Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" a écrit dans le message de ... I have the original Offenbach Gaite Parisieene in Stereo, LSC 1817 . Have you really listened to the above LP ? :-) yeah, but I usually play my Classic Records reissue. My original is in excellent condition, though it only cost me 25 cents in a thrift shop I don't believe you. It's not possible. ;-) |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:26:51 +0200, Lionel
wrote: yeah, but I usually play my Classic Records reissue. My original is in excellent condition, though it only cost me 25 cents in a thrift shop I don't believe you. It's not possible. ;-) Sure it is. It's quite common in Salvation Army stores, at least here in Nashville. I paid .50 for mine and I've seen multiple copies of it in various stores. Mine's in great shape, although I wouldn't call it "excellent". There are some RCAs (and Mercs as well) that show up with startling regularity around here. Usually they're in mono though. Most of both stereo and mono copies seem to be in very good shape, although the occasional trashed copy shows up. That's why I don't mind when people say that they're dumping their vinyl chuckle. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
dave weil wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:26:51 +0200, Lionel wrote: yeah, but I usually play my Classic Records reissue. My original is in excellent condition, though it only cost me 25 cents in a thrift shop I don't believe you. It's not possible. ;-) Sure it is. It's quite common in Salvation Army stores, at least here in Nashville. I paid .50 for mine and I've seen multiple copies of it in various stores. Mine's in great shape, although I wouldn't call it "excellent". There are some RCAs (and Mercs as well) that show up with startling regularity around here. Usually they're in mono though. Most of both stereo and mono copies seem to be in very good shape, although the occasional trashed copy shows up. That's why I don't mind when people say that they're dumping their vinyl chuckle. I paid a dollar for my "Balalaika Favorites". Same deal. Stephen |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil a écrit :
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:26:51 +0200, Lionel wrote: yeah, but I usually play my Classic Records reissue. My original is in excellent condition, though it only cost me 25 cents in a thrift shop I don't believe you. It's not possible. ;-) Sure it is. It's quite common in Salvation Army stores, at least here in Nashville. I paid .50 for mine and I've seen multiple copies of it in various stores. Mine's in great shape, although I wouldn't call it "excellent". There are some RCAs (and Mercs as well) that show up with startling regularity around here. Usually they're in mono though. Most of both stereo and mono copies seem to be in very good shape, although the occasional trashed copy shows up. That's why I don't mind when people say that they're dumping their vinyl chuckle. I imagine that it's possible Dave. Sander already give me good advices to get cheap vinyls here in Europe. It was a joke, I was just told that he cannot have this one : "Offenbach Gaite Parisieene" I know it's not really funny. :-( |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Lionel" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick a écrit : "Lionel" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" a écrit dans le message de ... I have the original Offenbach Gaite Parisieene in Stereo, LSC 1817 . Have you really listened to the above LP ? :-) yeah, but I usually play my Classic Records reissue. My original is in excellent condition, though it only cost me 25 cents in a thrift shop I don't believe you. It's not possible. ;-) Really, I can understand your reaction. When it happened to me, I couldn't believe it. I almost fainted. My legs got real wobbly. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics, "micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to generate. Those distortions are directly related to frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric whatsoever. **Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not. I do not consider those phase artifacts to be all that big a deal, **YOU consider a non-event. _I_ do not. To my ears, the damage wrought by all analogue equalisers is serious. Most digital equalisers are acceptable. A good example of predice, not experience dictating strongly-held perceptions. **Call it: "30 years of experience with a wide variety of analogue equalisers." I pointed out about a week ago why phase shift in an equalizer can be a good thing. and I am not alone in believing this. Speakers and listening rooms add plenty of phase artifacts all by themselves. To say the least! **Ah, the old Bose argument. No, the know-something argument. **Not even close. The whole point of speaker placement is to mitigate room interactions. Sorry, that does not wash. All listening rooms are different. Some present fewer problems than others. Careful speaker placement in a good room can do far more than any equaliser. This is all fine and good, but it does not disprove or even relate to Ferstler's claim. In many cases, those artifacts are either inaudible (speaker related) or beneficial (room reflection cancellations and reverberation). Agreed - rooms can have beneficial effects on loudspeaker sound quality. **Nope. For example the boundaries of a room are expected by the speaker designer to support bass response in certain beneficial ways. **Nope. An anechoic environment will always provide superior (more accurate) results. **There are no beneficial room artefacts. I just described one. **No. You just described a kludge. The ideal room is an anechoic chamber. Wrong again. As Scott points out below, even a partial attempt at an anechoic chamber makes a really strange place to listen to music in. **Then I suggest that Scott did not perform an adequate test. Listening to good speakers, ON AXIS, in an anechoic environment is a revelatory experience. Room reflections CANNOT ever assist sound reproduction in a positive fashion. The best that can be done, is to mitigate the problems. Don't believe me? Listen to some really good headphones sometime. You'll ge the idea. However, let me waffle a bit. An anechoic chamber can be an ideal room if your goal is perfect recreation of the sound field at the live performance, and you can mount the huge technological effort to actually effectively support that goal. **Now you agree with me? Colour me confused. The point is that in the real worlds of home and studio audio, anechoic chambers are not ideal and virtually nobody even thinks about bothering to have one. **Correct. Those of us who care, however, attempt to mitigate the problems. Anything else is a compromise. Everthing else is practical and possibly reasonable. **As is mitigating the problems of room interactions. Minimising room interactions is the only sensible option. The better word is managing. **Minimising. Relying on room interaction (a la Bose) is just plain stupid. All current home speakers are somewhat dependent on room interaction for their sound quality because they depend on the room to present boundaries that support their bass response. **Most are. Some are not. However, the fact that an equalizer can alter the balance between the direct-field and reverberant-field signals can be important, IF the corrections applied are extreme. I question this on the grounds that equalizers can't be applied differently to direct and reverberent field sound from a speaker. If you change one, you change the other. If you had separate speakers assigned to stimulating the direct and reverberent fields then you might try to achieve this goal. Virtually all of the reasonably good speakers I have equalized have sounded better than their unequalized counterparts. This is in fact an observation of the obvious - if equalization didn't improve sound quality, why would the designer do it? It costs money, big time! In fact equalization, whether passive or active, is widely used in loudspeaker designs. Arguably, even passive speaker crossovers are designed to complement the response of the drivers, which is a form of equalization. **I accept that YOU feel that the result is better. Understand that is just YOUR opinion. It's hardly unique to Ferstler, and it does agree with prevailing thought in the mainstream audio industry. **Sure, if you only consider the crappy end of the industry. The rest of us care about sound reproduction and can easily see the massive flaws in the Bose/Festler Theorem (hereafter called BFT). One which is not shared by all listeners. It is certainly not shared by most dedicated, experienced listeners. Deification of Trevor's personal preferences noted. Trevor doesn't believe in God, but he makes a God out of his preferences. **I beleive in things that actually exist. The damage wrought by analogue equalisers is audible to most experienced listeners. He has tunnel vision related to many topics in audio, such as inverse feedback. **Absolutely not. NFB is present in ALL audio amplifiers. It is critical to the operation and the reduction of audibility of many problems. His tunnel vision is often directed well away from accepted audio technology. If he lectured the AES about his peculiar audio views he'd be torn to shreds almost instantly, and for good cause. **Of course. I am not qualified to lecture in such a place. Of course, so would John Atkinson... **Your non-sequitur is duly noted. FAR more importantly, however, is the utter futility of anyone, without SERIOUS test equipment, lots of experience and a calibrated absolute reference signal (related to the music being listened to) being able to correctly adjust any equaliser, such that the signal is actually better (ie: More like high fidelity) than the original. All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener. It takes nontrivial resources to effectively equalize speakers so that they better match the room. A lot of audiophiles don't have these resources and don't want to take the time and money to acquire them. The actual hardware costs of these resources are dropping rapidly, and they are available and being used by more consumer-type people. **They're still expensive and difficult to get right. Without them, an equaliser is a