Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
Brother Horace the Intermittently Unconscious said: Did you notice Ferstler's first reaction when you reminded him I have a Lexicon preamp? He accused me of lying just so I could brag about it. Well, which Lexicon preamp do you have? Did you nod off again, Clerkie? Maybe you're still taking Viagra when you should be taking No-Doz. |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: This is, I assume, something that you have not done. Rather, you have had to shoehorn your hardware into an existing room that is probably not quite optimal. As you did. I remember that when you disclosed your dimensions, they didn't have any of the accepted ratios for top-quality sound, Actually, in a paper he delivered some time ago, Floyd Toole downplayed the room-ratio issue, concentrating instead on the way the room was furnished and the location of the listener. Remember, my room is lined with bookcases and is furnished in such a way, and my listening couch is located in such a way, that the dimension problems are pretty much bypassed. How do I know? Well, I have done FR plots all over the area and at the listening couch the artifacts are minimal. What few there are were easily dealt with by good equalization. Yep, Dave, I measured and fixed those small problems. Have you measured the response of your system in your room, Dave? whereas mine came quite close to one of them. Unfortunately for you, the limiting factor is the height of your ceiling, IIRC. To meet any of the ratios that are considered optimal, you'd have to downsize your room considerably. Shame that you don't have my 9 1/2 foot ceilings. Sorry. The only result would be standing-wave artifacts, and the ones I have (which I have at least bothered to measure, unlike what we have with you) do not cause serious problems at the primary listening positions. Those minor ones were easily equalized out. Want to see the effect in action? Go read the two speaker-curve articles I published in issues 94 and 95 of The Sensible Sound. A larger room size will help to reduce the impact of those artifacts, by the way, as will walls with some degree of flexibility. (Yep, you guys with systems installed in basements are in trouble.) If your room, Dave, is on the small size, standing waves could be a problem, no matter what the ratios. My room, being large, has them to a much less extreme degree than you might think. Actually, I do not see how anyone can enjoy a good audio system in a pint-sized room. Howard Ferstler |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: As for big-deal players, the $1800 job I have in my main system (also reviewed a while back) does have a marginally better picture than the companion $300 unit in there or the $1200 LD/DVD player (reviewed a while back, too) also in there, or the $300 unit in my middle system, but the sound from all three (DD and DTS) is just about the same across the board. Another free piece of bribery that you've accepted, Howard? For I can't believe that you would even pay accommodation prices for an $1800 DVD player. Wonders never cease, Dave. I could not believe that my wife would let me spend five grand on new tools, either, but there they sit out there in my recently expanded (also paid for with surplus money) shop in the back yard. Heck, she also just sprung for two new Toyota Scion automobiles: one for her and one for me. You need to get married, Dave. It is a great institution. Shame on you, Howard. You are nothing but a huckster who's pretending to be an unbiased reviewer in order to get free stuff. Keep drooling, Dave, as you think about all the fun I am having. "Sensible sound" indeed. $1800 DVD players. $2400 receivers. $6000 TVs. $6000 speakers. Probably paid $4000 for the lot. Yeah, THAT'S sensible, all right. Actually, the RX-Z1 listed for $2800. I paid a lot less, however, although Yamaha's accommodation prices cannot match the lowball rates that some other outfits offer. Incidentally, the DSP-A1 processor/amp located in my second system was purchased by me at a good discount from a local dealer after it had been superseded by a newer model. Yes, I did review the device in issue 72 of TSS, but I sent that one back to Yamaha. Purchased my sample some months later from that dealer, after my wife gave me some money in sympathy for my just-diagnosed cancer. Yeah, I contacted Yamaha about a purchase, but they only had used versions on hand and they said that the dealer's price for a new sample was only a few bucks more than what they would have charged me for a used one. (Most of the used ones were probably review units sent back to the company.) Note that I have reviewed speaker packages that cost dirt cheap and will have that review of a $70 DVD player (admittedly, the list price is $100) in the magazine one of these days. No speakers installed at my place listed for six grand, Dave, and I sure would not pay that much for a pair. Yes, I did once review a stereo sub/sat packages that listed for $6800 (ten grand for all five channels, including two subs and outboard amplification and equalization), but sent them back after the review. My projection set listed for a mere $4700 and I purchased it from an acquaintance at a local pro AV shop for far less than that. I then went on to review the thing