An Explanation of the Term "Suspension of Disbelief"

[Al M.]

Maybe when your system already defaults you into a deep focus on engagement in the music and not thinking about the gear or the sound that you’re not surprised when you notice that’s what’s always going on. If it’s inconsistent I figure then you might feel the need to come up with a term for it as some kind of threshold objective. It’s like when people do a system change and suddenly feel a surprising emotional connection to the music… like emotional engagement with music isn’t what they experience normally when they are playing good music.

I do struggle to analyse my system these days because it isn’t something I am unconsciously drawn into doing and haven’t for quite some time now. Focus on the music connection has been my primary aim for years and I do focus on connecting with the best music performances these days as my objective when listening. I think this being caught up by the music’s gestalt has become just an expectation norm. I guess where you continuously look to becomes what you then regularly see.

Graham, I understand what you mean, but a deep engagement with the music doesn't preclude thinking about the sound. When listening to music on a good system I do that all the time.

Also, if I go to a live orchestral, choral or chamber concert, what else would I want to do that for but for the sound? Sitting in a live concert I constantly think about, even analyze the sound. That's the fun of it, especially for an audiophile. But at the same time I can still be deeply engaged with the music.

Seeing the musicians play, sure, that's also part of it. But for that I could also put a DVD or a Blue-Ray into the player and get the visual experience that way. No live concert needed for that either. I go to the concert for the sound.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, your forum, your rules.

I am subject to the forum's rules just like everybody else. If I ever slip a gear and I post something that you think violates the Terms of Service I encourage you to report it.

 

[tima]

Maybe when your system already defaults you into a deep focus on engagement in the music and not thinking about the gear or the sound that you’re not surprised when you notice that’s what’s always going on. If it’s inconsistent I figure then you might feel the need to come up with a term for it as some kind of threshold objective. It’s like when people do a system change and suddenly feel a surprising emotional connection to the music… like emotional engagement with music isn’t what they experience normally when they are playing good music.

I do struggle to analyse my system these days because it isn’t something I am unconsciously drawn into doing and haven’t for quite some time now. Focus on the music connection has been my primary aim for years and I do focus on connecting with the best music performances these days as my objective when listening. I think this being caught up by the music’s gestalt has become just an expectation norm. I guess where you continuously look to becomes what you then regularly see.

I like that. There comes a time to enjoy your system playing music and put aside thinking about 'system'.

The words 'musical engagement' or 'emotional engagement with music' seems to do the trick for me. Sometimes I will talk about limbic listening, but that usually requires an explanation that the previous does not. I don]t need to deny I am listening to my stereo to experience it to the fullest.

Some may, but I don't feel the need to come up with a personal vocabulary or special terms, especially ones that don't parse out well. (Particularly when trying to be expository in a review.) 'Suspension of disbelief' does not tell us what is your experience, only what it is not. What is it that I disbelieve that for now I do not believe ... er what?

 

[Ron Resnick]

What is it that I disbelieve that for now I do not believe ... er what?

I think it is a weak argument to use a word in a deliberately nonsensical sentence, and then suggest that the word is confusing.

 

[Al M.]

I think it is a weak argument to use a word in a deliberately nonsensical sentence, and then suggest that the word is confusing.

Also called a "straw man" argument.

 

[bonzo75]

In order to keep this insightful thread on topic, there seem to be:

1. High-end systems that connect the dot, do the EE
2. High-end systems that break the illusion so there is no connecting the dot allowing us to extrapolate to realism#
3. Soundbars and car stereos that can connect the dot to EE.

While I agree 1 > 3, only noobs and bots will think 2 > 3.

 

[morricab]

In order to keep this insightful thread on topic, there seem to be:

1. High-end systems that connect the dot, do the EE
2. High-end systems that break the illusion so there is no connecting the dot allowing us to extrapolate to realism#
3. Soundbars and car stereos that can connect the dot to EE.

While I agree 1 > 3, only noobs and bots will think 2 > 3.

