How we define "good sound"

We use the Tune Method to evaluate performance

Moderator: Staff

tokenbrit
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2012-03-22 19:47
Location: New England

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by tokenbrit »

ThomasOK wrote: 2021-08-26 18:02 I know I have posted this somewhere but it seems like this latest conversation would benefit from it again.

Aldous Huxley: "After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music."

One might argue that the silence referred to is something not achievable in the world as there is always some noise. But I would expect that the author might be talking about the silence of deep meditation, where the goal is to cut off the mind from the senses rendering the meditator immune to sounds, sights, feelings, smells and tastes. Similar to what occurs in sleep, but deeper and without loss of consciousness.

Of course, that might plunge you into the music of the spheres, so still not truly silent, but the most enjoyable music imaginable as it encapsulates Bliss. And yet beyond that there is the Bliss in true silence. I'm still working on all this.

Sorry to wax philosophical, but there you have it.
I was thinking more of the early CD marketing that claimed an improvement because of the silence between the notes compared with the cracks & pops from vinyl, and yet a good turntable is still more musical than most digital...

Of course, an inner calm and silence of the mind might help when listening to music, whereas the silence of deeper meditation comes from being immune to sounds and outside influences, to achieve a state of Bliss and tune into whatever natural energies or music that beholds.

I think the response to the claimed benefit of CD was that there is always 'some noise in the world' - it's whether that noise (or comparative absence) is your focus, or the music is too compelling for you to notice.
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 is Sound of Bliss, a Blissound which leaves you behind silence of wonderment. Good defintion. Good to work on it not only by tuning but in a philosophical sense too ThomasOK!
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
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 »

‘T was Susan Sontag who wrote ‘On Photography’. Anyone who knows is there is similar written about music, so ‘On Music’? About voices and music itself, the origin and meaning of that for animals and people, for their communities and culture, and the developing of reproducing music by recording, broadcasting, hifi and streaming and the meaning of that for society and mass culture. Just asking.
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
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 »

I don’t know if this exactly is the subject of Susan Rogers’ book ‘This is What it Sounds Like’ (about the cognitie origin of musical taste). But anyone here who has read the book to make a contribution to this item of defining good sound in relation to taste in terms of melody, rhythm, timbre, realism and authenticity? So what can neuro scientists and a musical cognition professor tell us about what a good sound is and what can we as music lovers and audiophiles learn from them?
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
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 »

Or is all said and sung about this issue?
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
Robert Lake
Active member
Active member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2007-08-19 17:50

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Robert Lake »

Swing music explained in terms of downbeat done in a lab! The researchers manipulated music and let jazz musician listen and judge which had more swing. Here are examples:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/jaz ... thm-timing

Here is the original of course https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDQpZT3GhDg
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by beck »

Robert Lake wrote: 2022-10-13 07:58 Swing music explained in terms of downbeat done in a lab! The researchers manipulated music and let jazz musician listen and judge which had more swing. Here are examples:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/jaz ... thm-timing

Here is the original of course https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDQpZT3GhDg
Thank you Robert! Very interesting indeed.
Playing cd’s…………
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 »

beck wrote: 2022-10-13 08:04
Robert Lake wrote: 2022-10-13 07:58 Swing music explained in terms of downbeat done in a lab! The researchers manipulated music and let jazz musician listen and judge which had more swing. Here are examples:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/jaz ... thm-timing

Here is the original of course https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDQpZT3GhDg
Thank you Robert! Very interesting indeed.
Yes I agree, thanks for sharing..
Rega P10, Aphelion II, Aura. Naim CB 32.5/HC, Naxo 3-6/HC, 3x250 into K20/DMS.
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 »

That is a very interesting contribution mr. Lake.
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
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 »

Sound facilitates music. Sound supported by a good acoustics of a concert hall, by a good hifi setup. Good sound gets the best out of the music. It goes beyond a musical comparison of A and B. Good sound helps to get involved into the music and leaves you flabbergasted after the sound of music has turned into deep silence. External sound turns into deep internal experience.
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 »

This post and the following discussion have been moved here from the Video about 10 iconic turntables thread.

-Moderator



In 1983, when I was buying my first system, I demoed a Linn LP12 with Basik LVX against a Rega Planar 3 with both having the A&R P77 cartridge. To my ears the LP12 was well ahead of the Rega.

I also demoed an Ittok against the LVX. The Ittok was another step up. But too much in price for me at that time. So I bought my LP12 with the LVX.