in issue 66 of TSS. Yep, I purchased it in town at a dealer discount, and reviewed it after the purchase. The company did not even know a review was coming until the editor sent them a review copy to fact check. Howard Ferstler |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:14:43 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: dave weil wrote: On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: You've spent about 10 times what I have spent on your rigs. Probably more like 20 times, on three complete systems, actually. Oh, you've spent $60,000 - 100,000 on your gear? You got me, kind of. I would say that the full, three-system equipment packages top out at only $50,000, list. Needless to say, I did not come close to paying that much. Then your bragging was just bull****. Remember what I said about adding one room and expanding another. Because the room is part of the system (more influential than any high-end amps, super wires, or super CD players and transports, Dave), I factor in those costs whenever I calculate what I actually spent on my systems. So you spent $40,000 - 80,000 on your rooms? BTW, did you fix the bad ratio of your main room? Unless you raised the ceiling, I doubt it. You could have used my 9 1/2 foot ceilings. How much did you spend on your audio room(s), Dave? I spent a couple of hours in there today. |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote
BTW, did you fix the bad ratio of your main room? Unless you raised the ceiling, I doubt it. You could have used my 9 1/2 foot ceilings. What do you know about ceiling heights, Dave? I'm building a house and planning a home theater in the basement. I'm struggling with whether to spend extra for a 10 ft basement. The room is 12 ft wide and will be from 17 to 22 ft long. |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:07:34 -0700, "Tom" wrote:
"dave weil" wrote BTW, did you fix the bad ratio of your main room? Unless you raised the ceiling, I doubt it. You could have used my 9 1/2 foot ceilings. What do you know about ceiling heights, Dave? I'm building a house and planning a home theater in the basement. I'm struggling with whether to spend extra for a 10 ft basement. The room is 12 ft wide and will be from 17 to 22 ft long. If you go here (see below), you can see some suggested ratios. If you will be working with a fixed footprint, then you might need to alter your ceiling height if you want an optimal ratio. If you are working with a fixed ceiling height, then you will need to alter your length. It sounds like you've got enough variation in length to hit one of the suggested ratios by keeping your ceiling at 10 feet, although it probably isn't necessary to pay extra for it. I would probably want at least 9 foot ceilings, simply because I like the extra "space". 10 foot would be even cooler! As Howard will tell you, you should also pay attention to the furnishings. Also, if you can arrange it, you might want to toe in the walls at one end as to break up a pair of parallel walls (and you can also vary on of the short walls as well). I'm not sure how you would calculate the optimal angle though. Most acoustic experts recommend "uneven" walls. It shouldn't be all that difficult to do some drywall framing that doesn't meet at 90 degree angles, even if it's only 5 degrees off. But I suspect that the more fanning you can do, the better. Here's the link: http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?p=5570 And here's a forum post that you might pay attention to: http://hometheaterhifi.com/forum/arc...php/t-436.html I can't find the webpage, so I will be forced to draw it pretty crappy, but I recall this being the optimal shape for a dedicated listening room, stereo or home theater. The M's are mains, C is center, S's are surrounds, R's are rears, = is listener. Again, this drawing is going to be off, but I think you can get the idea. The shape is a hexagon, the rear wall is wider than the front wall. The surrounds and listening position shouldn't be that close to where the walls slant back inward, they should be up closer to the front, but I only have so much control with this. Distance between each main to you should be the same as the distance between the center and you, so the center should be a little behind the mains considering you have the mains 30 degrees off of you. You would want something like thick drapes on the front wall to absord any reflections and pillars on the side walls to break them up even more. Of all the home theaters I have seen, this one comes the closest. http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ric...rc=ph&store=&a Hope this helps. ..............._________ ............../..............\ ............./...M..C..M...\ ............/..................\ .........../....................\ ........../.S........=.......S.\ ..........\....................../ ............