Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[sandyk]

12 hours ago, Confused said:

Another one mentioned by Darko:  ("Sounds hard")

 

 

Maybe Darko needs to get his rig sorted?

128kbps .aac audio is nigh on useless for evaluating audio. Try this version using the YouTube hidden 529kbps .aac Audio.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpa39mrlttkupp2/This Is the Sea (2004 Remaster)-0x0001.m2t?dl=0

[fas42]

Interesting bit here,

The key bit,

 

Quote

One of them has a saying that I like very much:"A system needs to have some mystery in it. If there is no mystery and it is extremely revealing you lose the magic that music brings. And if there is too much mystery you are left wanting. All the cassette players of our childhood, all the primitive vinyl players had that just a bit too much amount of mystery that could be improved upon and gives us the joy of feeling closer when we improve little things here and there. Just not too close, please. And no speeding "

 

... I disagree strongly ... the closer you get, the greater the magic. Of the music itself. There are wrong ways of getting "extremely revealing" - because there is too much of Garbage Added (GA) - some times this is so subtle that one doesn't realise what's happening; rest assured that the GA factor can always be reduced enough to make the good stuff happen - that is in fact what gives "the joy of feeling closer when we improve little things here and there".

[Confused]

On 7/5/2020 at 11:53 PM, sandyk said:

128kbps .aac audio is nigh on useless for evaluating audio. Try this version using the YouTube hidden 529kbps .aac Audio.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpa39mrlttkupp2/This Is the Sea (2004 Remaster)-0x0001.m2t?dl=0

Out of interest, how do you find the sound of this recording?

[sandyk]

24 minutes ago, Confused said:

Out of interest, how do you find the sound of this recording?

It sounds quite dynamic, but it's not my taste in music.

 I much prefer it over the normal 128kb/s YouTube audio though ,which sounds a  little lifeless in comparison 

 Which version do you prefer ?.

[Confused]

25 minutes ago, sandyk said:

It sounds quite dynamic, but it's not my taste in music.

 I much prefer it over the normal 128kb/s YouTube audio though ,which sounds a  little lifeless in comparison 

 Which version do you prefer ?.

To be honest, I did not find a huge difference between the two versions, but to my ears the 529kbps version was preferable, I found the much of the HF to be a little cleaner, more defined with less "hash", for example.  Curiously, the 529kbps version is quite a lot louder, I am not sure why that should be?

 

Plus, with perhaps a nod to Mr Darko, I would say that it does indeed sound a little "hard", 128kbps or 529kbps.  

 

I did manage to find a "pre-remaster" 1998 version on Spotify, this I found to be preferable to the 2004 version..

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Confused said:

Curiously, the 529kbps version is quite a lot louder, I am not sure why that should be?

  The normal YouTube audio appeared to be a bit compressed.

529kb/s .aac audio should be close to CD quality

 O.K. The 1993 version does sound better .i.e. not so hard sounding

 

. Please check your PMs

 

Alex

 

[fas42]

Interesting article just posted here,

 

I of course take a completely different perspective - I've heard a few attempts to fix sound by throwing lots of DSP power at producing perfect curves, and the results are only mildly interesting, for me. The signature distortions of the system are still obviously in place, and we are barely any closer to hearing "accurate sound" - which is, what was captured in the recording - it takes much more than fiddling with speakers to remove the seasoning of the rig ... IME.

 

 

[fas42]

 

Quote

It’s not a silly example, Frank. It’s merely a way of showing the difference between what you brag about every day, here, and what’s really possible. And as I’ve said several times, I don’t believe that spending large sums of money is necessary to get first class performance. But, you can’t get it from junk.

 

George, I've been hearing what's occurs, versus what's possible, for decades - I've listened to many, many millions of dollars of gear over that time; and what is quite disturbing is how often how badly all that money has done its job - I'm no closer to hearing what's truly on the recording, because I'm still fighting the veil of the playback chain. ... Which was the point of the "BMWs are junk!" video ...

 

The truth is, you're every much showing off the attitude of a snob - you want to believe there's a cut off point, in money terms, where nothing can be done to retrieve good sound ... well, there is, but you have to go mighty, mighty low to find it.

 

IOW, there is no excuse for good SQ not being everywhere - it just requires some intelligent focus on the part of manufacturers to deliver, for the money, competent goods - ultimately, there will always be junk, at the very bottom; but this will be obvious to all.

