The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound

@audio2design

Let’s see:

As I said, we are in agreement about the main topic of discussion here, so I’m not sure what the problem is. I’m glad we agree. Here are three of the most relevant (to this silly tiff) comments in my post; the third being the one which you feel necessary to call “vastly wrong”.... while still agreeing with the main point:

**** What is it about that sound that so immediately tells us that it is the sound of live and not a.recording? It is the immediacy of the sound, the sense of aliveness (richness of dynamic nuance) in the music and the richness of timbral detail; all without the addition to the sound of the electronic artifacts which are the inevitable byproducts of the amplification/ “sound reinforcement” and record/reproduce processes. ****

**** .... but one also has the variables of the amplifiers, cabling, mics, PA, sound board, etc. ****

**** You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification. In the absence of all that amplification gear, the sound remains closest to and with the immediacy and richness of timbral detail of that sound wafting out the window. ****

You then go on to quote me.....

**** You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification.****

.....and declare:

**** No. Just no. #1 effect is speakers. #2 is usually the microphones. #3 is acoustics of the concert hall, #3b is where you are sitting. The electronics of amplification would be somewhere, comparatively down around 10.****

However, you leave out for the last sentence of same comment with which I, AGAIN, make it clear that I am referring to the TOTAL effect of ALL the gear of the amplification process. Not to mention, you ignore all my previous similar comments.

So, back to the silliness at hand.

“Vastly wrong”? I don’t think so. Your own comment shows that you believe I am correct in my main point. Good. So, again, not sure what the problem is then. Yes, I think that your reaction is “nitpicking” considering that, yes, it is abundantly clear what it is that I am referring to.

“Insult” you? Who is insulting whom?

Peace.

Apology to all who “happened” to be subjected to the silliness of the argument above.

Many interesting comments and responses to the OP’s question; and, for whatever it may be worth, I will take one last stab at explaining my position on the topic. (“oh, goody”, is heard form the peanut gallery 😊).

I think that the reason for some of the disagreement is the lack of overall consistency in the meaning of the terminology used to describe what we hear and/or strive for. This leads to lack of understanding of a poster’s comment and what are, for me, obvious contradictions in many of those comments. Just two examples of the contradictions, and apology for paraphrasing a bit:

”Striving for the sound of live is a fool’s folly”. Yet, in the same post the same poster goes on to state: “I want my system to have as little coloration as possible”.

Or, the most misused and abused term in audio: “accuracy”. “I want my system to sound “accurate”. Or, “I DON’T want my system to sound accurate”. Accuracy to the true sound of music, warts and all, can never be a bad thing in my book

Or, a poster states that he he doesn’t want his sound to resemble live, but wants it to sound “natural”. Huh?!

Some of these terms sound great and all, but just what do they mean? “As little coloration”, compared to what?! “Accurate”, compared to what? “Accurate” does NOT mean thin and sterile. It means like the sound of music; sometimes sharp and even ugly and sometimes warm and lush. I think that if the terms are to have relevant meaning the answer is obvious: the sound of live acoustic music and we should strive for more consistency of meaning. Only acoustic (unamplified) music is free of the colorations of electronic amplification/processing. Yes, different venues have different “colorations”, but that is a different story and those colorations are not as egregious as those of introduced by amplification.

It has been correctly pointed out that “The only thing you’re going to get in your room is reproducing what’s on the medium not what was originally live in the studio or live in a concert venue.” True, but at that point in the chain of reproduction the sound is still a huge step closer to the sound of the original event and will be far more “accurate” and far less “colored” than what we end up hearing come out of our systems. So, why compound the problem by adding colorations in an effort to make the sound “more pleasing”? This begs the question, how do we know what the sound really is like at that step in the chain? We don’t. What we do know with certainty is that it will be a heck of a lot closer to the sound of the original event; and, if that event happens to be an acoustic event, all the better. Why all the better?

Again, putting aside the issue of soundstaging which has little to do with music, when the recorded music is acoustic it will have suffered the least from the effects of electronics and more of the timbral texture and rhythmic signature that are what define a musician will be preserved. FOR ME, even if the recorded music is electronic in nature, a system that is voiced to do justice to acoustic music will ultimately be more pleasing. It will better let me hear what is on the medium.

Happy listening to all.

Hello Russ69,  I’ve been through the same situation as you. I have 3 systems in my home. One system is 200 watt SS class A mono amps into Electrostats and two other setups are tube amps, EL34 100 watt and mono 18 watt 300b amps into conventional speakers. I’ve found that thru experience, accurate sounding systems are not what I’ve enjoyed best long term. What I’ve moved in tweaking my systems is a very transparent sound, with great detail and resolution but with fullness of tone and musicality.  So my setups are super open and super expanded with great detail, height, depth, and resolution but above all, the systems have been tweaked to reveal tonality and musical fullness.  When I think of an accurate sounding system, I think that the sound is sharp and thin at times, lacking a sense of sounding like REAL MUSIC should. I’ve heard some very accurate high level systems and they’ve sounded great but when compared to a system that gives all the same detail and performance but in a more relaxed and musical way, I prefer the latter sound. So I’m trying to understand what do you mean by an absolute sound.  

Striving for the sound of live is a fool’s folly”. Yet, in the same post the same poster goes on to state: “I want my system to have as little coloration as possible”.

Nothing contradictory I can see.  I am not striving for live sound in club, concert hall or outdoor venue but the best reproduction of the media I am listening too. In striving for reproduction I want my electronics to  add as little coloration as possible to the media.  If I am playing digital then I want a DAC that measures beyond human hearing so I am not coloring the media, I want an amplifier that measures as close as possible as well again not adding to the media. It all falls apart when speakers and your room are  tossed in but I aim for speakers with a very good FR, measure the room, address the problems either with passive or active solutions. Maybe this is also a fools errand but I figure I've done the best I can to try to recreate high fidelity of the media not the live event. I have no control over the production of the media but I can try to get off of it what was put on it as best as I can.  I understand I am in the circle of confusion as F. Toole  puts it but I figure it's the best I can do. 

We all do the best we can do and thanks for addressing my comment. I understand your point, but it is obvious that I didn’t do a good enough job of explaining that point. I see it as a contradiction because as I said before: how do you know? How do you know that those “perfect” measurements are absolute and reflect precisely what the medium is “saying”; that they tell, not only the whole story, but the true story. I realize that those measurements are all we have to “prove” the technical side of things, but in my experience they often don’t tell the whole story. I prefer to use measurements as a guide, but let my ears have the final say; and my ears often tell me a different story. Example of one area where you and I would definitely disagree: FOR ME, good tube gear, those “distortion generators”, while having their own issues let me hear nuances in the areas of timbre and sense of aliveness that I don’t hear from most solid state and the result, to my ears, is usually closer to what I hear live; and, yes, I’ve heard and owned some pretty good solid state gear. I believe Ralph Karsten has done a very good job here of explaining the technical reasons for some of this. Way above my (technical) pay grade,

As I said before, I don’t think we disagree fundamentally. You want to get closer to the medium; I want to get closer to the original event. The medium is closer to the original event than anything that can be achieved by going in the other direction with manipulation of the sound in order to meet a personal ideal. I call it getting as close as possible to the sound of live. You call it adding as little coloration as possible. I’m good with that.

Regards.