My Theory of Sonic Cues to Explain Different Sounding Systems

[morricab]

Milan, thanks for the trip down memory lane. What I cannot credit Kadar for is all of the experimenting I did getting rid of fancy power cords and cables and room treatment and working with speaker orientation. That led me down the natural sound path.

It was deciding to order the Micro Seki turntable to replace the SME and to check it out in Utah once it arrived in the United States that provided the opportunity for more exposure to efficient speaker systems, including 16 ohm cone speakers. It was also the visit reports from Steve and Mike and Marty and Ron.

I miss UK Bill. I wonder how he is doing.

So, basically it was DDK that transformed you...

 

[Amir]

You may think the reference for good sound should be live music or not but in both cases I hardly see if an audiophile have an idea about good sound.

What I see is many audiophiles listen to many different systems and read many reviews and finally they change their gear every six month to get better sound and this game has no end.
I know some audiophiles who had tubes for start then changed it to SS then switched to hybrid then purchased class d ... I never find a meaningful idea in their audio activity.

 

[morricab]

Kedar does discuss cone speaker alternatives quite regularly and even some SS amps. I know of his preferences for FLH Altecs and Thomas Meyer. You have yours too. Are you not a dealer for Aries Cerat?

I am a dealer for AC. I have a SET preference with high sensitivity speakers (horn or otherwise). However, I also like planar speakers, having owned about 7 different pairs over the years. I drove them with a wide range of amps before settling, like you, on SET/Horn or high sensitivity options. The comedy of the whole thing is that Ked's preferences and mine are actually not very far apart...as are yours and mine...

 

[Al M.]

I was going to say the most dogmatic by faaaaaar are the anti-horn anti-SETs brigade.

My god you can’t mention horn or a SET without someone compulsively jumping in and taking a big off topic sideways crack at all those who own them. It’s actually not an issue but it has become so predictable. Nobody’s frenetically attacking box or panel speakers and also all their owners at every turn or slamming everyone who owns SS amps at the mention of a solid state amp. It’s weird.

What is weird, Graham, is your perception of all of this, which you got entirely wrong.

I am not against SETs and horns (I even have seriously considered horns at some points in the past). What I and others object to is the superiority complex and dogmatism of some of the SET/horn crowd.

Likewise (and yes, I am aware that this topic is not discussed in your post), I am also not against analog. On the contrary, I love and enjoy analog, even though I don't own a vinyl rig. Heck, I even defend vinyl, at times vigorously if needed, in analog vs digital debates against digital snobs!! Yet what I and others object to is the superiority complex and dogmatism of some of the analog crowd.

With that in mind, please re-read below post, a few posts down from yours. Nuff said.

(And no, the post is not a parody, unfortunately.)

Purely exploring the theory.

when we grow up, we often do so on MTV type channels, poop music, etc.

Going to classical music requires some effort, to go to concerts, and unless your parents are taking you to it, has to wait till an age where you grow up to afford it. But as such, requires a more dedicated effort after your initial childhood exposure period.

Our first foray into audio on the high street after Bose ends up with the best branded and best distributed, most on show speakers, like Wilson. SETs horns usually require a more dedicated effort.

finding music of streaming lists requires much less effort than understanding records, pressings, etc

Transistor amps and big push pulls require less effort than rolling/swapping

hitting the roon play requires less effort than aligning the cartridge.

Playing Taylor Swift and Spice girls requires less effort than understanding Oistrakh, Heifetz, Furtwangler, different compositions of Bach, Beethoven, etc

so is it possible that people who seek out live classical concerts and analog classical LPs put in more effort into the process, are more involved, and similarly search out the SETs horns equipment (more off the shelf), while the lazier digital streaming amplified music crowd simply pays a high retail margin from the comfort of their sofa to avoid FOMO and own some equipment to produce loud sound, and this is the essence of why people have different equipment?

of course, different search processes, music, etc will result in different cues.

please note, this is only a think piece (I say that with a lisp).

 

[Argonaut]

So, basically it was DDK that transformed you...

I prefer the term *Assimilated* Brad

 

[Ron Resnick]

Bonzo75: Incidentally Bill was the Peter of UK, his Focal (which could do more oomph than Magicos) were it. That was bass, oomph, and dynamics to him.

