Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[Jeff_N]

4 hours ago, Teresa said:

Is "N" short for Nobody?

 

I've been wondering how long it would take someone to figure out, there is no N.

[Confused]

6 hours ago, Jeff_N said:

 

I've been wondering how long it would take someone to figure out, there is no N.

There is a Jeff N, this much we know..... 🤔

[fas42]

13 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

 

Is "N" short for Nobody?

 

Trying to make it a bit more personal, rather than just saying "the audio friend up the road" each time - he has zero interest in forum type stuff, so I'm keeping him at reasonable arm's length, from this carry on, 😉.

 

Quote

 

You totally misunderstand George's post, if you want a pipe organ to sound like a live pipe organ you need the lowest frequencies. The largest pipe is 16Hz.

 

No. The number of times that a 16Hz note occurs in organ recordings is about 0.0001% - I don't think its absence is going to be missed, 😁.

 

Where systems fall down is that organ sound is harmonically extremely rich - and that is what is usually poorly reproduced.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, Jeff_N said:

 

I've been wondering how long it would take someone to figure out, there is no N.

 

He'll find it highly amusing that he has been moved to non-existence - to satisfy some people's need to disbelieve ... 🙂.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

They wrote a song about him

A great album by the way

[gmgraves]

21 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Meaning, a pipe organ recording shouldn't sound like a live pipe organ ... got it! 🙂

Where do you get the idea that I said anything even remotely connected to your above statement? Of course it should sound like a live pipe organ, but ghetto blaster, boom-box speakers are certainly not going to sound as good as an old Hammond “organ” much less a real pipe organ!

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

He'll find it highly amusing that he has been moved to non-existence - to satisfy some people's need to disbelieve ... 🙂.

It’s not a question of disbelief, it’s a question of what’s possible and what isn’t possible. Your assertions fall into the latter category, Frank. And nothing you say will convince people otherwise. NOTHING!

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Trying to make it a bit more personal, rather than just saying "the audio friend up the road" each time - he has zero interest in forum type stuff, so I'm keeping him at reasonable arm's length, from this carry on, 😉.

 

 

No. The number of times that a 16Hz note occurs in organ recordings is about 0.0001% - I don't think its absence is going to be missed, 😁.

 

Where systems fall down is that organ sound is harmonically extremely rich - and that is what is usually poorly reproduced.

You are right that a 64 foot pipe (16 Hz) is rare, but a 32 ft pipe (32Hz) is common, and your setup can’t do that either without a subwoofer! The fundamental of a string bass viol is 42 Hz. Your Sharp speakers can’t even do that!

[DuckToller]

42 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

You are right

@gmgraves

You've got a PM waiting in your inbox.

Best, Tom

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

Where systems fall down is that organ sound is harmonically extremely rich - and that is what is usually poorly reproduced.

Only in your mind, Frank. In most high-end systems, organ sound is usually well reproduced. My subs are flat to roughly 25 Hz. Not 16 Hz but certainly 32 Hz is well within my system’s capability.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Where do you get the idea that I said anything even remotely connected to your above statement? Of course it should sound like a live pipe organ, but ghetto blaster, boom-box speakers are certainly not going to sound as good as an old Hammond “organ” much less a real pipe organ!

 

Incidentally, we do have a junior Hammond organ here; yes, with the motor spinning the wheels - but no, not the good one, unfortunately ... one day, perhaps find a good home for someone who would appreciate it - it had a problem with massive hum at one point; the caps are ancient, so a bit of sorting out there ...

 

It's not the bass, it's getting the sense of grandness with pipe organ recordings; where the rumble just goes on and on - normal bookshelfs will do this, but again a category of recordings which absolutely need well optimised electronics.

 

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

It’s not a question of disbelief, it’s a question of what’s possible and what isn’t possible. Your assertions fall into the latter category, Frank. And nothing you say will convince people otherwise. NOTHING!

 

It's more and more clear that you have never had an audio rig deliver the transient intensity that live instruments produce - if you have never come across it, then it's easy to believe that it's not possible ... 🙃.

 

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

You are right that a 64 foot pipe (16 Hz) is rare, but a 32 ft pipe (32Hz) is common, and your setup can’t do that either without a subwoofer! The fundamental of a string bass viol is 42 Hz. Your Sharp speakers can’t even do that!

 

The fundamental is not so important - if the harmonics are in place, correctly, then the mind reconstructs the note ... don't you know this - or do I have to point to material which explains this, 🙂?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

if the harmonics are in place, correctly, then the mind reconstructs the note ... don't you know this - or do I have to point to material which explains this, 🙂?

 

yeh but Frank there is a difference between "the missing fundamental" and fundamentally missing ! 🙄

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

yeh but Frank there is a difference between "the missing fundamental" and fundamentally missing ! 🙄

 

And the listening mind knows the difference? Or am I missing your point?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

32 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

And the listening mind knows the difference? Or am I missing your point?

https://auditoryneuroscience.com/pitch/missing-fundamentals

 

...but to be honest I wasn't just referring to fundamentals being the only missing thing😃

[fas42]

Okay, with pipe organ, this is what I'm looking for,

 

 

[fas42]

Ry Cooder mentioned above - and this is an album that I need to get to work, and first attempt at N.'s, some months ago, was a bit, hmmm ... . Next visit, he called on this to try again, he wanted to see whether he had gained in the meantime ... not brilliant, but 2nd try very much in better shape,

 

 

[John Dyson]

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

https://auditoryneuroscience.com/pitch/missing-fundamentals

 

...but to be honest I wasn't just referring to fundamentals being the only missing thing😃

Hmm...   A small speaker has real trouble producing enough bass sound...  Most actual audio people and physicists realize that there are troubles with producing bass by small transducers.  I am not an expert in the field, but others who are experts could explain the details more completely than I can -- basically the front and back of transducers tend to cancel each other, esp at low frequencies because of the near perfect 180deg phase match between front and rear.  There are two well known techniques -- fold the rear energy to the front like a 'bass reflex' design, or to totally isolate the front and rear therefore isolating designs like air suspension.

 

The most perfectly flat, smooth transducer that even doesn't flex at all, that isn't big enough WRT the needed physics and particle movement can basically move without transmitting much low frequency info -- because there will be some amount of front-rear cancellation.   Such a device cannot even produce much 'wind' in relation to the diaphragm movement because of the cancellation.   Associated reason is the small size WRT wavelength -- not even enough size to move a whole wavelength of the signal -- therefore there is a natural attenuation of the wave coupling to the air..

 

Small speakers, even if they do isolate, have troubles producing enough energy simply because of the size WRT wavelength, the movement simply doesn't move enough air wrt wavelength.  The same kind of situation happens when travelling under a bridge when listening to an MW radio signal -- the wave is too big for the aperture, and there is attenuation of the signal.  A small bass transducer has similar obstacles in the design.

 

Of course, if one sits very close to the transducer, then the cancellation is partially blocked and becomes less effective, but that would be very close, like in a pair of headphones.  Then, bass can be transmitted more easily.

 

There are individuals reading this forum who do have the adequately configured hardware that can produce very low audio frequencies -- but a desktop device is unlikely to be able to do so (unless entirely in the near field -- then it is not likely to be flat or be distortion free.)

 

 

John

 

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Incidentally, we do have a junior Hammond organ here; yes, with the motor spinning the wheels - but no, not the good one, unfortunately ... one day, perhaps find a good home for someone who would appreciate it - it had a problem with massive hum at one point; the caps are ancient, so a bit of sorting out there .

As far as I’m concerned, there is no such thing as a good Hammond. Notice, I don’t call it an “organ”, just a “Hammond”! I hate those wheezing, fluttering things. 

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's not the bass, it's getting the sense of grandness with pipe organ recordings; where the rumble just goes on and on - normal bookshelfs will do this, but again a category of recordings which absolutely need well optimised electronics.
 

you’re grasping at straws, Frank. It Most assuredly IS the bass!

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

It's more and more clear that you have never had an audio rig deliver the transient intensity that live instruments produce - if you have never come across it, then it's easy to believe that it's not possible ... 🙃.

Frank I have ESL speakers. I record live music. I certainly know what real, live  music sounds like. My system makes my recordings sound very much like the live event sounded when I captured it. You can’t ask for much more than that. I have an audio “rig” that delivers the transient intensity that live instruments produce, and I do believe it’s possible. Just not with the junk-yard crap that you are using!

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

The fundamental is not so important - if the harmonics are in place, correctly, then the mind reconstructs the note ... don't you know this - or do I have to point to material which explains this, 🙂?

What does any of this have to do with what we are talking about? You have convinced yourself that you have made a purse from a sow’s ear by soldering together a collection of low-end components connected to some junk speakers out of a ghetto blaster. Nobody believes that you have accomplished what you say that you have accomplished WRT to this lash-up of junk. Your attempts to change the subject, notwithstanding.

 

 

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

As far as I’m concerned, there is no such thing as a good Hammond. Notice, I don’t call it an “organ”, just a “Hammond”! I hate those wheezing, fluttering things. 

 

I knew someone who absolutely despised the Vox humana stop of the Hammonds, well before I got revved up about audio. But I don't mind them - used the right way, as a sound element that fits in with the music, no prob's. The last exposure to a live B3, the "good one", was not good 😉 - was not being maintained I would think, and had an ugly, unpleasant quality to the tone ... bit like an unsorted high end rig, in fact 🤣.

 

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

you’re grasping at straws, Frank. It Most assuredly IS the bass!

 

The sense of the bass is what counts, not the physical levels of some frequency or other - most setups I come across don't convey the feel of the bass line well at all - there might be a lot of throbbing in the room, but the lack of "guts" in the sound is very obvious.

 

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Frank I have ESL speakers. I record live music. I certainly know what real, live  music sounds like. My system makes my recordings sound very much like the live event sounded when I captured it. You can’t ask for much more than that. I have an audio “rig” that delivers the transient intensity that live instruments produce, and I do believe it’s possible. Just not with the junk-yard crap that you are using!

 

Still can't connect the dots that I started with very good gear, and evolved my thinking to work with lower cost stuff, eh ... ?

 

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

What does any of this have to do with what we are talking about? You have convinced yourself that you have made a purse from a sow’s ear by soldering together a collection of low-end components connected to some junk speakers out of a ghetto blaster. Nobody believes that you have accomplished what you say that you have accomplished WRT to this lash-up of junk. Your attempts to change the subject, notwithstanding.

 

Ah, we're back to the NAD brand being of no value, and the fact that the name of a mass consumer goods manufacturer is attached to the speakers, which actually have a quality of key parts on par with low end B&W speakers, completely changes everything.

 

Well, audio people do live in a land where if identical goods emerge from a factory, and half have a Porsche badge glued on, and the other half cop a Ford logo - then there is obviously a great divide in the true value of what you're getting ... 🙂

[fas42]

7 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

There are individuals reading this forum who do have the adequately configured hardware that can produce very low audio frequencies -- but a desktop device is unlikely to be able to do so (unless entirely in the near field -- then it is not likely to be flat or be distortion free.)

 

 

John

 

 

Around 100Hz seems to be the boundary, I've found - if the system can't produce frequencies of reasonable quality down as far as this, then too much is lost. Current laptop gives up at 200Hz, so the presentation is quite different from what it should be.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I knew someone who absolutely despised the Vox humana stop of the Hammonds, well before I got revved up about audio. But I don't mind them - used the right way, as a sound element that fits in with the music, no prob's. The last exposure to a live B3, the "good one", was not good 😉 - was not being maintained I would think, and had an ugly, unpleasant quality to the tone ... bit like an unsorted high end rig, in fact 🤣.

sSince your version of “unsorted high end” seems to be a system that sounds like music, I don’t really know how to respond to that, my friend!???

Quote

The sense of the bass is what counts, not the physical levels of some frequency or other - most setups I come across don't convey the feel of the bass line well at all - there might be a lot of throbbing in the room, but the lack of "guts" in the sound is very obvious.

If you are saying that there might be many incompetent systems out there, I agree. Just as there are many incompetent recordings. I know a guy who has set up his system to sound very exciting when playing rock from the ‘Seventies, but it sounds truly awful, edgy, on top with a muddy, thumping bottom end when playing “real music”. But that’s OK because all he listens to is hard rock from the ‘Seventies. I think that’s wrong, but given that it’s a single-purpose system, it suits the owner. The difference between him and you is that he knows that his system is unnatural sounding, and that it pleases him and him alone.

