Stock FR2LE vs. Busman T-Mod FR2LE true side by side comparison

[Will_S]

so can we get back to the topic and please post if you hear a difference and then if you can tell which samples go together
thanks

To reiterate my own results:  in sighted listening I was not sure I could hear a difference, but preferred A in both cases.  I then chopped each file up and tried to put the pieces back together blindly, and couldn't.

Which leads me to believe:
Any difference I thought I could hear in the sighted comparison was very subtle.
I may well have been imagining it.  (This would be my firm conclusion if it turns out one A track is stock and the other is modded.)
Alternately, blind testing might create some sort of "stress" that interferes with perception of subtle details.  (If A is from the same source for both, that would be consistent with, but by no means prove, this hypothesis.  Certainly there's a decent chance I could "guess" both correctly regardless of what I could actually hear.)
Playback on ADS L710 speakers and Grado SR80 headphones.

I still can't download the samples.  Would someone please post a graph that shows the difference?

You can download them here (one big 169.5 MB zip file) if the original link doesn't work for you:
http://homepage.mac.com/satterwill/FR2LEcompTNJedd.zip

[illconditioned]

In the end this is a very passionate subject with good points being made and a good discussion on audio is always cool in my book.. The last point I will make is this. What harm would come from providing test results? If there is no harm then why not do it? 

Chris

In addition to providing evidence, tests also detect defects, whether in design or manufacture.  How many people have seen those posts with a crazy clipped waveform, and the recordist saying it "sounds OK".

As far as mods go, *most* of them have noticeable effects, like reducing the noise floor or making it sound a bit clearer.  But I'm convinced 90% of the sound comes from the mics, so one should probably focus on that.

  Richard

[Church-Audio]

In the end this is a very passionate subject with good points being made and a good discussion on audio is always cool in my book.. The last point I will make is this. What harm would come from providing test results? If there is no harm then why not do it? 

Chris

In addition to providing evidence, tests also detect defects, whether in design or manufacture.  How many people have seen those posts with a crazy clipped waveform, and the recordist saying it "sounds OK".

As far as mods go, *most* of them have noticeable effects, like reducing the noise floor or making it sound a bit clearer.  But I'm convinced 90% of the sound comes from the mics, so one should probably focus on that.

  Richard

Richard your heavily into electronics... Imagine owning a company and making changes to one of your designs with out first testing to see what the effects of these changes are.. How can you know if you did not increase the noise floor or change the frequency response or add distortion? unless you test. I forgot your supposed to use your ears for everything.. Yes like anyone can hear the difference between 0.4 % distortion at 1k and 1% distortion at 1k.

I look at mods the same way doctors look at treating a patient... "do no harm" meaning make sure what ever your doing only improves things not make them worse. Good mods performed well can make a big difference in some products. Bad mods performed badly can damage the circuit over time and lead to instability of a product. To not test a device after you have modified it seems like taking a patient that has a heart problem taking your stethoscope putting it up to the heart for 4 seconds and saying YES this patient has a heart problem, we must operate now! Hmmmm well I want to be put on an EKG and I want some tests done before you go ripping my chest apart to "see whats wrong" and after you have put the pacemaker in, I want to make sure MORE tests are done to make sure it works Call me crazy....

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Imagine owning a company and making changes to one of your designs with out first testing to see what the effects of these changes are.. How can you know if you did not increase the noise floor or change the frequency response or add distortion? unless you test.

You are spreading FUD.... and you are doing so about a product you really know very little about.

I notice you still have not told us how you would test a v3 vs. m148 to quantify why so many people prefer the m148.   For someone who feels so strongly about testing, I am surprised you can't tell us specifically how to do it in a meaningful way.

Listening is testing.  Just because someone does not submit their tests for your approval does not mean there was no testing.

Where can we review the test results for your products?

[Church-Audio]

Imagine owning a company and making changes to one of your designs with out first testing to see what the effects of these changes are.. How can you know if you did not increase the noise floor or change the frequency response or add distortion? unless you test.

You are spreading FUD.... and you are doing so about a product you really know very little about.

I notice you still have not told us how you would test a v3 vs. m148 to quantify why so many people prefer the m148.   For someone who feels so strongly about testing, I am surprised you can't tell us specifically how to do it in a meaningful way.

Listening is testing.  Just because someone does not submit their tests for your approval does not mean there was no testing.

Where can we review the test results for your products?

For my products you simply have to ask... Here is the noise floor of my 9100 preamp this test was conducted at full gain and is from 20hz to 90khz the self noise is -102db The bump at 60 is from my test area and not something that would happen in the wild. Yeah I do have tests for all of my products whats your point?

What is FUD? lol.....

I think you would be surprised what I know about gear I am quite sure in 20 years of doing live sound and studio sound I have learned a few things about how gear works.. lol.... Anyway I can see your getting upset no need to take this personal. Everyone here is entitled to his or her own opinion not just you.

