Sander deWaal wrote:

Why would any individual want to simulate a large hall effect which
probably wasn't there in the first place, or doesn't correspond with
the concert hall the recording was made?

I never said it was perfect. However, you need to remember
that good DSP ambiance-simulation devices allow for a number
of varying hall-size programs.

Incidentally, I posted a response to one of your previous
messages, and that response was lengthy and detailed. It was
a draft of an article I published a while back in The
Sensible Sound (issue 92). Just in case you missed it, here
it is again. I think it summarizes my views on several
recording issues.

The article draft:

Two-channel purist microphone techniques, that is, those
that minimize the amount of electrical, multi-microphone,
and mixer-related diddling required to make two-channel
recordings, have traditionally come in two different
flavors.

Some adept classical-music engineers prefer the simple,
two-microphone, spaced-array technique often used by
individuals like Marc Aubort in his work for Delos and
Centaur. Others, like Peter McGrath in his work for Audiofon
and Harmonia Mundi USA, also prefer this technique, but with
the option of employing additional support microphones. A
technique like this seems logically sensible, since with
stereo playback the speakers are themselves in a spaced
configuration.

Decades ago, Mercury elaborated on this technique and filled
in the space between the two main microphones with a third -
allowing for a more stable, mixdown-controllable image in
the center. The technique resulted in their vaunted Living
Presence recordings, still admired today for their
soundstaging qualities and sense of stage depth.

A center fill has been used to good effect for some time in
an adapted form for a large number of Decca/-London
record-ings. The highly regarded "Decca Tree," pioneered by
Roy Wallace, perfected by Kenneth Wilkinson, and used by
such Decca engineering notables as John Dunkerley, Stanley
Goodall, James Lock, and Philip Siney, consists of three
omni-directional microphones. Each is attached to the end of
a T-shaped assembly that is suspended above the conductor's
podium. The left/right capsules are about 2 meters apart and
the center unit is about 1.5 meters in front of the axis
between them. The resulting geometry imparts a quite warm
and spacious sound to the recording.

With still wider spacing, the spaced, three-microphone array
has in the past been used by engineer Jack Renner of Telarc.
Many of the classic Telarc releases were products of this
arrangement. When recording large ensembles, Renner often
employs omni-directional microphones, with the left and
right modules up to nine feet on either side of a centrally
posi-tioned one. Keeping the microphones at a
wider-than-usual distance apart minimizes the impact of
comb-filtered interference effects that some individuals
feel color the sound of spaced-array record-ings. Telarc's
most basic recording technique has long been very popular
with a number of knowledgeable listeners and record-review
critics and the company's material has become a benchmark
for many serious music lovers.

Not every spaced-array advocate likes the wide-track
approach, however. Harry Munz, who has recorded some notable
material for Gothic records (many of which have been given
rave reviews by yours truly), often employed a pair of very
high quality omni's spaced only a few feet apart. Actually,
the spacing required for best results will often be
determined by the size of the ensemble to be recorded and
the desired sound-stage spread and focus.

The spaced-microphone arrangement (sometimes supported by
ambience-augmenting microphones located out in the audience
area), whether utilizing a moderate distance between units
or a very wide one, imparts a spacious, open, and sometimes
pleasantly diffuse sound to the music when it is played back
in typical home listening environments. Many
classical-recording enthusiasts in America seem to like
this, particularly if they own speaker systems that present
a very focussed soundstage image. The technique compliments
what truly exemplary soundstaging/imaging speaker systems
such as the Dunlavy Cantatas (reviewed by me in issue 87),
Waveform MC/MC.1 sub/sat systems (reviewed by in issue 84),
and Triad InRoom Silver sub/sat systems (reviewed by me in
issue 93) can deliver.

Not everyone is enthralled by this technique, however.
Dissenters, such as researcher and mathematician Dr. Stanley
Lip****z, have in the past indicated their strong preference
for the coincident or near-coincident,
directional-microphone technique. This is sometimes used by
engineers working for Chesky, Opus 3, Nimbus, Hyperion,
Teldec, Reference Recordings, and on occasion, Delos and
Harmonia Mundi USA, as well as by a number of others.

One configuration, the XY, double-figure-8 approach
(sometimes called the Blumlein array), requires the use of
directional (front/back sensitive, side insensitive)
microphones located extremely close together and aimed at
each flank of the orchestra. By having the direct signals
respond only to level differences, as opposed to the
spaced-array's response mainly to timing differences, this
two-capsule, dipolar-microphone technique insures that the
recorded sound is kept comfortably phase coherent.

Apostles of this and several other "intensity stereo"
techniques believe that any spaced-array microphone
arrangement, be it utilizing two (or three, or more)
microphones, will add annoying, phase-dominated,
comb-filtering effects to the sound. They note that while
the reflected, ambient "hall" sound on any recording should
have a somewhat diffuse and phase-dominated quality, the
"direct" sound that is coming from the ensemble itself
should be coherent and lacking in the time-of-arrival,
phase-difference anomalies that a spaced-microphone
configuration will by its very nature produce.

They point out that piano recordings are particularly prone
to bloating and indistinct focus when recorded with a spaced
technique, as evidenced by numerous examples that give the
impression that the piano is twenty feet long or that the
keyboard is spread out between the speakers. They also claim
that coincident-source recordings have the ability to
project a valid front-to-back depth with any type of
ensemble or solo instrument that spaced-microphone
recordings can imperfectly fake - but cannot duplicate.
Finally, with small-ensemble performances, they claim that
left-to-right sound-stage imaging is going to be more
accurate with coincident techniques, particularly when
listening from the audiophile-preferred, central "sweet
spot."

Phase problems and the nature of a proper sound-stage
presentation are only part of the ongoing debate about
microphones and their placement for two-channel recordings.
Supporters of the coincident technique note that central-ly
located images (usually involving soloists) are more sharply
focussed. Spaced-array enthusiasts will counter that
although the central and near-central images produced by
their technique may be more diffuse and less stable when
listening from the sweet spot than what is possible with
coincident-pickup techniques, the negative effects can be
minimized by using the previously noted blended center
microphone. Accent microphones on individual instruments can
possibly do an even better job of leveling the playing
field.

What's more, they point out that the result-ing lack of
sweet-spot listening tightness with central, half-left, and
half-right images that can show up with spaced-microphone
techniques is subjectively no worse that what is often
encountered in a typical, live classical perfor-mances -
even ones happening in excellent concert halls. In those
live-music situations pinpoint imaging is impossible to
experience for anyone but the person conducting the
orchestra.

Spaced-microphone advocates will point out that their
favored technique ensures that under home-listening
conditions, sound-stage images will be less likely to shift
radically toward the nearer speaker if the listener moves
away from the central sweet spot, making recordings made
that way more suitable for social listening. As they see it,
coincident-source microphone recordings require that
"serious" listening be done from a small, central area if
full advantage is to be taken of what that technique offers.
Only one person gets to experience the recording at its
best, with everybody else in the room getting a substandard
sound stage.

Most spaced-array advocates feel that even though the direct
signals produced by the technique are less phase coherent
than those which result from coincident-source practices,
the net result is more subjectively realistic when
experienced in a typical home-listening environment. Spaced
speakers and spaced microphones complement each other. In
addition, a few enthusiasts claim that spaced-array
techniques, although ideally not in the same purest-oriented
class as coincident-microphone practices, allow the
recording engineer to do a more customized job of dealing
with concert-hall size, shape, and reflectivity
deficiencies, particularly with large-ensemble recordings.

Perhaps some kind of compromise is in order, and to this
effect a number of other recording engineers and astute
listeners swear by variations on the two basic techniques.
The technical people at Nimbus records, for instance, made a
point of combining the coincident technique with Ambisonic
surround process-ing. Although not very well known in the
USA, with proper decoding, this British system supposedly
can simulate a reasonably accurate concert-hall environment.
The Soundfield, four-capsule microphone used with this kind
of recording process was originally designed with Ambisonic
recording in mind.

Some experts try to compromise between the spaced- and
coincident-array techniques by using the French-pioneered
"ORTF," or the Dutch "NOS," near-coincident systems. The
former places outward-angled, directional microphones only a
few inches apart, while the NOS technique uses somewhat
wider spacing and a slightly wider pickup angle between the
microphone capsules. (The individual microphones are
cardioid models that have progressively weaker sensitivity
as the recording angle widens, until there is a near null
directly behind the capsule.) The result is quasi-coincident
behavior at lower frequencies, due to the long wavelengths
involved, with shorter-wavelength frequencies from the
midrange on up being given enough of an inter-channel time
delay to impart a degree of spaced-array openness to the
sound.

With large-ensemble recordings, even engineers dedicated to
spaced-array and/or coincident-source techniques usually end
up augmenting their main-pickup configura-tion with
addi-tional micro-phones out in the audience area to pick up
ambiance. Others may flank the main array with widely spaced
microphones, in order to highlight the left and right sides
of the orchestra or add "bloom" to the sound. The degree of
enhancement can be adjusted later, during the editing
sessions.

In addition, many engineers, even those with the purist of
motivations, use additional pickups near particularly
hard-to-record instruments or vocalists to make them more
audible in the final mix. Ironically, this is one way to
reduce the dynamic range of a recording, because instruments
that are difficult to hear with fully purist techniques -
and difficult to hear during live performances, too, for
that matter - are increased in level to make them more
audible during home-playback situations.

Practices of this kind are almost mandatory if the hall in
which the recording is being made has acoustic deficiencies.
Recording engineer John Eargle, who has made many superior
recordings for both Delos and ProArte (and who is a
specialist in the ORTF technique), is particu-larly well
known for his ability to modify orthodox procedures to
compensate for hall/orchestra anomalies. He frequently
employs level-adjustable, spaced-omni microphones well off
to the sides of his main ORTF array to add a controllable
amount of spaciousness to his record-ings.

