[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

Wait. Is this what they mean by "ribbon tweeter"?

No. In a ribbon driver, the "voice coil" is flattened into a ribbon or sheet,
and is the radiating surface. In the AMT, the voice coil -- though flat -- is
mounted on a sheet of plastic film.

The distinction is that in a ribbon driver, the voice coil is the only
radiating surface. It is not mounted on anything else. You therefore have the
lowest-possible mass for a dynamic driver.

There are folks in Australia who have tried to keep the Apogee speakers alive.
They have supposedly produced a true midrange ribbon driver for the Divas.
(Wish I had the money.)

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:
"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

In a ribbon driver, the "voice coil" is flattened into a ribbon or
sheet, and is the radiating surface. In the AMT, the voice coil -- though
flat -- is mounted on a sheet of plastic film.

The distinction is that in a ribbon driver, the voice coil is the only
radiating surface. It is not mounted on anything else. You therefore have
the lowest-possible mass for a dynamic driver.

Huh. Okay. Is there a huge difference in sound quality between the two?

Probably not. But given good design, lower mass -- or rather, lower unit
mass -- is preferable.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Actually, most of the big studios were very well documented.
Many of them had their own custom-designed monitoring
systems but they were mostly variations on a few standard
horn-loaded designs, soffit-mounted.
And yes, they were almost all loud and dreadful.

Many years ago, when I worked for Rupert Neve, I assisted in installing Neve
automation at Atlanta's largest studio. During listening sessions, I put my
fingers in my ears, and was later told that was a very rude thing to do. Well,
I value my hearing more than I value appearing courteous.

This is why I have fancy in-ear hearing protectors. Combine that with long
hair and nobody will ever notice.

They had new monitor speakers, designed by a retired aerospace engineer. (It
was not, unfortunately, Jon Dahlquist.) They were awful. One of their worst
qualities was that, with white noise going through them, you could -- from the
normal monitoring position -- hear each driver as a separate sound source!

Stuff like that is what started engineers to carrying nearfields around
with them.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

Jeff Henig wrote:

Then just buy a pair of ADAM monitors, which use ESS-style drivers. And
yes, the top end IS a little spitty but that can be an advantage at times.

ADAM? I had no idea they used this type of driver.

I need to pay more attention.

Wait. Is this what they mean by "ribbon tweeter"?

It's NOT a ribbon tweeter. A couple of vendors call it that, but it's
not.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Jeff Henig wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jeff Henig wrote:

Then just buy a pair of ADAM monitors, which use ESS-style drivers. And
yes, the top end IS a little spitty but that can be an advantage at times.

ADAM? I had no idea they used this type of driver.

I need to pay more attention.

Wait. Is this what they mean by "ribbon tweeter"?

It's NOT a ribbon tweeter. A couple of vendors call it that, but it's
not.

I'm guessing I was looking at a different model than you had in mind. In
fact, I'd put money on it.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug1...s/adam-a7x.htm

To which model were you referring?

The A7x will do nicely.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George Graves]

In article ,
"Peter Larsen" wrote:

George Graves wrote:

Try bringing speakers with you and take over a small room backstage
or in an office somewhere.

That's just it. most of the time, that's not an option, so I don't
even bother to try. Besides, the 'phones tell me what I need to know
about levels etc. and experience means that I almost never get it
wrong.

Visual contact with the event and an easy route to the main pair mic stand
are important factors to consider.

George Graves

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

I agree that it's important. There are ways to eat one's cake and have it to with today's cheap video technology. A CCTV setup and a tablet could substitute for line of sight very well for a recording setup in a van or a office somewhere. I myself like to keep microphone runs as short as possible, so I like to be close.

[George Graves]

In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

George Graves wrote:
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.

Makes a world of difference crossing them over to a Velodyne F-1800. And
yes, I am using the 901s all around, but also incorporating some more
directional small speakers to "help" with discrete surround movie playback
on the surround imaging. Also, of course, a center speaker.

Do you guys use a center speaker when monitoring/mixing?

Gary

I don't see it as necessary. Perhaps if I used three spaced omnidirectional microphones a-la Bob Fine/Mercury, I might use three speakers, but since, in spite of Fine/Eberenz's excellent results, I have never had much luck with that arrangement (and neither has Bob Woods of Telarc fame. He just never realized it), and don't like the results I get, I would never use three spaced omnis.

[Trevor]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...
Then just buy a pair of ADAM monitors, which use ESS-style drivers.
And
yes, the top end IS a little spitty but that can be an advantage at
times.

ADAM? I had no idea they used this type of driver.

I need to pay more attention.

Wait. Is this what they mean by "ribbon tweeter"?

It's NOT a ribbon tweeter. A couple of vendors call it that, but it's
not.

I'm guessing I was looking at a different model than you had in mind. In
fact, I'd put money on it.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug1...s/adam-a7x.htm

To which model were you referring?

The A7x will do nicely.
--scott

Sound-On-Sound got it wrong?


As usual it's just a matter of semantics. It uses a ribbon of sorts, it's
obviously not a traditional ribbon speaker.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
Try bringing speakers with you and take over a small room backstage
or in an office somewhere.

That's just it. most of the time, that's not an option, so I don't
even bother to try. Besides, the 'phones tell me what I need to know
about levels etc. and experience means that I almost never get it
wrong.

Visual contact with the event and an easy route to the main pair mic stand
are important factors to consider.


Yep, can't see much point in hearing exactly what is wrong and not being
able to do anything about it anyway.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...
ESS supposedly has a crossover for a full-range system, but you still
have to pick the drivers. (One poster on P-E -- going against what is to
me common sense -- said you should use paper drivers, rather than
polypropylene, because they're "faster" and mate better with the AMT.
This is unlikely.

Sure is, the cone material doesn't affect the driver "speed". (within
reason)
(and it's always best to go for one that matches the music rather than gets
ahead of it! :-) :-)
What most non technical people refer to as "speed" is simply a reflection of
the system Q chosen.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

George Graves wrote:
In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

George Graves wrote:
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.

Makes a world of difference crossing them over to a Velodyne F-1800.
And yes, I am using the 901s all around, but also incorporating some
more directional small speakers to "help" with discrete surround
movie playback on the surround imaging. Also, of course, a center
speaker.

Do you guys use a center speaker when monitoring/mixing?

Gary

I don't see it as necessary. Perhaps if I used three spaced
omnidirectional microphones a-la Bob Fine/Mercury, I might use three
speakers, but since, in spite of Fine/Eberenz's excellent results, I
have never had much luck with that arrangement (and neither has Bob
Woods of Telarc fame. He just never realized it), and don't like the
results I get, I would never use three spaced omnis.

Audibly, I am beginning to agree with you. I have done both now, and it
seems there are times for spaced omni and times for close cardioids but it
is easier to get good results with the cardioids because they reject the
unwanted. Tighter, too.

Center speakers are an interesting subject. The obvious need for them is
with discrete 5.1 movie sound with center dialog channel. I can agree with
Frank that if you are sitting in the sweet spot you really don't need it for
imaging, but there is a further problem.

I have written in the past that mis-positioning speakers with a
multi-directional output can cause imaging problems due to a clustering of
reflections from too near room surfaces. The main audible result is a
seeming stretching of center soloists or hole in the middle. Where the
center channel comes in, whether steered by a good receiver or discrete from
a movie track, is that it can bandaid this missing center problem so that
you don't notice it. Also helps off center listeners.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
Thanks Hank. But Earth to Alrich - that was Sommerwerck who
said he can't get a good recording.

I never said I can't get a good recording. I made lots of "good"
recordings. I just made only few recordings that sounded the way I
expected them to sound.

I don't doubt it William. I am just stunned by some of the attitudes here
toward a fellow enthusiast, if not full time recording engineer. I never
said or did anything to offend anyone. I enjoy and depend on most of the
advice here. It is certainly not professional to boast or put down others
who are seeking a common interest. Beyond that, they get some imaginary set
of beliefs about me or something I said or did that never happened. I just
had to shut him down for a while. You I count as an honest man because you
ask questions without fear of being ridiculed.

I have opened the box now and feel I should report my findings on the H6,
but what's the point?

Gary

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

[...]
I have written in the past that mis-positioning speakers with a
multi-directional output can cause imaging problems due to a clustering of
reflections from too near room surfaces. The main audible result is a
seeming stretching of center soloists or hole in the middle.

http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/WW5604v62p206.pdf


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I have written in the past that mis-positioning speakers with a
multi-directional output can cause imaging problems due to a
clustering of reflections from too near room surfaces. The main
audible result is a seeming stretching of center soloists or hole in
the middle.

http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/WW5604v62p206.pdf

_Thank_ _You!_


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" writes:

-snips-

Center speakers are an interesting subject. The obvious need for them is
with discrete 5.1 movie sound with center dialog channel. I can agree with
Frank that if you are sitting in the sweet spot you really don't need it for
imaging, but there is a further problem.

Just to be clear -- for production purposes I would _never_ attempt to fold the
center channel of a 5 or 7.1 mix project into my front mains. If mixing for that
use, I would want to have the appropriate corresponding monitoring.

Now, if just to watch movies in the mix room for me, yeah, sure; I'd mix the center
channel into the front mains.

a movie track, is that it can bandaid this missing center problem so that
you don't notice it. Also helps off center listeners.

Yep, that's it, especially in a large crummy room, such as the majority of the
theaters in the local gazillion-plex theater. And also in the small, perfectly
square, untreated "theater" room in the house of your ethusiastic but clueless
brother-in-law...

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" writes:

Center speakers are an interesting subject. The obvious need for them is
with discrete 5.1 movie sound with center dialog channel. I can agree with
Frank that if you are sitting in the sweet spot you really don't need it for
imaging, but there is a further problem.

Just to be clear -- for production purposes I would _never_ attempt to fold the
center channel of a 5 or 7.1 mix project into my front mains. If mixing for that
use, I would want to have the appropriate corresponding monitoring.

If you're playing back in a very large room where most of the audience is
off-axis, you need to be using a three-channel system in order to keep the
center of the soundstage from wandering.

If you're recording something to be played back in a very large room, you
need to be doing your monitoring in a very large room with the same three
channel system.

That is why movies are mixed on big dubbing stages, not in tiny control
booths like records are.

The monitoring system and the monitoring room are designed to reflect the
intended playback environment.
--scott

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

Thanks Hank. But Earth to Alrich - that was Sommerwerck who
said he can't get a good recording.

I never said I can't get a good recording. I made lots of "good"
recordings. I just made only few recordings that sounded the way
I expected them to sound.

I don't doubt it William. I am just stunned by some of the attitudes
here toward a fellow enthusiast, if not full time recording engineer.
I never said or did anything to offend anyone.

But you do, Gary.

I just go up at 5AM. I often watch "Frasier" reruns on Hallmark, and the ones
shown this morning involved Martin's vulgar, loud-mouthed girlfriend Sherry
(Marsha Mason). Sherry has a knack for sticking her nose in where it doesn't
belong, and saying uncalled-for things that hurt people's feeling and disrupt
relationships. There is no exact parallel, but I see Sherry in you.

It is not a question of whether one is afraid to ask questions. Nor is it that
your "perspective" on matters audio seems so different from other people's in
this group. It's rather that you ask questions, then argue in an unproductive
way about them, because you're pretty certain you already know the answers.

My recent question about "What was I doing wrong?" was a sincere one. I
listened to what was suggested (some of which I was unfamiliar with),
discovered that no one had the "rational" answer I was hoping for, and
politely stepped aside. We all enjoyed the discussion, and as I said, I
realized I hadn't done enough recording to know the "right" questions to ask.
Perhaps someday I'll know what they are and get a satisfactory answer.

I am a mild version of Monk (though you wouldn't know it looking at my home).
I am what some people would consider overly "rational", but I consider that a
good thing. To wit... I'm not interested in facts. I want to understand
principles.

I apply this to other people's viewpoints. If someone's theories seem to have
an underlying principle -- especially one connected with other well-understood
theories -- I will give them considerably more weight than theories which seem
to be flying without a tether.

