Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More on Equalizers from Ferstler
I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on
RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics, "micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to generate. Those distortions are directly related to frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric whatsoever. Look at it this way. With a given musically generated impulse signal, such as what you might get when a mallet first impacts a bass drum diaphragm, the frequency spectrum will start out with a strong midrange component (the initial part of the "whack," which may be reproduced by the midrange and even in part by the tweeter), and then generate a tail that is composed of mostly lower frequencies and a few fast-fading harmonics. Most of this bass-rich tail will be reproduced by the woofer, with the even lower parts maybe being reproduced by an outboard subwoofer. OK, if you adjust an equalizer so that the frequencies of the initial "whack" are attenuated, the "boom" of the drum will be somewhat muddy sounding. If the drum whack was not a particularly hard one, you might say that the "microdynamics" were compromised. On the other hand, if you boost those initial "whack" frequencies, or attenuate the lower-frequency part of the total signal, the "boom" of the drum will be less full and seem lacking in body. The sound of the drum will seem "tight." This is why some speakers that roll off the bass rapidly may be lionized for their "tight" bass. However, they are actually treating the signal improperly and not reproducing it the way it should be. If the initial whack is suppressed, the dynamic impact will also seem to be weaker. If the initial whack and the lower "tail" frequencies, are all boosted, the drum will have a more explosive impact, but the program will also seem bass heavy. Going beyond bass drums, if one attenuates the initial attack frequencies produced by certain other instruments, those instruments will seem to be recessed into the orchestra and may also be less well defined. Hence, their supposed "microdynamics" will seem to be inferior. A violin could be made to sound muffled at low output levels, even though the overall richness of their sound will be decently strong. You can adjust an equalizer to impact the dynamic contrasts of just about any music. Yep, an equalizer can impact the subjective dynamic range of a recording, and so can speakers. With the latter, this will be directly related to their response smoothness. Generally, these characteristics will be most notable with good recordings of good classical, baroque, or romantic-era music. Rock music is generally so "canned" and electronic in nature that it will not be able to reliably highlight differences between good and not so good speakers. It can probably help us spot differences between dogs and good speakers, however. I do nearly all of my subjective speaker evaluating with baroque and classical music, incidentally, although I also do measurements. This can be seen in any of my speaker-review articles. The following web sites have on-line reprints of some of my speaker-review articles: http://www.audioweb.com/Newsstand/Se...RPhantom83.asp http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...endreprint.pdf http://www.eminent-tech.com/main.html (the LTF-8 system) http://www.absoluteaudio.gr/reviews/dunlavy7.html http://www.ncms.no/Triad/Press%20rev...le_jan2003.pdf http://static.highbeam.com/s/sensibl...305evaluation/ There are many others (some of them better written), but as best I can tell nobody has put them on line yet. Anyway, the single most important attribute of a speaker is its frequency response. This is not to sell radiation pattern uniformity short, or discount the importance of the ability to reproduce a broad response spectrum or keep the distortion low, but frequency response is the first hurtle any speaker has to deal with. The measured response may be dominated by a strong direct-field signal or it may be dominated by the reverberant-field signal (I have systems installed at my place that exhibit both characteristics and use both for reference work), depending upon the speaker's wide-frequency radiation pattern. Whichever it is, the response smoothness at the listening position is what matters. If the speaker is extremely flat responding, or is at least fairly flat responding speaker that is tuned to even flatter response by a good equalizer, it (or the speaker/equalizer combination) should be able to do its job pretty effectively. (This is dodging the issue of how an equalizer can skew the balance between the direct and reverberant field responses and how this can impact the sense of space around the speakers, but we will leave that issue out right now for simplicity's sake.) OK, now if a speaker has a non-flat response it may be suppressed at certain frequencies and if much of an instrument's (or group of instruments) spectrum (or spectrums) is within that range of frequencies that instrument's so-called "microdynamics" may seem to be compromised. If, for example, there is a middle bass dip (due to driver interaction anomalies or boundary cancellations), the cello section of an orchestra may come across as brittle sounding or lacking in body. It may have plenty of definition (even bowing noises may be audible), but it will not have the proper richness one would expect. On the other hand, if the system has a response peak or peaks at certain frequencies, instruments that deliver the bulk of their response over that bandwidth range may seem to be overly emphasized within the ensemble or even harsh sounding. With a peak in the middle bass, the cello section may sound boomy and muddy. There will be a lack of definition and not enough delineation. Frequency response is the single most important aspect of audio system performance, and because speakers apply more variability there than any other component, speakers are the most problematic of all audio components. This is why I am far more interested in speakers than in amplifiers. Equalizers can partially fix things (and quite well, provided the speaker has at least a fairly flat response to begin with), but they cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Trying to correct huge peaks or dips will result in all sorts of anomalies, not the least of which might be amp clipping or driver overload if a big dip is being corrected. The Rane THX certified units I reviewed in The Sensible Sound were not able to apply more than 6 (and sometimes only 4) dB of correction to the input signals. This allowed them to refine already good response curves without calling undue attention to themselves. I discussed equalizers in issues 68 and 79 of The Sensible Sound, and reviewed specific models in issues 76, 83, and 98. Issues 94 and 95 also discuss (and illustrate) just what is going on with measured room/power curves. Needless to say, using an equalizer requires the use of a good measuring tool. Doing equalization by ear invites disaster. Perhaps this is why some of those here who do not like equalizers have such low opinions of them. Interestingly, surround processors can also have a huge impact on dynamics, at least with multi-channel movie source material. This is beyond what you get if you simply crank up subwoofer levels or LFE levels. For example, if you have the five satellite channels of a set up properly balanced and then adjust the left and right main channels to play louder by a few dB the overall impact of the program may be increased considerably. This is because the midrange and treble part of the pyrotechnics of some movies are primarily sent to the left and right channels and not to the center. With those left and right channels cranked up a bit the dialog may be normal. However, when the explosions and shooting starts happening the advanced levels of the left and right mains will let them have more impact. The overall dynamic range of the movie will be increased considerably, even though there is no actual change in the electrical dynamics of the initial source. If you do the opposite and increase the average center-channel level the movie will be less dynamic, depending on how the mixing engineers spread out the effects to the three front channels. So, dynamics can be influenced by many things, and none of them are particularly mysterious. Microdynamics, such as are, can be influenced by the same balance adjustments and response smoothness artifacts. If a speaker system has problems with "microdynamics," it is probably because of a frequency response anomaly. Howard Ferstler |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Devil wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:41:34 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: I gnored post. -- td A good idea. Probably something everybody should do when it comes to the delusional posts of Ferstler. Bruce J. Richman |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. Dear R.A.O. reader: Please be advised that Howard Ferstler is, by profession, a librarian, with no significant background in audio reproduction. Apparently, he enjoys listening to hifi equipment, and he enjoys writing about hifi. Unfortunately, he lacks the depth of knowledge that he intends to project, and he does not make up for this deficiency by diligent research. Some people consider Howard to be a plagiarist, but that by itself should not make you discount his claims of authority. But he creatively makes up for deficiencies in his knowledge the way a child may creatively fabricate. Although this can be tolerated in a child, the implication for his writing are rather severe. Any particular opinion might be right, or it might be wrong, with the average closely approaching the 50% that means: no information here. It is possible that Howard's writings have helped people with absolutely no knowledge of the subject of hifi. But you are one of these individuals, you should, at the earliest possible opportunity, avail yourself of the many other sources of information, many in print, written by experts credentialed either by experience or research. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Morein wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. Dear R.A.O. reader: Please be advised that Howard Ferstler is, by profession, a librarian, with no significant background in audio reproduction. Apparently, he enjoys listening to hifi equipment, and he enjoys writing about hifi. Unfortunately, he lacks the depth of knowledge that he intends to project, and he does not make up for this deficiency by diligent research. Some people consider Howard to be a plagiarist, but that by itself should not make you discount his claims of authority. But he creatively makes up for deficiencies in his knowledge the way a child may creatively fabricate. Although this can be tolerated in a child, the implication for his writing are rather severe. Any particular opinion might be right, or it might be wrong, with the average closely approaching the 50% that means: no information here. It is possible that Howard's writings have helped people with absolutely no knowledge of the subject of hifi. But you are one of these individuals, you should, at the earliest possible opportunity, avail yourself of the many other sources of information, many in print, written by experts credentialed either by experience or research. Agreed. In addition to being much more likely to obtain useful information by finding other sources, you will have a much better chance of learning from an ethical, honest, and rafional person. Bruce J. Richman |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics, "micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to generate. Those distortions are directly related to frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric whatsoever. **Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not. FAR more importantly, however, is the utter futility of anyone, without SERIOUS test equipment, lots of experience and a calibrated absolute reference signal (related to the music being listened to) being able to correctly adjust any equaliser, such that the signal is actually better (ie: More like high fidelity) than the original. All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener. Nothing more. In fact, the results are somewhat akin to those people who use crappy SET amplifiers for tone control substitutes. Equalisers are largely a waste of time and money. Particularly for novice users. SNIP Anyway, the single most important attribute of a speaker is its frequency response. **Not necessarily. That is YOUR idea of what is most important. For me, I rate other factors as being somewhat more important. For instance: * SMOOTHNESS of FR is more important to me than extension. * Lack of refractive effects (leading to superior imaging) is more important to me. * Lack of distortion is very important. However, those are just MY opinions. I recognise that others may desire other things (bass extension, absolute SPL limits, etc) may be more important to them. Kinda like cars. Some people actually imagine that front wheel drive cars are actually desirable. Of course, they're deranged. It's RWD or AWD. Nothing else. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics, "micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to generate. Those distortions are directly related to frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric whatsoever. **Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not. FAR more importantly, however, is the utter futility of anyone, without SERIOUS test equipment, lots of experience and a calibrated absolute reference signal (related to the music being listened to) being able to correctly adjust any equaliser, such that the signal is actually better (ie: More like high fidelity) than the original. All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener. Nothing more. In fact, the results are somewhat akin to those people who use crappy SET amplifiers for tone control substitutes. Equalisers are largely a waste of time and money. Particularly for novice users. SNIP Anyway, the single most important attribute of a speaker is its frequency response. **Not necessarily. That is YOUR idea of what is most important. For me, I rate other factors as being somewhat more important. For instance: * SMOOTHNESS of FR is more important to me than extension. * Lack of refractive effects (leading to superior imaging) is more important to me. * Lack of distortion is very important. However, those are just MY opinions. I recognise that others may desire other things (bass extension, absolute SPL limits, etc) may be more important to them. Kinda like cars. Some people actually imagine that front wheel drive cars are actually desirable. Of course, they're deranged. It's RWD or AWD. Nothing else. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au As Robert Morein recently pointed out, RAO readers looking for useful information would be well advised to avoid Ferstler's self-indulgent bloviating in favor of more legitimate sources of audio information. Trevor would be one example of an individual legitimately qualified to serve as that source. By avoiding Ferstler's posts re. audio, one will also be significantly more likely to get information from an ethical, honest, unbiased, and rational individual. Bruce J. Richman |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics, "micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to generate. Those distortions are directly related to frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric whatsoever. **Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not. I do not consider those phase artifacts to be all that big a deal, and I am not alone in believing this. Speakers and listening rooms add plenty of phase artifacts all by themselves. In many cases, those artifacts are either inaudible (speaker related) or beneficial (room reflection cancellations and reverberation). However, the fact that an equalizer can alter the balance between the direct-field and reverberant-field signals can be important, IF the corrections applied are extreme. Virtually all of the reasonably good speakers I have equalized have sounded better than their unequalized counterparts. FAR more importantly, however, is the utter futility of anyone, without SERIOUS test equipment, lots of experience and a calibrated absolute reference signal (related to the music being listened to) being able to correctly adjust any equaliser, such that the signal is actually better (ie: More like high fidelity) than the original. All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener. I certainly agree with your view regarding test gear. Adjusting a good equalizer by ear is a waste of time. Nothing more. In fact, the results are somewhat akin to those people who use crappy SET amplifiers for tone control substitutes. Equalisers are largely a waste of time and money. Particularly for novice users. I used to feel this way, and said so in my first book, High Fidelity Audio Video Systems, way back in 1991. However, after doing some work with good equalizers and seeing what proper and modest corrections can do, I humbly disagree with both you and the younger version of Howard Ferstler. SNIP Anyway, the single most important attribute of a speaker is its frequency response. **Not necessarily. That is YOUR idea of what is most important. For me, I rate other factors as being somewhat more important. For instance: * SMOOTHNESS of FR is more important to me than extension. I never said anything about extension. I said frequency response, and it is obvious to me that smooth response is very important and is what I meant. I did briefly mention extension, but that was not paramount. As long as the extension of a speaker can reach the limits of the music being listened to, its extension will be adequate. Regarding smoothness, one factor involves whether one is talking about the direct-field, first-arrival signals or the reverberant-field response. I have systems in place that emphasize either one or the other, and I can see advantages to both approaches - provided that whatever signal is primarily involved (direct field or reverberant field) is smooth. I'm with you on smooth. * Lack of refractive effects (leading to superior imaging) is more important to me. Precise imaging is a non issue, as anyone who has attended live classical concerts and has sat anywhere but the frontmost rows will attest. You do not get hi-fi style "imaging" at live classical concerts. As for rock music, well it is so canned and fabricated that who knows what the imaging is supposed to be like. * Lack of distortion is very important. Yep. However, a non-smooth frequency response will be the most glaring form of distortion. For the most part, distortion is only primary in the bass range. Most decent drivers these days have sufficiently low distortion if they are not overdriven. You fail to mention radiation pattern uniformity (which I did mention) and to some this is as important as overall smoothness. If a system has a choppy off-axis response its reverberant-field response will also be choppy, even if the direct-field signals are smooth as hell. Look at it this way, the AREA covered by the response angle between 45 degrees off and 90 degrees off is nearly 2.5 times as large as the area covered between the on-axis radiation and 45 degrees off. Because of this, the wide off-axis response can be VERY important. It takes a very directional speaker with a well-controlled off-axis attenuation or else some serious room treatment (to absorb off-axis artifacts) to deal with this. Because of these limitations, speakers with a wide bandwidth and uniform radiation pattern tend to sound better in typical home listening rooms than speakers with patterns that exhibit a choppy off-axis response. Why choppy? Well, woofers are not directional at the bottoms of their operating ranges. However, as the frequency climbs they do become directional. The off-axis response falls off. When the transition to the midrange occurs (meaning as the frequency climbs), the off-axis output increases. However, as the frequency continues to climb a typical midrange driver also begins to narrow its dispersion and the wide off-axis response sags. As the frequency moves up to tweeter range, the off-axis response again ramps upward in strength. As the response climbs still higher the off-axis response of the tweeter also begins to narrow. All of this can be taking place while the on-axis response is flat as hell. The off-axis response beyond 45 degrees off (particularly beyond 60 degrees off) is choppy as hell, with dips at the tops of the various drivers' operating ranges. The result is a reverberant-field response that is not smooth and an on-axis response that is not smooth. The upshot is a lousy sense of space and spectral balance. This situation notwithstanding, I will certainly admit that speakers are more taste related than other components (aside from DSP surround sound synthesizers), but I do require that speakers deliver a smooth and reasonably flat response (of some kind, be it favoring the direct field with a speaker having a narrow and controlled dispersion pattern, or be it a wide-dispersion model with a dominant reverberant-field response) at the listening position. I say as much in all of my speaker reviews, and issues 94 and 95 of The Sensible Sound had a two-part series by me that went into the need for flat and smooth response pretty solidly. Trevor, it is nice to hear from you. I would like to have this discussion go on and on, but I need to move on and get some other things accomplished - away from the computer. Take care. Howard Ferstler |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Morein wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. Dear R.A.O. reader: Please be advised that Howard Ferstler is, by profession, a librarian, with no significant background in audio reproduction. I am retired from the library. I have published the following four books on audio, record reviewing, and home theater: High Fidelity Audio Video Systems (McFarland, 1992). High Definition Compact Disc Recordings (McFarland, 1994). The Home Theater Companion (Schirmer Books, 1997). The Digital Audio Music List (A-R Editions, 1999). I am also a major contributor to the upcoming new edition of The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound (to be published in September by Routledge). I have also published well over 100 product review, record review, and commentary columns in several journals. And what are the audio-related qualifications qualifying you to make any kind of judgments about my competency? Howard Ferstler |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics, "micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to generate. Those distortions are directly related to frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric whatsoever. **Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not. I do not consider those phase artifacts to be all that big a deal, **YOU consider a non-event. _I_ do not. To my ears, the damage wrought by all analogue equalisers is serious. Most digital equalisers are acceptable. and I am not alone in believing this. Speakers and listening rooms add plenty of phase artifacts all by themselves. **Ah, the old Bose argument. Sorry, that does not wash. All listening rooms are different. Some present fewer problems than others. Careful speaker placement in a good room can do far more than any equaliser. In many cases, those artifacts are either inaudible (speaker related) or beneficial (room reflection cancellations and reverberation). **There are no beneficial room artefacts. The ideal room is an anechoic chamber. Anything else is a compromise. Minimising room interactions is the only sensible option. Relying on room interaction (a la Bose) is just plain stupid. However, the fact that an equalizer can alter the balance between the direct-field and reverberant-field signals can be important, IF the corrections applied are extreme. Virtually all of the reasonably good speakers I have equalized have sounded better than their unequalized counterparts. **I accept that YOU feel that the result is better. Understand that is just YOUR opinion. One which is not shared by all listeners. It is certainly not shared by most dedicated, experienced listeners. FAR more importantly, however, is the utter futility of anyone, without SERIOUS test equipment, lots of experience and a calibrated absolute reference signal (related to the music being listened to) being able to correctly adjust any equaliser, such that the signal is actually better (ie: More like high fidelity) than the original. All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener. I certainly agree with your view regarding test gear. Adjusting a good equalizer by ear is a waste of time. **How many people (who read your articles) possess such equipment? Your best guess would be fine. Do you state as much in your articles (that equalisers are virtually useless without expensive test equipment)? Nothing more. In fact, the results are somewhat akin to those people who use crappy SET amplifiers for tone control substitutes. Equalisers are largely a waste of time and money. Particularly for novice users. I used to feel this way, and said so in my first book, High Fidelity Audio Video Systems, way back in 1991. However, after doing some work with good equalizers and seeing what proper and modest corrections can do, I humbly disagree with both you and the younger version of Howard Ferstler. **Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it right for all listeners. SNIP Anyway, the single most important attribute of a speaker is its frequency response. **Not necessarily. That is YOUR idea of what is most important. For me, I rate other factors as being somewhat more important. For instance: * SMOOTHNESS of FR is more important to me than extension. I never said anything about extension. I said frequency response, and it is obvious to me that smooth response is very important and is what I meant. **You said nothing of the sort. You should, in future, be more precise with your words. I did briefly mention extension, but that was not paramount. As long as the extension of a speaker can reach the limits of the music being listened to, its extension will be adequate. Regarding smoothness, one factor involves whether one is talking about the direct-field, first-arrival signals or the reverberant-field response. I have systems in place that emphasize either one or the other, and I can see advantages to both approaches - provided that whatever signal is primarily involved (direct field or reverberant field) is smooth. I'm with you on smooth. * Lack of refractive effects (leading to superior imaging) is more important to me. Precise imaging is a non issue, as anyone who has attended live classical concerts and has sat anywhere but the frontmost rows will attest. **I often do and I can tell you that imaging (to me) is vital to the illusion of reality. However, I will accept that your OPINION is your own. You need to understand that others do not share it. You do not get hi-fi style "imaging" at live classical concerts. As for rock music, well it is so canned and fabricated that who knows what the imaging is supposed to be like. * Lack of distortion is very important. Yep. However, a non-smooth frequency response will be the most glaring form of distortion. For the most part, distortion is only primary in the bass range. Most decent drivers these days have sufficiently low distortion if they are not overdriven. You fail to mention radiation pattern uniformity (which I did mention) and to some this is as important as overall smoothness. If a system has a choppy off-axis response its reverberant-field response will also be choppy, even if the direct-field signals are smooth as hell. **I NEVER listen off-axis. Ever. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. Dear R.A.O. reader: Please be advised that Howard Ferstler is, by profession, a librarian, with no significant background in audio reproduction. I am retired from the library. I have published the following four books on audio, record reviewing, and home theater: High Fidelity Audio Video Systems (McFarland, 1992). High Definition Compact Disc Recordings (McFarland, 1994). The Home Theater Companion (Schirmer Books, 1997). The Digital Audio Music List (A-R Editions, 1999). I am also a major contributor to the upcoming new edition of The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound (to be published in September by Routledge). I have also published well over 100 product review, record review, and commentary columns in several journals. And what are the audio-related qualifications qualifying you to make any kind of judgments about my competency? Howard Ferstler Hhoward, you're right this time. he got bounced out a PhD program....OOPS!!!! |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **There are no beneficial room artefacts. The ideal room is an anechoic chamber. Anything else is a compromise. Minimising room interactions is the only sensible option. Relying on room interaction (a la Bose) is just plain stupid. I had an interesting experience in a 3 Meter RF anechoic chamber at work. We were taking a couple days to cable up a cellular BTS for some pre-cert scans which took a couple days. A tech had an old stereo in the lab and he drug the speakers into the chamber. Up close in near field they sounded normal (they weren't great speakers), but if you got more than 8 ft or so away the SPL and hi frequency response just died. Obviously the room just swallowed the higher frequencies while the bass managed to propagate.Maybe it was this room not being designed as an acoustic anechoic chamber but if it was at all representative then I would think a speaker that was actually dialed in for flat frequency response in far field in an anechoic chamber would sound like crap in a normal "live" room. ScottW |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Art wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Robert Morein wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. Dear R.A.O. reader: Please be advised that Howard Ferstler is, by profession, a librarian, with no significant background in audio reproduction. I am retired from the library. I have published the following four books on audio, record reviewing, and home theater: High Fidelity Audio Video Systems (McFarland, 1992). High Definition Compact Disc Recordings (McFarland, 1994). The Home Theater Companion (Schirmer Books, 1997). The Digital Audio Music List (A-R Editions, 1999). I am also a major contributor to the upcoming new edition of The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound (to be published in September by Routledge). I have also published well over 100 product review, record review, and commentary columns in several journals. And what are the audio-related qualifications qualifying you to make any kind of judgments about my competency? Howard Ferstler Hhoward, you're right this time. he got bounced out a PhD program....OOPS!!!! Howard really put his foot in his mouth this time by mentioning his "competency". I've done HUNDREDS of competency evaluations - of those arrested and awaiting trial on charges ranging anywhere from relatively small felonies all the way up to 1st degree murder. As in "competency to stand trial". I've been on a panel of psychiatrists and psychologists appointed by judges to do these evaluations, which are quite commonly requested by defense attornies. Of course, Ferstler hasn't been officially charged with a crime yet - but one can always hope. (Incompetency to stand trial generally involves either mental retardation or insanity at the time the crime was committed. So which applies to Ferstler ? - LOL !) Competency evaluiations are sometimes also performed when a person is in need of a legal guardian - usually because of senility So given all the evidence he's presented of all 3 conditions mentioned above, he really should not talk about having his competency evaluated. Bruce J. Richman |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: More on Howard the ignorant plagiarist
From: (Bruce J. Richman) Date: 8/16/2004 9:25 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: snip Bruce J. Richman, Quack Egotistical Blowhard Arrogant, Ignorant Ass Penile Implant Candidate |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Torresists wrote:
Subject: More on Howard the ignorant plagiarist From: (Bruce J. Richman) Date: 8/16/2004 9:25 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: snip Torresists - Pathological Liar Recent Recipient of Frontal Lobotomy Cephalic-Rectal Insertion Sufferer Obnoxious, Psychotic Asshole |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Torresists wrote:
Subject: More on Howard the ignorant plagiarist From: (Bruce J. Richman) Date: 8/16/2004 10:56 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: Torresists wrote: Subject: More on Howard the ignorant plagiarist From: (Bruce J. Richman) Date: 8/16/2004 9:25 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: snip Torresists - Pathological Liar Recent Recipient of Frontal Lobotomy Cephalic-Rectal Insertion Sufferer Obnoxious, Psychotic Asshole Much more creative and truthful then anything I've ever said. ****, I wish I had said that about you, but I'm developmentally disabled. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: More on Howard the ignorant plagiarist
From: (Bruce J. Richman) Date: 8/16/2004 11:08 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: Torresists wrote: Subject: More on Howard the ignorant plagiarist From: (Bruce J. Richman) Date: 8/16/2004 10:56 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: Torresists wrote: Subject: More on Howard the ignorant plagiarist From: (Bruce J. Richman) Date: 8/16/2004 9:25 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: snip Torresists - Pathological Liar Recent Recipient of Frontal Lobotomy Cephalic-Rectal Insertion Sufferer Obnoxious, Psychotic Asshole Much more creative and truthful then anything I've ever said. ****, I wish I had said that about you, but I'm developmentally disabled. Do ya really think that's any better? Are you that pathetic? :-(( |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... You fail to mention radiation pattern uniformity (which I did mention) and to some this is as important as overall smoothness. If a system has a choppy off-axis response its reverberant-field response will also be choppy, even if the direct-field signals are smooth as hell. **I NEVER listen off-axis. Ever. Just a quickie. I rarely listen on axis, and even at live concerts it would be a rare day for me to get a center-axis seating location. Hey, there is nothing wrong with off-center seats at a live concert, so why should there be when listening on a home audio system. Sure, you do not want to sit WAY off axis, but a few degrees are no big deal. Well, of course with a stereo system a few degrees may shift the center of the soundstage toward the nearer speaker (a problem with two-speaker stereo), but that can be handled by the addition of a center-channel speaker and a good steering system to route the derived, L+R signals to that center channel. Anyway, with nearly all speakers, from the upper midrange on down the reverberant field will dominate in most home-listening environments. (This may not be a consistently uniform reverberant field, of course, due to the different radiation patterns as the frequency moves up and down the scale, but the reverberant still tends to dominate at most frequencies below the treble, or at least upper-treble range.) Hence, both on and off axis the irregularities that are generated at wide off-axis angles will have an impact on the spectral balance of a system. If this were not the case, speakers would sound the same in padded rooms and in reverberant rooms. Actually, one notable speaker designer once said that the difference between a good speaker and a great one is that the great one will put as much energy into the reverberant field at treble and upper-midrange frequencies as it does at lower frequencies. Doing this gives the speaker a uniform sense of spaciousness and spectral balance over the whole bandwidth, and also keeps imaging (such as it is) consistent over a broad bandwidth when listening from any location other than dead center. As for your other comments involving anechoic environments being best for listening, I absolutely disagree. All anyone needs to do to prove this is listen to their speakers in a good room and then take them outdoors and listen in that nearly anechoic environment. The sound goes to hell outdoors. Sure, you will get better imaging outdoors, but so what. You simply DO NOT get precise imaging at live classical concerts unless you sit in the front rows (generally, those are junk seats and even worse than the far back rows) or are conducting. Back in the good seats, at mid-hall distances from the stage, what you get up front is a good blend and some vague imaging. Nothing like what you will get from an audio system that images well with recordings designed to highlight imaging. Good imaging may be impressive hi-fi, but it has little to do with simulating a live-music situation, at least if we are talking about the kind of music civilized people listen to. Enough. Howard Ferstler |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **There are no beneficial room artefacts. The ideal room is an anechoic chamber. Anything else is a compromise. Minimising room interactions is the only sensible option. Relying on room interaction (a la Bose) is just plain stupid. I had an interesting experience in a 3 Meter RF anechoic chamber at work. We were taking a couple days to cable up a cellular BTS for some pre-cert scans which took a couple days. A tech had an old stereo in the lab and he drug the speakers into the chamber. Up close in near field they sounded normal (they weren't great speakers), but if you got more than 8 ft or so away the SPL and hi frequency response just died. Obviously the room just swallowed the higher frequencies while the bass managed to propagate.Maybe it was this room not being designed as an acoustic anechoic chamber but if it was at all representative then I would think a speaker that was actually dialed in for flat frequency response in far field in an anechoic chamber would sound like crap in a normal "live" room. ScottW Yep. Worse, any phase artifacts being generated by the speaker (or an equalizer hooked to the system) would be painfully apparent if only the direct field were audible. Those artifacts would be very singular and that would make them very annoying. However, in a more reverberant environment (a normal home-listening area), a broad mix of additional phase artifacts generated by the room itself would swamp the outlandish ones that were showing up in the anechoic room. The result would be a spacious blend, at least if the systems involved had a uniform broad-bandwidth radiation pattern. Remarkably, clarity would suffer little in the normal room, at least if live-music clarity was what you were after. The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Most hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than in sound that simulates live performances. Howard Ferstler |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Good imaging may be impressive hi-fi, but it has little to do with simulating a live-music situation, at least if we are talking about the kind of music civilized people listen to. Right, imaging has nothing to do with stimulating live music situations "at least" for music civilized people listen to......... .............of course, we would include calssical music. Imaging means nothing at all, at a live classical music event, or the simulation of such RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Most hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than in sound that simulates live performances. Right again!!!!!!!!!!!!! At live acoustic performances, clarity, imaging, soundstaging and focus are NOT attributes of the sound RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: Howard Ferstler Date: 8/18/2004 6:24 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... You fail to mention radiation pattern uniformity (which I did mention) and to some this is as important as overall smoothness. If a system has a choppy off-axis response its reverberant-field response will also be choppy, even if the direct-field signals are smooth as hell. **I NEVER listen off-axis. Ever. Just a quickie. I rarely listen on axis, and even at live concerts it would be a rare day for me to get a center-axis seating location. Hey, there is nothing wrong with off-center seats at a live concert, so why should there be when listening on a home audio system. You have no business reviewing audio equipment if you don't understand the difference live acoustic music and playback. in actuality, he has very little business! Howard has said many stupid things. The blurb about imaging, focus and clarity being nonentities in live acoustic performance takes the cake!! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: Howard Ferstler Date: 8/18/2004 6:24 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... You fail to mention radiation pattern uniformity (which I did mention) and to some this is as important as overall smoothness. If a system has a choppy off-axis response its reverberant-field response will also be choppy, even if the direct-field signals are smooth as hell. **I NEVER listen off-axis. Ever. Just a quickie. I rarely listen on axis, and even at live concerts it would be a rare day for me to get a center-axis seating location. Hey, there is nothing wrong with off-center seats at a live concert, so why should there be when listening on a home audio system. You have no business reviewing audio equipment if you don't understand the difference live acoustic music and playback. in actuality, he has very little business! Howard has said many stupid things. The blurb about imaging, focus and clarity being nonentities in live acoustic performance takes the cake!! I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place each and every instrument on stage with precision. It is similar to being in a room with many people talking at once and being able to hear a single individual. Some recordings are better than others, but very few give that level involvement that is a given at live performance. I am talking about symphonic or chamber or jazz, not amplified pop where the stage monitors often muddy the sources. Some of the most involving recordings I own are Merc LP that were recorded live on three track or two track. They were made from FRC which is of course the best listening position also. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Carl Valle wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: Howard Ferstler Date: 8/18/2004 6:24 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... You fail to mention radiation pattern uniformity (which I did mention) and to some this is as important as overall smoothness. If a system has a choppy off-axis response its reverberant-field response will also be choppy, even if the direct-field signals are smooth as hell. **I NEVER listen off-axis. Ever. Just a quickie. I rarely listen on axis, and even at live concerts it would be a rare day for me to get a center-axis seating location. Hey, there is nothing wrong with off-center seats at a live concert, so why should there be when listening on a home audio system. You have no business reviewing audio equipment if you don't understand the difference live acoustic music and playback. in actuality, he has very little business! Howard has said many stupid things. The blurb about imaging, focus and clarity being nonentities in live acoustic performance takes the cake!! I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place each and every instrument on stage with precision. It is similar to being in a room with many people talking at once and being able to hear a single individual. Some recordings are better than others, but very few give that level involvement that is a given at live performance. I am talking about symphonic or chamber or jazz, not amplified pop where the stage monitors often muddy the sources. Some of the most involving recordings I own are Merc LP that were recorded live on three track or two track. They were made from FRC which is of course the best listening position also. Both the Mercury Living Presence LPs and the RCA Living Stereo LPs are justly reknowned for their superior imaging and soundstaging. Relatively minimalist microphone use and smart placements are a major factor. I own a lot of both the Mercury's and the RCA;s. Here are a few recommenations for both, and I apologize if you already have them or they are not your taste: (1) BEETHOVEN - Wellington's Victory - Mercury LPS 9050 - this the famous "battle record" in which the opposing sections of the orchestra (armies) enter from both sides of the stage - sort of an imaging showcase. (2) OSIPOV STATE ORCHESTRA - Mercury SR 90310. Dueling Balalaikas - One of the most famous Mercury LPs ever made - and *extremely* collectible. Not cheap, unless you get lucky, but when you hear it you'll know why it's achieved a cult reputation among vinylphiles. Exquisite sound, great dynamics. The first record reportedly recorded live on 35 MM tape in the Soviet Union by an American label. (3) HARRY BELAFONTE - At Carnegie Hall - RCA Living Stereo LSO 6006 - widely considered to be one fhe best live peformances ever made. If you hear it, you'll know why. (4) CHET ATKINS - In Hollywood - RCA Living Stereo LSP 1993 and (5) OFFENBACH - Gaite Parisienne - Fiedler/Boston Pops - RCA Living Stereo LSC 2267 - one of Fiedler's specialities and a great recording. Bruce J. Richman |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:ALdUc.9843$yh.9368@fed1read05 I had an interesting experience in a 3 Meter RF anechoic chamber at work. We were taking a couple days to cable up a cellular BTS for some pre-cert scans which took a couple days. A tech had an old stereo in the lab and he drug the speakers into the chamber. Up close in near field they sounded normal (they weren't great speakers), but if you got more than 8 ft or so away the SPL and hi frequency response just died. Obviously the room just swallowed the higher frequencies while the bass managed to propagate. Anechoic chambers are typically anechoic down to some frequency, and then they stop being anechoic. The length and density of the wedges help set this limit. Longer wedges, lower useful frequency. This chamber was designed for RF, and not at long wavelengths. Wrong, and wrong but dead enough midband to give you a taste of what the real audio thing would be like. Maybe it was this room not being designed as an acoustic anechoic chamber For sure, but apparently it still was very absorbtive in the midrange and above. but if it was at all representative then I would think a speaker that was actually dialed in for flat frequency response in far field in an anechoic chamber would sound like crap in a normal "live" room. Bingo! One fault is predictable - it would be very thick and bass-heavy. One kind of fault is unpredictable - it could have serious dispersion problems, things like bad lobing, and you'd never know. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a brand-new RAO article. OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics, "micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to generate. Those distortions are directly related to frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric whatsoever. **Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not. I do not consider those phase artifacts to be all that big a deal, **YOU consider a non-event. _I_ do not. To my ears, the damage wrought by all analogue equalisers is serious. Most digital equalisers are acceptable. A good example of predice, not experience dictating strongly-held perceptions. I pointed out about a week ago why phase shift in an equalizer can be a good thing. and I am not alone in believing this. Speakers and listening rooms add plenty of phase artifacts all by themselves. To say the least! **Ah, the old Bose argument. No, the know-something argument. Sorry, that does not wash. All listening rooms are different. Some present fewer problems than others. Careful speaker placement in a good room can do far more than any equaliser. This is all fine and good, but it does not disprove or even relate to Ferstler's claim. In many cases, those artifacts are either inaudible (speaker related) or beneficial (room reflection cancellations and reverberation). Agreed - rooms can have beneficial effects on loudspeaker sound quality. For example the boundaries of a room are expected by the speaker designer to support bass response in certain beneficial ways. **There are no beneficial room artefacts. I just described one. The ideal room is an anechoic chamber. Wrong again. As Scott points out below, even a partial attempt at an anechoic chamber makes a really strange place to listen to music in. However, let me waffle a bit. An anechoic chamber can be an ideal room if your goal is perfect recreation of the sound field at the live performance, and you can mount the huge technological effort to actually effectively support that goal. The point is that in the real worlds of home and studio audio, anechoic chambers are not ideal and virtually nobody even thinks about bothering to have one. Anything else is a compromise. Everthing else is practical and possibly reasonable. Minimising room interactions is the only sensible option. The better word is managing. Relying on room interaction (a la Bose) is just plain stupid. All current home speakers are somewhat dependent on room interaction for their sound quality because they depend on the room to present boundaries that support their bass response. However, the fact that an equalizer can alter the balance between the direct-field and reverberant-field signals can be important, IF the corrections applied are extreme. I question this on the grounds that equalizers can't be applied differently to direct and reverberent field sound from a speaker. If you change one, you change the other. If you had separate speakers assigned to stimulating the direct and reverberent fields then you might try to achieve this goal. Virtually all of the reasonably good speakers I have equalized have sounded better than their unequalized counterparts. This is in fact an observation of the obvious - if equalization didn't improve sound quality, why would the designer do it? It costs money, big time! In fact equalization, whether passive or active, is widely used in loudspeaker designs. Arguably, even passive speaker crossovers are designed to complement the response of the drivers, which is a form of equalization. **I accept that YOU feel that the result is better. Understand that is just YOUR opinion. It's hardly unique to Ferstler, and it does agree with prevailing thought in the mainstream audio industry. One which is not shared by all listeners. It is certainly not shared by most dedicated, experienced listeners. Deification of Trevor's personal preferences noted. Trevor doesn't believe in God, but he makes a God out of his preferences. He has tunnel vision related to many topics in audio, such as inverse feedback. His tunnel vision is often directed well away from accepted audio technology. If he lectured the AES about his peculiar audio views he'd be torn to shreds almost instantly, and for good cause. Of course, so would John Atkinson... FAR more importantly, however, is the utter futility of anyone, without SERIOUS test equipment, lots of experience and a calibrated absolute reference signal (related to the music being listened to) being able to correctly adjust any equaliser, such that the signal is actually better (ie: More like high fidelity) than the original. All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener. It takes nontrivial resources to effectively equalize speakers so that they better match the room. A lot of audiophiles don't have these resources and don't want to take the time and money to acquire them. The actual hardware costs of these resources are dropping rapidly, and they are available and being used by more consumer-type people. I certainly agree with your view regarding test gear. Adjusting a good equalizer by ear is a waste of time. For the common audiophile, I think so. However, in the end every effective application of an equalizer can benefit from some manual tweaking. There are people who can listen to speakers, hypothesize a set of settings for a parametric eq or 1/3 octave eq, call them out from across the room and their application will be highly beneifical. **How many people (who read your articles) possess such equipment? At this time, thousands and thousands. Automated room equalization equipment has even been built into high end multichannel receivers. Your best guess would be fine. Do you state as much in your articles (that equalisers are virtually useless without expensive test equipment)? The word expensive would be an example of out-of-date thinking. Either that or thinking that spending $100's to make a an audio system worth $1,000s or even $10,000's sound better is a waste of money. Nothing more. In fact, the results are somewhat akin to those people who use crappy SET amplifiers for tone control substitutes. Agreed. Equalisers are largely a waste of time and money. Particularly for novice users. Outdated, bad thinking. Senseless posturing. I used to feel this way, and said so in my first book, High Fidelity Audio Video Systems, way back in 1991. However, after doing some work with good equalizers and seeing what proper and modest corrections can do, I humbly disagree with both you and the younger version of Howard Ferstler. **Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it right for all listeners. Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take your own advice, at times. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
