My Theory of Sonic Cues to Explain Different Sounding Systems

[Elliot G.]

My primary musical genre interest is solo vocals. I feel that the transparency and open presentation of planar dipoles achieves for me the greatest suspension of disbelief of different speaker topologies on solo vocals.

So my cues here are transparency and "breath of life," in-the-room presence.


I find the "wetness"/liquidity of tubes achieves a greater sense of the cue of "breath of life" and in-the-room presence than solid-state.



I wouldn't say records, I would say analog. If the tape sound quality is there I much prefer the tape medium closer to the generation of the original master recording than to the mass market distribution medium of vinyl.


I simply listen to what I like. And the stuff I really like I like far more than the stuff I like only a little bit. So I'd rather spend time listening to the former, rather than to the latter.

First thank you Ron for your reply and your answers.
I don't think these are sonic cues but rather your personal taste.
To me music is not wet nor dry, these are audiophile terms. My goal is always the sound of live music, live unamplified music in a real space. Voices are not liquid or wet or dry they are just voices. Some are really pretty and smooth most are not. Adele sings nothing like the Boss, Jagger nothing like Whitney they are artists/stylist/musicians. Music in a studio , most music produced, does not sound live ( perhaps a few exceptions) However if one knows the sound of a acoustic 6 string, or a violin, or a piano these experiences help define a path towards making good choices. I believe you start small and work out many believe the opposite but they are both choices and goals.
I don't go looking for gear it comes to me. That's the truth. These collisions or accidents just happen, fate whatever there is no WOO WOO about it. My goal are to play and enjoy every type of music i want to play. The gear are just parts and one has to work the parts, the room , the set up to make it work.
I think most of the premises of these discussions lie way out side of what music is and can be but rather searching for approval and permission to enjoy what people have. One needs to discover what they are trying to achieve. Your goals are yours and yours alone, not mine or someone else's. That is perfectly fine but these are not mine or perhaps anyone else's. I don't go to listen to live music searching for clues or cues. IMO your taste is the romantic, perfectly fine, but only some music fits this, not rock, not blues, not large scale orchestral etc. My taste is I like almost everything and I want a system and products that help me reach this unreachable goal. Many like the golden glow this is a coloration and one someone may choose but they need to realize that this is a coloration.
Define your goal to reach your goal. If you don't have a dedicated room then define the compromise you will live with. If you have to put your system in a family room the same. If the "speakers" have to go there that's another choice. In audio as in life one size does not fit all.
I think that more discussions of what people want and like are effective ways of understanding what and why they have the gear they have rather than mine is better than yours.

I told this joke to a few at Capfest to describe the Audiophile decision matrix. This an analogy and not meant to offend anyone

A man is dating 3 women. He is trying to decide which one to marry. He gives each woman 10 k as a gift.
The first woman goes and gets her hair styled, her nails done, her body waxed and buys a sexy outfit. She comes back and tells the man and says I did all this to look great for you.
The second woman goes out and buys a new big screen tv and a terrific leather recliner and comes back ands says Hoey I bought all this to please you
The third woman invested the money can comes back and returns the 10k and says honey I made 5 k for us to save for the future.

The man was thrilled and took a day to decide


He asked the woman with the biggest boobs to marry him!

 

[MadFloyd]

I also think this is an interesting thread - possibly because I fully agree with Ron's first two posts.

You have to pick and choose which attributes of reproduced music engage you; no system does everything correctly.

It's one of the most frustrating things about audio when you want it all!

 

[bonzo75]

I also think this is an interesting thread - possibly because I fully agree with Ron's first two posts.

You have to pick and choose which attributes of reproduced music engage you; no system does everything correctly.

It's one of the most frustrating things about audio when you want it all!

sorry, but what you have said in this post Is not consistent with what Ron said. Ron is saying they you have to pick a few cues…and you will only like systems with those cues. And someone with a different type of system will have picked up different cues.

the truth is, if you heard 10 systems with different cues that did do things somewhat equally, but differently, that appealed to your sense of realism, you might like the ten different systems.

No one is saying one of those would do it completely.

 

[Solypsa]

I wouldn't say records, I would say analog. If the tape sound quality is there I much prefer the tape medium closer to the generation of the original master recording than to the mass market distribution medium of vinyl.

Getting a tape copy that is actually earlier than the tape copy used for the vinyl master is tricky business. Maybe you have some?

 

[PeterA]

I think we all hear substantially the same thing in the concert hall if we are sitting in the same seat in the concert hall. So why do we end up with audio systems which sound very different?

Ron, I think you answered your own question with that thread you created about the four or five audiophile goals that you defined.

