| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Hello everyone,
One month ago i bought new "monitor audio gold 20" speakers. After an month they were "burn-in". The speakers sound very good. But the soundstage is not as wide and deep as i aspected. Now i'm considering to upgrade the amp or cd-player. What can make the best improvement in sound ? ( cd-player or amplifier) I like good imaging and a "black blackround". Anny suggestions for an good cd-player or amplifier in combination with this speakers? I'm thinking of primare of cyrus My system consist of the following : amp : rotel ra-980bx cd-player : rotel rcd-971 speakers : monitor audio gold 20 wire : Nordost blue heaven Best regards, Rene |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
|
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
|
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Both Mike and Chung have great points... speaker placement is key. The
VERY BASIC rule of thumb, all other things being equal (and they seldom are), speakers should be placed on the long wall of the listening room, with the woofer being no closer to a wall or floor than 4X its diameter, and asymmetrically... that is not equidistant from each corner. There are exceptions to this, of course. Tower speakers are tuned already for the woofer-to-floor relationship, but the corner placement remains. Some speakers (horn-types especially) are designed for corner placement. Your speakers are tower-speakers, so your reference would be the wall. They look like 6.5" nominal woofers, so here is an example: Assume a 14 x 16 foot room. (3 x 5 meters). On the LONG (16 foot) wall, speaker one (LEFT) should be on the left-as-you-face-it, placed with its left side no less than 60cm from the wall. Speaker two (RIGHT) should be placed with its right side ~4-5 meters from the RIGHT wall. This is the theoretical ideal placement from a strictly-physics point-of-view and based on avoiding standing waves and cancellation waves assuming a normally live room with parallel walls, floor and ceiling. THE "IDEAL" PLACEMENT IS SELDOM THE "CORRECT" PLACEMENT, as few rooms are otherwise ideal. But it is a good place for you to start. What you must keep in mind at all times is that the towers must not get any closer than ~30cm/22 inches to the wall. And that they must not be symmetrical about the centerline of the room. If the speakers are designed to be against the wall, then they should be against the wall. If they are designed to be some distance away from the wall, then that is where they should be... all that will be in the owner's manual. But the side-to-side placement is critical for soundstage and general ambience. One more thing: Are you sure that they are 'in phase'? You would be shocked to know how many times speakers are described as unsatisfactory due to mis-phasing rather than actual speaker inadequacies. Check that _before_ you do anything else. Now, all other things being equal, and assuming that the speakers are as well-placed as they are going to be, I would have to ask you a couple of questions before blaming either the electronics or the CD player: What sort of music do you listen to most, and at what level? What else is going on in the room (furniture, windows, wall hangings, etc.)? How big is the room (in all dimensions)? What are your expectations from these speakers? What are you comparing (what were/are your previous speakers)? Put simply, no 6.5" woofer-equipped speaker will have the visceral punch of a speaker with a 12" woofer. It may make up for it in many other ways, but the ability to rattle the windows simply will not happen. And, unless you listen to either highly compressed sources at relatively high volumes, or sources with a peak-to-average of over 30dB, also at relatively high volumes, 100wpc/rms should be enough for most purposes. CD players are much the same one-to-another unless you get into nosebleed $ territory with fewer chips and more discrete components in the signal path... and even there, the D/A converters are chips also much the same one-to-another. Interconnects and speaker cables are irrelevant at this level. With a little more information, we could hone in a little more closely, however. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Thank you for your answers.
I have tried it with different speaker positions. Now the speaker is 60 cm from the rear wall and approximately 100 cm from the side walls. The speakers have a distance of 250 cm betweem each other. This is the best i can get. The sound is very flat. Rene |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
|
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
|
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
You mean *firing down* the long wall, which would mean placement of
the speakers in front of a 'short' wall, right? Placing speakers on the short wall of a room is an invitation for standing waves and cancellation waves. The narrower the room in relation to the length, the greater the odds for standing waves. The closer the speakers are together (and the more symmetrical they are about the room axis perforce) the greater the odds for cancellation waves. Once again, a caution: Physics is _one_ parameter for speaker placement, not the _only_ parameter. It is simply a way to start the experiment but does not dictate the final placement entirely. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... wrote: Both Mike and Chung have great points... speaker placement is key. The VERY BASIC rule of thumb, all other things being equal (and they seldom are), speakers should be placed on the long wall of the listening room, Here as my "rule of thumb": Place your speakers that they form an equilateral triangle with your listening position as the "center" point. The distance between the speakers should be exactly equal to their distance to your listening position. If you use large panel speakers (as I do), choose a point on the speaker, e.g.. tweeter, framework, etc. as the measuring point. I keep my Maggies more than 3 feet from either their side or back walls. I've seen it recommended that a Maggie woofer might be placed close to a side wall for bass reinforcement, so all this business about such distances can vary according to the room and speaker in question. However in all my listening experience the equilateral triangle "law" was and is extremely important. You have to get the distances down *exactly*; use a tape measure or a rigid string to achieve the correct distance. Your speakers can be toed in such that the left speaker aims and fires at your left ear and the same of course for the other speaker and your right ear. The tweeter/midrange should be at a height off the floor so that is at ear level, or higher(when you are seated). Only after you have all that accomplished should you even start to consider dedicated electrical lines, cabling, speaker wires, connectors, contact enhancers, etc. etc. And after all that is attended to you might even hear differences between CD players and amplifiers depending upon how vivid your imagination might be. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
wrote in message ...
Thank you for your answers. I have tried it with different speaker positions. Now the speaker is 60 cm from the rear wall and approximately 100 cm from the side walls. The speakers have a distance of 250 cm betweem each other. This is the best i can get. The sound is very flat. Each speaker should be 250 cm to your ears, and the sound may be better still. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Mike:
....wires & interconnects.... I would not choose to argue with your statements above. But all other things being equal, we are searching for the proximate cause of Rene's distress with his new speakers. If he was not unhappy with his old ones, the cables would not be to blame. It is also unlikely that the soundstage would be affected in any significant way assuming even just adequate cables. Hence my statement that that such are "not relevant at this level". From Rene's description, the only change to the system was the speakers. So that is where we should start. And only after optimizing around the speakers should we discuss other aspects of the system. Were I to be forced to render an opinion-at-a-distance-with-little-evidence, I would expect that ultimately, Rene will not be happy with these speakers. This is a purely-intuitive opinion. Let's see what happens and if he will tell us. But before he spends any money on "better" electronics, he should explore additional speaker options... once again, just my opinion. As to my systems, they are pretty-much Jurassic-vintage: AR3a speakers Revox CD Dynaco 416 amp Revox R/R Revox TT Koss Electrostatic headphones Revox A720 tuner-pre-amp. -Or- AR-M6 speakers Scott LK-150 Amp Dynaco PAS-3 pre-amp (WIMA rebuild) Dynaco FM-3 tuner Philips CD Changer Office: AR-A10 Receiver Yamaha CDC585 changer AR4x speakers Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: Both Mike and Chung have great points... speaker placement is key. The VERY BASIC rule of thumb, all other things being equal (and they seldom are), speakers should be placed on the long wall of the listening room, Here as my "rule of thumb": Place your speakers that they form an equilateral triangle with your listening position as the "center" point. The distance between the speakers should be exactly equal to their distance to your listening position. If you use large panel speakers (as I do), choose a point on the speaker, e.g.. tweeter, framework, etc. as the measuring point. I keep my Maggies more than 3 feet from either their side or back walls. I've seen it recommended that a Maggie woofer might be placed close to a side wall for bass reinforcement, so all this business about such distances can vary according to the room and speaker in question. However in all my listening experience the equilateral triangle "law" was and is extremely important. You have to get the distances down *exactly*; use a tape measure or a rigid string to achieve the correct distance. Your speakers can be toed in such that the left speaker aims and fires at your left ear and the same of course for the other speaker and your right ear. The tweeter/midrange should be at a height off the floor so that is at ear level, or higher(when you are seated). Only after you have all that accomplished should you even start to consider dedicated electrical lines, cabling, speaker wires, connectors, contact enhancers, etc. etc. And after all that is attended to you might even hear differences between CD players and amplifiers depending upon how vivid your imagination might be. One thing not discussed is actual direction of speaker firing. The toe in effects width of sound stage. Some speakers do better with less toe and and others with more. Tipping speakers forward or backwards slightly so that the tweeters fire directly at the listen space instead of over your head will effect the height of the sound stage. Distance from listen space to speakers will greatly effect sound stage. Giving a decent amount of room in front of the system is equally important as side and rear placement. Mike M |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
|
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
One important thing. Not all amps and speakers are compatable.
This is absolutely correct (as opposed to "true") at so many levels, none of which is prima-fascia "logical". One more thing to add to the mix is that the individual listener will determine that compatibility, not the 'scope and distortion meters. We hear what we want to hear in the short term (and why buying speakers from an experience in a listening room is such an 'iffy' ordeal), but we cannot get away from what we hear at home in the long term. The combination of speakers and electronics can cause all sorts of artifacts that are superficially inaudible, largely unmeasurable but often and eventually intolerable. Typically, I blame the speakers in most cases, assuming decent electronics. Certainly, I have no deep-seated commitment to tubes or transistors to the exclusion of one-to-another, my mix of systems includes several-of-both. But they are substantially different from each other and deliver substantially different possibilities to the speakers I have. My direct experiences are that at low to moderate listening levels, tubes and transistors are functionally identical. At moderate to some-higher listening levels, just before clipping that is, transistors tend to be flatter assuming an adequate power-supply. At/above clipping, tubes have it hands-down. This is assuming that all things are otherwise equal. But a 200+ watt power amp (such as my Dynaco 416) will blow the socks off a typical 60-75 watt tube amp on difficult passages, or with sources with a very high peak-to-average sound level. At that level, it is all about headroom. But, in sum, I have found that speakers are where the greatest challenges lie. At the general quality-of-electronics discussed here, the only significant variable is available power, most everything mentioned is either good, very good or excellent in all other respects. So if one is wedded to the electronics, the remaining area for investigation is speaker type. I will take something of a chance here and go into murkey waters. If I were to have a bundle of money today and were told to go out and get a traditional stereo system consisting of two speakers, some form of electronics or receiver, and some form of additional source(s), I would likely start with my preferred source and style of music. That would drive the type of speakers I required. Today, they are the single most expensive item, usually, if any sort of full audio range is to be achieved, when in the past, a decent pair of speakers could be had for $100 or less (the AR4x in its day, for example). From the speakers, that would drive the amplifier power I needed (example, if my music commonly includes 30dB peak-to-average source (and it does), and I listened at an average level of 0.4 watts/RMS, I would need 400 watts/rms to handle the peak passages without clipping. Aren't "physics" a bear to deal with? And if I do have an (at least one) irrational failing in these things, it is that "clipping is bad". Tubes or otherwise. Thoughts? How would you do it? Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Yikes! YIKES!
Norman: You *must* have a dedicated listening room such that you are able to follow that rule so assiduously. I am not so sure as to whether the method you described to get the results that Rene wishes to achieve at the distances you specify does not entirely defeat the concept of listening for pleasure. In my entire life, I have never had a dedicated listening room, but have always adjusted the system to fit into the room available, the other furnishings required and the need to make my wife happy. For the last 20 years, we have lived in a Victorian house with Victorian furnishings in the living room. Accordingly, my tower speakers moved to another room upstairs and were replaced with AR3a speakers, which even when raised to the proper height are not intrusive, can be used as plant-stands (with the proper protection, of course) and sound very, very good with enough power. My wife _does_ appreciate music enough to understand how they must be placed in the room (lots of hard surfaces, so standing waves could be an issue with careless placement). She allowed me to do the set-up without once grumbling about where the couch will go and how it looks compared to the Palladian Window. But the electronics are relegated to a very elegant oak table-with-shelf in one corner that is partially concealed by a chair. The speaker cables go under the floor. We listen "all over the room", not just at one point. Pretty much anywhere opposite the speakers is satisfactory, the 'sweet-spot' is about 8 feet wide, about 8 feet deep, so about 64 square feet, ~1/4 the total area of the room. So, consider it the functional equivalent of rows 5-20 in the typical concert hall. Put very bluntly, I would not tolerate anything more restricted than that. I most certainly would not tolerate a sweet-spot that was ~one cubic foot such that there were audible losses outside of that region. So the speakers must be both capable of filling that room _and_ provide sufficient articulation and definition such that it sounds natural as one changes position, just as if one were changing positions at a concert or night-club. Usually, that takes a LOT of power as speakers with those capacities tend (not necessarily always are) to be inefficient, sometimes massively so as in the case of the ARs. As I have the power, I take advantage of those speaker designs for those capabilities. Whenever I hear the term "exactly" as applied to a requirement for anything in the audio world I get the cold shivers... As always, just my opinion. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
|
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
mike wrote:
wrote: Mike: ...wires & interconnects.... I would not choose to argue with your statements above. But all other things being equal, we are searching for the proximate cause of Rene's distress with his new speakers. If he was not unhappy with his old ones, the cables would not be to blame. It is also unlikely that the soundstage would be affected in any significant way assuming even just adequate cables. Hence my statement that that such are "not relevant at this level". From Rene's description, the only change to the system was the speakers. So that is where we should start. And only after optimizing around the speakers should we discuss other aspects of the system. Were I to be forced to render an opinion-at-a-distance-with-little-evidence, I would expect that ultimately, Rene will not be happy with these speakers. This is a purely-intuitive opinion. Let's see what happens and if he will tell us. But before he spends any money on "better" electronics, he should explore additional speaker options... once again, just my opinion. As to my systems, they are pretty-much Jurassic-vintage: AR3a speakers Revox CD Dynaco 416 amp Revox R/R Revox TT Koss Electrostatic headphones Revox A720 tuner-pre-amp. -Or- AR-M6 speakers Scott LK-150 Amp Dynaco PAS-3 pre-amp (WIMA rebuild) Dynaco FM-3 tuner Philips CD Changer Office: AR-A10 Receiver Yamaha CDC585 changer AR4x speakers Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA One important thing. Not all amps and speakers are compatable. It's the nature of electronics. Some speakers sound better driven by tube amps and other sound better driven by SS amps. The Ariels are an example of speakers designed for tube amps. I used them originally with a Luxman MO2/CO2 power amp/preamp set and they were missing just that little something. When I connected them up to 2 dynaco st-70's they came to life. 2 MK3's really added that extra oompf. As I suggested, it's the nature of electronics. Hmm. What is it about a loudspeaker that would make it perform better with tube amps than solid state amps? |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Thank all for the answers.
This weekend i'am going to experience with speaker placement. Maybe the " equilateral triangle law" will work for me. Rene |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
stealthaxe wrote:
The narrower the room in relation to the length, the greater the odds for standing waves. Standing waves occur when sound is reflected with a certain phase relationship to the original. It doesn't matter whether it's a side wall or a back wall, what matters is how reflective the wall is at the frequency in question and whether that wall causes a phase inversion or not The wall does not cause a phase inversion, unless the density of the wall is less than the density of air, in which case, you don't have a wall. When a wave passes from a low density medium (like air) into a high-density medium, you get the same phase on the reflected wave that you have on the incident wave. Given that all reflecting surfaces one is likely to encounter in a room have substantially higher density than that of air (about 1.18 kg/m^2), it's pretty safe to say that this rule applies universally. Even considering very low denisity material like rigid foam insulation, their density is easily an order of magnitude greater than air. Water, for example, is 850 times denser than air at STP. On the other hand, when the wave passes from a high-density medium (like water) into a low desnity medium (like air), you do get the phase inversion on the reflected wave. Thus, phase inversion is a problem if you're a fish in an aquarium and you place your speakers next to the surface of the water :-) |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
wrote in message ...
