My Theory of Sonic Cues to Explain Different Sounding Systems

[Alrainbow]

These have an effect on the sound also if we wear hats that are heavy or tight.
some say even our heads effect what we hear.
it’s very true and easy to confirm.
if I place one hand on my face and talk it changes how I sound. oddly it changes the sound clarity , makes it almost muddy and when I let go seems clear.

 

[bonzo75]

some say even our heads effect what we hear

Yes, hard headed or bone headed people don't hear so well

 

[Kingrex]

Ron, I feel you pulled this idea from thin air that a suspension of disbelief comes from recreating a live sound. That concept may be l far from a reality.

And then you seem to imply everyone wants to recreate, or should want to recreate that sound. Again, Why should that be my or anyone elses focus.

You then ask us to select specific attributes of a live sound we focus on.
Did I missunderstand? It that what your saying. That we should all have a goal of recreating the sound heard at a live venue?

What may give someone goose bumps is a big fat facefull of overpowering bass. Nothing real at all. Just a dense, immersion of sound felt throughout the body.

I feel like all the pissing, bickering and fighting on many forums stems from this idea we all should have some similar goal, and if we don't adhere to it, we're flawed in our thinking and our systems are inferior. We failed to achieve Natural Sound.

Again, I might totally missunderstand what your saying. I seem to do that all to often.
Also, my writing is many times dry and to the point. I fail in the use of niceties and flowering language which may make my comments seem pointed and insulting. That is not my intent. I'm only sharing my observation.

 

[Tangram]

Ron, I feel you pulled this idea from thin air that a suspension of disbelief comes from recreating a live sound. That concept may be l far from a reality.

And then you seem to imply everyone wants to recreate, or should want to recreate that sound. Again, Why should that be my or anyone elses focus.

You then ask us to select specific attributes of a live sound we focus on.
Did I missunderstand? It that what your saying. That we should all have a goal of recreating the sound heard at a live venue?

What may give someone goose bumps is a big fat facefull of overpowering bass. Nothing real at all. Just a dense, immersion of sound felt throughout the body.

I feel like all the pissing, bickering and fighting on many forums stems from this idea we all should have some similar goal, and if we don't adhere to it, we're flawed in our thinking and our systems are inferior. We failed to achieve Natural Sound.

Again, I might totally missunderstand what your saying. I seem to do that all to often.
Also, my writing is many times dry and to the point. I fail in the use of niceties and flowering language which may make my comments seem pointed and insulting. That is not my intent. I'm only sharing my observation.

We can all thank (blame) Harry Pearson for pushing the idea that there’s only one “correct” sound, one “absolute” sound. He’s long gone, but the bickering continues.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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)

Without resorting to hi-fi vocabulary, are you able to break down or distill out some of the elements of that sense of realism?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, I feel you pulled this idea from thin air that a suspension of disbelief comes from recreating a live sound. That concept may be l far from a reality.

And then you seem to imply everyone wants to recreate, or should want to recreate that sound. Again, Why should that be my or anyone elses focus.

You then ask us to select specific attributes of a live sound we focus on.
Did I missunderstand? It that what your saying. That we should all have a goal of recreating the sound heard at a live venue?

I feel you are misunderstanding me or I feel I must've misstated something. One of my goals with the list of objectives of high-end audio is precisely to help people understand that different people have different sonic objectives. Suggesting that everybody has the same sonic goal or should have the same sonic goal is the exact opposite of what I am trying to do.

By "re-creating a live sound" you must be referring to the particular objective "create a sound that seems live." My objective is different than your recharacterization, because I don't believe it is possible to create a live sound from a sound reproduction system. The goal as stated by me embraces this reality by suggesting only creating a sound that seems live. (This may very well be only a semantic difference here.)

I am not suggesting that that particular objective should be anyone's audiophile objective. I am suggesting only that it is one of the possible objectives.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I feel like all the pissing, bickering and fighting on many forums stems from this idea we all should have some similar goal, and if we don't adhere to it, we're flawed in our thinking and our systems are inferior.

I agree with you completely here. I have said innumerable times that much of the fencing and talking past each other arises from people not understanding that we have different high-end audio objectives.

 

[Ron Resnick]

What may give someone goose bumps is a big fat facefull of overpowering bass. Nothing real at all. Just a dense, immersion of sound felt throughout the body.

This gels with my theory. If a particular audiophile's sonic cue is overpowering bass then the system that that audiophile creates will achieve the overpowering bass he/she associates with his/her memory of the sound of live music, and he/she will love that boom bass system.

