The meaning of Source First

[Erik]

I'm not quite sure Erik, but it might be worth re-reading what I've written, particularly that last sentence. Then it might save arguing with something that's not there.

I'm not sure why you've brought Exakt into this. Also, you are making lots of other assumptions about me and dealers that are totally inaccurate. Why would I pay any attention to what any dealer says, regardless of what they sell? I've not done it before and I'm not going to start now. I'll listen for music and make my own mind up as I'm quite capable of making my own choices.

I'll bow out of this one now, but thank those who have read what's written and have contributed some thoughtful and thought provoking stuff (including those where we don't agree). Positive contributions are the best posts here.

I have read everything you have written and the suggestion to visit a dealer was to get shown what the Tune method is about as it's cristal clear you don't know. Of course you are able to chose for yourself but don't pretend you do it by tune dem. Thats why I'm arguing.

Sorry for mixing it up with Exakt, but Linn lost the plot and abandoned the Tune Method by introducing Exakt.

/Erik

[Spannko]

I believe that accurate timing and pitch reproduction are critical. Fortunately, because we're talking about perceived pitch, listening to a systems tune playing ability allows us to ignore the timing whilst at the same time, totally nailing it! What we also end up with is "true" timing, and not forced rhythm. This is due the fact that a perceived pitch is made up of a fundamental and many harmonics with defined amplitudes and spacing (depending on the instrument). Therefore, the more accurate the pitch, the more accurate the timing. This has to be the case, otherwise, by changing the timing relationship between the harmonics, the pitch will be altered.

No offence but it's a danger to theorize about Tune Dem in technical terms as pitch, harmonics, frequency etc are just words. Words that try to describe something we can measure.

But our brain doesn't measure incoming signals, it tries to UNDERSTAND them. Filter out the meaning of them.
Accuracy isn't important, not at all. Besides, the technical terms describe static signals, but music isn't.

Tune Dem is about musical understanding!
Not how well you hear the pitch, can follow the tune, whatever...
It's rather easy to build a hifi-system that is great on accuracy, timing, what have you.
Trouble is they are normally highly un-musical as they focus on TOTALLY wrong aspects!

Instead:
Focus on musical understanding!

No offence taken at all ML, I really enjoy an open debate about this kind of stuff. As I see it, we can only add to our understanding of our wonderful hobby by sharing our ideas. We have to be careful too, because meanings can be very easily lost in translation!

It's only occurred to me today, for the first time, that the concept of "musical understanding" could have some merit. My thinking goes along the lines of: music has often been described as a universal language used for the communication of emotions, and true communication can only be achieved when there's a common understanding between the sender and the receiver. Therefore, the process of "understanding" is essential in order to ensure the "message" has been communicated as intended.

However, on second thoughts, a common understanding can only be achieved via a bidirectional dialogue, so when listening to music, what you call musical understanding would perhaps be described more accurately as an affective response? If so, this would be very personal to the person describing a preference. Very much like someone who gets their rocks off to death metal, yet is left totally emotionally cold by Beethoven.

So, I suppose that leaves me on the fence with regards to using "musical understanding" myself. I was listening to Johny Cash singing The First Time I Ever Saw Your Face today. Even though his voice isn't as good as it used to be, his sense of timing is still excellent. Combined with a guitar playing beautifully tuneful chords, it was quite an emotional experience. Would this qualify as a musical understanding?

With regard to what the brain actually does when listening to music - I think it's fair to say that whilst there are many theories, nobody really knows for sure. Interestingly, brain imaging seems to indicate that timing is processed in areas normally associated with motor control. So it appears that we're biologically configured to move our bodies in response to great music. The "round earther, anti foot tappers" will be disappointed to hear of that one!

Tune Dem, Tune Method, Musical Understanding, Boogie Factor, Air Guitar........ They're all musically related assessment criteria. I feel for sure, even though we give our assessment methods a different name, if we were in the same room, listening to the same system, we would agree on the relative merits of the system we were listening to. People who use musically related criteria nearly always do in my experience.

