Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › the absolute sound
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

the absolute sound - Page 2

post #16 of 26
Interesting article. Arjisme, perhaps you should start looking into the Smyth systems.

Could someone start a discussion on the science behind that as well here? THAT would be very interesting.

edit, great quote from that article:

Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing.
post #17 of 26

Oh, ho, ho it's magic, you know-Never believe it's not so.

I think is really important to define exactly what we are after.
If some people are shooting for one ideal, and other people are shooting for an entirely different ideal, there would be a lot of confusion. We would never get to the end of either goal.

There were some neat multi channel experiments done in Grand Central Station in NYC almost 50 years ago where they had actual performers playing- and then another curtained area with speakers.. At that time many were fooled by the speakers into thinking it was real.

2 channels can make stereo - but it has been said that you really need a unified wave front to create a true illusion- that could take up to 8 channels or more ..highly impractical.- expensive- hard to set up etc... I suppose if we all forced recording artists to use a particular studio and set up and had dedicated rooms contructed exactly the same we would get closer... but it would never happen.

IMHO... wives killed high end audio. Yep Wives.... not girlfriends who have little say on what you buy... but Wives. This is a predominantly male hobby. When male baby boomers were younger they wanted better sound- and were willing to buy larger speakers and elaborate systems and their transient girlfriends had little say... in fact... having a killer audio system even may have helped getting a woman in bed with some great sounding lush music (a huge departure from her clock radio or boom box). But as the baby boomers got married the wives just said "NO!" to large format speakers and dipolar radiator speakers that paraded into the room. MOST Men were pressured into moving their speakers closer to the walls.. or shuddder....... in ceiling speakers that came with their newest house purchase.

Cars became an audio refuge for many men. In the 1980's we saw the boom of car audio- and many head units of that time were great sounding such as Nakamichi head units and a few Alpine units. But Leasing.... killed a lot of that. Why invest $4000 into a car audio system if you flipped your cars every 24-36 months? Some leases were very against doing this. Women were more impressed with a new or 2 year old BMW than a 5 year old model with a great sound system.

Of course... this is a sweeping generalization. But only one GF of mine ever was into my large format systems.... and she sells and installs systems costing hundreds of thousands of dollars..... but it isn't true high fidelity audio.... it is Bang and Olufsen.

Don't kill me for this women...remember this is a headphone website.... and the wife acceptance factor for headphones is very good.

back on topic....

The absolute sound, was a magazine that strove to describe the reproduction of the musical experience in real space of non electrically amplified musicians.

That in itself might sound easy, but even within that definition people would talk about hearing music as fourth row, fifth row, 10th row, 20th row etc.

Also there are inherent flaws with this concept.

Let's take a look at Carnegie Hall, a wonderful musical venue with terrific acoustics. Depending on the year that you went and heard a concert at Carnegie Hall you might have heard a radically different sounding concert - let's take a look at Carnegie Hall, whose Interior acoustics changed with a remodeling- they removed many sound absorbing materials- permanently changing the sound.

You could consider it two different halls - the acoustics were very different and they attempted to fix it - making even more versions during the process.

But even within this concept lets say for instance we use the EXACT same hall- no remodeling allowed.

The issue is further complicated by the attendance of the people listening to the concert. If the concert is well attended each person has a certain amount of sound absorption which is related to their body. An empty hall is much more reverberant than a full one.

It gets further complicated than that. Let's say you are listening to a concert at Carnegie Hall in December around Christmas time in the 1970s.

At that time people wore very heavy winter jackets, and mink coats were in style as were many other types of animal coats. Men often wore heavy woolen coats because down jackets and polar guard were not commonplace.

These jackets and coats act as sound absorbing material and of course affected the acoustics of the venue.

So seasonally, any "reference music venue" could change acoustically. Just changing the capacity of the coat room- (ie more checked coats mean a brighter sound) can have an affect on the sound.

This "transfer function" layers its own acoustic upon the music of the musicians. And of course this acoustic has a value. Many musicians strive to play in places like Carnegie Hall not just for the prestige, but also because they know that their performance will sound better there.

However for people in the pursuit of the absolute sound, this changing acoustic cannot be considered a reference.

One of the nice things about Carnegie Hall was that certain performances could be assured to sell out. In that way the acoustic might vary less than expected with a regular music venue. But still... it varies.. a lot.

