"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Exactly. Middius is such a frightened little man that he
won't even properly name the make and model of the
components in his stereo system.

You tried to impress this n.g. by saying that you

Sue me for trying to be responsive to the question that was asked.

had recently purchased $15K in equipment and
then refused to disclose what the purchase was.

I have disclosed more than enough to satisfy any reasonable questions
that people might have.

I think I have disclosed makes and models of the equipment in at least
3 of my audio systems.

What does it take to provide reasonable disclosure?

Does it matter to you what the make and models of my car radios are?
;-)

How about my collection of mics and mic preamps?

Not even I have a complete inventory of exactly where that $15K or so
went.

Now compare the information that I have disclosed to what Middius
spewed.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Exactly. Middius is such a frightened little man that he won't even
properly name the make and model of the components in his stereo
system. All he can say specific about it is what sort of discounts
from list prices he's got. I guess that means that it all came from
eBay or someplace like it, and we're not talking about new equipment
dealers here, either.

Even if he named the stuff that would be no proof that he
actually owned it. As for him being a "frightened little
man," it is just possible that he is not a man at all.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:43:01 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:39:56 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Yuck.

No doubt you are very familiar with the unit and have
listened to it extensively and compared it closely with
other models.

You mean like you are with Quad speakers, right?

We do need to remember that I never bad mouthed those
speakers and never said that they would not stand up against
competing models. I left the topic open.

Read your next sentence.

What I did say is that on a tape I have of a Floyd Toole
lecture he did not have much good to say about Quad
speakers. Given his feelings about imaging, soundstaging,
flat response, and controlled dispersion, one would have to
wonder about what the Quads could do that would matter to
objective listeners.

But, who knows, perhaps they are sensational.

They are. But it's likely that you'll never know, since you seem
afraid of them.

Dave, I know this is going to be a loaded question, but why
on earth would I be "afraid" of them?

Yeah, you are going to say that they defy my contention that
once you get above a certain price point going any further
up the scale is gilding the lily. Guys like you have to
believe that out there somewhere is a super-duper and
super-expensive product that makes all the tweako
speculation meaningful.

Actually, I think that people who like speakers of that kind
tend to want their speakers to sound like giant headphones,
with clarity above and beyond what they would get at a live
performance.

That is a valid preference, but do not think that I would be
impressed by it all that much. Obviously, Toole was not all
that impressed, either.

Actually, if we are looking for a speaker that might torpedo
my contention about price vs sound quality, perhaps a better
choice than the Quad would be the new super-duper B&O model.

Howard Ferstler

Powell said:

You tried to impress this n.g. by saying that you
had recently purchased $15K in equipment and
then refused to disclose what the purchase was.
Did it make you feel important at the time you said
it, Arny ("frightened little man") ?

Are you trying to confuse Mr. **** again? No more stipends for that, I'm
afraid. Not since we have Lionella blithering away, trying her darnedest to
make Krooger look cogent by comparison.

Brother Horace the Impotent croaked:

it is just possible that he is not a man at all.

snicker

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:21:48 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

They are. But it's likely that you'll never know, since you seem
afraid of them.

Dave, I know this is going to be a loaded question, but why
on earth would I be "afraid" of them?

I can't seem to see any other reason that someone who exhorts people
to "see for themselves" about audio claims would pointedly avoid
checking such a long-standing icon of musical reproduction out. After
all, these speakers have been in constant production for almost 40
years with only three iterations.

Yeah, you are going to say that they defy my contention that
once you get above a certain price point going any further
up the scale is gilding the lily. Guys like you have to
believe that out there somewhere is a super-duper and
super-expensive product that makes all the tweako
speculation meaningful.

No, it has nothing to do with cost but the intrinsic sound quality of
the speakers. One can easily get a used pair of the the '63s for less
than a pair of Dunlavy Cantatas. And a brand new version of these
speakers is less than $10,000 (which you would agree would be the
approximate cost of your main Allison speakers if they were still
being built today). Hell, look what the Ones cost new now. They're
over $5 grand, right?

No, the Quads aren't perfect. They really benefit from some bass
augmentation for most kinds of music, but since subwoofers are
plentiful and the quality so good for under $2500, that's not much of
an issue...

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Actually, I think that people who like speakers of that kind
tend to want their speakers to sound like giant headphones,
with clarity above and beyond what they would get at a live
performance.

So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that,
obviously,
it is not in the recording. How does a speaker 'manufacture' additional
detail.
I could see it being subtractive, but it can't be additive.



----== 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 =----

dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:21:48 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

They are. But it's likely that you'll never know, since you seem
afraid of them.

Dave, I know this is going to be a loaded question, but why
on earth would I be "afraid" of them?

I can't seem to see any other reason that someone who exhorts people
to "see for themselves" about audio claims would pointedly avoid
checking such a long-standing icon of musical reproduction out. After
all, these speakers have been in constant production for almost 40
years with only three iterations.

There is only so much a speaker can do. At best, it can
deliver flat, wide-bandwidth power and a flat direct-field
signal, and it can have minimal phase effects. It can
radiate over a very wide angle over a broad bandwidth or it
can focus the sound over a narrower angle and have minimal
radiation to the sides, with that radiation also flat and
smooth. It can also split the difference between those
extremes. It should also, of course, have minimal
distortion, particularly into the bass range. And of course
it can play loud enough to satisfy the listener. That is
about it.

I have reviewed speakers that were exemplary in all of these
categories, although I have never encountered one that was
good in all of them at the same time. Indeed, doing so would
be impossible. If the Quad (new or old designs) can do
things that matter beyond those listed requirements it would
be news to me - and news to scads of others, too.

Yeah, you are going to say that they defy my contention that
once you get above a certain price point going any further
up the scale is gilding the lily. Guys like you have to
believe that out there somewhere is a super-duper and
super-expensive product that makes all the tweako
speculation meaningful.

No, it has nothing to do with cost but the intrinsic sound quality of
the speakers.

See my previous points. The best speakers interject as
little "sound quality" into the mix as possible. Given the
impact of the listening room and the nature of recordings
themselves, it is possible for speakers that are
surprisingly cheap to hold their own with some pretty
expensive versions. I have done enough level-matched
comparing by now to not be impressed with speakers that are
considered super duper by guys like you.

One can easily get a used pair of the the '63s for less
than a pair of Dunlavy Cantatas.

And here I am assuming that wear and tear has not left them
in a sub-par state. Used speakers are risky business, Dave.
In my AV books I discussed used gear and said that it often
was a great idea. I had two exceptions to this great-idea
purchase philosophy, however: phono cartridges and speakers.
Chancy purchases, used, those.

And a brand new version of these
speakers is less than $10,000 (which you would agree would be the
approximate cost of your main Allison speakers if they were still
being built today).

To date, the most expensive stereo-speaker combination I
have reviewed (a sub/sat package with two subs, with
electronic crossover and sub amplification) had a list price
of $6800. That is just about the top of the expense range
for me, Dave, given my previous statements about a
seven-grand ceiling. (Admittedly, the full package for that
combination ran the bill up to ten grand, but that included
a center and two surround speakers.) The Waveform sub/sat
package I also reviewed (two subs, again) had a list price
of just about $5500, and the Cantata pair was the same
price. Those items also were getting onto shaky ground,
given that other sub/sat packages I had reviewed cost maybe
one forth what those cost and sounded just about as good.

Now, "just about as good" is a tricky concept. I mean, on an
absolute scale the more expensive systems did have a slight
edge, both in terms of listening quality and room-curve
measurements. But not by much with some of those cheaper
packages. And I would hazard a guess and say that if the
expensive and cheap packages were compared DBT style by you
and a number of other RAO freaks, the cheaper packages might
win the contest as many times as the more expensive ones.

Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that
has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will
agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise?
However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something
considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand
out all that much. It might not even stand out at all.

Hell, look what the Ones cost new now. They're
over $5 grand, right?

And overpriced, in my opinion. Note that I have had a chance
to fool around with those new Model Ones, and was not
impressed. No formal review, however.

No, the Quads aren't perfect.

Hey, folks, you read that right here, as stated by Dave!

They really benefit from some bass
augmentation for most kinds of music, but since subwoofers are
plentiful and the quality so good for under $2500, that's not much of
an issue...

I agree. But do not think that my reasons for not reviewing
the things has anything to do with fear on my part. I have
reviewed enough speakers by now to not be particularly
mystified by the performance of any of them. They are
remarkably mundane items, be they expensive and exotic or
cheap and rather basic.

Unlike you guys, I do not swoon at the mention of high-end
hardware. It is all just "stuff" to me, Dave.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Actually, I think that people who like speakers of that kind
tend to want their speakers to sound like giant headphones,
with clarity above and beyond what they would get at a live
performance.

So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that,
obviously,
it is not in the recording.

Generally, the further you get into the direct field
(meaning closer to the speakers), the clearer any transducer
will sound. This is why sitting closer to speakers that
exhibit very good phase response will allow them to sound
clearer than when listened to from further away. Giving a
room some absorptive wall-treatment work will have a similar
effect, at least with speakers that are not ultra-wide
dispersing. (Doing that with the latter kind of speakers
will attenuate their power response too much and actually
muffle the sound.) With headphones, you are entirely into
the direct field, with no room reflections to muddy the
sound at all. Highly directional speakers can exhibit
similar effects, with things made even better if the systems
exhibit really good minimum phase performance.

How does a speaker 'manufacture' additional
detail.
I could see it being subtractive, but it can't be additive.

Actually, a speaker can have midrange peaks that seem to
enhance the detail. Another, ironically contrary, trick is
to have a saddle-shaped dip in the same midrange, with the
treble somewhat elevated.

Many two-way speakers do this almost automatically (the
power response dips near the crossover point, while the
on-axis signal remains flat, enhancing the strength of the
leading-edge transients), and in the old days moving-coil
cartridges sometimes also had the same midrange sag,
elevated treble artifact that made them seem to sparkle.

Anyone who has ever fooled with a good equalizer will be
aware of how one can diddle with the signal to enhance
clarity with specific recordings.

Here is something even more interesting. When reviewing some
jazz recordings for my first record-review book I discovered
that engaging the surround DSP channels of my processor also
enhanced the clarity. The processor had no electrical effect
on the front channels at all, but it did add reverb that was
shunted to the surround channels, and the net result was a
subjective improvement both in the sense of hall-space
realism and frontal clarity. Go figure.

Howard Ferstler

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:36:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

I have reviewed speakers that were exemplary in all of these
categories, although I have never encountered one that was
good in all of them at the same time. Indeed, doing so would
be impossible. If the Quad (new or old designs) can do
things that matter beyond those listed requirements it would
be news to me - and news to scads of others, too.

You should reread this commentary and take it to heart, Howard.

If you can find me saying that the Quad doesn't have any flaws, please
reproduce them here. In fact, I've noted the most common "flaw" that
people talk about, a "flaw' that is easily fixed these days.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:36:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that
has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will
agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise?
However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something
considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand
out all that much. It might not even stand out at all.

Well, the only way you can tell is by actually doing the blindfold
test. Something that you're not apparently willing to do at this
point.

PS, a "blindfold test" precludes using measurements as a crutch, you
know...

Howard Ferstler said:

Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that
has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will
agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise?
However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something
considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand
out all that much. It might not even stand out at all.


And that makes it an outstanding loudspeaker.
If a speaker is is performing spectacularly in any way, most likely
that property is going to annoy you in the long run.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 12:36:18 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that
has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will
agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise?
However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something
considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand
out all that much. It might not even stand out at all.

Well, the only way you can tell is by actually doing the blindfold
test. Something that you're not apparently willing to do at this
point.

Dave, I have better things to do (and review) than cater to
your requirements at this time. Basically, I have kind of
given up on reviewing overkill items at this time (although
I keep trying to get some Revel systems to review), which
probably includes those Quad units you seem to feel have
hung the moon.

PS, a "blindfold test" precludes using measurements as a crutch, you
know...

If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are
done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely
do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these
days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a
twist with any results I come up with.

Howard Ferstler

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that
has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will
agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise?
However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something
considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand
out all that much. It might not even stand out at all.

And that makes it an outstanding loudspeaker.

Not if the speaker it is being compared to sounds as good
and costs only a fraction of what the super job costs. Then
the cheap job is the outstanding unit.

If a speaker is is performing spectacularly in any way, most likely
that property is going to annoy you in the long run.

In that case, your favorite speaker is probably the one in a
transistor radio. They never perform spectacularly.

Howard Ferstler

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:52:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are
done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely
do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these
days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a
twist with any results I come up with.

Don't take your own advice then, Howard? Looks like we're in the same
boat.

Howard Ferstler said:

Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that
has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will
agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise?
However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something
considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand
out all that much. It might not even stand out at all.

And that makes it an outstanding loudspeaker.

Not if the speaker it is being compared to sounds as good
and costs only a fraction of what the super job costs. Then
the cheap job is the outstanding unit.


The absence of audible cabinet resonances in any Quad speaker makes
them outstanding. All of them (even the '57).


If a speaker is is performing spectacularly in any way, most likely
that property is going to annoy you in the long run.

In that case, your favorite speaker is probably the one in a
transistor radio. They never perform spectacularly.


Try to get a Bose sub for review.
Listen to that one-note bass (very spectacular at first) for a longer
period of time and keep your eyes dry.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

I have better things to do...than cater to
your requirements at this time.

Can I use this quote?

Stephen

Sander deWaal a écrit :
Howard Ferstler said:


Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that
has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will
agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise?
However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something
considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand
out all that much. It might not even stand out at all.



And that makes it an outstanding loudspeaker.
If a speaker is is performing spectacularly in any way, most likely
that property is going to annoy you in the long run.

This is terribly true.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Actually, I think that people who like speakers of that kind
tend to want their speakers to sound like giant headphones,
with clarity above and beyond what they would get at a live
performance.

So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that,
obviously,
it is not in the recording.

Generally, the further you get into the direct field
(meaning closer to the speakers), the clearer any transducer
will sound. This is why sitting closer to speakers that
exhibit very good phase response will allow them to sound
clearer than when listened to from further away. Giving a
room some absorptive wall-treatment work will have a similar
effect, at least with speakers that are not ultra-wide
dispersing. (Doing that with the latter kind of speakers
will attenuate their power response too much and actually
muffle the sound.) With headphones, you are entirely into
the direct field, with no room reflections to muddy the
sound at all. Highly directional speakers can exhibit
similar effects, with things made even better if the systems
exhibit really good minimum phase performance.


You didn't answer the question.
So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that,
obviously,
it is not in the recording

How does a speaker 'manufacture' additional
detail.
I could see it being subtractive, but it can't be additive.

Actually, a speaker can have midrange peaks that seem to
enhance the detail. Another, ironically contrary, trick is
to have a saddle-shaped dip in the same midrange, with the
treble somewhat elevated.

Many two-way speakers do this almost automatically (the
power response dips near the crossover point, while the
on-axis signal remains flat, enhancing the strength of the
leading-edge transients), and in the old days moving-coil
cartridges sometimes also had the same midrange sag,
elevated treble artifact that made them seem to sparkle.

Anyone who has ever fooled with a good equalizer will be
aware of how one can diddle with the signal to enhance
clarity with specific recordings.

Here is something even more interesting. When reviewing some
jazz recordings for my first record-review book I discovered
that engaging the surround DSP channels of my processor also
enhanced the clarity. The processor had no electrical effect
on the front channels at all, but it did add reverb that was
shunted to the surround channels, and the net result was a
subjective improvement both in the sense of hall-space
realism and frontal clarity. Go figure.


You didn't answer the question
How does a speaker 'manufacture' additional
detail.
I could see it being subtractive, but it can't be additive
Your answer was abunch of speculative mumbo jumbo, note.
Wishful thinking based upon expectation effects, no doubt.



----== 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 =----

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are
done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely
do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these
days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a
twist with any results I come up with.



Ever hear of "expectation effects"?



----== 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 =----

MINe 109 said:

I have better things to do...than cater to
your requirements at this time.

Can I use this quote?

Howard is an extraordinary scholar, science lover, and cancer survivor.
Just ask him.

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

I have better things to do...than cater to
your requirements at this time.

Can I use this quote?

Howard is an extraordinary scholar, science lover, and cancer survivor.
Just ask him.

Good point. I'll cite it instead.

Stephen

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


MINe 109 said:

I have better things to do...than cater to
your requirements at this time.

Can I use this quote?

Howard is an extraordinary scholar, science lover, and cancer survivor.
Just ask him.


"At least" MINe 109 has the decency to ask before
copying someone else's material.



----== 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 =----

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:52:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are
done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely
do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these
days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a
twist with any results I come up with.

Don't take your own advice then, Howard? Looks like we're in the same
boat.

Unlike you, I do not believe in audio's version of the tooth
fairy. Brass-tacks types like me are not blinded by product
reputation or big-buck price tags.

My advice applies to guys like you, who need to discover
what does and does not matter with things like wire, CD
player, and amplifier sound.

Incidentally, I was aware of the "amps is amps" performance
issue as far back as 1975, when I sent a rhetorical question
about amp sound to High Fidelity Magazine. They responded in
a way that I thoroughly agreed with back then and still
agree with.

Dave, I have NEVER been fooled by the baloney put forth by
tweakos about amp and wire sound. Unlike guys like Aczel,
who was converted away from the tweako point of view after
experiencing an ABX test (the DBT protocol was actually
outlined by Dan Shanefield back in the middle seventies), I
have never had illusions about amp-sound differences.

Unlike you guys, I never have had the need to be converted
to sanity when it comes to audio hardware.

Howard Ferstler

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

Yep, when someone is listening to a "legendary speaker" that
has captivated enthusiasts for years, they probably will
agree that it is a fabulous item. How could it be otherwise?
However, put on a blindfold and do a DBT against something
considerably cheaper and that standout speaker may not stand
out all that much. It might not even stand out at all.

And that makes it an outstanding loudspeaker.

Not if the speaker it is being compared to sounds as good
and costs only a fraction of what the super job costs. Then
the cheap job is the outstanding unit.

The absence of audible cabinet resonances in any Quad speaker makes
them outstanding. All of them (even the '57).