Yikes! YIKES! Norman: You *must* have a dedicated listening room such that you are able to follow that rule so assiduously. I do. I am not so sure as to whether the method you described to get the results that Rene wishes to achieve at the distances you specify does not entirely defeat the concept of listening for pleasure. In my entire life, I have never had a dedicated listening room, but have always adjusted the system to fit into the room available Well set it up so temporarily to hear what you might be missing. I don't believ there is much use in chasing your tail with upgrades and wires, etc. if the basiscs are compromised nd sound very, very good with enough power. My wife _does_ appreciate music enough to understand how they must be placed in the room (lots of hard surfaces, so standing waves could be an issue with careless placement). She allowed me to do the set-up without once grumbling about where the couch will go and how it looks compared to the Palladian Window. But the electronics are relegated to a very elegant oak table-with-shelf in one corner that is partially concealed by a chair. The speaker cables go under the floor. We listen "all over the room", not just at one point. Pretty much anywhere opposite the speakers is satisfactory, the 'sweet-spot' is about 8 feet wide, about 8 feet deep, so about 64 square feet, ~1/4 the total area of the room. So, consider it the functional equivalent of rows 5-20 in the typical concert hall. Put very bluntly, I would not tolerate anything more restricted than that. I most certainly would not tolerate a sweet-spot that was ~one cubic foot such that there were audible losses outside of that region. So the speakers must be both capable of filling that room _and_ provide sufficient articulation and definition such that it sounds natural as one changes position, just as if one were changing positions at a concert or night-club. Putting it very bluntly what you require is a good shelf system which I have in a bedroom for casual listening while I'm putting my laundry away. Usually, that takes a LOT of power as speakers with those capacities tend (not necessarily always are) to be inefficient, sometimes massively so as in the case of the ARs. As I have the power, I take advantage of those speaker designs for those capabilities. I owned AR3s thirty-five years ago and you don't have to be so picky about your electronics, etc. they are not particularly revealing (of much) and are "forgiving". |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Steven Sullivan wrote:
mike wrote: wrote: Mike: ...wires & interconnects.... I would not choose to argue with your statements above. But all other things being equal, we are searching for the proximate cause of Rene's distress with his new speakers. If he was not unhappy with his old ones, the cables would not be to blame. It is also unlikely that the soundstage would be affected in any significant way assuming even just adequate cables. Hence my statement that that such are "not relevant at this level". From Rene's description, the only change to the system was the speakers. So that is where we should start. And only after optimizing around the speakers should we discuss other aspects of the system. Were I to be forced to render an opinion-at-a-distance-with-little-evidence, I would expect that ultimately, Rene will not be happy with these speakers. This is a purely-intuitive opinion. Let's see what happens and if he will tell us. But before he spends any money on "better" electronics, he should explore additional speaker options... once again, just my opinion. As to my systems, they are pretty-much Jurassic-vintage: AR3a speakers Revox CD Dynaco 416 amp Revox R/R Revox TT Koss Electrostatic headphones Revox A720 tuner-pre-amp. -Or- AR-M6 speakers Scott LK-150 Amp Dynaco PAS-3 pre-amp (WIMA rebuild) Dynaco FM-3 tuner Philips CD Changer Office: AR-A10 Receiver Yamaha CDC585 changer AR4x speakers Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA One important thing. Not all amps and speakers are compatable. It's the nature of electronics. Some speakers sound better driven by tube amps and other sound better driven by SS amps. The Ariels are an example of speakers designed for tube amps. I used them originally with a Luxman MO2/CO2 power amp/preamp set and they were missing just that little something. When I connected them up to 2 dynaco st-70's they came to life. 2 MK3's really added that extra oompf. As I suggested, it's the nature of electronics. Hmm. What is it about a loudspeaker that would make it perform better with tube amps than solid state amps? I'm no expert. As Peter mentioned above, many speakers require a lot of power to drive. The Luxman MO2 put out 400 w peak i believe and when I began my speaker building journey, most systems I built were in the low efficiency range ( sub 89bd/1 watt} . These amps were well suited to lower efficiency speakers and had the "head room" to handle the peaks with room to spare. What I have experienced and read indicates that lets say 91 db/1 watt and above systems do much better with tubes. Contrary to all measurements and theories and test data on amplifiers, tubes still bring something into the mix that can not be duplicated with SS and this is more apparent with higher efficiency loudspeakers. The human brain hears something different. If you look at the history of AMP and Loudspeaker design, you will see that as SS became more popular, so did lower efficiency loudspeakers. I do not consider myself a lunatic when it comes to which sound better, SS ot tubes. I have heard some amazing SS systems at clients homes ( i'm a cabinetmaker}. My journey of listening pleasure as lead me over 34 years to settle on tube audio electronics. And I do spend 10 to 20 hours a week listening to music. I usually am asleep on the couch with-in 2 or 3 tracks. My listen space is our living room in our 1100 sq. foot canyon home located in the hills of Los Angeles. Mike Mueller My wife understands how important good reproduction is to me and has tolerated my hobby for 20 years. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
|
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
That's actually a completely false statement.
What is a "standing wave"? It is a propagation of sound at (usually) a pretty wide set of frequencies based _ONLY_ on the size, shape and layout of the room in question. The classic form of "standing wave" would be that which is experienced in certain circular and dome-ceilinged rooms... such as the US Capitol, for one. In that particular location, one may stand at any point in the rotunda just below the spring-line of the dome and speak into the wall from a distance of about 18 inches to about 3 feet. Approximately 180 degrees from that location, a listener will hear exactly what you say at approximately the same volume as you are speaking... you would have to shout to reach across directly. _THAT_ is a standing wave. Let's apply that to rectangular rooms: a) Standing waves require parallel surfaces at some distance apart relative to distance-of-propagation. Typically, the length should be longer than the height, usually at a factor somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1. If the other pair of walls is also parallel, that can exacerbate the propagation. b) Standing waves, if possible based on room dimensions, are typically not single-frequency, but a pretty broad range of base frequencies and multiples based on the mix that happens to have a wavelength that fits into the room dimensions evenly. Speech-based frequencies tend to be fairly short, so even small rectangular rooms with exaggerated long-to-short dimensions may be subject to them. Such as shower stalls... and why singing in them can be so strange, and why you may sound good but your wife/husband who is significantly taller/shorter may not. c) Standing waves will propagate based on speaker placement _AND_ frequency mix. The odds of getting that critical 2:1 (or so) length-to-height are greater when the speakers are placed on the short wall firing down the full length of the room. Think of a shower stall, essentially you are singing at the top of a tube. Would you place your speakers at the end of a tube? Up/down-side/side is not the issue, room dimensions are the issue. Now, I have no great need to be correct in this matter. But I do invite anyone here to try speaker placement based on the long wall _and_ the short wall, and from that determine which placement gives you: 1. The broader soundstage 2. The largest sweet-spot 3. The most realistic relationship between where you sit and where you perceive the orchestra/instrument/voice 4. The placement that gives you the most flexibility to listen to your music and be seduced and take in by it. Once again, I will venture into OPINION... henceforth I am rendering my opinion, not based on physics, but on my direct experience. The sole, only and entire point of any music system is to reproduce music to the greatest degree of accuracy possible and to the greatest degree of user-flexibility possible. Otherwise, we should use headphones and be done with speakers entirely, as headphones will always be ideally placed, are generally much cheaper than speakers, and _DO_ allow the use to be anywhere when listening, not at some fixed location due to the limitations of the system. Add a sub-woofer for the vibrational (and non-directional effects) and life would be complete, right? Listening to music should be a shared experience if desired. So a system should allow two (or more) people to listen simultaneously without compromising accuracy. Any system that limits the "sweet-spot" precludes this need. The purpose of a system is to reproduce the sound as-manufactured at its original source, and not be limited to only very specific sorts of music due to internal restrictions. So, if one is listening to the Saint-Saens organ symphony, with bombard pipes at thirty-feet tall playing simultanously with six-inch pipes... one had better be able not only to hear both, but be able to place them in relation to each other on the virtual sound-stage.... as much a demand on the recording side as the playback side, by the way. Put another way, if the floor shook at the concert hall, it had better shake similarly (if desired) at the listening room... or the system has failed. So, forgive me if I am inherently skeptical of certain deeply and closely held beliefs in the audio-high-end community that seem to require the functional equivalent of getting into the lotus-position, facing south-south east and at a certain specific point on the planet in order to listen to..... Anything at all. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
wrote in message ...
