Does Everything Make a Difference?

[Analog Scott]

Link to this piece of chocolate? You had to look very hard to find this if it is in fact even from Laederach.

I have looked at various types on the Laederach website:

Pralines assorted 30pcs heart box (laderach.com)
Pralines assorted 15pcs heart box (laderach.com)
FrischSchoggi Sticks Heartbox max (laderach.com)
FrischSchoggi Heart Caramel-Almond Dark (laderach.com)
Teddy Caramel & Fleur de Sel Dark (laderach.com)
Pralines Heart assorted 8pcs (laderach.com)
FrischSchoggi Strawberry Duo Dark (laderach.com)
FrischSchoggi pouch XL (laderach.com)
FrischSchoggi Blackberry Dark (laderach.com)
Tartufi assorted 35 pcs per box (laderach.com)
Greeting Heart "Happy Birthday" (laderach.com)
Snacking Florentine Milk (laderach.com)
Snacking Chocolate Nonpareil Dark (laderach.com)
Chocolate Napolitains Case (laderach.com)
Tablet Grand Cru Trinidad 80% – Single Origin (laderach.com)
Snacking Drops Marc de Champagne (laderach.com)
Snacking Orange Slizes (laderach.com)
Truffle Selection 36 pcs per box (laderach.com)

All of these are only with natural flavorings and you can taste the quality.

No, like I said, it took me all of 30 seconds. The very first chocolate I checked had artificial flavors. This one.

FrischSchoggi Raspberry-Blackberry White​

Feel free to look it up. Granted, having own d a chocolate shop I had a pretty good idea where to look but it took one try.

So instead of acknowledging your error you scoured their website to cherry pick the ones that don’t use artificial flavors?

I was one for one in picking their chocolates with artificial flavors. Do you really think it would as just that one and I got lucky?

Somehow this reminds me of the believers in all analog mastering trying to rationalize their sad discovery that MoFi had been cutting most of their LPs from digital files.

I recommend you just accept that he lesson about artificial flavors and move on. Maybe even apply it to your assumptions about audio. I hate to the no how many chi time you wasted trying to cherry pick their chocolates to try to argue a point you already lost.

 

[morricab]

Laderach is amazing, their rum chocolates are great, as are some of those broken frischoggi sticks

Didn't realize this but Merkur is owned by Laderach...they also had the large bars of chocolate that they break off and you buy by weight...was similar level as Laderach in terms of taste.

 

[morricab]

No, like I said, it took me all of 30 seconds. The very first chocolate I checked had artificial flavors. This one.

FrischSchoggi Raspberry-Blackberry White​

Feel free to look it up. Granted, having own d a chocolate shop I had a pretty good idea where to look but it took one try.

So instead of acknowledging your error you scoured their website to cherry pick the ones that don’t use artificial flavors?

I was one for one in picking their chocolates with artificial flavors. Do you really think it would as just that one and I got lucky?

Somehow this reminds me of the believers in all analog mastering trying to rationalize their sad discovery that MoFi had been cutting most of their LPs from digital files.

I recommend you just accept that he lesson about artificial flavors and move on. Maybe even apply it to your assumptions about audio. I hate to the no how many chi time you wasted trying to cherry pick their chocolates to try to argue a point you already lost.

FrischSchoggi Raspberry-Blackberry White (laderach.com)

Ingredients: sugar, cocoa butter, whole milk powder, skimmed milk powder, fructose, blackberry juice 0.9%, raspberry puree 0.3%, raspberry juice 0.3%, flavouring, acidifier (E330), natural flavour, emulsifier (soya lecithin), cocoa powder.

May contain egg, gluten (incl. wheat), nuts.

Doesn't say artificial flavoring here, looks like a lot of natural juices used in fact.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I took a wide swath of different types they sell and I didn't find a single one with the word "artificial" in the ingredients list.

 

[Analog Scott]

FrischSchoggi Raspberry-Blackberry White (laderach.com)

Ingredients: sugar, cocoa butter, whole milk powder, skimmed milk powder, fructose, blackberry juice 0.9%, raspberry puree 0.3%, raspberry juice 0.3%, flavouring, acidifier (E330), natural flavour, emulsifier (soya lecithin), cocoa powder.

May contain egg, gluten (incl. wheat), nuts.

Doesn't say artificial flavoring here, looks like a lot of natural juices used in fact.

I didn't cherry pick anything. I took a wide swath of different types they sell and I didn't find a single one with the word "artificial" in the ingredients list.

Buy our delicious FrischSchoggi™ chocolate here

FrischSchoggi is our specialty and a very delicious treat. The FrischSchoggi chocolates is the best and comes in a variety of flavors

laderach.com

 

[morricab]

Buy our delicious FrischSchoggi™ chocolate here

FrischSchoggi is our specialty and a very delicious treat. The FrischSchoggi chocolates is the best and comes in a variety of flavors

laderach.com

The US site and the CH site don't agree...The CH site doesn't mention artificial flavoring.

Nevertheless, the majority of the chocolate doesn't have artificial flavoring...it looks like some of the pralines and more complex confections have a bit.

