Audiophile Sonic Terms Redux

[Fred Crane]

During my recent interview with WBF, I think additional clarification of why relying on audiophile sonic terms like detail, pinpoint imaging, crisp leading-edge transients, black background, and slam to describe the attributes of component performance is counterproductive if one’s goal is to reproduce music in your home to a believable level. It is interesting to note that Harry Pearson was not the originator of these terms. He was rather more oriented to talking eloquently about the emotional experience of listening to music performed on a believable level through a home audio system. The press’s sonic terms really came from those who have unsuccessfully tried to emulate him.

Because our industry struggles to grow beyond its infancy, quite a few high-end audio companies do not yet have the resources or know-how to promote their own products. Many unfortunately have relied and rely upon the audio press to do their bidding. 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. Instead, more designers and manufacturers should be telling their own stories more effectively with the power of videos, interviews, the internet, and customer events in listening conditions that are more acoustically controlled than hotel rooms. With a handful of exceptions, members of the audio press do not have a listening environment that is capable of accurately reproducing a wide variety of source material at believable levels, nor do they typically have a reference standard system of components in place that is on a level that would qualify them to judge the performance of a well-designed audio component. Quite a few of them also do not have extensive and ongoing live acoustic music listening experiences. It perplexes me why so many manufacturers still run to the press for approval, and some dealers bank on reviews to attract customers. In contrast, Jacob Heilbrunn comes to mind as an audio writer who has broken the mold of the “amateur audio press.” He has a professionally designed listening studio that helps him become immersed in all types of music listening experiences. He also has an established reference system and a huge, eclectic music collection. He’s also an articulate, knowledgeable, and creative professional writer who attends a lot of live music performances. Are there others like Jacob out there?

Because more than a few manufacturers rely upon good reviews to keep their public interested in their brand, some of these companies I fear calibrate their products to get good reviews by designing to the press’s fabricated sonic terms. By and large, the audiophile publication readership has likewise been “schooled” by the articles they read to seek out these qualities — which are just words that might appeal to the front of our brains, but do not reach our emotional engagement centers. Using the press’s own terms to describe the listening experience is like residing in a tiny echo chamber.

Here’s why the high-end audio echo chamber seems to be so well sealed from music-loving interlopers. Unfortunately, in most homes where there is a substantial audio system set-up in rooms that are built according to standard residential construction methods, it is very unlikely that a person can play a wide range of different types of music at believable volume and dynamic levels and achieve across the board full natural tonal balance; i.e., reproduce the critical 100Hz -1000kHz range to the same level that it is actually recorded on the source material. The energy that results from amplifying the critical emotional-connection frequencies overloads most of these rooms resulting in frequency nodes and cancellations and out-of-phase reflections that cover up the very qualities that the audio press has tried to teach us should be the priority; hence, the solution to this conundrum is to strip away that energy, the life of the music, that is so important to creating an emotional connection by selecting components that reproduce music in a way that is natively leaner than what is on most source material and by speaker set-ups that emphasize the frequency extremes.

One can only imagine how disheartened some music-loving audiophiles might be when they discover that in their home environment, they can play perhaps a dozen songs from a small handful of albums that deliver truly musically satisfying results. Some have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on individual pieces of equipment that have been deemed ground-breaking by the audio press only to find that their systems and listening environment are unable to reproduce music in an emotionally compelling way. This is not a sustainable model for customers, dealers, or manufacturers. No one has told the simple truth: that everything matters, including listening space.

Does everybody need to invest in a professionally designed, purpose-built listening room to achieve a really satisfying level of music reproduction at home? If one wants to experience the ultimate in music reproduction from today’s best source material and components, the answer is “yes”, but there are many musically enthralling stops along the way that are far more affordable and achievable.

To be continued

Hi Karen, I wholeheartedly agree that dealers and manufacturers need to be creative in how they bridge the gap between themselves and the public...at the least not relying solely upon the bits of marketing between the lines of audio shows and press reviews.

I would go a bit farther in one aspect: Even when a talented writer, with ears that are accustomed to live music, who has a properly set-up room with a well configured system...it is still likely that only a small percentage of incoming review components will synergize with said system. Especially if said system has been painstakingly put together to yield the best results. At that point, it is up to the writers, manufacturers and editors to review or not review a component based upon its chance for moderate success in a particular circumstance. I've seen components in cue for review here or there, and you can often guess the outcome based upon the existing gear, the prior identified biases of the writer and the incoming gear. Reviewing is a difficult job, and those who do it well have my utmost respect.

 

[Tim Link]

In some cases, transients have softened to a remarkable degree (in the right direction, that is), in others they come with a sharpened edge that previously was blurred by hardness. So I would agree that crisp leading-edge transients are not always a virtue, even though sometimes they emphatically are.

I just read some talk from recording pros that sound recorded directly to reel to reel magnetic tape loses transient crispness within hours after the recording because the magnetic bits migrate around. I think that's interesting but I doubt it's a very noticeable effect, or at least not an objectionable effect, on our home systems, which are smearing transients in a much grander way due to room and speaker interactions. Otherwise, there wouldn't be all this interest for reel to reel tape among hi-end audio enthusiasts. The effect is obviously audible over headphones or maybe in well controlled studios under near field listening as these pros are doing, but I suspect it's not what really matters to most of us, although it could matter for some if they've learned to listen for that effect. The pros are listening to the live feed, and then the tape, and then the tape again a few hours later and they notice it. What I generally think of as fast, crisp transients involve time spans over 20 or 30 milliseconds, not tenths of milliseconds. I'm not sure what some time smearing at tenths of milliseconds does except perhaps reduce imaging precision. Inter-aural crosstalk with any 2 speaker system will generate this kind of very fast smearing for center panned images. It's something I concern myself with and address with my system, but almost everybody with a very high end system ignores it, which means it's obviously not a disturbing problem for most who have refined ears. I certainly don't hear it myself as a loss of transient crispness.

There are some explanations for how a room could perceptually accentuate some transient effects while blurring others. If we accept that we perceive these over longer time spans - 10s of milliseconds, early reflections can cause some exaggeration of the attack of certain notes, with cancellation occurring at the listening position shortly after the exaggeration. So the notes attack very hard and then are attenuated through the sustain, with a volume burst at the end of the note as well. Art Noxon calls this the bow-wow effect. Somebody else originally called it that, but he told me about it.

 

[Mcbrion]

I'm sure Harry would find it amusing to note that, in his time as an audio reviewer, he himself never had a custom-built room for reviewing purposes, although he was aware of the properties of his own listening rooms. And, of course, he had the experiences of having listened to live music in many excellent halls. He did improve his listening studios after the fire of 1985, but otherwise confined himself to having a long, custom-designed cotton curtain along one wall the length of his room (with many folds in it, which is just what F. Alton Everest suggests in his Master Handbook). Otherwise, he had a room like many people, although rather too cluttered with other equipment for Dave Wilson's tastes, as Dave, dismayed by the sheer amount of equipment in the room, expressed once to me in the late 1980s. So, a room like many people's living rooms, although Harry did have plaster walls, and not drywall.

And, although I suggested Tube Traps to him as early as 1988, when I saw J. Gordon Holt's review in Stereophile, and promptly bought 50 of them(!), Harry never quite mastered them (although he wrote about trying them in one of the issues about the "sonic soundstage" somewhere in the issues between 61-68, whichever one it was that he was reviewing a pair of Thiel speakers).
Even without a custom designed room, however, he managed to deliver staggeringly great reviews about the best components of the '70s, '80s, '90s and well into the new millennium. But it certainly does not hurt to have a custom-designed listening studio. I found Acoustic Sciences isoWall system ideal for my small(ish) 9 x 13 x 20 room, along with the tube traps!

What bothers me the most is how many reviewers seem, as Ms. Sumner pointed out (and Harry did, too), to have so little knowledge of what live (unamplified) music sounds like. And so do many audiophiles, particularly ones who inhabit the online forums these days, which might also account for all the "cable-are-snake-oil" threads I see. And the "law-of-diminishing-returns" mentality, which I never found to be the case all through my WATTS/Avalon/Genesis/Jadis/VAC/Goldmund/Versa Dynamics/Clearaudio/Spectral/Lyra/VTL/Nordost/MIT/Transparent days. The last 20 years seem to have brought a new class of "audiophiles" who have heard nothing (equipment-wise), have never been to a concert of unamplfied music, but debate EVERYTHING that cannot be measured or quantified. Interestingly enough, this was alluded to in issue 100 of The Absolute Sound by Jonathan Valin (and Harry) in 1995. And so, it has come to pass!

If the "Ignorance-is-Bliss" axiom holds true, they are the "Ecstatics."

