Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #521   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Brother Horace the Intermittently Unconscious said:

Did you notice Ferstler's first reaction when you reminded him I have a
Lexicon preamp? He accused me of lying just so I could brag about it.


Well, which Lexicon preamp do you have?


Did you nod off again, Clerkie? Maybe you're still taking Viagra when you
should be taking No-Doz.




  #522   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

This is, I assume, something that you have not
done. Rather, you have had to shoehorn your hardware into an
existing room that is probably not quite optimal.


As you did. I remember that when you disclosed your dimensions, they
didn't have any of the accepted ratios for top-quality sound,


Actually, in a paper he delivered some time ago, Floyd Toole
downplayed the room-ratio issue, concentrating instead on
the way the room was furnished and the location of the
listener. Remember, my room is lined with bookcases and is
furnished in such a way, and my listening couch is located
in such a way, that the dimension problems are pretty much
bypassed.

How do I know? Well, I have done FR plots all over the area
and at the listening couch the artifacts are minimal. What
few there are were easily dealt with by good equalization.
Yep, Dave, I measured and fixed those small problems. Have
you measured the response of your system in your room, Dave?

whereas
mine came quite close to one of them. Unfortunately for you, the
limiting factor is the height of your ceiling, IIRC. To meet any of
the ratios that are considered optimal, you'd have to downsize your
room considerably. Shame that you don't have my 9 1/2 foot ceilings.

Sorry.


The only result would be standing-wave artifacts, and the
ones I have (which I have at least bothered to measure,
unlike what we have with you) do not cause serious problems
at the primary listening positions. Those minor ones were
easily equalized out. Want to see the effect in action? Go
read the two speaker-curve articles I published in issues 94
and 95 of The Sensible Sound.

A larger room size will help to reduce the impact of those
artifacts, by the way, as will walls with some degree of
flexibility. (Yep, you guys with systems installed in
basements are in trouble.) If your room, Dave, is on the
small size, standing waves could be a problem, no matter
what the ratios. My room, being large, has them to a much
less extreme degree than you might think. Actually, I do not
see how anyone can enjoy a good audio system in a pint-sized
room.

Howard Ferstler
  #523   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

As for big-deal players, the $1800 job I have in
my main system (also reviewed a while back) does have a
marginally better picture than the companion $300 unit in
there or the $1200 LD/DVD player (reviewed a while back,
too) also in there, or the $300 unit in my middle system,
but the sound from all three (DD and DTS) is just about the
same across the board.


Another free piece of bribery that you've accepted, Howard? For I
can't believe that you would even pay accommodation prices for an
$1800 DVD player.


Wonders never cease, Dave. I could not believe that my wife
would let me spend five grand on new tools, either, but
there they sit out there in my recently expanded (also paid
for with surplus money) shop in the back yard. Heck, she
also just sprung for two new Toyota Scion automobiles: one
for her and one for me. You need to get married, Dave. It is
a great institution.

Shame on you, Howard. You are nothing but a huckster who's pretending
to be an unbiased reviewer in order to get free stuff.


Keep drooling, Dave, as you think about all the fun I am
having.

"Sensible sound" indeed. $1800 DVD players. $2400 receivers. $6000
TVs. $6000 speakers. Probably paid $4000 for the lot. Yeah, THAT'S
sensible, all right.


Actually, the RX-Z1 listed for $2800. I paid a lot less,
however, although Yamaha's accommodation prices cannot match
the lowball rates that some other outfits offer.
Incidentally, the DSP-A1 processor/amp located in my second
system was purchased by me at a good discount from a local
dealer after it had been superseded by a newer model. Yes, I
did review the device in issue 72 of TSS, but I sent that
one back to Yamaha. Purchased my sample some months later
from that dealer, after my wife gave me some money in
sympathy for my just-diagnosed cancer. Yeah, I contacted
Yamaha about a purchase, but they only had used versions on
hand and they said that the dealer's price for a new sample
was only a few bucks more than what they would have charged
me for a used one. (Most of the used ones were probably
review units sent back to the company.)

Note that I have reviewed speaker packages that cost dirt
cheap and will have that review of a $70 DVD player
(admittedly, the list price is $100) in the magazine one of
these days.

No speakers installed at my place listed for six grand,
Dave, and I sure would not pay that much for a pair. Yes, I
did once review a stereo sub/sat packages that listed for
$6800 (ten grand for all five channels, including two subs
and outboard amplification and equalization), but sent them
back after the review. My projection set listed for a mere
$4700 and I purchased it from an acquaintance at a local pro
AV shop for far less than that. I then went on to review the
thing in issue 66 of TSS. Yep, I purchased it in town at a
dealer discount, and reviewed it after the purchase. The
company did not even know a review was coming until the
editor sent them a review copy to fact check.

Howard Ferstler
  #524   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:14:43 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

You've spent about 10 times what I have spent on your rigs.


Probably more like 20 times, on three complete systems,
actually.


Oh, you've spent $60,000 - 100,000 on your gear?


You got me, kind of. I would say that the full, three-system
equipment packages top out at only $50,000, list. Needless
to say, I did not come close to paying that much.


Then your bragging was just bull****.


Remember what I said about adding one room and expanding
another. Because the room is part of the system (more
influential than any high-end amps, super wires, or super CD
players and transports, Dave), I factor in those costs
whenever I calculate what I actually spent on my systems.


So you spent $40,000 - 80,000 on your rooms?

BTW, did you fix the bad ratio of your main room? Unless you raised
the ceiling, I doubt it. You could have used my 9 1/2 foot ceilings.

How much did you spend on your audio room(s), Dave?


I spent a couple of hours in there today.



  #525   Report Post  
Tom
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"dave weil" wrote

BTW, did you fix the bad ratio of your main room? Unless you raised
the ceiling, I doubt it. You could have used my 9 1/2 foot ceilings.



What do you know about ceiling heights, Dave? I'm building a house
and planning a home theater in the basement. I'm struggling
with whether to spend extra for a 10 ft basement. The room is 12 ft
wide and will be from 17 to 22 ft long.




  #526   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:07:34 -0700, "Tom" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote

BTW, did you fix the bad ratio of your main room? Unless you raised
the ceiling, I doubt it. You could have used my 9 1/2 foot ceilings.



What do you know about ceiling heights, Dave? I'm building a house
and planning a home theater in the basement. I'm struggling
with whether to spend extra for a 10 ft basement. The room is 12 ft
wide and will be from 17 to 22 ft long.


If you go here (see below), you can see some suggested ratios. If you
will be working with a fixed footprint, then you might need to alter
your ceiling height if you want an optimal ratio. If you are working
with a fixed ceiling height, then you will need to alter your length.
It sounds like you've got enough variation in length to hit one of the
suggested ratios by keeping your ceiling at 10 feet, although it
probably isn't necessary to pay extra for it. I would probably want at
least 9 foot ceilings, simply because I like the extra "space". 10
foot would be even cooler!

As Howard will tell you, you should also pay attention to the
furnishings. Also, if you can arrange it, you might want to toe in the
walls at one end as to break up a pair of parallel walls (and you can
also vary on of the short walls as well). I'm not sure how you would
calculate the optimal angle though. Most acoustic experts recommend
"uneven" walls. It shouldn't be all that difficult to do some drywall
framing that doesn't meet at 90 degree angles, even if it's only 5
degrees off. But I suspect that the more fanning you can do, the
better.

Here's the link:

http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?p=5570

And here's a forum post that you might pay attention to:

http://hometheaterhifi.com/forum/arc...php/t-436.html

I can't find the webpage, so I will be forced to draw it pretty
crappy, but I recall this being the optimal shape for a dedicated
listening room, stereo or home theater. The M's are mains, C is
center, S's are surrounds, R's are rears, = is listener. Again, this
drawing is going to be off, but I think you can get the idea. The
shape is a hexagon, the rear wall is wider than the front wall. The
surrounds and listening position shouldn't be that close to where the
walls slant back inward, they should be up closer to the front, but I
only have so much control with this. Distance between each main to you
should be the same as the distance between the center and you, so the
center should be a little behind the mains considering you have the
mains 30 degrees off of you. You would want something like thick
drapes on the front wall to absord any reflections and pillars on the
side walls to break them up even more. Of all the home theaters I have
seen, this one comes the closest.

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ric...rc=ph&store=&a

Hope this helps.


..............._________
............../..............\
............./...M..C..M...\
............/..................\
.........../....................\
........../.S........=.......S.\
..........\....................../
............\____R__R___./

EDIT: For reference, I read about this from an acclaimed acoustic
engineer who has published books on the matter, but it was a while ago
and for the life of me I can't remember his name or the website, I
will look for it though
----------
It's been said that Floyd O'Toole has "debunked" room ratios, but it's
clear that different ratios offer different room modes. He tacitly
accepts this with his "room calculator", which demands that you put in
room dimensions, admitting that they make a difference. Sure, the
room treatments that you put in can turn a sow's ear into a silk
purse, and vice versa, but why not start with a ratio that is already
optimized to cut down on unwanted room modes? That way, you reduce the
need for extensive room treatments, especially if you're building a
brand new room? O'Toole's advice is comfort for those working with
pre-existing rooms though.

Here's another bit of opinion about non-parallel walls worth
digesting, this time from Paul White a Sound On Sound:

It is a common misconception that building non-parallel walls will
improve the standing wave situation. In practice, this has minimal
effects at low frequencies: the low frequency modes will develop much
as before based on the mean distance between walls.
What is true is that splaying the walls by as little as 1:10 or even
1:20 will help reduce high-frequency flutter echoes caused by mid- and
high-frequency sounds bouncing between two facing walls or floor and
ceiling. However, this particular problem is solved even more easily
in most rooms with parallel walls by using small areas of acoustically
absorbent material.

You might want to read the full page:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul9...coustics1.html

And finally, O'Toole recommends tossing third octive eqs as a room
equalization tool (from what I've read). I'm sure that Howard simply
blocks stuff like that out...

  #527   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


dave weil wrote:

snipped

O'Toole has "debunked" room ratios

And finally, O'Toole recommends tossing third octive eqs

Who is "O'Toole"??

  #528   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Tom said:

What do you know about ceiling heights, Dave? I'm building a house
and planning a home theater in the basement. I'm struggling
with whether to spend extra for a 10 ft basement. The room is 12 ft
wide and will be from 17 to 22 ft long.


My calculations-on-a-napkin tell me you probably want 13 feet for best
results. So I'd say 10 is much better than 8. You could also consider a
sunken pit at one end.




  #529   Report Post  
Tom
 
Posts: n/a
Default


George M. Middius wrote:
.... You could also consider a
sunken pit at one end.



Dude......

I don't think there will be any pits.

What's your napkin formula?

  #530   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Tom said:

.... You could also consider a sunken pit at one end.


Dude......
I don't think there will be any pits.


Your loss. Maybe you could build a pen out back to store your bicycles.

What's your napkin formula?


L : W : H :: 1.8 : 1 : 1.2

Not sure where I got it, but it's stuck in my mind. I might have it wrong
though, since very few rooms are taller than they are wide.





  #531   Report Post  
Tom
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"George M. Middius" wrote

Maybe you could build a pen out back to store your bicycles.


Who do you think you're talking to?


What's your napkin formula?


L : W : H :: 1.8 : 1 : 1.2

Not sure where I got it, but it's stuck in my mind. I might have it wrong
though, since very few rooms are taller than they are wide.


yeah - maybe 1.8 : 1.2 : 1
makes more sense.
gracias.


  #532   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:14:43 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

You've spent about 10 times what I have spent on your rigs.


Probably more like 20 times, on three complete systems,
actually.


Oh, you've spent $60,000 - 100,000 on your gear?


You got me, kind of. I would say that the full, three-system
equipment packages top out at only $50,000, list. Needless
to say, I did not come close to paying that much.


Then your bragging was just bull****.


Remember what I said about adding one room and expanding
another. Because the room is part of the system (more
influential than any high-end amps, super wires, or super CD
players and transports, Dave), I factor in those costs
whenever I calculate what I actually spent on my systems.


So you spent $40,000 - 80,000 on your rooms?


Well, I spent $13,000 on the first one (the big one), but
that was back in the days when construction was cheap. At
today's $100+ per square foot prices, the area would have
cost over forty grand, and probably considerably more. The
new room, which basically amounted to adding 150 square feet
to a room that was 220 square feet at the beginning, cost us
$28,000 last year, so we are talking about close to $200 a
square foot with that one. (Both rooms are thickly carpeted,
which is in contrast to the rest of the house which now has
hardwood floors over the slab.)
Well, the builder did a hell of a job with that new area: 2
x 8 and 2 x 6 trusses on 16-inch centers in the attic, 2 x 6
studs on 16-inch centers, with a 6 x 18, 22 foot long beam
holding up the roof where the old wall was once located. The
earlier room also had 2 x 6 studs on 16-inch centers, with
thick paneling nailed and glued over 5/8-inch drywall for
rigidity. The attic, unfortunately, still has standard 2 x 4
trusses on 24-inch centers, but you cannot have everything.

