How we define "good sound"

We use the Tune Method to evaluate performance

Moderator: Staff

User avatar
John
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-02-23 13:42
Location: United States

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by John »

I get the impression from reading various posts that it appears there are folks willing to accept less tune and information of what’s on the vinyl for more synergy tone wise with the rest of their system.
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 »

Arjen wrote: 2022-12-24 00:58 Can it be that disagreement starts ‘cause of preferences in advance resulting in a biased not really open minded discussion.
Just asking, Spannko.
I absolutely agree Arjen. A good example of this is the research carried out by Floyd and Toole for Harman. They discovered that if listeners are trained in what to listen for, the agreement between their opinions improves. Floyd (for Harman) developed a set of criteria which they considered to be important for good sound reproduction, and which was used in the design and evaluation of Harman loudspeakers. Untrained listeners were asked to rate a range of loudspeakers from the Harman group and their competitors. The results were mixed, with no clear preferences emerging. When trained listeners, using Harman defined criteria, performed the same task, there was a clear preference for Harman loudspeakers. Well, who’d have thought, eh? Unsurprisingly, the “research” has never been repeated and verified.

So yes, the type of lens we view through will certainly bias our evaluations. There are quite a few “lenses” we can choose from. Eg, the “dynamics” lens, the “clarity” lens, the “slam” lens, the “imagery” lens, the “air” lens, the “triangle on the back row” lens, or any other lens that you care to mention. Some people even like to combine lenses into something like the “third triangle from left with air and shimmer” lens. The combinations are limitless!

The particular lens employed on this forum is the “tune” lens. Why the tune lens and not one of the conventional audiophile lenses? Pitch (melody) is often considered the most important element of music, along with rhythm, dynamics, harmony etc. This is from a musical perspective, and since we are trying to reproduce music faithfully in the home it makes sense to choose the most important musically related lens. However, from a scientific perspective, choosing pitch also makes sense. For a component to accurately reproduce the pitch of a note it has to accurately and simultaneously reproduce a notes fundamental frequency and all of its harmonics, the equivalent of at least 10 sine waves of differing frequencies in perfect alignment. If any of the harmonics are reproduced with an incorrect amplitude or its position in time is slightly off, the pitch of the sound will be altered. Therefore, listening to the accuracy of the pitch of the notes gives a good indication of the components linearity too.

So to answer your question, I don’t think disagreement starts as a result of preferences causing bias resulting in a closed minded discussion, I think disagreement emerges out of opponents viewing the same phenomena through their preferred lenses.
Last edited by Spannko on 2022-12-25 01:16, edited 2 times in total.
tpetsch
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 342
Joined: 2020-08-17 18:46
Location: United States

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by tpetsch »

John wrote: 2022-12-24 14:57 I get the impression from reading various posts that it appears there are folks willing to accept less tune and information of what’s on the vinyl for more synergy tone wise with the rest of their system.
Personally the tune is the most important thing for me when I evaluate gear in my system, the tune is either there or it isn't, and if it isn't I maintain zero interest. But is it really that hard to imagine a turntable that's as in tune as -place your LP12's build specks here- and be more overall neutral sounding? ...or said another way, why does one have to forfeit tune to gain neutrality??...See, I did it again, as neutrality is one of the subcomponents of the overall tune IMO.

Maybe this has been Regas goal for the past 20 with their increasing focusing on mass & stiffness, they do after all know who their really up against in the TT biz.
Last edited by tpetsch on 2022-12-24 20:22, edited 1 time in total.
Rega P10, Aphelion II, Aura. Naim CB 32.5/HC, Naxo 3-6/HC, 3x250 into K20/DMS.
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 »

Has anyone from Rega ever stated their design goals?
tpetsch
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 342
Joined: 2020-08-17 18:46
Location: United States

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by tpetsch »

Spannko wrote: 2022-12-24 20:21 Has anyone from Rega ever stated their design goals?
This has been posted here before Spanko. I set up this link to start at Roys/Regas view on TT's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aNyoQKAs4E&t=2360s
Rega P10, Aphelion II, Aura. Naim CB 32.5/HC, Naxo 3-6/HC, 3x250 into K20/DMS.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6524
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by lejonklou »

I don’t know what ‘neutral’ means.

Is it In frequency response? I have never really cared about that. And I have never heard the i infamous “lower midrange bloom” of the LP12.

Is it in dynamics? Then I feel that it’s severely lacking in most HiFi systems I’ve enjoyed. But I can enjoy them anyway, if they play the tune well.

Merry Christmas to you all!
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 »

Yes, merry Christmas everyone ☃️☃️☃️
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 »

image.jpg
Merry Christmas to you all and Happy Listening to some fine Xmas album
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
lindsayt
Active member
Active member
Posts: 146
Joined: 2010-08-30 19:06
Location: UK

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by lindsayt »

Thank-you to the moderation team for moving my post into this thread. I agree that it makes sense to discuss the area that I raised in this thread instead of the thread about the iconic turntable youtube video.
lejonklou wrote: 2022-12-23 20:24
OK, I’ll give it a go.

I think the most likely thing going on is that we listen for different things. And therefore we mean different things when we claim that one reproduction is more tuneful than another.

Sometimes the only way to find out for sure whether this is the case is to listen together, in the same room, and compare our favourite machines. Judging clips works up to a point, but I find it benefits greatly from prior common in-room experiences. Then we know what the other person is listening for.

Another possibility, one that I find less likely, is that I haven’t listened properly to the turntables you do find the best. And one or several of them actually are better than an LP12. Now that would be fantastic, as I would immediately sell the very expensive turntable I have at home and get a better one for (I hope) far less money. I would absolutely LOVE this!

EDIT:
On that bake-off on the PFM forum, what did others think? Was there consensus around your findings or did some think the opposite? Which were the winners and what did the majority think?
I'm conscious that when I'm reporting experiences that differ very widely from that of others, that I should take some effort to describe the nature of the experiences in some detail.
EG saying that I found an LP12 with Basik LVX more tuneful than Rega Planar 3 is a vague statement.
Saying that I found Hanging Around from Stranglers Rattus Norvegicus album as having the life sucked out of it (when played at the same volume) on the Rega compared to the Linn is less vague. And that there was some crudeness imposed by the Rega when compared to the Linn gives a bit more substance to the description. So that on Haunts of Ancient Peace from Common One by Van Morrison, when the whole band were playing together the instruments sounded more merged into one amorphous blob on the Rega and less easy to follow each individual instrument at will.

I agree that listening together is useful. Because it allows 2 or more people to hear exactly the same things - which takes one set of variables out of the equation. And it allows the 2 people to have a frank discussion about what they heard.

Everyone that attended the Richard Dunn hosted bake-off in 2008 - and reported their experience - agreed on the outcome. This included Zener, the owner of the LP12 when he was coaxed into giving his report.
There was a lot of disagreement about the results of that bake-off from people that didn't attend it.

tokenbrit wrote: 2022-12-23 21:00 How reliably setup was each turntable - were they each optimally fettled? Not saying they weren't; just asking... It certainly seems from discussions here that the LP12 is very setup dependent - I don't know about the others in the bake-off or your own tests. Some may be easier to setup & perform more consistently tunefully across comparisons to lead to your experiences & conclusion.
From that 2008 bake-off, Zener reported that his LP12 had been serviced by a Linn dealer 6 months prior to the bake-off.
I can't remember which dealer he said it was. Zener lived in Essex in England at the time.
tpetsch wrote: 2022-12-23 21:40
lindsayt wrote: 2022-12-23 16:43
A big question I would like to ask you guys is:
Why do you think my reported experience of the Linn LP12 and Rega Planar 3 vs Cherry Picked A N Other (including Japanese direct drives) differs so much to yours?
What do you think is going on here?

Feel free to be very open and honest here. Give me both barrels, if you want. Or alternatively, feel free to do a brainstorm of possible reasons that explain the gulf in this matter.
In a nutshell many of us define & hear the tune differently.

There are sounds and effects & then there's the tune.

The tune is the thing that transports us, draws us into the music and grabs our attention, resulting in the gear itself somewhat disappearing, if I find my mind wandering and thinking about other things other than the music playing right in front of me somethings gone wrong tune wise.

If attention turns away from the tune and onto to other things like soundstage, space around the instruments or how in my latest A/B I now notice cowbell etc. in the background I didn't notice before, things can start to go down the rabbit hole.

Thing is, all we can really surmise about any master tape/master is that some very talented and professional singers and musicians came together and spent a lot of time and effort to create a musical experience, the final product should move us in an emotional way, it should be tuneful/musical -because their pros and do this for a living- and we should be able to make sense of the artists creative intentions and more tuneful gear helps us to further & more deeply make even more sense of it all.

