What is Your Test for Comparing Two Audio Components?

[tima]

DelTactile 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.

Sure, the whole concert going experience is delightful, from entering the hall to the dying final applause. Lots of sensations and awareness especially in that. What I meant by inconsequential, was the less emphasis I place on the tactile when comparing the listening experience in the concert hall versus the listening room. There is less tactile information in my live music template than sonic information.

Recall that I was responding to @PYP 's statement "The absence of visual and tactile stimulus at home makes the task of describing differences between live and home even more impossible." There are at least two perspectives here: a) comparing a specific concert attendance with listening at home, and b) using one's memory of past live event experience gained across years to assess one's stereo system.

I don't want to blur those perspectives. In the latter case, tactile comparison is not really a part of that assessment -- at least for me. And visual is likewise less important to my sonic template although I have the notion of 'the sound of an orchestra in a hall' as part of my template along with an understanding of instrument/section layout, so that is not a pure memory of sound only.

 

[tima]

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.

Yes, there are/were several great conductors who are shows in themselves. Solti, Mravinsky, Berstein, Abbado, Kleiber among others.

 

[Al M.]

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.

I think the visual aspect is also important in classical concerts. However, in order to really get an imprint of the actual timbre of the concert sound into my mind I close my eyes from time to time. Having your eyes open tends to falsify the perception of timbre, or makes it somewhat imprecise.

 

[PYP]

I think the visual aspect is also important in classical concerts. However, in order to really get an imprint of the actual timbre of the concert sound into my mind I close my eyes from time to time. Having your eyes open tends to falsify the perception of timbre, or makes it somewhat imprecise.

Hmmm. I need to pay attention to that next time. Interesting.

 

[tima]

Having your eyes open tends to falsify the perception of timbre, or makes it somewhat imprecise.

Not sure about falsifying timbre. The sound is the same with eyes open or shut so any purported flaw or difference in one case versus the other is on the listener. Perhaps the brain has an easier time processing/comprehending one input sense versus two. Less analytic cerebral cortex activity with one input? I do find it easier to follow the music with my eyes closed, hall or room. In my room, looking at my speakers does nothing for music appreciation while listening.

 

[bonzo75]

Audiophile trying to guess instrument by timbre with eyes open on home system. Reminds himself of closing eyes in concert hall training

 

[tima]

Audiophile trying to guess instrument by timbre with eyes open on hone system. Reminds himself of closing eyes in concert hall training

A genuinely wierd post.

 

[bonzo75]

A genuinely wierd post.

Thanks

 

[hopkins]

Audiophile trying to guess instrument by timbre with eyes open on home system. Reminds himself of closing eyes in concert hall training

Undoubtedly the high point of Van Damme’s career - it was all downhill after that

 

[Al M.]

Not sure about falsifying timbre. The sound is the same with eyes open or shut so any purported flaw or difference in one case versus the other is on the listener. Perhaps the brain has an easier time processing/comprehending one input sense versus two. Less analytic cerebral cortex activity with one input?

That was my point, yes.

Have you ever noticed how "good" a classical concert can sound on a TV with just built-in mediocre tiny speakers (no soundbar)? That is because the mind partially fills in the expectation of the sound of real instruments as they can appear on the screen. Once you close your eyes and just pay attention to the sound as is, you'll notice how poor it is.

Not that real live music (unlike the TV) sounds worse with eyes closed, but it does tend to sound a bit different than with eyes open as well.

I do find it easier to follow the music with my eyes closed, hall or room. In my room, looking at my speakers does nothing for music appreciation while listening.

I often listen in the dark in my room.

 

[microstrip]

Sure, the whole concert going experience is delightful, from entering the hall to the dying final applause. Lots of sensations and awareness especially in that. What I meant by inconsequential, was the less emphasis I place on the tactile when comparing the listening experience in the concert hall versus the listening room. There is less tactile information in my live music template than sonic information.

Well, I would say that the fact that "There is less tactile information in my live music template than sonic information". in an hobby where minimal differences make the difference is a poor argument to our main question.

Recall that I was responding to @PYP 's statement "The absence of visual and tactile stimulus at home makes the task of describing differences between live and home even more impossible." There are at least two perspectives here: a) comparing a specific concert attendance with listening at home, and b) using one's memory of past live event experience gained across years to assess one's stereo system.

In fact I mainly agree with@PYP argument. This compare is surely useful for you, but impossible and even misleading to communicate to others, unless it is fully described with great detail using an accepted sound descriptive language. Just saying something sounds more real than another one sounds arbitrary.

I don't want to blur those perspectives. In the latter case, tactile comparison is not really a part of that assessment -- at least for me. And visual is likewise less important to my sonic template although I have the notion of 'the sound of an orchestra in a hall' as part of my template along with an understanding of instrument/section layout, so that is not a pure memory of sound only.

Sound engineers work hard to create masterpieces with great imaging and feeling of the room that the majority of audiophiles enjoy. IMO it affects a lot how we enjoy stereo.

 

[wil]

I think the visual aspect is also important in classical concerts. However, in order to really get an imprint of the actual timbre of the concert sound into my mind I close my eyes from time to time. Having your eyes open tends to falsify the perception of timbre, or makes it somewhat imprecise.

For me, eyes open creates more sense of space. Eyes closed, more focus. I like both. I also slide chair up or back by a foot or so for a different experience.

Listening in a dark room just feels sort of lonely.

The problem I sometimes have with listening with eyes closed is that eventually the sound of snoring may start to interfere with the music.

 

[PeterA]

For me, eyes open creates more sense of space. Eyes closed, more focus. I like both. I also slide chair up or back by a foot or so for a different experience.

Listening in a dark room just feels sort of lonely.

The problem I sometimes have with listening with eyes closed is that eventually the sound of snoring may start to interfere with the music.

That is interesting. For me, the visual aspect is smaller than the scale of the sound. Whether it is a full orchestra, a chamber quartet, or a solo guitar or piano, the sound and energy is always greater in scale and effect than is the visual image. That is because the sound energy expands beyond what I take with my eyes. Even the setting in which the music is made is limited unless one moves his head all around changing perspective while the energy is all around and enveloping.

In my listening room setting, it is similar. The scale of the sound is always greater than the image. Opening and closing my eyes simply makes these differences more evident.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

For me, eyes open creates more sense of space.

i think this has to do with peripheral vision. we cannot choose to not see all the way to the side and even slightly behind us. so identifying what is our sight, and what is the sound, is not normal. when we see we add that to what we hear. when our eyes close all the way, we subtract the peripheral vision.

Eyes closed, more focus. I like both. I also slide chair up or back by a foot or so for a different experience.

Listening in a dark room just feels sort of lonely.

this particular topic comes up all the time. my strong preference is to listen in a dim room. where the light is sufficient to navigate the room, but not so dark to cause my fight or flight hardwired reaction, or my mind to wander. really dark is distracting as it brings extra processing into our consciousness. in a dim room my mind can find that neutral 'zen' state and the music seems to become more connecting. it takes zero conscious effort to listen. my eyes might close somewhat which does bring the imaging a bit more strongly as far as 'seeing' where soundstage things are clearly by degrees.

as far as feeling lonely, i'm in a separate building by myself mostly, so i'm beyond considering that part. unless i have visitors, of course.

The problem I sometimes have with listening with eyes closed is that eventually the sound of snoring may start to interfere with the music.

there is that too. but i might fall asleep in a dim room. at 74 years old it is part of the picture. and later at night when i avoid vinyl so i don't worry too much about it. my listening chair does not cause aches when it happens.

That is interesting. For me, the visual aspect is smaller than the scale of the sound. Whether it is a full orchestra, a chamber quartet, or a solo guitar or piano, the sound and energy is always greater in scale and effect than is the visual image. That is because the sound energy expands beyond what I take with my eyes. Even the setting in which the music is made is limited unless one moves his head all around changing perspective while the energy is all around and enveloping.

agree that on recordings that do reveal a strong ambient sense, that it's greater than the apparent musical activity in the soundstage. and once the music starts and the room 'hooks up' then we sense all that space according to the recording.

