😄😄😄💋💋💋Spannko wrote: ↑2020-02-25 18:22That’s exactly the advice my wife gave me on our honeymoon.Charlie1 wrote: ↑ I like Dom's post too!
A few quick thoughts:
- Keep practicing
- Relax - don't bother with it if you're stressed or in a hurry
- You will improve over time
- Everyone makes mistakes
- Don't put pressure on yourself to find the "correct" answer - just trust your ears and what you enjoy
- Don't put pressure on yourself to finish everything in one go - better to make a little bit of progress each time
How to learn tunedem?
Moderator: Staff
Re: How to learn tunedem?
Playing cd’s…………
Re: How to learn tunedem?
LOL - very funny !!!
Re: How to learn tunedem?
:-)Spannko wrote: ↑2020-02-25 18:22That’s exactly the advice my wife gave me on our honeymoon.Charlie1 wrote: ↑2020-02-25 16:59 I like Dom's post too!
A few quick thoughts:
- Keep practicing
- Relax - don't bother with it if you're stressed or in a hurry
- You will improve over time
- Everyone makes mistakes
- Don't put pressure on yourself to find the "correct" answer - just trust your ears and what you enjoy
- Don't put pressure on yourself to finish everything in one go - better to make a little bit of progress each time
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
Re: How to learn tunedem?
I actually think a number of people who have been doing this for a while tend to naturally listen to comparisons in a way that correlates with Tune dem while not exactly following the minutia, like Donuk does. I know that I do this and only resort to a truly strict tune method if I am having a hard time telling which thing is more musical. Then again this might be why even experienced tune demmers sometimes get it wrong.
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
-
markiteight
- Moderator
- Posts: 845
- Joined: 2012-01-13 01:50
- Location: Seattle, Wa. USA
Re: How to learn tunedem?
I started to compose this post in the Playground thread but realized it's a bit off topic, so I've moved it here.
So here's my confusion: Am I misinterpreting the definition of Tune Dem? Or has the definition evolved as knowledge has expanded with experience and I just haven't kept up? Is it possible that different people perceive musical understanding differently and the Tune Method is not necessarily the all-unifying postulate we thought it was?
I struggled with this one a bit. After reading your report, as well as those of Beck and Charlie1, I could go back to ThomasOK's clips and hear what you described with the first clip, but then I'd go back to the 2nd clip and still felt that I could better follow the musicians. This is where I start to get confused. My understanding of how the Tune Method works is that the option which provides greater understanding of the music is the correct choice. Yet it seems like that might not always be the case. I've read a lot of posts on here, especially by more experienced tunedemmers, that talk about the flow of the music. Every time I see this my internal monolog exclaims, 'but...but...that isn't Tune Dem!' If the greater sense of flow is associated with a greater understanding of the music, or if it indeed causes a greater understanding, then great! No problem there. But occasionally there are situations like this one, where some people pick "flow" while others pick "understanding." More often than not I find myself in the "understanding" camp while those with considerably more experience end up in the "flow" camp, and I'm left wondering what I'm missing.lejonklou wrote: ↑2020-02-25 21:35Huh!
So I was totally out cycling then, as we say in Swedish (meaning that someone doesn't know what they're talking about). The funny thing is that I still have a slight preference for the clip when your CD12 was plugged into the mains. I don't understand why, but as you have confirmed in room the benefits of completely unplugging it, I won't spend any time trying to figure it out.
So here's my confusion: Am I misinterpreting the definition of Tune Dem? Or has the definition evolved as knowledge has expanded with experience and I just haven't kept up? Is it possible that different people perceive musical understanding differently and the Tune Method is not necessarily the all-unifying postulate we thought it was?
Re: How to learn tunedem?
You are not doing anything wrong markiteight. The trap you can fall into when listening to the instruments (voices) seperately is that while they each sound very musical the whole “body of music” can crack loosing its togetherness. If you can stand back and enjoy the music as a whole not getting caught up in details I find that to be a good sign.
We are searching for the balance on a knife’s edge.
