REALLY INTERESTED to know, as it can spoil your fun.

Micro Tom Martin is a reviewer for TAS, and if you look in Northstars post # 239 you can read what was said. If you can find a more definitive explanation of TAS absolute sound, fine.

But, anyway, I make a simple point, stereo can not replicate the live event that I hear down at the bandshell. And, to hold it to that standard is rediculous. It can try to mimic the real sound, but never ever get there, so whats the point of always babbling on about two channel reference systems that "almost" get you there. I made the point before, no one expects a flat screen to replicate the actual 3 dimensional view it protrays.

I am not attacking anybodys magaznie, I am making a simple point, that anyone with an open mind can understand, and that is there are limitations to stereo, and because of these, folks all want their systems to sound like their preference for what they can take back from the live event that seemed to resonate most with them.

You don't need to shout at me, I posted that i am really insterested to know the exact definition of TAS absolute sound statement, and you have read every issue from day one and you can not find one or two sentences that describe the concept. I think most of us have assumed it was to reproduce the sound of unamplified instruements at a live event.


....but as I said, my main point is absolute sound by that defintion (live unamplified event) is unobtainable and technically impossible from two channel stereo

If you disagree with the sentence underlined, then lets talk about what technical aspects you know of that I dont now about.

Othewise, we have to agree to disagree on this one as you are the only one putting up an argument here, indeed you are the only one who said they heard a system that replicates the unamplified live sound. All our systems can be referential or provide a sense of the live event, but there is a big difference between replication or absolute sound and referential sound.

Tom

[microstrip]

(...) Othewise, we have to agree to disagree on this one as you are the only one putting up an argument here, indeed you are the only one who said they heard a system that replicates the unamplified live sound. All our systems can be referential or provide a sense of the live event, but there is a big difference between replication or absolute sound and referential sound.
Tom

I will just quote my own postings so people can know what I said I heard:

You could ask for replicating the take off of the Saturn V rocket at 10 meters, the answer would be the in the same line. The main objective of sound reproduction for audiophiles is not reproducing front row sound of the local band. HP wrote a lot about the sound levels in real conditions and what we can reach in our systems. (...)

Yes. But not for your band in the front row, but my (and many others) typical listening conditions, as auditoriums have a single front row and tens of other rows. B&W Nautilus actively driven by a eight Krell channels with a custom Krell filter (I am sure Tim will love this…) playing Haendel Music for the Royal Fireworks and the big Dynaudio Consequences playing Bellafonte Returns to Carnegie Hall. Both in large rooms. The TheSonusFAber playing Monteverdi . And many other times.

It seems our disagreement is mainly due to our sitting preferences – I would never buy a front row ticket. And in the definition or use of the word replicating. Many authors addressing sound reproduction have explained why the exact replication of physical conditions is NOT and can NOT be the objective of sound reproduction. As usual I suggest you read the F. Toole book on it, because he masterly explains it. But much more than a few lines in a post are needed to cover it.

Once again, for me replicating musical experiences is the true objective of sound reproduction. Reproduction of some physical properties is surely needed. The Absolute Sound in the TAS publication mainly means that the main criteria for asserting the quality of our efforts is comparison with real sound.

[Phelonious Ponk]

Again, "real sound," is a noble goal, particularly if you're an exclusively classical listener. But first it has to be the goal of the recording. Amplified music thankfully left the goal or reproducing "real sound" long ago. What most good recordings produce is an ideal, not reality. The reality is often much less.

I know, same old song, but it bears repeating as long as we keep talking about the reference being some kind of live sound. Reproducing some facsimile of live sound starts with the recording. All your playback (break it down...) system can do is it's best to get out of the way, at concert volume if that's what you're into. When we talk of our well-chosen, assembled and synergized systems bringing the real to our listening rooms, I think we're just giving ourselves far too much credit.

A great thread would be one about the great live albums that create that sense of being there, with discussion of the recording techniques that created that atmosphere. Unfortunately, the material is rarely out there because our Audiophile press is about the much smaller part of achieving HP's goal -- the gear.

