Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

You're doing the straw man dance too, Teresa - where have I said I can get "sonic realism" out of "tiny speakers in a lap top computer"?

 

The only straw here Frank are the ones you're clutching at  🙄

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Hi John,

 

I agree that bad recordings cannot and will not sound convincingly real. Only Frank talks that kind of jibba jabba.I don't listen to ABBA .

 

There are decent recordings however and even some studio produced somewhat compressed material can be very enjoyable. Life is too short to only listen to perfect recordings, if one could find them. My point was simply that in my opinion over the last decade or so, high-end gear is getting closer to that goal of sounding convincingly real when fed decent material.

 

Oh -- I do agree that compressed music can stil be enjoyable.  Sometimes compression can HELP the listenability of a recording.  It is the massive 20-40dB of compression (it is very effective, very sly compression though) on almost EVERY normal commercial CD, including at least the two Telarc examples I have been recently testing.  This also includes the old 'I have the music in me' Sheffied Labs CDs.

 

I'd guess that perhaps 2/3's of the digital downloads and CDs are substantively damaged by the rather 'tricky' compression scheme, and 2/3s of the remaining are neutral or maybe somewhat helped in some perverse way.  The 10% or less of the CDs that aren't damaged are usually specialty items.

If people hear the 'Tijuana Brass' example that resulted from three layers of undoing DolbyA -- and compare with the original 'the very best of' CD (supposedly 1/2 notch better than regular releases -- heh), it is so sad that the good version isn't sold. (It is on the FA subject)  I am NOT shilling my project, on the contrary -- it should NOT have been desirable to undo the damage (whether or not my project will ever become perfect or used much by the very picky audiophile.)  At least, such profound *intentional* damage should not be happening.

 

So, even with a $10k or $100k speaker system, and SOMETIMES wanting to listen and fully enjoy a more commodity digital recording, why cant the better layered version be available?   The only quality problems with the my implementation of the decoding scheme is MY fault, not that the scheme cannot achieve much better results (I am starting to approach the desired results now.)

 

(BTW -- I have evidence of a Russian doll, layering scheme, where different quality versions can be derived from teh same FA recording..  The layering scheme goes as high as four, but most are only 2 or three quality level choices.   Almost, kind of like

MQA done 35yrs ago with 55yrs ago technology!!!)

 

John

 

[fas42]

Time to get on and do something that gets results ... meaning, lift a monster slab of concrete, or break it up a bit - to get to the blocked pipe below ... should be child's play, after this sortie ... 🙂.

[John Dyson]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Time to get on and do something that gets results ... meaning, lift a monster slab of concrete, or break it up a bit - to get to the blocked pipe below ... should be child's play, after this sortie ... 🙂.

It is ALL about how it sounds to you...   Others might not experience what you feel.

 

John

 

[fas42]

Let's go back to the first post here ... by @Blackmorec,

 

Quote

So does using expensive equipment guarantee a good result? Unfortunately no.  It probably does mean that you can forego a lot of Frank’s DIY efforts because the building blocks are of better quality, but if its not optimally matched and set up, even the best equipment can still fail to build that big 3 dimensional soundstage. 

 

Exactly.

 

Quote

So when you reach Frank’s sonic Nirvana, is that the end of the journey...job done?   No, but it is a major milestone. He has one thing absolutely right. If you’re not there, you are missing out on most of what recorded music can deliver and the chances are high that many recordings are going to sound poor to bloody aweful

 

What I get to is that the majority of recordings deliver a solid dose of their "specialness" - there no recordings I put on, and I go, "Yuck!!". So, the Edifiers which I've had for only a couple of months can now do this, without me touching their internals ... I'm impressed! Are they sonic nirvana? Of course not ... what they are weak on so far is being able to bring forth all the really low level detail, which makes all the cues in the recording snap together - so far, the hints are very strong that they should be able to do this ... we shall have to see. Sonically realistic? Can punch out a big soundstage when all is good, go as loud as anyone might reasonably expect for the money; but vocals are sometimes good, sometimes "could do better" ... the system wouldn't fool anyone - so, the answer is no ... so far.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Let's go back to the first post here ...

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Let's go back to the first post here ...

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Let's go back to the first post here ...

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Let's go back to the first post here ...

 

 

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is the thinking of most audio enthusiasts ... consider needing a surgeon, in a hospital; you have the choice of the bright young thing, full of bounce, recently out of medical school, "who knows it all!!" - and the weary veteran, who has had years of dealing with every subtle combination and variation of "what can go wrong"; there are years of instinctive knowledge tucked away there ... who are you going to choose? For that "straightforward medical procedure"?

Yes, that’s the thinking of most audio enthusiasts, because that’s all there is!
You’ve done it yet again. Unable to expand on what someone else has brought to light, you come up with some totally irrelevant analogy to obfuscate the fact that you really have nothing to add because there Is nothing TO add!

I’m going to offer up a useless analogy of my own. You intimate that your experience allows you to tweak audio systems in ways other than those anybody else knows to exist. I say that even though Einstein had more experience in physics than any of his contemporaries doesn’t mean that he could have built a time machine. The impossible is impossible irrespective of whether one is a brilliant student or an even more brilliant professor. What you say you do is impossible, and there is no more that one can do to tweak one’s system than that which has been mentioned. The fact that you can’t add any more to what I said, except to write some nonsense analogy about surgeons, proves the point. 
One more question. What do you hope to accomplish by repeating your nonsense (and defending your nonsense with ever more flimsy non-explanations when challenged)? Do you imagine that nobody sees through you? It’s a rhetorical question, Frank. Your answer would be more of the same and an embarrassment for all nvolved.

[Confused]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

The last proper Sydney audio show, some years ago - I've mentioned this quite a few times. I never separate the components - I either like the system, or not; if it's below par, the only thing that's interesting is understanding what the cause of that is. The highlight was a combo of Bryston and Dynaudio, capable of PA SPLs with complete integrity; this was standing 2 feet away from a drum kit exploding with sound, the transients and punch pummeled your body, "just like the real thing" 😉. Overall, there were about a half dozen setups that delivered pretty decent SQ, that showed great promise.

I understand this, although I have to say that my approach is different.  I have visited a lot of audio shows, and the thing that always interests me most is listening to different speakers.  For me, speakers make the largest contribution to to the sound of a system, or to put it another way, they are the most significant variable.  To put this another way, you could select one speaker and try it with a number of amplifiers.  Assuming the amplifiers are of suitable specification to adequately drive the speaker, then the differences tend to be relatively subtle.  Conversely, you could try a given amplifier with a range of speakers that it could adequately drive, and the differences will be significant.  In your case, you mentioned that you liked the Bryston / Dynaudio system.  I suspect that you could have "swapped out" the Byston for a number of decent alternatives, and you would still like the system.

 

As an example of this, I was once lucky enough to try the Blades with a range of Bryston and Chord products.  The Bryston 4B SST drove the Blades nicely, and probably stands as the best thing I have heard with the Blades at a particular price point.  Move to say a similarly priced Chord SPM 1200 II, on the same day with all other variables the same, there are some differences, but they are subtle.  Interestingly, during this demo I was able to try a Bryston DAC and a couple of Chord alternatives.  To my ears, I much preferred the Chord DAC's, even moving to models at a significantly lower price point than the Bryston.  This also indicated that my own preferences were influenced more by which DAC was in play than which amplifier, within similar price brackets at least. It is a lot of hassle organising demos like this, but I enjoy doing it and I learn a lot from it.  From this one demo, I learn the subtle differences between Bryston and Chord amplifiers and I learn that  I like whatever it is Chord do with their DACs.  I also learn the extent of differences moving from one amplifier to a similar product further up in the model range  I now know that I would be pretty happy changing my system to Bryston amplification with a Chord DAC.  I gained enough information to understand that I would probably be happy with a Chord DAC and a number of alternative amplifiers, albeit with slightly different end results.  A fascinating aspect of this demo was that the Bryston amps tended to have more prominent mid-bass, versus the Chord amps that seemed to have better bass definition and extension.  Later looking at the specifications of what I was listening to, it was clear that the Chord amp tended to have a lower output impedance versus the Bryston.  Maybe a correlation, maybe a coincidence, but all part of a learning curve and a journey of experience that I personally find fascinating.  Without going into all the details, I noticed a similar contrast between two other amplifiers on a later occasion, and here again the product with the lower output impedance happened to be the one that dug deepest into the low frequencies.  Again, this is not proof of correlation, but it is a case of building on ones own experience and the influence on ones own subjective perceptions. 

 

I know others will have a different approach and perhaps their own view regarding how I go about things, but that is fine.  I do things my way, I enjoy it enormously, and have archived my own slice of magic along the way.  That said, I am always interested in the views of others, and learning from others can be a lot less hassle than trying to do everything yourself.

