How we define "good sound"

We use the Tune Method to evaluate performance

Moderator: Staff

sktn77a
Active member
Active member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2020-10-22 00:47

How we define "good sound"

Post by sktn77a »

I'm always interested in how "good sound" is defined. It ranges from things like: stage width and depth, blacker blacks(?), PRAT, "Boogie", etc, to concepts such as following the tune, musical, etc. This last one has always intrigued me. I see a lot of folks using it. What do we mean by "musical"? Do we mean "euphonic"? If so, what do we mean by that? I usually consider "euphonic" to mean somewhat colored (as in "through rose colored glasses"), warm (as opposed to cold), smooth (as opposed to bright/detailed).

What are peoples thoughts on this?
Keith
LP12, Ekos, VM760, Slipsik 7.1, NDX2, 252, 250, Aerial 5B, LS3/5a, Harbeth M30, Gallo TR3D
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 »

sktn77a wrote: 2020-12-18 18:48 I'm always interested in how "good sound" is defined. It ranges from things like: stage width and depth, blacker blacks(?), PRAT, "Boogie", etc, to concepts such as following the tune, musical, etc. This last one has always intrigued me. I see a lot of folks using it. What do we mean by "musical"? Do we mean "euphonic"? If so, what do we mean by that? I usually consider "euphonic" to mean somewhat colored (as in "through rose colored glasses"), warm (as opposed to cold), smooth (as opposed to bright/detailed).

What are peoples thoughts on this?
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!
Tony Tune-age
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 think Tony's description is a good one. I tend to use musical and tuneful interchangeably, as has probably been noticed on the forum. To me the tune method is about having a way to quantify which of two things is better at presenting music in the most natural and realistic way. Musical reproduction is what you get when listening for pleasure to a system that is the most tuneful. So musical is the reproduction of timbre, timing, harmonics and nuance of all that allows you to forget about the equipment and just bathe in the glory of the music.

It is not at all about euphonic colorations as those always harm the tune/the music in my experience. I don't feel really good equipment, regardless of the price, should editorialize on the music. This is a rarity in my experience of the equipment on the market and has nothing to do with price. There is a whole range of equipment that is designed to be euphonic or warm. This might make for a somewhat pleasing background sound on things like chamber music or small ensemble jazz but will do great harm to the impact of NIN or Nirvana, or Beethoven's 9th for that matter. And even with the more mellow kinds of music I find it reduces the connection to the perfromers and their message. On the flip side there is way too much equipment that is very "detailed". It often literally hits you in the face with detail, bringing out small things (think the sliding of a finger on a steel guitar string) to an unnatural degree. This kind of equipment is very fatiguing and never connects me to the intent of the musicians and producers. A lot of it is quite expensive and very much about cosmetics as well. I have heard systems like this that are in the high six or even seven figures that are so bad they literally chased me out of the room in a matter of 30 seconds or so.

So musical, to me, is about equipment that lets as much of the music through as possible, unmodified. This is what I find so appealing about Lejonklou electronics and my LP12 source - they just let the music through. One of the guys who works at a dealer of mine put it quite nicely when he said he had a hard time describing the sound of the Boazu to customers as "It has no sound of its own. You just have to listen to it." I will note that he bought both a Boazu and a Slipsik for personal use and the other person at that store also bought a Boazu.
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 »

I think thats a question most people who are not familiar with tune dem are asking when they get in first contact with how better or worst is evaluated in this forum.
It somehow needs you to let go in a way how you was judging music reproduction in the past. That is difficult - and sometimes you fall back into old habits.

I have sometimes trouble to decide for myself what is more musical when I changed a setting. But as one forum member stated (Music Lover) its about music understanding. When a setting or device is more tunefull you understand the workmanship of the musicians better, how their instruments talk together to create a melody. You will be able to follow different individual melodies at the same time only to find out that they create a bigger picture together. You simply better understand the meaning behind some actions of musicians/instruments.
I usually use songs where I ask myself what is going on here, or why does it seem to sound off ... to optimize a setting. When you found the right setting this situation suddenly makes sense.

For me it has a lot to do with timing and flow and interplay ... and as said with musical understanding.
All the rest then either comes together or is not important anymore.
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by beck »

Defender wrote: 2020-12-18 20:26 ........When a setting or device is more tunefull you understand the workmanship of the musicians better, how their instruments talk together to create a melody. You will be able to follow different individual melodies at the same time only to find out that they create a bigger picture together. You simply better understand the meaning behind some actions of musicians/instruments.
I usually use songs where I ask myself what is going on here, or why does it seem to sound off ... to optimize a setting. When you found the right setting this situation suddenly makes sense.

For me it has a lot to do with timing and flow and interplay ... and as said with musical understanding.
All the rest then either comes together or is not important anymore.
You go Defender! Awesome and precise description! :-)
Playing cd’s…………
Defender
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 1266
Joined: 2018-02-14 22:35

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by Defender »

yes but I always need you and others to help to make the right decision ;)
beck
Very active member
Very active member
Posts: 2752
Joined: 2012-10-22 22:25

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by beck »

Defender wrote: 2020-12-18 20:50 yes but I always need you and others to help to make the right decision ;)
That is the beauty of it all! We need each other for guidance. It is easy on paper but difficult to execute in real life.

I would not have it any other way! :-)
Playing cd’s…………
sktn77a
Active member
Active member
Posts: 103
Joined: 2020-10-22 00:47

Re: How we define "good sound"

Post by sktn77a »

I've heard some truly awful equipment and "high end" systems in my time. The early Linn Kans with Naim amps, for example, were torture (not "musical" to my ears). My dealer insisted I hum along to the tune but, honestly, my ears were hurting too much. A switch over to LS3/5As worked wonders (but I consider these to be a "euphonic" speaker).
Keith
LP12, Ekos, VM760, Slipsik 7.1, NDX2, 252, 250, Aerial 5B, LS3/5a, Harbeth M30, Gallo TR3D
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 »

To be honest, I don't find the often used "technical" description of musicality etc very expressive. Since language has developed very much in the direction of visual description, there is often a lack of auditory terms. 3D image, depth, dynamics, transparency of music or musical colors to name a few.

As soon as the music gives me the understanding why the musicians composed and play a piece in exactly this way, this is for me the decisive quality of a reproduction system. If the understanding is missing, the reproduction is not right.
Trust your ears
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 »

Hermann wrote: 2020-12-19 08:44 To be honest, I don't find the often used "technical" description of musicality etc very expressive. Since language has developed very much in the direction of visual description, there is often a lack of auditory terms. 3D image, depth, dynamics, transparency of music or musical colors to name a few.

As soon as the music gives me the understanding why the musicians composed and play a piece in exactly this way, this is for me the decisive quality of a reproduction system. If the understanding is missing, the reproduction is not right.
Sounds about right to me!
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 »

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.
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 »

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.
Why is it different?

I think musical understanding is what it's all about. You say it's not possible to understand the intent of the artist. I think it is.

Surely our definitions of "understanding" differ. Can you ever truly understand another human being?
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 »

With regards to “Good Sound”, if HiFi systems were perfect, we wouldn’t even think about “good sound”, it would just “exist” and be indistinguishable from the original. We never wonder if the sound of the forest is a “good sound”, it just is!

However, since HiFi systems are not perfect, we have to accept some compromises, and for me, I really like the idea of a system maintaining its “musical pleasantness” above all else. I’m not absolutely sure what this means, but for me it’s a sound which doesn’t draw attention to itself due to the systems imperfections, that is, it always remains pleasant to listen to.

I appreciate that everyone’s threshold of acceptability is different. For me, anything which sounds remotely out of tune is a no-no. Once this requirement is satisfied, anything in the “sound” which draws attention to itself due to its deficiency is also a no-no. This means that I don’t demand perfection, I just don’t want anything to detract from my enjoyment of the 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 »

lejonklou wrote: 2020-12-19 22:44
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.
Why is it different?

I think musical understanding is what it's all about. You say it's not possible to understand the intent of the artist. I think it is.

Surely our definitions of "understanding" differ. Can you ever truly understand another human being?
I would agree that we cannot fully understand another person’s actions, or their words, or anything about them, so it follows that we cannot understand their intent. We can only “believe” we understand, which isn’t the same thing as definitely understanding from the perspective of the other.

However, your final paragraph suggests we may be talking about a different interpretation of “understanding”! Have I misunderstood something ? It wouldn’t be the first time!
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 »

I'm not even sure I understand the question - defining "good sound" is looking at it the wrong way... twice: sound is noise; music is a message that we can understand or interpret or relate to in some way. Defining something is using words, which will be less articulate than the original... In a good system the message is/should be as self defining as possible, whereas trying to define the sound is like looking at the words, not the sentences or paragraphs. A bit like language translation: you can translate each word in isolation and get a sentence that makes no sense even though each word might be correct. Looking at the sentence as a whole, you can translate half the words and get enough meaning & context to get the essence & an understanding of the original message.

If it was about the sound then hifi systems would be better than an old transistor- or car radio because they sound better, but I'm guessing, at some point, we've each heard a song on a radio that didn't sound great, but was still musically enjoyable. So it's not about sound, much less a description of it; it's about musical enjoyment pure & simples. That's my definition ;)
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 »

sktn77a wrote: 2020-12-18 18:48 musical, etc. This last one has always intrigued me. I see a lot of folks using it. What do we mean by "musical"? Do we mean "euphonic"? If so, what do we mean by that?
I use 'musical' as short hand for musical engagement and usually with reference to a comparison of some sort - i.e. component A is more engaging to listen to than component B. Sticking 'musically' in front of 'engaging' just ensures folks know I'm talking about music related criteria such as tunefulness, timing, rhythm, etc. and not HiFi criteria such as tight bass, refined treble, etc.
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: 2020-12-19 23:49
sktn77a wrote: 2020-12-18 18:48 musical, etc. This last one has always intrigued me. I see a lot of folks using it. What do we mean by "musical"? Do we mean "euphonic"? If so, what do we mean by that?
I use 'musical' as short hand for musical engagement and usually with reference to a comparison of some sort - i.e. component A is more engaging to listen to than component B. Sticking 'musically' in front of 'engaging' just ensures folks know I'm talking about music related criteria such as tunefulness, timing, rhythm, etc. and not HiFi criteria such as tight bass, refined treble, etc.
Good answer!
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 »

lejonklou wrote: 2020-12-19 22:44
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.
Why is it different?

I think musical understanding is what it's all about. You say it's not possible to understand the intent of the artist. I think it is.

Surely our definitions of "understanding" differ. Can you ever truly understand another human being?

Oops! Sorry Fredrik, it looks like we’ve had this conversation before!
lejonklou wrote: 2020-07-26 00:03
Spannko wrote: 2020-07-25 00:37
lejonklou wrote: 2020-07-24 23:40
    1. Pitch accuracy is the first and very important step on the way to musical understanding.
      2. Then follows how easily tunes can be understood.
        3. Then the understanding of complex tunes, nuances and interplay.

        That is what I mean by musical understanding.

        Ah OK, now that I know exactly what you mean by “Musical Understanding”, I agree 100% !

        Could I suggest you incorporate the above definition into your Tune Method pdf? It’s an important piece of information which will help to make sure we’re all singing from the same hymn sheet!
        Thank you, good idea.

        I have rewritten that text a couple of times and will do so again after my vacation. It's interesting to note that each time I re-read it, I feel the need to change some parts. This is mainly thanks to the discussions in here! It's not only a question of wording, but I feel that we're continually taking small steps closer to a better and more complete understanding of what we mean by a tuneful HiFi system.
        I must try to remember that musical understanding doesn’t mean understanding what the composer was trying to portray. I blame it on my ageing neurones!
        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 »

        The question was about "good sound" and not "perfect sound". People make mistakes, as do reproduction systems. In my youth I was at some gig every weekend. Only the feeling counted, the impression and of course the music. It didn't matter if a musician missed the cue or if feedback distorted the sound. And we often sat into the next day and discussed with them the origins, backgrounds and processes. It was a deep understanding of music that I was given there.

        If that understanding doesn't come, something is wrong. And since I assume that the production is okay for the time being, it's because of the system. Of course, I do not know the background under which every music was created. However, I concede to every human being per se an understanding for music. Whether this now satisfies the own requirements or opens itself by reading in works, plays no role in my opinion.

        This understanding is not easy to describe. In this respect, the well-known attributes such as PRAT are good tools and an important instrument for descriptions, communications and exchanges of experience.
        Trust your ears
        Efraim roots
        Very active member
        Very active member
        Posts: 312
        Joined: 2009-10-23 01:37
        Location: Sweden

        Re: How we define "good sound"

        Post by Efraim roots »

        Spannko wrote: 2020-12-20 00:32
        lejonklou wrote: 2020-12-19 22:44
        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.
        Why is it different?

        I think musical understanding is what it's all about. You say it's not possible to understand the intent of the artist. I think it is.

        Surely our definitions of "understanding" differ. Can you ever truly understand another human being?

        Oops! Sorry Fredrik, it looks like we’ve had this conversation before!
        lejonklou wrote: 2020-07-26 00:03
        Spannko wrote: 2020-07-25 00:37

        Ah OK, now that I know exactly what you mean by “Musical Understanding”, I agree 100% !

        Could I suggest you incorporate the above definition into your Tune Method pdf? It’s an important piece of information which will help to make sure we’re all singing from the same hymn sheet!
        Thank you, good idea.

