Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 What you do is to post the same “nothing” over and over and over again, ad nauseam! IOW, you never actually say anything.

...Because you recount nothing. What you do is to post the same “nothing” over and over and over again, ad nauseam! IOW, you never actually say anything.

 

George, just "fire away" with your questions, Frank is "happy to answer" them all.😂

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, let's settle down a bit ...

 

 

I was never unsettled

 

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

@ray-dude talks of the sort of listening qualities that one can extract from recordings if everything is set up correctly

 

 

So do I and most other members

 

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

- all that I do is apply enough tweaks such that that the rig that I'm working on does the same thing.

 

Yes, we know the claim Frank, the results are in question ( in truth, there is very little question).

 

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The result is, that you don't hear the characteristics of the playback chain - only those of the recording.

 

Yep, that's one of the results that are in question ( in truth, there is very little question)

 

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

\

Anyone else who applies the same methods would get the same results - it's up to them to decide to do this.

 

They have, they don't and the vast majority of responses to your posts tell you so.

 

Pics please !

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

What methods, Frank? You have never told anyone what your methods actually are.

8 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Frank will NEVER tell you what he has done to make his budget equipment sound “much better” than 99% of all hi-Fi systems, because he has done nothing. 

 

I managed to a few shots of the method, interesting, see below....

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, the same delusional results that @ray-dude gets, is it? Shame that he spent so much money, using his individual way to fool himself, don't you think?

As I predicted you tend to align yourself with @ray-dude to try and establish some sort of credibility, presumably the nature of the endgame, best quality sound. Ironically, it only serves to highlight how absurd your claims are, to achieve like quality with such low end gear.

 

You wax lyrically about what good sound is. You always conveniently ignore the fact that your non-existent method applied to low end gear cannot produce such sound quality, and that it cannot be better than 99% of the high-end gear owned by the members in this forum.

 

This is insulting to the members of this forum and I believe that you are well aware of this. You play them for fools. When asked for evidence you can't produce it because it doesn't exist. This is why you will not produce photographs of your magic handiwork. You just produce another episode in "Frank's Fables" which really is just another way of insulting people.

 

It is extraordinarily highly likely that the vast majority of members in this forum have greatly superior sound quality than you have ever achieved in your entire lifetime of tweaking low end gear. It is extraordinarily highly likely that the vast majority of members in this forum have already got much closer to your very own descriptions of what is good sound quality.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

54 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Note the snob coming out - only "good stuff" enables quality listening.

 

You can make personal attacks like calling people snobs but that (as usual) doesn't address what I said, that I predicted you would align yourself with @ray-dude to try and establish some sort of credibility, presumably the nature of the endgame, best quality sound. Ironically, it only serves to highlight how absurd your claims are, to achieve like quality with such low end gear.

 

54 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What it does is eliminate the disturbing audio anomalies that instantly identify the sound you listen to, as being that coming from an audio rig. Irrespective of the latter's cost.

 

 

Once again you completely ignore what I said and simply regurgitate your unsubstantiated claims i.e. conveniently ignoring the fact that your non-existent method applied to low end gear cannot produce such claimed sound quality, and that it cannot be better than 99% of the high-end gear owned by the members in this forum.

 

This is insulting to the members of this forum and I believe that you are well aware of this. You play them for fools. When asked for evidence you can't produce it because it doesn't exist. This is why you will not produce photographs of your magic handiwork. You just produce another episode in "Frank's Fables" which really is just another way of insulting people.

 

It is extraordinarily highly likely that the vast majority of members in this forum have greatly superior sound quality than you have ever achieved in your entire lifetime of tweaking low end gear. It is extraordinarily highly likely that the vast majority of members in this forum have already got much closer to your very own descriptions of what is good sound quality.

 

Pictures please. I think it's time that Frank's Fables are accompanied by pictures. I submit that if you do not have pictures your Fables could be interpreted as fibs, Frank's Fibs hmmmmn, has a ring to it🤔

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, on the business on what we do with a component, to improve its subjective performance - all bets are off, 😉. People hear with different ears - so if they prefer a certain configuration of capacitors, "because it sounds better, to them" ... no quibbles ...

 

that's my 8th irony meter you've exploded in this thread alone !

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I use simple, cheap, direct methods for doing the same.

 

Let's see 'em Frank !

 

So far in the last few pages people who disagree with you are "lazy", "snobs", "smarty pants", and even a slur about my profession.

 

Surely it must be time to put up or shut up ...let's get some pics of these "simple, cheap, direct methods" .

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Hmmm, I'm suffering a deja vu moment ...

 

 

irony meter No.9 explodes ! (this is getting expensive)😂

 

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

On what system? The Edifiers?

