Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

In the above paragraph nobody has disputed what the regenerator etc can do. And in that case, you are using proven technology which has been around for some time. This counters your point that only you know how to get the best SQ, from 35 years of messing around with audio reproduction. If fact, it is an engineered solution, for a specific application. 

 

Steady on, yet again. What I "know" is how to think about solving the issue - because I understand what I'm after. That's why I call it an Art - not a Science.

 

Quote

 

The above quote contradicts your point.. Nobody measure this, and then you imply that we need to clean up the AC waveform. The circular logic, if you want to call it logic, shows that you really have no magic at all. We all understand to some degree, what can be done to improve the playback chain. Some are better at it than others, but those people don’t throw their weight around and knock systems into the dirt over jealousy. 

 

What's with the attitude? I have described my methods on numerous occasions - and a typical reaction is people jumping up and down so hard their head hits the ceiling, and screaming at me - I'm a little tired of this, so I am not always Mr Ultimate Diplomat ...

 

Quote

 

Everyone has some strengths and weaknesses, so some may chose to pay for the services and tech needed to resolve specific issues with the playback chain. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect solutions. In your case, a 100 ft extension cord may be YOUR answer. For others, it may be to purchase services to measure/test the waveform and add an isolation transformer and filter, install dedicated lines from the service panel on the same phase etc. 

 

What I am suggesting is that if you are concerned about main noise in the line, there are solutions already available. You are reinventing the wheel. 

 

I'm concerned with doing what it takes to get the SQ I'm interested in - the "what it takes" will always be different, depending upon the setup - the wheel used may need to be invented, or be almost falling to bits because it's been used so often ... it's not the number of shiny tools in your garage that matters - it's the knowing that that tool, on a certain shelf, will do the job.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, botrytis said:

 

Frank really can't tell us what he does because he is living in his own mind. Maybe I am being harsh but he needs to explain step by step.

 

He is not the first audiophile that does this and won't be the last. 

 

Frank seems to like saying well, 'You are not an audiophile because you don't understand what I am doing.' If one does not explain it is hard to get people to understand.

 

And so what is the Edifier thread not doing for you, then?

 

Very likely, that you can't accept that the most powerful tool for making progress is to listen as difficult recordings change their presentation, depending upon what is tried ...

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

I guess I object to the fas42 methodology. There have been countless others before Frank having a better understanding, better explanations with reasoned logic, and quantifiable results thereafter. 

 

There are plenty of people who have much better understanding of the intricacies of DAC interfacing, and speakers, to name just a couple of areas. What I'm about is troubleshooting - and most keep resisting what I keep stating is important to think about.

 

Quote

 

Call it a more appropriate measure of improved performance. I am not picking on your naming convention, just that using Frank, as a sole nomination for this quest for better performance, is a mischaracterization. Others have achieved far more. There appear to be very few who follow Frank at a single site like CA. You would think if the following was so great, Franks, blog would be growing and the news would spread to other sites. That is NOT happening, and he has been banned from others due to thread crapping. 

 

My thinking is very different - most audiophiles are chasing characteristics in the sound that I don't consider important. So it's pretty obvious that most audio forum people won't grok the goal.

 

An aspect of the SQ that I aim for is that it's 'comfortable' - meaning, that it can be running at live levels, having the intensity of live music; yet, a mixed group of people can wander about right in front of it, talking and mixing with each other, totally at ease. Heyyy!!! ... that's what happens at a do ... when live musicians supply background music to the occasion! That's why I use the word "convincing" a lot ...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, botrytis said:

I can state that only omni-directional speakers have this ability - like Ohm F's, MBL and others like this. I do not think Frank has ever heard any of these, I could be wrong (it does happen).

 

You missed my posts about the start of my second run at this audio game, I see ... I'll leave it as an exercise to track one of them down, 🙂.

 

To summarise, hearing an MBL system using their best models, of every part of the chain, inspired me to get back into it. It told me manufacturers were capable of getting it right.

 

Big clue: "only omni-directional speakers have this ability" is nonsense - they just happen to be able to present the contents of recordings in a manner such that human hearing has an easier time getting past the leftover anomalies.

 

 

[Racerxnet]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

My thinking is very different - most audiophiles are chasing characteristics in the sound that I don't consider important. So it's pretty obvious that most audio forum people won't grok the goal.

Again, what makes you think YOU are the judge, jury, and executioner in the matter. If you don't believe in the people you are broadcasting to, Why bother?? Why not get off your soapbox and go home... 

 

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

There are plenty of people who have much better understanding of the intricacies of DAC interfacing, and speakers, to name just a couple of areas. What I'm about is troubleshooting - and most keep resisting what I keep stating is important to think about.

I think most people are satisfied with what they have. And there are many troubleshooters who have a better grasp than you.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Confused said:

I listened to this system at a show back in 2016.   (German Physiks HRS-130 loudspeakers) The sound stage was very impressive, the effect was quite spooky, but in a good way.

 

Yep, "spooky, but in a good way" ... 😉.

 

When fully realised, it becomes impossible to locate the speaker drivers as the source of the sound, no matter how hard you try to force your mind to acknowledge this ... this is what bottom of the line B&W bookshelfs did for me, 3 decades ago ... 🙃

 

[Racerxnet]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

Big clue: "only omni-directional speakers have this ability" is nonsense - they just happen to be able to present the contents of recordings in a manner such that human hearing has an easier time getting past the leftover anomalies.

Explain in objective terms why this happens. There is a reason, and with the 35 years and carnal knowledge you posses, maybe you can show/teach Toole something about sound reproduction. Maybe all of as well....

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Again, what makes you think YOU are the judge, jury, and executioner in the matter. If you don't believe in the people you are broadcasting to, Why bother?? Why not get off your soapbox and go home... 

 

I think most people are satisfied with what they have. And there are many troubleshooters who have a better grasp than you.

 

I'm talking to people who want more than just listening to a high end sound system - if you want to immerse yourself in the 'aura' of what was created by the musicians, who made the recording - the sensation sometimes produced by omni rigs, as described above - then I may be of interest to you, 😉.

[Racerxnet]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

as described above - then I may be of interest to you, 😉.

You didn't say how the Omni's accomplished this in any way, shape or form. We are all waiting.......................................

[fas42]

35 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Explain in objective terms why this happens. There is a reason, and with the 35 years and carnal knowledge you posses, maybe you can show/teach Toole something about sound reproduction. Maybe all of as well....

 

The human hearing system is very, very judgemental - if it picks up the slightest trace of a clue that the sound it's hearing is not the real deal, then it's game over. The illusion that the reproduction system is trying to project just fails to manifest - the ear/brain can pick up enough information, from the distortions of the replay chain, which help it to locate the source of the sound. Which is always the speaker drivers of course - you have to prevent that happening, to have a chance of getting "big picture" sound.

 

So, what techniques can be used, to keep the illusion stable?

 

The obvious one, which everyone normally uses, is the "sweet spot" - you make sure that the direct sound is so tightly focused, to one position in the room, that soundstaging, etc, fully forms. Added to this is controlling internal reflections in the listening room, all of the myriad room treatments, which help minimise the impact of conflicting information, which disturb the stability of the illusion.

 

Next up, reduce direct sound, almost completely! This is what the Bose idea was all about - the sound is sprayed, "everywhere", behind the speakers and your mind has to work out what it means. The giveaway distortion is strongly attenuated, because it's going in all directions, and the mind more easily can lock onto what matters, a meaningful music event. A better approach are the omni speakers, which have even sound distribution, where there is no strong concentration of direct sound which can emphasise distortion.

 

Last up, completely conventional speakers, which are all about direct sound - these are ruthless at concentrating all misbehaviour in the chain, and mean it's trivially easy to pinpoint their location. Normally. What one has to do is work harder to attenuate the level of that giveaway distortion, and if you do that well enough then it enters the arena of what a well performing omni speaker system achieves.

