Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[Summit]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

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).

 

Which other problems do headphones “create”?

[Summit]

10 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.

 

Yes it much harder to get a speaker system to sound really good and accurate. If the room is bad from an acoustic point of view it’s very hard to get a “good” sound. But remember that all the gear and things upstream of the speakers that affect a speakers system has also to be dealt with on a headphone system.

 

With which headphones and together with which amps and DACs have you come to your conclusion on?  

 

Try to be specific for ones.

[Summit]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm sure that the sound would be improved if every factor of the room was carefully controlled. But that is exactly the same situation as bringing, say, a great female singer into a "bad" room, or concert hall, versus a "good" environment - would you walk out in disgust because you couldn't appreciate the qualities in her voice, as a result of the acoustics not being "perfect"?

 

You are too funny. We are discussing sound quality not the quality of the artists here. Of course the music is the most important, and yes I can listen to musician playing in a less than optimal concert hall, but I rather do it in concert hall where the qualities of singer voice can come true as clear and uncolored as possible.  

[Summit]

14 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Did watering cause the soundstage to "grow"?

 

No but the sound is now more wet and fluid.

[Summit]

Let me be frank . The question asked 18 month ago was:

 

Is Frank genuinely onto something or is he just a misguided nuisance consuming forum bandwidth?  Frankly (s’cuse the pun), I believe its the former, but his position needs far more explanation, so this is an attempt to put Frank’s observations into some kind of hi-if system related context. 

 

My conclusion after 18 month and many thousands of posts from Frank is the second and that his position on this “magical” way of improving sound needs NO more clarification. I’m still enjoying then Frank discuses other topics and are not proposing that he should stop telling things as he see/hear them.   

[Summit]

10 hours ago, Confused said:

However, I fail to see the logic here.  If 128kbps might sound a bit softer and nicer due to the loss of detail, making things easier on the ear/brain, then in the same way a playback system that offers inherently less detail will offer a similar effect.  This reminds me of the Darko comments quoted in post #1217.  Darko observes that a recording sounds "hard" with the Hegel DAC but not so much with the Cambridge DAC.  He also states that he considers the Hegel DAC to be the superior item, as it retrieves more detail.  So this sounds like the same thing to me, the Hegel is the better, more detailed and accurate DAC, but with some music / recordings, maybe the warmer / softer Cambridge DAC is subjectively preferable to listen to.  So rather than the ear/brain struggling because of the structure is blurred through the playback, a case of the ear/brain having and easier time because of softening of detail (blurring?) though the playback.  It was mentioned previously that if two DACs sound different, then one must be wrong.  Yes, true, or maybe both DACs are wrong to varying degrees.  All I can say is that I have listened to a Hegel, and it sounded good to me, and Darko who has listened to both the Hegel and the Cambridge subjectively finds the Hegel better.  So based on the evidence, it is the Cambridge DAC that is doing a bit of "blunting" or colouring, at least to a greater degree than the Hegel.

 

Similarly, although I run KEF Blades, I also have a pair of KEF LS50's.  To my subjective ears, they both sound great.  In fact, I really enjoy the little LS50's, and it is a similar thing here, they do not have the detail and dynamics of the Blades, but they are great to listen to, with almost any source material.  So here is another case of something maybe sounding good because it gives the ear/brain less to do.  (In this case my ambitious rig might actually be far more competent and powerful than my own ear/brain) 

 

Frank - I know you will have a different take on this, and I respect that, but can you not see that there is some commonality with these points?

 

From a technical point of view, I would be interested to know exactly what something like 128kbps file compression is doing, and this in comparison to what something like the Cambridge DAC is doing.  This might clarify the matter and provide some useful insight.

 

For me, lossy sound compression has the same effect as in the pictures below.

Low compression (high quality) JPEG

High compression (low quality) JPEG

 

An MP3 with a bit rate of 128 Kbit/s only has like 10% of the sampels of Red book CD, which mean that a lot of audio samples has been thrown away. If the compression would be linear (from 20 Hz-20 KHz) the result would be mediocre and much worse than it is. It is essential IMO to realize that lossy audio compression algorithms takes "advantage" of a perceptual limitation of human hearing by the use of auditory masking. So yes the MP3 is masking the frequency-band by limiting both ends of the audio band, i.e. keeping the mid-range mostly intact and instead reduce sampels mostly in the extremes, which is commonly perceived as a more soft and mellow sound.     

[Summit]

On 7/27/2020 at 1:32 AM, fas42 said:

Noting another member on a similar journey to me, @dmance. His angle is stopping RF effects, which is a major part of the picture - has a business, Audiowise, which sells products which aid controlling this factor. His blog on the site uses the same language I do, in describing what one needs to do, and what is possible - he has a solution using a very efficient speaker driver driven directly by the high output DAC circuitry - straight from @ray-dude's songbook! 😁 - which delivers, "magic" sound. ... Yet Again, simplicity is a powerful tool for accessing the meat in this game, 😉.

 

Lol you must be kidding. First of all everyone here is trying to stop EMI/RF effects. Secondly @dmance provide concrete solutions to how to do that, something you never seems to do . 

[Summit]

10 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Depends if it is in the audible range and at a high enough level. See below.

 

 

None IMHO.

 

 

Or in my experience, heard. I was hearing bad radio frequency interference (RFI) that actually sounded like a low level slightly mistuned radio station playing when I had no music playing or in between songs. I don’t own a tuner so I had no idea where this was coming from.
 
I bought a used Monster HDP1800 High Definition PowerCenter at a pawn shop for $60. I routed all my system power cords through the PowerCenter 1800 and the interference disappeared completely. The best $60 I ever spent.

 

I'm sure this is a worst case scenario, but shows RFI at least in some cases is audible and can be removed with a line conditioner.

 

Theresa my friend a power line conditioner is great for reducing Power-Line Noise but not for airborne RFI and to block radio broadcasting waves.

[Summit]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Dealing with EMI/RF is part of the battle, IME - I did nothing in this area with the first rig 30 years ago that was directly intended to help me in this, but it still was able to deliver capable SQ; albeit it was frustratingly unstable in how it performed. Turned out, in hindsight, that this was due to static factors, something I was completely unaware of at the time.

 

Buying someone's packaged solution for RF, say, may, or may not, be the vital step in your setup - I've always known that working on the overall integrity of a particular system is what produces "magic sound" - and what a particular rig needs is always going to be different. One from the next. Which is why I could never produce and deliver packaged "fixes" ... it just doesn't work that way ...

 

How it works is, tell me what a system is not doing right, build a picture of its distortion signature, by doing experiments - and that suggests one, or several approaches for improving the integrity of the setup.

 

 

 

Have you heard and understood the expression you do not have to reinvent the wheel? The things that generate EMI / RFI in our homes are more or less the same and do not differ much, as are good measures that are to prevent these from having a negative effect on sound.

[Summit]

22 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

So I don't need my foil listening hat? Noggin will be running much cooler now...

 

What made you come to that conclusion?

 

The answer is out there my friend .

[Summit]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, but the wheels are not always put on the axles ... 😁.

 

Ummm, 30years ago there wasn't Internet, cordless phones, smart phones, etc - things have changed. With later setups, once all these goodies had invaded our space, I had to take measures - like our friend @dmance says, assume everything is an antenna, until proven otherwise.

 

The reinvention of the wheel symbolizes a figurative, non-literal meaning, a so-called Idiom 😉.

 

30 years ago we certainly had less noise pollution from SMPS, PCs, mobiles, LED lights, Wi-Fi gear etc.

 

To assume that everything can act like an antenna is a good starting point – let me know what you have done to minimize the antenna effect in your current stereo?

[Summit]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The current active speakers are so far pretty impressive, in raw form - have done a couple of tests, and they seem relatively impervious to what I used to worry about. This may change as I improve the resolution of the playback quality; I'll do something about it if that time arrives.

 

The earlier stuff? Too busy sorting other areas, so I used the simple workaround of switching everything off, when I wanted to hear the setup's full potential - one could drive oneself batty trying to sort internal engineering, and the exercise of constructing a full Faraday cage for everything, I didn't want to contemplate.

 

The rules of thumb I use are: no sharp corners to anything I do, in the electrical sense; all conductors follow shallow curves going from one place to another; zero bits of leads or other metal going nowhere left attached to anything, IOW, if anything is changed, don't leave bits of wire dangling. And, anywhere cables can be twisted, or twisted together I do so, as tightly as possible - with the current speakers, the cable connecting right to left is twisted to the point where I can't twist it tighter. How important is this? I don't know ... when the system is working as well as I can reasonably get it, I might try unloosening the twist, and seeing what that tells me, 🙂.

 

“The current active speakers are so far pretty impressive, in raw form..”

“..others prefer the 'seasoning' which typically comes with high end rigs..”

“..of course, one can pretend to oneself that one's own seasoning is The One,..”

“High end quality gear does so much damage to natural sounds..”

 

The quotes above (all from today) make it clear (to me) that you actually consider your sound system to sound more truthful than 99% of all High End systems. This along with all the posts about how unimportant it is to set up the speakers properly, and that audiophile records all sound bad and many other controversial beliefs ... are just weird. I mean, you do realize that this goes against pretty much what all the people on an audiophile forum strive for, regardless of taste and budget?

[Summit]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

What I worry about is getting certain key elements in what I hear right - from experience, I know that if I do this that my ear/brain will trigger to the cues being of the right order, and that "missing gaps" will be filled. This trigger fired with my first, genuinely audiophile system, and I've extrapolated that experience to less ambitious combinations - where I have a huge advantage is that I know exactly what I'm after in the sound that I hear, and years of doing it gives me insight about what to try, what to consider, when I listen to reproduction.

 

Do you really think that you are the only one on the planet who knows what to listen for, and who has many years of experience in matching and fine-tuning hi-fi systems? 

 

Frank for heaven's sake which key elements can fill the "missing gaps" and what do you mean by missing gaps in this context?

[Summit]

4 hours ago, ray-dude said:

At the risk of being the person intruding in a passionate debate at a dinner party...

 

At RMAF and my local dealer, I have heard amazing systems that are the pinnacle of a sound that I sought for decades, but they hold only intellectual interest for me now (which is remarkable, given how passionately I sought out those heights for so many years).  They are truly a world class HiFi experience of listening to music, but only hint at what I've come to think of experiencing and participating in an in person performance.

 

I shared the experience before that even when walking down a street, I can tell whether it is a live performer in a coffee shop or whether it is recorded playback.  Needless to say, the distortion through walls and glass with street noise raising the noise floor is atrocious HiFi, but I know it to be real, and one draws me in, and the other does not.

 

With traditional HiFi rigs, the analogy I use is moving from looking at a photo of a forest to an even better photo of a forest to a full 100" 4k HDR OLED photo of a forest, where you start to get an inkling of what it is like to look through a window at a forest.  If you work hard enough, the "through a window" feeling becomes more and more prevalent and the window gets more clear and larger and you start to get the barest hint of being in a forest with no window at all.

 

I compare that to walking through a forest, where even with scratched up sunglasses that cast a yellowish tint, I am unambiguously IN A FOREST, and all my senses have shifted to a completely different of experience and engagement and feeling of being alive.

 

That difference is not due to fidelity of the image.  It is the amalgam of sensory inputs that cause my brain (which has been trained by Darwin and 53 years of hard knocks) to switch to "this is real, pay attention" mode.  It takes precious little to break that sense of reality and go back to trying to get a better and better photo, then a better and better window.

The last several years for me have been about starting all over, and trying to get that sense of reality from the ground up.  It has been devastaingly humbling, but incredibly rewarding.  So much that I put on the first tier "this can never be compromised" I've realized just doesn't matter once my brain kicks into "this is real" mode.  Back to my earlier analogy, given a choice between listening to Carly Simon live in a noisy coffee shop with the crappiest acoustics and listening to Moonlight Serenade on a $1M PinnacleFi system, find me in the coffee shop, completely engaged and over the moon delighted for the experience, leaving afterwards inspired and elevated by the artistry.

 

I listen to the mega Wilson and YT setups and I'm blown away by how incredible they are (truly...after decades of tweaking and tuning I know intimately what an incredible achievement and performance level they are delivering), but it is now a intellectual interest rather than a passion.  I'll happily give up 90% of what they deliver, to get that sense of reality (the walking in the forest experience) that they struggle to deliver (at least for my brain).

 

All that being said, the reaction of people when they hear my rig is decidedly bimodal: there are those that have a proverbial red pill moment and want more and more of that reality rush, and others that are scratching their heads going "I thought you had a nice stereo system...what's up with this?"  The former group has had their brain click in on that sense of reality, the later is focused on what I was willing to give up to get that sense of reality.  The sharp divide I've seen in my living room really highlights how differently our brains get triggered, and the different response we all seek in music.

 

 

I am of the same opinion that music should be experienced. There should be tempo, rhythms, melodies and glow. It's not like a static photo no matter how transparent the windows get.

 

I have not heard your stereo, but I can imagine roughly how it sounds like, i.e. superb in many ways, maybe not as good in others. This is true (in reality) for all types of stereo systems, no matter which one we choose, there are always others that are better in certain individual aspects.

 

Some think that details and transparency are most important of all, others that it is PRaT, still others the tonality. Many are not so extreme and prefer a more balanced sound * where nothing has been sacrificed to achieve that last bit of clarity or bass control. They will not give up 90% for the last 10% in the room feeling, for example.

 

I mainly choose devices and systems that make the music sound live, musical and cohesive. It certainly sounds like something that everyone would choose, don't it? But according to my experience and definition, it is not so. Many people choose the opposite, which can be technically very good, clean and nice and you can hear the smallest detail, but where is the glow, the feeling and the groove.

 

*Good at everything master of none

[Summit]

19 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

How are many of the claims often made here, on AS, different than what Frank is doing? How's a specialty DC wire or an audiophile fuse or an AC cord with special geometry any better? The process to arrive at their utility is exactly the same: make a change, listen, and decide for yourself if the change is beneficial. Frank is doing exactly this and simply reporting on his findings, just like every other audiophile here.

 

You don't think his findings are valid? They are just as valid in his mind, as that beeswax fuse or a shakti stone or a gas-filled AC cord or grounding box full of rocks are in the minds of those who hear the differences they cause. 

 

I know why I disagree with Frank's method and findings, but I certainly doubt that will be your reason. So, why do you, David, insist on attacking Frank and not all those others who are doing exactly the same thing? Seems like a double-standard. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

 

 

There is an obvious difference IMHO. Regardless of what you or I think about audiophile fuse, audio grade AC cord or grounding box full of rocks, we can get them if we want and try if they work or not. When it comes to Frank's magic tweaks, we cannot even find out what he actually does that miraculously makes his devices suddenly sound much better than 99% of all hifi systems. And when we have the discussions about how unimportant it is to set up the speakers properly and that there is no bad records, except audiophile records 🙃. So instead of debating “Frank’s magic” in multiple threads we try to keep the debate in this special thread/container.  

[Summit]

On 8/1/2020 at 9:37 AM, Confused said:

I understand this, although I have to say that my approach is different.  I have visited a lot of audio shows, and the thing that always interests me most is listening to different speakers.  For me, speakers make the largest contribution to to the sound of a system, or to put it another way, they are the most significant variable.  To put this another way, you could select one speaker and try it with a number of amplifiers.  Assuming the amplifiers are of suitable specification to adequately drive the speaker, then the differences tend to be relatively subtle.  Conversely, you could try a given amplifier with a range of speakers that it could adequately drive, and the differences will be significant.  In your case, you mentioned that you liked the Bryston / Dynaudio system.  I suspect that you could have "swapped out" the Byston for a number of decent alternatives, and you would still like the system.

 

As an example of this, I was once lucky enough to try the Blades with a range of Bryston and Chord products.  The Bryston 4B SST drove the Blades nicely, and probably stands as the best thing I have heard with the Blades at a particular price point.  Move to say a similarly priced Chord SPM 1200 II, on the same day with all other variables the same, there are some differences, but they are subtle.  Interestingly, during this demo I was able to try a Bryston DAC and a couple of Chord alternatives.  To my ears, I much preferred the Chord DAC's, even moving to models at a significantly lower price point than the Bryston.  This also indicated that my own preferences were influenced more by which DAC was in play than which amplifier, within similar price brackets at least. It is a lot of hassle organising demos like this, but I enjoy doing it and I learn a lot from it.  From this one demo, I learn the subtle differences between Bryston and Chord amplifiers and I learn that  I like whatever it is Chord do with their DACs.  I also learn the extent of differences moving from one amplifier to a similar product further up in the model range  I now know that I would be pretty happy changing my system to Bryston amplification with a Chord DAC.  I gained enough information to understand that I would probably be happy with a Chord DAC and a number of alternative amplifiers, albeit with slightly different end results.  A fascinating aspect of this demo was that the Bryston amps tended to have more prominent mid-bass, versus the Chord amps that seemed to have better bass definition and extension.  Later looking at the specifications of what I was listening to, it was clear that the Chord amp tended to have a lower output impedance versus the Bryston.  Maybe a correlation, maybe a coincidence, but all part of a learning curve and a journey of experience that I personally find fascinating.  Without going into all the details, I noticed a similar contrast between two other amplifiers on a later occasion, and here again the product with the lower output impedance happened to be the one that dug deepest into the low frequencies.  Again, this is not proof of correlation, but it is a case of building on ones own experience and the influence on ones own subjective perceptions. 

 

I know others will have a different approach and perhaps their own view regarding how I go about things, but that is fine.  I do things my way, I enjoy it enormously, and have archived my own slice of magic along the way.  That said, I am always interested in the views of others, and learning from others can be a lot less hassle than trying to do everything yourself.

 

I can be completely honest here and say that anyone who gets pleasure from their system and from the enjoyment of music itself, has my complete respect, irrespective of how they approach what is ultimately a fascinating and complex subject. 

