SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,

If I can tell the difference between a live performer in the room vs. one in a hall or club, which I think anyone can, then I can easily tell the difference with reproduced Presence in a properly configured system/room...

IIRC, we brIefly touched on Dynamics, Presence & Tone at dinner a few years ago....

Jim, I do not think I was very clear with my question. You are suggesting your term “presence” as a substitute for the term “space”. When I think of presence, I think of the quality in the system that gives the listener the impression that he is in the presence of a performance. This is the quality after tone and dynamics that makes the presentation very believable. I think of this as very distinct from the character of the space in which the recorded performance is taking place, which is what I think Karen Sumner is describing.

In other words, it seems to me that you and Karen are describing different things. If I am mistaken, can you explain how what you are describing is similar to what Karen is describing? Help me to understand why the terms presence and space are describing the same thing.

 

[Jim Smith]

Jim, I do not think I was very clear with my question. You are suggesting your term “presence” as a substitute for the term “space”. When I think of presence, I think of the quality in the system that gives the listener the impression that he is in the presence of a performance. This is the quality after tone and dynamics that makes the presentation very believable. I think of this as very distinct from the character of the space in which the recorded performance is taking place, which is what I think Karen Sumner is describing.

In other words, it seems to me that you and Karen are describing different things. If I am mistaken, can you explain how what you are describing is similar to what Karen is describing? Help me to understand why the terms presence and space are describing the same thing.

Peter,

I do indeed think them as similar, but perhaps with different reasons for responding to these encounters for some people..

Sorry!

Talk about remembering encounters from a while back, I remember when Karen called on me in as a dealer in my high-end audio shop in the 80s, and she - Transparent Audio - ultimately made me a pair of l-o-o-o-n-g mic cables for use in my Public Radio recordings.

Wow!!! Talk about Dynamics, Presence & Tone...

 

[PeterA]

I believe this is another "audiophile" term Black backgrounds like depth they are terms which mean nothing when it comes to the music. I believe that a lot of this comes from systems that are not properly orientated. What do I mean by this? Simple, if your speakers are not placed proeperly in your room and you are not controlling the acoustics sufficiently you will never "see/hear" into the recordings. Live music which I listen to often as well as live recordings should/can/sometimes will show you the acoustic space of the performance. These are naturally created, they can be induced by recording techniques but that is not what I am referring too. There is no black background in a live performance there is only the sound of the instruments, singers and the space.
I have said before the Industry does a terrible job debunking the code so that consumers understand what the heck they are talking about. I also think that the reviewers, many with good intent, use the words because they are expected too and thay trying to describe things we hear is lets face it difficult to express.
The illusion, yes the illusion that you are in the space, and you "seeing" the performance is what I believe we are after. This in some recordings is much more plausible and possible than in others. IMO you will never get there if you don't get the position of the speakers in your room and the placement of your seating position correct. This is not an equipment issue it is a set up issue. I read lots of comments about shows for example and many times small room with smaller speakers are what many get really enthused about and to me this makes perfect sense since the set up of these is much easier and works well in a small space. The larger and the more complicated the speaker system, the more critical and time consuming the set up.
Black Background.....bah humbug!

Great post, Elliot. I particularly like the sentence in bold. You describe what we hear live, and what some try to hear from their systems, nothing more, nothing less. I want to minimize the influence of my system on the music and hear as much of the information on the recording presented as naturally as possible. It sounds so simple, but it is very difficult to get right.

I think Karen Sumner, certainly a member of the industry, is doing a great job debunking the code or reviewer speak and trying to focus the discussion more on what we hear from live music. DDK has been doing the same thing since we first started discussing how to improve my system. I do not think it is new, but it is not what one typically reads in the audio press or hears about from most dealers. I find it quite refreshing and easy to grasp. Not surprisingly, they both reference live acoustic music in specific spaces.

 

[Gregm]

Jim, I do not think I was very clear with my question. You are suggesting your term “presence” as a substitute for the term “space”. When I think of presence, I think of the quality in the system that gives the listener the impression that he is in the presence of a performance.

(My bold). That makes two of us!

