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



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

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:

*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.
*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.
*Auditory memory can be addressed.* How does one be sure one's memory of a sound is reliable?
*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._


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

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.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Are those differences heard immediately or are they only discerned after extended listening (a few minutes, hours, days)?

Are those differences heard when listening to specific test tracks or are they heard pretty much regardless of the material?


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

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,


----------



## LostAlone (Jan 20, 2014)

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.


----------



## fokakis1 (Feb 29, 2012)

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.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

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


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

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._


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

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.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

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.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

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.




Tonto said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

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.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

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.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Absolutely, I agree. Thank You for your input Tonto, it is important to us all.




Tonto said:


> 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.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

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. 





AudiocRaver said:


> 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.


----------



## Eddiewin (Jan 20, 2014)

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


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Tonto said:


> Blind listening has proven to be fallible


It has?:scratch:
Would you mind expanding on this?

cheers


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

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.


----------



## JoeESP9 (Jun 29, 2009)

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.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Eddiewin said:


> 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.



Eddiewin said:


> 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


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

JoeESP9 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

*How to listen for differences between Amps - Counter-Arguments & Sanity Checks*



AudiocRaver said:


> 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.



AudiocRaver said:


> 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?



AudiocRaver said:


> 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


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

JoeESP9 said:


> I've settled on what I call the LTLT (long term listening test)


Hi Joe,

Do your perceptions, mood, memory or any other human related issues waver or vary at all during these long terms?
Do you know that there is no fixed length to ears only testing? Just that reliability/validity to DUT is better with switching times matching aural memory decay?



JoeESP9 said:


> I've determined that my ears should be and are the final and IMO the best arbiter of what to use.


Then why use your eyes, mood, beliefs, memory, knowledge, etc, etc???
And eschew ears (only) arbitration?

cheers


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

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.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

In the spirit of open dialogue consistent with the rules of Home Theater Shack, the assumptions for this thread as expressed in post #1 have been changed. Any and all discussion pertinent to the subject of the thread is welcome.

I sincerely appreciate all contributions so far and intend to go forward with this project as outlined.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

*Re: How to listen for differences between Amps - Counter-Arguments & Sanity Checks*



ajinfla said:


> 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 ultimate goal in blind testing is to keep my senses honest to my own satisfaction. I do not have the patience for any kind of major multi-subject study.



> 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?





> 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.


Understood. I am trying a different approach for this project, a little exploratory in nature. Let's call it taking a leap off faith first and then following it up with objectivity later on. Objectivity keeps us grounded, but can make us overly cautious about possibilities, too.

Thanks for your input.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Savjac said:


> 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.


Cool. What DAC is that? Seems you have a few


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

*Re: How to listen for differences between Amps - Counter-Arguments & Sanity Checks*



AudiocRaver said:


> I am trying a different approach for this project, a little exploratory in nature.


Gotcha. I sincerely hope _*everyone*_ feels free to express their opinions and thoughts Wayne. The *last* thing I would want is curtailing open discussions and folks not feeling free to contribute. Always two sides to a coin.

cheers


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

ajinfla said:


> Cool. What DAC is that? Seems you have a few


Lite Audio Dac 60 with a few upgrades under the hood.

Front and back


----------



## Eddiewin (Jan 20, 2014)

_



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

Click to expand...

_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


----------



## Almadacr (May 5, 2011)

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 .


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Eddiewin said:


> 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.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Almadacr said:


> 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


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

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.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

ajinfla said:


> 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.
> ...


I understand and enjoy the "Studiophile" approach, _to a degree._ I like flat frequency response for that reason. Having done studio work, I also recognize that the moment you place a microphone in front of an instrument, the perception of the experience is changed dramatically. Then you have multiple takes, edits, overdubs, all on multiple tracks, EQ, ambient and other effects, the mix, the mastering, the medium, your player, processor, amp, speakers, room - a long journey from the artists ears to mine.

I guess the idea is keeping the path as simple as possible. Then again, sometimes I enjoy the sound of a certain speaker, or setup, or Audyssey setup, or headphone sound - they can all be fun, too.

For purposes of this thread, I will initially use good headphones to simplify the path, minimize variables, make the environment controllable and somewhat transportable.

Always love your posts, AJ:T


----------



## Almadacr (May 5, 2011)

ajinfla said:


> 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.
> ...


