The Absurdity of it All

hilde45/perkri - "perkri, I really enjoyed reading your list of tweaks and the rationales for each of them! I'm still learning, so can you tell me how you listen to each tweak to determine what difference it's made and whether that tweak is working or not? Serious question because the only thing that will keep me from going down a rabbit hole is a process by which I can know (a) whether a tweak has done something and (b) the degree and character of it. Thank you."

hilde45, may I ask if you were referring to specific passages of specific tracks that perkri listens to in order to gauge difference or improvement with each change or tweak he makes? I ask because I have a similar request of perkri, if so : )

In friendship - kevin

‘Sibilance is a useful one. Nina Simone has a certain way of presenting sssss's. And for whatever reason, when recorded this part of her singing can get quite shrill when played back. I listen for how much clarity there is in those parts.

When listening to mids, I listen for transparency and how "bright" "crisp" they are. Also, they can be placed slightly higher or lower in the register.” - perkri

Thanks very much for this perkri - yes I also find differences in bass and highs the easiest to distinguish - it’s the mids that aren’t easy and take time. Besides Nina Simone for sibilance, are there specific sections of specific tracks or songs that are your go-to’s whenever you are listening for differences after a change of cable or tweak? The parts that most clearly show difference in sound quality? Thanks again!

In friendship - kevin

“@kevn  - I have a couple of tracks I listen to for mids....” - perkri

Thanks so much for your reply, perkri : ) 

miijostyn, I didn’t actually describe anything, but was just asking perkri for a few more tracks he uses for his critical listening moments to determine for himself when he detects change and difference in sound quality - his reference to sibilance by way of recordings of Nina Simone was simply my way in to inquire further about other specific tracks of specific singers, you see.

However, you have raised an interesting issue for me, for which I am grateful. Of course I understand the difference between natural sibilance, recording sibilance, and sibilance due to distortion from volume control or equipment. I believe it was the very point that perkri was making in his reference to Nina Simone’s voice and the recorded voicing of it. It is these very nuances that help me understand how to listen better, and to know if what i am hearing is imagined or real, and detailed or distorted. But the more important issue of interest to me was your mention of timbre. I believe that everything that we are in dispute over regarding sound differences and the abilities of the ageing human ear to pick up nuance, has to do with our abilities to distinguish timbre. While it is considerably more obvious when played back sound is artificially sibilant, it is a lot more subtle if the sound being heard has more ‘air’ around it, more lifelike, and more right there. The lightness and ‘weight’ in the flux of the tiniest vibrations and variations in timbre is what determines the subtlest differences and improvements we hear; pure tonal frequencies, brand of speaker, cost of power cable, and indeed, almost surely even type of speaker, be damned. All that minute information can come by way of wholesale or part change of equipment, and by extension, the smallest changes of tweaks, in room and all else that connects the signal path. And as the sensitive instrument the entire human body is, I do not believe it is only the eardrum that collects this infinite amount of timbral information. Are there some aspects of sound that cannot be measured definitely, but can be experienced? I am not able to say one way or another. But I do know my ears, body, and mind are still good enough to learn how to understand listening better ; )

In friendship - kevin