Yes, but that is something else. You mentioned closely miced recordings versus recordings with more ambience. Deciding whether one is more “natural” then the other is expressing a preference for the “production” of the recording, regardless of the system.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I don’t know what “tonal density” means, and all this seems quite theoretical (not that it’s always a bad thing - but I think here she is blowing hot air).
The point is that quite a few of us recognize the distinction between detail and information. That’s fine if you do not see the distinction. There’s no point in arguing about it.
Yes, there are close mic’d recordings, and there are others that present a different perspective. I’ve heard gear that makes all presentations from a variety of different recordings sound as though they are all close mic’d when they are not. That is a system collaboration, and in my opinion worth avoiding. Some systems are designed for this kind of presentation. And that’s fine if you prefer it. People do. It’s no big deal, but I think it helps to be aware of these distinctions when making choices. Water.
Yes, you are right, and I am not trying to "argue" about it, just trying to understand. I have always felt that more resolution is better - all other things being equal - that has been my experience.
Actually, in your above quote of Karen Sumner she does *not* seem to draw a distinction between detail and information. This does not mean she equates the two (she certainly does not, at least not explicitly), but I don't believe her quote serves the purpose that you think it does.
(Having said that, I agree with her thoughts about tonal density and artificially stripping it in order to hear more "detail".)
I agree completely that more resolution is better. But it depends on how that resolution is presented. Also, if some information is stripped out to enhance detail. This was actually one of the things I identified with certain high-end cable brands and power cords, which is why I abandoned them. Same with acoustic treatments. These things strip out information and energy, leaving others exposed and enhanced. This is my own experience in my room with my system. I’m not prescribing anything or suggesting anyone do what I have done. I encourage experimentation and listening with live music as a reference if that is your target. Then some of this stuff will be noticeable. If it then matters to the listener, he can respond accordingly.
Yes, I understand what you’re saying Al. For me what I like about Karen’s quote is the emphasis on the mid range and lower harmonics. She says that stuff is often on the recording and yet some choose to diminish those in an effort to hear more detail. It comes at the expense of naturalism, in my opinion. Ironically, I abandoned her cables because they do exactly the thing that she warns against. At least the mid-level cables I had in my system at the time. Once I removed them from my system, I heard much more information presented naturally.
The terms detail, information, and resolution are tricky, IMO. I prefer information as more encompassing or overall more comprehensive. Detail is a subset of information and is particular to a recording and presentation. Resolution is an attribute of the system or a component and is perceived in degrees. The best systems have an ability to resolve the information on the recording and present that information, or much of it, and also details, naturally.
Last edited:
She is not blowing hot air, to the contrary. Tonal density is fundamentally important and something that I always check for with every change to my system (including acoustics and speaker positioning).
Greater tonal density usually means more weight and harmonic completeness, richness of tone.
A particularly important marker for it is found in the lower midrange, something that has also been called the "power range" of an orchestra (think low brass, for example). Weight and richness in the low midrange are also important for the weight of the left hand of piano and for cello, to name two more examples (out of many that could be given).
Yet tonal density is also important for the "thickness" of sound throughout the midrange, including upper midrange, and in the treble. You could argue that it plays a role for the bass as well *) (even though excessive "thickness" there is counterproductive).
When comparing unamplified live music (in an average, not bright sounding hall, that is) with home stereo it is often the case that the home system sounds "thinner", i.e., with lower tonal density.
Preserving tonal density to a maximum extent possible should be, in my view and that of many others, a prime objective for a relatively realistic sound at home.
What Karen Sumner correctly points out is that in the search for "detail" often a thinner sounding midrange is preferred by system owners, but that this cuts against realism.
___________________
*) Especially rock music needs a solid and weighty (even though at the same time rhythmically agile) foundation in the upper bass and mid-bass.
Last edited:
I assumed that this is what she meant, and I would state it more simply as "completeness"? We obviously want to hear it all, and as faithfully as possible.
