What is Your Test for Comparing Two Audio Components?

[andromedaaudio]

What is Your Test for Comparing Two Audio Components?​

I test by ear , but since people question my hearing im not sure it will stand up to scientific scrutiny .
Which is Micros speciality

 

[microstrip]

Opposite is also true. There is no evidence that a system “closer to live music” doesn’t give us more enjoyment.

Well , it does not change anything in the sense of my sentence. We can amuse ourselves playing with words.

Known by who? I believe sound reproduction aims reproducing a facsimile of the live experience, actually that is for most of us and probably for most of the manufacturers.

Curious that you dropped the word "physical" from my original post (physical facsimile), making it ambiguous and probably changing its sense.

Bu yes, audio marketing wants audiophiles to aim at such impossible objective. Sound engineers and audio scholars are wiser.

 

[mtemur]

Well , it does not change anything in the sense of my sentence. We can amuse ourselves playing with words.



Curious that you dropped the word "physical" from my original post (physical facsimile), making it ambiguous and probably changing its sense.

Bu yes, audio marketing wants audiophiles to aim at such impossible objective. Sound engineers and audio scholars are wiser.

Adding “physical” or not doesn’t change the meaning. But anyway, please add “physical” to my question and answer accordingly. And this time, please answer logically with solid evidence that makes sense—not with the nonsense from your prior responses.

 

[microstrip]

Adding “physical” or not doesn’t change the meaning. But anyway, please add “physical” to my question and answer accordingly.

It changes a lot for anyone that understands sound with some depth. Stereo does not create a physical soundstage - it creates an illusionary soundstage in our mind when listening from limited real positional information and cues. We can't create a "real" physical soundstage from two sources and arbitrary reflections.

And this time, please answer logically with solid evidence that makes sense—not with the nonsense from your prior responses.

I unfortunately see you joined the fortunately very small group of people who try to debate in an a aggressive and fighting style to hide ignorance, conditioning discussions to acceptance of mud fights - I leave you now. I someone else shows interest I will go on with him. Meanwhile people can read, for example about Decca sound engineer John Culshaw views on the subject or the Floyd Toole book.

 

[Tiltedfault]

It changes a lot for anyone that understands sound with some depth. Stereo does not create a physical soundstage - it creates an illusionary soundstage in our mind when listening from limited real positional information and cues. We can't create a "real" physical soundstage from two sources and arbitrary reflections.



I unfortunately see you joined the fortunately very small group of people who try to debate in an a aggressive and fighting style to hide ignorance, conditioning discussions to acceptance of mud fights - I leave you now. I someone else shows interest I will go on with him. Meanwhile people can read, for example about Decca sound engineer John Culshaw views on the subject or the Floyd Toole book.

I think you’re being a little squirrely here Microstrip. I’m not saying this because I’m one of “them”, or have a lot at stake in this (none of us really do) but I think some of the questions directed at you are quite legitimate and you brush them off with an argument from authority without even quoting specific passages from these authorities which you feel bolster your argument. You have strong opinions on this matter, but so do your “opponents”, and the worst moment to bug out of a battle is during the heat of it.

I completely agree with you that “we can’t create a “real” physical soundstage from two sources and arbitrary reflections”, but I don’t think anyone is actually arguing for this. There are illusory aspects to anything which involves the senses and replications of historic events, whether it’s on a photograph or embedded in the grooves of a record, but there is still the fact that at least in classical music reproduction, it tries to convey or reproduce aspects of the recorded space. It generally conveys the layering and relative positions of the instruments with a good sense of depth or space. It’s obvious this isn’t the “real” physical soundstage, no more than a 3D image of a landscape is the actual landscape, but it enhances our experience of the reproduction and makes it feel more real, at least if our reference is live acoustic instruments in a particular performance venue.

The idea of at least the approximation of truth to a recorded musical event is embedded in the terms themselves. Reproduction. Recording. Here I’m assuming truth bears some relation to the idea of realism. The idea of fidelity to a recorded event is prior to any Toolean circles of confusion. Certainly one of the sound engineers jobs is not to distort the sounds of the instruments or eliminate spatial relations. And while mono recordings can be quite compelling and enjoyable, a good stereo recording is even more enjoyable because it sounds closer to the real event. Stereo is an advance over mono because it can convey some of the spatial aspects of a performance which mono is incapable of. From the standpoint of an ordinary non-audiophile slug, wouldn’t one say that a stereo recording sounds more real, or closer to the elusive truth or reality of a live performance than a monophonic one? Don’t recordings aim at verisimilitude, the appearance of being real or true?

You made a good point in an earlier post saying:
“The live experience is much more complete and rich that sound reproduction, we learn there things that otherwise would be ignored and never taken care in sound reproduction - particular things that will make our listening more enjoyable if we manage to recreate them in our systems”

I think you should continue along this line of thinking. And for what it’s worth, I don’t think this is at all incompatible with the idea of realism, albeit a loosely defined one.

 

[Anton D]

Hi Fi is simply building a simulacrum of one's choosing: recreating a live music experience, recreating a studio playback experience, creating your own plausible/pleasurable experience, etc.

The lowest form of Hi Fi is recreating measurements.

 

[treitz3]

Eh, if you say so...

Measurements are just that. Listening is where it's at IMO/IME.

Where you take your system from there is either doom (although maybe good listening) or gloom. Those that know, well, they know.

Tom

 

[treitz3]

MY PERSONAL TEST FOR COMPARING TWO AUDIO COMPONENTS

In a subjective hobby such as high-end audio we often have different criteria for what we want a high-end audio stereo system to accomplish for us sonically. Many audiophiles focus on sonic attributes such as dynamics and sound-staging and resolution and detail and extension at the frequency extremes and low noise floor and bass slam, etc., to determine which of two components they prefer. (This discrete sonic attributes approach has been promoted by the magazines and is used by many dealers.)

I have a different approach. I don't really care about these commonly discussed sonic attributes.

I am a single issue voter when deciding which of two components I prefer.  All I have to figure out is "on which component does the voice sound more like a live person singing to me in this room." This, ultimately, is all I care about. (Please note that my primary musical genre interest is vocals. If my primary musical genre interest were jazz or classical I definitely would have a different criterion.)

My evaluation process is distilled to "which component makes the voice on the recording sound the most alive and the most breathing?" That's it. When comparing two components that's all I have to figure out.

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

I listen. That's all that is needed.

Tom

 

[microstrip]

I think you’re being a little squirrely here Microstrip. I’m not saying this because I’m one of “them”, or have a lot at stake in this (none of us really do) but I think some of the questions directed at you are quite legitimate and you brush them off with an argument from authority without even quoting specific passages from these authorities which you feel bolster your argument. You have strong opinions on this matter, but so do your “opponents”, and the worst moment to bug out of a battle is during the heat of it.

Thanks for your comment. I have previously quoted and addressed these references, a simple search in the forum or net will immediately find them.

I completely agree with you that “we can’t create a “real” physical soundstage from two sources and arbitrary reflections”, but I don’t think anyone is actually arguing for this. There are illusory aspects to anything which involves the senses and replications of historic events, whether it’s on a photograph or embedded in the grooves of a record, but there is still the fact that at least in classical music reproduction, it tries to convey or reproduce aspects of the recorded space. It generally conveys the layering and relative positions of the instruments with a good sense of depth or space. It’s obvious this isn’t the “real” physical soundstage, no more than a 3D image of a landscape is the actual landscape, but it enhances our experience of the reproduction and makes it feel more real, at least if our reference is live acoustic instruments in a particular performance venue.

This aspect is also well covered in the Toole book - better spatial relations and envelopment increase enjoyment . But we were mainly debating around the thread topic and OP - using reality as a reference for direct gear comparisons.

The idea of at least the approximation of truth to a recorded musical event is embedded in the terms themselves. Reproduction. Recording. Here I’m assuming truth bears some relation to the idea of realism. The idea of fidelity to a recorded event is prior to any Toolean circles of confusion. Certainly one of the sound engineers jobs is not to distort the sounds of the instruments or eliminate spatial relations. And while mono recordings can be quite compelling and enjoyable, a good stereo recording is even more enjoyable because it sounds closer to the real event. Stereo is an advance over mono because it can convey some of the spatial aspects of a performance which mono is incapable of. From the standpoint of an ordinary non-audiophile slug, wouldn’t one say that a stereo recording sounds more real, or closer to the elusive truth or reality of a live performance than a monophonic one? Don’t recordings aim at verisimilitude, the appearance of being real or true?

No one says that sound reproduction does not aim to remember the live experience. My main point is that the best way to do it is not just reproducing a sound facsimile of of the real event and also it is not technically possible. So "realism" per se is not enough to describe and compare systems.

You made a good point in an earlier post saying:
“The live experience is much more complete and rich that sound reproduction, we learn there things that otherwise would be ignored and never taken care in sound reproduction - particular things that will make our listening more enjoyable if we manage to recreate them in our systems”

Thanks.

I think you should continue along this line of thinking. And for what it’s worth, I don’t think this is at all incompatible with the idea of realism, albeit a loosely defined one.

The question is that a loosely defined realism is not realism at all and is meaningless and misleading for audiophile communication.

 

[Rexp]

This review talks about the how one speaker is better at creating more realistic imaging and sound field than another.

'Next up was the track In Your Own Sweet Way, off the album “And Then Again“ by the Bill Charlap Trio, recorded live with excellent ambient sounds from the venue. The Voyager TLs and the NSMT 15SEs were transparent and dynamic enough to hear the ambient sounds and the difference in symbol strikes without sounding harsh or analytical. Both speakers were engaging and imaged well. The audible difference was a denser, thicker substance to the tone and spatiality from the NSMT 15SE, producing a realistic three-dimensional experience that puts you at the venue.
I wanted to compare how vocals would sound, so I played the track Najmati by Renaud Garcia-Fons from the Album titled “Blue Maqam.” Najmati is a room-filling, expansive recording with a Mediterranean vibe and female vocals. The Voyager TLs shone with their full bass and open, airy sound that filled the room. Vocals are clear, full, and very realistic with an engaging balance between lows, midrange, and highs. The NSMT 15SEs presented similar qualities, along with more color saturation and three-dimensionality, to the female singer’s voice and all the instruments. The NSMT 15SE’s sound is more realistic in every manner, creating a more lifelike soundstage where instruments and space are clearly separated'

A Tale of Two Stand Mounted Monitors: the NSMT 15SE and Galion Audio TS Voyager TL by John Hoffman

Terry London, a fellow Stereo Times reviewer, suggested I review the Galion Audio TS Voyager TL stand mount speakers. Galion Audio is the creation of Thomas Tan, an audio reviewer and YouTube creator of the Thomas and Stereo channel. Terry had the NSMT model 15SE stand-mount speakers in-house...

www.stereotimes.com

 

[Amir]

If only the music mattered and not the sound, then why would you have a preference for analog, tubes and horns?


On the contrary, sound is extremely important. Some setups get closer to live music than others, and in those cases, you—or anyone who loves music—feel more engaged and emotionally connected. That’s why the sound of an audio system is crucial: it directly determines the level of enjoyment.

And it doesn’t have to sound exactly like real music—just the closer it gets, the better it sounds.

The relation of Music enjoyment and more advanced sound reproduction is very very complex and if I want simplify this subject I would like to say these are two different worlds.

The effect of Music on my mind is very deep and powerful but the effect of better sound on my mind is very limited. I love this hobby but for me the main source of enjoyment is music not the sound.

I believe the sound of Analog/tube/horns are not more close to live than digital/solidstate/cones, actually our reaction to music is more emotional (not all the time but overally) when we listen to analog/tube/horns.



Comparison by contrast method will tell you which system is more revealing.

 

[tima]

I believe that dynamics and tonality are greater differentiators between reproduction and the live experience than are soundstaging and dimensionality.

 

[Al M.]

I believe the sound of Analog/tube/horns are not more close to live than digital/solidstate/cones, actually our reaction to music is more emotional (not all the time but overally) when we listen to analog/tube/horns.

Amir feels that "actually my reaction to music is more emotional (not all the time but overally) when I listen to analog/tube/horns."

Corrected for you.

In this case there is no "we" and "our" when it comes to audiophiles/music lovers in general.

I do have tube amplification.

 

[Amir]

Amir feels that "actually my reaction to music is more emotional (not all the time but overally) when I listen to analog/tube/horns."

Corrected for you.

In this case there is no "we" and "our" when it comes to audiophiles/music lovers in general.

I do have tube amplification.

There is no absolute rule so I do not say analog/tube/horns are better all the time.
We have very expensive not perfect sounding analog/tube/horns and also very good digital/solidstate/cones.

 

[Amir]

I believe that dynamics and tonality are greater differentiators between reproduction and the live experience than are soundstaging and dimensionality.

I believe the most important aspect is dynamics.
Most modern systems are not good in this area.

The beauty of “comparison by contrast method” is it easily reveals the problem of many modern speakers. For example cheap 2way paper living voice was better than 80k 3way gryphon trident.

 

[wil]

There is no absolute rule so I do not say analog/tube/horns are better all the time.
We have very expensive not perfect sounding analog/tube/horns and also very good digital/solidstate/cones.

You’re making a false dichotomy with analog/tubes/ horns and digital/solid state/cones.

 

[Lee]

I believe that dynamics and tonality are greater differentiators between reproduction and the live experience than are soundstaging and dimensionality.

Agreed.

 

[PeterA]

I believe that dynamics and tonality are greater differentiators between reproduction and the live experience than are soundstaging and dimensionality.

I agree Tim, but the biggest differences I hear between reproduction and the live experience are clarity and energy. These are not often discussed, but when I listen to live symphonic music, I am overwhelmed by the sense of clarity and energy. Same when listening to a string quartet in a chamber or a solo piano up close, even someone strumming a guitar next to me.

So much seems lost in the production chain. Perhaps it is as much the recording process as it is the playback.

 

[oldmustang]

Pretty simple really. My test when comparing two audio components is, which one compels me to listen to the end of whatever piece of music I'm playing. Over the long term, which one makes me eagerly anticipate sitting down to listen more and more.

Steve Z

 

[PeterA]

Pretty simple really. My test when comparing two audio components is, which one compels me to listen to the end of whatever piece of music I'm playing. Over the long term, which one makes me eagerly anticipate sitting down to listen more and more.

Steve Z

I like that.