Whither Tunedem, 2015

[Spannko]

Totally agree Charlie. I like the idea of describing an emotional connection with the music - this surely is the ultimate aim of our HiFi hobby. However, I've lost count of the number of times I've felt an emotional response, played air drums, sang and danced to what are really quite poor systems (when listened to again, under different conditions). For me, it's not a reliable way of assessing a system.

[Efraim roots]

Aha! So we have a pattern here; (just an simplified mapping for further reasoning, they surely overlap to different degress)

Mind:
"tuned instruments"
"musical understanding"
"silent repetition"

Body:
"just feel"
"air drums"
"dance method"

(maybe this sums up hcl's "two ways" also?)

The ideal should be a mix of these, the one better or worse. Can a person really take mandate on what is the ideal "mix"? It seems like different people has a different ratio in these aspects. I'm still reserved about the "universal result" claim. But of course, quite 'heavy' thinkers has argued that "the middle way" or "golden mean" is the best way, people like the Buddha and Aristoteles.

Regarding the discussion about physical interaction during tune dem I found these words very important:

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.

For example, I refer to myself as the "conductor", but If that's going to work I got to be an orchestra led conductor.

Here is another image for you; We should be like the cartridge on the LP12! If the deck improves (represents the A/B test), the cartridge can pick up more music. :-)

[Music Lover]

"Just feel" = mind
If you took it from what I wrote that is...
As I was trying to describe musical understanding using that word. Not about the body at all.
Letting the brain "feel the music" on its own is the opposite to activly thinking&analyzing - for me.

[lejonklou]

Two thoughts:

Silent repetition works really well for the Tune Method. In my view, it's all about how the listening part of the silent repetition is performed. The main objective of the repetition part is that your mind becomes focused on following and understanding the music during the listening part. So my guess is that often you, Charlie, know the outcome of a comparison before the repetition has been completed. Correct?

The division of mind and body is counter productive and oh-so-last millenium.

[Efraim roots]

The division of mind and body is counter productive and oh-so-last millenium.

Ok,fair enough! Why I find this relevant at all is grounded in my thoughts that people have different ways how they perceive music. So, can a person really take mandate on what is the ideal way?

[lejonklou]

Ok,fair enough! Why I find this relevant at all is grounded in my thoughts that people have different ways how they perceive music. So, can a person really take mandate on what is the ideal "mix"?

I should have added a smiley after my last millennium-comment!

Yes, I see what you mean. I think there is a slight variation between our "mixes", but I also think that some get stuck in an "evaluate mode" that limits rather than helps them make the right decision. The purpose with the Tune Method is, after all, to provide a short cut to what is most musically enjoyable in the long run.

[Charlie1]

So my guess is that often you, Charlie, know the outcome of a comparison before the repetition has been completed. Correct?

Yep, once I start listening to the 'B' in the 'AAB' comparison then I usually realise it's become easier or harder, and often after a couple of seconds. And of course I need to feel comfortable with no pressure on me. Sometimes I find it very difficult and have to repeat it or try a different piece of music. I usually try 2 or 3 tracks anyway, just to be sure.

Must admit I think I find Silent Repetition a bit harder than other methods, but I trust the results more. Or maybe my memory is letting me down and it was the same with the other methods.

Why I find this relevant at all is grounded in my thoughts that people have different ways how they perceive music.

I would find it very difficult to articulate how I listen to music (as opposed to Silent Repetition). I've never really wanted to analyse it. It kinda feels quite personal - don't know why. Not that I dance around naked or anything. And I've seen Fredrik's dancing/air guitar work, so I know I've nothing to feel too embarrassed about :) I am more of an air drummer to be honest, but that's between you and me ;)

[Efraim roots]

@Lejonklou
Ok, you recognize that there is some personal variation in how we perceive music but that is not the biggest problem in the tune dem context, a far more relevant concern is that people who aspire to use the method must not get stuck in any ”evaluation mode” - sounds good to me.

As a summary I would like to say that I think it’s wise to have a humble approach to these highly complex subjects; human nature and our most beutiful form of communication, music. We can’t apply the positivism of natural science to these subjects, IMHO.

If we have all this in our minds it’s easier to have an including tone, which I believe ultimatley leads to progress. A progress of personal and collective understanding of what we're doing, and also progress for Lejonklou HiFi. I also believe the opposite to be true.

Since I've "gone thru my agenda" I would like to thank everyone that contributed to this thread so far, which I have found very interesting!

All the best for the coming easter holidays!

[lejonklou]

Well said Efraim!

Thanks to you too!

