The language of Reproduction and the language of Music.

[Mike Lavigne]

...from the days when I could stay up that late to watch SNL. Now I have to "record" it to watch when I'm awake.

i'm more effective from 5am to 9am (no coffee involved), than from 6pm to.......not sure what time i actually drifted off......

and....i'm perfectly all right with that. it's what god had in mind when he made great sounding digital.

 

[PeterA]

I do believe we do both but yes not simultaneously. One is engaged in fragmentation and the other in synthesis… different phases of awareness perhaps. But also the weighting varies for each and also then for each of us as our needs change.

There was a phase for me where I spent a lot of time in analysis of sound, but now less so. As the parts of the puzzle become more revealed and as the system starts to kick in I spend less and less time in analysis. I feel I’m back to a point where I’m happy that what I have is doing the job of letting me explore music in the best ways that I can. It’s taken decades but eventually I found a way to get back to the core that began it all for me.

To the second part I’d just suggest Tim that most of us are here in a shifting series of phases and changing and evolving as we go. As we start to answer our own questions our needs change. Many of us come here to learn how to make a better system but then when we start to get there our focus can weight back into the music… or sport… or the periphery of great ideas and rich associations that can occur here. Words are useful for making distinctions and great analysis. Music is a language that brings on more immediate and whole synthesis and perhaps better at making more essential connections. Music for me is the conclusion to words.

I’d (very humbly) suggest that as an example PeterA seemingly has shifted in his phase in this last year or so (hopefully Peter will chime in to give greater insight and confirm or deny) and perhaps feels more essentially in the right place and less like that he needs great change… and so also possibly because of this that he now needs less focus on searching and so less need to engage in analysis as well.

Perhaps he’ll shift from searching to a more occasional monitoring of his circumstances but as the confidence grows in an essential rightness he also may shift perception focus and be more comfortable to go with the flow and kick back into an even greater focus on music. Spending more time pulling things together and less time pulling them apart. The greater the searching and the greater the need for change the greater the need for the focus on gear and for constant analysis. We are in a life cycle I’d suggest and as each of our puzzles resolve so does the shift in the kinds of assessment that we are then focussed on making.

Beyond this there are perhaps other factors… there are perceptual weightings based not just on state (temporary) but also of type (constant)… then there are kinds of perceptual focus that come of out of circumstance. Perhaps as a reviewer a need to engage in a good deal of analysis may always be a very essential part and parcel of your work… but this could also be a function of type as well. For me analysis is something of a necessary evil (joking) and something that I’ve forced myself to be better at because it’s so essential in design process. Detail and minutiae are also a challenge for me as is science and technology but circumstance works to constantly keep me working at my many and various Archilles heels. Gotta love a good constraint I figure.

Hello Graham, I always learn something from reading your posts. I admire the skill with which you express your thoughts, and those thoughts are worth considering. Perhaps it is an appreciation of your process and ability to analyze that is reflected in your profession, which I too studied years ago.

I have indeed shifted in my thinking about the hobby and what I value. I presented a longer version of this change, how it came about, and where it took me, in the first several posts in my new system thread. When I studied film, one professor told me that most movies have a critical scene without which the rest could not follow. If we could identify this scene and understand it, we could better grasp the meaning of the film and appreciate the whole.

For me, that scene was my seven day trip to visit David Karmeli. I have written about it extensively elsewhere. I will simply reiterate here that that visit was the pivotal scene in my audio film. Without that visit, I could not have gone from where I was to where I am now. To understand what I learned in Utah, is to understand why my views have changed, and why I now value what I do. Here is an excerpt from what I wrote in my thread about that visit:

"I had planned to stay for four days and ended up staying for a week. I learned more in those seven days than in many previous years in the hobby. It was a full immersion into what David calls “Natural Sound”. This exposure, day after day, and to four completely different systems, made me reevaluate my whole approach to the hobby. We stayed up late each evening just listening and enjoying the music. I shared my observations, and David explained to me what each part of the system did and how it all worked together to produce the sound we heard. I had not heard music presented so naturally before. Resolution was extreme, but not at all in the way I had previously heard it. The resolution simply was there, presented naturally without drawing any attention to itself.

