Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Right ... so all breakthroughs in current thinking, that progress understanding - can be undone by pointing by a single instance pf possibly wacky experimental research ... is that what we're saying, hmm?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

[kumakuma]

[kumakuma]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Actually, there is no such thing as, "right"

 

Actually, there is...

 

 

 

[kumakuma]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Ah, you're talking history - not, "rightness" ... archival footage, and text - which can be doctored of course; these days it's easier and easier to "fake it" - and plenty of regimes have used such approaches, right up to current times.

 

 

[kumakuma]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Ah, you live in that very strange country - where it's a national passion to disbelieve things; sort of a hobby, it appears 🤪 ... name just about any part of the human story, and there will be a pack of people who have fun "proving otherwise" ... 😉.

 

 

I don't live there but it sounds like you'd fit right in...

 

57 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Ah, you're talking history - not, "rightness" ... archival footage, and text - which can be doctored of course; these days it's easier and easier to "fake it" - and plenty of regimes have used such approaches, right up to current times.

 

[kumakuma]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

And since biases have been mentioned, I think I'm dealing with a solid example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

 

Nothing to be embarrassed about, Frank. It's just how the mind operates.

[kumakuma]

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

and the results are still very poor value for money

 

Absolutely not true.

 

Just look at your own budget powered speakers that would make 99.9% of all people listening to them very happy... right out of the box.

[kumakuma]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

People believe that they need something like this, http://www.wadax.eu/reference/, to get the SQ that "really works" - so perpetuating the myth. Yes, I'm sure that it sounds superb, when correctly linked into an appropriate rig - but this is what keeps 'normal' people from taking an interest in higher SQ ... when they look at the price tag ... 😉.

 

I disagree.

 

'Normal' people listen to music on their phone and don't even know about the existence of such high-end audio components.

 

'Normal' people who happen to stumble upon this site are also NOT going to be encouraged by reading your endless stream of posts about how all audio components need to be tweaked to the nth degree to sound good.

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

They don't need to read my posts - they just have to hear a reasonably priced system produce the subjective quality I quoted in my previous post. That's what will turn them on ... so, there need to be more rigs out there that do that level of quality.

 

There are hundreds of products out there that would make '99.9% of all people listening to them very happy'.

 

The fact that they don't live up to YOUR standards doesn't negate this fact.

 

[kumakuma]

16 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

There's a difference between something that will keep people "very happy", and what higher SQ delivers - the human story is about constantly lifting the level of what we experience, and how well we can control our environment. I sure people were very happy with the cars they bought in the 1920's, the 1950's, the 1980's - so, for example, let's dump everything we've learned in the meantime, and start building all new cars just like they did in the 1920's - anyone who then complains has got a problem; the people 100 years ago were mighty happy - just look at them! 🤪

 

 

[kumakuma]

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Yet Another Post that makes it clear that most audiophiles have things back to front in this game - I won't point to it, 😉 ... the thinking is nearly always that changing the DAC, say, makes the recording sound "better and better!" - like there's some powder inside the unit that is fluffed on, doing magic on the waveform as it comes through.

 

Folks, it just doesn't work that way, 😀. All you're gonna get is the raw recording, with no added bits(🤪) of makeup from the DAC - the "better and better" is coming about because you're getting closer, inch by inch, to that sound - which means that there is always a real limit to what can ultimately happen. But, the really good news is that the real magic is in the recording itself - and always has been. Your job, if you choose the mission, is to work out how to get there ... 🙃

 

Adding a few emojis to an insulting post is such as 12-year-old girl move. 

[kumakuma]

23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course, what is really interesting is why you consider that insulting - is it because people in your part of the world are extremely thin skinned, or something else?

 

Actually what's more even more interesting is why you consider it necessary to make yet another one of your "all audiophiles are idiots" posts.

 

Is that how people in your part of the world interact with one another?

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

No, I see most audiophiles as having a very unhelpful perspective on what needs to be done to get best sound - everyone I talked to 30 years ago, in the audio world were fixated on certain things being very important; and it continues to this day - and for decades the SQ of rigs I came across suffered from this thinking ... mob thinking rules the roost, and very few people dare to challenge that. If they do, they are normally completely ignored.

 

And the end result are things like grotesquely over-compressed recordings, and MQA. So, the audio world has reaped from what it has sown, in my book ... which is why I'm not going to pander to people who want to think that those ideas are still what it's all about ...

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

Have you actually read the MQA-related threads on this site?

 

There is no "mob". More like a herd of cats.

[kumakuma]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

But those who hate the MQA 'tone' are now stuck with dealing with it being on the market - it should never have arisen.

 

How would you have prevented the record labels from getting behind it?

 

I'm pretty sure the company stock that MQA gave them and the potential to protect their crown jewels were more compelling that the opinions of you, I, or any other audiophile.

 

 

[kumakuma]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

MQA would not have been devised as a technical 'solution' - if there was no call for SQ to be improved. An obvious analogy is Dolby Noise Reduction - it was invented because the media of the time struggled to get tape hiss down; there was an actual need to improve the performance, so a patented method to deal with it was created. If the tapes of the time had much better S/N ratios, the word Dolby would not have mean anything to anyone, right now ... it was a solution to a real problem.

