ricred1,
Harry Pearson defined "the absolute sound" as the reality of what sounds are heard in a concert hall, with characteristics of depth, R/L separation, tonality, etc. I don't restrict myself to the concert hall, but I recognize the sounds of instruments and voices in various rooms and at various distances. My system differs from what HP had over the years, although I was inspired by his writings on Maggies. We had different preferences, but if we had met, we would have agreed that the true reference is the sound of live, unamplified instruments under different conditions. I agree with everyone who says there are preferences, because I have my own. But my point is that to say that there are no "absolutes" in audio is not accurate, although there is a little truth to that statement due to the variations in sound of these real instruments under various conditions. The audiophile can choose whether he wants to achieve some form of high fidelity, which is reference to some type of "absolute sound," OR whether his preferences are totally arbitrary, unrelated to reality but still pleasing.
In art, there are old master paintings which tried to convey a photographic reality, and painters were judged on how realistic their art was. The great old masters employed subtle variations which were "artful" distortions of literal photographic images. More modern artists like Picasso deviated more from reality, but still their shapes were reminiscent of reality. More avant garde abstract works have no reference to reality, and are appreciated as pure abstract creations. All forms of art can be appreciated equally for what they are.
Although I agree that a good audio system is a skillful combination of components, the audio system is not an intrinsic art form like abstract art where anything goes, unconnected to reality. Those like me who seek high fidelity want to let the music speak for itself, which is best achieved by seeking clarity and transparency. So I say that there ARE various absolutes or principles in audio systems. For the lover of deep bass music, a full range speaker with or without a subwoofer is required in accordance with the reality of the bass instruments. For the lover of brilliant HF percussion, extended HF drivers and appropriate electronics like Soulution are best.
You can uphold the concept of the absolute sound, and still have different preferences based on your favorite music, different room sizes, etc. For those who have homes with several audio rooms, a mini monitor would be best in a small room or even a moderate sized room with small scale music. A large room for large orchestral and organ music needs a larger speaker. Basic audio consulting utilizes these approximate "absolute" truths. To be fair minded, these "truths" should be considered as "principles" or "guidelines." I only take issue with your blanket statement that there are NO absolutes. Maybe you agree that there are principles/guidelines, to be somewhat modified by each listener in accordance with his perceptions. But to deny the existence of principles/guidelines invites anyone to create an arbitrary concoction of sounds. Then he wonders why he is unhappy and goes off randomly trying anything that looks enticing, spending money and time endlessly.
As a violinist, I have played with other violinists whose tastes in violins are different from mine. For their style of playing, whatever violin that enables them to express themselves best, is fine. Still, for ensemble playing there has to be some consistency of musical concept, or else the musical message falls apart from the friction among players. I make a distinction here between the art of music making, and the superimposed "art" of random colorations of audio systems not based in reality.
Harry Pearson defined "the absolute sound" as the reality of what sounds are heard in a concert hall, with characteristics of depth, R/L separation, tonality, etc. I don't restrict myself to the concert hall, but I recognize the sounds of instruments and voices in various rooms and at various distances. My system differs from what HP had over the years, although I was inspired by his writings on Maggies. We had different preferences, but if we had met, we would have agreed that the true reference is the sound of live, unamplified instruments under different conditions. I agree with everyone who says there are preferences, because I have my own. But my point is that to say that there are no "absolutes" in audio is not accurate, although there is a little truth to that statement due to the variations in sound of these real instruments under various conditions. The audiophile can choose whether he wants to achieve some form of high fidelity, which is reference to some type of "absolute sound," OR whether his preferences are totally arbitrary, unrelated to reality but still pleasing.
In art, there are old master paintings which tried to convey a photographic reality, and painters were judged on how realistic their art was. The great old masters employed subtle variations which were "artful" distortions of literal photographic images. More modern artists like Picasso deviated more from reality, but still their shapes were reminiscent of reality. More avant garde abstract works have no reference to reality, and are appreciated as pure abstract creations. All forms of art can be appreciated equally for what they are.
Although I agree that a good audio system is a skillful combination of components, the audio system is not an intrinsic art form like abstract art where anything goes, unconnected to reality. Those like me who seek high fidelity want to let the music speak for itself, which is best achieved by seeking clarity and transparency. So I say that there ARE various absolutes or principles in audio systems. For the lover of deep bass music, a full range speaker with or without a subwoofer is required in accordance with the reality of the bass instruments. For the lover of brilliant HF percussion, extended HF drivers and appropriate electronics like Soulution are best.
You can uphold the concept of the absolute sound, and still have different preferences based on your favorite music, different room sizes, etc. For those who have homes with several audio rooms, a mini monitor would be best in a small room or even a moderate sized room with small scale music. A large room for large orchestral and organ music needs a larger speaker. Basic audio consulting utilizes these approximate "absolute" truths. To be fair minded, these "truths" should be considered as "principles" or "guidelines." I only take issue with your blanket statement that there are NO absolutes. Maybe you agree that there are principles/guidelines, to be somewhat modified by each listener in accordance with his perceptions. But to deny the existence of principles/guidelines invites anyone to create an arbitrary concoction of sounds. Then he wonders why he is unhappy and goes off randomly trying anything that looks enticing, spending money and time endlessly.
As a violinist, I have played with other violinists whose tastes in violins are different from mine. For their style of playing, whatever violin that enables them to express themselves best, is fine. Still, for ensemble playing there has to be some consistency of musical concept, or else the musical message falls apart from the friction among players. I make a distinction here between the art of music making, and the superimposed "art" of random colorations of audio systems not based in reality.