And so many high end systems fail to deliver even a millisecond of “suspension of disbelief “. There is a myriad of ways in which systems draw attention to themselves as the ear/brain is quite good at spotting “synthetic “ sound.
I haven’t heard a system yet that will create a truly believable orchestra but some systems that will make pretty believable smaller ensembles.

 

[PeterA]

In order to keep this insightful thread on topic, there seem to be:

1. High-end systems that connect the dot, do the EE
2. High-end systems that break the illusion so there is no connecting the dot allowing us to extrapolate to realism#
3. Soundbars and car stereos that can connect the dot to EE.

While I agree 1 > 3, only noobs and bots will think 2 > 3.

Bonzo, the concept is non binary. These guys are describing a spectrum. As such, it is ill defined. There is never a complete suspension of disbelief or a complete disbelief This whole concept of suspension of disbelief is weird. The phrase is clumsy. As Tim writes, it is about what is not, not what is. #2 may be greater that #3 when all is on a spectrum and bits and pieces matter more than the whole. The resolution is good but it is bright and fatiguing. It’s a high-end expensive system, so it must be better than a car radio. They are emotionally engaged but are still analyzing the sound.

The other interesting thing that Francisco brought up is the word “willing“. It is absent in the thread title and I don’t recall it being mentioned in the GBT chat. Do we willingly forget we are not sitting in a concert hall? Do we suspend our belief that we are in a dedicated listening room listening to stereo sound? And why is it a belief rather than awareness or knowledge? Are we lost in the music, or are we aware of our emotional engagement and that we are in sonic heaven?

 

[Al M.]

Bonzo, the concept is non binary. These guys are describing a spectrum. As such, it is ill defined. Ron says he never reaches complete non belief or complete belief. This whole concept of suspension of disbelief is weird. The phrase is clumsy. As Tim writes, it is about what is not, not what is. #2 may be greater that #3 when all is on a spectrum and bits and pieces matter more than the whole. The resolution is good but it is bright and fatiguing. It’s a high-end expensive system, so it must be better than a car radio. They are emotionally engaged but are still analyzing the sound.

The other interesting thing that Francisco brought up is the word “willing“. It is absent in the thread title and I don’t recall it being mentioned in the GBT chat. Do we willingly forget we are not sitting in a concert hall? Do we suspend our belief that we are in a dedicated listening room listening to stereo sound? And why is it a belief rather than awareness or knowledge? Are we lost in the music, or are we aware of our emotional engagement and that we are in sonic heaven?

"This whole concept of suspension of disbelief is weird."

Really, Peter? I thought this or "believability", both pertaining to a likeness to unamplified live music, was the entire rationale behind title and content of your thread "Natural Sound".

 

[Robh3606]

I think it is an awful term and pretentious. Really picture a conversation with a friend where you said

" Last night while listening to my stereo I had a suspension of disbelief"

Picture the expression on your friends face??

Who's going to say that?

It's something George Carlin would have a field day with.

More like; Watched a concert DVD, thought I was there, had a lot of fun!

Rob

 

[PeterA]

"This whole concept of suspension of disbelief is weird."

Really, Peter? I thought this or "believability", both pertaining to a likeness to unamplified live music, was the entire rationale behind title and content of your thread "Natural Sound".

Yes, really Al. Never once have I sat listening to a stereo with anybody who said, “you know what, I am now suspending my disbelief.” The phrase is awkward and requires further explanation. Ron could not describe it, he had to go to some artificially intelligent robot to describe it for us.

People might be offended or insulted by the phrase natural sound, but I think it’s meaning is pretty clear. One big difference is that natural sound is in fact binary. A system either sounds natural or it does not. There are different levels of natural sound, including really inexpensive well done old digital. Even the sound of some YouTube videos is natural. The whole idea about suspension of disbelief is vague. Ron claimed that suspension is never complete. It’s a spectrum. It is not binary. It’s a very different concept.

Just look at how freely the term suspension of disbelief is mixed and exchanged for emotional engagement and sonic heaven. Read Lee’s post up thread. He describes many things he does when listening to his system to try to make sense of the phrase. He also felt compelled to bring up SET and horns to describe his experience.

