Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

How to listen for differences between Amps, DACs, Preamps, Processors, Cables, etc.

7K views 68 replies 13 participants last post by  lcaillo 
#1 ·
We have other threads that get into "Can we hear a difference?" type questions, the biggest one about amps, located HERE. So this thread is not asking the question "Can we hear a difference?", but asks the following question:

How can one learn to listen for and hear the differences between Amps, DACs, Preamps, Processors, Media File Bit Rates and Resolutions, Cables, and audio components in general?

Here are the assumptions for the thread:
  1. All suggestions are welcome, but the focus should be on systematic approaches by those who believe they have proven, reliable methods for hearing these differences.
  2. Minimizing variables will be a top priority. If Amp "A" sounded like this in one system/room and sounded like that in another system/room three months later, that experience seems suspect. Comparison methods that emphasize control of variables will be appreciated.
  3. Auditory memory can be addressed. How does one be sure one's memory of a sound is reliable?
  4. If possible, please try to suspend disbelief for this discussion. I admit that I cannot hear these differences, but if it is possible to develop the skill, I would like to be able to. So this is a teaching and learning and exploration thread. However, valid counter-arguments and sanity checks are also welcome.

Then here we go...

First question: Are the assumptions fair?

If so, second question: How does someone get started listening for these differences?

Edit: The original assumptions for this thread have been changed to be consistent with normal posting guidelines for HTS posting. This thread is open to all discussion pertinent to the subject of the thread.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I just added media file bit rates and resolutions to the list of differences I would like to learn how to be able to hear.

And let me be clear: This is a sincere effort to learn. I have been a skeptic in the past, and will always look for ways to stay grounded and make sure I am not fooling myself, but if there is a way to learn to listen and hear differences in more detail than I have been able to before, I would truly like to develop or unlease the skill.
 
#4 ·
Thank You for this, I have been looking for a way to put forth ideas and beliefs in a gentile way without bashing ones head against the wall, on either side that is.

I shall now retreat to my lab and respond in due course,
 
#5 ·
I can't speak to most of the hardware side of things, but I do have a decent amount of experience with digital files.

The best way to begin to understand how bitrate effects the sound is to start by taking a nice high-bitrate file (say a FLAC) and crunch it down into a super low rate Mp3 file - As low as your converter will let you go. Unlike physical media where no-one ever tried to deliberately create bad recordings, in digital we can make bad recordings and compare them to an 'identical' file to see what happens when we start clipping the dynamic range etc.

Over time you'll be able to tell the difference between different bitrates in the same codec etc, but it will take a loooong time for it to be instinctive as to why.

I'd certainly say that sense memory has a big part to play; you are always comparing what you are hearing to what you think it should sound like, so you need to have the side by side comparison to really get a fair comparison. As you say - If you can't tell the difference in a blind test then it's not achieving anything. It needs to be apples to apples.
 
#6 ·
As simple as it sounds, I found that I had to narrow my test tracks down to just a few, maybe three or less. These songs are super familiar. I can close my eyes and predict what I think the voices, instruments, drums, etc. should sound like. These aren't my favorite songs, nor are they the best recordings of all time. Rather, I have heard these songs thousands of times on thousands of combinations of file types, components, speakers, and environments.

For me, it is not easy or realistic to be able to blind test everything. Most of my decisions to purchase, move, tweak, or convert something in my system have to come from a feel (an impression) that I get. Most of the time all I have is my memory- my current vision of how my trusty tracks should be revealed. I find this to be an all-important starting point. It is my frame of reference that is not grounded in scientific proof, yet is has helped me improve almost every aspect of my system.
 
#7 ·
I um, did reserve a space for discussion but in reality I think I am going to get creamed and may rethink my involvement a bit. I have several DAC's at my home for instance and they all have a slightly different hue to them during playback of the same music though the same audio system. Can I show that by using numbers ? No I cannot, but as mentioned before, the human experience cannot ever be defined by numbers as that is not what we play music for, out complete human eco system is designed to experience that which comes from within or without and no two experiences will be alike. That is not to say others wont hear a difference if they so choose, but for me it took a long time to listen for what happens and still today I do not hear anything close to what the experts do. If some folks can detect differences, brilliant, if some cannot, brilliant as well, but then why do those that cannot feel a need to badger those that can until the cows come home ? It makes no sense to me. Maybe with an open mind, many of those that decry foul when it comes to differences may suddenly be able to experience something new.

In saying all electronics, be it amp, dac, wire, interconnect, sound the same would be akin to saying all Chevrolet's are the same or all Fords, refrigerators, footballs, bats, light bulbs, computers etc, because each of those things is designed to do a thing. Same as audio components but that does not mean they all do said thing equally. If all these things were found to be the same, we could live in Russia and all drive a Lada, how pleasant would that be ??

Good Listening

Jack
 
#8 ·
Thanks for getting the discussion started.

Savjac, you expressed reluctance about digging into this, not wanting to get "creamed." I added another assumption to post #1, that this thread will be a safe place for this discussion, and that negative or contrary or doubting or ridiculing or discouraging posts - assuming they comply with forum rules - may go into other pertinent threads but will be deleted from this thread without hesitation. If anyone disagrees with that approach, please PM me or Sonnie. It is a different, more stringent set of rules than normal, but I think it is appropriate for the discussion at hand.

Hopefully, all can feel comfortable with an open dialogue under these conditions.

Edit: The assumptions for this thread, expressed in Post #1, have been changed to be consistent with normal posting guidelines for HTS posting. This thread is open to all discussion pertinent to the subject of the thread.
 
#9 ·
Thanks Wayne,

I've been looking forward to this review/comparison. As far as "how" to set up the comparison, I found an article @ the audioholics site that linked some free software that appears to do exactly what you are talking about. Scroll down to #5.

http://www.audioholics.com/how-to-shop/best-free-audio-software

It reads like it could be just the ticket for this eval. Read over it & let us know if it looks promising to you.
 
#11 ·
I understand what this website is trying to say/do but I am not sure that using a bit of software to record some differences in whatever is being testing can really tell us all we need to know. For example, if we tend to be Fond of Amplifier "A" and we are less fond of Amplifier "B", and both amplifiers seem to be in good order, testing would not really tell us what it is we like or dislike. Especially if we are as suggested, putting a microphone in front of a speaker to test differences, we may never explain what is going on. Measurements have their place but like so many things in this hobby, they will not tell us everything. Listen, if we then hear an issue, try to measure for what we are hearing, although there are some things that, at this point cannot be measured.
 
#10 ·
Thank You Wayne for this forum that will allow us to share thoughts, ideas and explanations that some of us have been involved with over the years.
I really see no problems with your assumptions and would look forward to expanding on them as time goes on.

Yes, we can learn to listen for and hear the differences between Amps, DACs, Preamps, Processors, Media File Bit Rates and Resolutions, Cables, and audio components in general IF differences exist in the first place, which to some may or may not seem obvious.

Like operating machinery, a computer, a car or even a remote control, it often takes time and practice to do these things efficiently and as if it were a second sense. Few of us just "Know" how to do something naturally without some practice and the more complex the thing we are trying to learn is, the longer it will take to train the senses to ignore things that do not matter and concentrate on that which does matter. A good example would be an automobile body shop. If you have ever tried to fix a small dent or bit of damage on your vehicle you know that it takes a very trained and skilled hand to ensure the damage is cleaned, covered, sanded smooth, primer applied properly so paint and buffing can be done. Same with making a violin, guitar, trumpet and on and on, without experience, talent or both, we would most likely produce junk. Even with weeks or months or trying we still make construct junk without someone showing us how to do things properly. I think that makes sense although most will read it and feel that we know how to listen, its obvious, why would we need to be show what to listen for ? Well with time, maybe things will become clear....or maybe I am just nuts :coo coo:

