What is Your Test for Comparing Two Audio Components?

[bonzo75]

But I think it takes more time to notice something that is missing.

If one does not have the right type of recordings which between them should cover things to look out for, and/or they don’t have the experience what to look out for.

In house it takes more time due to set up. Bringing in something and setting it up correctly takes a lot of time, usually months, not listening to what it is doing when set up properly. Unless you listen to only a few audiophile records, then maybe 6 months later you will realise damn this thing sounds sh@t on an original Decca orchestra.

Set up should not be confused with listening

 

[exupgh12]

Hearing differences between loudspeakers is not nearly as challenging as deciding on less obvious changes. Initial impressions with subtle yet important changes require time, as others have been saying. I have very little faith in short-term A-B testing. I've changed my mind many times after living with a change for a week or two. The results are worthwhile, carefully implemented small differences along the way add up to big gains.

Have you ever positioned a speaker thinking you found the perfect spot, only to discover a better (or worse) location a week later? It's the same with new equipment - something I love initially might grow on me even more, or sometimes less, after living with it longer. Of course, this is just my experience - everyone's different, and ultimately I'm the one who has to be happy with the final result.

 

[exupgh12]

I'm not suggesting blind A/B tests, but a thoughtful approach is to use consistent music samples and make as objective an assessment as possible. I certainly don't advocate acting on impulse. Personally I just want to eliminate as much bias, emotion and external influence as possible.

I own one watch. Bought it about 4 or 5 years ago. It's by a watchmaker I met a long time ago. I made the decision to buy the watch quickly, in about half an hour - 7 years before I actually bought it.

I don't let money get in the way either. That seems a big factor in decisions. I sometimes get the feeling some people buy things because they think they are getting a good deal rather than for what the product may bring them in terms of enjoyment. Some people's houses (often wardrobes) are full of stuff they bought because it was a good deal, but they have never used.

If I have a budget of, say, $10,000 (and my budgets are well below what I can afford), I won't consider anything over $10,000. So I never have the thought if it is too expensive or poor value. If I were then to buy something for $5,000, then it's a bonus, but price has not affected my decision. As for buying on credit, I've refused to sell things to people who said they were borrowing money to do so. I don't know how people can think it's worth getting in to debt for the sake of 0.1% better sound quality. Maybe I'm biased, I'm not Mr Moneybags, but I have no debt at all.

As someone who has collected watches and ridden motorcycles, I've learned that audio systems are fundamentally different from these other hobbies. A watch, car, house, or boat functions as a complete unit on its own - it doesn't need to work seamlessly with other components to perform well.

In the past, I used to choose audio equipment quickly, making decisions in just minutes based on whether I liked something or not. However, over time I've come to understand that even good or excellent equipment doesn't stand alone in an audio system - each piece is just one part of the larger 'machine.'

That's why I now prefer to take my time when making audio decisions, considering how each component will work together with the rest of my system.

 

[audiobomber]

There's an interesting article on listening tests at Alpha Audio:

https://www.alpha-audio.net/background/on-listening-tests-double-blind-or-not/

 

[Tangram]

I’m in the “woo woo” camp on this one. Which piece keeps me listening well into the night when I should be getting some shut-eye? Like others, I have my favourite test tracks, which are usually well-recorded but more importantly, very familiar to me. Since mood tends to play a role in my musical enjoyment, I’ll take a month or so (in theory past the honeymoon period) to decide but if I consistently find myself saying “wow, this sounds really good”, I know I have a winner. I agree with Ron - it’s harder to nail down what’s missing - a relatively high degree of familiarity with a piece of gear’s sound is required for me to determine this. The final test is when I’m thinking of an upcoming listening session and I find myself more focused on music selection than gear sound dissection.

 

[A-Line]

It's always give & take on a small scale in the fine tuning process. Have to find your "happy point". Just my casual observations..

I auditioned around 40 different preamps from 2007-2011 before finding "the one"...

I never once thought that it would be that difficult to find a preamp to match my McIntosh MC2102 tube amplifier.

I was attempting to add digital as a format to a dedicated digital playback setup. My first CD player was a McIntosh MCD201, sold it in 2010 then on to my 2nd CD player MCD500. Both of those CD players had a independent volume control which allowed for CD player connection straight to my Stax headphone tube energizer then to my amp.

I wanted to add a tuner, that's where my dilemma came in, finding a preamp that would take my CD player to the next level in sound (that can mean whatever you want it to mean) but also have a connection for a stereo tuner.