waste of money, time and effort. I certainly agree with your view regarding test gear. Adjusting a good equalizer by ear is a waste of time. For the common audiophile, I think so. However, in the end every effective application of an equalizer can benefit from some manual tweaking. There are people who can listen to speakers, hypothesize a set of settings for a parametric eq or 1/3 octave eq, call them out from across the room and their application will be highly beneifical. **How many people (who read your articles) possess such equipment? At this time, thousands and thousands. Automated room equalization equipment has even been built into high end multichannel receivers. **And tell me: are the equalisers analogue, or digital? best guess would be fine. Do you state as much in your articles (that equalisers are virtually useless without expensive test equipment)? The word expensive would be an example of out-of-date thinking. Either that or thinking that spending $100's to make a an audio system worth $1,000s or even $10,000's sound better is a waste of money. Nothing more. In fact, the results are somewhat akin to those people who use crappy SET amplifiers for tone control substitutes. Agreed. Equalisers are largely a waste of time and money. Particularly for novice users. Outdated, bad thinking. Senseless posturing. **No. I used to feel this way, and said so in my first book, High Fidelity Audio Video Systems, way back in 1991. However, after doing some work with good equalizers and seeing what proper and modest corrections can do, I humbly disagree with both you and the younger version of Howard Ferstler. **Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it right for all listeners. Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take your own advice, at times. **And you would do better to realise that I have no major objection to automated room equalisers, which use digital, zero phase shift systems. What I DO object to, are analogue equalisers, which are set by untrained consumers, with no test equipment. THAT was my point to Ferstler. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics, "micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to generate. Those distortions are directly related to frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric whatsoever. **Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not. I do not consider those phase artifacts to be all that big a deal, **YOU consider a non-event. _I_ do not. To my ears, the damage wrought by all analogue equalisers is serious. Most digital equalisers are acceptable. A good example of predice, not experience dictating strongly-held perceptions. **Call it: "30 years of experience with a wide variety of analogue equalisers." Call it yet another misapprehension from a guy who hates inverse feedbac loops. I pointed out about a week ago why phase shift in an equalizer can be a good thing. Still no reply on that topic from Trevor and I am not alone in believing this. Speakers and listening rooms add plenty of phase artifacts all by themselves. To say the least! **Ah, the old Bose argument. No, the know-something argument. **Not even close. The whole point of speaker placement is to mitigate room interactions. As if having an equalizer does away with the need to do that? Everybody with a brain knows that you position the speakers and work over the room as well as you can, and THEN fine tune with the equalizer. Sorry, that does not wash. All listening rooms are different. Some present fewer problems than others. Careful speaker placement in a good room can do far more than any equaliser. This is all fine and good, but it does not disprove or even relate to Ferstler's claim. Still no reply on that topic from Trevor In many cases, those artifacts are either inaudible (speaker related) or beneficial (room reflection cancellations and reverberation). Agreed - rooms can have beneficial effects on loudspeaker sound quality. **Nope. For example the boundaries of a room are expected by the speaker designer to support bass response in certain beneficial ways. **Nope. An anechoic environment will always provide superior (more accurate) results. This shows true ignorance of what almost all home and studio speakers sound like in an anechoic chamber. **There are no beneficial room artefacts. I just described one. **No. You just described a kludge. No, its how things are. Speakers are designed to be used in rooms, not anechoic chambers. They work far better in rooms than in anechoic chambers. Nobody in the real world can afford to make every listening and recording room into an anechoic chamber. The ideal room is an anechoic chamber. Wrong again. As Scott points out below, even a partial attempt at an anechoic chamber makes a really strange place to listen to music in. **Then I suggest that Scott did not perform an adequate test. Scott's experience is pretty typical. It's the answer that any student of acoustics would expect. Listening to good speakers, ON AXIS, in an anechoic environment is a revelatory experience. Dominated by thin bass and very strange imaging. Room reflections CANNOT ever assist sound reproduction in a positive fashion. Let's consider plan B: put a speaker in every location that the listener perceives sound coming from in a concert hall. The best that can be done, is to mitigate the problems. Don't believe me? Listen to some really good headphones sometime. You'll ge the idea. Been there, done that. Oh, I guess that MDR 7506, HD 580, and ER6 aren't good headphones. However, let me waffle a bit. An anechoic chamber can be an ideal room if your goal is perfect recreation of the sound field at the live performance, and you can mount the huge technological effort to actually effectively support that goal. **Now you agree with me? Colour me confused. What's unclear about "Huge technological effort"? The point is that in the real worlds of home and studio audio, anechoic chambers are not ideal and virtually nobody even thinks about bothering to have one. **Correct. Those of us who care, however, attempt to mitigate the problems. Which very often puts us standing in front of an equalizer. Anything else is a compromise. Everthing else is practical and possibly reasonable. **As is mitigating the problems of room interactions. Some of which are part of the design of every sucessful loudspeaker for home or studio use. Minimising room interactions is the only sensible option. The better word is managing. **Minimising. If you do that, you're back in the anechoic chamber, which is just not the place to build a sound system for any reasonble cost. Relying on room interaction (a la Bose) is just plain stupid. All current home speakers are somewhat dependent on room interaction for their sound quality because they depend on the room to present boundaries that support their bass response. **Most are. Some are not. Name one that isn't. However, the fact that an equalizer can alter the balance between the direct-field and reverberant-field signals can be important, IF the corrections applied are extreme. I question this on the grounds that equalizers can't be applied differently to direct and reverberent field sound from a speaker. If you change one, you change the other. If you had separate speakers assigned to stimulating the direct and reverberent fields then you might try to achieve this goal. Virtually all of the reasonably good speakers I have equalized have sounded better than their unequalized counterparts. This is in fact an observation of the obvious - if equalization didn't improve sound quality, why would the designer do it? It costs money, big time! In fact equalization, whether passive or active, is widely used in loudspeaker designs. Arguably, even passive speaker crossovers are designed to complement the response of the drivers, which is a form of equalization. No reply on this important topic from Trevor **I accept that YOU feel that the result is better. Understand that is just YOUR opinion. It's hardly unique to Ferstler, and it does agree with prevailing thought in the mainstream audio industry. **Sure, if you only consider the crappy end of the industry. I await your list of speakers that were designed to work in an anechoic chamber. The rest of us care about sound reproduction and can easily see the massive flaws in the Bose/Festler Theorem (hereafter called BFT). Mere posturing and name-calling. One which is not shared by all listeners. It is certainly not shared by most dedicated, experienced listeners. Deification of Trevor's personal preferences noted. Trevor doesn't believe in God, but he makes a God out of his preferences. **I beleive in things that actually exist. The damage wrought by analogue equalisers is audible to most experienced listeners. Let's put it this way - they can make an audible change. This means that they have the potential to make things better. They have to be used intelligently to make things better, but this is done fairly frequently. He has tunnel vision related to many topics in audio, such as inverse feedback. **Absolutely not. NFB is present in ALL audio amplifiers. It is critical to the operation and the reduction of audibility of many problems. What about feedback loops, Trevor? Have you stopped fearing them? If so: good! His tunnel vision is often directed well away from accepted audio technology. If he lectured the AES about his peculiar audio views he'd be torn to shreds almost instantly, and for good cause. **Of course. I am not qualified to lecture in such a place. Agreed. Of course, so would John Atkinson... **Your non-sequitur is duly noted. Makes a point. I on the other hand, could survive. FAR more importantly, however, is the utter futility of anyone, without SERIOUS test equipment, lots of experience and a calibrated absolute reference signal (related to the music being listened to) being able to correctly adjust any equaliser, such that the signal is actually better (ie: More like high fidelity) than the original. All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener. It takes nontrivial resources to effectively equalize speakers so that they better match the room. A lot of audiophiles don't have these resources and don't want to take the time and money to acquire them. The actual hardware costs of these resources are dropping rapidly, and they are available