But that does not mean individuals have identified specific goals. I think it’s very hard to generalize about this stuff. You should rename the title of your thread to “Your theory….”

I think people have different values and some have clear goals about what they want their systems to achieve. That is why people have different systems. In my case, I heard a system and it changed my entire approach to the hobby and what I valued.

I no longer think in terms of breaking up the sound into bits and pieces and individual sonic cues. I think of it in a much more holistic sense. As a gestalt. It’s not a trade off between different attributes but rather a singular approach towards the whole presentation and live un amplified music is that reference.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I am fascinated by discussions like this. The aural perception of music and what our brains do with that raw data could be an entire field of scientific inquiry. Live and recorded.
Oh, and Ron, it was so great to meet you and chat at CAF!

It was great to meet you too!

 

[JackD201]

.........

the truth is, if you heard 10 systems with different cues that did do things somewhat equally, but differently, that appealed to your sense of realism, you might like the ten different systems.

No one is saying one of those would do it completely.

OMG What is happening? I actually agree with you completely LOL

 

[Al M.]

the truth is, if you heard 10 systems with different cues that did do things somewhat equally, but differently, that appealed to your sense of realism, you might like the ten different systems.

No one is saying one of those would do it completely.

Yes, I might like them all. But would I want to have them as my own? That's a very different question.

Much fewer than 10 would appeal to my personal priorities and tastes of reproduction, which means it is those few (or just one in the end) that I would want to own myself, if I would have to choose.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, I might like them all. But would I want to have them as my own? That's a very different question.

Much fewer than 10 would appeal to my personal priorities and tastes of reproduction, which means it is those few (or just one in the end) that I would want to own myself, if I would have to choose.

that’s fine, I used 10 as an X to indicate a random number. Still missed the OP completely which says you have to select cues from live and pick a system according to that.

it is no different from the theories Ron forces on himself before selecting gear. Rather than letting the gear experience write the theory

 

[Alrainbow]

What this topic needs is the ability to have us In a room or multi rooms like a show.
I use speakers , headphones , ciems and iems.
While speakers are a closer reality experience, the alts have varying degrees of clarity and complexity of being closer.
I think in part the views or opinions don’t agree to all of us are auditory memorie variances.
I’ve always said we don’t hear the same but this is too simplistic of a comment.
we may hear the same sounds but our brains don’t inter-pit sounds the same as each of us do.
I’ve read as an example Ron’s room impressions. I know Ron and have spoken to him many times.
His style is along mine yet he had very different views of some rooms.
I have gone deep into what we each hear and why due to an odd hearing complication I have.
I hear fine yet certain sounds in certain circumstances effect me in not liking the sounds.
it’s not how Brite or warm sound is for me.
I am very sensitive to timbre and phase.
my brain can’t handle echo chamber chamber music well. Soft playing fine but if it’s louder it’s like I’m a bat emitting sounds and can’t lock onto an object.
with two ears I’m fine but with any sounds over both ears and closing out the room it sounds fine but I don’t hear the out of my head staging some hear.
some love warmth I don’t ? I like closer to neutral how it does sound alone in front of you. are those warm people wrong to me yea but it’s my view.
a better system plays more magical tracks then a system not designed or setup well.
almost any system plays some stuff very well and then lol.

 

[Lagonda]

First thank you Ron for your reply and your answers.
I don't think these are sonic cues but rather your personal taste.
To me music is not wet nor dry, these are audiophile terms. My goal is always the sound of live music, live unamplified music in a real space. Voices are not liquid or wet or dry they are just voices. Some are really pretty and smooth most are not. Adele sings nothing like the Boss, Jagger nothing like Whitney they are artists/stylist/musicians. Music in a studio , most music produced, does not sound live ( perhaps a few exceptions) However if one knows the sound of a acoustic 6 string, or a violin, or a piano these experiences help define a path towards making good choices. I believe you start small and work out many believe the opposite but they are both choices and goals.
I don't go looking for gear it comes to me. That's the truth. These collisions or accidents just happen, fate whatever there is no WOO WOO about it. My goal are to play and enjoy every type of music i want to play. The gear are just parts and one has to work the parts, the room , the set up to make it work.
I think most of the premises of these discussions lie way out side of what music is and can be but rather searching for approval and permission to enjoy what people have. One needs to discover what they are trying to achieve. Your goals are yours and yours alone, not mine or someone else's. That is perfectly fine but these are not mine or perhaps anyone else's. I don't go to listen to live music searching for clues or cues. IMO your taste is the romantic, perfectly fine, but only some music fits this, not rock, not blues, not large scale orchestral etc. My taste is I like almost everything and I want a system and products that help me reach this unreachable goal. Many like the golden glow this is a coloration and one someone may choose but they need to realize that this is a coloration.
Define your goal to reach your goal. If you don't have a dedicated room then define the compromise you will live with. If you have to put your system in a family room the same. If the "speakers" have to go there that's another choice. In audio as in life one size does not fit all.
I think that more discussions of what people want and like are effective ways of understanding what and why they have the gear they have rather than mine is better than yours.

