Here goes (and you'll notice that most of it isn't expensive). Also, as an industry rep, I'm sort of precluded from "recommending" specific equipment. Again, and to be very clear, this is equipment that I am either both familiar with and consider to be pretty good at revealing differences in other equipment, or that has a reputation for being "neutral" and "revealing". This means that it lacks overwhelming colorations, and seems to me to be pretty close to neutral. (I'm not mentioning equipment that, even though I think it sounds good, doesn't seem to me to be very revealing.) Note that, since we're testing for audible differences, and not for personal opinions of "what sounds
good", a lot of the equipment I would recommend would be characterized as "analytical" or "dry" to many audiophiles - which is just fine; after all, we are performing an analytical test.)
1) I would use a separate DAC, so I would say that almost
ANY disc player would be fine. It should be tested to verify that it actually produces a bit perfect output, and doesn't upsample or otherwise alter the bitstream. I would probably pick the latest bottom Oppo model (at the moment that would be the 103), but anything that delivers bit-perfect response would be fine. Likewise, any computer should work fine as a source. Again, the only requirement would be that the playback software provides a bit-perfect output rather than re-sampling or doing anything else "interesting".
2) I would use several middle-of-the-line DACs, and I would specifically avoid DACs with tube output stages, and models otherwise known for various euphonic colorations. Therefore, I would
EXCLUDE: DACs with tube output stages, non-oversampling DACs, and DACs with "unusual" procesing built-in. An Emotiva DC-1, or a Schiit Gungnir, or a Wyred4Sound DAC2, or any Benchmark DAC should work fine. (Note that I am
NOT excluding Sabre DACs. Even though I believe that most of them introduce some euphonic coloration, I find it to be of the sort that emphasizes differences in other areas rather than covers them up.) If we're using a computer source, which would almost certainly suggest a USB connection, I would specify that the DAC have an
ASYNCHRONOUS USB input - to eliminate the major effects of jitter on the input signal. If the DAC includes the option of multiple user-selectable oversampling filters, I would let the test subject pick the one they like - but I would exclude any that specifically produce unusual frequency response (like "slow roll-off filters" which produce a significant drop at 20 kHz) - because they may mask differences that would otherwise be obvious. (It's probably easier just to avoid DACs with selectable filters and frequency responses other than very flat.)
3) For speakers, I would strongly suggest models known for being revealing (note that this doesn't specify that they sound "good"). I've found our Emotiva Airmotiv line to be good at this, and I assume that most speakers with folded ribbon (or "true" ribbon) tweeters would be as well. I also assume that most electrostatic speakers would excel in this regard (although I'm not especially familiar with current models, and some are not). Again, I would specifically avoid speakers known for euphonic colorations (like high-efficiency horns, and speakers known to have rolled-off high ends). I would definitely avoid speakers with horn tweeters, vintage models with cone tweeters, and unusual designs with large heavy drivers equalized to produce high frequencies (like Bose 901's) - because I don't think most of them reproduce transients well.
4) For amplifiers, I would suggest any "normal" solid state power amp (meaning a current model from.... Crown, Emotiva, Marantz, Parasound, Rotel, etc.). Again, I think most current middle of the road models would work well, but I would avoid tube amps and hybrids with tube stages, which are known to produce euphonic coloration. Since some Class D amps are known for being somewhat colored, and I'm not familiar enough with the various models to list which is which, I would stick with "standard Class A/B amps".
5) Alternately, to avoid the complexity and cost of selecting several good speakers, I would probably prefer headphones. I find electrostatics to be the most revealing: I think Koss ESP-950's would be an excellent choice (since they come with their own amplifier, they also eliminate that variable, and they cost less than $1000). Any of the Stax models I've heard would also work well. (Again, though, if using a separate headphone amplifier, I would avoid using a tube model, because many of them produce various euphonic colorations, which may include "smoothing over" differences in the program source.) Any of the higher-end dynamic models from Sennheiser, or AKG, or Beyerdynamic would probably also work well, although I find electrostatics to be more revealing. I would
AVOID planars because, while I think many of them sound quite good, I also find many to be somewhat colored - and in the direction of "smoothing the high end" - which seems to me to be likely to conceal differences in high-frequency and transient response.
(You will also notice a preference on my part to choose components that are specifically good at reproducing transients and high-frequencies, and not to say much about low frequency response. This is mostly because, from personal experience, and from my technical theoretical knowledge, I don't expect high-res files to reproduce low frequencies any differently than standard-res files, but I
DO expect significant variations in that regard between various speakers and amplifiers. Therefore, I expect any differences that may be audible to be in the areas of high-frequency response or transient response, or related to them.)
6) For test content, I personally happen to prefer rock and pop music, so I'm not all that familiar with many classical tracks - or how they should sound. Also, sadly, most rock and pop music isn't mastered especially well (IMHO). However, here are a few of the albums and tracks that I normally use to "show off high-res sound reproduction" and which I think would be good to include:
- The Tempest (Reference Recordings - 176k)
- The Eagles - Hotel California (24/192k HDTracks)
- Grateful Dead - Studio Album Remasters - American Beauty (24/192 HDTracks)
(slightly problematic for testing high-res because the new remasters have been "heavily restored", and so sound very different from the originals)
- Kodo - Tataku (SACD)
- Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon (high-res version from the Immersion set)
- Alison Krauss - New Favorite (SACD)
Quote:
Specifics, my good man. I'll agree with you that the final countdown, paradigm-shifting, über-proctored test of hi-res audibility done by whatever society should include a range of equipment randomized across the test subjects. But my question was more: "right now, if you had to make such a list, what would put on it, and would any of that stuff be within the reach of your mid-to-high-but-not-summit-fi member of this forum?"