Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde wrote:
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote in message ... Please note that Howard's experience is with the Pensacola Symphony. Besides, he conducts the ensemble like he makes love. With a limp baton. And the violins are always on the right. And the subwoofers on the left, behind the cellos and the string basses. Woodwinds and brass are randomly seated so that the imaging won't be too precise. Bruce J. Richman |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message **Oops. You snipped out some questions. Here they a --- Which very often puts us standing in front of an equalizer. **Not an analogue equaliser. Ever. A zero phase digital eq, perhaps, provided there is adequate references and test equipment. None of which Ferstler ever mentioned. --- What about feedback loops, Trevor? **What about feedback loos? If you have a specific question, then ask it. Have you stopped fearing them? **Have you stopped beating your wife? If you have a non-rhetorical question, then please ask it. If so: good! **More rhetoric. Try to get a grip. --- **And tell me: are the equalisers analogue, or digital? Some of each. **Name one high end receiver which uses automated, analogue equalisation. --- **Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on equalisers? Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound off side and rear walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic disaster? After all, that is what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good). --- I note your avoidance of the issues and questions raised. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt a écrit :
Please note that Howard's experience is with the Pensacola Symphony. Besides, he conducts the ensemble like he makes love. With a limp baton. Did you have have sex with Ferstler ? |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Trevor wrote: snip dismissive posturing **Not an analogue equaliser. Ever. Trevor shows his ignoranace of the number of analog equalizers in just about any signal chain he's ever listened to. He seems to believe believe he has never listened to a loudspeaker or a vinyl recording, or analog tape, for openers. And that is just the tip of the iceburg. **You're preaching again. If you're as smart and as well-informed as you claim Trevor, you'll be able list all the analog equalizers that a typical music recording made in the last 30 years might reasonably encounter, from mic to speaker. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
I note your avoidance of the issues and questions raised. You've dismissed so many of my comments without any discussion Trevor, that you have this *major snip* coming. Enjoy! |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Trevor wrote: snip dismissive posturing **Not an analogue equaliser. Ever. Trevor shows his ignoranace of the number of analog equalizers in just about any signal chain he's ever listened to. He seems to believe believe he has never listened to a loudspeaker or a vinyl recording, or analog tape, for openers. And that is just the tip of the iceburg. **You're preaching again. If you're as smart and as well-informed as you claim Trevor, you'll be able list all the analog equalizers that a typical music recording made in the last 30 years might reasonably encounter, from mic to speaker. **I can only tell you that the finest recordings I have ever heard, contain no equalisers. Anywhere in the chain. I note your normal dodging of the issues and questions raised. Why is that? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message I note your avoidance of the issues and questions raised. You've dismissed so many of my comments without any discussion Trevor, that you have this *major snip* coming. **Lack of any response noted. I accept your admission of defeat. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Trevor wrote: snip dismissive posturing **Not an analogue equaliser. Ever. Trevor shows his ignoranace of the number of analog equalizers in just about any signal chain he's ever listened to. He seems to believe believe he has never listened to a loudspeaker or a vinyl recording, or analog tape, for openers. And that is just the tip of the iceburg. **You're preaching again. If you're as smart and as well-informed as you claim Trevor, you'll be able list all the analog equalizers that a typical music recording made in the last 30 years might reasonably encounter, from mic to speaker. **I can only tell you that the finest recordings I have ever heard, contain no equalisers. Anywhere in the chain. Your dodging the question as written, Trevor. Trevor, when you answer the question as asked, then you will have restored your right to ask me further questions and expect a response. Until you want actually have a discussion, thats the end of my interest in discussing *anything* with you. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Trevor wrote: snip dismissive posturing **Not an analogue equaliser. Ever. Trevor shows his ignoranace of the number of analog equalizers in just about any signal chain he's ever listened to. He seems to believe believe he has never listened to a loudspeaker or a vinyl recording, or analog tape, for openers. And that is just the tip of the iceburg. **You're preaching again. If you're as smart and as well-informed as you claim Trevor, you'll be able list all the analog equalizers that a typical music recording made in the last 30 years might reasonably encounter, from mic to speaker. **I can only tell you that the finest recordings I have ever heard, contain no equalisers. Anywhere in the chain. Your dodging the question as written, Trevor. **There was no question. Just an incorrect statement. Trevor, when you answer the question as asked, then you will have restored your right to ask me further questions and expect a response. Until you want actually have a discussion, thats the end of my interest in discussing *anything* with you. **Your inability to answer my questions is duly noted. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Most hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than in sound that simulates live performances. Right again!!!!!!!!!!!!! At live acoustic performances, clarity, imaging, soundstaging and focus are NOT attributes of the sound RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, yes, particularly regarding imaging. As for clarity, well, I suggest you attend a live classical concert and see if, for example, the violin section is anywhere near as bright sounding as it is when you listen to the same material on your hi-fi rig. Howard Ferstler Idiot!!! Here you are, saying that there are great differences between live music and reproduced music, that the live sound in the high freq.is duller and less clear, and less imaged, etc. than the reproduced sound. Then you blather on about "hi fi' systems being preferred, be cause the music has a more 'hi fi' presentation' tahn a simulation of live music. You FOOL! That is what meuic reproduction IS all about, the simulation of a live performance. Sounds like you got a distorted high fi rig, brightening up and edging the high frequencies! Better switch to tubes!!! First, I have three "hi-fi" systems at my place, with one containing about 7 grand worth of gear, the second containing about 14 grand worth, and the third containing about 28 grand worth. Yep, the money value of each doubles as we go up the chain. One involves wide-dispersion, semi-omnidirectional speakers for main-channel use (Allison IC-20s) and another involves narrow, focussed-dispersion, phase-coherent jobs (Dunlavy Cantatas). A third contains more mainstream speakers, like what one would purchase at a decent hi-fi shop (NHT ST4 units). I regularly use each system when reviewing both recordings and when reviewing other components. Each system has its own character, with that character determined by radiation pattern differences more than anything else. I rather prefer the wide-dispersion approach, but I certainly can see the point with the controlled and narrow-dispersion philosophy. With some kinds of music the latter type of system can work wonders. Second, as noted, I regularly review systems for published reports, and so I certainly have had experience with both superb and not so superb audio systems. The fact is that many recordings are overly imaged, overly bright, and overly detailed, compared to what one hears during live performances. Now, this does not refer to all recordings (in this case, I am discussing classical, baroque, romantic-era recordings and not pop stuff, with is usually technical and artistic dreck), and today we find that many labels manage to produce some technically (and often artistically) exceptional materials. It was not quite this way in the past, however. As for pop music (which is probably the material that most of you air heads listen to), well I consider most of that stuff to be sonic junk, if not junk art as well. Play any of these souped-up recordings on some systems and the result is sub-par, unrealistic, and yet manifestly unrealistic sounding performances. That so-called "hi-fi" fans (and I suppose this includes you) prefer such sounds says a lot about the state of so-called serious audio these days. Howard Ferstler |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: So while LP freaks may caress their recordings at lovable toys, those who REALLY like music will favor the CD simply by technical and availability default. Or, they could do both. Stephen Yes they could - and should. Obviously, if someone has a large and valuable collection of LP recordings they should take LP record technology serious enough to purchase a good player and cartridge combination. However, when listening to LP recordings for musical enjoyment the person involved will nearly always have to "put up" with artifacts that are detrimental to good sound reproduction. Howard Ferstler |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Howard Ferstler Date: 8/22/2004 12:00 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Arny Krueger wrote: "Lionel" wrote in message "Clyde Slick" a écrit dans le message de ... I have the original Offenbach Gaite Parisieene in Stereo, LSC 1817 . Have you really listened to the above LP ? :-) I have. Three words: tic, tic, tic. Agreed. The LP noise problem will be acute with any recorded material that requires a quiet background. Not on a good quality record with a good playback rig. Such discs are rare, if they exist at all. In addition, even the most silent of LP recordings will have surface noise steadily bleeding through. That would be no big deal with most (ugh) pop recordings, but it would be borderline intolerable with most classical material. As for the playback rig, it strikes me that the most revealing versions (meaning the best versions) would be more likely to reveal recording defects than sub-par versions. If there is a blemish on the disc that can make noise, it only seems logical that the most revealing playback system (that with the highest fidelity) would show it up in glaring detail. Of course, those who listen to nothing but pop music would not know what either of us are talking about, because there is little in the way of quiet passages with such music - Wrong. There are plenty of pop recordings with quiet passages. Between tracks, for the most part. except between the tracks, of course. Throw in problems with inner-groove distortion, distortion in general, speed errors (be they warp related or related to cutting lathe problems), and wear and tear factors, and you have a situation where those who lionize the LP for its sound quality are basically showing us just how little they appreciate true high-fidelity sound reproduction. Heck you describing LP playback at it's worst. CDs can suck badly too if they are defective or if the player is defective or if the recording or mastering sucks. So what? Far more common with the LP. Obviously, if a CD player is defective there will be glaring problems, often to the extent that the device will not operate at all. Generally, when we have sub-par CD sound on a player that is working properly it is because the master tape itself had problems. Either that, or the mastering technician did a botch job with the transfer. On the other hand, the LP has audible flaws that are inherent within the medium itself. This is not the case with the compact disc. Well, we have known that all along. While LP versions are all we have of some esoteric, older recorded performances, it is silly to think that those classical LP recordings of old (or new) can hold a technical-excellence candle to many of the good CD versions produced over the past twenty years. It is silly to think that many of those older records don't sonically kill many of the newer ones available on CD. You need to get out more. Listen to something produced by outfits like Claves, Hungaroton, Koch, Opus 111, Astree, Hyperion, CPO, Harmonia Mundi, Novalis, Analekta, Chandos, Reference Recordings, Dorian, Denon, London, Chesky, Delos, Telarc, and even Naxos. Trust me, few LP recordings of any era can match what those outfits and quite a few others do as a matter of everyday policy. Outfits like Novalis, Hungaroton, Koch, Opus 111, Astree, Hyperion, CPO, Harmonia Mundi, and Analekta, among others, as well as better known outfits like Chandos, Reference Recordings, Dorian, Denon, London, Chesky, Delos, and Telarc, and even a budget label like Naxos, produce digital classical-music recordings that technically pulverize just about any LP ever produced. Balony. Funny thing is you just named 5 labels that produce great sounding LPs. They produce LP recordings, because there is still a small market for them and they still have the machine tools to produce the stuff and make a modest profit. I can assure you that once those machine tools (lathes, pressing hardware, etc.) wears out the companies will make no attempt to obtain new models. Indeed, there will be no new models to obtain. Generally, when an audio newcomer becomes enamored of the LP (by newcomer, I mean somebody who did not grow up with the LP and has only recently discovered the LP) it is simply because they are captivated by the novelty of the format. They do not know much about the limitations of the LP, and they become fascinated by it for reasons that are more mystical than rational. I review such recordings in The Sensible Sound on a regular basis, and use two, and sometimes three different audio systems to back up my opinions. Too bad you don't use legitimate high end LP playback with excellent records to make your comparisons. Your opinions are obviously based on your prejudices and not on actual listening. Are you saying that I do not actually listen to the recordings I review? Hey, go read some of my reviews and see what you discover. Incidentally, in addition to reviewing recordings for magazine reports, I also have previously published two complete books of recording reviews. As for my lack of enthusiasm for the LP, I see its high distortion levels, poor speed regulation, and noise problems as serious indeed, particularly if we are talking about the reproduction of "serious" music. Because of that, I believe that anyone who thinks that the LP has any kind of technical advantage over the CD is deluded. Interestingly, there are now many CD versions of old and very old classical transcriptions that simply cannot be had in LP form at all. Such as? I believe that the Smithsonian Institution has reissued a number of classical performances (some were originally on Edison Cylinders; others as 78s) in CD form. They were never available in LP form. Those who are interested in archival performances have to go to the CD format to get much in the way of reissues. What older material that is available on CD was never available on LP? The 78 and Edison Cylinder materials I mentioned above. Of course whatever is available on one format is reason enough to have that format. Sure. I have no problem with people who have large and valuable LP collections they want to be able to play back. They obviously need to obtain good playback hardware to listen to those recordings. My problem is with the jerks who claim that the LP is technically superior in any way whatsoever to the CD. That is a goofy attitude. And of course, those who really like classical music (this includes renaissance, baroque, romantic, impressionistic and cutting edge modern, as well as music from the "classical" era) must also go to the CD, because the vast bulk of what we have being produced as original material these days only shows up in digital form. Rennaisssance is not classical but it is true that most new classical recordings are available only on CD and that is a very good reason to have a CD player. Generally, all "serious" music these days is considered to be classical, be it from the modern era, the romantic era, the classical era, the baroque era, or the renaissance era. Frankly, I do not like using the term "classical" to describe the music of those eras in general, but that is the way it is treated by most individuals, including those who have specific preferences. For me, music reached its height during the baroque era, with a steady decline (Mozart, Haydn, and a few others excepted) after that. This is not to sell Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Debussy, Vaughn Williams, etc. short, but the fact is that Bach, Telemann, Vivaldi, Handel, etc. reached a peak that has not been surpassed. Howard Ferstler |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:38:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Carl Valle wrote: I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place each and every instrument on stage with precision. This is a preposterous statement, unless you were conducting the ensemble. Howard Ferstler Howard, you don't even *like* to go to live shows, so you have only limited experience with this. So I'd leave this discussion to other more qualified people. Dave, are you saying that when you attend a live classical-music concert you can pinpoint the location of each performer as he performs? The fact is that when people think they can hear precise imaging when they attend live performances of classical music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they think exists would disappear. By the way, I am fully retired now, and so I have all the time in the world to attend concerts in this town. Howard Ferstler |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote:
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:38:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Carl Valle wrote: I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place each and every instrument on stage with precision. This is a preposterous statement, unless you were conducting the ensemble. Howard Ferstler Howard, you don't even *like* to go to live shows, so you have only limited experience with this. That's cause they don't have any subs. There is just not enough bass for Howie in a live acoustuc presentation Anyone who reads my record reviews will realize that I rarely review recordings that exhibit super-duper bass. I try to specialize in the music of the baroque era, and big pipe organ excepted, there is not much deep bass with that genera. Hell, even the pipe organ music often does not dip all that low. An upcoming subwoofer review by me in The Sensible Sound will discuss the idiocy of paying extra to obtain super subwoofers that can go down to subsonic frequencies at lease-breaking levels. The subwoofer reviewed is a superb job, by the way, but is so for reasons that most of you would not understand. Howard Ferstler |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:ALdUc.9843$yh.9368@fed1read05 Yep. All the wide off-axis anomalies would be absorbed by the padding up and down the walls, and across the floor and ceiling. Worse, the nature of speakers designed for such spaces would require the listener to sit locked into a sweet-spot location that would make listening to music more like torture than a pleasurable experience. Since 90+% of my listening is done alone, I find virtually no problem having set my seat up such that the "sweet spot" occurs right at the position my head is when I plop down and recline to my favorite comfortable position. Off axis listening isn't an awful experience, it just isn't as rewarding as that optimal position. IME, there is always 1 and only 1 optimal position. ScottW With two-channel speaker arrangements that do a proper time/intensity tradeoff (toeing in will often manage to handle this OK, although it is not a perfect solution), or with an up-front arrangement that includes a center channel that is controlled by a really good DSP surround processor (capable of doing some very good L+R deriving work), off-axis listening will be a technically rewarding as on-axis listening. If this were not the case, live-music performances would only be fully enjoyable by those sitting dead center. Because the soundstage at such concerts involves a blend and not the kind of pinpoint soundstaging and imaging that hi-fi enthusiasts demand from some of their recordings and audio systems, sitting away from the central axis is not the crushing loss that you might believe. Howard Ferstler |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Howard Ferstler Date: 8/22/2004 12:16 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Howard Ferstler Worse, any phase artifacts being generated by the speaker (or an equalizer hooked to the system) would be painfully apparent if only the direct field were audible. You know this from experience? By the way, I don't think this is an issue with Quads. Obviously, speakers with controlled and narrow distortion will engage fewer room reflections, particularly in the midrange and treble. You mean dispurtion I think. You also didn't answer my question. Well, I meant dispersion. I am not sure what that word is that you used. In any case, I think you would say that I did not answer your question no matter how I responded. However, even narrow-dispersion speakers will engage enough room reflections to make an audible difference. That depends on the room. Obviously. However, it will have an impact of some kind no matter what kind of room we are talking about. If you do not think this is the case, haul the systems (narrow-dispersion jobs, of course) outdoors and see how much different they sound from when they were in the room. Kind of pointless given the ambient noise outdoors. Not to mention the difference in bass. Give it a try. Heck, you do not even need to haul your sound gear outside. First, go into a reflective room (a big bathroom would be OK) and recite some poetry. Listen to how it sounds. Have someone else do it and see how they sound. Now, go outdoors and do it again. Note how much different both of you sound. Room reverberation is impossible to dodge. It is possible to reduce it. You seem to be against that at a certain point. I am. Drying up all the reverb will work against good sound. Of course, it can be overdone. I rather doubt that any audio system would sound good in the above-noted bathroom environment, even with the shower turned off. Any home-listening room is going to color the sound to a surprising extent, particularly regarding early reflections. So? You seem to be suggesting that those colorations should *not* be reduced beyond a certain point, even when they can be, so they can compensate for distortions inherent in certain speaker systems. I am saying that the distortions produced by a good typical listening room are not detrimental to a realistic playback sound. I am also saying that trying to clean up the off-axis reflections (by absorption) so that a phase-coherent, perfect-on-axis sound loudspeaker system will be able to finally do its "thing" is NOT going to make for a more realistic listening experience. It may satisfy imaging, detail, and focus freaks for whom that is the be all and end all of "hi-fi" sound, but it will not produce a more realistic sound. At least not with most recordings. Is this masking of one distortion by use of another distortion in direct conflict with your minimal distortion at every point in the chain philosophy? The answer is yes, it is. It is silly to compare the distortions (or lack of distortions) with items like amps and CD players (and wires) with the acoustic problems we have with speakers in rooms. With two-channel audio, even in good rooms, those problems are monumental and a solution can only be approached with some kind of surround-sound solutions. Those reflections, in addition to telling you that you are listening to a recording made in a relatively (or even extremely) large space in a playback area that encompasses an acoustically small space, also add cancellation and phase artifacts to the sound. Now, if the speaker disperses smoothly and the room is not a complete mess, those artifacts should make for a better listening experience than what you would encounter if you listened to those same speakers in an anechoic environment. This still runs contrary to your philosophy. Funny that you would attack others for liking added distortion when it is clear that you also like added distortion in your playback. Distortion is a very broad term. Let's say that I like artifacts that make the sound more realistic. For the most part, those include what can be delivered by good speakers (well positioned), good rooms, and surround enhancements that make a small room appear larger. The result would be a spacious blend, at least if the systems involved had a uniform broad-bandwidth radiation pattern. Remarkably, clarity would suffer little in the normal room, at least if live-music clarity was what you were after. Yes amoung other things. Obviously one is faced with certain limits if they are stuck with a "normal" room. It is a good thing that some manufacturers make speakers for these rooms. Some manufacturers design and build speakers with the idea that their customers will use them in dedicated listening rooms. Yes, they do. Interestingly, I suspect that many of those manufacturers really do not know what they are doing. Based on anything other than your holy war based biases? Do you have any reasonable reason to believe this? Feel free to cite examples and supportive evidence. Read some of my product reviews. In addition, while it may be fun for some individuals to heavily pad their listening room (even going beyond the LEDE concept) and sit rigidly in the sweet spot, I prefer to not have my world revolve around my hi-fi rig to such an extent. I don't know anyone who thinks adding effective room treatment is fun. I thought that nearly everything a dedicated audio buff does to make his system sound better would be classified as "fun." People who listen that way are not listening to the music; That is just funny. Yes they are listening to music Howard. You said so in the first part of your sentence. they are listening to their hi-fi rigs. Kind of inevitable when playback is involved. Sure. But rather than listen to the music as an end itself, they are listening to their audio systems and making those systems the "end in itself." Their worlds revolve around their audio systems. Not a healthy thing, I think. In these situations the audiophile can have his cake and eat it too. If their cake involves a good "hi-fi" type sound and not the replication of a live-music experience. Having trouble with English? Good hifi is good replication of live music. That is the traditional definition. However, with a lot of enthusiasts what they demand from their systems is not realism of sound but "hi-fi" sound. They want their systems to sound better than live music and want those systems to do things that live music cannot do. This is not the way one should listen to music for enjoyment. I see, they should enjoy added distortion of inherently flawed speakers and listening rooms. Make up your mind Howard. Do you like added distortion or do you not like it? let me guess, it depends on what the enemy likes. Depends upon how realistic it sounds. Most hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than in sound that simulates live performances. Maybe you shouldn't speak for most hi-fi enthusiasts. You fail miserably when you simply speak for yourself. By your standards, but what a limited set of standards they most certainly happen to be. Sorry, I don't embrace fraud and plagiarlism. I guess I do have a narrow set of standards What fraud and plagiarism? Find any published book or magazine article where there is plagiarism or fraud by Ferstler. Howard Ferstler |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: So while LP freaks may caress their recordings at lovable toys, those who REALLY like music will favor the CD simply by technical and availability default. Or, they could do both. Yes they could - and should. Obviously, if someone has a large and valuable collection of LP recordings they should take LP record technology serious enough to purchase a good player and cartridge combination. However, when listening to LP recordings for musical enjoyment the person involved will nearly always have to "put up" with artifacts that are detrimental to good sound reproduction. Such is the case with any medium. My lp collection hasn't stopped me from enjoying cds. It's interesting to hear how often lp and cd 'agree'. The last case of this was hearing an "audiophile approved" transfer of "The Safety Dance" (Stop laughing, everyone! At least it's a common reference). In this case, the cd was quieter than the 80s era vinyl, but the basic sound was essentially the same, including the way-too-bright chirping synth octaves. This happens often enough to lead me to give greater weight to the recording and mastering than to the medium. Stephen |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: First, I have three "hi-fi" systems at my place, with one containing about 7 grand worth of gear, the second containing about 14 grand worth, and the third containing about 28 grand worth. What a coincidence. I have three systems, too. The bedroom system has three-way active crossover acoustic suspension speakers and a universal player ($7k new, if you include the tv...); the second is computer-based, with a Yamaha CAVIT and a powered monitor system; the big rig has a new value near $14k and better speakers than you've ever heard. Stephen |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: "Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... The problem with a lot of audio buffs is that they want superb clarity, imaging, soundstaging, and focus from their systems, even though you do not get those characteristics so strongly emphasized during live, acoustic performances. Most hi-fi enthusiasts are more interested in "hi-fi" sound than in sound that simulates live performances. Right again!!!!!!!!!!!!! At live acoustic performances, clarity, imaging, soundstaging and focus are NOT attributes of the sound RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, yes, particularly regarding imaging. As for clarity, well, I suggest you attend a live classical concert and see if, for example, the violin section is anywhere near as bright sounding as it is when you listen to the same material on your hi-fi rig. Howard Ferstler Idiot!!! Here you are, saying that there are great differences between live music and reproduced music, that the live sound in the high freq.is duller and less clear, and less imaged, etc. than the reproduced sound. Then you blather on about "hi fi' systems being