Whither Tunedem, 2015

[donuk]

I must confess this – I am a bit of an imposter on this site: I really cannot get my head around Tunedem. I have read the various instructions on this and the Linn sites, discussed it with hifi dealers and friends, tried it many times. I know it is a bit like being a Christian and not believing in the virgin birth, but there we are O Gods of hifi, I have tried.

The problem really stems from trying to listen to the tune. What do you mean by that? As a jazz guitarist, I take most of my information from the bass and drums. Likewise, I suppose, when I listen. It seems to me that the primary requirement of any jazz soloist is for the listener to reconstruct the melody in his or her head throughout the track. Which is what I do, and I know I am not an unusual listener. I have the tune in my head, not always being aware whether it is being played or not. All great music, I would maintain, just like all great visual art, requires the beholder to do some work of his own: not just listen for a tune that may or may not just pop out at you depending on the pedigree of the kit.

Years ago I used to be an avid shortwave broadcast listener – the best way to obtain clarity and hear a tune as it crackled across continents was to bandpass filter between 100 Hz and 3 kHz. As I read the Tunedem instructions, things would be a lot easier if we had the same filters. My criticism of this method is compounded by my view (for what it’s worth) of most hifi and many recordings: there is an unrealistic amount of treble, akin to digital photographs being published with too much contrast and vibrance. This may indeed make it easier to follow what is going on, but at the expense of reality. Many recordings are miked up too closely. As a guitarist I try to avoid string squeaks.

So how do I evaluate hifi? Well, as keen listeners, we all must have something of the musician in us. I am lucky being sat amongst live performers on a weekly basis; I also regularly go to concerts and gigs a lot. I have mental images of how instruments really sound – perhaps this is a really personal thing, but I link an instrument’s sound to what it is made of. For example a violin is just a fragile wooden box with a taut string over it, being scraped; a piano is a heavy wooden box with strong metal strings being hit; a drum is a skin on a wooden rim, &c. Mad perhaps, but this is how I enjoy my music. This is how I do things:

The Dondem method (for simplicity I am using a jazz recording here):

1) Sit comfortably, probably with your eyes closed, and listen to a recording you know to be good. The reason for this is that there are a lot of bad recordings out there: no amount of compensation can improve them.
2) Listen to the treble – are the cymbals discs of brass being hit by sticks, or just a fizzy tizz coming out of the right hand speaker (often too loudly).
3) Listen to the transients – does a twang of a guitar string or the bash of a drum leap out and grab you in a realistic way?
4) Listen to the bass. The bass instrument is always the hardest set up on a gig, and its sound is the most unpredictable. At some venues it is very hard to get it right. Many recordings also fail: if there is just a dull thud on the record, you will not improve on this. But – perhaps paralleling the Tunedem principles, I like to be able to pitch the chord from what is happening in the bass. If I am listening just to the tune, I might miss this.
5) Listen to the harmonies – perhaps a piano or guitar is providing this. Is it possible to tell whether the backing chord is major or minor?
6) Listen to how the instruments combine – when the trumpets and trombone come in does the bass disappear, or does it keep plodding away defining the chord and rhythm at the same volume in the background?
7) Does the whole presentation sound as realistic as it can be? Is there anything that shouts out or hurts the ears when it is played quite loudly. I do not look for holographic stereophonic presentation – real gigs do not provide this either.
8) The most important of all – and this rule can overrule any of the above: is the resulting sound enjoyable or emotional? Romy the Cat, in his idiosyncratic forum, says somewhere that reproduced music never equates with the concert hall. All we can do is to try to get a similar, but perhaps not the same, emotional experience from our hifi systems.

Also, I may strongly be in the realms of heresy here: Tunedem may have had its day. Using just the Linn and Lejonklou catalogues it is possible, even at mid-range expenditure, to purchase an astoundingly pleasant sounding system, capable of concert-quality reproduction in the home. I remember the golden age of hifi when British companies challenged the accepted norm of having a silver fronted receiver driving poor speakers positioned on the floor. In those systems it might not have been easy to hear the tune; now, I argue, there is so much more to listen to.

So, Mr L, although I am unable to pass the Tunedem admission criteria, may I please retain honorary membership of your illustrious, (and the most even-handed, and I hope, forgiving) forum?

Don Sunny downtown York. (where there has just been a partial eclipse of the sun – no doubt the Gods’ warning about forsaking Tunedem.)

[magnuska]

Good post Donuk!

I think you`re not alone in this. I recognise what you say and agree with you, as a musician as well.

/Magnus

[CJ1045]

Very interesting and way out of my ability to do what you do. As someone who struggles to tell what is in tune although still capable of wincing at what others tell me is out of tune I would tend to go for a combination of what I find the most enjoyable and what is bringing out detail that I have not heard. The latter has a possible flaw in that the new detail appearing may mean that old detail is lost and I don't notice what is not there!

CJ

[Ozzzy189]

Great post don, and I am really looking forward to meeting up again soon. We've got a lot to talk about and things to play with. Some music is easier to use than others. Maybe jazz is particularly difficult? The beauty of ds is that it makes it easier to use different snippets of music and test tones if you so desire.

[Charlie1]

Very interesting and way out of my ability to do what you do.

Me too! I would love a demonstration of Domdem though :)

I always find it interesting with musicians and recording engineers comment on Hi-Fi.

[lejonklou]

Thanks for your long post, Don! This topic is forever interesting to me.

If I may quickly comment on your method from a Tune Method perspective, I say:

1. Only ask yourself the questions you would on a live performance. Forget HiFi jargon and your entire perception of how the sound reproducing system works. Forget "bass", "treble", "transients" and "realistic". They have no relation to the music, only to your system. And what you want to do is to connect to the music, just like during a live performance. Then you judge how good that performance was. If it was great, your system is great.

2. Don't confuse the making of music with the enjoyment of music. They are different processes and one doesn't necessarily help the other. Over the years I have found that it's quite common for professional musicians to "fill in the gaps" and have a very sharp focus in a particular direction when they listen to HiFi systems.

[lejonklou]

By point 2 I mean that musicians are, in my experience, neither better nor worse at judging the quality of systems than plain listeners. Just more picky with their own particular viewpoint.

[Azazello]

Hi Donuk!

From your "musician" perspective - let me suggest that you skip all those steps and only ask yourself one thing (assuming that you do this in order to compare two components or similar, playing the same record of course): Is this band better than the other? Are they able to better communicate the emotion of the music?

Don't try to analyze anything, don't bother your mind with the shortcomings of the recording or anything like that. Do nothing of what you are describing in you first post, don't try to perform. Just go with your emotional response. If it's a happy song; are they able to make you happier? If it's a sad song; are the able to make you feel more sad?

Preferably do it in A-A-B order with music you are hearing for the first time.

[Efraim roots]

All great music, I would maintain, just like all great visual art, requires the beholder to do some work of his own

This was a interesting point, and obvious when you think about it, just hadn't put it into words myself. Thanks.

In general I welcome this kind of critical discussion of the tune method, this is the best thread on the subject I've read for a long time.

Personally I think tune method is the by far superior method to judge performance out of music systems, life changing since music is such a important thing in my life. Also in general since recorded music really is a big thing (think about it!) Tune method also leads to progress which is something I in general regard as utterly important, for me that's like a "evidence" for the methods "truth status".
My biggest concern with tune method is that I'm a little reserved about the "universal result" claim. My idea about this is that music is such a complex thing and I think different people will differ slightly in their connection with music. Even if the results is strictly related to communicating the essence of a piece of music, one person connect strong with the "heart", the next one with the "harmony" for example. Neither hi fi equipment is perfect and will have different qualities over the complex musical spectrum. I'll sound a little pretentious, but I'm just trying to make my point clearer; the tune method may be a perfect theory but neither humans nor hi fi is. I think a humble approach is needed on the subject, but still a hollowing of the method is just unworthy!

Don Sunny downtown York. (where there has just been a partial eclipse of the sun – no doubt the Gods’ warning about forsaking Tunedem.)

Haha, probably. When the knowledge of tune method is passed down from generation to generation, they will always remember that day.

[hcl]

I think the tune-method is the best somewhat universal tool we have to evaluate equipment, but there are many ways of performing it and some are more reliable than others. Focusing on how well the instruments are tuned is (in my view) much more reliable than the "Idol" (or listen and feel) version although the "Idol" version is very easy to perform and in that respect also reliable. The problem with the more subjective, autonomous (if that makes sense) ways is that they rely on that the quality of the music is maximised and that all alerations lead to worse performance. It is easy to show that a sertain class of recordings or type of songs can benefit from a sertain kind of alterations (error) and if one uses music solely from that class or genre when evaluating equipment the risk is high that one come to the conclusion that that specific error is generally preferable and also that equipment with that error actually is better. If the best version of a song was the most clean version (the version with the least effects etc added) most (if not all) recordings would sound very different from what they do. Because of that I think it is very important to reach a fully repeatable and reliable result that, if one rely on the "listen and feel" versions that one listen to a wide variety of different kind of music communicating music in very different ways. The drawback (as I see it) with the more reliable methods (instument tuning, phrasing and interplay between instruments e.g. aspects more closely related to good musicianship) is that most people are less intellectually aware of these details and also, at least for me, that these ways is not that sharp (perceptive) than the "just feel" methods (which can spot almost any difference).

[Music Lover]

there are many ways of performing it and some are more reliable than others. .

As humans are different and hence perform tune dem in different ways, I don't think there is "a more reliable way".

Based on my experience, the "most reliable way" is YOUR OWN way :)

[Efraim roots]

there are many ways of performing it and some are more reliable than others. .

As humans are different and hence perform tune dem in different ways, I don't think there is "a more reliable way".

Based on my experience, the "most reliable way" is YOUR OWN way :)

Very good comment! Sounds simple but it's really sophisticated IMO, taking note of the conditions human nature work under.

If the best version of a song was the most clean version (the version with the least effects etc added) most (if not all) recordings would sound very different from what they do.

Oh yes! People seems sometimes very unaware of the amount of work the studio engineers go thru to make records sound good. Personally I count the engineer as one of the musicians, and I don't necessarily would want recordings clean, depends on the work of art and I leave that to the artists.

Because of that I think it is very important to reach a fully repeatable and reliable result that, if one rely on the "listen and feel" versions that one listen to a wide variety of different kind of music communicating music in very different ways

I think you have a point here, the problem I see with this is still that even if we believe to use a wide variety of music it's still very likely that the majority of it is the "western world 1950-2015" popular selection. At least, I would ask myself if this is could be seen as representative for music in the big context.

My comments to hcl is a little fragmented sorry, I spotted some topics interesting me which I commented. Regarding the post as a whole I guess you're basically reasoning about YOUR OWN way of tune method. Interesting since it gives some insight in the personal variations of it (maybe that's what donuk does too). Hcl, is there really a conflict between your referred "methods", isn't tune method ideally a mix of technical musicianship and communicated emotion?

Personally, I'm the conductor, very physical :-)

[Efraim roots]

... the roots conductor.

[hcl]

Hcl, is there really a conflict between your referred "methods", isn't tune method ideally a mix of technical musicianship and communicated emotion?

Appreciated. Thanks!

Fundamentally the two methods are both related to how the music is perceived. One could well be performed by anyone and the other is probably more suited for musicians and musically educated persons. As I find it useful in a lot of what I do (on my spare time) I am constantly trying to develop my skills in this area. I record and mix music as a hobby and in order to come to the best possible end result I switch between both methods of listening.

As I see it the difference between the methods is the awareness of the reasons behind the conclusion of the performed tune-dem. The pros for the "listen and feel" method is that it is more sensitive to small, but non the less important differences. The cons are that it is more susceptible to all kinds of sub-consious influences. When the two ways points firmly in the same direction I think it is a good indication of that one is on the right track.

[Music Lover]

isn't tune method ideally a mix of technical musicianship and communicated emotion?

According to me, the tune dem method has nothing to do with communicated emotions.
The key words are musical understanding!

Communicated emotions - think Naim. Very exciting and direct. Very live.
I really really like that aspect, trust me!
In the early 90's I moved from top-of-the-line Linn to Naim equipment...great fun (with the focus on FUN)
But I missed the musical understanding so I changed back to Linn.

