dipping my toe into the ddk flow.....

[PeterA]

Ron, it seems to me that people are simply offering their observations ofwhat they heard from David’s system. We could consider those observations to be our opinions. I presume opinions are subjective. I do not think we need to state it every time or clarify it every time.

I agree with you that the concept of balance is interesting. I think it can be either objective or subjective. Two kids on a teeter totter that is level in my view is an example of objective balance but some might disagree with that. Describing one’s impression of the sound of an audio system as balanced seems subjective in the sense that it relies on one’s own personal senses to form the observation.

 

[Steve williams]

If I were to guess, I would say Peter's definition of balanced is that there was top to bottom linearity where nothing was exaggerated.

 

[Al M.]

A lifetime of experience listening to music in concert halls used to conclude that a particular audio system and room has the same perceived sonic balance observed in the concert hall is a subjective opinion. The longevity of a lifetime of experience does not make the observation any less subjective.

Well stated, Ron. It's still subjective.

Finally, a definitional complication arises regarding the term "balance." Balance does not necessarily mean ruler-flat frequency response. Balance is itself a subjective term which could mean the listener's preferred subjective balance of focusing on midrange to the exclusion of flat frequency response at the top end or the lower end of the frequency range. Proper sonic balance, to a different audiophile, could mean emphasis of the low frequencies. In other words, balance, without a definition, could mean the emphasis or the de-emphasis of certain frequency ranges each of us merely subjectively prefers.

Indeed, "correct" balance is a subjective thing. It also depends on the recording. To my ears, on some recordings other systems have a better balance than mine, on other recordings mine has a better balance. I have never heard a system that always excels in optimal balance regardless of recording. Again, just to my ears.

And no, I do not accept restriction of frequency extremes for the sake of "balance". On the other hand, lack of such restriction should not mean undue emphasis on frequency extremes either. But again, what all this exactly means will differ for each person.

 

[PeterA]

Well stated, Ron. It's still subjective.

Al, did anyone state otherwise claiming these observations as fact?

Indeed, "correct" balance is a subjective thing. It also depends on the recording. To my ears, on some recordings other systems have a better balance than mine, on other recordings mine has a better balance. I have never heard a system that always excels in balance regardless of recording. Again, just to my ears.

And no, I do not accept restriction of frequency extremes for the sake of "balance". On the other hand, lack of such restriction should not mean undue emphasis on frequency extremes either. But again, what all this exactly means will differ for each person.

Could you define what you mean by “correct balance“? You and Ron seem to be introducing a new concept to this discussion and I don’t know what it means. One’s observation about a sound, subjective opinion if you will, is of course dependent on the recording characteristics but also the characteristics of the system. One gets a sense of which is which by listening to different recordings on the same system.

David has stated the frequency response of his system which does not seem restricted and Steve and I have both commented that we don’t feel the frequency spectrum is restricted.

Ron, I do not see the fencing to which you refer. Steve and I shared our observations and then Steve clarified his and I expanded on mine. He and I seem to be in agreement. I don’t see any conflict or confrontation in this thread. It seems to be a very respectful commentary full of interesting observations.

Mike certainly seemed to enjoy what he heard, like everyone else who has reported on trips to Utah. Same as on trips to Seattle.

 

[Al M.]

I don’t understand why you are bringing up restricted extension in your system.

There is nothing to understand because you are misreading that I brought up alleged restricted extension in my system. I didn't.

This is a discussion about our observations of David’s system. David has stated the frequency response of his system which does not seem restricted and Steve and I have both commented that we don’t feel the frequency spectrum is restricted.

Having not heard the system I cannot comment about that, but if you read through the entire thread, opinions differ about the issue.

 

[PeterA]

There is nothing to understand because you are misreading that I brought up alleged restricted extension in my system. I didn't.

Sorry Al. Edited.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike certainly seemed to enjoy what he heard........

yes, i did enjoy what i heard.

 

[microstrip]

I am not re-posting anybody's particular post here because I am not seeking to criticize a particular comment.

I have no dog in this hunt.

Neither do I. I have never listened to DDK Bionors, just collected opinions from WBF and elsewhere.

It seems to me that people are fencing, once again, about issues which would be better understood and, maybe, reconciled, if a little bit of analytical rigor were applied.

I don't think so. The people who love this type of sound and have more experience with it have several times referred they prefer to avoid such analytical views.

A lifetime of experience listening to music in concert halls used to conclude that a particular audio system and room has the same perceived sonic balance observed in the concert hall is a subjective opinion. The longevity of a lifetime of experience does not make the observation any less subjective.

Yes.

An audio engineer could conduct a frequency sweep and frequency response analysis of the acoustics of a concert hall. That same engineer could conduct a frequency sweep and frequency response analysis of the particular audio system and room in question. The measured frequency response of the concert hall and the measured frequency response of the audio system and room are objective facts. (I am assuming industry-accepted test equipment, measuring techniques and reporting results.)

No serious audio engineer would consider that a "frequency sweep and frequency response analysis" is enough to characterize acoustic spaces. In fact most of the discussion on the objective/subjective sides is due to poor understanding of what is being objective. IMHO an objective fact is a properly carried measurement that properly correlates with what is being researched or measured. The more usual audio measurements do not correlate with most of what is being discussed in our posts, although a few do!

Finally, a definitional complication arises regarding the term "balance." Balance does not necessarily mean ruler-flat frequency response. Balance is itself a subjective term which could mean the listener's preferred subjective balance of focusing on midrange to the exclusion of flat frequency response at the top end or the lower end of the frequency range. Proper sonic balance, to a different audiophile, could mean emphasis of the low frequencies. In other words, balance, without a definition, could mean the emphasis or the de-emphasis of certain frequency ranges each of us merely subjectively prefers.

Balance can even mean equal loudness in left and right channel ... As you say we can use it to characterize a sound we like in any non specific way.

Perhaps people may care to restate their thoughts in view of this attempt at disentanglement and illumination.

IMHO will be a inconclusive discussion. The etymological idea of balanced is something where nothing has more weigh than others. But we can also balance a system by omission of some parts, something that needs an analytical view to be discussed, as you said.

 

[microstrip]

yes, i did enjoy what i heard.

Besides, at that time I really learned a lot from your views, as you reported data on listening distances and estimated sound levels.

 

[awsmone]

yes, i did enjoy what i heard.

You can’t go around saying things like that, it’s purely a personal perception, and has no objective basis in reality

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You can’t go around saying things like that, it’s purely a personal perception, and has no objective basis in reality

wait just a minute, you'd think i called it natural, or something sinister like that. and maybe i enjoy nasty sounding systems?

 

[awsmone]

wait just a minute, you'd think i called it natural, or something sinister like that. and maybe i enjoy nasty sounding systems?

Please we don’t want to know about your brain’s serotonin and dopamine levels, naturally This forum is not about people enjoying music on stereo systems and talking about them , it is about semantic/philosophical arguments about certain words and whether they are appropriate to be used on this forum , enjoyment is definitely a word that should not be used on WBF !

 

[tima]

It seems to me that people are fencing, once again, about issues which would be better understood and, maybe, reconciled, if a little bit of analytical rigor were applied.

Ron, I do not see the fencing to which you refer. Steve and I shared our observations and then Steve clarified his and I expanded on mine. He and I seem to be in agreement. I don’t see any conflict or confrontation in this thread. It seems to be a very respectful commentary full of interesting observations.

I don't see the fencing either. Ron, someone told me posts were being deleted by treitz3 so I figured maybe your message was in response to something no longer visible. If that is not the case, what are you talking about? I get that there are statements labeled 'facts' and 'opinion'. This is not a criticism, I don't grasp the object of your caution. Would you kindly say more?

 

[mr-particle]

I don't see the fencing either. Ron, someone told me posts were being deleted by treitz3 so I figured maybe your message was in response to something no longer visible. If that is not the case, what are you talking about? I get that there are statements labeled 'facts' and 'opinion'. This is not a criticism, I don't grasp the object of your caution. Would you kindly say more?

Maybe a little of the topic, but unfortunately sometimes posts are removed, although they either insulting or inappropriate.
I have watched this just recently in the case of a contribution asking critical about the price calculation of some gear.
It is a pity, that is happening here!

 

[Tango]

I don't see the fencing either. Ron, someone told me posts were being deleted by treitz3 so I figured maybe your message was in response to something no longer visible.

My post was deleted. But that was how it should be. In that post I was asking Ron to not let people start jabbing oneanother like the Axpona and the State of the Industry after seeing what Micro posted in this thread. The moderator then deleted my post together with Micro's post on good intention.

I dont know if there is any other post got deleted.

 

[tima]

My post was deleted. But that was how it should be. In that post I was asking Ron to not let people start jabbing oneanother like the Axpona and the State of the Industry after seeing what Micro posted in this thread. The moderator then deleted my post together with Micro's post on good intention.

I dont know if there is any other post got deleted.

Thanks for that explanation, Tango. Guess I don't miss what I missed.

 

[mr-particle]

My post was deleted. But that was how it should be. In that post I was asking Ron to not let people start jabbing oneanother like the Axpona and the State of the Industry after seeing what Micro posted in this thread. The moderator then deleted my post together with Micro's post on good intention.

I dont know if there is any other post got deleted.

No, it was not your post Tango I am referring to.
It was another one.
Because it was not my post, I don’t want to note to whom I am referring.
But it has effected a well known active member and I could not see anything wrong his post, only critical asking.

 

[PeterA]

I don't see the fencing either. Ron, someone told me posts were being deleted by treitz3 so I figured maybe your message was in response to something no longer visible. If that is not the case, what are you talking about? I get that there are statements labeled 'facts' and 'opinion'. This is not a criticism, I don't grasp the object of your caution. Would you kindly say more?

Ron and Al also referred to what they call “correct” balance. I have no idea what that means and would like them to say more about that too. It seems germane to this discussion.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron and Al also referred to what they call “correct” balance. I have no idea what that means and would like them to say more about that too. It seems germane to this discussion.

I do not know what "correct balance" means, unless one defines "balance" in the first place. I do not see my use of the term "correct balance" anywhere.

The only "balance" I know of in audio refers to equal perceived or measurable output of the left channel and of the right channel as in the "balance" control on a line stage preamplifier. If an audiophile sets a balance control to suit his/her ears and perception, then I would call that "correct balance" for himself/herself.

Words have existing accepted definitions. (The American Heritage dictionary is my personal preferred reference.) Making up a new definition of the word "balance" in the audio context based on personal and subjective listening experience does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

Respectfully, I think your use of the word "balanced" to describe the perceived frequency response of audio systems you consider to produce Natural Sound is confusing. I think it is confusing to describe your perception that in an audio system producing Natural Sound nothing sticks out and nothing is spot-lit as "balanced." Maybe "even" or "linear" or "smooth"?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I don't grasp the object of your caution. Would you kindly say more?

Respectfully to you and Peter, I don't understand each of your reactions to my modest and honest effort to help people understand each other better, rather than talk past each other unnecessarily. I simply was hoping to disentangle what I perceived to be misunderstandings about simple concepts.

I was not intending to caution; I explicitly was not intending to criticize anybody or any particular post.

I hoped simply that by attempting to disentangle in the context of the instant discussion subjective from objective and fact from opinion, and thereby suggest a crisper analytical structure, I would facilitate the discussion on this thread. I believe that a threshold effort to agree on the definitions of terms results in greater clarity and mutual understanding as a discussion progresses.

PS: Isn't fencing, as in the intellectual back-and-forth in which we engage on WBF, sometimes sharply, what we do all the time here? I simply was observing the mutual misunderstanding and talking past each other I often see here and which I feel often could be ameliorated by acceptance of common definitions as a discussion progresses.