**I NEVER listen off-axis. Ever. You can't help it. The room is reverberant and mostly off-axis. It reflects off axis sound back at you. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
snip much good stuff Enough. Agreed. I see that Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest have started their flame party. Their basic approach is to misstate your ideas, and then attack their own mistaken thinking. Even though what you wrote should be understandable to non-technical readers, its way over their pointed little heads. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:09:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: **Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it right for all listeners. Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take your own advice, at times. As you as well, Arnold. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:09:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: **Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it right for all listeners. Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take your own advice, at times. As you as well, Arnold. Weil, your neediness in this area rather greatly exceeds mine. From your viewpoint I cheat all the time, because I'm self-aware. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:19:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:09:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: **Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it right for all listeners. Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take your own advice, at times. As you as well, Arnold. Weil, your neediness in this area rather greatly exceeds mine. From your viewpoint I cheat all the time, because I'm self-aware. I don't think that *I've* tried to impose my preferences on others. You lose. Again. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... Carl Valle wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: Howard Ferstler Date: 8/18/2004 6:24 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Trevor Wilson wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... You fail to mention radiation pattern uniformity (which I did mention) and to some this is as important as overall smoothness. If a system has a choppy off-axis response its reverberant-field response will also be choppy, even if the direct-field signals are smooth as hell. **I NEVER listen off-axis. Ever. Just a quickie. I rarely listen on axis, and even at live concerts it would be a rare day for me to get a center-axis seating location. Hey, there is nothing wrong with off-center seats at a live concert, so why should there be when listening on a home audio system. You have no business reviewing audio equipment if you don't understand the difference live acoustic music and playback. in actuality, he has very little business! Howard has said many stupid things. The blurb about imaging, focus and clarity being nonentities in live acoustic performance takes the cake!! I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place each and every instrument on stage with precision. It is similar to being in a room with many people talking at once and being able to hear a single individual. Some recordings are better than others, but very few give that level involvement that is a given at live performance. I am talking about symphonic or chamber or jazz, not amplified pop where the stage monitors often muddy the sources. Some of the most involving recordings I own are Merc LP that were recorded live on three track or two track. They were made from FRC which is of course the best listening position also. Both the Mercury Living Presence LPs and the RCA Living Stereo LPs are justly reknowned for their superior imaging and soundstaging. Relatively minimalist microphone use and smart placements are a major factor. I own a lot of both the Mercury's and the RCA;s. Here are a few recommenations for both, and I apologize if you already have them or they are not your taste: (1) BEETHOVEN - Wellington's Victory - Mercury LPS 9050 - this the famous "battle record" in which the opposing sections of the orchestra (armies) enter from both sides of the stage - sort of an imaging showcase. (2) OSIPOV STATE ORCHESTRA - Mercury SR 90310. Dueling Balalaikas - One of the most famous Mercury LPs ever made - and *extremely* collectible. Not cheap, unless you get lucky, but when you hear it you'll know why it's achieved a cult reputation among vinylphiles. Exquisite sound, great dynamics. The first record reportedly recorded live on 35 MM tape in the Soviet Union by an American label. (3) HARRY BELAFONTE - At Carnegie Hall - RCA Living Stereo LSO 6006 - widely considered to be one fhe best live peformances ever made. If you hear it, you'll know why. (4) CHET ATKINS - In Hollywood - RCA Living Stereo LSP 1993 and (5) OFFENBACH - Gaite Parisienne - Fiedler/Boston Pops - RCA Living Stereo LSC 2267 - one of Fiedler's specialities and a great recording. I have many of these, on vinyl and reel to reel. I have the original Offenbach Gaite Parisieene in Stereo, LSC 1817 . For the Mercs I recommend Saint Saens Organ Symphony (Oaray, if I remember correctly) Prokofiev - Scythian Suite (Dorati) Tchaikovsky - The Nutcracker Suite (Dorati) Stravinsky - Firebird Suite (Dorati) For the RCA's The Power of the Orchestra (Lieberman) Strauss - Also Spake Zarathustra (Reiner) Bartok - Concerto for orchestra (Reiner just about any of the Bosotn Pops recordings up to 1962 (Fiedler) and too amny others to mention. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" a écrit dans le message de
... I have the original Offenbach Gaite Parisieene in Stereo, LSC 1817 . Have you really listened to the above LP ? :-) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:19:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:09:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: **Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it right for all listeners. Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take your own advice, at times. As you as well, Arnold. Weil, your neediness in this area rather greatly exceeds mine. From your viewpoint I cheat all the time, because I'm self-aware. I don't think that *I've* tried to impose my preferences on others. Interesting how self-awareness continused to elude you, Weil. But just for grins Weil, explain how *anybody* can impose *anything* on *anybody* via a newsgroup. big hollow voice "I am the King of RAO, send me all of your money via PayPal". ;-) Weil, what do you think will happen to my PayPal balance tomorrow, next week? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Lionel" wrote in message
"Clyde Slick" a écrit dans le message de ... I have the original Offenbach Gaite Parisieene in Stereo, LSC 1817 . Have you really listened to the above LP ? :-) I have. Three words: tic, tic, tic. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Lionel" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" a écrit dans le message de ... I have the original Offenbach Gaite Parisieene in Stereo, LSC 1817 . Have you really listened to the above LP ? :-) yeah, but I usually play my Classic Records reissue. My original is in excellent condition, though it only cost me 25 cents in a thrift shop |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:19:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:09:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: **Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it right for all listeners. Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take your own advice, at times. As you as well, Arnold. Weil, your neediness in this area rather greatly exceeds mine. From your viewpoint I cheat all the time, because I'm self-aware. I don't think that *I've* tried to impose my preferences on others. Interesting how self-awareness continused to elude you, Weil. But just for grins Weil, explain how *anybody* can impose *anything* on *anybody* via a newsgroup. big hollow voice "I am the King of RAO, send me all of your money via PayPal". ;-) Weil, what do you think will happen to my PayPal balance tomorrow, next week? Remember, you have a history of not being able to figure out paypal. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Lionel" wrote in message "Clyde Slick" a écrit dans le message de ... I have the original Offenbach Gaite Parisieene in Stereo, LSC 1817 . Have you really listened to the above LP ? :-) I have. Three words: tic, tic, tic. Hopefully, that's a bomb ready to go off in your head. I think it was delivered in one of your visitories. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ferstler Readies and Article | Audio Opinions | |||
Using two Equalizers | Tech | |||
FA: Yamaha EX-1 Electone Organ Synth GX-1 / CS-80 Cousin / ART IEQ SmartCurve 1/3 Octave Equalizers | Pro Audio | |||
FS: KAWAI EQ-8 8-CHANNEL PARAMETRIC EQUALIZERS | Pro Audio |