Forgiving or resolving?

[AudioExplorations]

"It occurs to me that a system’s character could be boiled down into a few categories: two of which might be forgiving or resolving. I’ve heard (and owned) systems that are truly forgiving as well as those that are quite resolving of details. On the first everything sounds good, nothing sounds great. On the latter, the extremes between bad and great are magnified.

Because I do this for a living I have to have a highly resolving system. I have to have a system that shows off every last wart as well as beauty marks. If differences exist I want to hear them as if I was listening under a microscope. But my system in the car is far more forgiving because I have no great expectations and don’t need everything placed under a magnifying glass.

If you want your system to provide extraordinary performance levels you need one that’s highly resolving: capturing the best and the worst of every recording.

The more forgiving your system, the more you’re trading extraordinary for middle of the road.

It’s a trade off, like most things in life."

link to article on pstracks by Paul McGowan

Interesting thought. Do you agree that the two are mutually exclusive?

 

[MylesBAstor]

"It occurs to me that a system’s character could be boiled down into a few categories: two of which might be forgiving or resolving. I’ve heard (and owned) systems that are truly forgiving as well as those that are quite resolving of details. On the first everything sounds good, nothing sounds great. On the latter, the extremes between bad and great are magnified.

Because I do this for a living I have to have a highly resolving system. I have to have a system that shows off every last wart as well as beauty marks. If differences exist I want to hear them as if I was listening under a microscope. But my system in the car is far more forgiving because I have no great expectations and don’t need everything placed under a magnifying glass.

If you want your system to provide extraordinary performance levels you need one that’s highly resolving: capturing the best and the worst of every recording.

The more forgiving your system, the more you’re trading extraordinary for middle of the road.

It’s a trade off, like most things in life."

link to article on pstracks by Paul McGowan

Interesting thought. Do you agree that the two are mutually exclusive?

What happened to musical?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

"It occurs to me that a system’s character could be boiled down into a few categories: two of which might be forgiving or resolving. I’ve heard (and owned) systems that are truly forgiving as well as those that are quite resolving of details. On the first everything sounds good, nothing sounds great. On the latter, the extremes between bad and great are magnified.

Because I do this for a living I have to have a highly resolving system. I have to have a system that shows off every last wart as well as beauty marks. If differences exist I want to hear them as if I was listening under a microscope. But my system in the car is far more forgiving because I have no great expectations and don’t need everything placed under a magnifying glass.

If you want your system to provide extraordinary performance levels you need one that’s highly resolving: capturing the best and the worst of every recording.

The more forgiving your system, the more you’re trading extraordinary for middle of the road.

It’s a trade off, like most things in life."

link to article on pstracks by Paul McGowan

Interesting thought. Do you agree that the two are mutually exclusive?

Interesting approach to the question that's at the center of the hobby's debate. The answer to your question, "Do you agree that the two are mutually exclusive?" is of course. How can it be otherwise? Anything in your system that forgives (attenuates, really, it's not a value judgement) the flaws of one recording impacts all others. It has to be a trade-off. It's not just a simple +/- trade-off, because unless the "forgiveness" is adjustable, the system that mutes harsh highs will not only mute the highs of your recordings with balanced, pristine highs, it will further mute your recordings with slightly rolled-off highs. And will do nothing to "forgive" recordings with bloated lows except attenuate the highs relative to them throwing the balance even further in the direction of the bloated lows.

Systematic "forgiveness" (as opposed to EQ) is IMHO, just not a good idea. If you like the sound of a specific tonality enough to like it even when its forgiveness is further exaggerating a recording's flaws or flawing a recording that has none in that range, well, your humble opinion, your business. Enjoy. It's only a problem, in my humble opinion, when people represent themselves as knowledgable and their forgiving systems as more natural or musical than those that reproduce the recordings more accurately.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

It will depend on what you mean by "resolving". If you want your resolving system to resolve down to the level it shows all the inner processing carried by the sound professionals to create the illusion in the listener, destroying the capability of fooling the listener and increase its enjoyment, I can understand this article. However a good system should have resolution enough to use the small cues existing in the recording to immerse the listener in the performance - this creates "forgiveness". BTW, most people think mainly "details" when they refer to resolution, IMHO it is much more than that - you should have resolution in dynamics and space. It is what sometimes separates a good system from a great system.

