Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[shtf]

On 4/27/2019 at 6:55 PM, fas42 said:

shtf posted a video of his rig in another thread,

 

I don't wish to participate there, so I'll make the one comment that although the dynamics of the recordings are well done, the tonal signature of the rig is still far too prominent; each song, from completely different eras, has a sameness to the presentation - which should not be the case.

 

Sorry about that, shtf ...

 

No worries, Frank, though it looks like I must have deleted that video a while back.  Do you happen to remember what it was?  Because if it's deleted it's probably only because I have a more recent version.

 

But I’m curious.  What great efforts would you go thru to correct the signature of these violins in the below piece? 

Remember, if the recording labels’ sound and mastering engineers were doing their job, your listening perspective should  be maybe 5 – 20 rows deep into the audience (assuming the recording’s ambient info remains audible at the speakers).  In other words, there should be an abundance of air surrounding the instruments which when combined with distance between your ears and the soundstage makes every instrument and overall presentation sound thinner / lighter, more airy, etc.

 

I’m also curious about your other statement.  Since when does a tweak or fine-tuning effort discriminate between instruments?  IOW, if you improve the level of musicality for violins in my playback system, are you not also improving every other instrument as well?

 

[shtf]

16 hours ago, fas42 said:

shtf, you appear to have made some very significant improvements to your system's tune recently; I don't have any real complaints about the above. I note you've put another version of that Miller's Dance piece, which now ticks the boxes very nicely ...

 

Fine-tuning doesn't discriminate; all instruments should 'improve' - but recordings which are highly marginal in the technical quality of the capture or transfer benefit very strongly from 'extreme' levels of fussiness in examining every area of a rig's status.

 

Thanks for the note, Frank.  Actually, I’ve not touched my system in 22 months.  However, this past weekend I’ve dabbled just a bit with the software settings on my single MV88 mic.

 

Instead of a wide-angled stereo pickup mode, I’m now using this mic config. which if nothing else, seemed to provide a little better stereo separation.

 

 

Also, in the lower right corner is the EQ settings.  This weekend, instead of a flat EQ, I’ve slightly boosted the low end to warm up things up a bit.  Only because others claim it’s too thin soundings.  Granted the in-room listening is quite a bit warmer than my recordings reveal, I’ve no problem with the thinner sounding recordings.  I prefer not to adjust the EQ but it does slightly better reflect what I hear in-room.

 

As for the oldies including The Lion Sleeps Tonight differences, the only differences there are potential playback system volume levels since I set the volume by sight only.  My only reason for a 2nd version there was to rearrange the songs.

 

So playback system volume levels may vary slightly from recording to recording.  It's possible the 2nd was recorded at a slightly lower volume level.  Since all playback system volumes levels for recording are right around the 98db mark, with some recordings such as this "Lions Sleep Tonight" piece, I'm really pushing the envelope between being loud enough for most of music to make it to the mic vs a little too loud and inducing a bit of glare with this and some other pieces.  It's a fine line for sure.

 

I could probably get better results with a better quality mic, but I’m not prepared to spend more than I already have.  Besides, with a little practice I think I can get what I need from this compact MV88 mic. 

 

As for tuning / tweaking for individual instruments, I appreciate your response and I figured you'd respond as you did.  But in this crazy hobby you never know what somebody might say. 

 

[shtf]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

Something's affecting the SQ - I don't see it as being purely with the micophone settings ... do you find the tonal quality consistent, or does it appear to vary, to your ears, at times? How much does it alter, subjectively, with volume setting?

 

I have zero microphone technique, so in your camp there - my earliest efforts had major problems because the primitive recording gear had huge problems constantly overloading on transients; it is a fine balance.

 

I said that I've not touched my system in 22 months and that is true.  22 months ago I swapped out some $2400 speaker cables for some new $200 speaker cables.  But that doesn't mean the sonics have remained the same since that time.   

 

Because I dabble with extreme forms of vibration mgmt, the settling in process literally can take months and even years.  For example, my second last change was 23 months ago when I remounted my 3 passive little line conditioners to my racking system using a far more extreme mounting method and it took a full 18 months (last November) before the routine (about every other day) little improvements stopped occurring as the line conditioners reached a fully settled in stage.  However, since last November there's been a number of additional sporadic little improvements that continue to occur.  In the past 2 months since I've started the in-room recordings, I've noticed I think 3 or 4 more random little but still distinct improvements.  But I would also think you'd have to have some pretty keen ears to hear a difference by the time it reached my little microphone and maybe you do.  IOW, the system's sonics have continued to evolve with each little improvement.

 

OTOH, I suspect you're correct about my potentially overloading the microphone just a bit sometimes as I walk that fine line with in-room volume levels.  In at least some of my latest recordings I've tried to reduce the volume just a tad which may be just enough to keep from overloading.  Perhaps my recording technique skills are maturing just a bit where I'm not quite flirting so much with that fine line.      Thanks for the suggest as I'll keep that in mind.

[shtf]

10 hours ago, Paul R said:

I will probably hate myself for asking this, but just exactly what are those monsters? 

-Paul 

 

 

The speakers are VMPS model RM-40.

[shtf]

On 5/23/2019 at 4:08 PM, fas42 said:

 

Good choice of speakers for a project that aims for top SQ: solid, heavy; main drivers don't have the suspension stiction issues that dynamic units typically suffer from.

 

Thanks, Frank.  The RM-40's are quite a musical speaker.  I happened to come across these on eBay about 5 years.  I knew nothing about VMPS speakers, though I've heard the name many time.  When I saw them on eBay, I quickly did some research and found that my favorite reviewer Peter Moncrieff reviewed the RM-40's and said one couldn't touch their level of musicality for less than $20k.  That was good enough for me so I took the plunge and purchased them for the full asking price of $1500 plus I paid the Reno, NV resident $500 to deliver them to me here in Oregon.  

 

It seems after Brian Cheney, the owner and designer of VMPS, died, people were dumping their VMPS speakers left and right.

 

As usual, Peter Moncreiff was pretty accurate in his review.   Certainly one of my better deals. 

 

[shtf]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

No, I do not think so.  There are certainly bad recordings out there, and there are without doubt systems that both minimize and accentuate the flaws. The starting point is always learning what good sound is, then learning within the umbra of good sound, exactly what one likes. Jazz, symphonic, R&R, pop, vocals, or some combination thereof. 

 

Then - with equipment - buy the best equipment you can that reproduces the sound you like. From there, tweak as much as you wish, but you will be tweaking towards known things, and hopefully doing the things that make the most sense. Room treatments, even if they happen to be couches and curtains, are important. Correct positioning, yep. Lots more. 

 

All of which is is made possible mostly by purchasing the best speakers you can afford. Skimp like hell on the Amp,  buy a nice AVR. Nothing else is going to gave the same impact as those speakers. 

 

 

IMO, a sure tell-tale sign of those who “don’t get it” are the ones who flippantly make statements that directly correlate performance to cost.

 

If there was any truth to your propaganda, then how does your statement hold water when my $1300 OPPO 105D  ever-so-slightly edged out over my $8500 Esoteric UX-3SE with its infamous VRDS transport?  Or especially when after utilizing the OPPO’s passive volume attenuator and its USB signal processes (to a 1TB SSD) and by-passing the OPPO’s CD transport the OPPO was significantly more musical in every aspect?

 

Better yet, how does your statement hold water when I replaced my $8k BMC int. amp with a pair of $2500 Wyred-4-Sound mini-mono-block amps that in comparison literally made the BMC (no slouch itself) sound like a $150 BestBuy receiver?

 

Answer me this.  How much more musical is a $10k preamp over a $5k preamp?  Or a $20k amp over a $10k amp?  You can’t answer it because it’s a silly question and any attempt to answer it is far more silly.

 

Such statements about price having a direct correlation to performance are not only nonsensical but they’re a dead giveaway for those who may enjoy listening to playback music but lack any discernment about what they hear.  It’s also usually a dead giveaway that such a person is an avid reader of popular high-end audio magazines.

 

If this describes you, why not do something about this as it’s entirely within your scope?

 

As for the rest of your post, because of your seemingly obvious current state, I could see no value there either.

 

[shtf]

On 11/22/2019 at 5:00 PM, fas42 said:

 

And what tells you that the sound in the clip is not live?

 

Thanks, Chris.

 

Frank, my earlier response before lost was something to the effect...

 

With all due respect, the audio of your live subway video sounded as if all the air had been sucked out of the subway station and as a result there was very little audio "energy" and was certainly no match for the live subway performers' energy.  To demonstrate live energy levels (per your earlier post) I provided this in-room recording of a recording of a live perormance to compare / contrast to your recording of the live subway performance.

[shtf]

On 11/24/2019 at 1:35 PM, fas42 said:

 

Sorry ... "audio energy" ?? The sound in that clip you posted is terrible! Compressed, compressed, compressed - a poor PA standard ... if that is what people think live acoustic sound is like, no wonder we have a problem ... 😝.

 

Live sound is intense - not, badly distorted !! And what makes it intense is SPLs - most rigs can't do clean high volumes; they make a mess of it - the term for a system that does get it right is usually, "effortless" ... the tonality doesn't change as the volume goes up, but the, subjective, sense of intensity keeps being heightened.

 

Sorry, Frank.  I thought you posted that Lucky Chops video to remind us what the "energy" of live music was like.  That video reminded me of no such thing. 

[shtf]

On 11/26/2019 at 2:10 PM, fas42 said:

 

Which is part of the problem in audio. Very hard to convey to another person exactly what one is thinking of, and concerned with, unless you are both in the presence of the sound happening - it always has to be translated through the hardware of what the other person is using, otherwise.

 

I think you may be overlooking the potential that everybody has varied hearing acuity and more importantly varied levels of discernment of what they hear.

 

Quote

 

In my mind, I can 'translate' what's in the clip of Lucky Chops to a live experience - the clues are in the sound, I can "go there" and hear them playing, in front of me.

 

Sure you can.  Just like a symphony conductor or even a 5-year old can "go there" listening on a transistor radio.   I thought one of the primary goals of high-end audio was to strive to reach a level of musicality during playback where one need not over-exercise one's imagination to percieve how the presentation could or should sound.

 

Out of all the recordings out there you could have chosen to illustrate "audio energy" or live energy, hard to believe you would choose this one.

 

[shtf]

7 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I agree, if one has low quality transducers, then even the best electronics cant 'fix' the situation.  But, if one has fantastic transducers, with fantastic transient response, then any flaw elsewhere can be unpleasant.   The worst case is if the transducers are 'really good', but have an exploitable flaw, then that flaw can become so obvious.  A fantastic response except for some ringing here or there -- not a good thing.  Likewise, with my own project -- if it works perfectly, except for a minor problem with attacking too fast (as in attack/release), it produces crap on really good material.

 

As the quality of a design becomes more and more fine, exacting (be it system or component), it seems like the effects of flaws that do remain are magnified.  If one is dealing with a total garbage boom box, those not-so-little problems (e.g. hyper processed sound) aren't all that bad.  In fact, hyper processed sound can sound 'better' on a garbage system because it might be incapable of the dynamics or have exploitable problems that are best avoided by a constant volume with no dynamics.

 

Since so much is compromised throughout the playback chain for the vast majority of playback systems and participants, it's really a crapshoot between speakers and the rest of a given playback system.  In fact, I attest it is the naive who lean toward the speakers.  But ultimately, if one acknowledges there is an untapped huge bulk of distortions and where these bulk of distortions reside, which I (and perhaps Frank) purport is somewhere in the electronics from the AC outlet all the way to but not including the speakers, Frank's pretty much right on the money here. 

 

gmgraves claims of garbage in, garbage out and "you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" are most applicable here and actually substantiates Frank's claim rather well.  What most don't know is that there's the equivalent of a mountain of yet-to-be-addressed distortions upstream from the speakers.  Without that knowledge or experience, it becomes rather easy to arrive at incorrect conclusions and never realize it.  Especially if 99% of all others agree with that same conclusion, in which case the majority always think they're right. 

 

 

Quote

 

In some cases, where people must compromise, then it is best to understand the limitations of their system and/or environment.  For example, don't try to listen to full dynamic range material in an automobile..  Or, don't try to evaluate audio processing on a substandard system -- unless fully understanding the limitations of that system and evaluate while understanding the limitations.  Even then, limited quality systems can be totally blind to various problems in source material, or even (as in the boom box example above) benefit from 'destroyed' material because of extreme limitations.  For example, there is NO WAY that I could make any sense of my project results if all I had was a pair of 1970s 'certain-common big name consumer headphones.'

 

To the best of my knowledge, every last one of us are compromising matters to one great extent or antoher and just because we may not realize a given compromise should never imply the compromise is nonexistent.

 

Quote

 

The ultimate problem -- hearing problems.  When evaluating sound -- I have to be aware of fixed limitations (loss of high frequencies) or transient limitations (fatigue or undesired adaptation.)

 

It is ludicrious to make strong claims about quality while evaluating audio reproduction, possibly with hearing even more limited even than my own, listening on equipment that has no chance of even reproducing the entire frequency range, let alone the dynamics, also having so much distortion that any other low level distortions are hidden and not even understanding what the original performance sounded like.

 

I can certainly judge my own results -- and work to improve -- but I'd never make strong, general pronouncements when I don't really know what I am talking about.   Most people, when being very careful, can constructively criticize recordings -- but they have to know themselves (their hearing) and their equipment.  

 

John

 

 

Ludicrous indeed.  But strong claims are made in virtually every audio forum thread and post  by every last one of us.  For example, you yourself just made the strong claim about labeling others (Frank) as ludicrous for their potential strong claims.  Unless you know every inch of high-end audio (you don't), or at least if you do not know where the greatest deficiencies lie for all playback systems (you don't) and unless you know the knowledge and experiences of all others (you don't), it may not be wise to label another's strong claiims as ludicrous. 

 

For example.  If per chance Frank has dabbled into areas of distortions unknown to you, then in some ways Frank's strong claims could be light years ahead of your own.

 

Though many strong claims can and perhaps should be tossed into the fire, still every once in a while a strong claim is the result of unique insight and experiences including experiments, and deductions.   But you're not leaving any room here for Frank's strong claim to be potentially true even if per chance the claimant is speculating.

 

[shtf]

48 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Back in the ‘60’s, I was given a tour of Capitol Records in Hollywood. I asked one of the recording engineers why most records sounded so mediocre. His response was that the goal was not to produce recordings hat good on high-quality systems, but rather it was to make the recordings sound “acceptable”on the lowest quality playback systems. He went on to say that this was done at every step of the process, from the capture of the sound all the way through to actually producing the record. Dynamic range, for instance was restricted so that a cheap arm and pickup wouldn’t “jump out of the groove” when playing. I don’t know if that’s still the case, but it wouldn’t surprise me that there still are some compromises made in the production of commercial recordings in order to make those recordings not overtax the cheap playback gear that recording companies seem to assume that most people are listening with.

.....

 

 

If there was any truth to the premise of your argument, then anybody here should easily be able to meet or exceed the levels of musicality of my rather humble 2-channel, 2-component playback system.  Some of these songs come from one $5.99 greatest hits CD purchased at Walmart.

[shtf]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I hear an approx (500-1kHz peak (thef hollow sounding frequencies) of a few dB that is overwhleming.  It is awfully hard to compare what people enjoy hearing -- it doesn't translate well from person to person.  This *fact* is one reason why I ask for help from people who hear a little differently from me for feedback about the results of my project.  Even 1/2 dB in the wrong frequency range  can be very noticeable, and around 1dB error can sometimes be terribly irritating (even less than these numbers, actually.)

 

Really?  At what point should "it" translate well from person to person?  After all, we can't all be right and there still remains a few targets on the wall like striving toward the absolute sound, etc, right?  IOW, at some point, subjectivity must give way to objectivity, doesn't it?  Even for something as subjective as high-end audio playback music.

 

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

When I ask for help evaluating the results of my software, I am not looking for 'sounds good', but instead something like 'this or that could be improved' or 'there might be a bit of a problem here or there.'   When trying to work on the technology, it is NOT good for people with weak egos.   I KNOW that I can do good work, but I need help from good people to make the results as they should be.  The best work is almoat always collaborative.  (Do you think Edison inveted all that stuff that he gets credit for?  Either he snarfed up his employees invention, or he got a lot of help on his own inventions.)

 

Ummm.  That sounds like a very nice response to a question I don't remember anybody asking but ok.  But I'm curious.  How is it that you KNOW you can do good work?  By what measurement do you make this call?

 

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Translating it to someone's listening equipment -- what sounds good for you, then that is great.  Don't look for absolute perfection -- it simply does not exist.  Well, if there is some perfect equipment, it is definitely more expensive than what I want to pay -- I'd rather spend my resources on the tools that help me invent or innovate, not just listen..

 

Interesting.  I'm curious what level of objectivity is or should be required for your line of work?

 

I'm not aware of anybody other than you talking about perfection.  As for my own recording above, so much of the gestalt never makes it to the iPhone / Shure microphone anyway, but it still gives a somewhat reasonable perspective and as I fumble around with recording techniques and proximities and volumes (about 98db) in-room), there could even be a little distortion induced by the recording. 

 

But I think what you're saying is, with your knowledge and experience you could easily generate in-room recording of any of these 60's pieces and exhibit a more musical presentation than what I demonstrated - based on your personal taste that is. 

 

If that's what you're saying, I'd love to hear a demo or two.

 

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

As my grandma used to say:  whatever blows your skirt up...  (translated, whatever gives you a buzz.)

 

John

 

Again I ask, what level of objectivity is or should be required for your line of work?

 

BTW, you completely overlooked my post responding to your comments.  Oh, well.

 

[shtf]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

As an original internet developer from day one -- I am still incredibly primitive in my utilization of various tools...  This new-fangled web thing came along way after I was doing internet development -- so forgive me if I don't always use the quoting methods all that effectively!!!

 

Okay -- the only thing that I have for feedback, since there is ZERO, ZILCHO, NADA DolbyA measurement device is the fact that my SW DolbyA decoder is the only one that sounds even similar to a true DolbyA.   Also we have done many static measurements that show a very close match with actual DolbyA devices (well within the error between different copies of the actuall DolbyA HW.)  It also has a lot less distortion than any other decoder-- including the vast amounts of distortion created by a true DolbyA while decoding -- the well known DolbyA fog...  Ask anyone who has actually listened to the decodnig results of feral material (also reverse engineering the destruction done to filter DolbyA material -- which means most digitally distributed POP in recorded in the DolbyA era).

 

I keep getting feedback from my project partner that the DHNRDS DA is 'good enough', but he isn't dealing with audiophiles -- just recording pros...  Audiophiles are sometimes much more picky in areas different from recording polls -- sometimes they overlap.

 

There are some really nice  people helping me improve the decoder to FAR FAR FAR beyond the quality of original DolbyA units, and I cannot depend on my own hearing.  I don't have the arrogance to claim perfection in my creation -- because it will always have flaws...  Any constructive criticism of the test decoding results are welcome.

 

John

 

 

My exprience with Dolby is very limited to the late 70's.  But even then I never engaged the dolby noise reduction because I thought it stripped away much of the music as it attempted to cover or reduce tape hiss.  In fact, I always considered Dolby Labs rather cheesy but obviously very good at marketing.   Whether or not Dolby could be any more beneficial today (less destructive) than in the 70's to me is a huge reach.  Almost on par with MQA.

 

Given that, along with your questionable response above, as well as your routinely reaching out to others for assistance without potentially knowing their real qualifications, I suspect your statement that "I KNOW I can do a good job" could easily be interpreted as a rather strong claim.

 

Which takes us back full circle to my earlier post to you that you ignored regarding your claims about those like Frank making strong claims.

 

[shtf]

19 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I have enough engineering qualifications to be able to self-proclaim -- I can do a good job.  Many people around here know a little bit about me...  Just start with Bell Labs engineer/systems engineering/running supervisory group as one qualification.  Many others.  I am an Analog EE/DSP/Real-time SW/OS developer (done all of it, successfully.)  40+yrs experience... 