Otherwise, we should use headphones and be done with speakers entirely, as headphones will always be ideally placed, are generally much cheaper than speakers, and _DO_ allow the use to be anywhere when listening, not at some fixed location due to the limitations of the system. Add a sub-woofer for the vibrational (and non-directional effects) and life would be complete, right? Wrong. Speakers allow for some room interaction (good or bad). Headphones don't permit room interaction. Live music obviously allows fro room interaction, e.g. refections off walls, direct and indirect sound. Listening to music should be a shared experience if desired. So a system should allow two (or more) people to listen simultaneously without compromising accuracy. Any system that limits the "sweet-spot" precludes this need. The purpose of a system is to reproduce the sound as-manufactured at its original source, and not be limited to only very specific sorts of music due to internal restrictions. So, if one is listening to the Saint-Saens organ symphony, with bombard pipes at thirty-feet tall playing simultanously with six-inch pipes... one had better be able not only to hear both, but be able to place them in relation to each other on the virtual sound-stage.... as much a demand on the recording side as the playback side, by the way. Your speakers might as well be considered a point source in comparison to the size of the real soundstage in the concert hall Put another way, if the floor shook at the concert hall, it had better shake similarly (if desired) at the listening room... or the system has failed. Forget about that, it isn't going to happen for any or all of the reasons I provided above and certainly many more which I can't even begin to provide (assuming that I could in the first place). |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Please note the interpolations:
Your speakers might as well be considered a point source in comparison to the size of the real soundstage in the concert hall Absolutely. Agreed. I think we may be at cross-purposes rather than disagreeing at any substantial level. But (and there is always one of those around): Consider your speakers as a means to reproduce a soundstage. They are some distance apart, the greater the distance, the wider the *possible* virtual soundstage. At some point, however, limitations in reproduction step in and the distance between the speakers exceeds their ability to 'stage' the music. Very early Stereo amplifiers had "Center-channel" outputs to compensate for this phenomenon as very early stereo recordings greatly exaggerated the effect, making each channel (when the speakers were placed too far apart) sound like warring orchestras playing at the same time and the same piece, but without apparent benefit of rehearsal. Other manufacturers had "blend" settings for the purpose. So, a *WELL RECORDED* piece will retain a good deal of the soundstage artifacts within it. Such that the listening experience will approach (but not duplicate, obviously) a hall at least as it applies to the stage. One would turn to the area of the virtual soundstage as one would turn to various points in the orchestra as different instruments or soloists played. And, in some very few, very well miked and very well mixed recordings, one can even turn from where the individual sounds come from at the same instrument... my citing of the Saint-Saens organ symphony. And I am glad you saw immediately the point of the headphone example and the desire for room interaction... to provide a more natural setting for reproduction. It was chosen to illustrate an absurdity. Put another way, if the floor shook at the concert hall, it had better shake similarly (if desired) at the listening room... or the system has failed. Forget about that, it isn't going to happen for any or all of the reasons I provided above and certainly many more which I can't even begin to provide (assuming that I could in the first place). Why? With sufficiently well-designed speakers and sufficient power (and I don't mean Cerwin Vegas faking earthquakes), getting a visceral sound out of them should be quite within easily achieved possibilities. I can certainly do that with my system, and not anywhere near clipping either. Sure, it will not be able to do a cannon-shot from the 1812 overture... but vibrate my teeth... yeppers. Keep in mind that all I am asking my system to do is fill ~2200 cubic feet of room, not a concert hall. So, that point-source becomes quite broad when compared to a concert hall, and the amount of actual energy required is reduced by the inverse-square rule. I guess either I am invincibly ignorant (and that is certainly possible), or I have never experienced an optimum system. I have experienced systems (including my own) that do reach out and grab me, that do give me an eyes-closed broad sound-stage experience and that even has a "walk-around" effect.... stage-right, stage-left if you will. As in my situation, 2200 cubic feet _is_ the volume in question, concentrating enough energy within that (relatively) tiny space to approach that of a concert hall is *just* possible. And, given that lofty goal, speaker placement becomes critical as an equation in (at least) four variables: The speakers, the room size, the stage desired and the sweet-spot required. I have experimented A LOT with placement, and I have found that starting as I articulated above has yielded the best results overall. I will also state that in one remarkable room, the speakers wound up exactly as you suggested, symetrically about the short wall, at about 3X the woofer diameter from the wall and sides. But the room had no parallel surfaces, only one window, two doors, cloth-covered walls and thick carpet. So, as I also stated, nothing is absolute initially. More, please. This is fascinating and I am learning a good deal. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
There is a lot of discussion about pin pointing instruments on the
"stage". In a live performance, if you are sitting mid- way in the hall, pin pointing instruments does not occur. It may be possible to sense that the violins are to the left but I question even that. The main advantage of stereo is to provide a spread across the room. The efforts of recording engineers to provide pin pointing results in a lot of unnatural sounding recordings - but this is what many listeners expect. ---MIKE--- In the White Mountains of New Hampshire (44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580') |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
wrote in message ...