 

[Carlos269]

I'm sure Harry would find it amusing to note that, in his time as an audio reviewer, he himself never had a custom-built room for reviewing purposes, although he was aware of the properties of his own listening rooms. And, of course, he had the experiences of having listened to live music in many excellent halls. He did improve his listening studios after the fire of 1985, but otherwise confined himself to having a long, custom-designed cotton curtain along one wall the length of his room (with many folds in it, which is just what F. Alton Everest suggests in his Master Handbook). Otherwise, he had a room like many people, although rather too cluttered with other equipment for Dave Wilson's tastes, as Dave, dismayed by the sheer amount of equipment in the room, expressed once to me in the late 1980s. So, a room like many people's living rooms, although Harry did have plaster walls, and not drywall.

And, although I suggested Tube Traps to him as early as 1988, when I saw J. Gordon Holt's review in Stereophile, and promptly bought 50 of them(!), Harry never quite mastered them (although he wrote about trying them in one of the issues about the "sonic soundstage" somewhere in the issues between 61-68, whichever one it was that he was reviewing a pair of Thiel speakers).
Even without a custom designed room, however, he managed to deliver staggeringly great reviews about the best components of the '70s, '80s, '90s and well into the new millennium. But it certainly does not hurt to have a custom-designed listening studio. I found Acoustic Sciences isoWall system ideal for my small(ish) 9 x 13 x 20 room, along with the tube traps!

What bothers me the most is how many reviewers seem, as Ms. Sumner pointed out (and Harry did, too), to have so little knowledge of what live (unamplified) music sounds like. And so do many audiophiles, particularly ones who inhabit the online forums these days, which might also account for all the "cable-are-snake-oil" threads I see. And the "law-of-diminishing-returns" mentality, which I never found to be the case all through my WATTS/Avalon/Genesis/Jadis/VAC/Goldmund/Versa Dynamics/Clearaudio/Spectral/Lyra/VTL/Nordost/MIT/Transparent days. The last 20 years seem to have brought a new class of "audiophiles" who have heard nothing (equipment-wise), have never been to a concert of unamplfied music, but debate EVERYTHING that cannot be measured or quantified. Interestingly enough, this was alluded to in issue 100 of The Absolute Sound by Jonathan Valin (and Harry) in 1995. And so, it has come to pass!

If the "Ignorance-is-Bliss" axiom holds true, they are the "Ecstatics."

Good points and well stated. It’s a case of the blind leading the blind. Most don’t know acoustics or psychoacoustics and are oblivious as to the elements of physics at play. It is mostly vanity with very little substance.

 

[tima]

I lay the primary blame for this misplaced focus on visual artifacts with HP. Despite all the praise for HP in this thread and throughout WBF and many other forums, he is the one who first started talking about soundstage, 3-d depth, being able to hear the back wall or side walls of the stage, etc. Unfortunately the focus on imaging artifacts has led directly to the lean and bright character of so much audio gear today.

Yes.

Being as visually oriented as we are, our visual vocabulary and our ability to describe what we see is, imo, far superior to our sonic vocabulary and our ability to describe what we hear.

I mostly agree with you about HP in this regard -- it is where he started dissociating his sonic descriptions from his notion of the absolute sound, the sound of live acoustic music. Other writers picked up on this and began influencing readers, advertisers and manufacturers -- and to an extent this led to some of today's beliefs about what is important in assessing stereo sound and led away from using live acoustic music as a reference for doing that. Read a review of a live classical performance -- you likely will not find language about separation of instruments, image outlines, etc.; in fact you will read very little about psycho-acoustics. While one can hear these stereo "virtues" in the listening room if you listen for them, the question for me is what are the priorities, where do we put our emphasis.

Wrt your comment on the "lean and bright character of so much audio gear today", I find that resulting more from the trend toward resolution über alles as a key audio value.

 

[PeterA]

Wrt your comment on the "lean and bright character of so much audio gear today", I find that resulting more from the trend toward resolution über alles as a key audio value.

Tim, I get your comment, but I would say “lean and bright” are the result of chasing detail for detail’s sake, and not the more general notion of resolution, which I think of as a very comprehensive and positive attribute.

 

[tima]

Tim, I get your comment, but I would say “lean and bright” are the result of chasing detail for detail’s sake, and not the more general notion or resolution, which I think of as a very comprehensive and positive attribute.

Sure. But the understanding I read here from most is resolution = detail.

 

[PeterA]

Sure. But the understanding I read here from most is resolution = detail.

Yes, that is true. Weight/body/mass is also an important aspect of resolution because real instruments have it, good recordings capture it, and natural sounding systems present it.

 

[Elliot G.]

As someone that actually knew HP very well and spent too many evenings to remember listening with Harry both live and in his sound rooms I can say 100 percent that HP did not look for nor like bright , foward, or in your face type sound. What others did trying to chase what he wrote about or trying to duplicate what sound he produced in his listening rooms, only they can speak for that.
People seem to forget that before HP ( and JGHolt) there was no language, no attempts, no map, no anything to try to talk about the sound and what was being reproduced from a stereo system. Harry had a visual and verbal background. He loved to take pictures and was a professional writer that worked for a Long Island newspaper.
He had a love hate relationship with many companies , that usuall y being tied to hs opinions of the sound of the gear. A SHOCKER huh?
Seems we come no where in that regard. BTW there was no advertising in the magazine then the only revenue was from paid subscribers. Small pond to fish from.!
He fought with many of the companies even those he liked because he told it as he saw it and actually criticised the sound and the products. Seems that has been lost and left us with this mess we have today, all chiefs and no Indians.
HP was far from perfect but he and J Gordon started this by wheich we all participate in today. He was a pioneer, an imperfect tour guide, but he was a lover of music, classical music and went and listened frequently. His friends, now mostly dead,would defend him, even when they were angry at him, which was frequently.
He IMO made the Industry and the gear better, much better, by not being afriad to speak his truth. Its easy in hindsite to look back and defame a person that isnt here to defend himself and to critize his room and methods but that was what he had to work with . He was not a rich hobbiest, there was no interent, he was alone and by that I mean very alone doing what he loved and he loved music.

Go back read him and remember the times and what was available in both product and in knowledge. Then perhaps he can really be appreciated for what he accomplished.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Tim, I get your comment, but I would say “lean and bright” are the result of chasing detail for detail’s sake, and not the more general notion or resolution, which I think of as a very comprehensive and positive attribute.

'lean and bright' are also products of less than fully sorted out signal paths and rooms. one can have plenty of detail/resolution and yet not have 'lean and bright'. it's somewhat the degree of system development sweat equity added to the accumulation of gear. don't blame the gear for the total result. tools can only do what they are asked to do.

another way to avoid 'lean and bright' is to buy gear which might be a bit dark and lacking top end air. but avoiding that top end energy/detail all together also reduces the potential realism of the system.

lots of ways to skin the cat.

 

[Carlos269]

As someone that actually knew HP very well and spent too many evenings to remember listening with Harry both live and in his sound rooms I can say 100 percent that HP did not look for nor like bright , foward, or in your face type sound. What others did trying to chase what he wrote about or trying to duplicate what sound he produced in his listening rooms, only they can speak for that.
People seem to forget that before HP ( and JGHolt) there was no language, no attempts, no map, no anything to try to talk about the sound and what was being reproduced from a stereo system. Harry had a visual and verbal background. He loved to take pictures and was a professional writer that worked for a Long Island newspaper.
He had a love hate relationship with many companies , that usuall y being tied to hs opinions of the sound of the gear. A SHOCKER huh?
Seems we come no where in that regard. BTW there was no advertising in the magazine then the only revenue was from paid subscribers. Small pond to fish from.!
He fought with many of the companies even those he liked because he told it as he saw it and actually criticised the sound and the products. Seems that has been lost and left us with this mess we have today, all chiefs and no Indians.
HP was far from perfect but he and J Gordon started this by wheich we all participate in today. He was a pioneer, an imperfect tour guide, but he was a lover of music, classical music and went and listened frequently. His friends, now mostly dead,would defend him, even when they were angry at him, which was frequently.
He IMO made the Industry and the gear better, much better, by not being afriad to speak his truth. Its easy in hindsite to look back and defame a person that isnt here to defend himself and to critize his room and methods but that was what he had to work with . He was not a rich hobbiest, there was no interent, he was alone and by that I mean very alone doing what he loved and he loved music.

Go back read him and remember the times and what was available in both product and in knowledge. Then perhaps he can really be appreciated for what he accomplished.

I think that if HP was alive today, he would call out all the nonsense and products that are paraded as high-end to ill informed and I’ll advised gullible consumers of the “more it cost, the better it must sound”, lunacy that has taken over this hobby. There is hope as there are still honest manufacturers making excellent gear for honest prices, but they have now become the exception to the rule as opposed to the mainstream, which was the case in the 80’s and early 90’s, the era that I consider the golden age of high-end audio. Sure progress has been made but one must remain pragmatic and not get caught up in the bling of the audio jewelry and hyperbolic claims from those with very little background and references to form an educated opinion.

 

[Elliot G.]

I think that if HP was alive today, he would call out all the nonsense and products that are paraded as high-end to ill informed and I’ll advised gullible consumers of the “more it cost, the better it must sound”, lunacy that has taken over this hobby. There is hope as there are still honest manufacturers making excellent gear for honest prices, but they have now become the exception to the rule as opposed to the mainstream, which was the case in the 80’s and early 90’s, the era that I consider the golden age of high-end audio. Sure progress has been made but one must remain pragmatic and not get caught up in the bling of the audio jewelry and hyperbolic claims from those with very little background and references to form an educated opinion.

Wow Carlos I actually agree with you on something. Is the Rapture today ? LMAO
HP would be eviscerating much of what today exists.
Harry talked about the things discussed becasue via quality choices and excellent set up he kept getting more and more from his system.
He was disliked by those who could not get his attention, could not sway his opinion, could not get him to review his gear, could not make him bend to their will.
His friends were for the most part the best designers of the time. Nudell, Dahlquist, Magepan, CJ, ARC, Linn, Goldmund, Koetsu stc; etc.
Detail for detail sake, Bright and lean NONSENSE and BS.
Harry started with the sound of acoustic instruments and that was his goal. I went with im and others to many concerts at Carnegie and other halls and I took him a few times to see some rock bands but it was the absolute sound ( by his definition) that he strived for.
Again he loved music, his pasion and joy for it was infectious and for those who "think" they knew him all I can say is they didnt.
Before him there was nothing but "rack systems" don't forget that

 

[PeterA]

'lean and bright' are also products of less than fully sorted out signal paths and rooms. one can have plenty of detail/resolution and yet not have 'lean and bright'. it's somewhat the degree of system development sweat equity added to the accumulation of gear. don't blame the gear for the total result. tools can only do what they are asked to do.

another way to avoid 'lean and bright' is to buy gear which might be a bit dark and lacking top end air. but avoiding that top end energy/detail all together also reduces the potential realism of the system.

lots of ways to skin the cat.

I totally agree with you Mike. There could be various causes of a "lean and bright" presentation from a system. To me, one's goals and whether or not they are met, are what matters. I have heard systems which resolve incredible amounts of information, present a lot of detail, and they never sounded bright or lean. In this sense, the sound of those systems in those rooms is similar to what I hear when listening to live music.

 

[Stefan]

I totally agree with you Mike. There could be various causes of a "lean and bright" presentation from a system. To me, one's goals and whether or not they are met, is what matters. I have heard systems which resolve incredible amounts of information, present a lot of detail, and they never sounded bright or lean. In this sense, the sound of those systems in those rooms is similar to what I hear when listening to live music.

I also think "detail" is often over-valued in the audiophile community, but I would qualify my view. I think of this as a pseudo-detailed presentation. Often the detail is prioritised over tonality. In a loudspeaker, for example, if the response curve is "voiced" to accentuate the upper midrange and treble range, a system is often perceived as one that is detailed. This is at the cost of a natural presentation with the various octaves being in balance. Certain tweeters are perceived as being more detailed such as ribbons, but if one looks deeper into measurements, the elevated top octaves are often clearly visible in these measurements. The elevated top end is furthermore also driven by the fixation of audiophiles on imaging. In live music events that I attend, from symphony concerts and live jazz performances to choirs, imaging is not a thing, for me at least.

On the other hand, detail across the frequency range from the lower registers right through to the uppermost registers in a balanced and coherent manner is less impressive and obvious but something that elevates the musicality of a system in my view.

 

[PeterA]

I also think "detail" is often over-valued in the audiophile community, but I would qualify my view. I think of this as a pseudo-detailed presentation. Often the detail is prioritised over tonality. In a loudspeaker, for example, if the response curve is "voiced" to accentuate the upper midrange and treble range, a system is often perceived as one that is detailed. This is at the cost of a natural presentation with the various octaves being in balance. Certain tweeters are perceived as being more detailed such as ribbons, but if one looks deeper into measurements, the elevated top octaves are often clearly visible in these measurements.

