[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

I use Bose 901s in my home system because of a life-long study of the
spatial nature of sound. My paper is called An Image Model Theory for
Stereophonic Sound. The 901s do not sound mushy, poopy, overly diffuse
or misguided if used properly. Quite the opposite, they are the only
correctly designed speaker in the world at present.

1. Locate concrete wall.
2. Bang head against it until profuse bleeding begins.
3. Stop and sigh in relief.

I am reminded of a story about John Logie Baird, the Scottish TV pioneer who
espoused spinning-disk technology. It is said that he one day walked into the
BBC labs where the people were working on (what was then) high-definition,
all-electronic television. It is said that he walked out in a state of shock.

I hope the audio equivalent of this event occurs -- soon -- with Mr Eickmeier
taking the place of Mr Baird.

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

One last general comment. The truest truism we can state about all of this
recording and playback of live sounds is that you can't tell what your
recordings sound like until they are played back. This sounds like a
triviality, but what it means is, when I send George a recording or when he
sends me one, we don't really know what the other will hear from it! It's
kind of like Floyd Toole's circle of confusion. We make recordings that will
sound good on our systems, then we make judgements about the recording based
on that system and judgements about our systems based on our recordings.

No, this isn't a truism at all. If it were, we'd all be out of a job.
It's the job of the engineer to make a good prediction about what things
will sound like coming out of the microphone before they even hit the tape
machine. Yes, listening on reference monitors might make you change a
few things, but using your ears and some smarts will be enough to make good
predictions about the sound. Just because YOU can't do it yet doesn't mean
it's not possible.

Secondly, recordings made should translate well between reference systems
and sound similar between reference systems, as long as those systems are
more or less designed with the same set of rules. Yes, if you're using
the 901 ****tifiers they will sound different than they do through a normal
playback chain, but that's very much an outlier. Engineers doing pop and
rock music will often use multiple degraded "check mix" monitoring system
as well as the standardized monitors in order to tell what recordings will
sound like with degraded playback, and _that_ is something that can be hard
to tell even with a lot of experience.

Still, all of these things that you keep citings as truisms and absolutes
are actually just the result of your lack of experience and improper
monitoring system. I hate to break it to you.

If I am to be faulted because I have my own ideas about audio, then join the
crowd because very few audio engineers agree about anything, much less
recording or playback technology. We are all on our own, but I do indeed
listen.

No, you can be faulted because you really don't know what you're doing,
you have no experience in a normal studio environment, and you are telling
people who have worked thirty years in professional studios that they are
doing their job wrong.
--scott

As is so often the case Scott nails it to the floor right through some
fool's feet. Generally when it gets to this point it turns out the fool
remains oblivious. He wasn't going anywhere before he got nailed down
anyway.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Marc Wielage wrote:

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:21:07 -0700, George Graves wrote
(in article ):

It might be because of his monitor speakers (Bose 901's !) and the way
he has them configured. Your guess is as good as mine
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Say no more!

A monitor's job is warning.

In this case it doesn't work, because the "monitor" has a mouth full of
mush.


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Well, that's almost an explanation! But seriously, does anyone know exactly
how they measure microphones? Is it this convolution thing on a spark
discharge, or do they take measurements all around like with a loudspeaker
and get some sort of 3D plot? Or both?

You seracdh so seriouysoy for information you may have been too busy to
note this thing called "Google".

Troll.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Trevor wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
Poor dumb Gary, thinking you can get a good digital recorder for $399.
Probably thinks you can get a good car for under 30 thou, or DSLR for
$900. Poor *******.

Yep, being poor does place a limit on your desire for the best regardless of
cost. :-(
Of course being rich doesn't necessarily make you appreciate it though.
And being poor or rich has no direct correlation with being smart or dumb.

Trevor.

A few years ago I walked into a horrible acoustical environment and
heard really excellent SR. Barbara K and Richard Bowden were playing, so
source quality was worthy. Mics were SM58's, and the board and speakers
were all cheap Behringer kit. It sounded fabulous.

Then I noted Chet Himes was the engineer.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Chuck[_10_]]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 23:53:08 -0500, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

5. I use Bose 901s in my home system because of a life-long study of the
spatial nature of sound. My paper is called An Image Model Theory for
Stereophonic Sound. The 901s do not sound mushy, poopy, overly diffuse or
misguided if used properly. Quite the opposite, they are the only correctly
designed speaker in the world at present. My prototype speakers are designed
along those lines ( a shaped radiation pattern designed around image
modeling the typical live sound presentation) and the latest ones beat the
Behringers and Linkwitz Orions in the Linkwitz Challenge at the AES. Long
story shorter, you haven't heard my system so take your own advice and
withhold judgement until you do.

Okay, I get it. You're a troll. ****ing ridiculous crap you're spouting.

