Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[fas42]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

@fas42 what speakers do you use? 

 

Currently tweaking Edifier S2000 units - the story is here,

 

 

[fas42]

15 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

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.

 

 

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

 

Teresa, we've had a few back and forths on this - my angle is different, because I have an engineering mindset, and my experiences are quite different from most.

 

As I've said a number of times, a very low cost system, the Walmart type of thing, may in fact do a very decent job of allowing people to enjoy recordings - because it doesn't draw the listener's attention to flaws. But as soon as one starts to become more ambitious, then the gremlins emerge - you become more and more aware that altering the setup changes what you hear - from the obvious, say the type of speaker you use, to the ridiculous, like extreme applications of "snake oil" ... so, what's a reasonable approach?

 

For me, the answer is pretty obvious: the one constant is the recording, a digital version of it. It can "never change" - it will be identical in 1,000 years time; provided backup copies are made of it, as needed 🙂. Therefore, the highest level of accuracy of replay of the content is a worthwhile goal.

 

Now, many people believe that their systems are superior, in quality, to a high percentage of recordings; my accumulated experience is the complete opposite: only the very finest, in performance, rig is capable of revealing what has actually been captured in a track or album, in all its glory ... one only has to think of the experience of coming across playback somewhere, which is almost shocking in the presentation of the musical event, in the positive sense. Now, is that a layer of distortion added by the expensiveness of the components, somehow, magically, on the top of what is just an "ordinary recording" ... I think not, 😉.

 

The recording is the master. The playback chain, no matter how expensive, or fancy, is the servant. That's the approach I use - and it's highly successful as a method of securing accurate reproduction ... I'm not interested in "best sounding", I'm interested in, accuracy.

 

If you do it the 'right way', then every recording can give you, musical enjoyment - of course, if the mastering or intent of the musicians is on a tangent totally different from your own, then this may not happen - but this is the same thing as being at a live performance of music which is not "your cup of tea".

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

I don't see too many people here who believe the system can "add" to the recording. The basic goal of accurate reproduction seems to be shared by many (I could be wrong). 

 

Perhaps you are referring to the belief that you can "compensate" between inaccurate components to offset their respective deficiencies ? That is a fairly common approach (ex: taming a "bright" speaker with a "dark" cable). While this approach can be seen as "pragmatic" if it is the only way of doing things, then it leads to the belief that there are no superior components, just lucky or unlucky "associations", and that is, in my view, a depressing thought! 

 

The reality is probably that high quality components are really hard to find, and even if you do come across one, you may not know it because you may be using it in a system that will not reveal its qualities. 

 

For many of us, like you, perfecting a system is a long and windy road! 

 

What you are doing with a pair of Edifier speakers is probably no different than what others are doing with other speakers and components. Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

[Teresa]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

...If you do it the 'right way', then every recording can give you, musical enjoyment...

 

This is one of many areas where we strongly disagree. In my over six decades of buying music recordings, I find that how a recording is engineered and/or remastered is as important as how it is reproduced. Inaccurate and poorly engineered  recordings cannot be saved by audio equipment including tweaks IMHO.

 

Some of my favorite recording engineers include Jack Renner, Michael Bishop, Prof. Keith O. Johnson, Marc Aubort, Tony Faulkner, Kenneth Wilkinson, C. Robert Fine, Lewis Layton, Richard Mohr, etc. There are many others I didn't mention, I didn't want to spend the time to go through my entire music collection. Your boneheaded idea that with the right tweaks all recordings will give all listeners musical enjoyment as you state above, but also all recordings including poorly engineered ones will sound realistic. This is impossible IMHO. And your insistence that this is true is an insult to all the recording engineers who work very hard to actually make realistic sounding recordings. Perhaps, your standard of what is listenable is much, much lower than mine? That would make more sense to me. 

[fas42]

12 hours ago, hopkins said:

I don't see too many people here who believe the system can "add" to the recording. The basic goal of accurate reproduction seems to be shared by many (I could be wrong). 

 

They don't call it "adding" ... they call it things like, "presentation" 😉. Anything that inserts another layer of modifying what you hear is ultimately a 'distortion' - now, it's fine to want that, but don't mistake it for accuracy. The best rig is that which has zero personality, in my book - that of the recording is the only thing you consciously hear, and that is what works the magic ...