I have never found cabinet resonances to be a problem with
really good dynamic speakers. It is easy to detect
resonances with a basic room-curve measurement, because they
will show up as peaks in the reverberant field. (Toole has
illustrated this with some of his measurements and has
published articles on the topic.) Actually, I would expect
the large diaphragm with electrostatics to be much more
prone to resonances than typical speaker boxes. I know that
Nousaine has measured some Martin Logan jobs for reviews in
Sound & Vision, and the curves were among the choppiest and
most erratic they have ever printed.

Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional,
and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty
much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid
listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality
basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at
midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform
like huge headphones.

Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would
obviously prefer such speakers.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are
done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely
do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these
days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a
twist with any results I come up with.

Ever hear of "expectation effects"?

Yep. They are a serious problem for tweakos like you.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Actually, I think that people who like speakers of that kind
tend to want their speakers to sound like giant headphones,
with clarity above and beyond what they would get at a live
performance.

So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that,
obviously,
it is not in the recording.

Generally, the further you get into the direct field
(meaning closer to the speakers), the clearer any transducer
will sound. This is why sitting closer to speakers that
exhibit very good phase response will allow them to sound
clearer than when listened to from further away. Giving a
room some absorptive wall-treatment work will have a similar
effect, at least with speakers that are not ultra-wide
dispersing. (Doing that with the latter kind of speakers
will attenuate their power response too much and actually
muffle the sound.) With headphones, you are entirely into
the direct field, with no room reflections to muddy the
sound at all. Highly directional speakers can exhibit
similar effects, with things made even better if the systems
exhibit really good minimum phase performance.


You didn't answer the question.
So tell me, where this 'additional' clarity comes from, being that,
obviously,
it is not in the recording

How does a speaker 'manufacture' additional
detail.
I could see it being subtractive, but it can't be additive.

Actually, a speaker can have midrange peaks that seem to
enhance the detail. Another, ironically contrary, trick is
to have a saddle-shaped dip in the same midrange, with the
treble somewhat elevated.

Many two-way speakers do this almost automatically (the
power response dips near the crossover point, while the
on-axis signal remains flat, enhancing the strength of the
leading-edge transients), and in the old days moving-coil
cartridges sometimes also had the same midrange sag,
elevated treble artifact that made them seem to sparkle.

Anyone who has ever fooled with a good equalizer will be
aware of how one can diddle with the signal to enhance
clarity with specific recordings.

Here is something even more interesting. When reviewing some
jazz recordings for my first record-review book I discovered
that engaging the surround DSP channels of my processor also
enhanced the clarity. The processor had no electrical effect
on the front channels at all, but it did add reverb that was
shunted to the surround channels, and the net result was a
subjective improvement both in the sense of hall-space
realism and frontal clarity. Go figure.

You didn't answer the question

Sure I did. Read my answer again.

Howard Ferstler

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

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:52:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are
done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely
do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these
days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a
twist with any results I come up with.

Don't take your own advice then, Howard? Looks like we're in the same
boat.

Unlike you, I do not believe in audio's version of the tooth
fairy. Brass-tacks types like me are not blinded by product
reputation or big-buck price tags.

My advice applies to guys like you, who need to discover
what does and does not matter with things like wire, CD
player, and amplifier sound.

Incidentally, I was aware of the "amps is amps" performance
issue as far back as 1975, when I sent a rhetorical question
about amp sound to High Fidelity Magazine. They responded in
a way that I thoroughly agreed with back then and still
agree with.

Dave, I have NEVER been fooled by the baloney put forth by
tweakos about amp and wire sound. Unlike guys like Aczel,
who was converted away from the tweako point of view after
experiencing an ABX test (the DBT protocol was actually
outlined by Dan Shanefield back in the middle seventies), I
have never had illusions about amp-sound differences.

Unlike you guys, I never have had the need to be converted
to sanity when it comes to audio hardware.

Howard Ferstler



----== 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 =----

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...



I have NEVER

I never have




----== 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 =----

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

I have never



----== 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 =----

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

If they are blindfolded, what does it matter if they are
done before or after doing measurements. Actually, I rarely
do blindfold comparisons of speakers or anything else these
days. I do not care enough about the results to get into a
twist with any results I come up with.

Ever hear of "expectation effects"?

Yep. They are a serious problem for tweakos like you.

It would be nice if you weren't
'blind' to your own.



----== 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 =----

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Actually, a speaker can have midrange peaks that seem to
enhance the detail. Another, ironically contrary, trick is
to have a saddle-shaped dip in the same midrange, with the
treble somewhat elevated.

