Jump to content

STC

Members
  • Content Count

    4177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About STC

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Klang Valley

Recent Profile Visitors

6006 profile views
  1. That is the point. This is audio. Not about someone’s mental condition or belief. I have always been open to others opinions irrespective of the equipments or background. Disagreement is normal when things involve subjectivism but that doesn’t take away the hard evidence. For three years, the Premium member Fas42 gave the impression that the magic sound was possible with laptop speakers or the Philips and sharp system. Now it turned out that he was describing to a system that was made of B&W speakers and Perreaux Amplifier. The hobby has developed to hallucination. And another man with damaged hearing who listeners with headphones is describing 3D sound from downsampled Dolby. This is audio and I respond to that. But it was too late that I forgot that his post was liked by the forum owner otherwise I would have refrained from commenting as I believe that never argue with idiots because onlookers may not able to tell the difference.
  2. So my posts were sophomoric? one delusional guy took us a ride for over thousands of post when all along he was describing the sound of an average high fidelity equipment and another one with damaged hearing siting with headphones lecturing me about downsampled Dolby. and my posts got deleted.
  3. Not as confused or delusional as you are Who is trying to convince the world that the laptop speakers can sound as good as the B&W. You made this statement so please explain why that is so start with:- Speakers wired out of phase, can make the speakers disappear. Can I now say the SQ goal has been achieved? This is irrelevant if can’t explain the earlier. Anyway, I take it here the best sound sound you had was from the proper hifi system. That is the final word about your 35 years journey.
  4. I disagree. Dolby surround is stereo plus surround. The stereo sound is always there whether it is 2.0, 2.1,5.1,7.1, 9.2, ATMOS, AURA3D, WFS and etc etc. You need stereo to produce the frontal stage as close as the original event. Stereo is the simplest way. When you refer to downsampled version of DTS or Dolby, how do you know it is the downsampled version? Dolby surround is object based. Stereo recording is channel based. Most of my collection that I like were from original motion picture sound. The audio CDs will be in stereo. However, the videos or movies will have the songs in surround. how the downsampled the original version for stereo is depends on the mastering engineer. Can they sound more 3 Dimensional because they were downsampled? If so why as the front stereo is now supposedly produce the sound meant to come from the direction of the surround speakers. How do you think these can make the 3D sound? Are you referring to object or channel based audio?
  5. I think we should know by now that whatever magic sound he was referring to l, that happened 35 years ago, happened with a proper hifi system. He is still chasing for that sound with Philips, Sharp and laptops which will not materialize but he somehow believed that it did on several occasions. Sometimes, I also ask myself whether my tiny phone could produce the same sensation as my main system if I ignore the volume. It is funny that I can actually equate the same sound with the main system. It is just the state of the mind. But to believe that it is actually the same as the main system is just delusional.
  6. Now you are are talking like a typical audiophile. It is a normal behavior to find that your system not to sound optimum and lacking once your initial euphoria of getting a new toy is gone. Dr Henry Augus Bowes identified this as audio neurosis in 1957. It is your brain reminding you that the stereo sound is not natural.
  7. Typo- meant to ask why didn’t he pursue with the same system.
  8. Solved!!! The magic did not happen with Philip HT or Sharp. It stopped there. Is this a case of someone missing a better system. Wonder why you are not persuading the with the same equipment? —————————— ST, it doesn't help when you get the story completely mucked up - JBC means nothing to me ... the rig 35 years ago was a Yamaha CDP, Perreaux power amp, B&W bookshelfs ... current rig is NAD CDP, NAD integrated, Sharp speakers ... okay?
  9. @fas42 Are you Littlematt?
  10. Looks like the Philips nor the Sharp ever produced the magical sound. Then somewhere in between he gave the impression that the laptop speakers was capable of it.
  11. oh dear....this was what fas42 said. So looks like neither Philips nor Sharp produced the magic. “Adele's recordings, say 21, can be 'tamed' ... but it requires a rig operating at the highest levels of competence - the previous main rig system, a Philips HT combo, struggled with this one - the leftover, audible misdemeanours of the hardware were triggered very easily by the mastering of this recording, and it was always on the sharp edge of becoming unpleasant. By contrast, the current NAD rig is quite at ease with 21, it comes over well.“
  12. Fas42 about Sharp speakers. 1)enough - I intend to get my cheap, Sharp speakers running again, and will record some clips hopefully demonstrating that quality. 2) AJ would despair about the current speakers, they're from a Sharp midfi boombox - but so far they've delivered. The drivers can take lots of power, vastly better than those on the Philips - they won't have any trouble deafening me, or giving a mic a hard time. The cabinets are too flimsy, so I will have to stiffen the panels at some stage. 3) Plenty of chains used: current is old NAD CD player and integrated amp, and Sharp speakers. 4) Latest toys are NAD CDP and amp, Sharp speakers - not yet competent, but usable. 5) Note, yet again, current rig has NAD CDP, NAD integrated, Sharp speakers; 6) Case in point is the current rig being tweaked. Electronics are decent, older NAD units; speakers are Sharp boombox items, from the classic 3 equal sized boxes that are available everywhere. So far, the NAD units are the biggest bottleneck, the speakers have barely started to breath in terms of what they're capable of . 7) There have been a number, over several decades. Parts of the stories of them are spread over a number of audio forums, going back some years now. The story of the current one is listed in a series of posts titled A More Ambitious Upgrade - Part 1 to 18, to be found in the blog linked to in my signature. To summarise, it uses second hand NAD CDP and integrated, and new Sharp speakers; especially note that it has never reached the goal SQ, because I haven't been motivated enough lately to finish the exercise of optimising. A marker for the end goal SQ is that the drivers of the speakers become completely 'invisible' as the source of the sound, even with one's ear only inches away, directly in front of a particular driver; the current system has got close on occasion, but never actually succeeded. So far. 8.) The current Sharp boombox speakers show how easy it is these days for big manufacturers to get raw components of decent quality to do the job at low cost. Even from immediate turn on in the morning, a heavy duty solo piano recording comes across very well - as contrasting with the poor standard often heard from audiophile setups. 9) George just had a gentle dig at me for using Sharp speakers , but it allows me to again mention that when one achieves convincing sound from a setup, and investigates - that it turns everything on its head. Speakers become the least important part of the rig, and everything before them becomes super critical. ( NOW SPEAKERS NOT IMPORTANT). 10). I was very active some time ago now tweaking a NAD plus Sharp speakers. The source was a NAD CDP - three items, all hardwired together. 11) And now have this combo of NAD CDP, amp and Sharp speakers producing a satisfying standard - as it was before I shut it down some time ago . 12) Same as before . Old NAD CDP, NAD integrated, Sharp boombox speakers (THAT WAS IN 2019. When did the B&W speakers come into his system?) 13). This is via cheap Sharp boombox speakers, through the only partially optimised NAD rig - strangely, it sounds somewhat like the source 14)My version of the laughably cheap component is the use of speakers on the bottom rungs - currently, simple Sharp boombox speakers, with drivers that have no trouble handling lots of power, give me all the feedback I need for working on the setup. Just covered 50% of the posts.
  13. You asked a question and I answered. Unless what you asked and what was in your mind not the same. BTW, I remember you saying that Sharp created the magic moment. Wait...I will dig out the post.
  14. It is emotional connection. All of of them happened under unique circumstances. One of that happened when I was camping next to the waterfall. After about 40 years, I went to the same place and tried to recreate the emotional connection. I ended up asking myself how did I even hear the music clearly over the sound of the falling waters. After 40 years the volume of water reduced more than 50 percent. The other occasion was as 15 year old kid, accompanying my cousin to save a giant tree. I was waken by the radio playing a song which I have heard many times but it was a memorable sound. It was like 3 in the morning, deep in the jungle and on a rescue mission. ( Unfortunately, before we could reach the tree, it was already timbered). I tried playing the same in high end and with players like the radio. Never got the magic sound.
×
×
  • Create New...