Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[Rexp]

On 1/4/2021 at 5:59 AM, fas42 said:

As good an example of the value of stabilising speakers, and sharing the electrical load, as any ...

 

Another way to think of it: if the BXT was not added, but instead a stand of equal mass was locked under the Kii Three; and the Kii Three was fooled into thinking that the BXT was there - and adjusted its bass output accordingly ... then the mid range and treble would be improved, just as much ... 😉. Oh, and this would be a hell of lot cheaper, to boot, 😜.

Wrong again... A supplementary bass unit transforms the overall performance of a speaker system, the most effective I've done was adding bass panels to Audiostatic Es100's. 

 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

Wrong again... A supplementary bass unit transforms the overall performance of a speaker system, the most effective I've done was adding bass panels to Audiostatic Es100's. 

 

 

It will always be about the overall nature of the setup - looking up a review of those speakers, it's quite obvious that a separate assembly would help the bass: relatively light weight and unstable on their normal footing, extremely low sensitivity, and full range operation - a great deal of work would need to be done to get impressive reproduction on bass heavy recordings.

 

If one succeeds in extracting competent SQ from a rig, then the last thought on one's mind is, "Gee, I would love more bass!" - I have never once been in the presence of live acoustic music happening, and thought, "What a shame the bass didn't come through more ... " 😉.

[fas42]

I hadn't come across a video of the Kiis, with the BXT bits, that I can recall - but lucked on this one,

 

 

Don't have this track, but one can compare it with YT versions of the source - a level playing field, pretty well. And, thumbs up - couldn't pick anything too significant to pick a bone about.

[Confused]

Here's another one for you .....

(actual music playing in the last third of the clip, presuming you want to skip the chat)

 

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, Confused said:

Here's another one for you .....

(actual music playing in the last third of the clip, presuming you want to skip the chat)

 

 

 

Yes, I actually came across this one when I found the one I posted, but wasn't taken by it - there was something clearly amiss, which adds a "hifi" quality to the sound; the cymbals in the earlier music clip, in the actual demo playing, are telling.

 

Which says what? The systems are the 'same' - but, the electrical environment around them differs ... which is all that it takes for loss of the precious SQ that is the goal.

[fas42]

For some reason, I didn't register the posting of George's review of his latest DAC,

 

Having now just read it, I'm pleased to see that it performs at the level that a competent rig is capable of, without apparently requiring special care with additional tweaking, etc. This further illustrates that well done engineering is very much purchasable for fair prices, at this point in time; and the photos of the internals show how much attention to detail has been paid by the designers, in squeezing the best results out of the parts used. Unfortunately, the best SQ from digital source requires this fastidiousness - and George's description of how the subjective presentation lifts to a whole new level again emphasises the value of pursing this road ...

[fas42]

Was pointed to this video,

 

 

and I largely disagree with many of his points, for all the reasons I've mentioned many times, 😁.

 

The last one I particularly want to comment on ... because it, ummm, really matters ... 😉

 

#10 - There is no such thing as the Absolute Sound  ... ???

 

... 'cause there is! It's the sound of the musical event as captured on the source medium; devoid, subjectively, of any identifying characteristics of the playback chain.

 

Let's consider three of the things he says:

 

"People want to think they are moving towards some sort of target point" ... he denies this is possible, but if you consider that the waveform of a track is "locked in concrete", then at a simple physical level then of course it should be possible to only be aurally aware of what that waveform contains.

 

"Take for example very expensive loudspeakers" ... as if that ever meant anything - It's The System, Stupid! ... The only thing that matters is the performance of the overall setup - and pulling out and examining one part of it, to "prove something", is meaningless. A pretty obvious comparison is Absolute Vision, which is far less confused these days ... I don't know about you, but when I go into a well run electricals store these days, where all the screens are showing the same picture, then, "They all look the same". That is, I don't see a pink screen, and a blue screen, or a blurred screen and a really clear one; the colors alone barely indicate that I'm looking at different images ... and the more expensive the screens are, the more precisely each looks like the other - yes, one is bigger than the other, etc, etc, but until you look really closely at "small things"; or use very telling clips of videos; or focus on precisely how black the black is, or how I'm blinded by the whites - there's little in it. Of course, the sales people can pump up the colour and do other silly things to make it look it more impressive - but none of that makes it "more real" ... what one gets with more expensive, visual hardware is the ability to create a more immersive experience, for the eyes and mind; you get closer closer to the sense of "being there" - but the "thereness" itself has to feel right, and the mind will immediately pick whether the match is close enough - if that was the intention of the visual capture.

 

"The room is the biggest influence on how the loudspeaker sounds" ... this is a crazy one for me 😁; a giveaway that the sound is so lopsided that one has to do all manner of things to the room to try and tame the subjectively obvious anomalies produced by the system - a car analogy, 🤪, is having a suspension that is so ill behaved that one has to very carefully organise a pile of cushions on the driver's seat, to stop your backside being constantly pounded by every bump.

 

Okay, 'nuff for one post ... 🙂.

 

 

[Rexp]

11 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Was pointed to this video,

 

 

and I largely disagree with many of his points, for all the reasons I've mentioned many times, 😁.

 

The last one I particularly want to comment on ... because it, ummm, really matters ... 😉

 

#10 - There is no such thing as the Absolute Sound  ... ???

 

... 'cause there is! It's the sound of the musical event as captured on the source medium; devoid, subjectively, of any identifying characteristics of the playback chain.

 

Let's consider three of the things he says:

 

"People want to think they are moving towards some sort of target point" ... he denies this is possible, but if you consider that the waveform of a track is "locked in concrete", then at a simple physical level then of course it should be possible to only be aurally aware of what that waveform contains.

 

"Take for example very expensive loudspeakers" ... as if that ever meant anything - It's The System, Stupid! ... The only thing that matters is the performance of the overall setup - and pulling out and examining one part of it, to "prove something", is meaningless. A pretty obvious comparison is Absolute Vision, which is far less confused these days ... I don't know about you, but when I go into a well run electricals store these days, where all the screens are showing the same picture, then, "They all look the same". That is, I don't see a pink screen, and a blue screen, or a blurred screen and a really clear one; the colors alone barely indicate that I'm looking at different images ... and the more expensive the screens are, the more precisely each looks like the other - yes, one is bigger than the other, etc, etc, but until you look really closely at "small things"; or use very telling clips of videos; or focus on precisely how black the black is, or how I'm blinded by the whites - there's little in it. Of course, the sales people can pump up the colour and do other silly things to make it look it more impressive - but none of that makes it "more real" ... what one gets with more expensive, visual hardware is the ability to create a more immersive experience, for the eyes and mind; you get closer closer to the sense of "being there" - but the "thereness" itself has to feel right, and the mind will immediately pick whether the match is close enough - if that was the intention of the visual capture.

 

"The room is the biggest influence on how the loudspeaker sounds" ... this is a crazy one for me 😁; a giveaway that the sound is so lopsided that one has to do all manner of things to the room to try and tame the subjectively obvious anomalies produced by the system - a car analogy, 🤪, is having a suspension that is so ill behaved that one has to very carefully organise a pile of cushions on the driver's seat, to stop your backside being constantly pounded by every bump.

 

Okay, 'nuff for one post ... 🙂.

 

 

It seems Darko's hearing isn't great so he can't hear differences that exist and instead of admitting he's half deaf, he tries to persuade others that things like the absolute sound don't exist. 

[Confused]

Archimago was not that keen on Mr Darko's video either, or half of it at least:

 

Archimago's Musings: MUSINGS: Noise, Jitter, Faith & The Autistic Fantasies of Digital Audiophilia ("For adults only?" Darko/Lavorgna conversation.)

 

 

[Confused]

On 1/6/2021 at 10:11 PM, fas42 said:

Which says what? The systems are the 'same' - but, the electrical environment around them differs ... which is all that it takes for loss of the precious SQ that is the goal.

