Comparative Listening Tests

[RogerD]

I find any coloration no matter how attractive that veers off neutral and natural fatiguing after a short while, often people including myself are baited by the slightly bassy and voluptuous sound specially with digital only to find out there can be too much of a good thing down the line. My suggestion is for people to stick with 2-3 tracks that they're really familiar with and know how they should sound when things are right adding variety only adds to the confusion. Ideally these 2-3 tracks should allow you to test all necessary parameters, bass level, extension and articulation, coherence, ambience, naturalness both vocal and instrumental, proper highs without accentuation, independent interplay of various instruments regarding individual scale and loudness, and of course correct tone and timbre. With very familiar tracks one should already know the strengths and weaknesses of one's system and one can see/hear if the component under test is improving or degrading more parameters. Same tracks can be used everywhere, setting up speakers or setting the VTA and tracking force of a cartridge. IMO these few tracks are as important a tool as any in one's audio toolbox, look at them as your Reference tool when testing components, setting up or educating yourself with various systems.



Not necessarily in this case and not a question of bottleneck when you're doing comparative testing, two identical wires can sound very different with different termination it's nearly impossible to figure out which is better or right with only one run and lacking a known Reference point otherwise it's just confusion.

david

Good advice. The idea is to compare to a constant known quantity and I would say to even narrow it down further to a single item,which I have said numerous times is clarity. Clarity in the context of a chorus with maybe 20 voices,you have to have some complexity. I guarantee if you can achieve more clarity listening to more complex vocal passages,you will gain performance in most other attributes. You will notice improvements in bass articulation,then try to improve the level of congestion of bass timpanys in orchestral recordings. Find good recordings and select as David says 2 or 3 tracks,using them as a constant. Comparing against a known limited quantity is a heck of a lot easier then using many recordings as a reference. This is just part of my method...it works for me....YMMV.

 

[stehno]

I would say "we" really don't know the number....everybody's system is different. I have thought I was at the point of finality in system performance,only to be proven wrong. I find nothing wrong with experimentation and in fact that is how I learn. You have to be able to compare against something that is constant. I have trained my ear to make decisions quickly,but sometimes it can take 100 hours. I find no fault in Al M.'s method or decision,he knows his system best. Anyway that's how I view audio reproduction.

Actually, we really should know the number and it should be per near 100% of the music info is retrieved from a digital recording. I suspect we should know this because of our experiences with CD use in the computer industry.

We can make backups of our data and even recover from those backups time and again with tremenously consistant integrity. For years now. Same goes for downloading hi-rez music from a website and burning to disc. This and more should give us good confidence levels that perhaps all the digital music's info from a given recording is retrieved, with say a 6 bit per 1 million error ratio.

As for processing, once those bits enter the data stream, unless a component or cable mfg'er is doing something funky to actually discard bits and bytes, it's probably not a bad assumption that a high level of fidelity to the signal quanity is maintained.

Overall I like the Ayre product line. But in time past and I think still, they employ some built-in "ayre conditioners" to condition the noisy AC. According to old ads, these ayre conditioners were placed in stragetic places to suppress offending frequencies. Now whenever one suppresses offending frequencies, their also suppressing all the music info in those offending frequency ranges. IMO, I would not call that conditioning or purifying or cleansing the noisy AC. But there may be the odd mfg'er who attempts similar strategies.

Anyway, because of computers and CD backups, restores, and music burning, etc. and their level of integrity, I personally don't see any reason why our digital source players wouldn't have same levels of read/retrieval accuracy.

 

[RogerD]

Actually, we really should know the number and it should be per near 100% of the music info is retrieved from a digital recording. I suspect we should know this because of our experiences with CD use in the computer industry.

We can make backups of our data and even recover from those backups time and again with tremenously consistant integrity. For years now. Same goes for downloading hi-rez music from a website and burning to disc. This and more should give us good confidence levels that perhaps all the digital music's info from a given recording is retrieved, with say a 6 bit per 1 million error ratio.

As for processing, once those bits enter the data stream, unless a component or cable mfg'er is doing something funky to actually discard bits and bytes, it's probably not a bad assumption that a high level of fidelity to the signal quanity is maintained.

Overall I like the Ayre product line. But in time past and I think still, they employ some built-in "ayre conditioners" to condition the noisy AC. According to old ads, these ayre conditioners were placed in stragetic places to suppress offending frequencies. Now whenever one suppresses offending frequencies, their also suppressing all the music info in those offending frequency ranges. IMO, I would not call that conditioning or purifying or cleansing the noisy AC. But there may be the odd mfg'er who attempts similar strategies.

