Class D Amplification Announcement

soix, thank you for the evenhanded response.

The problem with comparisons to other gear as the basis for a review is twofold.

First, to take that approach assumes that everyone, or even most, interested in the piece of gear being reviewed has heard all the other competing gear which are “what most would consider to be head on competitors/alternatives”. Big assumption; and as we all know the “opinions” of many are often based on reviews and word of mouth, not actual first hand experience. Not to mention, the sonic effects of the necessarily different rooms, cables, ancillary gear, setup. Moreover, consider how much disagreement there already exists among audiophiles about the pros and cons of a lot of even top gear.

Secondly, most audiophiles have heard (hopefully often) the sound of music in a live setting. A review that relates what the reviewer hears to the sound of live music, subjectivity and all, seems to me will be much more effective in conveying a sense of what the reviewer hears. Some might consider this approach invalid because of issues around subjectivity, but ask why this same concern should not apply to our perception of the “sound” of gear.

@frogman The purpose of doing comparisons is really twofold — it provides the reviewer a check on what he/she thinks they are hearing, and it gives the readers a relative comparison for context. Humans are notoriously bad at absolutes and very good at judging relative differences, and it really matters not if the reader has heard the comparison product as the relative comparison in and of itself provides very useful information. Example — Review speaker X sound brighter and more detailed than speaker Y. While a reader may not have heard speaker Y they may know the house sound of the brand or other speakers that sound similar to speaker Y, which makes this comparison extremely useful. Also, if the reader knows they like more a laid back/warm speaker presentation it gives them an area to key in on if/when they look into speaker X further.

As to your second point, the live music thing alway struck me as kinda silly. What if a recording was made in the studio and made to sound like it was made in the studio (i.e. Donald Fagan’s solo work)? Are we to use live music as a benchmark for whether a system is performing well with those recordings? I think not. To me, a good system strives to reproduce what the artist/recording engineer intended and if it does it well it almost always sounds good unless the recording is crap. To judge everything through the lens of live music when a lot of music is not recorded live seems misplaced to me.

All that said, I don’t want anyone to mistake the passion for my opinions for me thinking I’m right because that’s not the case at all. I make my points and other people make theirs and that’s what keeps things interesting and also how we learn from others’ points of view. To me there’s always room for more than one opinion because people see/hear things differently so there can’t be one right answer — it’s impossible with the myriad of variables present. Anyway, that’s my take on it. Peace.

Understood and I appreciate your attitude in the face of disagreement.

**** the live music thing alway struck me as kinda silly. ****

I could not disagree more. To use your example and turn it around, are we to use studio recordings as a benchmark for whether a system is performing well with recordings of acoustic music performed in a hall?

**** a good system strives to reproduce what the artist/recording engineer intended****

How do we know what they intended? We don’t. Re gear comparisons:

**** Example — Review speaker X sound brighter and more detailed than speaker Y. While a reader may not have heard speaker Y they may know the house sound of the brand or other speakers that sound similar to speaker Y, ****

How does a listener know what speakers sound similar to speaker Y if they have never heard speaker Y? This tells the listener nothing useful, imo.

Contrary to popular belief, there are enough “constants” in the various aspects of the sound of live music which allow a listener who is very familiar with the sound of live music to better judge how faithfully a piece of gear reproduces that sound. Of course, for this approach to be useful there has to be an interest in attending live performances in order to form a useful reference point.

**** To me there’s always room for more than one opinion because people see/hear things differently so there can’t be one right answer ****

I agree that there is always room for more than one opinion. As to the second part of your comment:

Yes, we all hear things differently. However, whatever physiological differences may exist among listeners which then cause us to hear differently will exist whether we are listening to a live performance, or to an electronically reproduced one. For instance, if my hearing apparatus hears with a dip at, say, 2K that dip will be there when I attend a concert as well as when I sit in front of my stereo at home. That is why comparison to live is useful and, imo, the most informative. Of course, there are many more aspects of sound than frequency balance to consider when judging gear.  

My 2 cents on live performances:

- Most rock performances sound like garbage. The drums and electric guitars are often too loud. The bass guitar and vocals are often too quiet. The sound is way too loud and confused near the stage. The sound improves significantly when standing far away (but then the band looks like ants on a stage and you're wondering why you bothered to go to a live performance).

- Electronic music is similar to rock in terms of volume. You have to stand really far from the stage to get a good sound. 

- Acoustic folk/Jazz music in a small venue is bliss. But you realize that instrument separation and stereo effect only happen with Hi-Fi equipment. In the real world everything kinda blends together. The band is performing on a small stage after all.

- Orchestral music. Wow! You get a wall of sound effect where you can feel the air moving and the walls vibrating. Again, stereo effect, soundstage and instrument separation lose all meaning in the real world. You get a wall of sound. You feel the music in your bones. 

My 3 cents:

I believe that audiophiles are chasing a sharper definition than the real world. In the real world everything just blends together into a wall of sound and through the reverberations of the room. There's no stereo effect and crystal clear "instrument separation". In the real world most live performances are way too loud and confused. Soft jazz, acoustic music and orchestral music avoid that problem. 

At what point do you guys say that your gear is "close enough" and start listening to music intentionally? 

@kokakolia +1! Shadows on a cave wall! Listening to music at home is far removed from real life experience!