Esoteric audio attributes: Liquidity, Fluidity, Flow, Angularity

[tima]

In Resnick's System thread there is a discussion about Liquidity as an audio/musical characteristic. This led me to think of other attributes such as Flow and Fluidity. @the sound of Tao seemed to contrast Liquidity with Angularity. I've never seen measurements for any of these and presume they are words used to describe impressions one might use to describe ... what? Components/Systems (hardware), Listening Impressions, and/or Music ??

In my own writing I have talked about Flow, Fluidity and Angularity as ways to describe what I hear in listening with a particular review component in my system. Jazz lovers may use the term Groove. I suspect we each have our own sense of what these words mean although personally I don't quite get 'liquidity' as something unique from flow. I wondered how others used these terms and what they mean.

@bonzo75 regularly uses the word Flow when talking about components and systems and music. He posted a thread with video demonstrations although some of the videos are no longer available.

Flow...continuity

Some videos to demonstrate flow

www.whatsbestforum.com

i have used a few words to describe this general concept of liquid or liquidity. maybe grain-less or continuous get closer to my intension as these two words don't infer some sort of added warmth or smoothing or rounding. gear can be grain-less, gear can be continuous, and not add warmth.....or very, very minor amounts of it.

Thank you. Aries Cerat, ARC, VAC, Hovland, Trafomatic -- only a tube preamp gives me the liquidity and space and "holography" on vocals that I care about on a single issue voter basis.

People don't choose solid-state to maximize liquidity of vocals.

I suspect the greatest influence on our sense of flow, fluidity and angularity is the music itself and in particular its rhythmic stability or instability, time signature(s), accents and syncopation. Odd time signatures influence rhythm which influences flow. Constantly changing meter (time) disrupts our sense of pulse and fluidity. Syncopation emphasizes off-beats. If you see a score notated as legato you know the composer's intent is a smooth connected style of playing where the notes connect one after the other. It is kind of the opposite of staccato where notes are highly articulated and individuated

After music the next greatest influence on our sense of flow, fluidity or angularity is the conductor or band leader who gets to interepret how a score is performed. He chooses how to emphasize melodic lines and phrasing. He may even direct how to play a piece of music. Consider Leopold Stowkoski who encouraged a free bowing technique among his string players. Typically the concert master (lead violin) specifies unison bowing where all bows move up or down together. Stowkoski free bowing allows each string player to determine their own bowing direction. That results in a fluid expressive sound. The downside is musicians may become disconnected in focus from each other.

I don't associate flow, fluidity or angularity with hardware in the same way that I believe hardware is not musical genre specific. I'm inclined to agree with MikeL that some equipment can be more or less grainy than other equipment and this might impede a sense of fluidity, for some. There is the question of whether some swatch of hardware can deliver what is in the music ... or not.

I am interested in what others think.

What do these terms mean to you? Are they important attributes for a description of what one hears or how one gauges a system's sound?
If you think these characteristics derive from hardware, how important are flow and fluidity in your choice of gear -- do you have examples?

 

[hopkins]

Jazz lovers may use the term Groove.

Lol, maybe if you are over 70, but why not. It's not the about the notes or the score but how they are played.

This is why you will never hear something like this again (meaning that even if contemporary players tried to recreate this note for note they would not be able to):

That's flow!
As for audio components being more or less liquid or angular or what not, I have no opinion.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

thanks @tima , for the thread topic. here are some random thoughts about it.

whatever this (XXX?) sonic character is exactly, i do think it's an attribute which does have value in our system's ability to sound natural and right. i was thinking about this yesterday relative to the comments in Ron's thread, and tried to come at it with words for the opposite character, what it's not.....and came up with 'abrupt', 'halting', 'discontinuity', 'mechanical'. when the music seems like those terms, it's missing this grain-less feature.

using grain less as the descriptor, i view flow and grain less as related, but not the same thing. flow relates to energy, grain less more textural. flow movement, grain-less how does the surface of the sound feel? liquidity is a bit more about the degrees of roundness of the textures, not just lacking grain. these thoughts are just how i view it, suggestions as thoughts about it. not anything anyone else might agree with.

