The studio production: The Audiophile Society & Chesky's Mega Dimensional Sound; Revolver Remix. Is there an "absolute sound"?

Above, you see some recently added albums on my Roon server. I thought it might be fun to focus this week on the music instead of hardware and discuss a little more on this so-called "absolute sound" (the concept, not the name of the Harry Pearson-founded magazine) some audiophiles are supposedly going for (touched on this somewhat years ago). 

I don't know if Pearson described his concept of the "absolute sound" with much greater depth beyond the oft-quoted, vague quality of "the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space" which may or may not be hard to achieve these days depending on one's threshold of what sounds "real". Let me know if you've come across any other articles on this that defines the concept with greater detail. To be honest, I don't think I've met any audiophiles who still believe that there is a single "absolute" subjective sound we should all be striving for, but it's good to be clear about it and maybe lay it to rest.

When it comes to music, I have rather eclectic tastes. As I mentioned last time, I've been checking out some electronica, hence the amane ＋ 曇った空 (Kumottasora) album 彷徨 (Wandering) (DR7, 2017) off BandCamp on the list. You can have a listen to track 2 "~ Discontinuity ~" on YouTube. It's an atmospheric piece of work that's very much at home in the Blade Runner universe I can play in the background without getting distracted; in fact, excellent background music when doing medical charting on the computer - the bane of the medical professional's existence these days. ;-)

To the right, we see a couple versions of David Chesky's The Great European Songbook (DR13, 2022). As you can see, I've labelled the cover image for easy identification; we have both a "Headphone Mix" and "Speaker Mix".

Recently, I was contact by The Audiophile Society in promotion for the new label and this album; here are relevant bits of the announcement:

"... I’d like to inform you about The Audiophile Society and our innovations in 2 channel 3D-Binaural audio. As you are aware, most music is mixed and mastered for a neutrality of listening medium with the primary concern being that it will sound the same when heard on a car stereo or in headphones despite physical constraints and properties of each environment. But how much of the potential listener experience is sacrificed by a dynamic where laptop and iPhone speakers are given the same importance as dedicated high-end Hi Fi systems? How much further could the listener experience be enhanced if one rejects the limitations of this one-size-fits-all approach and instead aims to make the recording sound the best that it can in each individual environment?

As an answer to these questions The Audiophile Society, a new label founded by world renowned composer and audiophile David Chesky, is proud to present Mega Dimensional Sound: an innovative audio production process which boasts a wider and deeper soundstage, aurally placing the listener right in the room with the performer and allowing listeners to appreciate recordings like never before! Through this new audio process the Audiophile Society is bringing 3D recordings from emerging artists working in a multitude of genres to market by creating binaural recordings that can be played on existing 2-channel audio systems. Each release is also given an individualized 3 dimensional headphone mix. In the label’s latest release, The Great European Songbook, David Chesky demonstrates his versatility by boldly deconstructing many of the classical repertoire’s most celebrated melodies and using them to deliver virtuosic jazz performances. 

Like all releases from The Audiophile Society, European Songbook will be available in a choice of two audio packages: The Hi-Res PCM Package (which includes a 192/24 speaker mix, a 96/24 headphone mix, & a DSD speaker mix) or The DSD & 48/24 Package (DSD speaker mix, DSD headphone mix, a 48/24 speaker mix, and a 48/24 headphone mix). On European Songbook, listeners can enjoy even the most minute details in Chesky’s transcendental performances, treading from Bach to Beethoven, the album features a three piece band composed of Billy Drummond and Peter Washington, previous collaborators from Chesky’s critically acclaimed Jazz in The New Harmonic projects. 

Together, David Chesky and the Audiophile Society provide an auricular adventure sure to delight even the most stringent Classical and Jazz connoisseurs alike."

I see that David Chesky made this video introducing the new label from a few months back:

Kudos to Mr. Chesky for working to improve the sound quality of recordings. I have no ties to the music content creation world but I can imagine how difficult it must be these days with a plethora of albums and labels already out there for listeners to choose from (lots of recorded music already as discussed here).

Also, it's great to see that right from the start with these recordings, they're specifically addressing listening systems with different mixes - "speaker" and "headphone"; clearly these are significantly different physical means of playback, so optimization with remixing is logical. Over the years, we have already come across binaural recordings from Chesky meant for headphone listening. You can hear the differences yourself with the free The Audiophile Society Sampler.

Artistic appreciation is obviously very much a subjective enterprise and we're all free to agree or disagree with music "critics", ultimately we judge music for ourselves. For example, The Great European Songbook consists of a jazz trio (David Chesky piano, Peter Washington bass, and Billy Drummond percussion) playing re-imagined well-known classical pieces from the likes of Bach, Beethoven, Strauss, etc. Already that might or might not be interesting for you as a music lover even if the recording quality can be used as demo material for one's audio system.

While the majority of what I enjoy tend to be of the rock/pop genre, I can appreciate what Chesky does here with his trio and the familiarity of the classical pieces chosen would be accessible to most listeners. When I listen to the mixes on my system, indeed the speaker mix has a very large "mega dimensional" soundstage with piano wide left, drum kit center, and bass wide right. I found that broad panorama to be an enjoyable experience that envelops the listener in the music. The high-quality production with such a wide soundstage shared between 3 instruments allows the listener to peer "into" that virtual space and determine things like precision of instrument placement, "quietness" of the noise level in the space between the instruments, and a sense of timbral accuracy as one can easily isolate each member in the trio. Beautiful sense of depth and room ambience can be heard for example in the percussion work on "Fuga No. 2" (Bach). As usual, once we're done with critical listening for resolution and making technical judgments, make sure to flip the mental switch and just allow yourself to be in the midst of the music, experienced holistically!

I agree that while the very wide "speaker mix" is great in a soundroom, it's not natural when listening over headphones. With my Sennheiser HD800 & Drop+THX AAA 789 headphone amp, it sounds like my head is sandwiched between the extremes of the piano and bass on either side with limited depth. The "headphone mix" is clearly much better with cans as it applies some crossfeeding and binaural processing into the mix which pushes the instruments forward in virtual space as would happen in an actual room since the sound of each speaker will also be heard in the contralateral ear along with appropriate timing cues to impart a sense of distance between speakers and the ears.

One criticism of playing with a generic crossfeed DSP/plugin (there are many of these, such as this one for Foobar) is that we typically have to try out different settings to find an optimal amount for each recording. With The Audiophile Society providing their headphone mix, we get to hear the official intended version from the studio, while still be able to play the "speaker mix" and try our own crossfeed DSP customizations if we want.

Similar, but not the same.

While the waveforms above cannot tell us exactly how something sounds subjectively, clearly we can see the similarities and differences between the two mixes.

This idea of having multiple mixes is not new of course. Mark Waldrep and AIX Records had been doing this with the multichannel "stage" and "audience" mixes on DVD-A and BluRay for more than a decade. I also think having multiple mixes/masterings to differentiate "standard" and hi-res "advanced" resolution versions of albums could add value to the typically higher cost of hi-res purchases.

Again, download the demo tracks and have a listen for yourself and decide what you think about the music and those mixes. In the announcement above we also see that there are options for PCM vs. DSD packages which is good news for those who prefer new DSD material.

All the best to David Chesky and The Audiophile Society in continuing to expand the studio techniques and recording great talent in forthcoming releases!

--------------------

On a technical note, from what I can tell, listening to The Great European Songbook and in my discussions with the representative from the label, in order to create these mixes, they're using a multitrack recording of the piano, drums, bass, and room ambiance. Studio magic does the rest in creating that "mega dimensional sound" and likewise for the headphone version. Whether the 3 artists actually sat in the same room during the recording sessions and played together on those finalized tracks on May 12, 2022 might actually not matter. Or whether the headphone mix represents the "actual sound" of the trio playing in the studio likewise could just as well be completely the result of the engineering process.

The data in the audio files are just representations of a version of what the trio could sound like based on the tastes of the folks in the studio, typically with input from the artists (if it isn't the artists themselves riding the controls) based on intention and taste. Presumably a multichannel mix or Atmos version could also be done if they wanted to.

When we play the data back, a good "high-fidelity" system will maintain the correct frequencies, dynamics, and temporal characteristics represented within the digital data. However, even if from computer to DAC to amp to speakers/headphones, and everything is accurate, the actual sound quality unless certain standards are dictated will still be different depending on variables like speaker setup, room acoustics, and likewise the headphone transducer-ear interface.

While I can appreciate the idea of an "absolute" sound - for example, how an acoustic classical symphony performance might be experienced sitting in Carnegie Hall, Parquet Center section, Row F, Seat 107, this is simply unrealistic and not even something anyone might want. Who actually cares if one's sound system actually reproduces that or any other potentially ideal seat in a "real space" with absolute realism? Do the artists care? So long as the artistic content is good, sound qualities like tonality, soundstage, spatial cues, and resolution are enjoyable with artistic intent expressed in the audio mix, that's all that matters.

While we can readily measure the fidelity of audio components in a hi-fi system to a very high degree, as I've expressed before, art is not objective and ultimately enjoyment of music is a psychoacoustic and cognitive event. In the big picture, we can all still emotionally engage with the music coming out of less-than-ideal AM radios, even if we know technically a modern hi-res DAC playing bit-perfect data to excellent amps and speakers in an acoustically controlled room, on a quiet night, would achieve a much better illusion of being "there".

--------------------

Speaking of different mixes, contemporaneously, we also have the release of the Beatles' Revolver (2022 Remix, average album DR8) just last week. I love Revolver (1966) since it and Rubber Soul (1965) were the two albums from the Beatles discography I first heard in their entirety in my teenage years. I would hate to do any rankings of their albums but these two have a special place in my memories from that time in life. Stylistically, they also represent the importance of innovation that endearing artists need to show lyrically and musically across a career; these 2 albums bridging early Beatles pop and their later psychedelic and technical explorations.

[Here's a cool video on the change in the bass line after the 1965 Beatles' tour of the US before Rubber Soul came out as part of the influence on their evolution.]

As I'm sure you already know, Revolver 2022 Remix was done by Giles Martin, son of the late Beatles producer George Martin. Does that matter? I don't think so... As humans, we do tend to be drawn to our "heroes and villains", attached by name or bloodlines. It's certainly possible and likely that the junior Martin has excellent insights into doing a good Beatles remix on account of his previous work experience and maybe relationships with dad and the artists helped, but let's make sure to not lean too much on the "Martin" name.

Talking about sound differences only, if you compare the latest remix/master with the original stereo mix, the differences are quite obvious. The 2022 remix has a cleaner background noise level (you'll notice the lack of the left channel hum in "Taxman" within seconds), there's more of a modern soundstage without the hard panning of R/L sounds (eg. bass and drums right from the start of "Taxman", solo vocal in "Elanor Rigby", very noticeable in "For No One"), bass frequencies seem to have been boosted here and there, clearer vocal separation (like "Here, There and Everywhere"), and guitars sound more prominent and at times clearer, maybe a little more "crunchy", again in line with a modern sound (eg. "She Said She Said").

Supposedly to achieve the feat of extracting instruments out of the combined tracks, special de-mix software developed by Peter Jackson's Wingnut Films was used and the result IMO is excellent.

We can do a visual comparison looking at the various remastering/remixing efforts - let's have a look at "Yellow Submarine" normalized to 100% peaks:

The 1987 CD and 2009 Remaster are the same mix. Notice that in 2009, they made things louder already. The 2022 Remix is clearly a visually (and audibly) different beast!

While I like the new 2022 mix for the definite improvements and probably will listen to this one more than the old mix going forward, the audiophile in me would have wished that Mr. Martin junior pulled back on the dynamic compression a little to allow the peaks to extend more (as we can see from the 1987/2009 versions).

I appreciate that pop/rock is not supposed to sound like a "natural" highly dynamic classical recording (where DR12+ is common), but as a rule of thumb, can we get masters that target maybe around DR10-11 average in pop/rock? Even +2dB on an average crest factor DR measurement has a significant effect on the emotional impact on the listener. Based on experience with albums over the years, DR10-11 seems to be a nice compromise between modern "loud enough" sound but at the same time allows for lower-level nuances to exist when played using good equipment in a quiet room. Doing so also sounds better across streaming services with volume normalization applied (loud recordings would just result in limp-sounding attenuation).

[For example, the recent House of the Dragon Season 1 soundtrack has an average DR10 and sounds good. "Aemond Rides Vhagar" is a really cool scene if you've seen the show. I also really like the majestic "The Crown of Jaeharys".]

My other issue as an audiophile about this remix: Where's the lossless multichannel DTS-HD Master Audio or TrueHD-Atmos mixes?! I love multichannel and it has been the availability of those mixes that most excited me about previous Beatles releases. I guess they've made a deal to only offer the lossy "Spatial Audio" version with streaming companies rather than proper lossless BluRay tracks. Most unfortunate, but I can see why they would do this from a financial perspective; monthly streaming subscriptions are where much of the music dollars are made these days. I hope at some point the exclusivity period runs out and maybe we can get a lossless multichannel release (and extract more $$$ again). Yes, to a certain extent, reissues are a cash grab but one can only do this for so long. [Here's a guy's take on "BluRay Gate".]

