The language of Reproduction and the language of Music.
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
Haven't seen anything in this thread or the "Natural Sound" thread that breaks new ground. I've been reading about and participating in philosophical discussions like this since I stumbled on issue #1 of The Absolute Sound in the Villanova University library (BA 1974). All of the vocabulary/language necessary to discuss any aspect of audio or music and their relationship already exists, although there is nothing wrong with trying to refine or expand on it.
Interesting to look at recent commentary on the subject, e.g.:
positive-feedback.com
Excerpts:
"When I write about audio performance I normally use a reductionist methodology, by breaking performance down into basic audiophilia interests in recording artifacts like imaging, soundstaging, soundspace, resolution, and transparency, as well as those fundamental attributes of music such as timbre, tone color, tempo, melody, harmony, rhythm, dynamics, and loudness, for example, in order to paint you a picture of what a given component's performance is like".
"However, my experiences with Yazaki-san's 'Real Sound' refers to aspects of audio performance that transcends both the recording artifacts & musical fundamentals I described above, while holistically combining them into an overall gestalt that delivers a home music experience that is natural, beautiful, visceral, and powerfully emotive...."
Note the distinction between the audiophile aspects which in my mind have to do with "resolution", and the musical aspects, which I would categorize as "musicality". This distinction appears to be widely accepted, except (for some reason) among some WBF posters.
Even more interesting to me given the Harry Pearsonesque tendency of the posters behind the Natural Sound and The Language of Reproduction and the Language of Music threads to focus almost exclusively on Western classical music:
"....I would like to remind you that not everyone hears music in the same way, and I'm not talking just about differences between individuals, but in the larger context of between cultures. I will point out that people around the world listen to music differently, by placing more attention on listening to certain aspects of music's attributes, than is common to other cultures.
For example, when Japanese audio enthusiasts were developing DH-SET amplifiers 40 years ago during that audio constructeur revolution, they were uniquely prepared by their culture to listen for different parameters of musical performance than was typical for most Westerners at that time, and they developed DH-SET amplification (and assembled audio systems) that optimized those musical elements.
In most of Western culture, the conventional way of listening to and interpreting music is for the ear to focus in on pitch & harmony first, but in the traditional cultures of Turkey, Africa, and Japan, the listener's ear focuses in on the textures & colors of the music first, which is called 'timbral listening' by ethnomusicologists.
I think that those Japanese audio enthusiasts developing DH-SETs and building Altec-Onken horn loudspeaker systems were more discriminating when it came to listening for the timbral aspects of music because of the tradition of timbral listening in their culture, and those particular components they chose & refined excelled in reproducing those timbral traits....."
So, is "Natural Sound" different from "Real Sound"?
Interesting to look at recent commentary on the subject, e.g.:
Adventures in Real Sound with Mr. Shirokazu Yazaki - Positive Feedback
Adventures in Real Sound with Mr. Shirokazu Yazaki
positive-feedback.com
Excerpts:
"When I write about audio performance I normally use a reductionist methodology, by breaking performance down into basic audiophilia interests in recording artifacts like imaging, soundstaging, soundspace, resolution, and transparency, as well as those fundamental attributes of music such as timbre, tone color, tempo, melody, harmony, rhythm, dynamics, and loudness, for example, in order to paint you a picture of what a given component's performance is like".
"However, my experiences with Yazaki-san's 'Real Sound' refers to aspects of audio performance that transcends both the recording artifacts & musical fundamentals I described above, while holistically combining them into an overall gestalt that delivers a home music experience that is natural, beautiful, visceral, and powerfully emotive...."
Note the distinction between the audiophile aspects which in my mind have to do with "resolution", and the musical aspects, which I would categorize as "musicality". This distinction appears to be widely accepted, except (for some reason) among some WBF posters.
Even more interesting to me given the Harry Pearsonesque tendency of the posters behind the Natural Sound and The Language of Reproduction and the Language of Music threads to focus almost exclusively on Western classical music:
"....I would like to remind you that not everyone hears music in the same way, and I'm not talking just about differences between individuals, but in the larger context of between cultures. I will point out that people around the world listen to music differently, by placing more attention on listening to certain aspects of music's attributes, than is common to other cultures.
