I think more information from a well done recording should always result in more musicality... The important thing is other things remaining constant
American Sound AS-2000 Installations- Far East (Tango)
- Thread starter ddk
- Start date
I think more information from a well done recording should always result in more musicality... The important thing is other things remaining constant
@Tang
finetuning Carts and Arms is so much fun
But you are 100% right, after a while even a vdh colibri can sound similar to a Koetsu stone body in the same tonearm, as you know, how to tweak....
If people are visiting my analog set up, at the end they are listening to my "house sound", as I adjust any Cart/Arm combination according to my "taste",
which is mostly more on the fluid and involving side, lesser on the pure maximization of information side.
I can easily see that you find much fun on it. However if you are making a vdh colibri sound similar to a Koetsu stone body I would risk that they are playing both out of tune to a common type of sound that you enjoy - at less no tuning seems to make my colibri play like my Kiseki agate body.
Can you give us more detail on your cartridge tweaking?
I agree with this, but others often make the distinction between "musicality" and "resolution" as though they have different values and that one can detract from the other. Tang seems to prioritize musicality or emotional connection to the music and has written in the past that too much detail can detract from the overall experience by distracting the listener. He is not alone with this view. This topic came up in the 3012 thread.
That is why I would like to ask if increasing resolution ever leads to being less involved with the music or a less "musical" listening experience.
I know with Tang the VTA is set for maximum resolution which also translates into the full musical experience, it's the same point where things come together for every arm cartridge combination and no two even sounded similar.
david
If you think about these recent posts through the prism of our four alternative, but not mutually exclusive, objectives of high-end audio members’ comments will become more understandable and relatable.
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and
4) create a sound that seems live.
I believe “musicality” is reflected in Objective 1) recreate the sound of an original musical event.
Kedar suggested that with everything else held constant more information from the grooves yielding more resolution is good. This particular point suggests objective 2).
But a supporter of objective 1), 3) or 4) might well disagree that more resolution always yields more musicality.
Peter asked: “. . . if increasing resolution ever leads to being less involved with the music or a less ‘musical’ listening experience.” The objective you adopt will drive the answer to this question. Depending on the objective you adopt the answer to Peter’s question may be “yes” or it may be “no.”
Thinking about how a member views these objectives helps us to understand each other and minimizes our tendency to talk past each other.
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and
4) create a sound that seems live.
I believe “musicality” is reflected in Objective 1) recreate the sound of an original musical event.
Kedar suggested that with everything else held constant more information from the grooves yielding more resolution is good. This particular point suggests objective 2).
But a supporter of objective 1), 3) or 4) might well disagree that more resolution always yields more musicality.
Peter asked: “. . . if increasing resolution ever leads to being less involved with the music or a less ‘musical’ listening experience.” The objective you adopt will drive the answer to this question. Depending on the objective you adopt the answer to Peter’s question may be “yes” or it may be “no.”
Thinking about how a member views these objectives helps us to understand each other and minimizes our tendency to talk past each other.
I think we have reached a point where we are able to extract all the information since long - what matters most is how we present this information to create a believable illusion in real time.
Ron, I beg to differ with your interpretation of my interpretation.
Peter has for a while been referring to resolution as the most important attribute. The way I interpret this is there are many other attributes, and he is ranking resolution the highest. However, when a question is posed as extracting the maximum from the LPs groove, I interpret that as getting more of everything... Tone, bass, etc etc, so musicality as a whole. So now, higher resolution is being used as more of everything hence more musicality. Like I said, if other things remain constant, why would someone not seek more resolution? A discussion is required only in case of trade offs, and where resolution is not a blanket word for more of everything.
So, a bit of a disconnect from your post
Peter has for a while been referring to resolution as the most important attribute. The way I interpret this is there are many other attributes, and he is ranking resolution the highest. However, when a question is posed as extracting the maximum from the LPs groove, I interpret that as getting more of everything... Tone, bass, etc etc, so musicality as a whole. So now, higher resolution is being used as more of everything hence more musicality. Like I said, if other things remain constant, why would someone not seek more resolution? A discussion is required only in case of trade offs, and where resolution is not a blanket word for more of everything.
