Difficult to say... I wrote 'seemingly' because in the above example it was a tough decision. Sometimes it isn't! With many parameters, like speaker positioning, I often find there is one exact value where everything snaps into place. Then it's just a matter of finding that value.Charlie1 wrote:I presume your experience is that the melody wasn't better, it just seemed so?
My guess is that the really difficult situations arise when there is actually several conflicting parameters that are being changed at the same time. So both values could be better and worse - and the best alternative is simply the best compromise. [In the example above, it could be that the impedance presented by the negative feedback network is optimal at 45, but the feedback itself is optimal at 55. The best compromise then ends up somewhere between those two values.]
It's quite possible that a number of people on this forum don't agree with my arguments in this discussion, but that's ok with me. Usually those who use the Tune Method reach the same conclusions - or very nearly the same conclusions - about how equipment performs. BUT when one enters the discussion of how one actually performs the method, people describe it in slightly different ways. Some people mention the flow, the ease with which they can follow the music. Others are more focused on the pitch, whether the instruments are in tune or not. Others focus on the merits of the performance. Others (like my son) can't explain what they actually do, they just do it.I presume you now find Linn's explanation of the Tune Method too simplistic? i.e. it's not just about locating the correct pitch and replaying the melody in your head?
I had this discussion with a Linn representative earlier this year. He claimed his view was identical to Ivor's, and that it was all about silent reproduction in the head of what was being played. He also claimed that this is the way all humans always do when they listen to music. I don't disagree with these standpoints, but regard them as simplifications. Jan Fagius summary of the neurological findings certainly tells a more complicated story.
When I have Tune Method demonstrations, I encourage people to try the method in 4 different ways. In advance I pick out 4 different songs that I personally find easy to use.
1. Repeat the melody, silently or sing out loud.
2. Is the instrument tuned? (Pitch accuracy)
3. Audition method (as described by Thomas OK on this forum)
4. Are the musicians playing together? (Similar to 3 but with more instruments and a song that is a bit complex/chaotic)
If possible, I ask people to stand in the next room on one or several of these 4 demonstrations. Usually people find that easier, as they are less distracted by the sound qualities.
Please note that these 4 ways of performing the Tune Method are very similar. One could argue that the listener is actually doing the same thing on all four occasions.
If the LP12's are well set up, it's an easy comparison as the Keel is much better. I don't think one should focus on whether the music feels slower or faster, as this can vary between different songs. The flow is not about speed, it's about how easy it is to follow and understand what is being played. Maybe flow isn't a very good word, since it's easy to misinterpret. But currently I can't think of a better one...With this in mind, how did you find the changes brought by the Keel?