2. misc-audio
  3. 189665-178394

How you know your system is improving?

Fellow Audio Junkies - 

Over the last few years, I've invested in my first high end system. It's been a far costlier affair than I'd initially conceived. I started off simply wanting to listen to music in my home. At this stage of my life, I was fortunate to have some resources to invest which led me down the path of reading forums and reviews, while also having the opportunity to visit a few audio stores to demo equipment.

And down the rabbit hole I went... Once I realized all the nuances of equipment and their impact on the listening experience, I became fascinated with creating the most satisfying musical experience in my house. I ended up purchasing several amps, three sets of speakers, NOS power tubes, and a myriad combination of power cords.

With each investment, I would often remark to myself "yes - I hear an improvement..." But sometimes a doubt would cross my mind. Is this some sort of confirmation bias I've got going? Am I just throwing money away? Do I need to see a shrink? 

Admittedly, I was largely convinced things were improving, but a small part of my brain recognized I might be have been chasing windmills... 

Which brings me to this question: "How do you know your system is improving after you've made a system change or hopeful upgrade?" 

For me, a moment came last night when I put on a piece of music - Beth Orton - and played a track that a year ago sounded muddy or poorly recorded. There have been several system changes since I last played that Beth Orton track. As I began streaming over Quboz, I could hear details in the music which had been previously fuzzy and hidden. The tone of her voice was more real. Guitar strings came out of the fog... 

I guess the concept I often read about here, "using a test track" had become my new litmus test on whether my system was improving. It was inadvertent, but I think I'll default to this approach more consistently moving forward, going back to a few tracks that have proven to be challenging with the current system and giving them a go when a new component gets added. 

Yes, I know... nothing radical here. But would welcome how many of you benchmark improvements in your own systems! 

128x128bluethinker
hilde45's avatar
hilde45
4,892 posts
 

@grislybutter That's kind. Thank you. When I got permission to do my system during covid, I had a basement with 6' 5" ceilings to work with. That meant that I had to figure out first and distal reflections and bass modes. That lead to a lot of research about room acoustics, etc. Had I had a kinder room (height wise), I might have skirted that research. But what I wound up learning is now transferable, so I hope to move rooms.

For me, the next question is the higher efficiency speaker, lower power tube amp match. I'm halfway there with my present speakers...

If you're in Denver, let me know. I have beer in the fridge at all times. (And an espresso maker.)

mapman's avatar
mapman
21,930 posts
 

You have to know where the target is in order to hit it. Also the target must be real not just a pipe dream that can never be realistically achieved

In this case the target is the sound you seek. You know whether you improved or not if the new sound is closer to the target than prior.

That’s it in a nutshell. The rest is up to you.
 

It helps to listen to a lot of different things over time to help understand what a realistic sound target actually sounds like. That’s called training your ears. Untrained ears have least chance of ever hitting the target.

 

 

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
12,961 posts
 

You have to know where the target is in order to hit it. Also the target must be real not just a pipe dream that can never be realistically achieved

You are exactly right...

It is why nobody can achieve for example  "listener envelopment" acoustic  concept and experience without knowing what it is and how to reach it  and it will not help here to only upgrade  toward always costlier pieces of gear...

Amplifier or speakers or dac design dont replace mechanical, electrical and acoustical  basic knowledge...

grislybutter
2,453 posts
 

@hilde45 you are very kind! It sure would be nice to see it and you in person, I will be mindful about when I can be in the Denver area. 

hilde45's avatar
hilde45
4,892 posts
 

You have to know where the target is in order to hit it. Also the target must be real not just a pipe dream that can never be realistically achieved.

The problem of knowing what the target is goes back at least as far as Hume's argument that "taste" depends on educated critics who help the rest find the way.

Only judges with a more refined taste will respond to the “universal” appeal of superior art. Because refinement demands considerable practice, such critics are few in numbers....     the standard is normative: it must explain why the sentiments of some critics are better and worse. It does not follow that sentiments are true and false in any absolute sense. 

These reflections lead Hume to postulate five criteria for identifying good or “true” critics: 

“Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice, can alone entitle critics to this valuable character” (SOT, 278).

After several stabs at identifying the standard of taste, Hume identifies it as the consensus or “joint verdict” of “true critics” (SOT, 278–79). However, such critics are “rare” (SOT, 280) and “few are qualified to give judgment on any work of art” (SOT, 278). Consequently, it is not the verdict of contemporary critics that constitutes the standard, but rather the consensus of qualified judges over time and from multiple cultures (SOT, 271; SOT, 280).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-aesthetics/#HumeEssaTast

More to discover