dCS Varese short review

[Rexp]

It’s a great analogy. Each of us hears differently and no one can tell anyone else “what the point is” You and I could go listen to the same system and come away with very different opinions. It would not be because one of us is inexperienced or uneducated on the subject of music reproduction. It is because we don’t hear the same or share identical objectives. Processing music is a complicated endeavor within the brain. Each might claim that theirs reflects the original performance. We can’t both be right. When each of us heard “the original performance” how did we process it? Also remember there is no universal consensus here about what the standard actually is. Live unamplified? The real truth is that each of us is just stating our personal preferences. This is a good thing. I follow my own experience not conformity to someone else’s opinion. I have spent a lot of time in studios hearing the music you listen to being made and like many here spent decades listening to live unamplified music. Anyone who changes their opinion based upon a reviewer saying xyz is the best lacks their own compass. I don’t give a rip what Robert or Mikey or Jonathan think? Who the F are they to tell me “what’s best”. What they can do is tell me what they hear using concise accurate wording to help me understand something about a product I haven’t heard for myself

Imagine 3 rooms, one with a piano playing, one with recording of said piano playing on a good system, one with same recording playing on a Bluetooth speaker. Do you think there would be a concensus as to which system sounded more like the live piano?

 

[treitz3]

Imagine 3 rooms, one with a piano playing, one with recording of said piano playing on a good system, one with same recording playing on a Bluetooth speaker. Do you think there would be a concensus as to which system sounded more like the live piano?

On the internet? No way.

Tom

 

[Elliot G.]

It’s a great analogy. Each of us hears differently and no one can tell anyone else “what the point is” You and I could go listen to the same system and come away with very different opinions. It would not be because one of us is inexperienced or uneducated on the subject of music reproduction. It is because we don’t hear the same or share identical objectives. Processing music is a complicated endeavor within the brain. Each might claim that theirs reflects the original performance. We can’t both be right. When each of us heard “the original performance” how did we process it? Also remember there is no universal consensus here about what the standard actually is. Live unamplified? The real truth is that each of us is just stating our personal preferences. This is a good thing. I follow my own experience not conformity to someone else’s opinion. I have spent a lot of time in studios hearing the music you listen to being made and like many here spent decades listening to live unamplified music. Anyone who changes their opinion based upon a reviewer saying xyz is the best lacks their own compass. I don’t give a rip what Robert or Mikey or Jonathan think? Who the F are they to tell me “what’s best”. What they can do is tell me what they hear using concise accurate wording to help me understand something about a product I haven’t heard for myself

Hi Jim,
although I totally agree with people can select whatever they want and like I don't agree with we all hear differently.
There is a big difference between hearing and listening. Listening is hearing PLUS concentration or focus.
There is al earning curve with all our senses and I suspect this can change with various factors, like experience, age, health to name a few possible reasons.
When I started in audio I was fortunate that I did have some mentors to teach me listening skills. I personally do not believe that everyone has the same skills for sure but this is real life. Not everyone can drive a golf ball 300 yards, or high jump 7 feet, or any other skill that requires some innate ability PLUS practice. If you want to be a better listener you need to practice and perhaps get some help.
It is one reason that systems vary so much, setting up a system without good listening skills, is not possible. Just because someone reads or book or watches someone else do it does not make a math problem that is easily solved.
I also don't really care what others think UNLESS I have listened with them and we can communicate.
The distortion and minimalization of the language to the point that most audio phrases don't really communicate a clear message is not helping this.
I do believe that most people can tell when they hear something live and if they have no experience they should try to get some as it certainly does help. Its impossible to be a wine taster if you never drink. I think there is much to much ego and protectionism of opinion rather than the real discussion to get improved outcomes and more enjoyment.

 

[JiminGa]

Imagine 3 rooms, one with a piano playing, one with recording of said piano playing on a good system, one with same recording playing on a Bluetooth speaker. Do you think there would be a concensus as to which system sounded more like the live piano?

The system that is actually a live piano without any recording. Our brains sort this out. I personally believe in using live unamplified music as a standard but MANY do not.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

We can't fight it - most people want a winner. It is like in sports. But I support your point of avoiding reference to a winner.

maybe the closest we can get is to have a reference reproduction source in the same system at the same time, and that we might reasonably agree on 'closest to' that performance. and in what ways. we might each value that compare differently, but at least it's something tangible.

format compares do highlight differences. otherwise we get hung up on personal preferences and semantics.