Quote

Still can't connect the dots that I started with very good gear, and evolved my thinking to work with lower cost stuff, eh ... ?
 

Frank, there are no dots to connect. You have built a collection of parts that please you. That’s fine, and I hope you enjoy it. But what you seem to not understand is that a system like the one you describe probably wouldn’t please anyone else. The junk speakers which have no deep bass, an exaggerated mid bass, and are likely mediocre everywhere else (they were, after all, designed for a specific use. And the type of people who would own and use such a device as a ghetto blaster, are probably not all that interested in sound quality beyond the requirements of thumping at 80 Hz and playing real loud - with or without distortion). Those speakers likely couldn’t be made to sound right even with an multi-band equalizer!

Quote

Ah, we're back to the NAD brand being of no value, and the fact that the name of a mass consumer goods manufacturer is attached to the speakers, which actually have a quality of key parts on par with low end B&W speakers, completely changes everything.

Not back to it. We never left it. And I’m certainly not dismissing the NAD name. They make and have made some very nice stuff. They also make some inexpensive stuff that is built down to a price as opposed to up to a standard. That’s always been the difference between mid-Fi equipment and high-end equipment. Recent mid-Fi stuff can sound OK, a lot of high-end practice has filtered down to the lower levels, but if one tries to equate a NAD low price amp such as the one you brag about continuously, with a Krell, or a Pass, or a Boulder, or a D’Agostino, it’s simply ludicrous, yet you do it every day.

And your continuing effort to link the quality of your boom-box speakers with B&W speakers might be relevant, if the drivers were the sole component in a speaker system, but they aren’t. They are but one aspect of a design that includes the cabinet, the crossover, how the speakers are mounted and how well each driver is matched to the other drivers in the design. For example Wilson uses drivers sourced from the same suppliers as do many other speaker manufacturers; often even the same models that other companies use, but the end results don’t sound anything alike. If the drivers were everything, then all speakers using that model driver WOULD sound alike.

Quote

Well, audio people do live in a land where if identical goods emerge from a factory, and half have a Porsche badge glued on, and the other half cop a Ford logo - then there is obviously a great divide in the true value of what you're getting ... 🙂

Frank, I can only guess at what you’re trying to say here, and if it is that a Ford and a Porsche are comparable on any but the most basic level (I.E. that they are both motor cars), then you are every kind of wrong.

[fas42]

49 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

sSince your version of “unsorted high end” seems to be a system that sounds like music, I don’t really know how to respond to that, my friend!???

 

If I recorded that unpleasant sounding example of a Hammond B3 organ, I would expect to hear the same unpleasantness in the playback - see how it works ... ? 🙂

 

49 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

If you are saying that there might be many incompetent systems out there, I agree. Just as there are many incompetent recordings. I know a guy who has set up his system to sound very exciting when playing rock from the ‘Seventies, but it sounds truly awful, edgy, on top with a muddy, thumping bottom end when playing “real music”. But that’s OK because all he listens to is hard rock from the ‘Seventies. I think that’s wrong, but given that it’s a single-purpose system, it suits the owner. The difference between him and you is that he knows that his system is unnatural sounding, and that it pleases him and him alone.

 

You know when a system is right, when you can put on anything - especially something you have never come across before - and it 'works'. Even though the concept of the music may be highly objectionable to you, you still have no trouble relating to the fact that it's a group of real people, say, who are creating what you hear ... OK?

 

49 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, there are no dots to connect. You have built a collection of parts that please you. That’s fine, and I hope you enjoy it. But what you seem to not understand is that a system like the one you describe probably wouldn’t please anyone else. The junk speakers which have no deep bass, an exaggerated mid bass, and are likely mediocre everywhere else (they were, after all, designed for a specific use. And the type of people who would own and use such a device as a ghetto blaster, are probably not all that interested in sound quality beyond the requirements of thumping at 80 Hz and playing real loud - with or without distortion). Those speakers likely couldn’t be made to sound right even with an multi-band equalizer!

 

Oh dear ... back to the bashing ... you know, there is a sample of what it sounded like, made some time ago, on my YouTube channel ...