What we can't surmise is how much space around the instruments there was in the recording studio the day the music was recorded or how big the soundstage was or if there even was a soundstage, ..or a studio? Or how much cowbell, etc. the band wanted mixed down to the master, did they mix in the cowbell as an overall balanced accent or intend to make it stand out as an obvious presence to the listener? We simply can't know how the performance intends to portray these sounds & effects or in what direction we should attempt to adjust for them in our systems because we have no way of knowing how much or little of these things actually exist on the master. ...But what we do know is how Miles Davis can make the hairs on your arm stand up when he plays the trumpet.

One could argue that the more an end user or manufacturer focus's on attempting to "improve" upon these unknowable sound & effects quantities the more they may find their gear moving away from the core fundamental tune / musical performance itself.

Happy holidays all..
Over the years I attended a number of bake-offs and hi-fi events with Richard Dunn. At every single one we would agree on the nature of the sonic differences between the equipment we were evaluating. The difference was that he'd tend to evaluate and process and be ready to verbally report quicker than I usually would, Which is fair enough, given that he had vastly more experience than me of sighted and unsighted AB (and ABBA) demos.

Furthermore, I've found there to be a generally good concensus at the bake-offs I've attended. With - on average - 90% of people reporting the same sonic differences (with me agreeing with the 90% on all occasions so far).

When I do listening tests, especially when with other people, I try to relax and let the music wash over me and let the equipment speak for itself.

markiteight wrote: 2022-12-23 22:08

That's a really excellent summary of the reasons behind the Tune Method, tpetsch. Thanks for that. I would add that while the degree to which a listener is drawn into the music can be an indicator of issues with a system's ability to play the tune, it is itself not a reliable method of evaluating the tune. Attention to the music can be affected by other factors that are difficult or impossible to control in an A-B comparison, leading to an inconsistent outcome. But if an evaluator finds their attention drifting more during one phase of a comparison, it is entirely reasonable to confirm whether or not that is caused by a poor musical performance using more consistent and reliable methods.

I think it's entirely possible the methods of evaluations are where differences of opinion occur. I feel like we are all in general agreement about what the tune means, it's how we get there where our roads diverge. Technique can be personal, too. What works for one person might not work for another. I myself have struggled a bit over the years finding the evaluation method that works best for me.

Fredrik's suggestion that listening together resonated with me too. I learned a lot about his methods, and what he's listening for, while playing music alongside Fredrik. I also discovered some fun, new music.
That's a good point about attention drifting.

For a given volume, with the Rega Planar 3 I tended to find that my emotional response to what I was hearing was that the music was something going on at the other end of the room, where the speakers were.
With a better vinyl source, at the same volume I'd be drawn into the music more. More engulfed by it. More pulled into it and involved with it.

The very best, most dynamically recorded albums, such as Dire Straits Communique would still tend to draw me into the music with the Rega Planar 3. Albums like Mondo Bongo by the Boomtown Rats would be more of a litmus test.

Having said that, there has beent other times I've found my attention drifting during evaluations because of non music and non system dependent things. It''s those episodes where I've needed more time before feeling comfortable reporting my findings.

=======================================

I think that overall, getting together in the same room at the same time to evaluate equipment and talk about what we heard is the best way to solve the mystery as to why my reported findings are so different to those of others on this forum.

However, geographical realities may kick in here. It's not like we're next door neighbours. So that in the meantime, all we can do is to speculate as to the reasons for the reported differences.
I do think that the discussion in the last few posts has been interesting and useful. And I'd like to thank you (plural) for expressing your thoughts in this matter.
User avatar
John
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-02-23 13:42
Location: United States

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by John »

IMO, Richard Dunn, owner of NVA electronics had an axe to grind with Linn, period.

I don’t recall any turntable beating out a LP12 when needle drop results were shared on Pink Fish forum, including those from Bake-Offs. It’s a shame Tony was forced by big tech to delete all those threads on his forum that contained a needle drop or we might still have access to them. That’s the way things are these days with big tech censorship.

Funny that Richard Dunn was always reluctant when asked to share any recordings of his Pioneer PL-71.
lindsayt
Active member
Active member
Posts: 146
Joined: 2010-08-30 19:06
Location: UK

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by lindsayt »

John wrote: 2022-12-26 13:19 IMO, Richard Dunn, owner of NVA electronics had an axe to grind with Linn, period.

I don’t recall any turntable beating out a LP12 when needle drop results were shared on Pink Fish forum, including those from Bake-Offs. It’s a shame Tony was forced by big tech to delete all those threads on his forum that contained a needle drop or we might still have access to them. That’s the way things are these days with big tech censorship.

Funny that Richard Dunn was always reluctant when asked to share any recordings of his Pioneer PL-71.
Yes it's fair to say that Richard Dunn had a huge act to grind with Linn.
When he was alive, he was able to articulate a set of very good reasons as to why he had an axe to grind.

Whether any particular person agrees with those reasons - appears to correspond with their reported experiences of Linn, especially the LP12 against other cherry picked equipment.

I can ask you a similar question about Richard Dunn to the question I asked about myself. As in:
What do you think was going on with Richard Dunn to make him hate Linn so much? How do you square that away? He's dead now, so you can be as brutal as you want.

One bit of info I can give you about Richard, is that at his funeral, his sister said that he had a temper.

I can also tell you the story about the first time I met him. It was at an amplifier bake-off in South London. 4 of us attended. The host had a Bel Canto, another guest brought a refurbed Leak valve amp, I took Coincident Frankenstein 300b SET Prototypes, Richard Dunn brought NVA A80's. We used a well recorded solo piano piece as the main evaluation track. The source was a Squeezebox. Speakers were Impulse Ta'us.
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 »

I don’t see any benefit in discussing Richard Dunn’s beliefs about the hifi industry.
User avatar
John
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-02-23 13:42
Location: United States

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by John »

Spannko wrote: 2022-12-26 19:41 I don’t see any benefit in discussing Richard Dunn’s beliefs about the hifi industry.
Agree.
sktn77a
Active member
Active member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2020-10-22 00:47

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by sktn77a »

lindsayt wrote: 2022-12-26 16:27 What do you think was going on with Richard Dunn to make him hate Linn so much? How do you square that away?
Well, back in the day NVA was seen as a viable alternative to NAIM amplification but the bulk of the flat earth HiFi press-of-the-day would have none of it. So his commercial success fell victim to these rags and Ivor's (and to a lesser extent, Julian's) marketing speak.
Keith
LP12, Ekos, VM760, Slipsik 7.1, NDX2, 252, 250, Aerial 5B, LS3/5a, Harbeth M30, Gallo TR3D
lindsayt
Active member
Active member
Posts: 146
Joined: 2010-08-30 19:06
Location: UK

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by lindsayt »

sktn77a wrote: 2023-03-03 03:49
lindsayt wrote: 2022-12-26 16:27 What do you think was going on with Richard Dunn to make him hate Linn so much? How do you square that away?
Well, back in the day NVA was seen as a viable alternative to NAIM amplification but the bulk of the flat earth HiFi press-of-the-day would have none of it. So his commercial success fell victim to these rags and Ivor's (and to a lesser extent, Julian's) marketing speak.
With the benefit of hindsight, how ethical do you think Ivor's "marketing speak" was "back in the day"?

How ethical do you think Richard Dunn found Linn's marketing techniques "back in the day?"
tpetsch
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 342
Joined: 2020-08-17 18:46
Location: United States

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by tpetsch »

lindsayt wrote: 2023-03-03 09:00
sktn77a wrote: 2023-03-03 03:49
lindsayt wrote: 2022-12-26 16:27 What do you think was going on with Richard Dunn to make him hate Linn so much? How do you square that away?
Well, back in the day NVA was seen as a viable alternative to NAIM amplification but the bulk of the flat earth HiFi press-of-the-day would have none of it. So his commercial success fell victim to these rags and Ivor's (and to a lesser extent, Julian's) marketing speak.
With the benefit of hindsight, how ethical do you think Ivor's "marketing speak" was "back in the day"?