For example, when Japanese audio enthusiasts were developing DH-SET amplifiers 40 years ago during that audio constructeur revolution, they were uniquely prepared by their culture to listen for different parameters of musical performance than was typical for most Westerners at that time, and they developed DH-SET amplification (and assembled audio systems) that optimized those musical elements.
In most of Western culture, the conventional way of listening to and interpreting music is for the ear to focus in on pitch & harmony first, but in the traditional cultures of Turkey, Africa, and Japan, the listener's ear focuses in on the textures & colors of the music first, which is called 'timbral listening' by ethnomusicologists.
I think that those Japanese audio enthusiasts developing DH-SETs and building Altec-Onken horn loudspeaker systems were more discriminating when it came to listening for the timbral aspects of music because of the tradition of timbral listening in their culture, and those particular components they chose & refined excelled in reproducing those timbral traits....."
So, is "Natural Sound" different from "Real Sound"?
Last edited:
Also interesting and relevant:
jeffsplace.positive-feedback.com
This is a five part series which can be found in Jeff Day's archives at Positive Feedback.
jeffsplace.positive-feedback.com
A three part series also available in Jeff Day's archives at Positive Feedback.
Meditations on High-Fidelity: An introduction ... - Jeff's Place
Welcome to a new series of informal essays that are meditations about what high-fidelity is, or perhaps could be, in enthusiast audio. There are a lot of dimensions to exploring high-fidelity in enthusiast audio, but the first question one might ask is, “What does high-fidelity mean in...
jeffsplace.positive-feedback.com
This is a five part series which can be found in Jeff Day's archives at Positive Feedback.
High Fidelity: Is hifi system voicing a matter of taste? Part 1. - Jeff's Place
When I say “HiFi system voicing” you might wonder what I’m referring to. Basically, I’m referring to what any given hifi system sounds like in terms of its particular blend of musicality and audiophile-style sonics, or its overall sound quality. The musicality aspect of hifi performance is...
jeffsplace.positive-feedback.com
A three part series also available in Jeff Day's archives at Positive Feedback.
FYI:
In case you are not familiar with The Absolute Sound founder Harry Pearson:
Excerpt:
"For The Absolute Sound as it was originally conceived there was only one type of listener—the classical music lover, with long concert-hall experience, seeking the most convincing illusion of the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space".
In case you are not familiar with The Absolute Sound founder Harry Pearson:
Excerpt:
"For The Absolute Sound as it was originally conceived there was only one type of listener—the classical music lover, with long concert-hall experience, seeking the most convincing illusion of the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space".
Last edited:
I referenced Jeff Day because he is one of the handful of reviewers (also Srajan Ebaen at 6 Moons and Marshall Nack at Positive Feedback) who I have followed for many years and whose insights and observations I trust. Trust in a reviewer for me comes from listening to the same components and accessories that a reviewer has evaluated and hearing similar things to what the reviewer reported - not once or twice, but over a number of years and reviews. For example, when Jeff Day started reporting on the Dueland tinned copper wire I bought some and tried it in multiple applications as he had. Ultimately, after a couple years of testing it in my system my impressions of it were similar to what he had reported, and I decided to use it for rewiring in the upgrading of my Pathos TT amp and Bache Audio speakers.
Last edited:
Full disclosure: I am not a big fan of classical music, and prefer the small ensemble and chamber orchestra to symphonic music which I rarely listen to. Also not a big fan of Opera (athough there are some arias I love). Tend to prefer baroque music and period instrument recordings. I have some classical recordings in my collection and listen to them occasionally, but the vast majority of my collection and listening is jazz, followed by Blues and the R&B I grew up with. I find very little I want to listen (as opposed to dance) to in rap, hip hop and other modern popular music genres. However like the classical music listener I much prefer acoustic instruments, which most of my jazz and blues collection features, over their electronic counterparts. It follows that my system is optimized for reproducing the intimate setting of the the jazz trio and string quartet. It would be pointless for me in the small listening rooms I've always had to try to optimize my system for symphonic recordings. Fortunate for me that my musical tastes and listenng room space align.Haven't seen anything in this thread or the "Natural Sound" thread that breaks new ground. I've been reading about and participating in philosophical discussions like this since I stumbled on issue #1 of The Absolute Sound in the Villanova University library (BA 1974). All of the vocabulary/language necessary to discuss any aspect of audio or music and their relationship already exists, but there is nothing wrong with trying to refine or expand on it.
Interesting to look at recent commentary on the subject, e.g.:
Adventures in Real Sound with Mr. Shirokazu Yazaki - Positive Feedback
Adventures in Real Sound with Mr. Shirokazu Yazaki
Excerpts:
"When I write about audio performance I normally use a reductionist methodology, by breaking performance down into basic audiophilia interests in recording artifacts like imaging, soundstaging, soundspace, resolution, and transparency, as well as those fundamental attributes of music such as timbre, tone color, tempo, melody, harmony, rhythm, dynamics, and loudness, for example, in order to paint you a picture of what a given component's performance is like".
"However, my experiences with Yazaki-san's 'Real Sound' refers to aspects of audio performance that transcends both the recording artifacts & musical fundamentals I described above, while holistically combining them into an overall gestalt that delivers a home music experience that is natural, beautiful, visceral, and powerfully emotive...."
Note the distinction between the audiophile aspects which in my mind have to do with "resolution", and the musical aspects, which I would categorize as "musicality". This distinction appears to be widely accepted, except (for some reason) among some WBF posters.
Even more interesting to me given the Harry Pearsonesque tendency of the posters behind the Natural Sound and The Language of Reproduction and the Language of Music threads to focus almost exclusively on Western classical music:
"....I would like to remind you that not everyone hears music in the same way, and I'm not talking just about differences between individuals, but in the larger context of between cultures. I will point out that people around the world listen to music differently, by placing more attention on listening to certain aspects of music's attributes, than is common to other cultures.
For example, when Japanese audio enthusiasts were developing DH-SET amplifiers 40 years ago during that audio constructeur revolution, they were uniquely prepared by their culture to listen for different parameters of musical performance than was typical for most Westerners at that time, and they developed DH-SET amplification (and assembled audio systems) that optimized those musical elements.
In most of Western culture, the conventional way of listening to and interpreting music is for the ear to focus in on pitch & harmony first, but in the traditional cultures of Turkey, Africa, and Japan, the listener's ear focuses in on the textures & colors of the music first, which is called 'timbral listening' by ethnomusicologists.
I think that those Japanese audio enthusiasts developing DH-SETs and building Altec-Onken horn loudspeaker systems were more discriminating when it came to listening for the timbral aspects of music because of the tradition of timbral listening in their culture, and those particular components they chose & refined excelled in reproducing those timbral traits....."
So, is "Natural Sound" different from "Real Sound"?
Last edited:
Ron, before responding would you clarify, pls... what is the referent of 'this' in your second sentence, and what is the 'question' to which you refer?
Huh?
I don't think words are demonized. Words are used to describe what we hear from stereo systems and from live acoustic music and where one of those is not congruent with the other. You don't need someone else to choose your words for you.
"[T]his" refers to "how close to the conceptual nature of this audible and emotional experience do I feel when listening to various stereo systems?"
The "question" refers to your question in the opening post: "Can we describe components and systems with the language of music or in some other way using the language of music that does justice to the holistic organic character of listening to music?"
From Sound Reproduction by Floyd Toole. I quote from the book:
"Acoustical deception is possible, but it is deception aided by some perceptual illusions that actually work quite well, providing persuasive reminders of acoustical circumstances that could be real. Our task is to identify the key acoustical cues and to create circumstances that allow them to be most persuasively presented to listeners in homes and cars."
