The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound

@audio2design

We are all in agreement that music is for enjoyment and I would never pretend to force my preferences on anyone, I was merely expressing what they are.  I want to think that if I play a Diana Krall song in my system and it sounds like what I heard in the concert in Brazil, then this is a good start. I don’t need nor do I want the ability to add more body to her voice to make it sound nicer to my ears. That’s just me. 

I get overpaid to do live sound production/mixing and actually have some shows sort of booked for September (we'll see about that, but I mention it because I don't want anybody worrying about me), so I'm to blame for some reinforced concert sound. That's right. It's my fault. That said, there are gigantic differences between un-reinforced performances and everything else, as well as recorded vs live...so what? Do you think watching an F1 race is like driving? Food shows are like eating? Are they supposed to be? No. I can play an acoustic guitar any time (not while driving...that's illegal) and yeah...it sounds groovy, but is a symphony going to set up in my house to play Benjamin Britton for me? Doubtful, and there's not enough parking. My hifi rig makes music sound good enough to be very enjoyable, concerts are fun, get over it.

It’s not easy communicating exactly what is meant with the written word. In classic fashion for an Internet forum we end up “talking” past each other, making inaccurate assumptions about what is meant by someone else and digging our heels in when taking positions on the subject at hand. So, what exactly is the point here? Better still, what exactly is meant by “the sound of live”?

I think there is agreement about two things: Reproduced music, no matter the genre, will never sound exactly like live and reproduced music is for enjoyment (duh!).

FOR ME the components of music that suffer the most as a result of the record/reproduce process are timbre and dynamic nuance. Not, dynamics in the sense of how loud things can get, but in the sense of how alive the music sounds; even (especially) when very soft and how seamlessly it moves from, for instance, very very soft to just very soft; and between all the other steps in the dynamics scale. For purposes of this thread (and for me, generally) imaging, sound staging, holography and their ultimate scale are completely irrelevant to me; and not very important in general. Why? Because if one is sitting outside our audiophile designated “sweet spot”, all that goes to hell anyway. I hope that there is also general agreement that anyone who can’t enjoy a recording if sitting outside the sweet spot probably should reconsider his priorities. Besides, timbre and dynamic nuance is where the music is. Everything else is audiophile stuff that many confuse for components of music. Think that’s wrong? Look up any meaningful text, book, article, etc. on the subject of MUSIC and find the chapter on “sound staging”. Good luck.

In my experience the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance are precisely the areas where most “audiophile systems” fall short. The deviations from what is heard live are sometimes grotesque. Excessive and often harsh highs, overblown and discontinuous bass and sometimes a kind of hyper detail that simply does not occur in live music. That kind of sound can be impressive and even the most pleasing for some. So be it. I prefer to work at voicing my system so that, first and foremost, the end result moves the sound in the direction of what I hear live in the areas of timbre and dynamic nuance. It is, in fact, possible to get surprisingly close sometimes. Soundstaging? A distant third concern; if at all. It has little to do with music. So, no concerns about parking space 😉.

Going back to the first point of agreement, that reproduced music will never sound EXACTLY like the sound of live. True, but much can be done to voice a system so that, overall, it moves the reproduction of timbre closer, not further away, from the general sound of live. To me, that is a far better choice for reaching enjoyment. Why? Because more of the MUSIC is preserved.

To borrow the sign off used by one of our more controversial Audiogon members:

Enjoy the music, not distortions.

(I think that’s how it goes 😊)

As enjoyment and fulfillment is the goal, the music has to come first for me.
When the music comes first, there’s a whole exciting world of variety and discovery available. When the sound is primary, the enjoyment is confined to that somewhat limited parameter, not nearly as meaningful as the world of music.
Approaching a listening session with the goal of sonic titillation can easily be detrimental to really getting into the music.

I am a tad confused. When I read about those that use an acoustic performance as their standard for measuring their system. When you are listening to the performance at a venue, are you not hearing the combination of the performer(s) and the venues acoustics? If you take those same performers and place them in a different venue the sound you are hearing is going to be different, not to mention if the performance is not a solo performance do the players have the ability to properly mix themselves?

OTOH at an amplified show, they have tools that help in the mitigation of the venue acoustics to an extent, so there should be less variation due to the venue.  Of course there is still someone out front manipulating the reproduced sound to their taste, so probably not the best example of a standard either.

So is a standard even possible with that many variables?