Home theatre with hifi recommendations sought

[suthep]

I want to buy a home theatre with a as good hifi sound as possible. My
budget is 5000 USD max and I would appreciate some advice. My friend (
there's always one isn't there .. ) says that Denon or Onkyo DVD player /
amps are good options. But what about speakers? Should I try to go for used
stuff and buy separates or buy something new in a box?
I only need DVD/CD player and TV size should be perhaps up to 54inch. Is
plasma really worth the extra?

[Ian S]

"suthep" > wrote in message
...
> I want to buy a home theatre with a as good hifi sound as possible. My
> budget is 5000 USD max and I would appreciate some advice. My friend (
> there's always one isn't there .. ) says that Denon or Onkyo DVD player /
> amps are good options. But what about speakers? Should I try to go for
used
> stuff and buy separates or buy something new in a box?
> I only need DVD/CD player and TV size should be perhaps up to 54inch. Is
> plasma really worth the extra?

Read the latest Consumer Reports which has an extensive discussion of the
various types of displays and their pluses and minuses. For example, plasma
TVs may not be a good choice if you live at altitudes above 2500 feet. I'd
buy new stuff - used can be a crap shoot. A system of separates if properly
put together is going to outperform HTIB but will likely cost more too.

[[email protected]]

Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but
worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other
things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some
simple things as well. They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a
Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum
federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be
built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine
whether or not they met a specification, both are equal. A Craftsman
wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a
Snap-On, it's as simple as that. Consumer testing organizations deal
with a lowest common denominator mentality.

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:
>
> Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but
> worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other
> things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some
> simple things as well. They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a
> Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum
> federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be
> built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine
> whether or not they met a specification, both are equal. A Craftsman
> wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a
> Snap-On, it's as simple as that. Consumer testing organizations deal
> with a lowest common denominator mentality.

I have stated many times that CR gives us a starting point
with stuff like speaker reviews. Not much more, however.
They do precise power response measurements better than just
about anyone else, however.

With receivers and players, the stuff they recommend will
probably work as well as the best high-end stuff, at least
up to the point where an amp in one of those recommended
receivers hits its power ceiling.

Most consumers do not need the durability of Snap-On tools.
The Sears stuff will do quite well for them.

Howard Ferstler

[Ian S]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but
> worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other
> things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some
> simple things as well.

So they are OK for rating "appliances" but not simple things? Is a TV an
appliance? How is "serious audio" defined?

They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a
> Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum
> federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be
> built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine
> whether or not they met a specification, both are equal.

Consumers Union develops its own tests and subjects the tested items to the
same test. Frequently, testing involves a test to failure. In addition,
products are evaluated on the basis of cost so that a product with the same
performance but cheaper will rank higher. My response to the O.P. was in
reference to TV displays. Perhaps you could read the report in question and
determine specifically where it is deficient. I know "audiophiles" poo-poo
CU's tests of audio equipment probably because they don't generally test the
boutique components that audiophiles drool over.

A Craftsman
> wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a
> Snap-On, it's as simple as that.

I suppose Snap-On wrenches are "serious" tools. I get the distibct
impression that "serious" to you is determined by the price tag.

Consumer testing organizations deal
> with a lowest common denominator mentality.
>

[[email protected]]

Ian S wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but
> > worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other
> > things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some
> > simple things as well.
>
> So they are OK for rating "appliances" but not simple things? Is a TV
an
> appliance? How is "serious audio" defined?

If I were a serious washing machine buff-I'm sure they exist-I
wouldn't like CU's washing machine tests either. There are many
subtleties in washing machines, or there were during the time when I
was familiar with them. A Maytag was more durable than a
Kenmore/Whirlpool in the sense failures were rarer, but the Kenmore was
cheaper to fix. The belt was a bitch to change on the Kenmore, but did
act as a safety link against tearing up the transmission. Only
appliance technicians would know these things, or a obsessed washing
machine buff. CU didn't cover these kind of things. CU was probably
okay as a general guide weeding out the mostpoorly built machines and
directing people to the better ones in general, but it didn't have time
or inclination to communicate all the subtleties. And because most
people didn't really give a ****, that was a fair deal.

This group is composed of the audio equivalent of serious washing
machine buffs.




> They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a
> > Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum
> > federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can
be
> > built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine
> > whether or not they met a specification, both are equal.
>
> Consumers Union develops its own tests and subjects the tested items
to the
> same test. Frequently, testing involves a test to failure. In
addition,
> products are evaluated on the basis of cost so that a product with
the same
> performance but cheaper will rank higher. My response to the O.P. was
in
> reference to TV displays. Perhaps you could read the report in
question and
> determine specifically where it is deficient. I know "audiophiles"
poo-poo
> CU's tests of audio equipment probably because they don't generally
test the
> boutique components that audiophiles drool over.
>
> A Craftsman
> > wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as
a
> > Snap-On, it's as simple as that.
>
> I suppose Snap-On wrenches are "serious" tools. I get the distibct
> impression that "serious" to you is determined by the price tag.
>

You can get a pretty complete set of Craftsman hand tools for
mechanical work in 1/4, 3/8 and 1/2 inch drive and the equivalent sized
combination wrenches, et al, for three or four hundred dollars if you
wait until they are on sale. That same collection in Snap-On is
probably five grand. If you can wangle 'industrial' pricing or you buy
the whole enchilada at once from a truck vendor and you catch him at
an opportune moment, you might get a ten percent price break-period.
The price is the same whether you buy one wrench or the whole catalog,
theoretically. That's considered a plus, in their market. The Craftsman
tools will work but they are heavier, thicker, and will not take the
abuse the Snap-ons will, and the Snap-Ons will clean up easier, and are
just generally nicer to work with. Also, and this is the real
difference, Snap-On tools are vended to their target customers off a
truck-you are paying for convenience and for their credit policies.
Their industrial business is strictlyu a side-car to their auto
business.

But cost aside-their tools are a lot better. If all you do is change
your oil, you don't need Snap-On. But if you want the best tool you can
get, there they are. That's what "high-end" means.

[suthep]

this is all a pile of use to me seeking recommendations of a system
......zzzz///

[Ian S]

"suthep" > wrote in message
...
>
> this is all a pile of use to me seeking recommendations of a system
> .....zzzz///

I'll restate my original advice: get the latest issue of Consumer Reports
and read up on the newest TV technology since it sounds as if that will be
by far the single biggest item in your budget. Each technology has its pros
and cons and you have to consider the question of getting high definition
now or later. Screen size is not as simple as it sounds since you need to
consider how far away you'll be as well as how much off-axis viewers might
be.

There are plenty of good receivers - Onkyo, Denon, Harmon-Kardon, Pioneer,
Yamaha, Kenwood, etc. - get one with at least 80 watts/channel RMS all
channels driven. Most receivers are tested using 8 ohm impedance speakers
which are the norm. However, a few speakers may be as low as 4 ohms and that
can cause problems for some receivers. Get 6.1 or even 7.1 but bear in mind
that means either 6 or 7 passive speakers plus a subwoofer will be required
to get the benefit. Speaking of subs, you'll want a powerful one for the low
frequency effects in DVD movies - Hsu makes some exceptionally good value
ones. I happen to like their Ventriloquist speaker set too but there are
plenty of good choices for front, center and surrounds. Decent DVD players
are pretty cheap these days. You can even get "universal" players with DVD-A
and SACD playback for as low as $100 if those music formats are of interest
but then also make sure your receiver has the correct inputs for the
individual analog cables those formats use. If you have a turntable
requiring phono inputs, make sure you have them on your receiver - many
don't anymore.

[suthep]

"> I'll restate my original advice: get the latest issue of Consumer Reports
> and read up on the newest TV technology since it sounds as if that will be
> by far the single biggest item in your budget. Each technology has its
> pros
> and cons and you have to consider the question of getting high definition
> now or later. Screen size is not as simple as it sounds since you need to
> consider how far away you'll be as well as how much off-axis viewers might
> be.
>
> There are plenty of good receivers - Onkyo, Denon, Harmon-Kardon, Pioneer,
> Yamaha, Kenwood, etc. - get one with at least 80 watts/channel RMS all
> channels driven. Most receivers are tested using 8 ohm impedance speakers
> which are the norm. However, a few speakers may be as low as 4 ohms and
> that
> can cause problems for some receivers. Get 6.1 or even 7.1 but bear in
> mind
> that means either 6 or 7 passive speakers plus a subwoofer will be
> required
> to get the benefit. Speaking of subs, you'll want a powerful one for the
> low
> frequency effects in DVD movies - Hsu makes some exceptionally good value
> ones. I happen to like their Ventriloquist speaker set too but there are
> plenty of good choices for front, center and surrounds. Decent DVD players
> are pretty cheap these days. You can even get "universal" players with
> DVD-A
> and SACD playback for as low as $100 if those music formats are of
> interest
> but then also make sure your receiver has the correct inputs for the
> individual analog cables those formats use. If you have a turntable
> requiring phono inputs, make sure you have them on your receiver - many
> don't anymore.

