Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The crappiness of things is determined by what one is looking for, when experiencing "the things" ... if you are a person who gets a thrill from being in a room with some musicians, literally feet away from them, who are creating music of any genre whatsoever; the sense of immersion in the texture of the sound, the very thing that turns on the musicians themselves - that's where I come from ... if your interest in music is something else, then in fact 90% of it may be crap, 😉.

 

I suggest that you sign up for a streaming service and start listening to random albums. You'll quickly find that Mr. Sturgeon was right. 

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Which led me to discover Ruri's Law,

 

 

Now, does this apply to the good people of AS ... ? 🙂

 

I have found Cipolla's Basic Laws of Human Stupidity to be true:

 

1. Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

 

2. The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

 

3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

 

4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

 

5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

 

http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

 

 

[kumakuma]

13 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Don't you ever get tired of playing this?

 

 

Frank has actually doubled down on his original claim.

 

Previously he claimed that his methods could make recording quality irrelevant.

 

Now he's claiming that they can make performance quality irrelevant as well.

 

Pretty soon he'll be saying that they can cure cancer...

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You sorta missed the point that I get a buzz out of the energy of musical sounds - you can get an 'artist' who is a lame duck in some current, "everything and the kitchen sink" production, but the interplay of all the sound elements in themselves becomes the thing of interest - that the music, as music, is terrible, or the singer is 10th rate, is quite irrelevant ...

 

Good music played by talented musicians also includes that same energy so there's really no reason to waste time listening to crap.

[kumakuma]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Agree. I don't buy, or acquire such recordings intentionally - but if I come across them, in some context, then I like the system playback to get the most out of them. Borrow something from a library, someone gives me a CD, a freebie in the paper ...

 

Did you disable the stop button on your CD player, perhaps in the hopes of extracting more SQ?

[kumakuma]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

does it make sense that I should discard that experience, just because it wasn't part of the normal scenery?

 

 

You appear to be confusing a rejection of the general utility of your methods with a rejection of the validity of your specific experiences.

[kumakuma]

35 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Are you saying that it's impossible to get realistic playback?

 

It depends. The quality of the recording will be a major factor.

 

[kumakuma]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is where I diverge strongly - the SQ of the the playback chain at the time of replay will be the major determinant; and the higher it is, the greater the percentage of one's recordings will convey all the subjectively important cues, to be convincing ... IME.

 

This assume that all recordings actually contain such cues which, unfortunately, isn't the case... IME.

[kumakuma]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The problem with poor technical quality recordings is that the cues are buried in amongst the detritus, and distortion artifacts added by the recording process, and subsequent mastering operations - they are there, but they are relatively indistinct - if the playback process further distorts those vital clues, the task becomes impossible for the listening mind to work it all out ... "it sounds a mess!"

 

My progress over the years has been to realise that if one extracts all that low level information, containing recording and mastering artifacts, and the realism cues as clearly as one possibly can, then the brain now has something sufficiently 'not contaminated', allowing it to be properly unraveled in one's head. This is when the presentation suddenly pops into life, an abrupt transition because the brain is no longer overloaded, in trying to decode what it all means.

 

I have had no experience in the last 60 years that would lead me to believe that my brain operates in this way.

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Notwithstanding that you are happy listening to the real thing, it's entirely possible that when listening to playback, a "mess" in your mind does not present the same challenges in the minds of others.

 

 

Just as others aren't irritated by almost all audio systems they listen to...

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, people have abused me for the methods I use, and for the results I say I get - so, yes, its not clear ...

 

Well, it took me 30 years to evolve my thinking, in trying to understand what was happening - I can't expect someone else to instantly grok it, especially if they haven't had the listening experiences that I've had, 🙂.

 

My point is that is that YOUR methods seem to work for how YOUR brain is wired. I don't believe that they have much value for anyone else. 

[kumakuma]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

So, for example, is @ray-dude's brain wired my way, or your way - or something else ... ?

 

Why does it matter?

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is exactly why I "go on about it" ... the recording is set in concrete, the system you play it on, isn't - so, you do something about the bit you have control over ...

 

I beg to differ.

 

I have complete control over what recordings I listen to and enough well recorded music to last me for the next 60 years... even if I never add another album to my library.

[kumakuma]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Have another read starting from this bit,

 

 

taken from

 

 

Now, can you use that language when listening to your system? ... How he describes things is what I hear when a rig I'm working on "gets into the zone" ... QED.

 

Now, it this because of the Extreme server? IOW, if one lifted it up, and plunked it down into anyone's rig, would it instantly transform the SQ to what he's getting ... or could it simply be a major last piece of the puzzle that makes his setup fire? 😉

 

 

If you look at the "Audio System" of his profile, you will note that his approach is completely different from yours and appears to consist of a long series of equipment upgrades.

[kumakuma]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is perfectly fine ... as I have said many, many times, there can be any number of ways of getting there; and no-one I've come across has done it in a similar manner to me.

 

 

This is because you've chosen the least efficient way to reach the intended goal.

[kumakuma]

17 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

 

So, connecting the three quotes, we seem to have a lot of talk but not much walk.

 

 

[kumakuma]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Those MBL speakers when driven properly are a good shortcut to competent sound. As are the RAAL headphones. They both can do that same thing, and demonstrate the goal, nicely.

 

 

Have you actually heard either?

[kumakuma]

15 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Who has heard a refrigerator that sounds good? Mine is either silent or annoying when the compressor comes on. Even lo-res MP3 sounds better.

 

Maybe Frank can work his magic on it...

[kumakuma]

35 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

People who enjoy having expensive toys would like to believe that theirs is the only method - but the truth is otherwise, 😉.

 

 

Is this true or just what you want to believe?

 

Perhaps they just realize that your turd polishing methods are not an efficient use of their valuable time. 

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Do you realise how snobbish that comes across?

 

 

Why?

[kumakuma]

25 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Thoughts?

 

Frank has way too much time on his hands.

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Because it implies that there is some magic line, in terms of the equipment one buys, where below that it's impossible to achieve decent SQ - and that above it, that automatically, because of the money spent to acquire such goods, that what you have is always tinged with specialness, which can never be diminished - a dividing line is clearly drawn between the haves, and the have nots.

 

 

No, it doesn't. Go back and read what I wrote again.

 

 

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, the ol' "Isn't it great that people are passionate about their interests! ... But of course, only so long as they think about it the same way as I do ... " line, 🙂.

 

My thinking is more along the lines of "there's a fine line between being passionate and being crazy".

 

The number of posts you've made about your passions suggests you may be sending a lot of time on the "wrong side" of the line...

 

 

[kumakuma]

Just now, fas42 said:

I did, and it's still insulting of a method that works - I could be insulting of people who waste valuable time, but more importantly, money, who spend decades chasing something that never fully eventuates, using the conventional approaches - but I'm not interested in that.

 

I apologize for that part of my post.

 

I stand by my opinion that your methods are only useful to a very small number of people.

[kumakuma]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ah, we can't have have modest equipment slipping into the ring now, can we ... this would truly be a When Worlds Collide moment - a step too far, eh ... 🤪.

 

You seem to be arguing with yourself again.