So, a bit of a disconnect from your post
Not really, how about setting up VTA to get a bit of roll off to make it sound pleasing to you, vs setting it up to extract the most information? That's the way I interpreted Peter's question
Although I disagree with most of this list , if forced to consider it as a dogma, I would say that musically means 4)
Why only 3. includes the word subjective if all of them are intrinsically subjective? To illuminate it to David's arrows?
I'm not trying to dictate how people should listen but once you use rolloff to eq the sound you're introducing that coloration into every recording. Also rolloff at top also affects the entire frequency range muting and veiling dynamics. If the idea is accurate reproduction then any coloration or veiling is counterproductive, recordings have their own individual ambience queues that are important for creating the ultimate illusion of reality by rolling off that's the first thing that get's sacrificed.
david
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
David's mantra in this hobby has stuck with me since I visited him several years ago when he repeatedly said, "above all else it must sound natural"
David I am purely referring to Peter's use of and stress on the word resolution. I agree no point in creating roll off, which is why I said more information from the grooves is more musicality, but I cannot relate this to the resolution discussion that has been going on on the other thread
Although I disagree with most of this list , if forced to consider it as a dogma, I would say that musically means 4)
Why only 3. includes the word subjective if all of them are intrinsically subjective? To illuminate it to David's arrows?
Same here, for me more musicality means 4, but in Mike's system and listening to the general's recordings in his system, more information from the recordings (2) results in (4). This will not work, I think, with lesser recordings or lesser systems
The question is that in Mike system you only listened to items with more information that had been selected by Mike. He surely discarded any piece that would not sound musical, there is a strong selection here that biases your conclusion. You are trying to generalize from Mike system - something impossible IMHO.
I selected stuff too... Before I let him play his selections. But the point remains letting good recordings show through also leads to point 4
Very true but only very, very very few front ends are still capable of extracting all the information and only with precise setup. We’ve had this ability for decades all the way back to the R80 but still only so very few managed to get there even 50-60 years on.
david
Dear Ron,
Since ddk came, I now enjoy and have fun fine tuning my cart setup. The tonearm guy still do the initial set up but I now do the rest to get the sound I prefer. Not really thinking new tt right now. Just to optimize each of my setups. Yesterday, I finished fine tuning my SAT/GFS setup. Now the sound is as involing as the Opu/SME set up but differ in flavor and presentation....
Kind regrds,
Tang
Thank you Bonzo. Yes, that is what I am trying to get at. In Tang's statement above, it seems clear that he is fine tuning his vinyl set up to get a sound he "prefers" and not one for extracting maximum resolution or information from the grooves. If that were the goal, I presume one would not consider "preference" as much as "information", which may be at odds.
#3 is coloration, where boredom, tweakdom and the rabbit hole converge
david
I read these various posts and wonder why they are not in my "The importance of Resolution" thread. And I am a bit confused. It seems that Tango is fine tuning for his "preferred" sound. Ron describes this as his #3. Then David says that that leads to colorations. But David also wrote that Tango fine tunes to extract maximum resolution for each arm/cartridge combination.
I started my "resolution" thread in which my OP ranks the attributes that I most value as examples in an effort to understand what drives others in their quests to enjoy their systems. All of this came out of the 3012 thread in which people described to me the 3012R as "musical" and the V-12 as "resolving". I asked those questions in my thread with the assumption that we are perhaps don't agree on the meanings to some of these terms. I think the above quotes illustrate this, unless someone can clarify and reconcile these opinions for me to help me to better understand how "musicality" and "resolution are related.
Hi Peter,
You are wrong to interpret my use of term “the sound I preferred” to be mutually exclusive to natural sound which comes with top level resolution. You think “the sound I preferred” means the sound that is pleasing to my ear and doesn’t sound like actual live music. I could just say “natural” like ddk likes to say but didn’t, because there are so many versions of “natural” sound that each of us attached ourself to. The other day you even wrote
because you had different opinion to your Boston pals on the same music in the same system at the same listening session, and all of you are using the same BSO as reference for live natural sound. This means to me each of us has our own version of live natural sound. The “sound I preferred ” is actually happened to be in the same camp as ddk’s “natural” sound. But many people might not think that what I believe sounds natural is sounding like natural sound to them. Hence the words “the sound I preferred” in stead of generalizing that to natural sound.
It is quite late. I am going to bed. I will write my side of story about musicality and resolution later.
Good night,
Tang
Similar threads
