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 I would call that "correct balance" for himself/herself.
Ron, you are right. You called it “proper” tonal balance and Al called it “correct” balance. I was just curious what you both mean by the term. I see now that you are saying it is whatever the listener wants it to be for his own personal preference.
What I mean is that David‘s system was balanced in the sense that no frequency range seem to stick out and call attention to itself. Nothing seemed enhanced or rolled off. My mind did not go there as it often does when listening to some other systems. I can see this as being a matter of preference but I can also see it in objective terms verifiable with measurements.
It is not always about frequency response, it can also be about the presentation and placement of instruments.
I was reading your sound descriptions and was thinking about the sound I can get with the Soundlab's sitting 20 feet from them. Sometimes I enjoyed sitting far from them getting this less present and less detailed sound, but large scale and full of energy and lifelike. However in order to listen so far I had to raise the level significantly, something that enhances detail and decays with these large electrostatic panels.
After listening to Marty's ststem, I tried listening further back in my room. My room is a little small for it, but its a nice change and plays to certain music. Symphony for example. If I close my eyes and imagine I'm in a performance hall, sitting further back makes sense of the way themusic was recorded to me.
what I mean is that David‘s system was balanced in the sense that no frequency range seem to stick out and call attention to itself. Nothing seems enhanced or rolled off.
I understand what you are describing. I just think it is confusing to call this perception "balanced." Balanced to me embraces the concept of one pole of some kind off-setting another pole of some kind -- something is being balanced.
What you are describing I would define as even or linear or smooth or flat or low in variance.
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. (...)
Yes, balance by itself can be meaningless. The more usual use of the word in sound reproduction refers to frequency (spectral) balance or tonal balance. But we often see other uses - balance between direct and reflected sound, balance between direct and reverberant sound, stereo balance, balance between instruments.
I understand what you are describing. I just think it is confusing to call this perception "balanced." Balanced to me embraces the concept of one pole of some kind off-setting another pole of some kind -- something is being balanced.
What you are describing I would define as even or linear or smooth or flat or low in variance.
Thank you very much for starting a new thread, David. Yes, you're correct, I should have not done anything to derail this thread, even if unintentionally.
Yes, balance by itself can be meaningless. The more usual use of the word in sound reproduction refers to frequency (spectral) balance or tonal balance. But we often see other uses - balance between direct and reflected sound, balance between direct and reverberant sound, stereo balance, balance between instruments.
Fransisco, David’s new thread clearly articulates what he means by the term balance. I was unable to do so here in this thread. If after reading it you still think it is meaningless, you should join the discussion over there and share your point of view.
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.
Oh for crying out loud, Ron -- I didn't understand what the heck you were talking about, and instead of an answer, you give us this tribute to your intentions. Whatever.
Fransisco, David’s new thread clearly articulates what he means by the term balance. I was unable to do so here in this thread. If after reading it you still think it is meaningless, you should join the discussion over there and share your point of view.
Thanks, Peter. David has clearly stated he his not interested in discussing with people with different views, I will respect his wish in the thread he created and stay away of it. You just confirmed my view - unless properly associated with an explanation the word is so general it is meaningless.
We have different views on what is objective and subjective data. I stick with the general concepts on this subject shared by audio scholars, reviewers and most audiophiles. I respect alternative views of other people, but can't see the point of redefining words and concepts regularly used along decades in audio and science, avoiding any possibility of exchanging points of view in an audio forum without a translator.
BTW, IMHO in some sense this new definition of "balanced" just means "accomplished according to some preference". If we have doubts we should do a poll - people will be asked to choose if their system is "balanced" or "not balanced" . All IMHO, YMMV.
Thanks, Peter. David has clearly stated he his not interested in discussing with people with different views, I will respect his wish in the thread he created and stay away of it. You just confirmed my view - unless properly associated with an explanation the word is so general it is meaningless.
I actually did provide an explanation of my use of the term, but people challenged it. That does not make it meaningless, it just means we disagree. I am disappointed that you are unwilling to discuss it. David is willing and so am I. David is simply better at it.
We have different views on what is objective and subjective data. I stick with the general concepts on this subject shared by audio scholars, reviewers and most audiophiles. I respect alternative views of other people, but can't see the point of redefining words and concepts regularly used along decades in audio and science, avoiding any possibility of exchanging points of view in an audio forum without a translator.
Perhaps some of the traditional definitions are too limited. I understand exactly what David means, especially after hearing his many systems. Sometimes in order to move forward, one must be willing to hear different thinking.
BTW, IMHO in some sense this new definition of "balanced" just means "accomplished according to some preference". If we have doubts we should do a poll - people will be asked to choose if their system is "balanced" or "not balanced" . All IMHO, YMMV.
What is the point of a poll? People are simply sharing their thoughts on various subjects, in this case the essence of the sound at David’s place. I have learned a lot by expanding the way I think about reproduced sound and hearing it. I think exposure to new ideas is good. I had hoped you would contribute.
(...) The key with David’s systems is that the high and low frequencies are not enhanced or spotlit like some other systems I have heard, including my former ones. One of the characteristics of natural sound is balance, and David seems to prioritize this when assembling his systems.
The way one perceives this reflects the reference on which the comment is made. When I listen to live music, of any genre except for rap or electronica, there is a lack of emphasis on frequencies. In this sense, David’s main system and all of his systems represent what I hear when listening to live music in terms of frequency balance. (...)
I entered the thread because your post addressed something we can objectively or subjectively discuss, even without listening to David systems - the frequency space. But I have nothing to add about David preferences.
Oh for crying out loud, Ron -- I didn't understand what the heck you were talking about, and instead of an answer, you give us this tribute to your intentions. Whatever.
1) Find the American Heritage Dictionary search window on the Internet.
2) Read and understand the definitions of the words "objective," subjective" and "balance."
3) Compare these authoritative definitions to the inaccurate and confusing ways in which these three terms are being used by some members.
Words are useful primarily to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things. Making up new and personalized meanings for commonly-accepted terms does not, in my opinion, advance our discussions about high-end audio or improve mutual understanding.
1) Find the American Heritage Dictionary search window on the Internet.
2) Read and understand the definitions of the words "objective," subjective" and "balance."
3) Compare these authoritative definitions to the inaccurate and confusing ways in which these three terms are being used by some members.
Words are useful primarily to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things. Making up new and personalized meanings for commonly-accepted terms does not, in my opinion, advance our discussions about high-end audio or improve mutual understanding.
Ron, would you mind moving these comments to David’s new thread which discusses this very issue? I would like to respond to your comment but I think it’s more appropriate over there in the other thread.
Peter, it is not a new, out-of-the-blue comment. I was responding directly to Tim's direct comment to me from a few days ago (which I saw just now).
I think it would be confusing to copy and paste my answer to Tim's comment to me without also including Tim's comment.
And Tim's exasperated comment to me can be understood, if at all, only by reference to my earlier post. So we would have to copy and paste a whole bunch of posts in order for a new reader to understand the line of discussion.
1) Find the American Heritage Dictionary search window on the Internet.
2) Read and understand the definitions of the words "objective," subjective" and "balance."
3) Compare these authoritative definitions to the inaccurate and confusing ways in which these three terms are being used by some members.
Words are useful primarily to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things. Making up new and personalized meanings for commonly-accepted terms does not, in my opinion, advance our discussions about high-end audio or improve mutual understanding.
Peter, it is not a new, out-of-the-blue comment. I was responding directly to Tim's direct comment to me from a few days ago (which I saw just now).
I think it would be confusing to copy and paste my answer to Tim's comment to me without also including Tim's comment.
And Tim's exasperated comment to me can be understood, if at all, only by reference to my earlier post. So we would have to copy and paste a whole bunch of posts in order for a new reader to understand the line of discussion.
1) Find the American Heritage Dictionary search window on the Internet.
2) Read and understand the definitions of the words "objective," subjective" and "balance."
3) Compare these authoritative definitions to the inaccurate and confusing ways in which these three terms are being used by some members.
Words are useful primarily to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things. Making up new and personalized meanings for commonly-accepted terms does not, in my opinion, advance our discussions about high-end audio or improve mutual understanding.
if you look up bright or dark in the American Heritage dictionary do you find the definitions pertinent to the way we use them as audio files to describe the sound of systems? Is not glossary necessary for some audiophiles as a guide beyond the American Heritage dictionary? I would argue some terms need additional explanation. In fact we have had discussions about what “dark” actually means. Same with black ground and same with resolution.
I don’t see why we need to exclude the word balance from this especially when some of us have explained why we use the term. You and others can surely disagree, but we are here to learn from each other by discussing, not by outright dismissing opposing points of view.
