Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The reaction of David, @Audiophile Neuroscience, here,

is what I've seen repeated over and over again, in person, and in forums ... there is an absolute determination to believe that an assembled, "high end", rig is the arbiter of the quality of what's possible - and the relatively poor performance of just about every ambitious setup I come across is "proof" of what that then results in: very poor value for money in terms of what is extracted, musically, from the vast archive of recordings that exists, out there.

 

Will this ever change? Hmmm ... but, eventually, almost certainly - a new generation of music replay enthusiasts will form, who don't hang onto old ideas - they will be willing to try new approaches, and reap the benefits ... time, the great miracle worker, will perform its magic ... again, 😉.

Some times there’s good reason old ideas hang around. They’re just better. In addition, newer things are often for convenience, smaller size, or just flashier.

 

Not saying that’s the case here, but I know it to be true in other cases.  
 

 

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some times there’s good reason old ideas hang around. They’re just better. In addition, newer things are often for convenience, smaller size, or just flashier.

 

Not saying that’s the case here, but I know it to be true in other cases.  
 

 

 

Yes, the 'good' old ideas will sustain - an apt example is highly efficient, well engineered horn speakers, born at the very beginning of serious audio; examples 50 years old can easily "outplay" most of the current stuff - in the right hands, 🙂.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, the 'good' old ideas will sustain - an apt example is highly efficient, well engineered horn speakers, born at the very beginning of serious audio; examples 50 years old can easily "outplay" most of the current stuff - in the right hands, 🙂.

I love me some horn speakers. I came close to getting Avantgardes. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

54 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Some times there’s good reason old ideas hang around. They’re just better. In addition, newer things are often for convenience, smaller size, or just flashier.

 

Not saying that’s the case here, but I know it to be true in other cases.  
 

 

 

I don't see Frank's method as a new approach, it is a very old one. Tweaking.

 

What distinguishes Frank is a conviction that tweaking will make just about any budget system make poor recordings sound convincingly real. I'm betting that it is neither a new or old idea, just unique to Frank. The corollary appears to be that high-end expensive systems are then somehow inferior. I guess one is free to buy the high-end system and tweak the living daylights out of it but it is not necessary. It may even be detrimental

 

I think the old idea of buying good quality gear, setup well with minimal judicious tweaks, but paying attention to associated factors like room and power issues, and playing quality recordings, serves most people well. Great sound in the service of great music - works for me 🙂

[gmgraves]

48 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I don't see Frank's method as a new approach, it is a very old one. Tweaking.

 

What distinguishes Frank is a conviction that tweaking will make just about any budget system make poor recordings sound convincingly real. I'm betting that it is neither a new or old idea, just unique to Frank. The corollary appears to be that high-end expensive systems are then somehow inferior. I guess one is free to buy the high-end system and tweak the living daylights out of it but it is not necessary. It may even be detrimental

 

I think the old idea of buying good quality gear, setup well with minimal judicious tweaks, but paying attention to associated factors like room and power issues, and playing quality recordings, serves most people well. Great sound in the service of great music - works for me 🙂

I’m sure that it most assuredly WOULD be detrimental. Good equipment is usually expensive (up to a point) because it requires quality parts to get the listener closer to the music. Low noise resistors, low DA distortion capacitors and really stiff power supplies that can handle just anything that is thrown at it, are expensive. That’s mainly the difference between budget equipment and expensive high-end stuff.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I’m sure that it most assuredly WOULD be detrimental. Good equipment is usually expensive (up to a point) because it requires quality parts to get the listener closer to the music. Low noise resistors, low DA distortion capacitors and really stiff power supplies that can handle just anything that is thrown at it, are expensive. That’s mainly the difference between budget equipment and expensive high-end stuff.

Well, most assuredly WOULD be detrimental are strong words. I remain open to possibility. That said i don't tweak my gear. I remain happy to make this or that external tweak now and again.

Tweaking can be a rabbit hole. Someone recently made the observation that often when all tweaks are removed, they usually prefer the original sound. Tweaking may lead to different not necessarily better sound. I don't like most DSP for just that reason and I wager that puts me in the minority here.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I don't see Frank's method as a new approach, it is a very old one. Tweaking.

 

Agree.

