dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:26:45 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

And yours will have more impact if you think about what is
going on when you attend your programs. Dave, your problem
is that you think that mere attendance is a substitute for
rationally evaluating just what is happening during those
concerts

This is just not true. I don't go to a concert in a vacuum. and no,
I'm not claiming that I'm evaluating the sound every second.

I certainly hope not.

and apply what you have learned when listening to
your audio rig.

Just what is it that I'm supposed to "apply"? The only thing that
matters to me is how my rig sounds based on my years of empirical
experience, both live and hearing different hi-fis in different
settings.. You just have theoretical thought experiments, and frankly,
Howard, while Einstein can get away with such things, you're no
Einstein.

Dave, in the past you have lauded the performance of upscale
wires and upscale amps, in comparison to more mundane
versions. This tells me that your listening skills (at home
or at live concerts) need work.

That you:

1) Distrust surround sound (including a center channel) as a
way to better simulate live-music environments better than
two channels

Considering that I have such a system sort of belies that fact. I
would take issue with the word "distrust". I don't see it as an
either/or issue as you do.

I think that some time back you mentioned that your new
receiver had DPL II abilities and that the processing did
not do much for you at all. I have worked with DPL II with
several receivers and processors, and I think your are
mistaken. However, the one you had, if I remember correctly,
did not offer up the adjustment options that the ones I have
worked with feature. This tells me that you based your
observations on limited data.

While I am pretty much of a hard head when it comes to
upscale amps and wires, I am pretty serious when it comes to
surround processors and even speakers. It can pay off to
invest a tad more than budget amounts with such devices,
particularly surround processors that are going to be used
to synthesize surround ambiance from two-channel recordings.

and

2) Think that exotic and expensive wires and amps have the
ability to make a subjective difference, compared to cheaper
versions

Since you have much more expensive amps than I do, I'd say that it's
YOU who feels this way. My surround sound amp cost me $600. And yet it
supposedly sounds as good as your $2500 unit. Who's the rube now?

Actually, with straightforward two-channel material your amp
and wire combination probably sounds as good as what I have.
Congratulations. However, when it comes to synthesizing
surround ambiance from two-channel source material I think
you will find that paying a few bucks over the minimum will
pay off.

Note that while one of my processor-amps listed for $2,500,
the one in my main system (actually it is a receiver) listed
for $2,800, and that one is also hooked up to a 250 wpc amp
for the main channels. The receiver's main amps biamp a
home-built speaker (with Allison drivers and crossover). The
processor/amp in my living room system listed for only
$2,000, by the way.

Since you also use Allison speakers (I have even auditioned
and measured the versions you have), you are also probably
getting the kind of sound I prefer, even though the units I
have are considerably larger than yours and are assisted by
a big subwoofer working in the deep-bass range. The center
speaker also has its own subwoofer, by the way.

Dave, I cannot figure you out. You are obviously a mental
cut above most of the goofballs who post here.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:01:01 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

I've ALREADY ELABORATED several times, as has Stephen. We've gone into
quite a bit of detail as well. He got the reply that he deserved.

In error though though it was. Your opinions on what does
and does not matter with various musical genera when it
comes to recorded sound will carry a lot more punch once you
have published a book or two on the subject and/or
corresponded with a few recording engineers and profiled
them in an encyclopedia.

And yours will carry more weight when you actually ATTEND some of the
performances that you are writing about.

Not to mention if he actually writes what is published under his name,
and if he actually performed the tests he says he has performed, and
if the published results are actually the real results, and if he
actually performs a statistical analysis that does not contain errors.

If you bothered to read my columns and reviews (both
hardware and software), as well as my books and encyclopedia
editing and writing work, you would realize that it would be
pretty difficult to merely dream up fabricated data.

You are cordially invited to analyze my writings and come up
with enough proof backing up your theories to have some
impact.

Howard Ferstler

Howard "The Scientist Monk" Ferstler said:

Dave, in the past you have lauded the performance of upscale
wires and upscale amps, in comparison to more mundane
versions. This tells me that your listening skills (at home
or at live concerts) need work.

Your brain has turned to mush. Or maybe it's always been mush. When you
washed out of grad school, are you sure it wasn't because you were unable
to pass a single science course?

Brother Howard the Bothersome said:

If you bothered to read my columns and reviews (both
hardware and software), as well as my books and encyclopedia
editing and writing work

At last, I can laud your writing skill. You got the verb exactly right.

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

That's a big problem. No wonder I don't feel the need to add rear
channels.

You need to read up on the subject a bit more. They are not
"rear" channels. Why is it that all of you two-channel guys
continue to call the surround channels "rear" channels?

Because they're in the back and the ones in front are called "front"
channels?

You are more out of touch than I thought. No serious
recording engineer or surround-system designer would require
the surround speakers to be located in the "back" of the
room. Some early Japanese manufacturers often referred to
"rear" channels in their operator's manuals, but few do that
sort of things these days. There is a ton of published
material about locating surround speakers, and nobody wants
them at the back of the room.

Well, there is one exception. While the standard left and
right "surround" speakers are best placed to the sides (or a
tad behind directly to the sides), we do now have a sixth,
"back-surround" channel available with some DD and DTS
sources. The back-surround speaker should most certainly be
at the rear of the room. That is where I have both of mine
located in the 8.1 system in my main room.

Sure, in contrast to classical recordings that record the
ensemble and the hall acoustics as a blend. (And surround
recordings that put a great deal of the recorded hall
ambiance into the surround channels.) You obviously miss the
whole point of what I am driving at. No wonder. You are
trying to justify an expenditure for a very nice audio
system by proving to yourself that the outlay was worthwhile
when listening to rock recordings. Because you also listen
to classical materials, I will cut you some slack and say
that any upscale expenditures you may have made will be
justified.

Plenty of orchestra recordings are close-miked, too.

Sure. And many of them sound terrible. I discuss both
mainstream and purist microphone techniques in my third book
(a book of recording reviews): The Digital Audio Music List,
published by A-R Editions back in 1999. The whole first part
of the book deals with recording techniques, how different
kinds of speakers interact with different
microphone-positioning and recording techniques,
audio-system set up procedures for the best sound
reproduction, and the criteria I used when evaluating the
recordings.

There's nothing you
can say about rock recordings that can't be said about classical.

Some classical. However, most classical engineers are trying
to simulate a live concert-hall event (particularly with
surround-sound releases), whereas rock engineers are trying
to create a recording that is an end in itself (particularly
with surround-sound releases).

It sounds different, but not necessarily worse. Since rock
music is mostly electronic and may have all sorts of
distortions dialed in by the engineer or performers, having
an audio system that reproduces such distortions accurately
is borderline silly. Heck, a lousy audio system might even
make such recordings sound better! However, on an objective
level who could tell?

I can, as much as you can for any other kind of recording.

You think you can. With some instrumentation this may work.
However, when it comes to consistent soundstaging, imaging,
focus, and depth, rock recordings are lousy reference
standards. Yes, some classical recordings (particularly
those given a heavy handed treatment with multi-microphone
techniques) are not much better. However, some are superb,
and that superiority really shows up on really fine systems
set up in really fine listening rooms.

I review many such recordings in both of my recording-review
books (the one noted above, plus High Definition Compact
Disc Recordings, published by McFarland in 1994), and also
review more contemporary versions in my The Sensible Sound
"Scoping Software" columns. Upcoming issues will deal
heavily with DVD-A and SACD releases.

Heck, many rock recording engineers are embracing DVD-A and
SACD, not because those technologies will allow them to
reproduce a live-music event, but because they allow the
engineer to use all five channels to create a recording that
is an end in itself, with instruments and performers spread
out all around the listener. It will not duplicate any kind
of live performance.

Same for classical.

Just how many classical surround recordings have you
auditioned that follow this procedure? While I have reviewed
some releases that spread instruments around (some Aix
releases have alternate tracks with this option, and Delos
experimented a bit with the arrangement with some of their
early DD symphonic-music experimental releases), the vast
bulk use the surround channels strictly for hall reverb.

However, we also have to work on our
definition of high end. I see high end as maximum
performance for a reasonable (meaning not tiny, but not
huge, either) cash outlay, with no money wasted on overkill
or fantasy-driven components.

Like my $400 list integrated amp? Gotcha beat on that one.

Be happy to know that it probably sounds as good as the
$2,000, $2,500, and $2,800 integrated amps and receiver in
my three AV systems (even with a 250 wpc power amp being
integrated into the package with my main system), at least
with the two up-front channels.

Probably better, considering my speakers.

I am sure that they are very fine speakers, and that they
are set up in a room that does them full justice.

I do wonder if they can quite duplicate the quality of the
Allison IC-20 units in my main system (list price was $5,200
back in 1990) or the Dunlavy Cantatas in my middle system
(list price was $5,500 when Dunlavy went out of business a
few years back), or the NHT ST4 systems in my living-room
system (cheap, at $1,000 a pair). Room-response curves for
all three can be found in issues 94 and 95 of The Sensible
Sound, by the way. I wonder what the curves for your
speakers (whatever they might be) would look like.

I say this about "two up-front channels," because, from what
you have said in the past you still do not have a
surround-sound system. If surround is dialed into the
equation then you are utterly outclassed by me and anyone
who has a reasonably decent surround receiver hooked up to
good speakers and with the combination located in a good
room. Actually, if we are only talking about two channels,
your integrated amp probably sounds as good as any of the
preamp/power-amp combinations I have reviewed, too.

Utterly outclassed? I doubt it. My speakers are well-regarded and built
on sound design principles. Violins always sound like violins, unlike
your surround speakers' performance.

You obviously miss the point of what surround speakers are
supposed to do.

Enjoy your "stereo," technologically dated though it must
be.

PS: Regarding what you mentioned previously about my cutting
text without indicating the cuts (cut by me in this reply,
incidentally). Well, yes, I often "snip" without saying that
I did it. Why? Because if I had to write the word "snip" at
each point where I deleted superfluous text I would spend
more time doing that than writing comments.

I don't cut text to make you guys look bad. You do that just
fine all by yourselves.

Howard Ferstler

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Any time somebody talks about the sound of wires or sound of
amps and also claims musical expertise, I realize that I am
dealing with someone who has failed to put their live-music
experiences to good audio-system evaluation use.

This applies to both you and Weil.

That's odd: I don't talk about wires and amps much at all, and usually
only after you bring them up.

Of course, you don't admit to any musical expertise.

Perhaps we should get your take on the "sound" of wires and
amps. That way, we can start all over again, fresh.

Frankly, if you are not a believer in tweako audio (as it
applies to amps and wires and perhaps CD players), why on
earth are you bothering to debate me?

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:32:27 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:


This applies to both you and Weil.

That's MR. Weil to you, Howard.

My apologies, Mr. Weil.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Any time somebody talks about the sound of wires or sound of
amps and also claims musical expertise, I realize that I am
dealing with someone who has failed to put their live-music
experiences to good audio-system evaluation use.

This applies to both you and Weil.

That's odd: I don't talk about wires and amps much at all, and
usually only after you bring them up.

Of course, you don't admit to any musical expertise.

Perhaps we should get your take on the "sound" of wires and
amps. That way, we can start all over again, fresh.

Frankly, if you are not a believer in tweako audio (as it
applies to amps and wires and perhaps CD players), why on
earth are you bothering to debate me?

Lack of what many of us know as "a life".

Arny Krueger wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

As a teacher, I may have made more money for my musical opinions than
Howard has for his.

That's the ultimate measure in Stephen's life - money.

Some of these guys regularly ask just how much money I made
from my book publishing or from my magazine work, as if that
is a criteria for accurate opinions. It is an elaboration of
the classic: "If you are so smart, why ain't you rich?"

Interestingly, we never get any accurate information about
what THEY make. Well, some of these juveniles do come up
with some interesting "I make tons of money fabrications,"
of course.

Actually, I continue to wonder just what this guy's take is
on topics relating to the "sound" of amps, wires, CD
players, etc. If people like him who post here believe in
such claptrap, then they are tweakos who need to be
rebutted. If they do not believe in such claptrap then they
are basically just being silly pests who argue for the sake
of arguing.

Howard Ferstler

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:10:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:26:45 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

And yours will have more impact if you think about what is
going on when you attend your programs. Dave, your problem
is that you think that mere attendance is a substitute for
rationally evaluating just what is happening during those
concerts

This is just not true. I don't go to a concert in a vacuum. and no,
I'm not claiming that I'm evaluating the sound every second.

I certainly hope not.

and apply what you have learned when listening to
your audio rig.

Just what is it that I'm supposed to "apply"? The only thing that
matters to me is how my rig sounds based on my years of empirical
experience, both live and hearing different hi-fis in different
settings.. You just have theoretical thought experiments, and frankly,
Howard, while Einstein can get away with such things, you're no
Einstein.

Dave, in the past you have lauded the performance of upscale
wires and upscale amps, in comparison to more mundane
versions.

I don't think that I've gone overboard in my praise of such things.
Yes, I thought that a certain $40 set of speaker wires made a
difference in the sound of my system, and I've talked about owning the
Mesa Baron for a short time and was suitable impressed. But I think
YOU'VE been far more effusive in your praise of expensive receivers
than I have been.

This tells me that your listening skills (at home
or at live concerts) need work.

I think that EVERYONE'S listening skills can be improved, even yours.
You know what it takes? Actual listening. something that you don't do
with live music, and I suspect that a lot of your listening is divided
between listening a scribbling notes.

That you:

1) Distrust surround sound (including a center channel) as a
way to better simulate live-music environments better than
two channels

Considering that I have such a system sort of belies that fact. I
would take issue with the word "distrust". I don't see it as an
either/or issue as you do.

I think that some time back you mentioned that your new
receiver had DPL II abilities and that the processing did
not do much for you at all. I have worked with DPL II with
several receivers and processors, and I think your are
mistaken.

Mistaken that the processing didn't do that much for me? You're just
flatly wrong about that.

However, the one you had, if I remember correctly,
did not offer up the adjustment options that the ones I have
worked with feature. This tells me that you based your
observations on limited data.

Supposedly it's all the same, right? Or are you saying that not all
$700 "adequately designed" mid-fi surround sound receivers aren't the
same and don't sound the same? gasp!

While I am pretty much of a hard head when it comes to
upscale amps and wires, I am pretty serious when it comes to
surround processors and even speakers. It can pay off to
invest a tad more than budget amounts with such devices,
particularly surround processors that are going to be used
to synthesize surround ambiance from two-channel recordings.

So, you get to pick and choose what you think is important. Amazing
how it falls in line with items that you have either bought or have
been given or have bought at accomodation prices.

and

2) Think that exotic and expensive wires and amps have the
ability to make a subjective difference, compared to cheaper
versions

Since you have much more expensive amps than I do, I'd say that it's
YOU who feels this way. My surround sound amp cost me $600. And yet it
supposedly sounds as good as your $2500 unit. Who's the rube now?

Actually, with straightforward two-channel material your amp
and wire combination probably sounds as good as what I have.
Congratulations. However, when it comes to synthesizing
surround ambiance from two-channel source material I think
you will find that paying a few bucks over the minimum will
pay off.

So, now you're recommending sexotic (a typo but I like it so it's
staying) and expensive amps, especially considering that yours cost
the same as 4 of mine.

Note that while one of my processor-amps listed for $2,500,
the one in my main system (actually it is a receiver) listed
for $2,800, and that one is also hooked up to a 250 wpc amp
for the main channels. The receiver's main amps biamp a
home-built speaker (with Allison drivers and crossover). The
processor/amp in my living room system listed for only
$2,000, by the way.

All expensive and exotic...

Since you also use Allison speakers (I have even auditioned
and measured the versions you have), you are also probably
getting the kind of sound I prefer, even though the units I
have are considerably larger than yours and are assisted by
a big subwoofer working in the deep-bass range. The center
speaker also has its own subwoofer, by the way.

Actually, my Merlins, which need new diaphragms offer a much better
presentation and a nicer audio balance. Very "transparent".

Dave, I cannot figure you out.

That much is clear. But you know what? I post what I think. I don't
think that I play a lot of mental hijinks like you do.

You are obviously a mental cut above most of the goofballs who post here.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm just an ordinary guy who likes music.
Perhaps my difference is that I don't have an serious audio axes to
grind as you do, except when it comes to axe-grinding. THAT makes me
crazy.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message


Interestingly, we never get any accurate information about
what THEY make. Well, some of these juveniles do come up
with some interesting "I make tons of money fabrications,"
of course.

Ironically, some of the people who push that viewpoint aren't exactly
rolling in the green themselves. Take Middius for example.

Brother Horace the Single-Minded said:

Frankly, if you are not a believer in tweako audio (as it
applies to amps and wires and perhaps CD players), why on
earth are you bothering to debate me?

Your religious rigmarole gets more and more arcane every week.

Brother Horace the Ignored said:

Some of these guys regularly ask just how much money I made
from my book publishing or from my magazine work, as if that
is a criteria for accurate opinions.

snicker

The Big **** quivers in dread.

Take Middius for example.

You best be scared, 'borg. I'm gonna get you, and then you'll be wishing
you took the easy way out.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

The Big **** quivers in dread.

Take Middius for example.

You best be scared, 'borg. I'm gonna get you, and then you'll be
wishing you took the easy way out.

Exactly what do you mean by that, Middius?

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Any time somebody talks about the sound of wires or sound of
amps and also claims musical expertise, I realize that I am
dealing with someone who has failed to put their live-music
experiences to good audio-system evaluation use.

This applies to both you and Weil.

That's odd: I don't talk about wires and amps much at all, and usually
only after you bring them up.

Of course, you don't admit to any musical expertise.

Perhaps we should get your take on the "sound" of wires and
amps. That way, we can start all over again, fresh.

I don't want to debate amps and wires.

Frankly, if you are not a believer in tweako audio (as it
applies to amps and wires and perhaps CD players), why on
earth are you bothering to debate me?

In this case, your philosophically indefensible dismissal of rock music
recordings as valid audio references.

Stephen

Quiverborg quavered:

The Big **** quivers in dread.

Take Middius for example.

You best be scared, 'borg. I'm gonna get you, and then you'll be
wishing you took the easy way out.

Exactly what do you mean by that, Middius?

Use your imagination. Or throw yourself in front of a bus.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:11:29 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Brother Horace the Ignored said:

Some of these guys regularly ask just how much money I made
from my book publishing or from my magazine work, as if that
is a criteria for accurate opinions.

snicker

Yes, he needs to learn to write...

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Any time somebody talks about the sound of wires or sound of
amps and also claims musical expertise, I realize that I am
dealing with someone who has failed to put their live-music
experiences to good audio-system evaluation use.

This applies to both you and Weil.

That's odd: I don't talk about wires and amps much at all, and
usually only after you bring them up.

Of course, you don't admit to any musical expertise.

Perhaps we should get your take on the "sound" of wires and
amps. That way, we can start all over again, fresh.

Frankly, if you are not a believer in tweako audio (as it
applies to amps and wires and perhaps CD players), why on
earth are you bothering to debate me?

Lack of what many of us know as "a life".

Yeah. At least I am here for good-old American-style
motivations involving the need to gain power and prestige. I
post in order to get people interested in reading my
published materials, which may lead to still greater
glories.

Why some of these other guys are here continuously all day
long, every day, is possibly a mystery, but you probably
have hit the nail on the head regarding some of them. A few
of the rest are probably tweak-journalism sockpuppets doing
what they can to protect their turf. As for the small
remainder, well, who knows? Maybe they are
institutionalized.

Howard Ferstler

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

That's a big problem. No wonder I don't feel the need to add rear
channels.

You need to read up on the subject a bit more. They are not
"rear" channels. Why is it that all of you two-channel guys
continue to call the surround channels "rear" channels?

Because they're in the back and the ones in front are called "front"
channels?

You are more out of touch than I thought. No serious
recording engineer or surround-system designer would require
the surround speakers to be located in the "back" of the
room. Some early Japanese manufacturers often referred to
"rear" channels in their operator's manuals, but few do that
sort of things these days. There is a ton of published
material about locating surround speakers, and nobody wants
them at the back of the room.

Google sez, "about 73,600" for "rear channel".

Kal's a surround guy, and he says "rear channels":

http://stereophile.com/musicintheround/854/index2.html

Well, there is one exception. While the standard left and
right "surround" speakers are best placed to the sides (or a
tad behind directly to the sides), we do now have a sixth,
"back-surround" channel available with some DD and DTS
sources. The back-surround speaker should most certainly be
at the rear of the room. That is where I have both of mine
located in the 8.1 system in my main room.

Good God, you're literal.

Sure, in contrast to classical recordings that record the
ensemble and the hall acoustics as a blend. (And surround
recordings that put a great deal of the recorded hall
ambiance into the surround channels.) You obviously miss the
whole point of what I am driving at. No wonder. You are
trying to justify an expenditure for a very nice audio
system by proving to yourself that the outlay was worthwhile
when listening to rock recordings. Because you also listen
to classical materials, I will cut you some slack and say
that any upscale expenditures you may have made will be
justified.

Plenty of orchestra recordings are close-miked, too.

Sure. And many of them sound terrible. I discuss both
mainstream and purist microphone techniques in my third book
(a book of recording reviews): The Digital Audio Music List,
published by A-R Editions back in 1999. The whole first part
of the book deals with recording techniques, how different
kinds of speakers interact with different
microphone-positioning and recording techniques,
audio-system set up procedures for the best sound
reproduction, and the criteria I used when evaluating the
recordings.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

There's nothing you
can say about rock recordings that can't be said about classical.

Some classical.

That's all it takes.

...However, most classical engineers are trying
to simulate a live concert-hall event (particularly with
surround-sound releases), whereas rock engineers are trying
to create a recording that is an end in itself (particularly
with surround-sound releases).

Nonsense. Both are ends in themselves, both might attempt to recreate an
event, both are invariant.

It sounds different, but not necessarily worse. Since rock
music is mostly electronic and may have all sorts of
distortions dialed in by the engineer or performers, having
an audio system that reproduces such distortions accurately
is borderline silly. Heck, a lousy audio system might even
make such recordings sound better! However, on an objective
level who could tell?

I can, as much as you can for any other kind of recording.

You think you can.

Well, it's true that I think I can do it better than you no matter what
kind of recording.

With some instrumentation this may work.
However, when it comes to consistent soundstaging, imaging,
focus, and depth, rock recordings are lousy reference
standards.

Los Lobos "Kiko and the Lavender Moon" is good for imaging effects. I
wonder what Bill Porter would think of your view of pop soundstaging.

Yes, some classical recordings (particularly
those given a heavy handed treatment with multi-microphone
techniques) are not much better. However, some are superb,
and that superiority really shows up on really fine systems
set up in really fine listening rooms.

Same for rock, pop, and jazz.

I review many such recordings in both of my recording-review
books (the one noted above, plus High Definition Compact
Disc Recordings, published by McFarland in 1994), and also
review more contemporary versions in my The Sensible Sound
"Scoping Software" columns. Upcoming issues will deal
heavily with DVD-A and SACD releases.

You said.

Heck, many rock recording engineers are embracing DVD-A and
SACD, not because those technologies will allow them to
reproduce a live-music event, but because they allow the
engineer to use all five channels to create a recording that
is an end in itself, with instruments and performers spread
out all around the listener. It will not duplicate any kind
of live performance.

Same for classical.

Just how many classical surround recordings have you
auditioned that follow this procedure? While I have reviewed
some releases that spread instruments around (some Aix
releases have alternate tracks with this option, and Delos
experimented a bit with the arrangement with some of their
early DD symphonic-music experimental releases), the vast
bulk use the surround channels strictly for hall reverb.

The classical titles he

http://www.aixrecords.com/

There's also Boulez' NY Phil recording of Bartok's "Concerto for
Orchestra" quad lp.

However, we also have to work on our
definition of high end. I see high end as maximum
performance for a reasonable (meaning not tiny, but not
huge, either) cash outlay, with no money wasted on overkill
or fantasy-driven components.

Like my $400 list integrated amp? Gotcha beat on that one.

Be happy to know that it probably sounds as good as the
$2,000, $2,500, and $2,800 integrated amps and receiver in
my three AV systems (even with a 250 wpc power amp being
integrated into the package with my main system), at least
with the two up-front channels.

Probably better, considering my speakers.

I am sure that they are very fine speakers, and that they
are set up in a room that does them full justice.

I do wonder if they can quite duplicate the quality of the
Allison IC-20 units in my main system (list price was $5,200
back in 1990) or the Dunlavy Cantatas in my middle system
(list price was $5,500 when Dunlavy went out of business a
few years back), or the NHT ST4 systems in my living-room
system (cheap, at $1,000 a pair).

Yes, except for bass.

Room-response curves for
all three can be found in issues 94 and 95 of The Sensible
Sound, by the way. I wonder what the curves for your
speakers (whatever they might be) would look like.

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...asurements.htm

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...l_review_2.htm

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...6/index11.html

I say this about "two up-front channels," because, from what
you have said in the past you still do not have a
surround-sound system. If surround is dialed into the
equation then you are utterly outclassed by me and anyone
who has a reasonably decent surround receiver hooked up to
good speakers and with the combination located in a good
room. Actually, if we are only talking about two channels,
your integrated amp probably sounds as good as any of the
preamp/power-amp combinations I have reviewed, too.

Utterly outclassed? I doubt it. My speakers are well-regarded and built
on sound design principles. Violins always sound like violins, unlike
your surround speakers' performance.

You obviously miss the point of what surround speakers are
supposed to do.

If they can't reproduce a realistic instrument timbre when they need to,
I don't care what else they can do.

Enjoy your "stereo," technologically dated though it must
be.

Enjoy your out-of-date music.

PS: Regarding what you mentioned previously about my cutting
text without indicating the cuts (cut by me in this reply,
incidentally). Well, yes, I often "snip" without saying that
I did it. Why? Because if I had to write the word "snip" at
each point where I deleted superfluous text I would spend
more time doing that than writing comments.

Take the time.

I don't cut text to make you guys look bad. You do that just
fine all by yourselves.

But you do cut text when you think you look bad.

Stephen

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:10:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Dave, in the past you have lauded the performance of upscale
wires and upscale amps, in comparison to more mundane
versions.

I don't think that I've gone overboard in my praise of such things.
Yes, I thought that a certain $40 set of speaker wires made a
difference in the sound of my system, and I've talked about owning the
Mesa Baron for a short time and was suitable impressed.

Well, I rest my case with that issue. So much for your
opinion when it comes to comparing live music to home
playback.

But I think
YOU'VE been far more effusive in your praise of expensive receivers
than I have been.

I certainly hope so. Yes, while upscale receivers do not
have an edge over cheaper versions when it comes to amp
performance, or even digital decoding with DD and DTS source
materials, they often have a substantial edge when it comes
to the ability to do decent DSP ambiance simulation with
two-channel sources. They also usually have more flexible
set-up procedures with such things a channel balance,
equalization, and subwoofer integration.

This tells me that your listening skills (at home
or at live concerts) need work.

I think that EVERYONE'S listening skills can be improved, even yours.

I'm working on it. But I am pretty near perfection at this
time, and so gaining ground is no easy task.

You know what it takes? Actual listening. something that you don't do
with live music, and I suspect that a lot of your listening is divided
between listening a scribbling notes.

Good point. Whenever I review components or recordings I am
sitting there on the couch with clip-board, paper, and pen
in hand. I usually am writing furiously.

I think that some time back you mentioned that your new
receiver had DPL II abilities and that the processing did
not do much for you at all. I have worked with DPL II with
several receivers and processors, and I think your are
mistaken.

Mistaken that the processing didn't do that much for me? You're just
flatly wrong about that.

OK, but did it impress you or did it disappoint?

However, the one you had, if I remember correctly,
did not offer up the adjustment options that the ones I have
worked with feature. This tells me that you based your
observations on limited data.

Supposedly it's all the same, right?

Nope. There are quite a large number of adjustment options
with advanced DPL II playback. Less with DTS Neo:6, however.

Or are you saying that not all
$700 "adequately designed" mid-fi surround sound receivers aren't the
same and don't sound the same? gasp!

They could with their surround DSP circuits. Most of the
cheaper ones are not too good in that respect. Now, if a
receiver has DPL II decoding and that ability also includes
the optional adjustment abilities, then that receiver should
be very good, indeed, when working with two-channel sources
and converting them to simulated surround.

On the other hand, the big Yamaha units I use also have
those additional front "effects" channels, and I find that
their hall-ambiance programs go even DPL II one better with
most source materials. I believe that David Ranada, in one
of his Sound & Vision columns, praised the Yamaha approach
to simulated surround sound.

While I am pretty much of a hard head when it comes to
upscale amps and wires, I am pretty serious when it comes to
surround processors and even speakers. It can pay off to
invest a tad more than budget amounts with such devices,
particularly surround processors that are going to be used
to synthesize surround ambiance from two-channel recordings.

So, you get to pick and choose what you think is important.

I pick and choose what really is important. Exotic and
expensive amps, CD players, and wires are not important, and
even DVD players (unless we are talking about SACD and DVD-A
options) are not really important. What is important are
speakers, speaker/room interactions, and surround
processing.

Amazing
how it falls in line with items that you have either bought or have
been given or have bought at accomodation prices.

I know how to shop, Dave. I do not blow my money on junk,
and I also avoid reviewing components that offer up little
in the way of advantages. Yes, I do have an upscale amp
review in the pipeline, and to be truthful I am actually
sorry I got involved. But it is too late now. Heck, I have
even decided to review another power amp, but it will be a
budget job that is oriented towards consumers who want
separates but do not want to pay out big bucks. I also have
two DVD player reviews in the pipeline.

Since you have much more expensive amps than I do, I'd say that it's
YOU who feels this way. My surround sound amp cost me $600. And yet it
supposedly sounds as good as your $2500 unit. Who's the rube now?

Actually, with straightforward two-channel material your amp
and wire combination probably sounds as good as what I have.
Congratulations. However, when it comes to synthesizing
surround ambiance from two-channel source material I think
you will find that paying a few bucks over the minimum will
pay off.

So, now you're recommending sexotic (a typo but I like it so it's
staying) and expensive amps, especially considering that yours cost
the same as 4 of mine.

Yes. However, use the phrase "expensive amps," is
misleading. The amps are ancillary. What matters are the DSP
ambiance-simulating options found within those
processor/amps.

Note that while one of my processor-amps listed for $2,500,
the one in my main system (actually it is a receiver) listed
for $2,800, and that one is also hooked up to a 250 wpc amp
for the main channels. The receiver's main amps biamp a
home-built speaker (with Allison drivers and crossover). The
processor/amp in my living room system listed for only
$2,000, by the way.

All expensive and exotic...

Quite. However, what matters is not so much the amps, but
rather the very elaborate surround DSP circuits.

Since you also use Allison speakers (I have even auditioned
and measured the versions you have), you are also probably
getting the kind of sound I prefer, even though the units I
have are considerably larger than yours and are assisted by
a big subwoofer working in the deep-bass range. The center
speaker also has its own subwoofer, by the way.

Actually, my Merlins, which need new diaphragms offer a much better
presentation and a nicer audio balance. Very "transparent".

Well, I can kind of say the same thing about the Dunlavy
Cantatas in my middle system. They image better than the
Allisons and also offer up a bit more detail. This is
because their direct-field signals are a higher percentage
of the total soundfield being heard than what we have with
the IC-20s, which generate a very dominant reverberant
field. Any time the direct field tends to dominate (or at
least is a higher percentage of the direct- and
reverberant-field mix) you will get enhanced clarity and
possibly tighter imaging and focus.

On the other hand, in the right room, a super-wide
dispersing system like the IC-20 has it all over more
focussed and directional systems like the Cantatas when it
comes to presenting a realistic soundstage, at least with a
lot of program material.

In any case, I love listening to either pair of systems in
either room (almost always with all of the surround
embellishments also adding their two-cents worth), and
having the different-system options is a nice thing.
Remember also that I have those NHT ST4 systems in the
living room, and I spend time listening to them, too.

There are formal reviews of the Cantatas and ST4s in issues
87 and 90 of The Sensible Sound, by the way. I never have
formally reviewed those Allison models, because they were
out of production by the time I started reviewing products
in print. I do not even use the Allisons for my AB
comparison work anymore, mainly because of the difficulty of
setting up the systems being compared in such a way that the
output of the Allisons is not compromised. The Cantatas
remain my reference systems for high-end speaker comparing,
with the ST4s being references when reviewing lower-priced
speakers.

Dave, I cannot figure you out.

That much is clear. But you know what? I post what I think. I don't
think that I play a lot of mental hijinks like you do.

Dave, unlike you, I am here mainly for the power, prestige,
and glory. The higher my favorable profile (or possibly even
my unfavorable profile with the tweakos), the more people
read my books and magazine articles. This may strike you as
crass, but at least I am not here because I am obsessed with
audio and looking to justify my preconceptions.

You are obviously a mental cut above most of the goofballs who post here.

Oh, I don't know about that.

Trust me. You are.

I'm just an ordinary guy who likes music.
Perhaps my difference is that I don't have an serious audio axes to
grind as you do, except when it comes to axe-grinding. THAT makes me
crazy.

Yeah. I think your primary interest when it comes to dealing
with me here has little to do with what I am saying either
here or in my magazine articles (or books). I think you just
resent the fact that I pick on the goofballs so much.

You feel sorry for them. I don't.

Howard Ferstler

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Brother Horace the Single-Minded said:

Frankly, if you are not a believer in tweako audio (as it
applies to amps and wires and perhaps CD players), why on
earth are you bothering to debate me?

Your religious rigmarole gets more and more arcane every week.

The odd thing about you is that while many of the insecure
tweakos who post here at least go on and on about their
preconceptions, ideas, and beliefs, all you mostly do is
interject goofy comments.

Consequently, you are possibly the biggest loser of the
bunch.

Howard Ferstler

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Any time somebody talks about the sound of wires or sound of
amps and also claims musical expertise, I realize that I am
dealing with someone who has failed to put their live-music
experiences to good audio-system evaluation use.

This applies to both you and Weil.

That's odd: I don't talk about wires and amps much at all, and usually
only after you bring them up.

Of course, you don't admit to any musical expertise.

Perhaps we should get your take on the "sound" of wires and
amps. That way, we can start all over again, fresh.

I don't want to debate amps and wires.

Well, you at least have an opinion on the topics, don't you?

Frankly, if you are not a believer in tweako audio (as it
applies to amps and wires and perhaps CD players), why on
earth are you bothering to debate me?

In this case, your philosophically indefensible dismissal of rock music
recordings as valid audio references.

Hey, I think you are confusing your enjoyment of rock music
as a musical end in itself (certainly a valid reason to want
a decent audio-playback system) with the fact that the
genera are really not all that adequate as subjective,
audio-system evaluation tools. You cannot make a reference
standard out of something as nebulous as rock recordings.

You are confusing rock as music (mostly yuk, but still,
admittedly, music) with rock as an evaluation tool. Very
different.

Howard Ferstler

Brother Horace the Overly Odd said:

Your religious rigmarole gets more and more arcane every week.

The odd thing about you is that while many of the insecure
tweakos who post here at least go on and on about their
preconceptions, ideas, and beliefs, all you mostly do is
interject goofy comments.

Consequently, you are possibly the biggest loser of the
bunch.

The Ferstinata is busted! I win the month of March. Pay up, guys.

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Any time somebody talks about the sound of wires or sound of
amps and also claims musical expertise, I realize that I am
dealing with someone who has failed to put their live-music
experiences to good audio-system evaluation use.

This applies to both you and Weil.

That's odd: I don't talk about wires and amps much at all, and usually
only after you bring them up.

Of course, you don't admit to any musical expertise.

Perhaps we should get your take on the "sound" of wires and
amps. That way, we can start all over again, fresh.

I don't want to debate amps and wires.

Well, you at least have an opinion on the topics, don't you?

Yes: mine are good enough.

Frankly, if you are not a believer in tweako audio (as it
applies to amps and wires and perhaps CD players), why on
earth are you bothering to debate me?

In this case, your philosophically indefensible dismissal of rock music
recordings as valid audio references.

Hey, I think you are confusing your enjoyment of rock music
as a musical end in itself (certainly a valid reason to want
a decent audio-playback system) with the fact that the
genera are really not all that adequate as subjective,
audio-system evaluation tools. You cannot make a reference
standard out of something as nebulous as rock recordings.

Yes, you can.

You are confusing rock as music (mostly yuk, but still,
admittedly, music) with rock as an evaluation tool. Very
different.

Any problem you have with rock is true of any other genre.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

You need to read up on the subject a bit more. They are not
"rear" channels. Why is it that all of you two-channel guys
continue to call the surround channels "rear" channels?

Because they're in the back and the ones in front are called "front"
channels?

You are more out of touch than I thought. No serious
recording engineer or surround-system designer would require
the surround speakers to be located in the "back" of the
room. Some early Japanese manufacturers often referred to
"rear" channels in their operator's manuals, but few do that
sort of things these days. There is a ton of published
material about locating surround speakers, and nobody wants
them at the back of the room.

Google sez, "about 73,600" for "rear channel".

Kal's a surround guy, and he says "rear channels":

http://stereophile.com/musicintheround/854/index2.html

I don't care what these sources say, the surround channels
are not "rear" channels. If you locate your surround
speakers at the rear of the room their ability to simulate
hall ambiance goes to pot. They also will go to pot with
movie-sound material.

Given what has been written all over the place about
surround-speaker placement, I find it hard to believe that
you are so uninformed.

Well, there is one exception. While the standard left and
right "surround" speakers are best placed to the sides (or a
tad behind directly to the sides), we do now have a sixth,
"back-surround" channel available with some DD and DTS
sources. The back-surround speaker should most certainly be
at the rear of the room. That is where I have both of mine
located in the 8.1 system in my main room.

Good God, you're literal.

If you think this is bad, read what I have to say about the
topic in my AV books and in some of my magazine articles.

Sure, in contrast to classical recordings that record the
ensemble and the hall acoustics as a blend. (And surround
recordings that put a great deal of the recorded hall
ambiance into the surround channels.) You obviously miss the
whole point of what I am driving at. No wonder. You are
trying to justify an expenditure for a very nice audio
system by proving to yourself that the outlay was worthwhile
when listening to rock recordings. Because you also listen
to classical materials, I will cut you some slack and say
that any upscale expenditures you may have made will be
justified.

Plenty of orchestra recordings are close-miked, too.

Sure. And many of them sound terrible. I discuss both
mainstream and purist microphone techniques in my third book
(a book of recording reviews): The Digital Audio Music List,
published by A-R Editions back in 1999. The whole first part
of the book deals with recording techniques, how different
kinds of speakers interact with different
microphone-positioning and recording techniques,
audio-system set up procedures for the best sound
reproduction, and the criteria I used when evaluating the
recordings.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

But while some classical releases are not well recorded when
it comes to soundstaging, imaging, focus, and depth, most
are done quite well. With rock music, the situation is
reversed: some are good, but most are not.

There's nothing you
can say about rock recordings that can't be said about classical.

Some classical.

That's all it takes.

Well, one does have to pick out some good recordings. You
will find plenty to choose from if you stick with Harmonia
Mundi, Delos, Telarc, Dorian, London, Reference Recordings,
Hungaroton, Naxos, Chandos, Hyperion, Argo, Astree, BIS,
Gothic, AVS, Opus 111, and a number of others in the same
class.

...However, most classical engineers are trying
to simulate a live concert-hall event (particularly with
surround-sound releases), whereas rock engineers are trying
to create a recording that is an end in itself (particularly
with surround-sound releases).

Nonsense. Both are ends in themselves, both might attempt to recreate an
event, both are invariant.

You need to audition more recordings. While in absolute
terms all recordings are ends in themselves, it is
sophomoric to assume that classical engineers are not
working to simulate a live, concert-hall, church, or salon
experience and that rock engineers are not working to
deliver a punchy recording that has no counterpart in the
live-music world.

It sounds different, but not necessarily worse. Since rock
music is mostly electronic and may have all sorts of
distortions dialed in by the engineer or performers, having
an audio system that reproduces such distortions accurately
is borderline silly. Heck, a lousy audio system might even
make such recordings sound better! However, on an objective
level who could tell?

I can, as much as you can for any other kind of recording.

You think you can.

Well, it's true that I think I can do it better than you no matter what
kind of recording.

Obviously, it is time for you to get busy and get some
reviews into magazine print. You might even write and
publish a book of recording reviews, complete with technical
explanations and a discussion of your approach to reviewing.
I did that, and I suppose you can do so, too.

With some instrumentation this may work.
However, when it comes to consistent soundstaging, imaging,
focus, and depth, rock recordings are lousy reference
standards.

Los Lobos "Kiko and the Lavender Moon" is good for imaging effects.

"Effects" is the key word, here. This is not the same thing
as recording to present a classical-music (live-music
simulation) soundstage. God, do you listen to that stuff?
Why in hell do rock musicians feel the need to come up with
utterly goofy ensemble names? Hey, I have it! They make
recordings for kids.

I
wonder what Bill Porter would think of your view of pop soundstaging.

I have no idea. What railroad does he work for? By the way,
none of the musicologists who wrote articles for The
Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound bothered to profile that guy.

Yes, some classical recordings (particularly
those given a heavy handed treatment with multi-microphone
techniques) are not much better. However, some are superb,
and that superiority really shows up on really fine systems
set up in really fine listening rooms.

Same for rock, pop, and jazz.

Hey, now jazz is (usually) a different ball game. Some jazz
recordings are very good evaluation tools. Try some of the
stuff Delos, Mapleshade, Sheffield, Chesky, Amherst,
Reference Recordings, and DMP have done, as well as some of
the old Pablo releases.

Just how many classical surround recordings have you
auditioned that follow this procedure? While I have reviewed
some releases that spread instruments around (some Aix
releases have alternate tracks with this option, and Delos
experimented a bit with the arrangement with some of their
early DD symphonic-music experimental releases), the vast
bulk use the surround channels strictly for hall reverb.

The classical titles he

http://www.aixrecords.com/

There's also Boulez' NY Phil recording of Bartok's "Concerto for
Orchestra" quad lp.

All the quad LP recordings I heard were problematic. In any
case, I assume that you are very aware of what I said
regarding the use of the surround channels with most
classical releases.

Like my $400 list integrated amp? Gotcha beat on that one.

Be happy to know that it probably sounds as good as the
$2,000, $2,500, and $2,800 integrated amps and receiver in
my three AV systems (even with a 250 wpc power amp being
integrated into the package with my main system), at least
with the two up-front channels.

Probably better, considering my speakers.

I am sure that they are very fine speakers, and that they
are set up in a room that does them full justice.

I do wonder if they can quite duplicate the quality of the
Allison IC-20 units in my main system (list price was $5,200
back in 1990) or the Dunlavy Cantatas in my middle system
(list price was $5,500 when Dunlavy went out of business a
few years back), or the NHT ST4 systems in my living-room
system (cheap, at $1,000 a pair).

Yes, except for bass.

Room-response curves for
all three can be found in issues 94 and 95 of The Sensible
Sound, by the way. I wonder what the curves for your
speakers (whatever they might be) would look like.

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...asurements.htm

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...l_review_2.htm

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...6/index11.html

Highly regarded speakers. I'd love to review a set.
Interesting that you drive such expensive items with a $400
receiver. I do not find that to be all that big a deal, but
usually somebody who invests big bucks in speakers will also
invest big bucks in amps, or at least medium-sized bucks.
Given that these speakers are electrostatic jobs, one would
think that a rather stable, upscale amp would be a good
idea, actually.

Note that even the best stereo pair of speakers in the world
are still not going to be able to simulate a live-music
soundfield as well as what we would get with five (plus
subwoofer) good channels.

Incidentally, I noticed that most of the measurements
involved getting within a meter (or maybe two) of the
speaker. Do you listen from that close up? If so, those
measurements might mean something. If not, they probably do
not mean all that much.

Utterly outclassed? I doubt it. My speakers are well-regarded and built
on sound design principles. Violins always sound like violins, unlike
your surround speakers' performance.

You obviously miss the point of what surround speakers are
supposed to do.

If they can't reproduce a realistic instrument timbre when they need to,
I don't care what else they can do.

Trust me. They do just fine with realistic instrument
timbre.

Enjoy your "stereo," technologically dated though it must
be.

Enjoy your out-of-date music.

It is unfortunate that you have invested so much in
speakers, only to use them to listen to music that is wildly
electronically processed and devoid of live-music realism.

Howard Ferstler

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Brother Horace the Overly Odd said:

Your religious rigmarole gets more and more arcane every week.

The odd thing about you is that while many of the insecure
tweakos who post here at least go on and on about their
preconceptions, ideas, and beliefs, all you mostly do is
interject goofy comments.

Consequently, you are possibly the biggest loser of the
bunch.

The Ferstinata is busted! I win the month of March. Pay up, guys.

You just finished him, and that ain't candy...

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I don't want to debate amps and wires.

Well, you at least have an opinion on the topics, don't you?

Yes: mine are good enough.

Obviously, you are not about to stick your neck out and have
some of the members of this community work you over.
Whatever we may think of you, we certainly cannot consider
you to be a risk taker.

Frankly, if you are not a believer in tweako audio (as it
applies to amps and wires and perhaps CD players), why on
earth are you bothering to debate me?

In this case, your philosophically indefensible dismissal of rock music
recordings as valid audio references.

Hey, I think you are confusing your enjoyment of rock music
as a musical end in itself (certainly a valid reason to want
a decent audio-playback system) with the fact that the
genera are really not all that adequate as subjective,
audio-system evaluation tools. You cannot make a reference
standard out of something as nebulous as rock recordings.

Yes, you can.

As I said elsewhere, you are confusing your love of rock
music (as an end in itself, heh, heh) with the inability of
that musical style to serve as a live-music reference
standard.

You are confusing rock as music (mostly yuk, but still,
admittedly, music) with rock as an evaluation tool. Very
different.

Any problem you have with rock is true of any other genre.

You confuse your love of the music with its inability to
serve as a live-music reference standard when evaluating
audio equipment.

It must be tough being a rock-music enthusiast when an
upscale set of speakers. You have to rationalize you owning
them.

Howard Ferstler

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

I don't want to debate amps and wires.

Well, you at least have an opinion on the topics, don't you?

Yes: mine are good enough.

Obviously, you are not about to stick your neck out and have
some of the members of this community work you over.
Whatever we may think of you, we certainly cannot consider
you to be a risk taker.

Compliment accepted.

Frankly, if you are not a believer in tweako audio (as it
applies to amps and wires and perhaps CD players), why on
earth are you bothering to debate me?

In this case, your philosophically indefensible dismissal of rock music
recordings as valid audio references.

Hey, I think you are confusing your enjoyment of rock music
as a musical end in itself (certainly a valid reason to want
a decent audio-playback system) with the fact that the
genera are really not all that adequate as subjective,
audio-system evaluation tools. You cannot make a reference
standard out of something as nebulous as rock recordings.

Yes, you can.

As I said elsewhere, you are confusing your love of rock
music (as an end in itself, heh, heh) with the inability of
that musical style to serve as a live-music reference
standard.

No, I'm not.

You are confusing rock as music (mostly yuk, but still,
admittedly, music) with rock as an evaluation tool. Very
different.

Any problem you have with rock is true of any other genre.

You confuse your love of the music with its inability to
serve as a live-music reference standard when evaluating
audio equipment.

I know you like to repeat yourself, but in the same post?

BTW, you haven't addressed the weaknesses in your position.

It must be tough being a rock-music enthusiast when an
upscale set of speakers. You have to rationalize you owning
them.

No, I don't.

Stephen

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:35:23 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:10:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Dave, in the past you have lauded the performance of upscale
wires and upscale amps, in comparison to more mundane
versions.

I don't think that I've gone overboard in my praise of such things.
Yes, I thought that a certain $40 set of speaker wires made a
difference in the sound of my system, and I've talked about owning the
Mesa Baron for a short time and was suitable impressed.

Well, I rest my case with that issue. So much for your
opinion when it comes to comparing live music to home
playback.

So, you have an opinion of the Mesa Baron based on actual contact with
it?

But I think
YOU'VE been far more effusive in your praise of expensive receivers
than I have been.

I certainly hope so. Yes, while upscale receivers do not
have an edge over cheaper versions when it comes to amp
performance, or even digital decoding with DD and DTS source
materials, they often have a substantial edge when it comes
to the ability to do decent DSP ambiance simulation with
two-channel sources. They also usually have more flexible
set-up procedures with such things a channel balance,
equalization, and subwoofer integration.

As far as I know, my Denon offers all of the above, and as flexible as
your Yamaha gear.

This tells me that your listening skills (at home
or at live concerts) need work.

I think that EVERYONE'S listening skills can be improved, even yours.

I'm working on it. But I am pretty near perfection at this
time, and so gaining ground is no easy task.

Well, I rest my case, if you claim that you are "pretty near
perfection" in your listening skills.

You know what it takes? Actual listening. something that you don't do
with live music, and I suspect that a lot of your listening is divided
between listening a scribbling notes.

Good point. Whenever I review components or recordings I am
sitting there on the couch with clip-board, paper, and pen
in hand. I usually am writing furiously.

And therefore, you are distracted, more so than I am when I'm
attending a concert.

I think that some time back you mentioned that your new
receiver had DPL II abilities and that the processing did
not do much for you at all. I have worked with DPL II with
several receivers and processors, and I think your are
mistaken.

Mistaken that the processing didn't do that much for me? You're just
flatly wrong about that.

OK, but did it impress you or did it disappoint?

I believe that I said that it didn't do a lot for me. I don't see how
I can be mistaken about my own opinion.

However, the one you had, if I remember correctly,
did not offer up the adjustment options that the ones I have
worked with feature. This tells me that you based your
observations on limited data.

Supposedly it's all the same, right?

Nope. There are quite a large number of adjustment options
with advanced DPL II playback. Less with DTS Neo:6, however.

There are *always* "advancements". Next year, your stuff will be
outmoded, perhaps it's even outmoded now.

Or are you saying that not all
$700 "adequately designed" mid-fi surround sound receivers aren't the
same and don't sound the same? gasp!

They could with their surround DSP circuits.

Learn to write.

But, if I understand you, you only advocate buying the newest model
and upgrading every year. That's great advice for the average
Joe-sixpack. And apparently, you have to spend over $2000 to get a
decent surround sound receiver. Boy, my $400 40 year old Fisher tube
amp is looking better and better.

Most of the
cheaper ones are not too good in that respect.

So a receiver with a street price of $650 would qualify as "not too
good", right?

Now, if a
receiver has DPL II decoding and that ability also includes
the optional adjustment abilities, then that receiver should
be very good, indeed, when working with two-channel sources
and converting them to simulated surround.

Sounds like you're describing my amp to a tee.

On the other hand, the big Yamaha units I use also have
those additional front "effects" channels, and I find that
their hall-ambiance programs go even DPL II one better with
most source materials. I believe that David Ranada, in one
of his Sound & Vision columns, praised the Yamaha approach
to simulated surround sound.

So, once again, one must spend megabucks to achieve a Ferstler
approved audio presentation.

While I am pretty much of a hard head when it comes to
upscale amps and wires, I am pretty serious when it comes to
surround processors and even speakers. It can pay off to
invest a tad more than budget amounts with such devices,
particularly surround processors that are going to be used
to synthesize surround ambiance from two-channel recordings.

So, you get to pick and choose what you think is important.

I pick and choose what really is important. Exotic and
expensive amps, CD players, and wires are not important, and
even DVD players (unless we are talking about SACD and DVD-A
options) are not really important. What is important are
speakers, speaker/room interactions, and surround
processing.

And that's fine. Just don't assume that this is portable to everyone.

Amazing
how it falls in line with items that you have either bought or have
been given or have bought at accomodation prices.

I know how to shop, Dave. I do not blow my money on junk,
and I also avoid reviewing components that offer up little
in the way of advantages. Yes, I do have an upscale amp
review in the pipeline, and to be truthful I am actually
sorry I got involved. But it is too late now. Heck, I have
even decided to review another power amp, but it will be a
budget job that is oriented towards consumers who want
separates but do not want to pay out big bucks. I also have
two DVD player reviews in the pipeline.

Well, we know what the review for the budget job is going to say
before you even write it. So, tell you what, for $10, I'll write it
for you and you can tool around in your coffin-shaped car. That will
STILL give you a profit margin enough to fill the tank of said car,
AND leave you a little money for a bagel.

Since you have much more expensive amps than I do, I'd say that it's
YOU who feels this way. My surround sound amp cost me $600. And yet it
supposedly sounds as good as your $2500 unit. Who's the rube now?

Actually, with straightforward two-channel material your amp
and wire combination probably sounds as good as what I have.
Congratulations. However, when it comes to synthesizing
surround ambiance from two-channel source material I think
you will find that paying a few bucks over the minimum will
pay off.

So, now you're recommending sexotic (a typo but I like it so it's
staying) and expensive amps, especially considering that yours cost
the same as 4 of mine.

Yes. However, use the phrase "expensive amps," is
misleading. The amps are ancillary. What matters are the DSP
ambiance-simulating options found within those
processor/amps.

So, one shouldn't bother spending less than 2 grand for a surround
sound receiver. Boy, "mid-fi" has gotten to be expensive...

Note that while one of my processor-amps listed for $2,500,
the one in my main system (actually it is a receiver) listed
for $2,800, and that one is also hooked up to a 250 wpc amp
for the main channels. The receiver's main amps biamp a
home-built speaker (with Allison drivers and crossover). The
processor/amp in my living room system listed for only
$2,000, by the way.

All expensive and exotic...

Quite. However, what matters is not so much the amps, but
rather the very elaborate surround DSP circuits.

I think I have one of those in my system...

Since you also use Allison speakers (I have even auditioned
and measured the versions you have), you are also probably
getting the kind of sound I prefer, even though the units I
have are considerably larger than yours and are assisted by
a big subwoofer working in the deep-bass range. The center
speaker also has its own subwoofer, by the way.

Actually, my Merlins, which need new diaphragms offer a much better
presentation and a nicer audio balance. Very "transparent".

Well, I can kind of say the same thing about the Dunlavy
Cantatas in my middle system. They image better than the
Allisons and also offer up a bit more detail. This is
because their direct-field signals are a higher percentage
of the total soundfield being heard than what we have with
the IC-20s, which generate a very dominant reverberant
field. Any time the direct field tends to dominate (or at
least is a higher percentage of the direct- and
reverberant-field mix) you will get enhanced clarity and
possibly tighter imaging and focus.

So, by your standards, you should sell the Allisons and get another
pair of Cantatas.

On the other hand, in the right room, a super-wide
dispersing system like the IC-20 has it all over more
focussed and directional systems like the Cantatas when it
comes to presenting a realistic soundstage, at least with a
lot of program material.

Oooops, guess not. Guess the Cantatas suck when it comes to
soundstaging. That must suck when you listen to your Brandenburg
Pinnock disk. I'll bet that the Cantats sound like the viola player is
standing on his head. Of course, you don't believe in vertical
soundstage anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.

In any case, I love listening to either pair of systems in
either room (almost always with all of the surround
embellishments also adding their two-cents worth), and
having the different-system options is a nice thing.
Remember also that I have those NHT ST4 systems in the
living room, and I spend time listening to them, too.

And I like listening to my computer system on occasion. It features a
$35 (on sale) three way Altec-Lansing powered system.

There are formal reviews of the Cantatas and ST4s in issues
87 and 90 of The Sensible Sound, by the way.

What's this "by the way" stuff? You've only mentioned it a hundred
times and posted links to the review.

Those would be the speakers that you got for free after you drove the
company out of business, right?

I never have
formally reviewed those Allison models, because they were
out of production by the time I started reviewing products
in print. I do not even use the Allisons for my AB
comparison work anymore, mainly because of the difficulty of
setting up the systems being compared in such a way that the
output of the Allisons is not compromised. The Cantatas
remain my reference systems for high-end speaker comparing,
with the ST4s being references when reviewing lower-priced
speakers.

Dave, I cannot figure you out.

That much is clear. But you know what? I post what I think. I don't
think that I play a lot of mental hijinks like you do.

Dave, unlike you, I am here mainly for the power, prestige,
and glory. The higher my favorable profile (or possibly even
my unfavorable profile with the tweakos), the more people
read my books and magazine articles. This may strike you as
crass, but at least I am not here because I am obsessed with
audio and looking to justify my preconceptions.

Actually, the last stement is untrue, unless you're simply lying about
what you believe about audio.

Why is it that you think in cut 'n paste soundbites? I guess we'll
read the "power, prestige and glory" quote another 10 times before the
week is over.

You are obviously a mental cut above most of the goofballs who post here.

Oh, I don't know about that.

Trust me. You are.

I'm just an ordinary guy who likes music.
Perhaps my difference is that I don't have an serious audio axes to
grind as you do, except when it comes to axe-grinding. THAT makes me
crazy.

Yeah. I think your primary interest when it comes to dealing
with me here has little to do with what I am saying either
here or in my magazine articles (or books). I think you just
resent the fact that I pick on the goofballs so much.

Well yes. Isn't that clear? It's not so much that you "pick on people"
though. It's more that you spout a line a bull**** a mile long. While
I like bull****ting as much as anyone else, I just think that someone
of your "stature" should be better than that.

You feel sorry for them. I don't.

Well, I feel sorry for you, because you flail away trying to puff
yourself up.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:53:08 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



Brother Horace the Overly Odd said:

Your religious rigmarole gets more and more arcane every week.

The odd thing about you is that while many of the insecure
tweakos who post here at least go on and on about their
preconceptions, ideas, and beliefs, all you mostly do is
interject goofy comments.

Consequently, you are possibly the biggest loser of the
bunch.

The Ferstinata is busted! I win the month of March. Pay up, guys.

Oh no, you said March the SIXTH.

I think an audit is called for...

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:37:07 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

It must be tough being a rock-music enthusiast when an
upscale set of speakers.

Learn to write, Howard.

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

You need to read up on the subject a bit more. They are not
"rear" channels. Why is it that all of you two-channel guys
continue to call the surround channels "rear" channels?

Because they're in the back and the ones in front are called "front"
channels?

You are more out of touch than I thought. No serious
recording engineer or surround-system designer would require
the surround speakers to be located in the "back" of the
room. Some early Japanese manufacturers often referred to
"rear" channels in their operator's manuals, but few do that
sort of things these days. There is a ton of published
material about locating surround speakers, and nobody wants
them at the back of the room.

Google sez, "about 73,600" for "rear channel".

Kal's a surround guy, and he says "rear channels":

http://stereophile.com/musicintheround/854/index2.html

I don't care what these sources say, the surround channels
are not "rear" channels. If you locate your surround
speakers at the rear of the room their ability to simulate
hall ambiance goes to pot. They also will go to pot with
movie-sound material.

Who says you can't put the rear channel speakers on the side wall?

Given what has been written all over the place about
surround-speaker placement, I find it hard to believe that
you are so uninformed.

Me and the 73,600 on Google.

Well, there is one exception. While the standard left and
right "surround" speakers are best placed to the sides (or a
tad behind directly to the sides), we do now have a sixth,
"back-surround" channel available with some DD and DTS
sources. The back-surround speaker should most certainly be
at the rear of the room. That is where I have both of mine
located in the 8.1 system in my main room.

Good God, you're literal.

If you think this is bad, read what I have to say about the
topic in my AV books and in some of my magazine articles.

I've seen 'em.

Sure, in contrast to classical recordings that record the
ensemble and the hall acoustics as a blend. (And surround
recordings that put a great deal of the recorded hall
ambiance into the surround channels.) You obviously miss the
whole point of what I am driving at. No wonder. You are
trying to justify an expenditure for a very nice audio
system by proving to yourself that the outlay was worthwhile
when listening to rock recordings. Because you also listen
to classical materials, I will cut you some slack and say
that any upscale expenditures you may have made will be
justified.

Plenty of orchestra recordings are close-miked, too.

Sure. And many of them sound terrible. I discuss both
mainstream and purist microphone techniques in my third book
(a book of recording reviews): The Digital Audio Music List,
published by A-R Editions back in 1999. The whole first part
of the book deals with recording techniques, how different
kinds of speakers interact with different
microphone-positioning and recording techniques,
audio-system set up procedures for the best sound
reproduction, and the criteria I used when evaluating the
recordings.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

But while some classical releases are not well recorded when
it comes to soundstaging, imaging, focus, and depth, most
are done quite well. With rock music, the situation is
reversed: some are good, but most are not.

All it takes.

There's nothing you
can say about rock recordings that can't be said about classical.

Some classical.

That's all it takes.

Well, one does have to pick out some good recordings. You
will find plenty to choose from if you stick with Harmonia
Mundi, Delos, Telarc, Dorian, London, Reference Recordings,
Hungaroton, Naxos, Chandos, Hyperion, Argo, Astree, BIS,
Gothic, AVS, Opus 111, and a number of others in the same
class.

Didn't you say exceptions don't prove the rule?

...However, most classical engineers are trying
to simulate a live concert-hall event (particularly with
surround-sound releases), whereas rock engineers are trying
to create a recording that is an end in itself (particularly
with surround-sound releases).

Nonsense. Both are ends in themselves, both might attempt to recreate an
event, both are invariant.

You need to audition more recordings. While in absolute
terms all recordings are ends in themselves, it is
sophomoric to assume that classical engineers are not
working to simulate a live, concert-hall, church, or salon
experience and that rock engineers are not working to
deliver a punchy recording that has no counterpart in the
live-music world.

Depends on the recording doesn't it? And even if the recording has "no
counterpart in the live-music world," it has its own identity that can
be recognized.

It sounds different, but not necessarily worse. Since rock
music is mostly electronic and may have all sorts of
distortions dialed in by the engineer or performers, having
an audio system that reproduces such distortions accurately
is borderline silly. Heck, a lousy audio system might even
make such recordings sound better! However, on an objective
level who could tell?

I can, as much as you can for any other kind of recording.

You think you can.

Well, it's true that I think I can do it better than you no matter what
kind of recording.

Obviously, it is time for you to get busy and get some
reviews into magazine print. You might even write and
publish a book of recording reviews, complete with technical
explanations and a discussion of your approach to reviewing.
I did that, and I suppose you can do so, too.

I don't want to write magazine reviews.

With some instrumentation this may work.
However, when it comes to consistent soundstaging, imaging,
focus, and depth, rock recordings are lousy reference
standards.

Los Lobos "Kiko and the Lavender Moon" is good for imaging effects.

"Effects" is the key word, here. This is not the same thing
as recording to present a classical-music (live-music
simulation) soundstage. God, do you listen to that stuff?
Why in hell do rock musicians feel the need to come up with
utterly goofy ensemble names? Hey, I have it! They make
recordings for kids.

LOL! The band's name is "Los Lobos" and they are very good.

I
wonder what Bill Porter would think of your view of pop soundstaging.

I have no idea. What railroad does he work for?

He *is* an engineer...

...By the way,
none of the musicologists who wrote articles for The
Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound bothered to profile that guy.

Why are musicologists profiling audio dudes? If they did, they might
start at the Country Music Hall of Fame, or the University of Miami.

Yes, some classical recordings (particularly
those given a heavy handed treatment with multi-microphone
techniques) are not much better. However, some are superb,
and that superiority really shows up on really fine systems
set up in really fine listening rooms.

Same for rock, pop, and jazz.

Hey, now jazz is (usually) a different ball game. Some jazz
recordings are very good evaluation tools. Try some of the
stuff Delos, Mapleshade, Sheffield, Chesky, Amherst,
Reference Recordings, and DMP have done, as well as some of
the old Pablo releases.

Different, but sharing all the problems you ascribe to rock.

Just how many classical surround recordings have you
auditioned that follow this procedure? While I have reviewed
some releases that spread instruments around (some Aix
releases have alternate tracks with this option, and Delos
experimented a bit with the arrangement with some of their
early DD symphonic-music experimental releases), the vast
bulk use the surround channels strictly for hall reverb.

The classical titles he

http://www.aixrecords.com/

There's also Boulez' NY Phil recording of Bartok's "Concerto for
Orchestra" quad lp.

All the quad LP recordings I heard were problematic. In any
case, I assume that you are very aware of what I said
regarding the use of the surround channels with most
classical releases.

It does seem odd that you go on about the superiority of surround when
you really mean home theater sound that can't do justice to recordings
with true in-room perspective. Think of all that Gabrieli and those
Berlioz Requiems getting short shrift.

Like my $400 list integrated amp? Gotcha beat on that one.

Be happy to know that it probably sounds as good as the
$2,000, $2,500, and $2,800 integrated amps and receiver in
my three AV systems (even with a 250 wpc power amp being
integrated into the package with my main system), at least
with the two up-front channels.

Probably better, considering my speakers.

I am sure that they are very fine speakers, and that they
are set up in a room that does them full justice.

I do wonder if they can quite duplicate the quality of the
Allison IC-20 units in my main system (list price was $5,200
back in 1990) or the Dunlavy Cantatas in my middle system
(list price was $5,500 when Dunlavy went out of business a
few years back), or the NHT ST4 systems in my living-room
system (cheap, at $1,000 a pair).

Yes, except for bass.

Room-response curves for
all three can be found in issues 94 and 95 of The Sensible
Sound, by the way. I wonder what the curves for your
speakers (whatever they might be) would look like.

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...asurements.htm

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...l_review_2.htm

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...6/index11.html

Highly regarded speakers. I'd love to review a set.
Interesting that you drive such expensive items with a $400
receiver. I do not find that to be all that big a deal, but
usually somebody who invests big bucks in speakers will also
invest big bucks in amps, or at least medium-sized bucks.
Given that these speakers are electrostatic jobs, one would
think that a rather stable, upscale amp would be a good
idea, actually.

Bought the speakers used. Not so big bucks. My amp seems stable enough
and will survive the speaker protection circuit.

Note that even the best stereo pair of speakers in the world
are still not going to be able to simulate a live-music
soundfield as well as what we would get with five (plus
subwoofer) good channels.

Two great speakers are preferable to crappy surround.

Incidentally, I noticed that most of the measurements
involved getting within a meter (or maybe two) of the
speaker. Do you listen from that close up? If so, those
measurements might mean something. If not, they probably do
not mean all that much.

Just over two meters. Yep, close measurement is problematic for dipoles.

Utterly outclassed? I doubt it. My speakers are well-regarded and built
on sound design principles. Violins always sound like violins, unlike
your surround speakers' performance.

You obviously miss the point of what surround speakers are
supposed to do.

If they can't reproduce a realistic instrument timbre when they need to,
I don't care what else they can do.

Trust me. They do just fine with realistic instrument
timbre.

But you said violins would be unrecognizable. I was taking at your word.

Enjoy your "stereo," technologically dated though it must
be.

Enjoy your out-of-date music.

It is unfortunate that you have invested so much in
speakers, only to use them to listen to music that is wildly
electronically processed and devoid of live-music realism.

The last discs I listened to were from EMI's Record of Singing Vol. 4
and a Pearl of Kirsten Flagstadt.

Sounded good.

Stephen

dave weil said:

[snip Harold's meaningless jabber]

Learn to write, Howard.

Could it be the real reason Clerkie flunked out of college is that he
couldn't formulate intelligible thoughts?

MINe 109 wrote:

BTW, you haven't addressed the weaknesses in your position.

There is no weakness in my position. You need to see what
some rock and classical engineers say about their own work.
Check some web sites.

I say this, even though the accuracy of my position should
be self evident. It would be to anyone but a rock freak.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:35:23 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:10:04 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Dave, in the past you have lauded the performance of upscale
wires and upscale amps, in comparison to more mundane
versions.

I don't think that I've gone overboard in my praise of such things.
Yes, I thought that a certain $40 set of speaker wires made a
difference in the sound of my system, and I've talked about owning the
Mesa Baron for a short time and was suitable impressed.

Well, I rest my case with that issue. So much for your
opinion when it comes to comparing live music to home
playback.

So, you have an opinion of the Mesa Baron based on actual contact with
it?

If you follow my commentaries (I have to interject this
here, even though you have read it hundreds of times,
because there may be newcomers reading this), you will
understand that for me all good amps, at least up to
clipping levels, sound like all other good amps. To
summarize, we have two possibilities:

1) It was a good amp and therefore sounds like all other
good amps.

2) It was a not so good an amp, and you were mesmerized by a
gimmick.

I certainly hope so. Yes, while upscale receivers do not
have an edge over cheaper versions when it comes to amp
performance, or even digital decoding with DD and DTS source
materials, they often have a substantial edge when it comes
to the ability to do decent DSP ambiance simulation with
two-channel sources. They also usually have more flexible
set-up procedures with such things a channel balance,
equalization, and subwoofer integration.

As far as I know, my Denon offers all of the above, and as flexible as
your Yamaha gear.

Although it no doubt has the standard side/rear surround
channels, the Denon has no front "effects" channels like
what we have with the top-line Yamaha units. These add a bit
of additional hall ambiance up front, but higher up and
wider. However, assuming the Denon has the requisite DPL II
adjustments for optimizing performance in that mode, it
certainly should sound as good as the RX-Z1 receiver in my
main system when operating in that mode. If it has DD and
DTS, it also should sound as good in the basic modes.

However, Yamaha also has some proprietary theater-sound
modes that again bring the front "effects" channels into
play to, well, embellish the movie surround effects a bit.
The receiver also has center-back channels, which can
sometimes work to good effect even with standard, 5.1
surround-sound movies.

Good point. Whenever I review components or recordings I am
sitting there on the couch with clip-board, paper, and pen
in hand. I usually am writing furiously.

And therefore, you are distracted, more so than I am when I'm
attending a concert.

For guys like you, thinking is always a distraction, I
guess.

I think that some time back you mentioned that your new
receiver had DPL II abilities and that the processing did
not do much for you at all. I have worked with DPL II with
several receivers and processors, and I think your are
mistaken.

Mistaken that the processing didn't do that much for me? You're just
flatly wrong about that.

OK, but did it impress you or did it disappoint?

I believe that I said that it didn't do a lot for me. I don't see how
I can be mistaken about my own opinion.

No doubt. However, that opinion can still be in error. But I
do forgive your misinterpretation, because some time in the
past I am sure that you stated that your receiver lacked the
ability to refine the DPL II adjustments. (It is also
possible that you simply had the surround or center levels
set too high, something that even a rudimentary DPL II
processor will allow.) Without doing adjustments that allow
for a proper dovetail with the listening room, the often
overkill factory default settings we find with some basic
DPL II circuits can muddy the effect.

Supposedly it's all the same, right?

Nope. There are quite a large number of adjustment options
with advanced DPL II playback. Less with DTS Neo:6, however.

There are *always* "advancements". Next year, your stuff will be
outmoded, perhaps it's even outmoded now.

Yep, now we have DPL IIx, which throws in a back-surround
channel with the two-channel synthesis mode, in the same
tradition as DTS Neo:6. According to the people I have
contacted at Dolby, there have also been some refinements in
the center-channel steering circuits. The latter could not
hurt, although the early version seems to work fine, but the
center-back function seems like overkill for symphonic or
chamber music.

The center-back output does exist in the Dolby Digital 6.1
version, of course, which is the way I use it. While few
movies have the installed code to turn on the center-back
channel (or channels, because I have two spaced-apart
speakers on my back wall getting the signals), the feature
can be manually turned on with any DD movie (the
derived-phantom version of the DTS ES feature can be
accessed the same way) and most of the time it adds a bit of
extra spaciousness to the whams, bangs, zooms, flyovers, and
roars we find with well-engineered action movies.

Or are you saying that not all
$700 "adequately designed" mid-fi surround sound receivers aren't the
same and don't sound the same? gasp!

They could with their surround DSP circuits.

Learn to write.

Haste makes waste.

But, if I understand you, you only advocate buying the newest model
and upgrading every year.

Not actually. I have been upgrading at three or four year
intervals. The problem now is that Yamaha's newest and
greatest, the RX-Z9 is priced even out of my reach, at least
according to my wife. I also made the mistake of analyzing
its features and commenting to her that most would not
deliver any notable improvements. Yep, surround audio has
kind of reached a peak for a while, I think.

The RX-Z9 unit has the above noted DPL-IIx feature, but
because I rarely used DPL II for music (preferring the
assorted Yamaha DSP modes, particularly the one named
"Classical/Opera") that upgrade is no big deal for me.
Neither is the extra power (170 watts x 6 channels, plus 2 x
55 watts for the "effects" channels), because I use an
outboard, 250 wpc amp for the mains and biamp the center
with the two 130-watt amps on board the Z1 receiver. (It has
preamp-out and main-amp-in jacks on the back panel for this
kind of diddling.) And of course I have a 600-watt subwoofer
for main and surround channel bass and a 250-watt job
assisting the center channel speaker. About 2,000 watts,
total, I think, give or take a few dozen. The RX-Z9 would
not add much to that. I will admit that it does sport THX
Ultra certification, which is nice, and it also has
different sub crossover frequencies and an on-board
equalizer of fairly high quality. Fortunately, I already
have such equalization in operation via several outboard
Rane and AudioControl units.

That's great advice for the average
Joe-sixpack.

Gee, when do the high-end big spenders who have no problems
spending five or ten grand on amps and speakers, and maybe a
grand on wires, sweat those kind of expenditures? The funny
thing is that they spend big on two channels, while some guy
with a budget like yours could spend on a surround-sound rig
that did a better job of simulating live music than any
two-channel system.

And apparently, you have to spend over $2000 to get a
decent surround sound receiver.

Yep, that is one of the problems we have with modern audio.
Of course, there are guys out there (you know who they are)
who would think nothing of spending that much on each of two
monoblock amps, and then spend another $500 on a set of
speaker wires. And you think I am whacky?

Boy, my $400 40 year old Fisher tube
amp is looking better and better.

It may look better and better, but, relative to what is out
there right now and still coming, it is sounding more and
more dated.

Most of the
cheaper ones are not too good in that respect.

So a receiver with a street price of $650 would qualify as "not too
good", right?

Good enough for DD and DTS movie work, for sure. And
probably pretty good for surround DSP work, provided that
adjustable DPL II or DTS Neo:6 processing was available.

Now, if a
receiver has DPL II decoding and that ability also includes
the optional adjustment abilities, then that receiver should
be very good, indeed, when working with two-channel sources
and converting them to simulated surround.

Sounds like you're describing my amp to a tee.

So, the parameters can be adjusted. I did not know that.
Congratulations, you have a good receiver.

On the other hand, the big Yamaha units I use also have
those additional front "effects" channels, and I find that
their hall-ambiance programs go even DPL II one better with
most source materials. I believe that David Ranada, in one
of his Sound & Vision columns, praised the Yamaha approach
to simulated surround sound.

So, once again, one must spend megabucks to achieve a Ferstler
approved audio presentation.

Actually, yes, but not as much as some of these guys spend
on just two channels. It is a sad fact of life that really,
really good DSP surround from two-channel sources can be
rather expensive. However, the advent of
parameter-adjustable DPL II decoding in mid-level receivers
has gone a long way toward leveling the playing field.
Actually, the news is not all good. If somebody wants good
video in addition to good audio, they also have to spring in
a pretty expensive way for a decently sized, wide-screen
monitor.

While I am pretty much of a hard head when it comes to
upscale amps and wires, I am pretty serious when it comes to
surround processors and even speakers. It can pay off to
invest a tad more than budget amounts with such devices,
particularly surround processors that are going to be used
to synthesize surround ambiance from two-channel recordings.

So, you get to pick and choose what you think is important.

I pick and choose what really is important. Exotic and
expensive amps, CD players, and wires are not important, and
even DVD players (unless we are talking about SACD and DVD-A
options) are not really important. What is important are
speakers, speaker/room interactions, and surround
processing.

And that's fine. Just don't assume that this is portable to everyone.

Obviously it is not. However, facts are facts, no matter
what anyone might wish to purchase and use. If some people
want to waste money on overkill wires and amps, just because
they have this weird inclination of theirs, that is fine.
Actually, I almost enjoy having that happen, because it
gives me pleasure to see fools making fools of themselves.

Now, this does not include newcomers who are not fools being
made fools of by slick hi-fi sales clerks or misleading
audio journalists. Not everyone who makes a foolish choice
in audio is a fool, provided they do it only for a while. It
is only when they do foolish things over and over and ignore
reality that they are fools.

Amazing
how it falls in line with items that you have either bought or have
been given or have bought at accomodation prices.

I know how to shop, Dave. I do not blow my money on junk,
and I also avoid reviewing components that offer up little
in the way of advantages. Yes, I do have an upscale amp
review in the pipeline, and to be truthful I am actually
sorry I got involved. But it is too late now. Heck, I have
even decided to review another power amp, but it will be a
budget job that is oriented towards consumers who want
separates but do not want to pay out big bucks. I also have
two DVD player reviews in the pipeline.

Well, we know what the review for the budget job is going to say
before you even write it. So, tell you what, for $10, I'll write it
for you and you can tool around in your coffin-shaped car. That will
STILL give you a profit margin enough to fill the tank of said car,
AND leave you a little money for a bagel.

Dave, go back and read some of my reviews. I REALLY do not
think you could write much of anything that is publishable.
You do not know enough. On second thought, you might get a
job with Stereophile or The Absolute Sound. They play fast
and loose with topics related to amp and wire sound.

So, now you're recommending sexotic (a typo but I like it so it's
staying) and expensive amps, especially considering that yours cost
the same as 4 of mine.

Yes. However, use the phrase "expensive amps," is
misleading. The amps are ancillary. What matters are the DSP
ambiance-simulating options found within those
processor/amps.

So, one shouldn't bother spending less than 2 grand for a surround
sound receiver.

See what I said about DPL II leveling the playing field,
above. Give Jim Fosgate a cheer for his work.

Boy, "mid-fi" has gotten to be expensive...

Actually, it is the two-channel stuff that is "mid-fi" these
days, or worse.

Note that while one of my processor-amps listed for $2,500,
the one in my main system (actually it is a receiver) listed
for $2,800, and that one is also hooked up to a 250 wpc amp
for the main channels. The receiver's main amps biamp a
home-built speaker (with Allison drivers and crossover). The
processor/amp in my living room system listed for only
$2,000, by the way.

All expensive and exotic...

Quite. However, what matters is not so much the amps, but
rather the very elaborate surround DSP circuits.

I think I have one of those in my system...

Yes, I believe you do. And now that we see that your DPL II
processor includes adjustments, I suggest that you get busy
and trim things up a bit and discover just how good DPL II
can sound.

HOWEVER, I am also assuming that:

1) You have decent surround speakers.
2) You have a decent center-channel speaker, properly
positioned.
3) You have a listening room that allows for all of the
speakers to be set up in such a way that a decent soundfield
can be generated.

If these are not possible, all bets are off.

Since you also use Allison speakers (I have even auditioned
and measured the versions you have), you are also probably
getting the kind of sound I prefer, even though the units I
have are considerably larger than yours and are assisted by
a big subwoofer working in the deep-bass range. The center
speaker also has its own subwoofer, by the way.

Actually, my Merlins, which need new diaphragms offer a much better
presentation and a nicer audio balance. Very "transparent".

Well, I can kind of say the same thing about the Dunlavy
Cantatas in my middle system. They image better than the
Allisons and also offer up a bit more detail. This is
because their direct-field signals are a higher percentage
of the total soundfield being heard than what we have with
the IC-20s, which generate a very dominant reverberant
field. Any time the direct field tends to dominate (or at
least is a higher percentage of the direct- and
reverberant-field mix) you will get enhanced clarity and
possibly tighter imaging and focus.

So, by your standards, you should sell the Allisons and get another
pair of Cantatas.

No. I prefer the soundstaging spaciousness of the Allison
systems for most music, particularly symphonic. However,
when listening to some smaller-scale baroque music the
Cantatas have an edge. Remember, however, that in all cases
I also turn on the DSP circuits and generate surround sound
ambiance.

On the other hand, in the right room, a super-wide
dispersing system like the IC-20 has it all over more
focussed and directional systems like the Cantatas when it
comes to presenting a realistic soundstage, at least with a
lot of program material.

Oooops, guess not. Guess the Cantatas suck when it comes to
soundstaging.

Actually, they are excellent. However, the Allisons are
superb.

That must suck when you listen to your Brandenburg
Pinnock disk.

I do not have that particular version, but the ones I do
have sound terrific on all three of my systems.

Incidentally, remember that I use 1/3 octave and parametric
equalization on all three groups of main systems, with the
two main systems also getting equalization on the center
channel. The main system even gets parametric equalization
on the primary side-surround and back-surround channels. All
main speakers deliver room curves that are better than +/-
1.5 dB from 80 Hz on up to 12.5 or 16 kHz. Below 80 Hz, I
let all three systems rise to about + 6 dB at 25 Hz.

Incidentally, the four main surround speakers in my main
system are Allison Model Fours, as are two of the main ones
in my middle system. Remember those Model Fours, Dave?
Smooth responding speakers, with the kind of ultra-wide
dispersion that allows them to work superbly as surround
speakers. The only surround speakers I have fooled with that
were their equal in terms of wide-angle dispersion were some
Axiom surrounds that I reviewed as part of a bigger
5.1-package review in issue 100 of The Sensible Sound. Fine
speakers, those Axioms.

I'll bet that the Cantats sound like the viola player is
standing on his head. Of course, you don't believe in vertical
soundstage anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Give me a break. But, yes, I do not believe in vertical
imaging with speakers that are positioned horizontally. Yes,
you can contour the frequency response to deliver vertical
imaging (Chesky has demonstrated this in test discs), but it
would be foolish for a recording engineer to equalize
recordings that way.

In any case, I love listening to either pair of systems in
either room (almost always with all of the surround
embellishments also adding their two-cents worth), and
having the different-system options is a nice thing.
Remember also that I have those NHT ST4 systems in the
living room, and I spend time listening to them, too.

And I like listening to my computer system on occasion. It features a
$35 (on sale) three way Altec-Lansing powered system.

I never listen to music on computer speakers, or on an
automotive system, either. I pretty much demand SOTA sound
whenever I listen to music. That is why I wrote two books of
record reviews that dealt only with really good sounding
recordings.

There are formal reviews of the Cantatas and ST4s in issues
87 and 90 of The Sensible Sound, by the way.

What's this "by the way" stuff? You've only mentioned it a hundred
times and posted links to the review.

Got to inform the newcomers.

Those would be the speakers that you got for free after you drove the
company out of business, right?

Is that why you think that Dunlavy folded? I have had
several speaker manufacturers tell me that my reviews bumped
up sales a bit, and one small manufacturer said my review
practically resuscitated his company. If Dunlavy folded, it
probably had little to do with me, unless maybe his usenet
support for my views on cables did him in.

That much is clear. But you know what? I post what I think. I don't
think that I play a lot of mental hijinks like you do.

Dave, unlike you, I am here mainly for the power, prestige,
and glory. The higher my favorable profile (or possibly even
my unfavorable profile with the tweakos), the more people
read my books and magazine articles. This may strike you as
crass, but at least I am not here because I am obsessed with
audio and looking to justify my preconceptions.

Actually, the last stement is untrue, unless you're simply lying about
what you believe about audio.

That common sense is the best approach?

Why is it that you think in cut 'n paste soundbites? I guess we'll
read the "power, prestige and glory" quote another 10 times before the
week is over.

I rather like the alliteration.

I'm just an ordinary guy who likes music.
Perhaps my difference is that I don't have an serious audio axes to
grind as you do, except when it comes to axe-grinding. THAT makes me
crazy.

Yeah. I think your primary interest when it comes to dealing
with me here has little to do with what I am saying either
here or in my magazine articles (or books). I think you just
resent the fact that I pick on the goofballs so much.

Well yes. Isn't that clear? It's not so much that you "pick on people"
though. It's more that you spout a line a bull**** a mile long.

You mean when I say that wires need not be expensive or that
overkill (and overpriced) amps and CD players are for
idiots?

While
I like bull****ting as much as anyone else, I just think that someone
of your "stature" should be better than that.

Thanks for saying that I have "stature." I have been saying
that to you guys all along. Your problem (and the problem
the others have, too) is that you want somebody with stature
to play the game and humor you people, or maybe even agree
with you.

Fat chance of that, Dave.

You feel sorry for them. I don't.

Well, I feel sorry for you, because you flail away trying to puff
yourself up.

Hey, I do not need to puff myself up, Dave. You already
admitted that I have stature.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:37:07 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

It must be tough being a rock-music enthusiast when an
upscale set of speakers.

Learn to write, Howard.

Haste makes waste. Nice to know that you are carefully
examining my posts. Shows that you do indeed believe that I
have stature.

Howard Ferstler

MINe 109 wrote:

The last discs I listened to were from EMI's Record of Singing Vol. 4
and a Pearl of Kirsten Flagstadt.

Sounded good.

Great singer. Dated-sound recording. Your speakers should
have revealed the sound deficiencies.

Howard Ferstler

Brother Horace the Overly Optimistic said:

Learn to write, Howard.

Haste makes waste. Nice to know that you are carefully
examining my posts. Shows that you do indeed believe that I
have stature.

I read some of your posts too, Harold. Do you think *I* respect you?

And, of course, you read (and respond to) dave's posts assiduously. So
apparently you accord him "stature". The same is true of Stephen, whom you
childishly call names. Is it true that the more names you call someone, the
more "stature" you believe that person has?

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

The last discs I listened to were from EMI's Record of Singing Vol. 4
and a Pearl of Kirsten Flagstadt.

Sounded good.

Great singer. Dated-sound recording. Your speakers should
have revealed the sound deficiencies.

No, they better revealed the felicities of what was there.

Stephen