| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Interestingly, this kind of overkill sonic presentation is what many tweakos consider the height of audio realism. I wonder how many of you wish you could be suspended from the microphone racks during live performances. No, we settle for our memories of monitoring live mic feeds. Which, incidentally, is no more accurate than a digital copy. Not quite. OK, let's be more exact: no more "subjectively" accurate than a digital copy. Comparisons dealing with this topic have been done, by the way. Howard Ferstler |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Interestingly, this kind of overkill sonic presentation is what many tweakos consider the height of audio realism. I wonder how many of you wish you could be suspended from the microphone racks during live performances. No, we settle for our memories of monitoring live mic feeds. Which, incidentally, is no more accurate than a digital copy. Not quite. OK, let's be more exact: no more "subjectively" accurate than a digital copy. Comparisons dealing with this topic have been done, by the way. Live mic feed is still pretty much the winner. http://www.iar-80.com/page39.html This one has a "thought experiment": http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/rules.htm But you know this guy already. Stephen |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: That's the point: they're no tweako icon. Give me a break. Quick: what did Peter Walker think about amp sound and wire? I have read his opinions on this before. I think that his views pretty much paralleled mine - and Arny's. No tweako, he! Stephen |
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:07:17 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: John Atkinson wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: "Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion? Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any better dispersion than what we would get with a flat diaphragm. Poor deluded ML. Note that Howard Ferstler took the other side of this argument a few years back when he claimed that it was the _shape_ of the Allison tweeter that led to its claimed wide dispersion. It is. The tweeter behaves similarly to a pulsating hemisphere of very small size. If shaping the Allison's diaphragm improves its dispersion, then the same mechanism works for MartinLogan. The ML device is much larger in size than the Allison unit. Actually, the central dome of the Allison is only 1/2 inch across, which makes it inherently better at dispersing sound than any large diaphragm, even one that expands and contracts as a partial cylinder. The Allison tweeter has a rather large surround, making the overall diameter about one inch, and that surround moves in a somewhat radial manner, which works with the small central diaphragm to disperse sound nicely, while at the same time allowing the whole unit do have power handling and power output approaching what we normally have with conventional one-inch domes. But if Howard is correct about the ML, then he his earlier argument in favor of the Allison tweeter must have been in error. No. Two points: 1) Obviously you do not understand that there is more to it than having the driver simply get larger and smaller in size. The actual size is also important. 2) Because conventional, flat-panel systems also expand and contract in size, compared to what the curved ML panel does, they probably have horizontal dispersion nearly as good as the curved versions. Unfortunately, this "nearly as good" feature is not particularly good at all. Large radiating areas do not disperse all that well in the midrange and treble. The ML systems are directional, period. Some people like that sort of thing, and I can certainly understand why. They exhibit one characteristic that most audio buffs favor: superb direct-field clarity, even if, as Stan Lip****z noted decades ago, they also have a choppy frequency response above the lower midrange. It remains to be seen if a dominant direct-field signal is conducive to live-music realism in home-listening environments. With some recordings it probably is. With others it probably is not. The solution: have systems of both kinds in different rooms of the house and listen to each as required. Admittedly, my Dunlavy Cantatas are not flat-panel jobs, but they suffice as good, focussed, strong first-arrival-signal systems. Needless to say, my Allison IC-20 systems satisfy most wide-dispersion requirements. Howard Ferstler Just curious. Have you ever HEARD a Martin-Logan speaker? |
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:47:04 GMT, MINe 109
wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Me: I know what deep bass sounds like. Having experienced listening to it on which systems or subwoofers? Real life. Double bass in my listening room. Oh, yes, a piano in my listening room. Then there's the opera, the orchestra, the pipe organ concerts... I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. It's just a guess though. It was pretty impressive, especially considering the level that it was being reproduced. It was during Mickey Hart's "space" segment. |
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:20:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: OK, now the other wonders of the double bass not withstanding, that instrument does not go LOW into the bass range. And while a piano can indeed get down to 27 Hz, the fundamental is weak and the harmonics dominate. A piano simply does not get down into the cellar, even with its fundamental. The orchestra (opera or otherwise) also does not go particularly low. Any good "woofer" system that is flat to 40 Hz can handle just about anything an orchestra can throw at it. That leaves the pipe organ. Now, I have a lot of pipe-organ recordings and some do indeed, go down to below 25 or 30 Hz, or even below 20 Hz. I have a couple that are strong to 16-18 Hz. However, while you may enjoy some organ concerts here and there, my guess is that only rarely have those organs hit the very bottom. They would not do that without 32-foot pipes in any case, and my guess is that the organ at your establishment does not have those. So, Stephen, I continue to believe that you have yet to hear really deep bass from an audio system. Man, you do not know what you are missing. Apparently missing only some synthesized sounds. Doesn't sound like anything really mission critical. BTW, the temple that I attended in my youth HAD 32 ft pipes (IIRC) and would occasionally utilize them. The whole sanctuary would rumble. |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Me: You have not shown you understand how Quad achieves the necessary delays nor that there are ill effects associated with the method. Please explain the "contouring" and how Quad implements it. The signal is delayed as each diaphragm ring around the center area gets the signal. This allows the system to simulate a pulsating hemisphere. However, the central diaphragm is not all that small to begin with, so the speakers are still relatively directional. Electronic delay lines have to be employed to delay the signals to each concentric ring. This is a lot more signal manipulation than what one would ordinarily find in typical speakers, even complex high-end jobs. That's 'what'. Now do 'how'. Well, I do not know how. However, I do know that it requires a fair amount of electrical circuitry to pull it off. Signals are not just passing through smoothly and unmanipulated to those concentric panel rings, excepting the center area, obviously. Yes, what are they doing instead? And the "signal manipulation" is relative (there are plenty of complicated crossovers out there). Yep. You ought to see the on in my Dunlavy Cantatas. I had no idea that a first-order crossover could have so many components. Exactly. Please explain how Quad does that "electrical manipulation". Hey, the delay-line work that allows the