 

[tima]

I have said before the Industry does a terrible job debunking the code so that consumers understand what the heck they are talking about. I also think that the reviewers, many with good intent, use the words because they are expected too and thay trying to describe things we hear is lets face it difficult to express.

I think Karen Sumner, certainly a member of the industry, is doing a great job debunking the code or reviewer speak and trying to focus the discussion more on what we hear from live music.

If 'debunk' means 'to expose as false', while I can't speak for Karen, I don't think what some of us are trying to do is "debunk the code or reviewer speak". We are not saying that reviewers or others are making false or exaggerated claims about what they hear. If a certain stereophile reviewer describes hearing "velvety black backgrounds" from a certain component, I believe that is what he hears. I do agree with Elliot that reviewers will say and encourage things because they've read them in other reviews. The press needs to break out of the cycle of language it continually repeats.

Without trying to gloss over it, I think what Karen and I and others (yourselves included) are doing here is a form of advocacy that encourages using live acoustic music as a guide for assessing stereo reproduction while aiming for a believable, natural sound in our homes. If one doesn't hear an effect from a live performance, then admiring that effect in reproduction is a disjunct between that and what sounds natural.

Some (many?) here do not agree with that approach which, imo, is why it is advocacy.

Modern equipment is capable of introducing effects not heard from live performance. Karen speaks of a "misguided aesthetic" - one example being where "a system is delivering sought after artifactual details that do not exist on the source material." Some of this type of effect may come from a manufacturer's desire to differentiate one's components from other components. Some of it comes from what listeners accept as desirable from reviewers who exclaim or extoll such effects. I believe some manufacturers are influenced by what is popularized in the press. While some pay lip service to an absolute sound, few reviewers write about how live music sounds when discussing components.

From another part of the industry, some dealers are reluctant to compare any of their various wares and lines with each other, preferring to let the customer/listener make their own choices. This is a perfectly understandable business practice, although it is not education or advocacy about what is important for a system's sound. Where does does that come from? While it can make points, we need to move beyond debunking.

One way to advocate and educate for adopting the sound of live music as a reference for a stereo system is to take the approach Karen and others are taking by discussing characteristics of live and reproduced sound. In the opening post there is a synopsis of prior discussions about tonality and dynamics as a lead in to discussing the use and effect of space as an important aspect of what and how we hear.

While it is important to have counter-examples -- stuff that is sonically artificial -- most important, imo, is to positively encourage what is valued in the sound of live music and encourage these values as goals for reproduction.

 

[Blackmorec]

Space - in my experience - not suggested as some iron-clad fact - is best described and adjusted for when it is thought of and referred to as Presence.

Of course there are many types of Presence -

Intimate in-room Presence

In-room Presence

Studio Presence

Recital Hall Presence

Jazz or Blues Club Presence

Concert Hall Presence,

Live outdoor concert presence, and more.

Hi Jim,
On my system, I can often hear the ‘space’ of the venue even before the music starts. If I were to use an alternative word for that perception of ‘space’ I would pick ‘ambiance’ or atmosphere. Ambience is space filling and has dimension and texture. The musicians‘ music interacts with the ambience and is altered by it tonally. For me, presence is the degree to which I sense the presence of musicians within the venue. The reason I would differentiate the two is that they vary independently of one another, depending on how the sound engineer miked and captured the musical event. Studio recordings often include a lot of artificial space or ambience but are not recordings I would categorise as having a lot of presence.
For me the term space is a characteristic of the recording of the venue, while presence is a characteristic of the recording of the performers within that venue.

The two expressions usually used to describe these phenomena are ‘You are there” implying lots of venue information vs “they are here” Implying a high degree of performer presence. Modern high resolution, low noise systems are able to provide the ideal ‘We are all there’ implying lots of venue detail and presence, such that you are present in the venue listening to live musicians making the music.
At least that’s my take on it

 

[Blackmorec]

I would add that I’m not a fan of the acronym PRAT but I spose in fairness to the reviewer who coined it I’d also have thought that the intention was centred essentially around a discussion on the quality of gear in its communication of rhythm and timing in music. Pace is a less ideal term added into the mix here… maybe the P word in front looked catchier than going just with RaT alone. Who knows

Pace is the adjective used to describe the perceived ‘tempo’ ‘verve’, ’drive’ or ’impetus’ of the music produced by a system. In music reproduction the same recording can sound lively and fast or it can sound dreary and dull, depending on the system. On a system with the quality of pace, the rhythm section will sound like they're groovin’ together…on a system without the bass player is going through the motions while the drummer is falling asleep. Pace is very often a system set-up attribute, especially as it relates to the supporting structures and vibration control. Sorbothane footers for example will often rob a system of pace….similarly poor power supplies with high impedances will have the same effect. Have you ever made a change to your system, and had the same music ‘sound’ faster of slower? That’s PACE

 

[tima]

Pace is the adjective used to describe the perceived ‘tempo’ ‘verve’, ’drive’ or ’impetus’ of the music produced by a system. In music reproduction the same recording can sound lively and fast or it can sound dreary and dull, depending on the system. On a system with the quality of pace, the rhythm section will sound like they're groovin’ together…on a system without the bass player is going through the motions while the drummer is falling asleep. Pace is very often a system set-up attribute, especially as it relates to the supporting structures and vibration control. Sorbothane footers for example will often rob a system of pace….similarly poor power supplies with high impedances will have the same effect. Have you ever made a change to your system, and had the same music ‘sound’ faster of slower? That’s PACE

Fwiw, we had a thread on 'fast'.

What is "fast" ?

I am listening now with Atlantis,some lp direct to disc,33 and 45,and is really incredible how is fast and dynamic this TT What is fast supposed to mean anyway? I hear clarity at live music events. Gian, do you like the system to impart a sense of speed on every recording, or are you simply...

www.whatsbestforum.com

Tempo is usually measured in beats per minute and usually set by the conductor or leader. It stays in effect until it is changed whereupon a different set of beats per minute are in effect. There can be composer instructions or modifiers such as allegro (fast and lively) or andante (at a walking pace) or many other italian words that help the conductor and musicians know the composer's intent.

If you make a change to your system and it sounds faster, does it end sooner than before you made the change? No, of course not. Beats per minute don't change by removing sorbathane or other system setup changes. That leads me to suspect that the PRAT thing is not an objective quality that systems have or do not have, but something that some people believe they experience. That's fine, ymmv

If PRAT means enthusiasm or livliness, I can understand that but I don't think those adjectives are about faster or slower sound and I don't think we need a special word.

 

[Blackmorec]

Fwiw, we had a thread on 'fast'.

What is "fast" ?

I am listening now with Atlantis,some lp direct to disc,33 and 45,and is really incredible how is fast and dynamic this TT What is fast supposed to mean anyway? I hear clarity at live music events. Gian, do you like the system to impart a sense of speed on every recording, or are you simply...

www.whatsbestforum.com

Tempo is usually measured in beats per minute and usually set by the conductor or leader. It stays in effect until it is changed whereupon a different set of beats per minute are in effect. There can be composer instructions or modifiers such as allegro (fast and lively) or andante (at a walking pace) or many other italian words that help the conductor and musicians know the composer's intent.

If you make a change to your system and it sounds faster, does it end sooner than before you made the change? No, of course not. Beats per minute don't change by removing sorbathane or other system setup changes. That leads me to suspect that the PRAT thing is not an objective quality that systems have or do not have, but something that some people believe they experience. That's fine, ymmv

If PRAT means enthusiasm or livliness, I can understand that but I don't think those adjectives are about faster or slower sound and I don't think we need a special word.

Its all about how the music sounds to the listener. Isn’t that what its all about? Listener perception. If I were to guess, I‘d say that the impression of Pace was an artefact of dynamic and transient response…..if a hifi fails to fully capture (reproduce) the initial part of the note, maybe because its voltages and currents respond too slowly, the music will sound slow and dragging, although the speed of playing has not changed, the perception of that speed has.

Its not about faster our slower sound….the speed is always the same. Its about the perception of the speed. The presentation of the music changes how we sense the pace the piece is played at……fast and snappy or dull and dragging. Same music, same speed, different soundwaves, different perception

 

[microstrip]

Great post, Elliot. I particularly like the sentence in bold. You describe what we hear live, and what some try to hear from their systems, nothing more, nothing less.