On the other hand, detail across the frequency range from the lower registers right through to the uppermost registers in a balanced and coherent manner is less impressive and obvious but something that elevates the musicality of a system in my view.

I agree with you Stefan. I want a highly resolving system that sounds balanced and does not emphasize some frequencies over others. It is not so easy to achieve and everything from power to wires and stands and the room affects this sense of balance. The challenge is to understand what you want and then to try to learn how to achieve it. It is what makes the hobby so fascinating.

 

[Al M.]

On the other hand, detail across the frequency range from the lower registers right through to the uppermost registers in a balanced and coherent manner is less impressive and obvious but something that elevates the musicality of a system in my view.

I think it is more -- not less -- impressive, because it is harder to achieve. I would also say that once it is attained, it is really obvious. In the concert hall the sound is often stunningly detailed in an obvious manner, even though it doesn't sound "detail-y".

 

[Salectric]

I agree with @Stefan as well. I would just add that another example is the use of bypass capacitors in modern electronics. Adding a small value film cap (,01 to .1uf) in parallel with a coupling capacitor doesn’t change the measured frequency response of the unit but it nearly always results in a subjectively skewed response with a brighter treble and often a lean lower midrange. The altered tonal balance may be perceived as more detailed, with faster leading edges, deeper bass and more specific imaging, but, in my experience, it nearly always sounds artificial, hyped, less natural. A particularly annoying instance of this is Audio Research gear from the late 1980s through 90s (often called the “white” period) such as the SP-9, LS-2 and PH-1. These pieces were “lean and bright” in spades. But the the colorations could be significantly reduced by removing the .01uf bypass caps (Wonder Caps and Inifinicaps).

Bypass caps are just one example. There are other factors that contribute to the “lean and bright” sound such as narrow front baffles of modern speakers. But those are for another day.

 

[Gregm]

... altered tonal balance may be perceived as more detailed, with faster leading edges, deeper bass and more specific imaging, but, in my experience, it nearly always sounds artificial, hyped, less natural.

Generally pseaking, I think that the perception of more ("better") detail or more "naturalness" attributed to a change of hardware, may often just be the result of an intervention in the tonal balance of a system: i.e. a slight boost in the region around 5kHz (or, a drop in the other frequencies) is perceived as "clarity" -- in other words, NOT an improvement in performance, just a change in tonal balance. Likewise, with a slight emphasis in lower mids may give the impression of rhythm and pace (as in Linn's old marketing cliche), etc

I don't mean to undermine our quest for more information retrieval, better reproduction, better equipment, improved systems in general. Just that sometimes, what we perceive as an improvement attributable to a piece of hardware, could possibly be the result of a simple change of tonal balance rather than a breakthrough in performance.

 

[Carlos269]

Generally pseaking, I think that the perception of more ("better") detail or more "naturalness" attributed to a change of hardware, may often just be the result of an intervention in the tonal balance of a system: i.e. a slight boost in the region around 5kHz (or, a drop in the other frequencies) is perceived as "clarity" -- in other words, NOT an improvement in performance, just a change in tonal balance. Likewise, with a slight emphasis in lower mids may give the impression of rhythm and pace (as in Linn's old marketing cliche), etc

I don't mean to undermine our quest for more information retrieval, better reproduction, better equipment, improved systems in general. Just that sometimes, what we perceive as an improvement attributable to a piece of hardware, could possibly be the result of a simple change of tonal balance rather than a breakthrough in performance.

Yes, I think that this is often the case not just for component substitutions but also the result of swapping cables, tubes and other ancillary components.

At the end of the day, there are three basic and fundamental elements of sound: 1) Frequency, 2) Amplitude, and 3) Phase. Any change to one or more of those elements with result in a change to what audiophiles refer to as the “tonal balance”. In reality these changes are changes to the spectral composition of the sound, which should be easily detectable and measurable using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) with the appropriate lab equipment. It is all measurable and science and technology explains it all, but for so many years audiophiles have played the “mythical” science has not yet found a way to measure these phenomena, when it is just spectral composition based on frequency, amplitude, and phase. There is nothing more to sound than those three elements.

 

[Amir]

The sound is not just about frequency , phase and amplitude.
If you read electronics engineering you know audio systems are not linear systems and non-linear systems are far more complex than linear systems. If you use fourier or laplace transform to show phase and amplitude of frequency it means you used simplified linear model of audio circuit.

the audio is more complex than you think in both objective and subjective analysis