New Think Piece From Roy Gregory

[tima]

I do not understand how many audio reviewers can ignore the best book on sound reproduction. Fortunately a few read it and discussed it, agreeing and disagreeing a lot, unfortunately in paid texts with copyright that most current reviewers ignore.

I don't think a component review is the place to explicate or ratify Toole's views. That's not a comment on Toole but a out the purpose and goal of review. What I'm saying seems to be born out by the general absence of Toole (and similar experts) in reviews.

What you call "gear love" is simply the essence of the hobby for most audiophiles

Apparently. I think I'm not among that most. But that's okay.

 

[tima]

I used to play the clarinet, badly. However, I have a very strong memory and impression of the way that particular instrument sounds. Very few systems I have heard get that sound right, and getting it right makes quite a difference to my enjoyment and involvement with the music when listening. I agree that it is difficult to separate the two.

It is the same with the impact, often shock, and wave of energy from timpani. Boy, that sure enriches the experience and adds meaning to the music. Same with the sweetness of violin or the punctuation of a triangle struck just right. It is sound and music.

I believe exposure to live music, being a musician, just sitting next to one, even attempting to play an instrument can, not always, influence experiencing music and assessing sound. I'll speculate that people in that group are less likely to find themselves total gearheads.

 

[wil]

I'm curious that you find a 'bifurcation' between the limbic and the emotional. Can you say more?

As I understand it, the limbic structures of the brain are where emotion and memory are generated when listening to music, so I don't see them as separate.

I'm talking about another dimension of listening which involves a more mindful, meditative state where thoughts and cognitive associations drop out to leave only the pure experience of the sound. This space is created when the internal thinking voice turns off. In this mental state the music springs forward in it's elemental form without mental overlays.

A visual parallel that comes to mind would be picking a leaf up off the ground and looking at it without an internal, verbal narrative. When the narrative is silent, you can experience the leaf in it's intense and deep fullness. The "leaf" is experienced as a LEAF, if you will.

I think this is what people who practice meditation are seeking. I think I use music listening as a form of meditation which gets me deeper into the music. The sounds become elemental , the emotions (when it's emotional music) become deeper, and the awareness of the human agency behind every musical nuance is apparent.

As with meditation, the deeper states only last for seconds at a time, before the mind comes back to join the party. It comes and goes. The music is still great. But my discipline is to make the "mind-silent" states as long as possible!

 

[Scaena1]

I think this is what people who practice meditation are seeking. I think I use music listening as a form of meditation which gets me deeper into the music. The sounds become elemental , the emotions (when it's emotional music) become deeper, and the awareness of the human agency behind every musical nuance is apparent.

As with meditation, the deeper states only last for seconds at a time, before the mind comes back to join the party. It comes and goes. The music is still great. But my discipline is to make the "mind-silent" states as long as possible!

wil,Yes! Not enough is discussed or written about listening. I don’t think there is a greater upgrade than to practice listening with the quiet mind. I adopted this technique for maximum listening enjoyment and involvement many years ago. Reducing my internal mental crosstalk (not simultaneously processing or creating competing thoughts) and unrelated mental imagery, opens up my brains receptors to focus fully on the music and that allows the music to completely wash over me. It’s not easy to achieve a mind temporarily without thought or mental distraction and it‘s really difficult to sustain in its most quiet state. It comes and goes in a listening session. It takes practice, but once I first reached that place for just a slight moment- I got it and I wanted more. I am curious how many forum members try to quiet their mind when listening.If you haven’t tried it, I highly recommend it. A higher level of involvement and intensity of experience may await you.

Alan Eichenbaum
SCAENA Loudspeakers

 

[tima]

Thanks for the follow-up.

I'm talking about another dimension of listening which involves a more mindful, meditative state where thoughts and cognitive associations drop out to leave only the pure experience of the sound. This space is created when the internal thinking voice turns off. In this mental state the music springs forward in it's elemental form without mental overlays.

What you describe above is pretty much what I call limbic-level listening. I am not aware of the limbic area of the brain as associated to memory or music memory, but then I am not an expert there. If emotion drops out in the meditative state you describe then that is what prompted my question. Limbic listening can include emotion to my understanding, but no need to quibble.

Here is part of what I wrote in a review under the heading:

Reviewer brain versus paleomammalian brain
...
"If you ask him about assessing sound quality, Vladimir will tell you first that "It is important . . to know how the real orchestra sounds. We choose a reference point based on live music and compare to this point," then, once so prepared, "the problem of sound-quality assessment is almost completely solved in the first 10-15 seconds of listening at the intuitive level."

The experience we have listening to music at that "intuitive level" is rooted in primitive limbic functions of awareness -- deep in our lizard brain. McGill University scientists observed that consonance and dissonance will light up the limbic systems responsible for pleasurable and negative emotions appropriately. The non-cognitive experience of music can trigger areas in the brain sufficient to cause the release of endorphins; when they reach the limbic system’s opioid receptors, feelings of satisfaction ensue. In his book "What to Listen for in Music", American composer Aaron Copland talks about this in different terms, describing how a fundamental aspect of enjoying music takes place on a "sensuous plane," which is "a kind of brainless but attractive state of mind [that] is engendered by the mere sound appeal of music."

If a component or a system breaks the fundamental rules of human hearing, our music-listening brain reaches a kind of tipping point where processing of music occurs less in limbic areas and more in the cerebral cortex. If my ear/brain system detects distortion, for example an excess of third-order harmonics that cause increased loudness or forwardness from that trumpet section over there in right field, in an instant it can happen: focus is triggered, the eyes open and the non-inferential immediacy of our musical enjoyment collapses."

Strictly the so-called 'lizard brain' is the limbic cortex, and is not where meditative function occurs - or so I read. Perhaps the anatomy is not so much the point. I think we understand each other.

 

[morricab]

Thanks for the follow-up.



What you describe above is pretty much what I call limbic-level listening. I am not aware of the limbic area of the brain as associated to memory or music memory, but then I am not an expert there. If emotion drops out in the meditative state you describe then that is what prompted my question. Limbic listening can include emotion to my understanding, but no need to quibble.

Here is part of what I wrote in a review under the heading:

Reviewer brain versus paleomammalian brain
...
"If you ask him about assessing sound quality, Vladimir will tell you first that "It is important . . to know how the real orchestra sounds. We choose a reference point based on live music and compare to this point," then, once so prepared, "the problem of sound-quality assessment is almost completely solved in the first 10-15 seconds of listening at the intuitive level."

The experience we have listening to music at that "intuitive level" is rooted in primitive limbic functions of awareness -- deep in our lizard brain. McGill University scientists observed that consonance and dissonance will light up the limbic systems responsible for pleasurable and negative emotions appropriately. The non-cognitive experience of music can trigger areas in the brain sufficient to cause the release of endorphins; when they reach the limbic system’s opioid receptors, feelings of satisfaction ensue. In his book "What to Listen for in Music", American composer Aaron Copland talks about this in different terms, describing how a fundamental aspect of enjoying music takes place on a "sensuous plane," which is "a kind of brainless but attractive state of mind [that] is engendered by the mere sound appeal of music."

If a component or a system breaks the fundamental rules of human hearing, our music-listening brain reaches a kind of tipping point where processing of music occurs less in limbic areas and more in the cerebral cortex. If my ear/brain system detects distortion, for example an excess of third-order harmonics that cause increased loudness or forwardness from that trumpet section over there in right field, in an instant it can happen: focus is triggered, the eyes open and the non-inferential immediacy of our musical enjoyment collapses."

Strictly the so-called 'lizard brain' is the limbic cortex, and is not where meditative function occurs - or so I read. Perhaps the anatomy is not so much the point. I think we understand each other.

