On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:30:17 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



paul packer said:

Bach and Handel do floor me.

Is that normally painful?

You sound drunk. Did I mistake inebriation for a severe case of
Kroopologism all that time ago?


It's not for me to catalogue your mistakes, George. I simply don't
have those sorts of resources.

You have to be a US citizen to know about The 3 Stooges? Or are you
just young?

I'm 38, and honestly, I've never ever heard of 'em before!
I know, I'm a barbarian. GNARF!

You seem to have found the perfect hideaway from the world. Where is
it, pray?

(paul packer) said:

I'm 38, and honestly, I've never ever heard of 'em before!
I know, I'm a barbarian. GNARF!

You seem to have found the perfect hideaway from the world. Where is
it, pray?

Wooden shoes, windmills.........cows and pot.
Know enough yet? ;-)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Sander deWaal wrote:
(paul packer) said:


I'm 38, and honestly, I've never ever heard of 'em before!
I know, I'm a barbarian. GNARF!


You seem to have found the perfect hideaway from the world. Where is
it, pray?


Wooden shoes, windmills.........cows and pot.

More pot than tulip ?

Know enough yet? ;-)

Lionel said:

Wooden shoes, windmills.........cows and pot.

More pot than tulip ?

I'm not a flower man, you will note.
They give me the willies.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Paul Packer said:

I listened to Baroque almost constantly during my college years, so I've
heard
a lot of composers, and a lot of different performances. It's not that I
dislike Handel, just that I've always felt his music lacked the sheer drama
of
some of the others. Like Elgar, I find him too mannered and "stately" for
my
tastes.

Boon



Would this not depend a great deal on the performances? I'm quite
taken with the Handel Opus 6 Concerti Grossi and have listened to
numerous performances. I'm convinced that had I originally heard them
in some of the less distinquished performances I'd have turned my nose
up.

Oh, definitely. I'd be more than happy to some Handel recordings that others
recommend highly. I'm not saying that I've heard all the Handel there is to
hear, just that what I've heard doesn't connect with me in the same way as some
of the other Baroque composers. (And, like I've said, I have heard enough
Handel to know it when I hear it.)

Can anyone recommend specific recordings on vinyl I should check out?

Boon

Paul Packer said:

Can you tell the difference between Bach and Handel by listening to
selections
from each which you've never heard before? If you can answer yes, like I
can,
well, there's your answer.

Boon

It's the mere fact that there might be some difficulty in doing so
that makes your preference puzzling, if you see what I mean.

I see what you mean. I've also noticed over the years that the musical cues
that cause me to like some music and not others can be very subtle.

Boon

S888Wheeler said:

From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 9/15/2004 11:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Johnebravo said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...

[snip]

anything. I am intrigued by the concept of music not being meant to
last.
I've never heard of that before.

In that day and age, most composers probably didn't think of them as
writing
for posterity, no more than contemporary popular music performers today
anticipate that their music will still be listened to seriously in another
50 years. Needless to say, there were exceptions. But the idea that anyone
would write music with the expectation that they probably would never even
hear it performed, as, say, Ives did, would have been utterly
incomprehesible to your average Baroque composer.

That's very interesting. I've never really thought about that before.



[snip]

I once owned some oboe concertos he did. It sounded primitive and
uninspired.
I'm also unimpressed with Handel. I've always liked Vivaldi's music,
because
it was my introduction to classical music. I'm also fond of Gluck and,
of
course, Bach. I have been thinking about plunging back into Baroque in a
big
way. I'm looking for some really outstanding recordings on LP, in
particular.

If you're thinking of investing some time listening to more Baroque music,
you should definitely give Handel another try. It's true that he isn't
quite
up to Bach's level, but, on the other hand, among composers of the Baroque
or any other era, very few are. If you float a post on
rec.music.classical. recordings asking for some recommendations of Handel's
works, you'll get more suggestions than you'll be able to follow up on in
the next couple of years.

I listened to Baroque almost constantly during my college years, so I've
heard
a lot of composers, and a lot of different performances. It's not that I
dislike Handel, just that I've always felt his music lacked the sheer drama
of
some of the others. Like Elgar, I find him too mannered and "stately" for
my
tastes.


I strongly suggest yo revisit Elgar. He was on of the best composers ever
IMO.
His second symphony is a masterpiece.

Perhaps we could listen to some Handel and Elgar during my next visit!

Boon

S888Wheel said:

Bach and Handel do floor me. Telemann and Vivaldi do not.

Bach and Vivaldi do floor me. Telemann and Handel do not. How about Gluck?

Boon

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
(paul packer) said:

I'm 38, and honestly, I've never ever heard of 'em before!
I know, I'm a barbarian. GNARF!

You seem to have found the perfect hideaway from the world. Where is
it, pray?

Wooden shoes, windmills.........cows and pot.
Know enough yet? ;-)


Don't forget the girls in the windows.

At least it's after sunset where you are....

I'm not sure your imputation deserves a serious reply, but I don't
drink and have never drunk save for the odd shandy at Xmas. However,
if you like irony, my father, who never drank either, was killed by a
drunk driver, which almost caused me to swear off even the shandies.
But don't get me started on the subject of alcohol....

Wooden shoes, windmills.........cows and pot.
Know enough yet? ;-)


Oh....Alaska.

"Clyde Slick" said:

You seem to have found the perfect hideaway from the world. Where is
it, pray?

Wooden shoes, windmills.........cows and pot.
Know enough yet? ;-)

Don't forget the girls in the windows.

You've actually *been* here, Art? ;-)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

(paul packer) said:

Wooden shoes, windmills.........cows and pot.
Know enough yet? ;-)

Oh....Alaska.

Naah........you're still cold.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" said:

You seem to have found the perfect hideaway from the world. Where is
it, pray?

Wooden shoes, windmills.........cows and pot.
Know enough yet? ;-)

Don't forget the girls in the windows.

You've actually *been* here, Art? ;-)

No, other than a plane change.
just read about it.

"Clyde Slick" said:

Don't forget the girls in the windows.

You've actually *been* here, Art? ;-)

No, other than a plane change.
just read about it.

That's just about the same as reading a Ferstler review of a subwoofer
or AV receiver.

You've got to *experience* it :-)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

I'm not sure your imputation

Did you mean [hic] implication? It was actually more direct than that.
I'd call it an assumption.

"Impute" v.t.: attribute, ascribe (fault etc). No, that's pretty much
what I meant.

Remember, if you can do so through the
vaporous fog, that we previously established that your apparent case of
Kroopologism was in fact an unusually manifestation of drunkenness.

No, that was merely what you hallucinated, George. You have to try to
remember: there's a difference between what goes on in your mind and
reality. I know it's difficult, but we're all rooting for you.


deserves a serious reply, but I don't
drink and have never drunk save for the odd shandy at Xmas.

So you say now, with the lights turned up

Funny, all I'd noticed was the dim glow of my monitor. Must be
another of your hallucinations.

However,
if you like irony, my father, who never drank either, was killed by a
drunk driver, which almost caused me to swear off even the shandies.

How dreary. You have my sympathies.

Why do I doubt that?

But don't get me started on the subject of alcohol....

Mustn't I? I'd do whatever it takes to rectify your vocabulary.

Another hallucination. My vocabulary is in sterling shape. ("sterling"
fig.: solidly excellent).

an unusually manifestation of drunkenness.

Oh...didn't you mean "unusual manifestation", George? Need to watch
these things.

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

(paul packer) said:

Wooden shoes, windmills.........cows and pot.
Know enough yet? ;-)

Oh....Alaska.

Naah........you're still cold.

Alaska, on the other hand, is warmer than it used to be.

Stephen

nobody said:

an unusually manifestation of drunkenness.

Oh...didn't you mean "unusual manifestation", George? Need to watch
these things.

Are you sure you're talking to me? In your drunken stupor, you snipped
out the author of the post you were replying to. Better check your blood
alcohol level before going out for shooting practice.

Full quote below. Of course if someone else wrote that, my apologies.


"Did you mean [hic] implication? It was actually more direct than
that. I'd call it an assumption. Remember, if you can do so through
the vaporous fog, that we previously established that your apparent
case of Kroopologism was in fact an unusually manifestation of
drunkenness."

Powell wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote

You do not equalize the sources. You equalize the
speaker/room performance. The equalization should be
adjusted for flat response (or at least smooth, downward
sloping response) at the listening position. The source
material, be it analog or digital, does not matter. What
matters is how smoothly the speakers reproduce all of those
sources at the listening position.

You misunderstand, I was referring to the feed. It would
be unfortunate to apply digital equalization as you apply
analog equalization (digital to analog to digital back to
analog).

Equalization, done right (whether it be digitally
implemented or analog) should help the listener get flat
response at the listening position. Note that I said "should
help," because placement, room quality, and the speakers
themselves also play parts, and ignoring them might mean
that excessive equalization will have to be applied - and
then wreck things.

It does not matter what the source is when it comes to
equalizing for speaker/room performance. Yes, you can
equalize to compensate for various recording artifacts, but
I prefer to just purchase good-sounding recordings. Well, I
do not purchase recordings (one perk resulting from being a
record reviewer), but you hopefully get the point.

I'm sure they (highly filtered signal) is flat and DULL
sounding.

This is an interesting comment, because a number of the
speakers I have reviewed were brittle and overbright. A guy
like you would probably listen to them and think they were
cool sounding.

Which ones were they? I bet you won't say, right?

"Won't say?" Are you kidding? Go read the reviews in The
Sensible Sound.

"Subwoofers"... I have no use for them either. While
nice for entertainment sake in a HT setup, for music
they have little relevance and are a big pain with vinyl.

Really good subwoofers, properly located, do a few good
things besides just reproduce really low bass. Because
placing satellite (main-channel) speakers for optimal
soundstaging and imaging often places them for less than
optimal sound from the bass section, an outboard subwoofer
handling those bass signals will help to level things out.

I've tried four different subs in my stereo system. Gack!
In my HT setup the WAF equals ZERO .

Your first sentence goes to show that it is easy to obtain
poor subs, and also easy to set good ones up wrong. One
thing is for sure, it a rare full-range speaker indeed that
can approach the bass-reaching depth of a really good
subwoofer. With a surprising amount of music, this a big
deal.

Ironically, improved bass strength can actually mask
mid-range clarity under some conditions. This is related to
the hearing mechanism and not the technology, and the same
thing can happen at a live performance. So, a system with
thin and weak bass may sound more detailed in the midrange
than when a good sub is added in to firm up the bottom end
(even when properly set up), due to psychoacoustic
phenomena.

Your second sentence makes sense if you are talking about
adding a huge sub to a package that already includes huge
satellites. However, a good sub need not be huge, and owning
one allows the user to obtain rather unobtrusive smaller
satellites of very good quality. A good sub/sat arrangement
is often less visually obtrusive than a pair of huge
full-range jobs, and it will still equal that big pair in
terms of midrange and treble performance, and surpass it in
terms of bass performance.

That's why frequency response is only one factor in high
fidelity reproduction.

Well, it certainly is but one factor, and I have said that
in numerous magazine articles and in two books. However, it
is the major factor. Only radiation pattern uniformity can
compare in terms of importance with the need for flat,
wide-bandwidth frequency response.

Where does preference fall in your lineup of significance
factors? Or does equalization equate to all sameness
in speakers?

Preference does play a part. It is easily possible to have
two speakers deliver similarly flat response at the
listening position. Heck, I have done this by means of
equalization in two different systems, with very different
speakers. However, it is possible to have flat room response
at the listening position with two speakers that have very
different radiation patterns, and they will sound remarkably
different. One (the wider-dispersing pair) will have an open
spaciousness that complements a lot of recordings. The other
(the narrower-dispersing pair) will have a degree of detail
and focus (at least from the sweet spot) that will
complement a lot of other recordings. Some speakers split
the difference and work well with recordings of all kinds.

While two different speaker pairs might have very similar
spectral balances (thanks to equalization), the different
radiation patterns can make them sound quite different from
each other.

If you want to get further details, go read some of my
reviews in back issues of The Sensible Sound. Actually, I
also reviewed an NHT speaker package in The Audiophile
Voice, so you can look there, too.

Howard Ferstler

Powell wrote:

Given the human ear far surpasses the dynamic
capabilities of the CD, audio queues are invariably lost
from the get-go.

Howard Ferstler responded:

From a practical, musical standpoint this is baloney.

"Practical"... you? I' sorry, I didn't know that. What
experiences do you have recording digitally? What
ambient backgrounds have you successfully
recorded? What was the methodology you used
(microphone array) ?

What has this to do with the issue of silent backgrounds
with CD recordings listened to in typical home listening
environments?

The CD can capture all the dynamics of a live
classical performance.

I've experimented with several different setups to
record spoken voice. Even at 24/96 I'm unable to
capture the room ambiance accurately.

What has this to do with the dynamic range? Actually, this
probably says more about your recording prowess and maybe
your speaker/room/amp interface than digital issues.

From my
analysis of the waveform it appears that the noise
floor of the equipment and the efficiency of the
microphone transducer are not up to the task.

I can agree about the microphones. What has this to do with
digital technologies? The CD can deal with the practical
audible output of any good microphone feed. Were the ones
you used any good?

Of
course in a live recording of orchestra, for example,
dynamic range may approach 100 dB, far above
spoken voice.

Trust me, you will not get this kind of dynamic range from a
typical orchestra. When you throw in the background noise of
a typical home-listening room, the issue becomes even more
silly. One interesting thing is that you appear to love the
LP recording even though its dynamic capabilities are way,
way below that of the CD. Yep, with the LP you do indeed
hear dynamic limitations.

In addition there is the problem of
mixing microphone channels which dilutes small
ambient clues, too. Finally, there is the problem in
the placement of the microphone/s for recording
back hall ambiance. If the microphone is placed 25
feet above the audience, for example, the ambient
audio information sounds somewhat different from
what audience member hears.

So what? Anyone who has checked out recording techniques
understands what you indicated. It still has nothing to do
with the so-called digital limitations you indicated
previously.

The microphone
hears boundary reflections from mid-space the
audience listens from a sound absorbing boundary
(little downward reflection). In any event the act of
accurately recording ambience is not a simple as
you theorize.

I never said it was, and this was not the issue. The issue
was whether the CD can handle the dynamics of musical
ensembles. It can.

A CD recording like Jazz at the Pawnshop is an
excellent example of two channel ambiance and
its limits. Chesky, The Ultimate Demonstration
Disk and some of Stereophile's disk are worth
noting, too.

These are fine recordings. However, I have listened to and
reviewed LOTS of recordings from other sources that were
just as good, and often better. Super-duper CD recordings
are downright common these days, at least if we are talking
about good "serious" music recorded by competent engineers.
There are plenty of labels out there that are producing
demo-grade recordings as a matter of everyday policy. I
review them regularly in TSS.

On vinyl my favorite live example
would be Bob Seger, Live Bullet, Turn the Page.
It makes the hair on the back of my neck stand,
my highest complement .

This still has nothing to do with digital. You just like the
music.

Howard Ferstler

From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 9/16/2004 3:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheeler said:

From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 9/15/2004 11:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Johnebravo said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...

[snip]

anything. I am intrigued by the concept of music not being meant to
last.
I've never heard of that before.

In that day and age, most composers probably didn't think of them as
writing
for posterity, no more than contemporary popular music performers today
anticipate that their music will still be listened to seriously in another
50 years. Needless to say, there were exceptions. But the idea that anyone
would write music with the expectation that they probably would never even
hear it performed, as, say, Ives did, would have been utterly
incomprehesible to your average Baroque composer.

That's very interesting. I've never really thought about that before.



[snip]

I once owned some oboe concertos he did. It sounded primitive and
uninspired.
I'm also unimpressed with Handel. I've always liked Vivaldi's music,
because
it was my introduction to classical music. I'm also fond of Gluck and,
of
course, Bach. I have been thinking about plunging back into Baroque in
a
big
way. I'm looking for some really outstanding recordings on LP, in
particular.

If you're thinking of investing some time listening to more Baroque music,
you should definitely give Handel another try. It's true that he isn't
quite
up to Bach's level, but, on the other hand, among composers of the Baroque
or any other era, very few are. If you float a post on
rec.music.classical. recordings asking for some recommendations of
Handel's
works, you'll get more suggestions than you'll be able to follow up on in
the next couple of years.

I listened to Baroque almost constantly during my college years, so I've
heard
a lot of composers, and a lot of different performances. It's not that I
dislike Handel, just that I've always felt his music lacked the sheer drama
of
some of the others. Like Elgar, I find him too mannered and "stately" for
my
tastes.


I strongly suggest yo revisit Elgar. He was on of the best composers ever
IMO.
His second symphony is a masterpiece.

Perhaps we could listen to some Handel and Elgar during my next visit!

Boon






A great idea.

From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 9/16/2004 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Paul Packer said:

I listened to Baroque almost constantly during my college years, so I've
heard
a lot of composers, and a lot of different performances. It's not that I
dislike Handel, just that I've always felt his music lacked the sheer drama
of
some of the others. Like Elgar, I find him too mannered and "stately" for
my
tastes.

Boon



Would this not depend a great deal on the performances? I'm quite
taken with the Handel Opus 6 Concerti Grossi and have listened to
numerous performances. I'm convinced that had I originally heard them
in some of the less distinquished performances I'd have turned my nose
up.

Oh, definitely. I'd be more than happy to some Handel recordings that others
recommend highly. I'm not saying that I've heard all the Handel there is to
hear, just that what I've heard doesn't connect with me in the same way as
some
of the other Baroque composers. (And, like I've said, I have heard enough
Handel to know it when I hear it.)

Can anyone recommend specific recordings on vinyl I should check out?

Boon









Messiah
Academy of St. Martin of the Fields.
Sir Neville Marriner.
Argo D18D 3

From: (paul packer)
Date: 9/16/2004 12:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Bach and Handel do floor me.

Is that normally painful?








Never, but I haven't listened to them on Howard's system.

From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 9/16/2004 3:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel said:

Bach and Handel do floor me. Telemann and Vivaldi do not.

Bach and Vivaldi do floor me. Telemann and Handel do not. How about Gluck?

Boon







Doesn't floor me.

From: (paul packer)
Date: 9/16/2004 12:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I disagree. If you want to see a harsher opinion just read what Stravinsky
said
of Vivaldi.


Ah, but what would Vivaldi have said of Stravinsky?







When will the orchestra finish thier warm up and get to the music.

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 9/11/2004 2:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

Hey, he put Vivaldi on a ridiculous pedestal, I'm just offering a better
balanced perspective. I don't think calling Vivaldi mediocre is really
picking
on Vivaldi. I think it is a fair evaluation of his work.

No figuring the taste of the proletariat.

Howard Ferstler







No figuring the taste of a plagiarist and a failed one at that.

Scott Wheeler wrote:


From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 9/11/2004 2:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

Hey, he put Vivaldi on a ridiculous pedestal, I'm just offering a better
balanced perspective. I don't think calling Vivaldi mediocre is really
picking
on Vivaldi. I think it is a fair evaluation of his work.

No figuring the taste of the proletariat.

Howard Ferstler







No figuring the taste of a plagiarist and a failed one at that.








Not only a plagiarist, but also a proven writer of libel. His credibility,
therefore, is zero.



Bruce J. Richman

S888Wheel said:

From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 9/16/2004 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Paul Packer said:

I listened to Baroque almost constantly during my college years, so I've
heard
a lot of composers, and a lot of different performances. It's not that I
dislike Handel, just that I've always felt his music lacked the sheer
drama
of
some of the others. Like Elgar, I find him too mannered and "stately" for
my
tastes.

Boon



Would this not depend a great deal on the performances? I'm quite
taken with the Handel Opus 6 Concerti Grossi and have listened to
numerous performances. I'm convinced that had I originally heard them
in some of the less distinquished performances I'd have turned my nose
up.

Oh, definitely. I'd be more than happy to some Handel recordings that
others
recommend highly. I'm not saying that I've heard all the Handel there is to
hear, just that what I've heard doesn't connect with me in the same way as
some
of the other Baroque composers. (And, like I've said, I have heard enough
Handel to know it when I hear it.)

Can anyone recommend specific recordings on vinyl I should check out?

Boon









Messiah
Academy of St. Martin of the Fields.
Sir Neville Marriner.
Argo D18D 3

I've always liked Sir Neville. Thanks!

Marc

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Powell wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote

More baloney. Any good typical digital recording handles all
the dynamics of a good hall during a good musical
performance with ease.

Given the human ear far surpasses the dynamic
capabilities of the CD, audio queues are invariably lost
from the get-go.

From a practical, musical standpoint this is baloney. The CD
can capture all the dynamics of a live classical
performance.


How would you know? You don't even have proper loudspeakers in your trailer.
I bet you "know" because Krueger said so and you're too timid not to agree
with him for fear of humiliation on "technical grounds"...

Poor Howie.

MvBB

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:43:23 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Some individuals obviously do not. For a lot of enthusiasts,
the recorded sound is an end in itself and not a replication
of anything. This is certainly the case with those who like
pop presentations, which typically make no attempt
whatsoever to mimic a live performance.

I can't recall, other than chamber music, a concert that
didn't use PA sound amplification.

What on earth are you talking about? It would be a rare
symphony concert indeed that had PA sound amplification in
general use. Some halls require PA amplification under the
balcony overhang, but certainly the good seats do not
require that. You need to get out more. Admittedly, many
road-show musicals do use recorded sound for the
instrumental feed and also have the signers using
microphones, but this is not the case with serious classical
concert music, large or small scale.

Just out of curiosity, would you name the last five "serious classical
concerts" that you have seen, with approximate dates?

Thanks.

Dave, you know how us old guys are. We rarely remember
things like dates.

Let's just say that the concerts I attended were carefully
attended to in terms of correlating what I heard live with
what I have heard played back on my three systems.

My suggestion is that you read some of my record reviews in
The Sensible Sound and come to your own conclusions about my
ability to judge recordings.

No need to. Your reviews are garbage that only a joke of a magazine like TSS
would publish. None of the professionalism and expertise found it
Stereophile.

Cheers,

Margaret

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Powell wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote

Doing this with digital equalizers requires that
A/D and D/A converters be utilized, which pretty much
undermines many of the advantages of digital equalization in
the first place.

"requires"... no. Ideally one want to equalize in the
digital domain and avoid further possessing (A/D)
involvement for best results.

A digital equalizer cannot be installed between analog
components (between a preamp and power amp or in an analog
tape loop) unless it makes use of A/D and D/A conversion to
allow the thing to process digitally and still interface
with the analog hookups. Yeah, you can hook one into a
digital loop (if an upscale processor has such a thing at
all), but I assume that there is a potential for
incompatibility.

Actually, analog equalization can be more than good
enough to flatten out modest peaks and dips relating
to room artifacts, typical boundary-related suckout
cancellations, certain standing-wave anomalies, or
crossover-related dips.

