Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Sander deWaal wrote:
Howard Ferstler said: There is no way I would trust a rock-music recording to give me meaningful data on speaker soundstaging, imaging, focus, depth, or even spectral balance. While I agree with you here, it's an established fact that there are people out there who use their audio system to listen to rock music exclusively. For sure. And those people really do not need for their audio systems to be genuinely high fidelity items, or even high-quality items. I suppose this works out quite well for some of the lunatics who post here and laud the performance of sub-par hardware. Admittedly, many of them paid way too much for that gear. A suitable system for those listeners could well deviate from a system that's optimalized for classical music. Yep. While the latter should be optimized for accurate performance, or, if DSP ambiance emendations are applied, optimized to allow for the most realistic concert hall simulation, the former need only deliver head-banging sound. I do not particularly think that having a familiarity with popular music is all that useful - for reviewing audio gear or much of anything else. What would you recommend to someone asking for a system that will be used for rock music only? Stick with automotive systems. Things like imaging, focusing and spectral balance could be utterly meaningless to such a person....... I agree completely. Yes, there are some "pop" recordings that need high-fidelity treatment, and of course a lot of acoustic jazz also benefits from playback on really fine systems. However, rock freaks need not shop for truly exotic gear, and those who listen to such music and laud the performance of exotic wires, super-duper CD players, overpriced amps, and the like are kidding themselves. Howard Ferstler |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: OK, Dave, you tell me just how many rock recordings are engineered to sound like a live-music performance? The Who Live at Leeds Live at Kelvin Hall The Kinks Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions Simon and Garfunkel Concert in Central Park There's four... Out of thousands. Sorry, but the exceptions in this case do not bend the rule. Howard Ferstler |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:14:26 GMT, MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: OK, Dave, you tell me just how many rock recordings are engineered to sound like a live-music performance? The Who Live at Leeds Live at Kelvin Hall The Kinks Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions Simon and Garfunkel Concert in Central Park There's four... Stephen Well, in the context of the question, I'd say only the third one is relevant. I was referring to the normal presentation of many rock albums; a presentation that mimics a theoretical on-stage set-up. You know, drums in the back, guitars either right, left or center, bass center left/right, lead vocal center or close to center, and background vocals either left or right or paired with the lead vocal in the center. I'd argue that almost every Dire Straits album has this sort of presentation. If you close your eyes, you could imagine them on stage. I daresay that The Eagles have the same sort of presentation as well. Understand that these are two groups that I have acknowledged have produced some fine-sounding recordings. Most of the rest, however, make no attempt to mimic a live-music situation. And as I noted, most of the rest really do not attempt to sound like a live-music situation even when performing live. And, no, I am not joking. Howard has never been to a recent rock show, and may have NEVER been to a rock show EVER, They had a few on campus years ago. I thought the music, the musicians, and the patrons were both infantile and loutish at the same time. so he's basically talking out of his ass when it comes to how a system can mimic a live event. Rock music when performed "live" usually involves a bank of speakers up front, with the performers sending virtually all of their output through those speakers. Because the speakers are usually set up for volume instead of pure sound quality, I would say that any rock recording that sounds like a "live" performance when played back at home is delivering junk sound. Of course, he's only been to 2 classical shows in the last decade, so his opinions on ANY kind of live show are very suspect at best. But I manage to still get my record reviews published, Dave, both in magazines and in two books. What's more, those who reviewed my two review books in several magazine articles were impressed as hell with my ability to hit the nail on the head when it came to evaluating sound quality. Haw, haw, hawwww.... Howard Ferstler |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: OK, Dave, you tell me just how many rock recordings are engineered to sound like a live-music performance? The Who Live at Leeds Live at Kelvin Hall The Kinks Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions Simon and Garfunkel Concert in Central Park There's four... Out of thousands. Sorry, but the exceptions in this case do not bend the rule. That's not a rule, that's a snobbish prejudice. One could argue that a system needs to be accurate to reflect the artist's intentions most faithfully. Fortunately, according to you, pretty much all equipment is automatically accurate. Stephen |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
