My best demo albums

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

If you are referring to Frank's constant spamming of this forum with hundreds of posts containing zero actionable information, yes, this is something I disagree with.

 

How about a bit of consistency then ?

 It never ceases to amaze how some like yourself only object to posts like these when it's from the other side of "The Great Divide" 

 There is another member who has posted around twice the number of posts in around the same time  frame  where there is often zero actionable information, or it has to be prised out of him with a reply to him.

e.g.

Quote

      19 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

what about re-clocking?

What about it? Your question is rather vague and lacking context. - mansr

 

 

[kumakuma]

20 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

How about a bit of consistency then ?

 It never ceases to amaze how some like yourself only object to posts like these when it's from the other side of "The Great Divide" 

 There is another member who has posted around twice the number of posts in around the same time  frame  where there is often zero actionable information, or it has to be prised out of him with a reply to him.

e.g.

 

 

Whatever issues you have with Ralf are between the two of you.

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Whatever issues you have with Ralf are between the two of you.

 

 The issues are everybody's issues. You are one eyed King Kumakuma !

 

BTW, NONE of this has anything to do with the title of this thread !!

[kumakuma]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

 The issues are everybody's issues. You are one eyed !

 

[fas42]

13 hours ago, semente said:

 

I won't go into the artistic merits or their absence f JMJ's music.

 

But from a sonic perspective, as I've described in my previous post where I defined observationist sound assessment through listening, using his music to evaluate sound is like using Nemo to evaluate video instead of a National Geographic documentary...

 

Quote

Orchestral and choral music is difficult to reproduce because of it's complexity (you can have a hundred instruments and as many voices playing different things simultaneously) and extreme dynamic swings. A large orchestra of the late romantic period will include a large variety of acoustic instruments and this provides the oportunity to evaluate how the system reproduces the timbre of those instruments.

 

The conflicts in what you are saying are right there - Jarre is "difficult to reproduce because of its complexity (you can have (multiple) voices playing different things simultaneously) and extreme dynamic swings"; if a rig can "handle" Zoolook then reproducing orchestral and choral with a " hundred instruments and as many voices" is a pushover - the 'grandeur' of what you hear from those two different styles of music is of the same order, no matter what one may think of the 'artistic merit'.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

But he never tells us how he does it, any of it. All we get is vague allusions to removed extraneous parts from components, and a list of common sense procedures such as dressing audio cables away from power cables; something that most of the rest of do anyway. But most of us do it without bragging about it, and claiming it as an audio panacea on every thread of this forum. 

 

You see, George, you've got part of the message - but haven't carried it through to its full conclusion ... and therefore fail to get the job done.

 

OK, let's go back to that good ol' chain analogy - the audio chain has to pull 100 lbs without breaking; if a single link can't withstand that tension, the chain fails - completely. You've spent some time strengthening various links, and are quite satisfied with your efforts - but there are some links that you thought you "fixed" that are still below 100, can only handle 85 say; and other links that you completely ignored. Apply 100 lbs force - Snap!!

 

The "panacea" is knowing that every link has to handle 100 lbs - the system fails if any is below that strength.

[elcorso]

On 8/12/2018 at 4:49 AM, semente said:

For a show off piece I suggest playing this vibrant jazz track LOUD, though beware that when it comes to system performance it'll sort the men from the boys ? (video not available in Europe for some reason):

 

 

 

Europeans can listen here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56KtmUqQIYk

 

 

Great! I never thought that Michelle Pfeiffer as a jazz singer ...

 

I have always admired her as an artist (without forgetting her beauty) !

 

Roch

[elcorso]

On 8/12/2018 at 10:03 AM, miguelito said:

Yes, outstanding. The high res version from HDTracks is better than the MQA version on TIDAL.

 

Also of note: Patricia Barber - Cafe Blue (available as DSD download, and in a new “unmastered” SACD version which I have ripped to DSF). Amazing recording, and really like the music.

 

I love Patricia. I have several of their MFSL SACD (PS3 ripped), as I mentioned before.

 

I really like his interpretation of "Summertime". She sails deep among the blues, with her particular interpretation and musical arrangements ...!

 

Roch

[fas42]

On 8/12/2018 at 8:49 PM, semente said:

For a show off piece I suggest playing this vibrant jazz track LOUD, though beware that when it comes to system performance it'll sort the men from the boys ? (video not available in Europe for some reason):

 

 

 

Europeans can listen here:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56KtmUqQIYk

 

 

Yes, this is good material ... what I would focus on when listening to this is how well defined the drummer is in his space, and whether every part of the work on his kit comes through with full integrity.

[semente]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

 

The conflicts in what you are saying are right there - Jarre is "difficult to reproduce because of its complexity (you can have (multiple) voices playing different things simultaneously) and extreme dynamic swings"; if a rig can "handle" Zoolook then reproducing orchestral and choral with a " hundred instruments and as many voices" is a pushover - the 'grandeur' of what you hear from those two different styles of music is of the same order, no matter what one may think of the 'artistic merit'.

 

I confess my ignorance regarding JMJ's music, having probably heard just a couple of tracks back in the day. But if I remember correctly his vocals would have been recorded in a studio and probaly close-, multi-mic'ed. He was also very fond of the synthesiser. If this is true, then I think you have missed some of my points.

 

We've agreed before that we have different goals and expectations: I strive for an as flat and wide as possible frequency response, both of which seem secondary to you.

I also don't believe that you can achieve the loudness levels you have reported with a pair of small budget standmounts without producing high levels of some types of distortions which I'd find very objectionable.

[fas42]

 

45 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I confess my ignorance regarding JMJ's music, having probably heard just a couple of tracks back in the day. But if I remember correctly his vocals would have been recorded in a studio and probaly close-, multi-mic'ed. He was also very fond of the synthesiser. If this is true, then I think you have missed some of my points.

 

We've agreed before that we have different goals and expectations: I strive for an as flat and wide as possible frequency response, both of which seem secondary to you.

I also don't believe that you can achieve the loudness levels you have reported with a pair of small budget standmounts without producing high levels of some types of distortions which I'd find very objectionable.

 

Jarre? It's all about the synthesizer, each and every track - vocals are used as a sound effect, heavily manipulated to just become a sound construction, in the context of the composition.

 

Vocals and 'natural' instruments automatically fall out as being 'correct', if the system is thoroughly optimised - if Jarre albums 'work', then conventional vocal content in any sort of recording sounds like the "real thing". It takes listening to an album which has totally 'artificial' instruments for everything but the vocals, to appreciate how there is a sharp contrast between the two - but, each still retains full integrity. Think, listening live to an opera singer on the left, and a rock guitarist using his amplifier on the right, with volumes "matching".

 

To repeat, the speakers are not the problem - budget standmounts in a competent rig have no problem delivering the intensity of live sound; this has been verified by me many times over. Also, the audio friend down the road is using tiny, tiny Tannoys - the midrange/bass driver is barely bigger than the tweeter; the limitations there are the chain prior to the speaker, as is usually the case.

 

FR has also shown to be of a low order of importance - if the quality is there, the mind compensates beautifully, for variations; exposure to a full blown DEQX demo indicated no benefit to getting the FR "right" - the flaws in the playback were still obvious.

[semente]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

if Jarre albums 'work'

 

How can you tell if Jarre's albums work?

It's all synthetic sound and special effects which have no resemblance with anything that one can experience live and use as a gauge for comparison... Surely your assessment will be driven by your taste, by your (pre)conception of what it should sound like.

 

You can strive to extract as much information as possible from the recording, and this will be audible, but you won't be able to determine, for instance, if the tonal balance is reasonably natural or realistic. But I have already assumed long ago that this is not a priority for you.