[donuk]

This thread has gone a bit quiet now. I have had time to read through all my good friends’ comments and to try to digest them.

I can only conclude that I do not really understand the exquisite value of Tunedem. Or put another way, perhaps I already do it! It seems to me that there can be no objective way of measuring hifi systems. The motto seems to be “if it sounds musical and enjoyable, then your system is fine.”

This I would have agreed with, and set out this possibility in my first post. Thinking about it a bit more I realise that perhaps I was wrong. There are a lot of live bands which sound poor (welcome to York – not my own of course!). There are a lot of recordings that are poorly made, sometimes instruments not being in tune with themselves, (guitar B strings can be irritating), or with each other. There are lots of recordings which have been poorly kept.

Is it the job of a hifi system to make poor recordings (for whatever reason) enjoyable? Either answer is interesting. If the poor recording is processed to sound more musical, and that is what you want, then fine. If a poor recording or performance still sounds poor in your sitting room, then you probably have – in my view, a faithful hifi system. The much misused word “fidelity”. I can’ really make my mind up which might be better – enjoyment or accuracy.

The task of a hifi system to convey emotions also troubles me. I prefer to listen to early Beatles or Mummas & Pappas tracks on a small radio with a three inch speaker, preferably with the comforting hiss of geranium transistors in the background (OC44 anyone?). That makes me very emotional and takes me back to when I first heard them on Radio Luxemburg.

The advent of the SPACE software from Linn for room conditioning has thrown up some interesting thoughts from some posters who do not like the software. Perhaps it unconsciously deprives us of the comforting honk of our own listening rooms. I was not aware of the characteristic sound of my own room until I eliminated it. (But this is not the thread to discuss SPACE, I know).

Perhaps known and loved constant colourations of sound explain the fanaticism of adherers to the Naim, Linn and valve sounds – all of which I have sampled and loved.

So what I am suggesting is that if you judging your hifi system on whether it is more, pleasing, emotional or tuneful, you might simply be listening through the audio equivalent of rose-coloured spectacles. Which I fine, I guess we all to that to some extent, choose components which sound “nice” to us.
I still remain with the fact that some of my recordings and performances fail, to my ears, to be tuneful. I would not be humming along with the tune, even if I had a Lejonklou system, I am sure. This is why I like to listen to a recording that I know to be enjoyable when testing out a system. Source first, remember......?

Don rainy downtown York

[ThomasOK]

I find the discussion on the Tune Method both interesting and timely. Timely as it appears there may be some shifting in the use of the Tune Method. And there have been several interesting thoughts expressed.

I wanted to give some thoughts on this but haven’t had much time lately between work, taxes and Lejonklou upgrades but I have a little time now (Thursday April 2nd) so I’ll see how far I get. I will start out by saying that in my mind the Tune Method is the system of silent repetition that Linn proposed and promoted. While I don’t feel it is the only way to evaluate equipment, and it is not the only way I evaluate products and settings, I do feel it is the most consistent and reliable way to carry out these evaluations. I also think it is very important to mention that the Tune Method is designed as a method of evaluation – it is most certainly NOT a recommended way of listening to a Hi-Fi system for musical enjoyment. For musical enjoyment all methods of evaluation should be put aside – you should just listen and get into the music and let it move you in whatever way it was performed to do. Interestingly, with the best equipment and systems I find that I can easily lapse into listening for pure enjoyment in the middle of trying to evaluate something. This is always a good sign.