I am not sure that there is a conscious decision by manufacturers to remove some aspects of the sound to increase the perception of detail. My experience, on the contrary, is that they often sacrifice high resolution (the ability to produce low level detail) in pursuit of other metrics.
Last edited:
"Completeness" may seem simple, but is too general a term to be of any use, in my view. Tonal density is much more specific.
As you say, we want to hear it all, and as faithful as possible. Sure. But obviously people have different perceptions, listening priorities, preferences. These decide which aspects of "all" are the most important for each individual listener. Otherwise, why would systems sound so different from one another? So we need to be specific.
I think "tonal density" is another audiophile expression which is not susceptible of plain meaning. Yet most of us know exactly what the term means, and I do think the term has descriptive and explanatory value.
All these terms are rather vague. The precise terms used to describe sounds are banished from this thread
It’s a case of making things complicated when they could be simple. I never said the objective was achieved. We all know the difference between the reproduction and the real thing.
Yes, a great quote - I like a lot Transparent Audio cables sound qualities, not so much their need to match cables to specific equipment. Anyone knowing in depth Transparent Audio cables sees their signature fully described and praised in the text you quote, as well as that of some known competitors. Curiously you considered them as "fancy cables" and moved away from them, considering they took away "life from music" or something similar.
I always found this sentence extremely ambiguous. Can you specify what is meant exactly by it in terms of bandwidth (Hz) and harmonics order?
When you come to this conclusion by swapping a cable in your system, then you know you have a problem with your system (or your hearing).
Do you really believe that a cable manufacturer can “tune” a cable to decrease the midrange and give the impression of more detail? This is complete nonsense.
This type of frequency manipulation can be done with speakers, obviously, and it is very simple to check with a frequency response curve. Try to compare the frequency response of two cables and get back to me if you can see a difference on a graph!
Whether you get more information or detail (same thing) from your system is the result of an infinite number of factors. Karen Sumner’s explanation are nonsense and just written to stroke those who believe they are “true” audiophiles (and not just hi-fi enthusiasts)
Last edited:
When you come to this conclusion by swapping a cable in your system, then you know you have a problem with your system (or your hearing).
Do you really believe that a cable manufacturer can “tune” a cable to decrease the midrange and give the impression of more detail? This is complete nonsense.
This type of frequency manipulation can be done with speakers, obviously, and it is very simple to check with a frequency response curve. Try to compare the frequency response of two cables and get back to me if you can see a difference on a graph!
Whether you get more information or detail (same thing) from your system is the result of an infinite number of factors. Karen Sumner’s explanation are nonsense and just written to stroke those who believe they are “true” audiophiles (and not just hi-fi enthusiasts)
Who says this is about cables?
And the reference to natural, over and over again, remains circular. I don't know anyone in this hobby who wouldn't use this term, wouldn't have it as an objective. No-one here is aiming for unnatural. Everyone thinks they have a natural sound. I know plenty of vinylphiles who hate DD and loathe the GP Monaco TT. Yet the best, most natural vinyl reproduction I've heard has been off DD and this TT in particular. My vinylphiles close friends spit in their coffee.
I will admit that despite my history of tweaks and mods, my biggest moves to *most* natural has been the room itself up here, going from balanced power to breakers/dedicated lines, and my most recent change that is dealing with bass nodes, ie radical acoustic and power changes.
Yet I have friends who absolutely prefer my sound from 20 years ago, what I call my "wall of sound" phase, where I recall my sound being characterized as mid bass heavy, flat and grey.
At the time I thought it was the most natural sound in the world, and these others loved it.
Now I think my current sound trounces that for naturalness but these friends miss being battered between the eyes.
From time to time I reintroduce my stock in place of modded...go back to a few stock power cords, fuses, remove grounding, platter mat, manufacturer footers etc. And there hasn't been one time my sound hasn't gone backwards, hasn't become more unnatural, so to speak.
Sometimes the move to stock is only a moderate negative (minus Entreq), sometimes it's major (stock platter mat, stock power cords).