diaphragm area to simulate a pulsating hemisphere. Man, if you do not think that the control of those concentric circles by a delay-line circuit does not involve a HELL of a lot of electrical manipulation, you are not very sharp. You can't think of another way to do it? Hint: Peter Walker was v. sharp. Well, you tell me how to delay electrical signals in time. Inductors. Wire, lots of it. But you shouldn't take my word for it. Do the work. Look, there's a book: http://www.tnt-audio.com/books/quad_kessler_e.html Kessler again. Fine. However, this means that the speaker elements are dealing with anything but pristine signals. All sorts of oddities could be involved. Kessler's presence sullies the signal? That's nuts. Which oddities are involved? Do some work and read a circuit description and find the offending practice, or refer to a measurement or listening test that finds an un-pristine signal. Yep, it works (at least for you and other fans of the speaker), but that does not mean that it works better than a number of other superb designs that are more conventional. But you don't know that. And it does not mean that the speakers have some mysterious qualities that make them sound more transparent than those other designs. Indeed, if direct-field, sweet-spot transparency is your reference standard, it seems to me that the original and much simpler early Quad models would have an advantage, even though their dispersion qualities were lousy. The 57 is still reportedly unsurpassed for midrange. However, you're speaking from ignorance, and willful ignorance at that. Of course, it seems that you're ignorant of the dispersion qualities of your own favored speakers, so perhaps we can discount your opinion on the matter. http://www.quadesl.org/Hard_Core/ESL...3_history.html Don't miss the lecture and patent pages. Stephen |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: 1) Obviously you do not understand that there is more to it than having the driver simply get larger and smaller in size. The actual size is also important. Size matters in relation to wavelength of the sounds being produced. Not true if the diaphragm's motion is not piston-like. This includes dome tweeters and some planar reproducers. 2) Because conventional, flat-panel systems also expand and contract in size, compared to what the curved ML panel does, they probably have horizontal dispersion nearly as good as the curved versions. Some flat panel systems such as those by Magenepan have narrower areas that operate at high frequencies in order to improve horizontal dispersion. Not in my experience. If you look at my measurements of the Innersound Eros' horizontal dispersion -- see http://stereophile.com/loudspeakerre...19/index6.html -- then look at my measurements of the similarly proportioned panel of the MartinLogan Prodigy -- see http://www.stereophile.com//loudspea...90/index5.html -- you can see that the Prodigy's curved panel does indeed offer wider treble dispersion. Since diaphragm break up is likely and can also provide wider dispersion, the wider disperson is not necessarily due to just the curved diaphragm. |
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Stone wrote:
On 4/13/05 5:07 PM, in article , "Howard Ferstler" wrote: It is. The tweeter behaves similarly to a pulsating hemisphere of very small size. Howard, what proof is there of this "pulsating sphere" theory? Hi, John. I continue to be amazed at how often I can mention somebody here or mention a topic that is close to the heart of such individuals and suddenly I read a post by them discussing (or contesting) my views. I wonder just how many lurkers we have out there in RAO land. Note that I said "pulsating hemisphere" and not "pulsating sphere." If you are going to take jabs at me, at least get your quotes correct. In any case, there is no "proof," per se, other than two things: 1. Allison's description of how the driver worked, which almost by definition proves the point. 2. Assorted product reviews over the years that lauded the dispersion qualities of the tweeter. Has anyone ever done a laser holography analysis of this tweeter to see if it actually behaves this way at operating frequencies? From what I see, the Allison tweeter in the high frequencies has dispersion characteristics that are pretty consistent with a standard 1/2" dome. Yep. However, it has power handling that is superior to a 1/2-inch dome. As best I can tell, nobody has done a laser holography analysis of the tweeter. It does disperse widely, however, doesn't it John? How does it compare with the best 3/4-inch drivers made by your company, particularly above 8 kHz and beyond 60 degrees off axis? This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. It has taken those other companies a long time to catch up, and for that matter, many still have not caught up. If shaping the Allison's diaphragm improves its dispersion, then the same mechanism works for MartinLogan. The ML device is much larger in size than the Allison unit. Actually, the central dome of the Allison is only 1/2 inch across, which makes it inherently better at dispersing sound than any large diaphragm, even one that expands and contracts as a partial cylinder. I find it ludicrous to compare the 2 given that they operate on completely different principles and over very different frequency ranges. Well, the Allison tweeter either operates above 2 kHz (two-way version, ferrofluid cooled) or above 3750 Hz (three-way version, silicone grease cooled), whereas the ML panel operates over a much broader range. However, above 2 kHz or 3750 Hz they are on a level playing field and they can most certainly be compared. So, within the upper midrange and treble ranges, we can compare fairly. The Allison tweeter has a rather large surround, making the overall diameter about one inch, and that surround moves in a somewhat radial manner, which works with the small central diaphragm to disperse sound nicely, while at the same time allowing the whole unit do have power handling and power output approaching what we normally have with conventional one-inch domes. The "surround" as you call it is basically a small inverted paper cone. This area of the driver will have little acoustic contribution to the upper frequencies. It moves radially and not just back and forth in parallel with the dome section, and does indeed have an acoustic contribution to the upper frequencies, simply by virtue of its angular radiation. It also allows the driver to work down to a lower frequency than what we would have with a straightforward 1/2-inch dome. It is clear from the large bump in the frequency response below 5kHz that the cone portion contributes most heavily to the tweeter's output in this range. Fine. So what? This allows it to disperse as well as a 1/2 incher, while at the same time being able to go down much lower in frequency than a 1/2 incher. Note that the Allison tweeter is a dedicated design that was built to work with a specific crossover network designed by Allison. The "large bump" in frequency response below 5 kHz was compensated for by the dedicated crossover. Yep, Allison designed the crossover and driver to work together and he did not have to purchase OEM drivers and then build a crossover to compensate for someone else's driver-design approach. As for power handling and output comparable to a 1"dome, I disagree. No 1/2" voice coil is going to have anywhere near the power handling of a 1" coil, especially with modern high temp wire on aluminum formers, which is what is found in quality modern dome tweeters. Well, the fact is that it can play more than loud enough to satisfy typical listeners. Assorted reviewers of even those systems that employed only one tweeter and one midrange will validate that claim. In addition, Allison was pretty specific in outlining the power-handling qualities of that tweeter in terms of power vs time (and the midrange and the woofer) when all of them were installed