Anyway, because of computers and CD backups, restores, and music burning, etc. and their level of integrity, I personally don't see any reason why our digital source players wouldn't have same levels of read/retrieval accuracy.

Yes I agree. Digital can retrieve 100 pct. The bottleneck is the playback system. The purpose of improving playback systems is to "reveal" what is stored on the digital medium. It is all there and sampling rate has nothing to do with it.

 

[stehno]

Yes I agree. Digital can retrieve 100 pct. The bottleneck is the playback system. The purpose of improving playback systems is to "reveal" what is stored on the digital medium. It is all there and sampling rate has nothing to do with it.

True, and yes, it's not a format issue. IMO, it's a percentage issue regardless of format. That's why I suspect higher-rez recordings can only offer marginal improvements at best and that includes the new highly praised MQA format. A single note's percentage of audibility at the speaker remains the same - regardless of the resolution. No matter how much better/cleaner that single note may sound with a higher rez format, we're still hearing the exact same audible percentage of that single note.

It's mostly due to outside distortions entering into the components that severely cripple their precision and accuracy such that a good percentage of the 100% of the music info retrieved and I suspect up to 100% of the music info processed, remains inaudible below the much raised noise floor. A noise floor raised by these very distortions entering and compromising our components. But we digress.

 

[RogerD]

True, and yes, it's not a format issue. IMO, it's a percentage issue regardless of format. That's why I suspect higher-rez recordings can only offer marginal improvements at best and that includes the new highly praised MQA format. A single note's percentage of audibility at the speaker remains the same - regardless of the resolution. No matter how much better/cleaner that single note may sound with a higher rez format, we're still hearing the exact same audible percentage of that single note.
It's mostly due to outside distortions entering into the components that severely cripple their precision and accuracy such that a good percentage of the 100% of the music info retrieved and I suspect up to 100% of the music info processed, remains inaudible below the much raised noise floor. A noise floor raised by these very distortions entering and compromising our components. But we digress.

Now this is my experience. Digital's bottle neck is in playback equipment. 44.1 is highy sufficient to reproduce the quality of the master tape. You remove the current interference and you have all the data captured by the conversion. The related equipment noise floor is well low enough provided that their interference is also removed.

 

[stehno]

Now this is my experience. Digital's bottle neck is in playback equipment. 44.1 is highy sufficient to reproduce the quality of the master tape. You remove the current interference and you have all the data captured by the conversion. The related equipment noise floor is well low enough provided that their interference is also removed.

To the best of my knowledge, digital doesn't have a specific bottleneck as the problem I described is actually regardless of format whether it be analog, MQA, Redbook, 192/24 flac or even MP3 digital. Then again, I don't think reasonable or better components in and of themselves have any such bottleneck either.

 

[RogerD]

To the best of my knowledge, digital doesn't have a specific bottleneck as the problem I described is actually regardless of format whether it be analog, MQA, Redbook, 192/24 flac or even MP3 digital. Then again, I don't think reasonable or better components in and of themselves have any such bottleneck either.

You might have misunderstood me. The playback bottleneck is the current interference not in the process or equipment.

 

[stehno]

You might have misunderstood me. The playback bottleneck is the current interference not in the process or equipment.

How so?

 

[RogerD]

How so?

True, and yes, it's not a format issue. IMO, it's a percentage issue regardless of format. That's why I suspect higher-rez recordings can only offer marginal improvements at best and that includes the new highly praised MQA format. A single note's percentage of audibility at the speaker remains the same - regardless of the resolution. No matter how much better/cleaner that single note may sound with a higher rez format, we're still hearing the exact same audible percentage of that single note.

It's mostly due to outside distortions entering into the components that severely cripple their precision and accuracy such that a good percentage of the 100% of the music info retrieved and I suspect up to 100% of the music info processed, remains inaudible below the much raised noise floor. A noise floor raised by these very distortions entering and compromising our components. But we digress.

I think we're talking about the same thing. I experiment with chassis grounding. There's about 400 pages written here about grounding devices.

Let me make a clarification with digital. I have found the digital transport to be most effected by EMI in the digital chain, could be the laser p/u. If so a digital streamer should be better.