[fas42]

This is an interesting belief, from

 

Quote

I have to test this approach, because I’m not sure that digitally generated and/or processed signals interact the same way when played back through speakers that pure analog signals from generation to playback do.  So IMD in digital equipment and sources may be misleading compared to IMD in analog devices.

 

This is what hard line objectivists have a field day with - the belief of people who are not fully in their camp, that there is some magic associated with analogue processes, as compared to digital - no, there is no magic, it's all about the type of distortion - real stuff that one can measure! 😉 - that always goes along for the ride.

 

Rules of thumb:

 

Analogue stuff will always sound 'analogue', no matter how badly it's done, how "rough" it is.

 

Digital won't sound 'analogue', unless it's done well enough. If it's done really well, then it will beat analogue on every subjective measure - and resoundingly so, in some areas.

 

These rules are actually embedded in deep rock, and can't be broken - because of how human hearing reacts ... it hates the disturbing quality of digital not working quite right; and this type of SQ will always be a fail.

 

Precision is everything in digital playback chains - and must be got right. Not getting it "right enough" is where all the huge arguments over the decades have arisen from - and still happen.

[Blackmorec]

On 7/5/2020 at 11:53 PM, sandyk said:

128kbps .aac audio is nigh on useless for evaluating audio. Try this version using the YouTube hidden 529kbps .aac Audio.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpa39mrlttkupp2/This Is the Sea (2004 Remaster)-0x0001.m2t?dl=0

I would really have to quite strongly disagree here. I find 128kbps Internet Radio as embodied by say Radio Swiss Classic one of the most refined and sensitive ways to monitor and evaluate the sound of my system. . When the music sounds like real orchestras playing in real venues, with all the acoustic clues, accuracy, speed, excitement, emotion and perfect tone, then your system and particularly your network is working extremely well. When the announcers’ voices sound perfectly natural, with no frequency anomalies and especially no sibilance, your system is really cooking.  There should be no sibilance, no tonal emphasis, no hardness or harshness, only beautiful, completely enjoyable music and natural, uncoloured voices. Whenever Swiss Radio Classic sounds less than pristine and wonderful, look to your system and network for the reason, as the channel itself sounds incredibly good when everything is optimally hooked up. 

[fas42]

Note here the classic 'mistake' made by audiophiles,

 

 

Can't see it? ... 🙃

 

He gets sibilance with some recordings .,.. therefore, that recording is "bad". No mention or consideration that any part of the audio replay chain prior to the HPs is actually causing that particular issue - the logic is, the 'magic' of the specialness of the HPs 'fixes' any distortion issues of preceding electronics, because pixie dust gravitates to the earlier parts, 😉.

 

Yes, this is one of those "audiophile traps" ... that Adding Goodness makes up for problems as yet unsolved - unfortunately the real world doesn't play ball with this wishful thinking; the hard slog still lies before one, if the aim is for truly accurate replay.

[Rexp]

18 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

I would really have to quite strongly disagree here. I find 128kbps Internet Radio as embodied by say Radio Swiss Classic one of the most refined and sensitive ways to monitor and evaluate the sound of my system. . When the music sounds like real orchestras playing in real venues, with all the acoustic clues, accuracy, speed, excitement, emotion and perfect tone, then your system and particularly your network is working extremely well. When the announcers’ voices sound perfectly natural, with no frequency anomalies and especially no sibilance, your system is really cooking.  There should be no sibilance, no tonal emphasis, no hardness or harshness, only beautiful, completely enjoyable music and natural, uncoloured voices. Whenever Swiss Radio Classic sounds less than pristine and wonderful, look to your system and network for the reason, as the channel itself sounds incredibly good when everything is optimally hooked up. 

While 128kbps AAC shows up any digital nasties a system is producing, its not good enough for anything but background music IMO. 

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, Rexp said:

While 128kbps AAC shows up any digital nasties a system is producing, its not good enough for anything but background music IMO. 

 

I suspect that some might question whether 128kps is even good enough for that, depending on how closely one listens to background music.

[Blackmorec]

Sorry guys but that’s just my point. As an audiophile with some 45 years of chasing the holy grail I’ve spent most of my life trying to refined my system to get it to the point I could sit and listen for hours without a single criticism or discomfort. With analog it was close but the bugaboo was always surface noise, contamination and the fact that dragging a diamond over vinyl is very limited in terms of dynamics. Some fairly large investments in TTs, arms, MC cartridges and phono-stages got me very close.

