dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:38:16 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:28:42 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:21:30 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Are you against flexibility all of a sudden?

I am when it involves an amp dialing in per-channel
distortions to satisfy schizophrenic listeners.

As long as "normal" operation is always available, what's the harm in
having other modes of operation available, especially when they can be
switched between on the fly and presumably with the ability to conduct
dbts on the differences between modes of operation? Isn't that the
argument that you always make regarding eq, that one can always revert
back to a non-eq state?

On the surface, this looks like it makes sense. I mean, I
offer up explanations for DSP ambiance synthesis to
additional channels that way, too, in addition to my
comments about equalization. Actually, regarding
equalization, once that is done to a proper degree I see no
sense in switching the equalization off. I use it all the
time at the lower and lower-midrange frequencies, and also
have applied it a tad at higher frequencies. Guys like Toole
do not advise using equalization at those upper midrange and
treble frequencies, and do so for good reason that probably
involves imbalances between the direct- and
reverberant-field outputs. That makes sense, and so I
generally opt for better speakers to get a smooth output
above maybe 800 Hz, and use moderate equalization (always
turned on) below that frequency to handle slight standing
wave and Allison Effect anomalies.

There are several reasons why someone might want to change eqs after
the fact. Surely you can think of at least one of them.

Well, if you are talking about really basic equalization,
like we get with tone controls, then, yes, one would want to
be able to maybe tame a peaky sounding older recording with
the treble control or boost the bass with a thin sounding
recording, or cut the bass with a boomy sounding one.
However, the main purpose of equalization that involves
tedious, 1/3-octave work is to adjust for flat power input
to the room with a given set of speakers, located in a given
position, and then leave things be. Why screw up the
flat-response settings you worked so hard to achieve with
all of those sliders?

Yes, I know that one can do per-channel, response-curve
manipulations with an outboard equalizer. However, the
purpose of that would hopefully be to flatten a given
loudspeaker's room response at the listening position. It is
preposterous to think that an amp could apply certain
emendations to the sound that would correct for speaker
anomalies or room and listening-position anomalies.

Nobody ever claimed that the emendations were useful for those
situations.

Well, what on earth are they useful for? Exactly what does
the amp do to the signal when you disengage its
linear-response operation and engage its less-than-audibly
perfect signal-emendation circuits?

You're supposedly a bright guy, Howard. Maybe you can figure out what
differences someone might find if they operate tubes in different
modes.

It makes no sense to me at all that somebody would want to
adjust an amp so that it somehow makes more distortion than
it does when it is operating in its lowest-distortion mode.
(Note that even having that option sounds like a dumb way to
configure the features included with an amp.)

Then, you might even grant that someone might, for their own
reasons, prefer one particular mode over another, especially for
different kinds of music.

You know, it is interesting that you say this. I have read
some posts in the past where enthusiasts tend to look upon
their audio rigs the same way they might look upon a musical
instrument. They assume that the system colors the sound in
such a way that it makes it sound superior in some respects.
Because of this, they supposedly feel justified in dialing
in some distortion or other weird artifacts, in order to
make that audio-system instrument of theirs better conform
to taste.

I think the musical-instrument analogy is bunk. However,
let's for the moment cut those guys some slack and allow the
audio system to be a musical instrument. OK, then adjusting
it for taste-related performance (instead of proper
performance) is akin to mis-tuning a piano to make it sound
better.

And, since it is pretty easy to do a
level-matched dbt on the fly, what's the harm?

Well, I will admit that it gives fidgety tweakos something
to do. What with the LP system no longer in vogue, and
cartridge fiddling no longer typical, I suppose people who
want to "play" with their audio rigs need an outlet.

And none of this means that you can't eq on top of the changes.

Even I (Mr. DSP, surround-sound manipulator) do not like to
pile on the sound-adjusting emendations too much, Dave.

Howard Ferstler

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:18:23 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:38:16 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:28:42 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:21:30 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Are you against flexibility all of a sudden?

I am when it involves an amp dialing in per-channel
distortions to satisfy schizophrenic listeners.

As long as "normal" operation is always available, what's the harm in
having other modes of operation available, especially when they can be
switched between on the fly and presumably with the ability to conduct
dbts on the differences between modes of operation? Isn't that the
argument that you always make regarding eq, that one can always revert
back to a non-eq state?

On the surface, this looks like it makes sense. I mean, I
offer up explanations for DSP ambiance synthesis to
additional channels that way, too, in addition to my
comments about equalization. Actually, regarding
equalization, once that is done to a proper degree I see no
sense in switching the equalization off. I use it all the
time at the lower and lower-midrange frequencies, and also
have applied it a tad at higher frequencies. Guys like Toole
do not advise using equalization at those upper midrange and
treble frequencies, and do so for good reason that probably
involves imbalances between the direct- and
reverberant-field outputs. That makes sense, and so I
generally opt for better speakers to get a smooth output
above maybe 800 Hz, and use moderate equalization (always
turned on) below that frequency to handle slight standing
wave and Allison Effect anomalies.

There are several reasons why someone might want to change eqs after
the fact. Surely you can think of at least one of them.

Well, if you are talking about really basic equalization,
like we get with tone controls, then, yes, one would want to
be able to maybe tame a peaky sounding older recording with
the treble control or boost the bass with a thin sounding
recording, or cut the bass with a boomy sounding one.
However, the main purpose of equalization that involves
tedious, 1/3-octave work is to adjust for flat power input
to the room with a given set of speakers, located in a given
position, and then leave things be. Why screw up the
flat-response settings you worked so hard to achieve with
all of those sliders?

But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out of
cardboard for different curves for different musical content. In fact,
Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their eqs.

Yes, I know that one can do per-channel, response-curve
manipulations with an outboard equalizer. However, the
purpose of that would hopefully be to flatten a given
loudspeaker's room response at the listening position. It is
preposterous to think that an amp could apply certain
emendations to the sound that would correct for speaker
anomalies or room and listening-position anomalies.

Nobody ever claimed that the emendations were useful for those
situations.

Well, what on earth are they useful for? Exactly what does
the amp do to the signal when you disengage its
linear-response operation and engage its less-than-audibly
perfect signal-emendation circuits?

You're supposedly a bright guy, Howard. Maybe you can figure out what
differences someone might find if they operate tubes in different
modes.

It makes no sense to me at all that somebody would want to
adjust an amp so that it somehow makes more distortion than
it does when it is operating in its lowest-distortion mode.
(Note that even having that option sounds like a dumb way to
configure the features included with an amp.)


Then, you might even grant that someone might, for their own
reasons, prefer one particular mode over another, especially for
different kinds of music.

You know, it is interesting that you say this. I have read
some posts in the past where enthusiasts tend to look upon
their audio rigs the same way they might look upon a musical
instrument. They assume that the system colors the sound in
such a way that it makes it sound superior in some respects.
Because of this, they supposedly feel justified in dialing
in some distortion or other weird artifacts, in order to
make that audio-system instrument of theirs better conform
to taste.

Frankly, I'm going to "dial in" my system to the point where it sounds
"right" to me. I don't care how it measures, because I don't have the
hearing of a test instrument. Plus, my hearing curve/listening biases
are unique to me.

I think the musical-instrument analogy is bunk. However,
let's for the moment cut those guys some slack and allow the
audio system to be a musical instrument. OK, then adjusting
it for taste-related performance (instead of proper
performance) is akin to mis-tuning a piano to make it sound
better.

Nope. Wrong analogy.

And, since it is pretty easy to do a
level-matched dbt on the fly, what's the harm?

Well, I will admit that it gives fidgety tweakos something
to do. What with the LP system no longer in vogue, and
cartridge fiddling no longer typical, I suppose people who
want to "play" with their audio rigs need an outlet.

Well, you certainly fall in that category, don't you, Howard?

And none of this means that you can't eq on top of the changes.

Even I (Mr. DSP, surround-sound manipulator) do not like to
pile on the sound-adjusting emendations too much, Dave.

Sure you do. You spend all that time waving your microphone-equipped
arms in the air and measuring all sorts of non-musical programming.
You've spent about 10 times what I have spend on your rigs.

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

OK, then adjusting
it for taste-related performance (instead of proper
performance) is akin to mis-tuning a piano to make it sound
better.

You realize that tuners do this on purpose, "stretching" the range
extremes.

And there's always the question of temperament, but as a phormer
philosopher, you're probably up on Pythagoras.

Stephen

Brother Horace the Eternally Wantful whined:

We on Usenet are experienced in the ways of the mercantile world....

What crap.

I can swear with near-certainty that crap is worth very little. Very, very
little.

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:18:23 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

There are several reasons why someone might want to change eqs after
the fact. Surely you can think of at least one of them.

Well, if you are talking about really basic equalization,
like we get with tone controls, then, yes, one would want to
be able to maybe tame a peaky sounding older recording with
the treble control or boost the bass with a thin sounding
recording, or cut the bass with a boomy sounding one.
However, the main purpose of equalization that involves
tedious, 1/3-octave work is to adjust for flat power input
to the room with a given set of speakers, located in a given
position, and then leave things be. Why screw up the
flat-response settings you worked so hard to achieve with
all of those sliders?

But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out of
cardboard for different curves for different musical content. In fact,
Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their eqs.

The Rane and AudioControl units I use would be difficult to
work with under such conditions. I do write down the
settings, however, just in case I bump a slider. (The Rane
units do have cosmetic covers, but I usually leave them off,
because the systems are so often used with my reviewing
work.)

Still, the whole (proper) idea of using equalization of that
sort will be to flatten the speaker response (using
appropriate measuring gear) at the listening position. You
could then use tone controls to occasionally fine tune
certain recordings (sonically deficient recordings,
actually), but would leave the 1/3-octave settings alone,
because they are there to deliver a base-line performance.
Note that I do hit the bypass switch when I audition
speakers in those systems.

Then, you might even grant that someone might, for their own
reasons, prefer one particular mode over another, especially for
different kinds of music.

You know, it is interesting that you say this. I have read
some posts in the past where enthusiasts tend to look upon
their audio rigs the same way they might look upon a musical
instrument. They assume that the system colors the sound in
such a way that it makes it sound superior in some respects.
Because of this, they supposedly feel justified in dialing
in some distortion or other weird artifacts, in order to
make that audio-system instrument of theirs better conform
to taste.

Frankly, I'm going to "dial in" my system to the point where it sounds
"right" to me. I don't care how it measures, because I don't have the
hearing of a test instrument. Plus, my hearing curve/listening biases
are unique to me.

There is nothing wrong with adjusting a system to taste,
although we might as well admit right here that doing so is
not exactly the best way to have high-fidelity performance.
But who said that audiophile taste had to adhere to
high-fidelity standards? Right? There are "enthusiasts" here
on RAO who would not know genuine high-fidelity performance
if it hit them in the face. (More on this, below.)

I think the musical-instrument analogy is bunk. However,
let's for the moment cut those guys some slack and allow the
audio system to be a musical instrument. OK, then adjusting
it for taste-related performance (instead of proper
performance) is akin to mis-tuning a piano to make it sound
better.

Nope. Wrong analogy.

No, actually quite correct. You guys "tune" your gear to
satisfy taste and not to satisfy precise requirements, be
those requirements what one should have with a well-tuned
piano or what one would want to have with a neutral-sounding
hi-fi rig.

The ironic thing about this is that so many of you (not you,
Dave, because I realize you are not a big spender) will
spend big on gear that really, really is not particularly
high in fidelity, either in absolute (two-channel, purist)
terms or in terms of simulating live music with DSP ambiance
manipulations. Or they will spend big and then not measure
what they have (this requires spending a few extra bucks on
some test gear, which should be chump change for some of you
guys) and therefore have no idea of the room/speaker
combination they have is good, bad, or in-between.

Yep, in many ways, some of you guys are no better than
rednecks who think that juke boxes located in truck stops
are the last word in audio performance. For both of you, the
bottom line is "I like what I like."

And, since it is pretty easy to do a
level-matched dbt on the fly, what's the harm?

Well, I will admit that it gives fidgety tweakos something
to do. What with the LP system no longer in vogue, and
cartridge fiddling no longer typical, I suppose people who
want to "play" with their audio rigs need an outlet.

Well, you certainly fall in that category, don't you, Howard?

Actually, while my various Yamaha processors have many DSP
options (I think that the RX-Z1 has something like 54
soundfield simulations possible), I only use one or two with
my main system (Yamaha Classical/Opera or Dolby Pro Logic
II) and maybe three with my middle system (one or two jazz
club or one or two of the concert-hall simulations). Well, I
also use the movie DSP modes, but even there I nearly always
use the Yamaha "Adventure" setting and not much else. The
others are too reverberant for my taste.

As for equalizers, those are set and forget items with all
three systems. I only very rarely use tone controls, and
even now I rarely use the outboard dbx and AudioControl bass
subharmonic synthesizers on the main and second systems, or
dbx range expander on the main system. (These are basically
only good for rock recordings or older, analog movie
soundtracks.) Generally, I go in, put on a disc, sit down,
and listen. Well, I do adjust the volume control.

And none of this means that you can't eq on top of the changes.

Even I (Mr. DSP, surround-sound manipulator) do not like to
pile on the sound-adjusting emendations too much, Dave.

Sure you do. You spend all that time waving your microphone-equipped
arms in the air and measuring all sorts of non-musical programming.

Well, Dave, this arm-waving work you mention is part of my
reviewing work and not something I do for entertainment.
However, I will admit to doing occasional measurements to
make sure everything is still up to snuff. Note that I do
not wave my arms fast when I do that work. Slow and steady.

You've spent about 10 times what I have spend on your rigs.

Probably more like 20 times, on three complete systems,
actually.

Howard Ferstler

MiNe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

OK, then adjusting
it for taste-related performance (instead of proper
performance) is akin to mis-tuning a piano to make it sound
better.

You realize that tuners do this on purpose, "stretching" the range
extremes.

And there's always the question of temperament, but as a phormer
philosopher, you're probably up on Pythagoras.

Keep that audio system of yours well tuned, Stephen.

Howard Ferstler

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Still, the whole (proper) idea of using equalization of that
sort will be to flatten the speaker response (using
appropriate measuring gear) at the listening position.

Well, that's *one* idea of using eq. Probably a lot more of your
"fans" use it for different reasons though.

In , dave weil wrote :

But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out of
cardboard for different curves for different musical content. In fact,
Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their eqs.

Do you mean that you have to cut a template for each one of your CDs and LPs
or a template for each "kind" of music ?

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

There is nothing wrong with adjusting a system to taste,
although we might as well admit right here that doing so is
not exactly the best way to have high-fidelity performance.
But who said that audiophile taste had to adhere to
high-fidelity standards?

You know what my definition of "high-fidelity standards" is? It's a
sound that sounds pleasing to me given the recording being listened
to. It has nothing to do with the way that the system performs when
reproducing pink noise.

I also recognize that your idea of good sound will probably be a bit
different than mine, even if you take measurements totally out of the
equation. I'm speaking from a purely subjective standard. It might
very well be true that your listening preference happens to coincide
with a "flat response at the listening position", but that's just as
likely due to years of self-conditioning. Nothing wrong with that, I
note.

I just wonder if you stuck a string quartet in your living room
whether or not the output would be "flat". Somehow, I tend to doubt
it.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Yep, in many ways, some of you guys are no better than
rednecks who think that juke boxes located in truck stops
are the last word in audio performance. For both of you, the
bottom line is "I like what I like.

Absolutely. I certainly don't like what I don't like. That would be
rather stupid.

BTW, I have nothing against jukeboxes. I know that you can't
understand this, but sometimes music is best enjoyed in the company of
strangers in lively surroundings.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

You've spent about 10 times what I have spent on your rigs.

Probably more like 20 times, on three complete systems,
actually.

Oh, you've spent $60,000 - 100,000 on your gear?

Yep, I've only spent about $3 -5 grand for all of my gear in my
different systems.. Of course, if I were to sell all of the stuff
piece by piece, the value would be quite a bit higher (and some of the
stuff I didn't pay a penny for, as they were given to me, like my EAD
high-end CD transport and Theta ProGen3 DAC). Of course, I have a pair
of solid-state monoblocks that you would just die for (and I'm not
even using them right now). That's a cool 250 wpc $2899 retail just
sitting in the side room collecting dust at the moment. How you'd LOVE
to have them driving your surround channels, eh Howard?

And I paid $125 for my MP3-capable DVD Panasonic player. That just
makes you CRAZY, doesn't it Howard, especially since it's very close
to the model that you once talked about owning.

In , Lionel wrote :

In , dave weil wrote :

But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out of
cardboard for different curves for different musical content. In fact,
Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their eqs.

Do you mean that you have to cut a template for each one of your CDs and
LPs or a template for each "kind" of music ?

No answer...
Do you mean a template like in Windows(r) Media Player 9, eh Dave ?

:-D

"Lionel" wrote in message

In , dave weil wrote :

But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out of
cardboard for different curves for different musical content. In
fact, Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their eqs.

Do you mean that you have to cut a template for each one of your CDs
and LPs or a template for each "kind" of music ?

Modern music players like Winamp support having any number of pre-set
eq curves. I believe they can be associated with a particular song, or
loaded manually for a listening session of any length.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

I think the musical-instrument analogy is bunk. However,
let's for the moment cut those guys some slack and allow the
audio system to be a musical instrument. OK, then adjusting
it for taste-related performance (instead of proper
performance) is akin to mis-tuning a piano to make it sound
better.

Nope. Wrong analogy.

No, actually quite correct. You guys "tune" your gear to
satisfy taste and not to satisfy precise requirements, be
those requirements what one should have with a well-tuned
piano or what one would want to have with a neutral-sounding
hi-fi rig.

You are misusing the word tuning. You are not "tuning" a hi-fi in the
same sense that you are "tuning" a piano. Tuning, in this sense, is
one of those tweako-freako poetic phrases.

And Stephen has already pointed out the fact that a piano is never
perfectly" tuned anyway. Well, if it is, it will sound wrong.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:00:15 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

In , dave weil wrote :

But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out of
cardboard for different curves for different musical content. In fact,
Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their eqs.

Do you mean that you have to cut a template for each one of your CDs and LPs
or a template for each "kind" of music ?

No.

In , Arny Krueger wrote :

"Lionel" wrote in message

In , dave weil wrote :

But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out of
cardboard for different curves for different musical content. In
fact, Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their eqs.

Do you mean that you have to cut a template for each one of your CDs
and LPs or a template for each "kind" of music ?

Modern music players like Winamp support having any number of pre-set
eq curves. I believe they can be associated with a particular song, or
loaded manually for a listening session of any length.

Yes I know that.
But Dave Weil was speaking about an "eq template" for each "kind" of music
like on Windows Media Player : Jazz, Rock, Popmusic, Techno... A kind of Eq
preset cut in a cardboard...

"Lionel" wrote in message

In , Arny Krueger wrote :

"Lionel" wrote in message

In , dave weil wrote :

But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out of
cardboard for different curves for different musical content. In
fact, Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their eqs.

Do you mean that you have to cut a template for each one of your
CDs
and LPs or a template for each "kind" of music ?

Modern music players like Winamp support having any number of
pre-set
eq curves. I believe they can be associated with a particular song,
or loaded manually for a listening session of any length.

Yes I know that.

Good. Sorry to be redundant.

But Dave Weil was speaking about an "eq template" for each "kind" of
music like on Windows Media Player : Jazz, Rock, Popmusic, Techno...
A kind of Eq preset cut in a cardboard...

Cardboard templates are about Weil's speed.

Arny Krueger a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message


In , Arny Krueger wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message


In , dave weil wrote :


But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out of
cardboard for different curves for different musical content. In
fact, Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their eqs.

Do you mean that you have to cut a template for each one of your

CDs

and LPs or a template for each "kind" of music ?

Modern music players like Winamp support having any number of

pre-set

eq curves. I believe they can be associated with a particular song,
or loaded manually for a listening session of any length.


Yes I know that.


Good. Sorry to be redundant.


But Dave Weil was speaking about an "eq template" for each "kind" of
music like on Windows Media Player : Jazz, Rock, Popmusic, Techno...
A kind of Eq preset cut in a cardboard...


Cardboard templates are about Weil's speed.

Rustic presets for a rustic guy who love to listen rustic
music loud.

;-)

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message


In , Arny Krueger wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message


In , dave weil wrote
:


But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out
of
cardboard for different curves for different musical content.
In
fact, Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their
eqs.

Do you mean that you have to cut a template for each one of your

CDs

and LPs or a template for each "kind" of music ?

Modern music players like Winamp support having any number of

pre-set

eq curves. I believe they can be associated with a particular
song,
or loaded manually for a listening session of any length.


Yes I know that.


Good. Sorry to be redundant.


But Dave Weil was speaking about an "eq template" for each "kind"
of
music like on Windows Media Player : Jazz, Rock, Popmusic,
Techno...
A kind of Eq preset cut in a cardboard...


Cardboard templates are about Weil's speed.

Rustic presets for a rustic guy who love to listen rustic
music loud.

;-)

Not to mention the rustic Klipsch Cornwall speakers.

Arny Krueger a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message


Arny Krueger a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message



In , Arny Krueger wrote :



"Lionel" wrote in message



In , dave weil wrote

:


But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out

of

cardboard for different curves for different musical content.

In

fact, Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their

eqs.

Do you mean that you have to cut a template for each one of your

CDs


and LPs or a template for each "kind" of music ?

Modern music players like Winamp support having any number of

pre-set


eq curves. I believe they can be associated with a particular

song,

or loaded manually for a listening session of any length.


Yes I know that.


Good. Sorry to be redundant.



But Dave Weil was speaking about an "eq template" for each "kind"

of

music like on Windows Media Player : Jazz, Rock, Popmusic,

Techno...

A kind of Eq preset cut in a cardboard...


Cardboard templates are about Weil's speed.

Rustic presets for a rustic guy who love to listen rustic
music loud.

;-)


Not to mention the rustic Klipsch Cornwall speakers.

As elegant as Dave "Redneck" Weil's music !

:-D

The Big **** said:

Sorry to be redundant.

And you still haven't flushed yourself away. What's up with that, Turdy?

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:25:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message


In , Arny Krueger wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message


In , dave weil wrote
:


But you don'thave to. All you have to do is cut a template out
of
cardboard for different curves for different musical content.
In
fact, Soundcraftsmen used to supply such templates for their
eqs.

Do you mean that you have to cut a template for each one of your

CDs

and LPs or a template for each "kind" of music ?

Modern music players like Winamp support having any number of

pre-set

eq curves. I believe they can be associated with a particular
song,
or loaded manually for a listening session of any length.


Yes I know that.


Good. Sorry to be redundant.


But Dave Weil was speaking about an "eq template" for each "kind"
of
music like on Windows Media Player : Jazz, Rock, Popmusic,
Techno...
A kind of Eq preset cut in a cardboard...


Cardboard templates are about Weil's speed.

Rustic presets for a rustic guy who love to listen rustic
music loud.

;-)

Not to mention the rustic Klipsch Cornwall speakers.

I don't have any Cornwall speakers.

At least I don't have a 20 year old turntable with a bent arm.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:34:44 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

Not to mention the rustic Klipsch Cornwall speakers.

As elegant as Dave "Redneck" Weil's music !

:-D

It's so cute when the ****heads talk amongst themselves.

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Still, the whole (proper) idea of using equalization of that
sort will be to flatten the speaker response (using
appropriate measuring gear) at the listening position.

Well, that's *one* idea of using eq. Probably a lot more of your
"fans" use it for different reasons though.

And they are wrong.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

There is nothing wrong with adjusting a system to taste,
although we might as well admit right here that doing so is
not exactly the best way to have high-fidelity performance.
But who said that audiophile taste had to adhere to
high-fidelity standards?

You know what my definition of "high-fidelity standards" is? It's a
sound that sounds pleasing to me given the recording being listened
to. It has nothing to do with the way that the system performs when
reproducing pink noise.

For some reason, I think that a happy redneck listening to a
juke box in a truck stop would come up with the same kind of
rationale regarding preference.

I also recognize that your idea of good sound will probably be a bit
different than mine, even if you take measurements totally out of the
equation. I'm speaking from a purely subjective standard. It might
very well be true that your listening preference happens to coincide
with a "flat response at the listening position", but that's just as
likely due to years of self-conditioning. Nothing wrong with that, I
note.

I just wonder if you stuck a string quartet in your living room
whether or not the output would be "flat". Somehow, I tend to doubt
it.

Dave, the purpose of getting flat response from a
loudspeaker is so that it will properly reproduce the input.
String quartets do not produce flat outputs and they are not
supposed to, and any knowledgeable audio enthusiast should
be aware of this. However, a speaker that is reproducing the
sound of that quartet should respond flatly, because then
their sound will be reproduced accurately.

That you mention this thing about a string quartet not
producing flat sound tells me that you are simply unaware of
just what a proper HI-FI rig should do.

String quartets produce sound, Dave. High fidelity systems
REproduce it.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Yep, in many ways, some of you guys are no better than
rednecks who think that juke boxes located in truck stops
are the last word in audio performance. For both of you, the
bottom line is "I like what I like.

Absolutely. I certainly don't like what I don't like. That would be
rather stupid.

But if you like low-fi sound and do not like hi-fi sound,
then, Dave, you are not really much of an audio enthusiast.
Perhaps you should work to refine your audiophile listening
tastes - the technically related ones, that is.

Anyway, happy truck driving, Dave.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

You've spent about 10 times what I have spent on your rigs.

Probably more like 20 times, on three complete systems,
actually.

Oh, you've spent $60,000 - 100,000 on your gear?

You got me, kind of. I would say that the full, three-system
equipment packages top out at only $50,000, list. Needless
to say, I did not come close to paying that much.

Of course, the main system sits in a 3400 cubic foot room
that I had built 20 years ago to hold the hardware, and the
middle system now sits in a 2900 cubic foot room that was
recently expanded (last year) to that larger size. (The poor
living-room system only occupies 2000 square feet.) So, the
cost of the new and expanded rooms probably add up to enough
to easily get into the big-bucks league if we value them at
$100+ a square foot. Yep, Dave, the room is a very big part
of the audio equation, and I spent substantially to have
them built. This is, I assume, something that you have not
done. Rather, you have had to shoehorn your hardware into an
existing room that is probably not quite optimal.

Yep, I've only spent about $3 -5 grand for all of my gear in my
different systems.. Of course, if I were to sell all of the stuff
piece by piece, the value would be quite a bit higher (and some of the
stuff I didn't pay a penny for, as they were given to me, like my EAD
high-end CD transport and Theta ProGen3 DAC).

Which, I should point out, will not subjectively sound one
bit better than a $100 DVD player available at Best Buy.
Actually, given that when connecting a player and transport
together the clock rates might not match up precisely, it is
likely that the $100 unit sounds better - slightly.

Of course, I have a pair
of solid-state monoblocks that you would just die for (and I'm not
even using them right now).

Not me, Dave. Up to their clipping levels they will be no
better subjectively than a good, $600 receiver. Even a $300
job will probably give them a run for the money. And those
receivers will throw in a preamp, surround processor, tuner,
and extra channels for free.

This may be depressing news for you, but audio buffs on a
budget who do not get expensive gifts should celebrate.

That's a cool 250 wpc $2899 retail just
sitting in the side room collecting dust at the moment. How you'd LOVE
to have them driving your surround channels, eh Howard?

Not a chance, Dave, or even my main channels. I have
compared too many monoblocks and big stereo amps to what I
have in the way of integrated amps and receivers to consider
those super amps as big deals.

And I paid $125 for my MP3-capable DVD Panasonic player. That just
makes you CRAZY, doesn't it Howard, especially since it's very close
to the model that you once talked about owning.

Hey, Dave, I just paid $70 for a JVC player that works just
fine in my living-room system. I am even writing a review of
the device for The Sensible Sound. I also recently
auditioned a $450 Yamaha player that will also have a review
in the mag. As for big-deal players, the $1800 job I have in
my main system (also reviewed a while back) does have a
marginally better picture than the companion $300 unit in
there or the $1200 LD/DVD player (reviewed a while back,
too) also in there, or the $300 unit in my middle system,
but the sound from all three (DD and DTS) is just about the
same across the board.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil a écrit :
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:34:44 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


Not to mention the rustic Klipsch Cornwall speakers.

As elegant as Dave "Redneck" Weil's music !

:-D


It's so cute when the ****heads talk amongst themselves.

:-D

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:49:37 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Anyway, happy truck driving, Dave.

At least i don't drive a rolling coffin like you do, Hward.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

You've spent about 10 times what I have spent on your rigs.

Probably more like 20 times, on three complete systems,
actually.

Oh, you've spent $60,000 - 100,000 on your gear?

You got me, kind of. I would say that the full, three-system
equipment packages top out at only $50,000, list. Needless
to say, I did not come close to paying that much.

Then your bragging was just bull****.

Enjoy your next colonoscopy, Howard.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

This is, I assume, something that you have not
done. Rather, you have had to shoehorn your hardware into an
existing room that is probably not quite optimal.

As you did. I remember that when you disclosed your dimensions, they
didn't have any of the accepted ratios for top-quality sound, whereas
mine came quite close to one of them. Unfortunately for you, the
limiting factor is the height of your ceiling, IIRC. To meet any of
the ratios that are considered optimal, you'd have to downsize your
room considerably. Shame that you don't have my 9 1/2 foot ceilings.

Sorry.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

As for big-deal players, the $1800 job I have in
my main system (also reviewed a while back) does have a
marginally better picture than the companion $300 unit in
there or the $1200 LD/DVD player (reviewed a while back,
too) also in there, or the $300 unit in my middle system,
but the sound from all three (DD and DTS) is just about the
same across the board.

Another free piece of bribery that you've accepted, Howard? For I
can't believe that you would even pay accommodation prices for an
$1800 DVD player.

Shame on you, Howard. You are nothing but a huckster who's pretending
to be an unbiased reviewer in order to get free stuff.

"Sensible sound" indeed. $1800 DVD players. $2400 receivers. $6000
TVs. $6000 speakers. Probably paid $4000 for the lot. Yeah, THAT'S
sensible, all right.

dave weil said:

equipment packages top out at only $50,000, list. Needless
to say, I did not come close to paying that much.

Then your bragging was just bull****.

Did you notice Ferstler's first reaction when you reminded him I have a
Lexicon preamp? He accused me of lying just so I could brag about it.

Enjoy your next colonoscopy, Howard.

As Krooger would say, Ferstler doesn't have a colon.

George M. Middius wrote:



dave weil said:

equipment packages top out at only $50,000, list. Needless
to say, I did not come close to paying that much.

Then your bragging was just bull****.

Did you notice Ferstler's first reaction when you reminded him I have a
Lexicon preamp? He accused me of lying just so I could brag about it.

Enjoy your next colonoscopy, Howard.

As Krooger would say, Ferstler doesn't have a colon.

No he would say that years ago you had an anus.

:-D




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

In article

,
Lionel_Chapuis wrote:

No he would say that years ago you had an anus.

:-D

That one's a lot funnier in Italian.

Stephen

MINe 109 a écrit :
In article


,

Lionel_Chapuis wrote:


No he would say that years ago you had an anus.

:-D


That one's a lot funnier in Italian.

Yes ?
Note that life is very cruel with George.

In article ,
Lionel wrote:

MINe 109 a écrit :
In article


,

Lionel_Chapuis wrote:


No he would say that years ago you had an anus.

:-D


That one's a lot funnier in Italian.

Yes ?

Gli anni, un ano. Most opera students can't tell years from rears.

Note that life is very cruel with George.

It's cruel to be kind.

Stephen

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:05:26 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:05 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

You've spent about 10 times what I have spent on your rigs.

Probably more like 20 times, on three complete systems,
actually.

Oh, you've spent $60,000 - 100,000 on your gear?

You got me, kind of. I would say that the full, three-system
equipment packages top out at only $50,000, list. Needless
to say, I did not come close to paying that much.

Then your bragging was just bull****.

Remember what I said about adding one room and expanding
another. Because the room is part of the system (more
influential than any high-end amps, super wires, or super CD
players and transports, Dave), I factor in those costs
whenever I calculate what I actually spent on my systems.

How much did you spend on your audio room(s), Dave?

Howard Ferstler

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Did you notice Ferstler's first reaction when you reminded him I have a
Lexicon preamp? He accused me of lying just so I could brag about it.

Well, which Lexicon preamp do you have? When I mentioned the
DC-1 you indicated that I did not know what I was talking
about. However, as I recall, when you supposedly obtained
that unit the only new model the company had was the DC-1.
My guess is that you did not realize that the DC-1 was the
model name of a Lexicon preamp/processor.

Consequently, I still think you are bull****ting about what
you own.

Howard Ferstler

MINe 109 said:

Note that life is very cruel with George.

It's cruel to be kind.

Slut is probably a bottom who eschews lube.