in 2018 Ron visited me and wrote some impressions in a few posts (also covers my amp comparison) about my system that seems relevant where my solid state amps seem to overcome his pre-conceived notions. not sure he still feels that way, don't want to speak for him.

years ago at one point briefly i owned 6 turntables at the same time; and how they each did power supplies and speed control/motor/drive and the platter mass and plinth design was illustrative of flow especially, but also grain less ness. it was interesting to compare my Dobbins Technics SP-10 Mk2 and Dobbins SP-10 Mk3 to my Dobbins Garrard 301 w/Loricraft UPS. the Mk3 had better flow than the Mk2, but neither were very grain less, the 301 had the best flow and was grain less (but also noisy). of those three i kept the 301 the longest, and wish i still had it. at that same time i had my Rockport Sirius III which had superior flow and grain less ness. the early NVS had good flow and grain less ness, maybe a touch less flow than the 301. and the Dobbin Beat was similar to the NVS.

7 years later (2018) i got an NVS with an advanced algorithm in it's speed control and that one had much better flow and improved grain less ness. none of those were as liquid as my current CS Port or as grain less as my Esoteric T1, especially with the Esoteric G1X clock. i think part of the T1's flow advantage is it's speed correctness and steadiness/stability, which the Rockport also had in spades.

getting back to the 2 Technics SP-10's; comparing those to the others, it was easy to hear the slight mechanical signature coming thru. which imparted a degree of flatness and lack of pace and naturalness. so less grain-less and less flow. but objectively neither had apparent grain of lacked apparent musical flow. but in contrast to other tt which had these features as strengths, this became evident. so these turntables sounded great, but can be nit picked if you want to.

with digital it's a little different as in some ways always gets the speed right. but the media needs lots of help to actually sound grain less and have excellent flow. i'll avoid going further with that. sticking to turntables is less controversial.

 

[microstrip]

@the sound of Tao seemed to contrast Liquidity with Angularity.

IMO the term Angularity had some meaning in the context the poster wrote it. Taken outside Ron preference is meaningless and misleading, as seen by several comments.

I've never seen measurements for any of these and presume they are words used to describe impressions one might use to describe ... what? Components/Systems (hardware), Listening Impressions, and/or Music ??

As used by the poster they could be associated to particular distortions and styles of equalization.

In my own writing I have talked about Flow, Fluidity and Angularity as ways to describe what I hear in listening with a particular review component in my system. Jazz lovers may use the term Groove. I suspect we each have our own sense of what these words mean although personally I don't quite get 'liquidity' as something unique from flow. I wondered how others used these terms and what they mean.

Again, IMO these expressions, based with analogies, gain meaning in a particular context. Trying to define them is a good task for ChatGPT, that will work to please the person asking them.

I suspect the greatest influence on our sense of flow, fluidity and angularity is the music itself and in particular its rhythmic stability or instability, time signature(s), accents and syncopation. Odd time signatures influence rhythm which influences flow. Constantly changing meter (time) disrupts our sense of pulse and fluidity. Syncopation emphasizes off-beats. If you see a score notated as legato you know the composer's intent is a smooth connected style of playing where the notes connect one after the other. It is kind of the opposite of staccato where notes are highly articulated and individuated

After music the next greatest influence on our sense of flow, fluidity or angularity is the conductor or band leader who gets to interepret how a score is performed. He chooses how to emphasize melodic lines and phrasing. He may even direct how to play a piece of music. Consider Leopold Stowkoski who encouraged a free bowing technique among his string players. Typically the concert master (lead violin) specifies unison bowing where all bows move up or down together. Stowkoski free bowing allows each string player to determine their own bowing direction. That results in a fluid expressive sound. The downside is musicians may become disconnected in focus from each other.

I don't associate flow, fluidity or angularity with hardware in the same way that I believe hardware is not musical genre specific. I'm inclined to agree with MikeL that some equipment can be more or less grainy than other equipment and this might impede a sense of fluidity, for some. There is the question of whether some swatch of hardware can deliver what is in the music ... or not.