Then there was digital. Surface noise gone but so were some of the music’s other more pleasant characteristics and qualities. There was always something there that made me subconsciously grind my teeth, or miss certain aspects of the music I’d heard with vinyl and associated with real music. 

Until recently that is.  Uploading files from a super-quiet, highly optimised internet stream, buffering them in RAM and playing them back with no SSD or network traffic I finally achieved the sound I’d been looking for. Finally the sound in my room seemed completely accurate, fully immersive, focused, 3 dimensional, with tremendous drive, PRaT, musical subtlety and fabulous rhythmic interplay between musicians. I can no longer listen with the lights on as the dichotomy between what I hear and what I see is now simply too uncomfortable; for example I see a small room, while I hear a huge concert hall with orchestra and concert grand.  

As I was refining my network, I too used 128kbps for running-in and warming-up my system. Then a funny thing started to happen. I made a few upgrades that really brought some major improvements to an already great sounding system. These improvements no longer fitted typical audiophile descriptions of sound quality as they were far more related to listener response....in the sense of, “ I can’t say exactly what’s changed but it feels like everything because I’m having much more fun listening and listener involvement is off the scale”.  I’d come into my listening room with 128kbps radio playing in warm-up mode, turn up the sound to normal listening levels and an hour later I’m still listening to classical music on Swiss Radio Classic. To my ear, it may now be as close as I’ve ever managed to what a live orchestra sounds like. It has tremendous depth, the concert hall in which its being played is very apparent, the notes have initial percussive impact, then bloom and decay, instruments are beautifully located in space, so are well separated from each other without the typical pinpoint accuracy you often hear with stereo systems but never hear live (due to miking techniques no doubt). The music is completely involving, it has tremendous PRaT, timbre and texture are highly detailed and remain so during even the quietest of passages. In short, there’s absolutely nothing to dislike and everything to love. Is is as good as redbook CD and hi-res formats? No of course not. What’s missing is the power, the intensity, the layering, the hugely immersive acoustic ‘atmosphere’ of the venue or studio recording, that’s often present and heard even before a note is played. But because its not at the very highest standard does that automatically disqualify it as a listening source? Not in my book.  The catalog of music is amazing, its played with no adverts and no chitchat, a lot is music I love but have never heard before. The recordings are extremely consistent and very well executed, the performances are first rate from virtuoso musicians and orchestras and  it sound truly amazing....entirely satisfactory to this highly critical audiophile.

In my opinion, if you find Radio Swiss Classic less than a satisfactory source (assuming you like classical music of course) , you need to to look at your system and its performance rather than at the medium.

When I first started out with my network optimisation, I felt that the announcers voices were rather coloured and blamed RSC for poor studio set-up and miking.....but as improvements were made to my system, the voices became more neutral and more natural. But introduce a new piece of gear and the voices immediately develop anomalies until that gear is properly run-in. For me it is the most sensitive and easy to hear discriminator of how well my system is performing as it tells me within 5 seconds if everything is settled and working well, or still needs more time.  Using music for this is fraught with difficulties,  but human voice is almost digital...its either right or its not and the difference is easy to hear. I have used RSC for almost 2 years and the quality is highly consistent, so any anomalies you hear are areas you need to work on if you want your system to sound perfect. 

Which brings me to my final point. 128kbps is only as good as the system playing it and it seems to be highly sensitive in this regard. Far less forgiving than other media like red book and hi-res, but excellent performance is available with enough care and refinement. Take a look at the Taiko Audio SGM Extreme Creme de la Creme thread on the What’s Best forum and read about Extreme user ‘Rhapsody’ who listens mainly to RSC because it sounds so damned good!

[fas42]

Very nice rundown, Blackmorec

14 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

As I was refining my network, I too used 128kbps for running-in and warming-up my system. Then a funny thing started to happen. I made a few upgrades that really brought some major improvements to an already great sounding system. These improvements no longer fitted typical audiophile descriptions of sound quality as they were far more related to listener response....in the sense of, “ I can’t say exactly what’s changed but it feels like everything because I’m having much more fun listening and listener involvement is off the scale”.  I’d come into my listening room with 128kbps radio playing in warm-up mode, turn up the sound to normal listening levels and an hour later I’m still listening to classical music on Swiss Radio Classic. To my ear, it may now be as close as I’ve ever managed to what a live orchestra sounds like.

 

Very nice rundown, Blackmorec. Most people don't reach the point you describe - where the overall replay quality coming through is good enough that the listening mind is able to discard the fiddly little things that are wrong, in a technical sense - and just tune into the captured presentation. The 'magic' here is that one can enjoy just about anything - when the switch flicks over in the ear/brain, everything just, 'works' ...

[Rexp]

5 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Sorry guys but that’s just my point. As an audiophile with some 45 years of chasing the holy grail I’ve spent most of my life trying to refined my system to get it to the point I could sit and listen for hours without a single criticism or discomfort. With analog it was close but the bugaboo was always surface noise, contamination and the fact that dragging a diamond over vinyl is very limited in terms of dynamics. Some fairly large investments in TTs, arms, MC cartridges and phono-stages got me very close.

Then there was digital. Surface noise gone but so were some of the music’s other more pleasant characteristics and qualities. There was always something there that made me subconsciously grind my teeth, or miss certain aspects of the music I’d heard with vinyl and associated with real music. 

Until recently that is.  Uploading files from a super-quiet, highly optimised internet stream, buffering them in RAM and playing them back with no SSD or network traffic I finally achieved the sound I’d been looking for. Finally the sound in my room seemed completely accurate, fully immersive, focused, 3 dimensional, with tremendous drive, PRaT, musical subtlety and fabulous rhythmic interplay between musicians. I can no longer listen with the lights on as the dichotomy between what I hear and what I see is now simply too uncomfortable; for example I see a small room, while I hear a huge concert hall with orchestra and concert grand.  

As I was refining my network, I too used 128kbps for running-in and warming-up my system. Then a funny thing started to happen. I made a few upgrades that really brought some major improvements to an already great sounding system. These improvements no longer fitted typical audiophile descriptions of sound quality as they were far more related to listener response....in the sense of, “ I can’t say exactly what’s changed but it feels like everything because I’m having much more fun listening and listener involvement is off the scale”.  I’d come into my listening room with 128kbps radio playing in warm-up mode, turn up the sound to normal listening levels and an hour later I’m still listening to classical music on Swiss Radio Classic. To my ear, it may now be as close as I’ve ever managed to what a live orchestra sounds like. It has tremendous depth, the concert hall in which its being played is very apparent, the notes have initial percussive impact, then bloom and decay, instruments are beautifully located in space, so are well separated from each other without the typical pinpoint accuracy you often hear with stereo systems but never hear live (due to miking techniques no doubt). The music is completely involving, it has tremendous PRaT, timbre and texture are highly detailed and remain so during even the quietest of passages. In short, there’s absolutely nothing to dislike and everything to love. Is is as good as redbook CD and hi-res formats? No of course not. What’s missing is the power, the intensity, the layering, the hugely immersive acoustic ‘atmosphere’ of the venue or studio recording, that’s often present and heard even before a note is played. But because its not at the very highest standard does that automatically disqualify it as a listening source? Not in my book.  The catalog of music is amazing, its played with no adverts and no chitchat, a lot is music I love but have never heard before. The recordings are extremely consistent and very well executed, the performances are first rate from virtuoso musicians and orchestras and  it sound truly amazing....entirely satisfactory to this highly critical audiophile.

In my opinion, if you find Radio Swiss Classic less than a satisfactory source (assuming you like classical music of course) , you need to to look at your system and its performance rather than at the medium.

When I first started out with my network optimisation, I felt that the announcers voices were rather coloured and blamed RSC for poor studio set-up and miking.....but as improvements were made to my system, the voices became more neutral and more natural. But introduce a new piece of gear and the voices immediately develop anomalies until that gear is properly run-in. For me it is the most sensitive and easy to hear discriminator of how well my system is performing as it tells me within 5 seconds if everything is settled and working well, or still needs more time.  Using music for this is fraught with difficulties,  but human voice is almost digital...its either right or its not and the difference is easy to hear. I have used RSC for almost 2 years and the quality is highly consistent, so any anomalies you hear are areas you need to work on if you want your system to sound perfect. 

Which brings me to my final point. 128kbps is only as good as the system playing it and it seems to be highly sensitive in this regard. Far less forgiving than other media like red book and hi-res, but excellent performance is available with enough care and refinement. Take a look at the Taiko Audio SGM Extreme Creme de la Creme thread on the What’s Best forum and read about Extreme user ‘Rhapsody’ who listens mainly to RSC because it sounds so damned good!

How are you listening to SRC, via an app or web player or? 

[Blackmorec]

Innuos Statement, with Sean Jacobs DC3 powered, Synergistic Research cabled, TPLink Archer AC5400 TriBand router network with #2 5GHz band dedicated to hi-fi system.  

