How we define "good sound"

We use the Tune Method to evaluate performance

Moderator: Staff

Spannko
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2292
Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
Location: North East of The Black Country, UK

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Spannko »

Dasher,

I think you are right, there’s no research which suggests listening to tunes in the way recommend on this forum will lead to a state of bliss.

However, there are many papers looking at the various effects of inharmonicity and how it affects pitch perception. I read recently how harmonically skewed tones affect parts of the brain associated with feelings of stress, whereas harmonically related tones affect parts of the brain associated with pleasure.

I’ve just done a quick search and found this https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/781. It describes the similarity between marmoset and human hearing, but the introduction contains some very interesting information about the research on pitch perception.
User avatar
springwood64
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 789
Joined: 2008-10-13 18:19
Location: UK

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by springwood64 »

Interesting paper, especially as the first contributor is called 'Song'. However it lost me almost immediately because it is about pitch.

I have to ask: what is 'pitch'?

If someone was to ask me if a piece of music was rendered 'pitch accurate' I would not be able to make a coherent answer.

Are we talking about notes on a scale? I've read the wikipedia entry and I'm not sure I'm any the wiser, especially when relating it to hifi.
Pete

Linn Axis, Kinki, Källa (GS308T+Amplifi HD x 2 + BJC), Boazu, Espeks
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by beck »

If I hum a tone it has a certain pitch. If you try to hum the same tone together with me you can be low, spot on or high in pitch compared to my tone.

Humming the same tone (pitch spot on) together forms a harmonic entity.

Many other combinations form a harmonic entity together with my tone.

If you hum/sing/play the tone C then the C major scale C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C contains the following tones that will form a harmonic entity with the root tone C:

C,E,F,G,A,(C) creating harmonic musical intervals with the root tone C.

Still, if you are bad at getting the pitch right to produce the tones you will be able to hit outside the harmonic entity (making an inharmonic connection with the root tone C).


Pitch is the exact height of a tone (messured in Hz).
Playing cd’s…………
User avatar
springwood64
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 789
Joined: 2008-10-13 18:19
Location: UK

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by springwood64 »

My background is maths and physics, so my understanding of sound is rooted in sine waves.

I think I understand your explanation as a tone is a bunch of summed frequencies.

Shift all these frequencies up or down by fixed integer factors and you hit tones of the scale?

If you shift all these frequencies down by the same amount, say 1Hz, then the result is the same tone at a lower pitch? However if the frequency shift is not in a harmonic interval the resulting tone would be inharmonic?

If however you shift just one of these frequencies down by 1Hz you have a different tone? This resulting tone would be lower pitch but would not be considered part of the same scale?

So does 'pitch accuracy' mean that all the constituent frequencies that make up a tone are rendered without shifts in frequency, timing or amplitude? If a tone is rendered with some constituent frequencies changed in amplitude is it still considered pitch accurate?
Pete

Linn Axis, Kinki, Källa (GS308T+Amplifi HD x 2 + BJC), Boazu, Espeks
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by beck »

I will not go too deep into this discussion because I do not have the full scientific explanation for what is going on but I think your thoughts are about right. So, yes to your questions except the last one that I do not fully understand.

Beware when moving a tone slightly it is all about the cluster of frequencies keeping the same relative distance to each other (not exactly moving them all 1 Hz).

My last comment to this will be that we have to be careful not to go too deep into the science. It will move us astray......
Playing cd’s…………
User avatar
springwood64
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 789
Joined: 2008-10-13 18:19
Location: UK

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by springwood64 »

beck wrote: 2020-12-22 09:40 My last comment to this will be that we have to be careful not to go too deep into the science. It will move us astray......
Your explanation has helped me make more sense of the Wikipedia entry, especially the first sentence: "Pitch is a perceptual property of sounds that allows their ordering on a frequency-related scale,"

I understand why you're right to warn against getting fixated on the maths of the frequencies, since the 'perceptual' part of pitch means it is much more complex than I first thought.

