View Full Version : How does everyone listen to and evaluate hi-fi systems?
It has long puzzled me how any two people can hear different things in a hi-fi system and how they come to a conclusion that it can sound "right" for them, yet sound completely "wrong" to another person.
When we come to reading show reports, it has always baffled me how a collective of people can manage to demonstrate such diverse views of what they hear and most of them in all probability will conflict with what I myself have heard. Quite often I have walked into a demonstration where some individuals are engaged in the infamous "toe tapping" (Usually out of time too I might add LOL) which others will have facial expressions that look like they are draining the very last drop of juice out of a Lime segment, while some hold a facial expression rather befitting a corpse. I think the best observations to be made is when two or more people are walking out of the demonstration and listening to what comments they pass between them. This of course can range from "crap" to "stunning" and every permutation in between, or can be couched in other nondescript terms like "If I had the money . . . . . " or "I get better sound at home for less". I often wonder if someone else hears that kind of comment on the way *IN* to a demonstration can also inject some pre-judgement into the scenario. Interesting theory perhaps, but worth musing over at some point later in time. I have heard so may show systems with frightening price tags that have honky booming uncontrolled bass or shrieking treble, yet even so the amount of people that emerge from these rooms with a big on their faces could be they have a very low expectation of what real music SHOULD actually sound like.
The recent Gotham GAC-1 cable thread on this illustrious forum has also elicited that same diverse pool of opinion. Some have stated that it is or might be a "system synergy" thing with the cable responding only in tandem with what it has been connected to, hence we get diametrically opposed opinions about it from that source of information. Some say that there is some sort of bias or hidden agenda going on that effectively kills a valid opinion straight off the starting blocks. More likely in that instance though is that some people have been swayed by another person's effusive comments about their experiences with the cable and have effectively "pre-conditioned" their minds into expecting a certain level of performance entirely based upon another person's enthusiasm and it has proved not to be so - with a resulting crash in perception probably greater than if nothing was said by anyone else beforehand. I say it's not pleasnat listening and don't give a hoot what anyone else thinks. As in the case of show reports, I believe that a good number of people will also have a favourite frequency band for their listening preferences, as in for example people that are almost fanatical about treble/midband/bass performance (delete as applicable), yet are rather non-plussed or less concerned how the other frequencies which are not their priority are behaving, while others are looking for a more generalised tonal character to the 'wall of sound' kind of thing which they perceive as a whole entity with little concern for the minutae. Maybe it's simply because people will eulogise about the negative aspects and ignore the positives?
The biggest conundrum to me has always been how the objectivists claim to readily turn technical specifications into a predictable and consistent resulting sound. Never met any one of them yet that could tell the difference between a 30pf/metre and a 300pf/metre cable and they can only nod sagely when someone has told them which is which, but if it pleases them that one is ten times greater than the other then who am I to question that? They also claim that a good design off paper will translate into a good sounding component, but I have never known that to ever happen, except maybe for purely digital designs. Without exception, every design I know of personally has always been built as a prototype from drawings, then tuned afterwards by human ear for a better sound. That too very much depends upon whose ear is being used in that process. Or in some cases, how far back the accountants have dictated what the production costs should be pared to.
So, then good AoS folks, how does yours truly listen?
I prefer to do my listening in several stages and it matters not whether it is a personal purchase or if I have been asked to evaluate a component. If a new item is being delivered by whatever means, a simple quick functionality test to make sure whoever delivered it to me has not turned it into a twisted mangled mess. Lights on, no smoke, no rattles, nothing is falling off and it makes a noise of some description and it has passed test number one, then switched off and ignored. It also allows me to put away any euphoria I might have accumulated waiting for the doorbell to ring, the delight of opening the box or packaging, disposal or storage of said packaging, lugging components in and out of the rack and the commensurate connecting up, all of which will affect everyone's stress levels to some degree or other I reckon, even the most hardened of professional reviewers who are indeed no strangers to such carryings on. Next, usually twenty four hours later, I have to then take into account whether this component requires some burn in, burn out, or burn up, so this is the ideal time to commence that process, then add on my own system's warm up time for optimal performance. If I intend to do a "serious" evaluation, I make sure I am not hungry or too full either, neither hot nor cold body temperature wise, the phone is disconnected, plus the intake and outake of errrrrrm "fluids" is taken care of too. Sounds a bit like an athlete limbering up for an event, but I firmly believe that any potential source of stress is addressed accordingly for consistent listening results. To me, a blind ABX testing panel hasn't done any of this "limbering up" process beforehand, so that to me immediately puts the test at a grave disadvantage at best and invalidates it at worst, quite aside from the fact that the moment any notion of a "test" is mentioned the stress levels are already climbing steadily before even the first note is heard. It is bizarre anyway that an objective outcome is so reliant on so many subjective elements, the greatest of which is the variability of the human test participants. Go figure.
First part of my listening then is a general impression of whether or not this newly introduced component pleases me or not. It doesn't have to be a reference of favourite recording either because that takes me into the realms of dissecting what I am hearing and I want to avoid that at this stage. I have plenty of boot sale and charity shop cheap music purchases lurking at the bottom of the rack that are ideal for this purpose, so it could be anything from Mrs Mills, to folk music, to Stravinsky and anything in between, so it gets put into the CD drawer and the play button hit. I simply listen for overall tonality and nothing else. It is very rare but not unknown for a component to stumble even at this early stage but there have been one or two over the years while have been quickly consigned to that popular auction website. Conversely too, there have only been three items that really did grab me instantly with and fell in love with from that first contact, all of which I kept and enjoyed for many years. If I do go to a show or have a demo at a dealer's premises, then truthfully this is far as i can realistically take an audition, because the system, room, choice of music, are all unfamiliar and it's a black and white kind of judgement whether I like what I hear or not - even if I do take my own favourite music along. I don't think I am alone in these situations, but I would dearly like to know where you all of you go after just listening to tonality alone in your own familiar surroundings.
Next, out comes the reference recordings that I know forwards and backwards intimately over many years. You may not have heard or indeed like my choices, but they have key elements for me contained within them that I know so well, rather than select an assault course of tortuous music that only the finest of systems can jump over, do battle with and conquer. I then split the listening into three sections, focussing on treble, mid and bass registers, mostly playing a track three times concentrating each time on just one of those three elements and completely ignoring the other two for the moment. I can do all three simultaneously of course with music I know very well, because the cues I am listening out for will arrive at a particular time so I can switch back and forth as necessary in plenty of time. Funnily enough, I have taught this listening method to several people over the years and they were more than content prior to that with listening to a transister radio and music in the car, but now they are very critical listeners with full blown hi-fi systems of their own. I have created monsters!
So then, kindly put up your own thoughts on how you personally evaluate a new component and/or how you do your everyday general listening sesh.
I don't find it in the least bit surprising that people have different views about the same components; after all, we like different types of music, have different hearing ability, different brains, different size and shape rooms, different systems, etc. For example, the 'wonder cable' on here a few years back was the single worst cable I've ever used. Does that make its many supporters 'wrong', or does it make me deaf, or someone with an agenda? Of course not. Divergence of opinion is only to be expected given the variables mentioned above. That's why I'm cautious about reviewing things; what works for me may not work for someone else, and I'm not in favour of trying to 'convert' people to my point of view, any more than I want everyone to like the same music as me (though if they dislike the Beatles, their opinions re anything else are clearly valueless).
In terms of how I listen to/evaluate equipment, I have several recordings that I know and like, and tend to use these either when at a dealer demonstration or when listening to something on home trial, rather than depending on whatever the dealer happens to have. Generally speaking, that's enough to eliminate obvious mismatches as the basis for a like/don't like, or a buy/don't buy decision. I'm of the view that there are few 'bad' components out there, just components that work well in some contexts and less well in others. Of course price comes into it as well, and expectations should be higher one ascends the price ladder, but paradoxically, some very expensive equipment requires more care in matching and installation than cheap and cheerful stuff.
For general listening, I just put some music on and listen to it. I've found as I've got older that I can't multi-task like I used to, so tend not to read or anything else, as I either can't follow what I'm reading, or don't properly listen to the music; the kitchen micro-system is all I use for 'background' listening. Upstairs I tend to use the Stax headphones rather than the speakers, because the room has several 'issues' that would be difficult and costly to resolve, and this is a more 'immersive' experience than listening via speakers.
MikeMusic
15-05-2014, 10:40
I use certain tracks I know well
Play on current system
Play with new bits
All being well new bits beat old bits.
Buy new bits
and eventually sell old bits - Must sell more old kit !
More difficult when not clear cut
More listening to more tracks.
If just 'different', not that common I choose which I prefer
Price can influence that decision of course
Gordon Steadman
15-05-2014, 10:53
I make stringed musical instruments and repair strings, brass and woodwind. I have to play them to see how they sound.
Twenty years ago, I started recording some of them and played them back on the hi-fi. Once I had a system that sounded the same, I stopped bothering with the equipment and just listened to the music.
istari_knight
15-05-2014, 11:47
Cant argue with that Gordon !
For someone with such objective views my evaluations are very subjective... I judge purely on the enjoyment I get from the music which is subject to mood/weather/time of day so admittedly very flawed but ultimately, it works [for me :)]
Gordon Steadman
15-05-2014, 11:51
I judge purely on the enjoyment I get from the music which is subject to mood/weather/time of day so admittedly very flawed but ultimately, it works [for me :)]
Can't really argue with that now can you?
It is clear that some enjoy what I would call a very skewed version of reality but there have been 'discussions' about the nature of reality too.:eyebrows:
If I am trying something new I will set it up at the weekend but I won't have a serious listen to it until in the week after work since I am then coming to it clear-headed and sober after a day at the office and at least 18 hours since I last heard any recorded music be it from a TV, radio or a system.
I can't stand listening to the same thing repeteadly or listening to something I am not in the mood for so I will just stick on whatever I feel like hearing. It is likely to be something I am pretty familiar with anyway. I always use CD for evaluating kit (unless it is vinyl related, obviously) since they are more consistent, there are a lot less variables involved.
Once the music is playing I will smoke and drink my beer and not try to concentrate on anything specific, I'll just see how it grabs me. Music works on the physical and emotional levels, not the intellectual so I don't see any point in thinking about what I am hearing using the internal dialogue. Usually it does not take long before there is one of the following outcomes:
1) it's not grabbing me, I'm bored, I'm losing interest, I'm wondering what's on the telly
2) I'm enjoying the music but not anymore than I was prior to introducing the new item
3) I'm really, noticebaly enjoying things more with the new item than I was previously
Only once I have had one of the three reactions then I might try to intelluctualise it and start thinking about what it is specifically that has heightened ot decreased my enjoyment and then try to relate this to an objective, technical perspective in the hope of drawing wider conclusions/theories about how things work together and what is going on. Sometimes that theorising helps me make future decisions although mostly its a waste of time.
istari_knight
15-05-2014, 12:43
...although mostly its a waste of time.