Elliot describes what he and some others hear live and what he feels some try to hear from their systems using his terminology and words. A good thing, he is an experienced person from the industry. Nothing more, nothing less.

I want to minimize the influence of my system on the music and hear as much of the information on the recording presented as naturally as possible. It sounds so simple, but it is very difficult to get right.

I think 99% of the audiophiles will tell you they have the same aim. IMHO it is easier than you think. But their definition of naturally will be different from yours.

I think Karen Sumner, certainly a member of the industry, is doing a great job debunking the code or reviewer speak and trying to focus the discussion more on what we hear from live music. DDK has been doing the same thing since we first started discussing how to improve my system. I do not think it is new, but it is not what one typically reads in the audio press or hears about from most dealers. I find it quite refreshing and easy to grasp. Not surprisingly, they both reference live acoustic music in specific spaces.

Respectfully, I think you are misrepresenting the contribution of Karen Summer in this forum. I appreciate a lot reading, agreeing, disagreeing and discussing her posts, but comparing her writings or intentions with David ones is misleading. IMHO we should get the positive aspects, discuss and and develop them in association with the old methodologies, not "debunk" them.

 

[PeterA]

Respectfully, I think you are misrepresenting the contribution of Karen Summer in this forum. I appreciate a lot reading, agreeing, disagreeing and discussing her posts, but comparing her writings or intentions with David ones is misleading. IMHO we should get the positive aspects, discuss and and develop them in association with the old methodologies, not "debunk" them.

Francisco, I’m simply saying that much of what I’m reading from Karen in this thread is similar to what David and I discussed over the telephone when I was experimenting with my old system. Specifically about the recording venue in which the musicians are playing and the hi-fi attributes of black background and pinpoint imaging. Since you are not privy to those conversations, I think it would be difficult for you to criticize my comments.

What are the “positive aspects” to which you prefer and how would you go about “developing” them?

 

[microstrip]

Francisco, I’m simply saying that much of what I’m reading from Karen in this thread is similar to what David and I discussed over the telephone when I was experimenting with my old system. Specifically about the recording venue in which the musicians are playing and the hi-fi attributes of black background and pinpoint imaging. Since you are not privy to those conversations, I think it would be difficult for you to criticize my comments.

No, you wrote a lot more. And yes, I comment on what I read not on your private conversations - I can now understand that may things about "natural" sound are private, subject to non disclosure agreements.

What are the “positive aspects” to which you prefer and how would you go about “developing” them?

Anything that correlates with what we listen in our own systems said in a transparent way that most audiophiles can understand, illustrated with recordings, not just with our particular perception of some particular performances we attempted.

 

[PeterA]

No, you wrote a lot more. And yes, I comment on what I read not on your private conversations - I can now understand that may things about "natural" sound are private, subject to non disclosure agreements.

There’s nothing at all private about natural sound. There’s a long thread about the topic and it seems to me that many aspects of it are being discussed here and in Karen’s other threads.

We see that four people in various aspects of the industry choose different words to describe similar concepts: space (Karen), ambiance (ddk), context (Tima), and presence (Jim Smith).

 

[the sound of Tao]

Pace is the adjective used to describe the perceived ‘tempo’ ‘verve’, ’drive’ or ’impetus’ of the music produced by a system. In music reproduction the same recording can sound lively and fast or it can sound dreary and dull, depending on the system. On a system with the quality of pace, the rhythm section will sound like they're groovin’ together…on a system without the bass player is going through the motions while the drummer is falling asleep. Pace is very often a system set-up attribute, especially as it relates to the supporting structures and vibration control. Sorbothane footers for example will often rob a system of pace….similarly poor power supplies with high impedances will have the same effect. Have you ever made a change to your system, and had the same music ‘sound’ faster of slower? That’s PACE

Verve, drive, impetus, these are great terms Blackmorec to communicate the nature and energy of a system as well as relating to then the performance of the music.

Transient response and dynamics are key drivers along with coherency in conveying music’s true sense of temporal structure. The ability of a system to accurately deliver the temporal structure and then when all the parts (the performers and the system components) seem to play together in time within a system that’s also able to keep up with all the transients of the player’s performance this unity is an essential key to musical engagement and in reflecting the true spirit of the music and performance.

Perhaps systems that communicate temporal components more truthfully lead us to a better sense of the real. If tone, timbre and presence buy us a sense of instrumental naturalness then temporal truths feed across also into a sense of the real energy of a performance.

I do get the concept of pace… in music it is as Tima has described and the beat and meter of the music and then in terms of how our systems then relate that to us is as you have said our perception of that pace… but like so many words sitting there singular, raw, naked it only says so much and alone the word of itself is just for me an ok communicator. As a term it needs fleshing out and good full supporting context to communicate much.

I have horns and open baffles and ribbon speakers… I’d say I’m reasonably aware of the difference that transient response and dynamics play as key factors shaping our experience of music and it’s performance. For me stepping back to box and cone drivers there is so often that trade off and varied degrees of loss brought from a sense of a more constrained immediacy.

But I don’t think I’d be focussing just on tweaks like footers as the primary determinant but looking much more fundamentally at the type of speakers and the nature of the electronics. I’d suggest tweaks can only do so much to compensate for the physical limitations of a speakers drivers and the box and then the responsive nature of the systems componentry.

I’ve found compression drivers, high efficiency speakers, field coils and ribbon drivers are very much worth exploring to get a sense of the real potentials in transient responsiveness with some particular kinds of speakers and then also how much our systems vary in their capacity to replicate the underpinning temporal structure in the performance of music. But capturing it is a goal definitely worth chasing though… that point of temporal entrainment is among the most essential of connections. We connect through rhythm.

 

[tima]

I do get the concept of pace… in music it is as Tima has described and the beat and meter of the music and then in terms of how our systems then relate that to us is as you have said our perception of that pace… but like so many words sitting there singular, raw, naked it only says so much and alone the word of itself is just for me an ok communicator. As a term it needs fleshing out and good full supporting context to communicate much.

I hope I don't get in trouble for saying it seems that pace and the whole prat thing is considered favorably by many Brits - perhaps it is a common given for some that is recognized easily - idler drive folks seem to enjoy it. This is not a put-down on those who want to use it in a special audiophile way, or explan it - go ahead, that's fine.

When I find music sounding vivacious, or lively then I'll say that. If I experience a sense of dynamic immediacy coupled with forward movement, I'll say that, though that phrase itself can raise curiousity. I'm guilty of once writing "the music jumped off the speakers." Pace, as an objective quality, smply means rate. Rhythm is a timing pattern. 'Swing' is performance honed to a perfection of synchronized precision. I'd rather let 'pace' mean what it means than take time to offer adjectives to qualify it beyond that meaning.

The language of music (in Italian) does have a specialized vocabulary. Goodness knows we all have a tendency toward guild-speak when describing sonics. Let's not prejudge a reader's familiarity or lack of familiarity with specialized audiophile terminology, especially when, with a little care, the English language (with occasional foreign intervention) is rich enough to do the job.

As someone who tries to be (at least) partially careful about using words in audio descriptions, I am biased toward choosing words that describe what I hear rather than adopting or creating a specialized vocabulary, especially if that brings the need to unpack or explain it in order to inform the reader what it means.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Goodness knows we all have a tendency toward guild-speak when describing sonics. Let's not prejudge a reader's familiarity or lack of familiarity with specialized audiophile terminology, especially when, with a little care, the English language (with occasional foreign intervention) is rich enough to do the job.

As someone who tries to be (at least) partially careful about using words in audio descriptions, I am biased toward choosing words that describe what I hear rather than adopting or creating a specialized vocabulary, especially if that brings the need to unpack or explain it in order to inform the reader what it means.

In the 80’s and 90’s elite thinking postmodernists were forever coming up with exclusive new acronyms to showcase their cleverness and keep the proles and the unintelligentsia at bay. If you didn’t have the specific decoder ring required to know what was being discussed you were then excluded from any access to the clever club. Lord knows Daddy bought me my edukation and this is how I show it

 

[PeterA]

In the 80’s and 90’s elite thinking postmodernists were forever coming up with exclusive new acronyms to showcase their cleverness and keep the proles and the unintelligentsia at bay. If you didn’t have the specific decoder ring required to know what was being discussed you were then excluded from any access to the clever club. Lord knows Daddy bought me my edukation and this is how I show it

Spot on. I remember being told to read the French language theorists and de-constructivists in architecture school. What a load of crap.

 

[Elliot G.]

I think 99% of the audiophiles will tell you they have the same aim. IMHO it is easier than you think. But their definition of naturally will be different from yours.



The road to hell is paved with good intentions! I have been in this Industry for almost 50 years. 99 percent of any group will never agree on anything period. I have heard so many systems from audiophiles and only a small handful get it. Sorry to say but sadly very true.
The overwhelming majority of audiophiles, sadly are lost and are listening to the differences in gear and not the music. SORRY but you can get angry and hate me but this is totally true. The conversations almost always go from the music to the gear. What cable is that? what stand? what's the amp ...blah blah blah.
Audio is and always has been system based. Audiophiles generally downplay the importance of room and set up and IMO this is why many are never happy. Its not about the beauty , or the color, or the symmetry of the room its about the nuts and bolts, inches and millimeters, the proper placement of the speakers and the equipment and where you sit. Our rooms will never be "symphony hall" because we can't afford to buy a symphony hall. We strive to create the illusion that you are in that space.
My comments are not an attack they are the truth from a long time of listening to these comments and questions when the answer may lie in front of them they are not prepared or perhaps capable of doing the work to get the best result.

Audio is equally as much work and probably more than just being able to purchase the gear.
Bravo to those who understand this and realize that until I get my set up right and my room right I will continue to be searching and using these words that for the most part don't really help.

 

[Gregadd]

What is right? "Aj there's the rub." I stopped listening like an audio critic long ago. It remains a valuable tool in deciding what equipment to buy.

 

[sbnx]

I think 99% of the audiophiles will tell you they have the same aim. IMHO it is easier than you think. But their definition of naturally will be different from yours.



The road to hell is paved with good intentions! I have been in this Industry for almost 50 years. 99 percent of any group will never agree on anything period. I have heard so many systems from audiophiles and only a small handful get it. Sorry to say but sadly very true.
The overwhelming majority of audiophiles, sadly are lost and are listening to the differences in gear and not the music. SORRY but you can get angry and hate me but this is totally true. The conversations almost always go from the music to the gear. What cable is that? what stand? what's the amp ...blah blah blah.
Audio is and always has been system based. Audiophiles generally downplay the importance of room and set up and IMO this is why many are never happy. Its not about the beauty , or the color, or the symmetry of the room its about the nuts and bolts, inches and millimeters, the proper placement of the speakers and the equipment and where you sit. Our rooms will never be "symphony hall" because we can't afford to buy a symphony hall. We strive to create the illusion that you are in that space.
My comments are not an attack they are the truth from a long time of listening to these comments and questions when the answer may lie in front of them they are not prepared or perhaps capable of doing the work to get the best result.

Audio is equally as much work and probably more than just being able to purchase the gear.
Bravo to those who understand this and realize that until I get my set up right and my room right I will continue to be searching and using these words that for the most part don't really help.

While I have not heard as many systems as you I agree that the vast majority of audiophiles are stuck on the merry-go-round. Why? I think there are a few reasons.

One is that dealers are trying to make money selling boxes. They do this by telling their unsuspecting clients that the next latest, greatest thing is going to move their sound in a positive direction and get them closer to audio nirvana.

Another is that the vast majority of audiophiles don't know how to take what they have and set it up to give convincing results in dynamics, tone & timing. This goes for most dealers whose idea of setup is (maybe) delivering the speakers, unboxing them and maybe getting a centered vocalist.

For some, it may be that they are just playing around like buying the newest golf club.

I love Karen's essay's. I agree 100% that we need convincing tone. The timing needs to be precise. The sound should be dynamic. There hasn't been much discussion on how to achieve that other than careful selection of equipment that is not overly emphasizing the upper mid/treble. As you stated, I believe this is achieved by listening position, speaker position and room acoustics. Where is the manual on that?

On the side topic of pace. I don't know exactly what the ear is picking up on but the perceived pace of a piece of music is adjustable. I know the song will still end at exactly the same marker but it's perception can be changed. Musicians do this. They can play the same piece of music and make it seem slow or fast depending on their dynamic expression and very subtle timing adjustments between notes.