Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[John Dyson]

13 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I agree that the importance of mastering is paramount (I listen mainly to classical music so I don't have a lot to complain about).

 

But in my opinion the shortcomings of listening with headphones I mentioned above are true for both good and bad mastering.

Well -- I do think that headphones are good on material that was mastered with normal imaging (e.g. M+S type micing), because speakers add addiitonal layers of room ambiance.

 

Whether or not something is mixed primarily for speakers, headphones or -- just some kind of stereo, that is a mixdown issue.  Then, we have the  old 'two separate songs' stereo like with some of the early Beatles stereo.

On the other hand, then it becomes a matter of personal preference mixed in.

I cannot say that I like headphones or speakers better -- they are just *different', but for extreme precision without distortions from room delays/cancellation/re-enforcement/etc, then headphones are necessary -- unless using near-field speakers.

 

If you want some ambience, even if the material isn't well mixed -- then speakers might be your best bet.

 

If one likes the sound of their speakers in their room, then it is a matter of personal preference just like generally prefering headphones.

 

Unless done very well -- don't bother simulating ambience for headphone listening  (that is definitely my opinon), because it ends up being like a 'tone control.'   Might as well remix the material...

 

John

 

[semente]

5 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Well -- I do think that headphones are good on material that was mastered with normal imaging (e.g. M+S type micing), because speakers add addiitonal layers of room ambiance.

 

Whether or not something is mixed primarily for speakers, headphones or -- just some kind of stereo, that is a mixdown issue.  Then, we have the  old 'two separate songs' stereo like with some of the early Beatles stereo.

On the other hand, then it becomes a matter of personal preference mixed in.

I cannot say that I like headphones or speakers better -- they are just *different', but for extreme precision without distortions from room delays/cancellation/re-enforcement/etc, then headphones are necessary -- unless using near-field speakers.

 

If you want some ambience, even if the material isn't well mixed -- then speakers might be your best bet.

 

If one likes the sound of their speakers in their room, then it is a matter of personal preference just like generally prefering headphones.

 

Unless done very well -- don't bother simulating ambience for headphone listening  (that is definitely my opinon), because it ends up being like a 'tone control.'   Might as well remix the material...

 

John

 

 

My preference (with classical) is for not-mixed material, "real-stereo" or 2-main + 2-ambience.

In my opinion multi-track shouldn't be used in classical music.

 

Studio mixes are studio mixes, there's nothing you can do about it.

 

If I remember correctly you haven't been a member for long, did you get Mario (PlayClassics) to send you a few samples of his work?

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/26050-playclassics-test-files-to-compare-file-formats

[fas42]

12 hours ago, semente said:

 

I also dislike listening with headphones, but you can't deny the fact that the room has a significan't impact on what we listen to when using speakers.

Heaphones remove the room factor (but they create other problems).

 

The rule of thumb: the better the playback chain, the less the room factor matters - this was obvious 35 years ago, and has always been how I've operated ... when I get together with the audio friend down the road we do zero about the room; the dramatic variations in the subjective quality occur because we nail another factor that's limiting the SQ, regarding the system's integrity.

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

... when I get together with the audio friend down the road we do zero about the room

 

 You will NEVER get optimum quality  from ANY system unless you do at least a small amount of reflection control, including directly behind the speakers in a typical room. 

[tmtomh]

50 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The rule of thumb: the better the playback chain, the less the room factor matters - this was obvious 35 years ago

 

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. I've been listening to music on various setups in different rooms for more than 35 years myself, and the quality of the playback chain has no meaningful impact on whether or not the room plays havoc with the sound.

 

A better playback chain, which produces more linear frequency response and less distortion, will suffer from flutter echo and/or bass modes in a highly reflective room just like a poorer-performing playback chain. And since room reflection by definition degrades both the frequency and phase linearity of a system, it hardly matters that the better-performing system, has better frequency and phase response to begin with. Now, it is certainly true that an inferior playback chain with higher distortion will produce a more distorted result in a reflective room, because that distortion will be among the things that are amplified and reflected in the room. But that's irrelevant to the fact that the room matters just as much regardless of the system's quality.

 

To be clear: if my choice is a better playback setup in a reflective room or a worse playback setup in that same reflective room, then of course I will choose the better setup, and of course that better setup will produce a better result than the worse one. But the room will still matter very much - it will still be degrading the sound in the same way, and so it's manifestly untrue that the room would matter less because the system is better.

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Summit said:

 

Yes it much harder to get a speaker system to sound really good and accurate. If the room is bad from an acoustic point of view it’s very hard to get a “good” sound. But remember that all the gear and things upstream of the speakers that affect a speakers system has also to be dealt with on a headphone system.

 

A key factor in getting best sound is making sure that high current draws don't cause problems - headphones don't have this element at anywhere near the same level as for speakers. Also, it's quite straightforward to create an extremely simple rig for driving headphones - this all helps.

 

Quote

 

With which headphones and together with which amps and DACs have you come to your conclusion on?  

 

Try to be specific for ones.

 

Only very odd encounters with unknown devices over the years, mostly - the one occasion I took this seriously was over some weeks using the Yamaha CDP that gave the original peak SQ, driving Sennheiser HD880s(?) directly - very low output impedance analogue, digital volume - nothing 'wrong' with the sound in an obvious way; but too 'warm', lacking in a big picture sense, and the always present sense of something on my head - could only last 5 minutes before ripping them off; then immediately switch back to speakers, with the same Yamaha unit - huge relief, welcome back to the "real deal", ☺️.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 You will NEVER get optimum quality  from ANY system unless you do at least a small amount of reflection control, including directly behind the speakers in a typical room. 

 

N.'s primary rig has the speakers literally bolted to the end wall; the secondary rig has them on stands literally in the middle of the den, with all sorts of mess behind them - I'm sure some will say that this is heresy behaviour; but it hasn't been relevant to getting good SQ.

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

A better playback chain, which produces more linear frequency response and less distortion, will suffer from flutter echo and/or bass modes in a highly reflective room just like a poorer-performing playback chain. And since room reflection by definition degrades both the frequency and phase linearity of a system, it hardly matters that the better-performing system, has better frequency and phase response to begin with. Now, it is certainly true that an inferior playback chain with higher distortion will produce a more distorted result in a reflective room, because that distortion will be among the things that are amplified and reflected in the room. But that's irrelevant to the fact that the room matters just as much regardless of the system's quality.

 

I'm sure that the sound would be improved if every factor of the room was carefully controlled. But that is exactly the same situation as bringing, say, a great female singer into a "bad" room, or concert hall, versus a "good" environment - would you walk out in disgust because you couldn't appreciate the qualities in her voice, as a result of the acoustics not being "perfect"?

 

34 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

To be clear: if my choice is a better playback setup in a reflective room or a worse playback setup in that same reflective room, then of course I will choose the better setup, and of course that better setup will produce a better result than the worse one. But the room will still matter very much - it will still be degrading the sound in the same way, and so it's manifestly untrue that the room would matter less because the system is better.

 

The sound may be technically degraded, but subjectively that's not what happens; this is when one can quite happily pick while blindfolded an album to play - totally random, IOW - and you are sucked in, from the first seconds, and play it through to its conclusion; it's feels almost an insult to the musicians to decide to stop listening any time earlier than that, 🙂

[Racerxnet]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

A key factor in getting best sound is making sure that high current draws don't cause problems - headphones don't have this element at anywhere near the same level as for speakers. Also, it's quite straightforward to create an extremely simple rig for driving headphones - this all helps.

Whats the impedance of the speakers one is driving. Whats the reserve the amplifier can output. Are you supplying the amp with enough current from the mains fuse panel? The Kappa 9's were amp killers. In other words, If the parts are chosen according to the requirements of the combined rig, you have minimized any of the stated deficiencies you claim to know about. Primary of course is; CAN YOU AFFORD TO DO THIS.

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

N.'s primary rig has the speakers literally bolted to the end wall; the secondary rig has them on stands literally in the middle of the den, with all sorts of mess behind them - I'm sure some will say that this is heresy behaviour; but it hasn't been relevant to getting good SQ

 

As Sandy stated, you will never get optimum reproduction in a room with bass nodes or resonance/reflections from walls etc by haphazardly putting the speakers in a random placement. Your above statement is testament to you not knowing how to set up a high end rig at all. Frank, you really say and show absolutely nothing that supports your position. You will never move forward with all you state because the laptop never requires more than a arm to carry it around. It does not INTERACT with the room its placed in. Your blowing to much hot air.

 

MAK

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Whats the impedance of the speakers one is driving. Whats the reserve the amplifier can output. Are you supplying the amp with enough current from the mains fuse panel? The Kappa 9's were amp killers. In other words, If the parts are chosen according to the requirements of the combined rig, you have minimized any of the stated deficiencies you claim to know about. Primary of course is; CAN YOU AFFORD TO DO THIS.

 

That's the simplistic take on such matters - the realities are far more complex ... as an example, conventional power supplies in power amplifiers don't work in a nice, neat, "linear" way - depending upon the program material, and volume level selected, and all the characeristics of the speakers being driven, the current waveforms of the mains, and those conductors within the power supply are mighty messy things - if there is any circuitry that is going be impacted by any current related interference noise, then this can considered a good suspect.

 

A DIY gainclone amplifier I did years ago was 95% power supply; this is where I had to get it right - and it delivered.

 

15 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 

 

As Sandy stated, you will never get optimum reproduction in a room with bass nodes or resonance/reflections from walls etc by haphazardly putting the speakers in a random placement. Your above statement is testament to you not knowing how to set up a high end rig at all. Frank, you really say and show absolutely nothing that supports your position. You will never move forward with all you state because the laptop never requires more than a arm to carry it around. It does not INTERACT with the room its placed in. Your blowing to much hot air.

 

MAK

 

I don't worry about bass. Period. "Bass nodes" seem to be the nightmare that people who are into subwoofers, etc, have constantly, it appears - normal speakers, properly stabilised, deliver subjectively intense bass lines, the parts of the recording that actually matter as far as the musical content is concerned.

 

Tell me, how does the bass of say, a typical Boney M. track come across, to you? There's a quality there which is quite special - do you know what I mean?

[Racerxnet]

25 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Tell me, how does the bass of say, a typical Boney M. track come across, to you? There's a quality there which is quite special - do you know what I mean?

 

LOL, Your laptop bass is dismal. Seriously, are you delusional? 

 

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

That's the simplistic take on such matters

 

A laptop is as simplistic as it gets. There is nothing you are doing that’s going to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. It’s $hit in and $hit out in your particular case. As I have invited you over to actually listen to a really well balance set-up, lets compare the MAGIC each will deliver. I’ll bet it won”t stand up to my wet jockstrap.

 

MAK

[Racerxnet]

P.S. I have the Boneyism CD and several other bass heavy tracks if that’s the artist you are referring to.

 

MAK

[Racerxnet]

By the way, you don’t appear to have a system with speakers to tune! If so, lets see the system you have. Or is it more baloney and backpedaling?

 

MAK

[fas42]

This mob,

 

 

... while you keep going on about a laptop you're going to get nowhere, 🙄 ... you see, I can remember what systems that I've worked with that used reasonable speakers sound like - and that's what I'm referring to.

[tmtomh]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm sure that the sound would be improved if every factor of the room was carefully controlled. But that is exactly the same situation as bringing, say, a great female singer into a "bad" room, or concert hall, versus a "good" environment - would you walk out in disgust because you couldn't appreciate the qualities in her voice, as a result of the acoustics not being "perfect"?

 

 

The sound may be technically degraded, but subjectively that's not what happens; this is when one can quite happily pick while blindfolded an album to play - totally random, IOW - and you are sucked in, from the first seconds, and play it through to its conclusion; it's feels almost an insult to the musicians to decide to stop listening any time earlier than that, 🙂

 

I certainly agree that one can enjoy well-performed/good music, even in a far from optimal playback environment. More specifically, I agree further that one does not need a fully optimized, "audiophile" level playback environment in order to be moved or transported by good music.

