More Tune Method Talk...

[Charlie1]

Having introduced 212s, I've been learning/confirming a thing or two about the way I experience music. They don't have the timing of old Linn speakers (especially Kans) and by that I mean the timing between instruments. In fact, they are kind of the opposite so really tuneful where Kan 1's are relatively weak for a Linn speaker.

What I'm finding is that I can use different carts (VM95E / VM95C) and different Lingos (v1 / v2) to balance things out more to my liking. I used to prefer the E cos the Kans benefitted from the additional tunefulness but now the C is much better cos it better holds the timing together and gives the 212s less opportunity to pull it apart at the end. I would go so far as to say that I don't think I could live with 212s and the E - as things currently stand.

Anyone else hear things this way? I'm conscious that most folks here would simply pick the most tuneful product but then most folks don't seem to experience musical benefits split across products.

[lejonklou]

That’s interesting. I know the C and E styluses of the AT-VM95 have different qualities, but to use that to compensate for other faults in the chain would likely not work for me.

Every time I’ve tried something similar, I always hear the faults on top of each other. It becomes particularly annoying when one unit leans in one direction and another leans the opposite way.

Apart from that, I have never been able to separate tunefulness from timing. It’s always just been more musical or less musical to me. How can something be tuneful when the timing is off? Then the foundation for the tune is missing. And how can something have good timing but not be tuneful? When PRaT folks experience that, all I hear is noise. Even a single drum needs to be in tune in order to make musical sense, otherwise it sounds like a broken drum.

[Charlie1]

Apart from that, I have never been able to separate tunefulness from timing. It’s always just been more musical or less musical to me. How can something be tuneful when the timing is off? Then the foundation for the tune is missing. And how can something have good timing but not be tuneful?

I wonder if what I've been describing as 'timing between instruments' isn't really 'timing' at all. I've used the term as short-hand to describe what I'm experiencing which is like when one instrument relates to another, like they belong together or there is some connection. I find this ability is not directly linked to tunefulness. If a system change is lacking in this quality then my mind struggles to follow the music as a whole even when individual musicianship is sometimes better or individual melodies might make more sense.

I don't know enough about the science of sound or music to describe it any other way. I wonder if it's related to phase but then I don't really understand phase so why would it! :) I just like the idea that instruments more in-phase are more 'on the same page' so to speak, like an invisible connection that binds them. What I do know is that I experience this characteristic in bucket loads when listening to 70s/80s Linn/Naim/Creek but hear it less and less in Linn products moving forward through the decades - excluding controversial Exakt/Karousel for simplicity.

I don't think it's PRaT either - it's something else. I'm guessing JV had an ear for it to some extent, but much less so Roy George. I'm guessing it influenced Mike Creek and John Farlowe too. I don't think it's coincidence that tpetch still uses CB amps and Briks and picked up on this attribute when listening to the JBL clips. I suspect it guides beck's choices quite a lot too. Going out on a limb here and hope members don't mind my referring to them :)

I used to wonder if it was more 'left brain' vs 'right brain' listening but that didn't seem helpful.

[John]

Apart from that, I have never been able to separate tunefulness from timing. It’s always just been more musical or less musical to me. How can something be tuneful when the timing is off? Then the foundation for the tune is missing. And how can something have good timing but not be tuneful?

I wonder if what I've been describing as 'timing between instruments' isn't really 'timing' at all. I've used the term as short-hand to describe what I'm experiencing which is like when one instrument relates to another, like they belong together or there is some connection. I find this ability is not directly linked to tunefulness. If a system change is lacking in this quality then my mind struggles to follow the music as a whole even when individual musicianship is sometimes better or individual melodies might make more sense.

I don't know enough about the science of sound or music to describe it any other way. I wonder if it's related to phase but then I don't really understand phase so why would it! :) I just like the idea that instruments more in-phase are more 'on the same page' so to speak, like an invisible connection that binds them. What I do know is that I experience this characteristic in bucket loads when listening to 70s/80s Linn/Naim/Creek but hear it less and less in Linn products moving forward through the decades - excluding controversial Exakt/Karousel for simplicity.

