Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[gmgraves]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

And I was just reminded of an audiophile acquaintance who visited several times, years ago - he couldn't handle it 'loud' - he walked in the door, and immediately asked for the volume to be turned down; for him the sound had to be very "refined" and "controlled" - like a specimen in the museum, to be held at arm's length, and studied with all one's analytical prowess ... the 'rawness' of live sound is too much; perhaps, would have a heart attack if someone grabbed a saxophone, and blasted out some big notes, right in front of him, 😝

Frank, I have to wonder if you have ever actually heard any real live acoustic music played in a real space? It doesn’t sound like electric rock, with synthesizers, electric guitars played through fuzz boxes, guitar bass, huge drum sets picked up by a dozen microphones, Fender Rhodes electric pianos, etc all played at ear-splitting volumes. Yes, that kind of music needs to be played at those volumes, I guess in order to generate what I consider some artificial excitement because the music itself is generally so banal. But real music played acoustically, without any Sound Reinforcement, is not well served by those kinds of sound pressure levels (neither is one’s hearing). You need to be able to hear and enjoy the dynamic contrasts and the subtleties of the music. Something that most rock music simply doesn’t have (of course, like everything, there are exceptions).

[John Dyson]

17 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, I have to wonder if you have ever actually heard any real live acoustic music played in a real space? It doesn’t sound like electric rock, with synthesizers, electric guitars played through fuzz boxes, guitar bass, huge drum sets picked up by a dozen microphones, Fender Rhodes electric pianos, etc all played at ear-splitting volumes. Yes, that kind of music needs to be played at those volumes, I guess in order to generate what I consider some artificial excitement because the music itself is generally so banal. But real music played acoustically, without any Sound Reinforcement, is not well served by those kinds of sound pressure levels (neither is one’s hearing). You need to be able to hear and enjoy the dynamic contrasts and the subtleties of the music. Something that most rock music simply doesn’t have (of course, like everything, there are exceptions).

A good example is my own taste in 'blues' -- when listening in person it can have such intensity. The dynamics and character of an actual instrument doesn't seem to be easily echoed in a recording.  I have little interest in a blues recording, but in person is a different story.  When I use the term 'intensity', I dont' mean 'loudness', but more really interesting dynamics.   That actual listening experience is very difficult to electronically reproduce.

Most of the time, what we get in our copies of recordings is a far cry from a real experience.

 

John

[gmgraves]

24 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

A good example is my own taste in 'blues' -- when listening in person it can have such intensity. The dynamics and character of an actual instrument doesn't seem to be easily echoed in a recording.  I have little interest in a blues recording, but in person is a different story.  When I use the term 'intensity', I dont' mean 'loudness', but more really interesting dynamics.   That actual listening experience is very difficult to electronically reproduce.

Most of the time, what we get in our copies of recordings is a far cry from a real experience.

 

John

Yes, I feel the same way about live jazz. There is an ephemeral “something” in live jazz, especially if the group has a trumpet or a tenor sax that no audio system can reproduce. I know that Frank will say that if I followed his “method” that my system would reproduce that “ephemera” that I think can’t be reproduced. But of course, I don’t have his perfect ghetto-blaster, boom-box speakers, I just have a pair of ordinary, mundane electrostatic speakers. Sigh! Poor me.

 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, I have to wonder if you have ever actually heard any real live acoustic music played in a real space? It doesn’t sound like electric rock, with synthesizers, electric guitars played through fuzz boxes, guitar bass, huge drum sets picked up by a dozen microphones, Fender Rhodes electric pianos, etc all played at ear-splitting volumes. Yes, that kind of music needs to be played at those volumes, I guess in order to generate what I consider some artificial excitement because the music itself is generally so banal. But real music played acoustically, without any Sound Reinforcement, is not well served by those kinds of sound pressure levels (neither is one’s hearing). You need to be able to hear and enjoy the dynamic contrasts and the subtleties of the music. Something that most rock music simply doesn’t have (of course, like everything, there are exceptions).

 

George, you still don't get that I understand how live music works - I have a brother who plays electric guitar in bands - I know what it sounds like when you stand a couple of feet away from a Marshall amp ... he also plays saxophone, so I know what that sounds like in a small living room, when he gives it a good blow. One of the world's best classical guitar players, on a lounge next to me; enough pianos over the years to stock a musical instrument retailer; been going to the equivalent of the Sydney Opera House since the middle of high school to concerts.

 

All instruments pump out high, subjective impact sound - it's part of what makes it special ... John is onto it,

"really interesting dynamics.   That actual listening experience is very difficult to electronically reproduce.

Most of the time, what we get in our copies of recordings is a far cry from a real experience." That's what I'm about - generating "that actual listening experience".

 

Do you know what that visitor couldn't handle ... ? It was something like a piano trio composition, except it was running at something much closer to realistic volumes than usual ... 😉

 

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Yes, I feel the same way about live jazz. There is an ephemeral “something” in live jazz, especially if the group has a trumpet or a tenor sax that no audio system can reproduce. I know that Frank will say that if I followed his “method” that my system would reproduce that “ephemera” that I think can’t be reproduced. But of course, I don’t have his perfect ghetto-blaster, boom-box speakers, I just have a pair of ordinary, mundane electrostatic speakers. Sigh! Poor me.

 

 

 

Yep, George ... 😜 ... you haven't picked up one of my "messages" - it's not about the speakers, it's about the amplifiers - I have heard plenty of electrostatic speakers being ever so polite, because the amplifier hasn't the grunt to drive them properly ... what you do is create an amplifying chain that does work properly, hook them up to very ordinary speakers - and then you can produce sound levels that easily match live acoustic - with, yes, the same 'clarity'.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

George, you still don't get that I understand how live music works - I have a brother who plays electric guitar in bands - I know what it sounds like when you stand a couple of feet away from a Marshall amp ... he also plays saxophone, so I know what that sounds like in a small living room, when he gives it a good blow. One of the world's best classical guitar players, on a lounge next to me; enough pianos over the years to stock a musical instrument retailer; been going to the equivalent of the Sydney Opera House since the middle of high school to concerts.

Frank, if you understand live music why do you use only studio music, performances that don’t even exist outside that studio to illustrate your points about sonic “magic” and audio realism?

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

All instruments pump out high, subjective impact sound - it's part of what makes it special ... John is onto it,

"really interesting dynamics.   That actual listening experience is very difficult to electronically reproduce.

Most of the time, what we get in our copies of recordings is a far cry from a real experience." That's what I'm about - generating "that actual listening experience".

Have you ever heard the old adages “garbage in, garbage out” or you “can’t make a purse from a sow’s ear”? You can’t generate “that actual listening experience” unless you have a properly made recording to start with. That automatically leaves all pop/rock recordings out.😉

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Do you know what that visitor couldn't handle ... ? It was something like a piano trio composition, except it was running at something much closer to realistic volumes than usual ... 😉

 

Sorry, I don’t understand what you are trying to say, here.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yep, George ... 😜 ... you haven't picked up one of my "messages" - it's not about the speakers, it's about the amplifiers - I have heard plenty of electrostatic speakers being ever so polite, because the amplifier hasn't the grunt to drive them properly ... what you do is create an amplifying chain that does work properly, hook them up to very ordinary speakers - and then you can produce sound levels that easily match live acoustic - with, yes, the same 'clarity'.

Frank, that’s sheer poppycock and I think you know it. Cheap speakers sound like cheap speakers even when driven with Pass class A amps, or 1KW MBL amps that require two 20 Amp mains outlets just to power them! And to take that one more step, a half million dollar pair of Wilson WAMMs will sound like utter crap in the wrong room, irrespective of what you power them with.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, that’s sheer poppycock and I think you know it. Cheap speakers sound like cheap speakers even when driven with Pass class A amps, or 1KW MBL amps that require two 20 Amp mains outlets just to power them! And to take that one more step, a half million dollar pair of Wilson WAMMs will sound like utter crap in the wrong room, irrespective of what you power them with.

 

No, I don't know it ... the worst playback I have ever heard has been through some of the most expensive speakers around - far too many time I have had my ears ripped to pieces by Wilson speakers; this is where I have to slug myself with a solid dose of alcohol, to dull my senses, 😝.

 

Cheap speakers have to be stabilised, the silly shortcomings inside rectified, and then given a good bout of conditioning, every time when used from cold, before listening to seriously. This done properly delivers live dynamics, and the disappearing trick - I've done it too many times, with different gear, to think otherwise ...

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, if you understand live music why do you use only studio music, performances that don’t even exist outside that studio to illustrate your points about sonic “magic” and audio realism?

 

Do you mean all sorts of music, including classical, recorded in a studio? I have mentioned a number of recordings which are "live", at various times; did you not see them?

 

Quote

Have you ever heard the old adages “garbage in, garbage out” or you “can’t make a purse from a sow’s ear”? You can’t generate “that actual listening experience” unless you have a properly made recording to start with. That automatically leaves all pop/rock recordings out.😉

 

Doesn't work that way, George ... I borrowed a double CD, from the local library some years ago, of a Sydney based R&B group playing in a venue, small club, in the state. Amazing stuff, recording of the instruments and vocals as good as I've heard such - the sense of liveness was fabulous. The timing was such that I could take it to the big Sydney audio show then on - piss weak reproduction on nearly all I tried it on, even the best missed half of what was going on ...

 

Quote

Sorry, I don’t understand what you are trying to say, here.

 

That he didn't want to hear a chamber group playing instruments at something like a realistic volume.

 

Nice timing since you are talking of “ephemera” ... went off to an organised performance afternoon at a local art gallery a couple of hours ago, and they had a mass djembe drumming group do their thing. Like this,

 

 

 

Except, in my one there were something like 40 instruments on the trot, with a good percentage played with solid sticks. This in a smallish cavern, with concrete floor, steel roof, block walls - it was, ummm, LOUD ...

 

You could have revved a Harley Davidson in there, and not heard it - I love this sort of visceral intensity ...

[John Dyson]

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, that’s sheer poppycock and I think you know it. Cheap speakers sound like cheap speakers even when driven with Pass class A amps, or 1KW MBL amps that require two 20 Amp mains outlets just to power them! And to take that one more step, a half million dollar pair of Wilson WAMMs will sound like utter crap in the wrong room, irrespective of what you power them with.

I agree, if one has low quality transducers, then even the best electronics cant 'fix' the situation.  But, if one has fantastic transducers, with fantastic transient response, then any flaw elsewhere can be unpleasant.   The worst case is if the transducers are 'really good', but have an exploitable flaw, then that flaw can become so obvious.  A fantastic response except for some ringing here or there -- not a good thing.  Likewise, with my own project -- if it works perfectly, except for a minor problem with attacking too fast (as in attack/release), it produces crap on really good material.

 

As the quality of a design becomes more and more fine, exacting (be it system or component), it seems like the effects of flaws that do remain are magnified.  If one is dealing with a total garbage boom box, those not-so-little problems (e.g. hyper processed sound) aren't all that bad.  In fact, hyper processed sound can sound 'better' on a garbage system because it might be incapable of the dynamics or have exploitable problems that are best avoided by a constant volume with no dynamics.

 

In some cases, where people must compromise, then it is best to understand the limitations of their system and/or environment.  For example, don't try to listen to full dynamic range material in an automobile..  Or, don't try to evaluate audio processing on a substandard system -- unless fully understanding the limitations of that system and evaluate while understanding the limitations.  Even then, limited quality systems can be totally blind to various problems in source material, or even (as in the boom box example above) benefit from 'destroyed' material because of extreme limitations.  For example, there is NO WAY that I could make any sense of my project results if all I had was a pair of 1970s 'certain-common big name consumer headphones.'

 

The ultimate problem -- hearing problems.  When evaluating sound -- I have to be aware of fixed limitations (loss of high frequencies) or transient limitations (fatigue or undesired adaptation.)

 

It is ludicrious to make strong claims about quality while evaluating audio reproduction, possibly with hearing even more limited even than my own, listening on equipment that has no chance of even reproducing the entire frequency range, let alone the dynamics, also having so much distortion that any other low level distortions are hidden and not even understanding what the original performance sounded like.

 

I can certainly judge my own results -- and work to improve -- but I'd never make strong, general pronouncements when I don't really know what I am talking about.   Most people, when being very careful, can constructively criticize recordings -- but they have to know themselves (their hearing) and their equipment.  

 

John

 

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Do you mean all sorts of music, including classical, recorded in a studio? I have mentioned a number of recordings which are "live", at various times; did you not see them?

Are studio produced classical recordings generally made with electronic instruments? No? Do the performances of classical music ONLY exist in the studio; impossible to exist outside the studio? Again, No? Then I’m obviously not including them in my definition of “studio music”. As I have made abundantly clear, my definition of “studio music” in the context of this discussion, are recordings that cannot exist outside of the confines of a recording studio, and when played at live concerts, the studio must be taken with the group and placed between the musicians and the PA speakers so that the studio sound can be reproduced on stage.

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

Doesn't work that way, George ... I borrowed a double CD, from the local library some years ago, of a Sydney based R&B group playing in a venue, small club, in the state. Amazing stuff, recording of the instruments and vocals as good as I've heard such - the sense of liveness was fabulous. The timing was such that I could take it to the big Sydney audio show then on - piss weak reproduction on nearly all I tried it on, even the best missed half of what was going on ...

Says you, Frank. Many of the rest of us know better. Without decent source material, everything downstream is wasted. A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, you know. And when the recording is the weakest length, it doesn’t really matter of what the playback part of the chain consists. It’s already broken.

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

That he didn't want to hear a chamber group playing instruments at something like a realistic volume.

 

Nice timing since you are talking of “ephemera” ... went off to an organised performance afternoon at a local art gallery a couple of hours ago, and they had a mass djembe drumming group do their thing. Like this,

 

 

 

Except, in my one there were something like 40 instruments on the trot, with a good percentage played with solid sticks. This in a smallish cavern, with concrete floor, steel roof, block walls - it was, ummm, LOUD ...

 

You could have revved a Harley Davidson in there, and not heard it - I love this sort of visceral intensity ...

Obviously. But now you’re talking taste, not audio reproduction. I wouldn’t want to expose my ears to those kinds of SPLs! I would no sooner go to a performance like that than I would voluntarily go and hang out in a boiler factory or stand next to the muzzle of a military howitzer while it was firing. That’s probably why I can still hear 15kHz at my age.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I agree, if one has low quality transducers, then even the best electronics cant 'fix' the situation.  But, if one has fantastic transducers, with fantastic transient response, then any flaw elsewhere can be unpleasant.   The worst case is if the transducers are 'really good', but have an exploitable flaw, then that flaw can become so obvious.  A fantastic response except for some ringing here or there -- not a good thing.  Likewise, with my own project -- if it works perfectly, except for a minor problem with attacking too fast (as in attack/release), it produces crap on really good material.

 

As the quality of a design becomes more and more fine, exacting (be it system or component), it seems like the effects of flaws that do remain are magnified.  If one is dealing with a total garbage boom box, those not-so-little problems (e.g. hyper processed sound) aren't all that bad.  In fact, hyper processed sound can sound 'better' on a garbage system because it might be incapable of the dynamics or have exploitable problems that are best avoided by a constant volume with no dynamics.

Back in the ‘60’s, I was given a tour of Capitol Records in Hollywood. I asked one of the recording engineers why most records sounded so mediocre. His response was that the goal was not to produce recordings hat good on high-quality systems, but rather it was to make the recordings sound “acceptable”on the lowest quality playback systems. He went on to say that this was done at every step of the process, from the capture of the sound all the way through to actually producing the record. Dynamic range, for instance was restricted so that a cheap arm and pickup wouldn’t “jump out of the groove” when playing. I don’t know if that’s still the case, but it wouldn’t surprise me that there still are some compromises made in the production of commercial recordings in order to make those recordings not overtax the cheap playback gear that recording companies seem to assume that most people are listening with.

6 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

In some cases, where people must compromise, then it is best to understand the limitations of their system and/or environment.  For example, don't try to listen to full dynamic range material in an automobile..  Or, don't try to evaluate audio processing on a substandard system -- unless fully understanding the limitations of that system and evaluate while understanding the limitations.  Even then, limited quality systems can be totally blind to various problems in source material, or even (as in the boom box example above) benefit from 'destroyed' material because of extreme limitations.  For example, there is NO WAY that I could make any sense of my project results if all I had was a pair of 1970s 'certain-common big name consumer headphones.'

Absolutely true! For years I’ve been using Koss Pro-4a headphones when monitoring location recording. They don’t sound very good by today’s standards, and I have to take that into account when using them. But they have one characteristic that is absolutely priceless when you can’t count on having a room isolated from the musicians in which to set-up.  The Koss phones have the best isolation of any phones I’ve ever used. The combination of the heavy molded cups and the oil-filled ear pads make it easy to insure that I’m hearing the microphone feed and not the actual musicians through the air. Since I bought my first pair in the 1970’s, I’ve been through three pair! Don’t know what I’d do if they ever stopped making them. Switch to a pair of David Clark aviation phones, perhaps?

6 hours ago, John Dyson said:

The ultimate problem -- hearing problems.  When evaluating sound -- I have to be aware of fixed limitations (loss of high frequencies) or transient limitations (fatigue or undesired adaptation.)

 

It is ludicrious to make strong claims about quality while evaluating audio reproduction, possibly with hearing even more limited even than my own, listening on equipment that has no chance of even reproducing the entire frequency range, let alone the dynamics, also having so much distortion that any other low level distortions are hidden and not even understanding what the original performance sounded like.

