Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[Blackmorec]

Theoretically at least a Doepke RCD should make no difference at all but unfortunately for my wallet, it does and its not small. Same for the Gigawatt MCCBs. You’d need to ask the designer why. I just try the product and decide if there’s an improvement and if there is, whether its worth the asking price 

[botrytis]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

Theoretically at least a Doepke RCD should make no difference at all but unfortunately for my wallet, it does and its not small. Same for the Gigawatt MCCBs. You’d need to ask the designer why. I just try the product and decide if there’s an improvement and if there is, whether its worth the asking price 

 Well, unless you did a DBT, you were influenced by your wallet weight being lowered. Very few pieces, like that, sound different to me. I try to listen objectively, cost matters not.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, March Audio said:

No Frank, like everyone else, I just can't understand what you keep waffling on about.  You make no sense.  It's why you have this thread all to yourself and people rarely contribute.

 

Like I'm about to do, they see the futility and just give up.  It's a waste of time.

 

In the world of cars, no-one has this problem: you buy a new car, and find that because of a combination of design missteps, and bad attitude of the workers assembling, and some poor quality control, that you have a vehicle which is nominally fine - but which has characteristics, things badly done or assembled, and other annoyances which get in the way of enjoying, effortlessly, ownership of the car. The more you drive it, the more you are aware of these factors; no measurements are needed! And there are a number of, obvious, options about what you do next ...

 

That's how I view a playback system - it's a system, just like a car is, with a specific purpose. In the case of a playback chain, how well does it achieve its purpose of accurately reproducing what's on the recording? If it's obviously deficient in some way, I then look at the options I have available - I leave it to others to get excited about the magnificence of the numbers, the awesomeness of the bling, and the prestige of the company that produced the goods, 😝.

[kumakuma]

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

In the world of cars, no-one has this problem: you buy a new car, and find that because of a combination of design missteps, and bad attitude of the workers assembling, and some poor quality control, that you have a vehicle which is nominally fine - but which has characteristics, things badly done or assembled, and other annoyances which get in the way of enjoying, effortlessly, ownership of the car. The more you drive it, the more you are aware of these factors; no measurements are needed! And there are a number of, obvious, options about what you do next ...

 

That's how I view a playback system - it's a system, just like a car is, with a specific purpose. In the case of a playback chain, how well does it achieve its purpose of accurately reproducing what's on the recording? If it's obviously deficient in some way, I then look at the options I have available - I leave it to others to get excited about the magnificence of the numbers, the awesomeness of the bling, and the prestige of the company that produced the goods, 😝.

 

When reading many of your posts, I'm reminded of this quote:

 

 

 

[March Audio]

5 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Theoretically at least a Doepke RCD should make no difference at all but unfortunately for my wallet, it does and its not small. Same for the Gigawatt MCCBs. You’d need to ask the designer why. I just try the product and decide if there’s an improvement and if there is, whether its worth the asking price 

I think the question I would ask is why your hifi is so sensitive to the materials used in the RCD?

 

Assuming that the silver plating hadn't oxidised and tarnished, it's possible that it might have fractionally lower resistance than copper. This could theoretically change the supply voltage by maybe a millivolt or 2 depending on the current flow.

 

Considering that the mains supply can vary maybe 10s of volts depending on local load conditions, I dread to think what your hifi will make of that scenario if the effect of the RCD is audible.

[March Audio]

21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

When reading many of your posts, I'm reminded of this quote:

 

 

 

I'm not sure there us anything sophisticated about it.

[fas42]

In 2021, more than 35 years after the CD was introduced, how telling it is that the greatest complement, still, that can be given a DAC is,

 

Quote

It makes every recording sound non-digital.

 

...from https://www.stereophile.com/content/holoaudio-may-level-3-da-processor.

 

IOW, the industry is still teetering on the edge of having people accomplished enough to ensure that playback doesn't suffer from 'digititus'; by them doing sufficiently competent engineering to stop the SQ suffering from annoying anomalies ... 'tis a sad state of affairs ...

 

[fas42]

Good post here,

 

To sum up, the big variety of headphones tried only play a small part in the SQ experience - the electronics driving them dictate the sense of what one hears. This is also true of amps driving normal speakers - but it is usually much harder to achieve the level of integrity necessary with a combo of these components, to get the same subjective results.

