Sometimes the vocabulary we use strikes me as chunkier than the product of the fine grained adjustments it attempts to describe.
Very true. Trying to express these experiences in words is quite challenging.
From the above, I interpret 'a)' (integration of fundamental and harmonics) as the absence or lessening of what I call tonal 'smearing'. To me this is as much a temporal issue as it is anything, but I'd love for anyone to elaborate further. Several hundred messages ago in this thread we mentioned the piccolo solo in the third movement of Tchaikovski's 4th - many notes in a short span of time. When the leading edges bump into the trailing edges, such that notes are less tonally individuated, I call this 'smearing'. A smeared single note is slightly 'de-focused' tonally, it is less 'compact' as if its harmonics slather outside proper temporal boundaries. Correlating back to reality, better 'tonal focus' means homing in on the setup sweet spot. Is this at all close to what you're talking about??
EXACTLY RIGHT! Paul actually uses the word "smearing". I use the phrase "temporal integration". We're talking about the same thing and so are you. The attack of resin on string, the vibration of the string, the reverb in the body: all must occur with timing that's realistic relative to each other. Otherwise it doesn't sound like a violin.
Wrt to 'b)', I think I grasp listening for amplitude, but help me out with listening for 'quickest rise/fall time'. More words (heh) or an example? Without knowing better, I'd think this was ultimately the same thing as 'a)' put differently, but that could just mean I'm confused.
Well, it is the same thing in different words, and since you hear (a) as I do perhaps that's what you should listen for. I mentioned (b) largely to help those who hear more like Paul than me.
This is Paul's thing more than mine, but one example is that, while visiting Cello, he was able to adjust arm height by the feel of the air coming from the woofers, without LISTENING at all. When each pulse had maximum intensity and fastest slope, on both ends, he knew VTA/SRA was right.
I "think" the easiest way to explain this is SRA theory. The playback stylus can only trace a waveform accurately if its SRA matches that of the cutting stylus. If SRA is way off, the stylus would "slide" onto and off of a modulation more gradually than it should. This would lengthen and smooth both leading and trailing edge transients, artificially raise the noise floor and thus reduce peak amplitudes relative to that floor. I'm not claiming that's what actually happens, SRA theory is controversial, but that's what it sounds like.
So, is this all too neurotic? Only if we let it be. It's really become just second nature. I don't fret about whether VTA/SRA is right, I adjust only if and when I notice that it's not. Of course, becoming more sensitized does mean you notice more often. ;-)
I'll jump up from the dinner table to adjust arm height on a record we haven't played before, just because my ears have learned which way to go and about how far. It's mostly a matter of practice, but the practicing isn't unpleasant and it doesn't stop my toes from tapping. We only do it because it's easier to enjoy the music with good timing than be annoyed by inaccurate timing and smearing.
And our infamous yellow stickies are a HUGE help. Trying to find the right spot from scratch on every play of every LP WOULD be insane. Raul or Dan will tell you I have arm height dialed in on familiar LP's before the platter gets up to speed. Record keeping makes the whole thing a virtual no-brainer on a daily basis.
