| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Ferstler Moves On
|
|
#82
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
|
|
#83
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstlerianism for Audiophiles
John Atkinson said: last month I went out and actually purchased a DVD recorder/VCR combo at Best Buy...the thing is sonically equal to any upscale CD player for playing such discs. Which specific "upscale" CD players did you compare it with, Mr. Ferstler? John, John, John.... haven't you been listening to Ferstler's preaching? I guess some of us need a refresher course in Harold's official Anti-Tweako Approach To Audio. The first principle is that electro-optical playback devices are fully debugged and functionally interchangeable. It is a Known Fact™ that sonic differences purportedly perceived by Normals while comparing different makes and models disappear during aBxism rituals and similar "tests". Or at least they would disappear, if anybody could be persuaded to actually participate in such a "test". The fact that nobody has detected differences in such a test is quite telling, especially if you're endowed with knowledge of Ferstlerian depth. One day somebody will do a series of "tests" on CD players, and then Ferstler will be proven correct. Until then, all CD players sound the same, either "upscale" ones or "downscale" ones. The second principle is that vinyl is an anachronism. Since you, John Atkinson, and others like you have already admitted to owning and using turntables, and by inference LPs, you have thereby shown your unsuitability to evaluate CD players. If you were to toss out your vinyl playback systems as Ferstler did, or consign them to a museum, then you would be qualified to intone the principles of Ferstlerianism. Harold's faith tells us that you can't get on the digital highway if you're lugging some big old turntable. The third principle is that you're everything Ferstler ever wanted to be, and Harold has become what he's always been afraid he'd end up being. That means you should really stop arguing with him, and instead offer him a lifetime subscription to your company's forthcoming title, "Sympathizing with the Elder Infirm". Doing so would somewhat offset your many crimes against institutionalized penury. -- A day without Krooger is like a day without radiation poisoning. |
|
#84
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: Clarabelle, what was the most I ever spent on an audio component? I think Harold's point is you could have gotten all your stuff at accomodation prices if you had followed the same path he did. That is, spend all your spare time for 30 years writing boring, repetitive tripe that loses money for the publishers in order to establish yourself as a Professional Audio Clown. Thus Harold has equipped three rooms of his house with 20-year-old systems at a cost of half retail. Sometimes I just wait until they have been out of production for 30 years. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#85
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message news:44b56bc9$1@kcnews01... Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message news:44b513af$1@kcnews01... Clyde Slick wrote: We need to provide all lawyers and third graders free DT manuals No. What "we" need is for you people to learn to intelligently defend your opinions regarding audio, assuming that can be done at all. Of course, the more you behave as you do (like childish, sophomoric nitwits), the easier it will be for newcomers and outsiders to see just how goofy tweako audio can be. As I have stated many times before, you pinheads are your own worst enemies. Clarabelle, what was the most I ever spent on an audio component? What matters in this case is what you would LIKE to spend if you had the financial resources. My guess is that you would morph into the archetypal "rich idiot." Wrong, I would live in a hovel, drive a beat up old car, wear shabby clothes, eat beans and rice, and buy my stereo form Wal-MArt. That's what any "rich smartie" would do. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#86
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message news:44b56ede@kcnews01... I took it home, fooled with it, evaluated it, and wrote a review of it for The Sensible Sound that should be showing up in an upcoming issue. (I had retired from the magazine, but the editor said I could send in guest-writer articles any time I wished.) Do they make you pay for your own stamps? -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#87
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com... Howard Ferstler wrote: last month I went out and actually purchased a DVD recorder/VCR combo at Best Buy...the thing is sonically equal to any upscale CD player for playing such discs. Which specific "upscale" CD players did you compare it with, Mr. Ferstler? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Level matched, DBT, no less, and without fudging the statistics. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#88
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Howard Ferstler wrote: wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: wrote: Nobody's debating with you two. Yeah, sure. Frankly, I think you and your kind are running scared, and are unable to debate, anyway. Who said we even want to debate with old fogeys like yourself? Heck, you should put the opportunity to advantage. What could be easier than defeating an "old fogey" in an open debate. I've been doing it since 1998. And you guys never admitted when you were wrong, even when it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's when I realized that you and Arny are mentally retarded. I moved on and did more productive things with my life. For you and Arny, it's a game that two lonely men play, men who have absolutely nothing going on in their lives. It's a game to see how much time people can waste dealing with you. Personally, I'd rather listen to music. Me, too. Unfortunately, I have a duty to defend rationalism in audio against people like you. You have no such "duty." You sound like an idiot here. Your duty is to attend to the basic needs of you and your loved ones. Anything else is just jacking off in public. And the fact that you'd rather be begging for debates (also known as beeging for attention) on the Internet tells me all I want to know about your music systems. Jumping to conclusions, are we? At least my music systems are high-fidelity items. Or so the measurements tell you. Your ears are obviously ****. Remember, you were stupid enough to reveal the results of your hearing test here once. My God, are you dumb. You have no way to make points in your favor, and so you claim that you are lampooning the rational people here, because sophomoric lampooning is all you can do. Rational and reflective discourse is beyond you. In our "personal" letters you made a brief attempt to discuss issues, but it did not take long for you to realize that you would lose any debate, because you were unable to coming up with arguments that went beyond "I just like it." OK, that is a preference issue, but I was looking for something more substantial and you were not able to supply it. Because I spent years debating you. You lost. Only in your mind. Yeah. That's why you have to turn tail and run away from here every few months. And its your mental illness that brings you back for more punishment. You can't even keep your own story straight anymore. And now you want to have the same old arguments over again? To entertain the newcomers. The newcomers are usually quickly reminded that you're a fraud and a plagiarizer, and an utter failure as an audio reviewer. Just how empty has your life become, Howard? It's hot out. Normally, I like to do woodworking out back on the deck next to my workshop (even though the shop is 240 square feet there are so many tools in there that I have to roll many of them out onto the deck to use them), but the heat has driven me indoors. I can only read books and magazines so much and I do my health-related exercise work early in the day, so later in the afternoon I crank up the computer and check out the lunacy on RAO. No one cares how you fill up your empty little life, Howard. We're making fun of you. Whistling in the dark is what you are doing. You are trying to rationalize a defense mechanism. That's a meaningless, ignorant statement. Look who's talking. Your claims about tube amps and the LP record are technically preposterous. I don't make technical claims about anything. We're holding you up to ridicule. An attempt to obfuscate issues and protect your unsubstantiated and childish beliefs. That's a meaningless, ignorant statement. Only in your mind. Nope, most people around here pretty much agree with me on this subject. So it's your addled mind that's in question. Everytime you say something like "we're debating children, or inmates," we're all laughing hysterically at your naivety, your lack of self-awareness, and your pomposity. Well, you certainly at times may behave hysterically, with laughter adding embellishment. However, you are mistaken about the reasons. Want to consult with your editor about that one? What editor? I am retired. Way over your head, I guess. Thanks for debating. I guess you won this debate for the mere reason that I responded to you at all. Someone acknowledged your existence! Victory is yours! Boon |
|
#90
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"Signal" wrote in message ... "Howard Ferstler" emitted : I am retired. How did your event go? It's quite a big deal when a well respected, let's face it luminary figure, leaves an industry. Stretched limos? Crystyl on ice? Glamour girls etc? "At least" *I* will get a free crab cake dinner. But no limo, no ho's. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#91
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Signal wrote: "Howard Ferstler" emitted : I am retired. How did your event go? It's quite a big deal when a well respected, let's face it luminary figure, leaves an industry. Stretched limos? Crystyl on ice? Glamour girls etc? He still appears on the masthead of that audio pamphlet, The Audiophile Voice. Apparently Howard forgot to tell everyone but us. Boon |
|
#92
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: last month I went out and actually purchased a DVD recorder/VCR combo at Best Buy...the thing is sonically equal to any upscale CD player for playing such discs. Which specific "upscale" CD players did you compare it with, Mr. Ferstler? Well, I compared it to assorted DVD players on hand, because, other than an aged LD/CD player I have in my middle system, I no longer have any CD players at my place. Now, in the past I compared those DVD players to a few CD players and guess what, they sounded the same to me. And the DVD players sounded like the DVD recorder/VCR combo player that I purchased and then reviewed. Yep, no differences when listening to music at normal levels, without doing stuff like ramping up the amp gain to a very high setting to hear background hash at vanishingly low disc-coding levels. And, yes, you CAN hear some differences if you pull that trick. However, if you do that and leave the gain setting the same and then musical passages at normal or high disc-coding levels return (the full orchestra going at it) the overall output will be much too loud. If one listens at regular concert-hall simulation levels the players I have compared over the years all sounded the same. The cost of said players varied from $1800 down to $150, by the way. Now (forgive the full caps up ahead), you are probably going to say that I should have compared it to REALLY upscale players like many of the kinds your crew at Stereophile reviews. THEN, you say, I would hear a difference, even at normal playback levels. OK, it is possible that I might then hear differences, because from what I have read (this is hearsay, I will admit) some REALLY upscale players have been configured by their designers to actually sound LESS accurate than properly built players. They might alter the frequency response tilt or roll off the treble a bit, for example. OK, if this is the case, you got me, John. OK, I answered your question. Now, here is one for you. If cheap players made by assorted mainstream companies have audible defects, compared to upscale units lionized by the crack reviewers at Stereophile, how is it that those assorted mainstream companies all managed to dial IDENTICAL audible defects into their players? Howard Ferstler |
|
#93
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstlerianism for Audiophiles
George M. Middius wrote:
The second principle is that vinyl is an anachronism. Since you, John Atkinson, and others like you have already admitted to owning and using turntables, and by inference LPs, you have thereby shown your unsuitability to evaluate CD players. If you were to toss out your vinyl playback systems as Ferstler did, I sold the player and the recordings at a yard sale back in 1985, where invited guests (about 50 faculty and library staff) went wild. One thousand LP recordings were sold in about an hour. Money flowed in abundance. Howard Ferstler |
|
#94
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
|
|
#95
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Signal wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" emitted : I am retired. How did your event go? It's quite a big deal when a well respected, let's face it luminary figure, leaves an industry. Stretched limos? Crystyl on ice? Glamour girls etc? Old soldiers just fade away. Just kidding. Actually, when I finally left the university library a while back they had a really big party for me: food, presents, friends; the whole nine yards. On the other hand, I think that the publisher of The Sensible Sound was glad to be rid of me when I announced my self-imposed termination. Why? Well, see the current issue for a letter to the editor from me that highlights my feelings about several reviews that appeared in an earlier issue. Obviously, if they publish reviews like that my contributions (at least those that involve editorializing about goofy audio) would tend to be unsettling and out of place. Ironically, without such reviews (and this goes for outfits like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound) the magazine would be in trouble. They need tweako subscribers, just like other high-end publications. As I have indicated before, audio has split into two camps. On the one hand we have the lunatic fringe and magazines that cater to them, and on the other hand we have the glitz and gizmo group, catered to by assorted home-theater and audio-decor magazines. Not much room for old-style audio journalism any more. Howard Ferstler |
|
#96
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
|
|
#97
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
news:44b6a2be@kcnews01 wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: Look who's talking. Your claims about tube amps and the LP record are technically preposterous. I don't make technical claims about anything. That's because you are unable to. You cannot come up with one concrete (as opposed to speculative) reason why the LP or audio tube electronics are so damned great. Agreed. The percentage of music lovers who prefer tubes and vinyl is 1%, more or less. That depth of extinction goes well beyond any "Macdonald's argument". |
|
#98
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Howard Ferstler wrote: John Atkinson wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: last month I went out and actually purchased a DVD recorder/VCR combo at Best Buy...the thing is sonically equal to any upscale CD player for playing such discs. Which specific "upscale" CD players did you compare it with, Mr. Ferstler? Well, I compared it to assorted DVD players on hand... None of which are "upscale CD players," in your terminology, Mr. Ferstler. Now (forgive the full caps up ahead), you are probably going to say that I should have compared it to REALLY upscale players... Forgive me for being literal, Mr. Ferstler, but if you are going to state for the record something like "the thing is sonically equal to any upscale CD player," I expect you to have actually _performed_ such comparisons with "upscale CD players." The Classe cdp-202, for example, that I review in the current issue of Stereophile is technically beyond reproach compared with a typical low-priced DVD player and souds that way too, in careful, level-matched comparisons. Inexpensive DVD player, from my own examination and measurements, tend to have limited resolution and much dirtier noise floors than even quite modestly priced CD players. Certainly, they aren't capable of fully resolving the 16-bit information on a CD, so it comes as some surprise that you find them equivalent. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#99
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"Arny Krueger" said:
The percentage of music lovers who prefer tubes and vinyl is 1%, more or less. That depth of extinction goes well beyond any "Macdonald's argument". Main Entry: 2hobby Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural hobbies Etymology: short for hobbyhorse a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation. -- "All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others". |
|
#100
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Sander deWaal said to the Krooborg: The percentage of music lovers who prefer tubes and vinyl is 1%, more or less. That depth of extinction goes well beyond any "Macdonald's argument". Main Entry: 2hobby a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation. Whatever, dude. I'm sure your precious dictionary doesn't define feces as "a popular between-meals snack", but Arnii does what Arnii does. -- A day without Krooger is like a day without radiation poisoning. |
|
#101
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
|
|
#102
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:57:47 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: As soon as I got out my RTA for a full-range speaker evaluation he got nervous. Howard Ferstler It was probably all of that arm waving. |
|
#103
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Howard Ferstler wrote: wrote: Signal wrote: "Howard Ferstler" emitted : I am retired. How did your event go? It's quite a big deal when a well respected, let's face it luminary figure, leaves an industry. Stretched limos? Crystyl on ice? Glamour girls etc? He still appears on the masthead of that audio pamphlet, The Audiophile Voice. Apparently Howard forgot to tell everyone but us. I have not written articles for Gene Pitts (editor of TAV) for some time. I was not really a "staffer" on that magazine like I was for The Sensible Sound. I did write some pretty good stuff for TAV, however, including some interesting product reviews, including subwoofers. However, Gene wanted review articles that were a bit more subjective than I felt comfortable with most of the time. As soon as I got out my RTA for a full-range speaker evaluation he got nervous. I'm sure he was more nervous about running a magazine than no one reads, and then discovering one of his writers was a well-known plagiarist. Boon |
|
#104
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Howard Ferstler wrote: Signal wrote: "Howard Ferstler" emitted : I am retired. How did your event go? It's quite a big deal when a well respected, let's face it luminary figure, leaves an industry. Stretched limos? Crystyl on ice? Glamour girls etc? Old soldiers just fade away. Just kidding. Actually, when I finally left the university library a while back they had a really big party for me: food, presents, friends; the whole nine yards. On the other hand, I think that the publisher of The Sensible Sound was glad to be rid of me when I announced my self-imposed termination. Why? Well, see the current issue for a letter to the editor from me that highlights my feelings about several reviews that appeared in an earlier issue. Obviously, if they publish reviews like that my contributions (at least those that involve editorializing about goofy audio) would tend to be unsettling and out of place. Ironically, without such reviews (and this goes for outfits like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound) the magazine would be in trouble. They need tweako subscribers, just like other high-end publications. As I have indicated before, audio has split into two camps. On the one hand we have the lunatic fringe and magazines that cater to them, and on the other hand we have the glitz and gizmo group, catered to by assorted home-theater and audio-decor magazines. Not much room for old-style audio journalism any more. Well, at least you finally admit that you're worthless, and that no one gives a **** about your audio opinions. Still, I can't figure which is smaller...your testicles, or that wrecking ball you used to boast about. Boon Howard Ferstler |
|
#105
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Howard Ferstler wrote: Clyde Slick wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message news:44b3c20b@kcnews01 Arny, I do believe we are in the process of either debating children or debating inmates. As a rule, neither inmates nor children have a useful concept of debating. We need to provide all lawyers and third graders free DT manuals No. What "we" need is for you people to learn to intelligently defend your opinions regarding audio Why? Why do you "need" for people to do this? You see, Howard, normal people "need" things like food, water, air, shelter, and love. Your needs seem to stem from the behavior of complete strangers. One day, probably on your deathbed, you'll realize, in the words of Captain America, that you blew it. Boon |
|
#106
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:44:27 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: The reason most people around here pretty much agree with you is that most people around here are idiots. Remember what I have said about RAO being a fool's paradise? Well, you are one of the instructors. Actually, much of high-end audio (the tweako segment) is in the same boat. Those who are not deluded are con artists. The funny thing is that some of the con artists are as deluded as their followers. I'm a bit confused, Howard. I'm basically a subjectivist but don't believe for a moment that high-end stuff is worth the money or that leads etc make any appreciable difference. I have a lot of fun buying and selling cheap used amps on Ebay--Marantz, Nad, Rotel, recently a Technics--and comparing differences--and there are differences. The best cheapie I've come across yet is a Marantz SR50 receiver (around 50 watts) from 1992, and unless very inefficient speakers are being used I believe it provides as good a sound as most people would ever want. So where do I stand in the debate? I'm a subjectivist in that I believe properly operating amps even in the same price range sound different, yet I don't believe in high end (though I don't rail against it either), and I don't go along with the "tweako-freako" crowd. Signed: "Confused" of RAO. |
|
#107
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:53:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Signal wrote: "Howard Ferstler" emitted : I am retired. How did your event go? It's quite a big deal when a well respected, let's face it luminary figure, leaves an industry. Stretched limos? Crystyl on ice? Glamour girls etc? Old soldiers just fade away. Just kidding. Actually, when I finally left the university library a while back they had a really big party for me: food, presents, friends; the whole nine yards. On the other hand, I think that the publisher of The Sensible Sound was glad to be rid of me when I announced my self-imposed termination. Why? Well, see the current issue for a letter to the editor from me that highlights my feelings about several reviews that appeared in an earlier issue. Obviously, if they publish reviews like that my contributions (at least those that involve editorializing about goofy audio) would tend to be unsettling and out of place. Ironically, without such reviews (and this goes for outfits like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound) the magazine would be in trouble. They need tweako subscribers, just like other high-end publications. As I have indicated before, audio has split into two camps. On the one hand we have the lunatic fringe and magazines that cater to them, and on the other hand we have the glitz and gizmo group, catered to by assorted home-theater and audio-decor magazines. Not much room for old-style audio journalism any more. Howard Ferstler The thing I don't get is, if mags don't talk about subjective differences, what do they talk about? Back in the 70s I read a couple of issues of Stereo Review and was bored to tears. Every product was excellent except one or two that maybe should have placed the balance control to the left rather than right of the volume control. It was all harmonic and intermodulation distortion graphs, and once you've seen one of those you've seen them all. What is the point of a mag that makes no comment on sound quality, or assumes there is none? Okay, admittedly some of the subjective mags hear differences where a dog would have difficulty, but I'm sure most readers compensate for that with a healthy dose of skepticism. I just don't get the point of mags that deny the reality of subjectivism. It's like a mag about fridges that says, "Hey, they all freeze the bloody ice cream so what are you worried about? Just get the size that suits." |
|
#108
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
On 13 Jul 2006 15:38:09 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote: Inexpensive DVD player, from my own examination and measurements, tend to have limited resolution and much dirtier noise floors than even quite modestly priced CD players. Certainly, they aren't capable of fully resolving the 16-bit information on a CD, so it comes as some surprise that you find them equivalent. I'll bet that's not true, John. It didn't come as any surprise at all. :-) |
|
#109
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
|
|
#110
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message news:44b69f6b@kcnews01... John Atkinson wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: last month I went out and actually purchased a DVD recorder/VCR combo at Best Buy...the thing is sonically equal to any upscale CD player for playing such discs. Which specific "upscale" CD players did you compare it with, Mr. Ferstler? Well, I compared it to assorted DVD players on hand, because, other than an aged LD/CD player I have in my middle system, I no longer have any CD players at my place. Now, in the past I compared those DVD players to a few CD players and guess what, they sounded the same to me. And the DVD players sounded like the DVD recorder/VCR combo player that I purchased and then reviewed. Yep, no differences when listening to music at normal levels, without doing stuff like ramping up the amp gain to a very high setting to hear background hash at vanishingly low disc-coding levels. And, yes, you CAN hear some differences if you pull that trick. However, if you do that and leave the gain setting the same and then musical passages at normal or high disc-coding levels return (the full orchestra going at it) the overall output will be much too loud. If one listens at regular concert-hall simulation levels the players I have compared over the years all sounded the same. The cost of said players varied from $1800 down to $150, by the way. Now (forgive the full caps up ahead), you are probably going to say that I should have compared it to REALLY upscale players like many of the kinds your crew at Stereophile reviews. THEN, you say, I would hear a difference, even at normal playback levels. OK, it is possible that I might then hear differences, because from what I have read (this is hearsay, I will admit) some REALLY upscale players have been configured by their designers to actually sound LESS accurate than properly built players. They might alter the frequency response tilt or roll off the treble a bit, for example. OK, if this is the case, you got me, John. OK, I answered your question. Now, here is one for you. If cheap players made by assorted mainstream companies have audible defects, compared to upscale units lionized by the crack reviewers at Stereophile, how is it that those assorted mainstream companies all managed to dial IDENTICAL audible defects into their players? You got the money....they probably got the treasure. I bet many of them are still enjoying it today. |
|
#111
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
wrote in message
oups.com Howard Ferstler wrote: wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: Look who's talking. Your claims about tube amps and the LP record are technically preposterous. I don't make technical claims about anything. That's because you are unable to. You cannot come up with one concrete (as opposed to speculative) reason why the LP or audio tube electronics are so damned great. We're holding you up to ridicule. An attempt to obfuscate issues and protect your unsubstantiated and childish beliefs. That's a meaningless, ignorant statement. Only in your mind. Nope, most people around here pretty much agree with me on this subject. So it's your addled mind that's in question. The reason most people around here pretty much agree with you is that most people around here are idiots. Remember what I have said about RAO being a fool's paradise? Well, you are one of the instructors. Actually, much of high-end audio (the tweako segment) is in the same boat. Those who are not deluded are con artists. The funny thing is that some of the con artists are as deluded as their followers. Yep, Howard. Everyone is crazy but you. The shoe fits you especially well, Boon. |
|
#112
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arnii "helps" Howard ;-)
The Krooborg is envious again -- this time of Ferstler. Yep, Howard. Everyone is crazy but you. The shoe fits you especially well, Boon. Arnii, was that nonsequitur another manifestation of your insanity, or were you, in a rare moment of clarity, actually mocking yourself? If the latter, I hope you didn't pay too steep a price for joining the rest of RAO, even for just a brief moment. -- A day without Krooger is like a day without radiation poisoning. |
|
#113
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"paul packer" wrote in message
The thing I don't get is, if mags don't talk about subjective differences, what do they talk about? The good ones talk about subjective differences that are reliably perceptible. Back in the 70s I read a couple of issues of Stereo Review and was bored to tears. I suspect that most of it was written above your reading level. Every product was excellent except one or two that maybe should have placed the balance control to the left rather than right of the volume control. It was all harmonic and intermodulation distortion graphs, and once you've seen one of those you've seen them all. I note that the equipment reviews were a tiny fraction of the editorial content of the magazine. I guess that in Packer world, none of the rest of the magazine existed. What is the point of a mag that makes no comment on sound quality, or assumes there is none? That wasn't SR. Most of the magazine was about subjective differences, starting with the music reviews. Oh I get it, Packer never read those parts of the ragazine, you know the ones about music. Okay, admittedly some of the subjective mags hear differences where a dog would have difficulty, but I'm sure most readers compensate for that with a healthy dose of skepticism. Most subjective ragazines are so deep into imaginary differences that they wouldn't know the difference. I just don't get the point of mags that deny the reality of subjectivism. There aren't any. It's like a mag about fridges that says, "Hey, they all freeze the bloody ice cream so what are you worried about? Just get the size that suits." That would be a figment of your imagination, Paul. |
|
#114
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message oups.com Inexpensive DVD player, from my own examination and measurements, tend to have limited resolution and much dirtier noise floors than even quite modestly priced CD players. Certainly, they aren't capable of fully resolving the 16-bit information on a CD, so it comes as some surprise that you find them equivalent. Since you claim you did some measurements, what were they? IME even $35 DVD players have dynamic range up in the 90+ dB range. OK, that's only 15 bits, but can anybody name a commercially-available recording of regular music with more than 80 dB worth of dynamic range. |
|
#115
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: John Atkinson wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: last month I went out and actually purchased a DVD recorder/VCR combo at Best Buy...the thing is sonically equal to any upscale CD player for playing such discs. Which specific "upscale" CD players did you compare it with, Mr. Ferstler? Well, I compared it to assorted DVD players on hand... None of which are "upscale CD players," in your terminology, Mr. Ferstler. Now (forgive the full caps up ahead), you are probably going to say that I should have compared it to REALLY upscale players... Forgive me for being literal, Mr. Ferstler, but if you are going to state for the record something like "the thing is sonically equal to any upscale CD player," I expect you to have actually _performed_ such comparisons with "upscale CD players." You cleverly ignored my final question and the rationale behind it. You see, if cheapo CD and DVD players made by different mainstream companies have sonic artifacts that make them less that audibly transparent, then it seems almost silly to assume that all of those players have detrimental to sound artifacts that are identical. It is remarkable that those different companies manage to build sub-perfect players that all have identical negative audible artifacts. Incidentally, this goes for amps, too. I have compared cheap, mid-priced, and sometimes rather expensive amplifiers to each other and all of those that were not defective managed to sound identical up to their maximum outputs. Now, you will probably say that I still did not review TRULY (forgive the full caps, again) upscale amps. OK, that is probably true, if we are talking about upscale pricing. The most expensive amp I have reviewed listed for about three grand. However, as with the CD/DVD player issue, it strikes me as odd that audible defects in those amps (made by different companies, remember) all managed to be identical sounding. Just how is it, John, that players (and amps) made by assorted companies that are not in the super-duper audiophile category that you consider to be the creme of the crop still manage to all have identical audible defects? Here is a hint from me: none of them had audible defects. And you lionize super amps and players in your magazine, because your obsessive readers demand that kind of entertainment. Stop doing it and you go out of business. The Classe cdp-202, for example, that I review in the current issue of Stereophile is technically beyond reproach compared with a typical low-priced DVD player and souds that way too, in careful, level-matched comparisons. Looks like it has an audible defect, or two, that set it apart from those audibly transparent, much cheaper mainstream units. Inexpensive DVD player, from my own examination and measurements, tend to have limited resolution and much dirtier noise floors than even quite modestly priced CD players. As I indicated in a previous posting, sure, some players have more low-level background hash than others. However, to hear those artifacts you have to crank up low-level musical passages considerably louder than you would when listening the the full performance at concert-hall levels. If the gain were not backed off when listening to that low-level hash (for comparison purposes), then when the musical passages at normal or elevated performance levels returned the sound level would be deafening. A dirty noise floor is typically still far enough down in level to be inconsequential, particularly in typical home-playback situations. And said noise floors are even more inconsequential when listening to most pop music. Certainly, they aren't capable of fully resolving the 16-bit information on a CD, so it comes as some surprise that you find them equivalent. I am interested in their practical, bottom-line performance and not in hair-splitting situations where amp-gain levels have to be goosed to hear artifacts that are normally inaudible. Of course, many of the manic and obsessive types who prefer to spend big bucks on upscale gear will agree with you. But even they will not be able to hear differences under standard listening conditions. Howard Ferstler |
|
#116
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
|
|
#117
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Sander deWaal wrote:
Main Entry: 2hobby Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural hobbies Etymology: short for hobbyhorse a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation. Good definition. As I have said elsewhere, no doubt many truly rational people want to get away from the brass tacks, every day working world and do something that absolves them of any need for critical thinking. For a lot of people, the hobby allows their minds to soar and the imagination to take hold. For many people, relaxation mandates not doing anything that requires careful analysis and careful thinking. Consequently, as defined, is it assumed that in order to relax one needs to hang their brain on a hook and ignore rational behavior. Audio becomes a hobby for people who turn their backs on their critical faculties. I disagree. I would think that the hobby, in order to be psychologically fruitful and genuinely satisfying, would almost demand that the critical faculties be running near full blast. My question becomes: is it good for so many participants in the hobby to dumb down the intellectual requirements to the point where said hobby no longer has to follow any rigorous principles on which to build? Is audio the paradigm relativist enterprise? Finally, do rational and clear-thinking enthusiasts want intrusions by a group of people who look upon the hobby as a narcotic? Howard Ferstler |
|
#118
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
|
|
#119
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
paul packer wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:44:27 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: The reason most people around here pretty much agree with you is that most people around here are idiots. Remember what I have said about RAO being a fool's paradise? Well, you are one of the instructors. Actually, much of high-end audio (the tweako segment) is in the same boat. Those who are not deluded are con artists. The funny thing is that some of the con artists are as deluded as their followers. I'm a bit confused, Howard. Get a grip. The problem will pass. I'm basically a subjectivist but don't believe for a moment that high-end stuff is worth the money or that leads etc make any appreciable difference. Good for you. I am pretty much the same way, and am surprisingly subjective when it comes to speaker performance. I have a lot of fun buying and selling cheap used amps on Ebay--Marantz, Nad, Rotel, recently a Technics--and comparing differences--and there are differences. The best cheapie I've come across yet is a Marantz SR50 receiver (around 50 watts) from 1992, and unless very inefficient speakers are being used I believe it provides as good a sound as most people would ever want. No doubt. I found the same thing with a 50 wpc NAD receiver that I reviewed for The Sensible Sound quite some time ago. It did manage to sound the same as several other, more powerful amps and receiver amp sections I had on hand. The trick was to not push it too loud. So where do I stand in the debate? I'm a subjectivist in that I believe properly operating amps even in the same price range sound different, Try doing your comparisons level matched. Make sure that each channel is level-matched to the corresponding channel in the second amp. Global level matching with the main gain control will not do the trick, because there may still be channel balance differences that impact soundstaging. I have found that while a volt meter is the most precise tool for level matching, you can do the job quite well by ear if you use a pink-noise source. Just set the levels so when you switch from one amp to the other there is no perceptible change. Then go on to do the musical comparing. yet I don't believe in high end (though I don't rail against it either), and I don't go along with the "tweako-freako" crowd. Admirable. Remember, I said "most people." Howard Ferstler |
|
#120
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The Mental Decline of Howard Ferstler | Audio Opinions | |||
| Article draft from Ferstler | Audio Opinions | |||
| Another older article from Ferstler | Audio Opinions | |||
| Ferstler Announces | Audio Opinions | |||
| Ferstler Readies and Article | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