The sound was balanced and I never found myself thinking about sonic attributes or the audiophile glossary of terms. Music was presented in a relaxing yet engrossing way. The room was full of energy like in a concert hall. I was drawn in to the whole of the music, the message, the fun, the excitement. I heard in that room what Dr. Poltun described about the energy created by the instruments and voices on stage. This is what I wanted from my system. From that point on, there was no going back."

 

[MarcelNL]

The sound was balanced and I never found myself thinking about sonic attributes or the audiophile glossary of terms. Music was presented in a relaxing yet engrossing way. The room was full of energy like in a concert hall. I was drawn in to the whole of the music, the message, the fun, the excitement. I heard in that room what Dr. Poltun described about the energy created by the instruments and voices on stage. This is what I wanted from my system. From that point on, there was no going back."

That is what the whole endeavour is about for me, and to the point Karen made (which I'll brazenly summarize and tweak towards my perception of it) about listeners looking for a system more tailored for electronic music vs that for classical/analog music; my system needs to do it all as I listen to many different types of music. What I experience is that when 'musicality' and the energy in an orchestra or between individual performers is more clearly 'coming through' the 'better' electronic music sounds so much better too.

I'm busy building a music server which currently is in that place, a bit weird perhaps; it'll be paired it with a vintage 16" transcription turntable to enjoy the pure energy of great mono.

 

[ddk]

I am not sure to what extent imaging and sound staging are artifacts of the recording process unless one is talking about electronic music that is recorded in a studio where creating spatial effects is intentional and considered to be a part of recording art.
There are a lot of audiophiles out there who primarily use electronic music produced in a studio as their reference, and there is a tendency to pursue pin point imaging, spatial effects, and transients effects over all else in selecting components and setting up systems. It become the pursuit of hi fi, not music. Systems that have been assembled and set up to highlight these effects do not often do a great job at capturing acoustic instrumental timbres and low level harmonic reflections in natural acoustic space. Tipping the scale toward effects almost always robs a system of its ability to also deliver a believable level of fundamental foundation from the middle frequencies upward — the place where instrumental timbres and low level harmonic information reside. For example, a person who has heard a lot of live acoustic music and wants to create a highly enjoyable listening experience at home can find hi fi- effect sound rather off-putting, but ironically, a system that honors the sound of live acoustic instruments in natural acoustic space can also really rock — although there are WBF readers out there who rely almost solely on electronic music sources who have vehemently disagreed. I have had listening sessions in my listening room with musicians who play primarily electronic music listen to their music. Unlike the typical audiophile, they KNOW what the electronic music they produced should sound like because they were there. I have never had a listening session with a musician where there was any question about the ability of the system to capture what the artist wanted to achieve.

Tangerine Dream was one a favorite artist back in the 70's and I traveled all over Germany to see some of their concerts. This was pure electronic music with sound generated from what seemed like a rather large computer with a keyboard and unlike Tubular Bells no acoustic instruments were used during the entire concert. There were no phasing gimmicks or obvious distracting multi-tracking tricks just sheer music and sound traveled like and covered the space like it would in a good symphony hall. Maybe that was the trick!

I haven't spent much time yet reading these threads, but couldn't some of the disagreements that show up from time-to-time on this forum and others really amount to a basic misunderstanding regarding music references?

Some of it are simply personal conflicts and point scoring ! Some of it is experience and lack of shared values or even understanding of them.

I think those who are primarily dedicated to electronic music have very different listening criteria than those who have a more eclectic perspective and have also listened to a lot of live acoustic music or play (an) acoustic instrument(s). I don't think we can force feed anyone to listen to more live acoustic music, but we could hold them a bit more accountable for what they have to say about sound. Otherwise, to avoid confrontation, the discussion becomes quite reductive to "I like what I like, and you like what you like."

I agree but I still believe that the live experience or lack of still has an impact on people's listening criteria but I would say that it's true with all kinds of music. Pre wuhan virus and shutdowns I used to attend as many quality concerts as I could at least 2-3 dozen annually but none since, strangely without that experience I'm now a lot less inclined to sit and listen to any of my systems because of it, I prefer the company and conversation over speakers to keep the world real.

david

 

[cmarin]

I totally agree with you and Mike. Its not about the terms of how the music is described but rather the emotional and physical reaction and how the music touches you. If the music gives you Goosebumps and makes you tap your foot this is what it is all about to me. I personally find the "it has better depth" , "it has wider soundstage" "ohh the blackness" are terms more and more use to try to justify the gear and not to come closer to the music. I enjoy when I have non audiophile people in my room who never describe in those terms and always describe the emotional attachment not he terms of audio.
I often hear "well its not my cup of tea" it doesn't have good depth ,this to me is a BUNCH of CRAP. The system either gets out of the way and let's the music bring you in and get involved or it doesn't. Last week at Mike L home there was a collection of listeners over three days and the reactions of the entire crowd was always the same. The got lost in the music and found one product brought them closer and involved them emotionally and the other not so much.
Audio has become something IMO that hides behind the words created by a few, and specifically HP and JGH but have been twisted and perverted to have less and less meaning. Music is life, music is emotion, music can change your mood, change the way you feel, can create and physical and emotional response. Reading words about the sound to me is like looking of pictures versus the real thing, nice but not the same, not even close.

Very well said Elliot!

 

[ddk]

I totally agree with you and Mike. Its not about the terms of how the music is described but rather the emotional and physical reaction and how the music touches you. If the music gives you Goosebumps and makes you tap your foot this is what it is all about to me. I personally find the "it has better depth" , "it has wider soundstage" "ohh the blackness" are terms more and more use to try to justify the gear and not to come closer to the music. I enjoy when I have non audiophile people in my room who never describe in those terms and always describe the emotional attachment not he terms of audio.
I often hear "well its not my cup of tea" it doesn't have good depth ,this to me is a BUNCH of CRAP. The system either gets out of the way and let's the music bring you in and get involved or it doesn't. Last week at Mike L home there was a collection of listeners over three days and the reactions of the entire crowd was always the same. The got lost in the music and found one product brought them closer and involved them emotionally and the other not so much.
Audio has become something IMO that hides behind the words created by a few, and specifically HP and JGH but have been twisted and perverted to have less and less meaning. Music is life, music is emotion, music can change your mood, change the way you feel, can create and physical and emotional response. Reading words about the sound to me is like looking of pictures versus the real thing, nice but not the same, not even close.

The "BUNCH of CRAP" you mentioned is a direct manifestation of the drivel Harry Pearson along with some of his writers and cohorts in the magazine trade fed to unsuspecting audiophiles as the ultimate system truth! This is why we continue to have such threads and conversations, it's not the vocabulary but the hifi values sold to people associated with them that only take you away from the source and the venue.

david

 

[marty]

I was under the impression that imaging and soundstaging were artifacts of the recording process. You don't hear them at live performances.

Really? Of course you do. I remember having this discussion w Steve when we were sitting in my favorite box K seats at Chicago Symphony Hall a few years ago. A nearly deaf person could close their eyes and point to almost any instrument's location on that stage with ease. Remember the highly misgotten notion that bass is non-directional? Ridiculous. In any good hall, and from any decent seat, one can easily point to the exact location of the tympani or bass drum in the orchestra. It is the beauty of hearing an instrument's location in it's relevant location on the stage that makes the concept of a "soundstage" such a compelling concept for re-creating believability when it can be reproduced in a home setting, even when constrained by the limitations of the home environment.

The same is true for entire instrument sections. One can easily tell that some conductors (i.e. Gerard Schwarz, Seattle symphony) prefer to place the second violins on the right side opposite the first violin section which is where the celli are typically located. Other conductors switch the celli and violas. These instrument placements done at the discretion of the conductor help give orchestras their personality. So no, soundstaging is hardly an artifact.