 

Another way of thinking about it is that the signal to noise ratio, of disturbing artifacts has to be at a certain level. Below that number, sub-par sound; above that number, convincing presentation. ... And, there are various techniques that can be used to get to that magic number.

[Confused]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

Which one, may I ask?

It was an old magazine article and was highly speculative, but it was talking around the possible effects of Floyd Toole's "audio circle of confusion".  This can relate to the confusion caused if say studio monitors are not accurate, in a circle with say the music producer having hearing issues.  In this case it was more a circle of confusion between recording engineer and producer for some of the 90's Led Zeppelin remasters, which were engineered by George Marino with Jimmy Page as "producer".  Apparently Marino had a reputation for producing "in your face" type remasters that tended to be rather bright and a little bass shy, and Page wanted to "modernise" the sound.  What is speculative is if Marino's preference for "hard" mastering was simply a preference or the result of hearing loss, but Page almost certainly has less than perfect hearing after decades of standing in front amp stacks.  Although this too is speculative because Page claims to be blessed with still perfect hearing, so who really knows.  The result of this can be found on some of the 1994 "remastered" compilations, which are apparently mixed differently track by track.  

 

As it happens, I some of these '94 remasters, and they are a little "in your face", but they do have some positive aspects in terms of clarity, and some tracks are a lot better than others.  In general though, I would rather listen to the earlier (Barry Diament) versions.  Although I have never heard the very latest remasters, which some say are the best of the lot.

 

 

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Confused said:

It was an old magazine article and was highly speculative, but it was talking around the possible effects of Floyd Toole's "audio circle of confusion".  This can relate to the confusion caused if say studio monitors are not accurate, in a circle with say the music producer having hearing issues.  In this case it was more a circle of confusion between recording engineer and producer for some of the 90's Led Zeppelin remasters, which were engineered by George Marino with Jimmy Page as "producer".  Apparently Marino had a reputation for producing "in your face" type remasters that tended to be rather bright and a little bass shy, and Page wanted to "modernise" the sound.  What is speculative is if Marino's preference for "hard" mastering was simply a preference or the result of hearing loss, but Page almost certainly has less than perfect hearing after decades of standing in front amp stacks.  Although this too is speculative because Page claims to be blessed with still perfect hearing, so who really knows.  The result of this can be found on some of the 1994 "remastered" compilations, which are apparently mixed differently track by track.  

 

As it happens, I some of these '94 remasters, and they are a little "in your face", but they do have some positive aspects in terms of clarity, and some tracks are a lot better than others.  In general though, I would rather listen to the earlier (Barry Diament) versions.  Although I have never heard the very latest remasters, which some say are the best of the lot.

 

 

 

Thanks for that ... like yourself, the original versions are what appeal to me - N. up the road has some remasters; and they're, frankly, awful ... not soundwise 😜, but simplified to the point of silliness. Haven't heard the latest ones, so can't say about them.

[fas42]

On 2/24/2021 at 2:10 PM, fas42 said:

MQA is a 'workaround' - to help replay systems which are down on quality, to sound better. The fact that it's got an audience tells one that the situation is not good in audio land - depending upon the signature of a particular setup, it may make things worse, or better - so I would expect that there is disagreement on its value.

 

On a competent rig, both the MQA, and the non-MQA versions will be fine - put next to each other, they will sound different; in the same way different masterings of the same original recording session will vary - and one's preference will depend upon, everything.

 

But those who hate the MQA 'tone' are now stuck with dealing with it being on the market - it should never have arisen.

 

Lo and behold, a post in another thread which perfectly emphasises what I said in the above, to wit,

 

 

Now, you can argue whether this post was trolling - but the point about the Moody Blues 'clarifying' is the interesting bit: "things going on musically" is what makes albums like those they produced so fascinating - but it doesn't require fudges like MQA to help - unless, your rig is not doing a particularly good job of 'decoding' this detail ...

[Confused]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Thanks for that ... like yourself, the original versions are what appeal to me - N. up the road has some remasters; and they're, frankly, awful ... not soundwise 😜, but simplified to the point of silliness. Haven't heard the latest ones, so can't say about them.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "simplified"?

[fas42]

9 hours ago, Confused said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "simplified"?

 

That the complexity of the original mix has been reduced, sometimes by large amounts. The original Led Zep tracks have very clever, very intricate spatial information encoded in them, the layering and separation of the sound elements adds so much to the power and impact of the musical ideas - the remasters, to me, sound like they stuck the instruments on a simple stage, like a group set up for a local dance - where's the majesty gone ?!! 🤒

 

Remasters of the band Yes have had the same thing done to them - boring compared to the original mixes; the latter delight because of the layers of detail in the construction of the mix.

[fas42]

Yet Another Post which I disagree strongly with,

 

Again, it's not the bass that does this - "recreate/define the sound and size of the space where the performance took place" - the latter  is a function of the integrity of the playback, and the smallest, lowest bass output speakers can do this, with ease. But, it requires high accuracy to happen - and using subs just makes it easier for the rest of the chain to get it right ... by offloading the energy requirements to pump out low bass, to a completely separate sub-system. Okay, if this is well done, then you've achieved your goal - but don't think it's because of the low notes in the room that this occurs - careful optimisation of conventional speakers also gives all of the "standing in the venue" sensation.

 

On this bass thing, I have an interesting Japanese ambience CD - all the key stuff is synthesizer; which of course can go as low as they want to fool around with. And yesterday I played it somewhat louder than normal, on the Edifiers in the best state they've been in. And a couple of the tracks almost made me feel a bit off - the intensity and lowness of the bass was getting into the region where it was disturbing, physically - the rhythm of this deep, earthy pulsing was not to my taste  ... why on earth people would want that to be even more intense, I cannot fathom, I afraid, 🤪.

[fas42]

Won't pollute that other thread any more, but in the exercise of decompressing a fairly heavily limited track I ended up posting snippets of what was done,

 

Interestingly, sphinxsix felt there wasn't much in it ... but here's the waveforms of the key snippets,

 

 

I'm curious about how people's hearing works - that a change like this doesn't register as being significant, but they are mighty fussy about other, very subtle variations ...

[fas42]

I've just become aware of @Night Rain's very strong criticism of John's FeralA decoder - I haven't tried using this program, nor listened to samples, for a while; but unfortunately I suspect that the criticism is justified ... the more one tries to "fix things" in this convoluted fashion, the more the intent of the original recording is lost - this is not the way to adjust for lackings in the replay chain- it's doomed as an mechanism, IMO, for general use in making SQ better.

[John Dyson]

35 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I've just become aware of @Night Rain's very strong criticism of John's FeralA decoder - I haven't tried using this program, nor listened to samples, for a while; but unfortunately I suspect that the criticism is justified ... the more one tries to "fix things" in this convoluted fashion, the more the intent of the original recording is lost - this is not the way to adjust for lackings in the replay chain- it's doomed as an mechanism, IMO, for general use in making SQ better.

It is being incrementally improved -- even beyond the love over gold example that I posted earlier.  I found another missing EQ.  It is really even better now.

'Soul Kiss' is totally stupendous.   ABBA is incredibly clean -- I even have a relatively clean sounding 'Dreamworld' instead of the commonly available PURE HASH.

 

(Unlike most people, I don't work with 'response balance', but depend on 'tells' of all kinds.   Sometimes, it makes things challenging, but on the other hand, I currently have a totally accurate LF EQ.)   Just 'tweaking' by listening won't cut it.  Using listening as a verification can certainly work.

 

Sometimes, when you do something new, you get nay-sayers and those with fragile egos.   Imagine someone who invests themselves into 30yrs of FA recordings, then to find that most of their recordings have an old-fashioned style of intellectual property protection, with some of the same aspects of MQA.   Some people take that stuff personally.

 

On the other hand, I work to solve the problem, eventually to help even those who have emotional problems with my project.

 

 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

It is being incrementally improved -- even beyond the love over gold example that I posted earlier.  I found another missing EQ.  It is really even better now.

'Soul Kiss' is totally stupendous.   ABBA is incredibly clean -- I even have a relatively clean sounding 'Dreamworld' instead of the commonly available PURE HASH.

 

(Unlike most people, I don't work with 'response balance', but depend on 'tells' of all kinds.   Sometimes, it makes things challenging, but on the other hand, I currently have a totally accurate LF EQ.)   Just 'tweaking' by listening won't cut it.  Using listening as a verification can certainly work.

 

Sometimes, when you do something new, you get nay-sayers and those with fragile egos.   Imagine someone who invests themselves into 30yrs of FA recordings, then to find that most of their recordings have an old-fashioned style of intellectual property protection, with some of the same aspects of MQA.   Some people take that stuff personally.

 

On the other hand, I work to solve the problem, eventually to help even those who have emotional problems with my project.

 

 

 

John, I appreciate that what you're doing is helpful to some - but it's not my cup of tea; as I've said a number of times ... it was interesting that another member came on so strong, voicing a similar opinion.

[fas42]

And it turns out that he has a history ... and things move on ...

[Confused]

17 hours ago, fas42 said:

I'm curious about how people's hearing works - that a change like this doesn't register as being significant, but they are mighty fussy about other, very subtle variations ...

 

I too am curious about this.

 

I suspect that there might be a fair bit of variation between what people hear, what they like, and what they might find annoying.  The last bit is critical I think, I am sure that we can all listen around issues with sound quality and simply "enjoy the music", but when things start to annoy it is a different story.  This is when the border between "listenable" and "unlistenable" is crossed.

 

Some examples. 

 

I have seen some people are vey much preoccupied by the compression issue / loudness wars etc.  Myself, it does not bother me that much.  OK - I can listen two your examples of the Kings of Leon track, and yes, I prefer the last version, but not so much for the change in dynamics, for me it is more of a case of the mix sounding more balanced, so rather than the lead guitar screaming at me, it sound more like it has it's place in the mix.  Yet with all that said, I could happily listen to the original "as released" version, but I think others might not.

 

For other people, file bit rates get them going.  To the point that something like a 128kbs file or Youtube audio track is basically unlistenable.  This is another one where I would much rather listen to an uncompressed version of a track, I can hear what is missing and what is bad with low bit rate files, but then again, there is nothing in a typical 128kbs delivered recording that I find particularly offensive or annoying, so I can happily listen such a recording, others seemingly cannot.

 

My thing is any kind of tonal imbalance, this I find very annoying, to the point where I might not want to listen to the music at all.  Too much treble, not enough bass, overly shrill presence range, this kind of thing.  Yes, yes, I know the response to this is that I need to get my rig sorted, but the key point is that with a reasonably bad example of this, I would find it annoying on my car stereo, annoying on my iPhone with Sony WH1000's, annoying on my desktop headphone rig, basically annoying with anything.  However, I think others are less bothered about this than myself, so what annoys me, may not seem so bad to others.  I am as sure as I can be that there is a high degree of variation here.

 

All of this begs many questions.

 

Lets take two people:

 

Person A states that the most realistic system he has ever listened too includes the "Supervalve XYZ" amp.

 

Person B states Ha!  Rubbish! The Supervalve XYZ has a SINAD of 75 and THD of 1%,  I use a "Solidstate ABC", it has a SINAD of 140, it has 0.00000001% THD.  OK - If you like like listening to noise and distortion then fine, but I want to hear what is on the recording.  I have listened to the Supervalve XYZ, it was terrible, the Solidstate ABC is much better.

 

But what if they are both right?  None of us know what is really going on in the heads of others. So what if in the case of person A, when they listen to a violin using their Supervalve XYZ, it actually is stimulating all the synapses in their brain, much as a real violin might, whereas with the Solidstate ABC, the brain synapses do not match quite so well, for whatever reason.  So to them, the Supervalve XYZ is genuinely closer to the recording, and for some reason the Supervalve XYZ does not do this.  For this person, the Supervalve XYZ would, in a very real sense, be "higher fidelity" that the Solidstate ABC, and exactly where it matters most, inside their brain.  Then, what about another person, for whom the reverse is true?   Quite what the mechanisms are here I am not sure, I doubt anyone knows for sure.

 

When you think about this, and look at the variety of kit available, folk who like vinyl, folk who don't like vinyl, people who like big speakers, those that like small ones, valve fanatics, measurement fanatics and all the rest of it, it seems highly likely to me that there is a significant difference in how we subjectively hear things, although one man's subjective experience is very objectively real to him of course.

 

I suspect that somewhere within all of this there lies the seeds to many an audio forum disagreement.  I might be wrong, but unless someone one day can establish precisely what is going on in each of our heads, we will never know.  We do not have the technology to know what precisely is going on in the brain at the moment, indicative maybe, but not precisely.  Until then, I would suggest it is best assumed that we are not all the same in this regard, so what subjectively works for one, may not work for another. 

 

I am as sure as I can be that some people are not quite hearing what I am, which is fine of course.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Confused said:

 

But what if they are both right?  None of us know what is really going on in the heads of others. So what if in the case of person A, when they listen to a violin using their Supervalve XYZ, it actually is stimulating all the synapses in their brain, much as a real violin might, whereas with the Solidstate ABC, the brain synapses do not match quite so well, for whatever reason.  So to them, the Supervalve XYZ is genuinely closer to the recording, and for some reason the Supervalve XYZ does not do this.  For this person, the Supervalve XYZ would, in a very real sense, be "higher fidelity" that the Solidstate ABC, and exactly where it matters most, inside their brain.  Then, what about another person, for whom the reverse is true?   Quite what the mechanisms are here I am not sure, I doubt anyone knows for sure.

 

Interesting thinking ... I was just reminded of hearing a vinyl setup at the Sydney audio club, about 15 years ago, playing the requisite Belafonte at Carnegie LP, 😉  - and it was close to unlistenable! The needle in groove distortion was terrible; I'm sure IMD numbers would have been through the roof - yet none of the people around me appeared to be reacting to the awfulness of that aspect of the SQ. ... But, audiophiles live in a different place, 😜.

 

5 hours ago, Confused said:

 

When you think about this, and look at the variety of kit available, folk who like vinyl, folk who don't like vinyl, people who like big speakers, those that like small ones, valve fanatics, measurement fanatics and all the rest of it, it seems highly likely to me that there is a significant difference in how we subjectively hear things, although one man's subjective experience is very objectively real to him of course.

 

So far, if I like the sound, others around me also like the sound - the only exceptions are, you guessed it, audiophiles ... 🤣.

 

5 hours ago, Confused said:

 

I suspect that somewhere within all of this there lies the seeds to many an audio forum disagreement.  I might be wrong, but unless someone one day can establish precisely what is going on in each of our heads, we will never know.  We do not have the technology to know what precisely is going on in the brain at the moment, indicative maybe, but not precisely.  Until then, I would suggest it is best assumed that we are not all the same in this regard, so what subjectively works for one, may not work for another. 

 

I am as sure as I can be that some people are not quite hearing what I am, which is fine of course.

 

It always come back, for me, to that if you only hear the recording, and none of the playback gear - that then you're getting accuracy. Now, you might not like what you hear on that recording - which is fair enough - and wish to add some makeup ... your call. But IME that has never been necessary.

[fas42]

Give you an example of what I hate - what was posted here, the first clip,

 

This is classic, beat the input into bloodied pulp, and hurl the mess out at as loud as I can,  PA crap - which I detest. Some people think this is exciting, live music vibe - but I don't ...

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Give you an example of what I hate - what was posted here, the first clip

 

This is classic, beat the input into bloodied pulp, and hurl the mess out at as loud as I can,  PA crap - which I detest. Some people think this is exciting, live music vibe - but I don't ...

 

Sounds fine on a fully sorted out rig...