| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions Needed Please
As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the
acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Jeffrey "Abbedd" Powell Chief Engineer/Acoustician Dave Guardala Mouthpieces, Inc. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
ansermetniac said:
Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated Taurean excrement. How about Quad ESL57? Magnepan MG1s? Many tubed amps and/or receivers run rings around most of today's solid state "surround" junk. This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) Why am I not surprised? These guys love knobs, bells and whistles. If it hasn't got the latest DSP technology in it, it must be crap. I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane From what I've heard from my recording friends, it's all about time and money savings. Even the guys who wish to deliver a good product, can't do so because they have to (re) master the 500th version of Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" in a $10 bargain pack at the mall in about a day or so. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
ansermetniac said: Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated Taurean excrement. How about Quad ESL57? Magnepan MG1s? Many tubed amps and/or receivers run rings around most of today's solid state "surround" junk. This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) Why am I not surprised? These guys love knobs, bells and whistles. If it hasn't got the latest DSP technology in it, it must be crap. I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane From what I've heard from my recording friends, it's all about time and money savings. Even the guys who wish to deliver a good product, can't do so because they have to (re) master the 500th version of Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" in a $10 bargain pack at the mall in about a day or so. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." You must be psychic. I just posted a response in which I point out that I used to run a pair of ESL 57's with a Fisher 400 receiver and the sound was truly excellent. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jeff,
You raise a good question. I'm sure you'll get some responses here. For in-depth, may I suggest reposting to rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.pro. "ansermetniac" wrote in message ... As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Jeffrey "Abbedd" Powell Chief Engineer/Acoustician Dave Guardala Mouthpieces, Inc. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:19:42 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote: Jeff, You raise a good question. I'm sure you'll get some responses here. For in-depth, may I suggest reposting to rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.pro. Bob Thanks. What about your opinion? Abbedd "ansermetniac" wrote in message .. . As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Jeffrey "Abbedd" Powell Chief Engineer/Acoustician Dave Guardala Mouthpieces, Inc. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
(Bruce J. Richman)said: You must be psychic. I just posted a response in which I point out that I used to run a pair of ESL 57's with a Fisher 400 receiver and the sound was truly excellent. I *am* a little psychic. I predict some nasty ****storm from north-Florida and/or the Michigan area already :-) -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." I fear that you are correct. The winds of digital bigotry often create a stench on RAO. Their disdain for the psychology of individual differences emanating from those areas correlates quite closely to the subjectiver opinions and preferences that most folks practice. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
...Their disdain for the psychology of individual differences... Yes you have correctly read this comment emanate from our Limited Psychologist, the guy who, systematically, accuse his contradictors to be "pathologic liar". Doc, you are really, really insane. ;-( |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ansermetniac" wrote in message
As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. Perhaps. These days music is made to sell to people who probably fit your description better than the engineers do. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. And the URL for downloading is?? In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver Seems more than a little bigoted. 2) Bozaks are antequated. Indeed. While there are speakers of the 60s era that are not thoroughly anteguated (e.g. Quad 57s), most are. Lots of good things have happened with speaker technology in the last 40 years. Arguably speakers weren't even designed, but rather cut-and-tried until about 25 years ago. This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) He's probabably something like half right. I was about 16 when I was selling Fisher 500Cs, and I'm now pushing 60. The basic design of the 500C would be called "mid fi" by modern standards. That's not utter damnation but its not the best that could have been done with the technology at hand in the day.. Without steady mantenance, a 500C would probably be pretty sorry if it were in continuous use (or even storage) for the past 45 years or so. I guess I'd have to listen to the 500C with appropriate speakers before making a final judgement. I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. Pleasing the masses is the better explanation. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane IME recordings of the 50s and the 60s have held their sheen a lot better than the home audio gear of that time. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:28:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. Perhaps. These days music is made to sell to people who probably fit your description better than the engineers do. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. And the URL for downloading is?? http://members.aol.com/abbedd/abbedd In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver Seems more than a little bigoted. 2) Bozaks are antequated. Indeed. While there are speakers of the 60s era that are not thoroughly anteguated (e.g. Quad 57s), most are. Lots of good things have happened with speaker technology in the last 40 years. Arguably speakers weren't even designed, but rather cut-and-tried until about 25 years ago. If modern speakers are to be judged by B & W 802s then you can have them HP and I still prefer AR 2as Abbedd This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) He's probabably something like half right. I was about 16 when I was selling Fisher 500Cs, and I'm now pushing 60. The basic design of the 500C would be called "mid fi" by modern standards. That's not utter damnation but its not the best that could have been done with the technology at hand in the day.. Without steady mantenance, a 500C would probably be pretty sorry if it were in continuous use (or even storage) for the past 45 years or so. I guess I'd have to listen to the 500C with appropriate speakers before making a final judgement. I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. Pleasing the masses is the better explanation. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane IME recordings of the 50s and the 60s have held their sheen a lot better than the home audio gear of that time. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sep 20 2004 11:26:29, in article
, "ansermetniac" wrote: On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:19:42 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: Jeff, You raise a good question. I'm sure you'll get some responses here. For in-depth, may I suggest reposting to rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.pro. Bob Thanks. What about your opinion? My sick son Bob won't offer an opinion until he can figure out which side of the issue is wrong. Then he'll wade in full force, so that he can **** off the maximum number of people, Jeffrey. He's what we called in my day an "asshole know-it-all". So his opinions mean little. Facts about my Son, Robert Morein Dr. Sylvan Morein, DDS -- Bob Morein History -- http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court By L. STUART DITZEN Philadelphia Inquirer PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart. They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge his dismissal. The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw. "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we do come to a larger issue here." An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly "pleasantly" eccentric. A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed by the media and the public. Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser. But it has been the subject of much attention in academia. Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and computer engineering. Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it patented. A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life. In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea. An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life. Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition. Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's money to cover up his lack of productivity. That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions. Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the state Superior Court. The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic affairs was reasserted. The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary litigation, that would have been the end of it. But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing. Daddy throws more money down the crapper. His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without compensation. "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what happened to him is pretty common." It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge, the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are. Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim that his idea was stolen - "preposterous." "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg. "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than pursuing self-destructive litigation." No **** sherlock. The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser, Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea. His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes and electronic systems. The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a nuclear plant or a computer. My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of Robert Morein, only sawdust. Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata, through a university lawyer, declined to comment. At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It related to estimation theory. Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in industrial processes. Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the problem Kalata had presented. Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron. K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors. Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he became alienated from Kalata. As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron. The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the patent to lapse. No one made any money from it. Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein. In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and asked for a new faculty adviser. The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein. He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work. Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to complete his thesis. So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers (a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant! Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him. Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the usenet proves it. Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will." So much for political machine judges. The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only about 100 of them. Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the Pennsylvania courts. Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it. Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on anything. Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS. "I had to seek closure," he said. Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence. Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence". BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a bulletlike stream of water. FAILED STUDENT FAILED MOVIE MAKER FAILED SCREENWRITER FAILED INVESTOR FAILED DRIVER FAILED SON FAILED PARENTS FAILED INVENTOR FAILED PLAINTIFF FAILED HOMOSEXUAL FAILED HUMAN FAILED FAILED But none of it is what he had imagined for himself. "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very gnawing thing. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jeff,
I haven't heard your setup, but it does seem you're missing something with the Fisher. Component matching is important. The wrong amp/speaker combination can create alot of extraneous sizzle. Your speakers may not be the most accurate in the world, because there have been alot of advances in speaker design. Most recordings are close-miked. Because air absorbs high frequencies, the close proximity of the microphone and the sound source results in a treble boost relative to the perspective of a listener at a typical distance from a live ensemble. Engineers usually choose to leave a little of the boost in the mix, for the sake of popular taste and assumptions about the playback equipment. Assumptions about the playback equipment are almost always wrong, but implicitly necessary. It is likely that your dissatisfaction is the consequence of multiple assumptions that simply are wrong for your system and your ears. You are constantly exposed to a reference, but the majority of listeners are not. In the absence of a reference, listeners gravitate toward what gives them the most pleasure. I suggest you consider replacement of your amp with a MOSFET based unit. Such amps have much more subtle voicing than the Fisher you're using. Bob "ansermetniac" wrote in message news  On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:19:42 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: Jeff, You raise a good question. I'm sure you'll get some responses here. For in-depth, may I suggest reposting to rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.pro. Bob Thanks. What about your opinion? Abbedd "ansermetniac" wrote in message .. . As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Jeffrey "Abbedd" Powell Chief Engineer/Acoustician Dave Guardala Mouthpieces, Inc. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:01:52 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote: Jeff, I haven't heard your setup, but it does seem you're missing something with the Fisher. Component matching is important. The wrong amp/speaker combination can create alot of extraneous sizzle. Your speakers may not be the most accurate in the world, because there have been alot of advances in speaker design. Most recordings are close-miked. Because air absorbs high frequencies, the close proximity of the microphone and the sound source results in a treble boost relative to the perspective of a listener at a typical distance from a live ensemble. Engineers usually choose to leave a little of the boost in the mix, for the sake of popular taste and assumptions about the playback equipment. Assumptions about the playback equipment are almost always wrong, but implicitly necessary. It is likely that your dissatisfaction is the consequence of multiple assumptions that simply are wrong for your system and your ears. You are constantly exposed to a reference, but the majority of listeners are not. In the absence of a reference, listeners gravitate toward what gives them the most pleasure. I suggest you consider replacement of your amp with a MOSFET based unit. Such amps have much more subtle voicing than the Fisher you're using. Bob Bob Thanks. I will stick with tubes. And New England sounding speakers Abbedd "ansermetniac" wrote in message news On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:19:42 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: Jeff, You raise a good question. I'm sure you'll get some responses here. For in-depth, may I suggest reposting to rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.pro. Bob Thanks. What about your opinion? Abbedd "ansermetniac" wrote in message .. . As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Jeffrey "Abbedd" Powell Chief Engineer/Acoustician Dave Guardala Mouthpieces, Inc. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ansermetniac" wrote in message
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:28:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. Perhaps. These days music is made to sell to people who probably fit your description better than the engineers do. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. And the URL for downloading is?? http://members.aol.com/abbedd/abbedd I like the music as music, but not as an example of good high fidelity. When reproduced over a modern system, these recordings tend to sound nasal, raspy, lacking in presence, with too much upper bass and not enough deep bass. I can't help but suspect that were they were mastered based on listening with modern speakers, they'd sound quite a bit different. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:44:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:28:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. Perhaps. These days music is made to sell to people who probably fit your description better than the engineers do. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. And the URL for downloading is?? http://members.aol.com/abbedd/abbedd I like the music as music, but not as an example of good high fidelity. When reproduced over a modern system, these recordings tend to sound nasal, raspy, lacking in presence, with too much upper bass and not enough deep bass. I can't help but suspect that were they were mastered based on listening with modern speakers, they'd sound quite a bit different. Arny You have been listening to recorded music so long you don't know what instruments sound like. Because you said " Lacking in presence" I know I have been sucessful. And how can you make a judgement of my remastering if you never heard the source? Modern speakers You mean like B & W 802s(pos). My partner had either duntech or dunleavy towers(The worse of the two brands) and when the tweeter blew it sounded better Sound is built from the fundamental up not the other way around. Almost all recordings have the harmonics out of proportion to the fundamental. BTW they are first mastered using Beyer 990 Pros. It takes a while to get used to real sound after years of juiced mids and highs. Long live Rudy Bozak Abbedd |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
ansermetniac wrote: On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:44:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:28:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. Perhaps. These days music is made to sell to people who probably fit your description better than the engineers do. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. And the URL for downloading is?? http://members.aol.com/abbedd/abbedd I like the music as music, but not as an example of good high fidelity. When reproduced over a modern system, these recordings tend to sound nasal, raspy, lacking in presence, with too much upper bass and not enough deep bass. I can't help but suspect that were they were mastered based on listening with modern speakers, they'd sound quite a bit different. Arny You have been listening to recorded music so long you don't know what instruments sound like. Because you said " Lacking in presence" I know I have been sucessful. And how can you make a judgement of my remastering if you never heard the source? Good point. What happened to the tape hiss? To me, your eq sounds a bit 'my-fi' (not that there's anything wrong with that). The original recording may be forcing you to choose between fattening up the solo instruments and preserving an orchestral recorded timbre that probably wasn't so great to start with. Modern speakers You mean like B & W 802s(pos). My partner had either duntech or dunleavy towers(The worse of the two brands) and when the tweeter blew it sounded better Must be Duntech. Sound is built from the fundamental up not the other way around. Almost all recordings have the harmonics out of proportion to the fundamental. Perhaps you could suggest a recording that you feel has a good balance so that we can hear for ourselves? Otherwise, one might think you're the only one who knows what good sound is. BTW they are first mastered using Beyer 990 Pros. It takes a while to get used to real sound after years of juiced mids and highs. How do you know this? Long live Rudy Bozak For people who think Quads have a excessively large sweet spot... Stephen |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:35:08 GMT, MINe 109
wrote: In article , ansermetniac wrote: On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:44:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:28:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. Perhaps. These days music is made to sell to people who probably fit your description better than the engineers do. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. And the URL for downloading is?? http://members.aol.com/abbedd/abbedd I like the music as music, but not as an example of good high fidelity. When reproduced over a modern system, these recordings tend to sound nasal, raspy, lacking in presence, with too much upper bass and not enough deep bass. I can't help but suspect that were they were mastered based on listening with modern speakers, they'd sound quite a bit different. Arny You have been listening to recorded music so long you don't know what instruments sound like. Because you said " Lacking in presence" I know I have been sucessful. And how can you make a judgement of my remastering if you never heard the source? Good point. What happened to the tape hiss? To me, your eq sounds a bit 'my-fi' (not that there's anything wrong with that). The original recording may be forcing you to choose between fattening up the solo instruments and preserving an orchestral recorded timbre that probably wasn't so great to start with. Modern speakers You mean like B & W 802s(pos). My partner had either duntech or dunleavy towers(The worse of the two brands) and when the tweeter blew it sounded better Must be Duntech. Sound is built from the fundamental up not the other way around. Almost all recordings have the harmonics out of proportion to the fundamental. Perhaps you could suggest a recording that you feel has a good balance so that we can hear for ourselves? Otherwise, one might think you're the only one who knows what good sound is. Try Giants of the Tenor Sax Prez Commodore CCD 7002. 78s from the late 30s. Other than that I have not heard a balanced CD yet. This is not due to digital or my equipment.Yes it is due to digital. The digital domain is unforgiving and the pandering and/or incompetence of the recording engineers are there for all to hear. I call my Bozaks Bad cd exposers. For the opposite of good sound get Giant Steps by Trane in the Bill Inglot remastering on Atlantic/Rhino. What a phoney he is. I assume he uses a RTA instead of his perfect ears (NO Holes) Abbedd BTW they are first mastered using Beyer 990 Pros. It takes a while to get used to real sound after years of juiced mids and highs. How do you know this? It took me a while :-) Long live Rudy Bozak For people who think Quads have a excessively large sweet spot... Stephen |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ansermetniac" wrote in message
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:44:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:28:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. Perhaps. These days music is made to sell to people who probably fit your description better than the engineers do. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. And the URL for downloading is?? http://members.aol.com/abbedd/abbedd I like the music as music, but not as an example of good high fidelity. When reproduced over a modern system, these recordings tend to sound nasal, raspy, lacking in presence, with too much upper bass and not enough deep bass. I can't help but suspect that were they were mastered based on listening with modern speakers, they'd sound quite a bit different. Arny You have been listening to recorded music so long you don't know what instruments sound like. Because you said " Lacking in presence" I know I have been sucessful. Try again. I do live recording of acoustic instruments and voices just about every weekend. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
ansermetniac wrote: Me: Perhaps you could suggest a recording that you feel has a good balance so that we can hear for ourselves? Otherwise, one might think you're the only one who knows what good sound is. Try Giants of the Tenor Sax Prez Commodore CCD 7002. 78s from the late 30s. Other than that I have not heard a balanced CD yet. This is the only one? You don't have an Arcam CD92, do you? This is not due to digital or my equipment.Yes it is due to digital. The digital domain is unforgiving and the pandering and/or incompetence of the recording engineers are there for all to hear. I call my Bozaks Bad cd exposers. Could the high end be tipped up on your system? You may have the equivalent of a mastering studio monitor that increases glare in order to expose editing flaws, etc. For the opposite of good sound get Giant Steps by Trane in the Bill Inglot remastering on Atlantic/Rhino. What a phoney he is. I assume he uses a RTA instead of his perfect ears (NO Holes) I assume he has reasons for his eq choices: recreating his idea of the original lps/45s (as opposed to the master tape), reducing deep bass to increase overall level, etc. Inglot is responsible for the rock reissue from original tapes market. If he would add 'no eq/no compression' to the equation, I'd be happier. Stephen |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ansermetniac" wrote in message ... As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Hi Jeffrey, Now you've done it! I never thought it possible but I've got to more or less agree with Krueger. Pthhhhhttt! Now that that's out of the way, here's what I think about your recordings. I think that you're pulling our collective leg here. I think you purposely screwed up the eq to see how many lemmings would jump on your wagon. Seriously. I really don't want to insult you but... there you go. Just in case you are serious let me elaborate a little. Played the files on my laptop feeding the digital output to a Grace 901 DAC/amp that was driving Sennheiser HD 600 and Grado RS-1 headphones. I also listened through Genelec S30D monitors in "midfield" configuration and through a pair of Avantgarde Trio horn speakers driven by Nagra tube amps in a room that was more or less designed around the speakers. So I think it is fair to say that the setups varied enough to give your mixes a fair chance. However, my impressions were overwhelmingly similar regardless of the setup I used. * Overwhelming and ill-defined, boomy mid-bass * No deep bass whatsoever * I've probably never heard strings honk as bad (DSP'd SWL doesn't count!) * No highs whatsoever - actually not unlike Bose 901's * Unrefined and screechy upper mids * Actually sounded best through a large portable radio that I tried for kicks (Grundig Satellit 650) * It absolutely amazes me that someone can mix this kind of a boomy and muddy soup with the DT990's as these phones have characteristically exaggerated midbass and unrefined highs. I would expect someone to compensate for those traits, not to build on them. (I owned DT990's for a couple of years before I switched to Sennheisers). * Perhaps the most telling conclusion was that when I converter the signal to FM in order to check it out with the Sat 650, absolutely nothing was missing. Did you perhaps do this as a portable radio mix 'cause it wasn't half bad as such (the midrange honk aside) I'm sorry if I offended you but your comment on the B&W 802's alone tells me that something's wrong here. They CAN sound bad if the room is not up to snuff, if they are not set up properly or if they are not fed with very high powered SS amps. And they will sound bad regardless if they are fed a bad source material. Don't own them but hear them frequently. I don't know about your equipmeent specifically but I use a rebuilt Fisher 800C in my shack to amplify the signal from various radios. It is very mellow sounding and does a good job dealing with the various digital gremlins put out by modern DSP receivers. But I'll try it one of these days with my Avantgardes out of curiosity. I haven't heard the Bozaks but given their age, if they were anywhere near as good as the 802's, Bozak would now have a monopoly in high fidelity loudspeakers! However, if they sound better to YOU than the B&W's or Dunlavy's then it is perfectly OK with me. In any case don't try to drive the 802's with the Fisher 'cause it'll blow. As far as my idea of a good classical recording goes, try just about anything by Ondine or Reference Recordings. I also often demo my Avantgardes with the Phillips Misa Criolla disc with Carreras. Thanks for the cool post. Cheers, Margaret |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ansermetniac" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:01:52 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: Jeff, I haven't heard your setup, but it does seem you're missing something with the Fisher. Component matching is important. The wrong amp/speaker combination can create alot of extraneous sizzle. Your speakers may not be the most accurate in the world, because there have been alot of advances in speaker design. Most recordings are close-miked. Because air absorbs high frequencies, the close proximity of the microphone and the sound source results in a treble boost relative to the perspective of a listener at a typical distance from a live ensemble. Engineers usually choose to leave a little of the boost in the mix, for the sake of popular taste and assumptions about the playback equipment. Assumptions about the playback equipment are almost always wrong, but implicitly necessary. It is likely that your dissatisfaction is the consequence of multiple assumptions that simply are wrong for your system and your ears. You are constantly exposed to a reference, but the majority of listeners are not. In the absence of a reference, listeners gravitate toward what gives them the most pleasure. I suggest you consider replacement of your amp with a MOSFET based unit. Such amps have much more subtle voicing than the Fisher you're using. Bob Bob Thanks. I will stick with tubes. And New England sounding speakers Abbedd Abbedd, I humbly suggest you do a little inexpensive experimentation. Hafler DH-200 amps, in particular, sometimes go for $100 or so on eBay. Judging by your preferences, I'm optimistic you might like them. Bob |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:21:24 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt"
wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message .. . As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Hi Jeffrey, Now you've done it! I never thought it possible but I've got to more or less agree with Krueger. Pthhhhhttt! Now that that's out of the way, here's what I think about your recordings. I think that you're pulling our collective leg here. I think you purposely screwed up the eq to see how many lemmings would jump on your wagon. Seriously. I really don't want to insult you but... there you go. Just in case you are serious let me elaborate a little. Played the files on my laptop feeding the digital output to a Grace 901 DAC/amp that was driving Sennheiser HD 600 and Grado RS-1 headphones. I also listened through Genelec S30D monitors in "midfield" configuration and through a pair of Avantgarde Trio horn speakers driven by Nagra tube amps in a room that was more or less designed around the speakers. So I think it is fair to say that the setups varied enough to give your mixes a fair chance. However, my impressions were overwhelmingly similar regardless of the setup I used. * Overwhelming and ill-defined, boomy mid-bass * No deep bass whatsoever * I've probably never heard strings honk as bad (DSP'd SWL doesn't count!) * No highs whatsoever - actually not unlike Bose 901's * Unrefined and screechy upper mids * Actually sounded best through a large portable radio that I tried for kicks (Grundig Satellit 650) * It absolutely amazes me that someone can mix this kind of a boomy and muddy soup with the DT990's as these phones have characteristically exaggerated midbass and unrefined highs. I would expect someone to compensate for those traits, not to build on them. (I owned DT990's for a couple of years before I switched to Sennheisers). * Perhaps the most telling conclusion was that when I converter the signal to FM in order to check it out with the Sat 650, absolutely nothing was missing. Did you perhaps do this as a portable radio mix 'cause it wasn't half bad as such (the midrange honk aside) I'm sorry if I offended you but your comment on the B&W 802's alone tells me that something's wrong here. They CAN sound bad if the room is not up to snuff, if they are not set up properly or if they are not fed with very high powered SS amps. And they will sound bad regardless if they are fed a bad source material. Don't own them but hear them frequently. I don't know about your equipmeent specifically but I use a rebuilt Fisher 800C in my shack to amplify the signal from various radios. It is very mellow sounding and does a good job dealing with the various digital gremlins put out by modern DSP receivers. But I'll try it one of these days with my Avantgardes out of curiosity. I haven't heard the Bozaks but given their age, if they were anywhere near as good as the 802's, Bozak would now have a monopoly in high fidelity loudspeakers! However, if they sound better to YOU than the B&W's or Dunlavy's then it is perfectly OK with me. In any case don't try to drive the 802's with the Fisher 'cause it'll blow. As far as my idea of a good classical recording goes, try just about anything by Ondine or Reference Recordings. I also often demo my Avantgardes with the Phillips Misa Criolla disc with Carreras. Thanks for the cool post. Cheers, Margaret How can you judge my work without hearing the source. And what are your qualifications. BTW the B & W 802s are Musical ****. Abbedd |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:38:30 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:01:52 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: Jeff, I haven't heard your setup, but it does seem you're missing something with the Fisher. Component matching is important. The wrong amp/speaker combination can create alot of extraneous sizzle. Your speakers may not be the most accurate in the world, because there have been alot of advances in speaker design. Most recordings are close-miked. Because air absorbs high frequencies, the close proximity of the microphone and the sound source results in a treble boost relative to the perspective of a listener at a typical distance from a live ensemble. Engineers usually choose to leave a little of the boost in the mix, for the sake of popular taste and assumptions about the playback equipment. Assumptions about the playback equipment are almost always wrong, but implicitly necessary. It is likely that your dissatisfaction is the consequence of multiple assumptions that simply are wrong for your system and your ears. You are constantly exposed to a reference, but the majority of listeners are not. In the absence of a reference, listeners gravitate toward what gives them the most pleasure. I suggest you consider replacement of your amp with a MOSFET based unit. Such amps have much more subtle voicing than the Fisher you're using. Bob Bob Thanks. I will stick with tubes. And New England sounding speakers Abbedd Abbedd, I humbly suggest you do a little inexpensive experimentation. Hafler DH-200 amps, in particular, sometimes go for $100 or so on eBay. Judging by your preferences, I'm optimistic you might like them. Bob There is nothing wrong with a Fisher 500C. Unless you having something about tubes Hafler? had a Dynaco 80. It was garbage. Abbedd |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ansermetniac" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:21:24 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message . .. As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Hi Jeffrey, Now you've done it! I never thought it possible but I've got to more or less agree with Krueger. Pthhhhhttt! Now that that's out of the way, here's what I think about your recordings. I think that you're pulling our collective leg here. I think you purposely screwed up the eq to see how many lemmings would jump on your wagon. Seriously. I really don't want to insult you but... there you go. Just in case you are serious let me elaborate a little. Played the files on my laptop feeding the digital output to a Grace 901 DAC/amp that was driving Sennheiser HD 600 and Grado RS-1 headphones. I also listened through Genelec S30D monitors in "midfield" configuration and through a pair of Avantgarde Trio horn speakers driven by Nagra tube amps in a room that was more or less designed around the speakers. So I think it is fair to say that the setups varied enough to give your mixes a fair chance. However, my impressions were overwhelmingly similar regardless of the setup I used. * Overwhelming and ill-defined, boomy mid-bass * No deep bass whatsoever * I've probably never heard strings honk as bad (DSP'd SWL doesn't count!) * No highs whatsoever - actually not unlike Bose 901's * Unrefined and screechy upper mids * Actually sounded best through a large portable radio that I tried for kicks (Grundig Satellit 650) * It absolutely amazes me that someone can mix this kind of a boomy and muddy soup with the DT990's as these phones have characteristically exaggerated midbass and unrefined highs. I would expect someone to compensate for those traits, not to build on them. (I owned DT990's for a couple of years before I switched to Sennheisers). * Perhaps the most telling conclusion was that when I converter the signal to FM in order to check it out with the Sat 650, absolutely nothing was missing. Did you perhaps do this as a portable radio mix 'cause it wasn't half bad as such (the midrange honk aside) I'm sorry if I offended you but your comment on the B&W 802's alone tells me that something's wrong here. They CAN sound bad if the room is not up to snuff, if they are not set up properly or if they are not fed with very high powered SS amps. And they will sound bad regardless if they are fed a bad source material. Don't own them but hear them frequently. I don't know about your equipmeent specifically but I use a rebuilt Fisher 800C in my shack to amplify the signal from various radios. It is very mellow sounding and does a good job dealing with the various digital gremlins put out by modern DSP receivers. But I'll try it one of these days with my Avantgardes out of curiosity. I haven't heard the Bozaks but given their age, if they were anywhere near as good as the 802's, Bozak would now have a monopoly in high fidelity loudspeakers! However, if they sound better to YOU than the B&W's or Dunlavy's then it is perfectly OK with me. In any case don't try to drive the 802's with the Fisher 'cause it'll blow. As far as my idea of a good classical recording goes, try just about anything by Ondine or Reference Recordings. I also often demo my Avantgardes with the Phillips Misa Criolla disc with Carreras. Thanks for the cool post. Cheers, Margaret How can you judge my work without hearing the source. Having a digital and vinyl library of 4000-5000 recordings, I'm betting on the fact that it cannot get worse than your butchered mix. And what are your qualifications. Unlike you, I own a few systems that ARE HIGH FIDELITY. BTW the B & W 802s are Musical ****. I'm sure they sound bad if fed that cluster**** mix of yours. But it is not B&W's that are ****, your "work" is! Abbedd Why don't you stick that horn up your ass for a while and chill out. It is not my fault you embarrassed yourself. You asked for opinions, and you're getting them. Cheers, Margaret |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:21:49 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt"
wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:21:24 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message ... As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Hi Jeffrey, Now you've done it! I never thought it possible but I've got to more or less agree with Krueger. Pthhhhhttt! Now that that's out of the way, here's what I think about your recordings. I think that you're pulling our collective leg here. I think you purposely screwed up the eq to see how many lemmings would jump on your wagon. Seriously. I really don't want to insult you but... there you go. Just in case you are serious let me elaborate a little. Played the files on my laptop feeding the digital output to a Grace 901 DAC/amp that was driving Sennheiser HD 600 and Grado RS-1 headphones. I also listened through Genelec S30D monitors in "midfield" configuration and through a pair of Avantgarde Trio horn speakers driven by Nagra tube amps in a room that was more or less designed around the speakers. So I think it is fair to say that the setups varied enough to give your mixes a fair chance. However, my impressions were overwhelmingly similar regardless of the setup I used. * Overwhelming and ill-defined, boomy mid-bass * No deep bass whatsoever * I've probably never heard strings honk as bad (DSP'd SWL doesn't count!) * No highs whatsoever - actually not unlike Bose 901's * Unrefined and screechy upper mids * Actually sounded best through a large portable radio that I tried for kicks (Grundig Satellit 650) * It absolutely amazes me that someone can mix this kind of a boomy and muddy soup with the DT990's as these phones have characteristically exaggerated midbass and unrefined highs. I would expect someone to compensate for those traits, not to build on them. (I owned DT990's for a couple of years before I switched to Sennheisers). * Perhaps the most telling conclusion was that when I converter the signal to FM in order to check it out with the Sat 650, absolutely nothing was missing. Did you perhaps do this as a portable radio mix 'cause it wasn't half bad as such (the midrange honk aside) I'm sorry if I offended you but your comment on the B&W 802's alone tells me that something's wrong here. They CAN sound bad if the room is not up to snuff, if they are not set up properly or if they are not fed with very high powered SS amps. And they will sound bad regardless if they are fed a bad source material. Don't own them but hear them frequently. I don't know about your equipmeent specifically but I use a rebuilt Fisher 800C in my shack to amplify the signal from various radios. It is very mellow sounding and does a good job dealing with the various digital gremlins put out by modern DSP receivers. But I'll try it one of these days with my Avantgardes out of curiosity. I haven't heard the Bozaks but given their age, if they were anywhere near as good as the 802's, Bozak would now have a monopoly in high fidelity loudspeakers! However, if they sound better to YOU than the B&W's or Dunlavy's then it is perfectly OK with me. In any case don't try to drive the 802's with the Fisher 'cause it'll blow. As far as my idea of a good classical recording goes, try just about anything by Ondine or Reference Recordings. I also often demo my Avantgardes with the Phillips Misa Criolla disc with Carreras. Thanks for the cool post. Cheers, Margaret How can you judge my work without hearing the source. Having a digital and vinyl library of 4000-5000 recordings, I'm betting on the fact that it cannot get worse than your butchered mix. And what are your qualifications. Unlike you, I own a few systems that ARE HIGH FIDELITY. BTW the B & W 802s are Musical ****. I'm sure they sound bad if fed that cluster**** mix of yours. But it is not B&W's that are ****, your "work" is! Abbedd Why don't you stick that horn up your ass for a while and chill out. It is not my fault you embarrassed yourself. You asked for opinions, and you're getting them. Opinions form pompous putzes like you. You did not even hear the original and you are judgeing by an MP3. You own records. I design instruments that get recorded. B & W 802s are a joke. Cheers, Margaret |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
ansermetniac wrote: BTW the B & W 802s are Musical ****. Well, if you think all cds sound bad, then their reputation as classical music monitors isn't a plus! I listened to the first mvmt of the Koncertstucke and I think the re-eq is sincere. The solo horns probably sound more like what it's like to be near real horns (really near!) than the raw tape, but at the cost of integrity in a recording that didn't have much to spare. Losing the high end to eliminate tape hiss is a nose-spite-face deal. How does it help harmonic balance to eliminate those higher partials? Stephen |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ansermetniac" wrote in message news  On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:21:49 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:21:24 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message m... As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Hi Jeffrey, Now you've done it! I never thought it possible but I've got to more or less agree with Krueger. Pthhhhhttt! Now that that's out of the way, here's what I think about your recordings. I think that you're pulling our collective leg here. I think you purposely screwed up the eq to see how many lemmings would jump on your wagon. Seriously. I really don't want to insult you but... there you go. Just in case you are serious let me elaborate a little. Played the files on my laptop feeding the digital output to a Grace 901 DAC/amp that was driving Sennheiser HD 600 and Grado RS-1 headphones. I also listened through Genelec S30D monitors in "midfield" configuration and through a pair of Avantgarde Trio horn speakers driven by Nagra tube amps in a room that was more or less designed around the speakers. So I think it is fair to say that the setups varied enough to give your mixes a fair chance. However, my impressions were overwhelmingly similar regardless of the setup I used. * Overwhelming and ill-defined, boomy mid-bass * No deep bass whatsoever * I've probably never heard strings honk as bad (DSP'd SWL doesn't count!) * No highs whatsoever - actually not unlike Bose 901's * Unrefined and screechy upper mids * Actually sounded best through a large portable radio that I tried for kicks (Grundig Satellit 650) * It absolutely amazes me that someone can mix this kind of a boomy and muddy soup with the DT990's as these phones have characteristically exaggerated midbass and unrefined highs. I would expect someone to compensate for those traits, not to build on them. (I owned DT990's for a couple of years before I switched to Sennheisers). * Perhaps the most telling conclusion was that when I converter the signal to FM in order to check it out with the Sat 650, absolutely nothing was missing. Did you perhaps do this as a portable radio mix 'cause it wasn't half bad as such (the midrange honk aside) I'm sorry if I offended you but your comment on the B&W 802's alone tells me that something's wrong here. They CAN sound bad if the room is not up to snuff, if they are not set up properly or if they are not fed with very high powered SS amps. And they will sound bad regardless if they are fed a bad source material. Don't own them but hear them frequently. I don't know about your equipmeent specifically but I use a rebuilt Fisher 800C in my shack to amplify the signal from various radios. It is very mellow sounding and does a good job dealing with the various digital gremlins put out by modern DSP receivers. But I'll try it one of these days with my Avantgardes out of curiosity. I haven't heard the Bozaks but given their age, if they were anywhere near as good as the 802's, Bozak would now have a monopoly in high fidelity loudspeakers! However, if they sound better to YOU than the B&W's or Dunlavy's then it is perfectly OK with me. In any case don't try to drive the 802's with the Fisher 'cause it'll blow. As far as my idea of a good classical recording goes, try just about anything by Ondine or Reference Recordings. I also often demo my Avantgardes with the Phillips Misa Criolla disc with Carreras. Thanks for the cool post. Cheers, Margaret How can you judge my work without hearing the source. Having a digital and vinyl library of 4000-5000 recordings, I'm betting on the fact that it cannot get worse than your butchered mix. And what are your qualifications. Unlike you, I own a few systems that ARE HIGH FIDELITY. BTW the B & W 802s are Musical ****. I'm sure they sound bad if fed that cluster**** mix of yours. But it is not B&W's that are ****, your "work" is! Abbedd Why don't you stick that horn up your ass for a while and chill out. It is not my fault you embarrassed yourself. You asked for opinions, and you're getting them. Opinions form pompous putzes like you. You did not even hear the original and you are judgeing by an MP3. You own records. I design instruments that get recorded. I sell to NASA so that makes me an astronaut. I see. Gotta update my CV. Speaking of pompous... B & W 802s are a joke. No baby, the joke is on you both professionally and intellectually. Luckily for you, you're so handsome ;-) I think you're just ****ed 'cause you cannot afford the B&W's or any other decent gear... Cheers, Margaret |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:41:55 GMT, MINe 109
wrote: In article , ansermetniac wrote: BTW the B & W 802s are Musical ****. Well, if you think all cds sound bad, then their reputation as classical music monitors isn't a plus! I listened to the first mvmt of the Koncertstucke and I think the re-eq is sincere. The solo horns probably sound more like what it's like to be near real horns (really near!) than the raw tape, but at the cost of integrity in a recording that didn't have much to spare. Losing the high end to eliminate tape hiss is a nose-spite-face deal. How does it help harmonic balance to eliminate those higher partials? Stephen I only eliminated the partials that were boosted by the guy who mastered the 3 3/4 open reel Abbedd |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:44:42 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt"
wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message news On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:21:49 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:21:24 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message om... As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Hi Jeffrey, Now you've done it! I never thought it possible but I've got to more or less agree with Krueger. Pthhhhhttt! Now that that's out of the way, here's what I think about your recordings. I think that you're pulling our collective leg here. I think you purposely screwed up the eq to see how many lemmings would jump on your wagon. Seriously. I really don't want to insult you but... there you go. Just in case you are serious let me elaborate a little. Played the files on my laptop feeding the digital output to a Grace 901 DAC/amp that was driving Sennheiser HD 600 and Grado RS-1 headphones. I also listened through Genelec S30D monitors in "midfield" configuration and through a pair of Avantgarde Trio horn speakers driven by Nagra tube amps in a room that was more or less designed around the speakers. So I think it is fair to say that the setups varied enough to give your mixes a fair chance. However, my impressions were overwhelmingly similar regardless of the setup I used. * Overwhelming and ill-defined, boomy mid-bass * No deep bass whatsoever * I've probably never heard strings honk as bad (DSP'd SWL doesn't count!) * No highs whatsoever - actually not unlike Bose 901's * Unrefined and screechy upper mids * Actually sounded best through a large portable radio that I tried for kicks (Grundig Satellit 650) * It absolutely amazes me that someone can mix this kind of a boomy and muddy soup with the DT990's as these phones have characteristically exaggerated midbass and unrefined highs. I would expect someone to compensate for those traits, not to build on them. (I owned DT990's for a couple of years before I switched to Sennheisers). * Perhaps the most telling conclusion was that when I converter the signal to FM in order to check it out with the Sat 650, absolutely nothing was missing. Did you perhaps do this as a portable radio mix 'cause it wasn't half bad as such (the midrange honk aside) I'm sorry if I offended you but your comment