Great Zot - changing toe-in for each record like VTA. Run away, Run away.
Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Great Zot - changing toe-in for each record like VTA. Run away, Run away.
Mr. and Mrs. Ching Cheng talking to one of their kids after his first week back to school:
Last edited:
Our ears do not need calibrating - they are calibrated by our daily use of them since we start hearing.
However, training our ears with some kind of music can help creating a preference for some type of sound reproduction. Success in this hobby is fulfilling our preferences, and people sharing similar preferences can share techniques for optimizing their systems.
Sound reproduction using stereo is very far from from the real experience - however audiophiles can train to be forgiving and fill the gaps. Going to concerts is a nice way to do it - my system always sounds better after going to live performances, as auditory memory becomes vanishing along time it starts sounding more like a system. Probably why after going to a concert I listen to a lot of music of the same kind. Fortunately next concert restarts the process!
IMHO claiming for the only "real reference" is like claiming for a "best" component - a meaningless claim as it ignores, as Ron frequently reminds us, that audiophiles can have different objectives, all leading to musical enjoyment.
So, I use live classical and jazz as one specific reference. I do believe my refining of my sound, optimising my room and system, is bringing me way closer to this comparison. More air, ease, delicacy, tonal colours and saturation, timbral accuracy, presence in the room. Noise reduction has been the key for me...from dealing with slap echo/nodes/bass suckouts, to quieter mains power/power cords, to quieter tubes...my ease of presentation, natural air and resolution, sweetness tonal colours, and critically way better representation of instrumental timbral accuracy, has brought real ease and believability to my sound, not losing the core Zu trick of being really immersive on music that sounds murky, harsh and uninviting on many other audiophile systems.
This post is something of a thought experiment... it might not make sense.
Across the various threads in discussion of the sound of live acoustic music or natural sound or the word 'natural' there is fairly consistent tendency on the part of all of us to talk in terms of what it is not.
This suggests to me just how embedded or accepted is the audiophile vocabulary developed over roughly the past 30 years. A lot of that vocabulary is codified in the writings of Pearson and Holt. Say what you will of these writers, at least they were capable of promulgating their definitions and concepts to such an extent that their language is embedded in out perspective. Today's discussion of the sound of live acoustic music and natural sound from stereos is reactionary, something of a revolt against what they preached. (That seems so ironic given Pearson's "The Absolute Sound.) Not only is their thinking embedded in our perspectives, it is embedded in most of our systems. It is entrenched in the review language and dealer-speak.
Like it or not, the persistence and perptuation of the Holt-Pearson language is a marker of its acceptance for describing what a successful hi-end stereo should sound like. Like it or not, it is used and that usage is pervasive.
If the naturalist revolution's advocacy (or simple explanation) about using live acoustic music as the reference for gauging what is a successful stereo system it needs to stop manifesting itself in terms of Holt-Pearson. It needs to get beyond saying "it's not that." Copernicus did not try to solve Ptolemy's epicycles - he threw them away.
A positive vocabulary and set of concepts should be used to describe the sound of a stereo whose equipment and setup are grounded on their reference. Part of the irony for Pearson is the divergence of his vocabulary and concepts from what one hears in the concert hall. My thought experiment is to reverse that divergence - the language of stereo audio description should converge with the language of live acoustic audio description.
This may not be easy. We need to try examples, see how they work, and attempt to learn and build on that effort. But it may be a losing effort.
Consider the wrestiling with the word 'diffuse' or the effort to apply a word or phrase to that particular sonic effect to which 'diffuse' turns out to be inadequate. Peter thought of "less precise", "less defined" - the sound energy of Vlad's spoken words were not contained or confined. Rather than considering what it is not, can we describe the sound of his voice ... here words fail me ... from a different perspective, the perspective of hearing a person talk to you - not the perspective of an audiophile vocabulary.
