How do you judge?

i dont care for realism.
i want an easy to listen to sound..lush midrange is what i look for in kit..

There are people who rave all day about the 'sound' where the impression is given to me that the music is a tool to listen to the sound comping out of their often bling-systems. The sound these people get can be squeaky clean, precise, detailed and with imagery going back into the next street, but it can be tonally colourless, for want of a better term - and totally without any involvement at all. (PA amps are like this compared to the better pro-monitoring and domestic amps for example I found). DCS DAC's used to have a reputation that they were clinically clean sounding, but sterile with it...

On the other hand, there's HiFi gear which stirs the emotions. You play a piece of music and the music draws you in and can bring you to tears with its beauty (my later ES14 based systems did it with consummate ease I remember - the big active ATC's being rather more ballistic in delivery). So many valve amps can do this with ease, good vinyl does this easily and it's my experience that digital can do it too if the recording and production are done right. Larger speakers if properly designed will fill the soul more easily than a tiny screaming squitter no matter how 'good' they're deemed to be..

I'm trying effin' hard to steer a central course in this in my own Sh#t stereo's. I know what live acoustic music is and I've been bored out of my brain in the past when in decades past, Maazel was annihilating some Mahler symphonies, the noise I sat through being as nothing to how say, Abbado did when he conducted Mahler 6 at the Festival Hall and I was transfixed for the entire symphony and time seemed to stand still that evening's concert - all decades ago but the impressions still resonate today all these years on... Th elive jazz I sat through at the old Wavendon venue could be stark and ballistic, or smooth and musical (drummer Alan Ganley could play tunes with brushes on one or two cymbals just by the way his brushes caressed them - try reproducing that on SSSSS BEEEEE ELLLLSSSSSSS!)


Anyway, not much else I can say...

I think it has changed for me as I have gone through life and experienced different approaches. The first time I heard a speaker that didn’t just fire straight at me, I knew it was somehow more “right” for me. Before that, I dpcouldnt have wanted that sort of space because I didn’t realise it was available. The same probably applies Tom lovers of planar, ribbon and electrostatic speakers, as well as lovers of valves. You don’t know you want it til you hear it.

Dave is of course, exactly right!

How can you tell that you are hearing the former rather than the latter?

Like Dave says all replay equipment has some character. I like to minimise it as much as possible, at least with the source and amplification. Even accurate speakers are not that accurate so there's no overcoming that part of the equation.

The easiest way I have found to test this is a good compilation album. Bowie's 'Changes' works well. Analogue and digital recordings, made in lots of different studios by lots of different people over 20 years. If the wide differences in production style and quality are not obvious as you listen through the album, then the system has too much character. That's why I didn't stick with the Croft gear I had. Great sound, but masked the differences. (Before anyone writes in I only had the bottom of the range pre-power so I assume the more expensive Croft gear is less coloured, I've not heard it so don't know). 

How do you judge VFM?

I suppose I look at the materials used and I also whip the lid off to see what’s inside, I also jusdge by weight, as I’m sure do others. Finish is also a factor for me. Receiving the Minimax prompted me to think about this, because it looked to me to offer very poor VFM in material terms. Might have sounded stellar, but I will never know now.

This begs the question, how do you judge a sound improvement? Is it clearer, more 'musical' (not necessarily related these two), more like real life (in my ATC days when I attended many jazz events, this was paramount as it made for an easy cheap reference)...?

Unrestrained dynamics, non fatiguing, emotion stirring.

Its a phase thing. Yes it is in us to like certain music and musical content but I have had a connection with the music and the musicians much more since I went to war on phase altering components and circuits.

I find myself being moved by songs that always seemed lacking in one way or another. Previously I could not put my finger on it. I added more power supplies, improved regulators, changed components and none of that brought the kind of changes that were brought by removing filters and components.

RD is right about all this and he encouraged me to find out for myself - and I did. I will always be grateful to him for that. 

All IMO of course.

the 6 sounds better but there is not much in it, at least not through my laptop speakers. Suspect it would be pretty obvious through a serious system. The 3 seems 'cloudier' for want of a better word. I don't hear the 3 as more 'musical' I just hear it as not as good.


Although as I said I don't get the 'musical' thing. I think it has more to do with something much more prosaic, like speakers with a ragged bass response or poor timing in the bass. Or an amp that can't drive the speakers properly in the bass, which is a fairly commonplace occurrence. I don't think we need to look for more esoteric reasons as to why some set ups seem to bring out the musical 'flow' and some don't.

Could never understand peeps watching a video of hifi and wanking over the sounds..........

WTF.......

Wots the point......humour me.

Forgive me but which is which?

I haven’t kept up with Rega decks so can’t tell from that angle.

I can say I much preferred the first one. The second one sounded weak and dull by comparison.