I don't think it's PRaT either - it's something else. I'm guessing JV had an ear for it to some extent, but much less so Roy George. I'm guessing it influenced Mike Creek and John Farlowe too. I don't think it's coincidence that tpetch still uses CB amps and Briks and picked up on this attribute when listening to the JBL clips. I suspect it guides beck's choices quite a lot too. Going out on a limb here and hope members don't mind my referring to them :)

I used to wonder if it was more 'left brain' vs 'right brain' listening but that didn't seem helpful.

As a member of the Naim forum when JV posted, it was clear that he did not like the Cirkus upgrade nor the Lingo and Linn Lk1 and 2. I always preferred the LK1&2 when compared with 32.5, HiCap, 250.

When I purchased my Exposure 13 phono preamp, I was told JF used a LP12/Lingo/Ekos/Troika during development.

[Charlie1]

As a member of the Naim forum when JV posted, it was clear that he did not like the Cirkus upgrade nor the Lingo and Linn Lk1 and 2. I always preferred the LK1&2 when compared with 32.5, HiCap, 250.

When I purchased my Exposure 13 phono preamp, I was told JF used a LP12/Lingo/Ekos/Troika during development.

Interesting - thanks John.

I can understand JV not liking the Cirkus and Lingo 1 which, for me, both weaken the bond between instruments. L2 takes it a step further but amplifies the benefits at the same time. Of course, there was a lot of politics and bad feeling back then too.

[Spannko]

Apart from that, I have never been able to separate tunefulness from timing. It’s always just been more musical or less musical to me. How can something be tuneful when the timing is off? Then the foundation for the tune is missing. And how can something have good timing but not be tuneful?

I wonder if what I've been describing as 'timing between instruments' isn't really 'timing' at all. I've used the term as short-hand to describe what I'm experiencing which is like when one instrument relates to another, like they belong together or there is some connection. I find this ability is not directly linked to tunefulness. If a system change is lacking in this quality then my mind struggles to follow the music as a whole even when individual musicianship is sometimes better or individual melodies might make more sense.

I don't know enough about the science of sound or music to describe it any other way. I wonder if it's related to phase but then I don't really understand phase so why would it! :) I just like the idea that instruments more in-phase are more 'on the same page' so to speak, like an invisible connection that binds them. What I do know is that I experience this characteristic in bucket loads when listening to 70s/80s Linn/Naim/Creek but hear it less and less in Linn products moving forward through the decades - excluding controversial Exakt/Karousel for simplicity.

I don't think it's PRaT either - it's something else. I'm guessing JV had an ear for it to some extent, but much less so Roy George. I'm guessing it influenced Mike Creek and John Farlowe too. I don't think it's coincidence that tpetch still uses CB amps and Briks and picked up on this attribute when listening to the JBL clips. I suspect it guides beck's choices quite a lot too. Going out on a limb here and hope members don't mind my referring to them :)

I used to wonder if it was more 'left brain' vs 'right brain' listening but that didn't seem helpful.

To me, it sounds like you and Fredrik are describing the same phenomenon, but from your own unique perspectives. Reading through the conversation reminds me of a couple of ideas I’ve introduced in the past: musical pleasantness and inharmonicity.

Musical pleasantness was a target for hifi designers before the introduction of distortion measuring equipment. They instinctively knew when something sounded right to them. Inharmonicity refers to how partials or harmonics of a note differ from their theoretical ideal. Research has revealed that most people are able to detect even small degrees of inharmonicity, often describing what they’re hearing as a feeling rather than something they can pinpoint. Musical pleasantness and inharmonicity feel like two sides of the same coin to me.

The Wikipedia Inharmonicity page is quite interesting. It seems to be suggesting that perfect harmonicity rarely exists in music, and not only that, a degree of inharmonicity is often preferable! Have Linn been pursuing “pitch perfect” solutions to the detriment of musical pleasantness? Nothing in hifi is perfect, so maybe relaxing the requirement for perfect pitch, in favour of some other element of the reproduction, can lead to a more satisfying overall musical experience?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inharmonicity

Pitch is only one (extremely important!) element of the musical experience.However, Gestaltian’s would suggest that pitch alone is insufficient to describe our total musical experience: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and all that. Does logic suggest, therefore, that how we respond to what we’re hearing is a much better judge of a system, rather than how tuneful we perceive it to be?

