dave2010
10-11-2010, 10:37
I just wonder how others treat new kit.
There are several possibilities:
1. It is obviously better than older kit.
2. It is obviously worse than older kit.
3. It is not clearly better than older kit.
4. It is perhaps better in some areas than the older kit, and maybe worse in others.
Sometimes the impressions can change with time, and also some kit definitely seems to burn in, and improve.
My latest tests are with a Bantam Gold amp, compared with a rather older Pioneer A300 amp. I think I'm faced with options 3 and 4 here.
Often new kit does sound better initially, but there's often a tendency to listen at higher than normal levels. When a direct comparison with older kit is made at similar levels there is often not a lot in it.
In the case of the Bantam Gold, my first thoughts were that it's very detailed, has very precise stereo definition, and is arguably better in the high registers. However, it may also sound harder, and with tinges of some form of distortion - even in the high ranges. My gut feeling is that the Pioneer also has distortion, and perhaps a more muddled sound, but it may be easier to live with. On the other hand, it might make sense to persevere with the new kit, to see how it fares for "liveability".
Yes - it (Bantam) did get my foot tapping (at least metaphorically) on some CDs, but as I said, when I played the same tracks back on the Pioneer at similar levels, I felt similar feelings. I probably wouldn't normally play back at those levels due to "normal" domestic constraints.
Whatever the outcome, it's quite impressive that such a small box can do this, and it does run pretty cold. I think the bass is OK too, but obviously it depends on the recording.
What do others do? Do they try to establish some form of fair comparison, or go with their initial feelings, or keep going for a week or two to get ears and kit settled in?
There are several possibilities:
1. It is obviously better than older kit.
2. It is obviously worse than older kit.
3. It is not clearly better than older kit.
4. It is perhaps better in some areas than the older kit, and maybe worse in others.
Sometimes the impressions can change with time, and also some kit definitely seems to burn in, and improve.
My latest tests are with a Bantam Gold amp, compared with a rather older Pioneer A300 amp. I think I'm faced with options 3 and 4 here.
Often new kit does sound better initially, but there's often a tendency to listen at higher than normal levels. When a direct comparison with older kit is made at similar levels there is often not a lot in it.
In the case of the Bantam Gold, my first thoughts were that it's very detailed, has very precise stereo definition, and is arguably better in the high registers. However, it may also sound harder, and with tinges of some form of distortion - even in the high ranges. My gut feeling is that the Pioneer also has distortion, and perhaps a more muddled sound, but it may be easier to live with. On the other hand, it might make sense to persevere with the new kit, to see how it fares for "liveability".
Yes - it (Bantam) did get my foot tapping (at least metaphorically) on some CDs, but as I said, when I played the same tracks back on the Pioneer at similar levels, I felt similar feelings. I probably wouldn't normally play back at those levels due to "normal" domestic constraints.
Whatever the outcome, it's quite impressive that such a small box can do this, and it does run pretty cold. I think the bass is OK too, but obviously it depends on the recording.
What do others do? Do they try to establish some form of fair comparison, or go with their initial feelings, or keep going for a week or two to get ears and kit settled in?