Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[Confused]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Third - problem is that people use highly percussive pieces, with overcooked production; South American style  recorded tracks can be as far away from demure audiophile mastering practices as one can get - multiple kitchen sinks are used for the production!

 

 

Did you mean the third clip?  If so I have a problem, I didn't hear anything percussive at all!

[fas42]

15 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

😕 As one who used a Technics SA-GX690 back in the 1990's, who ever said it would not sound fine feeding a high efficiency speaker like this?

 

Should have injected a smiley 😉 ... of course, gear like this being used in its comfort zone is fine - but I was contrasting the setup with the previous clips, which used ultra expensive DACs and amplifiers ...

[fas42]

10 hours ago, Confused said:

 

Did you mean the third clip?  If so I have a problem, I didn't hear anything percussive at all!

 

My apologies! Not sure what happened there - what I was really meaning to say is that unusual recordings make it difficult to assess things; because the performance and mastering style is so unlike a conventional track, it becomes much harder to separate replay and recording signatures.

[fas42]

Latest Lush^3 posting sums up the audio game pretty well,

 

Most people have gone through a multiple decades journey, to get to Stanley's end point - the key difference for me is that I got there, right back in the 1980's. So, I have had several decades in between to digest, mull over many, many things, investigate, experiment, analyse, try crazy ideas - but without ever losing my way; I always know exactly what I'm after ... you never forget how to ride a bike, 😀.

[Rexp]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Latest Lush^3 posting sums up the audio game pretty well,

 

Most people have gone through a multiple decades journey, to get to Stanley's end point - the key difference for me is that I got there, right back in the 1980's. So, I have had several decades in between to digest, mull over many, many things, investigate, experiment, analyse, try crazy ideas - but without ever losing my way; I always know exactly what I'm after ... you never forget how to ride a bike, 😀.

If you liked CD in the 80's you probably have a hearing problem. 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

If you liked CD in the 80's you probably have a hearing problem. 

 

The problem in the 80's was that people had a poor grasp of what was important, and what wasn't - for getting digital playback to be subjectively satisfying. I never came across any playback, apart from my own, that wasn't suffering from obvious distortion anomalies - luck, the right combo of gear, and a keen desire to get the maximum possible from the setup I had, by trying every tweak I read about, or could think of, culminated in the presentation of competent sound ... that is, what's on the recording is what you hear; rather than a washed out, poorly detailed, or unpleasant interpretation of it.

 

I have the very same CDs now that I did right at the beginning - and they "sound the same" now as they did 30 years ago; when both the rig back then, and the current effort is working close to peak quality - the data hasn't changed, therefore, what you hear doesn't change ... it's all very logical, you see 🤪.

 

The level of digital dirtiness that comes for the ride is steadily rolling back - so, much easier now to bring out the contents of the recording, without regularly grimacing 😜 - even the lowest cost items get so much more right these days; meaning, more and more designers are learning to 'hear', 😉.

[fas42]

Interesting to see the progression here,

 

Bob is getting closer and closer to "just hearing the recording"; as the manufacturers of active speakers evolve the refinement needed to completely remove any signature of the playback elements. The designers of this latest round have the right attitude,

 

Quote

First off, 'perfect sound’ to us at Heavenly Soundworks means that you can't tell the difference between the original music or instruments, and the recording of the same played back through our speakers.

 

Exactly.

 

Where designs sourced from people having an objectivist leaning struggle to get it completely right is summed up rather neatly in this comment,
 

Quote

 

The Kii Threes present a very clean and open soundstage.  There is a lot of detail in the music, and they have a useful bass extension.   In comparing them to the FIVE17, the Kii Threes are dry and somewhat analytical.   The FIVE17 speakers are more "organic," have more PRAT, and a more comfortable listening experience.  The bass extension is significantly lower.

 

...

 

The Kii Threes reproduce the music in great detail; the FIVE17 covey the experience, the instruments, the audience, the rooms, and Loreena's voice.

 

 

That is, a lesser solution will tick all the technical boxes, but still have not eliminated the audible anomalies that our human hearing is so adept at picking up. These latest speakers seem to have been refined to the point where they essentially don't require the usual, necessary tweaking to get the chain to deliver convincing SQ - when a setup gets it 'right', it's so obviously superior as a subjective experience that one will never be really satisfied with anything below that standard.

[fas42]

The fascination with "trying to get the bass right!" never goes away ... 🙃

 

Looking at latest posts in

 

the same fixation with FR continues ... this has almost nothing to do with the subjective impression of the bass line in the music, of course - if one has experienced the range of rigs, from those with monster towers of the largest bass drivers which do a terrible job, to tiny bookshelfs which are mounted excellently, and bowl one over with the intensity of the impact of the bass instruments in the mix, then one understands that the approach needs to very different.

 

The bass line in a piece works beautifully, when the integrity of the chain is at a high enough standard - and the placement of the speaker is virtually completely irrelevant. The reason is easy to understand - human hearing automatically compensates for wild FR peaks and troughs, with great ease - when the sound of what it's listening to makes sense ... if this wasn't the case, then listening to live music would be a nightmare - just shift sideways a foot or so, and the spectrum would radically alter - you might as well be listening to a completely different performance! Which of course doesn't happen ... your mind constantly adapts, and 'normalises' what you hear.

 

Which is what happens with competent playback - it "always sounds the same"; the brain adjusts, no matter where the speakers are, or where you're listening from ... the giveaway that a playback is sub-par is if the sound subjectively keeps changing, with tiny alterations of positioning - the SQ is at a point where the brain is struggling to make sense of everything; and then a tiny change can be very meaningful, for the processing activity inside your head ..

[fas42]

Just was pointed to this link,

 

 

and this is true, and not true.  What's not true is that, say, doubling or whatever factor you want to use, of the cost of the items immediately jumps it up so many notches - what one typically gets is a rig that makes certain, highly specific recordings sound very impressive; and most everything else rather awful - well below the standard possible on a better sorted setup ... here, one is using very, very expensive makeup to add lots of personality to a somewhat mundane reality - fine as an exercise, but not "getting closer" to what's on the recording. OTOH, what is true is that the presentation of a recording can become 'mind blowing' in all the ways that are good - which is where the perseverance and expertise of the individual fine tuning the system come strongly into the picture.

 

An example of the latter is mentioned in the video at 5:00, where the sound of a Brian Eno album played on a top notch rig is described ... now, Steve marvels at the layering and density of what he heard - but this in fact is merely what is on most albums that have been put together by creative people; the technology used for recording it is completely irrelevant. Many if not most setups aren't clean enough to reproduce the content well; so as Steve says, the intrinsic complexity is "unheard" by most people - this is where the huge rewards result from constant evolving of normal, or even modest combos of gear - one day, the riches of the track or album pour out; and you "understand everything" ... 😉.

[fas42]

Just came across this video,

 

 

This is as good as any I've come across that captures the sense of how good reproduction projects into the listening space, and allows one to move around, even behind one speaker at one point, without losing the sense of connection to the music making ... nice one!

 

[Confused]

On 2/14/2021 at 1:02 PM, fas42 said:

Just came across this video,

 

 

This is as good as any I've come across that captures the sense of how good reproduction projects into the listening space, and allows one to move around, even behind one speaker at one point, without losing the sense of connection to the music making ... nice one!

 

An example of monster 15" bass drivers doing a good job perhaps?

[fas42]

There is no specific reason why large drivers won't do a good job - here is a rig where the bass is produced through careful, and highly efficient design; where things can get out of hand is when brute force amperage is used to leverage lots of diaphragm area to plumb the depths of the frequency range - the subjectively lopsided presentation might be impressive, to some; but has little resemblance to what live sound is about ...

 

Much playback has big problems in being able to deliver visceral impact in the treble region - normal workaround is to tilt the FR curve right down; to make that unpleasant, screechy stuff go away 😝 ... ummm, wrong move - if you get the high frequencies right, then it all falls into place ... convincing, rich sound emerges - and all recordings become good to listen to ... 🙂.

