Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[kumakuma]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Your understanding is incorrect.

 

MQA was created primarily as a "lossless" compression method to deal with bandwidth issues (at the time) with DRM thrown in to get the labels on board.

 

Quote

 

Digital encapsulation of audio signals

Patent number: 10867614

Abstract: Encoding and decoding systems are described for the provision of high quality digital representations of audio signals with particular attention to the correct perceptual rendering of fast transients at modest sample rates. This is achieved by optimising downsampling and upsampling filters to minimise the length of the impulse response while adequately attenuating alias products that have been found perceptually harmful.

 

 

Quote

 

Transparent lossless audio watermarking enhancement

Patent number: 10811017

Abstract: Methods and devices are described for losslessly watermarking an audio signal by performing a noise shaped quantisation and clipping the output from the noise shaped quantisation to bounds computed by a pair of quantised linear functions with gradient 0.5 of the input to the noise shaped quantisation. Corresponding methods and devices are also described for inverting the process to recover an exact replica of the original audio signal.

 

 

[kumakuma]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

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!"

 

Frank, folks disagree with you not because of some group think or mob mentality but because their own experiences and senses are telling them something else.

 

The undertone in many of your posts is that you know better than rest of us and that we are all simply sheep following the herd without the ability to think for ourselves.

 

I find this attitude on your part both condescending and insulting.

[Confused]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

and that the room was still terribly important, and similar things

 

This is a good example.  I too think the room is important.  This is based on:

 

a) my own subjective experiences

b) the laws of physics

 

Plus, as it happens, in my case point a) corresponds with what would be expected by point b), which makes for a very convincing case, to myself and I suspect others.

 

OK - I know that you could make the point that if a rig is in the zone then the room does not matter, you could even qualify this by saying that you have never heard a rig in the zone, you would never believe it.

 

The problem I have is that for me, this argument is not convincing, where as points a & b above I find very convincing.

 

So to convince myself, and others that what you say is correct you need an argument that is as convincing as points a & b above.

 

Anyway, the above has been debated before in this thread, so it is not worth repeating the same old arguments.

 

Although we do all like a YouTube clip here:

 

 

In this clip I can clearly hear the difference between the treated and untreated room.  Plus, I would find it hard to believe that this effect could be eliminated completely by substituting a the system used in the clip with a "sorted rig".  Indeed, the effects that can be heard in the clip are consistent with the laws of physics, irrespective of specifics of the system used for the demo.

 

It would take a very convincing counter argument to convince me otherwise.

 

I am sure that you could come up with an argument against what is written above, but I very much doubt it would ever convince myself.  This is the problem.

 

So maybe best just to agree to disagree?   (It is a fun clip though)

[fas42]

5 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Your understanding is incorrect.

 

MQA was created primarily as a "lossless" compression method to deal with bandwidth issues (at the time) with DRM thrown in to get the labels on board.

 

 

 

 

Okay, we'll take a step back - hi res is a 'workaround' to deal with the fact that most early implementations of Redbook playback were lacking - but higher bit rate, etc, formats have now caught on so strongly that they are a fixed part of the landscape; they are accepted completely as part of the audio scene. The truth is, they do so close to zero in terms of delivering any extra information that they are close to useless - but, they are a bandaid to help systems sound better. Which is why they are relatively successful.

 

MQA is the next layer on top of that ... people "demand" hi res, but because this is extremely wasteful of bandwidth, it was considered worthwhile to do whatever it takes, so people would be comforted by the thought that they were listening to a version of hi res, 🙂.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Frank, folks disagree with you not because of some group think or mob mentality but because their own experiences and senses are telling them something else.

 

The undertone in many of your posts is that you know better than rest of us and that we are all simply sheep following the herd without the ability to think for ourselves.

 

I find this attitude on your part both condescending and insulting.

