Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[fas42]

15 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

High-end systems should be marked by the absence of signature distortions. When you listen to "ambitious rigs", what kind of gear is this and what are the signature distortions you most typically find recurring? Do these signature distortions occur just as frequently or less frequently occur in less ambitious rigs?

 

Yes, they should. But they are normally aren't. In terms of the rigs I've listened to over the years they have spanned the full gamut, from very modest to those that cost $100,000s; the usual signs I hear is an unpleasantness in the treble area, lack of resolution of inner detail, and a presentation which is not at all convincing - say, vocals which just don't ring true.

 

Less ambitious rigs are usually "better balanced" as a listening experience, because they don't highlight misdemeanours. But the ambitious ones will do a very impressive job with recordings that don't catch them out, but the next minute sound awful with a different style of recording, that happens to trigger the signature distortions very strongly.

 

15 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

So for example a piano should sound more like a piano on a high-end system. Do you find this is the opposite?

 

A recording of a piano will sound like a piano. Period. The high end rig should do a better job with the bass area, and go louder with conviction; but still always send all the signals to the brain that one is listening to the real deal. But some of the most grotesque caricatures of the sound of a piano over the years have come from very expensive gear - I always think, how can it get the sound so wrong?!!

 

15 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The only thing that comes to mind for me that might fit your description of a common shortcoming (in my mind) in some high-end systems is that "wall of sound" effect where (in my opinion) people have gone overboard with an in-your-face kind of presentation, because they can. In every good system I have heard there is an immediate, for want of a better word, big quality to the sound. It's not in-your-face. It's big because it is open and unrestrained and sounds lifelike, not coming from a little box. I get the same bigness of sound hitting notes in my piano or blowing notes on my saxophone. The sound itself is instantly compelling as real.
 

 

Yes, I look for the quality of "bigness" - the power, the intensity, the raw impact of a single sound producing device is quite overwhelming - it's an energising experience, one exults in the sense of it. A high end rig is aiming to be able to consistently deliver that - and it's always disappointing when it doesn't live up to the hope that it can deliver.

 

An "in your face" rig is having a close contact fight with your ears. When a capable system gets it right, a vast vista opens in front of you, starting from the line of the speakers, and stretching back and sideways as far as the recorded acoustics determine - pop recordings can be mammoth, because they have free rein to manipulate as they wish, in the studio.

[fas42]

15 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I agree with you Frank but what I don't understand is how you can really assess sound quality

 

I look for what is wrong in the sound - if nothing strikes me as being odd, unsettling in the presentation then it's on the right path,🙂. If a system never sends a jarring message to my brain, as in, "I didn't like that bit!" then the SQ gets a tick. IOW, I assess sound quality by the fact the setup never reminds me that I'm listening to a recording, as compared to being in the presence of a musical event.

 

 

[fas42]

The amazing thing is that every recording has the potential to be magic to listen to ... this was something I slowly built up an understanding of, over many years - from a raw and gutsy rock and roller blast of sound usually served up in a pub, through to the most innocuous, meditative twiddling of synthesizers, and not excluding primitive, 100 year old efforts; and then everything in between - they can all "come alive!" ... This is the specialness of the huge archive of our recording heritage - something that will live forever ...

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The amazing thing is that every recording has the potential to be magic to listen to ... this was something I slowly built up an understanding of, over many years - from a raw and gutsy rock and roller blast of sound usually served up in a pub, through to the most innocuous, meditative twiddling of synthesizers, and not excluding primitive, 100 year old efforts; and then everything in between - they can all "come alive!" ... This is the specialness of the huge archive of our recording heritage - something that will live forever ...

 

I couldn't agree less.

 

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I couldn't agree less.

 

 

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, 😉.

[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. 

[fas42]

Which led me to discover Ruri's Law,

 

Quote

 

"The vast majority of people are idiots."

 

 

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

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

The amazing thing is that every recording has the potential to be magic to listen to ...

 

Don't you ever get tired of playing this?

 

[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...

[Archimago]

On 8/12/2020 at 4:36 PM, fas42 said:

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,

 

 

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 ... 😉.

 

Hmmm... Frank, I dunno man, I don't see how the measurements/subjective comments as "digging a hole".

 

Remember, from the beginning I've always been "more objective" with recognition that ultimately audiophilia is (should be!) about enjoying the music even though I find it difficult to accept much of the subjective claims of audiophilia. While philosophically, I believe the hardware should simply be about high fidelity reproduction of recordings and an amplifier like the ACA would not be my ideal amp given my speakers, room, etc... I can still enjoy the sound. I was over at @mitchco's place a couple weeks ago and the ACAs function even better in his horn system with much higher sensitivity and thus lower distortion which makes it a better match.

 

"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."

 

This is where you're losing me... What is the "true nature of the recording" you're getting at? Is not the "true nature" simply achieved by playback with high-fidelity gear capable of accuracy below human perception? Just because equipment adding distortions might subjectively sound better to some people with some recordings, sometimes doesn't seem all that surprising to me given how everyone has different tastes.

 

As for your evolutionary "magic". I still don't get that! 😉

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, Abtr said:

Alan Parson's famous quote about audiophiles: "Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to music, audiophiles use music to listen to their equipment."

 

4 hours ago, Abtr said:

Well, obviously, an audiophile might use music to listen to his or her equipment, but that doesn't imply he or she doesn't like music in the first place. Why else would he/she be interested in the sound quality of the equipment? So, I agree that such people most probably don't exist.. 

 

I would say that such people probably do exist but rather than being the definition of audiophiles (as suggested by the Alan Parsons sarcastic quote), they are the antithesis of audiophiles. This would be true in my opinion whether one "used music" to listen to their equipment or "use music" to measure their equipment. The way I see it, an audiophile's ultimate goal and therefore the ultimate reference point is in the listening of music.

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

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...

 

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 ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, they should. But they are normally aren't. In terms of the rigs I've listened to over the years they have spanned the full gamut, from very modest to those that cost $100,000s; the usual signs I hear is an unpleasantness in the treble area, lack of resolution of inner detail, and a presentation which is not at all convincing - say, vocals which just don't ring true.

 

Less ambitious rigs are usually "better balanced" as a listening experience, because they don't highlight misdemeanours. But the ambitious ones will do a very impressive job with recordings that don't catch them out, but the next minute sound awful with a different style of recording, that happens to trigger the signature distortions very strongly.

 

 

A recording of a piano will sound like a piano. Period. The high end rig should do a better job with the bass area, and go louder with conviction; but still always send all the signals to the brain that one is listening to the real deal. But some of the most grotesque caricatures of the sound of a piano over the years have come from very expensive gear - I always think, how can it get the sound so wrong?!!

 

 

Yes, I look for the quality of "bigness" - the power, the intensity, the raw impact of a single sound producing device is quite overwhelming - it's an energising experience, one exults in the sense of it. A high end rig is aiming to be able to consistently deliver that - and it's always disappointing when it doesn't live up to the hope that it can deliver.

 

An "in your face" rig is having a close contact fight with your ears. When a capable system gets it right, a vast vista opens in front of you, starting from the line of the speakers, and stretching back and sideways as far as the recorded acoustics determine - pop recordings can be mammoth, because they have free rein to manipulate as they wish, in the studio.

 

Frank, it's hard to fathom how far apart we are in our approach given that our descriptions of the final listening experience are so close. I can only go back to the theory that we are having extremely different perceptual experiences but using the same words to describe them.

 

You describe an ambitious rig (high end) "the usual signs I hear is an unpleasantness in the treble area, lack of resolution of inner detail, and a presentation which is not at all convincing - say, vocals which just don't ring true." These are the words I would describe for a lo-fi or mid fi system. That's not to say that a high-end system is perfect, is just a matter of degree.

 

You say "Less ambitious rigs are usually "better balanced" as a listening experience, because they don't highlight misdemeanours."

 

I just couldn't disagree more. High-end systems are simply better balanced. Yes they will reveal "misdemeanours" in recordings as they should. I don't want to smear my lens with Vaseline or stick a pillow over my tweeter to achieve supposedly "better balance". I have no challenge that some music is better tolerated on very mediocre systems but I don't strive for mediocrity. The difference here is that better tolerated does not equate with more lifelike, real sounding music. Mediocre systems even if expertly tweaked and tuned just do not produce lifelike sound quality to my ears. They produce music that can be very much enjoyed but hardly at a lifelike level of sound quality. No doubt, after tweaking a lesser system you will use similar words and descriptions to describe the achievement of lifelike levels of sound quality that somehow the brain can latch onto once freed from certain irritations and distractions. This is just not my perception of the reality.

