On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:38:56 -0400, ren wrote:

I'll agree with you in theory and then say it's meaningless and an
arguement you are proposing just to argue. They don't record reverb in
actual halls and you aren't in the control room using the same setup
they are. To argue that since my rear are out 2 dB here or there when
hanging a rug on the wall or having exposed windows or carpet vs. a
hardwood floor EVEN IF you have the exact same room as the recording
venue and furniture etc. LOOK yes theoretically but vanishly small
practically.

GIVE ME A BREAK and save your expertise for something worth fighting over.

First, thje recordings I listen to with real interest are recorded
with the reverb from the actual hall. For those, there is a
difference and that is based on my experience.

Second, what turns out to be practical depends on the listener's
needs. I would guess that your rear speakers are not so different
from the fronts. 'Matched speakers' do not have to be the same size
or the same brand but do have to be similar in their tonal qualities.
Try the Chesky Setup Disc's phase tests; they are doomed if the
speakers differ too much, regardless of phase and bass extension.

Whatever...You got about a million people could never agree on a simple
stereo setup as being 'critical' listening or not now you are going to
argue that surround sound can be 'critical'. Look I'm well within the
ball park and very critical IMHO but I am sure there are thousands of
ways to get there with more or less money.

No argument here.

At least I'm not using a
Bose setup and claiming anything here. Surround critical GIVE ME A
BREAK...they mix most of that stuff like crap for effect what's critical
about that...give me an SACD on top of the line equipment...that's
critical. But obviously our definitions are different.

Wait a minute. Are you distinguishing between "surround" and SACD? In
the number of channels or???? My definition of critical listening
requires a genuine acoustic event recorded relatively accurately on a
non-compressed medium. Artificial 'surround' processing is out but
the number of channels is not at issue.

Same applies to stereo or mono or headphones or, indeed, to any
listening paradigm.

Interesting is this agreement? But that doesn't contradict your early
critical arguement? Yes I am compromising but not by much I don't think.

We are not disagreeing on everything, merely on some terms which may
or may not be clearly defined. Compromise is almost always with us
but we get to push him around a bit. My points are intended to
indicate where I would push.

Kal