Please note the interpolations: Your speakers might as well be considered a point source in comparison to the size of the real soundstage in the concert hall Absolutely. Agreed. I think we may be at cross-purposes rather than disagreeing at any substantial level. But (and there is always one of those around): Consider your speakers as a means to reproduce a soundstage. They are some distance apart, the greater the distance, the wider the *possible* virtual soundstage. At some point, however, limitations in reproduction step in and the distance between the speakers exceeds their ability to 'stage' the music. Very early Stereo amplifiers had "Center-channel" outputs to compensate for this phenomenon as very early stereo recordings greatly exaggerated the effect, making each channel (when the speakers were placed too far apart) sound like warring orchestras playing at the same time and the same piece, but without apparent benefit of rehearsal. Other manufacturers had "blend" settings for the purpose. So, a *WELL RECORDED* piece will retain a good deal of the soundstage artifacts within it. Such that the listening experience will approach (but not duplicate, obviously) a hall at least as it applies to the stage. One would turn to the area of the virtual soundstage as one would turn to various points in the orchestra as different instruments or soloists played. And, in some very few, very well miked and very well mixed recordings, one can even turn from where the individual sounds come from at the same instrument... my citing of the Saint-Saens organ symphony. And I am glad you saw immediately the point of the headphone example and the desire for room interaction... to provide a more natural setting for reproduction. It was chosen to illustrate an absurdity. Put another way, if the floor shook at the concert hall, it had better shake similarly (if desired) at the listening room... or the system has failed. Forget about that, it isn't going to happen for any or all of the reasons I provided above and certainly many more which I can't even begin to provide (assuming that I could in the first place). Why? With sufficiently well-designed speakers and sufficient power (and I don't mean Cerwin Vegas faking earthquakes), getting a visceral sound out of them should be quite within easily achieved possibilities. I can certainly do that with my system, and not anywhere near clipping either. Sure, it will not be able to do a cannon-shot from the 1812 overture... but vibrate my teeth... yeppers. Keep in mind that all I am asking my system to do is fill ~2200 cubic feet of room, not a concert hall. So, that point-source becomes quite broad when compared to a concert hall, and the amount of actual energy required is reduced by the inverse-square rule. I guess either I am invincibly ignorant (and that is certainly possible), or I have never experienced an optimum system. I have experienced systems (including my own) that do reach out and grab me, that do give me an eyes-closed broad sound-stage experience and that even has a "walk-around" effect.... stage-right, stage-left if you will. As in my situation, 2200 cubic feet _is_ the volume in question, concentrating enough energy within that (relatively) tiny space to approach that of a concert hall is *just* possible. And, given that lofty goal, speaker placement becomes critical as an equation in (at least) four variables: The speakers, the room size, the stage desired and the sweet-spot required. I have experimented A LOT with placement, and I have found that starting as I articulated above has yielded the best results overall. I will also state that in one remarkable room, the speakers wound up exactly as you suggested, symetrically about the short wall, at about 3X the woofer diameter from the wall and sides. But the room had no parallel surfaces, only one window, two doors, cloth-covered walls and thick carpet. So, as I also stated, nothing is absolute initially. More, please. This is fascinating and I am learning a good deal. News flash! The structural nature (flooring, tiers, mezzanines, balconies and all their seats, the material composition; wood cement, plaster, etc., etc.) and the spatial nature of the hall (vertical; things take place above and below ear level, as well as left to right) isn't exactly like that of your listening room. |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
News flash! The structural nature (flooring, tiers, mezzanines, balconies
and all their seats, the material composition; wood cement, plaster, etc., etc.) and the spatial nature of the hall (vertical; things take place above and below ear level, as well as left to right) isn't exactly like that of your listening room. Ya think? WHY(!!??!!) is it that (again) the fallacy of opposites is so prevalent here? There is no (expletive deleted) way that a 14' x 16' x 9'-6" room with four windows and two doors, hardwood floors and horsehair plaster walls & ceiling will ever, even remotely, duplicate a concert hall for acoustics. Did you know that I realized this only *just* this morning after over 40 years of listening to music? However, with a little bit of care, with a little bit of attention to choices of equipment, placement of same, and EXPERIMENTATION with all of the above to get to the best end-point.... There is NO reason why the sound produced in that room cannot be full, gorgeous, sublime _and_ provide a virtual soundstage that, although not capable of *producing* a like-live ambience cannot come remarkably close to it. There is no single-solution, there are at least four variables involved even after the equipment is chosen. If we attempt to impose a single-solution to all situations, we will get exactly what we deserve. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
wrote in message ...
News flash! The structural nature (flooring, tiers, mezzanines, balconies and all their seats, the material composition; wood cement, plaster, etc., etc.) and the spatial nature of the hall (vertical; things take place above and below ear level, as well as left to right) isn't exactly like that of your listening room. Ya think? WHY(!!??!!) is it that (again) the fallacy of opposites is so prevalent here? There is no (expletive deleted) way that a 14' x 16' x 9'-6" room with four windows and two doors, hardwood floors and horsehair plaster walls & ceiling will ever, even remotely, duplicate a concert hall for acoustics. Did you know that I realized this only *just* this morning after over 40 years of listening to music? However, with a little bit of care, with a little bit of attention to choices of equipment, placement of same, and EXPERIMENTATION with all of the above to get to the best end-point.... There is NO reason why the sound produced in that room cannot be full, gorgeous, sublime _and_ provide a virtual soundstage that, although not capable of *producing* a like-live ambience cannot come remarkably close to it. There is no single-solution, there are at least four variables involved even after the equipment is chosen. If we attempt to impose a single-solution to all situations, we will get exactly what we deserve. News flash again! In a concert hall we listen with 2 "microphones" (our ears) spaced about 8 inches apart. With the exception of the few binaural recordings that exist, no recordings are done by this technique. And even if they were they wouldn't succeed. There is no solution to this reality of life, that's just one reason of many why the sound produced in a listening can't be expected to have a "like-live ambiance". Just as you see "3-D" with 2 eyes just inches apart, you are not going to see anything resembling normal "3-D" with eyes strung all over the "(expletive deleted") concert hall. Sounds which literally cause my hall seat to resonate, don't cause the microphones, however many there, to resonate in the same fashion |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
wrote in message ... News flash! The structural nature (flooring, tiers, mezzanines, balconies and all their seats, the material composition; wood cement, plaster, etc., etc.) and the spatial nature of the hall (vertical; things take place above and below ear level, as well as left to right) isn't exactly like that of your listening room. Ya think? WHY(!!??!!) is it that (again) the fallacy of opposites is so prevalent here? There is no (expletive deleted) way that a 14' x 16' x 9'-6" room with four windows and two doors, hardwood floors and horsehair plaster walls & ceiling will ever, even remotely, duplicate a concert hall for acoustics. Did you know that I realized this only *just* this morning after over 40 years of listening to music? However, with a little bit of care, with a little bit of attention to choices of equipment, placement of same, and EXPERIMENTATION with all of the above to get to the best end-point.... There is NO reason why the sound produced in that room cannot be full, gorgeous, sublime _and_ provide a virtual soundstage that, although not capable of *producing* a like-live ambience cannot come remarkably close to it. There is no single-solution, there are at least four variables involved even after the equipment is chosen. If we attempt to impose a single-solution to all situations, we will get exactly what we deserve. News flash again! In a concert hall we listen with 2 "microphones" (our ears) spaced about 8 inches apart. With the exception of the few binaural recordings that exist, no recordings are done by this technique. Never heard of Blumlien? And even if they were they wouldn't succeed. You might want to listen to the efforts of some recording enginees rom the likes of Waterlily, Sheffield Labs, Reference recordings, performance recordings etc.... There is no solution to this reality of life, that's just one reason of many why the sound produced in a listening can't be expected to have a "like-live ambiance". Just as you see "3-D" with 2 eyes just inches apart, you are not going to see anything resembling normal "3-D" with eyes strung all over the "(expletive deleted") concert hall. Sounds which literally cause my hall seat to resonate, don't cause the microphones, however many there, to resonate in the same fashion I'm not sure that that really matters so much. Scott |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Steven Sullivan wrote:
mike wrote: wrote: Hmm. What is it about a loudspeaker that would make it perform better with tube amps than solid state amps? Lower distortion in the speaker itself? That is my experience. Not sure that there is or is not a direct cause and effect but it does seem to be the speakers with the lowest distortions seem to benefit the most from tubes. Scott |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
I will try this *just* once more.
I listen with my ears wherever I might be, concert hall, office, home, shower, phone-booth, vehicle... I think we can both understand this. A commercial recording is (generally) *not* meant to record as my ears hear, but to record such that some equipment might attempt to reproduce the sound-stage elsewhere. Can we agree on this? So, as it appears that I have to be painfully detailed on this: A sound-stage may be as small as a single instrument in a small room, or as large as a 100+ piece orchestra on a large stage in a hall of 600 or more. Said orchestra may also feature a massive organ, field cannon, even triangles. There is also a near-infinite range in between. "Miking" this range of possibilities is an exercise in artistry as much as any player in the orchestra. As the goal is to get down on the recording medium as much - accurate - information as possible such that reproduction will sound like perhaps-the-first-cousin of the music as-played. The point of both the orchestra playing to a 'live' audience and a recording playing to a listener at home is to make the various pairs-of-ears involved hear something worthwhile. The Microphone(s) is (are) NOT meant to act as ears... they are meant to gather information that the ears hear later in a manner approximating what they would have heard live. Can you understand this, at least? So, that 100+ piece orchestra spread across 1/10 acre of ground (~4100 square feet) may need a dozen or more microphones to record. The information so-gathered then has to be mixed down to two tracks with some of each going to each track in some proportion (more artistry) so that the sound-stage, instrument domination and mix, instrument levels and other artifacts are available for reproduction "at home". One's ears home or hall hear only what is delivered to them. And, home or hall, that information varies by position and distance, at least. In the hall, position may be right-to-left by a hundred feet or more, and front-to-nosebleed by 150 feet or more.This will not happen 'at home'. At best, at-home and with a very, very good recording, one might get the 10th to 15th row, center-section. But within that, be able to identify and position the orchestra & instruments quite well. That is the point. Circling all the way back to speaker placement. Have we have established that the recording process does not duplicate human ears? Not meant to? It is meant to capture as much information as possible, then lay out that information on two tracks so that it might transfer. So, placing the speakers is to provide the maximum opportunity to deliver a sound-stage to the home listener. This becomes a function of the speakers (and electronics) and their capabilities, the type and size of room, and the listening area required. And if the speakers are not seen as 'reverse ears', the concept gets much easier to understand. Microphones don't resonate (well, they shouldn't in any case). They record impulses that are capable of causing resonance. The speakers then produce those impulses. THEY (may) cause resonance. Otherwise, we are back to the chimera of headphones (and a sub-woofer, maybe) as the logical conclusion of your equilateral triangle. Ideal placement, no silly room resonances to deal with, and no embarassing echoes, standing waves or cancellation waves to consider. Each room is different. Each pair of human ears is different. My goal is to get to a layout that takes best advantage of the rooms my systems are in so that when they are playing, I might get the closest-to-live experience possible. A lofty goal seldom achieved, but a lot of good listening on the way to it. And, the equilateral triangle to me when I gave it a listen for a bit last night just-to-try (Bach Double Harpsichord Concerto, Mozart's Requiem) sounded like I was listening in a closet. Nice when in the sweet-spot (Speakers about 5' apart, centered about the short wall of a room about 11' wide & 14' deep), but quite muddy a foot to either side. The cat who usually dotes on Mozart tried various positions, then left. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