O well, I think I can hear some of this :)
Pete

Linn Axis, Kinki, Källa (GS308T+Amplifi HD x 2 + BJC), Boazu, Espeks
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by beck »

springwood64 wrote: 2020-12-22 09:18
So does 'pitch accuracy' mean that all the constituent frequencies that make up a tone are rendered without shifts in frequency, timing or amplitude?
Here is my answer to your last question:

I think you hit the above right on the nail! :-)
Playing cd’s…………
dasher
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 2013-09-22 22:31

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by dasher »

As I understand it, the 'pitch' is the exact frequency of the signal - eg 440Hz being ascribed to the note of middle C. Naming the 'note' is of course man's artefact. The trouble starts when describing 'Tone" - because the word is used to describe more than one thing. A 'scale' is made up of tones and semi tones -these are mathematically linked resonances. However, 'Tone' is also used to describe 'timbre' - I think that is what we are trying to describe here. As to whether what we are trying to describe should be correct try defined as 'tone' or 'timbre' then I have no clue!! Time though, as I understand it, comes from the imperfections around the prefect pitch - which is what Beck described earlier - just what makes these 'dark' or' light' is a mystery to me but I'm pretty sure that it can be described mathematically- otherwise synthesisers could not be programmed to reproduce it. Harmonics must also feature somewhere but I don't know how they are 'processed' by the brain. The brain certainly appears to 'favour' some harmonics over others. I also think that a fundamental question is 'How does the brain process information often found outside of the filters often found in digital players? I suspect that Philips probably did conduct research into this before determining the red book cut offs - but I can't find any reference to it. There are certainly more questions that answers!
sktn77a
Active member
Active member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2020-10-22 00:47

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by sktn77a »

Spannko wrote: 2020-12-21 21:46 I can honestly say that “belief” plays no part in “following the tune”. On the contrary, it has the ability to push aside any pre-conceived ideas and allows us to make a truly objective analysis of our systems. From a scientific perspective, it helps us to choose HiFi which stimulates areas of the brain which release endorphins (and is therefore pleasurable) whilst reducing the stimulation of multiple areas which lead to processing confusion and ultimately listening fatigue. It’s not a belief, it’s pure science!
Please don't misunderstand my meaning here. I'm not say tune dem is just a belief, only that I could never hear it. So, to me, I personally haven't been able to verify anything. Having conducted clinical trials for most of my career, I'm driven by "well controlled, double blind" studies. (Perhaps says more about me than anything else.)
Keith
LP12, Ekos, VM760, Slipsik 7.1, NDX2, 252, 250, Aerial 5B, LS3/5a, Harbeth M30, Gallo TR3D
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by beck »

I think Dasher that you mean concert pitch A (above the middle C) is set at 440 hz. Sometimes 442 or even 444 has been used. In older times it has been lower than 440.
Playing cd’s…………
User avatar
markiteight
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 834
Joined: 2012-01-13 01:50
Location: Seattle, Wa. USA

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by markiteight »

beck wrote: 2020-12-22 21:51 I think Dasher that you mean concert pitch A (above the middle C) is set at 440 hz. Sometimes 442 or even 444 has been used. In older times it has been lower than 440.
Methinks Dasher plays a B flat instrument, on which Concert A is C. Trumpet? Clarinet?

Recovering clarinetist here.
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by beck »

markiteight wrote: 2020-12-22 23:01
beck wrote: I think Dasher that you mean concert pitch A (above the middle C) is set at 440 hz. Sometimes 442 or even 444 has been used. In older times it has been lower than 440.
Methinks Dasher plays a B flat instrument, on which Concert A is C. Trumpet? Clarinet?