 

I can be completely honest here and say that anyone who gets pleasure from their system and from the enjoyment of music itself, has my complete respect, irrespective of how they approach what is ultimately a fascinating and complex subject. 

 

Respect is important though, particularly when dealing with a subject that has such a large subjective aspect to it.  Subjective matters are personal, so where I see a problem is where individuals try to force there own personal subjective views on others, when they may well see (and hear) the world very differently.  I love the sharing of ideas, which is why I participate on this forum, but the imposition of ideas can be a little problematic, particularly when in the realm of the personal and subjective. 

 

Lose respect and the sharing stops, and I think we all sacrifice something.

[fas42]

Some people may wish to listen to clips  of Noooo!!

 

I actually prefer to listen to

 

 

Running as I speak - hadn't run the active speakers in days; though it was about time to squirt some charge into the beasts - not bad! Good violin tone; nothing particular to complain about - from a cold start, 😉.

 

This disc set has always been a harsh mistress - can sound very offputting if anything is majorly askew.

[Confused]

As an aside to my above post, I once spent a long time listening to a nicely set up system using a pair of Dynaudio Confidence C4's.  This was a superb system, I was able to listen with a wide range of music and enjoyed everything I heard.   

 

This particular system was using Naim CD player and was powered by a big Musical Fidelity M6500 amp.  I might be wrong, but I suspect I would still like this system if you swapped in a Bryston amp, and possibly more still with a Chord front end. 

 

Others might view this differently, but I am 90% sure I am right here, for myself at least.  🙂

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, Confused said:

I understand this, although I have to say that my approach is different.  I have visited a lot of audio shows, and the thing that always interests me most is listening to different speakers.  For me, speakers make the largest contribution to to the sound of a system, or to put it another way, they are the most significant variable.  To put this another way, you could select one speaker and try it with a number of amplifiers.  Assuming the amplifiers are of suitable specification to adequately drive the speaker, then the differences tend to be relatively subtle.  Conversely, you could try a given amplifier with a range of speakers that it could adequately drive, and the differences will be significant.  In your case, you mentioned that you liked the Bryston / Dynaudio system.  I suspect that you could have "swapped out" the Byston for a number of decent alternatives, and you would still like the system.

 

Highly unlikely. This was the first time I've heard Dynaudios put up a good show - they had another room there, with some of their lesser models running - and it was uniformly, extremely lacklustre SQ. What the Brystons had was immense headroom - when I prodded the chap running the demo to up the volume, again and again, they refused to show any nasty streak - completely retaining their composure. This was the best I have heard any amplifier do, in this regard.

 

 

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, Confused said:

As an aside to my above post, I once spent a long time listening to a nicely set up system using a pair of Dynaudio Confidence C4's.  This was a superb system, I was able to listen with a wide range of music and enjoyed everything I heard.   

 

This particular system was using Naim CD player and was powered by a big Musical Fidelity M6500 amp.  I might be wrong, but I suspect I would still like this system if you swapped in a Bryston amp, and possibly more still with a Chord front end. 

 

Others might view this differently, but I am 90% sure I am right here, for myself at least.  🙂

 

Bingo! The very speakers that I heard.

[Confused]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Highly unlikely. This was the first time I've heard Dynaudios put up a good show - they had another room there, with some of their lesser models running - and it was uniformly, extremely lacklustre SQ. What the Brystons had was immense headroom - when I prodded the chap running the demo to up the volume, again and again, they refused to show any nasty streak - completely retaining their composure. This was the best I have heard any amplifier do, in this regard.

 

 

Do you recall which model Bryston they were using?

 

By the way, regarding your "highly unlikely" comment.  In my case I listened to C4's with a Musical Fidelity amp, which is about 500 wpc.  Do you suspect this would struggle with the C4's?  It sounded fine to me, and yes, we did tweak the volume up on a few tracks.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

42 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

What you say you do is impossible, and there is no more that one can do to tweak one’s system than that which has been mentioned. The fact that you can’t add any more to what I said, except to write some nonsense analogy about surgeons, proves the point. 
One more question. What do you hope to accomplish by repeating your nonsense (and defending your nonsense with ever more flimsy non-explanations when challenged)? Do you imagine that nobody sees through you? It’s a rhetorical question, Frank. Your answer would be more of the same and an embarrassment for all nvolved.

 

the claims are indeed grandiose and if not of a delusional nature, it suggests, as @Teresa suggested, the aim is to offend. Its not just the absurdity of the claims tantamount to turning junk into jewels but the concurrent insistence that the vast majority of high end quality gear that other members own sounds bad, "like poo". The implication is that he alone (and maybe a few other enlightened ones that "grok it") has ownership of the special magic to both identify and produce superior sound irrespective of price or others' knowledge and experience. In essence it is a put down which is why I think people find it so objectionable beyond just some nutty ideas.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Confused said:

Do you recall which model Bryston they were using?

 

By the way, regarding your "highly unlikely" comment.  In my case I listened to C4's with a Musical Fidelity amp, which is about 500 wpc.  Do you suspect this would struggle with the C4's?  It sounded fine to me, and yes, we did tweak the volume up on a few tracks.

 

Yes, the top of line monoblocks, the 28B SST  units.

 

Can't say about the Musical Fidelity units, I have never knowingly listened to any of their high end power amps.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

the claims are indeed grandiose and if not of a delusional nature, it suggests, as @Teresa suggested, the aim is to offend. Its not just the absurdity of the claims tantamount to turning junk into jewels but the concurrent insistence that the vast majority of high end quality gear that other members own sounds bad, "like poo". The implication is that he alone (and maybe a few other enlightened ones that "grok it") has ownership of the special magic to both identify and produce superior sound irrespective of price or others' knowledge and experience. In essence it is a put down which is why I think people find it so objectionable beyond just some nutty ideas.

 

You're ignoring the context of the sounding like poo comment I made - which is, that a fine speaker can be made to sound awful, by being in a setup which has not been debugged sufficiently. Every brand in the Kef dealer's room came across poorly, it was uniformly of a low standard - by contrast, there was a single dealer who had a huge variety of makes, over 3 rooms worth - and every combo that played delivered decent sound, well above the standard of virtually all the other rooms. I made a point of going back to this set of rooms a number of times over the day, and was never disappointed ... someone in the organisation understood the importance of worrying about the little things, and, got the results.

 

I could mention that I struggle with the Wilson brand - too many times I've heard ear shredding sound from them ... but I won't ... 😁.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

29 minutes ago, fas42 said:

there was a single dealer who had a huge variety of makes, over 3 rooms worth - and every combo that played delivered decent sound, well above the standard of virtually all the other rooms. I made a point of going back to this set of rooms a number of times over the day, and was never disappointed ... someone in the organisation understood the importance of worrying about the little things, and, got the results.

 

Frank, you are yet again backpedaling faster than a paltering politician.

 

I will repeat, the claims you have made are indeed grandiose and if not of a delusional nature, it suggests the aim is to offend. I do not think you are delusional but I may be wrong, which leaves the alternative. Your smug insistence on your 'method' is IMO either narcissistic or duplicitous, but either way I believe it to be intentionally offensive. As said, in essence it is a put down which is why I think people find it so objectionable beyond just some nutty ideas.

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I will repeat, the claims you have made are indeed grandiose and if not of a delusional nature, it suggests the aim is to offend. I do not think you are delusional but I may be wrong, which leaves the alternative. Your smug insistence on your 'method' is IMO either narcissistic or duplicitous, but either way I believe it to be intentionally offensive. As said, in essence it is a put down which is why I think people find it so objectionable beyond just some nutty ideas.

 

How are many of the claims often made here, on AS, different than what Frank is doing? How's a specialty DC wire or an audiophile fuse or an AC cord with special geometry any better? The process to arrive at their utility is exactly the same: make a change, listen, and decide for yourself if the change is beneficial. Frank is doing exactly this and simply reporting on his findings, just like every other audiophile here.

 

You don't think his findings are valid? They are just as valid in his mind, as that beeswax fuse or a shakti stone or a gas-filled AC cord or grounding box full of rocks are in the minds of those who hear the differences they cause. 

 

I know why I disagree with Frank's method and findings, but I certainly doubt that will be your reason. So, why do you, David, insist on attacking Frank and not all those others who are doing exactly the same thing? Seems like a double-standard. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

 

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

the claims are indeed grandiose and if not of a delusional nature, it suggests, as @Teresa suggested, the aim is to offend. Its not just the absurdity of the claims tantamount to turning junk into jewels but the concurrent insistence that the vast majority of high end quality gear that other members own sounds bad, "like poo". The implication is that he alone (and maybe a few other enlightened ones that "grok it") has ownership of the special magic to both identify and produce superior sound irrespective of price or others' knowledge and experience. In essence it is a put down which is why I think people find it so objectionable beyond just some nutty ideas.

