What's your process for comparing new gear, cables, etc.?
It's a staple of many if not most posts to compare auditory experiences and attribute them to different factors — larger components (room, speaker, amp, dac, etc.) and the rest (speaker wire, cables, power) etc. This is how we choose new gear or compare what we already have.
Given the number of components and how short auditory sensory memory is, any comparison should change the fewest variables possible, as quickly as possible. (And auditory memory is short, even for simpler sounds. We compare using complex sounds and want to judge complex dynamic effect — soundstage, tonality at various frequencies, overall character or musicality, etc.) Doing things quickly is a challenge with tube amps, which must be shut down properly in order to swap things out. Then, they must be turned on and warmed up a bit.
I'm curious how people conduct their comparisons given whatever factors they contend with. Do you take notes? Have a standard vocabulary (e.g. the one in Harley's book)? Use a checklist? Have certain test tracks that you have virtually memorized? And so on. I'd like to know what works for you.
Most of the time, I'm just listening to music and enjoying it. But when I do want to add gear or make a change, it's natural for a critical comparison to call for some kind of procedure. I'm still trying to figure out what procedure can provide reliable, practical information. When my procedure seems too random or complicated, I feel a bit absurd — like I'm just doing kabuki-science!
Okay so I don't know what to do in your case. I never met anyone with zero memory before. How you even remember you have a stereo is beyond me. Probably you have memory and the problem is you remember what someone told you about not having a memory replace your personal everyday experience of actually having a memory. Happens all the time. To audiophiles. No one else ever has this problem. Trust me. No don't take my word for it. Ask any random person- can you remember the sound of your mother's voice? Answer will be yes. People do have auditory memory. Fantastic long term auditory memory.
All you need to do is learn how to use it. In just the last week I must have written a thousand words on exercises you can do to improve your listening skills. It takes work. It takes effort. It does not happen overnight. But it can be learned. In time a lot of the nonsense you believe now you will come to understand is utter and complete nonsense.
But in the beginning it might help to eliminate a few variables and standardize a few things. So go ahead and keep the volume the same and play the same boring tracks over and over again if you think that helps.
What really helps is to only change one thing at a time. If you are comparing cables then swap out only the cables. If you are comparing amps swap only the amps. That means if you are using a power cord, cones, fuse, etc (like you should be) then you move all that stuff over to the comparison piece. Otherwise its not a valid fair comparison. Got it? One thing.
That's it. That's the whole enchilada. Then you just listen. Everything goes through a settling in process. Even a used cable when you first get it has been bent and twisted and unused for many hours and will take some time to settle in. How much time? Listen. When it stops changing its settled in.
When you are a good listener you will know a long time before that. Give it a good year or three. You will get there.
millercarbon" I never met anyone with zero memory before. How you even remember you have a stereo is beyond me."
This yet yet another insulting, degrading, "pendantic" remark from one of the cite's most confused contributors and authors Millercarbon I direct you're attention to some of the things you think you have remembered but in fact were shown to have been completely false, erroneous, and dangerous remember when you said Normandy was in Italy of course that was not dangerous just ignorant! In another thread you have dispensed instruction, advice, and theory clearly shown to be potentially lethal and then you claim your being nitpicked! And then there was that time you got so confused about the process and nature of induction and when I corrected you you called me a "retard" and insulted my country! So maybe you should respond to actual question's here and try to stay on topic rather than instruct on you're superior knowledge, experience, and wisdom.
Clearthink, although we usually don’t agree I always respect your opinion and in this case you are absolutely correct. His tone is always very condescending to others. Millercarbon must be slipping though, he didn't link his system to the post. Maybe he “forgot”.
If you say so. I play music. I listen. I have no problem hearing, differentiating between different components, and certainly no problem remembering. I found the story of not being able to remember sounds to be totally false. It holds a lot of guys back, maybe more than anything else. Because instead of just getting on with the business of listening and comparing they set up all these unnecessary roadblocks and qualifications. Then on top of that if they do manage to hear something instead of acknowledging it and working off their actual experience they try and disqualify and discount it with even more roadblocks.
So it just seems to me that since this one false premise, no auditory memory, is so demonstrably false and counterproductive and yet pervasive that it deserves to be dealt with decisively and destroyed as fast and well as possible. Sorry if my methods don't meet with your approval. But it is a bad idea, and needs to be put down. One way or another.
Otherwise, what is the point? Why would anyone put any time or energy let alone money into their system? I mean seriously, what is the point? To be able to say, "I spent a ton of money on a system that sounds good, or at least I think it does, if only I could remember???"
Sorry clearthink, really, but if you can think of a nice polite way to clearly state this idea is patently false, misleading and actually harmful I would sure like to hear it.
My system has been transformed thanks to millercarbon. Like a hypnotized groupie automaton I click on every of millercarbon's links to his virtual system. From careful study of his every tweak, I have installed his red and gold striped Christmas wrapping paper wallpaper tweak to my listening
room. Same color, same thickness. Thanks miller.
OP strict level matching is essential. Lots of good tools to help with this that IMO should be part of the arsenal. Test tones, SPL meter, DMM, and an RTA with a calibrated microphone ( I use the Studio Six set of tools which run on an IPad )
As you probably already know, the ear brain likes louder and louder is just chasing your tail from a qualitative perspective, unless you can level match. My mentor (RIP) in this critical area and a real stickler for matching to .25 db or better was Roger Modjeski.
and there are measures for speech intelligibility, using a recording of a familiar voice ( instrument, acoustic space, etc ) can be an excellent touchstone- I use a Zoom H-6. There is of course a big and obvious difference between recognizing “ mom” and understanding what she is saying.
On single variable changes with cables it is best to gently demate/mate the baseline connects, allow some settle in time listen then make switch to the variable cable. One reason why I like Audioquest DBS system is that the battery is always forming the dialectic- this greatly speeds up a cable A/B.
its also a good practice to get on a demate/clean/mate maintain cycle for the whole system
I appreciate the thoughtful responses. I will not respond to insults or condescension. I phrased my question carefully. And yet...
So, to the thoughtful responders: I will think about what’s been said and respond when I have a moment. @tommic601 -- the specific mentions of equipment and techniques is very helpful, as is the encouragement.
I’ll bite, and I’ll share what I’m planning to do over next couple of months.
I’m waiting to take delivery from local dealer on streamer/dac that will complete a new second system, which I have yet to assemble. All of the components (speakers, power amp, dac/streamer, power conditioner) are new, as are all of the cables. I’ll burn everything in for a week or so and listen to it and come to terms with what I have.
Nothing too interesting there.
But as to my planned experiment, I’ve also (just for fun and experimentation purposes), acquired three new sets of alternative cabling, each consisting of 3 pieces (power cord for streamer/dac, interconnect between streamer/dac and power amp, and speaker cables). [power cable to amp and sub will remain constant thru experiment, as I’ve read that power cord to source is most important].
The three alternative sets are at different cost levels, each less than what I’m planning to have as my true set with this system, that I refer to in para 2.
The three sets are: at the low end, cost-wise: AmazonBasics speaker and interconnect, and W Audio power cable (also available on Amazon) - msrp around $60 total.
in the middle, cost-wise: Pangea power cable and Blue Jeans IC and speaker cables - msrp around $180.
finally: Audioquest power, IC and speaker cables - msrp around $575.
I will break each of these in also for about a week, together as a set, and listen to determine whether and how much I detect differences in these three alternative sets of cables, and how they compare to the set I selected for the system.
I realize this is changing three things at a time, instead of one, and if I really wanted to go crazy I could spend the rest of my life looking at the permutations and combinations of everything involved, but .... three sets will take enough time and exhaust my experimentation curiosity given the limited amount of time in a day I have to spend on this, haha.
Thereafter, assuming the preselected set survives, I’ll keep the three alternative sets to let extended family members or friends just starting out experiment with to see whether they hear differences in their systems and whether cable upgrades might make sense for them based on what they hear. Probably they’ll say, "you kidding! why would I go to that much work??! - you’re nuts!" But on here it’s all good : )
Thanks @kren. There is a new You Tube channel on audio. Notice he says, "Short term auditory memory has been shown to be very unreliable, even the order in which you switch components makes a difference."
His reply to my question was interesting. Sharing:
Tarun A British Audiophile "Hi David, that is an excellent question. You have to try and eliminate as many variables as possible. Here is my process...
The room: I need to understand the acoustic characteristics of my room so that I can develop an ability to listen “through” the room. If I am evaluating speakers, I need to spend quite a bit of time experimenting with positioning to try and get the best out of them. I have a listening room on the acoustically lively side. It helps to have another room that has more damping just to double check my conclusions. Although, with experience this becomes seldomly necessary.
Partnering equipment: I use a minimum of 3 DACs, 3 amplifiers and 3 speakers to evaluate a new component. I have owned these components for some time so instinctively recognise their sound characteristics. Although, I mainly listen through my main system if I am evaluating a new piece of equipment, it is important to try any new component with different combinations so that I can determine how it behaves and what might be suitable partnering equipment. For example, my Exposure Pre/Monos have a big, warm, rich sound where as my Hegel H160 is much leaner and more clinical in its presentation. My Audiolab M-PWR is a compact 40 watt amp that shows if a speaker is difficult to drive. Listening material: Having test tracks that I know inside out helps because I know instinctively how it should sound ordinarily and can more easily identify changes. Tracks are selected based on their ability to highlight a specific aspect of a products performance. For example, I have certain tracks that I listen to for evaluating female vocals, soundstage, imaging, transient response, etc. Most of them are great quality recordings but not every track because it is also import to know how forgiving a component may be of less than perfect recordings.
AB testing: I resist the temptation to switch components after minutes or hours of listening. Short term auditory memory has been shown to be very unreliable, even the order in which you switch components makes a difference. Have you noticed that when manufacturers do this they always start with the cheapest component and then go to the more expensive one and not the other way around. There is a very good reason for this. The second time you hear something new, it will sound better even if you haven’t changed anything. IMHO the only way to evaluate a component is to listen to it for days, making notes that you refer to and update through the process. Product burn-in may be a hotly contested debate but human burn-in is definitely an element to be considered when evaluating any new component. Give yourself time to adjust to how a product sounds, allow yourself to slowly form an impression, once you feel comfortable, only then, change a component. Is this process scientific? Absolutely not but I know of no better way to evaluate new components.
Thank you for the question. I may do a video on this topic."
I find that listening over the long term is a much better way for me to evaluate the differences that components make.
That's not to say that doing A/B testing doesn't point out differences, it does. But what it points out is that there is a difference, not so much what the difference is.
Sometimes it's easy to define the differences you hear doing a quick A/B test, but for me at least, it takes extended listening to pick up on the more subtle nuances that a change in gear makes and what those nuances are.
Listening covers a wide range of subjects and reasons. The only thing wider is the range of sonic characteristics we are able to hear. This goes well beyond easily measured things like the volume and frequency response so many obsess over, and into things like imaging, depth, focus, air, inner detail, on and on. The list is endless.
The biggest stumbling block I have seen, and it is prevalent, so depressingly prevalent, is the compulsion to doubt and second guess and attempt to explain away things you do in fact hear.
When I first started trying to listen for some of these things it was extremely frustrating. In hindsight the two things that held me back the most were the lack of vocabulary, the ability to understand and put into words the differences I was in fact hearing, and this false advice about the necessity of precisely matching everything.
So what would happen, and this happened over and over again, I would go to some store and compare CDP or whatever and find one I thought sounded better. I was sure it sounded better, just not in any way I could put into words. So I would get my wife to come and listen. And always, every single time, she would indeed have the same preference.