Over the years, as I could afford it, I upgraded my LP12 to late Ittok, Lingo 2, Cirkus, Troika. Getting it to a level above the 1983 Valhalla, early Ittok, Asak.

In c2008 Richard Dunn hosted a bake-off via the PFM forum where some inexpensive, middle of the range when new, Japanese 1970's to 1980's direct drives were compared against Zener's LP12 (similar spec to the LP12 I had at that time). The LP12 lost. Zener sold it shortly thereafter. I decided that I would check out for myself whether that bake-off was representative or not.

Since then I have conducted quite a few listening tests.
I have also looked at the under the bonnet engineering of various turntables with my Mechanical Engineering hat on.

My conclusions: my 2008 Linn LP12 wasn't all that. It was quite beatable from a tunedem point of view by plenty of (cherry picked) turntable, arm, cartridge combinations - dating from the 1960's to 1980's. Making the top level LP12 from 1983 even more beatable by it's peers. And a Basik LVX equipped LP12 even more beatable than that. And a Rega Planar 3 pretty much no contest to beat. To the extent that I would call any vinyl source that couldn't out tunedem a Rega Planar 3 as either broken or a pile of rubbish.

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

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by beck »

So I should look for a tuneful japanese direct drive, no I should look for a Rega, no I should keep my Sondek………. Not easy so I will play my CD’s untill you all agree………..

That will take some time.

A Merry Christmas to you all. Hopefully we all enjoy our vinyl collection using tuneful turntables. :-)
Playing cd’s…………
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 »

beck wrote: 2022-12-23 17:55 So I should look for a tuneful japanese direct drive, no I should look for a Rega, no I should keep my Sondek………. Not easy so I will play my CD’s untill you all agree………..

That will take some time.

A Merry Christmas to you all. Hopefully we all enjoy our vinyl collection using tuneful turntables. :-)
Thumbs up. Musical Merry Xmas to you too1
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
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 »

Merry Christmas and Happy 2023 to all the members here. I was thinking of putting this in the my system thread but since it got started here this seems the proper place. I hope you all have a great holiday season, regardless of which holidays you celebrate. This is easily the most enjoyable and useful forum I have been a member of and my best to you all.

It has been another good year to be a Lejonklou distributor with new products and upgrades that always raise the bar musically. 2023 looks to start with another couple of steps up the musical enjoyment ladder. Thanks to Fredrik for his tireless work and research into bringing us the most musical enjoyment of both analog and digitally recorded music. Here is to a bright musical future!
The LP12 Whisperer
Manufacturer, Distributor, Retailer and above all lover of music.
User avatar
V.A.MKD
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 862
Joined: 2019-10-09 15:33
Location: Skopje / Europe
Contact:

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by V.A.MKD »

Merry Christmas and Happy 2023 to all the members here ... or Happy Hollidays ...
Just good health and a lot of music ... music will do the rest ...
All the best
Music First ...
Vlado
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 »

Merry Xmas and New year to all.
User avatar
lejonklou
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6522
Joined: 2007-01-30 10:38
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by lejonklou »

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.
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?
tokenbrit
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2012-03-22 19:47
Location: New England

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by tokenbrit »

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.
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: 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..
Last edited by tpetsch on 2022-12-23 22:09, edited 1 time in total.
Rega P10, Aphelion II, Aura. Naim CB 32.5/HC, Naxo 3-6/HC, 3x250 into K20/DMS.
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 »

tpetsch wrote: 2022-12-23 21:40 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 got 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 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 played the trumpet.

One could argue that the more one focus's on attempting to improve these "sounds & effects like those mentioned above the more they may find their system moving away from the core fundamental tune / musical performance itself.

Happy holidays all..
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.
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 »

tpetsch wrote: 2022-12-20 22:48 ……… the P10 on thye other hand struck the right balance for me between tune & neutrality that I'm more drawn to than any LP12 I've owned or listened to ………..
This could be why people disagree with your opinion. Only if you use the tune method in favour of all other evaluation methods will others (who also use the tune method) be able to understand your point of view. When you start adding other evaluation criteria and look for some sort of balance or compromise, it’s practically impossible for others to truly understand how you’ve formed your opinion.

This doesn’t mean that you’re listening “incorrectly”. The way that you listen and the choices you make are perfectly correct for you. No one can deny that. However, if we’re going to have understandable conversations about how equipment sounds, it’s important that we all speak the same language. The language on this forum is pure “Tune Method” because even its close relative, the “The Modern Adulterated Tune Method (extended)”, or whatever, leads to confusion and disagreement.