in his systems. How many other companies did (or do now) that sort of thing, John? Allison was anything but vague about the performance of his drivers. Unlike most speaker system companies these days, Allison was very specific about how the systems were to be located in typical rooms and how this would work to augment his design approach. In addition, he published JAES papers outlining just what was going on with the speakers. And unlike many other "speaker" companies, Allison took his design goals seriously enough to make his own drivers, instead of purchasing them from companies like yours. The overall sensitivity of the Allison tweeter when measured on axis and normalized for flat response is pretty low: about at 1 meter. On axis. What you are forgetting is the wide-anglular response of the tweeter. Yes, on axis it seems output limited. But because its strong off-axis response would be reflected from room boundaries, its practical efficiency in typical listening rooms was quite high. Surely, we have to realize that one-meter, on-axis measurements of driver efficiency will be misleading if we are comparing a wide-dispersion driver to one that is more narrow in dispersion. Compare that to most good 1" domes with 90dB or better sensitivity and near ruler flat response with no eq . So, you are saying that sensitivity is a factor in driver accuracy or power handling? Well, I suppose the latter is a viable approach, if we ignore the wide-angular response of the tweeter, which makes on-axis efficiency measurements misleading. The bottom line, however, is how well the tweeter holds up in use, and with the Allison models that had even one of them the output abilities were more than adequate. Indeed, when Dick Heyser reviewed the original Allison Model One for Audio Magazine years ago he lauded the power handling and maximum-output capabilities of the system. Note that Heyser was a pinpoint imaging enthusiast, so he did not particularly fall in love with the Allison approach to imaging, which favored a broad soundstage and frontal blend to pinpoint behavior. But even he admitted that the speaker could play loud as hell. High Fidelity magazine reviewed the smaller Model 9 version a few years later (only one tweeter and midrange, instead of the two pairs of the Model One) and they also were amazed at its maximum output abilities. So, the so-called power limitations of the tweeter becomes more of an academic issue than a practical issue, John. Howard Ferstler |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Me: Dipoles are often positioned at the side walls. Yes, Quads need some room, unless you've got a pair of 57s. I've never heard those myself. At the side walls, how? Are you saying that they are in the corners? Not good. Are they close to the side walls, but some distance from the front wall? This would generate a rather complex series of double-bounce reflections. Not in the corners. Sheesh. Next to the walls. In my room, five or six feet from the front wall. Dipoles, figure eight, right? Well, I am not sure just what kind of impact having them close to the side walls will generate. I mean, you do get an initial, angled reflection off of that side wall (due to the tow in) and that reflected signal will then be reflected off of the front wall and splayed out into the room somewhat behind the direct signal in time. No telling the effect, but if it sounds good to you I suppose that is all that matters. The toe-in angles involved are small, so the reflections are still from the front wall, with hardly any from the side. Figure eight pattern, you know. Incidentally, electrostatics are known to be tricky loads for all but the best amps. Can that receiver of yours deal with that speaker decently? I mean you obviously think it can, but does anyone else here think it might have problems? Generally, enthusiasts say that an amp that can happily handle a capacitive load is mandatory for electrostatics, and such amps usually are fairly expensive. 63s are not a difficult load. The biggest problem is the necessity of surviving the speaker protection circuit. My amp is fine as is any tube amp. Yep, with electrostatics all amps probably do not sound the same, my well-known opinions on the subject of "amp sound" notwithstanding. No, sorry to disappoint you. While tubes and OTLs are reportedly good matches, they are not necessary for good results. Stephen |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: OK, let's be more exact: no more "subjectively" accurate than a digital copy. Comparisons dealing with this topic have been done, by the way. Live mic feed is still pretty much the winner. When will this tweako believe be put to rest? http://www.iar-80.com/page39.html This one has a "thought experiment": http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/rules.htm But you know this guy already. Stephen He has his limitations, for sure. Howard Ferstler |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Me: I know what deep bass sounds like. Having experienced listening to it on which systems or subwoofers? Real life. Double bass in my listening room. Oh, yes, a piano in my listening room. Then there's the opera, the orchestra, the pipe organ concerts... OK, now the other wonders of the double bass not withstanding, that instrument does not go LOW into the bass range. And while a piano can indeed get down to 27 Hz, the fundamental is weak and the harmonics dominate. A piano simply does not get down into the cellar, even with its fundamental. The orchestra (opera or otherwise) also does not go particularly low. Any good "woofer" system that is flat to 40 Hz can handle just about anything an orchestra can throw at it. In that case, who cares? That leaves the pipe organ. Now, I have a lot of pipe-organ recordings and some do indeed, go down to below 25 or 30 Hz, or even below 20 Hz. I have a couple that are strong to 16-18 Hz. However, while you may enjoy some organ concerts here and there, my guess is that only rarely have those organs hit the very bottom. They would not do that without 32-foot pipes in any case, and my guess is that the organ at your establishment does not have those. So, Stephen, I continue to believe that you have yet to hear really deep bass from an audio system. Man, you do not know what you are missing. You are wrong, of course. I attended a lecture-demonstration of a pipe organ by the builder, who made a point of playing and contrasting the lowest note (14 hz) and the highest (14k). He commented specifically on the special character of low bass sounds ("like a motorboat"). Stephen |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:07:17 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: Two points: 1) Obviously you do not understand that there is more to it than having the driver simply get larger and smaller in size. The actual size is also important. 2) Because conventional, flat-panel systems also expand and contract in size, compared to what the curved ML panel does, they probably have horizontal dispersion nearly as good as the curved versions. Unfortunately, this "nearly as good" feature is not particularly good at all. Large radiating areas do not disperse all that well in the midrange and treble. The ML systems are directional, period. Some people like that sort of thing, and I can certainly understand why. They exhibit one characteristic that most audio buffs favor: superb direct-field clarity, even if, as Stan Lip****z noted decades ago, they also have a choppy frequency response above the lower midrange. It remains to be seen if a dominant direct-field signal is conducive to live-music realism in home-listening environments. With some recordings it probably is. With others it probably is not. The solution: have systems of both kinds in different rooms of the house and listen to each as required. Admittedly, my Dunlavy Cantatas are not flat-panel jobs, but they suffice as good, focussed, strong first-arrival-signal systems. Needless to say, my Allison IC-20 systems satisfy most wide-dispersion requirements. Howard Ferstler Just curious. Have you ever HEARD a Martin-Logan speaker? Just in a showroom. Not the best place. I never put stock in showroom demos. Dave, sometimes you have to use your intellect when thinking about audio. There is more to it than open-ended listening sessions at hi-fi shops and shows. There is also the need for a studied analysis of design concepts. I will again mention a paper delivered by Stan Lip****z several decades ago, where he mathematically analyzed line-source panel systems and found all sorts of problems related to the very size of the panel. There are inherent problems with panel speakers, and no amount of speculation about their imagined advantages will eliminate those problems. There are important things that they just cannot do. Incidentally, Nousaine did measure and listen to a pair of ML units for a Sound & Vision review some time back and the curve he printed was what I would call a disaster. Yeah, I know you do not trust math or measurements. PS: perhaps I will get around to reviewing a pair one of these days. Quads, too, hopefully. Howard Ferstler |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:47:04 GMT, MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Me: I know what deep bass sounds like. Having experienced listening to it on which systems or subwoofers? Real life. Double bass in my listening room. Oh, yes, a piano in my listening room. Then there's the opera, the orchestra, the pipe organ concerts... I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. One thing is for su you did not "hear" it, although you may have heard harmonic overtones. I am curious about what kind of instrument they used to generate an 8 Hz signal. It's just a guess though. Anything is possible at a rock concert, I guess. Howard Ferstler |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:20:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: OK, now the other wonders of the double bass not withstanding, that instrument does not go LOW into the bass range. And while a piano can indeed get down to 27 Hz, the fundamental is weak and the harmonics dominate. A piano simply does not get down into the cellar, even with its fundamental. The orchestra (opera or otherwise) also does not go particularly low. Any good "woofer" system that is flat to 40 Hz can handle just about anything an orchestra can throw at it. That leaves the pipe organ. Now, I have a lot of pipe-organ recordings and some do indeed, go down to below 25 or 30 Hz, or even below 20 Hz. I have a couple that are strong to 16-18 Hz. However, while you may enjoy some organ concerts here and there, my guess is that only rarely have those organs hit the very bottom. They would not do that without 32-foot pipes in any case, and my guess is that the organ at your establishment does not have those. So, Stephen, I continue to believe that you have yet to hear really deep bass from an audio system. Man, you do not know what you are missing. Apparently missing only some synthesized sounds. Doesn't sound like anything really mission critical. You are correct. Most people do not really need a subwoofer for music, especially classical music. I have A/B compared my IC-20s running full range against the same speakers with the Velodyne F1800 helping out and compared my Dunlavy Cantatas running full range against the same speakers with the Hsu TN1220 helping out, and the vast majority of the time there is no difference that would matter to anybody. Such a device can help with rock music, however, mainly because it will prevent the punchy, moderately low bass from pulverizing the woofers in typical full-range systems, and just about all smallish satellite systems. And needless to say, with some action/adventure movies it is mandatory to have a sub to protect all but the largest full-range speakers. I once bottomed the woofers on my IC-20s when demonstrating the Brachiosaurus footfalls on the Jurassic Park laserdisc to a guest. (Admittedly, I was pushing the sonic limits a bit at the time.) That sold me on getting the Velodyne. BTW, the temple that I attended in my youth HAD 32 ft pipes (IIRC) and would occasionally utilize them. The whole sanctuary would rumble. Wonderful feeling. In any case, now you have a good idea of what a good subwoofer can do in a good room. Yep, it can reproduce those low notes. Howard Ferstler |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: OK, let's be more exact: no more "subjectively" accurate than a digital copy. Comparisons dealing with this topic have been done, by the way. Live mic feed is still pretty much the winner. When will this tweako believe be put to rest? When's the last time you heard a live mic feed? http://www.iar-80.com/page39.html This one has a "thought experiment": http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/rules.htm But you know this guy already. He has his limitations, for sure. Kessler wrote a book. Published and everything. Stephen |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: The signal is delayed as each diaphragm ring around the center area gets the signal. This allows the system to simulate a pulsating hemisphere. However, the central diaphragm is not all that small to begin with, so the speakers are still relatively directional. Electronic delay lines have to be employed to delay the signals to each concentric ring. This is a lot more signal manipulation than what one would ordinarily find in typical speakers, even complex high-end jobs. That's 'what'. Now do 'how'. Well, I do not know how. However, I do know that it requires a fair amount of electrical circuitry to pull it off. Signals are not just passing through smoothly and unmanipulated to those concentric panel rings, excepting the center area, obviously. Yes, what are they doing instead? They are being electrically delayed by circuitry within the speaker. A real purist would wonder if this was causing some kind of distortion as the delays become longer at the outermost rings. And the "signal manipulation" is relative (there are plenty of complicated crossovers out there). Yep. You ought to see the on in my Dunlavy Cantatas. I had no idea that a first-order crossover could have so many components. Exactly. Dunlavy was working to get phase coherency. It works, but I am not all that interested in the results. Still, the speakers are excellent in other ways that I find important. Inductors. Wire, lots of it. But you shouldn't take my word for it. Do the work. Look, there's a book: http://www.tnt-audio.com/books/quad_kessler_e.html Kessler again. Fine. However, this means that the speaker elements are dealing with anything but pristine signals. All sorts of oddities could be involved. Kessler's presence sullies the signal? That's nuts. Kessler's presence makes any commentary suspect. Which oddities are involved? Do some work and read a circuit description and find the offending practice, or refer to a measurement or listening test that finds an un-pristine signal. If a delay line is involved, the signal is no longer pristine. But, hey, it may still be clean enough to satisfy guys like you and me. It may offend the sensibilities of the purists, however, although many of them may love the speaker without having a clue about how much signal manipulating is going on inside. Yep, it works (at least for you and other fans of the speaker), but that does not mean that it works better than a number of other superb designs that are more conventional. But you don't know that. Right. But even you have not compared the speaker directly to other notable designs. You have listened to it open ended, and have no idea how well some competing models might do in comparison. And it does not mean that the speakers have some mysterious qualities that make them sound more transparent than those other designs. Indeed, if direct-field, sweet-spot transparency