 

I'm not saying you can't do a good job.  I'm just sayiing given your references and self-proclamations, it could easily be interpreted that your self-proclamations are just as strong maybe strong than Frank's.  Yet, you condemed Frank for his strong claims.

 

For example.  I could, as you suggest, start with Bell Labs and one feedback might be that you arrive at work on time every day and another may say he always washes his hands after doing his business in the restroom, or another may say John's a real math whiz, none of which truly qualify you for your line of work.  Your name could even be on a plaque at AES and elsewhere and not mean a darn thing.  For the simple reason you yourself said earlier regarding the most difficult thing is the ability to discern what we hear.

 

Quote

 

Not knowing much about Dolby or not clearly distinguishing between DolbyA/B/C/SR and their purpocse, and the context of my work on DolbyA shows that maybe you need an introduction to an understanding of the mess that has been sold to us since CDs have come out.

 

John

 

Why would I need to know that?  I already know that any playback system inside Dolby Labs labs would be hard-pressed if they're able to extract (make audible at the speaker) much more than 60 - 65% of the all the music info embedded in a given recording - regardless of format.  Not to say that Dolby can't degrade or improve things by a few percentage points, but suddenly I'm becoming more and more convinced Dolby is where MQA hopes to be one day soon.  Which is offering little more than a license to listen while potentially degrading the final output.

 

 

[shtf]

15 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

I certainly agree that one can enjoy well-performed/good music, even in a far from optimal playback environment. More specifically, I agree further that one does not need a fully optimized, "audiophile" level playback environment in order to be moved or transported by good music.

 

So if you want to argue that the quality of the playback equipment and the room doesn't matter as much when the music itself - the quality of the composition and the performance - is really good, I have no disagreement with that.

 

But a bad room degrades good equipment just as much as it degrades poor-performing equipment. The fact that the end result with good equipment in a bad room is likely to be better than bad equipment in a bad room does not mean that the room matters less when the equipment is good. Saying "the room matters less when the playback chain is good" is like saying "the speakers matter less when the source component and amplifier are good" - it's a nonsense claim.

 

Frank, you're doing what you always do: You make claim about something, and then when someone replies that your claim makes no sense, you reply with evidence in support of a different claim.

 

Considering that every system, every installation, every enthusiast's listening discernment, every recording, and every room is unique, It should be obvious that without any agreed upon definitions you're points have very little meaning.

 

For example. 

 

- You say well-performed music and I think well-engineered recordings (not the performance).  You say good music but I don't think your rap music is good. 

 

- You say fully-optimized "audiophile" level playback environment and I think there was once a time when men removed the hubcaps from their family station wagon for improved aerodynamics when taking a romp down the quarter mile track.  And I wouldn't doubt some thought their station wagons were "fully optimized".

 

- You say bad room and I've not a clue what you mean. 

 

- You say good good and bad equipment and I've not a clue what you mean.

 

- You say transported or moved by good music and I ask myself could not a 5-year old with no ability to discern what they hear also be "moved and transported by good music?"

 

On the other hand, you say nothing about installation methods and fine-tuning a playback system and now I'm starting to get a good idea where you're coming from.

 

That said and based on my limited experience, Frank is right on the money if he indeed said the room matters less.  But he'd be more accurate if he said the room actually matters very little if at all.

 

Your comment, "Saying "the room matters less when the playback chain is good" is like saying "the speakers matter less when the source component and amplifier are good" - it's a nonsense claim." is itself a nonsensical claim.  Especially since you've yet to define your adjectives.  But if you understood the sources of the greatest distortions that plague every last playback system to the point of inducing a universal performance-limiting governor on every last system, then you too might agree that your own claims here are nonsensical.  So once again, Frank is correct if he indeed made those claims.

 

I suppose I should add that in my limited experience, the rooms I've used, that some may label as bad, mean nothing and I do zero to treat them.  But my limited experience also tells me that finding an optimal or hopefully THE optimal placement locations for a full-range speaker within a given room is absolutely paramount if one hopes to attain a truly musical, tight, deep, well-defined bass reproduction.