Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[John Dyson]

7 hours ago, Confused said:

 

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.

 

When comparing my evaluations with many other people, there DOES appear to be a difference in what each of us hears.   It is PROFOUNDLY difficult for me to hear frequency response balance, but historically I had nearly perfect pitch (well, you know what i mean, I could call out a note based on sound.)  On the other hand, I hear transient distortions that other people don't appear to hear strongly.

 

Because of my limitations about 'response balance', I must use other 'tells' for my project.   One important 'tell' for me -- when frequency ranges have a strong discontinuity in gains, I hear a kind of semi-distortion that directs me that the processing isn't nearly flat.   My ability to detect response balance only works for finding sharp discontinuties.  Otherwise, for general judgement of response balance, the quality of my results depend on time of day and the state of my hearing.   It might be blood flow, which meds I have recently taken, recent activity, etc.

 

My observations show that each person can have a profoundly different way of hearing, or maybe the brain listens for different aspects of sound?!?!

 

 

 

[Confused]

16 hours ago, fas42 said:

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

 

Quite possible.  Indeed logically, this backs up the point I was making. 

 

Whilst I dislike generalisations, could it be therefore that audiophiles tend to be a subset of individuals that "hear" in a particular way, and thus often the subjective views of non-audiophiles seem to be of little relevance to those in the audiophile subset, and vice versa?

[Confused]

15 hours ago, John Dyson said:

My observations show that each person can have a profoundly different way of hearing, or maybe the brain listens for different aspects of sound?!?!

I am sure this is true.  As an example, I can think of times when listening to systems at an audio show, I might be reaching a particular conclusion, then the person next to me will make an observation about a particular aspect of the sound that I had not really noticed.  As soon as it is mentioned I can hear it too, in fact I cannot un-hear it.  Hence how something subjectively sounds can depend on what you are thinking about, focusing on and similar.

 

I guess that if you notice something when not really thinking about it, whatever you notice will generally be either good or very bad.  (and hence the bad stuff is a candidate for "sorting" per the fas42 method, unless it is inherent in the recording, something typically noticed only by those in the audiophile subset of hearing types)🙁

[Racerxnet]

3 hours ago, Confused said:

"sorting" per the fas42 method

Confused,

 

I am asking you only to describe "exactly" what this "method" is? No generalizations.. Based on this regurgitated reply, I'd like to hear what someone else may take from this thread, or are, as most think, this just a thread for casual entertainment. Lets see if Frank can keep out of this for your sake. 

 

Describe what you can take and apply to your system after 102 pages at this site... and then let us know if this has already been applied or explained from another person or site. Is this then Franks magic, or someone else's..

 

Has someone engineered a solution to the various aspects Frank speaks of, or are these original ideas from him?? 

[Confused]

50 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Confused,

 

I am asking you only to describe "exactly" what this "method" is? No generalizations.. Based on this regurgitated reply, I'd like to hear what someone else may take from this thread, or are, as most think, this just a thread for casual entertainment. Lets see if Frank can keep out of this for your sake. 

 

Describe what you can take and apply to your system after 102 pages at this site... and then let us know if this has already been applied or explained from another person or site. Is this then Franks magic, or someone else's..

 

Has someone engineered a solution to the various aspects Frank speaks of, or are these original ideas from him?? 

 

You appear to be taking what I have written completely out of context, followed by demands on exactly how I should respond.  I would suggest that you look a little more closely at what I have written, because what I have not written is an endorsement of the fas42 method, essentially you are demanding an explanation to something I have not written, when what I have actually written is challenging the method, not endorsing it.  Indeed, I have responded to some of your earlier posts on the topic, which should provide some clarity in this regard.  I suspect that I prefer a more subtle approach to posting when compared to your more direct style, which seems to be leading to misunderstandings.

 

Anyway, I will answer your question.  From what I have read, Frank's method is to play "marginal" recordings, then to listen for "distortions" in the reproduction, then to decide how to mitigate the distortions to make the marginal recording listenable.  Nothing remarkable here, and indeed you will find some recent posts from myself challenging the more extraordinary claims made regarding the potential results of this method.

 

Please note that my recent post was not an endorsement of this method, again it is mentioned as it is the topic of this thread.

 

As for your later points.  I have mentioned before, this forum is full of posts from individuals who listen to their systems, identify issues with the reproduction, and then work out ways to mitigate those issues.  There are a whole range of approaches to this.  I have mentioned before that some use measurements, REW and similar, rather than relying on the perhaps less reliable method of subjective listening.  So you seem to be asking me to justify what is completely unique about Frank's approach, when what I have actually stated that I do not see anything particularly unique about Frank's approach, other than then the more extraordinary claims for its's success, which I have challenged.

 

That said, I am a self confessed audiophile, Frank is not.  So it is unlikely our subjective experiences will ever match, as Frank himself has stated, audiophiles do not hear what he hears.

[Racerxnet]

Confused,

 

Thanks for the reply. I was not trying to corner anyone in providing a difinitive answer. I am trying to see if/what others may be taking from this thread to apply with thier sysyem. 

 

You and I seem to be on the same page with REW, room interaction, phase response, etc. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'd like to hear from others regarding thier takaway. 

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Racerxnet said:

I'd like to hear from others regarding thier takaway. 

 

Looking for actionable insights from Frank's posts is a complete waste of time.

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Looking for actionable insights from Frank's posts is a complete waste of time.

 

Which demonstrates that people will keep believing what they want to believe - and discard everything that doesn't fit in with that belief system. For example, you are determined that "bad recordings" must sound bad - and therefore will reject a setup that is capable of reversing that; my "insights" are of no use to you, because they will lead to a rig that violates that set of ideas ... it all follows.

 

1 hour ago, Confused said:

 

Anyway, I will answer your question.  From what I have read, Frank's method is to play "marginal" recordings, then to listen for "distortions" in the reproduction, then to decide how to mitigate the distortions to make the marginal recording listenable.  Nothing remarkable here, and indeed you will find some recent posts from myself challenging the more extraordinary claims made regarding the potential results of this method.

 

Correct. The principal is similar to that of an automotive engineer: he knows that a car that gives a brilliant ride on an ultra smooth highway, but a terrible experience on a rougher road won't last long on the market - so, he tests the vehicle on specially set up poor bits of road surface; and keeps refining, depending upon the results from that. In the bizarre world of audio that type of rationality doesn't get much airplay ... QED. The normal method of dealing with the situation is to assert that the recording is so appalling that it breaks the Laws of Physics, if one is able to make it listenable ... 😉.

 

Quote

So you seem to be asking me to justify what is completely unique about Frank's approach, when what I have actually stated that I do not see anything particularly unique about Frank's approach, other than then the more extraordinary claims for its's success, which I have challenged.

 

That said, I am a self confessed audiophile, Frank is not.  So it is unlikely our subjective experiences will ever match, as Frank himself has stated, audiophiles do not hear what he hears.

 

Not one thing that I do is unique, correct ... what is unique is that I pick and choose what I use - for a particular system. And that I use listening to diagnose issues to a far more fussy level than just about everyone - most give up when it's "good enough!". And the reason is obvious: until all the key, audible anomalies are dealt with, the ear/brain won't flick the switch, and allow one to experience a fully convincing illusion.

 

I'll use a jigsaw puzzle as an analogy: until the last piece is in place, you cannot avoid noticing that "it's wrong!"- all the tricks in the world, trying to distract you from seeing that it's unfinished, won't stop you always knowing that it's incomplete - the simplest solution is to find that last piece, and place it.

[cab33]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which demonstrates that people will keep believing what they want to believe - and discard everything that doesn't fit in with that belief system. For example, you are determined that "bad recordings" must sound bad - and therefore will reject a setup that is capable of reversing that; my "insights" are of no use to you, because they will lead to a rig that violates that set of ideas ... it all follows.

 

 

You claim you have a setup that is capable of reversing poorly done recordings???

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Racerxnet said:

Has someone engineered a solution to the various aspects Frank speaks of, or are these original ideas from him?? 

 

No-one on a forum has directly used my approach, as far as I'm aware. But I've bumped into several who fully understand the "why" of the situation - and who have achieved my type of results, using their own take on the matter.

 

N. up the road is the closest to my thinking ... he came and listened many, many years ago to a rig, which is several generations back - and got enough out of that to invite me over. What some might find amusing is that he buys "junk" CDs at opportunity stores, just to get hold of a case that's not falling to bits 🙂 - and when he listens to the actual disk, he always finds it worthwhile hanging on to the CD; because it has value as a listening experience. The only one he has ever biffed was tracks of Christian songs, 🙃

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, cab33 said:

 

You claim you have a setup that is capable of reversing poorly done recordings???

 

Nothing is "reversed" - what you get is everything that's on the CD, with zero additives from playback distortion - in the ideal case. Why most high end rigs do a bad job is that they don't extract enough from the disk, and they then add too much of their signature distortion to that. If this wasn't the case, then if you took a "bad recording" to an audio show, the exact same "badness" would be on show with every system - but of course it sounds very different on each system; the intermodulation distortion, etc, changes greatly as you go from one to the other - none of them, normally, are accurate to the recording.

[Racerxnet]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Why most high end rigs do a bad job is that they don't extract enough from the disk, and they then add too much of their signature distortion to that.

Maybe everyone should buy a $450.00 Edifier system, a 100ft extension cord, some free newspapers for the speakers, and a Aldi CD player as you have, and find bliss... 

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Maybe everyone should buy a $450.00 Edifier system, a 100ft extension cord, some free newspapers for the speakers, and a Aldi CD player as you have, and find bliss... 

 

They won't get it working as well as it is potentially capable of, until they have sorted it fully - the Edifiers still need to resolve more detail; they still haven't reached a peak of complete invisibility ... what do I need to do to get there? I ... just ... don't ... know - as yet. A lot more investigation, possibly - or it may slip into the zone unexpectedly, one day ...

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

I would agree that a system should be enjoyable with both poorly recorded and well recorded albums. With well recorded albums it should sound spectacular. 

 

But there is also a personal preference - some people choose to listen only to well recorded albums, irrespective of the quality of the system. It does not mean that their system sucks.

 

The only general statement we could probably all agree on is that a system that makes all recordings sound the same is pretty bad! I spend a weekend recently at a friend's who only had a cheap 30€ bluetooth speaker and it really sucked! 

 

It is very hard to convince anyone of anything without either actual comparative listening, or some common point of reference. 

 

Here, I understand we are talking about an "approach" in very vague terms, without reference to ANY components, and without any collective/shared listening sessions. No wonder this  is going nowhere... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Racerxnet]

5 minutes ago, hopkins said:

Here, I understand we are talking about an "approach" in very vague terms, without reference to ANY components, and without any collective/shared listening sessions. No wonder this  is going nowhere... 

Yep, and this where I asked Frank if anyone can vouch for the improvements he suggests made. Vague indeed, considering the claims made, and nobody has heard this to verify. 

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, hopkins said:

It is very hard to convince anyone of anything without either actual comparative listening, or some common point of reference. 

 

Here, I understand we are talking about an "approach" in very vague terms, without reference to ANY components, and without any collective/shared listening sessions. No wonder this  is going nowhere... 

 

 

Yes, comparative listening is needed - but the components used are almost meaningless; because the identical group of bits of gear could produce a near miraculous experience - or, be hideously unpleasant to be in the same room with ... it can be that different ...

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, comparative listening is needed - but the components used are almost meaningless; because the identical group of bits of gear could produce a near miraculous experience - or, be hideously unpleasant to be in the same room with ... it can be that different ...

 

Ok, but you are saying two different things here. 

 

A) Everyone I am sure would ageee that even the best  components (if there is such a thing) can sound like crap in some setups.

 

B) You are going to have a VERY hard time convincing anyone here that components don't matter. 

 

These two statements are very different and you cannot infer b) from a). 

