Essentials for getting yourself good music in the home

[Sawyer]

Re: 2 Channel amplifiers

I was only trying to point out that for most music lovers, money - or more precisely the lack of it in sufficiently large disposable quantity , can put tight constraints when buying audio gear.

I agree. A respect for these constraints is the reason for this thread.
Remember though, that there is also a question of what one's priorities are, in terms of spending money. While I have a better audio system in place even now than most people do, my car is a Nano. And I use a mobile phone bought in early 2010. I haven't bought a CD in the last four years, for reasons I will share in a subsequent post - but none of my music listening is from pirated sources. I won't mention my camera gear though, that is another of my priorities.
Generally speaking though, disposable incomes are rising, but so are the opportunities to spend it on - which makes prioritisation all the more important.

 

[Sawyer]

Why it is necessary and difficult to do a level matched AB test

It will be obvious that when comparing two different amplifiers, sound level matching is required to get a valid result - output power characteristics of any two will always be different enough. It is also necessary to do this, to make a valid comparison because with all else equal, a small increase in sound levels will sound better - better enough to elicit the usual phrases like: better timbre, more air, better projection of voices, improved sound staging - the usual suspects of phrases/jargon beloved of the review magazines. Indeed, the ones quoted are quite sober, most of the jargon used is imaginatively flowery, completely subjective, and even ridiculous at times. It takes just a 0.2 db of increase for this effect to kick in, it is that subtle. And amplifiers also have different volume control characteristics. One may need to have the volume control knob at the centre or 12 o clock position to deliver the same power than another delivers at 10 o clock, so the position of the knob is useless as a guide.
But even changing from one CDP to another, into the same amp+speaker combination at the same volume control setting, results in sound level differences that cause the same spurious result. Output signal voltages of different CD players vary enough to cause sound level differences from the same speaker, from the same volume control setting on the same amp, playing the same CD. This is also equally applicable to external DACs.
A lot of money gets spent on equipment "upgrades" not realising that it is this sound level change, coupled to expectation bias that is driving the perceived improvement in sound quality - for an avoidable expenditure of cash.
Unfortunately, the precision required to do level matching to the extent required to rule out this effect, needs test instruments to be used. So people continue to remain at the mercy of savvy salesmen who know this little trick. Except in some cases, where level matching is easily achieved, a personal example of which follows in the next post.

 

[reignofchaos]

Actually level matching is easy these days. On android you get the free app soundmeter lite. Works like a charm. Even in room response graph is easy with an app called frequensee.

So avoiding the usual pitfalls is easy and falling for the salesman trap is a thing of the past.

 

[Sawyer]

Actually level matching is easy these days. On android you get the free app soundmeter lite. Works like a charm. Even in room response graph is easy with an app called frequensee.

So avoiding the usual pitfalls is easy and falling for the salesman trap is a thing of the past.

Good to know, I will try it out one of these days. If I can stir myself to get an Android device.
As to the pitfall thing, I am not convinced. I don't expect the used audio gear market to shrink an iota because of this technology. People believe what they want to believe.

 

[prem]

Hi Sawyer

Your posts are very enlightening.

But please remember, this is a hobby where everyone likes to play by their own rules.

Its like telling a cook - put only so much salt, do not add ginger, cut the onions in a particular way, etc, etc - He or she will not listen and will do it the way they want to.

Let people experiment and enjoy the process. Just as you did.

 

[Sawyer]

My moment of truth

Much before I was able to do a comparative test of adequate rigour, I had started to question the value of received wisdom from hifi magazines and audiophile friends. Amp changes weren't doing anything to the heard music quality, nor were DACs, tube amps, power conditioners, tube buffers and the like. The only time differences were audible was with different speakers, or moving them around in the room. Worse, I had fallen into the trap of looking too much at the finger pointing to the moon, instead of the moon. At the same time, I had bought my first iPod, and because it had a large capacity, I had ripped many of my CDs to it in lossless codec, for portable listening. That was actually a bad idea, playing lossless files via an I pod eats up battery charge at an alarming rate, but it worked out fine in the end.

I had done a lot of simplification of my main system, which ended up consisting, till recently, of a pair of Harbeth speakers, Quad amplification and a 2011, close to best of breed, Marantz SACD player, that also has a USB socket for iPod, taking digital signals from it for conversion on its on board DAC. I had read reports of the iPod being a surprisingly good high end digital source in disguise of a portable music player. And I had one of the all time classic Jazz recordings, Kind of Blue, in SACD and lossless in the iPod, a favourite album and also very familiar having heard it countless times. One evening it all came together to compare seriously and see if there was any heard difference between the SACD replay and the same music played from the iPod. Since the only thing to be done to change back and forth was to change sources on the SACD player with the SACD loaded and iPod wired to the socket, that was one box ticked. And since there was no change in the signal voltage from the SACD player to the amplifier for either source, the level matching box was also ticked. Sitting late at night in the stereo sweet spot, with my hands covering my eyes, and someone behind me doing the back and forth switching, I could not make any out any difference in how the music came forth from the speakers, no matter how hard I tried. We then did that exercise with other CDs, available in two forms - same results.
That was it for me, as far as source technology was concerned, in terms of what is audible to me, and therefore important, and what is not.
Since I also have Kind of Blue on LP, we ran a test on it through the turntable wired to the same amplification as well. Level matching was an issue, so it wasn't the best of tests. But it was enough to tell me that there was nothing to tell it apart from the sound from the digital sources. The only give away about the LP was the occasional crackle or pop that are an inevitable part of LP playing, but when those weren't there, there was no difference I heard. Since I am not a fan of those noises though, I found myself preferring digital. Goodbye, turntable.
Which was enough for me to take further steps towards using digital sources, to a HDD attached to a wireless streaming solution,doing just rudimentary tests at each move to satisfy myself that I wasn't trading audible sound quality for features and the incredible convenience of digitising the source completely. And opening a huge new window to music, a lot of it legally free, from all over the world - from the internet. But I am jumping ahead of myself here.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Actually level matching is easy these days. On android you get the free app soundmeter lite. Works like a charm. Even in room response graph is easy with an app called frequensee.
.

It's a lot better than nothing, but it is not really good enough. Phones are not made for the required degree of accuracy in audio testing. For starters, the microphones are made for voice, and will have a limited frequency range. It's good for ball-park checking, though. And thanks, I'll look at frequensee.

I recognise what Sawyer says about what we might call the volume knob upgrade. We get an unmistakable improvement in all those areas by turning that knob ever so slightly without (unless it was really low to begin with) much of perceivable increase in actual volume. We need fractional decibels for that: the phone apps I've played with are pretty good/interesting but not that accurate.

The real test is to measure the voltage output from playing a constant signal.

To be honest, I feel rather nervous about "probing" my hifi. Those with an electronics education will not have the same qualms.

Then there is the time taken, and the mental disruption, caused by disconnection, measurement, re-connection.

Real testing is difficult.

 

[Sawyer]

It's a lot better than nothing, but it is not really good enough. Phones are not made for the required degree of accuracy in audio testing. For starters, the microphones are made for voice, and will have a limited frequency range.[/I]


Real testing is difficult.

Makes sense, the first part - no personal knowledge though.

As to testing - I agree. Real testing is complicated. I rely on the one time I did one, and on the fact, afaik, that no one has successfully been able to differentiate modern day electronic components such as 2 channel hifi amps in a well set up test meeting the described conditions. If any one has, I would love to know. There will also be a lot of interest in knowing, outside India.
But as I have said, proving the negative, that no difference can be heard isn't that hard. If one can't hear a difference with sound levels approximately matched, further precision will not change that outcome. After my one "good" test, I have relied on that method for decision making. I accept that this route may not work for others.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

If one can't hear a difference with sound levels approximately matched, further precision will not change that outcome.

Seems to me like a good, practical rule of thumb.

 

[Sawyer]

Seems to me like a good, practical rule of thumb.

Good practical rules of thumb is what this thread seeks to provide, with enough technical background and personal experience in justification.
The target audience is people who would like to have good music to listen to in the home, of a quality that is much superior to mass market music/HT systems, without spending the kind of money that can strain most family budgets. It is also for people that don't want to set up dedicated listening rooms to listen to music either because they can't spare a room for this, or because they prefer to have music as a part of family life.
Equipment hobbyists are not the target audience.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Just about everyone here will be an equipment hobbyist to some extent. I certainly don't rule myself out of that.

Ken Rockwell probably goes too far when he answers the question What is an audiophile? I believe that all but perhaps a very very few HFV members are actually music lovers, and do, often and regularly, sit down and simply enjoy music, sometimes even at YouTube quality, because that is what they bought the kit to do. The tweaking, the upgrade fever, the departure from technical reasonability, are all parts of a sort of schizophrenia that most of us have, or have had, at least a little of.

I do not believe that many of us here "hate music and only love playing with their stereo equipment." At least, that is not my experience of HFVers. Even so, an injection of sanity every so often doesn't do us any harm.

 

[Sawyer]

I do not believe that many of us here "hate music and only love playing with their stereo equipment." At least, that is not my experience of HFVers. Even so, an injection of sanity every so often doesn't do us any harm.

I would be extremely surprised if there was even one such person.
And it isn't a black or white thing, there are a lot of shades from one extreme to the other, hobbyists tend to be in various shades on this side of centre while music lovers who don't see equipment as anything more than the means to listen to music are in those on the other side of it. Almost all women tend to be on that side, btw. No one has ever been able to tell me a cogent reason for that. Lots of them are car/bike buffs, but nowhere as many in this sphere - I don't know even one personally.

 

[koushik]

Thad, If you say so then I would say YouTube is quite good a source as I enjoy good music even on public buses playing through the "ever so popular" duplicate Pioneer in-wall speakers. And I consider myself hardcore audiophile by all means ...

Love for equipments come later in life but we all begin with love for music

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Oh sure, I vote for youtube! I listened to a whole album only a couple of days ago, and the sound was more than fine. I listen to stuff I knew in my childhood that I can't easily find elsewhere. Recordings of old 78rpm records, for instance, and on top of the inherent faults in that media, the bit rate is not always the highest either.

There is a limit beyond which the experience is pain, rather than music. Then I cannot listen. I know a lot of people that not only can, but highly value the experience of their old archive tapes. To me, yes, its history, but not really music.

Sometimes we do defeat ourselves, because we put together systems that play the best of material exquisitely but are really unkind to the worst. Then the pain/music threshold shifts, and we find we can't now listen to something we enjoyed before.

 

[koushik]

Sometimes we do defeat ourselves, because we put together systems that play the best of material exquisitely but are really unkind to the worst. Then the pain/music threshold shifts, and we find we can't now listen to something we enjoyed before.

Ya that is so very true ... we tend to shift our likings according to what our systems play best. That is so true. Music from early 70s and earlier and also badly recorded newer tracks are hard to enjoy on my main stereo setup. I enjoy them on my Clarion pc speakers ...

 

[Sawyer]

CD players, DACs, and High resolution music

Love for equipments come later in life but we all begin with love for music

Personal experience and observation lead me to think that while this is true, the dynamic continues with the pendulum swinging back to love for music as the years pass.
Coming to CD players - modern day CD players are also perfectly capable of being a high quality music source, once a certain build quality threshold is crossed. And that build quality is more for long and reliable life, particularly of the CD drawer and play mechanism than anything else. The internal circuitry, including the DAC are all solved problems now, and can be made very cheaply using available technology and manufacturing processes. My experience suggest that audible sound quality difference are down to sound level changes caused by differences in output signal voltages.
The same is true for external DACs. I once had a Musical Fidelity DAC, with tubes inside, that was larger and weighed more than most amplifiers I have owned. It had feet that glowed blue on power on, which turned to red after some time. The colour change was timed to serve as an indicator that the tubes were warmed up enough for the DAC to add all the beloved in reviews magical qualities to the music. I ended up giving it away to a friend, because I could not bring myself to charge him anything for it. He still uses it, knows my views about it, but won't part with it, valuing it as much as a conversation starter as anything else. My experience leads me to questioning whether an external DAC is even needed. In components as small as iPods, Apple Airport Express and Sonos Connect, I have not been able to hear audible difference using a modern, one rung below high end external DAC, that sits in my SACDP.
The thing about DACs and digital tech is that an engineer can still find many ways to improve the measured performance in jargon littered areas such as clock synchronisation, jitter and the like. But where real world hifi is concerned, if this improvement operates outside the human hearing threshold, does it matter? Why pay for it? Perhaps an external DAC has a role to play where the computer is the source - I don't have any experience of that to have an opinion. People seem to say that there are thing that happen inside a computer that come in the way of its DAC sounding good, and an external DAC is a must. I am a sceptic, but without personal experience.
Digital fans also say that CDs are obsolete now, the 16bit/44khz format isn't good enough and talk about 24/192 as the holy grail. Another lot promotes 48/394 - or some such. In theory, perhaps. But the 16/44, which was selected taking into account the range of frequencies a human with perfect hearing can hear, is all that is needed. Technology may have progressed, but human hearing range has not.
HD music can sound audibly better than the same music on a CD, even in a level matched test. That is because one variable has not been eliminated, the mastering quality. The mastering studio allows the sound engineer many degrees of freedom to change the output signal characteristic. If more care is taken in the mastering than what was taken when the original CD was produced, the HD version of the same music will sound different, usually better. Downsampled and put on CD, removing that variable, the difference vanishes.
The CD itself is a transparent format, subject to garbage in, garbage out. Music on the same equipment can sound garbage or divine, based on what is put on it.
What is true about CDs though, is that they are already obsolete. More convenient and cheaper media is now available for digital music content.
And if CDs are obsolete, CDPs are on the way there. The only value I see in CDs/ CDPs is as a back up for the times the newer media crashes and leaves one without any way to play the music. In my case at any rate, that is the role of my CD playing equipment now. All my home audio is now on a HDD/internet based source, wirelessly distributed in both CD quality as well as lesser resolution files, on a Sonos platform. If anyone is interested about Sonos, see:
http://www.hifivision.com/media-streaming-players/51859-sonos-thread.html
One advantage of CDPs though is that they are now very reliable and cheap while remaining perfectly capable with the right CDs spinning in them.
As far as lesser than CD quality is concerned, one advantage of age affected hearing loss is that even files of 256 kbps and above sound just as good as CDs, which are 1411kbps. There is considerable agreement in different places that most people are not able to hear the difference once the 320 kbps level is reached. I have lost interest in pursuing that further, the quality of sound I get from internet radio stations streaming at 192kbps, and the occasional music I purchase on iTunes that is 256kbps, sounds just as good as that from my CDs that are ripped in lossless format. Particularly because there is so much music access now, of the many genres I prefer, from all over the world.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

16bit/44khz format isn't good enough and talk about 24/192 as the holy grail. Another lot promotes 48/394 - or some such. In theory, perhaps.

In theory, actually, no! Not at all ...despite Neil young et al.

HD music can sound audibly better than the same music on a CD, even in a level matched test. That is because one variable has not been eliminated, the mastering quality.

I think there are other variables too. It seems that it is possible that any single given DAC could sound different at different sampling rates due to implementation details specific to that DAC.

"HD" (there is no such thing, despite the tag being applied to the music, and, now, to the equipment. It is a marketing term, it is not a technical term or a technical truth) music is upon us... it is getting difficult not to acquire "HD" music. Without exception, all of the 24/96 (I can't play 192) music I have acquired recently sounds superb. The rest of my music, from 16/44.1 to MP3, has many exceptions to sounding superb. How easy it is to listen to the 24/96 stuff and feel that this is a revelation in music! All it takes is ...forgetting that that quite a lot of my 44.1 (and lower) music also sounds superb!

And if CDs are obsolete, CDPs are on the way there. The only value I see in CDs/ CDPs is as a back up for the times the newer media crashes and leaves one without any way to play the music.

--- It is still easier for quite a few family members (and some audiophiles) to put on a CD rather than set up and use PC software.

--- Many people have substantial collections, and may be lazy (me) or not even see the point in transferring them to HDD.

--- Most of my listening is PC-based, and the PC hdd has most of the music I want to listen to. There are maybe as many as a couple of hundred CDs that I will seldom listen to and thus don't have much of an incentive to copy.

--- Many people regard the CD as a physically more reliable medium, and, in some ways they are right to do so. Given the lack of understanding about the need for backups, this is is not a bad thing. Somebody recently offered to share 4TB of music with me. Hmmm... this would require me to buy 12TB of disc, to satisfy my oriiginal-plus-2-backups rule!

These are the reasons why a CD player, for me, is unlikely to be completely unneeded for the foreseeable future. Others will share some of the same reasons, and have some different ones.

I don't, however, have any audiophile reasons for keeping the CD player. Actually, I'm pretty happy playing CDs on the PC optical drive. Which could end up negating all my reasoning! :lol:

 

[Sawyer]

Other equipment

From use, my experience:
1. Interconnects - a little more complicated than speaker cables, because the need to protect the low voltage signals they conduct necessitates the use of shielded cables. So, not quite commodity class, but adequate quality is quickly reached.
2. Heavy power cords - I can't see how an expensive 2 metre cord at the end of the metres and metres of household mains wiring of commodity cable is going to do magical things to the heard sound, and it doesn't.
3. Cable supports - are sold as another magical aid to audio quality and is also snake oil. They become necessary because people end up using umbilical cord thickness cables which are so heavy that unsupported use puts strain on terminals. As a mechanical support in such cases, they do the job.
4. Power conditioners - again, no effect. The only useful device I have found on the power supply side of things is a servo stabiliser/surge protector for protection, not audio quality.
5. Isolation platforms - these are relevant for turntables. But are also sold to prevent vibration from speaker produced low frequencies resonating in the electronic components of amplifiers etc, affecting the sound quality from the signal the amplifier delivers. Sounds far fetched, and it is. Ironically, these are often seen under electronics built to Mil-spec standards - the US military specification for electronics to be used in field conditions.
There is plenty of other stuff out there - the industry has attracted more snake oil sellers than many others, perhaps because the results aren't visible to see or to refute, and preying on gullible customers by manipulating them seems easier here than in many other places. And the move to digital hasn't weeded them out, they have gone digital too!

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

And the move to digital hasn't weeded them out, they have gone digital too!

They have gone digital, and they have gone computer. Computers are now treated as if they were hand-built valve amplifiers. Playing music is a trivial task for any properly-working and problem-free (there are exceptions) PC, and has been for well over a decade --- but now, it seems, one PC is not even enough for this!

 

[Sawyer]

It seems that it is possible that any single given DAC could sound different at different sampling rates due to implementation details specific to that DAC.

it is getting difficult not to acquire "HD" music. Without exception, all of the 24/96 (I can't play 192) music I have acquired recently sounds superb. The rest of my music, from 16/44.1 to MP3, has many exceptions to sounding superb. How easy it is to listen to the 24/96 stuff and feel that this is a revelation in music! All it takes is ...forgetting that that quite a lot of my 44.1 (and lower) music also sounds superb!

--- It is still easier for quite a few family members (and some audiophiles) to put on a CD rather than set up and use PC software.


These are the reasons why a CD player, for me, is unlikely to be completely unneeded for the foreseeable future. Others will share some of the same reasons, and have some different ones.

I haven't heard the differences, but if they exist the question is - which sound is closer to the one recorded, and therefore higher fi? Two DACs can sound different too, but DACs now have filters built into the signal path, and one needs to eliminate that variable, while the hifi question still remains. Extending the filters subject to digital signal processing as a whole, this is an area of huge possibilities for the future, where a lot of work can be done to cancel out the effect of room influences on the speaker produced sound, to bring it closer to that recorded. But that tech isn't either widely understood or deployed as of now, early days still.

I agree about the HD thing. Existing catalogs are also being flogged at much higher prices as HD after remastering, in some cases obsoleting existing equipment for no sound - pun intended - reasons. The same remastering, down sampled to 16/44 will sound just as good, but can't be easily sold again, let alone at higher prices.

HDD/internet streaming players are getting their act together in being as easy to use as CD players. Sonos is a standard setter in this area and things will get even better as viable competition gets its act together, so that the computer thing under it will be as hidden as it is in, for example, a washing machine. Or a CD player, for that matter.

On a Sonos foundation, I still will keep my CDs and CDP, for the times it doesn't work. Rare times, but Murphy's law means that this will be at the most inconvenient times. But I am definitely not buying any more CDs - or a newer better CDP - even one that plays the latest version of HD music!