You just described Frank, methinks!

6 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

I can certainly judge my own results -- and work to improve -- but I'd never make strong, general pronouncements when I don't really know what I am talking about.   Most people, when being very careful, can constructively criticize recordings -- but they have to know themselves (their hearing) and their equipment.  

 

John

 

Exactly!

[shtf]

7 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I agree, if one has low quality transducers, then even the best electronics cant 'fix' the situation.  But, if one has fantastic transducers, with fantastic transient response, then any flaw elsewhere can be unpleasant.   The worst case is if the transducers are 'really good', but have an exploitable flaw, then that flaw can become so obvious.  A fantastic response except for some ringing here or there -- not a good thing.  Likewise, with my own project -- if it works perfectly, except for a minor problem with attacking too fast (as in attack/release), it produces crap on really good material.

 

As the quality of a design becomes more and more fine, exacting (be it system or component), it seems like the effects of flaws that do remain are magnified.  If one is dealing with a total garbage boom box, those not-so-little problems (e.g. hyper processed sound) aren't all that bad.  In fact, hyper processed sound can sound 'better' on a garbage system because it might be incapable of the dynamics or have exploitable problems that are best avoided by a constant volume with no dynamics.

 

Since so much is compromised throughout the playback chain for the vast majority of playback systems and participants, it's really a crapshoot between speakers and the rest of a given playback system.  In fact, I attest it is the naive who lean toward the speakers.  But ultimately, if one acknowledges there is an untapped huge bulk of distortions and where these bulk of distortions reside, which I (and perhaps Frank) purport is somewhere in the electronics from the AC outlet all the way to but not including the speakers, Frank's pretty much right on the money here. 

 

gmgraves claims of garbage in, garbage out and "you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" are most applicable here and actually substantiates Frank's claim rather well.  What most don't know is that there's the equivalent of a mountain of yet-to-be-addressed distortions upstream from the speakers.  Without that knowledge or experience, it becomes rather easy to arrive at incorrect conclusions and never realize it.  Especially if 99% of all others agree with that same conclusion, in which case the majority always think they're right. 

 

 

Quote

 

In some cases, where people must compromise, then it is best to understand the limitations of their system and/or environment.  For example, don't try to listen to full dynamic range material in an automobile..  Or, don't try to evaluate audio processing on a substandard system -- unless fully understanding the limitations of that system and evaluate while understanding the limitations.  Even then, limited quality systems can be totally blind to various problems in source material, or even (as in the boom box example above) benefit from 'destroyed' material because of extreme limitations.  For example, there is NO WAY that I could make any sense of my project results if all I had was a pair of 1970s 'certain-common big name consumer headphones.'

 

To the best of my knowledge, every last one of us are compromising matters to one great extent or antoher and just because we may not realize a given compromise should never imply the compromise is nonexistent.

 

Quote

 

The ultimate problem -- hearing problems.  When evaluating sound -- I have to be aware of fixed limitations (loss of high frequencies) or transient limitations (fatigue or undesired adaptation.)

 

It is ludicrious to make strong claims about quality while evaluating audio reproduction, possibly with hearing even more limited even than my own, listening on equipment that has no chance of even reproducing the entire frequency range, let alone the dynamics, also having so much distortion that any other low level distortions are hidden and not even understanding what the original performance sounded like.

 

I can certainly judge my own results -- and work to improve -- but I'd never make strong, general pronouncements when I don't really know what I am talking about.   Most people, when being very careful, can constructively criticize recordings -- but they have to know themselves (their hearing) and their equipment.  

 

John

 

 

Ludicrous indeed.  But strong claims are made in virtually every audio forum thread and post  by every last one of us.  For example, you yourself just made the strong claim about labeling others (Frank) as ludicrous for their potential strong claims.  Unless you know every inch of high-end audio (you don't), or at least if you do not know where the greatest deficiencies lie for all playback systems (you don't) and unless you know the knowledge and experiences of all others (you don't), it may not be wise to label another's strong claiims as ludicrous. 

 

For example.  If per chance Frank has dabbled into areas of distortions unknown to you, then in some ways Frank's strong claims could be light years ahead of your own.

 

Though many strong claims can and perhaps should be tossed into the fire, still every once in a while a strong claim is the result of unique insight and experiences including experiments, and deductions.   But you're not leaving any room here for Frank's strong claim to be potentially true even if per chance the claimant is speculating.

