TRUTH in AUDIO

[jimbones]

I need to find the truth so I have a good friend with lots of time to take me to hear orchestral concerts live so i know what one sounds like. This is a person who goes to almost 200 concerts a year and know what "live" sounds like. I will learn the Truth soon enough!

[richidoo]

Nice, mlee, thank you.

I saw Lang Lang last night. I was surprised that I did not even notice the sound quality during the concert. We were in the far back and there were room mics and typical sidewall theater speakers. Didn't care, didn't notice, like I used to when I was an obsessed audiophile, I would allow the PA flaws to distract me.

[richidoo]

Bob, it's OK to get frustrated, we all do. I think everyone takes time away now and then.

Changing financial priorities caused me to I give up my retail audio gear and switch to DIY. Sometimes it is fun and rewarding to DIY, but I get tired of it. So much money and time wasted learning what not to do. Audio hope is dope.

But then I get an idea and the curiosity pulls me back into another big black hole project with the system torn apart and frustration hitting new highs. I don't know why I do it. It seems stupid. DIY is not a bed of roses.

It's a freaky third appendage on the 2 legged hobby.

[tmazz]

I actually find it kind of ironic that we are talking about "truth" in relation to a hobby which by its very definition is all about creating the illusion of a musical performance.

[richidoo]

But, what about "The Absolute Sound?"

[tmazz]

But, what about "The Absolute Sound?"

The absolute sound is a myth. Think about how Harry defined "the absolute sound", the sound of an unamplified acoustic instrument in a real space. Well that is real nice at the 20,000 foot level, but when it gets close to the ground a lot gets confused in the actual details. There are many things that contribute to the sound we hear at even an acoustic concert. The model, maker and vintage of the instrument, the technique of the musician playing it, the acoustic properties of the venue, the listener's location within that venue and the how many people are present at that particular performance, just to name a few all have an impact on the sound that is heard by any individual at that concert. Harry had orchestra seats in I believe it was the fifth row at Carnegie Hall. Now while that gave him a nice perspective of the sound it was not the same as what would be heard by a) an person at the same performance sitting elsewhere in the house, or b) a person hearing the same piece performed by the same musicians in another concert hall. Add to that the fact that most classical recordings, while done in concert halls are not done during actual performances, but rather during off hours with no audience present. Not only that, but while the sound produced by an acoustic instrument has not been altered by any electronic processing, the engineers choice of microphones, electronics and recording equipment all will impact the sound that eventually makes it to the tape, or whatever other storage media is being used. So given all that, how can we say that the  the sound of a public performance is really the best standard to use in determining how well given system reproduced the sound that was recorded when the sound that was recorded in all likelihood was not the same as that of the public performance in the first place. (Sorry engineers tend to produce lots of run on sentences.  ) So while "The Absolute Sound"  the reality of it is that we are not really trying to reproduce the exact sound that was recorded, but rather is a nice marketing concept, but rather create an illusion of what we think we would be hearing if we were actually in a concert hall while that music was being played. And I am not trying to say that this is a bad thing in and of itself and in fact that kind of suspended disbelief is the basis of most media entertainment. I don't know of anyone over 10 years old that actually believes that toys jump off the shelves and talk to one another every time we leave a room, but we all can sit back , buy into the fantasy and enjoy watching Toy Story. It is the same with high end audio. We all can sit back and enjoy listening to music as if we were hearing in in a concert hall without it being and exact replica of the sound that was played during the recording. And in the end, that is what this hobby is all about, being entertained by the recorded music.

[tmazz]

     I believe we all can agree on some "truth" we have discovered over the yea :duhrs setting up our systems.
    1.   Clean power from a dedicated circuit.
    2.   room acoustics
    3.   cables make a difference
    4.   garbage in garbage out, meaning the source is critical
    5.    mood matters for listening.
    6.    ones car radio can create emotion as well. It is the music silly.

I think the concept of truth as an entity and as it related to music may have been a little of the Path of where this thread was intend to go, so let me get a little bit closer to the original intent and address some of Charles' points directly.

In the same way that Rich abstractly discussed truth being a relative thing, that concept has some practical applications here. For example , I propose the following responses to Charles' suggested lists of " audio truths".