It would help me if you would explain why balance is confusing and inappropriate in this context especially after reading David’s opening post in the other thread. I have learned a great deal from David’s approach and the words he uses and the sound of my system has followed.
I am also interested in why you don’t like his use of objective and subjective in this context. Some believe we gain a view of reality through observation by our senses. Is it “our truth” or “the truth”, or is it not that simple.
I find the people who are happiest in this hobby have a philosophy or approach to reaching their goal. But first they must have a goal and be able to define and describe it. Some even swim against the current of convention and are confident in their strokes. Perhaps they are swimming across the Chanel.
Since you are now asking, here, a new question, and David has requested that we discuss this topic on his other thread, I will answer this post on that other thread.
Based on The American Heritage Dictionary definitions of "objective" and of "subjective" I believe that even 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. Longevity of experience does not transmute subjective into objective.
Scientific related views are not welcome by naturists I will answer in this thread.
Although you are basically correct, thinks are less simple than you consider. Once we carry proper statistic analyzis of subjective data it can become objective. However in order to carry the analyzis the data must obey some specific criteria, the more important being independent data points with no intrinsic correlation. Once properly analyzed the subjective data becomes a point with an associated error - for example we will just know that probably people consider that the concert hall subjective quality is 7 +/-2 , meaning that some percentage of people will associated a quality between 5 and 9 to the sound quality of this auditorium. Perceptual science works this way. This point can be considered as an objective point - if the experience was properly carried with a significant number of independent people it would not depend on the specific people chosen to carry the measurement.
I am guilty of oversimplifying and skipping some important aspects, but I think this is the main idea. Surely we the WBF high-end people are not able to get such objective data - too few and too polarized to be considered independent listeners!
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. Different audio engineers might use different equipment and place microphones in different locations in the same room, but the resulting measurements, competently performed, should be much closer to repeatable objective fact than to personal subjective opinion.)
Yes. A measurement is only valid with a certain range of conditions that must be known. For example if humidity varies a lot, the measurement is not valid anymore.
The American Heritage Dictionary's fifth definition of "balance" seems to be what you and David are aiming at: "A harmonious or satisfying arrangement or proportion of parts or elements, as in a design." Whether referring to a live concert performance or to a reproduction by an audio system I think the evaluation of balanced or not is subjective, not objective.
Your formulations of "balance" such as "nothing is spot-lit" and "nothing is exaggerated" and "no frequency range seems to stick out and call attention to itself" and "nothing seemed enhanced or rolled off" seem to be variations on your subjective perception of "harmonious or satisfying arrangement or proportion of parts or elements."
I also think that impressions such as "nothing is spot-lit" and "nothing is exaggerated" and "no frequency range seems to stick out and call attention to itself" and "nothing seemed enhanced or rolled off" are inevitably synonymous with "even" or "linear" or "smooth" or "flat" or low in variance. How could they not be?
Curiously most times the person responsible for the fine instrumental recording balance, something that approaches such definition, is not the composer, the maestro or the sound engineer - it is the producer, although this is surely a team work.
At the risk of dipping our toes into something other than DDK’s flow some threads tend to get some a bit parsed off when launching into the semantic wars. I guess the contention though can also drive us to then uncover understanding but I’d simply figure an experience is by it’s nature a subjective thing and higher order experiences like these do need abstracts to try and get these very complex experiences and concepts across.
But there is always context to support understanding and this seems to be the first thing that goes MIA when we get into heroic tussles of words. Taking a word out of context makes it’s easy to corner it into a state of wrongness but I’m being honest when I say its not really that often when I can’t get the essence of what people are trying to say if I put the effort into understanding them and I can always ask for clarification if I need. I just figure these are supposed to be conversations and conversation is rarely impossibly exact. The thought that we’ll end up with word and grammar policing going off every time someone uses a word in a way that is not exactly the way people expect or prefer it is much worse to me than any small extra effort required to clarify the intention and the thoughts or interpretations.
Conversations on experiences of others systems like the one here are too important to be choked to a small death over usage. I do get why people get frustrated but I’m way more interested in hearing about the experience of a system than overriding all latitude by making rules about how people describe things even when so often the words are never exactly enough. Perhaps it’s all a matter of balance in the end.
I revived this thread after revisiting it upon my return from Utah and meeting Tim. I enjoyed reading Mike’s observations of David’s system. It is a shame that the thread then got killed by the critique of my use of the word balance to describe what I heard. A real shame for a good thread.