This is the ahem principal reason I have disagreed with you so much. It's
because your theories don't seem to fit very well with what I believe is
correct. It's as if you're working on a different jigsaw puzzle with a
different picture and differently shaped pieces.

Gary, you have to start asking yourself "What is truth?", rather than
reflexively defending your personal beliefs. However stupid and irrational it
might sound, most human beings think that whatever they believe is, per se,
correct. I was that way many years ago; I don't know when I outgrew it, but I
did.

Give it some thought.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Frank Stearns wrote:

Just to be clear -- for production purposes I would _never_ attempt
to fold the center channel of a 5 or 7.1 mix project into my front
mains. If mixing for that use, I would want to have the appropriate
corresponding monitoring.

Now, if just to watch movies in the mix room for me, yeah, sure; I'd
mix the center channel into the front mains.

I was hoping to not get into this, because I haven't got it figured out yet
myself, but that pesky center channel in a mix is worth some further
consideration. Lemme 'splain.

I'm thinking of a center soloist or a movie dialog track. This would be in
the case of the soloist being recorded cleanly without any of the backing
track audible - post recorded or separate booth or such.

If you mix so that her sound is contained ONLY in the center channel, then
on playback on a 5.1 system the center speaker will have her sound only and
none of the backing music. This makes for a unique situation in that the
center info for the music must be entirely phantom center and the center
channel speaker will not be able to help with off center listeners for
imaging problems with the music.

I think it would be OK for listeners with a receiver that can create the
phantom center from the C signal for those listening in 2 channel. But if
they are not listening with a 5.1 or 7.1 modern receiver, and you haven't
mixed the C signal into L and R, the stereo listener will have the soloist
completely absent!

Sometimes our center channel speaker is not as capable as the L and R
speakers. In this case if you do not mix some of the center signal into L
and R, it may not sound as good frequency response and power wise.

I'm wondering if there are industry standards for how to mix a center
channel for all of the possible listening scenarios your product could
encounter.

Gary Eickmeier

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
My recent question about "What was I doing wrong?" was a sincere
one.

chuckle


However stupid and irrational it might sound, most human beings
think that whatever they believe is, per se, correct. I was that way
many years ago; I don't know when I outgrew it, but I did.

LOL! I think you just gave yourself a bad case of rhinoxyletic
pinocchiosis. You don't have a single drop of self-awareness, do you?

[Gary Eickmeier]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

Thanks Hank. But Earth to Alrich - that was Sommerwerck who
said he can't get a good recording.

I never said I can't get a good recording. I made lots of "good"
recordings. I just made only few recordings that sounded the way
I expected them to sound.

I don't doubt it William. I am just stunned by some of the attitudes
here toward a fellow enthusiast, if not full time recording engineer.
I never said or did anything to offend anyone.

But you do, Gary.

I just go up at 5AM. I often watch "Frasier" reruns on Hallmark, and
the ones shown this morning involved Martin's vulgar, loud-mouthed
girlfriend Sherry (Marsha Mason). Sherry has a knack for sticking her
nose in where it doesn't belong, and saying uncalled-for things that
hurt people's feeling and disrupt relationships. There is no exact
parallel, but I see Sherry in you.
It is not a question of whether one is afraid to ask questions. Nor
is it that your "perspective" on matters audio seems so different
from other people's in this group. It's rather that you ask
questions, then argue in an unproductive way about them, because
you're pretty certain you already know the answers.
My recent question about "What was I doing wrong?" was a sincere one.
I listened to what was suggested (some of which I was unfamiliar
with), discovered that no one had the "rational" answer I was hoping
for, and politely stepped aside. We all enjoyed the discussion, and
as I said, I realized I hadn't done enough recording to know the
"right" questions to ask. Perhaps someday I'll know what they are and
get a satisfactory answer.
I am a mild version of Monk (though you wouldn't know it looking at
my home). I am what some people would consider overly "rational", but
I consider that a good thing. To wit... I'm not interested in facts.
I want to understand principles.

I apply this to other people's viewpoints. If someone's theories seem
to have an underlying principle -- especially one connected with
other well-understood theories -- I will give them considerably more
weight than theories which seem to be flying without a tether.

This is the ahem principal reason I have disagreed with you so
much. It's because your theories don't seem to fit very well with
what I believe is correct. It's as if you're working on a different
jigsaw puzzle with a different picture and differently shaped pieces.

Gary, you have to start asking yourself "What is truth?", rather than
reflexively defending your personal beliefs. However stupid and
irrational it might sound, most human beings think that whatever they
believe is, per se, correct. I was that way many years ago; I don't
know when I outgrew it, but I did.

Give it some thought.

Oh, I have, as you know. I sent you my paper or papers but you haven't
commented extensively on them if I remember correctly. Yes, my attempt to
upend stereo theory is surprising and unfamiliar to most dyed in the wool
audio people, but it is carefully explained and does not contradict any
known facts or principles but rather synthesizes a lot of information that
most of us know. It also explains the audible differences among all of the
speakers on the market and why certain ones sound the way that they do and
why people prefer wide dispersion and even a lot of reflected sound in their
home listening, which seems contradictory to the textbook explanations of
two speaker and a listener in an equilateral triangle. This is not the place
to go into all that all over again, but I can just state that it is not
fanciful nonsense, it has to do with the differences between the sound
patterns made by an orchestra in the room in the live sound situation, and
the very different patterns made in the home listening room with a lot of
speakers that are designed around the direct sound only. These spatial
differences are audible and are the reason for the lack of realism in most
people's systems, and it is all caused by the fact that there is this LACK
of your fondest subject, the underlying principles behind the art and
science of recording and reproduction.

Simplified down even more - spatial nature of live not equal to spatial
nature of reproduction in a field type system.

This is important and relevant to the recording engineer as well, as an
underlying principle. Why you ask? I know you are on the edge of your seat
by now -

In order to get the spatial information into the recording we need to
capture it in our miking techniques. If we do not realize that we are
capturing not just the direct sound but also the early and some late
reflected sound, it will not be playable because it is not in the recording.
Best example a multi-miked disaster in which there is none of the space from
the original either captured or artificially introduced with signal
processing. This is the main difference among recordings. If you encounter a
bad recording that just doesn't sound very real it is usually because they
had no idea about acoustics and how sounds interact with rooms and are
captured and reproduced.

