Concert Hall sound

[STC]

58 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I don't really understand why you are asking. I have NEVER asserted otherwise. What "ambience" gets into the my recordings generally "leaks" into the stereo mikes from the room. Generally it's just a "bloom" around the soundstage. But you are possibly overlooking the fact That I don't do "recording dates" in empty venues. I almost always record live performances. There are people out there in the audience, and people are generally noisy. I want to exclude them from the sound of the audience as much as possible. In fact I need to exclude them.  The Orchestra management or the conductor doesn't want to hear people talking, programs rustling and people coughing and sneezing.  Since excluding the audience also, unfortunately, excludes the room ambience (I know of no way to separate them, do you?)

Yes, I know that. But if you record the ambience on multiple tracks and play it back on multiple channels in an anechoic environment, would you not hear the ambience as it was recorded, as well? 

 

This requires a long response but I will try to establish the important principles before attempting to answer to my best ability. 

 

Firstly, we will be talking at cross purposes if we cannot come to an agreement that our hearing is very good at filling in for missing cues and reconstruct the sound based of past knowledge and information. 

 

With respect, if we know the venue and heard the sound in there of the music that you personally recorded, you would perceive them to be as accurate as the real event. There are some illusions that can be used to illustrate this point. Can we agree on this?

 

Once we can agree on this than we can approach the replay in the anechoic chamber. Unless, your setup is like the 64 channel sphere recording then the sound when played in anechoic chamber with the aid of addition ambience speaker will still lack ceiling and cues from in between the speakers. So it is possible only if you have captured the 360 degrees sound and replayed in 360 degrees speakers arrangement. 

 

In an anechoic room, it will sound incorrect because even with the rear ambience speakers you will still missing other reflections. So the answer is Yes and No. 

[semente]

6 hours ago, STC said:

Unless, your setup is like the 64 channel sphere recording then the sound when played in anechoic chamber with the aid of addition ambience speaker will still lack ceiling and cues from in between the speakers. So it is possible only if you have captured the 360 degrees sound and replayed in 360 degrees speakers arrangement.

 

I think you said I was making up this stuff about spherical array recording and playback... ?

How did it suddenly become reasonable?

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, STC said:

 

This requires a long response but I will try to establish the important principles before attempting to answer to my best ability. 

 

Quote

Firstly, we will be talking at cross purposes if we cannot come to an agreement that our hearing is very good at filling in for missing cues and reconstruct the sound based of past knowledge and information. 

Yes, of course it can. Stereo is after all, an illusion. 

 

Quote

 

With respect, if we know the venue and heard the sound in there of the music that you personally recorded, you would perceive them to be as accurate as the real event. There are some illusions that can be used to illustrate this point. Can we agree on this?

Well yes we can, but I don't see the point.

Quote

 

Once we can agree on this than we can approach the replay in the anechoic chamber. Unless, your setup is like the 64 channel sphere recording then the sound when played in anechoic chamber with the aid of addition ambience speaker will still lack ceiling and cues from in between the speakers. So it is possible only if you have captured the 360 degrees sound and replayed in 360 degrees speakers arrangement. 

Yes again.

Quote

 

In an anechoic room, it will sound incorrect because even with the rear ambience speakers you will still missing other reflections. So the answer is Yes and No. 

I have surmised that with 5 or 7 or even 9 channels, the sound picture would be incomplete. But it's incomplete in a normal listening too as well. If you're saying that the boundaries and reflections of these few channels in a normal room will help to "fill-in" for the missing information cause by an incomplete ambience due to too few venus reflections being captured, I agree with you. However, do you agree that in such a case, the sonic snapshot will still be incorrect even though it's more complete than the same recording played through the same number and type of speakers in an anechoic chamber, it is still an incorrect rendering of the original acoustic space. Let's summarize (with apologies to Marcel Proust):

1) In order to get an accurate snapshot of a room's true acoustic signature would require many channels with playback on the ceiling as well as all around.

2) Lacking that, playback in a normal room with decent acoustics is better than playback of the 4, 5, 7, or 9 channels that we do have available in an anechoic chamber because the normal listening room completes the sonic picture by adding the complexity of it's own reflections to the recorded reflections of the original venue.

3) Playback of a modern surround recording in an anechoic chamber would give (for lack of a better terminology) a playback that is too "threadbare" to reconstruct even a low order recreation of the recorded space.

Is that about it?

[STC]

15 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Yes, of course it can. Stereo is after all, an illusion. 

 

Well yes we can, but I don't see the point.