There's some good stuff in the Revolver 5-CD special edition for Beatles fans. For example, I really like the raw "Here, There and Everywhere (take 6)" on CD3 featuring the frail vocals of a 24-year old Paul McCartney without the studio double-tracking effect or backing vocals applied. As usual, unless you're a big fan, I would not consider the 5-CD version essential; sort of like the documentary Get Back isn't essential viewing unless you're a fan. For the more casual Beatles listener who just wants a little more, I think the 2-CD edition with a few of the highlights including "Here, There and Everywhere (take 6)" is enough.

Oh yeah, there's also the mono mix on CD4. It sounds clean, and I believe the mono aficionados are giving this a thumbs up. Not having been born yet when the album originally came out, I don't have any special connection to mono playback. Back in the day, the artists and George Martin would have focused much of their energies on the quality of the mono release, so there's at least something to be said about that historically.

--------------------

So audiophiles, is there such a thing as an "absolute sound" of Revolver? Of course not; that's a meaningless question. There was never a physical instantiation of the sound because the recording is a product of the studio, not some live performance. Save for maybe untouched live recordings (using stereo mic setups) where the audio engineer might want to lay claim to the sound as being a close facsimile of the acoustic performance, the sound of every other recording is an amalgam of the artistic vision and the technologies used to produce the final product.

The best our gear can do is reproduce the audio data as closely as possible to what was encoded in the CD or digital file, with analogue technology further behind fidelity-wise. That accuracy of reproduction - fidelity - to the audio data is the only verifiable "absolute" any of us can reasonably aim for from the components in the playback chain. As I mentioned earlier, what speakers were used in the studio, the layout, and room acoustics cannot be fully accounted for so there's no way to make claims that we're hearing the exact sound in the studio (never mind that there was never any "live" final performance most of the time).

Realize that achieving high fidelity playback will not ensure that one would like the sound. For that, feel free to reach for "euphonic" adjustments (eg. EQ) and sometimes lower fidelity gear (eg. products with higher distortions) can sound preferable. There is nothing wrong with having such preferences or choosing gear that achieves the sound we like.

Notice that in my Roon screen at the very top, we can see the cover for Thelma Houston & Pressure Cooker's I've Got The Music In Me (Sheffield Lab, DR13, 1975). This is an example of a "direct to disc" recording from back in the day. This audiophile album is said to have sold >250k copies and sounds fantastic today. Even with all the band members and vocalists in the studio, this was a live-mixed 32-channel recording with Thelma and singers in vocal booths, not all together in a room creating a definitive performance with an audience in front of them.

The sound reference is the album whether in physical grooves, electromagnetic tracks, or as data - each reproduction is a unique performance and need not be compared "absolutely" to any other performance. There is no reference "studio sound" blessed by the engineers or artists we need concern ourselves with in our homes or presented to our ears.

There are no absolutes - the recording stands for itself - make sure we monitor for and let go of any preoccupations or obsessions we still harbor beyond this.

One last thing... Among audiophiles, as we read forum posts and engage in discussions around the new Revolver Remix, don't forget that for the masses, it's Taylor Swift's Midnights (DR6, 2022) that's burning up the charts with record number of streams, and more than a million units sold already! It's actually quite good if you like modern pop and worth a listen to keep up to date with contemporary content. ("High Infidelity" might have something to do with the neglected wives/girlfriends of rich audiophiles. ;-)

While there's a tendency to focus on audio hardware for us "hardware audiophiles", make sure to balance this with the characteristics of the recordings you're listening to. I don't think we tend to give enough credit to the "software" side when thinking about all those audiophile terms like "soundstage", "timbre", etc. More often than not, it is the software/recording that's defining the quality of those characteristics, way more so than the hardware upgrades and tweaks we make. As usual, it's important to find balance psychologically.

Enjoy the music, dear audiophiles...

Addendum - November 10, 2022:

Hey everyone, I just watched this excellent YouTube video about the "best" sounding version of The Beatles' Abbey Road. Really good historical stuff there about the switch to a transistor mixing desk (EMI TG12345, with evolution over the years also used for Dark Side Of The Moon) for this album as opposed to their others using vacuum tubes. Also there's comparison with the old MFSL LP which added the "smiley curve" EQ.

No surprise, the 1983 Toshiba Black Triangle CD (don't forget to deal with pre-emphasis) with a flat master tape transfer ranked near the top.

I guess no "absolute sound" version of Abbey Road either. ;-)