Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[fas42]

First of all, my deep thanks to Blackmorec for kicking off this thread. Everyone will have a different take on how they perceive a situation, and it's refreshing to see my thinking expressed via Blackmorec's perspective.

 

Somewhat amusingly, my primary communication tool, the HP laptop which has a decent internal sound system, has just gone sour on me. To be replaced, for the moment, with a less old Dell premium laptop - built like a battleship - but its sound system is in terrible shape, of no use for listening to YouTube clips, etc. Which means I may be slow in responding as I do some analysis on whether the HP can be brought back to life - and more importantly, whether it's worth it. Right now, fighting Window's notorious inability to handle doing big file copying and such operations - have to spend time coaxing it, and working around its crazy error messages, etc.

 

Generally, fully in accord with Blackmorec, apart from being more optimistic as regards 'poorer' recording - let the conversation continue! ...

[fas42]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 Here's the thing. None of the stuff you mention really matters. Tin (not nickel) plated connectors that you talk about really aren't used any more. I haven't seen one for years, even on so-called "mid-fi" equipment. Even so, it is possible to get a good connection that is gas-tight enough to keep the surfaces from corroding, but it's up to the system's owner to make sure those connections actually are tight! Rubber feet aren't there to ameliorate vibration, they are to provide some grip between the chassis and the surface upon which it's sitting, without marring said surface (in case it's furniture). I've never heard a steel case or any other kind, vibrating to the music unless it's left unscrewed. Power supplies don't add HF noise, though they might pass it, if the supply is minimally designed - but here's the rub. Assuming that one's mains is dirty, in the first place is probably unwarranted. If indeed, one lives in a very old part of town where the wiring hasn't been updated since bare wire and ceramic standoffs behind the lathe and plaster, and the mains is marginal due to heavy loads, then, absolutely, you NEED some measure of mains filtering. But it's not a panacea. I've seen expensive mains filtering units cost big money and do nothing but provide a very expensive mains strip to multiply one's outlets. If you are in doubt about the quality of your mains supply, have it checked out, or borrow an oscilloscope and check it out yourself; before and after the added filtration.

 

Here's the thing. That stuff does matter ... if the extent you take it seriously is to pull out an oscilloscope and look at the waveforms then you're miles from getting a proper handle on what is essential for getting optimum sound.

 

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

But mostly he is just tiresome and I dare say that most of us here are over him and his vague method that can make even the poorest recordings sound like a perfect live performance - right in one's own listening room.   

 

I may be tiresome, but at least I don't constantly build straw men as you do, George.

[fas42]

35 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

And in this regard I agree with @gmgraves - there's no evidence that removing RCA jacks and directly soldering wires between components has any correlation with improved stereo soundstage, or with creating a more convincing illusion of single-point sources rather than dual speaker boxes. Yes, if you have poor contact at connection points, it will cause audible problems - but those problems won't sound like poor stereo imaging. They'll sound like distortion, drop-outs, perhaps hum (if the ground shield is making poor contact), and so on.

 

There's plenty of literature if one cares to investigate such things, that factors like contact noise exist - if one wants to put one's head in the sand and pretend it can't matter in audio, because "people don't talk about it!" then ...

 

The degradation caused is the typical hifi sound: irksome treble, a blary quality, the building of a "I don't want to keep listening to this!" sense while listening - those are the 'distortion' issues that can completely vanish when this area is fully sorted.

 

35 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Ironically, in this regard Frank's claims sound to me exactly like those of many of the "spend your way to better sound" folks he opposes: Is it really any different to say that you'll get a more immersive stereo soundstage if you direct-solder your analogue interconnects, than to say you'll get it if you buy a different USB cable?

 

Both approaches are 'tweaks' to resolve system weaknesses; the underlying problem is that all links are automatically vulnerable areas, with respect to SQ - you do what is necessary to make those parts of the system more robust.

 

35 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

And of course the big ones - speaker placement, speaker stands, and room treatments - usually can get you much closer to that immersive ideal than spending $$$ on new digital source components.

 

Those tweaks work by allowing your brain to focus better on what counts for forming a, yes, 3D illusion - George, when I say a convincing illusion, I sorta mean the 3D soundstage thing, okay? - , the direct sound from the speaker drivers. If the latter is audibly tainted the job is that much harder - I work towards an audibly 100% 'clean' output from those drivers; because if you do that all the rest automatically falls into place.

[fas42]

Why I get results, can be seen in a comment I very recently made in the Lush^2 thread - I noted that Peter required a certain quality in a part of that cable, because "it mattered". I would burrow down deep in experimenting with samples of those materials, to try and understand what might be happening - if I get a handle on what is affecting the electrical behaviour, right there, in that "tiny" thing, then I am that much closer to always being in control of SQ.

 

Most would just bypass, ignore this, as an irritating, pointless anomaly - but, I don't ...

[fas42]

13 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

The room still has an impact on the sound in that everything within that 3D soundstage takes on the room’s sonic character, For example if the room has a large bass node, you’ll still hear that, every time the room’s resonance frequency is activated.

 

 

I don't have room resonance node issues - partially because I don't try and plumb the deepest bass frequencies; and because I stabilise the speaker cabinets as much as necessary, give them much greater effective mass. The bass I get is fully satisfying, and I haven't yet heard another rig that makes me think I'm missing out in this area ...

 

13 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 

 And there are still a large number of parameters that can be improved. All you’ve optimised to get a 3D soundstage are certain parameters like phase accuracy, frequency accuracy,  cross talk between channels,  a degree of RFI suppression, reflection control,  some vibration control etc.  There is a long list of sonic attributes that can still be improved to make the sound even more enjoyable. The list includes:

Rhythm and timing

Speed, impetus, drive, propulsion, fluency

Dynamics and micro-dynamics

Tonal colours and sonic textural richness

Atmosphere and air

Frequency extension....deep intense richly timbral bass, sparkling, shimmering energetic treble

Natural sweetness

Natural  brightness

Focus within the soundstage

Layering, depth and height information

Continuity of the soundstage

Degree of listener involvement, engagement 

Ability to invite in the listener and keep him/her deeply engaged and enthralled 

 

And all of the above are fully realised when a system is sufficiently optimised - the 3D aspect is just another "dimension", , to the overall presentation.

 

13 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Finally. I believe a fairly large number of audiophiles have already reached and gone beyond this milestone and are now working on the many improvements listed above. Frank creates the impression that once you’ve reach ‘sonic nirvana’ you brain does the rest and there’s nothing more to do.  I would put it a little differently. Once your system is good enough to allow your brain to perform its magic and create that 3D soundstage you can move on to address other performance issues that still limit your system’s performance....issues that you’ll clearly hear once addressed. 

 

 

 

 

Any system's performance  can always be improved - I've mentioned the issues that I always have to deal with many times, such as, it takes hours of conditioning to reach the peak levels; and, competence at greater SPLs - there's never an "end" ... .

[fas42]

42 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Don't you think that I or any other audiophile posting here could dectect these erstwhile "improvements" for themselves Frank? Either individually or together, the stuff you talk about, if it does anything at all, is truly subtle, not monumentous and earthshaking as you assert. Although, I could possibly see where the cheaper and more compromised the gear, the more such super attention to every detail might be needed and I do know that simplifying an audio chain will definitely improve the sound. I once replaced an expensive preamp (for an experiment) with a single homemade silicon transistor buffer stage and a single Alps pot, and I couldn't believe the increase in clarity! Unfortunately at the time, I needed all the other things that the preamp (Audio Research SP-10) did (tape dubbing/monitoring, component switching, etc.), so back it went. My plan was to add some switching and replace my SP-10 with it, but alas, life got in the way. I once reviewed a "passive" preamp that used tapped turns on a transformer to add and remove gain (I don't remember the brand) and It had gave me a similar effect.

 

Yes, the cheaper the gear, the more the building compromises need to be dealt with. But that the underlying circuitry is capable of satisfying results, is the key point here.

 

That experiment certainly showed you how it works. I just take a particular combo down the track as far as worthwhile, in a similar manner - hence, use cheap, throwaway gear - the butchering doesn't matter, I'm looking for answers.

 

Quote

 

 

Over the years, I have tried some of the things that you preach, and while certainly dressing cables is just good practice, unless one's system is a mess of interference, there won't be that much of an improvement. Perhaps one could hear it, perhaps not.  I just completely tore my system down yesterday and re-built it, simplifying and dressing cabling, cleaning all interconnect points with Deoxit  and treating them with Stabilant 22, etc. I'd like to think the system sounds better for that gargantuan task, but there's always the chance that good 'ol expectational bias is raising it's ugly head again with an intent to confuse and confound the unwary and the hopeful.

But again, I never get the results that you get because these tweaks that your bore us with endlessly simply do not and cannot provide the level of sonic improvement that you preach. Some improvement, yes, but mostly a lot of your preaching is simply good "audio housekeeping" and as been pointed out here by others, most audiophiles already do it. Well, except for soldering one's interconnects, which is draconian at worst and highly specious at best. Look at it this way. If soldering interconnects between components yielded a significant (or even noticeable) difference, Integrated amps would sound better than separate amps and preamps, and all-in-ones would sound better than individual components (NO interconnects needed at all!). But do they? 

