Page 1 of 52 123456789101151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 519

Thread: Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

  1. #1
    Addicted To Best
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    3,973

    Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

    Gary's thread could get a little lonely here, so I thought it may be worthwhile inserting another idea or concept for people to explore. Rather than distract people by the fact that it is I who have kicked this off, I have taken the liberty of quoting a major part of Robert's recent, very eloquent post:

    Low distortion CAN provide a big, realistic, all-encompassing sound, and this includes invisible speakers and excellent to outstanding sound from all recordings. This is the you-are-there perspective, 30 feet from a stage that is about 60 feet wide and 25 feet deep, in an auditorium that sits about 1200 and has 40 foot ceilings. You can hear an occasional cough to your side, and applause comes from around you. This is a very impressive and overwhelming sound that makes your jaw drop, the hair stand-up on your neck, and leaves one scratching their head. Amazing, realistic, impressive are the adjectives used here.

    However, low distortion, does not translate into tonality. Tonality needs a separate approach, and as much as I hate to admit it, sometimes requires adding back some desirable distortions, if that is what you wish to call it. The adjectives are gorgeous, sumptuous, harmonious, and intoxicating.

    This is the knife’s edge, trying to get a system that does both. They are practically two sides of a coin. The real trick is adding transparent tonality. By tonality, I mean a wet, deep, rounded sound that conveys vibrating wood, brass, and reeds. It has texture, clarity, and an ethereal nature. Notes float into space and envelope you. Harmony and color come to mind, but this stuff is harder to describe. This is not a slow, syrupy, hazy sound. There should be nothing between you and the musicians - just air. For example, do adagios sound beautiful and hold interest as much as the fast pieces. Yes, the 1812 overture sounds impressive, but does the adagietto from Mahler 5 make your heart skip a beat and melt? Does the music draw you in, or is it the descriptors of the imaging? Can you hear a violin and cello summate in a quartet to make a totally new harmony that decays into space? Can you hear the evolution of the vibration in the cello with each note?

    Thus, the best system will seek an optimal middle ground. Having low distortion helps the harmonies as an interaction, but it is not the total answer. For some, this may be the old hifi vs. musical debate. For me, this is different, because it is the quest for hifi and musical. That is my goal.
    I will leave the floor open now, and try not to get in the way ...

    Frank

  2. #2
    I have a '65 Fender Deluxe Reverb with NOS (new old stock) Visseaux 6v6 tubes made in 1951, and its original Jensen 12" alnico speaker. It has gobs of tone. I also have a mid-90s Gibson custom shop Original Jumbo with an Adirondack top. Big heaping helpings of tone. Their tonality is the truth of those instruments. Every way in which the process of recording them and playing those recordings back adds to or subtracts from that tonality diminishes the truth. A playback system can have tonality that is pleasant, but it cannot be true. Transparent tonality is an oxymoron.

    Tim
    In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts.

  3. #3
    Addicted to Best! Old Listener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Posts
    372
    I think that Robert set up a false dilemma. A system with low distortion may allow more detail to be heard and that low distortion may be necessary for comfortable listening at a high sound level. A low distortion system can also get the tonality that is on the recording right.

    As I read the OP, I was starting to listen to a performance of Haydn's Symphony No. 92 by George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra. No vinyl and no tubes in sight; just a 44.1/16 Flac file played through solid state electronics. The recording captures the precision and beauty of the orchestra's playing and the impeccable classical style of the performance. I want honest playback of recordings that lets me hear those qualities; I'll take the good and the bad in the recordings I own. I certainly don't want my system to inject a pleasing tonality into everything I play.

    Bill

  4. #4
    WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)/Member Sponsor [Technical Expert] garylkoh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,378
    Frank, thank you. I was hoping not to get into anything too controversial until people got used to the idea and participation in a dialectic

    Two points of view. First, low distortion and tonality are different. I think that this will degenerate into the warm, syrupy tube amp vs the lean, clean SS amp debate. In my view, both of these distort the musical intent of the recording. One strips away something, the other adds something. Nevertheless, both have their supporters and both have their detractors.