 

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

What distinguishes Frank is a conviction that tweaking will make just about any budget system make poor recordings sound convincingly real. I'm betting that it is neither a new or old idea, just unique to Frank. The corollary appears to be that high-end expensive systems are then somehow inferior. I guess one is free to buy the high-end system and tweak the living daylights out of it but it is not necessary. It may even be detrimental

 

Not unique to me ... N. up the road has acquired my 'virus', 😉 and enjoys demonstrating that the budget stuff can pull a rabbit out of a hat. No, high end expensive systems are not inferior, but the fear of damaging its resale value will prevent many from venturing inside - so, you're stuck with any limitations it may have ...

 

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I think the old idea of buying good quality gear, setup well with minimal judicious tweaks, but paying attention to associated factors like room and power issues, and playing quality recordings, serves most people well. Great sound in the service of great music - works for me 🙂

 

What I've done up to now is acquire reasonable, old stuff ... and tweak it ...hard!! (That's an Aussie reference, 😁) Latest exercise of brand new, budget, integrated replay gear is interesting ... minimal judicious tweaks, and power issues have yielded a lot, quite a bit more than I expected. Aim is to first  push everything as hard as I can without diving inside, see what I get - since the cost is minimal I will have no issues ripping into the internals, depending upon what the first round yields.

[fas42]

 

Which is exactly the process that has to be gone through ... if part of a typical audio setup has a weak point, then futzing around with other areas is never going to solve that inherent problem. RCA connections are another classic of the type ...the thinking is, what's likely to be causing the most damage - confirm the suspicion - and then do something, solid, about it! 🙂

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is exactly the process that has to be gone through ... if part of a typical audio setup has a weak point, then futzing around with other areas is never going to solve that inherent problem. RCA connections are another classic of the type ...the thinking is, what's likely to be causing the most damage - confirm the suspicion - and then do something, solid, about it! 🙂

But Frank. That’s neither a tweak nor anything that I have done. Like any company worth it’s salt, Schiit Audio continuously improves it’s products.It has nothing whatsoever to do with your method!

[fas42]

8 hours ago, gmgraves said:

But Frank. That’s neither a tweak nor anything that I have done. Like any company worth it’s salt, Schiit Audio continuously improves it’s products.It has nothing whatsoever to do with your method!

 

It's more than that ... they established that the conventional method of running USB is flawed, or rather, that it makes getting 'flawless' audio hard; one of the founders of Schiit is quite vitriolic about its shortcomings - like good engineers should, they worked out "a better way" - and their customers reap the benefits. 

 

Constantly improving, tweaking, re-engineering - they are all different terms for the same concept ... looking at what you've got, deciding it should be better, and then working out a smart solution, or workaround ... key to it all is deciding that something "ain't good enough!", and then doing something about it, intelligently ...

[fas42]

 

Ah, the "wow moment" ... the one I had 3 decades ago, with the 'primitive' digital technology of the day, 🤣 ...amazing that after 30 years it's still so hard for people to trigger with that reaction ... what have those engineers been doing, in the meantime 🤪.

 

The answer is always the same ... one has to be fussy, very fussy with a digital rig - the slightest irregularity will bring the SQ tumbling down; the mirage of "wowness!" will vanish, instantly ... 😉.

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

they established that the conventional method of running USB is flawed

They established it to themselves and many people who’ve listened to Unison USB. Not, established it as fact for the industry. 

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

They established it to themselves and many people who’ve listened to Unison USB. Not, established it as fact for the industry. 

 

Is anything established as fact for the audio industry? 😉 I see a sea of people all pulling in different directions, about the only agreement is that things like RCA connectors should be incorporated, etc. USB for audio evolved from a very poor original interface protocol, to a better one, because the results were better for those who went in the new direction, and sold well ... people follow the money, 😉.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

They established it to themselves and many people who’ve listened to Unison USB. Not, established it as fact for the industry. 

 

It's true people will generally believe what they want to believe (hell, this thread is founded on that principle).

 

For my ears USB did not surpass AES/spdif until the likes of the Bricasti M1 DAC and others of about several years ago.

 

Not sure what Schiit has done differently to 'suddenly' sound better, whether its a new development or just a trickle down effect from more expensive DACS that they have rebadged.

[fas42]

Yes, like the fact that some people want to believe that the more expensive the gear is, the better it will sound ... that this is true, like a Force of Nature, 😉.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yes, like the fact that some people want to believe that the more expensive the gear is, the better it will sound ... that this is true, like a Force of Nature, 😉.

 

You can't fight nature Frank ! I am sure you will try tho 🙄

 

There is a correlation between price and (sound) quality in audio. I am not claiming 100% correlation/concordance nor disputing the law of diminishing returns.

 

The fact is your (previous) choice of cheap ghetto blaster speakers just can't compete with my Vivid G2's, @The Computer Audiophile Wilsons, or most other expensive speakers.

[fas42]

Good post here,

 

Here we have one of those "bad" digital replay chains, a synthesizer, having no trouble holding its own as the lead instrument in the music - being able to pump out impressive sounds to an appreciative audience ... we actually have the ancestor, in that model line, in the house, and with a bit of TLC can get it to sound very enticing.

 

Digital technology can do it, brilliantly ... plenty of examples around that show what's possible ...

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The fact is your (previous) choice of cheap ghetto blaster speakers just can't compete with my Vivid G2's, @The Computer Audiophile Wilsons, or most other expensive speakers.

 

Of course they won't be able to compete - in many, many areas ... what I'm concerned with, though, is what I hear ... is the particular rig capable of showing up everything that is good in a specific recording, is the question I ask. I've pointed to many, many recordings in posts, which are 'difficult' ... how well does that expensive setup do, in bringing out all that is special, in the recording - that's what matters ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

how well does that expensive setup do, in bringing out all that is special, in the recording - that's what matters ...

 

The best gear will do it the best.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The best gear will do it the best.

 

Of course it will ... provided, that there is nothing significantly wrong with the replay chain, somewhere.

 

I've mentioned numerous times hearing the best Bryston monoblocks driving close to the best Dynaudio speakers, at the last Sydney show - this nailed the SQ, plus had usable SPL headroom well above what I work with ... if someone offered me that combo to play with, I would not have hesistated.

[fas42]

Another example of what I'm after ... just now, switched on the new digital speakers, from cold - and kicked off, straight away, with

 

 

Everything on this worked ... the gutsy bass line, the highest tinkling of the treble keys - the piano sound was fully there, in place, and could be revved up to lifelike levels, with no difficulty. Now, any rig of decent aspirations should be able to knock this off, easily - but many can't ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

47 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course it will ... provided, that there is nothing significantly wrong with the replay chain, somewhere.

 

The best gear will have the least wrong in the replay chain, that is why it is the best........it still remains subjective (see below)

 

47 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I've mentioned numerous times hearing the best Bryston monoblocks driving close to the best Dynaudio speakers, at the last Sydney show - this nailed the SQ, plus had usable SPL headroom well above what I work with ... if someone offered me that combo to play with, I would not have hesistated.

 

Okay, so now you like your subjective version of high end gear. Nothing new here Frank.

 

I like my Vivid g2 over @The Computer Audiophile Alexias 2. I listened to both and bought the Vivids. I consider the Vivids better. We like what we like.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's more than that ... they established that the conventional method of running USB is flawed, or rather, that it makes getting 'flawless' audio hard; one of the founders of Schiit is quite vitriolic about its shortcomings - like good engineers should, they worked out "a better way" - and their customers reap the benefits. 

 

Constantly improving, tweaking, re-engineering - they are all different terms for the same concept ... looking at what you've got, deciding it should be better, and then working out a smart solution, or workaround ... key to it all is deciding that something "ain't good enough!", and then doing something about it, intelligently ...

That’s obvious, but it’s still a far cry from what you do, which is essentially mouse milk. Look, I have a master’s degree in EE and I wouldn’t dare to even deign to second guess the designers of even the cheapest Chinese tube or solid state amplifier. I can sit down with a pencil and paper and draw free-hand a circuit for either a tube or a solid state audio amp; work out the values based on tube or solid state component characteristics, build it and it would work. But I don’t harbor the least hope that it could compete in any way with a commercial product. I’m not a dedicated audio design engineer in the way that John Curl, Nelson Pass, or Luke Manley are. I know how an amp works well enough to design one, but not well enough to know what makes a high-end amp a cut above the norm.

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

I like my Vivid g2 over @The Computer Audiophile Alexias 2. I listened to both and bought the Vivids. I consider the Vivids better. We like what we like.

 

What's best in my world is that which gets least in the way of hearing what's on the recording - if two, expensive speakers produce a different take, then at least one of them is 'wrong'.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What's best in my world is that which gets least in the way of hearing what's on the recording - if two, expensive speakers produce a different take, then at least one of them is 'wrong'.

 

That's obvious Frank, and again nothing new, (and nothing to do with your method).

In my world the Vivids get maximally out of the way of the music (to paraphrase Harry P I gather, Edit, well not about the Vivids, the saying)

We all like what we like, that's why its called subjective.