I am not sure which item to start with but in all cases, it is important to start with a known entity also known as a control item, be it amp, cable, bit rate, Dac or what ever. We will not start by trying to determine which item is better or worse, but merely which item is DIFFERENT from another. This is the first step in the learning process as we really do not want to overload our senses. It may be easiest to start with what we own as a control sample and then introduce the comparative item, maybe even an item that is known to be a problem or is known to be a lessor quality product. I will try to come up with a good test that most of us can do easily and post same shortly, I need to think of what will be easiest.
 
#12 ·
Nicely spoken, it is good to hear your experience & perspectives on these issues. While I think subjective comparisons may very well be what decides ones decision on a purchase, I also think that measurable/reproducible characteristics from one product to another would more likely tweak the interest of most readers. Blind listening has proven to be fallible, our minds preconceived conceptions have to be taken into consideration. I think this leaves us with deciding on certain measurable characteristics, combined with real world, subjective impressions to guide our evaluations. The best of both worlds.

PS: I think we will have to agree that "passing/failing" the blind listening portion should not be considered a good or bad thing or a source of ridicule. It should merely be part of the process.
 
#13 ·
Maybe this is a good way to start:

I am thinking/shopping for a good DAC/headphone amp combo. I will come up with a list of candidates and perhaps others with experience with specific DACs, who have heard them and can describe the sonic differences, can suggest a couple I could get on an eval basis and have time to compare directly. Then those with experienced ears could give me some guidance as to what to listen for and how to listen for it for those specific models. Does that make sense?

I appreciate the input.
 
#15 ·
I am most willing to assist you in this quest for a good headphone DAC. Will send a message,

Thank You for sticking with me, this may take a bit of a while.
 
#16 ·
I believe being able to hear differences in recording and equipment is a journey.

I have been listening since the late 60es and I didn’t have a clue as to what I was listening too. Everything sounded good but some things sounded better but I could not put words to why it sounded better it just did.

This journey was made easier with a guide to help me along. In the late 60es and early 70es the audio magazines would review equipment by checking the specs and declaring the item was the best they ever heard. Sometime in the early 70es on a trip into Chicago with my buddy Savjac to listen to the really expensive stuff I picked up a magazine called The Absolute Sound. They based their reviews on how equipment sounded instead of there specs. The absolute sound they were talking about was live unamplified music and that meant finding recording that captured that music as faithfully as possible. The Absolute Sound created a language to communicate what they were hearing making it easier to talk about the sound.

To make a long story short it took years of live concerts and listening sessions with lots of different equipment and recordings for my brain to know how to listen and what to listen for and I am still learning.

Ed
 
#20 ·
I believe being able to hear differences in recording and equipment is a journey.
I have been listening since the late 60es and I didn’t have a clue as to what I was listening too. Everything sounded good but some things sounded better but I could not put words to why it sounded better it just did.
This journey was made easier with a guide to help me along. In the late 60es and early 70es the audio magazines would review equipment by checking the specs and declaring the item was the best they ever heard.
Hi Ed,

Welcome. You've been around a little longer than me :).
I wholeheartedly agree that manufacturers have done a poor good of correlating specifications and audio relevance.
The 70s was about when audio comic books started appearing. Folks devoid of electro-acoustic scientific knowledge, started expressing their purely subjective, human error-prone (unbeknownst to them) perceptions of electro-acoustic devices, as unerring representations of physical reality and objective, transferable facts. That birthed the entire "high end" industry and where it is today. The 70s were also a time where some great sounding equipment (Infinity, Magnepan, Audio Research, etc.) was produced, like the stuff I'm sure you were hearing. With of course, sufficiently high pricing to cause this well known (to science) effect. Good sound = high price is as pervasive in audio as anywhere else, including wines as so aptly demonstrated in that field of study.

To make a long story short it took years of live concerts and listening sessions with lots of different equipment and recordings for my brain to know how to listen and what to listen for and I am still learning.

Ed
Can't think of a better way to train the ears to know what real instruments-music sound like. I do the same. Just keep in mind that when playing back an electronic capture of such an event, that one is judging the entire process, from recording through playback equipment in room...and your mood/perceptions at that time. A lot of variables involved. Use care when making judgements on any one item, when lots of variables are involved.

cheers
 
#18 ·
I have been in A-B test situations where I felt pressured or rattled or felt extra variables were being added at random and found the experience to be stressful, a confidence buster, and did poorly. In other situations where I felt in control, relaxed, confident, that there were no extra variables, I did much better. Making the environment friendly to the listener under test is a key. This can be done while still keeping it a clean blind test.

My approach for purposes of this thread is going to try to learn to hear the differences between pieces of equipment, to get to where I can do it consistently, and then try to find a way to verify with blind testing. The emphasis will be on learning the skills first, and verification will come later. The verification will be important, no doubt, but I do not want it to trip up or get in the way of the initial learning process.

I do not pretend to know where this is all going to end up. To approach this undertaking honestly seems to require surrendering to the subjective side for part of the process, then switching to a more objective mode later on, finding a way for the subjective and objective sides to work together without either overriding the other completely. Time will tell how well this can be done.
 
#22 ·
How to listen for differences between Amps - Counter-Arguments & Sanity Checks

I have been in A-B test situations where I felt pressured or rattled or felt extra variables were being added at random and found the experience to be stressful, a confidence buster, and did poorly. In other situations where I felt in control, relaxed, confident, that there were no extra variables, I did much better. Making the environment friendly to the listener under test is a key. This can be done while still keeping it a clean blind test.
Robust blind testing and the required statistical analysis is no easy task and is best left to experts in that field (which excludes me :)).
Simple AB testing is fun and a great start, but the two should never be confused.

My approach for purposes of this thread is going to try to learn to hear the differences between pieces of equipment, to get to where I can do it consistently, and then try to find a way to verify with blind testing. The emphasis will be on learning the skills first, and verification will come later. The verification will be important, no doubt, but I do not want it to trip up or get in the way of the initial learning process.
IMHO, that is putting the cart before the horse. If one hears a difference in equipment (say DACs) via an ears only listening test, its pretty reasonable to ascribe said difference to audio/the equipment.
Now if one "hears" a difference in a sighted, prior knowledge, subconscious biases filled vision+listening+knowing casual session, exactly what do you ascribe what to?

I do not pretend to know where this is all going to end up. To approach this undertaking honestly seems to require surrendering to the subjective side for part of the process, then switching to a more objective mode later on, finding a way for the subjective and objective sides to work together without either overriding the other completely. Time will tell how well this can be done.
Have fun no matter what. My suggestion would be to hear it first via an ears only test. If nothing, move on. If something, investigate further.
Or, decide like I do, that ultimately all senses+biases will be judging the equipment once you start listening casually, purely subjectively, for enjoyment. In which case, what you "hear" is all that matters. Free of any correlated objective claims of course.

cheers
 
#19 ·
I've been involved in blind and double blind tests with pretty much the same kind of results AudiocRaver reports. Many years ago when they were the rage a buddy and I bought an ABX tester. We had mostly the same sort of inconclusive results.

I've settled on what I call the LTLT (long term listening test). I insert device "x" (cable, gear, whatever) into my system and leave it there for a couple of weeks. I keep informal notes about how much time I spend listening. There is no pressure and no trying to analyze whether or not I hear something different.

What I have found is that some devices (cables and gear) cause me to listen less. I've tried this multiple times with the same devices and the results are always the same. That is, some things cause me to do less listening. I don't consciously hear any difference and if pressed I'd have to say "I don't hear any difference.". However, when I replace the "offending" device with something else my listening pattern changes.

This is reason enough for me to acknowledge that some things must sound different whether I can consciously hear a difference or not. All the gear and wiring I now use passes my LTLT test in that the other devices I tried caused me to listen less than the ones I currently use.

I have a bench full of test gear and the educational background ( B. Sc. Elec. Eng.) to know how to use it. Even so, I've determined that my ears should be and are the final and IMO the best arbiter of what to use.
 
#21 ·
Absolutely, excellent post. I think I may steal your LTLT quote as it really does fit the situation. Sometimes we just cannot identify what is happening but as you mentioned, the proof is in the time spent listening. I completely agree and can easily recall the early days of the CD, when no matter how hard we tried, listening to a whole disc was not easily done and may be part of the reason why sales of one track here and one track there has escalated.
 
#24 ·
I had an excellent perception this evening that these NOS Bugle Boy tubes from Holland sound significantly better than the last set of Sovtek tubes I removed yesterday. Probably not my imagination and boy did I enjoy listening and that my friends is a good thing.

 
#30 ·
Can't think of a better way to train the ears to know what real instruments-music sound like. I do the same. Just keep in mind that when playing back an electronic capture of such an event, that one is judging the entire process, from recording through playback equipment in room...and your mood/perceptions at that time. A lot of variables involved. Use care when making judgements on any one item, when lots of variables are involved.

cheers
Thanks for the welcome AJ,

There are a lot of variables to consider when listening and mood is one that grows with importance as I get older. When I am in a really good place I get a lot more enjoyment out of listening.

Ed
 
#32 ·

Thanks for the welcome AJ,

There are a lot of variables to consider when listening and mood is one that grows with importance as I get older. When I am in a really good place I get a lot more enjoyment out of listening.

Ed
Absolutely Eddie, there are days when we cannot listen even if someone paid us to, its just not enjoyable, while other days/nights there is just not enough time. Having listened with you in the past I can tell quickly when you are in the place, you are having fun and isnt that what we are supposed to have ?? Fun.
Learning how to listen comes from the fun part, if we just listen too seriously I think we miss a part of what the music and equipment is saying to us.
 
#31 ·
Ok it has been fun reading some opinions on this tread . First of all i have to say that i am a non believer of speaker cables and power cables ( do i like them to last and be well build .. yes , did they change anything ... no ) but i have a reason for that and that it's my own experience with instruments ( playing guitar ) and having access to friends who play other instruments and have try them personally and in recording studios where other changes are made that not involved either speaker cables or power cables .

My first perception when it comes to audio and the variants that brings along , i don't like anything that changes the sound that the artist intended to put in a song or album . I did try really hard to understand and try to experiance with different stuff but it came down to logic and what we were dealing with .

So i have a different approach to when listening to audio equipment but i try to keep my mind open , since i have been truth several years at the Salon Son et Image here in Montreal .

On a side note it's funny that going to the Salon seeing and listen hundreds of speaker manufacturers and gear playing over and over the same songs and artists ( it looks that Diana Krall is number 1 followed closely by Dire Straits " brothers in Arms" ) . last year i was surprised by wilson Audio trowing everything at there speakers ( Alexia ) from Jazz truth heavy metal .
 
#33 ·
i don't like anything that changes the sound that the artist intended to put in a song or album .
Hi Almadacr,

Rhetorical questions: How would you possibly know what an artist intended?
Your media contains an electronic transcription of an event, or series of events (most likely). You do not (yet at least) insert the media directly into your brain. Instead, you play it back on a elecro-acoustic reproduction system, because the only way to get it to your brain, is acoustically, via the ears.
So exactly how do you compare an electrically imbedded signal, to a 3D acoustic reproduction of itself? (Hint: you don't/can't).
Even if you were physically there for the event, your auditory memory is imperfect. There is no way to perfectly reproduce via memory.
Now, ever been to a studio like the type that makes 99% of recordings? These are not "an event", but rather several, artificially constructed into what you hear playing back the media. There is no "what the artist intended", except maybe at final mix. But there is no way to reproduce that either, unless you have a star trek type Holodek, that can transform your room into the exact studio for every recording in your collection....and where the artist was sitting at the time.
I could go on, but hopefully by now you see the futility of such endeavors (usually the goal of the "Studiophile disorder" types from my experience, throwing around terms like "accuracy" and "critical listening environment", etc.).:)

cheers
 
#34 ·
It will be a few weeks before I will be ready to sit down with equipment and devote time to this exercise.