I am interested in what others think.

What do these terms mean to you? Are they important attributes for a description of what one hears or how one gauges a system's sound?
If you think these characteristics derive from hardware, how important are flow and fluidity in your choice of gear -- do you have examples?

IMO Angularity was not being used as Grainy. And trying to use music to define such terms will only spread confusion.

And remember that if we ask "What is more fluid : water or mercury?"

The correct answer is : "That depends on what you mean by “fluid.” "

 

[Al M.]

thanks @tima , for the thread topic. here are some random thoughts about it.

whatever this (XXX?) sonic character is exactly, i do think it's an attribute which does have value in our system's ability to sound natural and right. i was thinking about this yesterday relative to the comments in Ron's thread, and tried to come at it with words for the opposite character, what it's not.....and came up with 'abrupt', 'halting', 'discontinuity', 'mechanical'. when the music seems like those terms, it's missing this grain-less feature.

using grain less as the descriptor, i view flow and grain less as related, but not the same thing. flow relates to energy, grain less more textural. flow movement, grain-less how does the surface of the sound feel? liquidity is a bit more about the degrees of roundness of the textures, not just lacking grain. these thoughts are just how i view it, suggestions as thoughts about it. not anything anyone else might agree with.

in 2018 Ron visited me and wrote some impressions in a few posts (also covers my amp comparison) about my system that seems relevant where my solid state amps seem to overcome his pre-conceived notions. not sure he still feels that way, don't want to speak for him.

years ago at one point briefly i owned 6 turntables at the same time; and how they each did power supplies and speed control/motor/drive and the platter mass and plinth design was illustrative of flow especially, but also grain less ness. it was interesting to compare my Dobbins Technics SP-10 Mk2 and Dobbins SP-10 Mk3 to my Dobbins Garrard 301 w/Loricraft UPS. the Mk3 had better flow than the Mk2, but neither were very grain less, the 301 had the best flow and was grain less (but also noisy). of those three i kept the 301 the longest, and wish i still had it. at that same time i had my Rockport Sirius III which had superior flow and grain less ness. the early NVS had good flow and grain less ness, maybe a touch less flow than the 301. and the Dobbin Beat was similar to the NVS.

7 years later (2018) i got an NVS with an advanced algorithm in it's speed control and that one had much better flow and improved grain less ness. none of those were as liquid as my current CS Port or as grain less as my Esoteric T1, especially with the Esoteric G1X clock. i think part of the T1's flow advantage is it's speed correctness and steadiness/stability, which the Rockport also had in spades.

getting back to the 2 Technics SP-10's; comparing those to the others, it was easy to hear the slight mechanical signature coming thru. which imparted a degree of flatness and lack of pace and naturalness. so less grain-less and less flow. but objectively neither had apparent grain of lacked apparent musical flow. but in contrast to other tt which had these features as strengths, this became evident. so these turntables sounded great, but can be nit picked if you want to.

with digital it's a little different as in some ways always gets the speed right. but the media needs lots of help to actually sound grain less and have excellent flow. i'll avoid going further with that. sticking to turntables is less controversial.

Thanks for the detailed post, Mike, very interesting.

Grain seems to be the product of distortion. It can be the gear, but need not be.

It can be the electrical power delivery, it can be the room, or suboptimal speaker positioning (problematic interaction with room acoustics). With grain it also often happens that transients harden artificially. That disrupts liquidity as well.

It can be very challenging to get a system to be grain-less.

 

[tima]

Thanks for your post.

i was thinking about this yesterday relative to the comments in Ron's thread, and tried to come at it with words for the opposite character, what it's not.....and came up with 'abrupt', 'halting', 'discontinuity', 'mechanical'. when the music seems like those terms, it's missing this grain-less feature.

That's good. I do that too. Antonyms can bring clarity. Some people say Lamm gear sounds dark. The antonym of dark is light but in that particular case the real antonym of dark is lean.

using grain less as the descriptor, i view flow and grain less as related, but not the same thing. flow relates to energy, grain less more textural. flow movement, grain-less how does the surface of the sound feel? liquidity is a bit more about the degrees of roundness of the textures, not just lacking grain. these thoughts are just how i view it, suggestions as thoughts about it. not anything anyone else might agree with.