Many two-way speakers do this almost automatically (the
power response dips near the crossover point, while the
on-axis signal remains flat, enhancing the strength of the
leading-edge transients), and in the old days moving-coil
cartridges sometimes also had the same midrange sag,
elevated treble artifact that made them seem to sparkle.

Anyone who has ever fooled with a good equalizer will be
aware of how one can diddle with the signal to enhance
clarity with specific recordings.

Here is something even more interesting. When reviewing some
jazz recordings for my first record-review book I discovered
that engaging the surround DSP channels of my processor also
enhanced the clarity. The processor had no electrical effect
on the front channels at all, but it did add reverb that was
shunted to the surround channels, and the net result was a
subjective improvement both in the sense of hall-space
realism and frontal clarity. Go figure.

You didn't answer the question

Sure I did. Read my answer again.


No you didn't.
In the case you gave, the existing detail of a certain part
of the recorded music was accented, by attenuation
of other parts of the recorded music
It 'was' still in the recording in the first place.



----== 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 =----

Howard Ferstler said:

The absence of audible cabinet resonances in any Quad speaker makes
them outstanding. All of them (even the '57).

I have never found cabinet resonances to be a problem with
really good dynamic speakers. It is easy to detect
resonances with a basic room-curve measurement, because they
will show up as peaks in the reverberant field. (Toole has
illustrated this with some of his measurements and has
published articles on the topic.) Actually, I would expect
the large diaphragm with electrostatics to be much more
prone to resonances than typical speaker boxes.


Nope. The mass is vastly lower.


I know that
Nousaine has measured some Martin Logan jobs for reviews in
Sound & Vision, and the curves were among the choppiest and
most erratic they have ever printed.


Probably.
There are MLs with additional woofers around.
Perhaps it was one of those?

Then again, ML isn't Quad.


Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional,
and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty
much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid
listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality
basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at
midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform
like huge headphones.


Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers.


Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would
obviously prefer such speakers.


I'm one of them.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

The absence of audible cabinet resonances in any Quad speaker makes
them outstanding. All of them (even the '57).

I have never found cabinet resonances to be a problem with
really good dynamic speakers. It is easy to detect
resonances with a basic room-curve measurement, because they
will show up as peaks in the reverberant field. (Toole has
illustrated this with some of his measurements and has
published articles on the topic.) Actually, I would expect
the large diaphragm with electrostatics to be much more
prone to resonances than typical speaker boxes.


Nope. The mass is vastly lower.


I know that
Nousaine has measured some Martin Logan jobs for reviews in
Sound & Vision, and the curves were among the choppiest and
most erratic they have ever printed.


Probably.
There are MLs with additional woofers around.
Perhaps it was one of those?

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Dipole highs, monopole lows, something's got to give.

Then again, ML isn't Quad.

Nor Magnepan.

Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional,
and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty
much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid
listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality
basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at
midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform
like huge headphones.


Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers.

Especially if you live in an aircraft hangar.

Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would
obviously prefer such speakers.


I'm one of them.

It's hard to think of a dipole promiscuously splashing sound around as
being sterile.

If Howard knew how to use URLs, he could look at this and follow the
links:

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...n/quadpage.htm

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Actually, a speaker can have midrange peaks that seem to
enhance the detail. Another, ironically contrary, trick is
to have a saddle-shaped dip in the same midrange, with the
treble somewhat elevated.

Many two-way speakers do this almost automatically (the
power response dips near the crossover point, while the
on-axis signal remains flat, enhancing the strength of the
leading-edge transients), and in the old days moving-coil
cartridges sometimes also had the same midrange sag,
elevated treble artifact that made them seem to sparkle.

Anyone who has ever fooled with a good equalizer will be
aware of how one can diddle with the signal to enhance
clarity with specific recordings.

Here is something even more interesting. When reviewing some
jazz recordings for my first record-review book I discovered
that engaging the surround DSP channels of my processor also
enhanced the clarity. The processor had no electrical effect
on the front channels at all, but it did add reverb that was
shunted to the surround channels, and the net result was a
subjective improvement both in the sense of hall-space
realism and frontal clarity. Go figure.

You didn't answer the question

Sure I did. Read my answer again.

No you didn't.
In the case you gave, the existing detail of a certain part
of the recorded music was accented, by attenuation
of other parts of the recorded music
It 'was' still in the recording in the first place.

And the equalization helped to improve clarity in some
respects. However, it also subtracted from the accuracy of
the playback.

Actually, this kind of works for you tweakos, because you
prefer pleasant sound to accurate playback. And in some
cases diddling with tone controls will improve the sense of
realism with playback. Ironically, using DSP ambiance
enhancement tricks can also do this.

Psychoacoustics is obviously a topic that is way over your
head. Stick to tweako topics.