 

That's a start

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Right, so you want a picture of stock standard Edifiers stuck on some old, slighty heavy speakers, which are stuck to a slab of concrete, which is sitting on a floor with carpet - with a whole lot of paper on top of the lot, stretching, say, to the ceiling? I call this mass loading, which can be done in a million ways - any of which will be as good as the next ... I just happen to use what is convenient, and which makes it easy to fine tune the weighting.

 

And this miracle picture will demonstrate, what?

 

Let's see

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Right, I'll do even better - your very own assembly kit of goodies, to fashion just the way it appeals.

 

First up, carpet:

 

 

And then, a nice lump of concrete:

 

 

 

A juicy old speaker gets into the act:

 

 

And a smidgin of Edifier:

 

 

And to taste, lots of paper:

 

Assemble all these in any order you wish - I tend to follow a certain sequence myself - and, voila!

 

 

It's nice to share pics from the internet, so I'll contribute one.

 

Now, can we see your actual pics showing the tweaks?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

I take it you haven't read any posts in the Edifying Journey thread?

Are there lots of pics?

 

Here's one I took yesterday. Its not hard, just point and shoot

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

@fas42 still looking for your camera Frank or running around trying to find a concrete block?

Use your phone camera

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

read the thread  - it doesn’t explain everything, it doesn’t explain nothing, it explains some things. (Local allusion ... 🙂)

 

It explains nothing:

from "a whole lot of entertainment boxes plugged into the same extension box was not the best for SQ, so, tweak 1"

to "I will need to get serious, and start working with my usual bag of tricks"

and one of my favs "found another piece of scrap plastic had landed where it shouldn't have"

 

So, where are those pics Frank of the real stuff?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

I wanted to watch a long video, a special with nothing but jokes about doctors ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

Good luck! My wife doesn't allow me around water or electricity.

 

My wife is quite the opposite.....just last night she handed me the electric hair dryer while i was in the bath !!🤕😈

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, MarkusBarkus said:

...I have only been following AS for about six months. During that time, I have gained insight and good food for thought on a number of topics, such that I thought I should "join" and be more interactive. 
 

The notable exception to this forum as a knowledge exchange is this thread, which has to be enjoyed, if at all, purely for entertainment purposes.
 

I imagine Mr. fas42 is *actually* conducting a social experiment regarding online communities.
 

Nothing else makes sense (nothing that doesn't involve counseling and managed medication protocols too sad to contemplate) in a reasonable world. 
 

Some of the silliest comments and most convoluted logic I have read in a long time resides on this thread. And I read *a lot.*

 

Well done Mr. fas42.
 

I hereby submit you should be promoted to Mr. "fas43," effective mediately, with all relevant pay and fringe benefits associated with said promotion.

 

Congratulation and well done, sir! Now pass the popcorn!

 

 

 

Without getting into the "counselling and managed medication protocols" I think you are right, well to put it in layman's terms, that Frank has 'issues'. I have touched on some of these together with IMO an underlying agenda, so I won't elaborate here.

 

So the question is why then the apparent fascination. Clearly, nonsense is everywhere on the Internet so what makes Franks brand of 'noise', which is so transparently evident as 'noise', so apparently fascinating to some members?

 

Probably many of us have more time on our hands because of the pandemic. There is the entertainment aspect if one likes to puzzle over the next twist in the plot. There is also the strong insulting nature of the 'noise' whether stated or implied which draws attention and response of 'you can't say that sort of crap and get away with it'. If nothing else it is the sheer tenacity and perseverance which appears to be beyond all rationality that draws people in like watching a train wreck.

 

The tactics are also unusual in that he combines defeasible reasoning peppered with just enough half-truths and self evident axioms and what I call 'motherhood' platitudes (Frank's fables)  in a mendacious package (Franks fibs) together with backflips and contradictions, irrelevancies, paltering and obfuscation. You literally find yourself scratching your head because even in various other contentious topics that one sees debated on the Internet, whether it be audio, religion, politics, climate change, I have never come across the extent to which Frank can pull this off and apparently keep a 'straight face'.

 

There is one other tactic that serves Frank very well I think. He posts so much stuff over so many threads that it is literally impossible to keep track of. So if he contradicts himself or changes his tune in some way when it suits, it is very difficult to wade back through hundreds, potentially thousands of pages to 'produce the goods'. Not a particularly good example but in the last page or two Frank wrote, "it shouldn't matter in the slightest what the quality of the power feed was like - a well performing rig should be able to be plugged into the most mediocre sockets arrangement, and that not make a difference." Not so long ago he wrote in response to buying decent/high-end equipment that shouldn't require such measures he wrote, "the greater the potential, the fussier you have to be - so, measures are necessary, and if done thoroughly, are highly effective." Now, one of course could make an argument either way and Frank being aware of this will simply change his tack as he goes along and encounters the prevailing winds. When caught out he has a repertoire of responses in order to avoid addressing the issue. Some are better than others, like he will say that was out of context. And of course the onus is on the person to go and find the quote and read through pages of nonsense, which he knows is unlikely. Quite often he just states something totally irrelevant like to paraphrase, yes but if you walk higher up on the hill the vista is always better. This is just gamesmanship and insults the intelligence of people in the discussion.

