Methods of evaluating upgrades or tweeks

I’m happy with my system and it’s 18 months since I changed or tweaked anything (keeping JRiver software current excepted). If I change things after careful preliminary audition then I listen with the new component and revert back. If I miss the new component (e.g. Chord Blu2) then I keep it in the system. If I don’t miss it (e.g. pre-amps between Chord DAVE & power amp) then I return it to the dealer. Trying at home has been vital as some kit worked well in a dealer’s demo room, but didn’t perform well in the cottage.

I always think the choice should be that of the person who will use and listen to the system. I do not find subjective reviews especially useful and some of the nomenclature in use baffles me: boogie factor? musicality? As for recommending an amplifier with character that seems to miss the point that it’s the music that should do that.

1 Like

Boogie factor always puzzled me as well! I always think of it as getting up and bopping around, but to my mind its the beat that does that, and the more prominent the beat maybe the more the inclination, however that is down to the music. Sometimes it almost seems as if some people want the system to tease out and emphasise the beat even if in the recording it is very subdued! A bit like the toe-tap fixation perhaps, or even the same thing. But maybe that’s not what it means at all?

As for musicality, on the face of it possibly easier to grasp, like does presentation A sound more like music played well than B? That probably depends on the person’s idea of how the music should be maybe more like the live sound? But then whilst sometimes the live sound can be very good, surprisingly often it is not, though at the live event one ignores that unless very bad, because the live experience is more than just the sound of the music. Maybe more engaging? I struggle with that one as a measure of sound quality as it is possible to get totally engaged with the music even with poor sound. Maybe more like the players were into it and enjoying themselves, rather then mechanically going through the motions? That to me may be closer to it - but that is down to the recording!

Anybody have any descriptive definitions?

1 Like

For me i have never been happy with the leave it in for a few weeks to see how you get on and then remove it and see if you miss it, to me this leaves the door wide open for your mind to play tricks.
But to be fair if you add something new to your system and you cant straight away hear the difference, good or bad, then why carry on?
The rossini was straight away loads better, the pmc fact 12’s the same over my ovators, the 552/ 500 once again. So for me i like to hear it right from the start.

But i know now that sometimes its much harder, especially when you want to upgrade bits over time, as a new box might be held back because off the rest of your system not being able to fully exploit the new part, i had this problem when i first tried a ND555 against my NDS and couldn’t really hear any difference, but back at the dealer, it was more obvious the difference, so you have to be careful how you go about it all and really have an end goal in sight that you can achieve

2 Likes

The problem is not with hearing the difference it is with deciding whether is is good, bad or just different. That is the bit that takes time, especially if the difference is subtle.

1 Like

Well for me, like i said if i have to wait weeks to know if i like it, then i most certainly wont, and probably also will have forgotten what i was trying to inpove on.
Plus i also know from my own experience, that some days it all sounds better than other days and i guess thats down to the human part, more than the boxes and maybe down to being more relaxed or open to the music more that day?
But what ever it all is, first impressions like most things in life, is where the truth lies

2 Likes

Great thanks all. All sensible, methodical advise. I have tried a few upgrades in the past that I thought were great, probably because different, but a while later found wasnt enjoying the system.
I am glad there has been no holier than thou, miracle comments, where people state 100 others have agreed with their boutique cable choice etc.
Cheers

1 Like

For me, the process of evaluating upgrades begins with my state of mind. Whenever I am burdened with stress, overcome with ‘negative’ emotions, feeling elated etcetera I do not make any decisions: I prefer to leave this for a time when I feel calm and rational.

The process begins with choosing tracks that I know very well and I avoid over analysing. The difference should be audible without someone else, for example a sales representative pointing out differences. In addition, I do not buy into the marketing material/hype because this can prejudice/influence my perception. Furthermore, I do not consider it to be an upgrade merely based on a group of ‘respected’ members because there would appear to be a considerable amount of shoulder rubbing on this forum.

In the event that I consider it to be an upgrade, I leave it to rest for a while and then revisit at a later date for reaffirmation. Blind listening also takes place whenever I am uncertain and I like to take my time: there is no hurry for me to post ‘glowing’ reviews about night and day differences that may influence other members.

2 Likes

Wonderful topic. I find that if it’s actually better, then it is, and I can tell right away. It’s like shoes they’re either comfortable or not.

And therein lies a problem! Many times I have bought shoes that when tried on in a shop have been extremely comfortable, including spending far longer doing that than anyone else ever seems to in order to try to be certain, yet when I then have worn them for hours in real life they have caused me no end of trouble.

I try to ignore any HiFi pro’s and con’s and just focus on which option is more musically enjoyable. That seems to work out best in the long run.