 

I think this is the main sticking point. While I can tweak the tone controls on an old radio so that I can enjoy the music of bad recordings or bad broadcasts, I do not in any way shape or form equate that with good sound quality let alone a lifelike rendering. It also doesn't lead me to the conclusion that high-end systems must therefore be "ambitious rigs" failing in their musical mission.

[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.

[Allan F]

10 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

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

 

Listening to live music with energy and interplay but lacking in musical talent may produce a buzz for Frank, but it is far more likely to turn off the vast majority of those who appreciate good music played by good musicians.

[fas42]

42 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

This is where you're losing me... What is the "true nature of the recording" you're getting at? Is not the "true nature" simply achieved by playback with high-fidelity gear capable of accuracy below human perception? Just because equipment adding distortions might subjectively sound better to some people with some recordings, sometimes doesn't seem all that surprising to me given how everyone has different tastes.

 

You will acknowledge that there is, as an ideal, the "true nature of the recording"? That is, there is absolutely no discernible signature of the  playback chain that is subjectively significant when listening - right? 🙂

 

"Capable of accuracy below human perception" is the theory - but not the reality. I have very, very rarely heard other rigs achieve a level of extracting the musical detail from a particular recording than what I've managed, at some point - the fact that some objectivists approved hardware is used in the chain doesn't guarantee anything, IME. As an example, there was a suite of rooms at the last audio show I went to, that were at a standard above practically everyone else - and one of the chains used current Benchmark gear. The replay of that was quite reasonable, but still failed to deliver the full content of the tracks - it didn't deliver the "I am there!" experience, which I knew was possible ...

 

42 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

As for your evolutionary "magic". I still don't get that! 😉

 

 

The "magic" is that one's hearing system, the ear/brain, switches on to another level of grokking what's happening in front of you when the SQ passes a certain standard. It does work like an on/off switch, and I've had decades of making this happen.  The evolutionary bit simply means that one has to keep knocking over each audible anomaly that interferes with allowing that switch to flick over - if you don't nail the last one that's in the way, then the "magic" never happens - that unfortunately how it works, 😉.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

25 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 ...

 

Frank the logic is just getting more bizarre in my opinion. I too get "a buzz out of the energy of musical sounds". This does not mean I enjoy "terrible" music or performers because they incorporate some nice sounds  Why not just have good sounds in the service of good music performed by good performers and played on high-end quality playback systems.

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You describe an ambitious rig (high end) "the usual signs I hear is an unpleasantness in the treble area, lack of resolution of inner detail, and a presentation which is not at all convincing - say, vocals which just don't ring true." These are the words I would describe for a lo-fi or mid fi system. That's not to say that a high-end system is perfect, is just a matter of degree.

 

Okay, let's say we have an excellent recording. The ambitious rig will do a fine job with that, and so I would then say, "Okay, lets try a 'difficult' recording". And then I would hear poor treble, lack of resolution, unconvincing presentation.

 

19 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You say "Less ambitious rigs are usually "better balanced" as a listening experience, because they don't highlight misdemeanours."

 

I just couldn't disagree more. High-end systems are simply better balanced. Yes they will reveal "misdemeanours" in recordings as they should. I don't want to smear my lens with Vaseline or stick a pillow over my tweeter to achieve supposedly "better balance". I have no challenge that some music is better tolerated on very mediocre systems but I don't strive for mediocrity. The difference here is that better tolerated does not equate with more lifelike, real sounding music. Mediocre systems even if expertly tweaked and tuned just do not produce lifelike sound quality to my ears. They produce music that can be very much enjoyed but hardly at a lifelike level of sound quality. No doubt, after tweaking a lesser system you will use similar words and descriptions to describe the achievement of lifelike levels of sound quality that somehow the brain can latch onto once freed from certain irritations and distractions. This is just not my perception of the reality.

 

As I have said many times, I have a whole suite of recordings that I use to identify the weaknesses of other systems. And my own ... as I tweak, I keep playing them, to see if the SQ has evolved enough, whether the clarity is there, to perceive the richness of what the recording contains. I have pointed to Rolling Stones tracks several times now, some of which are extremely marginal - when the SQ reaches the right point, everything on the track makes sense. Yes, it doesn't sound brilliant - but you can connect to every tiny detail of the musical detail in what you hear; and you're perfectly comfortable listening to it ... now, just allow the SQ to slide off its plateau a tiny bit, and as PeterSt colourfully described it, it sounds bloody 'orrible!! The bullseye is very, very tiny - and it's so easy to always keep missing it ...