Just to pick up on one point. Did you really mean that systems that are set up to allow one to follow the tune as easily as possible are totally wrong?

Just one more point! Tune Dem is a relative process - something is either more or less tuneful, rather than tuneful or not. This really helps when setting a system up or designing new products. Does musical understanding have similar degrees of understanding ?

[lejonklou]

I agree with Music Lover that there's a danger involved in deconstructing and analysing the Tune Method. It can lead to analysis of those very aspects instead of using the method itself, while listening.

I think 'musical understanding' is an excellent description of what using the method is about. Affective response comes after, as a consequence of the understanding.

There's been quite a lot written about what the brain does when we listen to music. I've only read a little of it, but what I did read ("The Music of the Hemispheres" by Jan Fagius was most rewarding) strengthened my impressions of how the Tune Method works. In particular that it's a mental state in which you are both focused and relaxed, both actively following the music (which professional musicians usually do) and allowing the music to move you (as untrained listeners often do), while avoiding to get stuck in analysis (which professional musicians often do) or loose focus and immerse yourself in emotion (as untrained listeners often do).

Please note that what I'm referring to as 'professional musicians' versus 'untrained listeners' is what researchers classified as two main brain patterns when listening to music.

[lejonklou]

For our Swedish forum members, I can really recommend listening to this story on Swedish public radio:
http://t.sr.se/2o8lCem

It's called "They're playing the wrong note!" and is about how some violinists are currently interpreting Sjostakovitj. Creative or plain wrong?

[Spannko]

I'm not quite sure Erik, but it might be worth re-reading what I've written, particularly that last sentence. Then it might save arguing with something that's not there.

I'm not sure why you've brought Exakt into this. Also, you are making lots of other assumptions about me and dealers that are totally inaccurate. Why would I pay any attention to what any dealer says, regardless of what they sell? I've not done it before and I'm not going to start now. I'll listen for music and make my own mind up as I'm quite capable of making my own choices.

I'll bow out of this one now, but thank those who have read what's written and have contributed some thoughtful and thought provoking stuff (including those where we don't agree). Positive contributions are the best posts here.

I have read everything you have written and the suggestion to visit a dealer was to get shown what the Tune method is about as it's cristal clear you don't know. Of course you are able to chose for yourself but don't pretend you do it by tune dem. Thats why I'm arguing.

Sorry for mixing it up with Exakt, but Linn lost the plot and abandoned the Tune Method by introducing Exakt.

/Erik

I hope you don't mind me saying Erik, but you're responding as though some part of your being is under threat, and I honestly don't feel this is the case. On a forum populated with so many highly experienced "audiophiles" (for want of a better description), we have so much more to learn by sharing ideas (within the boundaries of the forum rules, of course) rather than preaching at one another. The Linn forum is another thing entirely though. Most of the people there really could do with a good talking to! lol. :)

[beck]

For our Swedish forum members, I can really recommend listening to this story on Swedish public radio:
http://t.sr.se/2o8lCem

It's called "They're playing the wrong note!" and is about how some violinists are currently interpreting Sjostakovitj. Creative or plain wrong?

What a great story! Of course they should be playing the original score but this specific change is so very tempting to do.

About source first: Listening within my own system I have ended up where I startet. Best source wins (sondek) and analog wins over digital. The most tuneful experience I can get at home is with a good analog recording. All my digital (and digitally remastered) vinyl has an artificiel edge to them (though I can still enjoy listening to them).

About the Tune Method: I agree with Music Lover and Lejonklou. The goal is to reach a situation where every tiny bit of sound coming from your system is working together creating ONE feeling (one understanding) at any given moment.

[Music Lover]

ok, this is getting a bit philosophic, sorry but here goes...

It's only occurred to me today, for the first time, that the concept of "musical understanding" could have some merit.

