Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

This assume that all recordings actually contain such cues which, unfortunately, isn't the case... IME.

 

The problem with poor technical quality recordings is that the cues are buried in amongst the detritus, and distortion artifacts added by the recording process, and subsequent mastering operations - they are there, but they are relatively indistinct - if the playback process further distorts those vital clues, the task becomes impossible for the listening mind to work it all out ... "it sounds a mess!"

 

My progress over the years has been to realise that if one extracts all that low level information, containing recording and mastering artifacts, and the realism cues as clearly as one possibly can, then the brain now has something sufficiently 'not contaminated', allowing it to be properly unraveled in one's head. This is when the presentation suddenly pops into life, an abrupt transition because the brain is no longer overloaded, in trying to decode what it all means.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I will just emphasize a point here ... if one has a need, a very strong need to believe that this is true - then I can guarantee that any attempts to replicate what I aim for, and get, is going to fail ... why? Because you will reject the changes that do improve how "bad" recordings come across - because such a situation does not accord with your world view ... you will undo those system changes, and so go backwards.

 

Frank I think you have that backwards. Indeed, I think most people here believe you are going backwards not forwards.

 

Quote

I'm thinking of the friend of N. up the road here - that person uses the classic "throw money at it!" method - and the result is that some recordings sound spectacular, and others are a complete disaster, according to N. - even more so than say 10 years earlier. If that's the way you want it, that's fine - but I don't think I would like it .... 😉.

 

Money is just a resource Frank, it can be spent more or less wisely. You'll have to forgive me for not automatically taking your word for it that your neighbour has spent his money unwisely i.e. that his sound system does not come up to scratch compared to yours. I haven't heard your neighbours system so I think it is a bit 'rich' for you to infer that "that's the way I want it" and imply wasting my money into the bargain as a not so veiled insult.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Are you saying that it's impossible to get realistic playback?

As usual Frank, you choose to ignore the point. Tom said nothing of the sort. Tom summarised in a nutshell what others have been saying. Are you actually saying you didn't understand his comment?

[kumakuma]

17 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The problem with poor technical quality recordings is that the cues are buried in amongst the detritus, and distortion artifacts added by the recording process, and subsequent mastering operations - they are there, but they are relatively indistinct - if the playback process further distorts those vital clues, the task becomes impossible for the listening mind to work it all out ... "it sounds a mess!"

 

My progress over the years has been to realise that if one extracts all that low level information, containing recording and mastering artifacts, and the realism cues as clearly as one possibly can, then the brain now has something sufficiently 'not contaminated', allowing it to be properly unraveled in one's head. This is when the presentation suddenly pops into life, an abrupt transition because the brain is no longer overloaded, in trying to decode what it all means.

 

I have had no experience in the last 60 years that would lead me to believe that my brain operates in this way.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

if the playback process further distorts those vital clues, the task becomes impossible for the listening mind to work it all out ... "it sounds a mess!"

Notwithstanding that you are happy listening to the real thing, it's entirely possible that when listening to playback, a "mess" in your mind does not present the same challenges in the minds of others.

 

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Notwithstanding that you are happy listening to the real thing, it's entirely possible that when listening to playback, a "mess" in your mind does not present the same challenges in the minds of others.

 

 

Just as others aren't irritated by almost all audio systems they listen to...

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Money is just a resource Frank, it can be spent more or less wisely. You'll have to forgive me for not automatically taking your word for it that your neighbour has spent his money unwisely i.e. that his sound system does not come up to scratch compared to yours. I haven't heard your neighbours system so I think it is a bit 'rich' for you to infer that "that's the way want it" and imply wasting my money into the bargain as a not so veiled insult.

 

Money is a resource, for the individual, to use as he wishes. If he wants certain recordings to sound very impressive, and others to come across poorly; and he succeeds in doing that, and he is happy with the result - then there is no problem. However, if he then turns around, and says "GIGO!" - directly stating that the recordings are junk, and implying that one is a fool for wanting to get more out of them - then I have an issue with that ...

 

12 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

As usual Frank, you choose to ignore the point. Tom said nothing of the sort. Tom summarised in a nutshell what others have been saying. Are you actually saying you didn't understand his comment?

 

Well, people have abused me for the methods I use, and for the results I say I get - so, yes, its not clear ...

 

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I have had no experience in the last 60 years that would lead me to believe that my brain operates in this way.

 

Well, it took me 30 years to evolve my thinking, in trying to understand what was happening - I can't expect someone else to instantly grok it, especially if they haven't had the listening experiences that I've had, 🙂.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Just as others aren't irritated by almost all audio systems they listen to...