 

MQA is a solution for people who have sub-par playback; if the overall general standard of audio replay had been much higher at the time, the concept of MQA would have been laughed at, as a curiosity of no value to anyone - it would have died a very, very early death.

 

 

 

Your understanding is incorrect.

 

MQA was created primarily as a "lossless" compression method to deal with bandwidth issues (at the time) with DRM thrown in to get the labels on board.

 

Quote

 

Digital encapsulation of audio signals

Patent number: 10867614

Abstract: Encoding and decoding systems are described for the provision of high quality digital representations of audio signals with particular attention to the correct perceptual rendering of fast transients at modest sample rates. This is achieved by optimising downsampling and upsampling filters to minimise the length of the impulse response while adequately attenuating alias products that have been found perceptually harmful.

 

 

Quote

 

Transparent lossless audio watermarking enhancement

Patent number: 10811017

Abstract: Methods and devices are described for losslessly watermarking an audio signal by performing a noise shaped quantisation and clipping the output from the noise shaped quantisation to bounds computed by a pair of quantised linear functions with gradient 0.5 of the input to the noise shaped quantisation. Corresponding methods and devices are also described for inverting the process to recover an exact replica of the original audio signal.

 

 

[kumakuma]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

who are bloody minded in their insistence that certain "rules" can't be broken - things like, "a high percentage of recordings are garbage, and nothing can be done about that!"

 

Frank, folks disagree with you not because of some group think or mob mentality but because their own experiences and senses are telling them something else.

 

The undertone in many of your posts is that you know better than rest of us and that we are all simply sheep following the herd without the ability to think for ourselves.

 

I find this attitude on your part both condescending and insulting.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Of course your experiences and senses are telling you something different ... I hear what you're hearing nearly every time I come across another ambitious rig - I shake my head at all the obvious, very audible problems in the SQ, and wonder how the person can put up with it for extended periods 😝.

 

I "know better" purely because I started getting competent SQ over 30 years ago  ... in the fields of human endeavour, in any area, the person who has been doing it longer will always "know more" ...

 

People keep saying they want to experience the sensation of live music, from recordings - when I describe the highly effective, low cost steps that allow that to happen, people respond with contempt and disbelief ... sorry, attitude works both ways.

 

My wife often tells me I'm full of myself.

 

Frank, if you don't mind, I'm going to share some of your posts with her as proof that she could have done a lot worse.

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

You do realise this exchange commenced when you responded to a post aimed at no-one in particular

 

My apologizes. 🛀

 

I didn't realize that you were posting just to hear the sound of your own voice. 🤐

 

Perhaps in the future you could flag those posts that are just for your own benefit. 🦄

[kumakuma]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Very simple solution ... if what I say agitates you, just ignore me - any way you want to do that. If you want reinforcement of your thinking of what's important in the audio world, you are certainly not going to get it  here ... you see, it's called "Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’" ... if you want to start another thread called "kumakuma's audio reality!!", you are quite free to do so - how about considering that for a bit, hmmm ...

 

You appear to be confusing a thread created to discuss your claims/methods with one intended to promote your claims/methods.

 

I will, however, take your advice to heart and try to resist posting in any of the echo chamber threads that you have created.

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Cherry picking information is not very appealing, nore does it back your perspective. You are not convincing anyone except yourself. I have to wonder why you don't peddle your repeated response at ASR or other sites. Would it be because of to much resistance?

 

He was banned from that site (and others):

 

https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/member-banning.2236/ 

[kumakuma]

33 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, as a homework exercise, compare and contrast @kumakuma contributions to this discussion, with those of say, @Confused and @Blackmorec, 😉.

 

A more interesting stat would be that I've made an average of 1.5 posts/day since joining while you're at 6.31 posts/day.

[kumakuma]

 

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ahh, a "mine is bigger!" contribution - people, make sure you add that one to the list to study ... 😉.

 

😶 1.5 is smaller than 6.3 😢

 

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I only have convince people who are genuinely interested in better listening experiences - those who live in the world of, "Authority Figures are always Right!", or, "Money maketh the System, or,  "Names!! maketh the System" can just move on ... nothing to see here, 🤪.

 

Interesting that you should mention Authority Figures and always being right. Yesterday you said about yourself:

 

Quote

I "know better" purely because I started getting competent SQ over 30 years ago  ... in the fields of human endeavour, in any area, the person who has been doing it longer will always "know more" ...

 

[kumakuma]

Just now, botrytis said:

 

and you had to reply ... Who's is bigger? 🤣

 

I think he's trying to get to 10,000 posts as quickly as he can...

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Give you an example of what I hate - what was posted here, the first clip

 

This is classic, beat the input into bloodied pulp, and hurl the mess out at as loud as I can,  PA crap - which I detest. Some people think this is exciting, live music vibe - but I don't ...

 

Sounds fine on a fully sorted out rig...