Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[gmgraves]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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,😉

 

 

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 ...

 

 

While what you say is true, it’s not that simple. So much manipulation, including voice altering, EQ, compression, added distortion, etc, that you have no idea what the producer and the group itself wants the recording to sound like. If you weren’t there, you have no idea beyond what you like about what the recording is supposed to sound like.

 

Frank, you have no secrets, you have delusions, and after most of us figured that out, we stopped asking you to divulge your “secrets”. And this brings up another point of contention. If you do not want to tell people what you do (because I suspect that you do nothing - but that’s another subject) then why do you talk about it endlessly?

[gmgraves]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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

 

 

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 ... 😜.

 

 

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 ...

We’ll, it would be nice if you discussed anything other than that broken record that you call “your method”! 

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

While what you say is true, it’s not that simple. So much manipulation, including voice altering, EQ, compression, added distortion, etc, that you have no idea what the producer and the group itself wants the recording to sound like. If you weren’t there, you have no idea beyond what you like about what the recording is supposed to sound like.

 

What the recording sounds like comes through very clearly. The acoustic world changes with each album, or track in the case of, say, compilations - it's like taking each car from a used vehicle lot on a fast circuit somewhere; your environment totally alters, in terms of your senses.

 

Yet each car is a car. It accelerates, goes left and right, brakes. The fundamentals are always in place, assuming the dealer is vaguely legit 😉, and you learn how to get the best from the beast, given enough time.

 

I have zero interest in what "the producer and the group itself wants" - the recording is itself, and can deliver a great ride if you treat it the right way, 😀.

 

 

[shtf]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

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.)

 

Really?  At what point should "it" translate well from person to person?  After all, we can't all be right and there still remains a few targets on the wall like striving toward the absolute sound, etc, right?  IOW, at some point, subjectivity must give way to objectivity, doesn't it?  Even for something as subjective as high-end audio playback music.

 

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

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.)

 

Ummm.  That sounds like a very nice response to a question I don't remember anybody asking but ok.  But I'm curious.  How is it that you KNOW you can do good work?  By what measurement do you make this call?

 

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

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..

 

Interesting.  I'm curious what level of objectivity is or should be required for your line of work?

 

I'm not aware of anybody other than you talking about perfection.  As for my own recording above, so much of the gestalt never makes it to the iPhone / Shure microphone anyway, but it still gives a somewhat reasonable perspective and as I fumble around with recording techniques and proximities and volumes (about 98db) in-room), there could even be a little distortion induced by the recording. 

 

But I think what you're saying is, with your knowledge and experience you could easily generate in-room recording of any of these 60's pieces and exhibit a more musical presentation than what I demonstrated - based on your personal taste that is. 

 

If that's what you're saying, I'd love to hear a demo or two.

 

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

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

 

John

 

Again I ask, what level of objectivity is or should be required for your line of work?

 

BTW, you completely overlooked my post responding to your comments.  Oh, well.

 

[Ralf11]

Frank, I just listened to that excerpt on my  current laptop, with the fingernail sized speakers while the Utah/CU football game was on.

 

It was magic!

[kumakuma]

12 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Frank, I just listened to that excerpt on my  current laptop, with the fingernail sized speakers while the Utah/CU football game was on.

 

It was magic!

 

I agree.

 

I could even see the "here we go again look" on Frank's long-suffering wife's face during their short interaction at the beginning of the video.

[John Dyson]

45 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Really?  At what point should "it" translate well from person to person?  After all, we can't all be right and there still remains a few targets on the wall like striving toward the absolute sound, etc, right?  IOW, at some point, subjectivity must give way to objectivity, doesn't it?  Even for something as subjective as high-end audio playback music.

 

 

Ummm.  That sounds like a very nice response to a question I don't remember anybody asking but ok.  But I'm curious.  How is it that you KNOW you can do good work?  By what measurement do you make this call?

 

 

Interesting.  I'm curious what level of objectivity is or should be required for your line of work?

 

I'm not aware of anybody other than you talking about perfection.  As for my own recording above, so much of the gestalt never makes it to the iPhone / Shure microphone anyway, but it still gives a somewhat reasonable perspective and as I fumble around with recording techniques and proximities and volumes (about 98db) in-room), there could even be a little distortion induced by the recording. 