 

49 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Not back to it. We never left it. And I’m certainly not dismissing the NAD name. They make and have made some very nice stuff. They also make some inexpensive stuff that is built down to a price as opposed to up to a standard. That’s always been the difference between mid-Fi equipment and high-end equipment. Recent mid-Fi stuff can sound OK, a lot of high-end practice has filtered down to the lower levels, but if one tries to equate a NAD low price amp such as the one you brag about continuously, with a Krell, or a Pass, or a Boulder, or a D’Agostino, it’s simply ludicrous, yet you do it every day.

 

The fancy name unit if placed in a rig that has audible flaws - will sound flawed ... you can't seem to separate the degree that the playback chain has been sorted, from the value of the parts within it - I do, which means I reject poor sound produced by ambitious rigs, when it happens. I have no interest in "listening past the faults" of a badly firing system; they shouldn't be there in the first place - and considering the price of the items, that should be sorted by the dealer when installed - not left to the consumer to attempt to tweak away.

 

49 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

And your continuing effort to link the quality of your boom-box speakers with B&W speakers might be relevant, if the drivers were the sole component in a speaker system, but they aren’t. They are but one aspect of a design that includes the cabinet, the crossover, how the speakers are mounted and how well each driver is matched to the other drivers in the design. For example Wilson uses drivers sourced from the same suppliers as do many other speaker manufacturers; often even the same models that other companies use, but the end results don’t sound anything alike. If the drivers were everything, then all speakers using that model driver WOULD sound alike.

 

What the speakers should sound like, is the recording. That happens to be playing. That's what I work towards - and I have no interest in some speaker orientated rig completely translating what I hear into something almost unrecognisable, on occasion. Again, what should come through is the signature of the recording, not that of the particular speakers used - if the latter happens, then the reproduction is wrong, by definition.

 

49 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, I can only guess at what you’re trying to say here, and if it is that a Ford and a Porsche are comparable on any but the most basic level (I.E. that they are both motor cars), then you are every kind of wrong.

 

Merely that a lot of the stuff in audio is essentially identical, under the veneer of applied bling - you believe in the magic of a famous name ... I don't.

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

If I recorded that unpleasant sounding example of a Hammond B3 organ, I would expect to hear the same unpleasantness in the playback - see how it works ... ? 🙂

I do, but I don’t think that you do.

 

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

You know when a system is right, when you can put on anything - especially something you have never come across before - and it 'works'. Even though the concept of the music may be highly objectionable to you, you still have no trouble relating to the fact that it's a group of real people, say, who are creating what you hear ... OK?

I don’t really understand what that has to do with anything.

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

Oh dear ... back to the bashing ... you know, there is a sample of what it sounded like, made some time ago, on my YouTube channel ..
 

The fancy name unit if placed in a rig that has audible flaws - will sound flawed ... you can't seem to separate the degree that the playback chain has been sorted, from the value of the parts within it - I do, which means I reject poor sound produced by ambitious rigs, when it happens. I have no interest in "listening past the faults" of a badly firing system; they shouldn't be there in the first place - and considering the price of the items, that should be sorted by the dealer when installed - not left to the consumer to attempt to tweak away.

Nobody has any interest in "listening past the faults". In a good system, there shouldn’t be any faults; at least any faults that anyone can do anything about - there are limits to technology, you know.. Most high-end systems do many things right, the fewer compromises in the components, the more things the system will get right. Cheap components get far fewer things right. Good equipment is, unfortunately, not cheap and cheap equipment is, generally speaking, not good. There are exceptions. One of the best systems I’ve ever heard consisted of a pair of very old Dynaco MkIII tube monobloc power amps (60W ea) modified per William Zane Johnson’s Audio Research conversion. These amps were powering a pair of AR3as that had been rebuilt using a kit from a US company called “Parts Express”. The drivers were much better than the originals (as were the crossovers) and the soft dome tweeter had been replaced with an air motion transformer. This system cost very little and the Dynaco PAS3 tube preamp drove the amps with a used Thorens TD124 table and an SME arm with a Shure V15 cartridge. Most everything was bought used and cheaply. Now that’s how to get high-end Audio on the cheap and it sounded superb (you wouldn’t like it though, it sounded like real music, not your odd idea about cheap speakers out of a boom box and a cheap NAD amplifier sounding better than well regarded REAL high-end components).