is your reference standard, it seems to me that the original and much simpler early Quad models would have an advantage, even though their dispersion qualities were lousy. The 57 is still reportedly unsurpassed for midrange. Certainly. After all, it is behaving like a huge pair of headphones: very directional, with the listener having to sit just so to hear the advantages. Not my cup of tea, by any means. However, you're speaking from ignorance, and willful ignorance at that. Well, while I have not heard the speakers, I have read about them and I know what inherent disadvantages large panel drivers will exhibit. In addition to the Lip****z paper I have mentioned, I have the simple common-sense issue of having a large radiating area sending signals to a small receptor (the ear). The signals from that large area surface cannot all reach the ear simultaneously. As a result, you get substantial comb-filtering artifacts. Of course, it seems that you're ignorant of the dispersion qualities of your own favored speakers, so perhaps we can discount your opinion on the matter. Huh? I have polar curves run from the middle bass on up to 16 kHz. Admittedly, Allison ran them, and I suppose that if you think he was a con artist then those polar plots might just be bogus. I don't however. Howard Ferstler |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: 2) Because conventional, flat-panel systems also expand and contract in size, compared to what the curved ML panel does, they probably have horizontal dispersion nearly as good as the curved versions. Some flat panel systems such as those by Magenepan have narrower areas that operate at high frequencies in order to improve horizontal dispersion. Yes, and this can work. I reviewed an Eminent Technology panel speaker a while back that used a midrange and tweeter element, with the latter being much narrower and shorter than the former. However, they were still located side by side, and this arrangement has its own problems near the crossover frequency. Howard Ferstler |
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: Live mic feed is still pretty much the winner. When will this tweako believe be put to rest? When's the last time you heard a live mic feed? Nobody, ever, has shown, via a blind AB comparison, that a live mic feed is subjectively cleaner than a good digitally processed version of the same signal. Indeed, years ago some of the guys in the Boston Audio Society did an experiment that proved that digital is transparent, and they did this with a processor that was considerably more primitive than what the engineers are using these days. Sure, very subtle differences might be audible under some conditions (far be it for me to guess what those conditions might be), but one would never be aware of them without very, very precise level matching and careful switchovers. My guess is that you did not use that kind of rigor. You just assumed that the pure feed HAD to be better. The audiophile attitude demands this assumption. Howard Ferstler |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: The signal is delayed as each diaphragm ring around the center area gets the signal. This allows the system to simulate a pulsating hemisphere. However, the central diaphragm is not all that small to begin with, so the speakers are still relatively directional. Electronic delay lines have to be employed to delay the signals to each concentric ring. This is a lot more signal manipulation than what one would ordinarily find in typical speakers, even complex high-end jobs. That's 'what'. Now do 'how'. Well, I do not know how. However, I do know that it requires a fair amount of electrical circuitry to pull it off. Signals are not just passing through smoothly and unmanipulated to those concentric panel rings, excepting the center area, obviously. Yes, what are they doing instead? They are being electrically delayed by circuitry within the speaker. A real purist would wonder if this was causing some kind of distortion as the delays become longer at the outermost rings. A real realist would study up to see what the mechanism was. And the "signal manipulation" is relative (there are plenty of complicated crossovers out there). Yep. You ought to see the on in my Dunlavy Cantatas. I had no idea that a first-order crossover could have so many components. Exactly. Dunlavy was working to get phase coherency. It works, but I am not all that interested in the results. Still, the speakers are excellent in other ways that I find important. Quad's got that. Inductors. Wire, lots of it. But you shouldn't take my word for it. Do the work. Look, there's a book: http://www.tnt-audio.com/books/quad_kessler_e.html Kessler again. Fine. However, this means that the speaker elements are dealing with anything but pristine signals. All sorts of oddities could be involved. Kessler's presence sullies the signal? That's nuts. Kessler's presence makes any commentary suspect. But he's a published author. Which oddities are involved? Do some work and read a circuit description and find the offending practice, or refer to a measurement or listening test that finds an un-pristine signal. If a delay line is involved, the signal is no longer pristine. But, hey, it may still be clean enough to satisfy guys like you and me. It may offend the sensibilities of the purists, however, although many of them may love the speaker without having a clue about how much signal manipulating is going on inside. Then no "delay line" is involved. Yep, it works (at least for you and other fans of the speaker), but that does not mean that it works better than a number of other superb designs that are more conventional. But you don't know that. Right. But even you have not compared the speaker directly to other notable designs. You have listened to it open ended, and have no idea how well some competing models might do in comparison. Its qualities are self-evident. And it does not mean that the speakers have some mysterious qualities that make them sound more transparent than those other designs. Indeed, if direct-field, sweet-spot transparency is your reference standard, it seems to me that the original and much simpler early Quad models would have an advantage, even though their dispersion qualities were lousy. The 57 is still reportedly unsurpassed for midrange. Certainly. After all, it is behaving like a huge pair of headphones: very directional, with the listener having to sit just so to hear the advantages. Not my cup of tea, by any means. Small rooms they've got in the UK... The 63s address this problem. However, you're speaking from ignorance, and willful ignorance at that. Well, while I have not heard the speakers, I have read about them and I know what inherent disadvantages large panel drivers will exhibit. In addition to the Lip****z paper I have mentioned, I have the simple common-sense issue of having a large radiating area sending signals to a small receptor (the ear). The signals from that large area surface cannot all reach the ear simultaneously. As a result, you get substantial comb-filtering artifacts. If commonsense were the only thing involved, everyone would do it. Of course, it seems that you're ignorant of the dispersion qualities of your own favored speakers, so perhaps we can discount your opinion on the matter. Huh? I have polar curves run from the middle bass on up to 16 kHz. Admittedly, Allison ran them, and I suppose that if you think he was a con artist then those polar plots might just be bogus. I don't however. JA had a different view of your tweeter. http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_audio_design/ The reviews should answer all your concerns about amps, etc. Stephen |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: Live mic feed is still pretty much the winner. When will this tweako believe be put to rest? When's the last time you heard a live mic feed? Nobody, ever, has shown, via a blind AB comparison, that a live mic feed is subjectively cleaner than a good digitally processed version of the same signal. Indeed, years ago some of the guys in the Boston Audio Society did an experiment that proved that digital is transparent, and they did this with a processor that was considerably more primitive than what the engineers are using these days. That long ago? Sure, very subtle differences might be audible under some conditions (far be it for me to guess what those conditions might be), but one would never be aware of them without very, very precise level matching and careful switchovers. My guess is that you did not use that kind of rigor. You just assumed that the pure feed HAD to be better. The audiophile attitude demands this assumption. You're wrong again. Stephen |
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. Is this supposed to be an indicator of quality? If so, Quad has it beat by over a decade. |
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:44:13 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Just curious. Have you ever HEARD a Martin-Logan speaker? Just in a showroom. Not the best place. I never put stock in showroom demos. Well then... |
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:45:51 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. One thing is for su you did not "hear" it, although you may have heard harmonic overtones. I am curious about what kind of instrument they used to generate an 8 Hz signal. I'm sure that it was synthesized. Maybe a super dbx 120x. |
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:52:28 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: That leaves the pipe organ. Now, I have a lot of pipe-organ recordings and some do indeed, go down to below 25 or 30 Hz, or even below 20 Hz. I have a couple that are strong to 16-18 Hz. However, while you may enjoy some organ concerts here and there, my guess is that only rarely have those organs hit the very bottom. They would not do that without 32-foot pipes in any case, and my guess is that the organ at your establishment does not have those. So, Stephen, I continue to believe that you have yet to hear really deep bass from an audio system. Man, you do not know what you are missing. Apparently missing only some synthesized sounds. Doesn't sound like anything really mission critical. You are correct. Most people do not really need a subwoofer for music, especially classical music. I have A/B compared my IC-20s running full range against the same speakers with the Velodyne F1800 helping out and compared my Dunlavy Cantatas running full range against the same speakers with the Hsu TN1220 helping out, and the vast majority of the time there is no difference that would matter to anybody. Wouldn't it be "sensible" for you to argue against spending $2800 for something that *might* be used once in a blue moon? I spent $120 on an overstock AR subwoofer that's good down to something like 28 hz. Such a device can help with rock music, however, mainly because it will prevent the punchy, moderately low bass from pulverizing the woofers in typical full-range systems Hardly. "Moderately low bass" is easily handled by most "full-range" systems. Hell, my Allison CD-8s can easily handle all rock music except for the most extreme volume levels. |
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:52:28 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: BTW, the temple that I attended in my youth HAD 32 ft pipes (IIRC) and would occasionally utilize them. The whole sanctuary would rumble. Wonderful feeling. In any case, now you have a good idea of what a good subwoofer can do in a good room. Oh, I've heard LOTS of low bass. That's part of the live music experience. |
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:04:56 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Yep, it works (at least for you and other fans of the speaker), but that does not mean that it works better than a number of other superb designs that are more conventional. But you don't know that. Right. But even you have not compared the speaker directly to other notable designs. You have listened to it open ended, and have no idea how well some competing models might do in comparison. But he's actually HEARD it. How does your statement apply to what YOU'VE written about the speaker? |
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:04:56 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: However, you're speaking from ignorance, and willful ignorance at that. Well, while I have not heard the speakers, I have read about them and I know what inherent disadvantages large panel drivers will exhibit. In addition to the Lip****z paper I have mentioned, I have the simple common-sense issue of having a large radiating area sending signals to a small receptor (the ear). The signals from that large area surface cannot all reach the ear simultaneously. As a result, you get substantial comb-filtering artifacts. Hardly. Not in the case of the Quads. If you examime the dimensions of the speaker, you might realize why you are wrong in this case, especailly when you compare the dimensions with the dimensions of *your* speaker's array. |
|
#150
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: OK, let's be more exact: no more "subjectively" accurate than a digital copy. Comparisons dealing with this topic have been done, by the way. Live mic feed is still pretty much the winner. When will this tweako believe be put to rest? When's the last time you heard a live mic feed? http://www.iar-80.com/page39.html This one has a "thought experiment": http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/rules.htm But you know this guy already. He has his limitations, for sure. Kessler wrote a book. Published and everything. he probably didn't even plagiarize it. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
In , dave weil wrote :
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. Is this supposed to be an indicator of quality? If so, Quad has it beat by over a decade. You should stop to write about Quad since you have proven that you don't handle the subject correctly. ;-) |
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
|
In , dave weil wrote :
I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. It's just a guess though. Do you measured the exact frequency ? Are you sure it wasn't an hallucination caused by lysergic acid ? |
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: Live mic feed is still pretty much the winner. When will this tweako believe be put to rest? When's the last time you heard a live mic feed? Last night about 8 pm. Nobody, ever, has shown, via a blind AB comparison, that a live mic feed is subjectively cleaner than a good digitally processed version of the same signal. Agreed. Indeed, years ago some of the guys in the Boston Audio Society did an experiment that proved that digital is transparent, and they did this with a processor that was considerably more primitive than what the engineers are using these days. We did a similar thing here in Detroit some years before that. People can read about it he http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_digi.htm That long ago? Hey, look over the Cake! Pinkerton's point is well-taken. Digital has improved a lot, at least in theory, since these experiments were done. It was apparently more than good enough in its former, more primitive state. Most of what's happened to digital is that the economic cost of good sonic performance has dropped, almost beyond belief. In the early 1970s I worked with a high-speed hybrid computer that was centerpieced by a 16 bit ADC/DAC box that had its own floor-to-ceiling 19" rack. It was capable of a true 16 bits at a 200 KHz sample rate and cost about a half million 1970 dollars. With inflation that might be well over 10 million dollars today. I don't think that commodity $1 converters are quite that good today, but the $5 ones are probably better than that. Sure, very subtle differences might be audible under some conditions (far be it for me to guess what those conditions might be), but one would never be aware of them without very, very precise level matching and careful switchovers. Well what happens is that without the level matching and switchovers there are *always* audible differences. Mismatch the levels by 0.5 dB or get time time-matching off by more than about 10 milliseconds and I have been known to reliably identify differences between identical pieces of equipment. It's hard to hear the smaller differences when relatively large differences are present. It's like wine-tasting with lemoned, salted and sugared wine. My guess is that you did not use that kind of rigor. You just assumed that the pure feed HAD to be better. The audiophile attitude demands this assumption. You're wrong again. There's no question in my mind that one takes a more critical view of a performance when one has the opportunity to review it again and again. I work with a group of performers who I used to think were pretty good. After listening to recordings I've made of them over the years, their true lightly-practiced amateur status is quite clear in my mind. I can pretty well second-guess how many rehearsals they've had with a quick listen to a recording of their work. In a real world audience, many may sense something shabby about their poorer performances, but not quite know why. No doubt any serious musician in the crowd knows exactly what's going on. Some musicians both amateur and professional haven't figured this out. They mistakenly blame the problems, especially sonic, that they hear in the performance in review, on the technology. It soothes their egos to blame the boxes, not themselves and their friends. I would say that most technically naive performers, which means most performers, make this mistake. Some of them learn, many blame the boxes for their whole lives. I'm not trying to absolve the recordist of all blame for bad-sounding recordings. I've made 100's of live recordings and frankly some of them are pretty good and some just sort of stay in the archives, if you catch my drift. However, its far easier to get a good recording of a skilled performer. No doubt. |
|
#154
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Me: I know what deep bass sounds like. Having experienced listening to it on which systems or subwoofers? Real life. Double bass in my listening room. Oh, yes, a piano in my listening room. Unlike Ferstler I spend a fair amount of time listening to live music in real performace spaces. Unfortunately its not the great orchestras of the world that I'm recording - its often school bands. But just because a pre-teen is beating on that big bass drum there is still plenty of low frequency performance. Then there's the opera, the orchestra, the pipe organ concerts... OK, now the other wonders of the double bass not withstanding, that instrument does not go LOW into the bass range. And while a piano can indeed get down to 27 Hz, the fundamental is weak and the harmonics dominate. A piano simply does not get down into the cellar, even with its fundamental. I agree that for almost every musical instrument that I've analyzed, at low frequencies the fundamentals are less intense than the harmonics. Below 100 Hz the ear's sensitivity is going away in a handbasket pretty fast. However the ear isn't the only relevant sense organ. The gut and the chest are part of the perceptive soup. The orchestra (opera or otherwise) also does not go particularly low. Any good "woofer" system that is flat to 40 Hz can handle just about anything an orchestra can throw at it. Much of the time this is probably true. Nevertheless, preserving deep bass helps convey part of the sense of being there. In that case, who cares? Real audiophiles. That leaves the pipe organ. Now, I have a lot of pipe-organ recordings and some do indeed, go down to below 25 or 30 Hz, or even below 20 Hz. I have a couple that are strong to 16-18 Hz. However, while you may enjoy some organ concerts here and there, my guess is that only rarely have those organs hit the very bottom. They would not do that without 32-foot pipes in any case, and my guess is that the organ at your establishment does not have those. These days a lot of organs don't have 32 foot pipes, they have electronics and subwoofers instead. So, Stephen, I continue to believe that you have yet to hear really deep bass from an audio system. Man, you do not know what you are missing. Given that Stephen is still flogging the dead vinyl horse, he's got a lot of incentive to have a system with weak basss. Deep bass and vinyl are hard to mix. Furthermore, a lot of vinyl has the deep bass removed or mono-ized in the interest of having a recording that people could actually play. On the best day of vinyl's life, deep bass meant short sides. You are wrong, of course. I attended a lecture-demonstration of a pipe organ by the builder, who made a point of playing and contrasting the lowest note (14 hz) and the highest (14k). He commented specifically on the special character of low bass sounds ("like a motorboat"). It depends on the intended market for the recording. I would never brick-wall high pass a recording that was intended to be a sonic spectacular at 40 Hz. But, if the target listener is a typical person in their car buzzing down the highway, I do it without any regret at all. |
|
#155
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... However, its far easier to get a good recording of a skilled performer. No doubt. Maybe the choir will squeal a little better this Sunday. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#156
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Me: I know what deep bass sounds like. Having experienced listening to it on which systems or subwoofers? Real life. Double bass in my listening room. Oh, yes, a piano in my listening room. Unlike Ferstler I spend a fair amount of time listening to live music in real performace spaces. Unfortunately its not the great orchestras of the world that I'm recording - its often school bands. But just because a pre-teen is beating on that big bass drum there is still plenty of low frequency performance. Yes. You also get to hear "beats" from out of tune unisons. Then there's the opera, the orchestra, the pipe organ concerts... OK, now the other wonders of the double bass not withstanding, that instrument does not go LOW into the bass range. And while a piano can indeed get down to 27 Hz, the fundamental is weak and the harmonics dominate. A piano simply does not get down into the cellar, even with its fundamental. I agree that for almost every musical instrument that I've analyzed, at low frequencies the fundamentals are less intense than the harmonics. Below 100 Hz the ear's sensitivity is going away in a handbasket pretty fast. However the ear isn't the only relevant sense organ. The gut and the chest are part of the perceptive soup. The orchestra (opera or otherwise) also does not go particularly low. Any good "woofer" system that is flat to 40 Hz can handle just about anything an orchestra can throw at it. Much of the time this is probably true. Nevertheless, preserving deep bass helps convey part of the sense of being there. In that case, who cares? Real audiophiles. For a real sense of being there, Howard would embrace stereo/multichannel subs. That leaves the pipe organ. Now, I have a lot of pipe-organ recordings and some do indeed, go down to below 25 or 30 Hz, or even below 20 Hz. I have a couple that are strong to 16-18 Hz. However, while you may enjoy some organ concerts here and there, my guess is that only rarely have those organs hit the very bottom. They would not do that without 32-foot pipes in any case, and my guess is that the organ at your establishment does not have those. These days a lot of organs don't have 32 foot pipes, they have electronics and subwoofers instead. Even pipe organs sneak 'em in. So, Stephen, I continue to believe that you have yet to hear really deep bass from an audio system. Man, you do not know what you are missing. Given that Stephen is still flogging the dead vinyl horse, he's got a lot of incentive to have a system with weak basss. Deep bass and vinyl are hard to mix. Furthermore, a lot of vinyl has the deep bass removed or mono-ized in the interest of having a recording that people could actually play. On the best day of vinyl's life, deep bass meant short sides. Dude, the cd player's hooked up to the same system. You are wrong, of course. I attended a lecture-demonstration of a pipe organ by the builder, who made a point of playing and contrasting the lowest note (14 hz) and the highest (14k). He commented specifically on the special character of low bass sounds ("like a motorboat"). It depends on the intended market for the recording. I would never brick-wall high pass a recording that was intended to be a sonic spectacular at 40 Hz. But, if the target listener is a typical person in their car buzzing down the highway, I do it without any regret at all. Huh? I attended a lecture in a concert hall with a pipe organ. There's no recording to market. Stephen |
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: Live mic feed is still pretty much the winner. When will this tweako believe be put to rest? When's the last time you heard a live mic feed? Last night about 8 pm. But of course. You've even posted 'raw' and 'corrected' recordings. Nobody, ever, has shown, via a blind AB comparison, that a live mic feed is subjectively cleaner than a good digitally processed version of the same signal. Agreed. Plenty of anecdotes to the contrary. Indeed, years ago some of the guys in the Boston Audio Society did an experiment that proved that digital is transparent, and they did this with a processor that was considerably more primitive than what the engineers are using these days. We did a similar thing here in Detroit some years before that. People can read about it he http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_digi.htm That long ago? Hey, look over the Cake! Howard was dodging the question. Pinkerton's point is well-taken. Digital has improved a lot, at least in theory, since these experiments were done. It was apparently more than good enough in its former, more primitive state. Most of what's happened to digital is that the economic cost of good sonic performance has dropped, almost beyond belief. In the early 1970s I worked with a high-speed hybrid computer that was centerpieced by a 16 bit ADC/DAC box that had its own floor-to-ceiling 19" rack. It was capable of a true 16 bits at a 200 KHz sample rate and cost about a half million 1970 dollars. With inflation that might be well over 10 million dollars today. I don't think that commodity $1 converters are quite that good today, but the $5 ones are probably better than that. Sixteen bits! I had a prof who used an eight bit card-reading ADC around the same time. Sure, very subtle differences might be audible under some conditions (far be it for me to guess what those conditions might be), but one would never be aware of them without very, very precise level matching and careful switchovers. Well what happens is that without the level matching and switchovers there are *always* audible differences. Mismatch the levels by 0.5 dB or get time time-matching off by more than about 10 milliseconds and I have been known to reliably identify differences between identical pieces of equipment. It's hard to hear the smaller differences when relatively large differences are present. It's like wine-tasting with lemoned, salted and sugared wine. My guess is that you did not use that kind of rigor. You just assumed that the pure feed HAD to be better. The audiophile attitude demands this assumption. You're wrong again. There's no question in my mind that one takes a more critical view of a performance when one has the opportunity to review it again and again. I work with a group of performers who I used to think were pretty good. After listening to recordings I've made of them over the years, their true lightly-practiced amateur status is quite clear in my mind. I can pretty well second-guess how many rehearsals they've had with a quick listen to a recording of their work. In a real world audience, many may sense something shabby about their poorer performances, but not quite know why. No doubt any serious musician in the crowd knows exactly what's going on. Some musicians both amateur and professional haven't figured this out. They mistakenly blame the problems, especially sonic, that they hear in the performance in review, on the technology. It soothes their egos to blame the boxes, not themselves and their friends. I would say that most technically naive performers, which means most performers, make this mistake. Some of them learn, many blame the boxes for their whole lives. I'm not trying to absolve the recordist of all blame for bad-sounding recordings. I've made 100's of live recordings and frankly some of them are pretty good and some just sort of stay in the archives, if you catch my drift. However, its far easier to get a good recording of a skilled performer. No doubt. Start with a good performance, a local producer says. Stephen |
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:25:57 +0200, Lionel
wrote: In , dave weil wrote : On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:33:26 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: This makes perfect sense given the diameter of the voice coil, and the fact that high frequency radiation in "soft diaphragm" tweeters is largely concentrated to the area closest to the voice coil. Sure. In any case, the tweeter has exemplary dispersion. Perhaps the most notable thing about this is that the design goes back three decades. Is this supposed to be an indicator of quality? If so, Quad has it beat by over a decade. You should stop to write about Quad since you have proven that you don't handle the subject correctly. ;-) Then I guess you should have never written about accordions...didn't stop YOU, did it? |
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:28:44 +0200, Lionel
wrote: In , dave weil wrote : I heard/felt what was possibly 8 hz at the Dead show that I saw a couple of years back. It's just a guess though. Do you measured the exact frequency ? Look up the words "possibly" and "guess" and maybe you'll have the answer to your question (even as you butchered it in the English language). |
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: That leaves the pipe organ. Now, I have a lot of pipe-organ recordings and some do indeed, go down to below 25 or 30 Hz, or even below 20 Hz. I have a couple that are strong to 16-18 Hz. However, while you may enjoy some organ concerts here and there, my guess is that only rarely have those organs hit the very bottom. They would not do that without 32-foot pipes in any case, and my guess is that the organ at your establishment does not have those. These days a lot of organs don't have 32 foot pipes, they have electronics and subwoofers instead. Even pipe organs sneak 'em in. Exactly. So, Stephen, I continue to believe that you have yet to hear really deep bass from an audio system. Man, you do not know what you are missing. Given that Stephen is still flogging the dead vinyl horse, he's got a lot of incentive to have a system with weak basss. Deep bass and vinyl are hard to mix. Furthermore, a lot of vinyl has the deep bass removed or mono-ized in the interest of having a recording that people could actually play. On the best day of vinyl's life, deep bass meant short sides. Dude, the cd player's hooked up to the same system. So what? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
| newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? | Pro Audio | |||
| RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
