Clyde Slick a écrit :

"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 ? :-)




yeah, but I usually play my Classic Records reissue.
My original is in excellent condition, though it only
cost me 25 cents in a thrift shop

I don't believe you. It's not possible. ;-)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:26:51 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

yeah, but I usually play my Classic Records reissue.
My original is in excellent condition, though it only
cost me 25 cents in a thrift shop

I don't believe you. It's not possible. ;-)

Sure it is. It's quite common in Salvation Army stores, at least here
in Nashville. I paid .50 for mine and I've seen multiple copies of it
in various stores. Mine's in great shape, although I wouldn't call it
"excellent".

There are some RCAs (and Mercs as well) that show up with startling
regularity around here. Usually they're in mono though. Most of both
stereo and mono copies seem to be in very good shape, although the
occasional trashed copy shows up.

That's why I don't mind when people say that they're dumping their
vinyl chuckle.

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:26:51 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

yeah, but I usually play my Classic Records reissue.
My original is in excellent condition, though it only
cost me 25 cents in a thrift shop

I don't believe you. It's not possible. ;-)

Sure it is. It's quite common in Salvation Army stores, at least here
in Nashville. I paid .50 for mine and I've seen multiple copies of it
in various stores. Mine's in great shape, although I wouldn't call it
"excellent".

There are some RCAs (and Mercs as well) that show up with startling
regularity around here. Usually they're in mono though. Most of both
stereo and mono copies seem to be in very good shape, although the
occasional trashed copy shows up.

That's why I don't mind when people say that they're dumping their
vinyl chuckle.

I paid a dollar for my "Balalaika Favorites". Same deal.

Stephen

dave weil a écrit :

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:26:51 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


yeah, but I usually play my Classic Records reissue.
My original is in excellent condition, though it only
cost me 25 cents in a thrift shop

I don't believe you. It's not possible. ;-)


Sure it is. It's quite common in Salvation Army stores, at least here
in Nashville. I paid .50 for mine and I've seen multiple copies of it
in various stores. Mine's in great shape, although I wouldn't call it
"excellent".

There are some RCAs (and Mercs as well) that show up with startling
regularity around here. Usually they're in mono though. Most of both
stereo and mono copies seem to be in very good shape, although the
occasional trashed copy shows up.

That's why I don't mind when people say that they're dumping their
vinyl chuckle.

I imagine that it's possible Dave. Sander already give me good advices
to get cheap vinyls here in Europe.
It was a joke, I was just told that he cannot have this one :
"Offenbach Gaite Parisieene"
I know it's not really funny. :-(

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick a écrit :

"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 ? :-)




yeah, but I usually play my Classic Records reissue.
My original is in excellent condition, though it only
cost me 25 cents in a thrift shop

I don't believe you. It's not possible. ;-)

Really, I can understand your reaction.
When it happened to me, I couldn't believe it.
I almost fainted. My legs got real wobbly.

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


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on
RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also
decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a
brand-new RAO article.

OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics,
"micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with
distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to
generate. Those distortions are directly related to
frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric
whatsoever.

**Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio
professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase
reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not.

I do not consider those phase artifacts to be all that big a
deal,

**YOU consider a non-event. _I_ do not. To my ears, the damage
wrought by all analogue equalisers is serious. Most digital
equalisers are acceptable.

A good example of predice, not experience dictating strongly-held
perceptions.

**Call it: "30 years of experience with a wide variety of analogue
equalisers."


I pointed out about a week ago why phase shift in an equalizer can be a
good
thing.

and I am not alone in believing this. Speakers and
listening rooms add plenty of phase artifacts all by
themselves.

To say the least!

**Ah, the old Bose argument.

No, the know-something argument.

**Not even close. The whole point of speaker placement is to mitigate room
interactions.


Sorry, that does not wash. All listening rooms are different. Some
present fewer problems than others. Careful
speaker placement in a good room can do far more than any equaliser.

This is all fine and good, but it does not disprove or even relate to
Ferstler's claim.

In many cases, those artifacts are either
inaudible (speaker related) or beneficial (room reflection
cancellations and reverberation).

Agreed - rooms can have beneficial effects on loudspeaker sound quality.

**Nope.

For
example the boundaries of a room are expected by the speaker designer to
support bass response in certain beneficial ways.

**Nope. An anechoic environment will always provide superior (more accurate)
results.


**There are no beneficial room artefacts.

I just described one.

**No. You just described a kludge.


The ideal room is an anechoic chamber.

Wrong again. As Scott points out below, even a partial attempt at an
anechoic chamber makes a really strange place to listen to music in.

**Then I suggest that Scott did not perform an adequate test. Listening to
good speakers, ON AXIS, in an anechoic environment is a revelatory
experience. Room reflections CANNOT ever assist sound reproduction in a
positive fashion. The best that can be done, is to mitigate the problems.
Don't believe me? Listen to some really good headphones sometime. You'll ge
the idea.


However, let me waffle a bit. An anechoic chamber can be an ideal room if
your goal is perfect recreation of the sound field at the live
performance,
and you can mount the huge technological effort to actually effectively
support that goal.

**Now you agree with me? Colour me confused.


The point is that in the real worlds of home and studio audio, anechoic
chambers are not ideal and virtually nobody even thinks about bothering to
have one.

**Correct. Those of us who care, however, attempt to mitigate the problems.


Anything else is a compromise.

Everthing else is practical and possibly reasonable.

**As is mitigating the problems of room interactions.


Minimising room interactions is the only sensible option.

The better word is managing.

**Minimising.


Relying on room interaction (a la Bose) is just plain stupid.

All current home speakers are somewhat dependent on room interaction for
their sound quality because they depend on the room to present boundaries
that support their bass response.

**Most are. Some are not.


However, the fact that an equalizer can alter the balance
between the direct-field and reverberant-field signals can
be important, IF the corrections applied are extreme.

I question this on the grounds that equalizers can't be applied
differently
to direct and reverberent field sound from a speaker. If you change one,
you
change the other. If you had separate speakers assigned to stimulating the
direct and reverberent fields then you might try to achieve this goal.

Virtually all of the reasonably good speakers I have
equalized have sounded better than their unequalized
counterparts.

This is in fact an observation of the obvious - if equalization didn't
improve sound quality, why would the designer do it? It costs money, big
time! In fact equalization, whether passive or active, is widely used in
loudspeaker designs. Arguably, even passive speaker crossovers are
designed
to complement the response of the drivers, which is a form of
equalization.

**I accept that YOU feel that the result is better. Understand that
is just YOUR opinion.

It's hardly unique to Ferstler, and it does agree with prevailing thought
in
the mainstream audio industry.

**Sure, if you only consider the crappy end of the industry. The rest of us
care about sound reproduction and can easily see the massive flaws in the
Bose/Festler Theorem (hereafter called BFT).


One which is not shared by all listeners. It is
certainly not shared by most dedicated, experienced listeners.

Deification of Trevor's personal preferences noted. Trevor doesn't believe
in God, but he makes a God out of his preferences.

**I beleive in things that actually exist. The damage wrought by analogue
equalisers is audible to most experienced listeners.

He has tunnel vision
related to many topics in audio, such as inverse feedback.

**Absolutely not. NFB is present in ALL audio amplifiers. It is critical to
the operation and the reduction of audibility of many problems.

His tunnel vision
is often directed well away from accepted audio technology. If he lectured
the AES about his peculiar audio views he'd be torn to shreds almost
instantly, and for good cause.

**Of course. I am not qualified to lecture in such a place.

Of course, so would John Atkinson...

**Your non-sequitur is duly noted.


FAR more importantly, however, is the utter futility of anyone,
without SERIOUS test equipment, lots of experience and a calibrated
absolute reference signal (related to the music being listened to)
being able to correctly adjust any equaliser, such that the signal
is actually better (ie: More like high fidelity) than the original.
All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more
pleasing to the listener.

It takes nontrivial resources to effectively equalize speakers so that
they
better match the room. A lot of audiophiles don't have these resources and
don't want to take the time and money to acquire them. The actual hardware
costs of these resources are dropping rapidly, and they are available and
being used by more consumer-type people.

**They're still expensive and difficult to get right. Without them, an
equaliser is a waste of money, time and effort.


I certainly agree with your view regarding test gear.
Adjusting a good equalizer by ear is a waste of time.

For the common audiophile, I think so. However, in the end every effective
application of an equalizer can benefit from some manual tweaking. There
are
people who can listen to speakers, hypothesize a set of settings for a
parametric eq or 1/3 octave eq, call them out from across the room and
their
application will be highly beneifical.

**How many people (who read your articles) possess such equipment?

At this time, thousands and thousands. Automated room equalization
equipment
has even been built into high end multichannel receivers.

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

best guess would be fine. Do you state as much in your articles
(that equalisers are virtually useless without expensive test
equipment)?

The word expensive would be an example of out-of-date thinking. Either
that
or thinking that spending $100's to make a an audio system worth $1,000s
or
even $10,000's sound better is a waste of money.

Nothing more. In fact, the results are somewhat akin to those
people who use crappy SET amplifiers for tone control substitutes.

Agreed.

Equalisers are largely a waste of time and money. Particularly for
novice
users.

Outdated, bad thinking. Senseless posturing.

**No.


I used to feel this way, and said so in my first book, High
Fidelity Audio Video Systems, way back in 1991. However,
after doing some work with good equalizers and seeing what
proper and modest corrections can do, I humbly disagree with
both you and the younger version of Howard Ferstler.

**Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it
right for all listeners.

Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take your
own
advice, at times.

**And you would do better to realise that I have no major objection to
automated room equalisers, which use digital, zero phase shift systems. What
I DO object to, are analogue equalisers, which are set by untrained
consumers, with no test equipment. THAT was my point to Ferstler.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

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


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on
RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also
decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a
brand-new RAO article.

OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics,
"micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with
distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to
generate. Those distortions are directly related to
frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric
whatsoever.

**Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY
audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase
reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not.

I do not consider those phase artifacts to be all that big a
deal,

**YOU consider a non-event. _I_ do not. To my ears, the damage
wrought by all analogue equalisers is serious. Most digital
equalisers are acceptable.

A good example of predice, not experience dictating strongly-held
perceptions.

**Call it: "30 years of experience with a wide variety of analogue
equalisers."

Call it yet another misapprehension from a guy who hates inverse feedbac
loops.

I pointed out about a week ago why phase shift in an equalizer can
be a good thing.

Still no reply on that topic from Trevor

and I am not alone in believing this. Speakers and
listening rooms add plenty of phase artifacts all by
themselves.

To say the least!

**Ah, the old Bose argument.

No, the know-something argument.

**Not even close. The whole point of speaker placement is to mitigate
room interactions.

As if having an equalizer does away with the need to do that? Everybody with
a brain knows that you position the speakers and work over the room as well
as you can, and THEN fine tune with the equalizer.

Sorry, that does not wash. All listening rooms are different. Some
present fewer problems than others. Careful
speaker placement in a good room can do far more than any equaliser.

This is all fine and good, but it does not disprove or even relate to
Ferstler's claim.

Still no reply on that topic from Trevor

In many cases, those artifacts are either
inaudible (speaker related) or beneficial (room reflection
cancellations and reverberation).

Agreed - rooms can have beneficial effects on loudspeaker sound
quality.

**Nope.

For
example the boundaries of a room are expected by the speaker
designer to support bass response in certain beneficial ways.

**Nope. An anechoic environment will always provide superior (more
accurate) results.

This shows true ignorance of what almost all home and studio speakers sound
like in an anechoic chamber.

**There are no beneficial room artefacts.

I just described one.

**No. You just described a kludge.

No, its how things are. Speakers are designed to be used in rooms, not
anechoic chambers. They work far better in rooms than in anechoic chambers.
Nobody in the real world can afford to make every listening and recording
room into an anechoic chamber.

The ideal room is an anechoic chamber.

Wrong again. As Scott points out below, even a partial attempt at an
anechoic chamber makes a really strange place to listen to music in.

**Then I suggest that Scott did not perform an adequate test.

Scott's experience is pretty typical. It's the answer that any student of
acoustics would expect.

Listening to good speakers, ON AXIS, in an anechoic environment is a
revelatory experience.

Dominated by thin bass and very strange imaging.

Room reflections CANNOT ever assist sound
reproduction in a positive fashion.

Let's consider plan B: put a speaker in every location that the listener
perceives sound coming from in a concert hall.

The best that can be done, is to
mitigate the problems. Don't believe me? Listen to some really good
headphones sometime. You'll ge the idea.

Been there, done that. Oh, I guess that MDR 7506, HD 580, and ER6 aren't
good headphones.

However, let me waffle a bit. An anechoic chamber can be an ideal
room if your goal is perfect recreation of the sound field at the
live performance,
and you can mount the huge technological effort to actually
effectively support that goal.

**Now you agree with me? Colour me confused.

What's unclear about "Huge technological effort"?

The point is that in the real worlds of home and studio audio,
anechoic chambers are not ideal and virtually nobody even thinks
about bothering to have one.

**Correct. Those of us who care, however, attempt to mitigate the
problems.

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

Anything else is a compromise.

Everthing else is practical and possibly reasonable.

**As is mitigating the problems of room interactions.

Some of which are part of the design of every sucessful loudspeaker for home
or studio use.

Minimising room interactions is the only sensible option.

The better word is managing.

**Minimising.

If you do that, you're back in the anechoic chamber, which is just not the
place to build a sound system for any reasonble cost.

Relying on room interaction (a la Bose) is just plain stupid.

All current home speakers are somewhat dependent on room interaction
for their sound quality because they depend on the room to present
boundaries that support their bass response.

**Most are. Some are not.

Name one that isn't.

However, the fact that an equalizer can alter the balance
between the direct-field and reverberant-field signals can
be important, IF the corrections applied are extreme.

I question this on the grounds that equalizers can't be applied
differently
to direct and reverberent field sound from a speaker. If you change
one, you change the other. If you had separate speakers assigned to
stimulating the direct and reverberent fields then you might try to
achieve this goal.

Virtually all of the reasonably good speakers I have
equalized have sounded better than their unequalized
counterparts.

This is in fact an observation of the obvious - if equalization
didn't improve sound quality, why would the designer do it? It costs
money, big time! In fact equalization, whether passive or active, is
widely used in loudspeaker designs. Arguably, even passive speaker
crossovers are designed to complement the response of the drivers,
which is a form of
equalization.

No reply on this important topic from Trevor

**I accept that YOU feel that the result is better. Understand that
is just YOUR opinion.

It's hardly unique to Ferstler, and it does agree with prevailing
thought in the mainstream audio industry.

**Sure, if you only consider the crappy end of the industry.

I await your list of speakers that were designed to work in an anechoic
chamber.

The rest
of us care about sound reproduction and can easily see the massive
flaws in the Bose/Festler Theorem (hereafter called BFT).

Mere posturing and name-calling.

One which is not shared by all listeners. It is
certainly not shared by most dedicated, experienced listeners.

Deification of Trevor's personal preferences noted. Trevor doesn't
believe in God, but he makes a God out of his preferences.

**I beleive in things that actually exist. The damage wrought by
analogue equalisers is audible to most experienced listeners.

Let's put it this way - they can make an audible change. This means that
they have the potential to make things better. They have to be used
intelligently to make things better, but this is done fairly frequently.

He has tunnel vision
related to many topics in audio, such as inverse feedback.

**Absolutely not. NFB is present in ALL audio amplifiers. It is
critical to the operation and the reduction of audibility of many
problems.

What about feedback loops, Trevor? Have you stopped fearing them? If so:
good!

His tunnel vision
is often directed well away from accepted audio technology. If he
lectured the AES about his peculiar audio views he'd be torn to
shreds almost instantly, and for good cause.

**Of course. I am not qualified to lecture in such a place.

Agreed.

Of course, so would John Atkinson...

**Your non-sequitur is duly noted.

Makes a point.

I on the other hand, could survive.

FAR more importantly, however, is the utter futility of anyone,
without SERIOUS test equipment, lots of experience and a
calibrated absolute reference signal (related to the music being
listened to) being able to correctly adjust any equaliser, such
that the signal is actually better (ie: More like high fidelity)
than the original. All that can really be acomplished, is that
the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener.

It takes nontrivial resources to effectively equalize speakers so
that they
better match the room. A lot of audiophiles don't have these
resources and don't want to take the time and money to acquire them.
The actual hardware costs of these resources are dropping rapidly,
and they are available and being used by more consumer-type people.

**They're still expensive and difficult to get right. Without them, an
equaliser is a waste of money, time and effort.

Based in ignorance.

I certainly agree with your view regarding test gear.
Adjusting a good equalizer by ear is a waste of time.

For the common audiophile, I think so. However, in the end every
effective application of an equalizer can benefit from some manual
tweaking. There are people who can listen to speakers, hypothesize a
set of settings for a parametric eq or 1/3 octave eq, call them out
from across the room and their application will be highly beneifical.

**How many people (who read your articles) possess such equipment?


At this time, thousands and thousands. Automated room equalization
equipment has even been built into high end multichannel receivers.

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

Some of each.

best guess would be fine. Do you state as much in your articles
(that equalisers are virtually useless without expensive test
equipment)?

The word expensive would be an example of out-of-date thinking.

Either that
or thinking that spending $100's to make a an audio system worth
$1,000s or
even $10,000's sound better is a waste of money.

No reply on this topic from Trevor


Nothing more. In fact, the results are somewhat akin to those
people who use crappy SET amplifiers for tone control substitutes.

Agreed.

No reply on this topic from Trevor

Equalisers are largely a waste of time and money. Particularly for
novice
users.

Outdated, bad thinking. Senseless posturing.

**No.

No supporting evidence or discussion - therefore an unfounded, unsupported
claim.

I used to feel this way, and said so in my first book, High
Fidelity Audio Video Systems, way back in 1991. However,
after doing some work with good equalizers and seeing what
proper and modest corrections can do, I humbly disagree with
both you and the younger version of Howard Ferstler.

**Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it
right for all listeners.

Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take
your own advice, at times.

**And you would do better to realise that I have no major objection to
automated room equalisers, which use digital, zero phase shift
systems.

Trevor, you never rebutted my discussion about why phase shift can be a good
thing.

What I DO object to, are analogue equalisers,

Fear of the dark.

which are set by untrained consumers, with no test equipment.

The real problem - so why not train them and equip them?

THAT was my point to Ferstler.

Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about analog
equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent analog equalization
built into their crossovers. The purpose of these analog equalizers is to
compensate for the properties of the drivers.

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

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.

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 -
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. 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. 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. 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.

Interestingly, there are now many CD versions of old and
very old classical transcriptions that simply cannot be had
in LP form at all. Those who are interested in archival
performances have to go to the CD format to get much in the
way of reissues. 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.

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.

Howard Ferstler

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

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message

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.

Agreed. There's some chance that someone has a very active imagination.

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. However, even narrow-dispersion
speakers will engage enough room reflections to make an
audible difference. 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. Room reverberation is impossible to
dodge.

Those
artifacts would be very singular and that would make them
very annoying. However, in a more reverberant environment (a
normal home-listening area), a broad mix of additional phase
artifacts generated by the room itself would swamp the
outlandish ones that were showing up in the anechoic room.

So you like to color your playback with room distortion to counter your
speakers' inherent distortions? I thought this ran contrary to your philosophy
in audio.

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

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.

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.
People who listen that way are not listening to the music;
they are listening to their hi-fi rigs.

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. Most enthusiasts who
love a hi-fi type sound have no idea of just how unrealistic
is may sound.

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.

Um, wrong. The fidelity of a live performance is unimpeachable.

And often sits in in stark contrast to what one hears from a
supposedly good hi-fi rig that is listened to in a
"dedicated" room from a locked-down, sweet-spot location.
This is not the way one should listen to music for
enjoyment.

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.

Howard Ferstler

Arny Krueger wrote:

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

....but if it was at all representative then I would think a speaker that was
actually dialed in for flat frequency response in far field in an
anechoic chamber would sound like crap in a normal "live" room.

Bingo!

One fault is predictable - it would be very thick and bass-heavy.

One kind of fault is unpredictable - it could have serious dispersion
problems, things like bad lobing, and you'd never know.

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.

Interestingly, if we are talking about hi-fi system
precision it is impossible to get both ears into the sweet
spot at the same time. Consequently, even in the very best
dedicated system a perfect sweet-spot experience is
impossible. Add to that the fact that centered images in a
stereo soundstage have four arrival clues instead of the two
we have with a "real" centered performer, and the whole idea
of super-duper two-channel systems in super-duper,
acoustically padded listening rooms becomes a joke. You get
much better (more realistic) results if you listen in a more
typical home-listening room with fairly conventional, but
still high-quality, speakers.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler a écrit :
S888Wheel wrote:

You fail miserably when you simply speak for yourself.


Please believe me, S888Wheel knows what he is speaking about... :-)


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

Howard Ferstler

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

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








Now Stephen, you know that's only an option for people with out prejudices and
biased agendas to promote.


Bruce J. Richman

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.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:04:07 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

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.

When was the last live concert that you attended?

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.



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.


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?

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.

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.

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.


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?

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

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.


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.

No. Not true.

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 8/22/2004 12:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

Are you confusing excessive brightness with actual clarity?

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.

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

That depends on the room.

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.

Room reverberation is impossible to
dodge.

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



Those
artifacts would be very singular and that would make them
very annoying. However, in a more reverberant environment (a
normal home-listening area), a broad mix of additional phase
artifacts generated by the room itself would swamp the
outlandish ones that were showing up in the anechoic room.

So you like to color your playback with room distortion to counter your
speakers' inherent distortions? I thought this ran contrary to your
philosophy
in audio.

Be serious.

I am being serious.

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. 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.

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.


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.



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. It can
make for better sound though. You might want to try listening without all that
added distortion that you seem to like so much. By the way, Room treatment and
size of the sweet spot are mutually exclusive issues to a large degree.




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.



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.

Most enthusiasts who
love a hi-fi type sound have no idea of just how unrealistic
is may sound.

Why do you keep babbling about what others like and dislike? You obviously have
no idea. I guess it's that holy war mentality. You just have to have an enemy.
That is just sad.



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.

Um, wrong. The fidelity of a live performance is unimpeachable.

And often sits in in stark contrast to what one hears from a
supposedly good hi-fi rig that is listened to in a
"dedicated" room from a locked-down, sweet-spot location.

I suppose it might often happen. But how would you know?


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.


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

"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!!!

"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

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 8/22/2004 12:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

Are you confusing excessive brightness with actual clarity?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 8/22/2004 12:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

Are you confusing excessive brightness with actual clarity?

He hasn't the ability to perceive either.

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

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


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
I posted a shorter version of the article below elsewhere on
RAO, in response to some comments. However, I have also
decided to submit it in slightly expanded form as a
brand-new RAO article.

OK, equalizers can have a huge impact on perceived dynamics,
"micro" or otherwise, but the impact has nothing to do with
distortions other than what the equalizer is designed to
generate. Those distortions are directly related to
frequency response, and nothing mysterious or esoteric
whatsoever.

**Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY
audio professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase
reationships of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not.

I do not consider those phase artifacts to be all that big a
deal,

**YOU consider a non-event. _I_ do not. To my ears, the damage
wrought by all analogue equalisers is serious. Most digital
equalisers are acceptable.

A good example of predice, not experience dictating strongly-held
perceptions.

**Call it: "30 years of experience with a wide variety of analogue
equalisers."

Call it yet another misapprehension from a guy who hates inverse feedbac
loops.

**That would be projection. And incorrect. I do not hate inanimate objects,
ideas or products. I reserve my hatred for certain human beings' actions. I
do not "hate" inverse feedback loops. In fact, they are pretty much
essential in all amplifiers. At least those which make pretense to be 'High
Fidelity'.


I pointed out about a week ago why phase shift in an equalizer can
be a good thing.

Still no reply on that topic from Trevor

**No need. It is wrong. Without very serious test equipment, no equalisers
phase shift can be made to be a good thing.


and I am not alone in believing this. Speakers and
listening rooms add plenty of phase artifacts all by
themselves.

To say the least!

**Ah, the old Bose argument.

No, the know-something argument.

**Not even close. The whole point of speaker placement is to mitigate
room interactions.

As if having an equalizer does away with the need to do that? Everybody
with
a brain knows that you position the speakers and work over the room as
well
as you can, and THEN fine tune with the equalizer.

**An analogue equaliser cannot ever assist a system. It can only damage. A
digital equaliser *may* be able to help, provided there is an adequate
reference. Without a reference, even a digital eq is useless.


Sorry, that does not wash. All listening rooms are different. Some
present fewer problems than others. Careful
speaker placement in a good room can do far more than any equaliser.

This is all fine and good, but it does not disprove or even relate to
Ferstler's claim.

Still no reply on that topic from Trevor

**I've already proven Ferstler wrong.


In many cases, those artifacts are either
inaudible (speaker related) or beneficial (room reflection
cancellations and reverberation).

Agreed - rooms can have beneficial effects on loudspeaker sound
quality.

**Nope.

For
example the boundaries of a room are expected by the speaker
designer to support bass response in certain beneficial ways.

**Nope. An anechoic environment will always provide superior (more
accurate) results.

This shows true ignorance of what almost all home and studio speakers
sound
like in an anechoic chamber.

**And this statement shows the ignorance under what conditions loudspeakers
are designed and tested. The condicitons are ALWAYS anechoic, or simulations
of an anechoic environment. Only in the low bass area, do manufacturers
allow for 'room gain'. Which is a kludge.


**There are no beneficial room artefacts.

I just described one.

**No. You just described a kludge.

No, its how things are. Speakers are designed to be used in rooms, not
anechoic chambers. They work far better in rooms than in anechoic
chambers.

**Wrong. They work very well in anechoic chambers. Superb, in fact. At least
good speakers do. Yes, I have listened to speakers in anechoic chambers. The
results (with good speakers) can be quite startling. As are the
measurements. Put a room around the speakers and everything gets worse. Lots
worse.

Nobody in the real world can afford to make every listening and recording
room into an anechoic chamber.

**Of course. Those us who care, make attempts in that direction, however.


The ideal room is an anechoic chamber.

Wrong again. As Scott points out below, even a partial attempt at an
anechoic chamber makes a really strange place to listen to music in.

**Then I suggest that Scott did not perform an adequate test.

Scott's experience is pretty typical. It's the answer that any student of
acoustics would expect.

Listening to good speakers, ON AXIS, in an anechoic environment is a
revelatory experience.

Dominated by thin bass and very strange imaging.

**Lack of room gain, provides a slightly leaner bass and stunning imaging.
Perhaps you'd care to explain the technical reasons behind your belief that
imaging suffers in an anechoic chamber. I look foreward to your answer.


Room reflections CANNOT ever assist sound
reproduction in a positive fashion.

Let's consider plan B: put a speaker in every location that the listener
perceives sound coming from in a concert hall.

**The result would be very messy.


The best that can be done, is to
mitigate the problems. Don't believe me? Listen to some really good
headphones sometime. You'll ge the idea.

Been there, done that. Oh, I guess that MDR 7506, HD 580, and ER6 aren't
good headphones.

**There you go. An anechoic environment, an excellent frequency response and
superb imaging. Now you understand what speakers can sound like in an
anechoic chamber.


However, let me waffle a bit. An anechoic chamber can be an ideal
room if your goal is perfect recreation of the sound field at the
live performance,
and you can mount the huge technological effort to actually
effectively support that goal.

**Now you agree with me? Colour me confused.

What's unclear about "Huge technological effort"?

**I only see that you agree with me. Which makes me wonder why you argue the
point. Anechoic environments are the best ways to listen to reproduced
sound.


The point is that in the real worlds of home and studio audio,
anechoic chambers are not ideal and virtually nobody even thinks
about bothering to have one.

**Correct. Those of us who care, however, attempt to mitigate the
problems.

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.


Anything else is a compromise.

Everthing else is practical and possibly reasonable.

**As is mitigating the problems of room interactions.

Some of which are part of the design of every sucessful loudspeaker for
home
or studio use.

**Finally!


Minimising room interactions is the only sensible option.

The better word is managing.

**Minimising.

If you do that, you're back in the anechoic chamber, which is just not the
place to build a sound system for any reasonble cost.

**Start with an anechoic chamber and work backwards.


Relying on room interaction (a la Bose) is just plain stupid.

All current home speakers are somewhat dependent on room interaction
for their sound quality because they depend on the room to present
boundaries that support their bass response.

**Most are. Some are not.

Name one that isn't.

**Since I don't know all the speakers, I can't answer that question.


However, the fact that an equalizer can alter the balance
between the direct-field and reverberant-field signals can
be important, IF the corrections applied are extreme.

I question this on the grounds that equalizers can't be applied
differently
to direct and reverberent field sound from a speaker. If you change
one, you change the other. If you had separate speakers assigned to
stimulating the direct and reverberent fields then you might try to
achieve this goal.

Virtually all of the reasonably good speakers I have
equalized have sounded better than their unequalized
counterparts.

This is in fact an observation of the obvious - if equalization
didn't improve sound quality, why would the designer do it? It costs
money, big time! In fact equalization, whether passive or active, is
widely used in loudspeaker designs. Arguably, even passive speaker
crossovers are designed to complement the response of the drivers,
which is a form of
equalization.

No reply on this important topic from Trevor

**Why should I? Who are you arguing with?


**I accept that YOU feel that the result is better. Understand that
is just YOUR opinion.

It's hardly unique to Ferstler, and it does agree with prevailing
thought in the mainstream audio industry.

**Sure, if you only consider the crappy end of the industry.

I await your list of speakers that were designed to work in an anechoic
chamber.

The rest
of us care about sound reproduction and can easily see the massive
flaws in the Bose/Festler Theorem (hereafter called BFT).

Mere posturing and name-calling.

**An accurate description.


One which is not shared by all listeners. It is
certainly not shared by most dedicated, experienced listeners.

Deification of Trevor's personal preferences noted. Trevor doesn't
believe in God, but he makes a God out of his preferences.

**I beleive in things that actually exist. The damage wrought by
analogue equalisers is audible to most experienced listeners.

Let's put it this way - they can make an audible change.

**Absolutely.

This means that
they have the potential to make things better.

**Digital eqs - yes. Analogue eqs - no. And neither is worth spit, unless
there is a hard reference, used with test equipment.

They have to be used
intelligently to make things better, but this is done fairly frequently.

**Never with analogue eqs and certainly never without test equipment.


He has tunnel vision
related to many topics in audio, such as inverse feedback.

**Absolutely not. NFB is present in ALL audio amplifiers. It is
critical to the operation and the reduction of audibility of many
problems.

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.


His tunnel vision
is often directed well away from accepted audio technology. If he
lectured the AES about his peculiar audio views he'd be torn to
shreds almost instantly, and for good cause.

**Of course. I am not qualified to lecture in such a place.

Agreed.

Of course, so would John Atkinson...

**Your non-sequitur is duly noted.

Makes a point.

**Another non-sequitur.


I on the other hand, could survive.

**Not by proclaiming that an anechoic environment is not the best place to
listen to a music reproduction system. You'd be torn to shreds.


FAR more importantly, however, is the utter futility of anyone,
without SERIOUS test equipment, lots of experience and a
calibrated absolute reference signal (related to the music being
listened to) being able to correctly adjust any equaliser, such
that the signal is actually better (ie: More like high fidelity)
than the original. All that can really be acomplished, is that
the sound *may* be more pleasing to the listener.

It takes nontrivial resources to effectively equalize speakers so
that they
better match the room. A lot of audiophiles don't have these
resources and don't want to take the time and money to acquire them.
The actual hardware costs of these resources are dropping rapidly,
and they are available and being used by more consumer-type people.

**They're still expensive and difficult to get right. Without them, an
equaliser is a waste of money, time and effort.

Based in ignorance.

**Based on reason, experience and logic.


I certainly agree with your view regarding test gear.
Adjusting a good equalizer by ear is a waste of time.

For the common audiophile, I think so. However, in the end every
effective application of an equalizer can benefit from some manual
tweaking. There are people who can listen to speakers, hypothesize a
set of settings for a parametric eq or 1/3 octave eq, call them out
from across the room and their application will be highly beneifical.

**How many people (who read your articles) possess such equipment?


At this time, thousands and thousands. Automated room equalization
equipment has even been built into high end multichannel receivers.

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

Some of each.

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


best guess would be fine. Do you state as much in your articles
(that equalisers are virtually useless without expensive test
equipment)?

The word expensive would be an example of out-of-date thinking.

Either that
or thinking that spending $100's to make a an audio system worth
$1,000s or
even $10,000's sound better is a waste of money.

No reply on this topic from Trevor

**If you have a question, which is not rhetorical, then ask it.



Nothing more. In fact, the results are somewhat akin to those
people who use crappy SET amplifiers for tone control substitutes.

Agreed.

No reply on this topic from Trevor

**Why? I made the point.


Equalisers are largely a waste of time and money. Particularly for
novice
users.

Outdated, bad thinking. Senseless posturing.

**No.

No supporting evidence or discussion - therefore an unfounded, unsupported
claim.

**What? As opposed to your claims that listening to speakers in an anechoic
chamber make imaging weird? You've got to be kidding!


I used to feel this way, and said so in my first book, High
Fidelity Audio Video Systems, way back in 1991. However,
after doing some work with good equalizers and seeing what
proper and modest corrections can do, I humbly disagree with
both you and the younger version of Howard Ferstler.

**Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That does not make it
right for all listeners.

Just read this Trevor and contemplate it. You would do well to take
your own advice, at times.

**And you would do better to realise that I have no major objection to
automated room equalisers, which use digital, zero phase shift
systems.

Trevor, you never rebutted my discussion about why phase shift can be a
good
thing.

**Because it cannot. Don't believe me? INtroduce some pahse shift into an
otherwise accurate system. See (listen) what happens. You'll get the idea.


What I DO object to, are analogue equalisers,

Fear of the dark.

**More rhetoric.


which are set by untrained consumers, with no test equipment.

The real problem - so why not train them and equip them?

**I have no objection to that. Unfortunately Ferstler makes no comment about
such a thing. Used properly, with test equipment, a digital eq may be a good
thing.


THAT was my point to Ferstler.

Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about analog
equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent analog
equalization
built into their crossovers. The purpose of these analog equalizers is to
compensate for the properties of the drivers.

**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).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

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


snip denials of reality

THAT was my point to Ferstler.

Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about
analog equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent
analog equalization built into their crossovers. The purpose of
these analog equalizers is to compensate for the properties of the
drivers.

**Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on
equalizers?

I'm saying that I disagree with certain of your complaints against his
views.

Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound
off side and rear walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic
disaster?

Trevor you know my views on Bose.

After all, that is what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good).

I'll guess you have to show me where he said that, Trevor The last relevant
thing I can find him saying about Bose correctly pointed out that 901s
aren't unique among speakers for bouncing sound around the side and back
walls. He correctly pointed out that the widely-respected Quad electrostats
being bipolar (like a number of other highly-regarded speakers) bounce
considerable amounts of sound off the back wall.

"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

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









I would expect that most music lovers wouild feel the same way. IOW, they
don't look forward to running around the house, frequently chainging locations
or sitting in another room when they really want to enjoy their records and /or
CDs.

The whole point of careful experimentation with speaker placement, toe-in
angles, possible wall treatments or use of furniture to compensate for
room/speaker interactions that are unfavorable, is presumably based on the
premise that there are optimal listening positions that most people favor.
Accordingly, the speaker positioning and other adjustments above are then made
to try and maximize the listener's enjoyment at that position.

For those of us who actually attend live concerts, selection of seating
location may also be based at times on what a given listener perceives to be
the most enjoyable listening location.






Bruce J. Richman

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

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


snip denials of reality

THAT was my point to Ferstler.

Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about
analog equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent
analog equalization built into their crossovers. The purpose of
these analog equalizers is to compensate for the properties of the
drivers.

**Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on
equalizers?

I'm saying that I disagree with certain of your complaints against his
views.

**Then, I take it, you agree with him?


Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound
off side and rear walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic
disaster?

Trevor you know my views on Bose.

After all, that is what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good).

I'll guess you have to show me where he said that, Trevor

**OK.

http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...gle.com&rnum=3

"...Admittedly, the 901s are not the best speakers to use if centered
vocalists are important to you. However, in my friend's room I did
listen to a jazz-combo recording that almost sounded like the group
was in the room."

And:

http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...fsu.edu&rnum=4

Read the entire piece. It is clear that Ferstler has fallen for The LieT,
hook, line and sinker.

And:

http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...bal.net&rnum=6

"...I will say that I recently did listen to Gary Eichmeier's
Bose 901 systems in his big room, and whatever anybody might
think about the 901 systems, in that particular space it was
certainly possible to conceive of a live ensemble
potentially being there."

And there is MUCH more. According to Google, you will find some 40-odd
references from Ferstler, where he gushingly parises the stuff.




The last relevant
thing I can find him saying about Bose correctly pointed out that 901s
aren't unique among speakers for bouncing sound around the side and back
walls. He correctly pointed out that the widely-respected Quad
electrostats
being bipolar (like a number of other highly-regarded speakers) bounce
considerable amounts of sound off the back wall.

**Of course. And like any bipolar radiator, the rear radiation needs to be
completely absorbed (as much as is possible. When this is done, Quads image
superbly. When it is not, they sound like crap.

Here are my comments you snipped:

---

Call it yet another misapprehension from a guy who hates inverse feedbac
loops.

**That would be projection. And incorrect. I do not hate inanimate objects,
ideas or products. I reserve my hatred for certain human beings' actions. I
do not "hate" inverse feedback loops. In fact, they are pretty much
essential in all amplifiers. At least those which make pretence to be 'High
Fidelity'.

---

This shows true ignorance of what almost all home and studio speakers
sound
like in an anechoic chamber.

**And this statement shows the ignorance under what conditions loudspeakers
are designed and tested. The conditions are ALWAYS anechoic, or simulations
of an anechoic environment. Only in the low bass area, do manufacturers
allow for 'room gain'. Which is a kludge.

---

No, its how things are. Speakers are designed to be used in rooms, not
anechoic chambers. They work far better in rooms than in anechoic
chambers.

**Wrong. They work very well in anechoic chambers. Superb, in fact. At least
good speakers do. Yes, I have listened to speakers in anechoic chambers. The
results (with good speakers) can be quite startling. As are the
measurements. Put a room around the speakers and everything gets worse. Lots
worse.

---

Dominated by thin bass and very strange imaging.

**Lack of room gain, provides a slightly leaner bass and stunning imaging.
Perhaps you'd care to explain the technical reasons behind your belief that
imaging suffers in an anechoic chamber. I look forward to your answer.

---

Been there, done that. Oh, I guess that MDR 7506, HD 580, and ER6 aren't
good headphones.

**There you go. An anechoic environment, an excellent frequency response and
superb imaging. Now you understand what speakers can sound like in an
anechoic chamber.

---

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

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

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

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


snip denials of reality

THAT was my point to Ferstler.

Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about
analog equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent
analog equalization built into their crossovers. The purpose of
these analog equalizers is to compensate for the properties of the
drivers.

**Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on
equalizers?

I'm saying that I disagree with certain of your complaints against
his views.

**Then, I take it, you agree with him?

Not everything.

Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound
off side and rear walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic
disaster?

Trevor you know my views on Bose.

After all, that is what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good).

I'll guess you have to show me where he said that, Trevor

**OK.

http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...gle.com&rnum=3

Trevor, I've got to teach you how to make these into something a little more
reasonable.

One mouse click on "Original Format" gets you to this:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3E...0attglobal.net


"...Admittedly, the 901s are not the best speakers to use if centered
vocalists are important to you. However, in my friend's room I did
listen to a jazz-combo recording that almost sounded like the group
was in the room."

The good news and the bad news.

And:

http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...fsu.edu&rnum=4


AKA:

http://www.google.com.au/groups?selm...mailer.fsu.edu

Read the entire piece. It is clear that Ferstler has fallen for The
LieT, hook, line and sinker.

Not at all

And:

http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...bal.net&rnum=6

AKA:

http://www.google.com.au/groups?selm...0attglobal.net

"...I will say that I recently did listen to Gary Eichmeier's
Bose 901 systems in his big room, and whatever anybody might
think about the 901 systems, in that particular space it was
certainly possible to conceive of a live ensemble
potentially being there."

I've heard Eichmeir's Bose system as well, and with certain recordings it
can sound pretty striking. Then there are that massive collection of other
recordings.

And there is MUCH more. According to Google, you will find some 40-odd
references from Ferstler, where he gushingly parises the stuff.

I sense some vestiges of balance in his comments. Ferstler is very much in
favor of ambience recovery, and seems to see the 901 as one of many ways to
approach that goal.

The last relevant
thing I can find him saying about Bose correctly pointed out that
901s aren't unique among speakers for bouncing sound around the side
and back walls. He correctly pointed out that the widely-respected
Quad electrostats being bipolar (like a number of other
highly-regarded speakers)
bounce considerable amounts of sound off the back wall.

**Of course. And like any bipolar radiator, the rear radiation needs
to be completely absorbed (as much as is possible. When this is done,
Quads image superbly. When it is not, they sound like crap.

That piece of audio dogma is clearly not believed by all owners of speakers
that are bipolar radiators.

Here are my comments you snipped:
---

Call it yet another misapprehension from a guy who hates inverse
feedbac loops.

**That would be projection. And incorrect. I do not hate inanimate
objects, ideas or products. I reserve my hatred for certain human
beings' actions. I do not "hate" inverse feedback loops. In fact,
they are pretty much essential in all amplifiers. At least those
which make pretence to be 'High Fidelity'.

So, you've decided to haggle over word meanings as a smokescreen for the
fact that you've changed your story?

---

This shows true ignorance of what almost all home and studio speakers
sound
like in an anechoic chamber.

**And this statement shows the ignorance under what conditions
loudspeakers are designed and tested.

Sue me for having actually listened to a variety of home speakers in
anechoic chambers and similar very dead spaces.

The conditions are ALWAYS
anechoic, or simulations of an anechoic environment. Only in the low
bass area, do manufacturers allow for 'room gain'. Which is a kludge.

Which is reality.

No, its how things are. Speakers are designed to be used in rooms,
not anechoic chambers. They work far better in rooms than in anechoic
chambers.

**Wrong. They work very well in anechoic chambers.

Sue me for having actually listened to a variety of home speakers in
anechoic chambers and similar very dead spaces.

Superb, in fact.

You must not like bass, Trevor.

At least good speakers do. Yes, I have listened to speakers in
anechoic chambers.

You must have forgotten the experience.

I've got no problems with anechoic chambers as test environments, such as
described he

http://www.axiomaudio.com/NRC.html

"When a speaker's output directly in front of the speaker and at increasing
angles to each side and above and below it is as smooth and as similar as
possible, the designer can be reasonably certain it will sound fairly
accurate in a normal room, because the reflected energy will have roughly
the same tonal balance as the speaker's direct energy on-axis. "

The results (with good speakers) can be quite
startling. As are the measurements. Put a room around the speakers
and everything gets worse. Lots worse.

But, thats how we all use them.


---

Dominated by thin bass and very strange imaging.

**Lack of room gain, provides a slightly leaner bass and stunning
imaging. Perhaps you'd care to explain the technical reasons behind
your belief that imaging suffers in an anechoic chamber. I look
forward to your answer.

Very simple. Imaging is composed of two general perceptions. One is that the
sound came from a source in the place where it was recorded, and one is that
the sound comes from a place that is immediate to the listener. Our
perception that the sound comes from a place that is immediate to the
listener who knows that he is in room, comes from reflections from within
that room.

---

Been there, done that. Oh, I guess that MDR 7506, HD 580, and ER6
aren't good headphones.

**There you go. An anechoic environment, an excellent frequency
response and superb imaging. Now you understand what speakers can
sound like in an anechoic chamber.

Except for three things One, headphones are designed to be used that way.
Two, experienced listeners expect headphones to sound the way that they do.
Three, many people find headphone listening to be too strange to be
enjoyable. Why do they sound strange? Not enough reflections from nearby
objects in the room.

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

**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.

A zero phase digital eq, perhaps,
provided there is adequate references and test equipment. None of
which Ferstler ever mentioned.

"Arny Krueger" said:

**Of course. And like any bipolar radiator, the rear radiation needs
to be completely absorbed (as much as is possible. When this is done,
Quads image superbly. When it is not, they sound like crap.

That piece of audio dogma is clearly not believed by all owners of speakers
that are bipolar radiators.

Being an owner of dipole speakers, I gotta agree with Arny on this
one.
The several Quads I've heard in my life, seemed to benefit from rear
reflections as well (within limits, of course).

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Trevor Wilson wrote:

[snip]

**An analogue equaliser cannot ever assist a system. It can only damage. A
digital equaliser *may* be able to help, provided there is an adequate
reference. Without a reference, even a digital eq is useless.

I'm not knowledgable enough about technical audio matters -- and about
phase relationships, specifically -- to get exactly what you're
referring to here, but I take it you're talking about the point you made
in an early post in this thread:

"**Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio
professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships
of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not."

However, in that same post, you also noted that:

"All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more
pleasing to the listener."

But couldn't some recordings (i.e., especially older, and more poorly
made ones) be made more pleasing *because* sometimes it's possible to
fiddle with them just a bit so that they sound a little more like what
they should have sounded like in the first place? In my own
experience, this is certainly true for a lot of my jazz and classical
records made in the 40s and 50s. If that's so, then I don't see why you
say, in an unqualified way, that an analogue equalizer can *never*
assist a system.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

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

Is this a new portmanteau word, a combination of dispersion and
disruption? :-)

Norm Strong

Norman Strong wrote:


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

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

Is this a new portmanteau word, a combination of dispersion and
disruption? :-)

Norm Strong










I think it's a neologism, but a very accurate one describing Ferstler's dubious
contributions to RAO.






Bruce J. Richman

From: "normanstrong"
Date: 8/23/2004 10:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: L8qWc.304054$%_6.35962@attbi_s01


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

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

Is this a new portmanteau word, a combination of dispersion and
disruption? :-)

Norm Strong









Good one.It's just me not paying attention.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
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

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

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


Cheers,

Margaret

"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.

"johnebravo836" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

[snip]

**An analogue equaliser cannot ever assist a system. It can only damage.
A
digital equaliser *may* be able to help, provided there is an adequate
reference. Without a reference, even a digital eq is useless.

I'm not knowledgable enough about technical audio matters -- and about
phase relationships, specifically -- to get exactly what you're
referring to here, but I take it you're talking about the point you made
in an early post in this thread:

"**Are certain that you are a professional audio writer? EVERY audio
professional knows that analogue equalisers alter the phase reationships
of a musical signal. Digital Eqs may not."

However, in that same post, you also noted that:

"All that can really be acomplished, is that the sound *may* be more
pleasing to the listener."

But couldn't some recordings (i.e., especially older, and more poorly
made ones) be made more pleasing *because* sometimes it's possible to
fiddle with them just a bit so that they sound a little more like what
they should have sounded like in the first place?

**High Fidelity may (or may not) be pleasing. Pleasing is in the hands of
the artist, not the listener. Moreover, without an absolute reference, the
use of an equaliser is hit and miss. Mostly, it is miss.

In my own
experience, this is certainly true for a lot of my jazz and classical
records made in the 40s and 50s. If that's so, then I don't see why you
say, in an unqualified way, that an analogue equalizer can *never*
assist a system.

**For the reasons stated. Without a reference, it is useless. Further, an
analogue eq does more damage to sound than it can hope to correct. The same
may not necessarily be said of digital eqs.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"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 Wilson" wrote in message


snip denials of reality

THAT was my point to Ferstler.

Still way wrong and full of misapprehensions, particularly about
analog equalizers. Note that most speaker systems have inherent
analog equalization built into their crossovers. The purpose of
these analog equalizers is to compensate for the properties of the
drivers.

**Are you saying that you agree with Ferstler and his views on
equalizers?

I'm saying that I disagree with certain of your complaints against
his views.

**Then, I take it, you agree with him?

Not everything.

**So far, so good.


Further, are you seriously telling me that bouncing sound
off side and rear walls (al Bose) can be anything but a sonic
disaster?

Trevor you know my views on Bose.

After all, that is what Ferstler claims (that Bose is good).

I'll guess you have to show me where he said that, Trevor

**OK.


http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...gle.com&rnum=3

Trevor, I've got to teach you how to make these into something a little
more
reasonable.

One mouse click on "Original Format" gets you to this:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3E...0attglobal.net


**Thanks for the tip. I'll use it next time.



"...Admittedly, the 901s are not the best speakers to use if centered
vocalists are important to you. However, in my friend's room I did
listen to a jazz-combo recording that almost sounded like the group
was in the room."

The good news and the bad news.

**Nope. Unless Ferstler had actually heard the jazz performance and
possessed an extraordinary auditory memory, his opinion is worthless. The
Bose 901 is utterly incapable of realistically reproducing *any* musical
performance. It fundamentally destroys valuable parts of the music. Every
time.


And:


http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...fsu.edu&rnum=4


AKA:

http://www.google.com.au/groups?selm...mailer.fsu.edu

Read the entire piece. It is clear that Ferstler has fallen for The
LieT, hook, line and sinker.

Not at all

**Hook, line AND sinker.


And:


http://www.google.com.au/groups?q=Bo...bal.net&rnum=6

AKA:

http://www.google.com.au/groups?selm...0attglobal.net

"...I will say that I recently did listen to Gary Eichmeier's
Bose 901 systems in his big room, and whatever anybody might
think about the 901 systems, in that particular space it was
certainly possible to conceive of a live ensemble
potentially being there."

I've heard Eichmeir's Bose system as well, and with certain recordings it
can sound pretty striking. Then there are that massive collection of other
recordings.

**I've heard many "striking" sounding systems. Including a few 901 based
ones. They all sucked. What captivates me is an illusion of reality, not an
illusion of what some clown, with specious deisgn ideas, decides it should
be.


And there is MUCH more. According to Google, you will find some 40-odd
references from Ferstler, where he gushingly parises the stuff.

I sense some vestiges of balance in his comments. Ferstler is very much in
favor of ambience recovery, and seems to see the 901 as one of many ways
to
approach that goal.

**Wrong. The Bose 901 GENERATES artifical ambience. It does not "recover
ambience". THAT is impossible. It is this artificially generated ambience
which is it's critical failure.


The last relevant
thing I can find him saying about Bose correctly pointed out that
901s aren't unique among speakers for bouncing sound around the side
and back walls. He correctly pointed out that the widely-respected
Quad electrostats being bipolar (like a number of other
highly-regarded speakers)
bounce considerable amounts of sound off the back wall.

**Of course. And like any bipolar radiator, the rear radiation needs
to be completely absorbed (as much as is possible. When this is done,
Quads image superbly. When it is not, they sound like crap.

That piece of audio dogma is clearly not believed by all owners of
speakers
that are bipolar radiators.

**I don't give a **** about what one or two people think. I know what is. I
have had long experience with bipolar radiators (ca. 30 years). In EVERY
case teh speakers sounded better (more focussed imaging, better balanced,
etc) as more of the rear radiation was absorbed. Every time. In some cases,
I have even disconnected rear facing drivers (Infinity used to do this
infuriatingly stupid act), for significant improvements. EVERY TIME. Like I
said: I don't care what a handful of nutters think. I know what is. Some of
those same people imagine that SET amps actualy provide a closer approach to
reality too.


Here are my comments you snipped:
---

Call it yet another misapprehension from a guy who hates inverse
feedbac loops.

**That would be projection. And incorrect. I do not hate inanimate
objects, ideas or products. I reserve my hatred for certain human
beings' actions. I do not "hate" inverse feedback loops. In fact,
they are pretty much essential in all amplifiers. At least those
which make pretence to be 'High Fidelity'.

So, you've decided to haggle over word meanings as a smokescreen for the
fact that you've changed your story?

**I've altered nothing. If you would care to provide a cite where I stated
that I hate inverse feedback, then I will be most interested.

Here's a hint for you: Before you make assumptions, you should verify
EXACTLY what my beliefs are.


---

This shows true ignorance of what almost all home and studio speakers
sound
like in an anechoic chamber.

**And this statement shows the ignorance under what conditions
loudspeakers are designed and tested.

Sue me for having actually listened to a variety of home speakers in
anechoic chambers and similar very dead spaces.

**Obviously, not closely enough. The results are startlingly accurate and
eerily real, given a good recording.


The conditions are ALWAYS
anechoic, or simulations of an anechoic environment. Only in the low
bass area, do manufacturers allow for 'room gain'. Which is a kludge.

Which is reality.

**It is still a kludge.


No, its how things are. Speakers are designed to be used in rooms,
not anechoic chambers. They work far better in rooms than in anechoic
chambers.

**Wrong. They work very well in anechoic chambers.

Sue me for having actually listened to a variety of home speakers in
anechoic chambers and similar very dead spaces.

**Obviously, not closely enough. The results are startlingly accurate and
eerily real, given a good recording.


Superb, in fact.

You must not like bass, Trevor.

**I like a close illusion of reality.


At least good speakers do. Yes, I have listened to speakers in
anechoic chambers.

You must have forgotten the experience.

**Nope.


I've got no problems with anechoic chambers as test environments, such as
described he

http://www.axiomaudio.com/NRC.html

"When a speaker's output directly in front of the speaker and at
increasing
angles to each side and above and below it is as smooth and as similar as
possible, the designer can be reasonably certain it will sound fairly
accurate in a normal room, because the reflected energy will have roughly
the same tonal balance as the speaker's direct energy on-axis. "

**And if you read the Bose site, you will find some extremely specious
information which says a similar thing. Unfortunately, without specifying
EXACTLY what the intended room will be like, no manufacturer can make such a
comment with any legitimacy.


The results (with good speakers) can be quite
startling. As are the measurements. Put a room around the speakers
and everything gets worse. Lots worse.

But, thats how we all use them.

**And many of us attempt to mitigate those reflections.



---

Dominated by thin bass and very strange imaging.

**Lack of room gain, provides a slightly leaner bass and stunning
imaging. Perhaps you'd care to explain the technical reasons behind
your belief that imaging suffers in an anechoic chamber. I look
forward to your answer.

Very simple. Imaging is composed of two general perceptions. One is that
the
sound came from a source in the place where it was recorded, and one is
that
the sound comes from a place that is immediate to the listener. Our
perception that the sound comes from a place that is immediate to the
listener who knows that he is in room, comes from reflections from within
that room.

**No. Room reflections cannot assist in the localisation of instruments in a
recording. Not ever.


---

Been there, done that. Oh, I guess that MDR 7506, HD 580, and ER6
aren't good headphones.

**There you go. An anechoic environment, an excellent frequency
response and superb imaging. Now you understand what speakers can
sound like in an anechoic chamber.

Except for three things One, headphones are designed to be used that way.

**Non-sequitur.

Two, experienced listeners expect headphones to sound the way that they
do.

**Non-sequitur.

Three, many people find headphone listening to be too strange to be
enjoyable. Why do they sound strange? Not enough reflections from nearby
objects in the room.

**Non-sequitur.


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

**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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au