Nothing beats musical understanding :)
(Mono2's excel in both aspects, me like hehe)

PS
with enhanced musical understanding, you also get enhanced communicated emotions. But focusing enhancing the communicated emotions, not sure you obtain enhanced musical understanding.
Follow me?

[donuk]

Please tell me exactly what you mean by musical understanding
Donuk

[Music Lover]

Please tell me exactly what you mean by musical understanding
Donuk

Well...
Do you understand WHY the musician play the way he does? (interacting with the other musicians the way he does)
Comparing 2 options - is the understanding better or worse?

The brain is GREAT at interpreting the world, by comparing with something "well known". It does that by "filling in" the missing/distorted information - hence the bad idea using well known music during evaluation (unless you are experienced)

Follow me?

[Charlie1]

Ref musical understanding, perhaps an extreme example, but I recall Tom writing about a jazz track that sounded like a cacophony. Later he heard it on a better system/turntable and realised the musicians were trying to replicate sounds of the jungle.

[Efraim roots]

Interesting hcl, seems like you got a quite distinct personal way of doing a tune dem. I wonder about one thing that you wrote, what did you mean by:

The cons are that it is more susceptible to all kinds of sub-consious influences.

Then I must comment on the "two ways" you use;

When the two ways points firmly in the same direction I think it is a good indication of that one is on the right track.

I guess you won't get much support among tune dem'ers that there is two ways, one of the foundations of the method is that you focus on one way, much like Music Lover writes about, reducing the music to just one and only "better or worse". It could be seen as part of the definition of tune dem to reduce it to one. Would you not agree that this is part of the definition of tune dem?

with enhanced musical understanding, you also get enhanced communicated emotions. But focusing enhancing the communicated emotions, not sure you obtain enhanced musical understanding.
Follow me?

Yes I follow you, you reduce it further to a more, in your view, complete one better or worse. It was my point also in my post you quoted to reduce it to one. I'm a little reserved about the term musical understanding tho. To me it sounds a little bit intellectual, you see, I spot a little distance between the work of art and the beholder, a little analysis? Let me quote the famous lines about King David (again) "David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him." Or as Bob Marley sings: "one good thing about music, when it hits you, you feel no pain". Music has powers and when I have experienced those powers in their most complete form, there has been a direct contact, without intellectual analysis. This might be MY OWN way tho, because of my personality traits or something else.

[Music Lover]

I'm a little reserved about the term musical understanding tho. To me it sounds a little bit intellectual, you see, I spot a little distance between the work of art and the beholder, a little analysis?

Music has powers and when I have experienced those powers in their most complete form, there has been a direct contact, without intellectual analysis. This might be MY OWN way tho, because of my personality traits or something else.

According to my view, you got it correct!
It's without intellectual analysis, yes!
= stop active listening, relax and only FEEEEEEL the music. And let the brain do it's own stuff.
Then you instantly know if it's better or not. Instantly. OR, you can't tell.
If you start thinking...you start analyzing and BOOM you get lost.

That's my way!
Find YOUR way :)
Good Luck

[lejonklou]

I agree with you that the Tune Method is performed without a conscious analysis.

For me, the analysis happens after the music is switched off. Like: "What happened there?" If I start analysing while the music is playing, I can easily become tricked. For instance by clarity. The analysis loves clarity!

What I consider necessary - and for many people this appears to be the most difficult part - is to focus entirely on the music, with a mind that is open to let it in.

I think that "understanding" is a good word for describing what happens when the mind meets the music. We "understand" the music, and as a result react emotionally.

Focusing on analysis leads wrong and you end up with a stone cold system (heard too many of them lately!).
Focusing on your emotional response leads wrong, as there are many more things than the music affecting your emotions. You end up with a random system.
Focusing on the music, letting your mind and body take it in and react to it, without analysis or self consciousness - that will make you end up with the best system!

[Efraim roots]

What I consider necessary - and for many people this appears to be the most difficult part - is to focus entirely on the music, with a mind that is open to let it in.

Indeed, it is quite difficult to find that focus (and keep it) for me too at times. I'm kind of slow because of that, but I feel good about the results in general. More often when I get to wrong conclusions it's a consequence of not being careful enough about the A-B test, accidentally affecting more than one parameter at time for example, also crucial for a successful tune dem!

