[[email protected]]

On August 10, message 504 in the "Ferstler in denial..." thread
Sander De Waal said : "Keep the Quads with the NAD and the subs with
the Acoustat TNT, sell off the rest and enjoy your music in simple,
glorious stereo.
I posted details of the amplification used for my six speaker
surround system
I gather that you scorn my preference for surround sound.

I'm answering you in a new thread. The previous one is now hopelessly
bogged in the usual RAO wrestling matches and I'm in a mood to talk
about audio without a flame-thrower for a change.
First a clarification. I'm not talking about "Home theatre". I don't
have a TV in my music listening room and anyway I don't watch it often
enough to organise my audio around it.
I was always dissatisfied with inadequacy of the reproduction of space
and ambience in a home stereo setup. At a concert I don't like sitting
in the front row, at home I don't like the aggressive, in-your- face
speakers like eg. Watts and by and large I prefer dipole to monopoles
because I feel they are more like the live music experience in an
auditorium. I played with the Dynaco, Carver and "Quadraphonic"
surround gadgets wiith interest but no great satisfaction. I nevr
experienced Ambisonics- to my regret.
Eventually Yamaha, JVC and Lexicon all came with the digital surround
processors which give one a choice of different ways of surround
processing. I bought the Yamaha first but then replaced it with JVC DSP
XP-A1000 processor.because I could hear Yamaha adding a sound of its
own and I did not think Lexicon's menu was varied enough.

JVC has a choice of 20 different digital imitations of the ambience of
various concert halls, churches and cinema.. They don't name the
originals but you might be interestested to hear that for various
reasons I guessed that its # 1 is your ConcertGebouw auditorium. I know
that I somehow confirmed my guess but can not recall how. Anyway
whenever I listen to Haitink on Philips I put him in JVC #1
digitalisation.
I love my JVC and live in fear that one day it will die on me and I
shan't be able to repair it because JVC went into the Home Theatre poor
man's choice just like the Yamaha and the Lexicon.
To me many recordings (CDs even more often than LPs.) sound "dry" ie.
deficient in ambience reverbation etc. reproduction. So I use the DSP
not to superimpose but to replace what I feel is missing. Very good
recordings don't need DSPing (most often solo instruments like voice,
violin , piano, cello, flute etc) and I don't DSP them. If you're
interested, thrilled, can't wait to hear more find my article in the
"Audio Electronics", vol 30, #5, p.34-39.
It is only fair to add that a friend, college music teacher and a
pianist and my very own wife do not share my enthusiasm. But how many
women care for hi-fi? (that is why we love and cherish the few who do
like eg. Jenn). Also since I don't play any instrument this is my only
active participation in music reproduction.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Sander deWaal]

" said:

On August 10, message 504 in the "Ferstler in denial..." thread
Sander De Waal said : "Keep the Quads with the NAD and the subs with
the Acoustat TNT, sell off the rest and enjoy your music in simple,
glorious stereo.
I posted details of the amplification used for my six speaker
surround system
I gather that you scorn my preference for surround sound.

I'm answering you in a new thread. The previous one is now hopelessly
bogged in the usual RAO wrestling matches and I'm in a mood to talk
about audio without a flame-thrower for a change.
First a clarification. I'm not talking about "Home theatre". I don't
have a TV in my music listening room and anyway I don't watch it often
enough to organise my audio around it.
I was always dissatisfied with inadequacy of the reproduction of space
and ambience in a home stereo setup. At a concert I don't like sitting
in the front row, at home I don't like the aggressive, in-your- face
speakers like eg. Watts and by and large I prefer dipole to monopoles
because I feel they are more like the live music experience in an
auditorium. I played with the Dynaco, Carver and "Quadraphonic"
surround gadgets wiith interest but no great satisfaction. I nevr
experienced Ambisonics- to my regret.
Eventually Yamaha, JVC and Lexicon all came with the digital surround
processors which give one a choice of different ways of surround
processing. I bought the Yamaha first but then replaced it with JVC DSP
XP-A1000 processor.because I could hear Yamaha adding a sound of its
own and I did not think Lexicon's menu was varied enough.

