Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[4est]

14 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Contact mikes sound terrible. I hate them and can tell one in a recording instantly! Kenny G's sax, for instance. Compare it to a track from Stan Getz or Coleman Hawkins and I think that you too will understand (if you don't already)

Wait, you refuse to listen to ANY rock music, but you listen to Kenny G?

[4est]

4 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? 

 

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'....

Although I agree with your assessment of Stabilant 22, Dayton Wright is not an American company, but Canadian. They are also the makers of Stabilant 22, and sold it to the Tweek people for awhile. Sadly their arrangement went off the rails, and Tweek was diluted further and further to the point of uselessness using their remaining stock. My point being even if you have used Tweek, you may not have used Stabliant 22. It also should not be confused with Soylent Green! 

[4est]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

Not at all sure you get it Frank.  

 

Pretty sure absolutely everyone knows about and accounts for synergy. Just some have trouble believing that you believe a POC $119 AIO Walmart system can sound anywhere near as satisfying or decent as say, a $750 carefully crafted system. No matter how many times you resolver connections, especially since you don't specific what connections or even what you hope to accomplish by such actions. 

 

When asked, you don't come back with specifics, just a subtly arrogant suggestion that nobody "gets it."  Puhleese.... 

 

 

LOL. As one who HAS soldered nearly everything, it is not noticeably better than Stabilant 22A(Tweak at the time) as George has suggested. IMO, the real tell is when Frank states that his is essentially a "work bench" system. I dunno but ya'll, but my work bench has enough tools and crap on it to rattle like hell with the music.

[4est]

On 2/23/2019 at 9:53 AM, audiobomber said:

I never re-soldered any connections and my speakers vanish. You cannot tell their positioning from the listening chair with your eyes closed and well-recorded stereo sound.

 

I've had really bad connections and I can't hear the difference. I have bad connectors right now between my preamp and power amps. I am using a .1uF cap to roll of the main power amps at 80Hz. This is a temporary situation, and I had to use substandard RCA inputs between my Cardas cables and the power amps. The connection is so loose that the RCA plug falls out if you move it. Despite that, the setup sounds awesome, best I've ever had, and I've tried many ways to integrate my speakers and subs. 

 

Another example, I have to tighten my speaker connections periodically because sometimes they loosen. I have never noticed any sonic effect, the sound is the same as long as there is contact. I just do it every month or so as a preventive measure.

 

That sounds familiar...

 

[4est]

9 hours ago, shtf said:

 

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.

 

He never mentioned price. It appears to be you that is conflating price with the "best". Contrary to whatever you might think, Paul is hardly a pusher of uber priced gear. Quite the contrary actually if you read his posts. "Best you can afford" is merely suggesting that you don't over buy/spend.

[4est]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

In my world, "good sound" is realism. Not audiophile goodies ...

 

If one can instantly tell that the sound coming through the door from a room, or behind a curtain, is from a hifi - then it's a fail. The "magic" I'm interested in the deep sense of immersion in the energy and vibrancy of music making - technical ticking of boxes means zero if I don't experience the impact of what live sound delivers.

 

 

The thing one can tweak towards is reducing audible distortion to the point where the ear/brain accepts the illusion. If done well, then room treatments are irrelevant - these are just crutches to try and disguise the anomalies that disturb the brain, and disrupt the illusion.

 

 

Nope. It's the combining of components in certain patterns that gives the best chances - monster amps with any old speakers will do it; or horn speakers with a tin pot amplifier is a method at the other end of the scale. If set up correctly, both of these approaches will deliver the sound of the recording, rather than "system signatures".

Wow, you really are lost or you are merely speculating and spouting BS. IME, the wrong amplification can spoil a good speaker. I am not sure what a tin pot amplifier is, but what works well on a pair of maggies can be different than what would work on a pair of Avantegardes. Suggesting otherwise displays a lack of experience and understanding of the loads. Some amps might work well on both (Pass XA series ?), but they are likely exceptions, and not inexpensive.

[4est]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

Tin pot is just a term for an amplifier that has poor current drive capability, that starts to display major, obvious distortion once it needs to output over say 1 watt of power. Which is often what horn systems use ... .

 

The point I'm making is that the electronics need to work in a "zone of comfort" - that the levels of interference being generated by the operation of all the circuits, for listening at "enthusiastic" levels, doesn't cause significant degradation of SQ. Obviously the Magnepans need a vastly more capable amplifier than the Avantgardes, because of the difference of sensitivities - the former is an example of needing a monster amp, the latter where the tin pot variety can do the job; examples of what I was stating.

 

I have heard the most expensive Magnepan model sound pretty awful, driven by a monster tube amp - because the playback chain was not well sorted; and more recently the cheapest one do a particularly nice job of getting the sound right - because the electronics were set up a dealer who obviously understood what was important.

What do you consider a "monster tube amp", and how do you know it was the "playback chain" and not simply the amp? Contrary to what many say, my experience has been that Magnepans need gobs of current and few tube amps can pull that off.

[4est]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Try this for size, https://vtl.com/products/power-amplifiers/stereo-amplifiers/s-400-series-ii-reference-stereo-amplifier. Weighs 113Kg, and three blokes had a mighty struggle getting it up the stairs to the demo room, .

 

The playback chain is all the electronics from the source reading mechanism, right through to the speaker. What actually causes SQ issues could be an individual component, or combination of some of them, or that the operation of one generates interference which causes another to subtly misbehave. This is when one needs to start experimenting, to try and diagnose where the problems arise - and then apply some cost effective changes, or tweaks to resolve.

 

The amplifier that drove the cheap Magnepan well was a Sanders Sound Magtech unit - which has some clever engineering inside on the power supply side; a thumbs up on this one.

 

And so then you are recommending a $33,000 USD amp to power Magnepans. I cannot help wonder how many of those amps have ever been sold, not to mention that the amps will cost more than the speakers. Even still, they will likely not drive the speakers the way, say, my JC 1s would. Magnepans need current and damping factor to get them going. I am not against tubes at all, but it is horses for courses. My point in asking (silly me) is because even with an ARC D-250 my Magnepans sounded anemic. Yeah, I know. It is only 250 watts and only weighs 70 kilos. I am sure there might be some tube amps that would work well, but they aren't a dime a dozen. Your advice is useless once again.

[4est]

On 12/11/2019 at 8:05 AM, Confused said:

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.

Why would he care about the room? I am sure the speakers in that laptop barely excite the room in any way.

[4est]

12 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Glad to hear that I wasn't the only one confused by this.

You guys may be over thinking it. I think he simply means being able to hear the different fills and instrument tracks as sonic "spaces". You know, especially the ones on shitty recordings where you can obviously hear the over dubs and fills pop in and out on. Perhaps those poor recordings he is always raving about?

[4est]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm talking about a specific level of SQ which, say, renders the speaker completely invisible, under all circumstances - from personal experience, and from the postings and blogging of other people, it is clear that this occurs extremely rarely - but there is no significant reason why this should be so unusual.

 

A rig is sub-par because not enough is done to eliminate all the remaining weaknesses - being separate components allows more weaknesses to affect SQ, in many situations - if this is not dealt with, then the potential of the gear is never fully realised ... I have listened to 100's of systems made up of high end components, over decades, and the same audible flaws occur, over and over again.

I am sorry Frank, but I call BS on this. You have listened to 100's of systems? I find that hard to fathom, unless you are also including those as a passer by at an audio dealer, electronics shop or big box appliance store. As to the speakers completely disappearing, I would agree that it can seem to be fleeting and tenuous. I know I pick on you a lil. I honestly cannot help myself. I agreed with some of your ideas and observations at first, but the more you speak , the more I think you are lost in your own world(mid fi purgatory?). One where a soldered connection trumps component and even speakers, and where shit recordings are on par with masterwork if you just know how to fiddle well enough.

[4est]

14 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Hi 4est

 While I remain as sceptical as you are, I know that Frank has attended many Hi Fi shows , as I have also done with friends, and IIRC he mentioned his desire to attend an upcoming one locally .

 

Alex

I am sorry Alex, but to me a hap hazard show set up does not really count anymore than listening at Best Buy.

[4est]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You realise I'm talking 35 years here, of taking this seriously - one can easily come across, say 10 systems not your own which are "trying to sound good" in a single year; where you linger or listen long enough to assess the SQ.

 

Lost in my own world? I went to the last major Sydney audio shows some years ago, and I can still pictures the circumstances of the only half dozen rigs that showed good signs of the "right stuff" - and as Alex mentioned, I'll be visiting the next one ... assuming that the bit of nastiness that everyone is talking about doesn't muck it up.

 

The rules of "my world" are pretty straightforward - resolving the unsorted weakness in a setup, irrespective of cost, is absolutely crucial for premium sound; and if you do this with enough conviction, then even "shitty" recordings become good to listen to.

I think I understand now, and I am quite sorry for pinning you down. I suppose by your metric, it would be fairly easy to listen to 10 systems a year. Laptops and boom boxes are fairly easy to come by. In struggling to square all that you say I left with the impression that your bar is simply lower than most here. No worries. I don't mean to be a snob or put airs on, then again, I am not the one suggesting that I have it all figured out. The fact that you keep mentioning expensive, style based systems leads me to believe that you do not at all understand what I, and many here, are pursuing.

[4est]

25 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

That is very probable. I don’t understand how he can endlessly brag about a lash-up that is very pedestrian (I had a better system as a teenager in the1960’s), yet it achieves (according to him), levels of performance that he insists cannot be matched with even the highest of high end equipment; and he achieved this miracle of physics by simply dressing cables and soldering his components together rather than using standard RCA plugs and jacks. Were that the case, then the best audio equipment that money could buy would be an all-in-one receiver with everything on one chassis! In a receiver, of course, everything: pre-amp, amp, tuner, and in this day and age, probably a DAC and most likely a streaming server would all be connected together internally completely obviating the long runs of cable that Frank’s soldered connections surely entail. We all know that receivers are not now, nor have they ever been that pinnacle of performance. Now, they could be if anyone decided to make a receiver using the equivalent of Krell or Pass Labs amp and preamp, a state of the art FM (or digital) Tuner, a dCS DAC, a Roon based server, etc. But I’ve yet to see anybody market such a puppy. AFAICT, the only company that still makes a full receiver is Yamaha and I don’t remember anyone reviewing one and declaring it, because of the way it’s all connected, the highest “FI” that money can buy!

I won’t even comment on Frank’s “ghetto blaster” (literally) speakers.

I tend to agree with you, Frank's Magic seems to be slight of hand at best. Who is to say really tho? I am just tired of the diatribe.

[4est]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I see ... you've convinced yourself that it's impossible for all but a select group of recordings to provide an emotionally satisfying experience, and you'll fight tooth and nail to hang on to that belief... it would, like, the end of the world, for it to be otherwise ... 🙂.

Oh quit acting like some sort of prophetic martyr. You have presented a paradigm that is contrary to most everyone's experiences and understanding, with nothing to back it up. All the while you're using a tone of mocking superiority that many seem to find distasteful. Oh, and please stop with the "I've been doing this for thirty years crap", most of us have been.

 

In actuality, it appears as if you are the one that is convinced of something Frank, and we are not. We all have reproduction aspects that trigger responses. Yours seems to be different than the majority. So be it and get over it. There is no magic to your path, just a lot of rhetoric about how no one knows what do but you.

[4est]

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Okay, time to close this down, George - you're not interested in my methods, nor in achieving the best that's possible from recordings.

You just cannot seem to contain yourself...

[4est]

The fact that you are speaking of yourself in the third person speaks volumes to me.

[4est]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

And the fact that you completely missed that I quoted the OP of Part 1, by Blackmorec, to set the stage of this thread - taken out of quotes so that the display of the text doesn't roll up ... also speaks volumes ...

Typically when I have encountered someone who referred to themselves in the third person, they were stoned, crazy or full of themselves. There are no quotes because I did not quote you, I merely commented.

[4est]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm still waiting for Chris to give me control over this thread, and until that happens there is no point in putting up more material, or responding to intelligent posts - the childishness displayed so far needs to be binned, so no more until that occurs.

 

Yes, it should be obvious that I very much have my own way of determining the facts - I have zero interest in following the pattern set by others, and take no notice of what "authoritative figures" say - if what they claim doesn't add up, IME.

 

Most reacting here could get a life, and cease reading if they don't like my POV ... one way or the other, I'll keep contributing until I can safely go somewhere and not be assaulted by supposedly high quality rigs delivering SQ which is really quite awful.

Oh. I see. You want moderator privileges...

[4est]

On 6/12/2020 at 2:31 AM, fas42 said:

A nice little touch, just before ...playing a compilation of Classical Love tracks, disc ended with Nessun dorma, a solid operatic rendition - volume up, it delivered the big punch moments, on those last famous notes ... Bev exclaimed, "On that forum, tell those blokes there, they're idiots!!" ... 😉.

She might think you are handsome as well, but that doesn't mean you actually are...