    Second point of view, low distortion lets tonality through. This supports Tim's point. I don't know about Fenders, but a low distortion system lets you know whether Yoyo Ma is playing his Amati or his Stradivarius cello. But I also don't agree that transparent tonality is an oxymoron. I have heard terms like "tonal density", "meat on the bones". They can both relate to tone and timbre. Unfortunately, I know of nobody who has figured how to measure this.
    __________________________
    Gary L Koh, CEO and Chief Designer,
    Genesis Advanced Technologies

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by garylkoh View Post
    Second point of view, low distortion lets tonality through. This supports Tim's point. I don't know about Fenders, but a low distortion system lets you know whether Yoyo Ma is playing his Amati or his Stradivarius cello. But I also don't agree that transparent tonality is an oxymoron. I have heard terms like "tonal density", "meat on the bones". They can both relate to tone and timbre. Unfortunately, I know of nobody who has figured how to measure this.
    The problem is worse. I do not think you have clearly defined the issue. I still do not understand how a transparent system can have or endow any tonality that was not present in the recording. In fact, conveying that original tonality (still an uncomfortable word application) is function of truthfullness.

  6. #6
    Member Sponsor [WBF Founding Member] FrantzM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    6,442
    Quote Originally Posted by garylkoh View Post
    Two points of view. First, low distortion and tonality are different. I think that this will degenerate into the warm, syrupy tube amp vs the lean, clean SS amp debate. In my view, both of these distort the musical intent of the recording. One strips away something, the other adds something. Nevertheless, both have their supporters and both have their detractors.

    Second point of view, low distortion lets tonality through. This supports Tim's point. I don't know about Fenders, but a low distortion system lets you know whether Yoyo Ma is playing his Amati or his Stradivarius cello. But I also don't agree that transparent tonality is an oxymoron. I have heard terms like "tonal density", "meat on the bones". They can both relate to tone and timbre. Unfortunately, I know of nobody who has figured how to measure this.
    Don't want to come out too strong but what does "tonality" means? In that context ... We are not PRODUCING music , we are reproducing what is on a medium .. If the gear acquit itself of such what else should we ask of it .. I am sincerely confused.
    Frantz
    __________________________________

    "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
    —Carl Sagan
    "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
    — E. F. Schumacher
    (mis-attributed to A. Einstein)

  7. #7
    I do not think you have clearly defined the issue. I still do not understand how a transparent system can have or endow any tonality that was not present in the recording. In fact, conveying that original tonality (still an uncomfortable word application) is function of truthfullness.
    Exactly. A playback system is not a musical instrument, it is a tool for reproducing the sound of a musical instrument. In my view, it should have no tone. Of course it does. It is imperfect.

    Tim
    In high-end audio, you can't even fight an opinion with the facts.

  8. #8
    WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)/Member Sponsor [Technical Expert] garylkoh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    5,378
    Yeah, I'm struggling a bit with this too. May be we'll have to wait for OP to define tonality.

    The reproduction system should be as transparent as possible. If it's on the recording, it should let it through. If it's not, that it should not embellish.
    __________________________
    Gary L Koh, CEO and Chief Designer,
    Genesis Advanced Technologies

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    New Milford, CT
    Posts
    1,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk View Post
    A playback system is not a musical instrument, it is a tool for reproducing the sound of a musical instrument.
    I agree. If a recording "needs" more distortion or whatever to sound good, then the mix engineers didn't do a very good job. Ideally, a playback system will reproduce exactly what is in the recording, whatever the source. That's the definition of high fidelity. Not "sounds pleasing" as some people seems to think.

    --Ethan

  10. #10
    Addicted To Best
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    3,973
    If it's on the recording, it should let it through. If it's not, that it should not embellish.
    Yes, but for some people that seems to be the dilemma. I have a collection of HiFiNews going back to 1986, and have always enjoyed the idiosyncratic and colourful assessments of the industry and gear by Ken Kessler. Of course he was a notorious supporter of tube or valve componentry, and I have lost count of the number of times he would recount an experience listening to highly "revealing" components, sniff in a wearisome way and state "Well, if you want to hear the bloke in the third row scratching his bum, or the mosquito landing on the horn of the third trombone, this may be the right stuff for you, but for me, I'll just toodle off, sample some tasty tubes and enjoy listening to music!" All very amusing, but it seems a strong theme in a lot of people's thinking, even in the area of, dare I say it, room treatments.

    Frank
    Last edited by fas42; 01-27-2011 at 02:43 PM.

Page 1 of 52 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A Search for Truth and Tonality
    By fas42 in forum Members' Gallery
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 09-25-2016, 09:50 PM
  2. Does Meitner Audio still exist?
    By docvale in forum General Audio Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-19-2011, 02:04 PM
  3. Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth
    By The Smokester in forum General Audio Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-14-2011, 09:57 AM
  4. Do blind tests really prove small differences don't exist?
    By amirm in forum General Audio Forum
    Replies: 273
    Last Post: 05-29-2011, 06:15 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •