Timing and Music

[theaudiohobby]

I just installed my upgraded speakers into my system this afternoon and whilst listening to the music, it hit me that whilst I love its refinement, transparency, soundstaging and well defined bass, the thing I like most about the system is its excellent timing. Does anybody else feel strongly about timing? cheers.

[risabet]

I just installed my upgraded speakers into my system this afternoon and whilst listening to the music, it hit me that whilst I love its refinement, transparency, soundstaging and well defined bass, the thing I like most about the system is its excellent timing. Does anybody else feel strongly about timing? cheers.

Timing is a very important element in music. When I purchased my TT the deciding factor was timing, not bass extension or soundstaging, though these were good. The intricacies of live music depend on the timing of the notes, imagine listening to a symphony orchestra were each section was 1/4 note behind or in front of the others.

[musicoverall]

I just installed my upgraded speakers into my system this afternoon and whilst listening to the music, it hit me that whilst I love its refinement, transparency, soundstaging and well defined bass, the thing I like most about the system is its excellent timing. Does anybody else feel strongly about timing? cheers.

What do you mean by "timing"? I can certainly see where a turntable might run too slow and make the music sound sluggish but beyond that, I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you please elaborate?

[kexodusc]

Dear god, timing? In terms of beat, measure, syncopation, 7/4, 3/4, etc? The crappiest Sony boom-box speakers I've were every bit as good at timing as the VR-1's I've heard. This is one issue I truly don't believe exists when comparing speakers to another.
Am I reading you right here?

[woodman]

I just installed my upgraded speakers into my system this afternoon and whilst listening to the music, it hit me that whilst I love its refinement, transparency, soundstaging and well defined bass, the thing I like most about the system is its excellent timing. Does anybody else feel strongly about timing? cheers.

I have no idea whether I feel strongly about "timing" or not. This is due primarily to the fact that I haven't the foggiest notion of just whatinthehell you're talking about. Please give a thorough and detailed explanation of just what you mean by "timing". Then, hopefully I'll know whether I feel strongly about it or not. OK?

[theaudiohobby]

Systems with excellent impulse and transient (http://www2.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Transient_Response.html) response.

[musicoverall]

Systems with excellent impulse and transient (http://www2.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Transient_Response.html) response.

What do you mean by impulse?

[theaudiohobby]

What do you mean by impulse?

The response of the transient wrt to time.

[kexodusc]

Lol...I don't even think all audiophiles are on the same page when using the word "transient"...could you explain that for us simple minded folk as well?

[risabet]

Lol...I don't even think all audiophiles are on the same page when using the word "transient"...could you explain that for us simple minded folk as well?

Imagine looking at a sound wave on an oscilloscope, a transient wave form has a steep leading edge followed by a relatively rapid decay. An orchestral triangle is a good example of an instrument with a transient signature.

[musicoverall]

Imagine looking at a sound wave on an oscilloscope, a transient wave form has a steep leading edge followed by a relatively rapid decay. An orchestral triangle is a good example of an instrument with a transient signature.

And you're asking if our systems recreate this transient wave's leading edge and decay with the proper timing and duration? If that's the case, my answer to the original question is yes, I do think timing is important and yes, some systems or components muck it up.

[risabet]

And you're asking if our systems recreate this transient wave's leading edge and decay with the proper timing and duration? If that's the case, my answer to the original question is yes, I do think timing is important and yes, some systems or components muck it up.

Exactly, I find that digital gets the leading edge right but screws up the decay, cutting if off all too quickly.

[musicoverall]

Exactly, I find that digital gets the leading edge right but screws up the decay, cutting if off all too quickly.

Precisely. It just dies on digital and it's unnatural! I think the specs of CD playback are what make me mistrust measurements so much, at least as an end-all, be-all of the resultant sound. I don't find CD sound to be "bad" - just not as realistic as analog. And since realism is what I strive for in creating a system....

WOW! "...make me mistrust measurements so much..." Alliteration is often musical in itself! :)

[woodman]

It never ceases to amaze me to watch a thread shift gears and head off in a new direction so easily - so effortlessly. This thread started out talking about "timing" which we now learn is referring to transient response. That's some kind of a leap all by itself, since the word "timing" refers less to what (sort of) event occurs, and more to when an event occurs. But suddenly the subject has shifted into a condemnation of digital audio as being the technology that took us down a dead-end street where music no longer sounds "real". This POV is so far off the mark that I find it almost incomprehensible that it's been adopted by the number of people that have embraced it as some sort of sonic "truth".

