The meaning of Source First

[lejonklou]

Where do you stand when people in the past have stated that they would rather listen to a well setup Majik system to a poorly setup Klimax system. Doesn't the superior Klimax source cut through the poor setup?

Maybe open this one out if anyone else has any thoughts.

I did think about it more and concluded it probably depends upon the type of setup issue. For example, something related to the LP12 itself is effectively downgrading the actual source so a well setup Majik system could outperform Klimax.

But what about speaker positioning? I guess it's possible. Perhaps the poorly setup Klimax speakers could be creating a bass issue that also impairs the Klimax spec deck. Enough to drop performance below the Majik deck? Seems unlikely...

This one is really tricky, Charlie. I don't really know how rate setup in relation to source, amps or speakers.

It's certainly very important. Sometimes it can make or break a system. Sometimes it's decent to better. It varies.

[sunbeamgls]

It would seem, particularly for a system with an analogue source, that the careful set up of the source will be more important than any other component.

It would be interesting to make comparisons between the physical set up of an SSD NAS vs an HDD NAS vs a well supported / badly suppprted streamer to work out the significance of each. It should, in theory, be source first, but that might be more true for HDDs rather than SSDs, perhaps, due to their likihood to be more affected by mechanical issues.

Speakers that are not set up to minimise the effects of room modes on bass clarity can mask or blur the tune sigificantly. Despite oodles of advice available on line and elsewhere there are many people who don't give this the attention ot deserves.

Its complex and even lots and lots of repeatable experimentation would only give clues because of the very nature of set up being very much related to physical surroundings. With enough research some conclusions could be drawn but the sample size is likely to be very high to achieve that.

Perhaps the thinking should be to consider the extent to which each component is likely to suffer from bad set up? So a turntable snd speakers are more likely to suffer set up problems that are signicant to their performance, relative to the impact of a poorly sited solid state amp, for example.

To take your examples Charlie1, if we assume equally well sited speakers in both systems and they are fronted by a DS then the chances of a poorly sited KDS being outperformed by a well supported MDS seem highly unlikely. But the same comparison of systems fronted by an LP12 would logically give a much greater chance of a very well set up Majik deck outperforming a poorly set up Klimax deck, as the turntable is much more sensitive to set up than a DS.

[Erik]

It would seem, particularly for a system with an analogue source, that the careful set up of the source will be more important than any other component.

It would be interesting to make comparisons between the physical set up of an SSD NAS vs an HDD NAS vs a well supported / badly suppprted streamer to work out the significance of each. It should, in theory, be source first, but that might be more true for HDDs rather than SSDs, perhaps, due to their likihood to be more affected by mechanical issues.

I'm not sure about that. It's not the moving parts only being sensible for setup. Apart from the obvious that a record player needs to be on a decent siting, the details making a top source to perform at its best is as crucial for a digital system as it is for a analog one.

Speakers that are not set up to minimise the effects of room modes on bass clarity can mask or blur the tune sigificantly. Despite oodles of advice available on line and elsewhere there are many people who don't give this the attention ot deserves.

It has nothing to do with minimizing room modes. Thats why the theoretical advantage of Linns Space technology doesn't work in practice.

To take your examples Charlie1, if we assume equally well sited speakers in both systems and they are fronted by a DS then the chances of a poorly sited KDS being outperformed by a well supported MDS seem highly unlikely. But the same comparison of systems fronted by an LP12 would logically give a much greater chance of a very well set up Majik deck outperforming a poorly set up Klimax deck, as the turntable is much more sensitive to set up than a DS.

As I said above, yes, If you don't even level the LP12 and put it on a wobbly and table. Otherwise, electronics are as sensitive. A good example is the power supply to the LP12, very easy to hear what different sitings do to the music. A streamer without moving parts is the same.

/Erik

[Charlie1]

Thanks for all your responses guys. Food for thought.

[sunbeamgls]

Erik, I don't disagree that a digital front end needs to be set up well, as much as an analogue one does. The point I was trying to get across was that its much easier to set up an analogue source very badly than it is to set up a digital source very badly. The degree of opportunity to screw up the music is much greater with turntable set up.

As for room modes, they are important in getting a good tuneful set up. If they weren't, we wouldn't need to spend a long time using tune method to get speaker positioning right in the room. Fredrik agreed with this in the 3677 thread, before vast swathes of useful content was deleted by the mods. ThomasOK talks about millimeters of height adjustment to get the most tunefullness out of the 3677s in his room.

[lejonklou]

Sorry sunbeam, but optimising the position of loudspeakers in a room does not minimise room nodes in the simple (and IMHO useless) way that space does. If that was the case, we would have had a mathematical method for it decades ago.

[maffe]

<snip>

The second one, how one chooses to build one's own system, is a different discussion.<snip>

I think this is the key point.
How many would sell an amp or a speaker and "downgrade" to a lesser component to finance a source upgrade?
Lets say Linn gives us a huge upgrade to the LP12 a Radikal grade of performance upgrade, would any of you stay true to source first and sell your Tundras, Sagatun or Komri to afford it?
I would not, but then again I don´t have a top spec LP12 as today or even a Klimax DSM. Choises based on price/performence, when stuff surface at the right price and the fact we live in a small apartment so space for boxes are limited. Thats the reason I did not got the Klångedang T1, I had no good or acceptable place to have the filter box so I did not get the more musical speaker due to that.

About source first, still remember first time I got this demonstrated at the local Linn store in Umeå. Ended up buying an Axis for my first paycheck and lived with that Axis for over 20 years before a got me a LP12!
CD never appealed to me and never got up to the level of performance the Axis gave me for the money I was willing to pay.
When I finally upgraded my LP12 it was power supply that got upgraded and not my tonearm simply more musical performance that route, sourse first :)

[sunbeamgls]

Sorry sunbeam, but optimising the position of loudspeakers in a room does not minimise room nodes in the simple (and IMHO useless) way that space does. If that was the case, we would have had a mathematical method for it decades ago.

No apology required. I never mentioned SPACE. I wrote about using tune method to position speakers.

[Erik]

Sorry sunbeam, but optimising the position of loudspeakers in a room does not minimise room nodes in the simple (and IMHO useless) way that space does. If that was the case, we would have had a mathematical method for it decades ago.

No apology required. I never mentioned SPACE. I wrote about using tune method to position speakers.

Still positioning speakers has nothing to do with minimizing room nodes.

/Erik

[sunbeamgls]

Sorry sunbeam, but optimising the position of loudspeakers in a room does not minimise room nodes in the simple (and IMHO useless) way that space does. If that was the case, we would have had a mathematical method for it decades ago.

No apology required. I never mentioned SPACE. I wrote about using tune method to position speakers.

Still positioning speakers has nothing to do with minimizing room nodes.

/Erik

Whatever you think of the reasons for why speaker positioning is important, the discussion is about the importance of set up, which includes speakers.

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/R ... iving.html

[Charlie1]

How many would sell an amp or a speaker and "downgrade" to a lesser component to finance a source upgrade? Lets say Linn gives us a huge upgrade to the LP12 a Radikal grade of performance upgrade, would any of you stay true to source first and sell your Tundras, Sagatun or Komri to afford it?
I would not, but then again I don´t have a top spec LP12 as today or even a Klimax DSM. Choises based on price/performence, when stuff surface at the right price and the fact we live in a small apartment so space for boxes are limited. Thats the reason I did not got the Klångedang T1, I had no good or acceptable place to have the filter box so I did not get the more musical speaker due to that.

I would sell something to fund a really good source upgrade but only if I wouldn't lose too much money on the item I sell. I did something similar when we were strapped for cash and needed a new car. I sold my KK/1 (which was bought second hand anyway) and bought a Kikkin and upgraded my Lingo 2 to Radikal to offset the pre-amp downgrade. Source first can be quite handy in that respect.

A couple of years later, money was still tight and I didn't want to buy another Akiva. I got the Klyde instead and did the dynamik PSU upgrade to the Radikal at the same time. I did end up buying another Akiva in the end though, but that was a couple of years later when I had more funds again. I bought another KK/1 as well, as Sunbeam well knows, but that was even more years later.

[Erik]

No apology required. I never mentioned SPACE. I wrote about using tune method to position speakers.

Whatever you think of the reasons for why speaker positioning is important, the discussion is about the importance of set up, which includes speakers.

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/R ... iving.html

No, its about source first but has driven into a discussion about speaker placement and why it's so important.
Speaker positioning down to the last mm is crucial to get the best out of the setup. Your link has absolutely NOTHING to do with musicality and using the tune method to find the best placement.

/Erik

[sunbeamgls]

No, its about source first but has driven into a discussion about speaker placement and why it's so important.
Speaker positioning down to the last mm is crucial to get the best out of the setup. Your link has absolutely NOTHING to do with musicality and using the tune method to find the best placement.

/Erik

The thread changed direction into set up a while ago, quite deliberately and not by me.

Its up to you to consider what is and is not affecting the tune when tune demming speaker position. If you think reducing boom and muddle in the bass has nothing to do with making the tune easier to follow then that's up to you. I happen to think that cleaning up the articulation in the bass by getting the speaker to its optimal positioning in the room using tune dem / method is a major contributor to a better tune. The link is merely explaining why that's happening. Using tune dem / method gets you there, the science helps to explain why. If you believe that or not is up to you. I'm sure there are other contributing factors.

Maybe rather than making comments about what you think is not correct, perhaps you could explain what you think the effects are, so we can all learn?

[lejonklou]

Sunbeam, I think there's something you're not getting here.

The link you posted is not unknown to us, it's basic knowledge. It's also useless on the level where our discussions are, because if room nodes were the answer, most speakers would end up at the same position in a given room. And that position would also be easy to calculate. Many have tried and failed, because in realty it's much more complex. Our hearing gets in the way, we tolerate some errors well and others not so well.

Still, from time to time people post links to how speakers should be positioned and how rooms work. Last time it was in the JBL 3677 thread. That guy probably wanted to help, not realising that the method he linked to is something we left behind long ago, because it doesn't work for what we're after: Music.

This would all be fine, but when the attitude of the poster is "I know better than you", there's friction.

[Spannko]

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/R ... iving.html

Thanks for the link sunbeam. I found it really helpful in understanding more about how speaker positioning affects the modal response of the room, even though I feel it's slightly academic in that I think there are other factors which have an influence on the optimum position for a pair of speakers too, such as the reinforcement of frequencies other than modal frequencies due to boundary effects, the affect of speaker positioning on first reflections, combing, and anything else I'm not even aware of. This creates a complex mix which is not easily modelled, which is why positioning by ear is the best approach.

You seem to be suggesting that by moving a speaker into a position which doesn't so readily excite a particular room mode, the bass can be cleaned up (by removing some of the overhang) which allows you to more clearly hear the notes being played which, in turn, allows you to follow the tune easier. It's true that you may be able to hear the notes easier, however with regard to being able to follow the tune, this is the biggest mistake people make when they say they are using Tune Dem to set up their system. The ability to be able to hear clearly the notes played on a guitar for instance, is very different to being able to hear the pitch relationships between the notes. One is about sound resolution, and the other is about pitch resolution. We all love a bit of sound resolution, but it's not necessary for us to be able to follow the rhythms and tunes in the music - my £90 Bush "HiFi" which I bought in a super market allows me to do that, even if the resolution is poor, coloured, under powered, only on the radio, etc. Also, the vast majority of high resolution systems are really bad tune players. So, Tune Demming speakers is about moving them to a position which allows the pitch of the notes to be heard more accurately, not the playing of the notes themselves, which I'm sure is influenced to some degree by mode excitation, but not exclusively.

With regard to it being easier to badly position/support a turntable in comparison to a DS, I have to say that is not my experience. Ive found the Linn DS's to be very sensitive to their environment, in a very similar way to a turntable.

[Erik]

No, its about source first but has driven into a discussion about speaker placement and why it's so important.
Speaker positioning down to the last mm is crucial to get the best out of the setup. Your link has absolutely NOTHING to do with musicality and using the tune method to find the best placement.

/Erik

The thread changed direction into set up a while ago, quite deliberately and not by me.

Its up to you to consider what is and is not affecting the tune when tune demming speaker position. If you think reducing boom and muddle in the bass has nothing to do with making the tune easier to follow then that's up to you. I happen to think that cleaning up the articulation in the bass by getting the speaker to its optimal positioning in the room using tune dem / method is a major contributor to a better tune. The link is merely explaining why that's happening. Using tune dem / method gets you there, the science helps to explain why. If you believe that or not is up to you. I'm sure there are other contributing factors.

Maybe rather than making comments about what you think is not correct, perhaps you could explain what you think the effects are, so we can all learn?

What I have learned is that the only way to positioning speakers is to do it by ear, using the Tune Method. What you describes has nothing to do with getting the best out of the system from what the forum rules describes as the common ground for this forum.

/Erik

[sunbeamgls]

Sunbeam, I think there's something you're not getting here.

The link you posted is not unknown to us, it's basic knowledge. It's also useless on the level where our discussions are, because if room nodes were the answer, most speakers would end up at the same position in a given room. And that position would also be easy to calculate. Many have tried and failed, because in realty it's much more complex. Our hearing gets in the way, we tolerate some errors well and others not so well.

Still, from time to time people post links to how speakers should be positioned and how rooms work. Last time it was in the JBL 3677 thread. That guy probably wanted to help, not realising that the method he linked to is something we left behind long ago, because it doesn't work for what we're after: Music.

This would all be fine, but when the attitude of the poster is "I know better than you", there's friction.

If you re-read what I have written you will see that I mentioned it as a contributing factor to tune dem, amongst many others. When someone says that room modes have nothing to do with the ability to follow a tune, I find that odd. The method to use is tune dem, the outcome is a better tune, one of many contributing factors to that is room modes.

I am not the one using capital letters or bold highlighting to try and force friction. My posts use suggesting language not absolutes.

[sunbeamgls]

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/R ... iving.html

Thanks for the link sunbeam. I found it really helpful in understanding more about how speaker positioning affects the modal response of the room, even though I feel it's slightly academic in that I think there are other factors which have an influence on the optimum position for a pair of speakers too, such as the reinforcement of frequencies other than modal frequencies due to boundary effects, the affect of speaker positioning on first reflections, combing, and anything else I'm not even aware of. This creates a complex mix which is not easily modelled, which is why positioning by ear is the best approach.

You seem to be suggesting that by moving a speaker into a position which doesn't so readily excite a particular room mode, the bass can be cleaned up (by removing some of the overhang) which allows you to more clearly hear the notes being played which, in turn, allows you to follow the tune easier. It's true that you may be able to hear the notes easier, however with regard to being able to follow the tune, this is the biggest mistake people make when they say they are using Tune Dem to set up their system. The ability to be able to hear clearly the notes played on a guitar for instance, is very different to being able to hear the pitch relationships between the notes. One is about sound resolution, and the other is about pitch resolution. We all love a bit of sound resolution, but it's not necessary for us to be able to follow the rhythms and tunes in the music - my £90 Bush "HiFi" which I bought in a super market allows me to do that, even if the resolution is poor, coloured, under powered, only on the radio, etc. Also, the vast majority of high resolution systems are really bad tune players. So, Tune Demming speakers is about moving them to a position which allows the pitch of the notes to be heard more accurately, not the playing of the notes themselves, which I'm sure is influenced to some degree by mode excitation, but not exclusively.

With regard to it being easier to badly position/support a turntable in comparison to a DS, I have to say that is not my experience. Ive found the Linn DS's to be very sensitive to their environment, in a very similar way to a turntable.

Thanks spannko a very thoughtful contribution, recognising there are many factors involved, one of which is likely to be obscuring of the pitch, amongst those many other factors. Do you consider relative timing of the notes, in addition to relative pitch to be critical to the tune or is it only pitch?

On the last point about source positioning, I was being holistic about set up, not just about how the equipment is being sited and supported. As setting up a turntable is a skilled operation, this is why I think its much easier to badly set up a turntable over a DS.

[Erik]

Sunbeam, I think there's something you're not getting here.

The link you posted is not unknown to us, it's basic knowledge. It's also useless on the level where our discussions are, because if room nodes were the answer, most speakers would end up at the same position in a given room. And that position would also be easy to calculate. Many have tried and failed, because in realty it's much more complex. Our hearing gets in the way, we tolerate some errors well and others not so well.

Still, from time to time people post links to how speakers should be positioned and how rooms work. Last time it was in the JBL 3677 thread. That guy probably wanted to help, not realising that the method he linked to is something we left behind long ago, because it doesn't work for what we're after: Music.

This would all be fine, but when the attitude of the poster is "I know better than you", there's friction.

If you re-read what I have written you will see that I mentioned it as a contributing factor to tune dem, amongst many others. When someone says that room modes have nothing to do with the ability to follow a tune, I find that odd. The method to use is tune dem, the outcome is a better tune, one of many contributing factors to that is room modes.

I am not the one using capital letters or bold highlighting to try and force friction. My posts use suggesting language not absolutes.

Music is about getting emotional moved by the tune, not hear the tune as clear as possible. I'm quite convinced you don't understand the Tune Method at all.

/Erik

[Spannko]

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/R ... iving.html

Thanks for the link sunbeam. I found it really helpful in understanding more about how speaker positioning affects the modal response of the room, even though I feel it's slightly academic in that I think there are other factors which have an influence on the optimum position for a pair of speakers too, such as the reinforcement of frequencies other than modal frequencies due to boundary effects, the affect of speaker positioning on first reflections, combing, and anything else I'm not even aware of. This creates a complex mix which is not easily modelled, which is why positioning by ear is the best approach.

You seem to be suggesting that by moving a speaker into a position which doesn't so readily excite a particular room mode, the bass can be cleaned up (by removing some of the overhang) which allows you to more clearly hear the notes being played which, in turn, allows you to follow the tune easier. It's true that you may be able to hear the notes easier, however with regard to being able to follow the tune, this is the biggest mistake people make when they say they are using Tune Dem to set up their system. The ability to be able to hear clearly the notes played on a guitar for instance, is very different to being able to hear the pitch relationships between the notes. One is about sound resolution, and the other is about pitch resolution. We all love a bit of sound resolution, but it's not necessary for us to be able to follow the rhythms and tunes in the music - my £90 Bush "HiFi" which I bought in a super market allows me to do that, even if the resolution is poor, coloured, under powered, only on the radio, etc. Also, the vast majority of high resolution systems are really bad tune players. So, Tune Demming speakers is about moving them to a position which allows the pitch of the notes to be heard more accurately, not the playing of the notes themselves, which I'm sure is influenced to some degree by mode excitation, but not exclusively.

With regard to it being easier to badly position/support a turntable in comparison to a DS, I have to say that is not my experience. Ive found the Linn DS's to be very sensitive to their environment, in a very similar way to a turntable.

Thanks spannko a very thoughtful contribution, recognising there are many factors involved, one of which is likely to be obscuring of the pitch, amongst those many other factors. Do you consider relative timing of the notes, in addition to relative pitch to be critical to the tune or is it only pitch?

On the last point about source positioning, I was being holistic about set up, not just about how the equipment is being sited and supported. As setting up a turntable is a skilled operation, this is why I think its much easier to badly set up a turntable over a DS.