Well, I more than half suspect that he’s pulling our collective leg. Let’s look at a very minimalist system: A disc player of some kind, a good integrated amp (Mark Levinson, Pass Labs, Parasound, Prima Luna, etc. it really doesn’t matter) and a pair of speakers. Ok. We have two active components only. Now we dress the single stereo interconnect away from the two mains cords, and we use good quality OFC, 12 Ga 259 strand speaker wire connected by gold plated spade lugs on the amp end and the speaker end. Now that’s pretty simple, and we’ve done EVERYthing that can be done* to “tweak” that system. Yet Frank says that there is more. Ask hi what else can be done, and he goes off on some mystical tangent or gives us meaningless analogies to try to convince us that his “experience” allows him to find more ways to improve the system (short of redesigning and rebuilding the equipment). It makes so little sense that he must be pulling our leg.

 

* BTW, soldering interconnects directly from chassis to chassis does not buy you anything AT ALL! I was the chief engineer at the Lockheed Missile And Space Company’s cable development lab for the Poseidon Polaris missile programfor several years. We experimented with every kind of connector and connection methodology under the sun, and we found that soldering connections on both ends was actually worse than crimped, gold plated male and female mechanical connections! Basically the same system as a gold plated RCA male to a gold-plated RCA female RCA receptical found I even most mid-Fi electronics these days. Again, if soldered interconnects afforded any advantage sonically, whatsoever, then Integrated amplifiers would be preferred overwhelmingly to similar separate preamps and amps, and they aren’t.
 

So, I say again, if Frank is hearing any improvement to his system by soldering his interconnects, then the improvement is surely between his ears, not in the equipment!
 

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

How are many of the claims often made here, on AS, different than what Frank is doing? How's a specialty DC wire or an audiophile fuse or an AC cord with special geometry any better? The process to arrive at their utility is exactly the same: make a change, listen, and decide for yourself if the change is beneficial. Frank is doing exactly this and simply reporting on his findings, just like every other audiophile here.

Well, they aren’t different. But people who buy into much of the audio mouse-milk and mythology don’t go on about it endlessly day in and day out in every topic on this forum. And doing so with ever more grandiose claims of god-like superiority when it comes to tweaking the best from his mediocre to poor equipment using procedures that only he knows and which can’t be explained. The ones he can explain have been exposed as bullpuckey time and time again. 

Quote

 

You don't think his findings are valid? They are just as valid in his mind, as that beeswax fuse or a shakti stone or a gas-filled AC cord or grounding box full of rocks are in the minds of those who hear the differences they cause. 
 

Absolutely agreed. But again, it’s not that Frank is chasing the wholly grail of audio. We all do that to some extent. What Frank has done somewhere along the line is to switch from chasing actual audio nirvana to chasing his own tail.

 

Frank reminds me of the school kid, who, when he finds that his teachers and classmates don’t believe his story about a tiger having eaten his homework, descends into panic as his attempt to shore-up his lie gets more and more outlandish, self contradictory and implausibile.

 

 

[Allan F]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

We experimented with every kind of connector and connection methodology under the sun, and we found that soldering connections on both ends was actually worse than crimped, gold plated male and female mechanical connections!

 

True. Soldering is not the path to nirvana, notwithstanding the opinion of some who insist otherwise.

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Well, they aren’t different. But people who buy into much of the audio mouse-milk and mythology don’t go on about it endlessly day in and day out in every topic on this forum. And doing so with ever more grandiose claims of god-like superiority when it comes to tweaking the best from his mediocre to poor equipment using procedures that only he knows and which can’t be explained. The ones he can explain have been exposed as bullpuckey time and time again. 

Absolutely agreed. But again, it’s not that Frank is chasing the wholly grail of audio. We all do that to some extent. What Frank has done somewhere along the line is to switch from chasing actual audio nirvana to chasing his own tail.

 

Frank reminds me of the school kid, who, when he finds that his teachers and classmates don’t believe his story about a tiger having eaten his homework, descends into panic as his attempt to shore-up his lie gets more and more outlandish, self contradictory and implausibile.

 

 

Wholly grail!? WHOLLY GRAIL? I sure hope that was auto-correct and not me