Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[kumakuma]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

I have a Erroll Garner CD with tracks in terrible shape - much worse than that - and it's a challenge to lift them to the point of coming alive ...

 

Or you could just start with well recorded music to begin with... 

 

 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Or you could just start with well recorded music to begin with... 

 

Bieber makes new music, I heard.

[kumakuma]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Bieber makes new music, I heard.

 

I've leave this kind of music to George.

[Ralf11]

16 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Hmm ... that would indeed have properties I like (feel the stuff and you can hear the sound). But, it will age and could be too dry / too hard. FWIW, his is what I consider the best means of footer for what one can buy :

 

 

If you look close at the bottom block, you say layers. It is about that. Plus of course the material itself, which is anti static foam. This too ages somewhat (may get pressed-in after a while and depending on how the device's footer presses into it, hence the supporting surface).

 

There has been one individual somewhere who created the exact right "kristalline" footers. They were quite expensive, but I didn't care about that. What I did care about is that the guy vanished before I could order with him.

I think I spent a year throughput in finding the best material for footers and make something myself. Now the fun where all comes together (for my silly own stories) : http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2838.msg30071#msg30071

That is in a thread which is all about the floating DAC experience and if you scroll back many pages, you'll see that this was put up as a riddle for people and how the first one who could tell what I was up to, could win a prize.

That prize was : my own creation of the best footer material, which was sugar of a certain size, that compressed to a certain density, vacuumized in plastic of a certain height and size, and next it was shipped to the winner. He, named Coen, never had been made aware of what it was and probably will have thought it was drugs (3 bags of it).

I never dared to ship this with the NOS1 (which is what these footers were for) because I was sure that at some stage it would turn bad on customs somewhere.

I still use these and it does not age or compress or anything.

 

Btw, this is not related at all to the sugar cubes I mentioned. That is something entirely different which alters the sound like crazy, but mainly makes it inaccurate (for NOS1 owners).

 

do you happen to have a vibration reduction vs. freq. graph on that stuff?

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

Here is a larger thread exactly about older recordings and how they suddenly started to work for me :

HOLY sh*t (by Bill Evans)

Very small excerpts :

 

Phasure NOS1 owner already know : Yes, that old stuff suddenly seems to sound "great" while before it just sounded bad to today's well recorded material. But to be honest "great" only means that we can suddenly normally listen to it, and nostalgic values come across.

and

But now there was yesterday; It was by accident that I went back in time even further; AlainGr pointed me indirectly at Waltz for Debby by The Bill Evans Trio, because a HiRes version of it popped up at HDTracks, and listening to AlainGr who said that sounds superb, I thought to play the CD version of it (I don't have the HiRes ... yet). WOW I have never ever heard anything like this. It is my miles and miles and miles the far best recording I have ever experienced. Recording ? man, sheer live !! Ehm, this is from 1961.

 

From there I went further and further back in time if it only remained to be stereo.

Point is, it takes a few things to let this work. But once it does it sounds better than today's modern recording techniques. Anyway, that thread is largely about this.

 

The thread is more so about the endless search for the better recording / mastering version. The particular Bill Evans example is a most tough one and it appeared that only one person (I could find) had the same version I have. Most probably this was because I got it from him. LOL.

All the other versions (so many exist !) sound like double sh*t. The Hires ahead of all.

 

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

do you happen to have a vibration reduction vs. freq. graph on that stuff?

 

(you may want to edit your post because the quoting went a bit odd)

 

Yeah, I was thinking of that yesterday. But I'm almost sure I have not because it wasn't an explicit project. The microphone and analyzer stuff was there for other reasons and along the way I thought to try it. That it wasn't a specific project I can see on the fact that it emerged right in the middle of another subject (thread). Btw, which was about USB noise. So go figure.

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

do you happen to have a vibration reduction vs. freq. graph on that stuff?

 

Also, it is quite impossible to measure, or I don't know how to do it. Thus, take a pulse shot and measure the impulse response won't do it, because you'd think you measure refections. Instead however, you may be seeing the room moving. This really is so. Thus all we can do is make the room move and measure that. And this would be implied by just walking. And obviously I coincidentally saw that happening, when focusing on the sub low frequencies (the speaker was tuned up to 17Hz straight) which implies I set the FFT bins to that area (say under 40Hz only).

It doesn't even matter where in the room you walk because the (concrete) floor is of one piece and walking it would gulf relatively endlessly (for distance).

 

While this is about the lowest frequencies, to a certain extent it works similar for higher frequencies. Up to the point that the floor (or the floor via walls or ceiling etc.) does not move any more. It will be about self resonance too (not me ).

 

Another anecdotal little story :

When working on these low frequencies you may run into all sorts of strange trouble, *because* your LF waves are / remain nice sines. Thus, the more they are that, the more energy they have. So what happens in my situation ? 

I am trying the limits of the LF, but at 16Hz I always have a boost. What I perceive from it (audibly ?!? -> can't be !) is the same I hear when playing movies about depth bombs etc.). And you now what ? ALL my doors have a self resonance of 16Hz. So once 16 Hz plays, all adjacent doors rattle at that rate. But the rattle implies more square waves and so I hear them. Freaky.

 

Because I am really crazy and stupid, I once set up the Schumann Resonance acoustically. What is it ? 7.8Hz or so. I wanted the electronic device on a Sunday (shops closed) ...

In my blindness I heard nothing so it did not work. Meanwhile I did not notice that it did not work because the speaker of the time just did what I asked (in software setup wave) but it was not loud enough. So I made it louder and I recalled a boost of additional 20dB. Still nothing.

I forgot about it and later I went upstairs. The whole G-D house was shaking !! Really so. Btw, a stone house.

I thought WTF and went down again, still not thinking of my experiment (still running, which I forgot). Saw the speaker from a distance (easily 200lbs+) which was displacing itself back and forth for a sheer 10cm or so. Man, that looked scary. Anyway clear : the thing self resonated at IIRC something like 1Hz because of the severe 7.8 Hz in there, the (15") diaphragm moving back and forth like crazy.

[fas42]

...

 

 

Easy to hear why it went down so well - my HP laptop, alive again, has no trouble conveying the transient bite of the piano notes, just on the internal speakers.

 

The point is, the whole world of recorded music, going back over a hundred years, is available to be enjoyed - on a competent rig.

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Easy to hear why it went down so well - my HP laptop, alive again, has no trouble conveying the transient bite of the piano notes, just on the internal speakers.

 

Yes, and that is about all (and probably fake(d) either).

So, No Frank. It doesn't come that easy. What you've got there is a most lousy representation. What do you actually think that high frequency rattle in the background is ?

 

You may go for the venue only (which is imaginable) but SQ is to be ahead of all, for me. There is no SQ in there. Easy to hear. 

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

As said before, the contact enhancers failed for me - they may ensure reliability of the contact at the level of integrity needed by NASA, but they introduce a type of contact noise which slowly worsens, IME - confirmed by thorough cleaning, and comparing a fresh connection.

Frank, I've been using Stabilant for more than 30 years. How come I've never heard any of this "contact noise" you speak of? How come it can't be measured? 

 

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

I've been happy with the normal silver compounds that are available - they don't deteriorate, as far as I can tell. Personally, I would do trials comparing the two methods; but don't make immediate conclusions - let each settle for some weeks, to take account of possible change with time.

Good Idea if one thought it was needed. The improvement I get with Stabilant is real and measurable (with a wheatstone bridge) and I don't hear any "increased noise" (where would this noise come from? What about a contact enhancer could possibly cause it? Some unknown "diode effect"?). I would think that would have been noticed by now given the amount of time that Stabilant has been used in the military, NASA, and the manufacturing communities. An American audio company called Dayton-Wright used to buy the stuff in bulk and sell it as something called "Tweek" and audiophiles all over the world bought it and treated their connections with it for decades. I've never heard nor read that it produces contact noise. If it exists, surely you can't be the only person in audio to hear this phenomenon. Most recording studios seem to use it, as do many recording engineers such as Kieth O. Johnson of Reference Recordings. They've never heard this "creeping noise" of which you write. ...Just sayin'....

[fas42]

As a short interlude, music of a different kind ...

 

 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, I've been using Stabilant for more than 30 years. How come I've never heard any of this "contact noise" you speak of? How come it can't be measured? 

 

Contact noise is in the literature, and can be measured; the question is whether it has an audible impact in audio systems. To my ears it certainly has - it damages the sweetness, clarity, 'openess' of the sound ... sound familiar?

 

I spent ages working on taming this one - it can be very obvious, say from a cold joint, or quite subtle, as in a nominally good quality, ordinary metal to metal contact.

 

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

Good Idea if one thought it was needed. The improvement I get with Stabilant is real and measurable (with a wheatstone bridge) and I don't hear any "increased noise" (where would this noise come from? What about a contact enhancer could possibly cause it? Some unknown "diode effect"?). I would think that would have been noticed by now given the amount of time that Stabilant has been used in the military, NASA, and the manufacturing communities. An American audio company called Dayton-Wright used to buy the stuff in bulk and sell it as something called "Tweek" and audiophiles all over the world bought it and treated their connections with it for decades. I've never heard nor read that it produces contact noise. If it exists, surely you can't be the only person in audio to hear this phenomenon. Most recording studios seem to use it, as do many recording engineers such as Kieth O. Johnson of Reference Recordings. They've never heard this "creeping noise" of which you write. ...Just sayin'....

 

Possibly fretting action - the subtle movement of the metal against the metal, from vibation and such, causes the contact quality to degrade, and the contact enhancer being like a lubricant actually makes things worse? I'm not a metallurgist, so only guessing here.

 

There are all sorts of ways of testing this - in the subjective sense say by having parallel paths, one a clean run  of copper, and the parallel running through treated connection. At a certain time after setting up snip the continous copper run, so the path is forced to be through the connection only - is there an audible change?

 

Using certain enhancers with certain metals may work perfectly - I am speaking from personal experience; and combinations I haven't tried may be fine. Others have reported forgoing other treatments, resulting in definite improvement.

 

For me, it most certainly is the difference between getting the SQ I'm after - or failing; it's a weak link, that is too important to be ignored, IME.

[4est]

14 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Contact mikes sound terrible. I hate them and can tell one in a recording instantly! Kenny G's sax, for instance. Compare it to a track from Stan Getz or Coleman Hawkins and I think that you too will understand (if you don't already)

Wait, you refuse to listen to ANY rock music, but you listen to Kenny G?

[4est]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Frank, I've been using Stabilant for more than 30 years. How come I've never heard any of this "contact noise" you speak of? How come it can't be measured? 

 

Good Idea if one thought it was needed. The improvement I get with Stabilant is real and measurable (with a wheatstone bridge) and I don't hear any "increased noise" (where would this noise come from? What about a contact enhancer could possibly cause it? Some unknown "diode effect"?). I would think that would have been noticed by now given the amount of time that Stabilant has been used in the military, NASA, and the manufacturing communities. An American audio company called Dayton-Wright used to buy the stuff in bulk and sell it as something called "Tweek" and audiophiles all over the world bought it and treated their connections with it for decades. I've never heard nor read that it produces contact noise. If it exists, surely you can't be the only person in audio to hear this phenomenon. Most recording studios seem to use it, as do many recording engineers such as Kieth O. Johnson of Reference Recordings. They've never heard this "creeping noise" of which you write. ...Just sayin'....

Although I agree with your assessment of Stabilant 22, Dayton Wright is not an American company, but Canadian. They are also the makers of Stabilant 22, and sold it to the Tweek people for awhile. Sadly their arrangement went off the rails, and Tweek was diluted further and further to the point of uselessness using their remaining stock. My point being even if you have used Tweek, you may not have used Stabliant 22. It also should not be confused with Soylent Green! 

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, 4est said:

Wait, you refuse to listen to ANY rock music, but you listen to Kenny G?

No. I do not "Listen" to Kenny G. I have "HEARD" Kenny G. Different thing altogether. 

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, 4est said:

Although I agree with your assessment of Stabilant 22, Dayton Wright is not an American company, but Canadian. They are also the makers of Stabilant 22, and sold it to the Tweek people for awhile. Sadly their arrangement went off the rails, and Tweek was diluted further and further to the point of uselessness using their remaining stock. My point being even if you have used Tweek, you may not have used Stabliant 22. It also should not be confused with Soylent Green! 

