Jump to content
IGNORED

Step by step surgery


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

 

I agree that Frank is a nice guy and means well. We provide documentation as a means to achieve the end result, and it gets dismissed as though the scientific community doesn't know what its talking about. See above response.. The same occurs with the audio hobby and Frank. Room response, speaker response, etc get dismissed as though none of it matters. And we all have said that if the laptop cannot reproduce the file accurately, then that person is not hearing the complete sonic results encoded. If so, how can I judge what the material is suppose to sound like when the system is deficient to begin with?

 

If Frank would actually engage with another and be honest during an exchange, then maybe we could move further towards our goals. Deflection of scientific concepts proven to be true don't bolster his position or his blog, and I would surmise that is part of the reason the blog has dwindled. 

 

Like you said above "talk honestly" is a key to learning. Blowing off everyone and their system as not good enough makes for a poor start.

 

MAK

 

Right. While I'm sure this is yet another rounds of discussions with countless others before already... Maybe Frank can take to heart the comments here and now.

 

As much as intellectual discussions can be interesting, there comes a point where unless our beliefs / theories / faiths translates to the real world and in the realm of the internet, produces actual results by means of meaningful (and honest) sharing, it will certainly "collapse".

 

The marketplace of ideas consists of a dust bin with countless "good ideas", beliefs, testimonies throughout the history of human existence left forgotten and devalued. That is of course as it should be.

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, fas42 said:

First noted this about 15 years ago - was using an amp with the usual treble and bass controls; when the amp was not firing, the effect of the tone controls was obvious; when I temporarily lifted its performance to a decent level, I found it almost impossible to detect that swinging of the pots from one end to the other was doing anything significant to what I was hearing.

 

Sorry man, I can't follow this as it clearly makes no sense. You're claiming that there is a special setting at which gross frequency manipulation with treble and bass controls suddenly is no longer audible? That's an extraordinary claim and you know what they say about extraordinary claims and the level of evidence needed.

 

Lots of stuff in this next part - I'll just respond to a few of them...

 

Quote

Sigh ... put on a recording that you find particularly objectionable to listen to - you will say, "It's a bad recording!" ... I will come in, and say, "Right, I can hear all sorts of distortion being excited, in the playback chain, by the nature of that recording". They're the symptoms of an 'unhealthy' playback system - I now have specific aches and pains to work on ...

 

This is an important one: So in your worldview, there is no such things as bad recordings? And do you believe there is a setting for a system such that all recordings sound good and do not excite "distortions"?

 

Quote

 

Strangely enough, I do use a multimeter - Oh, horror!! 😜 ... but the vast majority of symptoms don't need any measurin' - if something is audible that shouldn't be there, then you have a problem.

 

A specific example, which I have mentioned several times in posts - my original Big Mutha amplifier, 35 years ago, showed distortion appearing in the treble above a certain volume. Carefully working through it, it turned out that the unit's power supply was not good enough; this was resolved after various attempts at simple tweaking, by completely restructuring the smoothing capacitor area ... problem solved.

 

Everything I do is based on the same principles that, say, makes you decide that a radio needs a better aerial  - not good enough aerial, audio is too distorted; better aerial, the distortion goes away.

 

Like I said, these are nice examples that you can highlight on your blog with case write-ups. Write them out in detail so people can understand what was done and consider for themselves. Vague descriptions like these will not sway anyone that your solutions are meaningful.

 

Quote

 

Some people like, for example, grotesque "bass" - I could call it, the "home theatre car door slam" effect - in the shot, all the people get out of the vehicle, one by one - and firmly close the door. And each time, a wrecking ball gives the walls of the room a solid whack ...well, last time I got out of a car I didn't hear anything like that happening ... 😉.

 

Subjective judgment you're making. I agree that often the effects are overdone. But if that's what was intended by artists, movie producers, etc... I can object that it doesn't sound good but I don't expect my system to "filter out" what was on the soundtrack.

 

Quote

Lack of distortion always comes before extension, for me. Well done deep bass is expensive, so I don't worry about it.

 

 

Again, very subjective judgment. Fine if you don't care for a system that extends down to 20Hz. Many audiophiles want that and they get joy out of hearing/feeling the frequencies on their organ recordings and movie explosions. If you're not worried about deep bass, that's your prerogative - some people can't hear above 12kHz and say there's no point having tweeters that hit 20kHz as well. But if you're not worried because of personal financial limitation (ie. you can't afford a system that goes that low cleanly), then please don't use that to oppose the opinion of others that low frequencies are of value to them.

 

Quote

So, you would (have, sic?) trouble listening to live music if the room wasn't "right"?