Well that's a tricky question since even artists change there tone truth out the years ( Lars Ulrich not using springs in his snare drum in St Anger is easy audible ) and the perception of the trained ear of the individual comes to play but as musicians we know if something is not right out of the bat . I have been playing guitar in the last 25 years and tone is the major player in any instrument that you can not neglect . 

Now let me ask you , knowing a song that you like or a artist that you know ( let me spice this a bit ) like David Gilmour since we all know his work with Pink floyd . In "Wish You Were Here " (since it's a song that we all know ) there are 4 guitar tracks but live they or him only play 2 or 3 guitars depending if Roger Waters is with Gilmour in the same stage , are they all in the same tuning ? Can you identify which guitar is playing a drop D tuning ? 

You might think that i am nut's or out of my mind but i passed too much time transcribing guitar tabs since it's one of my hobbies and truth what i listen or my favorite artists there was small changes throughout the years so there are places that can tell me what as changed . 

But coming back to the topic one of the examples that i personally experienced and also trow me out of that specific speaker brand was that anything sounded right from guitars to bass and specially the drums . Well i can say it the speakers were Canton and i listen them in store and at friends house , so 2 different environments 2 different sources only the same speakers , and still got the feeling that something was wrong . 

So another question to you ( sorry for being abusive  ) when someone is looking up the food chain of there gear what they are looking for ? The sound to be neutral ? More warmth ? For me it's about tone .


----------



## Almadacr (May 5, 2011)

AudiocRaver said:


> I guess the idea is keeping the path as simple as possible.


This is what i always look for , from what is recorded and we know that in this days it's a hit or a miss ( one of the reasons that i really dislike the work of Rick Rubin ) but yes i always make compromises and i can give you a example i changed from a Pioneer receiver that IMO sounds really great for the kind of music i listen plus the MCACC it's tweakable compared with the Onkyo 818 that i have right now since my main area is a 50/50 for music and movies and i have a second place just for music and guitar


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

AudiocRaver said:


> I understand and enjoy the "Studiophile" approach, _to a degree._ I like flat frequency response for that reason.


Me too. With electronics. 
With a 3D polar response generator, like loudspeakers, free field, on axis, at 1m, above around 3-400hz or so. It's a very important distinction.



AudiocRaver said:


> I guess the idea is keeping the path as simple as possible. Then again, sometimes I enjoy the sound of a certain speaker, or setup, or Audyssey setup, or headphone sound - they can all be fun, too.


That seems like a reasonable preference.



AudiocRaver said:


> For purposes of this thread, I will initially use good headphones to simplify the path, minimize variables, make the environment controllable and somewhat transportable.


An excellent choice for focusing on spectral balance, content and details...were they to vary per DUT.
Beware of course, that you're not comparing headphone amps, but rather DACs.
For that, you want multiple DACs, feeding the same headphone amp. Eliminating variables/confounders, one by one....

cheers


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Almadacr said:


> Now let me ask you , knowing a song that you like or a artist that you know ( let me spice this a bit ) like David Gilmour since we all know his work with Pink floyd . In "Wish You Were Here " (since it's a song that we all know ) there are 4 guitar tracks but live they or him only play 2 or 3 guitars depending if Roger Waters is with Gilmour in the same stage , are they all in the same tuning ? Can you identify which guitar is playing a drop D tuning ?


Quite frankly, no. I don't play any instruments. The only strings I recognize are G and I'm usually paying attention to far more than the string. I know what violins and saxophones generally sound like. As far as electric guitars, I honestly have no reference. A Marshal? A stack of JBLs? A line of Peaveys?
Never seen PF live, not sure if they use only one brand. As far as any Gilmour recording goes, I have no clue as to his intent when I reproduce it electro-acoustically.



Almadacr said:


> But coming back to the topic one of the examples that i personally experienced and also trow me out of that specific speaker brand was that anything sounded right from guitars to bass and specially the drums . Well i can say it the speakers were Canton and i listen them in store and at friends house , so 2 different environments 2 different sources only the same speakers , and still got the feeling that something was wrong .


Well, I've heard plenty Cantons and similar cone 'n dome mid-low efficiency no-directivity ported box hifi loudspeakers....and they don't come remotely close to reproducing the drum kits and acoustic basses that I've stood 5' from....and heard better transduction of. Preferences do vary.



Almadacr said:


> So another question to you ( sorry for being abusive  ) when someone is looking up the food chain of there gear what they are looking for ? The sound to be neutral ? More warmth ? For me it's about tone .