So I try to introduce my findings about how stereo works vis-a-vis sound
fields in rooms without being obnoxious, or at least am sensitive about
overdoing it with a new audience for these ideas. I am having some success
in some groups, one of which is collaborating with me on a speaker design.

I am not a craxy and I base all of my observations on listening and I have
heard them all and used my own system as a laboratory to prove out my
theories and it really does check out. I know and have heard good and bad
sound, mine is good and I am dismissed at the starting gate as soon as they
hear the word Bose, and all communication ceases. I thought I was going to
get some sorely needed street cred in the Linkwitz Challenge, but it was not
to be. Too many egos involved to admit I could be right about something that
they had ridiculed and tried to straighten me out on for so many years.

Too bad, and all I can ask you or this group (whom I respect) to do is what
you do all the time for a living - LISTEN.

Gary Eickmeier

[George Graves]

In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

Frank Stearns wrote:

Just to be clear -- for production purposes I would _never_ attempt
to fold the center channel of a 5 or 7.1 mix project into my front
mains. If mixing for that use, I would want to have the appropriate
corresponding monitoring.

Now, if just to watch movies in the mix room for me, yeah, sure; I'd
mix the center channel into the front mains.

I was hoping to not get into this, because I haven't got it figured out yet
myself, but that pesky center channel in a mix is worth some further
consideration. Lemme 'splain.

I'm thinking of a center soloist or a movie dialog track. This would be in
the case of the soloist being recorded cleanly without any of the backing
track audible - post recorded or separate booth or such.

If you mix so that her sound is contained ONLY in the center channel, then
on playback on a 5.1 system the center speaker will have her sound only and
none of the backing music. This makes for a unique situation in that the
center info for the music must be entirely phantom center and the center
channel speaker will not be able to help with off center listeners for
imaging problems with the music.

I think it would be OK for listeners with a receiver that can create the
phantom center from the C signal for those listening in 2 channel. But if
they are not listening with a 5.1 or 7.1 modern receiver, and you haven't
mixed the C signal into L and R, the stereo listener will have the soloist
completely absent!

That would be correct. in 5.1 or a 7.1 mix of a Hollywood film, all the dialog
is mixed dry into the center channel (I actually disagree with this convention.
I liked it better during the "widescreen era" of the '50's and '60's when the
voices followed the actors as they moved across the wide screen. But that's
just me). When played back on a 5.1 or a 7.1 system (and the option for a
real - as opposed to phantom - center channel is chosen), if you attenuate
the center channel completely, the dialog will go away. There will be no
vestiges of it left ANYWHERE. If you choose the phantom center channel
option on playback, the system takes the center channel (dialog) information
and mixes it equally into the LF and the LR channels.

Sometimes our center channel speaker is not as capable as the L and R
speakers. In this case if you do not mix some of the center signal into L
and R, it may not sound as good frequency response and power wise.

Actually, contrary to what one might think, neither Dolby nor DTS
purposely limit the frequency response of either the center or the
surround channels all 5 (or 7) channels are full frequency response.
Only the "point-one" channel is limited to 20-100 Hz. But, if you look
at a decent surround speaker ensemble, you'll find that the center channel
speaker is rarely full range. Since it's designed only for voice, it needs
little response below about 100 Hz of above about 5KHz.
There is a good reason for limiting the bass response in a dialog speaker,
in my humble opinion and that is the danger of getting chesty, "FM-voiced"
male dialog from speakers with significant output below 100 Hz,


I'm wondering if there are industry standards for how to mix a center
channel for all of the possible listening scenarios your product could
encounter.

As far as I can tell, it's just a 50/50 mix of the dialog channel into the LF
and RF channels.


Gary Eickmeier

[George Graves]

In article ,
"None" wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
My recent question about "What was I doing wrong?" was a sincere
one.

chuckle


However stupid and irrational it might sound, most human beings
think that whatever they believe is, per se, correct. I was that way
many years ago; I don't know when I outgrew it, but I did.

LOL! I think you just gave yourself a bad case of rhinoxyletic
pinocchiosis. You don't have a single drop of self-awareness, do you?



I dunno, I don't really see where Pinocchio's growing nose applies. I don't
see anything to indicate that Bill is lying here.

[hank alrich]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I sent you my paper or papers but you haven't
commented extensively on them if I remember correctly. Yes, my attempt to
upend stereo theory is surprising and unfamiliar to most dyed in the wool
audio people, but it is carefully explained and does not contradict any
known facts or principles but rather synthesizes a lot of information that
most of us know.

Yes, you think you're going to expalin this stuff to people who
understand much more about it than you do.

I have been in many control rooms that worked. I have seen and
effectively used may different playback systems. I have _never_ seen a
BOSE system in such a setting. These are reasons for this, beginning
with a lack of the first critical attribute: that whoever designed the
system and however it was configured the goal was accuracy as far as
such is possible in audio playback systems.

You're like a guy who really loves big hair wimmen with a lot of makeup.
Unless you wake up beside one yo have no idea what she looks like.

Unless/until you experience effective professional-grade playback, and
learn to appreciate why those are effective, you'll be dealing with
makeup-slathered audio. It doesn't really sound like that absent the
playback artifacts.

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

George Graves wrote:
In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

Frank Stearns wrote:

Just to be clear -- for production purposes I would _never_ attempt
to fold the center channel of a 5 or 7.1 mix project into my front
mains. If mixing for that use, I would want to have the appropriate
corresponding monitoring.

Now, if just to watch movies in the mix room for me, yeah, sure; I'd
mix the center channel into the front mains.

I was hoping to not get into this, because I haven't got it figured
out yet myself, but that pesky center channel in a mix is worth some
further consideration. Lemme 'splain.

I'm thinking of a center soloist or a movie dialog track. This would
be in the case of the soloist being recorded cleanly without any of
the backing track audible - post recorded or separate booth or such.

If you mix so that her sound is contained ONLY in the center
channel, then on playback on a 5.1 system the center speaker will
have her sound only and none of the backing music. This makes for a
unique situation in that the center info for the music must be
entirely phantom center and the center channel speaker will not be
able to help with off center listeners for imaging problems with the
music.

I think it would be OK for listeners with a receiver that can create
the phantom center from the C signal for those listening in 2
channel. But if they are not listening with a 5.1 or 7.1 modern
receiver, and you haven't mixed the C signal into L and R, the
stereo listener will have the soloist completely absent!

That would be correct. in 5.1 or a 7.1 mix of a Hollywood film, all
the dialog is mixed dry into the center channel (I actually disagree
with this convention. I liked it better during the "widescreen era"
of the '50's and '60's when the voices followed the actors as they
moved across the wide screen. But that's just me). When played back
on a 5.1 or a 7.1 system (and the option for a
real - as opposed to phantom - center channel is chosen), if you
attenuate
the center channel completely, the dialog will go away. There will be
no vestiges of it left ANYWHERE. If you choose the phantom center
channel
option on playback, the system takes the center channel (dialog)
information and mixes it equally into the LF and the LR channels.

Sometimes our center channel speaker is not as capable as the L and R
speakers. In this case if you do not mix some of the center signal
into L and R, it may not sound as good frequency response and power
wise.

Actually, contrary to what one might think, neither Dolby nor DTS
purposely limit the frequency response of either the center or the
surround channels all 5 (or 7) channels are full frequency response.
Only the "point-one" channel is limited to 20-100 Hz. But, if you look
at a decent surround speaker ensemble, you'll find that the center
channel speaker is rarely full range. Since it's designed only for
voice, it needs little response below about 100 Hz of above about
5KHz.
There is a good reason for limiting the bass response in a dialog
speaker,
in my humble opinion and that is the danger of getting chesty,
"FM-voiced" male dialog from speakers with significant output below
100 Hz,


I'm wondering if there are industry standards for how to mix a center
channel for all of the possible listening scenarios your product
could encounter.

As far as I can tell, it's just a 50/50 mix of the dialog channel
into the LF and RF channels.

Thinking some more about it, what is probably happening is that there are
several mixes on a DVD. If it decodes to a surround 5.1 track, then the
center may be limited to the dialog track. I would still liike to see some
of the music and EFX mixed in there though, so that the center speaker can
help out with imaging.

If it decodes out to a guy listening in stereo only, then that mix will have
C mixed into L and R.

But tell me something - when you go to the movies, have you ever heard the
music imaged properly up front, as if there were a scoring stage or a pit
orchestra playing during the dramatic scenes? Or has the music seemed kind
of ethereal and not coming from the center channel at all? I must listen
carefully in my home theater next time, because I have wondered about that.
Actually, sometimes I have started playing the projector and the receiver
before I even switched on the power amps for the L and R speakers and I
heard everything just fine from the Center and surround speakers.

Anybody else?

Gary

[George Graves]

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 4:04:54 PM UTC-7, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
George Graves wrote:

In article ,

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:



Frank Stearns wrote:



Just to be clear -- for production purposes I would _never_ attempt

to fold the center channel of a 5 or 7.1 mix project into my front

mains. If mixing for that use, I would want to have the appropriate

corresponding monitoring.



Now, if just to watch movies in the mix room for me, yeah, sure; I'd

mix the center channel into the front mains.



I was hoping to not get into this, because I haven't got it figured

out yet myself, but that pesky center channel in a mix is worth some

further consideration. Lemme 'splain.



I'm thinking of a center soloist or a movie dialog track. This would

be in the case of the soloist being recorded cleanly without any of

the backing track audible - post recorded or separate booth or such.



If you mix so that her sound is contained ONLY in the center

channel, then on playback on a 5.1 system the center speaker will

have her sound only and none of the backing music. This makes for a

unique situation in that the center info for the music must be

entirely phantom center and the center channel speaker will not be

able to help with off center listeners for imaging problems with the

music.



I think it would be OK for listeners with a receiver that can create

the phantom center from the C signal for those listening in 2

channel. But if they are not listening with a 5.1 or 7.1 modern

receiver, and you haven't mixed the C signal into L and R, the

stereo listener will have the soloist completely absent!



That would be correct. in 5.1 or a 7.1 mix of a Hollywood film, all

the dialog is mixed dry into the center channel (I actually disagree

with this convention. I liked it better during the "widescreen era"

of the '50's and '60's when the voices followed the actors as they

moved across the wide screen. But that's just me). When played back

on a 5.1 or a 7.1 system (and the option for a

real - as opposed to phantom - center channel is chosen), if you

attenuate

the center channel completely, the dialog will go away. There will be

no vestiges of it left ANYWHERE. If you choose the phantom center

channel

option on playback, the system takes the center channel (dialog)

information and mixes it equally into the LF and the LR channels.



Sometimes our center channel speaker is not as capable as the L and R

speakers. In this case if you do not mix some of the center signal

into L and R, it may not sound as good frequency response and power

wise.



Actually, contrary to what one might think, neither Dolby nor DTS

purposely limit the frequency response of either the center or the

surround channels all 5 (or 7) channels are full frequency response.

Only the "point-one" channel is limited to 20-100 Hz. But, if you look

at a decent surround speaker ensemble, you'll find that the center

channel speaker is rarely full range. Since it's designed only for

voice, it needs little response below about 100 Hz of above about

5KHz.

There is a good reason for limiting the bass response in a dialog

speaker,

in my humble opinion and that is the danger of getting chesty,

"FM-voiced" male dialog from speakers with significant output below

100 Hz,





I'm wondering if there are industry standards for how to mix a center

channel for all of the possible listening scenarios your product

could encounter.



As far as I can tell, it's just a 50/50 mix of the dialog channel

into the LF and RF channels.



Thinking some more about it, what is probably happening is that there are

several mixes on a DVD. If it decodes to a surround 5.1 track, then the

center may be limited to the dialog track. I would still liike to see some

of the music and EFX mixed in there though, so that the center speaker can

help out with imaging.

Well, yes, some DVDs have a Dolby stereo track (which is decoded using Dolby
pro-logic, or is just presented as a two channel stereo presentation where there
is no Pro-Logic decoder, and then there is usually a Dolby 5.1 track, and often
there is also a DTS track. Then there might be a French stereo track as well, since
French Canada is part of Region 1.

if it decodes out to a guy listening in stereo only, then that mix will have

C mixed into L and R.

Yes.

But tell me something - when you go to the movies, have you ever heard the

music imaged properly up front, as if there were a scoring stage or a pit

orchestra playing during the dramatic scenes? Or has the music seemed kind

of ethereal and not coming from the center channel at all? I must listen

carefully in my home theater next time, because I have wondered about that.

Actually, sometimes I have started playing the projector and the receiver

before I even switched on the power amps for the L and R speakers and I

heard everything just fine from the Center and surround speakers.

Movies are not a concert. The music is not recorded to give the kind of stereo
playback that one might like to hear in a concert hall. I have some music only
DVDs that use the center channel in the manner you describe, but I've never
seen a movie do that.

[Gary Eickmeier]

hank alrich wrote:
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I sent you my paper or papers but you haven't
commented extensively on them if I remember correctly. Yes, my
attempt to upend stereo theory is surprising and unfamiliar to most
dyed in the wool audio people, but it is carefully explained and
does not contradict any known facts or principles but rather
synthesizes a lot of information that most of us know.

Yes, you think you're going to expalin this stuff to people who
understand much more about it than you do.

I have been in many control rooms that worked. I have seen and
effectively used may different playback systems. I have _never_ seen a
BOSE system in such a setting. These are reasons for this, beginning
with a lack of the first critical attribute: that whoever designed the
system and however it was configured the goal was accuracy as far as
such is possible in audio playback systems.

You're like a guy who really loves big hair wimmen with a lot of
makeup. Unless you wake up beside one yo have no idea what she looks
like.

Unless/until you experience effective professional-grade playback, and
learn to appreciate why those are effective, you'll be dealing with
makeup-slathered audio. It doesn't really sound like that absent the
playback artifacts.

As hard as it may be for you to understand Hank, this is not about Bose
speakers or any particular product. See if you can erase that from your mind
for a moment.

Nor am I a snot-nosed boob. I am a 70 year old man, member of the AES and
BAS, graduate industrial designer, photographer, videographer, and pretty
good spaghetti cook.

I have been to Quad in England, Bose, Dolby Labs, a dubbing stage at Saul
Zaentz Studio, personal tour of Skywalker Ranch by Tom Holman, Noel Lee's
home for a double blind test session, Mark Davis's home to audition his
Soundfield Ones, Dave Moran's, Velodyne, all manner of shows at AES and
audiophile venues in England and here - is that enough to get me into the
big boys' locker room?

Why do you keep making assumptions about me? What do you know about any of
my audio papers or articles?

On studio monitoring systems, I don't think those are set up as ultimate
playback systems. They may be just two two-ways on top of the console, they
may be soffit mounted boxes, they may be just an expedience set up on the
spot. The only potentially great sounding monitoring system I have seen
might be Dave Moulton's "Moulton Room" example, in which he has some omnis
of his own design ideally situated in front of an absorptive front wall and
reflective side walls. Do you have any idea why I say that might sound good?
Do you have any theories about stereo reproduction, or are you just trying
to set yourself up as Mister Pro telling some Bose punk all about it?

This subject is a lot deeper than you think. If you would like to know more
about it, please just ask and I can send you a PDF.

Gary

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

snips

If you're recording something to be played back in a very large room, you
need to be doing your monitoring in a very large room with the same three
channel system.

That is why movies are mixed on big dubbing stages, not in tiny control
booths like records are.

The monitoring system and the monitoring room are designed to reflect the
intended playback environment.

Amen.

While at Quad-8 long ago in a galaxy far away, and Quad-8 had a LOT of installs at
all the major movie studios, it fell on me one day as the junior guy to drive an
Asian client to several of the audio hot-spots in Hollywood. At first I was not
pleased to have this duty, particularly with a rather odd fellow who spoke no
English, but at what was in those days The Burbank Studios (TBS) things got
interesting.

One of the mix rooms was just your average 400-500 seat movie theater down at the
'plex, with seats and everything, but about two thirds of the way back sat the
custom 108 input Quad-Eight Coronado, with easy room for four or five guys to tweak
music, effects, dialog, and whatever. The damn thing went on for several city
blocks, it seemed. The producer's desk eight feet behind was nearly as long.

The floor under the theater had rows and rows of dubbers and all sorts of tape
machines. Back upstairs, someone had home-brewed a way to shine a spot
light through a set of main bus VU meters and project the meter images along the
bottom of the screen.

They had the usual surround boxes on the wall, and probably three A-7s behind the
screen. (It was nice of them to let us in; a few days before the console automation
(using 8" floppies) had crashed, losing 30 minutes of a finished mix.)

We also went to see some more humble things, such as the foley stage at Neimann
Tillar and an ADR suite at an independent house, the name of which escapes me.

And indeed, the rooms fit the purpose.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/5/2013 1:39 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I'm wondering if there are industry standards for how to mix a center
channel for all of the possible listening scenarios your product could
encounter.

It's a matter of taste and judgment. Some people don't put anything in
the center channel other than dialog or a full time soloist (like a
singer in front of an orchestra). The problem with putting something in
the center channel is that some people think that 5.1 surround is
stereo, with an extra speaker in the kitchen, one in the pool room, and
one out on the patio. If your center is exclusively in the center
channel speaker, one of those "other" speakers will be pretty weird, and
the "main" stereo speakers won't have the soloist.

Most surround mixing setups have a control for what I learned was called
"depth of center." It's 100% if there's no center content in the front
left and right channels, and as it gets close to zero, puts less in the
center channel and more (equally) into the left front and right front.
channels.

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

[Trevor]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
It's a matter of taste and judgment. Some people don't put anything in the
center channel other than dialog or a full time soloist (like a singer in
front of an orchestra). The problem with putting something in the center
channel is that some people think that 5.1 surround is stereo, with an
extra speaker in the kitchen, one in the pool room, and one out on the
patio. If your center is exclusively in the center channel speaker, one of
those "other" speakers will be pretty weird, and the "main" stereo
speakers won't have the soloist.

But why should anyone else care what a moron with a setup as stupid as that
hears? If they are happy, fine, if not let THEM change.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
I am not a craxy and I base all of my observations on listening and I have
heard them all and used my own system as a laboratory to prove out my
theories and it really does check out. I know and have heard good and bad
sound, mine is good and I am dismissed at the starting gate as soon as
they hear the word Bose, and all communication ceases. I thought I was
going to get some sorely needed street cred in the Linkwitz Challenge, but
it was not to be. Too many egos involved to admit I could be right about
something that they had ridiculed and tried to straighten me out on for so
many years.


This reminds me of the soldier wondering why everyone else is out of step
but him :-)
IF you are happy, why care what others think? But trying to change everyone
elses opinion to suit your own is both stupid and narcissistic.

Trevor.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 10:39:17 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

I'm wondering if there are industry standards for how to mix a center
channel for all of the possible listening scenarios your product could
encounter.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Assuming your question is serious, read some of these:

Audio Postproduction for Digital Video
by Jay Rose
Published by CMP Books [ISBN 1578201160]

Sound for Film and Television
by Tomlinson Holman
Published by Focal Press [ISBN 0240804538]

Surround Sound: Up and Running
by Tomlinson Holman
published by Focal Press [ISBN 0240808290]

Sound for Digital Video
by Tomlinson Holman
published by Focal Press [ISBN 0240807200]

Sound for Picture
by Tom Kenny
Published by Artistpro [ISBN 0872887243]

Pro Tools Surround Sound
by Rich Tozzoli
published by Hal Leonard [ISBN 1458400395]

There are many standards on speaker alignment, average speaker levels, room
size, standard mixing practices, speaker dispersion, peak levels for
delivery, and all the other factors that go into mixing for surround.

Also good are the many, many discussions about room set up and operating
levels that have been archived over on the Gearslutz.com forum's Post
section.

The books go over the theory and fundamentals of multi-track mixing, surround
sound, and in particular what the center channel is intended to do. For
modern film & TV sound, the center channel carries more information than any
other channel and is very, very important -- not just for dialogue, but also
to "anchor" the mix for people sitting in sub-optimal locations in the room,
as Scott says above.

You can also read the white paper documents on Dolby's website and other
sources:

http://www.dolby.com/DocLibTechLanding.aspx?taxid=186
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_channel
http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-ent...urround-sound-
speaker-set-up/
http://www.surroundassociates.com/fqmain.html#1.1

and some of the thousands of papers submitted in the last 35 years to the AES
JOURNAL:

http://www.aes.org/journal/

If you do the research, you'll find that Alan Blumlein, arguably the
inventory of stereo, first came up with the idea for a center channel speaker
back around 1934, during his early stereo experiments for Western Electric
and EMI in England. The idea returned in 1951 with Cinerama in theaters, and
continued with Fox' CinemaScope stereo soundtracks.

--MFW

[Gary Eickmeier]

Marc Wielage wrote:
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 10:39:17 -0700, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

I'm wondering if there are industry standards for how to mix a center
channel for all of the possible listening scenarios your product
could encounter.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Assuming your question is serious, read some of these:

Audio Postproduction for Digital Video
by Jay Rose
Published by CMP Books [ISBN 1578201160]

Sound for Film and Television
by Tomlinson Holman
Published by Focal Press [ISBN 0240804538]

Surround Sound: Up and Running
by Tomlinson Holman
published by Focal Press [ISBN 0240808290]

Sound for Digital Video
by Tomlinson Holman
published by Focal Press [ISBN 0240807200]

Sound for Picture
by Tom Kenny
Published by Artistpro [ISBN 0872887243]

Pro Tools Surround Sound
by Rich Tozzoli
published by Hal Leonard [ISBN 1458400395]

There are many standards on speaker alignment, average speaker
levels, room size, standard mixing practices, speaker dispersion,
peak levels for delivery, and all the other factors that go into
mixing for surround.

Also good are the many, many discussions about room set up and
operating levels that have been archived over on the Gearslutz.com
forum's Post section.

The books go over the theory and fundamentals of multi-track mixing,
surround sound, and in particular what the center channel is intended
to do. For modern film & TV sound, the center channel carries more
information than any other channel and is very, very important -- not
just for dialogue, but also to "anchor" the mix for people sitting in
sub-optimal locations in the room, as Scott says above.

You can also read the white paper documents on Dolby's website and
other sources:

http://www.dolby.com/DocLibTechLanding.aspx?taxid=186
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_channel
http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-ent...urround-sound-
speaker-set-up/
http://www.surroundassociates.com/fqmain.html#1.1

and some of the thousands of papers submitted in the last 35 years to
the AES JOURNAL:

http://www.aes.org/journal/

If you do the research, you'll find that Alan Blumlein, arguably the
inventory of stereo, first came up with the idea for a center channel
speaker back around 1934, during his early stereo experiments for
Western Electric and EMI in England. The idea returned in 1951 with
Cinerama in theaters, and continued with Fox' CinemaScope stereo
soundtracks.

--MFW

Archiving it Marc - may not get to read them all tonight - thanks!

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage wrote:

If you do the research, you'll find that Alan Blumlein, arguably the
inventory of stereo, first came up with the idea for a center channel speaker
back around 1934, during his early stereo experiments for Western Electric
and EMI in England. The idea returned in 1951 with Cinerama in theaters, and
continued with Fox' CinemaScope stereo soundtracks.

No! The idea predates Blumlein, even! The famous stereo demo of April 27,
1933 used a center channel, after Bell Labs engineers spent considerable
amount of time testing various configurations of miking with two and three
channels, playback with two and three channels, and matrixing three channel
audio for transmission over two channels.

Look for "Symposium on Auditory Perspective" on the AES historical website,
which a google search should bring up. It is the set of the six original
Bell Labs papers that were printed in the January 1934 issue of Electrical
Engineering and although it doesn't go into a whole lot of detail, it is a
nice overview on the early research.

Note that ALL of this early Bell Labs work was done with spaced omnis, because
that's what there was. So some of the Bell findings are at odds with some
of what Blumlein reported because Blumlein's mike arrangements were
phase-coherent and Bell's were not.
--scott

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

[George Graves]

In article , "Trevor"
wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
I am not a craxy and I base all of my observations on listening and I have
heard them all and used my own system as a laboratory to prove out my
theories and it really does check out. I know and have heard good and bad
sound, mine is good and I am dismissed at the starting gate as soon as
they hear the word Bose, and all communication ceases. I thought I was
going to get some sorely needed street cred in the Linkwitz Challenge, but
it was not to be. Too many egos involved to admit I could be right about
something that they had ridiculed and tried to straighten me out on for so
many years.


This reminds me of the soldier wondering why everyone else is out of step
but him :-)
IF you are happy, why care what others think? But trying to change everyone
elses opinion to suit your own is both stupid and narcissistic.

Trevor.

I have often wondered this about Gary. If he is happy with his experiments and
the sound of his stereo system, and of the recordings he makes, Wy should he
care that others might not agree with his conclusions?

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

George Graves wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

I am not a craxy and I base all of my observations on listening and
I have heard them all and used my own system as a laboratory to
prove out my theories and it really does check out. I know and have
heard good and bad sound, mine is good and I am dismissed at the
starting gate as soon as they hear the word Bose, and all
communication ceases. I thought I was going to get some sorely
needed street cred in the Linkwitz Challenge, but it was not to be.
Too many egos involved to admit I could be right about something
that they had ridiculed and tried to straighten me out on for so
many years.

This reminds me of the soldier wondering why everyone else is out of
step but him :-)
IF you are happy, why care what others think? But trying to change
everyone elses opinion to suit your own is both stupid and
narcissistic.

Trevor.

I have often wondered this about Gary. If he is happy with his
experiments and the sound of his stereo system, and of the recordings
he makes, Wy should he care that others might not agree with his
conclusions?

If you are a happy amateur with the freedom that is a part of it, then it is
a good and noble aim to make recordings for your own stereo. If you are a
professional you must make recordings for everybody's stereo.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[George Graves]

In article ,
"Peter Larsen" wrote:

George Graves wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

I am not a craxy and I base all of my observations on listening and
I have heard them all and used my own system as a laboratory to
prove out my theories and it really does check out. I know and have
heard good and bad sound, mine is good and I am dismissed at the
starting gate as soon as they hear the word Bose, and all
communication ceases. I thought I was going to get some sorely
needed street cred in the Linkwitz Challenge, but it was not to be.
Too many egos involved to admit I could be right about something
that they had ridiculed and tried to straighten me out on for so
many years.

This reminds me of the soldier wondering why everyone else is out of
step but him :-)
IF you are happy, why care what others think? But trying to change
everyone elses opinion to suit your own is both stupid and
narcissistic.

Trevor.

I have often wondered this about Gary. If he is happy with his
experiments and the sound of his stereo system, and of the recordings
he makes, Wy should he care that others might not agree with his
conclusions?

If you are a happy amateur with the freedom that is a part of it, then it is
a good and noble aim to make recordings for your own stereo. If you are a
professional you must make recordings for everybody's stereo.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Amen to that brother. Someone very smart once noted that the definition of a
professional is a person who is the tool of the man who hires him.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I have written in the past that mis-positioning speakers with a
multi-directional output can cause imaging problems due to a
clustering of reflections from too near room surfaces. The main
audible result is a seeming stretching of center soloists or hole in
the middle.

http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/WW5604v62p206.pdf

_Thank_ _You!_

Not a word of acknowledgement or dawning comprehension from the O/P, I
notice.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[hank alrich]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote:

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

I have written in the past that mis-positioning speakers with a
multi-directional output can cause imaging problems due to a
clustering of reflections from too near room surfaces. The main
audible result is a seeming stretching of center soloists or hole in
the middle.

http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/WW5604v62p206.pdf

_Thank_ _You!_

Not a word of acknowledgement or dawning comprehension from the O/P, I
notice.

Advise not holding breath.

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

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

the closest the industry ever came to standardizing
their monitors was in the 1960s and 1970's when JBL 4310s and 4320s
(etc) were the rage. While these were loud, had big bass and
tremendous high-frequency output, I certainly wouldn't want to
actually listen to real acoustic music on them such as classical or
even acoustic jazz. They sounded, to these ears, simply dreadful.

But listen to them today with better quality audio going in and perhaps a
wee bit of cross-over mod as I have had done on my L100's so the midrange
units stopped competing with the treble units and it is a very different
story. It is an official mod btw. It was not their fault that they didn't
sound well, they just did what a monitor is there to do: said "hey, this
input signal is not - ahum - excellent". And yes, I slammed them back then
and ended up buying a pair in 1997 and it is one of the best audio
purchases I made. Because if it is good on them, it is good on everything
...

People have revisited 4310/L100s and found exactly what you described -
really pretty good drivers but too-simple and naive crossovers.

[George Graves]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

the closest the industry ever came to standardizing
their monitors was in the 1960s and 1970's when JBL 4310s and 4320s
(etc) were the rage. While these were loud, had big bass and
tremendous high-frequency output, I certainly wouldn't want to
actually listen to real acoustic music on them such as classical or
even acoustic jazz. They sounded, to these ears, simply dreadful.

But listen to them today with better quality audio going in and perhaps a
wee bit of cross-over mod as I have had done on my L100's so the midrange
units stopped competing with the treble units and it is a very different
story. It is an official mod btw. It was not their fault that they didn't
sound well, they just did what a monitor is there to do: said "hey, this
input signal is not - ahum - excellent". And yes, I slammed them back then
and ended up buying a pair in 1997 and it is one of the best audio
purchases I made. Because if it is good on them, it is good on everything
...

People have revisited 4310/L100s and found exactly what you described -
really pretty good drivers but too-simple and naive crossovers.

That is really interesting. How is the enclosure design? Does it support really
good low-end from these drivers? Because the original speakers had "big bass"
but not really very deep bass.