My Theory of Sonic Cues to Explain Different Sounding Systems

[morricab]

I don’t think incorrect theories can be think pieces.

For example, which cues do audiophile use from the instruments they play to choose their equipment?

Nice theory, just not valid.

To assume audiophiles have such a sonically rational process where they learn to play instruments then choose the system accordingly and trying to explain system preference differences on the back of that is giving audiophiles too much credit.

Similarly, for going to live, and taking home cues.

Plus, even those who go to live don't really try to fix cues and try to force equipment into those cues.

If incorrect theories (actually it’s just a hypothesis at this point) were not qualified as think pieces then progress in science would still be back in the Stone Age and psychology as we understand it would not exist at all.

The road to our understanding of science, technology and ourselves is literally paved with incorrect hypotheses and theories. Too many to count. So for you to state something this patently false absurd and anti-scientific. Without them and people willing to debate them and attempt to poke holes in them there is no progress in understanding…only dogma, which you seem to have constructed for yourself and attempted to impose on this thread and forum.
I think Ron’s basic post has merit, if not as a complete hypothesis then at least fir elements of it. People do seem to focus on different sonic cues …from what or where they have originated this preference can be hypothesized and debated separately. Those preferences are likely to drive gear choice preference along with other biases and preconceived notions…

BTW, there have been functional MRI studies that showed trained audiophiles (or experienced listeners as called in the paper) have the same brain function as professional musicians when listening to music. So, while not necessary to play to be an audiophile, you end up thinking like a musician when listening to music through training.

 

[Al M.]

If incorrect theories (actually it’s just a hypothesis at this point) were not qualified as think pieces then progress in science would still be back in the Stone Age and psychology as we understand it would not exist at all.

The road to our understanding of science, technology and ourselves is literally paved with incorrect hypotheses and theories. Too many to count. So for you to state something this patently false absurd and anti-scientific. Without them and people willing to debate them and attempt to poke holes in them there is no progress in understanding…only dogma, which you seem to have constructed for yourself and attempted to impose on this thread and forum.
I think Ron’s basic post has merit, if not as a complete hypothesis then at least fir elements of it. People do seem to focus on different sonic cues …from what or where they have originated this preference can be hypothesized and debated separately. Those preferences are likely to drive gear choice preference along with other biases and preconceived notions…

BTW, there have been functional MRI studies that showed trained audiophiles (or experienced listeners as called in the paper) have the same brain function as professional musicians when listening to music. So, while not necessary to play to be an audiophile, you end up thinking like a musician when listening to music through training.

Great post.

Dogma? Say it ain't so.

 

[morricab]

Great post.

Dogma? Say it ain't so.

I will add that there is precious little constructive in Ked’s criticism. He has not put forward a coherent counter hypothesis. Poking holes is one thing, but proposing a cogent alternative is how progress in understanding is made.

 

[bonzo75]

If incorrect theories (actually it’s just a hypothesis at this point) were not qualified as think pieces then progress in science would still be back in the Stone Age and psychology as we understand it would not exist at all. The road to our understanding of science, technology and ourselves is literally paved with incorrect hypotheses and theories. Too many to count. So for you to state something this patently false absurd and anti-scientific. Without them and people willing to debate them and attempt to poke holes in them there is no progress in understanding…only dogma, which you seem to have constructed for yourself and attempted to impose on this thread and forum.

Hypothesis do not take in knowingly incorrect facts. Yours is a general strawman statement nothing to do with the discussion, picking up one statement to reply to.

I think Ron’s basic post has merit, if not as a complete hypothesis then at least fir elements of it. People do seem to focus on different sonic cues …from what or where they have originated this preference can be hypothesized and debated separately. Those preferences are likely to drive gear choice preference along with other biases and preconceived notions…

No one denied people have different cues. How they originated for is only being debated. You seem to have completely missed the debate then, this is the only point - whether they take away cues from live that we are arguing about.

BTW, there have been functional MRI studies that showed trained audiophiles (or experienced listeners as called in the paper) have the same brain function as professional musicians when listening to music. So, while not necessary to play to be an audiophile, you end up thinking like a musician when listening to music through training.