 

12 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

Perhaps you are referring to the belief that you can "compensate" between inaccurate components to offset their respective deficiencies ? That is a fairly common approach (ex: taming a "bright" speaker with a "dark" cable). While this approach can be seen as "pragmatic" if it is the only way of doing things, then it leads to the belief that there are no superior components, just lucky or unlucky "associations", and that is, in my view, a depressing thought! 

 

Nope. "Compensation" might work in the short term; but the only long term answer is 100% integrity of the chain, at every part, and link.

 

12 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

The reality is probably that high quality components are really hard to find, and even if you do come across one, you may not know it because you may be using it in a system that will not reveal its qualities.

 

I don't have the belief that high quality components "maketh the system" - I was shaken out of this attitude over 30 years ago; mainly because, at that time, the more expensive the ingredients, the worse it usually sounded!

 

Rather, ordinary quality gear can produce spellbinding sound, IF the important weaknesses are addressed ... has been my experience.

 

12 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

 

 

For many of us, like you, perfecting a system is a long and windy road! 

 

What you are doing with a pair of Edifier speakers is probably no different than what others are doing with other speakers and components. Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

 

Yes. The difference is, that I know what I'm after ... once you get a dose of 100% convincing SQ, there's no going back - the difference between ordinary playback, and the magic stuff, is too great to ever be willing to compromise. Doesn't mean one has the better version happening all the time - but it provides the motivation to keep working towards it, by evolving the setup you happen to have.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

This is one of many areas where we strongly disagree. In my over six decades of buying music recordings, I find that how a recording is engineered and/or remastered is as important as how it is reproduced. Inaccurate and poorly engineered  recordings cannot be saved by audio equipment including tweaks IMHO.

 

Fair enough to disagree. The recordings are 'saved' by allowing one to focus on the music making, rather than on the shortcomings of the recording, and playback processes - this is where the "magic" happens. But it can only happen with the highest integrity of the playback chain.

 

10 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Some of my favorite recording engineers include Jack Renner, Michael Bishop, Prof. Keith O. Johnson, Marc Aubort, Tony Faulkner, Kenneth Wilkinson, C. Robert Fine, Lewis Layton, Richard Mohr, etc. There are many others I didn't mention, I didn't want to spend the time to go through my entire music collection. Your boneheaded idea that with the right tweaks all recordings will give all listeners musical enjoyment as you state above, but also all recordings including poorly engineered ones will sound realistic. This is impossible IMHO. And your insistence that this is true is an insult to all the recording engineers who work very hard to actually make realistic sounding recordings. Perhaps, your standard of what is listenable is much, much lower than mine? That would make more sense to me. 

 

The realism occurs at the moment of the musicians playing their instruments, and the microphones capturing what's going on - unless you have heard how impressive the sound of a recording done in the sloppiest, most amateurish way can be, you won't appreciate what's possible. And that's because you are no longer hearing what the recording engineer is doing; you are hearing what the musicians are doing, and in my book that is far more interesting.

 

My current, cheap Edifiers have no trouble throwing up a huge acoustic with any half decent orchestral recording - why would I need "special engineering" to make it better, I'm already getting the big performance venue ...

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Fair enough to disagree. The recordings are 'saved' by allowing one to focus on the music making, rather than on the shortcomings of the recording, and playback processes - this is where the "magic" happens. But it can only happen with the highest integrity of the playback chain.

 

 

The realism occurs at the moment of the musicians playing their instruments, and the microphones capturing what's going on - unless you have heard how impressive the sound of a recording done in the sloppiest, most amateurish way can be, you won't appreciate what's possible. And that's because you are no longer hearing what the recording engineer is doing; you are hearing what the musicians are doing, and in my book that is far more interesting.

 

My current, cheap Edifiers have no trouble throwing up a huge acoustic with any half decent orchestral recording - why would I need "special engineering" to make it better, I'm already getting the big performance venue ...

 

Found my Christmas present for you:

 

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Found my Christmas present for you:

 

 

Never appreciated before how people in some parts of the world are so into trash talking ... 😄

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Never appreciated before how people in some parts of the world are so into trash talking ... 😄

 

I don't think that recognizing that someone is a few sandwiches short of a picnic basket has anything to do with where they're from.