How ethical do you think Richard Dunn found Linn's marketing techniques "back in the day?"
How ethical? Was it anymore or less then any other TV or Radio advertising campaign? I feel Ivor's message at the time contained threads of truth, and or course Linn was trying to sell gear at the end of the day.
I think if anything it did give the customer something to think about other then just the sound of gear, we at the shop didn't push the whole foot tapping thing but we did try to offer the customer other things to think about when evaluating the gear and we also encouraged the customer bring in their own gear for direct comparisons. Some appreciated the insight and bought gear, some weeks later came back after letting it all sink in, others thought it was a scam or hook to sell gear and ran.
People who may have never steeped foot into a Linn/Naim dealer and a few magazine articles created the negative narrative because they probably invested in or pushed something else they were selling, "Did they ask you to tap your foot" and so on became the running joke on the chats & forums and it worked to some extent.
Rega P10, Aphelion II, Aura. Naim CB 32.5/HC, Naxo 3-6/HC, 3x250 into K20/DMS.
quinn_t
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 2022-06-12 01:06

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by quinn_t »

Tony Tune-age wrote: 2020-12-18 19:05
In my opinion, these are all good questions. Musical for me (without trying to offend anybody), stands for natural sounding, realistic sounding and similar sounding to live musical performances...either studio or live concerts.

Cheers!
Live concerts have never sound good me! I think mainly because of the ambience, equipments, etc.
Except you go to some good jazz or classical venues, then maybe.
User avatar
Tony Tune-age
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1579
Joined: 2009-12-19 19:07
Location: United States

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Tony Tune-age »

quinn_t wrote: 2023-08-03 21:18
Tony Tune-age wrote: 2020-12-18 19:05
In my opinion, these are all good questions. Musical for me (without trying to offend anybody), stands for natural sounding, realistic sounding and similar sounding to live musical performances...either studio or live concerts.

Cheers!
Live concerts have never sound good me! I think mainly because of the ambience, equipments, etc.
Except you go to some good jazz or classical venues, then maybe.
I've been to some great sounding outdoor live performances, and a few that didn't sound so good too.
Tony Tune-age
User avatar
Hermann
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 616
Joined: 2018-05-13 06:52
Location: Ruhrgebiet

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Hermann »

My last visit to a live concert before the pandemic was Dead can Dance. Luckily I have their "In Concert" box and the sound between Live and Home is similar for me. My system reproduces exactly the relevant impressions that the concert offered.

Many years ago I visited Pat Metheny in the Düsseldorf Phlilipshalle nearby. After a quarter of an hour I had enough. The worst live performance ever, from a sound perspective.

However, it is not my intention to listen to live concerts at home. Access to music is much more important to me. Imperfect productions can provide this if the system is able to reproduce its own focus. If the sound itself isn't right, there's something fundamentally wrong, like in the Pat concert mentioned above.
Trust your ears
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 »

Can't recall a concert that sounded so bad I couldn't enjoy the music. Most sound pretty rough. Been to some half-decent indoor ones though.
matthias
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2092
Joined: 2007-12-25 16:47
Location: Germany

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by matthias »

Charlie1 wrote: 2024-01-23 13:03 Can't recall a concert that sounded so bad I couldn't enjoy the music.
Yes, I recall two concerts with Avishai Cohen(tp) at Jazzhaus in Freiburg, South Germany which were terrific.
Matt

MBP / Exposure pre + power (both modified) / JBL3677
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 »

I've heard concerts that were both good and bad sonically and also musically. I saw Alison Krause and Robert Plant at an outdoor concert and the PA was so bad that every time Alison sang a high note it just about took your ears off, just horribly distorted. She obviously knew it was bad as she kept motioning them to turn it down. On the other hand I heard Ali Akbar Khan in the 70s at the famous Detroit Orchestra Hall (an acoustically wonderful structure that was almost torn down). Even though the hall was only partly restored the sound was wonderful and the music was amazing, as you would expect from one of the best musicians in the world.

But I also heard the group Oregon (one of my favorite groups) playing so badly that I and my wife (at the time) both decided to leave half way through the second piece. It was their first tour after a two year hiatus and I think it was the first concert on the tour. Later on I found out that they hadn't bothered to practice before hitting the road again and admitted to sounding like crap until they got about halfway across the US. I had previously heard them playing amazing music so the disappointment was doubly bad.
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
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 »

Charlie1 wrote: 2024-01-23 13:03 Can't recall a concert that sounded so bad I couldn't enjoy the music. Most sound pretty rough. Been to some half-decent indoor ones though.
I saw Elton John when he was being sponsored by Roland. He sat centre front with a Roland electric piano which sounded so incoherent/out of tune, every song was almost unrecognisable. I couldn’t wait for the torture to end!
Post Reply