What is Your Test for Comparing Two Audio Components?

[microstrip]

I agree with the biggest differences I hear between reproduction and the live experience is clarity and energy.

Yes. But they are often referred as clearness or/and articulation and power. As power is energy per time, it manages to enter time in the equation and create a more specific meaning. A system can deliver the energy and fail for power.

These are not often discussed, but when I listen to live symphonic music, I’m overwhelmed by the sense of clarity and energy and the same when listening to a string quartet in a chamber or a solo piano up close. Even someone strumming a guitar next to me.

Probably not here, but recording engineers and producers refer to it. They must manipulate the sound to compensate for the absence of visual and tactile stimulus when listening to stereo.

So much seems lost in the production chain.

Yes, it is referred all the time. Only some hard core audiophiles believe thy can re-build the "real" experience.

Perhaps it is as much the recording process as it is the playback.

Do you really want to play this forensic game? Playback only reproduces the two channel information according to some vague rules.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Yes, it is referred all the time. Only some hard core audiophiles believe thy can re-build the "real" experience.

I ve been to many concerts .

This is better then live lol

 

[tima]

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.

Yes, I was kinda responding to a series of preceding posts that talked about the realism of soundstage in comparing components. It was interesting to see the characteristics chosen for comparison. None seemed to mention dynamics.

Of course the clarity of a live performance vs an in home reproduction is simply there -- we take the live for granted, there is no clearer. *When I hear a live concert my mind does not turn to my audio system* Only when we engage in these meta-level discussions about how our stereo session is different from live do we try to lay out the differences. Likewise the energy that comes from 50-100 musicians unleashing their talents in a concert hall venue with intention with purpose versus an electronic amplifier and speakers in a listening room is an obvious differentiator -- the mindless stereo has no intention, no directed will power, no goal; it is not driven by a conductor and a score. We can only hope to achieve a combination of components that electro-mechanically process a derived source that reminds us of the clarity and energy of the original. We can and do take it for the vicarious joy it brings.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Spacial clues / instrument / singer separation .... blah blah
Are all recording microphone artifacts.

They have nothing to do with actual musicians / and instruments being played in a space.

All magazine / reviewer BS

 

[PeterA]

Yes, I was kinda responding to a series of preceding posts that talked about the realism of soundstage in comparing components. It was interesting to see the characteristics chosen for comparison. None seemed to mention dynamics.

Of course the clarity of a live performance vs an in home reproduction is simply there -- we take the live for granted, there is no clearer. *When I hear a live concert my mind does not turn to my audio system* Only when we engage in these meta-level discussions about how our stereo session is different from live do we try to lay out the differences. Likewise the energy that comes from 50-100 musicians unleashing their talents in a concert hall venue with intention with purpose versus an electronic amplifier and speakers in a listening room is an obvious differentiator -- the mindless stereo has no intention, no directed will power, no goal; it is not driven by a conductor and a score. We can only hope to achieve a combination of components that electro-mechanically process a derived source that reminds us of the clarity and energy of the original. We can and do take it for the vicarious joy it brings.

Yes to the50-100 musicians playing with intent. I was first introduced to the term “energy“ in this context and encouraged to consider its effect when I was sitting in a closed rehearsal on the edge of the orchestra pit at the Vienna opera. My good friend was reading along the music sitting next to me. When the cellist began his solo, my friend turned to me and said, “Peter take in the energy from that instrument!“ The man played his cello, and the way that energy hit me and filled the space made me rethink what I had simply taken for granted when listening to live music. My friend is also an audiophile, and we used to have some fun discussions comparing the sound of our systems against the real thing.

 

[Bobvin]

In some other thread I had mentioned sitting at a small restaurant with Daniele Coen of Alsyvox a couple years back. Bobbie Torres Ensemble was about to start playing (Bobbie, now in his 80s played with Joe Cocker@ Woodstock!) Our table was right up next to the small trio (bongos, sax, piano) and as soon as Bobbie gave the bongo a good smack Daniele and I looked at each other recognizing immediately the sad reality recorded music on the very best systems just can’t recreate the power and energy. I’m with Peter on this — the energy is the missing “je ne sais quoi.”

 

[bonzo75]

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

analog/tubes/ horns, digital/solid state/cones, and Eli Wallach

 

[tima]

analog/tubes/ horns, digital/solid state/cones, and Eli Wallach

Heh -- The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

 

[PYP]

I ve been to many concerts .

This is better then live lol

View attachment 157161

Dude, you got a jones. What you gonna do about it?

 

[PYP]

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

For you, does tonality = timbre or does it include it or is it different?

Probably not here, but recording engineers and producers refer to it. They must manipulate the sound to compensate for the absence of visual and tactile stimulus when listening to stereo.

The absence of visual and tactile stimulus at home makes the task of describing differences between live and home even more impossible.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Dude, you got a jones. What you gonna do about it?

Buy it , its expensive gear but affordable .
No hurry as it will be the last amplifier i ll buy
But my gold / silvers miners are going up like Elons boosters for the moment.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I wanna buy the 268C.
And the latest monos they were showing with at Hifideluxe. 2025
And may be get a 223 phonomaster / play my records again.
Incl the matching
FMA forceline cables

 

[tima]

The absence of visual and tactile stimulus at home makes the task of describing differences between live and home even more impossible.

Interesting. I think it is the opposite.

Tactile would seem to be the difference between being in a concert hall and your listening room. In a seated row among others, not the comfort of your chair or couch, maybe a small table next to you.. The differences seem obvious and easy to describe. Admittedly there, tactile differences seem inconsequential, but maybe not.

Visual likewise brings obvious differences, fairly easy to describe. I like to close my eyes in both contexts while listening as visual can be a distraction, although I enjoy seeing the muscians perform and being in the concert hall. To focus on the music, to appreciate the music I don't need the visual.

For me there is way too much emphasis on what I might call the 'virtual visual' in the listening room. Sound is hard to describe and it seems like may audiophiles fall back or or resort to a visual account of listening to a stereo in terms of dimensionality and soundstage.Our vocabulary is strongly oriented to the visual. For some those characteristics are used to define good reproduction. We have two ears and the ability to geo-locate by sound -- those 'virtues' are a product of stereophony. If it happens, imaging happens in your head. In the concert hall, just open your eyes.

 

[tima]

For you, does tonality = timbre or does it include it or is it different?

Tonality for me is a fairly broad word I use to cover several characteristic of sound and sound quality.

Timbre is what allows us to distinquish instrument sounds from one another. For example an oboe from a cor anglais - both double reed instruments. Harmonics / overtones above the fundamental frequency account for differences we hear. Pitch is an aspect of tonality -- the more vibrations per second, the higher is the pitch -- each note has its own specific frequency.

Tonality for me also includes the relation between multiple notes played at the same time, for example a chord, C-E-G. Does the music sound consonant or dissonant -- that is part of tonality. The key (major/minor) a piece is played in is another factor in tonality.

Attached is a PDF document "Definitions of Timbre".

 

[microstrip]

(...) Tactile would seem to be the difference between being in a concert hall and your listening room. In a seated row among others, not the comfort of your chair or couch, maybe a small table next to you.. The differences seem obvious and easy to describe. Admittedly there, tactile differences seem inconsequential, but maybe not. (...)

Tactile for me in these matters encompasses a lot more than that. It is part of the whole experience, going in the room, feeling the large space as you walk in, feeling the others , an whole world of non visual or sonic stimulus. IMO they are significant part of the real experience and are not inconsequent.

Visual likewise brings obvious differences, fairly easy to describe. I like to close my eyes in both contexts while listening as visual can be a distraction, although I enjoy seeing the muscians perform and being in the concert hall. To focus on the music, to appreciate the music I don't need the visual.

Well. I think your view is statistically atypical. Visual is a significant part of the experience for me - I don't buy tickets from where I so not have a good view of the orchestra. Reducing the visual to "enjoy seeing the musicians perform" is an extreme position IMO. The visual is a strong part of my understanding of the music and involvement in it when I go to concerts.

For me there is way too much emphasis on what I might call the 'virtual visual' in the listening room. Sound is hard to describe and it seems like may audiophiles fall back or or resort to a visual account of listening to a stereo in terms of dimensionality and soundstage.

Yes, dimensions and soundstage are a significant part of audiophile enjoyment of music. Surely people who still prefer listening to mono will have a different point of view.

Our vocabulary is strongly oriented to the visual. For some those characteristics are used to define good reproduction. We have two ears and the ability to geo-locate by sound -- those 'virtues' are a product of stereophony.

Unfortunately not. Stereo per se can not geo-locate, whatever you mean by it. It is what mainly separates stereo from real in sonic terms.

If it happens, imaging happens in your head. In the concert hall, just open your eyes.

Yes, known since long. The question is that imaging brings enjoyment to most of us and recording engineers must manipulate the sound signal to maximize it. Stereo is a compromise of contradictory requirements.

 

[microstrip]

Tonality for me is a fairly broad word I use to cover several characteristic of sound and sound quality.

Timbre is what allows us to distinquish instrument sounds from one another. For example an oboe from a cor anglais - both double reed instruments. Harmonics / overtones above the fundamental frequency account for differences we hear. Pitch is an aspect of tonality -- the more vibrations per second, the higher is the pitch -- each note has its own specific frequency.

In fact, although we are sensitive to some particular timbre aberrations, as such due to same types of distortion, people easily accept changes of timbre in sound reproduction - a different frequency response in a speaker modifies timbre. And timbre is not easy to access - 99% of audiophiles will not be able to say if piano in a concert is a Steinway or a Bosendorfer unless they see it in the LP cover photo or liner notes.

Tonality for me also includes the relation between multiple notes played at the same time, for example a chord, C-E-G. Does the music sound consonant or dissonant -- that is part of tonality. The key (major/minor) a piece is played in is another factor in tonality.

Attached is a PDF document "Definitions of Timbre".

Yes, but in fact tonality is often used as timbre in sound reproduction - the tone controls change frequency response, not consonance ... We can't (and shouldn't, unless we gain something real with it) change old habits.

 

[Rexp]

For me there is way too much emphasis on what I might call the 'virtual visual' in the listening room. Sound is hard to describe and it seems like may audiophiles fall back or or resort to a visual account of listening to a stereo in terms of dimensionality and soundstage.Our vocabulary is strongly oriented to the visual. For some those characteristics are used to define good reproduction. We have two ears and the ability to geo-locate by sound -- those 'virtues' are a product of stereophony. If it happens, imaging happens in your head. In the concert hall, just open your eyes.

What are the best imaging/sound staging speakers you've heard? I believe you used Wilsons before your JBL's. Wilsons are good but not great and JBL are more about dynamics.

Also as you're not interested in imaging, I wonder what manufacturers who send you a product that excels in imaging think when you don't mention that aspect in the review.

 

[PYP]

Interesting. I think it is the opposite.

Tactile would seem to be the difference between being in a concert hall and your listening room. In a seated row among others, not the comfort of your chair or couch, maybe a small table next to you.. The differences seem obvious and easy to describe. Admittedly there, tactile differences seem inconsequential, but maybe not.

Visual likewise brings obvious differences, fairly easy to describe. I like to close my eyes in both contexts while listening as visual can be a distraction, although I enjoy seeing the muscians perform and being in the concert hall. To focus on the music, to appreciate the music I don't need the visual.

For me there is way too much emphasis on what I might call the 'virtual visual' in the listening room. Sound is hard to describe and it seems like may audiophiles fall back or or resort to a visual account of listening to a stereo in terms of dimensionality and soundstage.Our vocabulary is strongly oriented to the visual. For some those characteristics are used to define good reproduction. We have two ears and the ability to geo-locate by sound -- those 'virtues' are a product of stereophony. If it happens, imaging happens in your head. In the concert hall, just open your eyes.

That is interesting. For me, although the music is the reason I go to the concert hall or other venue, the visual does not detract from the experience. Quite the opposite. Especially in jazz venues, I enjoy watching the musicians. For example, watching an elderly Sonny Rollins struggling a bit to make it onto stage. But then he let out the first note that pushed me back in my seat. I thought: The old lion can still roar! That would have been missing at home.

But it does make more sense to me with classical music (listening with closed eyes). Although I'm not sure how many who attended a concert with Leonard Bernstein conducting would agree.

 

[tima]

Also as you're not interested in imaging, I wonder what manufacturers who send you a product that excels in imaging think when you don't mention that aspect in the review.

Please tell me which particular review you have in mind.

 

[microstrip]

What are the best imaging/sound staging speakers you've heard? I believe you used Wilsons before your JBL's. Wilsons are good but not great and JBL are more about dynamics. (...)

In my experience nothing can beat a properly positioned Quad ESL63 in imaging. It is holographic, in a space much larger than the speaker zone.