I think in the early days of digital it would be fair to say that just about all audiophiles that I came across found digital playback irritating. Those days are gone. That's not to say that there can't be further improvements. The only really irritating thing is that I wish there were more well-made recordings.

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Notwithstanding that you are happy listening to the real thing, it's entirely possible that when listening to playback, a "mess" in your mind does not present the same challenges in the minds of others.

 

 

It doesn't ... ? So, they put on a recording, and they say "Yuck!" ... "That's a bad recording!!"

 

Can there be any other explanation? 😜

 

7 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Just as others aren't irritated by almost all audio systems they listen to...

 

No, they are irritated by "Bad recording!!" - so, invoke the simple technique of discarding every track that irritates them; hence, no longer irritated "by almost all audio systems they listen to".

 

In some fields, they call this, a workaround ... 😉.

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, people have abused me for the methods I use, and for the results I say I get - so, yes, its not clear ...

 

Well, it took me 30 years to evolve my thinking, in trying to understand what was happening - I can't expect someone else to instantly grok it, especially if they haven't had the listening experiences that I've had, 🙂.

 

My point is that is that YOUR methods seem to work for how YOUR brain is wired. I don't believe that they have much value for anyone else. 

[fas42]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

The only really irritating thing is that I wish there were more well-made recordings.

 

Which is exactly why I "go on about it" ... the recording is set in concrete, the system you play it on, isn't - so, you do something about the bit you have control over ...

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

My point is that is that YOUR methods seem to work for how YOUR brain is wired. I don't believe that they have much value for anyone else. 

 

So, for example, is @ray-dude's brain wired my way, or your way - or something else ... ?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

My point is that is that YOUR methods seem to work for how YOUR brain is wired. I don't believe that they have much value for anyone else. 

 

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is exactly why I "go on about it" ... the recording is set in concrete, the system you play it on, isn't - so, you do something about the bit you have control over ...

 

It only controls it in your mind Frank. In the minds of most everybody else it's called colouration.

[kumakuma]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

So, for example, is @ray-dude's brain wired my way, or your way - or something else ... ?

 

Why does it matter?

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which is exactly why I "go on about it" ... the recording is set in concrete, the system you play it on, isn't - so, you do something about the bit you have control over ...

 

I beg to differ.

 

I have complete control over what recordings I listen to and enough well recorded music to last me for the next 60 years... even if I never add another album to my library.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

So, for example, is @ray-dude's brain wired my way, or your way - or something else ... ?

 

Have you heard ray dude's system? Has ray dude heard your system? This is a bit like your assertion of me liking your neighbours system, the one that I've never heard😉 . This is a new development in your method🤷‍♂️

[fas42]

31 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Have you heard ray dude's system? Has ray dude heard your system? This is a bit like your assertion of me liking your neighbours system, the one that I've never heard😉 . This is a new development in your method🤷‍♂️

 

Have another read starting from this bit,

 

Quote

 

So What Is Happening Here?

Reviewing my notes, what comes through again and again is “speed”, “control”, “dynamics”, “transparency”, “naturalness”, “wow”. The Extreme is delivering remarkable performance by being remarkably performant, but also by being capable of so much more performance than what is needed that it can maintain remarkable control. 

 

 

taken from

 

 

Now, can you use that language when listening to your system? ... How he describes things is what I hear when a rig I'm working on "gets into the zone" ... QED.

 

Now, it this because of the Extreme server? IOW, if one lifted it up, and plunked it down into anyone's rig, would it instantly transform the SQ to what he's getting ... or could it simply be a major last piece of the puzzle that makes his setup fire? 😉

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I beg to differ.

 

I have complete control over what recordings I listen to and enough well recorded music to last me for the next 60 years... even if I never add another album to my library.

 

I OTOH like a whole lot of music that comes from the "bad days!!" 😝 - my pleasure is to enjoy them, for what they have to offer ... different strokes for different folks, 🙂.

[kumakuma]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Have another read starting from this bit,

 

 

taken from

 

 

Now, can you use that language when listening to your system? ... How he describes things is what I hear when a rig I'm working on "gets into the zone" ... QED.

 

Now, it this because of the Extreme server? IOW, if one lifted it up, and plunked it down into anyone's rig, would it instantly transform the SQ to what he's getting ... or could it simply be a major last piece of the puzzle that makes his setup fire? 😉

 

 

If you look at the "Audio System" of his profile, you will note that his approach is completely different from yours and appears to consist of a long series of equipment upgrades.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Have another read starting from this bit,

 

 

taken from

 

 

Now, can you use that language when listening to your system?

 

Absolutely yes and then some!

 

This proves of course, absolutely nothing. Does my system sound better than Ray dude's?. Quite possibly and then again maybe not. Without listening I cannot formulate an opinion one way or another from superlative adjectives and I would suggest neither can you. It is entirely plausible however that given the quality of the respective gear, both could sound stellar.

 

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

... How he describes things is what I hear when a rig I'm working on "gets into the zone" ... QED.

 

There is no quod erat demonstrandum to be had. I don't think this is plausible at all, at least for most of us. As you say, it works for you. I have not heard your system to confirm but then again you shouldn't need my validation or anyone else's. If it works for you, it works for you.

 

 

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Now, it this because of the Extreme server? IOW, if one lifted it up, and plunked it down into anyone's rig, would it instantly transform the SQ to what he's getting ... or could it simply be a major last piece of the puzzle that makes his setup fire? 😉

 

who knows?

An extreme server in my system may make very little difference. I am always however looking for potential improvements however incremental they may be.

An extreme server in a very budget system may also potentially make very little difference given the bottlenecks of the rest of the gear

at the price point however even I am seriously pondering the law of diminishing returns especially given the breathtaking sound quality that I already have courtesy of some very clever people like Laurence Dickie and many others like Barry Diament

[fas42]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 

If you look at the "Audio System" of his profile, you will note that his approach is completely different from yours and appears to consist of a long series of equipment upgrades.

 

Which is perfectly fine ... as I have said many, many times, there can be any number of ways of getting there; and no-one I've come across has done it in a similar manner to me. What counts is how close one has got to the intrinsic nature of the recordings - which is indeed set in concrete.

 

My way happens to include working with low cost components, for the reasons I have stated.

 

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

This proves of course, absolutely nothing. Does my system sound better than Ray dude's?. Quite possibly and then again maybe not. Without listening I cannot formulate an opinion one way or another from superlative adjectives and I would suggest neither can you. It is entirely plausible however that given the quality of the respective gear, both could sound stellar.

 

I don't see it as a competition ... the goal is to hear the recording and only the recording; which is the ultimate limit. I certainly know that they, the recordings, can be pushed further - at times an extra level of SQ has occurred, because everything just happened to be in alignment; normally I work towards achieving an acceptable consistency - with that knowledge that it could be better, if I really went for it ... but this would require lots of money, lots of work - so, next life ... 😉.

 

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

who knows?

An extreme server in my system may make very little difference. I am always however looking for potential improvements however incremental they may be.

An extreme server in a very budget system may also potentially make very little difference given the bottlenecks of the rest of the gear

at the price point however even I am seriously pondering the law of diminishing returns especially given the breathtaking sound quality that I already have courtesy of some very clever people like Laurence Dickie and many others like Barry Diament

 

Yes, it's always a balance ... the increments may only have value in an "extreme system", but if it is one's pleasure to aim for such heights, then indeed it would be worthwhile 🙂.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

no-one I've come across has done it in a similar manner to me.

 

Which is what makes it implausible given the nature of the claims. Other explanations have been offered

 

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I don't see it as a competition ...

 

Frank, it never ceases to amaze me how you distort the point from post to post. It's like you change the goalposts and assume no one will notice. Who said anything about a competition? You asked a straightforward question and I gave you a straightforward answer – basically I wouldn't know what Ray dudes system sounds like without listening to it. I suggested neither would you.

 

The point is you can't invoke his description of his system as some kind of weird endorsement of your method. This is particularly true since he doesn't use your method, it is almost the extreme other end of the spectrum. The second point is nobody is doubting that fabulous sound can be had by using fabulous gear. It is your method that is implausible.

 

[fas42]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Which is what makes it implausible given the nature of the claims. Other explanations have been offered

 

The goal is to hear the recording, not the rig.

 

Any means which reduce the audible anomalies, produced by the playback chain misbehaving, are a valid pathway - I choose to do it by either using a very simple system, or deliberately simplifying a more complex one. This reduces the workload, and is a natural follow-on from the fact that the first rig that performed was a minimal setup.

 

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

Frank, it never ceases to amaze me how you distort the point from post to post. It's like you change the goalposts and assume no one will notice. Who said anything about a competition? You asked a straightforward question and I gave you a straightforward answer – basically I wouldn't know what Ray dudes system sounds like without listening to it. I suggested neither would you.