A good example of this is the new capacitor I’m using in my diy loudspeaker. From a pitch perspective it’s terrible. However, because the speakers do so many other things really well, I’m quite enjoying the experience of listening to music through them. I’ve had more tuneful versions of my speaker I’ve not enjoyed in the same way. It’s as if the most tuneful versions can draw me deeper into the music, but the number of good sounding tracks have been quite limited and too many tracks are uncomfortable to listen to. This latest version doesn’t draw me into the music in the same way, but it’s a much easier listen, allowing me to play almost any track. Does this mean that I’m now prepared to accept a less tuneful solution? I don’t think so, it’s too important for that. But, it does seem to demonstrate that the whole of our musical experience (as we perceive it) is more important than any of the elements we can dissect and analyse ?

PS. Thinking about this a bit more, of the musical elements, I think rhythms and tunes are more important than the likes of timbre, dynamics, envelopment etc, which are also important. However, nothing is as important as the overall musical experience, which encompasses all of the elements, plus a dash of the universes special sauce.

PPS. I’ve heard it rumoured that Fredrik is the current guardian of the sauces recipe! 😁

[ThomasOK]

I’ve heard it rumoured that Fredrik is the current guardian of the sauces recipe! 😁

Mixed to an accuracy of ± .003%! ;-)

[Charlie1]

To me, it sounds like you and Fredrik are describing the same phenomenon, but from your own unique perspectives. Reading through the conversation reminds me of a couple of ideas I’ve introduced in the past: musical pleasantness and inharmonicity.

Musical pleasantness was a target for hifi designers before the introduction of distortion measuring equipment. They instinctively knew when something sounded right to them. Inharmonicity refers to how partials or harmonics of a note differ from their theoretical ideal. Research has revealed that most people are able to detect even small degrees of inharmonicity, often describing what they’re hearing as a feeling rather than something they can pinpoint. Musical pleasantness and inharmonicity feel like two sides of the same coin to me.

The Wikipedia Inharmonicity page is quite interesting. It seems to be suggesting that perfect harmonicity rarely exists in music, and not only that, a degree of inharmonicity is often preferable! Have Linn been pursuing “pitch perfect” solutions to the detriment of musical pleasantness? Nothing in hifi is perfect, so maybe relaxing the requirement for perfect pitch, in favour of some other element of the reproduction, can lead to a more satisfying overall musical experience?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inharmonicity

Pitch is only one (extremely important!) element of the musical experience.However, Gestaltian’s would suggest that pitch alone is insufficient to describe our total musical experience: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and all that. Does logic suggest, therefore, that how we respond to what we’re hearing is a much better judge of a system, rather than how tuneful we perceive it to be?

A good example of this is the new capacitor I’m using in my diy loudspeaker. From a pitch perspective it’s terrible. However, because the speakers do so many other things really well, I’m quite enjoying the experience of listening to music through them. I’ve had more tuneful versions of my speaker I’ve not enjoyed in the same way. It’s as if the most tuneful versions can draw me deeper into the music, but the number of good sounding tracks have been quite limited and too many tracks are uncomfortable to listen to. This latest version doesn’t draw me into the music in the same way, but it’s a much easier listen, allowing me to play almost any track. Does this mean that I’m now prepared to accept a less tuneful solution? I don’t think so, it’s too important for that. But, it does seem to demonstrate that the whole of our musical experience (as we perceive it) is more important than any of the elements we can dissect and analyse ?

PS. Thinking about this a bit more, of the musical elements, I think rhythms and tunes are more important than the likes of timbre, dynamics, envelopment etc, which are also important. However, nothing is as important as the overall musical experience, which encompasses all of the elements, plus a dash of the universes special sauce.