[fas42]

This was an interesting video I came across - the YouTube clip is only capable of the lowest quality settings ... yet ...

 

 

 

[fas42]

Someone I just found, who makes a lot of sense, for me ... https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/roger-skoff-debunks-the-debunkers/

 

[Confused]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Someone I just found, who makes a lot of sense, for me ... https://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/roger-skoff-debunks-the-debunkers/

 

Some of of it makes sense, but there are some fundamental errors of logic made to back up his points.

 

See if you can spot one.

[fas42]

23 hours ago, Confused said:

Some of of it makes sense, but there are some fundamental errors of logic made to back up his points.

 

See if you can spot one.

 

Haven't forgotten this, but have been too tied up in other stuff - tomorrow ...

[fas42]

MattHooper on ASR knows the realm which can revealed, https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/how-holographic-can-a-soundstage-be.23772/page-4#post-804246

 

Quote

The omnis just went beyond even the APs though, to truly spooky. It really was just performers beaming in to the room kind of stuff.
Also, I found the MBLs sounded somewhat more refined in terms of an effortless sense of resolution and smoothness (and the AP speakers are, themselves, well known for those qualities to begin with). With the AP speakers playing, say, a recording of classical guitar would produce a very holographic presentation of the guitar between the speakers with great clarity and detail. But it was a bit more of "I'm listening to a very impressive reproduction" than the MBL, so where the audio physic I could hear the fingers picking the strings it was a bit high-lighted and "hi-fi" or mechanical, a bit of an edge. Whereas the MBL produced a freaky life-like type of resolution that mimicked more what I hear in real life. So the finger picking on strings wasn't artificial or edged or hard, but just sounded like that super subtle sound of human fingers, human flesh, on the strings. I don't think I've ever heard a presentation quite that real sounding

 

It's the transition from "impressive HiFi" to "life-like", that one is evolving a rig to - when you have it, you know it 😉 ... that the reproduction is now in this zone screams at you - except that it doesn't, of course; being "in your face" are the last words that come to mind - it just, is ...

[fas42]

On 7/10/2021 at 10:10 PM, Confused said:

Some of of it makes sense, but there are some fundamental errors of logic made to back up his points.

 

See if you can spot one.

 

OK, one is the capacitive discharge thing - not sure what he's saying there; and another is, effect of speaker placement on imaging and soundstaging - I don't agree with this at all.

[fas42]

Will be interesting to read reactions to Tom Danley's Hyperion active speakers, when they come out - these go to the next level, in the sense that they are designed to go to very high SPLs, with ease - https://tomdanley.com/hyperion/

 

One person's experience is recounted here, many boxes are ticked - looks good!

 

 

[Confused]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

OK, one is the capacitive discharge thing - not sure what he's saying there; and another is, effect of speaker placement on imaging and soundstaging - I don't agree with this at all.

 

I have no idea what he is saying re capacitive discharge either, but then again, this is not an area for which I have any expertise so I cannot sensibly comment.

 

The bit that stuck me was this:

 

 Another kind of testing that's loved by audio objectivists is the "double-blind" test, where neither the tester nor the testee knows which of two or more things is being played. Although for many other kinds of testing, it's correctly praised as "the gold standard of test procedures," double-blind testing can only work where the presence, absence, or degree of one single characteristic is to be determined—the amplitude of one 1 kHz test tone relative to another, for example. Music NEVER presents only a single characteristic, so double-blind testing using a music signal simply doesn't apply, and testing of a signal that has only one characteristic may be of little audiophile interest.

 

Whatever ones ultimate view of blind testing might be, the above simply does not make sense.  I mean, you could set up a blind test to establish if A sounds different to B.  (one thing)  Does A have more bass impact than B.  You could even blind test for more than one thing.  Does A have more bass than B, in addition, which from A and B has the cleanest treble, or is there no difference.  Which from A and B sounds most realistic to source.  Anything you want really.  OK, some might not like blind testing for a whole range of reasons, but the above statement is nonsense from a logical perspective.