[semente]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

To repeat, the speakers are not the problem - budget standmounts in a competent rig have no problem delivering the intensity of live sound; this has been verified by me many times over. Also, the audio friend down the road is using tiny, tiny Tannoys - the midrange/bass driver is barely bigger than the tweeter; the limitations there are the chain prior to the speaker, as is usually the case.

 

Well, I am way past that level, my rig is already so competent and my expectations so high that I cannot live with the compromises of toy speakers. If you can't perceive the theoretical and audible limitations of small standmounts then I'm affraid we are playing in different leagues and any attempt at debating these issues will be as barren as a mule...

[semente]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

FR has also shown to be of a low order of importance - if the quality is there, the mind compensates beautifully, for variations; exposure to a full blown DEQX demo indicated no benefit to getting the FR "right" - the flaws in the playback were still obvious.

 

FR imbalance is a flaw in the playback. It is you who have chose to give it a low order of importance.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

How can you tell if Jarre's albums work?

It's all synthetic sound and special effects which have no resemblance with anything that one can experience live and use as a gauge for comparison... Surely your assessment will be driven by your taste, by your (pre)conception of what it should sound like.

 

You can strive to extract as much information as possible from the recording, and this will be audible, but you won't be able to determine, for instance, if the tonal balance is reasonably natural or realistic. But I have already assumed long ago that this is not a priority for you.

 

In the same way as one can tell if the sound of violin, or piano has the qualities that meet expectations - people tend to write off synthesized sounds as being "below par" - and that's usually because they are reproduced on mediocre equipment. On a rig that's up to par they have a complexity and texture that fully satisfies, easily matching 'live' instruments - when albums containing these types of sound are played on gear that's operating below standard they shrivel up into listless dronings - they are, ummm, not 'working'.

 

Realism is the whole point of the exercise - on every recording, for example, where the human voice is heard it should always strike one as being that of a living, breathing person - assuming it hasn't been manipulated to sound otherwise; Billy Holliday recordings should connect you to the person, rather than the caricature one often hears.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

Well, I am way past that level, my rig is already so competent and my expectations so high that I cannot live with the compromises of toy speakers. If you can't perceive the theoretical and audible limitations of small standmounts then I'm affraid we are playing in different leagues and any attempt at debating these issues will be as barren as a mule...

 

As someone who has heard multitudes of very expensive speakers sounding pretty hideous I have no time for playing games of being pretentious about what's needed in audio. It's what's delivered on the ground that counts - and if you have never heard small speakers produce sound that's as big as a football stadium, so to speak - well, that's an experience you might have some day ...

 

One memory is of a setup with top of the range panel speakers, with a colossal power amp that required about 4 people to move it - put on a classic Frank Sinatra CD ... gawd, it was awful!! Poor Frank, he didn't stand a chance ...

[chrisc]

On 8/11/2018 at 5:28 PM, miguelito said:

Make a TIDAL playlist and share it!

 

We already do this

[miguelito]

29 minutes ago, chrisc said:

We already do this

TIDAL link please?

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You see, George, you've got part of the message - but haven't carried it through to its full conclusion ... and therefore fail to get the job done.

 

OK, let's go back to that good ol' chain analogy - the audio chain has to pull 100 lbs without breaking; if a single link can't withstand that tension, the chain fails - completely. You've spent some time strengthening various links, and are quite satisfied with your efforts - but there are some links that you thought you "fixed" that are still below 100, can only handle 85 say; and other links that you completely ignored. Apply 100 lbs force - Snap!!

 

The "panacea" is knowing that every link has to handle 100 lbs - the system fails if any is below that strength.

Everybody knows that Frank. You've said this same thing on every thread of this forum and every audio forum on earth at least 10,000 times! Of course, again, you fail to tell us what those 85 lb "links" are. - and you're off Topic

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

One memory is of a setup with top of the range panel speakers, with a colossal power amp that required about 4 people to move it - put on a classic Frank Sinatra CD ... gawd, it was awful!! Poor Frank, he didn't stand a chance ...

OK, Frank, I'll bite. What was wrong with the audio presentation of these top-of-the-range panel speakers and this colossal power amp that made Ol' Blue Eyes sound so bad?

