Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[semente]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

You can always hear the material, George. OK, not "you" as such maybe, but it is easily possible. Btw, I think the given example was (pressed) sheet metal and that is the worst.

 

No matter how hard a cover is screwed on, you can still hear the cover (acoustic resonance). You are into cars, right ? well, use that rubber(ish) stuff that seals all kinds of boxes etc. inside the motor compartment (can be bought on a roll so now you perhaps know what I mean). Put that under the cover (where it touches the cabinet) and listen again ...

 

Proper damping of e.g. a D/A converter is an almost impossible job. The best results I had with the DAC floating on water. Yes you read right. And don't do this at home.

I stopped using this because the result depended on the water level; you may be able to imagine that the stack of water under the DAC is important for its own resonance towards the "floor", but merely how the floor - under influence of music - hammers on to the DAC. Now, the water level always changes because it vaporizes. So each 4 days or so I had to add water and I always knew because it was audible that the water level dropped too much.

So for 6 months or so I had been watering my DAC. Who says I'm crazy ?

 

  

 

 

Why didn't you use something more viscous like oil? Or honey? ?

 

I know someone who had his record player on a shelf hanged from the ceiling with cottong strings and a keel submerged in a pool of thick oil. Can't find a photo right now...

[semente]

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Now try sugar cubes

 

I have never tried sugar cubes (I prefer Bjork solo ? ) but I did use some ugly-green dry floral foam when I was still living with my parents...

[semente]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

My father, playing the main (solo) viola in the orchestra (also owning a sound studio back at the time) some times had to play with a microphone on his viola. He hated that. It was impossible to get any realistic viola sound from that.

 

Although all differently positioned, all are wrong of course because the sound of the instrument only expresses at somewhat further distance :

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be similar to you listening to a speaker 50 cm from the floor at 30cm distance with your nose in the woofer, hoping that you'd be able to hear the tweeter which is at 1m50, too.

 

 

 

Yes, close mic'ing is a terrible invention, at least for those who like the sound of acoustic instruments and vocals played in naturally resonant spaces.

[semente]

@PeterSt you're the expert on cymbals. How good is Bill Evans' "You Must Believe In Spring"?

[semente]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

If one listens exclusively to these sort of recordings, then my thoughts on the relative importance of speakers are not so useful.

 

Wait 'till you listen to 'em through a good pair o' speakers. 😉

[semente]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

If you're not willing to consider that the parts of the chain prior to the speakers are absolutely critical to best sound, then there is no point. Brilliant source recording + mediocre DAC + mediocre amp + brilliant speakers = mediocre subjective presentation - the weakest link determines vital parts of the SQ, not the 'best' link.

 

 

I can do that too:

 

Brilliant source recording + brilliant DAC + brilliant amp + mediocre speakers = mediocre subjective presentation - the weakest link determines vital parts of the SQ, not the 'best' link.

[semente]

I like this post from the same topic:

 

Sounds like 'audiophile skeleton sound' as I like to call it. It's like looking an x-ray of a person with only shadows of the flesh and blood. Lots of interesting detail, but not exactly how you see the subject in ordinary light of day.

Texturized rendition will be a bit more affably muddled by tone and color. Getting both tone and exquisite detail is an uncommon synergy of equipment and recording.

 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/can-loudspeakers-accurately-reproduce-the-sound-of-real-instruments-and-do-you-care.7422/page-10#post-176729

[semente]

I think you'll like this. 😎

[semente]

On 11/30/2019 at 1:58 AM, fas42 said:

And I was just reminded of an audiophile acquaintance who visited several times, years ago - he couldn't handle it 'loud' - he walked in the door, and immediately asked for the volume to be turned down; for him the sound had to be very "refined" and "controlled" - like a specimen in the museum, to be held at arm's length, and studied with all one's analytical prowess ... the 'rawness' of live sound is too much; perhaps, would have a heart attack if someone grabbed a saxophone, and blasted out some big notes, right in front of him, 😝

 

A good system will not sound loud even when it's playing loud.

Could it have been the distortion and not the loudness that scared him off?

[semente]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, that could be an obvious aspect - but it wasn't in this case; he had listened to my system at other times at similar or greater volumes. It was a situation where the the instruments were being played somewhat aggressively, there was natural bite in the sound - and people who often listen to systems in various states of tune can have an automatic reaction on first exposure - "Uh oh, this is going to sound bad when a loud bit comes - I don't want to put up with it!"

Bad recording then. They do exist.

[semente]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

so if one is not prepared to accept that this is just the nature of audio

 

That speakers in rooms create problems, which is why they don't sound like headphones? 😉

[semente]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

Nope! My experience is that speakers sound better than headphones, by default - the latter just irritate me, they have no virtues whatsoever, apart from shielding someone else in the room from having to listen to music they don't want to hear - to some degree at least, 😄.

 

What some people probably like headphones for, on their systems - to present the environment of the recording as the dominant sound event their ear/brain is registering - is also what speakers give, and do so far more flexibly - it's just a lot harder, currently, to get most setups to do that, effortlessly.

 

I also dislike listening with headphones, but you can't deny the fact that the room has a significan't impact on what we listen to when using speakers.

Heaphones remove the room factor (but they create other problems).

[semente]

2 hours ago, Summit said:

 

Which other problems do headphones “create”?

 

Sound in head, head movements don't affect perception, unnatural to wear on one's head...

[semente]

30 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Imaging depends on source material.  Poorly mastered material will tend to cause interesting effects.  Also, compressed material (after mixdown, initial mastering) really screws up the stereo image, tending to flatten it, and place the image into impossible places (e.g. middle of the head is certainly possible.)

 

The solution for both good results with headphones and speakers it to use good material that has been well mastered.  Even 'premium' releases are compressed high end, which really does a number on the stereo image.   I'd guess you'd really need speakers to get any kind of natural (environment) seperation, because compression definitely flattens a stereo image, esp high frequency compression.

 

Really perverse is when you have lots of high frequency compression, but not the same midrange compression, then the gain & phase relationships get all messed up.   Note that DolbyA compression actually inverts some of the gain relations between the 3k-9k and 9k-20k bands -- It is amazing that there is any kind of coherent stereo image at all on undecoded material.

 

* Another weirdness about undecoded DolbyA and probably some other kinds of compression -- the state of one band is dependent on the previous state (approx 1msec difference) of another band.  So, the 3-9k band is dependent on the 9-20k band 1msec ago.)  Luckily, it doesn't squirrel up the image that bad, but does create amodification of the signal envelope in an unnatural way.  That is the envelope strangeness, there is also a faster waveform strangeness which is different than the envelope, where the waveform has a dynamic phase shift change at the usec level.

 

My guess is that we have gotten used to artificially (inside our minds) re-creating some of the imaging instead of actually depending on the audio.  The concept of 'phase' or to some extent 'time' is lost in normal multiband compression and totally destroyed in the extreme multiband compression used nowadays.

 

Without properly mastered material, you might as well create your own artificial imaging.

 

John

 

 

I agree that the importance of mastering is paramount (I listen mainly to classical music so I don't have a lot to complain about).

 

But in my opinion the shortcomings of listening with headphones I mentioned above are true for both good and bad mastering.

[semente]

5 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Well -- I do think that headphones are good on material that was mastered with normal imaging (e.g. M+S type micing), because speakers add addiitonal layers of room ambiance.

 

Whether or not something is mixed primarily for speakers, headphones or -- just some kind of stereo, that is a mixdown issue.  Then, we have the  old 'two separate songs' stereo like with some of the early Beatles stereo.

On the other hand, then it becomes a matter of personal preference mixed in.

I cannot say that I like headphones or speakers better -- they are just *different', but for extreme precision without distortions from room delays/cancellation/re-enforcement/etc, then headphones are necessary -- unless using near-field speakers.

 

If you want some ambience, even if the material isn't well mixed -- then speakers might be your best bet.

 

If one likes the sound of their speakers in their room, then it is a matter of personal preference just like generally prefering headphones.

 

Unless done very well -- don't bother simulating ambience for headphone listening  (that is definitely my opinon), because it ends up being like a 'tone control.'   Might as well remix the material...

 

John

 

 

My preference (with classical) is for not-mixed material, "real-stereo" or 2-main + 2-ambience.

In my opinion multi-track shouldn't be used in classical music.

 

Studio mixes are studio mixes, there's nothing you can do about it.

 

If I remember correctly you haven't been a member for long, did you get Mario (PlayClassics) to send you a few samples of his work?

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/26050-playclassics-test-files-to-compare-file-formats

[semente]

20 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

I’d suggest that Chris closes this thread. There is nothing but wasted space.

 

I may disagree with Frank on a lot of things but he's entitled to write about his audiophile practice.

 

If you don't like the thread, go elsewhere. There's plenty to choose from in the CA forum.

[semente]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

I take no pleasure in agreeing with you here, but I do have to agree.

 

Frank does seem like a very nice and cheerful guy. But the content, repetitiveness and ultimate non-responsiveness of much of his posts here...

 

It's his thread.

[semente]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

you, and everyone else is gonna get nervous if I, or others, say that expensive components have to be hacked to "make them better"

 

I agree with this bit: the performance (or ability to accurately reproduce the signal) of any commercial equipment can be improved, though the magnitude of those improvements varies and is case-dependent.

There's no such thing as "state of the art" in commercial products.

[semente]

39 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

The key for me is buying gear that synergises .....stuff that is known and recognised as working well together. There are thousands, hundreds of thousands of audiophiles and dealers who try an incredible number of combinations and find that a few work “REALLY’ well together.  Bring that gear together and you’ve got a great foundation....but you’re way off finished if your goal is to have near perfect sound without anomalies to constantly spoil the picture .

 

Firstly setting up the speakers and setting up the room to get the right balance of reflections and diffusion to ensure that room early and late reflections aren’t obscuring musical detail, that would prevent you hearing a reproduction of the true recording venue in your listening room. Then making sure that your network that feeds your system isn’t picking up and transmitting noise or vibrating and creating jitter to mistime the bit stream.  Ensuring that your power supply is adequate, noise free and offers a good and quiet earth. Making sure that your components are cabled together adequately and that your cabling is preserving the maximum amount of information and isn’t losing you a lot of detail 

 

When you’re finished, you should be extracting the maximum your system is capable of. Instead of 2 speakers you should be hearing a room full of music  a soundscape that renders the sound engineers work in all its immersive glory (if that’s what’s on the recording), 

 

I think that when you say that are finished that is only the start.

 

My knowledge of electronics is limited but I've listened to (and own or owned) a lot of electronic hi-fi equipment that a friend of mine has modified/optimised (things like grounding, component quality, circuit simplification and redesign) and sometimes the improvement in performance (accuracy) are/were significant.

For most of us though that approach is unfortunately off limits. And it also voids manufacturer warranty and may reduce equipment value outside of the restricted circles of those who have been "initiated".

[semente]

33 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Frankly I doubt there’s many people on here with sufficient skill and knowledge to out-think and out-build the likes of Magico, Innuos or Devialet. And frankly, when the system continues to thrill and amaze at every listen, I think the idea of opening it up for some unqualified modifications is fraught with dangers. The danger of damaging something, changing something that unbalances the sound, voiding warranty, reducing resale value and making it hard to re-sell etc. Magico get their speakers sounding as good as they know how, using SOTA drivers, cross-over design components and cabinet. The only 2 risk free elements that will improve on that are better footers (available from Magico) and better speaker cable.  The same applies to Devialet.  Better vibration control and better cables to and from the units will enhance sound without making internal mods. By the time you’re  extracting all the current design offers, in terms of SQ I guarantee you will have lost your appetite for home mods entirely for fear of damaging what is incredibly good sound quality, with absolutely nothing identifiably wrong. Its hard to fix something that isn’t broken and is already performing at SOTA levels. 

In my experience not every piece of hi-fi hardware has easily identified weaknesses that an amateur can easily redress. Far from it in fact.  PCs, NUCs and Network devices on the other hand are wide open to such mods and bring huge rewards, so that’s where my focus would be.   Low risk, high reward stuff, whereas modifying purpose designed and built hi-if gear is really high risk and relatively low reward. Cables, power cords, vibration control will all bring improvements and are again low risk, medium reward, so better to focus there than on than the hi-fi gear itself. 

I'm sure that your Magicos, Innuos or Devialet can be improved, though perhaps the amplitude of the resulting benefits would not be identical for the three. And I agree that it wouldn't be without risks and that some equipment is very complicated to work with.

 

My friend hardly ever touches very expensive stuff unless it is an older preferably used model, and he prefers equipment which is already very good as a base to start with and easy to work on (no tiny cases full of surface-mounted components, or very complex stuff).

But you can't seriously compare the effects in performance of his modifications with low-impact tweaks like footers or cables.

His system which consists of partly modified and own design equipment was developed over a couple of decades and is my reference for what can be achieved with reproduced sound.

@PeterSt holistic approach is a bit like that, his equipments/system probably became commercial by accident and is under constant developement because Peter is not bound by a price point, unlike those of more business-oriented manufacturers. (he'll correct me if I'm wrong)

 

If you don't mind the car analogy, there are several companies specialising in modifying/optimising high-end supercars for road use like Ruf, AMG or Brabus. And then there are companies like Prodrive who pick up road cars and prepare them for the race or rally track.