“Physicality” in sound: my novel theory of its basis.

[Al M.]

By “Physicality” I mean the sense of the sound coming from a solid, physical body and this is not the same as “soundstage” or “weight”. As I said, a triangle has “physicality” without having “weight”.

I perceive it differently. A live triangle to me mostly, or at least often, has lots of weight, just like high-pitched percussion in general has lots of weight live. The "thickness", weight and energy of the treble frequencies from these instruments is among the things that sets the live experience apart from a lot of hi-fi.

As long as the illusion that the sound is coming from something you could touch it’s “physical”. And this closely aligns with the demarcation between “live” and “reproduced”. We immediately know without analyzing it that something is live and vice versa. And it has very little to do with many of the traditional desiderata of “hi-fi”. In fact, the pursuit of some of these may even detract from our feeling of “that sounds live!”. Hi-fi, despite what many people say, is invariably a matter of trade-offs.

Agreed.

 

[microstrip]

By “Physicality” I mean the sense of the sound coming from a solid, physical body and this is not the same as “soundstage” or “weight”. As I said, a triangle has “physicality” without having “weight”. As long as the illusion that the sound is coming from something you could touch it’s “physical”. And this closely aligns with the demarcation between “live” and “reproduced”.

You are addressing the difference between a physical sound stage - reality, where vector sound waves come from points, and the stereo illusionary sound stage, created from two sources and its reflections. Fortunately with adequate manipulations, based in psycho acoustics, we can sometimes be fooled to enhance this sense of "physicality" .

We immediately know without analyzing it that something is live and vice versa. And it has very little to do with many of the traditional desiderata of “hi-fi”. In fact, the pursuit of some of these may even detract from our feeling of “that sounds live!”. Hi-fi, despite what many people say, is invariably a matter of trade-offs.

Surely. IMO one consequence of trade-off is that due to the diversity or recording techniques and systems we can't have a system that optimizes all recordings according to all preferences.

 

[LL21]

I perceive it differently. A live triangle to me mostly, or at least often, has lots of weight, just like high-pitched percussion in general has lots of weight live. The "thickness", weight and energy of the treble frequencies from these instruments is among the things that sets the live experience apart from a lot of hi-fi.



Agreed.

I also find that I focus on the weight of the triangle hit…surprisingly weighty in real life and on great systems.

 

[microstrip]

I perceive it differently. A live triangle to me mostly, or at least often, has lots of weight, just like high-pitched percussion in general has lots of weight live.

Now we are entering in semantics and statistics.Just focusing on triangle, as referred in the post, I found in a text book "A light to moderate touch is the norm. Because the instrument is metal and very resonant, even a gentle strike produces a clear, penetrating sound. Hitting it too hard can make the sound harsh, uncontrolled, or clangy, and it can overwhelm the ensemble."

No way I associate "penetrating" with heaviness.

 

[Al M.]

Now we are entering in semantics and statistics.Just focusing on triangle, as referred in the post, I found in a text book "A light to moderate touch is the norm. Because the instrument is metal and very resonant, even a gentle strike produces a clear, penetrating sound. Hitting it too hard can make the sound harsh, uncontrolled, or clangy, and it can overwhelm the ensemble."

No way I associate "penetrating" with heaviness.

Staying with semantics, "weight" and "heaviness" are not the same.

 

[microstrip]

Staying with semantics, "weight" and "heaviness" are not the same.

You are absolutely wright, heaviness refers to the quality or degree of weight - it fits my idea.

 

[LL21]

Staying with semantics, "weight" and "heaviness" are not the same.

I have to say…when focusing on how systems reproduce triangle…I (like you) also look for “weight in the strike” because it is often missing.

 

[microstrip]

I have to say…when focusing on how systems reproduce triangle…I (like you) also look for “weight in the strike” because it is often missing.

Can you point a few classical recordings where you find weigh often missing in systems? I would like to play them.

 

[LL21]

Can you point a few classical recordings where you find weigh often missing in systems? I would like to play them.

The toughest one so far is Moravec Chopin Nocturnes on Supraphon…those upper keys (Track 1, 2 for example) have been very tricky to get to have the right weight of a an actual keyboard…they can sound like an electronic keyboard (or no physical hammer weight) in certain systems.

 

[Al M.]

You are absolutely wright, heaviness refers to the quality or degree of weight - it fits my idea.

I assume we can agree that a trumpet played from a balcony up in a stone church does not have the weight of sound as when it is played closer to the listener in a warm acoustic or even in an intimate jazz club. Yet while in the latter situations there is weight to the sound, especially in the lower registers, I would never associate the sound of a trumpet with a character of "heaviness". Perhaps a tuba might have a "heavy" sound sometimes, but a trumpet? No.

 

[Al M.]

In the above example you could substitute the trumpet with a violin, the relative outcome of meaning would be similar.

 

[tima]

Describing sound is difficult. Semantics, okay, but consistent semantics.

I don't think of sound or notes as heavy, maybe if the pace is sluggish, I might describe as ponderous which associates to weight but that is more about timing.

I will suggest a 'physicality oriented' alternative and that is density - tonal density. I've frequently written 'tonal depth' in reviews by which I mean the same as tonal density. It is difficult for a gossamer high E to be heavy but both it and a second octave E (82.4Hz) can be tonally dense. This is talking about a completeness to the fundamental and its harmonics in accordance with the way humans perceive sound -- per the rules of human hearing as Ralph would say.

If a component or a system breaks the fundamental rules of human hearing, our music-listening brain reaches a kind of tipping point where processing of music occurs less in limbic areas and more in the cerebral cortex. If my ear/brain system detects distortion, for example an excess of third-order harmonics that cause increased loudness or forwardness from that trumpet section over there in right field, in an instant it can happen: focus is triggered, the eyes open and the non-inferential immediacy of our musical enjoyment collapses.

Or as Vladimir Lamm describes: ""It is important . . to know how the real orchestra sounds. We choose a reference point based on live music and compare to this point," then, once so prepared, "the problem of sound-quality assessment is almost completely solved in the first 10-15 seconds of listening at the intuitive level."

This immediacy of recognition is a key aspect of the physicality of sound. Only afterwards do the adjectives arrive for analytic description.and critique. We can't share our experiences so we do the best we can with words.

 

[PeterA]

By “Physicality” I mean the sense of the sound coming from a solid, physical body and this is not the same as “soundstage” or “weight”. As I said, a triangle has “physicality” without having “weight”. As long as the illusion that the sound is coming from something you could touch it’s “physical”. And this closely aligns with the demarcation between “live” and “reproduced”. We immediately know without analyzing it that something is live and vice versa. And it has very little to do with many of the traditional desiderata of “hi-fi”. In fact, the pursuit of some of these may even detract from our feeling of “that sounds live!”. Hi-fi, despite what many people say, is invariably a matter of trade-offs.

I disagree about tradeoffs. In my opinion, the truly successful system presentations do not invariably involve tradeoffs, or compromises. They are successful because they are well balanced with nothing emphasized or diminished. With the best recordings, they resemble the balance we hear from live music.

I would not buy a system that presents tradeoffs. I would keep searching for one that does not. I would not choose between imaging/soundstage and sense of physicality or dynamics, as mentioned earlier. Live music has both, so I want to assemble and set up your system that presents both. I understand that others may prefer a less balanced approach and focus and emphasize some specific attributes over others.

 

[PeterA]

Describing sound is difficult. Semantics, okay, but consistent semantics.

I don't think of sound or notes as heavy, maybe if the pace is sluggish, I might describe as ponderous which associates to weight but that is more about timing.

I will suggest a 'physicality oriented' alternative and that is density - tonal density. I've frequently written 'tonal depth' in reviews by which I mean the same as tonal density. It is difficult for a gossamer high E to be heavy but both it and a second octave E (82.4Hz) can be tonally dense. This is talking about a completeness to the fundamental and its harmonics in accordance with the way humans perceive sound -- per the rules of human hearing as Ralph would say.

If a component or a system breaks the fundamental rules of human hearing, our music-listening brain reaches a kind of tipping point where processing of music occurs less in limbic areas and more in the cerebral cortex. If my ear/brain system detects distortion, for example an excess of third-order harmonics that cause increased loudness or forwardness from that trumpet section over there in right field, in an instant it can happen: focus is triggered, the eyes open and the non-inferential immediacy of our musical enjoyment collapses.

Or as Vladimir Lamm describes: ""It is important . . to know how the real orchestra sounds. We choose a reference point based on live music and compare to this point," then, once so prepared, "the problem of sound-quality assessment is almost completely solved in the first 10-15 seconds of listening at the intuitive level."

This immediacy of recognition is a key aspect of the physicality of sound. Only afterwards do the adjectives arrive for analytic description.and critique. We can't share our experiences so we do the best we can with words.

Nice post Tim. I really like that Vladimir Lamm quote.

 

[microstrip]

I assume we can agree that a trumpet played from a balcony up in a stone church does not have the weight of sound as when it is played closer to the listener in a warm acoustic or even in an intimate jazz club. Yet while in the latter situations there is weight to the sound, especially in the lower registers, I would never associate the sound of a trumpet with a character of "heaviness". Perhaps a tuba might have a "heavy" sound sometimes, but a trumpet? No.

Sorry, we were just talking about treble in triangles, not trumpets or other horn instruments. Anyway, thanks for making m point.

 

[Anton D]

I disagree about tradeoffs. In my opinion, the truly successful system presentations do not invariably involve tradeoffs, or compromises. They are successful because they are well balanced with nothing emphasized or diminished. With the best recordings, they resemble the balance we hear from live music.

I would not buy a system that presents tradeoffs. I would keep searching for one that does not. I would not choose between imaging/soundstage and sense of physicality or dynamics, as mentioned earlier. Live music has both, so I want to assemble and set up your system that presents both. I understand that others may prefer a less balanced approach and focus and emphasize some specific attributes over others.

I would say ALL systems make tradeoffs. So, individuals make personal choices based on maximizing the attributes that most please them.

It’s just balanced in different ways.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Or as Vladimir Lamm describes: ""It is important . . to know how the real orchestra sounds. We choose a reference point based on live music and compare to this point," then, once so prepared, "the problem of sound-quality assessment is almost completely solved in the first 10-15 seconds of listening at the intuitive level."

Well, in fact Vladimir approach is just one more way to create and feed a particular preference. If we are happy with it, perfect. Also IMO the quote must be read in context:

https://www.lammindustries.com/revi...waldorf-astoria-new-york-city-may-30-31-1996/

Floyd Toole has a broader view - due to their daily experience all humans have such intrinsic capacity and when asked to choose in non biased conditions they prefer better sound reproduction, no training is needed.

The essence of the high-end is that each of us has a method to find his preference, and surely groups of audiophiles share methods and preferences.

This immediacy of recognition is a key aspect of the physicality of sound. Only afterwards do the adjectives arrive for analytic description.and critique. We can't share our experiences so we do the best we can with words.

Unfortunately audiophiles commonly listen sighted in extremely biased conditions and this immediate feeling is not truthful. It is why IMO an analytical approach is also needed and much more efficient and reliable.

I finish with a provocative Vladimir Lamm quote from the interview I linked:

"From my point of view, the ideal review is when an audio reviewer has nothing to say. Quite naturally, such reviews do not get published(!), as the reviewers must earn their bread, and the readers must get their entertainment; but the ideal conclusion should be: “I have nothing to say…”

 

[PeterA]

Well, in fact Vladimir approach is just one more way to create and feed a particular preference. If we are happy with it, perfect. Also IMO the quote must be read in context:

https://www.lammindustries.com/revi...waldorf-astoria-new-york-city-may-30-31-1996/

Floyd Toole has a broader view - due to their daily experience all humans have such intrinsic capacity and when asked to choose in non biased conditions they prefer better sound reproduction, no training is needed.

The essence of the high-end is that each of us has a method to find his preference, and surely groups of audiophiles share methods and preferences.



Unfortunately audiophiles commonly listen sighted in extremely biased conditions and this immediate feeling is not truthful. It is why IMO an analytical approach is also needed and much more efficient and reliable.

I finish with a provocative Vladimir Lamm quote from the interview I linked:

"From my point of view, the ideal review is when an audio reviewer has nothing to say. Quite naturally, such reviews do not get published(!), as the reviewers must earn their bread, and the readers must get their entertainment; but the ideal conclusion should be: “I have nothing to say…”

A good interview and a wonderful quote. I understand this is exactly why he thought it was sufficient to simply declare, “this is natural sound” and leave it at that. Apparently he had no need for the much celebrated glossary of audiophile terms.

 

[Al M.]

Sorry, we were just talking about treble in triangles, not trumpets or other horn instruments. Anyway, thanks for making m point.

If you think I made your point you need to pay more attention to what I actually said.

 

[microstrip]

If you think I made your point you need to pay more attention to what I actually said.

Not of any importance, but I was commenting on LLoyd post on the specificity of triangle sound, you diverged to other instruments.