 

Of course your experiences and senses are telling you something different ... I hear what you're hearing nearly every time I come across another ambitious rig - I shake my head at all the obvious, very audible problems in the SQ, and wonder how the person can put up with it for extended periods 😝.

 

I "know better" purely because I started getting competent SQ over 30 years ago  ... in the fields of human endeavour, in any area, the person who has been doing it longer will always "know more" ...

 

People keep saying they want to experience the sensation of live music, from recordings - when I describe the highly effective, low cost steps that allow that to happen, people respond with contempt and disbelief ... sorry, attitude works both ways.

[Racerxnet]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course your experiences and senses are telling you something different ... I hear what you're hearing nearly every time I come across another ambitious rig - I shake my head at all the obvious, very audible problems in the SQ, and wonder how the person can put up with it for extended periods 😝.

 

I "know better" purely because I started getting competent SQ over 30 years ago  ... in the fields of human endeavour, in any area, the person who has been doing it longer will always "know more" ...

 

People keep saying they want to experience the sensation of live music, from recordings - when I describe the highly effective, low cost steps that allow that to happen, people respond with contempt and disbelief ... sorry, attitude works both ways.

Your hubris far exceeds the reality around you..

Proverbs 12:15

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Confused said:

 

Although we do all like a YouTube clip here:

 

 

In this clip I can clearly hear the difference between the treated and untreated room.  Plus, I would find it hard to believe that this effect could be eliminated completely by substituting a the system used in the clip with a "sorted rig".  Indeed, the effects that can be heard in the clip are consistent with the laws of physics, irrespective of specifics of the system used for the demo.

 

Of course I hear the difference - in the treated, a heavy blanket has been thrown over the speakers - good ol' kitchen radio sound. The playback is nice and small ... inoffensive. It's always "smaller than me!", so it can never get scary, 😀. The musicians are nicely tucked into a small cardboard box, so to speak - and don't threaten us 🙂.

 

An experience that doesn't interest me - at all. I want to be gripped by the music texture and intensity - to be in the heart of the sound. Most systems are completely incapable of doing this without adding far too much obvious distortion - and so fail to do the job. When a setup is in the zone, it succeeds, completely.

 

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Your hubris far exceeds the reality around you..

Proverbs 12:15

 

We've been here before, friend ...

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course your experiences and senses are telling you something different ... I hear what you're hearing nearly every time I come across another ambitious rig - I shake my head at all the obvious, very audible problems in the SQ, and wonder how the person can put up with it for extended periods 😝.

 

I "know better" purely because I started getting competent SQ over 30 years ago  ... in the fields of human endeavour, in any area, the person who has been doing it longer will always "know more" ...

 

People keep saying they want to experience the sensation of live music, from recordings - when I describe the highly effective, low cost steps that allow that to happen, people respond with contempt and disbelief ... sorry, attitude works both ways.

 

My wife often tells me I'm full of myself.

 

Frank, if you don't mind, I'm going to share some of your posts with her as proof that she could have done a lot worse.

[fas42]

You do realise this exchange commenced when you responded to a post aimed at no-one in particular, by saying

 

Quote

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

 

Hmmm, I think I do understand your wife's POV ...

 

 

BTW, my broadband, NBN, went off air a couple of hours ago - dead NBN box, or problem up the line - power outages, from a mild storm, did the damage, it appears ... tech not before Monday 😵.

 

So, might not respond as often ... for which many might be grateful, 😉.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

You do realise this exchange commenced when you responded to a post aimed at no-one in particular

 

My apologizes. 🛀

 

I didn't realize that you were posting just to hear the sound of your own voice. 🤐

 

Perhaps in the future you could flag those posts that are just for your own benefit. 🦄

[fas42]

6 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

My apologizes. 🛀

 

I didn't realize that you were posting just to hear the sound of your own voice. 🤐

 

Perhaps in the future you could flag those posts that are just for your own benefit. 🦄

 

Very simple solution ... if what I say agitates you, just ignore me - any way you want to do that. If you want reinforcement of your thinking of what's important in the audio world, you are certainly not going to get it  here ... you see, it's called "Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’" ... if you want to start another thread called "kumakuma's audio reality!!", you are quite free to do so - how about considering that for a bit, hmmm ...

[Racerxnet]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Very simple solution ... if what I say agitates you, just ignore me - any way you want to do that. If you want reinforcement of your thinking of what's important in the audio world, you are certainly not going to get it  here ... you see, it's called "Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’" ... if you want to start another thread called "kumakuma's audio reality!!", you are quite free to do so - how about considering that for a bit, hmmm ...

It may be Farce42 Stereo Magic, but you don't own the thread, nor do you get to dictate who participates. 

[Blackmorec]

When we listen to any real-life instrument....piano, guitar, french horn, church organ, vocalist etc. the sound of each emanates from a single point. The sound waves expand from the source and impinge on our ears. Depending on the position of the instrument or voice, the soundwaves will reach each ear with a slightly different amplitude, time and phase. Our brain uses the differences (differential) between the 2 versions of the same signal to locate the position of the instrument. So when we sit in a concert hall and listen to an orchestra, each instrument has a unique position and we hear width and distance (depth).  2 ears, allows us to  hear in 3 dimensions. 

With early reproduced music, the orchestra was recorded with a single microphone and replayed through a single speaker, so all the lateral spacial information was lost. Since all the instruments were replayed through a single point source (the loudspeaker) all instruments sounded like they originated from the same place. Then in the 1930s a UK-based EMI engineer called Alan Blumlein invented stereo music reproduction. Essentially what he did was to record the orchestra as it would have been heard by our 2 ears, so now we had 2 signals with all the differential information in tact.  2 widely spaced loudspeakers were used to replay the 2 signals, so that the ears actually picked up 2 different signals, much like they would have done with the original sound. And much like the original sound, the brain uses the differential between the 2 ears to reproduce spacial differences, so for the first time we could hear a recorded orchestra with much the same instrument spacial locations as the original.  This is however quite a delicate process. 

Firstly, the actual differences between the 2 signals are very small. The fact that we have 2 ears with a head in between creates very small differences in amplitude, time and phase. If those differences are well preserved and accurately reproduced we are able to hear something quite close to the original performance, but if those differences are distorted or lost, then all we hear is the sound coming from 2 sources....the loudspeakers. 

All Frank is talking about is making sure that the crucial differences are not lost. When that is the case and the differences are preserved, the brain takes those 2 signals and creates in our conscious mind a picture of the orchestra with the spacial differences of the instruments in tact. This is pretty much a ‘digital’ process....either there’s enough differential between the 2 signals to create the illusion of space, or there isn’t. When there is, we hear an orchestra with lateral space and depth. When there isn’t, we hear 2 loudspeakers playing music. 

 

So essentially what we’re saying is that in order for the stereo illusion to work, we need 2 pristine signals with the differences between them accurately preserved. Now we’ve said that its the differences in amplitude, time and phase that are key, so we need to make sure that those attributes remain, as much as possible, undisturbed.  The better they are, the more complete the illusion of space that’s created. 

 

So lets look at what potentially goes wrong. Firstly, the equipment used to reproduce the sound can introduce anomalies, such that the key differences are lost or attenuated. This results in a weaker or total absence of the illusion.  The second thing that has a major effect is set-up. Mains quality, cabling, vibration control, noise sources, RFI and EMI will all cause deterioration.  Then there’s the room and set-up within the room. 

 

Now Frank says the room has no effect once the system is dialled in and to SOME extent he’s correct.  Remember that the effect we’re looking for is actually created by the differential between 2 signals, and as the room affects both signals, it doesn’t impact the differential to anything like the same degree it affects the signals themselves, but that’s not to say that the room has no affect.

 

Lets look at those effects:

1. Firstly, were looking at the signal differentials, so anything that affects those differentials will have an effect. The distance between listener and loudspeaker will affect the sound pressure levels, timing and phase of the signals reaching each ear, so while you may still get all the spacial effects, relative distances between speaker and ear will still affect what you hear. 

2. The rooms reverberation time will affect frequency (tonal) balance. If too short the music will sound a little hard and dry. If too long the extra overhang will make the music slower, with less dynamic snap. The longer RT will also mask subtle venue reverberation detail.

3. Reflections will also mask detail, especially ambient detail and will alter the perceived tonal response. In addition, you have a situation where the music you hear includes the reflections and reverberations from both the original venue and the listening room.  Very confusing for the brain. 

 4. Getting up and wandering around the room will affect the perceived volumes from the  2 loudspeakers, relative to one another, so this MUST have an effect on the placement of instruments within the soundstage, even if the soundstage phenomena itself still remains intact. When you wander around a concert hall, you’ll hear changes and so to in the listening room.  The point Frank is making is that when your system is producing the 3D soundstage wandering around the listening room should be similar to wandering around the concert hall; certain instruments will become louder and others quieter. 

 

In summary, I would say that Frank is mostly correct in his assertions, but lacks experience in further refining the breakthrough he made 30 years ago.  I would also conclude from the various posts, that he’s not the only audiophile that has made the same discoveries and I think its this aspect that puts people’s backs up.  There’s no doubt that its a worthwhile goal to get to the point with reproduced music where there’s enough information for the brain to construct a 3 dimensional sound stage, but as I’ve already posted several times, that really is only the beginning of the journey....the more one is able to refine the audio clues required by the brain to construct the 3D illusion, the more convincing, solid and realistic that illusion becomes.   The brain’s ability to construct a 3D picture is pretty much a digital milestone...it either can or it can’t, but beyond that point there’s still a whole continuum of further improvements to be made. The whole 3D premise is based on preserving fine differentials between 2 signals. As mentioned above, the room isn’t going to affect the differential signals so much but its reverberation time and reflections are going to have a major effect on how that 3D picture is presented and how it sounds to the listener.

A really bad room will prevent the brain from forming the 3D imagery in the first place. A moderately bad room will limit the strength and specificity of that imagery and the amount of detail presented.  It will affect the tonality of the music, the depth and width of the soundstage, dynamic speed and contrasts and the perceived pace, rhythm and timing of the music. 

In conclusion....when your system is well selected, optimised and properly set up, it has the capability to allow your brain to develop a 3 dimensional landscape of the music. The better the room, the system and the optimization, the better that entire landscape becomes.    Many audiophiles are fully conversant with this 3 dimensional performance 

 

One final point. Trying to record and replay these phenomena on phones, iPads and laptops is pretty futile as non of these devices have the ability to capture, preserve or portray the subtle effects that the brain requires to construct 3 dimensional imagery, so all you get is a highly watered down version of exactly what you don’t want in your room i.e music missing both frequency extremes without any of the crucial spacial detail 🥺

 

 

[kumakuma]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Very simple solution ... if what I say agitates you, just ignore me - any way you want to do that. If you want reinforcement of your thinking of what's important in the audio world, you are certainly not going to get it  here ... you see, it's called "Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’" ... if you want to start another thread called "kumakuma's audio reality!!", you are quite free to do so - how about considering that for a bit, hmmm ...

 

You appear to be confusing a thread created to discuss your claims/methods with one intended to promote your claims/methods.

 

I will, however, take your advice to heart and try to resist posting in any of the echo chamber threads that you have created.

[fas42]

Excellent post ...discussing what's at the heart of the matter ...

 

7 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

When we listen to any real-life instrument....piano, guitar, french horn, church organ, vocalist etc. the sound of each emanates from a single point. The sound waves expand from the source and impinge on our ears. Depending on the position of the instrument or voice, the soundwaves will reach each ear with a slightly different amplitude, time and phase. Our brain uses the differences (differential) between the 2 versions of the same signal to locate the position of the instrument. So when we sit in a concert hall and listen to an orchestra, each instrument has a unique position and we hear width and distance (depth).  2 ears, allows us to  hear in 3 dimensions. 

 

Yes, though many sound sources are more complex - consider a choir of singers, who are very close together - there are individual voices, but the main sound we tune into is the production of the ensemble.

 

Quote

With early reproduced music, the orchestra was recorded with a single microphone and replayed through a single speaker, so all the lateral spacial information was lost. Since all the instruments were replayed through a single point source (the loudspeaker) all instruments sounded like they originated from the same place. Then in the 1930s a UK-based EMI engineer called Alan Blumlein invented stereo music reproduction. Essentially what he did was to record the orchestra as it would have been heard by our 2 ears, so now we had 2 signals with all the differential information in tact.  2 widely spaced loudspeakers were used to replay the 2 signals, so that the ears actually picked up 2 different signals, much like they would have done with the original sound. And much like the original sound, the brain uses the differential between the 2 ears to reproduce spacial differences, so for the first time we could hear a recorded orchestra with much the same instrument spacial locations as the original.  This is however quite a delicate process. 

Firstly, the actual differences between the 2 signals are very small. The fact that we have 2 ears with a head in between creates very small differences in amplitude, time and phase. If those differences are well preserved and accurately reproduced we are able to hear something quite close to the original performance, but if those differences are distorted or lost, then all we hear is the sound coming from 2 sources....the loudspeakers. 

 

It's more complex than that ... which I will come to later.

 

Quote

All Frank is talking about is making sure that the crucial differences are not lost. When that is the case and the differences are preserved, the brain takes those 2 signals and creates in our conscious mind a picture of the orchestra with the spacial differences of the instruments in tact. This is pretty much a ‘digital’ process....either there’s enough differential between the 2 signals to create the illusion of space, or there isn’t. When there is, we hear an orchestra with lateral space and depth. When there isn’t, we hear 2 loudspeakers playing music. 

 

We mustn't lose the detail. But, depth is encoded in the echo information. When properly reproduced, our brain can process this, and construct the space the performance occurred in, in the depth dimension. This means that any mono recording, no matter how old, can throw up an acoustic.

 

Quote

 

So essentially what we’re saying is that in order for the stereo illusion to work, we need 2 pristine signals with the differences between them accurately preserved. Now we’ve said that its the differences in amplitude, time and phase that are key, so we need to make sure that those attributes remain, as much as possible, undisturbed.  The better they are, the more complete the illusion of space that’s created. 

 

In the case of a true mono recording, this of course is not true. But the illusion of space is still manifested, on a good system - so, why does this happen? The answer is, that the brain is very clever - it takes the cues and clues in the sound, and from past experience builds up a picture of what's going on - those who have never experienced the transformation in the presentation that can occur with a highly primitive recording won't understand this ... which makes it easy for them to deny the possibility ... this is, RWD thinking, 😀.

 

Quote

 

So lets look at what potentially goes wrong. Firstly, the equipment used to reproduce the sound can introduce anomalies, such that the key differences are lost or attenuated. This results in a weaker or total absence of the illusion.  The second thing that has a major effect is set-up. Mains quality, cabling, vibration control, noise sources, RFI and EMI will all cause deterioration.  Then there’s the room and set-up within the room. 

 

Precisely.

 

Quote

 

Now Frank says the room has no effect once the system is dialled in and to SOME extent he’s correct.  Remember that the effect we’re looking for is actually created by the differential between 2 signals, and as the room affects both signals, it doesn’t impact the differential to anything like the same degree it affects the signals themselves, but that’s not to say that the room has no affect.