1.   Clean power from a dedicated circuit.

While I agree that clean power is always a good thing,whether or not it is audible can definitely be a function of the equipment being used. For example a piece with an exceptionally well designed power supply  can overcome a lot of the problems we see from less that perfectly clean input power and on the other hand a lower quality mid-fi type system may or may not have the resolving power to hear the difference that better power brings to the table. (if it sounds so-so in the first place, clean power can't help that much.)

2.  room acoustics

For the most part I absolutely agree. The reproduced sound will always interact with the environment it is played in. And if that environment is such that the sound waves work against each other you will have problems. But again the system must have a certain level of quality to it before this becomes and issue.

 3.   cables make a difference

For the most part yes, but with the same system quality caveat mentioned above. But just how much of a difference really depends on the equipment involved.

4.   garbage in garbage out, meaning the source is critical

I don't think anyone can argue with this. A component can never be better that the signal fed to it. I would extend it though to apply to each piece of gear in the chain as a function to all that goes before it. If you have a cr@ppy preamp in between a great source and a great amp, the total output of that will be garbage as well.

5.    mood matters for listening.

.... as for most everything else in life

6.    ones car radio can create emotion as well. It is the music silly.

No doubt, but it is still not the same involvement as a sit down formal listen session (which is a good thing if you are supposed to be paying attention to the road.) This brings up a good point though. There are many different levels of music listening other that sitting in the sweet spot, each of which has its place and each of which cam bring enjoyment to the listener. For example, when I bring a boom box into the back yard to listen to music while I am painting a fence or pulling weeds, the intention is not to become impressed in the music and swept away by the performance and the sound, but rather to simply put a soundtrack to a less than fun task in an effort to make it at least a little less dis-pleasurable. That is a type of enjoyment in its own right although a different enjoyment from what you get from sweet spot listen, but musical enjoyment a valuable none the less. As audiophile many of us at times tend to look down at anything that is not focused dedicated listening as somewhat less important in the grand scheme of thing. when in fact anytime we can enjoy music in and of itself, it is a good thing.

As Pete would say, just my 2 cents.

[Bob in St. Louis]

What about the absolute truth in illusion?
I think I might have that.

Truth be told, I'm listening to the NYAR 2006 demo CD, with Tin Pan Alley on open baffle.
That's the absolute Gods honest truth in illusion right there.   

Bob

[mlee]

I find generally that the pricier components offer greater precision in the reproduction of sound.  To hear the benefit, all links in your audio chain must be of similar level of precision.  The more refined or “better” the component, the more it must be micro-tuned, like a precision scientific instrument.  You cannot treat an electron microscope as if it were an optical microscope found in a high school laboratory.

Sound is not like light.  Light can reflect off a mirror and all wavelengths comprising white light will reflect at the same precise angle.  A particular sound wave will reflect, diffract, and/or be absorbed differently, depending on the surface material, possibly because the broad sound wave is not as precise as a pinpoint photon; and different wavelengths of sound will reflect, diffract and/or be absorbed differently off or by the same surface material.  In other words, with sound reproduction, you get chaos.  And the damned thing’s invisible.

Red light can combine with blue light to produce purple light.  Bass waves and treble waves cannot combine.  The bass wave moves more air than treble waves, and the smaller treble waves must ride on and can be disrupted by the larger and heavier moving bass waves.  Bass resonance can wreck havoc on treble waves.  Rather than combining sound waves, you get distortion, because of the nature of stereo.

In stereo you record a single point-source instrument, such as a singer, with two microphones, which then translates to left and right speakers interacting with each other to reproduce that single point source vocalist.  Deviations from ideal stereo reproduction of a point source instrument are distortions.

All stereo sound systems, no matter how expensive or how well executed, are poor in reproducing even a single piano or violin note.  A violin produces its distinctive violin note because of the shape and material and age of the violin.  Imagine trying to reproduce that note with something like the shape of a loudspeaker.  No can do.

Further, you are asking that single speaker to reproduce not just the violin note but the trumpet note, the female vocalist, the piano, the drum, and so on, and not only individually but all at the same time within the same reproduced sonic presentation.

Today’s high-end audio transducers have relatively flat frequency responses.  Yet we hear substantial variations.  These gross variations are due to room interactions.  Controlling the room interaction is basic and essential to the reproduction of the natural sound.  Why pay for pricey precision audio components, when you cannot control the “sound” of the room ?