Craig Dory, of Dorian, is also well known for his innovative
microphone techniques, as are Keith Johnson of Reference
Recordings, Ralph Couzens of Chandos, Bob Katz of Chesky,
Paul Goodman when he was working for RCA, and John McClure
when he was working for Columbia. Notable freelance
classical engineers such as Tony Faulkner, Ben Connellan,
Mike Clements, Mike Hatch, Don Hartridge, Christopher
Greenleaf, and Jonathan Stokes are also masters of purist
innovation, as were renowned Decca engineers John Dunkerley,
John Pellow, and Simon Eadon.

Needless to say, not every recording engineer is enamored of
simple, or semi-simple, microphone techniques, be they
spaced-array or coincident. Many recent classical releases
by Decca/-London have been masterpieces of advanced
multi-microphone tech-niques, and Jac Holzman, founder of
Elektra and Nonesuch, pioneered the intelligent use of
multi-microphone techniques for classical material in the
1950s and 1960s.

Deutsche Grammophon has used as many as 32 channels to
record a symphonic work, mixing their inputs down to 2
channels by deftly blending the total. Columbia and Sony
have also made a large number of multi-microphone classical
recordings. While the results of heavy-handed
multi-microphone use by these and a few other companies have
sometimes been disappointing, a fair number of such
rigorously controlled record-ings, even classical ones,
sound quite good. And of course, some pop transcriptions
have sounded downright spectacular.

Indeed, in the pop-music realm, multiple microphones and
elaborate mixing techniques are the norm. Recording
engineers such as Ed Cherney, Frank Filipetti, Chip Davis,
George Massenburg, Roger Nichols, Hugh Padgham, Bill Schnee,
Alan Sides, Bruce Swedien, and Al Schmitt are past masters
of multi-microphone usage. And of course, during the 1950s,
60s, and 70s, Bill Putnam and his Universal Recording
Company set the standard for refined pop-recording
techniques for a generation. Ironically, the use of multiple
microphones and complex mixers has allowed some pop-music
engineers to move ahead of their classical counterparts in
some respects, because those technologies lend themselves so
well to the creation of discrete-channel surround-sound
recordings.

With classical music, steely, harsh-sounding violins are the
most conspicuous indication that the multiple-microphone
technique has been executed incorrectly, because the
procedure nearly always puts the directional microphones
close to the direct field of the violins. When this is done,
the mellow, mostly off-axis blend of the sound that reaches
an audience during a live concert may not be properly
reproduced. Correctly locating a micro-phone for the best
blend can be a time-consuming job, because the unit must be
placed in that part of the direct field that most closely
simulates the reverberant sound encountered at a live
concert.

Many multi-capsule classical record-ings also come across as
one-dimensional sounding because proper timing clues are not
reproduced. Sounds picked up by microphones placed very
close to instru-ments at the rear of the orchestra are added
to the mix simulta-neously with close-miked sounds picked up
from instruments at the front. However, at a live concert
the rear-most sounds arrive later than those from up front,
which is one of several ways that we sense the depth of the
orchestra. In addition, at a live concert the sounds coming
from the rear of an orchestra tend to generate a more
reverberant soundfield and blend than what is produced up
front. This also aids the listener in sensing depth. It is
difficult to simulate these effects with multi-miking,
although individual-track, digital-delay systems can help.

Nevertheless, given that time-delay phase artifacts and
levels can be precisely controlled during the mixing
process, when placed under skillful control,
multi-microphone techniques can do a remarkable job of
simulating an "intensity-stereo" recording. Indeed, the
technique can greatly reduce many of the phase problems
disliked by coinci-dent-source advo-cates - while still
allowing the kind of final control that recording engi-neers
and produc-ers (and sometimes even conductors) can feel
comfortable with.

Whether the use of scads of microphones and extremely
complex mixing consoles will be the norm as the world of
hi-fi sound reproduction further advances into the realm of
surround sound is a question that nobody can answer right
now. It is likely that at the very least a center-channel
microphone, in combination with hall-ambiance microphones
will become mandatory, as will careful post-production
mixing. For better or worse, it appears certain that the era
of absolutely pure two-channel recording techniques is all
but over.

Howard Ferstler

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"The Devil" wrote in message
news:ub6bk0pto9u4fe8kc9dj02jot7h16sdqt6@rdmzrnewst xt.nz
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:39:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Devil, next time try that with a power amp with more than 5 wpc, and
oh by the way turn it on BEFORE not after the listening test. Since
you admit to using "snake oil capacitors" it is therefore a proven
fact that you also use snake oil electrical power.

In fact, the first time I turned them on I
thought something was the matter with them--the Rotel had a faint
but audible hiss when you put your head right up against the
speaker, and that what I expect from the valves, except they were
*dead* silent.