preferred, be cause the music has a more 'hi fi' presentation' tahn a simulation of live music. You FOOL! That is what meuic reproduction IS all about, the simulation of a live performance. Sounds like you got a distorted high fi rig, brightening up and edging the high frequencies! Better switch to tubes!!! First, I have three "hi-fi" systems at my place, with one containing about 7 grand worth of gear, the second containing about 14 grand worth, and the third containing about 28 grand worth. Yep, the money value of each doubles as we go up the chain. One involves wide-dispersion, semi-omnidirectional speakers for main-channel use (Allison IC-20s) and another involves narrow, focussed-dispersion, phase-coherent jobs (Dunlavy Cantatas). A third contains more mainstream speakers, like what one would purchase at a decent hi-fi shop (NHT ST4 units). I regularly use each system when reviewing both recordings and when reviewing other components. Each system has its own character, with that character determined by radiation pattern differences more than anything else. I rather prefer the wide-dispersion approach, but I certainly can see the point with the controlled and narrow-dispersion philosophy. With some kinds of music the latter type of system can work wonders. Second, as noted, I regularly review systems for published reports, and so I certainly have had experience with both superb and not so superb audio systems. The fact is that many recordings are overly imaged, overly bright, and overly detailed, compared to what one hears during live performances. Now, this does not refer to all recordings (in this case, I am discussing classical, baroque, romantic-era recordings and not pop stuff, with is usually technical and artistic dreck), and today we find that many labels manage to produce some technically (and often artistically) exceptional materials. It was not quite this way in the past, however. As for pop music (which is probably the material that most of you air heads listen to), well I consider most of that stuff to be sonic junk, if not junk art as well. Play any of these souped-up recordings on some systems and the result is sub-par, unrealistic, and yet manifestly unrealistic sounding performances. That so-called "hi-fi" fans (and I suppose this includes you) prefer such sounds says a lot about the state of so-called serious audio these days. Howard Ferstler Hey Schmuck, I listen mostly to blues and calssical, and some times some jazz. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
George M. Middius wrote: MINe 109 said: big rig has a new value near $14k and better speakers than you've ever heard. I'd like to know about those speakers, Stephen. I will do my best to shush Harold if you wax rhapsodic in your praise. Same old, same old: Quad 63s. Balance, clarity, imaging, lack of distortion, you know the drill. Mr. Ferstler might like my $400 amp better. Stephen |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Mr. Middius said:
MINe 109 said: big rig has a new value near $14k and better speakers than you've ever heard. I'd like to know about those speakers, Stephen. I will do my best to shush Harold if you wax rhapsodic in your praise. I think he has Quads. Right, Stephen? Boon |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:38:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Carl Valle wrote: I have been to live concerts often enough to know that imaging is the most incredible difference between live and playback. It is possible to place each and every instrument on stage with precision. This is a preposterous statement, unless you were conducting the ensemble. Howard Ferstler Howard, you don't even *like* to go to live shows, so you have only limited experience with this. So I'd leave this discussion to other more qualified people. Dave, are you saying that when you attend a live classical-music concert you can pinpoint the location of each performer as he performs? It depends. No, I can't pinpoint the third viola from the left. Yes, I can tell where the piano is located. But that's irrelevant to my point. The fact is that when people think they can hear precise imaging when they attend live performances of classical music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they think exists would disappear. First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's irrelevant. Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano, vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage. By the way, I am fully retired now, and so I have all the time in the world to attend concerts in this town. Well then, get to it. How many concerts have you seen this year? Remember, you don't like to have to go to the bathroom, plus, it must be horribly annoying to hear all of that clothes rustling and air conditioner compressors cutting on and off. Howard Ferstler |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: The fact is that when people think they can hear precise imaging when they attend live performances of classical music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they think exists would disappear. First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's irrelevant. No, its not. Two different kinds of listening. Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano, vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage. How do you know that you are right? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:49:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: The fact is that when people think they can hear precise imaging when they attend live performances of classical music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they think exists would disappear. First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's irrelevant. No, its not. Two different kinds of listening. Of course it is. That's my point. Very few people listen to two hours of music with their eyes closed at a public concert. Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano, vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage. How do you know that you are right? Pretty simple. I verify if by sight. How would Howard know that he was wrong if he listened to something with his eyes closed and tried to guess? |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:49:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: The fact is that when people think they can hear precise imaging when they attend live performances of classical music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they think exists would disappear. First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's irrelevant. No, its not. Two different kinds of listening. Of course it is. That's my point. Very few people listen to two hours of music with their eyes closed at a public concert. Which musical instruments from the actual live performance do you see when you listen to a LP or CD with your eyes open? Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano, vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage. How do you know that you are right? Pretty simple. I verify it by sight. How do you do that while listening to a recording? How would Howard know that he was wrong if he listened to something with his eyes closed and tried to guess? This is an equal-opportunity question. Bringing in personalities would appear to be an atttempt at obfuscation. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:08:38 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
"dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:49:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: The fact is that when people think they can hear precise imaging when they attend live performances of classical music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they think exists would disappear. First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's irrelevant. No, its not. Two different kinds of listening. Of course it is. That's my point. Very few people listen to two hours of music with their eyes closed at a public concert. Which musical instruments from the actual live performance do you see when you listen to a LP or CD with your eyes open? Let's not get off of the subject, which is what people can or cannot perceive while watching a live performance.. Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano, vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage. How do you know that you are right? Pretty simple. I verify it by sight. How do you do that while listening to a recording? Let's not get off of the subject, which is what people can perceive while watching a live performance. However, since you ask, the illusion of placement is determined by the recording technique. I have recordings where the triangle CLEARLY appears to be coming from the left upper quadrant of the soundstage on a correctly set up system. However, I'm pretty sure that if you reversed the phase in one side of a stereo system, that visual cue (for lack of a better term) would vanish. When I listen to my single Billie Holliday LP recording, her voice seems to come from a certain point in space, and depending on the room and the system's resolution (mostly room dependent), the voice seems to come from about 5 feet up and very slightly left of center, ecept on two songs, where her voice seems to shift even slightly further left. In listening to combo jazz in a small room, I *have* been surprised about how a drum kit sort of sounds "all together" instead of being able to pick out the cymbals, floor tom, hi-hat, etc. And yes, I've done the eyes closed test on that. However, the piano still sounded like it was on the side that it was on, the saxophone seemed placed correctly, etc. I think it would be a mistake to discount vision as a key component for listening, mainly because it's a main component in hearing, although it's obvious that the lack of sight can eventually be compensated for. How would Howard know that he was wrong if he listened to something with his eyes closed and tried to guess? This is an equal-opportunity question. Bringing in personalities would appear to be an atttempt at obfuscation. Well, we *were* talking about Howard and his live music experience playing on his attempt to talk about what someone might or might not see when attending live shows, something that he has claimed to avoid at all costs. Hard to avoid Howard in those circumstances. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:08:38 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 01:49:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: The fact is that when people think they can hear precise imaging when they attend live performances of classical music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they think exists would disappear. First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's irrelevant. No, its not. Two different kinds of listening. Of course it is. That's my point. Very few people listen to two hours of music with their eyes closed at a public concert. Which musical instruments from the actual live performance do you see when you listen to a LP or CD with your eyes open? Let's not get off of the subject, which is what people can or cannot perceive while watching a live performance.. Inability to recall thread and read title line noted. Too much of Weil's *debating trade* and use of Weilish noted. I'm out of here! |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:37:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Let's not get off of the subject, which is what people can or cannot perceive while watching a live performance.. Inability to recall thread and read title line noted. And what does *your* contribution have to do with the "thread and title line"? Too much of Weil's *debating trade* and use of Weilish noted. I'm out of here! You never should have poked your big nose into this part of the discussion if you didn't want to actually discuss what was being talked about. I hope you've learned your lesson. You've been spanked again. Of course, maybe *your* audio system doesn't resolve enough to place a vocalist in the soundstage, so I can see why you might be confused. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
George M. Middius wrote: MINe 109 said: Yes. I'm considering adding a center channel to take advantage of the new "Golden Age" Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo multichannel reissues. With a room twelve feet across, I should just be able to squeeze another Quad in. Of course, I'd have to use my back patio for egress. Quite a dilemma you're facing -- improving the sound of your system dramatically but at the cost of floor space in your living area. Have you considered The Ferstler Solution? I think it entails packing his mother-in-law off to an old folks' home and bricking up the dining room. Bricking off the kitchen/dining room could help. Another Ferstler solution would be to saw a couple of feet off of the bottoms of the speakers and push them to the back wall. Stephen |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
In article z,
The Devil wrote: On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:38:12 GMT, MINe 109 wrote: Bricking off the kitchen/dining room could help. Another Ferstler solution would be to saw a couple of feet off of the bottoms of the speakers and push them to the back wall. Another idea might be to brick them *into* a room-dividing wall. My wife wasn't keen on that idea either. I dunno if that's such a bad idea. One could have the designer come make curtains for them. Maybe she was offended by the thought of de-poling bipole speakers! "Where's the rear wave going to propogate, a shoe box?" Stephen |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 8/25/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "dave weil" wrote in message On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:14:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: The fact is that when people think they can hear precise imaging when they attend live performances of classical music it is mainly because they SEE who is performing. If they closed their eyes the precise soundstage imaging they think exists would disappear. First of all, since I listen with my eyes open generally, it's irrelevant. No, its not. Two different kinds of listening. Agreed, Second, yes, I can usually place such things as string sections, solo horns, triangles, etc. I usually can't pick out individual strings obviously, but I can place a solo violin (piano, vocalist, etc) relative to the soundstage. How do you know that you are right? Not really an issue. Down we go into radical subjectivism. Scott perceives that he won his libel suit against me, so as far as anybody important goes, he won it. The perception of live music cannot be *wrong* for the listener.It is what it is. Then why is Dave arguing that he has a accurate handle on where the musicans actually sat? If dave is hearing precise imaging at a live classical concert than Howard is simply wrong. I thought that the perception of music cannot be *wrong* for the listener.It is what it is. Now Howard is wrong. My experience mirrors dave's. A matched set of illusions = enough reality so that as two great men said: "Howard is simply wrong." Well guys, thanks for clearing that up for the rest of us... ;-) |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:11:25 +0100, The Devil wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:38:12 GMT, MINe 109 wrote: Bricking off the kitchen/dining room could help. Another Ferstler solution would be to saw a couple of feet off of the bottoms of the speakers and push them to the back wall. Another idea might be to brick them *into* a room-dividing wall. My wife wasn't keen on that idea either. But at least you could listen in both rooms. Cheaper than buying your 10th pair of the ****ers. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
In article z,
The Devil wrote: On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:16:36 GMT, MINe 109 wrote: Another idea might be to brick them *into* a room-dividing wall. My wife wasn't keen on that idea either. I dunno if that's such a bad idea. One could have the designer come make curtains for them. Well, um, ar, ahem. I wasn't being entirely honest there. My Great Idea was to knock down a whole wall and build massive electrostatic speakers in its place. I still think it's a good idea. The whole middle area would be an electrostatic subwoofer. The bass would be interesting. Well worth a divorce to experience, now that I think about it. Garbage bags, jumper cables and arc-welder standing by! For the dynamic version, see "Back to the Future". Maybe she was offended by the thought of de-poling bipole speakers! "Where's the rear wave going to propogate, a shoe box?" Enclosures need to be the size of a room to hook my interest. How about a pinhole camera (camera oscura)? Photography is quieter: http://www.photo.net/pinhole/pinhole Stephen |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
In article z,
The Devil wrote: On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:25:57 GMT, MINe 109 wrote: Well, um, ar, ahem. I wasn't being entirely honest there. My Great Idea was to knock down a whole wall and build massive electrostatic speakers in its place. I still think it's a good idea. The whole middle area would be an electrostatic subwoofer. The bass would be interesting. Well worth a divorce to experience, now that I think about it. Garbage bags, jumper cables and arc-welder standing by! For the dynamic version, see "Back to the Future". Still like that film. Density has never been the same since. Maybe she was offended by the thought of de-poling bipole speakers! "Where's the rear wave going to propogate, a shoe box?" Enclosures need to be the size of a room to hook my interest. How about a pinhole camera (camera oscura)? Photography is quieter: http://www.photo.net/pinhole/pinhole I'm failing to grasp the connection. You can use the room as a camera instead of as a speaker enclosure. The picture will only be of whatever's in front of the pinhole and will come out upside down, but I think there's an adjustment for the last part. Now that I think of it, the room could do double-duty. I have a tiny pinhole video camera. It transmits to a receiver you can hook up to a VCR or telly. It was going to be fixed to an RC helicopters, but that turned out to be Something Else To Do that didn't, well, get done. Helicopters have no business flying anyway, in my opinion. That might have had something to do with it. Helicopter? How silly! Try this, or substitute your favorite crawly: http://www.greenmuseum.org/content/a...st_id-106.html Stephen |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ferstler Readies and Article | Audio Opinions | |||
Using two Equalizers | Tech | |||
FA: Yamaha EX-1 Electone Organ Synth GX-1 / CS-80 Cousin / ART IEQ SmartCurve 1/3 Octave Equalizers | Pro Audio | |||
FS: KAWAI EQ-8 8-CHANNEL PARAMETRIC EQUALIZERS | Pro Audio |