Good, making progress here :)
Just a comment on "some merit"
For me, understanding is the essence in communication. We can send text messages, move our body (example do a "thumbs up"), talk, sing och using smoke signals - understanding what the other part is trying to pass on is the only important aspekt. How the information is sent is irrelevant.

My thinking goes along the lines of: music has often been described as a universal language used for the communication of emotions, and true communication can only be achieved when there's a common understanding between the sender and the receiver.

Common understanding is not needed.
A new born baby doesn't have to learn how to communicate.
If you meet a person from another culture, you still directly know if he/she is sad, angry, happy.
And any human will undertand if the music is happy or sad, without knowing anything about music theory as in minor o major.

However, on second thoughts, a common understanding can only be achieved via a bidirectional dialogue, so when listening to music, what you call musical understanding would perhaps be described more accurately as an affective response? If so, this would be very personal to the person describing a preference. Very much like someone who gets their rocks off to death metal, yet is left totally emotionally cold by Beethoven.

Musical understanding isn't a way how to listening to music, it's used evaluating what's best of two options - using Tune Method as evaluation method.

So, I suppose that leaves me on the fence with regards to using "musical understanding" myself. I was listening to Johny Cash singing The First Time I Ever Saw Your Face today. Even though his voice isn't as good as it used to be, his sense of timing is still excellent. Combined with a guitar playing beautifully tuneful chords, it was quite an emotional experience. Would this qualify as a musical understanding?

See my answer above.

With regard to what the brain actually does when listening to music - I think it's fair to say that whilst there are many theories, nobody really knows for sure.

Recent research is very clear. The brain interpret all incoming data and tries to understand, based on previous experience. Is this a lion? Is it far away?
But exactly how information (example music) is managed by the brain, I lack enough knowledge to discuss. And likely you are correct, it's still unknown.
Based on what I know, it's a LOT more complex than researchers previously believed.

This is the reason measuring of frequencies etc and using words like timing, pitch, harmonics - is totally meaningless discussing musicality.

Tune Dem, Tune Method, Musical Understanding, Boogie Factor, Air Guitar........ They're all musically related assessment criteria.

This is a misunderstanding and mixup.

Tune Dem/Tune Method are evaluation methods.
Musical Understanding can be used during the evaluation as assessment criteria, if something is more musical or not. (Lejonklou has listed a few different evaluating criteria's - all of them are about understanding)

Boogie Factor as evaluating criteria is useless imho if you strive for max musicality

I feel for sure, even though we give our assessment methods a different name, if we were in the same room, listening to the same system, we would agree on the relative merits of the system we were listening to.

Sadly, they are not nowadays.
See explanation two steps below

People who use musically related criteria nearly always do in my experience.

Agree.

Just to pick up on one point. Did you really mean that systems that are set up to allow one to follow the tune as easily as possible are totally wrong?

Yes!
All since Linn deviated from the true old Tune Dem (just look at Exakt) - I abandoned that term as today "follow the tune" seems to mean "it's easier to hear the tunes, hence I can follow the tune easier, hence more musical"
That is a TOTALLY misunderstanding of Tune Dem!!!!

Just one more point! Tune Dem is a relative process - something is either more or less tuneful, rather than tuneful or not. This really helps when setting a system up or designing new products. Does musical understanding have similar degrees of understanding ?

As previously discussed: TD is an evaluating method, whereas musical understanding is an assessment criteria

[Spannko]

ok, this is getting a bit philosophic, sorry but here goes...

It's only occurred to me today, for the first time, that the concept of "musical understanding" could have some merit.

Good, making progress here :)
Just a comment on "some merit"
For me, understanding is the essence in communication. We can send text messages, move our body (example do a "thumbs up"), talk, sing och using smoke signals - understanding what the other part is trying to pass on is the only important aspekt. How the information is sent is irrelevant.

My thinking goes along the lines of: music has often been described as a universal language used for the communication of emotions, and true communication can only be achieved when there's a common understanding between the sender and the receiver.

Common understanding is not needed.
A new born baby doesn't have to learn how to communicate.
If you meet a person from another culture, you still directly know if he/she is sad, angry, happy.
And any human will undertand if the music is happy or sad, without knowing anything about music theory as in minor o major.

However, on second thoughts, a common understanding can only be achieved via a bidirectional dialogue, so when listening to music, what you call musical understanding would perhaps be described more accurately as an affective response? If so, this would be very personal to the person describing a preference. Very much like someone who gets their rocks off to death metal, yet is left totally emotionally cold by Beethoven.

Musical understanding isn't a way how to listening to music, it's used evaluating what's best of two options - using Tune Method as evaluation method.

So, I suppose that leaves me on the fence with regards to using "musical understanding" myself. I was listening to Johny Cash singing The First Time I Ever Saw Your Face today. Even though his voice isn't as good as it used to be, his sense of timing is still excellent. Combined with a guitar playing beautifully tuneful chords, it was quite an emotional experience. Would this qualify as a musical understanding?

See my answer above.

With regard to what the brain actually does when listening to music - I think it's fair to say that whilst there are many theories, nobody really knows for sure.

Recent research is very clear. The brain interpret all incoming data and tries to understand, based on previous experience. Is this a lion? Is it far away?
But exactly how information (example music) is managed by the brain, I lack enough knowledge to discuss. And likely you are correct, it's still unknown.
Based on what I know, it's a LOT more complex than researchers previously believed.

This is the reason measuring of frequencies etc and using words like timing, pitch, harmonics - is totally meaningless discussing musicality.

Tune Dem, Tune Method, Musical Understanding, Boogie Factor, Air Guitar........ They're all musically related assessment criteria.

This is a misunderstanding and mixup.

Tune Dem/Tune Method are evaluation methods.
Musical Understanding can be used during the evaluation as assessment criteria, if something is more musical or not. (Lejonklou has listed a few different evaluating criteria's - all of them are about understanding)

Boogie Factor as evaluating criteria is useless imho if you strive for max musicality

I feel for sure, even though we give our assessment methods a different name, if we were in the same room, listening to the same system, we would agree on the relative merits of the system we were listening to.

Sadly, they are not nowadays.
See explanation two steps below

People who use musically related criteria nearly always do in my experience.

Agree.

Just to pick up on one point. Did you really mean that systems that are set up to allow one to follow the tune as easily as possible are totally wrong?

Yes!
All since Linn deviated from the true old Tune Dem (just look at Exakt) - I abandoned that term as today "follow the tune" seems to mean "it's easier to hear the tunes, hence I can follow the tune easier, hence more musical"
That is a TOTALLY misunderstanding of Tune Dem!!!!

Just one more point! Tune Dem is a relative process - something is either more or less tuneful, rather than tuneful or not. This really helps when setting a system up or designing new products. Does musical understanding have similar degrees of understanding ?

As previously discussed: TD is an evaluating method, whereas musical understanding is an assessment criteria

Thanks for your in depth explanation, ML. I now have a much better idea of what you mean by "musical understanding", and how you use it. I originally thought that you had replaced Tune Dem with Musical Understanding, but by generating a "common understanding" via open dialogue, it's clear that we are both singing from the same hymn book!

[Charlie1]

You feeling alright ML - never known you write so much :)

Everybody claims to use Tune Dem these days. Bet if I asked our postman, he'd say he uses it at least 5 times a day. It means next to nothing unless you learned to trust the person's ears. The playground thread was great for that - best thing in years.

Sometimes you can tell by someone's signature that they look for different things in their HiFi.

[Spannko]

Ha ha. Quite true Charlie.

You can also tell if someone really uses tune dem by the language they use to describe the process of what they call "tune dem".

[Erik]

I'm not quite sure Erik, but it might be worth re-reading what I've written, particularly that last sentence. Then it might save arguing with something that's not there.

