Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

I was there at the purchase, by my stepson, when new ... we compared all the units in the shop, and for the money it was easily the best on the day. Age had done it no favours,and it had been relatively unreliable, was in the workshop every couple of years - last round, he had had enough.

 

Now this is interesting. Where we got it was that dealer that @Audiophile Neuroscience knows like the back of his hand - selling turds, where only the very best one is vaguely good enough - or is it that everything  he sells becomes a turd over time ... who knows ... 😁

 

How do you know who I know or where I buy my stuff Frank? What does it have to do with someone describing that you polish turds? Oh wait, it's just another way to deflect criticism of your magic 'method'.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm not, because I see you're disputing what Paul says, about intermodulation, 

 

 

Not What? Now you're not claiming intermodulation explains your method?

 

Incorrect, I am not disputing intermodulation with Paul, that would be you disputing it with bluesman. So, this is just another deflection

 

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

... if you can't follow his excellent, technical rundown, then anything I say is going to be of zero value, for you.

 

So, another non-answer.

 

You have been very precise with bluesman about how intermodulation works. It seemed to miss the point, something about "dead horse" and 'flogging" I believe. Still, surely with your superior knowledge on the subject you can tell us how it explains your method?

 

 

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

 

Being silly about it is pointless - it just turns out that distortion anomalies which ambitious rigs are still subject to

 

Please explain these distortion anomalies in "ambitious rigs" that engineers have missed but are so amenable to 'your' method in ghetto blaster rigs.

 

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

- the obvious stuff has been dealt with - which are much lower in level than "the obvious stuff",

 

There's not much "obvious" about that statement.

 

 

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

are more disturbing to the listening brain to deal with.

 

Whose listening brain and how do you know this?

 

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I worry about the "disturbing stuff", and far less concern myself with the "obvious stuff" - the result is that what you hear, in the remaining distortion, is far more benign - doesn't get in the way of "enjoying the music".

 

This is just rhetoric. It basically says your method works because you say so.

 

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

A system of high quality components should sound brilliant - and I mean that. What you term a "bad recording" may turn out to be spectacularly enjoyable; or, still technically flawed, but that doesn't get in the way of getting pleasure from the listening - because the music in it comes through with superior 'impact'.

 

What has this got to do with intermodulation or your method that makes technically flawed recordings sound like live performances on a system of non high quality components?

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

So, there's another dealer, in Oz, of Gryphon - apart from the one in the manufacturer's website ... ?

 

Are you telling me where I bought my gear now Frank? And what has this got to do with 'your method', apart from an obvious deflection.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

53 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Of course these crazy expensive products use the best quality components, but much of the expense of these devices can be put down to two causes, neither of which have anything to do with SQ. First of all, the cost of components is dependent on the economies of scale. If you are a large company using tens of thousands of parts per year, you get price breaks on those parts that are significant. Plus you get shipping priorities. If you are a small audiophile company using only 100’s or even 10’s of a component per year, you are going to pay many times what the large company pays for the same part. And, to add insult to injury, you get to suck hind tit when it comes to on-time delivery, as well. Then there’s the bling. Dan d’Agostino makes his very expensive amps and preamps. At ~$40,000 each, are they 4X better than a Nelson Pass amp costing $10K? Well, when you look at the beautiful styling and the luxury materials in just the casework alone, it probably accounts for $10-$15,000 of the selling price at the retail level! Now there are people in this society who think the bling is worth it and are willing to pay for it, and that’s fine. It’s their money. But to think that this level of spend will buy you better sound than a much less expensive amp or preamp is capable of, is false.

 

George this is a separate discussion completely orthogonal to what Frank is talking about. Paying 20 billion dollars for a CD player still would not support Frank's claims about ghetto blaster quality gear. It is a deflection so people will chime in and say yeah, I don't like those crazy prices either.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

David, we've been here before ...

 

 

Huh? More deflections. Back to the question/s you wish to avoid.

 

Are you saying intermodulation explains your method or not? If so how? If you have changed your mind what does explain your method?