[Blackmorec]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

How are you listening to SRC, via an app or web player or? 

Innuos Statement, with Sean Jacobs DC3 powered, Synergistic Research cabled, TPLink Archer AC5400 TriBand router network with the #2 5GHz band dedicated to the hi-fi system.  The ethernet ‘access point’ is a highly modified TPLInk RE650 extender used in reverse (wi-fi in, ethernet out) to provide an ethernet access point, receiving w-fi via its 5GHz band and outputting its datastream on an SR Atmosphere X Ref ethernet cable to an AQVox SE switch. The RE650 has its 2.4GHz band, all polling and LEDs disabled via TPLInk’s Tether SW, so the only network traffic is incoming Qobuz on its dedicated 5GHz channel.  With ca. 550mbps download speed, network activity is really minimal. All network devices are mounted on an anti-vibration wall mounting and tables (Atacama Evogue).

[Rexp]

5 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Innuos Statement, with Sean Jacobs DC3 powered, Synergistic Research cabled, TPLink Archer AC5400 TriBand router network with the #2 5GHz band dedicated to the hi-fi system.  The ethernet ‘access point’ is a highly modified TPLInk RE650 extender used in reverse (wi-fi in, ethernet out) to provide an ethernet access point, receiving w-fi via its 5GHz band and outputting its datastream on an SR Atmosphere X Ref ethernet cable to an AQVox SE switch. The RE650 has its 2.4GHz band, all polling and LEDs disabled via TPLInk’s Tether SW, so the only network traffic is incoming Qobuz on its dedicated 5GHz channel.  With ca. 550mbps download speed, network activity is really minimal. All network devices are mounted on an anti-vibration wall mounting and tables (Atacama Evogue).

I'm not familiar with the Innuos, does it have its own app for internet radio access? 

[Blackmorec]

Innuos use their own operating system InnuOS  with either Roon or LMS player plus iPeng UI. 

[gmgraves]

On 7/19/2020 at 4:15 PM, fas42 said:

 

 

George, I've been hearing what's occurs, versus what's possible, for decades - I've listened to many, many millions of dollars of gear over that time; and what is quite disturbing is how often how badly all that money has done its job - I'm no closer to hearing what's truly on the recording, because I'm still fighting the veil of the playback chain. ... Which was the point of the "BMWs are junk!" video ...

 

The truth is, you're every much showing off the attitude of a snob - you want to believe there's a cut off point, in money terms, where nothing can be done to retrieve good sound ... well, there is, but you have to go mighty, mighty low to find it.

I’ve ever said nor intimated that. What I have said is that it doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg to get top-notch sound!  After all, somewhere along the price curve, we all reach the point of diminishing return. That’s all I meant, no more.

On 7/19/2020 at 4:15 PM, fas42 said:

 

IOW, there is no excuse for good SQ not being everywhere - it just requires some intelligent focus on the part of manufacturers to deliver, for the money, competent goods - ultimately, there will always be junk, at the very bottom; but this will be obvious to all.

I agree with that, mostly. But the junk at the bottom will not be obvious to everyone.

[Rexp]

4 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Innuos use their own operating system InnuOS  with either Roon or LMS player plus iPeng UI. 

Thanks, the station says the 96kbps aac plus stream sounds the best, I have to agree

http://www.radioswissclassic.ch/en/reception/internet

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Thanks, the station says the 96kbps aac plus stream sounds the best, I have to agree

http://www.radioswissclassic.ch/en/reception/internet

 

 If their samples are anything to go by, I will pass on this one.

[Blackmorec]

5 hours ago, Rexp said:

Thanks, the station says the 96kbps aac plus stream sounds the best, I have to agree

http://www.radioswissclassic.ch/en/reception/internet

Ah ha, that’s interesting. Thanks for letting me/us know.😀

[Blackmorec]

5 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 If their samples are anything to go by, I will pass on this one.

Hi SandyK, I see you disagreed with my post 128kbps internet radio post above. No problem whatsoever with that and its entirely your prerogative, but I would be interested in discussing with you what you disagree with. To be clear, I’m not saying its the best sound around, but I am saying that its high enough quality sonically to be entirely listenable by a critical (obviously not hyper-critical) audiophile. After all its still pretty danged good. From a musical point of view, listening its extremely rewarding as the program material, performances and recordings are absolutely first rate, at least for my taste. Anyway, if you’ve any appetite for a discussion I’d be interested in your point of view. 

Cheers!