I'm not sure why you've brought Exakt into this. Also, you are making lots of other assumptions about me and dealers that are totally inaccurate. Why would I pay any attention to what any dealer says, regardless of what they sell? I've not done it before and I'm not going to start now. I'll listen for music and make my own mind up as I'm quite capable of making my own choices.

I'll bow out of this one now, but thank those who have read what's written and have contributed some thoughtful and thought provoking stuff (including those where we don't agree). Positive contributions are the best posts here.

I have read everything you have written and the suggestion to visit a dealer was to get shown what the Tune method is about as it's cristal clear you don't know. Of course you are able to chose for yourself but don't pretend you do it by tune dem. Thats why I'm arguing.

Sorry for mixing it up with Exakt, but Linn lost the plot and abandoned the Tune Method by introducing Exakt.

/Erik

I hope you don't mind me saying Erik, but you're responding as though some part of your being is under threat, and I honestly don't feel this is the case. On a forum populated with so many highly experienced "audiophiles" (for want of a better description), we have so much more to learn by sharing ideas (within the boundaries of the forum rules, of course) rather than preaching at one another. The Linn forum is another thing entirely though. Most of the people there really could do with a good talking to! lol. :)

Spannko, sorry if I give you the impression of being under threat and for my rude way of discussing in this thread. I really like to be able to learn from each other and this forum is the best if not almost the only one when it comes to sound one focusing on the essential parts of music reproduction.
I have met a few trying to convince me there is other ways of interpreting source first and the Tune Method and they are always poisoning the forum and draining energy from the good parts. I sometimes overreact, I apologize for that.

/Erik

[matthias]

I really like to be able to learn from each other and this forum is the best if not almost the only one when it comes to sound one focusing on the essential parts of music reproduction.
I have met a few trying to convince me there is other ways of interpreting source first and the Tune Method and they are always poisoning the forum and draining energy from the good parts. I sometimes overreact, I apologize for that.

+1

Matt

[Music Lover]

Thanks for your in depth explanation, ML. I now have a much better idea of what you mean by "musical understanding", and how you use it. I originally thought that you had replaced Tune Dem with Musical Understanding, but by generating a "common understanding" via open dialogue, it's clear that we are both singing from the same hymn book!

Thanks
Good to hear!

[Music Lover]

You feeling alright ML - never known you write so much :)

Easter, having a bit of spare time you now...

Everybody claims to use Tune Dem these days. Bet if I asked our postman, he'd say he uses it at least 5 times a day. It means next to nothing unless you learned to trust the person's ears. The playground thread was great for that - best thing in years.

Sometimes you can tell by someone's signature that they look for different things in their HiFi.

Wise words.

[Lego]

Trying to look at it from Sunbeams perspective.What I would like to know is how sustainable long term is a front end first 'by all means necessary'.I have a slight suspicion if I sold my kairn aktive klouts ninkas and upgraded my deck to top spec LP12 and kept my intek and kans I'd initially be loving the better tune dem etc but once the novelty wears off,believe me it always does, will I be hankering to upgrade amp or speakers within a few months

Although pareto's 80/20 ratio seems to get optimal results in other things in life,why not hifi

I dont see many £25000 front end with NAD 3020 & AR18s here.

[Charlie1]

I think it kinda comes back to experiencing source first is one aspect and building a system (based on that experience) is another aspect.

I think you're right, you'd initially get more musicality but once that became the new norm then on some music you'd then start to miss the bigger sound, punch, dynamic range of your existing setup. I'd miss this on rock music in particular.

[Erik]

Trying to look at it from Sunbeams perspective.What I would like to know is how sustainable long term is a front end first 'by all means necessary'.I have a slight suspicion if I sold my kairn aktive klouts ninkas and upgraded my deck to top spec LP12 and kept my intek and kans I'd initially be loving the better tune dem etc but once the novelty wears off,believe me it always does, will I be hankering to upgrade amp or speakers within a few months

Although pareto's 80/20 ratio seems to get optimal results in other things in life,why not hifi

I dont see many £25000 front end with NAD 3020 & AR18s here.

