Clyde wrote:


"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote in message
...

Please note that Howard's experience is with the Pensacola Symphony.

Besides, he conducts the ensemble like he makes love. With a limp baton.


And the violins are always on the right.










And the subwoofers on the left, behind the cellos and the string basses.
Woodwinds and brass are randomly seated so that the imaging won't be too
precise.


Bruce J. Richman

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

**Oops.
You snipped out some questions. Here they a

---

Which very often puts us standing in front of an equalizer.

**Not an analogue equaliser. Ever. A zero phase digital eq, perhaps,
provided there is adequate references and test equipment. None of which
Ferstler ever mentioned.

---

What about feedback loops, Trevor?

**What about feedback loos? If you have a specific question, then ask it.

Have you stopped fearing them?

**Have you stopped beating your wife? If you have a non-rhetorical question,
then please ask it.

If so:
good!

**More rhetoric. Try to get a grip.

---

**And tell me: are the equalisers analogue, or digital?

Some of each.

**Name one high end receiver which uses automated, analogue equalisation.

---

**Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on equalisers?
Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound off side and rear
walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic disaster? After all, that is
what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good).

---

I note your avoidance of the issues and questions raised.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt a écrit :


Please note that Howard's experience is with the Pensacola Symphony.

Besides, he conducts the ensemble like he makes love. With a limp baton.

Did you have have sex with Ferstler ?

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Trevor wrote:

snip dismissive posturing

**Not an analogue equaliser. Ever.

Trevor shows his ignoranace of the number of analog equalizers in just
about
any signal chain he's ever listened to. He seems to believe believe
he has never listened to a loudspeaker or a vinyl recording, or
analog tape, for openers. And that is just the tip of the iceburg.

**You're preaching again.

If you're as smart and as well-informed as you claim Trevor, you'll be able
list all the analog equalizers that a typical music recording made in the
last 30 years might reasonably encounter, from mic to speaker.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message


I note your avoidance of the issues and questions raised.

You've dismissed so many of my comments without any discussion Trevor, that
you have this *major snip* coming.

Enjoy!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Trevor wrote:

snip dismissive posturing

**Not an analogue equaliser. Ever.

Trevor shows his ignoranace of the number of analog equalizers in just
about
any signal chain he's ever listened to. He seems to believe believe
he has never listened to a loudspeaker or a vinyl recording, or
analog tape, for openers. And that is just the tip of the iceburg.

**You're preaching again.

If you're as smart and as well-informed as you claim Trevor, you'll be
able
list all the analog equalizers that a typical music recording made in the
last 30 years might reasonably encounter, from mic to speaker.

**I can only tell you that the finest recordings I have ever heard, contain
no equalisers. Anywhere in the chain.

I note your normal dodging of the issues and questions raised. Why is that?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message


I note your avoidance of the issues and questions raised.

You've dismissed so many of my comments without any discussion Trevor,
that
you have this *major snip* coming.


**Lack of any response noted.

I accept your admission of defeat.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Trevor wrote:

snip dismissive posturing

**Not an analogue equaliser. Ever.

Trevor shows his ignoranace of the number of analog equalizers in
just about
any signal chain he's ever listened to. He seems to believe believe
he has never listened to a loudspeaker or a vinyl recording, or
analog tape, for openers. And that is just the tip of the iceburg.

**You're preaching again.

If you're as smart and as well-informed as you claim Trevor, you'll
be able list all the analog equalizers that a typical music
recording made in the last 30 years might reasonably encounter, from
mic to speaker.

**I can only tell you that the finest recordings I have ever heard,
contain no equalisers. Anywhere in the chain.

Your dodging the question as written, Trevor.

Trevor, when you answer the question as asked, then you will have restored
your right to ask me further questions and expect a response. Until you want
actually have a discussion, thats the end of my interest in discussing
*anything* with you.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Trevor wrote:

snip dismissive posturing

**Not an analogue equaliser. Ever.

Trevor shows his ignoranace of the number of analog equalizers in
just about
any signal chain he's ever listened to. He seems to believe believe
he has never listened to a loudspeaker or a vinyl recording, or
analog tape, for openers. And that is just the tip of the iceburg.

**You're preaching again.

If you're as smart and as well-informed as you claim Trevor, you'll
be able list all the analog equalizers that a typical music
recording made in the last 30 years might reasonably encounter, from
mic to speaker.

**I can only tell you that the finest recordings I have ever heard,
contain no equalisers. Anywhere in the chain.

Your dodging the question as written, Trevor.

**There was no question. Just an incorrect statement.


Trevor, when you answer the question as asked, then you will have restored
your right to ask me further questions and expect a response. Until you
want
actually have a discussion, thats the end of my interest in discussing
*anything* with you.

**Your inability to answer my questions is duly noted.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...


The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want
superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their
systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so
strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Most
hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than
in sound that simulates live performances.


Right again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At live acoustic performances,
clarity, imaging, soundstaging and focus are
NOT attributes of the sound

RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, yes, particularly regarding imaging. As for clarity,
well, I suggest you attend a live classical concert and see
if, for example, the violin section is anywhere near as
bright sounding as it is when you listen to the same
material on your hi-fi rig.

Howard Ferstler

Idiot!!! Here you are, saying that there are great differences
between live music and reproduced music,
that the live sound in the high freq.is duller and less clear,
and less imaged, etc. than the reproduced sound.
Then you blather on about "hi fi' systems being preferred,
be cause the music has a more 'hi fi' presentation'
tahn a simulation of live music.
You FOOL! That is what meuic reproduction IS
all about, the simulation of a live performance.

Sounds like you got a distorted high fi rig,
brightening up and edging the high frequencies!
Better switch to tubes!!!

First, I have three "hi-fi" systems at my place, with one
containing about 7 grand worth of gear, the second
containing about 14 grand worth, and the third containing
about 28 grand worth. Yep, the money value of each doubles
as we go up the chain. One involves wide-dispersion,
semi-omnidirectional speakers for main-channel use (Allison
IC-20s) and another involves narrow, focussed-dispersion,
phase-coherent jobs (Dunlavy Cantatas). A third contains
more mainstream speakers, like what one would purchase at a
decent hi-fi shop (NHT ST4 units). I regularly use each
system when reviewing both recordings and when reviewing
other components. Each system has its own character, with
that character determined by radiation pattern differences
more than anything else.

I rather prefer the wide-dispersion approach, but I
certainly can see the point with the controlled and
narrow-dispersion philosophy. With some kinds of music the
latter type of system can work wonders.

Second, as noted, I regularly review systems for published
reports, and so I certainly have had experience with both
superb and not so superb audio systems.

The fact is that many recordings are overly imaged, overly
bright, and overly detailed, compared to what one hears
during live performances. Now, this does not refer to all
recordings (in this case, I am discussing classical,
baroque, romantic-era recordings and not pop stuff, with is
usually technical and artistic dreck), and today we find
that many labels manage to produce some technically (and
often artistically) exceptional materials. It was not quite
this way in the past, however.

As for pop music (which is probably the material that most
of you air heads listen to), well I consider most of that
stuff to be sonic junk, if not junk art as well. Play any of
these souped-up recordings on some systems and the result is
sub-par, unrealistic, and yet manifestly unrealistic
sounding performances. That so-called "hi-fi" fans (and I
suppose this includes you) prefer such sounds says a lot
about the state of so-called serious audio these days.

Howard Ferstler

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

So while LP freaks may caress their recordings at lovable
toys, those who REALLY like music will favor the CD simply
by technical and availability default.

Or, they could do both.

Stephen

Yes they could - and should. Obviously, if someone has a
large and valuable collection of LP recordings they should
take LP record technology serious enough to purchase a good
player and cartridge combination.

However, when listening to LP recordings for musical
enjoyment the person involved will nearly always have to
"put up" with artifacts that are detrimental to good sound
reproduction.

Howard Ferstler

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 8/22/2004 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message

"Clyde Slick" a écrit dans le message de
...

I have the original Offenbach Gaite Parisieene in Stereo, LSC 1817 .

Have you really listened to the above LP ? :-)

I have. Three words: tic, tic, tic.

Agreed. The LP noise problem will be acute with any recorded
material that requires a quiet background.

Not on a good quality record with a good playback rig.

Such discs are rare, if they exist at all. In addition, even
the most silent of LP recordings will have surface noise
steadily bleeding through. That would be no big deal with
most (ugh) pop recordings, but it would be borderline
intolerable with most classical material.

As for the playback rig, it strikes me that the most
revealing versions (meaning the best versions) would be more
likely to reveal recording defects than sub-par versions. If
there is a blemish on the disc that can make noise, it only
seems logical that the most revealing playback system (that
with the highest fidelity) would show it up in glaring
detail.

Of course, those who listen to nothing but pop music would
not know what either of us are talking about, because there
is little in the way of quiet passages with such music -

Wrong. There are plenty of pop recordings with quiet passages.

Between tracks, for the most part.

except between the tracks, of course. Throw in problems with
inner-groove distortion, distortion in general, speed errors
(be they warp related or related to cutting lathe problems),
and wear and tear factors, and you have a situation where
those who lionize the LP for its sound quality are basically
showing us just how little they appreciate true
high-fidelity sound reproduction.

Heck you describing LP playback at it's worst. CDs can suck badly too if they
are defective or if the player is defective or if the recording or mastering
sucks. So what?

Far more common with the LP. Obviously, if a CD player is
defective there will be glaring problems, often to the
extent that the device will not operate at all. Generally,
when we have sub-par CD sound on a player that is working
properly it is because the master tape itself had problems.
Either that, or the mastering technician did a botch job
with the transfer. On the other hand, the LP has audible
flaws that are inherent within the medium itself. This is
not the case with the compact disc.

Well, we have known that
all along.

While LP versions are all we have of some esoteric, older
recorded performances, it is silly to think that those
classical LP recordings of old (or new) can hold a
technical-excellence candle to many of the good CD versions
produced over the past twenty years.

It is silly to think that many of those older records don't sonically kill many
of the newer ones available on CD.

You need to get out more. Listen to something produced by
outfits like Claves, Hungaroton, Koch, Opus 111, Astree,
Hyperion, CPO, Harmonia Mundi, Novalis, Analekta, Chandos,
Reference Recordings, Dorian, Denon, London, Chesky, Delos,
Telarc, and even Naxos. Trust me, few LP recordings of any
era can match what those outfits and quite a few others do
as a matter of everyday policy.

Outfits like Novalis,
Hungaroton, Koch, Opus 111, Astree, Hyperion, CPO, Harmonia
Mundi, and Analekta, among others, as well as better known
outfits like Chandos, Reference Recordings, Dorian, Denon,
London, Chesky, Delos, and Telarc, and even a budget label
like Naxos, produce digital classical-music recordings that
technically pulverize just about any LP ever produced.

Balony. Funny thing is you just named 5 labels that produce great sounding LPs.

They produce LP recordings, because there is still a small
market for them and they still have the machine tools to
produce the stuff and make a modest profit. I can assure you
that once those machine tools (lathes, pressing hardware,
etc.) wears out the companies will make no attempt to obtain
new models. Indeed, there will be no new models to obtain.

Generally, when an audio newcomer becomes enamored of the LP
(by newcomer, I mean somebody who did not grow up with the
LP and has only recently discovered the LP) it is simply
because they are captivated by the novelty of the format.
They do not know much about the limitations of the LP, and
they become fascinated by it for reasons that are more
mystical than rational.

I
review such recordings in The Sensible Sound on a regular
basis, and use two, and sometimes three different audio
systems to back up my opinions.

Too bad you don't use legitimate high end LP playback with excellent records to
make your comparisons. Your opinions are obviously based on your prejudices and
not on actual listening.

Are you saying that I do not actually listen to the
recordings I review? Hey, go read some of my reviews and see
what you discover. Incidentally, in addition to reviewing
recordings for magazine reports, I also have previously
published two complete books of recording reviews.

As for my lack of enthusiasm for the LP, I see its high
distortion levels, poor speed regulation, and noise problems
as serious indeed, particularly if we are talking about the
reproduction of "serious" music. Because of that, I believe
that anyone who thinks that the LP has any kind of technical
advantage over the CD is deluded.

Interestingly, there are now many CD versions of old and
very old classical transcriptions that simply cannot be had
in LP form at all.

Such as?

I believe that the Smithsonian Institution has reissued a
number of classical performances (some were originally on
Edison Cylinders; others as 78s) in CD form. They were never
available in LP form.

Those who are interested in archival
performances have to go to the CD format to get much in the
way of reissues.

What older material that is available on CD was never available on LP?

The 78 and Edison Cylinder materials I mentioned above.

Of
course whatever is available on one format is reason enough to have that
format.

Sure. I have no problem with people who have large and
valuable LP collections they want to be able to play back.
They obviously need to obtain good playback hardware to
listen to those recordings. My problem is with the jerks who
claim that the LP is technically superior in any way
whatsoever to the CD. That is a goofy attitude.

And of course, those who really like
classical music (this includes renaissance, baroque,
romantic, impressionistic and cutting edge modern, as well
as music from the "classical" era) must also go to the CD,
because the vast bulk of what we have being produced as
original material these days only shows up in digital form.

Rennaisssance is not classical but it is true that most new classical
recordings are available only on CD and that is a very good reason to have a CD
player.

Generally, all "serious" music these days is considered to
be classical, be it from the modern era, the romantic era,
the classical era, the baroque era, or the renaissance era.
Frankly, I do not like using the term "classical" to
describe the music of those eras in general, but that is the
way it is treated by most individuals, including those who
have specific preferences. For me, music reached its height
during the baroque era, with a steady decline (Mozart,
Haydn, and a few others excepted) after that. This is not to
sell Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Debussy, Vaughn Williams,
etc. short, but the fact is that Bach, Telemann, Vivaldi,
Handel, etc. reached a peak that has not been surpassed.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:38:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Carl Valle wrote:

I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most
incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place
each and every instrument on stage with precision.

This is a preposterous statement, unless you were conducting
the ensemble.

Howard Ferstler

Howard, you don't even *like* to go to live shows, so you have only
limited experience with this.

So I'd leave this discussion to other more qualified people.

Dave, are you saying that when you attend a live
classical-music concert you can pinpoint the location of
each performer as he performs?

The fact is that when people think they can hear precise
imaging when they attend live performances of classical
music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If
they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they
think exists would disappear.

By the way, I am fully retired now, and so I have all the
time in the world to attend concerts in this town.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:38:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Carl Valle wrote:

I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the
most
incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to
place
each and every instrument on stage with precision.

This is a preposterous statement, unless you were conducting
the ensemble.

Howard Ferstler

Howard, you don't even *like* to go to live shows, so you have only
limited experience with this.

That's cause they don't have any subs.
There is just not enough bass for Howie in a live acoustuc presentation

Anyone who reads my record reviews will realize that I
rarely review recordings that exhibit super-duper bass. I
try to specialize in the music of the baroque era, and big
pipe organ excepted, there is not much deep bass with that
genera. Hell, even the pipe organ music often does not dip
all that low.

An upcoming subwoofer review by me in The Sensible Sound
will discuss the idiocy of paying extra to obtain super
subwoofers that can go down to subsonic frequencies at
lease-breaking levels. The subwoofer reviewed is a superb
job, by the way, but is so for reasons that most of you
would not understand.

Howard Ferstler

ScottW wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:ALdUc.9843$yh.9368@fed1read05


Yep. All the wide off-axis anomalies would be absorbed by
the padding up and down the walls, and across the floor and
ceiling. Worse, the nature of speakers designed for such
spaces would require the listener to sit locked into a
sweet-spot location that would make listening to music more
like torture than a pleasurable experience.

Since 90+% of my listening is done alone, I find virtually no problem
having set my seat up such that the "sweet spot" occurs right at the
position my head is when I plop down and recline to my favorite comfortable
position. Off axis listening isn't an awful experience, it just isn't as
rewarding as that optimal position. IME, there is always 1 and only 1
optimal position.

ScottW

With two-channel speaker arrangements that do a proper
time/intensity tradeoff (toeing in will often manage to
handle this OK, although it is not a perfect solution), or
with an up-front arrangement that includes a center channel
that is controlled by a really good DSP surround processor
(capable of doing some very good L+R deriving work),
off-axis listening will be a technically rewarding as
on-axis listening.

If this were not the case, live-music performances would
only be fully enjoyable by those sitting dead center.
Because the soundstage at such concerts involves a blend and
not the kind of pinpoint soundstaging and imaging that hi-fi
enthusiasts demand from some of their recordings and audio
systems, sitting away from the central axis is not the
crushing loss that you might believe.

Howard Ferstler

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 8/22/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Howard Ferstler

Worse, any phase artifacts being generated by the speaker
(or an equalizer hooked to the system) would be painfully
apparent if only the direct field were audible.

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

Obviously, speakers with controlled and narrow distortion
will engage fewer room reflections, particularly in the
midrange and treble.

You mean dispurtion I think. You also didn't answer my question.

Well, I meant dispersion. I am not sure what that word is
that you used. In any case, I think you would say that I did
not answer your question no matter how I responded.

However, even narrow-dispersion
speakers will engage enough room reflections to make an
audible difference.

That depends on the room.

Obviously. However, it will have an impact of some kind no
matter what kind of room we are talking about.

If you do not think this is the case,
haul the systems (narrow-dispersion jobs, of course)
outdoors and see how much different they sound from when
they were in the room.

Kind of pointless given the ambient noise outdoors. Not to mention the
difference in bass.

Give it a try. Heck, you do not even need to haul your sound
gear outside. First, go into a reflective room (a big
bathroom would be OK) and recite some poetry. Listen to how
it sounds. Have someone else do it and see how they sound.
Now, go outdoors and do it again. Note how much different
both of you sound.

Room reverberation is impossible to
dodge.

It is possible to reduce it. You seem to be against that at a certain point.

I am. Drying up all the reverb will work against good sound.
Of course, it can be overdone. I rather doubt that any audio
system would sound good in the above-noted bathroom
environment, even with the shower turned off.

Any home-listening room is going to color the
sound to a surprising extent, particularly regarding early
reflections.

So? You seem to be suggesting that those colorations should *not* be reduced
beyond a certain point, even when they can be, so they can compensate for
distortions inherent in certain speaker systems.

I am saying that the distortions produced by a good typical
listening room are not detrimental to a realistic playback
sound. I am also saying that trying to clean up the off-axis
reflections (by absorption) so that a phase-coherent,
perfect-on-axis sound loudspeaker system will be able to
finally do its "thing" is NOT going to make for a more
realistic listening experience. It may satisfy imaging,
detail, and focus freaks for whom that is the be all and end
all of "hi-fi" sound, but it will not produce a more
realistic sound. At least not with most recordings.

Is this masking of one
distortion by use of another distortion in direct conflict with your minimal
distortion at every point in the chain philosophy? The answer is yes, it is.

It is silly to compare the distortions (or lack of
distortions) with items like amps and CD players (and wires)
with the acoustic problems we have with speakers in rooms.
With two-channel audio, even in good rooms, those problems
are monumental and a solution can only be approached with
some kind of surround-sound solutions.

Those reflections, in addition to telling you
that you are listening to a recording made in a relatively
(or even extremely) large space in a playback area that
encompasses an acoustically small space, also add
cancellation and phase artifacts to the sound. Now, if the
speaker disperses smoothly and the room is not a complete
mess, those artifacts should make for a better listening
experience than what you would encounter if you listened to
those same speakers in an anechoic environment.

This still runs contrary to your philosophy. Funny that you would attack others
for liking added distortion when it is clear that you also like added
distortion in your playback.

Distortion is a very broad term. Let's say that I like
artifacts that make the sound more realistic. For the most
part, those include what can be delivered by good speakers
(well positioned), good rooms, and surround enhancements
that make a small room appear larger.

The result would be a spacious blend, at least if the
systems involved had a uniform broad-bandwidth radiation
pattern.

Remarkably, clarity would suffer little in the normal room,
at least if live-music clarity was what you were after.

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

Yes, they do. Interestingly, I suspect that many of those
manufacturers really do not know what they are doing.

Based on anything other than your holy war based biases? Do you have any
reasonable reason to believe this? Feel free to cite examples and supportive
evidence.

Read some of my product reviews.

In addition, while it may be fun for some individuals to
heavily pad their listening room (even going beyond the LEDE
concept) and sit rigidly in the sweet spot, I prefer to not
have my world revolve around my hi-fi rig to such an extent.

I don't know anyone who thinks adding effective room treatment is fun.

I thought that nearly everything a dedicated audio buff does
to make his system sound better would be classified as
"fun."

People who listen that way are not listening to the music;

That is just funny. Yes they are listening to music Howard. You said so in the
first part of your sentence.

they are listening to their hi-fi rigs.

Kind of inevitable when playback is involved.

Sure. But rather than listen to the music as an end itself,
they are listening to their audio systems and making those
systems the "end in itself." Their worlds revolve around
their audio systems. Not a healthy thing, I think.

In these
situations the audiophile can have his cake and eat it too.

If their cake involves a good "hi-fi" type sound and not the
replication of a live-music experience.

Having trouble with English? Good hifi is good replication of live music.

That is the traditional definition. However, with a lot of
enthusiasts what they demand from their systems is not
realism of sound but "hi-fi" sound. They want their systems
to sound better than live music and want those systems to do
things that live music cannot do.

This is not the way one should listen to music for
enjoyment.

I see, they should enjoy added distortion of inherently flawed speakers and
listening rooms. Make up your mind Howard. Do you like added distortion or do
you not like it? let me guess, it depends on what the enemy likes.

Depends upon how realistic it sounds.

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

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

By your standards, but what a limited set of standards they
most certainly happen to be.

Sorry, I don't embrace fraud and plagiarlism. I guess I do have a narrow set of
standards

What fraud and plagiarism? Find any published book or
magazine article where there is plagiarism or fraud by
Ferstler.

Howard Ferstler

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

So while LP freaks may caress their recordings at lovable
toys, those who REALLY like music will favor the CD simply
by technical and availability default.

Or, they could do both.

Yes they could - and should. Obviously, if someone has a
large and valuable collection of LP recordings they should
take LP record technology serious enough to purchase a good
player and cartridge combination.

However, when listening to LP recordings for musical
enjoyment the person involved will nearly always have to
"put up" with artifacts that are detrimental to good sound
reproduction.

Such is the case with any medium.

My lp collection hasn't stopped me from enjoying cds. It's interesting
to hear how often lp and cd 'agree'. The last case of this was hearing
an "audiophile approved" transfer of "The Safety Dance" (Stop laughing,
everyone! At least it's a common reference). In this case, the cd was
quieter than the 80s era vinyl, but the basic sound was essentially the
same, including the way-too-bright chirping synth octaves. This happens
often enough to lead me to give greater weight to the recording and
mastering than to the medium.

Stephen

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

First, I have three "hi-fi" systems at my place, with one
containing about 7 grand worth of gear, the second
containing about 14 grand worth, and the third containing
about 28 grand worth.

What a coincidence. I have three systems, too. The bedroom system has
three-way active crossover acoustic suspension speakers and a universal
player ($7k new, if you include the tv...); the second is
computer-based, with a Yamaha CAVIT and a powered monitor system; the
big rig has a new value near $14k and better speakers than you've ever
heard.

Stephen

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...


The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want
superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their
systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so
strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Most
hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than
in sound that simulates live performances.


Right again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At live acoustic performances,
clarity, imaging, soundstaging and focus are
NOT attributes of the sound

RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, yes, particularly regarding imaging. As for clarity,
well, I suggest you attend a live classical concert and see
if, for example, the violin section is anywhere near as
bright sounding as it is when you listen to the same
material on your hi-fi rig.

Howard Ferstler

Idiot!!! Here you are, saying that there are great differences
between live music and reproduced music,
that the live sound in the high freq.is duller and less clear,
and less imaged, etc. than the reproduced sound.
Then you blather on about "hi fi' systems being preferred,
be cause the music has a more 'hi fi' presentation'
tahn a simulation of live music.
You FOOL! That is what meuic reproduction IS
all about, the simulation of a live performance.

Sounds like you got a distorted high fi rig,
brightening up and edging the high frequencies!
Better switch to tubes!!!

First, I have three "hi-fi" systems at my place, with one
containing about 7 grand worth of gear, the second
containing about 14 grand worth, and the third containing
about 28 grand worth. Yep, the money value of each doubles
as we go up the chain. One involves wide-dispersion,
semi-omnidirectional speakers for main-channel use (Allison
IC-20s) and another involves narrow, focussed-dispersion,
phase-coherent jobs (Dunlavy Cantatas). A third contains
more mainstream speakers, like what one would purchase at a
decent hi-fi shop (NHT ST4 units). I regularly use each
system when reviewing both recordings and when reviewing
other components. Each system has its own character, with
that character determined by radiation pattern differences
more than anything else.

I rather prefer the wide-dispersion approach, but I
certainly can see the point with the controlled and
narrow-dispersion philosophy. With some kinds of music the
latter type of system can work wonders.

Second, as noted, I regularly review systems for published
reports, and so I certainly have had experience with both
superb and not so superb audio systems.

The fact is that many recordings are overly imaged, overly
bright, and overly detailed, compared to what one hears
during live performances. Now, this does not refer to all
recordings (in this case, I am discussing classical,
baroque, romantic-era recordings and not pop stuff, with is
usually technical and artistic dreck), and today we find
that many labels manage to produce some technically (and
often artistically) exceptional materials. It was not quite
this way in the past, however.

As for pop music (which is probably the material that most
of you air heads listen to), well I consider most of that
stuff to be sonic junk, if not junk art as well. Play any of
these souped-up recordings on some systems and the result is
sub-par, unrealistic, and yet manifestly unrealistic
sounding performances. That so-called "hi-fi" fans (and I
suppose this includes you) prefer such sounds says a lot
about the state of so-called serious audio these days.

Howard Ferstler

Hey Schmuck, I listen mostly to blues and calssical, and some
times some jazz.

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 8/25/2004 3:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 8/22/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Howard Ferstler

Worse, any phase artifacts being generated by the speaker
(or an equalizer hooked to the system) would be painfully
apparent if only the direct field were audible.

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

Obviously, speakers with controlled and narrow distortion
will engage fewer room reflections, particularly in the
midrange and treble.

You mean dispurtion I think. You also didn't answer my question.

Well, I meant dispersion. I am not sure what that word is
that you used.

A very poor spelling of the word you meant to use.

In any case, I think you would say that I did
not answer your question no matter how I responded.

You would be wrong. It was simple question that could have been easily answered
with a yes or a no. You failed to answer it twice now. Oh well.



However, even narrow-dispersion
speakers will engage enough room reflections to make an
audible difference.

That depends on the room.

Obviously. However, it will have an impact of some kind no
matter what kind of room we are talking about.

No it won't. It will not have an impact in an anechoic chamber.

If you do not think this is the case,
haul the systems (narrow-dispersion jobs, of course)
outdoors and see how much different they sound from when
they were in the room.

Kind of pointless given the ambient noise outdoors. Not to mention the
difference in bass.

Give it a try.

No, it is pointless for reasons I already gave you and it would be a royal pain
in the ass.

Heck, you do not even need to haul your sound
gear outside. First, go into a reflective room (a big
bathroom would be OK) and recite some poetry. Listen to how
it sounds. Have someone else do it and see how they sound.
Now, go outdoors and do it again. Note how much different
both of you sound.

And what will I have achieved? The knowledge that bathrooms usually have a lot
of reverb and are not a good place to put the stereo? You are the one who is
promoting the use of listening room reverb to pollute your playback.



Room reverberation is impossible to
dodge.

It is possible to reduce it. You seem to be against that at a certain
point.

I am.

Then you are in favor of using added distortion to compensate for shortcomings
in the audio chain. So much for your audio philosophy.

Drying up all the reverb will work against good sound.

You can't dry up the recorded reverb of the original event with the listening
room. You really have no grounds to bitch about others liking added distortion.
Clearly you like it too.


Of course, it can be overdone. I rather doubt that any audio
system would sound good in the above-noted bathroom
environment, even with the shower turned off.

Any home-listening room is going to color the
sound to a surprising extent, particularly regarding early
reflections.

So? You seem to be suggesting that those colorations should *not* be
reduced
beyond a certain point, even when they can be, so they can compensate for
distortions inherent in certain speaker systems.

I am saying that the distortions produced by a good typical
listening room are not detrimental to a realistic playback
sound.

Funny some of us have been saying that about tubes and vinyl. You can't have it
both ways.

I am also saying that trying to clean up the off-axis
reflections (by absorption) so that a phase-coherent,
perfect-on-axis sound loudspeaker system will be able to
finally do its "thing" is NOT going to make for a more
realistic listening experience.

With *some* speakers you may be rght, with *some* speakers you are certainly
wrong.

It may satisfy imaging,
detail, and focus freaks for whom that is the be all and end
all of "hi-fi" sound, but it will not produce a more
realistic sound.

If the imaging is more accurate and the detail is better revealed, all else
being equal it will end up with more realistic sound.

At least not with most recordings.

Funny, I have found with most recordings I get a greater sense of realism from
vinyl over CD. You are always quick to point a finger claiming that it is the
equivalent of not liking fidelity. I guess the finger points at you now.



Is this masking of one
distortion by use of another distortion in direct conflict with your
minimal
distortion at every point in the chain philosophy? The answer is yes, it
is.

It is silly to compare the distortions (or lack of
distortions) with items like amps and CD players (and wires)
with the acoustic problems we have with speakers in rooms.

No it is not. They are very much the same thing.


With two-channel audio, even in good rooms, those problems
are monumental and a solution can only be approached with
some kind of surround-sound solutions.

Now you are off on a tangent. Try to focus on the subject. You preach against
added distortion in any link of the audio chain and then you turn around and
add distortion to your playback. Your philosophy and your actual listening
habbits are at odds with each other.



Those reflections, in addition to telling you
that you are listening to a recording made in a relatively
(or even extremely) large space in a playback area that
encompasses an acoustically small space, also add
cancellation and phase artifacts to the sound. Now, if the
speaker disperses smoothly and the room is not a complete
mess, those artifacts should make for a better listening
experience than what you would encounter if you listened to
those same speakers in an anechoic environment.

This still runs contrary to your philosophy. Funny that you would attack
others
for liking added distortion when it is clear that you also like added
distortion in your playback.

Distortion is a very broad term.

No it is actually very clear and specific.
: falsified reproduction of an audio or video signal caused by change in the
wave form of the original signal

Let's say that I like
artifacts that make the sound more realistic.

Lets say that so do people who prefer vinyl and tubes.

For the most
part, those include what can be delivered by good speakers
(well positioned), good rooms, and surround enhancements
that make a small room appear larger.

You can get that with a high end turntable, tube electronics and narrow
dispersion speakers in a very dead room.



The result would be a spacious blend, at least if the
systems involved had a uniform broad-bandwidth radiation
pattern.

Remarkably, clarity would suffer little in the normal room,
at least if live-music clarity was what you were after.

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

Yes, they do. Interestingly, I suspect that many of those
manufacturers really do not know what they are doing.

Based on anything other than your holy war based biases? Do you have any
reasonable reason to believe this? Feel free to cite examples and
supportive
evidence.

Read some of my product reviews.

Can't answer the question, again.



In addition, while it may be fun for some individuals to
heavily pad their listening room (even going beyond the LEDE
concept) and sit rigidly in the sweet spot, I prefer to not
have my world revolve around my hi-fi rig to such an extent.

I don't know anyone who thinks adding effective room treatment is fun.

I thought that nearly everything a dedicated audio buff does
to make his system sound better would be classified as
"fun."

You thought wrong, again.



People who listen that way are not listening to the music;

That is just funny. Yes they are listening to music Howard. You said so in
the
first part of your sentence.

they are listening to their hi-fi rigs.

Kind of inevitable when playback is involved.

Sure. But rather than listen to the music as an end itself,
they are listening to their audio systems and making those
systems the "end in itself."

You are free to believe this Howard, Don Quiote did believe those windmills
were dragons.

Their worlds revolve around
their audio systems. Not a healthy thing, I think.

Any healthier than your holy war over audio? You once said that it was the
enemy that kept you going. That seems quite unhealthy to me. OTOH I am quite
happy to enjoy music on my system that ****es you off so much.



In these
situations the audiophile can have his cake and eat it too.

If their cake involves a good "hi-fi" type sound and not the
replication of a live-music experience.

Having trouble with English? Good hifi is good replication of live music.

That is the traditional definition. However, with a lot of
enthusiasts what they demand from their systems is not
realism of sound but "hi-fi" sound.

O.K. Humpty Dumpty.

They want their systems
to sound better than live music and want those systems to do
things that live music cannot do.

And you know this about the enemy how? I think you are just inventing these
things to drive you in your holy war.



This is not the way one should listen to music for
enjoyment.

I see, they should enjoy added distortion of inherently flawed speakers and
listening rooms. Make up your mind Howard. Do you like added distortion or
do
you not like it? let me guess, it depends on what the enemy likes.

Depends upon how realistic it sounds.

Oh, we agree. Who would have thought. It's not about which link in the chain
distorts the least. It is about the end result. Now if you could ever get over
your rage you might actually understand why some people like vinyl and tubes.



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

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

By your standards, but what a limited set of standards they
most certainly happen to be.

Sorry, I don't embrace fraud and plagiarlism. I guess I do have a narrow
set of
standards

What fraud and plagiarism?

Yours of course.

Find any published book or
magazine article where there is plagiarism or fraud by
Ferstler.

Well, luckily the plagiarized work you tried to publish was rejected by your
publisher. Your fraudulant ABX tests are matter of public record on RAO
archives. Feel free to reread what you wrote about your intentional corruption
of the data to get the desired result of your ABX DBTs. That is fraud.

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 8/25/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...


The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want
superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their
systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so
strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Most
hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than
in sound that simulates live performances.


Right again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At live acoustic performances,
clarity, imaging, soundstaging and focus are
NOT attributes of the sound

RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, yes, particularly regarding imaging. As for clarity,
well, I suggest you attend a live classical concert and see
if, for example, the violin section is anywhere near as
bright sounding as it is when you listen to the same
material on your hi-fi rig.

Howard Ferstler

Idiot!!! Here you are, saying that there are great differences
between live music and reproduced music,
that the live sound in the high freq.is duller and less clear,
and less imaged, etc. than the reproduced sound.
Then you blather on about "hi fi' systems being preferred,
be cause the music has a more 'hi fi' presentation'
tahn a simulation of live music.
You FOOL! That is what meuic reproduction IS
all about, the simulation of a live performance.

Sounds like you got a distorted high fi rig,
brightening up and edging the high frequencies!
Better switch to tubes!!!

First, I have three "hi-fi" systems at my place, with one
containing about 7 grand worth of gear, the second
containing about 14 grand worth, and the third containing
about 28 grand worth.

Some people might consider this bragging. I recall some one finding this
distasteful.

Yep, the money value of each doubles
as we go up the chain.

You ever consider just going for one system and making it the best it can be?

One involves wide-dispersion,
semi-omnidirectional speakers for main-channel use (Allison
IC-20s) and another involves narrow, focussed-dispersion,
phase-coherent jobs (Dunlavy Cantatas). A third contains
more mainstream speakers, like what one would purchase at a
decent hi-fi shop (NHT ST4 units). I regularly use each
system when reviewing both recordings and when reviewing
other components. Each system has its own character, with
that character determined by radiation pattern differences
more than anything else.

I rather prefer the wide-dispersion approach, but I
certainly can see the point with the controlled and
narrow-dispersion philosophy. With some kinds of music the
latter type of system can work wonders.

Second, as noted, I regularly review systems for published
reports, and so I certainly have had experience with both
superb and not so superb audio systems.

The fact is that many recordings are overly imaged,

Overly imaged? What the hell does that mean?

overly
bright, and overly detailed, compared to what one hears
during live performances.

How does a system become overly detailed?

Now, this does not refer to all
recordings (in this case, I am discussing classical,
baroque, romantic-era recordings and not pop stuff, with is
usually technical and artistic dreck), and today we find
that many labels manage to produce some technically (and
often artistically) exceptional materials. It was not quite
this way in the past, however.

As for pop music (which is probably the material that most
of you air heads listen to), well I consider most of that
stuff to be sonic junk, if not junk art as well.

You lack the sophistication to pull off the snob act.

Play any of
these souped-up recordings on some systems and the result is
sub-par, unrealistic, and yet manifestly unrealistic
sounding performances.

You want to try to say this again in an understandable sentence?

That so-called "hi-fi" fans (and I
suppose this includes you) prefer such sounds says a lot
about the state of so-called serious audio these days.

You are just making stuff up now.

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

big rig has a new value near $14k and better speakers than you've ever
heard.

I'd like to know about those speakers, Stephen. I will do my best to
shush Harold if you wax rhapsodic in your praise.

Same old, same old: Quad 63s. Balance, clarity, imaging, lack of
distortion, you know the drill.

Mr. Ferstler might like my $400 amp better.

Stephen

Mr. Middius said:

MINe 109 said:

big rig has a new value near $14k and better speakers than you've ever
heard.

I'd like to know about those speakers, Stephen. I will do my best to
shush Harold if you wax rhapsodic in your praise.

I think he has Quads. Right, Stephen?

Boon

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:38:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Carl Valle wrote:

I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most
incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place
each and every instrument on stage with precision.

This is a preposterous statement, unless you were conducting
the ensemble.

Howard Ferstler

Howard, you don't even *like* to go to live shows, so you have only
limited experience with this.

So I'd leave this discussion to other more qualified people.

Dave, are you saying that when you attend a live
classical-music concert you can pinpoint the location of
each performer as he performs?

It depends. No, I can't pinpoint the third viola from the left. Yes, I
can tell where the piano is located. But that's irrelevant to my
point.

The fact is that when people think they can hear precise
imaging when they attend live performances of classical
music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If
they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they
think exists would disappear.

First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's
irrelevant. Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string
sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out
individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano,
vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage.

By the way, I am fully retired now, and so I have all the
time in the world to attend concerts in this town.

Well then, get to it. How many concerts have you seen this year?
Remember, you don't like to have to go to the bathroom, plus, it must
be horribly annoying to hear all of that clothes rustling and air
conditioner compressors cutting on and off.

Howard Ferstler

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The fact is that when people think they can hear precise
imaging when they attend live performances of classical
music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If
they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they
think exists would disappear.

First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's
irrelevant.

No, its not. Two different kinds of listening.

Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string
sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out
individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano,
vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage.

How do you know that you are right?

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:49:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The fact is that when people think they can hear precise
imaging when they attend live performances of classical
music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If
they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they
think exists would disappear.

First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's
irrelevant.

No, its not. Two different kinds of listening.

Of course it is. That's my point. Very few people listen to two hours
of music with their eyes closed at a public concert.

Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string
sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out
individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano,
vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage.

How do you know that you are right?

Pretty simple. I verify if by sight. How would Howard know that he was
wrong if he listened to something with his eyes closed and tried to
guess?

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:49:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The fact is that when people think they can hear precise
imaging when they attend live performances of classical
music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If
they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they
think exists would disappear.

First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's
irrelevant.

No, its not. Two different kinds of listening.

Of course it is. That's my point. Very few people listen to two hours
of music with their eyes closed at a public concert.

Which musical instruments from the actual live performance do you see when
you listen to a LP or CD with your eyes open?

Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string
sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out
individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano,
vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage.

How do you know that you are right?

Pretty simple. I verify it by sight.

How do you do that while listening to a recording?


How would Howard know that he was
wrong if he listened to something with his eyes closed and tried to
guess?

This is an equal-opportunity question. Bringing in personalities would
appear to be an atttempt at obfuscation.

In article ,
(Marc Phillips) wrote:

Mr. Middius said:

MINe 109 said:

big rig has a new value near $14k and better speakers than you've ever
heard.

I'd like to know about those speakers, Stephen. I will do my best to
shush Harold if you wax rhapsodic in your praise.

I think he has Quads. Right, Stephen?

Yes. I'm considering adding a center channel to take advantage of the
new "Golden Age" Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo
multichannel reissues. With a room twelve feet across, I should just be
able to squeeze another Quad in. Of course, I'd have to use my back
patio for egress.

Stephen

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:08:38 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:49:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The fact is that when people think they can hear precise
imaging when they attend live performances of classical
music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If
they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they
think exists would disappear.

First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's
irrelevant.

No, its not. Two different kinds of listening.

Of course it is. That's my point. Very few people listen to two hours
of music with their eyes closed at a public concert.

Which musical instruments from the actual live performance do you see when
you listen to a LP or CD with your eyes open?

Let's not get off of the subject, which is what people can or cannot
perceive while watching a live performance..

Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string
sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out
individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano,
vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage.

How do you know that you are right?

Pretty simple. I verify it by sight.

How do you do that while listening to a recording?

Let's not get off of the subject, which is what people can perceive
while watching a live performance.

However, since you ask, the illusion of placement is determined by the
recording technique. I have recordings where the triangle CLEARLY
appears to be coming from the left upper quadrant of the soundstage on
a correctly set up system. However, I'm pretty sure that if you
reversed the phase in one side of a stereo system, that visual cue
(for lack of a better term) would vanish. When I listen to my single
Billie Holliday LP recording, her voice seems to come from a certain
point in space, and depending on the room and the system's resolution
(mostly room dependent), the voice seems to come from about 5 feet up
and very slightly left of center, ecept on two songs, where her voice
seems to shift even slightly further left.

In listening to combo jazz in a small room, I *have* been surprised
about how a drum kit sort of sounds "all together" instead of being
able to pick out the cymbals, floor tom, hi-hat, etc. And yes, I've
done the eyes closed test on that. However, the piano still sounded
like it was on the side that it was on, the saxophone seemed placed
correctly, etc.

I think it would be a mistake to discount vision as a key component
for listening, mainly because it's a main component in hearing,
although it's obvious that the lack of sight can eventually be
compensated for.

How would Howard know that he was
wrong if he listened to something with his eyes closed and tried to
guess?

This is an equal-opportunity question. Bringing in personalities would
appear to be an atttempt at obfuscation.

Well, we *were* talking about Howard and his live music experience
playing on his attempt to talk about what someone might or might not
see when attending live shows, something that he has claimed to avoid
at all costs. Hard to avoid Howard in those circumstances.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:08:38 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:49:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The fact is that when people think they can hear precise
imaging when they attend live performances of classical
music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If
they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they
think exists would disappear.

First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's
irrelevant.

No, its not. Two different kinds of listening.

Of course it is. That's my point. Very few people listen to two
hours of music with their eyes closed at a public concert.

Which musical instruments from the actual live performance do you
see when you listen to a LP or CD with your eyes open?

Let's not get off of the subject, which is what people can or cannot
perceive while watching a live performance..

Inability to recall thread and read title line noted.

Too much of Weil's *debating trade* and use of Weilish noted. I'm out of
here!

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:37:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Let's not get off of the subject, which is what people can or cannot
perceive while watching a live performance..

Inability to recall thread and read title line noted.

And what does *your* contribution have to do with the "thread and
title line"?

Too much of Weil's *debating trade* and use of Weilish noted.

I'm out of here!

You never should have poked your big nose into this part of the
discussion if you didn't want to actually discuss what was being
talked about.

I hope you've learned your lesson. You've been spanked again. Of
course, maybe *your* audio system doesn't resolve enough to place a
vocalist in the soundstage, so I can see why you might be confused.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/25/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The fact is that when people think they can hear precise
imaging when they attend live performances of classical
music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If
they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they
think exists would disappear.

First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's
irrelevant.

No, its not. Two different kinds of listening.

Agreed,



Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string
sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out
individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano,
vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage.

How do you know that you are right?



Not really an issue. The perception of live music cannot be *wrong* for the
listener.It is what it is. If dave is hearing precise imaging at a live
classical concert than Howard is simply wrong. My experience mirrors dave's.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/26/2004 5:08 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:49:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The fact is that when people think they can hear precise
imaging when they attend live performances of classical
music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If
they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they
think exists would disappear.

First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's
irrelevant.

No, its not. Two different kinds of listening.

Of course it is. That's my point. Very few people listen to two hours
of music with their eyes closed at a public concert.

Which musical instruments from the actual live performance do you see when
you listen to a LP or CD with your eyes open?

Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string
sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out
individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano,
vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage.

How do you know that you are right?

Pretty simple. I verify it by sight.

How do you do that while listening to a recording?

You can't. But you can decide whether or not it leaves the same kind of
impression as do live concerts when listening with eyes closed.




How would Howard know that he was
wrong if he listened to something with his eyes closed and tried to
guess?

This is an equal-opportunity question. Bringing in personalities would
appear to be an atttempt at obfuscation.

It isn't about Howard, it is about his claims.

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

MINe 109 said:

Yes. I'm considering adding a center channel to take advantage of the
new "Golden Age" Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo
multichannel reissues. With a room twelve feet across, I should just be
able to squeeze another Quad in. Of course, I'd have to use my back
patio for egress.

Quite a dilemma you're facing -- improving the sound of your system
dramatically but at the cost of floor space in your living area. Have
you considered The Ferstler Solution? I think it entails packing his
mother-in-law off to an old folks' home and bricking up the dining room.

Bricking off the kitchen/dining room could help. Another Ferstler
solution would be to saw a couple of feet off of the bottoms of the
speakers and push them to the back wall.

Stephen

On 26 Aug 2004 14:55:07 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Not really an issue. The perception of live music cannot be *wrong* for the
listener.It is what it is. If dave is hearing precise imaging at a live
classical concert than Howard is simply wrong. My experience mirrors dave's.

Let me make sure that I clarify. I'm not claiming to be able to pick
out the third violin chair out of the massed strings. But yes, if I
close my eyes, I can locate, say, the piano left or right, I can hear
solo instruments located roughly where they are situated on the stage,
and, in the case of particularly bright instruments like trumpets,
triangles, etc., I certainly won't mistake a left side placement for a
right side placement, and they don't just become part of the whole
mass of sound without any regard to physical positioning. I will
*absolutely* concede that many recordings are *too* pinpoint for
reality, but that's a function of the recording technique, especially
when it comes to jazz or popular recordings. For instance, when you
listen to many of the Verve 50s and early 60s recordings (especially
some of the live ones), you tend to hear a good balance between
definition and "reality", such as the drum example that I gave
earlier. IOW, you hear the kit generally as a total unit, at least on
the systems that *I've* used. And since this mirrors my vast
experience in listening to similar combos in similar rooms, I am
satisfied with that sort of presentation.

This is simply *my* perception of the way things are. Others' mileage
may vary.

In article z,
The Devil wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:38:12 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

Bricking off the kitchen/dining room could help. Another Ferstler
solution would be to saw a couple of feet off of the bottoms of the
speakers and push them to the back wall.

Another idea might be to brick them *into* a room-dividing wall. My
wife wasn't keen on that idea either.

I dunno if that's such a bad idea. One could have the designer come make
curtains for them.

Maybe she was offended by the thought of de-poling bipole speakers!
"Where's the rear wave going to propogate, a shoe box?"

Stephen

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 8/25/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

The fact is that when people think they can hear precise
imaging when they attend live performances of classical
music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If
they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they
think exists would disappear.

First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's
irrelevant.

No, its not. Two different kinds of listening.

Agreed,

Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string
sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out
individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano,
vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage.

How do you know that you are right?

Not really an issue.

Down we go into radical subjectivism. Scott perceives that he won his libel
suit against me, so as far as anybody important goes, he won it.

The perception of live music cannot be *wrong*
for the listener.It is what it is.

Then why is Dave arguing that he has a accurate handle on where the musicans
actually sat?

If dave is hearing precise imaging
at a live classical concert than Howard is simply wrong.

I thought that the perception of music cannot be *wrong* for the
listener.It is what it is.

Now Howard is wrong.

My experience mirrors dave's.

A matched set of illusions = enough reality so that as two great men said:
"Howard is simply wrong."

Well guys, thanks for clearing that up for the rest of us...

;-)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:11:25 +0100, The Devil wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:38:12 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

Bricking off the kitchen/dining room could help. Another Ferstler
solution would be to saw a couple of feet off of the bottoms of the
speakers and push them to the back wall.

Another idea might be to brick them *into* a room-dividing wall. My
wife wasn't keen on that idea either.

But at least you could listen in both rooms.

Cheaper than buying your 10th pair of the ****ers.

In article z,
The Devil wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:16:36 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

Another idea might be to brick them *into* a room-dividing wall. My
wife wasn't keen on that idea either.

I dunno if that's such a bad idea. One could have the designer come make
curtains for them.

Well, um, ar, ahem. I wasn't being entirely honest there. My Great
Idea was to knock down a whole wall and build massive electrostatic
speakers in its place. I still think it's a good idea. The whole
middle area would be an electrostatic subwoofer. The bass would be
interesting. Well worth a divorce to experience, now that I think
about it.

Garbage bags, jumper cables and arc-welder standing by!

For the dynamic version, see "Back to the Future".

Maybe she was offended by the thought of de-poling bipole speakers!
"Where's the rear wave going to propogate, a shoe box?"

Enclosures need to be the size of a room to hook my interest.

How about a pinhole camera (camera oscura)? Photography is quieter:

http://www.photo.net/pinhole/pinhole

Stephen

In article z,
The Devil wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:25:57 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

Well, um, ar, ahem. I wasn't being entirely honest there. My Great
Idea was to knock down a whole wall and build massive electrostatic
speakers in its place. I still think it's a good idea. The whole
middle area would be an electrostatic subwoofer. The bass would be
interesting. Well worth a divorce to experience, now that I think
about it.

Garbage bags, jumper cables and arc-welder standing by!

For the dynamic version, see "Back to the Future".

Still like that film.

Density has never been the same since.

Maybe she was offended by the thought of de-poling bipole speakers!
"Where's the rear wave going to propogate, a shoe box?"

Enclosures need to be the size of a room to hook my interest.

How about a pinhole camera (camera oscura)? Photography is quieter:

http://www.photo.net/pinhole/pinhole

I'm failing to grasp the connection.

You can use the room as a camera instead of as a speaker enclosure. The
picture will only be of whatever's in front of the pinhole and will come
out upside down, but I think there's an adjustment for the last part.

Now that I think of it, the room could do double-duty.

I have a tiny pinhole video
camera. It transmits to a receiver you can hook up to a VCR or telly.
It was going to be fixed to an RC helicopters, but that turned out to
be Something Else To Do that didn't, well, get done. Helicopters have
no business flying anyway, in my opinion. That might have had
something to do with it.

Helicopter? How silly! Try this, or substitute your favorite crawly:

http://www.greenmuseum.org/content/a...st_id-106.html

Stephen