\____R__R___./ EDIT: For reference, I read about this from an acclaimed acoustic engineer who has published books on the matter, but it was a while ago and for the life of me I can't remember his name or the website, I will look for it though ---------- It's been said that Floyd O'Toole has "debunked" room ratios, but it's clear that different ratios offer different room modes. He tacitly accepts this with his "room calculator", which demands that you put in room dimensions, admitting that they make a difference. Sure, the room treatments that you put in can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, and vice versa, but why not start with a ratio that is already optimized to cut down on unwanted room modes? That way, you reduce the need for extensive room treatments, especially if you're building a brand new room? O'Toole's advice is comfort for those working with pre-existing rooms though. Here's another bit of opinion about non-parallel walls worth digesting, this time from Paul White a Sound On Sound: It is a common misconception that building non-parallel walls will improve the standing wave situation. In practice, this has minimal effects at low frequencies: the low frequency modes will develop much as before based on the mean distance between walls. What is true is that splaying the walls by as little as 1:10 or even 1:20 will help reduce high-frequency flutter echoes caused by mid- and high-frequency sounds bouncing between two facing walls or floor and ceiling. However, this particular problem is solved even more easily in most rooms with parallel walls by using small areas of acoustically absorbent material. You might want to read the full page: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul9...coustics1.html And finally, O'Toole recommends tossing third octive eqs as a room equalization tool (from what I've read). I'm sure that Howard simply blocks stuff like that out... |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote: snipped O'Toole has "debunked" room ratios And finally, O'Toole recommends tossing third octive eqs Who is "O'Toole"?? |
#528
|
|||
|
|||
Tom said: What do you know about ceiling heights, Dave? I'm building a house and planning a home theater in the basement. I'm struggling with whether to spend extra for a 10 ft basement. The room is 12 ft wide and will be from 17 to 22 ft long. My calculations-on-a-napkin tell me you probably want 13 feet for best results. So I'd say 10 is much better than 8. You could also consider a sunken pit at one end. |
#529
|
|||
|
|||
George M. Middius wrote: .... You could also consider a sunken pit at one end. Dude...... I don't think there will be any pits. What's your napkin formula? |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
Tom said: .... You could also consider a sunken pit at one end. Dude...... I don't think there will be any pits. Your loss. Maybe you could build a pen out back to store your bicycles. What's your napkin formula? L : W : H :: 1.8 : 1 : 1.2 Not sure where I got it, but it's stuck in my mind. I might have it wrong though, since very few rooms are taller than they are wide. |
#531
|
|||
|
|||
"George M. Middius" wrote
Maybe you could build a pen out back to store your bicycles. Who do you think you're talking to? What's your napkin formula? L : W : H :: 1.8 : 1 : 1.2 Not sure where I got it, but it's stuck in my mind. I might have it wrong though, since very few rooms are taller than they are wide. yeah - maybe 1.8 : 1.2 : 1 makes more sense. gracias. |
#532
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:14:43 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: dave weil wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: dave weil wrote: On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: You've spent about 10 times what I have spent on your rigs. Probably more like 20 times, on three complete systems, actually. Oh, you've spent $60,000 - 100,000 on your gear? You got me, kind of. I would say that the full, three-system equipment packages top out at only $50,000, list. Needless to say, I did not come close to paying that much. Then your bragging was just bull****. Remember what I said about adding one room and expanding another. Because the room is part of the system (more influential than any high-end amps, super wires, or super CD players and transports, Dave), I factor in those costs whenever I calculate what I actually spent on my systems. So you spent $40,000 - 80,000 on your rooms? Well, I spent $13,000 on the first one (the big one), but that was back in the days when construction was cheap. At today's $100+ per square foot prices, the area would have cost over forty grand, and probably considerably more. The new room, which basically amounted to adding 150 square feet to a room that was 220 square feet at the beginning, cost us $28,000 last year, so we are talking about close to $200 a square foot with that one. (Both rooms are thickly carpeted, which is in contrast to the rest of the house which now has hardwood floors over the slab.) Well, the builder did a hell of a job with that new area: 2 x 8 and 2 x 6 trusses on 16-inch centers in the attic, 2 x 6 studs on 16-inch centers, with a 6 x 18, 22 foot long beam holding up the roof where the old wall was once located. The earlier room also had 2 x 6 studs on 16-inch centers, with thick paneling nailed and glued over 5/8-inch drywall for rigidity. The attic, unfortunately, still has standard 2 x 4 trusses on 24-inch centers, but you cannot have everything. The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115 grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the original price for the older room, we are still talking about maybe 66 grand or more. So, Dave, I have easily surpassed your stated minimum, and the maximum, too if we use today's construction costs and certainly am in the ball park if we ignore inflation. BTW, did you fix the bad ratio of your main room? Unless you raised the ceiling, I doubt it. You could have used my 9 1/2 foot ceilings. The proof is in the measurements, Dave. I have measured the daylights out of the place with my RTA, and trust me, it is an exemplary room. Thank all of those bookcases full of books and recordings. Incidentally, have you measured your room, or do you just assume that it works for you at your standard listening position? Guys like you rather do not like to measure their listening spaces, for fear that they will discover that things are not as tidy as they assumed. How much did you spend on your audio room(s), Dave? I spent a couple of hours in there today. Hah, you basically have a modest audio system in a room that you have to live with. Well, you are at least typical. You have my deepest sympathies. Howard Ferstler |
#533
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:07:34 -0700, "Tom" wrote: "dave weil" wrote BTW, did you fix the bad ratio of your main room? Unless you raised the ceiling, I doubt it. You could have used my 9 1/2 foot ceilings. What do you know about ceiling heights, Dave? I'm building a house and planning a home theater in the basement. I'm struggling with whether to spend extra for a 10 ft basement. The room is 12 ft wide and will be from 17 to 22 ft long. If you go here (see below), you can see some suggested ratios. If you will be working with a fixed footprint, then you might need to alter your ceiling height if you want an optimal ratio. If you are working with a fixed ceiling height, then you will need to alter your length. It sounds like you've got enough variation in length to hit one of the suggested ratios by keeping your ceiling at 10 feet, although it probably isn't necessary to pay extra for it. I would probably want at least 9 foot ceilings, simply because I like the extra "space". 10 foot would be even cooler! As Howard will tell you, you should also pay attention to the furnishings. Also, if you can arrange it, you might want to toe in the walls at one end as to break up a pair of parallel walls (and you can also vary on of the short walls as well). I'm not sure how you would calculate the optimal angle though. Most acoustic experts recommend "uneven" walls. It shouldn't be all that difficult to do some drywall framing that doesn't meet at 90 degree angles, even if it's only 5 degrees off. But I suspect that the more fanning you can do, the better. Here's the link: http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?p=5570 And here's a forum post that you might pay attention to: http://hometheaterhifi.com/forum/arc...php/t-436.html I can't find the webpage, so I will be forced to draw it pretty crappy, but I recall this being the optimal shape for a dedicated listening room, stereo or home theater. The M's are mains, C is center, S's are surrounds, R's are rears, = is listener. Again, this drawing is going to be off, but I think you can get the idea. The shape is a hexagon, the rear wall is wider than the front wall. The surrounds and listening position shouldn't be that close to where the walls slant back inward, they should be up closer to the front, but I only have so much control with this. Distance between each main to you should be the same as the distance between the center and you, so the center should be a little behind the mains considering you have the mains 30 degrees off of you. You would want something like thick drapes on the front wall to absord any reflections and pillars on the side walls to break them up even more. Of all the home theaters I have seen, this one comes the closest. http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/ric...rc=ph&store=&a Hope this helps. .............._________ ............./..............\ ............/...M..C..M...\ .........../..................\ ........../....................\ ........./.S........=.......S.\ .........\....................../ ...........\____R__R___./ EDIT: For reference, I read about this from an acclaimed acoustic engineer who has published books on the matter, but it was a while ago and for the life of me I can't remember his name or the website, I will look for it though ---------- It's been said that Floyd O'Toole has "debunked" room ratios, but it's clear that different ratios offer different room modes. He tacitly accepts this with his "room calculator", which demands that you put in room dimensions, admitting that they make a difference. Sure, the room treatments that you put in can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, and vice versa, but why not start with a ratio that is already optimized to cut down on unwanted room modes? That way, you reduce the need for extensive room treatments, especially if you're building a brand new room? O'Toole's advice is comfort for those working with pre-existing rooms though. Here's another bit of opinion about non-parallel walls worth digesting, this time from Paul White a Sound On Sound: It is a common misconception that building non-parallel walls will improve the standing wave situation. In practice, this has minimal effects at low frequencies: the low frequency modes will develop much