Thx , this is what I am looking for , some basic advice. One question. Since
I will want to listen to music perhaps even more than watching movies, are
there any further pointers you would like to give me?

[Ian S]

"suthep" > wrote in message
...
>
> "> I'll restate my original advice: get the latest issue of Consumer
Reports
> > and read up on the newest TV technology since it sounds as if that will
be
> > by far the single biggest item in your budget. Each technology has its
> > pros
> > and cons and you have to consider the question of getting high
definition
> > now or later. Screen size is not as simple as it sounds since you need
to
> > consider how far away you'll be as well as how much off-axis viewers
might
> > be.
> >
> > There are plenty of good receivers - Onkyo, Denon, Harmon-Kardon,
Pioneer,
> > Yamaha, Kenwood, etc. - get one with at least 80 watts/channel RMS all
> > channels driven. Most receivers are tested using 8 ohm impedance
speakers
> > which are the norm. However, a few speakers may be as low as 4 ohms and
> > that
> > can cause problems for some receivers. Get 6.1 or even 7.1 but bear in
> > mind
> > that means either 6 or 7 passive speakers plus a subwoofer will be
> > required
> > to get the benefit. Speaking of subs, you'll want a powerful one for the
> > low
> > frequency effects in DVD movies - Hsu makes some exceptionally good
value
> > ones. I happen to like their Ventriloquist speaker set too but there are
> > plenty of good choices for front, center and surrounds. Decent DVD
players
> > are pretty cheap these days. You can even get "universal" players with
> > DVD-A
> > and SACD playback for as low as $100 if those music formats are of
> > interest
> > but then also make sure your receiver has the correct inputs for the
> > individual analog cables those formats use. If you have a turntable
> > requiring phono inputs, make sure you have them on your receiver - many
> > don't anymore.
>
> Thx , this is what I am looking for , some basic advice. One question.
Since
> I will want to listen to music perhaps even more than watching movies, are
> there any further pointers you would like to give me?

That's kind of the boat I'm in too. I think the typical advice is to get
full range front speakers assuming your music sources are CD, turntable or
cassette played back in normal stereo. These will tend to be large and will
have a lower SAF (Spousal Approval Factor) than an entire system of small
satellites. I went the satellite route myself and am happy with that but you
may want to go with full range fronts. When I say full range, I don't mean
they have to have huge woofer elements to get down to 30 Hz or below -
that's what your sub will be for. A lot of front speakers are in a slim
tower design which eliminates the need for stands of any kind - it's best to
have mid and high range drivers at the same height as your ears while
listening.

Even with music, you'll appreciate a good sub with capabilities down to 25
Hz or less (Bach organ music especially). You'll want adjustability in
crossover some of which may be handled by the sub electronics and some
handled by the receiver. There is also an art to sub placement relative to
the listener; much depends on the room itself. Also the size and nature of
the room as well as your own tastes (loudness levels) will influence your
audio choices.

If you're into music, you may as I did want to dabble with the new formats -
DVD-Audio and SACD. These provide superb high quality musical sound in a
surround format. Some people consider them gimmicky, you have to have a
special DVD player to play them in optimum format, the titles available are
fewer, and they're a bit more expensive than standard CDs. Still, I like the
surround sound - stems from my youthful desire for a Quadraphonic system way
back in the 1970's, I guess.

Crutchfield has some general info too
http://www.crutchfieldadvisor.com/learningcenter/S-rxWRmlqNori/home/

These are just some random thoughts I have on the subject. I'm still
learning too.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Ian S wrote:

> That's kind of the boat I'm in too. I think the typical advice is to get
> full range front speakers assuming your music sources are CD, turntable or
> cassette played back in normal stereo. These will tend to be large and will
> have a lower SAF (Spousal Approval Factor) than an entire system of small
> satellites.

This is rubbish. Often, the stands are even *more* ugly than
a nice, thin tower. http://www.tannoy.com/Eyris2 Note the
beautiful real wood veneer and a thin profile. I've found
that the mounts/stands for most speakers are often uglier than
a good small tower or wall-mounted surround.

Show this to your spouse. Then, as most women have better
hearing than men by middle-age, let her hear them :) Tannoy
stopped making their Revolution, which is a shame, but they
also are great sounding without being a behemoth.

> I went the satellite route myself and am happy with that but you
> may want to go with full range fronts. When I say full range, I don't mean
> they have to have huge woofer elements to get down to 30 Hz or below -
> that's what your sub will be for. A lot of front speakers are in a slim
> tower design which eliminates the need for stands of any kind - it's best to
> have mid and high range drivers at the same height as your ears while
> listening.

35-40hz is the optimal range, as it will go down to 30hz, though at
less db. This gives it some overlap with the subwoofer, so the
sub isn't doing it all, but instead, is providing reinforcement
as it should be. The difference between subwoofer reinforcement
and it taking over everything at the low-end is quite audible.

"Ian S" > wrote in message
news:uBOTd.118175$0u.89693@fed1read04...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but
>> worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other
>> things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some
>> simple things as well.
>
> So they are OK for rating "appliances" but not simple things? Is a TV an
> appliance? How is "serious audio" defined?
>
> They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a
>> Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum
>> federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be
>> built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine
>> whether or not they met a specification, both are equal.
>
> Consumers Union develops its own tests and subjects the tested items to
> the
> same test. Frequently, testing involves a test to failure. In addition,
> products are evaluated on the basis of cost so that a product with the
> same
> performance but cheaper will rank higher. My response to the O.P. was in
> reference to TV displays. Perhaps you could read the report in question
> and
> determine specifically where it is deficient. I know "audiophiles" poo-poo
> CU's tests of audio equipment probably because they don't generally test
> the
> boutique components that audiophiles drool over.
>
> A Craftsman
>> wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a
>> Snap-On, it's as simple as that.

I've used both Craftsman and Snap-On wrenches. Although the Snap-On wrench
is prettier, I don't see that it's better in any meaningful way, and it
certainly doesn't have a better warranty.

Norm Strong

[Ian S]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Ian S wrote:
>
> > That's kind of the boat I'm in too. I think the typical advice is to get
> > full range front speakers assuming your music sources are CD, turntable
or
> > cassette played back in normal stereo. These will tend to be large and
will
> > have a lower SAF (Spousal Approval Factor) than an entire system of
small
> > satellites.
>
> This is rubbish. Often, the stands

What stands? I didn't mention stands. Small satellites are easily and
inexpensively mounted on the wall. And they can be quite unobtrusive. That
said, if you do go with satellites, it may be useful to use some cheap
adjustable stands initially to have the ability to move the speakers around
before settling on the best location for each speaker in your room. Once you
have the optimum location pattern, some or all of the satellites can be
wall-mounted. For someone on a tight budget and wanting to go with slim
tower front speakers, Fry's Electronics (at least here in Phoenix and
probably other places as well) has Polk R50's on for $160 a pair.

[Ian S]

Some more thoughts:

Some of the new receivers with 6.1 or 7.1 capability are quite large. Make
sure you have room in any cabinet you want to put them in and that there is
good ventillation otherwise you run the risk of the amps shutting down due
to overheating. Also realize that you will need quite a bit of room behind
the receiver to deal with the large number of cables you'll be connecting.

Also, unless you plan to purchase a sophisticated remote, make sure you can
live with the one that comes with the receiver. There is an surprising
variability in the quality of the ergonomics in this often overlooked
component. When you get your selection of components narrowed down, then
search the internet for user reviews which will often mention such small but
ultimately significant details.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

>
> I've used both Craftsman and Snap-On wrenches. Although the Snap-On
wrench
> is prettier, I don't see that it's better in any meaningful way, and
it
> certainly doesn't have a better warranty.
>

It is to its targeted market, in that the truck comes to them rather
than their having to go to the Sears store regularly. The hobbyist who
buys Snap-On would have to go flag down a truck, but then again, in
hobby use they really don't break.

[Ian S]

> wrote in message
...
>

>
> I've used both Craftsman and Snap-On wrenches. Although the Snap-On
wrench
> is prettier, I don't see that it's better in any meaningful way, and it
> certainly doesn't have a better warranty.
>
> Norm Strong

It's been many years since I used any Snap-on tools and they were certainly
the highest quality. Of course, they were far more expensive than just about
anything else but included in the price had to be the cost of all those guys
driving around to sell and deliver to all those mechanics. As you say, the
warranties are lifetime but the Snap-on replacement comes to you while you
have to go get the Craftsman.

