• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Anatomy of a sound. Thoughts on "bloom"

Brett a

Brett a

~◦●○o0o○●◦~
I've come to the following understanding by listening. Maybe it's common knowledge already, but I thought I'd write it out for my own benefit if not yours:

Every sound is caused by an event; a wooden stick hits a drum head, a pick or a bow sets a string in motion, a reed vibrates and sends waves of pressurized air through a twisted metal pipe. Every sound results from such an event.

So let's take the instance of a stick hitting a drum: The event happens -the stick hits the drumhead- and in the wake of that event, vibrations ripple out exciting other parts of the drum; the rest of the head, the hardware, the laminated wooden body, the bottom drum head and snare (if there is one) and then this collection of vibrations (the sum of which we call timbre) move on through the air. (I'd also add that the stick resonates too, as can be heard on John Coltrane's Love Supreme as Elvin Jones is pressing into the ride cymbal.) This whole chain of events from cause, through development, and finally to the point of decay can be called "bloom". (You could actually say it starts with "attack", which changes to "bloom” then to "decay". And maybe the first two steps could be are what is called the "leading edge".-but I digress)

So, this whole chain of events is what is playing itself out every moment and in every aspect of all the music we listen to. I'm leaning that the better job a piece of stereo equipment does at "sticking around" to hear this process out, the more it is actually creating the instrument in space so the more lifelike and present the instruments will sound in the listening room.

Make sense?
Have you already covered this territory with your system? What did it take?
 
Register to hide this ad
I never thought about this in such detail, but it really is what I've been listening for as I improve my system. A sense of real-life 'space' around things, realistic sense of natural reverb, and accurate timbre. In my home, with my speakers, tubes created the most convincing portrayal of this. I don't know or particularly care why this is, and I also enjoy my SS electronics for other reasons, but things sound closer to lifelike in my system now than they ever have, and I think what you're writing about is what I'm noticing. There are such subtle differences now when I make changes that it becomes more a matter of taste or mood, though, as opposed to being better or worse.
 
Some of the writers in TAS call it "jump", or bloom.
I noticed it at first when I added a MF X-10D to my Marantz CD63SE into a Nakamichi TA-3A.
However, that device also introduced a "sameness" to music, which took me quite a while to detect. I sold that and an unused HK 430, upgraded to a NAD C-370, and added a JOB DA48 dac. Moved the Nak TA-3A to the bedroom. Now I get quite noticeable differences in recordings and easily hear the bloom and decay on good recordings.
Speakers ADS 710.
 
I've always thought of bloom as added harmonics, such as from tubes. It's interesting how various terms of "audiospeak" mean different things to different people.
 
Take it from me there are different degrees of what you talk about.....inner detail to metaphysical.....the path can be frustrating and expensive....but not neccessarily so.
 
Interesting thread, and an important thing for us to consider, I think. I'll just add that although "bloom" is highly desirable in a sense, and something you hear more of with better equipment, too much of it is actually undesirable. Correct me if I'm using the wrong terminology here, but I believe too much bloom is sometimes described as sounding too polite, soft, or even a bit bloated. It boils down to that ever-elusive balance we're all seeking in our systems.
 
This is why we need a terminology definition thread.

We can all use these cool sounding terms, but if and when, there not interpreted the same way. Whats next?
 
"Attack - SUSTAIN - Decay" is the terminology I first became familiar with.
At any rate, the sustain, or bloom if you prefer, and decay are largely dictated by the acoustics in the recording studio and your very own playback space. Far more detail can be had by careful selection of speakers & room treatment & spatial arrangement than by tweaking an audiophile system, IMHO...
 
"Attack - SUSTAIN - Decay" is the terminology I first became familiar with.
At any rate, the sustain, or bloom if you prefer, and decay are largely dictated by the acoustics in the recording studio and your very own playback space. Far more detail can be had by careful selection of speakers & room treatment & spatial arrangement than by tweaking an audiophile system, IMHO...
 
Cool, the first time I read the post, I tuned in with my left ear, the second time with my right.

I get the full picture now.




General e-guy... I hope you can laugh at my apparent attempt at a joke.
 
Can you get me a bag of that. No really..I think of how things really sound to me and that is what I try to duplicate with my system. With as little adding and subtracting as I can get.
 
Once you start listening intently to this "bloom", you really start to notice when compression is in play- the bloom will have un-natural build & decay times in relation to the initial attack, and if other attacks happen during the decay of the first one, the decay of the first one becomes non-linear...

This refers to both a recording that's been compressed before playing, and to a non-compressed recording that's playing through a system that is compressing the signal due to a mismatch of signal levels (source/pre or pre/power), a lack of power (amp), or a lack of power handling (speakers).

je, bloomin' idiot
 
jimfet said:
Can you get me a bag of that. No really..I think of how things really sound to me and that is what I try to duplicate with my system. With as little adding and subtracting as I can get.
Click to expand...
If you're thinking that I "bloom" might be an added quality, I think you're missing the point. All sounds have this anatomy, not just reproduced sounds. For instance, the sound made each time your finger taps a key as you type.
 
jhoyt said:
I've always thought of bloom as added harmonics, such as from tubes. It's interesting how various terms of "audiospeak" mean different things to different people.
Click to expand...

We can call it whatever we want. I'm not attached to the word. I just used "bloom" because that's what it sounds like to me.

I see it as this analogy: the cause of the sound is the seed, the resultant process of developing sound waves is the bloom, which then, like all things, decays and ceases to exist.

If there is another term already understood and agreed on for this process, let's use that one.
 
Mr. Lin said:
Interesting thread, and an important thing for us to consider, I think. I'll just add that although "bloom" is highly desirable in a sense, and something you hear more of with better equipment, too much of it is actually undesirable. Correct me if I'm using the wrong terminology here, but I believe too much bloom is sometimes described as sounding too polite, soft, or even a bit bloated. It boils down to that ever-elusive balance we're all seeking in our systems.
Click to expand...
This is so true. I'm in the process of trying to get more of this quality in my analog rig without going into bloat or confusion. I'm looking for just the right balance of air, detail, image placement, pacing and bloom without one quality undoing another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom