"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rieves" wrote

Would you use home Hifi speakers as studio
monitor speakers?

Depends on the speakers and the application, no?
Ever hear of B&W 800 or 801 in studio use,
for example? Plenty of Paradigm Studio 20s,
for example, being used at the low end (low
cost), too.

Did you not catch the "Studio" in Paradigm Studio 20's?

If you are suggesting that Paradigm is marketing the
entire Studio & Signature product line of speakers
for recording studio use you are sadly misinformed.

Did I say that? Never mind, I didn't say that. Paradigm markets their
speakers as reference systems, meaning that they are supposed to be
accurate, and accuracy is what studio monitors are all about. therefore, if
their claims are true, some speakers in the line might be used as studio
monitors by some folks. Regardless, just because some people may use them in
studios, it doesn't mean that they are good studio monitors. Not having
tried them in a studio, I won't make jusgement, except to say that true
studio monitors as good as or better than the Paradigms can be had cheaper
than $700.00

BTW, the Paradigms are $700.00 and the B&W's
are much, much higher.

No, the MSRP is actually $800 for the version 3.
And B&W are $16K and $11K respectively. And
the "much, much higher" in studio use are the Wilson
Audio top models at $79K and $125K.

You're totally missing the point, which is, if you want good mixes, you use
good studio monitor speakers designed for studio use, not home hifi speakers
designed for your living room! No matter how expensive those home hifi
speakers are, since the design criteria is totally different, it's unlikely
that they are going to perform better in the studio than (or even as well
as) a good pair of speakers designed for studio use. You're trying to
compare apples and oranges, and I'm afraid that you don't even realize it!

Surely you aren't attempting to compare these to an
inexpensive mid-line Yamaha consumer power amp!

And why not?

Because you can't, it's apples and oranges.

In any event, just because some folks use home hifi
speakers as studio monitors doesn't mean that they
make good stduio monitors.

Couldn't it be equally said that just because a
speaker is marketed as *studio* doesn't mean
that it's a "good studio monitor", no?

If they're selling a bunch of them, it means that it is a good studio
monitor. Knowledgable recordists don't buy speakers on the basis of the
manufacturer's hype. They buy them (or don't buy them) based on what people
who use them say and what they hear with their own ears.

We had this discussion a while back in this
group, and I believe that the consensus was
that home hifi speakers belong in the living
room.

Quack, quack, quack...

If you came to this group to learn, then pay attention to what people with
experience say, if you came to show off your ignorance, just keep going,
you're doing a good job. :-)

Just to be clear on this, many studios have home hifi
speakers setting around for listening tests, to see
how a mix will sound on home equipment, but no por
studios and very few home studioists (other than those
who can't afford real monitor speakers) actually mix
on home speakers.

If you are producing commercial works only based
on the sound of the mixing speakers then you are
probably producing low fidelity works. Fine for
commercials spots, mp3 and such but bad for
complex musical CD presentations.

Mentioning "complex musical" and "CD" in the same vein isn't going to
gain you any kudos here.
Your ignorance of studio technique is becoming more obvious with every
statement you make.

Amplifiers selection usually isn't as critical as
speaker selection, but if you want great mixes,
everything in the chain has to be right.

Agreed.


If not then why would you use a hime hifi amp
to power your studio monitors?

Huh? There are several hi-fi amp manufacturers
with superior (specs, performance & sound) to
the studio amps. And my count there are 61
manufacturers of Hi-Fi power amps using XLR
connections, so that can't be a limitation either.

Studio monitor equipment isn't necessarily better
sounding that other equipment, it's more accurate
than other equipment.

Gobbledegook.

To you maybe, but that's because you don't understand recording and studio
technique. In the studio, everything has to be about accuracy because any
innacuracies are going to be mulitplied with every step.


As for "superior" sound, superior for what use?

More gobbledegook.

"Gobbledegook" is a gobbledegook word, it means nothing.

Connectors don't matter, most pro SR amps have
XLR connectors.

"Connectors don't matter"... Huh? If you need
XLRs are you suggesting converting to single
end instead?

XLR isn't the only way to connect balanced lines.

Use whatever you want to mix on, but keep in
mind that if you don't hear it correctly, you won't
mix it correctly.

How would you know?

Because it's a simple fact!

If you want to use an M-50 to drive your studio
monitors, be my guest! :-)

I think it's a good starting place for the OP.


Keep in mind that most home hifi equipment is built
to sound good in a typical living room, and there is
a world of difference between a typical home living
room and a decent studio control room, even a home
studio.

Hehehe... oh, right! Why produce a product
that sounds good in the consumer's living room,
it's only the limited studio version that counts.
That makes no sense whatsoever.

No, you make no sense whatever. If you don't know the difference between
studio equipment and home hifi equipment, you'd do much better to keep your
mouth shut and read what those who do are posting.

Studio monitor equipment is designed to be accurate...

What, Hi-Fi amps arn't?

Not necessarily. Home hifi amps are designed to sound good in the typical
living room, driving typical speakers and are rated using pure resistive
loads. Good studio monitor amps are designed for accurate reproduction with
a wide range of speakers which present a wide range of reactive loads.

so that the mixing engineer can hear every nuance
and detail in the mix, something that isn't necessarily
desirable in a home hifi system, where folks just
want the music to sound good.

Mmmm... so the actual speakers selected/purchased
by the engineer isn't based on personal preferences?
One thing that is crystal clear is that you own a lousy
home audio system.

When it cvomes to studio use, one's personal preferences need to be limited
to what will work well in a studio environment. Within those limits, one may
prefer one brand over another.
Since you don't know what I own, you obviously don't know what you're
talking about. Apparently you're attacking me because I said the Yamaha M-50
isn't necessarily a good studio monitor amp. If I hurt your feelings, I'm
sorry, but what I said is the truth.

"CWCunningham" charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote in message
...
"Mike Rieves" wrote in message
. ..
| Studio monitor equipment isn't necessarily better sounding that other
| equipment, it's more accurate than other equipment. As for "superior"
sound,
| superior for what use?
| Connectors don't matter, most pro SR amps have XLR connectors.
| Use whatever you want to mix on, but keep in mind that if you don't
hear
| it correctly, you won't mix it correctly. If you want to use an M-50 to
| drive your studio monitors, be my guest! :-)
| Keep in mind that most home hifi equipment is built to sound good in a
| typical living room, and there is a world of difference between a
typical
| home living room and a decent studio control room, even a home studio.
| Studio monitor equipment is designed to be accurate so that the mixing
| engineer can hear every nuance and detail in the mix, something that
isn't
| necessarily desirable in a home hifi system, where folks just want the
music
| to sound good.
|
This is a total misunderstanding. HiFi is by definition the set of
specifications for ultimate accuracy (High Fidelity) in sound
reproduction. Back
when the term was coined, there were minimum specifications for what was,
and
what was not Hi Fidelity. Over time as the state of the art in
reproduction
systems evolved, those specifications also evolved such that hifi in the
50's
outperformed hifi in the 40's. Eventually the state of the art in
reproduction
systems evolved to such a degree that you would be hard pressed to find
moderately priced home stereo equipment that does not meet and/or exceed
the
stringent specifications for High Fidelity. In fact, run of the mill
equipment
these days specs so well that the term HiFi has fallen into disuse because
if
you're looking for quality equipment, you can find it under a myriad of
brand
names in colors that will match your decor.

Sorry, CW, but the term "Hifi" has been corrupted over the years. It no
longer means "high fidelity" in the sense that what come out is the same as
what goes in. Response curves are introduced to make it sound good in a
living room environment. Again, specs mean little because of the way they're
rated. Amps are rated driving pure resistive load, and when was the last
time you saw a speaker that presented a pure resistive load to an amp? Home
speakers are anything but flat, they boost things here and there to make
them sound good. "Forgiving" is a term often mentioned by reviewers of home
equipment and it is usually meant as a compliment, "overly analytical" is a
term often used as a negative criticism. In the studio, the last thing you
want is a "forgiving" piece of equipment, and there is no such thing as
"overly analytical"
I agree that good home hifi equipment is commonly available at reasonable
prices, but, what is good home hifi and what is good studio are two
different things!
Studio equipment and home equipment have different design criteria, and
sometimes those criteria border on being mutually exclusive.

If you're only interested in a boombox or a car stereo or an mp3 player,
all
bets are off, but if you want accurate reproduction; 1) You know better
than to
buy toys. 2) You'll find the consumer market flooded with excellent
choices.

This is not to say that pro grade equipment should be avoided for pro
sound
production applications, but I will go so far as to say that if you have
quality
modern consumer reproduction equipment, you'll have to spend a lot of cash
to
get pro grade equipment that is more accurate in any meaningful sense.

(speakers are an exception and should be carefully chosen by ear with a
guaranteed return policy so that they can be evaluated in their intended
environ).

What I said in the beginning was that the Yamaha M-50 was a decent amp, but
I wouldn't go out and buy one for use in my studio, and I wouldn't recommend
that anyone else do so. That apparently started a mini flame war about home
vs studio equipment. I also said that if you had one and wanted to use it
until you could afford something better, that is fine. In home studio, not
everyone has the budget to buy everything designed for the studio, and I
suppose that if one must use home equipment somewhere, the monitor amp is as
good a place as any to do so, as long is it is of reasonable fidelity. I
also noted that, in my experience, Yamaha Natural Sound equipment was
designed to certain psycho-acoustic principles, making it not necessarily
accurate from a fidelity standpoint.
I still say, if you want good home equipment go out and buy home equipment,
but if you want good studio equipment go out and buy studio equipment.

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rieves" wrote

Some high-end hifi amps do make good studio amps,
but one can generally get an amp designed for studio
use that sounds just as good in the studio for a
considerably lower price.

"Considerably lower price"... that seems to be
the crux of the whole amp issue for you, mr.
Broke-A$$®.

Why pay a bundle for something that may not be suited to the purpose when
you can buy something expressly designed for the purpose considerably
cheaper? Save that extra money and spend it on something that will matter,
like a good mic or some acoustic treatment for your studio, Mr Spendthrift.
Do you actually know anything at all about home studios? You certainly
haven't shown it so far! :-)

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rieves wrote:

The Alesis RA-100 was an attempt to build an accurate studio amp for
those
who couldn't afford a good studio amp, and it did this fairly well. There
are probably many hifi amps that sound better than the Alesis and some of
them might even make better studio monitor amps, but none of them are as
low-priced as the Alesis.

No? Look in the Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound catalogues. Even Tascam
makes
something that sounds acceptable in that price range.

Sure, but all those companies make studio amps, I was talking about the
Alesis vs home hifi amps, since that was the topic of thios thread.

The RA-100 is an example of when you try and cut costs too far.

I've heard RA-100's that sound great with some speakers. I've got a friend
who swears by his for his KRK near field monitors, and he can afford any amp
he wants. :-)

In my experience, all the Yamaha Natural Sound
equipment colors the sound to some extent, that's part of their "nautral"
sound.

Well, everything does color the sound. That's the way electronics are.
Some are cleaner and some are less clean. Some are euphonic and some are
not. If you want uncolored sound, you need to listen to live acoustic
music.

But if you're going to record and mix, you want accuracy, because it you
aren't hearing exactly what you're recording, you won't be able to mix it
properly. That's what studio equipment is all about.

"GregS" wrote in message
...
In article , (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:
Mike Rieves wrote:

The Alesis RA-100 was an attempt to build an accurate studio amp for
those
who couldn't afford a good studio amp, and it did this fairly well. There
are probably many hifi amps that sound better than the Alesis and some of
them might even make better studio monitor amps, but none of them are as
low-priced as the Alesis.

No? Look in the Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound catalogues. Even Tascam
makes
something that sounds acceptable in that price range.

The RA-100 is an example of when you try and cut costs too far.

In my experience, all the Yamaha Natural Sound
equipment colors the sound to some extent, that's part of their "nautral"
sound.

Well, everything does color the sound. That's the way electronics are.
Some are cleaner and some are less clean. Some are euphonic and some are
not. If you want uncolored sound, you need to listen to live acoustic
music.

Yes but the room acoustics are most often bad.


The speakers and the room are the least accurate things in the chain, that's
why you have to be sure that everything else is a ccurate as you can get it.
The main purpose of using nearfield monitors is to minimize the effect of
the room on what you hear.
Personally, I have studio monitor speakers and JBL home speakers in my
studio. If I'm doing a mix for someone, I mix on the monitors, then listen
back on the JBL's to get an idea of what the mix will sound like in in a
living room. If I like it, I'll burn a CD and take it out to the car and
into the living room for further critical listening, then I go back and
change anything I don't like and do it all over again. :-)

"Mike Rieves" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "CWCunningham" charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote in message
| ...
| "Mike Rieves" wrote in message
| . ..
| | Studio monitor equipment isn't necessarily better sounding that other
| | equipment, it's more accurate than other equipment. As for "superior"
| sound,
| | superior for what use?
| | Connectors don't matter, most pro SR amps have XLR connectors.
| | Use whatever you want to mix on, but keep in mind that if you don't
| hear
| | it correctly, you won't mix it correctly. If you want to use an M-50 to
| | drive your studio monitors, be my guest! :-)
| | Keep in mind that most home hifi equipment is built to sound good in a
| | typical living room, and there is a world of difference between a
| typical
| | home living room and a decent studio control room, even a home studio.
| | Studio monitor equipment is designed to be accurate so that the mixing
| | engineer can hear every nuance and detail in the mix, something that
| isn't
| | necessarily desirable in a home hifi system, where folks just want the
| music
| | to sound good.
| |
| This is a total misunderstanding. HiFi is by definition the set of
| specifications for ultimate accuracy (High Fidelity) in sound
| reproduction. Back
| when the term was coined, there were minimum specifications for what was,
| and
| what was not Hi Fidelity. Over time as the state of the art in
| reproduction
| systems evolved, those specifications also evolved such that hifi in the
| 50's
| outperformed hifi in the 40's. Eventually the state of the art in
| reproduction
| systems evolved to such a degree that you would be hard pressed to find
| moderately priced home stereo equipment that does not meet and/or exceed
| the
| stringent specifications for High Fidelity. In fact, run of the mill
| equipment
| these days specs so well that the term HiFi has fallen into disuse because
| if
| you're looking for quality equipment, you can find it under a myriad of
| brand
| names in colors that will match your decor.
|
| Sorry, CW, but the term "Hifi" has been corrupted over the years. It no
| longer means "high fidelity" in the sense that what come out is the same as
| what goes in. Response curves are introduced to make it sound good in a
| living room environment.
|
A few months ago you were arguing (as if you knew) that high end preamps
introduce response curves in order to make microphones sound different than the
mic you paid for, as if this was desirable, and now you're claiming that this is
somehow undesirable for "studio" equipment. I submit to you that it's totally
undesirable in either application, and that any deviance is intentionally
selected by the end user with the ubiquitous tone controls afforded.

There are no response curves that match living rooms because there are no such
things as living rooms that conform to any specification whatsoever.

| Again, specs mean little because of the way they're
| rated. Amps are rated driving pure resistive load, and when was the last
| time you saw a speaker that presented a pure resistive load to an amp?
|
Now here's where you rankle my wrinkles, when you go off with that attitude that
you know something that nobody else knows as if you had the slightest knowledge.

Since you make this sweeping generalization as an absolute, you can probably
easily prove that in all cases, consumer equipment is rated with purely
resistive loads, which you know and nobody else does, but let's be practical.
I'm sure you can produce documentary evidence from any two name brand
manufacturers that they strictly measure their consumer products using pure
resistive loads (and of course, they never do that with their professional
products). You'll be able to get part numbers for those resistors (They're huge
with part numbers in large print) and you'll be able to provide a manufacturers
spec sheet for those resistive loads showing that they have no inductive
component. Further, your contacts in these labs (whom you know well enough that
they keep you informed of their test techniques) will provide you with
documentation showing the steps they adhere to in order to prevent any stray
capacitance from introducing any reactive component on thier test
specifications.

Or, more likely, you'll hem and haw and tell me that your sister dated a guy
who's cousin lived next door to someone who knew someone who worked for someone
that had a contract once with a guy that drove Harmon and Kardon to the airport
in 1967, and your sister said he said she said he thought he overheard someone
say something about something that the driver thought he may have rememberd
about something he thought she said he said ......

Or even better [insert comments here].

| Home
| speakers are anything but flat, they boost things here and there to make
| them sound good.
|
And the same is true for ALL speaker systems. You can't afford a speaker system
that will accurately track the frequency response of a $300 radio shack HiFi
amplifier (and you'd be wasting money if you tried).

| "Forgiving" is a term often mentioned by reviewers of home
| equipment and it is usually meant as a compliment, "overly analytical" is a
| term often used as a negative criticism. In the studio, the last thing you
| want is a "forgiving" piece of equipment, and there is no such thing as
| "overly analytical"
| I agree that good home hifi equipment is commonly available at reasonable
| prices, but, what is good home hifi and what is good studio are two
| different things!
|
Two different things, but only in a very superficial sense. I would expect that
a home system would have an entirely useless EQ section, and it wouldn't break
my heart to see a studio amp with no EQ section at all. As for reproductive
accuracy of amps with identical wattage ( with both EQ systems set flat ) good
luck finding any meaningful difference.

| Studio equipment and home equipment have different design criteria, and
| sometimes those criteria border on being mutually exclusive.
|
That's not true (except once again for superficialities). Assuming neither is a
toy, they are both designed to deliver X watts into Y load with as close to
unmeasurable coloration/distortion as you can afford, continuously for their
warranteed life, or your money back. That's what quality amplifiers do. The
silly Bass Treble Mid controls are so the home user feels "In control", and the
rackmount and illumination jack are so the studio user feels "In control".

| If you're only interested in a boombox or a car stereo or an mp3 player,
| all
| bets are off, but if you want accurate reproduction; 1) You know better
| than to
| buy toys. 2) You'll find the consumer market flooded with excellent
| choices.
|
| This is not to say that pro grade equipment should be avoided for pro
| sound
| production applications, but I will go so far as to say that if you have
| quality
| modern consumer reproduction equipment, you'll have to spend a lot of cash
| to
| get pro grade equipment that is more accurate in any meaningful sense.
|
| (speakers are an exception and should be carefully chosen by ear with a
| guaranteed return policy so that they can be evaluated in their intended
| environ).
|
| What I said in the beginning was that the Yamaha M-50 was a decent amp, but
| I wouldn't go out and buy one for use in my studio, and I wouldn't recommend
| that anyone else do so.
|
Just because you wouldn't buy one for the studio and wouldn't recommend it,
doesn't make it unusable, or even unviable.

| That apparently started a mini flame war about home
| vs studio equipment. I also said that if you had one and wanted to use it
| until you could afford something better, that is fine. In home studio, not
| everyone has the budget to buy everything designed for the studio, and I
| suppose that if one must use home equipment somewhere, the monitor amp is as
| good a place as any to do so, as long is it is of reasonable fidelity.
|
That's so condescending. First it assumes that you know better how people should
do things, and then suggests that poor people can make slight compromises with
yuor blessings in rare instances.

| I
| also noted that, in my experience, Yamaha Natural Sound equipment was
| designed to certain psycho-acoustic principles, making it not necessarily
| accurate from a fidelity standpoint.
|
And what exactly is your experience with the design of Yamaha equipment? Do you
consult for them, or work full time in their engineering department?

| I still say, if you want good home equipment go out and buy home equipment,
| but if you want good studio equipment go out and buy studio equipment.
|
This seems like bad advice. Any audiophile (which probably describes anyone who
has a home studio) will never accept garbage for their home system. To an
audiophile, accuracy is paramount, therefore if a good home system is a good
home system, it's also a good studio monitor amp. There are no substitutes for
quality sound.

--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================

Mike Rieves spake thus:

Not necessarily. Home hifi amps are designed to sound good in the typical
living room, driving typical speakers and are rated using pure resistive
loads. Good studio monitor amps are designed for accurate reproduction with
a wide range of speakers which present a wide range of reactive loads.

Now *that* is pure gobbledygook (a polite word for "bull****"). So
you're going to tell us that the difference between home hi-fi amps and
studio amps is that home hi-fi amps use "pure resistive loads", while
studio amps use "a wide range of reactive loads"? Now that *would* be
interesting: care to explain to us the differences in operation between
these "resistive" home speakers and the (obviously better and more
expen$ive, because it sounds kewler) "reactive" studio speakers?

Don't bull**** a bull****ter.


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Mike Rieves spake thus:

Not necessarily. Home hifi amps are designed to sound good in the typical
living room, driving typical speakers and are rated using pure resistive
loads. Good studio monitor amps are designed for accurate reproduction with
a wide range of speakers which present a wide range of reactive loads.

Now *that* is pure gobbledygook (a polite word for "bull****").

Actually it's reasonably true.

So
you're going to tell us that the difference between home hi-fi amps and
studio amps is that home hi-fi amps use

They don't *use* them. They are connected to them.

"pure resistive loads", while
studio amps use "a wide range of reactive loads"

No. This your misunderstanding since you don't understand the technology behind
this.

All speakers are reactive to some degree. Some more than others. Studio grade amps
are less troubled by this reactance. Home audio isn't built to quite the same
standards typically and is less tolerant of reactive speakers. The result can give
be a gritty edge to the music.

Now that *would* be
interesting: care to explain to us the differences in operation between
these "resistive" home speakers and the (obviously better and more
expen$ive, because it sounds kewler) "reactive" studio speakers?

Both home and studio speakers have models thar are relatively benignly reactive and
ones that truly stink. The studio amp ( or high end audio amp ) simply doesn't care
much about the reactance and 'shrugs it off'.

Speakers that are less reactive ( almost resistive ) are the easiest for the amp to
'drive'.

Graham

"CWCunningham" charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote in message
...

Now here's where you rankle my wrinkles, when you go off with that
attitude that
you know something that nobody else knows as if you had the slightest
knowledge.

Rankle my wrinkles? A Google search for that exact phrase doesn't return a
single hit on the web and just your post in the newsgroups. That's no small
feat. Congrats!

This thread is about to follow a familiar pattern. Here in
alt.music.home-studio most of us are used to Mike/Porky and have given up on
attempting to correct him on every little thing. If the general point is
correct, we leave it alone. In this case I don't think advising someone to
use studio gear in a studio is particularly bad advice. Putting the
electronic characteristics aside, just the physical characteristics (types
of connectors, access to connectors, dimensions, rack mounting, very quiet
fans, etc) can be deciding factors.

I also think in a back-handed way he's trying advise people getting started
with their home studio that they would be happier with getting studio gear
than pulling out their 1970s stereo amp and four-foot speaker columns. I'd
agree with that. Sometimes he makes faulty presumptions about his audience.
When it gets cross-posted to the more technical groups, it becomes glaring.

For example, in a.m.h-s we get a lot of folks wanting to polish turds. They
have $59 Sony mics. They don't understand why plugging their guitar straight
into their SoundBlaster doesn't sound good. Just today we had somebody
asking if they should buy a SM57 or SM58 to record their acoustic guitar.

It's not an unfair assumption in a.m.h-s that a significant number of people
dropping in are trying to get by with spending as little money as possible
and asking uninformed questions. It would not be a stretch to figure that a
good number of those people may not have decent home stereos. Hell, I'm no
novice at this home studio thing, but I spent more on my bass preamp than my
home stereo. Even if they have quality home stereos, are they going to pull
them out of the living room and into the studio? So, as we string together
these assumptions (generally not a good idea), it's also not a stretch to
figure if they want to use a home stereo in the studio, it's probably not
high quality.

However, the same assumptions don't apply to rec.audio.pro. I'd be willing
to wager that these folks have some pretty kick-ass home stereos. Even their
old gear is probably pretty good. And they are probably smart enough to know
that they could buy traditional "home stereo" gear that would blow the doors
off some of the "studio" gear out there.

What makes it worse is that Mike again chooses to babble on (he's never seen
a reply button he didn't like). And he doesn't notice the cross-posting
until it's too late. The more technically oriented folks start calling him
on his claims. He will continue to wriggle and squirm pulling claims out of
his ass and making it even worse. He'll try very hard to save face including
adding smiley faces after making a dubious point.

And to think that the OP simply wanted to find the specs and user's manual
for his amp, which, BTW, I showed him how to find in a first-level reply.

Or, more likely, you'll hem and haw and tell me that your sister dated a
guy
who's cousin lived next door to someone who knew someone who worked for
someone
that had a contract once with a guy that drove Harmon and Kardon to the
airport
in 1967, and your sister said he said she said he thought he overheard
someone
say something about something that the driver thought he may have
rememberd
about something he thought she said he said ......

At least he's not citing Wikipedia! :-)

That's so condescending. First it assumes that you know better how people
should
do things, and then suggests that poor people can make slight compromises
with
yuor blessings in rare instances.

Take a deep breath. You've been seeing this kind of crap for a couple of
years. Remember all the newbies he was protecting with his simplified but
inaccurate description of a compressor? The one consistent thing about his
posts is that his insecurity shines through. He's always trying to make
himself look smart, respectable, part of the in-crowd, big man on campus,
etc. If you read his posts through that type of lens you'll see exactly what
I mean.

"Mike Rieves" wrote in message


Sorry, CW, but the term "Hifi" has been corrupted over
the years. It no longer means "high fidelity" in the
sense that what come out is the same as what goes in.

Well what comes out is *never* what goes in, so nothing has changed.

And in terms of the quality of HiFi changing over the years - what comes out
at a given price point in 2006 is generally a whole lot more accurate than
what came out in say, 1960, 1980 or even 1990.

Response curves are introduced to make it sound good in a
living room environment.

Just as surely as response curves are introduced to make studio monitors
sound right to people in a studio monitoring environment.

Again, specs mean little because of the way they're rated.

The problem with specs is that they are mostly sales tools.

Amps are rated driving pure
resistive load, and when was the last time you saw a
speaker that presented a pure resistive load to an amp?

Loudspeaker loads are usually less stressful to amps than resistive loads
and music is less stressful for amps than sine waves.

Home speakers are anything but flat, they boost things
here and there to make them sound good.

And the same thing happens with studio monitors.

"Forgiving" is a
term often mentioned by reviewers of home equipment

The word forgiving and synonyms are not unknown in reviews of equipment
intended for the pro market.

and
it is usually meant as a compliment, "overly analytical"
is a term often used as a negative criticism.

Ditto.

In the
studio, the last thing you want is a "forgiving" piece of
equipment, and there is no such thing as "overly
analytical"

Here's your chance to make your point, Mike. Name all of the microphones
that have flat response like measurements mics that aren't measurement mics
or close derivatives thereof.

I agree that good home hifi equipment is
commonly available at reasonable prices, but, what is
good home hifi and what is good studio are two different
things!

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. All generalties beyond the trivial one are
false.

Studio equipment and home equipment have different design
criteria, and sometimes those criteria border on being
mutually exclusive.

And sometimes they don't.


What I said in the beginning was that the Yamaha M-50 was
a decent amp, but I wouldn't go out and buy one for use
in my studio, and I wouldn't recommend that anyone else
do so.

If you had actually said this Mike and stopped right there, there would
nothing to reasonably argue with.

Unfortunatly you've got a bad case of convenient memory, Mike.

AFAIK this is your first chronological post to this thread, and it says
nothing of the sort:

"Mike Rieves" wrote in message


Yamaha is decent sound reinforcement stuff, amp power is
usually underrated, they put out more than the specs say,
but it isn't studio quality, if that's what you're
looking for. .

So Mike what's your problem - bad memory, inability to check up on what you
reall said based on ignorance of Usenet, or just plain lying?


That apparently started a mini flame war about
home vs studio equipment.

No Mike, your dogmatic posturing invited people to correct you.

I also said that if you had one
and wanted to use it until you could afford something
better, that is fine.

Damning with faint praise.

In home studio, not everyone has
the budget to buy everything designed for the studio, and
I suppose that if one must use home equipment somewhere,
the monitor amp is as good a place as any to do so, as
long is it is of reasonable fidelity.

The problem is Mike that you don't know how to notice when you've been
conclusively proven to be wrong.

I also noted that,
in my experience, Yamaha Natural Sound equipment was
designed to certain psycho-acoustic principles, making it
not necessarily accurate from a fidelity standpoint.

Give us an example of a Yamaha Natural Sound Amplifier that can be found to
be audibly colored in an unbiased test.

I still say, if you want good home equipment go out and
buy home equipment, but if you want good studio equipment
go out and buy studio equipment.

I still say, if you want good equipment go out and buy good equipment, and
be prepared to pay a little more for it. The fewer false preconceived
notions you bring to a problem the quicker and more economical the solution
will be.

Unfortunately Mike, you're one festering sore of false preconceived notions.

On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:38:29 -0500, "Mike Rieves"
wrote:

Sorry, CW, but the term "Hifi" has been corrupted over the years. It no
longer means "high fidelity" in the sense that what come out is the same as
what goes in. Response curves are introduced to make it sound good in a
living room environment. Again, specs mean little because of the way they're
rated. Amps are rated driving pure resistive load, and when was the last
time you saw a speaker that presented a pure resistive load to an amp?

When the term "Hi Fi" was coined, the possibility of getting out what
went in was even more remote than it is today :-)

Plenty of "monitor" amps have room-compensating curves as well. Even
if the response graph IS a straight line, it becomes a complete
fiction once the speaker enters a room. And a living room may well
have fewer acoustic problems than a "control room".

Output power specs indeed mean little, in domestic or pro equipment.
What's your point?

On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:41:45 -0500, "Mike Rieves"
wrote:

Why pay a bundle for something that may not be suited to the purpose when
you can buy something expressly designed for the purpose considerably
cheaper? Save that extra money and spend it on something that will matter,
like a good mic or some acoustic treatment for your studio, Mr Spendthrift.
Do you actually know anything at all about home studios? You certainly
haven't shown it so far! :-)

Have you seen some of the stuff that is sold as "studio" gear? Or
discovered some of the perfectly competent (and cheap) domestic
amplifiers that are out there. Though, I admit, they aren't as easy
to find as they used to be.

On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:54:06 -0500, "Mike Rieves"
wrote:

Personally, I have studio monitor speakers and JBL home speakers in my
studio. If I'm doing a mix for someone, I mix on the monitors, then listen
back on the JBL's to get an idea of what the mix will sound like in in a
living room.

How do JBLs in your studio tell you how they will sound in a living
room?

On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:57:37 -0600, "CWCunningham"
charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote:

A few months ago you were arguing (as if you knew) that high end preamps
introduce response curves in order to make microphones sound different than the
mic you paid for, as if this was desirable, and now you're claiming that this is
somehow undesirable for "studio" equipment. I submit to you that it's totally
undesirable in either application, and that any deviance is intentionally
selected by the end user with the ubiquitous tone controls afforded.

Bad argument. If we wanted fidelity we'd be recording everything
live through a single stereo pair. We are perfectly at liberty to
munge up the sound as much as we like. But the monitors need to tell
us as accurately as possible what we've ended up with.

On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:09:47 -0600, "CWCunningham"
charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote:

|
This is a total misunderstanding. HiFi is by definition the set of
specifications for ultimate accuracy (High Fidelity) in sound reproduction. Back
when the term was coined, there were minimum specifications for what was, and
what was not Hi Fidelity. Over time as the state of the art in reproduction
systems evolved, those specifications also evolved such that hifi in the 50's
outperformed hifi in the 40's. Eventually the state of the art in reproduction
systems evolved to such a degree that you would be hard pressed to find
moderately priced home stereo equipment that does not meet and/or exceed the
stringent specifications for High Fidelity. In fact, run of the mill equipment
these days specs so well that the term HiFi has fallen into disuse because if
you're looking for quality equipment, you can find it under a myriad of brand
names in colors that will match your decor.

Who sets these specifications? It's the first time I've ever heard of
them?

Mike Rieves wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Mike Rieves wrote:

The Alesis RA-100 was an attempt to build an accurate studio amp for
those
who couldn't afford a good studio amp, and it did this fairly well. There
are probably many hifi amps that sound better than the Alesis and some of
them might even make better studio monitor amps, but none of them are as
low-priced as the Alesis.

No? Look in the Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound catalogues. Even Tascam
makes
something that sounds acceptable in that price range.

Sure, but all those companies make studio amps, I was talking about the
Alesis vs home hifi amps, since that was the topic of thios thread.

No. None of thsoe companies make studio amps. I am talking about home
hi fi amps.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Mike Rieves" wrote

No? Look in the Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound catalogues. Even Tascam
makes something that sounds acceptable in that price range.

Sure, but all those companies make studio amps, I was talking about the
Alesis vs home hifi amps, since that was the topic of thios thread.

Well no, they (named) don't manufacture studio
directed equipment. Few companies make both
because these's no money (low profit on studio
equipment) to compel them to do so. If you think
that Adcom, Rotel, and Parasound are on the low
end of the *Home Hi-Fi bench mark* how about
a few examples one level still higher, both tubed
and SS. Please explain how these designs, listed
below fail, you audio accuracy theory?

Tube amp example:
VS110 Vacuum Tube Stereo Power Amplifier
http://www.audioresearch.com/VS110.html

Solid State examples:
Krell Class A Series
http://www.krellonline.com/krell_com...page=fpbStereo

Jeff Rowland 102
http://www.jeffrowland.com/M102.htm

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:Qaxdg.23808$ZW3.13591@dukeread04...
| "CWCunningham" charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote in message
| ...
|
| Now here's where you rankle my wrinkles, when you go off with that
| attitude that
| you know something that nobody else knows as if you had the slightest
| knowledge.
|
| Rankle my wrinkles? A Google search for that exact phrase doesn't return a
| single hit on the web and just your post in the newsgroups. That's no small
| feat. Congrats!
|
It's not original, though I can't be certain where I ran into it. I believe it's
a quote of Mr Natural speaking to Flakey Foont from an R Crumb comic, but I
could be wrong.

| This thread is about to follow a familiar pattern. Here in
| alt.music.home-studio most of us are used to Mike/Porky and have given up on
| attempting to correct him on every little thing. If the general point is
| correct, we leave it alone. In this case I don't think advising someone to
| use studio gear in a studio is particularly bad advice. Putting the
| electronic characteristics aside, just the physical characteristics (types
| of connectors, access to connectors, dimensions, rack mounting, very quiet
| fans, etc) can be deciding factors.
|
It's not my intention to correct Porky, as many of us know, this is futile. My
intention is to keep the discussion grounded in reality. Knowledge built of
dubious "facts" and plausibilities does more harm then good. When somebody pegs
my bull**** meter, I say let's see some proof, not for Porky's sake, but for
anyone reading this and thinking they're getting the straight dope from a
knowledgable guy. To assume that something is logical because it sounds logical
is just deluding yourself. You're right that the consequences seem minor, but
I'll take fact over fiction anyday. Facts are easily proven and reliable.
Fiction is that long list of subjects that Porky "doesn't need to prove because
it's true".

You're also right that physical characteristics are much more important. When
buying new equipment, I go to the marketplace with my list of characteristics in
hand, and weed out any products that that don't have the physical
characteristics I need. Only then do I start seriously trying to pick the best
bang for my bucks.

| I also think in a back-handed way he's trying advise people getting started
| with their home studio that they would be happier with getting studio gear
| than pulling out their 1970s stereo amp and four-foot speaker columns. I'd
| agree with that. Sometimes he makes faulty presumptions about his audience.
| When it gets cross-posted to the more technical groups, it becomes glaring.
|
| For example, in a.m.h-s we get a lot of folks wanting to polish turds. They
| have $59 Sony mics. They don't understand why plugging their guitar straight
| into their SoundBlaster doesn't sound good. Just today we had somebody
| asking if they should buy a SM57 or SM58 to record their acoustic guitar.
|
| It's not an unfair assumption in a.m.h-s that a significant number of people
| dropping in are trying to get by with spending as little money as possible
| and asking uninformed questions. It would not be a stretch to figure that a
| good number of those people may not have decent home stereos. Hell, I'm no
| novice at this home studio thing, but I spent more on my bass preamp than my
| home stereo. Even if they have quality home stereos, are they going to pull
| them out of the living room and into the studio? So, as we string together
| these assumptions (generally not a good idea), it's also not a stretch to
| figure if they want to use a home stereo in the studio, it's probably not
| high quality.
|
I think that is a stretch because it makes an assumption based on a guess.

| However, the same assumptions don't apply to rec.audio.pro. I'd be willing
| to wager that these folks have some pretty kick-ass home stereos. Even their
| old gear is probably pretty good. And they are probably smart enough to know
| that they could buy traditional "home stereo" gear that would blow the doors
| off some of the "studio" gear out there.
|
| What makes it worse is that Mike again chooses to babble on (he's never seen
| a reply button he didn't like). And he doesn't notice the cross-posting
| until it's too late. The more technically oriented folks start calling him
| on his claims. He will continue to wriggle and squirm pulling claims out of
| his ass and making it even worse. He'll try very hard to save face including
| adding smiley faces after making a dubious point.
|
| And to think that the OP simply wanted to find the specs and user's manual
| for his amp, which, BTW, I showed him how to find in a first-level reply.
|
| Or, more likely, you'll hem and haw and tell me that your sister dated a
| guy
| who's cousin lived next door to someone who knew someone who worked for
| someone
| that had a contract once with a guy that drove Harmon and Kardon to the
| airport
| in 1967, and your sister said he said she said he thought he overheard
| someone
| say something about something that the driver thought he may have
| rememberd
| about something he thought she said he said ......
|
| At least he's not citing Wikipedia! :-)
|
| That's so condescending. First it assumes that you know better how people
| should
| do things, and then suggests that poor people can make slight compromises
| with
| yuor blessings in rare instances.
|
| Take a deep breath. You've been seeing this kind of crap for a couple of
| years. Remember all the newbies he was protecting with his simplified but
| inaccurate description of a compressor? The one consistent thing about his
| posts is that his insecurity shines through. He's always trying to make
| himself look smart, respectable, part of the in-crowd, big man on campus,
| etc. If you read his posts through that type of lens you'll see exactly what
| I mean.
|
Don't worry about me, I have no intentions of getting into any long winded
debates with long winded debaters. I've called bull**** on a single issue that,
if true, will be easily proven. Experience has shown that what I'll get instead
is everything but proof, and that in itself gets my point across.

Now somebody else has weighed in with the sweeping generalization that studio
amps are more impervious to reactive loads. This also should be easily provable
if the person making the claim actually has knowledge about the issue. But proof
will probably never surface. I'll leave you to guess why, I've got to go
recalibrate my bull**** meter.

Oh, btw, let's promise never to use the word "characteristics" off-handedly, it
takes me over a minute to type.

--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:57:37 -0600, "CWCunningham"
| charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote:
|
| A few months ago you were arguing (as if you knew) that high end preamps
| introduce response curves in order to make microphones sound different than
the
| mic you paid for, as if this was desirable, and now you're claiming that this
is
| somehow undesirable for "studio" equipment. I submit to you that it's totally
| undesirable in either application, and that any deviance is intentionally
| selected by the end user with the ubiquitous tone controls afforded.
|
| Bad argument. If we wanted fidelity we'd be recording everything
| live through a single stereo pair. We are perfectly at liberty to
| munge up the sound as much as we like. But the monitors need to tell
| us as accurately as possible what we've ended up with.
|
I guess as the arbiter of good vs bad arguments, you've fully researched the
statement, "If we wanted fidelity we'd be recording everything
live through a single stereo pair.", and found it to be of the "good argument"
variety.

Can you explain why we would do that?

--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================

On Fri, 26 May 2006 12:35:38 -0600, "CWCunningham"
charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote:

I guess as the arbiter of good vs bad arguments, you've fully researched the
statement, "If we wanted fidelity we'd be recording everything
live through a single stereo pair.", and found it to be of the "good argument"
variety.

Can you explain why we would do that?

There are other ways to chase fidelity. But yours was still a bad
argument.

Arny Krueger spake thus:

"Mike Rieves" wrote in message


Response curves are introduced to make it sound good in a
living room environment.

Just as surely as response curves are introduced to make studio monitors
sound right to people in a studio monitoring environment.

Now this is something that set of by bull**** meter, and it sounds like
you're giving him a pass on it. The myth this implies is that amplifiers
(I assume we're talking about amps here, not speakers) are somehow
tweaked and tuned in order to alter their response curves to make them
more suitable for [fill in blank here].

It just ain't so.

What this implies is that the designer tests the amplifier design, says
"Oh, there's this peak here at 14KHz", then sticks in a notch filter to
compensate for it in the front end. One can imagine an amp with a
super-complex filter to "even out the response curve".

Anyone care to demolish this fantasy?

I even question whether this is really done with speakers, although it
would seem that since they're electromechanical devices, there are ways
to alter the physical shape of the cabinet, etc., to do things to the
response curve. But in amps? No.


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

Laurence Payne spake thus:

On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:09:47 -0600, "CWCunningham"
charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote:

This is a total misunderstanding. HiFi is by definition the set of
specifications for ultimate accuracy (High Fidelity) in sound reproduction. Back
when the term was coined, there were minimum specifications for what was, and
what was not Hi Fidelity. Over time as the state of the art in reproduction
systems evolved, those specifications also evolved such that hifi in the 50's
outperformed hifi in the 40's. Eventually the state of the art in reproduction
systems evolved to such a degree that you would be hard pressed to find
moderately priced home stereo equipment that does not meet and/or exceed the
stringent specifications for High Fidelity. In fact, run of the mill equipment
these days specs so well that the term HiFi has fallen into disuse because if
you're looking for quality equipment, you can find it under a myriad of brand
names in colors that will match your decor.

Who sets these specifications? It's the first time I've ever heard of
them?

So far as "Who?" goes, no, there's no ISO standard or anything for it,
so far as I know.

But there certainly are certain de facto standards which we've all seen
for years. Does "20 Hz-20 KHz" ring a bell?


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

Laurence Payne wrote:

Plenty of "monitor" amps have room-compensating curves as well.

Is that so ? Please elaborate.

Graham

Laurence Paye wrote:

Have you seen some of the stuff that is sold as "studio" gear? Or
discovered some of the perfectly competent (and cheap) domestic
amplifiers that are out there. Though, I admit, they aren't as easy
to find as they used to be.

I have ( dare I say it ) a Sherwood hi-fi amp. I checked it out with an Audio
Precision test set and the performance is actually quite reasonable.

Graham

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Thu, 25 May 2006 21:54:06 -0500, "Mike Rieves"
wrote:

Personally, I have studio monitor speakers and JBL home speakers in my
studio. If I'm doing a mix for someone, I mix on the monitors, then listen
back on the JBL's to get an idea of what the mix will sound like in in a
living room.

How do JBLs in your studio tell you how they will sound in a living
room?

And where are the Auratones and NS10s ?

Graham

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:09:47 -0600, "CWCunningham"
charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote:

In fact, run of the mill equipment
these days specs so well that the term HiFi has fallen into disuse because if
you're looking for quality equipment, you can find it under a myriad of brand
names in colors that will match your decor.

Who sets these specifications? It's the first time I've ever heard of
them?

Once upon a time German Industry Standards - DIN45500. But good stuff today so far
exceeds the requirements as to render it valueless to mention it.

Graham

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Arny Krueger spake thus:

"Mike Rieves" wrote in message


Response curves are introduced to make it sound good in a
living room environment.

Just as surely as response curves are introduced to make studio monitors
sound right to people in a studio monitoring environment.

Now this is something that set of by bull**** meter, and it sounds like
you're giving him a pass on it. The myth this implies is that amplifiers
(I assume we're talking about amps here, not speakers) are somehow
tweaked and tuned in order to alter their response curves to make them
more suitable for [fill in blank here].

No they're not.

It just ain't so.

What this implies is that the designer tests the amplifier design, says
"Oh, there's this peak here at 14KHz", then sticks in a notch filter to
compensate for it in the front end. One can imagine an amp with a
super-complex filter to "even out the response curve".

Anyone care to demolish this fantasy?

It's not done in the amplifier. That would be stupid ! It's done ( when it is ) with
an external equaliser.

Powered speakers may however havefixed internal EQ to correct for the drivers.

Graham

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Laurence Payne spake thus:

Who sets these specifications? It's the first time I've ever heard of
them?

So far as "Who?" goes, no, there's no ISO standard or anything for it,
so far as I know.

DIN 45500

But there certainly are certain de facto standards which we've all seen
for years. Does "20 Hz-20 KHz" ring a bell?

I hope you're not now going to say +/- 3dB ! Although that was once the case. I prefer
+0/-0.5 dB for amplification stages these days.

Graham

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:09:47 -0600, "CWCunningham"
| charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote:
|
| |
| This is a total misunderstanding. HiFi is by definition the set of
| specifications for ultimate accuracy (High Fidelity) in sound reproduction.
Back
| when the term was coined, there were minimum specifications for what was, and
| what was not Hi Fidelity. Over time as the state of the art in reproduction
| systems evolved, those specifications also evolved such that hifi in the 50's
| outperformed hifi in the 40's. Eventually the state of the art in
reproduction
| systems evolved to such a degree that you would be hard pressed to find
| moderately priced home stereo equipment that does not meet and/or exceed the
| stringent specifications for High Fidelity. In fact, run of the mill
equipment
| these days specs so well that the term HiFi has fallen into disuse because if
| you're looking for quality equipment, you can find it under a myriad of brand
| names in colors that will match your decor.
|
| Who sets these specifications? It's the first time I've ever heard of
| them?
|
That's a reasonable question, and I have to admit that I don't know the answer.
But if you grew up in the 50's and 60's, then you are probably well aware that
the term "HiFi" was not just marketing hype, but an ideal that was actively
pursued by manufacturers and consumers alike.

The term was first used by some record manufacturer in the 30's, and if you have
stacks of records from the 30's through the early 60's, you'll see that record
manufacturers were constantly coining buzz terms to describe the superiority of
their recording techniques ... VibraSonic, MultiPhonic, GodKnows-A-Matic. But in
all cases, they were meant to lead the consumer towards superior reproduction
quality. The term HiFi was the only one that really stuck and became the
buzzword for an industry wide quest for perfection.

The pursuit of high accuracy reproduction wasn't cheap, and there were many
manufacturers that found a larger market in people who just wanted a record
player. This probably describes most households where they'd shake the cracker
crumbs of their favorite vinyl and stack 'em on the record player (or shall I
say, groove deepener). These people just wanted to play records, and they bought
cheap lo fi equipment that did an acceptable(?) job.

The smaller market were those interested in High Fidelity. They would pay big
bucks for accuracy. You know the ones. They had their own Ampex decks and
handmade JBL's, and they would *never* allow anyone to place a record on their
turntable.

A large industry grew up around these audiophiles. Manufacturers had their best
engineers devoted to furthering the state of the arts and there were independent
test laboratories that put so called hifi equipment through rigorous testing and
reported their findings, good or bad, to the world through publications of high
repute. In this atmosphere, it became accepted practice to reserve the term HiFi
for equipment that the audiophiles of the world would be proud to own, and never
sully your good name by suggesting that your mainstream suitcase stereos were
HiFi, these you'd describe as UltraPhonic or AccuSonic so the folks who taped
quarters to the top of their tone arm could say "It's the best system on the
market for 79.95 ... it's SuperChronic".

So who set the standards for Hi Fidelity? The high end audio market and the
manufacturers, laboratories, and publications that supported them. I'm sure you
can discover all sorts of wonderful information about the march to high fidelity
using your web browser, but here's a link I discovered in a search to answer
this question which shows one manufacturers quest for "... what we meant by high
fidelity, ...".

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/villchur.html

--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================

On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:17:46 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Plenty of "monitor" amps have room-compensating curves as well.

Is that so ? Please elaborate.

I'm looking at a pair of Mackie 824s here. There are switches on the
back to compensate for different room positioning.

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:17:46 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Plenty of "monitor" amps have room-compensating curves as well.

Is that so ? Please elaborate.

I'm looking at a pair of Mackie 824s here. There are switches on the
back to compensate for different room positioning.

So that's one *powered speaker*. Not actually an amplifier. Next ?

Graham

"CWCunningham" charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote in message
...

I think that is a stretch because it makes an assumption based on a guess.

That's part of life. The more important issue is that he makes the
assumption, then writes his posts for his imaginary audience. And invariably
it's a tangent that has move well away from the original post.

Oh, btw, let's promise never to use the word "characteristics"
off-handedly, it
takes me over a minute to type.

LOL! I struggled with that one, too.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com
Arny Krueger spake thus:

"Mike Rieves" wrote in message


Response curves are introduced to make it sound good in
a living room environment.

Just as surely as response curves are introduced to make
studio monitors sound right to people in a studio
monitoring environment.

Now this is something that set of by bull**** meter, and
it sounds like you're giving him a pass on it.

Not really. I agree strongly with where you're going. Note the following
challenge to Mike from my post:

"Give us an example of a Yamaha Natural Sound Amplifier that can be found to
be audibly colored in an unbiased test."

IOW, I don't think that in general, amplifiers are tweaked to make them
sound "right" to people. They are generally designed for really pretty flat
response with loudspeaker-type loads.

The myth
this implies is that amplifiers (I assume we're talking
about amps here, not speakers) are somehow tweaked and
tuned in order to alter their response curves to make
them more suitable for [fill in blank here].

In the larger scheme of things this is happening more and more, but the
amplifiers in question aren't typical stand-alone power amp products. We are
seeing more and more power amps that are incorporated into larger-scale
products that include both power amps and speakers, often in the same box.
The amps are equalized to tailor the response of the whole system. But,
this isn't what Mike was talking about.



The designer tests the
amplifier design, says "Oh, there's this peak here at
14KHz", then sticks in a notch filter to compensate for
it in the front end. One can imagine an amp with a
super-complex filter to "even out the response curve".

This just doesn't happen with general-purpose power amps such as the ones
that this thread has been discussing.


Anyone care to demolish this fantasy?

I even question whether this is really done with
speakers, although it would seem that since they're
electromechanical devices, there are ways to alter the
physical shape of the cabinet, etc., to do things to the
response curve. But in amps? No.

Agreed.

I once powered a set of 15" 3-way speakers from a battery powered Sony
walkman (headphone out). At (very) low volume, sounded the same as usual.

rumble wrote:

can anyone tell me where to find specs or an owner's manual for a:

YAMAHA NATURAL SOUND STEREO POWER AMP (M-50)

thanks

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:09:47 -0600, "CWCunningham"
| charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote:
|
| |
| This is a total misunderstanding. HiFi is by definition the set of
| specifications for ultimate accuracy (High Fidelity) in sound reproduction.
Back
| when the term was coined, there were minimum specifications for what was, and
| what was not Hi Fidelity. Over time as the state of the art in reproduction
| systems evolved, those specifications also evolved such that hifi in the 50's
| outperformed hifi in the 40's. Eventually the state of the art in
reproduction
| systems evolved to such a degree that you would be hard pressed to find
| moderately priced home stereo equipment that does not meet and/or exceed the
| stringent specifications for High Fidelity. In fact, run of the mill
equipment
| these days specs so well that the term HiFi has fallen into disuse because if
| you're looking for quality equipment, you can find it under a myriad of brand
| names in colors that will match your decor.
|
| Who sets these specifications? It's the first time I've ever heard of
| them?
|
Googling about with Pooh Bear's DIN 45500 reference also turns up these players:
The Institute of High Fidelity, The Electronic Industries Alliance, the
Institute of Radio Engineering, and currently, the Audio Engineering Society. So
the term "HiFi" may have fallen into disuse, it's minimum specifications are
actively maintained.

--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================

CWCunningham wrote:

Googling about with Pooh Bear's DIN 45500 reference also turns up these players:
The Institute of High Fidelity, The Electronic Industries Alliance, the
Institute of Radio Engineering, and currently, the Audio Engineering Society. So
the term "HiFi" may have fallen into disuse, it's minimum specifications are
actively maintained.

I'm not aware that any of those you mention actually print *minimum standards* for
hi-fi, which is what DIN 45500 was.

There are examples for instance of recommended practice ( esp with regard to
measurements and signal levels for example ) but not AFAIK any hi-fi performance
standard as such.

Graham

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
Mike Rieves spake thus:

Not necessarily. Home hifi amps are designed to sound good in the typical
living room, driving typical speakers and are rated using pure resistive
loads. Good studio monitor amps are designed for accurate reproduction
with a wide range of speakers which present a wide range of reactive
loads.

Now *that* is pure gobbledygook (a polite word for "bull****"). So you're
going to tell us that the difference between home hi-fi amps and studio
amps is that home hi-fi amps use "pure resistive loads", while studio amps
use "a wide range of reactive loads"? Now that *would* be interesting:
care to explain to us the differences in operation between these
"resistive" home speakers and the (obviously better and more expen$ive,
because it sounds kewler) "reactive" studio speakers?

That isn't what I said at all, I said that hifi amps are rated into pure
resistive loads, to measure the specs of the amp, thus the specs are
meaningless as far as real world speaker loads are concerned. Most studio
amps are rated the same way (something about FTC requirements), but studio
amps typically are designed to drive reactive loads better than home hifi
amps are. The requirements for studio use are tighter than are the
requirements for a home hifi use.
I stated that all speakers are reactive loads, and that rating amps into
resistive loads was pretty much useless. I also suggested that one ignore
the manufacturers ratings and try the amps out with the same speakers you'll
be using in the studio.
Price has little to do with it. Studio amps are designed for studio use,
home hifi amps are designed for home use, and sound reinforcement amps are
designed for sound reinforcement use. There is some crossover, some amps
work well in two or even all three areas.
If you'd get the gobbledegook out of your head and read what I post, you
wouldn't be making a fool of yourself.


Don't bull**** a bull****ter.


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


David Nebenzahl wrote:

Mike Rieves spake thus:

Not necessarily. Home hifi amps are designed to sound good in the
typical
living room, driving typical speakers and are rated using pure
resistive
loads. Good studio monitor amps are designed for accurate reproduction
with
a wide range of speakers which present a wide range of reactive loads.

Now *that* is pure gobbledygook (a polite word for "bull****").

Actually it's reasonably true.

So
you're going to tell us that the difference between home hi-fi amps and
studio amps is that home hi-fi amps use

They don't *use* them. They are connected to them.

"pure resistive loads", while
studio amps use "a wide range of reactive loads"

No. This your misunderstanding since you don't understand the technology
behind
this.

All speakers are reactive to some degree. Some more than others. Studio
grade amps
are less troubled by this reactance. Home audio isn't built to quite the
same
standards typically and is less tolerant of reactive speakers. The result
can give
be a gritty edge to the music.

Now that *would* be
interesting: care to explain to us the differences in operation between
these "resistive" home speakers and the (obviously better and more
expen$ive, because it sounds kewler) "reactive" studio speakers?

Both home and studio speakers have models thar are relatively benignly
reactive and
ones that truly stink. The studio amp ( or high end audio amp ) simply
doesn't care
much about the reactance and 'shrugs it off'.

Speakers that are less reactive ( almost resistive ) are the easiest for
the amp to
'drive'.

Graham

Thank you Graham.
As far as I know, no purely resistive speaker has ever been designed and
built, though some get pretty close within certain frequency ranges. The guy
apparently knows nothing about the difference between a studio environment
and a living room environment. I think he got insulted when I said that I
wouldn't use a Yamaha m-50 in the studio, though I don't have a clue as to
why. Even Yamaha doesn't suggest the use of an M-50 in a studio environment.
:-)

"CWCunningham" charlesw-at-blackfoot.net wrote in message
...
snip
A few months ago you were arguing (as if you knew) that high end preamps
introduce response curves in order to make microphones sound different
than the
mic you paid for, as if this was desirable, and now you're claiming that
this is
somehow undesirable for "studio" equipment. I submit to you that it's
totally
undesirable in either application, and that any deviance is intentionally
selected by the end user with the ubiquitous tone controls afforded.

I never said it was desirable, I said they do it, and they do, Why else
would one mic preamp sound different than another when using the same mic?
That's why I suggested then that one try the preamps out with the same mic
model he will be using in the studio. Since mic preamps do color the sound,
it might behoove one to find a preamp that provides coloration that flatters
the user's voice, if one insists on using a higi-end preamp. I'm sure there
are preamps that do not color the sound, but I'll bet that they aren't the
most popular ones.
This thread is about power amps, not preamps, and I've been proclaiming the
undesirability of amps that color the sound for this whole thread, that's
why I suggested that one should select an amp designed for studio use.
Whether preamps color the sound or not doesn't matter here, if the power
amps and speakers do not color the sound, then the user can hear the
coloration annd make allowances for it. If the power amps and speakers (and
room environment) color the sound then other colorations may be masked or
over-emphasized, making it impossible to get an accurate mix.


There are no response curves that match living rooms because there are no
such
things as living rooms that conform to any specification whatsoever.

| Again, specs mean little because of the way they're
| rated. Amps are rated driving pure resistive load, and when was the last
| time you saw a speaker that presented a pure resistive load to an amp?
|
Now here's where you rankle my wrinkles, when you go off with that
attitude that
you know something that nobody else knows as if you had the slightest
knowledge.

It is, or should be, common knowledge that amps are rated when driving pure
resistive loads and that speakers are reactive loads, this isn't something
"nobody else knows", it should be something that everybody who deals with
the subject in any way knows. though apparently it's not common knowledge
here.

Since you make this sweeping generalization as an absolute, you can
probably
easily prove that in all cases, consumer equipment is rated with purely
resistive loads, which you know and nobody else does, but let's be
practical.
I'm sure you can produce documentary evidence from any two name brand
manufacturers that they strictly measure their consumer products using
pure
resistive loads (and of course, they never do that with their professional
products). You'll be able to get part numbers for those resistors (They're
huge
with part numbers in large print) and you'll be able to provide a
manufacturers
spec sheet for those resistive loads showing that they have no inductive
component. Further, your contacts in these labs (whom you know well enough
that
they keep you informed of their test techniques) will provide you with
documentation showing the steps they adhere to in order to prevent any
stray
capacitance from introducing any reactive component on thier test
specifications.

All of them rate their amps when driving purely resistive loads, and
those are the ratings they publish, they are the ratings listed in the
owners' manuals and in the advertisements for the product. However, some
manufacturers of studio equipment and high-end consumer audio equipment also
make available white papers which discuss the amps' characteristics when
driving reactive loads, but you don't see them for the average home hifi
amp. The dummy loads used by the manufacturers are simply big power
resistors calibrated to a specific resistance, any reactive components are
so low as to be inconsequential. Back when the FTC specified how power amps
were to be rated, resistive dummy loads were specified in the rules.

Or, more likely, you'll hem and haw and tell me that your sister dated a
guy
who's cousin lived next door to someone who knew someone who worked for
someone
that had a contract once with a guy that drove Harmon and Kardon to the
airport
in 1967, and your sister said he said she said he thought he overheard
someone
say something about something that the driver thought he may have
rememberd
about something he thought she said he said ......

Now you're just being a jerk, CW.

Or even better [insert comments here].

| Home
| speakers are anything but flat, they boost things here and there to make
| them sound good.
|
And the same is true for ALL speaker systems. You can't afford a speaker
system
that will accurately track the frequency response of a $300 radio shack
HiFi
amplifier (and you'd be wasting money if you tried).

However, speakers designed for studio monitor use are designed to
minimize any coloration, that's what studio monitors are all about.

| "Forgiving" is a term often mentioned by reviewers of home
| equipment and it is usually meant as a compliment, "overly analytical"
is a
| term often used as a negative criticism. In the studio, the last thing
you
| want is a "forgiving" piece of equipment, and there is no such thing as
| "overly analytical"
| I agree that good home hifi equipment is commonly available at
reasonable
| prices, but, what is good home hifi and what is good studio are two
| different things!
|
Two different things, but only in a very superficial sense. I would expect
that
a home system would have an entirely useless EQ section, and it wouldn't
break
my heart to see a studio amp with no EQ section at all. As for
reproductive
accuracy of amps with identical wattage ( with both EQ systems set flat )
good
luck finding any meaningful difference.

Superficial? Next, I guess you'll be saying that one can use home hifi
speakers as studio monitor speakers.

| Studio equipment and home equipment have different design criteria, and
| sometimes those criteria border on being mutually exclusive.
|
That's not true (except once again for superficialities). Assuming neither
is a
toy, they are both designed to deliver X watts into Y load with as close
to
unmeasurable coloration/distortion as you can afford, continuously for
their
warranteed life, or your money back. That's what quality amplifiers do.
The
silly Bass Treble Mid controls are so the home user feels "In control",
and the
rackmount and illumination jack are so the studio user feels "In control".

| If you're only interested in a boombox or a car stereo or an mp3
player,
| all
| bets are off, but if you want accurate reproduction; 1) You know
better
| than to
| buy toys. 2) You'll find the consumer market flooded with excellent
| choices.
|
| This is not to say that pro grade equipment should be avoided for pro
| sound
| production applications, but I will go so far as to say that if you
have
| quality
| modern consumer reproduction equipment, you'll have to spend a lot of
cash
| to
| get pro grade equipment that is more accurate in any meaningful sense.
|
| (speakers are an exception and should be carefully chosen by ear with
a
| guaranteed return policy so that they can be evaluated in their
intended
| environ).
|
| What I said in the beginning was that the Yamaha M-50 was a decent amp,
but
| I wouldn't go out and buy one for use in my studio, and I wouldn't
recommend
| that anyone else do so.
|
Just because you wouldn't buy one for the studio and wouldn't recommend
it,
doesn't make it unusable, or even unviable.

| That apparently started a mini flame war about home
| vs studio equipment. I also said that if you had one and wanted to use
it
| until you could afford something better, that is fine. In home studio,
not
| everyone has the budget to buy everything designed for the studio, and I
| suppose that if one must use home equipment somewhere, the monitor amp
is as
| good a place as any to do so, as long is it is of reasonable fidelity.
|
That's so condescending. First it assumes that you know better how people
should
do things, and then suggests that poor people can make slight compromises
with
yuor blessings in rare instances.

Okay, CW, you tell us how it's done.
There was nothing condesending about what I said. It boils down to, "Use the
best you can afford until you can afford better.". That's the way I started,
and there is still much that I'd like to have in the way of studio equipment
that I can't afford, so how could I be condesending about it.


| I
| also noted that, in my experience, Yamaha Natural Sound equipment was
| designed to certain psycho-acoustic principles, making it not
necessarily
| accurate from a fidelity standpoint.
|
And what exactly is your experience with the design of Yamaha equipment?
Do you
consult for them, or work full time in their engineering department?

No, but I have used their equipment, I read about the natural sound line
when they first started it, back in 1969 or 1970, I even ownd one of the
first Natural Sound products, a Yamaha bass amp with Natural Sound speakers.
And I have worked with Yamaha technical reps a time or two on sound
reinforcement.

| I still say, if you want good home equipment go out and buy home
equipment,
| but if you want good studio equipment go out and buy studio equipment.
|
This seems like bad advice. Any audiophile (which probably describes
anyone who
has a home studio) will never accept garbage for their home system. To an
audiophile, accuracy is paramount, therefore if a good home system is a
good
home system, it's also a good studio monitor amp. There are no substitutes
for
quality sound.

Again, there are different requirements for studio monitor systems than
there are for home hifi systems. and I never said anything a bout home
systems being garbage. They aren't, they're just designed for a different
purpose.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:Qaxdg.23808$ZW3.13591@dukeread04...

Take a deep breath. You've been seeing this kind of crap for a couple of
years. Remember all the newbies he was protecting with his simplified but
inaccurate description of a compressor? The one consistent thing about his
posts is that his insecurity shines through. He's always trying to make
himself look smart, respectable, part of the in-crowd, big man on campus,
etc. If you read his posts through that type of lens you'll see exactly
what
I mean.

No Jim, I just get tired of people mis-quoting me or taking things out of
context, and then everyone jumping on mis-quoted stuff as if I actually said
it. I could give **** if anyone here thinks I'm smart or stupid, this all
started because someone got offended because I said I wouldn't recommend
using Yamaha Natural Sound equipment for the studio.
Yes, post too much, I take the long way around in getting to the point, and
get offended when people mis-quote me, but if you read what I actually post
and not the mis-quotes, you see I'm usually right.