dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne Perry) (08/13/85)
<i groove on vinyl; cd's are the pits> I appreciate the necessity of carefully controlled experiments, but you have to take it as you find it when shopping. It seems to be pretty clear that a small difference in loudness makes a difference in the percieved quality. But, what about things like imaging? When I compared an NAD with a Mission cd player - at roughly the same volume - the imaging was quite different. The singer was on the floor with the NAD and standing up with the Mission. Can that be a function of a slight difference in loudness? I would love to do a test of the Meridan/Mission/Magnovox/Whatever to see if I can spot a difference. Anyone game that has them? If someone has a Magnovox, I suppose we could try to set up a comparison test at the snobshop in Milburn (challenge them to show that Meridian/Mission is actually better?). Dewayne Perry
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/13/85)
> I appreciate the necessity of carefully controlled experiments, but > you have to take it as you find it when shopping. It seems to be > pretty clear that a small difference in loudness makes a difference > in the percieved quality. But, what about things like imaging? > When I compared an NAD with a Mission cd player - at roughly the > same volume - the imaging was quite different. The singer was on > the floor with the NAD and standing up with the Mission. Can that > be a function of a slight difference in loudness? Yes.
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong - DCS) (08/14/85)
In article <4934@allegra.UUCP> dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne Perry) writes: >But, what about things like imaging? >When I compared an NAD with a Mission cd player - at roughly the >same volume - the imaging was quite different. The singer was on >the floor with the NAD and standing up with the Mission. Can that >be a function of a slight difference in loudness? a difference in frequency respsonse could account for the perceived differences in imaging. if the drivers are sufficiently far apart and the spectral content of the music appropriate, the difference in dispersion of the drivers between two speaker designs can cause differences in imaging. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (08/14/85)
> > I would love to do a test of the Meridan/Mission/Magnovox/Whatever > to see if I can spot a difference. Anyone game that has them? > If someone has a Magnovox, I suppose we could try to set up a > comparison test at the snobshop in Milburn (challenge them to > show that Meridian/Mission is actually better?). > > Dewayne Perry Finding an audio dealer that will let you do this comparison can be difficult - it's rare that one dealer will carry Meridian, Mission and Magnavox (although Meridian and Mission might reside together in one "high end" spot). I was able to make this comparison before buying my CD player, but it was through the courtesy of a local hifi shop (Elite Electronics in Cupertino, Ca.) who had absolutely nothing to gain from the comparison since he didn't sell any of these three (he carried NAD and NEC players only), but who had the other equipment I wanted to use for comparison. He was willing to do this because I had bought other equipment from him (and would be likely to do so in the future). He was able to borrow a Meridian player from another dealer, and I was able to borrow a Mission and Magnavox 1040 from two different friends who were also interested in the direct comparison. I have to, quite frankly, dismiss the need for laboratory-perfect volume matching, at least for the type of listening comparison I find meaningful. If you were doing random A/B/C switching from moment to moment and using that as a basis of judgement, you might need this. However, I find that to really judge equipment I have to listen to fairly long stretches (at least 20 minutes) at a time to each of the "candidates". Quick comparisons would reveal obvious frequency irregularities or distortions, but such aspects as the perceived depth of the "soundstage" (the publicity people at English Decca seem to have struck a winner with that term over 20 years ago), and the relative placement of individual instrumental and vocal groupings, as well as timbral definition take some time to perceive. Also, I find that frequently equipment which sounds good in short bursts reveals characteristics in longer listening which become fatiguing or annoying. We compared these players in a session that lasted over 2 1/2 hours using equipment that I had at home (Hafler 110/220, Vandersteen IIC) as well as better equipment (Threshold preamp/Threshold Stasis amp/ Infinity RS-1B speakers). I was interested in hearing the players on the better equipment, since I wanted to be sure that the player I bought now wouldn't reveal any nasty surprises if and when I were to upgrade the rest of my system. First off, I have to say that, contrary to the results of a previous CD comparison mentioned on the net, the results were NOT unanimous. We all heard definite differences between the three players, but came to radically different preferences based on what we heard. I was very surprised to find myself preferring the unmodified Magnavox over the Mission. Generally I hear definite improvements in "high end" mods that some other net writers sneer at as being esoteric. In this case, I heard what I perceived as a deterioration in the quality of the sound. The most obvious problem with the Mission was that it seemed noticeably restricted in the deep bass compared with the Magnavox. This was particularly noticeable on the Infinity/Threshold system. Incidentally, I found that in each case my feelings about a particular player on the Hafler/Vandersteen system were confirmed and made stronger by the Threshold/Infinity system. I also felt that the Mission was lacking something in the extreme high frequencies. At least I'm guessing that this was what I heard - I perceived it as a greater freedom and "openness" on soprano high notes and high string passages on the Magnavox as well as a greater sense of spaciousness and ability to distinguish between the different hall acoustics on the recordings used. I realize that this directly contradicts several reviews, including one in "Absolute Sound" which found the Mission to be in a separate and higher class from all other CD players. As I said, I was surprised myself at what I heard, but found that, when switching back again to recheck my findings that they were confirmed. I should mention here that one of my friends (ironically, the one who owns the Magnavox 1040) disagreed with me, at least to the extent that he regarded the differences as putting the Mission in a more positive light. He felt a greater sense of presence and more of a "lifelike" quality in the Mission. The Meridian was a different case. I found it quite different from the Mission and closer to the Magnavox. This is interesting, because we didn't have one hand the actual Magnavox model (FD-1000) which serves as a basis for the Meridian, whereas we were listening to the one on which the Mission is based (actually Philips 104). The Meridian seemed to slightly "sweeten" the sound, by which I mean that recordings which displayed a trace of harshness on the Magnavox seemed less so on the Meridian, particularly the Prokofiev (I'll mention recordings separately). I felt that the Meridian also had a slightly greater clarity in the lower treble as well as allowing one to hear the individual lines in complex orchestral passages more clearly. I liked this, but another friend (the one who owns the Mission) found it a little sterile and analytical (I didn't). I must emphasize, however, that the differences (between the Meridian and the Magnavox) were extremely subtle and took some time and careful attention to perceive, whereas the differences between either the Magnavox or Meridian and the Mission were fairly obvious. This led me to choose the Magnavox (actually I bought the 3040 rather than the 1040) because I really didn't feel the differences in sound between it and the Meridian were significant enough to match the cost difference. Going to the 3040, the cost difference was still strongly in favor of the Magnavox since that could be found with a much hefter discount than the Meridian, and offered an abundance of features that the Meridian didn't. As far as I was concerned, the Mission wasn't in the running. These are, of course, only my own personal findings and represent my biases and the frequency irregularities of my ears. It may, in fact, be that the Mission that I didn't like as well was actually the more "accurate" player - since we didn't have a master tape on hand, I couldn't say for sure. I will post the recordings used for comparison, along with a brief description of why I found each of them valuable for this purpose, in a separate article since there may be some who would find that of interest but who wouldn't care to meander through this long article. - Greg Paley
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/15/85)
Greg Paley says: > I have to, quite frankly, dismiss the need for laboratory-perfect > volume matching, at least for the type of listening comparison I find > meaningful. Later in the same article, he says: > First off, I have to say that, contrary to the results of a previous > CD comparison mentioned on the net, the results were NOT unanimous. > We all heard definite differences between the three players, but > came to radically different preferences based on what we heard. Hearing differences and not being able to agree on what they are is a typical result of very slight level differences. Since you didn't match levels, how do you know that mismatches don't account for the differences you think you heard?
