Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Confused said:

 

Now I’m really confused.....

 

Still, er, Confused ... ? 🙂

[fas42]

And, just noting posts, etc, about the RAAL-requisite SR1a headphones - these appear to be able to deliver a variation of "magic sound" ... note, these devices can only be a conduit for the music that was captured; they don't "distort what you hear to make it sound better"; they are a method of getting closer to what's on the recording - the next step is to translate that capability to a conventional speaker based systen.

[fas42]

Even Archimago, 😁, gets what the idea is, https://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/07/musings-zen-and-art-of-high-fidelity.html#more,

 

Note that Mr Arnott understands that the point is that the equipment reveals the recording, and not that the recording is a means of demonstrating the specialness of the equipment being used ...

 

Quote

 

Unlike wines, or cars, or houses where often more is better - more aroma, more luxury/power/speed, more space - the aim of audio equipment when it comes to its basic function of achieving "high fidelity" is to preserve what is on the recording, nothing more. We intuitively know this because even for those of a purely subjectivist mindset, there is the idea that "the best cable is no cable". Shorter cables are better than longer ones (to reduce signal loss and picking up noise). "Shortest signal paths" are said to sound better than longer ones. MQA even puts it as the "sound of the studio"; that is, the "sound" of the intervening equipment after the studio and before one's ears should not color the intended production. When we aim for a high fidelity system, all we're asking for is a device that can reproduce just the frequencies present on the album, at the right time, with the right dynamics to satisfy the intent of the artist as laid down in the recordings. As for the listener, the ideal gear would have technical "transparency"; free of audible frequency coloration, distortion, added noise, or timing anomalies (eg. jitter, wow & flutter, phase distortions...).

The irony is that Mr. Arnott understands this. Awhile back in his show report on a LampizatOr DAC in 2017, he said this:

"This room had outstanding timbre, and tone, and deep, organic bass lines, and midrange that didn’t suffer an iota from the air, and extension the top end displayed. “Addictive Musicality” is what I scrawled in my RMAF brochure book next to the room name. Sound-staging actively changed from recording to recording (as it should be because sound stage is derived from the recording, not the equipment), which to me is always a hallmark of a truly transparent, and properly-engineered set-up."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Dyson]

20 hours ago, sandyk said:

 That is totally uncalled for. In my post I talked about using Speakers, not headphones

 

If my hearing is that bad, and unreliable, why am I still the main listener giving John Dyson feedback in his PMs to a small group of members from both sides, including yourself , in his DHNRDS project ?

 I also receive regular updates from John via email that the rest of you often don't get to see. (including this morning)

 

This note is intended to thank Alex, but also to talk about cooperation and kindness...   We all only have so much time to live and enjoy...

--

Alex does help A LOT.  None of us has perfect hearing (myself especially), but for me, the problem is more than the mechanical process of hearing the sound...  My own hearing problem is about judging general quality...  It is harder than hell.  Alex helps by judging things that I have troubles with.  Others have helped also.   It is important, because of my own technical focus, for people to TRY to describe impairments in a way that I can understand...  It aint' easy for anyone on the DA/FA  project or contributing to the project.

 

Here, I am blathering about the project that I am working on, but I am trying to suggest the kind of kindly/positive cooperation in *general* audio discussions that the DA/FA projects need also.

 

When people help me, it adds to the project...  Hopefully, some day, it will be available to unveil the sound quality of some of the old music that we already have in our home libraries, or even on YouTube.  It might also be helpful to some researcher in the future...  When someone actually helps/assists another audio hobbyist or electronics hobbyist -- that also does good, maybe for a creative genius of the future.