 

[PhP]

If you consider that an audio stand is mandatory to get the best from your system, I added a full description of Convergence®.
CONVERGENCE Audio stand portfolio, full characteristics, manufacturing steps, pictures. At 7 km from Switzerland, we have the same passion for ultra mechanical precision .
https://www.phpaudio.fr/convergence-stand-portfolio

 

[PYP]

If you and I went to a classical guitar concert and then heard a great recording of that concert, you don't think we would agree on whether the reproduction was realistic or not? We might disagree on the level of realism but would likely agree the reproduction was realistic if the system was good.

interesting question. Let's take an example from real life (well, my life anyway). We go to Carnegie Hall in Manhattan (New York, USA). We enjoy the music. By chance, we had heard that same music in the Hall before they renovated it. Same music, same musicians. But the sound is different. The "old" Hall had a softer focus with a rich tone. The "new" Hall had a razor-sharp image. Every instrument can be heard distinctly. You preferred one version of the Hall and I preferred another.

Each went home and tried to re-create that sound in our hifi. Assuming we were successful, both systems would sound like live music, but played in different Halls (essentially). If we had had that same experience, one of us might comment: That sounds like the old (or new) Carnegie Hall! We probably wouldn't say: "This cannot be correct because you are not using [one's preferred topology and/or medium] and, worst of all, you are using [one's idea of a topology and/or medium that sucks]."

If one of us did say that, can we agree that the cause might be a certain audiophile dogma that we had chosen to believe?

 

[morricab]

interesting question. Let's take an example from real life (well, my life anyway). We go to Carnegie Hall in Manhattan (New York, USA). We enjoy the music. By chance, we had heard that same music in the Hall before they renovated it. Same music, same musicians. But the sound is different. The "old" Hall had a softer focus with a rich tone. The "new" Hall had a razor-sharp image. Every instrument can be heard distinctly. You preferred one version of the Hall and I preferred another.

Each went home and tried to re-create that sound in our hifi. Assuming we were successful, both systems would sound like live music, but played in different Halls (essentially). If we had had that same experience, one of us might comment: That sounds like the old (or new) Carnegie Hall! We probably wouldn't say: "This cannot be correct because you are not using [one's preferred topology and/or medium] and, worst of all, you are using [one's idea of a topology and/or medium that sucks]."

If one of us did say that, can we agree that the cause might be a certain audiophile dogma that we had chosen to believe?

Live sounds like live regardless of the environment in which it's played. Sure the venue shapes some characteristics of the tonality, decay etc. but you still don't mistake it for a recorded performance...essentially ever.

Upon playback of said recording, ideally, you would hear primarily the hall in which the performance was recorded without too much interference from your own. If you don't, that doesn't inherently disqualify it from sounding "live" but it usually means that some other important characteristics of what makes live...live are also then missing. So, I would say it increases the chances that the system in question will not sound like live or close to what was heard live.

Things like different dynamics, different decay of notes and reverberation (both quite important to low level resolution and micro dynamics), tonality and transparency will impact how "live" something sounds.

I think if both heard the same performance live and then two stereos shortly (immediately) after, it is probable that they could say which one sounds more like what they heard live...and probable that they would agree. I have done just such a thing with a previous system where my ex would play her violin standing in the room between the speakers while I recorded it. Other than getting a double dose of the same room (played back through my system), the tone, dynamics (especially that) and transparency were well maintained by my system...for a single violin it was pretty darn realistic. One guy came over with his girlfriend, who was a singer, and she immediately elbowed him and asked "why doesn't your system sound like this?" It sounds realistic. He looked pretty crestfallen!

 

[PYP]

Live sounds like live regardless of the environment in which it's played. Sure the venue shapes some characteristics of the tonality, decay etc. but you still don't mistake it for a recorded performance...essentially ever.

Upon playback of said recording, ideally, you would hear primarily the hall in which the performance was recorded without too much interference from your own. If you don't, that doesn't inherently disqualify it from sounding "live" but it usually means that some other important characteristics of what makes live...live are also then missing. So, I would say it increases the chances that the system in question will not sound like live or close to what was heard live.

Things like different dynamics, different decay of notes and reverberation (both quite important to low level resolution and micro dynamics), tonality and transparency will impact how "live" something sounds.

I think if both heard the same performance live and then two stereos shortly (immediately) after, it is probable that they could say which one sounds more like what they heard live...and probable that they would agree. I have done just such a thing with a previous system where my ex would play her violin standing in the room between the speakers while I recorded it. Other than getting a double dose of the same room (played back through my system), the tone, dynamics (especially that) and transparency were well maintained by my system...for a single violin it was pretty darn realistic. One guy came over with his girlfriend, who was a singer, and she immediately elbowed him and asked "why doesn't your system sound like this?" It sounds realistic. He looked pretty crestfallen!

agree in general, but we seem to making slightly different points. The two versions of Carnegie Hall sounded very, very different. A couple of notes and my whole attention shifted to this change. Not the music (same piece of music), but the presentation.

As audiophiles, we choose a sound signature from across a continuum. We emulate somewhere from "old" to "new" Carnegie Hall (oversimplification, but perhaps apt). If successful, they all sound live, indeed they were based upon a live performance. But we have a preference for a particular sound signature. And, to us, that sounds best.

I am very curious to know whether the singer's boyfriend became her husband and whether that happened in spite of his not succeeding in getting his system to sound as realistic as your system, or because of his success. Or whether, just perhaps, other factors came into play for their lifelong partnership (sarcasm emoji inserted here). But, it is none of my business, so I won't.

On a more serious note: that was a wonderful test, especially based upon the violin. I would have loved to have witnessed it.

 

[tony22]

Laderach is amazing, their rum chocolates are great, as are some of those broken frischoggi sticks

Laderach is quite good, but my wife and I prefer Purdy's for filled chocolates and truffles - at least when we can get them when traveling in Canada. Fortunately we have a Laderach store nearby when the mood strikes.

 

[bonzo75]

Laderach is quite good, but my wife and I prefer Purdy's for filled chocolates and truffles - at least when we can get them when traveling in Canada. Fortunately we have a Laderach store nearby when the mood strikes.

the laderach there might not be as good. in London it certainly isn’t

 

[tony22]

Hmm, possibly. I’ve purchased Laderach in both Canada and the U.S. and have the same impression from both locations.

 

[bonzo75]

Hmm, possibly. I’ve purchased Laderach in both Canada and the U.S. and have the same impression from both locations.

I am referring to Switzerland. London is not as good as the Swiss ones

 

[tony22]

Yes, I understood that. I was just remarking on comparisons in my own experience. I imagine Valrhona and Callebaut both taste better in France than in the U.S.

 

[morricab]

Yes, I understood that. I was just remarking on comparisons in my own experience. I imagine Valrhona and Callebaut both taste better in France than in the U.S.

I know Guinness definitely tastes best in Dublin!

 

[Rexp]

agree in general, but we seem to making slightly different points. The two versions of Carnegie Hall sounded very, very different. A couple of notes and my whole attention shifted to this change. Not the music (same piece of music), but the presentation.

As audiophiles, we choose a sound signature from across a continuum. We emulate somewhere from "old" to "new" Carnegie Hall (oversimplification, but perhaps apt). If successful, they all sound live, indeed they were based upon a live performance. But we have a preference for a particular sound signature. And, to us, that sounds best.

I am very curious to know whether the singer's boyfriend became her husband and whether that happened in spite of his not succeeding in getting his system to sound as realistic as your system, or because of his success. Or whether, just perhaps, other factors came into play for their lifelong partnership (sarcasm emoji inserted here). But, it is none of my business, so I won't.

On a more serious note: that was a wonderful test, especially based upon the violin. I would have loved to have witnessed it.

The original point you made was in response to morricab saying Mola Mola and Grimm is not good. You said it's a matter of taste.

I am saying it is not a matter of taste if the gear in question doesn't reproduce music in a realistic manner as morricab implies.

 

[hopkins]

A fair question with a complicated answer. I’ll cut to the conclusion…maybe, maybe not.

One approach is simply to forget about "realism" and compare the sound across different systems. I personally use good quality headphones as a reference - they provide a sound that I like with a wide variety of recordings, and offer a high level of detail from the recordings. Based on that, I can compare the sound of various speakers and decide how each perform in comparison. Works for me!

 

[Ron Resnick]

One approach is simply to forget about "realism" and compare the sound across different systems.

In this case the objective simply is to create or to find a pleasing sound?

 

[PYP]

The original point you made was in response to morricab saying Mola Mola and Grimm is not good. You said it's a matter of taste.

I am saying it is not a matter of taste if the gear in question doesn't reproduce music in a realistic manner as morricab implies.

OK. That makes sense.

Do we rely upon user feedback to determine if the gear does reproduce music in a realistic manner? If so, isn't that a matter of their opinion based upon their preferences? If not, do we rely upon measurements instead? In other words, what is the criteria for judging (and who judges) that the music is reproduced realistically?

From the perspective of measurements, which is NOT how I decide if the equipment works well for me, the Mola Mola and Grimm Audio gear has very low distortion (jitter, etc.), therefore, very transparent. Transparent to me means that you hear the music and not the gear (as much as that is possible). Did @morricab run from the room covering his ears because the distortion was so bad, or it was so unrealistic he needed to vacate the premises?

I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm just saying this is a subjective hobby and even if we can find consensus on whether the gear reproduces music in a realistic manner (every thread I've read here convinces me that consensus is not possible), someone might prefer something else. The marketplace weeds out some of the non-contenders, but what is left, according to some here, is simply an expensive, mediocre simulation based upon powerful marketing and group think.

 

[Analog Scott]

In this case the objective simply is to create or to find a pleasing sound?

This is a big philosophical question. And a personal choice. For me pleasing sound is the final goal. But I find a great deal of cross over between realism and pleasing sound. But if the two are in conflict I’m opting for pleasing. I’ve heard enough crap sounding live acoustic music to know that isn’t my goal.