 

But I think what you're saying is, with your knowledge and experience you could easily generate in-room recording of any of these 60's pieces and exhibit a more musical presentation than what I demonstrated - based on your personal taste that is. 

 

If that's what you're saying, I'd love to hear a demo or two.

 

 

Again I ask, what level of objectivity is or should be required for your line of work?

 

BTW, you completely overlooked my post responding to your comments.  Oh, well.

 

As an original internet developer from day one -- I am still incredibly primitive in my utilization of various tools...  This new-fangled web thing came along way after I was doing internet development -- so forgive me if I don't always use the quoting methods all that effectively!!!

 

Okay -- the only thing that I have for feedback, since there is ZERO, ZILCHO, NADA DolbyA measurement device is the fact that my SW DolbyA decoder is the only one that sounds even similar to a true DolbyA.   Also we have done many static measurements that show a very close match with actual DolbyA devices (well within the error between different copies of the actuall DolbyA HW.)  It also has a lot less distortion than any other decoder-- including the vast amounts of distortion created by a true DolbyA while decoding -- the well known DolbyA fog...  Ask anyone who has actually listened to the decodnig results of feral material (also reverse engineering the destruction done to filter DolbyA material -- which means most digitally distributed POP in recorded in the DolbyA era).

 

I keep getting feedback from my project partner that the DHNRDS DA is 'good enough', but he isn't dealing with audiophiles -- just recording pros...  Audiophiles are sometimes much more picky in areas different from recording polls -- sometimes they overlap.

 

There are some really nice  people helping me improve the decoder to FAR FAR FAR beyond the quality of original DolbyA units, and I cannot depend on my own hearing.  I don't have the arrogance to claim perfection in my creation -- because it will always have flaws...  Any constructive criticism of the test decoding results are welcome.

 

John

 

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I agree.

 

I could even see the "here we go again look" on Frank's long-suffering wife's face during their short interaction at the beginning of the video.

 

Long-suffering? Or wife in the kitchen? Actually ... I regularly get pressure from her to "get the music going again!!" 🙂

 

Too many things going on at the moment ... if I get serious again with that project then all the stuff that has to be done around the house suffers ...

[shtf]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

As an original internet developer from day one -- I am still incredibly primitive in my utilization of various tools...  This new-fangled web thing came along way after I was doing internet development -- so forgive me if I don't always use the quoting methods all that effectively!!!

 

Okay -- the only thing that I have for feedback, since there is ZERO, ZILCHO, NADA DolbyA measurement device is the fact that my SW DolbyA decoder is the only one that sounds even similar to a true DolbyA.   Also we have done many static measurements that show a very close match with actual DolbyA devices (well within the error between different copies of the actuall DolbyA HW.)  It also has a lot less distortion than any other decoder-- including the vast amounts of distortion created by a true DolbyA while decoding -- the well known DolbyA fog...  Ask anyone who has actually listened to the decodnig results of feral material (also reverse engineering the destruction done to filter DolbyA material -- which means most digitally distributed POP in recorded in the DolbyA era).

 

I keep getting feedback from my project partner that the DHNRDS DA is 'good enough', but he isn't dealing with audiophiles -- just recording pros...  Audiophiles are sometimes much more picky in areas different from recording polls -- sometimes they overlap.

 

There are some really nice  people helping me improve the decoder to FAR FAR FAR beyond the quality of original DolbyA units, and I cannot depend on my own hearing.  I don't have the arrogance to claim perfection in my creation -- because it will always have flaws...  Any constructive criticism of the test decoding results are welcome.

 

John

 

 

My exprience with Dolby is very limited to the late 70's.  But even then I never engaged the dolby noise reduction because I thought it stripped away much of the music as it attempted to cover or reduce tape hiss.  In fact, I always considered Dolby Labs rather cheesy but obviously very good at marketing.   Whether or not Dolby could be any more beneficial today (less destructive) than in the 70's to me is a huge reach.  Almost on par with MQA.

 

Given that, along with your questionable response above, as well as your routinely reaching out to others for assistance without potentially knowing their real qualifications, I suspect your statement that "I KNOW I can do a good job" could easily be interpreted as a rather strong claim.

 

Which takes us back full circle to my earlier post to you that you ignored regarding your claims about those like Frank making strong claims.

 

[John Dyson]

13 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

My exprience with Dolby is very limited to the late 70's.  But even then I never engaged the dolby noise reduction because I thought it stripped away much of the music as it attempted to cover or reduce tape hiss.  In fact, I always considered Dolby Labs rather cheesy but obviously very good at marketing.   Whether or not Dolby could be any more beneficial today than in the 70's to me is a huge reach.  Almost on par with MQA.

 

Given that, along with your questionable response above, as well as your routinely reaching out to others for assistance without potentially knowing their real qualifications, I suspect your statement that "I KNOW I can do a good job" could easily be interpreted as a rather strong claim.

 

Which takes us back full circle to my earlier post to you that you ignored regarding your claims about those like Frank making strong claims.

 

I have enough engineering qualifications to be able to self-proclaim -- I can do a good job.  Many people around here know a little bit about me...  Just start with Bell Labs engineer/systems engineering/running supervisory group as one qualification.  Many others.  I am an Analog EE/DSP/Real-time SW/OS developer (done all of it, successfully.)  40+yrs experience... 

 

If sometimes my notes might seem incoherent -- I am very busy most of the time working on research/development projects -- attempting to do two things at a time, plus dealing with a disability that would probably stop most people in their tracks.

 

Not knowing much about Dolby or not clearly distinguishing between DolbyA/B/C/SR and their purpocse, and the context of my work on DolbyA shows that maybe you need an introduction to an understanding of the mess that has been sold to us since CDs have come out.

 

John

 

[shtf]

19 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I have enough engineering qualifications to be able to self-proclaim -- I can do a good job.  Many people around here know a little bit about me...  Just start with Bell Labs engineer/systems engineering/running supervisory group as one qualification.  Many others.  I am an Analog EE/DSP/Real-time SW/OS developer (done all of it, successfully.)  40+yrs experience... 

 

I'm not saying you can't do a good job.  I'm just sayiing given your references and self-proclamations, it could easily be interpreted that your self-proclamations are just as strong maybe strong than Frank's.  Yet, you condemed Frank for his strong claims.

 

For example.  I could, as you suggest, start with Bell Labs and one feedback might be that you arrive at work on time every day and another may say he always washes his hands after doing his business in the restroom, or another may say John's a real math whiz, none of which truly qualify you for your line of work.  Your name could even be on a plaque at AES and elsewhere and not mean a darn thing.  For the simple reason you yourself said earlier regarding the most difficult thing is the ability to discern what we hear.

 

Quote

 

Not knowing much about Dolby or not clearly distinguishing between DolbyA/B/C/SR and their purpocse, and the context of my work on DolbyA shows that maybe you need an introduction to an understanding of the mess that has been sold to us since CDs have come out.

 

John

 

Why would I need to know that?  I already know that any playback system inside Dolby Labs labs would be hard-pressed if they're able to extract (make audible at the speaker) much more than 60 - 65% of the all the music info embedded in a given recording - regardless of format.  Not to say that Dolby can't degrade or improve things by a few percentage points, but suddenly I'm becoming more and more convinced Dolby is where MQA hopes to be one day soon.  Which is offering little more than a license to listen while potentially degrading the final output.

 

 

[John Dyson]

4 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

I'm not saying you can't do a good job.  I'm just sayiing given your references and self-proclamations, it could easily be interpreted that your self-proclamations are just as strong maybe strong than Frank's.  Yet, you condemed Frank for his strong claims.

 

For example.  I could, as you suggest, start with Bell Labs and one feedback might be that you arrive at work on time every day and another may say he always washes his hands after doing his business in the restroom, or another may say John's a real math whiz, none of which truly qualify you for your line of work.  Your name could even be on a plaque at AES and elsewhere and not mean a darn thing.  For the simple reason you yourself said earlier regarding the most difficult thing is the ability to discern what we hear.

 

Why would I need to know that?  I already know that any playback system inside Dolby Labs labs would be hard-pressed if they're able to extract (make audible at the speaker) much more than 60 - 65% of the all the music info embedded in a given recording - regardless of format.  Not to say that Dolby can't degrade or improve things by a few percentage points, but suddenly I'm becoming more and more convinced Dolby is where MQA hopes to be one day soon.  Which is offering little more than a license to listen while potentially degrading the final output.