 

It is quite obvious that you cannot 'win' an argument with Frank because most of us use logic and reasoning in the usual sense and you cannot reason a person out of a place that they did not use reason to arrive at in the first place. They have invented their own place and it is unassailable. But there is something in our rational minds that simply makes some of us want to try. The more sensible members of course never come into this thread or engage Frank on the topic of his 'method'.

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

28 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Bottom line:  Frank likes his system and wants others to agree.   I like my project, and want others to agree - but sometimes after a frustrated emotional response,  I really do take criticism to heart and learn to resolve the problems.

Sometimes people don't have the tools to actually fix things, and not only that, the equipment isn't available to be evaluated by others.

 

I accept the fact that Frank enjoys his system, but should accept that fact that not everyone will agree with him.   This would be true of almost any system -- I might not be especially impressed with a really good $20k system, even though I'd be pretty sure that I'd think it a good system.  Likewise someone else might be impressed by a $1k system, and not be impressed with the cost of amore expensive system.

 

How can these judgements be a true reflection of someones' feelings?   Because not everyone listens for the same aspects of sound, and also there could be an emotional respect for an inexpensive system being exceptionally good, or be impressed by a system being so expensive and subjectively beautiful to look at.   Each of these things can bias a subjective experience.

 

I wish Frank would be happy to enjoy his system and not feel like he should try to convince others about it.  Maybe the issue is deeper and at a different psychological layer (needing validation, or needing more social interactions.)

 

At first, I didn't know how to deal with Frank, but now I am neutral, and would help him with anything that I could help with, pretty much any time he asks.

 

I wish I could 'fix' everyone that I know, just like I'd like to make my own project perfect.   I DO know that my project often needs improvement, and there are people who constructively criticize the project, even though sometimes I do not respond well - that is just anemotional response.   My response also has a practical aspect, and I try to improve the performance.

 

It is almost impossible to accurately portray an entire system, incl speaker, remotely...  This could be another part of the problem for Frank.   Just a suggestion to those talking about their systems and what they are doing:  be as transparent and as emotionally honest as you can be.   It can help enable people to more easily be collegial and actually be more helpful.

 

John

 

 

That's a lovely response John and I wouldn't for a second disagree that we all should try and be more tolerant, less emotionally reactive, more honest, more accepting of constructive criticism, and accepting of others beliefs without judgement (even if we disagree).

 

I and others have said on a number of occasions that Frank has potentially a lot to contribute to discussions. I and others have said on a number of occasions that it is perfectly fine for Frank to enjoy his system and enjoy the music. It appears the edifier speakers are nice  speakers and I am pretty sure I would be perfectly fine listening to them. As I said I enjoy listening to my car radio (a Bose system if I'm not mistaken), and in certain circumstances more so than on my high-end system. Others will disagree with that tenet but it has already been thrashed out elsewhere.

 

The point being, I don't think anyone on this thread has a problem with the fact that Frank enjoys his system and the music it plays. I don't think anyone on this thread has a problem with Frank wanting to tweak his system to get the very best results possible. I don't think anyone on this thread has a problem with Frank wanting to achieve best value for money and producing something worthwhile for a very modest price. On the contrary I think everyone on this thread is rooting for Frank in these endeavours. These things however are NOT the issue, never were the issue and least for my part never will be the issue.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Care to explain the contradiction, between the two points?

No problem. If the wheels on the bus go round and round in a sagittal plane the steering wheel must also go around but from left to right in a more coronal plane. If one contradicts the other the bus will crash😁

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

16 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Right, so you don't care ...

 

Frank, time to take a break and regroup.

 

In principle, I am all for what you are trying to achieve. It is really what we are all trying to achieve. Just don't "poo" on my turf. 

 

Maybe you and I and Alex ( @sandyk)  should meet over a glass of wine or cup of coffee.

 

From the Blue Mountains to the Hunter Valley in Oz

 

Its your call Frank

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

33 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Maybe you and I and Alex ( @sandyk)  should meet over a glass of wine or cup of coffee.

 

From the Blue Mountains to the Hunter Valley in Oz

 

Its your call Frank

 

Frank, I just realised that my offer might sound in some way intimidating, it is not meant to be. Audiophile get-togethers are supposed to be fun. I promise nothing other than a meeting, but I am always genuinely interested in how to improve my sound system.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Frank, I sent you a PM

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

43 minutes ago, fas42 said:

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

This is not a ringing endorsement for the efficacy of your "methods".

 

If they actually did what you promise, each of the systems would have sounded exactly the same because the only thing you would be hearing would be the recording itself.