My ex-girlfriend, the violinist, used to leave guys in rooms at shows with their mouths open at the speed with which she judged their room’s “rightness “. Sometimes less than 20 seconds and back out again, even before we would be greeted…was funny to see…

 

[PeterA]

My ex-girlfriend, the violinist, used to leave guys in rooms at shows with their mouths open at the speed with which she judged their room’s “rightness “. Sometimes less than 20 seconds and back out again, even before we would be greeted…was funny to see…

When you know, you know.

 

[wil]

wil,Yes! Not enough is discussed or written about listening. I don’t think there is a greater upgrade than to practice listening with the quiet mind. I adopted this technique for maximum listening enjoyment and involvement many years ago. Reducing my internal mental crosstalk (not simultaneously processing or creating competing thoughts) and unrelated mental imagery, opens up my brains receptors to focus fully on the music and that allows the music to completely wash over me. It’s not easy to achieve a mind temporarily without thought or mental distraction and it‘s really difficult to sustain in its most quiet state. It comes and goes in a listening session. It takes practice, but once I first reached that place for just a slight moment- I got it and I wanted more. I am curious how many forum members try to quiet their mind when listening.If you haven’t tried it, I highly recommend it. A higher level of involvement and intensity of experience may await you.

Alan Eichenbaum
SCAENA Loudspeakers

Herb Reichert wrote a nice piece about this a couple of years ago. I read it on AudioStream online I think. I can’t find it anymore. I recall that he said after years of practice, the best he can manage to maintain his deepest listening state is about 20 seconds!
But I think just having brief brushes with this state of listening raises the level of music involvement all the time.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

i call it 'zen-state' and then don't want to 'over-think' it. but i'd rather not be mindful of it when i'm there....just want to be there.

 

[Elliot G.]

Very early on in my audio journey /career I was shown/taught to listen in a dark room and close my eyes. I tried and learned to focus and rid my mind of everything but the music. This took some time and perhaps practice but once done it certainly helps you focus on not just the music but taught me to focus on other things when needed in my life. Meditation? kind of but it works. I dont find staring at gear with bright lights and other distractions helps me achieve a state of involvement. One must relax and unclutter the mind to fully be involved.
I believe learning to listen is a learned skill, a skill that requires practice.
Think about other senses and how you developed them? No one is a wine or food expert right out of the box these skills are learned so is the skill to listen.
Happy New Year

 

[hopkins]

Another option...

 

[Gregadd]

This is a subjective hobby. Everyone has opinion.
[text omitted]

No. Some people are told what to think.

 

[PeterA]

No. Some people are told what to think.

That is true, and not just some people, but that does not mean they don’t have their own opinions. Sifting through all of the advice and deciding what is good and bad is the challenge. It gets easier with experience and exposure. Having a good reference helps a lot.

 

[Gregadd]

That is true, and not just some people, but that does not mean they don’t have their own opinions. Sifting through all of the advice and deciding what is good and bad is the challenge. It gets easier with experience and exposure. Having a good reference helps a lot.

Sure. They adopt what they are told as their own.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I just buy what my dealer and magazines telll me i should buy .

Life can be so simple.

 

[Atmasphere]

If a component or a system breaks the fundamental rules of human hearing, our music-listening brain reaches a kind of tipping point where processing of music occurs less in limbic areas and more in the cerebral cortex.

This sounds familiar. I've been harping on this for years.

I've found tradition to be a factor that slows things down in any industry. Right now there's a disconnect between the measurement camp and the subjectivist camp. I think that was probably deserved about 35 years ago but it shouldn't be there now. Measurement technology has advanced quite a lot in that time but the subjectivist camp seems to live their lives as if they are still in 1985.

But right now, if enough measurements are made, we can tell a lot about how the amp will sound. IOW there is now a direct link between what we can hear and what we can measure.

I find just as much pushback on this statement from either camp, which is predictable. It challenges a world view, no matter which one. People don't like that.

 

[PeterA]

Sure. They adopt what they are told as their own.

Few ever have original thoughts. I have written extensively about and credited those who have had the biggest influence on my thoughts regarding this hobby in my two system threads. There will always be those with more knowledge and experience. I welcome well intentioned advice and have learned much from others. That is one of the great things about a forum such as WBF: the introductions to those from whom one can learn.

 

[PeterA]

This sounds familiar. I've been harping on this for years.

I've found tradition to be a factor that slows things down in any industry. Right now there's a disconnect between the measurement camp and the subjectivist camp. I think that was probably deserved about 35 years ago but it shouldn't be there now. Measurement technology has advanced quite a lot in that time but the subjectivist camp seems to live their lives as if they are still in 1985.

But right now, if enough measurements are made, we can tell a lot about how the amp will sound. IOW there is now a direct link between what we can hear and what we can measure.

I find just as much pushback on this statement from either camp, which is predictable. It challenges a world view, no matter which one. People don't like that.

Ralph, what about those hobbyists who prefer to leave the measurements to those who do the design work and then use their subjective hearing and experiences to choose what they want to buy? Is there no room in between for those who accept measurements done by the professionals and want to choose the gear that sounds most natural to them? Is this not what many of us do?

One can not align a cartridge without some use of measurements and the right tools, but fine tuning after the tools get you very close is best done by ear, at least in my experience. That much discussed 92* stylus rake is an approximation and can often be improved upon. Before I had corner horns that really can't be repositioned, I used laser measuring devices and listening evaluations to position and orient my cone speakers. Even the corner horns still need to be levelled and raised to the same height with measuring tools.

I do not think the two camps are that divided, actually. I respect both directions and think a balanced approach leads to good results.

 

[Atmasphere]

Ralph, what about those hobbyists who prefer to leave the measurements to those who do the design work and then use their subjective hearing and experiences to choose what they want to buy? Is there no room in between for those who accept measurements done by the professionals and want to choose the gear that sounds most natural to them? Is this not what many of us do?

When you buy based on what you hear, you're in the subjectivist camp and there's nothing wrong with that- just as there's nothing wrong with only dealing with specs.

As a manufacturer it took me a while to realize that everyone had their own expression of how they enjoy the hobby. One guy I knew (still know) didn't seem to do much listening at all, but he really enjoyed the horsetrading aspect. Since retiring from 3M he became a dealer.

My point was really in between the lines; the two camps are critical of each other and on that account both suffer confirmation bias. Boy oh boy neither one likes to hear that! One thing I see is the measurement camp often has difficulty knowing the difference between proof and evidence. For example, when a large number of people hear the same thing in an amp and there's no measurements to back that up, that's not proof but it is evidence.

I guess since I see that there is a direct link between what we hear and what we measure, I'm of the impression that there should be less animosity between the two positions.

 

[microstrip]

Ralph, what about those hobbyists who prefer to leave the measurements to those who do the design work and then use their subjective hearing and experiences to choose what they want to buy?

As long as the subjective experience does not contradict basic measurements no problem. But when I read that an IC increases sound level by four dB I object to the post.

Is there no room in between for those who accept measurements done by the professionals and want to choose the gear that sounds most natural to them? Is this not what many of us do?

Yes, everyone wants their particular natural sound and no problem with that.

One can not align a cartridge without some use of measurements and the right tools, but fine tuning after the tools get you very close is best done by ear, at least in my experience. That much discussed 92* stylus rake is an approximation and can often be improved upon.

Your opinion. At some time you adjusted SRA for each LP by ear. I do not consider that your were wrong or that your current practice is better. But we can have an opinion on both - surely statistical or methodological in my case, not on sound quality.

Before I had corner horns that really can't be repositioned, I used laser measuring devices and listening evaluations to position and orient my cone speakers. Even the corner horns still need to be levelled and raised to the same height with measuring tools.

IMHO this kind of tools do not count as instruments for audio measurements.

I do not think the two camps are that divided, actually. I respect both directions and think a balanced approach leads to good results.

IMHO unfortunately they are well divided. Much more than in the past, the debate on the extremely low residuals (noise and distortion) of new equipment fueled both camps.