Yes again.

I have surmised that with 5 or 7 or even 9 channels, the sound picture would be incomplete. But it's incomplete in a normal listening too as well. If you're saying that the boundaries and reflections of these few channels in a normal room will help to "fill-in" for the missing information cause by an incomplete ambience due to too few venus reflections being captured, I agree with you. However, do you agree that in such a case, the sonic snapshot will still be incorrect even though it's more complete than the same recording played through the same number and type of speakers in an anechoic chamber, it is still an incorrect rendering of the original acoustic space. Let's summarize (with apologies to Marcel Proust):

1) In order to get an accurate snapshot of a room's true acoustic signature would require many channels with playback on the ceiling as well as all around.

2) Lacking that, playback in a normal room with decent acoustics is better than playback of the 4, 5, 7, or 9 channels that we do have available in an anechoic chamber because the normal listening room completes the sonic picture by adding the complexity of it's own reflections to the recorded reflections of the original venue.

3) Playback of a modern surround recording in an anechoic chamber would give (for lack of a better terminology) a playback that is too "threadbare" to reconstruct even a low order recreation of the recorded space.

Is that about it?

 

 

1)Theoretically- Yes. In practice -No . The early reflection gives the clue of the room size. The brain only requires some information but not all. Even though, I have 360 degree impulse response. The frontal half of the IR doesn't make a difference whether they are turned on or off. I am only referring to concert hall music.

 

2) I do not understand this statement.

 

3) Actually, Toole did experiment like this. IMO, based on the experiment and my room; it will sound good enough. The multichannel standard was based on fairly damped room.

 

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

20 hours ago, STC said:

 

 

I thought we are having a discussion and I never suggested the ITU standards were set by morons. That's your assumption. Your words. I don't think I can go far with this topic as we are talking from different perceptive. 

 

I started off my response with a reference to music reproduction for multi-channel and 2L recordings. I hardly make any post or get into extensive subject matter if I could not demonstrate my point with my setup. I hope you will give me that benefit of doubt and consider that I have your type of standard ITU setup and one with XTC and without center speaker (but the center channel is fed to the front LR). 

 

Let's understand why our POV is diferrent assumming you have also listened to the 2L Magnificat recording and done a proper blind test with and without center speaker (NOT to be confused with center channel). Unless we use same reference recording, we may never see eye to eye on this matter.

 

1) If you have relied with the built-in function of AVR or JRiver where you can tell the player that you are not using center channel, then YOU ARE RIGHT.  This method doesn't sound correct. 

 

2) If you have not done XTC (not some online sample) then you are right again. 

 

3) For music, as far as I am concerned with the 2L Magnificat, the non use of the center channel requires me to deviate from the standard ITU level. This is another area where we can only discuss if we both have the opportunity to listen to both in an instantaneous AB comparison. I can demo that and let the listeners decide for themselves.

 

 

I tried my best to avoid XTC in this thread as I am now aware that most users experience with XTC is not favourable. The implementation is difficult requires fine tuning by the listeners. So suggest me a way we can have this discussion in a constructive way by comparing apples to apples.

 

I hope this article which is all about ITU setting helps you to question whether you current setup itself taken all this into consideration.

 

For the release of film materials on television, various standards state that the operating mixing level should be somewhat lower. Then the low-level dialogues which are easily heard in a quiet and acoustically well treated control room are mixed on a slightly higher level. This is to ensure that when replayed in a home theatre, which has typically higher background noise level, dialogues will still be clearly heard. However, for music mixes, there are no standardised levels – as with stereo – because each engineer chooses the level based on personal need and taste, very much like the levels chosen by end users. Thus, one absolute reference level is not yet really applied to all multichannel surround sound applications. Several methods can be used to calibrate the frequency response of each loudspeaker as well as their combined system response. Generally, individual loudspeaker frequency responses must be calibrated before adjusting speaker output levels. Furthermore, there is no point in trying to calibrate the loudspeaker frequency responses if there are fundamental acoustical problems in the room. Those should be solved first. Level calibration is the last step once all other issues have been resolved. The acoustical response of the main speakers together with the subwoofer should be flat and linear over the full audio spectrum. If measuring equipment is available, MLS type impulse response will provide excellent information for detailed and precise speaker calibration. If no MLS measuring system is available, there are two other coarse alternative level adjustment methods. The accuracy of these methods depends greatly on the quality and frequency response of an SPL meter.

 

https://www.genelec.com/documents/publications/MultichannelControlRoomAcousticsandCalibration.pdf

 

 

 

 

Sorry, it was a stretch to say you in particular thought recording engineers were morons because they evaluated ITU and had decided strongly in favor of using it in miking, mixing and mastering.  Yes, you did not say that.  However, you seem dismissive of ITU's center channel on playback and seem to think you know better.

 

I am more convinced by the logic of recording engineers I have talked to and the scientific evidence supporting use of a discrete center channel for music.  We seem to have no issue that it is indeed better for movie dialog.  But, other than your subjective preference in listening to certain albums your way without a dedicated center, like Linkwitz, I don't see any convincing science supporting the elimination of the center channel speaker for music playback.  Preference does not necessarily imply greater faithfulness to the source signal.  You are entitled to your preference, but claims of greater accuracy require more proof, which is often difficult.

 

If a discrete center channel musical signal has been recorded in the center of the sound stage with that unique sonic perspective as part of the overall sonic and spatial tapestry,  I also see no logic that says it will be more accurately or more faithfully rendered than by having that signal reproduced by a center mono speaker.  A phantom center has no such supporting objective evidence; in fact it all points the other way.  Acoustic science, perceptual science and psychoacoustics all agree on this, as far as I can see, and for music just as much as for movies.

 

I do have 2L Magnificat, but I have not had time to listen to it fully yet.  But, 3 minutes of listening to the Arnesen and the Kernis in my standard 5.1 mode gave absolutely no indication that there was any kind of a problem whatsoever.  Beautiful, with a gorgeous soundstage with rich, but appropriate and convincing center fill, detail and depth.  I was also able to visually monitor VU meters for all channels.  There is zero indication of a center channel signal level mismatch issue.

 

Also, bear in mind, that I go to about 2 dozen live classical concerts a year in very good halls for this and other types of music.  So, if something were out of whack, there is a good chance I would notice it.

 

So, what is the problem you are trying to correct?

 

Your quote of Genelec seems you wish to imply that engineers just cannot be trusted do elementary, competent interchannel level balancing accurately in mixing and mastering.  If that is your gripe, then you have misread the article.  What is says is that there are no standardized absolute volume levels in the music recording business, unlike movies: "Thus, one absolute reference level is not yet really applied to all multichannel surround sound applications."  It is also a known part of the ITU spec that all channels be calibrated for equal volume and equal distance from the main, central listening position on playback.  And, if the playback system is calibrated that way, then the recording absolutely must also be.  That is why standards can be good things.

 

So, typical volume levels vary across music labels and even within the same label.  BIS is generally low,  while Praga Digitals is generally high.  Others may be in between.  Fortunately, God gave us volume controls. But, elementary interchannel level balancing across all channels for a given recording is a no brainer for even a novice engineer.  There is no hint in the article that there is any problem if proper interchannel level trimming is applied or that it is indeed an industry-wide problem. 

 

So, if you are insisting you must fiddle with interchannel levels, like the center, because you know better what it is supposed to sound like, I think you are deluding yourself big time.  You make me think of some stereo listeners I knew who sat dead center, but adjusted the balance control recording by recording to "make each one sound right."  Duh, that brings back the moron theory.  Engineers must just not be competent to level balance the channels in the control and mastering rooms even with tons of professional instruments, even with stereo.  FWIW, I never touched my stereo balance control either over many decades, except for testing.

 

And, yes, my system is quite well interchannel level and distance calibrated by mic measurements.  That's just a straightforward, one-time setup issue. I never, ever mess with interchannel level trims.   I just pick the music I want, hit play, and adjust master volume as necessary.  It sounds consistently outstanding  to me that way, as with 2L Magnificat.  But, I'll give it a full listening when I have time..

[fas42]

This obsession with technical issues of artificially enhancing a sense of space during playback is a dead end - human hearing does all what's necessary to "bring recordings to life" if the SQ is of a high enough standard - I have had recordings done in the 1910's produce a convincing illusion of the environment in which the musicians performed, with a strong sense of depth.

 

Even if one had 1,000's of channels, doing a squillion things, it would still sound 'wrong' if the quality wasn't there - your ear would pick that, say, the tone of the string section wasn't up to scratch ... and it would be a fail ...

[STC]

1 hour ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Sorry, it was a stretch to say you in particular thought recording engineers were morons because they evaluated ITU and had decided strongly in favor of using it in miking, mixing and mastering.  Yes, you did not say that.  However, you seem dismissive of ITU's center channel on playback and seem to think you know better.

