16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[cookiemarenco]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

At the start of this track, someone can be heard asking "do you want distortion?" Perhaps @cookiemarenco can comment on that.

Oh that is funny, thank you!  I love this track.  Actually, that was Jenna saying, "do you want this door closed".   LOL....

 

I was in the control room and they started grooving.  I wasn't ready, so I hit the "record" button on the tape (the first rollup sound) and ran upstairs to close the door... Jenna was talking while I was headed up.  I knew I could edit all that out, but I loved it... and still love hearing it.  

 

Kind of a "kiss the sky" vs "kiss this guy" moment a la Hendrix.

 

I will always sacrifice sound for a great take.  That was incredible moment of the finest musicians I know playing together for the first time...  amazing.  It was a great session... Brain (drummer with Tom Waits, GunsNRoses, Primus and on most of my recordings) plus Jenna Mammina on vocals (amazing -- the female Bobby McFerrin) and Derek Jones.. bass player with Cirque du Soleil and hundreds of albums.  Here's the full album.. many improvisations.  Some incredible songs, too.

https://bluecoastmusic.com/derek-jones/dusk-til-dawn#.W4Ci3M4zrbg

 

Oh... you should see the video from the control room antics... tears of laughter.

 

Thank you!

Cookie Marenco

Blue Coast Records and Music

 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, cookiemarenco said:

Oh that is funny, thank you!  I love this track.  Actually, that was Jenna saying, "do you want this door closed".   LOL....

Ah, "do you want this door shut." That makes more sense.

 

12 minutes ago, cookiemarenco said:

That was incredible moment of the finest musicians I know playing together for the first time...  amazing.  It was a great session... Brain (drummer with Tom Waits, GunsNRoses, Primus and on most of my recordings) plus Jenna Mammina on vocals (amazing -- the female Bobby McFerrin) and Derek Jones.. bass player with Cirque du Soleil and hundreds of albums.  Here's the full album.. many improvisations.  Some incredible songs, too.

It's a great album.

[semente]

On 8/24/2018 at 12:34 AM, fas42 said:

 

Live music has that certain "quality" because it doesn't have the irritating distortions that conventional playback always introduces. Eliminate those audible anomalies - and, voila, the qualities of live music making are in the room! This is the transition that occurred for me on that first good rig, over 3 decades - the difference is, as the muses report, chalk and cheese ...

 

Most people are unaware, because they have never experienced it, or it's been a chance occurrence, never repeated. Peter is one of those individuals who actively chase it, like myself - and each is coming from different directions, because of their experiences to date.

 

 

The number one reason is that the rig has to be in an extremely well sorted state - the slightest weakness or deficiency is enough to disrupt the "liveness" - and the majority of setups, no matter how expensive, are just not "tuned" to the necessary degree. Everyone who explores in this territory knows how fragile the situation is - and that's why they talk about the "weirdest things"; they are using every resource and intuition at their disposal to  push the system to the necessary quality level - and most everyone else marvels at the "lunacy" of what they're doing ...

 

I understand very well where you are coming from and I have experienced this removal of veils of gunk from the signal to achieve a level of clarity and smoothness that is disarming in its effortlessness (realism depends on the recording technique as @gmgraves has mentioned repeatedly). The difference is that both the system I've experienced this with (and use as reference) and @PeterSt's system use low distortion quasi-fullrange transducers whilst your are tiny boom boxes.

 

I've also experienced how comprehensive modification/optimisation of circuitry and PSUs has improved the performance several different models of CD players and amplifiers. Again, the intrinsic performance potential of those units played an important part in the sonic outcome.

 

The performance of every commercial equipment can be improved, albeit some more than others.

 

Some topologies have more performance potential than others.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

I understand very well where you are coming from and I have experienced this removal of veils of gunk from the signal to achieve a level of clarity and smoothness that is disarming in its effortlessness (realism depends on the recording technique as @gmgraves has mentioned repeatedly). The difference is that both the system I've experienced this with (and use as reference) and @PeterSt's system use low distortion quasi-fullrange transducers whilst your are tiny boom boxes.

 

Don't make the mistake of placing speakers on too high a pedestal - small speakers make it easier to get key aspects of the sound right; I have heard too many megalithic units, in size and price, get it badly wrong to take much notice of this side of the equation. Again, a pipe organ in full roar is a pretty good test of the capabilities of the audio playback - can the grandeur of that sound be projected? Well, "tiny" speakers can do it with ease, provided the full chain is sorted.

 

Quote

 

I've also experienced how comprehensive modification/optimisation of circuitry and PSUs has improved the performance several different models of CD players and amplifiers. Again, the intrinsic performance potential of those units played an important part in the sonic outcome.

 

The performance of every commercial equipment can be improved, albeit some more than others.

 

Some topologies have more performance potential than others.

 

Part of the equation is the return on effort - there are limitations of maximum SPLs, and the quality of very low bass which are 'natural' boundaries to what one can achieve with specific gear. My advice would be to get the most integrated solution that's at a reasonable price - the refined active speaker type of thing - and evolve that ... a very direct route to getting optimum sound, IMO.

[semente]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

the quality of very low bass 

 

I agree that smaller speakers with truncated bass extension interact better with the listening room.

But small speakers use mid-woofers which as the name implies is a compromise to achieve midrange and some bass from a small driver at the expense of amplitude, of extension and of quality. Or accuracy.

 

Amplitude and extension is easy to recognise, quality not so much.

I remember in one of our first exchanges saying that we have different expectations. That impression still stands.

[gmgraves]

20 hours ago, fas42 said:

I have said that there are plenty of recordings which are technically poor - but a competent playback allows one to discard those negative aspects, subjectively. One doesn't try and fix the recording - in the first instance at least - because it's not necessary. And, one can always deliberately destroy the integrity of what it sounds like - for some perverse reason ... I am assuming the recording session had the desire of having the listeners derive some sort of postive experience.

 

Yes, you did say that EVENTUALLY after a number of others pointed out how absurd was the notion that recording quality didn't matter. But your insistence that playback quality could negate those negative aspects is equally absurd. The better and more revealing the playback, the worse bad recordings sound. That's the real world. Now, if you have put together some FrankenSystem that homogenizes everything so that it sounds the same , then I'd agree with you. if your system brings great recordings down to the level of mediocre or poor ones, then I can easily understand and agree with your otherwise ridiculous premise. Because in playback of recordings, it's just like in computers - "garbage in, garbage out".

 

20 hours ago, fas42 said:

Because the key part is getting convincing SQ. I could talk endlessly about the colours of seat covers, and what sort of trinkets to hang from the rear vision mirror - but I don't think that will make the experience of driving some vehicle more interesting.

 

What infuriates people is that I'm not "going down the right path" - I don't rabbit on about the usual sillinesses; well, because they irrelevant. If a rig sounds lousy, then it stays sounding lousy until someone does something more useful about it ...

 

What I'm sharing is a method that works. If people aren't interested in that that's fine - I'm just leaving breadcrumbs for others to think about.

No the key part is whatever the hobbyist wants or needs!  You can't dictate what other people 's taste in sound reproduction are. And the bit about seat covers et al, is irrelevant. Nobody is talking about audio trinkets here. 

You're wrong. What irritates people is that you say the same things over and over and over in every thread you visit but they are devoid of content. But you're just bragging about something that on the face of it doesn't even make sense! You never seemingly help anyone attain this state of audio Nirvana you constantly brag about achieving. You write a lot (almost 3000 posts in a year) and say nothing. That's what's irritating. 

