How I rate audio systems

[tube fan]

I listen to my favorite vinyl and cds, and rate each piece of music through various audio systems. I don't focus of the equipment, but on the music. The best system (yes, for me) is the one through which I give my favorite recordings the highest scores. I DON't break down the sound into low end, middle range, and high end. I don't listen for dynamics. I don't focus on tonality. I just listen to my favorite musical records and rate them. By concentrating on the music I am, of course, also listening to the system, but if you consciously focus on the equipment, rather than on the music, you are going about it backwards IMO.

[Ajani]

I think that works just fine for consumers... Professional reviewers should use the established HiFi terminology to rate and describe gear, however us consumers really only need to worry about how it sounds with our music...

I always felt that the best way to audition a system for your own use, is to carry a selection of your favourite songs and play them... I've never believed in carrying "audiophile quality" recordings (unless they happen to be some of your favourite songs)...

Terms like soundstage and dynamics are great for the pros but IMO are not things that a consumer should spend time worrying about... Just listen to the music and buy the gear that moves you...

[E-Stat]

I listen to my favorite vinyl and cds, and rate each piece of music through various audio systems... By concentrating on the music I am, of course, also listening to the system, but if you consciously focus on the equipment, rather than on the music, you are going about it backwards IMO.
How do you communicate to others why you find one of the various audio systems more desirable than other(s)?

rw

[bobsticks]

I listen to my favorite vinyl and cds, and rate each piece of music through various audio systems....

...a values-based determination must be made...and that's okay, it's part of the hobby...and it's acceptable to have preferences based solely on opinion rather than "science"...it's your stuff after all.

[Ajani]

How do you communicate to others why you find one of the various audio systems more desirable than other(s)?

rw

You don't... It's about getting a system you enjoy... If you want to write a review or make recommendations, then you need to use audiophile approved terminology...

[RGA]

I listen to my favorite vinyl and cds, and rate each piece of music through various audio systems. I don't focus of the equipment, but on the music. The best system (yes, for me) is the one through which I give my favorite recordings the highest scores. I DON't break down the sound into low end, middle range, and high end. I don't listen for dynamics. I don't focus on tonality. I just listen to my favorite musical records and rate them. By concentrating on the music I am, of course, also listening to the system, but if you consciously focus on the equipment, rather than on the music, you are going about it backwards IMO.

That's the way it should be done by reviewers as well. Subconsciously it comes down to a simple "does this sound right" and how right is it. Way back when when I was seriously looking for loudspeakers and spending 4 years to find something that truly did I wandered into a shop and a no name speaker (because there was literally no name on the front of the box) changed my view of audio reproduction. Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata an acoustic Piano recording. The speaker gave me the piano, and more importantly the room the piano was in. The fundamentals and the decay - all the audiophile words can come after but it sounded like a damn piano in the room. None of the other speakers the store carried came even close to doing that one instrument in the room. It was also neat to see a woman on the other side come around and express surprise that there wasn't someone playing.

The review audiophile terminology does a disservice because the words end up getting pimped out to gear that in no way shape or form deserve the words that get associated with them. And if you talk up specific products too much there will be great delight by others who have never heard them to attack. It's also tough to review because you want to be balanced and not come off too much in rave mode. The trouble with that is that stuff that deserves to be raved about gets the short end of the stick.

[Hyfi]

That's the way it should be done by reviewers as well. Subconsciously it comes down to a simple "does this sound right" and how right is it. Way back when when I was seriously looking for loudspeakers and spending 4 years to find something that truly did I wandered into a shop and a no name speaker (because there was literally no name on the front of the box) changed my view of audio reproduction. Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata an acoustic Piano recording. The speaker gave me the piano, and more importantly the room the piano was in. The fundamentals and the decay - all the audiophile words can come after but it sounded like a damn piano in the room. None of the other speakers the store carried came even close to doing that one instrument in the room. It was also neat to see a woman on the other side come around and express surprise that there wasn't someone playing.

The review audiophile terminology does a disservice because the words end up getting pimped out to gear that in no way shape or form deserve the words that get associated with them. And if you talk up specific products too much there will be great delight by others who have never heard them to attack. It's also tough to review because you want to be balanced and not come off too much in rave mode. The trouble with that is that stuff that deserves to be raved about gets the short end of the stick.

That would be all well and good if all recordings were created exactly the same. But they are not. One persons "Favorite Music" my actually be a really bad recording and would surely sound much worse to them on a revealing setup while the one that sounds good to that person is really just a Bose Lifestyle system which masks the fact that the recording sucks, because that whole system sucks so you are not aware of it.

[E-Stat]

If you want to write a review or make recommendations, then you need to use audiophile approved terminology...
That was not my question. If someone asks me, for example, why I prefer New York Sharp Cheddar, I do have an answer.

rw

[Feanor]

I listen to my favorite vinyl and cds, and rate each piece of music through various audio systems. I don't focus of the equipment, but on the music. The best system (yes, for me) is the one through which I give my favorite recordings the highest scores. I DON't break down the sound into low end, middle range, and high end. I don't listen for dynamics. I don't focus on tonality. I just listen to my favorite musical records and rate them. By concentrating on the music I am, of course, also listening to the system, but if you consciously focus on the equipment, rather than on the music, you are going about it backwards IMO.
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Perhaps its the gestalt that matters to you, but one ought to be able to describe the qualities that make it so agreeable.


Gestalt psychology or gestaltism (German (http://forums.audioreview.com/wiki/German_language): Gestalt - "essence or shape of an entity's complete form") of the Berlin School (http://forums.audioreview.com/wiki/Berlin_School_of_experimental_psychology) is a theory of mind and brain positing that the operational principle of the brain is holistic (http://forums.audioreview.com/wiki/Holism), parallel, and analog, with self-organizing tendencies.
Analog? WTF?!?

[Ajani]

That would be all well and good if all recordings were created exactly the same. But they are not. One persons "Favorite Music" my actually be a really bad recording and would surely sound much worse to them on a revealing setup while the one that sounds good to that person is really just a Bose Lifestyle system which masks the fact that the recording sucks, because that whole system sucks so you are not aware of it.

I would suspect that most persons have more than one favourite recording... So it's less likely that all those recordings are bad quality...

Further, let's assume all your recordings are bad and somehow a Bose Lifestyle system makes them sound better than even the most expensive HiFi, then why not buy the Bose? Because Audiophiles will scorn you? Because you'd rather know that your system is 'technically accurate' than enjoy listening to your music? I really see no reason not to just buy the Bose in that scenario...

[pixelthis]

I listen to my favorite vinyl and cds, and rate each piece of music through various audio systems. I don't focus of the equipment, but on the music. The best system (yes, for me) is the one through which I give my favorite recordings the highest scores. I DON't break down the sound into low end, middle range, and high end. I don't listen for dynamics. I don't focus on tonality. I just listen to my favorite musical records and rate them. By concentrating on the music I am, of course, also listening to the system, but if you consciously focus on the equipment, rather than on the music, you are going about it backwards IMO.

True nuff dat.
I HAVE a little "desktop" audio system from Yamaha, only cost 400 bucks but I enjoy it a great deal(listen to it at work). Only place I DISAGREE with you is that if you don't pay some attention to gear you are not getting the best sound you can get.
EVERY SIX MONTHS or so I do a complete overhaul, inspect things, review choices made,
see what changes I can make. Sometimes I enjoy playing with gear as much as music.:1:

[Ajani]

That was not my question. If someone asks me, for example, why I prefer New York Sharp Cheddar, I do have an answer.

rw

The first part of my response answered your question:

"You don't"... It's about auditioning a system to find something you enjoy, not describing to persons why you like it... If explaining what you like about it is important to you, then you can use audiophile jargon to analyse your choice...

[E-Stat]

If explaining what you like about it is important to you, then you can use audiophile jargon to analyse your choice...
Simple language works just as well - or better. My wife summed up hearing the Sound Lab speakers when I first got them by saying "They aren't there".

rw

[tube fan]

Simple language works just as well - or better. My wife summed up hearing the Sound Lab speakers when I first got them by saying "They aren't there".

rw
YES. this is my point. I always take a wide variety of music, all of it demanding (but in different ways). trust me, all of these recordings are both well recorded and beautiful. At the recent CAL show, my recordings sounded the best in the Teresonic room. The few Cds I had sounded by far the best in the Audio Note Room.

[E-Stat]

The few Cds I had sounded by far the best in the Audio Note Room.
Because...you liked the draperies better?

rw

[Hyfi]

I would suspect that most persons have more than one favourite recording... So it's less likely that all those recordings are bad quality...

Further, let's assume all your recordings are bad and somehow a Bose Lifestyle system makes them sound better than even the most expensive HiFi, then why not buy the Bose? I really see no reason not to just buy the Bose in that scenario...

If all recordings were on the lousy side, and a cheap system made it sound good, then I would also agree. But when a recording is stellar, you will surely miss most of it if you bought your system based on lesser recordings.

On the flip side, I am a victim of my own making because some of my favorite bands/CDs absolutely sound horrid to the point I rarely listen to them unless in the car or using a boom box.

I will gladly stick with a system that can totally resolve the bass on Marcus Miller M2 any day tho. No Bose system will.

[RGA]

That would be all well and good if all recordings were created exactly the same. But they are not. One persons "Favorite Music" my actually be a really bad recording and would surely sound much worse to them on a revealing setup while the one that sounds good to that person is really just a Bose Lifestyle system which masks the fact that the recording sucks, because that whole system sucks so you are not aware of it.

I have found that the best systems tend to make everything sound better not just one form of music or one recording type. There is a balance but I tend to find that a lot of the so called revealing systems tend to have self induced grain artifacts that are more noticeable on lesser recordings. I have a very wide taste in music and I am sure to bring that diverse collection with me when I evaluate systems.

I do know what you are saying in respect that many systems/speakers that can do the likes of 70s rock quite well completely fall apart on classical or jazz. But the same is also true the other way around. I prefer a speaker that can do well recorded classical and jazz and acoustic music brilliantly well and also do AC/DC brilliantly well and can do Delerium/The Evil Nine brilliantly well. Why have a system limit your choices in music? If your choices in music are limited already then that's fine of course - some speakers do an incredible job at that which they excel at.

[RGA]

I would suspect that most persons have more than one favourite recording... So it's less likely that all those recordings are bad quality...

Further, let's assume all your recordings are bad and somehow a Bose Lifestyle system makes them sound better than even the most expensive HiFi, then why not buy the Bose? Because Audiophiles will scorn you? Because you'd rather know that your system is 'technically accurate' than enjoy listening to your music? I really see no reason not to just buy the Bose in that scenario...

That's precisely the point. People are social animals that look for the approval of the top monkey. Kind of helps to understand the theory of evolution (err fact of evolution) and understand the principles of it. Which is why we hold movie stars up and athletes up on pedestals. One can buy a technically more accurate system but if it sounds worse and you don't play it then you might feel better when you're on a forum arguing but not when actually listening to music.

There are far fewer bad recordings out there than I suspect people think - it may be that the revealing system is the problem. Treble grain sounds like there is more treble and it may be mistaken for accuracy when it is surrounding distortion. But even if you don't buy that which is fine - if it is annoying on all your favorite recording why the heck would you want them? The point is to buy a stereo for YOUR music not to buy a stereo and then be forced to buy boring music you don't like because it sounds better on your stereo.

Any system that dictates what you can and can'[t listen to isn't a good system IMO and IME. I can listen to compressed music that is clearly a weak recording (Motley Crue) and it still captures the essence of the music and doesn't make me run screaming from the room because it's a completely inferior recording to something terrific like Sophie Milman http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=22164

There are quite excellent sounding pop discs as well - and once you know a pop disc is well recorded (even if it has amplified music or uses Synthesizer) if a system can't cut it when you KNOW it's a good recording then it's a system problem not a recording problem. Simply saying it is amplified so it is bad is not an answer/excuse that I will accept. The speaker's job is to react to electrical signals. I find the excuse that amplified music for example is poor misses the greater point on how does the system react to different kinds of amplified music. Some made for classical speakers sound washed out on amplified music and treats both good and poor rock recordings the same and thus doesn't do a good job at all at contrasting the very big recording differences of a Motley Crue DR. Feelgood verus an AC/DC Back in Black. A system that homogonizes those very different recordings isn't a very good system - whether or not you like rock or whether amplified music is problematic as there is a lack of a reference point to it. I think people think they need to make the choice and I don't believe that they really do. A big Tannoy can handle both excellently, The Acapella High Violoncello II, the Trenner and Freidle RA Box and some other loudspeakers can do justice to acoustic string instruments, classical, vocals and can ALSO rock the house in a big way

[tube fan]

Here are the records I took to the CAS:

"Muddy Waters, folk singer" (it's hard for an audio system to capture the timbre of Muddy's voice, the deep bass, the three dimensionality, and the dynamics. Only the Teresonic system came close to what I hear at home. The Magico system failed in the lower bass and in dynamics).

"Chet" (the Analogue productions version. A stunning group: Chet on trumpet, Herbbie Mann on flute, Pepper Adams on baritone sax, Bill Evans on piano, Kenny Burrell on guitar, Paul Chambers bass, and Connie Kay or Philly Joe Jones drums. On a good system you can hear Pepper Adams move as he plays on "Alone Together". Chet's trumpet sounds as if he is in the room on a good system).

"The Firebird" (Antal Dorati conducting the LSO. This is a real challenge for any system).

"Blues and the Abstract Truth" (another fantastic group: Oliver Nelson alto and tenor sax, Eric Dolphy alto sax and flute, Freddie Hubbard trumpet, George Barrow baritone sax, Bill Evans piano, Paul Chambers bass, and Roy Haynes drums. On a great system, the sextet sounds as if were in the room).

"Adagio d'Albinoni" (Super Analogue Disc. Gary Karr double-bass and Harmon Lewis organ. The only system that captured the power AND emotion of Karr's playing was in the Teresonic room)

"Waltz for Debby" (another Analogue Productions record. Bill Evans, Scott LaFaro and Paul Motian should be IN the room when you listen to this on a great system. I was shocked to hear the CD sound close to the analogue in the Audio Note room, and this was listening via their less expensive CD3.1x/II, $5,500. In other rooms, the sound was less realistic and three dimensional).

"Songs For Distingue Lovers" (Billy Holiday. Don't know the backup group, but it's great. The female voice is a test that many systems fail. Here you should get both the sound AND the emotion of Billy).

"Lieutenant Kije" (A tough test. Great dynamics, full range, and a great recording. On only a very few systems, do the wind instruments float softly and beautifully over the orchestra playing full out).

[poppachubby]

That's precisely the point. People are social animals that look for the approval of the top monkey. Kind of helps to understand the theory of evolution (err fact of evolution) and understand the principles of it.


Hahahaha. Rich I love reading your posts but you must stick to audio. The top monkey?

[Happy Camper]

Top monkey here, whatcha got?

[RGA]

Hahahaha. Rich I love reading your posts but you must stick to audio. The top monkey?

Meaning acceptance of a social group or segment of a social group. Usually a leader that approves of followers. Everything from a bully the recruits others to follow, to brand identification that "I'm cool if I buy the cologne that movie star X wears' or drive a $100k car because that shows off my virility via financial prowess. Climbing to the top of the social heap to be the monkey other monkey's are following is a desire that most humans have. To be a "star" and revered by everyone and to get the money to basically have it over others. And for many there is no sense of "enough."

[eisforelectronic]

The only answer I'm looking for when I hear a system is to the question, "Does it move me?".

[tube fan]

The only answer I'm looking for when I hear a system is to the question, "Does it move me?".

Yes, if a piece of equipment moves me, playing my favorite records (an ever increasing list), then I will consider it. It's always surprised me how many pieces of horribly expensive audio equipment fails this test.

[Hyfi]

The original post here is misleading since the OP has some pretty nice gear to start with. Without mentioning any setup or component, the OP sounds like any old crappy gear may be good enough for him.

Tube Fan,
When you listen to other systems using your criteria, are you not comparing it to what you already have?

[Ajani]

The original post here is misleading since the OP has some pretty nice gear to start with. Without mentioning any setup or component, the OP sounds like any old crappy gear may be good enough for him.

Tube Fan,
When you listen to other systems using your criteria, are you not comparing it to what you already have?

I have to disagree... IMO, nothing in the original post indicates that any old crappy gear is good enough for him... He is talking about how he auditions gear... So whatever makes his music sound best... That might be very expensive gear, mid-priced or even cheap gear...

[Hyfi]

I have to disagree... IMO, nothing in the original post indicates that any old crappy gear is good enough for him... He is talking about how he auditions gear... So whatever makes his music sound best... That might be very expensive gear, mid-priced or even cheap gear...

Yes, but he owns and uses gear on the expensive side of the coin.

[Ajani]

Yes, but he owns and uses gear on the expensive side of the coin.

Not to be argumentative, but I'm still not getting the problem...

I suspect (just my guess, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are interpreting his original post to be about the usual topic of enjoying the music rather than audiophilia (love of electronics)... Which is normally about true music lovers being able to enjoy the music regardless of whether it is played through an iPod, a HiFi system or a car stereo...

IMO, what the OP is really discussing is the best way for anyone to audition gear (whether audiophile or otherwise).... So instead of carrying a selection of audiophile approved recordings and test CDs (the ones that emit specific tones rather than music) and judging soundstage, imaging, dynamics, frequency response or whatever.... You would carry a selection of your favourite albums and just sit back, relax and have a regular listening session... So the system that makes you want to play your favourite songs over and over again and just enjoy the music, is the one to buy... Regardless of whether it is at the top or bottom of your budget... Not the system that passes the most HiFi tests - so even if if digs up detail you never knew existed and puts the performers in a 3 dimensional space in front of you, it is not the one to buy unless you actually enjoy listening to your music through it...

[theaudiohobby]

I listen to my favorite vinyl and cds, and rate each piece of music through various audio systems. I don't focus of the equipment, but on the music. The best system (yes, for me) is the one through which I give my favorite recordings the highest scores. I DON't break down the sound into low end, middle range, and high end. I don't listen for dynamics. I don't focus on tonality. I just listen to my favorite musical records and rate them. By concentrating on the music I am, of course, also listening to the system, but if you consciously focus on the equipment, rather than on the music, you are going about it backwards IMO.Don't think so at all, it's possible to focus on specific equipment qualities without losing sight of the gestalt of the entire process. That said, over the years I have noticed many folks are not comfortable with the idea of analyzing their choices as they would prefer to avoid confronting any form of dissonance.

[Hyfi]

Not to be argumentative, but I'm still not getting the problem...

I suspect (just my guess, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are interpreting his original post to be about the usual topic of enjoying the music rather than audiophilia (love of electronics)... Which is normally about true music lovers being able to enjoy the music regardless of whether it is played through an iPod, a HiFi system or a car stereo...

IMO, what the OP is really discussing is the best way for anyone to audition gear (whether audiophile or otherwise).... So instead of carrying a selection of audiophile approved recordings and test CDs (the ones that emit specific tones rather than music) and judging soundstage, imaging, dynamics, frequency response or whatever.... You would carry a selection of your favourite albums and just sit back, relax and have a regular listening session... So the system that makes you want to play your favourite songs over and over again and just enjoy the music, is the one to buy... Regardless of whether it is at the top or bottom of your budget... Not the system that passes the most HiFi tests - so even if if digs up detail you never knew existed and puts the performers in a 3 dimensional space in front of you, it is not the one to buy unless you actually enjoy listening to your music through it...

I wish he would chime in but my thought is that his starting point is skewed because in the sub-conscience part of his brain, he has his own current gear that it would sound better or worse than. If one never heard or owned good gear then the original approach would be valid.

[Ajani]

I wish he would chime in but my thought is that his starting point is skewed because in the sub-conscience part of his brain, he has his own current gear that it would sound better or worse than. If one never heard or owned good gear then the original approach would be valid.

But why would hearing or owning "good gear" invalidate the approach? Many audiophiles start off down the path of looking for technically accurate/HiFi sounding gear and later move on to just buying gear that sounds more "musical" than accurate...

Note: Gear that you just enjoy listening to music on, doesn't have to mean cheap...

[tube fan]

Not to be argumentative, but I'm still not getting the problem...

I suspect (just my guess, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are interpreting his original post to be about the usual topic of enjoying the music rather than audiophilia (love of electronics)... Which is normally about true music lovers being able to enjoy the music regardless of whether it is played through an iPod, a HiFi system or a car stereo...

IMO, what the OP is really discussing is the best way for anyone to audition gear (whether audiophile or otherwise).... So instead of carrying a selection of audiophile approved recordings and test CDs (the ones that emit specific tones rather than music) and judging soundstage, imaging, dynamics, frequency response or whatever.... You would carry a selection of your favourite albums and just sit back, relax and have a regular listening session... So the system that makes you want to play your favourite songs over and over again and just enjoy the music, is the one to buy... Regardless of whether it is at the top or bottom of your budget... Not the system that passes the most HiFi tests - so even if if digs up detail you never knew existed and puts the performers in a 3 dimensional space in front of you, it is not the one to buy unless you actually enjoy listening to your music through it...

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I actually rate each piece of music I get played via each system. Only in the Teresonic room did I rate the music higher than I do at home.
My system is NOT expensive by today's high end standard. AR SP8 and AR D70 (about $4,000 new). You should be able to beat that with the AR VSi-60 at $4000. VPI Scoutmaster $2500. Benz Ruby 3 $3000. Fulton J speaker about $2500 new. Dunlavy SC-IV $6000 (stereophile's product of the year in 1994), my backup speaker. Recently, I auditioned the Fosgate Signature phono preamp $2500 (used in the Teresonic room), and compared it to my Counterpoint SA2 prepreamp and the Auditorium 23 tranny. On each and every record (at least 50) I rated the records higher via the Fosgate. Thus, I added the Fosgate to my system. By focusing on the music and by rating the music, I avoid focusing on the usual "high end" breakdown (soundstage, imaging, detail, dynamics, etc). Of course, I can breakdown what I am hearing in audio terms, but that comes AFTER I rate the music via each system or component.

Of course, all this ties in with my view on blind listening. When you listen blind, it's much easier to focus on the music, and easier to rate the sound without knowing whether the system is ss, tube, analogue or digital.

[tube fan]

I rarely change equipment. My first system was the AR 3a driven by Dynaco Mark 3 amps. Went from that to the Fulton J (still my main speaker after 30+ years) and the AR SP8 and D-70. I have had several turntables and cartridges. My recent addition of the Fosgate phono unit replaces my 30 year old Counterpoint unit. I check out the audio shows and stores every 6 months, and see if I rate my favorite music significantly higher. I loved the sound in the Audio Note room at the CAS, but. as they had no tt, I was unable to rate my favorite music. Perhaps Audio Note will have a tt in the next show.

[theaudiohobby]

Many audiophiles start off down the path of looking for technically accurate/HiFi sounding gear and later move on to just buying gear that sounds more "musical" than accurate...
.

That's a false dichotomy:nonod:

[theaudiohobby]

My system is NOT expensive by today's high end standard. AR SP8 and AR D70 (about $4,000 new). You should be able to beat that with the AR VSi-60 at $4000. VPI Scoutmaster $2500. Benz Ruby 3 $3000. Fulton J speaker about $2500 new. Dunlavy SC-IV $6000 (stereophile's product of the year in 1994), my backup speaker. Recently, I auditioned the Fosgate Signature phono preamp $2500 (used in the Teresonic room), and compared it to my Counterpoint SA2 prepreamp and the Auditorium 23 tranny. On each and every record (at least 50) I rated the records higher via the Fosgate. Given that a decent starter stereo system can be built for less than $1000, I would call your system expensive, not outrageously expensive but still expensive.

[Auricauricle]

Howdy, All!

I think, in the final analysis, folks will eventually gravitate to those qualities that are most appealing to them: these may include the Gestalt, if you like. Yet such a term is laden with various qualities of experience that usage still begs the question: just what is it that you are listening to? This is where the dissection of music comes in, and the Big Olde Lexicon of Audiophilia is opened up. It may be pointed out that such terminology and discussion of things musical removes one from the experience itself; but if one is to communicate such matters, there has to be some way of introducing concepts that are clear and succinct. It may be well and good to say that one buys a particular disc or an amplifier simply because it is emotionally moving or intellectually challenging; yet such phrases must be accompanied by terms and descriptions that tell the audience how such appealing qualities arise.

[theaudiohobby]

Howdy, All!

I think, in the final analysis, folks will eventually gravitate to those qualities that are most appealing to them: these may include the Gestalt, if you like. Yet such a term is laden with various qualities of experience that usage still begs the question: just what is it that you are listening to? This is where the dissection of music comes in, and the Big Olde Lexicon of Audiophilia is opened up. It may be pointed out that such terminology and discussion of things musical removes one from the experience itself; but if one is to communicate such matters, there has to be some way of introducing concepts that are clear and succinct. It may be well and good to say that one buys a particular disc or an amplifier simply because it is emotionally moving or intellectually challenging; yet such phrases must be accompanied by terms and descriptions that tell the audience how such appealing qualities arise.

Totally agree with your comments

[Ajani]

Howdy, All!

I think, in the final analysis, folks will eventually gravitate to those qualities that are most appealing to them: these may include the Gestalt, if you like. Yet such a term is laden with various qualities of experience that usage still begs the question: just what is it that you are listening to? This is where the dissection of music comes in, and the Big Olde Lexicon of Audiophilia is opened up. It may be pointed out that such terminology and discussion of things musical removes one from the experience itself; but if one is to communicate such matters, there has to be some way of introducing concepts that are clear and succinct. It may be well and good to say that one buys a particular disc or an amplifier simply because it is emotionally moving or intellectually challenging; yet such phrases must be accompanied by terms and descriptions that tell the audience how such appealing qualities arise.

Which is all well and good, if you plan to communicate to others in any detail why you like what you like... If however, your just want to buy an enjoyable system, then detailed analysis and terminology is not necessary and IMO is actually a handicap as you will start looking for specific audiophile phenomena rather than just engaging in the musical experience...

Analyzing the playback of a recording is a totally different experience from listening to it for enjoyment... So the main point would be to leave the analysis for when you feel like explaining your choice of equipment on an audio site... But when you audition gear, just bring some sweet tunes and enjoy...

[Auricauricle]

We are in agreement, Ajani: deconstruction of anything artistic does tend to diminish it, to a certain extent. Still "detailed analysis and terminology" must be used to describe one's experience dispassionately, a less than appealing prospect for those of us who listen with the heart, but a satisfactory answer to those who do so with their head. I would also point out that the audio business--like any other--must employ such terms to provide yardsticks of quality and performance that can be compared and aspired to. While those numbers are not the sole arbiters of one's experience, visceral or cerebral, they are informative nevertheless and give participants something more teneble than that Old Familiar Swimmy Feeling.

[Ajani]

We are in agreement, Ajani: deconstruction of anything artistic does tend to diminish it, to a certain extent. Still "detailed analysis and terminology" must be used to describe one's experience dispassionately, a less than appealing prospect for those of us who listen with the heart, but a satisfactory answer to those who do so with their head. I would also point out that the audio business--like any other--must employ such terms to provide yardsticks of quality and performance that can be compared and aspired to. While those numbers are not the sole arbiters of one's experience, visceral or cerebral, they are informative nevertheless and give participants something more teneble than that Old Familiar Swimmy Feeling.

Yes, we are in agreement... I am 100% for manufacturers and reviewers measuring and analyzing why we like what we like... In fact I think part of the problem is that we need to identify/create even more measurements than we have now and find a correlation between the measurements and all the audiophile terms we use (how do your measure soundstage width or depth?)... However, that is totally different from me making a purchasing decision... When making that decision, I think we should take off the audiophile caps and leave the analysis for another day...

[tube fan]

Which is all well and good, if you plan to communicate to others in any detail why you like what you like... If however, your just want to buy an enjoyable system, then detailed analysis and terminology is not necessary and IMO is actually a handicap as you will start looking for specific audiophile phenomena rather than just engaging in the musical experience...

Analyzing the playback of a recording is a totally different experience from listening to it for enjoyment... So the main point would be to leave the analysis for when you feel like explaining your choice of equipment on an audio site... But when you audition gear, just bring some sweet tunes and enjoy...

Yes, you get what I an driving at. If you focus on the usual hifi jargon, and listen for deep bass (deeper is ALWAYS better, right?), extended highs (clearer, more extended highs are ALWAYS better, right?), detail (the more and sharper being ALWAYS better, right?), soundstage (the more pinpoint
being ALWAYS better, right?), you may quite well end up buying equipment that doesn't play your favorite records as well (using your own rating of your music) as other equipment
that has less deep bass, extended highs, detail, and pinpoint imaging. The best system for you is the one that you think plays your favorite pieces of music the best. No system is perfect. You want the system that maximizes your enjoyment of your music.

The same applies to buying wines. If you focus on color (darker being always better), mouthfeel (bigger alway better), finish (longer always better), body (bigger better), you may well end up with an over-ripe, over-oaked, high alcoholic wine that lacks any balance and overpowers food. Of course, I think the major wine critics (Parker and the Wine Spectator) do exactly this, and end up giving these unbalanced fruit bombs the highest ratings. In real blind tests, with or without food, most people, not focusing on the wine jargon, prefer smoother, lower alcoholic wines that go much better with food.

If you are rating audio equipment or wine, it should be the whole product you are rating, not a combination of rated parts. Of course, you can breakdown your favorite wines or equipment, and use wine or audio jargon to explain your rating. But what exactly will that tell you? Say you love the DeVore Fidelity Gibbon speaker (both Sam Tellig and Stephen Mejias love it) at $4300, despite the fact that it is not extended at either low or high frequencies,and will not play nearly as loud as many others? Stereophile currently rates the DeVore Gibbon in class A, despite its clear limitations. It's always the balance that appeals to you, and, others may well favor a different balance. IMO, it comes down to this: you just prefer listening to this equipment or drinking this wine.

For example, when I was comparing the Fosgate phono unit
to my Counterpoint SA2 and the Auditorium 23 tranny (yes, blind), I just listened to records over all three and rated the music. Over the Fosgate, I consistently rated the records higher. The music just seemed to be more of a piece, more in my room with the Fosgate. The Auditorium was much quieter. The Counterpoint had great dynamics and detail, but THOUSANDS of factors are at work, not just the few favorite ones (detail, soundstage, etc). Muddy Waters' voice and guitar, Chet Baker's trumpet, Bill Evans' piano, Oliver Nelson's sax, eric Dolphy's sax and flute, Scott LaFaro's bass, gary Karr's double bass, and, yes, the London Symphony Orcestra, just sounded like they were playing IN my room. Of course, the Fosgate had deep bass (the organ as well as the subtle details AND power of the double bass came through), clear highs (Chet Baker's trumpet had the proper punch and Paul Motian's brushwork was startlingly present, while being subtle), reproduced both male and female voices accurately (the dynamics, timbre, and yes, emotion of both Muddy Waters and Billy Holiday came through better), and consistently produced three dimensional sound (i.e, the sound seemed to come from a three dimensional object, be that Muddy Waters' body, or a pipe organ, or double bass, or sax; no flat sound here). However, when rating the music, I just focused on the total quality of the reproduced sound.

[Auricauricle]

Still we look to raters and reviewers to not only give us information about the wine we drink and the music we listen to in a fashion that is as unadorned and noninterested as possible. While those things that warrant a gushing phrase will get their just remarks, it is also important to temper such language with approropriate and descriptive rationale. We look unto Parker, Harley, etc., not simply because of their verbal flair and ability to sling out the jargon-gun; but, also, because (we hope) their judgement represents what is plain and simple: the unadorned truth.

[Brett A]

(...) If you focus on the usual hifi jargon, (...) you may quite well end up buying equipment that doesn't play your favorite records as well.
This may be a helpful caution for some, but it mainly seems like black-and-white thinking that I find honestly a little insulting. It doesn't have to be either-or.

People who develop and use critical listening skills (or "usual hifi jargon" as you call it--and that's where I"m a little insulted) to evaluate equipment don't stop there. Most people i come into contact with in the hobby use familiar recordings of music they love to evaluate the performance of gear. And along the way are assessing the qualities that they most want (imaging, detail retrieval, bass extension--whatever your priorities are). And its all in service of the desired end; emotional connection to the music being portrayed. You CAN do both!

I say make an informed decision based on personal experience about the gear you're considering. And be careful not to lose sight of the music in the process of checking on it's specific characteristics because as you say: You want the system that maximizes your enjoyment of your music.

No matter how you listen

[tube fan]

Still we look to raters and reviewers to not only give us information about the wine we drink and the music we listen to in a fashion that is as unadorned and noninterested as possible. While those things that warrant a gushing phrase will get their just remarks, it is also important to temper such language with approropriate and descriptive rationale. We look unto Parker, Harley, etc., not simply because of their verbal flair and ability to sling out the jargon-gun; but, also, because (we hope) their judgement represents what is plain and simple: the unadorned truth.

Parker does not blind taste wines, and he consistently rates high alcohol, over oaked wines higher than finesse style wines. I, and others hate those fruit bombs. As the true blind tests in the NYT prove, most wine drinkers also prefer lighter, less oaky wines. Parker just gives his opinion on wines in non-blind tastings. Don't confuse his numerical rating with anything scientific (numbers here do NOT indicate plain and simple unadorned truth. It's just his opinion. Tasted blind most people do NOT like his top wines!!! That's the unadorned truth.

It's much harder in audio blind listening tests, but if not listening blind, it is all to easy for ALL reviewers to be influenced by brand and measurements. Unfortunately, the usual audio measurements tell very little about how a given piece of equipment will satisfy. Look at JA's measurements of the AR VSi60 integrated amp. His measurements told him this was an average amp. However, when actually listening to the AR amp in combination with the Acapella High Violoncello II, $80,000, JA was only able to get the expensive speaker to sound right with the average measuring AR amp. SET amps measure very poorly, yet my favorite system at the CAS was driven by a 2 1/2 watt SET amp!!! Others who listen to SET amps often come to the same conclusion. Back when AR started putting out their tube amps, almost everyone thought ss was vastly superior. Ditto for early digital (perfect sound forever) over analogue. Many who listened to early digital and ss felt certain that the superior measured performance of ss and digital did not translate into superior sound!

[TheHills44060]

You don't... It's about getting a system you enjoy... If you want to write a review or make recommendations, then you need to use audiophile approved terminology...
wow i could point out 1000 hypocrisies in this statement...only my opinion of course so don't get your panties in a bunch Ajani.

I always audition with my favorite music and i admit i am usually pretty quick to make an opinion. The last time i really put a speaker to the test were the Soliloquy 5.0's.

[Ajani]

wow i could point out 1000 hypocrisies in this statement. only my opinion of course.

Happy New Year! Glad to see you're back to adding your usual value to the discussion, with useful and informative opinions... :dita:

[Ajani]

so don't get your panties in a bunch Ajani.

Considering your avatar, it is clear you are the only one here wearing panties...

I still fail to see why you can't just make a comment about the topic without first tossing an insult at me... Obsession is a terrible thing... It's time you let go and move on with your life...

[TheHills44060]

oh my god...you have been lurking here this whole time and replied within minutes...you have no life whatsoever!!!

[Ajani]

oh my god...you have been lurking here this whole time and replied within minutes...you have no life whatsoever!!!

I was on this thread when you posted... Also, since you continue to follow me around the forum just to make some childish comment or the other, I fail to see why you think I'm the one who needs a life... anyway, I'll let this thread return to it's original purpose and you can continue to vent your obsession with me...

[filecat13]

Yes, everyone seems take his/her favorite tried and true recordings and uses familiar tracks to audition. Funny, I had to retype "tried' since I had written "tired."

I take a few of my favorites, but in addition I always take something I've never heard before. There are thousands of choices, so it's easy to do. I buy something I've never heard and take it along.

Each of us will have some preconceptions about our favorite tracks, but something we've never heard puts a whole new spin on the experience. It's not quite Russian roulette, as I can pick a genre and even an artist who appeals to me, along with a label that usually does good work.

Does the equipment at the audition bring that music to me in a compelling and convincing way? Do I desire to hear it again? Do I want to take it home and hear if it sounds as good on my systems? When I take it home, am I less enthused than I was?

Since I did not hear the music on my system before, now the reference system is the first I heard it on, and I'm comparing my sound to that. Sure, auditory memory is short; emotional memory is long. Do I feel the same way about the music when I get home?

It's not the ultimate test; it's not the only test. But it's a good method to shake up preconceptions and built-in prejudices based on music that we're all too familiar with and have expectations about going in.

[tube fan]

The original post here is misleading since the OP has some pretty nice gear to start with. Without mentioning any setup or component, the OP sounds like any old crappy gear may be good enough for him.

Tube Fan,
When you listen to other systems using your criteria, are you not comparing it to what you already have?


Of course, if what I am listening to is not significantly better, I will stick to what I own. I went from the AR3a to the Fulton J speaker (matched against the infinity Servo-Static in my final blind tests). I went from the Dyna Mark III amps to the AR ones, based on listening tests.
The two rooms that impressed me most at the CAS were the Audio Note and the Teresonic. Based on what I heard, I decided to match the Fosgate phono unit (used in the Teresonic room) vs my current units. As I consistently rated the music higher through the Fosgate, I ended up buying it.

[(O0o*o0O)]

I listen to my favorite vinyl and cds, and rate each piece of music through various audio systems. I don't focus of the equipment, but on the music. The best system (yes, for me) is the one through which I give my favorite recordings the highest scores. I DON't break down the sound into low end, middle range, and high end. I don't listen for dynamics. I don't focus on tonality. I just listen to my favorite musical records and rate them. By concentrating on the music I am, of course, also listening to the system, but if you consciously focus on the equipment, rather than on the music, you are going about it backwards IMO.

I've been building my primary system around a broad range of music for years. I usually have one to three other system set-up for music and jump around. I would need at least three systems to be truly satisfied.

I think many audio nuts get caught up in the different dynamics of audio gear and their preference in music. Which leads to so many disagreements between brand, build, and unfortunately price.

There is as much bad as there is over priced and this makes for some great debating. It also allows you to use your ears past what someone is telling you and to just sit and listen. The miracle of sound is now another miracle to be able to reproduce it, but in any market you have your shysters. People who sell you or misrepresent audio products. Even within brands I like and brands I own.

The best piece of audio equipment we have are our ears...:cornut:

[tube fan]

If you go by the reviews in the audio press, 99% of new, ever more expensive audio equipment is better than last year's model. If each and every piece of new equipment was dramatically better, then, when I go and compare the sound of my mostly 25 year old system to today's best, there should be a HUGE difference. To my ears, there is little, if any, real improvement in audio systems, despite the supposed improvement of today's models over yesterday's.

[swan24]

I first start with affordability... There's no sense in rating a system I can't buy... It ruins my mental calibration of what is possible for me to listen to... After I have established what I can afford, I listen for overall musicality... I've learned over the years not to count too much on audio punditry or specs... They don't really tell me how much I will enjoy the system... The operative word there is system... In the final act, if the whole doesn't work together to produce a pleasing sound, then what good are the individual components?... (m.)

[E-Stat]

I first start with affordability... There's no sense in rating a system I can't buy...
I respectfully disagree. I don't see any advantage to ignoring what is possible. I can appreciate the performance of any number of things I cannot afford.


It ruins my mental calibration of what is possible for me to listen to...
I find that having spent lots of time hearing a friend's very well matched $300k system helps me prioritize and determine where spending more makes sense and where it doesn't.

rw

[JoeE SP9]

I agree with E-Stat. The absolute top of the line high dollar stuff most of us will never be able to afford gives you a target to aim at. Sure, short of winning the Power Ball lottery I'll never be able to spend $300K on any system. Does that mean I should ignore what that system sounds like? That would be silly and akin to burying my head in the sand.

I want to know how good it can be. That applies to everything. A Bugatti Veyron is beyond my pocket. I won't ignore it or that 360Z I can (maybe) afford. The same applies to audio gear.

[swan24]

I think I have two distinct things working against me if I were to take that tack on rating systems:

1) My budget, as I'm a disabled vet on a rather sparse pension, and

2) My ability as a classical musician to really remember what a system sounds like when I listen to it... Even years later, that impression will stay with me... Every nuance...

So, in the end-- at least for me, anyway-- I do much better auditioning audio systems that are within my price range... Maybe a little outside, but not by very much...

Example: Years ago, I was talking to Bud Fried, and he was showing us his [at that time] new Model H speaker system with the double transmission line bass commode, and satellite speakers... The amplification was Audio Research... The program source was a massive turntable [forgot which] with London Decca no cantilever phono cartridge playing a Sheffield direct to vinly LP... That was over 35 yrs. ago, and it still sometimes affects my listening calibration... It can throw me off for days at a time...

I would also like to add, that when you can't throw money at a system, you are forced to make more wise choices, calling upon internal resources that you would not otherwise use in making your decisions... The end result can be very satisfying, if you do your homework... And of course, listen... (m.)

[swan24]

As a sidebar, here's my current music system:

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa208/signet02/001-11.jpg

I just added up the total cost, sans shipping... It was $839.84, including good quality Knu Konceptz speaker cables and interconnects...

The speakers, I built from a kit... The integrated single ended tube amplifier is of Chinese origin... The CD player is a manufacturer's refurbished TEAC unit... The tuner is a Sangean HDT 1 X... And the antenna is a Godar FM 1A...

I've had people over who were absolutely floored by this system... And yes, those three inch drivers are the only ones in the enclosures, rear horn loaded... Listeners are often looking for additional speakers, or even a sub-woofer when I play it...

The sound?... Sumptuous on classical chamber music, jazz, new-age, anything acoustical... (m.)

[pixelthis]

As a sidebar, here's my current music system:

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa208/signet02/001-11.jpg

I just added up the total cost, sans shipping... It was $839.84, including good quality Knu Konceptz speaker cables and interconnects...

The speakers, I built from a kit... The integrated single ended tube amplifier is of Chinese origin... The CD player is a manufacturer's refurbished TEAC unit... The tuner is a Sangean HDT 1 X... And the antenna is a Godar FM 1A...

I've had people over who were absolutely floored by this system... And yes, those three inch drivers are the only ones in the enclosures, rear horn loaded... Listeners are often looking for additional speakers, or even a sub-woofer when I play it...

The sound?... Sumptuous on classical chamber music, jazz, new-age, anything acoustical... (m.)

Not a big fan of SET , but still a very nice system.
You might want to try separate stands or putting the speakers on the floor. I just don't
like speakers sharing space with the gear.
Again, very nice.:1:

[swan24]

Right... That's a drawback... I'm thinking of getting a maple platform and spikes for the amp... That might help... But the whole thing is surprisingly stable as is... (m.)

[E-Stat]

My ability as a classical musician to really remember what a system sounds like when I listen to it... Even years later, that impression will stay with me... Every nuance...
So, if as a classical musician you remember every nuance of the live musical experience (aka what is truly the "Perfect System"), then how do you forget all of that only when listening to low priced audio systems ? Just curious since I've never encountered someone in your position. Another reviewer friend of mine has been a part of the Atlanta Symphony Chorus for over thirty years. Consequently, I've met quite a few of the musicians there. The majority of them quite frankly don't care too much about audio systems. The ones who do always enjoyed hearing JWC's latest and greatest system.


I would also like to add, that when you can't throw money at a system, you are forced to make more wise choices, calling upon internal resources that you would not otherwise use in making your decisions...
Agreed. I don't have the budge of my reviewer friend either! I want to know exactly where the money is best spent. I like your system choice using full range drivers. I too, value coherency very high.

rw

[Feanor]

I respectfully disagree. I don't see any advantage to ignoring what is possible. I can appreciate the performance of any number of things I cannot afford.

...
I find that having spent lots of time hearing a friend's very well matched $300k system helps me prioritize and determine where spending more makes sense and where it doesn't.

rw
I don't have friends with $300k systems, (too bad), nor do I get much chance to go to shows. One or two local dealers do have good demo systems but go there rarely since I haven't the money to make regular purchases.

A few reference records are what I have to rely on. Large-scale choral works with chorus, soloists, and orchestra are the best single reference, IMO. This at least for classical listeners, since they do the most to reveal resolution and transparency as well as instrument timbres.

Personally I listen for "accuracy". That is, in proximate terms accuracy to the my reference recordings, in ultimate terms to the true sound of voices and instruments.

[E-Stat]

Personally I listen for "accuracy". That is, in proximate terms accuracy to the my reference recordings, in ultimate terms to the true sound of voices and instruments.
Tonal harmonics accuracy? Dynamic accuracy? Image coherence accuracy? Bandwidth accuracy?

rw

[swan24]

So, if as a classical musician you remember every nuance of the live musical experience (aka what is truly the "Perfect System"), then how do you forget all of that only when listening to low priced audio systems ? Just curious since I've never encountered someone in your position. Another reviewer friend of mine has been a part of the Atlanta Symphony Chorus for over thirty years. Consequently, I've met quite a few of the musicians there. The majority of them quite frankly don't care too much about audio systems. The ones who do always enjoyed hearing JWC's latest and greatest system.

rw

Yes, a lot of working musicians have, at the very best, mostly marginal audio systems in their homes... But they do tend to have a lot of program material, from my experience... As far as how I can forget the live performance only when listening to lower priced audio systems, I don't... Most live performances, that is, with full audiences in any concert venue, sound much different from a recorded session with perfect mic placement, an open acoustic, etc. So, allowances are made for this, albeit rather automatically, and somewhat subjectively... (m.)

[bobsticks]

I can't imagine a better system for $839.84...and that's coming from an electrostat guy...nice job Swan...

[E-Stat]

YSo, allowances are made for this, albeit rather automatically, and somewhat subjectively...
Thanks for the different perspective. I've never met another music/audio fancier who finds listening to better gear a *problem*.

I adjust easily from hearing the live event, a studio recording event (I participated in the '78 ASO Firebird recording in a very minor way), a state-of-the-art system, my two decidedly lesser systems or even - my iPhone!

rw

[(O0o*o0O)]

Very impressive! What an excellent example of audio set-ups you have. Love the cost, love the DIY, and would love to come over in my pajamas to have a listen.

This low-life is blown away.. :eek6:

[Feanor]

Tonal harmonics accuracy? Dynamic accuracy? Image coherence accuracy? Bandwidth accuracy?

rw
Yes. :16:

[E-Stat]

Yes.
That's what I thought. Your *accuracy* will be different that one who likes K-Horns.

rw

[Feanor]

That's what I thought. Your *accuracy* will be different that one who likes K-Horns.

rw
Yes. :biggrin5:

[tube fan]

The beauty of my rating system is that you simply rate your favorite records played by different audio systems. Just buy the unit that produces your highest scores, assuming that
the unit is in your budget.