 

 

You obviously want to be skeptical of me, and that is fine.  It is of no use or disadvantage to me.  I really did hear a boosted lower midrange in the example given.  I am very atuned to things like that -- not really challenging to almost anyone who knows audio.  Now -- it might have been the mic arrangement or whatever -- rooms and micing tend to cause the problem that I suggested.

 

If you aren't interested in my project -- cleaning up almost every piece of digital audio sold on CD from the beginning (well stuff recorded up until at least the early 1990s), then ignore it..   Some people like 10dB->15dB of fast attack/release HF compression -- really!!!

 

John

 

[Ralf11]

Sorry to hear about the disability, John.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

What the recording sounds like comes through very clearly. The acoustic world changes with each album, or track in the case of, say, compilations - it's like taking each car from a used vehicle lot on a fast circuit somewhere; your environment totally alters, in terms of your senses.

 

Yet each car is a car. It accelerates, goes left and right, brakes. The fundamentals are always in place, assuming the dealer is vaguely legit 😉, and you learn how to get the best from the beast, given enough time.

 

I have zero interest in what "the producer and the group itself wants" - the recording is itself, and can deliver a great ride if you treat it the right way, 😀.

 

 

That’s clear.

[John Dyson]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Sorry to hear about the disability, John.

Yea -- I have to fight very serious memory disturbances...  It has gotten in the way of the C4 development until I am fully evaluated in 'disabled' state.  After the evaluation, then I can ask to bring the meds back up to where I can function.  We happened into some meds that allow me to function, but they aren't the REAL answer.   This is the reason why I am sitting around trying to 'reverse engineer' the DolbyA EQ on old recordings -- it is intended to bide my time until I can start thinking about more complex things again.

 

This all is part of the story why I had to give everything up in the early 2000s, quitting a 7 figure job, simply because I couldn't remember the logistics needed to do it.  Because of all of the commuting and travel, was seriously considering a timeshare plane.  It is amazing the difference between being almost unlimited in freedom, to being very careful to avoid doing something stupid.

 

Either, I have to stay on these evil meds or get the problem fixed with the correct meds with a proper and well understood diagnosis.  I live in a world without much/reliable short-term memory.

 

John

 

[fas42]

John, this sounds very familiar - "burnout" is what I call it; it built up slowly for me, until 15 years ago when I was in the middle of planning a substantial software project - and I just stopped, literally in my tracks ... never touched it again.

 

I can only do coding and similar design activities in very short bursts, if at all - one learns to pace everything, and constantly bounce between activities, to give the brain room to recover. My suggestion is not to try and force anything, in case you make things worse for yourself.

 

What you have done with your Dolby project is much, much more impressive, knowing that you have had to contend with your brain not behaving itself ... take care ...👍.

[fas42]

44 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

That’s clear.

 

Why the effort to get a system in better shape is so valuable, is with something like this, https://www.discogs.com/Tadaaki-Otaka-Andrew-Davis-Sir-Henry-Wood-David-Atherton-2-Nobuko-Imai-Kathryn-Stott-Great-Proms-Pre/release/10499010. The 1942 recording from the Proms, Ireland's Epic March, on the NAD and Sharp combo just sounds quaint and 'historical' when the system is at a low ebb; the transformation into a meaningful, impactive musical event when it's firing is so far beyond the other presentation, it makes for an instant reward, going the extra rounds of optimising for that round of listening .

[semente]

On 11/30/2019 at 1:58 AM, 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, 😝

 

A good system will not sound loud even when it's playing loud.

Could it have been the distortion and not the loudness that scared him off?

[Racerxnet]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Why the effort to get a system in better shape is so valuable, is with something like this, https://www.discogs.com/Tadaaki-Otaka-Andrew-Davis-Sir-Henry-Wood-David-Atherton-2-Nobuko-Imai-Kathryn-Stott-Great-Proms-Pre/release/10499010. The 1942 recording from the Proms, Ireland's Epic March, on the NAD and Sharp combo just sounds quaint and 'historical' when the system is at a low ebb; the transformation into a meaningful, impactive musical event when it's firing is so far beyond the other presentation, it makes for an instant reward, going the extra rounds of optimising for that round of listening .

Frank,

 

Again, your statement never says anything about what you have accomplished because there is no documentation. You optimized WHAT exactly? Lets see some pics of your room and the system you optimized! Is your system in limbo at the moment?