 

[Rodney Gold]

The bottleneck is not actually the system .. in most cases it will be the room.. thats why I dont fiddle much with cables Im using some good stuff but never really want to change it cos I know my room treatment and dsp correction will do a far better and more effective change than any cable can.
Cables are low on the totem pole in terms of where I spend my money on audiophile tweaks

 

[ddk]

Well, the good/bad news there is no such cable or component or speaker in existence that is truly neutral. To the best of my knowledge anyway. And if per chance one did stumble across a truly neutral product, I'd venture they'd never know it because of the other less than neutral products making up a given system.

You have a point. Of course everything has a sound, neutral in the sense in how well the system/component allows the differences between recordings, specially the ambience to come through instead of painting everything with the same brush or favoring certain frequencies over others. Degrees will vary but there are products like that out there. Seems your rack may be one ?

Not sure what case you're talking about, David. I was simply stating/confirming that when mixing and matching cable designs and/or technologies, one always runs the risk of one cable potentially bottlenecking the performance of another cable. Then again, that could even be true if all the cables comes from the same mfg'er and same design / technology. i.e. the mfg'er makes an outstanding ic but less than stellar speaker cable or vice versa.

That the OP relates to something else.

david

 

[KlausR.]

I'm curious how Klaus explains his IC cables changing SPLs? Wouldn't this be rejected outright as electrically impossible? Because technically, it is impossible given any cable anywhere close to normal and in this specific case the 3% or so difference in conductivity between silver and copper doesn't explain it.

We did these tests several years ago, so I don’t remember what exactly how we proceeded. If I remember correctly my (professional) pre-amp allows to create internal loops which can be inserted into the general circuit. This allows to switch to the cable instantaneously and do direct A/B comparison. My colleague, who DIY-ed this particular cable is electronic engineer, he was surprised himself and on the spot could not find an explanation, but we did not pursue this issue any further, and compensated for the level difference.

I'm also curious how it could be possible that descriptions on how a certain cable sounds can be extremely similar in a very large majority of user's experiences? If this was made up as implied by Amir, Klaus and many others then these descriptions should be much more random, but they are not. When 95% of my customers describe my D4 in the same way, assuming they all didn't talk to one another and conspire, what might this mean?

Maybe they all read the same review in one of the online mags and tried to see whether they had the same impression?

 

[KlausR.]

Well, the good/bad news there is no such cable or component or speaker in existence that is truly neutral. To the best of my knowledge anyway. And if per chance one did stumble across a truly neutral product, I'd venture they'd never know it because of the other less than neutral products making up a given system.

If you really want to know the truth, then appropriate controls are a must. Without any controls there are simply (too many) sources of potential bias, which are known to affect the outcome of the test. Whenever human senses are involved in the evaluation of a condition one must be sure that it is only the sense in question that is responsible for the result, and nothing else. Audiophile testing methods may be fun, but do not produce accurate, reliable, and reproducible results. Such tests do not provide facts, but informative opinions at best.

A passage from Risch’s paper that might provide some comfort to the audiophile community:

It must be kept clear that so-called negative test results
(where no audible differences mere discerned) or what is referred
to in statistics as acceptance of the null hypothesis DOES NOT
MEAN THAT NO DIFFERENCE5 WERE THERE, only that the particular
test performed could not discern any difference. The null
hypothesis can never be proved true, we can only act as if
(pretend) it were true based on the chosen interpretation of the
data. Insufficient resolving power in a given test due to a
poorly set-up or badly chosen source system, atrocious
acoustics, or limited program material could easily generate
negative test results. These factors along with the additional
burden of an overly complex test arrangement , which are usually
a result of the desire to seek statistical assurance and
comfort, can easily result in a misleading conclusion: That
there were no differences between the components. However, it
takes only ONE positive valid test within a given test group to
remove any doubt caused by any number of negative results. The
tests resulting in no discernable difference tell us NOTHING,
while tests with positive results give us a chance to obtain
truly informative data.

Note, though, that Risch also states that

To maintain validity, listening tests must be performed under single-blind conditions. Personal bias of the listeners has to be eliminated from the test for it to be truly valid.

 

[ddk]

David,

I have found that using just 2 - 3 tracks can be limited, specially considering the chaos of the recording practices - we risk forming opinions that will not apply to most of our recordings, but will only play optimally a few.

I don't see it that way for A/B purposes Francisco, your system is fixed at that point in time the new component is either better, same or worse than what you have. No reason why you can't assess what you need from a couple of decent recordings representative of your taste and values when you have a clear idea of what they are, it should remain true with anything else you play. IME parameters won't change, what you lose or gain in one recording will be the true with everything else and you lose focus and add confusion using too many tracks for A/B purposes, of course YMMV.

Can we know what are the 2-3 tracks you would suggest for this purpose, particularly for "independent interplay of various instruments regarding individual scale and loudness"?

Over the years I have many reference tracks but I use only one or two at a time for evaluation. One that I particularly like and use often is a recording of Villa-Lobos Songs; Electra KTC 1165 with soprano Roberta Alexander, Alfred Heller piano and Diane Chaplin cello. Track 11 is Heller's arrangement of Bachianas Brasileiras #5 for the trio, the recording is above average and there are a number of key factors in it that I can use for assessment;

- Of course the starting point is the naturalness and quality of tone & timbre, everything is predicated on this being right. The rest is about micro/macro dynamics, resolution and neutrality of the component/s. Lower resolution and/or colored components will mask and/or homogenize the following to varying degrees from my reference and vice versa if ithey're better.

- The track is put together from more than one take, how identifiable are the different takes.

- There's a conversation between the voice, the piano and the cello changing prominence and volume as the piece progresses, this interplay should be very clearly defined and not presented just as instruments coming in and dropping off all in the same way with the same impact. I look to hear the nuances of the conversation, the instruments and the voice never drop out of the conversation but change their tone, importance and vibrance throughout, how well the subtleties are preserved and allowed to come through with distinction is very important.

- Piano, in various sections of the recording there are cues as to where the rear wall is in relation to the piano and how it's miked, in other sections not only the difference between left & right hands is clearly defined but the intensity and attack of the fingers are also preserved. Notes are properly separated and clear, not just shades of the same note going ding ding ding.

- Cello is close miked on this recording, there's some very quiet low level pizzicato but you should still be able to differentiate the plucked strings. Bow & fingering technique should be obvious as well as the vibrato and modulation of the bow as it travels across the strings. The cello is resonant, bright, alive and nasal, not sweet as some components can make cello sound.

- Alexander is an accomplished soprano and still had an impressive range when this recording was done, you should hear her ease with this piece, the high notes should never be shrill or rounded off.

- I love this music and there should be a deep emotional connection when I listen to it and this is where naturalness comes into the picture. There are parts of the music that touches me very deeply if the component is even slightly hifi and impressive it will compete with the beauty and essence of the piece and sever the emotional connection.

For energy, excitement, pace & dynamics Castilian Drums on Brubeck's 1963 live album The Dave Brubeck Quarted At Carnegie Hall on Columbia is hard to beat. Play at live volumes!

david

 

[DaveC]

We did these tests several years ago, so I don’t remember what exactly how we proceeded. If I remember correctly my (professional) pre-amp allows to create internal loops which can be inserted into the general circuit. This allows to switch to the cable instantaneously and do direct A/B comparison. My colleague, who DIY-ed this particular cable is electronic engineer, he was surprised himself and on the spot could not find an explanation, but we did not pursue this issue any further, and compensated for the level difference.



Maybe they all read the same review in one of the online mags and tried to see whether they had the same impression?

Thanks for the response. Did you measure actual SPL differences? I assume you did if you compensated for it. This is one of many differences between cables that I consider unknown, as I've never heard any definitive explanation for it although other responses show there are theories. This illustrates the difficulty of some aspects of audio design, there are unknowns we are unaware of, or even if aware we have no mathematical models defining the behavior... and they have fairly major effects on the overall result. I mean if one little cable provides a difference in SPL that is measurable yet unexplained, even from the perspective of an electronics engineer, it stands to reason there are other factors at play we are ignorant of or understanding is limited.


The comments and reviews I have received have been similar well before I had any online reviews. There's also a significant difference in the response I get from customers before and after I bought my AudioDharma cable burn-in device.

 

[Rodney Gold]

For energy, excitement, pace & dynamics Castilian Drums on Brubeck's 1963 live album The Dave Brubeck Quarted At Carnegie Hall on Columbia is hard to beat. Play at live volumes!
thanks for that recommendation , I found it on tidal and am playing it as I type .. as per your instruction..its a great recording

 

[ddk]

For energy, excitement, pace & dynamics Castilian Drums on Brubeck's 1963 live album The Dave Brubeck Quarted At Carnegie Hall on Columbia is hard to beat. Play at live volumes!
thanks for that recommendation , I found it on tidal and am playing it as I type .. as per your instruction..its a great recording

Glad you're enjoying it Rodney!

david

 

[ddk]

If you really want to know the truth, then appropriate controls are a must. Without any controls there are simply (too many) sources of potential bias, which are known to affect the outcome of the test. Whenever human senses are involved in the evaluation of a condition one must be sure that it is only the sense in question that is responsible for the result, and nothing else. Audiophile testing methods may be fun, but do not produce accurate, reliable, and reproducible results. Such tests do not provide facts, but informative opinions at best.

High-end audio is a human experience predicated on individual biases, ideals and emotions how do these "facts" actually relate to or are of any value to the listener beyond providing basic information?

david

 

[steve williams]

High-end audio is a human experience predicated on individual biases, ideals and emotions how do these "facts" actually relate to or are of any value to the listener beyond providing basic information?

david

Totally agree and I couldn't have said it better

 

[microstrip]

I don't see it that way for A/B purposes Francisco, your system is fixed at that point in time the new component is either better, same or worse than what you have. No reason why you can't assess what you need from a couple of decent recordings representative of your taste and values when you have a clear idea of what they are, it should remain true with anything else you play. IME parameters won't change, what you lose or gain in one recording will be the true with everything else and you lose focus and add confusion using too many tracks for A/B purposes, of course YMMV.

Unfortunately I have not been able to find such a limited number of recordings that I could use for this purpose. Probably my music preferences are too diverse for it. My main concern is that I have listened to the same recording sounding SOTA in systems that can not play decently others that can also sound SOTA in other systems. I have once set my system using a Monteverdi recording and modern vocal instrumental recording to sound fabulous and then I found it could not play decently Stravinsky, it sounded extremely nice, but boring with it. I have found that contemporary classical music is particularly difficult to reproduce decently - it is why many people hate it. Shostakovitch is also a very difficult composer for most systems.

Over the years I have many reference tracks but I use only one or two at a time for evaluation. One that I particularly like and use often is a recording of Villa-Lobos Songs; Electra KTC 1165 with soprano Roberta Alexander, Alfred Heller piano and Diane Chaplin cello. Track 11 is Heller's arrangement of Bachianas Brasileiras #5 for the trio, the recording is above average and there are a number of key factors in it that I can use for assessment;

- Of course the starting point is the naturalness and quality of tone & timbre, everything is predicated on this being right. The rest is about micro/macro dynamics, resolution and neutrality of the component/s. Lower resolution and/or colored components will mask and/or homogenize the following to varying degrees from my reference and vice versa if ithey're better.

- The track is put together from more than one take, how identifiable are the different takes.

- There's a conversation between the voice, the piano and the cello changing prominence and volume as the piece progresses, this interplay should be very clearly defined and not presented just as instruments coming in and dropping off all in the same way with the same impact. I look to hear the nuances of the conversation, the instruments and the voice never drop out of the conversation but change their tone, importance and vibrance throughout, how well the subtleties are preserved and allowed to come through with distinction is very important.

- Piano, in various sections of the recording there are cues as to where the rear wall is in relation to the piano and how it's miked, in other sections not only the difference between left & right hands is clearly defined but the intensity and attack of the fingers are also preserved. Notes are properly separated and clear, not just shades of the same note going ding ding ding.

- Cello is close miked on this recording, there's some very quiet low level pizzicato but you should still be able to differentiate the plucked strings. Bow & fingering technique should be obvious as well as the vibrato and modulation of the bow as it travels across the strings. The cello is resonant, bright, alive and nasal, not sweet as some components can make cello sound.

- Alexander is an accomplished soprano and still had an impressive range when this recording was done, you should hear her ease with this piece, the high notes should never be shrill or rounded off.

- I love this music and there should be a deep emotional connection when I listen to it and this is where naturalness comes into the picture. There are parts of the music that touches me very deeply if the component is even slightly hifi and impressive it will compete with the beauty and essence of the piece and sever the emotional connection.

For energy, excitement, pace & dynamics Castilian Drums on Brubeck's 1963 live album The Dave Brubeck Quarted At Carnegie Hall on Columbia is hard to beat. Play at live volumes!

david

Great to read about this recording - I really appreciate Villa-Lobos and already own recordings of Alfred Heller playing some of his piano pieces. The label is the dutch Etcetera - currently they are also known for their DSD recordings. I have now ordered the CD of the recording you refer - thanks for pointing it and for your detailed analysis of its capabilities.