I've since upgraded to my final CD player: McIntosh MCD12000.

Just a few more details to a already unusual story..

 

[Kingrex]

How do you account for breakin. People proudly anounce their QSA fuse takes 500 hours to sound any good. A duplex receptacle can take 200 hours. My amps took about 6 months. I had an MSB DAC for a week and it was all over.

 

[PYP]

How do you account for breakin. People proudly anounce their QSA fuse takes 500 hours to sound any good. A duplex receptacle can take 200 hours. My amps took about 6 months. I had an MSB DAC for a week and it was all over.

That is a dilemma. And an interesting one. I've had demo equipment that, to my ears, had not been fully broken in. That would seem to be confirmed by the fact that sound improved once the initial warm up period passed (at least a day for digital, I would argue).

There are folks who think that digital equipment continues to improve over the period of a year (I'm one of them). So, how do we fairly compare digital gear? I sometimes wonder if the manufacturer has heard their own creation fully broken in. After all, they are trying to get it to market. If it already sounds great to them, time to launch.

I also wonder about universal voltage converters. Do they really sound the same at 120V and 230V, for example?

 

[DetroitVinylRob]

Try to insure the gear is broken in physically and electrically and set up properly.

I try to listen at length, beyond any preconceived notions, and prejudice. Technical attributes, design philosophy, material characteristics, engineered execution, who cares ??? (these are great conversations after the fact). This is not an intellectual argument, this is about romance. It takes time, often days of listening sessions, or weeks.

I listen for “realism”, again, as others have said, “whatever that means”. If the musical performance can take me away in to a flow state, put me in the performance, and nothing in particular breaks my suspension of disbelief, we are good. Does it sound like I am in the natural listening space of the performance, however it is captured? That’s first level stuff, it’s context.

Secondly, I looked to focus on the timbre and tonal color of things. Is it satisfying like a great meal?! Do instruments attack and diminish naturally, etc? Are the tiny details of the musical performance there, is the performance complex enough to be stimulating and magical? This is content.

Does it move me viscerally? It has to make me want to play more and more. Does it feel missed/is something lost when the component is taken out of the system?

 

[Ron Resnick]

I listen for “realism”,

If the musical performance can take me away in to a flow state, put me in the performance, and nothing in particular breaks my suspension of disbelief, we are good. Does it sound like I am in the natural listening space of the performance, however it is captured? . . .

Secondly, I looked to focus on the timbre and tonal color of things. . . . Do instruments attack and diminish naturally, etc? Are the tiny details of the musical performance there, is the performance complex enough to be stimulating and magical?

Does it move me viscerally? It has to make me want to play more and more. Does it feel missed/is something lost when the component is taken out of the system?

Hi Rob,

"Realism" suggests to me a comparison between the sound coming out of the stereo and live music or some kind of real performance.

Your explanation of realism detailed in the second box strikes me as focusing more on audiophile-type attributes than on comparisons to a real performance.

Can this be reconciled by suggesting that the descriptions in the second box are the sonic cues which contribute, for you, to "realism"?

 

[Anton D]

Hi Rob,

"Realism" suggests to me a comparison between the sound coming out of the stereo and live music or some kind of real performance.

Your explanation of realism detailed in the second box strikes me as focusing more on audiophile-type attributes than on comparisons to a real performance.

Can this be reconciled by suggesting that the descriptions in the second box are the sonic cues which contribute, for you, to "realism"?

I call it "plausibility" in order to avoid this very argument.

That leaves me with more time to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[DetroitVinylRob]

Hi Rob,

"Realism" suggests to me a comparison between the sound coming out of the stereo and live music or some kind of real performance.

Your explanation of realism detailed in the second box strikes me as focusing more on audiophile-type attributes than on comparisons to a real performance.

Can this be reconciled by suggesting that the descriptions in the second box are the sonic cues which contribute, for you, to "realism"?

I agree, basically, and in retrospect would like to have the vocabulary to stay away from common Audiophile verbiage. But many of these details Ron are recognizable in a live performance. We just don’t focus on them because they are inherently there. Hopefully, we focus on the performance itself and how it makes us feel. But in a case where we are trying to virtually image, recreate an illusion of a real thing, I think all these aspects have utility and allow us to be able to kind of describe to some feeble degree what we’re desperately trying to capture and perhaps not capturing in our illusion. Perhaps this is more about my inability to find the words…

 

[Ron Resnick]

I agree, basically, and in retrospect would like to have the vocabulary to stay away from common Audiophile verbiage. But many of these details Ron are recognizable in a live performance. We just don’t focus on them because they are inherently there. Hopefully, we focus on the performance itself and how it makes us feel. But in a case where we are trying to virtually image, recreate an illusion of a real thing, I think all these aspects have utility and allow us to be able to kind of describe to some feeble degree what we’re desperately trying to capture and perhaps not capturing in our illusion. Perhaps this is more about my inability to find the words…

Thank you.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Rob,

"Realism" suggests to me a comparison between the sound coming out of the stereo and live music or some kind of real performance.

