Soundstage Width cannot extend beyond speakers

[fas42]

On 10/24/2018 at 12:12 AM, adamdea said:

There is a third possiblity which I maintain is different from your second. That is the Frank simply has a particuarly bad case of the general conceptual (and sometimes factual) error of attributing experential events to objects. What he describes simply seems like the general phenomenon of being particularly excited about your hifi. He is right that when this happens both good and bad recordings can "sound" great; he is right that this can happen with cheap kit as well as expensive kit; he is right that for some people the act of fiddling with their kit and thinking that they are improving it can engage this state; he is right about everythign apart from his belief that he is actually affecting the sound waves hitting his ears and that the effect he experiences is caused by the change in those waves.

 

This is an excellent example of people being incapable of reading ... I have stated very precisely what goes on, why it apparently manifests, and how one goes about setting up circumstances for it to happen. But most people are reluctant to let their current thinking be touched - because something falls out of the generally accepted behaviours "it must be impossible!" - and therefore progress is not made.

 

Enthusiasm has a big fat zero to do with things - in my earliest efforts frustration was the dominant emotion, because it was a struggle to try and control the factors involved - to the point where I totally abandoned better audio for ten years or so; at least one has no expectations of a car radio ...

 

On 10/24/2018 at 12:12 AM, adamdea said:

The error is not particularly odd; in fact its pretty much what underpins audiophilia as a hobby. It just manifests itself in a slightly unusual form in Frank, and is expressed in an unusually monomaniacal and tedious way. But it's not really that different from insistng you need a stack of 4 usb isolation and reclocking devices or or that you need to spend $4k on a streamer, or insistign that a home made linear psu, or some rubber cones,  will improve everything. It goes without saying though that it is not going to help anyone understand how hifi actually works on a physical level.

 

Smile and move on or stay and go mad.

 

Blind Freddy can see I'm not alone - there are a number of people on this forum who understand what I'm talking about, even though they may disagree with the standard achievable, and how to go about it.

 

The madness lies with the objectivists, who believe they "understand everything" - the ear/brain couldn't care a cracker whether the "experts" have got it 'right' - which is why so much audio playback is so depressingly unsatisfying to listen to; the "experts" hold sway, and everyone 'suffers' ...

[fas42]

On 10/24/2018 at 1:48 PM, Sal1950 said:

 

There is one more possibility, that is that Frank is just pulling your chain. He has these delusional stories put together and has repeated them over and over, talking about his magic processes that will turn a Crosley toy into a high end reproducer. One that images in ways that no one else has ever heard before, etc, etc, etc. I've witnessed Frank play this game across a couple of audio websites over the last few years, getting lots of folks going while he sits in a chair LHAO.

IMHO he's just playing everyone a hoot and having the time of his life doing so. In the end he either has been banned or had so many put him on IGNORE that he moves somewhere else to play the Flim Flam Man game elsewhere.  LOL

Handle him as you deem appropriate.

 

Sal, you actually had a rig similar to that early one of mine at one stage - and appreciated that it was produced very good sound, . The difference between us is that I pursued tweaking it, and hence discovered what capable sound reproduction is, umm, capable of.

 

Your post is riddled with straw men - so be it. The real absurdity of the situation is that people play the games of trying to wrestle audibly flawed sound into something more satisfying to listen to, through myriad conjuring tricks using the room, and directed sound - when the the genuine solution is "painfully easy to hear".

[fas42]

39 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

So why are most people here happy with their systems?

 

I find that even budget audio equipment these days provides a highly satisfying listening experience.

 

Meaning I could play any of my 'difficult' recordings on them, and they would be happy with what it sounded like?

 

<car analogy alert!>

Even the cheapest modern vehicle does an admirable job of making the journey pleasant on a reasonable road. So what happens when the road is 'tricky', and you start driving aggressively? Does it "hold together", or do the limitations of the engineering, built to a price, become obvious?

[fas42]

On 10/26/2018 at 6:35 PM, Blackmorec said:

 

Working properly, binoculars and eyes provide the brain with 2 images, which it converts into a single image with depth. The brain should do the same with stereo hi-fi signals, combining the output of the 2 speakers into a single ‘soudstage’ with depth. 

 

If when you listen to hi-fi you can hear  2 speakers, then your system isn’t able to produce signals with sufficient intact information for your brain to complete its illusion.

 

Precisely. The sound image 'snaps' into focus, and you can't unsnap it, no matter what you do. My first good rig, 30 years ago, constantly oscillated between snapping and unsnapping, with regards to the quality state required for the illusion to manifest - making it so, so painfully obvious what was happening.

[fas42]

On 10/26/2018 at 10:17 PM, mansr said:

Thanks for that. I now know for sure that I can disregard anything you say.

 

I now know for sure that you are unable to comprehend that in audio defects in a setup matter; unlike "normal science" where defects in an experimental setup can render any outcome completely meaningless, you put audio in a special place where such aspects are irrelevant.

[fas42]

 

48 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

He's gone beyond this. He's now telling us that our systems suck.

 

No. But if you use your system to tell you whether a purchased recording is "brilliant!"; or should be consigned to the rubbish bin - then there's something that may be gained if you take more note of what I'm saying ...

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

 I put snow tires on my car in winter. I take them off when they are no longer needed.

 

To "generalise", , a convincing rig can handle every recording thrown at it - I have never had a setup which at a particular time was so capable; but, have reached peaks of SQ at moments which have demonstrated what's possible - the recordings which 'fail' at the current moment are the "test instruments" which show where work still needs to be done.

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I fail to see how your methods will help my car run well on low quality gas.

 

An analogy with audio is that the mains supply is of poor quality, very noisy with harmonics, say. The solution is to beef up the power supply, so that it can 'handle' this lack of reliability.

 

With the car, one "versed in the art" could re-engineer how the fuel is fed to the engine, say by constant supercharging, to overcome the lack in the fuel.

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

So essentially you are asking us to go with you on a journey to a place you've only seen from afar. 

 

I now know for sure that I can disregard anything you say.

 

Sometimes, you people amaze me! If I say every recording always sound excellent, on every rig I've worked on, then you would say I'm full of it, and rightly so. If I tell it like it is, that the real world is never always perfect, because things "always get in the way" - then I have nothing of value ... hoo, boy!!

 

I'm on a journey, just like everyone - I don't have all the answers, and can guarantee I never will ... but the scenery is pretty damn nice where I am; good enough to stand from most of what I see elsewhere.

 

 

[fas42]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

You need to rip out your transmission and weld your motor shaft directly to the wheels. Then it will handle all gas thrown at it equally well.

 

Ummm, the word is "flexibility" - in thinking, and ability to assess a situation - you do what's necessary, and no more - unless you enjoy "throwing the kitchen sink" at every situation.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

In any listening, you are hearing the combination of signal and system but you have no idea what’s actually in the signal so no means of accurately differentiating one from another. You’re  trying to determine which of 2 presentations is best without having any idea what that presentation should sound like....no reference, just the comparison of 2 pairs of variables (although played on both systems the signal must be considered a variable due to its complexity and the way we listen).

 

 

If one wants to get serious about detecting whether there is a difference between two whatevers, there's an effective technique that I have used on occasion; the main thrust is to eliminate any sense that you're listening to music; you turn a critical area of the track into a meaningless test signal. Find a key section in the clip, and by whatever means turn it into a repeating pattern of sound - it's now a "hypnotic throb", which has its own identity; do the same to the other sample - and now it becomes trivially easy to register that the "throb" of the two are very different.

 

Otherwise, all I listen for is the sense of 'wrongness' about the playback; if the slightest aspect of what I'm hearing disturbs or irritates me in any way, then it means that the playback is lacking in some area.

[fas42]