Ordinarily, I would refrain from commenting on specific reviewers, but you happened to pick two I cancelled a long time ago. Sorry to say I find Srajan unfocused and incoherent at times. Seems to me he is always trying hard for something nice or novel to say so as not to offend an advertiser whose product he reviews. I lost faith in Nack after sequential reviews of Tara Labs power cords that somehow got better with every increment in their cable model's price. I then tried a 10K pair of their PCs that were so astonishingly disappointing that a 10 dollar Cheng Ching Karmeli special blew them out of the water with ease. Bye bye, Mr. Nack. Getting back to the topic at hand- if the language of reviewing reproduced music does not start and stop with the experience of listening to live music, then I don't know what the hell we are trying to do in this hobby.
Last edited:
Huh?
"The language of reproduction - the audiophile vocabulary and audiophile concepts - the language of sound decomposes componentry and systems into various sound elements including psychoacoustics. It's typical review-speak . . ."
Isn't this a criticism -- your criticism -- of the ubiquitous use of audiophile terms to describe sound and music?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A threaded view of a conversation is a pita to construct, but it can help rather than jumping from page to page.
A couple of notions draw my eye.
Rather than use the audiophile vocabulary and language of reproduction you:
- feel in terms of easier suspension of disbelief and which sounds in totality more like what I hear at Walt Disney Concert Hall
- [wonder] how close to the conceptual nature of this audible and emotional experience do I feel when listening to various stereo systems?
Yeah, we're on different pages Ron. It probably doesn't matter that we are.
First off, "suspension of disbelief" by all definitions is part of the language of reproduction. I don't believe you can redefine it into the sphere of the language of music or listening to live music. You can refer to it while being in state that brings you closer rather than farther to listening to live music but when you are in that state you are listening to a reproduction - no matter how close or far you think you are. And it is only in virtue of listening to a reproduction can your disbelief that you actually are doing so be suspended.
And technically my third sentence there is wrong because if you start referring to being in a state of suspended disbelief while you are actually in a state of suspended disbelief then you are not in such a state, you have slipped to your frontal cortext and are looking at yourself not listening to music. No hall of mirrors way out of that.
Second, you talk about how close you feel to the conceptual nature of this audible and emotional experience when listening to a stereo system. Here I am lost - I"ll take this on myself but I have no clue what it means to be close to the conceptual nature of an emotional experience. That sounds like a linquistic category mistake, but whatever you want to call it mea culpa I don't know what it means.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
A threaded view of a conversation is a pita to construct, but it can help rather than jumping from page to page.
A couple of notions draw my eye.
Rather than use the audiophile vocabulary and language of reproduction you:
- feel in terms of easier suspension of disbelief and which sounds in totality more like what I hear at Walt Disney Concert Hall
- [wonder] how close to the conceptual nature of this audible and emotional experience do I feel when listening to various stereo systems?
Yeah, we're on different pages Ron. It probably doesn't matter that we are.
First off, "suspension of disbelief" by all definitions is part of the language of reproduction. I don't believe you can redefine it into the sphere of the language of music or listening to live music. You can refer to it while being in state that brings you closer rather than farther to listening to live music but when you are in that state you are listening to a reproduction - no matter how close or far you think you are. And it is only in virtue of listening to a reproduction can your disbelief that you actually are doing so be suspended.
And technically my third sentence there is wrong because if you start referring to being in a state of suspended disbelief while you are actually in a state of suspended disbelief then you are not in such a state, you have slipped to your frontal cortext and are looking at yourself not listening to music. No hall of mirrors way out of that.
Second, you talk about how close you feel to the conceptual nature of this audible and emotional experience when listening to a stereo system. Here I am lost - I"ll take this on myself but I have no clue what it means to be close to the conceptual nature of an emotional experience. That sounds like a linquistic category mistake, but whatever you want to call it mea culpa I don't know what it means.
Well as we said, I think David said it too, its not the so much the vocabulary that is the problem, it is what we do with it - that is to say what we embrace as our values.
If this is unclear, I'll
A claim of demonizing words? That is was what led me to say 'huh?'
