What is Your Test for Comparing Two Audio Components?

[microstrip]

Are you saying that recordings individually are so unique and particular that that it’s impossible to make a judgement as to their realism? That making such a judgement is necessarily arbitrary? Could you elaborate?

Thanks.

Yes, a single judgement is forceful arbitrary for many reasons. First, sound engineers do not aim at absolute realism - just consider that the mastering engineer probably has not been present at the recording session. Stereo has extremely week standards for recording and playback - it aims mostly at listener enjoyment, surely miming a real experience.

But I was mainly addressing that "realism" in stereo is a weak single descriptor.

 

[Tiltedfault]

Yes, a single judgement is forceful arbitrary for many reasons. First, sound engineers do not aim at absolute realism - just consider that the mastering engineer probably has not been present at the recording session. Stereo has extremely week standards for recording and playback - it aims mostly at listener enjoyment, surely miming a real experience.

But I was mainly addressing that "realism" in stereo is a weak single descriptor.

I agree with you here. Realism is a weak single descriptor, perhaps the weakest in that is relies upon other descriptors such as transparency or coherency and several others which one might say contribute to the sense of realism. And regardless of sound engineers not aiming for absolute realism, they are still aiming for, shall we say, a realistic illusion. They will aim for violins to still sound like violins and pianos like pianos, hopefully separated from one another and conveying a sense of space.

I’m not arguing anything here other than I find it difficult if not impossible to avoid the word “realism” when discussing playback. I can understand why one might want to avoid it, but when I’m listening to good recordings or comparing components, I’ll think of descriptors such as coherence or transparency, but ultimately they are in the service of that elusive Socratic goal of realism.

I am most pleased when I hear a good recording which creates the illusion of performers playing before me or I am in the space where the players are performing. I am most pleased because the illusion sounds so real to me. And if realism didn’t exist, would it be necessary to invent it?

 

[PYP]

When you listen to this track across multiple systems, you get a different level of what Jim would call presence. When he feels present, the lower frequencies in his voice are very real. It’s one aspect of several that let you know the system is working well.

I've heard a very pleasurable representation of Johnny Cash's voice in a minivan. I don't know that it was accurate per se, but it communicated. To me, that highlighted the obvious -- our mood and attention are variable and all-important to how we listen. Then again, the music can change our mood and focus our attention. Sometimes I am very ready to listen and other times I need to listen to be ready. If that makes sense.

 

[tima]

Realism is a weak single descriptor, perhaps the weakest in that is relies upon other descriptors such as transparency or coherency and several others which one might say contribute to the sense of realism. ... I can understand why one might want to avoid it, but when I’m listening to good recordings or comparing components, I’ll think of descriptors such as coherence or transparency, but ultimately they are in the service of that elusive Socratic goal of realism.

I'm not sure ... are those two sentences kinda counter-posed statements ?

Alternatively, realism is the most potent single descriptor in that it is the aggregate of the positive characteristics that make it up. But realism does not need to be parsed.

We hear the analytics say "in order for a system or component to sound realistic it must provide X, Y and Z". I don't think we need to try decomposing the experience in order to either a) have it, or b) understand what it means when someone says "that sounds realistic".

Attending a live acoustic concert, realism doesn't enter our descriptive vocabulary. We don't say the orchestra needs better transparency or more defined bass to sound realistic. We know the way things are.

Likewise I am inclined to say realism is the simplest and most direct character one can ascribe to a reproduced performance, or not. Granted, as @PeterA says - and I agree -- when lstening to our stereos, there are degrees of realism. We can attempt to explain what leads us to ascribe realism to it or what is missing by using audiophile attributes as an analytic exercise, but we don't need those in order to have or not have an immediate recognition of it.

Not sure if that was word salad. There is listening and then there is 'audiophile listening'.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I'm not sure ... are those two sentences kinda counter-posed statements ?

Alternatively, realism is the most potent single descriptor in that it is the aggregate of the positive characteristics that make it up. But realism does not need to be parsed.

We hear the analytics say "in order for a system or component to sound realistic it must provide X, Y and Z". I don't think we need to try decomposing the experience in order to either a) have it, or b) understand what it means when someone says "that sounds realistic".

Attending a live acoustic concert, realism doesn't enter our descriptive vocabulary. We don't say the orchestra needs better transparency or more defined bass to sound realistic. We know the way things are.

