Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[Confused]

On 11/17/2020 at 9:42 PM, fas42 said:

 

Thanks for giving this a go! Okay, what is happening, to my ears, is that the SQ starts well - no complaints from me - but slowly deteriorates as the clip continues; the initial clean, detailed sound becomes messier and messier as the seconds tick by, the unpleasantness quotient steadily increases. Simply jump back and forth in the clip, from near the beginning and then towards the end, to hear the change.

 

I had this happen 35 years ago, with my own system; I spent huge amounts of time trying to do something about it - so, I'm hyper sensitive to its presence ... when I visit the audio friend up the road, so many times we spin in circles, tracking down the cause of this occurring ...

 

What's happening, in the rig? It varies, but usually it's a poor quality connection, metal to metal contact, which rapidly degrades - or, static buildup ... you do something to the playback or the gear, which resets the problem condition - only for the cycle to start, once more.

 

To me, consistency of the SQ is paramount - it should great at one point in time, and be just as good hours later - the tension if the SQ goes up and down annoys the hell out of me; and I'll do everything I can to stop it varying,

I agree that the SQ gets worse during the track, particularly at the 9 min+ mark, this is indeed easy to hear.  Although the SQ seems to deteriorate as the track gets louder and busier, but then SQ improves a little at the 10min+ mark.  I agree with Alex's earlier post stating that the room acoustics are poor and the room is noisy.  It is hard to say, but I also suspect that the microphone making the recording is moving during the clip, which might be adding the the effect and changing the sound.  Impossible to be sure though.

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Confused said:

I agree that the SQ gets worse during the track, particularly at the 9 min+ mark, this is indeed easy to hear.  Although the SQ seems to deteriorate as the track gets louder and busier, but then SQ improves a little at the 10min+ mark.  I agree with Alex's earlier post stating that the room acoustics are poor and the room is noisy.  It is hard to say, but I also suspect that the microphone making the recording is moving during the clip, which might be adding the the effect and changing the sound.  Impossible to be sure though.

 

Okay, this is something I find very, very important - this behaviour of audio setups is something I'm very sensitive too; I've been aware of this characteristic since the earliest days - and it's extremely telling ... to me, 😉. It's usually very easy to reset the pattern - by switching off and back on again, or refreshing some contacts in the chain, stopping and restarting play - do this a couple of time to confirm it's happening ... and now comes the hard bit: tracking down what is the cause! Don't use excuses like the noise in the room, or the microphone - that's crap! 😜 ... you're giving the situation an excuse "to get away with it".

 

People want to know what my method is ... well, it's right here - if I had those speakers in my space, I would grind away until I sorted out what was going on ... that's the art of making rigs work better 😉.

[fas42]

Makes me smile when I read accounts like this, from

 

 

Quote

I enjoy piano music.  Getting a piano recorded well, and playing that back in a home environment is challenging.  I have found that many piano recordings sound harsh or odd to me. Many times the faults were with my reproduction equipment! With the A500's the number of recordings that exhibit that problem seems to be shrinking one by one as I listen to them.  I have a lot of listening to go before I get to zero, and there is always the internet with more!

 

 

This is the journey ... any other path is guaranteed to stop you getting as much satisfaction from the replay of captures of musical events as is possible - so, why do this to yourself, 😉?

[fas42]

Another giveaway from that review,

 

Quote

The (Dutch and Dutch) 8c's let you know that they are in the room both physically and sonically.

 

That means, the D&D are getting more things wrong than the Buchardt, in that particular situation.

[Confused]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, this is something I find very, very important - this behaviour of audio setups is something I'm very sensitive too; I've been aware of this characteristic since the earliest days - and it's extremely telling ... to me, 😉. It's usually very easy to reset the pattern - by switching off and back on again, or refreshing some contacts in the chain, stopping and restarting play - do this a couple of time to confirm it's happening ... and now comes the hard bit: tracking down what is the cause! Don't use excuses like the noise in the room, or the microphone - that's crap! 😜 ... you're giving the situation an excuse "to get away with it".

 

People want to know what my method is ... well, it's right here - if I had those speakers in my space, I would grind away until I sorted out what was going on ... that's the art of making rigs work better 😉.

You are such a charmer Frank! 