There's an approximate 16 dB difference between 200 wpc (Rotel 1080
- last SS power amp you mentioned owning here) and 5 wpc. If both
amps had the the same dynamic range, the 5 watt amp would still be
16 dB quieter. The same argument applies should you have a tubed amp
with more power than 5 wpc.

Sorry--I don't remember mentioning the power output of the amps. Would
you care to cite the text where I said it was 5 watts per side?

Inability to provide a useful answer noted.


you didn't ask a question.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:30:10 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:36:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


The average wattage (voltage, actually) in an average room at average
listening volumes ( 75...80 dB SPL) will be mostly in the 1...5 watt
range with average sensitive speakers (88 dB/w/m).

Good for people who have zero interest in coming even vaguely close to live
music levels for an energetic string quartet... Next time I'm recording one,
I'll measure the SPL generated by a solo violin or flute. I bet they can top
90 dB @ 3 feet.

I'll remember that the next time my seating position at a string
quartet concert is 3 ft. from the solo violin.

:-)

How does it image at that distance?

Flutes are louder than one might think, note.

Especially in "string quartets".

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

What make and model of SS are you "in my hands" referring to?

http://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/macrot-5000VZ/

What is this?

A URL.


The question was, what is this?:
"tp://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/macrot-5000VZ"

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Neither Howard or Arny have any experience with line
conditioners.

Powell's delusions of omniscience noted. In fact
power conditioners are standard electronic
components. Powell is probably upset because my
power conditioner, and most of the ones I'm
experienced with, are bigger than his.

You've already posted that your only experience
with a line conditioner is a 1968 Studebaker/Onan
model.


Many audio stores will allow you to demo
these devices for free so there is no financial risk.

It's a lottery for them. Placebo effects work on a
goodly fraction of the population, so sooner or
later they will sell one.

How would you know, mr. No Experience?

"Arny Krueger" wrote

What make and model of SS are you "in my hands"
referring to?

Crown MA-5000VZ

Your talking about a PA amp. BTW, Crown's website
indicates that this model has been discontinued.

The MA-5002VZ is current. It indicates a Signal-to-Noise
Ratio, "A-weighted" as: Better than 105 dB below rated
1-kHz power. And as you pointed out "numbers are
potentially inflated manufacturers specs." Spec on this
unit are much to do about nothing.

Lamm ML 1.1 - 115dB S/N ratio ref at 90 watts.
ARC REF300 - 110dB S/N ratio at 280 watts

These units are superior to your Crown example.

BTW, what is wrong with A-weighted, it's the standard
format for reporting S/N? Crown doesn't even publish
un-weighted figures.

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Neither Howard or Arny have any experience with line
conditioners.

Powell's delusions of omniscience noted. In fact
power conditioners are standard electronic
components. Powell is probably upset because my
power conditioner, and most of the ones I'm
experienced with, are bigger than his.

You've already posted that your only experience
with a line conditioner is a 1968 Studebaker/Onan
model.

Wrong, that's just the one in my office. Besides the fact that the name puts
you off, what's wrong with it?

Many audio stores will allow you to demo
these devices for free so there is no financial risk.

It's a lottery for them. Placebo effects work on a
goodly fraction of the population, so sooner or
later they will sell one.

How would you know, mr. No Experience?

Talking to yourself again, Powell?

Powell. tell us about your personal experiences with my line conditioner,
which you seem to think is highly inferior.

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

What make and model of SS are you "in my hands"
referring to?

Crown MA-5000VZ

Your talking about a PA amp.

So what? When did you audition it personally, Powell?

BTW, Crown's website indicates that this model has been discontinued.

So what?

The MA-5002VZ is current. It indicates a Signal-to-Noise
Ratio, "A-weighted" as: Better than 105 dB below rated
1-kHz power. And as you pointed out "numbers are
potentially inflated manufacturers specs." Spec on this
unit are much to do about nothing.

The numbers on my site are actual measurements.

Lamm ML 1.1 - 115dB S/N ratio ref at 90 watts.
ARC REF300 - 110dB S/N ratio at 280 watts

These units are superior to your Crown example.

Wrong again Powell. The numbers you cite are indeed potentially inflated
manufacturers specs. The numbers on the PCAVTech web site are actual
measurements. The manufacturer's numbers you cite are weighted. The
numbers on the PCAVTech web site are much more critical unweighted
meansurement. Get it?

BTW, what is wrong with A-weighted, it's the standard
format for reporting S/N?

A-weighted is not THE standard, it is A standard. Unweighed measurments are
generally tougher.

Crown doesn't even publish un-weighted figures.

But since I had one sitting on the test bench before me, I measured it. I
also listened to it.

Tell us your experiences with this amp that you dismiss as a PA amp, Powell.

"The Milkman" wrote in message
news
"Powell" wrote:

What make and model of SS are you "in my hands" referring to?

tp://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/macrot-5000VZ/

What is this?

Probably a 5kW public address amplifier, or something daft like that.

Obviously way too serious for you to worry about.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:16:44 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:36:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


The average wattage (voltage, actually) in an average room at
average listening volumes ( 75...80 dB SPL) will be mostly in the
1...5 watt range with average sensitive speakers (88 dB/w/m).

Good for people who have zero interest in coming even vaguely close
to live music levels for an energetic string quartet... Next time
I'm recording one, I'll measure the SPL generated by a solo violin
or flute. I bet they can top 90 dB @ 3 feet.

I'll remember that the next time my seating position at a string
quartet concert is 3 ft. from the solo violin.

Ignorance of how loudspeaker sensitivity ratings translate in real world use
noted.

s******

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Neither Howard or Arny have any experience with line
conditioners.

Powell's delusions of omniscience noted. In fact
power conditioners are standard electronic
components. Powell is probably upset because my
power conditioner, and most of the ones I'm
experienced with, are bigger than his.

You've already posted that your only experience
with a line conditioner is a 1968 Studebaker/Onan
model.

Wrong, that's just the one in my office.

Prove it, as you would say .


Besides the fact that the name puts
you off, what's wrong with it?

You must be kidding, Arny.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

What make and model of SS are you "in my hands"
referring to?

Crown MA-5000VZ

Your talking about a PA amp.

So what? When did you audition it personally, Powell?

Why would I have cause to audition commercial intended
sound reinforcement equipment in a home setup? Are
you also advocating PA speakers are indistinguishable from
speakers designed for home use?

I believe that all amps make noise, some more than
others. I don't expect to ever see a tubed amp with a
-112 dB noise floor, even though I have had a SS
amp like that in my hands.



BTW, Crown's website indicates that this model has
been discontinued.

So what?

Why is it so difficult for you to be up-front, Arny? Why should
I have to case down your reference when asked?
Deception on your part, ego or just empty hands?


The MA-5002VZ is current. It indicates a Signal-to-Noise
Ratio, "A-weighted" as: Better than 105 dB below rated
1-kHz power. And as you pointed out "numbers are
potentially inflated manufacturers specs." Spec on this
unit are much to do about nothing.

The numbers on my site are actual measurements.

Lamm ML 1.1 - 115dB S/N ratio ref at 90 watts.
ARC REF300 - 110dB S/N ratio at 280 watts

These units are superior to your Crown example.

Wrong again Powell. The numbers you cite are indeed
potentially inflated manufacturers specs.

Personally, I have no reason to doubt the representative
validity of the specifications provided by Audio Research
or Lamm. There is a considerable body of reviews for
their equipment from virtually every significant audio
publication pass or present. And my own experience
A.R. supports this, too.

OTOH, I understand that because you are not well read
and that don’t subscribe to audio magazines, you are
paranoid about their representations. However, that’s
not my cross to carry.


The numbers on the PCAVTech web site are actual
measurements.

False claim. Where is the S/N at full power output?
Where is the A-weighted S/N, lets at least compare
apples with apples, Arny.

And what of your figures. If you're challenging A-weighted
as overinflated then Crowns specification of 105 dB is
well below A.R. and Lamm specification, even if all
three are somewhat over rated. Your 94 dB figure
at only 400 watts is no better that average. No SOTA
by any means. Why did you skip the measurement at
full rated output? I suspect if the A.R. and Lamm were
measured at only partial power, they too would have
better S/N figures, mr. Bad Science .


The manufacturer's numbers you cite are weighted.

So what, do you have unweighted figures for A.R.
and Lamm to present... NO!

You started this mess with your intentionally deceptive
statement "I don't expect to ever see a tubed amp with a
-112 dB noise floor, even though I have had a SS
amp like that in my hands." Where in your S/N figures
does it say "Crown Macrotech-5000VZ" has a S/N
of “-112 dB?”


The numbers on the PCAVTech web site are much
more critical unweighted meansurement. Get it?

Wrong, where is S/N at full rated output? Who cares
about random power outputs? Where are the A weighted
figures at full power?


BTW, what is wrong with A-weighted, it's the standard
format for reporting S/N?

A-weighted is not THE standard, it is A standard.

No, that's not what is commonly published by manufactures.
What other "THE" standard is there, in regards to S/D, which
consumers have access to?


Unweighed measurments are generally tougher.

Yea, ok, so what? I must refill my coffee cup now,
you’re putting me to sleep, Arny... Zzzzz

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

What make and model of SS are you "in my hands"
referring to?

Crown MA-5000VZ

Your talking about a PA amp.

So what? When did you audition it personally, Powell?

Why would I have cause to audition commercial intended
sound reinforcement equipment in a home setup?

Because you had an attack of objectivity???

Are you also advocating PA speakers are indistinguishable from
speakers designed for home use?

Inability to distinguish between the requirements for speakers and
amplfiiers noted.

