Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

 

 

Quote

Quote

Frank this sounds very much like you are saying bad recordings will be revealed as bad recordings, the better the playback system is..... If the "track is dynamite bad, technically - the better the system, the more obvious this is".

 

Technically bad recordings will sound awful, as soon as the playback slips from optimum. Superbly well done recordings will be very impressive on virtually anything. Get a rig to sit at the optimum point, and both the technically bad, and superbly well done, will work, as listening experiences.

 

Technically bad recordings will always sound technically bad because they are inherently technically bad. Once again I accept that there is potential for a suboptimal system to exacerbate the technical flaws. I accept that addressing these playback issues will make the technically bad recording sound less unpleasant. It can never make the technically bad recording sound like an excellent superbly well done recording.

 

A superbly well done recording has the best chance of sounding great on the vast majority of playback systems. A superbly well done recording will always sound better compared to a poor recording on any given playback system. A well done recording will sound its best on a high-end system that has been well sorted. A less than high-end system that has been well sorted will produce enjoyable music but not to the standard of a high-end system that has been well sorted and playing the same recording.

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

It's not a question of other people being able to enjoy your sound system which I am sure they can. In fact, I am pretty sure I would enjoy your sound system and be pleased with your results. What is in question is the extent of the results

 

 

The results include that enormous soundstages are thrown up behind the speakers, which are fully 'populated' - my current active speakers don't do this particularly well, so far - other things are good, but this may turn out to be a key weakness; time will tell if this can be realised to a good level, without stupid levels of tweaking.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, I could put on that Rolling Stones track, the version in the previous post, on a competent rig - not the Edifiers, as yet - and I would see a huge stage, and nowhere where I was in the room would I be able to single out the speakers as being the source of the sound ... can you relate to that?

Firstly I would have to get the original track, not the Youtube upload, and have a listen. If indeed the speakers did aurally disappear it tells me something about both the playback system and the recording and/or their interaction. If achieved, it is just one of many cues that determines good overall sound quality. It still doesn't get away from the fact that we use similar words to describe the state of "Rome" and yet find ourselves in different places. You might perceive that the speakers aurally disappear but I may not, and vice versa. In my experience, I only hear the speakers aurally disappear on well sorted higher-end systems. Less than high-end systems produce very pleasant music and an enjoyable musical experience, just not as great as a well sorted higher end system

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The results include that enormous soundstages are thrown up behind the speakers, which are fully 'populated' - my current active speakers don't do this particularly well, so far - other things are good, but this may turn out to be a key weakness; time will tell if this can be realised to a good level, without stupid levels of tweaking.

 

Again we use the same words, in this case, "enormous soundstages are thrown up behind the speakers which are fully populated". Where we have differences is in its achieve-ability

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Technically bad recordings will always sound technically bad because they are inherently technically bad. Once again I accept that there is potential for a suboptimal system to exacerbate the technical flaws. I accept that this will make the technically bad recording sound less unpleasant. It can never make the technically bad recording sound like an excellent superbly well done recording.

 

Yes, it will never sound like a superbly well done recording ... here again, think of the orchestral recordings using dumb microphone arrays - it will always sound a bit weird, because that was a 'creative' choice, 🙄

 

12 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

A superbly well done recording has the best chance of sounding great on the vast majority of playback systems. A superbly well done recording will always sound better compared to a poor recording on any given playback system. A well done recording will sound its best on a high-end system that has been well sorted. A less than high-end system that has been well sorted will produce enjoyable music but not to the standard of a high-end system that has been well sorted and playing the same recording.

 

Agree.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Firstly I would have to get the original track, not the Youtube upload, and have a listen. If indeed the speakers did aurally disappear it tells me something about both the playback system and the recording and/or their interaction. If achieved, it is just one of many cues that determines good overall sound quality. It still doesn't get away from the fact that we use similar words to describe the state of "Rome" and yet find ourselves in different places. You might perceive that the speakers aurally disappear but I may not, and vice versa. In my experience, I only hear the speakers aurally disappear on well sorted higher-end systems. Less than high-end systems produce very pleasant music and an enjoyable musical experience, just not as great as a well sorted higher end system

 

Yes, there will be people who will never hear the speakers disappear. The bizarre thing is, that the most mediocre recordings, technically, still allow the disappearing speaker trick to work - if the SQ of the replay is good enough. I found this completely astounding when it happened - but it may not work for significant numbers of people. This can only be tested by having a proper testing session with a variety of people, of course.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, there will be people who will never hear the speakers disappear. The bizarre thing is, that the most mediocre recordings, technically, still allow the disappearing speaker trick to work - if the SQ of the replay is good enough. I found this completely astounding when it happened - but it may not work for significant numbers of people. This can only be tested by having a proper testing session with a variety of people, of course.

Agree🙂. I would think it the exception rather than the rule. I think it would be directly proportional to the quality of the speakers having no inherent signature stamped on the sound.

[Confused]

This turned up on another thread.  Perhaps the ultimate track for rig sorting and for making your speakers disappear?

(or maybe not, please do not take this post too seriously folks, just a bit of fun in these troubled times....)

 

 

[PeterSt]

Yeah, great stuff. It is only that I failed to discover the 1KHz tone (was it 1K, I think so). So apparently my hearing is not the best anymore.

Rig-testing : the voice in the beginning "should come from the left loud speaker". But it comes from the middle. So I must tweak some.

 

Only last week I heard the same "song" though played by an other artist (probably an "ambient" DJ mangling with it - I forgot).

[fas42]

Sorta reminded me of Art of Noise ... used to play them a lot, on that original rig,

 

 

 

[fas42]

Just came across this ... nearly $300,000 worth of gear, at a 2019 show - with all the attributes of when high end gets it wrong; still so common ...

 

 

[Confused]

On 8/11/2020 at 1:34 AM, fas42 said:

Just came across this ... nearly $300,000 worth of gear, at a 2019 show - with all the attributes of when high end gets it wrong; still so common ...

 

 

Well, if the system actually sounded like this recording, I would most definitely agree.  Maybe it did? 

 

I find this a little hard to believe though, as I have a portable radio that sounds better.

 

Does anyone know what was used to make this recording?

[Allan F]

It would be really hard to make those Stein Music Bob XL speakers "disappear".

[fas42]

This piece by @Archimago, https://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/07/measurements-pass-amp-camp-amp-aca-11.html, to me points out so strongly the hole that the objectivists have dug for themselves - after trashing the Pass amplifier, by pointing out how badly it measures, he says,

 

Quote

"Special effects" type sounds like the alarms and chimes at the start of "Time" (Dark Side) remain well-placed in the soundstage but presumably because of that "air", created a pleasant illusion of taking up more spatial "volume" compare to my more powerful and accurate amplifiers. A similar effect was also heard with demo tracks like "Moonlight on Spring River" (The Dali CD Vol. 3) which really highlights the top octaves. In my discussions with Mitch, we used the phrase "glassy quality" which speaks of the subjective clarity, although I would also use the word "glow" to suggest that there's a pleasant accentuation to the sound ("bloom" might be another non-visual description for this effect I've heard used for tube amps). To me these are examples of potential subjective qualities which each listener will need to judge for themselves. I suspect the "air" and even "glowing" qualities again are likely the result of the distortions (primarily 2nd harmonic accentuation of the "presence" and "brilliance" frequencies?) which can be judged as "euphonic" and thus of subjective value even if typically seen as objective liabilities. Although philosophically I lean towards building a reference system based on more linear/"accurate" amplifiers, nothing stops me from appreciating the effects of adding distortion or coloration in the service of achieving pleasure either.

 

That is, if the recording sounds better, it must be distortion ... why? Because, a system built of components that measure brilliantly don't make it sound so good - and obviously measurements don't lie 🙄 ; an "accurate system" must be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 🤣.

 

Therefore, it's a guilty pleasure for objectivists to enjoy the playback of these inferior, subjectively pleasing, components - they can never consider the possibility that they are actually getting closer to the true nature of the recording.