If digital audio was indeed a step backward in the evolution of sound reproduction when it comes to sonic accuracy and realism (in other words ... High Fidelity), it would never have been accepted and adopted by nearly everyone in the professional audio industry - whose ranks are heavily populated with some of the most obsessive "nitpickers" when it comes to sound that I've ever come across. These pros are often upset and dissatisfied with the smallest sonic details that most of us would never even notice, let alone be stressed over.

The idea that digital audio is unable to reproduce a musical transient properly without "mucking it up" is so patently absurd and flat-out wrong, that I can hardly keep from rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter with tears rolling down my cheeks. Sheeeeeeesh!

[musicoverall]

It never ceases to amaze me to watch a thread shift gears and head off in a new direction so easily - so effortlessly. This thread started out talking about "timing" which we now learn is referring to transient response. That's some kind of a leap all by itself, since the word "timing" refers less to what (sort of) event occurs, and more to when an event occurs. But suddenly the subject has shifted into a condemnation of digital audio as being the technology that took us down a dead-end street where music no longer sounds "real". This POV is so far off the mark that I find it almost incomprehensible that it's been adopted by the number of people that have embraced it as some sort of sonic "truth".

If digital audio was indeed a step backward in the evolution of sound reproduction when it comes to sonic accuracy and realism (in other words ... High Fidelity), it would never have been accepted and adopted by nearly everyone in the professional audio industry - whose ranks are heavily populated with some of the most obsessive "nitpickers" when it comes to sound that I've ever come across. These pros are often upset and dissatisfied with the smallest sonic details that most of us would never even notice, let alone be stressed over.

The idea that digital audio is unable to reproduce a musical transient properly without "mucking it up" is so patently absurd and flat-out wrong, that I can hardly keep from rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter with tears rolling down my cheeks. Sheeeeeeesh!

Well, you have to admit, you threw some fuel on the fire of shifting this thread!

I can't say if digital audio is "unable" to reproduce a musical transient. It is to me what cable sonics are to you - never heard of it happening. My tears are tears of frustration! :) I hasten to add that I'm only speaking of redbook digital - high rez digital seems to be able to do transient decay with no problem. And if you talk to those pros you mentioned, most of them will tell you that the studio uses digital because it's simpler and quicker (along with a host of other benefits, all utilitarian in nature), NOT because it sounds better. They ARE upset but they don't get to choose - the producer or studio head does. But those RE's, too, throw out those rules when it comes to SACD, however.

It's a preference, pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing less. Redbook CD sounds patently wrong to my ears... nothing at all like music sounds in nature. Analog sounds right to me.

To shift gears back to the original point, I'm still not all that sure that timing is the proper word because I agree it's not a "when" - it's a "what" when we refer to transient decay, although if a decay is supposed to last 2 seconds and it gets cut off abruptly at one, it's somewhat of a "when". I may balk at the word timing but I agree that systems and components (and CD's!) can have problems with the phenomenon.

[theaudiohobby]

And a superior when has done wonders to my musical enjoyment :D. The amplifier+speaker's impulse response is so good that it makes symphonic music amazing. I recall a revered amplifier that to me had sub-optimal timing, I was auditioning it with a Quad 988 and the amplifier could be best described as lazy though some refer to this as cosy, it is not unique to either SS or Tubes, as I have heard amplifiers from both camps that show this weakness.

[theaudiohobby]

I may balk at the word timing but I agree that systems and components (and CD's!) can have problems with the phenomenon.

It is about timing, because a transient that is too slow (detectable to the ear) also looks very different on the scope. the rise and decay looks very different. It effects of dynamics perception is very obvious, as piece of equipment with better timing will give an impression of better dynamics because of better decay and rise times. An oversampling DAC can improve the impulse response of CD playback, Filterless DACs can also do it but as always at a price.

[musicoverall]

It is about timing, because a transient that is too slow (detectable to the ear) also looks very different on the scope. the rise and decay looks very different. It effects of dynamics perception is very obvious, as piece of equipment with better timing will give an impression of better dynamics because of better decay and rise times. An oversampling DAC can improve the impulse response of CD playback, Filterless DACs can also do it but as always at a price.