I believe that all amps make noise, some more than
others. I don't expect to ever see a tubed amp with a
-112 dB noise floor, even though I have had a SS
amp like that in my hands.

BTW, Crown's website indicates that this model has
been discontinued.

So what?

Why is it so difficult for you to be up-front, Arny?

Inability to recognize a clear, up-front statement noted.

Why should
I have to case down your reference when asked?

Inability to be comfortable using google noted.

Deception on your part, ego or just empty hands?

Inability to recognize simple truth noted.

The MA-5002VZ is current. It indicates a Signal-to-Noise
Ratio, "A-weighted" as: Better than 105 dB below rated
1-kHz power. And as you pointed out "numbers are
potentially inflated manufacturers specs." Spec on this
unit are much to do about nothing.

The numbers on my site are actual measurements.

Inabiliy of Powell to appreciate the difference between actual measurments
by an unbiased third party and manfucturer's specs noted.

Lamm ML 1.1 - 115dB S/N ratio ref at 90 watts.
ARC REF300 - 110dB S/N ratio at 280 watts

These units are superior to your Crown example.

Wrong again Powell. The numbers you cite are indeed
potentially inflated manufacturers specs.

Personally, I have no reason to doubt the representative
validity of the specifications provided by Audio Research
or Lamm.

Inability to appreciate difference between weighted and unweighted noise
measurements noted.

There is a considerable body of reviews for
their equipment from virtually every significant audio
publication pass or present. And my own experience
A.R. supports this, too.

Inability to tell difference between sighted evaluations by ignorant and
potentially hearing-damaged radical subjectivists and actual reliable facts
noted.

OTOH, I understand that because you are not well read
and that don't subscribe to audio magazines, you are
paranoid about their representations. However, that's
not my cross to carry.

Inability to carry on a civil conversation noted.

The numbers on the PCAVTech web site are actual
measurements.

False claim.

Inability to recognize clear facts noted.

Where is the S/N at full power output?

Inability to observe the obvious noted.

Where is the A-weighted S/N, lets at least compare
apples with apples, Arny.

Inability to appreciate the value of unweighted numbers noted.

And what of your figures. If you're challenging A-weighted
as overinflated then Crowns specification of 105 dB is
well below A.R. and Lamm specification, even if all
three are somewhat over rated. Your 94 dB figure
at only 400 watts is no better that average.


Inabiliity to determine difference between SNR as measured by PCAVTech and
SNR as used by vendor spec sheets noted. Inability to follow provided
hyperlink to formal definition of terms on PCAVTech web site noted.

No SOTA by any means.

Also, its not the same thing. Here's your challenge Powell- compare and
contrast the few different ways to measure SNR.

Why did you skip the measurement at full rated output?

Lack of an appropriate AC source. Enough AC power to properly feed a 1300
wpc is a little beyond my means, even with the industrially-rated equipment
I have on hand.

However, anybody who has basic electronics knowlege (sorry to cut you out of
the discussion, Powell) can adjust my zero-signal noise numbers for 1300 wpc
(per my sources) full-rated output. Basically, just add 5 dB to the 400 watt
numbers posted at PCAVTech.

I suspect if the A.R. and Lamm were
measured at only partial power, they too would have
better S/N figures, mr. Bad Science .

Wrong, Powell. If you measure a power amp for zero-signal noise and compare
that to partial output, you implictly derate things.

The manufacturer's numbers you cite are weighted.

So what, do you have unweighted figures for A.R.
and Lamm to present... NO!

Rule of thumb is that A-weighting is a 5 to 10 dB *gift*. IOW, a device
with -100 dB A-weighted noise has between -105 and -110 unweighted noise.

You started this mess with your intentionally deceptive
statement "I don't expect to ever see a tubed amp with a
-112 dB noise floor, even though I have had a SS
amp like that in my hands." Where in your S/N figures
does it say "Crown Macrotech-5000VZ" has a S/N
of "-112 dB?"

My comparable numbers show that the unweighted zero-signal noise for the
Macrotech are more like -117 dB compared to full power.

The numbers on the PCAVTech web site are much
more critical unweighted measurement. Get it?

Wrong, where is S/N at full rated output?

Easy enough to compute from numbers provided, if you have basic electronics
knowlege. Sorry to point out your personal shortcomings again, Powell.

Who cares about random power outputs? Where are the A weighted
figures at full power?

A-weighting is thought by many to be a dodge for *improving* the perceived
paper performance of equipment.


BTW, what is wrong with A-weighted, it's the standard
format for reporting S/N?

A-weighted is not THE standard, it is A standard.

No, that's not what is commonly published by manufactures.

Partially, because it provides an aparrent inflation of actual performance.

What other "THE" standard is there, in regards to S/D, which
consumers have access to?

What's S/D, Powell?

Unweighed measurements are generally tougher.

Yea, ok, so what?

You said apples to apples, right Powell? Are you changing your story now?

