Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[Confused]

I stumbled across this gem today:

 

 

On my arguably overambitious rig, I could get the sense of the essence of the music, in many respects I actually quite enjoyed listening to this.  Does that mean my rig is sorted?

 

That said, I am sure that I have picked up some issues in the recording.  Are these apparent because the flaws in my rig are exaggerating the distortions and other issues I think are in the recording, or primarily because my rig is simply reproducing them?

 

I'm confused. 

[Confused]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

It's a very rare person that doesn't worry about the room ... 😉. History, of the person's experiences, plays a big part here - for me, the first convincing SQ snapped out of nothingness - one moment I had conventional sound; the next, the "recording venue was in the listening room" - since I had done a big fat zero in terms of fiddling with the room, it had obviously nothing to do with that 😛. In fact I had done very little of what you just mentioned; in my mind I was just tidying up loose ends which were clearly impacting the sound, although in relatively subtle ways.

OK - You had done a big fat zero with the room, this much is very clear.  Which begs the question, what did you do just before the convincing SQ snapped out of nothingness?  I am genuinely intrigued to know.

[Confused]

I would point out that @fas42 has already made it clear that he does not believe that the room is a factor in achieving his “magic”.  I am sure that many of us would agree the room is important, but if nothing else, at least Frank is clear that this is not a factor in this instance.

 

What I was asking is what did he actually do just before the convincing SQ snapped out of nothingness?  I remain intrigued to know.

 

[Confused]

10 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I've always assumed some kind of pharmaceuticals were ingested...

@fas42 ‘s stereo magic mushrooms perhaps?

[Confused]

54 minutes ago, fas42 said:

there are six distortion mechanisms in a particular rig, each of which does enough damage to stop my brain being fooled.

Ah, ok.  So what are the six?  I am not entirely clear what you are referring to.

[Confused]

On 2/25/2020 at 11:07 PM, Racerxnet said:

 

So we have connection points being soldered, and switches being bypassed. There are 2. But, I have to ask if recent gains in technology have relegated your process moot at this time? Are the Neutrik connections (balanced) with gold plated pins inferior to soldered joints? How about gold plated RCA connectors (unbalanced)?

 

" Connectors are a critical part of any audio cable, because if the cable isn't well-joined to the connectors, or if the connectors don't make firm electrical contact with the jacks, it doesn't much matter how good the cable is. Our LC-1 cables are terminated with the Taversoe RCA plug, a high-quality RCA plug with an all-metal body and shell specifically designed for the perfect dimensions for use with LC-1. Its all-metal body, crimped tightly to the shield braid, completes the shielding assembly from cable end to cable end, to ensure that the cables do not become an entry point for noise. These plugs are gold-plated on all jack-contact surfaces, and employ a set of leaf-spring style grippers on the outer RCA ring which apply just the right amount of force to the jack to grip it firmly without overtightening."

 

You can say "Ah hah", the statement above proves my point. And I can say, they have addressed this through better engineering!

 

Do they solder all connections in the recording studio, or are they using balanced connections where needed. And if that solid engineering mitigated the problems, is it well suited for playback and the audiophile?

 

 

 

Yes I can, I understand that you enjoy this hobby as much as everyone else. 

 

MAK

An interesting post.

 

If I look at my own system, I can see this in two different ways. 

 

Firstly, my Devialet amp mitigates the need for many interconnects.  Indeed, it is possible to run it just with mains in & wifi, so all that is left to connect is speaker cables.  Picking up on some of Franks earlier posts re problems with switches and  potentiometers  etc.  the Devialet has none.  Volume, tone control & switching is pretty much all solid state electronic.  It also has a pretty robust AES/EBU (XLR) input.

 

So some progress maybe?  Or maybe not?  On the other hand, I use SOtM's sMS-200Ultra and tX-USBultra.  Well regarded by some for sound quality, but I have to say that the SOtM kit has just about the worst & flimsiest USB sockets I have ever encountered.  Just how much this matters for "sorting SQ" I am not sure, but it does offend my engineering sensibilities a little. Plus it does seem a little crazy plugging in a £100 USB cable into a socket that probably cost £0.05p.  It is just a little annoying.

[Confused]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

Yes, the USB connectors ...if I absolutely had to use these, I would put a great deal of effort in determining whether these have a part to play - which I suspect they will - and then do what was necessary to get around this.