 

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I don't think that recognizing that someone is a few sandwiches short of a picnic basket has anything to do with where they're from.

 

 

You just can't accept that there is more to the Art of music reproduction than what you know, can you ... ? 🙂

[botrytis]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You just can't accept that there is more to the Art of music reproduction than what you know, can you ... ? 🙂

Sorry, Frank. It is science not art that reproduces music. Music is art, but to reproduce it properly, one needs science, not non-sense hand waving.

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Sorry, Frank. It is science not art that reproduces music. Music is art, but to reproduce it properly, one needs science, not non-sense hand waving.

 

It should be science, or more accurately engineering, that reproduces music. Unfortunately, we have been let down by that side of of things - they are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the world of understanding that human hearing is more sensitive to sound anomalies than they are willing to acknowledge - Putzeys is an example of someone who can span both arenas; but still doesn't have all the answers ... if he did, people wouldn't buy what he produces, and then sell it - because they come across "something better".

 

Where the nonsense is, is the refusal of people to accept that a single weakness in an audio system can severely undermine what you hear ... they want to believe that the magic of incorporating 'special' components, which have superb measurements, for example, will make that unpleasant truth go away - well, I'm sorry to say it won't ...

[kumakuma]

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It should be science, or more accurately engineering, that reproduces music. Unfortunately, we have been let down by that side of of things - they are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the world of understanding that human hearing is more sensitive to sound anomalies than they are willing to acknowledge - Putzeys is an example of someone who can span both arenas; but still doesn't have all the answers ... if he did, people wouldn't buy what he produces, and then sell it - because they come across "something better".

 

Where the nonsense is, is the refusal of people to accept that a single weakness in an audio system can severely undermine what you hear ... they want to believe that the magic of incorporating 'special' components, which have superb measurements, for example, will make that unpleasant truth go away - well, I'm sorry to say it won't ...

 

Everyone I know purchases equipment to fix perceived flaws in their system, not to add magic to it.

 

In other words, to make their system more accurate.

[botrytis]

43 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It should be science, or more accurately engineering, that reproduces music. Unfortunately, we have been let down by that side of of things - they are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the world of understanding that human hearing is more sensitive to sound anomalies than they are willing to acknowledge - Putzeys is an example of someone who can span both arenas; but still doesn't have all the answers ... if he did, people wouldn't buy what he produces, and then sell it - because they come across "something better".

 

Where the nonsense is, is the refusal of people to accept that a single weakness in an audio system can severely undermine what you hear ... they want to believe that the magic of incorporating 'special' components, which have superb measurements, for example, will make that unpleasant truth go away - well, I'm sorry to say it won't ...

 Frank, no amount of gobble-dee-gook can fix a bad recording.  Period. 

 

No, the nonsense is thinking the special magic 'Frank' uses actually changes the music. He might actually believe it sounds better. Well, good for him.

 

Sorry Frank there is no magic. Just working to get the best equipment that works together. No secret sauce - no magic.

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 Frank, no amount of gobble-dee-gook can fix a bad recording.  Period. 

 

Luckily for most people, you're wrong ...

 

7 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

No, the nonsense is thinking the special magic 'Frank' uses actually changes the music. He might actually believe it sounds better. Well, good for him.

 

Again, the magic is, firstly, having the knowledge, and experience, to pick when SQ is below par - a known recording, is shrill/dull/lacklustre; lacks detail/is very messy/is unpleasant to listen to - pick your poison, 🙂 - then, secondly, being able to pinpoint where the issues lie; and, thirdly, resolve them ... remember, the recording always stays the same - therefore, why did it sound special, on at least one occasion?

 

7 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

Sorry Frank there is no magic. Just working to get the best equipment that works together. No secret sauce - no magic.

 

Ah, a magic phrase ... "works together" - so, where on the spec sheet are the "works together" numbers? 🙃

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Luckily for most people, you're wrong ...

 

 

Who are "most people"?

 

You are the only one I've ever heard claim to be able fix flawed recording through tweaking of the equipment.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Who are "most people"?

 

You are the only one I've ever heard claim to be able fix flawed recording through tweaking of the equipment.

 

Lucky for "most people" who want to enjoy the contents of flawed recordings - to be able to throw anything at a playback chain, and find it to be satisfying listening, every time, is part of the "magic".