So from your perspective, grain inhibits flow. I like your take on liquidity. To me, rounding means reduced articulation and is a coloration. Flow is not a coloration. Flow should be present when that is what the music dictates and the performance delivers. If everything flows that is homogenizing and undesirable.

Likewise I don't see angularity as a coloration at least in terms of music. Modern music such as we hear from Bartok or Schoenberg or Messiaen can be anglular -- having edges. HIP or original instrument music can be angular or edgy because of the nature of those instruments.

Wrt hardware I don't think flow or angularity are inherent to hardware to the same extent as they are in a composition, although I do believe hardware can enhance, diminish or over emphasize those characteristics when they are in the music. Cheap amplifiers, particularly cheap solid-state amplifiers can be etchy or sharp on initial transients -- that's not angular, it's just poor sound.

I understand 'grainy' more as an overlay on the music, not wholly disimilar from a scratchy record. If a piece of gear is inherently grainy that's a problem, but I don't know if it is the absence of flow. I need to think about that further. I do agree with @Al M. that electricity can introduce grain into a system's sound.

 

[microstrip]

Thanks for the detailed post, Mike, very interesting.

Grain seems to be the product of distortion. It can be the gear, but need not be.

It can be the electrical power delivery, it can be the room, or suboptimal speaker positioning (problematic interaction with room acoustics). With grain it also often happens that transients harden artificially. That disrupts liquidity as well.

It can be very challenging to get a system to be grain-less.

Well we started in another thread with liquidity and granularity as needed attributed to sound quality, we are now at grain - a particular sound artifact, IMO unrelated with the very different musical granularity.

As referred by many WBF posters before, I also feel that the more frequent source of "grain" are room acoustics and setup, followed by poor synergy between pieces of gear. I can't associate it with particular pieces of gear - pieces that I could have suspected of grain in some systems have shown grain free in other systems.

And sometimes I feel that the only solution for a "grainy" system is an aspirin ...

It is always easy to create imaginary challenges. If you feel your system sounds grain free today, listen for a few hours and then try small changes to make it visibly grainy and make a list. You will be surprised.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Antonyms can bring clarity.

IMO only apparently. Some times they can diverge, add confusion and lead us out of the main path.

Some people say Lamm gear sounds dark.

Well , IMO each pieces of of Lamm gear has so much particularity that we can't say it. I found the M1.2 ref and L2 ref preamplfier dark, the LL1 signature full of light , illuminating the soundtage, the ML2 and ML3 on the neutral.

The antonym of dark is light but in that particular case the real antonym of dark is lean.

None was lean!

So from your perspective, grain inhibits flow. I like your take on liquidity. To me, rounding means reduced articulation and is a coloration. Flow is not a coloration. Flow should be present when that is what the music dictates and the performance delivers. If everything flows that is homogenizing and undesirable.

Liquidity or flow implies freedom of artifacts, although some harmless distortions are referred as improving it.

Likewise I don't see angularity as a coloration at least in terms of music. Modern music such as we hear from Bartok or Schoenberg or Messiaen can be anglular -- having edges.

Angularity in music is well studied and analysed by scholars and experts. As you say nothing to do with our sound quality discussions.

HIP or original instrument music can be angular or edgy because of the nature of those instruments.

Well, it depends on who plays them. But yes, period instruments are less stable and have a more colorfully complex tone.

Wrt hardware I don't think flow or angularity are inherent to hardware to the same extent as they are in a composition, although I do believe hardware can enhance, diminish or over emphasize those characteristics when they are in the music. Cheap amplifiers, particularly cheap solid-state amplifiers can be etchy or sharp on initial transients -- that's not angular, it's just poor sound.

Orthogonal subjects IMO. YMMV.

I understand 'grainy' more as an overlay on the music, not wholly disimilar from a scratchy record. If a piece of gear is inherently grainy that's a problem, but I don't know if it is the absence of flow. I need to think about that further.

IMO grains is much more complex than a scratchy record.

I do agree with @Al M. that electricity can introduce grain into a system's sound.

The high-end is chaotic - anything can change the sound of a system. Some people find that electricity can suppress grain in a system. Lots of people think about it but all we have is speculation, nothing else.

 

[oldvinyl]

Likewise I don't see angularity as a coloration at least in terms of music. Modern music such as we hear from Bartok or Schoenberg or Messiaen can be anglular -- having edges. HIP or original instrument music can be angular or edgy because of the nature of those instruments.

The angularity in modern music is also attributed to their intentional harmony, chords, voice leading and key modulations. Composers sought something different than the preceding baroque, classical and romantic styles.

In period instrument performance practice, the tuning of the instruments is different than the modern temperament. The intervals between notes in a scale is different than what we are accustomed to. The overall pitch can also be lower. Concert A in baroque is around 415 Hz, modern orchestras use 440 Hz. Different performances of the same piece will sound different based on the pitch and tuning.

Listening to Bach on a harpsichord tuned with traditional tempering will sound pretty strange in some of the more remote keys (lots of flats/sharps).

 

[bonzo75]

In Resnick's System thread there is a discussion about Liquidity as an audio/musical characteristic. This led me to think of other attributes such as Flow and Fluidity. @the sound of Tao seemed to contrast Liquidity with Angularity. I've never seen measurements for any of these and presume they are words used to describe impressions one might use to describe ... what? Components/Systems (hardware), Listening Impressions, and/or Music ??

In my own writing I have talked about Flow, Fluidity and Angularity as ways to describe what I hear in listening with a particular review component in my system. Jazz lovers may use the term Groove. I suspect we each have our own sense of what these words mean although personally I don't quite get 'liquidity' as something unique from flow. I wondered how others used these terms and what they mean.

@bonzo75 regularly uses the word Flow when talking about components and systems and music. He posted a thread with video demonstrations although some of the videos are no longer available.

Flow...continuity

Some videos to demonstrate flow

www.whatsbestforum.com

I suspect the greatest influence on our sense of flow, fluidity and angularity is the music itself and in particular its rhythmic stability or instability, time signature(s), accents and syncopation. Odd time signatures influence rhythm which influences flow. Constantly changing meter (time) disrupts our sense of pulse and fluidity. Syncopation emphasizes off-beats. If you see a score notated as legato you know the composer's intent is a smooth connected style of playing where the notes connect one after the other. It is kind of the opposite of staccato where notes are highly articulated and individuated

After music the next greatest influence on our sense of flow, fluidity or angularity is the conductor or band leader who gets to interepret how a score is performed. He chooses how to emphasize melodic lines and phrasing. He may even direct how to play a piece of music. Consider Leopold Stowkoski who encouraged a free bowing technique among his string players. Typically the concert master (lead violin) specifies unison bowing where all bows move up or down together. Stowkoski free bowing allows each string player to determine their own bowing direction. That results in a fluid expressive sound. The downside is musicians may become disconnected in focus from each other.

I don't associate flow, fluidity or angularity with hardware in the same way that I believe hardware is not musical genre specific. I'm inclined to agree with MikeL that some equipment can be more or less grainy than other equipment and this might impede a sense of fluidity, for some. There is the question of whether some swatch of hardware can deliver what is in the music ... or not.

I am interested in what others think.

What do these terms mean to you? Are they important attributes for a description of what one hears or how one gauges a system's sound?
If you think these characteristics derive from hardware, how important are flow and fluidity in your choice of gear -- do you have examples?

Flow and liquidity have verb used for years. I even had a thread a few years ago titled flow with videos to demonstrate flow. This is not esoteric at all. Angularity, yes, as a word used in audio

 

[tima]

Flow and liquidity have verb used for years. I even had a thread a few years ago titled flow with videos to demonstrate flow. This is not esoteric at all. Angularity, yes, as a word used in audio

Yes. You'll note I cited your thread in the opening post -- unfortunately its videos are not accessible. Esoteric in the sense that they are not measureable and their perception tends to be personal. It doesn't really matter to me how these words get characterized in terms of common use or less frequent use.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes. You'll note I cited your thread in the opening post -- unfortunately its videos are not accessible. Esoteric in the sense that they are not measureable and their perception tends to be personal. It doesn't really matter to me how these words get characterized in terms of common use or less frequent use.