 

This point has me thinking.  As I stated before, I do not like the USB sockets on my SOtM kit, they just seem very flimsy to me.  The connection does not seem that positive either, the USB plug kind of falls into the socket, rather than firmly locating in a positive way.  I am sure that a majority of people investigating the SOtM socket quality would conclude that a higher quality socket would be better.

 

That said, I have never experienced a single drop out, click or pop in my system with the SOtM kit in play.  So I would have to conclude that that they work, in terms that the signal delivering the virtual 1's and 0's is robust enough through the connection to deliver them to the upstream kit.  The SOtM sockets may seem flimsy, but demonstrably they are working in terms of actually making the required connection.  So would a better socket, or even hardwiring deliver improved sound quality?  In the absence of any obviously dropped data, I am not so sure, but I can also imagine a scenario where maybe the USB eye pattern or similar is somewhat compromised, and so there would be a loss of sound quality, albeit at the margins.

[Confused]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

Bizarrely - from the POV of some, 😉 - many recordings by "audiophile labels" strike me as somewhat less well done - because the art of what the recording engineers were trying to do is too obvious - and annoys me.

Ah, but if you get your rig properly sorted you will find these annoyances drop away and you will be able to enjoy the essence of the music.🙂

 

Joking aside, I am not to keen on "audiophile" recording either, but nothing to do with the recording method, its just the type of music I like is not the type of music to get the "audiophile recording" treatment.  Each to his own I guess, there are no "audiophile" rules here, and for sure plenty of people do not like the music I like.  Vive la difference, you might say.

[Confused]

On 2/27/2020 at 4:45 AM, fas42 said:

In one sense I find it quite astounding that people can't latch onto the concept that it's all about listening to the recording - not, trying to hear "differences between equipment"

I like listening to the differences between equipment.  I make no secret of this, I enjoy it, I find it fascinating.  Furthermore, it is a means to an end, to move towards my own personal goal.  

 

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

Just had a bit of an "Ah-ha!" moment ... that some people need listening to audio to be a type of intellectual exercise - that if it's "too easy" to absorb the music, then it's a sign of an inferiority of the playback ... it needs to be more 'chewy', to have plaudits dispensed ... interesting …

I am not quite sure what has inspired this thought.  Can you expand on this?  There might be some interesting insight here.

 

From my personal perspective, in a way I am trying to make listening to music the opposite of an intellectual exercise, except in terms of perhaps thinking about the music itself.  I am always looking to improve my "rig", but this is to achieve my goal which is pretty much as I quoted yourself stating above, it's all about listening to the recording, or rather I might say listening to the music.

 

I am always looking for more detail, clarity, accuracy, getting powerful bass but at the same time eliminating bass issues, faithful reproduction, all of these "audiophile" things.  But this ultimately is not the goal, none of these singular points indicate success.  For me, success is when I am happy in my mind that that my "rig" is sorted as far as possible, that the equipment I have selected in those previous comparative tests work well together, and then when I sit down to listen to some favourite music I simply forget about the "rig", I quite simply get drawn into the wonder of the music.  This is success for me.  Failure, is when I sit down to listen an find myself distracted by some aspect of the reproduction, to the point I stop enjoying or thinking about the music, and my thoughts turn to issues with the system.

 

To be honest, in many respects this sounds pretty similar to your concept of a "well sorted rig".

[Confused]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

nearly all rigs display distortion anomalies, quite disturbing at times

I am still unclear as to what you mean by this.  Can you describe or explain what type of anomalies you are referring to specifically, in particular the more common types of distortion that disturb you?

[Confused]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Again, most of you have heard "magic sound" from some, perhaps spectacularly ambitious, expensive or tremendously tweaked system - so all of you who have heard this at least once knows it exists ... the problem is, that you want this to be the result of enormous amounts of money thrown at it, and it disturbs you that it can be achieved via other means.

Eh?  I would say if you look at the majority of posts on this site, most people are tying to achieve the best possible sound within a limited budget.  There is always significant interest in something that is low cost but great for sound quality.

