dCS Varese short review

[microstrip]

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

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

Ok, hypothetically. I would happy for such technological achievement, but I think I would not be happy to listen to such sound captures. We need something to compensate for the absence of visual stimulus and physical presence.

Just remember that in top recordings the conductor, the producer and the sound engineer work in team to create the recording, that becomes much more than the sound of a simple performance. Recording a live performance is much more than placing a few microphones.

 

[microstrip]

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.

All humans know what is live sound. Our brain sorts daily live sound from stereo sound - the physical differences are immense.

What is exactly meant by using "live unamplified music as a standard"? At best we pick a few aspects of the sound of live unamplified music and use them as particular challenges to our systems and, surely, strength our preference.

Stereo is a process of compromises and manipulation - we will never be able to get it all.

 

[Elliot G.]

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.

the simplest example is men and their wives ( ok not all but many , or thier girlfriend or there mother)
My mom would say things to me which I heard all the time but I wasn't listening.
Its a skill
Being able to hear sounds and then being able to distinguish them as well as understand them is listening
Hearing a loud noise easy , knowing what it represents , not always.

 

[Elliot G.]

All humans know what is live sound. Our brain sorts daily live sound from stereo sound - the physical differences are immense.

What is exactly meant by using "live unamplified music as a standard"? At best we pick a few aspects of the sound of live unamplified music and use them as particular challenges to our systems and, surely, strength our preference.

Stereo is a process of compromises and manipulation - we will never be able to get it all.

I've heard lots of live unamplified sound in my life. I used to sponsor a concert series at a Temple here in Boca. It was in our auditorium and held maybe 600. My friend and ex partner was connected in the Florida classical music scene and book the performers. Mostly soloist, a lot of piano , but others as well. Guitar , Flute and others. I sat front row center since I was a sponsor for three years.
You learn a lot . People can go hear live sound and hopefully learn or they don't. Going to a basketball court to listen to a rock show maybe fun but that never will be reproduced like that in your home.
I don't think that you can produce a 108 piece orchestra in a 12 by 16 foot room either but maybe you can get a taste of what the instruments sound like.

 

[PeterA]

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?

I heard a difference between the stock cable cord on my turntables motor supply, and an aftermarket power cord over YouTube videos. The stock power cord sounded better, much to my surprise into the surprise of the turntable designer. What I heard on the videos confirmed what I heard live in the room.

Of course one will hear the differences between those three rooms if he is actually in each of the three rooms. I would argue that he could also hear the differences if recording was made of each room over YouTube. But the latter opinion is highly controversial on WBF.

 

[PeterA]

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.

Mike, do you think people would agree on the reference source component against which the others can be judged? I wonder two or three peoplefor instance would all agree on the same reference turntable.

 

[PeterA]

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

Very interesting question. I’m not sure I want to hear a reproduction of Ozzy Osbourne singing with Black Sabbath in my living room. I love the early recordings. On the other hand, I would be very happy to hear a solo cello or piano in my living room. I have to wonder about volume levels and distances otherwise it might be overwhelming and not so enjoyable.

I would have to think about this. For me the answer is not so easy nor do I think it would be universal.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, do you think people would agree on the reference source component against which the others can be judged? I wonder two or three peoplefor instance would all agree on the same reference turntable.

Peter,

My guess is that either a good vinyl front end or quality tape deck would be fine. How good does it need to be? Hard to say and have everyone agree. But not the main issue.

The big issue would be agreeing on great pressings or master dubs and high quality tape transfers. Or better yet both to allow for a wider degree of reference info.

To me the hardware would be less significant than the media. But a colored phono stage or cartridge could be an issue. Multiple choices of both could be helpful.

I do this same compare in my system with all three formats often. It’s the basis of establishing my references

 

[PeterA]

Peter,

My guess is that either a good vinyl front end or quality tape deck would be fine.

The big issue would be agreeing on great pressings or master dubs and high quality tape transfers. Or better yet both to allow for a wider degree of reference info.

To me the hardware would be less significant than the media. But a colored phono stage or cartridge could be an issue. Multiple choices of both could be helpful.

I do this same compare in my system with all three formats often. It’s the basis of establishing my references

I misunderstood you. I did not realize you mean recordings. I thought it was source components used as references.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I misunderstood you. I did not realize you mean recordings. I thought it was source components used as references.

Well, in some ways it’s the source components, but really it’s the analog media which is does the heavy lifting. They are the references.

Whereas with digital mostly the hardware does the heavy lifting. The media is almost beside the point.

Judging analog relative to digital needs the better level media. Mediocre analog media just obscures the result. Especially if you are talking these super uber Dacs.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

@PeterA

For instance, whereas you and I might see a noticable difference between your AS-2000 and your SME-30 as a reference turntable, the actual pressing might make a much larger difference when comparing it to the digital source. And maybe even change the result.

 

[JiminGa]

All humans know what is live sound. Our brain sorts daily live sound from stereo sound - the physical differences are immense.

What is exactly meant by using "live unamplified music as a standard"? At best we pick a few aspects of the sound of live unamplified music and use them as particular challenges to our systems and, surely, strength our preference.

Stereo is a process of compromises and manipulation - we will never be able to get it all.

Oh Micro. I’m sure you’ve been a part of discussions regarding live unamplified music. In case you are picking just to get to something more interesting I’ll answer your question. When a musician plays an acoustic instrument or a person in the audience hears it enough times they are able to catalog all of the aspects of that instrument under multiple conditions that identify that instrument. When they listen to a recording of that instrument they can determine the delta from their lifetimes direct experience of it. That variance is error. It’s a lot trickier with electronic instruments and amplification because of the millions of ways that sound can be altered. It’s not impossible. I’ve heard Jeff Beck live a bunch of times and I have a good idea what his affects pedals are doing. Not perfect but good. I’m not dogmatic on this because it is imperfect. It’s just the best way I know of. I do know exactly what a few of my albums made in studio should sound like because I watched them live being made but for 99% I have no idea. Does that cover it?

 

[microstrip]

Mike, do you think people would agree on the reference source component against which the others can be judged? I wonder two or three peoplefor instance would all agree on the same reference turntable.

For a long time my source reference was a well cared and set-up Studer A80 with standard electronics playing the TapeProject mastertapes.

Now with the dCS Varese I could consider giving up on it, keeping a more simple vinyl system for those recordings that will always sound better in vinyl and nostalgia. But fiddling with the Studer A80 is challenging and entertaining - much more complex and instrumental than vinyl. Besides, spinning tapes are surely hypnotic.

 

[microstrip]

Oh Micro. I’m sure you’ve been a part of discussions regarding live unamplified music. In case you are picking just to get to something more interesting I’ll answer your question. When a musician plays an acoustic instrument or a person in the audience hears it enough times they are able to catalog all of the aspects of that instrument under multiple conditions that identify that instrument. When they listen to a recording of that instrument they can determine the delta from their lifetimes direct experience of it. That variance is error. It’s a lot trickier with electronic instruments and amplification because of the millions of ways that sound can be altered. It’s not impossible. I’ve heard Jeff Beck live a bunch of times and I have a good idea what his affects pedals are doing. Not perfect but good. I’m not dogmatic on this because it is imperfect. It’s just the best way I know of. I do know exactly what a few of my albums made in studio should sound like because I watched them live being made but for 99% I have no idea. Does that cover it?

Very interesting. Now the tricky question - you are addressing Jeff sound in the recording room or in the control room after mastering?

 

[PeterA]

@PeterA

For instance, whereas you and I might see a noticable difference between your AS-2000 and your SME-30 as a reference turntable, the actual pressing might make a much larger difference when comparing it to the digital source. And maybe even change the result.

OK, I guess I don’t understand why one would compare to super DACs to a good recording on a good turntable. Why would the vinyl playback be the reference for judgment? Why don’t you just compare the two DACs using the same music and compare them against your memory of similar acoustic music heard live as a reference? I just don’t follow your methodology for making comparisons.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

OK, I guess I don’t understand why one would compare to super DACs to a good recording on a good turntable. Why would the vinyl playback be the reference for judgment? Why don’t you just compare the two DACs using the same music and compare them against your memory of similar acoustic music heard live as a reference? I just don’t follow your methodology for making comparisons.

Well, the reference for a digital playback of an analog recording, is……drum roll please….that recording played back optimally in analog.

Either the best pressing, or the best source tape.

How could there exist a better reference to judge the digital transfer?

we can prefer digital that sounds more different, but the one most closely resembling the analog wins for me. Especially the one with the most degree of analog realism and immersion..

 

[Ron Resnick]

I wonder two or three peoplefor instance would all agree on the same reference turntable.

Why would this be a problem? Partisan brand nonsense aside there are many great turntables.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hello Mike and Peter,

Aren't you both just talking past each other? Peter would use live acoustic music as the reference. You would use analog playback as the reference.

There is no right or wrong here. Just a difference of opinion about goals..

 

[JiminGa]

Very interesting. Now the tricky question - you are addressing Jeff sound in the recording room or in the control room after mastering?

Not tricky. What comes after mastering is the intent of the track. That is what you are comparing your playback to.

 

[PeterA]

Well, the reference for a digital playback of an analog recording, is……drum roll please….that recording played back optimally in analog.

Either the best pressing, or the best source tape.

How could there exist a better reference to judge the digital transfer?

we can prefer digital that sounds more different, but the one most closely resembling the analog wins for me. Especially the one with the most degree of analog realism and immersion..

I get all that, but it was not clear from earlier posts what you were attempting to do or describe. Since this is a thread about a top DAC, I still don’t understand why one would compare two top DACs to anything but his memory of live music. Comparing how well some engineer did a digital transfer from an analog recording seems to me to be a different topic and not what was being discussed earlier or at least it wasn’t clear to me that that was the discussion.