Jump to content

fas42

  • Content Count

    2,995
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fas42

  • Rank
    Spanner Removalist

Personal Information

  • Location
    Blue Mountains, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

2,273 profile views
  1. fas42

    Everything sounds the same

    George, don't you realise that all science is intrinsically flawed ... God hears what's inside the head of the scientist, and knows what result he wants - and makes sure the universe feeds up exactly what the bloke "knows should happen" ... plenty of stories around about how science kept getting a particular, "wrong" result; until someone punched hard enough in a particular direction, and then all the rest quickly hopped onto the new bandwagon - and lo and behold, they confirmed what the Innovator had "brought to Light" - the New Truth was in ascendency ...
  2. fas42

    Everything sounds the same

    <Car analogy alert!> Yes, that's how it is with a new car which has an annoying rattle in it. The dealer can demand a statistically significant number of randomly chosen people also hear that something's not right, before he will do anything about it ...
  3. fas42

    The fallacy of accuracy, we just like what we like

    Rather impressive comment from someone who also derides me for "never telling people how he does it !!!" ... in some literature they call this "You can't ever win ... ever!" ... .
  4. fas42

    The fallacy of accuracy, we just like what we like

    A standard of accuracy that works exceedingly well is to make reproduction mechanism completely aurally invisible - this means that it becomes impossible to localise the driver surfaces as sources of the sound no matter where you move in relation to them - the "sweet spot" is universal. "Better" recordings are easier to get over this hurdle; the ultimate goal is for this to happen for every recording you have, and any that someone brings in the door.
  5. fas42

    Everything sounds the same

    The silly thing is that no paranormal needs to be invoked, for audio. Lack of attention to detail is perfectly sufficient to do all the necessary 'manipulation' of SQ, in all areas - but people want things to be simple, and easily measurable - and, are 'lazy'. If audio was life critical, all this would have been sorted ages ago ...
  6. fas42

    Everything sounds the same

    I come from a very unusual perspective, compared to just about everyone else. I both am aware that the "craziest things" can have an impact on the sound - but have no time for crazy theories as to why this is so; I accept that "nonsense tweaks" can solve the issue; but always work towards understanding as to why this happens. Slowly I've built up a fuller understanding of what's going on - but still don't have all the answers!! Why something causes a change, in the areas that count, is that the qualities of the audible distortion vary - one's ears are working hard to hear past these unwanted additives - a cooking analogy! - and any tiny movement in these register. Which means that the best solution is to eliminate them entirely - note, this only counts for the playback chain; what was damaged in the recording sequence I regard as locked in stone - and am not interested in compensating for.
  7. fas42

    Everything sounds the same

    The most 'controversial' one is the first, and is the product of my experiences, what I've gleaned from articles and published material over the years, and the accounts of other enthusiasts - and common sense. The subtle buzzing of a mosquito somewhere in the room, the buzz and rub of a speaker driver poorly assembled can drive one mad - because the sound has no right to be there! Sometimes, only exposure to absence of the irritating component can make one aware of how damaging its presence was - one is otherwise so used to the almost universal presence of this artifact that one regards its presence as an essential part of the experience! A grotesque example of this is the instantly recognisable signature tonality of a conventional PA rig. Most people are aware of the presence or absence of these annoyances in the sound, at some level - it's why, for example, it's trivially easy for someone who has no interest in hifi to always know they're listening to an audio system, rather than the "real thing".
  8. fas42

    Everything sounds the same

    True to a slight degree - the very best of current systems, in raw form, do a much better job than those of decades ago - but if one chances on an average ambitious rig the shortcomings will be obvious. I used to take seriously the exercise of using every opportunity to listen to systems being demo'ed, and the finessed examples in people's homes; in case I was missing something - but it became a pointless exercise ... the same flaws were always there, and there was a complete unawareness of what it could sound like - only a tiny minority, people like Peter, understood the possibilities ...
  9. fas42

    Everything sounds the same

    To be serious for a sec, "stupid USB cable debates" is where the action is - I'll spell it out again: * Certain interference and noise artifacts are the hardest thing for the mind to ignore * Insufficient integrity of areas such as cabling are some of the worst offenders for allowing these artifacts to be audible * It's extremely difficult at the moment to slap some monitoring device on part of a system, and point to precisely the waveform or number that says, we have a problem ... * Which means that people who live and die by measurements think the other lot are nutters; OTOH the "nutters" are pragmatic, and by lots of fiddling and experimenting actually work out a 'useful' solution. This is how it is, I'm afraid. Until enough people properly understand that it's vital that certain types of integrity are in place for quality playback to be realised then this sort of mudslinging will continue, endlessly ...
  10. fas42

    The fallacy of accuracy, we just like what we like

    If one uses recordings to identify and locate weaknesses in the playback chain, then pop and similar are perfectly adequate to do the job. In fact, they are much better than "extremely natural" recordings, because the flaws have nowhere to hide - the mind's ability to "fill the gaps" masks where you might otherwise hear a problem with "normal sounds". I rarely use classical pieces to 'debug' my rig, because they normally sound too OK - I put on a savage bit of rock, and the lacking is immediately obvious. Does this mean that excellent acoustic recordings sound mediocre, at the end of the process? Not in the slightest, they sound "as good as ever" - but are no longer 'special' - they now live or die on the quality of the efforts of the musicians ...
  11. fas42

    Everything sounds the same

    Ahh, but I may decide it's too "audiophile" - and put it in the back pile... .
  12. fas42

    The fallacy of accuracy, we just like what we like

    Time for a short musical interlude ...
  13. fas42

    The fallacy of accuracy, we just like what we like

    Yes, that's the way. I have only come across one system so far that has done this - which, suurrprise, suurrprise, was not one of my own . This was the Bryston hearted combo, which did an excellent job of kicking me, hard, through my whole body - my setups didn't have the headroom to deliver the necessary SPLs.
  14. fas42

    Everything sounds the same

    In fact, I use a debugged $5 clock radio to decide which recordings are good enough to keep listening to ...
  15. fas42

    The fallacy of accuracy, we just like what we like

    A very thoughtful response ... I arrived at the conclusion that the errors of the recording can be made to be subjectively irrelevant only over a long period of time; many, many years of using different components that had different inherent strengths and weaknesses - one rig would make certain styles of recordings when not at optimum almost impossible to listen to; yet another would dash these off effortlessly, draw me in deeper to the music even though the setup wasn't at peak quality. The Philips HT as compared to the NAD combo is a good example of that. What has to happen for all recordings to "work" is go ever 'deeper' into the remaining weaknesses in the setup - every situation I've looked at has always given this result; what is necessary is that every last detail of the recording has to be revealed as clearly and as truly as possible, which gives the brain sufficient data to do the internal filtering and separating. The "poorness" of the recording, technically, is discarded - it becomes 'invisible'. Part of my solution is that I don't worry about bass - how can that work!, people say ... well, it does - I have never heard pipe organ come across as well on anyone else's system as it has on my mine - if the fundamentals are missing the brain "fills the gaps" - the organs themselves are constructed using this concept!! Part of the benefits of competent playback is that the "underdrive", and "overdoing the volume", become meaningless - any volume, "works" ... we learn as we grow up to adjust to the varying volume of live sound, and convincing playback replicates the conditions which the mind 'understands' - subjectively, "it always sounds the same", as the volume is altered.
×