 

19 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I think this is the main sticking point. While I can tweak the tone controls on an old radio so that I can enjoy the music of bad recordings or bad broadcasts, I do not in any way shape or form equate that with good sound quality let alone a lifelike rendering. It also doesn't lead me to the conclusion that high-end systems must therefore be "ambitious rigs" failing in their musical mission.

 

An ambitious system when fully sorted will always do a much better job than a likewise ordinary one; I've already agreed with that. The sticking point, as I see it, is how one goes about doing "that sorting", and how much is enough.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

29 minutes ago, fas42 said:

"Capable of accuracy below human perception" is the theory - but not the reality.

 

 

Frank, there are a great many people here that would agree. But the ongoing disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists as to what constitutes fidelity and how it is assessed is not the issue. It is your extraordinary claims that seem to have both camps scratching their heads

 

Quote

I have very, very rarely heard other rigs achieve a level of extracting the musical detail from a particular recording than what I've managed,

 

It is claims like the above, whether you are coming from the objectivist or subjectivist (and I am neither) point of view, that engender disbelief

 

Quote

 

The "magic" is that one's hearing system, the ear/brain, switches on to another level of grokking what's happening in front of you when the SQ passes a certain standard. It does work like an on/off switch, and I've had decades of making this happen. 

 

Again, there would be many that would agree that it is pointless to discuss rainbows with blind people. I get it. I also have some understanding of neurophysiology and neuropsychology and how perception works. In short, there is a problem when only one person sees the rainbow. This is distinctly different when there are thousands of people reporting the same rainbow such as cables making a difference.

 

 

[fas42]

33 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

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

 

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 ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, let's say we have an excellent recording. The ambitious rig will do a fine job with that, and so I would then say, "Okay, lets try a 'difficult' recording". And then I would hear poor treble, lack of resolution, unconvincing presentation.

 

You would hear those things (hopefully) because they are there, in the recording. A high-end system will simply put more "there" there.

 

 

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

As I have said many times, I have a whole suite of recordings that I use to identify the weaknesses of other systems.

 

Frank I accept that you have a whole suite of bad recordings. These do not identify the weaknesses in other systems, they identify the weaknesses in the recordings.

 

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

An ambitious system when fully sorted will always do a much better job than a likewise ordinary one; I've already agreed with that. The sticking point, as I see it, is how one goes about doing "that sorting", and how much is enough.

 

The sticking point I believe is the extent of what you claim is possible to achieve, as much as you believe it and as much as you may perceive it.

57 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

While I can tweak the tone controls on an old radio so that I can enjoy the music of bad recordings or bad broadcasts, I do not in any way shape or form equate that with good sound quality let alone a lifelike rendering. It also doesn't lead me to the conclusion that high-end systems must therefore be "ambitious rigs" failing in their musical mission.

 

[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?

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

It is claims like the above, whether you are coming from the objectivist for objectivist (and I am neither) point of view, that engender disbelief

 

I have pointed to many, many recordings, in many posts, which have certain satisfying qualities - when the SQ of the playback reaches a certain standard. What's on the recording is fixed; I have no control over that - it's up to others whether they wish to explore whether they can also extract that content 🙂.

 

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Again, there would be many that would agree that it is pointless to discuss rainbows with blind people. I get it. I also have some understanding of neurophysiology and neuropsychology and how perception works. In short, there is a problem when only one person sees the rainbow. This is distinctly different when there are thousands of people reporting the same rainbow such as cables making a difference.

 

 

 

It's the difference between listening to a hifi system, and knowing it - and listening to a musical event, and "being there" ... I had a system which could flick between those two states years ago; it was utterly reliable in how it made it made the transition. Turns out that other people tune into the latter version, especially women 😉, so I reckon it's a goer ...

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 it's up to others whether they wish to explore whether they can also extract that content 🙂.

 

They do, they have, but it appears that only you report such extraordinary claims.

 

Personally, Frank, I think you need to stop trying to convince people about your method. To the extent that you find it works (and perhaps your interpretation of a few around you) that's great, enjoy it. At some point you have to accept that not only will you not convince others, but your repeated claims of your successes over others failures, insults their level of expertise and experience and skill. It becomes not so much a mission to share or improve the lot of others as it is an exercise in self validation. Just a thought Frank.