Have at it.


What I find interesting about Bose speakers is that no one that I've
known in the consumer audio industry has liked them. I worked in the
industry from the mid 70s until 2001 and from speaker manufacturers to
single store mid fi operations to a highly regarded audio salon to the
headquarters of Best Buy. I've listened to the various iterations of
the 901s, in many different environments, and was never impressed by
their sonic accuracy. Back in the 70s the audio scene in my city was
very collegial so we would go to other dealers and listen to their
speakers. At that time Daytons (now Target Corp.) was a 901 dealer. A
buddy of mine worked at their downtown store and he invited us to demo
them. We listened to them for a while and agreed that they didn't
sound very good, particularly the highs. My buddy agreed and said he
hated to sell them to people. That has been the universal response I
have heard from ethical sales people since then. By the way, the mark
up on Bose products is huge and we still would not push them. If Bose
speakers are so wonderful, why is there universal disdain for them
from knowledge audiophiles and sales people?

[George Graves]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 6:04:10 PM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:
George Graves wrote:



Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often, in mode=

rn recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings it's not. It also =

doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel classical recordings or in most c=

ommercial jazz recordings. True stereo (the only way to get real image spec=

ificity, image height and imaging front-to-back layering) just isn't done t=

hat much, commercially



And that, in short, is why people use things like the Bose 901s, which add

artificial phase cues in there.


Gotta say. I've NEVER been a fan of the 901s (or for that matter, any of Amar Bose' products).

George Graves

[George Graves]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 9:53:08 PM UTC-7, hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:



5. I use Bose 901s in my home system because of a life-long study of the

spatial nature of sound. My paper is called An Image Model Theory for

Stereophonic Sound. The 901s do not sound mushy, poopy, overly diffuse or

misguided if used properly. Quite the opposite, they are the only correctly

designed speaker in the world at present. My prototype speakers are designed

along those lines ( a shaped radiation pattern designed around image

modeling the typical live sound presentation) and the latest ones beat the

Behringers and Linkwitz Orions in the Linkwitz Challenge at the AES. Long

story shorter, you haven't heard my system so take your own advice and

withhold judgement until you do.



Okay, I get it. You're a troll. ****ing ridiculous crap you're spouting.



Have at it.

Actually Hank, he's NOT a troll. He's dead serious.

George Graves

[George Graves]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 10:43:43 PM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
George Graves wrote:

In article ,

"Peter Larsen" wrote:



George Graves wrote:



Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often,

in modern recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings it's

not. It also doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel classical

recordings or in most commercial jazz recordings. True stereo (the

only way to get real image specificity, image height and imaging

front-to-back layering) just isn't done that much, commercially



Yes, height information! - it is probably an illusion, but it is

when the image leaves the monofilament between the loudspeakers and

happen above and outside them and you hear the room behind you that

you got stereo right and then you sit and wonder what 5.1 is all

about



Of course the Carlson bins made it happen all the time ...



Kind regards



Peter Larsen



To be honest, all stereo is an illusion. but I'm continually amazed

at what an impressive illusion is possible with just a couple of

good, well placed microphones. Image height is captured, One can

close their eyes and pick out, in space, each instrument in the

ensemble even when many instruments are playing together. One can

hear that the brasses are behind the woodwinds, and the triangle

"floats" over the left side of the orchestra, just like it does in

the concert hall. Sure it's an illusion, but it can be a damned good

one!



No, image height is not "captured." Neither the ears nor the microphones

have any mechanism to detect height. It is strictly a pinna effect wherein

certain frequencies seem to sound above where they should be. At the live

event you don't hear this because your eyes override the effect. On

playback, it often sems like the horns are higher than the rest of the

instruments.

Then perhaps you can tell me why multimiked recordings of symphony orchestras
NEVER exhibit that phenomenon, but true minimalist stereo recordings always do?

George Graves

[George Graves]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 7:35:33 AM UTC-7, hank alrich wrote:
Trevor wrote:



"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message

...

Poor dumb Gary, thinking you can get a good digital recorder for $399.

Probably thinks you can get a good car for under 30 thou, or DSLR for

$900. Poor *******.



Yep, being poor does place a limit on your desire for the best regardless of

cost. :-(

Of course being rich doesn't necessarily make you appreciate it though.

And being poor or rich has no direct correlation with being smart or dumb.



Trevor.



A few years ago I walked into a horrible acoustical environment and

heard really excellent SR. Barbara K and Richard Bowden were playing, so

source quality was worthy. Mics were SM58's, and the board and speakers

were all cheap Behringer kit. It sounded fabulous.



Then I noted Chet Himes was the engineer.


Like I said, "Talent"

George Graves

[George Graves]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 9:46:25 AM UTC-7, Chuck wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 23:53:08 -0500, (hank alrich)

wrote:



Gary Eickmeier wrote:



5. I use Bose 901s in my home system because of a life-long study of the

spatial nature of sound. My paper is called An Image Model Theory for

Stereophonic Sound. The 901s do not sound mushy, poopy, overly diffuse or

misguided if used properly. Quite the opposite, they are the only correctly

designed speaker in the world at present. My prototype speakers are designed

along those lines ( a shaped radiation pattern designed around image

modeling the typical live sound presentation) and the latest ones beat the

Behringers and Linkwitz Orions in the Linkwitz Challenge at the AES. Long

story shorter, you haven't heard my system so take your own advice and

withhold judgement until you do.



Okay, I get it. You're a troll. ****ing ridiculous crap you're spouting.



Have at it.





What I find interesting about Bose speakers is that no one that I've

known in the consumer audio industry has liked them. I worked in the

industry from the mid 70s until 2001 and from speaker manufacturers to

single store mid fi operations to a highly regarded audio salon to the

headquarters of Best Buy. I've listened to the various iterations of

the 901s, in many different environments, and was never impressed by

their sonic accuracy. Back in the 70s the audio scene in my city was

very collegial so we would go to other dealers and listen to their

speakers. At that time Daytons (now Target Corp.) was a 901 dealer. A

buddy of mine worked at their downtown store and he invited us to demo

them. We listened to them for a while and agreed that they didn't

sound very good, particularly the highs. My buddy agreed and said he

hated to sell them to people. That has been the universal response I

have heard from ethical sales people since then. By the way, the mark

up on Bose products is huge and we still would not push them. If Bose

speakers are so wonderful, why is there universal disdain for them

from knowledge audiophiles and sales people?

Well, speaking for myself, I think it's because they simply don't work very well.
They require this artificial bass boost to get any lows out of them by driving those
little speakers to distraction and the result was horrible bass, muddy, tubby, and
distorted (I'll admit, I haven't seriously listened to a pair of 901s since the 1970's and they
might have fixed the bass by now, but....

When British magazine "Hi-Fi News and Record Review" measured the 901s back when,
they found that they had practically no response above 12 KHz, yet Bose never added a tweeter
(to my knowledge). The sound of the 901s always reminded me of the 'Popular Electronics' Magazine's
"Sweet 16" project.

I also think that Dr. Amar Bose was pretty much of a self promoter, and a snake-
oil salesman. Most of his products are overpriced and under-achieving. There was one exception,
however. His original "Acoustic Wave" radio did sound spectacular for what it was, but was and remains
outrageously over-priced (like most Bose products).

George Graves

[Scott Dorsey]

George Graves wrote:
On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 10:43:43 PM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:


No, image height is not "captured." Neither the ears nor the microphones
have any mechanism to detect height. It is strictly a pinna effect wherein
certain frequencies seem to sound above where they should be. At the live
event you don't hear this because your eyes override the effect. On
playback, it often sems like the horns are higher than the rest of the
instruments.

Then perhaps you can tell me why multimiked recordings of symphony orchestras
NEVER exhibit that phenomenon, but true minimalist stereo recordings always do?

I can make it happen on a spotmiked recording, if you like. It's a trick,
but it's not that hard a trick.

It's true that most of the time it appears in minimalist recordings, it is
an artifact of the room, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

George Graves wrote:

I also think that Dr. Amar Bose was pretty much of a self promoter, and a snake-
oil salesman. Most of his products are overpriced and under-achieving. There was one exception,
however. His original "Acoustic Wave" radio did sound spectacular for what it was, but was and remains
outrageously over-priced (like most Bose products).

Actually, I found the Acoustic Wave radio very annoying, because the
transmission line gadget produced a big peak down at the bottom of the
vocal range, which made baritone announcers on the radio less easy to
understand.

My mother was thinking of buying one because she liked the one a neighbor
had. I told her to tune to the local NPR station and listen from the next
room, then do the same thing with the old table radio in her kitchen. She
was amazed that she could understand the announcer from the other room with
the Philco but couldn't make a word he was saying out with the Bose.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

George Graves wrote:

Actually Hank, he's NOT a troll. He's dead serious.

George Graves

Thanks for that, George!

Whew.

Given his responses I hold no hope for his awakening.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[George Graves]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 10:42:58 AM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:
George Graves wrote:



I also think that Dr. Amar Bose was pretty much of a self promoter, and a snake-

oil salesman. Most of his products are overpriced and under-achieving. There was one exception,

however. His original "Acoustic Wave" radio did sound spectacular for what it was, but was and remains

outrageously over-priced (like most Bose products).



Actually, I found the Acoustic Wave radio very annoying, because the

transmission line gadget produced a big peak down at the bottom of the

vocal range, which made baritone announcers on the radio less easy to

understand.



My mother was thinking of buying one because she liked the one a neighbor

had. I told her to tune to the local NPR station and listen from the next

room, then do the same thing with the old table radio in her kitchen. She

was amazed that she could understand the announcer from the other room with

the Philco but couldn't make a word he was saying out with the Bose.

--scott


OK. I said that it sounded spectacular for what it was, I didn't say it sounded accurate. Music sounded BIG through it, much bigger that it should do.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/2/2013 8:16 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
If you don't, there is always the old reporter's trick of recording two
channels with 20 dB of gain between them, then picking the right one on
playback. Very common back in the day when radio reporters would use
cassette machines of very limited dynamic range and often have to leave
them unattended at a lectern where they could not ride gains during a
speech.

That's where this sub-discussion started, sort of, with the statement
that the Zoom H6 (and I added several other handhelds do the same thing)
can record a backup track 10 dB below the main track. The Sony PCM-D50,
though, takes it a step further and automatically splices it in when
needed.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:42:58 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Actually, I found the Acoustic Wave radio very annoying, because the
transmission line gadget produced a big peak down at the bottom of the
vocal range, which made baritone announcers on the radio less easy to
understand.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I hated that, too. Way, way too boomy for me. And Bose's bizarre design
philosophy made them omit tone controls, balance controls, and a mono mode
for radio reception, which is just insane in what is, essentially, a big
clock radio.

Henry Kloss' later Cambridge Soundworks version of the Bose Radio took care
of all these problems. I also think its speakers were a lot better-sounding,
and it was a little cheaper (like $295 instead of $350).

Aside from the "no treble" problem of the 901's, the weird matching between
the subwoofer and the satellites was always a strange one to me. Way too
much missing low-mids for me.

--MFW

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

Yep, being poor does place a limit on your desire for the best regardless of
cost. :-(
Of course being rich doesn't necessarily make you appreciate it though.
And being poor or rich has no direct correlation with being smart or dumb.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

If BUDGET is your main issue, then I'd suggest you do this:

1) get a recent laptop computer with the OS of your choice

2) buy an inexpensive mixing board, like one of the Mackie Onyx or Yamaha
models that has a USB or Firewire connection [widely available used]

3) use low-cost multitrack software to record from the board's preamps
straight into the laptop.

You can buy Boom Recorder Pro (as one example), which will record up to 256
channels for only $250. It's very fully-featured and is actually used by a
lot of pro sound mixers around the world:

http://www.vosgames.nl/products/BoomRecorder/

It's Mac-only, but there are other programs that will give you some of this
functionality for very little money. At least this way, you're not depending
on the really cheap mic pres in the Zoom, and you can rent or borrow really
good external mics and place them in an optimum position for your recording.

This is a *much* cheaper option than the Sound Devices, though it's not
nearly as portable since you have a big mixer tied to a laptop. But for
classical or rock music recorded in an auditorium or in a studio, it'll be
absolutely fine.

--MFW

[George Graves]

n article ,
Marc Wielage wrote:

On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:42:58 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Actually, I found the Acoustic Wave radio very annoying, because the
transmission line gadget produced a big peak down at the bottom of the
vocal range, which made baritone announcers on the radio less easy to
understand.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I hated that, too. Way, way too boomy for me. And Bose's bizarre design
philosophy made them omit tone controls, balance controls, and a mono mode
for radio reception, which is just insane in what is, essentially, a big
clock radio.

Henry Kloss' later Cambridge Soundworks version of the Bose Radio took care
of all these problems. I also think its speakers were a lot better-sounding,
and it was a little cheaper (like $295 instead of $350).

We're not talking about the same Bose radio, I don't think. The original Acoustic
Wave radio is the big one. It sells for around $1000. I was not talking about the
little one that you see advertised on TV all the time.

Aside from the "no treble" problem of the 901's, the weird matching between
the subwoofer and the satellites was always a strange one to me. Way too
much missing low-mids for me.

Yeah, the bass was all screwed-up on those things. When I first tried to put together
a surround system in the mid 1970's (remember SQ "quadraphonic sound"?) I got a
pair of used 901s "on approval" to use as rear channel speakers (sans the bass EQ box).
I thought that perhaps their "direct/reflecting" malarkey would give a spacious rear-channel
sound. the 901's weren't even any good in that application. I took 'em back to the dealer
who had loaned 'em to me, and ended up buying a pair of used Hegeman speakers instead.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

No, you can be faulted because you really don't know what you're
doing, you have no experience in a normal studio environment, and you
are telling people who have worked thirty years in professional
studios that they are doing their job wrong.
--scott

Please cite that one!