Thinking about this, the word (for now) I've come up with is "radiate". His voice and words radiated from his mouth. Nothing is said about focus or precision. What do we hear in the concert hall? Sound radiates from an instrument, from an orchestra. This supposition may or may not capture what Peter heard and what he was trying to express - not trying to put words in your mouth. Is the word sufficient to describe what/how was heard? Is it too imprecise?
Is it worthwhile to start talking about and describe the sound of reproduced music in ways similar to how we talk about the sound of live acoustic music. Or should we continue to talk about them differently?
Across the various threads in discussion of the sound of live acoustic music or natural sound or the word 'natural' there is fairly consistent tendency on the part of all of us to talk in terms of what it is not.
This suggests to me just how embedded or accepted is the audiophile vocabulary developed over roughly the past 30 years. A lot of that vocabulary is codified in the writings of Pearson and Holt. Say what you will of these writers, at least they were capable of promulgating their definitions and concepts to such an extent that their language is embedded in out perspective. Today's discussion of the sound of live acoustic music and natural sound from stereos is reactionary, something of a revolt against what they preached. (That seems so ironic given Pearson's "The Absolute Sound.) Not only is their thinking embedded in our perspectives, it is embedded in most of our systems. It is entrenched in the review language and dealer-speak.
Like it or not, the persistence and perptuation of the Holt-Pearson language is a marker of its acceptance for describing what a successful hi-end stereo should sound like. Like it or not, it is used and that usage is pervasive.
If the naturalist revolution's advocacy (or simple explanation) about using live acoustic music as the reference for gauging what is a successful stereo system it needs to stop manifesting itself in terms of Holt-Pearson. It needs to get beyond saying "it's not that." Copernicus did not try to solve Ptolemy's epicycles - he threw them away.
A positive vocabulary and set of concepts should be used to describe the sound of a stereo whose equipment and setup are grounded on their reference. Part of the irony for Pearson is the divergence of his vocabulary and concepts from what one hears in the concert hall. My thought experiment is to reverse that divergence - the language of stereo audio description should converge with the language of live acoustic audio description.
This may not be easy. We need to try examples, see how they work, and attempt to learn and build on that effort. But it may be a losing effort.
Consider the wrestiling with the word 'diffuse' or the effort to apply a word or phrase to that particular sonic effect to which 'diffuse' turns out to be inadequate. Peter thought of "less precise", "less defined" - the sound energy of Vlad's spoken words were not contained or confined. Rather than considering what it is not, can we describe the sound of his voice ... here words fail me ... from a different perspective, the perspective of hearing a person talk to you - not the perspective of an audiophile vocabulary.
Thinking about this, the word (for now) I've come up with is "radiate". His voice and words radiated from his mouth. Nothing is said about focus or precision. What do we hear in the concert hall? Sound radiates from an instrument, from an orchestra. This supposition may or may not capture what Peter heard and what he was trying to express - not trying to put words in your mouth. Is the word sufficient to describe what/how was heard? Is it too imprecise?
Is it worthwhile to start talking about and describe the sound of reproduced music in ways similar to how we talk about the sound of live acoustic music. Or should we continue to talk about them differently?
It's easier to talk of live music in terms of audio equipment rather than the other way round. For example audio equipment is indeed warm, or not warm, colored or neutral.
Live music is not colored or neutral. It is what it is. You can only color it with an audio component. It is neither warm nor not warm in isolation. If we say it is warm, we mean audio components which have warmth depict live music more. In the absence of audio reference, no one will ever refer to live as warm. it is what it is
Live music is not colored or neutral. It is what it is. You can only color it with an audio component. It is neither warm nor not warm in isolation. If we say it is warm, we mean audio components which have warmth depict live music more. In the absence of audio reference, no one will ever refer to live as warm. it is what it is
Those words come from reference to audio gear. While they are different surely, I doubt anyone not into our hobby compares halls with those words
If audio equipment is colored etc. and live music is not, why talk of live music in audio terms. That's backwards.
