Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

How does someone else's fawning over expensive gear give us any insight in your definition of the term you've been using?

 

Note, the obsession about gear being expensive is a key part of the response.

 

Though, we all know Ferraris, say, are only worthwhile as a vehicle because they cost so much - in truth, as a car they are pretty ordinary, really ...

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, STC said:

Looks like the Philips nor the Sharp ever produced the magical sound. Then somewhere in between he gave the impression that the laptop speakers was capable of it. 

 

Well, it's true you're highly impressionable, ST ... 😉.

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

How about sound that creates the false illusion of being of good quality?

 

How about sound that never betrays the mechanism that is creating an aural illusion in the space you're listening to it in?

[STC]

@fas42 Are you Littlematt?

 

 

[fas42]

Ummm, no ...

 

Cerwin Vegas, eh ... had a look around, these have good potential ...

 

 

[STC]

Solved!!!

 

The magic did not happen with Philip HT or Sharp. It stopped there. Is this a case of someone missing a better system. Wonder why you are not persuading the with the same equipment?

——————————

ST, it doesn't help when you get the story completely mucked up - JBC means nothing to me ... the rig 35 years ago was a Yamaha CDP, Perreaux power amp, B&W bookshelfs ... current rig is NAD CDP,  NAD integrated, Sharp speakers ... okay?

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, STC said:

Solved!!!

 

The magic did not happen

 

Solved!

[STC]

59 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Solved!

Typo- meant to ask why didn’t he pursue with the same system. 

[Jeff_N]

You guys gotta understand, he desperately needs to convince you, and himself, that by spending his whole life tweaking his "rig" he gets better sound than all those silly rich people do with their $100K systems. He adjusts this and that, and just like 35 years ago, suddenly it all "clicked," it just "sounded right," it was like the "scales fell from his eyes," the speakers "disappeared," and the quote button on his keyboard "got stuck."

[Confused]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

nearly all rigs display distortion anomalies, quite disturbing at times

I am still unclear as to what you mean by this.  Can you describe or explain what type of anomalies you are referring to specifically, in particular the more common types of distortion that disturb you?

[Confused]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Again, most of you have heard "magic sound" from some, perhaps spectacularly ambitious, expensive or tremendously tweaked system - so all of you who have heard this at least once knows it exists ... the problem is, that you want this to be the result of enormous amounts of money thrown at it, and it disturbs you that it can be achieved via other means.

Eh?  I would say if you look at the majority of posts on this site, most people are tying to achieve the best possible sound within a limited budget.  There is always significant interest in something that is low cost but great for sound quality.

[kumakuma]

3 hours ago, Jeff_N said:

You guys gotta understand, he desperately needs to convince you, and himself, that by spending his whole life tweaking his "rig" he gets better sound than all those silly rich people do with their $100K systems. He adjusts this and that, and just like 35 years ago, suddenly it all "clicked," it just "sounded right," it was like the "scales fell from his eyes," the speakers "disappeared," and the quote button on his keyboard "got stuck."

 

@fas42 I think this is called the "Sunken Cost Fallacy" 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

If something is rather special, then it's easy to remember

That’s different. The fact that something stands out enough to be identifiable is what I’m talking about. It’s not the actual sound of the recording/performance that you remember, it’s whatever sticks out that you remember. For instance, there is a chair squeak in a performance of Tchaikovsky’s “Piano Concerto #1 in b Minor” that tells me, the moment it occurs, that I’m listening to the Von Karajan/Richter recording on DGG from the late Fifties. Other than that, there would be no way for me to know for sure if I wasn’t playing the recording myself, or if I missed the announcement on the radio telling me which version I was hearing. But that special bit of extraneous noise at that exact moment, removes all doubt. But it’s not the sound, per se that I recognize.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, STC said:

Typo- meant to ask why didn’t he pursue with the same system. 

 

Life happens ... 🙂.

 

A combination of getting incredibly frustrated, at the time, because I couldn't control and maintain that peak quality - it wasn't stable; and then a channel of the Perreaux went, and then a mid/bass driver of the B&Ws went bad. Yes, all things that can be accounted for, and fixed, etc - but it prompted me to move on; I decided to try other routes.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, Jeff_N said:

You guys gotta understand, he desperately needs to convince you, and himself, that by spending his whole life tweaking his "rig" he gets better sound than all those silly rich people do with their $100K systems. He adjusts this and that, and just like 35 years ago, suddenly it all "clicked," it just "sounded right," it was like the "scales fell from his eyes," the speakers "disappeared," and the quote button on his keyboard "got stuck."

 

What I'm annoyed about is that the $100K systems sound like $10,000, $1,000, even $100 ... depending what recording is put on - a system that's working right doesn't do this ... I prefer the consistency achieved with my methods, 🙂.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, Confused said:

I am still unclear as to what you mean by this.  Can you describe or explain what type of anomalies you are referring to specifically, in particular the more common types of distortion that disturb you?

 

Later today, gotta head out.

 

8 hours ago, Confused said:

Eh?  I would say if you look at the majority of posts on this site, most people are tying to achieve the best possible sound within a limited budget.  There is always significant interest in something that is low cost but great for sound quality.

 

That's what I would assume - but look at the flak I cop for suggesting this ... take George, yelling at me that I'm stupid for thinking that budget gear can produce sound that "only the best components" can do ...

[Racerxnet]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Life happens ... 🙂.

 

A combination of getting incredibly frustrated, at the time, because I couldn't control and maintain that peak quality - it wasn't stable; and then a channel of the Perreaux went, and then a mid/bass driver of the B&Ws went bad. Yes, all things that can be accounted for, and fixed, etc - but it prompted me to move on; I decided to try other routes.