 

And you aren't sharing anything! your posts are totally devoid of useful content. And you've left a trail of contradictions, and vague allusions to procedures that wouldn't do anything even if they were applied to a system. And we don't know what your system sounds like, and we don't know that we'd even like your system! And from your comments about a system like yours making bad recordings sound good, makes me damn sure I wouldn't want a system like your,s which is obviously veiled enough to cover the incompetence and poor recording practices that make so me of the garbage recordings out there! And that's the only way the assembled audio components could make bad recordings sound decent is to homogenize all recordings so that they sound all the same. Great systems, revealing systems, make bad recordings sound worse than poorer equipment. That's an incontrovertible fact! the physics of systems says that It has to be that way. How else could it be? (rhetorical question. Don't try to answer it).

 

Also, given that your goal is merely to "share a method that works", why don't you? You've been asked over and over to drop the mystery. And don't you think that by posting what is essentially the same thing over and over, in every thread on CA that you have shared enough nothing? Don't you think that by now everybody on CA knows you and knows about your "method"? Of course nobody is quite sure what your method is, because aside from a few worthless tidbits, you've still, after almost 3000 posts, not told us. 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, semente said:

 

I understand very well where you are coming from and I have experienced this removal of veils of gunk from the signal to achieve a level of clarity and smoothness that is disarming in its effortlessness (realism depends on the recording technique as @gmgraves has mentioned repeatedly). The difference is that both the system I've experienced this with (and use as reference) and @PeterSt's system use low distortion quasi-fullrange transducers whilst your are tiny boom boxes.

 

I've also experienced how comprehensive modification/optimisation of circuitry and PSUs has improved the performance several different models of CD players and amplifiers. Again, the intrinsic performance potential of those units played an important part in the sonic outcome.

 

The performance of every commercial equipment can be improved, albeit some more than others.

 

Some topologies have more performance potential than others.

OK how do YOU reconcile the fact that Frank has this great revealing system yet, it doesn't make bad recordings sound worse by revealing more of the recording's awfulness? high resolution systems by their very nature cannot make bad recordings sound better, it can only reveal what's on the recording in greater detail and clarity. The only way to make bad recordings sound better is to homogenize them so that all recordings , whether good or bad, sound the same. That's what cheap systems do, isn't it?

[semente]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

OK how do YOU reconcile the fact that Frank has this great revealing system yet, it doesn't make bad recordings sound worse by revealing more of the recording's awfulness? high resolution systems by their very nature cannot make bad recordings sound better, it can only reveal what's on the recording in greater detail and clarity. The only way to make bad recordings sound better is to homogenize them so that all recordings , whether good or bad, sound the same. That's what cheap systems do, isn't it?

Yes.

So my question is whether we (you and I) have different standards and expectations from Frank's and he doesn't mind that bad recordings sound bad as long as the sound coming out of his right is effortless or his system is so coloured that bad recordings actually sound reasonable because his rig masks the problems.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, semente said:

 

I agree that smaller speakers with truncated bass extension interact better with the listening room.

But small speakers use mid-woofers which as the name implies is a compromise to achieve midrange and some bass from a small driver at the expense of amplitude, of extension and of quality. Or accuracy.

 

A compromise? All the driver has to do is follow the waveform, a pretty straightforward exercise, in concept at least. Where the driver can get into trouble is that it is required to execute large excursions, in rendering a high amplitude bass tone, which may have cause midrange information that is also part of the waveform at that point to be more distorted. What counts is what you hear, and in practice any issues there have not been a problem, for me.

 

10 hours ago, semente said:

Amplitude and extension is easy to recognise, quality not so much.

I remember in one of our first exchanges saying that we have different expectations. That impression still stands.

 

If your rig can consistently deliver completely invisible speakers, in the manner I've described then I'm impressed. Otherwise, ...

 

People need to be reminded that I've heard hundreds of setups over the years - and most are instantly dismissable as not being anywhere close, irrespective of the cost or the brand badges stuck on the front.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

All the driver has to do is follow the waveform, a pretty straightforward exercise

I wish the speaker manufacturers knew this.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Yes, you did say that EVENTUALLY after a number of others pointed out how absurd was the notion that recording quality didn't matter. But your insistence that playback quality could negate those negative aspects is equally absurd. The better and more revealing the playback, the worse bad recordings sound. That's the real world. Now, if you have put together some FrankenSystem that homogenizes everything so that it sounds the same , then I'd agree with you. if your system brings great recordings down to the level of mediocre or poor ones, then I can easily understand and agree with your otherwise ridiculous premise. Because in playback of recordings, it's just like in computers - "garbage in, garbage out".

