An Explanation of the Term "Suspension of Disbelief"

[bonzo75]

Ron discussing AI on this thread with microstrip

 

[morricab]

It is enmeshed definitely Al but I just had it all way out of balance. Back then I’d get caught up looking to as many of the parts of the sound as possible and wasn’t just seated in the flow but rather sort of tumbling through it wide eyed rather than just following it. I was at the beach today and the ocean was being completely inspiring and it was big and perfect and I was listening to the Smetana Quartet’s cycle of Beethoven string quartets via iPhone and iems at the time when I read your post. I was up to Beethoven’s String quartet No 13… talk about performance and music being flawless… gotta love me a whole ocean load of proper Beethovian gestalt.

Yes, but do you have any moments where it seems like live to you? That is suspension of disbelief.

 

[tima]

Your post, as a whole, being an illustrative example … Why not merely write the above comment and leave it at that!

Because it casts the appeal to straightforwardness as an answer to nonsense.
You could say nothing and make your point.

 

[PeterA]

You still are treating "enjoy" and "suspension of disbelief" as synonyms, and they are not.

That's part of the problem with the discussion on this thread. Enjoyable listening and emotionally-engaging listening are not the same concepts as suspension of disbelief.

Failure to understand the difference is one reason why we are talking past each other.

No, I do not treat "suspension of disbelief" as anything. It is a very weird phrase, in my opinion. I try to never use it unless quoting you. When Karen Sumner uses it, I read right past it. I understand the difference with "enjoy" very clearly, thank you.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Yes, but do you have any moments where it seems like live to you? That is suspension of disbelief.

Brad (just as a hypothetical and I’m not saying this is the case) but say my system was more believable than yours… but you have moments where you are fooled into thinking your sound is actually live music and even though I may be more deeply engaged in the music by a system that actually sounds more believable I could just as easily still maintain an awareness that I am listening to a system… I’m wondering what does any of it prove other than we have different tipping points in our thresholds of awareness.

There are definitely varying levels of believability in sound and there are moments of realness possible but I guess that doesn’t carry a standardised metric that makes any of it then a usable benchmark… it just forms a personal anecdote. So while somebody may believe their disbelief may be suspended it still doesn’t tell us how believable their system sound may actually be.

 

[PeterA]

Your post, as a whole, being an illustrative example … Why not merely write the above comment and leave it at that!

It seems Tim wanted to address the voluntary or involuntary nature of the phrase. The part that Ron willfully omitted from his instructions to the robot. The length and detail of the post is necessary, in my opinion. The post also looks like an attempt to try to explain why the phrase is being used in certain circles. The thread title invites an explanation about the phrase. It can’t be done in a couple lines.

 

[PeterA]

This is a confused analogy.

It’s not an analogy Ron. It’s an example used to respond to your comment that “if there are different levels, by definition it’s not binary.”

I disagree with your statement and give you an example of why that does not work. Whether the apple is red or not is binary. But there are different levels of redness. My whole system thread is about this topic.

 

[brad225]

I can be in my listening room and focus on multiple instruments or voices and envision a person there playing but, feeling that it is live music, I don't think that will ever happen.

Just me, my hearing, in my room with my system.

Thinking about it a bit more. There times I can drift into the music and feel like it is more than a recording, but live, ??????????

 

[morricab]

No, I do not treat "suspension of disbelief" as anything. It is a very weird phrase, in my opinion. I try to never use it unless quoting you. When Karen Sumner uses it, I read right past it. I understand the difference with "enjoy" very clearly, thank you.

Yes, but you know what is meant by it...why get hung up on your feeling of it's awkwardness.

 

[morricab]

Brad (just as a hypothetical and I’m not saying this is the case) but say my system was more believable than yours… but you have moments where you are fooled into thinking your sound is actually live music and even though I may be more deeply engaged in the music by a system that actually sounds more believable I could just as easily still maintain an awareness that I am listening to a system… I’m wondering what does any of it prove other than we have different tipping points in our thresholds of awareness.

There are definitely varying levels of believability in sound and there are moments of realness possible but I guess that doesn’t carry a standardised metric that makes any of it then a usable benchmark… it just forms a personal anecdote. So while somebody may believe their disbelief may be suspended it still doesn’t tell us how believable their system sound may actually be.

As you say, level of engagement is a personal thing...it is your mental state vs. my mental state. It might also be substance dependent . Live music itself doesn't often give a high degree of emotional engagement. So, if the real thing doesn't always do it then one shouldn't expect a stereo system to always produce EE.

As I said above, suspension of disbelief doesn't really have to do with EE. It has to do with believability of the presentation that it sounds real. If your aural memory is well adjusted to live, unamplified music and you hear a system that just nails the tone, space (imaging and soundstage), dynamics etc. such that closing your eyes gives you a believable presentation then that can result in suspension of disbelief...it doesn't mean that you actually forget you are listening to reproduction but that it has the simulacrum of a live performance.

Of course where your system is along that curve of realness of sound is somewhat subject, although I would argue that those who are well versed in live music (particularly that music up close like most recordings) will converge on system types that do similar things well that translate to lack of audible artifacts and high dynamics.

 

[Rensselaer]

Given that "this state" is different for different people, I believe it is not intentional. One cannot cognitively will it to happen. "And now (drumroll) I'm going to switch my music experiencing from my cerebral cortex to my limbic system." The more one's mind is paying attention to the music itself and not thinking about system or how to make it sound better, the more likely to attain a 'defocused' state. I go back and forth on whether one might be able to train one's listening habits to facilitate it, make it easier - maybe similar to meditation training.



