On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:53:21 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
But bouncing off the side wall is "perfect" I guess.

The path length from a rear/side bounce takes the reflected sound out
of the 'Haas effect' area. The direct side bounce is of course in the
'null' of the dipole.

Not necessarily. diagonal bounce will depend on where the room corner is.

I alreday said that it should be a good distance from both rear and
side walls - basically, code for 'you need a big room to make dipoles
work well'.

The 989 in particular sounds fine at what appear to be realistic SPLs
in most rooms that I've heard them in.

And a huge number of reviewers think otherwise, always commenting on the
limiting at high SPL.

That's because those clowns just parrot each other, to avoid the
punters noticing the Emperor's lack of clothing. Anyone who can't get
enough SPL out of 989s, has been to too many rock concerts.........

This means
that they are *particularly* good at reproducing works of very wide
dynamic range, such as solo piano.

How the hell can a solo piano have a wider dynamic range than a full
symphony orchestra?

Because it goes *quieter* than a room full of musicians breathing and
shuffling...................

More crap. A solo piano has great dynamic range only when close miked. A
solo piano listened to from a concert hall audience seat has bugger all
dynamic range in fact. Especiallly at the back of a full hall! (Even worse
in flu season :-)

Piano *recordings* are of course always close-miked, so you're just
squirming in lieu of a sensible argument - again.

If every one of the orchestra instruments are close miked, the orchestra
will generate *FAR* more dynamic range. In fact each instrument can be
recorded separately in a sound proof studio booth, and multi-tracked if you
*really* want "WIDE dynamic range".

Unfortunately for your theory, that turns out not to be the case, and
full orchestra recordings are not made in that way. Denon once tried
recording an orchestra in an anechoic chamber, but that just didn't
sound right. As any experienced audiophile is well aware, solo piano
remains a classic test of the dynamic range of a system.

There will always be debate though over where the proper listening position
is even for a live orchestra. Is it at each instrumentalists seat, where the
conductor stands, a seat at the back of a large concert hall, or something
in between.
Now there is a debate you can have for the next few years :-)

There has never been such a debate - that's why the mid stalls are the
most expensive seats.

Of course it will depend on the recording, but I'm talking real life,
before
dynamics are played with by a recording/mastering engineer.

Me too, and I definitely prefer uncompressed recordings.

Me too, that's why I don't use Quads :-)

Sure that's not just because you're deaf and need 120dB SPL just to
hear *anything*? :-)

Quad 989s are among the very best
for *revealing* recording deficiences such as compression and
limiting.

That's not hard in any case.

IME, it is more difficult with box speakers, until you get to the B&W
N802 and the like.

But surely you are not comparing $10 box speakers with the Quads?
Maybe that's why you have such strange ideas.

No, I'm comparing similarly priced box speakers to the Quads - that's
why I have such sensible ideas. B&W make exceptionally 'unboxy'
speakers in the N800 series, most other makers sadly fall behind.

In fact, *you* are the one with the odd ideas, since the Quad '63 and
988/989 have been one of the most highly regarded speakers throughout
the audiophile world for 25 years. Maybe you just like to argue for
it's own sake, like 'porkyGeorge' Scott Wheeler.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In message , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
As any experienced audiophile is well aware, solo piano
remains a classic test of the dynamic range of a system.

This one sentence alone finally convinces me who is talking sense in
this discussion. I am luck to have amongst my friends some very
excellent pianists, piano teachers and general piano experts and they
have all been the most difficult to convince as to what is the best
audio reproduction system. They have all agreed the best test for any
system is a piano recording. I must admit that one of them who lives
overseas swears by Naim equipment and as far as he is concerned, "the
Naim's the game", (sorry). He has all Naim equipment and has just
upgraded his CD Player to a Naim CDS 3. He says he is on "cloud nine"
and yet I have not spent a third of his outlay on my Quad equipment,
(except of course the 989s), and don't know how to break it to him he
should have improved his loudspeakers instead and saved his money. He
has small American boxes on stands whose name I cannot recall and yet
his sound is nowhere in the same league as the 989s.
Do I tell him and lose a friend? Obviously not but do I let him hear the
Quads so soon after he has just spent thousands of Euros on his "good
Naim", that is the question.
Now I am off to sit on the fence again where I belong now and to "keep
my breath to cool my porridge".
--
Derrick Fawsitt

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
I alreday said that it should be a good distance from both rear and
side walls - basically, code for 'you need a big room to make dipoles
work well'.

Agreed.


The 989 in particular sounds fine at what appear to be realistic SPLs
in most rooms that I've heard them in.

And a huge number of reviewers think otherwise, always commenting on the
limiting at high SPL.

That's because those clowns just parrot each other,

Especially the pro quad brigade.


Anyone who can't get
enough SPL out of 989s, has been to too many rock concerts.........


Anyone who can obviously doesn't go to rock concerts at all.

Piano *recordings* are of course always close-miked, so you're just
squirming in lieu of a sensible argument - again.

Funny, everytime I've been to a piano recital there were NO mics. So that
*IS* artificial dynamics.Even then it's not what I would call *wide* dynamic
range.
And as I said, if you close mic the piano, simply close mic the rest of the
orchestra!


If every one of the orchestra instruments are close miked, the orchestra
will generate *FAR* more dynamic range. In fact each instrument can be
recorded separately in a sound proof studio booth, and multi-tracked if
you
*really* want "WIDE dynamic range".

Unfortunately for your theory, that turns out not to be the case,

What an imagination you have.

full orchestra recordings are not made in that way.

Where did I say they normally were? But if you *really* want dynamic range,
you don't start with a solo piano.

Denon once tried
recording an orchestra in an anechoic chamber, but that just didn't
sound right. As any experienced audiophile is well aware, solo piano
remains a classic test of the dynamic range of a system.

