Virtual bake-off - suggestions please

RobHolt

RobHolt

Moderator
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
4,126
Reaction score
12
Those venturing over to Wigwam and PFM might have noticed a few popular threads where equipment is compared by placing high quality digital recordings online for people to download and compare at their leisure.

I don't think we've seen that here yet, but where it has been tried most seem to have found the experiments interesting.

Is there any appetite for such threads here?
If so, what would you like to compare?
 
Can you please elaborate Rob and why virtual? I like real bake-offs, where you get a chance to meet and have civilised chat with like minded people and listen to some good (and interesting if Ian turns up:)) music.
 
How about comparing the whole system by a recording made at the listening position? Most people will only be able to record in mono, so maybe just one speaker, in mono.

I considered using one of the *Neumann dummy head microphones to record a before and after of some of the acoustic treatments I used to make, but it never really happened. I'm sure, although the recordings would not sound as good as the real thing, that it would show some obvious effects at play in peoples systems and rooms , especially if listened back to on headphones.

A Behringer ECM8000 (~£35) should be enough to capture the main characteristics of a system.

* Dummy head mic - http://www.fullcompass.com/product/286687.html

Edit: Okay I am drunk and I admit this is probably not going to happen but it would be very interesting if it did!
 
Dev said:
Can you please elaborate Rob and why virtual? I like real bake-offs, where you get a chance to meet and have civilised chat with like minded people and listen to some good (and interesting if Ian turns up:)) music.
Click to expand...

I prefer those too, but the online 'download and compare' lets potentially hundreds of people participate. it isn't a substitute for the real thing but it can be even more valuable in some ways, for example it lends itself to easy blind testing.

Look as the virtual tuner bake-off currently running on PFM.
Same music, recorded at the same time but of four different FM tuners. Levels are matched and listeners can download and compare the output of each, via their own system.
It isn't perfect (nothing is) but the differences are clearly very audible. And of course, there can be no expectation bias as the identity can be disguised.

To give another example, I have three sets of ECC83 tubes that I can use in my phono stage. They all sound different. I can record the output and we then have a virtual tube rolling bake-off. No reason why this cannot be done for stands, cables, phono stages, pre amps...... plenty of options.

Should get some lively discussion going.
 
RobHolt said:
To give another example, I have three sets of ECC83 tubes that I can use in my phono stage. They all sound different. I can record the output and we then have a virtual tube rolling bake-off.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear that, Rob. :) Perhaps others can also offer 3 tube rolls for their phono stages and we can build up a database of how each stage reacts to a certain tube.
 
Lets have some ideas. What would people like to compare to start things off?
 
One thing I'll try once I've got my system back up and running (all currently in storage due to building work) is to compare two or three different pressings of the same record as I suspect some folk would be amazed at how much is down to mastering etc. I could do a good comparison of Autumn Leaves from Cannonball Adderly's Somethin' Else as I've got a nice 60s US Blue Note, a 70s Japanese issue and a crazy Japanese audiophool 45rpm cut of just that track. All sound very different, it's just down to whether I can digitise it without losing too much of what makes them so good.

Tony.
 
Comparing different pressings is a good idea, and easy to set up as it doesn't involve swapping equipment.

There are lots of valve enthusiasts here.
Would there be any interest in a comparison of different ECC83s?
I have a set of Mullards, Sylvania and several others that I can record and upload.
 
I've been to bake offs for what must be getting on for 8 years.

The thought of swapping boxes of any type fills me with dread !!

It's about as titilating as 'Newsnight'


...the only bake off I'll go to these days is one where it's about MUSIC, not kit swapping.

....listening to the same track again and again on different equipment is boring, boring boring !!

...there, said it :)

NB it's fine not to agree of course..
 
RobHolt said:
Comparing different pressings is a good idea, and easy to set up as it doesn't involve swapping equipment.

There are lots of valve enthusiasts here.
Would there be any interest in a comparison of different ECC83s?
I have a set of Mullards, Sylvania and several others that I can record and upload.
Click to expand...

How? You mean record the output from the amp and play it back to see if any differences can be heard? if so, you can compare my KT88s and 6550s while you are at it. What would you need to bring over to do it? Alternatively I can bring the amp over (if I can lift the beast:)). Another test could be TVC v passive pre.

Just curiosity Chris, no need to get "bored":).
 
Probably only viable with line level equipment.
TVC v passive pre would be fine. I can bring over an ADC and laptop to record the output.

What is happening is that the signal is being digitised and recorded to hard disc. We then make the files available online for people to download and listen to.
The result, or preference is still subjective but we present the files 'blind' so that those listening aren't aware of the pre in use.

On PFM, recording at 16/44 seems perfectly capable of revealing quite subtle differences so that should be fine. We can use 24/96 if there is a demand for it, but the files are al lot larger.

For the ECC83 test, I use them in my phono stage, so I can record a section of track several times using different tubes and people can listen to the results. Doing it with cables, TT mats, different cartridges, cd player - all possible as we just convert the output using a high quality ADC and let people listen in their own homes.
You could even do it with stands. Say, place a Linn LP12 on some Mana, record it from the amp's tape output with the system playing at a realistic level, then say plonk the TT on a heavy sideboard or even the floor and make another recording. Done correctly, this strips away all expectation bias and the 'dancing salesman' factor :)
 
whooops... I seem to have completely missed the word 'virtual' from this... sorry..! - sounds like a great idea to record them like that.

Apologies
 
lbr said:
I Could lathe some cds and send them with originals for recording and comparison
Click to expand...

Excellent - that sort of thing is ideal for this format.

Please go ahead, it can be our first try at this.
We need a volunteer to play the discs and put the files up on the web. I'm happy to do it unless anyone else wishes to.
 
OK, great. Some point over the next day or two, I'll burn a couple of identical CDRs and then lathe one of them. If anyone wants to take care of the recording and putting files on the web then PM me your address for the CDRs [Rob, if I don't hear anything from anyone else by the time I've done the CDRs, I'll PM you for your address if that's OK].

Will be very interesting to see if there's a perceptible difference under these conditions...
 
I don't think this should be a rip, because that tends to re-read for errors anyway. Ideally it should be recorded from the digital output of a 'proper' CD player or transport.
 
I think that both Rob's 'tube rolling' idea and Tony's 'record pressing' idea sound very interesting and I would certainly download and listen to either of them.

Edit: Ooh...I've just read lbr's idea and that sounds jolly interesting too.
 
So, lots of potential virtual bakeoffs to keep Rob occupied for months (in no particular order):-

1) Different tubes
2) TVC v passive pre
3) Record pressings
4) Lathed CDs v normal CDs
5) Different DACs
6) Sound cards
7) CDs ripped at different bit rates

etc. etc.

Better get started Rob:).
 

Latest posts

Back
Top