I think that "understanding" is a good word for describing what happens when the mind meets the music. We "understand" the music, and as a result react emotionally.

Well, If you put it like that and after reading a couple of definitions of understanding I can agree with you. I'm glad you expressed it with those words (the mind meets..) since it reminded me about something I have been thinking of quite alot related to the subject, namely; the body. I find it interesting that you also note the relevance of the body further down your post

Focusing on the music, letting your mind and body take it in and react to it

If it's both your mind and body taking it in and reacting, is "understanding" still a good word (probably, but things get a little trickier). My point is that the body is important! If we take rhythm as the example, I use the wikipedia article as my help:

"This general meaning of regular recurrence or pattern in time can apply to a wide variety of cyclical natural phenomena having a periodicity or frequency of anything from microseconds to millions of years.”

- Ok, what I mean by this quote is that rhythm is a thing big enough to be defined as a fundamental force of creation. In the same article under Anthropology, we can read:

”In his series How Music Works, Howard Goodall presents theories that human rhythm recalls the regularity with which we walk and the heartbeat. Other research suggests that it does not relate to the heartbeat directly, but rather the speed of emotional affect, which also influences heartbeat. Yet other researchers suggest that since certain features of human music are widespread, it reasonable to suspect that beat-based rhythmic processing has ancient evolutionary roots”

- Rhythm is so fundamental to mankind that some the greatest theories among Anthropology relates it directly to our heartbeat. What could be more of an essence of a living human being than the heartbeat? And, it's about the body. Can you follow my "source first" perspective here?

[SaltyDog]

Air guitar, imaginary drum solos hitting the rim at exactly the right time, singing along without knowing the words, and all the other bodily responses to music that bring out the emotions occurring in time is a better Tune Dem. Silent repetition has a hard time without all these other things. I find different body parts respond to different aspects of a tune.

The less of a klutz I feel, the better the system is perceived.

[lejonklou]

Can you follow my "source first" perspective here?

Yes, I follow you!

I think our bodies are more important to our perception of the world than what's generally recognised. As a physiotherapist I have noted that after a period of focus on the mind, the pendulum has now partly swung back in recognition of the intimate and two-way relationship between body and mind.

Remember when member Ceilidh mentioned he uses the Dance Method? In my opinion, this is a method that works really well IF the dancing part is totally spontaneous and not distracting from the focus on the music. When it is, it can help you from getting stuck in analysis, because as many have experienced, it's virtually impossible to analyse the music and dance at the same time.

The air guitar and imaginary drums that Salty mentions is very similar - a spontaneous bodily reaction to the music. I think, however, that one needs to stay away from trying to perform in any way. The key is to let the music in, not create it yourself.

I also think it's unreliable to make comparisons with recordings of percussion only. It can easily result in an excessive focus on rhythm, at the expense of other essential musical elements.

[Charlie1]

Air guitar, imaginary drum solos hitting the rim at exactly the right time, singing along without knowing the words, and all the other bodily responses to music that bring out the emotions occurring in time is a better Tune Dem. Silent repetition has a hard time without all these other things. I find different body parts respond to different aspects of a tune.

The less of a klutz I feel, the better the system is perceived.

Hi Salty, Good to hear from you again. For me, Silent Repetition doesn't get in the way of any of this. In fact, the system that performs better will give me more of the fun you describe.

When I listen to a live jazz band, for example, it is so effortless to follow in real time - it's as if the music is mainlined to my person without anything to get in its way. The act of performing Silent Repetition is homing in on this specific quality and consciously using it as a basis to judge a system's performance. For me, methods such as trying to judge between two performances or judge which option emotionally excites me the most are more likely to catch me out and occasionally lead to the wrong conclusion. Obviously, I want all the things you describe, but I need the most reliable means of getting them. I find Silent Repetition offers that.

Having said all this, I guess Silent Repetition simply doesn't align so well and so consistently with what some folks enjoy most in their music. Perhaps the system that performs best using Silent Repetition isn't always the one they'd want to live with long-term. This is where I think we're all safer talking about our own experiences and not being overly entrenched in our views. Easier said than done and I fall into the trap as much as anyone :)