Savjac has generously offered the loan of 2 or 3 DAC-headphone-amp combos that he has experience with and can provide "what to listen for" guidance with. I believe the plan is to have them at our Feb speaker event at Sonnie's so we can get several sets of ears on them. I will bring along a couple of my best headphones for that event.

While it might take some time (months?) to refine my listening sense, I am trying to decide how I feel about long-term listening approaches (once I have advanced those skills "significantly" - understood that it will be an ongoing journey). I expect that ultimately some differences I cannot hear now will become:
  • Quickly recognizable, in a few seconds to a few minutes with almost any kind of music.
  • Recognizable with a half hour or so to find the right track to reveal that difference.
  • Recognizable within a few hours for impressions to form.
Some long-term listening approaches (weeks, months) have been suggested. I might try some of that at some point. My first cut at this will probably not include that kind of testing, but rather will focus on being able to discern fine differences in a single listening session.

Once I feel I can clearly hear a difference and know how to "find" it with a degree of confidence, I can have someone help with simple blind testing - set the paths up and leave for me to spend as much time with as a need to make an A-B judgment, change the paths (by coin flip or some randomizing method) when I ask for it and leave me to A-B and judge, ultimately build up some statistics over a period of time - hours or days or weeks is OK with me.

I don't want A-B testing to short circuit the learning process. But I intend to include it at some point to make sure what I have learned is verifiable.

We will share all the detail that we can along the way, make the journey as open and transparent as possible.

Obviously, anyone who wishes to is welcome to join in on this journey.
 
#41 ·
Perhaps a better way to think of "accuracy," for this thread, is starting with the recorded medium and going forward, mainly for the purpose of
  • minimizing variables and
  • ensuring as much repeatability as possible.
Agreeing that perfection is never attained, and recognizing that even the fine points of questions like "What is flat frequency response?" and "How do you know if you have it?" and "How close is close enough?" can all be argued until the end of time, we all should be able to agree that, for our purposes, flat response gives a better representation of the music than highly colored response, that fewer acoustical early reflections, generally speaking, are preferred over a huge number of them, that a lower RT60, generally speaking, is preferred over a Taj-Mahal-like 26 second RT60, etc. That is what I mean by accuracy, and seems a useful way to approach "accuracy" and "faithful reproduction" for our purposes in this thread.

My own environment is far from perfect, but I control what I can - starting where the most bang for buck can be achieved and prioritizing from there.
 
#42 ·
Good definition and outline, one we shall all follow.

Except of course that my opinions are perfect as is my room and equipment....or not, actually more like not, ok not even close. :gulp:
 
#50 ·
Yes Sir Aj, sense you are making, but court is a scary place ewwww. I agree with your thoughts on Simmel but sadly he did not qualify his thoughts but once, but he seemed to know his stuff, or so this young addled brain thought.

Anyway, I am truly having a hard time putting into words that which I hear but I'll get er done, I have been listening hard the last few days and I know it, I hear it but as Sonnie noted earlier sometimes the differences are subtle. Also I cannot point out certain differences between gear as the review staff and I are using different...well gear. So my findings may skew a different direction then theirs.
Now having listened to this gear I will send at another home, I can saw without reservation that we both heard them, repeatedly and so all "Should" be well.

We were really shocked actually, maybe me more than him when listening to different coax cables that one was almost instantly recognizable as poor. And it was a major brand. I have not yet taken it apart as I may send it on to the listening panel for their perusal. I cant make a judgment on that so far as it is possible the cable was problematic or maybe oxidizing from within. I really have to look because the difference was immediately noticeable.

Another oddity that we cannot explain is with speaker cables. Years ago, I believed (As told to me by the Quad rep at a CES) that a good sturdy cable of average length and made of moderately heavy stranded copper, not the cables with zillions of thin strands, is the perfect conductor for amp to speaker connections. I have followed that to this day with various gauges of good copper wire usually made be Belden and have been happy with it for more than 10 years. I do take the ends apart and cut, clean and re-secure them every year and I am good with that. However there are always new players on the block that may or may not be snake oil, I dunno, but in trying as an experiment, one such new type, Magnet wire, there seemed to be some significant changes in the sound. I wont give them away should someone wish to test them, but they were there and it was not bad. However, when going to the next level and running two sets of the cable to each speaker, I guess this would be a bi wire situation not a bi amp, the sound went really bad and caused the speakers to take on a whole new ickyness. Now, these things are sold this way, single runs, (4 cables) or one positive and one negative to each speaker X 2 for stereo and are also sold by a manufacturer in a hot rodded version as described above, two positive and two negative for each speaker resulting in 8 cables for a stereo pair and yet the resulting sound is NOT a positive thing.

I wonder if this can be unique to individual systems, or can be repeated amongst many ? One would think this would be tested by the supplier. What could possibly cause this, there has to be, in this case, some electronic explanation. But this does show that speaker cables do have a sound that can be good or less than good. I would imagine, as my experience tells me, that the vast majority of speaker cables sound very very similar, why this mismatch being so glaring ?
 
#51 ·
Magnet wire, there seemed to be some significant changes in the sound.
Yes, inductors will do that.:)

I would imagine, as my experience tells me, that the vast majority of speaker cables sound very very similar, why this mismatch being so glaring ?
Along with the $7k CD player/DACs, $10k amps, etc. I've had in my systems, I have $2k thru $2 speaker cables connecting it, at various times (including now). I can't honestly say I've noted any significant differences, but I can also say that it is entirely possible for wires and cables to affect system performance....especially those with "audiophile" engineered components.
As you noted, in the vast majority of cases, it is highly doubtful.
Now, to be fair, we've already dragged Waynes thread down into the morass, so let's stick to the DAC thing for now....unless Wayne wants to start combining things....like DACs and (headphone) amps...and wires/cables, in his analysis.
Like I said though, every variable that can be reduced/eliminated....

cheers
 
#55 ·
I don't know if any of you guys read about alan Parsons and his idea of Audiophiles . There are several interviews about it but this one one of the best . When asked about "advice for those that would like to develop their professional listening skills" he said .... " The art of listening is the key to any kind of career in this business " .

Here's the link to the full Q/A .

Alan Parsons
 
#56 ·
I like his comment about the awful sound of most you tube videos. I don't understand how anyone can get the slightest idea how something really sounds via you tube.
 
#58 ·
I’d like to start with a disclaimer. I know both Jack and AJ personally. Both have heard my audio system. Jack heard it some years ago, and AJ just last week. I know AJ from our local audiophile club and have known Jack for over 15 years from a forum just like this one that I owned in a previous life.

“Everything that matters cannot be measured and everything that can be measured doesn’t matter.” Albert Einstein

To rely solely on measurements seems as foolhardy as it is to rely solely on ones own senses. To achieve a truly great sound, one must have a foot in both pools. A unified, balanced approach will yield the best results, in life…and in audio.

I use many devices to tune my system. I use a parametric EQ on my bass, I use an SPL meter on my HT system and I use all sorts of calibration equipment on my turntable. But when all that is done, I sit and listen, and make adjustments based on what I hear. It is an approach that I have followed for a very long time, and although it would seem to be flawed, it works.