 

I am more convinced by the logic of recording engineers I have talked to and the scientific evidence supporting use of a discrete center channel for music.  We seem to have no issue that it is indeed better for movie dialog.  But, other than your subjective preference in listening to certain albums your way without a dedicated center, like Linkwitz, I don't see any convincing science supporting the elimination of the center channel speaker for music playback.  Preference does not necessarily imply greater faithfulness to the source signal.  You are entitled to your preference, but claims of greater accuracy require more proof, which is often difficult.

 

If a discrete center channel musical signal has been recorded in the center of the sound stage with that unique sonic perspective as part of the overall sonic and spatial tapestry,  I also see no logic that says it will be more accurately or more faithfully rendered than by having that signal reproduced by a center mono speaker.  A phantom center has no such supporting objective evidence; in fact it all points the other way.  Acoustic science, perceptual science and psychoacoustics all agree on this, as far as I can see, and for music just as much as for movies.

 

I do have 2L Magnificat, but I have not had time to listen to it fully yet.  But, 3 minutes of listening to the Arnesen and the Kernis in my standard 5.1 mode gave absolutely no indication that there was any kind of a problem whatsoever.  Beautiful, with a gorgeous soundstage with rich, but appropriate and convincing center fill, detail and depth.  I was also able to visually monitor VU meters for all channels.  There is zero indication of a center channel signal level mismatch issue.

 

Also, bear in mind, that I go to about 2 dozen live classical concerts a year in very good halls for this and other types of music.  So, if something were out of whack, there is a good chance I would notice it.

 

So, what is the problem you are trying to correct?

 

Your quote of Genelec seems you wish to imply that engineers just cannot be trusted do elementary, competent interchannel level balancing accurately in mixing and mastering.  If that is your gripe, then you have misread the article.  What is says is that there are no standardized absolute volume levels in the music recording business, unlike movies: "Thus, one absolute reference level is not yet really applied to all multichannel surround sound applications."  It is also a known part of the ITU spec that all channels be calibrated for equal volume and equal distance from the main, central listening position on playback.  And, if the playback system is calibrated that way, then the recording absolutely must also be.  That is why standards can be good things.

 

So, typical volume levels vary across music labels and even within the same label.  BIS is generally low,  while Praga Digitals is generally high.  Others may be in between.  Fortunately, God gave us volume controls. But, elementary interchannel level balancing across all channels for a given recording is a no brainer for even a novice engineer.  There is no hint in the article that there is any problem if proper interchannel level trimming is applied or that it is indeed an industry-wide problem. 

 

So, if you are insisting you must fiddle with interchannel levels, like the center, because you know better what it is supposed to sound like, I think you are deluding yourself big time.  You make me think of some stereo listeners I knew who sat dead center, but adjusted the balance control recording by recording to "make each one sound right."  Duh, that brings back the moron theory.  Engineers must just not be competent to level balance the channels in the control and mastering rooms even with tons of professional instruments, even with stereo.  FWIW, I never touched my stereo balance control either over many decades, except for testing.

 

And, yes, my system is quite well interchannel level and distance calibrated by mic measurements.  That's just a straightforward, one-time setup issue. I never, ever mess with interchannel level trims.   I just pick the music I want, hit play, and adjust master volume as necessary.  It sounds consistently outstanding  to me that way, as with 2L Magnificat.  But, I'll give it a full listening when I have time..

 

This thread has gone off on a tangent. But this discussion is important as well whether or not to use center channel for music.

 

Firstly, in the original recordings there must have been a dedicated center channel recording. If that's the case, IMO, a center channel simplifies the setup. I am not going to argue otherwise because I know how difficult it is to get the balance right with the Magnificat track without the center speaker. 

 

I am confining this discussion to the Magnificat track because we know exactly how it was recorded so it easy to work along the line then randomly comparing some other multichannel recording which we do not have enough information.

 

ITU standard for multichannel was developed to address the intelligibility of dialogue for many audiences who are seated far off the sweet spot.

 

For music in our listening room, this is usually confined to one person or a small group and confined to the sweet spot. Furthermore, a center channel is will be accurate (provided it is a well engineered recording)  due to omni spaced and coincident microphones use. We will continue to talk at cross-purposes because I am referring to without center channel because I am comparing XTC front and you are comparing standard stereo and you have already told you will never attempt XTC. 

 

I too use Audyssey setup and everything sounds fabulous for my HT for movies but they bass never sounds correct CD or 5.1 music material. 

