Or simple ignorance about what is possible due to narrow experience. And I suspect some who like music don't know yet how to turn that into a reality with a stereo.
What is Your Test for Comparing Two Audio Components?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Or simple ignorance about what is possible due to narrow experience. And I suspect some who like music don't know yet how to turn that into a reality with a stereo.
I like this word in the context of audio… “authentic.” Can’t say I’ve seen it used too often but highly descriptive.
I believe that we are seeking a sound that is NOT realistic. It is something else.
I have recently attended a number of live performances (all at Disney Concert Hall) and the thing I have noticed is that I want something more than I hear there. At the live performance, if you are being honest, there is so much noise...noise that you'd reject a system over. Now, there is also a lower mid and bass presence that I have experienced. My point is that I believe we are seeking amore pure and enveloping sound that that of a live performance. Before blasting me, yes, I have sat in rows 3-25 in the performances and always near dead center.
I have recently attended a number of live performances (all at Disney Concert Hall) and the thing I have noticed is that I want something more than I hear there. At the live performance, if you are being honest, there is so much noise...noise that you'd reject a system over. Now, there is also a lower mid and bass presence that I have experienced. My point is that I believe we are seeking amore pure and enveloping sound that that of a live performance. Before blasting me, yes, I have sat in rows 3-25 in the performances and always near dead center.
The problem is when we talk about subjective experience we should find a proper method with absolute reference point (taste free) to convince others. You and Peter think “Absolute realism”, “natural sound”, “like live music”, … are the key but the truth is all of these terms are just subjective terms and every subjective opinion depends on viewer and is not independent so This debate never end and you can not convince microstrip because all of those words are subjective terms.
The only proper method with no relation to different tastes is “comparison by contrast”.
If dCS Verase shows more contrast than GPA Monaco turntable then microstrip is correct and if GPA Monaco shows more contrast than dCS Verase then you are correct.
Comparision by contrast method is the proper way of judging components but it is just necessary condition so it is not enough, in step two our reaction to music listening is the enough condition for proper judgment.
If component A pass two steps then it is better than B
If component A pass two steps then it is better than B
Last edited:
Overally I prefer analog/tube/horns but there are good digital/solidstate/cone that are better than analog/tube/horns. If we have proper method we can find the truth.
Prejudice Is not good …
Prejudice Is not good …
Amir, Why should we try to convince others? I am not trying to convince Microsoft or anyone else. I am simply describing my method and taking part in this discussion. I’m not telling anyone that my method is the best method or the only method.
Right now, I am listening to three cartridges in my system. As I do so, I am comparing and contrasting the sound of each one against my reference of live music and trying to determine which one reminds me more of the experience of listening to live music. I do not really care if others use the same method or a different method. It is the method that seems to work for me and I share it to be a part of the discussion.
Dear Peter, I agree with you there is no need to convince others but the key is subjective judgments are relative and there is no end for this debates.
I just show a solution/method that works for all and it is independent.
Sureley - I use particular aspects of my real experience to tune my system - it helps defining my own preference. But we must separate what we can use personally for ourselves from communicating public opinions and reviews.
We can say I find it more realistic, but we must clearly specify what aspects of sound quality I am addressing in such statement.
IMO comparing to realism in reviews is like horoscopes - they are written in a way that everyone finds something true in them and enjoys reading them!
Amir, what does one listen for when using the "comparison by contrast method"? How does he make a judgement? Or is it something other than listening?
i don't frequent the Seattle Symphony, maybe once every three to four years. and i don't venture into Seattle for the clubs or do stadium concerts. it's a sketchy place. and my wife and i are home bodies. and i avoid really loud music.
OTOH for years i have gone into my small town, North Bend, 4 miles down the hill, and hear live music. they have a few venues that serve dinner and live music. it's a lively town for the arts and outdoor activities.
and then i can be listening in my room to my system 5 minutes later. so i do listen to live music but that is just a part of my own mental reference perspective. i have some jazz pressings and tapes that are fun to fire up right after i hear live jazz. much in common with the power of live music.
yesterday my local friend Joel Durand (builder of my tone arms and Director of the School of Music at the University of Washington), visited with some family visiting from France. we played a recording of one of his compositions (Tropes de' Bussy), and i was in attendance at the Seattle Symphony concert where the recording was made. we all agreed that we could hear quite a bit more detail and definition in the recording in my room, than sitting in the audience. and better bass. Joel mentioned it came down to mic placement. obviously he knows the music and the recording. that's a reference.
not saying there are not live concert occasions where we hear much more detail and definition than any recording. but every live music experience is unique and separate. the recording played in my room is the same every time.
not that live music does not have things that reproduced cannot capture. they are different.
Last edited:
To a degree, your right. Live music is played in a room. Usually. That room reacts to the sound, just like our listening rooms so there are reflections and modes. They can ruin the sound. And there is noise from prople and such. So the concept that our room may be better built with less noise is very real.
The part that is inaccurate, or missing is that at the concert hall, the instruments that make the sound are true. By the time it gets yo your ears it may be distorted, but it starts true. What comes from the stereo is not true, but it may have less distortions added by the room before it gets to your ear.
So the idea of listening for natural, or real or whatever word you want to use to describe live unamplified has merit. The sound at a live show, as distorted by the room and guests is, fundamentally is based on the actual instruments.
You are summarizing an interesting aspect - as far as I understand, for Peter "natural sound people “absolute realism”, “natural sound”, “like live music” have exactly the same meaning - that we associate with his preferred stereo sound.
Not exactly, properly used and addressed subjective terms are very persuasive.
Can we forget the word only and focus on "proper method" ? Comparison by contrast is a method that would need too many controls to be reliable and of use. Nice for coffee talk, but not for an useful tool. And defining what is contrast in this particular context would also led to a never ending thread.
Why not simply "contrasting" the GPA Monaco with Peter AS2000 first?
Given that many of the core necessities of quality sound production are generally (not always) handled by most of the top gear on the market today what I tend to focus on is overall transparency, soundstage size and how the system draws me into the musical performance. Obviously if any of the basics aren’t correct then I move on. Some components like some of the DACS I auditioned last year took quite a lot of back and forth listening to determine which I liked the best overall. My musical taste is diverse therefore I have no single track or type of music to help me make the final decision and what I choose is what performs the best over all of the types of music I like. When I had 3 great dacs in house I picked 2 and went back and forth until I determined which I liked the best and then compared that one to the 3rd dac. I really didn’t like one of the dacs so I ruled it out pretty quickly. The other two dacs were a more difficult choice and while they each checked some different boxes I chose the one that ticked more of my boxes. I tend to get very emotionally connected to music that I love so that matters to me. If I don’t “feel” it then generally I keep looking.
George
George
The way I trained my ears was by working on live to two or four track recordings. At the beginning I just thought it was great fun to hang out with musicians and be part of the project. But in fact the reality was that it made me very sensitive to instrument timbre (why isn't this spelled "tamber"?
). The other dimension is width/depth of soundstage and where the musicians are placed within it.Now the third characteristic is dynamics. How do you capture those dynamics cleanly? It is largely good mics and mic placement. Now the hardest part for me has been getting the playback right with speakers. I struggled on dynamics while I had my various and beloved Magnepans but now have found nirvana with the Alexia Vs. But I would also suggest that getting the bass correct and lowering noise via grounding and power conditioning and things like tranquility pods were critical to that.
Another critical piece was a really good ADC and DAC as most of my recording work has been hired digital with a notable exception of running a tape decl on some ASO classical performances and Chesky's New York Reunion session. But the larger point is that many ADCs and DACs, and I might add almost all of the pro audio ones, don't get the instrument timbre quite right.
It's a very challenging process getting all these things to work at once. But I do believe HP was on to something by suggesting a benchmark like a live event is required.
Sure.
Last month I went o hear Max Richter at Disney Concert Hall. I was in the 12th row (I think it was 12th). After the concert when I got home I immediately spun up the same tracks I had heard. My rough comparisons:
1) There was greater mid- and upper mid-range richness at home.
2) The bass heft was much greater live but lacked some resolution.
3) The 'noise floor' was much higher live!
4) Soundstaging was better in my home! Most of the instruments are being heard both direct and through amp/speakers live.
5) Treble got etchy live
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |