(Yet) Another thing I don't get.
I browsed the Hifi Choice Forum recently and there was a whole thread about 'sound', what your system 'sounds' like and how you'd like it to 'sound' better.
The CDSII revisted thread here has produced more examples.
Until about 12 years ago I used a Naim 42-5/Hicap/250 into Linn SARAs. One Saturday afternoon I was having a Troika fitted to my Ekos at (the late lamented) Cam Audio. The job was actually being done by the local Linn rep, whose name I've forgotten, anyway this was the best ever setup my Linn ever had. It was perfect. Sounded pretty good too. During the conversation some disparaging remark was probably made about Linn amps (purely from prejudice, never having properly heard them), so the gauntlet was thrown and my newly Troika'd and setup turntable was stuck in the small dem room with the shop's demo LK1/LK280 and an equivalent Naim amp. The Linn amp was at a nominal disadvantage due to the dodgy connections in the BNC-phono adaptors...
This was my first exposure to 'tune dem' and being demoed to rather than simply having a demo. The upshot was that I heard enough that was interesting to impulse buy the LK1/LK280. This may sound extravagant but was reasonably expenditure neutral since my Naim bits were worth slightly more than the Linn cost, one or other would be eventually sold.
And the point?
I decided that the Naim could sound 'nicer' but the Linn was better at the tune, and that was the critical factor. What does 'nicer' mean? Well, I don't know. A bit more comfortable, easier, fuzzier, stuff like that. Pretty useless words.
A secondary factor was Naim's move apparently upmarket. I had a pretty good front end, LP12/Ekos/Troika, the next Naim move would have been to a NAC52/52PS. Seriously expensive. The best Linn knew how to make cost the same ex-dem as the secondhand value of my less than top of the range Naim amps. But if the Linn hadn't worked then this wouldn't have been important. Especially given the attractions, even in those pre-Internet days, of the Naim community.
I haven't repeated this exercise in the last 12 years, it's entirely possible that a different decision would be made today.
And the point again?
Listeners expressing a preference for DNM/Dynavector based on the 'sound' while 'sound' remains such a nebulous concept.
I cannot describe the sound of my hifi other than as 'pretty good'....
Paul
Posted on: 11 April 2002 by Top Cat
Paul, I suspect you analyse things too much?
It's so very easy: you buy the system that sounds the best to your ears, that gives you the most enjoyment. That's what me and others have done, many of us ending up with varied and unusual combinations, each of which is a valid choice.
Sure, Linn and the 'tune-dem' thing always intrigued me, but regardless the Linn thing always left me feeling a bit 'so what?' about the music. Naim was much better in this regard, but then along came an unusual amp which allowed me to enjoy music even more than with the Naim amps. So, no analysis necessary, I bought it.
Going back to CDS-II stuff, I believe that if 99% of the people here rave about a thing, and that thing doesn't impress me, I'm open-minded enough to at least re-evaluate using a different unit so as to eliminate certain possibilities (e.g. faulty unit, etc.).
TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."
Posted on: 11 April 2002 by Paul Ranson
quote:
Paul, I suspect you analyse things too much?
Hardly at all in practice...
quote:
It's so very easy: you buy the system that sounds the best to your ears, that gives you the most enjoyment.
I'm trying to discover what you mean by 'sounds best'.
quote:
Sure, Linn and the 'tune-dem' thing always intrigued me, but regardless the Linn thing always left me feeling a bit 'so what?' about the music.
You see, this makes no sense. How can the system that plays tunes better, which makes it easier to follow the music giving you more brain time for enjoying it, leave you feeling a bit 'so what?' about the music?
Paul
Posted on: 11 April 2002 by Joe Petrik
Paul,
quote:
You see, this makes no sense. How can the system that plays tunes better, which makes it easier to follow the music giving you more brain time for enjoying it, leave you feeling a bit 'so what?' about the music?
Back in the late 1980s, when I had a 32.5, Hi-Cap and 250, I demmed a couple of Linn amps -- first the LK1 and LK2, and later, the LK1 and 280. The rest of the system was an LP12, Ekos, Asaka and Saras.
The Linn amps did indeed do the tune thing better than my Naim kit but -- and this is the only way I can describe my impression -- by leaving out some of the music and fun. It's almost like the Linn kit let the tune pass through, but tossed away some of the musical detail, not to mention some pace and drive. On balance, those matter more to me so I kept my Naim kit. -- though I wouldn't have if Naim was utterly inept at holding the tune.
Doesn't this stuff come down to one's priorities in musical reproduction? Many of us have tried Linn but kept our Naim (and vise versa). You buy what works for you.
Joe
Posted on: 11 April 2002 by Paul Ranson
quote:
Many of us have tried Linn but kept our Naim (and vise versa).
I wasn't assuming that the Linn would do the tune better. In one set of circumstances it did for me.
I'm not interested in promoting Linn amps, especially not in a Naim forum, Linn only comes up because of my personal experience. I am interested in why people make the decisions they do, what their reasoning is. And whether it is possible to slightly deconstruct what 'sound' means.
quote:
Linn may have nice tunes, but so what if there's no sex appeal?
IME systems that damage the tune yet sound 'nice' are lying to you.
Paul
Posted on: 12 April 2002 by Top Cat
quote:
IME systems that damage the tune yet sound 'nice' are lying to you.
