Natural Sound

[PeterA]

Can we conclude you still read reviews?

As far as I see it, your veto list will be very large - including our dear Tim.

BTW, I think that I (and perhaps some others) do not see the term "black background" to mean absence of everything, but in opposition to a "dirty background" .

Fransisco, I have read two "professional" reviews in the last year. Tim's review of the LP2.1, and JV's very old review of the ML2. I skimmed one about my old preamp because I was getting ready to sell it but it lacked substance. I let both subscriptions to SP and TAS lapse years ago.

I can't seem to avoid snippets of reviews you keep inserting into this thread.

You clearly have your idea about what "black background" means, and I am simply saying I now recognize it as something to avoid.

 

[PeterA]

Natural men sail Wood.

And I try hard to never turn on the single stroke engine because that piston is either a 1 or a 0. It disrupts the natural sound of the wind and sea.

 

[ack]

Tasos, I respectfully disagree. People seem to be focusing on "blackness" as an attribute. I presume you refer to a lowering of noise. If that is indeed the case, and it is actually what the reviewers mean, why do they not simply write that a component has lower noise? Describing it as a "black background", or worse as Roy Gregory describes it in the quote Fransisco chose to share with us as "the blackness of the soundstage background", is nonsensical to me. How can a soundstage be black, unless it is a black box theater? No concert hall I have ever been in exhibits this characteristic.

It means there is no background noise *from the equipment* to interfere with the recording and playback. We are not talking about empty un-echoic chambers or anything like that. We are talking about raising or not raising of the inherent noise floor as the music goes, and the lower the "inherent" (as I wrote earlier) noise, the better the reproduction is. That's the blacker background, and that's what enables the recording to speak better for itself. No one said you should not be able to hear any background noise in the venue as picked by the microphones. You have the definitions backwards. If your new system is quieter now and you hear more hall ambience etc, you have blacker backgrounds.

 

[DaveC]

But why would anyone want the latter? If it bothers you that much, there are digital audio editors offering a variety of (free or inexpensive) plug-ins to accomplish that, and after a lot of enthusiasm (remember NoNoise?) in the early days of digital they are now used mostly by hobbyists to work on poor recordings.

The point is maybe some systems do this mechanically, via cabling, isolation, etc. You'd think nobody would want that but it seems like some do, because the result seems to be lower noise and better image specificity, some see that as better. But on the way a lot of information is also lost that contains spatial cues and makes timbre sound more realistic.

This is just a theory of why there are competing views on both subjects (black backgrounds and pinpoint imaging). I don't think experienced audio lovers preferences are that different, I think it's simply difficult to communicate and we're not all talking about the same thing.

 

[microstrip]

(...) What I personally discovered in my system where I used cables from a manufacturer as well as isolation boxes from the same manufacturer and everyone who used the same remarked how sound emerged from blackness and disappeared into blackness. (...)

In general people in the high-end do not call such effect as "black background". You are correct, I tried several power cables with the Lamm's and some of them produced it - but they sounded great with other electronics.

Please read what the reviewers write in their articles - they write it as a quality approaching real music, not as a pejorative artifact.

 

[rbbert]

It appears that some posters here are firmly attached to the completely wrong meaning of “black background” in listening and the audiophile lexicon, and it’s increasingly hard to understand why.

 

[microstrip]

Fransisco, I have read two "professional" reviews in the last year. Tim's review of the LP2.1, and JV's very old review of the ML2. I skimmed one about my old preamp because I was getting ready to sell it but it lacked substance. I let both subscriptions to SP and TAS lapse years ago.

I can't seem to avoid snippets of reviews you keep inserting into this thread.

You clearly have your idea about what "black background" means, and I am simply saying I now recognize it as something to avoid.

You enjoyed Tim great review of the LP2.1, please read from him in another context - about equipment (Shunyata cables , not real music as he refers in the LP2.1 review)

"The Sigma Phono Cable delivers a repertory of highly specialized innovations (protected by five international patents) aimed directly at getting its signal delivered original and intact. Sigma is the top model in Shunyata's current lineup, followed by the Alpha, Delta, and Venom lines. All these cable lines share a common set of quality conductor metals with specific characteristics. As you move up the four-step hierarchy from Venom to Sigma, each succeeding line gains features and technologies. Each feature brings a little more quiet, a little blacker background. As noise and distortion reduce, more and more information emerges from within the original signal. "
Again, we can't make a direct translation between real music and sound reproduction.

 

[Steve williams]

Sure, you like some noise as well; it has an effect, one manifestation of which is greater presence and forwardness. It also sounds like you lost that mesmerizing background blackness. If you don't like black backgrounds, I guess you don't. "Natural" sound is another overloaded term used in here and elsewhere; Peter keeps referring to it in terms of diffuse sound - well, diffuse sound is diffuse sound, and "natural" sound has quite a number of attributes associated with it. The presence or lack of diffusion does not make the sound more natural or less natural either; it just makes it more or less diffuse. And what the microphones pick up - typically situated close to instruments - relate very little to what one hears in one's own living room with his guests just speaking and talking to each other.

My system is essentially the same as when you heard it a few years ago

 

[microstrip]

It appears that some posters here are firmly attached to the completely wrong meaning of “black background” in listening and the audiophile lexicon, and it’s increasingly hard to understand why.

Yes, they report interesting experiences, but forget that someone who does not read high-end magazines and ignores reviews can't be a specialist in explaining the reviewer use of the words.

We can disagree in part with their lexicon - it is a subjective and sometimes figurative language - but as they are read by many hundreds thousands of audiophiles these words and its meaning become common in audiophile talk.

This subject is surely multifaceted - some people just consider that it is a feature that can be measured with a soundmeter, all else is noise ...

 

[PeterA]

You enjoyed Tim great review of the LP2.1, please read from him in another context - about equipment (Shunyata cables , not real music as he refers in the LP2.1 review)

"The Sigma Phono Cable delivers a repertory of highly specialized innovations (protected by five international patents) aimed directly at getting its signal delivered original and intact. Sigma is the top model in Shunyata's current lineup, followed by the Alpha, Delta, and Venom lines. All these cable lines share a common set of quality conductor metals with specific characteristics. As you move up the four-step hierarchy from Venom to Sigma, each succeeding line gains features and technologies. Each feature brings a little more quiet, a little blacker background. As noise and distortion reduce, more and more information emerges from within the original signal. "
Again, we can't make a direct translation between real music and sound reproduction.

And yet Tim does reference real music in his excellent review of the LP2.1

Regarding the Shunyata cables, Tim and I seem to have had different experiences. I compared directly some highly touted NR noise reduction Shunyata power cords recently in a friend's system. They were gastly. They did indeed produce blacker backgrounds, but along with them, they sucked out information and the sounded became dead and the music lifeless. Stock power cords sounded better, so did old cheap Chinese cords. The point is that yes, some people hear this effect, and I refer to it as an effect, and they like it. I do not. Simple as that. We can all have our preferences and disagreements about meanings of terms. Please don't post the audiophile glossary of terms here on this thread.

 

[microstrip]

And yet Tim does reference real music in his excellent review of the LP2.1

Regarding the Shunyata cables, Tim and I seem to have had different experiences. I compared directly some highly touted NR noise reduction Shunyata power cords recently in a friend's system. They were gastly. They did indeed produce blacker backgrounds, but along with them, they sucked out information and the sounded became dead and the music lifeless. Stock power cords sounded better, so did old cheap Chinese cords. The point is that yes, some people hear this effect, and I refer to it as an effect, and they like it. I do not. Simple as that. We can all have our preferences and disagreements about meanings of terms. Please don't post the audiophile glossary of terms here on this thread.

I am not addressing Tim preferences or suggesting a talk on cables, as you are starting.

But hoped that the quote would help you to understand what audiophiles mean with the use of the word reading how a reviewer we both praise uses it. Tim was clear - more, not less information in his system at that time.

 

[Lagonda]

And yet Tim does reference real music in his excellent review of the LP2.1

Regarding the Shunyata cables, Tim and I seem to have had different experiences. I compared directly some highly touted NR noise reduction Shunyata power cords recently in a friend's system. They were gastly. They did indeed produce blacker backgrounds, but along with them, they sucked out information and the sounded became dead and the music lifeless. Stock power cords sounded better, so did old cheap Chinese cords. The point is that yes, some people hear this effect, and I refer to it as an effect, and they like it. I do not. Simple as that. We can all have our preferences and disagreements about meanings of terms. Please don't post the audiophile glossary of terms here on this thread.

Peter, keeping this thread about your new system and closely related matters is a lost cause, that boat has sailed long time ago ! Take pride in the fact that your threads always end up touching every subject in audio and entice everyone to contribute !