 

Yes. I would not want to listen to a string quartet in an echoey cellar, and Diana Krall singing in my bathroom will do nothing for me. 

 

Quote

The most effective add-on would be sounds ... examples of SQ in the right zone; examples in the wrong zone - I have done that on occasion, but the comments thereafter demonstrate a desire to disregard the aspect that matters, and not be intelligent about the point I'm trying to make.

 

Sure. Include sounds. The more complete the "picture" of what you're doing the better.

 

Quote

Theory's good ... but it's always been a struggle to go back to activities where the 'novelty' has worn off - I used to be a voracious reader, until one day I stopped reading halfway through a volume, and to this day have no interest in reading, unless it's to find out information ...

 

Fine. And I see from a previous post that you have bad fatigue.

 

Anyhow, I hope you feel better and I don't think there's anything more to add unless there's "actionable" information to address. I hope at some point you can provide more concrete details on your blog. Like I said, pre- and post- images and sounds would be great. Case examples would be fantastic, to demonstrate your technique and results. I would have difficulty taking many of your comments seriously otherwise.

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
On 1/15/2020 at 2:36 PM, fas42 said:

There is a 'setting' of SQ where the mind no longer takes notice of FR variations - of course it actually does, but subjectively you "still hear the same thing" - go back, again, to listening to live music - if there is a dip in the FR somewhere because of room effects, your brain doesn't tell you, "Uh oh, I'll have to shift my position - it doesn't sound right" ... and the same brain processing switches on if the replay quality reaches a certain standard.

 

Hmmm. You're describing a perceptual phenomenon here. How do you know this happens to everyone? Remember, I was responding to your claim that you can find a situation where even gross treble/bass tone changes make no audible/perceptual difference!

 

Sorry, I've never experienced such phenomenon, nor to be honest would I really want to be so insensitive to sound changes! This doesn't mean I can't enjoy the music mind you, so long as the frequency anomaly isn't extreme.

 

Quote

 

Yes, indeed it is. This attitude developed over many years - even when I was achieving a very high standard, I still had recordings that were "no good" - only to get a shock when enough of the integrity of the setup further snapped into shape, because of some new refinement; and the recording came good.

 

So, the motto has been precisely that, for some years now ... "There no such thing as a bad recording". Note, it is not a "setting", for the playback chain - it's developing the awareness of when the system is adding distortion to the playback, and then doing what's needed to eliminate or reduce that unwanted artifact to the point of being inaudible.

 

Sure. But if you're not able to define the "distortion" you're talking about, then how do you eliminate it? Again, if you use the "doctor" analogy, you have not demonstrated the "pathological etiology" of the disorder you're talking about. How do you know which treatment to prescribe?

 

Quote

Have you read through, on the blog, A More Ambitious Upgrade - Part 1, onwards?

 

Not every word, but even that 1st "Part 1" post is lacking in background and I have no concrete context as to accept what you're claiming. How can a person continue to read the other parts without understanding what you're saying?

 

Like I say, you should really just summarize everything in a few posts. Start from first principles. From there, build your case. And pictures do help keep readers interested plus allows the reader to better contextualize! For example, what does this cheap system with NAD CDP and amp look like? Show me this Sharp "boombox speaker" since you didn't even publish a product model in that post!

 

Quote

The point is that the effects should not be exaggerated by characteristics of the playback - the car door slamming sequence showcased that the particular rig was overcooking that area.

 

How do you know it was exaggerated? What if this was how the soundtrack was produced and the equipment accurately replicated the intent?

 

Quote

This is where the "missing fundamental" behaviour comes in ... there is an obsessive audio enthusiast further up the road than the friend, who has massively heavy, sealed subwoofers - we ran a frequency sweep and could clearly hear extension to the bottom of the range, and, it was extremely clean. The whole ensemble was running through a DEQX, which had been repeatedly calibrated, and it was set up as an active system, amplifier per driver. So I pulled out my test, pipe organ CD - this should be good, eh ... 😉 ... Ummm, no. It wimped out, the majesty and glory of that sound, live, went missing - the notes may have been there, but it didn't work - hit Stop pretty quickly, with that one.

 

Sure. Maybe. How do I know? Unless you tell me what pipe organ CD you used, what track sounded bad, which sub(s) this guy has, what kind of system he's using, perhaps even what the room looks like... This is "hearsay" testimony. You do realize that the value of a comment like this is limited, right?

 

Quote

Again, you are using extreme examples ...

 

And why shouldn't I? You said rooms don't make a difference. Also, you said that it's possible to optimize a system so that tone controls no longer had an effect! I find those statements extreme and invitations to counter with obvious examples...