JVC has a choice of 20 different digital imitations of the ambience of
various concert halls, churches and cinema.. They don't name the
originals but you might be interestested to hear that for various
reasons I guessed that its # 1 is your ConcertGebouw auditorium. I know
that I somehow confirmed my guess but can not recall how. Anyway
whenever I listen to Haitink on Philips I put him in JVC #1
digitalisation.
I love my JVC and live in fear that one day it will die on me and I
shan't be able to repair it because JVC went into the Home Theatre poor
man's choice just like the Yamaha and the Lexicon.
To me many recordings (CDs even more often than LPs.) sound "dry" ie.
deficient in ambience reverbation etc. reproduction. So I use the DSP
not to superimpose but to replace what I feel is missing. Very good
recordings don't need DSPing (most often solo instruments like voice,
violin , piano, cello, flute etc) and I don't DSP them. If you're
interested, thrilled, can't wait to hear more find my article in the
"Audio Electronics", vol 30, #5, p.34-39.
It is only fair to add that a friend, college music teacher and a
pianist and my very own wife do not share my enthusiasm. But how many
women care for hi-fi? (that is why we love and cherish the few who do
like eg. Jenn). Also since I don't play any instrument this is my only
active participation in music reproduction.
Ludovic Mirabel


Sounds all very interesting, but it is not my cup of tea.
We all follow out own route to audio heaven, and that is good.

BTW my wife is one of the few who is interested in music and audio,
she plays organ and piano, just like I do.

We both enjoy music immensely, we can't live without it.

I'm lucky, I know. I count my blessings :-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[ScottW]

wrote in message
oups.com...
On August 10, message 504 in the "Ferstler in denial..." thread
Sander De Waal said : "Keep the Quads with the NAD and the subs with
the Acoustat TNT, sell off the rest and enjoy your music in simple,
glorious stereo.
I posted details of the amplification used for my six speaker
surround system
I gather that you scorn my preference for surround sound.

I'm answering you in a new thread. The previous one is now hopelessly
bogged in the usual RAO wrestling matches and I'm in a mood to talk
about audio without a flame-thrower for a change.
First a clarification. I'm not talking about "Home theatre". I don't
have a TV in my music listening room and anyway I don't watch it often
enough to organise my audio around it.
I was always dissatisfied with inadequacy of the reproduction of space
and ambience in a home stereo setup. At a concert I don't like sitting
in the front row, at home I don't like the aggressive, in-your- face
speakers like eg. Watts and by and large I prefer dipole to monopoles
because I feel they are more like the live music experience in an
auditorium. I played with the Dynaco, Carver and "Quadraphonic"
surround gadgets wiith interest but no great satisfaction. I nevr
experienced Ambisonics- to my regret.
Eventually Yamaha, JVC and Lexicon all came with the digital surround
processors which give one a choice of different ways of surround
processing. I bought the Yamaha first but then replaced it with JVC DSP
XP-A1000 processor.because I could hear Yamaha adding a sound of its
own and I did not think Lexicon's menu was varied enough.

JVC has a choice of 20 different digital imitations of the ambience of
various concert halls, churches and cinema.. They don't name the
originals but you might be interestested to hear that for various
reasons I guessed that its # 1 is your ConcertGebouw auditorium. I know
that I somehow confirmed my guess but can not recall how. Anyway
whenever I listen to Haitink on Philips I put him in JVC #1
digitalisation.
I love my JVC and live in fear that one day it will die on me and I
shan't be able to repair it because JVC went into the Home Theatre poor
man's choice just like the Yamaha and the Lexicon.
To me many recordings (CDs even more often than LPs.) sound "dry" ie.
deficient in ambience reverbation etc. reproduction. So I use the DSP
not to superimpose but to replace what I feel is missing. Very good
recordings don't need DSPing (most often solo instruments like voice,
violin , piano, cello, flute etc) and I don't DSP them. If you're
interested, thrilled, can't wait to hear more find my article in the
"Audio Electronics", vol 30, #5, p.34-39.
It is only fair to add that a friend, college music teacher and a
pianist and my very own wife do not share my enthusiasm. But how many
women care for hi-fi? (that is why we love and cherish the few who do
like eg. Jenn). Also since I don't play any instrument this is my only
active participation in music reproduction.
Ludovic Mirabel

Sounds to my like your system kicks. I've got a cobbled together
surround that I mostly use for TV concert broadcasts in 5.1
I have a pair of Legacy Focus up front, an Advent center,
and a pair of Mirage M-5 rears driven by a cheapo
Pioneer....Needless to say...
getting a cohesive sound out of this mismatch is a PIA.
But I've done my best and I think with a center upgrade...
It might one day do ok.
In the middle of the whole mess are my Quads and sub.
I can play TV source and DVDs through the Stereo but rarely do.

I often watch baseball while listening to music..but sometimes
I'll catch a hi-def concert, Jethro Tull at Isle of Wright playing
Nothing is Easy while I've got Agualung going was kind of weird.
But when the record is over..I can remote to the concert .
When I really want to immerse myself...its lights out.

