advertisement


Critical listening. How to do it?

Dear Jim,

After nearly five years, I am still enjoying the 1957 Trough-Line for FM! Recently I was given a Rotel RT-850AL tuner that is FM, MW and LW. It works well on VHF, and not at all good on AM. But I prefer the Trough-Line's sounds! Not that it is softer toned. It is not, but it is more natural on those two bugbears of replay. The soprano voice and the piano. Otherwise there is not an awful lot in it except the Rotel can receive in stereo, but I don't bother and select stereo muted.

In reality the Rotel will stay for a day when the Trough-Line may need repairing. I only use it for evening Radio Three concerts and Saturday morning Record review, where it is acute enough to show the different styles of recordings played in snippets. Strangely I think it does characterise the differences more clearly than the Rotel, which is odd, because you would think that things would have improved in the decades that separate the two tuners designs.

Best wishes from George
 
I find that one of the primary things one must do is to relax and avoid concentrating on specific aspects of reproduction, at least initially. One of the primary pitfalls audiophiles fall in to is focussing on one element of reproduction whilst ignoring others.
 
Still doesn't address he point I made earlier.

But does let you try an LPCM version of BBC items with their streams. Use gip to get the aac version. The snag is that the CD tends to appear much later.

Recording techniques are like performance techniques, choice of instrument, or even factors like where the violinst places the bow, etc. That's for the musicians, etc. Where home audio comes into it is what you get when you play what they sends via what 'routes' are available. Not liking the performance or choice of mic is something else that home hifi can't really fix.
 
I'm not trying to be contrary, but I just do not understand what is meant by "tune dem" despite your valiant efforts!

A tune is a melody. That is to say a succession of notes, often lasting a few bars. I have never heard a tune appear or disappear when comparing hifi (unless the reproduction is so bad that (for example) a countermelody disappears in the mix.

"In tune" is a function of intonation and refers to whether instruments are correctly tuned to each-other (or in the case of a piano, with itself). So (assuming good quality of instruments with predictable scaling) if they play the same note, the pitch of the combined note is the same, and does not beat. Similarly a freshly tuned piano can be said to be "in tune" (vagaries of chosen temperament notwithstanding). I have never heard instruments more or less in tune when comparing hifi (though I have heard notes to undulate with certain belt-drive decks).

So I guess it's my problem as I have specific requirements for the terms tune and in tune as, indeed, I do for musical, rhythm and timing. I am able to relate none of these terms to hifi evaluation.

Going back to your comparison of a pile of similar records, I'm sure I might convince myself I could pick the one which sounded clearest, or which gave me the most pleasure. Or even the one with the best pitch stability if I had some organ music or long piano notes to isolate. But which was the most musical or in tune? Nope - those are just words..
I've got no problem with any of that. And musical enjoyment (or enjoyment of the music) trumps fidelity if that fidelity comes at the cost of listener-fatigue (which I assume is caused by some other distortion not easily quantified).

I start having problems when specific musical terms like tune, rhythm, in-tune etc. are used in some woolly hifi sense.

I think perhaps you're just getting caught up with the phrase "in tune" in the same way I did the other day when I asked the waiter for a refill and he said "no problem" and I always want to reply back "happy to hear this isn't a problem for you" when I hear that phrase. I'd also assume that if you and I were to rate two different records or two different pieces of gear we'd probably come to same conclusions more times than not as to which one sounded more musical although we would use different words to describe those differences.

The term "in tune" is simply what some of use to describe how easy, or more difficult, it is now to "follow" the tune after a change has been made, it doesn't mean -as some may think- to describe how accurately in tune the piano notes are or suggest that the guitar in track (A) plays a C Major more accurately then the one on track (B). Also saying something is more more or less in tune does not mean describing sounds, like changing bass or treble tone controls, it's simply used to describe how well the listener can make sense of the overall musical performance.

I can understand that professionals in the recording industry may choose to use different terminology to describe similar things. And you can agree that two pieces of gear or two records can sound different in some way from one another, yes? So, If you change a piece of gear out and the overall musical performance now sounds less musical, and as a result it's now more difficult to "follow the tune" then it was before you made the change, what term would you use to describe this?
 
Last edited:
Why care? Because I can't afford them all and want to only pay for one streaming service. But if you are right (and you probably are) and they are all close, then maybe it's more about the user interface.

I'm not really asking here "Which is better?" what I am asking is "How do you, personally compare music reproduction?" I'm interested in other people's methods and perceptions.

Presumably everyone does this prior to settling on the equipment that they "just listen to music" on, so there must be some kind of analysis involved.

One thing I have noticed is that if the reproduction is "better", I can usually hear the background vocals and harmonies more clearly. Being able to tell if a harmony is sung by a different male, female voice or just the main vocalist doubling up.

I find this thread very readable. Important aspects are discussed here that can contribute to a good experience of sound reproduction. And with a bit of luck, it goes beyond sound reproduction and opens the door to music.
I would like to go back to the specific question of the thread starter Wulbert and because the topic here is so important and fundamental, it expands very quickly to all kinds of aspects that I think Wulbert did not necessarily want to discuss in his specific question.
Let's assume that you, Wulbert, have a nice hi-fi system and that you know all the issues around objective vs. subjective criteria, that you are aware of the difference between someone paying attention to music or to the sound characteristics of their equipment or their room. And also what influence sound characteristics can have on the willingness to immerse oneself emotionally in the music and/or to "read" the music (not the equipment) "critically" with one's ears.

Based on this, I understood the question as how one can best judge the sound quality of different streaming services. This can be done on an "objective" level but also on an emotional level: are there differences in the streamed music of different services that make me like listening to them more or less?

My 2 cent. First of all, I don't want to compare streaming with other sources like CD players or vinyl. It is challenging enough when we consider that the streaming quality also depends on the device used. Whereas 30 and 20 years ago I bought quite high quality equipment which I still use, mostly alternating at intervals of a whole year (Mcintosh and Quad amps, Tannoy Canterbury, Quad ESL57, Klipsch LaScala, Meridian CD player) I am so far satisfied with a less expensive streamer. I don't spend a lot of money on digital equipment because every three years it's no longer state of the art. Sure, a Meridian or Linn streamer might sound better, I never heard it but I'm happy with a Bluesound Node after having Sonos and Node 2i before. Yes, I am really happy with this device and its sound. If I want it to be really nice, I put on a vinyl record anyway but a streamer is so useful also the many radio stations where „tunein“ comes free with the Node without interruption by ads.

Now to my impressions of the streaming services. First of all, a tip for the thread starter: you can cancel most services after a short time or even try them out for free for four weeks. I would make use of this to enable my own impressions and comparisons.

I have decided to use Tidal. My Bluesound Node streamer can play MQA and I can clearly hear the difference to CD quality. It's not about "sound" for me. It's about the music having more drama, inner tension, timing and dynamics as an MQA recording. The MQA version penetrates directly deeper into my emotional experience (when comparing with the "CD" quality really please always use the same recording with the same mix, the deviations of the sound can be striking, and I have never heard until today that I like a so-called remastering better than the original recording, but that is another topic).
But even at the level of "CD" quality, I strongly prefer Tidal. My adult kids use Spotify because there are "cooler" playlists made for young people. So I have this comparison. The difference in sound compared to CD quality (we are not even talking about MQA) is immediately audible, noticeable, tangible. An example, on the recording of the piece "Interplay" by Bill Evans from 1962 with Jim Hall (only in CD quality in this case, but already good) Bill plays in his solo single long notes in the soprano range of the keyboard. This can be heard very well e.g. at minute 4:16. The piano is not tuned sterile and you can hear a wonderful very slight chorus effect of the three piano strings of the single note. I don't hear that on Spotify, there it's more just a note that doesn't float. But that's just my two cents.
 
All sources above probably fall within 10 % of each other. As long as the sound is pleasant and not edgy and has good oompf, why care?

Even less than that. I have most LP's 'transferred' to digital and I often listen to stuff off youtube as well as CD. At times the same music, just to check, with levels carefully adjusted. Sometimes one source sounds a bit better sometimes another, a few times pretty much the same. Conclusion: Mastering is the main difference in sound.

As most seem to argue here, if you like what you hear, you like what you hear and it's your money.
 
I think perhaps you're just getting caught up with the phrase "in tune" in the same way I did the other day when I asked the waiter for a refill and he said "no problem" and I always want to reply back "happy to hear this isn't a problem for you" when I hear that phrase. I'd also assume that if you and I were to rate two different records or two different pieces of gear we'd probably come to same conclusions more times than not as to which one sounded more musical although we would use different words to describe those differences.

The term "in tune" is simply what some of use to describe how easy, or more difficult, it is now to "follow" the tune after a change has been made, it doesn't mean -as some may think- to describe how accurately in tune the piano notes are or suggest that the guitar in track (A) plays a C Major more accurately then the one on track (B). Also saying something is more more or less in tune does not mean describing sounds, like changing bass or treble tone controls, it's simply used to describe how well the listener can make sense of the overall musical performance.

I can understand that professionals in the recording industry may choose to use different terminology to describe similar things. And you can agree that two pieces of gear or two records can sound different in some way from one another, yes? So, If you change a piece of gear out and the overall musical performance now sounds less musical, and as a result it's now more difficult to "follow the tune" then it was before you made the change, what term would you use to describe this?
For the record, I do not require a hifi system, be it good or bad, in order to follow a tune. The tune is the tune. Whether reproduced on a top system or a telephone, my ability to follow it, so long as it is audible is not affected. I can sung it back to you and, if you give me manuscript paper, write it down for you. Similarly, I cannot relate to the term "musical".