These are Bill's original sonic cues.

Bonzo75: Then, he accidentally heard the general's system and sold off his stuff and went in that direction overnight

With greater experience he realized he was implementing in his system that his original sonic cues were not allowing him to implement his high-end audio objective. Revised sonic cues allowed him to implement his high-end audio objective.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I was going to say the most dogmatic by faaaaaar are the anti-horn anti-SETs brigade.

My god you can’t mention horn or a SET without someone compulsively jumping in and taking a big off topic sideways crack at all those who own them.

Your post is so strong I am afraid you will think I am kidding with this comment: I would have said there is no anti-horn, anti-SET brigade.

I might be misperceiving what you are seeing, though, because I am seeing it through my own prism -- which is that I love some horns for certain genres of music, and I love SET in general. Presently my "fantasy amp" target is an SET.

Presently I don't have horns or SET. But I understand what horn/SET aficionados love about their components.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I hardly see if an audiophile have an idea about good sound.

What I see is many audiophiles listen to many different systems and read many reviews and finally they change their gear every six month to get better sound and this game has no end.
I know some audiophiles who had tubes for start then changed it to SS then switched to hybrid then purchased class d ... I never find a meaningful idea in their audio activity.

I think you are projecting how you enjoy the hobby onto those folks. "Box-swapping" is a separate sub-hobby of high-end audio.

If the people to which you refer are box-swapping and are not having fun and are dissatisfied with their systems and with the hobby, then I share your pity for them. But if their enjoyment of the hobby is always researching and auditioning and trying new things and swapping out components and putting new systems together then all may be good for them in the hobby.

 

[Polygonhell]

I think we all hear substantially the same thing in the concert hall if we are sitting in the same seat in the concert hall. So why do we end up with audio systems which sound very different?

I agree entirely on the all hear much the same but value different aspects of reproduction differently.
I personally am not generally trying to recreate live performances though.
Perhaps for some subset of the music I listen to, but a lot is really about the reproduction of studio recordings in an enjoyable to me way

My current theory is preferences are largely learned, I can trace my preferences back to my first "hifi" systems in the 80's Rega/Rotel/Castle and probably more to the systems I aspired to at the time Linn/Naim/Linn, the later is what when I started I could regularly here the music I liked reproduced enjoyably on, so I tend towards systems that have similar traits.

A corollary of this theory is that having subjectively selected our individual preferred sonic cues, we tend to dislike systems assembled to best achieve other sonic cues

Again I agree to a point, but a lot of systems I can appreciate and even really like for what they do, I just wouldn't want to live with them.
EL-63's were a revelation when I first heard them, but I'd never want them as my only system.

Which sonic cues do you believe you have selected for your stereo system to remind you most directly and effectively of your memory of the sound of live, unamplified acoustic music?

As I said, it's not about unamplified music, though timbre is very important to me, since I played classical guitar for many years.
If I had to pick a single most important aspect it would probably be dynamics, but there needs to be a balance, and there are a lot of dealbreakers.

 

[bonzo75]

These are Bill's original sonic cues.


With greater experience he realized he was implementing in his system that his original sonic cues were not allowing him to implement his high-end audio objective. Revised sonic cues allowed him to implement his high-end audio objective.

Very incorrect. His original sonic cues were developed as first trombonist in a local orchestra and listening to his dad who was an expert pianist practice in the house

then as he got into hifi he forgot all that and just kept upgrading for bigger, more powerful, big stage, bass. Next upgrade bigger more powerful sound than previous one.

His Focal Krell had nothing to do with original live cues but due to lack of exposure to good SETs , horns, and quality recordings and having been on the hifi wagon of rolling along with upgrades, he had just ended up here comparing every change to previous hifi sound. System owners use system sound to develop cues like you did with ML.

