What is Your Test for Comparing Two Audio Components?

[hopkins]

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.

One can aim for a “lively” system (one that breathes life into the music, as opposed to one that sounds dull) without aiming for “realism”.

A system can sound lively without achieving the scale and loudness of a real performance. You can be fully aware that the presentation is not “real” and enjoy it for what it is. It’s like watching a photography and being amazed by the contrasts and detail knowing that this is never how you see things with your own eyes.

Feeling the musician in the room is “presence” not “realism” and this can be achieved without spending lots of money on high end equiplment.

Also, you don’t need a system that reproduces everything from 20hz up to 20khz to sound lively and enjoyable.

 

[tima]

I don’t see any inherent issue with judgment being subjective.

Why would there be? I think this constant pointing out that this-and-that is subjective is a faux issue that consumes way too many posts. Some seem possessed by it.

Facts and opinions may enter into judgement but a judgement is an assessment made by a person or a group.

Sometimes a call to subjectivity is used to demean or dismiss other's statements. "That is only your personal subjective opinion ..." Adding the word "subjective" adds no content. It is redundant with "personal opinion." The phrase "subjective opinion" is likewise redundant usage. The phrase "objective opinion" is meaningless.

Objective truth is logically independent of any one's personal experience. Objective truths are universal, verifiable and applicable at all times. What counts as verification may change overtime if what is held as fact changes. The Coperican Revolution was indeed a revolution.

I think anyone on this forum understands the difference between objective and subjective and operates with that understanding. Constantly pointing it out is at best annoying.

/rant

 

[tima]

Realism in the strict sense is not attainable. I look for believability.

Do you distinquish between "realism" and "real" ?

 

[tima]

I believe that we are seeking a sound that is NOT realistic. It is something else.

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

An interesting perspective. Mike Lavigne also says he prefers his stereo reproduction to live -- maybe sometimes as he always tries to finesse it. <smilely>

cf. the post at this link:

What's Best? The Absolute Sound or today's High End Systems?

Back in the day of Harry Pearson and the evolution of the High End Audio, Pearson, in the pages of The Absolute Sound, defined the "absolute sound" as unamplified acoustic instruments and/or vocals performed in a real space, usually a concert hall. The evaluation of reproduction systems (HiFi...

www.whatsbestforum.com

A couple years back we had several lengthy discussions on this forum about this topic and the question of what is the basis of one's preference.

At one point, like the Pope dividing the world between Portugal and Spain, I divided the audiophile world into the Naturalists and the Synthesists. Naturalists adopt the live concert hall or venue experience as their reference in choosing a system, or at least memory of past live events or mental amalgamation of multiple past live events. Whereas Synthesists tend toward using their own set of personal preferences (what sounds best to them, regardless of live) as their reference or guide; and, such a perspective may be more likely to shift or evolve over time.

People didn't like the word 'Synthesist' because it derived from made them think of 'synthetic', which given their perspective is highly ironic. I think of it not as synthetic or artificial but as combinatorial where they cook their own ingrediants.

So apart from a comparison to a live acoustic performance, do you have a concept or methodology you can consistently apply to obtain what you are seeking from your stereo? Or a reference other than your thoughts and feelings that you can gauge your progress against? Or are you your own reference?

 

[bonzo75]

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

So treble in concert hall is etchy compared to reference Wilson/Rockport sound at home? And midband less rich?

 

[Gregm]

People didn't like the word 'Synthesist' because it derived from 'synthetic', which given their perspective is highly ironic.

A small point -- but synthesist derives from synthesis, a greek word meaning ‘a putting together’ or ‘the combining of parts into a whole.’
It does not derive from synthetic.

Accordingly, synthesist carries the precise sense of one engaged in composition, or putting together elements (i.e. a system) — exactly the meaning you had in mind


"Synthetic" (which also derives from synthesis) can refer to (bio)chemical combinations—i.e., artificial—but not exclusively so. In any case, the reproduction of sound in our homes is itself an artificial recreation of a musical event. And really, what’s wrong with that?

 

[Amir]

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?

Dear Peter,

This method is simple and you can use this method for all changes, for example you can use this method when you change your speaker position (from A to B) and decide which location (A or B) is better.

The concept is very simple, let me introduce an example:
Imagine you have two turntable (Microseiki 8000 and EMT927) and you decide to compare these two turntables. When you listen to Microseiki 8000 you should listen to 10 tracks from 10 different albums and no need to care about the sound but care about how different are these 10 tracks. You can also change a cable in your system and check how different are those two cables. It means you should check how much contrast your brain receive for every changes in your playback. Change the turntable and repeat the test and listen to 10 tracks or listen to two different cables and check how much contrast your brain receives, if Microseiki 8000 shows more contrast between 10 tracks (or more contrast between two cables) than EMT927 then it means Microseiki 8000 is more transparent than EMT927.

You can use this method in printers or TV quality. Imagine you print A4 photos with both printer A and Printer B, if you like A photos more than B it does not mean A is better than B but if printer B shows more contrast between colors it means Printer B is more transparent and more accurate.

In audio most audiophiles prefer A if they like it more than B but it is not trusted method. We should check which audio component shows more contrast and is more sensitive to any changes in upstream.

I should say “comparison by contrast” method is not all the story and it is just the first step of judgment. In step two we should listen to music and ask ourselves is Microseiki 8000 more emotional than EMT927?

It means in step two we forget the sound and just check our reaction to music .

I had a friend who loved big 3way gryphon trident speaker ($80k) and I told him my $10k two way living voice IBX-RW is better than his big 3way gryphon. He disagreed and we used comparison by contrast method for comparing two speakers. It was funny that small cheap living voice showed more contrast between records and also between two different source.

I told him most modern systems show less contrast but most audiophiles prefer modern systems because they do not use proper methods.

 

[Amir]

No. Both ends of the comparison by contrast still are subjective. The conclusion is subjective.

This comparison by contrast concept does not allow one to escape the immutable subjectivity of this hobby.

No, the result of test is free from listeners even if you invite 1000 audiophiles.

 

[Amir]

It’s an interesting critique. I’m curious about Amir’s response. I don’t see any inherent issue with judgment being subjective. It’s a hobby and we do it it for our own enjoyment.

We all remember amplifiers with vanishing distortion. Many people did not enjoy the way they sound. Something seemed missing. And we see a vibrant DIY community plus continued interest in vintage audio. There are lots of ways to enjoy this fascinating hobby.

Peter, yes the comparison by contrast method is subjective but without any variation in the judgment result. It means if you invite more than 1000 audiophiles to your home and all of them use this method for comparing A vs B then all of them will say A has more contrast than B.

The result of more contrast method is absolute and free from taste.

 

[Amir]

Another example:

I placed my speakers across the long wall and invited my friends and we listened to three different DACs and compared those DACs.

I changed the speaker position and placed them across the short wall (turned 90 degrees to the window side) and repeated the test between three DACs.

Some audiophiles prefered the sound when speakers were along the long wall and some prefered the window side but all of them agreed the long wall placement shows more contrast between DACs.

It means comparision by contrast method is free from subjective taste.

 

[Tuckers]

An interesting perspective. Mike Lavigne also says he prefers his stereo reproduction to live -- maybe sometimes as he always tries to finesse it. <smilely>

I'll double smiley that comment. I'd take Mikes system over about any modern rock, pop, electronic concerts. And many other amplified ones. My living room would have to have Tardis technology though (bigger inside than outside).

 

[Tuckers]

For me tone and harmonics are crucial to my enjoyment of the music. So talking about using the recording as the ultimate reference, I do agree with a wrinkle/caveat. Most modern recordings do not capture the full tonality or harmonics of live acoustic instruments. Hence I think it is acceptable to look for an enhancement of that with our reproduction technology. By this I mean just a slight seasoning, not a ladleful of gravy poured over the top.

Excellent tube gear and the best preamps get there. Any number of esoteric cartridges do too.

There are some speakers that can enhance the experience. Some horn systems (those '0' speakers), and speakers designed with thinner walled and less braced cabinets can get there. For what I've heard, I might include some Graham's and Gary Koh's prototypes Genesis G7s (haven't heard the productions yet).

I still remember hearing that enormous vintage Klangfilm horn system that took up one wall of a ball room running on vintage 300b amps in the early 2000's at CES one year. It was the most convincing reproduction of orchestra I've ever heard. People are still talking about that to this day.

 

[tima]

A small point -- but synthesist derives from synthesis, a greek word meaning ‘a putting together’ or ‘the combining of parts into a whole.’
It does not derive from synthetic.

