System "SOUL"?

[microstrip]

I agree the definition of "Soul" in reproduced music may vary to the listeners mileage.

To me a system with soul is when the reproduction of music is so real, it moves you1

Saturntube,

The wold real is even more dangerous than soul in sound reproduction. Any one knows that reality can not be fully reproduced by two speakers in stereo. You have to rely on a number of clues that make you remember reality and also have a system that does not add any type on interference that immediately outclasses it, destroying your enjoyment and pleasantness. The emotional factor, (it moves you), can play an important role in it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I agree the definition of "Soul" in reproduced music may vary to the listeners mileage.

To me a system with soul is when the reproduction of music is so real, it moves you1

Impossible to disagree with. But try to get this crowd to agree on what "so real" is.

Tim

 

[Saturntube]

The word real is even more dangerous than soul in sound reproduction!

Totally agree! ;-)

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Are there any benign words, opinions, positions, facts in this hobby? If we were just looking for entertainment, we'd all just sit back and watch Mark buy and sell amps.

Tim

 

[mep]

Thanks Tim. I had that coming. You left out preamps as well though and I would deserve that too.

 

[fas42]

Soul does come from inside my friend. It is inside the music and inside us.

Trecking into hyper performance land is not for the faint of heart. The more transparent the gear gets, the quieter the rooms get, the louder the systems can play, there are just so many more things that can be heard: The good, the bad and the ugly.

...

The soul is always there, sometimes we just lose sight of it.

Very apposite post, Jack, I like ... :b

Frank

 

[fas42]

In my experience a system that creates an experience of being real has 3 elements: truth, tonality (), and dynamics.

Truth is, that everything on the recording is served up to you, nothing is glossed over, or has a layer of honey applied to it.

Tonality is, an absolute minimal extra distortion is contributed by the system on playback, the goal is for the reproduction components to be effectively inaudible.

Dynamics is, that this playback can made to occur at a volume level appropriate to, match the live musical event, if you were to experience it. This has to happen without truth and tonality falling off the table on the way ...

Get these 3 right, and you have all the "soul" in the world ...

Frank

 

[Saturntube]

What about distortion Frank?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Thanks Tim. I had that coming. You left out preamps as well though and I would deserve that too.

Wasn't really meant as a shot, Mark. I sympathize with your situation. Been there done that. More with guitars than audio, but a bit of both.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

In my experience a system that creates an experience of being real has 3 elements: truth, tonality (), and dynamics.

Truth is, that everything on the recording is served up to you, nothing is glossed over, or has a layer of honey applied to it.

Tonality is, an absolute minimal extra distortion is contributed by the system on playback, the goal is for the reproduction components to be effectively inaudible.

Dynamics is, that this playback can made to occur at a volume level appropriate to, match the live musical event, if you were to experience it. This has to happen without truth and tonality falling off the table on the way ...

Get these 3 right, and you have all the "soul" in the world ...

Frank

We would all be better served if you engaged in the usual audiophile violation of language -- make up words (PRaT) or misappropriate real words unrelated to audio reproduction (musicality) rather than take words like tonality and dynamics, which have very real, purposeful meanings in the world of audio, and re-define them.

We audiophiles are semantically confused enough as it is.

Tim

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

We would all be better served if you engaged in the usual audiophile violation of language -- make up words (PRaT) or misappropriate real words unrelated to audio reproduction (musicality) rather than take words like tonality and dynamics, which have very real, purposeful meanings in the world of audio, and re-define them.

We audiophiles are semantically confused enough as it is.

Tim

Ain't that the "truth"......and I might add, ever moreso now.

 

[FrantzM]

We would all be better served if you engaged in the usual audiophile violation of language -- make up words (PRaT) or misappropriate real words unrelated to audio reproduction (musicality) rather than take words like tonality and dynamics, which have very real, purposeful meanings in the world of audio, and re-define them.

We audiophiles are semantically confused enough as it is.

Tim

 

[fas42]

We would all be better served if you engaged in the usual audiophile violation of language -- make up words (PRaT) or misappropriate real words unrelated to audio reproduction (musicality) rather than take words like tonality and dynamics, which have very real, purposeful meanings in the world of audio, and re-define them.

We audiophiles are semantically confused enough as it is.

Tim

Well, I guess I was trying to get a few points across:

Firstly, that there shouldn't be any attempt to "hide" or disguise what's on the recording: any attempt to do that will throw the baby out with the bathwater. You may get away with it with some recordings, but overall I believe there will be more losses than gains.

Secondly, since you've decided to allow everything on the recording to get to you, warts, distortion and all, any extra distortion added on top in the playback gear will be pretty disasterous for a "difficult" recording -- these are the scenarios when you have "unlistenable" sound.

Thirdly, our ears, brains and bodies "know" what the sensations of real music are, from a lifetime of exposure to such, at least every now and again. We feel the "soul" of the music then, and a very key element of it is that it is loud, intense, in your face, without being uncomfortable, and that is what a playback system should be able to do.