I must refill my coffee cup now, you're putting me to sleep, Arny...
Zzzzz

Good Powell, then you won't wake up in time to further impress us with your
arrogance and ignorance.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

What make and model of SS are you "in my hands"
referring to?

Crown MA-5000VZ

Your talking about a PA amp.

So what? When did you audition it personally, Powell?

Why would I have cause to audition commercial intended
sound reinforcement equipment in a home setup?

Because you had an attack of objectivity???

Note: a false statement made with deliberate
intent to deceive.


Are you also advocating PA speakers are indistinguishable from
speakers designed for home use?

Inability to distinguish between the requirements for speakers and
amplfiiers noted.

Note: a false statement made with deliberate
intent to deceive.


I believe that all amps make noise, some more than
others. I don't expect to ever see a tubed amp with a
-112 dB noise floor, even though I have had a SS
amp like that in my hands.

BTW, Crown's website indicates that this model has
been discontinued.

So what?

Why is it so difficult for you to be up-front, Arny?

Inability to recognize a clear, up-front statement noted.

Note: lack of responce.


Why should
I have to case down your reference when asked?

Inability to be comfortable using google noted.

Deception on your part, ego or just empty hands?

Inability to recognize simple truth noted.

Note: lack of responce.


The MA-5002VZ is current. It indicates a Signal-to-Noise
Ratio, "A-weighted" as: Better than 105 dB below rated
1-kHz power. And as you pointed out "numbers are
potentially inflated manufacturers specs." Spec on this
unit are much to do about nothing.

The numbers on my site are actual measurements.

Inabiliy of Powell to appreciate the difference between actual measurments
by an unbiased third party and manfucturer's specs noted.

Note: a false statement made with deliberate
intent to deceive.


Lamm ML 1.1 - 115dB S/N ratio ref at 90 watts.
ARC REF300 - 110dB S/N ratio at 280 watts

These units are superior to your Crown example.

Wrong again Powell. The numbers you cite are indeed
potentially inflated manufacturers specs.

Personally, I have no reason to doubt the representative
validity of the specifications provided by Audio Research
or Lamm.

Inability to appreciate difference between weighted and unweighted noise
measurements noted.

Note: a false statement made with deliberate
intent to deceive.


There is a considerable body of reviews for
their equipment from virtually every significant audio
publication pass or present. And my own experience
A.R. supports this, too.

Inability to tell difference between sighted evaluations by ignorant and
potentially hearing-damaged radical subjectivists and actual reliable
facts
noted.

Note: a false statement made with deliberate
intent to deceive.


OTOH, I understand that because you are not well read
and that don't subscribe to audio magazines, you are
paranoid about their representations. However, that's
not my cross to carry.

Inability to carry on a civil conversation noted.

Note: lack of responce.


The numbers on the PCAVTech web site are actual
measurements.

False claim.

Inability to recognize clear facts noted.

Note: a false statement made with deliberate
intent to deceive.


Where is the S/N at full power output?

Inability to observe the obvious noted.

Where is the A-weighted S/N, lets at least compare
apples with apples, Arny.

Inability to appreciate the value of unweighted numbers noted.

Note: a false statement made with deliberate
intent to deceive.


And what of your figures. If you're challenging A-weighted
as overinflated then Crowns specification of 105 dB is
well below A.R. and Lamm specification, even if all
three are somewhat over rated. Your 94 dB figure
at only 400 watts is no better that average.

Inabiliity to determine difference between SNR as measured by PCAVTech and
SNR as used by vendor spec sheets noted. Inability to follow provided
hyperlink to formal definition of terms on PCAVTech web site noted.

Note: lack of responce.


No SOTA by any means.

Also, its not the same thing. Here's your challenge Powell- compare and
contrast the few different ways to measure SNR.

Note: lack of responce.


Why did you skip the measurement at full rated output?

Lack of an appropriate AC source. Enough AC power to properly feed a 1300
wpc is a little beyond my means, even with the industrially-rated
equipment
I have on hand.

However, anybody who has basic electronics knowlege (sorry to cut you out
of
the discussion, Powell) can adjust my zero-signal noise numbers for 1300
wpc
(per my sources) full-rated output. Basically, just add 5 dB to the 400
watt
numbers posted at PCAVTech.

I suspect if the A.R. and Lamm were
measured at only partial power, they too would have
better S/N figures, mr. Bad Science .

Wrong, Powell. If you measure a power amp for zero-signal noise and
compare
that to partial output, you implictly derate things.

Note: a false statement made with deliberate
intent to deceive.


The manufacturer's numbers you cite are weighted.

So what, do you have unweighted figures for A.R.
and Lamm to present... NO!

Rule of thumb is that A-weighting is a 5 to 10 dB *gift*. IOW, a device
with -100 dB A-weighted noise has between -105 and -110 unweighted noise.

Note: a false statement made with deliberate
intent to deceive.


