Jump to content
IGNORED

Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

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.

 

I see ... you've convinced yourself that it's impossible for all but a select group of recordings to provide an emotionally satisfying experience, and you'll fight tooth and nail to hang on to that belief... it would, like, the end of the world, for it to be otherwise ... 🙂.

Link to comment

I would like to propose that we consider the "there are no bad recordings" idea from a more middle ground perspective.

 

I am sure most of us would agree that having a top quality recording is a key starting point for good quality reproduction, and that lesser quality recordings can never sound as good.  Garbage in, garbage out.

 

That said, I am also sure that most of do not want a system that is only "listenable" with a few select few quality recordings.  From my perspective it is inevitable that I will sometimes want to play poor quality recordings, or lesser quality recordings, simply because the music I want to listen to is only available as a lesser quality recording.

 

So as a thought experiment, lets say you have a system that has absolutely state of the art reproduction when fed with a top quality recording.  You then try the system with lesser quality recording, and the shortcomings of the recording become so apparent that you no longer enjoy the music.

 

In the above scenario, is it possible to tweak / optimise the system such that the lesser quality recordings become more listenable, without compromising the former "state of the art" performance with top quality recordings?  If the answer to this question is yes, then maybe having "there are no bad recordings" as a mindset (not an absolute truth) might be beneficial in terms getting the right approach to system optimisation?

 

 

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I see ... you've convinced yourself that it's impossible for all but a select group of recordings to provide an emotionally satisfying experience, and you'll fight tooth and nail to hang on to that belief... it would, like, the end of the world, for it to be otherwise ... 🙂.

It is impossible for many of us (me included) to elicit an emotionally satisfying experience from a recording that sounds like crap! I realize that some people ostensibly can listen to the most horrible sound and find it acceptable. I’ve a friend whose teenage son finds 32 kbps MP3s personally quite acceptable. He’d rather have more songs on his iPhone than better sounding songs. I find that if I have a poor sounding recording (and I have many, unfortunately), it simply doesn’t get listened to. I continue to search for a better sounding performance of that work. Of course people whose musical tastes run to some form of pop music usually don’t have that luxury. If a Beatles’ recording of a favorite song sounds bad, one generally has to grin and bear it. That song, performed by somebody else, is simply not going to cut it while there are lots of performances of Tchaikovsky’s “Pathetique”, for instance, and surely one can be found that is acceptable, both SQ wise and performance wise.

And please, don’t retort with your usual nonsense about being able to tweak a mediocre system so that all recordings are acceptable, regardless of their quality. I don’t doubt that you have been able to do that, but as I‘ve said before, that’s because your system makes all recordings sound equally poor, and you have made your peace with that.

George

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Confused said:

In the above scenario, is it possible to tweak / optimise the system such that the lesser quality recordings become more listenable, without compromising the former "state of the art" performance with top quality recordings?  If the answer to this question is yes, then maybe having "there are no bad recordings" as a mindset (not an absolute truth) might be beneficial in terms getting the right approach to system optimisation?

 

 IOW, make them all sound equally bad ?  😲

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
Just now, sandyk said:

 IOW, make them all sound equally bad ?  😲

No, that absolutely is not what I was saying.

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Confused said:

No, that absolutely is not what I was saying.

 That is basically what George is saying though 😉

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 That is basically what George is saying though 😉

Which is fine, and I fully understand his position.

 

I was posing a thought experiment, to see if anyone had any interesting ideas on the topic.  It could well be that George’s response to my question is a simple “no”, but it would be interesting if he or anyone else has a more nuanced response.  Or maybe the correct response is no? 

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Confused said:

Which is fine, and I fully understand his position.

 

I was posing a thought experiment, to see if anyone had any interesting ideas on the topic.  It could well be that George’s response to my question is a simple “no”, but it would be interesting if he or anyone else has a more nuanced response.  Or maybe the correct response is no? 

 I think that is likely to come down to what gear we are able to use, with in some cases , possibly for financial reasons ,some have of necessity to use sub optimal gear for listening, which doesn't mean that they haven't heard much better previously.

 In that case any minor improvements that they can make with added attention to detail as Frank does, would be more noticed by them, and result in their brain not having to compensate as much.

 

 Incidentally, Frank surprised me recently by hearing things correctly that many members are simply not capable of hearing, and even George with his much higher quality gear would struggle to notice.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
11 hours ago, 4est said:

Oh quit acting like some sort of prophetic martyr. You have presented a paradigm that is contrary to most everyone's experiences and understanding, with nothing to back it up. All the while you're using a tone of mocking superiority that many seem to find distasteful. Oh, and please stop with the "I've been doing this for thirty years crap", most of us have been.

 

Well, if no-one is going to do the "prophetic martyr" thing, then I guess I'll have to do it, 🤪. Indeed it's "a paradigm that is contrary to most everyone's experience", but since so many people were foolin' around in audio I thought that there were bound to be others who "stumbled across it". And that in fact turned out to be the case ... I've bumped into over half a dozen people, on the Internet, who have a very good grasp of the situation - but for a variety of reasons either don't or can't make others aware of what they're getting - I just happen to be the one who believes the concept is important enough, to keep banging on about it ... 🙃.

 

"Mocking superiority"?? ... some parts of the world seem to need others to adopt the tugging one's forelock manner to seem to be pleasant, but I come from a part of the world where that doesn't compute ... I'm just calling it straight, I'm not interested in playing social games to get people on side. Mocking superiority is the thing furthest from my mind when I post - I'm just stating what my thoughts on the matter are.

 

Yes, everyone who is enthusiastic about audio has been doing for 30+ years - the difference for me is convincing SQ popped out right at the beginning, and I've spent the time getting a better handle on everything; I'm not still "chasing the dream" ...

 

11 hours ago, 4est said:

 

In actuality, it appears as if you are the one that is convinced of something Frank, and we are not. We all have reproduction aspects that trigger responses. Yours seems to be different than the majority. So be it and get over it. There is no magic to your path, just a lot of rhetoric about how no one knows what do but you.

 

If you want every recording to be a "Wow!!" experience, then my path might have some magic that appeals to you, 😉.

 

Note that every time I mention the process that I find is absolutely essential to getting there, I'm met with disbelief and ridicule - I can't help those those are intent on ignoring the advice I offer up.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

It is impossible for many of us (me included) to elicit an emotionally satisfying experience from a recording that sounds like crap!

 

The goal is to have a system that doesn't make a recording sound like crap! Note the key inclusion of the word "make" in that sentence - the recording is OK, but the playback doesn't elicit all the positive aspects of the source material.

 

Unless you have spent decades listening to expensive, ambitious rigs make recordings you know well sound like a garbled mess, you probably can't appreciate what's going on - money doesn't solve the problems, but it can certainly blind one to what the true possibilities are.

 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The goal is to have a system that doesn't make a recording sound like crap! Note the key inclusion of the word "make" in that sentence - the recording is OK, but the playback doesn't elicit all the positive aspects of the source material.

 

Unless you have spent decades listening to expensive, ambitious rigs make recordings you know well sound like a garbled mess, you probably can't appreciate what's going on - money doesn't solve the problems, but it can certainly blind one to what the true possibilities are.

 

record.jpg

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Confused said:

In the above scenario, is it possible to tweak / optimize the system such that the lesser quality recordings become more listenable, without compromising the former "state of the art" performance with top quality recordings?  If the answer to this question is yes, then maybe having "there are no bad recordings" as a mindset (not an absolute truth) might be beneficial in terms getting the right approach to system optimisation?

 

You can't have both. A system that is "optimized" is one that will produce the best sound from well recorded music. If you have a highly resolving system capable of producing "state of the art" performance, the simple answer to your question is "No". Ironically, a less resolving or mid-fi system may be more forgiving and be less likely to highlight the negative aspects of a poor recording. Quality components typically avoid tone controls because of the negative effect that they have on the sound. OTOH, tone controls could potentially make those poor recordings sound less objectionable by "dumbing down" the system to the level of the recording.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Frank your standards are way too low, what you find musically satisfying I would likely find to be of poor sound quality to unlistenable even on your supposed well-sorted mid-fi equipment.

 

I wish you could hear how realistic music can sound when the microphones are placed in the best positions, a great performance venue is chosen with musicians playing together and not separated by isolation booths. With recording engineers who know how to capture sonic realism.

 

And I wish more high end systems could do a better job of replaying the source content correctly, Teresa 😉. It's trivially easy to catch out ambitious rigs - feed them a track which is above a certain level of complexity, and the level of audible distortion makes them quite unlistenable to, especially if one tries for higher volumes. Such systems will never be capable of providing satisfying listening with everyday recordings - the playback chain is far too flawed.

 

Quote

GIGO (garbage in garbage out) cannot be fixed by soldering connections and the other tweaks you do. The music captured must sound real in order for any audio system to reproduce it realistically.

 

The music reaching the microphones was real, back then - and the microphones, and the recording technology was good enough to capture what matters to the listening brain. All that is necessary is for the playback to work extremely precisely in key areas; and if one is too sloppy in optimising these subjectively important areas, then the SQ will be that of "just another hifi".

 

Quote

 

You have a much better imagination than I to be able to magically undo all the wrongs in poorly made recordings. It works for you but I know I would hate the sound of any music coming out of your well-sorted mid-fi system as my imagination is not as good as yours evidently.

 

The amusing thing is that it's the women who very much tune into the SQ I aspire to - audiophiles are often too busy analysing whether there is any 20Hz content, and whether it sounds exactly like their rig , etc. The fact that it has the 'naturalness' of everyday sounds, and doesn't wave its hand in the hand, shouting, "Look at me, look at me!!" may seem strange to some - but that quality is what allows 'difficult' recordings to come off beautifully 🙂.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

You can't have both. A system that is "optimized" is one that will produce the best sound from well recorded music. If you have a highly resolving system capable of producing "state of the art" performance, the simple answer to your question is "No". Ironically, a less resolving or mid-fi system may be more forgiving and be less likely to highlight the negative aspects of a poor recording. Quality components typically avoid tone controls because of the negative effect that they have on the sound. OTOH, tone controls could potentially make those poor recordings sound less objectionable by "dumbing down" the system to the level of the recording.

 

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. So-called highly resolving systems nearly always add a good dollop of disturbing distortion, and those anomalies intermodulate with anything that is less than perfect in the recording - as excellent an example of IMD as one can get ... two solutions: an absolutely pristine recording played on a flawed rig is the first solution; any recording played on a well sorted setup is the second solution - intermodulation is held to a low enough level so that the listener can enjoy the musical capture, in both situations.

 

I just happen to be talking about the second scenario ... the huge gain is that the vast array of the recording legacy is then available to be enjoyed, 🙂.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, sandyk said:

 I think that is likely to come down to what gear we are able to use, with in some cases , possibly for financial reasons ,some have of necessity to use sub optimal gear for listening, which doesn't mean that they haven't heard much better previously.

 In that case any minor improvements that they can make with added attention to detail as Frank does, would be more noticed by them, and result in their brain not having to compensate as much.

 

 Incidentally, Frank surprised me recently by hearing things correctly that many members are simply not capable of hearing, and even George with his much higher quality gear would struggle to notice.

You know that there are situations where tempoarily damaged hearing can make some defects much easier to detect.  By happenstance, I used that effect for good improvments  a few months ago.

When there are certain kinds of defects in equipment and/or hearing, then certain kinds of distortions can become more noticeable.  The situation was astounding -- totally astounding to me.

 

My uneducated guess it that the syndrome might be similar to a person who loses sight can sometimes gain certain additional 'processing' on their hearing, thereby benefit greater from the senses that are still available.  It could be that the brain can more easily focus on the available data.   AGAIN A GUESS.

 

Because of my project, I focus on very particular kinds of defects in audio, thereby sometimes making it very difficult for me to hear other defects.  Too much treble, even though I can hear treble very clearly is less of an impairment to me than certain kinds of dynamic distortions...  Too much bass mildly irritates me (esp 20-40Hz), but the worst, 'chalk scraping on chalkboard' for me is midrange woodiness making many CDs intolerable.  Other people, with better hearing that I have, seem to totally ignore the woody sound of vocals on many CDs.

 

The 'CPU' (brain), focus on certain defects, and available information comes to play in audio comparisons.

 

John

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. So-called highly resolving systems nearly always add a good dollop of disturbing distortion, and those anomalies intermodulate with anything that is less than perfect in the recording - as excellent an example of IMD as one can get ... two solutions: an absolutely pristine recording played on a flawed rig is the first solution; any recording played on a well sorted setup is the second solution - intermodulation is held to a low enough level so that the listener can enjoy the musical capture, in both situations.

 

I just happen to be talking about the second scenario ... the huge gain is that the vast array of the recording legacy is then available to be enjoyed, 🙂.

Hang on, there is a slight of hand here, to be expected from an audio magician I suppose. 🙂

 

The actual question @Allan F was responding to was clear in that it was a thought experiment and was referring to a system with "absolutely state of the art reproduction".

 

In your response above Frank, you are saying Allan is wrong, but then you are changing the question not to refer to a "state of the art system", but to a system that  adds "a good dollop of disturbing distortion".  I suspect most of us here would agree that removing a good dollop of disturbing distortion from a system will indeed improve the reproduction most if not all recordings.

 

So we end up with two slightly different scenarios, for the following two systems 

 

1. A system that has absolutely state of the art reproduction, AKA "a well sorted rig".  Because this system is well sorted, it does not add any distortions to the recording.

 

2. A so-called highly resolving systems that adds a good dollop of disturbing distortion,

 

Could both of the above systems above be improved / tweaked  to make recordings of a lesser quality more listenable without compromising the performance with top quality recordings?

 

I suspect we can all agree that system 2 could be improved for the benefit of all or most recordings.

 

With system 1, are we all agreed that the answer is indeed no?  It is after all a well sorted rig.  Maybe someone has a more nuanced response?

 

 

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Blackmorec said:
4 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

 This may be say 20% of recordings. Another 75% of recordings will exhibit degrees of the above and be entirely listenable and while not spectacular, will still be beautiful, engaging and delightful to listen to.   5% or maybe even less will be completely flawed, due entirely to the recording and mastering process. I

 

I am a little more critical than a lot of people, and the reason why I walked away from the serious listening hobby back in the 1990 timeframe.  It is pretty clear to me that the vast majorty of the POP CDs are significantly mismastered, and as you have probably read my long descriptions in the past, are compressed in a way that was entirely unintended by the equipment designer.   The POP CDs have a persistent and changing frequency response balance that includes woody midrange and swishy high end.  Vocal sibilance is also  sustained, however is a bit of a sweet way.

 

Can these mismastered CDs be enjoyable?  Sure they can.  I finally figured out what was going on with CDs in 2012 (22yrs after my disgust and quitting) when listening VERY casually.  Something 'clicked' and I realized what was wrong with the CDs.  It took a year or two to be able to talk about it, because I truly thought that I might be nuts....   However, I was right about my spontaneous guess about the NR encoding not being completely removed.

 

So, for casual, passive listening, the 'CDs' as commonly mastered are okay, certainly better than a '45' with grainy vinyl (or whatever mix of sandpaper that they used in the US.)  However, as containing 'high fidelity' material in their natural state -- NO WAY.  Simple EQ cannot correct the CDs...  Normal linear amplification cannot correct the kind of damage imparted on many pop, classical and jazz CDs.  (yes, even classical, even though the encoding is sometimes a little different than pop.)

 

I had been reflecting why back in approx 1990,  I couldn't enjoy the sound of CDs when listening seriously, and I remembered that I used to do actual analog tape recordings for people -- I mean, good, real stereo recordings, not major mixing.  I know what sound and recordings really sound like, and the CDs weren't 'normal'.  I wanted CDs to sound good, and in a final attempt to purchase a good CD, I got a remake of my 'I ve got the music in me' from Sheffield Labs, and it was mastered even worse than most pop CDs!!!

 

Again, I am NOT claiming that people cannot enjoy the CDs, but it is sort of misguided to spend many $KUS on a system to remove the last 0.01% distortion, when the actual mismastering on many CDs ( which would be most that I would be listening to) is tantamount to well over 1% distortion, perhaps as much as 10% distortion by some measures.  (The kind of 'distortion' caused by mismastering is NOT as ugly as 3rd/5th harmonic distortion, but does evidence inferior quality.)

 

The genius of the human auditory system has allowed people to learn to tolerate the bad sound, but in a way it is kind of sad.   Properly mastered material CAN (not always) sound a lot better than the mess that had been sold to us for approx 35yrs.  Proper mastering doesn't fix all problems, but it certainly improves the liklihood of good sound.  It doesn't happen often enough.

 

John

 

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...