[fas42]

On a roll ... found another clip, where good use of those speakers is evident,

 

 

Now, I don't need to hear shuddering bass frequencies to appreciate this - the bottom end has its place, when it forms a key part of what the music is about ...

[fas42]

Just became aware of this hardware,

 

Reading Chris's review, it ticks the boxes - getting closer to the intrinsic sound of the event capture, without needing careful tweaking of surroundings, etc, to achieve this.

[fas42]

Yet Another Post that makes it clear that most audiophiles have things back to front in this game - I won't point to it, 😉 ... the thinking is nearly always that changing the DAC, say, makes the recording sound "better and better!" - like there's some powder inside the unit that is fluffed on, doing magic on the waveform as it comes through.

 

Folks, it just doesn't work that way, 😀. All you're gonna get is the raw recording, with no added bits(🤪) of makeup from the DAC - the "better and better" is coming about because you're getting closer, inch by inch, to that sound - which means that there is always a real limit to what can ultimately happen. But, the really good news is that the real magic is in the recording itself - and always has been. Your job, if you choose the mission, is to work out how to get there ... 🙃

[kumakuma]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yet Another Post that makes it clear that most audiophiles have things back to front in this game - I won't point to it, 😉 ... the thinking is nearly always that changing the DAC, say, makes the recording sound "better and better!" - like there's some powder inside the unit that is fluffed on, doing magic on the waveform as it comes through.

 

Folks, it just doesn't work that way, 😀. All you're gonna get is the raw recording, with no added bits(🤪) of makeup from the DAC - the "better and better" is coming about because you're getting closer, inch by inch, to that sound - which means that there is always a real limit to what can ultimately happen. But, the really good news is that the real magic is in the recording itself - and always has been. Your job, if you choose the mission, is to work out how to get there ... 🙃

 

Adding a few emojis to an insulting post is such as 12-year-old girl move. 

[fas42]

41 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Adding a few emojis to an insulting post is such as 12-year-old girl move. 

 

Of course, what is really interesting is why you consider that insulting - is it because people in your part of the world are extremely thin skinned, or something else?

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course, what is really interesting is why you consider that insulting - is it because people in your part of the world are extremely thin skinned, or something else?

 

Actually what's more even more interesting is why you consider it necessary to make yet another one of your "all audiophiles are idiots" posts.

 

Is that how people in your part of the world interact with one another?

[fas42]

46 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Actually what's more even more interesting is why you consider it necessary to make yet another one of your "all audiophiles are idiots" posts.

 

Is that how people in your part of the world interact with one another?

 

No, I see most audiophiles as having a very unhelpful perspective on what needs to be done to get best sound - everyone I talked to 30 years ago, in the audio world were fixated on certain things being very important; and it continues to this day - and for decades the SQ of rigs I came across suffered from this thinking ... mob thinking rules the roost, and very few people dare to challenge that. If they do, they are normally completely ignored.

 

And the end result are things like grotesquely over-compressed recordings, and MQA. So, the audio world has reaped from what it has sown, in my book ... which is why I'm not going to pander to people who want to think that those ideas are still what it's all about ...

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

No, I see most audiophiles as having a very unhelpful perspective on what needs to be done to get best sound - everyone I talked to 30 years ago, in the audio world were fixated on certain things being very important; and it continues to this day - and for decades the SQ of rigs I came across suffered from this thinking ... mob thinking rules the roost, and very few people dare to challenge that. If they do, they are normally completely ignored.

 

And the end result are things like grotesquely over-compressed recordings, and MQA. So, the audio world has reaped from what it has sown, in my book ... which is why I'm not going to pander to people who want to think that those ideas are still what it's all about ...

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

Have you actually read the MQA-related threads on this site?

 

There is no "mob". More like a herd of cats.

[fas42]

MQA is a 'workaround' - to help replay systems which are down on quality, to sound better. The fact that it's got an audience tells one that the situation is not good in audio land - depending upon the signature of a particular setup, it may make things worse, or better - so I would expect that there is disagreement on its value.