PS.... I dont recall ever saying that testing was the ONLY way and that you still dont have to use your ears....

Chris

[rastasean]

So I avoided this thread until I could hear the samples provided.

The breath sound file B seems to have slightly more bass but its not too noticeable.

During playback on A I thought I heard a phone ring at ~3:28 (thereabouts) but it was also in B so I suppose it was just a part of the song. I think it was A which had slightly higher frequencies--or something--over B.

Song two was a pretty nice song and I enjoyed it. the instruments sound seemed to be the same from A to B (and for that matter B to A) but the lyrics were a little more clearer in...I think A. 

I did not spend too much time on testing these but I did listen to all four songs in the entirety.

Do I want the 2LE mod? No, I don't think so just because I'll spend the money on mics, clamps, poles, cables, concert tickets, etc. Actual tangible things.

I'm glad this test is generating the feedback since thats what Christos and I wanted. We wanted to know yalls opinions on how they sound and how the mods can/cannot make a difference.

[digifish_music]

Imagine owning a company and making changes to one of your designs with out first testing to see what the effects of these changes are.. How can you know if you did not increase the noise floor or change the frequency response or add distortion? unless you test.

You are spreading FUD.... and you are doing so about a product you really know very little about.

I don't know what FUD is either, but Chris has not once said anything in this thread to degrade you or your products (not that I am even sure what products you sell) and for the record, nor do I remember in any detail what products Chris sells ('cottage industry' mics and preamps if I remember), for full disclosure in this category I have one pair of 'Sound Professionals' binaural mics that I liked so much I made my own copy of...

However, Chris's call for more measurements pre/post mod is simply not arguable. It really should be done.

BTW: This is the second blind test of a mod I have seen on this forum, and it looks like the results are going the same way as the first...no significant effect of the mod can be reliably detected. I am interested to see the results.

digifish

[rastasean]

BTW: This is the second blind test of a mod I have seen on this forum, and it looks like the results are going the same way as the first...no significant effect of the mod can be reliably detected. I am interested to see the results.

I'm interested in who thinks A or B is better of the pink floyd and A or B of Del song is better.

VOTE PEOPLE! ....even though this is no poll....just say what you like better and WHY

[Will_S]

BTW: This is the second blind test of a mod I have seen on this forum, and it looks like the results are going the same way as the first...no significant effect of the mod can be reliably detected. I am interested to see the results.

I'm interested in who thinks A or B is better of the pink floyd and A or B of Del song is better.

VOTE PEOPLE!

The original poster should add a poll.  I see a few people who've stated a preference and others who say they hear a difference, but haven't stated what they prefer.

To temporarily sidetrack back to the specs argument, I can think of one situation where publishing specs may be a bad idea from the seller's perspective, even when the mod achieves the desired modification to the preamp's sound.  I think part of the reason behind "warm" or "vintage" mods is that some folks like the sound of the right kinds of harmonic distortion (think tubes, vinyl, ...).  So a "warm" mod that genuinely sounds better to many folks could nevertheless have a worse distortion spec.

Now, I agree that a savvy buyer should realize that, and not be scared off by a poor distortion spec if they are looking for a warm sounding preamp (and never mind whether it's a wise move to want a preamp modded such that it always adds euphonic distortion, let's just accept that some folks would like how that sounds).  But there's certainly a risk from the seller's perspective that a prospective buyer will just think distortion=bad and rule out buying the amp/mod even if it really does offer the sound he is after.

[rastasean]

The original poster should add a poll.  I see a few people who've stated a preference and others who say they hear a difference, but haven't stated what they prefer.

To temporarily sidetrack back to the specs argument, I can think of one situation where publishing specs may be a bad idea from the seller's perspective, even when the mod achieves the desired modification to the preamp's sound.  I think part of the reason behind "warm" or "vintage" mods is that some folks like the sound of the right kinds of harmonic distortion (think tubes, vinyl, ...).  So a "warm" mod that genuinely sounds better to many folks could nevertheless have a worse distortion spec.

Now, I agree that a savvy buyer should realize that, and not be scared off by a poor distortion spec if they are looking for a warm sounding preamp (and never mind whether it's a wise move to want a preamp modded such that it always adds euphonic distortion, let's just accept that some folks would like how that sounds).  But there's certainly a risk from the seller's perspective that a prospective buyer will just think distortion=bad and rule out buying the amp/mod even if it really does offer the sound he is after.

So you think the mods are just based on perspective and they are fairly subjective? That may be true but can't it be shown how they are warmed up or made vintage? I'm not a scientist but I would like to be shown HOW it can happen.
The description of mods on Busman's site are lacking quite a bit of technical information, IMO.

[Will_S]

The original poster should add a poll.  I see a few people who've stated a preference and others who say they hear a difference, but haven't stated what they prefer.