For me/them....whatever is preferred.
No more, no less.

cheers


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

ajinfla said:


> 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.
> ...


We really have to search for what the artist intended AJ, unless of course there was no plan during the recording process of course. Some of your statements are presented in a fashion similar to what we would experience in a courtroom, the question is posted followed by what you believe to be the answer, "Hint You Don't/Cant, when in reality it may be best to postulate a supposition and allow the reader to answer for themselves. Therein lies the open discussion design.

I understand your point in that unless we were at the event/events there is no reasonable way that we could determine whether or not we are hearing a faithful reproduction of the dozens, perhaps hundreds of tracks laid down on the tape/bits in pro tools etc. I have never been fond of using the term accurate or exactly as it should be for just that reason. However, most of us to have an idea of what instruments sound like, especially those that do not need amplification such as most acoustical instruments or orchestral instruments. We have to base our beliefs on something and it has to be our ears and auditory memory or some facsimile thereof. I have heard Pink Floyd live in person many times, Roger Waters on his own many times and yet, it was always over a PA system so there is no exact replication in my room obviously, but a proximity can be achieved. I have been known to pull out a guitar on occasion and play along to get an idea if I am tonally in the correct ballpark.

Like many hear, I did also spend time in the studio, for me it was college as well as an internship at Headin West Studios setting up and recording the performances of the Suzuki kids, what a wonderful time that was. I also spent hundreds of evenings at Orchestra Hall listening to every performance I could thus providing a base for picking equipment. Have any of my rooms come close ? NO WAY, I can never approach the amount of air and detail being produced by 100 performers, not even close, actually it was always a disappointment to go home and listen to the performance on my humble systems. 

Have you ever heard John Lennon in person, face to face ? If so I am truly happy for you, but for the rest of us we have to guess what he sounds like and use our best judgment when picking our equipment, it is always a decision based on what sound like what we believe things should sound like. There are no electronics that can help with that as we are all so individual in our likes and dislikes. Some of us like JBL Century speakers, others may like Rogers and anything in between. Does that make any of us wrong ?? Different ?? You yourself are a speaker designer/builder and I would assume you have a sound in mind, a design and a goal, that is how business works. You most probably use those tools along with a computer modeling software and plenty of gadgets to design your systems to get to a point close to what you feel is correct. Then when close, you will listen using your ears, your rooms, your music, your electronics to do final voicing before releasing same to the public, if not why design a speaker, just sell someone else's. I would submit that your hearing acuity would be better than mine today as I am a bit older but your belief in what is right or wrong is not any better than mine or anyone else on this forum. 

I would also think that putting forth someone has a "Disorder" because of terminology used in their posts, a critical listening environment is a good description imo and would speak to a place that may be a semi controlled environment for the reproduction of sound. Makes sense to be but then maybe I am disordered. Is that a word ??

:huh:


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

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.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

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:


----------



## Bjski (Jun 23, 2012)

AudiocRaver said:


> 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.


I just finished demoing the Burson 9018/1793 using several different cans. I wrote an opinion of my experience. My review is posted in the headphone section. The review was my subjective experience along with the help of a friend and my son. If your located in New Jersey I have 4 different headphones you could listen to and make your own evaluation. Sennhiser HD650, HD800, Hifiman HE-500, Audeze LCD-3


----------



## JoeESP9 (Jun 29, 2009)

ajinfla said:


> Hi Joe,
> 
> Do your perceptions, mood, memory or any other human related issues waver or vary at all during these long terms?
> Do you know that there is no fixed length to ears only testing? Just that reliability/validity to DUT is better with switching times matching aural memory decay?
> ...


I'm aware of all the points you bring up. The fact still remains that some gear causes/has caused me to listen less than other gear. I didn't develop this mind set deliberately. It's come to this after being involved in this hobby for more than 46 years. DBT testing and any kind of blind testing has proven to me that it doesn't relate to my time of listening. 

More than once gear that was undetectable under blind testing has caused me to listen less. In the beginning I wasn't happy with the results because sometimes the gear that caused me to listen less was my own highly regarded and rated gear. At other times the high priced spread turned out to cause increased listening time. So, it's not related to cost. Nor is it related to specific brands or "high end" versus "mid-fi". 

As to the accuracy versus pleasing sound question: The real question is; Accuracy compared to what? If you're using electric instruments that are heavily processed, multi-miked, multi-tracked and heavily massaged in the studio for your reference you have no idea what the result is supposed to sound like unless you were there in the studio at the time the master is created. This is not the case with classical music. There is an internationally agreed upon standard for what acoustic instruments in a classical format are supposed to sound like. Of course there are variations in tone and timbre but a violin is still a violin etc. 

If all your after is pleasing sound that's up to you. However, what you get may not have anything to do with accuracy. Also, while it may be pleasing to you it's not necessarily "Hi-Fi". The term "Hi-Fi" is after all a shortening of the phrase, "To reproduce with a high degree of fidelity to the original.". 

So, for comparing what you have at home to a repeatable reference, only UN-amplified orchestral music can be used as an absolute reference. In addition, it has the range of tones timbres and frequencies necessary to fully test a system's performance. I use the Philadelphia Orchestra playing at the Kimmel center as my reference. No, my system doesn't sound like my seat at the Kimmel Center. I doubt if it ever will. However, the closer I get to that unobtainable ideal the better my system sounds on not only classical music but everything else I listen to. As a bonus, the closer I've gotten to that unobtainable goal of accuracy, the time I spend listening has increased.

There was a time when I pored over spec sheets and looked for the lowest distortion etc. I'm a retired EE so I actually know how the specs are derived and what they mean. However, as a result of my current approach I don't bother much with reading or concerning myself with specs. All the gear that I have any interest in has exemplary specs anyway. 

I insert a piece of gear or wire/cable into my system and listen for a couple of weeks. If I find I'm listening less it goes. If I'm listening the same amount of time it will also usually go. I'm not interested in lateral moves. If I'm listening more it's a keeper. If I'm listening more that means something in my ear brain interface likes what's going on. That's an improvement in my book.

To sum it up, differences that are easily audible don't really need DBT to be determined. Differences that aren't easily audible may or may not be heard under DBT or single blind testing. I don't really care. Any differences, if they exist, will manifest themselves for me in the time I spend listening. In other words in a LTLT test. 

I also use the LIAR (listening in another room) test to help determine accuracy and/or good sound. If you're listening in the living room and it sounds really good but the music is actually in the den, that's a good thing.


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Savjac said:


> I understand your point in that unless we were at the event/events there is no reasonable way that we could determine whether or not we are hearing a faithful reproduction of the dozens, perhaps hundreds of tracks laid down on the tape/bits in pro tools etc.


Exactly. "What the artist intended" is an untenable goal. Precisely why my question format was rhetorical. Not to dissuade discussion, but to spur thinking about the issue. No courts here.



Savjac said:


> I have heard Pink Floyd live in person many times, Roger Waters on his own many times and yet, it was always over a PA system so there is no exact replication in my room obviously, but a proximity can be achieved.


Right. So you are agreeing with my essential points. "What the artist intended" and "accurate" reproduction, are simply unrealistic. Yet you see those terms used relentlessly on websites. Why?



Savjac said:


> You yourself are a speaker designer/builder and I would assume you have a sound in mind, a design and a goal, that is how business works. You most probably use those tools along with a computer modeling software and plenty of gadgets to design your systems to get to a point close to what you feel is correct. Then when close, you will listen using your ears, your rooms, your music, your electronics to do final voicing before releasing same to the public, if not why design a speaker, just sell someone else's.
> I would submit that your hearing acuity would be better than mine today as I am a bit older but your belief in what is right or wrong is not any better than mine or anyone else on this forum.


Jack, this isn't about me. Or you, or any member. If you feel my *arguments* are incorrect, correct them! I would welcome it. That is true discussion. Focusing on individual and personality, etc. serves only as diversion.



Savjac said:


> I would also think that putting forth someone has a "Disorder" because of terminology used in their posts, a critical listening environment is a good description imo and would speak to a place that may be a semi controlled environment for the reproduction of sound. Makes sense to be but then maybe I am disordered. Is that a word ??
> 
> :huh:


. Jack, that was a completely generalized remark, made in jest, not directed at any individual. Reread what I wrote, objectively. 
Lets stick to what is actually being discussed - reproduction...and the devices used to do so. DACs?

cheers


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

JoeESP9 said:


> I'm aware of all the points you bring up.


Excellent. So are aware of the psychological fact that your perceptions, mood, memory or any other human related issues waver or vary at all during these long terms. Which has nothing to do with electro-acoustics (the realm of the equipment)...and everything to do with humanity, emotions, etc.