Howard Ferstler

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

The absence of audible cabinet resonances in any Quad speaker makes
them outstanding. All of them (even the '57).

I have never found cabinet resonances to be a problem with
really good dynamic speakers. It is easy to detect
resonances with a basic room-curve measurement, because they
will show up as peaks in the reverberant field. (Toole has
illustrated this with some of his measurements and has
published articles on the topic.) Actually, I would expect
the large diaphragm with electrostatics to be much more
prone to resonances than typical speaker boxes.

Nope. The mass is vastly lower.

This so-called low-diaphragm mass has nothing to do with
resonances. In addition, the mass of the air in front of the
diaphragm is usually much greater than the weight of the
diaphragm itself (at least with midrange and tweeter
elements), and so a large (and even very lightweight)
diaphragm will be dealing with a lot more moving mass than a
small, domed midrange or tweeter. Remember, the total mass
involves not only the diaphragm but also the air in front of
it.

I know that
Nousaine has measured some Martin Logan jobs for reviews in
Sound & Vision, and the curves were among the choppiest and
most erratic they have ever printed.

Probably.
There are MLs with additional woofers around.
Perhaps it was one of those?

The roughest part of the curve was in the midrange and
treble. Basically, much of that roughness involved artifacts
outlined by Stan Lip****z in a paper delivered at the AES
back in about 1985. It involved the fact that mid- and
high-frequency radiation from a large diaphragm (a vertical
line source in particular) will not all reach a point-sized
receptacle (an ear canal) at the same time. The extreme ends
of the line will be further from the ears than the center of
the line, meaning that the signals generated by the line
will be phase skewed as they are received by the small ears.
Hence, we get wild comb-filtering artifacts. The peaks and
dips Nousaine measured were more more erratic than
straightforward comb-filtering artifacts would indicate, and
those additional artifacts may have been the result of the
large diaphragm resonating.

Interestingly, peaks and dips of that kind may be
interpreted as improved clarity if the speaker is not being
compared in real time to a system that is actually smooth.

Then again, ML isn't Quad.

Well, some people swear by them. In any case, the artifacts
I mentioned reflect problems inherent in large-diaphragm
midrange and tweeter drivers.

Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional,
and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty
much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid
listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality
basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at
midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform
like huge headphones.

Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers.

Some people like the effect. I know of some very
knowledgeable listeners who consider headphones to be the
height of realism. I do not hear that kind of ultra-clarity
realism at live performances (I mean that you usually, for
example, do not hear performers breathing at live
performances), but I can see why it will be appealing to
some enthusiasts.

Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would
obviously prefer such speakers.

I'm one of them.

Enjoy your audio system.

Howard Ferstler

MINe 109 wrote:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.

However, as best I can tell, those diaphragms are solidly
attached at the edges and therefore have to flex as they
move back and forth. This would almost certainly result in
resonances at some frequencies. This is why that whenever a
system like that is measured for power response the curve
will exhibit a large degree of choppiness. Combine this with
the comb-filtering artifacts you will get with any
large-diaphragm driver when it is dealing with short
wavelength frequencies, and it is easy to see why
large-panel systems cannot exhibit smooth frequency
response.

Dipole highs, monopole lows, something's got to give.

This actually has not got much to do with anything. At low
frequencies, all systems tend to radiate in a bipolar or
full circular manner and not as a dipole. Well, you could
get a dipolar response down low with a dipolar woofer
(Carver did this a while back), but the response will roll
off fast below a certain point. Carver compensated with some
huge levels of equalization.

Then again, ML isn't Quad.

Nor Magnepan.

Magnepan would be in the same position of the others,
although by using optimized drivers of varying size they
overcome some resonance artifacts. However, the line-source
generated comb-filtering artifacts would remain. Generally,
those are simply perceived as a rolloff above 5 to 8 kHz and
not as anything erratic.

Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional,
and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty
much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid
listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality
basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at
midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform
like huge headphones.

Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers.

Especially if you live in an aircraft hangar.

This comment makes no sense whatsoever.

Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would
obviously prefer such speakers.

I'm one of them.

It's hard to think of a dipole promiscuously splashing sound around as
being sterile.

It is highly directional. Yes, there are delayed front-wall
reflections, but the hugely reduced ceiling/floor and
side-wall reflections tends to make them far less spacious
sounding than wider-dispersion systems. However, the
front-wall reflections, if the systems are pulled out far
enough, will lend a sense of frontal depth to the sound.
However, remember that this is not recorded depth. It is
just a room-generated artifact that usually sounds pleasant.