 

On a competent rig, both the MQA, and the non-MQA versions will be fine - put next to each other, they will sound different; in the same way different masterings of the same original recording session will vary - and one's preference will depend upon, everything.

 

But those who hate the MQA 'tone' are now stuck with dealing with it being on the market - it should never have arisen.

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

But those who hate the MQA 'tone' are now stuck with dealing with it being on the market - it should never have arisen.

 

How would you have prevented the record labels from getting behind it?

 

I'm pretty sure the company stock that MQA gave them and the potential to protect their crown jewels were more compelling that the opinions of you, I, or any other audiophile.

 

 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

How would you have prevented the record labels from getting behind it?

 

I'm pretty sure the company stock that MQA gave them and the potential to protect their crown jewels were more compelling that the opinions of you, I, or any other audiophile.

 

 

 

MQA would not have been devised as a technical 'solution' - if there was no call for SQ to be improved. An obvious analogy is Dolby Noise Reduction - it was invented because the media of the time struggled to get tape hiss down; there was an actual need to improve the performance, so a patented method to deal with it was created. If the tapes of the time had much better S/N ratios, the word Dolby would not have mean anything to anyone, right now ... it was a solution to a real problem.

 

MQA is a solution for people who have sub-par playback; if the overall general standard of audio replay had been much higher at the time, the concept of MQA would have been laughed at, as a curiosity of no value to anyone - it would have died a very, very early death.

 

 

[Confused]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course, what is really interesting is why you consider that insulting - is it because people in your part of the world are extremely thin skinned, or something else?

Personally I do not find it insulting, but I think some might see it as adding a mocking "tone" to your posts.

 

Which perhaps begs the question as to what your own objective is here?  Your frustration with the world of audio reproduction is clear, and indeed is very well documented in this thread.  If you are simply exasperated and just want to have a go at the world of audio reproduction and audiophiles in general, then this is all fine and appropriate I think.

 

If your aim is to make a difference, then a mocking "tone" to your posts is unlikely to be the most persuasive way of proceeding as many will see you posts as just that, as one individual mocking others.  If mockery is perceived by many as being the purpose of the post, then any substantive point is likely to be lost.

 

Rational and logical argument is likely to yield better results.

[fas42]

A thoughtful post, thanks for that ...

 

1 hour ago, Confused said:

Personally I do not find it insulting, but I think some might see it as adding a mocking "tone" to your posts.

 

Consider some of it to be humour, and another smidgin to be frustration, 🙂.

 

1 hour ago, Confused said:

 

Which perhaps begs the question as to what your own objective is here?  Your frustration with the world of audio reproduction is clear, and indeed is very well documented in this thread.  If you are simply exasperated and just want to have a go at the world of audio reproduction and audiophiles in general, then this is all fine and appropriate I think.

 

Not wanting to "have a go" - but to lend a different perspective, which irritates the daylights out of many. Go back to the original post in this thread, by @Blackmorec , and reread it. Nearly everything he says I can agree with - to the point that some thought he were in fact I ... but he largely got away with it, with the rest of you, by stating that plenty of money was normally needed to get to this point; and that the room was still terribly important, and similar things. He's after something, the same thing I chase - any "mocking" is reserved for those who claim to be after that, but who are bloody minded in their insistence that certain "rules" can't be broken - things like, "a high percentage of recordings are garbage, and nothing can be done about that!".

 

1 hour ago, Confused said:

 

If your aim is to make a difference, then a mocking "tone" to your posts is unlikely to be the most persuasive way of proceeding as many will see you posts as just that, as one individual mocking others.  If mockery is perceived by many as being the purpose of the post, then any substantive point is likely to be lost.

 

Rational and logical argument is likely to yield better results.

 

I found that when I was rational and logical, that the return was a deluge of "mocking tone" posts - so I guess I've learnt to respond in kind ... he who lies down with dogs, wakes up with fleas, 😉.