ScottW

[paul packer]

On 11 Aug 2006 13:43:15 -0700, "
wrote:

On August 10, message 504 in the "Ferstler in denial..." thread
Sander De Waal said : "Keep the Quads with the NAD and the subs with
the Acoustat TNT, sell off the rest and enjoy your music in simple,
glorious stereo.
I posted details of the amplification used for my six speaker
surround system
I gather that you scorn my preference for surround sound.

I'm answering you in a new thread. The previous one is now hopelessly
bogged in the usual RAO wrestling matches and I'm in a mood to talk
about audio without a flame-thrower for a change.
First a clarification. I'm not talking about "Home theatre". I don't
have a TV in my music listening room and anyway I don't watch it often
enough to organise my audio around it.
I was always dissatisfied with inadequacy of the reproduction of space
and ambience in a home stereo setup. At a concert I don't like sitting
in the front row, at home I don't like the aggressive, in-your- face
speakers like eg. Watts and by and large I prefer dipole to monopoles
because I feel they are more like the live music experience in an
auditorium. I played with the Dynaco, Carver and "Quadraphonic"
surround gadgets wiith interest but no great satisfaction. I nevr
experienced Ambisonics- to my regret.
Eventually Yamaha, JVC and Lexicon all came with the digital surround
processors which give one a choice of different ways of surround
processing. I bought the Yamaha first but then replaced it with JVC DSP
XP-A1000 processor.because I could hear Yamaha adding a sound of its
own and I did not think Lexicon's menu was varied enough.

JVC has a choice of 20 different digital imitations of the ambience of
various concert halls, churches and cinema.. They don't name the
originals but you might be interestested to hear that for various
reasons I guessed that its # 1 is your ConcertGebouw auditorium. I know
that I somehow confirmed my guess but can not recall how. Anyway
whenever I listen to Haitink on Philips I put him in JVC #1
digitalisation.
I love my JVC and live in fear that one day it will die on me and I
shan't be able to repair it because JVC went into the Home Theatre poor
man's choice just like the Yamaha and the Lexicon.
To me many recordings (CDs even more often than LPs.) sound "dry" ie.
deficient in ambience reverbation etc. reproduction. So I use the DSP
not to superimpose but to replace what I feel is missing. Very good
recordings don't need DSPing (most often solo instruments like voice,
violin , piano, cello, flute etc) and I don't DSP them. If you're
interested, thrilled, can't wait to hear more find my article in the
"Audio Electronics", vol 30, #5, p.34-39.
It is only fair to add that a friend, college music teacher and a
pianist and my very own wife do not share my enthusiasm. But how many
women care for hi-fi? (that is why we love and cherish the few who do
like eg. Jenn). Also since I don't play any instrument this is my only
active participation in music reproduction.
Ludovic Mirabel


Interesting post, Ludovic. We often assume surround mean HT, but it
needn't if you feel surround works for you in enhancing the "concert
hall" experience (and why not use whatever works?). Incidentally, many
years ago I used four speakers, but not in surround, rather the two
pairs were spaced in front so as to create a depth effect, as decribed
in one of the 70s mags (Hi-Fi Answers, I believe). I needed a second
power amp with it's own voleme control, and a fairly deep listening
room, but it really worked; there was a real sensation of depth. I've
never seen this mentioned anywhere else, so I'd be interested in
hearing from any other poster who recalls this idea.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
On August 10, message 504 in the "Ferstler in denial..." thread
Sander De Waal said : "Keep the Quads with the NAD and the subs with
the Acoustat TNT, sell off the rest and enjoy your music in simple,
glorious stereo.
I posted details of the amplification used for my six speaker
surround system
I gather that you scorn my preference for surround sound.

I'm answering you in a new thread. The previous one is now hopelessly
bogged in the usual RAO wrestling matches and I'm in a mood to talk
about audio without a flame-thrower for a change.
First a clarification. I'm not talking about "Home theatre". I don't
have a TV in my music listening room and anyway I don't watch it often
enough to organise my audio around it.
I was always dissatisfied with inadequacy of the reproduction of space
and ambience in a home stereo setup. At a concert I don't like sitting
in the front row, at home I don't like the aggressive, in-your- face
speakers like eg. Watts and by and large I prefer dipole to monopoles
because I feel they are more like the live music experience in an
auditorium. I played with the Dynaco, Carver and "Quadraphonic"
surround gadgets wiith interest but no great satisfaction. I nevr
experienced Ambisonics- to my regret.
Eventually Yamaha, JVC and Lexicon all came with the digital surround
processors which give one a choice of different ways of surround
processing. I bought the Yamaha first but then replaced it with JVC DSP
XP-A1000 processor.because I could hear Yamaha adding a sound of its
own and I did not think Lexicon's menu was varied enough.

