How we define "good sound"
Moderator: Staff
Re: How we define "good sound"
Good sound refers to the mood you’re in, when music strengthen the mood, hifi or lofi doesn’t matter. If good sound refers to a high end setup it is not that much about sound, but more about noise performance of devices. That is a different story and more fatiguing if the result is painimg your ears and purse. Arjen
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
Re: How we define "good sound"
Keith, I think good sound refers to the mood and situation, wether it is hifi or lofi. Good sound by a high end setup refers to how integrates devices transform a source to an acceptable or optimum noise to your ears. If not, an expensive set can work out painfully for your ears and your purse. Arjen
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
Re: How we define "good sound"
Playing now Stupid Marriage by the Specials. Has been a long time back I played that one on my Lenco B52, Marantz amp, Hepta speakers.
Good sound is about a Happy Marriage between the musicians, their recording, the record itself and the set it is played on.
To me tonight it is a happy marriage, refurb Lenco 76/S, Not slipping away Slipsik 6.1, Supernait 2 supported by HiCap and mouthed by Millon Phantom S Speakers. A not over the top dimensioned and articulated sound, but just Them, The Specials, produced by Elvis Costello. Everybody Happy as they shout before singing You’re Wondering Now.
This does not need a new mastering, no new pressing, no forced forward pushing spacey sound. No Audiophile Jungle. Arjen
Good sound is about a Happy Marriage between the musicians, their recording, the record itself and the set it is played on.
To me tonight it is a happy marriage, refurb Lenco 76/S, Not slipping away Slipsik 6.1, Supernait 2 supported by HiCap and mouthed by Millon Phantom S Speakers. A not over the top dimensioned and articulated sound, but just Them, The Specials, produced by Elvis Costello. Everybody Happy as they shout before singing You’re Wondering Now.
This does not need a new mastering, no new pressing, no forced forward pushing spacey sound. No Audiophile Jungle. Arjen
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
Re: How we define "good sound"
Just started a new topic about hurting ears. After a little backward downgrading, the front damping feet of Supernait 2 and Lenco Turntable I now listen Dupree Bolton and Amy Curtis’ Katanga!(Pacific Jazz Records ST-77 by Blue Note Tone Poet Series) and I really think it is a pleasant listen.
Arjen
Arjen
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
Re: Playground for practical listening exercises
This should be an advantage for the tune method.
Matt
Matt
MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
Re: Playground for practical listening exercises
I think this is a misunderstanding.
It's easier to judge a difference in performance with the Tune Method when using unfamiliar music. This prevents being trapped by old memories, feelings and experiences, such as "this song is supposed to sound like this, not like that", "the backing vocals aren't as prominent as they should be" or "wow, I've never heard that faint sound before". The old favorite trap can lead to false conclusions.
However, one must be allowed to pick a song that one can connect to. If one can't relate to the music emotionally and preferably instantly, it's best to skip that track and keep looking until it feels right.
Re: Playground for practical listening exercises
Fredrik,lejonklou wrote: ↑2021-08-10 12:58
I think this is a misunderstanding.
It's easier to judge a difference in performance with the Tune Method when using unfamiliar music. This prevents being trapped by old memories, feelings and experiences, such as "this song is supposed to sound like this, not like that", "the backing vocals aren't as prominent as they should be" or "wow, I've never heard that faint sound before". The old favorite trap can lead to false conclusions.
However, one must be allowed to pick a song that one can connect to. If one can't relate to the music emotionally and preferably instantly, it's best to skip that track and keep looking until it feels right.
this makes sense, thanks for clarification.
Matt
Matt
MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
Re: Playground for practical listening exercises
I did not say you have to like the song before you can follow the melody. I said you need to be able to connect with the music to make an accurate evaluation using the Tune Method. Without a connection, there is no musical understanding and your evaluation will not be accurate.Lego wrote: ↑2021-08-11 05:56That doesn't make sense ,so you're saying you have to like the song before you can follow the melody!? I think you're making this up as you go along Fredriklejonklou wrote: ↑2021-08-10 12:58I think this is a misunderstanding.
It's easier to judge a difference in performance with the Tune Method when using unfamiliar music. This prevents being trapped by old memories, feelings and experiences, such as "this song is supposed to sound like this, not like that", "the backing vocals aren't as prominent as they should be" or "wow, I've never heard that faint sound before". The old favorite trap can lead to false conclusions.
However, one must be allowed to pick a song that one can connect to. If one can't relate to the music emotionally and preferably instantly, it's best to skip that track and keep looking until it feels right.
Liking is an emotional response. There is a vast range of emotions that the music can awake in you as you connect to it. Which emotion you experience during your evaluation with the Tune Method is not important.
I don't make things up as I go along. I improve as I go along. It's a practice I highly recommend.