 

Lets look at those effects:

1. Firstly, were looking at the signal differentials, so anything that affects those differentials will have an effect. The distance between listener and loudspeaker will affect the sound pressure levels, timing and phase of the signals reaching each ear, so while you may still get all the spacial effects, relative distances between speaker and ear will still affect what you hear. 

 

The signal differences create the fascinating behaviour that the sound follows you, when you move sideways with a true mono recording.

 

Quote

2. The rooms reverberation time will affect frequency (tonal) balance. If too short the music will sound a little hard and dry. If too long the extra overhang will make the music slower, with less dynamic snap. The longer RT will also mask subtle venue reverberation detail.

 

No. The hardness, dryness, overhang, RT factors all disappear when the SQ is good enough - the acoustics of the recording dominate, completely,. This means that the characteristics of the sound totally change when a new recording is put on - what you hear is completely at the mercy of the recording.

 

Quote

3. Reflections will also mask detail, especially ambient detail and will alter the perceived tonal response. In addition, you have a situation where the music you hear includes the reflections and reverberations from both the original venue and the listening room.  Very confusing for the brain. 

 

It's not. This is the switch that occurs, inside your head, when the integrity of the replay reaches the right level - prior to this point, the ear/brain is still struggling to deal with what the room contributes; therefore, the goal is to move beyond that necessary standard.

 

Quote

 4. Getting up and wandering around the room will affect the perceived volumes from the  2 loudspeakers, relative to one another, so this MUST have an effect on the placement of instruments within the soundstage, even if the soundstage phenomena itself still remains intact. When you wander around a concert hall, you’ll hear changes and so to in the listening room.  The point Frank is making is that when your system is producing the 3D soundstage wandering around the listening room should be similar to wandering around the concert hall; certain instruments will become louder and others quieter. 

 

Partially right. The effect is far more like a visual hologram - no matter how you move around the projection, the sense of position and individuality of the sound elements remains consistent; it doesn't collapse into a 2D cardboard cutout.

 

Quote

 

In summary, I would say that Frank is mostly correct in his assertions, but lacks experience in further refining the breakthrough he made 30 years ago.  I would also conclude from the various posts, that he’s not the only audiophile that has made the same discoveries and I think its this aspect that puts people’s backs up.  There’s no doubt that its a worthwhile goal to get to the point with reproduced music where there’s enough information for the brain to construct a 3 dimensional sound stage, but as I’ve already posted several times, that really is only the beginning of the journey....the more one is able to refine the audio clues required by the brain to construct the 3D illusion, the more convincing, solid and realistic that illusion becomes.   The brain’s ability to construct a 3D picture is pretty much a digital milestone...it either can or it can’t, but beyond that point there’s still a whole continuum of further improvements to be made. The whole 3D premise is based on preserving fine differentials between 2 signals. As mentioned above, the room isn’t going to affect the differential signals so much but its reverberation time and reflections are going to have a major effect on how that 3D picture is presented and how it sounds to the listener.

 

Quote

A really bad room will prevent the brain from forming the 3D imagery in the first place.

 

Wrong. The 3D imagery will form, and will be completely true to what's on the recording - I've had setups in just about every combo of room situations; and when you are getting close, out pops the recording you have heard so many times before.

 

Quote

A moderately bad room will limit the strength and specificity of that imagery and the amount of detail presented.  It will affect the tonality of the music, the depth and width of the soundstage, dynamic speed and contrasts and the perceived pace, rhythm and timing of the music. 

In conclusion....when your system is well selected, optimised and properly set up, it has the capability to allow your brain to develop a 3 dimensional landscape of the music. The better the room, the system and the optimization, the better that entire landscape becomes.    Many audiophiles are fully conversant with this 3 dimensional performance 

 

Playing with the room simply reinforces the cues your brain requires, when they are not as good as they could be. An analogy is a poor photocopy - you struggle to read some of the words; so you take it to a strong light source; move your head to exactly the right distance; get a magnifying glass ... none of this is necessary if the photocopy is of high quality ... and it works the same in the auditory world.