I do think we are all different in how we experience music and have different sensitivies (for me it’s timing) which makes it vital to decide for oneself.

What makes it hard is occassionally when the musical strengths are split between two options. That’s not so easy cos I always want the best of both worlds.

The method I use is active listening - its the same for evaluating hifi equipment and differences in masters.

Listen to a piece of music you know well, although it doesn’t need to be - I just find it easier. Write down what you like about it and what you note in its presentation, does it grab you, if so why - the style of the playing- the balance of the mix, the microphone technique, the acoustic of a hall, a part of the orchestra, the bass playing etc. Its important to summarise and write down as you memory is unreliable in this regard

Repeat for several pieces of music you like

Have a gap of at least 30 minutes - and then listen to the music again with the new equipment or master… look at the notes you wrote - how do you reconcile them now - is it the same or different - if different why is it so - has the enjoyment of that music changed - again write down your observations.

After having done this for a dozen pieces of music or so - you may start to see a pattern emerge - or no pattern at all. The former suggests that there has been a material change, the latter suggests that although there might be presentational changes there is no real SQ change.

I have found this an effective way of evaluating replay equipment - and it, in my opinion, helps remove erroneous superficial presentation changes which can lead to bad decisions and regrets - and finally it is rooted in music appreciation and enjoyment

1 Like

Using a wide choice of music has helped.
As well as the favourites that you would want to play and enjoy an upgrade of listening quality. Finding some cacophonous modern jazz that seems to make more sense, or something slow and low that might have been boring and unengaging becomes interesting.
This could mean a more wider window of music to discover in the future after the dust has settled. I wouldn’t want an upgrade that editorialised replay.

2 Likes

Some upgrades stand out in my mind particularly. I was blown away going from nap42 hicap to 52 and again from 52 to 552. These were the biggest I can remember, totally night and day.
Any others anyone wants to share?

I certainly wouldn’t say going from NAC52 to NAC552DR was as clear as night and day, just more refined, perhaps. That said, I do believe the NAC52 is a very capable pre amp. Now if you want BIG improvements, I’d suggest: a) NAC82+2xHiCap to NAC82+Supercap; and b) 2xNAP135 to NAP500.

Sorry, I didn’t think that I might upset anyone with a 42 or 52, I loved them both for 8 or so years each. They are both excellent.

No upset caused. It’s just that when I installed the 552 I realised just how good the 52 was in comparison to its replacement. I would not have described that as a night and day difference.

You didn’t respond to Indicate if this is the same as Linn’s Tune-Dem method?

In other threads @Peder refers to Tune-Dem, which is what I assumed he meant when he said this:

Though he hasn’t yet come to this thread to offer his wisdom and experience to people who may not have been interested in the cable threads.

If yours is indeed the same method, I wonder if you’re able to respond to the query that he hasn’t answered, as outlined in the penultimate paragraph of post 5 in this thread?

…in fact, I think that Tune-dem, as practised by Linn, has changed over the years. In the 1980s it concerned being best able to follow the tune and all of the musicians contribution to the tune together. More recently I think that the emphasis has been changed to following the rhythm and tune of the bass, with the objective being to facilitate the setting of Space Optimisation. I use the 1980s version as it sets the music up as a whole…I don’t use SO as I think that it detracts from the music. As always, my interpretation and findings only. In any case, I do not think that it is necessary to strictly follow someone’s pre-determined process…usually we all know when we have hit ‘the sweet-spot’.
Best to All…lockdown seems to be a good time to discover new music!

I’m really not sure I have a method or would want one. I tend to use the same recordings because I love the performances and they have an aspect which is critical for me in way or another - a voice, a complex interplay, a crucial transition… Then I listen and observe what happens to me. That’s partly because I was once listening very critically, comparing the same recording on CD and LP and the two were very, very close as far as my head could tell me. Except for some reason one was more moving than the other. It just got to me more. So whereas I appreciate the idea of tune dem, for example, and may use it as a technique in comparisons, I tend to just listen to the music.

The touchstone is always the live performance and the sound of classical instruments in particular. But once I find something that can reproduce them in a way that makes a purchase conceivable I will move through all genres I like, from jazz to reggae, rock, psytrance and so on, often causing dealers considerable discomfort, particularly from the drum machine on the Thompson Twins’ Musette with Drums…

Sometime, dealers make suggestions of their own - and this has brought me to know some wonderful new music.

It sounds like a long process, but listening for instrumental tone, timbre and texture in the beginning means I often rule stuff out within a matter of minutes. I find it surprising how much gear gets female voice, piano, violin and cello quite simply wrong…

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.