as before based on the mean distance between walls. What is true is that splaying the walls by as little as 1:10 or even 1:20 will help reduce high-frequency flutter echoes caused by mid- and high-frequency sounds bouncing between two facing walls or floor and ceiling. However, this particular problem is solved even more easily in most rooms with parallel walls by using small areas of acoustically absorbent material. You might want to read the full page: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul9...coustics1.html And finally, O'Toole recommends tossing third octive eqs as a room equalization tool (from what I've read). I'm sure that Howard simply blocks stuff like that out... Aside from this last paragraph, your comments and the references are really quite OK. The problem is that the ratios do not take into consideration wall flexing or the amount of bulky items lining the walls, perhaps half-way to the ceiling - such as full bookcases. When you factor in those items all bets are off. Regarding 1/3-octave analysis, here are two observations: First, while he prefers resolution measurements out to 1/10 octave for speaker reviewing and design, Toole is hair splitting when we get down to analyzing home listening areas. For the most part, 1/3-octave analysis will do the trick with typical home-listening room analyses. Second, assuming Toole is correct about the need for 1/10-octave analysis (and I am not sure of this, but I will cut him some slack for your sake), I can still assure you that 1/3-octave analysis is still superior to NO analysis at all, Dave. PS: his name is not O'Toole. Howard Ferstler |
#534
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:00:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115 grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the original price for the older room, we are still talking about maybe 66 grand or more. Oh, come on Howard. If I count "list price", I have about $7,000 retail in just two components (the EAD disc transport and Theta ProGen3 DAC). |
#535
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:11:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Toole is hair splitting Funny how it's "hair-splitting" when he says something that dismisses one of your "imperatives". That happens a lot with you... |
#536
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... : I do write down the * : settings, however, just in case I bump a slider. (The Rane : units do have cosmetic covers, but I usually leave them off, : because the systems are so often used with my reviewing : work.) *gasp. you mean that you'd be lost without the written down setting ? as in: "can't distinguish the proper setting in a dbt" .....talk about freako tweako beliefs :-) : No, actually quite correct. You guys "tune" your gear to : satisfy taste and not to satisfy precise requirements, be : those requirements what one should have with a well-tuned : piano or what one would want to have with a neutral-sounding : hi-fi rig. *yeah, sure Howard ;-) Rudy : Howard Ferstler |
#537
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:00:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115 grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the original price for the older room, we are still talking about maybe 66 grand or more. Oh, come on Howard. If I count "list price", I have about $7,000 retail in just two components (the EAD disc transport and Theta ProGen3 DAC). Both overkill items. If you are not using them (and using them makes no sense, since a $100 DVD player purchased at Best Buy would sound just as good, and would throw in video at no extra charge), I suggest getting onto ebay and getting rid of them. Better do this post haste, while there are still people out there who would buy the stuff. Say, Dave, just how did you latch on to components so expensive? You sometimes talk about me absconding with tested gear or getting it criminally cheap, but at least I did do reviews of the stuff and mention most of it when I do additional reviews of other hardware later on. Those comments almost amount to additional mini reviews of the stuff. On the other hand, you seem to have ended up with that gear with no strings attached whatsoever. Your situation looks rather suspicious to me, Dave. Howard Ferstler |
#538
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:11:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: Toole is hair splitting Funny how it's "hair-splitting" when he says something that dismisses one of your "imperatives". That happens a lot with you... Nobody is right all of the time, Dave, including Toole. Well, I suppose that I am right all of the time, but I am a rather remarkable person. Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement techniques when it comes to listening rooms, while at the same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark about just how good your room actually is. Ignorance is bliss. Howard Ferstler |
#539