 

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

What the speakers should sound like, is the recording. That happens to be playing. That's what I work towards - and I have no interest in some speaker orientated rig completely translating what I hear into something almost unrecognisable, on occasion. Again, what should come through is the signature of the recording, not that of the particular speakers used - if the latter happens, then the reproduction is wrong, by definition

No, a system should sound like the original performance. Mine does, and I should know, I was there recording a lot of those original performances! Does yours?

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

Merely that a lot of the stuff in audio is essentially identical, under the veneer of applied bling - you believe in the magic of a famous name ... I don't.

I believe in the research and craftsmanship put forward by the genius designers in the business such as John Curl, Nelson Pass, Charlie Hansen, Gayle Sanders, David Hafler, Saul Marantz, etc. If their work made their names famous, it’s because they earned it and deserved the praise for advancing the art and science of audio; not because of a “veneer of bling”.

[fas42]

14 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

Nobody has any interest in "listening past the faults". In a good system, there shouldn’t be any faults; at least any faults that anyone can do anything about - there are limits to technology, you know..

 

 

Of course there are faults - you can take a particular recording around an audio show, and play it on a variety of expensive systems there; it will sound radically different on each one, normally; Therefore, the vast majority are getting the recording wrong - getting it wrong is a fault, in my book.

 

Quote

Most high-end systems do many things right, the fewer compromises in the components, the more things the system will get right. Cheap components get far fewer things right. Good equipment is, unfortunately, not cheap and cheap equipment is, generally speaking, not good. There are exceptions. One of the best systems I’ve ever heard consisted of a pair of very old Dynaco MkIII tube monobloc power amps (60W ea) modified per William Zane Johnson’s Audio Research conversion. These amps were powering a pair of AR3as that had been rebuilt using a kit from a US company called “Parts Express”. The drivers were much better than the originals (as were the crossovers) and the soft dome tweeter had been replaced with an air motion transformer. This system cost very little and the Dynaco PAS3 tube preamp drove the amps with a used Thorens TD124 table and an SME arm with a Shure V15 cartridge. Most everything was bought used and cheaply. Now that’s how to get high-end Audio on the cheap and it sounded superb (you wouldn’t like it though, it sounded like real music, not your odd idea about cheap speakers out of a boom box and a cheap NAD amplifier sounding better than well regarded REAL high-end components).

 

Yes, this was a rig that had been worked on - exactly like what I do. But unfortunately you have a major hangup in your beliefs - there's a line on the sand, and everything on one side is rubbish, and everything on the other is really quite superb ... if you measured some rigs on one side and some on the other; and mixed up the group of results, all unidentified, and handed them to you, you wouldn't have much of a clue which was which ... what's that story of mixing in cheap wines with famous labels, and handing them to 'experts', again, 😉?

 

Quote

 

No, a system should sound like the original performance. Mine does, and I should know, I was there recording a lot of those original performances! Does yours?

 

The voices and acoustic instruments within the recording should sound like themselves - that's what I get, and that marks the playback as being a good replica of what the microphones picked up.

 

Quote

I believe in the research and craftsmanship put forward by the genius designers in the business such as John Curl, Nelson Pass, Charlie Hansen, Gayle Sanders, David Hafler, Saul Marantz, etc. If their work made their names famous, it’s because they earned it and deserved the praise for advancing the art and science of audio; not because of a “veneer of bling”.

 

I believe in good audio being the result of the system being full debugged - a Porsche with a dud engine is always a dud car, irrespective of how brilliant every other part of the vehicle is - that's how I go about it, and that's why I get the results I do.

[gmgraves]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course there are faults - you can take a particular recording around an audio show, and play it on a variety of expensive systems there; it will sound radically different on each one, normally; Therefore, the vast majority are getting the recording wrong - getting it wrong is a fault, in my book.

that’s speakers. All speakers sound very different. Audio playback cannot mimic real music playing in a real space. But speaker makers can focus on aspects of real  music (those who are trying, anyway) that are important to them, and try to get those right. Unfortunately, when they all. Focus of different aspects of a live performance, to the extent to which they are successful at getting those areas right, and the price point that they are aiming at, determines the actual sound of those speakers. At the very best, above a certain price point, the differences will be  a matter of the manufacturer’s “corporate taste”. No one ever said that Audio is perfect. You want really accurate speakers? Down to about 50 Hz, you can’t beat Martin-Logan’s CLX electrostatic. They are so real sounding with such low coloration that every time I’ve heard them play my recordings, they almost bring tears. To my eyes. If they weren’t so physically large, I’d have a pair.

The differences in amplifiers is much more subtle once you get above a certain price point. Most of that is the result of the interface between speakers and the amplifier. Different output stage design strategies interact differently with different speakers. I hate reviewing good amps because it’s so hard to describe he sound of a well designed and built amp. It’s much harder than reviewing, say, DACs, where the differences are much less subtle. The thing about DACs is the higher the price, the definitely more refined the conversion becomes.

 

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yes, this was a rig that had been worked on - exactly like what I do. But unfortunately you have a major hangup in your beliefs - there's a line on the sand, and everything on one side is rubbish, and everything on the other is really quite superb ... if you measured some rigs on one side and some on the other; and mixed up the group of results, all unidentified, and handed them to you, you wouldn't have much of a clue which was which ... what's that story of mixing in cheap wines with famous labels, and handing them to 'experts', again, 😉?

No, it hadn’t been worked on “like you do”. The owner had not hard wired the components together like you do. The amp and speakers needed repair. Being more than 50 years old, they were tired. The speaker cones had become brittle and the suspensions had lost their compliance. Except for the tweeter, the components were replaced with new ones designed specifically to replace and upgrade the performance of the AR3a. The amps were from the early ‘60’s. They needed new caps anyway, but the Hafler Accrosound output transformer were, and remain excellent. The circuit boards needed replacing, and the modifier made his own from the Audio Research mod article that appeared in “The Audio Amateur” back in the early ‘Seventies. All the old carbon resistors in the audio path were replaced with metal film types, and all the caps were replaced with polypropylene caps and the power supply caps were modern electrolytics bypassed with polypropylenes. 
However, other than replacing the RCAs with gold plated WBT types, all interconnects were normal ones and the speaker cables were good quality 12 Gauge OFC copper, connected via gold plated banana plugs. Not what you do.

When last the owner and I spoke, he was starting to rebuild and update the old Harman Kardon Citation One preamp that I gave him years ago.He was going to replace his Dynaco preamp with it when finished.

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The voices and acoustic instruments within the recording should sound like themselves - that's what I get, and that marks the playback as being a good replica of what the microphones picked up.

See, that’s where you and I run into problems. There is simply no way for that lash up of yours to do that!  I’d be willing to wager that if any of us here actually heard your “system”, we’d all have to suppress laughter. If you told us exactly what you did in the minutest detail so that some of us could copy it precisely, again we’d laugh. I’ve been looking for an analogy, and I think I’ve come up with a fairly accurate one: what would you say if you read on some car forum that some guy had taken one of those tiny, two-stroke Subaru 360s that the company started with, and claimed that he had made that tiny thing go from 0-100 Kph in under 5 seconds and gotten a top speed of 300 Kph out of the original drive train? And, he had done so only by replacing the fuel hose and all the vacuum hoses with bigger ones, and replaced the spark plugs with hotter ones and the HT leads with solid wire, and added electronic ignition. Would you believe him? Of course not. Why? Because there is nothing about that tiny little car, with it’s 360 cc two-stroke engine that would give it even the potential to do any of that, irrespective of what the owner upgraded, tweaked, or modified. Do you now understand why your claims have ZERO credibility?

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I believe in good audio being the result of the system being full debugged - a Porsche with a dud engine is always a dud car, irrespective of how brilliant every other part of the vehicle is - that's how I go about it, and that's why I get the results I do.

1) When you start with good, state-of-the-art equipment there is little or nothing to debug (except maybe room acoustics).

2) You just shot yourself in the foot with your car analogy. If you have a Porsche with a dud engine, you get the engine either rebuilt or replaced. You don’t try to improve the car by fitting a new fuel line, bigger carburetors, higher quality HT leads, etc. to a broken engine!

3) And yes, that IS how you go about it and that’s why the results you claim are not possible.