Jump to content
Blackmorec

Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

A 3D soundscape is quite possible only with correct speaker placement. Most of us have done this, you have not.

 

Sorry, Teresa, incorrect. "Correct speaker placement" can make it happen, but it is not essential.

 

 


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

Invisible speakers improves imaging, sound staging, ambiance, etc. So bad recordings will sound better with correct speaker placement and taming room problems. But improving the image and soundstage of bad recordings does not make them magically sound like properly made recordings.

 

What I'm after is the sense of listening to the music as if I was there at the time of the recording - this is achievable, and makes the effort of going to the lengths to get there worthwhile. But currently it requires very expensive gear. or a great deal of finessing to make it happen. Whether they sound like "properly made recordings" I can't say - what counts is whether they are enjoyable to listen to.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Teresa said:

Have you never heard the quote the better the performance the worst the sound quality, the better the sound quality the worst the performance?

Also known as Holt’s law. It is credited to my very good friend, the late, great J. Gordon Holt, the founder of Stereophile Magazine.  And like most things Gordon said about audio, it was spot-on!


George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What I'm after is the sense of listening to the music as if I was there at the time of the recording - this is achievable, and makes the effort of going to the lengths to get there worthwhile. But currently it requires very expensive gear. or a great deal of finessing to make it happen. Whether they sound like "properly made recordings" I can't say - what counts is whether they are enjoyable to listen to.

Occasionally, yes. Most of the time, No. and the way you do it never!


George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You said -"Bregman and all the people continuing research in the areas of brain functioning that he pointed to, are wrong, in your opinion?

Well, obvious straw man - but, wrong about what Frank? That you have magic tweaks or that through rewiring your brain you can hear whatever you want?

 

You haven't answered the question ... do you believe that the concepts of Auditory Scene Analysis are correct, or not correct?

 

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Now you are presuming I have an ulterior motive because my experience accords with everyone else.... except you. Sounds a little like a conspiracy theory.

 

Oh which Nutter?

 

So, the person I pointed to in the link earlier, whose experience tallied with mine, doesn't in fact exist - created by me as part of my Grand Conspiracy?

 

8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

The universe is indeed trying to tell you something but you do not seem to be receptive.🙄

 

 

People have a need to hang onto a belief when it has served them well for a long time - the ferocity of the resistance to new thinking is well understood, and understandable.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You haven't answered the question ... do you believe that the concepts of Auditory Scene Analysis are correct, or not correct?

 

ASA applies to all of us but cannot be invoked to explain making bad recordings sound good. This is at best misconstrued. Yes, I get that you can selectively focus in on the good or improved parts of the recording. We all do that. As I have said numerous times, there is nothing special in your method just the extent of the results that you alone claim.

 

Quote

 

So, the person I pointed to in the link earlier, whose experience tallied with mine, doesn't in fact exist - created by me as part of my Grand Conspiracy?

 

You said improved after tweaking. Sure. I doubt very much that his experience tallied with what you claim - others have suggested you materialize this witness. Not a bad idea.

 

Quote

 

People have a need to hang onto a belief when it has served them well for a long time - the ferocity of the resistance to new thinking is well understood, and understandable.

 

There is no new thinking here (in your method) Frank. You seem to willfully miss the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

And, of course, you’re the only one who knows where to look. You are right and everyone else is wrong! I don’t recall that you have answered my query about your speaker set-up: type of enclosure, tweeter, whether or not you have a subwoofer. Am I to understand from your lack of response that you just have these bare speakers out of a ghetto blaster hanging by their wires with no enclosure, no tweeter, no subwoofers? If so, then I KNOW that you are full of it!

 

 

 

Many experienced tweakers know "where to look" - a huge amount of what I do has been picked up from reading what others have done; I'm happy to use the smartest methods that others have worked out ... your efforts to cast me as a complete villain are rather amusing, 🙃. Where I have an advantage is that I know exactly what I'm after, in terms of hearing a change when I try something.

 

George, there are no secrets: if you are talking about the Sharp speakers, then what's been done is this - the speaker cabinet is as supplied, the cosmetic plastic front has been removed, with great difficulty - the gunk that was used to stick it on did its job well; mid/bass unit taken out, the speaker leads, as supplied, were soldered to the driver tags; same again for the treble unit. I didn't like how the tweeter was mounted to the baffle, a couple of miserable screws; so, I added a good wadding of Blu-Tack to secure it, and stabilise the frame of the tweeter, damp excess vibration. Single capacitor used for crossover, I secured it to an area where there was minimal chance of vibration, using other damping material. The cables were twisted tightly inside the enclosure, and secured so vibration would have least effect. The screws holding the mid/bass units were tightened down as much as I dared, to ensure good transfer of vibration energy. Finally, the cabinet has been locked to a very large, heavy slab of MDF using Blu-Tack in each corner - this effectively gives the cabinet much, much greater mass for vibration to be dissipated in.

 

No subwoofer. What's been done so far is nothing more than what a high quality speaker would have as part of its design - I'm just adding simple workarounds to help the lack of finesse in a low cost item. Can I do more? Most assuredly I could, but at the moment it's good enough to easily reveal where the electronics are not up to standard - so that will be left until I perceive the speaker has become "the weakest link".


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Occasionally, yes. Most of the time, No. and the way you do it never!

 

What the previous rig, the Philips HT, could pull off was get Robert Johnson in the room - these recordings are as dreggy as one can get; but if I revved up the standard enough, the sense of the man being, right there, was quite something ...


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

ASA applies to all of us but cannot be invoked to explain making bad recordings sound good. This is at best misconstrued. Yes, I get that you can selectively focus in on the good or improved parts of the recording. We all do that. As I have said numerous times, there is nothing special in your method just the extent of the results that you alone claim.

 

Why not? ... I have yet to come across a better explanation for what I hear ... and please drop the "you alone" bit - I'm not unique, but others who get there don't make such a fuss ... presumably because they fear the amount of poo that will be hurled at them,  😜.

 

13 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You said improved after tweaking. Sure. I doubt very much that his experience tallied with what you claim - others have suggested you materialize this witness. Not a bad idea.

 

You're confusing N., the local friend, with Pano ...

 

13 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

There is no new thinking here (in your method) Frank. You seem to willfully miss the point.

 

The "new thinking" is that recordings can be 'rescued'; and that highly focused tweaking is what is required to deliver convincing SQ, especially with lower cost gear


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Here's a thought:

 

Work on your equipment rather than wasting time and energy posting on this forum. 

 

This will undoubtedly give you more long-term happiness.

 

It would give more pleasure to see others benefit from an approach like mine - if everyone stops kicking and screaming, settles down, then there might be a better chance of that happening ... 😝.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

... and please drop the "you alone" bit - I'm not unique, but others who get there don't make such a fuss ... presumably because they fear the amount of poo that will be hurled at them,  😜.

 

You conflate two different things. Tweaking to improve SQ is what many/most audiophiles do. You are not alone and your "method" is not unique or special. You are alone it seems in your claims of the results. Name anyone here that agrees with those claims.If outside AS then invite them here

 

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You're confusing N., the local friend, with Pano ...

 

 

No idea what you are talking about Frank

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The "new thinking" is that recordings can be 'rescued'; and that highly focused tweaking is what is required to deliver convincing SQ, especially with lower cost gear

 

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

It would give more pleasure to see others benefit from an approach like mine -

Everybody already knows ! Your "approach" is called tweaking, then (the important bit) convince yourself that magic has occurred aka confirmation bias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Frank, I wager that if AS members came over to listen to your fully tweaked system they would genuinely find your SQ not matching your description. Please note I haven't asserted that people would not find it *improved* by your efforts. That's okay, this is after-all a subjective difference of opinion.

 

My point though is that your endless claims about the magnitude of your SQ improvement may be in your perception alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You conflate two different things. Tweaking to improve SQ is what many/most audiophiles do. You are not alone and your "method" is not unique or special. You are alone it seems in your claims of the results. Name anyone here that agrees with those claims.If outside AS then invite them here

 

I can point to them, and you can invite them to contribute - it's not my thing to marshall an army to back me.

 

Quote

 

No idea what you are talking about Frank

 

I pointed to Pano, above, as someone who "gets" completely invisible speakers - using his own method - and he lives on the other side of the world. N. lives up the road, who tweaks using variations on what I do, and his own thinking; he has never achieved speaker invisibility to that degree, but does excellently in extracting satisfying sound from "dodgy" recordings.

 

Quote

 

Everybody already knows ! Your "approach" is called tweaking, then (the important bit) convince yourself that magic has occurred aka confirmation bias

 

Ah, good ol' "confirmation bias" - what the world be without this magical ingredient, to explain away everything that makes one uncomfortable ... 😉.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Okay Frank, I wager that if AS members came over to listen to your fully tweaked system they would genuinely find your SQ not matching your description. Please note I haven't asserted that people would not find it *improved* by your efforts. That's okay, this is after-all a subjective difference of opinion.

 

Well, most certainly at the moment they wouldn't hear it, 🙂 - Blackmorec describes what it's like, the extensions I add to the scenario is that the room environment doesn't matter, that it occurs over a huge range of recording qualities, and that very conventional gear is capable of being pushed to achieve it.

 

41 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

My point though is that your endless claims about the magnitude of your SQ improvement may be in your perception alone.

 

What I would like is for the whole industry to be motivated to deliver components that are capable of this quality, out of the box - no, tiresome, tweaking required ... now, who will be a good boy and make that happen, 🤣 ?