The simple solution, of course, is to post a video.
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 »

Spannko wrote: 2022-12-23 23:43
tpetsch wrote: 2022-12-20 22:48 ……… the P10 on thye other hand struck the right balance for me between tune & neutrality that I'm more drawn to than any LP12 I've owned or listened to ………..
This could be why people disagree with your opinion. Only if you use the tune method in favour of all other evaluation methods will others (who also use the tune method) be able to understand your point of view. When you start adding other evaluation criteria and look for some sort of balance or compromise, it’s practically impossible for others to truly understand how you’ve formed your opinion.

This doesn’t mean that you’re listening “incorrectly”. The way that you listen and the choices you make are perfectly correct for you. No one can deny that. However, if we’re going to have understandable conversations about how equipment sounds, it’s important that we all speak the same language. The language on this forum is pure “Tune Method” because even its close relative, the “The Modern Adulterated Tune Method (extended)”, or whatever, leads to confusion and disagreement.

The simple solution, of course, is to post a video.
Can it be that disagreement starts ‘cause of preferences in advance resulting in a biased not really open minded discussion.
Just asking, Spannko.
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
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: 2022-12-23 23:43
tpetsch wrote: 2022-12-20 22:48 ……… the P10 on thye other hand struck the right balance for me between tune & neutrality that I'm more drawn to than any LP12 I've owned or listened to ………..
This could be why people disagree with your opinion. Only if you use the tune method in favour of all other evaluation methods will others (who also use the tune method) be able to understand your point of view. When you start adding other evaluation criteria and look for some sort of balance or compromise, it’s practically impossible for others to truly understand how you’ve formed your opinion.

This doesn’t mean that you’re listening “incorrectly”. The way that you listen and the choices you make are perfectly correct for you. No one can deny that. However, if we’re going to have understandable conversations about how equipment sounds, it’s important that we all speak the same language. The language on this forum is pure “Tune Method” because even its close relative, the “The Modern Adulterated Tune Method (extended)”, or whatever, leads to confusion and disagreement.

The simple solution, of course, is to post a video.
Thanks, and I see your point Spanko but I'm sure some of us can imagine other previously unforeseen tune related factors that may fall into the overall tune category that may come to light once it's brought to ones attention. I chose to use the word "balance" to clarify what -for me- was probably the deciding tune related factor why I switched to the P10, and the short answer to that is the perceived overall "neutrality" I believe the P10 offers. It took the P10 -although I could begin to sense it in the RP8 too many years ago- to help reveal to me a thing that has always subliminally bothered me about the LP12 but was never really able to put my finger on, and never really thought about in these exact terms until reciently. I now understand by comparison to the P10 that all the LP12's I've heard over the years were somehow less neutral, IMO.

For me there has always been something underlying about the LP12 which I have never quite gotten on with, be them ones I've owned or the many we had go through dem at the shop in the past 35 years, but never hearing any other more musical/tuneful decks I just chalked it all up to an imperfect vinyl medium as a whole. There were times during the years where I become disinterested in listening to vinyl, many months would go by and I just wasn't interested, then perhaps I'd get a different upgrade or even a different LP12 and I'd get remotivated again for a short period of time, then another lull several months later.

2 years on now what the P10 has given me is a refreshing new approach to music listening that I believe to be simply more neutral overall while still retaining many of the things that I have always found to be very tuneful & musical about the LP12, ...there I did it again, implying that the tune and neutrality are two different things, but I believe I can say now that they both fall into the same pot. I find that every LP sounds uniquely different on the P10 where as on the LP12 every record played upon them took on this odd sameness air about them, taking with the extracted groove signals the added baggage of the fundamental deck construction itself. Be this baggage from the overall mass of the LP12 or how that mass is distributed or a combination of the mass plus of the resonances thru the sprung suspension, I can't say. ...Or maybe it's all just LP12 burnout on my part.
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 »

Thanks for taking the time to expand on your thoughts tpetsch.
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 »

Spannko wrote: 2022-12-24 09:32 Thanks for taking the time to expand on your thoughts tpetsch.
Indeed a tuneful contemplation tpetch!
Lenco 76/S TJN, Dr. Fuss, Supernait2, CD5X, Slipsik7.1, Millon Phantom, Soundeck, AudioSensibility
Post Reply