You are correct that it is a phrase, not a term.

To me the problem is the phrase itself. Upon first encounter it simply does not parse well.

It characterizes my belief that I am listening to my stereo and recasts that into a notion of something I do not believe, namely, I do not believe I am listening to a live performance. And then, I am no longer doing (suspend) what I do not believe I am doing in the first place (listening to a live performance.)

To characterize one's activity or one's 'state' by describing what one is not doing smacks of pretention. It is ego-centric and does not communicate or explain anything to the reader.

"I no longer believe I am not listening to a live performance." It does not parse well.

It is a rhetorical coloration, audiophile puffery that communicates little. It is not found in actual verbal conversation. Maybe in Ron's circles it works. Be that as it may it is still awkward. You can find the phrase in a few audio reviews with reviewers re-using what other reviewers write. Ron uses it constantly so for some here it may be 'normalized'.

You'll write a stronger sentence when you put statements in a positive form: Why not say: "for a while I thought I was listening to a live performance"?

Or simply: "it sounded realistic."

But hey - say anything you want as long as you follow the terms of service.

I think I always understood what people meant when they something about suspending their disbelief; I believed they were saying that the timbre, tone, weight of the instrument sound from the system sounded real, as if the guy playing the instrument was right there in the room with you.

I recall passing a jazz club in the city (take yer pick). I could hear music starting from the depths, but could only see as far as a hat-check area where the stairs veered off to the right deeper into the basement of the building. I was too young to be allowed into any establishment that served liquor so didn't think any further on how I could get in to listen to the music. I ducked down the alley next to the club to take a piss behind a dumpster when I started hearing music behind me. I looked over my shoulder and saw a metal grate covering a ventilation duct in the wall just above the alley floor. From its location it must have been behind the hat-check/coat-check room of the club. The music was rich and clear, it had weight and was obviously live music playing, however it wasn't in that alley with me, it didn't have the "presence".

It doesn't happen very often, but sometimes does on my system. That just-right tone, timbre, weight and whatever else happens and for a brief moment or two I am a little startled and bemused that it sounds as if the music performer is present in my room: whether you call that having "presence", or "suspending disbelief", doesn't really matter as long as we all pretty much know what is occurring when either term is used.

 

[PeterA]

Yes, but you know what is meant by it...why get hung up on your feeling of it's awkwardness.

actually, I don’t think it’s meaning is very clear especially the “willing“ part. I don’t know about being hung up. I’m simply participating in this thread.

 

[thedudeabides]

I think ChatGPT did an excellent and accurate job of describing my understanding of, and my practical use of, the term.

What do you think?

I, for one, am absolutely terrified by the current and future intrusion of AI into our daily lives. Here we have a discussion about what a fu**ing programmed bot spits outs when asked a question about music and emotion. Look at what happened to our kids (and adults) regarding the negative behavorial, abhorent impact of cell phones on our sociatal norms. What is next? Don't you all find this very disturbing?

 

[andromedaaudio]

 

[morricab]

actually, I don’t think it’s meaning is very clear especially the “willing“ part. I don’t know about being hung up. I’m simply participating in this thread.

What "willing" part?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I, for one, am absolutely terrified by the current and future intrusion of AI into our daily lives. Here we have a discussion about what a what a fu**ing programmed bot spits outs when asked a question about music and emotion. Look at what happened to our kids and the abhorent impact of cell phones. What is next? Don't you all find this very disturbing?

All interesting questions.

The discussion here is not about a question about music and emotion. It was a dictionary definition question.

Please feel free to start a new thread on your AI topics.

 

[Ron Resnick]

The part that Ron willfully omitted from his instructions to the robot.

This is yet another assumption on your part, and it is false.

 

[microstrip]

actually, I don’t think it’s meaning is very clear especially the “willing“ part. I don’t know about being hung up. I’m simply participating in this thread.

Well, if we keep it simple, like F. Toole did, inspired by the writing of the man who created the expression, it is very clear. But if people insist personalizing it to their different own objectives of sound reproduction it becomes a mess.
A line of though of stereo sound reproduction believes we can get more frequent suspension of disbelief by just removing artifacts and recreating the original intention of the sound engineer. It does not imply our intention or education - just listening to it we find it "better".

The high-end (and other researchers or manufacturers ) finds such sound reproduction limited and manipulate the signal (electrically and acoustically) to enhance aspects of the listening experience that some listeners with experience - not all of them - will find being able to increase their listening, creating the "suspension of disbelief" . It is surely a "willing" state - I have no hope to create "suspension of disbelief " in you with my dCS Vivaldi and its TA cables!

All this must be read and discussed considering that stereo is an extremely poor standard of sound reproduction, particularly in localization and envelopment, and needs a lot of collaboration from the listener to recreate the illusion. But with many clever tricks and our listening effort it can be extremely rewarding. Just MHO, YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

You still are treating "enjoy" and "suspension of disbelief" as synonyms, and they are not.

That's part of the problem with the discussion on this thread. Enjoyable listening and emotionally-engaging listening are not the same concepts as suspension of disbelief.

Failure to understand the difference is one reason why we are talking past each other.

I agree that "enjoy" and "suspension of disbelief" are not synonyms, but also consider that "suspension of disbelief" and "emotionally-engaging listening" are different things.

 

[morricab]

I agree that "enjoy" and "suspension of disbelief" are not synonyms, but also consider that "suspension of disbelief" and "emotionally-engaging listening" are different things.

Enjoy and suspension of disbelief are NOT synonyms...did you forget the not?

As I have been stating, emotional involvement is not the same as suspension of disbelief, you can have one without the other.