Lol, what's the relevance of this? to Ron's OP - do you throw in random trivia to give a sense of knowledge? Ron's OP is that audiophiles take different cues from live shows to select systems, and their systems differ due to these different cues they take away. How is the above point of some trained audiophiles functioning as a musician even relevant to that?

 

[PeterA]

I will add that there is precious little constructive in Ked’s criticism. He has not put forward a coherent counter hypothesis. Poking holes is one thing, but proposing a cogent alternative is how progress in understanding is made.

Ked offered the great observation that not everyone uses live music as a reference. That’s the whole premise of Ron‘s theory. How does the theory address selecting gear by those who don’t listen to live music?

The criticism I offered is that I personally don’t pick apart the sound of music when I go to a live performance I take in the gestalt and have a holistic appreciation for the performance. Then when I go to select gear or assemble a system, it is with that lens of wholeness and completeness that I judge the quality of components and ultimate system and set up.

In response to that criticism, I was told I’m really no different from anyone else, I’m just not aware of the sonic cues I prioritize so in my case it’s all subconscious and you don’t know what they are and we can’t name them or define them. Where does that get us?

My counter theory is that people think of live music as a holistic experience and they don’t generally break it apart into bits and pieces to inform them of what kind of gear to get.

Listening to a string quartet and saying that it’s all about tone and ignoring dynamics and scale and energy and everything else you experience is a flawed observation. If this is what people do, it must come from the premise that audio gear is inherently compromised and we have to choose which gear matches spme sonic cues we picked away from listening to live music. The whole theory is being approached backwards in my opinion.

First of all, only some people listen to live music and use it as their experiential reference. So how does Ron’s theory address all the people who do not listen to live music to choose their gear?

I would start over and develope a better premise. I would ask about how people select the gear for their systems. Then I would ask how many people actually use live music to inform their decisions. Then I would try to look for a correlation between the two and ask for a specific examples of sonic cues that are identified and used to select gear. We have been taught to pick apart music, but I don’t know how many people actually do that.

The magazines tell us that some gear has really black backgrounds and produces pinpoint imaging. Some people search and strive for those qualities. What does that have to do with live music? This theory raises questions and causes confusion rather than adding clarity to the gear selection process.

 

[morricab]

Hypothesis do not take in knowingly incorrect facts. Yours is a general strawman statement nothing to do with the discussion, picking up one statement to reply to.





No one denied people have different cues. How they originated for is only being debated. You seem to have completely missed the debate then, this is the only point - whether they take away cues from live that we are arguing about.



Lol, what's the relevance of this? to Ron's OP - do you throw in random trivia to give a sense of knowledge? Ron's OP is that audiophiles take different cues from live shows to select systems, and their systems differ due to these different cues they take away. How is the above point of some trained audiophiles functioning as a musician even relevant to that?

Which incorrect “facts” do you refer to? You mean your opinions parading as facts?

 

[Atmasphere]

An audiophile whose most valued sonic cue is upper bass/lower midrange "weight" and density is unlikely to select a full-range electrostatic loudspeaker.

The Sound Lab ESLs are very good at upper bass/lower midrange "weight" and density. They play deep bass very well too! They are also very good at dynamic contrast, owing to not having a voice coil with thermal compression.

 

[morricab]

The criticism I offered is that I personally don’t pick apart the sound of music when I go to a live performance I take in the gestalt and have a holistic appreciation for the performance. Then when I go to select gear or assemble a system, it is with that lens of wholeness and completeness that I judge the quality of components and ultimate system and set up.

In response to that criticism, I was told I’m really no different from anyone else, I’m just not aware of the sonic cues I prioritize so in my case it’s all subconscious and you don’t know what they are and we can’t name them or define them. Where does that get us?

My counter theory is that people think of live music as a holistic experience and they don’t generally break it apart into bits and pieces to inform them of what kind of gear to get.

listening to a string quartet and saying that it’s all about tone and ignoring dynamics in scale and energy and everything else you experience is a flawed observation. If this is what people do, it must come from the premise that audio gear is inherently compromised and we have to choose which gear matches which sonic cues we take away from listening to live music. The whole theory is being approached backwards in my opinion.