Amen to that.
FWIW I've always found "gut instinct" to be right. I'll know within 10 minutes if I straight like/dislike something and that feeling 9/10 bares out in the long run... Its happened a couple of times where I've not been keen on a new addition, its grown on me & then I hate it all of a sudden :D
I don't really evaluate. I look to get utterly lost in the music when I'm on my own with my eyes closed and in the sweet spot. I recall seeing a wonderful documentary on the web about Greek Audiophiles where a chap quoted something along the lines of 'we talk about wanting the speakers to disappear, but really it's us that want to disappear into the music'. More the sentiment than a word for word quote, but that's what I want. And a 3D soundstage that feels like I can reach out and touch the music.
As you'll guess I'm not an evaluation kind of chap, more the spirit of the sound for me. I enjoyed your post Frank which you clearly put a great deal of thought into. Cheers, Ian.
Amen to that.
FWIW I've always found "gut instinct" to be right. I'll know within 10 minutes if I straight like/dislike something and that feeling 9/10 bares out in the long run... Its happened a couple of times where I've not been keen on a new addition, its grown on me & then I hate it all of a sudden :D
Totally agree. I used to do a lot of ABX testing (finding that I did prefer lossless to 320kbps & that speaker cables do make a difference), long sessions comparing components etc. and learned that auditory memory just isn't cut out for it, and the added 'stress' of comparison draws you away from how you feel (and listen) when you've just got the tunes on.
These days I don't change anything as it's that gut reaction from a component change after long-term listening with the previous setup that reveals the most to me. I got totally lost when I tried a passive pre and a bi-amped setup vs. my active pre & single amp. With associated interconnect & speaker cable changes it was too much!
So now I plug one thing at a time, put on familiar tracks & quickly feel whether it's more natural or not. Some components add a false sense of "detail" that is sympathetic to some systems and can have wow factor on first listen, but it's really about long-term listening, and the changes when you change something small, as the most accurate IMHO test of what you like. Quick component switches etc. quickly overwhelm our auditory memory capabilities (when do we do that sort of stuff in nature?!) and formal ABX tests are ridiculous compared to how I've done them, which is at home with familiar kit and music.
I particularly listen to piano, decays, leading edge, timbre, harmonics and female vocals in terms of "critical listening", get an emotional foot-tapping response when not, and have have never had a problem with things like bass overhang in my systems.
A pretty good evaluation is the hour of the night you actually turn off the hi fi and go to bed.
Auditioning the Longdog DAC for the first time last week, it was starting to get light.
On a digital source, have found just set up a playlist, comprising - all 24/192:
Harpsichord (top end and decay)
Cello (lower end and decay)
Piano - Rhapsody in Blue - Grosvenor (because I listen to lots of piano music and if this sounds good, anything will)
Steven Wilson / Massive Attack (ability to dislodge masonry)
Barb Jungr (female vocals) - alternatively Ute Lemper / All that Jazz from CD, but a great quality recording and possibly my favourite female vocal
Brandenburg Concertos (separation and soundstage)
Shostakovich Piano Concerto No 2 (separation and soundstage avec piano)
Les Nuits d'ete (higher female vocals and general ability to hold the whole soundscape together)
Harpsichord is a good test. If I can listen to it for more than two minutes, something's right.
The Barbarian
15-05-2014, 18:27
i certainly do not evaluate a system with specialist cables, if it sounds how i like to hear my records with standard cable that good enough for me. I don't fit specialist cables for any so called sound improvements that golden eared people seem to hear, i swap them out because i be looking for a better build quality cable hence ensured reliability..
Mr Kipling
15-05-2014, 18:36
Hope you won't take such a beating with this thread Frank. And The Spanish Inquisition (with their red-hot pokers) won't be about to burst-in, any second on you.
Hope you won't take such a beating with this thread Frank. And The Spanish Inquisition (with their red-hot pokers) won't be about to burst-in, any second on you.
I hope not Stephen. If they must burst in I want the comfy chair :eyebrows:
I am often being called someone with "golden ears" or whatever, so it started me thinking HOW folks listen to their own systems that draws them to certain conclusions. I am particularly fascinated by "aural memory" in others as I can remember note for note, timing, timbre, tonality, the whole works from music I heard 40+ years ago, some of it from when CD wasn't even invented yet when speed fluctuations, wow and flutter problems were fairly common too right up to lower mid priced decks and cassette tapes which were dire sometimes a well.
Anyway, keep posting chaps because there seems to be a clear division of people who dissect and dismantle the sound they hear to find what makes it tick and those that just let the sounds that please flow all over them and bathe them in pleasures :)
Mr Kipling
15-05-2014, 18:55
Comfy chair!?! Comfy chair!?!
Mr Kipling
15-05-2014, 19:18
I make stringed musical instruments and repair strings, brass and woodwind. I have to play them to see how they sound.
Twenty years ago, I started recording some of them and played them back on the hi-fi. Once I had a system that sounded the same, I stopped bothering with the equipment and just listened to the music.
Balalaikas!
Gordon Steadman
15-05-2014, 19:28
Balalaikas!
I take it thats a question. Nope, never touched one.
PS I have had the same hi-fi for all that time in case I misread your intention:ner:
It's a good question, Frank, but I don't think being highly process oriented helps when listening to music, which is an emotive connection with your brain.
Like some others here, I have a good handful of favourites each of which test different aspects of system performance, but most importantly each of which is great music. I don't then listen for changes but just let the music wash over me. If there is a change it will become apparent at its own speed, but primarily I am enjoying that piece of music again.
I think it's why double-blind tests just don't work. There is too much stress and expectation to relax and enjoy the music.
It's a good question, Frank, but I don't think being highly process oriented helps when listening to music, which is an emotive connection with your brain.
Like some others here, I have a good handful of favourites each of which test different aspects of system performance, but most importantly each of which is great music. I don't then listen for changes but just let the music wash over me. If there is a change it will become apparent at its own speed, but primarily I am enjoying that piece of music again.
I think it's why double-blind tests just don't work. There is too much stress and expectation to relax and enjoy the music.
Good lord no Martin, I don't always stick my music choices under the microscope, only when there is a valid imperative to do it :)
Right now I am browsing the web facing away from the system and Jeff Buckley is making some fine noises behind me that I derive pure pleasure from without thinking to myself how it's all put together to make it sound nice :eyebrows:
I don't ever have music on as background unless I have got people round. I'm either giving it 100% attention or I switch it off and do something else. Years ago I would sometimes have the TV on with the sound turned down but I don't do that anymore. The music would quite often fit the visuals it could be quite funny sometimes how it matched up.
I'm either giving it 100% attention or I switch it off and do something else.
Exactly that for me too.
I'm either giving it 100% attention or I switch it off and do something else.
Not a multi-tasking man then Martin? :)
I do like it playing behind me when I am fannying about on the internet, usually with a CD playing drawn at random out of the rack that I couldn't find the time to listen to at any other time during a "proper" sesh.
If its not sounding good enough to demand my whole attention then I quickly get bored. That's why I go through so much kit, i'm always trying to push it a bit further but then things go faulty and I have to swap them out and re-calibrate everything else to compensate. I have a standard it has to reach and if I am not happy with the sound it actually effects my health so I don't listen any more until I make another change. When it is all working right I can listen for eight to ten hours straight. But I buy vintage and bargain used kit pretty much exclusivley so things do go wrong quite often and with a lot of this stuff you cant just get another.
I don't ever have music on as background . . .
Never really been that sure what 'background music' is Martin, if I'm at home no matter what I am doing (unless I'm watching a film), I have music playing. At the office I have headphones on for a good part of the day and I walk to work with a Sansa Clip listening to the two Bob Harris shows (4 hours) I have recorded from the previous week. As for evaluating Hi-Fi . . . . you can keep that TBH. I like to evaluate the music I own, discover new music and generally immerse myself in it. I only tend to concentrate 100% on new purchases and that's hard enough to keep up with at times - however, late at night sessions get my full undivided attention and I do those every night at some point if I'm at home. I do 60+ gigs a year normally, as well as a couple of festivals.
I don't have listening sessions as my whole life is a listening session :eyebrows:
Exactly that for me too.
You two are missing out then :) , its great to be in the kitchen cooking something great, glass of wine on the go and music filtering through from your gear in the background ;) ....even better with friends around for Dinner.
You two are missing out then :) , its great to be in the kitchen cooking something great, glass of wine on the go and music filtering through from your gear in the background
:thumbsup: just done that exact thing - been making a big pot of yellow split pea dahl soup, with Willie Nelson playing and a glass of red. Nothing better.
I don't cook anymore and I like to watchTV when I'm eating. I couldn't go out with headphones on, or work. Although I do like having the radio on if working but I can't do that where I am now. Music has its own place for me I don't want it all the time. There is no point fir me if I am doing something I blot everything else out. I only notice background music when it stops so no point in it for me.
The first part of your OP Frank is all about social interaction and dynamics and psychology - all complex stuff, different ways people conduct themselves in public, how they think they should behave. Some love to assert their difference in view and attempt a new leadership claim for the "different opinion" tribe etc etc.
I'm sure it's perfectly possible to listen just as attentively with a poker face and no need to express anything or join in socially with the group dynamics.
Why should people have such different opinions aside from the above?
Well, some people love marmite, some people hate it (and there are the majority in between those extremes, despite the claims of the adverts). Why wouldn't it be any different for our aural senses too? Physiological differences in our hearing organs and real brain differences in how we process sounds as well as our associations on many levels due to our aural histories that have shaped our brains and lives.
I tend to just listen in the dark and try not to think about things, try to concentrate on my senses like a bit of meditation. I try not to think about what I hear else you can convince yourself of differences which are nothing more than a shift of your own attention. If differences aren't fairly instinctively noticable then I tend to think that they're not real.
Hence the cable listening sessions people do with swapping them out just wouldn't work with me with subtle differences - the swapping in and out is such a disturbance that it's too easy for your sonic memory to no-longer be a memory but instead a very concious construct based on what you happened to consiously note to yourself about the sound. Must be completely impossible in a social situation!
I don't cook anymore and I like to watchTV when I'm eating. I couldn't go out with headphones on, or work. Although I do like having the radio on if working but I can't do that where I am now. Music has its own place for me I don't want it all the time. There is no point fir me if I am doing something I blot everything else out. I only notice background music when it stops so no point in it for me.
The whole thing is uniquely fascinating - not only do music tastes very wildly, but also the systems we listen on and the way they present the music. Some like smooth and easy, others dynamic and in yer' face with bags of detail and some don't seem to be able to make up their minds, or even care. But not only that, the way we actually listen and enjoy music varies wildly too :scratch: But there is one common denominator, the music ;)
Fascinating . . .
. . . it really is.
The car is my second favourite environment for listening to music, flawed though it is. It forces me to listen to different aspects of the music. It's just as well since I spend anything up to two hours in the car every day.
There is another thread at the moment with people saying how much they love the Unplugged albums but they bore me to tears even if I really like tge artist. They are very hi fi but just too tame for me. Music is very personal, on the other hand a think a good system is a good system, no matter who is listening or what their tastes are.
Mr Kipling
15-05-2014, 21:22
You two are missing out then :) , its great to be in the kitchen cooking something great, glass of wine on the go and music filtering through from your gear in the background ;) ....even better with friends around for Dinner.
I can't even do the dishes with my system on. I just HAVE to give it my full attention.
The first part of your OP Frank is all about social interaction and dynamics and psychology - all complex stuff, different ways people conduct themselves in public, how they think they should behave. Some love to assert their difference in view and attempt a new leadership claim for the "different opinion" tribe etc etc.
I'm sure it's perfectly possible to listen just as attentively with a poker face and no need to express anything or join in socially with the group dynamics.
Why should people have such different opinions aside from the above?
Well, some people love marmite, some people hate it (and there are the majority in between those extremes, despite the claims of the adverts). Why wouldn't it be any different for our aural senses too? Physiological differences in our hearing organs and real brain differences in how we process sounds as well as our associations on many levels due to our aural histories that have shaped our brains and lives.
I tend to just listen in the dark and try not to think about things, try to concentrate on my senses like a bit of meditation. I try not to think about what I hear else you can convince yourself of differences which are nothing more than a shift of your own attention. If differences aren't fairly instinctively noticable then I tend to think that they're not real.
Hence the cable listening sessions people do with swapping them out just wouldn't work with me with subtle differences - the swapping in and out is such a disturbance that it's too easy for your sonic memory to no-longer be a memory but instead a very concious construct based on what you happened to consiously note to yourself about the sound. Must be completely impossible in a social situation!
I agree entirely and it's surprising too that people tend to keep their opinions closely to themselves during social occasions like bakeoffs for example out of fear of going against the opinion of others. Yet, a truthful comment like "it's not to my taste" SHOULD be an acceptable statement.
Mr Kipling
15-05-2014, 21:38
I agree entirely and it's surprising too that people tend to keep their opinions closely to themselves during social occasions like bakeoffs for example out of fear of going against the opinion of others. Yet, a truthful comment like "it's not to my taste" SHOULD be an acceptable statement.
When I was younger I tried to be diplomatic. Now, if it was a case of " That's utter shite, mate" - then so be it.
When I was younger I tried to be diplomatic. Now, if it was a case of " That's utter shite, mate" - then so be it.
Yeah with mates it is okay but what if you are at a friend of a friends house who you have never met before ajd he has avreally expensive and crap system but is very proud of it? You cant say it is shite then or even that it is not to your taste unless you percieve that he will be very cool about it. And best not to take that chance. Been there, who hasn't?
Mr Kipling
15-05-2014, 22:08
Being really really anti-social - the situation would never arise.
Harpsichord is a good test. If I can listen to it for more than two minutes, something's right.
... Then I think you need a better digital set up.
Get a copy of Bach Harpsichord Works / Christophe Rousset , 4 CDs, and after 5 hours you'll develop a liking for it, I promise.
But then I once walked/climbed in the Western Himalayas and listened on my trusty Sony Discman to nothing but Trevor Pinnock's Bach 48 for 24 days non-stop.
But there is one common denominator, the music ;)
I'd say not even that!
. . . it really is.
The car is my second favourite environment for listening to music, flawed though it is. It forces me to listen to different aspects of the music. It's just as well since I spend anything up to two hours in the car every day.
Sat in the driveway? Arguments with the other half?
Far too much alcohol last night at the local hostalry
The answer is simple individual aural acuity and room acoustics
Before I perform a demonstration I usually see how much frequency range the individual has with a simple test
It is surprising how each person bandwidth is very different and each person perceives various aural stimuli
Or is restricted in certain frequency ranges or more sensitive to
Also that most people do not have the strength of their own convictions
Choice of personal equipment also had a direct correlation to the individuals hearing abiliy / range which is of the most over looked factors in listening test which is mist perplexing as it is also the most important
Munich is especially good this good this year though the beer quality never waivers
Munich is especially good this good this year though the beer quality never waivers
So that's where you are where you are ;)
jandl100
16-05-2014, 06:52
When sussing out a piece of kit (or a complete system) I go into hyper-analytic mode to start with.
Out come my few trusted test pieces and I check out in very specific ways how they sound ....
Solo lute sonatas by Weiss - vol 1 on Naxos for rez and transient response, tonal neutrality, image focus, and acoustic space.
The Buggles album, Age of Plastic for dynamic speed, dynamic envelope, vocal clarity and bass slam and control.
Loreena McKennitt track, Breaking the Silence for 3D imaging, vocal realism, transient speed and image focus.
Mahler 3rd symphony, 1st movt, Tennstedt EMI, for low bass definition (bass drum roll), resolution of complexity, and sheer ability to convey musical power.
Shostakovich 10th symphony scherzo (Jarvi, Chandos) for dynamic control, sheer scale and impact, and the ability not to screech when the going gets going (most 'non-classical' systems fail on the latter point).
I've pretty much sussed a component by then, and many get rejected by this point. In fact, many fall at the 1st hurdle ... if it can't decently resolve and focus the transient pluck of the lute I know that it's just not gonna be for me! ... most kit can't.
Then I just settle back and listen to whatever tunes I fancy at the time. :)
I always see music as a subjective experience with so many variables. For instance I like loads of resolution and really fast timing. It certainly not a warm sound but also very important for me to be non fatiguing as I listen to so much music and know this approach does not suit everyone. It just goes to show we have to be careful with one fit solutions
My listening is very uncomplex.
I either like something or i don't,can usually tell within a couple of minutes if it is for me or not.
I normally listen with my ears.
I don't listen for better sound quality, as I don't want to analyse my music.
I listen to see if I like it and enjoy more. That is all that counts.
I normally listen with my ears.
I don't listen for better sound quality, as I don't want to analyse my music.
I listen to see if I like it and enjoy more. That is all that counts.
All well and good but I like to know why I like what I'm hearing. That's why I don't understand the 'it works for me so I'm happy' approach. I want to know why it works for me, what is going on there. I have always been convinced that it possible to develop a successful formula for building a hi-fi system, a formula that would work for everyone, and that is only possible if we try to understand why A sounds good and B doesn't and don't just dismiss it as 'synergy' or some other throwaway buzz word.
All well and good but I like to know why I like what I'm hearing. That's why I don't understand the 'it works for me so I'm happy' approach. I want to know why it works for me, what is going on there. I have always been convinced that it possible to develop a successful formula for building a hi-fi system, a formula that would work for everyone, and that is only possible if we try to understand why A sounds good and B doesn't and don't just dismiss it as 'synergy' or some other throwaway buzz word.
:clapclapclap:
I want to know why it works for me, what is going on there.
I think it pays to be slightly analytical in order to be able to spot and make improvements, as long as that never becomes the end goal and supplants musical enjoyment.
I normally listen with my ears.
I don't listen for better sound quality, as I don't want to analyse my music.
I listen to see if I like it and enjoy more. That is all that counts.
But you must have some sort of benchmark Kevin for what sounds good to you and what doesn't, otherwise your upgrades when you make them either become a series of happy accidents or some costly mistakes along the way surely? I think you do have a very clear idea what pleases you and what doesn't, it's just that maybe you don't do all the analysing and navel gazing that us lot do :lol:
I think it pays to be slightly analytical in order to be able to spot and make improvements, as long as that never becomes the end goal and supplants musical enjoyment.
For me they are two entirely separate things. Like having a car that you enjoy driving, maybe you wash it at the weekend and that is it, whereas your neighbour has the same car, enjoys driving it just as much, but also enjoys tinkering with the engine and the suspension to get it to work better or even just to see what effect the modifications have, as a learning process. That is the active side of the hobby, just listening to music is the passive.
All well and good but I like to know why I like what I'm hearing. That's why I don't understand the 'it works for me so I'm happy' approach. I want to know why it works for me, what is going on there. I have always been convinced that it possible to develop a successful formula for building a hi-fi system, a formula that would work for everyone, and that is only possible if we try to understand why A sounds good and B doesn't and don't just dismiss it as 'synergy' or some other throwaway buzz word.
I'll get me coat...
I use a couple of reference records I know intimately and base my listening experience and evaluation of equipment on these. I also try and evaluate equipment in my system in the acoustic enviroment i know well.
I only listen to vinyl so this simplifies my assessment of a component, I usually know within a couple of minutes wether a component works for me and I try to listen to equipment that has already been run in.
I'd say not even that!
Hmm, you can't have one without the other can you?
Mind you I often get the impression some people view music as an audio test signal, which to me is completely alien, but then I'm not caught up in the never ending quest for audio nirvana. I have found my holy grail with my Harbeth speakers, it really is all about the music for me. I have very limited interest in trying out different audio components these days, I just enjoy my system and enjoy my music. It's been fun hearing some superb high end stuff over the years, but I really don't hanker after anything if I'm being honest - I'm perfectly content with my file based audio, but then I'm not an audiophile.
Its all quite simple, 'music is a gift we are given to enjoy and to help cope with the struggles of life' . . . it need not get anymore complicated than that for me.
(mind you I still don't have a working turntable, so that might wipe the smile off my face when that's up and running! :lol:).
'music is a gift we are given to enjoy and to help cope with the struggles of life'
I completely agree with that, Tim, but it doesn't exclude me enjoying the technical side of it too.
I completely agree with that, Tim, but it doesn't exclude me enjoying the technical side of it too.
Nope, each to their own and I do accept I'm a bit of an outsider here when it comes to that side of things - not a hobby for me. I still enjoy learning stuff though and the firework threads are fun too, but that's as far as my interest goes these days.
Anyhoots, carry on chaps - I'm off to a concert in a hour ;)
I am currently re-discovering music that I had dismissed as not good enough to be played on my system for various reasons (i.e my system as it was over the last X number of years). I can listen to "the difficult discs" now because the system I have makes all music sound good. Isn't that the test? - can it play less than perfect stuff and make it listenable and enjoyable. I know that it is less analytical than previous incarnations, but it makes great music and that is very special.
...I have always been convinced that it possible to develop a successful formula for building a hi-fi system, a formula that would work for everyone, ...
interesting .. but what would the variables be for such a formula ? budget, room size, music type, WaF, etc. ? (bringing WaF in would probably make it too complicated though ;-)
kenworthy100
16-05-2014, 20:38
As a uni student I worked for a flat earth dealer and went through the tunes, single speaker regime. There are pieces of music to this day I cannot listen to because the first 30 seconds were repeated 100s of times.
Today my methods are slightly different, I am a pianist and accordingly it is vital that any system I own reproduces accurately the piano sound, I listen to a known piano recording especially the notes an octave below middle c and lower, does the system reproduce these individually or are they a mash of sound? I then listen to an array of different genres from folk to trance. It is vital that the system involves me in the music, do I want to listen or am I distracted by other things? I don't want hifi that is painfully bright but conversely I want to be able to hear the notes in unaccompanied violin music. Other than that there isn't any set method that I adopt, I can usually quickly sift out elements I don't like but the final choices can take a little time to settle upon.
:thumbsup: just done that exact thing - been making a big pot of yellow split pea dahl soup, with Willie Nelson playing and a glass of red. Nothing better.
+1
include boogying around kitchen while cooking and music is playing in living room (French doors between the two, so easy to listen).
Interesting that this fits in with listening in a stress free environment.
Signs, for me, that system is sounding good, and therefore change has been worthwhile, include pulling out albums which haven't been listened to for years (along with favourites such as Rolling Stones' first album - mono, so stereo separation obviously not a major concern :) ), and music sounding good when heard from another room.
I don't sit dissecting various aspects of the sound unless there is something wrong/niggling me :scratch:
Guy.
vinyljunky
17-05-2014, 19:54
My test of a good system is playing difficult passages of music such as the whole of the porcupine tree album deadwing.If my system can cope with this then i know i am on the right lines.Also i find short demos worthless as systems sound much better after a least an hour of playing music.I agree with martin if i listen to music it has to wash over me with no distactions.A good listening session is way better than some crap reality tv.Also lock me in a rubber room if i have to listen to someones reference system on you tube playing dave brubeck take five again safe music so there system sounds half decent.
Hmm, you can't have one without the other can you?
I was thinking that some people have narrow tastes and don't see other people's music as music at all, will complain it is just a drony noise..
And I also love soundscapes/field recordings, non-music soundtracks and other non-music audio recordings.
The Hitchiker's Guide to the Universe in it's original radio play form is a good example of the latter - nice reverbs and created sounds to create imaginary environments.
On that note, I find field recordings where the intent is capure the sound around accurately with no processing or "musical" bias , are often those which amaze me the most sonicaly, in the realism stakes. So it's often those which show a system's potential. Not always in the bass region perhaps - depends on the mic etc.
Afterall, my brain has been processing non-musical environmental sounds every second of my life and even does so when listening to music (well, bit difficult when using in ear headphones..) so it should be more able to make an objective listening judgement with those sounds (people's idea of what music should sound like kind of gets in the way IMO).
I was thinking that some people have narrow tastes and don't see other people's music as music at all, will complain it is just a drony noise..
:lol:
The Barbarian
18-05-2014, 08:39
I was thinking that some people have narrow tastes and don't see other people's music as music at all, will complain it is just a drony noise..
Is their actually people like that?
:D
Gordon Steadman
18-05-2014, 08:48
.Also lock me in a rubber room if i have to listen to someones reference system on you tube playing dave brubeck take five again safe music so there system sounds half decent.
The problem is that Take Five can sound so new and fresh and exiting every time that I probably play it every week, my neck still tingles when the sax comes in. But then its the same with Bach or Handel or Shostakovich, I'm not sure I would call Shostakovich 'safe' music, just great. A decent system will just convey the reality (or as near as we can get) Ron Carter the same. Great books can be read over and over again and still seem to draw you in.
I still think the secret is to reach the point where the music matters more than the equipment and stop.
However, as pointed out elsewhere, we are talking about two separate hobbies here.
The Barbarian
18-05-2014, 08:56
I still think the secret is to reach the point where the music matters more than the equipment and stop.
However, as pointed out elsewhere, we are talking about two separate hobbies here.
Sorry but i do not see Hi-Fi as an hobby, it is an obsession, there is only way to get better & that is stop it & just use a stereo for what it is meant to be used for. You liked the stereo when you first bought it so what has changed?
Gordon Steadman
18-05-2014, 09:16
Sorry but i do not see Hi-Fi as an hobby, it is an obsession, there is only way to get better & that is stop it & just use a stereo for what it is meant to be used for. You liked the stereo when you first bought it so what has changed?
There are all kinds of obsession. Some are necessary to succeed and allow nothing else to interfere - like normal (?) life and stuff. Some don't allow any sort of life and drag people into despair.
I can't see hi-fi as being any more open to obsession than stamp collecting or train spotting. If it keeps them happy and doesn't harm anyone then what the hell. (we can still allow ourselves a little titter behind the hand though can't we?:eyebrows:)
I tend to think of it as the Hi-Fi part being the hobby, as many folk here refer to it as that (but it is clearly an obsession for some). The music is the obsession for me as I have never thought of anything to do with music as a 'hobby'. The two obviously overlap for many folk, depending on where you sit at the table . . . but for me music could never be described as a hobby and the gear is just the method to indulge in the enjoyment of the music - it's secondary to the first, but an important element nonetheless.
And don't forget each to their own either.
(we seem to have an overlapping topic on two threads now :scratch:)
I was thinking that some people have narrow tastes and don't see other people's music as music at all, will complain it is just a drony noise..
I personally really enjoy both drone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_music) and noise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_music) ;)
On that note, I find field recordings where the intent is capure the sound around accurately with no processing or "musical" bias , are often those which amaze me the most sonicaly, in the realism stakes. So it's often those which show a system's potential. Not always in the bass region perhaps - depends on the mic etc.
Agreed; arriving at a system that can reproduce field recordings with some degree of realism has been a key desideratum for me in assembling my gear.
For field recordings with moments of excellent, bone crunching bass, check out Chris Watson's 'El Tren Fantasma' (http://www.touchmusic.org.uk/catalogue/to42_chris_watson_el_tren_fant.html), and maybe some of Yana Winderen's underwater stuf, like 'Energy Field' (http://www.janawinderen.com/releases/energy_field_touch_to73_availa.html) :)
The time when the music meant more than the equipment was when we listened to and enjoyed music on a cheap transistor radio, or on our parents' Dansette record player. I think a lot of people are in denial about their fetishising of hifi boxes and wires.
The time when the music meant more than the equipment was when we listened to and enjoyed music on a cheap transistor radio, or on our parents' Dansette record player. I think a lot of people are in denial about their fetishising of hifi boxes and wires.
I started with a mono Murphy tape recorder age about 13. Even then I wanted something that sounded better: then you hear a mates' dad's system and think 'yes I want that but it's impossible right now I just don't have any money 'cause I'm 15 years old and still at school.' But once you get some money you start on that road to better sound. That's normal, it's not fetishizing. If anything it demonstrates an above average love of music. You want to see fetishizing ask a guitar player about his guitar collection :)
The Barbarian
18-05-2014, 09:42
I tend to think of it as the Hi-Fi part being the hobby, as many folk here refer to it as that (but it is clearly an obsession for some). The music is the obsession for me as I have never thought of anything to do with music as a 'hobby'. The two obviously overlap for many folk, depending on where you sit at the table . . . but for me music could never be described as a hobby and the gear is just the method to indulge in the enjoyment of the music - it's secondary to the first, but an important element nonetheless.
And don't forget each to their own either.
No i don't see music as an Hobby, collecting 1st Edition LP's is an hobby.. The interest for me is the type of music i listern to, this alone is massive field which could be deemed an hobby, but i like to think hobbies are generally collecting certain things
Hobbies can be activities too, like isolation/support tweeking or constant setting up of carts/tonearms, or cable swapping etc. Collecting is just one catagory of hobby.
Hifi is certainly a hobby for me - something which keeps me mentally active at least at quiet times. That's a what a hobby should do, keep you thinking or motivated to do something which interests you somehow. Can be classed as an obsession when you get an unhealthily strong emotional feeling that you must have something. I think I've got over that having been through it enough times, coming to the conclusion my life doesn't change that much with or without stuff so hopefully I don't obsess any more. Sometimes just tidying up is much more emotionally satisfying than getting some fancy gear!
I personally really enjoy both drone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_music) and noise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_music) ;)
Agreed; arriving at a system that can reproduce field recordings with some degree of realism has been a key desideratum for me in assembling my gear.
For field recordings with moments of excellent, bone crunching bass, check out Chris Watson's 'El Tren Fantasma' (http://www.touchmusic.org.uk/catalogue/to42_chris_watson_el_tren_fant.html), and maybe some of Yana Winderen's underwater stuf, like 'Energy Field' (http://www.janawinderen.com/releases/energy_field_touch_to73_availa.html) :)
:) Very much my thing too. Not so much noise music to be honest, unless played quietly - think I get too concerned about complaints so I can't relax.
Touch Records is a great place to start for field recordings and the like. So much out there for free too, people's hobiest field recordings many as bittorrents etc. Binaural recordings pretty good on headphones too.
The time when the music meant more than the equipment was when we listened to and enjoyed music on a cheap transistor radio, or on our parents' Dansette record player.
Well, that may be the case for you, Joe, but I love music just as much now as I did then - in fact probably more so now, as these days I not only listen to more music than I ever did, but also to far more different genres [e.g. 'back in the day' I'd never have entertained playing classical music], thanks primarily to discovering new music on forums such as this, and also my system, as its slowly been improved, allowing me to appreciate it more!
Marco.
I have a number of field recording of the blues done by Alan Lomax and others that epitomise what music was and probably should be. Sure, the SQ is poor, it crackles a bit and is pretty thin in depth on a HiFi rating, but as far as music is concerned, it IS music.
I love well recorded full sq music as much as everyone else and within reason strive to get it better than I've got, but I can't deny my roots, as this was what got me involved.
If I may alter a phrase used in a David lean film..these recording stay where they are, and if I ever start thinking sq is a must, I sit down and have a listen ....like an hour ago
Just to clarify, I meant field recording as in someone going out with sound recordest gear and recording non-musical sounds, either natural or man made but with all the local environment included.
I try not to listen to my HiFi system. When I do, it makes me want to spend more money on futile and endless updates. Vive la musique !
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.