 

[shtf]

48 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Back in the ‘60’s, I was given a tour of Capitol Records in Hollywood. I asked one of the recording engineers why most records sounded so mediocre. His response was that the goal was not to produce recordings hat good on high-quality systems, but rather it was to make the recordings sound “acceptable”on the lowest quality playback systems. He went on to say that this was done at every step of the process, from the capture of the sound all the way through to actually producing the record. Dynamic range, for instance was restricted so that a cheap arm and pickup wouldn’t “jump out of the groove” when playing. I don’t know if that’s still the case, but it wouldn’t surprise me that there still are some compromises made in the production of commercial recordings in order to make those recordings not overtax the cheap playback gear that recording companies seem to assume that most people are listening with.

.....

 

 

If there was any truth to the premise of your argument, then anybody here should easily be able to meet or exceed the levels of musicality of my rather humble 2-channel, 2-component playback system.  Some of these songs come from one $5.99 greatest hits CD purchased at Walmart.

[John Dyson]

9 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

 

If there was any truth to the premise of your argument, then anybody here should easily be able to meet or exceed the levels of musicality of my rather humble 2-channel, 2-component playback system.  Some of these songs come from one $5.99 greatest hits CD purchased at Walmart.

I hear an approx (500-1kHz peak (thef hollow sounding frequencies) of a few dB that is overwhleming.  It is awfully hard to compare what people enjoy hearing -- it doesn't translate well from person to person.  This *fact* is one reason why I ask for help from people who hear a little differently from me for feedback about the results of my project.  Even 1/2 dB in the wrong frequency range  can be very noticeable, and around 1dB error can sometimes be terribly irritating (even less than these numbers, actually.)

 

When I ask for help evaluating the results of my software, I am not looking for 'sounds good', but instead something like 'this or that could be improved' or 'there might be a bit of a problem here or there.'   When trying to work on the technology, it is NOT good for people with weak egos.   I KNOW that I can do good work, but I need help from good people to make the results as they should be.  The best work is almoat always collaborative.  (Do you think Edison inveted all that stuff that he gets credit for?  Either he snarfed up his employees invention, or he got a lot of help on his own inventions.)

 

Translating it to someone's listening equipment -- what sounds good for you, then that is great.  Don't look for absolute perfection -- it simply does not exist.  Well, if there is some perfect equipment, it is definitely more expensive than what I want to pay -- I'd rather spend my resources on the tools that help me invent or innovate, not just listen..

 

As my grandma used to say:  whatever blows your skirt up...  (translated, whatever gives you a buzz.)

 

John

 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, shtf said:

Ludicrous indeed.  But strong claims are made in virtually every audio forum thread and post  by every last one of us.  For example, you yourself just made the strong claim about labeling others (Frank) as ludicrous for their potential strong claims.  Unless you know every inch of high-end audio (you don't), or at least if you do not know where the greatest deficiencies lie for all playback systems (you don't) and unless you know the knowledge and experiences of all others (you don't), it may not be wise to label another's strong claiims as ludicrous. 

When somebody asserts that they can climb up on the roof, jump off, flap their arms and fly, it is pretty safe to assume that their claim is ludicrous. This extreme example should make it easy to understand why Frank’s assertions are generally taken with skepticism if not downright derision. He routinely asserts things, that given his context, are simply not possible. Perhaps they aren’t nearly as impossible as our intrepid would-be bird man’s claims, but nonetheless, without employing one hell of an imagination, it is virtually impossible for the rig he brags about endlessly to have anywhere near the performance he says it has.

[Ralf11]

21 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

 a burst of live energy explodes in front on me -

 

 

so you got IED'd ??

[fas42]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Are studio produced classical recordings generally made with electronic instruments? No? Do the performances of classical music ONLY exist in the studio; impossible to exist outside the studio? Again, No? Then I’m obviously not including them in my definition of “studio music”. As I have made abundantly clear, my definition of “studio music” in the context of this discussion, are recordings that cannot exist outside of the confines of a recording studio, and when played at live concerts, the studio must be taken with the group and placed between the musicians and the PA speakers so that the studio sound can be reproduced on stage.

 

With the current crop of pop music,it may certainly require all the extra baggage of special effects units to recreate what the record sounds like. However, that has never stopped those musicians going out and doing their thing; it becomes a very different sound on the stage - and with the older rock muso's, the simplicity of what they used makes it easy to generate a pretty good replica; a PA for the vocals, and guitar amps - job done!

 

Those recordings which are clearly 'artificial' exist in their own space; and even though you may not believe this, it is trivially easy to hear how the SQ of those can go through the roof, in the positive sense of being a fascinating place to visit ... there are plenty of pop recordings which are quite a bit more interesting in terms of texture and form than a standard, off the shelf classical recording.

 

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Says you, Frank. Many of the rest of us know better. Without decent source material, everything downstream is wasted. A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, you know. And when the recording is the weakest length, it doesn’t really matter of what the playback part of the chain consists. It’s already broken.

 

George, you're dead wrong. It's taken me many years to reach the conclusion that all recordings can deliver - and this is what I find the most satisfying part of my activities: getting a recording that many people would immediately drop into the bin to produce a highly satisfying musical experience.

 

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Obviously. But now you’re talking taste, not audio reproduction. I wouldn’t want to expose my ears to those kinds of SPLs! I would no sooner go to a performance like that than I would voluntarily go and hang out in a boiler factory or stand next to the muzzle of a military howitzer while it was firing. That’s probably why I can still hear 15kHz at my age.

 

But it's to demonstrate that purely acoustical can punch as hard as anyone could want - what about the musician sitting a couple of feet in front of the brass section in the orchestra, or the chap who regularly plays in a bagpipe band - want to check their hearing prowess? 😉

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

When somebody asserts that they can climb up on the roof, jump off, flap their arms and fly, it is pretty safe to assume that their claim is ludicrous. This extreme example should make it easy to understand why Frank’s assertions are generally taken with skepticism if not downright derision. He routinely asserts things, that given his context, are simply not possible. Perhaps they aren’t nearly as impossible as our intrepid would-be bird man’s claims, but nonetheless, without employing one hell of an imagination, it is virtually impossible for the rig he brags about endlessly to have anywhere near the performance he says it has.

 

Which rig? My current laptop, with the fingernail sized speakers, or the one I started with 35 years ago, which would cost, new, close to $10,000 in today's money? Or one of the other setups I've played with over the years?

 

It seems impossible for people to comprehend that I'm not interested in assembling the greatest sound system that man could ever imagine - rather, I want to explore the factors that allow, but far more importantly, prevent the SQ being the best it can be, given the physical limitations.

 

What I assert is that relatively ordinary, reasonable cost hardware can produce playback that is a "magic" experience - most have caught this happening on some ultra-special rig at some point in their audio wanderings ... I'm just the person who has decided to work out what's going on, here. 😛

 

 

[gmgraves]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

With the current crop of pop music,it may certainly require all the extra baggage of special effects units to recreate what the record sounds like. However, that has never stopped those musicians going out and doing their thing; it becomes a very different sound on the stage - and with the older rock muso's, the simplicity of what they used makes it easy to generate a pretty good replica; a PA for the vocals, and guitar amps - job done!

 

Those recordings which are clearly 'artificial' exist in their own space; and even though you may not believe this, it is trivially easy to hear how the SQ of those can go through the roof, in the positive sense of being a fascinating place to visit ... there are plenty of pop recordings which are quite a bit more interesting in terms of texture and form than a standard, off the shelf classical recording.
 

Again, Frank, you are conflating taste with SQ. How can you judge the SQ of the pop recordings you listen to? You have no idea what they are supposed to sound like! You weren’t there!

Now, if you say that you like the sound these productions make, that’s an entirely different thing. I have no qualms with what sound you like. What I have a problem with is your continual preaching about your “method” as if you are Sir Percival and have found the Holy Grail of audio. The more you talk about your “method” the more several things become clear to me (and others, it seems). 1) ‘I’ at least have no interest in the “sound” you say you’ve achieved. 2) It is highly unlikely that you have actually achieved the results that you continually brag about. 3) You probably have the most vivid aural imagination in the history of HiFi, and an incredibly high level of personal hubris to go along with that imagination. 4) That you are pleased with your accomplishment is clear. But what makes you think that anybody else would be happy with your system, or any system constructed using your precepts or guidelines?

 

You cannot assume to dictate the sonic tastes of anyone but yourself. You remind me of those people who knock on one’s door purporting to spreading the “Good News”.

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

George, you're dead wrong. It's taken me many years to reach the conclusion that all recordings can deliver - and this is what I find the most satisfying part of my activities: getting a recording that many people would immediately drop into the bin to produce a highly satisfying musical experience.
 

You really can’t see that this is all in your mind can you? Even if it isn’t, I’ll bet that most people (beyond your own circle of friends) would not agree with you.

