Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[HIFI]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

It's only "goofy" because achieving the necessary level of SQ is so rare ...

 

I'll use a visual analogy - you know those stereoscopes, like View-Master: you put a couple of images in the right place, and they look Wow! when you look at them in exactly the right way ... well, that's how conventional stereo operates. Now, if you happen to go to the actual place where the stereoscope images were captured, and move around in the location; that's how convincing playback comes across - sort of a slight difference ... .

 

This perceived illusion occurs because the brain 'chooses' to be fooled; but you can't force it to happen because you want it to be so, or by filling yourself with alcohol, etc - the only solution, with stereo, is to attain a very high standard of 'transparency'. Which currently is only achievable by doing a lot of DIY optimising.

 

You are as silly as putty. 

 

Im only going to ask you one question.... What’s the difference between a duck.

[fas42]

And that pretty well sums up why audio is still down a dark hole in terms of achieving high standards of replay - so many people are locked up in a set of beliefs which are almost impenetrable - it may take decades to break this down ... .

[fas42]

A good example of the back to front thinking of most people in audio,

 

This is classic, "my system made this recording sound so good!" mindset ... ummm, no - what you are hearing is something closer to the true nature of the recording; most rigs 'cloud' the sound so much that one struggles to hear through the fog of the playback artifacts; all variants of "hifi sound".

 

If one pursues the goal of making the the playback chain invisible, rather than "I want a rig to make my recordings sound magic!" then the path to getting there is a lot more straightforward.

[fas42]

Another example of the back to front thinking that pervades the audio world - in the

 

 

thread, discussing Kii versus Avantgardes in the sense that the speakers "make the sound" ... ummm, no - except in that they are the transducers as the last step of the chain. Actually, it's the recordings that "make the sound" ...

 

Different speakers will change the subjective sensitivity of the rig to problem areas - horn speakers are extremely sensitive, and will spotlight every electronic anomaly in the preceding chain; hence, "in your face" sound.

 

You don't 'fix' poorly designed or set up car drivetrains and suspensions by playing with the tyres - yes, you can compensate to quite some degree ... but you're starting from a base of being badly handicapped.

[Kimo]

On 3/30/2019 at 8:01 PM, fas42 said:

A good example of the back to front thinking of most people in audio,

 

This is classic, "my system made this recording sound so good!" mindset ... ummm, no - what you are hearing is something closer to the true nature of the recording; most rigs 'cloud' the sound so much that one struggles to hear through the fog of the playback artifacts; all variants of "hifi sound".

 

If one pursues the goal of making the the playback chain invisible, rather than "I want a rig to make my recordings sound magic!" then the path to getting there is a lot more straightforward.

 

The Linnenberg, as well as the Pass, is not with out its own character.  Safe to say I have a pretty uncloudy sounding system, but I am not sure how neutral it really is.  

 

[fas42]

It's relatively straightforward to pick, the neutrality - it becomes truly anonymous, and the recording totally dictates what you hear; this "famous" article nails it, http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm.

 

Every recording becomes a unique experience, a 'new world' - the system is completely invisible, as in the speakers cease to exist as a recognisable auditory presence, no matter how you attempt to detect that they are in fact the source of the sound, using your ears only.

[fas42]

After the posting of a rig using these at Axpona, I chased up a few other clips; mostly well driven, and showing good SQ - this particularly presents another side of that potential ...

 

 

[audiobomber]

Nice dynamics but a boomy in the recording. And that was not music, more like sound effects.

[fas42]

Well, it's a musical instrument, being given a workout - plenty of recordings out there of "musical compositions" that many would strain to recognise as "music" ... a few days ago came across a group busking on the footpath, Casio keyboard, bass guitar, and ordinary Yamaha drums. The sound of the drums, a couple of feet away, is fabulous - massive transient impact, a power of clean, overwhelming sound that punches through your body - the sort of thing that reminds one of high end rigs ... NOT!

 

 

[fas42]

Okay, a bit more fun coming up - the audio "buddy" down the road just rang; he who relies on media players and TT for source for ages now - and he's fired up the tweaked Quad CDP, after it was in limbo for years ... will be wandering down shortly to see what goodness emerges ...