You started this mess with your intentionally deceptive
statement "I don't expect to ever see a tubed amp with a
-112 dB noise floor, even though I have had a SS
amp like that in my hands." Where in your S/N figures
does it say "Crown Macrotech-5000VZ" has a S/N
of "-112 dB?"

My comparable numbers show that the unweighted zero-signal noise for the
Macrotech are more like -117 dB compared to full power.

Note: a false statement made with deliberate
intent to deceive.


The numbers on the PCAVTech web site are much
more critical unweighted measurement. Get it?

Wrong, where is S/N at full rated output?

Easy enough to compute from numbers provided, if you have basic
electronics
knowlege. Sorry to point out your personal shortcomings again, Powell.

Note: lack of responce.


Who cares about random power outputs? Where are the A weighted
figures at full power?

A-weighting is thought by many to be a dodge for *improving* the perceived
paper performance of equipment.

Note: a false statement made with deliberate
intent to deceive.


BTW, what is wrong with A-weighted, it's the standard
format for reporting S/N?

A-weighted is not THE standard, it is A standard.

No, that's not what is commonly published by manufactures.

Partially, because it provides an aparrent inflation of actual
performance.

Prove it. Where are your A-weighted figures to
support your assertion? I'm doubtful you even have
the capability to perform A-weighed testing, mr. Empty
Hands.

"The Milkman" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

What make and model of SS are you "in my hands" referring to?

tp://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/macrot-5000VZ/

What is this?

Probably a 5kW public address amplifier, or something daft like
that.

Obviously way too serious for you to worry about.

I don't understand what this means. In what way is a PA system "too
serious"?

Starting out with the phrase "public address". That's so low tech and 50's.

Then there's the obvious bias that something that could be used in a
practical way, has to be inferior.

"The Milkman" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

What make and model of SS are you "in my hands" referring to?

tp://www.pcavtech.com/pwramp/macrot-5000VZ/

What is this?

Probably a 5kW public address amplifier, or something daft like
that.

Obviously way too serious for you to worry about.

I don't understand what this means. In what way is a PA system "too
serious"?

Starting out with the phrase "public address". That's so low tech
and 50's.

You take offence when a commonly used and thus appropriate term is
used. That's odd.

Wrong. I'm not offended by people who demonstrate their low level of
awareness of modern technology by their use of obsolete terminology.


Then there's the obvious bias that something that could be used in a
practical way, has to be inferior.

What a bizarre imagination you have. I never said anything like that.

So, how many "Public Address" amplifiers do you have in your personal
system(s)?

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

Why would any individual want to simulate a large hall effect which
probably wasn't there in the first place, or doesn't correspond with
the concert hall the recording was made?

I never said it was perfect. However, you need to remember
that good DSP ambiance-simulation devices allow for a number
of varying hall-size programs.

Incidentally, I posted a response to one of your previous
messages, and that response was lengthy and detailed. It was
a draft of an article I published a while back in The
Sensible Sound (issue 92). Just in case you missed it, here
it is again. I think it summarizes my views on several
recording issues.


Your views seems to be of your rectum walls, as usual.

Cheers,

Margaret

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

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:41:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Powell wrote:

"Lucas Tam" wrote

Line
conditioning is a joke. If power was screwed up as
some of the tweako freakos claim, no appliances
would work properly.

Hmmm so the perceived benefits are most likely a placebo
effect huh?

Neither Howard or Arny have any experience with line
conditioners. Many audio stores will allow you to demo
these devices for free so there is no financial risk.

I reviewed some line-conditioner products in issue 89 of The
Sensible Sound. Engineer Fred Davis helped with the project,
and both of us concluded that the devices were gimmicks. We
also reviewed some exotic (and expensive) power cords. Still
gimmicks.

Any audio component that has a power supply so cheap that it
cannot deal with the kind of minor power line glitches found
today should not be purchased in the first place.

Or normal humidity in the average air-conditioned room, for that
matter.

Correct as far as it goes. However, in the fall and spring
neither the AC nor the heat may be operating.

Well, trailer homes do not typically have a humidity control since they
contain nothing valuable. OTOH, REAL homes with valuable art, musical
instruments and such have HVAC systems that maintain steady climate through
the year.

Sincerely,

Margaret

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

Howard Ferstler said:

It may be a byproduct of your particular processor and not
the DPL II technology itself. If a recording does have a lot
of decorrelated hiss in the background (older analog
releases might exhibit this) the processor would extract
that part of the signal and send it to the surround
channels. Because the noise would no longer be coming from
up front, where much of it would be psychoacoustically
masked by the source material, it might be more apparent.

Tell me again why I should move from 2 channels to multichannel when
all I'm doing is playing 2-channel material.

Thank you.

Because a good surround DSP device can generate new surround
and center-channel signals that make the result more
"realistic" sounding than what you can get with only two
channels.


I was not aware that any DSP devices had a "trailer park" mode.

Sincerely,

Margaret