JVC has a choice of 20 different digital imitations of the ambience of
various concert halls, churches and cinema.. They don't name the
originals but you might be interestested to hear that for various
reasons I guessed that its # 1 is your ConcertGebouw auditorium. I know
that I somehow confirmed my guess but can not recall how. Anyway
whenever I listen to Haitink on Philips I put him in JVC #1
digitalisation.
I love my JVC and live in fear that one day it will die on me and I
shan't be able to repair it because JVC went into the Home Theatre poor
man's choice just like the Yamaha and the Lexicon.
To me many recordings (CDs even more often than LPs.) sound "dry" ie.
deficient in ambience reverbation etc. reproduction. So I use the DSP
not to superimpose but to replace what I feel is missing. Very good
recordings don't need DSPing (most often solo instruments like voice,
violin , piano, cello, flute etc) and I don't DSP them. If you're
interested, thrilled, can't wait to hear more find my article in the
"Audio Electronics", vol 30, #5, p.34-39.
It is only fair to add that a friend, college music teacher and a
pianist and my very own wife do not share my enthusiasm. But how many
women care for hi-fi? (that is why we love and cherish the few who do
like eg. Jenn). Also since I don't play any instrument this is my only
active participation in music reproduction.
Ludovic Mirabel

I've heard decent surround systems, but they all cost a fortune. Why
bother?

Boon

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
ups.com...


snip


I've heard decent surround systems, but they all cost a fortune. Why
bother?


First, they all don't cost a fortune if you are willing to buy used and use
some imagination and ingenuity and solid sound configuration knowledge.

Second, you do it because for classical music (in particular) and all music
(in general) it brings you closer to live sound.

And finally, for pop music recorded in studio and in the hands of top
quality engineers and producers, surround can give you a vastly more
interesting musical canvas than simple stereo.

For some of us, those reasons are compelling.

[ScottW]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...


snip


I've heard decent surround systems, but they all cost a
fortune. Why
bother?


First, they all don't cost a fortune if you are willing to
buy used and use some imagination and ingenuity and solid
sound configuration knowledge.

Second, you do it because for classical music (in
particular) and all music (in general) it brings you
closer to live sound.

And finally, for pop music recorded in studio and in the
hands of top quality engineers and producers, surround can
give you a vastly more interesting musical canvas than
simple stereo.

For some of us, those reasons are compelling.

That brings up a thought....I'm not a big classical fan but
I
still find some of my rock favorites annoying in how badly
imaged the recording is. Like this small club sounding
venue recording of Neil Young's Soldier. Its like listening
through a long paper towel tube.
Now I've gotta run a line from preamp..to my
surround receiver just to see how it might sound.
and I've got a rats nest already.
Thanks Harry...one more thing on my list of things
to check out .

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:R3JDg.16737$RD.2036@fed1read08...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...


snip


I've heard decent surround systems, but they all cost a fortune. Why
bother?


First, they all don't cost a fortune if you are willing to buy used and
use some imagination and ingenuity and solid sound configuration
knowledge.

Second, you do it because for classical music (in particular) and all
music (in general) it brings you closer to live sound.

And finally, for pop music recorded in studio and in the hands of top
quality engineers and producers, surround can give you a vastly more
interesting musical canvas than simple stereo.

For some of us, those reasons are compelling.

That brings up a thought....I'm not a big classical fan but I
still find some of my rock favorites annoying in how badly
imaged the recording is. Like this small club sounding
venue recording of Neil Young's Soldier. Its like listening
through a long paper towel tube.
Now I've gotta run a line from preamp..to my
surround receiver just to see how it might sound.
and I've got a rats nest already.
Thanks Harry...one more thing on my list of things
to check out .


Rat's nests seem to be an occupational hazard of Audiophilia.

And if you are into computers as well, the nests grow exponentially.

[ScottW]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:R3JDg.16737$RD.2036@fed1read08...

Rat's nests seem to be an occupational hazard of
Audiophilia.

And if you are into computers as well, the nests grow
exponentially.

Well...kind of though I haven't gotten into music on my
computer
yet.

...but I put in my little home Wi-fi a few years ago
and never looked back on that.

ScottW