Truth and Tonality: can they co-exist?

[fas42]

These two ICs are similar and different in sound. The first is made of gold and silver wire. The presentation is detailed with sparkle and a striking holographic presentation. It allows the delicate nuances of the technique to emerge. I can see the pianist’s fingers on the keys, and can hear the hammer hit the strings. The decay is breathtaking, and so is the sense of acoustic space. Strings have a shimmer and luster. On the down side, it can occasionally get a little shouty, particularly during congested climaxes. There is a little bit of grain, and the middle midrange has a very slight haze.

The second IC is made of gold and platinum, and while similar, again different in a very subtle and important manner. The midrange has more depth and clarity. It is smoother and has less grain. I can hear the wood and the brass more, but a touch less of the technique. The note transitions and evolution are wonderful, and the beauty and colors of the tones are highlighted.

My take on those two components, as a gross simplification, is that the first is truth, and the second is tonality. As soon as I see the words "a little shouty", "bit of grain", "very slight haze", I see distortion (okay, everyone, down, down ) somewhere in the system being more clearly revealed by the first IC being more accurate. The second IC, on the other hand, is doing some filtering, hiding the unpleasantness that the first revealed, probably by effectively adding some treble cut, and thereby enhancing "tonality".

For what it's worth ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Even Tim who has never seen a measurement that he didn't like has had to return products that he bought based on their measurements/specifications because they didn't sound good in his home.

Just a clarification, mep; I don't think I've ever ordered a piece based on measurements alone. I don't trust manufacturers' measurements and comprehensive, independent measurements are very hard to come by. Most of the purchases had more to do with reputation, design philosophy and reports from users. More often than not, I returned stuff not because it sounded bad, but because it simply didn't earn its keep. It had a price tag but made no audible improvement. When you balance the volume precisely between your existing, good quality component and compare it blind to the one you're auditioning, you'd be surprised how often you can't even hear a difference between them. At least that's the case when neutrality is your goal and the goal of the people designing the components. If a signature sound is the goal, all bets are off, but I don't play in that league.

But your larger point is correct. My ears are thoroughly engaged in the process.

The Japanese predicted that American audiophiles would make a purchasing decision based on how many zeros came after the decimal point in their distortion measurements and they were right. Why settle for .0001% THD when someone else is offering .00000001% distortion?

It was worse than that, Mep. Most of the time they were measuring that THD at one isolated point in the frequency spectrum and at a load that wouldn't have been a challenge to a strong headphone amp. Thus my distrust of manufacturers' measurements.

If we could deduce exactly how something was going to sound in our house by simply looking at measurements, we would have never had the need for dealers to demo equipment.

I wouldn't go quite that far. Something as complex and mechanical as a speaker or a turntable is going to be hard to predict, but given comprehensive, independent measurements verified by a second party, like the measurements of the Benchmark from Stereophile I linked to this morning, verified by the measurements from The Audio Critic at that same link, I think you can get very, very close. In fact, I think you can pretty confidently conclude from those measurements that the Benchmark is not going to sound at all. And that is, of course, its job.

Oh, and by the way, I've met several measurements I didn't like -- wow, flutter, rumble, crosstalk, inner groove distortion -- I didn't like any of these measurements, so I eliminated the need for them altogether .

Tim

 

[mep]

Oh, and by the way, I've met several measurements I didn't like -- wow, flutter, rumble, crosstalk, inner groove distortion -- I didn't like any of these measurements, so I eliminated the need for them altogether .

Tim

I almost liked your last sentence until I understood your point. You gave up on playing LPs. That's cool Tim. I'm not bothered by wow, flutter, crosstalk, or inner groove distortion because I don't hear any of those distortions raising their ugly heads in my system. Higher noise floor than digital, yes, that's true. I use a linear tracking arm which by design isn't plagued with the problem of only having two null point across the record where the geometry is perfect. Not to mention no worrying about anti-skating settings. My LPs sound the same from the first cut to the last cut. Again, I'm not trying to convert anyone missonary like to love analog. I'm just glad that I can basically play back any format from 4 track tapes to 15 ips 2 track tapes to LPs and digital up to 24bit/192kHz. I don't have all my eggs in one basket so to speak. And I enjoy all of my formats with digital ranking at the bottom of the heap.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

My take on those two components, as a gross simplification, is that the first is truth, and the second is tonality. As soon as I see the words "a little shouty", "bit of grain", "very slight haze", I see distortion (okay, everyone, down, down ) somewhere in the system being more clearly revealed by the first IC being more accurate. The second IC, on the other hand, is doing some filtering, hiding the unpleasantness that the first revealed, probably by effectively adding some treble cut, and thereby enhancing "tonality".

For what it's worth ...

Frank

I don't have any idea which one is truth and which is tonality, but if they sound different, one, the other, or both are erring. Run comprehensive measurements of the signal going in and the signal coming out and you'll have the data. You may like the IC that is changing the signal the most and not care for the one that is more neutral, but you'll probably know. If there is no measurable explanation for what you hear, well, we're back to the old debate. Unless you want to do blind listening tests.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I almost liked your last sentence until I understood your point. You gave up on playing LPs. That's cool Tim. I'm not bothered by wow, flutter, crosstalk, or inner groove distortion because I don't hear any of those distortions raising their ugly heads in my system. Higher noise floor than digital, yes, that's true. I use a linear tracking arm which by design isn't plagued with the problem of only having two null point across the record where the geometry is perfect. Not to mention no worrying about anti-skating settings. My LPs sound the same from the first cut to the last cut. Again, I'm not trying to convert anyone missonary like to love analog. I'm just glad that I can basically play back any format from 4 track tapes to 15 ips 2 track tapes to LPs and digital up to 24bit/192kHz. I don't have all my eggs in one basket so to speak. And I enjoy all of my formats with digital ranking at the bottom of the heap.

I was mostly joking, mep. Yes, I did give up on playing LPs, but I wasn't hearing much of the above myself. The noise floor, poor separation and inconvenience was enough for me.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Run comprehensive measurements of the signal going in and the signal coming out and you'll have the data

That is the 64 million dollar question: will any of the standard tests decently performed, say all of those undertaken in the Stereophile testing of the Benchmark pick any difference between those 2 IC's?

If there is no measurable explanation for what you hear, well, we're back to the old debate.

... or is it because the measuring techniques are not sensitive or sophisticated enough to pick the differences?

Frank

 

[microstrip]

I almost liked your last sentence until I understood your point. You gave up on playing LPs. That's cool Tim. I'm not bothered by wow, flutter, crosstalk, or inner groove distortion because I don't hear any of those distortions raising their ugly heads in my system. Higher noise floor than digital, yes, that's true. I use a linear tracking arm which by design isn't plagued with the problem of only having two null point across the record where the geometry is perfect. Not to mention no worrying about anti-skating settings. My LPs sound the same from the first cut to the last cut. Again, I'm not trying to convert anyone missonary like to love analog. I'm just glad that I can basically play back any format from 4 track tapes to 15 ips 2 track tapes to LPs and digital up to 24bit/192kHz. I don't have all my eggs in one basket so to speak. And I enjoy all of my formats with digital ranking at the bottom of the heap.

Mep.
As I stated before, if you accept "good measurements are a good predictor of good sound" you should give up LPs , or at less stating they sound so good.

LPs are technically flawed - I also own a parallel tracking arm system - Forsell Air Force one - that I consider that in many circumstances (not all ) sounds better than any of my CDs. But the vinyl measurements are horrible compared with modern electronics.

Also I can not pretend that when a LP linear velocity is ~22cm/s (inner groove ) it sounds as good as ~50cm/s (outer groove). But even the inner groove is very good.

BTW, I think that we hear all these horrible distortions - but we do not listen to them. Why?

 

[mep]

Microstrip-I never said that measurements would be a good predictor, just that they can be a predictor specially when the measurements are horrible. I gave some worst case examples such as 10% THD, no response above 10kHz etc. The fact that you think your Forsell sounds better than most of your CDs tells me everything I need to know. Again, if measurements were the reality of how things truly sound, everyone of us would have sold off our tables and LP collections long ago and LPs wouldn't still be made and have increasing sales every year.

And I would submit that most people who did sell their tables and record collections off never had a really good table/arm/cartridge in the first place. And the few that did, I bet there are some that have some regrets and wish they had it back.

And one final thing, if you have a copy of the MFSL version of Herb Alpert "Rotation" which is the last cut on the LP, tell me that doesn't knock your socks off for sound quality and deep bass. Ditto for ELP's first LP on Cotillion. Listen to Lucky Man and tell me it doesn't sound great.

 

[mep]

Tim-I'm not bothered by poor separation or inconvenience. I don't think I have ever listened to an LP and said "boy, I wish I had better channel separation." I truly get it that lots of people can't be bothered with analog. It is simply too much work for some people. Like I said before, some of the digital couch potatoes have gotten to the point where they pay someone to rip their files for them because they have the money and don't want to waste any of their precious time. It's not like I don't have digital and don't understand the differences between the mediums. I'm invested in both and truly only care about one. Hats off to everyone that has found their sonic nirvana with digital.

 

[microstrip]

Microstrip-I never said that measurements would be a good predictor, just that they can be a predictor specially when the measurements are horrible. (...)

And one final thing, if you have a copy of the MFSL version of Herb Alpert "Rotation" which is the last cut on the LP, tell me that doesn't knock your socks off for sound quality and deep bass. Ditto for ELP's first LP on Cotillion. Listen to Lucky Man and tell me it doesn't sound great.

As I have bought two nice LP collections from adepts of the " good measurements are a good predictor of good sound " that went all digital, I should not question it.

"Good measurements" has a precise meaning - quantitative (numeric) values of certain parameters. As there are no standards other than those established 60+ years ago (not 50 ) we must use them. For me these measurements are no way predictors of sound quality - they can not establish a casual relation with sound quality, except in the extreme cases you refer that are exception, not rule.

Just because a thumb rule is useful in daily life does not change it in a firm law.

 

[fas42]

BTW, I think that we hear all these horrible distortions - but we do not listen to them. Why?

Yes, I agree. The distortions can be measured to be there but we are not aware of them while tuning into the musical message, if the system is working well. So is it the ear/brain helping in the process of improving the perceived tonality?

Frank

 

[mep]

Microstrip-I agree with everything you said. We are measuring some of the right things, but we certainly have not evolved to the point that measurements can truly tell us how something will sound if the measurements are all "good." At the end of the day, you have to break down and actually listen and decide for yourself if you can live with something or not. Does anyone think that someday there will be a market for first generation CD players that measured perfect assuming they all haven't been thrown in the trash heap by now? Great products stand the test of time. I predict that CDs won't be around much longer because even they are becoming too inconvenient for the DCPs (digital couch potatoes).

 

[amirm]

Tim-I'm not bothered by poor separation or inconvenience. I don't think I have ever listened to an LP and said "boy, I wish I had better channel separation." I truly get it that lots of people can't be bothered with analog. It is simply too much work for some people. Like I said before, some of the digital couch potatoes have gotten to the point where they pay someone to rip their files for them because they have the money and don't want to waste any of their precious time. It's not like I don't have digital and don't understand the differences between the mediums. I'm invested in both and truly only care about one. Hats off to everyone that has found their sonic nirvana with digital.

I take it you don't use your TV remote and walk up to it to change the channel and volume?

Let's not characterize each other please. We don't like digital because we are lazy. We like it because we are smart!!! We like it because we love music and can get so much more of it by having instant access. When I buy a CD, it is rare that every track is good. Digital lets me skip over instantly to something else I like. I am not a slave to the equipment. The equipment is a slave to me. As it should.

 

[microstrip]

Let's not characterize each other please. We don't like digital because we are lazy. We like it because we are smart!!! We like it because we love music and can get so much more of it by having instant access. When I buy a CD, it is rare that every track is good. Digital lets me skip over instantly to something else I like. I am not a slave to the equipment. The equipment is a slave to me. As it should.

Amir,

I agree with everything you said, but for our debates it is very important to characterize the way other members listen to music and what they valuate. Particularly for those who already know the "truth" and do not accept nothing but the "truth", most of our debates center on the differences associated to our perception of what are our hifi objectives than with the fundamental aspects of audio reproduction.

Considering your relation with equipment, it is a pity that Asimov third Law of Robotics does not protect Music Centers - an exception to the second Law should have been created for digital music (at less when I am the administrator!) .

 

[amirm]

Good reference microstrip.

 

[mep]

I take it you don't use your TV remote and walk up to it to change the channel and volume?

Let's not characterize each other please. We don't like digital because we are lazy. We like it because we are smart!!! We like it because we love music and can get so much more of it by having instant access. When I buy a CD, it is rare that every track is good. Digital lets me skip over instantly to something else I like. I am not a slave to the equipment. The equipment is a slave to me. As it should.

Amir-Of course I use my remotes for my home theater system. Ok, no more digital couch potatoes. How about digital convenience people? After all, we are talking about people who love the convenience of their digital playback systems. And based on your explanation, maybe I and some others are analog slave people because we are slaves to the equipment by design which as you stated, you clearly are not.

 

[Gregadd]

One of the things I like most about digital is I can play my favorite cut over and over. My neighbors probably hate digital.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Amir-Of course I use my remotes for my home theater system. Ok, no more digital couch potatoes. How about digital convenience people? After all, we are talking about people who love the convenience of their digital playback systems. And based on your explanation, maybe I and some others are analog slave people because we are slaves to the equipment by design which as you stated, you clearly are not.

False characterization. Do we enjoy the convenience? Of course. But I don't think you'll find any digital proponents in this dialectic who abandoned their turntables for convenience alone. Quite the opposite. If I thought vinyl sounded better, I would have kept my turntable and my album collection for my best quality listening sessions and used digital for casual, convenient and portable listening. Just like so many vinyl users here do.

I know this is very, very hard for some people to accept, but most of the people you're likely to find on audiophile discussion boards are pretty serious about their music, their gear and their listening. And those of us who have chosen digital distribution media, as incredible as it may be, didn't choose it because it looks better on paper, because it is easy to use, or because we've never heard a good vinyl rig and don't know any better. We have chosen it because we think it sounds better. Embrace that reality or you're not in a dialectic, you're in an argument in which you have already decided that the opposing view is invalid. Or not. It's not likely to ever become a dialectic anyway, because a dialectic assumes that we might learn from the exchange and that views might be altered. Here, we have a discussion in which all of the objective evidence has been left off of the table. And there really isn't anything to be learned from what I hear vs. what you hear until we figure out how to exchange ears.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

One of the things I like most about digital is I can play my favorite cut over and over. My neighbors probably hate digital.

I use it also for break in - repeat is invaluable for this function. I learn from David Wilson that chamber music is excellent for break in as is has high energy versus time average content and my neighbors love the Brandenburg concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach: 1-2-3 at Mondays, Wednesday and Friday and 4-5-6 the remaining days.

 

[mep]

Tim-I understand your view points and I totally accept that you gave up analog for digital because to you (and many others), digital clearly sounds better. I'm fine with that and I accept that. The flip side of your viewpoint is that numerous people have made it quite clear they gave up on analog simply because it has zero convenience associated with it and it gets in the way of them being able to listen to music at the push of a button. There is truly something for everyone in this hobby.