This discussion reminds me of the old Bose 901 speakers which were
specifically designed to radiate 8/9s of their energy away from the listener as that was the ratio of direct/reflected sound Dr. Bose measured in a live performance. The fallacy, of course, was that in a good recording, the concert hall effects are included in the recording. We are not trying to create the sound of the instruments on the stage and make-believe our living room is the concert hall, a good recording should include the information to recreate the total sound at the listener which is why the final mixing is done with "studio monitors" so the engineer has an idea at least of what you will hear upon playback (lots of room for discussion here on acoustics of mixing studio vs. home) As an interesting side note, the Bose speakers found fairly wide acceptance and were often used by musicians in live performances (in small venues), except they were turned around so 8/9 went to the audience and 1/9 back to the musician! IMHO, if you can live with the cord, headphones - with an amp that allows reducing the separation - are probably the best way top listen with the ear bud ones being the best of headphones (there is much less of a variation in the volume of air between the driver and your TM with buds so the designer has fewer variables to work with and can get really accurate response.) MarkT wrote: News flash! The structural nature (flooring, tiers, mezzanines, balconies and all their seats, the material composition; wood cement, plaster, etc., etc.) and the spatial nature of the hall (vertical; things take place above and below ear level, as well as left to right) isn't exactly like that of your listening room. Ya think? WHY(!!??!!) is it that (again) the fallacy of opposites is so prevalent here? There is no (expletive deleted) way that a 14' x 16' x 9'-6" room with four windows and two doors, hardwood floors and horsehair plaster walls & ceiling will ever, even remotely, duplicate a concert hall for acoustics. Did you know that I realized this only *just* this morning after over 40 years of listening to music? However, with a little bit of care, with a little bit of attention to choices of equipment, placement of same, and EXPERIMENTATION with all of the above to get to the best end-point.... There is NO reason why the sound produced in that room cannot be full, gorgeous, sublime _and_ provide a virtual soundstage that, although not capable of *producing* a like-live ambience cannot come remarkably close to it. There is no single-solution, there are at least four variables involved even after the equipment is chosen. If we attempt to impose a single-solution to all situations, we will get exactly what we deserve. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
Thank you Scott for providing some live-on-the-ground examples of what
I am striving to convey to Mr. Schwartz. I would not confuse apples (my (human) ears) with Oranges (microphones), and Pears (Concert stages large-or-small) with Plums (my listening rooms). But I do believe from solid experience that one can transport a concert ambience into a listening room by the use of some care, decent equipment well-placed and well-recorded and mixed sources. _EVERYTHING_ between the sound as played and the ears-as-heard is merely a mechanism to bring the two together and to duplicate to the extent possible the experience as-it-happens and as it is reproduced. By the way, how do you place your speakers? (Ducking for cover). Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
SNIP
IMHO, if you can live with the cord, headphones - with an amp that allows reducing the separation - are probably the best way top listen with the ear bud ones being the best of headphones (there is much less of a variation in the volume of air between the driver and your TM with buds so the designer has fewer variables to work with and can get really accurate response.) *BINGO* Give the man a Cigar (bubble-gum if a non-smoker)! (I have one integrated and one pre-amp with -blend- settings. They do well with headphones.) Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
One of the best features of my (home made) preamp in my main system is
that I included a blend switch - originally a Dynaco PAS-3 - it makes an incredible difference on most recordings. My speakers and listening position form an equal lateral triangle of ~13'. There's a fireplace in the middle so I cannot move the speakers closer together. They are toed-in and out from the wall. The blend switch still makes most material more natural sounding - especially true for older recordings from the 60's - 70's when engineers were really into stereo separation. MarkT wrote: SNIP IMHO, if you can live with the cord, headphones - with an amp that allows reducing the separation - are probably the best way top listen with the ear bud ones being the best of headphones (there is much less of a variation in the volume of air between the driver and your TM with buds so the designer has fewer variables to work with and can get really accurate response.) *BINGO* Give the man a Cigar (bubble-gum if a non-smoker)! How about a beer? (I have one integrated and one pre-amp with -blend- settings. They do well with headphones.) Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
|
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
upgrade cd player or amplifier
I heard of Blumlein, I heard and own Waterlily, etc. etc. and they
don't sound anything close to the real thing. Many Reference Recordings' and their dead end HDCD process best be forgotten. Have your heard or do you own (m)any of the the Wilson Audiophile Definitive Recordings? Nothing comes that close to the real thing, nor do I expect or even want them to. Perhaps some of our differences are due to the halls you have attended, or more importantly the seating sites you prefer. Where you ears? are and in which hall they can be found is more important than Blumlein .....Reference Recordings, etc. etc. In fact different engineering teams working for the same label achieve entirely different results in the same hall. Now for the final touch, I dare you to identify the venue by listening to a recording. You can't, Blumlein or other. I've own different engineers efforts from the Musikverein and different labels (EMI and DGG) from the Musikverein. Different engineers working in Philharmonic or Avery Fischer Hall in NYC, same result. RCA/BMG, in Symphony Hall, Boston, London/Decca in the Medinah Temple or Orchestra Hall, Chicago; Abbey Studios, EMI same story Blumlein or other, you would never know where you were. How the (expletive deleted) do recordings portray the actual recording sessions? |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Jeff Rowland 8TI-HC ( High Current Version) Power Amplifier | Marketplace | |||
| A Strawman, Constructed and Destroyed-Williamson's Folly? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| How to play mp3 player thru vehicle dvd player auxiliary input | Car Audio | |||
| FS: Carver Amplifier and NAD 512 CD Player | Marketplace | |||
| Upgrade advice on CD and DVD player | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
