How well do you know your system?

Hi-Fi Corner
21

I didn’t understood the real question, as there are many ( how well I know my system, is the system deteriorating after a rebuild, if I missed a component that I swapped out?).

When I go to dealers demos, if I ask to change a component, a cable, a support…I generally hear a difference and know which set up I prefer. So it’s the same with mine.
I clean contacts 1 or twice a year and each time I hear a little improvement. But I never rebuild entirely my system.
My hearing was specifically good but since some months I feel a little decrease. I made a test and the result is normal, good hearing for my age, 57, but not exceptional as before.

1 Like
22

The biggest takeaway from this is that it does not matter if we can consistently pinpoint differences or not, rather do we enjoy what we are listening to or not?

I have Dr. John’s Afterglow album on at the moment (Qobuz stream) and the quality is superb - both sonically and performance wise. How is it possible to enjoy yet another album of standards? :grinning:

Wow, such a vast amount of incredible music to discover and enjoy!

23

Unfortunately, I can’t do exercises that put that much strain on my shoulders, various treatments and injuries have left me with near-constant bearable pain in one shoulder and doing too much ramps up the pain considerably. Walking and cycling don’t cause too much pain. The silver lining to this is that the treatment means I am still here to enjoy listening to music.

1 Like
24

Ah, sorry to hear that, Paul.

I’ve got in the habit of going to a steam room and sauna as one way to ease my relatively minor back and neck ailments.

1 Like
25

I think it’s a very good sign of things when you think you have the measure of a system - yet can still be suprised and astonished. Is it to do with the music ??

1 Like
26

Going by my listening over the weekend there is even more method in my madness than I had thought. I want to pull my own conclusions together before commenting further though.

I have a concept of ‘air’ although I don’t know if it’s the same as anyone else’s. It is perhaps a function of resonance and the sense of space I get when listening. Let’s say I shouted in an large, empty cathedral the sound would have a lot of air. If I shouted in a small, heavily furnished bedroom there would be very little air to the sound.

I might also describe it is as a sort of aural charisma. The key difference is that while charisma is attached to the person, ‘air’ is more a function of the playback system than the recording. So when I removed the NPX300 from the NSS333 the other day the most obvious change was the reduction of air on playback for everything.

1 Like
27

Looking forward to your response when ready.

Air to me would also suggest the acoustics of the environment but the improvement I hear has more to do with the fact that I hear more/better harmonics from instruments within the mix. For example, a double bass has snap to each note and then shows a change in tone as it decays. Not a great explanation but I know what I mean!

Using some music as an example, the Hans Theesink SACD called Bridges. I ripped the SACD and CD layers. Both sound very good. The track Mbube has a very good example about half way through just after Hans finishes his singing. Some music follows just before one of the African backing singers starts to sing. You can hear the drummer playing the ride cymbal and sometimes hits the bell of the cymbal.

On the DSD version the cymbal is a bit more realistic - the tone changes on the ride section are clearer than the CD version and the bell in particular has a quick and impactful start with a nice decay. This makes the cymbal sound more representative of the real deal. The CD sounds great but back to back, the DSD is more natural. Subtle but audible all the same.

However much impressed I am with my system, I do know that it is still electronic reproduction of music as opposed to hearing the instruments live. I am talking about acoustic instruments. Is it possible to get a system that can reproduce accurately? I doubt it.

1 Like
28

Due to the opening gambit being an open invitation to ‘find an aspect of the post one may wish to engage with…’ ; hard NOT to be able to contribute to this thread and be, arguably, “on topic”…

Lots of references to ‘air’ (around instruments) and noticing more detail (cymbals ARE a great frequency zone to pick differences has oft been my experience,… but as is familiarity with the music played…): for me - I know I would want a training track (or three) to learn a system if I was to be of ANY use picking ‘which is better’ when listening to ‘test samples’; this one single fact leaves me dumbfounded as to how MOST ‘listening tests’ have been setup (setup to fail).

Firstly is the fact that most simply do not know which is the better version of a playback (in the first place).
Given most will pick louder as better, in majority of the MP3 vs lossless comparisons, NO DOUBT generates much spuria in the tally of listeners experience… (and nullifies potential findings due to statistical averaging; some listeners DO actually pick easily the traits that are different but have their significance lost due to many people voting the EXACT OPPOSITE, due to a lack of knowing which is better in the first place).

Generally speaking, as someone who lived through digital in the eighties and nineties and the introduction of compressed file formats (and their evolution), loved Minidisc, and has trained ears over the decades to hear very subtle differences in kit- I do find this aspect of ‘audiophile’ a part of my personality.
I have played with so much kit over the decades and been scientific in my ‘testing’ of it vs a range of kit; this is ‘a part of the hobby’; but has nothing to do with me enjoying music… which is when I AM NOT doing setup and compare work and am simply enjoying the music (the majority of what I do…)

but I do take the work side seriously; mostly just so as I can make calculated decisions with regards to what kit to keep. (and ‘value for money’ factor etc)

when playing with the start of ‘hi res’ formats coming to the consumer market (some DVDs and HDCD), the ‘air’ was the obvious tell that anyone could ‘see’ / describe when experiencing the upgrade.
Instruments had a better sense of being in real space.
(certainly justified the upgrades)
Of course there are many benefits and tonality and detail and other microdetails turn up… (I don’t care about extending the dynamic range, and still think 20bit HDCD was the best thing to ever happen for consumer audio until Microsoft buried it)

The truth I have come to see after decades of playing with many different ‘tiers’ of equipment is that Dolby Digital, as a format, played on top tier kit, sounds way better than CD quality on ‘budget fi’.
On cheap kit, the difference that hi res brings can make the kit seem much better, but is often a factor of a few things, no doubt that the cheap DAC chips favour whatever benefits ALL THE EXTRA DATA BRINGS, vs having to do a great job recreating something amazing from ‘less’.

so, middle of the road kit… (say ‘tier 3’ hifi of which few ever consider or buy- the ‘high end stuff actually on the floor in dedicated audio stores’) actually does amazing with CD quality and, whilst it will let higher resolution music ‘shine more’, the differences are less needed/ less ‘night/day’ as both extremes of equipment in the market (really cheap and really expensive) will make use of.
On the best kit- you want to feed ‘the best recordings’ (too much of a fall from grace when stiffling the system with mediocre media), and on the most budget stuff, a match up of the right hi res format might actually equal a sound like anyone in the 1990s got from CDs…

Too many variables in the equation to make broad or generalised statements… and those who want to argue will focus on any minute part and then argue ad nauseum that most who have experienced ‘esoteric’ differences (ie digital cables mattering to sound quality) simply give up engaging with muppets who 'say they want to learn/‘know’, but are more invested in guarding their “huge blinkers”.

Truth is, no doubt, that most who are happy with their systems are simply enjoying using them and seldom need to engage in forums with others on principles that are ‘true to them’ and voodoo to 99% of forum pundits in mainstream ‘hifi’ hangouts.

Statistically too much skewing towards the average joe for anything to do with ‘high end sound’ to actually be represented ‘fairly’ in so called blind tests etc.

Ear training is a huge part of this.
If I hadn’t spent so much of my life training myself ‘what to listen for’, and established decades ago some test tracks I could learn like the back of my hand, and ‘know’… I wouldn’t have developed the reference points and built up a catalogue in my head of changes and how much an aspect of sound is worth (or historically was worth)…

I know the value of aspects of sound change, to me, based on many decades of trialing a tonne of kit. (and having had reference top tier systems, albeit ‘dated’)

Now my ‘race to the middle’ /mid-fi sound ‘on a budget’ is something I have DOWN.
if a friend came to me with a $2K-10k budget I could help them put together a serious sound quality that would meet their needs and be vastly better value than walking in blind to a hifi store and buying ‘new off the shelf’.
Fair; I don’t find value in most of the mainstream junk being sold today, and have witnessed first hand what has happened to hifi through the ages after any ‘world financial crisis’.
Of course there is a range of arguments for why ‘better value for money’ can be found in second hand parts, and like the consensus I see across a few threads here (and elsewhere)- I am a big fan of buying new when there is a lot of mechanical part involved.
but I am moving off topic and talking hifi theories here…

regarding sound quality- sure, ‘ear training’ and ‘a good reference’ are important.
is it essential to enjoy music? - not at all… I enjoy ‘for radio’ tracks jamming through a mono bluetooth speaker if that is all that is available. Probably wouldn’t critical listen to it though… but I could enjoy recalling the same song as heard on nicer setups… a reference to good book or like a trailer to a favourite movie that allows oneself to be whisked away in ones mind to a memory of ‘a better time’ enjoying said experience (with loved ones/‘on a better system’ etc)…

for me,… CD quality is as much as I NEED as I certailly do NOT own a setup that can extract everything from even that format… I do enjoy the hi res files though, and it is much easier to ‘turn them up’ and bounce along…

3 Likes
29

If you want to see or should i say hear differences with different music streaming qualities, then the best way to do it is with a good headphone set up.
If you cannot hear anything different doing this then you are certainly not going to hear it on a speaker system. Why? Well you have removed the room for starters, much cheaper to get fantastic results from a headphone set up, and the music is directly fired into your ears.
So if you cannot hear the difference doing above then certainly don’t worry as i am sorry to say, but your hearing is not as good as it once was. But on the flip side this hobby is going to cost you much less as no point in going up the ladder as you won’t hear the difference.

1 Like
30

I certainly would not lie to her about having murdered my own family, but speech and music are different things, and sound from a stereo system a different thing yet…

When we ‘audiophiles’ compare performances we probably enter in a listening mode that has no equivalent in daily experience.
That such a mode is of any utility and musical value is vastly subject to discussion… but it is unique.

I’m happy to learn that some people can’t tell differences - it probably means that they don’t want to. An analytical inclination is the devil, makes you drain all the music’s blood and leaves you with a dry corpse.

3 Likes
31

I’m not sure that’s necessarily the case. Someone might not hear small differences, especially perhaps at higher frequencies if they are suffering from age-related hearing loss. Or through absence of listening training not hear the subtlest differences in clarity (how wonderful not to have that training unless you are in music production!). However, big changes likely will be very evident, such as a change in DAC from, say, Chord Hugo to Dave, PMC 25-21 to 25-26 to Fact 12 to MB2, an amp incapable of controlling a speaker and having inadequate headroom to one with good grip and good headroom. This simply means do big upgrades and not bother with small step ones or tinkering with tweaks - which in turn can be a lower cost and more satisfying route to whatever might be someone’s ultimate system.

1 Like
32

As said try a good headphone set up first.
If you can hear the difference then it could well be worth spending money on better kit for your main hifi, if you cannot then i wouldn’t bother.

33

Personally I am referring to differences with speakers as this is the method I use for maybe 95% or so of my listening.

Headphones are certainly better to determine differences and I do find myself selecting hi-res versions for all of my headphone listening. However, a well recorded 16/44.1 recording sounds great on my speakers (as do hi-res of course). With my speakers I seem to be able to enjoy so much more music regardless of the recording format.

I guess that my main takeaway from all of this is that a great system makes a variety of recordings sound excellent and I have found myself caring less about the recording format.

All good!

34

Excellent point. I find that I no longer check the format and just select the first one that appears in my library. I used to seek out the best quality version when using my NDX2/SN3 but now couldn’t care less (apart from headphone listening) with the 300 series.

35

And of course it is very difficult with any comparison to know if you comparing two versions where the one and only difference is the resolution (bit depth and/or sample rate). That is what the 2L test bench releases enabled a few years ago, as referenced in another thread, but sadly no longer available, at least not from them. (I still have my copies - some time I’ll gave another listen, giving that I have changed speakers and amp since iriginal evaluation. Limited spare time at present means it will wait as I’d rather just play music when do have time.

36

And there we have have it.
With headphones you would seek out the better recording but with your system you didn’t feel the need too.
This just highlights what i have said, with headphones it’s far easier to hear the difference that’s unless you have an extremely good speaker set up and then once again you search for the better recording as the results are just spectacular.
On my muso i couldn’t care less as its not capable.

2 Likes
37

When I switched from CD5si to Audiolab 6000 CDT the difference was significant with much more clarity and detail. As comparing Spotify, Tidal and Qobuz showed no such improvements I stuck with Spotify and it sounds great!

1 Like
39

An interesting thread; a short answer would be ‘not as well as I thought’, a longer one might include ‘being surprised by music I thought I knew well’. I don’t tinker with my kit as much as I used to, largely because I’m listening to more music - thanks to streaming and this forum. Also, my main listening room does not have many variables with which I can tinker, let alone I can’t afford to go down any rabbit holes with changing cables.

1 Like
40

The sound of 16/44.1 is so good on my speakers that I do not feel the need to seek ‘even better’. There comes a point where musical enjoyment is so high that the concern (at least for me) about whether it is the best possible to the nth degree pales into insignificance.

4 Likes
41

Couldn’t say it better.

1 Like