The term "In tune" has so little to do with being able to make sense of a performance that I cannot possibly relate to it. It has no analogue in musical terminology that I'm aware of. I do understand that we need a way to describe the ability (given by good reproduction) of following the contributions of musicians. Maybe two voices with similar timbres are only distinguishable beyond a certain level of resolution, or when the stereo image is good enough to gauge their respective positions, and this is why these elements are separated. But "in tune" in my world is not a term which has any meaning for me in this context.

Similarly, I do not understand the term musical in the context of reproductions of the same performance. The musicianship of the participants and how musical the performance is does not, cannot change. A record of Horowitz played on an LP12 then a 1200G does not become more or less musical. It can't! But whether or not it is subjectively more enjoyable, that's something people can decide on. Some may enjoy the bloom of the classic LP12 and others the pitch stability of the Technics. More or less musical? Nah.

It's the same with PRaT - another misuse of specific musical technology which brings nothing to the party for me. Just words.
 
I find that one of the primary things one must do is to relax and avoid concentrating on specific aspects of reproduction, at least initially. One of the primary pitfalls audiophiles fall in to is focussing on one element of reproduction whilst ignoring others.

I agree. If I listen 'critically', it's usually because something is off somewhere. If I can just sink in to the music and relax I know all is good.
 
Mastering and vinyl (because of its intrinsic technical limitations which require, a particular mastering which changes the signal).

Not sure what you mean. But, making a CD SHOULD be: Checking the levels, pushing REC on the digital recorder, the quickly pushing PLAY on the machine with the original master. Sit back and wait. A bit of editing. Voila, you have the perfect copy of the master that will be pressed as a CD. That's not how it happens in the real world...
 
I have decided to use Tidal. My Bluesound Node streamer can play MQA and I can clearly hear the difference to CD quality. It's not about "sound" for me. It's about the music having more drama, inner tension, timing and dynamics as an MQA recording.

But even at the level of "CD" quality, I strongly prefer Tidal.

Slight correction; MQA isn't a "recording" system. It is a particular form of lossy compression system that assumes you won't hear the alterations - or will prefer them to the original high-res source it was generated from.
 
But even at the level of "CD" quality, I strongly prefer Tidal. My adult kids use Spotify because there are "cooler" playlists made for young people. So I have this comparison. The difference in sound compared to CD quality (we are not even talking about MQA) is immediately audible, noticeable, tangible.

Curious. Why would unaltered 44k1/16 streamed by Tidal sound different to the 44k1/16 on the CD it is claimed to deliver? If they differ there must be a cause, and it would show up in a sample-diff analysis. Do Tidal get 'special versions' which music companies make *better* than their CDs? Seems odd if they do.
 
Even less than that. I have most LP's 'transferred' to digital and I often listen to stuff off youtube as well as CD. At times the same music, just to check, with levels carefully adjusted. Sometimes one source sounds a bit better sometimes another, a few times pretty much the same. Conclusion: Mastering is the main difference in sound.

As most seem to argue here, if you like what you hear, you like what you hear and it's your money.

I also have made 'convenience' digitial versions of some of my old LPs. They all sound like the LP when played with the deck, etc, used when making the transfer. True for, say 48k/16 as well as higher rez.
 
Curious. Why would unaltered 44k1/16 streamed by Tidal sound different to the 44k1/16 on the CD it is claimed to deliver? If they differ there must be a cause, and it would show up in a sample-diff analysis. Do Tidal get 'special versions' which music companies make *better* than their CDs? Seems odd if they do.
Sorry I was not up to date. I had compared Tidal CD with Spotify mp3.
 
Slight correction; MQA isn't a "recording" system. It is a particular form of lossy compression system that assumes you won't hear the alterations - or will prefer them to the original high-res source it was generated from.
However MQA works technically (I'll research it a bit more) I prefer it sonically. At least regarding my streamer I can say that.
 
I tend to have go-to tracks I know very well, if I'm trying to assess a system or a new component in my own system.

The overall sound is important, and must be live and present, but so is the ability to dissect the music and see how parts played by each instrument dovetail and support each other.
Then tonal purity, the genuinely metallic edge to cymbals, the wiry strike of plectrum on a steel strung guitar, does that violin sound rosiny or has it some of the purity of the human voice? Do drums have weight and presence? Is there fizz or sibilance, or is the sound smooth but sharp, clear and defined?
Then space...does the system do space? Throw a soundstage? Is it capable of reproducing the artifice of something loud and full-on in the foreground without destroying something delicate and spacious happening in the background?
Does it throw a credible and strong central image? Does a centrally placed singer sound present and palpable?
Bass...is it even, that is to say are any notes exaggerated, or have any notes vanished? How low is it going? Is it going low effortlessly, with air and space around the notes, or are they just approximations?
Does it in-the-room startle? Dynamically startle?
Can you hear EVERYTHING? No? Well, how close do you think you are? Have you been closer? How close is this getting to your previous closest?

If it does all of the above well, I tend to find rhythm and musical communication are more than satisfactory.
 


advertisement


Back
Top