[Joseph Oberlander]

wrote:


> I've used both Craftsman and Snap-On wrenches. Although the Snap-On wrench
> is prettier, I don't see that it's better in any meaningful way, and it
> certainly doesn't have a better warranty.
>
> Norm Strong

My preference is for Klein. Simmilar metalurgy and construction,
but with a better price-performance than Snap-On. Sears used to
make decent tools, but lately, well, it's going downhill fast.
I've never seen a Snap-On or Klein break barring idiot
moves that usually break you or what you are working on,
but Sears uses that "lifetime replacement" all the time.

I guess it's like a Toyota versus a KIA. One just doesn't
*need* a big warranty. I'd rather own the one that never
breaks in the first place, replacement warranty or not.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Ian S wrote:

> What stands? I didn't mention stands. Small satellites are easily and
> inexpensively mounted on the wall.

Oh, you mean those rear-ported speakers? And mount them on what?
Velcro? Most wall mounts are also ugly in the extreme, especially
if you have off-white walls or wallpaper.

> wall-mounted. For someone on a tight budget and wanting to go with slim
> tower front speakers, Fry's Electronics (at least here in Phoenix and
> probably other places as well) has Polk R50's on for $160 a pair.

Ecch. Polk are rubbish at the low-end. Truly. I'd take a pair
of Athenas over them, and a pair of Mirage or Paradigm would make
it way up my list of budget choices.

True, really beautiful towers like the Tannoys run about $600-$1200
a pair, but, IMO, it's well worth it as they almost are in the category
of fine furniture.

[Ian S]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> Ian S wrote:
>
> > What stands? I didn't mention stands. Small satellites are easily and
> > inexpensively mounted on the wall.
>
> Oh, you mean those rear-ported speakers? And mount them on what?
> Velcro? Most wall mounts are also ugly in the extreme,

Most wall-mounts are virtually invisible behind the speaker.

especially
> if you have off-white walls or wallpaper.

Wallpaper? Yeah, I think my senile aunt has some of that..
>
> > wall-mounted. For someone on a tight budget and wanting to go with slim
> > tower front speakers, Fry's Electronics (at least here in Phoenix and
> > probably other places as well) has Polk R50's on for $160 a pair.
>
> Ecch. Polk are rubbish at the low-end. Truly. I'd take a pair
> of Athenas over them, and a pair of Mirage or Paradigm would make
> it way up my list of budget choices.

Obviously your budget isn't as tight as your ass.
>
> True, really beautiful towers like the Tannoys run about $600-$1200
> a pair, but, IMO, it's well worth it as they almost are in the category
> of fine furniture.

Which is it speakers or "fine furniture"?

[Ian S]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net...

> True, really beautiful towers like the Tannoys run about $600-$1200
> a pair, but, IMO, it's well worth it as they almost are in the category
> of fine furniture.

If they're made anything like British cars, no thank you.

[Howard Ferstler]

Ian S wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but
> > worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other
> > things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some
> > simple things as well.
>
> So they are OK for rating "appliances" but not simple things? Is a TV an
> appliance? How is "serious audio" defined?
>
> They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as a
> > Snap-On for example. One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum
> > federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be
> > built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine
> > whether or not they met a specification, both are equal.

> Consumers Union develops its own tests and subjects the tested items to the
> same test. Frequently, testing involves a test to failure. In addition,
> products are evaluated on the basis of cost so that a product with the same
> performance but cheaper will rank higher. My response to the O.P. was in
> reference to TV displays. Perhaps you could read the report in question and
> determine specifically where it is deficient. I know "audiophiles" poo-poo
> CU's tests of audio equipment probably because they don't generally test the
> boutique components that audiophiles drool over.

My guess (and it is a guess) is that they have tested some
high-end gear and found most of it to not be all that
exceptional. I think that some high-end stuff (certain
speakers and certainly certain surround processors) are
easily a cut above the Best Buy mainstream.

> A Craftsman
> > wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a
> > Snap-On, it's as simple as that.

> I suppose Snap-On wrenches are "serious" tools. I get the distibct
> impression that "serious" to you is determined by the price tag.

OK, just what do you use such tools for that would make it
imperative for you that they work all that much better than
the Sears versions? The only people I can see needing such
killer-durable would be professional automobile or
motorcycle mechanics or professional machinists. Sure, it
may make a tool junky feel upscale to own super-duper tools
(I am that way about some of my tools, myself), but feeling
good about something does not make for a rational reason for
ownership. The average tool user can get as much mileage out
of a set of Sears tools as he can get out of a set of
Snap-On versions.

I have a 240 square foot shop out back and have it populated
by maybe eight grand worth of bench and hand power tools and
non-powered hand tools. I can do a lot of stuff out there
(mostly involving woodworking, but also involving some
metalworking and machine-tool stuff), but I do not kid
myself and tell people that I am a professional woodworker
or machinist who must have top-tier hardware. That said, I
am more than satisfied with owning mostly mid-level tools,
although some are professional grade.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Ian S wrote:

> I'll restate my original advice: get the latest issue of Consumer Reports
> and read up on the newest TV technology since it sounds as if that will be
> by far the single biggest item in your budget. Each technology has its pros
> and cons and you have to consider the question of getting high definition
> now or later. Screen size is not as simple as it sounds since you need to
> consider how far away you'll be as well as how much off-axis viewers might
> be.

Actually, I agree with you.

> There are plenty of good receivers - Onkyo, Denon, Harmon-Kardon, Pioneer,
> Yamaha, Kenwood, etc. - get one with at least 80 watts/channel RMS all
> channels driven.

I have stated this in numerous product reviews and
commentary articles in The Sensible Sound, and also in my
two AV books. My floor is 100 wpc, however, at least with
the three channels up front.

> Most receivers are tested using 8 ohm impedance speakers
> which are the norm. However, a few speakers may be as low as 4 ohms and that
> can cause problems for some receivers.

I agree. This is why it pays to go as upscale as possible
with receivers. Either that, or stick with speakers that are
spec rated at 6 - 8 ohms.

> Get 6.1 or even 7.1 but bear in mind
> that means either 6 or 7 passive speakers plus a subwoofer will be required
> to get the benefit. Speaking of subs, you'll want a powerful one for the low
> frequency effects in DVD movies - Hsu makes some exceptionally good value
> ones.

Yes they do. SVS is in that same category. I own three Hsu
subs, one SVS, and two Velodyne servo jobs. Love them all,
and have reviewed all of them for The Sensible Sound.

> I happen to like their Ventriloquist speaker set too but there are
> plenty of good choices for front, center and surrounds.

I reviewed the Ventriloquist package in issue 101 (Sept/Oct,
2004) of The Sensible Sound. Included the STF-1 sub. Very
nice little group of speakers.

> Decent DVD players
> are pretty cheap these days.

Yep. I'd stick with something that costs at least a hundred
bucks, however.

> You can even get "universal" players with DVD-A
> and SACD playback for as low as $100 if those music formats are of interest
> but then also make sure your receiver has the correct inputs for the
> individual analog cables those formats use.

The issue here is bass management and distance compensation.
This puts SACD and DVD-A at a disadvantage if the system has
smallish satellites, for sure. Frankly, with DVD-A you can
play the DD or DTS alternate tracks on the discs and get
bass management and distance compensation. That makes those
tracks probably better sounding in most cases than the DVD-A
tracks. Actually, I have compared DVD-A to DD on a number of
occasions (easy to do if a distributor sends you multiple
copies and you have multiple players hooked into the same
system) and find that subjectively the latter sounds just as
good, period.

I have also compared SACD to some of the CD versions (a
lengthy report series will be in an upcoming review of The
Sensible Sound) and found that if good DSP ambiance
synthesis is applied to the two-channel CD versions they
will sound as good as the SACD surround versions, and
sometimes better. SACD and DVD-A are both overrated when it
comes to per-channel performance, in my opinion, but of
course they also offer surround. However, in some systems
that technology goes to waste, because of the bass
management and distance compensation issues.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Ian S wrote:

> If you're into music, you may as I did want to dabble with the new formats -
> DVD-Audio and SACD. These provide superb high quality musical sound in a
> surround format. Some people consider them gimmicky, you have to have a
> special DVD player to play them in optimum format, the titles available are
> fewer, and they're a bit more expensive than standard CDs. Still, I like the
> surround sound - stems from my youthful desire for a Quadraphonic system way
> back in the 1970's, I guess.

Remember those bass-management and distance-compensation
issues, however. Most 5.1 analog input sections in receivers
will not have those circuits. This can make typical sub/sat
systems (even those with largish left and right main
speakers) run into problems.

Howard Ferstler

[[email protected]]

No one ever said High End audio was rational. It's obsessive
compulsive behavior! It's a relatively harmless outlet for OCD, as
opposed to some others. Mid-fi is more rational which is why it sells
more- a reasonable approximation at a reasonable price. You buy it,
hook it up, it sounds okay. Not super great, okay. The same with a
hobbyist owning Snap-On wrenches, or HP/Agilent or Tek test equipment,
or a Hasselblad camera...no, you don't need it. That's the point.

About any old speakers hooked to about any old amplifier in about any
room will sound about okay, to the average person on the street. If
you have a little money and tme and want the sound to be more
realistic, more, well, more...and you like well made things for their
own sake...high end audio might be a good hobby. Maybe you have money
and no time, just call the high end saloon on lunch break-even dope
defense lawyers and brain surgeons have to eat-and have them deliver
what they think is best. Have some time and curiosity and energy and
not so much cash? Building your own speakers and amps has to beat
watching stupid TV shows. Nothing in the world like flipping the
switch and watching filaments light up...even in 2005.

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...

Sure, it
> may make a tool junky feel upscale to own super-duper tools
> (I am that way about some of my tools, myself), but feeling
> good about something does not make for a rational reason for
> ownership.

That's your problem, Howard, you are adamantly opposed to
other people feeling good. Your entire world view is based on Schadenfruede.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:
>
> No one ever said High End audio was rational.

But it could be. There is no reason why somebody could not
intelligently shop around for REALLY good speakers, REALLY
good surround processors, and REALLY good ancillary gear,
and then install it in a REALLY good, dedicated room,
possibly built from scratch. (Yep, that is me.) That would
be true high end, and not the baloney behavior we see in
most situations.

> It's obsessive
> compulsive behavior!

Only with certain individuals. There are those who follow
the guidelines noted above and get GENUINE high-end
performance and not fantasies. Fantasies are not high end.

< It's a relatively harmless outlet for OCD, as
> opposed to some others.

Yes, it probably is harmless. However, it does result in
certain individuals making suckers out of others. While the
people who sell gimmick products are not exactly dragging
down our culture, they can, and do, sometimes do damage to
individuals who purchase overpriced gear. Also, there is
something about dumbing down any hobby that I find
offensive.

> Mid-fi is more rational which is why it sells
> more- a reasonable approximation at a reasonable price. You buy it,
> hook it up, it sounds okay. Not super great, okay.

Agreed.

> The same with a
> hobbyist owning Snap-On wrenches, or HP/Agilent or Tek test equipment,
> or a Hasselblad camera...no, you don't need it. That's the point.

What point? Again, a REAL high-end enthusiast (be audio,
tools, or cameras the point of interest) will work to get
stuff that does all that is required to satisfy certain
requirements. Yes, if he is loaded with money he can get
overkill items (I have done that myself in audio, tools, and
photography in some, but certainly not all, cases), but that
does not mean that he will get a performance edge that
matters in terms of reality.

Also, most of the guys who get upscale tools or upscale
camera gear (I once did weddings, portraits, and landscape
photography for money, myself) do not spend big bucks on
items that do nothing. This is not the case with audio
freaks, who will spend big bucks on power conditioners,
super wire, vibration control devices, and other goofy
gimmicks.

As an obsessive hobby, audio sits an irrational peg above
photography or woodworking or metalworking enterprises.

> About any old speakers hooked to about any old amplifier in about any
> room will sound about okay, to the average person on the street.

Ironically, a high-end package may actually sound worse. Not
always, but sometimes. Much high-end gear is overpriced and
overkill junk. (Read: SET amps, for instance.) Is someone
who purchases stuff like that in total ignorance and then
become pleased with results that are substandard in the
extreme a REAL high-end enthusiast? I think not. I think
they are a bit addled, and as you noted obsessive, but I do
not think that they are genuine high-end audio enthusiasts.
High-end audio enthusiasts, the real ones and not the fakes
that hang out here, know what they are doing.

> If
> you have a little money and tme and want the sound to be more
> realistic, more, well, more...and you like well made things for their
> own sake...high end audio might be a good hobby. Maybe you have money
> and no time, just call the high end saloon on lunch break-even dope
> defense lawyers and brain surgeons have to eat-and have them deliver
> what they think is best. Have some time and curiosity and energy and
> not so much cash? Building your own speakers and amps has to beat
> watching stupid TV shows. Nothing in the world like flipping the
> switch and watching filaments light up...even in 2005.

Not for me.

Howard Ferstler

[[email protected]]

Howard, a guy who builds a WE91 clone (or two) for a few hundred
bucks, just how nuts is he? If it blows goats (and I think it does...)
he's out a few hundred bucks, or he can put it on ebay and get his
parts cost out of it. (Or use it for a guitar amp.) What has he lost?
The time spent building it? Amusement, cheaper than going to a ball
game. You are lumping the DIY building hobbyist with the guy who goes
to the saloon and buys all the latest fad stuff new at list.

And power conditioners are no nuttier for high end audio than in the
racks of touring musicians, almost all of them have one now. I have
stated my ideas on cost effective power improvement elsewhere and
while I believe them better than some commercial practices that doesn't
change the fact something needs to be done given power utility
practices today.

What about photography? Esthetically superior photos are often the
result of simpler optics and it's widely acknowledged that Japanese
optics which measure higher in sharpness are less desireable than
German (and overpriced) Zeiss and Leitz optics. Indeed a friend of mine
has had several published art nudes with his "secret weapon", a $2
Polaroid rollfilm camera lens put on a cut down extension tube he uses
with a 67 Pentax. Is the notion that a tube amplifier with a pair of
1940s tubes could be BETTER SOUNDING than a modern one so nutty in
comparison? The insistence of Objectivoids that it can't be so just
doesn't stand up to repeated listening, it is no different than if they
insisted that ABX testing proved soybean sandwiches were better tasting
than a Whataburger. Insist though they may, it will fall on deaf ears.

No pun intended.

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> Sure, it
> > may make a tool junky feel upscale to own super-duper tools
> > (I am that way about some of my tools, myself), but feeling
> > good about something does not make for a rational reason for
> > ownership.

> That's your problem, Howard, you are adamantly opposed to
> other people feeling good. Your entire world view is based on Schadenfruede.

True. When tweako idiots feel good about moronic issues, I
do indeed start to squirm. If I can get some of you to wake
up and realize that your exotic wires and overpriced amps
are nothing special that will make my day. If you break down
in tears as the mysteriousness of the hobby fades, too bad.

Still, you do not get the full point. I believe that you
pinheads are really, really making high-end (I mean REAL
high end, and not the subjective baloney-related version you
embrace) audio into a joke.

I don't like that.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:

> What about photography? Esthetically superior photos are often the
> result of simpler optics and it's widely acknowledged that Japanese
> optics which measure higher in sharpness are less desireable than
> German (and overpriced) Zeiss and Leitz optics. Indeed a friend of mine
> has had several published art nudes with his "secret weapon", a $2
> Polaroid rollfilm camera lens put on a cut down extension tube he uses
> with a 67 Pentax.

Hey, the 6 x 7 Pentax was the camera I used for years. Had
two bodies and a case full of lenses. Heavy camera, though.
I also used five different Minolta 35 mm bodies and maybe a
dozen lenses. I had lots of lenses, and potato masher
flashes and power-pack flashes, and umbrellas, and, well,
you know, lots of stuff. Had a b&w and color darkroom in the
house, too. Made all of the wedding shots larger than 4 x 5
myself. Also did work for the state copying a multitude of
nitrate sheet-film negatives onto safe stock. Did over 4,000
in 8 x 10 size right there in that darkroom. A regular
assembly line for five years.

> Is the notion that a tube amplifier with a pair of
> 1940s tubes could be BETTER SOUNDING than a modern one so nutty in
> comparison?

Absolutely. See below for the reason.

> The insistence of Objectivoids that it can't be so just
> doesn't stand up to repeated listening, it is no different than if they
> insisted that ABX testing proved soybean sandwiches were better tasting
> than a Whataburger. Insist though they may, it will fall on deaf ears.

The guy who used the tube with the Pentax was creating an
"end in itself" piece of art work. Audio enthusiasts are
supposed to be using their hardware to achieve
low-distortion sound reproduction for music (or even home
theater) sound reproduction and not artsy musical
instruments disguised as hi-fi rigs.

The audio hardware is NOT and end in itself.

Howard Ferstler

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> No one ever said High End audio was rational. It's obsessive
> compulsive behavior!

Thanks Cal for admitting that in your view, high end audio and its
advocates, as well as the magazines devoted to it are nuts.


>It's a relatively harmless outlet for OCD, as opposed to some others.

Yeah, when Marc Phillips stalked my house and was hanging out around town,
looking for me with a rifle - that was relatively harmless. When Scott
Wheeler sued me in California Superior Court, that was relatively harmless,
too. And, when Marc reported me to my local police as a pedophile and Tom
Yutz recommended that others do the same, that was just harmless fun.

Well, you're right Cal, both Scott Wheeler and Marc Philips turned out to be
total and complete putz's, and it all came to nothing. yes, they're
represenative fo the relatively harmless nature of HighEnd Audio.

> Mid-fi is more rational which is why it sells
> more- a reasonable approximation at a reasonable price. You buy it,
> hook it up, it sounds okay. Not super great, okay.

In many cases nobody, not even the review staff of Sterephile it seems, can
hear the difference. So what about that, Cal?

> The same with a hobbyist owning Snap-On wrenches,

Huh? Can't a person do useful work with Snap-On wrenches?

>or HP/Agilent or Tek test equipment,

I resemble that - and it get some useful work with it, as well.

>or a Hasselblad camera...no, you don't need it. That's the point.

Tell the astranauts - they didn't need that Hasselblad at all.

> About any old speakers hooked to about any old amplifier in about
> any room will sound about okay, to the average person on the street.

Really?

> If you have a little money and tme and want the sound to be more
> realistic, more, well, more...and you like well made things for their
> own sake...high end audio might be a good hobby.

Maybe. Sometimes you get what you pay for. Sometimes you don't. With an iffy
situation like this, why rely on a magazine that is basically a joke book?

> Maybe you have money
> and no time, just call the high end saloon on lunch break-even dope
> defense lawyers and brain surgeons have to eat-and have them deliver
> what they think is best.

Good advice for people with more money than sense. I'd guess this would be
part of the natural high end ragazine marketplace as well.

>Have some time and curiosity and energy and
> not so much cash? Building your own speakers and amps has to beat
> watching stupid TV shows.

Other than building subwoofers, this is probably as bad advice as any.

> Nothing in the world like flipping the
> switch and watching filaments light up...even in 2005.

Now Cal's advice is as big of a joke as those high end ragazines and web
site.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Sure, it
>> may make a tool junky feel upscale to own super-duper tools
>> (I am that way about some of my tools, myself), but feeling
>> good about something does not make for a rational reason for
>> ownership.
>
> That's your problem, Howard, you are adamantly opposed to
> other people feeling good.

Yeah people like high end salesmen and the proprietors of high end
publications. They feel good - they think its a joke when people follow
their advice and trash big segments of CD collections by following their
advice.

> Your entire world view is based on Schadenfruede.

Tain't no such word. In fact what Art is talking about Schadenfreude, where
high end salesmen and ragazine staffs drive pleasure by giving bogus advice
that destroys the enjoyment of reeader's music collections with off-the-wall
recommendations like treat your CDs with Armor-All.

[Howard Ferstler]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com

> >It's a relatively harmless outlet for OCD, as opposed to some others.

> Yeah, when Marc Phillips stalked my house and was hanging out around town,
> looking for me with a rifle - that was relatively harmless.

Man, these guys are loony.

> When Scott
> Wheeler sued me in California Superior Court, that was relatively harmless,
> too.

Yep, loony.

> And, when Marc reported me to my local police as a pedophile and Tom
> Yutz recommended that others do the same, that was just harmless fun.

Loony, for sure.

> Well, you're right Cal, both Scott Wheeler and Marc Philips turned out to be
> total and complete putz's, and it all came to nothing.

Spineless loonies? My God, how far the noble have fallen!

> yes, they're
> represenative fo the relatively harmless nature of HighEnd Audio.

That the hobby attracts such people is one reason I am for
"cleaning house." It motivates me.

Well, the money I am paid motivates, too.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> And I don't really care about it. Like I said before, my most expensive
> component
> cost me $1,900. My system has a cost of approximately $6,000. I have walked
> out
> of high end stores laughing, that I was more pleased with my system than
> their
> $100,000 system. I feel good about that, but if somebody else
> wants to go the route of a $100,000 system, I really couldn't care less.

Your lack of compassion for suckers is noted.

Howard Ferstler

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>> Sure, it
>> > may make a tool junky feel upscale to own super-duper tools
>> > (I am that way about some of my tools, myself), but feeling
>> > good about something does not make for a rational reason for
>> > ownership.
>
>> That's your problem, Howard, you are adamantly opposed to
>> other people feeling good. Your entire world view is based on
>> Schadenfruede.
>
> True. When tweako idiots feel good about moronic issues, I
> do indeed start to squirm. If I can get some of you to wake
> up and realize that your exotic wires and overpriced amps
> are nothing special that will make my day. If you break down
> in tears as the mysteriousness of the hobby fades, too bad.
>
> Still, you do not get the full point. I believe that you
> pinheads are really, really making high-end (I mean REAL
> high end, and not the subjective baloney-related version you
> embrace) audio into a joke.
>
> I don't like that.
>
And I don't really care about it. Like I said before, my most expensive
component
cost me $1,900. My system has a cost of approximately $6,000. I have walked
out
of high end stores laughing, that I was more pleased with my system than
their
$100,000 system. I feel good about that, but if somebody else
wants to go the route of a $100,000 system, I really couldn't care less.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>

>
>> Your entire world view is based on Schadenfruede.
>
> Tain't no such word. In fact what Art is talking about Schadenfreude,
> where
> high end salesmen and ragazine staffs drive pleasure by giving bogus
> advice
> that destroys the enjoyment of reeader's music collections with
> off-the-wall
> recommendations like treat your CDs with Armor-All.
>

Your previous post of 7:04 PM, in the same thread,
contained the following five errors:

represenative
fo
astranauts
Sterephile
tme



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> And I don't really care about it. Like I said before, my most expensive
>> component
>> cost me $1,900. My system has a cost of approximately $6,000. I have
>> walked
>> out
>> of high end stores laughing, that I was more pleased with my system than
>> their
>> $100,000 system. I feel good about that, but if somebody else
>> wants to go the route of a $100,000 system, I really couldn't care less.
>
> Your lack of compassion for suckers is noted.
>

I'm not the taste police.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Joseph Oberlander]

Ian S wrote:

>>True, really beautiful towers like the Tannoys run about $600-$1200
>>a pair, but, IMO, it's well worth it as they almost are in the category
>>of fine furniture.
>
>
> Which is it speakers or "fine furniture"?

Considering that "Spouse Approval Factor" was brought
up, if you can get both goals met, why not spend a
little more?

[Joseph Oberlander]

Ian S wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>
>>True, really beautiful towers like the Tannoys run about $600-$1200
>>a pair, but, IMO, it's well worth it as they almost are in the category
>>of fine furniture.
>
>
> If they're made anything like British cars, no thank you.

Heh. Thankfully, speakers are one of the few areas that
the British actually excel at.

[Ian S]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...

>
> The issue here is bass management and distance compensation.
> This puts SACD and DVD-A at a disadvantage if the system has
> smallish satellites, for sure. Frankly, with DVD-A you can
> play the DD or DTS alternate tracks on the discs and get
> bass management and distance compensation. That makes those
> tracks probably better sounding in most cases than the DVD-A
> tracks. Actually, I have compared DVD-A to DD on a number of
> occasions (easy to do if a distributor sends you multiple
> copies and you have multiple players hooked into the same
> system) and find that subjectively the latter sounds just as
> good, period.
>
> I have also compared SACD to some of the CD versions (a
> lengthy report series will be in an upcoming review of The
> Sensible Sound) and found that if good DSP ambiance
> synthesis is applied to the two-channel CD versions they
> will sound as good as the SACD surround versions, and
> sometimes better. SACD and DVD-A are both overrated when it
> comes to per-channel performance, in my opinion, but of
> course they also offer surround. However, in some systems
> that technology goes to waste, because of the bass
> management and distance compensation issues.
>
> Howard Ferstler

These are excellent points - thank you for making them. I wonder if we're
stuck with analog from the player for these formats. I'm just dabbling in
them out of curiosity more than anything. One DVD-A I bought has Bach's
Toccata & Fugue in d minor with video closeup of the keyboard as the
organist plays. It's a large baroque organ that Bach himself reportedly
played. I really enjoyed that! There's no way I'd ever get to see anything
like that so closeup and with the exceptional audio to boot.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:04:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Yeah, when Marc Phillips stalked my house

Yeah, sort of like when *you* stalked my house in cyberspace.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:04:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah, when Marc Phillips stalked my house
>
>
> Yeah, sort of like when *you* stalked my house in cyberspace.

Quick definitions (stalk)
# verb: follow stealthily or recur constantly and
spontaneously to (Example: "Her ex-boyfriend stalked her")

If I understand correctly "to stalk" implies an unilateral
need, right ?
So it's not false to say that you are stalking Arnold
Krueger for months now. At least since he doesn't answer
anymore to your solicitude. ;-)

In contrary it is false to say that I am stalking you since
you always answer to my post and that (rarely but) sometime
you take the initiative of the exchange.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:39:44 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:04:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, when Marc Phillips stalked my house
>>
>>
>> Yeah, sort of like when *you* stalked my house in cyberspace.
>
>Quick definitions (stalk)
># verb: follow stealthily or recur constantly and
>spontaneously to (Example: "Her ex-boyfriend stalked her")
>
>If I understand correctly "to stalk" implies an unilateral
>need, right ?
>So it's not false to say that you are stalking Arnold
>Krueger for months now. At least since he doesn't answer
>anymore to your solicitude. ;-)

You don't know what you're talking about. Having conversations on a
USENET group is different than trying to delve into peoples' personal
information and view their homes. He did the same thing that Marc did,
only through cyberspace.

>In contrary it is false to say that I am stalking you since
>you always answer to my post and that (rarely but) sometime
>you take the initiative of the exchange.

If this is the case, then Marc wasn't "stalking" Mr. Krueger either,
since he trolls Mr. Phillips all the time, right?

Frankly, being a stooge for Arnold Krueger is perfect for a "sewer
inspector". It's not the path that *I* would take in life, but there
ya go.

[Arny Krueger]

"Lionel" > wrote in message

> dave weil a écrit :
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:04:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yeah, when Marc Phillips stalked my house

>> Yeah, sort of like when *you* stalked my house in cyberspace.

> Quick definitions (stalk)
> # verb: follow stealthily or recur constantly and
> spontaneously to (Example: "Her ex-boyfriend stalked her")

> If I understand correctly "to stalk" implies an unilateral
> need, right ?

> So it's not false to say that you are stalking Arnold
> Krueger for months now. At least since he doesn't answer
> anymore to your solicitude. ;-)

Agreed. Weil is a whiner and a very needy person. He seems to expect people
to believe that the fact that he stalks me on Usenet almost daily means
nothing. He wants people to believe that the fact that I once saw a picture
of the roof of his house is some kind of a major problem. It turns out that
Weil lives in a fairly gritty part of town.

I think its funnier than heck that Marc Phillips went out of his way to
drive by my house. Teenage boys do stuff like that for girls that they have
crushes on.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:17:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Lionel" > wrote in message

>> dave weil a écrit :
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:04:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yeah, when Marc Phillips stalked my house
>
>>> Yeah, sort of like when *you* stalked my house in cyberspace.
>
>> Quick definitions (stalk)
>> # verb: follow stealthily or recur constantly and
>> spontaneously to (Example: "Her ex-boyfriend stalked her")
>
>> If I understand correctly "to stalk" implies an unilateral
>> need, right ?
>
>> So it's not false to say that you are stalking Arnold
>> Krueger for months now. At least since he doesn't answer
>> anymore to your solicitude. ;-)
>
>Agreed. Weil is a whiner and a very needy person. He seems to expect people
>to believe that the fact that he stalks me on Usenet almost daily means
>nothing. He wants people to believe that the fact that I once saw a picture
>of the roof of his house is some kind of a major problem. It turns out that
>Weil lives in a fairly gritty part of town.

I guess that this is one of of his "non-answers". How does it feel to
be a conduit Lionel? I guess it's not all that different from being a
sewerpipe.

BTW, Arnold once claimed to have seen a picture of my house, not just
an aerial shot of my neighborhood. Notice how he's changed his tuned
and pretty much lied by omission.

And yes, I live in a fairly gritty part of town. I happen to like the
urban life. I've never cared for suburbia. I've always gravitated
toward older homes and a more lively street life.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:57:26 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>BTW, Arnold once claimed to have seen a picture of my house, not just
>an aerial shot of my neighborhood. Notice how he's changed his tuned
>and pretty much lied by omission.

Or "changed his _tune_ " even.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :

> Frankly, being a stooge for Arnold Krueger is perfect for a "sewer
> inspector". It's not the path that *I* would take in life, but there
> ya go.

Dave since months you are desperatly trying to get attention
from Arnold Krueger... Your daily insistence is really
ridiculous and pitiful. It's not the path that *I* would
take in life, but here ya go.

Clean your nose Dave you're full of snot. ;-)

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :

> BTW, Arnold once claimed to have seen a picture of my house, not just
> an aerial shot of my neighborhood. Notice how he's changed his tuned
> and pretty much lied by omission.

"At least" he hasn't kept preciously a recording of your
voice during year.
Arnold seems to be less fetichist than you are Dave... :-D

> And yes, I live in a fairly gritty part of town. I happen to like the
> urban life. I've never cared for suburbia. I've always gravitated
> toward older homes and a more lively street life.

I agree on this one. IMHO suburbia are boring an monotomn...
I prefer the country sides.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:53:30 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>
>> Frankly, being a stooge for Arnold Krueger is perfect for a "sewer
>> inspector". It's not the path that *I* would take in life, but there
>> ya go.
>
>Dave since months you are desperatly trying to get attention
>from Arnold Krueger... Your daily insistence is really
>ridiculous and pitiful. It's not the path that *I* would
>take in life, but here ya go.

You're just wrong. If anything, I've interacted LESS with Arnold in
the past year. That doesn'tmean that I won't take him to task from
time to time. Actually, I kind of like the fact that he seems too
afraid to answer me directly, but uses you to be able to respond to
some of my points.

Actually, you HAVE taken that daily insistence path in your life. You
really should look in the mirror.

>Clean your nose Dave you're full of snot. ;-)

Actually, I'm over the flu, thank you very much.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:59:49 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>
>> BTW, Arnold once claimed to have seen a picture of my house, not just
>> an aerial shot of my neighborhood. Notice how he's changed his tuned
>> and pretty much lied by omission.
>
>"At least" he hasn't kept preciously a recording of your
>voice during year.
>Arnold seems to be less fetichist than you are Dave... :-D

I didn't "preciously" keep the recording. I kept it because I
neglected to delete it (sort of like those pornographic pictures that
Arnold forgot to delete off of HIS hard drive).

>> And yes, I live in a fairly gritty part of town. I happen to like the
>> urban life. I've never cared for suburbia. I've always gravitated
>> toward older homes and a more lively street life.
>
>I agree on this one. IMHO suburbia are boring an monotomn...
>I prefer the country sides.

I like the country as well. If I didn't live in the city, that's where
I'd prefer to live. I LOVED living on the edge of the Eifel. It was
very soothing and gas in Luxembourg was cheap <g>. The area around
Nashville is similar in a lot of ways, except the the hills are
tighter and a little bit smaller. Still, living 8 minutes from work
without having to deal with the expressway is an advantage that I'm
loathe to give up.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>
>> dave weil a écrit :
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:04:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yeah, when Marc Phillips stalked my house
>
>>> Yeah, sort of like when *you* stalked my house in cyberspace.
>
>> Quick definitions (stalk)
>> # verb: follow stealthily or recur constantly and
>> spontaneously to (Example: "Her ex-boyfriend stalked her")
>
>> If I understand correctly "to stalk" implies an unilateral
>> need, right ?
>
>> So it's not false to say that you are stalking Arnold
>> Krueger for months now. At least since he doesn't answer
>> anymore to your solicitude. ;-)
>
> Agreed. Weil is a whiner and a very needy person. He seems to expect
> people
> to believe that the fact that he stalks me on Usenet almost daily means
> nothing. He wants people to believe that the fact that I once saw a
> picture
> of the roof of his house is some kind of a major problem. It turns out
> that
> Weil lives in a fairly gritty part of town.
>
> I think its funnier than heck that Marc Phillips went out of his way to
> drive by my house. Teenage boys do stuff like that for girls that they
> have
> crushes on.
>

"At least" he didn't roll your dead bushes with toilet paper.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:59:49 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>BTW, Arnold once claimed to have seen a picture of my house, not just
>>>an aerial shot of my neighborhood. Notice how he's changed his tuned
>>>and pretty much lied by omission.
>>
>>"At least" he hasn't kept preciously a recording of your
>>voice during year.
>>Arnold seems to be less fetichist than you are Dave... :-D
>
>
> I didn't "preciously" keep the recording. I kept it because I
> neglected to delete it (sort of like those pornographic pictures that
> Arnold forgot to delete off of HIS hard drive).

Ooops the pressure suddenly increase. It's better to stop here.

>>>And yes, I live in a fairly gritty part of town. I happen to like the
>>>urban life. I've never cared for suburbia. I've always gravitated
>>>toward older homes and a more lively street life.
>>
>>I agree on this one. IMHO suburbia are boring an monotomn...
>>I prefer the country sides.
>
>
> I like the country as well. If I didn't live in the city, that's where
> I'd prefer to live. I LOVED living on the edge of the Eifel. It was
> very soothing and gas in Luxembourg was cheap <g>.

This is still the case. Luxembourg is still the biggest West
European purveyor of gas and cigarettes in competition with
Andorra.

> The area around
> Nashville is similar in a lot of ways, except the the hills are
> tighter and a little bit smaller. Still, living 8 minutes from work
> without having to deal with the expressway is an advantage that I'm
> loathe to give up.

I don't know if it's far from Nashville but the following
landscapes really look like the countrysides around my home :
http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/photos/Landscapes/index.html
http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/photos/Landscapes/barnrogers.jpg

And this one is exactly what I can see now through my windows :
http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/photos/Landscapes/barndavis.jpg
Snow, snow, snow since last Friday. :-)

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:53:30 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>Frankly, being a stooge for Arnold Krueger is perfect for a "sewer
>>>inspector". It's not the path that *I* would take in life, but there
>>>ya go.
>>
>>Dave since months you are desperatly trying to get attention
>
>>from Arnold Krueger... Your daily insistence is really
>
>>ridiculous and pitiful. It's not the path that *I* would
>>take in life, but here ya go.
>
>
> You're just wrong. If anything, I've interacted LESS with Arnold in
> the past year. That doesn'tmean that I won't take him to task from
> time to time. Actually, I kind of like the fact that he seems too
> afraid to answer me directly, but uses you to be able to respond to
> some of my points.

Not bad, eh ?
This is a Middius patented tactic

> Actually, you HAVE taken that daily insistence path in your life. You
> really should look in the mirror.

Let say that I'm taking care of the interim.


>>Clean your nose Dave you're full of snot. ;-)
>
>
> Actually, I'm over the flu, thank you very much.

Hot wine with sugar and cinnamon.

[Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro]

suthep > wrote:
> I want to buy a home theatre with a as good hifi sound as possible.

I tried to reply to you by mail and it bounced. Mail me if you want.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

[Howard Ferstler]

Ian S wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...

> > The issue here is bass management and distance compensation.
> > This puts SACD and DVD-A at a disadvantage if the system has
> > smallish satellites, for sure. Frankly, with DVD-A you can
> > play the DD or DTS alternate tracks on the discs and get
> > bass management and distance compensation. That makes those
> > tracks probably better sounding in most cases than the DVD-A
> > tracks. Actually, I have compared DVD-A to DD on a number of
> > occasions (easy to do if a distributor sends you multiple
> > copies and you have multiple players hooked into the same
> > system) and find that subjectively the latter sounds just as
> > good, period.
> >
> > I have also compared SACD to some of the CD versions (a
> > lengthy report series will be in an upcoming review of The
> > Sensible Sound) and found that if good DSP ambiance
> > synthesis is applied to the two-channel CD versions they
> > will sound as good as the SACD surround versions, and
> > sometimes better. SACD and DVD-A are both overrated when it
> > comes to per-channel performance, in my opinion, but of
> > course they also offer surround. However, in some systems
> > that technology goes to waste, because of the bass
> > management and distance compensation issues.

> These are excellent points - thank you for making them. I wonder if we're
> stuck with analog from the player for these formats.

My take on this is that SACD and DVD-A will flop in the
marketplace, in spite of their technical advantages.

Why? Because those advantages have been canceled out by
hookup, bass-management, and distance-compensation problems.
Also, in all of the direct comparisons I have made, DVD-A
sounded no better than the DD and DTS alternate tracks on
the same discs. You cannot compare this way with surround
SACD (which only has two-channel alternate tracks), but if
the stereo PCM alternate tracks on those discs are given
some good DSP surround manipulations by a good home
processor, the latter may actually sound better than the
SACD surround tracks.

Note that I am talking about the surround channels being
used strictly for ambiance enhancement and not for discrete
instrumental sounds, such as what we have with many pop
releases. Obviously, surround recordings have the edge there
over any stereo versions given DSP ambiance modifications.

> I'm just dabbling in
> them out of curiosity more than anything. One DVD-A I bought has Bach's
> Toccata & Fugue in d minor with video closeup of the keyboard as the
> organist plays. It's a large baroque organ that Bach himself reportedly
> played. I really enjoyed that! There's no way I'd ever get to see anything
> like that so closeup and with the exceptional audio to boot.

Yes, this can be a wonderful thing. However, if you were
actually watching the performer play it is likely that you
were listening to the DD tracks and not the DVD-A tracks.
Generally, the only thing you will see with the latter are
still pictures.

Howard Ferstler

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but
> worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other
> things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some
> simple things as well. They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as
a
> Snap-On for example.

I've got a subscription to the CR web site (www.ConsumerReports.org)
and there's no mention of a test of wrenches there. Assuming you're
correct that CR has tested wrenches, it must have been a long time ago.

>One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum
> federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be
> built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine
> whether or not they met a specification, both are equal.

Disagree. CR looks at price, ergonomics, whether the product meets its
claims, reliability, reader surveys for relaibility, etc. in many
products that are reviewed. For example, look at their ratings of cars
and PCs.

>A Craftsman
> wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a
> Snap-On, it's as simple as that. Consumer testing organizations deal
> with a lowest common denominator mentality.

CR can be a good starting point in shopping, even if you don't follow
their recommendations. And they're pretty thorough too.

For example, Sound & Vision recently did an LCD vs. plasma HDTV
comparison. It was a cover story, yet S&V had only one of each of these
two types. In CR's latest test (on your newsstand now), they included
many types of TVs (CRT, LCD, plasma, RP, etc.), and provided
reliability info too.

Speaking of which, the original poster might be interested in the
above. As for used vs. new, at that $5k budget I'd probably go with new
gear, especially for the TV. Many of the newer types of TVs have little
or no track record for reliability, so even though I usually consider
extended warranties as not worthwhile, for a new, megabuck TV I'd
seriously consider an extended warranty.

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:
>
> wrote:
> > Consumer Reports (et al) is probably okay for appliances but
> > worthless for discerning the differences in serious audio or other
> > things requiring a higher level of discretion. This applies to some
> > simple things as well. They rate a Sears Craftsman wrench the same as
> a
> > Snap-On for example.

> I've got a subscription to the CR web site (www.ConsumerReports.org)
> and there's no mention of a test of wrenches there. Assuming you're
> correct that CR has tested wrenches, it must have been a long time ago.
>
> >One is a mediocre product that meets a minimum
> > federal buying spec the other is pretty close to the best that can be
> > built for its intended purpose. Since their tests only determine
> > whether or not they met a specification, both are equal.

> Disagree. CR looks at price, ergonomics, whether the product meets its
> claims, reliability, reader surveys for relaibility, etc. in many
> products that are reviewed. For example, look at their ratings of cars
> and PCs.

Yep, and they often are very much more thorough than the
so-called hobby magazines, who never bother to deal with
reliability issues.

While one might disagree with the way they measure speakers,
for example, the way they do those power-response
measurements is superior to anything the audio magazines do.
They measure dozens of times all the way around the systems
and do a computer integration. As Andy Kotsatos (of Boston
Acoustics) once said, they do the best power-response
measuring in the industry.

> >A Craftsman
> > wrench is suited for its intended purpose but it is not as good as a
> > Snap-On, it's as simple as that. Consumer testing organizations deal
> > with a lowest common denominator mentality.

> CR can be a good starting point in shopping, even if you don't follow
> their recommendations. And they're pretty thorough too.

Yes, they often are, and it is that thoroughness that may
bug some audiophiles. CR is not in the least captivated by
the supposed prestige of a company. They are brass-tacks all
the way. However, with speakers I still consider them to be
a starting point and not the final word, because they do not
deal with things like the uniformity of broad-bandwidth
radiation patterns, at any angles: wide, narrow, or
full-circle. Just the total output. Better than most,
however.

> For example, Sound & Vision recently did an LCD vs. plasma HDTV
> comparison. It was a cover story, yet S&V had only one of each of these
> two types. In CR's latest test (on your newsstand now), they included
> many types of TVs (CRT, LCD, plasma, RP, etc.), and provided
> reliability info too.