 

Speaking of tweaking, I hopefully made a significant step forward, just this afternoon - it appears that I hadn't done enough to stabilise, lessen static build up on the last part of the mains cable going to the speakers; won't claim success yet, but so far it's looking, as in sounding, good. What was gained? Smooothness ... another step in the attenuation of the remaining 'roughness' of the SQ ...

[Teresa]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

Where the nonsense is, is the refusal of people to accept that a single weakness in an audio system can severely undermine what you hear...

 

Everyone I know or have ever communicated with knows that an audio system is only as accurate as its weakest link. Thus, no one refuses to accept that, so you statement is false.

 

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

Who are "most people"?

 

You (Frank - fas42) are the only one I've ever heard claim to be able fix flawed recording through tweaking of the equipment.

 

As far as I know he is the only one to believe such nonsense. 

 

Frank's claim of making poor recordings sound as realistic as correctly engineered recordings by tweaking super cheap audio equipment is false. To extract the resolution from audio recordings one needs an audio system that is as accurate as possible in their price range. No matter the equipment, correctly engineered recordings will always sound more realistic than poorly engineered recordings. His claim otherwise is an insult to all the recording engineers who produce realistic sounding recordings. Such sonic realism I am quite sure Frank has never heard.

[Confused]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, a magic phrase ... "works together" - so, where on the spec sheet are the "works together" numbers? 🙃

Here:

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Everyone I know or have ever communicated with knows that an audio system is only as accurate as its weakest link. Thus, no one refuses to accept that, so you statement is false.

 

They may say that, but they point to obvious things, like the speakers, or room, as being weakest - the reality is much, much more complex ...

 

7 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

 

I agree completely. Frank's claim of making poor recordings sound as good as correctly engineered recordings by tweaking super cheap audio equipment is false. To extract the resolution from audio recordings one needs an audio system that is as accurate as possible in their price range. No matter the equipment correctly engineered recordings will always sound more realistic than poorly engineered recordings. His claim otherwise is an insult to all the recording engineers who produce realistic sounding recordings. Such sonic realism I am quite sure Frank has never heard.

 

I'm sure engineers who work on labels you like, do much to create a certain sound - which works very well on typical audio gear. However, what I'm interested in is to able to listen to any recording, and not be put off by what I'm hearing - no, cringe, etc, moments - this gives me, the full, historical recording archive to enjoy; rather than a small subsection of it - it's the music that matters, not how it was produced.

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, Confused said:

Here:

 

The input impedance? Ummm, really ??

[Confused]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The input impedance? Ummm, really ??

Not on it's own no, you need to keep reading down the list.

[fas42]

Just now, Confused said:

Not on it's own no, you need to keep reading down the list.

 

Ah dear, dumb me ... nicely done, 😁 👍

[Teresa]

54 minutes ago, fas42 said:

They may say that, but they point to obvious things, like the speakers, or room, as being weakest - the reality is much, much more complex ...

 

Speaker placement and the listening room are important for accurate sound quality. An audio system is only as accurate as its weakest link! Those links include speakers, speaker placement, audio components, the listening room, etc. All of this is important if you want to hear what is actually on your sound recordings. 

 

Quote

I'm sure engineers who work on labels you like, do much to create a certain sound - which works very well on typical audio gear. However, what I'm interested in is to able to listen to any recording, and not be put off by what I'm hearing - no, cringe, etc, moments - this gives me, the full, historical recording archive to enjoy; rather than a small subsection of it - it's the music that matters, not how it was produced.

 

The labels I like don't produce a certain sound, they strive to produce the most accurate recordings possible.

 

Many historic recordings from the golden age are very accurate especially Jazz and Classical recordings from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s.

 

If you can enjoy any recording then your listening standards are very low IMHO. It is the music that matters and I prefer my music to not be mangled by poor engineering.

[Teresa]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

They don't call it "adding" ... they call it things like, "presentation" 😉.  

 

No, they call it a more accurate presentation of what is on the recording. Most audio equipment doesn't add anything, it is more about what they subtract in order to meet a price point.

 

Quote

The difference is, that I know what I'm after ... once you get a dose of 100% convincing SQ, there's no going back

 

Your posts prove that you have never heard 100% convincing sound quality. I wish you could hear correctly recorded music played on my audio system.