In my listening room setting, it is similar. The scale of the sound is always greater than the image. Opening and closing my eyes simply makes these differences more evident.

agree.

 

[mitch2+]

When comparing two audio components, I mostly follow the approach suggested by @Kingrex in Post #10 of this thread, including multiple in/out iterations over a period of many days, living with each component for a while, and occasionally forgetting which of the components I am listening to. As stated by @Kingrex, in some cases, the difference is so apparent that I can almost immediately determine which component sounds better to me but, when comparing two pretty good components, it more often than not ends up being a matter of different but not necessarily better sounding.

Before comparing the two components against each other, I spend quality time with each component (usually an incumbent that is already "dialed-in" and a newcomer) to make sure both are sounding their best in my system, which can mean changing ICs, SCs, and/or the PC to the component, and listening to different supports/footers/damping. Tubed gear, like the Aries Cerat Helene I recently added, is the hardest to dial in because there is another whole dimension added by changing the types and/or makes of tubes and, in the case of the Helene, adjusting the tube bias. Only after I have both components dialed in to sound their best in my system, do I begin the comparison.

My test for the two components is simply to figure which of them sounds best to me, in my system. As your system improves, the components that sound best should inherently improve all aspects of the musical presentation, including the illusion of a live person singing in the room. Things that typically tip the scales for me include tone, timbre, clarity, texture, dimensionality, and power/drive (i.e., do you physically feel the music over a wide range of volume, which is different from simply playing loud). My goal is mostly focused on how to make my system sound better to me, and not selecting components that align with a mythical absolute sound. System synergy is important, which is why you may sometimes encounter an excellent component that doesn't play well with the other components and/or speakers in your system. At that point, you need to decide whether the new component is so good that you should start over by replacing one or more of your other components so that adding the new component is a net win. This is a good example of why audio equipment reviews should be taken with a large grain of salt, because no two systems display the same synergies and no two reviewers/listeners share the same tastes.

 

[Al M.]

Listening in a dark room just feels sort of lonely.

My tubes are glowing so it's not really that dark.

The problem I sometimes have with listening with eyes closed is that eventually the sound of snoring may start to interfere with the music.

Sure, when I'm too tired I avoid turning off the light.

 

[Al M.]

That is interesting. For me, the visual aspect is smaller than the scale of the sound. Whether it is a full orchestra, a chamber quartet, or a solo guitar or piano, the sound and energy is always greater in scale and effect than is the visual image. That is because the sound energy expands beyond what I take with my eyes. Even the setting in which the music is made is limited unless one moves his head all around changing perspective while the energy is all around and enveloping.

In my listening room setting, it is similar. The scale of the sound is always greater than the image. Opening and closing my eyes simply makes these differences more evident.

When I turn off the light the soundstage always seems bigger.

 

[Kingrex]

I like a minimal background light. I have an up-light that is in the back of the room I set to very low.
The screen on my server is super annoying. That is bright. I have to spin the screen away when I set a song or album to play. I feel more relaxed when it times out and goes dark. I think I need to get another blue light screen for the server screen. I bough one years ago for work and promptly thew it away. But that was for in an office. In my quiet, low light media room, the blue light filter might help. I have the screen set of 0 on brightness, contrast and whatever else I can adjust to make it darker. And still its too light in a very low level lit room.

 

[PYP]

Audiophile trying to guess instrument by timbre with eyes open on home system. Reminds himself of closing eyes in concert hall training

This thread is relatively mellow, but other threads do remind me that audio can be a blood sport. I see that Jean Claude does have the audiophile hyperbole perfected.

 

[bonzo75]

My test for the two components is simply to figure which of them sounds best to me, in my system.

Then you will always be limited by what you did not know at the beginning of your journey. Because you put up your first system then. All your comparisons/what you might consider progress, was done based on that system.