 

Quote

...

The biggest problem is that unless you are live in a room with a system, that can produce this subjective presentation, and can demonstrate how the illusion collapses if you "pull a small stone out from under one of the supporting pillars" - then these are all just words. There are members on this forum who understand how precarious it is achieving the necessary SQ - I've been at it a lot longer, and have learned a lot of 'tricks' on the way.

 

Okay. As I've said above. Please clearly highlight these "pillars" which I interpreted abstractly as elements of your "first principles" in your writings so everyone is clear as to what you're saying and doing...

 

Quote

The best "doctor" is the one who can understand, almost immediately, what is wrong with you as you start talking - this only occurs when he's been "on the job" for a long time; an intuition develops, and he cuts through many testing procedures, "because he's been there before".

 

Sorry, disagree. The idea of a doctor being able to diagnose based on first impressions and only on intuition (without digging deeper) can only go so far and with only certain conditions. Trust me on this one...

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, fas42 said:

...

How this started is because my first "good" rig used an expensive CDP, expensive amplifier, and cheap speakers - being a logical kind o' guy, I think!!, this said to me, "Ain't so important to use really, really good speakers!" ... it all built from there.

 

What do you lose with down market speakers? Worst from the SQ perspective is that the suspensions of the drivers.and the crossovers, are not as refined as expensive ones - this means they have to be driven hard from cold, to "warm them up" - for many people this would be a decisive reason not to go there, and that's fine. But I'm interested in what can be achieved, if one takes into account these sorts of issues.

 

Also what is a hindrance is that the cabinets are not "meaty" - thick, non-resonant, weigh half a ton, all help; anyone for some Wilsons? 😝 But If one takes some care you can effectively give the "flimsy" cabinet that comes with the drivers of a cheap speaker most of the characteristics that count for good sound. Without paying the manufacturers for all that meat ... this is what I did with my "beginner" setup.

 

What you may not believe is that low cost speakers can deliver intense, powerhouse sound - bowl you over with completely clean sound energy, immerse you in the music event - but I have consistently heard this happen ... what normally lets down the side is using an amplifier that is comparably in cost to that of the speakers - which won't work. The amp wimps out, and everyone blames the speakers - most people have it back to front ...

 

Okay. Like many areas of sound reproduction, let's say that the drivers themselves have reached a level of quality where distortion is low enough and generally the frequency reproduction and dispersion patterns are good enough that one can find adequate positioning to minimize issues.

 

True, improving cabinets is important. Perhaps you can write a blog post summarizing what you can do with the cabinets, materials, and procedure to reinforce the cabinet? As usual, pictures I think would help and very much enhance the article for something like this!

 

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, fas42 said:

It's all in posts made over the years - I'll hunt them dowm, and quote them in a post here, for now ... give me some moments ...

 

Sounds good... But here's a perfect example - since you're taking the time to gather thoughts and pieces, why not just create a blog post with the text, maybe links, again, maybe pictures of what you're doing and what the materials and procedure looks like?

 

Since this thread is called "step-by-step surgery", remember that surgical textbooks are very visual and need to incorporate illustrations of anatomical landmarks as well as visual aids for teaching procedures... (Exhibit A)

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Thing is, I want to trigger the brain cells, not the retina cones - if I "post pictures", at least one or two will slavishly copy exactly what's shown, having missed the intent of what's going on, and get it wrong in some area. Then they will indignantly post, "Frank's all BS! I did exactly what's in the pictures, and it made things worse ,,, he hasn't a clue!!" ... I can see it coming, from miles away ... 😜.

 

An ounce of brain processing is worth more than a lb of thick textbook, full of pretty pictures, 😉.

 

Come on Frank, have a little faith 🤔.

 

Surely you must consider the readers here are much more sophisticated than this! I bet you many will spend time thinking and considering if it makes sense for them. As in all things, some people may find benefit and others may not. At least it'll encourage experimentation. In the same way, I put my ideas out there on my blog recognizing that I'll catch flack at times. But if thoughts are worth sharing, then come what may... It's not like you (or I) are asking people to pay for something "guaranteed" to work. Rather, let's just talk, think, and show in a free marketplace of ideas.

 

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
On 1/26/2020 at 2:41 AM, fas42 said:

Surgery can be done to the source material, too - if the 'damage' is fairly straightforward ... Archimago posted that this latest  Pet Shop Boys track was looking pretty yucky, so I thought I would have a look at it. Downloaded a decent audio format version from YouTube - after a couple of gos, got the settings pretty right for undoing the compression, with the result,

 

PetShop.thumb.PNG.9c436d50e02d41e80a872375175589dc.PNG

 

Note the original version has been attenuated 8.5dB, to allow for the expansion of dynamic range - one major gain is clarity of the big reverb of the drum beat, which is highly squashed in the original.