 

Why didn't you just buy a couple new drivers from B&W you Cheapskate. Your still putzing around with junk. 

 

[Racerxnet]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

That's what I would assume - but look at the flak I cop for suggesting this ... take George, yelling at me that I'm stupid for thinking that budget gear can produce sound that "only the best components" can do ...

 

You haven't proven that you can do anything remotely close to what you brag about. Proof is in the pudding. Bring on several people who can vouch for what you say. I got a hundred dollar bet that your full of it, and your response will prove it. 

 

Ready,

 

Aim,

 

And blather on Frank.

 

[gmgraves]

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Note, the obsession about gear being expensive is a key part of the response.

 

Though, we all know Ferraris, say, are only worthwhile as a vehicle because they cost so much - in truth, as a car they are pretty ordinary, really ...

That’s at best, a fallacy fueled by ignorance, and at worst a case of sour grapes. There is nothing ordinary about a Ferrari. But one must keep in mind that its competition is not the Family Truckster, which ever brand makes it. The Ferrari is a TOY, but a very good toy if one is into driving and can afford the best. In days past Ferrari’s were fast, handled well, but weren’t made very well. There are some aspects of manufacturing that small companies such as Ferrari simply cannot do as well as big companies such as GM, Mercedes Benz, or Toyota. But today, Ferraris are among the world’s best made cars due to input from the mother company, Fiat, combined with modern automation.

But Frank, in keeping with your insistence that price does not equal quality (as witnessed by your delusions about audio equipment, I thoroughly understand. I’m sure that you believe that a 360cc Japanese micro-car can, with a few “tweaks”, outperform any Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, or Aston Martin!

[STC]

28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Life happens ... 🙂.

 

A combination of getting incredibly frustrated, at the time, because I couldn't control and maintain that peak quality - it wasn't stable; and then a channel of the Perreaux went, and then a mid/bass driver of the B&Ws went bad. Yes, all things that can be accounted for, and fixed, etc - but it prompted me to move on; I decided to try other routes.

Now you are are talking like a typical audiophile. It is a normal behavior to find that your system not to sound optimum and lacking once your initial euphoria of getting a new toy is gone. 
 

Dr Henry Augus Bowes identified this as audio neurosis in 1957. It is your brain reminding you that the stereo sound is not natural.  

[gmgraves]

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What I'm annoyed about is that the $100K systems sound like $10,000, $1,000, even $100 ... depending what recording is put on - a system that's working right doesn't do this ... I prefer the consistency achieved with my methods, 🙂.

That’s nonsense, Frank and I think you know it. But you’ve painted yourself into a corner, now, haven’t you?

And if your “methods” have achieved a “consistency” it simply has to be that everything sounds consistently mediocre. Good recordings, bad recordings are reduced to all sounding alike - lousy. Because with your setup it simply couldn’t be otherwise. You really can’t make a purse from a sow’s ear, you know (and yes, I know that somebody actually did do that to prove that it could be done, but the allegory is still valid).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 hours ago, STC said:

Typo- meant to ask why didn’t he pursue with the same system. 

Oh,haha. I thought you meant the thread was solved,specifically there is no "magic" in Frank's "rig", just his head. I was agreeing.

 

Frank's nonsense is driven by confirmation bias.

 

We all know that if we listened to Franks system,as described, it would likely sound terrible. Frank would of course think otherwise to which I say all power to him.

 

What I dislike is that Frank needs attention and therefore spams every thread with his magic beliefs.

 

8 hours ago, Confused said:

most people are tying to achieve the best possible sound within a limited budget.  There is always significant interest in something that is low cost but great for sound quality.

 

Exactly so, or I might change it to "achieve the best possible sound within their chosen budget" IOW the best bang for the buck as they perceive it and as they feel important by whatever criteria they have set.

 

Frank makes the most of very cheap components like laptop speakers or whatever. Fine. Tweaking to get the best sound is done by most audiophiles so there is nothing special and no magic in Frank's method. It is therefore not necessary to spam every thread with messages of his magic tweaking and absurd claims like he can make crappy recordings sound great and tiny little laptop speakers perform miracles that high end speakers do not.

[Confused]

30 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I couldn't control and maintain that peak quality - it wasn't stable;

 

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What I'm annoyed about is that the $100K systems sound like $10,000, $1,000, even $100 ... depending what recording is put on - a system that's working right doesn't do this ... I prefer the consistency achieved with my methods, 🙂.

Now I’m really confused.....

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, STC said:

Now you are are talking like a typical audiophile. It is a normal behavior to find that your system not to sound optimum and lacking once your initial euphoria of getting a new toy is gone. 
 

Dr Augus Bowes identified this as audio neurosis in 1957. It is your brain reminding you that the stereo sound is not natural.  

Well recorded Stereo can sound very good indeed. However if recorded in say Dolby Surround, then down converted to Stereo, a good system can extract quite a good Surround sensation from just 2 stereo speakers, including with movies such as Avatar and many others, as well as quite a few Video performances such as The Eagles- Hell Freezes Over, and some from Queen such as The Game .

[Racerxnet]

5 minutes ago, Confused said:

 

Now I’m really confused.....

He threw a stone in his glass house. 

 

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

It is therefore not necessary to spam every thread with messages of his magic tweaking and absurd claims like he can make crappy recordings sound great and tiny little laptop speakers perform miracles that high end speakers do not.

 

I am surprised Chris allows him to thread crap all over the site. We all know his take on sound reproduction.