Natural sound is a conscious observation from the listener. He thinks something either sounds natural or does not. It reminds him of the sound of actual instruments or it does not. It is reliant on his experiences and memory. If the system sounds natural, it reminds the listener of the experience he or she had when listening to live instruments.

Suspension of disbelief involves forgetting or willingly doing something. Describing something as natural sounding is simply an observation by the listener. It is not a goal in and of itself. The goal is to have a listening experience that reminds one of being in the concert hall or otherwise of listening to actual instruments. Suspension of disbelief seems to me to be an attempt to describe what the experience is not.

When I go to a concert hall and listen to live instruments I’m learning about the sound of those live instruments and the experience of listening to live music. I don’t think about black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging, stark outlines. I don’t think of some belief that I’m willingly suspending. This thread might be an interesting intellectual exercise for those who are trying to understand concepts, but I don’t hear people besides Ron talking like this in the real world. And we need a machine to scour the Internet to tell us what we can’t explain ourselves. I think that’s pretty weird.

The words “believable” and “convincing” make sense when trying to describe what you hear from the audio system. Their meanings are instantly clear. They describe the listener’s opinion. They do not describe with the listeners impression is not. Why not just use simple words to convey meaning rather than some convoluted expression which causes confusion and is never actually used by anyone?

 

[Gregm]

This is exactly it. When someone writes that he suspends disbelief in any high end system, I see a noob who is just enthralled by seeing big speakers and big sound. Like wow, this is 7 feet tall and speaker to speaker is 15 feet wide...

...But a few days later the Thrill Is Gone! The noob looks for a better power cord to bring back the magic?

 

[Rensselaer]

Chat GPT draws from everything on the internet including this and similar forums the data it uses to answer questions. It has no way of determining fact from fiction or the degree of validity of posted opinions.

When first on-line, a news network asked it to create a written procedure for removing a peanut butter sandwich from a VCR deck in the style of William Shakespeare, it did so in a most entertaining way. It was pure fiction, of course (William Shakespeare never owned a VCR, he owned a BetaMax ??).

Most recently, a legal team who, in an effort to cut costs and maximise profits, asked Chat GPT, instead of a qualified lawyer, to write a legal argument citing relevant case history as precedent. Unfortunately, the Chat GPT program (perhaps programmed not to copy accurately in order to avoid claims of plagiarism ) just made up the case history and, because they didn't check the case history (costs money) the law firm is now being sued.

Chat GPT is an amusing technology that is like a child who will repeat what it has heard with conviction, and because the child (and Chat GPT) is naive, unable to discern fact from fiction. Because Chat GPT sources its information from everything on the internet, that means it sources from what we have already written on this subject as well. Because we hear our own opinions reflected back to us from a novel source, it sounds credible (and if agrees with us, highly intelligent). A parlour trick, nothing more (yet).

 

[bonzo75]

Bonzo, the concept is non binary. These guys are describing a spectrum. As such, it is ill defined. There is never a complete suspension of disbelief or a complete disbelief This whole concept of suspension of disbelief is weird. The phrase is clumsy. As Tim writes, it is about what is not, not what is. #2 may be greater that #3 when all is on a spectrum and bits and pieces matter more than the whole. The resolution is good but it is bright and fatiguing. It’s a high-end expensive system, so it must be better than a car radio. They are emotionally engaged but are still analyzing the sound.

The other interesting thing that Francisco brought up is the word “willing“. It is absent in the thread title and I don’t recall it being mentioned in the GBT chat. Do we willingly forget we are not sitting in a concert hall? Do we suspend our belief that we are in a dedicated listening room listening to stereo sound? And why is it a belief rather than awareness or knowledge? Are we lost in the music, or are we aware of our emotional engagement and that we are in sonic heaven?

i think concept of disbelief or using whatever term to convey us feeling a sense of realism is fine.

i have sat in front of systems where I have felt I am happy to listen to this instead of going to a concert. Sometimes i feel the suspension of disbelief on chamber, not on orchestra, sometimes the other way round, sometimes it does both but not rock, rarely all. And that is what Ron means be suspending disbelief

point is I do often feel this system cannot do anything except pump out some sounds. There is zero suspension, only disbelief that someone actually paid for this rather than get earphones

 

[Ron Resnick]

The other interesting thing that Francisco brought up is the word “willing“. It is absent in the thread title and I don’t recall it being mentioned in the GBT chat.