What about passive Ninkas and a better source?

/Erik

[Erik]

I think it kinda comes back to experiencing source first is one aspect and building a system (based on that experience) is another aspect.

I think you're right, you'd initially get more musicality but once that became the new norm then on some music you'd then start to miss the bigger sound, punch, dynamic range of your existing setup. I'd miss this on rock music in particular.

I also think you will appreciate a wider range of music with a better source.

/Erik

[Charlie1]

I also think you will appreciate a wider range of music with a better source.

True and that's the lasting benefit of each upgrade.

I still don't want to go back to stand mount speakers though. I tried 109s and also own K104s (extreme case I know) and just couldn't properly enjoy a lot of my favourite music. So I'd opt to skip the source upgrade if it meant losing all that.

My system is LP12SE/Radikal/Akiva/Urika/KK1/C2200/M140s so it's not like I'm avoiding source first. Kandid is next in line too.

[Erik]

I also think you will appreciate a wider range of music with a better source.

True and that's the lasting benefit of each upgrade.

I still don't want to go back to stand mount speakers though. I tried 109s and also own K104s (extreme case I know) and just couldn't properly enjoy a lot of my favourite music. So I'd opt to skip the source upgrade if it meant losing all that.

My system is LP12SE/Radikal/Akiva/Urika/KK1/C2200/M140s so it's not like I'm avoiding source first. Kandid is next in line too.

Charlie, the really looks like a source first based system to me. Must be a good one.

/Erik

[Charlie1]

Cheers Erik

[Music Lover]

Trying to look at it from Sunbeams perspective.What I would like to know is how sustainable long term is a front end first 'by all means necessary'.I have a slight suspicion if I sold my kairn aktive klouts ninkas and upgraded my deck to top spec LP12 and kept my intek and kans I'd initially be loving the better tune dem etc but once the novelty wears off,believe me it always does, will I be hankering to upgrade amp or speakers within a few months

It's depending of personal objectives, available funding and future plans.
For some it's better to upgrade the source asap and fund it by selling amps/speakers.
For others it's better to save and upgrade the source later on, keeping same amps/speakers.

Although pareto's 80/20 ratio seems to get optimal results in other things in life,why not hifi

...as source first isn't related to price.
Imagine if the best source was at 1k€.

I dont see many £25000 front end with NAD 3020 & AR18s here.

[/quote]
For many years (80s) I had a top spec LP12, Nait/Kan system.
Was great!

In the 1900's, it was normal with source first systems if you had limited funding.
Ivor understood the importance of pushing dealers using source first and single speaker demonstrations.

Today, most the die-hard source-first advocates have the mosey to ALSO spend on amps/speakers.

[Charlie1]

In the 1900's, it was normal with source first systems if you had limited funding.
Ivor understood the importance of pushing dealers using source first and single speaker demonstrations.

I presume that didn't go as far as non-Linn amps and speakers though, or would he have advocated lower cost NAD/AR18s with LP12, as an example?

[Lego]

In the 1900's, it was normal with source first systems if you had limited funding.
Ivor understood the importance of pushing dealers using source first and single speaker demonstrations.

I presume that didn't go as far as non-Linn amps and speakers though, or would he have advocated lower cost NAD/AR18s with LP12, as an example?

That was before linn amps..It was Nad 3020 and any decent simple speaker ~£120 that was recommended ,Nad 3020 could drive Isobariks if the wind was blowing in the right direction .

[Music Lover]

In the 1900's, it was normal with source first systems if you had limited funding.
Ivor understood the importance of pushing dealers using source first and single speaker demonstrations.

I presume that didn't go as far as non-Linn amps and speakers though, or would he have advocated lower cost NAD/AR18s with LP12, as an example?

Source first = Ivor advocated the source. Amps/speakers were not an interesting subject.

I really appreciated the dedication back then - if was music only. Nothing about specs, design or sound-related words. Just musicality.
Linn was an unique company.