 

[tima]

I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes
I have to turn my head until my darkness goes.
The Rolling Stones- Paint it Black

We need a forum curator or librarian. A year ago we generated a 98 post thread entitled Blackness/Black Background.

Let me draw your attention to a post therein that quotes Roger Skoff from his Positive Feedback column "What isn't Black? Roger Skoff Writes about the Real Sound of Sound"

"Musical backgrounds aren't black. Even if recorded in an open space, the venue is almost always filled with the sounds of other instruments or performers, and with the ambient noise of the venue itself. That makes the background almost always "white," and the better the background can be recorded and the better it can be retrieved and recreated by your playback equipment, the more realistic your sound will be, and the more music will be there for you to enjoy.

That was after we had an 102 post thread that started in 2018 and carried through April of 2021: Is a Lower Noise Floor, are "Blacker" Blacks, Consonant With the Music?

Did we forget about all that ... or are we just bored and need to argue ... again ... some more?

I see people turn their heads and quickly look away.
Like a newborn baby, it just happens every day.
- ibid

Today I go to the dentist and you guys are still talking about black backgrounds. And Francisco has further brought reviewers into the discussion, including moi. Easy target, why not?

For the record, in that second thread I did say: "heh - I blame reviewers."

Imo there seems to be a what? Bit of confusion to the current discussion? Confusion between what we hear in hear in the concert hall and what we hear in our listening room. The side discussion about acoustics in performance spaces seemed to rise up after Peter made this remark:

And yet people refer to the black backgrounds in the concert hall. What is that? I never hear it when in a concert hall, not when it is empty, and not when it is full during moments of silence

A wee bit of pushback - I don't read here at WBF or in reviews where writers make a claim for black backgrounds in the concert hall. The question as I understand it is whether the black backgrounds observed in listening rooms from stereo components are representative of what is heard from live acoustic music. (Not whether you like it.) Naturalists say "No" - black backgrounds are a product of some (not all) electronic stereo components and/or cables... or something like that. "Velvety-black backdrops", as one reviewer likes to describe them (Cf. quotes) are not a part of natural sound.

In mock defense of my fellow reviewers, many of whom I read but with whom I do not always agree, are describing components - not live music. The problem (for some) is proclaiming a component's manufacture of a black background is a virtue, a positive quality, something desirable from that component or all components. It's not usually stated that way but you don't find reviews saying the display of a black background is a negative.

I'm not clear about the point of Francisco's quotes from reviewers describing sound with black backgrounds. Yes, there are such descriptions. The fact or belief that black backgrounds are not representative of what we hear in the concert hall has nothing to do with the reviewer's description of what they heard - or are trying to describe of the component.

I agree that it is rarely clear what a writer or reviewer means by an observation of a component's black background. Is he describing a lower noise floor, lower distortion, a quality of music? Is "black background" short hand for something else? Or is it simply the best, or appropriate description at hand? Is it clearer or more obvious to the reader than some other description?

And yes, mea culpa, I have used the phrase myself, although my view on the virtuosity of black backgrounds from stereo systems has 'evolved' over the years. Yes I had accepted them as a positive quality though I've come to different thinking. But as a descriptor or component sound, I find the phrase acceptable. Here's some examples - tell me if they are not expository or if I fail to convey what I heard.

"Nobody snaps off an electronic transient like Ralf und Florian mit den kling-klang boys. Consider "Telephone Call" from Kraftwerk’s Electric Café [EMI EMD 1001] Together, the Premier 140 and the Avanti Centuries demonstrate how easy it is for this pairing to stop and start on a dime -- and do so at any point across the speaker’s bandwidth with drive and energy. Full stop. Silence. Fast attack. Voices and electronic ephemera pop and crackle instantaneously into and out of black three-dimensional space." 2004 Soundstage (my first review)

"These are Desi Arnez big-band kind of tunes, which include a variety of rattlers, shakers, scratchers and congas, and feature guitar, flute, and horns. Each instrument emerges one by one from a pitch-black backdrop until there is a dense tapestry of Latin sound from a band going full tilt." 2005 Soundstage

"It was easy to hear how Aaron Neville used his mouth and throat to form notes and words throughout his album Warm Your Heart (LP [Classic Records/A&M Records RTH 5354]), but the lack of reflective information led to a sense of sonic suckout that made clear he sang from a booth. I had the impression of a dimensional Aaron Neville head, but no amount of post-production reverb could add the cues that placed it on a body in a live room with other musicians. And yet when I heard paintballs of tone color pop with reverberation then recede into a dead flat-black background at the start of his "Everybody Plays the Fool," and despite knowing that was a studio-engineered effect, the result was sheer musical delight as my system rendered notes actively moving back to front within the soundstage." 2013 The Audio Beat

I write what I hear.