Of course they are. However, reproduced music of any sort is a kind of lie. I read between the lines of what you're saying and it occurs to me that you are trying to twist me into an 'anti-Naim' or 'anti-Linn' stance, and that's just not my position at all. When I say that the Linn 'tune thing' left me feeling a bit cold, it was because it was lifeless, passionless, vacuous. Setup? Perhaps. Naff equipment? Possibly. I can't say. However, what I will say is that this preoccupation with the 'tune' (as typified by Linn) is a laudable, if flawed, concept.
The big problem I have with Linn and the 'tune' is that IME Linn don't do the 'tune' any better than Naim, DNM, etc. They do, however, try to convince you that this 'lowest common denominator' tune thing, the 'essence' of the music (if you will) is mutually exclusive of the things that Linn doesn't do - such as excitement, intensity, boogie. In my opinion, and based upon such sterile demonstrations as I've had over the last 12 years or so.
TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."
Posted on: 12 April 2002 by Rico
Hmm -interesting to read the responses here. Perhaps I'm suffering a little "like mindedness", but I see where Paul is going with this, and don't feel it's a case of chasing all and sundry into a "for linn" or "against linn" pen. Indeed, the mere notion of "buy what spins yer wheels" is not embraced often enough here (god knows I'm guilty enough).
Sorry I have no specific post that will re-rail the argument to facillitate some healthy dicussion. 
I just feel it's a new one, rather than a recycled stand thread, and meritorious of further examination.
Rico - SM/Mullet Audio
Posted on: 12 April 2002 by Paul Ranson
quote:
However, reproduced music of any sort is a kind of lie.
And once you've decided to lie you might as well make it a big one?
To me it's the difference between trying to tell the truth and telling the listener what they want to hear.
quote:
I read between the lines of what you're saying and it occurs to me that you are trying to twist me into an 'anti-Naim' or 'anti-Linn' stance, and that's just not my position at all.
It's quite OK not to like Naim and/or Linn or anybody else's products. Linn only came up because of my personal experience many years ago.
quote:
When I say that the Linn 'tune thing' left me feeling a bit cold, it was because it was lifeless, passionless, vacuous.
I'm trying to foster discussion about what that all actually means. What the range of acceptable 'lifelessness' is. Is the excitement added by a subwoofer 'hifi'?
Clearly people can strive for whatever sound they find attractive, but what is hifi and what isn't? The advantage of 'tune dem' as a technique is that it avoids all the hard to answer questions.
quote:
The big problem I have with Linn and the 'tune' is that IME Linn don't do the 'tune' any better than Naim, DNM, etc.
Ah. This is interesting. Not that Linn don't 'win' but that you don't hear a difference. One for the Padded Cell?
(Linn would probably suggest that you buy the cheapest of the options you cannot differentiate. In this case I would agree with them!)
Paul
Posted on: 13 April 2002 by Top Cat
quote:
Linn would probably suggest that you buy the cheapest of the options you cannot differentiate. In this case I would agree with them!
There is a lot to be said for that. However, the fact that one cannot hear a difference does not imply that there is a difference. It's very much a case of 'Emperor's New Clothes' with that sort of logic. I might as well say that my new Ferrari* is very nice, even though to you it might look like a Vauxhall (say). The implication is that if you can't see my Ferrari as a Ferrari and not a Vauxhall, your eyes must be wrong. This seems to be where you're coming from.
In my case, sure, I could hear many differences and easily - but the 'tune' thing was not more convincing, natural or in any appreciable way better than that of Naim and DNM. In fact, their representations of the recorded material approached 'music' far more acceptably and convincingly than the Linn systems I have heard (up to, and including CD12, which was very hifi and not very musical)
As far as 'cannot differentiate' - this is utter codswallop. We buy what we buy because it sounds better (or for some other reasons too, but in my case the decision was purely on the basis of sound). If I couldn't differentiate, as you suggest, then I'd be daft not to go for the most convenient, or cheapest, or best-built, easiest to use, etc. etc. system. I didn't buy a preamp with two volume controls and no remote for any of these reasons.
I propose, sir, that it is thee that has cloth ears.
Discuss, 33mks.
TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."
* PS. This bit isn't true. I may wish, but can't have... 
Posted on: 13 April 2002 by Paul Ranson
quote:
However, the fact that one cannot hear a difference does not imply that there is a difference.
Why on earth would it?
quote:
I could hear many differences and easily - but the 'tune' thing was not more convincing, natural or in any appreciable way better than that of Naim and DNM.
I think you haven't 'got' what the 'tune' thing is yet. Which is fine.
quote:
If I couldn't differentiate, as you suggest
Which YOU suggested!
quote:
I propose, sir, that it is thee that has cloth ears.
Why? I can differentiate hifi components based on an objective criteria that can be described reasonably clearly and where 'better' really is 'better'.
What I'm trying to find is other ways. What 'the sound' you chose your components based on actually is and why you like it. What the sounds described here and elsewhere actually mean.
To add some content to this post, here are two quotes lifted from recent posts to this forum,
I found the top end of his system to sound a little fierce to my own personal tastes, and I felt that imaging and tune were the first casualties of this with many recordings.
...where I could not distinguish if a saxophone was a tenor or alto - I could not identify the natural true characteristics of the live instrument from the sounds I was hearing - this for me was a fundamental failing - the instruments have to sound real and be recognisable.
Two rather different approaches to describing the sound of a strange system. I don't understand the first quote, surely there's a right amount of 'fierceness' to the top, and it's not really a matter of taste unless you have moved away from hifi? The second quote uses musical criteria to determine whether the sound of the system is right or not.
You'll note the word 'tune' snuck into the first quote, but it doesn't fool me!
Paul