 

MAK

[Racerxnet]

20 minutes ago, semente said:

 

A good system will not sound loud even when it's playing loud.

Could it have been the distortion and not the loudness that scared him off?

 

Correct,

It's loud and you do not realize it. It's also very clean and dynamic.

[charlesphoto]

24 minutes ago, semente said:

 

A good system will not sound loud even when it's playing loud.

Could it have been the distortion and not the loudness that scared him off?

 

I went to a friends the other day to listen to his new rig - Hegel H190 and B&W 702's and SVS subwoofer. I had to constantly turn it down on him - the sub actually made me physically ill feeling, and the whole thing just sounded disorganized and veiled and fatiguing. He had zero optimizations going on (power, vibration, etc) and the source was an SSD drive into the USB of an Oppo BD player. The sound had enormous scale and was very full of course, but almost impossible to follow any single instrument. It could reproduce that pounding attack one gets down at front at a live rock show (my little 35W amp won't do that) but couldn't do, say,  the detail and PRAT of a small jazz ensemble  in Rudy Van Gelder's living room. 

 

I didn't say much one way or the other as he thinks he's got an amazing sounding setup, and he couldn't be bothered to add anything else, not even cable or optical for ethernet to the room so he could stream properly vs navigating folders only on the barebones Oppo app. He also has a big 10 foot long modern credenza between the speakers that the Hegel sits on top of the Oppo in, all plugged into a cheap power strip. It's a shame as it's not inexpensive gear. 

 

In comparison, my setup sounds much smaller and thinner, but one can hear every instrument in isolation and detail. I don't need to, and don't want to listen to it at ear splitting volumes. It won't reproduce a Tool concert but will put Thelonious and his piano right there in the room with you. Each to his own I guess. 

[davide256]

On 11/30/2019 at 4:17 AM, fas42 said:

 

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 ...

yeah, right, if your ears are insensitive to cabinet resonances and driver material coloration. Dynamics are easy to achieve with a highly efficient driver design,

aka Klipschorns. But making the sound coloration neutral and micro detailed... you don't get that without a technology investment.

 

If I want live dynamics I go to an Army or Navy jazz band performance...but that kind of performance doesn't float my boat the way a less dynamic complex musical piece does

with multiple instruments interwoven playing nuanced dynamics.

 

As to "gizmos", they are 99% of the time just a garbage field exercise... push down the garbage in one area and realize with extended listening that the garbage has been

pushed higher somewhere else. Better to admit your current system has reached its limits and identify the next "weakest link" component to upgrade

[Racerxnet]

42 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Better to admit your current system has reached its limits and identify the next "weakest link" component to upgrade

 

What's he going to upgrade? The battery, hard drive, RAM! That's the end of the line for a laptop, and none of it is going to make any impact on a .750 inch speaker embedded in the chassis. If he sent the signal out to a DAC and other components, then maybe. He still needs to be bitperfect and use WASAPI, ASIO, or kernel streaming if the device driver supports it. He can set thread priority in Foobar2K to high. 

 

Anyhow, it's his hobby and it may bring joy. 

 

Cheers,

 

MAK

[christopher3393]

suggestion for thread title revision ---

 

Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’: A Tale of Paracosmic Immersion

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

I went to a friends the other day to listen to his new rig - Hegel H190 and B&W 702's and SVS subwoofer. I had to constantly turn it down on him - the sub actually made me physically ill feeling, and the whole thing just sounded disorganized and veiled and fatiguing. He had zero optimizations going on (power, vibration, etc) and the source was an SSD drive into the USB of an Oppo BD player. The sound had enormous scale and was very full of course, but almost impossible to follow any single instrument. It could reproduce that pounding attack one gets down at front at a live rock show (my little 35W amp won't do that) but couldn't do, say,  the detail and PRAT of a small jazz ensemble  in Rudy Van Gelder's living room. 

 

  I also use an Oppo in my main system, but typical USB from a computer to it is far from the best way to go about it unless you use a USB Regen with a low noise PSU, preferably derived from a battery and a high quality USB cable.

 It may have been far more revealing to have saved the music to USB memory and plugged that into the Oppo instead.

Incidentally, in my case Coax SPDIF from my Oppo 103 is then sent into a higher quality DIY DAC.

 

Regards

Alex