Your explanation of realism detailed in the second box strikes me as focusing more on audiophile-type attributes than on comparisons to a real performance.

Can this be reconciled by suggesting that the descriptions in the second box are the sonic cues which contribute, for you, to "realism"?

Ron, if one were to remove “the suspension of disbelief” from the text of that second box, I don’t see Rob‘s description as typical audiophile-type attributes. They strike me more as how a normal person describes what he hears from live music. But it’s not just what one hears which is my problem with “sonic cues”. It’s also about emotions and everything else one experiences when listening to live music

I don’t see a need for reconciliation. To me, simply saying something sounds realistic, reminds me of the experience of listening to live music, is enough.

 

[microstrip]

(...) To me, simply saying something sounds realistic, reminds me of the experience of listening to live music, is enough.

Peter,
How would you explain us that you find DDK system sounds more realistic than yours?

 

[Tuckers]

There are so many lateral moves. Its been a long time since I thought that something different must be better

I listen to a mix of recordings of different genres that matter to me. Most of these I've known intimately for 20-40 years. I also love and listen to a large library of nature recordings (same history with them). I believe our ears/brains are very well suited to distinguishing differences of natural environments, and revealing distortions or increased fidelity. And there is less bias/taste/emotional decisions involved with them than with music. Increase in real resolution is easy to hear with nature recordings, with new background sounds revealed.

My system is also integrated into my living space, and I am use it to play music, video, podcasts, Youtube, streaming. I average 8+ hours a day with my system playing when I'm not traveling. This makes me incredibly sensitive to minute changes.

For comparative listening, ensuring gear is burned in is essential before real comparisons go is so important. And this time can vary greatly. Trying to figure out if something is completely burned in can be a great challenge.

I do quick swap tests if possible, one track back and forth. Then longer swaps, 30 minutes or so. Then day swaps. But the thing that I find the most instructive is leaving a component in for a month or so, then removing it. That usually sorts out what is going on better than all of the above. But its not always possible to be granted that amount of time.

 

[PeterA]

Peter,
How would you explain us that you find DDK system sounds more realistic than yours?

I would simply say that on some large scale music that the experience is more convincing. I think everyone understands that there are degrees of realism or natural sound. The difference is best understood by hearing both systems play the same recordings. And I would suggest that it is because his room is bigger.

 

[tima]

I think everyone understands that there are degrees of realism or natural sound. The difference is best understood by hearing both systems play the same recordings.

Yes, agreed, I would explain it by listening to both. Just as we immediately recognize the sound of live music, we recognize the realtive degrees of natural sound in two systems. In this case words are not the differentiator, sound is.

 

[tima]

... basically, and in retrospect would like to have the vocabulary to stay away from common Audiophile verbiage. ... Hopefully, we focus on the performance itself and how it makes us feel.

I've been working on this for years and find it is harder to do than most realize especially without creating a new vocabulary.

I've tried a few different approaches. I try to avoid talking about my feelings and instead talk about what I hear rather than how I feel about it. Avoid the hackneyed phrases common to many reviews and forum posts, such as 'suspension of disbelief' which is talking about yourself.

Don't try explaining what you hear in terms of technical descriptions of the gear, rather explain the gear by what you hear in the music you listen to. As you say, focus on the performance. Avoid generalisation. Clear sonic descriptions are important to the reader as they help him understand the character of what you are describing. Talk about the sound of musical instruments. Talk about music in terms you feel comfortable using.

 

[microstrip]

I would simply say that on some large scale music that the experience is more convincing. I think everyone understands that there are degrees of realism or natural sound. The difference is best understood by hearing both systems play the same recordings. And I would suggest that it is because his room is bigger.

Ok, just on some large scale music and because the room is bigger.

So essentially you agree with Ron - all that matters is being "convincing". And unless we listen it is not possible to explain or debate.

I would say that a nice thing about "natural sound" is that the quality of the drink is not important, what matters most is the absolute content of alcohol.