"Willing" is a necessary (and presumed) component of the abstract concept of "suspension of disbelief."

Do we willingly forget we are not sitting in a concert hall?

Yes; although this mis-states it slightly because we are not actually forgetting that we are not sitting in a concert hall.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron could not describe it, he had to go to some artificially intelligent robot to describe it for us.

Why would you make this assumption?

Of course I could have stated my own definition of suspension of disbelief, but I assumed that a dictionary or ChatGPT would have a better and more comprehensive definition, and I was correct. The ChatGPT definition was richer and more understandable than I would've written myself off the top of my head.

Have you never looked up a word you know the general meaning of to see what the dictionary says is more of an official and precise definition?

 

[wil]

Yes, really Al. Never once have I sat listening to a stereo with anybody who said, “you know what, I am now suspending my disbelief.” The phrase is awkward and requires further explanation. Ron could not describe it, he had to go to some artificially intelligent robot to describe it for us.

People might be offended or insulted by the phrase natural sound, but I think it’s meaning is pretty clear. One big difference is that natural sound is in fact binary. A system either sounds natural or it does not. There are different levels of natural sound, including really inexpensive well done old digital. Even the sound of some YouTube videos is natural. The whole idea about suspension of disbelief is vague. Ron claimed that suspension is never complete. It’s a spectrum. It is not binary. It’s a very different concept.

Just look at how freely the term suspension of disbelief is mixed and exchanged for emotional engagement and sonic heaven. Read Lee’s post up thread. He describes many things he does when listening to his system to try to make sense of the phrase. He also felt compelled to bring up SET and horns to describe his experience.

Natural sound is a conscious observation from the listener. He thinks something either sounds natural or does not. It reminds him of the sound of actual instruments or it does not. It is reliant on his experiences and memory. If the system sounds natural, it reminds the listener of the experience he or she had when listening to live instruments.

Suspension of disbelief involves forgetting or willingly doing something. Describing something as natural sounding is simply an observation by the listener. It is not a goal in and of itself. The goal is to have a listening experience that reminds one of being in the concert hall or otherwise of listening to actual instruments. Suspension of disbelief seems to me to be an attempt to describe what the experience is not.

When I go to a concert hall and listen to live instruments I’m learning about the sound of those live instruments and the experience of listening to live music. I don’t think about black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging, stark outlines. I don’t think of some belief that I’m willingly suspending. This thread might be an interesting intellectual exercise for those who are trying to understand concepts, but I don’t hear people besides Ron talking like this in the real world. And we need a machine to scour the Internet to tell us what we can’t explain ourselves. I think that’s pretty weird.

The words “believable” and “convincing” make sense when trying to describe what you hear from the audio system. Their meanings are instantly clear. They describe the listener’s opinion. They do not describe with the listeners impression is not. Why not just use simple words to convey meaning rather than some convoluted expression which causes confusion and is never actually used by anyone?

I think we all have our ways of connecting to the music through our systems. And we try to come up with words to describe it. I sort of like “natural sound.” In and of itself, it is a clear and unpretentious touchstone to what most people want to get from the sound of their technologically marvelous music machines.

(Not to keep beating a dead horse, but that disbelieving-suspicion phrase, in constrast, does nothing but make my brain hurt.) Who came up with that anyway??

I like “natural sound” better also than “Emotional Engagement.” While the emotional connection to music is powerful and profound, I think the term is narrow and overlooks the intellectual aspect of music listening. It’s all woven into the same tapestry.