For the Quad brigade I am not surprised.


There will always be debate though over where the proper listening
position
is even for a live orchestra. Is it at each instrumentalists seat, where
the
conductor stands, a seat at the back of a large concert hall, or
something
in between.
Now there is a debate you can have for the next few years :-)

There has never been such a debate - that's why the mid stalls are the
most expensive seats.

I debate that! Simply because some seats are more expensive does NOT prove
everyone agrees with your choice.
It's pretty obvious most would rather not sit at the back, but I do wonder
how many would be happy to stand next to the conductor if given a choice
though.
Here's an experiment, offer one ticket for sale to stand next to the
conductor. I bet my house it sells for more than the mid stalls tickets :-)


IME, it is more difficult with box speakers, until you get to the B&W
N802 and the like.

But surely you are not comparing $10 box speakers with the Quads?
Maybe that's why you have such strange ideas.

No, I'm comparing similarly priced box speakers to the Quads - that's
why I have such sensible ideas. B&W make exceptionally 'unboxy'
speakers in the N800 series, most other makers sadly fall behind.

So you in fact agree that some box speakers are OK then? That's a
breakthrough.


In fact, *you* are the one with the odd ideas, since the Quad '63 and
988/989 have been one of the most highly regarded speakers throughout
the audiophile world for 25 years.

Sure, so are many other speakers. All of them have their good and bad points
since *none* are perfect.

Maybe you just like to argue for it's own sake.

Ditto obviously.

MrT.

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
In message , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
As any experienced audiophile is well aware, solo piano
remains a classic test of the dynamic range of a system.

This one sentence alone finally convinces me who is talking sense in
this discussion.

I agree. He didn't qualify by stating *only* orchestral music as often
recorded. Close mic for piano, but not anything else.
In fact he didn't even say *recording*, and solo piano even from the mid
stalls, is just not that wide a dynamic range in any concert hall I know of.
Certainly not compared to a full symophony orchestra!

He is trying to compare apples with oranges and coming up with 42.
Like Deep thought, I don't think he really knows what the question is.

MrT.

In message , Mr.T
writes

"Derrick Fawsitt" wrote in message
...
In message , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
As any experienced audiophile is well aware, solo piano
remains a classic test of the dynamic range of a system.

This one sentence alone finally convinces me who is talking sense in
this discussion.

I agree.
Did you actually read the rest of my response, i.e. the bit that comes
immediately after the sentence you quote above, I hardly think so
judging from your response.
I don't think he really knows what the question is.
I don't think you understand answers.

--
Derrick Fawsitt

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:09:34 +0000, Derrick Fawsitt
wrote:

In message , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
As any experienced audiophile is well aware, solo piano
remains a classic test of the dynamic range of a system.

This one sentence alone finally convinces me who is talking sense in
this discussion. I am luck to have amongst my friends some very
excellent pianists, piano teachers and general piano experts and they
have all been the most difficult to convince as to what is the best
audio reproduction system. They have all agreed the best test for any
system is a piano recording. I must admit that one of them who lives
overseas swears by Naim equipment and as far as he is concerned, "the
Naim's the game", (sorry). He has all Naim equipment and has just
upgraded his CD Player to a Naim CDS 3. He says he is on "cloud nine"
and yet I have not spent a third of his outlay on my Quad equipment,
(except of course the 989s), and don't know how to break it to him he
should have improved his loudspeakers instead and saved his money. He
has small American boxes on stands whose name I cannot recall and yet
his sound is nowhere in the same league as the 989s.
Do I tell him and lose a friend? Obviously not but do I let him hear the
Quads so soon after he has just spent thousands of Euros on his "good
Naim", that is the question.
Now I am off to sit on the fence again where I belong now and to "keep
my breath to cool my porridge".

Maybe you should ask him why he doesn't use Naim speakers? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:12:08 +1100, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

No, I'm comparing similarly priced box speakers to the Quads - that's
why I have such sensible ideas. B&W make exceptionally 'unboxy'
speakers in the N800 series, most other makers sadly fall behind.

So you in fact agree that some box speakers are OK then? That's a
breakthrough.

No breakthrough at all, as you'd realise if you weren't being such an
anti-Quad arsehole. There have also been bad planar speakers, but the
general rule applies that most planars are better than most
similarly-priced boxes - and have better dynamic range.

In fact, *you* are the one with the odd ideas, since the Quad '63 and
988/989 have been one of the most highly regarded speakers throughout
the audiophile world for 25 years.

Sure, so are many other speakers. All of them have their good and bad points
since *none* are perfect.

Maybe you just like to argue for it's own sake.

Ditto obviously.

Nope, you are definitely the odd one out here. Especially regarding
the dynamics of piano recordings as a test of reproduction gear in the
home.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
No breakthrough at all, as you'd realise if you weren't being such an
anti-Quad arsehole.

Unlike the pro quad arsehole you are, I admitted that the Quads had some
good points right from the start. It took about 20 posts to admit some boxes
may also.

There have also been bad planar speakers,

Agreed.

but the
general rule applies that most planars are better than most
similarly-priced boxes - and have better dynamic range.

Where can I find the scientific evidence for this "rule".
Maybe Dick Pierce could tell us the origin?


Nope, you are definitely the odd one out here. Especially regarding
the dynamics of piano recordings as a test of reproduction gear in the
home.

I'm not the one claiming the *only* place to listen to a piano recital is
mid row stalls, then claiming a recording made under the piano lid is
better.
Look up contradiction in the dictionary sometime.

MrT.

[rpbc]

Derrick.... You Sir, are a gentleman. Would love to hear your favorite
recordings on your Quads. Take care.