JoeESP9 said:


> The fact still remains that some gear causes/has caused me to listen less than other gear. I didn't develop this mind set deliberately. It's come to this after being involved in this hobby for more than 46 years.


Of course! Purely emotional responses completely unrelated to ears only/soundfield, is part of being human and learned over time. Our brains operate at both conscious and subconscious levels and respond accordingly.



JoeESP9 said:


> DBT testing and any kind of blind testing has proven to me that it doesn't relate to my time of listening.


Absolutely agree. Blind test only tells how the thing sounds to ears. That's it!!
It most certainly doesn't gauge your emotional response due to sight, biases, smell, taste, mood, pride of ownership etc, etc, etc. all unrelated to soundwaves/soundfields>ears. It actually eliminates all that, which as you say, is not how you (or I) "listen". I think we are on the same page there.




JoeESP9 said:


> More than once gear that was undetectable under blind testing has caused me to listen less. In the beginning I wasn't happy with the results because sometimes the gear that caused me to listen less was my own highly regarded and rated gear. At other times the high priced spread turned out to cause increased listening time. So, it's not related to cost. Nor is it related to specific brands or "high end" versus "mid-fi".


Understood. Any speculation of what the non-sound/ears related culprit might be?
If you're like me, sometimes looks is all it takes.



JoeESP9 said:


> As to the accuracy versus pleasing sound question: The real question is; Accuracy compared to what?


Bingo, you've got it. Certainly not accurate to the recording studio. Know anyone with a mixing board smack in the middle of their room?:laugh:



JoeESP9 said:


> To sum it up, differences that are easily audible don't really need DBT to be determined. Differences that aren't easily audible may or may not be heard under DBT or single blind testing. I don't really care. Any differences, if they exist, will manifest themselves for me in the time I spend listening. In other words in a LTLT test.


Exactly. Non-sound/ears issues can take time to crop up. That's the limitation of DBT that I keep repeating. It only tells you how the thing actually sounds to your ears. Not ones emotional response to all the other stuff involved, in casual, uncontrolled, sighted, biased, etc, etc,"listening", which is ultimately what we all do.

cheers


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

AudiocRaver said:


> 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.


Luckily you said you were starting with headphones, which negates environment. What phones do you use?


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

ajinfla said:


> Right. So you are agreeing with my essential points. "What the artist intended" and "accurate" reproduction, are simply unrealistic. Yet you see those terms used relentlessly on websites. Why?
> 
> cheers


I don't know AJ, I really cant speak for anyone else. I would suspect that like any other terms, the writer has a believe in his or her head as to what the recording should sound like and the playback of the recording fits that picture in their head if you will. I don't use it, but I understand how others would.

I recall some years ago when Steve Simmel (sp) was still reviewing for either Stereo Review or Audio magazine and he was asked how many live concerts he went to and his reply was that he went to very few but he had an image in his head how something should sound and that was how he based his reviews. Now while I am not sure that is the best way of doing it, especially when reporting to the general public, as long as we know how he arrives at his decisions and he always does it that way, I think we can understand better where he is coming from. Does that make sense ?


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Savjac said:


> I don't know AJ, I really cant speak for anyone else. I would suspect that like any other terms, the writer has a believe in his or her head as to what the recording should sound like and the playback of the recording fits that picture in their head if you will. I don't use it, but I understand how others would.


Agreed. As long as we are clear, that what someone believes..and reality, are often two different things entirely. If someone states that they are doing what they imagined the "artist intended", fine. State it as such. As I very clearly explained, "what the artist intended" is, in physical reality, untenable. "Being John Malkovich" is just a movie. It is not reality, nor attainable. Just a belief. Ditto for "accuracy" to some imaginary place/event.



Savjac said:


> I recall some years ago when Steve Simmel (sp) was still reviewing for either Stereo Review or Audio magazine and he was asked how many live concerts he went to and his reply was that he went to very few but he had an image in his head how something should sound and that was how he based his reviews. Now while I am not sure that is the best way of doing it, especially when reporting to the general public, as long as we know how he arrives at his decisions and he always does it that way, I think we can understand better where he is coming from. Does that make sense ?


You always make sense to me Jack..
Regarding Steve (et al), what would make sense to me, is if he stated very clearly during the review, that the device sounded very much like the violin Steve experience twice in his adult life 15 years ago.
And that he preferred the device vs say, another, based on his purely subjective, uncontrolled viewing, knowing and yes, "listening", to said device. That's a review that would make sense to me.
Hopefully, I'm making some sense to you.

