Absolute what?
Join Our Community Subscribe to Paul's PostsReader Mark Laufer sent me an interesting letter that I want to share with you. He brings up some excellent points: ones we will be exploring in future posts.
“I always am amazed when reviewers talk about two things: one is “true to the recording” and the other is “true to the live performance.” They are both total fallacies.
A recording is true to what? To the studio monitors used to balance the sound? To the way the studio monitors sound in the mixing room? And really, what is the “actual” sound of an electric guitar? Is it the sound of the playback monitor heard by the artist? Or the playback speaker heard in the recording room?
And for live recordings – is it any different? I am always going to live concerts in NYC – I am blessed with some of the best concert halls in the world (and some of the worst). Sitting in the orchestra at David Koch theater has a distinctly different acoustic “signature” than seats in the front of the mezzanine. Move 8 rows back and you move under the overhang for the next tier up, and the sound changes again. Move up another tier, and another, and the sound changes again. Which is better?
Well, for me, I prefer the first mezz center to center orchestra. I like the “lift” the sound gets as it moves “up.” But others like the orchestra … At Carnegie Hall, I just sat 8th row orchestra during a Bartok concerto. The orchestra is actually “above me.” Many would say that a more “accurate” sound comes from sitting much further back in the hall, or in the first tier (again, up). Distinctly different sonic signatures. When you sit closer to the orchestra, the instruments in the front are much more pronounced … the totality of the sound is much clearer further back in the hall. The point is quite simple. There is no “correct” sound, there is no “absolute” sound. There is no “sound as it appeared live.” There is only the sound as it appears at a given moment in a particular acoustic setting. Which can change one seat over.”
Mark’s points are well taken. The Absolute Sound is something coined by HP to describe what we’re all seeking but it doesn’t exist and if it did, how would we know it’s right?
Much more to come on this subject.
Hi PAUL,
what a dilemma indeed.
This will remain true unless ‘standardisation’ takes place.
Which, according to me is an impossibility!!
But Standardisation Helps….
In our Metalforming Industry , NOIS is measured using a callibrated ‘Sound meter’ at 1.0m from the source.
Perhaps the Sound Industry can come up for ‘standardised ‘ recording with Mcirophones….2, 4 or 8 placed at a distance and space apart in meter…and of course the height from source.
This Standardisation is surely a myth and can never be possible!!
But if YES , then it will answer this dilemma in the future.
Manga.
Excellent commentary about what is absolute sound. Living in Los Angeles we are blessed with Disney Hall, one of the best acoustical venues in the U.S., if not the world. Millions of dollars were expended in making it just right. However, it’s not perfect. Saint-Saens organ concerto was performed a week ago and it was something to behold. Sitting in the 3rd row Terrace, fairly high up but at about the level of the organ, resulted in a musical sound that had to be about 110 db or more from the organ alone. We were literally blown away. It was breathtaking, but beautiful.
But that’s the point. Instead of searching for the best possible sound, why not enjoy either a live or recorded performance for its own sake. Once a certain level of technical quality is achieved from either playback equipment or a live hall, trying to go beyond that results in angst and anxiety that detracts from the listening pleasure itself. I know it sounds like a cliche, but one has to listen to the music, not the “equipment”.
I heartily agree with Jerry’s closing remarks. Enjoy fine musical sound whenever and wherever we can find it. Absolutes seem both undefinable and unattainable, but most of us know good sound when we hear it. The quest for improvement is what it’s all about.
Two of the more useful descriptors of reproduced music I’ve read recently – “You are there” and “They are here” – work better for me than the “True to xxx” criteria because they describe the actual illusion created in a meaningful way. The recording “map” Paul describes might be useful for intensely analytical listening, but I can’t imagine that it would help me enjoy the music.
‘Sound quality’ is relative, like everything else.
You can’t know what good sound is without a reference.
Are other stereo systems the best reference ? Other stereos are good references maybe, but not the best.
Live music is the best ( = ultimate = absolute ) reference, or standard, for reproduced music.
Logically the ‘best sounding’ audio system MUST be the ‘highest fidelity’ system; the one that is most true or faithful to live sound.
Simple.
Whether one actually likes ‘accurate’ high fidelity reproduction is a separate matter. Since most recordings sound bad, what is the point of high fidelity ? Why not turn bad recordings into acceptable recordings with ‘audiophile’ speakers, magic doodads, new age crystals, exotic ( obscuring ) cables and other low fidelity gizmos ? That’s a whole ‘nother debate.
Over 2000 people can sit in many live concert venues and each of them will hear something different from every other person in the audience. Attend the same concert two nights in a row and sit in the same seat and you are very likely to hear something different again.But wherever and whenever you go you will hear soemthing that could not be mistaken by anyone with normal hearing for even a second for the sound of a stereo sound system playing a recording in a home no matter how much that sound system costs. The overwhelming preponderence of the effect of the acoustics of the venue alone make that imposible. There is no way known yet to capture or reproduce it, not by a long shot. In fact what is happening is hardly understood. This is why buying expensive audio equipment at the current state of the art if you do not have oceans of disposable money is a poor choice. If you expect to hear something like a live performance and you are honest with yourself you are sure to be disappointed. That may be why so many audiophiles are constantly swapping equipment looking for the holy grail. And that is why those misleading magazine reviews with all of their accolades proclaiming the best speaker in the world, the best amplifier in the world, the best wire in the world, the best set screws in the world with every new month are to be read with amusement and never to be taken seriously.
Please allow me to use the Leonard Slatkin example once again. The first time I heard him was in a lovely place called White Concert Hall in Topeka, Kansas. Half way through his performance, Slatkin stopped to comment on the beautiful acoustics of
White Concert Hall. Yes, the sound was pure liquid crystal. That has been my “reference†standard since then. His Swan Lake was a sound to die for. A few months later my wife and I went to Kansas City to hear the St. Louis with Barry Douglas playing Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto No.2. The sound was dry, uninteresting, and Slatkin did not at anytime stop and comment on the quality of the acoustics. I will say this. I have no desire for my stereo to sound like that Kansas City concert. And I can say proudly, it does not. Live does not necessarily mean it is something to strive for.
Many of the same factors that go into producing a sterling live concert apply to your own personal reproduction. If you have a dry concert hall, your music dies. Talk to the people at Avery Fischer Hall when if first went public. How many times has that place undergone renovations? Live music is overrated.
In an earlier posting I said I listen for four elements in music; composition, musicianship, instruments, and acoustics. Only when all four are excellent is it a memorable performance. But even if it is less than pleasing it is an actual musical experience….no matter how bad it is (the students playing string quartets here this last weekend…there’s usually at least six or eight of them…were not at their best. Not a pleasant experience ) A recording as I see it is merely a facsimile. It’s like the difference between an unpleasant experience, say a visit to the city dump and looking at a photograph of a beautiful beach. Not the same kind of experience at all.
I think when much more is known about how acoustics really work to change sound, the sounds produced by today’s recording playback technology will be seen to be badly distorted in ways we never considered. These will have to do with the relationships of sounds in time and space we don’t understand or know how to duplicate yet. They will be seen to be perceived very different qualitiatively between what we hear from recordings and what we hear at a live performance venue. What we have now will be seen as only part of what is required and the difference is made up by playing it much louder to make up for those qualities that are missing.
Ever notice where the primary mics are located for an orchestral recording in a large hall? No seats up there (unfortunately)! I would pay extra to have my seat hauled up into the sweet spot, suspended from cables. The downside of course is that when nature calls, it could be a problem. ; )
I agree whole heartedly with Mark Laufer in that we really don’t know what anything really sounds like as it’s all a matter of perspective. And then along comes another Mark.., Malboeuf that is, and I burst out laughing. I can fully understand his wish to be suspended at the same position as the recording mics at a live classical concert.., and his need be able to access the.. er facilities when “nature calls”. Maybe I can shed some light on why these mics are placed where they are:
First a microphone does not hear the way the human ear does because there is a part missing…, the brain. We are able to concentrate on the sounds we are most interested in, and ignore, or blank out that which we don’t want to hear. Not so a microphone, it hears all within its technical limitations, and all versions of a given source in more or less equal amounts (to be explained at another time). Because of this, the mics will hear as much of the direct sound from the orchestra, or other source, as it does of the reflected sound off the floor of the stage. If the paths of these two major contributers to the sound, are of vastly different lengths, there will be an unpleasant effect as cancellations and reinforcements occur, at different frequencies, do to different arrival times, and wave lengths. To minimize this effect, the mics are placed high up and further back to try and cause both sources, of the sound, to arrive, at the mics, at the same time…, thus resulting in a more coherent recording. At best this technique will only minimize but not altogether eliminate the problem. The last reason, albeit a small one, is that often having mics on stage, or in the audience area, is considered, both, an eyesore and impractical. There’s a lot more involved, but that’s the jist of it.
However Mark, if you work out diligently and take trapeez lessons.., just think of the benefits you’ll have at future concerts, of being in that sweet spot where the mics are hung.
I agree with most of discussion written above about the absolute sound. But…
If, for example, I go through the streets of an artist quartel and hear suddenly some violin sound, I definitly know if it is a recorded music playing in a cafe around or someone playing violin somewhere on the street, without seeing anything.
We can always distingouish live sound from a recorded sound, I think.
Can’t help it, have to get in on this. The great crime novelist Elmore Leonard was once asked how he managed to capture so accurately the conversations that occur in his fiction between, say, two fairly dimwitted criminal denizens of Detroit. His response? He basically said that — in spite of having hung around in a fair number of cheap Motor City bars over the years — he had no way of knowing whether the dialog he invented was accurate. It just had to SEEM accurate. That way, the reader will invest in it psychologically.
Doesn’t the same thing apply here? We know the absolute sound isn’t really possible. We just want it to SEEM like the absolute sound, or close enough so we’ll invest in it psychologically. Of course it’s a “total fallacy.” All ideals are. It’s still fun to chase them, or at least it should be.