Not in my experience.

Limited though it may be.

Doing that digitally really does not gain you a thing
subjectively.

Quack, quack, quack....

You do this whenever you are at a loss for human words.

Tell me, do you have any idea of just how flat (or non-flat)
the signals reaching your listening chair happen to be? I'll
bet you have no idea whatsoever whether your prized
transducers (another term for speakers, Clyde) are flat as a
pancake or peaked and dipped like a mountain range.

Why, yes I do! At the listening position, like ALL
speakers, they are not flat.

Your problem is that you do not know just how un-flat they
are. Rather than find out, you just speculate and hope for
the best.

Well, all of the main-channel speakers in my three systems
are +/- 1.5 dB between 80 Hz and 12.5 kHz. (Below 80 Hz I
can select just how much gain the bass, delivered via
subwoofers, require.) The main system is flat out to 16 kHz,
and both it and my middle system also have center channels
that are equalized to +/- 1.5 dB tolerances.

Typical speakers that I review (the price range has run from
$180 a pair to $6800 a pair)

IOW, you're openly admitting that you've never even heard a REALLY GOOD
loudspeaker. You poor loser.

Sincerely,

Margaret

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Sander deWaal wrote:

I'd prefer a '60s Mercury Living Presence or RCA any day over a modern
multichannel or even stereo recording.

Too much background noise and a rather limited bass reach
most of the time. The soundstaging can be good, however, but
a lot of contemporary recordings are just as good, or
better, if only because modern microphones are superior to
those used in the old days.

I beg to differ.
Ever heard of Neumann U-47 microphones?
Ever heard of a technique called ORTF?
All from the '40s and '50s of the last century.
Not to mention the recording guys of that era actually knew what they
were doing and had some damned good ears.

Good recording and mastering is a skill that's rapidly disappearing.
Maybe that's why we need more channels, to compensate for the lack of
knowledge and skills on the recording side.

Interesting that you should ask. The following is a draft

garbage snipped

Just saving time for others.

Cheers,

MvBB

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:53:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

However, I just happen to prefer a reasonable duplication of
how a live performance would sound.

This might be a reasonable statement if you had any significant live
music experience.

Actually, Dave, given your taste in audio gear, your
sometimes comments about components, and your overall
approach to audio, I am going to assume that your more
refined and critical listening experiences are nowhere near
as extensive as mine. Sure, you enjoy live music, but I'll
just bet that you rarely listen from the good seats in the
house

Good seats in the house? Of course you mean "seats found at the sidewalk in
the trailer". Remember Howard we've all seen the pictures of your personal
dump so don't try to lie about the facts here...

Sincerely,

Margaret

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

At least I have speaker systems that deliver a flat response
at the listening position, and I go to the trouble to check
their performance and they adjust the systems as required.
Rather than have my audio installations behave like fixed
equalizers that goose or cut signals to make some recordings
sound dynamic, pleasant, detailed, forward, or whatever, I
leave it to the recording engineers to handle such things
and set up my speakers so that they accurately reproduce
what is fed into them.

If you happened to know a bit more about today's recording techniques
and the way masters are produced, you could not say this with a
straight face.

Hey, they do not always do a perfect job. However, I think I
owe it to them to have my speakers be neutral when it comes
to flat response at the listening position.

You might want to try to connect a digital level meter to the digital
output of your CD or DVD player one day. It'll scare you. Really.

I am not sure what this means. Obviously, the levels will
not be smooth over the full spectrum range. What we do want,
however, is for those peaks and dips coming from the music
to not have additional peaks and dips added by the speakers
so that the result at the listening position is radically
different from what is coming out of the players.

I'd prefer a '60s Mercury Living Presence or RCA any day over a modern
multichannel or even stereo recording.

Too much background noise and a rather limited bass reach
most of the time. The soundstaging can be good,

With those ****ty Allisons and other garbage speakers of yours, you don't
even know what soundstaging is, dumb ass.

Cheers,

Margaret