Jump to content

fas42

  • Content Count

    4441
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fas42

Personal Information

  • Location
    Blue Mountains, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

3175 profile views
  1. Ahh, the implication is that all experiences that people describe having, in an Internet forum, must be "fake" - including people on AS reporting on audio shows, etc, .
  2. In Utah. Which is the conventional wisdom. I take stereo as meaning just left and right channels are operating; and a setup operating below the necessary standard of SQ will present stereo in the manner you're familiar with - but pass that quality barrier, and an invisible system is in the room. I have had a particular setup slip in and out of the necessary zone many times in a single day, as I make adjustments, reset the gear, etc - if you don't understand my description of the illusion, then you have never experienced it.
  3. Which shows you don't understand why people do the sort of things I do. The "magic" is in the recordings - without resorting to fancy tricks or manipulation of the presentation; just the clearest rendering of what was captured delivers a major emotional kick - anything less than that standard is so obviously lacking that one pays it little attention. The "working product" is not easy to consistently produce - if it were, then it would be everywhere, already. The nature of the beast makes it difficult - which is not the same thing as it not being there at all.
  4. No. Other audio enthusiasts have heard them, and their description of experiencing the sound ticks the boxes of what the characteristics of convincing sound are. For example, there is no "sweet spot"; one can listen anywhere in the room, and the same auditory picture presents itself. This particular rig is the outcome of a long journey for the owner; it didn't fall out of the sky, just because of the speakers.
  5. The interesting thing is that many audiophiles need a rig to sound like a rig; they don't like it when the playback doesn't impart strong personality to what they hear ... the makeup is more important than the skin underneath ...
  6. I'm the guy who listens for giveaways in the YouTube video that there's something wrong with the sound - get together a dozen YouTube clips, half of live music making; and half of recordings of audio rig playback - and have someone not interested in audio separate them into the two groups, from listening to the sound only. If the clip makes it very difficult to identify that it is in fact capture of a system playback, then more things are right than wrong.
  7. Paul, I'm sure your rig is in the Goldilocks zone, for you ... . What I particularly value is to be able to put on any recording, and for that to sound "just right' - that's not so easy. The visuals are irrelevant to me - whether dull as dishwater, or blindingly Christmas tree; if the rig does the job of being audibly invisible, that's what counts. Subdued? Here's a rig that can pull off the invisible trick, with speakers well over 50 years old ...
  8. I say, one can evolve a fairly ordinary system to give the sort of subjective performance that the Avantgarde system demonstrated in the video. Obviously, the Sharp speakers, etc, are not "better" on many levels - but they can provide the subjective 'kick' that makes for very satisfying listening. The 'trick' is to eradicate all especially annoying distortions introduced in the playback chain. And absolutely nothing about EQ. Did I say I could be transported to the original event when listening to YouTube clips on my laptop? I would be interested to see where this was posted ... Yes, oftentimes the audio is not of the rig - the video is a blingfest, with background filler sound.
  9. Price, and looks, bear almost no relationship to the capability of audio, in the now - a favourite memory is hearing the most expensive, triple box dCS rig a decade and a half ago checking every box for why people hate digital sound - scrawny, scratchy, unpleasantness to the n'th degree - having heard the same following rig, just prior, achieve superb quality from a high end TT source rubbed salt into the wounds even deeper
  10. This is not a contest, ST - decent playback can be achieved by many people, using different techniques. What we are mostly all after is not being given obvious clues to the source of the sound - playing "guess which are which" games gets one nowhere ...
  11. What many may be surprised to find out, is that heavy duty rock music actually benefits more from higher transparency, and lower playback noise - than classical recordings. It's relatively easy to get symphonic works coming across well; but bells and whistles pop and driving pieces are a greater test of a rig's capability - the tremendous level of detail and complexity of musical ideas that comes through can take one's breath away. Only a super clean reproduction chain removes the normal playback sludge enough, to properly showcase what was captured.
  12. Monsters aren't necessary - it just makes it much easier to get the driving electronics to behave themselves ... As a BTW, I haven't yet heard horn speakers in the flesh do a respectable job of playback - the setups always have had too many issues, and all the things that make people dislike horns were too prominent.
  13. High fidelity means, for a start, that the sound is convincing. The Avantgarde video presented sound that if you happened not to see the video playing, and know that it was playback, could easily be fooled into thinking that it was a live capture of musicians playings - a posting by someone on YouTube of being in the room with a live group. And that is the essential criterion. The Sharp speakers aren't the best I've heard - I have said, many times, that the current rig has never yet reached the standard I aim for - but they have the potential to do an outstanding job; as a value for money proposition, they're killers ... Note that the music has the sense of being in the "same place" as the voice of the listeners - it doesn't have the stink of a hifi blaring away, being obviously "fake".
  14. Yes, the "format wars" are a nonsense - what 44.1 through barely 16 bit capable DACs can deliver is convincing SQ of the highest level, and this can been the case for decades - those "other things" are the killers of subjective quality, and unless addressed are massive handbrakes, holding back the potential of what a particular setup is capable of.
  15. Yes. Except, I don't like the word "jitter", because it parcels up all the degrading influences into one convenient grab-all - turn the anomalies or noise interference into 'jitter equivalents' if you like, but it may distract one from addressing "non-jitter" areas. It was very obvious, to me, 35 years ago, that CD was indeed "perfect" - but playback chains were, and still to a large degree are, weak as sh!t, and only highly focused efforts could, can overcome the numerous flaws in the path; sloppiness and lack of attention to detail will undermine precisely what one is trying to achieve.
×
×
  • Create New...