To temporarily sidetrack back to the specs argument, I can think of one situation where publishing specs may be a bad idea from the seller's perspective, even when the mod achieves the desired modification to the preamp's sound.  I think part of the reason behind "warm" or "vintage" mods is that some folks like the sound of the right kinds of harmonic distortion (think tubes, vinyl, ...).  So a "warm" mod that genuinely sounds better to many folks could nevertheless have a worse distortion spec.

Now, I agree that a savvy buyer should realize that, and not be scared off by a poor distortion spec if they are looking for a warm sounding preamp (and never mind whether it's a wise move to want a preamp modded such that it always adds euphonic distortion, let's just accept that some folks would like how that sounds).  But there's certainly a risk from the seller's perspective that a prospective buyer will just think distortion=bad and rule out buying the amp/mod even if it really does offer the sound he is after.

So you think the mods are just based on perspective and they are fairly subjective?

Not really.  I think the transparency type mods may well decrease the noise floor...which should be measurable.  It's not obvious though that any of us can hear the difference (compared to a stock FR2LE, with a noiser starting point like a Marantz PMD660 it may be more obvious) when listening to a musical signal at a reasonable level.

What's trickier (and IMO really should be more clearly explained by the modders) is what's going on with the warm or vintage mods - and it's not just Busman who offers them, I'm not meaning to single him out.  Based on the subjective descriptions of their effects, I suspect they work either by providing a bit of a bass boost, and/or adding a tiny bit of pleasing kinds of harmonic distortion.

Both of these are measurable as well, but the tricky aspect is that a modification which creates a pleasing sound by boosting the bass will measure worse (less flat) in terms of frequency response, and a modification that adds euphonic distortion [see eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdrive_(music) ] will measure worse (higher distortion).  So in the case of warm/vintage mods, I can see why a modder might be hesitant to publish specs even for a modification that many folks would find pleasing.

[flintstone]

FUD is an acronym for "fear, uncertainty and doubt."

There's no doubt that I could hear an improvement in the
PMD660 I had Oade modify, compared to unmodified examples.
The mod lowered the noise floor, and it improved the 660's
tendency to brickwall.

Flintstone

[digifish_music]

FUD is an acronym for "fear, uncertainty and doubt."

There's no doubt that I could hear an improvement in the
PMD660 I had Oade modify, compared to unmodified examples.
The mod lowered the noise floor, and it improved the 660's
tendency to brickwall.

Flintstone

...and that should easily show on a noise-floor graph.

digifish

[Church-Audio]

FUD is an acronym for "fear, uncertainty and doubt."

There's no doubt that I could hear an improvement in the
PMD660 I had Oade modify, compared to unmodified examples.
The mod lowered the noise floor, and it improved the 660's
tendency to brickwall.

Flintstone

Think about this would it not be nice to know by how much your noise floor was lowered and how much more input level your recorder could handle after the mod? With some before and after specs you would be able to maximize your gear by knowing its limits. That is just another reason why its a good idea to publish spec sheets when your doing mods. Some mods like "flavor mods" should change one or more of the basic specs to achieve the unique sound the claim to provide. You cant change the way something sounds with out effecting frequency response, or distortion or noise floor. One or more of these factors must change its physics if the sound changes on a electronic device there must be something that can indicate that change in an electrical value why? because the preamps and recorders are not living things. They are circuits change a component and there will be a change in the circuit and the way it operates that can be measured. If not then there must be a flux capacitor in the circuit somewhere tricking us all. I dont think so........

BTW its nice to be able to talk like this with out people getting all upset and taking things personally.. This is not personal its a very interesting topic and its one that should be explored more. I believe someone should come out with a way to do a sonic finger print of a device that has never really been done. It would be however very interesting to try and push the limits of what we know and how we test things. I still dont want to ignore listening tests but it would be cool to test things as well.

I have often wondered why I like old Neve 1073 strips over any thing out there for a preamp. I think about it and say well maybe its the caps maybe its the fact that its all transistor maybe its the layout. But imagine being able to sample the input and output of a device and duplicate the transfer function via a dsp? wow... that would be amazing. That in my mind is the future. Look at how far we have come with digital cameras I remember when photographer friends of mine would say " I will never use a digital camera" well every one I know who takes photos for a living is using one.. Why because technology has gone so far that we can capture an image and store it and it looks very good. Now is it the same as a film camera? Maybe not.. But look at the argument for analog and digital. There was a time when we said the same thing about digital audio now we all use it. The time has come to look at ways of sampling our favorite devices and stealing the signature it imprints on a signal and then recreate that signature in a DSP processor that would be pretty freaking cool. I feel when we all talk about audio like this it sparks great ideas and pushes the "little hobby" of audio further.

[rastasean]

FUD is an acronym for "fear, uncertainty and doubt."

There's no doubt that I could hear an improvement in the
PMD660 I had Oade modify, compared to unmodified examples.
The mod lowered the noise floor, and it improved the 660's
tendency to brickwall.

Flintstone

William,

What about these four recordings? Can you hear anything different?