Aren't most DAC's oversampling?? I realize there are the Audio Note DAC's which interestingly I've found to sound better than the run of the mill DAC but aren't most if not all the other manufactured DAC's oversampling?

[theaudiohobby]

Please throw away my statement about oversampling..I do not want go down another cul-de-sac :D.

[Feanor]

I just installed my upgraded speakers into my system this afternoon and whilst listening to the music, it hit me that whilst I love its refinement, transparency, soundstaging and well defined bass, the thing I like most about the system is its excellent timing. Does anybody else feel strongly about timing? cheers.
Would you explain? Is it part of "PRaT", (Pace, Rhythm, and Timing)? I really don't know what these mean as it pertains to sound reproduction. They see to be terms relating to the playing of music, not its reproduction.

Use of the above terminology seemed at one time to be mainly in the British press, but I do think it's starting to creep into North American usage. A good thing or a bad thing?

[woodman]

Would you explain? Is it part of "PRaT", (Pace, Rhythm, and Timing)? I really don't know what these mean as it pertains to sound reproduction. They see to be terms relating to the playing of music, not its reproduction.

Use of the above terminology seemed at one time to be mainly in the British press, but I do think it's starting to creep into North American usage. A good thing or a bad thing?

Well, you were obviously asking this question of theaudiohobby and not me, but I simply couldn't resist jumping in with an answer, which is:

... you are quite correct sir. Pace, Rhythm, and Timing are terms that relate to the playing of music. To use them to describe music reproduction is inappropriate, IMO. I can't see anything good in the practice of using inappropriate words and phrases when describing audio performance qualities. I think it just opens up the gap between actually listening to music as opposed to listening to audio equipment.

[theaudiohobby]

Would you explain? Is it part of "PRaT", (Pace, Rhythm, and Timing)? I really don't know what these mean as it pertains to sound reproduction. They see to be terms relating to the playing of music, not its reproduction..


Pace, Rhythm, and Timing are terms that relate to the playing of music. To use them to describe music reproduction is inappropriate, IMO. I can't see anything good in the practice of using inappropriate words and phrases when describing audio performance qualities.

I do not consider timing to be an inappropriate term, colloquial maybe. It refers to the time domain performance of component e.g the impulse response, which is an important measurable and audible attribute in music reproduction, a point that is not lost on audio engineers especially in digital audio and tranducer production.

[Feanor]

I do not consider timing to be an inappropriate term, colloquial maybe. It refers to the time domain performance of component e.g the impulse response, which is an important measurable and audible attribute in music reproduction, a point that is not lost on audio engineers especially in digital audio and tranducer production.
Why don't we just say "impulse response" (or "transient response") rather than the dubious, or at least confusing, "timing"?

Of course, the case for "Pace" and "Rhythm" (as in "PRaT") is even less compelling.

[theaudiohobby]

Timing is a well-established word in British audiophilia ;), but I take your point.

[woodman]

Timing is a well-established word in British audiophilia ;), but I take your point.

So what exactly do the British know anyway? They drink warm beer fer crissakes! The fact they choose to use the word "timing" in reference to any aspect of sound reproduction only goes to show how little they actually know about audio and the reproduction thereof.

There simply is NO such thing as "timing" in audio - when referring to transient response or to impulse response (those two terms are synonymous by the way) - or to anything else. And those who posted in this thread that "digital audio gets the leading edge (of a transient) correct, but mucks up the decay" simply haven't a clue as to whatinthehell they're talking about. The only aspect of a transient that can be reproduced differently by one component vs. another is the leading edge ... otherwise known as the "rise-time". Some amplifiers and some loudspeakers will be "quicker" than others. But there's simply no way on God's green earth that any amplifier or loudspeaker or that the digital audio technology itself can "muck-up" the decay of a transient ... NO FERSHLUGGINER WAY! Period.

So, as I posted earlier in this thread ... using the term "timing" when referring to some aspect of sound reproduction is INAPPROPRIATE. Period.

P.S. It warms my heart that you're enjoying the sound of your system with your new "upgraded" speakers. That (and only that) is what this hobby is supposed to be all about. Forget about "timing" ... it doesn't apply.