 

[bdiament]

Hi AudioExplorations,

"It occurs to me that a system’s character could be boiled down into a few categories: two of which might be forgiving or resolving. I’ve heard (and owned) systems that are truly forgiving as well as those that are quite resolving of details. On the first everything sounds good, nothing sounds great. On the latter, the extremes between bad and great are magnified.

Because I do this for a living I have to have a highly resolving system. I have to have a system that shows off every last wart as well as beauty marks. If differences exist I want to hear them as if I was listening under a microscope. But my system in the car is far more forgiving because I have no great expectations and don’t need everything placed under a magnifying glass.

If you want your system to provide extraordinary performance levels you need one that’s highly resolving: capturing the best and the worst of every recording.

The more forgiving your system, the more you’re trading extraordinary for middle of the road.

It’s a trade off, like most things in life."

link to article on pstracks by Paul McGowan

Interesting thought. Do you agree that the two are mutually exclusive?

My first impression is that they are both colorations but at opposite ends of the "coloration" spectrum -- so of course they are mutually exclusive.
Upon further consideration, I believe Paul meant "resolving" in a good way. That said, it struck me differently because I've heard a lot of gear described with that word, which I find to be as colored as gear that might be called "forgiving".

I'm reminded of what I've called the three "schools" of modern converter design. I've found most of the modern converters (both ADCs and DACs) I've heard sound quite good -- and that is exactly what I don't like about them. To me, sounding good is a coloration when compared to not sounding at all (i.e., getting out of the way). To my ears, there are just a few general variations on this "good" sound.

First, there are the "detail enhancers" (sometimes referred to as "resolving" or "revealing"). To my ears, what they are revealing is the spurious harmonics they add to the signal (something we used to refer to not as "resolving" or "revealing" but as "distortion"). They add "detail" (i.e. an edge) to every recording they process.

The second popular school is what I call the "silky smooth" school. These are the converters that smooth out all the rough edges in not-so-great recordings and make them easier on the ear. Only thing is, they also "smooth out" the edges on fine recordings, giving everything a technicolor "pleasantness" that is nonetheless a departure from what is in the recording.

There are folks (including reviewers) who like one or both of the above types of sound and I think that is fine. I'd never argue with whatever brings someone their listening pleasure. I would however differ on any assertion that such are telling the sonic truth. That is where the very sparsely populated third school, the one I call "gets out of the way" comes in. I believe this is what Paul is really referring to but that is just my guess.

A DAC (or system) that gets out of the way will certainly reveal both the good and the bad in any recording and it will resolve all there is to resolve in a given recording. What it won't do is exaggerate the details or push "every last wart" to the foreground. That would be the job of the "detail enhancers" (or the dynamically constipated, midrange forward shoebox "monitors" found in most studios). A component or system that gets out of the way will show all there is to hear but only when the listener is paying attention -- nothing, good or bad, gets forced to the foreground. As someone who also does sound for a living, *that* is what I want from my system -- to hear past the gear, all the way to the recording itself. If the system can do that, the rest is taken care of. (And if it can't, little else matters.)

Perhaps just a matter of interpretation or semantics.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[Kal Rubinson]

What happened to musical?

I think musical is a cop-out. It is the equivalent to saying "I like it" and is not communicative.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I think musical is a cop-out. It is the equivalent to saying "I like it" and is not communicative.

Not necessarily. If you haven't read it lately, go back and reread Tom Miillers discourse on musicality that appeared many years ago in TAS. Little long and wordy out but still worth a reread.

Nor are the two qualities forgiving and resolving mutually exclusive. It depends upon your equipment choice especially the front end and speakers. It's no different than preparing a good food dish; 80% of the dish starts with good ingredients and then blending all the components together. But those who go for that "resolving" sound often wrongly associate it hyper-detail. There's a big difference between hearing the differences among recordings and exaggerating the details.

OTOH, there is a faction devoted to building a system where everything sounds pretty, driven for me by the adoption of digital front-ends.

 

[microstrip]

Not necessarily. If you still have it, reread Tom Miillers discourse on musicality that appeared many years ago in TAS. Little long and drawn out but still worth a reread.

Myles,

If memory is not betraying me it was on the Wilson Watt/Puppy 5 review or a close by issue. I remember it was a great essay - I will look for it later. Do you have news from him?

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles,

If memory is not betraying me it was on the Wilson Watt/Puppy 5 review or a close by issue. I remember it was a great essay - I will look for it later. Do you have news from him?

Yes I think you're correct. And no, fell out of touch with Tom after Audio Adventure/Play went under. Last time saw Tom was back in 2000 (?) at CES. I don't think he's into the audio scene any more (sadly like some other reviewers of his day like Jack English.)

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Not necessarily. If you haven't read it lately, go back and reread Tom Miillers discourse on musicality that appeared many years ago in TAS. Little long and wordy out but still worth a reread.

Nor are the two qualities forgiving and resolving mutually exclusive. It depends upon your equipment choice especially the front end and speakers. It's no different than preparing a good food dish; 80% of the dish starts with good ingredients and then blending all the components together. But those who go for that "resolving" sound often wrongly associate it hyper-detail. There's a big difference between hearing the differences among recordings and exaggerating the details.

OTOH, there is a faction devoted to building a system where everything sounds pretty, driven for me by the adoption of digital front-ends.

Are you suggesting that, in order for the term be a useful descriptor, one has to read that article? Terms with obvious allusions to other senses (e.g., bright or warm) convey meaning to me. However, the meaning of musical depends, inevitably, on an appreciation of music and not all of us have a common appreciation.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Are you suggesting that, in order for the term be a useful descriptor, one has to read that article? Terms with obvious allusions to other senses (e.g., bright or warm) convey meaning to me. However, the meaning of musical depends, inevitably, on an appreciation of music and not all of us have a common appreciation.

All I'm saying is that it's a nice and interesting read.

Certainly I think it helps talking to or reading other people's thoughts about what each of the terms mean. Just as I find group listening sessions, be they for sound or music appreciation, very useful. In many cases, I think that terms are used too loosely and incorrectly. YMMV....

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Certainly I think it helps talking to or reading other people's thoughts about what each of the terms mean. Just as I find group listening sessions, be they for sound or music appreciation, very useful. In many cases, I think that terms are used too loosely and incorrectly. YMMV....

No disagreement there but "musical" (or "musicality") is a sore point for me because it is so personal and subjective. Even JGH's old definition acknowledges that: musical, musicality A personal judgment as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant. So, unless one defines it as the equivalent of "accurate" (in which case it is unnecessary), then its meaning shifts with the genre and some of those are not music to me.

 

[Mosin]

No disagreement there but "musical" (or "musicality") is a sore point for me because it is so personal and subjective. Even JGH's old definition acknowledges that: musical, musicality A personal judgment as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant. So, unless one defines it as the equivalent of "accurate" (in which case it is unnecessary), then its meaning shifts with the genre and some of those are not music to me.

The part of the quote that I put in bold type is the most significant to me because I consider awareness of those elements to be critical when setting up a system, assuming one has the components available to tweak each one of them. They are all important, but their importance and quantity can be varied, depending on the listener's preferences. At least, that's what I believe.

 

[Orb]

Not necessarily. If you haven't read it lately, go back and reread Tom Miillers discourse on musicality that appeared many years ago in TAS. Little long and wordy out but still worth a reread.

Nor are the two qualities forgiving and resolving mutually exclusive. It depends upon your equipment choice especially the front end and speakers. It's no different than preparing a good food dish; 80% of the dish starts with good ingredients and then blending all the components together. But those who go for that "resolving" sound often wrongly associate it hyper-detail. There's a big difference between hearing the differences among recordings and exaggerating the details.

OTOH, there is a faction devoted to building a system where everything sounds pretty, driven for me by the adoption of digital front-ends.