Even if I was to substitute your label of "natural" for "sonically invisible" or "the system gets out of the way of the music", which I genuinely believe mine does since I genuinely am not distracted by the system, absorbed fully by the music, I know my "wall of sound" friend will absolutely say my sound was at its most natural all those years ago.
The notion of tonal density among audiophiles is a bit tricky to parse out. Its usage is all over the map and its meaning tends to vary with whomever you ask about it. Some say they cannot describe it but claim to know it when they hear it. I'm not sure it is correctly attributed to Wittgenstein but the phrase comes to mind "what cannot be said must be consigned to silence" -- if you cannot describe something then don't talk about it.
Strictly speaking, tonal density describes the sense of perceiving sound (notes) as 'compact' or sometime as 'tight' -- dense. Typically the higher the frequency the more compact or dense is the perception of a note's sound/tone. In effect the more vibrations per second, the more dense is the sound -- roughly more note in a shorter amount of time. Thus the lower the frequency, the fewer vibrations per second, the less dense is a note's tone.
I kinda doubt that is what Karen Summers had in mind or the posters discussing it here. Talking about sound is difficult but audiophiles have their language even though there is little agreement among them. But a meaning can be described.
I've used "tonal density" smewhat sloppily in several reviews and my meaning in those is not what I described above. I do not mean compact or dense. More often I use the phrase "tonal depth" which, now that I think about, is probably more appropriate because doesn't suggest density. Tonal density is quirky.
What I think I mean to describe by both phrases (dense and depth) is harmonic richness. The tone we perceive as the loudest or stongest is called the 'fundamental'. The fundamental is the name of the note and determines its pitch. Higher frequency tones are part of what we hear with the fundamental but we don't easily perceive them apart from it.
Those tones are the note's harmonics and overtones. (Harmonics being interger multiples of the fundamental, overtones being non-interger multiples of the fundamental.) The distribution of these harmonics and overtones and their relative intensities vary when the same note is played by different instruments and that, timbre or tone-color, is what lets us differentiate one instrument from another.
Talk of tonal density (less adequate), tonal depth (more adequate) or harmonic richness (better) is talk about an audio component or system. I understand it as the ability of a system to resolve, to let us hear more or less information, to let us hear more or fewer of the harmonics and overtones of a given musical sound. The richer the harmonics and overtones, the more believable the sound.
Strictly speaking, tonal density describes the sense of perceiving sound (notes) as 'compact' or sometime as 'tight' -- dense. Typically the higher the frequency the more compact or dense is the perception of a note's sound/tone. In effect the more vibrations per second, the more dense is the sound -- roughly more note in a shorter amount of time. Thus the lower the frequency, the fewer vibrations per second, the less dense is a note's tone.
I kinda doubt that is what Karen Summers had in mind or the posters discussing it here. Talking about sound is difficult but audiophiles have their language even though there is little agreement among them. But a meaning can be described.
I've used "tonal density" smewhat sloppily in several reviews and my meaning in those is not what I described above. I do not mean compact or dense. More often I use the phrase "tonal depth" which, now that I think about, is probably more appropriate because doesn't suggest density. Tonal density is quirky.
What I think I mean to describe by both phrases (dense and depth) is harmonic richness. The tone we perceive as the loudest or stongest is called the 'fundamental'. The fundamental is the name of the note and determines its pitch. Higher frequency tones are part of what we hear with the fundamental but we don't easily perceive them apart from it.
Those tones are the note's harmonics and overtones. (Harmonics being interger multiples of the fundamental, overtones being non-interger multiples of the fundamental.) The distribution of these harmonics and overtones and their relative intensities vary when the same note is played by different instruments and that, timbre or tone-color, is what lets us differentiate one instrument from another.
Talk of tonal density (less adequate), tonal depth (more adequate) or harmonic richness (better) is talk about an audio component or system. I understand it as the ability of a system to resolve, to let us hear more or less information, to let us hear more or fewer of the harmonics and overtones of a given musical sound. The richer the harmonics and overtones, the more believable the sound.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |