Tune dem...is it really the best way to determine SQ in our systems?

[Daveyf]

I thought I would continue the discussion on the idea of 'tune dem' away from the thread about the new Bedrok plinth.
To summarize, I am no fan of the 'tune dem' method. Personally, I am a 'absolute sound' type of hobbyist. I copy this idea from the late Harry Pearson, and for those who are unaware of his idea on this, it goes something like this:

1) We do need a reference to compare our gear with and to determine how said gear compares to the sound of 'live' music.
2) This reference is best garnered by listening to as many 'live' and un-amplified concerts as possible.
With the knowledge of how a 'live' and un-amplified instrument sounds in various 'live' settings, we can hopefully gain a guide as to what the ultimate sound reference is that we are trying to re-create in our home environments and systems.
Before we continue, I do agree that this goal is not only a very lofty one, but also impossible! Why, because who has a dedicated room that is the size of a concert hall?? Plus, the power and ambience of a 'live' event is not really possible in our home environments. However, and here's the thing where I do believe this system is valuable,....it allows for the basic tonality of the 'live' and un-amplified instrument to be a reference.

The other basic reference that some of us are able to listen to, even though it may or may not be an accurate representation of what the actual musical 'live' event sounded like, is master tape. Master tape, IME, if in good condition, is as close to what the sound engineers heard ( not necessarily the musicians) when the original musical piece was recorded. As such, while it is not as valuable to determine what a real 'live' and un-amplified instrument sounds like in various settings, it is as close as most of us can get to hearing what the mastering and recording engineers heard at the time of event.

Now we get to the 'tune dem' idea. This is one wherein what is pleasant to our ears is deemed to be superior. ( at least this is my basic understanding of it) Problem is that while this may appeal to those who are primarily looking to have a system that does not offend their ears, or their pre-conceived idea of what their sound system should sound like, I believe it can easily result in warmth, or coloration, as being held in high esteem...and nothing to do with what the actual sound of a 'live' and un-amplified instrument sounds like. Your thoughts.................

 

[akamatsu]

Harry Pearson was a journalist.

 

[Daveyf]

Harry Pearson was a journalist.

Yes, but I would be willing to bet his knowledge of music was superior to most and I believe he had an excellent 'ear'.
If you have ever read any of his pieces, I think you might agree that he was not lacking when it came to the understanding of what music is about, and more importantly, what he believed to be important in our home systems.

 

[akamatsu]

Yes, but I would be willing to bet his knowledge of music was superior to most and I believe he had an excellent 'ear'.
If you have ever read any of his pieces, I think you might agree that he was not lacking when it came to the understanding of what music is about, and more importantly, what he believed to be important in our home systems.

So, what was his “understanding of what music is about?”

 

[llatpoh]

Tune dem is about the music being tuneful and engaging, the moment you try to analyze it further the whole theory crumbles down. To me it is a trait that needs to be there, but space, timing, neutrality and tonality are also very important. When a someone tells me all I need to evaluate is the tune, the gaslighting alarm goes off immediately.

 

[Daveyf]

So, what was his “understanding of what music is about?”

HP had a very good idea as to how to describe in words what he felt when he listened to various genre's of music. His comprehension of what the musicians were attempting to give to the audience, was, at least IMO, exemplary. I do think he was more enamored of classical than perhaps any other genre, but he was still quite capable of reviewing jazz or blues or rock etc.,
Have you ever read any of his reviews?

 

[petecallaghan]

I thought I would continue the discussion on the idea of 'tune dem' away from the thread about the new Bedrok plinth.
To summarize, I am no fan of the 'tune dem' method. Personally, I am a 'absolute sound' type of hobbyist. I copy this idea from the late Harry Pearson, and for those who are unaware of his idea on this, it goes something like this:

1) We do need a reference to compare our gear with and to determine how said gear compares to the sound of 'live' music.
2) This reference is best garnered by listening to as many 'live' and un-amplified concerts as possible.
With the knowledge of how a 'live' and un-amplified instrument sounds in various 'live' settings, we can hopefully gain a guide as to what the ultimate sound reference is that we are trying to re-create in our home environments and systems.
Before we continue, I do agree that this goal is not only a very lofty one, but also impossible! Why, because who has a dedicated room that is the size of a concert hall?? Plus, the power and ambience of a 'live' event is not really possible in our home environments. However, and here's the thing where I do believe this system is valuable,....it allows for the basic tonality of the 'live' and un-amplified instrument to be a reference.

The other basic reference that some of us are able to listen to, even though it may or may not be an accurate representation of what the actual musical 'live' event sounded like, is master tape. Master tape, IME, if in good condition, is as close to what the sound engineers heard ( not necessarily the musicians) when the original musical piece was recorded. As such, while it is not as valuable to determine what a real 'live' and un-amplified instrument sounds like in various settings, it is as close as most of us can get to hearing what the mastering and recording engineers heard at the time of event.

Now we get to the 'tune dem' idea. This is one wherein what is pleasant to our ears is deemed to be superior. ( at least this is my basic understanding of it) Problem is that while this may appeal to those who are primarily looking to have a system that does not offend their ears, or their pre-conceived idea of what their sound system should sound like, I believe it can easily result in warmth, or coloration, as being held in high esteem...and nothing to do with what the actual sound of a 'live' and un-amplified instrument sounds like. Your thoughts.................

My understanding of the tune method is not what you describe above.

The Lejonklou site has a detailed description here: Tune-Method.pdf

This quote I have lifted from the Lejonklou document above and describes the method:

In the version of this method adapted to hifi comparisons, you make comparisons using an A-A-B method while actively following or singing along with the tune of the song:

* Play on component A while following or singing along to the main tune of the music. Play no more than about 10 to 20 seconds, because this amount of music is easiest to remember correctly.

* Repeat the 10-20 seconds on component A (because it is usually is a little easier to follow the tune the second time you hear it).

* Now play the 10-20 seconds on component B.

Was it, with B, easier to follow or sing along with the tune or was it more difficult?

Did you feel that the melody was more "in tune" with B than with A?

Could you feel how other instruments (drums or percussion for example) were helping you to follow the tune (then B is better!) or were they slightly distracting or playing on their own? (Then A is better). If you were feeling "yeah, that's how it goes!" the last time, then B is better. If you became puzzled and no longer really sure how the tune goes, it might indicate that A is better but you will perhaps have to do it again.

 

[petecallaghan]

My understanding of the tune method is not what you describe above.

The Lejonklou site has a detailed description here: Tune-Method.pdf

This quote I have lifted from the Lejonklou document above and describes the method:

In the version of this method adapted to hifi comparisons, you make comparisons using an A-A-B method while actively following or singing along with the tune of the song:

* Play on component A while following or singing along to the main tune of the music. Play no more than about 10 to 20 seconds, because this amount of music is easiest to remember correctly.

* Repeat the 10-20 seconds on component A (because it is usually is a little easier to follow the tune the second time you hear it).

* Now play the 10-20 seconds on component B.

Was it, with B, easier to follow or sing along with the tune or was it more difficult?

Did you feel that the melody was more "in tune" with B than with A?

Could you feel how other instruments (drums or percussion for example) were helping you to follow the tune (then B is better!) or were they slightly distracting or playing on their own? (Then A is better). If you were feeling "yeah, that's how it goes!" the last time, then B is better. If you became puzzled and no longer really sure how the tune goes, it might indicate that A is better but you will perhaps have to do it again.

I initially found it tricky to apply this technique, mostly because I was not confident that I was listening correctly.

However, over time I found myself consistently able to differentiate even small differences reliably and repeatedly and so gained confidence.

I still find it easy to be distracted by changes in tonal qualities, but usually manage to eventually overcome that.

 

[petecallaghan]

I came across the tune method years after I first bought some linn gear. I had been choosing hifi based on how well it engaged me, so the tune method appealed to me as a more systematic and better thought through approach that explained what I had been instinctively doing. It also matched my understanding of what I wanted from a home audio system.

 

[dangermouse]

Your thoughts.................

OK

No, Tune Dem is not... etc.

If it keeps the foot tappers happy fair enough, but enough of their current blanket proselytising please.

 

[Moomintroll]

Oops, I thought I was posting in the Linn Owners Forum…

My bad. I thought I was still in the Bedrok thread.

’troll

 

[Moomintroll]

Post deleted.

’troll

 

[JBC]

Tunedem is an active listening method which provides a reliable methodology to compare two systems (or a change in a system). The good part Is that the methodology works anywhere for any system.

The part that is getting lost in this discussion is the notion that a given listener‘s listening experience and musical knowledge is not a part of tune dem. Quite the contrary, in fact, the more refined the neural database of sounds, the more effective any comparative listening (including tunedem) becomes.

I use the method as it avoids going down rabbit holes of the type of ‘more bass is better’.

 

[dangermouse]

Tunedem is an active listening method which provides a reliable methodology to compare two systems (or a change in a system).

See post #10.

 

[Daveyf]

My understanding of the tune method is not what you describe above.

The Lejonklou site has a detailed description here: Tune-Method.pdf

This quote I have lifted from the Lejonklou document above and describes the method:

In the version of this method adapted to hifi comparisons, you make comparisons using an A-A-B method while actively following or singing along with the tune of the song:

* Play on component A while following or singing along to the main tune of the music. Play no more than about 10 to 20 seconds, because this amount of music is easiest to remember correctly.

* Repeat the 10-20 seconds on component A (because it is usually is a little easier to follow the tune the second time you hear it).

* Now play the 10-20 seconds on component B.

Was it, with B, easier to follow or sing along with the tune or was it more difficult?

Did you feel that the melody was more "in tune" with B than with A?

Could you feel how other instruments (drums or percussion for example) were helping you to follow the tune (then B is better!) or were they slightly distracting or playing on their own? (Then A is better). If you were feeling "yeah, that's how it goes!" the last time, then B is better. If you became puzzled and no longer really sure how the tune goes, it might indicate that A is better but you will perhaps have to do it again.

It would seem that what you posted about the method of 'tune dem' is pretty much exactly what I stated was the method. IOW, it relies entirely on what is more pleasant to one's ears. Not using a particular reference to the sound of 'live and un-amplified' instruments/music, but rather on whether A is preferred to B, or vice versa!

 

[Daveyf]

Tunedem is an active listening method which provides a reliable methodology to compare two systems (or a change in a system). The good part Is that the methodology works anywhere for any system.

The part that is getting lost in this discussion is the notion that a given listener‘s listening experience and musical knowledge is not a part of tune dem. Quite the contrary, in fact, the more refined the neural database of sounds, the more effective any comparative listening (including tunedem) becomes.

I use the method as it avoids going down rabbit holes of the type of ‘more bass is better’.

It would seem that the only 'reliable' thing about 'tune dem', at least from what you posted, is that it does allow for a preference to one piece of gear over another. Whether that preference has anything to do with what was on the original master tape, or for that matter what the sound of an instrument like an acoustic guitar or an acoustic bass ( or you name it acoustic ( and maybe even electric) instrument) sounded like, is apparently not considered..
This would lead one to prefer either gear that is possibly highly colored, or possibly way too bright ( if one has a little hearing loss) etc.,
The next question one could ask is this,...is there anything wrong with these preferences? I would say yes and no, because we all are after a form of musical enjoyment in our systems (so no), however, some of us are after not just enjoyment but also a possibility of getting as close to the 'real' as possible ( so yes). Most of the latter listeners are what we consider audiophiles.

 

[Mr Kandid]

FFS

 

[JBC]

Use what works for you and I’ll use what works for me. I have found that tunedem has been a reliable method for me, and my listening experience of tonal and dynamic characteristics is an implicit part of the process.

Saying tunedem has nothing to do with an absolute reference is a bit like saying listening to live chamber music doesn’t tell me how Led Zeppelin should sound in my listening room.

 

[garn63]

'Tune dem' if it tickles our fancy.
Is it really the best way to determine s/q in our system' ? No, but it is another idea someone might like to try.

 

[Colinjg]

Listen mainly to records of political and historical Speeches.

Tune Dem is clearly nonsense.!!!