A great book on musicality is by Rozalie Levant.
http://www.rozalielevant.com/book.htm
THE ANATOMY OF MUSICALITY used to be available from Amazon and may still be.

Cheers
Orb

 

[MylesBAstor]

A great book on musicality is by Rozalie Levant.
http://www.rozalielevant.com/book.htm
THE ANATOMY OF MUSICALITY used to be available from Amazon and may still be.

Cheers
Orb

Thanks for the suggestion. I always found this book that we used in college quintessential for understanding music. Well written and easy to understand. Also the old Mercury The Composer and his Orchestra is similar in concept to Copland's book.

http://www.amazon.com/Copland-Music...d=1386758815&sr=8-1&keywords=Copland+on+music

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well, if you look resolving up, you'll find nothing related to this conversation. If you look up resolution, you will find an audio definition related to bit depth in digital audio. So I guess this is another one of those audiophile words that can mean whatever we want it to mean. I use it to mean revealing what's on the recording. And yes, I want to hear everything that's there that my system is capable of revealing. I'm not sure what micro means by "all the inner processing," but if it is on the recording and in the audible range, I would prefer if my system would reveal it.

Tim

 

[AudioExplorations]

This is the problem on audio internet forums and particularly here on WBF where we go into a good level of conversational depth - the semantics of various audiophile terminology that is used. Probably 90% of interesting topics on here loose their flow due to discussion of what terminology means to different people. It always happens. Someone should set up an audiophile dictionary so we all align on terminology and prevent it from getting in the way of interesting discussions. Perhaps an idea for a sub-forum, a thread for each term, and everyone can post their thoughts, and then agree to a commonly agreed meaning.

 

[microstrip]

Well, if you look resolving up, you'll find nothing related to this conversation. If you look up resolution, you will find an audio definition related to bit depth in digital audio. So I guess this is another one of those audiophile words that can mean whatever we want it to mean. I use it to mean revealing what's on the recording. And yes, I want to hear everything that's there that my system is capable of revealing. I'm not sure what micro means by "all the inner processing," but if it is on the recording and in the audible range, I would prefer if my system would reveal it.

Tim

Tim ,

Those audiophile words have a meaning for those who want to understand and debate them - many people did it much better and with great depth than us, we are not discovering anything, just debating old ideas. You are surely free to ignore or criticize it's use. And IMHO the main question is not only how much is revealed, but how it is revealed.

I will add an example of what I meant by "inner processing" . I listen mainly to classical music, and the performers I usually prefer were recorded using close microphone multitrack recordings, most of the time in studios. These tracks are usually mixed and engineered adding artificial effects to create a natural acoustic, recreating a live event. I do not want a system that dissects the recording, showing all the tricks and techniques, but a system that pre processes all this information and presents it in a way that allows me to recreate the illusion of the live event. I do not need to have something permanently telling me there was a sound engineer in the team - I prefer just reading it in the album liner notes before or after listening.

 

[microstrip]

This is the problem on audio internet forums and particularly here on WBF where we go into a good level of conversational depth - the semantics of various audiophile terminology that is used. Probably 90% of interesting topics on here loose their flow due to discussion of what terminology means to different people. It always happens. Someone should set up an audiophile dictionary so we all align on terminology and prevent it from getting in the way of interesting discussions. Perhaps an idea for a sub-forum, a thread for each term, and everyone can post their thoughts, and then agree to a commonly agreed meaning.

(...) and then find there was no agreement on their meaning!

Some authors have written articles and books specifying audiophile lexicons - as they are copyrighted we can not reproduce them in WBF for debate.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

The part of the quote that I put in bold type is the most significant to me because I consider awareness of those elements to be critical when setting up a system, assuming one has the components available to tweak each one of them.

Yes, awareness but what I take from Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant. is that real musical sound is accurate and, as a consequence of that, can be euphonic, consonant and dissonant, or anything else that is in the music. Hence, accurate is all you need.

They are all important, but their importance and quantity can be varied, depending on the listener's preferences. At least, that's what I believe.

But therein is the problem with "musical" as opposed to "accurate." One can make the sound subjectively more musical but at the cost of accuracy.