Frank

 

[microstrip]

We would all be better served if you engaged in the usual audiophile violation of language -- make up words (PRaT) or misappropriate real words unrelated to audio reproduction (musicality) rather than take words like tonality and dynamics, which have very real, purposeful meanings in the world of audio, and re-define them.

We audiophiles are semantically confused enough as it is.

Tim

Tim,

Can you point us to the official glossary of WBF, if possible freely available? I have the extensive Ben Duncan one, but it has a copyright, and can not be posted in the net.

BTW, since you used the word all I must express my disagreement with your insinuation that the words related to sound reproduction you do not understand or like are misappropriate.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

Can you point us to the official glossary of WBF, if possible freely available? I have the extensive Ben Duncan one, but it has a copyright, and can not be posted in the net.

BTW, since you used the word all I must express my disagreement with your insinuation that the words related to sound reproduction you do not understand or like are misappropriate.

Frank Said...

Tonality is, an absolute minimal extra distortion is contributed by the system on playback, the goal is for the reproduction components to be effectively inaudible.

Dynamics is, that this playback can made to occur at a volume level appropriate to, match the live musical event, if you were to experience it. This has to happen without truth and tonality falling off the table on the way ...

My apologies, Micro. That was presumptuous on my part. Some audiophiles might, I suppose, be better served by believing that tonality is about distortion figures, not frequency response, and that dynamics is the maximum volume your system can achieve, not the relationship between peaks and the noise floor. I don't know how, but I've never understood how something can have a higher audible noise floor and greater resolution of detail at once, and this is common audiophile discussion fodder.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well, I guess I was trying to get a few points across:

Firstly, that there shouldn't be any attempt to "hide" or disguise what's on the recording: any attempt to do that will throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We've always agreed on this point.

Secondly, since you've decided to allow everything on the recording to get to you, warts, distortion and all, any extra distortion added on top in the playback gear will be pretty disasterous for a "difficult" recording -- these are the scenarios when you have "unlistenable" sound.

Nothing much to disagree with there, either. More revealing systems are more demanding of the recordings - difficult or otherwise. I read a contradiction, though. If we've decided to let everything in the recording through, warts and all, then haven't we already decided to eliminate as much noise and distortion as possible? And wasn't it the "extra distortion," we have endeavored to remove that was covering up the recording's flaws in the first place? How is this secondary "extra distortion" you're now persuing to keep it from doubling the negative effects of the recording's distortions different from the "extra distortion" you've already removed, which was masking the recording's distortions?

Thirdly, our ears, brains and bodies "know" what the sensations of real music are, from a lifetime of exposure to such, at least every now and again. We feel the "soul" of the music then, and a very key element of it is that it is loud, intense, in your face, without being uncomfortable, and that is what a playback system should be able to do.

Frank

We'll need to agree to disagree on this one. First of all, the audiophile online community is chockfull of folks who are listening to deliberately "distorted" media and systems and believing, heart and soul, that it is more real than less distorted alternatives. They will read the code here and be along shortly to prove my point...

Second, perhaps you only feel the soul of music if it is loud, intense and in your face. I like that occasionally myself, but listen at pretty moderate levels most of the time. And I am moved. I feel the soul. Really, to go back to the beginning, I think this whole line of discussion about sytematic "soul" is semantic nonsense. Find a truly soulful performance -- Van Morrison's performance of "Listen to the Lion" from the seminal live album "It's Too Late to Stop Now." The soul of that music could not be purged by anything audio short of levels of distortion so severe as to render it unrecognizable. It drips with soul from my car radio. And trust me, it's not hifi. This business of "soulful" playback systems is either semantic hyperbole or incredibly presumptuous. Or people are simply listening to their "sound" so much that they've completely lost touch with the music.

I truly hope it's just #1.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Nothing much to disagree with there, either. More revealing systems are more demanding of the recordings - difficult or otherwise. I read a contradiction, though. If we've decided to let everything in the recording through, warts and all, then haven't we already decided to eliminate as much noise and distortion as possible? And wasn't it the "extra distortion," we have endeavored to remove that was covering up the recording's flaws in the first place? How is this secondary "extra distortion" you're now persuing to keep it from doubling the negative effects of the recording's distortions different from the "extra distortion" you've already removed, which was masking the recording's distortions?

Yes, I agree there is an area of overlap between the first and second points, but a lot of audiophiles get themselves in a wobbly world, oscillating between the two apparently, mutually exclusive ares. Just look at Mark: his Yamaha/PL setup ticks box 1, fails box 2; the all Krell not so good on the first, but seemingly spot on in the second. Distortion is distortion, just that one style smooths over the cracks, and the other shines a very strong light on every hairline defect.

As regards dynamics, yes, the "soul" should be there irrespective of volume: it's just that I've found from personal experience that if the system works well, "correctly" at higher levels, then its behaviour at lower volume will retain its integrity. Otherwise, one is paranoid about touching the "loud" knob -- if the music is moving you especially at that moment, and you feel in the mood to up the ante then you know you're only a tick away from the sound starting to collapse, and some of the "thrill" is lost ...

Frank