 

Quote

 

One final point. Trying to record and replay these phenomena on phones, iPads and laptops is pretty futile as non of these devices have the ability to capture, preserve or portray the subtle effects that the brain requires to construct 3 dimensional imagery, so all you get is a highly watered down version of exactly what you don’t want in your room i.e music missing both frequency extremes without any of the crucial spacial detail 🥺

 

 

 

But what you can pick up is whether the integrity of the sound is getting close to the standard needed - if it's obviously fake, via a clip, then going into the room where it actually happened, the situation in this sense is not going to be improved, one bit.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

You appear to be confusing a thread created to discuss your claims/methods with one intended to promote your claims/methods.

 

I will, however, take your advice to heart and try to resist posting in any of the echo chamber threads that you have created.

 

Yes, as a homework exercise, compare and contrast @kumakuma contributions to this discussion, with those of say, @Confused and @Blackmorec, 😉.

[Racerxnet]

21 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yes, as a homework exercise, compare and contrast @kumakuma contributions to this discussion, with those of say, @Confused and @Blackmorec, 😉.

Cherry picking information is not very appealing, nore does it back your perspective. You are not convincing anyone except yourself. I have to wonder why you don't peddle your repeated response at ASR or other sites. Would it be because of to much resistance?

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Cherry picking information is not very appealing, nore does it back your perspective. You are not convincing anyone except yourself. I have to wonder why you don't peddle your repeated response at ASR or other sites. Would it be because of to much resistance?

 

He was banned from that site (and others):

 

https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/member-banning.2236/ 

[kumakuma]

33 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, as a homework exercise, compare and contrast @kumakuma contributions to this discussion, with those of say, @Confused and @Blackmorec, 😉.

 

A more interesting stat would be that I've made an average of 1.5 posts/day since joining while you're at 6.31 posts/day.

[fas42]

Just now, kumakuma said:

 

A more interesting stat would be that I've made an average of 1.5 posts/day since joining while you're at 6.31 posts/day.

 

Ahh, a "mine is bigger!" contribution - people, make sure you add that one to the list to study ... 😉.

[Racerxnet]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

He was banned from that site (and others):

 

https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/member-banning.2236/ 

He might do better if he could take his edifiers, newspapers and extension cords to a shared room, and compare his replay chain against other high end combos he is CERTAIN will sound poor (after all, most will be below par according to Frank). The latter contestants can use DSP and speaker placement best suited for the environment. Frank has to plop his in the middle of the room ( it does not matter to him) and have someone judge the outcome. I am sure he has a handle on the Edifiers and it will be easy to get the best out of them in a few hours time. If his sounded very good and we can qualify what is being said, he might be believable. 

 

I got $100.00 that says he couldn't pull it off.

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Cherry picking information is not very appealing, nore does it back your perspective. You are not convincing anyone except yourself. I have to wonder why you don't peddle your repeated response at ASR or other sites. Would it be because of to much resistance?

 

I only have convince people who are genuinely interested in better listening experiences - those who live in the world of, "Authority Figures are always Right!", or, "Money maketh the System, or,  "Names!! maketh the System" can just move on ... nothing to see here, 🤪.

[kumakuma]

 

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ahh, a "mine is bigger!" contribution - people, make sure you add that one to the list to study ... 😉.

 

😶 1.5 is smaller than 6.3 😢

 

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I only have convince people who are genuinely interested in better listening experiences - those who live in the world of, "Authority Figures are always Right!", or, "Money maketh the System, or,  "Names!! maketh the System" can just move on ... nothing to see here, 🤪.

 

Interesting that you should mention Authority Figures and always being right. Yesterday you said about yourself:

 

Quote

I "know better" purely because I started getting competent SQ over 30 years ago  ... in the fields of human endeavour, in any area, the person who has been doing it longer will always "know more" ...