 

Good job on the restoration, Frank. I'll have to give it a try as well to "hear" if it sounds better...

 

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
  • 11 months later...
3 hours ago, fas42 said:

is as good as any as an example as any of how many audiophiles approach this hobby, activity, the completely wrong way, IME. He wants to "tame the highs" - which is code for there being far too much distortion in the replay, which is particularly obvious in the treble content of the recording. And that there are 'magic' devices out there, which "solve everything!" ... by adding some specialness to part of the chain, which makes all the bad stuff go away. Well, it may work, help, but it will be a fluke if it does this decisively ... it's the lack of greater insight by most in the audio game which holds back the possibility of achieving really excellent SQ, in many cases - the thinking that one brings to the process of optimising the sound is so, so important; and one that doesn't directly tackle the underlying issues will mean that it could take a long time to get satisfying results.

 

Sometimes, "tame the highs" is just "tame the highs" depending on the system. Maybe a little EQ would be more effective and easy to refine to taste.

 

I agree that there's no need for any magic devices like this. But also no need to interpret the anomaly as "distortion in the replay" is there? Unless one can show actual distortion present...

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
On 1/30/2021 at 8:53 PM, fas42 said:

 

The key words there are as bolded ... if the system status is such that the high frequencies are disturbing to listen to, then the playback has a problem. A trivial example is a very ordinary car radio, which has a 'tone control' - something comes on with lots of treble, and it sounds awful! So the passengers yell at the driver to "turn it down!" - and he winds back the tone control; which is merely a treble cut circuit - ahh, nice and cuddly sound!

 

The problem was too much distortion - simple fix, dump the HF ... well, it turns out even the most high end replay rig can suffer the same subjective issue, though it may be far more subtle in its impact.

 

So, DSP it away - but have you really solved things? IME, no ... a recording which is unbearable on some rig, with razor sharp edges tearing at your ear drums, can be played on a competent setup at any volume, with complete ease in the listening - your brain is balancing, 'EQ'ing' what you hear; it even adjusts for the non-linear distortion within the recording itself, if not too severe ... this is where the 'magic' happens; exploiting how human hearing can compensate for deficiencies in the source, if you don't overtask its abilities to do this.

 

 

 

But that's touching on my point (bolded). How do you know there was too much distortion? Obviously not all recordings are of good tonal quality. Some have "razor sharp edges" baked into the signal itself and an accurate reproduction of the sound would let listeners know that the recording was simply of poor quality.

 

Has there been consistent demonstration that the situations you're alluding to actually are primarily distortion-related? Not saying it's not a possibility, rather I'm not sure I've come across this much...

 

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
  • 5 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Too hard to have a look at the Edifying Journey thread, 😉? I have repeatedly, repeat, repeatedly stated that noise coming over the mains has been a major factor - so at the moment I have a crazy mix of filtering circuitry and extension cords to help isolate from this noise - which appears, currently, to finally knock it on the head. Saying what's in it would be ridiculous, because I'm certain parts of it are counterproductive, or unnecessary; and, I now need to carefully go backwards, and eliminate that which serves no purpose. Also, it looks a crazy mess - functionality is the first step; blingifying it is the last ...

 

In a way, yes! Which is why I prefer a blog format if there is some kind of "ongoing journey" because on forums there are typically too many back and forth discussions and after a couple of pages, one loses track and gets bored unless truly attentive.

 

Quote

Also, the power on/off switch was been bypassed; this was awkward to do, but necessary.

 

What was gained was reduction of distortion. This means that one can go louder, with no sense of anything being unpleasant about the sound. I haven't achieved full invisibility of the speakers; but currently the SQ at its best is highly satisfying.

 

 

Yes, it's noisy. And the why was that the camera I used for recording had very poor S/N; this certainly discouraged me from doing more than a few captures - it was an exercise to see if it was worthwhile trying this sort of thing. Which it obviously isn't, 🙂 ...

 

 

Will be hitting 70 next year - checked a couple of years ago, just using a test disk and speakers, and at that point one ear could still register an 18k signal; the other could only reach 15k. However, that has zero to do with being able to hear distortion ...

 

Thank you Frank. Good to know and I appreciate that self disclosure.

 

To be honest, I have strong doubts that you would be able to hear 15kHz pure tone without quite high thresholds, much less 18kHz as a ~70 year old male. In any event, I also don't see why this has "zero" to do with hearing distortions. I have not seen a study that doesn't suggest at least some degree of loss of general acuity across all frequencies through the decades (even though high frequencies worse). If you're talking about severe distortions, then sure, an older male should be able to hear these things, but this would also be easily measurable (which you have not shown). If it's very subtle distortions, then I'm afraid as we get older, my bet is that these will be harder to appreciate.

 

Quote

What the goal is, is to match the qualities of live sound - no matter what state one's hearing is in, if one has no trouble distinguishing live sound from the reproduction of it, then your hearing is good enough. And the reproduction isn't good enough. To me, the recordings I use for checking progress sound the same to me now as they did 40 years ago. And if the rig is flawed in the key areas I worry about, then they still sound obviously 'wrong'.

 

I appreciate that you believe this, but nonetheless find this hard to believe is true.

 

Quote

What you say would make a lot more sense to me, if I could just wander into a room with any old, half decent system playing - and it impressed me. But they don't. Until it becomes a norm that everyday rigs don't have obvious flaws, then talking about FR, and mono, and random noise is meaningless - it's the experience of live music making that matters to me; which appears not to be of interest to you.

 

Then there's really nothing to talk about. If the definition of a good system (at least "half decent" one), is literally YOU wandering into a room and YOU needing to be "impressed". And YOU thinking this sounds "live" with no other means of showing, or expressing what exactly you're hearing, what "distortion" you're talking about, or ultimately improving when performing your "magic", then I'm afraid this self-absorbed, idiosyncratic way of thinking will likely not be of use for others.

 

Anyhow, carry on. All the best to you and yours and I hope ultimately you achieve your ideal with the Edifier speakers. For the price, at least the S2000 Mk III I tried was pretty enjoyable with some nice features and good build.

 

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...
On 12/20/2021 at 5:41 PM, fas42 said:

Just to comment on

 

In particular, that the Powerwall arrangement secured better SQ than the other configurations - considering the efforts that @austinpop has already gone to condition and filter that which comes from the grid, it still made a sizeable difference going across to that which was exclusively supplied by internal reserves, the Powerwall batteries.

 

Which says what? That it is not trivial to completely isolate an ambitious audio system from the vagaries of what the power is like coming from the street - I certainly can vouch for that, having always had to jump through many hoops to get decently clean mains being fed to gear. So, in spite of what you have already done, there is a good, a very good chance of securing better sound by adding yet further measures to improve the mains waveform - consider this as being a better value for money exploration, than many of the other things audiophiles try.

 

What's the long term solution? Pretty obvious - to have equipment as produced by the audio industry not being so damn sensitive to this! Keeping up a constant whinge to people who matter, to try and design their products better, should help - otherwise the poor consumer has to keep running around, sorting out the stuff that should have been done in the factory ... :).

 

The "elephant in the room" with discussions like these is that we accept at face value that the reported "sizeable differences" are a statement of fact that is actually audible and anyone listening would come to a similar opinion. That might or might not be the case. IMO, if anything is clearly audible, one should have objective evidence as well.

 

IMO, it's important not to get too deep into rabbit holes for claims which are simply unsubstantiable. Just like claims of this nature in the magazines - maybe it's a thing, maybe it's not...

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment
  • 4 months later...
On 4/25/2022 at 7:44 PM, fas42 said:

Quite pleased with the Edifiers rig at the moment ... this has been a steady process, identifying each weakness in turn - and tweaking to improve the overall robustness and integrity of the chain. Key ones have been sensitivity to noise from cables, and external electrical activity; and the latest one to rear its ugly head, :D, was sensitivity to the physical stability of the plastic Toslink optical cable. Of course, that issue has been there, all the way though; it was just a matter of time before its presence became obvious enough - so then I knew I had to do something about it. At the moment just a kludge; applying tension on the cable so it can't 'flop'; with damping so that the applied tension doesn't excite other vibration modes.

 

So, what has the step by step process delivered? At the moment, highly satisfying sound - excellent soundstage, depth; the speakers are "invisible" enough that I'm not fussed about scraping that very last ounce of performance in this area; 110 year old recordings come up very nicely, are enjoyable to listen to, as a musical event.

 

The "surgery" has reduced the level of annoying artifacts to a point where they are mostly inaudible; the "health" of the system is now good enough for it largely do its intended job: reveal the content of recordings well enough so that no matter what is put on, it always, works ...

 

Glad it's working out for you. Got pictures of this Edifier rig with the modifications?

 

Archimago's Musings: A "more objective" take for the Rational Audiophile.

Beyond mere fidelity, into immersion and realism.

:nomqa: R.I.P. MQA 2014-2023: Hyped product thanks to uneducated, uncritical advocates & captured press.

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...