 

As someone who routinely evolves a system from sounding edgy, or dreary and flat, to a situation where there is tonnes of "air", "bloom", and all the other good things - without doing a damn thing to change the inherent working of the parts - I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read pieces like this ... they are so certain they understand what's going on, when in fact they are so far from laying a glove on it.

 

Ah well, there's always next year ... 😉.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Confused said:

Well, if the system actually sounded like this recording, I would most definitely agree.  Maybe it did? 

 

I find this a little hard to believe though, as I have a portable radio that sounds better.

 

Does anyone know what was used to make this recording?

 

Pretty decent stuff, as far as I know ...

 

To demonstrate that it picks up clearly what's going on in the room, here's one hot off the presses, showing lots of positives in the replay - to top it off, old time gear, etc - jump to 17:00 to skip all the introductory filler,

 

 

 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

That is, if the recording sounds better, it must be distortion ... why? Because, a system built of components that measure brilliantly don't make it sound so good - and obviously measurements don't lie 🙄 ; an "accurate system" must be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 🤣.

 

What sounds pleasant isn't necessarily the truth. Ice cream tastes good, but it's not providing proper nutrition.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

What sounds pleasant isn't necessarily the truth. Ice cream tastes good, but it's not providing proper nutrition.

 

If the amplifier is presenting a performance closer to the original performance than most other amplifiers, then the measurements that some believe are the be-all, end-all,  are not capable of revealing why. 😋

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

That is, if the recording sounds better, it must be distortion ... why? Because, a system built of components that measure brilliantly don't make it sound so good - and obviously measurements don't lie 🙄 ; an "accurate system" must be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 🤣.

 

Yes, the way I look at it we perceive the real thing (in the case of an acoustic event) with our ears/brain and it seems both reasonable and logical that we want to match that 'reality' (call it subjective if you like) with what we perceive when listening to a playback system, again using our ears/brain. Reality one matches reality two. Everything in between is well, not real, but rather a surrogate marker or representation of reality, squiggly lines on a scope. You can match one squiggly line with another squiggly line and call it "accurate". But if it disagrees with reality then it fails, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

If the amplifier is presenting a performance closer to the original performance than most other amplifiers, then the measurements that some believe are the be-all, end-all,  are not capable of revealing why. 😋

 

Or maybe the listener has a vivid imagination... like Frank?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

16 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Ice cream tastes good, but it's not providing proper nutrition.

It depends on how you define nourishment🙄

besides the point is I want a carrot to taste like a carrot and I want broccoli to taste like broccoli. I want chocolate ice cream to taste like chocolate ice cream. How do I determine this? I taste them🙄 you can measure them if you like😁

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

It depends on how you define nourishment🙄

besides the point is I want a carrot to taste like a carrot and I want broccoli to taste like broccoli. I want chocolate ice cream to taste like chocolate ice cream. How do I determine this? I taste them🙄 you can measure them if you like😁

So if it tastes like beef, you’ll eat regardless of its chemical composition?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

So if it tastes like beef, you’ll eat regardless of its chemical composition?

 

The best way to judge if beef tastes like beef is to taste it.

 

Analysing the chemical composition can tell you other useful things but it cannot tell you what it tastes like, it tells you the chemical composition from which you might more or less accurately infer a taste sensation.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The best way to judge if beef tastes like beef is to taste it.

 

Analysing the chemical composition can tell you other useful things but it cannot tell you what it tastes like, it tells you the chemical composition from which you might more or less accurately infer a taste sensation.

But we’re not talking about what it tastes like. Frank was claiming that what it tastes like is the truth, even if beef you taste is not made out of beef at all. Personally, I prefer to know the truth, but if you just want something that tastes good, that’s your choice.

[sandyk]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Or maybe the listener has a vivid imagination... like Frank?

 Or perhaps yourself , that current measurements, including your own currently promoted ones, backed up by "Objective" A.S.R. user reports, are of course all that is needed to explain that ALL Subjective reports are the results of vivid imaginations  .?

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

So if it tastes like beef, you’ll eat regardless of its chemical composition?

 

 Perhaps you have just come up with a new ice cream flavour to go along with your Big Mac ?  😄