Yes, just to make things clear, I agree that modes can have an effect on a systems ability to reproduce pitch accurately, and not just low frequency notes. I wouldn't say that the pitch of notes is "obscured" by modes, I would say that the pitch is distorted. A subtle, but fundamental difference, I would say. However, I do think that this is very room dependant too. I base this on being in the unfortunate position of having an almost cubic listening room, so I've experienced a "modal sound" (a great phrase coined by Philbo!) more than most. With regard to SPACE, I've heard it improve tune playing, and I've heard it make things much worse - particularly when using the SPACE calculated settings. In order for SPACE to provide an improvement, the frequency has to be adjusted to an accuracy of 0.01 Hz, the gain by 0.01 dB and the bandwidth by 0.0001 octaves (I still can't get my head around that one!). SPACE is totally incapable of calculating the settings to this level of accuracy. For SPACE to work, it has to be adjusted by ear using Tune Dem, or it's better to leave it off (from a rhythm and tune perspective).

I believe that accurate timing and pitch reproduction are critical. Fortunately, because we're talking about perceived pitch, listening to a systems tune playing ability allows us to ignore the timing whilst at the same time, totally nailing it! What we also end up with is "true" timing, and not forced rhythm. This is due the fact that a perceived pitch is made up of a fundamental and many harmonics with defined amplitudes and spacing (depending on the instrument). Therefore, the more accurate the pitch, the more accurate the timing. This has to be the case, otherwise, by changing the timing relationship between the harmonics, the pitch will be altered.

Regarding the setup of turntables and DS's, I forgot about the setup of the turntable itself, which I agree is absolutely critical.

[sunbeamgls]

Insightful stuff Spannko. Thank you.

[Music Lover]

I believe that accurate timing and pitch reproduction are critical. Fortunately, because we're talking about perceived pitch, listening to a systems tune playing ability allows us to ignore the timing whilst at the same time, totally nailing it! What we also end up with is "true" timing, and not forced rhythm. This is due the fact that a perceived pitch is made up of a fundamental and many harmonics with defined amplitudes and spacing (depending on the instrument). Therefore, the more accurate the pitch, the more accurate the timing. This has to be the case, otherwise, by changing the timing relationship between the harmonics, the pitch will be altered.

No offence but it's a danger to theorize about Tune Dem in technical terms as pitch, harmonics, frequency etc are just words. Words that try to describe something we can measure.

But our brain doesn't measure incoming signals, it tries to UNDERSTAND them. Filter out the meaning of them.
Accuracy isn't important, not at all. Besides, the technical terms describe static signals, but music isn't.

Tune Dem is about musical understanding!
Not how well you hear the pitch, can follow the tune, whatever...
It's rather easy to build a hifi-system that is great on accuracy, timing, what have you.
Trouble is they are normally highly un-musical as they focus on TOTALLY wrong aspects!

Instead:
Focus on musical understanding!

[sunbeamgls]

I believe that accurate timing and pitch reproduction are critical. Fortunately, because we're talking about perceived pitch, listening to a systems tune playing ability allows us to ignore the timing whilst at the same time, totally nailing it! What we also end up with is "true" timing, and not forced rhythm. This is due the fact that a perceived pitch is made up of a fundamental and many harmonics with defined amplitudes and spacing (depending on the instrument). Therefore, the more accurate the pitch, the more accurate the timing. This has to be the case, otherwise, by changing the timing relationship between the harmonics, the pitch will be altered.

No offence but it's a danger to theorize about Tune Dem in technical terms as pitch, harmonics, frequency etc are just words. Words that try to describe something we can measure.

But our brain doesn't measure incoming signals, it tries to UNDERSTAND them. Filter out the meaning of them.
Accuracy isn't important, not at all. Besides, the technical terms describe static signals, but music isn't.

Tune Dem is about musical understanding!
Not how well you hear the pitch, can follow the tune, whatever...
It's rather easy to build a hifi-system that is great on accuracy, timing, what have you.
Trouble is they are normally highly un-musical as they focus on TOTALLY wrong aspects!

Instead:
Focus on musical understanding!

I think Spannko was referring to the musical meaning of tune, pitch, timing, rhythmn etc. Terms to descibe his understanding of what musical means to him perhaps. To create the emotional aspects of music, musical techniques are used. For example, upping the tempo creates a feeling of urgency, swapping from major to minor adds a sense of foreboding or fear, going from loud and tumultuous to quiet and delicate adds mystery, a little inflection in a voice may suggest there is hidden meaning behind a lyric. All of these things add to the emotion in the music and most of them have no obvious measurement that translates the use of musical techniques into emotions.
So all of those things (and many more) add up to the musical experience. The more the system (and its interaction with its surroundings) is incapable of passing along all the musical techniques that create the emotion, the less music you get.
I agree, static technical measurements of equipment is rarely, if ever, a pointer to musical capability. Understanding how music is constructed to create the emotions is, however, quite useful. Tune method is a way of finding them in a system without understanding how the music is constructed, and as such is a good evaluation technique.

[Erik]

I think Spannko was referring to the musical meaning of tune, pitch, timing, rhythmn etc. Terms to descibe his understanding of what musical means to him perhaps. To create the emotional aspects of music, musical techniques are used. For example, upping the tempo creates a feeling of urgency, swapping from major to minor adds a sense of foreboding or fear, going from loud and tumultuous to quiet and delicate adds mystery, a little inflection in a voice may suggest there is hidden meaning behind a lyric. All of these things add to the emotion in the music and most of them have no obvious measurement that translates the use of musical techniques into emotions.
So all of those things (and many more) add up to the musical experience. The more the system (and its interaction with its surroundings) is incapable of passing along all the musical techniques that create the emotion, the less music you get.
I agree, static technical measurements of equipment is rarely, if ever, a pointer to musical capability. Understanding how music is constructed to create the emotions is, however, quite useful. Tune method is a way of finding them in a system without understanding how the music is constructed, and as such is a good evaluation technique.

There is absolutely no need to understand how music is constructed to be able to judge a system or single component. The above is just another attempt to try to explain something that cannot be measured or described.

Trust your emotions and you are able to use the tune method.

sunbeamgls, visit a dealer willing to show the difference via the Tune Method. Preferably someone who's not economically dependent on the EXAKT technology. The hardest one to be honest to is yourself, but if you are able to that, you might get a heureka moment.


/Erik

[sunbeamgls]

I think Spannko was referring to the musical meaning of tune, pitch, timing, rhythmn etc. Terms to descibe his understanding of what musical means to him perhaps. To create the emotional aspects of music, musical techniques are used. For example, upping the tempo creates a feeling of urgency, swapping from major to minor adds a sense of foreboding or fear, going from loud and tumultuous to quiet and delicate adds mystery, a little inflection in a voice may suggest there is hidden meaning behind a lyric. All of these things add to the emotion in the music and most of them have no obvious measurement that translates the use of musical techniques into emotions.
So all of those things (and many more) add up to the musical experience. The more the system (and its interaction with its surroundings) is incapable of passing along all the musical techniques that create the emotion, the less music you get.
I agree, static technical measurements of equipment is rarely, if ever, a pointer to musical capability. Understanding how music is constructed to create the emotions is, however, quite useful. Tune method is a way of finding them in a system without understanding how the music is constructed, and as such is a good evaluation technique.

There is absolutely no need to understand how music is constructed to be able to judge a system or single component. The above is just another attempt to try to explain something that cannot be measured or described.

Trust your emotions and you are able to use the tune method.

sunbeamgls, visit a dealer willing to show the difference via the Tune Method. Preferably someone who's not economically dependent on the EXAKT technology. The hardest one to be honest to is yourself, but if you are able to that, you might get a heureka moment.


/Erik

I'm not quite sure Erik, but it might be worth re-reading what I've written, particularly that last sentence. Then it might save arguing with something that's not there.

I'm not sure why you've brought Exakt into this. Also, you are making lots of other assumptions about me and dealers that are totally inaccurate. Why would I pay any attention to what any dealer says, regardless of what they sell? I've not done it before and I'm not going to start now. I'll listen for music and make my own mind up as I'm quite capable of making my own choices.

I'll bow out of this one now, but thank those who have read what's written and have contributed some thoughtful and thought provoking stuff (including those where we don't agree). Positive contributions are the best posts here.