        I have rewritten that text a couple of times and will do so again after my vacation. It's interesting to note that each time I re-read it, I feel the need to change some parts. This is mainly thanks to the discussions in here! It's not only a question of wording, but I feel that we're continually taking small steps closer to a better and more complete understanding of what we mean by a tuneful HiFi system.
        I must try to remember that musical understanding doesn’t mean understanding what the composer was trying to portray. I blame it on my ageing neurones!
        It's a interesting discussion. I think it's sound to be open to these small steps forward in tune methodology. It will yield even better lejonklou products and hifi systems in general. Source first :)

        Personally I'm interested in 1. Pitch Accuracy. I don't want to be rude but I think it has been a bias in this parish towards harmonic pitch accuracy, not really noticing what's been left behind. I think this schooling comes from Linn, and they have been the reference for so long here. This may have changed nowadays. After many years with the best naim amps I must say with my best of judgement that one of their core world class strenghts really is pitch accuracy. I don't know how to better describe it than to call it pitch accurate dynamics. And when the tone dynamics are pitch accurate they'll have a very strong emotionally communicative physical resonance. As soon as you sit besides someone playing a real instrument, you realize how the tones resonate very directly in a physical, tactile sense. For me this is a crucial element and affects my emotional connection very much. It's not really the dynamics as in 'slam', it is more about true dynamic proportions. I would also say my experience tell me that pitch accurate dynamics affects the percieved tempo of notes which affects the 2. Tune.

        My last comparison with Lejonklou vs naim was with Naim pre/power 202/200 Vs. Lejonkou Boazu and Boazu was better all over! Naim sounded like my old Harman Kardon HK430 (1960's american car)and Boazu sounded like my Nait 1 (1980's Mercedes 'light'). if that make sense to someone :) I feel pretty confident that Lejonklou moves in the right direction to accomplish amps that can better both Linn and Naim, and are capable of taking the lead towards pitch accuracy in the truest sense.
        the players of instruments shall be there..
        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 »

        This is a fantastic discussion! I've made it a "stickie" so it can serve as a convenient repository where members can discuss what the tune method means to them, how they use it, and any tips/tricks they've discovered that makes it work better for them. This will give us an easily accessible resource for new and veteran members alike.

        /Moderator
        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 »

        One more experience, perhaps, that shows what music itself can do. James Levin and AFAIR the Boston Symphony Orchestra played many years ago in our town hall (excellent acoustics) Tchaikovsky - Symphony No. 6 (Pathetic). From the very first notes it was clear that something special was going to happen here. And it was, because when the last note faded away, the hall was silent for a long time, no coughing, hardly any movement. But in many eyes were tears of emotion, and suddenly there was a storm of enthusiasm, in which even old people jumped up and applauded. In total, the good James had to play eight encores. Although he could hardly raise his arms, the fun was obvious. The last encore was a march and many of the audience danced in the walkways and in front of the stage.

        Arrived at home, of course, was immediately the 6th on the record player. But that was nothing. I could not hear the 6th (vinyl &CD) for a very long time over my stereo. Until an old LSC fell into my hands at a flea market. And there it was again, the brilliance of Tchaikovsky's Pathetic, to which he himself wrote to his publisher Jürgenson: "Something strange has happened to this symphony! Not that it displeases, but that people don't know what to do with it. As for me, I am prouder of it than of any of my other compositions." [Wiki]

        So it's a lot of things that have to come together to create a good sound. Unfortunately, I can't describe it as well as Efraim roots. Nevertheless, I know very well his examples concerning Harman Kardon and Naim, because I owned both. To what extent Fredrik's products correspond to the descriptions, I will find out next year.

        I own Naim and Linn more then 40 years and since then the discussion about good sound is divided into mainly two camps. Attributes such as 3D image, millimeter accurate location of a violin etc have never appealed to me, as this does not correspond to real conditions. In this respect I follow the Naim/Linn credo of being able to follow any musical line in a complete work at will.
        Trust your ears
        sktn77a
        Active member
        Active member
        Posts: 103
        Joined: 2020-10-22 00:47

        Re: How we define "good sound"

        Post by sktn77a »

        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.
        Keith
        LP12, Ekos, VM760, Slipsik 7.1, NDX2, 252, 250, Aerial 5B, LS3/5a, Harbeth M30, Gallo TR3D
        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 »

        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.
        Thanks for posting your thoughts sktn77a. 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!
        dasher
        Active Member
        Active Member
        Posts: 75
        Joined: 2013-09-22 22:31

        Re: How we define "good sound"

        Post by dasher »

        Whilst there have been numerous scientific papers which link 'listening to music that we enjoy' to 'endorphin release' - notably a publication in Nature Neuroscience back in 2011, a quick search with various keywords failed to bring up anything that scientifically links 'playing the tune' to endorphin release. It would be incorrect to say that only music listened to on a system that had been set up by 'Tune-dem' is 'enjoyable music' given that the vast majority of music lovers do not rigidly stick to Tune Dem principles and, given the lack of peer reviewed publications on the subject, it would be wrong to say that 'playing the tune' is scientifically proven to be better than any other means of assessing 'good sound'. I'm certainly not against Tune dem, I don't see it as a religion either and definitely prefer something that 'plays the tune'. However, I couldn't refer someone to a source that scientifically shows it to be superior though (as I don't know of one) - I'd also be very interested to read such a paper.
        Post Reply