Powell wrote:


"Howard Ferstler" wrote

I am not sure at all what "microdynamics" are, by the way.

Terminology like microdynamics has commonly been in
use for more than twenty years. The advent of the CD
brought dynamics to the forefront in audio publications'
discussions. Even today the capability of digital
technology is often improperly applied by audio engineers
in the master recordings they produce.

Microdynamics is one of two components of dynamics.
The other is macrodynamics. In general dynamic range
is the difference between the noise floor of electronic
components or music source (CD, vinyl, tapes, etc.) and
the loudest sound produced. It is not, however,
considered to be how loud a system will play but rather
the difference between loud and soft. For example an
orchestra may approach 100 dB in range while rock only
10 dB or so.

Within this mix dynamics exhibit the characteristics of
macro and micro dynamics. With macrodynamics we
are concerned with attributes like slam, impact and
power of music. If music is improperly mastered we
often use terms like compressed to describe the
macrodynamics. In its most elemental form it's the
difference between pianissimo and triple forte.


Actually, triple pianissimo




OTOH, microdynamics describes the dynamic
activities happening within the musical event. In
high dynamic situations like orchestra music where
several instruments are playing simultaneously,
with instruments of dynamic ranges (pp to fff), the
resolution of individual instruments may smear
together, particularly as we increase the volume level.
This resolving power/attribute is the microdynamics
at play. The triangle, for example, should be clear and
articulated even though it is not very loud, located in
the back of the stage and competes in the surrounding
mix of sounds.








As I tried unsuccessfully to explain to Krueger, these definitions of
microdyamics and macrodyamics with which I basically agree and have recently
posted, are also terms commonly used by subjective review writers to describe
the ability of various pieces of audio equipment, especially speakers, to
reproduce music.

There is a difference between this and what Krueger mistakenly claimed as an
equivalent "sonic detail". The 2 are related but not the same. The ability to
enable a listener to successfully discriminate between different musical
instruments and/or voices in a choir (I used to sing in one with 6-part
harmonies) is based on both volume differences (as with microdynamics) but
also timbres of instruments covering the same frequency range (e.g. certain
woodwinds to some extent).

So, contrary to Krueger's claims, the use of terms like microdynamics and
macrodynamics are not just fancy ways of saying "sonic detail". Neither are
they a form of subjective reviewer poetry that has no concrete, and measurable,
audio correlates.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



My only regret is that I'll probably never get the chance to see her
live in concert, where the added benefits and noise and distortion
are no doubt audible.

The live performance as the reference sound, has neither noise nor
distortion.


For those that want their audio systems to come as close as possible
to the sound of a live concert, then environmental sounds such as
those produced by the audience, are an accepted factor.

Agreed.

Further,
there is no evidence to suggest that the amplification typically used
in live concerts - which is what the listener seated in the audience
actually hears is produced by noise-free, distortion-free
microphones, amplifiers, guitar-pickups, etc.

Agreed. But high fidelity is not about the means of production of sound, but
rather its reproduction.

Apparently a lot of people like that audible
noise and distortion that one finds in live concert halls, amplified
music (often with tubes at least in the guitar amps if not the
microphones as well), yet unfortunately missing from anechoic
chambers and test benches.

That's the difference between producing music and reproducing music.

Both, because of the electronics involved, have a certain amount of
noise and distortion.

Actually, electronics that are free of audible noise and distortion are
available for use in reproduction systems.

The amounts no doubt vary according to the
properties of the equipment used.

In electronics, they vary right down to not audible at all. But this
requires some careful choices. Avoiding tubes helps. Avoiding vinyl and
cassette is manditory.

Even live musical presentations
that are purely acoustic and unamplified *might* contain some
distortion depending on such things as the condition of the musical
instruments and/or prehaps the vagaries of the human voice.

That's all on the production of music side of the equation. This is the
reference sound, the sound that most of us wish to reproduce as well as
possible.

And of course, some electronic music *intentionally* produces distortion
through various devices (fuzz boxes, etc.). And even if this were not
the case, ambient sounds from the audience, the rustling of the trees
(?), sounds of people coughing and/or moving around, etc. are
certainly part of the "pure musical signal".

That's all on the production of music side of the equation. This is the
reference sound, the sound that most of us wish to reproduce as well as
possible.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Apparently, Graham thinks that 7 years of documented and provable
libel re. another person's identity, educational background,
professional activities, and statre licensure................ is a
"joke".

So Bruce, of of your libelous statements about me are just a joke?

The libeling of my dead son by your associates Phillips, Sackman, and
Middius are just jokes to in your book, right?

Sad.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 03:52:25 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Although, I would be almost as
glad for you to forgo this and stick with the technobabbble, cause
eventually you will cross swords with the mighty Krueger,
and I so much want to see the **** fly between the two of you.

Since Arny speaks technological sense, I see little likelihood of a
disagreement on the lines you suggest.

Don't be so sure. Many have discovered the wrong side of Arnold
Krueger.

Weil is still mystified by the idea that his own reprehensible behavior
might have consequences.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

Powell wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote

I am not sure at all what "microdynamics" are, by the way.

Terminology like microdynamics has commonly been in
use for more than twenty years

It has ?

I must have missed something.

I'm well aware that hi-fi 'audiophiles' like to create new terms to
describe their view of the world but dividing dynamics into macro and
micro parts seems to me like a form of navel gazing.

I think that in terms of chronology, Powell might even be understating how
long the term "microdynamics" has been around.

In terms of measurements, the closest thing is dynamic range - you know,
measure signal-present SNR with a -60 dB signal present.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Powell wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote

I am not sure at all what "microdynamics" are, by the way.

Terminology like microdynamics has commonly been in
use for more than twenty years

It has ?

I must have missed something.

I'm well aware that hi-fi 'audiophiles' like to create new terms to
describe their view of the world but dividing dynamics into macro and
micro parts seems to me like a form of navel gazing.


Graham


Our'view of the world' is what we hear, your 'view of the world'
is what you measure. si, these terms that confuse you
are there to describe what we hear. Perhaps you
are confused because they are subjective.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Pooh Bear said:

No *religion* involved.

Wrong.

It was posted in this thread that pace is a measure of time.

This is you, being religious.

What the hell are you talking about ?

Time and pace being related is meaasure of *religion* ?

Do you live on the planet Zog ?

What is your agenda ?

Getting people to fight so that he can sop up the fear and hatred.

So, the ppl here are clueless ****wits ?


Welcome to the club.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Apparently, Graham thinks that 7 years of documented and provable
libel re. another person's identity, educational background,
professional activities, and statre licensure................ is a
"joke".

So Bruce, of of your libelous statements about me are just a joke?

The libeling of my dead son by your associates Phillips, Sackman, and
Middius are just jokes to in your book, right?

Sad.


All references in regard to pedophilia were directed
towards you, not towards Nate. We all feel very sorry
for Nate, sorry that he had you for a father.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/14/2004 5:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/14/2004 4:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that what
writers are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be affected
without changing the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

Why not call it a sense of vanilla?

Maybe because there is no sensible connection between vanilla and pace.

Prove it.









Disprove it.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/15/2004 3:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Agreed. But high fidelity is not about the means of production of sound, but
rather its reproduction.


In any live concert played over a PA system fidelity is an issue.

From: Pooh Bear
Date: 8/14/2004 5:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Pooh Bear

I *so* love those revies where the reviewer talks about the *pace* of an
amplifier don't you ?

Since it has no meaning it can't be refuted !

Pace doesn't have meaning?
Main Entry: [1]pace
Pronunciation: 'pAs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pas, from Old French, step, from Latin passus,
from
pandere to spread €€?more at FATHOM
Date: 14th century
1 a : rate of movement; especially : an established rate of locomotion.

I was referring to *pace* in the context of an audio discussion.

So was I. Is it really that difficult to apply this definition to audio? I
found it pretty easy.



I'm well aware of 'musical pace' - I've never seen a clear discussion as to
how
an amplifier changes it however ! ;-)

Therefore it is meaningless? Because you personally haven't seen a clear
discussion of it?


Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that what
writers
are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be affected without
changing
the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

And how do you think an amplifier changes that ?

I don't know. Do you think that a *sense* of pace when listening to music
cannot be affected by anything other than the *actual* pace? I am confident
that amplifiers do not speed things up or slow them down literally. I am also
quite confident that colorations in playback systems cna affect a *sense* of
pace without changing the *actual* pace of the music in any substantial way. Do
you agree or disagree?



( aside from a marketing con
to
get ppl to buy the flavour of the month product ).


Graham

From: Pooh Bear
Date: 8/14/2004 7:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



If I say something harsh or critical - it doesn't mean I'm insulting you -
that's entirely a different matter. I'm trying to avoid the abuse element. I
won't call you a ****pig for example, simply 'cos I disagree with your view.


Glad to hear it. So why do you accept Arny's behavior?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/15/2004 3:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Agreed. But high fidelity is not about the means of production of
sound, but rather its reproduction.


In any live concert played over a PA system fidelity is an issue.

So are you disagreeing or agreeing with my statement?

From: Pooh Bear
Date: 8/14/2004 6:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"George M. Middius" wrote:

Pooh Bear said:

Of course it shouldn't take any special insight to realize that what
writers
are talking about is a *sense* of pace which can be affected without
changing
the *actual* pace of any piece of music.

And how do you think an amplifier changes that ? ( aside from a marketing
con to
get ppl to buy the flavour of the month product ).

This is apparently part of your religion -- if a box makes a difference in
the way a system sounds, you don't believe it's real unless you can hatch a
nest full of schematics and specs that "explain" it to your satisfaction.

No *religion* involved.

It was posted in this thread that pace is a measure of time.

If you're asserting that amplifier *X* can change the flow of time so as to
provide
increased *pace* then you are clearly a charlatan of the first order.

If you can find anyone making such an assertion you would have a valid point.



The problem, IMHO, is that said reviewers talking about *pace* can't find a
suitable
more suitable scientific description to describe what they hear.

Hold on here. If you are speaking of consumer audio magazines I think you are
way off base. A more technical description of a coloration that affects the
sense of pace with the playback of music is less likely to be meaningful than a
simple discussion of a sense of pace to the layperson.

Maybe they
should try
harder ?

Maybe you should try harder to understand nontechnical descriptions when
reading consumer magazines.



By talking about *pace* they make their reviews sound idiotic since
amplifiers aren't
time machines !

Do you get upset when people talk about the sun setting? Technically speaking
it is wrong since such language assumes the earth is a fixed object. Do you
find "sunset" an idiotic term?



A more reasoned approach to reviewing using scientifically meaningful
descriptions
would be a first step in resolving what the reviewer is actually hearing.

It would also likely alienate most of the readership. Now if you would like to
personally fund such a publication that would be devoid of such readership no
one is stopping you.



Regular humans don't need that kind of reassurance.

You prefer to believe the marketing pseudo-babble ?

I think the majority of us simply want to listen and decide for ourselves.



Comfort factor ? Is that the re-assurance you refer to - as in ' I paid lots
so it
must be good ' ?

For us, comparing audio
equipment is the same as any other endeavor we do for pleasure. If
something meets our needs, we like it.

Nothing wrong with that.

Have you ever drunk a nice glass of
wine, or rode a bike down a country lane, or fired a high-powered rifle?

Not the rifle - but yes.

In all of those activities, the equipment (or the potable) is a key factor
in
the enjoyment. Do you have to know exactly why you like the trigger better
on a certain rifle, or why you're more comfortable on a certain bike? We
certainly don't. We find what we like better, and that's the point.

Again - perfectly reasonable that you like certain things.

What grates with the scientific approach that, as a pro-audio guy, I believe
is
appropriate is that - for example - proponents of valve amplifiers with
their well
recognised technical 'defects' ( characteristics if you prefer ) choose to
promote
them as *better* than their solid state equivalents and then promote this
opinion as a
matter of almost religious faith / fact.

No, it is a matter of actual listening.

Some then go on to attempt to endow
triodes
e.g with a *magic sound*. I find this approach laughable.

You seem to be struggling with figurative speech again. I don't think anyone
has claimed anything paranormal about triodes. "Magical" is not always meant to
be taken literally.



I have no argument with anyone who likes to listen to a valve amplifier. If
that's
what rocks his / her boat - so be it ! Don't mislead yourself as to its true
characteristics however.

You might want to be careful to keep perspective. We don't listen to amps. We
listen to complete recording and playback systems. Even you might find some
tube equipment preferable in some systems.



It is disingenuous for the valve lover to promote that technology as *better*
in an
*absolute* way.

Be careful you are not confusing hyperbole with claims of fact.


*Better* is subjective to the listener. If you like a valve amp for example -
please
enjoy. Just don't criticise the listeners to various solid state amplifiers
who prefer
the detailed definition that in turn we ( i.e. including me ) feel can be
resolved by
our preferred solution.

I think you will find the opposite is the case mostly. It seems the folks who
are more interested in measured performance decry preferences. You will pretty
much only find such critism leveled against those who have preferences for LP
playback and tube gear. Is that acceptable to you?



OK, we can point to the fact that high perfomance SS amps have stunning tech
performance numbers that put valve equivalents to shame. That doesn't spoil
the valve
lovers listening experience however. I know that.

I'm glad *you* know that.



In the end however the listening experience is what counts - despite anyone's
take on
the meaningfullness of the 'numbers'

It simply may not be the case that 'technically accurate' reproduction
provides the
best listening experience for some listeners.

In the end none of it is technically accurate when we are talking complete
systems.



This shouldn't be a reason for disparaging each others chosen preference.
Rather, it
would be interesting to discuss why and how different ppl prefer the
characteristics
of the listening experience that they choose.

It would make for an interesting discussion. Unfortunately such discussions
invariably degenerate into personal attacks against those of us who have
certain preferences.



The point for you seems to lie elsewhere entirely. For some reason, you've
been having a lot of fun searching in Krooger's rectum. I hope you find
what you want there, but please don't relate the details of your search.

That's a silly comment worthy of those I have just criticised.

So far such critism has looked rather one sided.



Please rethink more carefully.


Graham

The Devil wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:31:20 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

It is more proof that most high-end audio enthusiasts
(certainly those who are rabid enough in their approach to
post material here) are technical ignoramuses who are unable
to rationally discuss a hobby they claim to love.

You're welcome to join the thread where we're talking about the pros
and cons of various OTL amplifier topologies, Howard.

--
td

I see no reason to discuss such things. Because decently
designed solid-state amps are subjectively benign to begin
with, opting for other esoteric other versions (that run
hot, have reliability issues attached to them, and of course
will be difficult to repair if the miniature company that
makes them goes belly up) is a waste of time. Amps are
appliances. Dwelling on their attributes is pointless.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
The Devil wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:31:20 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

It is more proof that most high-end audio enthusiasts
(certainly those who are rabid enough in their approach to
post material here) are technical ignoramuses who are unable
to rationally discuss a hobby they claim to love.

You're welcome to join the thread where we're talking about the pros
and cons of various OTL amplifier topologies, Howard.

--
td

I see no reason to discuss such things. Because decently
designed solid-state amps are subjectively benign to begin
with, opting for other esoteric other versions (that run
hot, have reliability issues attached to them, and of course
will be difficult to repair if the miniature company that
makes them goes belly up) is a waste of time. Amps are
appliances. Dwelling on their attributes is pointless.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
The Devil wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:31:20 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

It is more proof that most high-end audio enthusiasts
(certainly those who are rabid enough in their approach to
post material here) are technical ignoramuses who are unable
to rationally discuss a hobby they claim to love.

You're welcome to join the thread where we're talking about the pros
and cons of various OTL amplifier topologies, Howard.

--
td

I see no reason to discuss such things. Because decently
designed solid-state amps are subjectively benign to begin
with, opting for other esoteric other versions (that run
hot, have reliability issues attached to them, and of course
will be difficult to repair if the miniature company that
makes them goes belly up) is a waste of time. Amps are
appliances. Dwelling on their attributes is pointless.



Howard has his system hooked up to a refrigerator.
Wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the hum.

Arny Kruege wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


Apparently, Graham thinks that 7 years of documented and provable
libel re. another person's identity, educational background,
professional activities, and statre licensure................ is a
"joke".

So Bruce, of of your libelous statements about me are just a joke?


Except, Krueger, that in the legal definition sense, I haven't libeled you.
Sure, I've insulted you on numerous occasions - in response to your lengthy
history of unprovoked personal attacks. Unfortunately you don't understand the
difference between unprovoked personal attacks, which are simply opinions, and
libel, which has clear legal definitions and can result in legal action.



The libeling of my dead son by your associates Phillips, Sackman, and
Middius are just jokes to in your book, right?


First of all, I've never met either Phillips, Sackman or Middius, so your use
of the term "associates" .......... is a joke.



Sad.




Yes, your 7 year history of provably libelous statements specifically directed
at my identity, my educational background, my licensure status, and my
profesional experience and clinical activitries is sad.



Bruce J. Richman

Clyde Slick wrote:


Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
The Devil wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:31:20 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

It is more proof that most high-end audio enthusiasts
(certainly those who are rabid enough in their approach to
post material here) are technical ignoramuses who are unable
to rationally discuss a hobby they claim to love.

You're welcome to join the thread where we're talking about the pros
and cons of various OTL amplifier topologies, Howard.

--
td

I see no reason to discuss such things. Because decently
designed solid-state amps are subjectively benign to begin
with, opting for other esoteric other versions (that run
hot, have reliability issues attached to them, and of course
will be difficult to repair if the miniature company that
makes them goes belly up) is a waste of time. Amps are
appliances. Dwelling on their attributes is pointless.



Howard has his system hooked up to a refrigerator.
Wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the hum.









Maybe he sits on it when using his laptop. That would help to explain his
fascination with liquid cooled keyboards.


Bruce J. Richman

The Devil wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:17:54 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

It is more proof that most high-end audio enthusiasts
(certainly those who are rabid enough in their approach to
post material here) are technical ignoramuses who are unable
to rationally discuss a hobby they claim to love.

You're welcome to join the thread where we're talking about the pros
and cons of various OTL amplifier topologies, Howard.

I see no reason to discuss such things. Because decently
designed solid-state amps are subjectively benign to begin
with, opting for other esoteric other versions (that run
hot, have reliability issues attached to them, and of course
will be difficult to repair if the miniature company that
makes them goes belly up) is a waste of time. Amps are
appliances. Dwelling on their attributes is pointless.

If that is so, why are you whining about your betters being 'technical
ignoramuses'?

I'm not whining. I will, in a very matter of fact manner,
simply state that most of the people who post here are
technical ignoramuses. Worse, they are technical
fantasizers.

If we are to have it the way you say it, then taking a
technical interest in how the equipment functions is pointless anyway.

It just about is with amps. Of course, there is still the
issue of power output. Obviously, power output differences
will be important.

And some amps handle low-impedance loads better than others.
However, given typical speaker loads, all amps of decent
quality (particularly when it comes to proper low output
impedances) perform pretty much identically up to their
respective clipping levels.

Howard Ferstler

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Except, Krueger, that in the legal definition sense, I haven't
libeled you.

No, Richman you lied and claimed that my family tried to have me committed.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:39:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Except, Krueger, that in the legal definition sense, I haven't
libeled you.

No, Richman you lied and claimed that my family tried to have me committed.

And you lied and siad that I was a drug abuser. So, you shouldn't be
throwing stones.

BTW, the last two messages to that effect have been saved and will be
forwarded to my attorney for her future reference.

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Except, Krueger, that in the legal definition sense, I haven't
libeled you.

No, Richman you lied and claimed that my family tried to have me committed.










Prove it, Krueger. Even if it were true, but it isn't, that would not be
libel. It says nothing about your identity, your training, your claimed job
activities, etc. Futher, I simply raised the question or possibility of your
family having you committed.

You recently lied and claimed that *I* attempted to have you committed.
Obviously, that would be impossible since, as I've stated, a personal
face-to-face evaluation has to bd done before any licensed psychologist,
psychiatrist, physician or police officer can have you committed. You probably
don't know this, but when people are committed based on hearsay, licensed
psychologists, at least in Florida, have the authority to rescind the
committment orders. Unfortunately, I've had to do this several times for
people wrongly committed to psychiatric facilities based on the hearsay of
relatives or spouses in which no actual face-to-face evaluation took place.


Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:

As I tried unsuccessfully to explain to Krueger, these definitions of
microdyamics and macrodyamics with which I basically agree and have recently
posted, are also terms commonly used by subjective review writers to describe
the ability of various pieces of audio equipment, especially speakers, to
reproduce music.

There is a difference between this and what Krueger mistakenly claimed as an
equivalent "sonic detail". The 2 are related but not the same. The ability to
enable a listener to successfully discriminate between different musical
instruments and/or voices in a choir (I used to sing in one with 6-part
harmonies) is based on both volume differences (as with microdynamics) but
also timbres of instruments covering the same frequency range (e.g. certain
woodwinds to some extent).

So, contrary to Krueger's claims, the use of terms like microdynamics and
macrodynamics are not just fancy ways of saying "sonic detail". Neither are
they a form of subjective reviewer poetry that has no concrete, and measurable,
audio correlates.

Bruce J. Richman

Equalizers can have a huge impact on dynamics, micro or
otherwise.

Look at it this way. With a given musically generated
impulse signal, such as what you might get when a mallet
hits a bass drum diaphragm, the frequency spectrum will
start out with a strong midrange component (the initial
whack, which may be reproduced in part by both the midrange
and tweeter), and then generate a tail that is mostly lower
frequencies and a few harmonics. Most of this tail will be
reproduced by the woofer, with the 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. On the other hand, if you
boost those initial "whack" frequencies, or attenuate the
lower frequencies, the "boom" of the drum will be less full
and seem lacking in body. The sound of the drum will seem
"tight." If the initial whack is suppressed, the dynamic
impact will also seem to be weaker. If the initial whack
(and/or the lower frequencies) are boosted, the drum will
have a more explosive impact.

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. 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.

Now, the single most important attribute of a speaker is its
frequency response. The measured response may be dominated
by a stronger direct-field signal or it may be dominated by
the reverberant-field signal, 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 flat responding, or is a fairly flat
responding speaker that is tuned to even flatter response by
a good equalizer, it 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 impact the sense of space around the
speakers, but we will leave that issue out 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 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 seem brittle sounding or lacking
in body. It may have plenty of definition, but it will not
have the proper richness.

On the other hand, if the system has a response peak or
peaks at certain frequencies, instruments that deliver
response over that bandwidth range may seem to be overly
emphasized 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 a reasonably 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. 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.

Howard Ferstler

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:39:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Except, Krueger, that in the legal definition sense, I haven't
libeled you.

No, Richman you lied and claimed that my family tried to have me
committed.

And you lied and siad that I was a drug abuser.

That's a lie.

BTW, the last two messages to that effect have been saved and will be
forwarded to my attorney for her future reference.

I'm quivering in my boots.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



You recently lied and claimed that *I* attempted to have you
committed.

Prove it.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


As I tried unsuccessfully to explain to Krueger, these definitions of
microdyamics and macrodyamics with which I basically agree and have
recently posted, are also terms commonly used by subjective review
writers to describe the ability of various pieces of audio equipment,
especially speakers, to reproduce music.

If you were unsucesfful Richman, that would be your fault.

There is a difference between this and what Krueger mistakenly
claimed as an equivalent "sonic detail". The 2 are related but not the
same.

This will be good! ;-)

The ability to enable a listener to successfully
discriminate between different musical instruments and/or voices in a
choir (I used to sing in one with 6-part harmonies) is based on both
volume differences (as with microdynamics) but also timbres of
instruments covering the same frequency range (e.g. certain woodwinds
to some extent).

True, but no relevance to microdymamics has been shown.

So, contrary to Krueger's claims, the use of terms like microdynamics
and macrodynamics are not just fancy ways of saying "sonic detail".

No relevant argument has been prevented, other than some truisms. Even
beginning writers are familiar with the concept of comparing and
constrasting two items being compared. Stating truisms about just one of
them is not an effective means to prove a point.

Neither are they a form of subjective reviewer poetry that has no
concrete, and measurable, audio correlates.

Which measureable audio properties correlate with microdymaics, Richman?

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:24:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:39:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Except, Krueger, that in the legal definition sense, I haven't
libeled you.

No, Richman you lied and claimed that my family tried to have me
committed.

And you lied and siad that I was a drug abuser.

That's a lie.

BTW, the last two messages to that effect have been saved and will be
forwarded to my attorney for her future reference.

I'm quivering in my boots.

You should be.

In article ,
(Bruce J. Richman) writes:
Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Except, Krueger, that in the legal definition sense, I haven't
libeled you.

No, Richman you lied and claimed that my family tried to have me committed.










Prove it, Krueger. Even if it were true, but it isn't, that would not be
libel. It says nothing about your identity, your training, your claimed job
activities, etc. Futher, I simply raised the question or possibility of your
family having you committed.

You recently lied and claimed that *I* attempted to have you committed.
Obviously, that would be impossible since, as I've stated, a personal
face-to-face evaluation has to bd done before any licensed psychologist,
psychiatrist, physician or police officer can have you committed. You probably
don't know this, but when people are committed based on hearsay, licensed
psychologists, at least in Florida, have the authority to rescind the
committment orders. Unfortunately, I've had to do this several times for
people wrongly committed to psychiatric facilities based on the hearsay of
relatives or spouses in which no actual face-to-face evaluation took place.


Bruce J. Richman

I still can't believe that a licensed psychologist would ever stoop
to something like this in public forum. Or that they would spend so
much time on a newsgroup like this constantly declaring the state of
mental health of the others in the group. Not enough paying patients
to keep you busy?

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


As I tried unsuccessfully to explain to Krueger, these definitions of
microdyamics and macrodyamics with which I basically agree and have
recently posted, are also terms commonly used by subjective review
writers to describe the ability of various pieces of audio equipment,
especially speakers, to reproduce music.

If you were unsucesfful Richman, that would be your fault.


Prove it, liar. Your inability to grasp the common meanings of terms in use
for years by many writers and other audio professional is your problem, not
mine.


There is a difference between this and what Krueger mistakenly
claimed as an equivalent "sonic detail". The 2 are related but not the
same.

This will be good! ;-)


Agreed. Because it's an accurate description of your posting history.



The ability to enable a listener to successfully
discriminate between different musical instruments and/or voices in a
choir (I used to sing in one with 6-part harmonies) is based on both
volume differences (as with microdynamics) but also timbres of
instruments covering the same frequency range (e.g. certain woodwinds
to some extent).

True, but no relevance to microdymamics has been shown.


Dynamics, both micro- and macro- involve differences in volume levels. To the
extent that instruments similar in timbre are presented at different volume
levels within a given musical production, then to that extent their
discrimination should be easier.


So, contrary to Krueger's claims, the use of terms like microdynamics
and macrodynamics are not just fancy ways of saying "sonic detail".

No relevant argument has been prevented, other than some truisms. Even
beginning writers are familiar with the concept of comparing and
constrasting two items being compared. Stating truisms about just one of
them is not an effective means to prove a point.


An irrelevant claim, and arbitrary strawman.



Neither are they a form of subjective reviewer poetry that has no
concrete, and measurable, audio correlates.

Which measureable audio properties correlate with microdymaics, Richman?




Differences in volume levels between different instruments or voices -
presumably applied to low level presentations, Krueger.








Bruce J. Richman

Dave Weil wrote:


On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:24:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
m
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:39:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message



Except, Krueger, that in the legal definition sense, I haven't
libeled you.

No, Richman you lied and claimed that my family tried to have me
committed.

And you lied and siad that I was a drug abuser.

That's a lie.

BTW, the last two messages to that effect have been saved and will be
forwarded to my attorney for her future reference.

I'm quivering in my boots.

You should be.








I have also sent quite a bit of RAO's output from Ferstler and Krueger to my
attorney. We're currently considering a number of legal options.


Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


As I tried unsuccessfully to explain to Krueger, these definitions
of microdyamics and macrodyamics with which I basically agree and
have recently posted, are also terms commonly used by subjective
review writers to describe the ability of various pieces of audio
equipment, especially speakers, to reproduce music.

If you were unsucesful Richman, that would be your fault.

Prove it, liar.

Shows your inability to take responsebility for your technical incompetence,
Richman.

Your inability to grasp the common meanings of terms
in use for years by many writers and other audio professional is your
problem, not mine.

You haven't proven that I've done that due to your poor rhetoric, Richman.

There is a difference between this and what Krueger mistakenly
claimed as an equivalent "sonic detail". The 2 are related but not
the same.

This will be good! ;-)

Agreed. Because it's an accurate description of your posting history.

Inability to support claim with quotes from readily-available materials
noted. The problem is that Richman is lying and libelling as is his habit.

The ability to enable a listener to successfully
discriminate between different musical instruments and/or voices in
a choir (I used to sing in one with 6-part harmonies) is based on
both volume differences (as with microdynamics) but also timbres of
instruments covering the same frequency range (e.g. certain
woodwinds to some extent).

True, but no relevance to microdymamics has been shown.

Dynamics, both micro- and macro- involve differences in volume levels.

How you stumbled into that well-known fact Richman, in your backward and
delusional blundering, we'll never know.

To the extent that instruments similar in timbre are
presented at different volume levels within a given musical
production, then to that extent their discrimination should be easier.

Yet another marvel, Richman. You stumbled into another well-known fact
Richman.

So, contrary to Krueger's claims, the use of terms like
microdynamics and macrodynamics are not just fancy ways of saying
"sonic detail".

No relevant argument has been prevented, other than some truisms.
Even beginning writers are familiar with the concept of comparing and
constrasting two items being compared. Stating truisms about just
one of them is not an effective means to prove a point.

An irrelevant claim, and arbitrary strawman.

Riichman, I'm just trying to introduce you to the mysteries of logical
rhetoric, which seem to have eluded you in this discussion.

Neither are they a form of subjective reviewer poetry that has no
concrete, and measurable, audio correlates.

Which measureable audio properties correlate with microdymaics,
Richman?

Differences in volume levels between different instruments or voices
- presumably applied to low level presentations, Krueger.

You've said that they are measurable, Richman. But, you've not provided us
with a standard test or a workable set of equipment and procedures for doing
so. Wanna stop waving your hands and actually say something relevant and
useful?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 8/13/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Dr. Richman said:

Mr. Phillips said:




Dr. Richman said:

For the record, I'm happy to admit that I take Melatonin as a sleep
aid.
And
I
highly recommend this natural neurohormone, available iwthout
presciption
at
most health food, vitamin and drug stores.

Last night I took Lagavulin as a sleep aid. It worked wonderfully,
and
I
woke
up feeling like a hundred bucks!

Boon








LOL !!1

Maybe I should combine the 2. (Although I'm not much of a Scotch
drinker).

I came home from work yesterday to find everyone in my neighborhood
sitting on
my front porch and yard. At first I thought something bad had
happened,
and
then I realized, no, my wife was just making mango and strawberry
margaritas
for everyone with her new Cuisinart blender.

I had to break out the Scotch because I hate margaritas.

Boon

BTW, I will be in San Diego Labor Day weekend, Friday through Sunday
if you want to get together, The two Scotts should note this also.

Noted

I noted your note. I hope we can all get together.

Party at my place. It's you guys turn to drive .

ScottW

wrote in message


I still can't believe that a licensed psychologist would ever stoop
to something like this in public forum. Or that they would spend so
much time on a newsgroup like this constantly declaring the state of
mental health of the others in the group. Not enough paying patients
to keep you busy?

Richman has always declined to admit how he supports himself. We have
established that he was in the process of flunking out of a masters program
in 1967 or so. That's the last sign of anything like professional behavior
on his part that he is able to produce. 47 years of unproductive behaviour
is nothing to sneeze at.

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message


As I tried unsuccessfully to explain to Krueger, these definitions
of microdyamics and macrodyamics with which I basically agree and
have recently posted, are also terms commonly used by subjective
review writers to describe the ability of various pieces of audio
equipment, especially speakers, to reproduce music.

If you were unsucesful Richman, that would be your fault.

Prove it, liar.

Shows your inability to take responsebility for your technical incompetence,
Richman.


Bull****. You simply failed to grasp the distinction between sonic detail and
microdyamics. And now you're lying again in an effort to avoid that reality.


Your inability to grasp the common meanings of terms
in use for years by many writers and other audio professional is your
problem, not mine.

You haven't proven that I've done that due to your poor rhetoric, Richman.


You haven't proven anything, Krueger. You've been engaging in false claims
about both audio and people on RAO for years. You are also unable to evaluate
the writings of others, since your judgments are predetermined by your agenda.


There is a difference between this and what Krueger mistakenly
claimed as an equivalent "sonic detail". The 2 are related but not
the same.

This will be good! ;-)

Agreed. Because it's an accurate description of your posting history.

Inability to support claim with quotes from readily-available materials
noted. The problem is that Richman is lying and libelling as is his habit.


Absence of proof for the above outrageous lies by Krueger is quite obvious. He
has also, recently, attempted to label almost all negative statements about him
as "libel" in an effort to obfuscate and hide the differences between garden
variety insults like the ones he routinely uses to smear others, and the libel
he directs at the professional activities, qualifications, and identities of
other posters. Attornies and objective readers, however, can see through
Krueger's transparent overgeneralizations.



The ability to enable a listener to successfully
discriminate between different musical instruments and/or voices in
a choir (I used to sing in one with 6-part harmonies) is based on
both volume differences (as with microdynamics) but also timbres of
instruments covering the same frequency range (e.g. certain
woodwinds to some extent).

True, but no relevance to microdymamics has been shown.

Dynamics, both micro- and macro- involve differences in volume levels.

How you stumbled into that well-known fact Richman, in your backward and
delusional blundering, we'll never know.


Actually, Krueger, only psychotic sociopaths totally divorced from reality, can
now contradict yourself so easily. First you claim that I've lied and libeled _
without evidence, and then you claimed I've stated some obvious facts. If they
were so obvious, then why did you expend so much energy lying about my post on
this subject. I understand that your thought disordered mind has severe
limitation on its ability to comprehend what others have written, but perhaps
you should not be so eager to exhibit your mental illness symptoms on public
newsgroups.



To the extent that instruments similar in timbre are
presented at different volume levels within a given musical
production, then to that extent their discrimination should be easier.

Yet another marvel, Richman. You stumbled into another well-known fact
Richman.


One, obviously, oblivious to you, Krueger, since your stupidity or dishonesty
(or both) prevented you from divulging this well known phenomena in your haste
to engage in meaninglss character assassination and argumentation - as is your
custom.


So, contrary to Krueger's claims, the use of terms like
microdynamics and macrodynamics are not just fancy ways of saying
"sonic detail".

No relevant argument has been prevented, other than some truisms.
Even beginning writers are familiar with the concept of comparing and
constrasting two items being compared. Stating truisms about just
one of them is not an effective means to prove a point.

An irrelevant claim, and arbitrary strawman.

Riichman, I'm just trying to introduce you to the mysteries of logical
rhetoric, which seem to have eluded you in this discussion.


Krueger, you're incapable of any kind of logic. Otherwise, you would not be so
eager to, in essence, argue with yourself, or claim falsely that whenever
anybody has made a negative comment about you, that they have engaged in
libel..


Neither are they a form of subjective reviewer poetry that has no
concrete, and measurable, audio correlates.

Which measureable audio properties correlate with microdymaics,
Richman?

Differences in volume levels between different instruments or voices
- presumably applied to low level presentations, Krueger.

You've said that they are measurable, Richman. But, you've not provided us
with a standard test or a workable set of equipment and procedures for doing
so. Wanna stop waving your hands and actually say something relevant and
useful?



Given your irrationality and agenda-driven need to distort what I've said
through misrepresentation, false claims, and delusional references to libel
that doesn't exist, I have no intention of responding to some imaginary "us"
that you think exists. FWIW, Krueger, I don't consider the fact you're hearing
voices as sufficient reason for you to refer to your claims as ccming from
"us".



Bruce J. Richman

"ScottW" wrote in message
om...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 8/13/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Dr. Richman said:

Mr. Phillips said:




Dr. Richman said:

For the record, I'm happy to admit that I take Melatonin as a
sleep
aid.
And
I
highly recommend this natural neurohormone, available iwthout
presciption
at
most health food, vitamin and drug stores.

Last night I took Lagavulin as a sleep aid. It worked
wonderfully,
and
I
woke
up feeling like a hundred bucks!

Boon








LOL !!1

Maybe I should combine the 2. (Although I'm not much of a Scotch
drinker).

I came home from work yesterday to find everyone in my neighborhood
sitting on
my front porch and yard. At first I thought something bad had
happened,
and
then I realized, no, my wife was just making mango and strawberry
margaritas
for everyone with her new Cuisinart blender.

I had to break out the Scotch because I hate margaritas.

Boon

BTW, I will be in San Diego Labor Day weekend, Friday through Sunday
if you want to get together, The two Scotts should note this also.

Noted

I noted your note. I hope we can all get together.

Party at my place. It's you guys turn to drive .

ScottW

What day? Saturday the4th?

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

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. On the other hand, if you
boost those initial "whack" frequencies, or attenuate the
lower frequencies, the "boom" of the drum will be less full
and seem lacking in body. The sound of the drum will seem
"tight." If the initial whack is suppressed, the dynamic
impact will also seem to be weaker. If the initial whack
(and/or the lower frequencies) are boosted, the drum will
have a more explosive impact.


Read Howard's latest review in The Sensible Sound,
in which he discusses whacking his appliance.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I'm quivering in my boots.



It's time to let the trainee's go home.

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

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. On the other hand, if you
boost those initial "whack" frequencies, or attenuate the
lower frequencies, the "boom" of the drum will be less full
and seem lacking in body. The sound of the drum will seem
"tight." If the initial whack is suppressed, the dynamic
impact will also seem to be weaker. If the initial whack
(and/or the lower frequencies) are boosted, the drum will
have a more explosive impact.

Read Howard's latest review in The Sensible Sound,
in which he discusses whacking his appliance.

When was the last time you posted something here related to
audio, Ralph?

The more you act the fool, the worse your side looks to the
newcomers, Ralph. That's fine with me.

Howard Ferstler

ScottW48 wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: 8/13/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Dr. Richman said:

Mr. Phillips said:




Dr. Richman said:

For the record, I'm happy to admit that I take Melatonin as a sleep
aid.
And
I
highly recommend this natural neurohormone, available iwthout
presciption
at
most health food, vitamin and drug stores.

Last night I took Lagavulin as a sleep aid. It worked wonderfully,
and
I
woke
up feeling like a hundred bucks!

Boon








LOL !!1

Maybe I should combine the 2. (Although I'm not much of a Scotch
drinker).

I came home from work yesterday to find everyone in my neighborhood
sitting on
my front porch and yard. At first I thought something bad had
happened,
and
then I realized, no, my wife was just making mango and strawberry
margaritas
for everyone with her new Cuisinart blender.

I had to break out the Scotch because I hate margaritas.

Boon

BTW, I will be in San Diego Labor Day weekend, Friday through Sunday
if you want to get together, The two Scotts should note this also.

Noted

I noted your note. I hope we can all get together.

Party at my place. It's you guys turn to drive .

ScottW








Scott, I've got a couple of questions about your Quads. (1) Are they the
regular ESL-63's or the US Pro Monitor version, (2) What kind of amplification
(make, power, etc.) are you using to drive them, and (3) would you happen to
know if they had been refurbished prior to your purchase - e.g. panel
replacements or did you need to do any refurbishment?

(I see the dealer from which you bought them has another pair of Quads for sale
on Audiogon - they've been there for quite a while, and I wonder why).


Bruce J. Richman