But, more than anything, I’m wanting the system to get out of the way and allow a sense of connection to the mind and soul of the artist(s) who performed/wrote the music preserved on the recording. I don’t have, or want, a label for it.

 

[morricab]

Yes, really Al. Never once have I sat listening to a stereo with anybody who said, “you know what, I am now suspending my disbelief.” The phrase is awkward and requires further explanation. Ron could not describe it, he had to go to some artificially intelligent robot to describe it for us.

People might be offended or insulted by the phrase natural sound, but I think it’s meaning is pretty clear. One big difference is that natural sound is in fact binary. A system either sounds natural or it does not. There are different levels of natural sound, including really inexpensive well done old digital. Even the sound of some YouTube videos is natural. The whole idea about suspension of disbelief is vague. Ron claimed that suspension is never complete. It’s a spectrum. It is not binary. It’s a very different concept.

Just look at how freely the term suspension of disbelief is mixed and exchanged for emotional engagement and sonic heaven. Read Lee’s post up thread. He describes many things he does when listening to his system to try to make sense of the phrase. He also felt compelled to bring up SET and horns to describe his experience.

Natural sound is a conscious observation from the listener. He thinks something either sounds natural or does not. It reminds him of the sound of actual instruments or it does not. It is reliant on his experiences and memory. If the system sounds natural, it reminds the listener of the experience he or she had when listening to live instruments.

Suspension of disbelief involves forgetting or willingly doing something. Describing something as natural sounding is simply an observation by the listener. It is not a goal in and of itself. The goal is to have a listening experience that reminds one of being in the concert hall or otherwise of listening to actual instruments. Suspension of disbelief seems to me to be an attempt to describe what the experience is not.

When I go to a concert hall and listen to live instruments I’m learning about the sound of those live instruments and the experience of listening to live music. I don’t think about black backgrounds, pinpoint imaging, stark outlines. I don’t think of some belief that I’m willingly suspending. This thread might be an interesting intellectual exercise for those who are trying to understand concepts, but I don’t hear people besides Ron talking like this in the real world. And we need a machine to scour the Internet to tell us what we can’t explain ourselves. I think that’s pretty weird.

The words “believable” and “convincing” make sense when trying to describe what you hear from the audio system. Their meanings are instantly clear. They describe the listener’s opinion. They do not describe with the listeners impression is not. Why not just use simple words to convey meaning rather than some convoluted expression which causes confusion and is never actually used by anyone?

No, but you have probably thought to yourself upon occasion, "damn, that sounds just like the real thing!" Same thing...its that recognition that the sound emanating forth from a reproduction has a very strong simulacrum to real live instruments or voices in real space, enough so that you can imagine it being from the real thing.

 

[Ron Resnick]

This whole concept of suspension of disbelief is weird. The phrase is clumsy.

PeterA: Why not just use simple words to convey meaning rather than some convoluted expression which causes confusion and is never actually used by anyone?

Why do you think suspension of disbelief is "never actually used by anyone"? How in the world did you come to this conclusion? It is a commonly used term.

You are a big fan of Karen Sumner's philosophies and views about high-end audio. She uses this expression fluidly and naturally. Here are two examples from her wonderful essays:

"We could serve these more recent acolytes better by providing actual descriptions of what we hear that helps us suspend our disbelief and invites us to engage more emotionally with music at home." (April 26, 2022) (in a post "Liked")

For our industry to move closer to our goal of helping our customers suspend their disbelief that they are only listening to a hifi, more manufacturers need to grow beyond depending on the press to build their notoriety. (March 9, 2023) (in a post TimA "Liked")

Obviously Karen thinks the concept is not weird. Obviously Karen thinks the concept has merit and explanatory power. I think I am in impeccable company in my use of this term, this concept.

I see in your posts responding to her essays no objections, complaints or inquiries about her use of this term.

 

[Ron Resnick]

One big difference is that natural sound is in fact binary. A system either sounds natural or it does not. There are different levels of natural sound

If there are "different levels," then, by definition, it is not "binary."