 

Constructive and kind criticism can be so very helpful.   Sometimes, emotions get involved, and I am the worst case example.  How to judge the behavior of the software that I write?  Am I going to be biased by my own pride?  YES -- it is a real problem.   How to judge someones electronics project, speaker design or room layout?  It is awfully hard to do correctly.  It is hard to criticise and remain kind.   It is important to recognzie someone elses' pride of ownership or own self respect.  I am sometimes mistakenly rude -- and in those times when we make mistakes, the saving grace is that we are all supposedly grown ups.   Like most people, I try to correct or mitigate my rudeness mistakes, but sometimes they still slip by.

 

Pride of ownership, pride of authorship and so many other factors cause problems in evaluating sound quality.  This is especially true when one really loves the hobby or various aspects of the hobby.

 

---

More about my own project more specifically, but it could be any cooperative project between multiple people on a forum or in person:

 

So, yes, I thank Alex and others who have been so very kind to spend time to help the project.  The FA/DA projects are NOT about me -- it is about what the project is intended to do.   I wish that I could encourage an honest/realistic sense of ownership of the DA/FA projects into everyone who could contribute. It is hard to do honestly, since I own the software, the project is somewhat encumbered (in a kind way), and it is still very dependent on one (or two) person(s), depending on the aspect.   This project is a responsibility to give to the future and NOT for just for me, and frankly not just for any one of us.  The project is for us all.  Frustratingly, I cannot give it away yet -- people have to trust my intent.  If I could think of a workable way to put the code in escrow, I'd do it.  It is still changing quickly from time to time (the DA code is 100% rock solid, but FA is still getting major changes -- dozens of lines per day.   At least it isn't hundreds lines of new code per day anymore.)

 

Some day, I hope to be able to free the software entirely, where some of the proprietary ideas won't be stolen from under the project before it is done, yet the 'trade secrets' will be available for others to use once this project is complete.  There are numerous little variables that I am balancing, hopefully it will end up giving the best possible results.

 

Truly, if I am worried too much about the aspects of ownership, I might feel forced to free it now -- most likely destroying the project.  This is a real tightrope, and I feel serious responsibility.  Maybe, I am full of myself -- but the fact is, trying to do the right thing.

 

----

There are all kinds of aspects of our society.  Philosophically, I am as capitalist as one can be -- however, a capitalist should feel free to offer gifts or contributions to society, whatever they can are able do.    Contribution can come from someone of any philosophy, because we can come together here for a common goal.   Squabbling is just so hurtful, and weakens the benefit that we can all gain.  (Well, except it is okay to squabble against MQA -- that is an exception :-)).

 

We should always be open to contribute kindness to each other...  Why else are we visiting these forums?

 

I am thankful for the people I have met (virtually) on this forum and a few others....

 

John

 

[Confused]

On 3/6/2020 at 12:23 AM, fas42 said:

 

I'm afraid you're wrong... 🤨. What a well sorted $100,000 system does is bring out the music captured at the time, without distracting you with inadequacies of the recording technique; what a poor $100,000 system does is present an assortment of the flaws I mentioned in my previous post.

I honestly do not see how you, or anyone else, can say @kumakuma is wrong when he is advising how he subjectively hears a system.

 

Consider this as a thought experiment.  Lets say you, I and @kumakuma get together to listen to a system that you have declared to be a well sorted rig.  We listen to a range of music.  You declare that all recordings sound superb, and that you can get to the essence of the music with all tracks.  This is fair enough.  But lets say I listen to a track that I think has some issues with the recording, maybe I think the mix is bright and thin.  I try this recording on the well sorted rig, and you declare it is fine, and maybe say something about how you can hear the energy from the musician's performance.  OK - this is fair enough, this is your subjective experience.  But lets say I state that on this well sorted rig (which we can all assume is transparent to the recording) that the track still sounds thin and bright.  Am I wrong?  How can I be if this is my personal subjective experience?  How can you know what I am experiencing in my on brain?  Lets say @kumakuma who is also listening also states that it sounds a bit bright and thin.  Is it the case that we are both wrong, and you are correct that this well sorted rig is allowing us all to get the essence of the music?  Of course, you could respond to this by stating that if the recording sounded bright and thin, then well, it is not a well sorted rig.  I know you could respond like this, but what I am asking is that you go with my initial assumption, try to understand what I am saying here, that this is a system that you have declared to be well sorted.

 

The point is that in this hypothetical situation, nobody is "wrong".  It could well be that your subjective experience is quite simply different to that of some others.

 

Here I think is the key point of what I am trying to say.  I have a suggestion, please try and read what others write on this forum, and at the same time try to understand what they might be subjectively experiencing, and that quite possibly this is something different from your own subjective experience.  In this way, when posting yourself you may be able to discern between what is simply subjective to you, and what may be a universal factual point with respect to audio production.  What is subjectively true for you may not be true for others.

[Confused]

14 hours ago, fas42 said:

Even Archimago, 😁, gets what the idea is, https://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/07/musings-zen-and-art-of-high-fidelity.html#more,

 

Note that Mr Arnott understands that the point is that the equipment reveals the recording, and not that the recording is a means of demonstrating the specialness of the equipment being used ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed so, this is how it should be, and as ever an excellent article from @Archimago

 

However, I see no mention of things like all recordings sound good on a transparent system (well sorted rig), or any mention of how there are no bad recordings and if you hear one it is because your rig is not sorted and NOT the recording.  Or that you could go right up to one speaker and not hear that any sound is coming from this speaker.  Or that you could turn the treble up +20dB and not notice that it sounds bright.

 

So whilst both you and I may agree with Archimago's wise words, personally I think it is a bit of a stretch to think this fully validates fas42's audio magic.  Or to put it anther way, surly if the point is that if the equipment reveals the recording, it is perfectly logical to assume the equipment will also reveal any faults in the recording.  Seems simple to me.

[fas42]

Quite an excellent example of a very simple system, in unassuming surroundings, projecting a deep and full soundstage - gives a good subjective impression of the experience I had 3 decades ago,

 

 

[gmgraves]

On 3/13/2020 at 5:04 PM, fas42 said:

Quite an excellent example of a very simple system, in unassuming surroundings, projecting a deep and full soundstage - gives a good subjective impression of the experience I had 3 decades ago,

 

 

While it’s true that small speakers generally image very well, often better than their larger, more expensive competition, I find that imaging is only place where they generally excel. Lackluster bass, limited SPL, and beamy highs are often the price paid for this “good imaging”. I have never heard the Wilson Sashas, but I am quite familiar with their ancestors, the “Watt/Puppies” these are the only speakers that *I* have ever heard that maintained the imaging characteristics of the small speakers (like the ones shown above) while integrating that with the big sound afforded by a larger, full-range system.

[fas42]

15 hours ago, gmgraves said:

While it’s true that small speakers generally image very well, often better than their larger, more expensive competition, I find that imaging is only place where they generally excel. Lackluster bass, limited SPL, and beamy highs are often the price paid for this “good imaging”. I have never heard the Wilson Sashas, but I am quite familiar with their ancestors, the “Watt/Puppies” these are the only speakers that *I* have ever heard that maintained the imaging characteristics of the small speakers (like the ones shown above) while integrating that with the big sound afforded by a larger, full-range system.

 

I find that when people talk about bass that there is often a large difference in what people are thinking of - from the car throbbing variety, right through to being made aware of the intensity and drive of the bass line in the music; the latter is what interests me. And I have found that small speakers have no problem delivering this - what is usually got wrong, is having a "small speaker, therefore, small amplifier is needed" attitude; and not stabilising the cabinet sufficiently; I make sure the amplifier is up to the mark, and do what is needed to make the cabinet as effectively massive as possible. This then delivers the imaging, and the big sound - the original bargain basement B&Ws had no trouble delivering, it was the big Perreaux amp that ran out of steam.

 

I heard the Sashas in a dealer showroom, driven by an all Gryphon chain - acceptable, but nothing special ... like all such rigs which haven't had the necessary optimising, there were too many things wrong with the sound to take it seriously.

 

The "magic" happens when everything falls into place - there is not the slightest desire to analyse if there are any shortfalls; the music is too immersive, meaning lack of interest in the technical side 🙂.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

I find that when people talk about bass that there is often a large difference in what people are thinking of - from the car throbbing variety, right through to being made aware of the intensity and drive of the bass line in the music; the latter is what interests me. And I have found that small speakers have no problem delivering this - what is usually got wrong, is having a "small speaker, therefore, small amplifier is needed" attitude; and not stabilising the cabinet sufficiently; I make sure the amplifier is up to the mark, and do what is needed to make the cabinet as effectively massive as possible. This then delivers the imaging, and the big sound - the original bargain basement B&Ws had no trouble delivering, it was the big Perreaux amp that ran out of steam.

 

I heard the Sashas in a dealer showroom, driven by an all Gryphon chain - acceptable, but nothing special ... like all such rigs which haven't had the necessary optimising, there were too many things wrong with the sound to take it seriously.

 

The "magic" happens when everything falls into place - there is not the slightest desire to analyse if there are any shortfalls; the music is too immersive, meaning lack of interest in the technical side 🙂.

Well, by the lack of bass, I mean bass extension, not bass amplitude! Most small speakers peter-out above 50 Hz in that they are 6dB down (or more) at 50!

If you think Sashas, driven by Gryphon electronics are “nothing special” then I suspect that you are certifiable, Frank! While I’ve never heard the Sashas, I am, as I’ve said before, quite familiar with their predecessors, the Watt/Puppies. They were extraordinary, by any stretch of the term ( and I’m not really a fan of cone speaker systems) and the Sashas supposedly build on the Watt/Puppies’ strengths. So, if you found them less than exemplary, then there was something wrong with either the set up or your hearing. And based upon some of the things that you have posted here over the years, I strongly suspect the latter.

 

And again, in spite of your broken-record rhetoric, “magic” happens when you have the best gear, with the fewest compromises, not when you solder interconnects to your cheap, mid-Fi components and listen through ghetto-blaster boom-box speakers! Sorry, Frank.

[fas42]

40 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

If you think Sashas, driven by Gryphon electronics are “nothing special” then I suspect that you are certifiable, Frank! While I’ve never heard the Sashas, I am, as I’ve said before, quite familiar with their predecessors, the Watt/Puppies. They were extraordinary, by any stretch of the term ( and I’m not really a fan of cone speaker systems) and the Sashas supposedly build on the Watt/Puppies’ strengths. So, if you found them less than exemplary, then there was something wrong with either the set up or your hearing. And based upon some of the things that you have posted here over the years, I strongly suspect the latter.

 

Something was wrong with the setup, of course ... in a dealer showroom, components are merely lashed together so that the rig works to produce sound; no attention has been given to all the areas that stop interference, etc, affecting the SQ. In this case, there was the usual unpleasant edginess to the sound, which meant running to the volume control to turn it down, as soon as I and the demonstrator started conversing - the irkiness was just too distracting.

 

40 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

And again, in spite of your broken-record rhetoric, “magic” happens when you have the best gear, with the fewest compromises, not when you solder interconnects to your cheap, mid-Fi components and listen through ghetto-blaster boom-box speakers! Sorry, Frank.

 

"Magic" happens when you eliminate a range of disturbing artifacts in the sound - done by soldering, etc. "Best gear" usually is not so well engineered to prevent this happening - which creates the classic, instantly recognisable "hifi sound" one gets in casual demos, etc ... think of the process like COVID-19 hygiene practices - if you don't do perfectly, then you get the bug, irrespective of anything else, 😉.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

"Magic" happens when you eliminate a range of disturbing artifacts in the sound - done by soldering, etc. "Best gear" usually is not so well engineered to prevent this happening - which creates the classic, instantly recognisable "hifi sound" one gets in casual demos, etc ... think of the process like COVID-19 hygiene practices - if you don't do perfectly, then you get the bug, irrespective of anything else, 😉

 

 

If you choose your components correctly (that means no cheap Mid-Fi components, Frank)  and use quality (not necessarily expensive) interconnects and speaker cables, there should be no “disturbing artifacts” in the sound. I use a huge hospital type isolation transformer with pre and post filtering, and I see NO noise on my Mains, no RF on my audio signal and no interference anywhere. My system sounds so good that other audiophiles love to come to my house for a listen. You are chasing gremlins that most people’s systems don’t exhibit. 

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

Magic" happens when you eliminate a range of disturbing artifacts in the sound - done by soldering, etc.

 

FYI, according to many experts, if done properly crimped connections can be superior to soldered ones. As George says, this should rarely be an issue when dealing with quality components from reputable manufacturers. The "hi-fi" sound that you describe is usually the product of poor basic design choices and not due to ancillary "disturbing artifacts".

[gmgraves]

12 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

FYI, according to many experts, if done properly crimped connections can be superior to soldered ones.

US military “mil-spec” knows that even if Frank doesn’t. Properly crimped connections are gas tight, soldered ones can be, but not necessarily are. 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

You are chasing gremlins that most people’s systems don’t exhibit. 

 

Ah, that the world of audio is that well sorted out 🙂 ... I can count out on the fingers of one hand rigs that I've come across that get most things right; that take one into the world of the music making that was captured, each time - without distracting one too much with audible misbehaviour of the playback chain.

 

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

FYI, according to many experts, if done properly crimped connections can be superior to soldered ones. As George says, this should rarely be an issue when dealing with quality components from reputable manufacturers. The "hi-fi" sound that you describe is usually the product of poor basic design choices and not due to ancillary "disturbing artifacts".

 

Yes, I would be happy with properly crimped connections - unfortunately, one usually has to connect components together, and internally most components end up relying on cables, switches, etc, which use low pressure metal to metal, and other, contacts to do the job. How I extract "magic", as one major part of the exercise, is to work through the component and get rid of each such weak point, one by one - this alone transformed the current NAD integrated from something that was really pretty awful, into a unit capable of quite decent sound.

 

I've found soldering is "good enough" - after all, the very best gear out there is completely dependent on this method of making connections ... it works, 😉.

[gmgraves]

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, that the world of audio is that well sorted out 🙂 ... I can count out on the fingers of one hand rigs that I've come across that get most things right; that take one into the world of the music making that was captured, each time - without distracting one too much with audible misbehaviour of the playback chain.

 

 

Yes, I would be happy with properly crimped connections - unfortunately, one usually has to connect components together, and internally most components end up relying on cables, switches, etc, which use low pressure metal to metal, and other, contacts to do the job. How I extract "magic", as one major part of the exercise, is to work through the component and get rid of each such weak point, one by one - this alone transformed the current NAD integrated from something that was really pretty awful, into a unit capable of quite decent sound.

 

I've found soldering is "good enough" - after all, the very best gear out there is completely dependent on this method of making connections ... it works, 😉.

It works, it’s just not necessary. Again, you want great sound, put together a great system with well designed equipment.

[Allan F]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

How I extract "magic", as one major part of the exercise, is to work through the component and get rid of each such weak point, one by one - this alone transformed the current NAD integrated from something that was really pretty awful, into a unit capable of quite decent sound.

 

The above reminds me of what I overhead from a group of industry types at RMAF a number of years ago. Referring to NAD, they agreed that is stood for "Not Always Down".

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

The above reminds me of what I overhead from a group of industry types at RMAF a number of years ago. Referring to NAD, they agreed that is stood for "Not Always Down".

Years ago, I read that NAD originally was formed because the British audio dealers association wanted a “house brand”. so they got together with an unnamed Japanese manufacturer of Mid-Fi equipment and formed NAD - National Audio Dealers. However, their current incarnation doesn’t give that as their origin. Their current “origin story” doesn’t even say what the letters N-A-D stand for!

[Confused]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Years ago, I read that NAD originally was formed because the British audio dealers association wanted a “house brand”. so they got together with an unnamed Japanese manufacturer of Mid-Fi equipment and formed NAD - National Audio Dealers. However, their current incarnation doesn’t give that as their origin. Their current “origin story” doesn’t even say what the letters N-A-D stand for!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAD_Electronics
 

[Allan F]

9 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Years ago, I read that NAD originally was formed because the British audio dealers association wanted a “house brand”. so they got together with an unnamed Japanese manufacturer of Mid-Fi equipment and formed NAD - National Audio Dealers. However, their current incarnation doesn’t give that as their origin. Their current “origin story” doesn’t even say what the letters N-A-D stand for!

 

Many years ago, I had a NAD integrated amp that was pretty good for its day before I upgraded to separate Bryston electronics.

[fas42]

16 hours ago, gmgraves said:

It works, it’s just not necessary. Again, you want great sound, put together a great system with well designed equipment.

 

Which works if you always play the "right recordings" 😉 ... I, however, want to play all and every recording that comes my way, and get the best from it - for it to be an emotionally satisfying experience. From experience, this doesn't happen with the great majority of rigs - my efforts are directed to doing whatever it takes to evolve a system to reach that higher level of performance ... this is most certainly possible, but currently requires a great deal of personal effort to achieve; it is almost impossible to buy one's way to it - getting better all the time; but usually very expensive, or a lot of careful, nitpicky looking at what's available.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Which works if you always play the "right recordings" 😉 ... I, however, want to play all and every recording that comes my way, and get the best from it - for it to be an emotionally satisfying experience. From experience, this doesn't happen with the great majority of rigs - my efforts are directed to doing whatever it takes to evolve a system to reach that higher level of performance ... this is most certainly possible, but currently requires a great deal of personal effort to achieve; it is almost impossible to buy one's way to it - getting better all the time; but usually very expensive, or a lot of careful, nitpicky looking at what's available.

So, you want a system that makes all recordings sound the same... mediocre or worse! Looks to me like you have your wish with your mid-Fi components and your boom-box, Ghetto Blaster speakers.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Which works if you always play the "right recordings" 😉 ... I, however, want to play all and every recording that comes my way, and get the best from it - for it to be an emotionally satisfying experience. From experience, this doesn't happen with the great majority of rigs - my efforts are directed to doing whatever it takes to evolve a system to reach that higher level of performance ... this is most certainly possible, but currently requires a great deal of personal effort to achieve; it is almost impossible to buy one's way to it - getting better all the time; but usually very expensive, or a lot of careful, nitpicky looking at what's available.

You’re full of it, Frank.

[fas42]

39 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

So, you want a system that makes all recordings sound the same... mediocre or worse! Looks to me like you have your wish with your mid-Fi components and your boom-box, Ghetto Blaster speakers.

 

Actually, it works completely the other way around - every recording sounds different from the next, often radically ... because, the equipment used to record varies dramatically, and the recording spaces used, or created in the studio, vary dramatically. And you want the good bits of that to come through - which does happen, if the playback chain doesn't add too much of its own signature ... two conflicting signatures are not a good recipe, for listening pleasure.

 

An informative moment occurred at the last hifi show, when a Bryston and Dynaudio combo absolutely nailed the signature of Paul Simon's Graceland album  - this is what it's about ... extracting the content of the track, with minimal rig 'overhang'.

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

...my efforts are directed to doing whatever it takes to evolve a system to reach that higher level of performance ... this is most certainly impossible...

 

Sorry, Frank, but to be consistent with reality the above edit is necessary, although I don't doubt that you have really convinced yourself otherwise.