Re: Playground for practical listening exercises
Explain your definition of connection please Fredrik and why can someone not follow the melody without the connection or is not being able to follow the melody not having a connection?lejonklou wrote: ↑2021-08-11 12:40I did not say you have to like the song before you can follow the melody. I said you need to be able to connect with the music to make an accurate evaluation using the Tune Method. Without a connection, there is no musical understanding and your evaluation will not be accurate.Lego wrote: ↑2021-08-11 05:56That doesn't make sense ,so you're saying you have to like the song before you can follow the melody!? I think you're making this up as you go along Fredriklejonklou wrote: ↑2021-08-10 12:58
I think this is a misunderstanding.
It's easier to judge a difference in performance with the Tune Method when using unfamiliar music. This prevents being trapped by old memories, feelings and experiences, such as "this song is supposed to sound like this, not like that", "the backing vocals aren't as prominent as they should be" or "wow, I've never heard that faint sound before". The old favorite trap can lead to false conclusions.
However, one must be allowed to pick a song that one can connect to. If one can't relate to the music emotionally and preferably instantly, it's best to skip that track and keep looking until it feels right.
Liking is an emotional response. There is a vast range of emotions that the music can awake in you as you connect to it. Which emotion you experience during your evaluation with the Tune Method is not important.
I don't make things up as I go along. I improve as I go along. It's a practice I highly recommend.
Also could you tell us about all the improvements you've made to Linns original Tune Dem
I know that tune
Re: Playground for practical listening exercises
I'm kind of in the middle. I don't think I need to connect to the music but I did need to go towards the end of that track in order to find more instrumental threads that I could try to follow at once. I felt the strangeness of the music did make it harder as well though. I wouldn't say this is the first Playground track that I've tune dem'd and not really connected with.lejonklou wrote: ↑2021-08-11 12:40 I did not say you have to like the song before you can follow the melody. I said you need to be able to connect with the music to make an accurate evaluation using the Tune Method. Without a connection, there is no musical understanding and your evaluation will not be accurate.
Liking is an emotional response. There is a vast range of emotions that the music can awake in you as you connect to it. Which emotion you experience during your evaluation with the Tune Method is not important.
-
- Very active member
- Posts: 2317
- Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
- Location: North East of The Black Country, UK
Re: Playground for practical listening exercises
By “alien”, I mean that the pitch relationships are not what we’ve become accustomed to; they do not align with our internalised western model of harmony.
Re: Playground for practical listening exercises
As explained in a different thread: With connection I mean that we are able to make sense of the music.Lego wrote: ↑2021-08-11 15:00 Explain your definition of connection please Fredrik and why can someone not follow the melody without the connection or is not being able to follow the melody not having a connection?
Also could you tell us about all the improvements you've made to Linns original Tune Dem
I have never said that I've improved Linn's tune dem. What we're continually doing on this forum is to dissect what we're doing and how we're doing it when we evaluate musical performance using comparisons. And in doing so, we're also continually improving how to explain and teach the method to newcomers.
Re: How we define "good sound"
Exactly.lejonklou wrote: ↑2021-08-14 13:09
I have never said that I've improved Linn's tune dem. What we're continually doing on this forum is to dissect what we're doing and how we're doing it when we evaluate musical performance using comparisons. And in doing so, we're also continually improving how to explain and teach the method to newcomers.
Playing cd’s…………
-
- Very active member
- Posts: 771
- Joined: 2018-08-28 11:10
- Location: Scotland
Re: How we define "good sound"
I've read both Linn's TuneDem document and The Tune Method document numerous times. My preference is for the former - I think it's simpler and didn't need to be changed.
One brief example. The TuneDem document suggests listening to A "a few times" then listening to B. The Tune Method suggests one repeat. Neither document states listening to B "a few times" or with a repeat but a reasonable reader can infer that.
Some forum members encountered problems with Debussy played on unfamilar instruments (for some members). The issue might have been overcome by listening "a few" times.
One brief example. The TuneDem document suggests listening to A "a few times" then listening to B. The Tune Method suggests one repeat. Neither document states listening to B "a few times" or with a repeat but a reasonable reader can infer that.
Some forum members encountered problems with Debussy played on unfamilar instruments (for some members). The issue might have been overcome by listening "a few" times.
Everything is a remix: Copy, Transform, Combine.
Re: How we define "good sound"
Using the Tune Method when making comparisons is a practical skill. The key skill lies in the listening and evaluation, not in how long you listen or how many times you repeat it.FairPlayMotty wrote: ↑2021-08-14 15:00 One brief example. The TuneDem document suggests listening to A "a few times" then listening to B. The Tune Method suggests one repeat. Neither document states listening to B "a few times" or with a repeat but a reasonable reader can infer that.
You can listen to A five times, followed by B twice. Or the other way around. You can listen for 5 seconds or several minutes. You can compare A with B with C with D and then tell which one is the best.
But you have to start somewhere and that's why I recommend listening for no more than 20 seconds, twice to A, followed by B. I just think those parameters are the easiest and it's also what I was originally taught at Linn. The more skilled you become, the more you can try variations and see whether they work better for you.
I chose not to vote on the Debussy clips because I find the reliability of evaluating in-room recordings through headphones lower than when doing regular in room comparisons on a HiFi system. So with the in-room recordings I have a strong preference for immediately connecting with the music, right from when it starts. This time I listened once to each clip and had no immediate preference. I'm not sure it had anything to do with instruments being unfamiliar, I often feel the same with pop tunes if they have a slow and quiet intro that's very long. I prefer the music to start at once and have a certain complexity. Preferably some bass as well, as I often react immediately when it's a little off.FairPlayMotty wrote: ↑2021-08-14 15:00 Some forum members encountered problems with Debussy played on unfamilar instruments (for some members). The issue might have been overcome by listening "a few" times.
An interesting aspect of evaluating in-room recordings using headphones is that over the years, I have found that my very first impression of the clips is usually correct. Listening many times rarely makes me more certain. This is not true for regular comparisons on a HiFi system, where if a comparison is particularly difficult, I can listen many times with different types of music until I arrive at a "complete picture" of the differences. Perhaps it's the limited amount of information in the in-room clips that makes repeated listening not pay off (for me at least).
Re: How we define "good sound"
In my experience Linn has generally used the A/A/B system for comparisons. This can be followed by a B/B/A as well. In general I was taught to keep the comparisons short, 20 seconds to 30 seconds max with 5 to 8 seconds often all you need. In the A/A/B as I learned it you played A for a minute to a minute and a half, then played A again for about 10 to 20 seconds, then played B. The idea is that you want to compare short sections so you are comparing the same music, not the beginning of the piece with the end of the piece. Playing for a bit longer first lets you get a bit more of the flavor of the piece, then going to a short section for the comparison. Then you can listen further to B if you want as well.
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
-
- Very active member
- Posts: 771
- Joined: 2018-08-28 11:10
- Location: Scotland
Re: How we define "good sound"
Pretty much in line with the printed method. And no surprise to Linn owning Scots.ThomasOK wrote: ↑2021-08-17 19:14 In my experience Linn has generally used the A/A/B system for comparisons. This can be followed by a B/B/A as well. In general I was taught to keep the comparisons short, 20 seconds to 30 seconds max with 5 to 8 seconds often all you need. In the A/A/B as I learned it you played A for a minute to a minute and a half, then played A again for about 10 to 20 seconds, then played B. The idea is that you want to compare short sections so you are comparing the same music, not the beginning of the piece with the end of the piece. Playing for a bit longer first lets you get a bit more of the flavor of the piece, then going to a short section for the comparison. Then you can listen further to B if you want as well.
https://www.linn.co.uk/uk/tune-dem
Everything is a remix: Copy, Transform, Combine.
Re: How we define "good sound"
Wether the Tune Method is Linns or Lejenklou adapted, I learned a lot from it. Especially with the help and guidance by Fredrik and other forum members. Not being familiar with Lejenklou and this forum I was upgrading systematically (and tweaking randomly) the phono part, amp and cables of my set to higher sounding standards beyond what my ears could stand. Than I came across the Slipsik and I practiced tuning by re-position the speakers following the tune method. And it worked out fine to my ears. So chapeau to the method, which is more than just audiopathy.
But then again, I was at friends last night, we played records on an old, rather cheap setup (but good speakers) and it sounded to me like decades ago, we enjoyed the music which brought us back to our growing up days, partytime and that is what music is also about. Connecting with that feeling, those memories. Not only result of a upgraded system and methodological correctness but of recognizable vibrations.
But then again, I was at friends last night, we played records on an old, rather cheap setup (but good speakers) and it sounded to me like decades ago, we enjoyed the music which brought us back to our growing up days, partytime and that is what music is also about. Connecting with that feeling, those memories. Not only result of a upgraded system and methodological correctness but of recognizable vibrations.
Last edited by Arjen on 2021-08-18 22:16, edited 1 time in total.
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
Re: How we define "good sound"
Almost the same practice / feeling. Only difference is ... here I need 10-12 sec ... maybe in the future, as I increase experience I will need as well shorter time ...ThomasOK wrote: ↑2021-08-17 19:14 In my experience Linn has generally used the A/A/B system for comparisons. This can be followed by a B/B/A as well. In general I was taught to keep the comparisons short, 20 seconds to 30 seconds max with 5 to 8 seconds often all you need. In the A/A/B as I learned it you played A for a minute to a minute and a half, then played A again for about 10 to 20 seconds, then played B. The idea is that you want to compare short sections so you are comparing the same music, not the beginning of the piece with the end of the piece. Playing for a bit longer first lets you get a bit more of the flavor of the piece, then going to a short section for the comparison. Then you can listen further to B if you want as well.