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/17/85)
> After checking the level of output of several CD players, a friend found that > the difference in them was at most about .4dB, NOT (for the average perso) an > audible difference. Wrong. .4dB is audible, though generally not as a difference in loudness. Instead, level differences of this size are perceived as differences in "depth," "imaging," and other similar things.
dsj@alice.UUCP (David S. Johnson) (08/18/85)
A review of the Mission DAD7000 CD Player in th January 1985 issue of HI FI NEWS & RECORD REVIEWS (British) would seem to back up his subjective observation that the player did not have as good a bass response as the Meridian and the Magnavox. The measured response curve for the Mission, in contrast to all other CD curves I've seen, has a substantial rollof of the bass starting at about 200 Hz: Down 2 dB at 50 and 5 at 20 Hz. There is also a 1/2 to 1 dB droop above 15 kHz, which might account for its being a tad less bright. The NEW version of the Mission (DAD7000R with remote control) apparently alleviates the bass problem (only down 1/2 dB at 20 kHz) although the droop above 15 kHz remains. This according to a review in the August 85 issue of the same magazine, which calls the improved version one of the best. (I haven't heard either player; I'm just reporting the reports, while staying firmly in the camp of those who say there ARE audible differences between CD players) David S. Johnson
greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (08/20/85)
> Greg Paley says: > > > I have to, quite frankly, dismiss the need for laboratory-perfect > > volume matching, at least for the type of listening comparison I find > > meaningful. > > Later in the same article, he says: > > > First off, I have to say that, contrary to the results of a previous > > CD comparison mentioned on the net, the results were NOT unanimous. > > We all heard definite differences between the three players, but > > came to radically different preferences based on what we heard. > > Hearing differences and not being able to agree on what they are > is a typical result of very slight level differences. Since you didn't > match levels, how do you know that mismatches don't account for > the differences you think you heard? I didn't say that we couldn't agree on what the differences were, but rather we disagreed about which sounds we preferred. I still feel that differences in output level would only have seriously affected the first few minutes of hearing either player. The other differences, which I described at some length in the original article, were of a nature, and heard over sufficiently long periods of time, that I can't attribute to level mismatches. - Greg Paley
lat@druil.UUCP (TepperL) (08/20/85)
> ... I still feel that > differences in output level would only have seriously affected the > first few minutes of hearing either player. The other differences, > which I described at some length in the original article, were of a > nature, and heard over sufficiently long periods of time, that I can't > attribute to level mismatches. > > - Greg Paley Since you're so sure that matching levels doesn't matter, next time you compare CD players, why don't you match levels (since it won't affect the outcome) anyway and be done with it? Certainly as some point it will make a difference. -- Larry Tepper {ihnp4 | allegra}!druil!lat +1-303-538-1759
rdp@teddy.UUCP (08/22/85)
In article <1613@druil.UUCP> lat@druil.UUCP (TepperL) writes: >> ... I still feel that >> differences in output level would only have seriously affected the >> first few minutes of hearing either player. The other differences, >> which I described at some length in the original article, were of a >> nature, and heard over sufficiently long periods of time, that I can't >> attribute to level mismatches. >> >> - Greg Paley > >Since you're so sure that matching levels doesn't matter, next >time you compare CD players, why don't you match levels (since it >won't affect the outcome) anyway and be done with it? > >Certainly as some point it will make a difference. You betcha it will make a difference! I have been watching this discussion about CD's with some amusement for some months now, and the latest argument about level matching I found particularily amusing because of my own experiences when I was in the retail business. That is, unitl I REALLY remembered what went on... I was involved with a store (no defunct) which did its utmost to provide fair, accurate, well-informed information on not only the equipment that we sold, but ALL equipment. We attempted to be as honest as possible. However, it seems that quite a few stores in the Boston area were either unaware of the fact that even minute differences in level could be mis- interpreted as qualitative differences, but there were some who quite conciously exploited that fact to drive a sale home. In fact, one fledgling chain, who wanted us dead, adopted this as a stated, but hushed, matter of company wide policy, "If the customer doesn't like one of our brands, then turn it up until he does". It was very difficult to survive in the face of this sort of unscrupulous behavior, especially when the competition accused US of this activity! To prove our point, we performed a little experiment on some of our regular visitors. We ostensibly set up a comparison between a new Danish loudspeaker and Large Advents (the then rage in the Boston area), and had people compare them via A-B switching. In most cases, the listeners who liked the Advents picked them out with little hesitation, saying how much better they obviously sounded. In fact, what we had set up was a comparison between the Danish speaker, and the Danish speaker .5 db louder! Even though the two were absoloutely identical, except for output level, people attributed the difference to large quantitative differences between two different loudspeakers. Note that of the 10% or so that did not pick the Advent, they were undecided. I don't recall ANYONE saying "Hey! that's the same loudspeaker, only louder!" So, Mr. Paley, pontificate not on the unimportance of reducing variances in tests, it is real damned important! Unless you can point to specific experiments that support your claim of either the non-audibility, or the lack of long-term importance of mis-matched levels, then I would, too, recommend, especially in the light of real experiments like the one I described, make damn sure your levels are as closely matched as possible. Dick Pierce
knf@druxo.UUCP (FricklasK) (08/22/85)
After checking the level of output of several CD players, a friend found that
the difference in them was at most about .4dB, NOT (for the average perso) an
audible difference! If you really want to compare exactly the same output levelon players, try the Toshiba models versus anything-- they have output level
controls, and with a test disc and a VM it very easy to set reference levels.
By the way, max output on most CD players is between 2.3 and 2.5 V.
'`'`'
Ken
'`'`'greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (08/26/85)
> > So, Mr. Paley, pontificate not on the unimportance of reducing variances > in tests, it is real damned important! Unless you can point to specific > experiments that support your claim of either the non-audibility, or the > lack of long-term importance of mis-matched levels, then I would, too, > recommend, especially in the light of real experiments like the one I > described, make damn sure your levels are as closely matched as possible. > > Dick Pierce The reason I dismissed level matching in the CD comparisons we did was because of the fact that we were not doing A-B switching tests. We were (as I explained in my original article), listening to each player in stretches of at least 20 minutes to a half an hour at a time. If we were doing A-B switching, I agree that the level matching would have been significant. However, we took several hours to compare only three players, playing each one through two different sets of speakers and at various volume settings. Also, I don't recall pontificating - I was recounting how I and a couple of friends went about a CD player comparison. If my methodology doesn't appeal to you, then don't use it! - Greg Paley
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (08/28/85)
[] I think what Mr. Paley is saying is that if you are going to have your eyes examined while wearing a blindfold, you needn't quibble about the whether the projection bulb is old or new. And it is certainly his prerogative to test his eyesight any damn way he pleases . This is, after all, still a free country. You test your eyesight your way and let him test his his way. When I was a bit younger (quite a bit) I used to lie behind the sofa in the dark corner of the living room to read. I think I got the most privacy that way, and the separation from what else was going on was more important to me than the eye strain. They told me I ruined my eyesight that way, but what did they know back then. Now reading in (almost) the dark is a lot like trying to compare two long stretches of sound, except it isn't going to ruin your ears. Even I know that. I've read that there is one good test involving long listening times. If you listen a long time and it drives you nuts, or you get edgy, or whatever, then there must be subtle distortions. If, on the other hand, the longer you listen, the more you want to hear, and the louder you want to hear it, then you must be listening to something that is <really> first class. The advantage of this test is that it is absolute. You don't even have to compare anything to anything. Just one thing is all you need and you can render an infallible opinion. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
sjc@angband.UUCP (Steve Correll) (08/30/85)
> If you listen a long time and it drives you nuts, or you get edgy, or > whatever, then there must be subtle distortions. If, on the other > hand, the longer you listen, the more you want to hear, and the louder > you want to hear it, then you must be listening to something that is > <really> first class. :-) I've always felt that if listening a long time drives me nuts, that means I'm listening to Amanda McBroom, but if it sounds better and better, I'm listening to Glenn Gould...wait, that's not what you meant. Cancel that. Sorry. -- --Steve Correll sjc@s1-b.ARPA, ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!sjc, or ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!sjc