When AJ heard my rig last week (he said he liked what he heard, but he could have just been being polite) he was listening not only to the equipment, but also to specialty fuses, power conditioners, boutique electrical cords, hospital grade wall outlets, fancy interconnects, golden herb encrusted floor spikes (OK, not that one) , but you get the picture.

If he had said to me…Mike, your system would sound the same without those things in play, he quite simply would be wrong. Just as wrong as I would be to tell him that adding all those things would improve the sound of his system. This is a delicate game of trial and error and experimentation, and is a very personalized process. There is no “one size fits all”.

The objectivists always want some kind of “proof” from the subjectivist, but in the end…why? Unless someone is setting up a system for them personally, no proof is required. I am doing this for myself. Everyone else is welcome to enjoy my results with me, but I don’t need to prove anything to anyone other than myself.

And if I report on the “effects” that a 30 dollar electrical fuse may or may not have on the sound, I am just reporting my own observations, the reader or listener is welcome to dispute my findings (aloud or silently) and refuse to install said fuse in their system, but please don’t ask me to “prove” anything. It does not need to make a difference to you, only to me.

In my quite extensive experience this has always been more about money than science. If the super duper power conditioners cost the same as a six outlet power strip, the objectivists would not say a word about them. And in fairness, the subjectivists would not brag about their new power conditioner either. Both sides are feeding on the cost of the “tweaks”. It costs more, it must be better…well, that is certainly not so.

One of the biggest improvements in my sound came from spiking my speakers to the concrete floor, a 30 dollar tweak.

There will always be those that will spend tons of cash seeking out better sound, and there are certainly those that will prey upon them with false claims based on some pseudo science. “Caveat Emptor” is a really good quote that is a bit older than me. And there will always be those that don’t want to spend money and will use science as a reason not to do so.

I have given up trying to convert objectivists, and I have selective hearing when it comes to subjectivists. The only truth that matters is my own. I am the one in the chair, and I am the one that needs to be happy with both the sound, and the amount of money it took me to achieve that sound.

I know that I don’t know everything about this. I also know that when someone tells me that they do know everything about this that they are sadly mistaken. We don’t know everything about anything.

I do know this…When daddy is happy, everyone is happy. :T
 
#62 ·
I know AJ from our local audiophile club and have known Jack for over 15 years
To be clear to the readers, we all spent many years together in the same institution, but whereas I emerge "cured" (by my own reckoning), clearly Mike is still feeling some, umm, residual effects involving magic fuses and whatnot. Jack sort of wavers back and forth between reality and the audiophile universe.

When AJ heard my rig last week (he said he liked what he heard, but he could have just been being polite) he was listening not only to the equipment, but also to specialty fuses, power conditioners, boutique electrical cords, hospital grade wall outlets, fancy interconnects, golden herb encrusted floor spikes (OK, not that one) , but you get the picture.
I have heard systems where I've struggled to keep a straight face giving compliments, but this wasn't one of those. You had some nice sound going. Now whether that had to do with all the tweaking, or the fact that the amps were largely voltage multipliers and the speaker/room interface was nicely coupled, I'll never know. I fully understand the difference between "Objective" and "Subjective" and strive never to conflate the two. I simply sat back and enjoyed your system subjectively. No objective verification needed.
Btw, I prefer "Mental Hospital Grade" outlets over the regular ho-hum "Hospital" ones myself.

The objectivists always want some kind of “proof” from the subjectivist
Perhaps followers of Ayn Rand do.
But as a rationalist, who prefers a logical, reasoned, science based approach to electro-acoustic reproduced soundfields, I only "demand proof" of objective claims, never subjective ones. The biggest problem IMHO, is that people don't know the difference.

I do know this…When daddy is happy, everyone is happy. :T
It all comes down to (hopefully) ones enjoyment of the reproduced music. Many roads to get there.
I think we agree on far more than we disagree. Welcome again Mike.

Now I just need to drag over a real pair of speakers to show you what those fuses are ultimately capable of :D

cheers
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top