Oddly enough, overall I actually prefered the sound in the second clip.  In the first clip, there were some very strange bass disturbances.  This can be heard quite clearly at about 3 min in the clip.  (and at other points too) This sounded to me to be a bit like turntable rumble, or the kind of environmental feedback you get with some turntables if not properly isolated.  I guess that it must actually have been something else, considering the demo is supposrd to be with an Innuos Statement.  Strange.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, Confused said:

Oddly enough, overall I actually prefered the sound in the second clip.  In the first clip, there were some very strange bass disturbances.  This can be heard quite clearly at about 3 min in the clip.  (and at other points too) This sounded to me to be a bit like turntable rumble, or the kind of environmental feedback you get with some turntables if not properly isolated.  I guess that it must actually have been something else, considering the demo is supposrd to be with an Innuos Statement.  Strange.

 

The laptop only goes down to 200Hz or so; so any bass funnies will be largely not noticeable, for me. With recordings played on a decent setup I find it's extremely rare to "notice the bass", for the wrong reasons - there's a track transcribed from a record of the 30's or 40's that has this bass 'boom' about it - it always sounds wrong; but, it's embedded in the grooves.

[fas42]

Good to see @ray-dude continuing to evolve his replay quality,

 

In particular,

 

Quote

Right out of the gate, it was obvious that DC4 was taking all the goodness of the DC3 and kicking up several notches: faster and more controlled dynamics (to put it mildly), breathtaking resolution and clarity and control, a true physicality and presence in the bass, and (most importantly for me) a remarkable holographic sense of space that spreads from behind the speakers to next to me on my sofa, and even above me. If DC3 makes instruments real and physically present, DC4 brings the performance into the room and up next to you, creating a hologram of the space of the performance that must be experienced to believe.

 

This is really starting to cook with gas - the "hologram of the space of the performance" is another way of saying that convincing reproduction is happening; the reality of what is on the recording dominates your auditory world - it 'masks' the characteristics of the particular listening environment you're in.

 

Is the DC4 'distorting' the recording to make this happen? Of course not! 🙃 ... This is what the recording actually has on it, and has had on it all along, the whole time you've owned it ... it's your mission, should you choose to accept it 🤪, to reveal its true nature ...

[ray-dude]

More goodness coming in part 2 tomorrow...full 360 degree soundstage!

[fas42]

Have to thank @Rexp for drawing my attention to the Pursuit Perfect System channel on YT - the man is doing good things, and this video was mighty telling - a comparison between passive, and active drive of the speakers,

 

 

As might be expected, the active version leaves the passive dead in the water - the latter is a wimpy, shrunken imitation of the former, and is not worth listening to, for two seconds. Why? ... Integration - the amplifiers are in the environment of the drivers, and immediately a whole lot of issues that degrade normal playback can be forgotten about. Passive can be made to deliver competent sound - but you have to work at it ... haaard !!!

 

A pretty good clip for demonstrating to people, who say speakers are everything - and that the electronics are of a minor importance, 🤪.

[Confused]

The first part of the clip is also interesting, showing the differences in the electronics, crossover, etc. 

 

I suspect that the differences between the passive and active crossover network is the key factor at play here, having influence on phase and ultimate transparency.

 

 

[fas42]

Phase, eh ... ? Let's see, then - I'll pull the audio down, and see what I find inside ... 😉.

[fas42]

Very quick note to give a tick to @ray-dude's 2nd post on the PS filtering - especially note his experience with "eh" recordings, 😁

[fas42]

The following comments again emphasise the importance of step by step surgery, - this is what allows all the detail of rock mixes, say, to emerge. 

[fas42]

Was posting in my phone - which I hate doing ... still doing stuff, so just mention this from

 

Quote

It is also humbling for me to realize that all the talent and emotion and art that I am now experiencing in such a profoundly new way has always been there, just waiting to be heard. These truths were waiting in these recordings all along, and through meticulous engineering and attention to every detail, we’re finally able to hear them. Many thanks to Sean and Jim for the opportunity to hear these truths in this remarkable way.

