My Theory of Sonic Cues to Explain Different Sounding Systems

[Ron Resnick]

I suspect that because professed preferences are based purely on experience, there is a tendency to incorrectly identify why you prefer say piece A over piece B. piece A maybe obviously wetter than B, bit it may be a different aspect of the production that is drawing you to it.
i.e. Your listening to the whole, and the preference is based on that and you tend to correlate that to the most obvious difference between the pieces.

Very interesting and insightful! Thank you!

I think the other thing to note is that as equipment get's better there tend to be less compromises, a piece of equipment can be fast and not harsh, and while you may equate fast with harsh, it's really just the harsh you don't want.

I agree.

I'm basing this entirely on my own experience, with occasionally buying pieces because they happen to be there at a good price and comparing them with what I have.

That is an interesting and fun part of the hobby!

 

[Ron Resnick]

ok, in that case in your OP, how do you know the system differences come due to different cues, or due to “experience” that you have said above. So why do you think the different system preferences are due to different cues and not different levels of experience.

This is an excellent question. I think the answer is that they are closely related. Different system preferences are due to different levels of experience, and different levels of experience lead to improved sonic cues which drive each of us to select more accurately components to achieve the sound we want to realize our personal high-end audio objective(s).

The sonic cues theory is an effort to break down and to better understand the underlying connections and steps we take as we gain more and more experience.

 

[bonzo75]

This is an excellent question. I think the answer is that they are closely related. Different system preferences are due to different levels of experience, and different levels of experience lead to improved (for each of us individually) sonic cues which drive more accurately to select components to achieve the sound we want to realize out personal high-end audio objective(s).

The sonic cues theory is an effort to break down and to better understand the underlying connections and steps we take as we gain more and more experience.

Sorry didn’t make sense to me, but whatever you think

 

[Another Johnson]

I think we all hear substantially the same thing in the concert hall if we are sitting in the same seat in the concert hall. So why do we end up with audio systems which sound very different?

This is the first paragraph of the OP.
This theory is built on this premise.

This premise was proven wrong in the Fletcher Munson research nearly 100 years ago. So … Sigh …. Nuff said.

 

[morricab]

This is the first paragraph of the OP.
This theory is built on this premise.

This premise was proven wrong in the Fletcher Munson research nearly 100 years ago. So … Sigh …. Nuff said.

Please elaborate...what did Fletcher Munson find actually?

 

[PeterA]

What I said is there is no idea/plan/critique in their mind about good sound.

http://goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=432#432

"So, learn to critic, identify and literally write up every specific imperfection of given audio elements BEFOERE you even think about trying something else. Your listening awareness (if you have any) should navigate audio equipment, not the vise versa…"

This is excellent advice Amir. When I was doing upgrades for years, my goal was always "more", just a bit more of what I already had. That approach changed radically when I started to experiment with set up and getting rid of what I call audiophile accessories. Here, it was not about "more", it was about getting "good sound". Just before COVID, I listened to a bunch of live music, different types, different settings, different scale, with different people. I learned what I was missing when comparing my system to that live music reference. I reached a point when I realized more of what I already had was not going to do it. I had already rid the system of what was wrong. After my experiments had taken me as far as I thought they could, I knew I needed something different. When I heard a completely different presentation, one that reminded me much more of what I heard live, I made the inevitable change.

I have met Romy the Cat and heard his system. He cooked me lunch and told me about amplifiers and Bruckner. It was a fascinating afternoon with a remarkable character.

 

[thedudeabides]

I take my sonic cues from ... and yes i was there

I am sorry and ask this with all due respect. Please know that my music of choice is classical and I am not trying to be arrogant..

Soniically, live rock concerts typically use very large horns and big amps, varying types of microphones, etc. with someone equeing the music. So, in essence, you are listening to a really big stereo with the sound quality being manipulated by the person who eq's the music to his or her tastes. And this will change at another live rock concert. What sonics cues do you take away from such an experience other than the music being played at a very loud volume? Best.

 

[bonzo75]

The sonic cues theory is an effort to break down and to better understand the underlying connections and steps we take as we gain more and more experience.

This i agree with, but as I said earlier when we all gain a certain level of experience why do you think we will not align? Why do you think we will still differ. Isn’t the fact that we will align with similar experience consistent with the first line in your OP that we hear similarly in similar seats in a concert hall?

 

[Ron Resnick]

This i agree with, but as I said earlier when we all gain a certain level of experience why do you think we will not align? Why do you think we will still differ. Isn’t the fact that we will align with similar experience consistent with the first line in your OP that we hear similarly in similar seats in a concert hall?

If I understand align I would say that the sound coming from our respective stereos seems noticeably different, and so the sound of our stereos doesn't align.

We might align in our stated high-end audio objectives, and we might align in how we describe what we want our systems to sound like, but the execution, I think, shows significant variance in the sound of our resulting systems.

 

[bonzo75]

"Align" in what way here exactly?

If I understand align I would say that the sound coming from our respective stereos seems noticeably different, and so they don't align. (?)

yes but that is due to differing stereo experiences not differing cues from live

 

[andromedaaudio]

I am sorry and ask this with all due respect. Please know that my music of choice is classical and I am not trying to be arrogant..

Soniically, live rock concerts typically use very large horns and big amps, varying types of microphones, etc. with someone equeing the music. So, in essence, you are listening to a really big stereo with the sound quality being manipulated by the person who eq's the music to his or her tastes. And this will change at another live rock concert. What sonics cues do you take away from such an experience other than the music being played at a very loud volume? Best.

What sonics ????....... Music Rhythm expression
Tiesto has fantastic music especially in a large outside venue during the summer .

My musical entry was Deep purple / AC/DC .

AC/ DC with bon scott still the best band ever

 

[Lagonda]

These are Bill's original sonic cues.


With greater experience he realized he was implementing in his system that his original sonic cues were not allowing him to implement his high-end audio objective. Revised sonic cues allowed him to implement his high-end audio objective.

Your Honor ! I fell i am being misquoted ! Ked wrote that, not I !

 

[morricab]

If I understand align I would say that the sound coming from our respective stereos seems noticeably different, and so the sound of our stereos doesn't align.

We might align in our stated high-end audio objectives, and we might align in how we describe what we want our systems to sound like, but the execution, I think, shows significant variance in the sound of our resulting systems.

At least most of my hifi friends and associates have converged on SET amps and mostly horns. If not SET then PP Class A triode. One guy has SS because he thinks his speakers are too insensitive for low/mid power tubes. However, he greatly appreciates the SET/high sensitivity systems the rest of us have…he is just married to his speakers for some reason (mostly space and WAF, I think).
Most of us are very experienced live listeners (one puts on his own classical music concert annually).
It is important to note that we all began with high power SS and boxes and then later several went to planars with better sounding amps and then finally SET/high sensitivity speakers.
So, amongst the audiophiles I know with a lot of experience nearly all migrated away from box/cone speakers (or at least partially away) to horn or at least high sensitivity speakers often with an intermediate stop in Planarland…that often lasted over a decade.
More convergence than divergence I would say.

 

[Carlos269]

The truth of the matter is that the majority of audiophiles have little knowledge or comprehension of the recording or sound reproduction processes or of the physics behind the auditory system. Without being tethered to certain truths and facts, the typical audiophile lives in a whimsical state of mind, where they postulate unsupported theories and make self-assured statements with strong convictions on things they know very little about. And unfortunately this translates in the sound of their systems. I don’t care how many live un-amplified concerts you attend each year, or how many systems you are exposed to each month, or how much money you throw at your system…….without knowledge all that means nothing. You have to have a basis for your observations that are factual, and the system’s resultant sound is indisputable!

You want to hear the best sounding systems in the world, they belong to the most knowledgeable individuals. No amount of money can circumvent actually knowing the elements at play and psychoacoustics.

The proof is always in the pudding and when you hear all these high costs systems there is nowhere to hide. The resultant sound is what everyone’s systems should be measured by. The trivial facts of how their owners got there are less consequential and honestly not really of interest as often there is no direct correlation.

Everyone knows who the top dogs are around here with the best sounding systems and we also know all the ones that like to pretend they know something or think that they have something special.

Knowledge really is power!

You can resume your exchanges of thoughts and ideas, but I recommend that you support them by grounding them in facts, as they make for a far stronger argument and position.

 

[Kingrex]

Or maybe it was derived from their first system. When they heard the new component do more than their previous one. Which I think is correct

Agree to the concept. My preference could even come from what I heard in my car. If someone were to say your conscious or unconscious preferences come from an emotional experience, then what about the thousands of other emotional experiences that happened while listening to some stereo. What about the super intense experiences such as a first kiss in a girls bedroom listening to Barry Manilow. What about some great parties at friend houses. What about driving to the beach to surf with friends. These are way more memorable to me than a concert. Heck, concerts were blaring punk music and slam dancing.

Pidgin holing preference for stereo gear based upon some live past performance experience is lacking any controls or understanding of variables.

IMO The only time one can say your selecting components based upon perceptions of live events is when someone is consciously aware they are remembering back to the night before at an event and consciously comparing what they are now hearing at home in their stereo.

To equate their preferences are subconscious and all about a maybe not so enjoyable concert event where you drank too much and threw up is not accurate for me. My would I want my stereo to remind me of that night.

If we want to dissect why we have a preference for fun, so be it. I am wondering, is there actually a purpose to the conversation outside entertaining speculations? Why can't people just like the color blue. Or Green. What is the purpose of attempting to attach life experiences to auditory preference. Is it to allow someone else the opportunity to try and change that preference. Is there some un-stated motive. Maybe an unstated motive that is subconscious to the OP. Maybe we should dig into that. I could also ask, why do I like rock. Why do I like classical. Why do I hate country. What do I get from laying on a couch and clinically analyzing my choices. As a purely entertaining conversation it is mildly though provoking. But I see nothing so far to make me think I have gravitated to the sonic signature of my stereo outside my very conscious decision to try and emulate a live instrument. But that is a very conscious decision I made for myself. There is 0 reason any other person should try and do the same.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Your Honor ! I fell i am being misquoted ! Ked wrote that, not I !

So sorry, Milan! That was a glitch.

I corrected it above.

 

[Ron Resnick]

At least most of my hifi friends and associates have converged on SET amps and mostly horns. If not SET then PP Class A triode.

Most of us are very experienced live listeners (one puts on his own classical music concert annually).
It is important to note that we all began with high power SS and boxes and then later several went to planars with better sounding amps and then finally SET/high sensitivity speakers.
So, amongst the audiophiles I know with a lot of experience nearly all migrated away from box/cone speakers (or at least partially away) to horn or at least high sensitivity speakers often with an intermediate stop in Planarland…that often lasted over a decade.
More convergence than divergence I would say.

A-ha! Evidence to support my other theory:

With sufficient live music listening experience and sufficient audio system auditioning experience eventually musical genre preference (classical, here) drives loudspeaker preference (horns, here).

 

[Kingrex]

At least most of my hifi friends and associates have converged on SET amps and mostly horns. If not SET then PP Class A triode. One guy has SS because he thinks his speakers are too insensitive for low/mid power tubes. However, he greatly appreciates the SET/high sensitivity systems the rest of us have…he is just married to his speakers for some reason (mostly space and WAF, I think).
Most of us are very experienced live listeners (one puts on his own classical music concert annually).
It is important to note that we all began with high power SS and boxes and then later several went to planars with better sounding amps and then finally SET/high sensitivity speakers.
So, amongst the audiophiles I know with a lot of experience nearly all migrated away from box/cone speakers (or at least partially away) to horn or at least high sensitivity speakers often with an intermediate stop in Planarland…that often lasted over a decade.
More convergence than divergence I would say.

I don't think sonic enjoyment has anything to do with the equipment. As in SET vs High Power. I feel it has more to do with tuning. Is the equipment reacting well in the room. Is the power very clean. Are the walls and floor/ceiling stable. Are appropriate treatments helping to achieve a somewhat even frequency response with little phase aberrations. I have sat in front of all sorts of systems and any that are in a good room that is tuned well makes my toe tap. My personal sonic choice for my system is purely personal. I actually think it is a conscious deviation from my past life experiences. I purposely said I want to make my stereo sound like my Yamaha steel string acoustic guitar. I wanted to play along to songs and have it realistic. But there sure was something to cranking The Who with my CJ Premier 140 and Sonus Faber speakers that I don't get out of what I have now. A totally different and very pleasurable experience in itself. I miss that stereo. I would not build it again. But it sure played rock well.

 

[Atmasphere]

A-ha! Evidence to support my other theory:

With sufficient live music listening experience and sufficient audio system auditioning experience eventually musical genre preference (classical, here) drives loudspeaker preference (horns, here).

Speakers absolutely do not care what sort of music you play through them and cannot favor a certain genre. There is no known way to cause any electronics to favor a certain musical genre. Classical has nothing to do with it. Horns are simply very good at reducing thermal compression so they easily sound more dynamic. That helps all forms of music, not just classical. Or do I misunderstand your post?

 

[bonzo75]

Your Honor ! I fell i am being misquoted ! Ked wrote that, not I !

Congrats