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: dave weil wrote: On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:11:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: Toole is hair splitting Funny how it's "hair-splitting" when he says something that dismisses one of your "imperatives". That happens a lot with you... Nobody is right all of the time, Dave, including Toole. Well, I suppose that I am right all of the time, but I am a rather remarkable person. Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement techniques when it comes to listening rooms, while at the same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark about just how good your room actually is. Ignorance is bliss Sounds good = is good. Stephen |
#540
|
|||
|
|||
Howard Ferstler wrote:
dave weil wrote: On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:00:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115 grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the original price for the older room, we are still talking about maybe 66 grand or more. Oh, come on Howard. If I count "list price", I have about $7,000 retail in just two components (the EAD disc transport and Theta ProGen3 DAC). Both overkill items. There's even some question as to whether Weil is telling the truth, given his butchering of the proper name of the DAC. If you are not using them (and using them makes no sense, since a $100 DVD player purchased at Best Buy would sound just as good, and would throw in video at no extra charge), True, time marches on. Another salient question is whether or not they are operational, given Weil's proclivities towards broken equipment. I suggest getting onto ebay and getting rid of them. Better do this post haste, while there are still people out there who would buy the stuff. Good point. |
#541
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:00:56 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:00:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115 grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the original price for the older room, we are still talking about maybe 66 grand or more. Oh, come on Howard. If I count "list price", I have about $7,000 retail in just two components (the EAD disc transport and Theta ProGen3 DAC). Both overkill items. If you are not using them (and using them makes no sense, since a $100 DVD player purchased at Best Buy would sound just as good, and would throw in video at no extra charge), I suggest getting onto ebay and getting rid of them. Better do this post haste, while there are still people out there who would buy the stuff. I use them occasionally. Of course, the actual market value of this gear is now just pennies on the dollar (which is part of the point that I was making). So, it makes more sense to just keep them. They are very nice, extremely sturdy pieces of industrial art as well (I think the disc transport weighs something like 40 pounds, and the Theta has some very nice stainless steel mini toggle switches on the front). I already HAVE a $100 DVD player, remember? I also have a 200 disc changer from Sony. I have a 5 disc Mitsubishi changer in the bedroom as well. I like the flexibility that having multiple players offers. Oh yeah, I have a very nice Stage Five Micromega player as well (Lionel, are you listening in?) The first two are things I paid for, the third was obtained in a trade, and the last was also obtained as described below. Oh yeah, I still have a Pioneer CLD 5070 Laserdisc player for those rare times that I might want to watch a Laserdisc from the past. Of course, the EAD will handle those as well... Say, Dave, just how did you latch on to components so expensive? You sometimes talk about me absconding with tested gear or getting it criminally cheap, but at least I did do reviews of the stuff and mention most of it when I do additional reviews of other hardware later on. Those comments almost amount to additional mini reviews of the stuff. On the other hand, you seem to have ended up with that gear with no strings attached whatsoever. I've explained that in the past. I had a roommate for a while and he left town suddenly with no word. Perhaps the pregnancy of his girlfriend had something to do with it (and no, I'm not condoning such horrible behavior). In any case, he left all of his stuff and it's now mine (for reasons of abandonment *and* the fact that he left me holding the lease - this was before I became a homeowner). Your situation looks rather suspicious to me, Dave. Hope that this explains it. |
#542
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:04:44 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:11:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: Toole is hair splitting Funny how it's "hair-splitting" when he says something that dismisses one of your "imperatives". That happens a lot with you... Nobody is right all of the time, Dave, including Toole. Well, I suppose that I am right all of the time, but I am a rather remarkable person. Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement techniques when it comes to listening rooms, I don't criticize your measurement techniques. Just pointing out that the guy whom you base much of your audio philosophy finds some of your technique superfluous. I don't have a problem with those who measure their room, just with people who demand it of everyone. Not everyone has the need to measure all of the time. while at the same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark about just how good your room actually is. My room isn't perfect, by any means. It's pretty good for what it is, and I don't need measurements to confirm what I hear with my own ears. Could it be improved? Probably. My plan is eventually to take down the wall between it and the adjacent room, creating a room that would be about the same footprint as your main room. Of course, I'd have some extra headroom (literally). But since that wall is a load-bearing wall, I'm going to take my time doing it. I hope you don't mind. But as far as furnishings, it's set up pretty well in terms of dampening vs. reflectivity. It's fully carpeted and doesn't have a lot of ringing, but it's not dead either. Plus, it's coupled acoustically to two other rooms. And yes, I have bookshelves and an 8 ft X 5 ft record shelving system. Ignorance is bliss. As is fascism, apparently. Howard Ferstler |