I told this joke to a few at Capfest to describe the Audiophile decision matrix. This an analogy and not meant to offend anyone

A man is dating 3 women. He is trying to decide which one to marry. He gives each woman 10 k as a gift.
The first woman goes and gets her hair styled, her nails done, her body waxed and buys a sexy outfit. She comes back and tells the man and says I did all this to look great for you.
The second woman goes out and buys a new big screen tv and a terrific leather recliner and comes back ands says Hoey I bought all this to please you
The third woman invested the money can comes back and returns the 10k and says honey I made 5 k for us to save for the future.

The man was thrilled and took a day to decide


He asked the woman with the biggest boobs to marry him!

Did he find her at Pure Platinum ?

 

[Folsom]

I'm kind of with Ked on this.

Yes everyone hears different things when listening, and wants to focus on them.

But all of your rules and conclusions about stereo generalities are very flawed.

 

[Ron Resnick]

the truth is, if you heard 10 systems with different cues that did do things somewhat equally, but differently, that appealed to your sense of realism, you might like the ten different systems.

Yes, this is correct that the same person might have different sets of sonic cues each of which achieves for that person the same level of suspension of disbelief from different systems. But this is just another way of saying that that person's various system preferences are on the same indifference curve.

This point does not not undermine the theory.

 

[Al M.]

Yes, this is correct that the same person might have different sets of sonic cues each of which achieves for that person the same level of suspension of disbelief from different systems. But this is just another way of saying that that person's various system preferences are on the same indifference curve.

This point does not not undermine the theory.

Indifference curve. Sounds like another way of saying, they don't know what they really want. It seems quite a few audiophiles may fall under that category.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Indifference curve. Sounds like another way of saying, they don't know what they really want. It seems quite a few audiophiles may fall under that category.

Indifference curve in this context is a theoretical thing, and not likely to be experienced in practice by an audiophile, but it is theoretically possible.

(Indifference curve is a concept in microeconomic theory -- which I personally think is very valuable and has a great deal of explanatory power for human behavior.)

 

[Ron Resnick]

But all of your rules and conclusions about stereo generalities are very flawed.

Rules say to impose behavior. Theories seek to understand and explain behavior.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, this is correct that the same person might have different sets of sonic cues each of which achieves for that person the same level of suspension of disbelief from different systems. But this is just another way of saying that that person's various system preferences are on the same indifference curve.

This point does not not undermine the theory.

It does. You are reversing the cause effect.

I only ate Indian food when I was in India. When I left for the UK, my exposure to food went up over the years as I discovered new food.

As per your theory, I should have gone out in the UK only searching for cues resembling Indian food. Rather than letting new exposure dictate new cues. And sometimes, the same cues are poor, it depends on how those cues are implemented. That’s why I don’t like many restaurants of many types of cuisines, and I like some of them, and then fine dining does not really have a specific cuisine, it is what the chef comes up with.

Your theory that we take somet extract from live that's fixed to try and connect to is not correct. Live shows form our palate…when you taste different cuisines, some will confirm to that palate, and some not, but some might be Indian, some Japanese, something else, and some just pure fine dining. You will know it when you taste it. And often times, it might surprise you.

 

[Ron Resnick]

One's cues certainly can evolve over time as one gains experience. I don't believe I ever suggested that one's cues remain fixed from the first stereo experience.

 

[bonzo75]

One's cues certainly can evolve over time as one gains experience. I don't believe I ever suggested that one's cues remain fixed from the first stereo experience.

Ok, the only cue I take from live is a sense of realism.

After listening to equipment, I can let my hifi vocab state what in that equipment/system makes me think it has a sense of realism (alternatively, why it sounds sh*t)

 

[Alrainbow]

Here is a fact I have found that effects what we hear.
since I use bone conduction headphones for two cell phones while working , it allows me to play music.
Not having over the ears or in the ears to me is nice.
now what I have noticed and am sure it effects the sound is this.

https://www.amazon.com/PHILIPS-Conduction-Headphones-Multipoint-Water-Resistant/dp/B0BSK1JWYB/ref=asc_df_B0BSK1JWYB/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=649713156688&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=12835761646491959054&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9009723&hvtargid=pla-1967182537091&psc=1&mcid=31e21e777f3531238fb9124b19bd3397