 

The problem is, that if there is just one thing that hasn't been dealt with adequately, then the results don't come in. What it is in your particular case I can't say - again, every rig will be different. For me, it has been a huge range of "last problem areas" - every setup has to be handled differently, each has natural strengths and weaknesses; usually, I have to go round and round and round, considering each area - have I done enough here, what makes sense as something to try ... the Philips HT unit was an amazing mess of various ideas being tried, many were perhaps not so necessary; but it pushed the unit to what I felt was as far as it could go, without major reworking.

 

Integrateds make sense for simplicity; but they may lack adequate internal shielding and filtering to prevent cross interference between different areas; there's switching to select different functionality; and the power supply may not be engineered well enough to feed the output stages without injecting noise in the more sensitive areas. Case in point: the current NAD integrated has very good design of the overall circuitry, but very poor switching parts, and the PS is intrinsically very well sorted - which is why I went the path I did; I'm impressed with the raw capability of the unit.

 

Quote

 

Frank, I don't have to build straw men, you are a straw man! It's called sarcasm, Frank. It's not so much what you say, (actually you say very little) it's the fact that you repeat yourself endlessly (3100+ posts, in all forums here) yet we still don't know specifically what you do, and your stated results are simply on a scale that cannot be believed because NOBODY (except you) gets that magnitude of result!

 

The result is merely what Blackmorec has described - my huge advantage is that I have an inner knowing that it can be done; which motivates me always to try the next step, because that may be the one that finally gets me over the hurdle.

[fas42]

59 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

My beloved Harman-Kardon HK900 has a separate complete power supply for each channel, including power transformer. It then has separate power supplies (off of windings from each channel's power transformers) for the low-level analog circuitry, and then separate windings and power supply components again for the digital circuitry. So except for the digital circuitry, the entire analog audio chain is dual mono and it sounds superb, quite a bit better than the Krell KAV-300i I was using  for a while as it a has single power supply for both channels of everything. One can hear the difference. 

 

 

Sounds good! Some years ago I heard a Krell KAV-300i, and it didn't especially tick any boxes ...

 

With regard to RCA, if one is "condemned" to use them, I would use the silver paste treatment on them. This needs to be done extremely carefully, the absolute minimum of goo to do the job - and once the two sides are mated, don't touch it!! If unplugging is necessary, then assume you have dirty connectors; clean thoroughly and redo the treatment, etc.

[fas42]

38 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

I differ from Frank as I not only want instruments and voices to sound like the real thing, I also want to be aurally transported to the performance space. I find many audiophile and naturally made recordings to do that for me, recordings made in places like concert halls, jazz clubs, auditoriums, churches and other real performance spaces.

 

Teresa, I also want that. The performance space can be real, or highly "manufactured"; the latter still 'work' because one's hearing sorts out the intent of the recording mastering, and you are transported to another place. Some pop productions are absolute masterpieces at taking you on a wondrous acoustic journey - think, Disneyland rides. Yes, fantasies, but glorious ones ...

 

38 minutes ago, Teresa said:

Also I don't believe a highly compressed recording with no dynamic range and the volume level pushed so high as to enter digital overload distortion with constant clipping can ever be made to sound good. By the same token extremely close miked recordings will never have correct timbre as microphones have raising high frequencies since they are designed to be place a reasonable distance from the musicians for flat response. Flat response is needed for accurate timbre. Thus, distant mic'ing combined with no EQ or any other studio tricks sound the most like real music to me. I firmly believe in garbage in garbage out. There is such a thing as great recordings and poor recordings IMHO.

 

Modern, highly compressed are the hardest to render decently. I do cheat , because I have little interest in most of the recent music making - but have been able to tame those which are interesting, musically. One  of my pursuits has been to reverse deliberate over compression, and the signs are that enough can be done to make the listening highly acceptable.

[fas42]

42 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Side note : at that time I was playing with a real time FFT analysis always on. So when the music played I could watch the FFT and this is exactly how this "idea" emerged. And mind you, no matter how softly I tried to walk the floor, you'd see that as 20Hz and beyond (lower) on the FFT. People just have no clue how impactive the room is for capturing the musical pressure waves which are fed back to the DAC. In that DAC we try to maintain sub-femto seconds clock systems.

With the water damping system, I could not see me walking the floor any more.

 

Peter, this is new to me, and highly useful. It's clear evidence that vibration does impact the supposedly isolated electrical devices, and it's remarkable that others have not seen or investigated these sort of behaviours.

 

42 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Back to the between the ears thing : exactly. It sounded like liquid. Of course I am quite positive that it sounds like liquid because I knew it was floating on liquid, but still ..

These days it goes way beyond that ...

 

So we now make cables. Mind you, digital cables, like for USB. I can hear exactly what material is used in there.

For a digital cable ? C'mon Peter !

So that.

And yes, I obviously know what material is used in there. But the sound just receives the properties of that. At least between my ears ...

 

 

In all of my tweaking exercises I never gone anywhere near to trying all the things that are possible - what I've heard has always been compromised by not sorting "the rest of the stuff" ... which means, that I never heard any recording yet at its best ... the possibilities are still wide open ... .

[fas42]

Footer or support material? I play with various viscoelastic items, memory foams of different densities, etc - you can buy this stuff cheap as muck these days, being used in different household goods - try any and every combination; see what it does for you.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, PeterSt said:

But of course first have a speaker which can render this "ambient" because it is all about that. A kick drum doesn't do 20Hz. But it's ambient roll (especially in the larger space) does.

A kettle drum is quite OK for most systems. Unless it is used in a church. Now you suddenly miss out.

 

 

Okay, that makes more sense why people would insist on very low frequency reproduction. That's not something that I tune into, so I don't worry about such areas - meaning, far less expensive to sort!

 

Classic Boney M. tracks have this visceral bass kick throb to them,; when the system gets it right it takes the listening to a much higher level - that's the sort of sound element that's important to get in the zone, for me.

[fas42]

52 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Maybe, I've never tried it, but I do know that Stabilant 22A is a "wonder drug" It really works at reducing contact resistance. It works so well, that it is used by NATO and has a NATO stock number, has a US Mil-Spec number, has a NASA procurement code number and a SAE  Stock number (Society of Automotive Engineers) and a DOT Certification. The NATO brief States "...when applied to electromechanical contacts, Stabilant 22 provides the connection reliability of a soldered joint without bonding the contacting surfaces together." (emphasis mine)

 

As said before, the contact enhancers failed for me - they may ensure reliability of the contact at the level of integrity needed by NASA, but they introduce a type of contact noise which slowly worsens, IME - confirmed by thorough cleaning, and comparing a fresh connection.

 

I've been happy with the normal silver compounds that are available - they don't deteriorate, as far as I can tell. Personally, I would do trials comparing the two methods; but don't make immediate conclusions - let each settle for some weeks, to take account of possible change with time.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

An interesting post but, if you have read his posts, Frank has repeatedly insisted that he can make bad recordings sound good. While your above comments about systems may be valid, they are your "point" and not his.

 

How it apparently works - and this is something I also find fascinating - is that you are listening to two separate sound events: the actual musical event that was recorded; versus, all the additional crap, coming from every defect and poorly executed manipulation, and shortcoming, in  the recording and playback chains. The aim of the game is to do everything in one's power to reveal every last skerrick of "the actual musical event"; with, absolute minimal additions in the playback side of the equation. The remarkable thing is, I find, that if executed well then the musical event scenario achieves ascendency in one's subjective focus - that's "what you hear" - and all the rubbish that doesn't belong to that event recedes to the background - in fact, it requires quite a degree of deliberate effort to make oneself aware of the technical issues; that stuff "is not important" at that moment of being engaged with the music ... you don't hear it being a "poor recording".

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, One and a half said:

Like wishful thinking really.

 

No. I've had this happen over and over again, over many years, with a huge variety of recordings, with a diverse range of 'issues'.

 

If the rig is not working well enough, then you hear all the problems - the playback sounds terrible, it may be "unlistenable" to. Yet a little bit of, yes, magic occurs when the SQ reaches high enough - one's mind snaps over the previous hurdles, and the playback 'works'. One's intellect knows what it sounded like before, how "poor" it came across in earlier sessions - but that makes no difference to what the presentation is like, subjectively, in this "better window".

[fas42]

This is the type of material I like to get the most out of ...

 

 

I have a Erroll Garner CD with tracks in terrible shape - much worse than that - and it's a challenge to lift them to the point of coming alive ...

[fas42]

...

 

 

Easy to hear why it went down so well - my HP laptop, alive again, has no trouble conveying the transient bite of the piano notes, just on the internal speakers.

 

The point is, the whole world of recorded music, going back over a hundred years, is available to be enjoyed - on a competent rig.

[fas42]

As a short interlude, music of a different kind ...

 

 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, I've been using Stabilant for more than 30 years. How come I've never heard any of this "contact noise" you speak of? How come it can't be measured? 