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, most certainly at the moment they wouldn't hear it, 🙂 - Blackmorec describes what it's like, the extensions I add to the scenario is that the room environment doesn't matter, that it occurs over a huge range of recording qualities, and that very conventional gear is capable of being pushed to achieve it.

 

Why not invite some AS members to have a listen. Not just telling us all but showing us just how good your system is !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Okay Frank, I wager that if AS members came over to listen to your fully tweaked system they would genuinely find your SQ not matching your description. Please note I haven't asserted that people would not find it *improved* by your efforts. That's okay, this is after-all a subjective difference of opinion.

 

My point though is that your endless claims about the magnitude of your SQ improvement may be in your perception alone.

Mildly off-topic anecodote about one of my obscessions -- improving analog VCR video quality, knowing that the manufacturers were 'restraining' the quality to avoid collision with the expensive pro market items..

 

Remember, this is the analog video days:

 

1) Grab one ED Beta deck, and like all EDBeta decks, even though could have a theoretically very high limiting resolution, the signal was fairly noisy by pro standards.  Also, the EDBeta had the typical limited chroma resolution of most consumer video decks.  (There was a special Hi Def capable consumer time-sequential colo video deck that could do 'betacam' quality when run in SD mode, but that is about it.)

2) After lots of obsessive tweaking and redesign of sections of the deck, I could get really good luma SNR but at the cost of only 400lines of good quality resolution (SVHS could get 400lines, but not the quality of the modified ED beta with the SNR improvements.)

I pushed the basic format as far as I could.  Probably spent 1000Hrs on the obsessive hobby, and  happily it could still play back normal tapes.

 

10yrs later, I had 3 D9 decks.   No matter the very best fake EDBeta tape or SVHS tape I could make, the D9 decks produced perfect SD copies, to the point of looking JUST LIKE A SIGNAL GENERATOR, totally indistinguishable from a signal generator source, easily withstanding 10 generations of record playback ,and still being superior to Betacam SP or 1" RTR video.

 

10yrs later, anyone could purchase a 4k camcorder for less than 1/10 of what my D9 camcorder cost.  The consumer 4k unit works in all cases much better than the D9 camcorder (with the best portable camera head available on the system.)

 

Looking back on the tweaking, and recognizing reality -- the ED Beta video quality sucked by todays standards....  Why bother, except for my self-fulfilled personal hobby at the time?  Any professional that I would demo the results to would necessarily be a little condescendingly kind and say something like 'that a boy', and try to hold back their disdain.   If I would have pushed my hobby onto other people, they would have claimed that I was foolish or insane to tout my 'Emperors New Clothes'

 

----------------------------------------

Here is the statement of wisdom -- NO MATTER what tweaking that I did on the ED beta deck, the video still sucked worse than a simple BetaSp professional deck.   The relatively small incremental change in comparison that I made was of no consequence.  Would have been more efficient to simply get a TBC and a BetaSp deck capable of the big cartridge.  (TBC needed to maintain compatibility with consumer video equipment, even laser disks were too unstable for a pro video system.)

 

Same with audio equipment -- if you don't start with the correct equipment, tweaking is pretty much in vain.  Note also, I was quite satsified with myself on the 'improved' video, but it was still laughably bad WRT pro standards.  (There was ZERO practical way to improve the quality of the color without very major additions of technology, for example.)  The 'consumer'  design just wasn't intended for the pro quality that I was trying to achieve.

 

Each of us, from time-to-time, we find our own 'rabbit holes' of wasted effort.  The key is to try to find hobby efforts that are actually worth doing.

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 8:39 PM, PeterSt said:

So for 6 months or so I had been watering my DAC. Who says I'm crazy ?

 

Did watering cause the soundstage to "grow"? :)


"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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Did watering cause the soundstage to "grow"? :)

 

No but the sound is now more wet and fluid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Why not? ... I have yet to come across a better explanation for what I hear ... and please drop the "you alone" bit - I'm not unique, but others who get there don't make such a fuss ... presumably because they fear the amount of poo that will be hurled at them,  😜.

 

 

You're confusing N., the local friend, with Pano ...

 

 

The "new thinking" is that recordings can be 'rescued'; and that highly focused tweaking is what is required to deliver convincing SQ, especially with lower cost gear

Well, I do think you are alone in making a pair of boom-box, ghetto blaster speakers - still mounted in their plastic boom-box enclosure to sound better than a pair of $200,000 (US) Wilson Alexandria XLFs!😉


George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Well, I do think you are alone in making a pair of boom-box, ghetto blaster speakers - still mounted in their plastic boom-box enclosure to sound better than a pair of $200,000 (US) Wilson Alexandria XLFs!😉

 

Chop a couple zeros off the end and we are getting closer. Maybe 3 of em..

 

MAK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...