Good to know. But I am holding in my hand a 15ml plastic "dropper bottle" of Stabilant 22A that I paid close to 50 bucks for. I trust it's the proper mix of Stabilant and isopropyl alcohol!

[fas42]

I was just pointed to this track, on another forum, by someone saying "I just listened to the Lemon Song on Tidal, Mqa and non, and I was struck how awful this recording sounds on my system. Robert Plant sounds like he's singing through a tin can. The Lampizator doesn't unfold mqa fully but I can't imagine it provides a significant improvement.

It sounded a lot better in the basement in '69. Maybe my memory is colored. Maybe the vinyl master is also better? But one thing I'm sure of is that recorded music needs good recording and mastering. Everything else is secondary."

 

 

Ummm, this is absolutely fabulous, fabulous stuff ... massive, heavy, grabbing you by the ...

 

This should take one on a tremendous roller coaster ride of power sound ... so if it isn't ...

[diecaster]

The MQA 24/96 version sounds great on my 2 channel system. 

[sandyk]

23 hours ago, fas42 said:

Easy to hear why it went down so well - my HP laptop, alive again, has no trouble conveying the transient bite of the piano notes, just on the internal speakers.

 I don't know where they got the ".flac'' bit from as it's only 125Kilobits 44.1Khz !  

[fas42]

Promises, promises ... yes, the best one can do is 160k Opus - which is not too bad, really ...

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

I was just pointed to this track, on another forum, by someone saying "I just listened to the Lemon Song on Tidal, Mqa and non, and I was struck how awful this recording sounds on my system.

 

All the LZ's fail on the MQA versions. It is or that they were among the first done (MQA'd) or that they are too good on the cymbals, which at least the first 5 are special for (unlike any other rock - maybe of all ages). I must add that I theoretically only compare with the Barry Diament transfers as they are the best anyway.

 

Whether the MQA is from an "original", a remaster, a remaster super de luxe XXX in giftwrap or whether from Tidal or from hiresaudio.com, it all doesn't matter. They hurt.

 

(Thus) Interestingly they are the only ones who consistently fail on MQA.

What's also a possibility is that they didn't get the Barry Diament transfers for the source - I actually didn't investigate that, or even thought it. I don't know the numbers by heart, but the BD transfers would show a DR of 14 while all else is 10 at best. Something like that. And this seriously matters ...

[fas42]

Yes, one needs the original mastering, by Diament - the first time I heard one of the remasters, I thought, "God, what have they done !!! ... ripped the guts out of the music ...

[semente]

@PeterSt you're the expert on cymbals. How good is Bill Evans' "You Must Believe In Spring"?

[fas42]

 

Compare the life and energy in this track, to that in the samples in the MQA apples comparison ... .

[PeterSt]

On 10/16/2018 at 11:23 PM, semente said:

@PeterSt you're the expert on cymbals. How good is Bill Evans' "You Must Believe In Spring"?

 

Observed from the YouTube Frank just gave ? mweh. But that is a loose mess all over. Energy to brain-dead I'd say.

 

But while I started out last night with this album, track 01, to get in the mood - the cymbals in that track were as odd as can be. But it remained at that unless we count in the shizzle/ticking whatever in the first few minutes of the 2nd track (Frank put up). After that all was right, unlike what my poor headphone shows me from this YouTube. I thought it was so good that I forgot to switch off this album and hip-hop over to my regular stuff.

 

You can hear from the piano how all should render and from there you can hear that the cymbals are a bit too laid back. I mean, literally. They are farther in the back (in the studio) than justified, but I think this is also because of how the jazz venue was back in those days (although this is not that old (1977)). At least it was sticks instead of brushes.

 

I am experimenting a bit with (^2) Interlinks, and if that wasn't causing it, the cymbals sounded too much "China".

But it can well be that this was used for real.

 

It is relatively easy to let a system exhibit all cymbals as China ones because it is a matter of coloring into a certain "dark" direction. So cymbals can come across as too small sized, too long (now mouth spitting will also be audible), too white (sterile / too analytical system) or China (too dark colored). 

I blame my current Blaxius^2 configuration on the latter, but oh boy what does that make the piano sing.