Likewise I am inclined to say realism is the simplest and most direct character one can ascribe to a reproduced performance, or not. Granted, as @PeterA says - and I agree -- when lstening to our stereos, there are degrees of realism. We can attempt to explain what leads us to ascribe realism to it or what is missing by using audiophile attributes as an analytic exercise, but we don't need those in order to have or not have an immediate recognition of it.

Not sure if that was word salad. There is listening and then there is 'audiophile listening'.

100% yes, we can’t have real but we can have realism… and quite completely that comes in degrees.

Just as conversely we can have artificial and that artificiality also comes in degrees.

Where artificiality in recording or replay is less critical is when the music is highly synthetic and that is not any judgement on the value or qualities of synthetic instrument music which can be every bit as musically valuable as any acoustic instrument music. It’s just that realism becomes easier to discern when the instruments are acoustic and when the recording is more authentic to the original sound… the authenticity can also be both evaluated in the context of the performance and in the spirit of the music and the performance of the music can be even better evaluated when the composer and the performers are also well understood by the listener.

When both the recording and the system’s replay have a high degree of realism the more closely enmeshed then the quality of both the context and the spirit of the performance can then be. Realism can logically be the primary compass in a system if the music and the recording and the experiences of the listener allows for it.

 

[bonzo75]

I'm not sure ... are those two sentences kinda counter-posed statements ?

Alternatively, realism is the most potent single descriptor in that it is the aggregate of the positive characteristics that make it up. But realism does not need to be parsed.

We hear the analytics say "in order for a system or component to sound realistic it must provide X, Y and Z". I don't think we need to try decomposing the experience in order to either a) have it, or b) understand what it means when someone says "that sounds realistic".

Attending a live acoustic concert, realism doesn't enter our descriptive vocabulary. We don't say the orchestra needs better transparency or more defined bass to sound realistic. We know the way things are.

Likewise I am inclined to say realism is the simplest and most direct character one can ascribe to a reproduced performance, or not. Granted, as @PeterA says - and I agree -- when lstening to our stereos, there are degrees of realism. We can attempt to explain what leads us to ascribe realism to it or what is missing by using audiophile attributes as an analytic exercise, but we don't need those in order to have or not have an immediate recognition of it.

Not sure if that was word salad. There is listening and then there is 'audiophile listening'.

Often, with stereos, it is what breaks realism. Most of the systems have an issue because they are constantly reminding you hey I am not real just a toy, e.g. massive breaks in coherence, flatness in dynamic range, etc. One of the reasons why car stereos and swimming pool systems are more enjoyable than many high end systems is they have less stand outs reminding you you are listening to a massive effort to get things right. They just play

 

[tima]

100% yes, we can’t have real but we can have realism… and quite completely that comes in degrees.

Real vs Realism ... I like that.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Real vs Realism ... I like that.

You’ll often get posts stating that since our systems can’t equal real that in some way makes moot or obviates the value of aiming for realism. Realism is a challenge but not impossible and greater degrees of realism requires increasing refinement but I do also think the greater we reach into the extremes of frequency the likelihood is the greater complexity in the systems can also then begin to weigh against achieving greater cohesion which is for me one of the fundamental qualities of realism as is a failure in terms of a right tonal balance or in compressing of dynamics also a realism deal breaker for me. I very much believe the expectations that come from different experiences and also the sensitivities to different aspects in sound may shape our desire for realism. Not everyone need want realism I figure. I love it as the thing that holds out the distractions created by artificial aberrations in the sounds but also in facilitating a more immediate and efficient connection to the music and the performance.

 

[tima]

You’ll often get posts stating that since our systems can’t equal real that in some way makes moot or obviates the value of aiming for realism.

Yes, I have heard that view.

I also find that many audiophiles are smitten with what I call the 'audiophile virtues' -- those products of stereophonics that differentiate the listening room experience from the live experience promoted for decades. The real and the unreal. We have discussed (and argued about) this many times.

Characteristics such as dimensionality and the varieties of sound stage experience generally are very appealing. The noise floor / black blackground issue, whether it is elimination of electronic scrim or the ability of sounds to stand out from the artificial venue context of the listening room is another differentiator. The listening room efforts to squelch reflections versus the reflections in concert halls that come through on revealing systems may separate the realistic from the more realistic. Some listening rooms border on the anechoic. People like and do these things. We cannot avoid having two ears along with some built-in predilections, like Kantian Space and Time, that we cannot avoid.

I'd like to think it comes back to the goal of the audiophile - a consicious choice. But maybe it comes back to what we ate for lunch or childhood experience.

Coming back around ... the desire to have realism or natural sound from my stereo is indeed a position that is held and not everyone holds it. Many (most?) are obsessed with "does it sound right?" What "right" means may be as varied as each individual audiophile's experience. In the absence of fixed or proven rules the realist confesses "I don't know what sounds 'right', but I know what sounds real. Can I have an enjoyable listening experience if it is not realistic -- yes I can.

Thinking I am self directed I make the choice to put real on the pedastal and aim my shadows at it. Then there is the Mick Jagger school of audio listening: "I ain't no school boy but I know what I like."

 

[bonzo75]

You’ll often get posts stating that since our systems can’t equal real that in some way makes moot or obviates the value of aiming for realism.

These posts come from either complete intellectual dishonesty just to debate, or total lack of experience if they cannot relate to that context. Given how many times it has been covered, those people should know by now what aiming for realism means instead of saying we can't achieve real sound so it does not matter.

That's true, and there definitely are degrees between old Tannoy, devore, good horns electrostats etc. But some of the crap that is there is not about degrees of getting closer to realism but degrees of how bad can it get? I struggle to rank my top 10 worst speakers, or top 10 worst dacs, or top 10 worst systems.

 

[mtemur]

IMHO realism—or a lifelike character of sound—can be described as not just hearing the music but also feeling its vibrations throughout your body, and I don’t mean only in the bass frequencies.

 

[PeterA]

IMHO realism—or a lifelike character of sound—can be described as not just hearing the music but also feeling its vibrations throughout your body, and I don’t mean only in the bass frequencies.

I agree. This is all part of natural sound, a similar experience to that which one has when listing to live music. We know when a system sounds more realistic to us than does another system, or one component to another, simply by listening and reflecting, consciously or unconsciously, on our memories of listening to live music. For some, that is the real test, and it is sufficient. Others use different tests.

 

[PeterA]

You’ll often get posts stating that since our systems can’t equal real that in some way makes moot or obviates the value of aiming for realism. Realism is a challenge but not impossible and greater degrees of realism requires increasing refinement but I do also think the greater we reach into the extremes of frequency the likelihood is the greater complexity in the systems can also then begin to weigh against achieving greater cohesion which is for me one of the fundamental qualities of realism as is a failure in terms of a right tonal balance or in compressing of dynamics also a realism deal breaker for me. I very much believe the expectations that come from different experiences and also the sensitivities to different aspects in sound may shape our desire for realism. Not everyone need want realism I figure. I love it as the thing that holds out the distractions created by artificial aberrations in the sounds but also in facilitating a more immediate and efficient connection to the music and the performance.

Nice post as it summarizes an approach some follow. "Aiming for realism" can be the target. It is true that systems can't equal real but some get very close with some music on the best recordings. And that is the driving force for some in the hobby, perhaps many. It is hard to say because few discuss and name their goals.

 

[Doc76]

How would you describe your personal test for comparing two audio components?

1. Demo items - in my own room when possible - (at least 2 weeks …)
2. List Pros & Cons of each
3. Ultimately purchase what I believe sounds best despite what Mutt & Jeff Magazine, reviewers, or internet audio commandos say

 

[microstrip]

How would you describe your personal test for comparing two audio components?

1. Demo items - in my own room when possible - (at least 2 weeks …)
2. List Pros & Cons of each
3. Ultimately purchase what I believe sounds best despite what Mutt & Jeff Magazine, reviewers, or internet audio commandos say

How do you select what you bring in your room? IMO it is the critical point in this hobby.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Yes, I have heard that view.

I also find that many audiophiles are smitten with what I call the 'audiophile virtues' -- those products of stereophonics that differentiate the listening room experience from the live experience promoted for decades. The real and the unreal. We have discussed (and argued about) this many times.

Characteristics such as dimensionality and the varieties of sound stage experience generally are very appealing. The noise floor / black blackground issue, whether it is elimination of electronic scrim or the ability of sounds to stand out from the artificial venue context of the listening room is another differentiator. The listening room efforts to squelch reflections versus the reflections in concert halls that come through on revealing systems may separate the realistic from the more realistic. Some listening rooms border on the anechoic. People like and do these things. We cannot avoid having two ears along with some built-in predilections, like Kantian Space and Time, that we cannot avoid.

I'd like to think it comes back to the goal of the audiophile - a consicious choice. But maybe it comes back to what we ate for lunch or childhood experience.

Coming back around ... the desire to have realism or natural sound from my stereo is indeed a position that is held and not everyone holds it. Many (most?) are obsessed with "does it sound right?" What "right" means may be as varied as each individual audiophile's experience. In the absence of fixed or proven rules the realist confesses "I don't know what sounds 'right', but I know what sounds real. Can I have an enjoyable listening experience if it is not realistic -- yes I can.

Thinking I am self directed I make the choice to put real on the pedastal and aim my shadows at it. Then there is the Mick Jagger school of audio listening: "I ain't no school boy but I know what I like."

Improving an aspect of sound can become quite addictive. So you buy a specific type of tweak or a sound signature within a topology or brand then adding more of that tweak or upgrading up the line in that brand becomes an additive process in which you do get a buzz because your reward centres are fed by a repeating positive experience but what you’re getting is more and more of an aspect but that doesn’t necessarily lead to realism. It can just create greater sonic sensationalism within a specific aspect of the sound.

I also figure if we don’t set measure against acoustic benchmarks that give us a whole view of sound any specific more is not necessarily just going to be better but more can just be over focusing on any part or aspect of sound so even if that specific target within the sound is improving qualitatively but if it’s not creating greater realism because if it’s out of kilter with the other characteristic aspects of the sound then yes we’re getting more of a thrill with perhaps a more subterranean deep bass or more obvious pristine extended highs or a lusher mid range but if it’s not cohesive with the qualities in the rest of the signal then it’s also fighting against realism. The fragmented analyst checklist needs to ultimately be brought or tied together by a greater holistic evaluation like realism.

I very much agree that ever greater but out of balance sonic sensation doesn’t create realism and as impressive and fabulous sonically as it can be… and the returns of experiencing sonic brilliance can be a very rewarding thing in itself if that’s what you want to be fed by your audio journey… I guess it can easily create more immediately impressive sound depending on your goal but then not necessarily creating a wholly more realistic sound.

But once again if what you were listening to is synthetically based music then realism can become less relevant and we can fine tune manufacture the kind of sounds that we want. Sound as you like it is operating on internal benchmarks and is a heliocentric kind of listener creativity while using external benchmarks like acoustic music is a more reliable transcription template for authenticating the sound. For me that focuses the process on getting to the original intent of the performers rather than user shaping of sonic experience as the focus. Both these potentials our hobby facilitates in quite striking ways and both can be things you can spend a life pursuing.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Likewise I am inclined to say realism is the simplest and most direct character one can ascribe to a reproduced performance, or not. Granted, as @PeterA says - and I agree -- when lstening to our stereos, there are degrees of realism. We can attempt to explain what leads us to ascribe realism to it or what is missing by using audiophile attributes as an analytic exercise, but we don't need those in order to have or not have an immediate recognition of it.

Not sure if that was word salad. There is listening and then there is 'audiophile listening'.

I think we are now moving sideways in the debate - what was being mainly addressed is communication between people of sound quality and methodologies to improve or set up our systems.

Surely a small number of people with very similar preferences can easily communicate between them around a single attribute and write essays on realism around goosebumps and vibrations, but IMO it is extremely limited for the whole audiophile community.

Surely the whole debate would be avoided if people could compare components with the help of an head PET scanner ...

 

[PeterA]

When did the topic change?

 

[Doc76]

How do you select what you bring in your room? IMO it is the critical point in this hobby.

Normally I first hear a component in a friend’s room. I’m either visiting or I make appt to hear their new component in their system (systems I’m already familiar with). While there I also make a note of which cables they are using on the component, as this normally alters the sound as well. Sometimes I find something at a show that I like and get a demo. But with few exceptions shows are normally a bust for sound….

If I enjoy a component I have my dealer schedule a demo so I can try it for a few weeks. If it delivers life-like music - above the competition - it’s mine!

I demo an item with the music I enjoy (rock, jazz, vocals). I don’t care about music I don’t listen to. I’m not familiar with certain music, so using it to test a component is useless IMO.

I find the above normally works well for me, except on streamers which seem to do a lot of software updates which changes the sound…. and not always for the best in particular systems.

So, for streamers I now follow the above methodology but now (I had a very poor experience) I also ask around about how often the company chooses to do software updates. If they have a good number of them then IMO they aren’t ready for prime time yet and I’ll take a pass. …

 

[tima]

I think we are now moving sideways in the debate - what was being mainly addressed is communication between people of sound quality and methodologies to improve or set up our systems.

Probably sideways though I am not directed to a prescrbed outcome. I do think 'realism' can be a criteria for comparison.