 

Please explain claimed distortion anomalies in "ambitious rigs" that engineers have missed but are so amenable to 'your' method in ghetto blaster rigs.

 

Whose "listening brain" does your method work on and how do you know this?

 

if I use your 'method' would a good system sound better or worse than a bad system and would a bad recording sound awesome?

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Every retort in this post says that you have no desire to understand - it's pointless continuing, David.

 

I am all ears waiting for the answers Frank.

Could it be that there are no answers in your circular reasoning and if your deflections are not working you invent that there is "no desire to understand"?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

11 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

The distinct possibility exists that 'no desire to understand' is a projection of 'no desire to explain'.

 

Yes, no desire to explain when it becomes evident there are no actual explanations.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Or there could really be explanations but they're shrouded in IP mystery.

If you mean Intellectual Property, yes haha 🤣He's certainly not telling us.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

32 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Silly question. I do things that reduce playback distortion. Intermodulation is an explanation for why if you don't do this, that "bad recordings" are not nice to listen to.

 

 

Just the ones I mentioned a 1000 times, but that you are so adept at eye glazing when they're mentioned. As a start, "ambitious rigs" don't do enough:

 

* About contact noise issues

* About static build up issues

* About isolating from interference

* About dealing with vibration

* About stabilising speakers

* About getting power supplies good enough

* About making sure they have listened enough to it to be confident that it delivers satisfactory SQ, rather than just good numbers

 

 

Because people who are not 'normal' audiophiles enjoy what is produced - women don't walk out, because they're bored with it, type of thing.

 

 

This one's already answered.

 

24 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Conventional audiophiles can never get it, because they think of a rig as being like a normal car that has to be given the treatment at a speed shop; I think of all rigs as being broken, so I work out the right garage to take it to, for repairs ... the chasm in thinking is too great, very little chance of getting across ... 🙂.

 

Why don't you get it Frank. Conventional audiophiles have a method far superior to your method. It's quite obvious but you can't lead a horse to water and make it drink - sigh.

 

I mentioned a 1000 times, but that you are so adept at eye glazing when they're mentioned. As a start, "quality rigs" are better than ghetto blasters - they have no issues:

 

* About contact noise issues

* About static build up issues

* About isolating from interference

* About dealing with vibration

* About stabilising speakers

* About getting power supplies good enough

* About making sure they have listened enough to it to be confident that it delivers satisfactory SQ, rather than just good numbers

 

 

Because people who are 'normal' audiophiles enjoy what is produced - women talk out because they're audiophiles too, type of thing.

 

Our method is so obviously better than your method, now how many times do I have to tell you Frank, really !🤣

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

52 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 

 

Frank must have directed this movie !

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, Summit said:

 

To me many of the posters here seems to hold the same thought as Frank.

 

Frank says that his boom box sounds better than a well sorted High End rig.

 

Keep in mind that Frank mostly is listing to music like ZZ top and Adele, which sound quality are pretty poor. (ZZ top's old records are great thou)

 

Most people here say that they prefer a boom box to a good system for poor sounding records. 

 

So with Frank’s music in mind ….maybe not so very different after all 😊.

 

I doubt there are many (is there any) that agree with Frank's nonsense rhetoric and circular reasoning. Some get drawn in by orthogonal offshoots that are not relevant to the nonsense.

 

I agree with, and more on point I think, is that many identify, including myself, that a bad system can *sometimes* mask aspects of a poor recording making it sound less bad. It will never sound good, just more tolerable because in essence you swap one annoying flaw for another (less) annoying flaw. Many of us have experienced *shades* of this in earlier days of 'upgrade-itis.

 

I submit what Frank's 'method' actually is. a)You swap one annoying flaw for another (less) annoying flaw. b)You combine this with a massive dose of expectation bias and c) quite possibly perceptual processing that is out of step with the vast majority of the rest of the world ie he doesn't like or maybe can't perceive great sound in the first place.What most people (audiophiles or not) would say "great sound- sounds real", Frank would say not. Indeed he has a strong compulsive behavior to tell everyone so, each and every day.

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

High end equipment shouldn’t have the kind of issue that you talk about. If it does, it’s not high end equipment. 

I think I made it clear that I have no interest in paying an arm and a leg for equipment either (and I certainly have no interest in bling).

I have heard many that do live up to their potential. I have also heard more middle of the road high-end systems that sound just as good, are just as capable at both ends of the audio spectrum, and don’t go for crazy money. 

 

Okay Frank presses this line of argument about high-end expensive gear to conflate and obfuscate the main issues.

 

There will never be agreement on what is too expensive in many products.There are all sorts of 'rules of thumb' like looking at cost of component parts and applying various value for money formulas and semantics about worth and affordability. It has already been argued out many times and so most already know where they stand. Fine.

 

My take is at the end of the day, "paying too much" (an arm and a leg) and value for money is relative to what the individual is willing to spend and their budget etc.There is also an absolute sense of "affordable" for the average consumer. Mind you, we haven't yet put a $ figure on what is too much.

 

I fully agree with the premise that high-end quality does not have to cost staggeringly high prices. I fully agree with you pay for bling and brand. I totally fully agree with the law of diminishing returns. All that said, I do not agree that very expensive gear cannot or must not sound better than less expensive gear.If you are chasing the last 5% (pick a figure) SOTA and want to straddle that supply and demand economic, I say go for it, whether others believe it or absolutely insist it is unnecessary and insist it is a waste of money. There will obviously come a price point where more money will not yield more than that last 5% but I thoroughly reject either measurements or others' opinions or qualifications to tell me where that price point is.

 

Now, Frank and likely others may well be over this like a rash, derailing this thread OT, so be it.

 

Anyway you slice it or dice it, people will make up their own minds, its their choice.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

all significant annoying flaws are no longer there -

 

Only in your mind Frank.

 

 

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

and people who have zero interest in the pursuit of audiophilia get a buzz from the listening - and say so, 😁.

 

and when they hear a real high end system they say how much better it sounds than a tweaked low quality system

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Only in your mind Frank.

 

So, if I listen to your rig, with any of my CDs - I won't hear any annoying flaws, 🙂 ?

 

Hell Yes you will. By my definition you will only hear flaws in my "rig", at least I very much hope so, because I have a high-end "rig"🙂.

 

The flaws are not there, except in your mind. You must have it that way to validate your 'method', the method that fixes all sound and especially in high-end "ambitious rigs" that just gush with "intermodulation" (still pending an answer from you) that nobody but you can hear.

 

It follows that nobody buy you can fix non-existent "intermodulation" by using your magic (non-existent) 'method'. It's just the way your circular argument must have it Frank.

 

So, I would be most disappointed if you liked my "rig", it would mean it sounds like a modified ghetto blaster which you feel is convincingly real and I no doubt feel is awful sound. 😉

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

48 minutes ago, fas42 said:

if someone threw some money my way, these would be interesting beasts to work with; and see exactly what one gained by going the, say, 20 times more expensive route.

 

But why would anyone want to pay you to make good gear sound bad? 🤣

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What a shame... means, unfortunately, that a couple of rigs at this visited effort, https://6moons.com/industryfeatures/superfi/superfi.html must have been modified ghetto blasters, in disguise ... better not say anything to the distributors, lest they lose confidence in the brands they're shifting ...

 

Well, given that you wax lyrical about how few high end rigs succeed in your mind and how you do like your modified ghetto blaster, the 2 high end rigs you liked in 2004 are 2 of the few liked in the last 16 years. Yep, I'd say it's a fair bet those two rigs were the worst sounding at the show.🙂  

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Frank, I just had a thought. A viable employment option for you as a quality control asset for the major high end audio manufacturers. If you give them the 'thumbs up', "hey sounds great", they instantly know it's 'back to the ol' drawing board' 🤣🤣😄

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Did you go?

 

Dude I was sitting next to you at that HiFi show. Remember, I said "Jeez dude, mate - those two rigs sound like modified ghetto blasters" and you said, "yeh, wow, cool" 😁

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Riiight! - yep, the bloke with the orange beard, and green hair! - nothing like making a statement, I thought ...

Dude , now I know you have perceptual problems, I have a green beard and orange hair !🤣

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

IME, the greater the potential, the fussier you have to be - so, measures are necessary, and if done thoroughly, are highly effective.

 

Actually, quite the opposite. We're beginning to see an opposite pattern unfold here Frank. High End (and low end) systems shine better with good recordings tho, so if that is fussy, maybe you have a point - except you have the opposite view about recordings

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

32 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Except - because I now recall, he had managed to contort himself to doing a sitting handstand on the chair, listening with the hair below his beard, you see - the visual memory had picked up the vertical order, which is what stuck.

 

Frank, you are further declaring your perceptual anomalies, what you thought was a "sitting handstand" was just me bending down to tie my shoelaces ! I wondered why you were looking at me funny 🤣

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 hours ago, Summit said:

 

I know that a bad system can mask aspects of a poor recording, but and this is my point, the masking is not just masking the flaws it’s like putting a big wet blanket that cover and degrad all sound quality aspects and not only the one needed to be masked/fixed.

 

 

Yeh, like I said for me, its swapping one flaw for a less annoying flaw. The latter masks the former, it doesn't miraculously make the recording sound good just more tolerable. This for me is why some stuff is more listenable over the car radio.

 

I would never suggest that there is some kind of 'surgical precision' about it or hard and fast consistency or predictability. Bad systems may exacerbate the recording flaw just as easily as ameliorate it. If 'amelioration' occurs it would be expected also to have the same coloration to the whole recording. It is just which combination of losses one prefers.

 

In essence this is exactly what Frank does, play with losses, swapping one flaw with a less annoying coloration. Nobody can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. A polished turd will be a shiny turd, but nonetheless a turd.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

37 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Let's try a simple example: you have a recording that has only even order distortion, say just 2nd and 4th. And a rig that that does only odd order, say just 3rd and 5th.

 

A track has a pure tone of 400Hz  at one point as part of the creative intent of the music. But the actual recording now has 400, 800, 1600 in the source. Played on that rig, what you will hear are frequencies 400, 800, 1200, 1600, 2000, 2400, 4000, 4800, 8000Hz - from that "mess" the brain has to work out that it's only meant to hear a pure 400Hz tone, 😁.

 

Let's make it simpler for the brain ...

 

An audiophile recording of that track: the recording only has the 400Hz component; what the brain hears is just 400, 1200, 2000 - much easier!

 

And then a highly optimised rig, on the normal recording: the rig has essentially zero audible distortion, so only that of the recording comes through - 400, 800, 1600 ... just as straightforward as the audiophile scenario.

 

Okay?

 

@gmgraves and others will no doubt do a better job at answering this than I but a few points:

 

This is not intermodulation ie it is not different frequencies whether whole integer harmonics (even or odd) or sum and difference frequencies resulting from intermodulation between frequency components. What you are talking about are separate and independent harmonic distortions of the recording vs system.

 

Secondly a high end system does not/should not have these distortions unless you can show evidence to the contrary that the engineers have let this slip through. You cannot fix a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Thirdly, should these distortions exist on a ghetto blaster, your non existent modulation method, by soldering bits or other tweaking , would not impact these distortions unless you can produce evidence to the contrary. A high end system doesn't need the tweaks you can implement, it starts with far superior components in the first place.

 

Fourthly, your method exists is in your head alone

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It is possible to remove all subjectively disturbing colourations - from the playback chain ... the benefits of doing this are truly remarkable.

 

 

So far only for you and allegedly one "guy up the road". I say the jury is still out for that poor guy who is likely delirious from your 'Chinese water torture' of circular reasoning 🤕

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, Summit said:

The question is can some simple fixes work miracle and make a boom box better than a good High End system. I think not.

 

I think there is only one person on the planet that disagrees.🤔