To summarize, I didn't see any conflicting opinion about the sound of the two files. Dan imo was spot on. When i first listened through one of my amp, i couldn't believe how anyone could favor #1. But listening through another (better) amp i could understand why. Pre#1 is more transparent (as shown by measurement) but it also has the tendency to bring issues such as 'hard' bass, 'distorted' treble and fatigue that may be caused by something more than the two above.
So the preference will be affected by (1) How good the system used especially the amp to produce the recording so that the bass and treble attack were not 'distorted' (2) How critical or sensitive the listener's ears to perceive prat and fatigue if one has more than the other (3) How important resolution really is to someone. As we know, many still prefer 16 bit to higher DNR. Many prefer using 4MHz output transistor than wide bandwidth ones. Many still favor the 'right' sounding TL072 (or even OPA134) than LM3562 or OPA62. My experience with designing amps, the 'troubles' associated with wide bandwidth is not something that cannot be avoided.
Thank you johnego for your comments. I would also be glad if you tried the new files
http://pmacura.cz/claire.zip
as they do not suffer from the 1953 vintage files issues like evident distortion etc. I used the vintage files intentionally, first, because for some reason they are quite sensitive to changes in the audio path. Now, I am interested how these changes apply to sound of music files with better quality and with much lower nonlinear distortion.
http://pmacura.cz/claire.zip
as they do not suffer from the 1953 vintage files issues like evident distortion etc. I used the vintage files intentionally, first, because for some reason they are quite sensitive to changes in the audio path. Now, I am interested how these changes apply to sound of music files with better quality and with much lower nonlinear distortion.
Here’s what I get from Claire files....
Claire 3- accurate but maybe a bit excessive leading/trailing edge, a little hot on top with a harsh vocal blip about 2/3 in.
No bueno
Claire 2- more ‘air’ , more pleasant but a little veiled which in turn compensates the harshness.
Too dull in my opinion
Claire 1-best bass representation, more ‘live’ sounding, the blip in the vocals is there but no harshness......smooth.
This would be my choice
Claire 3- accurate but maybe a bit excessive leading/trailing edge, a little hot on top with a harsh vocal blip about 2/3 in.
No bueno
Claire 2- more ‘air’ , more pleasant but a little veiled which in turn compensates the harshness.
Too dull in my opinion
Claire 1-best bass representation, more ‘live’ sounding, the blip in the vocals is there but no harshness......smooth.
This would be my choice
This evening before turning off and leaving the office i briefly listened to the Claires and surprised that Claire#1 that i picked first was very high end, unlike your previous test files. I had a feeling that C#1 is the same with C#3 and that C#2 is the previous #2. It will take time/effort to know that with certainty but I have listened to the 1953 with 3 amps and I could say for certain that i prefer pre#2. IME, even if i couldn't differentiate the high res files (but i'm sure i will be able to, with efforts) it is reasonable to pick the pre for daily use based on 1953 files comparison, because the bad things we heard there will be carried forward even tho with smaller dose.
Thank you, Bob! Please wait some time before the samples will be disclosed. Good ears, I have to say.
Thanks for your comments and take your time to listen C#1 - C#3 patiently, it is not easy.
I think your impression of C#2 (dull) is similar to your impression of previous #2, even tho it is not your choice. Now after reading your impression it came to me that it could be 3 different files (i assumed two) in this case the AD744 if i'm not mistaken?
If I had to guess.... #2 is the same on both but i’d have to put more time into it before wagering money😀
The difference between Claire 3 and Claire 1 is (I love this cliche) night and day different with Claire 1 being much more refined.
The difference between Claire 3 and Claire 1 is (I love this cliche) night and day different with Claire 1 being much more refined.
Last edited:
And just to be clear I do Not think my preferred Claire 1 is the same as worldstring 1
I think worldstring 1 and Claire 3 are the same, even though I preferred WS1 over WS2.
I think worldstring 1 and Claire 3 are the same, even though I preferred WS1 over WS2.
Because I support this kind of explorations, my quick'n dirty listening on PC.
Disturbed, here too, by the quality of the mix (cymbals and piano are nowhere, flute is strange, bass is under defined).
My prefered of those 3 samples of the Claire Martin & Kenny Barron record (no mistake, this time ? ;-) is without any doubt #1.
More impact and Body on the percussions. More natural in the trebles. I can even guess there is a piano under the flute ;-)
May-be I prefer the bass and flute on #3 than #2, but the difference is not so obvious. #2 is a little more confuse, 'lost in the air'. Some kind of 'bump" on the basses in the #2 ?.
May-be listening on my hifi system should change my perception, but too lazy to transfer the files and update my sonotheque.
Because cymbals are under mixed and far away, I tend to prefer#2 for them.
To resume, in order: #1, #3, #2.
#3 & #2 seems very close.
None of those 3 files are 'analytic' enough for me to make a decision about the hardware.
Hoping it helps.
Last edited:
I am pleased that, despite my annoyances with low DR recordings I can listen through and just enjoy the music. Must be a bind not being able to turn off the conditioning of a lifetime and enjoy what the artist wanted.