I don’t understand why at least one of the words of flow, liquidity, and continuity, are not relatable to some. If one has ever swapped components of different sonic levels, lack of flow/continuity in one compared to the other is easily audible. To not hear this will mean lack of experience.

Also they are English words, not audio evolved words like black background, noise floor, etc

 

[tima]

I don’t understand why at least one of the words of flow, liquidity, and continuity, are not relatable to some. If one has ever swapped components of different sonic levels, lack of flow/continuity in one compared to the other is easily audible. To not hear this will mean lack of experience.

Also they are English words, not audio evolved words like black background, noise floor, etc

Good points.

I have used flow, continuity and continuousness (FCC) in my writing but found only one instance of liquidity. Maybe I'm insufficiently nuanced or maybe I don't think in terms of 'liquid sound' or liquid sounding'. I thought MikeL's comment on liquidity as a kind of rounding was helpful. FCC is about forward movement and connectedness. Something liquid takes the shape of its container and otherwise is without structure. Music as laid out in a score has the structure of timing, dynamics and tonalities. I struggle with the word 'liquidity'.

I agree you can hear differences between different components, particularly cartridges. I believe the greatest influence comes from music and conductors/performances and my hierarchy of influence for FCC is Music, then Performances then Hardware. The hardware should be driven by what the music asks of it. To the RR view "only a tube preamp gives me the liquidity and space and "holography" on vocals that I care about on a single issue voter basis" I say only if the music delivers that.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Angularity seems like a far fetched word 'to use. Kiss keep it simple stupid .

Afaic there is only 1 brand that really accomplishes this and thats FM acoustics.
Not really appreciated by the reviewing community.
So what is the reviewing community worth to me.......not much

 

[bonzo75]

Good points.

I have used flow, continuity and continuousness (FCC) in my writing but found only one instance of liquidity. Maybe I'm insufficiently nuanced or maybe I don't think in terms of 'liquid sound' or liquid sounding'. I thought MikeL's comment on liquidity as a kind of rounding was helpful. FCC is about forward movement and connectedness. Something liquid takes the shape of its container and otherwise is without structure. Music as laid out in a score has the structure of timing, dynamics and tonalities. I struggle with the word 'liquidity'.

I agree you can hear differences between different components, particularly cartridges. I believe the greatest influence comes from music and conductors/performances and my hierarchy of influence for FCC is Music, then Performances then Hardware. The hardware should be driven by what the music asks of it. To the RR view "only a tube preamp gives me the liquidity and space and "holography" on vocals that I care about on a single issue voter basis" I say only if the music delivers that.

You can play the same music and recording on two components one which has flow and one has not, so you can keep the performance and the component discussion separate in this case.

It is true that the stereotype average tube has more flow than the stereotype average SS, then there are a few SS which will get better, and then the top SETs/OTLs will have more flow.

The tube preamp in all cases is NLF, especially used purely as a band-aid to calm down SS power amp or brightness and to inject some flow and tone. While it will do that, it is just a temporary solution masking wounds which will get deeper or over time.

 

[bonzo75]

using grain less as the descriptor, i view flow and grain less as related, but not the same thing. flow relates to energy, grain less more textural. flow movement, grain-less how does the surface of the sound feel? liquidity is a bit more about the degrees of roundness of the textures, not just lacking grain. these thoughts are just how i view it, suggestions as thoughts about it. not anything anyone else might agree with.

Agreed

Years ago at one point briefly i owned 6 turntables at the same time; and how they each did power supplies and speed control/motor/drive and the platter mass and plinth design was illustrative of flow especially, but also grain less ness. it was interesting to compare my Dobbins Technics SP-10 Mk2 and Dobbins SP-10 Mk3 to my Dobbins Garrard 301 w/Loricraft UPS. the Mk3 had better flow than the Mk2, but neither were very grain less, the 301 had the best flow and was grain less (but also noisy). of those three i kept the 301 the longest, and wish i still had it. at that same time i had my Rockport Sirius III which had superior flow and grain less ness. the early NVS had good flow and grain less ness, maybe a touch less flow than the 301. and the Dobbin Beat was similar to the NVS.