It is not the literal phrase "inky black background" that a certain reviewer is so found of that is the problem. I genuinely he believe he hears that when listening to a such and such component and I believe the words probably describe what he wants to get across. Don't blame the vocabulary. It is the extolling of what they represent as a value that is problematic. Those are not words used to describe listening to music in the concert hall. Words such as tone, harmonics, dynamics in its various ranges, balance, timing, etc - those are music listening words that also have application to describing listening to stereo systems. When a system can be discussed in terms of words we use to describe live acoustic music and it is not discussed in terms of words we do not use when describing live acoustic music (because we don't hear them during reproduction) then we have a vocabulary and concepts that we can value. The vocabulary does not apply when we are actually listening - that is a different experience.
Yes, I repeat myself.
I love this conclusion, and it is a sensible approach that many audiophiles do not take into consideration. I understand your position on orchestral music, and I agree with you that most listening rooms are not adequate in terms of size and treatment to come even close to recreating the scale, intensity, and the low level harmonic information that triggers our brains to be able to imagine the size and acoustic properties of the venue of a full orchestral performance.
I spent quite a few evenings when I was relatively new to hi fi listening to symphonic performances in HP's room on his IRS set-up. His original room before the fire was long and rather narrow. He was able to extract a near-field sonic presentation in that room with that system which was consistent with his musical perspective from his Carnegie Hall seat which was front and center. He of course wrote eloquently about these experiences, but they are experiences that most people never get to have, and his near-field perspective is not desirable to many listeners. His legacy is valuable in that he did expand the vision and language of hi fi, somewhat for the better and somewhat for the worse.
There is much to share in terms of expanding this discussion, and I will spend some time reading what Jeff Day had to say before proceeding too much further. I do think, however, that everyone would be better served if the review press spent more time talking about the relationship of home listening space to music and what one can reasonably expect to achieve given the space with which they must operate. Dan D'Agostino said to me years ago as a comment about his huge mono blocks: "It takes big things to recreate big things." Not everybody wants or can go there, and on blogs and other types of evaluative expositions, the distinction is rarely made when discussing the sound of a component in a system the extent to which other components in the system and, perhaps more importantly, the listening space given its size and room treatment are capable of working together to reproduce a reasonable facsimile of what is on the source material. I would not take someone's advice about the performance of a powerful amplifier, for example, if they had large full-range speakers and subwoofers in an average-sized relatively untreated listening room.
One of my favorite systems in my home is in the library which is about 12 x 12 feet as measured outside of the built-in book shelves. I very nice pair of bookshelf speakers powered by my whole house amplifier, a run-of-the-mill multichannel preamp and a Roon server is perfectly engaging and enjoyable for vocals, trios, quartettes, etc. It takes a big rig and a big space that has been acoustically engineered to reproduce large orchestral works in a way that makes one truly grateful for the music listening opportunity. It can approach a live music listening experience, and one does not need to put on your fancy duds, travel, find a place to park, grab dinner, and sit beside someone who unwraps hard candy and has influenza or worse. Just saying -- it's no picnic being as isolated as many of us are in these times, but I will gladly drink the lemonade. I am finding a greater appreciation for the music I can make at home.
Last edited:
This is a very interesting example of an audiophile term, "inky black background", that I find particularly interesting. I have never heard an "inky black background" except when listening to studio produced electronic music. Well recorded acoustic music on a well balanced system has the ability to reveal all the low level harmonic information and how it reflects on the venue's boundaries. There is no inky black background. There is a sense of sitting in the very space where the performance occurred, and "inky black" is not the word to describe that experience.
Agreed, a "black background" is artificial, and not something virtuous to aspire to, even if in some audiophile press it is made out to be as such. I use the term "calm background", which also hints at the lack of electronic noise, but does allow for hall ambience, for example. The better my system becomes, the calmer the background from which the music arises in all its vividness and excitement.
Loved this! As a regular at Carnegie, it's all true except for one thing. Nobody wears fancy duds anymore to attend classical concerts! Very different from even just 20 years ago. If the concert season was during the summer rather than fall through spring, I suspect we'd even see more shorts and T shirts while the orchestra players remained in their tuxedos and lovely black dresses.
Similar threads