 

George, I've said it from the get go ... I said, my motto is "There's no such thing as a bad recording!" - if you look really closely at this sentence you may possibly notice the phrase "my motto is", NOT "I believe".

 

The better the playback is, the more chance that the ear/brain can unravel what it's hearing, and discard, unconsciously, distortion which is not relevant to the musical message. In the best circumstances this inner processing fully forms an illusion, even for "poor" recordings - the presentation is convincing.

 

What a competent rig does is make many 'audiophile' recordings sound bland, boring - they are so lacking in texture and interest that you wonder why you bothered putting them on. Fot those without that tag, every recording opens a different world - they sound completely different, from one to the next.

 

Quote

No the key part is whatever the hobbyist wants or needs!  You can't dictate what other people 's taste in sound reproduction are. And the bit about seat covers et al, is irrelevant. Nobody is talking about audio trinkets here. 

You're wrong. What irritates people is that you say the same things over and over and over in every thread you visit but they are devoid of content. But you're just bragging about something that on the face of it doesn't even make sense! You never seemingly help anyone attain this state of audio Nirvana you constantly brag about achieving. You write a lot (almost 3000 posts in a year) and say nothing. That's what's irritating. 

 

And you aren't sharing anything! your posts are totally devoid of useful content. And you've left a trail of contradictions, and vague allusions to procedures that wouldn't do anything even if they were applied to a system. And we don't know what your system sounds like, and we don't know that we'd even like your system! And from your comments about a system like yours making bad recordings sound good, makes me damn sure I wouldn't want a system like your,s which is obviously veiled enough to cover the incompetence and poor recording practices that make so me of the garbage recordings out there! And that's the only way the assembled audio components could make bad recordings sound decent is to homogenize all recordings so that they sound all the same. Great systems, revealing systems, make bad recordings sound worse than poorer equipment. That's an incontrovertible fact! the physics of systems says that It has to be that way. How else could it be? (rhetorical question. Don't try to answer it).

 

Also, given that your goal is merely to "share a method that works", why don't you? You've been asked over and over to drop the mystery. And don't you think that by posting what is essentially the same thing over and over, in every thread on CA that you have shared enough nothing? Don't you think that by now everybody on CA knows you and knows about your "method"? Of course nobody is quite sure what your method is, because aside from a few worthless tidbits, you've still, after almost 3000 posts, not told us. 

 

What my method does is make the rig "invisible" - all you hear is the recording. And all my method is, is to identify flaws in the sound, and resolve the cause of those flaws - pretty damn simple, if you think about it a bit ... .

[fas42]

2 hours ago, semente said:

Yes.

So my question is whether we (you and I) have different standards and expectations from Frank's and he doesn't mind that bad recordings sound bad as long as the sound coming out of his right is effortless or his system is so coloured that bad recordings actually sound reasonable because his rig masks the problems.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that everyone has different ideas on "badness" - is it bad because it has been indifferently recorded; because the masters are so severely damaged; because the recording engineer had crazy ideas, etc, etc. I separate poor taste, lack of judgement from whether the condition of recorded data is marginal - and the latter is where the 'magic' of the mind to reassemble what was actually in front of the mics really comes through; I marvel at how adept my hearing is at performing this trick ... note well: I have recordings which have sounded worse at times on a setup of mine than I have ever heard the particular track on other systems - because, it's doing the job of highlighting a weakness area.