Accordingly, synthesist carries the precise sense of one engaged in composition, or putting together elements (i.e. a system) — exactly the meaning you had in mind


"Synthetic" (which also derives from synthesis) can refer to (bio)chemical combinations—i.e., artificial—but not exclusively so. In any case, the reproduction of sound in our homes is itself an artificial recreation of a musical event. And really, what’s wrong with that?

I know better. Thanks for the correction. I believe I referred to synthesis in my original proposal however a few objected to it as it was related to synthetic. I agree that my usage of "synthesist" does suit the purpose. Some preferred the word "idealist" which is more glamorous.

... I admitted from the outset that my word 'synthesist' is not the best word to use for contrasting to 'naturalist' and I'm open to alternatives. I do not tie the word to 'synthetic' and admit the derivation from one to the other makes my word confusing. But imo, the concept is not. ...

 

[tima]

The result of more contrast method is absolute and free from taste.

I'm not interested in whether your method is absolute or free from taste. I will say that when I consider describing two different components I look to expose both similarities and differences. I call this a comparison but both aspects are relevant. My goal is use a comparison to bring further insight to the primary subject component, not to pass a judgement on them. Your approach seems oriented to the latter.

 

[microstrip]

Realism in the strict sense is not attainable. I look for believability.

A much more realistic approach. We can consider that belieability is a good concept for those who are frequent concert goers and have a good understanding of sound reproduction, particularly as it includes the personal and individual subjective criteria, separating it from the absolutist vision of the universality of realism.

 

[Al M.]

A much more realistic approach. We can consider that belieability is a good concept for those who are frequent concert goers and have a good understanding of sound reproduction, particularly as it includes the personal and individual subjective criteria, separating it from the absolutist vision of the universality of realism.

Yes, of course, the factor of subjectivity is baked in, as it should be. One person’s "realism" is another person’s faulty reproduction. For example, one person may swoon over the dynamism of a particular reproduction and may call it realistic, and at the same time all another person hears is coloration. Obviously, there can be no speaking of "objective realism".

 

[PeterA]

This problem with these words increased when people started interchanging or conflating the terms natural with real or realism. And then started adding convincing and believable and authentic.

We are free to interpret the meaning of what others post, but I do not think it is helpful if readers start changing words freely corrupting the original post’s meaning. Natural does not mean real or realism.

 

[Bobvin]

Hello Bob,

In the context of this hobby how do you define "authentic"?

No need to intellectualize the adjective independently for the audio hobby, the Merriam-Webster dictionary offers several definitions of which I think this one is sufficient:

3b; conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features

 

[microstrip]

these are accessible in the sense that the music is easy to 'get'. but maybe not so easy to buy. although probably the first two can be found if you want to pay. a clean 'VooDoo' might be hard to find.

Ray Brown & Laurindo Almeida - Moonlight Serenade

View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 1981 Vinyl release of "Moonlight Serenade" on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

make sure you use Jeton 100 3315 direct to disc pressing, there are vinyl transferred to tape and then re-pressed too. not the same. track 1, Ray Brown's double bass defines 'real' in a recording.

Ben Webster - At The Renaissance

View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 2002 Vinyl release of "At The Renaissance" on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

45rpm AP pressing. Webster's opening riff on "Georgia On My Mind" is awesome played loud.

The Sonny Clark Memorial Quartet - Voodoo

View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 1986 Vinyl release of "Voodoo" on Discogs.

www.discogs.com

Black Saint pressing only. every cut is alive. but especially "VooDoo"

Excellent recordings - I own the first and the third, little experience with the second one. In fact , the Black Saint and Soul Note labels are one of the reasons I will always keep a good vinyl system - I own most of their LPs that I got in a large mint lot from a jazz lover.

IMO you are referring to LP's that I consider that sound more "real" than reality, that I also really appreciate. Addressing Voodoo , the used sound capture and mixing technique create an extremely clear and immediate sound, with a distinct instrument separation, keeping its dynamics, that helps us diving in the performance and enjoying it. This sound type spreads in other LPs of the Black Saint Label.

Although I am not expert in jazz I have been at several free jazz concerts - IMO the experience of live is so different from what we get on these recordings that I can't consider they can be used as a absolute reference.

Alive, free from artifacts, great sounding, yes. But no way I could say with assurance that these recordings sound in absolute more real in a specific top high quality system.

A tricky "reality" question - at what distance do you estimate that you are sitting from performers in a real performance to get the sound we have in Voodoo?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

So treble in concert hall is etchy compared to reference Wilson sound at home? And midband less rich?

he has Rockport Lyra's.