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

 

Jarre? It's all about the synthesizer, each and every track - vocals are used as a sound effect, heavily manipulated to just become a sound construction, in the context of the composition.

 

Vocals and 'natural' instruments automatically fall out as being 'correct', if the system is thoroughly optimised - if Jarre albums 'work', then conventional vocal content in any sort of recording sounds like the "real thing". It takes listening to an album which has totally 'artificial' instruments for everything but the vocals, to appreciate how there is a sharp contrast between the two - but, each still retains full integrity. Think, listening live to an opera singer on the left, and a rock guitarist using his amplifier on the right, with volumes "matching".

 

To repeat, the speakers are not the problem - budget standmounts in a competent rig have no problem delivering the intensity of live sound; this has been verified by me many times over. Also, the audio friend down the road is using tiny, tiny Tannoys - the midrange/bass driver is barely bigger than the tweeter; the limitations there are the chain prior to the speaker, as is usually the case.

 

FR has also shown to be of a low order of importance - if the quality is there, the mind compensates beautifully, for variations; exposure to a full blown DEQX demo indicated no benefit to getting the FR "right" - the flaws in the playback were still obvious.

What bunch of hog drippings, Balderdash and poppycock, I say! Budget "stand mount" speakers can sound OK, but they can never fool anybody into thinking that they are a pair of SoundLabs or Martin Logan ESLs, Or Magnepan MG-3.7s or MG-20.7s! My desktop system consists of a pair of Napa Acoustics NA-208S. They have a 6" "woofer and a 1" dome tweeter.

 

The rest of my system is as simple as simple gets. My desktop computer feeds, via direct USB, (no cable) an AudioQuest DragonFly Red DAC directly feeding a Napa NA-208A amplifier via an single pair audio cable. That's it. There are no weak "links" there. The chain is too short for there to be many "weak Links" The dragonFly connects to The Napa Acoustics amplifier with a single AudioQuest "Big Sur" 1.5 meter, 3.5mm mini phone plug to RCA cable* The speaker cables are 6ft long Sewell "Silverback" speaker cable. That's it! and while the system sounds great for a near-field desktop system, one of the best "office" systems I've ever heard, but It doesn't hold a candle to the Martin-Logan Vista ESLs in my main system! So while you might have fooled yourself into believing that speaker size doesn't matter, and tiny speakers can sound as good as big ones, I think you'll find yourself a majority of ONE!

In other words, Frank, your ravings have little of no credibility with just about anyone here. And when you make asinine proclamations like the one you made above, It  just confirms what many of us think about you: I.E. a nice guy who's so full of it that his eyes are brown. 

 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Everybody knows that Frank. You've said this same thing on every thread of this forum and every audio forum on earth at least 10,000 times! Of course, again, you fail to tell us what those 85 lb "links" are. - and you're off Topic

 

To give just one example that I have mentioned over and over again - the quality of metal to metal contacts which are exposed to the atmosphere. This is crucial for getting optimum sound - it was probably the number one reason for first nailing Wow! SQ three decades ago.

 

Quote

OK, Frank, I'll bite. What was wrong with the audio presentation of these top-of-the-range panel speakers and this colossal power amp that made Ol' Blue Eyes sound so bad?

 

Umm, just about everything ... it was one of the late 50's albums, with the full big band backing. The sound was "tiny", the tonality of all the instruments was way off the mark, and Frank's voice was so far from being 'right' - I was quite disturbed that such an ambitious rig could miss the mark so much.

 

These classic albums should have Big Sound: the big band is in full cry; rich, enveloping 50's recording texture and Frank's voice should present all the distinctive trademarks that it had, while retaining that intimate, communicative phrasing that he was famous for.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

What bunch of hog drippings, Balderdash and poppycock, I say! Budget "stand mount" speakers can sound OK, but they can never fool anybody into thinking that they are a pair of SoundLabs or Martin Logan ESLs, Or Magnepan MG-3.7s or MG-20.7s! My desktop system consists of a pair of Napa Acoustics NA-208S. They have a 6" "woofer and a 1" dome tweeter.