 

As an example of an album which may strike many as not being particularly arduous, but which I have found requires pristine handling to not have an unpleasant edge while playing, on my setups, I submit:

 

 

[kumakuma]

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

One thing to keep in mind is that everyone has different ideas on "badness" - is it bad because it has been indifferently recorded; because the masters are so severely damaged; because the recording engineer had crazy ideas, etc, etc. I separate poor taste, lack of judgement from whether the condition of recorded data is marginal - and the latter is where the 'magic' of the mind to reassemble what was actually in front of the mics really comes through; I marvel at how adept my hearing is at performing this trick ... note well: I have recordings which have sounded worse at times on a setup of mine than I have ever heard the particular track on other systems - because, it's doing the job of highlighting a weakness area.

 

As an example of an album which may strike many as not being particularly arduous, but which I have found requires pristine handling to not have an unpleasant edge while playing, on my setups, I submit:

 

 

 

My mind is not able to overcome the badness of this music.

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

What a competent rig does is make many 'audiophile' recordings sound bland, boring - they are so lacking in texture and interest that you wonder why you bothered putting them on. Fot those without that tag, every recording opens a different world - they sound completely different, from one to the next.

 

 

Do you have the ability to listen to anything other than CDs? If so, I'd be glad to recommend some "audiophile" recordings that aren't "boring"?

[fas42]

Shoot ...

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Shoot ...

 

What DAC are you using, BTW?

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, semente said:

Yes.

So my question is whether we (you and I) have different standards and expectations from Frank's and he doesn't mind that bad recordings sound bad as long as the sound coming out of his right is effortless or his system is so coloured that bad recordings actually sound reasonable because his rig masks the problems.

That's what I am wondering. It is a physical impossibility for a system to be at once incredibly detailed and transparent and also, simultaneously, mask the awfulness of terrible sounding recordings. Those are two diametrically opposed concepts! There is suspicion among a number of us here on CA that most of what Frank says he is hearing is in his head anyway, and if so, there is no physical explanation as to why Frank hears the unlikely things that he brags that he is hearing, But assuming he has a system that does indeed make lousy recordings sound like the best recordings, we have to assume that since we cannot raise the quality of the bad to equal the great, Frank's system must be reducing the quality of the best recordings to sound as lousy as the bad recordings. Maybe it's a combination of reducing everything to the quality of the lowest common denominator and his imagination provides the quality of reproduction that he endlessly brags about. To me that sounds like an explanation that covers all the contradictions in Frank's postings.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

That's what I am wondering. It is a physical impossibility for a system to be at once incredibly detailed and transparent and also, simultaneously, mask the awfulness of terrible sounding recordings. Those are two diametrically opposed concepts! There is suspicion among a number of us here on CA that most of what Frank says he is hearing is in his head anyway, and if so, there is no physical explanation as to why Frank hears the unlikely things that he brags that he is hearing, But assuming he has a system that does indeed make lousy recordings sound like the best recordings, we have to assume that since we cannot raise the quality of the bad to equal the great, Frank's system must be reducing the quality of the best recordings to sound as lousy as the bad recordings. Maybe it's a combination of reducing everything to the quality of the lowest common denominator and his imagination provides the quality of reproduction that he endlessly brags about. To me that sounds like an explanation that covers all the contradictions in Frank's postings.

 

Does it also explain his ability to listen to music with the amp cranked up to 11 without going deaf?

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

George, I've said it from the get go ... I said, my motto is "There's no such thing as a bad recording!" - if you look really closely at this sentence you may possibly notice the phrase "my motto is", NOT "I believe".

 

The better the playback is, the more chance that the ear/brain can unravel what it's hearing, and discard, unconsciously, distortion which is not relevant to the musical message. In the best circumstances this inner processing fully forms an illusion, even for "poor" recordings - the presentation is convincing.

 

What a competent rig does is make many 'audiophile' recordings sound bland, boring - they are so lacking in texture and interest that you wonder why you bothered putting them on. Fot those without that tag, every recording opens a different world - they sound completely different, from one to the next.

 

 

What my method does is make the rig "invisible" - all you hear is the recording. And all my method is, is to identify flaws in the sound, and resolve the cause of those flaws - pretty damn simple, if you think about it a bit ... .

More complete and utter nonsense from Frank. 