 

I do not dispute that for ordinary users who never heard of XTC that the center channel will definitely sound better. I mentioned that clearly in this thread. Without XTC, use the center channel. 

[STC]

44 minutes ago, fas42 said:

This obsession with technical issues of artificially enhancing a sense of space during playback is a dead end - human hearing does all what's necessary to "bring recordings to life" if the SQ is of a high enough standard - I have had recordings done in the 1910's produce a convincing illusion of the environment in which the musicians performed, with a strong sense of depth.

 

Even if one had 1,000's of channels, doing a squillion things, it would still sound 'wrong' if the quality wasn't there - your ear would pick that, say, the tone of the string section wasn't up to scratch ... and it would be a fail ...

 

This is so untrue. Unless you hear another setup you wouldn't know. My dentist believe that his Sony HT sound is the most accurate sound.

 

I just managed to prove to one reviewer that it is possible to enhance even the best stereo setup. At least this one person was brave enough to come and listen to it. Google around for El Hefe Hifi FB where he said it was a surreal experience and beginning to question hifi sound. Hifi business survived for this long due to misinformation and conditioning of the mind.

[ARQuint]

Fas42 said

"This obsession with technical issues of artificially enhancing a sense of space during playback is a dead end - human hearing does all what's necessary to "bring recordings to life" if the SQ is of a high enough standard ..."

 

The suggestion that modern surround sound (done right, that is) is about "artificially enhancing a sense of space during playback" is a false argument that many who are looking for a reason not to pursue mutltichannel take up with enthusiasm. Who can blame them?  If you've spent years painstakingly developing a high performance two-channel system, the prospect of making the fundamental  changes that will have it serve both stereo and multichannel programs is daunting, both in terms of effort and, undeniably, expense.

 

A correctly done discreet multichannel recording is not an after-the fact manipulation of a multitrack mastertape accomplished with an algorithm to produce a generic spaciousness. Previously, fas42 had written that

 

"The advantage of using the high integrity of the direct sound method... Adding rear sound actively is another method of pushing our hearing systems over the hurdle of accepting an illusion - the trouble with this is that every recording is different, and what works for one won't for others."

 

This is a straw dog. The best engineers of multichannel programs—Jared Sacks, Michael Bishop, the folks of  BIS and PentaTone, the SoundMirror team, and many others—set up their microphones at the recording session to render the specific character of the venue they are working in. They recreate the sense of being in the Concertgebouw vs. Boston Symphony Hall vs. the Musikverein vs. Bayreuth's Festspielhaus, etc. to a degree that occurs only very rarely with even the best two-channel set-ups and, typically, only when those stereo systems are deployed in a large listening room.

 

There is no question that, with the right recordings, a top-flight two-channel stereo system can create a magical sense of spatial realism and "ambience". Whether this is an instance of all the stars aligning or that "human hearing does all what's necessary to bring recordings to life" I can't say. But modern multichannel, carefully configured, is a powerfully democratizing force. Hundreds—thousands, actually—of four- and five-channel recordings do this routinely. And when played back through equipment that is merely very good, not SOTA. Getting there requires more than a little courage, in addition to the time and long green alluded to above. But, as Kal, Fitzcaraldo, and many others can tell you, boy is it ever worth it.

[Kal Rubinson]

9 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Fas42 said

"This obsession with technical issues of artificially enhancing a sense of space during playback is a dead end - human hearing does all what's necessary to "bring recordings to life" if the SQ is of a high enough standard ..."

 

9 minutes ago, ARQuint said:

Fas42 said

"The advantage of using the high integrity of the direct sound method... Adding rear sound actively is another method of pushing our hearing systems over the hurdle of accepting an illusion - the trouble with this is that every recording is different, and what works for one won't for others."

New evidence to support my decision to "ignore" Fas42.  

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

This obsession with technical issues of artificially enhancing a sense of space during playback is a dead end - human hearing does all what's necessary to "bring recordings to life" if the SQ is of a high enough standard - I have had recordings done in the 1910's produce a convincing illusion of the environment in which the musicians performed, with a strong sense of depth.

 

Even if one had 1,000's of channels, doing a squillion things, it would still sound 'wrong' if the quality wasn't there - your ear would pick that, say, the tone of the string section wasn't up to scratch ... and it would be a fail ...

When will someone change that broken record?

[gmgraves]

39 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

 

New evidence to support my decision to "ignore" Fas42.  

Kal, you have to excuse Frank. He has a single-track obsession with a single nebulous idea. He posts over and over again that any audio system will be perfect if you just follow his voodoo-like non-instructions for tweaking said system using incantations, magic potions and ingredients nine out of 10 doctors recommend. What these various witch doctor like procedures are we don't really know. All we know is that he carefully dresses his cables, solders his interconnects to their respective components and removes "extraneous and unnecessary" parts from his audio components. Many of us think he's been baked by the outback sun much to long but other than that, he's alright mate! 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Kal, you have to excuse Frank.

I do.  I just no longer need to read what he writes.   No hard feelings.

[STC]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

When will someone change that broken record?

 

I like his conviction. His steadfast belief that his system is accurate. Is his system going to sound better than mine? Based on what he have written, I doubt but I wouldn’t  dismiss the possibilities all together. 

 

In a way , I have a soft spot for @fas42 as he reminds me of another audiophile who passed away many years ago. They both share a similarity. 

 

This late audiophile who was a retiree only managed to setup his system in his 10 x 7 bedroom. Inside there, there were 8 tiny cheap HT subwoofers and stacked DIY speakers. He was using a JVC CD player. 

 

I don’t often get invited by other audiophiles who visit my place except this gentleman who kept on insisting that I visit his place. 

 

When i enquired from other audiophiles, they just dismissed his setup citing how good can a JVC player and cheap 8 subwoofer be? Although, I was reluctant but eventually made the visit and was surprised how well he managed to setup his system. It was a good system and definitely better than the one who was critical of his system. The other person setup consists boutique speakers, Chord, Wadia and one highly revered French amplifier. 

 

Sometimes, it is possible. I would definitely make an effort to visit his place. 

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, STC said:

 

I like his conviction. His steadfast belief that his system is accurate. Is his system going to sound better than mine? Based on what he have written, I doubt but I wouldn’t  dismiss the possibilities all together. 

 

In a way , I have a soft spot for @fas42 as he reminds me of another audiophile who passed away many years ago. They both share a similarity. 

 

This late audiophile who was a retiree only managed to setup his system in his 10 x 7 bedroom. Inside there, there were 8 tiny cheap HT subwoofers and stacked DIY speakers. He was using a JVC CD player. 

 

I don’t often get invited by other audiophiles who visit my place except this gentleman who kept on insisting that I visit his place. 

 

When i enquired from other audiophiles, they just dismissed his setup citing how good can a JVC player and cheap 8 subwoofer be? Although, I was reluctant but eventually made the visit and was surprised how well he managed to setup his system. It was a good system and definitely better than the one who was critical of his system. The other person setup consists boutique speakers, Chord, Wadia and one highly revered French amplifier. 

 

Sometimes, it is possible. I would definitely make an effort to visit his place. 

I too would like to hear his system, and I admire his singleness of purpose, but that's not my problem with Frank. My problem is he posts much and says little. He must post to a dozen audio forums all over the world (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating the number, a wee bit) and he's been doing it forever. From what I gather, he makes the same boasts about his system, brags about his method, yet beyond vague references about cable dressing and soldering interconnects and removing extraneous parts from his components, he never tells anybody anything specific about his "method" or how it could help others. Even here on CA, he shows up in every thread with the same tune. It doesn't matter what the topic is: In a thread about soundstage, he tells us that his method makes soundstage perfect, In a thread about DACs, his "method" makes  cheap DACs sound like expensive DACs, etc., etc. But does he tell us how he makes cheap DACs sound like expensive ones? No. He never does "specifics" just vague generalities. 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I too would like to hear his system, and I admire his singleness of purpose, but that's not my problem with Frank. My problem is he posts much and says little. He must post to a dozen audio forums all over the world (OK, maybe I'm exaggerating the number, a wee bit) and he's been doing it forever. From what I gather, he makes the same boasts about his system, brags about his method, yet beyond vague references about cable dressing and soldering interconnects and removing extraneous parts from his components, he never tells anybody anything specific about his "method" or how it could help others. Even here on CA, he shows up in every thread with the same tune. It doesn't matter what the topic is: In a thread about soundstage, he tells us that his method makes soundstage perfect, In a thread about DACs, his "method" makes  cheap DACs sound like expensive DACs, etc., etc. But does he tell us how he makes cheap DACs sound like expensive ones? No. He never does "specifics" just vague generalities. 

Other forums have narrowed down the magic.  It is BluTac, but we philistenes have not from his descriptions figured out exactly where and how to apply it.  Apparently it is applied  liberally anywhere and everywhere.  But,  only Frank can do that properly, since he has ears no other mortal possesses.

 

Sorry, Frank, If I revealed your secret. But, here we have the most gifted audio system tuner on earth, unfortunately remotely buried somewhere in rural Australia.

[fas42]

22 hours ago, ARQuint said:

 

This is a straw dog. The best engineers of multichannel programs—Jared Sacks, Michael Bishop, the folks of  BIS and PentaTone, the SoundMirror team, and many others—set up their microphones at the recording session to render the specific character of the venue they are working in. They recreate the sense of being in the Concertgebouw vs. Boston Symphony Hall vs. the Musikverein vs. Bayreuth's Festspielhaus, etc. to a degree that occurs only very rarely with even the best two-channel set-ups and, typically, only when those stereo systems are deployed in a large listening room.

 

 

There is no question that, with the right recordings, a top-flight two-channel stereo system can create a magical sense of spatial realism and "ambience". Whether this is an instance of all the stars aligning or that "human hearing does all what's necessary to bring recordings to life" I can't say. But modern multichannel, carefully configured, is a powerfully democratizing force. Hundreds—thousands, actually—of four- and five-channel recordings do this routinely. And when played back through equipment that is merely very good, not SOTA. Getting there requires more than a little courage, in addition to the time and long green alluded to above. But, as Kal, Fitzcaraldo, and many others can tell you, boy is it ever worth it.

 

Yes, it's rare. But it's the 'correct' state of playback - because what you hear is the content of the recording, without any significant anomalies added by the playback chain; the flaws of conventional, stereo, reproduction setups do too much damage to the SQ, and no 'realistic' illusion is heard. Part of why it is so hard for many, here and elsewhere, to appreciate this is because they are unable, or unwilling, to listen in an 'analytical' fashion to the sound of their rig - and can't discern the obvious distortion it's producing; if one has been in a situation repeatedly where a particular combination of gear is lifted, accidentally or intentionally, to the necessary 'cleanness' - and more usefully, drops back to a less than adequate standard, then it becomes trivially easy to pick the difference in the qualities of the sound between the two 'states'.

 

The gear doesn't have to be "SOTA" - that's largely a meaningless phase; the term relates to essentially conventional circuitry that's been been very thoroughly "debugged", put into a very blingly enclosure, and sold at a commensurate price as reward for the efforts to "get it right". DIY is a method for bypassing that expensive approach - but very, very few go down that road ...

 

Ummm, when I buy a new car I expect it to feel "right" from the moment I drive it off the dealer's lot - no matter how cheap it is the basic integrity of the vehicle should be 100% - performance parameters, of how fast it can accelerate say, are in a very different category of capability. Audio systems usually fail the basic test of integrity, badly - and that's why hifi is such a dodgy game, full of snake oil, etc.

 

"A magical sense of spatial realism and ambience" is merely competent playback - but it occurs, sadly, far too rarely.

 

 

[fas42]

21 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Kal, you have to excuse Frank. He has a single-track obsession with a single nebulous idea. He posts over and over again that any audio system will be perfect if you just follow his voodoo-like non-instructions for tweaking said system using incantations, magic potions and ingredients nine out of 10 doctors recommend. What these various witch doctor like procedures are we don't really know. All we know is that he carefully dresses his cables, solders his interconnects to their respective components and removes "extraneous and unnecessary" parts from his audio components. Many of us think he's been baked by the outback sun much to long but other than that, he's alright mate! 

 

The doctor analogy is good, actually - you go to the surgery not to get "perfect health", but to diagnose and resolve ailments - the chap, if he's half decent, works through each problem area - and, Magic Happens!! You feel healthy ... the ol' Subtract Badness trick ... Max was on the money ...

[fas42]

What I do is pretty obvious - the keener eyed amongst you may have noted my exchanges with Paul, where I was trying to get him to let out the "secrets" of his rig; what he had done to "debug" the setup. Was getting somewhere, but then he closed down on me - if the interest isn't there in trying to understand where issues may be, then one has very poor chance of achieving the required standard.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

17 hours ago, fas42 said:

What I do is pretty obvious - the keener eyed amongst you may have noted my exchanges with Paul, where I was trying to get him to let out the "secrets" of his rig; what he had done to "debug" the setup. Was getting somewhere, but then he closed down on me - if the interest isn't there in trying to understand where issues may be, then one has very poor chance of achieving the required standard.

Ah, Frank, but you have revealed absolutely no secrets of your own.  You and your golden ears have totally danced around that in post after post in this and many other forums.  The rest of us have no secrets, unlike you.  Unlike you, we will and do tell all. So, it is you who needs to start revealing, not George.

