The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound

I'm much happier now and all my music collection can be enjoyed for what it is: Recorded music.

Right. Hardly any recordings are trying to be "true to the event" anyway. That would be like an artist with a paintbrush trying to produce a Polaroid. 

What we have with recorded music is essentially a lot of different art created by a lot of different artists. It happens to be in an electronic format where a lot of the artistry is performed with microphones and other electronics, all of which is done behind the scenes. As if that wasn't bad enough we make it worse by calling a lot of these artists engineers. This creates the false impression we are dealing with objective reality. Because a bridge or a building, it either stands or falls. A recording on the other hand, it can be a Rembrandt or a Picasso. Hell it can even be a Jackson Pollock. 

Too many of us seem to think our job is to make all these different works of art look like a Polaroid. Except of course for the mono guys. They all want Ansel Adams. No wonder everyone is so running neurotically running around trying to make everything perfect. There is no perfect!  

How do they display art in a museum? With nice, even neutral lighting. No glare. In a decent size space, enough to get some perspective. We say we visit the museum, but is that really right? I don't think so. I think we visit the art. That happens to be in a museum.  

What you really did then, the way I see it, is set your system up to provide just the right amount of lighting and space to enjoy your art. You aren't listening to your system. You are enjoying your recordings. That happen to be playing on your system. To go from being constantly frustrated to consistently satisfied, that tiny little shift in thinking is all it takes.

Picasso couldn't paint, ridiculous.
One day absolute sound might become achievable. In the mean time, I will keep moving in that direction as much as I can.
"Pleasing sound" is a totally different approach. I am not interested in it but I do understand it.

Good post, Inna,

I have zero interest in judging how anyone listens to music; and, that includes the kind of sound that they want from their sound systems. If a “personalized” sound pleases someone, so be it. However, it is obvious to me that some very high end systems sound much closer to the general sound of live music than others do. No system sounds exactly like live music and none ever will; but some get surprisingly close. It is a very worthy goal.

So, are we to simply throw in the towel and, because perfection will never be achieved, not even try to get as close as possible? Makes no sense to me. For me, a sound that approaches the sound of live is, in fact, the most enjoyable.

How do we know what is “the absolute”? How do learn to recognize it? The simple fact is that extensive experience attending live performances is the only way for most. Some may not have the time nor inclination to attend live performances, but it is an approach to the listening experience that has tremendous benefits. IMO.

"No system sounds exactly like live music and none ever will; but some get surprisingly close."

Do not forget that some (most?) of the current live music/events are also playing through the electronic system. When listening to, let’s say, rock’n’roll and trying to have it sound like a live event, you are really trying to match that electronics/venue combination.

Having said that, there has not been much live music to compare our systems with lately.

Excluding your last sentence, which will thankfully not be applicable for too much longer, what you correctly point out is the reason that unamplified acoustic performances remain the standard for judging how close our systems get to the sound of live. As I’m sure you know that was the basis for the term “the absolute sound”.