Read more  

 

Because the reality is that there is always remnant distortion in the sound, and always will be. The goal is for that to be reduced to zero, and subjectively it can be. How it works in real life, for me, is that I try a recording that I know well on an unknown system - and it's often a bizarre experience - the feeling of the recording is almost completely absent; it's as if an entirely different performance, mastering has been put on - I'm struggling to recognise it.  When systems are getting closer to what they should be like, the signature of the recording comes across very strongly - and what I'm triggering on are the areas where the particular track still "doesn't sound right"; the difference that matters is that the tonality, etc, is still being impacted by shortfalls of the playback.

 

So, as in most things in life, one never reaches "perfection" - but you're endeavouring to get as close as possible to it.

 

A good example would be the Led Zeppelin I album, original mastering. Many system reduce this to a hopeless mess - it's almost a "Where do I begin??!" situation. Technically challenging recordings determine the last hurdles for getting a rig to the best possible place - if inherent limitations of the hardware are too much, then it may simply be a good choice to accept that "that's as good as it gets", for the specific setup.

 

 

I have to agree with @kumakuma. What you're describing Frank is that every system will have its "own signature, its own weaknesses; which favoured some recordings over others". As you say one never reaches perfection. Therefore, If you're used to listening to a particular recording on your system that favours that recording you will judge other systems, playing that recording, unfavourably. It doesn't measure up to how it sounds on your system. Then again the reciprocal can occur, that other recordings sound better on a foreign system

 

I also get that there is an absolute sense of trying to hear the recording sans equipment. I am not against this in principle but I think this is where it highlights a fundamental difference in our approaches. For me when the equipment totally gets out of the way, the quality of the recording comes through, whether that be good or bad. Bad recordings don't suddenly sound good and if they do, whatever is being done in the playback chain, will impart the same quality over everything. In my books that is colouration.

 

It appears that your theory states a playback system can become so good when all errors are addressed that faults in the recording are not transparently shown, but rather ameliorated. I can see this happening sometimes if a fault in the playback chain was exacerbating a fault in the recording. You fix the playback and the fault in the recording becomes less noticeable, less pronounced. Thus, "your brain is able to better focus on the good stuff".The problem is that in reality, while this scenario may exist, in my experience it is uncommon. It is more common that colouration is the culprit that seduces one into thinking something positive has been achieved. Indeed, depending on how you look at it, something positive has been achieved. The music is more approachable, at least to some ears.

 

So what I am saying is even if there was a system that was agreed upon as the best quality in the world and a thousand of the best tweakers in the world spent an infinity of time fine tuning the system, you would still not get all or even the majority of bad recordings sounding good

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

Quote

 

So what I am saying is even if there was a system that was agreed upon as the best quality in the world and a thousand of the best tweakers in the world spent an infinity of time fine tuning the system, you would still not get all or even the majority of bad recordings sounding good

 

The number remaining "bad" will depend upon the listener. For example, George would still be exasperated by the poor microphone techniques used; and he would be correct, from his POV.

 

Okay, this is probably the closest we are going to get to a bottom-line agreement which is to paraphrase, "the number of remaining bad recordings when played on a well tuned and perfect playback system will depend upon the listener"

 

I submit that for the vast majority of members the perceptual experience will be that bad recordings, under the circumstances described above, will remain bad and distinctly very different from your experience.

 

It is difficult to be certain why people experience things differently but I strongly posit that bad recordings sounding bad is not because there is anything necessarily lacking in the other members' gear or anything lacking in their extent, skill and persistence in tweaking that gear.

 

I believe Frank that what gets you to a perception of a convincingly lifelike and emotionally immersive and engaging standard of playback is fundamentally different to most of us. The flipside, which I think is equally interesting, is that you appear to have a fundamentally different perception of what prevents you experiencing a convincingly lifelike and emotionally immersive and engaging standard of playback.

 

It would appear futile to actually describe the experience of what is great sound playback if the eliciting stimulus that gets you there is quite different. We can agree on a description of lifelike but not correlate it to the same things. In its simplest form, beauty is in the of the beholder and not just in appreciating the original form but also its reproduction.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

Just thought of a beauty, of a 'difficult' track - I used this 15 years ago, to squeeze the maximum out of the playback; played it over and over and over again ...I can still listen to it, and enjoy it, 😀

 

 

 

Frank the reason this can sound not half bad is it is fairly simple and non-congested. I love the stones but most of the recordings are atrocious. As I have said many times I prefer to listen to them on a 'good' car sound system which is far less resolving and far more forgiving, truncating nasty highs and not even attempting true deep bass for proper dynamics.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

In its simplest form, beauty is in the * of the beholder and not just in appreciating the original form but also its reproduction.

 

In its simplest form, beauty is in the *eye/ ear of the beholder and not just in appreciating the original form but also its reproduction.