[fas42]

20 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

The bit that stuck me was this:

 

 Another kind of testing that's loved by audio objectivists is the "double-blind" test, where neither the tester nor the testee knows which of two or more things is being played. Although for many other kinds of testing, it's correctly praised as "the gold standard of test procedures," double-blind testing can only work where the presence, absence, or degree of one single characteristic is to be determined—the amplitude of one 1 kHz test tone relative to another, for example. Music NEVER presents only a single characteristic, so double-blind testing using a music signal simply doesn't apply, and testing of a signal that has only one characteristic may be of little audiophile interest.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

Whatever ones ultimate view of blind testing might be, the above simply does not make sense.  I mean, you could set up a blind test to establish if A sounds different to B.  (one thing)  Does A have more bass impact than B.  You could even blind test for more than one thing.  Does A have more bass than B, in addition, which from A and B has the cleanest treble, or is there no difference.  Which from A and B sounds most realistic to source.  Anything you want really.  OK, some might not like blind testing for a whole range of reasons, but the above statement is nonsense from a logical perspective.

 

Yep, agree ... DBT can work for any combination of factors, including whether any difference, whatsoever, between A and B, can be detected.

[fas42]

Was pleased to just find this clip,

 

 

What it gets right is the depth, space, 'volume' of the captured event - massed strings are not quiiite there, but pretty close ... it's rare that decent orchestral playback comes up on YT, so worth noting when you see it ...

[fas42]

Just saw, as someone's signature, this quote

 

Quote

 

“The best sounding audio product is the one that exhibits the least audible flaws.”

 Dr. Floyd Toole

 

 

Yes! 100% ... the sad thing is, that most people can't, or won't, recognise the obvious flaws in the playback's real world performance - which is why so many people never achieve the "best sounding" results.

[MarkusBarkus]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

...which is why so many people never achieve the "best sounding" results.

Whatever the hell that means...

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, MarkusBarkus said:

Whatever the hell that means...

 

Frank appears to be on a mission to make everyone as unhappy as he is...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, MarkusBarkus said:

Whatever the hell that means...

 

It means, fully convincing SQ - as the most important result, for me at least. As an example, you will be able to walk into into a room where a recording is playing, at live levels, and it will impossible to detect, using your ears, that what you're hearing is the output of an audio system ... this is why, it's worthwhile calling it, "magic".

 

Note, current active monitors don't do this - they hint at it, but haven't achieved the level I'm after. And it's possible for some reason they may never be able to do so, because of a built in limitation which is too expensive, and messy, to try and get around. But working towards that goal evolves the SQ to a decently high standard, which is a good return in itself.

[fas42]

Just posted!

 

 

Veeerry quiet ... but it ticks plenty of boxes! Now, if it can go to solid levels without losing any of the apparent qualities, shown here, I would be impressed!

[Teresa]

On 7/23/2021 at 4:15 PM, fas42 said:

“The best sounding audio product is the one that exhibits the least audible flaws.”

 Dr. Floyd Toole

 

I completely agree with Dr. Toole's statement above. The solution is easy, purchase the most accurate audio equipment in one's price range that sounds realistic in one's listening room when playing accurately made recordings. This is what I did decades ago and I'm extremely happy with the sonic realism of my audio system, instead of stressing about sound I just enjoy playing the best music collection I have ever had.

 

I recommend not succumbing to audiophilia nervosa as I believe Frank has. Audiophilia nervosa is defined as the anxiety resulting from the never-ending quest to obtain the ultimate performance from one's stereo system by means of employing state-of-the-art components, cables, and the use of certain tweaks.

 

From what Frank has posted I believe he tries to tweak extremely budget components which have lots of compromises due to meeting their low price. Frank hard wires cable connections, changing power supplies and other tweaks. Even though he bad mouths state-of-the-art components I still feel he has Audiophilia nervosa because of his forever tweaking and unhappiness with his sound quality. 

 

In short, I believe Frank is wrong. While there are people  who can't recognize the obvious flaws in the playback's real world performance such as those who buy their stereos at Walmart, but such a statement doesn't apply to 99% of people at Audiophile Style. IMHO most of us have achieved the best sounding results in our price range, it is Frank who is not there yet now or even 30 years ago.

 

On 7/23/2021 at 4:38 PM, kumakuma said:

 

Frank appears to be on a mission to make everyone as unhappy as he is...

 

I agree completely with this, his is not the way to musical enjoyment IMHO.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

@fas42 what speakers do you use?