 

Quote

Does my system sound better than Ray dude's?. Quite possibly and then again maybe not.

 

That sounded competitive to me ... my apologies if I misinterpreted.

 

Ray's system should sound like the recording ... that's the point. If it sounds like anything else then it's not doing the job as well as it could.

 

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

The point is you can't invoke his description of his system as some kind of weird endorsement of your method. This is particularly true since he doesn't use your method, it is almost the extreme other end of the spectrum. The second point is nobody is doubting that fabulous sound can be had by using fabulous gear. It is your method that is implausible.

 

 

It's strange that people can't seem to comprehend that integrity of the playback chain is key - if one is not DIY, or of an engineering bent, then the best solution is to purchase finished items of the necessary standard - as @ray-dude did. If however one has the ability to study the situation, and work out what the weaknesses are, and then improve those key areas to the right standard - then the end result will always be the same. That is, what's on the recording comes through clearly, and dominates what one hears.

 

It seems that people need to believe in magical audio designers, magical brands, with flash components built using magical parts ... umm, that's BS, I'm afraid - the reality is that it's just a manufacturing operation, that looks like every other factory, assembly shop; with winners and losers amongst the goods ... people might like the idea of mystique in the audio world - but it doesn't turn me on ... 😉.

[John Dyson]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The goal is to hear the recording, not the rig.

 

Any means which reduce the audible anomalies, produced by the playback chain misbehaving, are a valid pathway - I choose to do it by either using a very simple system, or deliberately simplifying a more complex one. This reduces the workload, and is a natural follow-on from the fact that the first rig that performed was a minimal setup.

 

 

 

That sounded competitive to me ... my apologies if I misinterpreted.

 

Ray's system should sound like the recording ... that's the point. If it sounds like anything else then it's not doing the job as well as it could.

 

 

It's strange that people can't seem to comprehend that integrity of the playback chain is key - if one is not DIY, or of an engineering bent, then the best solution is to purchase finished items of the necessary standard - as @ray-dude did. If however one has the ability to study the situation, and work out what the weaknesses are, and then improve those key areas to the right standard - then the end result will always be the same. That is, what's on the recording comes through clearly, and dominates what one hears.

 

It seems that people need to believe in magical audio designers, magical brands, with flash components built using magical parts ... umm, that's BS, I'm afraid - the reality is that it's just a manufacturing operation, that looks like every other factory, assembly shop; with winners and losers amongst the goods ... people might like the idea of mystique in the audio world - but it doesn't turn me on ... 😉.

One should understand that such playback  integrity includes the mastering, which nowadays has ZERO integrity.   However, accuracy in playback is part of the integrity, and that means minimal modifications or instead undesired changes being algorithmically and explicitly corrected.   Ad-hoc corrections create a risk of making a one-off fix that is inapplicable anywhere else.

 

Basically, layering ad-hoc corrections onto already damaged material is not achieving 'accuracy'.

 

John

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

34 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The goal is to hear the recording, not the rig.

 

.......

you are restating the goal and the general (non-specific) theory. It remains implausible and peculiar to yourself

 

 

Quote

That sounded competitive to me ... my apologies if I misinterpreted.

 

You asked me if I could compare my system to that of ray dude, challenging could I use the same sort of language used by ray dude to describe my system as in "“speed”, “control”, “dynamics”, “transparency”, “naturalness”, “wow”. I replied yes and then some but qualified by saying I don't know whether his system would sound better than mine or vice versa without listening to both.

 

 

Quote

It's strange that people can't seem to comprehend that integrity of the playback chain is key - if one is not DIY, or of an engineering bent, then the best solution is to purchase finished items of the necessary standard - as @ray-dude did. If however one has the ability to study the situation, and work out what the weaknesses are, and then improve those key areas to the right standard - then the end result will always be the same. That is, what's on the recording comes through clearly, and dominates what one hears.

 

Frank you are restating the claim (again). It doesn't make it any more plausible.

 

There is nothing "strange" here to comprehend about members buying excellent quality gear from excellent designers and getting excellent results. It's just that apparently you disagree with the results even though they can use the exact same words to describe the results. The exact same words that ray dude may use

 

You keep on invoking ray dude and yet you have never heard his, in your words, "ambitious rig". You don't know whether it will to your ears sound like, in your words, "poo".

 

Quote

It seems that people need to believe in magical audio designers, magical brands, with flash components built using magical parts ... umm, that's BS, I'm afraid -

 

Nobody has claimed magic in their audio designers or brands or magical parts. The only "magic" is in the 'method' named in the title of this thread.