and being used by more consumer-type people. **They're still expensive and difficult to get right. Without them, an equaliser is a waste of money, time and effort. Based in ignorance. I certainly agree with your view regarding test gear. Adjusting a good equalizer by ear is a waste of time. For the common audiophile, I think so. However, in the end every effective application of an equalizer can benefit from some manual tweaking. There are people who can listen to speakers, hypothesize a set of settings for a parametric eq or 1/3 octave eq, call them out from across the room and their application will be highly beneifical. **How many people (who read your articles) possess such equipment? At this time, thousands and thousands. Automated room equalization equipment has even been built into high end multichannel receivers. **And tell me: are the equalisers analogue, or digital? Some of each. best guess would be fine. Do you state as much in your articles (that equalisers are virtually useless without expensive test equipment)? The word expensive would be an example of out-of-date thinking. Either that or thinking that spending $100's to make a an audio system worth $1,000s or even $10,000's sound better is a waste of money. No reply on this topic from Trevor Nothing more. In fact, the results are somewhat akin to those people who use crappy SET amplifiers for tone control substitutes. Agreed. No reply on this topic from Trevor Equalisers are largely a waste of time and money. Particularly for novice users. Outdated, bad thinking. Senseless posturing. **No. No supporting evidence or discussion - therefore an unfounded, unsupported claim. I used to feel this way, and said so in my first book, High Fidelity Audio Video Systems, way back in 1991. However, after doing some work with good equalizers and seeing what proper and modest corrections can do, I humbly disagree with both you and the younger version of Howard Ferstler. **Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it right for all listeners. Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take your own advice, at times. **And you would do better to realise that I have no major objection to automated room equalisers, which use digital, zero phase shift systems. Trevor, you never rebutted my discussion about why phase shift can be a good thing. What I DO object to, are analogue equalisers, Fear of the dark. which are set by untrained consumers, with no test equipment. The real problem - so why not train them and equip them? THAT was my point to Ferstler. Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about analog equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent analog equalization built into their crossovers. The purpose of these analog equalizers is to compensate for the properties of the drivers. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Carl Valle wrote:
I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place each and every instrument on stage with precision. This is a preposterous statement, unless you were conducting the ensemble. Howard Ferstler |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message "Clyde Slick" a écrit dans le message de ... I have the original Offenbach Gaite Parisieene in Stereo, LSC 1817 . Have you really listened to the above LP ? :-) I have. Three words: tic, tic, tic. Agreed. The LP noise problem will be acute with any recorded material that requires a quiet background. Of course, those who listen to nothing but pop music would not know what either of us are talking about, because there is little in the way of quiet passages with such music - except between the tracks, of course. Throw in problems with inner-groove distortion, distortion in general, speed errors (be they warp related or related to cutting lathe problems), and wear and tear factors, and you have a situation where those who lionize the LP for its sound quality are basically showing us just how little they appreciate true high-fidelity sound reproduction. Well, we have known that all along. While LP versions are all we have of some esoteric, older recorded performances, it is silly to think that those classical LP recordings of old (or new) can hold a technical-excellence candle to many of the good CD versions produced over the past twenty years. Outfits like Novalis, Hungaroton, Koch, Opus 111, Astree, Hyperion, CPO, Harmonia Mundi, and Analekta, among others, as well as better known outfits like Chandos, Reference Recordings, Dorian, Denon, London, Chesky, Delos, and Telarc, and even a budget label like Naxos, produce digital classical-music recordings that technically pulverize just about any LP ever produced. I review such recordings in The Sensible Sound on a regular basis, and use two, and sometimes three different audio systems to back up my opinions. Interestingly, there are now many CD versions of old and very old classical transcriptions that simply cannot be had in LP form at all. Those who are interested in archival performances have to go to the CD format to get much in the way of reissues. And of course, those who really like classical music (this includes renaissance, baroque, romantic, impressionistic and cutting edge modern, as well as music from the "classical" era) must also go to the CD, because the vast bulk of what we have being produced as original material these days only shows up in digital form. So while LP freaks may caress their recordings at lovable toys, those who REALLY like music will favor the CD simply by technical and availability default. Howard Ferstler |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Most hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than in sound that simulates live performances. Right again!!!!!!!!!!!!! At live acoustic performances, clarity, imaging, soundstaging and focus are NOT attributes of the sound RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, yes, particularly regarding imaging. As for clarity, well, I suggest you attend a live classical concert and see if, for example, the violin section is anywhere near as bright sounding as it is when you listen to the same material on your hi-fi rig. Howard Ferstler |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
Carl Valle wrote: I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place each and every instrument on stage with precision. This is a preposterous statement, unless you were conducting the ensemble. Agreed. There's some chance that someone has a very active imagination. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Howard Ferstler Worse, any phase artifacts being generated by the speaker (or an equalizer hooked to the system) would be painfully apparent if only the direct field were audible. You know this from experience? By the way, I don't think this is an issue with Quads. Obviously, speakers with controlled and narrow distortion will engage fewer room reflections, particularly in the midrange and treble. However, even narrow-dispersion speakers will engage enough room reflections to make an audible difference. If you do not think this is the case, haul the systems (narrow-dispersion jobs, of course) outdoors and see how much different they sound from when they were in the room. Room reverberation is impossible to dodge. Those artifacts would be very singular and that would make them very annoying. However, in a more reverberant environment (a normal home-listening area), a broad mix of additional phase artifacts generated by the room itself would swamp the outlandish ones that were showing up in the anechoic room. So you like to color your playback with room distortion to counter your speakers' inherent distortions? I thought this ran contrary to your philosophy in audio. Be serious. Any home-listening room is going to color the sound to a surprising extent, particularly regarding early reflections. Those reflections, in addition to telling you that you are listening to a recording made in a relatively (or even extremely) large space in a playback area that encompasses an acoustically small space, also add cancellation and phase artifacts to the sound. Now, if the speaker disperses smoothly and the room is not a complete mess, those artifacts should make for a better listening experience than what you would encounter if you listened to those same speakers in an anechoic environment. The result would be a spacious blend, at least if the systems involved had a uniform broad-bandwidth radiation pattern. Remarkably, clarity would suffer little in the normal room, at least if live-music clarity was what you were after. Yes amoung other things. Obviously one is faced with certain limits if they are stuck with a "normal" room. It is a good thing that some manufacturers make speakers for these rooms. Some manufacturers design and build speakers with the idea that their customers will use them in dedicated listening rooms. Yes, they do. Interestingly, I suspect that many of those manufacturers really do not know what they are doing. In addition, while it may be fun for some individuals to heavily pad their listening room (even going beyond the LEDE concept) and sit rigidly in the sweet spot, I prefer to not have my world revolve around my hi-fi rig to such an extent. People who listen that way are not listening to the music; they are listening to their hi-fi rigs. In these situations the audiophile can have his cake and eat it too. If their cake involves a good "hi-fi" type sound and not the replication of a live-music experience. Most enthusiasts who love a hi-fi type sound have no idea of just how unrealistic is may sound. The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Um, wrong. The fidelity of a live performance is unimpeachable. And often sits in in stark contrast to what one hears from a supposedly good hi-fi rig that is listened to in a "dedicated" room from a locked-down, sweet-spot location. This is not the way one should listen to music for enjoyment. Most hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than in sound that simulates live performances. Maybe you shouldn't speak for most hi-fi enthusiasts. You fail miserably when you simply speak for yourself. By your standards, but what a limited set of standards they most certainly happen to be. Howard Ferstler |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message news:ALdUc.9843$yh.9368@fed1read05 ....but if it was at all representative then I would think a speaker that was actually dialed in for flat frequency response in far field in an anechoic chamber would sound like crap in a normal "live" room. Bingo! One fault is predictable - it would be very thick and bass-heavy. One kind of fault is unpredictable - it could have serious dispersion problems, things like bad lobing, and you'd never know. Yep. All the wide off-axis anomalies would be absorbed by the padding up and down the walls, and across the floor and ceiling. Worse, the nature of speakers designed for such spaces would require the listener to sit locked into a sweet-spot location that would make listening to music more like torture than a pleasurable experience. Interestingly, if we are talking about hi-fi system precision it is impossible to get both ears into the sweet spot at the same time. Consequently, even in the very best dedicated system a perfect sweet-spot experience is impossible. Add to that the fact that centered images in a stereo soundstage have four arrival clues instead of the two we have with a "real" centered performer, and the whole idea of super-duper two-channel systems in super-duper, acoustically padded listening rooms becomes a joke. You get much better (more realistic) results if you listen in a more typical home-listening room with fairly conventional, but still high-quality, speakers. Howard Ferstler |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler a écrit :
S888Wheel wrote: You fail miserably when you simply speak for yourself. Please believe me, S888Wheel knows what he is speaking about... :-) By your standards, but what a limited set of standards they most certainly happen to be. Howard Ferstler |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: So while LP freaks may caress their recordings at lovable toys, those who REALLY like music will favor the CD simply by technical and availability default. Or, they could do both. Stephen |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: So while LP freaks may caress their recordings at lovable toys, those who REALLY like music will favor the CD simply by technical and availability default. Or, they could do both. Stephen Now Stephen, you know that's only an option for people with out prejudices and biased agendas to promote. Bruce J. Richman |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:38:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Carl Valle wrote: I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place each and every instrument on stage with precision. This is a preposterous statement, unless you were conducting the ensemble. Howard Ferstler Howard, you don't even *like* to go to live shows, so you have only limited experience with this. So I'd leave this discussion to other more qualified people. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:04:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Well, yes, particularly regarding imaging. As for clarity, well, I suggest you attend a live classical concert and see if, for example, the violin section is anywhere near as bright sounding as it is when you listen to the same material on your hi-fi rig. When was the last live concert that you attended? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Most hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than in sound that simulates live performances. Right again!!!!!!!!!!!!! At live acoustic performances, clarity, imaging, soundstaging and focus are NOT attributes of the sound RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, yes, particularly regarding imaging. As for clarity, well, I suggest you attend a live classical concert and see if, for example, the violin section is anywhere near as bright sounding as it is when you listen to the same material on your hi-fi rig. Howard Ferstler Idiot!!! Here you are, saying that there are great differences between live music and reproduced music, that the live sound in the high freq.is duller and less clear, and less imaged, etc. than the reproduced sound. Then you blather on about "hi fi' systems being preferred, be cause the music has a more 'hi fi' presentation' tahn a simulation of live music. You FOOL! That is what meuic reproduction IS all about, the simulation of a live performance. Sounds like you got a distorted high fi rig, brightening up and edging the high frequencies! Better switch to tubes!!! |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:38:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Carl Valle wrote: I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place each and every instrument on stage with precision. This is a preposterous statement, unless you were conducting the ensemble. Howard Ferstler Howard, you don't even *like* to go to live shows, so you have only limited experience with this. That's cause they don't have any subs. There is just not enough bass for Howie in a live acoustuc presentation |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: Howard Ferstler Date: 8/22/2004 12:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Most hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than in sound that simulates live performances. Right again!!!!!!!!!!!!! At live acoustic performances, clarity, imaging, soundstaging and focus are NOT attributes of the sound RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, yes, particularly regarding imaging. As for clarity, well, I suggest you attend a live classical concert and see if, for example, the violin section is anywhere near as bright sounding as it is when you listen to the same material on your hi-fi rig. Are you confusing excessive brightness with actual clarity? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: Howard Ferstler Date: 8/22/2004 12:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Most hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than in sound that simulates live performances. Right again!!!!!!!!!!!!! At live acoustic performances, clarity, imaging, soundstaging and focus are NOT attributes of the sound RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, yes, particularly regarding imaging. As for clarity, well, I suggest you attend a live classical concert and see if, for example, the violin section is anywhere near as bright sounding as it is when you listen to the same material on your hi-fi rig. Are you confusing excessive brightness with actual clarity? He hasn't the ability to perceive either. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics, "micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to generate. Those distortions are directly related to frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric whatsoever. **Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not. I do not consider those phase artifacts to be all that big a deal, **YOU consider a non-event. _I_ do not. To my ears, the damage wrought by all analogue equalisers is serious. Most digital equalisers are acceptable. A good example of predice, not experience dictating strongly-held perceptions. **Call it: "30 years of experience with a wide variety of analogue equalisers." Call it yet another misapprehension from a guy who hates inverse feedbac loops. **That would be projection. And incorrect. I do not hate inanimate objects, ideas or products. I reserve my hatred for certain human beings' actions. I do not "hate" inverse feedback loops. In fact, they are pretty much essential in all amplifiers. At least those which make pretense to be 'High Fidelity'. I pointed out about a week ago why phase shift in an equalizer can be a good thing. Still no reply on that topic from Trevor **No need. It is wrong. Without very serious test equipment, no equalisers phase shift can be made to be a good thing. and I am not alone in believing this. Speakers and listening rooms add plenty of phase artifacts all by themselves. To say the least! **Ah, the old Bose argument. No, the know-something argument. **Not even close. The whole point of speaker placement is to mitigate room interactions. As if having an equalizer does away with the need to do that? Everybody with a brain knows that you position the speakers and work over the room as well as you can, and THEN fine tune with the equalizer. **An analogue equaliser cannot ever assist a system. It can only damage. A digital equaliser *may* be able to help, provided there is an adequate reference. Without a reference, even a digital eq is useless. Sorry, that does not wash. All listening rooms are different. Some present fewer problems than others. Careful speaker placement in a good room can do far more than any equaliser. This is all fine and good, but it does not disprove or even relate to Ferstler's claim. Still no reply on that topic from Trevor **I've already proven Ferstler wrong. In many cases, those artifacts are either inaudible (speaker related) or beneficial (room reflection cancellations and reverberation). Agreed - rooms can have beneficial effects on loudspeaker sound quality. **Nope. For example the boundaries of a room are expected by the speaker designer to support bass response in certain beneficial ways. **Nope. An anechoic environment will always provide superior (more accurate) results. This shows true ignorance of what almost all home and studio speakers sound like in an anechoic chamber. **And this statement shows the ignorance under what conditions loudspeakers are designed and tested. The condicitons are ALWAYS anechoic, or simulations of an anechoic environment. Only in the low bass area, do manufacturers allow for 'room gain'. Which is a kludge. **There are no beneficial room artefacts. I just described one. **No. You just described a kludge. No, its how things are. Speakers are designed to be used in rooms, not anechoic chambers. They work far better in rooms than in anechoic chambers. **Wrong. They work very well in anechoic chambers. Superb, in fact. At least good speakers do. Yes, I have listened to speakers in anechoic chambers. The results (with good speakers) can be quite startling. As are the measurements. Put a room around the speakers and everything gets worse. Lots worse. Nobody in the real world can afford to make every listening and recording room into an anechoic chamber. **Of course. Those us who care, make attempts in that direction, however. The