 

Not wishing to comment on your "method", I have to say that what I hear in the clip sounds nothing whatsoever like the behavior you describe above.  I am not disputing that you have experienced such behavior, I am just saying that to my ears the clip you posted simply is not an example of it

 

Listening to the clip (previous page) from about 8min 30s, there are profound changes in the sound, in particular at 8min 45s, then again at about 9min 10s, and again at 9min 30s. 

 

The thing is, just listing via a PC and reasonable headphones, it is crystal clear that the kind of changes in sound could not possibly be resulting from variations of behavior or changes in the "rig", it is a manifestation of something going on in the recording process.  Now this is not me "making excuses", why on earth should I want to "make excuses" for someone else's active LS50's?  Rather, I am simply stating what my ear brain system hears.

 

Maybe you should try another listen with some headphones?

 

Or maybe it is the case that your ear brain system hears something very different to mine?  This seems to be to be highly likely, in which case we can happily agree to differ.  If what we hear is indeed different, then how could our views on this possible align.

 

Others can listen for themselves and make their own minds up, not that it looks like anyone else is that interested.

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Confused said:

You are such a charmer Frank! 

 

Not wishing to comment on your "method", I have to say that what I hear in the clip sounds nothing whatsoever like the behavior you describe above.  I am not disputing that you have experienced such behavior, I am just saying that to my ears the clip you posted simply is not an example of it

 

Yep, my bad ... should have listened steadily through the whole clip, rather than jumping around to a couple of points - it appears as if a number of playbacks were spliced together - so the changes in SQ were due to a combination of factors; one of which would have been the deterioration in quality over some time frame.

 

Quote

Or maybe it is the case that your ear brain system hears something very different to mine?  This seems to be to be highly likely, in which case we can happily agree to differ.  If what we hear is indeed different, then how could our views on this possible align.

 

Others can listen for themselves and make their own minds up, not that it looks like anyone else is that interested.

 

No, we are both picking up on the quality changes - where I differ from many is that my experience allows me to track down what is going on - so, if I had those LS50s to play with, I would do what was necessary to stop the degradation - the shouty, blurred mess they become in the big crescendos is precisely what I work to eliminate.

 

Remember the poor listening experience I had with Kefs at an audio show? This video reminds me of that - these speakers need to be on a system that's well sorted, it seems ...

[fas42]

Referring back to the Buchardts, which appear to have been well enough engineered to get very close to getting completely out of the way, raw out of the boxes, what Bob says tells the story,

 

 

Quote

The staging on A500 speakers is amazing.  I think it is in part the design of the tweeter subsystem.  

 

It's not the design of the tweeter, it's rather that the signal going to the tweeter is extremely clean - when an 'ordinary' speaker gets the same standard of signal feed, then one also gets "amazing staging".

 

Quote

They really do punch-above-their-weight!   Over the last 8 weeks they have settled in rather nicely.  Their presence is very good. Sitting in the sweet spot they almost disappear and the image really locks in!  Just sitting in the room it is closer to feeling of being there with the music.

 

Yep, the "almost disappear", and "image locking in" are the markers of getting very close to optimum SQ - what one has to work on now is to make the word "almost" no longer have to be used. Note that the whole experience has now become highly immersive - one is at one with the event; it becomes your world ...

 

Quote

In closing they do not have quite the weight of the Dutch and Dutch 8C.  The Kii Threes have a bit more detail and with the BXT the Kii's dynamics are amazing.

 

This says that more mass needs to be added to speaker and stand - they need to given much greater effective weight in how they located on the floor. This will produce the "weight", and "amazing dynamics" in the sound.

[fas42]

Have just become aware of member @hols ... this recent post encapsulates some good findings,

 

 In particular,

 

Quote

After testing with Chord Dave I have also changed to DAC to my old Terminator not plus ( Terminator plus is temporarily away in friend's place) with a view to test result with different DAC and also get a glimpse of what PCM 1411.2 can sound. ( I only use the multiple of 44.1 for lighter CPU consumption). The result is basically similar to with Chord Dave but with the more sumptuous bass from Terminator my server seems to take a lead over the extreme HQplayer alone. The attacks are more sumptuous and well supported. The extreme HQ+NAA still leads by a wide margin especially in the flow of music and the cozy feeling. What about PCM1411.2 The sound is in a class of its own. The sound is smooth without edges(which are sometimes evident in poorly executed PCM). The instruments have body and the nuances are clearly revealed. It is not so much as the same as DSD which still gives a more sumptuous body and well harmonized soundstage. But the PCM1411.2 is best described as giving a perfect flow of music.  The details are more and the presentation are a bit different  from 705.6. You see more of individual instrument's body and can also sense the layering more in the orchestra but you may not be able to feel a block of harmonized sound. Or maybe it is another way to say that you may need to take time to get accustomed to listen to so many detail. 

 

This is the thump one gets when competent sound finally emerges - it is so distinctly different from normal reproduction that it's quite a shock; the intensity of the experience is a whole new world. Unfortunately, it means that one can never take the normal standard of hifi seriously again ... 😉.

[fas42]

First time I've come across this piece ... https://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html - of course, the interesting bit was the "My Hierarchy/Levels of Audible Improvements" section, and

 

Quote

Level 6- The sonic improvement is "transformational"; meaning not only would it be completely unthinkable to live without it, but the improvement actually alters an audiophile's thinking and perspective on both their particular system and "Audio" in general.

 

This is what I got 35 years ago - what disturbs many is that this was accomplished without throwing huge wads of money at the situation, nor using the "right methods" ... however, this is the reality that underlies audio reproduction: that it is something very, very special, which is nearly always badly undermined or handicapped by poor implementation, or lack of attention to detail.

[fas42]

Interesting post,

 

The member is "baffled" that they work just like how competent playback comes across - the relative rarity of a good standard of SQ, until recently, means that most don't understand what is happening - that the replay is now working to an adequate level to sustain a convincing allusion.

 

[fas42]

Interesting new audio link is the WiSA, wireless, lossless connection to, say, digital speakers - but it appears that the implementations so far are not yet working at the theoretical potential of such a means for providing a signal. In

 

 

 and https://www.soundstagesimplifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/145-buchardt-audio-a500-active-loudspeakers-and-stereo-hub-wisa-transmitter, reading between the lines, the digital transmission mechanism is causing too much noise, and interfering with the SQ - an analogue input to the Buchardt speakers, which entails yet another A/D conversion, provides more satisfying sound - a sign that not all is well with the WiSA receiver circuitry. Very telling, in the SoundStage review using WiSA, is that depth is poor - with the Elacs,

 

Quote

I was more aware that the music was being performed in a big auditorium

 

This is a giveaway that the WiSA link operating was slugging the SQ; low level information was poorly rendered, in comparison to the Elac.

 

There is no reason for a wireless connection to be a problem; it simply means that the engineering of the wireless receiver circuitry operating inside the active speakers needs to be better done, to prevent 'cross contamination' - this is something a manufacturer down the track will resolve; I wouldn't buy any speakers at the moment that should work best with WiSA, until this has been sorted by the designers.

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Interesting new audio link is the WiSA

New?  More than 10years old.

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

New?  More than 10years old.

 

New to me ... looking at https://www.wisaassociation.org/press/page/7/, the first press release was at the end of 2018 - implying it's only been out there for less than a couple of years ...

[Kal Rubinson]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

New to me ... looking at https://www.wisaassociation.org/press/page/7/, the first press release was at the end of 2018 - implying it's only been out there for less than a couple of years ...

There are press releases going back to 2003 but the old ones are probably deleted from the public website.   I reviewed a WiSA product several years ago (https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-71-page-2).

[pkane2001]

29 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

There are press releases going back to 2003 but the old ones are probably deleted from the public website.   I reviewed a WiSA product several years ago (https://www.stereophile.com/content/music-round-71-page-2).

 

According to this, the association was established in 2011:

[fas42]

Hmmm, there had to be a reason why the WiSA concepts weren't around and about for years now, and this page from 2018, https://www.avnirvana.com/threads/wireless-speakers-for-surround-sound-don’t-ask-it’s-a-mess.2057/, seems to spell it out - the following post perhaps summarises it,

 

Quote

Yet the technology isn't mature enough

 

and, our dear Kal has in fact responded to the points made, 😉.

[Kal Rubinson]

10 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

According to this, the association was established in 2011:

WiSA, as an organization was established to promote the technology but the company behind it, Summit Wireless, was established in 2003 with the stock market name WiSA.   I was present at a private demo of the technology around that time.  It was impressive and I followed them assiduously for years until I just gave up.  They still have not.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

On 11/26/2020 at 2:26 AM, fas42 said:

First time I've come across this piece ... https://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html - of course, the interesting bit was the "My Hierarchy/Levels of Audible Improvements" section, and

 

 

This is what I got 35 years ago - what disturbs many is that this was accomplished without throwing huge wads of money at the situation, nor using the "right methods" ... however, this is the reality that underlies audio reproduction: that it is something very, very special, which is nearly always badly undermined or handicapped by poor implementation, or lack of attention to detail.