If Howard knew how to use URLs, he could look at this and follow the
links:

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...n/quadpage.htm

Note that while HiFi New rated the ESL-57 as "the greatest
hi-fi product of all time," that rather tweaky magazine is
an English journal and would happily award the prize to one
of their own.

As for Ken Kessler, well I think that most of what he says
about anything is bunk. Basically, this article is a typical
tweako "white paper" that does not say much of interest at
all.

One qualification, however. I will say that the point-source
concept is a good one, but I am not sure that Quad has
pulled it off all that well. There is a lot of electrical
manipulation involved, and arcane stuff like that ought to
have you tweakos wringing your worrisome little hands.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Guess again dimbulb.




However, as best I can tell, those diaphragms are solidly
attached at the edges and therefore have to flex as they
move back and forth. This would almost certainly result in
resonances at some frequencies.



Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. All diaphrams have resonances
whether they are firmly attached at their edges or not.



This is why that whenever a
system like that is measured for power response the curve
will exhibit a large degree of choppiness.


You might want to do your homework before putting your foot in your
mouth. You know, like looking at the actual measurements of these
speakers.


Combine this with
the comb-filtering artifacts you will get with any
large-diaphragm driver when it is dealing with short
wavelength frequencies, and it is easy to see why
large-panel systems cannot exhibit smooth frequency
response.


You just get dumber and dumber.




Dipole highs, monopole lows, something's got to give.


Your brain gave way a long time ago.





This actually has not got much to do with anything. At low
frequencies, all systems tend to radiate in a bipolar or
full circular manner and not as a dipole.


Duh.



Well, you could
get a dipolar response down low with a dipolar woofer
(Carver did this a while back), but the response will roll
off fast below a certain point. Carver compensated with some
huge levels of equalization.

Then again, ML isn't Quad.

Nor Magnepan.

Magnepan would be in the same position of the others,
although by using optimized drivers of varying size they
overcome some resonance artifacts. However, the line-source
generated comb-filtering artifacts would remain. Generally,
those are simply perceived as a rolloff above 5 to 8 kHz and
not as anything erratic.

Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional,
and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty
much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid
listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality
basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at
midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform
like huge headphones.

Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers.

Especially if you live in an aircraft hangar.

This comment makes no sense whatsoever.

Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would
obviously prefer such speakers.

I'm one of them.

It's hard to think of a dipole promiscuously splashing sound around
as
being sterile.

It is highly directional. Yes, there are delayed front-wall
reflections, but the hugely reduced ceiling/floor and
side-wall reflections tends to make them far less spacious
sounding than wider-dispersion systems.


You could always get the Bose speakers and get the extra
"spaciousness." I'm sure it will work as designed in your overly
reverberant room.



However, the
front-wall reflections, if the systems are pulled out far
enough, will lend a sense of frontal depth to the sound.


And for those in the know, a well damped and diffused wall will pretty
much reduce the back wave colorations to a minimum leaving a very pure,
very accurate, superior sounding speaker.



However, remember that this is not recorded depth. It is
just a room-generated artifact that usually sounds pleasant.


When the room is dead enough, the front wall in particular, you a much
better sense of depth.




If Howard knew how to use URLs, he could look at this and follow
the
links:

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...n/quadpage.htm

Note that while HiFi New rated the ESL-57 as "the greatest
hi-fi product of all time," that rather tweaky magazine is
an English journal and would happily award the prize to one
of their own.



Not all audio journalists are as dishonest and corrupt as you.




As for Ken Kessler, well I think that most of what he says
about anything is bunk.


Perhaps if he were to plagiarize promotional copy or publish some
fraudulant blind listening tests you would think better of him.



Basically, this article is a typical
tweako "white paper" that does not say much of interest at
all.


No fraud, no plagiarism. Quite useless to Ferstler.




One qualification, however. I will say that the point-source
concept is a good one, but I am not sure that Quad has
pulled it off all that well. There is a lot of electrical
manipulation involved, and arcane stuff like that ought to
have you tweakos wringing your worrisome little hands.


Get a life.




Scott Wheeler

wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Guess again dimbulb.


YOU guess again, dimmestbulb: the radius of the outer (front) grid is
larger than the radius of the inner (rear) grid. Howard is absolutely
correct: the diaphragm *must* be "changing size" in order for there to
be an increase in the horizontal dispersion (without an increase in
distortions). This would require "perfect elasticity" of the diaphragm
material over it's excursion.

wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Guess again dimbulb.


YOU guess again, dimmestbulb: the radius of the outer (front) grid is
larger than the radius of the inner (rear) grid. Howard is absolutely
correct: the diaphragm *must* be "changing size" in order for there to
be an increase in the horizontal dispersion (without an increase in
distortions). This would require "perfect elasticity" of the diaphragm
material over it's excursion.