ideal room is an anechoic chamber. Wrong again. As Scott points out below, even a partial attempt at an anechoic chamber makes a really strange place to listen to music in. **Then I suggest that Scott did not perform an adequate test. Scott's experience is pretty typical. It's the answer that any student of acoustics would expect. Listening to good speakers, ON AXIS, in an anechoic environment is a revelatory experience. Dominated by thin bass and very strange imaging. **Lack of room gain, provides a slightly leaner bass and stunning imaging. Perhaps you'd care to explain the technical reasons behind your belief that imaging suffers in an anechoic chamber. I look foreward to your answer. Room reflections CANNOT ever assist sound reproduction in a positive fashion. Let's consider plan B: put a speaker in every location that the listener perceives sound coming from in a concert hall. **The result would be very messy. The best that can be done, is to mitigate the problems. Don't believe me? Listen to some really good headphones sometime. You'll ge the idea. Been there, done that. Oh, I guess that MDR 7506, HD 580, and ER6 aren't good headphones. **There you go. An anechoic environment, an excellent frequency response and superb imaging. Now you understand what speakers can sound like in an anechoic chamber. However, let me waffle a bit. An anechoic chamber can be an ideal room if your goal is perfect recreation of the sound field at the live performance, and you can mount the huge technological effort to actually effectively support that goal. **Now you agree with me? Colour me confused. What's unclear about "Huge technological effort"? **I only see that you agree with me. Which makes me wonder why you argue the point. Anechoic environments are the best ways to listen to reproduced sound. The point is that in the real worlds of home and studio audio, anechoic chambers are not ideal and virtually nobody even thinks about bothering to have one. **Correct. Those of us who care, however, attempt to mitigate the problems. Which very often puts us standing in front of an equalizer. **Not an analogue equaliser. Ever. A zero phase digital eq, perhaps, provided there is adequate references and test equipment. None of which Ferstler ever mentioned. Anything else is a compromise. Everthing else is practical and possibly reasonable. **As is mitigating the problems of room interactions. Some of which are part of the design of every sucessful loudspeaker for home or studio use. **Finally! Minimising room interactions is the only sensible option. The better word is managing. **Minimising. If you do that, you're back in the anechoic chamber, which is just not the place to build a sound system for any reasonble cost. **Start with an anechoic chamber and work backwards. Relying on room interaction (a la Bose) is just plain stupid. All current home speakers are somewhat dependent on room interaction for their sound quality because they depend on the room to present boundaries that support their bass response. **Most are. Some are not. Name one that isn't. **Since I don't know all the speakers, I can't answer that question. However, the fact that an equalizer can alter the balance between the direct-field and reverberant-field signals can be important, IF the corrections applied are extreme. I question this on the grounds that equalizers can't be applied differently to direct and reverberent field sound from a speaker. If you change one, you change the other. If you had separate speakers assigned to stimulating the direct and reverberent fields then you might try to achieve this goal. Virtually all of the reasonably good speakers I have equalized have sounded better than their unequalized counterparts. This is in fact an observation of the obvious - if equalization didn't improve sound quality, why would the designer do it? It costs money, big time! In fact equalization, whether passive or active, is widely used in loudspeaker designs. Arguably, even passive speaker crossovers are designed to complement the response of the drivers, which is a form of equalization. No reply on this important topic from Trevor **Why should I? Who are you arguing with? **I accept that YOU feel that the result is better. Understand that is just YOUR opinion. It's hardly unique to Ferstler, and it does agree with prevailing thought in the mainstream audio industry. **Sure, if you only consider the crappy end of the industry. I await your list of speakers that were designed to work in an anechoic chamber. The rest of us care about sound reproduction and can easily see the massive flaws in the Bose/Festler Theorem (hereafter called BFT). Mere posturing and name-calling. **An accurate description. One which is not shared by all listeners. It is certainly not shared by most dedicated, experienced listeners. Deification of Trevor's personal preferences noted. Trevor doesn't believe in God, but he makes a God out of his preferences. **I beleive in things that actually exist. The damage wrought by analogue equalisers is audible to most experienced listeners. Let's put it this way - they can make an audible change. **Absolutely. This means that they have the potential to make things better. **Digital eqs - yes. Analogue eqs - no. And neither is worth spit, unless there is a hard reference, used with test equipment. They have to be used intelligently to make things better, but this is done fairly frequently. **Never with analogue eqs and certainly never without test equipment. He has tunnel vision related to many topics in audio, such as inverse feedback. **Absolutely not. NFB is present in ALL audio amplifiers. It is critical to the operation and the reduction of audibility of many problems. What about feedback loops, Trevor? **What about feedback loos? If you have a specific question, then ask it. Have you stopped fearing them? **Have you stopped beating your wife? If you have a non-rhetorical question, then please ask it. If so: good! **More rhetoric. Try to get a grip. His tunnel vision is often directed well away from accepted audio technology. If he lectured the AES about his peculiar audio views he'd be torn to shreds almost instantly, and for good cause. **Of course. I am not qualified to lecture in such a place. Agreed. Of course, so would John Atkinson... **Your non-sequitur is duly noted. Makes a point. **Another non-sequitur. I on the other hand, could survive. **Not by proclaiming that an anechoic environment is not the best place to listen to a music reproduction system. You'd be torn to shreds. FAR more importantly, however, is the utter futility of anyone, without SERIOUS test equipment, lots of experience and a calibrated absolute reference signal (related to the music being listened to) being able to correctly adjust any equaliser, such that the signal is actually better (ie: More like high fidelity) than the original. All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener. It takes nontrivial resources to effectively equalize speakers so that they better match the room. A lot of audiophiles don't have these resources and don't want to take the time and money to acquire them. The actual hardware costs of these resources are dropping rapidly, and they are available and being used by more consumer-type people. **They're still expensive and difficult to get right. Without them, an equaliser is a waste of money, time and effort. Based in ignorance. **Based on reason, experience and logic. I certainly agree with your view regarding test gear. Adjusting a good equalizer by ear is a waste of time. For the common audiophile, I think so. However, in the end every effective application of an equalizer can benefit from some manual tweaking. There are people who can listen to speakers, hypothesize a set of settings for a parametric eq or 1/3 octave eq, call them out from across the room and their application will be highly beneifical. **How many people (who read your articles) possess such equipment? At this time, thousands and thousands. Automated room equalization equipment has even been built into high end multichannel receivers. **And tell me: are the equalisers analogue, or digital? Some of each. **Name one high end reciever which uses automated, analogue equalisation. best guess would be fine. Do you state as much in your articles (that equalisers are virtually useless without expensive test equipment)? The word expensive would be an example of out-of-date thinking. Either that or thinking that spending $100's to make a an audio system worth $1,000s or even $10,000's sound better is a waste of money. No reply on this topic from Trevor **If you have a question, which is not rhetorical, then ask it. Nothing more. In fact, the results are somewhat akin to those people who use crappy SET amplifiers for tone control substitutes. Agreed. No reply on this topic from Trevor **Why? I made the point. Equalisers are largely a waste of time and money. Particularly for novice users. Outdated, bad thinking. Senseless posturing. **No. No supporting evidence or discussion - therefore an unfounded, unsupported claim. **What? As opposed to your claims that listening to speakers in an anechoic chamber make imaging weird? You've got to be kidding! I used to feel this way, and said so in my first book, High Fidelity Audio Video Systems, way back in 1991. However, after doing some work with good equalizers and seeing what proper and modest corrections can do, I humbly disagree with both you and the younger version of Howard Ferstler. **Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it right for all listeners. Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take your own advice, at times. **And you would do better to realise that I have no major objection to automated room equalisers, which use digital, zero phase shift systems. Trevor, you never rebutted my discussion about why phase shift can be a good thing. **Because it cannot. Don't believe me? INtroduce some pahse shift into an otherwise accurate system. See (listen) what happens. You'll get the idea. What I DO object to, are analogue equalisers, Fear of the dark. **More rhetoric. which are set by untrained consumers, with no test equipment. The real problem - so why not train them and equip them? **I have no objection to that. Unfortunately Ferstler makes no comment about such a thing. Used properly, with test equipment, a digital eq may be a good thing. THAT was my point to Ferstler. Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about analog equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent analog equalization built into their crossovers. The purpose of these analog equalizers is to compensate for the properties of the drivers. **Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on equalisers? Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound off side and rear walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic disaster? After all, that is what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good). -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message snip denials of reality THAT was my point to Ferstler. Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about analog equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent analog equalization built into their crossovers. The purpose of these analog equalizers is to compensate for the properties of the drivers. **Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on equalizers? I'm saying that I disagree with certain of your complaints against his views. Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound off side and rear walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic disaster? Trevor you know my views on Bose. After all, that is what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good). I'll guess you have to show me where he said that, Trevor The last relevant thing I can find him saying about Bose correctly pointed out that 901s aren't unique among speakers for bouncing sound around the side and back walls. He correctly pointed out that the widely-respected Quad electrostats being bipolar (like a number of other highly-regarded speakers) bounce considerable amounts of sound off the back wall. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:ALdUc.9843$yh.9368@fed1read05 Yep. All the wide off-axis anomalies would be absorbed by the padding up and down the walls, and across the floor and ceiling. Worse, the nature of speakers designed for such spaces would require the listener to sit locked into a sweet-spot location that would make listening to music more like torture than a pleasurable experience. Since 90+% of my listening is done alone, I find virtually no problem having set my seat up such that the "sweet spot" occurs right at the position my head is when I plop down and recline to my favorite comfortable position. Off axis listening isn't an awful experience, it just isn't as rewarding as that optimal position. IME, there is always 1 and only 1 optimal position. ScottW |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:ALdUc.9843$yh.9368@fed1read05 Yep. All the wide off-axis anomalies would be absorbed by the padding up and down the walls, and across the floor and ceiling. Worse, the nature of speakers designed for such spaces would require the listener to sit locked into a sweet-spot location that would make listening to music more like torture than a pleasurable experience. Since 90+% of my listening is done alone, I find virtually no problem having set my seat up such that the "sweet spot" occurs right at the position my head is when I plop down and recline to my favorite comfortable position. Off axis listening isn't an awful experience, it just isn't as rewarding as that optimal position. IME, there is always 1 and only 1 optimal position. ScottW I would expect that most music lovers wouild feel the same way. IOW, they don't look forward to running around the house, frequently chainging locations or sitting in another room when they really want to enjoy their records and /or CDs. The whole point of careful experimentation with speaker placement, toe-in angles, possible wall treatments or use of furniture to compensate for room/speaker interactions that are unfavorable, is presumably based on the premise that there are optimal listening positions that most people favor. Accordingly, the speaker positioning and other adjustments above are then made to try and maximize the listener's enjoyment at that position. For those of us who actually attend live concerts, selection of seating location may also be based at times on what a given listener perceives to be the most enjoyable listening location. Bruce J. Richman |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message snip denials of reality THAT was my point to Ferstler. Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about analog equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent analog equalization built into their crossovers. The purpose of these analog equalizers is to compensate for the properties of the drivers. **Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on equalizers? I'm saying that I disagree with certain of your complaints against his views. **Then, I take it, you agree with him? Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound off side and rear walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic disaster? Trevor you know my views on Bose. After all, that is what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good). I'll guess you have to show me where he said that, Trevor **OK. http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...gle.com&rnum=3 "...Admittedly, the 901s are not the best speakers to use if centered vocalists are important to you. However, in my friend's room I did listen to a jazz-combo recording that almost sounded like the group was in the room." And: http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...fsu.edu&rnum=4 Read the entire piece. It is clear that Ferstler has fallen for The LieT, hook, line and sinker. And: http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...bal.net&rnum=6 "...I will say that I recently did listen to Gary Eichmeier's Bose 901 systems in his big room, and whatever anybody might think about the 901 systems, in that particular space it was certainly possible to conceive of a live ensemble potentially being there." And there is MUCH more. According to Google, you will find some 40-odd references from Ferstler, where he gushingly parises the stuff. The last relevant thing I can find him saying about Bose correctly pointed out that 901s aren't unique among speakers for bouncing sound around the side and back walls. He correctly pointed out that the widely-respected Quad electrostats being bipolar (like a number of other highly-regarded speakers) bounce considerable amounts of sound off the back wall. **Of course. And like any bipolar radiator, the rear radiation needs to be completely absorbed (as much as is possible. When this is done, Quads image superbly. When it is not, they sound like crap. Here are my comments you snipped: --- Call it yet another misapprehension from a guy who hates inverse feedbac loops. **That would be projection. And incorrect. I do not hate inanimate objects, ideas or products. I reserve my hatred for certain human beings' actions. I do not "hate" inverse feedback loops. In fact, they are pretty much essential in all amplifiers. At least those which make pretence to be 'High Fidelity'. --- This shows true ignorance of what almost all home and studio speakers sound like in an anechoic chamber. **And this statement shows the ignorance under what conditions loudspeakers are designed and tested. The conditions are ALWAYS anechoic, or simulations of an anechoic environment. Only in the low bass area, do manufacturers allow for 'room gain'. Which is a kludge. --- No, its how things are. Speakers are designed to be used in rooms, not anechoic chambers. They work far better in rooms than in anechoic chambers. **Wrong. They work very well in anechoic chambers. Superb, in fact. At least good speakers do. Yes, I have listened to speakers in anechoic chambers. The results (with good speakers) can be quite startling. As are the measurements. Put a room around the speakers and everything gets worse. Lots worse. --- Dominated by thin bass and very strange imaging. **Lack of room gain, provides a slightly leaner bass and stunning imaging. Perhaps you'd care to explain the technical reasons behind your belief that imaging suffers in an anechoic chamber. I look forward to your answer. --- Been there, done that. Oh, I guess that MDR 7506, HD 580, and ER6 aren't good headphones. **There you go. An anechoic environment, an excellent frequency response and superb imaging. Now you understand what speakers can sound like in an anechoic chamber. --- Which very often puts us standing in front of an equalizer. **Not an analogue equaliser. Ever. A zero phase digital eq, perhaps, provided there is adequate references and test equipment. None of which Ferstler ever mentioned. --- What about feedback loops, Trevor? **What about feedback loos? If you have a specific question, then ask it. Have you stopped fearing them? **Have you stopped beating your wife? If you have a non-rhetorical question, then please ask it. If so: good! **More rhetoric. Try to get a grip. --- **And tell me: are the equalisers analogue, or digital? Some of each. **Name one high end receiver which uses automated, analogue equalisation. --- **Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on equalisers? Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound off side and rear walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic disaster? After all, that is what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good). --- I note your avoidance of the issues and questions raised. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message snip denials of reality THAT was my point to Ferstler. Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about analog equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent analog equalization built into their crossovers. The purpose of these analog equalizers is to compensate for the properties of the drivers. **Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on equalizers? I'm saying that I disagree with certain of your complaints against his views. **Then, I take it, you agree with him? Not everything. Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound off side and rear walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic disaster? Trevor you know my views on Bose. After all, that is what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good). I'll guess you have to show me where he said that, Trevor **OK. http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...gle.com&rnum=3 Trevor, I've got to teach you how to make these into something a little more reasonable. One mouse click on "Original Format" gets you to this: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3E...0attglobal.net "...Admittedly, the 901s are not the best speakers to use if centered vocalists are important to you. However, in my friend's room I did listen to a jazz-combo recording that almost sounded like the group was in the room." The good news and the bad news. And: http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...fsu.edu&rnum=4 AKA: http://www.google.com.au/groups?selm...mailer.fsu.edu Read the entire piece. It is clear that Ferstler has fallen for The LieT, hook, line and sinker. Not at all And: http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...bal.net&rnum=6 AKA: http://www.google.com.au/groups?selm...0attglobal.net "...I will say that I recently did listen to Gary Eichmeier's Bose 901 systems in his big room, and whatever anybody might think about the 901 systems, in that particular space it was certainly possible to conceive of a live ensemble potentially being there." I've heard Eichmeir's Bose system as well, and with certain recordings it can sound pretty striking. Then there are that massive collection of other recordings. And there is MUCH more. According to Google, you will find some 40-odd references from Ferstler, where he gushingly parises the stuff. I sense some vestiges of balance in his comments. Ferstler is very much in favor of ambience recovery, and seems to see the 901 as one of many ways to approach that goal. The last relevant thing I can find him saying about Bose correctly pointed out that 901s aren't unique among speakers for bouncing sound around the side and back walls. He correctly pointed out that the widely-respected Quad electrostats being bipolar (like a number of other highly-regarded speakers) bounce considerable amounts of sound off the back wall. **Of course. And like any bipolar radiator, the rear radiation needs to be completely absorbed (as much as is possible. When this is done, Quads image superbly. When it is not, they sound like crap. That piece of audio dogma is clearly not believed by all owners of speakers that are bipolar radiators. Here are my comments you snipped: --- Call it yet another misapprehension from a guy who hates inverse feedbac loops. **That would be projection. And incorrect. I do not hate inanimate objects, ideas or products. I reserve my hatred for certain human beings' actions. I do not "hate" inverse feedback loops. In fact, they are pretty much essential in all amplifiers. At least those which make pretence to be 'High Fidelity'. So, you've decided to haggle over word meanings as a smokescreen for the fact that you've changed your story? --- This shows true ignorance of what almost all home and studio speakers sound like in an anechoic chamber. **And this statement shows the ignorance under what conditions loudspeakers are designed and tested. Sue me for having actually listened to a variety of home speakers in anechoic chambers and similar very dead spaces. The conditions are ALWAYS anechoic, or simulations of an anechoic environment. Only in the low bass area, do manufacturers allow for 'room gain'. Which is a kludge. Which is reality. No, its how things are. Speakers are designed to be used in rooms, not anechoic chambers. They work far better in rooms than in anechoic chambers. **Wrong. They work very well in anechoic chambers. Sue me for having actually listened to a variety of home speakers in anechoic chambers and similar very dead spaces. Superb, in fact. You must not like bass, Trevor. At least good speakers do. Yes, I have listened to speakers in anechoic chambers. You must have forgotten the experience. I've got no problems with anechoic chambers as test environments, such as described he http://www.axiomaudio.com/NRC.html "When a speaker's output directly in front of the speaker and at increasing angles to each side and above and below it is as smooth and as similar as possible, the designer can be reasonably certain it will sound fairly accurate in a normal room, because the reflected energy will have roughly the same tonal balance as the speaker's direct energy on-axis. " The results (with good speakers) can be quite startling. As are the measurements. Put a room around the speakers and everything gets worse. Lots worse. But, thats how we all use them. --- Dominated by thin bass and very strange imaging. **Lack of room gain, provides a slightly leaner bass and stunning imaging. Perhaps you'd care to explain the technical reasons behind your belief that imaging suffers in an anechoic chamber. I look forward to your answer. Very simple. Imaging is composed of two general perceptions. One is that the sound came from a source in the place where it was recorded, and one is that the sound comes from a place that is immediate to the listener. Our perception that the sound comes from a place that is immediate to the listener who knows that he is in room, comes from reflections from within that room. --- Been there, done that. Oh, I guess that MDR 7506, HD 580, and ER6 aren't good headphones. **There you go. An anechoic environment, an excellent frequency response and superb imaging. Now you understand what speakers can sound like in an anechoic chamber. Except for three things One, headphones are designed to be used that way. Two, experienced listeners expect headphones to sound the way that they do. Three, many people find headphone listening to be too strange to be enjoyable. Why do they sound strange? Not enough reflections from nearby objects in the room. Which very often puts us standing in front of an equalizer. **Not an analogue equaliser. Ever. Trevor shows his ignoranace of the number of analog equalizers in just about any signal chain he's ever listened to. He seems to believe believe he has never listened to a loudspeaker or a vinyl recording, or analog tape, for openers. And that is just the tip of the iceburg. A zero phase digital eq, perhaps, provided there is adequate references and test equipment. None of which Ferstler ever mentioned. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" said:
**Of course. And like any bipolar radiator, the rear radiation needs to be completely absorbed (as much as is possible. When this is done, Quads image superbly. When it is not, they sound like crap. That piece of audio dogma is clearly not believed by all owners of speakers that are bipolar radiators. Being an owner of dipole speakers, I gotta agree with Arny on this one. The several Quads I've heard in my life, seemed to benefit from rear reflections as well (within limits, of course). -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor Wilson wrote: [snip] **An analogue equaliser cannot ever assist a system. It can only damage. A digital equaliser *may* be able to help, provided there is an adequate reference. Without a reference, even a digital eq is useless. I'm not knowledgable enough about technical audio matters -- and about phase relationships, specifically -- to get exactly what you're referring to here, but I take it you're talking about the point you made in an early post in this thread: "**Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not." However, in that same post, you also noted that: "All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener." But couldn't some recordings (i.e., especially older, and more poorly made ones) be made more pleasing *because* sometimes it's possible to fiddle with them just a bit so that they sound a little more like what they should have sounded like in the first place? In my own experience, this is certainly true for a lot of my jazz and classical records made in the 40s and 50s. If that's so, then I don't see why you say, in an unqualified way, that an analogue equalizer can *never* assist a system. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... You mean dispurtion I think. You also didn't answer my question. ^^^^^^^^^ Is this a new portmanteau word, a combination of dispersion and disruption? :-) Norm Strong |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Norman Strong wrote:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... You mean dispurtion I think. You also didn't answer my question. ^^^^^^^^^ Is this a new portmanteau word, a combination of dispersion and disruption? :-) Norm Strong I think it's a neologism, but a very accurate one describing Ferstler's dubious contributions to RAO. Bruce J. Richman |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Carl Valle wrote: I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place each and every instrument on stage with precision. This is a preposterous statement, unless you were conducting the ensemble. Howard Ferstler Please note that Howard's experience is with the Pensacola Symphony. Besides, he conducts the ensemble like he makes love. With a limp baton. Cheers, Margaret |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote in message ... Please note that Howard's experience is with the Pensacola Symphony. Besides, he conducts the ensemble like he makes love. With a limp baton. And the violins are always on the right. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"johnebravo836" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: [snip] **An analogue equaliser cannot ever assist a system. It can only damage. A digital equaliser *may* be able to help, provided there is an adequate reference. Without a reference, even a digital eq is useless. I'm not knowledgable enough about technical audio matters -- and about phase relationships, specifically -- to get exactly what you're referring to here, but I take it you're talking about the point you made in an early post in this thread: "**Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not." However, in that same post, you also noted that: "All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener." But couldn't some recordings (i.e., especially older, and more poorly made ones) be made more pleasing *because* sometimes it's possible to fiddle with them just a bit so that they sound a little more like what they should have sounded like in the first place? **High Fidelity may (or may not) be pleasing. Pleasing is in the hands of the artist, not the listener. Moreover, without an absolute reference, the use of an equaliser is hit and miss. Mostly, it is miss. In my own experience, this is certainly true for a lot of my jazz and classical records made in the 40s and 50s. If that's so, then I don't see why you say, in an unqualified way, that an analogue equalizer can *never* assist a system. **For the reasons stated. Without a reference, it is useless. Further, an analogue eq does more damage to sound than it can hope to correct. The same may not necessarily be said of digital eqs. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message snip denials of reality THAT was my point to Ferstler. Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about analog equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent analog equalization built into their crossovers. The purpose of these analog equalizers is to compensate for the properties of the drivers. **Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on equalizers? I'm saying that I disagree with certain of your complaints against his views. **Then, I take it, you agree with him? Not everything. **So far, so good. Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound off side and rear walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic disaster? Trevor you know my views on Bose. After all, that is what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good). I'll guess you have to show me where he said that, Trevor **OK. http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...gle.com&rnum=3 Trevor, I've got to teach you how to make these into something a little more reasonable. One mouse click on "Original Format" gets you to this: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3E...0attglobal.net **Thanks for the tip. I'll use it next time. "...Admittedly, the 901s are not the best speakers to use if centered vocalists are important to you. However, in my friend's room I did listen to a jazz-combo recording that almost sounded like the group was in the room." The good news and the bad news. **Nope. Unless Ferstler had actually heard the jazz performance and possessed an extraordinary auditory memory, his opinion is worthless. The Bose 901 is utterly incapable of realistically reproducing *any* musical performance. It fundamentally destroys valuable parts of the music. Every time. And: http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...fsu.edu&rnum=4 AKA: http://www.google.com.au/groups?selm...mailer.fsu.edu Read the entire piece. It is clear that Ferstler has fallen for The LieT, hook, line and sinker. Not at all **Hook, line AND sinker. And: http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...bal.net&rnum=6 AKA: http://www.google.com.au/groups?selm...0attglobal.net "...I will say that I recently did listen to Gary Eichmeier's Bose 901 systems in his big room, and whatever anybody might think about the 901 systems, in that particular space it was certainly possible to conceive of a live ensemble potentially being there." I've heard Eichmeir's Bose system as well, and with certain recordings it can sound pretty striking. Then there are that massive collection of other recordings. **I've heard many "striking" sounding systems. Including a few 901 based ones. They all sucked. What captivates me is an illusion of reality, not an illusion of what some clown, with specious deisgn ideas, decides it should be. And there is MUCH more. According to Google, you will find some 40-odd references from Ferstler, where he gushingly parises the stuff. I sense some vestiges of balance in his comments. Ferstler is very much in favor of ambience recovery, and seems to see the 901 as one of many ways to approach that goal. **Wrong. The Bose 901 GENERATES artifical ambience. It does not "recover ambience". THAT is impossible. It is this artificially generated ambience which is it's critical failure. The last relevant thing I can find him saying about Bose correctly pointed out that 901s aren't unique among speakers for bouncing sound around the side and back walls. He correctly pointed out that the widely-respected Quad electrostats being bipolar (like a number of other highly-regarded speakers) bounce considerable amounts of sound off the back wall. **Of course. And like any bipolar radiator, the rear radiation needs to be completely absorbed (as much as is possible. When this is done, Quads image superbly. When it is not, they sound like crap. That piece of audio dogma is clearly not believed by all owners of speakers that are bipolar radiators. **I don't give a **** about what one or two people think. I know what is. I have had long experience with bipolar radiators (ca. 30 years). In EVERY case teh speakers sounded better (more focussed imaging, better balanced, etc) as more of the rear radiation was absorbed. Every time. In some cases, I have even disconnected rear facing drivers (Infinity used to do this infuriatingly stupid act), for significant improvements. EVERY TIME. Like I said: I don't care what a handful of nutters think. I know what is. Some of those same people imagine that SET amps actualy provide a closer approach to reality too. Here are my comments you snipped: --- Call it yet another misapprehension from a guy who hates inverse feedbac loops. **That would be projection. And incorrect. I do not hate inanimate objects, ideas or products. I reserve my hatred for certain human beings' actions. I do not "hate" inverse feedback loops. In fact, they are pretty much essential in all amplifiers. At least those which make pretence to be 'High Fidelity'. So, you've decided to haggle over word meanings as a smokescreen for the fact that you've changed your story? **I've altered nothing. If you would care to provide a cite where I stated that I hate inverse feedback, then I will be most interested. Here's a hint for you: Before you make assumptions, you should verify EXACTLY what my beliefs are. --- This shows true ignorance of what almost all home and studio speakers sound like in an anechoic chamber. **And this statement shows the ignorance under what conditions loudspeakers are designed and tested. Sue me for having actually listened to a variety of home speakers in anechoic chambers and similar very dead spaces. **Obviously, not closely enough. The results are startlingly accurate and eerily real, given a good recording. The conditions are ALWAYS anechoic, or simulations of an anechoic environment. Only in the low bass area, do manufacturers allow for 'room gain'. Which is a kludge. Which is reality. **It is still a kludge. No, its how things are. Speakers are designed to be used in rooms, not anechoic chambers. They work far better in rooms than in anechoic chambers. **Wrong. They work very well in anechoic chambers. Sue me for having actually listened to a variety of home speakers in anechoic chambers and similar very dead spaces. **Obviously, not closely enough. The results are startlingly accurate and eerily real, given a good recording. Superb, in fact. You must not like bass, Trevor. **I like a close illusion of reality. At least good speakers do. Yes, I have listened to speakers in anechoic chambers. You must have forgotten the experience. **Nope. I've got no problems with anechoic chambers as test environments, such as described he http://www.axiomaudio.com/NRC.html "When a speaker's output directly in front of the speaker and at increasing angles to each side and above and below it is as smooth and as similar as possible, the designer can be reasonably certain it will sound fairly accurate in a normal room, because the reflected energy will have roughly the same tonal balance as the speaker's direct energy on-axis. " **And if you read the Bose site, you will find some extremely specious information which says a similar thing. Unfortunately, without specifying EXACTLY what the intended room will be like, no manufacturer can make such a comment with any legitimacy. The results (with good speakers) can be quite startling. As are the measurements. Put a room around the speakers and everything gets worse. Lots worse. But, thats how we all use them. **And many of us attempt to mitigate those reflections. --- Dominated by thin bass and very strange imaging. **Lack of room gain, provides a slightly leaner bass and stunning imaging. Perhaps you'd care to explain the technical reasons behind your belief that imaging suffers in an anechoic chamber. I look forward to your answer. Very simple. Imaging is composed of two general perceptions. One is that the sound came from a source in the place where it was recorded, and one is that the sound comes from a place that is immediate to the listener. Our perception that the sound comes from a place that is immediate to the listener who knows that he is in room, comes from reflections from within that room. **No. Room reflections cannot assist in the localisation of instruments in a recording. Not ever. --- Been there, done that. Oh, I guess that MDR 7506, HD 580, and ER6 aren't good headphones. **There you go. An anechoic environment, an excellent frequency response and superb imaging. Now you understand what speakers can sound like in an anechoic chamber. Except for three things One, headphones are designed to be used that way. **Non-sequitur. Two, experienced listeners expect headphones to sound the way that they do. **Non-sequitur. Three, many people find headphone listening to be too strange to be enjoyable. Why do they sound strange? Not enough reflections from nearby objects in the room. **Non-sequitur. Which very often puts us standing in front of an equalizer. **Not an analogue equaliser. Ever. Trevor shows his ignoranace of the number of analog equalizers in just about any signal chain he's ever listened to. He seems to believe believe he has never listened to a loudspeaker or a vinyl recording, or analog tape, for openers. And that is just the tip of the iceburg. **You're preaching again. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ferstler Readies and Article | Audio Opinions | |||
Using two Equalizers | Tech | |||
FA: Yamaha EX-1 Electone Organ Synth GX-1 / CS-80 Cousin / ART IEQ SmartCurve 1/3 Octave Equalizers | Pro Audio | |||
FS: KAWAI EQ-8 8-CHANNEL PARAMETRIC EQUALIZERS | Pro Audio |