[Confused]

30 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I couldn't control and maintain that peak quality - it wasn't stable;

 

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What I'm annoyed about is that the $100K systems sound like $10,000, $1,000, even $100 ... depending what recording is put on - a system that's working right doesn't do this ... I prefer the consistency achieved with my methods, 🙂.

Now I’m really confused.....

[Confused]

On 3/6/2020 at 12:23 AM, fas42 said:

 

I'm afraid you're wrong... 🤨. What a well sorted $100,000 system does is bring out the music captured at the time, without distracting you with inadequacies of the recording technique; what a poor $100,000 system does is present an assortment of the flaws I mentioned in my previous post.

I honestly do not see how you, or anyone else, can say @kumakuma is wrong when he is advising how he subjectively hears a system.

 

Consider this as a thought experiment.  Lets say you, I and @kumakuma get together to listen to a system that you have declared to be a well sorted rig.  We listen to a range of music.  You declare that all recordings sound superb, and that you can get to the essence of the music with all tracks.  This is fair enough.  But lets say I listen to a track that I think has some issues with the recording, maybe I think the mix is bright and thin.  I try this recording on the well sorted rig, and you declare it is fine, and maybe say something about how you can hear the energy from the musician's performance.  OK - this is fair enough, this is your subjective experience.  But lets say I state that on this well sorted rig (which we can all assume is transparent to the recording) that the track still sounds thin and bright.  Am I wrong?  How can I be if this is my personal subjective experience?  How can you know what I am experiencing in my on brain?  Lets say @kumakuma who is also listening also states that it sounds a bit bright and thin.  Is it the case that we are both wrong, and you are correct that this well sorted rig is allowing us all to get the essence of the music?  Of course, you could respond to this by stating that if the recording sounded bright and thin, then well, it is not a well sorted rig.  I know you could respond like this, but what I am asking is that you go with my initial assumption, try to understand what I am saying here, that this is a system that you have declared to be well sorted.

 

The point is that in this hypothetical situation, nobody is "wrong".  It could well be that your subjective experience is quite simply different to that of some others.

 

Here I think is the key point of what I am trying to say.  I have a suggestion, please try and read what others write on this forum, and at the same time try to understand what they might be subjectively experiencing, and that quite possibly this is something different from your own subjective experience.  In this way, when posting yourself you may be able to discern between what is simply subjective to you, and what may be a universal factual point with respect to audio production.  What is subjectively true for you may not be true for others.

[Confused]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

Even Archimago, 😁, gets what the idea is, https://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/07/musings-zen-and-art-of-high-fidelity.html#more,

 

Note that Mr Arnott understands that the point is that the equipment reveals the recording, and not that the recording is a means of demonstrating the specialness of the equipment being used ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed so, this is how it should be, and as ever an excellent article from @Archimago

 

However, I see no mention of things like all recordings sound good on a transparent system (well sorted rig), or any mention of how there are no bad recordings and if you hear one it is because your rig is not sorted and NOT the recording.  Or that you could go right up to one speaker and not hear that any sound is coming from this speaker.  Or that you could turn the treble up +20dB and not notice that it sounds bright.

 

So whilst both you and I may agree with Archimago's wise words, personally I think it is a bit of a stretch to think this fully validates fas42's audio magic.  Or to put it anther way, surly if the point is that if the equipment reveals the recording, it is perfectly logical to assume the equipment will also reveal any faults in the recording.  Seems simple to me.

[Confused]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Years ago, I read that NAD originally was formed because the British audio dealers association wanted a “house brand”. so they got together with an unnamed Japanese manufacturer of Mid-Fi equipment and formed NAD - National Audio Dealers. However, their current incarnation doesn’t give that as their origin. Their current “origin story” doesn’t even say what the letters N-A-D stand for!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAD_Electronics
 

[Confused]

I would like to propose that we consider the "there are no bad recordings" idea from a more middle ground perspective.

 

I am sure most of us would agree that having a top quality recording is a key starting point for good quality reproduction, and that lesser quality recordings can never sound as good.  Garbage in, garbage out.

 

That said, I am also sure that most of do not want a system that is only "listenable" with a few select few quality recordings.  From my perspective it is inevitable that I will sometimes want to play poor quality recordings, or lesser quality recordings, simply because the music I want to listen to is only available as a lesser quality recording.