The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's
prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those
rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living
room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115
grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are
still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the
original price for the older room, we are still talking
about maybe 66 grand or more.

So, Dave, I have easily surpassed your stated minimum, and
the maximum, too if we use today's construction costs and
certainly am in the ball park if we ignore inflation.

BTW, did you fix the bad ratio of your main room? Unless you raised
the ceiling, I doubt it. You could have used my 9 1/2 foot ceilings.


The proof is in the measurements, Dave. I have measured the
daylights out of the place with my RTA, and trust me, it is
an exemplary room. Thank all of those bookcases full of
books and recordings.

Incidentally, have you measured your room, or do you just
assume that it works for you at your standard listening
position? Guys like you rather do not like to measure their
listening spaces, for fear that they will discover that
things are not as tidy as they assumed.

How much did you spend on your audio room(s), Dave?


I spent a couple of hours in there today.


Hah, you basically have a modest audio system in a room that
you have to live with. Well, you are at least typical.

You have my deepest sympathies.

Howard Ferstler
  #533   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:07:34 -0700, "Tom" wrote:

"dave weil" wrote

BTW, did you fix the bad ratio of your main room? Unless you raised
the ceiling, I doubt it. You could have used my 9 1/2 foot ceilings.



What do you know about ceiling heights, Dave? I'm building a house
and planning a home theater in the basement. I'm struggling
with whether to spend extra for a 10 ft basement. The room is 12 ft
wide and will be from 17 to 22 ft long.


If you go here (see below), you can see some suggested ratios. If you
will be working with a fixed footprint, then you might need to alter
your ceiling height if you want an optimal ratio. If you are working
with a fixed ceiling height, then you will need to alter your length.
It sounds like you've got enough variation in length to hit one of the
suggested ratios by keeping your ceiling at 10 feet, although it
probably isn't necessary to pay extra for it. I would probably want at
least 9 foot ceilings, simply because I like the extra "space". 10
foot would be even cooler!

As Howard will tell you, you should also pay attention to the
furnishings. Also, if you can arrange it, you might want to toe in the
walls at one end as to break up a pair of parallel walls (and you can
also vary on of the short walls as well). I'm not sure how you would
calculate the optimal angle though. Most acoustic experts recommend
"uneven" walls. It shouldn't be all that difficult to do some drywall
framing that doesn't meet at 90 degree angles, even if it's only 5
degrees off. But I suspect that the more fanning you can do, the
better.

Here's the link:

http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?p=5570

And here's a forum post that you might pay attention to:

http://hometheaterhifi.com/forum/arc...php/t-436.html

I can't find the webpage, so I will be forced to draw it pretty
crappy, but I recall this being the optimal shape for a dedicated
listening room, stereo or home theater. The M's are mains, C is
center, S's are surrounds, R's are rears, = is listener. Again, this
drawing is going to be off, but I think you can get the idea. The
shape is a hexagon, the rear wall is wider than the front wall. The
surrounds and listening position shouldn't be that close to where the
walls slant back inward, they should be up closer to the front, but I
only have so much control with this. Distance between each main to you
should be the same as the distance between the center and you, so the
center should be a little behind the mains considering you have the
mains 30 degrees off of you. You would want something like thick
drapes on the front wall to absord any reflections and pillars on the
side walls to break them up even more. Of all the home theaters I have
seen, this one comes the closest.

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ric...rc=ph&store=&a

Hope this helps.

.............._________
............./..............\
............/...M..C..M...\
.........../..................\
........../....................\
........./.S........=.......S.\
.........\....................../
...........\____R__R___./

EDIT: For reference, I read about this from an acclaimed acoustic
engineer who has published books on the matter, but it was a while ago
and for the life of me I can't remember his name or the website, I
will look for it though
----------
It's been said that Floyd O'Toole has "debunked" room ratios, but it's
clear that different ratios offer different room modes. He tacitly
accepts this with his "room calculator", which demands that you put in
room dimensions, admitting that they make a difference. Sure, the
room treatments that you put in can turn a sow's ear into a silk
purse, and vice versa, but why not start with a ratio that is already
optimized to cut down on unwanted room modes? That way, you reduce the
need for extensive room treatments, especially if you're building a
brand new room? O'Toole's advice is comfort for those working with
pre-existing rooms though.

Here's another bit of opinion about non-parallel walls worth
digesting, this time from Paul White a Sound On Sound:

It is a common misconception that building non-parallel walls will
improve the standing wave situation. In practice, this has minimal
effects at low frequencies: the low frequency modes will develop much
as before based on the mean distance between walls.
What is true is that splaying the walls by as little as 1:10 or even
1:20 will help reduce high-frequency flutter echoes caused by mid- and
high-frequency sounds bouncing between two facing walls or floor and
ceiling. However, this particular problem is solved even more easily
in most rooms with parallel walls by using small areas of acoustically
absorbent material.

You might want to read the full page:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul9...coustics1.html

And finally, O'Toole recommends tossing third octive eqs as a room
equalization tool (from what I've read). I'm sure that Howard simply
blocks stuff like that out...


Aside from this last paragraph, your comments and the
references are really quite OK. The problem is that the
ratios do not take into consideration wall flexing or the
amount of bulky items lining the walls, perhaps half-way to
the ceiling - such as full bookcases. When you factor in
those items all bets are off.

Regarding 1/3-octave analysis, here are two observations:

First, while he prefers resolution measurements out to 1/10
octave for speaker reviewing and design, Toole is hair
splitting when we get down to analyzing home listening
areas. For the most part, 1/3-octave analysis will do the
trick with typical home-listening room analyses.

Second, assuming Toole is correct about the need for
1/10-octave analysis (and I am not sure of this, but I will
cut him some slack for your sake), I can still assure you
that 1/3-octave analysis is still superior to NO analysis at
all, Dave.

PS: his name is not O'Toole.

Howard Ferstler
  #534   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:00:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:


The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's
prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those
rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living
room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115
grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are
still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the
original price for the older room, we are still talking
about maybe 66 grand or more.


Oh, come on Howard. If I count "list price", I have about $7,000
retail in just two components (the EAD disc transport and Theta
ProGen3 DAC).

  #535   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:11:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Toole is hair splitting


Funny how it's "hair-splitting" when he says something that dismisses
one of your "imperatives".

That happens a lot with you...


  #536   Report Post  
Ruud Broens
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

: I do write down the *
: settings, however, just in case I bump a slider. (The Rane
: units do have cosmetic covers, but I usually leave them off,
: because the systems are so often used with my reviewing
: work.)

*gasp. you mean that you'd be lost without the written down setting ?
as in: "can't distinguish the proper setting in a dbt"
.....talk about freako tweako beliefs :-)

: No, actually quite correct. You guys "tune" your gear to
: satisfy taste and not to satisfy precise requirements, be
: those requirements what one should have with a well-tuned
: piano or what one would want to have with a neutral-sounding
: hi-fi rig.

*yeah, sure Howard ;-)
Rudy

: Howard Ferstler


  #537   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:00:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:


The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's
prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those
rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living
room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115
grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are
still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the
original price for the older room, we are still talking
about maybe 66 grand or more.


Oh, come on Howard. If I count "list price", I have about $7,000
retail in just two components (the EAD disc transport and Theta
ProGen3 DAC).


Both overkill items. If you are not using them (and using
them makes no sense, since a $100 DVD player purchased at
Best Buy would sound just as good, and would throw in video
at no extra charge), I suggest getting onto ebay and getting
rid of them. Better do this post haste, while there are
still people out there who would buy the stuff.

Say, Dave, just how did you latch on to components so
expensive? You sometimes talk about me absconding with
tested gear or getting it criminally cheap, but at least I
did do reviews of the stuff and mention most of it when I do
additional reviews of other hardware later on. Those
comments almost amount to additional mini reviews of the
stuff. On the other hand, you seem to have ended up with
that gear with no strings attached whatsoever.

Your situation looks rather suspicious to me, Dave.

Howard Ferstler
  #538   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:11:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Toole is hair splitting


Funny how it's "hair-splitting" when he says something that dismisses
one of your "imperatives".

That happens a lot with you...


Nobody is right all of the time, Dave, including Toole.
Well, I suppose that I am right all of the time, but I am a
rather remarkable person.

Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement
techniques when it comes to listening rooms, while at the
same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your
own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on
is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark
about just how good your room actually is.

Ignorance is bliss.

Howard Ferstler
  #539   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:11:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Toole is hair splitting


Funny how it's "hair-splitting" when he says something that dismisses
one of your "imperatives".

That happens a lot with you...


Nobody is right all of the time, Dave, including Toole.
Well, I suppose that I am right all of the time, but I am a
rather remarkable person.

Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement
techniques when it comes to listening rooms, while at the
same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your
own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on
is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark
about just how good your room actually is.

Ignorance is bliss


Sounds good = is good.

Stephen
  #540   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Howard Ferstler wrote:
dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:00:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:


The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's
prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those
rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living
room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115
grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are
still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the
original price for the older room, we are still talking
about maybe 66 grand or more.


Oh, come on Howard. If I count "list price", I have about $7,000
retail in just two components (the EAD disc transport and Theta
ProGen3 DAC).


Both overkill items.


There's even some question as to whether Weil is telling the truth,
given his butchering of the proper name of the DAC.

If you are not using them (and using
them makes no sense, since a $100 DVD player purchased at
Best Buy would sound just as good, and would throw in video
at no extra charge),


True, time marches on. Another salient question is whether or not they
are operational, given Weil's proclivities towards broken equipment.

I suggest getting onto ebay and getting
rid of them. Better do this post haste, while there are
still people out there who would buy the stuff.


Good point.





  #541   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:00:56 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:00:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:


The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's
prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those
rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living
room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115
grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are
still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the
original price for the older room, we are still talking
about maybe 66 grand or more.


Oh, come on Howard. If I count "list price", I have about $7,000
retail in just two components (the EAD disc transport and Theta
ProGen3 DAC).


Both overkill items. If you are not using them (and using
them makes no sense, since a $100 DVD player purchased at
Best Buy would sound just as good, and would throw in video
at no extra charge), I suggest getting onto ebay and getting
rid of them. Better do this post haste, while there are
still people out there who would buy the stuff.


I use them occasionally. Of course, the actual market value of this
gear is now just pennies on the dollar (which is part of the point
that I was making). So, it makes more sense to just keep them. They
are very nice, extremely sturdy pieces of industrial art as well (I
think the disc transport weighs something like 40 pounds, and the
Theta has some very nice stainless steel mini toggle switches on the
front).

I already HAVE a $100 DVD player, remember? I also have a 200 disc
changer from Sony. I have a 5 disc Mitsubishi changer in the bedroom
as well. I like the flexibility that having multiple players offers.
Oh yeah, I have a very nice Stage Five Micromega player as well
(Lionel, are you listening in?) The first two are things I paid for,
the third was obtained in a trade, and the last was also obtained as
described below.

Oh yeah, I still have a Pioneer CLD 5070 Laserdisc player for those
rare times that I might want to watch a Laserdisc from the past. Of
course, the EAD will handle those as well...

Say, Dave, just how did you latch on to components so
expensive? You sometimes talk about me absconding with
tested gear or getting it criminally cheap, but at least I
did do reviews of the stuff and mention most of it when I do
additional reviews of other hardware later on. Those
comments almost amount to additional mini reviews of the
stuff. On the other hand, you seem to have ended up with
that gear with no strings attached whatsoever.


I've explained that in the past. I had a roommate for a while and he
left town suddenly with no word. Perhaps the pregnancy of his
girlfriend had something to do with it (and no, I'm not condoning such
horrible behavior). In any case, he left all of his stuff and it's now
mine (for reasons of abandonment *and* the fact that he left me
holding the lease - this was before I became a homeowner).

Your situation looks rather suspicious to me, Dave.


Hope that this explains it.

  #542   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:04:44 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:11:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Toole is hair splitting


Funny how it's "hair-splitting" when he says something that dismisses
one of your "imperatives".

That happens a lot with you...


Nobody is right all of the time, Dave, including Toole.
Well, I suppose that I am right all of the time, but I am a
rather remarkable person.

Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement
techniques when it comes to listening rooms,


I don't criticize your measurement techniques. Just pointing out that
the guy whom you base much of your audio philosophy finds some of your
technique superfluous.

I don't have a problem with those who measure their room, just with
people who demand it of everyone. Not everyone has the need to measure
all of the time.

while at the
same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your
own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on
is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark
about just how good your room actually is.


My room isn't perfect, by any means. It's pretty good for what it is,
and I don't need measurements to confirm what I hear with my own ears.
Could it be improved? Probably. My plan is eventually to take down the
wall between it and the adjacent room, creating a room that would be
about the same footprint as your main room. Of course, I'd have some
extra headroom (literally). But since that wall is a load-bearing
wall, I'm going to take my time doing it. I hope you don't mind.

But as far as furnishings, it's set up pretty well in terms of
dampening vs. reflectivity. It's fully carpeted and doesn't have a lot
of ringing, but it's not dead either. Plus, it's coupled acoustically
to two other rooms. And yes, I have bookshelves and an 8 ft X 5 ft
record shelving system.

Ignorance is bliss.


As is fascism, apparently.

Howard Ferstler


  #543   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:31:31 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:00:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:


The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's
prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those
rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living
room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115
grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are
still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the
original price for the older room, we are still talking
about maybe 66 grand or more.


Oh, come on Howard. If I count "list price", I have about $7,000
retail in just two components (the EAD disc transport and Theta
ProGen3 DAC).


Both overkill items.


There's even some question as to whether Weil is telling the truth,
given his butchering of the proper name of the DAC.


Arnold brings up a good point. It is actually the 2, not the 3. I
mistakenly typed 3 instead of 2. However, if he's talking about using
the rather common shorthand for describing the unit, instead of typing
Theta DS Pro Generation 2, then I'd argue that he's just being catty,
but that's nothing unusual for him.

If you are not using them (and using
them makes no sense, since a $100 DVD player purchased at
Best Buy would sound just as good, and would throw in video
at no extra charge),


True, time marches on. Another salient question is whether or not they
are operational, given Weil's proclivities towards broken equipment.


See below.

I suggest getting onto ebay and getting
rid of them. Better do this post haste, while there are
still people out there who would buy the stuff.


Good point.


Not really. I have no need to sell them as they are fully operational.
Plus, they look nice as well. Nothing wrong with that, right?

BTW, it's cute how you use Howard and Lionel as your conduit to talk
to me.

  #544   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:


Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement
techniques when it comes to listening rooms, while at the
same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your
own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on
is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark
about just how good your room actually is.

Ignorance is bliss


Sounds good = is good.

Stephen


Sometimes. Yeah, you guys are reference standards when it
comes to "feel-good" audio.

Howard Ferstler
  #545   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:04:44 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:


Nobody is right all of the time, Dave, including Toole.
Well, I suppose that I am right all of the time, but I am a
rather remarkable person.

Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement
techniques when it comes to listening rooms,


I don't criticize your measurement techniques. Just pointing out that
the guy whom you base much of your audio philosophy finds some of your
technique superfluous.


Actually, I disagree with him about a lot of things. If one
goes back to an issue of the BAS magazine "Speaker" a couple
of decades back they will find a debate between Toole and I
regarding his view of sound power and radiation pattern and
mine. However, I do laud his approach to measuring and
comparing. It is just that he thinks some performance
results are philosophically more important than I do.

I don't have a problem with those who measure their room, just with
people who demand it of everyone. Not everyone has the need to measure
all of the time.


I don't demand it. I just find it odd that "serious" audio
enthusiasts will have not taken the time to do so. Why
speculate when simple measurements will answer so many
questions - at least for "serious" enthusiasts.

while at the
same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your
own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on
is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark
about just how good your room actually is.


My room isn't perfect, by any means. It's pretty good for what it is,
and I don't need measurements to confirm what I hear with my own ears.


A human measuring tool? Is that what you are, Dave?

Could it be improved? Probably.


Probably? How would you know this if you did not do some
decent measurements. Perhaps the room is borderline perfect.

My plan is eventually to take down the
wall between it and the adjacent room, creating a room that would be
about the same footprint as your main room. Of course, I'd have some
extra headroom (literally). But since that wall is a load-bearing
wall, I'm going to take my time doing it.


Use a post in the middle.

I hope you don't mind.


I do not mind anything you do that increases your knowledge,
Dave. One way to increase it would be to do some decent
measuring.

Ignorance is bliss.


As is fascism, apparently.


You take this all so personally, Dave.

Howard Ferstler


  #546   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:48:43 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

My plan is eventually to take down the
wall between it and the adjacent room, creating a room that would be
about the same footprint as your main room. Of course, I'd have some
extra headroom (literally). But since that wall is a load-bearing
wall, I'm going to take my time doing it.


Use a post in the middle.


Nope. don't want to do that. Who wants a post in the middle of their
room? A good sturdy beam will be sufficient, I think. I'm only
spanning about 22 feet, after all. If I wanted to do overkill like you
did in your room, I'd use a steel beam and sheath it in wood. But I
suspect that I'll just end up using a 6X8 solid wood beam, or
something equivalent. I *could* use a laminated floor joist support,
since they're good for over 30 feet.
  #547   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:


Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement
techniques when it comes to listening rooms, while at the
same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your
own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on
is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark
about just how good your room actually is.

Ignorance is bliss


Sounds good = is good.


Sometimes. Yeah, you guys are reference standards when it
comes to "feel-good" audio.


You've already proclaimed my source and my amp the equal of anything on
the market, and my speakers are legendary for transparency.

Feels great!

Stephen
  #548   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Brother Horace the Shameless said:

Well, I suppose that I am right all of the time, but I am a
rather remarkable person.


For a week-kneed wimp, perhaps.




  #549   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:48:43 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

My plan is eventually to take down the
wall between it and the adjacent room, creating a room that would be
about the same footprint as your main room. Of course, I'd have some
extra headroom (literally). But since that wall is a load-bearing
wall, I'm going to take my time doing it.


Use a post in the middle.


Nope. don't want to do that. Who wants a post in the middle of their
room? A good sturdy beam will be sufficient, I think. I'm only
spanning about 22 feet, after all. If I wanted to do overkill like you
did in your room, I'd use a steel beam and sheath it in wood. But I
suspect that I'll just end up using a 6X8 solid wood beam, or
something equivalent. I *could* use a laminated floor joist support,
since they're good for over 30 feet.


As I may have mentioned, my builder removed a wall and used
a beam that, ironically enough, also spanned 22 feet. The
thing was made of three 2 x 18 inch boards sandwiched
together to form what amounts to a 6 x 18 incher, 22 feet
long. Each end sits on a triple header section with five 2 x
4 studs under it. This beam holds up the entire middle
section of the new roof truss array, which is itself made
from 20 to 25 foot long 2 x 8 and 2 x 6 sections on 16-inch
centers. One end of the roof sits on the old rafter section
of the old part of the house (this is the lightest part of
the load) and the other end sits on the new wall, which is
made of 2 x 6 framing, with 2 x 12 headers on edge. The
super beam is in the middle of this span.

Here is the important thing: it does not matter what kind of
beam you want. Your builder will have to conform to the
local code. The inspector who signed off on the job at my
place said that the new roof section was well beyond code
requirements, but that is a good thing, considering that I
am surrounded by 60 to 80 foot trees. Hurricane season is
coming.

Howard Ferstler
  #550   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


Sounds good = is good.


Sometimes. Yeah, you guys are reference standards when it
comes to "feel-good" audio.


You've already proclaimed my source and my amp the equal of anything on
the market, and my speakers are legendary for transparency.

Feels great!


There are lots of "legendary" speakers out there these days.
Just ask their designers. I own some myself, and have also
reviewed additional ones.

Howard Ferstler


  #551   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


Sounds good = is good.


Sometimes. Yeah, you guys are reference standards when it
comes to "feel-good" audio.


You've already proclaimed my source and my amp the equal of anything on
the market, and my speakers are legendary for transparency.

Feels great!


There are lots of "legendary" speakers out there these days.
Just ask their designers. I own some myself, and have also
reviewed additional ones.


I didn't know you own Quads. Hook 'em up and enjoy!

Stephen

PS Peter Walker died recently.
  #552   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...


. Hurricane season is
coming.



It's five months away, Howard.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why did the PF reviewer buy his review sample? WENW Marketplace 2 January 9th 05 05:28 AM
James Randi on Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused" [email protected] High End Audio 132 December 17th 04 10:18 PM
The Reviewer Bought The Review Sample... WENW Marketplace 1 October 6th 04 07:51 AM
Does anyone know of this challenge? [email protected] High End Audio 453 June 28th 04 03:43 AM
What causes wobble of center voice? Stig Erik Tangen High End Audio 10 September 14th 03 12:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:59 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"