7 years later (2018) i got an NVS with an advanced algorithm in it's speed control and that one had much better flow and improved grain less ness. none of those were as liquid as my current CS Port or as grain less as my Esoteric T1, especially with the Esoteric G1X clock. i think part of the T1's flow advantage is it's speed correctness and steadiness/stability, which the Rockport also had in spades.

getting back to the 2 Technics SP-10's; comparing those to the others, it was easy to hear the slight mechanical signature coming thru. which imparted a degree of flatness and lack of pace and naturalness. so less grain-less and less flow. but objectively neither had apparent grain of lacked apparent musical flow. but in contrast to other tt which had these features as strengths, this became evident. so these turntables sounded great, but can be nit picked if you want to.

with digital it's a little different as in some ways always gets the speed right. but the media needs lots of help to actually sound grain less and have excellent flow. i'll avoid going further with that. sticking to turntables is less controversial.

Without the specific examples you have quoted, that's how I hear DD compared to Idler or Belt, as well as digital compared to analog. Though I liked your NVS with the Primary Control fieldcoil it had flow.

Also the Vyger compared to Pivots. Recently on the same table comparing Clearaudio linear tracker to Kuzma 14 inch 4p.

 

[Rexp]

Good points.

I have used flow, continuity and continuousness (FCC) in my writing but found only one instance of liquidity. Maybe I'm insufficiently nuanced or maybe I don't think in terms of 'liquid sound' or liquid sounding'. I thought MikeL's comment on liquidity as a kind of rounding was helpful. FCC is about forward movement and connectedness. Something liquid takes the shape of its container and otherwise is without structure. Music as laid out in a score has the structure of timing, dynamics and tonalities. I struggle with the word 'liquidity'.

I agree you can hear differences between different components, particularly cartridges. I believe the greatest influence comes from music and conductors/performances and my hierarchy of influence for FCC is Music, then Performances then Hardware. The hardware should be driven by what the music asks of it. To the RR view "only a tube preamp gives me the liquidity and space and "holography" on vocals that I care about on a single issue voter basis" I say only if the music delivers that.

My fluidity hierarchy is hardware > recording quality > performance. If you don't have good hardware you won't hear the fluidity of the music coming through.

 

[tima]

My fluidity hierarchy is hardware > recording quality > performance. If you don't have good hardware you won't hear the fluidity of the music coming through.

We may be coming at this from different perspectives. My hierarchy is about the sources of fluidity -- where it comes from. Music, Performance, Hardware. If it is not in the music it won't be perceived. Not every piece of music is composed to be fluid. Your hierarchy seems to be what reveals it best. I don't think they contradict.

 

[tima]

You can play the same music and recording on two components one which has flow and one has not, so you can keep the performance and the component discussion separate in this case.

It is true that the stereotype average tube has more flow than the stereotype average SS, then there are a few SS which will get better, and then the top SETs/OTLs will have more flow.

Agree about the two components, same performance.

I have not had a lot of experience with solid state preamps. I have had a few average solid-state phono stages, among them was a Camelot Lancelot Pro, the other the Pass Xono

 

[bonzo75]

Agree about the two components, same performance.

I have not had a lot of experience with solid state preamps. I have had a few average solid-state phono stages, among them was a Camelot Lancelot Pro, the other the Pass Xono

Soulution (and possibly similar) adds a lot of liquidity into valve power amps. In my friend’s system the flow came from increasing energy, drive, insight into the flow of the music, taking out valve haze.

His speakers are slightly under driven by his 50w Allnic, and despite trying many SS amps and Cat JL7 this remains the best combo outside replacing Allnic with KR circolotron. Thrax should be better but haven’t tried in his specific system, not to mention that the Soulution 720 used is way cheaper