 

[andromedaaudio]

The system that is actually a live piano without any recording. Our brains sort this out. I personally believe in using live unamplified music as a standard but MANY do not.

If you use the audio press as a standard as many do on this forum , i d say :

The audio press is either deaf for the most part .... ( or subsidized ) lol

 

[JiminGa]

Hi Jim,
although I totally agree with people can select whatever they want and like I don't agree with we all hear differently.
There is a big difference between hearing and listening. Listening is hearing PLUS concentration or focus.
There is al earning curve with all our senses and I suspect this can change with various factors, like experience, age, health to name a few possible reasons.
When I started in audio I was fortunate that I did have some mentors to teach me listening skills. I personally do not believe that everyone has the same skills for sure but this is real life. Not everyone can drive a golf ball 300 yards, or high jump 7 feet, or any other skill that requires some innate ability PLUS practice. If you want to be a better listener you need to practice and perhaps get some help.
It is one reason that systems vary so much, setting up a system without good listening skills, is not possible. Just because someone reads or book or watches someone else do it does not make a math problem that is easily solved.
I also don't really care what others think UNLESS I have listened with them and we can communicate.
The distortion and minimalization of the language to the point that most audio phrases don't really communicate a clear message is not helping this.
I do believe that most people can tell when they hear something live and if they have no experience they should try to get some as it certainly does help. Its impossible to be a wine taster if you never drink. I think there is much to much ego and protectionism of opinion rather than the real discussion to get improved outcomes and more enjoyment.

Generally I agree Elliot. Think about this: PET scans of professional jazz musicians, classical musicians and non musician listeners all light up different parts of their brains listening to the SAME music. All hearing which begins at the ears ends in the brain where it is interrupted as a piano, obo or whatever. They are not hearing the same thing! Novices, critical listeners and musicians also gravitate towards different preferred Harmon curves. These two objective data points inform us that no matter how “skilled” you are you will hear differently and gravitate towards reproduction that is the result of both long term brain development AND learning. No opinion is perfectly transferable. I’m not arguing against learning critical listening skills. I’m all for it. It allows you to have a conversation with someone where you really understand (and can trust) what they telling you. All this aside I think the main reasons systems “vary so much” is actually that different consumers have different objectives. I’m still amazed how many seasoned audiophiles love systems I think suck. Who’s right and whose wrong. Should I tell them they shouldn’t be happy.

 

[Elliot G.]

Generally I agree Elliot. Think about this: PET scans of professional jazz musicians, classical musicians and non musician listeners all light up different parts of their brains listening to the SAME music. All hearing which begins at the ears ends in the brain where it is interrupted as a piano, obo or whatever. They are not hearing the same thing! Novices, critical listeners and musicians also gravitate towards different preferred Harmon curves. These two objective data points inform us that no matter how “skilled” you are you will hear differently and gravitate towards reproduction that is the result of both long term brain development AND learning. No opinion is perfectly transferable. I’m not arguing against learning critical listening skills. I’m all for it. It allows you to have a conversation with someone where you really understand (and can trust) what they telling you. All this aside I think the main reasons systems “vary so much” is actually that different consumers have different objectives. I’m still amazed how many seasoned audiophiles love systems I think suck. Who’s right and whose wrong. Should I tell them they shouldn’t be happy.

well on your last observation I totally agree and have said this before that in order to achieve a result you need to have a goal and hopefully a plan to achieve the goal. Buying and comparing things that are different isn't a good plan as far as I am concerned. Where do you want to go and what do you want to achieve.

 

[Elliot G.]

these two objective data points inform us that no matter how “skilled” you are you will hear differently and gravitate towards reproduction that is the result of both long term brain development AND learning. No opinion is perfectly transferable. I’m not arguing against learning critical listening skills. I’m all for it. It

Jim isn't this the difference between hearing and listening?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

All this aside I think the main reasons systems “vary so much” is actually that different consumers have different objectives. I’m still amazed how many seasoned audiophiles love systems I think suck. Who’s right and whose wrong. Should I tell them they shouldn’t be happy.

i think why systems vary so much is also to do with evolution of tastes and music horizons. as listeners we are not static. we follow where our preferences lead us. we are not born to audiophilia fully grown up. it's a process.

if someone only likes small combo jazz and has a narrow viewpoint on system goals, or primarily girl with guitar, that could be restrictive to others. and so on.

my experience is that over time serious audiophiles are hungry to learn about system development and new music and improve their systems. if we visit a system which needs work in some form or fashion then hopefully we can influence progress. i sure am thankful for constructive feedback i got over the decades that became part of my journey and system performance equation. as much music as gear/set-up. they go hand in hand.