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

hank alrich wrote:
Marc Wielage wrote:

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:21:07 -0700, George Graves wrote
(in article ):

It might be because of his monitor speakers (Bose 901's !) and the
way he has them configured. Your guess is as good as mine
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Say no more!

A monitor's job is warning.

In this case it doesn't work, because the "monitor" has a mouth full
of mush.

So all of you use the same monitor speakers? Directional boxes aimed at your
face, with reflections from the room damped? Well, I hate to break it to
you, but George Graves uses Martin Logan dipoles, and there is a lot of
respect for Quads, Maggies, and MBL omnis.

What do you think about those fools?

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
I use Bose 901s in my home system because of a life-long study of the
spatial nature of sound. My paper is called An Image Model Theory for
Stereophonic Sound. The 901s do not sound mushy, poopy, overly
diffuse or misguided if used properly. Quite the opposite, they are
the only correctly designed speaker in the world at present.

1. Locate concrete wall.
2. Bang head against it until profuse bleeding begins.
3. Stop and sigh in relief.

I am reminded of a story about John Logie Baird, the Scottish TV
pioneer who espoused spinning-disk technology. It is said that he one
day walked into the BBC labs where the people were working on (what
was then) high-definition, all-electronic television. It is said that
he walked out in a state of shock.
I hope the audio equivalent of this event occurs -- soon -- with Mr
Eickmeier taking the place of Mr Baird.

That's what I like to see - an open mind from the guy with things he doesn't
understand.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

5. I use Bose 901s in my home system because of a life-long study of
the spatial nature of sound. My paper is called An Image Model
Theory for Stereophonic Sound. The 901s do not sound mushy, poopy,
overly diffuse or misguided if used properly. Quite the opposite,
they are the only correctly designed speaker in the world at
present. My prototype speakers are designed along those lines ( a
shaped radiation pattern designed around image modeling the typical
live sound presentation) and the latest ones beat the Behringers and
Linkwitz Orions in the Linkwitz Challenge at the AES. Long story
shorter, you haven't heard my system so take your own advice and
withhold judgement until you do.

Okay, I get it. You're a troll. ****ing ridiculous crap you're
spouting.

Have at it.

OK Hank - I will note you as not being friendly. But tell me what part of
the above did you not believe?

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

No, you can be faulted because you really don't know what you're
doing, you have no experience in a normal studio environment, and you
are telling people who have worked thirty years in professional
studios that they are doing their job wrong.
--scott

Please cite that one!

Gary

Look in the mirror. Sighted and cited.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Marc Wielage wrote:

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 09:21:07 -0700, George Graves wrote
(in article ):

It might be because of his monitor speakers (Bose 901's !) and the
way he has them configured. Your guess is as good as mine
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Say no more!

A monitor's job is warning.

In this case it doesn't work, because the "monitor" has a mouth full
of mush.

So all of you use the same monitor speakers? Directional boxes aimed at your
face, with reflections from the room damped? Well, I hate to break it to
you, but George Graves uses Martin Logan dipoles, and there is a lot of
respect for Quads, Maggies, and MBL omnis.

What do you think about those fools?

Gary

You have no idea what "we" use, and no, we don't all use the same kit.

Drop the posturing. If you thought you'd be foolng poeople here you're
not as intelligent as I had estimated. I've been wrong before.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Marc Wielage wrote:

You can buy Boom Recorder Pro (as one example), which will record up to 256
channels for only $250. It's very fully-featured and is actually used by a
lot of pro sound mixers around the world:

http://www.vosgames.nl/products/BoomRecorder/

It's Mac-only, but there are other programs that will give you some of this
functionality for very little money.

Reaper

w"w"w"."c"o"c"k"o"s"."c"o"m"/"r"e"a"p"e"r"/"

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gary Eickmeier]

George Graves wrote:
On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 6:04:10 PM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:
George Graves wrote:



Funny thing about imaging. It has to exist in the recording. Often,
in mode=

rn recordings, especially commercial pop/rock recordings it's not.
It also =

doesn't exist in multimiked/multi-channel classical recordings or
in most c=

ommercial jazz recordings. True stereo (the only way to get real
image spec=

ificity, image height and imaging front-to-back layering) just
isn't done t=

hat much, commercially



And that, in short, is why people use things like the Bose 901s,
which add

artificial phase cues in there.


Gotta say. I've NEVER been a fan of the 901s (or for that matter, any
of Amar Bose' products).

George Graves

No you don't gotta say George. What you gotta do is try and absorb what I am
telling you. It has nothing to do with any particular product, it is about
the spatial nature of sound and the differences encountered between the live
and the reproduced.

Suppose I mocked you for using your dipolar speakers. They have this
innacurate backwave that splashes reflected sound all over the room, don't
you know what a fool you are, and on and on. What defense could you come up
with for such ignorance? You would be left holding the bag, put in your
place by a pack of children kicking your ankles.

You have decided to pile on to me with these guys for some reason, whereas
in the past we have been friends. You act as if oh ya, we all agree on how
to record music and Gary doesn't know ****, ha ha Bose 901s, miking
experiments, hard headed about recording strictly with spaced omni when you
just received a disc I made with closely spaced cardioids. Don't you realize
that some of these guys use the multi-miking that you despise?

I am not worried about the lumps I have taken here. But I do hope that your
past friendship was sincere and you are not an opportunist professional
social climber shoving me under the bus to impress the others. I think that
Bill Sommerwerck is an honest man who expresses in another thread that he
doesn't understand everything. He got mad at me in a previous thread and
said he was never talking to me ever again. Then he came back.

I had to leave my audio club because one of the founding members, a "friend"
of some 20 years, called me a lunatic and a whack job after I proved him
wrong by winning the Linkwitz Challenge with my cheap little prototype
speakers. I will never speak to him again in this lifetime.

I guess there will be a party tomorrow when I get the H6 from UPS. Or maybe
not.

Gary

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Suppose I mocked you for using your dipolar speakers. They have this
innacurate backwave that splashes reflected sound all over the room, don't
you know what a fool you are, and on and on. What defense could you come up
with for such ignorance? You would be left holding the bag, put in your
place by a pack of children kicking your ankles.

Suppose you just stopped being so full of yourself and **** at the same
time? Just suppose€¦

You can't get a decent recording. You've told us that. You refuse to
listen to suggestions as to why that might be, beginning with your
****ed up "monitor" system and ending with your ****ed up mental
processes.

There is no way you can be helped. You already know it all. You've had
your head up your ass for so long that you've come to thiunk darkness is
light.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

hank alrich wrote:

Marc Wielage wrote:

You can buy Boom Recorder Pro (as one example), which will record up to 256
channels for only $250. It's very fully-featured and is actually used by a
lot of pro sound mixers around the world:

http://www.vosgames.nl/products/BoomRecorder/

It's Mac-only, but there are other programs that will give you some of this
functionality for very little money.

Reaper

w"w"w"."c"o"c"k"o"s"."c"o"m"/"r"e"a"p"e"r"/"

Interesting.

http://www.cockos.com/reaper/

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

So all of you use the same monitor speakers? Directional boxes aimed
at your face, with reflections from the room damped? Well, I hate to
break it to you, but George Graves uses Martin Logan dipoles, and
there is a lot of respect for Quads, Maggies, and MBL omnis.

What do you think about those fools?

My opinion is not on whether people are fools, but it is in my opinion a
foolish choice to use less than 3 systems in two rooms.

Gary

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

Marc Wielage wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

Yep, being poor does place a limit on your desire for the best
regardless of cost. :-(
Of course being rich doesn't necessarily make you appreciate it
though.
And being poor or rich has no direct correlation with being smart or
dumb.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

If BUDGET is your main issue, then I'd suggest you do this:

1) get a recent laptop computer with the OS of your choice

2) buy an inexpensive mixing board, like one of the Mackie Onyx or
Yamaha models that has a USB or Firewire connection [widely available
used]

3) use low-cost multitrack software to record from the board's preamps
straight into the laptop.

You can buy Boom Recorder Pro (as one example), which will record up
to 256 channels for only $250. It's very fully-featured and is
actually used by a lot of pro sound mixers around the world:

http://www.vosgames.nl/products/BoomRecorder/

It's Mac-only, but there are other programs that will give you some
of this functionality for very little money. At least this way,
you're not depending on the really cheap mic pres in the Zoom, and
you can rent or borrow really good external mics and place them in an
optimum position for your recording.

This is a *much* cheaper option than the Sound Devices, though it's
not nearly as portable since you have a big mixer tied to a laptop.
But for classical or rock music recorded in an auditorium or in a
studio, it'll be absolutely fine.

--MFW

Thanks Marc but please let me explain once again - not that I have to but
because you have been a big help and a sincere man.

I record the local wind band as my vehicle for learning recording and giving
them copies for practically nothing but gratitude for letting me record. On
concert night, I have to record them by placing my stand at center stage as
inconspicuously as possible. I then dress and drag the cables down to as
simple a recorder as possible and I sit in the front row with headset and
supply of batteries.

I really can't set up a little recording studio on the lip of the stage or
at my feet because people still need to walk by. I have been using a Yamaha
mixer going into the Tascam DR07 at rehearsals where I have all the room I
need to experiment. But at concert time I have had to limit it to just two
mikes and the Tascam for obvious practical reasons, and even at that I have
had to employ a battery powered stereo microphone power supply in line with
the microphone cables. Neat little setup and I have gotten some good
results. Not like if I was doing a more controlled studio environment
recording, but good for a live event.

A professional friend of mine does similar work with similar miking on a
tall stand, but he drags a couple hundred feet of cable to the back of the
room. One venue has a way to get up in the ceiling and hang microphones that
lead down to a control panel at the side of the auditorium, but I don't
think that my type of microphones would be suited to hanging.

Bottom line, the Zoom will be ideal for both rehearsals and concerts,
because it is self contained, small, and doesn't need additional power for
the microphones. And it should have decent meters, though I have been very
successful with the R16s terrible meters.

I get home and download to an XP Pro computer to edit in Adobe Audition 2.0.
I am still learning how to use that program, but I think I have it now. It
is a really neat program and every new edition of Audition has reduced the
feature set until it can no longer even author a CD. Of late, I have
purchased a little DAC that I use to go out of the computer with an optical
cable to my receiver so I can hear my mix on the big system before I even
export to stereo for the CD tracks.

Thanks,
Gary

[John Williamson]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
A monitor's job is warning.

In this case it doesn't work, because the "monitor" has a mouth full
of mush.

So all of you use the same monitor speakers? Directional boxes aimed at your
face, with reflections from the room damped? Well, I hate to break it to
you, but George Graves uses Martin Logan dipoles, and there is a lot of
respect for Quads, Maggies, and MBL omnis.

What do you think about those fools?

At least none of them rave about the fantastic sound quality of a pair
of Bose 901s in an untreated room, which is what you claim to have.

Have you ever been in the control room of a proper studio?

They don't all use the same monitors, but all the setups I've seen have
been designed as part of the room to produce an uncoloured sound. The
mix is then checked on various grotboxes ranging from a typical hi-fi
enthusiast's setup (Cheapish amp and a pair of NS-10s or equivalent) to
a cheap ghetto blaster via a normal car stereo to verify that they sound
good on those, too. Nowadays, you also check the mix as an mp3 on a pair
of cheap earbuds attached to an iPod or similar.

You could probably improve your monitoring by using something like a
pair of Sony 7506 or even Beyer DT-100 headphones for an initial mix,
and buy a pair of, say, Wharfedale Active Diamonds for a final check.
Then do something to tame your listening room's bass and other
reflections. Some Auralex foam damping at the reflection points between
your ears and the speakers is a good start. That'll cost under GBP1000
in total. Just the speakers and the foam will improve your results more
and cost about the same as buying a Zoom H6, before you add any extra
mics and preamps you want before you can actually record 6 channels of
live audio on the H6. Incidentally, the Sony D50 that others have
referred to is only a tiny bit more expensive than the Zoom for a better
built product.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
OK Hank - I will note you as not being friendly. But tell me what part of
the above did you not believe?

I can't speak for Hank, but in my case, all of it.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
I use Bose 901s in my home system because of a life-long study of the
spatial nature of sound. My paper is called An Image Model Theory for
Stereophonic Sound. The 901s do not sound mushy, poopy, overly
diffuse or misguided if used properly. Quite the opposite, they are
the only correctly designed speaker in the world at present.
1. Locate concrete wall.
2. Bang head against it until profuse bleeding begins.
3. Stop and sigh in relief.

I am reminded of a story about John Logie Baird, the Scottish TV
pioneer who espoused spinning-disk technology. It is said that he one
day walked into the BBC labs where the people were working on (what
was then) high-definition, all-electronic television. It is said that
he walked out in a state of shock.
I hope the audio equivalent of this event occurs -- soon -- with Mr
Eickmeier taking the place of Mr Baird.

That's what I like to see - an open mind from the guy with things he doesn't
understand.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I really can't set up a little recording studio on the lip of the stage or
at my feet because people still need to walk by. I have been using a Yamaha
mixer going into the Tascam DR07 at rehearsals where I have all the room I
need to experiment. But at concert time I have had to limit it to just two
mikes and the Tascam for obvious practical reasons, and even at that I have
had to employ a battery powered stereo microphone power supply in line with
the microphone cables. Neat little setup and I have gotten some good
results. Not like if I was doing a more controlled studio environment
recording, but good for a live event.

Why? Put your mics upon stands where you want them, then run a snake to
where you can sit out of line of sight. I do exactly this at times, and
nobody knows the concert is being recorded, as they assume the
microphones that they see are part of the sound reinforcement system. If
you do this, you can set up your "small recording studio" in the next
room, or even outside in your car.

I get home and download to an XP Pro computer to edit in Adobe Audition 2.0.
I am still learning how to use that program, but I think I have it now. It
is a really neat program and every new edition of Audition has reduced the
feature set until it can no longer even author a CD. Of late, I have
purchased a little DAC that I use to go out of the computer with an optical
cable to my receiver so I can hear my mix on the big system before I even
export to stereo for the CD tracks.

If all you're doing is mixing down a multitrack recording, try Audacity.
It's free. Then you can use a free CD authoring program to put the
output onto a CD, including track titles and such for players that can
read CD text.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

5. I use Bose 901s in my home system because of a life-long study of
the spatial nature of sound. My paper is called An Image Model
Theory for Stereophonic Sound. The 901s do not sound mushy, poopy,
overly diffuse or misguided if used properly. Quite the opposite,
they are the only correctly designed speaker in the world at
present. My prototype speakers are designed along those lines ( a
shaped radiation pattern designed around image modeling the typical
live sound presentation) and the latest ones beat the Behringers and
Linkwitz Orions in the Linkwitz Challenge at the AES. Long story
shorter, you haven't heard my system so take your own advice and
withhold judgement until you do.

Okay, I get it. You're a troll. ****ing ridiculous crap you're
spouting.

Have at it.

OK Hank - I will note you as not being friendly. But tell me what part of
the above did you not believe?

Gary

I am noted for being friendly. I won't suffer fools, at all, past the
point where they have offered full validation of their foolishness. Then
I am noted for being extremely blunt.

I do not _believe_ you know what you're about. I do not _believe_ you
have a real interest in learning.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

John Williamson wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
OK Hank - I will note you as not being friendly. But tell me what part of
the above did you not believe?

I can't speak for Hank, but in my case, all of it.

ˆš

Apparently you are able to speak for me in this case, John.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

John Williamson wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I really can't set up a little recording studio on the lip of the stage or
at my feet because people still need to walk by. I have been using a Yamaha
mixer going into the Tascam DR07 at rehearsals where I have all the room I
need to experiment. But at concert time I have had to limit it to just two
mikes and the Tascam for obvious practical reasons, and even at that I have
had to employ a battery powered stereo microphone power supply in line with
the microphone cables. Neat little setup and I have gotten some good
results. Not like if I was doing a more controlled studio environment
recording, but good for a live event.

Why? Put your mics upon stands where you want them, then run a snake to
where you can sit out of line of sight. I do exactly this at times, and
nobody knows the concert is being recorded, as they assume the
microphones that they see are part of the sound reinforcement system. If
you do this, you can set up your "small recording studio" in the next
room, or even outside in your car.

I get home and download to an XP Pro computer to edit in Adobe Audition 2.0.
I am still learning how to use that program, but I think I have it now. It
is a really neat program and every new edition of Audition has reduced the
feature set until it can no longer even author a CD. Of late, I have
purchased a little DAC that I use to go out of the computer with an optical
cable to my receiver so I can hear my mix on the big system before I even
export to stereo for the CD tracks.

If all you're doing is mixing down a multitrack recording, try Audacity.
It's free. Then you can use a free CD authoring program to put the
output onto a CD, including track titles and such for players that can
read CD text.

Brings us back to the need for the best monitoring one can muster while
recording live music. Direct sound bleed into one's headphone feed while
sitting front and center leaves one largely clueless about the sound
being fed to recorders.

Perhaps if Gary strapped a pair of 901's to his head€¦

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
So all of you use the same monitor speakers? Directional boxes aimed at your
face, with reflections from the room damped? Well, I hate to break it to
you, but George Graves uses Martin Logan dipoles, and there is a lot of
respect for Quads, Maggies, and MBL omnis.

Yes. For the most part everyone does use the same monitor system and
configuration, because it translates well.

I do use Maggies, but I also use NHT A-20s. And I got to the point of
being able to use the Maggies only after 20 years of mixing on conventional
soffit-mounted systems, because they don't translate perfectly.

I have never heard of anyone mixing on Martin-Logans or MBL speakers, and
it has been decades since I have heard of anyone mixing on Quad ESLs.

If your playback system doesn't translate, you will have to work around it,
and that's not easy and sometimes impossible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

5. I use Bose 901s in my home system because of a life-long study of
the spatial nature of sound. My paper is called An Image Model
Theory for Stereophonic Sound. The 901s do not sound mushy, poopy,
overly diffuse or misguided if used properly. Quite the opposite,
they are the only correctly designed speaker in the world at
present. My prototype speakers are designed along those lines ( a
shaped radiation pattern designed around image modeling the typical
live sound presentation) and the latest ones beat the Behringers and
Linkwitz Orions in the Linkwitz Challenge at the AES. Long story
shorter, you haven't heard my system so take your own advice and
withhold judgement until you do.

Okay, I get it. You're a troll. ****ing ridiculous crap you're
spouting.

Have at it.

OK Hank - I will note you as not being friendly. But tell me what part of
the above did you not believe?

I don't know about Hank, but I don't really believe a word of it. I think
you are deluding yourself, and that makes me feel sad.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."