 

There is a lot of valuable information on his web site.

 

His description of "the most important elements of music reproduction" is interesting. It is a very widespread belief that "transparency" is bad - especially when it comes to digital audio - probably because many people have only heard poor digital reproduction that sounded "harsh" ("digital"). 

 

I am also in complete agreement with his discussion of "audio relativism": "the belief system that virtually every component has strong merit and can produce 'great sound', for someone's 'tastes', if it is matched correctly with other components". This is probably the single most common and erroneous belief in audio (though it may be more of a "European" thing...). 

 

Another good point: "MUSIC IS ART.AUDIO IS SCIENCE". When I was a member of a French audio forum (this experience left me a little traumatized...), this is something I came across repeatedly - the idea that audio manufacturers are "artists", which is preposterous. There again, this may be a very French thing. A related idea is that everything is "subjective", which is also a bunch of bull IMO...

 

His take on digital and analog ("Analog's errors are mainly those of Commission. Digital's errors are mainly those of Omission.") is also an interesting way of viewing things.

 

In terms of components, I bought "The Truth" preamp based essentially on his recommendation and don't regret it !

[fas42]

Just followed the link in an AS thread to this, https://hometheaterreview.com/technics-su-g700-stereo-integrated-amplifier-reviewed/ - and the description of the SQ pushes my buttons! It sounds like the engineering of this unit has been got right, and it's doing exactly what a well designed piece of audio gear should do - just reproduce what's on the recording.

 

I see this as a good sign for the future ... well executed, well made components, at sensible prices.

[fas42]

Noted this post,

 

Especially,

 

Quote

In this imperfect world of audio (and especially digital) reproduction, we don't have references, everything sounds a little different but we have no way of knowing what is really closest to the truth.

 

It's actually very simple - take a 'difficult' recording, and evolve your rig so that it comes across marvellously - that is, you can listen to the tracks at any volume level, with complete ease - it pushes all your buttons for having that, 'live feel'. When you're happy with that one, then dig around to find another recording that still doesn't hit the spot - and repeat the exercise 🙂 ... when you run out of recordings that are useful for doing this, then you are mighty, mighty close to The Complete Truth ... 😉.

[fas42]

This is a clip of @acg's creation, when first powered up a year ago,

 

 

What an edifice! I'm in awe of what he has created - the energy and devotion to make something like this happen ...

 

What amused me is that the track is by a local artist - and, this recording is spectacularly good. Off the charts demo track, to highlight the qualities of a setup ...

[fas42]

Just came across these 80 year old speaker drivers,

 

 

So, tell me again - how far have we come in getting good sound, hmmm?

 

[Confused]

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

This is a clip of @acg's creation, when first powered up a year ago,

 

 

What an edifice! I'm in awe of what he has created - the energy and devotion to make something like this happen ...

 

What amused me is that the track is by a local artist - and, this recording is spectacularly good. Off the charts demo track, to highlight the qualities of a setup ...

I love it.  It is actually rather wonderful.

[Confused]

18 hours ago, fas42 said:

Just came across these 80 year old speaker drivers,

 

 

So, tell me again - how far have we come in getting good sound, hmmm?

 

 

I understand that speaker technology is progressing at a rate of 1dB per 2.86 years per volt.

 

Actually, looking at a few modern speaker designs, maybe that should actually be a rate of -1dB per 2.86 years?

 

Anyway, you might like this:

 

https://www.whathifi.com/features/old-speakers-vs-new-speakers-how-do-they-compare

 

[fas42]

Just got pointed to this, https://www.stereophile.com/content/somethings-coming.

 

Don't think I could put it better ... I'm very much in favour of having "optimum sound rooms" set up, where everything has been debugged and refined to the point where fully convincing SQ is always on tap - the disappointment of coming across a rig which should have nailed it, but which has obvious flaws, makes the business of trying to get people interested in better sound so frustrating - a newcomer says, "Well, this is impressive ..."; but the body language says that there are enough turnoffs in what he's hearing for him to want to move on.

 

It's not good enough for you to know how good it can sound - it has to be that way, 100% of the time ... that's how you encourage wider interest in higher standards in sound reproduction.