People who subscribe to other cues will listen to this overpowering bass system and not care for it, and scratch their heads as to how the first audiophile could think that his overpowering bass system sounds natural or sounds like live music. This is how the sonic cues theory explains why we end up with a great variance in the sounds of our respective systems -- even though each of us hears substantially the same thing in the same seat in the concert hall.

 

[PeterA]

I feel like all the pissing, bickering and fighting on many forums stems from this idea we all should have some similar goal, and if we don't adhere to it, we're flawed in our thinking and our systems are inferior. We failed to achieve Natural Sound.

Rex, great observation. Everyone can have different values and different goals. And people should pursue their own interests, at least in my opinion. Natural sound is only one approach, no better or worse than others. Some hobbyists clearly value something different. Arguments stem from those thinking others are telling them there’s only one right way, and they become defensive. There are many ways to find joy in this hobby.

 

[bonzo75]

Without resorting to hi-fi vocabulary, are you able to break down or distill out some of the elements of that sense of realism?

No - at live, cello sounds like cello, violin sounds like violin, piano sounds like piano, orchestra sounds like...you get the picture. I don't have to distil anything in a live concert.

Only when I listen to a hifi system, do I have to distil what the hifi system does to the above. You incorrectly keep thinking people come away from the live show thinking how do I distil this. Maybe those who don't go to listen to the concert, but go there to think how I do take this concert and fit it to my system so I can tell people on the forum that the concert sounded like my system at home, can do it,.

 

[bonzo75]

I agree with you completely here. I have said innumerable times that much of the fencing and talking past each other arises from people not understanding that we have different high-end audio objectives.

No, I think we also have different experiences, differing bragging objectives, status seekouts, etc.

As I said many times, only if you can establish people have similar gear experiences, recording experiences, some live exposure, and a good audition process, will I accept that people who have this background and differ have differing system tastes.

If you simply introduce me to a guy who listens to Keith Don’t Go, some digitally recorded LP, has one Four Seasons in his library to say he listens to everything, and he has different tastes, I would just think this guy should not be in audio – he is better off buying an expensive car, watch, yacht, or something else. Maybe he just likes to spend and chat, which is why he is here.

 

[Ron Resnick]

You incorrectly keep thinking people come away from the live show thinking how do I distil this.

Just to be clear I am not suggesting necessarily that people do this consciously and with volition. Some people -- maybe most audiophiles -- select sonic cues subconsciously.

 

[bonzo75]

People who subscribe to other cues will listen to this overpowering bass system and not care for it, and scratch their heads as to how the first audiophile could think that his overpowering bass system sounds natural or sounds like live music. This is how the sonic cues theory explains why we end up with a great variance in the sounds of our respective systems -- even though each of us hears substantially the same thing in the same seat in the concert hall.

Disagree. I have heard systems with overpowering bass that seem real, and those that seem fake. And I have heard systems without overpowering bass that seem real, and those that seem fake. If I had only heard the system with overpowering bass, I would have thought this is what it takes to make it real.

 

[Ron Resnick]

As I said many times, only if you can establish people have similar gear experiences, recording experiences, some live exposure, and a good audition process, will I accept that people who have this background and differ have differing system tastes.

I have no problem applying the theory to your curated set of audiophiles.

For this subset of audiophiles – – the members of which satisfy your requirements here – – I believe the sonic cues theory explains why even they have systems which sound very different.

 

[PeterA]

This gels with my theory. If a particular audiophile's sonic cue is overpowering bass then the system that that audiophile creates will achieve the overpowering bass he/she associates with his/her memory of the sound of live music, and he/she will love that boom bass system.

People who subscribe to other cues will listen to this overpowering bass system and not care for it, and scratch their heads as to how the first audiophile could think that his overpowering bass system sounds natural or sounds like live music. This is how the sonic cues theory explains why we end up with a great variance in the sounds of our respective systems -- even though each of us hears substantially the same thing in the same seat in the concert hall.

Perhaps it’s not a sonic cue at all. Perhaps it’s simply an effect he prefers. Why are you assuming he prefers overpowering bass because he heard it listening to a live performance? Who is defining this sense of bass as sounding natural? He may just like the experience whether or not it has anything to do with live music or sounding natural and choose gear and set up approaches that give him this effect and experience.

 

[bonzo75]

I have no problem applying the theory to your curated set of audiophiles.

For this subset of audiophiles – – the members of which satisfy your requirements here – – I believe the sonic cues theory explains why even they have systems which sound very different.

I find very low delta here on agreement that different systems/components sound similar. We usually agree.

Regarding what people own, that has to do with the journey and budget and the way they upgraded/traded in to get there.

But usually, when I listen to similar recordings with people, I usually get similar agreements/judgements. When we part, it might change if they are using different types of recordings or music.

I also find a high agreement on similar recordings with people who do not share my classical music tastes.

The fact that Bill and I an identical Turntable, style of amp and speaker choice after listening to G's Vyger Mayer Pnoe is not surprising at all. And you writing the report on Pnoe that you did then did not surprise me at all. Bill and I also agreed on what component changes would not make that system sound good.

 

[PeterA]

I have no problem applying the theory to your curated set of audiophiles.

For this subset of audiophiles – – the members of which satisfy your requirements here – – I believe the sonic cues theory explains why even they have systems which sound very different.

Ron, you keep presenting this theory as “the“ theory. Can you point us to where others discuss this theory? If not, it seems to me that it is your theory and you should discuss it in those terms. As I have never read about this or heard about it elsewhere, I presume it is your theory. And I would like to understand more about what you think of as “sonic cues“. Are they just audio file attributes listed in the glossary?

My parents for instance don’t think about these sonic cues at all or at least they do not discuss and theorize about them. They simply know when they hear a stereo system that reminds them of the sound of real instruments. Same with the furniture maker who built my audio rack. I had him over and we directly compared two different lines of electronics. He is also a musician, and he simply said one set of electronics makes the system sound much more real.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Perhaps it’s not a sonic cue at all. Perhaps it’s simply an effect he prefers.

For the time being I will consider the "effect" to be substantially the same as a "sonic cue."

Why are you assuming he prefers overpowering bass because he heard it listening to a live performance?

I think you are correct. The sonic cue could derive from other than listening to a live performance. I have to think about this a bit more.

I focused on a live performance because that is a context we understand here.

Who is defining this sense of bass as sounding natural?

I never suggested the overpowering bass sounds natural. I suggested only that the overpowering bass is what reminds the audiophile in question of his memory of the sound of music.

I wrote that the other audiophiles listening to his overpowering bass system scratch their heads as to how he/she could think the overpowering bass system sounds at all natural

He may just like the experience whether or not it has anything to do with live music or sounding natural and choose gear and set up approaches that give him this effect and experience.

I think you are correct here. I have to think about this a little bit more.

But whatever is the overpowering bass person's objective, it is that overpowering bass which cues him into the sound he wants.

 

[PeterA]

For the time being I will consider the "effect" to be substantially the same as a "sonic cue."


I think you are correct. The sonic cue could derive from other than listening to a live performance. I have to think about this a bit more.

I focused on a live performance because that is a context we understand here.


I never suggested the overpowering bass sounds natural. I suggested only that the overpowering bass is what reminds the audiophile in question of his memory of the sound of music.

I wrote that the other audiophiles listening to his overpowering bass system scratch their heads as to how he/she could think the overpowering bass system sounds at all natural


I think you are correct here. I have to think about this a little bit more.

But whatever is the overpowering bass person's objective, it is that overpowering bass which cues him into the sound he wants.

I think your multiple assumptions do not help your argument Ron. Here is another one you just throw out at us without seeming to really consider the implications: I wrote that the other audiophiles listening to his overpowering bass system scratch their heads as to how he/she could think the overpowering bass system sounds at all natural."

Who in your scenario is claiming anything sounds natural? How do you know this is what others are scratching their heads about? I heard a system the other day where the owner just replaced his old speakers. The presentation was very different. There is now much more bass weight. At times I thought it was too much, and at other times, it sounded about right to me. He never asked me if I thought his system sounded more natural. When he asked what I thought, I told him there was more bass weight than I remember his old system having. It now sounds less thin and light, less fatiguing, more convincing. It was a good move, IMO, and he seems happy with the change.

Wanting a system to sound natural is a specific value. People approach their systems with different values and therefore have different goals, assuming they have goals. Of course, there is some overlap and similarities between hobbyists. In my opinion, you are extrapolating your own experience and trying to expand it into some theory about why systems sound different. You assume people go to concerts and choose specific sonic cues. Frankly, I am having difficulty following the discussion. Kedar is pretty active quoting and posting.

This stream of consciousness thread is not allowing me to suspend my disbelief about your theory of relative sonic cues to explain the differences in the systems people choose to best present their audiophile goals. I respect that you are thinking about it a bit more....

 

[bonzo75]

What this thread also misses is that many customers don’t really have a sonic value. Many hifi systems are just where they end up. Initial purchases, dealer trade in, upgrade, try next new component, buy without listening, etc. There just isn’t a proper audition process.

Justification on forum for ownership of a component is being confused for trying to align to sonic cues to live. Quite a stretch imo. Like the people using live sonic cues on this forum is even lower than the number of people having a decent sounding system.