 

[Cellcbern]

Really? Of course you do. I remember having this discussion w Steve when we were sitting in my favorite box K seats at Chicago Symphony Hall a few years ago. A nearly deaf person could close their eyes and point to almost any instrument's location on that stage with ease. Remember the highly misgotten notion that bass is non-directional? Ridiculous. In any good hall, and from any decent seat, one can easily point to the exact location of the tympani or bass drum in the orchestra. It is the beauty of hearing an instrument's location in it's relevant location on the stage that makes the concept of a "soundstage" such a compelling concept for re-creating believability when it can be reproduced in a home setting, even when constrained by the limitations of the home environment.

The same is true for entire instrument sections. One can easily tell that some conductors (i.e. Gerard Schwarz, Seattle symphony) prefer to place the second violins on the right side opposite the first violin section which is where the celli are typically located. Other conductors switch the celli and violas. These instrument placements done at the discretion of the conductor help give orchestras their personality. So no, soundstaging is hardly an artifact.

Yes-really. I don’t hear individual images pop out or a defined soundstage at a live concert the way I do with some audio systems. That doesn’t mean that I can’t tell where various sections of an orchestra or instruments are.

 

[MarcelNL]

Our ears and brain do a really great job of positioning sound..it's what kept us alive for milennia.

Many sound systems - and recordings- IME create a much more precise image than I perceive in a real Symphony Hall (Concertgebouw Amsterdam a.o.) I have always attributed what some recordings make of live music to the (often unavoidable) practice of multi track and multi mike recordings that then somehow are pieced together in production. Listening to good mono recordings IMO more often recreates a more natural and realistic soundstage.

As to Bass being non directional, below a certain frequency sound becomes very hard to process as the wavelength (time) becomes so large our ears are not far enough apart / our brain too slow to process. Being able to locate Tympani etc is mainly due to the higher frequencies they also produce.

 

[Karen Sumner]

Our ears and brain do a really great job of positioning sound..it's what kept us alive for milennia.

Many sound systems - and recordings- IME create a much more precise image than I perceive in a real Symphony Hall (Concertgebouw Amsterdam a.o.) I have always attributed what some recordings make of live music to the (often unavoidable) practice of multi track and multi mike recordings that then somehow are pieced together in production. Listening to good mono recordings IMO more often recreates a more natural and realistic soundstage.

As to Bass being non directional, below a certain frequency sound becomes very hard to process as the wavelength (time) becomes so large our ears are not far enough apart / our brain too slow to process. Being able to locate Tympani etc is mainly due to the higher frequencies they also produce.

I think you are making some excellent points, Marcel, but I think the relationship between low frequencies and space is more than being able to recognize the location of a tympani drum. In live music, the long, slower lower frequency harmonics hit and reflect off the walls, floor, and ceiling of the performance venue which provides critical information to our ears and brains about the size of the hall, the scale of the music, and the acoustical characteristics of the environment. This reflected low level low frequency information on good recordings greatly adds to our sense of space and is a vital part in recreating a compellingly believable music listening experience at home.

Rather than "sound stage", I like to ask listeners to describe the "musical space" they hear and how different parts of the music and the instrumentation flesh out our sense of place. Because it includes the word "stage", sound stage is too easily misconstrued by those who do not yet have enough live music listening experience as meaning that which occurs on the stage and the location of each instrument on that stage.

 

[Al M.]

Yes-really. I don’t hear individual images pop out or a defined soundstage at a live concert the way I do with some audio systems. That doesn’t mean that I can’t tell where various sections of an orchestra or instruments are.

Indeed. The ability to localize an instrument live is *not* the same as to be able to pinpoint it. As long as you sit within the distance circle where reflected sound has not yet overtaken direct sound, you can experience an instrument live as located, but never with "sharp outlines", and never as a small pinpoint image. Images live *always* have a certain size, which is never really small.