Take care and pay attention to Lejonklou and his comments and ways of describing how he evaluates the clips we listen to. He is the person closest to the method.
I am not a strictly method guy. I simply use my understanding as a musician to get the performance of the system as close to what I enjoy in real life. Flow, one sound (non split presentation) and musical timing between musicians (are they tight and together) are among my buzz words.
Spannko among other things use the harmonic structure of the chords in music to find the sweet spot.
But I see all of this as good useful ways of getting to where maffe is now (as I hear it) with his latest a clips. A really musical presentation of the music that is just enjoyable.
Listen to maffes latest clip (a) of Dire Straits “Six Blade Knife”. I find it to be an almost perfect example of what we are searching for using the tune method.
We are all just searching for a musical presentation that feels normal and enjoyable.
I think the results speak for themselves. Listening to maffes, ThomasOKs and others clips I feel safe to say that though not perfect (because we who use the method are not perfect) it works.
We are searching for the balance on a knife’s edge.
Take care and pay attention to Lejonklou and his comments and ways of describing how he evaluates the clips we listen to. He is the person closest to the method.
I am not a strictly method guy. I simply use my understanding as a musician to get the performance of the system as close to what I enjoy in real life. Flow, one sound (non split presentation) and musical timing between musicians (are they tight and together) are among my buzz words.
Spannko among other things use the harmonic structure of the chords in music to find the sweet spot.
But I see all of this as good useful ways of getting to where maffe is now (as I hear it) with his latest a clips. A really musical presentation of the music that is just enjoyable.
Listen to maffes latest clip (a) of Dire Straits “Six Blade Knife”. I find it to be an almost perfect example of what we are searching for using the tune method.
We are all just searching for a musical presentation that feels normal and enjoyable.
I think the results speak for themselves. Listening to maffes, ThomasOKs and others clips I feel safe to say that though not perfect (because we who use the method are not perfect) it works.
Playing cd’s…………
Re: How to learn tunedem?
Agree with everything beck says.
I just wanted to add that, for me, a sense of flow can come as a result of a more musical setup. This is cos my brain is struggling less to make sense of the music and, as a result, the music can seem to flow more effortlessly.
I suppose the trap I can fall into is 'looking for a superficial sense of greater flow' instead of 'looking for less brain effort that gives an impression of greater flow', if that makes sense.
I just wanted to add that, for me, a sense of flow can come as a result of a more musical setup. This is cos my brain is struggling less to make sense of the music and, as a result, the music can seem to flow more effortlessly.
I suppose the trap I can fall into is 'looking for a superficial sense of greater flow' instead of 'looking for less brain effort that gives an impression of greater flow', if that makes sense.
Re: How to learn tunedem?
Very good points by beck and Charlie!
markiteight: The flow might be a difficult concept to grasp without a live demonstration. What I essentially mean by it is that the musicians play better together. When they do, their instruments and voices combine into a whole that is bigger than the individual parts.
When the flow is better, it becomes easier to experience and connect with the whole of the song. When the flow is worse, it can paradoxically become easier to focus on individual instruments, because the whole is more difficult to grasp and connect with.
This is the common trap I referred to. When individual sounds or instruments appear to be more defined, one needs to watch out whether this is at the expense of the whole. When using the Tune Method, one must both be focused on the music (leaving all other thoughts for later) and at the same time let it all wash over you, remaining open to the whole and the emotions it communicates.
The Tune Method is a balancing act. One can listen too analytically, where individual instruments and sounds become the focus and the interplay, the flow and the whole will be neglected. The result of this is that one picks a system which sounds detailed and impressive (at least initially), but makes less sense musically. One can also listen too emotionally, not keeping the focus on what is actually developing musically. The result of that is inconsistency in the decisions.
Both mistakes result in systems that limit the range of music one finds enjoyable. What I encounter most often is however the analytical mistake, where people get stuck on details.
markiteight: The flow might be a difficult concept to grasp without a live demonstration. What I essentially mean by it is that the musicians play better together. When they do, their instruments and voices combine into a whole that is bigger than the individual parts.
When the flow is better, it becomes easier to experience and connect with the whole of the song. When the flow is worse, it can paradoxically become easier to focus on individual instruments, because the whole is more difficult to grasp and connect with.
This is the common trap I referred to. When individual sounds or instruments appear to be more defined, one needs to watch out whether this is at the expense of the whole. When using the Tune Method, one must both be focused on the music (leaving all other thoughts for later) and at the same time let it all wash over you, remaining open to the whole and the emotions it communicates.
The Tune Method is a balancing act. One can listen too analytically, where individual instruments and sounds become the focus and the interplay, the flow and the whole will be neglected. The result of this is that one picks a system which sounds detailed and impressive (at least initially), but makes less sense musically. One can also listen too emotionally, not keeping the focus on what is actually developing musically. The result of that is inconsistency in the decisions.
Both mistakes result in systems that limit the range of music one finds enjoyable. What I encounter most often is however the analytical mistake, where people get stuck on details.
Re: How to learn tunedem?
Thank you, all of you, especially Mr. Lejonklou. This is something that was missing ...lejonklou wrote: ↑2020-02-26 13:03 Very good points by beck and Charlie!
markiteight: The flow might be a difficult concept to grasp without a live demonstration. What I essentially mean by it is that the musicians play better together. When they do, their instruments and voices combine into a whole that is bigger than the individual parts.
When the flow is better, it becomes easier to experience and connect with the whole of the song. When the flow is worse, it can paradoxically become easier to focus on individual instruments, because the whole is more difficult to grasp and connect with.
This is the common trap I referred to. When individual sounds or instruments appear to be more defined, one needs to watch out whether this is at the expense of the whole. When using the Tune Method, one must both be focused on the music (leaving all other thoughts for later) and at the same time let it all wash over you, remaining open to the whole and the emotions it communicates.
The Tune Method is a balancing act. One can listen too analytically, where individual instruments and sounds become the focus and the interplay, the flow and the whole will be neglected. The result of this is that one picks a system which sounds detailed and impressive (at least initially), but makes less sense musically. One can also listen too emotionally, not keeping the focus on what is actually developing musically. The result of that is inconsistency in the decisions.
Both mistakes result in systems that limit the range of music one finds enjoyable. What I encounter most often is however the analytical mistake, where people get stuck on details.
Music First ...
Vlado
Vlado
Re: How to learn tunedem?
I think this is a very useful constructive thread that is informative to all of us, wherever we stand on the tunedem issue.
The problem I have - and no doubt misunderstood - is the concept of listening to systems where musicians play together.
In the real world musicians do not play together. There are inaccuracies in their timing, and deliberate pulling and pushing of phrasing which can give music a wonderful character.
Poor hifi can in fact smear musical phrases and make them sound as if they came out the instruments simultaneously.
I agree with comments about hyper-detailed systems. A bit like processing a digital image to have too much vividness and contrast. Great for analysis, but hard on the eyes.
I put a lot of value in how an instrument appears to shape its notes. For example, to my ears, a good system will reveal how an instrument forms its notes - consider a clarinet or a trumpet. There is a lead up to the formation of a note, the duration of the note itself and the tailing off of the note. All features of musicianship I enjoy in a live concert, and for me which define a great player.
This sort of links to another part of this debate. Does it sort of assume that all recordings and performances are musically good? In my experience they can be far from it. I do not think it is the job of my hifi to make poor performances sound acceptable. Bands who do not play tightly in the rhythm section for example, will always sound inferior to my ears, even through a Lejonklou amplifier. On a poor smeared system I will not be able necessarily to judge. Likewise some recordings have vague unreadable bass lines. It is not the job of my system to "Photoshop" them so that I can understand them better. (It is my experience as a gigging musician, that the bass is the hardest instrument to get sounding good, and at some venues it is just impossible and one has to just do the best, like turn off deep bass and go for a dry sound.)
I stress, none of us are wrong, we may simply get to Heaven by different routes....
Donuk beautiful downtown York
The problem I have - and no doubt misunderstood - is the concept of listening to systems where musicians play together.
In the real world musicians do not play together. There are inaccuracies in their timing, and deliberate pulling and pushing of phrasing which can give music a wonderful character.
Poor hifi can in fact smear musical phrases and make them sound as if they came out the instruments simultaneously.
I agree with comments about hyper-detailed systems. A bit like processing a digital image to have too much vividness and contrast. Great for analysis, but hard on the eyes.
I put a lot of value in how an instrument appears to shape its notes. For example, to my ears, a good system will reveal how an instrument forms its notes - consider a clarinet or a trumpet. There is a lead up to the formation of a note, the duration of the note itself and the tailing off of the note. All features of musicianship I enjoy in a live concert, and for me which define a great player.
This sort of links to another part of this debate. Does it sort of assume that all recordings and performances are musically good? In my experience they can be far from it. I do not think it is the job of my hifi to make poor performances sound acceptable. Bands who do not play tightly in the rhythm section for example, will always sound inferior to my ears, even through a Lejonklou amplifier. On a poor smeared system I will not be able necessarily to judge. Likewise some recordings have vague unreadable bass lines. It is not the job of my system to "Photoshop" them so that I can understand them better. (It is my experience as a gigging musician, that the bass is the hardest instrument to get sounding good, and at some venues it is just impossible and one has to just do the best, like turn off deep bass and go for a dry sound.)
I stress, none of us are wrong, we may simply get to Heaven by different routes....
Donuk beautiful downtown York
Re: How to learn tunedem?
I remember when I was starting to use the Tune Dem method I thought: what is the problem of following the tune as every song has a main tune - than I realized there are different tunes from the individual instruments/voices so I thought if its easier to jump between the individual instruments and follow their individual tunes all is in better tune but it is not.
However I think perfect tune is when you can hear the all the individual melodies without that kind of multitasking/switching between tuning into the melodies from one instrument to another to create the complete picture.
As some other forum member made the best comparison with art - you look at it and it makes a „complete“ impression without you to need to create your impression in analyzing the colors, the lighting, the brush lines, the view/perspective etc.
The difficulty for me is:
What is easy to hear in an perfect system (like the clips from Thomas) is more difficult if the changes in musicality are small and the system is at a lower level ... or when changing loudspeaker positions.
Even more when you are alone and decide for your own system.
However I think perfect tune is when you can hear the all the individual melodies without that kind of multitasking/switching between tuning into the melodies from one instrument to another to create the complete picture.
As some other forum member made the best comparison with art - you look at it and it makes a „complete“ impression without you to need to create your impression in analyzing the colors, the lighting, the brush lines, the view/perspective etc.
The difficulty for me is:
What is easy to hear in an perfect system (like the clips from Thomas) is more difficult if the changes in musicality are small and the system is at a lower level ... or when changing loudspeaker positions.
Even more when you are alone and decide for your own system.
Re: How to learn tunedem?
I know what you mean but, for me, it makes no difference if its a live recording of a sloppy band or a producer that has perfectly aligned each individually recorded instrument in time, like Jeff Lynne or Trever Horn. It's about my ability to simaultaneously 'track' or 'follow' multiple instruments with my mind, whether the musicians are playing tightly or not. If this is easy then I enjoy the music more. If it's a struggle then the music is more laboured and lost to me.donuk wrote: ↑2020-02-26 13:51 The problem I have - and no doubt misunderstood - is the concept of listening to systems where musicians play together.
In the real world musicians do not play together. There are inaccuracies in their timing, and deliberate pulling and pushing of phrasing which can give music a wonderful character.
Poor hifi can in fact smear musical phrases and make them sound as if they came out the instruments simultaneously.
I think it's more about the music reproduction system getting in the way, messing something up, than anything related to the playing that what was originally laid down on the track (good or bad).
PS I have a bass guitar question for you but will create a new thread :)
Re: How to learn tunedem?
When I talk about a system that delivers “untight” beat it is a bit like looking in binoculars where the two lenses are not pulled fully together like one view! Everywhere the individual instruments have their own beat to follow slightly seperated from the rest.donuk wrote: ↑2020-02-26 13:51 I think this is a very useful constructive thread that is informative to all of us, wherever we stand on the tunedem issue.
The problem I have - and no doubt misunderstood - is the concept of listening to systems where musicians play together.
In the real world musicians do not play together. There are inaccuracies in their timing, and deliberate pulling and pushing of phrasing which can give music a wonderful character.
Poor hifi can in fact smear musical phrases and make them sound as if they came out the instruments simultaneously.
I agree with comments about hyper-detailed systems. A bit like processing a digital image to have too much vividness and contrast. Great for analysis, but hard on the eyes.
I put a lot of value in how an instrument appears to shape its notes. For example, to my ears, a good system will reveal how an instrument forms its notes - consider a clarinet or a trumpet. There is a lead up to the formation of a note, the duration of the note itself and the tailing off of the note. All features of musicianship I enjoy in a live concert, and for me which define a great player.
This sort of links to another part of this debate. Does it sort of assume that all recordings and performances are musically good? In my experience they can be far from it. I do not think it is the job of my hifi to make poor performances sound acceptable. Bands who do not play tightly in the rhythm section for example, will always sound inferior to my ears, even through a Lejonklou amplifier. On a poor smeared system I will not be able necessarily to judge. Likewise some recordings have vague unreadable bass lines. It is not the job of my system to "Photoshop" them so that I can understand them better. (It is my experience as a gigging musician, that the bass is the hardest instrument to get sounding good, and at some venues it is just impossible and one has to just do the best, like turn off deep bass and go for a dry sound.)
I stress, none of us are wrong, we may simply get to Heaven by different routes....
Donuk beautiful downtown York
It has nothing to do with if the band is tight or not.
Playing cd’s…………
Re: How to learn tunedem?
Sorry Beck, sorry to be so ignorant in these matters, but you will have to explain the binoculars analogy. Do you mean smearing of transients?beck wrote: ↑2020-02-26 15:45
When I talk about a system that delivers “untight” beat it is a bit like looking in binoculars where the two lenses are not pulled fully together like one view! Everywhere the individual instruments have their own beat to follow slightly seperated from the rest.
It has nothing to do with if the band is tight or not.
Donuk beautiful downtown York
Re: How to learn tunedem?
No need to be sorry. If I cannot explain it so it can be understood it is my fault. When I get the time I will post you two clips so you can hear the difference. :-)donuk wrote: ↑2020-02-26 16:12Sorry Beck, sorry to be so ignorant in these matters, but you will have to explain the binoculars analogy. Do you mean smearing of transients?beck wrote: ↑
When I talk about a system that delivers “untight” beat it is a bit like looking in binoculars where the two lenses are not pulled fully together like one view! Everywhere the individual instruments have their own beat to follow slightly seperated from the rest.
It has nothing to do with if the band is tight or not.
Donuk beautiful downtown York
Latest: I have posted clips on the “playground” trying to show the difference.
Playing cd’s…………
-
markiteight
- Moderator
- Posts: 845
- Joined: 2012-01-13 01:50
- Location: Seattle, Wa. USA
Re: How to learn tunedem?
Wow! Some really fantastic feedback from the collective wisdom. Thank you everybody for your insights, you have all broadened my understanding and alleviated my confusion.
Next I need to listen to a few notches either side and determine the calibration error (if any) on my driver. But not now...there's music to be enjoyed.
This is a great list, Charlie1. I need to keep it in mind when evaluating as I quite often 5, which leads me to forget to 2, ultimately leading to 4. When that happens I take a break to clear my mind and then 1 with the hopes of 3 while trying to remember to 6.Charlie1 wrote: ↑2020-02-25 16:59 A few quick thoughts:
- Keep practicing
- Relax - don't bother with it if you're stressed or in a hurry
- You will improve over time
- Everyone makes mistakes
- Don't put pressure on yourself to find the "correct" answer - just trust your ears and what you enjoy
- Don't put pressure on yourself to finish everything in one go - better to make a little bit of progress each time
With Charlie1's list in mind I took your suggestion and listened to maffe's clips. It took me a while to find them as they were two pages back...in one day! That must be some sort of record for post volume on this forum. Anyway, I took a different approach this time and rather than focusing and concentrating on the interplay between musicians I just relaxed and let the music play (I can't think of a better way to describe this). I also ditched the headphones in favor of my laptop's internal speakers and I discovered I had a MUCH easier time understanding the differences, despite the occasional hi-fi trap. Great example, beck!
I would love to experience a live demonstration but alas that isn't easily arranged. But it occurred to me it might be possible to at least partially accomplish this task on my own. We have, thanks to the incredible wealth of knowledge and experience in this forum, some well established optimizations that can be accurately replicated. I speak specifically of published torque specs for components that are easily accessed and easily heard, like the arm pillar grub screw. This value was determined by highly experienced ears and I figured if I give it a try, it stands to reason I would hear what they are hearing. So I adjusted the screw to 1.6Nm +1 and took a listen. Lo-and-behold: FLOW! I get it now.lejonklou wrote: ↑2020-02-26 13:03 Very good points by beck and Charlie!
markiteight: The flow might be a difficult concept to grasp without a live demonstration. What I essentially mean by it is that the musicians play better together. When they do, their instruments and voices combine into a whole that is bigger than the individual parts.
Next I need to listen to a few notches either side and determine the calibration error (if any) on my driver. But not now...there's music to be enjoyed.
Re: How to learn tunedem?
In glad I resurrected this thread.
The recent posts have been very enlightening.
I learned that I was focusing too much on detail and the ability to separate the sounds of individual instruments.
Thinking about it, it's no surprise that I wasnt happy with my results. I was going out of my way to make bands sound like they weren't playing together at all.
Recently I have re positioned my speakers whilst trying to focus (without focusing) on flow and musicality.
I have made great improvements, my 212s are now much closer to the front wall than common opinion would consider the best position at 193mm but I am over the moon with the improvement.
The recent posts have been very enlightening.
I learned that I was focusing too much on detail and the ability to separate the sounds of individual instruments.
Thinking about it, it's no surprise that I wasnt happy with my results. I was going out of my way to make bands sound like they weren't playing together at all.
Recently I have re positioned my speakers whilst trying to focus (without focusing) on flow and musicality.
I have made great improvements, my 212s are now much closer to the front wall than common opinion would consider the best position at 193mm but I am over the moon with the improvement.
-
Spannko
- Very active member
- Posts: 2297
- Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
- Location: North East of The Black Country, UK
Re: How to learn tunedem?
Well done LinnJim. TuneDem isn’t easy, and even after many years of practicing I’m no expert and still sometimes get it wrong. Fortunately, the error soon makes itself known, which is a reminder to do it again.
Your technique of “focus without focusing” is a great one, and much more like how we listen to music naturally (as opposed to the HiFi). It’s similar to listening to music whilst doing something else. A good system allows us focus on something without being distracted by an inharmonic noise. On the contrary, we can focus on something whilst simultaneously being serenaded by the music, but as you say, without actually focusing on it.
Your technique of “focus without focusing” is a great one, and much more like how we listen to music naturally (as opposed to the HiFi). It’s similar to listening to music whilst doing something else. A good system allows us focus on something without being distracted by an inharmonic noise. On the contrary, we can focus on something whilst simultaneously being serenaded by the music, but as you say, without actually focusing on it.
Re: How to learn tunedem?
👍👍👍Spannko wrote: ↑2020-06-29 13:40 Well done LinnJim. TuneDem isn’t easy, and even after many years of practicing I’m no expert and still sometimes get it wrong. Fortunately, the error soon makes itself known, which is a reminder to do it again.
Your technique of “focus without focusing” is a great one, and much more like how we listen to music naturally (as opposed to the HiFi). It’s similar to listening to music whilst doing something else. A good system allows us focus on something without being distracted by an inharmonic noise. On the contrary, we can focus on something whilst simultaneously being serenaded by the music, but as you say, without actually focusing on it.
Playing cd’s…………