 

Yes, this is the real, "magic" ... the music on recordings is truly amazing; and the vast majority of systems don't even get close to it - which is why it's worth putting the effort into doing the necessaries, to get that much closer ...

[fas42]

Noting the comment on the Reality Quest thread about the complexity, and cost - if it's worth it to the individual to get the results, then the method used is justified. However, this is not the only path - extreme simplicity, and great attention to detail, where one uses experience, and understanding of what factors are likely to be most critical, is very effective ... my first good rig just happened to have its components engineered well enough, and it was on just the right mains circuit, and there were no nasty switch mode power supplies littering the house, nor wifi and other RF crap infesting the space - so it got away with it. No mains filtering or other conditioning was employed - which really was a fluke of the relatively benign electrical times of the 80's.

[fas42]

On 1/16/2021 at 10:05 AM, ray-dude said:

More goodness coming in part 2 tomorrow...full 360 degree soundstage!

 

Just to explain how I interpret what Ray is saying here - 180 degrees is the vertical plane through the speakers being the dividing layer between your listening environment, and the recording event. Or, consider hanging a curtain full width across the room, from the ceiling to the floor - which just touches the front of the speakers ... everything on the recording occurs in another space, on the other side of this curtain.

 

360 wraparound means that the sound on the other side of that curtain bounces off everything in "your world" - and fully makes sense as being connected to the reproduced sounds ... a sense being completely immersed in the sound space being generated from the recording occurs - the room you're actually in "no longer exists".

[kumakuma]

15 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Just to explain how I interpret what Ray is saying here - 180 degrees is the vertical plane through the speakers being the dividing layer between your listening environment, and the recording event. Or, consider hanging a curtain full width across the room, from the ceiling to the floor - which just touches the front of the speakers ... everything on the recording occurs in another space, on the other side of this curtain.

 

360 wraparound means that the sound on the other side of that curtain bounces off everything in "your world" - and fully makes sense as being connected to the reproduced sounds ... a sense being completely immersed in the sound space being generated from the recording occurs - the room you're actually in "no longer exists".

 

[fas42]

What many people don't realise is that the mind has to believe in an illusion. In the world of sight everybody accepts that this can be done via a variety of techniques - but in sound many refuse to consider that such is possible. Visual illusions require everything to be in place - otherwise it fails, perhaps laughably so. Well, it just turns out to be harder to trigger the switch in the brain, for sounds - perhaps because the brain is fussier, IME because the technology is not as sorted. 

 

A vital requirement is that realistic volumes must be achievable without obvious issues - if you can do this, then the mind can trigger; and the immersive experience that live music generates, also happens for recording replay... 

[kumakuma]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

What many people don't realise is that the mind has to believe in an illusion. In the world of sight everybody accepts that this can be done via a variety of techniques - but in sound many refuse to consider that such is possible. Visual illusions require everything to be in place - otherwise it fails, perhaps laughably so. Well, it just turns out to be harder to trigger the switch in the brain, for sounds - perhaps because the brain is fussier, IME because the technology is not as sorted. 

 

A vital requirement is that realistic volumes must be achievable without obvious issues - if you can do this, then the mind can trigger; and the immersive experience that live music generates, also happens for recording replay... 

 

[fas42]

Yes, the reality that people want to have audio systems behave the way they have learnt over many years, "The way God meant for them to behave!" - anything else is bound to be breaking at least half a dozen Laws of Physics - as all the best objectivists know, 😉.

 

As a soothing break from audio thick hea ... ummm, lack of flexibility, I check out another Law Breaker regularly, now - SpaceX ... you know, this ridiculous mob who think they can get to Mars in a couple of years 😀 - nothing like having a bunch of well paid experts from, say, NASA telling someone that what they want to do can't be done, to piss him off enough to get the ball rolling ...