PPS. I’ve heard it rumoured that Fredrik is the current guardian of the sauces recipe! 😁

I do recall you mentioning this before now and it is an interesting topic. I've read the introductory explanation on your link and can't say I really understood it very well, although I get the broad concept.

You could be right though and inharmonicity is related to the way we experience music and make evaluations but I don't feel I can add any more or further link into it - All I can do is try to explain my experiences.

I very much agree with your last statement about the overall musical experience and suspect everyone will be onboard with that one.

[beck]

Thank you Charlie1, Lejonklou, Spannko and John for this open and interesting discussion. Discussions like these makes it all worth while following this forum to me.

Why can I happily live with a system most people here think is kind of rubbish? I cannot explain it other than with how I react when listening……….

I really find your points Spannko interesting and they appeal to me but I cannot know for sure what is right or wrong………

Right or wrong does not interest me. How I react when listening interest me……..

What speaks to me? Well, among others Hermann has posted clips using Lejonklou gear and Isobariks that I really like, so I am not into a single brand for the sake of the brand……..

The one thing I know is that I know when the music “hits” me right………………. :-)

[Hermann]

Certainly a topic that can be discussed controversially. In the course of my listening time, I have noticed a few things. I have been driven by the method since published. After many listening sessions with my own setups, with friends and acquaintances, but also in stores and fairs, I know to say that obviously not all listeners, let me put it gently, are probably not able to classify concepts like musicality or rhythm the way I do. A friend of mine is a good example. Homemade expotential horns, small tube amplifiers and equally homemade big tower as turntable. We don't discuss these things anymore, as he obviously doesn't perceive them in the way I do. Our preferences in music reproduction are very different, although we have a lot of overlap in music.

If I don't understand why musicians play in exactly the way they do, something is wrong. My last live concert was Dead can Dance about four years ago and a lot of it I could relate to at home. That's what drives me.
I also think that this thought has driven me from the beginning to keep searching. Fortunately, I came into contact with Linn and Naim back in '77, which had a lasting effect on me. Often a few tacts of well-known music are enough to decide and the time reduced increasingly with listening experience.

Background music (Streaming) is very important to me and therefore system plays basically when I am in the living room / kitchen, when other interesting things want to be done or when I write my stories. Whereby I recently mentioned that this is hardly possible with Källa.

One thing at least I had understood very early. Music is pure emotion, if it stays between the ears, is analyzed or evaluated under technical aspects, this decisive aspect is missing.

The subject of timing came up. Also an interesting term, which is obviously not to be grasped correctly. There was a feeling when the Lingo 4 was installed, which I explained with timing. To what extent this is true, I don't know, but the same thing happened after the upgrades to KR and later KR/2. But is it important? Or important to recognize? I do not know. Do I want to go deeper into the matter? Certainly not, because in the end this knowledge will not guide me to a better listening experience. My diction describes musicality and the means to find a better reproduction is the Tune method.

In fact, in my real world, probably only my wife is able to articulate these changes spontaneously and so far she has always been right (see Naim 552 and Källa).

Perhaps it should be mentioned that dissonances in music felt by me are an unmistakable indication that something is wrong. Even very bad recordings, like Golden Earring's Eight Miles High not only play acceptably on musical system, they also convey emotional enthusiasm of the musicians. That's why I listen to this technically awful recording regularly.

[beck]

Listen at 32.50. Is that what we seek?

https://youtu.be/hqz4SQCKv_o

[Spannko]

Thanks Herman. I can relate to, and agree with, nearly everything you say.

Just to clarify, what are your thoughts about using Källa for background music, and what were your wife’s thoughts about Källa and 552?

[Hermann]

About 552/NDS

The detailed description is in the thread about my system. In short, the opinion during the two tests - Naim 552/DR vs Sagatuns Mono and Naim NDS/PS555 vs Källa - my wife went straight for Fredrik's components in each case. I had a hard time with the Sagatuns, as they were incredibly similar in musicality. Källa I had found to be more musical in the first test, but preferred the NDS präsentation. It wasn't until some acoustic "deformations" of my room were improved that the decision was clear for me, the Källa.

