'FeralA' decoder -- free-to-use

[PeterSt]

39 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I can trim off 3dB in the below 50Hz range immediately, still following the rules.

 

 

This is the close-miked bass response of my speaker (rated at +/- 0.5dB up to 19Hz @88dBSPL 1W/1m). Mind the smoothing of 1/12th oct.

This speaker is tuned to have inaudible THD at these rates, even up to all you see there - e.g. at 17Hz we're 3dB down, but THD is still inaudible. Meaning: You won't hear a thing from 20Hz and beyond at 88dBSPL (no harmonics audible).

 

I state the above, in order to explain that a bit more or less bass will not color the sound whatsoever, with the claim that any regular speaker will heavily color in the lower regions because "THD" was not taken into account as such, and especially at the lower registers nobody knows how the particular bass is to sound. Also: listening to such undistorted bass requires re-learning how to listen.

 

What is my message ?

You can't arbitrarily change a whopping 3dB down or up and think it is "OK". If I would trim this speaker only 0.5dB in any direction and in any smaller or larger frequency range in that region (like under 50Hz), the windows go out or there's virtually no bass left.

The story above is there to tell that this is not changing the bass, but making it way louder or way less (which is never what your notion of it will be). For louder, think of deep-down-earth sound emerging. Nice for 5 minutes and one track, but after that a sheer flavor you want to get rid of. Same with fewer bass. It readily will be observed as no bass at all. No color change (in my mere special case) - just SPL change.

 

If you mangle with this, all is in destruction right away. And this is not only theory because this speaker (and the tuning of it) exists for real - it is also emphasized by the Fleetwood Mac snippets from this week. What I get from that is inconsistency. No unision within even one voice (a voice is also an instrument). This with the side note that the "RAW" version as you present it, is already heavily mangled with. Still you present it (and use it yourself ??) as a reference for something that should have improved upon.

 

(those dates/times are from the moment I downloaded it)

 

John, I hope you can work with this and that it helps you.

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

6 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

This guy has been trolling me all over the place -- a real jerk.  Makes up competency -- read, but he has hate.

 

John, you may go too far with this. I hope you can show it and justify it.

As far as I can see "this guy" tried his best at understanding your work, then you bashed at him (like you lately do in here no different) and next he worked out what your decoder does for net result (quite the same as I told you and what should not be). Lastly your thread was closed because of your "shouting" as it was called over there, but we can't see that because the posts have been removed. This leaves what we can see at this moment.

[PeterSt]

Aha, I see that someone is clearly tweaking the posts. This should not have happened.

Why did I expect this ?

 

Nice collaboration (not).

 

And without the possibility of @KSTR'post being worked out, well, he is right. Sorry.

John, you may ask Chris to put all back instead of asking to get rid of the things you don't like.

 

This really did not help.

 

Maybe I fell between tweaking jobs and with a wink of the eye all is back ... and I dreamt it.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

I guess I have been a jerk

 

No, not true at all.

On a side note: Things got heavily out of context by now, with deleted posts and such and not posted posts which refer (and quote) deleted posts (including my own).

 

I guess I can't keep on responding similar in an always changing slight context difference (me knowing what I read and wrote), so I will try to be brief now (if I ever can):

 

Communicating as such includes plain listening to what people have to say. Or, what they deem impossible to happen (for measurements). Communicating is - I guess, also not scoffing even the slightest too much. This is not about being a jerk, but about you being the controller collecting all the data, being happy that ears are around to help out, you being responsible for the intellect of bringing all together into something sensible, which includes the iteration(s) of listening and for example the judging of something going down hill. This obviously (!) in combination with your math now having an other bug less. --> Usually in such situations something very else is just amiss. 

 

A new one (I thus did not type in vain today) would be:

We must realize that all we have is ears and not any of your math or further knowledge. So all we can really do is have one or another complaint of something - unless all sounds as good as we are used to (yeah, what to do with that eh ?). Thus sadly, all what ever can be there is complaints.**

 

**): This is born by the sheer fact that we don't have complaints otherwise. So for example, not only I - but also my customers with some more full-fletched setup, don't even want anything better. We are done with improvements (although I will continue and people will keep on buying the presented novelty).

John, please, how much chance does that give you ? ... it can only happen when things sound enormously better all the way. Meanwhile you'd have to give the people the fair headstart with their own systems they almost exclusively will find OK (in whatever stage of their ($) life). So if they deem that the decoder makes it worse, if just is so. It would be your task to bring all the comments together and make "chocolate of that" as we say over here. ... Things are only out of the way if nobody complains about the same thing any more and with sufficient contenders in the first place.

So indeed, people should not be scared away.

 

 

[PeterSt]

17 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Perhaps the attacker should have said:

 

John, John, John ...

There are no attackers. How can there be, towards anyone who so enormously spent so much effort in squeezing out the best for everyone. And since you mentioned my name, why would I not be that attacker at not pressing "submit" at my PM from by now many hours ago. But I guess this is what happens when things are made inconsistent in an unnatural way (again my complaint about the removal of posts).

 

So I repeat, ... Johan, John, John, ...

Can't it suffice for you to know that you did your stinkin' best for the all of us ? ... just because I tell you ?

I only wished I had pressed Submit at that PM from 4 hours back. It so genuinely clarifies how all your followers are into this. And I claim: Yes, including those who don't know what the heck I am talking about. ... Bet ?

Nobody ever is allowed to be so driven by the best for us all, in order to find out the impossible after so much time. But who is going to bring that actually prosperous news ?? ... I tell you: Alex. But he couldn't and can't.

 

So John, you can't be on your own with this. Therefore I am with you. And I like to quote from someone you don't like to see quoted from:

 

Quote

 

2) Source code.

It would be a pity if this valuable project were lost.

 

 

I saw the valuable merit this guy saw ... you apparently can undo (at least some of) the DolbyA noise (read his posts positively).

Why not grab that.

[PeterSt]

 

So ... after this last post from John, another post from me disappeared.

 

Edit: No, it didn't. But something's wrong with the forum now;

Ctrl-F5 does NOT load the latest posts. Well, actually it does, but without my own new posts. The two posts above (from Paul and Frank) did not appear on this new page (33), while after making this very post they do and my own post on the previous post is back again. The one starting with

 

Quote

John, John, John ...

 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, KSTR said:

EDIT: I see my original post has been removed.... this one will share that fate I guess. I'm out of here.

 

Here is a snippet of a larger post I created yesterday, in response to yours:

 

@KSTR - in my view - deserves a little backup, although I am sure he can do without just the same. However, like me in the beginning, he spent a lot of time understanding what you are doing, John.

 

But before I could post it, your post was deleted.

I would not worry too much, as some try to protect John's work for a good cause. I feel that we can all be more open now, including John himself. All he wants is finishing his project. All he needs is listening to people like you. He recognizes that (now).

 

 

18 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I guess I have been a jerk -- but I need people to COMMUNICATE DETAILS to me -- my hearing has been tricking me for a long time.

I really tried to give a gift.  Sometimes the 'gift horse' syndrome has manifest, but I have given EVERYTHING (literally.)

 

The project is suspended.

 

But John is a very sensitive guy with a small heart (as we say it), and it is very tough on him to learn that his work has been partly in vain. His major problem, in my view, is that he works with theories, can't listen well himself these days, and could not digest criticism meanwhile. I am almost sure that this attitude can - and will change. So @John Dyson, offline we talked about critique.  This is criticism in a positive sense - over here it is.

 

What I personally see too, is that the measurement means John uses to check his theories, should change *or* we must learn from him what it actually is he thinks can go through in valid fashion; at this moment I don't see that, but who knows. The first thing what needs to happen IMO is that he/we go back to a basis which is listenable. Build up from there.

The project sure has merit. But whether all is so severe (with DolbyA) is an other matter. Here too: personally I don't see it, but I also can't see it (hear it) as long as the audible results are as they are.

So John, work to do, man !

 

Peter

 

PS: All is quite difficult for me because I speak relative to posts which got deleted or posts which I did not post.

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

31 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thank you for the information. I will put his posts back.

 

Thank you, Chris.

[PeterSt]

I wrote this yesterday. I'll let remain the introduction of a much larger post.

 

3 hours ago, KSTR said:

I did not follow the whole thread and do not know how many people have noticed what I have noticed on the demo tracks provided as well as on all decodings I ran myself on various music.

 

It has become quite difficult to contribute to this thread - and John's work in general - in a fashion which is appreciated as constructive. The last time I tried was since attempts to really make something of this, last July/August. I held back for countless months in order to have some diplomacy in my post, a phenomenon I usually averse to.

I think I was as neutral as I could be, but it did not work out. I appear to not understand, can not see the objectives, do not relate to the complexity ... and if not that I'd have to be deaf (the latter is my own conclusion in order to avoid the accusation).

 

But Dear John,

I'll try it again.

 

I am not deaf at all.

Does that help ? :-)

 

@KSTR - in my view - deserves a little backup, although I am sure he can do without just the same. However, like me in the beginning, he spent a lot of time understanding what you are doing, John. If then, all what comes back is an unfair dose of shouting, telling us that we clearly don't understand a hoot what this is about, then all what remains is let you be.

 

[...]

 

I' will leave that post at that, as since then some PMs were exchanged. Still, John needs to know that nobody is attacking him. But apparently it feels like that, when anything negative is put forward. So John, that is part of the game. Without that, no improvement possible !

Heads up !

[PeterSt]

9 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Have you even tried to listen to the decoder recently?

 

Hi John - Yes I did. This was 10 hours ago, so before you asked. To a small quarter of the ~80 demo tracks, but two times. :-) First the Decoded, then the RAW. I have two pages with remarks, per track one line.

Mind you please, the 50 seconds is already too short to have a sufficient judgement and write something about it as well.

 

 

This is how they (accidentally) appeared in the player (selection per DEC and later per RAW in the file name).

Here you see me one way or an other writing down the title names :

 

 

So this is DEC(oded) first. Btw, with the "short" I mean that all the reverb has been taken out. Cut piano notes and such (like Y.o.t.C.).

 

There is no general consensus of what to do for improvement (this is no different from the various times I tried before over the years), which makes it the most difficult to help out. However, with my experience on these matters, the verdict would be that the application is wrong in the basis, that allowed for the non-consensus and all completely different remarks. One think I could say is that for almost everything counts that it sounds hollow and inside out (this latter may be more difficult to explain, but it comes along with the hollow and definitely implies a phase problem).

I said "-Stop-" there in a KSTR way of ending the session, because at some stage it becomes clear that continuing is useless. However, it would be very easy to do the remainder tonight. N.b.: I could prepare better to print the playlist in advance and avoid the witing of the titles.

With "Highs above mid" I mean: emphasized highs (like in 4K and up) but no mid under it.

"beep beep beep": hardly power and LF.

 

...

 

I don't even know how legit it is to listen to the RAW, but my very personal opinion tells me that there has to be some merit because it *is* the base for further processing. Next it will depend on that further processing obviously, but without that decent base, I'd say there's nothing to go for further. It now completely depends on the specific remarks.

The track sequence is the same (first one is Year of the Cat), so you can compare the remarks, if needed.

 

 

So mind you, if I with e.g. Y.o.t.C. now don't mention "hollow" it for you means explicitly that where the DEC version is hollow, this one is not. I am looking myself over the remarks of RAW and see no hollow anywhere. Thus, the phase problem emerges in the decoding, right ? ... so this is how your thinking judging is allowed to be. Partly relative but in the end explicit (give us 200 seconds per track and more comment is possible ;-).

 

My wife did not know what I was doing, but I noticed her singing along with the DEC snippets. Into the third of the RAW snippets she asked whether these were cover bands contrary to the DEC's. Mind you, this was into Mrs. Robinson.

This should be telling, namely that the process of making the RAW is completely killing everything, which you so hard try to restore by EQ which I too regard subjective.

I expected my wife to have remarks during the DEC set, but she didn't have any (I asked nothing either, but if things go bad she will announce herself, usually). It is a measure, over here.

 

For myself I noticed that I could listen to this, contrary to the DEC's.

 

I can't read what I wrote at Mrs. Robinson, but the "Cool" refers to stone cold with an arrow to ""opposite to the DEc".

 

The consensus here is quite clear for me: way too much emphasis on the mid. In aftermath you (I) can see this on "tonality", "Voice too profound".

 

The 4 but last says "no high mid" and refers to "bell". This is super crucial because when rendered wrongly, bells disappear (or become profound, which would be good/nice but would still be wrong-ish). Thus, it tells (me) that the top of (human) voices is lacking here.

 

What should be telling (if I had to solve things) is that the one comes along with "power" (which will be relative and as a surprise, to the DEC version), while the other just the same does not show any power at all. This will be the low mid, FWIW.

 

The "unrecognizable" at Mama Mia (one but last) was already so in the DEC version (there noted as "super bad"). So again, something which is wrong in the base, won't allow restoration.

 

You may investigate 15 - Walking my Baby back home, as I judged that "OK". It is a rarity because the only one.

 

...

 

A last remark, because this is crucial for someone like me:

As someone who is not continuously trying to improve his playback means, but who is very explicitly working on making all real-life representation (this takes 40+ years of taking hurdles), it already goes wrong in my mind (starts to hurt) if whatever Agneta does not sound like her. Olivia Newton John no different. And remember, I am that guy with grand piano's, full drum kits, a bunch of guitars and what not, especially for the purpose. I try to reproduce reality. Now:

When a piano does not sound like one, I am not able to judge the remainder any more (of the track of concern). This is how Year of the Cat fails at the very first tones. Btw, YotC is a most difficult one to begin with, because it is a first which sounds thin in a digital system and will take years to get right (with a full body etc.).

 

Peter

[PeterSt]

 

10 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I REALLY WAS MISTREATED -- I was offering something FREE, and was almost 100% rejected immediately, with NOT asking for what was going on. 

 

Hey John - the fact that something is for free, will not justify its being right or wrong. So when we're a bit into the real judgment of matters, you may now be able to try to digest more real life realities. So below is still not the last post I could not post day before yesterday because the post of KSTR (and mine) disappeared, but this one is I think relevant to the comments people have, like I just invested some time in collecting mine.

Don't be angry about the below, but instead please try to reset a little and see the good intentions we all have. This should not derail because you don't like the truthful comments. And btw, what's distortion and what not, is not only for you to decide. I think this is crucial. We all may be as old as you are with possibly similar experiences. And just saying: when my ears do not behave, all starts to sound like distortion. A day to skip.

 

So from two days back, unaltered:

 

 

7 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I am tired of @KSTR's possibly misguided statements (I won't call them lies, but probably are.)

 

 

I understand. But first it has to be true. And I thought I was going to work that out nicely.

Btw, I hope you don't have deletion etc. rights to this topic, or else I may have blamed Chris unjustified.

 

Btw, personally I hate it when my time is spoiled by deleting my posts (and that just happened).

 

In that thread over there, all was nice and cozy. The last thing prior to "debate" was this from your hand:

 

Quote

Maybe the EQ problem is what you heard?

 

Mind you, no faul words anywhere. Not from you, not from him. But then in response he showed stuff like this:

 

plus two more and ended with 

 

Quote

I think we can stop here... the exact same pattern on all four files.

 

... and ended with a clear exhibit of being disappointed and to invest no further time. But also with your current explanation (no earlier) which went radically different in there. Example:

 

Quote

I understand your plight and limitations, but it is really best to be kind to people, even the disabled. So, I will do so.

 

So John, instead of such nastiness - which from there on grew for obvious reasons - you could have explained those "huge" EQ changes. But since you did not, while it was repeatedly asked, the result went as it did.

*My* original response to it wasn't even posted yet (finding the stuff I respond to deleted in the first place). But I sure think I still will.

Meanwhile, your explanations regarding this look to be orchestrated because they are without reference now, so you can say what you want and be right always. This does not work for me.**

 

**): Especially not because I had similar remarks and you did not respond to those either and instead suggested that I don't understand (in itself correct, but ...).

 

All 'n all:

 

23 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

If he is allowed to lurk and ruin my attempt to do something good

 

Nobody is doing that, that I can see. Not even me. :-) However, if you post your results like they are on an other forum, you can expect people to be as deaf as I am and next measure. You should be able to cope with that other than thinking that people are ruining you. 

 

On the danger of me getting too confused about not yet sent posts because the posts they refer to being deleted, what about this 10dB of difference which would blow the windows or would be a stone cold result otherwise ?

Them 10dBs really are there. So ... that was my question, since someone took the effort of measuring it (PKane did too but showed the LF only, most probably because that was the subject (somewhere last week)).

 

So John, or you have a real life explanation other than scoffing me to observe the difference, or you may say "oops".

It just can't be.

Last week I was hinting that your RAW file (I only listened to the Fleetwood Mac examples) should not be your reference because it was terrible not the best to my ears. Maybe you are correct that you are applying the very best theoretical EQ or whatever it is exactly that I and others can't comprehend ... but that your RAW version is off all the way while you think it has to be good.

 

For now, and NOT trying to make it worse ... listen to those who try to help you listening. Bear critique (my unsent post is about that). Don't see that as criticism. Can you do that ?

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I would have LOVED to see whatever notes made -- would probably have helped.  There isn't a lot to say as I have begged for help, but it seems like there

were too many filters.   I do have track record for saying thank you when helped.  I probably would have benefitted from your records with some additioinal explanation,

and then you might have gotten the biggest thank you ever.

 

I am totally clueless as to what you want to tell me there.

Maybe someone can translate it ?

 

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Thank you for your lack of help, thereby necessitating a risk to health.

 

WTF ?

 

I need a way better (off) translator to understand this in a positive sense.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

You are very quick to criticize, arent you..

 

Yes, you are off track. And hopelessly lost with it.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I was only frustrated with information not provided by those who criticize.

 

As you did not say Thank You Peter, I think you are making a fool of yourself.

Let's take a break and let your meds work-in or work-out.

[PeterSt]

13 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

btw - did you look at the technical issues?  Made up your mind?

 

Yes. My IQ is too low.

I your AHI all right now ?

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

But I would still go with the original

 

The original ?

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The RAW version, as in the dropbox clip John posted earlier.

 

Frank, that is nothing like the original. You may try that too.

[PeterSt]

@fas42 Frank, I could also say: If one likes the RAW better than the DEC then something is really amiss because that should not be so at all. As you have seen, it is my conclusion too. However, in comparison with the originals, the RAW versions **** (I am not allowed to use the word here because John goes bananas of that word and requires further explanation what I G-D provided).

 

[PeterSt]

44 minutes ago, fas42 said:

So, his RAW version has been extracted from some remastering, which has done damage per some 'truly original' version? Which one, out there, would you class as "best" version of that track, then?

 

Frank, I don't think this is a legit question, because the RAW versions are not something to really listen to or judge, unless John tells differently. Anyway, the RAW versions are already a "decode", which as far as I understand it, undo the DolbyA "encoding". From there, however, it is not finished because for a reason I never understood (yet) "some" EQ is necessary to restore all to something which should revert to the master prior to DolbyA encoding. John, am I right ? If not I obviously stand corrected.

 

It is totally obvious to me and my system that the RAW versions are not on par with any original as we know it from CD, because, well, please look again at my descriptions; apparently this was not clear at all ? So for example:

 

 

if I write/judge this about the RAW versions (the above is an excerpt from that) then this relates to one or the other CD version. I should make it clear in the largest capitals that this is not just some judgement and that I could also have dug out positives (like John asked me in aftermath so he could be more happy) ... but that nothing positive is to be found anywhere because the negatives are "beyond". It just is so. But I repeat : This coincidentally is about the RAW versions because you ask, while John will tell that formally we should not listen to the RAW versions (though they still will be a reference).

The bad/sad part of course is, that the DEC versions are worse again (per my personal judgements - again see in that link).

Btw, a "voice too profound" looks okay-ish but this is not meant to be like that at all. I means that there's no music left (I am serious).

 

Oddly enough I did not have any comments about the bass; for the DEC versions this is probably caused by my brain not being up to that because all the other things being off/wrong, but for the RAW versions this is not so (I described those as "I was able to listen to the RAW versions"). Still I have no remarks about that, or it was about "power" (you see me talk about "power" quite often (too much or lacking). But this is not bass at all. Otoh, maybe these weren't bass-prone tracks anyway.**

 

**): A danger in itself, because tracks without bass should not be used to calibrate bass.

Maybe a small reminder: my system goes straight to 19Hz (+/- 0.5dB) and is distortion free in that region (0.27% THD max at 88dBSPL).

[PeterSt]

Because I don't give up easily (John should realize that I am not out of here and the harder he does not thank me, the more he will read my judgments what he asks for as sheer negative - I don't care much - not anymore), yesterday I tried to get some sense out of "original" ABBA albums. Well, they are terrible. They make me see how John may have started this great project because assumed he loves that music, you may want to improve on it, because it is necessary. So yes, if anything is one pile of distortion, it is that (the ABBA albums I possess).  Still, the Mama Mia on both DEC and RAW are more problematic. But this feels as logic to me, as all of the others have issues just the same (in -as I said earlier on- inconsistent fashion why I can't help more than expressing rigid notices).

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, KSTR said:

you're first one I've heard of who actually owns and listens to stuff like ABBA, haha!

 

Yeah, LOL. But yesterday was the first time I tried to listen to ABBA. Actually that was day before yesterday because they're in John's DropBox for us to listen to. And they sound the worst of all of the tracks (really), so I felt the need to be honest to Johan and actually have a listen. ... Good that I did because IMO it could explain the sheer reason that John dove into this; what you may not know is that John's first couple of months over here were all about ABBA only. So John, you may focus too much on stuff beyond repair. Still, if what's molested is caused by DolbyA, then it just is the good reason.

But the decoding so far does not show it.

 

@John Dyson, you also talk so often about sibilance (in voices). This is something I am not bothered by, although it is one of the most difficult things to get rid of. Diana Krall, Eva Cassidy, Adele - and in that sequence (going worse from left to right). But, all solved and not by means of a DolbyA remover. But now the thing:

 

ABBA won't work out on my system at all, because of sibilance and distortion on top of it. I really appreciate it as sheer distortion of a worst kind. Now what does my system contain as such, that could emphasize this distortion ...

 

There's one quite explicit property and this is speed. So actually all in my system (or the Phasure systems in general) work by means of speed speed speed. This is up to the LPS in the PC, that again explicitly made to throw out current per the fastest means any linear PSU ever could (although as per my own design capabilities).

The most contributing would be the speakers, with their 118dB of sensitivity. This is so easily "moving" (with so few current) that it really shows all anomalies when there. It is actually extra difficult to purport decent playback, just because of this. No warm rounded "sibilance-smoothing" exhibit, but the opposite: following all of the higher frequencies "precisely". And thus it shows the best what ABBA did wrong back in the days ?

... I did not know this, and I also don't know it from any other band from those days (and beyond / older).

 

And to me it now looks like that John is trying to shave off that sibilance (?) but that nothing remains of the original either. That's how it comes to me ...

[PeterSt]

10 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The current demos (no-one has probably listened yet), have mostly tolerable EQ, but have a disappointing deadness to them.   I recognized  'we have a problem'.

 

Quick question:

 

When you are finished with the new decodes, what would you like someone like me to listen for, and how would you like to have that reported ?

So John, all I genuinely did a few days back was trying to help you with reporting per the only means I seem to have in me: report negatives. At that, I am not even looking for negatives. Of if things ain't right, they aren't.

So you cry for help with hearing, and I should be able to just do that.

 

A few years ago I was a technical listener only; Is that bass right, is that bass without distortion; is it low enough or is the low fake (that's distortion again), how/where does less jitter attribute to better sound, are the cymbals long enough, are they too long but cause fatigue elsewhere, do I listen to a cable or to the software, is the music OK for this type of test, how does my wife respond to my loud playing.

All technical merits. I still can do that, but as all hurdles have (mostly) been taking, I am not merely into the foot tapping sensing. Does it, or does it not. If not, why not. Is it my mood ? is it the aspirin ? could it be the vaccine ? is the music really physically worse behaving ? does the PC need a reboot ? must I switch off and on something ?

 

With the technical listening one can focus for one aspect, like the cymbals. But meanwhile I hear the bass as well. Is the bass no good then the cymbals can stuff it (the hell with them) because all must be equally goo to the standards of the moment (and they continuously change - they upgrade).

 

So I can't do a "but listen to the voice !" because if the music disappeared with it, it is technically not OK and in addition no foot tapping will happen (already because of annoyance).

 

So regarding all this, and simply knowing that my judgment should be fine when (the decodes) compared to real life, how could you pick up goodies from that, while I still report per means I did a few days back ? I myself would be able to work with it, because of (hidden) common denominators. Like the example of voices being too much forward in just too many cases, that pointing to the too strong mid.

 

John, energy won't get lost and it wont be created either. These days it is a golden rule for me when tweaking with (configurable) cables. If the mid is too strong, the energy will have been taken from elsewhere. And if the bass is too string, the highs will be muffed. Physically - and if not that, because of overwhelming.

 

[PeterSt]

Do you really expect anyone to read this all ?

[PeterSt]

28 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iazyjhbyksjs54e/AAChBL9dLKkY75-ksQLKvoe4a?dl=0

 

I need input on this about the bass. 

 

John, despite your hints about your perception of "bass", you might want to know that in the Crime album there plainly is no bass in the first 50 seconds. It all starts right after that (by heart, and knowing the tracks. A Supertramp feature, I suppose. Only just over half way on Crime of The Century (track) itself, there's supposed to be bass. But there is still virtually nothing; what is there is heavily underwhelmed.

 

You should never take Crime of the Century as a test case because the digital album is flowed for output level to begin with (and way too dynamic because of that - lacking compression if you will).