 

So if you want to argue that the quality of the playback equipment and the room doesn't matter as much when the music itself - the quality of the composition and the performance - is really good, I have no disagreement with that.

 

But a bad room degrades good equipment just as much as it degrades poor-performing equipment. The fact that the end result with good equipment in a bad room is likely to be better than bad equipment in a bad room does not mean that the room matters less when the equipment is good. Saying "the room matters less when the playback chain is good" is like saying "the speakers matter less when the source component and amplifier are good" - it's a nonsense claim.

 

Frank, you're doing what you always do: You make claim about something, and then when someone replies that your claim makes no sense, you reply with evidence in support of a different claim.

[Racerxnet]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

... while you keep going on about a laptop you're going to get nowhere, 🙄 ... you see, I can remember what systems that I've worked with that used reasonable speakers sound like - and that's what I'm referring to

 

Frank, I’ve worked on enough systems to know better than what you are stating. You are getting nothing on your laptop. Again, where is your system to tune?? What reasonable speakers? Pictures of them please! You probably don’t have one (system) or the morals to be honest about what you are working with.  I’d suggest that Chris closes this thread. There is nothing but wasted space.

 

MAK

 

By the way, I never use youtube in a serious listening session. 

[semente]

20 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

I’d suggest that Chris closes this thread. There is nothing but wasted space.

 

I may disagree with Frank on a lot of things but he's entitled to write about his audiophile practice.

 

If you don't like the thread, go elsewhere. There's plenty to choose from in the CA forum.

[Confused]

I stumbled across this gem today:

 

 

On my arguably overambitious rig, I could get the sense of the essence of the music, in many respects I actually quite enjoyed listening to this.  Does that mean my rig is sorted?

 

That said, I am sure that I have picked up some issues in the recording.  Are these apparent because the flaws in my rig are exaggerating the distortions and other issues I think are in the recording, or primarily because my rig is simply reproducing them?

 

I'm confused. 

[Summit]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm sure that the sound would be improved if every factor of the room was carefully controlled. But that is exactly the same situation as bringing, say, a great female singer into a "bad" room, or concert hall, versus a "good" environment - would you walk out in disgust because you couldn't appreciate the qualities in her voice, as a result of the acoustics not being "perfect"?

 

You are too funny. We are discussing sound quality not the quality of the artists here. Of course the music is the most important, and yes I can listen to musician playing in a less than optimal concert hall, but I rather do it in concert hall where the qualities of singer voice can come true as clear and uncolored as possible.  

[shtf]

15 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

I certainly agree that one can enjoy well-performed/good music, even in a far from optimal playback environment. More specifically, I agree further that one does not need a fully optimized, "audiophile" level playback environment in order to be moved or transported by good music.

 

So if you want to argue that the quality of the playback equipment and the room doesn't matter as much when the music itself - the quality of the composition and the performance - is really good, I have no disagreement with that.

 

But a bad room degrades good equipment just as much as it degrades poor-performing equipment. The fact that the end result with good equipment in a bad room is likely to be better than bad equipment in a bad room does not mean that the room matters less when the equipment is good. Saying "the room matters less when the playback chain is good" is like saying "the speakers matter less when the source component and amplifier are good" - it's a nonsense claim.

 

Frank, you're doing what you always do: You make claim about something, and then when someone replies that your claim makes no sense, you reply with evidence in support of a different claim.

 

Considering that every system, every installation, every enthusiast's listening discernment, every recording, and every room is unique, It should be obvious that without any agreed upon definitions you're points have very little meaning.

 

For example. 

 

- You say well-performed music and I think well-engineered recordings (not the performance).  You say good music but I don't think your rap music is good. 

 

- You say fully-optimized "audiophile" level playback environment and I think there was once a time when men removed the hubcaps from their family station wagon for improved aerodynamics when taking a romp down the quarter mile track.  And I wouldn't doubt some thought their station wagons were "fully optimized".

 

- You say bad room and I've not a clue what you mean. 

 

- You say good good and bad equipment and I've not a clue what you mean.

 

- You say transported or moved by good music and I ask myself could not a 5-year old with no ability to discern what they hear also be "moved and transported by good music?"

 

On the other hand, you say nothing about installation methods and fine-tuning a playback system and now I'm starting to get a good idea where you're coming from.

 

That said and based on my limited experience, Frank is right on the money if he indeed said the room matters less.  But he'd be more accurate if he said the room actually matters very little if at all.

 

Your comment, "Saying "the room matters less when the playback chain is good" is like saying "the speakers matter less when the source component and amplifier are good" - it's a nonsense claim." is itself a nonsensical claim.  Especially since you've yet to define your adjectives.  But if you understood the sources of the greatest distortions that plague every last playback system to the point of inducing a universal performance-limiting governor on every last system, then you too might agree that your own claims here are nonsensical.  So once again, Frank is correct if he indeed made those claims.

 

I suppose I should add that in my limited experience, the rooms I've used, that some may label as bad, mean nothing and I do zero to treat them.  But my limited experience also tells me that finding an optimal or hopefully THE optimal placement locations for a full-range speaker within a given room is absolutely paramount if one hopes to attain a truly musical, tight, deep, well-defined bass reproduction. 

 

[fas42]

16 hours ago, tmtomh said:

 

I certainly agree that one can enjoy well-performed/good music, even in a far from optimal playback environment. More specifically, I agree further that one does not need a fully optimized, "audiophile" level playback environment in order to be moved or transported by good music.

 

So if you want to argue that the quality of the playback equipment and the room doesn't matter as much when the music itself - the quality of the composition and the performance - is really good, I have no disagreement with that.

 

You somewhat misunderstand here - yes, less than optimal playback is not necessary if the music is of a type that strikes one strongly. But that's not what I talking about.

 

Quote

 

But a bad room degrades good equipment just as much as it degrades poor-performing equipment. The fact that the end result with good equipment in a bad room is likely to be better than bad equipment in a bad room does not mean that the room matters less when the equipment is good. Saying "the room matters less when the playback chain is good" is like saying "the speakers matter less when the source component and amplifier are good" - it's a nonsense claim.

 

What I'm after is the impact that live, acoustic music making delivers - that impact occurs irrespective of how "bad" the room is ... the comment earlier about listening to someone singing live in a 'terrible' performance place is referencing that the situation does zero to kill the sense that you are listening to a real person; which translates to what a competent playback setup will deliver ...

 

And, it does turn out "the speakers matter less when the source component and amplifier are good" 😜 - the sins of the speaker don't kill the liveness impact, but disturbing weaknesses of the electronics most certainly do.

 

Quote

 

Frank, you're doing what you always do: You make claim about something, and then when someone replies that your claim makes no sense, you reply with evidence in support of a different claim.

 

What I'm claiming is that normal playback chains are capable of delivering convincing sound - there are many aspects to this behaviour, and I just bring up some of the different details, depending upon the point I'm discussing. Some are aware of how a system can sound like the "real thing" when you're in listening range of the playback, but that this illusion then fails when you actually enter into the direct sound field of the speakers. What I'm on about is, that the level of performance that is achievable is that the "real thing" illusion never evaporates, stays rock solid, no matter where in relation, or how close you are to the speakers.- if one has never experienced it, then the safest thing that many find to do, as evidenced here, is to yell, "BS!!", or ask someone to make the nasty boogie man go away ... 😛.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, Confused said:

I stumbled across this gem today:

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Confused said:

On my arguably overambitious rig, I could get the sense of the essence of the music, in many respects I actually quite enjoyed listening to this.  Does that mean my rig is sorted?

 

That said, I am sure that I have picked up some issues in the recording.  Are these apparent because the flaws in my rig are exaggerating the distortions and other issues I think are in the recording, or primarily because my rig is simply reproducing them?

 

I'm confused. 

 

Hmmm, good music 👍 ... a walk in the park for a good rig ... 😉

[fas42]

41 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

That said and based on my limited experience, Frank is right on the money if he indeed said the room matters less.  But he'd be more accurate if he said the room actually matters very little if at all.

 

Indeed, "very little if at all".