[fas42]

And a rewarding session it was, too ... he had given up on the Quad unit years ago, as a serious playback unit - because it had always ended up at the bottom of the ladder, when comparisons were being done ... nothing seriously wrong, just was the least interesting SQ ...

 

Well, some sort of metamorphosis had occurred, in the interim . Just recently he used it to check the condition of a CD, and was surprised at how well it stood up. Further investigation confirmed this positive finding - and hence today.

 

At its best, the rig, the main one in his home, with Naim speakers, was "on fire". Sparkle, life, excellent texture and layering to the sound - one could "flow into the music" with ease ... all was not perfect, because the SQ did vary, in the peculiar ways that CDPs seem to be so sensitive to - at the end of the session it had definitely lost a significant portion of 'goodness'; time of day, mains supply getting nastier is a likely suspect.

 

Why was the CDP working so much better now, in that rig? Because of all the other little mods he had done to the rest of that setup, perhaps? His feeling was that this was the most likely explanation - no clear answer, but he's going to make hay while the sun shines!

[fas42]

This track,

 

 

which went well, was particularly relevant ... he has an audio friend who is totally into the normal audiophile thing, speaker upgraditis to the max, money to burn - and this apparently sounded a complete mess, on that expensive rig.

[fas42]

On another thread, mention was made of what competent playback can do for compositions which are virtually purely synthesizer - I posted a YouTube clip from the recent Axpona show which demonstrated the qualities that should be sought ... which was deleted. This is the clip, reinstated,

 

 

[fas42]

shtf posted a video of his rig in another thread,

 

I don't wish to participate there, so I'll make the one comment that although the dynamics of the recordings are well done, the tonal signature of the rig is still far too prominent; each song, from completely different eras, has a sameness to the presentation - which should not be the case.

 

Sorry about that, shtf ...

[STC]

56 minutes ago, fas42 said:

shtf posted a video of his rig in another thread,

 

I don't wish to participate there, so I'll make the one comment that although the dynamics of the recordings are well done, the tonal signature of the rig is still far too prominent; each song, from completely different eras, has a sameness to the presentation - which should not be the case.

 

Sorry about that, shtf ...

 

You can post but just stick to the thread and OP.  

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

 

You can post but just stick to the thread and OP.  

 

How big of you !

It's clear that you wish your thread to come to only one conclusion, which is the one you want it to be, and will ruthlessly remove any on topic replies that don't lead to this desired conclusion.

 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

How big of you !.

That is up to Blackmorec as the OP to decide, NOT you !!!

 You are not able to remove, or request the removal of  dissenting views in this thread like you do in your own heavily censored thread .

 

That was your original message which you censored yourself. 

 

I was referring to my post in my thread which was mentioned here. 

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, STC said:

 

That was your original message which you censored yourself. 

 

I was referring to my post in my thread which was mentioned here. 

 

  It is my right to edit my own posts to make their meaning clearer. 

 You are Censorship crazy as I just made quite obvious, and will ruthlessly remove all replies that weaken your arguments.

 What we apparently need here is the ability to remove posts on request to Admin provided that he agrees to the reasons for the request, and the OP does NOT have the power to remove posts willy nilly that are legitimate replies, and meet all forum requirements.

[fas42]

Again my apologies, shtf! ...

 

He has a suite of rig playback recordings on his channel, and now that I've got a handle on his system's sound, I thought to use this one to point out what I find useful,

 

 

Obviously a lot working very well, but the tone of the violin highlights the issue, in my mind - the element of smoothness and richness is missing, and this is precisely why I go to great efforts to ensure connector qualities are of a high order; hard wiring in most cases. If I had my hands on this rig, the first thing I would do is to perform a thorough reworking of every single metal to metal mating - which more than likely would resolve the violin tonality aspect.

[fas42]

A point being made that some systems at an audio show sound really, really good, and many just so-so ... why is this? Play the identical recording on each one, and they all sound different - the magic word, boys and girls, is distortion; every playback will always have some, but some will possess vanishingly small amounts of the obviously audible variety.

 

And, joy of joys, those audio rigs that sound really, really good, with every recording you care to try, are the ones with the "vanishingly small amounts" ... now, isn't that, Good News ... ?

 

The Bad News is, how do you get there? Unfortunately, at the moment, most people Just Don't Get It - so it's hard to buy gear that just slots together, and then ticks all the boxes; enthusiasts like myself have worked out methods of bypassing the normal hiccups - or, you can Buy Your Stairway to Heaven, .

[fas42]

Noting Archimago's take on achieving "transparent" sound, inspired by JA's article, https://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/04/musings-of-jokers-and-clowns-on.html.

 

Quote

While the mind enjoys music and reconstructs the "soundstage" of the performance, all the "machine" is doing is reproducing the source it was fed. If the recording contains old-skool ping-pong effects, can the DAC/(pre)amp/speakers reproduce this with high channel separation? Is the equipment (especially speakers) "fast" enough and have accurate time-domain performance (ideally time-aligned drivers) to extract those subtle differences in correct phase? Is the resolution good enough to accurately reproduce the nuances as well as the dynamic bursts accurately from the two channels? These (and more) can be each assessed objectively and in isolation. Together, when done well enough, the intent is that the mind has a much easier time extracting all that wonderfully recorded "soundstaging", tonality, rhythm, texture, dynamics, etc

 

The bolded bit is what Archimago has got wrong ... currently, it is practically impossible to identify, objectively, the qualities in the end sound that dictate whether the "wonderfully recorded "soundstaging", tonality, rhythm, texture, dynamics, etc" hits one over the head like a hammer - or, is just vaguely hinted at.

 

Yes, "when done well enough" it all comes together - but the tools are not in place to readily measure this - the ears easily pick when "it's good enough"; but numbers to support this impression? ... No way !!!

[fas42]

Videos of the Munich 2019 show coming through now - and the standard being achieved by exhibitors for so many rigs are showing the way ... here's one of those terrible, terrible YouTube clips which give absolutely no clue as to what the sound was like ,

 

 

[fas42]

This chap does good videos - a clip that shows that dCS and Wilson can do a good job of presenting satisfying sound fields, lots of talking though ...

 

 

[fas42]

Just came across this thread, https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/can-loudspeakers-accurately-reproduce-the-sound-of-real-instruments-and-do-you-care.7422, and barely looked at what was said, but MattHooper has nailed the issue, in the first post, and this last one, today, https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/can-loudspeakers-accurately-reproduce-the-sound-of-real-instruments-and-do-you-care.7422/post-176716.

 

"Timbral realism" is at the heart of the matter, and the good ol' human voice is as good as anything for picking this. If the voices don't sound like the "real thing" - then it ain't there ...

 

Reading a bit more, Matt notes,

 

Quote

Which again happened last night when I switched in my MBL radialstrahler 121 omni speakers. As good as the Thiels are, as neutral as the Waveforms and the Vivid speakers are...WOW...sounds through the MBLs just took on a rainbow-like sense of timbral variation. Within a single recording, a wood block sounded SO much like "wood" being struck, cymbals didn't sound like white noise bursts at all, but distinctly "metal being struck in the air" compared to the "wood being struck" near by it. Brass instruments had such a distinctly "brassy object vibrating" distinction from a woodwind's resonating wood body, or the particular timbre of a clarinet's vibrating column. Everything just sounded that much more real.

And I have no idea why this would be, or what would predict this. After all, I've seen even the MBL speakers somewhat dissed by engineer types as being "fun...but not particularly accurate."

 

We're getting somewhere now ... when I heard top of line MBLs nearly two decades ago, I was reassured that hifi hadn't completely lost its way - and was capable of adequate accuracy, in raw form.

 

Because competent playback doesn't sound like "a couple of speakers throbbing away" it's considered to be "inaccurate" - ummm ... ... no.

[semente]

I like this post from the same topic:

 

Sounds like 'audiophile skeleton sound' as I like to call it. It's like looking an x-ray of a person with only shadows of the flesh and blood. Lots of interesting detail, but not exactly how you see the subject in ordinary light of day.

Texturized rendition will be a bit more affably muddled by tone and color. Getting both tone and exquisite detail is an uncommon synergy of equipment and recording.

 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/can-loudspeakers-accurately-reproduce-the-sound-of-real-instruments-and-do-you-care.7422/page-10#post-176729