 

Just tell us in detail specifically what you did on one system specimen, step by step, to unlock the "magic" of what you claim to hear.  Hiding in rural Australia behind a constant barrage of vague, meaningless, unverifiable claims tells us nothing other than that you are full of it, self obsessed with delusions of grandeur and totally lacking in any credibility.

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The doctor analogy is good, actually - you go to the surgery not to get "perfect health", but to diagnose and resolve ailments - the chap, if he's half decent, works through each problem area - and, Magic Happens!! You feel healthy ... the ol' Subtract Badness trick ... Max was on the money ...

"Sir", said the doctor, "you have the worst case of the blugloats i've ever seen. I'm afraid we're going to have to operate." 

"Operate?" asks the patient, " what are you going to take out?" 

"Oh, a lot of unnecessary parts. And while we're in there, we'll dress your intestines and stick a bunch of Blu-tack everywhere."  

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Ah, Frank, but you have revealed absolutely no secrets of your own.  You and your golden ears have totally danced around that in post after post in this and many other forums.  The rest of us have no secrets, unlike you.  Unlike you, we will and do tell all. So, it is you who needs to start revealing, not George.

 

Just tell us in detail specifically what you did on one system specimen, step by step, to unlock the "magic" of what you claim to hear.  Hiding in rural Australia behind a constant barrage of vague, meaningless, unverifiable claims tells us nothing other than that you are full of it, self obsessed with delusions of grandeur and totally lacking in any credibility.

 

I've revealed the substance of all my secrets over and over again - to wit, I've listed the full set of steps taken with the original good rig, 30 years ago; and detailed what has been done, to date, with the current NAD combo; the keen eyed will note that completely different issues were addressed, in those two situations. Therefore, there can be no magic combo of "things done" that make it happen - each setup had different weaknesses, and therefore time spent on "doing stuff" which is irrelevant to that set of gear is a complete waste of time - I'm as lazy as the next man!

 

The key secrets are that I know what I'm after, that I can hear when a rig is getting closer to the right state, and that I know that it is always possible to make happen - the last is conditional on whether the gains are worth the effort spent; it's always going to be smarter to start with good equipment, because more "stuff" has already been sorted, the downside is that good normally means expensive - do you want to wreck pricey stuff, by making a mistake on the journey?

 

Which is why I emphasise being able to put ego aside, and properly appraising the SQ. And that can start with putting on a recording which sounds awful, and saying to yourself, it sounds awful because I'm hearing too much distortion from the playback chain ...

[semente]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

Which is why I emphasise being able to put ego aside, and properly appraising the SQ. And that can start with putting on a recording which sounds awful, and saying to yourself, it sounds awful because I'm hearing too much distortion from the playback chain ...

 

A recoding can sound awful because of too much distortion from the playback.

 

A recoding can also sound awful because it's a badly made recording. In this case, no matter how much tweaks and mods and improvements you do to the playback it'll never sound better than awful. The contrary may happen if the distortion from the playback happens to mask some of the awfulness...

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, semente said:

 

A recoding can sound awful because of too much distortion from the playback.

 

A recoding can also sound awful because it's a badly made recording. In this case, no matter how much tweaks and mods and improvements you do to the playback it'll never sound better than awful. The contrary may happen if the distortion from the playback happens to mask some of the awfulness...

Frank disagrees with you. He believes that if you just apply his "method" (which of course, is a state secret) on your playback system, you can make an Edison cylinder sound like a full symphony orchestra is right there in the room with you!...And in stereo to boot!

[fas42]

9 hours ago, semente said:

 

A recoding can sound awful because of too much distortion from the playback.

 

A recoding can also sound awful because it's a badly made recording. In this case, no matter how much tweaks and mods and improvements you do to the playback it'll never sound better than awful. The contrary may happen if the distortion from the playback happens to mask some of the awfulness...

 

When I first started getting convincing sound I would have agreed with what you said in the second paragraph. However, time spent in trying all sorts of optimisation, over the years, kept on feeding me the contrary story - finally, I accepted 'defeat': "There is no such thing as a bad recording!".

 

Yes, masking takes place - but it's inside your head where it happens. If the playback is taken to the highest standards of 'cleaniness', then enough of the musical message gets through, with minimal exaggeration of the "badness" - your mind compensates for the shortcomings of the recording, and even though your intellect may know that the quality is not there, subjectively, it doesn't matter. I have had this happen on literally hundreds of occasions; it's a rock sold behaviour, for me.