The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound

Thank you, russ69, for posting this provocative and essential question. 

For a long time, I've shared the dogma of "the absolute sound": that the goal of a fine audio system is to recreate the aural experience of a live (acoustic) concert. Perhaps for this reason, I've considered good recordings of solo instruments (e.g., piano, cello, violin, guitar) or small ensembles (string quartets, chamber orchestras) as the "gold standard" by means of which to judge musical reproduction. Rock concerts are already electronic events, after all, and so subject to amplifier distortion, poor hall acoustics, crowd noise and many other factors beyond one's control, while large orchestras in grand concert halls produce a sheer size of sound not realistically achievable in one's living room. Expecting otherwise is a little like expecting to be as impressed by a photograph of a mountainscape as one would be by the real thing: sheer scale has a lot to do with the impact. 

But I've since come to a different view. Music enjoyed in one's living room (or music room) is, in many ways, actually superior aurally to almost any live performance. The holographic presentation of "soundstage," for example, can be pretty astonishing on a good stereo in a room with favorable acoustics: with eyes closed (or even with eyes open!), one can "see" each instrument in spatial relation to every other, enabling the listener to follow a particular musical voice most easily by somehow "keeping one's eye on" the performer producing that melody or line of counterpoint. I've tried to do this when attending live concerts; it's rarely as vivid as it can be in my living room.

And as for rock music, "concert volume" is, in my experience, almost always so loud, and so distorted, as to be painful. Listening to a well-recorded studio rock album at high volume (110 db or more) is thrilling, visceral, and yet also crystal clear: the same detail as at modest volume, undistorted by crowd noise, overdriven amplifiers, and who knows what.

None of which is to say that we should not patronize live performances. But the difference between attending a live performance and listening to a good recording on a fine audio system at home is a little like the difference between attending a live stage play and watching a filmed version of a live stage play in a well-appointed media room. The frisson of the crowd, the sense that those are real people up there, the tension of knowing mistakes could happen...these things add an excitement to the "live" event that, of course, no "canned" version could hope to even approximate. Not to mention that it represents a demonstration of respect for the artists who produce the music we love when we go to "see" them in person, a fleeting experience we can't possess except in our memories.

I agree with snilf.  A record (or CD, SACD, DVD-A, stream, etc) is an artifact all to itself.  Not an exact representation of an event. It has it’s own sonic characteristics necessarily different from the event, and must be treated thusly. We play this artifact as a “happening” similar to but not the same as the event.
It may indeed be more enjoyable and sound better to our ears.

Yeah, well said, snilf. Thinking about the question from the other day about favorite rock concerts brings to mind how awful they can sound. But that's hardly the point, is it? Who goes to see a rock band perform live for the acoustic experience? It's a social thing. The crowd, the anticipation, the participation in a shared celebration of something you're all into; isn't that what matters most? That first Who show I saw did sound fabulous to me, in part because the band was brilliant. Tight. Entwistle one of the greatest bass players ever. But it was also the thrill of seeing them walk onto the stage, and seeing strangers as excited as I was, and screaming at the top of our lungs. 

But the Joshua Tree shows sounded horrible. Couldn't even discern that "In God's Country" was being played till Bono began singing. Everything was buried under shrill amplification. So what, though? The ethos was the thing, the camaraderie. Singing every song together with 17,000 other people, and ending with "40." Does it even matter whether it "sounds good"? Snilf's point about memory is again on point here.

For me, listening to music in the living room is mostly a solitary pleasure. That gives me a measure of control over the acoustics that is lacking in a concert hall. I actually enjoy the music much more this way, and I'm unwilling to accept that I'm missing something crucial to the experience, because it's a very different kind of thing, sui generis. I like how a few respondents have emphasized the artistry involved in recorded music. This is, I think, hardly a secondary form of art, but essential to our engagement, and, even if only a little bit, we get to help the creative process. Choosing this-or-that amp, speakers, or to toe in or not to toe in. Where do I sit, how far away from the speakers? All of that contributes to the visceral pleasures of home listening, and none of it is meant to be pure reproduction. 

@artemus_5

**** Good point. I used to wonder why so many liked Pioneer. I never heard one that I liked. ****

Please read my very first comment here. If that kind, or any other kind of sound rocks your, or anyone else’s boat that is fine with me. I find my approach far more satisfying and a much better way to reach an audio system’s true potential based on my sonic priorities.

@snilf

**** Music enjoyed in one’s living room (or music room) is, in many ways, actually superior aurally to almost any live performance. ****

I could not disagree more. Moreover, I would make a distinction between “aurally” and “musically”. Consider the fact that composers did not intend their music to be so hyper holographic; and they composed accordingly. They composed with the idea in mind that the type of exaggerated hyper detail that some audiophiles crave would not happen, should not happen, and that the blend of different instrumental (or vocal) textures would create, from a distance, the desired sound for the composition’s intent. Consider also, just how much effor an instrumentalist puts into perfecting just the right tone in order to serve his personal musical vision. It seems to me that this should be the purview of the artist, not the listener’s.

Does it cross anyone’s mind that it is this personal customization of the sound of music with its inevitable deviation from the nuance of timbre and textural detail heard at a good (!) live performance is the reason for the endless stream of threads asking “Am I an audiophile or music lover?”, “SQ or the music?”, etc. Not to mention, the endless equipment churning?

Of course recordings will always be an “artifact”. However, this fact is actually the best testament to just how much nuance and information exists in a live performance. To not strive to get as close as possible to that sound strikes me as convoluted and backwards. To honor the music is to honor its sound.

IMO, of course.

@frogman 

Please read my very first comment here. If that kind, or any other kind of sound rocks your, or anyone else’s boat that is fine with me. I find my approach far more satisfying and a much better way to reach an audio system’s true potential based on my sonic priorities.

Why should it rock my boat? I agree with your 1st post. Don't know why you didn't understand. My comment was to reinforce your idea. Everyone has different priorities.

**** Music enjoyed in one’s living room (or music room) is, in many ways, actually superior aurally to almost any live performance. ****

This is NOT my quote.