Regarding background music, I had written that it is really difficult for me not to listen to the Källa. In this respect, other interesting activities always delay me.

[Charlie1]

Listen at 32.50. Is that what we seek?

https://youtu.be/hqz4SQCKv_o

It does sound very good, especially when you consider the digital divide between him in the room and us at home on our laptops, etc.

[beck]

Luckily, I have known all along that this is not for me. That is why I can live happily with a “low-fi” system. :-)

[matthias]

Luckily, I have known all along that this is not for me. That is why I can live happily with a “low-fi” system. :-)

Same for me with this one:

"https://www.youtube.com/embed/SRY9tMjnBFA"

[lejonklou]

Listen at 32.50. Is that what we seek?

https://youtu.be/hqz4SQCKv_o

Fremer is great, I could listen to him for hours. Especially his charming stories about artists and recordings (excellent one about how he repaired Brian Wilson’s turntable in this clip). Does anyone have experience with the odd pressings he presents (from 35:20)?

Luckily, I have known all along that this is not for me. That is why I can live happily with a “low-fi” system. :-)

Same for me with this one:

"https://www.youtube.com/embed/SRY9tMjnBFA"

I tried to be open minded, but had to stop it within ten seconds. Summarises perfectly the opposite direction of where I’m heading.

[matthias]

I tried to be open minded, but had to stop it within ten seconds. Summarises perfectly the opposite direction of where I’m heading.

Yes, the devices are designed according to audiophile criteria and the set-up considering the ongoing work on the vid certainly not yet tuned.

[Charlie1]

Luckily, I have known all along that this is not for me. That is why I can live happily with a “low-fi” system. :-)

I thought it was ok although I did think you liked it and was being positive when I listened :D

That’s interesting. I know the C and E styluses of the AT-VM95 have different qualities, but to use that to compensate for other faults in the chain would likely not work for me.

Every time I’ve tried something similar, I always hear the faults on top of each other. It becomes particularly annoying when one unit leans in one direction and another leans the opposite way.

I ended up going back to what I had before so it didn't work for me either :D

[springwood64]

Luckily, I have known all along that this is not for me. That is why I can live happily with a “low-fi” system. :-)

If "low-fi" is in the top 1% of home systems as opposed to the top 0.1% ..... ;)

Your system is v enjoyable thru the clips you post

[ThomasOK]

Listen at 32.50. Is that what we seek?

https://youtu.be/hqz4SQCKv_o

I only found this one musically uninteresting (although very Hi-Fi clear). The one you posted later is egregiously bad. It reminds me of a few really expensive and terribly unmusical systems I have heard at audio shows. I think I'll keep what I have, although with a pair of Tundra Mono 3s to be fitted in soon!

[tpetsch]

Listen at 32.50. Is that what we seek?

https://youtu.be/hqz4SQCKv_o

It does sound very good, especially when you consider the digital divide between him in the room and us at home on our laptops, etc.

I agree, would like to hear more, but from what I heard on this link was interesting:
https://www.google.com/search?q=SP15C&c ... wBS-kYp6_8

[Spannko]

Listen at 32.50. Is that what we seek?

https://youtu.be/hqz4SQCKv_o

It’s certainly not what I seek beck. It’s one of the most unmusical systems I’ve ever heard!

[beck]

Listen at 32.50. Is that what we seek?

https://youtu.be/hqz4SQCKv_o

It’s certainly not what I seek beck. It’s one of the most unmusical systems I’ve ever heard!

If you read my answer slightly below where I posted this, you will know it is not for me either. :-)

[markiteight]

Listen at 32.50. Is that what we seek?

https://youtu.be/hqz4SQCKv_o

Listening to that clip made me wonder how a sub-$2000 system built using the tune method compares to a system costing in excess of one million(!!!) dollars built using traditional audiophile values. Let's find out:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vdx6uq02mkrs9 ... 5.MOV?dl=0

This is, of course, posted purely for giggles. There are too many variables to make any meaningful comparisons, but I thought it would be fun to see how two systems with a 500x cost gradient, and very different philosophies, compare.