on the B&W 802's alone tells me that something's wrong here. They CAN sound bad if the room is not up to snuff, if they are not set up properly or if they are not fed with very high powered SS amps. And they will sound bad regardless if they are fed a bad source material. Don't own them but hear them frequently. I don't know about your equipmeent specifically but I use a rebuilt Fisher 800C in my shack to amplify the signal from various radios. It is very mellow sounding and does a good job dealing with the various digital gremlins put out by modern DSP receivers. But I'll try it one of these days with my Avantgardes out of curiosity. I haven't heard the Bozaks but given their age, if they were anywhere near as good as the 802's, Bozak would now have a monopoly in high fidelity loudspeakers! However, if they sound better to YOU than the B&W's or Dunlavy's then it is perfectly OK with me. In any case don't try to drive the 802's with the Fisher 'cause it'll blow. As far as my idea of a good classical recording goes, try just about anything by Ondine or Reference Recordings. I also often demo my Avantgardes with the Phillips Misa Criolla disc with Carreras. Thanks for the cool post. Cheers, Margaret How can you judge my work without hearing the source. Having a digital and vinyl library of 4000-5000 recordings, I'm betting on the fact that it cannot get worse than your butchered mix. And what are your qualifications. Unlike you, I own a few systems that ARE HIGH FIDELITY. BTW the B & W 802s are Musical ****. I'm sure they sound bad if fed that cluster**** mix of yours. But it is not B&W's that are ****, your "work" is! Abbedd Why don't you stick that horn up your ass for a while and chill out. It is not my fault you embarrassed yourself. You asked for opinions, and you're getting them. Opinions form pompous putzes like you. You did not even hear the original and you are judgeing by an MP3. You own records. I design instruments that get recorded. I sell to NASA so that makes me an astronaut. I see. Gotta update my CV. Speaking of pompous... B & W 802s are a joke. No baby, the joke is on you both professionally and intellectually. Luckily for you, you're so handsome ;-) I think you're just ****ed 'cause you cannot afford the B&W's or any other decent gear... I have Bozak Symphonies . I don't need modern hi end **** speakers. I can get an eq and boost the mids and highs much cheaper Listen to your juiced CDS. I don't care. And when you figure out the role of a design engineer and acoustician get off you mountain and call me. Abbedd p.s. B & W 802s are **** yesterday today and tomorrow. Cheers, Margaret |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ansermetniac" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:44:42 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message news On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:21:49 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message m... On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:21:24 GMT, "Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message news:ghn0l0lmpi8s8kdv9p9n47c5q71tgpjgh7@4ax. com... As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. In response to my equipment Fisher 500C Bozak Rhapsodys(I don't have the large room needed for my Symphonies at this time) a member of the rec.music.classical.recording group said 1) Fisher never made a good receiver 2) Bozaks are antequated This person is Tom Deacon the executive producer of the entire Great Pianists of the century set from Phillips(They licensed from everybody) I am not sure whether CDs sound the way they do to please the masses or because of incompetence. With statements like the above I lean toward incompetence. How else could Bill Inglot become tops in his field His R n R stuff is abominable but did you hear his Jazz for Atlantic. Giant Steps of mids and highs. Not Trane Opinions please Hi Jeffrey, Now you've done it! I never thought it possible but I've got to more or less agree with Krueger. Pthhhhhttt! Now that that's out of the way, here's what I think about your recordings. I think that you're pulling our collective leg here. I think you purposely screwed up the eq to see how many lemmings would jump on your wagon. Seriously. I really don't want to insult you but... there you go. Just in case you are serious let me elaborate a little. Played the files on my laptop feeding the digital output to a Grace 901 DAC/amp that was driving Sennheiser HD 600 and Grado RS-1 headphones. I also listened through Genelec S30D monitors in "midfield" configuration and through a pair of Avantgarde Trio horn speakers driven by Nagra tube amps in a room that was more or less designed around the speakers. So I think it is fair to say that the setups varied enough to give your mixes a fair chance. However, my impressions were overwhelmingly similar regardless of the setup I used. * Overwhelming and ill-defined, boomy mid-bass * No deep bass whatsoever * I've probably never heard strings honk as bad (DSP'd SWL doesn't count!) * No highs whatsoever - actually not unlike Bose 901's * Unrefined and screechy upper mids * Actually sounded best through a large portable radio that I tried for kicks (Grundig Satellit 650) * It absolutely amazes me that someone can mix this kind of a boomy and muddy soup with the DT990's as these phones have characteristically exaggerated midbass and unrefined highs. I would expect someone to compensate for those traits, not to build on them. (I owned DT990's for a couple of years before I switched to Sennheisers). * Perhaps the most telling conclusion was that when I converter the signal to FM in order to check it out with the Sat 650, absolutely nothing was missing. Did you perhaps do this as a portable radio mix 'cause it wasn't half bad as such (the midrange honk aside) I'm sorry if I offended you but your comment on the B&W 802's alone tells me that something's wrong here. They CAN sound bad if the room is not up to snuff, if they are not set up properly or if they are not fed with very high powered SS amps. And they will sound bad regardless if they are fed a bad source material. Don't own them but hear them frequently. I don't know about your equipmeent specifically but I use a rebuilt Fisher 800C in my shack to amplify the signal from various radios. It is very mellow sounding and does a good job dealing with the various digital gremlins put out by modern DSP receivers. But I'll try it one of these days with my Avantgardes out of curiosity. I haven't heard the Bozaks but given their age, if they were anywhere near as good as the 802's, Bozak would now have a monopoly in high fidelity loudspeakers! However, if they sound better to YOU than the B&W's or Dunlavy's then it is perfectly OK with me. In any case don't try to drive the 802's with the Fisher 'cause it'll blow. As far as my idea of a good classical recording goes, try just about anything by Ondine or Reference Recordings. I also often demo my Avantgardes with the Phillips Misa Criolla disc with Carreras. Thanks for the cool post. Cheers, Margaret How can you judge my work without hearing the source. Having a digital and vinyl library of 4000-5000 recordings, I'm betting on the fact that it cannot get worse than your butchered mix. And what are your qualifications. Unlike you, I own a few systems that ARE HIGH FIDELITY. BTW the B & W 802s are Musical ****. I'm sure they sound bad if fed that cluster**** mix of yours. But it is not B&W's that are ****, your "work" is! Abbedd Why don't you stick that horn up your ass for a while and chill out. It is not my fault you embarrassed yourself. You asked for opinions, and you're getting them. Opinions form pompous putzes like you. You did not even hear the original and you are judgeing by an MP3. You own records. I design instruments that get recorded. I sell to NASA so that makes me an astronaut. I see. Gotta update my CV. Speaking of pompous... B & W 802s are a joke. No baby, the joke is on you both professionally and intellectually. Luckily for you, you're so handsome ;-) I think you're just ****ed 'cause you cannot afford the B&W's or any other decent gear... I have Bozak Symphonies . I don't need modern hi end **** speakers. I can get an eq and boost the mids and highs much cheaper Listen to your juiced CDS. I don't care. And when you figure out the role of a design engineer and acoustician get off you mountain and call me. You're certainly not a recording engineer of any merit. Not even a competent amateur. Abbedd p.s. B & W 802s are **** yesterday today and tomorrow. I'm sorry you are so incompetent. Given your fragile ego and obvious insecurity perhaps you should change the title from "opinions needed please" to "praise and recognition needed to build confidence and self-esteem" Cheers, Margaret Cheers, Margaret PS. I think you're all hair and no balls, baby. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
There we go.
Attention: Everybody be extra nice to Abdul in this thread so he can feel like a man and won't have to resort to little blue pills ;-) I'll start. You're so handsome, Abdul. Will you take me out for a spin on your camel? With admiration, Margaret |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "ansermetniac" wrote in message On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:44:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:28:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. Perhaps. These days music is made to sell to people who probably fit your description better than the engineers do. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. And the URL for downloading is?? http://members.aol.com/abbedd/abbedd I like the music as music, but not as an example of good high fidelity. When reproduced over a modern system, these recordings tend to sound nasal, raspy, lacking in presence, with too much upper bass and not enough deep bass. I can't help but suspect that were they were mastered based on listening with modern speakers, they'd sound quite a bit different. Arny You have been listening to recorded music so long you don't know what instruments sound like. Because you said " Lacking in presence" I know I have been sucessful. Try again. I do live recording of acoustic instruments and voices just about every weekend. That doesn't mean you do them well. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ansermetniac" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:38:30 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:01:52 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: [snip] Abbedd, I humbly suggest you do a little inexpensive experimentation. Hafler DH-200 amps, in particular, sometimes go for $100 or so on eBay. Judging by your preferences, I'm optimistic you might like them. Bob There is nothing wrong with a Fisher 500C. Unless you having something about tubes Tubes can be good, but there are a lot better tubes. I concur with Arny that you should look for something better, either tube or solid state. I'm recommending you look at the Hafler because the build quality is excellent, it's much cheaper than good tubes, and the sound is in the direction of what you're saying you like. You shouldn't be so certain about your Fisher. As Arny says, it's very old, and even at the time of manufacture, it was somewhat compromised. All I'm saying is, you need to do some comparisons. Then, if you like your Fisher, stick with it. Hafler? had a Dynaco 80. It was garbage. Abbedd Dynaco 80 was garbage. I had one too. When David Hafler started his own company, he was finally able to build equipment the way he wanted to. It's totally different. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "ansermetniac" wrote in message On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:44:49 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:28:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "ansermetniac" wrote in message As a designer of the highest quality of sax mouthpieces(I am the acoustician and manufacturing engineer , my partner the mechanical engineer) it appals me that CDs are eqd so badly. SO much so that Digital is given the bad rap and not the incompetent mastering engineers . These engineers have been listening to recorded music for so long they haven't a clue as to what instruments realy sound like. Perhaps. These days music is made to sell to people who probably fit your description better than the engineers do. I offer mp3s of the week of rare classical records and concerts remastered by me in sound that does not have the juiced mids and highs of lps and CDs. And the URL for downloading is?? http://members.aol.com/abbedd/abbedd I like the music as music, but not as an example of good high fidelity. When reproduced over a modern system, these recordings tend to sound nasal, raspy, lacking in presence, with too much upper bass and not enough deep bass. I can't help but suspect that were they were mastered based on listening with modern speakers, they'd sound quite a bit different. Arny You have been listening to recorded music so long you don't know what instruments sound like. Because you said " Lacking in presence" I know I have been sucessful. Try again. I do live recording of acoustic instruments and voices just about every weekend. That doesn't mean you do them well. What label do your recordings appear on Arny? |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
ansermetniac wrote: On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:41:55 GMT, MINe 109 wrote: In article , ansermetniac wrote: BTW the B & W 802s are Musical ****. Well, if you think all cds sound bad, then their reputation as classical music monitors isn't a plus! I listened to the first mvmt of the Koncertstucke and I think the re-eq is sincere. The solo horns probably sound more like what it's like to be near real horns (really near!) than the raw tape, but at the cost of integrity in a recording that didn't have much to spare. Losing the high end to eliminate tape hiss is a nose-spite-face deal. How does it help harmonic balance to eliminate those higher partials? I only eliminated the partials that were boosted by the guy who mastered the 3 3/4 open reel Well, the shoe's on the other foot now. How do *you* know what the source material really was? Stephen |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ansermetniac" wrote in message ... I only eliminated the partials that were boosted by the guy who mastered the 3 3/4 open reel Abbedd, I think you basically said it all right there... There is simply no way a 3.75ips tape can even be called a 'master' what was on that tape was all you had and then you filtered some out you have something less than a consumer mass produced tape now... Not only that, but the wow and flutter of your copy is simply awful either the tape is bad or you have a bad deck. It is very difficult to get past that defect. The idea of re-mastering, which is actually what you did, even from a bad original, is to preserve everything that is there. Then you can apply some equalization at playback, maybe some filtering to cut hiss... Your Mp3 file certainly is worse sounding than most nonesuch tapes I have. The idea of criticizing, broad band, CD recordings, SS amps, and BW's to me makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps you think they are overkill, but certainly I can make my (or anybody else's for that matter) system sound just as bad as your file by squashing the dynamics with a Behringer and setting my equalizer to a bell curve. I cannot as easily reproduce your wow and flutter however because my tape decks are all direct drive... I listened to only the first of the Mp3 on a extigy usb and a pair of tried and true koss phones. Your other files may sound better. I feel that you need to re-think what you are doing and back off a bit on your editorial opinions on the state of the art. I agree with most of the other posters on here that your equipment may be leading you astray. Perhaps you should go out and listen to something a little better. Carl |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Carl Valle said: Try again. I do live recording of acoustic instruments and voices just about every weekend. What label do your recordings appear on Arny? They're on LatrineT Records. You can find them everywhere you'd never think to look. No ****? Carl |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Carl Valle said: Try again. I do live recording of acoustic instruments and voices just about every weekend. What label do your recordings appear on Arny? They're on LatrineT Records. You can find them everywhere you'd never think to look. Arny is a Latrino artist? |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message ... In article , ansermetniac wrote: On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:41:55 GMT, MINe 109 wrote: In article , ansermetniac wrote: BTW the B & W 802s are Musical ****. Well, if you think all cds sound bad, then their reputation as classical music monitors isn't a plus! I listened to the first mvmt of the Koncertstucke and I think the re-eq is sincere. The solo horns probably sound more like what it's like to be near real horns (really near!) than the raw tape, but at the cost of integrity in a recording that didn't have much to spare. Losing the high end to eliminate tape hiss is a nose-spite-face deal. How does it help harmonic balance to eliminate those higher partials? I only eliminated the partials that were boosted by the guy who mastered the 3 3/4 open reel Well, the shoe's on the other foot now. How do *you* know what the source material really was? Stephen Mastering is making the original session recording into a production piece. It is NOT copying a high speed duplicated consumer tape onto a computer.... This is just about as far from the source material as you can get Not only that, the copy tape is probably 20 years old or better, probably not correctly stored, and sourced on a consumer reel machine. The LP version would probably give you a hint of what this thing is supposed to sound like... And it's probably available on CD anyway I think this guy needs to get a CD player, a decent amp and a pair of speakers, Energy Veritas, Infinity Intermezzo, Martin Logan Statement, Monitor Audio Silver, Paradigm Monitor 90, Polk RT5000, PSB Stratus all come to mind actually. Any one would blow those bozaks into the basement ratskeller.... and you can get em all used.... oh I forgot Vandersteen 3A Carl Carl |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:05:23 GMT, MINe 109
wrote: In article , ansermetniac wrote: On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:41:55 GMT, MINe 109 wrote: In article , ansermetniac wrote: BTW the B & W 802s are Musical ****. Well, if you think all cds sound bad, then their reputation as classical music monitors isn't a plus! I listened to the first mvmt of the Koncertstucke and I think the re-eq is sincere. The solo horns probably sound more like what it's like to be near real horns (really near!) than the raw tape, but at the cost of integrity in a recording that didn't have much to spare. Losing the high end to eliminate tape hiss is a nose-spite-face deal. How does it help harmonic balance to eliminate those higher partials? I only eliminated the partials that were boosted by the guy who mastered the 3 3/4 open reel Well, the shoe's on the other foot now. How do *you* know what the source material really was? Stephen Because I know what instruments sound like and the capabilities of mics and tape decks. If record companies presented flat recordings there would be a revolt. Look at thre **** I am gettting. It is unfortunate that by coincidence my mp3s of the week featured poor sources. Believe me, whatever "Music" was on that open reel, I found it. Abbedd |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Nak CD-400 opinions needed | Car Audio | |||
| Blaupunkt Chicago IVDM-7002 & DX-V navigation unit opinions needed | Car Audio | |||
| Turntable opinions needed | Audio Opinions | |||
| Opinions needed on Tac Scorpion II console.... | Pro Audio | |||
| Opinions needed on a transaction gone bad | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