Now I find that I listen in various ways when evaluating equipment or settings and I think most people in the business tend to do this. We find ways of listening that generally sort things out well for us and use whatever works best but also switch from time to time depending on what we are evaluating and how easy or difficult we are finding it. Some ideas that apply for some things may not apply as much for others. Here are some examples. It is often said that the Tune Method generally works best with music you are not familiar with and I have found this to often be the case, but not always. The idea is that when you are listening to something very familiar your mind may fill in for what is missing and you might miss some audible deficiencies. With new music you are likely to focus more on the performance as you are trying to understand what is being played. However, when I am setting up and doing the final fine tuning on turntables I almost always use the same piece of music – currently “If You Could Read My Mind” by Gordon Lightfoot. With almost any music I use for evaluation I avoid pieces with long intros and look instead for pieces where stuff starts happening fairly quickly – where a number of instruments and a voice or two all come in within the first 30 seconds. This way I can do comparisons fairly quickly, which is also a tenet of the Tune Method. “If You Could Read My Mind” starts with a couple of nice acoustic guitars, a bass and then voice in pretty rapid succession. I use this piece because I am so familiar with it that I can very quickly pick up on less than optimum turntable settings. Recently I had a customer who brought in a Rega Planar 3 for a going over. It mainly needed a new belt but I tweaked a few torques, etc. while it was here. After asking the customer if it was Ok to make a few improvements I put on the record and told him that the mat was the wrong way up. I then flipped it over and it sounded immediately more musical. TJ was sitting down at the other end of the bench soldering cables and stated: “I don’t know what is more disturbing, that you decided which was the right side of the mat without an A/B, or that you were correct!” ;-) I have setup so many LP12s and Regas that I know what the right side and the wrong side of the mat sound like with this piece of music so I generally don’t need to listen to both sides to make the determination (although I always do listen to both just to be sure). Likewise, I use this cut for setting tracking force, anti-skating, arm height, belt orientation and platter clocking. Knowing this piece as well as I do allows me to zero in on things very quickly. I do use a version of tune method for this as I am listening for whether the guitar notes sound pure or a touch sour, whether the bass is easy to follow or more indistinct and how good the voice sounds and how well it communicates emotion. Interestingly, I find that once all the parameters are optimized, almost regardless of the level of LP12 or even Rega, the music connects with me so well that I want to listen to the entire cut despite the number of times I have heard it. So you might say it is mostly tune method, although without the silent repetition. I think this is often how I evaluate equipment or setup although I virtually never use this piece of music for other evaluations. For things like speaker positioning, rack position, and other evaluations I tend to mix the music up.

As to just using the emotional impact of the music, this I have found to be somewhat less reliable in judging musical performance. There seem to be just too many variables that change how music affects you for me to consider it a truly reliable method for evaluation. Although the emotional impact is certainly a good part of what I am looking for in just plain music listening. I have a recent example of a problem with judging by emotional impact. Last Saturday I was listening to the rather wonderful LP12SE, Sagatun Mono 1.1s, Tundra Mono 2s, Isobariks system we have had setup in our biggest room here. I was enjoying it so much I wanted to compare them to my home system. So before leaving I played “Tango Till They Drop” by Holly Cole off the Temptation album. I really like this piece and use it a fair bit for comparisons. It starts with a standup bass riff where five notes are repeatedly played with the musicians’ finger slid up the fretboard on the last note lowering the tone (I do not read music but I think it is an octave). Then the drums come in with some nice rim shots and shortly after that her vocals. The tunefulness of the bass is definitely changed by different equipment and the vocals and drums also show off better equipment easily. I also just really get into this song. So then I take the album home so I’m sure I’m listening to the same thing (even though I own the album myself). Debbie is in the office after dinner with the door closed so I figure it is a good time to listen. I put on the record and she immediately comes out of the office, walks up to the living room and stands looking at the system scowling! Then she says “I wish she would learn how to sing!” I wave her off so she goes into the kitchen sighing then comes back out and scowls at the system again. (Debbie used to sing professionally and swears that Holly Cole sings flat on some tracks, probably on purpose for some effect, but she doesn’t like it and feels the need to comment on it EVERY time. I, obviously have no problem with her singing.) Anybody think I was able to judge the two systems based on the emotional connection with the music in this scenario? Anybody think it actually had anything to do with the two systems themselves? So yeah, she ruined my comparison. :-(

Another example that wasn’t caused by who else was in the room. I think we all have certain pieces of music we strongly connect with for one reason or another. One that I have is “Wicked Game” by Chris Isaak. Ever since I first heard this it reminded me of one of my previous girlfriends “What a wicked game to play, to make me feel this way”. So I definitely have an emotional connection to it. For a while I tried to use it to evaluate equipment based on how much emotion it stirred up. I found this to be totally unreliable as too many environmental influences affected how much emotion I felt including my mood, how many times I played it and any distractions when changing the piece of equipment being listened to. After trying this a few times and having confusing results I found that I would sometimes find a product brought out the emotion more when it was clearly less tuneful using silent repetition. Since then I have stopped using emotional connection for evaluation. Again I feel it is an important part of the music as emotional communication is what music is all about. I certainly enjoy that connection when I am listening for pure enjoyment. But I find it too misleading as a tool for evaluation by itself.

So again I mostly listen as described earlier, listening for tunefulness and somewhat to emotional connection using A/B or A/A/B comparisons but not necessarily with the repetition of notes in my head. However, whenever I have a difficult time comparing two different things, be they speaker positions, power cables, different amps, etc. I do always fall back on silent repetition. I find that this can reliably sort out the smallest or most confusing differences and allows you to choose the most musical one. It seems to cut through the confusion that other listening methods can create, especially those that focus on sonic rather musical performance. So the Tune Method is still the most consistent and discerning method of evaluating Hi-Fi equipment, cabling and setup I have found.

[Music Lover]

Interesting post Don, some fast comments below..

There are a lot of recordings that are poorly made, sometimes instruments not being in tune with themselves, (guitar B strings can be irritating), or with each other.

Please list a few of them, and I'll test.

Is it the job of a hifi system to make poor recordings (for whatever reason) enjoyable? Either answer is interesting. If the poor recording is processed to sound more musical, and that is what you want, then fine.

Not sure it's possible to modify a poor recording to sound more musical, any ideas?
If possible, love to be able doing this!

If a poor recording or performance still sounds poor in your sitting room, then you probably have – in my view, a faithful hifi system. The much misused word “fidelity”. I can’ really make my mind up which might be better – enjoyment or accuracy.

But the issue is - how to determine if the recording or the hifi-system is poor?

Perhaps known and loved constant colourations of sound explain the fanaticism of adherers to the Naim, Linn and valve sounds – all of which I have sampled and loved.

Luckily for me, colourations = no issues for me. Same with 3D perspective.
A few friends of mine are sensitive for colourations...a nightmare for them.
Instead I'm a sucker for dynamics and bass slam. But with a more musical system, I tend to forget about that...

I still remain with the fact that some of my recordings and performances fail, to my ears, to be tuneful. I would not be humming along with the tune, even if I had a Lejonklou system, I am sure.

I suggest you give it a try! You might be surprised :)

[ThomasOK]

I have to say that in my experience improvements to tunefulness in the components always result in a number of recordings I thought were not so good actually sounding better. I know there is this thought that the better the fidelity in the system the more you will hear the flaws but this is not my experience. A Radikal, Keel, Kandid, etc. allow you to hear deeper into the music with more enjoyment yet also reduce the audibility of surface noise. I have noticed a similar phenomena with other components. Units like the Sagatuns, Tundras, Klimax DS, Urika, etc. all seem to deliver enough more musical information that the flaws that were previously found unacceptable recede more into the background and the recording becomes enjoyable. Obviously there are recordings that are so bad that this is not the case. But I think that often the lack of listenability is a combination of distortions in the system and distortions in the recording. When you reduce the former the cumulative amount of distortion is reduced enough to make the distortions in the recording less problematic and allow you to appreciate the music you couldn't before.

I would highly recommend trying the Lejonklou electronics before deciding any recordings are truly unacceptable. I think you might be surprised at the outcome.

[donuk]

http://youtu.be/DMu9PKWthLE
Now this would a real challenge for Mr L's HiFi, however ameliorating it might be!

[Charlie1]

With almost any music I use for evaluation I avoid pieces with long intros and look instead for pieces where stuff starts happening fairly quickly – where a number of instruments and a voice or two all come in within the first 30 seconds. This way I can do comparisons fairly quickly, which is also a tenet of the Tune Method.

+1
Sometimes I also get a feeling with a new unknown track if it's going to be much use to me for Tune Method purposes. A slow intro is one thing that puts me off, but there's others too. Not sure I understand the structure of music enough to articulate myself. As a bit of a guess, I'd say tracks that have an exciting fast leading edge, but simple and repetitive style are tricky for me.

[hcl]

http://youtu.be/DMu9PKWthLE
Now this would a real challenge for Mr L's HiFi, however ameliorating it might be!

:-)

I do agree though, that a hifi-system can distort the sound so that the pitch is perceived as out of tune. I have encountered this phenomenon many times.

Although not nearly as experienced as many of You guys on here, I find ThomasOK's writing to be close to my view on this matter.

I have also come to realise that what is done on the production/mixing side is not only to make sure that all of what the artist does also reach the listener, but also to make sure that some things does not reach the listener. This is mostly done by distorting the signal in some way, adding echo etc. How well the balance between letting the right things through and preventing the wrong things from being exposed is limited to the monitoring eqipment, which makes it perfectly possible that a hifi system exceeding the performance of the monitoring system may reveal flaws, that was not supposed to be revealed. I would say that it is extremely rare that the goal is to capture the music/sound as is, but to create something good based on what the artists does. It is also obvious that what is generally perceived as best is far from what would be recognised as the most transparent reproduction. Interestingly enough is that what I think we would rate high in terms of tune-dem often also is considered highly reputed by music recording buffs. Actually, I think tune-dem is widely practiced on the music production side. As a side comment one might reflect upon the the fact that, considering the amount of distortion added to most recordings one could be rather surprised that there is any point in keeping the signal as free from distortion as possible, in the reproduction chain. Another interesting thing is that it is perfectly possible to have a better sound, irrespective of criteria, at home than what is produced from the same recording at the mixing stage in the studio.

Bottom line is that, because of the magnitude of processing done on the music production side, it is important to keep clear from any criteria that relates, in any way, to how the recorded sounds actually do sound in reality. It is very un-likely that the recording contain anything more than remotely similar to the original sound. Clearly it is important to stick to a method that is as free as possible from any sonic pre-sumptions or subjective influences and instead is based on what may be musically presumed to be valid, the musicians plays in tune, are musically skilled etc. Silent repetition of the tune, listening for which reproduction that recreates the pitch best e.g. listening for basic foundations of music, rythm, intonation and tune is the key.

[doze84]

http://youtu.be/DMu9PKWthLE
Now this would a real challenge for Mr L's HiFi, however ameliorating it might be!

Thanks for the tip, when I first listened via my phone I had a strong sensation the singer was out of tune, and had problems with the dynamics. Almost as if she was pierced with needels while performing. But as soon as I started to play the stream through my linn-system everything came in to place. Remarkable, what a good source can do to the music!

[rowlandhills]

I thought that this post by Briain over on the Linn Forum was worth sharing in the context of this thread:

I've been part of blind testing experiments (both running them and being blind tested) which were surprisingly unproductive. They can show up 'tonal' differences (or differences in perceived dynamic range, bass extension, or all such basic parameters) but it's very difficult to focus on the musical capabilities as no matter how much HiFi stuff you've heard over the years (and thus no matter how much you think you can put yourself into musical appreciation mode), the very act of being in a blind test environment tends to switch your head into technical assessment mode, not musical appreciation mode.

I'm not sure if it's the subconscious 'pressure' of you being 'tested' (or being pressured to give an opinion), or whether it's just that you are trying to assess things and thus focussing on the obvious differences, rather than appreciating the tunes, but whatever it is, it's surprisingly easy to get it completely wrong, be the testing 'blind', or be it simply assessing two different units and knowing which one is playing.

Ages ago, I typed a post about comparing an ADS/1 to a KDS/0 Renew and how both seemed to have their own merits (this was not a blind test, but simply a comparison between the two products). I remember thinking that the ADS/1 was 'clearer' and the spaces between the instruments was more pronounced (almost making the music sound a but 'darker'), but that the KDS/0 was perhaps warmer and fuzzier sounding, but that both had their own attractions (and even that perhaps the ADS/1 was the more 'correct' of the two devices).

Only when I was looking out of the window (at the chaps amazing view; he'll likely be reading this, so I'll not name and shame him Big Grin ) did I suddenly realise that there was a large difference in the tunes; the KDS/0 made it jump into life and thus made it sound far more like a live band. In other words, it only hit me after I'd been distracted (and was thus no longer mentally in 'comparison testing mode'), so perhaps the way to do blind testing would be to try and distract yourself; perhaps read a newspaper and see if you suddenly get drawn into the music when one device is played (or perhaps see if you are subconsciously tapping foot when one device is played).

What struck me was that it was so totally obvious once I'd got myself into the correct frame of mind, yet it was not at all obvious when I was actively trying to hear a difference (simply because I was not listening to the music). You'd think I'd have known better, as I've owned many Linn systems since the early 1980's (and I even used to work in a Linn dealership, so I've sure done my fair share of demonstrations) but even despite all that, I still got it wrong until I was distracted (and my head drifted from analytical mode into musical assessment mode).

[donuk]

Perhaps it's a bit like staring at the night sky. The harder you gaze, the fewer stars you seem to see.
Donuk, sunny downtown Strasbourg, temporarily.

[beck]

When sitting in a demo situation I try to relax and think of something else and let the system reach out for my attention and bring me back to the enjoyment of the music being played (hopefully). :-)

[lejonklou]

Thanks rowlandhills! That was a good post by Briain.

The trick to make blind testing useable is to remove all of the "pressure" from being "tested". I do this very often, to make sure I'm on the right track and not hearing what I wish. Last time was today, when comparing a bunch of interconnects and among them four pairs of Silvers, on which I confirmed the best direction. As mentioned in the thread 'Back to Black'.

[donuk]

When sitting in a demo situation I try to relax and think of something else and let the system reach out for my attention and bring me back to the enjoyment of the music being played (hopefully). :-)

A bit like the nuptial arts?
Donuk......