 

Respect is important though, particularly when dealing with a subject that has such a large subjective aspect to it.  Subjective matters are personal, so where I see a problem is where individuals try to force there own personal subjective views on others, when they may well see (and hear) the world very differently.  I love the sharing of ideas, which is why I participate on this forum, but the imposition of ideas can be a little problematic, particularly when in the realm of the personal and subjective. 

 

Lose respect and the sharing stops, and I think we all sacrifice something.

 

There is a significant difference between the electrical and mechanical interaction between an amplifier and a speaker, which differs in terms of influence to other parts of a hifi system. If you're interested in my explanation of this, I can try to explain this in more detail, but only if you are.

[Summit]

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You're seeing in real time what I doing, in the Edifying Journey thread - many of you would listen to how it sounds now, and pick holes left, right, and centre, and tell me I'm wasting my time. And miss completely what's going on - I'm listening to what's it getting right, and reacting to where it's not up to scratch ... I keep applying my step by step surgery approach, because at some point it should fully blossom - it's no more complicated than that, but you keep wanting something mystical beyond those steps.

 

A person who is certain that it's impossible to clear a high jump will crash into it every time; the one that worked out a slight variation of his jumping action, and fluked it once, now knows he can do it; so, refines his technique - and now regularly clears it. There are no more mysteries than that ...

 

 

I know about your “step by step surgery approach”, I just don’t get what you do and have asked you the same question over and over again.

 

I have not followed the Edifying Journey thread and thought you had keep them in “raw form”. Can you please tell me what you have done to them and which SQ affects you have gained?

[Summit]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

And yet, magical thinking pervades this site, well outside this thread, especially now that Chris banished all objective thinking folks.
 

I get the frustration with Frank, I’ve gone a few rounds with him myself  Whatever you think of him or his posts or his methods, he doesn’t deserve to be singled out and personally attacked in a way exhibited here lately.
 

Interesting things can happen when you engage Frank in a civil conversation unrelated to his ‘magic’: he has a depth of knowledge and understanding of audio that may really surprise you. 

 

When you say that magical thinking pervades this site and that Chris has banished all objective thinking folks you make it clear what you think about me and most other people on this cite. Seriously, I have no desire to discuss anything with someone that believes the above to be true. Yes Frank have much to share and have told him so before. I just can’t get what is his tweaks is and what they are supposed to do (and am not alone).

 

I have not seen anyone forcing anyone to get audiophile fuse, audio grade AC cord or grounding box full of rocks. I have only seen people sharing their own experience (or theory) with these, nothing more. I use audio grade power cords as well as IC and USB and think that they “sound” better than the generic ones. I can’t understand people that can’t hear the difference between good and bad cables in a good sorted audio system. Which cable that fit the good and the bad is of course it's up to everyone to decide.

[Summit]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, it would be a good start to read through it ... 😉

 

To summarise, I have done quite a bit to add significant effective mass to them, they now weigh of the order of a large Wilson, say, in the sense that when I push on them, that's the sort of mass it feels like - but still could be better ... not coupled to the floor well enough yet. This has tamed the bass, which was too much, and too loose.

 

All cables stabilised by damping material, and carefully dressed in the route they take. I worry about static effects, and take extreme care in making sure that anything that part of the rig touches is not causing an issue - the "silliest things" can make a major difference; take nothing for granted.

 

Biggest issue at the moment is that electrical activity in the house degrades the sound; two stages of mains filtering still not good enough - so I'm working on that right now.

 

The system goes loud, sounds clean, good tonality - what it lacks is low level detail resolution, so soundstage is not up to standard. I may need to go inside to improve this, on the ToDo list ...

 

That is more like it 🙂. Please can you provide some pics of them with the tweaks in place.

[Summit]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

I try to state what I think in an unambiguous way, so if you’ve read anything I posted before, you should not be surprised by what I think.
 

Chris banished all objective posts to a sub forum. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. As the result a large number of objectivists either left under protest or were banned. Also a fact. 

Frank isn’t forcing anyone to solder interconnects. So he repeats his mantra way too often. But recently that’s been confined to just a few threads. Why is it that you can state that you hear differences between AC cords, while Frank can’t state that he hears differences between soldered Interconnects and RCA connectors or bypassed volume pots?
 

 

I've never said or suggested that Frank can't say what he hears. I have done the opposite and asked him over and over again to explain what he has done to make his budget equipment sound much better than 99% of all hi-fi systems.

 

As I said in my last post, I have no desire to discuss with anyone who tries to ridicule my choices of devices and who distorts what I write.

[Summit]

Ok am out here and this meningless debate...