| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ferstler On Amp Sound
I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not really long, because I have to get back to my home-improvment and shop-expansion work. FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap models able to sound as good as the best of the best expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only during the most rigorous AB comparison could such differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old. Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear any differences between the two amps. SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the money they spent gained them better sound and not just a more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc. receiver. And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free. As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison. Howard Ferstler |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote in
: I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not really long, because I have to get back to my home-improvment and shop-expansion work. FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap models able to sound as good as the best of the best expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only during the most rigorous AB comparison could such differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old. Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear any differences between the two amps. SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the money they spent gained them better sound and not just a more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc. receiver. And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free. As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison. Howard Ferstler Howard, For the most part you are correct but there are a few other factors that come into play when people purchase a high priced amplifier. First is the relative performance of the amp. There are a few people who can hear low levels of distortion. "Ewing Nunn... could hear it [distortion] until we improved the system to where that was down to a fraction of 1/100th of a percent." http://www.roger-russell.com/mcgg1.htm The other factor is aesthetics. I have had some wonderfully performing pieces that really looked bad for a variety of reasons. No matter how good a given piece of equipment performs, people will not buy ugly equipment. People will, for the most part, buy attractive looking crap. Other factors are pride of ownership, resale value and longevity. Why should I buy a piece of gear that is nearly junk in 7 or 8 years? Wouldn't it make more sense to purchase something that will last nearly a lifetime? I wouldn't be so quick to slam the purchasers of high dollar amplifiers. They may be the ones that end up using that equipment for many years for free or at least very close to free. The only other negative to the whole situation is the speaker systems. I don't know anyone that has a $300.00 receiver driving $15,000 speakers. Usually if the receiver is $300.00 the speakers are worth the same or less and they sound like it too. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard delivers a Sunday Vermin on amplifier sound:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a response to another post, but I was so happy with my night soil that I decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not really long, because I have to get back to my home-improvment and shop-expansion work. Read "replace toilet tank flush valve and replace laser cartridge". FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound Howard, you are most definitely is WRONG. Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, Good assumption. [snip] SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then Howard attempts to wrap his doggie-turds of wisdom in Greek syllogism. those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to feel like idiots. Howard, the absence of frontal cortex in your reptilian brain causes a major lapse in logic. They can feel any way they like. (At least if they are thinking that the money they spent gained them better sound and not just a more solidly built unit.) I mean, Howard, you're proud of sentences that begin, "I mean,"? Who are you trying to emulate? 8th grade english students, grappling with verbs for the first time? they will be not getting any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc. receiver. Some of the brands you mention above have distinctly different sounds, Howard. And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free. Howard, the common experience of group regulars is ownership of cheaper gear, discarded when we experienced the ecstasy of really good sound. As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you having spent big bucks on amps. Wrong, Howard. We started cheap and worked up. But we wouldn't want any neophyte lead down your soiled path, would we? It must be killing some of you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison. Not at all, Howard. Here's a little syllogism for you: It's not killing us because we're not thinking it. Abraham Lincoln |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote:
I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a response to another post, but I was so happy with it Why? FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my view being that "amps are pretty much amps," If? .. There are HUGE, audible differences even between the budget models you list below. spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight improvement in sound reproduction That happens after about 5.000 (between 5000 and 25000) euros, IMO.. that probably would go unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Music oriented listening? So you actually sit down and listen to that "pink noise" of yours for hours on end? ... Only during the most rigorous AB comparison could such differences be notice. "differences be notice?" Yep, the big-spending crazies might actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old. Could this be your trouble? Perhaps _you_ dont hear well, and _that's_ why you think ... Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, You see, there you have it, even "assumptions are _not_ pretty much assumptions" .. I mean, they will be not getting any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc. receiver. I have a densen amp nowadays, I upgraded from an onkyo integra model. The onkyo was a pretty good amp, almost a budget high-end thingy. It had almost no "soundstage" to speak of but pretty much everything else was there. But after about 5 years of listening the analog source selector screwed up (perhaps becuase it was never really used) and just touching it would make the left or right channel come on and off again. Now this big buck(?) amp (1500) I got has a *lifetime* warranty against such stuff. Eheh. And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own CD's on my system? One of the BEST friend comment I got was this "I am listening to my stereos, you are listening to music" ... Hehehe. It must be killing some of you to think It must be killing you to think that you _can't_ hear the difference. Go to some doctor, nurse, whatever, have your ears checked. Buy some Q tips, clean'em, etc. Happy trolling. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fella wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a response to another post, but I was so happy with it Why? FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my view being that "amps are pretty much amps," If? .. There are HUGE, audible differences even between the budget models you list below. You obviously have very good ears. You DID do your comparing decently level matched, didn't you? If you still heard differences then you should have adopted a blind or DBT protocol, just to make sure. spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight improvement in sound reproduction That happens after about 5.000 (between 5000 and 25000) euros, IMO.. that probably would go unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Music oriented listening? So you actually sit down and listen to that "pink noise" of yours for hours on end? ... I mainly listen to music, except when doing some (but certainly not all) of my product testing work. It is you guys who purchase upscale gear and then listen to IT, instead of the music. Only during the most rigorous AB comparison could such differences be notice. "differences be notice?" OK, so I cannot type perfectly. However, you claim to be able to hear differences, and yet I seriously doubt you on this. I think you are fantasizing, and possibly you have purchased an expensive amp and are now looking for ways to justify your cash expenditure. In other words, you are busy rationalizing what you did and see me as the party pooper who is wrecking your fun. Yep, the big-spending crazies might actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old. Could this be your trouble? Perhaps _you_ dont hear well, and _that's_ why you think ... Well, at least I bothered to compare level matched. Now, I do not begrudge you really sharp-eared guys maybe hearing differences. However, for me (and this is all I have ever said) the bottom line is what I hear and not what you hear. However, if you are going to give us opinions about what YOU hear I at least would like to have you do your comparing carefully. My guess is that you listen to amps not level matched and not with any kind of blind protocol. Because of this, speculation runs the show. Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, You see, there you have it, even "assumptions are _not_ pretty much assumptions" .. I mean, they will be not getting any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc. receiver. I have a densen amp nowadays, I upgraded from an onkyo integra model. The onkyo was a pretty good amp, almost a budget high-end thingy. It had almost no "soundstage" to speak of but pretty much everything else was there. Your comments about soundstaging as it applies to amplifier sound tells me that you are deluded. And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own CD's on my system? He knows that it cost big bucks, and his built-in attitude toward big bucks tells him that it MUST sound better. Like you, he is deluded. Incidentally, a good listening room can make even a budget-grade system sound pretty good, and so what he may be mainly impressed by is a superior room. The supposedly superior hardware in that room may be having no impact at all. It must be killing some of you to think It must be killing you to think that you _can't_ hear the difference. Not really. And my big advantage over you is that I do not have to rationalize spending big bucks for an amplifier. Go to some doctor, nurse, whatever, have your ears checked. Buy some Q tips, clean'em, etc. In a one issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed an interesting hearing check CD put out by an outfit in Canada. Yep, my hearing is not perfect, but at least I am quite sure of just how good it happens to be. On the other hand, I would guess that you have never had a hearing acuity check that went clear out to 20 kHz or evaluated your hearing in the low-bass range. For guys like you, a hearing acuity evaluation involves simply listening to favored components and congratulating yourselves that you can hear all those mysterious attributes. Howard Ferstler |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
S888Wheel wrote:
There, you have your rebuttal point by point. over all your writing sucks and your content is totally speculative. You offer no verifiable premises and make no logical arguments. You basically invent emotional responses of make believe people to your views on audio. Kind of silly dont you think? My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at least I get my written material into print. PS: You are a jerk. Howard Ferstler |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... (gibberish), but at least I (gibberish). |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rich.Andrews" wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote in : I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not really long, because I have to get back to my home-improvment and shop-expansion work. FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap models able to sound as good as the best of the best expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only during the most rigorous AB comparison could such differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old. Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear any differences between the two amps. SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the money they spent gained them better sound and not just a more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc. receiver. And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free. As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison. Howard Ferstler Howard, For the most part you are correct I appreciate the complement and support. Your comments are quite in contrast to the others on this thread. but there are a few other factors that come into play when people purchase a high priced amplifier. Probably. Remember, this was a fast-written post on amps in general. My "formal" review of a high-end unit will be in an upcoming issue of TSS (along with electrical analysis of the unit by David Rich), and I am going out of my way with the review to outline the rationale behind spending big bucks for amps instead of spending much less and putting the money saved into additional recordings. First is the relative performance of the amp. There are a few people who can hear low levels of distortion. "Ewing Nunn... could hear it [distortion] until we improved the system to where that was down to a fraction of 1/100th of a percent." http://www.roger-russell.com/mcgg1.htm Generally, people who do this are listening in such a way that the musical content eludes them. I rather think that if someone can hear differences between an exotic and expensive amp and a more mainstream model (not a budget job, but a good mid-priced mainstream unit) the exotic probably has problems. If they can hear differences between models that bench check to high standards they are probably deluded. This assumes that they are not doing the comparing DBT style. The other factor is aesthetics. I have had some wonderfully performing pieces that really looked bad for a variety of reasons. No matter how good a given piece of equipment performs, people will not buy ugly equipment. The unit I am reviewing is quite attractive, and was engineered by one of the most notable amp designers in the business. I must admit that having it currently installed in my middle system (driving Dunlavy Cantatas) is an uplifting experience. (This from Mr. Skeptic himself.) The amp sounds like all my other amps, but it sure is fun to have it in operation, and it has a certain romanticism about it that cheaper amps would not have. Note that this does not mean I would spend big money for the amp. For that kind of money I would prefer to purchase more recordings, food, power tools (for my almost expanded woodworking shop), and/or other audio gear that makes a genuine difference. People will, for the most part, buy attractive looking crap. Yes. One can tell that by looking at the ads in the tweako magazines for tube gear that looks like machine art. That stuff must be selling to somebody or they would not bother to print the ads. Other factors are pride of ownership, resale value and longevity. Why should I buy a piece of gear that is nearly junk in 7 or 8 years? A buddy of mine has a Yamaha receiver that is 15 years old and still working fine. My old Carver M500 is over 20 years old and still sounds as good as that upscale amp I am reviewing. Wouldn't it make more sense to purchase something that will last nearly a lifetime? Ironically, many tweakos spend big bucks for gear, love it for a while, and then trade up when the new upgraded version appears. Either that, or they change brands and go through the same cycle all over again. These guys are equipment junkies, not music enthusiasts. They do not compare with precision, because they are into the hobby for factors involving mysticism. I wouldn't be so quick to slam the purchasers of high dollar amplifiers. Well, the published review will cut those guys some slack, provided they can easily afford the amps. However, if they have to scrimp and dig for the money they are jerks. Sorry, but that is how I feel. They may be the ones that end up using that equipment for many years for free or at least very close to free. For free? Those guys must have some pretty good connections to get upscale amps for free or close to it. They must be product reviewers for tweako magazines. The only other negative to the whole situation is the speaker systems. I don't know anyone that has a $300.00 receiver driving $15,000 speakers. Admittedly, I am in agreement with you. However, I see no problem with having a $600 receiver driving, say, $5000 speakers. Better yet, instead of a $5000 pair lets have a $5000 6.1 speaker package and get us some surround sound. Usually if the receiver is $300.00 the speakers are worth the same or less and they sound like it too. Actually, I have reviewed some speakers in that price category that do very well, indeed, at least if they are coupled with a good subwoofer. I would probably want to have a receiver a bit more upscale than that $300 job, however. Howard Ferstler |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... "Rich.Andrews" wrote: Howard, For the most part you are correct I appreciate the complement and support. Your comments are quite in contrast to the others on this thread. I never knew that robots and clowns like to play together. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote in
: "Rich.Andrews" wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote in : I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not really long, because I have to get back to my home-improvment and shop-expansion work. FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap models able to sound as good as the best of the best expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only during the most rigorous AB comparison could such differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old. Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear any differences between the two amps. SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the money they spent gained them better sound and not just a more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc. receiver. And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free. As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison. Howard Ferstler Howard, For the most part you are correct I appreciate the complement and support. Your comments are quite in contrast to the others on this thread. but there are a few other factors that come into play when people purchase a high priced amplifier. Probably. Remember, this was a fast-written post on amps in general. My "formal" review of a high-end unit will be in an upcoming issue of TSS (along with electrical analysis of the unit by David Rich), and I am going out of my way with the review to outline the rationale behind spending big bucks for amps instead of spending much less and putting the money saved into additional recordings. First is the relative performance of the amp. There are a few people who can hear low levels of distortion. "Ewing Nunn... could hear it [distortion] until we improved the system to where that was down to a fraction of 1/100th of a percent." http://www.roger-russell.com/mcgg1.htm Generally, people who do this are listening in such a way that the musical content eludes them. I rather think that if someone can hear differences between an exotic and expensive amp and a more mainstream model (not a budget job, but a good mid-priced mainstream unit) the exotic probably has problems. If they can hear differences between models that bench check to high standards they are probably deluded. This assumes that they are not doing the comparing DBT style. The other factor is aesthetics. I have had some wonderfully performing pieces that really looked bad for a variety of reasons. No matter how good a given piece of equipment performs, people will not buy ugly equipment. The unit I am reviewing is quite attractive, and was engineered by one of the most notable amp designers in the business. I must admit that having it currently installed in my middle system (driving Dunlavy Cantatas) is an uplifting experience. (This from Mr. Skeptic himself.) The amp sounds like all my other amps, but it sure is fun to have it in operation, and it has a certain romanticism about it that cheaper amps would not have. Note that this does not mean I would spend big money for the amp. For that kind of money I would prefer to purchase more recordings, food, power tools (for my almost expanded woodworking shop), and/or other audio gear that makes a genuine difference. People will, for the most part, buy attractive looking crap. Yes. One can tell that by looking at the ads in the tweako magazines for tube gear that looks like machine art. That stuff must be selling to somebody or they would not bother to print the ads. Other factors are pride of ownership, resale value and longevity. Why should I buy a piece of gear that is nearly junk in 7 or 8 years? A buddy of mine has a Yamaha receiver that is 15 years old and still working fine. My old Carver M500 is over 20 years old and still sounds as good as that upscale amp I am reviewing. Wouldn't it make more sense to purchase something that will last nearly a lifetime? Ironically, many tweakos spend big bucks for gear, love it for a while, and then trade up when the new upgraded version appears. Either that, or they change brands and go through the same cycle all over again. These guys are equipment junkies, not music enthusiasts. They do not compare with precision, because they are into the hobby for factors involving mysticism. I wouldn't be so quick to slam the purchasers of high dollar amplifiers. Well, the published review will cut those guys some slack, provided they can easily afford the amps. However, if they have to scrimp and dig for the money they are jerks. Sorry, but that is how I feel. They may be the ones that end up using that equipment for many years for free or at least very close to free. For free? Those guys must have some pretty good connections to get upscale amps for free or close to it. They must be product reviewers for tweako magazines. The only other negative to the whole situation is the speaker systems. I don't know anyone that has a $300.00 receiver driving $15,000 speakers. Admittedly, I am in agreement with you. However, I see no problem with having a $600 receiver driving, say, $5000 speakers. Better yet, instead of a $5000 pair lets have a $5000 6.1 speaker package and get us some surround sound. Usually if the receiver is $300.00 the speakers are worth the same or less and they sound like it too. Actually, I have reviewed some speakers in that price category that do very well, indeed, at least if they are coupled with a good subwoofer. I would probably want to have a receiver a bit more upscale than that $300 job, however. Howard Ferstler Howard, All of the speakers I have listened to that are in the $300 to $600 dollar range certainly sound good considering their cost, but they certainly don't sound like $10,000 speakers either. The problem with cheaper speakers that they are cheap. You prety much get what you pay for. You can add subs but they will still fall flat when asked to really perform at lifelike (live) levels. Even at the $600.00 receiver price level, I am not sure how many people would have $5k speakers to go along with them. I would expect the number of systems configured similarly to be quite small. I you really want to see some interesting numbers, look at how much people generally spend on the audio to go along with their new plasma televisions. It is quite amazing. More often than not they spend $10,000 plus on the picture and then get the cheapest thing possible for the audio. Personally I see no problem with driving $10,000+ speakers with a $500.00 amp. I do have to ask the question of what will happen to the speakers when or if the amp fails. I consider it poor value if the amp can wipe out or seriously damage a significant investment in speakers. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler said:
My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at least I get my written material into print. So do John Atkinson and Steven Rochlin, just to name a few. Oh, not to mention Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own CD's on my system? He knows that it cost big bucks, Actually his onkyo integra surround amp costs 4 times as much as the densen.  And no, you do not need lab rat blind testing on "pink noise"level matching to hear the difference between them. It hit's you almost instantly when music starts to eminate from the densen. Anyways.. Fester on, ferstler. I think at this point I would rather agree to disagree with you as to who is "deluded". Is it you, who carries the delusion that millions of people around the world are deluded, or the rest of us, humanity? |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nousaine wrote:
One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals is that you DON'T have to listen for extended periods to grab a good feel for the tonal balance and spatial rendition qualities of a given system. Ok, happy listening then. I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes* music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40 minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep. Ok, and you know what you know, yes yes, this pink noise of yours sounds the same, a sony walkman cd player connected through the headphones jack to a yamaha receiver sounds the SAME, yup, OK, how nice. Enjoy! |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fella said:
I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes* music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40 minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep. This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
George M. Middius said: I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes* music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40 minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep. This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded. He may not believe in you, note. He obviously believes his own ears. Something I applaud, you will note. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " You do realize, of course, that individual preferences are totally forbidden for Ferstler and his small band of windmill-tllters, don't you? LOT'S ! Bruce J. Richman |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
Fella said: I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes* music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40 minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep. This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded. Yes, I know, tis a crime. I should be doing double blind pink noise lab tests, I should be then throwing the book at my "big buck" amps, cd players, at the same time shouting "you all sound the same! I must be deluded!" every 5 minutes. Preferavly howards books. Well ok, maybe not. Wonder if this howard looks like that "oukaay" teacher in south park? Could be. But seriously, what could this baffoon be aiming at? Drive high-end amp makers out of business? All to use yamaha natural metallic sound receivers? Resistance is futile? |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fella wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote: Fella said: I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes* music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40 minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep. This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded. Yes, I know, tis a crime. I should be doing double blind pink noise lab tests, I should be then throwing the book at my "big buck" amps, cd players, at the same time shouting "you all sound the same! I must be deluded!" every 5 minutes. Preferavly howards books. Well ok, maybe not. Wonder if this howard looks like that "oukaay" teacher in south park? Could be. But seriously, what could this baffoon be aiming at? Drive high-end amp makers out of business? All to use yamaha natural metallic sound receivers? Resistance is futile? Catharsis for a mentally ill poster would be my educated opinion. No other rational explanation for this irrational person seems to fit. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fella said:
But seriously, what could this baffoon be aiming at? Drive high-end amp makers out of business? All to use yamaha natural metallic sound receivers? Resistance is futile? He's just here to sell books so he can continue expanding his wood tool shop. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fella said: I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes* music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40 minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep. After spending that amount of money, I would certainly hope for that much. Personally, I find that sex works at least as well and doesn't cost anything. Norm Strong |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote:
Nousiane said: One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals is you don't need a subwoofer because PINK NOISE HAS NO BASS! Wrong. Howard Ferstler |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Fella wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own CD's on my system? He knows that it cost big bucks, Actually his onkyo integra surround amp costs 4 times as much as the densen. And no, you do not need lab rat blind testing on "pink noise"level matching to hear the difference between them. It hit's you almost instantly when music starts to eminate from the densen. My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen. Of course, there could be something wrong with both. Or, as I noted before, room acoustics simply are so dominant that your system simply sounds better for reasons that have nothing to do with amplifiers. In any case, if they do not sound alike on an absolute scale one is either out of whack or was poorly designed. Most amps these days have topologies similar to the original, Bongiorno designed Marantz 15, by the way. They all work pretty much the same. Those that truly do sound different from a design approach are probably junk. Hmmm, I mentioned it elsewhere, but I might as well mention it again right he The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and also contributed to is FINALLY in print. I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor," which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical articles and updated quite a large number of others that had been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones, and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was written or modified by me. Although many audio notables are in there, it is still primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your bio sketch is in there, of course. The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it will definitely be an academic or technical library item. And, no, the discussion of amplifiers it contains makes no mention of decently built amps sounding different. Howard Ferstler |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote:
Sander deWaal said: This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded. He may not believe in you, note. He obviously believes his own ears. Something I applaud, you will note. That makes you an apostate to Ferstlerianism. I hope you're happy. Hi, Bruce, I posted a similar message elsewhere, but I thought you would like your own, personal copy. The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and also contributed to is finally in print. I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor," which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical articles and updated quite a large number of others that had been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones, and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was written or modified by me. Although many audio notables are in there, it is still primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it will definitely be an academic or technical library item. Of course, I am sure you will run right out and purchase a personal copy. Howard Ferstler |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
S888Wheel wrote:
P.S. You are a hack as well as a plagiarist and a fraud. But at least you are published. But then so is Corey Greenberg. Haw Haw Haw. Get a life Slycke. Hey, Moron, Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in print. I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor," which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical articles and updated quite a large number of others that had been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones, and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was written or modified by me. Although many audio notables are in there, it is still primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say. The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it will definitely be an academic or technical library item. That's five books for me (admitting that number five has me as an editor/contributor and not sole author) and zero for you, pinhead. Howard Ferstler |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
Howard Ferstler said: My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at least I get my written material into print. So do John Atkinson and Steven Rochlin, just to name a few. Oh, not to mention Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg. Speaking of my writing, would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in print. I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor," which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical articles and updated quite a large number of others that had been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones, and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was written or modified by me. Although many audio notables are in there, it is still primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your bio sketch is in there, of course. The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it will definitely be an academic or technical library item. I am pretty sure that it is also available in Europe, since Routledge is a member of the British Taylor & Francis publishing group. Howard Ferstler |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote:
Harold the Dunce said: I appreciate the complement Learn to write. Hey, George: Speaking of my writing, would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and also contributed to is FINALLY in print. I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor," which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical articles and updated quite a large number of others that had been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones, and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was written or modified by me. Although many audio notables are in there, it is still primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say. The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it will definitely be an academic or technical library item. That is five books for me (acknowledging that number five has me as an editor and contributor and not sole author), and zero for you, zero. Howard Ferstler |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rich.Andrews" wrote:
Howard, All of the speakers I have listened to that are in the $300 to $600 dollar range certainly sound good considering their cost, but they certainly don't sound like $10,000 speakers either. Actually, a good pair of modestly priced satellites, when combined with a really good subwoofer, should be able to give even a very upscale pair of super speakers a serious run for the sonic-accuracy money. I have reviewed several systems of this type and was quite impressed. Of course, when comparing such combinations it is a good idea to quite literally put blindfolds on the participants so that they will not be swayed by the super-duper cabinets, etc. The problem with cheaper speakers that they are cheap. You prety much get what you pay for. Sometimes. Actually, some of those upscale jobs have pretty cheap components inside, too. Indeed, most list for many, many times what the internals cost. You can add subs but they will still fall flat when asked to really perform at lifelike (live) levels. Actually, many floor-standing super speakers will have but three drivers inside: a woofer, a midrange, and a tweeter. A satellite pair will also have a midrange and a tweeter, and with a subwoofer added you will often get bass capabilities that eclipse what you get with a pair of standard woofers in an upscale speaker system. There is really no reason why a three-piece package of that type should be inferior to a pair of big, standard speakers when it comes to lifelike levels. Of course, if you are talking about super systems that have LOTS of drivers (I have systems like that, myself, in my main installation) then of course you can achieve very high levels. However, I have found that in most rooms even fairly small satellites (when backed up by a good sub) can get pretty loud, and do so quite cleanly. I have also heard some pretty upscale "big-system" models that ran into problems at higher levels, due to the nature of the crossover slopes. Actually, the crossover order will have a LOT to do with the power handling abilities of any system, be it a big floor-standing job or a sub-sat arrangement. I you really want to see some interesting numbers, look at how much people generally spend on the audio to go along with their new plasma televisions. It is quite amazing. More often than not they spend $10,000 plus on the picture and then get the cheapest thing possible for the audio. Agreed. You can go into Best Buy and find sets that cost nearly that much (well, at least six grand), and yet if you go into their audio sections you will mostly find low-level hardware, particularly the speaker hardware. Personally I see no problem with driving $10,000+ speakers with a $500.00 amp. I do have to ask the question of what will happen to the speakers when or if the amp fails. I consider it poor value if the amp can wipe out or seriously damage a significant investment in speakers. True. My main systems have built-in bistable resistors with each section (tweeters, midranges, woofers) that limit current if an amp decides to go off the deep end. Howard Ferstler |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:48:12 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Hey, George: Speaking of my writing, would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and also contributed to is FINALLY in print. I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor," which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical articles and updated quite a large number of others that had been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones, and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was written or modified by me. Although many audio notables are in there, it is still primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say. The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it will definitely be an academic or technical library item. That is five books for me (acknowledging that number five has me as an editor and contributor and not sole author), and zero for you, zero. Howard Ferstler That's telling them. Many, many times. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote:
Do you feel foolish yet, Clerkie? I'd like to remind you that I, personally, have urged you to consult a physician many times. Apparently you still have not done so. And this is the result. Sad. But still published, goofball. Five books, now. And, no, I do not feel foolish in the least. Book number five (a two-volume set published by one of the world's major publishers) is now in print. Look on the title page: Howard Ferstler: Technical Editor. Haw, haw, haw. Howard Ferstler |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote:
Brother Horace the Semiliterate chants one of his dogmatic prayers of futility. Harold the Dunce said: I appreciate the complement Learn to write. Hey, George: I'll interrupt you here to note that you got two words correct out of two. That's a 100% score, and you should be proud. Quite an achievement at your advanced age, and especially in light of your other handicaps. .....advanced age, and published. Book number five just out and ready for you to lament. Howard Ferstler |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Howard Ferstler: Technical Editor. Haw, haw, haw. I still can't stop laughing! |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote:
Actually, a good pair of modestly priced satellites, when combined with a really good subwoofer, should be able to give even a very upscale pair of super speakers a serious run for the sonic-accuracy money. Yes... using pink noise and careful "level matching" they'd even sound the same! We the borg use pink noise for music, you will noud, duh. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
normanstrong wrote:
After spending that amount of money, I would certainly hope for that much. Yes, one hopes that much and one indeed gets that much, slick, and at times much muxh more. Personally, I find that sex works at least as well and doesn't cost anything. Norm Strong Ok, so your only mode of recreation is that you **** around with your hand like rabbits, Ok, nice. But then again, you should try a little variety in your life sometimes, note. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote:
My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen. Howard you *must* look like that "oukaay" teacher in southpark, say it, say that you look like him. Say it. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
"George M. Middius" wrote: Nousiane said: One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals is you don't need a subwoofer because PINK NOISE HAS NO BASS! Wrong. Agreed. Perhaps Middius' experience with subwoofers is highly limited. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler said:
My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen. Of course, there could be something wrong with both. Or, as I noted before, room acoustics simply are so dominant that your system simply sounds better for reasons that have nothing to do with amplifiers. In any case, if they do not sound alike on an absolute scale one is either out of whack or was poorly designed. Most amps these days have topologies similar to the original, Bongiorno designed Marantz 15, by the way. They all work pretty much the same. Those that truly do sound different from a design approach are probably junk. Howard, Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" to your point of view? -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Ferstler on recording | Audio Opinions | |||
| Sound vs. Audio | Pro Audio | |||
| the emperor's clothes | High End Audio | |||
| hum..buzz sound !!! help!! it's annoying~ | Pro Audio | |||
| Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