 

[PeterA]

...A wee bit of pushback - I don't read here at WBF or in reviews where writers make a claim for black backgrounds in the concert hall. The question as I understand it is whether the black backgrounds observed in listening rooms from stereo components are representative of what is heard from live acoustic music. (Not whether you like it.) Naturalists say "No" - black backgrounds are a product of some (not all) electronic stereo components and/or cables... or something like that. "Velvety-black backdrops", as one reviewer likes to describe them (Cf. quotes) are not a part of natural sound.

In mock defense of my fellow reviewers, many of whom I read but with whom I do not always agree, are describing components - not live music. The problem (for some) is proclaiming a component's manufacture of a black background is a virtue, a positive quality, something desirable from that component or all components. It's not usually stated that way but you don't find reviews saying the display of a black background is a negative.

I'm not clear about the point of Francisco's quotes from reviewers describing sound with black backgrounds. Yes, there are such descriptions. The fact or belief that black backgrounds are not representative of what we hear in the concert hall has nothing to do with the reviewer's description of what they heard - or are trying to describe of the component.

I agree that it is rarely clear what a writer or reviewer means by an observation of a component's black background. Is he describing a lower noise floor, lower distortion, a quality of music? Is "black background" short hand for something else? Or is it simply the best, or appropriate description at hand? Is it clearer or more obvious to the reader than some other description?

....

Nice post Tim. I don't mind the wee bit of pushback at all, because it allows me to reiterate a couple points. If WBF members don't refer to the black backgrounds in the concert hall, why would they quote low ambient noise levels in concert halls? What is a "background" when referring to a piece of audio gear? I think of a background as an environment in which subjects exist. A painting, a stage, a landscape. If we are talking about audio gear, is noise the subject, is the music the background or do I have it reversed? The whole "black backgrounds" is not how people talk when describing music. Reviewers seem to have invented this, or maybe it was Holt or one of the authors of the audiophile glossary.

I wanted to get some context for the quotes that Fransisco shared from Roy Gregory, so I looked up the two sections and found two reviews in The Audiobeat, one of the Monaco 1.5, and one of the Monaco 2.0. I have not heard these tables, so I have no idea if what he describes is what I would hear or what Tim hears from his table. Gregory claims both tables have black backgrounds. He infers that the 2.0 PRODUCES black backgrounds. This supports my earlier assertion that this is an artifact, artificial, and made, something not heard in real music. Here is what he writes:

"No product can please all of the people all of the time, and there will be those who will listen to the Monaco 2.0 and still choose an alternative player. For them, the Grand Prix ‘table might not be the answer, but at least they’ll know what they’re missing. Some products -- some quite famously -- just look the way they sound. Elegantly compact, planted and incredibly solid, in its latest form, the Grand Prix turntable has a physical integrity and sense of precision that are embodied in the music it plays. It’s not the most obvious association, given the airy transparency and super-black background generated by the ‘table, but then you need to look at what it isn’t as well as what it is. The absence of an oversized and overweight plinth, a platter the depth of a wedding cake, and more belts and braces than a Bavarian glee club contributes directly to that clarity, space around instruments, low noise floor and lack of spurious clutter."

The Monaco 2.0 seems to "generate" a "super'black background". This is not lowering noise. It seems to be something else. He mentions low noise floor and lack of spurious clutter later presumably because they are distinct from this "super'black background. He later refers to the space around instruments and clarity as something he hears with the music from his system. He is describing what he hears when listening to his system with this table. He is hearing a super black background, not the low level information that low noise can make audible. He is describing an artifact that he hears along with the music, the super black background.

He continues,

"Not only did the Monaco 2.0 retrieve that note with greater accuracy, it placed it with greater temporal precision, captured its harmonic character, its center and its tail, making not just the notes more accurate but the spaces between them more accurate and blacker too. That quiet between notes was crucial to the credibility of the performance, its sense of life and presence."

Again, the table is "making" the spaces between notes blacker too. Perhaps this is what people hear in a quiet hall, the silence between notes. If they heard the sound of ambient space, the latent energy in the hall, they would not refer to silence, or space between notes as black. Or is Gregory saying this happens only in his system and not in a real hall? Why refer to the sound from the system in terms different from what we hear from real music? I think he references one when describing the other.