Music First ...
Vlado
Vlado
Re: How we define "good sound"
Folks, anything to conclude now in terms of definition of good sound?
There was a lot of conversation and discussion here. Interesting notions too. Sometimes sophisticated referring to tune method and musicality, sometimes restless rambling to scientific evidence.
Isn’t good sounding just the sounding as it is, like the noise of wind in the trees, the noise of the water in a stream as one suggest, without interpretation. And if reproduced by any device sound reproduced without undesirable noise by the devices themselves? Isn’t sound at its best in the silence after the performance, quoting Hermann. Isn’t sound at its best in John Cage’s 4’33”, being aware of silence in between movement of noises, silence in between the notes?
There was a lot of conversation and discussion here. Interesting notions too. Sometimes sophisticated referring to tune method and musicality, sometimes restless rambling to scientific evidence.
Isn’t good sounding just the sounding as it is, like the noise of wind in the trees, the noise of the water in a stream as one suggest, without interpretation. And if reproduced by any device sound reproduced without undesirable noise by the devices themselves? Isn’t sound at its best in the silence after the performance, quoting Hermann. Isn’t sound at its best in John Cage’s 4’33”, being aware of silence in between movement of noises, silence in between the notes?
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
Re: How we define "good sound"
The only silence that is musically 'good sound' is Art & Garfunkel's Sound of Silence, or the Disturbed version, if that's your thing... If you're listening for the silence in between the notes, that's rather missing the point of them, which is to separate the notes, but that should be understood by listening to the notes; the tune; the music, not the quality, depth, or relative comparison of the silence; the absence of sound between the notes, imo.
-
- Very active member
- Posts: 771
- Joined: 2018-08-28 11:10
- Location: Scotland
Re: How we define "good sound"
Do you mean Paul Simon's Sound of Silence?tokenbrit wrote: ↑2021-08-26 02:05 The only silence that is musically 'good sound' is Art & Garfunkel's Sound of Silence, or the Disturbed version, if that's your thing... If you're listening for the silence in between the notes, that's rather missing the point of them, which is to separate the notes, but that should be understood by listening to the notes; the tune; the music, not the quality, depth, or relative comparison of the silence; the absence of sound between the notes, imo.
Everything is a remix: Copy, Transform, Combine.
Re: How we define "good sound"
Well, the quest is about definition of good sound. There is a lot of conversation, but do we get already a good definition yet?
I think it is in the transition from desirable noise to desirable silence and other way round, the sequence of it. Sound and silence without undesirable noise. And when the music is good it will gets you by the throat, under your skin. Then we are talking about musicality, about a musical sound. In this flow of wonderment your audio setup will be ignored, you only come aware again at the end of the record to turn it to its other side.
I think it is in the transition from desirable noise to desirable silence and other way round, the sequence of it. Sound and silence without undesirable noise. And when the music is good it will gets you by the throat, under your skin. Then we are talking about musicality, about a musical sound. In this flow of wonderment your audio setup will be ignored, you only come aware again at the end of the record to turn it to its other side.
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
Re: How we define "good sound"
Shhh... Yeah, him too :)
Re: How we define "good sound"
I know I have posted this somewhere but it seems like this latest conversation would benefit from it again.
Aldous Huxley: "After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music."
One might argue that the silence referred to is something not achievable in the world as there is always some noise. But I would expect that the author might be talking about the silence of deep meditation, where the goal is to cut off the mind from the senses rendering the meditator immune to sounds, sights, feelings, smells and tastes. Similar to what occurs in sleep, but deeper and without loss of consciousness.
Of course, that might plunge you into the music of the spheres, so still not truly silent, but the most enjoyable music imaginable as it encapsulates Bliss. And yet beyond that there is the Bliss in true silence. I'm still working on all this.
Sorry to wax philosophical, but there you have it.
Aldous Huxley: "After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music."
One might argue that the silence referred to is something not achievable in the world as there is always some noise. But I would expect that the author might be talking about the silence of deep meditation, where the goal is to cut off the mind from the senses rendering the meditator immune to sounds, sights, feelings, smells and tastes. Similar to what occurs in sleep, but deeper and without loss of consciousness.
Of course, that might plunge you into the music of the spheres, so still not truly silent, but the most enjoyable music imaginable as it encapsulates Bliss. And yet beyond that there is the Bliss in true silence. I'm still working on all this.
Sorry to wax philosophical, but there you have it.
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.