Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types. Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps, a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any particular kind of tweeter. Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many amplifiers approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective means are used to judge. Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound. They don't. Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types. Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps, a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any particular kind of tweeter. Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many amplifiers approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective means are used to judge. Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound. They don't. Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
... Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are ubiquitous in power switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power converters, inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial applications for power control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT apps. Generally true but "rare apps" is a too wide sweeping of a statement. Power MOSFETs make up the bulk of the mainstream switchmode power conversion. However, very large inverters, motor drives and other apps routinely use other devices such as bipolars and combination devices (MCTs and IGBTs to name a few). Many actually use a BOTH device types such as MCTs or IGBTs for the main power devices and MOSFETs either in parallel to reduce switching loss or to force resonant switching. On the low power side many switching regulator ICs (both offline and low voltage DC-DC) use onboard bipolar transistors due to ease of integration with control functions (although newer devices such as STs VIPer uses onboard HV MOSFET) . I believe the vast majority of low end TV sets still use bipolars for the high voltage flyback. Electronic ballasts for florescent lighting are using more and more MOSFETs but the majority still use bipolars in a self driven architecture due to cost. Just about any application where breakdown voltage exceeds 1200V is exclusively bipolar. Ditto for high voltage and high current applications. You can get an IGBT rated for 3,300V and 1,200A with 500ns switching in a small module which just can't be done with current generation MOSFETs. In many cases it boils down to cost. Bipolar structures use far less silicon for the same current density. MOSFETs usually make the most sense when either cost isn't the primary concern, fast switching speed is required (without resonant techniques), or the MOSFET die size can be large enough to have a lower conduction losses than bipolar. In the commercial world MOSFETs usually meet this critera when the power is more than a few watts but less than a few kW. Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification. However, thermal runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against by feedback or any linear network. Wrong. Many bulletproof protection methods are available and have been for decades. Just because audio designers can be ignorant and continually try to reinvent the wheel doesn't mean the rest of the world hasn't figured out how to do it right. I've designed kilowatt output switching power supplies with bipolar devices which can withstand any overload you can throw at it...even at a steady state operating temperature of 150C. when pushed to the limit. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is simply immune to thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in the semiconductor. Simply immune is simply wrong. Thermal runaway most certainly exists in a MOSFET. ON resistance is a strong function of temperature. The hotter the MOSFET the higher the ON resistance. Higher ON resistance causes more power dissipation which causes temperature to rise which increases ON resistance which causes temperature to rise which....BOOM! In the case of a switching power supply you can easily get the MOSFET in a state where it thermally runs away. I've had prototypes where the MOSFET is running fine at a given ambient temperature. Increase the ambient temperature by only 5C and the MOSFET quickly runs away and exceeds the 175C rating and dies. You may be confusing the situation where you have devices in parallel. If an individual FET heats up the increased ON resistance forces current to the other FETs which gives nice current sharing. Bipolars in parallel don't share well by themselves since as one heats up it's Vce decreases which allows more current to flow in that device and can cause runaway. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned industrial apps. Careful with the use of 'industrial'. Industrial usually means high power and/or high voltage in which bipolar reins supreme (steel mills, production facilities, etc). It is the commercial world in which MOSFETs are most common (PC power supplies/motherboards etc). |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
... Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are ubiquitous in power switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power converters, inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial applications for power control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT apps. Generally true but "rare apps" is a too wide sweeping of a statement. Power MOSFETs make up the bulk of the mainstream switchmode power conversion. However, very large inverters, motor drives and other apps routinely use other devices such as bipolars and combination devices (MCTs and IGBTs to name a few). Many actually use a BOTH device types such as MCTs or IGBTs for the main power devices and MOSFETs either in parallel to reduce switching loss or to force resonant switching. On the low power side many switching regulator ICs (both offline and low voltage DC-DC) use onboard bipolar transistors due to ease of integration with control functions (although newer devices such as STs VIPer uses onboard HV MOSFET) . I believe the vast majority of low end TV sets still use bipolars for the high voltage flyback. Electronic ballasts for florescent lighting are using more and more MOSFETs but the majority still use bipolars in a self driven architecture due to cost. Just about any application where breakdown voltage exceeds 1200V is exclusively bipolar. Ditto for high voltage and high current applications. You can get an IGBT rated for 3,300V and 1,200A with 500ns switching in a small module which just can't be done with current generation MOSFETs. In many cases it boils down to cost. Bipolar structures use far less silicon for the same current density. MOSFETs usually make the most sense when either cost isn't the primary concern, fast switching speed is required (without resonant techniques), or the MOSFET die size can be large enough to have a lower conduction losses than bipolar. In the commercial world MOSFETs usually meet this critera when the power is more than a few watts but less than a few kW. Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification. However, thermal runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against by feedback or any linear network. Wrong. Many bulletproof protection methods are available and have been for decades. Just because audio designers can be ignorant and continually try to reinvent the wheel doesn't mean the rest of the world hasn't figured out how to do it right. I've designed kilowatt output switching power supplies with bipolar devices which can withstand any overload you can throw at it...even at a steady state operating temperature of 150C. when pushed to the limit. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is simply immune to thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in the semiconductor. Simply immune is simply wrong. Thermal runaway most certainly exists in a MOSFET. ON resistance is a strong function of temperature. The hotter the MOSFET the higher the ON resistance. Higher ON resistance causes more power dissipation which causes temperature to rise which increases ON resistance which causes temperature to rise which....BOOM! In the case of a switching power supply you can easily get the MOSFET in a state where it thermally runs away. I've had prototypes where the MOSFET is running fine at a given ambient temperature. Increase the ambient temperature by only 5C and the MOSFET quickly runs away and exceeds the 175C rating and dies. You may be confusing the situation where you have devices in parallel. If an individual FET heats up the increased ON resistance forces current to the other FETs which gives nice current sharing. Bipolars in parallel don't share well by themselves since as one heats up it's Vce decreases which allows more current to flow in that device and can cause runaway. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned industrial apps. Careful with the use of 'industrial'. Industrial usually means high power and/or high voltage in which bipolar reins supreme (steel mills, production facilities, etc). It is the commercial world in which MOSFETs are most common (PC power supplies/motherboards etc). |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
... Permit me to clarify my comment. When I said MOSFETs are ubiquitous in power switching applications, I was not referring to audio. Power converters, inverters, motor drivers, and all other industrial applications for power control use MOSFETs, except for some rare IGBT apps. Generally true but "rare apps" is a too wide sweeping of a statement. Power MOSFETs make up the bulk of the mainstream switchmode power conversion. However, very large inverters, motor drives and other apps routinely use other devices such as bipolars and combination devices (MCTs and IGBTs to name a few). Many actually use a BOTH device types such as MCTs or IGBTs for the main power devices and MOSFETs either in parallel to reduce switching loss or to force resonant switching. On the low power side many switching regulator ICs (both offline and low voltage DC-DC) use onboard bipolar transistors due to ease of integration with control functions (although newer devices such as STs VIPer uses onboard HV MOSFET) . I believe the vast majority of low end TV sets still use bipolars for the high voltage flyback. Electronic ballasts for florescent lighting are using more and more MOSFETs but the majority still use bipolars in a self driven architecture due to cost. Just about any application where breakdown voltage exceeds 1200V is exclusively bipolar. Ditto for high voltage and high current applications. You can get an IGBT rated for 3,300V and 1,200A with 500ns switching in a small module which just can't be done with current generation MOSFETs. In many cases it boils down to cost. Bipolar structures use far less silicon for the same current density. MOSFETs usually make the most sense when either cost isn't the primary concern, fast switching speed is required (without resonant techniques), or the MOSFET die size can be large enough to have a lower conduction losses than bipolar. In the commercial world MOSFETs usually meet this critera when the power is more than a few watts but less than a few kW. Bipolar is the dominant technology for audio amplification. However, thermal runaway has never been solved. It cannot be protected against by feedback or any linear network. Wrong. Many bulletproof protection methods are available and have been for decades. Just because audio designers can be ignorant and continually try to reinvent the wheel doesn't mean the rest of the world hasn't figured out how to do it right. I've designed kilowatt output switching power supplies with bipolar devices which can withstand any overload you can throw at it...even at a steady state operating temperature of 150C. when pushed to the limit. By contrast, a MOSFET circuit is simply immune to thermal runaway, because the physical process does not exist in the semiconductor. Simply immune is simply wrong. Thermal runaway most certainly exists in a MOSFET. ON resistance is a strong function of temperature. The hotter the MOSFET the higher the ON resistance. Higher ON resistance causes more power dissipation which causes temperature to rise which increases ON resistance which causes temperature to rise which....BOOM! In the case of a switching power supply you can easily get the MOSFET in a state where it thermally runs away. I've had prototypes where the MOSFET is running fine at a given ambient temperature. Increase the ambient temperature by only 5C and the MOSFET quickly runs away and exceeds the 175C rating and dies. You may be confusing the situation where you have devices in parallel. If an individual FET heats up the increased ON resistance forces current to the other FETs which gives nice current sharing. Bipolars in parallel don't share well by themselves since as one heats up it's Vce decreases which allows more current to flow in that device and can cause runaway. It is for this reason that it has been universally adopted for the above mentioned industrial apps. Careful with the use of 'industrial'. Industrial usually means high power and/or high voltage in which bipolar reins supreme (steel mills, production facilities, etc). It is the commercial world in which MOSFETs are most common (PC power supplies/motherboards etc). |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