In the Monaco 1.5 review that Fransisco quoted, Gregory writes this:

" if the Grand Prix clamp is overtightened. But use the GPA clamp properly and it offers a balance of dimensionality, depth and blackness to the soundstage background, naturally scaled dynamics, immediacy and instrumental textures that exceed anything else I had available."

Here again, the clamp if used properly, is producing "depth and blackness to the soundstage background." This again is a reference to something making blackness and he hears it in his listening room, but he is referencing the sound of real music. He writes about the music from the system and real music heard in the concert halls so he seems to make the connection between the two.

People read this as a good thing, a positive attribute of this component. I don't hear this blackness in the concert hall, so when I hear it in my system, from some component, I consider it an artifact, something to be avoided. It is an indication that something is not quite right with the playback, IMO, because this is not heard in the concert hall, and is therefore not natural.

Gregory is suggesting that this turntable produces this black background. I am not as I have not heard it. I am wondering why Gregory uses this type of language and why he hears this. He seems to separate black background from low noise. In that sense, I agree with him because I do think they are distinct from each other. What confuses me is why others consider black backgrounds the result of lowering noise. Backgrounds should become more audible when noise is lowered.

 

[rbbert]

You can call the lack of added noise, distortion and other artifacts anything you want, but to imply that it is not a desirable goal is silly. Adding those things to some recordings might be pleasant but in the long run over many recordings it can only detract from the music. Regardless of what you or I or any others here mean when we discuss a "black" or "dark" background, historically in the audiophile world it means what I wrote in the first sentence.

 

[PeterA]

Shifting gear a bit, the wood has arrived for my equipment rack project. The furniture maker has it and has begun work. The top shelf will be 3" thick and 20" X 48", so it has to be built up from three narrower planks. The grain structure looks good. The bottom two shelves will be solid 2" planks, 19" X 46". This rack will be much stiffer and slightly larger than my existing birch plywood rack. It will have some built in isolation and be mass loaded with the stainless steel plates under each component. The top shelf will support about 525 lbs and each of the lower shelves will support about 210 lbs. It should take a few weeks to finish.

Top photo: three planks for top shelf and the four corner posts.
Middle photo: grain pattern
Bottom photo: middle and bottom shelves

 

[PeterA]

You can call the lack of added noise, distortion and other artifacts anything you want, but to imply that it is not a desirable goal is silly. Adding those things to some recordings might be pleasant but in the long run over many recordings it can only detract from the music

I am not suggesting adding anything to what is on the LP, not noise, not distortion, and not artifacts. You claimed something is added to digital recordings. I would not know about that.

I am saying that low noise is a good thing. My new Lamm gear is very low noise and very high resolution. I want to hear ALL of the information on the recording, and I want to hear it presented in a natural manner. If it is all working well, backgrounds should be anything but "black." The listener will hear subtle, low level information which will contribute to realism. Nothing added or removed is the key.

 

[tima]

First, to this:

In a review of Shunyata's Sigma phono cable I wrote:

All these cable lines share a common set of quality conductor metals with specific characteristics. As you move up the four-step hierarchy from Venom to Sigma, each succeeding line gains features and technologies. Each feature brings a little more quiet, a little blacker background. As noise and distortion reduce, more and more information emerges from within the original signal.

emphasis added.

Regarding the Shunyata cables, Tim and I seem to have had different experiences. I compared directly some highly touted NR noise reduction Shunyata power cords recently in a friend's system. They were gastly. They did indeed produce blacker backgrounds, but along with them, they sucked out information and the sounded became dead and the music lifeless.

Your account is about power cords. I was describing signal cables and reviewing a phono cable.

At least we agreed we heard blacker backgrounds. So we recognize or at least use a common description. That is very important. Given two entirely different products I think we agree generally; but that is my interpretation.

I don't know if you agree with my writing: As noise and distortion reduce, more and more information emerges from within the original signal. This sentence followed my use of black background is an explanation of what I meant by the term. As we'll get to, too often "black background" goes unexplained or lacks further explanation. As I asked above - is it a short hand for something else? Too often the writer goes no further.

Perhaps we do agree as you wrote later.

Backgrounds should become more audible when noise is lowered.

I want to hear ALL of the information on the recording, and I want to hear it presented in a natural manner. If it is all working well, backgrounds should be anything but "black." The listener will hear subtle, low level information which will contribute to realism. Nothing added or removed is the key.

In effect more and more information emerges. Agree? Perhaps it is the word 'black' that is troublesome and what we think that means, or how we take it.

 

[PeterA]

Tim, I agree that lowering noise generally allows one to hear more information. I don’t know what it is that creates black backgrounds but I usually associate that with less information because the subtle ambient hall information on a recording or the low-level information from instruments Is lost and a black background emerges in its place.

I heard this with old components I owned and as a result of some of my set up choices. I also heard it with those power cords in a friends system.

 

[tima]

A lot going on here...

I wanted to get some context for the quotes that Fransisco shared from Roy Gregory, so I looked up the two sections and found two reviews in The Audiobeat, one of the Monaco 1.5, and one of the Monaco 2.0. I have not heard these tables, so I have no idea if what he describes is what I would hear or what Tim hears from his table

I wrote a review of the Monaco 1.5 and then another of the Monaco 2.0 and the genuinely startling differences I heard between them made by the latter's increased speed accuracy and low noise. Personally these are two of my favorite pieces of writing and you are invited to read my take versus others.

With regard to black backgrounds re the Monacos, I said this in my 1.5 review:
"The Monaco 1.5’s silent accuracy cashed out musically as eliminated distortion. With the Monaco 1.5 in my system music poured forth from records with confident purpose and authority as if emerging from a black-granite foundation." The black-granite reference was more of a bolster to the table's authority and solid foundation. I believe that is my only use of the word "black" in either article.

I do not believe either table generates or manufactures anything other than signal and maybe some v. low mechanical noise. Both do very well at revealing recording differences across records. I haven't heard the Bardo or the Rockport but I believe the Monaco 2.0 may be the best direct drive table in current production - certainly the best DD I've owned.

---

And now to the main part of your thread:

Nice post Tim. I don't mind the wee bit of pushback at all, because it allows me to reiterate a couple points. If WBF members don't refer to the black backgrounds in the concert hall, why would they quote low ambient noise levels in concert halls? What is a "background" when referring to a piece of audio gear? I think of a background as an environment in which subjects exist. A painting, a stage, a landscape. If we are talking about audio gear, is noise the subject, is the music the background or do I have it reversed? The whole "black backgrounds" is not how people talk when describing music. Reviewers seem to have invented this, or maybe it was Holt or one of the authors of the audiophile glossary.

Thank you Peter; I enjoyed your response as well. I cannot speak to what Roy Gregory wrote or why he wrote it though I think highly of both of his reviews in terms of the writing and do appreciate his overall assessments for the tables which are close to my own. Some people can't tolerate him. ymmv

Fwiw, 'black background' is not in Holt's glossary.

Anyway... the more I think about all this black background stuff, the more I realize the phrase is confusing. Yes, at first blush it seems intuitive and it has lots of use and people don't seem to need an explanation.

From your post and others I see two understandings of the phrase 'black background':
1. Black background means low distortion or low noise floor or quiet sufficient to reveal additional information on a recording.
2. Black background is the absence of sound. It is distinct from sound and, as some write, it is from whence sound emerges. It exists between the notes and separates them.

[ aside: I use Sartre's ontological essay Being and Nothingness as a very poor analogy.
Being = Sound, Music. Nothingness = No sound, no music. Both are required for the other to exist. (But not in the sense of the dualism of phenomena and noumena.)]

I believe your take on the words 'black background' when used to describe what is heard via componentry is closer to #2. It is the destruction of revelation, the absence of sonic information, it obscures. We certainly don't find it in the concert hall which brims with sonic artifacts and ambience. I think that last sentence is all we need to agree upon.

I suspect some go back and forth with 1 & 2 without really giving it much thought. Review (and forum) writers are often not clear or they are sloppy with the phrase or allow its ambiguity to subsist.

There are 'spaces' between notes otherwise they are not differentiated - which any score will tell your they certainly are. Speakers can blur or smear notes in a variety of ways. Some components are better at differentiating notes in terms of pitch/tone, frequency, dynamic and length. Perhaps 'black background' is a way to express that rather than expressing the killing of information. I'm (only) guessing that could be what Roy meant. Again, only guessing, since a turntable and cartridge are where notes (signals) are created (manufactured?), perhaps that is where note differentiation happens.

P.S. I do enjoy engaging with you on this topic.