 

[Al M.]

As to Bass being non directional, below a certain frequency sound becomes very hard to process as the wavelength (time) becomes so large our ears are not far enough apart / our brain too slow to process. Being able to locate Tympani etc is mainly due to the higher frequencies they also produce.

Agreed. It is the higher frequencies of bass instruments that reveal their location, not the low bass.

When I still had just one subwoofer, I put it on the left side of the front wall. Yet still it was easy to hear stand-up bass come out of the right monitor speaker (the right channel is where it is most often on jazz recordings), because all the higher frequencies of the instrument were reproduced there. There was absolutely no perceivable bass sound from the instrument on the left side, where the subwoofer was located. All the low end of the instrument, as one whole with the rest of its frequency spectrum, apparently played on the right channel.

 

[bonzo75]

Is this month's rerun of this topic done? Can we now move to discussing resolution?

 

[bonzo75]

As much as I dislike this same above dialogue resurfacing every few days, the reason one cannot do away with it is systems like these

Nothing against the components. But who in his right mind combines such expensive gear to play such awful music and produce such awful style of sound? This music is nothing like any music one can be exposed to outside the audiophile world. The video is on a top distributor's site, implies that he has customers who will like this.

As punishment, people who like this music and style of sound should be made to read all versions of the resolution threads and how to describe sound threads.

 

[tima]

If that was an LP I'd swear it was a 45 played at 33rpm.

As punishment, people who like this music and style of sound should be made to read all versions of the resolution threads and how to describe sound threads.

Absent anything interesting from yourself, you revert to mocking others. Bonzo - you are your own punishment.

Wadax On Wadax Off

 

[bonzo75]

If that was an LP I'd swear it was a 45 played at 33rpm.



Absent anything interesting from yourself, you revert to mocking others.

Absent anything interesting, we should discuss the same topic again. Seems to be the motto of most

 

[tima]

Absent anything interesting, we should discuss the same topic again. Seems to be the motto of most

Alternatively, we could go looking for bad music or gear examples and post them in other people's threads. Or for those who have systems we can go listen to music, post videos and gather round the video king for critique. Those choices are more suited to your style; threads like this are not your style. Nonetheless we are not so far apart - in your own way you are doing with a video (above) what others are doing with words.

As much as I dislike this same above dialogue resurfacing every few days, the reason one cannot do away with it is systems like these ... [video example]

we continue to have such threads and conversations, it's not the vocabulary but the hifi values sold to people associated with them that only take you away from the source and the venue.

The protagonists in this thread are fans of live acoustic music. You seem to share those values.

 

[bonzo75]

- in your own way you are doing with a video (above) what others are doing with words.

I am not arguing about what to do with words. It is the rinse and repeat of the topic and the words. I participated in the first few iterations.

I wanted to stay out but saw this video posted today on my forum feed, I didn't go looking for bad examples, they present themselves if you log on, and it made me lose it to think someone could be using so much money to listen to that hence posted

 

[tima]

I am not arguing about what to do with words. It is the rinse and repeat of the topic and the words. I participated in the first few iterations.

It's not all repetition. Gains are incremental and sometimes one must keep plowing. For me personally this thread has helped clarify several topics.

 

[Al M.]

As much as I dislike this same above dialogue resurfacing every few days, the reason one cannot do away with it is systems like these

Nothing against the components. But who in his right mind combines such expensive gear to play such awful music and produce such awful style of sound? This music is nothing like any music one can be exposed to outside the audiophile world. The video is on a top distributor's site, implies that he has customers who will like this.

As punishment, people who like this music and style of sound should be made to read all versions of the resolution threads and how to describe sound threads.

As promised, I will not comment on the video sound, but yes, the music is just awful and you don't hear this kind of stuff outside the audiophile world. Spot on, Ked.

A great reminder for a big reason why I don't like audio shows. I don't want to hear this kind of crap music all day. What on earth are are exhibitors thinking? Do they think their audience is all stupid?