 

[Gregm]

Not a good analogy, the point of music reproduction is to reproduce the original performance.

Maybe "Provide a simulation of the original performance" is more apt:
- the point of the recording is to capture the original performance
- the point of reproduction equipment is to reproduce what is one the source medium

Prior to a little bout of throat cancer I used to love and collect cult Burgundies. Everyone wanted to know (and made purchases based upon) Robert Parker’s rating of them. I didn’t give a rip because while I greatly respected his tasting skills in my opinion he had no actual “taste”. He was a good enough writer that I could get a good idea about whether I would like something based upon his verbiage as I learned to connect his words to certain taste characteristics. Same with audio reviewers.

Indeed! Likewise with dependable and consistent performance reviewers (classical music).

 

[Gregm]

I personally believe in using live unamplified music as a standard but MANY do not.

Interesting - I would have expected otherwise.
Acoustic instruments are an easy (generally available, low variability in sound - a piano sounds nothing like a violin, etc) reference..
I would have expected that people gauge their systems' bass FR and resolution using various recordings... but for the rest, recordings of acoustic instruments would do the trick.

 

[JiminGa]

The system that is actually a live piano without any recording. Our brains sort this out. I personally believe in using live unamplified music as a standard but MANY do not.

Jim isn't this the difference between hearing and listening?

A PET scan is the end result of both. While hearing they are also doing their best to listen. I do think this aspect can be trained but then we have to agree on the objective standard which usually results in further argument. I’m a live un amplified guy but much(most) music being made now has no live unamplified equivalent. It’s created in studio and modified there. Unless you were present you have no idea what it was supposed to sound like.

 

[Elliot G.]

I’m a live un amplified guy

me too

 

[microstrip]

Not a good analogy, the point of music reproduction is to reproduce the original performance.

Sorry, it is not. The point is recreating enjoyable experiences with enough content of the original to enable us to recreate an illusionary performances. Most of the time sound engineers manipulate the original performance to make it more enjoyable.

 

[Rexp]

Sorry, it is not. The point is recreating enjoyable experiences with enough content of the original to enable us to recreate an illusionary performances. Most of the time sound engineers manipulate the original performance to make it more enjoyable.

I would be happy if a sound system/recording reproduced the original performance, would you?

 

[microstrip]

I have to add, if someone can afford the top tier Wadax, dCS or MSB they can easily afford to travel to various dealers and hear them. Granted not in the same system but in this $$$$ hobby doing a side by side is near impossible as a local dealer typically carries 1 flagship product if your lucky.

I have listened to a few of my reference recordings in the top DACs, although not the current MSB, several times in different systems. With time there was a pattern in sound attributes that oriented my choices.

But fifteen minutes with the Varese in our distributor shop, just taken out of the boxes. were enough for me to see it was something different, even with unknown recordings After listening to my favorites in Qobuz the decision was taken. Previously we had been listening to the Apex Vivaldi.

Its nice to read a review that reinforces your purchase decision but its not enough for a pre-purchase.

Surely, if they are written by people we consider. We are humans.

 

[microstrip]

I would be happy if a sound system/recording reproduced the original performance, would you?

Stereo can't do it. And, in general, systems that are closer to the original physical performance are not preferred by audiophiles.

 

[Rexp]

Stereo can't do it. And, in general, systems that are closer to the original physical performance are not preferred by audiophiles.

It was a simple question, if I add hypothetically, can you answer?

 

[microstrip]

Jim isn't this the difference between hearing and listening?

it is an usual semantic problem in audiophile debates. Scholars usually consider that hearing is associated to the physical processes up to nerve transmission and listening also involves the brain processing. Some people with perfect hearing have poor listening (perception) . They easily pass classic audiology tests but are bad listeners and have to listen to TV, for example, at loud levels.