While I'm sure he could find much to object to at a typical Austin club show (excessive volume levels, clipping, PA horns, etc), another point is that even rock has commonly recognized sound ideals such as the one you described above. I read one description that claimed room size and volume level at which the drums do not require amplification as an ideal, which reminds me of another Terry Manning anecdote, this one about Led Zeppelin: Bonham preferred the mics some distance from the drum kit because he wanted to control his dynamics, not the engineer. Most "live" rock performances have the sound emitting from a huge bank of speakers on, behind, or in front of the stage. Nearly all of the sound is electronically amplified and sent out via those loud-is-better speakers. Now, if some moron wants that kind of "live performance" sound from his audio system at home, then, well, he is getting exactly what he deserves when he spends big bucks on overkill gear. Howard Ferstler |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:04:29 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: A suitable system for those listeners could well deviate from a system that's optimalized for classical music. Yep. While the latter should be optimized for accurate performance, or, if DSP ambiance emendations are applied, optimized to allow for the most realistic concert hall simulation, the former need only deliver head-banging sound. Yes, because everyone knows that James Taylor's live album requires head-banging sound. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:06:11 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: OK, Dave, you tell me just how many rock recordings are engineered to sound like a live-music performance? The Who Live at Leeds Live at Kelvin Hall The Kinks Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions Simon and Garfunkel Concert in Central Park There's four... Out of thousands. Sorry, but the exceptions in this case do not bend the rule. Howard Ferstler Try every studio Dire Straits album ever recorded. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:12:24 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: I'd argue that almost every Dire Straits album has this sort of presentation. If you close your eyes, you could imagine them on stage. I daresay that The Eagles have the same sort of presentation as well. Understand that these are two groups that I have acknowledged have produced some fine-sounding recordings. Most of the rest, however, make no attempt to mimic a live-music situation. And as I noted, most of the rest really do not attempt to sound like a live-music situation even when performing live. And, no, I am not joking. You simply don't know what you're talking about, because you have no experience with anything other than about .0000025% of all "rock recordings". It's sort of like your classical live concert going experience, which is virtually nil. Heck, I've been to more classical concerts in the past 6 months than you've gone to in the last decade. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:12:24 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: so he's basically talking out of his ass when it comes to how a system can mimic a live event. Rock music when performed "live" usually involves a bank of speakers up front, with the performers sending virtually all of their output through those speakers. Because the speakers are usually set up for volume instead of pure sound quality, I would say that any rock recording that sounds like a "live" performance when played back at home is delivering junk sound. Yes, because those hi-fi systems are sending virtually all of their output through speakers. But of course, this occurs when you are listening to YOUR "bank of speakers" when listening to Corelli. Unless of course, you have some of the output being sent to your toaster. So, I think we can dismiss your point out of hand. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:12:24 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: But I manage to still get my record reviews published, Dave, both in magazines and in two books. What's more, those who reviewed my two review books in several magazine articles were impressed as hell with my ability to hit the nail on the head when it came to evaluating sound quality. Haw, haw, hawwww.... Howard Ferstler Brayed like a true jackass... Of course, the true transliteration should be "Hee haw, hee haw". Get an editor, Howard. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: OK, Dave, you tell me just how many rock recordings are engineered to sound like a live-music performance? The Who Live at Leeds Live at Kelvin Hall The Kinks Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions Simon and Garfunkel Concert in Central Park There's four... Out of thousands. Sorry, but the exceptions in this case do not bend the rule. That's not a rule, that's a snobbish prejudice. Why is it when someone has a rational approach to a subject like music those who have a less rational approach typecast him as "snobbish?" One could argue that a system needs to be accurate to reflect the artist's intentions most faithfully. Yes. Which system does the best job of reproducing all of that noise? Fortunately, according to you, pretty much all equipment is automatically accurate. Stephen Amps, wires, CD players, for sure, barring defects, of course, or intentional design anomalies. If you think I believe in automatic accuracy when it comes to speakers or surround processors, or speaker/room interactions, you need to scare up some of my magazine articles and reports, or books, and get up to date. Howard Ferstler |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:04:29 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: A suitable system for those listeners could well deviate from a system that's optimalized for classical music. Yep. While the latter should be optimized for accurate performance, or, if DSP ambiance emendations are applied, optimized to allow for the most realistic concert hall simulation, the former need only deliver head-banging sound. Yes, because everyone knows that James Taylor's live album requires head-banging sound. That is a terrific DVD video presentation, with mostly demo-grade sound. (Would you believe that getting the full program sound also requires the use of a superb subwoofer?) I reviewed it in TSS some time ago, and said that it was an example of how a center-channel feed should be properly handled. All recording engineers who are paranoid about the center channel when it comes to recording surround-sound material need to audition that disc. Incidentally, the version I have was done in Dolby Digital (at 448 kbps), and the per-channel sound is on par with the best I have heard from any CD, DVD-A, or SACD release. Howard Ferstler |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:06:11 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: OK, Dave, you tell me just how many rock recordings are engineered to sound like a live-music performance? The Who Live at Leeds Live at Kelvin Hall The Kinks Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions Simon and Garfunkel Concert in Central Park There's four... Out of thousands. Sorry, but the exceptions in this case do not bend the rule. Howard Ferstler Try every studio Dire Straits album ever recorded. Still but a small fraction of the total. Yes, there are exceptions, but most rock freaks commute with the rule and not the exceptions. Also, even the Dire Straits concerts are probably mostly electronically amplified, and so we really do not have a way to discover just what such "live" performances are supposed to sound like. There is not way a home audio system can accurately simulate live programs that are themselves electronically amplified. Howard Ferstler |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:38:47 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:04:29 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: A suitable system for those listeners could well deviate from a system that's optimalized for classical music. Yep. While the latter should be optimized for accurate performance, or, if DSP ambiance emendations are applied, optimized to allow for the most realistic concert hall simulation, the former need only deliver head-banging sound. Yes, because everyone knows that James Taylor's live album requires head-banging sound. That is a terrific DVD video presentation, with mostly demo-grade sound. (Would you believe that getting the full program sound also requires the use of a superb subwoofer?) I reviewed it in TSS some time ago, and said that it was an example of how a center-channel feed should be properly handled. All recording engineers who are paranoid about the center channel when it comes to recording surround-sound material need to audition that disc. So that's classical music, right? No "electronic" enhancements to the sound. No "banks of speakers" on the stage to blare out the sound, right? |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:12:24 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: I'd argue that almost every Dire Straits album has this sort of presentation. If you close your eyes, you could imagine them on stage. I daresay that The Eagles have the same sort of presentation as well. Understand that these are two groups that I have acknowledged have produced some fine-sounding recordings. Most of the rest, however, make no attempt to mimic a live-music situation. And as I noted, most of the rest really do not attempt to sound like a live-music situation even when performing live. And, no, I am not joking. You simply don't know what you're talking about, because you have no experience with anything other than about .0000025% of all "rock recordings". And you are looking to justify your obsession with upscale audio, even though upscale audio systems are simply not needed to listen to most rock music. Mid-fi does the job just fine. It's sort of like your classical live concert going experience, which is virtually nil. Heck, I've been to more classical concerts in the past 6 months than you've gone to in the last decade. Pick on the messenger, Dave. That is your style, and it has been your style for quite some time. Rather than debate issues, you pick on me and point out my supposed inadequacies. However, whatever you may think, my publishers liked what I do and continue to like what I do when it comes to reviewing recordings. I will also point out that a number of reviewers gave those record-review books very positive in assorted magazine writeups. Look, rock concerts are electronically amplified. There is no way a home audio system can "accurately" reproduce music that was not accurately reproduced at a live concert to begin with. The stuff is electronic from stem to stern, and just about all rock recordings are designed to be "ends in themselves," rather than simulations of live performances. But, as I said before, even those live performances are not really live. They are electronically amplified, with all sorts of concurrent distortions piling on. And, Dave (trust me on this), there are musicians out there who go to and participate in live music situations all the time, and they have not a clue what an audio system is supposed to do when they listen to recordings. If they fail, how can you claim to have the golden-ear answer just because you attend lots of live performances. You also have to know something, Dave. As for you, well, you have this belief in super wires and super amps, and probably super CD players, and that tells me that, your concert concert-hall goings notwithstanding, you do not have any kind of solid grasp of what you are listening to on your audio system. Period. Howard Ferstler |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:41:13 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Out of thousands. Sorry, but the exceptions in this case do not bend the rule. Howard Ferstler Try every studio Dire Straits album ever recorded. Still but a small fraction of the total. Yes, there are exceptions, but most rock freaks commute with the rule and not the exceptions. Sorry, but I'm not willing to list the multitude of rock albums designed with a similar presentation. You wouldn't know about them anyway. I'd go as far as to say that the *majority* of rock recordings are fairly conventional in their soundstage simulation. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:12:24 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: so he's basically talking out of his ass when it comes to how a system can mimic a live event. Rock music when performed "live" usually involves a bank of speakers up front, with the performers sending virtually all of their output through those speakers. Because the speakers are usually set up for volume instead of pure sound quality, I would say that any rock recording that sounds like a "live" performance when played back at home is delivering junk sound. Yes, because those hi-fi systems are sending virtually all of their output through speakers. But of course, this occurs when you are listening to YOUR "bank of speakers" when listening to Corelli. Unless of course, you have some of the output being sent to your toaster. So, I think we can dismiss your point out of hand. You can, but that does not make your correct. Quit thinking that you are a spokesperson for the omnipresent "we." For me, a rock concert is an end in itself, and so are rock recordings. There is no way such recordings can be configured to simulate a live-music experience, because the live-music experience itself is loaded up with electronic distortions right there in the hall or auditorium. Howard Ferstler |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:12:24 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: But I manage to still get my record reviews published, Dave, both in magazines and in two books. What's more, those who reviewed my two review books in several magazine articles were impressed as hell with my ability to hit the nail on the head when it came to evaluating sound quality. Haw, haw, hawwww.... Howard Ferstler Brayed like a true jackass... Of course, the true transliteration should be "Hee haw, hee haw". Get an editor, Howard. I have several, Dave. You need such individuals when you actually publish books and magazine articles. Howard Ferstler |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:38:47 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: dave weil wrote: On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:04:29 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: A suitable system for those listeners could well deviate from a system that's optimalized for classical music. Yep. While the latter should be optimized for accurate performance, or, if DSP ambiance emendations are applied, optimized to allow for the most realistic concert hall simulation, the former need only deliver head-banging sound. Yes, because everyone knows that James Taylor's live album requires head-banging sound. That is a terrific DVD video presentation, with mostly demo-grade sound. (Would you believe that getting the full program sound also requires the use of a superb subwoofer?) I reviewed it in TSS some time ago, and said that it was an example of how a center-channel feed should be properly handled. All recording engineers who are paranoid about the center channel when it comes to recording surround-sound material need to audition that disc. So that's classical music, right? No "electronic" enhancements to the sound. No "banks of speakers" on the stage to blare out the sound, right? As I have noted, there are exceptions to every rule. However, those exceptions do not dictate the rules. Howard Ferstler |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:41:13 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: Out of thousands. Sorry, but the exceptions in this case do not bend the rule. Howard Ferstler Try every studio Dire Straits album ever recorded. Still but a small fraction of the total. Yes, there are exceptions, but most rock freaks commute with the rule and not the exceptions. Sorry, but I'm not willing to list the multitude of rock albums designed with a similar presentation. You wouldn't know about them anyway. You hit the mark with the above comment. I'd go as far as to say that the *majority* of rock recordings are fairly conventional in their soundstage simulation. Funny, every time I drop in (every few days, but sometimes not for several days) I will post some fast responses to some of the idiotic responses that were posted in response to my earlier responses (!!!) and virtually every time you come up with responses of your own that are posted almost immediately. My take on this is that you are glued to your keyboard from the moment you get home to the final minutes before you retire for the evening. Get a life, Dave. Howard Ferstler |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:50:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: As for you, well, you have this belief in super wires and super amps, and probably super CD players, and that tells me that, your concert concert-hall goings notwithstanding, you do not have any kind of solid grasp of what you are listening to on your audio system. Period. Yes, that's why I have a Denon receiver hooked up to Allison speakers, with a Sony 200 disc CD changer I suppose. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:52:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: For me, a rock concert is an end in itself, and so are rock recordings. There is no way such recordings can be configured to simulate a live-music experience, because the live-music experience itself is loaded up with electronic distortions right there in the hall or auditorium. You are apparently laboring under the impression that recording engineers put microphones in front of the bank of PA speakers to record the concert. You're wrong, you know. You MIGHT get some ancillary microphones in the soundfield to help with the ambience that you crave for such things as "surround sound", but the majority of the recording never leaves the soundboard, except to be transferred to the recording medium. It's still important to be able to accurately record the sound of "distortions", since guitars and amps have distinctive sound characteristics that are important to the sound of the group. A Marshall stack sounds different than a Vox AC-30 for instance. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:59:09 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Funny, every time I drop in (every few days, but sometimes not for several days) I will post some fast responses to some of the idiotic responses that were posted in response to my earlier responses (!!!) and virtually every time you come up with responses of your own that are posted almost immediately. You mean like THIS almost immediate response to MY post? Don't you have a wife and cat or something? |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:50:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: As for you, well, you have this belief in super wires and super amps, and probably super CD players, and that tells me that, your concert concert-hall goings notwithstanding, you do not have any kind of solid grasp of what you are listening to on your audio system. Period. Yes, that's why I have a Denon receiver hooked up to Allison speakers, with a Sony 200 disc CD changer I suppose. Yes, you are an odd bird. In some ways you appear to be rational, as evidenced by your selection of components. My take on this is that you simply feel obligated to defend principles that make no sense for reasons that probably even you do not understand. I do know that you do not like ME, and that probably would force you to argue with me even if I changed sides and joined the tweakos. However, your problem, Dave, is you, and not me. Howard Ferstler |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:52:46 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: For me, a rock concert is an end in itself, and so are rock recordings. There is no way such recordings can be configured to simulate a live-music experience, because the live-music experience itself is loaded up with electronic distortions right there in the hall or auditorium. You are apparently laboring under the impression that recording engineers put microphones in front of the bank of PA speakers to record the concert. Obviously, they do not. You need to scare up a copy of my The Digital Audio Music List (A-R Editions, 1999), Dave. You're wrong, you know. You MIGHT get some ancillary microphones in the soundfield to help with the ambience that you crave for such things as "surround sound", but the majority of the recording never leaves the soundboard, except to be transferred to the recording medium. Dave, you miss the point. With most classical and acoustic jazz music performed live, there is no electronic amplification, and you get an acoustic soundstage up front and hall ambiance all around you. A good two-channel recording tries to at least mimic the sound coming from up front, and a good surround recording also tries to duplicate the sense of space. Good DSP can also do a good job of simulating live-performance space with two-channel recordings. However, most rock music uses huge amounts of electronic amplification and rock recordings basically can do no better than mimic the existing distortions that one gets at a live performance. It is one of the ironies of recording technology that while most classical recordings (including surround-sound versions) cannot approach the realism we get at live performances, rock recordings often actually sound BETTER than live performances. Yep, this is because said recordings are usually ends in themselves and not attempts to duplicate live performances. It's still important to be able to accurately record the sound of "distortions", since guitars and amps have distinctive sound characteristics that are important to the sound of the group. A Marshall stack sounds different than a Vox AC-30 for instance. Who cares? Besides, the recordings do not mimic those artifacts you mention. The rock recordings are ends in themselves. Howard Ferstler |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:59:09 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: Funny, every time I drop in (every few days, but sometimes not for several days) I will post some fast responses to some of the idiotic responses that were posted in response to my earlier responses (!!!) and virtually every time you come up with responses of your own that are posted almost immediately. You mean like THIS almost immediate response to MY post? Don't you have a wife and cat or something? Dave, the wife is at work and the cats are napping. Unlike you I drop in for a couple of hours every day or two. I will scope the responses that were made to my previous posts, and invariably yours show up almost immediately after they were posted. On the other hand, my responses to your posts will usually not show up for several days, because I am not locked to my computer as you are. Yes, I did respond rapidly to your latest responses, because I am here during one of my occasional stopovers. I call up messages and check responses to my posts in real time and then pump out a few more responses. After an hour or two I call it a day and then I stay away from my computer for at least a couple of days. On the other hand, you are ALWAYS here, ready to respond almost immediately. I find it hard to believe that you have enough spare time away from your waitering job and your computer to go to all of those concerts. And, now, it is time to call it a day. Let's see if you can do the same thing. Howard Ferstler |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: While I'm sure he could find much to object to at a typical Austin club show (excessive volume levels, clipping, PA horns, etc), another point is that even rock has commonly recognized sound ideals such as the one you described above. I read one description that claimed room size and volume level at which the drums do not require amplification as an ideal, which reminds me of another Terry Manning anecdote, this one about Led Zeppelin: Bonham preferred the mics some distance from the drum kit because he wanted to control his dynamics, not the engineer. Most "live" rock performances have the sound emitting from a huge bank of speakers on, behind, or in front of the stage. Nearly all of the sound is electronically amplified and sent out via those loud-is-better speakers. You missed dw and me discussing the so-well-known-it's-boring description of the standard rock band sound. You've encountered the phrase "garage band"? Drums in the back, guitars to each side, bass and singer in the middle. There are thousands of recordings with this or a very similar perspective. Now, if some moron wants that kind of "live performance" sound from his audio system at home, then, well, he is getting exactly what he deserves when he spends big bucks on overkill gear. That kind of moron doesn't buy overkill gear. Cerwin-Vega is still in business, yes? Stephen |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: And you are looking to justify your obsession with upscale audio, even though upscale audio systems are simply not needed to listen to most rock music. Mid-fi does the job just fine. hifi does the job better. Stephen |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: OK, Dave, you tell me just how many rock recordings are engineered to sound like a live-music performance? The Who Live at Leeds Live at Kelvin Hall The Kinks Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions Simon and Garfunkel Concert in Central Park There's four... Out of thousands. Sorry, but the exceptions in this case do not bend the rule. That's not a rule, that's a snobbish prejudice. Why is it when someone has a rational approach to a subject like music those who have a less rational approach typecast him as "snobbish?" When that someone dismisses an entire style of music out-of-hand. One could argue that a system needs to be accurate to reflect the artist's intentions most faithfully. Yes. Which system does the best job of reproducing all of that noise? Careful, or you'll have Nousaine after you. Fortunately, according to you, pretty much all equipment is automatically accurate. Amps, wires, CD players, for sure, barring defects, of course, or intentional design anomalies. If you think I believe in automatic accuracy when it comes to speakers or surround processors, or speaker/room interactions, you need to scare up some of my magazine articles and reports, or books, and get up to date. No. Stephen |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Most "live" rock performances have the sound emitting from a huge bank of speakers on, behind, or in front of the stage. Nearly all of the sound is electronically amplified and sent out via those loud-is-better speakers. Now, if some moron wants that kind of "live performance" sound from his audio system at home, then, well, he is getting exactly what he deserves when he spends big bucks on overkill gear. I prefer my hard rock to sound like a genteel ladies tea party. Or, better yet, like Mantovani. I once heard Hendriz through my friend's Marantz 8B. Yecch! It did sound like Mantovani. My Eico HF87 and my Radio Craftsman 500A's do a lot better. ----== 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 =---- |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:16:44 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:59:09 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: Funny, every time I drop in (every few days, but sometimes not for several days) I will post some fast responses to some of the idiotic responses that were posted in response to my earlier responses (!!!) and virtually every time you come up with responses of your own that are posted almost immediately. You mean like THIS almost immediate response to MY post? Don't you have a wife and cat or something? Dave, the wife is at work and the cats are napping. Unlike you I drop in for a couple of hours every day or two. I will scope the responses that were made to my previous posts, and invariably yours show up almost immediately after they were posted. On the other hand, my responses to your posts will usually not show up for several days, because I am not locked to my computer as you are. Yes, I did respond rapidly to your latest responses, And the previous set of responses as well... because I am here during one of my occasional stopovers. I call up messages and check responses to my posts in real time and then pump out a few more responses. After an hour or two I call it a day and then I stay away from my computer for at least a couple of days. Yes, you tire easily. I understand that. On the other hand, you are ALWAYS here, ready to respond almost immediately. I find it hard to believe that you have enough spare time away from your waitering job and your computer to go to all of those concerts. Up until this recent spate of posting, which you shared, I note, I only posted three times since midnight Sunday night/Monday morning. I guess that three posts in 15 hours qualifies as ALWAYS posting. shrug And, now, it is time to call it a day. Let's see if you can do the same thing. Well, I'm back from work now. Did you saysomething? |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... : : "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message : ... : : Most "live" rock performances have the sound emitting from a : huge bank of speakers on, behind, or in front of the stage. : Nearly all of the sound is electronically amplified and sent : out via those loud-is-better speakers. : : Now, if some moron wants that kind of "live performance" : sound from his audio system at home, then, well, he is : getting exactly what he deserves when he spends big bucks on : overkill gear. : : : I prefer my hard rock to sound : like a genteel ladies tea party. : Or, better yet, like Mantovani. : I once heard Hendriz through my : friend's Marantz 8B. Yecch! : It did sound like Mantovani. : My Eico HF87 and my Radio Craftsman 500A's : do a lot better. : via Encryption =---- i've never heard Hendriz , neither live nor reproduced ;-) Rudy |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick a écrit :
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Most "live" rock performances have the sound emitting from a huge bank of speakers on, behind, or in front of the stage. Nearly all of the sound is electronically amplified and sent out via those loud-is-better speakers. Now, if some moron wants that kind of "live performance" sound from his audio system at home, then, well, he is getting exactly what he deserves when he spends big bucks on overkill gear. I prefer my hard rock to sound like a genteel ladies tea party. Or, better yet, like Mantovani. I once heard Hendriz through my friend's Marantz 8B. Yecch! It did sound like Mantovani. My Eico HF87 and my Radio Craftsman 500A's do a lot better. You shouldn't bash in your "YalMake" over your ears. :-( |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
snipped I once heard Hendriz through my friend's Marantz 8B. Yecch! It did sound like Mantovani. Really? And the amplifier was the "culprit"? My Eico HF87 and my Radio Craftsman 500A's do a lot better. In the same room and through the same speakers in the same room position? Or are you comparing apples to cannonballs? ;-) |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick a écrit : "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Most "live" rock performances have the sound emitting from a huge bank of speakers on, behind, or in front of the stage. Nearly all of the sound is electronically amplified and sent out via those loud-is-better speakers. Now, if some moron wants that kind of "live performance" sound from his audio system at home, then, well, he is getting exactly what he deserves when he spends big bucks on overkill gear. I prefer my hard rock to sound like a genteel ladies tea party. Or, better yet, like Mantovani. I once heard Hendriz through my friend's Marantz 8B. Yecch! It did sound like Mantovani. My Eico HF87 and my Radio Craftsman 500A's do a lot better. You shouldn't bash in your "YalMake" over your ears. :-( I'll be passing through CDG next Thursday morning, the 17th. If you want to meet, just go to terminal 2E and look for the tell tale yalmake. ----== 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 =---- |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: snipped I once heard Hendriz through my friend's Marantz 8B. Yecch! It did sound like Mantovani. Really? And the amplifier was the "culprit"? My Eico HF87 and my Radio Craftsman 500A's do a lot better. In the same room and through the same speakers in the same room position? Or are you comparing apples to cannonballs? ;-) It was at my friends house, the one with the 8B. The Eico was there, at the time it was his, and I bought it. Later on, he brought the 8b over my house for the 3 way comp. ----== 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 =---- |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
In , Clyde Slick wrote :
I'll be passing through CDG next Thursday morning, the 17th. If you want to meet, just go to terminal 2E and look for the tell tale yalmake. Stay prudently in the shelter of the terminal and just watch your feet... you moron. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"Lionel" wrote
you moron. Isn't it kind of chicken**** to be insulting an old man like that when you're thousands of miles away? You probably never want to meet him in person. But still, what's the point? |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Tom a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote you moron. Isn't it kind of chicken**** to be insulting an old man like that when you're thousands of miles away? You probably never want to meet him in person. But still, what's the point? This old man *like* to be insulted. He does a lot of effort for that. I simply feel no sympathy for this xenophobic idiot. What's your point ? |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
"Lionel" wrote in message ... In , Clyde Slick wrote : I'll be passing through CDG next Thursday morning, the 17th. If you want to meet, just go to terminal 2E and look for the tell tale yalmake. Stay prudently in the shelter of the terminal and just watch your feet... you moron. So much for French hospitality. ----== 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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why did the PF reviewer buy his review sample? | Marketplace | |||
James Randi on Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused" | High End Audio | |||
The Reviewer Bought The Review Sample... | Marketplace | |||
Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
What causes wobble of center voice? | High End Audio |