Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#441
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson a écrit :
Howard Ferstler wrote: Remember, I mainly deal with technical issues when I review recordings, and not performance. Exactly the point of my little joke, Mr. Ferstler. Perhaps Lionel will take note of your admission :-) I take note... ;-( |
#442
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson a écrit :
Lionel wrote: Lionel a écrit : Lionel a écrit : In , Lionel wrote : In .com, John Atkinson wrote : Howard Ferstler wrote: it is a rare performance indeed that I do not find satisfactory. The musician community lets out a pent-up sigh of relief. Howard Ferstler rarely finds a recorded performance that he doesn't find "satisfactory." Such perspicacity -- such hubris! May we understand that Stereophile publishs mostly reviews of "satisfactory" audio devices ? Indeed it does, Lionel. I have explained at length on this newsgroup what that is the case. I was afraid that your magazine could be different from its French cousins. In this case is there any difference with Mr Ferstler attitude concerning "recorded performance" ? Indeed there is, Lionel. I guess my attempt at humor fell on fallow ground. :-( Not so fallow, dense perhaps but not fallow. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word "hubris." Yes. |
#443
|
|||
|
|||
I disagree. Even though the music may be excellent, it's better to
say, "The musical performance is excellent but the recording bites". There is a lot of fine music which is simply not well recorded. If a record gets an honest review like that the musicians may get another shot under different recording practitioners. On the other hand..the true fan transcends fandom and has a go at it himself at some point. I'm sure there's some group you'd like to record. Get a couple of mics and go for it. |
#444
|
|||
|
|||
The key to level matching is calibration. One necessary element,
lacking in most high end systems, is a precision attenuator that can be set to a known, repeatable position. Others include calibration and/or characterization of the entire electronic chain and characterization of the speakers and room. The fact is that at all these points, no one has really done the job in a coherent fashion-anywhere-and there are literally no standards. Some tools-test records and CDs, calibrated voltmeters of wide bandwidth (were we saying true rms here-we'd better get a thermocouple instrument!)-exist but the methodology is nonexistent. Is it really worth the bother? Well, if audio is a hobby, maybe not. |
#445
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: Heck, John, some of the technically excellent recordings you have engineered had musical qualities of really limited merit. I never said that in the reviews, however. In which, you cut a pretty sad figure as a "reviewer," Mr. Ferstler. Ler's see: you present other people's's writings as your own, claiming deadline pressure as an excuse; you fabricate supposedly factual passages out of whole cloth; you fake your published test results; and now you admit you pull your punches as a reviewer. I guess you are correct when you state that you are and I are not colleagues. :-) For sure, John. PS: you are a better recording engineer than creditable magazine editor. Howard Ferstler |
#446
|
|||
|
|||
|
#447
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com The key to level matching is calibration. No such thing. The goal of level matching is to insure that voltage A = voltage B. Calibration would be important if the goal was to make the voltages equal to a certain voltage, but all that is required is that the two voltages be the same. One necessary element, lacking in most high end systems, is a precision attenuator that can be set to a known, repeatable position. Again, no such thing. If you want to level-match two devices that have volume and balance controls, or separate gain controls for each channel, then you need no additonal controls. If you don't have enough control built into the piece of equipment, then you need one or more exteranal attenuators, but they don't need to be calibrated to any externals standard. |
#448
|
|||
|
|||
If you are testing all products at the same time, that would be true.
However, repeatability, and consistency-i.e. the ability to compare A-B and A-C without having B and C there-demand adherence to objective repeatable standards. Absolute level, not just relative, is needed, if you want the results to be significant to anyone not there at the time. |
#449
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com If you are testing all products at the same time, that would be true. Look Cal, you made a global statement. If you want to admit that that you're wrong, be my guest. If you want to redefine the problem until like one of a million monkeys trying to type the works of Shakespere, you can waste someone else's time. However, repeatability, and consistency-i.e. the ability to compare A-B and A-C without having B and C there-demand adherence to objective repeatable standards. If you're doing a listening test comparing alternatives, there is really only one way to get the benefits of comparing B to C and that is to compare B to C. So your claim is wrong on the grounds that your justification is bogus. Absolute level, not just relative, is needed, if you want the results to be significant to anyone not there at the time. You don't need a voltmeter with NIS-tracable calibration certificate to figure out whether your test level is more like 1 watt or 10 watts. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Different Audio Design | Tech | |||
James Randi Million US$ Challenge To Well-Known Golden Ears! | Tech | |||
James Randi Million US$ Challenge To Well-Known Golden Ears! | Pro Audio | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 1/5) | Car Audio | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio |