| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ferstler on recording
The following is a draft of an article I published a while
back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). I also covered the topic with less depth in my book, The Home Theater Companion, and much of what follows comes from my contacts with quite a large number of recording engineers. I also posted this article in response to a comment in another thread. The article draft: Two-channel purist microphone techniques, that is, those that minimize the amount of electrical, multi-microphone, and mixer-related diddling required to make two-channel recordings, have traditionally come in two different flavors. Some adept classical-music engineers prefer the simple, two-microphone, spaced-array technique often used by individuals like Marc Aubort in his work for Delos and Centaur. Others, like Peter McGrath in his work for Audiofon and Harmonia Mundi USA, also prefer this technique, but with the option of employing additional support microphones. A technique like this seems logically sensible, since with stereo playback the speakers are themselves in a spaced configuration. Decades ago, Mercury elaborated on this technique and filled in the space between the two main microphones with a third - allowing for a more stable, mixdown-controllable image in the center. The technique resulted in their vaunted Living Presence recordings, still admired today for their soundstaging qualities and sense of stage depth. A center fill has been used to good effect for some time in an adapted form for a large number of Decca/-London record-ings. The highly regarded "Decca Tree," pioneered by Roy Wallace, perfected by Kenneth Wilkinson, and used by such Decca engineering notables as John Dunkerley, Stanley Goodall, James Lock, and Philip Siney, consists of three omni-directional microphones. Each is attached to the end of a T-shaped assembly that is suspended above the conductor's podium. The left/right capsules are about 2 meters apart and the center unit is about 1.5 meters in front of the axis between them. The resulting geometry imparts a quite warm and spacious sound to the recording. With still wider spacing, the spaced, three-microphone array has in the past been used by engineer Jack Renner of Telarc. Many of the classic Telarc releases were products of this arrangement. When recording large ensembles, Renner often employs omni-directional microphones, with the left and right modules up to nine feet on either side of a centrally posi-tioned one. Keeping the microphones at a wider-than-usual distance apart minimizes the impact of comb-filtered interference effects that some individuals feel color the sound of spaced-array record-ings. Telarc's most basic recording technique has long been very popular with a number of knowledgeable listeners and record-review critics and the company's material has become a benchmark for many serious music lovers. Not every spaced-array advocate likes the wide-track approach, however. Harry Munz, who has recorded some notable material for Gothic records (many of which have been given rave reviews by yours truly), often employed a pair of very high quality omni's spaced only a few feet apart. Actually, the spacing required for best results will often be determined by the size of the ensemble to be recorded and the desired sound-stage spread and focus. The spaced-microphone arrangement (sometimes supported by ambience-augmenting microphones located out in the audience area), whether utilizing a moderate distance between units or a very wide one, imparts a spacious, open, and sometimes pleasantly diffuse sound to the music when it is played back in typical home listening environments. Many classical-recording enthusiasts in America seem to like this, particularly if they own speaker systems that present a very focussed soundstage image. The technique compliments what truly exemplary soundstaging/imaging speaker systems such as the Dunlavy Cantatas (reviewed by me in issue 87), Waveform MC/MC.1 sub/sat systems (reviewed by in issue 84), and Triad InRoom Silver sub/sat systems (reviewed by me in issue 93) can deliver. Not everyone is enthralled by this technique, however. Dissenters, such as researcher and mathematician Dr. Stanley Lip****z, have in the past indicated their strong preference for the coincident or near-coincident, directional-microphone technique. This is sometimes used by engineers working for Chesky, Opus 3, Nimbus, Hyperion, Teldec, Reference Recordings, and on occasion, Delos and Harmonia Mundi USA, as well as by a number of others. One configuration, the XY, double-figure-8 approach (sometimes called the Blumlein array), requires the use of directional (front/back sensitive, side insensitive) microphones located extremely close together and aimed at each flank of the orchestra. By having the direct signals respond only to level differences, as opposed to the spaced-array's response mainly to timing differences, this two-capsule, dipolar-microphone technique insures that the recorded sound is kept comfortably phase coherent. Apostles of this and several other "intensity stereo" techniques believe that any spaced-array microphone arrangement, be it utilizing two (or three, or more) microphones, will add annoying, phase-dominated, comb-filtering effects to the sound. They note that while the reflected, ambient "hall" sound on any recording should have a somewhat diffuse and phase-dominated quality, the "direct" sound that is coming from the ensemble itself should be coherent and lacking in the time-of-arrival, phase-difference anomalies that a spaced-microphone configuration will by its very nature produce. They point out that piano recordings are particularly prone to bloating and indistinct focus when recorded with a spaced technique, as evidenced by numerous examples that give the impression that the piano is twenty feet long or that the keyboard is spread out between the speakers. They also claim that coincident-source recordings have the ability to project a valid front-to-back depth with any type of ensemble or solo instrument that spaced-microphone recordings can imperfectly fake - but cannot duplicate. Finally, with small-ensemble performances, they claim that left-to-right sound-stage imaging is going to be more accurate with coincident techniques, particularly when listening from the audiophile-preferred, central "sweet spot." Phase problems and the nature of a proper sound-stage presentation are only part of the ongoing debate about microphones and their placement for two-channel recordings. Supporters of the coincident technique note that central-ly located images (usually involving soloists) are more sharply focussed. Spaced-array enthusiasts will counter that although the central and near-central images produced by their technique may be more diffuse and less stable when listening from the sweet spot than what is possible with coincident-pickup techniques, the negative effects can be minimized by using the previously noted blended center microphone. Accent microphones on individual instruments can possibly do an even better job of leveling the playing field. What's more, they point out that the result-ing lack of sweet-spot listening tightness with central, half-left, and half-right images that can show up with spaced-microphone techniques is subjectively no worse that what is often encountered in a typical, live classical perfor-mances - even ones happening in excellent concert halls. In those live-music situations pinpoint imaging is impossible to experience for anyone but the person conducting the orchestra. Spaced-microphone advocates will point out that their favored technique ensures that under home-listening conditions, sound-stage images will be less likely to shift radically toward the nearer speaker if the listener moves away from the central sweet spot, making recordings made that way more suitable for social listening. As they see it, coincident-source microphone recordings require that "serious" listening be done from a small, central area if full advantage is to be taken of what that technique offers. Only one person gets to experience the recording at its best, with everybody else in the room getting a substandard sound stage. Most spaced-array advocates feel that even though the direct signals produced by the technique are less phase coherent than those which result from coincident-source practices, the net result is more subjectively realistic when experienced in a typical home-listening environment. Spaced speakers and spaced microphones complement each other. In addition, a few enthusiasts claim that spaced-array techniques, although ideally not in the same purest-oriented class as coincident-microphone practices, allow the recording engineer to do a more customized job of dealing with concert-hall size, shape, and reflectivity deficiencies, particularly with large-ensemble recordings. Perhaps some kind of compromise is in order, and to this effect a number of other recording engineers and astute listeners swear by variations on the two basic techniques. The technical people at Nimbus records, for instance, made a point of combining the coincident technique with Ambisonic surround process-ing. Although not very well known in the USA, with proper decoding, this British system supposedly can simulate a reasonably accurate concert-hall environment. The Soundfield, four-capsule microphone used with this kind of recording process was originally designed with Ambisonic recording in mind. Some experts try to compromise between the spaced- and coincident-array techniques by using the French-pioneered "ORTF," or the Dutch "NOS," near-coincident systems. The former places outward-angled, directional microphones only a few inches apart, while the NOS technique uses somewhat wider spacing and a slightly wider pickup angle between the microphone capsules. (The individual microphones are cardioid models that have progressively weaker sensitivity as the recording angle widens, until there is a near null directly behind the capsule.) The result is quasi-coincident behavior at lower frequencies, due to the long wavelengths involved, with shorter-wavelength frequencies from the midrange on up being given enough of an inter-channel time delay to impart a degree of spaced-array openness to the sound. With large-ensemble recordings, even engineers dedicated to spaced-array and/or coincident-source techniques usually end up augmenting their main-pickup configura-tion with addi-tional micro-phones out in the audience area to pick up ambiance. Others may flank the main array with widely spaced microphones, in order to highlight the left and right sides of the orchestra or add "bloom" to the sound. The degree of enhancement can be adjusted later, during the editing sessions. In addition, many engineers, even those with the purist of motivations, use additional pickups near particularly hard-to-record instruments or vocalists to make them more audible in the final mix. Ironically, this is one way to reduce the dynamic range of a recording, because instruments that are difficult to hear with fully purist techniques - and difficult to hear during live performances, too, for that matter - are increased in level to make them more audible during home-playback situations. Practices of this kind are almost mandatory if the hall in which the recording is being made has acoustic deficiencies. Recording engineer John Eargle, who has made many superior recordings for both Delos and ProArte (and who is a specialist in the ORTF technique), is particu-larly well known for his ability to modify orthodox procedures to compensate for hall/orchestra anomalies. He frequently employs level-adjustable, spaced-omni microphones well off to the sides of his main ORTF array to add a controllable amount of spaciousness to his record-ings. Craig Dory, of Dorian, is also well known for his innovative microphone techniques, as are Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings, Ralph Couzens of Chandos, Bob Katz of Chesky, Paul Goodman when he was working for RCA, and John McClure when he was working for Columbia. Notable freelance classical engineers such as Tony Faulkner, Ben Connellan, Mike Clements, Mike Hatch, Don Hartridge, Christopher Greenleaf, and Jonathan Stokes are also masters of purist innovation, as were renowned Decca engineers John Dunkerley, John Pellow, and Simon Eadon. Needless to say, not every recording engineer is enamored of simple, or semi-simple, microphone techniques, be they spaced-array or coincident. Many recent classical releases by Decca/-London have been masterpieces of advanced multi-microphone tech-niques, and Jac Holzman, founder of Elektra and Nonesuch, pioneered the intelligent use of multi-microphone techniques for classical material in the 1950s and 1960s. Deutsche Grammophon has used as many as 32 channels to record a symphonic work, mixing their inputs down to 2 channels by deftly blending the total. Columbia and Sony have also made a large number of multi-microphone classical recordings. While the results of heavy-handed multi-microphone use by these and a few other companies have sometimes been disappointing, a fair number of such rigorously controlled record-ings, even classical ones, sound quite good. And of course, some pop transcriptions have sounded downright spectacular. Indeed, in the pop-music realm, multiple microphones and elaborate mixing techniques are the norm. Recording engineers such as Ed Cherney, Frank Filipetti, Chip Davis, George Massenburg, Roger Nichols, Hugh Padgham, Bill Schnee, Alan Sides, Bruce Swedien, and Al Schmitt are past masters of multi-microphone usage. And of course, during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, Bill Putnam and his Universal Recording Company set the standard for refined pop-recording techniques for a generation. Ironically, the use of multiple microphones and complex mixers has allowed some pop-music engineers to move ahead of their classical counterparts in some respects, because those technologies lend themselves so well to the creation of discrete-channel surround-sound recordings. With classical music, steely, harsh-sounding violins are the most conspicuous indication that the multiple-microphone technique has been executed incorrectly, because the procedure nearly always puts the directional microphones close to the direct field of the violins. When this is done, the mellow, mostly off-axis blend of the sound that reaches an audience during a live concert may not be properly reproduced. Correctly locating a micro-phone for the best blend can be a time-consuming job, because the unit must be placed in that part of the direct field that most closely simulates the reverberant sound encountered at a live concert. Many multi-capsule classical record-ings also come across as one-dimensional sounding because proper timing clues are not reproduced. Sounds picked up by microphones placed very close to instru-ments at the rear of the orchestra are added to the mix simulta-neously with close-miked sounds picked up from instruments at the front. However, at a live concert the rear-most sounds arrive later than those from up front, which is one of several ways that we sense the depth of the orchestra. In addition, at a live concert the sounds coming from the rear of an orchestra tend to generate a more reverberant soundfield and blend than what is produced up front. This also aids the listener in sensing depth. It is difficult to simulate these effects with multi-miking, although individual-track, digital-delay systems can help. Nevertheless, given that time-delay phase artifacts and levels can be precisely controlled during the mixing process, when placed under skillful control, multi-microphone techniques can do a remarkable job of simulating an "intensity-stereo" recording. Indeed, the technique can greatly reduce many of the phase problems disliked by coinci-dent-source advo-cates - while still allowing the kind of final control that recording engi-neers and produc-ers (and sometimes even conductors) can feel comfortable with. Whether the use of scads of microphones and extremely complex mixing consoles will be the norm as the world of hi-fi sound reproduction further advances into the realm of surround sound is a question that nobody can answer right now. It is likely that at the very least a center-channel microphone, in combination with hall-ambiance microphones will become mandatory, as will careful post-production mixing. For better or worse, it appears certain that the era of absolutely pure two-channel recording techniques is all but over. Howard Ferstler |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Milkman" wrote in message ... Howard "The Plagiarist" Ferstler wrote: The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). Who wrote it? The article has so many mistakes it would be difficult to attribute to any one individual. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote in message ...
The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). [snip] Howard, I thought you had given up on this newsgroup. It seemed you did give up for a few months and did something more useful with your time. But now you're back feeding the denizens. You seem smart enough to realize they haven't changed one bit in the last 10+ years. Perhaps you should take up something less harmful and addictive, like tobacco. TB |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
(Tim Brown) said: Howard, I thought you had given up on this newsgroup. It seemed you did give up for a few months and did something more useful with your time. But now you're back feeding the denizens. You seem smart enough to realize they haven't changed one bit in the last 10+ years. Perhaps you should take up something less harmful and addictive, like tobacco. Well well.......and what makes *you* come back and play in here, hm? -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." As illustrated by his typically nasty post, an insatiable desire to smear others. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote: (Tim Brown) said: Howard, I thought you had given up on this newsgroup. It seemed you did give up for a few months and did something more useful with your time. But now you're back feeding the denizens. You seem smart enough to realize they haven't changed one bit in the last 10+ years. Perhaps you should take up something less harmful and addictive, like tobacco. Well well.......and what makes *you* come back and play in here, hm? -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." As illustrated by his typically nasty post, an insatiable desire to smear others. Bruce J. Richman Limited Psychologist I assume that most of the people on RAO know better than to take anything seriously that come from people like Bruce J. Richman, who enters RAO just to engage in smear campaigns. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Milkman wrote:
Howard "The Plagiarist" Ferstler wrote: The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). Who wrote it? ---------- I Deliver. I defy you to find any source, anywhere, written by anyone else, that says what I said in that draft. Did you read it at all? Give it a go and maybe you will learn something. Howard Ferstler |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein wrote:
"The Milkman" wrote in message ... Howard "The Plagiarist" Ferstler wrote: The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). Who wrote it? The article has so many mistakes it would be difficult to attribute to any one individual. Details. Interject some rebuttals within the text that I posted that show that you know what you are saying and are not generating noise. Howard Ferstler |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tim Brown wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote in message ... The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). [snip] Howard, I thought you had given up on this newsgroup. I did not give up. I just left for a while to get some projects completed. I even backed off on my magazine writing for a while. The result is a second AV room that is almost as good as my main room. I will do most of my product reviewing in there from now on, because it is easier to do AB testing and it is also easier to hook up hardware. The main room's system is so built in that I do not like to mess with its hookups. It seemed you did give up for a few months and did something more useful with your time. Yep. Major home improvements: new, expanded second AV room, new flooring throughout the house, new appliances, refurbished garage, new deck, and an addition to my woodworking shop out back. Actually, I still need to replace all the interior doors with designs that my wife prefers to the old doors, and I also will probably add still another addition to the woodworking shop. Need space for still more tools. But now you're back feeding the denizens. Well, let's at least hope they choke on the cuisine. You seem smart enough to realize they haven't changed one bit in the last 10+ years. Yep, most are still dumb as posts, and oblivious to what really matters with high-fidelity audio equipment. Perhaps you should take up something less harmful and addictive, like tobacco. TB Good point, although I will pass on the tobacco thing. Yep, jousting with the RAO crazies is kind of a waste of time. Realize, however, that I did not generate the "Ferstler on recording" draft *just* for these guys, or any of the more sensible RAO readers, either. It had already been published in issue 92 of The Sensible Sound and it was easy to copy it from my draft files in Word and post it here. Well, I did have to clean up some of the weird hyphenating that showed up after I blocked and dropped it. Yes, most of the people hear are goofballs and audio morons, with a few con artists to leaven the mix. Yet, not everyone is that way (you, for instance), and it is very possible that some intelligent newcomers will catch my drift and realize just how corrupt some of these so-called audio freaks happen to be. I am currently writing a new article (for print publication) and one of its themes will be how people like what we have here on RAO (a combination of goofy true believers, desperate store clerks, and tweako journalists using assumed names) have come close to destroying serious audio as a serious hobby. Well, Best Buy, Circuit City, and home theater have done their share, too, but the goofballs have done their share of polluting. Howard Ferstler |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote:
The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). I also covered the topic with less depth in my book, The Home Theater Companion, and much of what follows comes from my contacts with quite a large number of recording engineers. I also posted this article in response to a comment in another thread. The article draft: (SNIP for convenience) Hey, did ANY of you guys read the damned article? Howard Ferstler |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: Robert Morein wrote: "The Milkman" wrote in message ... Howard "The Plagiarist" Ferstler wrote: The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). Who wrote it? The article has so many mistakes it would be difficult to attribute to any one individual. Details. Interject some rebuttals within the text that I posted that show that you know what you are saying and are not generating noise. You post the same article six times amd you're complaining of noise? |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard said:
Howard Ferstler wrote: The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). I also covered the topic with less depth in my book, The Home Theater Companion, and much of what follows comes from my contacts with quite a large number of recording engineers. I also posted this article in response to a comment in another thread. The article draft: (SNIP for convenience) Hey, did ANY of you guys read the damned article? Are you starting to get it, dumbass? You have no credibility. Boon |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander de Waal wrote:
(Bruce J. Richman) said: (Tim Brown) Well well.......and what makes *you* come back and play in here, hm? As illustrated by his typically nasty post, an insatiable desire to smear others. I wonder what mechanism makes these people who are absolutely not interested in exchanging subjective opinions about audio, come to RAO. As per the charter, RAO is intended for subjective discussions about audio. Very true. For example, if I put my two cats on top of my speakers and it sounds better to me, I should be able to state such without needing to offer objective proof to anyone. An opinion forum certainly doesn't need people to provide evidence about what are clearly opinions, and not statements of fact, per se. Those that request "proof" of what others are saying are just using another negative tactic to try and intimidate those with whom they disagree. It's just a thinly disguised attempt to try and attack the messenger rather than simply disagree with the message. The most difficult part would be to keep the respective cats in said place, of course. Anyone know a method for that, other than superglue? :-) -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." Bruce J. Richman |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Sander de Waal wrote: (Bruce J. Richman) said: (Tim Brown) Well well.......and what makes *you* come back and play in here, hm? As illustrated by his typically nasty post, an insatiable desire to smear others. I wonder what mechanism makes these people who are absolutely not interested in exchanging subjective opinions about audio, come to RAO. As per the charter, RAO is intended for subjective discussions about audio. Very true. For example, if I put my two cats on top of my speakers and it sounds better to me, I should be able to state such without needing to offer objective proof to anyone. An opinion forum certainly doesn't need people to provide evidence about what are clearly opinions, and not statements of fact, per se. Those that request "proof" of what others are saying are just using another negative tactic to try and intimidate those with whom they disagree. It's just a thinly disguised attempt to try and attack the messenger rather than simply disagree with the message. My opinion is that Bruce J. Richman is senile and incontinent. I don't need particular competences nor evidences. "Those that request "proof" of what others are saying are just using another negative tactic to try and intimidate those with whom they disagree." :-) The most difficult part would be to keep the respective cats in said place, of course. Anyone know a method for that, other than superglue? :-) -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." Bruce J. Richman Limited Psychologist |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler said:
(SNIP for convenience) Hey, did ANY of you guys read the damned article? LOL!!!!!!! I've saved it for the moment I start to suffer from insomnia. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander de Waal wrote:
Howard Ferstler said: (SNIP for convenience) Hey, did ANY of you guys read the damned article? LOL!!!!!!! I've saved it for the moment I start to suffer from insomnia. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." Not all of us use $ 1000 bills to wipe with. Ferstler's propaganda can serve the same purpose. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Milkman wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). Who wrote it? ---------- I Deliver. I defy you to find any source, anywhere, written by anyone else, that says what I said in that draft. Somebody is saying that the 'references' section of your novels can take up to 50% of the entire contents! Did you read it at all? Oh.. is it meant to be read? What is it.. a horror story? The price of these so-called books are coming down to a level where it might be worth buying one just to throw it away, or defecate on it ;-) One went on Ebay a while back for 50c. ---------- I Deliver. Toilet tissue is easier to use and sometimes even cheaper. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote in message . ..
As per the charter, RAO is intended for subjective discussions about audio. How releived I am to see that that's what you're doing: Sander deWaal wrote in message . .. LOL, mr. sockpuupett Midias. In a proper administerererred DBT, you wouldn't know the, difference between cat's and dog's , let alone whallybees unless its raining, or my name is Schickelgruber. Don't criticize me when you, Middius et. al. rarely talk about audio. TB p.s. Tubes are disappearing! Their last widespread application, CRT's, are fading fast. All that's left are special industrial apps. Take this from a person who knows what a 6GH8 is. HEXFETs are the future of audio! |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message news  Typical of you sockpuppet's to, play the classical card when Mr.Aktinons its like you know I can't afford to spend money I already, gave to my tithing's for church, LOt"S! ;-) Been there, done that. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Milkman" wrote in message ... Howard Ferstler wrote: The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). Who wrote it? ---------- I Deliver. I defy you to find any source, anywhere, written by anyone else, that says what I said in that draft. Somebody is saying that the 'references' section of your novels can take up to 50% of the entire contents! Did you read it at all? Oh.. is it meant to be read? What is it.. a horror story? The price of these so-called books are coming down to a level where it might be worth buying one just to throw it away, or defecate on it ;-) One went on Ebay a while back for 50c. I couldn't find any previous listings. There are four unsold and unbid current listings. These specs (of his Home Theater Companion book) are interesting: Size Height: 9.5 in. Width: 8.0 in. Thickness: 1.0 in. Weight: 28.8 oz. Distortion 93.28% Plagiarism 42.49% Not bad, eh? |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
The price of these so-called books are coming down to a level where it might be worth buying one just to throw it away, or defecate on it ;-) One went on Ebay a while back for 50c. You got a bargain there. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote in message . ..
I bet my audio posts outweigh yours by a margin of 100:1. Google is your friend! And your garbage posts outweigh mine by 10000:1. BTW what's the mu of a 6GH8? According to my dog-eared RCA Receiving Tube Manual (1973 printing) the triode section mu is 46. TB |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Milkman wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). Who wrote it? ---------- I Deliver. I defy you to find any source, anywhere, written by anyone else, that says what I said in that draft. Somebody is saying that the 'references' section of your novels can take up to 50% of the entire contents! Did you read it at all? Oh.. is it meant to be read? What is it.. a horror story? The price of these so-called books are coming down to a level where it might be worth buying one just to throw it away, or defecate on it ;-) One went on Ebay a while back for 50c. ---------- I Deliver. Deliver what? And what are your books selling for these days, slick? Howard Ferstler |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
Toilet tissue is easier to use and sometimes even cheaper. Bruce J. Richman You seem to have an opinion here, Richman. Does this mean that you read the article I posted, or are you just behaving like a witty little parrot and joining your friends in lampooning? Howard Ferstler |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Robert Morein wrote: "The Milkman" wrote in message ... Howard "The Plagiarist" Ferstler wrote: The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). Who wrote it? The article has so many mistakes it would be difficult to attribute to any one individual. Details. Interject some rebuttals within the text that I posted that show that you know what you are saying and are not generating noise. You post the same article six times amd you're complaining of noise? Was it six? Man, was I not a busy guy there for a while. Anyway, gotta make sure that everyone has a chance to read it. The interesting thing is that you goofballs seem to be unable to deal with me on any level. You flop when it comes to swapping insults, and you bog down completely when I post something of substance and ask for opinions or rebuttals. Most of you are so stupid when it comes to what is going on with audio gear and the environments it is located in that you inevitably revert to digressions or insults. I really do not believe that most of you can be educated. Howard Ferstler |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote:
Brother Horace starches and irons his cowl. Hey, did ANY of you guys read the damned article? Don't take it personally, Harold. Anybody who's as tedious and long-winded as you are would get the same treatment. But you did not answer the question. Did you read the article? Next question: did you understand it? Howard Ferstler |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marc Phillips wrote:
Howard said: Howard Ferstler wrote: The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). I also covered the topic with less depth in my book, The Home Theater Companion, and much of what follows comes from my contacts with quite a large number of recording engineers. I also posted this article in response to a comment in another thread. The article draft: (SNIP for convenience) Hey, did ANY of you guys read the damned article? Are you starting to get it, dumbass? You have no credibility. Boon But did you read the article? Next question: did you understand it? I think it went right over your head, just as when I posted the previous article draft. Consequently, the best you can do is digress and post insults. Howard Ferstler |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
Howard Ferstler said: (SNIP for convenience) Hey, did ANY of you guys read the damned article? LOL!!!!!!! I've saved it for the moment I start to suffer from insomnia. I have to be curious. Did you at least start to read it and become somewhat interested in what it said? I think that you guys are just too stupid to digest the material and intelligently agree with it or disagree with it. It went right over your heads. Actually, it did not conform to the mumbo-jumbo approach to the topic that you are used to. This also goes for the earlier article draft I posted. Howard Ferstler |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
Not all of us use $ 1000 bills to wipe with. Ferstler's propaganda can serve the same purpose. Bruce J. Richman Richman, I really do believe that you would not be able to get half way through the article. Simple and straightforward as it was, the topic is something you simply could not comprehend. Hey, I will give you a chance, Mr. PhD. Read it and deliver a succinct critique. Howard Ferstler |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
Howard Ferstler said: I have to be curious. Did you at least start to read it and become somewhat interested in what it said? To be honest, I glanced over it. From what I've seen, it's not that unreasonable at all, be it that you could have said it in probably 200 words instead of 5000. Obviously, you have a short attention span. Howard Ferstler |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote: Toilet tissue is easier to use and sometimes even cheaper. Bruce J. Richman You seem to have an opinion here, Richman. Does this mean that you read the article I posted, or are you just behaving like a witty little parrot and joining your friends in lampooning? Howard Ferstler Why should I bother to read the obnoxious drivel of a proven purveyor of libel on Usenet newsgroups? Since you don't have the moral integrity to retract your false, libelous claims about my professional activities, there is no need to waste any time in rendering my opinions about anything you have to say. You just keep insulting people, plagiarizing the work of others, and in general, ensuring that nobody will take you seriously. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote: Not all of us use $ 1000 bills to wipe with. Ferstler's propaganda can serve the same purpose. Bruce J. Richman Richman, I really do believe that you would not be able to get half way through the article. Simple and straightforward as it was, the topic is something you simply could not comprehend. Hey, I will give you a chance, Mr. PhD. Read it and deliver a succinct critique. Howard Ferstler Ferstler, your beliefs are clearly delusional. You believe in libeling others on Usenet newsgroups and don't have the honesty to issue retractions when clearly proven wrong. Your jealousy of those obtaining PhD's is noted. Unfortunately, all you can do is try and insult others that have earned them. Try understaning why you are so universally detested before you presume to make any judgments about others. Perhaps you can use some of the "wealth" you like to brag about so much to purchase some insight. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: You seem to have an opinion here, Richman. Does this mean that you read the article I posted, or are you just behaving like a witty little parrot and joining your friends in lampooning? Why should I bother to read the obnoxious drivel of a proven purveyor of libel on Usenet newsgroups? Since you don't have the moral integrity to retract your false, libelous claims about my professional activities, there is no need to waste any time in rendering my opinions about anything you have to say. Well, you could at least secretly read the article and not mention what you did to anyone. Heck, it might teach you something about audio. You just keep insulting people, plagiarizing the work of others, and in general, ensuring that nobody will take you seriously. "Nobody" will take me seriously? Do you really believe that, Bruce? I can post something here and a day later there will be a hundred commentaries leading away from my initial installment. Howard Ferstler |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: Hey, I will give you a chance, Mr. PhD. Read it and deliver a succinct critique. Ferstler, your beliefs are clearly delusional. You believe in libeling others on Usenet newsgroups and don't have the honesty to issue retractions when clearly proven wrong. Well, that was not particularly succinct. Your jealousy of those obtaining PhD's is noted. Bruce, pointing out your intellectual limitations is not being jealous of people with PhDs. Unfortunately, all you can do is try and insult others that have earned them. Only when they reveal that they are not PhD material, in spite of the award. Try understaning why you are so universally detested before you presume to make any judgments about others. Universally detested? Gee, Bruce, you need to get out more. I continue to be amazed that you are supposedly educated. You behave like a tenth grader with a religious fixation. Perhaps you can use some of the "wealth" you like to brag about so much to purchase some insight. Do you know anything much about audio, Bruce? Rather than deal with the article, you digress and insult. You are your own worst enemy on RAO, Bruce. Howard Ferstler |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler said:
Obviously, you have a short attention span. That I've mentioned before in this newsgroup. It's also the reason I don't like movies much. Strange thing is, when I'm designing and building something, I can be busy all day and suddenly discover that it's 4.00 in the morning :-) -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote: MINe 109 wrote: In article , Howard Ferstler wrote: Robert Morein wrote: "The Milkman" wrote in message ... Howard "The Plagiarist" Ferstler wrote: The following is a draft of an article I published a while back in The Sensible Sound (issue 92). Who wrote it? The article has so many mistakes it would be difficult to attribute to any one individual. Details. Interject some rebuttals within the text that I posted that show that you know what you are saying and are not generating noise. You post the same article six times amd you're complaining of noise? Was it six? Man, was I not a busy guy there for a while. It's not like you wrote it six times. Anyway, gotta make sure that everyone has a chance to read it. Or this instead: http://psbg.emusician.com/ar/emusic_double_pleasure/ The interesting thing is that you goofballs seem to be unable to deal with me on any level. You flop when it comes to swapping insults, and you bog down completely when I post something of substance and ask for opinions or rebuttals. I don't try to insult you, and it's you that bogs down after substantive disagreement. Most of you are so stupid when it comes to what is going on with audio gear and the environments it is located in that you inevitably revert to digressions or insults. I really do not believe that most of you can be educated. Typical consumers. Whatcha gonna do... |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| best microphone placement for recording story telling | Pro Audio | |||
| Why all the bad recordings | High End Audio | |||
| the emperor's clothes | High End Audio | |||
| problem recording on SMP system with Win2K | Pro Audio | |||
| Help! Time running out for teacher choosing recording equipment... | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