A great live recording on a decent midfi system brings you much closer to the original event than a couple of mics at 10th row center through a million dollars worth of equipment. Once you figure that out, you know where the action is.

Tim

[tomelex]

I will just quote my own postings so people can know what I said I heard:



Once again, for me replicating musical experiences is the true objective of sound reproduction. Reproduction of some physical properties is surely needed. The Absolute Sound in the TAS publication mainly means that the main criteria for asserting the quality of our efforts is comparison with real sound.

OK Micro, lets nail down your english some more:

Question #1) replicating musical experiences ....so, does this mean "real" music or how your ears hear it?


Question #2) true objective of sound reproduction...so, does this mean two channel stereo or any kind of possible reproduction in the world?

Question #3) criteria for asserting the quality of our efforts ...so, does this mean any kind of reproduction system, or just stereo?

Thanks,

Tom

[tomelex]

Again, "real sound," is a noble goal, particularly if you're an exclusively classical listener. But first it has to be the goal of the recording. Amplified music thankfully left the goal or reproducing "real sound" long ago. What most good recordings produce is an ideal, not reality. The reality is often much less.

I know, same old song, but it bears repeating as long as we keep talking about the reference being some kind of live sound. Reproducing some facsimile of live sound starts with the recording. All your playback (break it down...) system can do is it's best to get out of the way, at concert volume if that's what you're into. When we talk of our well-chosen, assembled and synergized systems bringing the real to our listening rooms, I think we're just giving ourselves far too much credit.

A great thread would be one about the great live albums that create that sense of being there, with discussion of the recording techniques that created that atmosphere. Unfortunately, the material is rarely out there because our Audiophile press is about the much smaller part of achieving HP's goal -- the gear.

A great live recording on a decent midfi system brings you much closer to the original event than a couple of mics at 10th row center through a million dollars worth of equipment. Once you figure that out, you know where the action is.

Tim

Yep!

Tom

[microstrip]

OK Micro, lets nail down your english some more:

(...)

Tom

Tom,
Nail down whatever you want, I am really out of this thread. I only re-posted my own words because you have systematically misinterpreted them.

[NorthStar]

.... Northstar provide this:

...From the third post by Tom Martin:
"We want music reproduction systems to come as close as possible to re-creating the sense of the live musical event."

* Here => http://www.avguide.com/forums/what-e...ute-soundtoday

So, we are trying to get a "sense" of the live musical event. Now , oh yeah, that is absolutely clear as mud, or it is as clear as the term "referential sound" posted by micro earlier. If we are not trying to replicate the absolute live event as described by the english language dictionary, then we already gave up on the absolute sound. ....

Tom

---- Hi Tom,

Somehow in replicating the link you made an error; I fixed it. ...Right from your quote above.

* And here it is again (good read by the way; the full page) ::
=> The Abso!ute Sound Today - Mission Statement

And by the way, name's Bob.

[tomelex]

---- Hi Tom,

Somehow in replicating the link you made an error; I fixed it. ...Right from your quote above.

* And here it is again (good read by the way; the full page) ::
=> The Abso!lute Sound Today - Mission Statement

And by the way, name's Bob.

Thank you Bob!


That is interesting reading and I read it more carefully this time around. Although I don't want it to interfere with my underlined position in post 251 as that reference to TAS seemed to get Micro sidetracked and we could not properly debate this statement. I think without his inputs the thread will fade away now!

I do appreciate your link because well, as you showed, it did atleast hint at what the absolute sound "sense" is.


Tom

[Robh3606]

In short form, our reference (in Playback, AVGuide, HiFi+ and TAS audio reviews) is "the absolute sound". The absolute sound refers to the sound of unamplfied music played in a real acoustic space. So putting it together: the primary reference we have for judging the quality of equipment we review is the sound of live music, that is, the absolute sound. We need a reference (a measure) to judge things, and this reference needs to be known and stable (a guitar is always a guitar, so we can use it as a reference for communication now and in 5 years).

So there you have it.

Rob

[NorthStar]

So there you have it.

Rob

----- Like I said; it's a very good read.