Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Bruce J. Richman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Bruce J. Richman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Trevor Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Bruce J. Richman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Trevor Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
ScottW
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Bruce J. Richman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



  #18   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  #23   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 8/18/2004 6:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.


You know this from experience? By the way, I don't think this is an issue with
Quads.

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.


So you like to color your playback with room distortion to counter your
speakers' inherent distortions? I thought this ran contrary to your philosophy
in audio.


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.


Yes amoung other things. Obviously one is faced with certain limits if they are
stuck with a "normal" room. It is a good thing that some manufacturers make
speakers for these rooms. Some manufacturers design and build speakers with the
idea that their customers will use them in dedicated listening rooms. In these
situations the audiophile can have his cake and eat it too.


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.


Um, wrong. The fidelity of a live performance is unimpeachable. It is always
perfectly true to itself.

Most
hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than
in sound that simulates live performances.


Maybe you shouldn't speak for most hi-fi enthusiasts. You fail miserably when
you simply speak for yourself.



  #25   Report Post  
Carl Valle
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Bruce J. Richman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ferstler Readies and Article Howard Ferstler Audio Opinions 34 August 18th 04 08:02 AM
Using two Equalizers Al Cirino Tech 12 May 11th 04 09:55 PM
FA: Yamaha EX-1 Electone Organ Synth GX-1 / CS-80 Cousin / ART IEQ SmartCurve 1/3 Octave Equalizers MarkSG Pro Audio 0 March 27th 04 07:17 AM
FS: KAWAI EQ-8 8-CHANNEL PARAMETRIC EQUALIZERS MarkSG Pro Audio 0 March 13th 04 12:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:34 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"