And no, for you guys who think you're so smart, I know all the stories, every single one of them. More than you I bet. So I was careful to not say anything to let on which one I liked. Just I think there's a difference but I can't believe it and want to be sure so would you mind? And every time she would say well I like this one. Why? It sounds more expensive. More, quality. That's it. We knew. We heard it. We agreed. We just had no way of putting it into words.
One of the things I always truly believed even after a lot of other "common wisdom" had been proven false, was you had to listen at a certain volume level.
Then one day it dawned on me. The one guy who had taught me the most, the best listener I ever came across, who always had the best components and knew every detail of how they sounded, Stewart Marcantoni, this guy never once listened above probably about 85 dB. I would always have to turn it up. When he came over I would always respect this and play a little lower volume for him than anyone else.
I thought for a long time he was just protecting his ears. More and more it bugged me, how he is able to hear so much detail so well even at such a low volume. Until one day I asked and he told me that's part of it, saving his ears, but really you do not need to listen so loud to hear just fine. Around that same time I learned you do not even need to play the same recording over and over again. Or even twice. When you know the system and are a good enough listener none of this is necessary.
People find it good sport to insult and make fun of me. I am fair game. Everyone else can make fun of my system. I can't do the same. I get that. Doesn't change the fact the stories are true. That guy at CES, he really did hear a system for the first time and he really could tell on one hearing what was wrong and they really did fix it.
Didn't need no matched volume. Didn't even need no A/B. For sure did not need any double-blind. All he needed was his ears. And listening skills developed to a sublime degree from decades of practice.
Anyone serious about learning, this is how you go about it. You can start with whatever crutches you need. Match volume. Play the same tracks until you never want to hear them again. Whatever floats your boat. Just don't come around here telling me its some kind of requirement. Its not. Its just some mental roadblocks you put in your own way. You put them there. You can remove them. Or not. Just remember they are your roadblocks. Not mine.
@big_greg I agree. I’ve found as I put my system together, that people say things like, "Get 3 different cables and try them out." Etc. And I know that anyone who’s built a system has had to do close listening comparisons to try to hear differences — unless they’re just willing to buy something based on reviews, price, etc. And I also agree that A/B differences do show that there is a difference, but I have been reading about a multitude of factors which can be responsible — time, mood, other gear, etc. — and so sometimes I wonder what the cause of the change is — and even IF there really was a change. And everyone who pays attention to how they listen knows that there are times you *think* you heard something, but you didn't. Whenever one pushes the boundaries of one's perception and then tries to label it, there's a margin of error.
In voicing a preamp design I just added a rotary switch in the back that I could rotate and hear five different resistors. That way I was able to switch on the fly in different recordings without having to solder different ones in to see what I was hearing. I left the switch in as I didn't think that I should decide on one or the other for the person buying the preamp.
I listen to certain instruments during playback. Since I was a musician for many decades I know what some instruments sound like. I don’t like boomy bass, I’d rather have clean solid bass. I know what a certain cymbal is supposed to sound like. In 1978 when I purchased my 1st hifi system, I brought in albums that had songs that represented the instruments that I listened to to see how the components presented these areas
What a wonderful experiment with the three sets of cables :-) Will be interesting to hear of the results.
the science of people preferring louder is quite well understood. All the ego in the world doesn’t erase that. The vocabulary word for that is louder, not better. Lots of speaker manufacturers still build in the “ smile “ because WE like it at 85 or 110 db. Ditto for orders of distortion, the ear brain is a fascinating thing :-) people like distortion not in the original signal - ponder that.
One interesting single variable evaluation we are currently undertaking is choosing a USB cable between mastering console and DAC - 4 meter cable - got to get it right !
? For the OP: do you have ability to download and play files ? IF you do, A way to sharpen comparison and critical listening skills is the 2L Recordings downloads workbench - lots of files in different formats but w identical microphone/ signal chain. Grammy winners for a reason:-) try comparison between DSD and a high Rez PCM if your DAC can do it. Fun and some fantastic recordings by world class talent in rich reverberant spaces.
@tomic601 Those are good suggestions. I'm trying to standardize a manageable listening selection — with particularly good recordings (and with some older ones, to see if when my system is too revealing), with certain characteristic instruments (as Harley suggests, and especially unaccompanied). Ideally, I'd have it down to, say, 4-5 cuts. Otherwise, I will have trouble because there'll be too much in mind before I change setup.
I have a streamer and a subscription to both Spotify and Amazon HD tracks. I have listened to "The Nordic Sound" by 2L Audiophile recordings. Spotify has a few playlists I've also listened to: Paul McGowan's picks and some other playlists — "Loudspeaker Test Songs by Telegrapher Loudspeakers" and "Bowers and Wilkins High End Audiophile Tracks."
I will try to download a few of these and put them on a thumb drive for my streamer. Again, the challenge I'm overcoming is to (a) switch quickly enough and also (b) keep a record, with sufficiently precise vocabulary, so that when I compare I feel confident about how much change there is, and the character of that change. Any changes, I feel, need to be indexed to speaker placement, too.
@tomic601 I completely agree. What these listening tests are doing for me -- besides evaluating gear character and quality -- is teaching me different things to listen for and different *modes* of listening.
Let me give an example. Last night, I was playing different tracks to test out my new system, and I decided to bring up some old school stuff I really love — "Rain" by the Beatles, and "Steppin’ Out" by Joe Jackson. I was amazed at how bad they sounded in comparison to, stay, "Babylon Sisters" on the remastered Gaucho album by Steely Dan. But those two tunes — Beatles, Joe Jackson — are classics, and I suspect that they were mastered to sound good on the average stereo at the time — main vocals and tune are *forward* and everything else just supports.
The question -- "How do I makes these sound better? -- How do I get back to the music (other than my forcing my mind to disregard what I'm paying aural attention to)?" then divides for me: Do I want a remastered version of those tunes (there is for Joe Jackson, and it sounds much better) OR do I want a way to set my stereo so that it plays in a more "down market" way. This is where a DSP or equalizer might be an interesting addition.
kren006, congrats on being one of the very few people who understand how to actually compare cables. I find that the majority do not compare sets, which is the only way to hear what the manufacturer intended. I first started comparing sets of cables about 17 years ago, and it was revelatory. It's the only way to make certain progress with cables. Mixing is largely guesswork and waste of time for no set direction/result.
You may not get surprising or large results from the cables sets if they are constructed similarly and have similar AWG. It is not uncommon for cables of similar construction and AWG to sound similar. Your selections according to price point may not vary enough to overcome that issue. But, there will probably be at least some variance, perhaps one will be quite noticeably superior.
I’m looking forward to it in a geeky kind of way. Obviously I’m using pretty low budget stuff here with my three alternate cable sets, but it’ll still be useful in evaluating some potential quality differences over an order of magnitude cost spectrum (from $60 to about $600).
Perhaps as I go along this journey I’ll expand it upward if funds allow.
And my secondary system should be resolving enough to note the differences: Spendor D1 mini monitors Rel R-328 sub Cambridge Audio Edge W power amp Cambridge Audio Azur 851n streamer/dac/pre Audioquest Powerquest 3 conditioner.
Didn’t mention it but the baseline cable set chosen for the system are Signal MagicPower power cables to CA’s and Rel, with Signal subwoofer Neutrik cable from amp to Rel. AQ Rocket 33 speaker cables and Red River XLR interconnects (well I guess here I am mixing brands but keeping power- and signal-carrying brands constant at least).
mijostyn, trust me, I've seen your skepticism here many of times, and it means nothing to me. When I work with sets of cables weekly, no skeptic's opinion matters. I can tune rigs with just one or two power cords. I regularly, at least a couple times each month, change systems entirely using cables. So, does your, or any other skeptic's opinion matter to me? No, not in the least.