Yours are some very good observations, both about
electronics and wrenches.

Howard Ferstler

[[email protected]]

BTW, I've actually bought a few CR-recommended speakers from Allison,
Bose (heresy in RAO, I know), Boston Acoustics, Cambridge SoundWorks,
and DCM and generally been happy with them for the purposes I needed
them for, which was affordable, decent sound at home. I've also used CR
as a general guide for product features when I'm shopping, even when I
did not follow CR's recommendations. Even when I haven't followed CR's
recommendations, I understood their POV and why they made those
recommendations.

I suspect that CR's tests may be more extensive than what they publish,
but that's just a guess. What appears in the magazine may be only
what's been boiled down and simplified enough to suit the magazine's
general audience.

Thank you for your kind words, although I really don't know anything
about wrenches, other than that if CR has ever tested wrenches, it must
have been a good while ago!

[Howard Ferstler]

wrote:

> I suspect that CR's tests may be more extensive than what they publish,
> but that's just a guess. What appears in the magazine may be only
> what's been boiled down and simplified enough to suit the magazine's
> general audience.

In one speaker-review article they mentioned that the power
curves they produced would be available on their web site
after a certain date. They were not in the print article
itself. They did show up on the web site, as scheduled.

The magazine used to publish curves like that with the
actual printed magazine reviews, but I guess they figured
that only a small percentage of readers would care to check
out such items. I am not sure they offer up curves like that
on the web site these days, however.

Curves can be misleading. For years I only described the
ones I ran on speakers I reviewed for The Sensible Sound and
to a lesser extent for The Audiophile Voice (a similar,
description-only approach to what Julian Hirsch did for
Stereo Review years ago), because I figured that most curves
are so choppy (compared to what we know about amp and CD
player curves) that my readers would be turned off by the
speakers no matter how much I praised them. I believe that
Hirsch had the same philosophy about printing curves.

However, after I had obtained quite a few representative
versions, I decided to do a two-part series on room curves
in issues 94 and 95 (Feb/Mar and Apr/May of 2003) of The
Sensible Sound. The text of the two articles discussed my
approach to room-response curves as starting points only (at
least when done in good rooms), and both essays illustrated
a number of fair, good, and great curves in that two-part
series. (Speaker models were named, by the way.)

All of my subsequent reviews in the magazine have used, and
will continue to use, printed room/power curves. In each
review I refer my readers back to those magazine articles to
get a handle on just what the curves may mean in relation to
what fair, good, and great versions are able to do.

I know that many reviewers prefer to measure gated
direct-field or first-arrival signals, free of room
artifacts, when they review. (Some have spent big bucks on
the required gear, and they are not about to have that
expenditure go to waste.) However, their usefulness in many
respects notwithstanding, I have reservations about such
curves, particularly since when it comes time to describe
the subjective sound of the speakers the reviewer will often
come up with descriptive terms that appear to not
substantiate what the curves are showing. The reasons for
this run the gamut from the reviewer only doing the curves
to make some of the more curve-loving readers happy to the
inability of a limited number of curves of the kind
typically run by reviewers to accurately show what the
speakers do in real-world listening rooms.

On the other hand, I think that my commentaries on
subjective sound performance do reflect what the admittedly
simple curves I illustrate are showing, at least in terms of
spectral balance.

Howard Ferstler

[Briel]

In article >,
says...

[...]

> However, after I had obtained quite a few representative
> versions, I decided to do a two-part series on room curves
> in issues 94 and 95 (Feb/Mar and Apr/May of 2003) of The
> Sensible Sound. The text of the two articles discussed my
> approach to room-response curves as starting points only (at
> least when done in good rooms), and both essays illustrated
> a number of fair, good, and great curves in that two-part
> series. (Speaker models were named, by the way.)

Howard,

do you know if those editions are available as back issues, or if
article reprints could be obtained in any way?

I'm very new to the audio world, and don't as yet have a HT set up, but
I will undoubtedly be heading in that direction. I am attempting to
learn more about the whole field, but I find it can be a bit difficult
for someone new to this realm to separate the fact from the fiction with
all the conflicting claims out there.

fwiw, I've started out with a decidedly mid-fi two channel stereo
largely because of budget reasons: Denon Reciever & CD Changer, Paradigm
Phantom speakers in the living room & a pair of B&W DM600 bookshelfs in
the dining room. I'll undoubtedly upgrade the Phantoms one day, but so
far I'm very pleased with the setup.

I've got another room that I'll turn into the HT at a later date, and
probably move the Phantoms as front speakers at that time.

Cheers,

Bill

[Howard Ferstler]

Briel wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
>
> [...]
>
> > However, after I had obtained quite a few representative
> > versions, I decided to do a two-part series on room curves
> > in issues 94 and 95 (Feb/Mar and Apr/May of 2003) of The
> > Sensible Sound. The text of the two articles discussed my
> > approach to room-response curves as starting points only (at
> > least when done in good rooms), and both essays illustrated
> > a number of fair, good, and great curves in that two-part
> > series. (Speaker models were named, by the way.)

> Howard,
>
> do you know if those editions are available as back issues, or if
> article reprints could be obtained in any way?

They are available, as best I can tell, simply by contacting
TSS at:



They also have a phone number:

1 (800) 695-8439

I am not sure what they charge for back issues, however.

> I'm very new to the audio world, and don't as yet have a HT set up, but
> I will undoubtedly be heading in that direction. I am attempting to
> learn more about the whole field, but I find it can be a bit difficult
> for someone new to this realm to separate the fact from the fiction with
> all the conflicting claims out there.

Basically, try to keep a level head. Do not be fooled by
high-end oriented mumbo jumbo about exotic wires (be they
speaker wires, shielded interconnects, or power cords)
exotic and overpriced amps (usually, a good AV receiver will
do all that is required when it comes to powering speakers
and controlling the system), overpriced CD or DVD players,
and monumentally overpriced speaker systems. Regarding
speakers, generally, decent subwoofer/satellite systems will
do the trick, provided the satellites are bass potent enough
to get decently down into the middle-bass region and
dovetail properly with the subwoofer.

> fwiw, I've started out with a decidedly mid-fi two channel stereo
> largely because of budget reasons: Denon Reciever & CD Changer, Paradigm
> Phantom speakers in the living room & a pair of B&W DM600 bookshelfs in
> the dining room. I'll undoubtedly upgrade the Phantoms one day, but so
> far I'm very pleased with the setup.

This approach should work just fine. You might consider
adding a decent subwoofer to the Phantom pair as the next
upgrade. Hsu Research and SVS both offer solid bang-for-buck
versions. Actually, Paradigm also has some fine subs,
although the only one I have reviewed is the top-tier Servo
15 model. It was a super sub, but expensive. I think that
the Hsu and SVS lines probably will be the best choice for
someone pinching pennies. One good Hsu model is their STF-1,
which is sold factory direct for $300.

Both Hsu and SVS have web sites, and both sell their
products from those sites.

> I've got another room that I'll turn into the HT at a later date, and
> probably move the Phantoms as front speakers at that time.

This would work just fine. It will probably be best to stick
with Paradigm for the center and surround speakers, once you
expand the system.

A good guide book for setting up a system is my The Home
Theater Companion, published by Schirmer Books back in 1997.
Yes, it is outdated in some respects (I spend considerable
time discussing the no longer available laserdisc format,
for example, and the VCR section deals with a technology
that is fast becoming an antique), but it does have a
brass-tacks approach to shopping in general, and the
chapters on speaker behavior, speaker/room interactions, and
amp and receiver performance and requirements are still
workable. Note that not much is there about the DVD, which
was just getting out of the rumor stage when the book went
into print. I also had an earlier book, High Fidelity
Audio-Video Systems (published by McFarland in 1991), but
other than its sections on speakers and speaker/room
interactions, it is too out of date to be of much use with
modern AV operations.

Although out of print, I think that Amazon has used copies
of The Home Theater Companion book for sale at fairly low
prices. If they do not have them, try doing a Google search
of AddAll, a used-book network. I also have a book of record
reviews that deal with their sound quality. It is called The
Digital Audio Music List, and was published by A-R Editions
in 1999. It was mostly aimed at academic and music
libraries, but individuals can still get a lot of use out of
it, even if no discs released since 1999 are reviewed. A-R
has a web site that sells direct.

Howard Ferstler

[Briel]

In article >,
says...

[much advice snipped...]

Howard,

thank you for the advice and the subwoofer recommendations. I'll try to
track down your book as well - it sounds like it would be a good
starting point for me.

Cheers,

Bill