Now, to pull this all back to Waynes endeavors, I think he is being very up front and honest/transparent with what he is doing. I look forward to his experience with these items. I'll try to chip in if I think some further discourse is helpful, to all readers who may be looking in.
With various viewpoints, from very different backgrounds and understandings, I think we all learn something.
Court is now in session...:bigsmile:

cheers


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

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 ?


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

Savjac said:


> Magnet wire, there seemed to be some significant changes in the sound.


Yes, inductors will do that.



Savjac said:


> 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


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

ajinfla said:


> Yes, inductors will do that.
> 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.
> 
> cheers


Hi there AJ, we talk too much it appears, ,however, please re-read the title of this thread. It might surprise you. :wave:


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

ajinfla said:


> Yes, inductors will do that


Never thought of that. Does winding magnet wire create something like an inductor ? Does that mean that the more wires the bigger the problem ?
I know a good many people by these things from an online vendor and it might be good to explain if just 2 wires is a problem or does the problem start with 4?
Next does the amount of twists per inch cause issues ?


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Bjski said:


> I just finished demoing the Burson 9018/1793 using several different cans. I wrote an opinion of my experience. My review is posted in the headphone section. The review was my subjective experience along with the help of a friend and my son. If your located in New Jersey I have 4 different headphones you could listen to and make your own evaluation. Sennhiser HD650, HD800, Hifiman HE-500, Audeze LCD-3


Would love to hear the HD800, Hifiman, and Audeze (Have HD600s), and of course the Burson. Wish I was closer.



JoeESP9 said:


> I'm aware of all the points you bring up. The fact still remains that some gear causes/has caused me to listen less than other gear.


I definitely understand the wanting to listen more or less thing, although in my case it always involved differences that were clearly audible and explainable. My system has always been too much in flux to allow that kind of long-term comparison to take place.

For myself, if it never got to the point where the difference was clearly audible, and therefore somehow testable (even if it might take days or weeks), I would always suspect my own impressionability on some level to be the culprit.



ajinfla said:


> Luckily you said you were starting with headphones, which negates environment. What phones do you use?


I have Sennheiser HD600, Beyerdynamic DT880 250-ohm Premium, AKG K701, AKG K601, plus various others. Will probably start with the first 3, see if one works better at helping me hear a difference with the gear in question, then stick with that one while refining the skill.



Savjac said:


> Another oddity that we cannot explain is with speaker cables.


Don't know if hearing cable differences is in my future or not. I will feel pretty good if I can learn to hear diffs between amps/DACs/etc.

==========================

BTW, I am glad to share my experience of this journey, never intended to make the thread just about my experience. Would welcome the comments of others working at developing the skill, too.


----------



## Almadacr (May 5, 2011)

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


----------



## JoeESP9 (Jun 29, 2009)

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.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

JoeESP9 said:


> To sum it up, differences that are easily audible don't really need DBT to be determined. Differences that aren't easily audible may or may not be heard under DBT or single blind testing. I don't really care. Any differences, if they exist, will manifest themselves for me in the time I spend listening. In other words in a LTLT test.
> 
> I also use the LIAR (listening in another room) test to help determine accuracy and/or good sound. If you're listening in the living room and it sounds really good but the music is actually in the den, that's a good thing.


LTLT is the method I use to determine if a piece of gear stays or goes. Lately, my cheap Sony Blu-ray player has been showing my moderately priced Marantz player up. I barely listen to the Marantz anymore, only for DVD-A playback, and I loved that player. Amps and cables are determined the same way. I imagine this would be my preferred method of deciding which DAC gets a place in my system.

The LIAR test is, for me, in my home/system, a really good method to judge the off axis behavior of loudspeakers. I have noticed that many speakers intentionally designed to have wide dispersion that do well off axis, generally sound pretty good in the main listening position.


----------



## AudioDawg (Jan 31, 2014)

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


----------



## AudioDawg (Jan 31, 2014)

More to the topic....

I pick out a single instrument and concentrate on it alone for the entire song. Much the way a musician trying to learn the part would do.

This will sharpen you audio focus and allow you to hear some subtle differences that may elude you when listening to the overall presentation

The bass line is a really good place to start. With some amps I could pick out the bass line, and with others it was smeared and unclear. That was one reason i wound up with a digital amp. Lots of really clean power.

Also, vocals are a good place to notice differences when you make changes.

It is important to establish a baseline by listening to a section of the music on repeat (usually 20 seconds worth) and then only changing one thing. Changing multiple things is fun, but you cant know what is making any changes.

There is a method to be sure, and it is a world of fun messing with a sound system...until frustration kicks in. :doh:

Enjoy the music, thats what it is all about in the end.

Mike


----------



## fokakis1 (Feb 29, 2012)

AudioDawg said:


> Also, vocals are a good place to notice differences when you make changes.
> 
> It is important to establish a baseline by listening to a section of the music on repeat (usually 20 seconds worth) and then only changing one thing...


This is precisely the method I use to make and identify subtle changes in my system subjectively.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Hi Mike

Very good post and your suggestion to use one instrument at a time is most excellent. 
To listen to a sampling of music that is too busy tends to cause overload in the brain so to speak and in trying to determine differences and changes, if any, I am not sure we as humans can actually do that. 
As you well know from all these years we have known each other, listened together and actually played live together, (The longest version of Epitaph even done) we do have similar likes and dislikes. We listen similarly and maybe this is how the hobby works, in that like hobbyists attract.

Thank You again for chiming in with an even tone and its great to see you writing again,

HI AJ

Jack


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

AudioDawg said:


> 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.



AudioDawg said:


> 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.



AudioDawg said:


> 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.



AudioDawg said:


> 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 

cheers


----------



## AudioDawg (Jan 31, 2014)

You know where I live. Just call before you drag. :bigsmile:


----------



## JoeESP9 (Jun 29, 2009)

AudioDawg said:


> 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.:T


This excerpt from your post I agree with 100%. I agree with the rest but this gets to the crux of the matter IMO. Our separate audio journeys seem to have been similar, maybe not in the gear we ended up with but most certainly in the direction and attitude.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

ajinfla said:


> 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.


The last sentence above is more true than most would like to admit, and your statement that we (meant generally) agree on more than most would suppose has much truth as well.

But I somehow doubt you are a true rationalist. But then the rationalist/empiricist dichotomy is as limited as objectivist/subjectivist, just on different dimensions.


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

I don't think any of the evaluators expect only measurable data as proof positive. I know in our first speaker eval, much of what we did was subjective listening. We prided ourselves on trying to do unbiased listening. I hope we were successful. I do think however that subjective data, in order to be "real" has to be reproducable. I think that is why they are attempting to do some blind testing. If it is "real," it should be picked up on repeatedly. I hope that makes sence & I hope even more that what I'm saying is accurate (since I'm speaking for them without having heard it directly).


----------



## ajinfla (May 10, 2009)

lcaillo said:


> But I somehow doubt you are a true rationalist.


That's my subjective self evaluation. Don't dare ask me for proof!


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Opps post not needed


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Tonto said:


> I don't think any of the evaluators expect only measurable data as proof positive. I know in our first speaker eval, much of what we did was subjective listening. We prided ourselves on trying to do unbiased listening. I hope we were successful. I do think however that subjective data, in order to be "real" has to be reproducable. I think that is why they are attempting to do some blind testing. If it is "real," it should be picked up on repeatedly. I hope that makes sence & I hope even more that what I'm saying is accurate (since I'm speaking for them without having heard it directly).


While we certainly try to be as fair as possible, I think we all understand that there will always be biases. We really try to expose those biases and test their value and validity, and open ourselves up to the group in terms of what we are experiencing to see how it compares to what others are experiencing. Subjective reporting of performance is both flawed and powerful, and at least we all agree on that. There are so many variables to how speakers sound that we have to focus on trying to get the best out of each under the conditions at the time and with 4 people listening under the same conditions to the same material roughly over an over again, we seem to produce useful reports of what we hear that are pretty consistent. But the results are colored by our own biases no doubt.

I think what we all hope could do with amps is determine whether there are repeatable differences and if there are, determine something about why. I know most of us keep trying to identify differences but have found it hard to do so reliably. I don't think any of us are out to prove any particular point and all share a native curiosity and love of listening to music. We are also not shy about revealing our underlying biases, assumptions, weaknesses, and expectations. We see these listening sessions as a journey, not really knowing where we will end up, and always open to something that we might not expect...and then we watch a movie on Sonnie's monstrous system :hsd: and eat ribs...just a bunch of guys having fun.


----------