 

Regardless, you should find a way to have your system demoed.

 

Can I kindly say that you are a little naive to think that you could convince people of point b) on an "audiophile" forum without any actual listening sessions? 

 

 

 

 

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Yep, and this where I asked Frank if anyone can vouch for the improvements he suggests made. Vague indeed, considering the claims made, and nobody has heard this to verify. 

 

This is always a silly 'argument' - anyone in the audio game can always improve the SQ; it's about the degree of this, and how much it matters to the individual.

 

How about this, then? A female friend of ours turned up a couple of weeks ago, and wanted to hear - I played her an el cheapo compilation CD of Dave Brubeck tracks - and she liked it. Then when talking about another matter a few days ago, she threw in that a couple unknown to us were renovating a home, wanted to put in a music room - and were inspired enough by her description of what she had heard, that they were serious about commissioning me to 'do' that room - he has a collection of about 600 LPs, apparently. Without hearing what I had. Now, there is every likelihood this will go nowhere, as such things often do ... but it made our friend enthusiastic enough to trigger this ...

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

Ok, but you are saying two different things here. 

 

A) Everyone I am sure would ageee that even the best  components (if there is such a thing) can sound like crap in some setups.

 

B) You are going to have a VERY hard time convincing anyone here that components don't matter. 

 

Components will always matter - as a trivial example, an amplifier with plenty of genuine grunt will always be necessary for speakers of low sensitivity.

 

But, almost any rig can be refined to deliver a very high standard of SQ - if enough effort is put into the exercise. Of course it would be fun playing with higher quality components; and most likely would deliver better results, faster - but if one wants to really find out what matters, much better to play with cheap, or throwaway stuff - lessons learned here can be applied more confidently to more valuable items.

 

2 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 

These two statements are very different and you cannot infer b) from a). 

 

Regardless, you should find a way to have your system demoed. 

 

 

Demoing is the hard part ... one has to have everything under control to get the right result - and Murphy is always waiting ... 🤪.

[Racerxnet]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

This is always a silly 'argument'

It is always silly to the guy who cannot provide anything to substantiate the claims being made. It is just your way to deflect the fact that there is no magic. 

 

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

she threw in that a couple unknown to us were renovating a home, wanted to put in a music room - and were inspired enough by her description of what she had heard, that they were serious about commissioning me to 'do' that room

One look at your room for audio and I suspect they would run for the hills...😁

[Racerxnet]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Demoing is the hard part ... one has to have everything under control to get the right result - and Murphy is always waiting ... 🤪.

Duck and run Frank???

[fas42]

Just now, Racerxnet said:

It is always silly to the guy who cannot provide anything to substantiate the claims being made. It is just your way to deflect the fact that there is no magic. 

 

ne look at your room for audio and I suspect they would run for the hills...😁

 

You see how it is, now ... everyone is coming from an angle - if the people wanted no compromise sound, and were willing for unusual thinking to be part of it - it might work. But if they had conventional ideas, and wanted the room to be 100% aesthetically pleasing - it wouldn't. Different drums ...

 

The magic is that immersive sound, with fully invisible speakers happens - there are plenty of accounts out there of this happening; the quibbling is about the methods used to get this  ...

 

 

[fas42]

1 minute ago, Racerxnet said:

Duck and run Frank???

 

I take it that you have never had a situation in your life where you wanted to "show something off"  - and for some, silly reason it didn't work out ... lucky fellow, you ...

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I take it that you have never had a situation in your life where you wanted to "show something off"  - and for some, silly reason it didn't work out ... lucky fellow, you ...

 

This has happened to me a few times, especially when demoing components in other systems. It is really irritating. This is why I prefer to demo components in my system, in a fully "controlled" environment, even if there are limitations (speakers, room, whatever). 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Another suggestion. It is hard to follow a thread of 102 pages, without an index to the more relevant posts. Since you have your own blog, perhaps you could use it to illustrate some of your recommendations. It would be easier to follow, and you can always link back to your blog  entries in this thread.