donuk wrote:...
<RANT>
It is just that I am a bit sensitive about the words "tune demmer" because:
1) I have more or less disqualified myself from being one, and still prefer this forum.
2) In some parts if the hifi community to declare oneself as a "tunedemmer" is a passport to hifi seriousness, credibility, coolness and sophistication. There is no other route.
3) I have met a number of self-styled tunedemmers over the years, often the more noisy ones, who haven't a clue what they are listening to, or talking about, and could not tell a tune if they were hit over the head with a minim.
4) There maybe somewhere else in the known world a few individuals who are good judges of reproduced music by just listening.
</RANT>
Don sunny downtown York (just had lunch in the garden).
Hi Don, I hope York continues to be sunny & treating you well...
Your recent posts & concerns about the term tunedem have been nagging at me, not least because of sympathy for the raw nerve, but also due to the fact that I too am not clear on exactly what it means to use tunedem as a technique. It's a little intimidating to me that there are those on this forum who are so accomplished at creating & tuning hi-fi systems and discerning subtle musical differences while, at the same time, frustrating that the term tunedem can be used to give credence to opinions & carry apparent weight in contradiction to one's own ears, and opposition between tunedemmers.
I found
beck's post on the Just listen! thread to be great, especially since it goes to the heart of what we're listening to: music, rather than how we listen, whether for enjoyment or for comparative (tunedem) purposes.
I've read a good few explanations of what is tunedem, and don't know if I really get it, or not, but, like you, "I still prefer this forum" For me, though, I am not ready to disqualify myself as a tunedemmer. My reason for hanging in there, other than pig-headed belligerence, is that there may be some degree of general agreement within this forum in describing the tunedem process, but I am not convinced that there is consistency in how individuals apply the process, and there are 'self declared tunedemmers' out there too... It's better here, and I like that it's stated that comparisons & discussions should be; should only be based on tunedem - there has to be some standard, as best as can be established but, personally, I try to keep separate the term & the process: it's easy to declare oneself a tunedemmer, but the term means nothing, the process is the essential part, yet I've struggled to pick up a clear, single description of the process to be clear that there's consistent understanding of the process, much less application of it. Still, it's much, much better here than 'out there'.
While on a recent trip to Ottawa, I was fortunate enough to be in a pub as a jazz band was setting up, and was part way through a pint and a conversation as the band got into their stride - then it struck me that I had been listening to, processing, and appreciating the music while continuing the conversation, and this is when a few thoughts & ideas came together, starting with your post about tunedem, listening to notes, and how instruments sounded. I had not been listening, but my ears and my brain had been just listening for me... and enjoying the music, even though I'm not really a jazz-fan. What struck me, other than the alcohol content of the beer, was how well the band were playing together, and how good the music was that they were creating together. The point was that my ears & brain were hearing the parts but listening to the whole, and that's what reminded me of your struggles, concerns, and rants about tunedem, and your musician's sensitivities with tunedem: term & process . Putting aside the term, and thinking about the process, my belief is that the point of tunedem is that it is not deconstructive. It's not about separating out the parts, listening to particular notes or instruments; it's about listening to the sum of the parts: the tune; the music.
Where I am going with this is that I can see that a musician's description of music may be different, and may focus on the elements of the music, but I don't believe that to be at odds with 'tunedem'. Why? Because good musicians are about knowing the elements of a song, listening to them individually to ensure that you're in time & in tune with the rest of the band and, most importantly, about putting all the elements together to make good/great music. So I don't see a disconnect between your way of listening and tunedem.
In attempt to avoid this being completely off-topic, this is what I get from a good preamp: it puts it all together to make music, rather than presenting it all separately maybe with better leading edge, or sustain, or more accurate timbre, or whatever - if it doesn't all come together, if something is out of place, then it doesn't work for me. That, for me, is my understanding of tunedem: the parts being easy to follow and coming together as a tune, not separate constructs that the listener has to put together for themselves.
If that's wrong then I'm not a tunedemmer, and won't label myself as such, but I like it here, and I'm not about to disqualify myself from this forum either. If I'm asked to leave, then that's another matter ;)