 

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Does it also explain his ability to listen to music with the amp cranked as loud as it will go without going deaf?

It must!

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

What a competent rig does is make many 'audiophile' recordings sound bland, boring - they are so lacking in texture and interest that you wonder why you bothered putting them on. Fot those without that tag, every recording opens a different world - they sound completely different, from one to the next.

There it is! my suspicions confirmed. Frank's notions of a "competent rig" is one that homogenizes everything. bad recordings sound ok and and audiophile recordings "sound bland and boring." He has confirmed that his system makes everything sound the same. Wow, after all these months. There's an old Japanese saying about conformity: "the nail that sticks up must be hammered down." The recording that stands above the mediocre and the incompetent must be reduced to the "bland and the boring."

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

What DAC are you using, BTW?

 

Well, at the moment that of my laptop - I'm interested in the sort of music you're referring to, rather than hearing it in "perfect" condition ...

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, at the moment that of my laptop - I'm interested in the sort of music you're referring to, rather than hearing it in "perfect" condition ...

 

Here are just a few that immediately come to mind:

 

http://www.hdtracks.com/music/artist/view/id/13578/

 

http://www.hdtracks.com/sessions-from-the-17th-ward-binaural

 

http://www.hdtracks.com/stripped

 

http://www.hdtracks.com/binaural/wall-down-home-blues

 

https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/352-ruud-breuls-simon-rigter-quintet-wild-man-blues

 

https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/276-carmen-gomes-sings-the-blues

 

https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/208-carmen-gomes-inc-little-blue

 

https://store.acousticsounds.com/a/3913/Holly_Cole

 

https://2xhd.nativedsd.com/albums/2XHDRE1044-bill-evans-some-other-time-the-lost-session-from-the-black-forest

 

 

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

That's what I am wondering. It is a physical impossibility for a system to be at once incredibly detailed and transparent and also, simultaneously, mask the awfulness of terrible sounding recordings. Those are two diametrically opposed concepts! There is suspicion among a number of us here on CA that most of what Frank says he is hearing is in his head anyway, and if so, there is no physical explanation as to why Frank hears the unlikely things that he brags that he is hearing, But assuming he has a system that does indeed make lousy recordings sound like the best recordings, we have to assume that since we cannot raise the quality of the bad to equal the great, Frank's system must be reducing the quality of the best recordings to sound as lousy as the bad recordings. Maybe it's a combination of reducing everything to the quality of the lowest common denominator and his imagination provides the quality of reproduction that he endlessly brags about. To me that sounds like an explanation that covers all the contradictions in Frank's postings.

 

Gosh, you're a silly bugger, George! ...

 

"Detailed and transparent" is what's needed to reveal everything in the recording - most audiophile rigs then contaminate that playback with disturbing, low-level artifacts, which are not part of the recording - if one eliminates the latter then one has the best chance of hearing the recording present its best face, and IME that's good enough for the mind to hear past the recording issues. At least some 'audiophile' efforts are recorded in an as sterile manner as possible, because they rely on the typical audiophile rig to add the necessary 'seasoning'; to 'spice' it up a bit ... you read reports on how these recordings show so many sides ... ummm, they're showing the side of the particular playback rigs 'colouring' of the track - the "additive of the day" ...

[fas42]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Here are just a few that immediately come to mind:

 

http://www.hdtracks.com/music/artist/view/id/13578/

 

http://www.hdtracks.com/sessions-from-the-17th-ward-binaural

 

http://www.hdtracks.com/stripped

 

http://www.hdtracks.com/binaural/wall-down-home-blues

 

https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/352-ruud-breuls-simon-rigter-quintet-wild-man-blues

 

https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/276-carmen-gomes-sings-the-blues

 

https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/208-carmen-gomes-inc-little-blue

 

https://store.acousticsounds.com/a/3913/Holly_Cole

 

https://2xhd.nativedsd.com/albums/2XHDRE1044-bill-evans-some-other-time-the-lost-session-from-the-black-forest

 

 

 

Beautiful ... thanks for that!