Further, I put my ears and the cables to the test in my review of the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comparator, and I did far better than 50% at selection of cables. So, I also have ABX experience that confirms what I'm hearing. It confirmed what is obvious to people who bother to actually work with cables.
I find chintzy people cover their chintziness by trying to cast aspersion upon others who use expensive cables. Maybe that doesn't fit you; maybe it does. Do I really care? No. :)
For me it is relatively easy. I'm usually considering replacing one component at a time. I've been fortunate that I have established positive relationships with a few great dealers over the years and they would let me take home equipment for a week or so to listen in my own home. Of course they would take my credit card information down just in case I didn't return it (never) or if I decided to purchase, so I didn't have to come back down to San Diego.
Then, I would establish the listening level using my measuring equipmtn and my many Stereophile test cds. Then, listen to my favorite music on the existing system at the level I'm used to, match levels for the new piece I'm auditioning and listen again to the same music. Then, I would go back and forth to determine what equipment sounds like vs the original piece.
differences in loudness/volume levels can make a false impression, which is why matching levels to listen matters greatly.
Another thing that is really important is to resist the urge to change more than one piece at a time while doing your tests. it is impossible to know what exactly is making the change if you change more than one piece at a time.
Listening in a store is totally different. Yes, you may hear differences in your favorite music, however, there is no way you can tell what piece(s) are making that change, and if you purchase and get it home and it doesn't perform as well as you heard in the store, you get frustrated or angry.
A/B comparing equipment in your home on your existing system can be not only fun, but revealing. Even A/B comparing equipment in stores, swapping only one piece can reveal much also. this is exactly why certain manufacturers do not allow their products to be compared with other products in stores.
Great music even poorly recorded should move ya, but the stuff mixed and neutered for AM radio in cars is a PITA... the Joe Jackson remasters on Intervention Records ( Shane the founder and an acquaintance knows his way round good sound as a veteran of both Audioquest and Vandersteen) are really fantastic and IMO warrant purchase. I am an advocate for tone controls and more ( stereo/mono blend, phase, etc see Cello Pallete preamp for an idea and this is also a value added feature of Mc preamps... again if it done right ) to tweak a marginal recording
@mijostyn — got you. So…there's "good kabuki" and "crappy kabuki". I want to do "good kabuki"! Will look into Psychoacoustics @tvad -- Your advice is sound. I'm just looking to make conversation that will (as you say) become really operative in the future. And, nope, I don't have the speakers yet. Everything is shut down in MI and Salk's timeline for production is already a multi-month deal. He has 1/2 my deposit, so I hope it moves forward quickly after things get going again.
@kren0006 -- I have a Rel R-328 sub. Ever see them used? I bought mine used but want another, without paying full price.
@minorl Your advice is good and sensible. What I'm seeking are ways of implementing criteria for how things sound beyond line level matching. If one looks at Harley's book, you can see various ways of describing treble, midrange, bass, soundstage, etc. There's a fairly precise vocabulary that reviewers use. But it's a complicated array of terms and a bit cumbersome to establish and then keep in mind. Especially with the issues raised by auditory memory. I realize that my ambition will seem overblown to most people -- they're content to equalize out the factors you mention, eliminate big variables, etc. I'm seeking to (a) create a workable set of perceptual criteria, conjoined with (b) an apt set of useful descriptive terms, so that I can (c) try to overcome the adverse effects of time lag between comparisons. Anyone not on an audio forum would have run away from me by now, so I'm grateful that some here are willing to inquire or trade stories about what they did.
@tommic601 Thanks for those suggestions — I'll take a look.
hilde45 - I haven't really looked for them used, sorry, not much help. I actually got mine new from a dealer just two months ago, at a substantial discount from msrp. I haven't used it yet because it goes into system 2 that I'm acquiring now, described above. But I've got an S/5 in my main system so I know the R-328 will be seamless.
@kren -- please do tell me how that goes. The only alternative for me would be to sell my REL (I can poke you if you wish) and then buy two matching. @djones will check out, thanks.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
