Lord, Howard's found a new way to be obnoxious: posting the same three
hundred plus line article six times to four different threads.

It's like he's looking for ISP problems.

Howard, you'd have been much better off posting once, or posting an
abbreviated version and bringing into the discussion the new three
channel Mercury Living Presence reissues and relating your basic info to
recordings anyone can find.

You might make some multichannel converts out of people who can't stand
the thought of synthesis. By the way, if you don't know why people might
have a problem with that, track down a synthesized 5.1 reissue of mono
originals and hear for yourself.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:

Lord, Howard's found a new way to be obnoxious:

And you guys keep saying that I am not creative.

posting the same three
hundred plus line article six times to four different threads.

It's like he's looking for ISP problems.

Howard, you'd have been much better off posting once,

Had to make sure everyone had a chance to read it. Shotgun
approach.

or posting an
abbreviated version

Some things, like for instance Gibbon's Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire, simply cannot be successfully abbreviated.

and bringing into the discussion the new three
channel Mercury Living Presence reissues and relating your basic info to
recordings anyone can find.

The article was a general info piece and not a record
review. Glad to see that you read it, though. Took years of
experience to come up with that material, and I also have
corresponded with quite a few of those recording engineers
listed.

You might make some multichannel converts out of people who can't stand
the thought of synthesis. By the way, if you don't know why people might
have a problem with that, track down a synthesized 5.1 reissue of mono
originals and hear for yourself.

Obviously, something like that would have to sound terrible.
A recording needs at least some original recorded L-R
material for any surround program (be it an extraction
circuit or a synthesizing circuit) to work with. Without
separation up front the whole process becomes a mess.

Well, maybe not quite a mess. If a mono recording was
synthesized so that decorrelated reverb was sent to a group
of surround channels you might get better results than
straight mono.

Howard Ferstler
Stephen

Howard Ferstler wrote in
message ...
The article was a general info piece and not a record
review. Glad to see that you read it, though. Took years of
experience to come up with that material...

But not, as you admitted on this newsgroup a few years back, any
experience on your part of actually making recordings, or trying the
microphone arrangements you write about.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote in
message ...
The article was a general info piece and not a record
review. Glad to see that you read it, though. Took years of
experience to come up with that material...

But not, as you admitted on this newsgroup a few years back, any
experience on your part of actually making recordings, or trying the
microphone arrangements you write about.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Good point, John. However, one does not need to be a
football player, or even an ex football player to be a good
commentator on the game. Ditto with those who comment on the
performance of jockeys during horse races.

Hey, John, I have universally praised, in print, those
recordings of yours that you sent to me to review.

If I do not know recordings and what makes them sound good,
does this mean that my positive reviews of your work were
wrong?

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote in
message ...
The article was a general info piece and not a record
review. Glad to see that you read it, though. Took years of
experience to come up with that material...

But not, as you admitted on this newsgroup a few years back, any
experience on your part of actually making recordings, or trying the
microphone arrangements you write about.

Good point, John. However, one does not need to be a football player,
or even an ex football player to be a good commentator on the game.

Of course not. But I was specifically referring to your use of the word
"experience" in the context of writing about recording techniques.
As by your own admission you have no experience in this area, surely
you admit that your usage was at best misleading and at worst dishonest?
Kind of like cutting and pasting someone else's words from an essay
and passing it off as your own work :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote in
message ...
The article was a general info piece and not a record
review. Glad to see that you read it, though. Took years of
experience to come up with that material...

But not, as you admitted on this newsgroup a few years back, any
experience on your part of actually making recordings, or trying the
microphone arrangements you write about.

Good point, John. However, one does not need to be a football player,
or even an ex football player to be a good commentator on the game.

Of course not. But I was specifically referring to your use of the word
"experience" in the context of writing about recording techniques.
As by your own admission you have no experience in this area, surely
you admit that your usage was at best misleading and at worst dishonest?
Kind of like cutting and pasting someone else's words from an essay
and passing it off as your own work :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Hey, John, you are an excellent recording engineer, and I am
schooled enough in reviewing to recognize that fact. (Even
you will have to admit that I have praised every recording
of yours that I have reviewed, at least in terms of
engineering.) Too bad that you are bogged down with editing
a magazine that employs writers who routinely express
opinions that I really, really believe you often do not
agree with even slightly.

Tough life being an editor.

Howard Ferstler