First of all, only some people listen to live music and use it as they are experiential reference. So how does Ron’s theory address all the people who do not listen to live music to choose their gear?

I would start over and work on a better promise. I asked question about how do people select the gear for their systems. Then I would ask how many people actually use live music to inform their decisions. Then I would try to look for a correlation between the two and ask for a specific examples of sonic cues that are identified and used to select gear.

The magazines tell us that some gear has really black backgrounds and produces pinpoint imaging. Some people search and strive for those qualities. What does that have to do with live music? This theory raises questions and causes confusion rather than adding clarity to the gear selection process.

People hear enough live sound…and music to have an intuitive idea of what sounds “right”. They may not have zeroed in on but they aren’t clueless. Then they take recordings that they think they know and already have some expectations for what they should sound like. As I said, the cues can come from lots of experiences but there are always cues. The things you identify with when listening to your stereo that remind you or give you the feel of live are cues. Your brain is saying “ah that right there feels live”. It is probably a combination of multiple cues adding up to the Gestalt but those cues resonate in your brain’s pattern recognition system. Just because you can’t pin point them or verbalize them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Next time you are at a concert…do the experiment and think about what you hear…don’t just emote.

 

[morricab]

The Sound Lab ESLs are very good at upper bass/lower midrange "weight" and density. They play deep bass very well too! They are also very good at dynamic contrast, owing to not having a voice coil with thermal compression.

So are big Acoustats…some of best bass I ever heard were my Spectra 4400s.

 

[Argonaut]

Oh My … Holistic … The *New* Natural Sound ,

 

[PeterA]

People hear enough live sound…and music to have an intuitive idea of what sounds “right”. They may not have zeroed in on but they aren’t clueless. Then they take recordings that they think they know and already have some expectations for what they should sound like. As I said, the cues can come from lots of experiences but there are always cues. The things you identify with when listening to your stereo that remind you or give you the feel of live are cues. Your brain is saying “ah that right there feels live”. It is probably a combination of multiple cues adding up to the Gestalt but those cues resonate in your brain’s pattern recognition system. Just because you can’t pin point them or verbalize them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Next time you are at a concert…do the experiment and think about what you hear…don’t just emote.

I was just at a concert last week and I thought about what I heard. I paid particular attention to listening perspective of our mid hall seats relative to the recording perspective on similar music from my system. And to scale and imaging and sense of immediacy. All this because they were not my usual seats so I was paying attention to the difference. Otherwise I just enjoyed the great performance.

If I hear a stereo system and the tone sounds just like a string quartet but the dynamics or sense of presence or energy is missing, I’m not going say that reminds me of live. All of the cues have to be working to create the illusion of live. I don’t think you can cherry pick some sonic cues just because certain gear is better at them than at others.

Live unamplified music sounds balanced. A convincing audio system should also sound balanced and not be focused on a group of sonic cues. If a system does not sound balanced, it just doesn’t sound very convincing to me.

 

[Lagonda]

Hypothesis do not take in knowingly incorrect facts. Yours is a general strawman statement nothing to do with the discussion, picking up one statement to reply to.





No one denied people have different cues. How they originated for is only being debated. You seem to have completely missed the debate then, this is the only point - whether they take away cues from live that we are arguing about.



Lol, what's the relevance of this? to Ron's OP - do you throw in random trivia to give a sense of knowledge? Ron's OP is that audiophiles take different cues from live shows to select systems, and their systems differ due to these different cues they take away. How is the above point of some trained audiophiles functioning as a musician even relevant to that?

Can we get a theory about why the most dogmatic audiophiles seem to be SET and horn lovers !

 

[morricab]

Can we get a theory about why the most dogmatic audiophiles seem to be SET and horn lovers !

I think you mean the most experienced and talented…

 

[Lagonda]

Hm !

 

[AudioHR]

If incorrect theories (actually it’s just a hypothesis at this point) were not qualified as think pieces then progress in science would still be back in the Stone Age and psychology as we understand it would not exist at all.

The road to our understanding of science, technology and ourselves is literally paved with incorrect hypotheses and theories. Too many to count. So for you to state something this patently false absurd and anti-scientific. Without them and people willing to debate them and attempt to poke holes in them there is no progress in understanding…only dogma, which you seem to have constructed for yourself and attempted to impose on this thread and forum.
I think Ron’s basic post has merit, if not as a complete hypothesis then at least fir elements of it. People do seem to focus on different sonic cues …from what or where they have originated this preference can be hypothesized and debated separately. Those preferences are likely to drive gear choice preference along with other biases and preconceived notions…

BTW, there have been functional MRI studies that showed trained audiophiles (or experienced listeners as called in the paper) have the same brain function as professional musicians when listening to music. So, while not necessary to play to be an audiophile, you end up thinking like a musician when listening to music through training.

Right on as far as I am concerned ! I do want to hear others viewpoints though because I think others viewpoints create better understanding.

Frequent and contrary positions should be welcomed but not automatically assumed correct. The loudest most authoritative sounding voice in the room is not always right!

I also think Ron's post has merit, otherwise I wouldn't be commenting.

 

[AudioHR]

I don’t think incorrect theories can be think pieces.

For example, which cues do audiophile use from the instruments they play to choose their equipment?

Nice theory, just not valid.

To assume audiophiles have such a sonically rational process where they learn to play instruments then choose the system accordingly and trying to explain system preference differences on the back of that is giving audiophiles too much credit.

Similarly, for going to live, and taking home cues.

Plus, even those who go to live don't really try to fix cues and try to force equipment into those cues.

How can a theory or hypothesis be incorect?

I do love like your willingness to engage but you are kind of taking this discussion sideways in order to prove your point. Maybe you do need to go back and reread what Ron has actually said, lol!

 

[PeterA]

Can we get a theory about why the most dogmatic audiophiles seem to be SET and horn lovers !

I actually find big four tower systems for scale, tubes for mid range warmth, and analog only as a more dogmatic position then Bonzo advocates. The defense is that it’s only personal preference based on experience. But that defense works for everybody.

Bonzo is actually more open to alternative approaches then many here. He also has more exposure to both live music and to different system configurations and presentations.

This accusation of dogmatism is actually fairly unfounded in my opinion. Even the natural sound approach does not specify specific typologies citing both analog and digital, tubes and solid-state, horns and cones as able to get you there. Even modest desktop systems and car stereos. It’s more about references, values and characteristics then it is about specific typologies. I see dogmatism most prevalent from those who criticize the horn SET hobbyists. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.

 

[PeterA]

How can a theory or hypothesis be incorect?

I do love like your willingness to engage but you are kind of taking this discussion sideways in order to prove your point. Maybe you do need to go back and reread what Ron has actually said, lol!

I interpret Bonzo’s comments to mean that he thinks the premise for the theory is flawed. And I happen to agree with him but think the theory is based on two flawed premises.

 

[Lagonda]

I actually find big four tower systems for scale, tubes for mid range warmth, and analog only as a more dogmatic position then Bonzo advocates. The defense is that it’s only personal preference based on experience. But that defense works for everybody.

Bonzo is actually more open to alternative approaches then many here. He also has more exposure to both live music and to different system configurations and presentations.

This accusation of dogmatism is actually fairly unfounded in my opinion. Even the natural sound approach does not specify specific typologies citing both analog and digital, tubes and solid-state, horns and cones as able to get you there. Even modest desktop systems and car stereos. It’s more about references, values and characteristics then it is about specific typologies. I see dogmatism most prevalent from those who criticize the horn SET hobbyists. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.

I was not targeting Ked specifically, the quote left out the back and forth banter between him and Brad, but SET/horn lovers are definitely a special breed ! No mention of natural, i'm not getting anyway near that topic !

 

[Ron Resnick]

The Sound Lab ESLs are very good at upper bass/lower midrange "weight" and density. They play deep bass very well too! They are also very good at dynamic contrast, owing to not having a voice coil with thermal compression.

Yes! I forgot about Sound Lab ESLs. Please forgive me.

I was thinking Martin-Logan CLS, CLX, Sanders ESL when I wrote the post.