 

So as a thought experiment, lets say you have a system that has absolutely state of the art reproduction when fed with a top quality recording.  You then try the system with lesser quality recording, and the shortcomings of the recording become so apparent that you no longer enjoy the music.

 

In the above scenario, is it possible to tweak / optimise the system such that the lesser quality recordings become more listenable, without compromising the former "state of the art" performance with top quality recordings?  If the answer to this question is yes, then maybe having "there are no bad recordings" as a mindset (not an absolute truth) might be beneficial in terms getting the right approach to system optimisation?

 

 

[Confused]

Just now, sandyk said:

 IOW, make them all sound equally bad ?  😲

No, that absolutely is not what I was saying.

[Confused]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 That is basically what George is saying though 😉

Which is fine, and I fully understand his position.

 

I was posing a thought experiment, to see if anyone had any interesting ideas on the topic.  It could well be that George’s response to my question is a simple “no”, but it would be interesting if he or anyone else has a more nuanced response.  Or maybe the correct response is no? 

[Confused]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. So-called highly resolving systems nearly always add a good dollop of disturbing distortion, and those anomalies intermodulate with anything that is less than perfect in the recording - as excellent an example of IMD as one can get ... two solutions: an absolutely pristine recording played on a flawed rig is the first solution; any recording played on a well sorted setup is the second solution - intermodulation is held to a low enough level so that the listener can enjoy the musical capture, in both situations.

 

I just happen to be talking about the second scenario ... the huge gain is that the vast array of the recording legacy is then available to be enjoyed, 🙂.

Hang on, there is a slight of hand here, to be expected from an audio magician I suppose. 🙂

 

The actual question @Allan F was responding to was clear in that it was a thought experiment and was referring to a system with "absolutely state of the art reproduction".

 

In your response above Frank, you are saying Allan is wrong, but then you are changing the question not to refer to a "state of the art system", but to a system that  adds "a good dollop of disturbing distortion".  I suspect most of us here would agree that removing a good dollop of disturbing distortion from a system will indeed improve the reproduction most if not all recordings.

 

So we end up with two slightly different scenarios, for the following two systems 

 

1. A system that has absolutely state of the art reproduction, AKA "a well sorted rig".  Because this system is well sorted, it does not add any distortions to the recording.

 

2. A so-called highly resolving systems that adds a good dollop of disturbing distortion,

 

Could both of the above systems above be improved / tweaked  to make recordings of a lesser quality more listenable without compromising the performance with top quality recordings?

 

I suspect we can all agree that system 2 could be improved for the benefit of all or most recordings.

 

With system 1, are we all agreed that the answer is indeed no?  It is after all a well sorted rig.  Maybe someone has a more nuanced response?

 

 

[Confused]

6 hours ago, Jeff_N said:

 

I've been wondering how long it would take someone to figure out, there is no N.

There is a Jeff N, this much we know..... 🤔

[Confused]

I offer this as a little respite from the current "tit for tat" here, and a less serious take on the "its a problem with the system, never the recording" philosophy.

 

I was visiting a hifi show with a mate a couple of years back.  There was a big Astell and Kern stand, with a row of a dozen or so digital players, connected to a range of headphones to try.  Some pretty decent headphones too, I was interested in trying the new Audeze range.  I tried one pair, pretty decent sound quality I thought.  I then moved to a more expensive pair, and the incident happened.  I put the headphones on, and horrified by what I heard I turned to my mate and said "oh my god this sounds bloody awful".  Now I think I was probably being quite loud, the volume on the headphones was reasonably high and I think I suffered from that thing with headphones that you can lose the concept of just how loud your own voice is.  Anyway, my outburst was loud enough to get the attention of the AK rep, who immediately came over and said, "There is a problem with the sound sir?  Is it a problem with the headphones or the player?".  Slightly embarrassed that I had caught his attention in this way; "Neither", I replied, "it's Phil Collins".

[Confused]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

Just noting this new unit, from NAD, https://nadelectronics.com/nad-masters-m33-bluos-streaming-dac-amplifier-becomes-first-integrated-component-to-feature-purifis-ultra-quiet-amplification-technology/ - would be close to ideal as a integrated solution. Technically, this would tick the boxes for all the measurable parameters being as good as it gets; so any shortfalls in subjective performance are then due to weaknesses in the implementation, the integration of the various parts - it makes zero sense to buy anything more expensive than this ... need to see what the subjective reviews have to say, which will indicate how well NAD have 'debugged' the engineering of the combining of the various elements in one box ... highly likely to be an excellent base for optimising to achieve convincing SQ - if it can't do this in 'raw' form.

Yes, it is creating a bit of a bit of excited anticipation in some circles, although as you mention, nobody has listened to one in the wild yet, so time will tell what the subjective opinions will be. 

 

One reason it is creating much interest is that not only it is likely to perform well in terms of sound quality for the price, but it also features built in Dirac Room correction.  Not your kind of thing I presume?

[Confused]

19 hours ago, fas42 said:

Simply, because nearly every time I listen to some recording, and it sounds 'boring', or just strange in how it's recorded - it turns out to be an 'audiophile' label. Perhaps I haven't listened to the "right" labels enough ... I never buy by the label, but purely by the content thereon - the exception is when there is some dumping type of sale happening.

It is always a mistake to blame the recording. 

 

I have decades of experience that tells me that the issue is always with the rig, never the recording.  Get your rig sorted and those "boring" recordings will snap into shape.  You need to remove all the bottlenecks, eliminate the non linear distortions, that's where the real magic is, the performance in those seemingly boring audiophile recordings will come shining though, your mind will register all the goodness the recording and discard anything strange and boring.  You wont know this magic until you have experienced it.

[Confused]

Oi!  Me confused? - I was simply highlighting Darko's subjective observations.  Plus, I have never used an audio cooking analogy in my life!  It is an outrage to suggest otherwise!  I am deeply offended.

 

That said, there is an interesting point to be considered here.  OK - you say the primary function of a DAC is to reproduce what's on the recording.  Nothing controversial there, I am sure most people on this forum would agree, it is certainly my view.

 

But then I might post that I find the treble in a certain recording to be "hard" - the response is that it is not the recording, it is non linear distortion in the rig.  Darko observes that a recording sounds "hard" with the Hegel DAC but not so much with the Cambridge DAC, then this is the Cambridge DAC adding coloration or removing something from the recording.  None of this helps anyone establish what is really going on, other than generating further subjective views, observations, and opinions..  It is a bit random - this recording sounds hard - it is your rig - this DAC makes a recording sound soft - nah, the DAC should reveal what it on the recording.  Which is it?  OK - with years of experience you might be able to pick this stuff up with subjective listening, but we are typing on a forum and not actually listening to the specific things being discussed.  And in this particular case, we are using Darko's ears as a proxy, dangerous territory!

 

Conversely, it could actually be that the Cambridge is the better DAC and that the Hegel is mimicking detail with it's no linear distortion?  The recording is not "hard" at all, and the Cambridge DAC is doing the better job of revealing this.  How can we tell?  (as it happens, I have heard a Hegel, I thought it was rather good, I know that much, but I have never heard the Cambridge DAC)

 

That is why my post ended with a question, rather than an opinion.  One thing I would not question is that Darko's subjective observations are true, at least for him.  So the question is what is going on here?  OK - we can all speculate, but it would be nice to have something evidential to resolve this, which is why my post ended referring to measurements.

 

These points genuinely interest me.  Plus you should remember, when it comes to the concept of optimising ones rig to make the best of all recordings, I am actually right with you on this one, I am your disciple!

[Confused]

16 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

I can't speak for Darko, but I know that there are recordings with which one may become extremely familiar, having heard them on numerous systems over a long period of time. Accordingly, IMO, one can establish a baseline reference of what those particular recordings should sound like, and can make observations regarding how the sonic characteristics of individual DACs compare to that reference.

Yes, I would agree with this.  Of course I cannot speak for Darko either, but knowing that he has listened to a decent variety of DACs as an equipment reviewer, I suspect he has done the same thing when he has declared the Cambridge DAC to "be somewhat warm somewhat rounded and somewhat burnished in the top end" and goes on to say it is not neutral sounding.

 

Out of interest, this the soundcloud  / Darren Price track that he mentioned sounded better on the Cambridge DAC.  (it is easy enough to find the full version on soundcloud, if anyone is interested)

 

 

 

Sounds perfectly listenable on my system, but to be honest, I can imagine it sounding better on  warmer more rounded sounding DAC.