For example the same performance of the Nutcracker played at Carnegie Hall on a Tuesday evening might sound very different from the exact same performance played on a Saturday evening because of attendance and the attire of the patrons.

So with that in mind perhaps a more readily reproducible reference would be that of musicians in open space with no early reflection around them.

Ironically probably the best way to reproduce music would be to try to reproduce music which was played robotically (no varience) with tuned instruments in a controlled space (controlled temperature and humidity). That controlled reference space could be reproduced if the architect were to give exacting specifications on the material construction of the venue.

You would have to use the same microphones, and the same recording media, to try to capture the sound.

Then, speakers placed in the same locations as the robotic performers would try to reproduce the musical event. In this way the transfer function for both parties -- the robots versus the speakers would be the same.

In a collaborative effort both the recording engineers and the audio enthusiasts would work together to try to reproduce the sound.

To speed things along the reference "studio" would have dual identical staging characteristics so that the speakers and the robot ensemble could be compared directly. You could think of each stage being a mirror image of each other.

In this way recording engineers and audio enthusiasts could readily swap out microphones, recording media, speakers, amplifiers, preamplifier's, cables etc.... to try to reach the illusion.

Many different speaker designs have different polar radiation patterns, many drivers change in their radiation patterns according to frequency, using this method you could more quickly determine which factors mattered the most.

Because -- the title of this post refers to the magic and we are trying to create. We are creating an illusion of performers performing in space.

It is a sort of magic. To have synthesized phantoms sing to you out of thin air.

There are a few other strange things at work here, the human ear does not have flat frequency response and because of that we cannot just trust microphones.

The human ear is very sensitive to human speech -- and so in some areas we are more discerning than in others.

Then, there are a few things that make this almost seem futile. Of course taking into account the myriad of transfer functions of each venue -- the attendance of each venue, the way people are dressed, and perhaps in the case of amplified music ...the very interpretation of the sound engineer.

Also we have the issue of the performers who do not want to sound like themselves. For instance Frank Sinatra -- he does not have a particularly powerful voice -- and needs amplification. I have heard it said that his true voice bears little resemblance to what comes out of the speakers.

So we have issues with performers that use the "inaccuracy" of recording devices to tailor their voices. And that's not even counting postproduction work.

Because of these inconsistencies it is extremely difficult to arrive at the absolute sound.

I think having reproducible "reference Studios" where sound engineers work in tandem with audio enthusiasts might be the only way that we could eventually bring more accurate sound to the masses for less money.

I also think that this would be a way to improve the skills of studio engineers.

Currently music studio engineers use a variety of different monitors to judge the sound. I think a lot of people would be shocked to realize that Yamaha NS10 monitors are used in studios. They sound dreadful. They are far from accurate. The concern of many of the studio engineers is to produce a mix which sounds good on a car stereo as well in a typical American home with mediocre speakers.

That isn't to say that studios don't use better monitors- they do, but often they check their mixes on auratones (Sound like stock pickup truck speakers- or a single AM radio speaker). to make sure it sounds "good" on crap.

And that is a major problem -- many studio engineers are not looking to accurately reproduce the sound at all. They are just trying to make it sound palatable to the lowest common denominator of audio users.

I am sure you've all heard some song that you heard over the radio or in a nightclub, you went out and bought that same song and put it on your audiophile system -- and then when you heard it it sounded markedly different. Perhaps that prominent bass line is now moved to the background-

well- the mixer- made that happen- he "spec'd" the sound for cars and clubs.

Then listen to a recording made by Keith Johnson- (pick up Dafos on LP for instance) whose ideal for many audiophile recordings is not to "spec" them for a car or average system... but to use the gear to its limits or beyond (heavily Modded tape machines etc. ) so that people with great audio systems will come close to reproducing music as it sounded live while recording it.

We need thousands of guys like him. Not the guys who crushed Santana's "Supernatural" album's dynamic range...(so sad because you could always do that post production and some home systems have dynamic compression anyhow (many TV's come with this too). So why crush it for everyone??

The absolute sound ... odd that it is vague in application.

Lastly... the transfer function of your own room... is layered upon the transfer function of the recorded venue. So for instance if you listen to a Carnegie Hall performance in your bathroom- you would hear your bathroom acoustic more. Having a relatively absorptive listening space with few early reflections helps... so does turning it up a little since the ear hears what is louder over what is softer... you just want to make sure you don't overload your room.

And that is what is great about headphones.... a lack of room transfer function other than your ear canal and outer ear..


Unfortunately..... for headfiers

There are few recordings mastered for headphones (binaurals excluded) - most are mastered for speakers.
post #18 of 26
Originally Posted by ingwe View Post
not the magazine, but the concept. is there such a thing? how would we define it? is it relevant? Is there an objective standard baseline with which to compare...well everything? Live amplified instruments and voice? How so?
You know what, I was tryin out some different cables the other day and it suddenly hit me,"I wonder what the song sounds like live, or in the studio?"
Nonetheless, I know the interconnect I prefer to use, even if I did know what the artist sounded like live (but would definitely prefer to listen to any artist live)
post #19 of 26
Originally Posted by Golden Ears View Post
Long-arse post snipped for brevity
Holy moley. I think I'll print out your post and keep it for reading material when I'm bored. Great post!
post #20 of 26
I'm with the camp that wants a perfect reproduction of what was intended in the studio.
post #21 of 26
Even 64kbps can be perfect sound to someone who doesnt know 128 kbps exists.

Are u getting me? Its just a matter of perception

because if u think Unamped live is Perfect..then u havent considered the Air pressure of the room, The temperature, the acoustics, the Instruments themselves.

At the end of it..your ears themselves could be the bottleneck

I went to a SAE institute open house 2 weeks back..the guys/students there told me they dont enjoy music..
i was shocked .

but they told me that if they dont look at music analytically & objectively they ll never be a good Sound engineer

So the way their brain was been wired..they cannot enjoy music even in a Studio setup.

But for some friends of mine who listen to music encoded at max 128 kbps... just an upgrade in bitrate to 192 kbps is perfect sound to them.

What is perfect? Its smthg that we cannot achieve or just imagine to have achieved.
post #22 of 26
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post
Agreed. My favorite reference:

I think Walt Disney Hall sounds nice by concert hall standards, or at least it has the best concert hall acoustics I have experienced.
But I have to say that a mid-sized auditorium at my school (Ramo auditorium at Caltech) is miles ahead of Walt Disney in terms of acoustics.
Every time I hear the Caltech-Occidental college orchestra perform in the auditorium, I was blown away by the acoustics.

I heard Shosta's #5 at Caltech and #13 at Walt Disney, there was no comparison. While I think the best hi-fi can match the sound of a mediocre concert hall, Walt Disney is already beyond what hi-fi can reproduce. Our school's Ramo auditorium is simply a freaking acoustic miracle that makes me realize that hi-fi is still canned music. On the other hand, when I listen to the world's best string quartets in the acoustically-poor Beckman auditorium at my school, I start to miss my K1000. I have actually sneaked back to my school-owned apartment during the concert's intermission to listen to my K1000.
post #23 of 26
Agree that much of it is perception, since we all hear differently.

That said, I'm not sure that sound has gotten good enough yet to really re-create the exact experience. It may come close, but it ain't the real McCoy.
post #24 of 26
Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 View Post
Even 64kbps can be perfect sound to someone who doesnt know 128 kbps exists.
...and I thought the same thing, until.... I found Head-Fi one day.
Now I wonder where the relentless putsuit will end... and hope sometimes that it will never end.
post #25 of 26
Reiterating what Golden Ears said, the obstacle to a more accurate sound in music is that music is engineered to sound good on crap. One could also blame musicians for not understanding the limits of recording and playback enough to prevent their music from conveying something entirely different from what they originally intended when played either on good equipment or bad equipment.
post #26 of 26
Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 View Post
I'd say live, unamplified music (of course electric guitars are the exception here) is the "absolute" sound. Maybe even take that and put it in a nice anechoic chamber.
What about the electric bass? What about the wave of analog synths from the 70's on?

I think, for many genres, there isn't really that type of benchmark anymore.

Which is fine, because I think that in a great many cases visits to the symphony are a great deal more about negotiating class status position than they are about getting a "reference" audio experience. Hell, most symphonies these days require earplugs to avoid damage anyway, how the heck can that be a reference?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › the absolute sound