Recovering clarinetist here.
Then I must as a clarinetist inform you that B flat instruments like the mostly used clarinet shall play a written (for the instrument) B to play a concert Pitch A!
Last edited by beck on 2020-12-22 23:09, edited 1 time in total.
Playing cd’s…………
User avatar
markiteight
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 834
Joined: 2012-01-13 01:50
Location: Seattle, Wa. USA

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by markiteight »

Here's a great discussion on pitch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D4NDBzBZoY
dasher
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 2013-09-22 22:31

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by dasher »

markiteight wrote: 2020-12-22 23:01
beck wrote: 2020-12-22 21:51 I think Dasher that you mean concert pitch A (above the middle C) is set at 440 hz. Sometimes 442 or even 444 has been used. In older times it has been lower than 440.
Methinks Dasher plays a B flat instrument, on which Concert A is C. Trumpet? Clarinet?

Recovering clarinetist here.
Both correct! - I play tenor saxophone and tune C to 440 and use 440 concert pitch to A on my guitar!

In fact it can get complex as often when going direct to DAW I use a Yamaha wind synth and have a choice of pitch at the push of a button (or roller). I only ever really play alone and to my DAW!
Spannko
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2292
Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
Location: North East of The Black Country, UK

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Spannko »

For me, the relevance of pitch, harmonicity and tune is that when a musical note is reproduced through a HiFi system, the harmonics of the note will inevitably become subtly skewed (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the system) which will ever so slightly alter the pitch as we hear (perceive) it. Consequently, the tune being reproduced will now sound (to a greater or lesser degree) as though some, or all of the notes are being played out of tune. People who have used this method for a number of years also notice that musical timing appears to be improved eg a band appears to be playing “tighter” with one another and with greater subtlety. Also the “sound” being made appears to be more natural and realistic.
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by beck »

Spannko wrote: 2020-12-23 00:55 For me, the relevance of pitch, harmonicity and tune is that when a musical note is reproduced through a HiFi system, the harmonics of the note will inevitably become subtly skewed (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the system) which will ever so slightly alter the pitch as we hear (perceive) it. Consequently, the tune being reproduced will now sound (to a greater or lesser degree) as though some, or all of the notes are being played out of tune. People who have used this method for a number of years also notice that musical timing appears to be improved eg a band appears to be playing “tighter” with one another and with greater subtlety. Also the “sound” being made appears to be more natural and realistic.
I fully agree with this post from Spannko.
Playing cd’s…………
User avatar
ThomasOK
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 2007-02-02 18:41
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by ThomasOK »

Spannko wrote: 2020-12-23 00:55 For me, the relevance of pitch, harmonicity and tune is that when a musical note is reproduced through a HiFi system, the harmonics of the note will inevitably become subtly skewed (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the system) which will ever so slightly alter the pitch as we hear (perceive) it. Consequently, the tune being reproduced will now sound (to a greater or lesser degree) as though some, or all of the notes are being played out of tune. People who have used this method for a number of years also notice that musical timing appears to be improved eg a band appears to be playing “tighter” with one another and with greater subtlety. Also the “sound” being made appears to be more natural and realistic.
Yes, I feel this post is right on. It is important to be aware that musical notes are made up of the fundamental and a series of harmonics and it is the harmonics that give music its richness. The harmonic structure of the note when you play an A440 is what makes a piano sound different from a guitar, a grand piano different from a spinet and a Baldwin grand piano sound different from a Steinway (in order of increasing subtlety). As the harmonics stretch out to many multiples of the fundamental many of them are at quite low levels comparatively and are easily disturbed. it is this disturbance of the harmonic structure that makes things sound less musical, less in tune. Timing is all wrapped up with this as the harmonics are supposed to arrive in a specific time relationship to the fundamental. If that relationship is off the note sounds off, and the togetherness of the instruments are also damaged. So there is a connection of tune and timing, both of which are necessary for musical understanding.