#543
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:31:31 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: dave weil wrote: On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:00:53 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: The costs for both rooms add up to 68 grand at today's prices, and when we add in the cost of the hardware in those rooms, as well as the hardware in the already built living room, we are talking about maybe a list price of over 115 grand. Even at the discounts I paid for the gear, we are still talking about maybe ninety grand. Even if we use the original price for the older room, we are still talking about maybe 66 grand or more. Oh, come on Howard. If I count "list price", I have about $7,000 retail in just two components (the EAD disc transport and Theta ProGen3 DAC). Both overkill items. There's even some question as to whether Weil is telling the truth, given his butchering of the proper name of the DAC. Arnold brings up a good point. It is actually the 2, not the 3. I mistakenly typed 3 instead of 2. However, if he's talking about using the rather common shorthand for describing the unit, instead of typing Theta DS Pro Generation 2, then I'd argue that he's just being catty, but that's nothing unusual for him. If you are not using them (and using them makes no sense, since a $100 DVD player purchased at Best Buy would sound just as good, and would throw in video at no extra charge), True, time marches on. Another salient question is whether or not they are operational, given Weil's proclivities towards broken equipment. See below. I suggest getting onto ebay and getting rid of them. Better do this post haste, while there are still people out there who would buy the stuff. Good point. Not really. I have no need to sell them as they are fully operational. Plus, they look nice as well. Nothing wrong with that, right? BTW, it's cute how you use Howard and Lionel as your conduit to talk to me. |
#544
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement techniques when it comes to listening rooms, while at the same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark about just how good your room actually is. Ignorance is bliss Sounds good = is good. Stephen Sometimes. Yeah, you guys are reference standards when it comes to "feel-good" audio. Howard Ferstler |
#545
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:04:44 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Nobody is right all of the time, Dave, including Toole. Well, I suppose that I am right all of the time, but I am a rather remarkable person. Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement techniques when it comes to listening rooms, I don't criticize your measurement techniques. Just pointing out that the guy whom you base much of your audio philosophy finds some of your technique superfluous. Actually, I disagree with him about a lot of things. If one goes back to an issue of the BAS magazine "Speaker" a couple of decades back they will find a debate between Toole and I regarding his view of sound power and radiation pattern and mine. However, I do laud his approach to measuring and comparing. It is just that he thinks some performance results are philosophically more important than I do. I don't have a problem with those who measure their room, just with people who demand it of everyone. Not everyone has the need to measure all of the time. I don't demand it. I just find it odd that "serious" audio enthusiasts will have not taken the time to do so. Why speculate when simple measurements will answer so many questions - at least for "serious" enthusiasts. while at the same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark about just how good your room actually is. My room isn't perfect, by any means. It's pretty good for what it is, and I don't need measurements to confirm what I hear with my own ears. A human measuring tool? Is that what you are, Dave? Could it be improved? Probably. Probably? How would you know this if you did not do some decent measurements. Perhaps the room is borderline perfect. My plan is eventually to take down the wall between it and the adjacent room, creating a room that would be about the same footprint as your main room. Of course, I'd have some extra headroom (literally). But since that wall is a load-bearing wall, I'm going to take my time doing it. Use a post in the middle. I hope you don't mind. I do not mind anything you do that increases your knowledge, Dave. One way to increase it would be to do some decent measuring. Ignorance is bliss. As is fascism, apparently. You take this all so personally, Dave. Howard Ferstler |
#546
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:48:43 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: My plan is eventually to take down the wall between it and the adjacent room, creating a room that would be about the same footprint as your main room. Of course, I'd have some extra headroom (literally). But since that wall is a load-bearing wall, I'm going to take my time doing it. Use a post in the middle. Nope. don't want to do that. Who wants a post in the middle of their room? A good sturdy beam will be sufficient, I think. I'm only spanning about 22 feet, after all. If I wanted to do overkill like you did in your room, I'd use a steel beam and sheath it in wood. But I suspect that I'll just end up using a 6X8 solid wood beam, or something equivalent. I *could* use a laminated floor joist support, since they're good for over 30 feet. |
#547
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Dave, my take on this is that you criticize my measurement techniques when it comes to listening rooms, while at the same time have no done no measurements of any kind with your own room. Yep, you like that room, but all you have to go on is gut-level, taste-related responses. You are in the dark about just how good your room actually is. Ignorance is bliss Sounds good = is good. Sometimes. Yeah, you guys are reference standards when it comes to "feel-good" audio. You've already proclaimed my source and my amp the equal of anything on the market, and my speakers are legendary for transparency. Feels great! Stephen |
#548
|
|||
|
|||
Brother Horace the Shameless said: Well, I suppose that I am right all of the time, but I am a rather remarkable person. For a week-kneed wimp, perhaps. |
#549
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:48:43 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: My plan is eventually to take down the wall between it and the adjacent room, creating a room that would be about the same footprint as your main room. Of course, I'd have some extra headroom (literally). But since that wall is a load-bearing wall, I'm going to take my time doing it. Use a post in the middle. Nope. don't want to do that. Who wants a post in the middle of their room? A good sturdy beam will be sufficient, I think. I'm only spanning about 22 feet, after all. If I wanted to do overkill like you did in your room, I'd use a steel beam and sheath it in wood. But I suspect that I'll just end up using a 6X8 solid wood beam, or something equivalent. I *could* use a laminated floor joist support, since they're good for over 30 feet. As I may have mentioned, my builder removed a wall and used a beam that, ironically enough, also spanned 22 feet. The thing was made of three 2 x 18 inch boards sandwiched together to form what amounts to a 6 x 18 incher, 22 feet long. Each end sits on a triple header section with five 2 x 4 studs under it. This beam holds up the entire middle section of the new roof truss array, which is itself made from 20 to 25 foot long 2 x 8 and 2 x 6 sections on 16-inch centers. One end of the roof sits on the old rafter section of the old part of the house (this is the lightest part of the load) and the other end sits on the new wall, which is made of 2 x 6 framing, with 2 x 12 headers on edge. The super beam is in the middle of this span. Here is the important thing: it does not matter what kind of beam you want. Your builder will have to conform to the local code. The inspector who signed off on the job at my place said that the new roof section was well beyond code requirements, but that is a good thing, considering that I am surrounded by 60 to 80 foot trees. Hurricane season is coming. Howard Ferstler |
#550
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: Sounds good = is good. Sometimes. Yeah, you guys are reference standards when it comes to "feel-good" audio. You've already proclaimed my source and my amp the equal of anything on the market, and my speakers are legendary for transparency. Feels great! There are lots of "legendary" speakers out there these days. Just ask their designers. I own some myself, and have also reviewed additional ones. Howard Ferstler |
#551
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: Sounds good = is good. Sometimes. Yeah, you guys are reference standards when it comes to "feel-good" audio. You've already proclaimed my source and my amp the equal of anything on the market, and my speakers are legendary for transparency. Feels great! There are lots of "legendary" speakers out there these days. Just ask their designers. I own some myself, and have also reviewed additional ones. I didn't know you own Quads. Hook 'em up and enjoy! Stephen PS Peter Walker died recently. |
#552
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... . Hurricane season is coming. It's five months away, Howard. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why did the PF reviewer buy his review sample? | Marketplace | |||
James Randi on Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused" | High End Audio | |||
The Reviewer Bought The Review Sample... | Marketplace | |||
Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
What causes wobble of center voice? | High End Audio |