... The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth. Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
... The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth. Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
... The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth. Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
bsguidry wrote:
[arny said] Good brands to look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown. If you surf the vendor web sites, you'll find very detailed RMS power specs. [morein said] Take QSC off the list. It's a testament to Arny's hearing difficulties. Othewise, I concur. I've definitely consider QSC and Crown, however, I've not encountered Hafler very often in my searching. I haven't heard any "recent un's" of the amps mentioned, but based on the context I have seen them mentioned in I would go for QSC for the bass and Hafler for "the above rest", and skip Crown as being not cost efficient in the context. Other brands that caught my attention were Nady, Samson, Peavey, and Behringer. Behringer tends to be getting ever more an interesting dark horse specwise and from what people who suggest them. The fan noise could be a problem as suggested. Since the concensus here seems to indicate going with the more pricey Crown or Hafler amplifiers, I think I will revert my focus back to obtaining a higher powerered Carver amplifier. There must be real bargains out there amongst the "crap bipolars from the 70-ties and 80-ties", but perhaps not in the power class you want, mostly it is the below 150 watts from that time and age you find the good ones in. I recently bought a "stone age" Technics SE9021, and it was a very positive surprise. Obvious caveats exist with so old stuff, especially if it has not been recently or reasonably constantly used. I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power meters on the front. I guess I'll keep scanning Ebay for good finds on these. Thanks for all the feedback to this post and two my previous posts about my Adire Tempest project. bguidry -- ************************************************** ************* * \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// * * \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// * ************************************************** ******* |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
bsguidry wrote:
[arny said] Good brands to look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown. If you surf the vendor web sites, you'll find very detailed RMS power specs. [morein said] Take QSC off the list. It's a testament to Arny's hearing difficulties. Othewise, I concur. I've definitely consider QSC and Crown, however, I've not encountered Hafler very often in my searching. I haven't heard any "recent un's" of the amps mentioned, but based on the context I have seen them mentioned in I would go for QSC for the bass and Hafler for "the above rest", and skip Crown as being not cost efficient in the context. Other brands that caught my attention were Nady, Samson, Peavey, and Behringer. Behringer tends to be getting ever more an interesting dark horse specwise and from what people who suggest them. The fan noise could be a problem as suggested. Since the concensus here seems to indicate going with the more pricey Crown or Hafler amplifiers, I think I will revert my focus back to obtaining a higher powerered Carver amplifier. There must be real bargains out there amongst the "crap bipolars from the 70-ties and 80-ties", but perhaps not in the power class you want, mostly it is the below 150 watts from that time and age you find the good ones in. I recently bought a "stone age" Technics SE9021, and it was a very positive surprise. Obvious caveats exist with so old stuff, especially if it has not been recently or reasonably constantly used. I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power meters on the front. I guess I'll keep scanning Ebay for good finds on these. Thanks for all the feedback to this post and two my previous posts about my Adire Tempest project. bguidry -- ************************************************** ************* * \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// * * \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// * ************************************************** ******* |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
bsguidry wrote:
[arny said] Good brands to look at include QSC, Hafler, and Crown. If you surf the vendor web sites, you'll find very detailed RMS power specs. [morein said] Take QSC off the list. It's a testament to Arny's hearing difficulties. Othewise, I concur. I've definitely consider QSC and Crown, however, I've not encountered Hafler very often in my searching. I haven't heard any "recent un's" of the amps mentioned, but based on the context I have seen them mentioned in I would go for QSC for the bass and Hafler for "the above rest", and skip Crown as being not cost efficient in the context. Other brands that caught my attention were Nady, Samson, Peavey, and Behringer. Behringer tends to be getting ever more an interesting dark horse specwise and from what people who suggest them. The fan noise could be a problem as suggested. Since the concensus here seems to indicate going with the more pricey Crown or Hafler amplifiers, I think I will revert my focus back to obtaining a higher powerered Carver amplifier. There must be real bargains out there amongst the "crap bipolars from the 70-ties and 80-ties", but perhaps not in the power class you want, mostly it is the below 150 watts from that time and age you find the good ones in. I recently bought a "stone age" Technics SE9021, and it was a very positive surprise. Obvious caveats exist with so old stuff, especially if it has not been recently or reasonably constantly used. I'm currently using one rated at 175watts rms X 2 at 4 ohms. I love the look of the Carvers with the two analog power meters on the front. I guess I'll keep scanning Ebay for good finds on these. Thanks for all the feedback to this post and two my previous posts about my Adire Tempest project. bguidry -- ************************************************** ************* * \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// * * \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// * ************************************************** ******* |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message "Powell" wrote in message ... Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence that I've got considerable empirical experience with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask what the heck are you ranting about, Powell? Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience. We all know you've not subscribed to any audio magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not even well read on the subject. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting that magazines will keep you "well read". I like the juxtapositioning of a true statement: "Talking about amps is not experience." With his apparent claim that reading about amps would somehow mitigate this problem. Reading between the lines Powell is very proud that he reads about amplifiers, LOTS! My wife reads murder-mysteries. I'm surprised the FBI hasn't called for her help yet. What Powell is missing is the obvious connection between the data on my web sites and intimate and continuing contact with the amplifiers that it is attributed to. Amps tend to have technical and in some sense audible signatures. It can be possible to falsify a claim that detailed technical data came from a certain amplifier. I wouldn't risk that. Agreed. By the time a review is published the product is usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years it's been since I read something first in an audio mag. Ever since you started surfing the web? Yeah, pretty much. I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He might even admit it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an editor and reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him. I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for circulation. Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John? How's it doing? The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is dying pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will continue to rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that aftermarket car audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available video will languish and eventually die out That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel 16bit/44kHz. Video is definitely a plus. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message "Powell" wrote in message ... Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence that I've got considerable empirical experience with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask what the heck are you ranting about, Powell? Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience. We all know you've not subscribed to any audio magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not even well read on the subject. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting that magazines will keep you "well read". I like the juxtapositioning of a true statement: "Talking about amps is not experience." With his apparent claim that reading about amps would somehow mitigate this problem. Reading between the lines Powell is very proud that he reads about amplifiers, LOTS! My wife reads murder-mysteries. I'm surprised the FBI hasn't called for her help yet. What Powell is missing is the obvious connection between the data on my web sites and intimate and continuing contact with the amplifiers that it is attributed to. Amps tend to have technical and in some sense audible signatures. It can be possible to falsify a claim that detailed technical data came from a certain amplifier. I wouldn't risk that. Agreed. By the time a review is published the product is usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years it's been since I read something first in an audio mag. Ever since you started surfing the web? Yeah, pretty much. I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He might even admit it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an editor and reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him. I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for circulation. Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John? How's it doing? The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is dying pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will continue to rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that aftermarket car audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available video will languish and eventually die out That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel 16bit/44kHz. Video is definitely a plus. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message "Powell" wrote in message ... Given the rather conspicuous reliable evidence that I've got considerable empirical experience with these and many other amps, one is tempted to ask what the heck are you ranting about, Powell? Rubbish. Talking about amps is not experience. We all know you've not subscribed to any audio magazines in the last 20 years... so you're not even well read on the subject. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day for suggesting that magazines will keep you "well read". I like the juxtapositioning of a true statement: "Talking about amps is not experience." With his apparent claim that reading about amps would somehow mitigate this problem. Reading between the lines Powell is very proud that he reads about amplifiers, LOTS! My wife reads murder-mysteries. I'm surprised the FBI hasn't called for her help yet. What Powell is missing is the obvious connection between the data on my web sites and intimate and continuing contact with the amplifiers that it is attributed to. Amps tend to have technical and in some sense audible signatures. It can be possible to falsify a claim that detailed technical data came from a certain amplifier. I wouldn't risk that. Agreed. By the time a review is published the product is usually darn near obsolete. I can't remember how many years it's been since I read something first in an audio mag. Ever since you started surfing the web? Yeah, pretty much. I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He might even admit it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an editor and reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him. I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for circulation. Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John? How's it doing? The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is dying pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will continue to rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that aftermarket car audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available video will languish and eventually die out That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel 16bit/44kHz. Video is definitely a plus. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth. Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world. Based upon your use of "YOU" above, I will carefully label my response: PERSONAL OPINION: The QSC is a piece of junk. WHY: Amplifier had many of the sonic attributes of older, cold running bipolar units. CONJECTU The QSC runs low bias current; therefore it uses precision biasing to eliminate crossover distortion. Some schemes are more successful than others. I do not believe the QSC to be the best in this category. As a group, I find such amplifiers to be be less than the best. REASON FOR VARIANCE OF OPINION We're all sensitive to different things. The QSC is a great bass amp, and capable of high volume levels. Fortunately, I have amplifiers that can do these things, and sound good TO ME as well. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth. Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world. Based upon your use of "YOU" above, I will carefully label my response: PERSONAL OPINION: The QSC is a piece of junk. WHY: Amplifier had many of the sonic attributes of older, cold running bipolar units. CONJECTU The QSC runs low bias current; therefore it uses precision biasing to eliminate crossover distortion. Some schemes are more successful than others. I do not believe the QSC to be the best in this category. As a group, I find such amplifiers to be be less than the best. REASON FOR VARIANCE OF OPINION We're all sensitive to different things. The QSC is a great bass amp, and capable of high volume levels. Fortunately, I have amplifiers that can do these things, and sound good TO ME as well. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
QSC=JUNK
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... The QSC is a piece of junk. It's a watt-pumper, and I advise anyone who thinks he has taste to give it a wide berth. Please elaborate on why YOU think this is the case. It's certainly not the opinion of the rest of the audio world. Based upon your use of "YOU" above, I will carefully label my response: PERSONAL OPINION: The QSC is a piece of junk. WHY: Amplifier had many of the sonic attributes of older, cold running bipolar units. CONJECTU The QSC runs low bias current; therefore it uses precision biasing to eliminate crossover distortion. Some schemes are more successful than others. I do not believe the QSC to be the best in this category. As a group, I find such amplifiers to be be less than the best. REASON FOR VARIANCE OF OPINION We're all sensitive to different things. The QSC is a great bass amp, and capable of high volume levels. Fortunately, I have amplifiers that can do these things, and sound good TO ME as well. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types. Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps, a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any particular kind of tweeter. No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver. Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound. They don't. It depends upon whether you go by averages, or the "exception that breaks the rule." There certainly are exceptions. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types. Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps, a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any particular kind of tweeter. No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver. Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound. They don't. It depends upon whether you go by averages, or the "exception that breaks the rule." There certainly are exceptions. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Hafler
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types. Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps, a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any particular kind of tweeter. No they don't all sound the same. Otherwise, you could get rid of your KSA-50 and get a good Japanese receiver. Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalisation that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound. They don't. It depends upon whether you go by averages, or the "exception that breaks the rule." There certainly are exceptions. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He might even admit it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an editor and reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him. I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for circulation. Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John? I see evidence that its editor is Thomas Norton. How's it doing? You're asking the wrong guy. I don't read it. The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is dying pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will continue to rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that aftermarket car audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available video will languish and eventually die out That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel 16bit/44kHz. I'm not a big fan of AC-3 - I'd rather listen to multichannel that hasn't been perceptually compressed. For example, my portable hard drive player is loaded with 100% .WAV files even though it cuts its capacity by over 10:1 and cuts battery life by about two due to the extra hard drive activity. Video is definitely a plus. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He might even admit it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an editor and reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him. I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for circulation. Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John? I see evidence that its editor is Thomas Norton. How's it doing? You're asking the wrong guy. I don't read it. The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is dying pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will continue to rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that aftermarket car audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available video will languish and eventually die out That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel 16bit/44kHz. I'm not a big fan of AC-3 - I'd rather listen to multichannel that hasn't been perceptually compressed. For example, my portable hard drive player is loaded with 100% .WAV files even though it cuts its capacity by over 10:1 and cuts battery life by about two due to the extra hard drive activity. Video is definitely a plus. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message I think that there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern Atkinson. I've heard that Atkinson admits it privately. He might even admit it publicly. Ironically, I don't think his inadequacies as an editor and reviewer are the sole cause. Demographics are against him. I had noticed the drop on their gov't filing page for circulation. Is Stereophile Guide to HT also edited by John? I see evidence that its editor is Thomas Norton. How's it doing? You're asking the wrong guy. I don't read it. The best market information I have suggests that 2-channel audio is dying pretty rapidly, HT is still rising strongly and probably will continue to rise as it is closely tied to the switchover to HDTV, that aftermarket car audio is stagnant but strong, that audio without available video will languish and eventually die out That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? The 2-channel world needs to drop the unnecessary high bit/high frequency space hog and at least convert to multichannel 16bit/44kHz. I'm not a big fan of AC-3 - I'd rather listen to multichannel that hasn't been perceptually compressed. For example, my portable hard drive player is loaded with 100% .WAV files even though it cuts its capacity by over 10:1 and cuts battery life by about two due to the extra hard drive activity. Video is definitely a plus. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore what you hear
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types. Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps, a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any particular kind of tweeter. Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many amplifiers approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective means are used to judge. Of course. Simply ignore the "in your face evidence" and keep looking at the "data." Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound. They don't. Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms. I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL sound soft, compared to a typical metal dome. I can't ignore what I hear. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore what you hear
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types. Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps, a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any particular kind of tweeter. Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many amplifiers approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective means are used to judge. Of course. Simply ignore the "in your face evidence" and keep looking at the "data." Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound. They don't. Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms. I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL sound soft, compared to a typical metal dome. I can't ignore what I hear. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore what you hear
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:10:51 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: The sound of the traditional MOSFET circuit has both followers and detractors, to which I add my personal observation that they complement metal dome tweeters very well, but are not as good with fabric types. Absolute bolllocks! As with bipolars and even a select few tube amps, a good amp sounds like a good amp, i.e. it sounds like its input signal. They all sound the same, hence they don't 'complement' any particular kind of tweeter. Agreed. The ideal amp is a "straight wire with gain", and many amplifiers approximate this quite well, particularly if only reliable subjective means are used to judge. Of course. Simply ignore the "in your face evidence" and keep looking at the "data." Further, there's even more ******** in your sweeping generalization that metal dome and soft dome tweeters have a characteristic sound. They don't. Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms. I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL sound soft, compared to a typical metal dome. I can't ignore what I hear. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore what you hear
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms. I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL sound soft, compared to a typical metal dome. I note Morein that you can't even cite the name of any speakers with metal dome tweeters. I have a pair of NHT 2.5i speakers with metal domes and a pair of speakers based on the Audax ring drivers that I designed myself. They both sound great, neither sounds soft or harsh. Something about quality of implementation... I can't ignore what I hear. Neither can I. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore what you hear
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms. I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL sound soft, compared to a typical metal dome. I note Morein that you can't even cite the name of any speakers with metal dome tweeters. I have a pair of NHT 2.5i speakers with metal domes and a pair of speakers based on the Audax ring drivers that I designed myself. They both sound great, neither sounds soft or harsh. Something about quality of implementation... I can't ignore what I hear. Neither can I. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore what you hear
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Agreed. While intuition might suggest that metal domes might have stronger high frequency response, the most popular dome-type tweeters with the most extended response (40 KHz & beyond) have fabric diaphragms. I have a set of Polks with the new Audax ring drivers, and they STILL sound soft, compared to a typical metal dome. I note Morein that you can't even cite the name of any speakers with metal dome tweeters. I have a pair of NHT 2.5i speakers with metal domes and a pair of speakers based on the Audax ring drivers that I designed myself. They both sound great, neither sounds soft or harsh. Something about quality of implementation... I can't ignore what I hear. Neither can I. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? There are several good reasons. The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music. This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might disagree of course. Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while listening to music. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? There are several good reasons. The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music. This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might disagree of course. Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while listening to music. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? There are several good reasons. The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music. This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might disagree of course. Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while listening to music. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? There are several good reasons. The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music. Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience. This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might disagree of course. I agree, but I like having the choice. Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I agree, but I like having the choice. So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while listening to music. I agree, but I like having the choice. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? There are several good reasons. The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music. Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience. This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might disagree of course. I agree, but I like having the choice. Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I agree, but I like having the choice. So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while listening to music. I agree, but I like having the choice. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? There are several good reasons. The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music. Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience. This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might disagree of course. I agree, but I like having the choice. Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I agree, but I like having the choice. So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while listening to music. I agree, but I like having the choice. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? There are several good reasons. The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music. Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience. This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might disagree of course. I agree, but I like having the choice. Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I agree, but I like having the choice. So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while listening to music. I agree, but I like having the choice. You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to watch. I answered your question. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? There are several good reasons. The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music. Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience. This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might disagree of course. I agree, but I like having the choice. Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I agree, but I like having the choice. So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while listening to music. I agree, but I like having the choice. You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to watch. I answered your question. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? There are several good reasons. The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music. Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience. This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might disagree of course. I agree, but I like having the choice. Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I agree, but I like having the choice. So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while listening to music. I agree, but I like having the choice. You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to watch. I answered your question. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? There are several good reasons. The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music. Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience. This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might disagree of course. I agree, but I like having the choice. Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I agree, but I like having the choice. So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while listening to music. I agree, but I like having the choice. You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to watch. Acutally, I didn't ask about anything. I restated someone else's question. I answered your question. Except it wasn't my question. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:56:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 11:40:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That's certainly been my feeling. Why buy a CD partially filled with poor music when a DVD is cheaper and has more and better content? Stated differently - if one is going to sit down and listen, why just listen when you can also watch something that is relevant to the music? There are several good reasons. The main one is that music is highly based on the imagination of the listener. You can actually minimize the impact of the music by tying images chosen by someone else to the listening of said music. Or, you can increase the impact of the music, or you can change it. You don't have to watch if you don't want to. If you don't watch you have the experience(s) you've described which I agree can have tremendous value, but if you do watch, you have the benefit of a different experience. This isn't to say that it can't be effective. But for instance, I usually don't like watching videos of symphony orchestras performing music. I simply find it distracting. Sometimes the editing is distracting, sometimes it's just the camera angles. Others might disagree of course. I agree, but I like having the choice. Then there's the issue of artistic videos interpreting music. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I agree, but I like having the choice. So, there are plenty of good reasons for forgoing watching video while listening to music. I agree, but I like having the choice. You didn't ask about choice. You asked why someone wouldn't want to watch. Acutally, I didn't ask about anything. I restated someone else's question. I answered your question. Except it wasn't my question. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Book Review: Home Theater For Everyone: A Practical Guide ; Harley, Holman | General | |||
Using DJ Amplifiers in Home Theater | Audio Opinions | |||
Home Theater "Junkyard Wars" | Audio Opinions | |||
Home theater recommandation please | General | |||
Home Theater Upgrade Path | High End Audio |