Musical understanding is a whole subject to itself, but I don't think it is necessarily understanding the intent of the composer as they often have no idea how something will be received and it can take on a completely different meaning to the listener than what was written. An excellent example of this is the Police song "Every Breath You Take", a song that is very popular at weddings but is really about stalking! Our understanding of anything is colored by our own personal makeup and life experiences. These change what we hear (and what we see). But the important thing is that the music speaks to you, even if what it says something different than what the artist might have intended. I have read artists say that their songs are often interpreted completely differently that how they were written but they think it is great as long as people are getting into the music. No matter what your brain and heart bring to the table, the more music moves you the better your system is doing at reproducing the subtleties that make it up.
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
Defender
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1266
Joined: 2018-02-14 22:35

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Defender »

since I brought up the „understanding“ topic I need to make clear that I was not saying that it makes you understand the musicians intend or what the musicians wanted to achieve in a better way ... it makes the listenener understand better what is going on within the song - how the musicians interact with each other, how their instruments „talk“ to each other and also to understand what instruments are playing ... I have heard highly detailed systems with a lot of resolution but in the end in a more complex song it was difficult (to use ThomasOK‘s analogy) to hear what kind of piano was playing or if it was a keyboard.

Its a difference understanding intend vs. understanding whats going on (the latter is what I am talking about).
Spannko
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2292
Joined: 2008-01-24 21:46
Location: North East of The Black Country, UK

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Spannko »

ThomasOK wrote: 2020-12-23 20:04
Spannko wrote: 2020-12-23 00:55 For me, the relevance of pitch, harmonicity and tune is that when a musical note is reproduced through a HiFi system, the harmonics of the note will inevitably become subtly skewed (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the system) which will ever so slightly alter the pitch as we hear (perceive) it. Consequently, the tune being reproduced will now sound (to a greater or lesser degree) as though some, or all of the notes are being played out of tune. People who have used this method for a number of years also notice that musical timing appears to be improved eg a band appears to be playing “tighter” with one another and with greater subtlety. Also the “sound” being made appears to be more natural and realistic.
Yes, I feel this post is right on. It is important to be aware that musical notes are made up of the fundamental and a series of harmonics and it is the harmonics that give music its richness. The harmonic structure of the note when you play an A440 is what makes a piano sound different from a guitar, a grand piano different from a spinet and a Baldwin grand piano sound different from a Steinway (in order of increasing subtlety). As the harmonics stretch out to many multiples of the fundamental many of them are at quite low levels comparatively and are easily disturbed. it is this disturbance of the harmonic structure that makes things sound less musical, less in tune. Timing is all wrapped up with this as the harmonics are supposed to arrive in a specific time relationship to the fundamental. If that relationship is off the note sounds off, and the togetherness of the instruments are also damaged. So there is a connection of tune and timing, both of which are necessary for musical understanding.

Musical understanding is a whole subject to itself, but I don't think it is necessarily understanding the intent of the composer as they often have no idea how something will be received and it can take on a completely different meaning to the listener than what was written. An excellent example of this is the Police song "Every Breath You Take", a song that is very popular at weddings but is really about stalking! Our understanding of anything is colored by our own personal makeup and life experiences. These change what we hear (and what we see). But the important thing is that the music speaks to you, even if what it says something different than what the artist might have intended. I have read artists say that their songs are often interpreted completely differently that how they were written but they think it is great as long as people are getting into the music. No matter what your brain and heart bring to the table, the more music moves you the better your system is doing at reproducing the subtleties that make it up.
Absolutely. Totally. Bang on! For me, these ideas are central, not only to the understanding of a tune method of evaluation, but to maximising our enjoyment of reproduced music at home.
Lego
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 2007-04-18 11:42
Location: glasgow

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Lego »

Spannko wrote: 2020-12-19 21:34 I’m sorry, but I really don’t get this idea of “musical understanding”. In fact, I think it’s a nonsense. There’s absolutely no way on this earth that we can “understand” a musicians intent, particularly when they’ve been dead for 200 years! To truly understand their intent, we have to be able to communicate with them and create a common, or shared understanding of the “musical message” as they intended to portray. This is obviously impossible for most of us, with most musicians. However, this doesn’t stop us from generating our own “interpretation” and creating an “understanding” which fits our interpretation, but of course this is quite different.
Sorry Spannko,what musician are you listening to that died 200 years ago !?
I know that tune
Lego
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 2007-04-18 11:42
Location: glasgow

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Lego »

sktn77a wrote: 2020-12-21 15:38 I guess "following the tune" is a bit like religion. I truly wish I could have faith in something greater than all of us, but coming from a strong science background, I'm more driven by evidence than faith. Same applies to the "tune-dem" (no offence intended). I've tried to "follow the tune" and identify good vs not-so-good music reproduction for many (many) years. Even when my dealer(s) have insisted they could hear the difference in following the tune, I could not. I could hear differences in the equipment but not such that my ability to follow the tune was any different (this, of course, doesn't apply to the old wind-up 78s whose pitch slowed down as the flywheel lost energy!).

I also find "clips" of music posted for comparison, on this and other sites, uninformative at best. After all, we play them back through a second system of unknown (to other readers) capabilities and characteristics. So what one system delivers, another may not.

Like I say, I wish I could believe but it just hasn't worked for me. In the end, I just listen and if I'm enjoying the music, that's about it - I can't define it in any other useful way.
So going by that scientific theory,if you compare 2 amps and you enjoy the music in both amps you have to buy both of them!?

If however you can determine that you enjoy one more than the other then you are following the tune more easily on the more enjoyable one .You just aren't aware you are doing it.

If you have ever listened to a child learning a familiar tune,chances are you won't initially recognise the tune as you are struggling to follow the melody.It's not until the child becomes more proficient that you begin to recognise the tune and surprise surprise it becomes more enjoyable and you actually might start humming along.

Like Linn say if you can't hear a difference there isn't one.Thats the beauty of the tune-dem,the dealer can't bullshit you with unimportant non musical differences that are easy to hear.
I know that tune
Charlie1
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 4831
Joined: 2007-12-11 00:30
Location: UK

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Charlie1 »

Lego wrote: 2020-12-29 07:38what musician are you listening to that died 200 years ago !?
Noddy Holder.

I'm not sure thats funny or not but I'll go with it 😁
Lego
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 2007-04-18 11:42
Location: glasgow

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Lego »

Charlie1 wrote: 2020-12-29 18:37
Lego wrote: 2020-12-29 07:38what musician are you listening to that died 200 years ago !?
Noddy Holder.

I'm not sure thats funny or not but I'll go with it 😁
🤣🤣🤣 I forgot about Noddy
I know that tune
Arjen
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 431
Joined: 2021-06-10 13:23
Location: NL and Friesland

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Arjen »

Good sound. My goodness. Good sounding. I think you can describe it in musical terms and in technical terms.
Audio sound is all about music. If you enjoy the music it is okay. Listening Radio Luxembourg on a Sharp transistor radio under the blanket was thrilling long time back. Impossible to get that feeling back 50 years later with medium/high end gear.
So sound in audiophile terms has more to do with sound technology. The challenge is to improve that in the many ways reviewers are describing what they hear on behalf of the marketeers, a vocabularity which tempted buyings but tends to sail away from real joy.
The road between is to develop products that communicates what you hear in the real world, a riff raff hand clapping singer in the street, A bird in a tree, a child crying, a motorcycle in the street. No manipulation to please.
So good sound is communicate real noise, real voice, real musical tunes.
If it from a transistor radio or a decent set, it is all good when it is a joy, not damaging your ears by unnatural modifications.
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
sktn77a
Active member
Active member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2020-10-22 00:47

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by sktn77a »

Arjen wrote: 2021-07-02 00:00 Listening Radio Luxembourg on a Sharp transistor radio under the blanket was thrilling long time back.
Or, in my case, under the pillow (so my parents couldn't hear it). Exciting, yes! Illicit, yes! Good sound - ???
Keith
LP12, Ekos, VM760, Slipsik 7.1, NDX2, 252, 250, Aerial 5B, LS3/5a, Harbeth M30, Gallo TR3D
Post Reply