I don’t think that radiate is what Peter meant by diffuse but I like it in a different context. “Radiate” is quite descriptive when discussing not only the sound but also the energy radiated from instruments. “Radiate” can be useful in terms of setup when the system radiates a similar type of “natural“ energy felt by the listener. “Natural” must be the main descriptor here as well so it will not be confused with unnatural room shaking bass energy you feel from an over the top subwoofer which is pure mud. Hope I didn’t more confusion to the toppled audio Tower of Babel with my interpretation of radiate. Perhaps the lack of universal language or comprehension of the simple but meaningful “natural” is by divine design!
david
Last edited:
I think that's false. People were describing the sound of concert hals long before there was audio equipment. You've been to enough concert halls, you should have heard descriptions of them.
No, I never got into a discussion about concert halls that way, though I do relate to halls that way but my impression was because I am also into describing audio. People I know who are not into this hobby and visit concert halls, don't really get into these description discussions. They go, they listen, they talk about liking / not liking it, some performer, that's it
Maybe the people you encounter. Like I said, people have been describing the sound of concert halls and other venues long before there was an audio hobby. Sit next to a few musicians and just listen.
Of course that is a distraction from your notion of describing live music in audio terms. But let's move on.
Maybe. It’s not their vocabulary that I object to but what they sold their readership on. I believe that at some point they set out to intentionally deceive the community.
david
Yes but the words they were describing might not relate to audio components.
I did a quick search on Barbican warm, and also on Barbican vs southbank.
Couldn't find anything really.
If you find agreed upon nomenclature to describe sound between halls not by audio hobbyists that we can adopt, let us know. It is much easier for me to describe the various halls in and near London wrt audio vocabulary
Perhaps deceit wasn’t the original intention but I believe it became that at some point. I’m basing my judgement partly on SeaCliff visits meeting him and hearing the systems he wrote about and partly after having developed a better understanding of the subject myself. I find it hard to believe that it was only wrong-headedness. Of course that’s my opinion and I realize many believe there’s value in what he sold.
We’re way off topic now, my apologies.
david
This is the challenge all reviewers face, Tim. Jeff Day’s article resonated with me and some others, but most were lost.
I gave you a long definition of the term “natural” from my perspective. I will find in some twenty pages back and repost. That is my response to your thought experiment.
I have also argued for some time that I do not believe in an absolute sound. This is based on my time in Vienna. For something to sound natural, convincing, or realistic, it actually falls within a range of sounds depending on many factors.
A few have asked where has HP’s audiophile vocabulary really gotten us? Are we better off then we were 30 years ago when I presume audiophiles and music lovers simply heard a system and understood that it was good or not without having to break down the sound into parts?
The move toward more natural is a move toward simplicity and fundamentals. Tone, Dynamics, Presence. The Listening Window. Natural Sound.
Energy. Emotional connectedness.
These are pretty basic concepts. If people do not understand them, it is an indication of the impact HP has had and how lost we are. Those with more experience than I have told me that people used to understand this stuff.
The reason the opera hall in Vienna is considered to be great is because that cello or that soprano is heard in all its clarity from anywhere in the hall and the genius of the composer comes across as an emotion to everyone witnessing it. It is not the same for everyone there, but it comes through. Unless her halls, clarity, that emotion, the message, can get lost. It is not the same for everyone there, but it comes through. In lesser halls, clarity, emotion, the message, can get lost. People know right away that something is off.
I have heard stories about how composers have gone into bad halls listen to their own voices and snap their fingers and clap their hands and realized immediately that something is off.
Conveying that to others is the challenge for the reviewer. I commend you on your efforts to get to the bottom of this. It will not be easy. If someone wants to know what a pebble tossed into a still pond in the middle of the woods sounds like or a cheetah catching a gazelle, or what Bach is conveying in his second cello suite, he may just have to experience these things for himself.
Last edited:
Similar threads