 

 

 

Two things normally got wrong for cheap speakers: they're driven by cheap amps, and they're plunked down on a convenient surface, with no effort made to stabilise them. Take care of those two areas, and the sound can start to blossom ...

 

You still can't get that I have listened to large numbers of systems with mega speakers - to make sure that I had good reference points - and the number that had any postive impact on me can be counted on the fingers of one hand ... usually the first test track told me the story, and I lost interest in hearing further. A rig has to be able to present a soundstage as big as what was recorded, and nearly everything fails on that alone.

 

Speakers only need to be big for the bass driver to produce a decent FR, that's the only reason. Just check out the size of some of the PA  speakers used in nightclubs, etc; these tiny things can punch holes in the side of walls, destroy your eardrums in a matter of minutes - yes, they're as rough as guts in terms of quality, but that's only because such things don't matter, in those places. The same principle still holds in the home - size is only relevant if one is trying to plumb the depths of very low bass.

 

 

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Just check out the size of some of the PA  speakers used in nightclubs, etc; these tiny things can punch holes in the side of walls, destroy your eardrums in a matter of minutes - yes, they're as rough as guts in terms of quality, but that's only because such things don't matter, in those places.

 

Have you been to a nightclub recently? Because if you really have then you earn real streetcred points ?

But no, if your eardrums would've been destroyed in a matter of minutes then you couldn't have spent any time in a real nightclub?

 

Jus' sayin' because I do believe @gmgraves has actually been to all the places he claims to have been -- which is why he is still an avowed bachelor ... ? ... no, scratch that because in my experience young women congregate wherever music is playing ... ?

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

To give just one example that I have mentioned over and over again - the quality of metal to metal contacts which are exposed to the atmosphere. This is crucial for getting optimum sound - it was probably the number one reason for first nailing Wow! SQ three decades ago.

Frank, no connections SHOULD be exposed to the atmosphere. RCAs should be gas tight. The pin should fight tightly to the inside of the jack, and the shield should fight tightly over the barrel of the jack. Spade-lugs should be screwed down tight on both the amp and the speaker terminals. If you are paranoid about such things, you should probably apply Stabilant 22A to all of your connector interfaces. If you find that this makes a difference, you've got bad interconnects because quality interconnect plugs and jacks don't need it. I used to Stabilant treat my interconnects every time I broke and remade a connection. I stopped when I realized that it didn't change the sound at all!* I just make sure I squeeze the barrels on the cables a little when I'm mating connectors to insure a tight fit and I make sure my spade lugs or banana plugs tight fit on speaker and amplifier. 

* yet Satbilant does work. My Alfa had a flakey tachometer. Sometimes it would work. sometimes it wouldn't. I would take it out and try to clean the connector's mating parts with contact cleaner, put it back together, and still, it would be intermittent. So I got the idea to try Stabilant. After all, if the stuff has a Military spec number, a NASA spec number and an SAE and Automobile Manufacturer's Association part number, it must do something, right? So I painted each metal mating surface with the Stabiant and that was 10 years ago. The Tach has never failed again. 

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

Umm, just about everything ... it was one of the late 50's albums, with the full big band backing. The sound was "tiny", the tonality of all the instruments was way off the mark, and Frank's voice was so far from being 'right' - I was quite disturbed that such an ambitious rig could miss the mark so much.

 

These classic albums should have Big Sound: the big band is in full cry; rich, enveloping 50's recording texture and Frank's voice should present all the distinctive trademarks that it had, while retaining that intimate, communicative phrasing that he was famous for.

Could that have not have been the recording? I own the set of Franky's capitol years, and some of them are pretty thin sounding. One has to keep in mind that the recording tape used in those days (Scotch 206, and the Ampex equivalent) was pretty primitive and a lot of recordings made in those days haven't survived the years very well!