 

41 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

Your comment, "Saying "the room matters less when the playback chain is good" is like saying "the speakers matter less when the source component and amplifier are good" - it's a nonsense claim." is itself a nonsensical claim.  Especially since you've yet to define your adjectives.  But if you understood the sources of the greatest distortions that plague every last playback system to the point of inducing a universal performance-limiting governor on every last system, then you too might agree that your own claims here are nonsensical.  So once again, Frank is correct if he indeed made those claims.

 

Indeed I did.

 

41 minutes ago, shtf said:

 

I suppose I should add that in my limited experience, the rooms I've used, that some may label as bad, mean nothing and I do zero to treat them.  But my limited experience also tells me that finding an optimal or hopefully THE optimal placement locations for a full-range speaker within a given room is absolutely paramount if one hopes to attain a truly musical, tight, deep, well-defined bass reproduction. 

 

 

IME, "truly musical, tight, deep, well-defined bass reproduction" happens automatically when the chain is sufficiently sorted - the full-range aspect doesn't seem to matter.

 

A good example of the converse was listening to the rig of someone who had implemented intelligent, rather than silly subwoofers.- who lives in the area. Massively heavy, sealed twin subwoofers, a frequency sweep through the bass showed very, very clean behaviour; not stinking with harmonic distortion as they can often do - this should be good!! Ummm, no ... every track that should have delivered a powerful sense of the bass line wimped out - the rest of the frequencies were not in good enough shape to do the job, properly.

[tmtomh]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

You somewhat misunderstand here - yes, less than optimal playback is not necessary if the music is of a type that strikes one strongly. But that's not what I talking about.

 

 

What I'm after is the impact that live, acoustic music making delivers - that impact occurs irrespective of how "bad" the room is ... the comment earlier about listening to someone singing live in a 'terrible' performance place is referencing that the situation does zero to kill the sense that you are listening to a real person; which translates to what a competent playback setup will deliver ...

 

And, it does turn out "the speakers matter less when the source component and amplifier are good" 😜 - the sins of the speaker don't kill the liveness impact, but disturbing weaknesses of the electronics most certainly do.

 

 

What I'm claiming is that normal playback chains are capable of delivering convincing sound - there are many aspects to this behaviour, and I just bring up some of the different details, depending upon the point I'm discussing. Some are aware of how a system can sound like the "real thing" when you're in listening range of the playback, but that this illusion then fails when you actually enter into the direct sound field of the speakers. What I'm on about is, that the level of performance that is achievable is that the "real thing" illusion never evaporates, stays rock solid, no matter where in relation, or how close you are to the speakers.- if one has never experienced it, then the safest thing that many find to do, as evidenced here, is to yell, "BS!!", or ask someone to make the nasty boogie man go away ... 😛.

 

Nonsense, all nonsense. No one ever defined the parameters as a live acoustic recording - and you know it. Good electronics shine through even with bad speakers - you have zero evidence for this claim, and you know it.

 

If you're content with the understanding that you're not persuading anyone, then I suppose I'm content for you to keep talking to yourself, which is what you're doing with "responses" like the above.

[fas42]

28 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

Nonsense, all nonsense. No one ever defined the parameters as a live acoustic recording - and you know it.

 

Did I say "live acoustic recording" - no, I said, "live, acoustic music making" - if you, say, walk into a room where people are playing a couple of instruments, and vocalising; there's a certain quality to that sound ... that's the goal.

 

28 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Good electronics shine through even with bad speakers - you have zero evidence for this claim, and you know it.

 

Did I say, "bad" speakers? ... I'm talking of normal, low cost speakers that used to fill the showrooms of audio dealers - do you call these, bad speakers?

 

Evidence? What evidence is there that components that display brilliant technical specs also deliver jaw-dropping sound - IOW, it's a subjective take, defining "shining through", 🙂.

 

28 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

If you're content with the understanding that you're not persuading anyone, then I suppose I'm content for you to keep talking to yourself, which is what you're doing with "responses" like the above.

 

I'm pointing out that there is an alternative, to people who are fed up with spending big bucks, and never reaching "audio nirvana" ... all that it requires is that one starts changing the attitude as regards what's needed to get there ... 😉.