 

Contact noise is in the literature, and can be measured; the question is whether it has an audible impact in audio systems. To my ears it certainly has - it damages the sweetness, clarity, 'openess' of the sound ... sound familiar?

 

I spent ages working on taming this one - it can be very obvious, say from a cold joint, or quite subtle, as in a nominally good quality, ordinary metal to metal contact.

 

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

Good Idea if one thought it was needed. The improvement I get with Stabilant is real and measurable (with a wheatstone bridge) and I don't hear any "increased noise" (where would this noise come from? What about a contact enhancer could possibly cause it? Some unknown "diode effect"?). I would think that would have been noticed by now given the amount of time that Stabilant has been used in the military, NASA, and the manufacturing communities. An American audio company called Dayton-Wright used to buy the stuff in bulk and sell it as something called "Tweek" and audiophiles all over the world bought it and treated their connections with it for decades. I've never heard nor read that it produces contact noise. If it exists, surely you can't be the only person in audio to hear this phenomenon. Most recording studios seem to use it, as do many recording engineers such as Kieth O. Johnson of Reference Recordings. They've never heard this "creeping noise" of which you write. ...Just sayin'....

 

Possibly fretting action - the subtle movement of the metal against the metal, from vibation and such, causes the contact quality to degrade, and the contact enhancer being like a lubricant actually makes things worse? I'm not a metallurgist, so only guessing here.

 

There are all sorts of ways of testing this - in the subjective sense say by having parallel paths, one a clean run  of copper, and the parallel running through treated connection. At a certain time after setting up snip the continous copper run, so the path is forced to be through the connection only - is there an audible change?

 

Using certain enhancers with certain metals may work perfectly - I am speaking from personal experience; and combinations I haven't tried may be fine. Others have reported forgoing other treatments, resulting in definite improvement.

 

For me, it most certainly is the difference between getting the SQ I'm after - or failing; it's a weak link, that is too important to be ignored, IME.

[fas42]

I was just pointed to this track, on another forum, by someone saying "I just listened to the Lemon Song on Tidal, Mqa and non, and I was struck how awful this recording sounds on my system. Robert Plant sounds like he's singing through a tin can. The Lampizator doesn't unfold mqa fully but I can't imagine it provides a significant improvement.

It sounded a lot better in the basement in '69. Maybe my memory is colored. Maybe the vinyl master is also better? But one thing I'm sure of is that recorded music needs good recording and mastering. Everything else is secondary."

 

 

Ummm, this is absolutely fabulous, fabulous stuff ... massive, heavy, grabbing you by the ...

 

This should take one on a tremendous roller coaster ride of power sound ... so if it isn't ...

[fas42]

Promises, promises ... yes, the best one can do is 160k Opus - which is not too bad, really ...

[fas42]

Yes, one needs the original mastering, by Diament - the first time I heard one of the remasters, I thought, "God, what have they done !!! ... ripped the guts out of the music ...

[fas42]

 

Compare the life and energy in this track, to that in the samples in the MQA apples comparison ... .

[fas42]

Actually, what one is looking for in the sound of recorded cymbals is "shimmer" - a lovely, very fine mist of metallic sweetness, which fades away into delicate nothingness. On competent playback this can heard in every sort of recording, including driving rock - one of the easy markers to watch for.

 

Decades ago, this was what I was using to check progress on upgrading the Perreaux amp, with classic Status Quo tracks as test material - its weakness was losing the shimmer at a certain volume level; a power supply issue.

 

[fas42]

Here's a recent clip of a purchasable(!!) setup that can perform remarkably,

 

 

In this clip it's showing many attributes of the type of sound I'm after; yet, at the moment it does have a clear problem, the treble is falling short, for some reason - particularly shown in the tonality of the piano.

 

Why it's hard in the audio game - no matter how much money you throw at solving things, it's never a guarantee of always securing the required SQ, in every situation, under all conditions.

[fas42]

The local audio friend has just organised for a get together this afternoon - the ultra-simple, ultra "low end" rig apparently hit a peak SQ, as a result of upgrading the capacitor arrangement used for PS smoothing, etc, in the cheap DAC. Interestingly, it tooks hours of conditioning to break through to this level - he's scared of touching a thing now in case he lets the 'magic' escape, .

 

His wife could hear it sounding special, came in, and said, "Gosh, this is the best I've ever heard it! - you've got to get Frank to come across right now, and hear this!!"; "What?! At this time of the night?! - ummm, next opportunity ..."

 

So, I'm looking forward to hearing how it shapes up ...