The holy grail of the reproduction of the natural sound is necessarily premised on one basic postulate : that current audio technology is sufficient to approximate crudely the natural sound.   Otherwise you are laboring under the more manageable goal of reproducing the recording mix.  If you cannot even do that, then you are laboring like a bull in a china shop by creating the illusion of live performers in your sound room.

Generally, analog and tube lovers want the natural sound; generally, digital and solid state afficionados prefer the accuracy of reproducing whatever the microphone picks up.

Jason Chang/

[bobrex]

Sound is not like light.  Light can reflect off a mirror and all wavelengths comprising white light will reflect at the same precise angle.  A particular sound wave will reflect, diffract, and/or be absorbed differently, depending on the surface material, possibly because the broad sound wave is not as precise as a pinpoint photon; and different wavelengths of sound will reflect, diffract and/or be absorbed differently off or by the same surface material.  In other words, with sound reproduction, you get chaos.  And the damned thing’s invisible.
Jason Chang/

Fundamentally, I agree with what you are saying, and I've expanded upon these ideas in the original "TRUTH" topic on AC. 
But your metaphor regarding light is a little mixed.  The problem tends to be one of frequency.  If I reflect sound off of a mirror, above a certain wavelength it will behave identically to light.  Below a certain wavelength the mirror becomes transparent to the sound and that part of the spectrum passes through the mirror.  Conversely, light shining on a diffuse surface can be scattered, reflecting some and absorbing others (think colors), and can be broken into its component colors (prism effect), so in that aspect, it does mimic sound. 

[rollo]

   I respectfully disagree. Harry did get it right. He was referring to tonality and harmonic structure.
   Have you experienced playing live music through a stereo system ? If you have heard the live performance and then through the system at the same time the gear is NOT the weak link.
   It is the recording. The truth is the recording process is the culprit.
   Violin and piano can be properly reproduced if playing live through our gear. What I find lacking from a CD is the gestalt of a live performance. also a continuance of sound. Not choppy or mechanical.
   I will agree about the room. The most overlooked part of any system. Even live events have room sound. Carnegie sounds different than Lincoln Center. The Bluenote a sound different than Dizzies and so on.
   Taking ones listening space as the standard for the listener either warm or bright one can discern differences heard. Getting close to a live instrument takes hearing such in that room. Then one can adjust until that sound is achieved or close enough.
   Piano and violin are the two instruments I use to do such. Guitar as well.
    Ones brain can remember that sound long enough to recreate it. Or come real close.
   Truth in reproduction relies on the source material mostly not our systems.


Charles

[KLH007]

Charlie, What recordings do you rely on for accurate  solo violin and piano?

[KLH007]

Charlie, What recordings do you rely on for accurate  solo violin and piano?

Hello Charlie?

[rollo]

  Live piano and violin. Preferably solo performances. Louis Lortie on Chandos Liszt Annees de Peleriance [ Piano ] and Midori Lie at Carnegie Hall sony for starters.
   The solo piano in a large hall played by Lortie brings the harmonic of the hall into play after the ivory is struck.
   Midori with Robert McDonald on piano allows one to hear the interplay and harmonics created by them and Carrnegie hall.


charles

[mlee]

There are two real-world available vinyl recordings that I can recommend.

Ludwig van Beethoven, The Complete Sonatas for Violin and Piano, Itzhak Perlman and Vladimir Ashkenazy, on London ffrr CSA 2501 (5 LPs) (1978).  Highly immediate sounding, that is, greater clarity in the recording.  And

Joseph Haydn, The Piano Trios, Beaux Arts Trio, on Philips 6768 077 (1979) (14 LPs).
Less immediate sounding than the London pressing, but just as well-recorded.

These LPs demonstrate two approaches to recording the sound of the instruments that although different, are equally authentic.

The two recommendations are given not just for the sound, but more important for the performances.  Listen to the performances, and while you can study the sound, just “as easy as pi,” you can get lost in the music.

If you have read The New Penguin Stereo Record and Cassette Guide, Penguin Books (1982), of the latter they wrote, “Here is music that is sane and intelligent, balm to the soul in a troubled world.”