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

But it's to demonstrate that purely acoustical can punch as hard as anyone could want - what about the musician sitting a couple of feet in front of the brass section in the orchestra, or the chap who regularly plays in a bagpipe band - want to check their hearing prowess? 😉

All that is irrelevant.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

so you got IED'd ??

 

What I want a system to do is this sort of thing,

 

 

This was an extremely crude recording I did of the system of that time many years ago, that below, minus the centre and rear speakers.

 

I had huge problems with the recording camera grossly overloading - resorted to pointing the mic in the other direction, but still pretty awful. But it captures the sense of the dynamics of the instrument happening in the room.

[gmgraves]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which rig? My current laptop, with the fingernail sized speakers, or the one I started with 35 years ago, which would cost, new, close to $10,000 in today's money? Or one of the other setups I've played with over the years?

You know the one, the one with the speakers out of a ghetto blaster and the cheap NAD electronics where all the interconnects are soldered to the individual components.

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

It seems impossible for people to comprehend that I'm not interested in assembling the greatest sound system that man could ever imagine - rather, I want to explore the factors that allow, but far more importantly, prevent the SQ being the best it can be, given the physical limitations.

That’s fine. But those are your goals and you act as if they should be everybody’s and that the best they can be is not just your best, but EVERYBODY’s.

 

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

What I assert is that relatively ordinary, reasonable cost hardware can produce playback that is a "magic" experience - most have caught this happening on some ultra-special rig at some point in their audio wanderings ... I'm just the person who has decided to work out what's going on, here. 😛

 

 

You mean your “magic” experience, not mine, probably not Teresa’s, not Raff11’s, not John Dyson’s, and I dare say that even those people who might agree with some of the things you preach are tired of hearing you talk about it ENDLESSLY in every thread on this forum.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

I dare say that even those people who might agree with some of the things you preach are tired of hearing you talk about it ENDLESSLY in every thread on this forum.

 

Amen, Brother!

 

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Again, Frank, you are conflating taste with SQ. How can you judge the SQ of the pop recordings you listen to? You have no idea what they are supposed to sound like! You weren’t there!

 

They are supposed to sound like the instruments that are used in the production. So if a drum kit cymbal is hit, that sounds like that instrument. And if someone sings, it sounds like a real human being. And if there is a string section interlude it sounds precisely like the same set of instruments as used in a orchestral recording.  There's the concept of "a pattern emerging" - if one puts on a huge variety of recordings, and the 'real' instruments present sound like you know them to sound like, in the flesh - I reckon one can be on to something,😉

 

8 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Now, if you say that you like the sound these productions make, that’s an entirely different thing. I have no qualms with what sound you like. What I have a problem with is your continual preaching about your “method” as if you are Sir Percival and have found the Holy Grail of audio. The more you talk about your “method” the more several things become clear to me (and others, it seems). 1) ‘I’ at least have no interest in the “sound” you say you’ve achieved. 2) It is highly unlikely that you have actually achieved the results that you continually brag about. 3) You probably have the most vivid aural imagination in the history of HiFi, and an incredibly high level of personal hubris to go along with that imagination. 4) That you are pleased with your accomplishment is clear. But what makes you think that anybody else would be happy with your system, or any system constructed using your precepts or guidelines?

 

Perhaps the ones angry with me, because I "don't divulge my secrets"... 😝. And almost no-one can understand that the secret is to be absolutely meticulous with the setup - everyone wants to inject a dose of some magic somewhere; and it just doesn't work that way ...

 

 

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

You know the one, the one with the speakers out of a ghetto blaster and the cheap NAD electronics where all the interconnects are soldered to the individual components.

 

Which have never reached the standard that I'm after - something I have to keep reminding people of.

 

14 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

That’s fine. But those are your goals and you act as if they should be everybody’s and that the best they can be is not just your best, but EVERYBODY’s.

 

What I see is a high percentage of audiophiles spending very large amounts of money, which cause them to whittle their record collections down to a small number of 'acceptable' albums - horse before the cart stuff. ... I'm just standing up for the recordings ... 😜.

 

14 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

You mean your “magic” experience, not mine, probably not Teresa’s, not Raff11’s, not John Dyson’s, and I dare say that even those people who might agree with some of the things you preach are tired of hearing you talk about it ENDLESSLY in every thread on this forum.

 

Yes, I agree I should spend more time jumping up and down excitedly about the 2,510,643th gizmo I've added to my rig, which has turned my world upside down with pleasure ...until next week ...