When he heard the pnoe Mayer vyger it all came back to him, he realised these were the real cues to live, he had forgotten about those and was just going through hifi motions. So overnight he sold every thing.

his cues now were changed to relate to real music which apart from other things also has things missing in his Krell focal such as tone, coherence, dynamic range, timbre, flow, transparency to recordings

 

[Ron Resnick]

I agree entirely on the all hear much the same but value different aspects of reproduction differently.
I personally am not generally trying to recreate live performances though.
Perhaps for some subset of the music I listen to, but a lot is really about the reproduction of studio recordings in an enjoyable to me way

My current theory is preferences are largely learned, I can trace my preferences back to my first "hifi" systems in the 80's Rega/Rotel/Castle and probably more to the systems I aspired to at the time Linn/Naim/Linn, the later is what when I started I could regularly here the music I liked reproduced enjoyably on, so I tend towards systems that have similar traits.


Again I agree to a point, but a lot of systems I can appreciate and even really like for what they do, I just wouldn't want to live with them.
EL-63's were a revelation when I first heard them, but I'd never want them as my only system.


As I said, it's not about unamplified music, though timbre is very important to me, since I played classical guitar for many years.
If I had to pick a single most important aspect it would probably be dynamics, but there needs to be a balance, and there are a lot of dealbreakers.

Thank you for sharing your views and experiences!

You write: ". . . a lot is really about the reproduction of studio recordings in an enjoyable to me way."

Can you be more specific about what you mean by "enjoyable."

Would you say your thinking is closer to:

-- reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

or

-- create a sound subjectively pleasing (enjoyable) to you?

 

[bonzo75]

In fact thanks Ron for bringing up the Bill point and disproving your theory.

As mentioned in the previous post, Bill’s first musical experiences before hifi were formed playing in an orchestra and listening to dad play the piano

He feels the pnoe Mayer vyger system aligns with that more, as does his current in progress pnoe system.

So why did he use the Krell focal system, and often play audiophile music on it, when these were not aligned to his original cues? Because…wait for it…audiophiles don’t set up systems based on cues they take from live. And only with exposure might they realise that

 

[PeterA]

Very incorrect. His original sonic cues were developed as first trombonist in a local orchestra and listening to his dad who was an expert pianist practice in the house

then as he got into hifi he forgot all that and just kept upgrading for bigger, more powerful, big stage, bass. Next upgrade bigger more powerful sound than previous one.

His Focal Krell had nothing to do with original live cues but due to lack of exposure to good SETs , horns, and quality recordings and having been on the hifi wagon of rolling along with upgrades, he had just ended up here comparing every change to previous hifi sound. System owners use system sound to develop cues like you did with ML.

When he heard the pnoe Mayer vyger it all came back to him, he realised these were the real cues to live, he had forgotten about those and was just going through hifi motions. So overnight he sold every thing.

his cues now were changed to relate to real music which apart from other things also has things missing in his Krell focal such as tone, coherence, dynamic range, timbre, flow, transparency to recordings

That is a great story Kadar. Thank you for sharing it. It is also an effective counter to the premise of this think piece theory stream of conscience thread. Indulge me while I go with the current flow.

Your story actually reminds me of the experience I had when I first heard David‘s Bionor system. I played clarinet in grade and boarding school, poorly. I also listened to a lot of choral music and organ in church while my kids were young. I bought season opera tickets with my wife as newly weds and later spent five days listening to opera rehearsals in Vienna, though I never ran into David Wilson. I took choral and clarinet recordings to Utah with me. When I heard how those were presented on those four different systems, I decided to change my approach to audio.

It was simply a combination of past experiences with music and exposure to alternative system presentations that convinced me to sell my old system and start again with something completely different. It seems Bill and I had similar experiences. Like him, I had a very conventional solid-state and cone speaker system that had digital in it as well as analog. It was what was around and what my dealer recommended. And then with the reading of the magazines I jumped aboard the upgrade train. I enjoyed that for years and I have no regrets.

 

[Polygonhell]

-- reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

or

-- create a sound subjectively pleasing (enjoyable) to you?

I don't think you can ever know the former, I did take a detour down this route in the 90's, buying actual studio equipment and mostly disliking it.
Obviously the mastering has a lot to do with how enjoyable things can be.

The pleasing part is I guess the crux of it, I think for me at least dynamic range and dynamics are a big part of it, but it can't be at the expense of timbre or lack midrange weight. But I don't for example need a ton of Bass, I guess getting into Hifi before Hifi Subs were common probably set that preference.

It's the reason I hated CD's in the 80's (just plain bad or overly compressed masters) and it took relocating to a different country leaving my record collection behind to even consider digital, and I always felt it was a compromise until SACD turned up.

While I listen to a wide variety of material, Nostalgia often plays a part in music choices, I have a soft spot for Dvorak's the new world symphony, Dire Straits Bothers in Arms and Deep Purples Machine Head, because I listened to them a LOT in college.

This is a bit of a digression, but it reflects a bit how you are fundamentally limited by the recording, and for a lot of material you generally don't have the flexibility you have in the classical space to search for great recordings.

Machine head is the prototypical never remastered right recording to me, I loved the original LP version, all digital remastered versions are thin sounding (too much cleaning up of the tape noise) and lack the dynamics of the Vinyl recording, the only good digital master is the Japanese SACD release.

As a result I also appreciate equipment that doesn't murder mediocre recordings, because some of the music I want to listen to isn't mastered for Hi Fidelity equipment.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Bill’s first musical experiences before hifi were formed playing in an orchestra and listening to dad play the piano

You are arguing here that even a first system purchase is driven by sonic cues. In the opening post I had in mind that people would have some listening and auditioning experience and learn about their own preferences over time.

I will modify the theory to contemplate this. Thank you.

He feels the pnoe Mayer vyger system aligns with that more, as does his current in progress pnoe system.

So why did he use the Krell focal system, and often play audiophile music on it, when these were not aligned to his original cues?

With experience Bill figured out his sonic cues.

Because…wait for it…audiophiles don’t set up systems based on cues they take from live. And only with exposure might they realise that

They might not set up their first system based on sonic cues. Some experience -- maybe a lot of experience -- is required for some people before they figure out what they like in reproduced sound.

I give Peter credit for figuring out his preferences in only two big goes (with some transitional auditioning in the middle).

 

[Polygonhell]

Another thing I've found through my own experiences are that what I describe as what I like isn't always what I find I like.
It's extremely easy to lie to yourself about your sound preferences.
Over the last half dozen years I've noticed that I often prefer a dryer sound than I had often professed to wanting.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Another thing I've found through my own experiences are that what I describe as what I like isn't always what I find I like.
It's extremely easy to lie to yourself about your sound preferences.
Over the last half dozen years I've noticed that I often prefer a dryer sound than I had often professed to wanting.

That is interesting. What mechanism do you think is at work there? (What causes the disconnect between what you describe you like and what you find out later you actually like?)

 

[Amir]

I think you are projecting how you enjoy the hobby onto those folks. "Box-swapping" is a separate sub-hobby of high-end audio.

If the people to which you refer are box-swapping and are not having fun and are dissatisfied with their systems and with the hobby, then I share your pity for them. But if their enjoyment of the hobby is always researching and auditioning and trying new things and swapping out components and putting new systems together then all may be good for them in the hobby.

I did not say anything about those audio result and I did not say they are happy or not happy.
I also did not say changing gears every 6 month is good or bad.

What I said is there is no idea/plan/critique in their mind about good sound.

http://goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=432#432

"So, learn to critic, identify and literally write up every specific imperfection of given audio elements BEFOERE you even think about trying something else. Your listening awareness (if you have any) should navigate audio equipment, not the vise versa…"

 

[bonzo75]

They might not set up their first system based on sonic cues. Some experience -- maybe a lot of experience -- is required for some people before they figure out what they like in reproduced sound.

ok, in that case in your OP, how do you know the system differences come due to different cues, or due to “experience” that you have said above. So why do you think the different system preferences are due to different cues and not different levels of experience.

 

[Polygonhell]

That is interesting. What mechanism do you think is at work there? (What causes the disconnect between what you describe you like and what you find out later you actually like?)

I suspect that because professed preferences are based purely on experience, there is a tendency to incorrectly identify why you prefer say piece A over piece B. piece A maybe obviously wetter than B, bit it may be a different aspect of the production that is drawing you to it.
i.e. Your listening to the whole, and the preference is based on that and you tend to correlate that to the most obvious difference between the pieces.

I think the other thing to note is that as equipment get's better there tend to be less compromises, a piece of equipment can be fast and not harsh, and while you may equate fast with harsh, it's really just the harsh you don't want.

I'm basing this entirely on my own experience, with occasionally buying pieces because they happen to be there at a good price and comparing them with what I have.