I do find the cymbals comments interesting. I've never focussed on cymbals when listening to music. Can't decide if I have been missing something or not.
Just returned from Avishai Cohen concert 🙂
Merci beaucoup Monsieur Tournesol for your comments on music samples. Interesting that today are many comments right on spot and there is a good correlation with circuitry and parameters. However, we still probably wait some time before revelation if others join with impressions, right?
Merci beaucoup Monsieur Tournesol for your comments on music samples. Interesting that today are many comments right on spot and there is a good correlation with circuitry and parameters. However, we still probably wait some time before revelation if others join with impressions, right?
Bob, think it over - do not forget that the 1953 WS sample has big technical issues and maybe you/we do not like to hear them in detail.
Well I know I prefer not to listen to low quality recordings on my good system, in fact I have a special playlist for music I like but can’t find a decent recording of (for shop use, BT, general low volume listening etc)
Although just guessing on the comparisons between which is which, I stand by my track evaluations.
Although just guessing on the comparisons between which is which, I stand by my track evaluations.
Not surprising, omho, the last source is better.
I'm curious to see if most of us, whatever our preferences, had chosen the same favorite on the two records.
Of course, it seems obvious that, when a source has some imbalance, the gear with an opposite imbalance can be favorite. And not in absolute. Like a soft DAC with a harsh CD, and the contrary.
Too, it is VERY difficult to anyone to form an opinion on the audiophonic qualities of a gear with sources that are not perfectly known by him(IE listened previously on a lot of different systems).
Last, we dont look, all of us, at the same qualities. Micro dynamic VS Sound stage; Separation VS coherence etc.
All this makes very difficult to form definitive conclusions.
Your efforts have a lot of interest in a very selfish way for each of us: May-be, at the end, with the repetition, we could have an opinion on what makes some sonic character we like or dislike, in correlation with measurements or circuitry, and, who knows, understand why. And, in the same time, to know better what others like or dislike.
Thanks a lot, PMA, for your involvement in this matter and the efforts/work you offer us.
My bad, I mean the amp used during audition of the files. Some amps will brutally show 'hard' bass (like the effect of oscillation) and distorted and fatiguing treble attack. May be the level of IMD in such amp is too high, especially when the output bias is low.
For the new music samples, claire1-2-3, the same preamps were used as for worldstring1 and 2. Specifically, the preamp#1 used for worldstring1 was also used for claire1, and the preamp#2 used for worldstring2 was used for claire3. As I already mentioned, another DAC was used for claire samples. It has both balanced and SE outputs so it can fit to preamp#1 balanced input properly.
The new “mod” of preamp#1 was used to record claire2 sample.
On preamps
claire1 was recorded through preamp#1 with: J1, J2 = 2SK170BL, IC1 = AD797, IC2 = ADA4898
claire2 was recorded through preamp#1 with: J1, J2 = 2SK170BL, IC1 = AD744, IC2 = ADA4898
claire3 was recorded through pream#2
Basic schematics of preamp#1 and #2 are attached. Their specs and measurements were posted in
Can you hear a difference between 2 solid state preamps?
Because in claire samples preamp#1 was driven from DAC balanced output, also the distortion fell below that of preamp#2 as shown in the further link,
Can you hear a difference between 2 solid state preamps?
so now preamp#1 was better in all technical parameters than preamp#2, especially in noise level lower more than 10dB and almost 10x higher -3dB roll off and 10x faster rise time. Technically, best parameters has claire1, claire2 is slightly worse and claire3 is clearly worst.
Difference in noise is the biggest difference in the audio band, between preamps #1 and #2. This can be seen in CE plots showing first samples of claire#1-#3 recordings, before the music starts, containing only loop+preamp noise. Claire#1 and #2 are well below 16-bit LSB CD format limit, claire#3 is just at the limit or slightly higher. This is also seen in the first (low level) samples with music.
The new “mod” of preamp#1 was used to record claire2 sample.
On preamps
claire1 was recorded through preamp#1 with: J1, J2 = 2SK170BL, IC1 = AD797, IC2 = ADA4898
claire2 was recorded through preamp#1 with: J1, J2 = 2SK170BL, IC1 = AD744, IC2 = ADA4898
claire3 was recorded through pream#2
Basic schematics of preamp#1 and #2 are attached. Their specs and measurements were posted in
Can you hear a difference between 2 solid state preamps?
Because in claire samples preamp#1 was driven from DAC balanced output, also the distortion fell below that of preamp#2 as shown in the further link,
Can you hear a difference between 2 solid state preamps?
so now preamp#1 was better in all technical parameters than preamp#2, especially in noise level lower more than 10dB and almost 10x higher -3dB roll off and 10x faster rise time. Technically, best parameters has claire1, claire2 is slightly worse and claire3 is clearly worst.
Difference in noise is the biggest difference in the audio band, between preamps #1 and #2. This can be seen in CE plots showing first samples of claire#1-#3 recordings, before the music starts, containing only loop+preamp noise. Claire#1 and #2 are well below 16-bit LSB CD format limit, claire#3 is just at the limit or slightly higher. This is also seen in the first (low level) samples with music.