[theaudiohobby]

Blimey.. :mad: :( I blew an amplifier that cost me a pretty penny last night, opened it up and closed it up again, this one has to go back to the manufacturer for repair, I hope the bill in not high..since it was my carelessness..nay..frustration that killed amp. :( :( :( , my experiment with some new tweeters (of another) went wrong.

[theaudiohobby]

:( Yikes I also blew the subwoofer :( ,

Back to the discussion though...if the rise time is wrong, the decay will be wrong...and I do not like "sluggish" components. And transient response and impulse response are not synonymous terms in digital audio, though that seems to be synonymous terms transducer world. :confused:.

[woodman]

Dear Mr.hobby:
My oh my what troubles you've inflicted upon yourself. The question that puzzles me is ... WHY? Didn't you start this thread stating just how thrilled you were with the sound of your system with your newly upgraded speakers? Then why oh why were you "experimenting" with some other tweeters? Forgive me for sounding crass and uncaring, but you got your "just desserts" with this episode IMO. Won't you ever learn?

And speaking of learning ... where did you learn these ridiculous bits of techno-babble that you included in this last post anyway? From the British audiophile press/media? When you state that " ... if the rise time is wrong, the decay will be wrong" that is just plain, unadulterated nonsense. The two things have nothing to do with affecting each other ... nothing. To add further insult to this bit of foolishness, there is nothing about "rise time" that can be called "wrong" in the first place. So, naturally if the "rise time" cannot be "wrong", then neither can the decay be wrong either. The only thing that can differ in this aspect of audio is that the "rise time" of a transient as it's handled by different components, can be slightly quicker with one amp vs. another - or by one speaker vs. another. Further, when I say slightly quicker - we're talking about milliseconds here. If you're trying to tell me (and the rest of the world) that you can tell the difference between a system with a "rise time" for a transient of 2 milliseconds vs. a system that takes all of 5 milliseconds to accomplish the same ... then, I'm gonna have to tell you that I don't believe you for a second (or even 3 milliseconds). You'd have to "prove" that (in a blind test of course).

Regarding your statement that " ... transient response and impulse respone are not synonymous terms", you are technically correct, although they are so similar that they could be used interchangeably ... at least as they relate to "rise time". Transient response generally is used when referring to signals (both audio and video), while impulse response is a term generally associated with A-C power anomalies.

Finally, your comment that you " ... don't like sluggish components" is just too silly to even comment on.

[theaudiohobby]

I love you guys,

Sure I got my just deserts on the gear front, a blown subwoofer, a blown amplifier and a ridiculously expensive but at present useless omnidirectional tweeter..sob.. :( I will fix all the gear and mod my SACDP before I learn ;) , the curiousty factor is just to much..though the tweeter is currently a failed expensive experiment. Saying that the newly upgraded speakers are sounding great and cost me less than the presently unusable tweeters :eek:

Back to the discussion, I love you guys because you are challenging my accepted thinking both technically and experientially, :) :) thanks. When you discuss the rise and decay of a transient, I am surprised that you say the it cannot be wrong, surely the impulse response closest to the original signal rise time and decay time is the most accurate. I accept that the difference is in milliseconds and this is one for a DBT :D .Saying that the impulse response in digital audio is more tightly defined as the time domain response of a filter wrt an incoming signal. I will like to DBT a suitably 'slow' system against a 'fast' one and see if I can ID them blind.

Of course, based on your comments about the transient response, I can see why you would call my comments on sluggish components foolish ;) , it simply follows from your train of your response. ;). I will stick with impulse and transient response instead of timing from now on.

[E-Stat]

... the thing I like most about the system is its excellent timing. Does anybody else feel strongly about timing? cheers.
Well, after following this thread and discovering you refer to transient response, I wholeheartedly agree. That is why I've been using electrostats for over twenty five years. I find their unmatched speed allows for more realistic reproduction of acoustical instruments. Pieces of music like The Firebird can downright startle you.

Enjoy.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

That is why I've been using electrostats for over twenty five years. I find their unmatched speed allows for more realistic reproduction of acoustical instruments. Pieces of music like The Firebird can downright startle you.

Enjoy.

rw

yah :D , I love panel speakers and startle is probably the right word.