Like

Archive through October 06, 2004

 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 757
Registered: Aug-04
"Except the centre channel. It does more harm than good. "

John A - No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, okay but only occassionally!

I have a couple of DVD-A's (eg: Rod Stewart - It Had To Be You) where the voice emphasis is too much on the center. Before the B&W LCR was in the shelf below the display panel. It made the voice (in Stewart's and a few other recordings) seem to come from near floor level.

I have now re-positioned it above and slightly behind the display and the difference is sensational. The voicing problem with RS has disappeared also and now sounds right.

Aesthetically, it does not look so good which is the reason I haven't done this since getting the display and spending more dollars on the glass and chrome cabinet. I have improvised with the center on a stool behoind the display. Mrs R is yet to see and pass judgement.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2200
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger,

We've been here before!

"i truly love what the center channel adds."

What does it add that could not have been put in the centre of a stereo image?

And... where do you put the darned speaker - in front of the monitor, or behind it? If it is above or below, it is not in the centre, is it? I tried mounting my centre speaker above the screen when I did a projector trial. It sounded like the dialogue was coming from above the actors, who were skilled ventriloquists. The sound engineeers could use that arrangement to get height at the front, the axis between the stereo virtual centre and the real centre. But they don't.

It seems to me the centre must have been invented by people who did just did not know about stereo, or, more likely, who thought the customer would not believe that stereo works. So people like Jan, who know that it does, write off surround sound as a gimmick. They have a good point. This is where we started, with this thread.

Am I missing something here?!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2201
Registered: Dec-03
By the way there is a 2003 Stereophile review of the Quad ESL-989. Just ignore the gratuitous first two paragraphs; it settles down and is very good when the reviewer stops writing about himself. Why do those guys have to start by preening themselves like that...?

Wish those speakers were not so darned expensive.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 758
Registered: Aug-04
"Am I missing something here?!"

Yes, John, I think you are. I DO understand centre action from stereo imaging. In fact most of my Hi-rez surround recordings actually do that but most add that prominent sound to the centre channel as well because it enhances that image to the point where the recoding engineer wants us to concentrate in particular. As I said in the previous post, I thought they had overdone Stewart's voice on the center channel but have changed my mind after re-positioning the speaker.

The center imaging from stereo is not always going to provide the depth and concentration of singular sounds that can be handled by having the extra centre speaker which is time aligned and controlled seperately. I think in action movies, this become much more apparent and useful. It is also an advantage to differences in peoples hearing abilities.

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1580
Registered: Dec-03
i don't know john maybe it's your center channel.

but right now "and allways has been" my center is on top of
my entertainment center a little over a foot above the tweeters
in my main speakers. then the center is angled down to ear height at
my listening position. for my setup it works great.
voices sound like they are coming from the center of my tv,
"which is at the my ear height"

to me with a proper setup center channel i get the sounds in the center
to be more localized to the center then what a pair of stereo speakers do.

whn i'm running surround and their is dialouge at
the center and the right or left side of the screen it's more seperated
and less distacting to tell where the person is who is talking. "you just know"

 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 759
Registered: Aug-04
Kegger

..............YEP!.............
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


John - In a projection system you ask for an acoustically transparent screen and place the center speaker behind it at whatever height you require.

Playing a CD of a Mercury Living Presence recording today on the 6200 & 3/5a's was enough to convince me how much I need multichannel. The recording is "Janos Starker plays Boccherini-Bach-Vivaldi-Corelli-Locatelli-Valentini". Cello and piano. The technical description in the "liner notes" reads, "Both the Italian Cello Sonatas and the Bach "Sonata in G minor" were recorded in Studio A of Fine Recording in New York on three-track, half-inch tape, using three Telefunken 201 microphones." Recording dates are 1963 and 1967.
The entire recording had a sense of space that provided all the ambient information of a live performance just shy of the candy wrappers and coughs coming from behind me. Reflections registered off the side and rear walls of the studio and gave my living room the feel of a large space with an instrument being played within.
The Mercury recordings are legendary, along with several other labels from the 60's, as being a reference point of simplicity and precision in the early years of Stereo recording techniques. The amount of sound that is captured on these recordings should be enough to convince most of the true path to realistic reproduction of music. If that is what you are trying to achieve. Even the mono recordings that I have from these labels have a sense of depth and placement of instruments within the space.
If the microphones capture it, it should be replayed by the speakers. And in this case it is. Nothing I have heard from signal processing has been as satisfactory as this simple recording.
But, of course, then came "Sgt. Pepper" and multitrack. Curse you, Lennon!!!

John & Classical 1 - Have either of you heard Shostakovich's Jazz music and Ballet suites?



Rick - I'll give your sugestion a try. I wouldn't have thought you wrong about your asessment of the 6100 other than I have always described the sound of any piece of Mac as just that. McIntosh is a line that seems to transcend, or possibly just ignore, the idea of tube and transistor sound, certainly their solid state doesn't sound like anyone else's I have come across. But Mac is Mac, it is a sound that is unlike other audio components and is, to me, just more like music without any debate about what technology is better.

But I still love my Mac tubes.



 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2202
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger, My Rantz,

I know you both know what you are talking about, and respect your opinions and your judgement. My argument is not with you, and is not very practical, now; I am grumbling about the people who designed in the centre channel into 5.1 in the first place. Now that the centre channel is there on the recording, we have to reproduce it, and you can't just turn it off to compare.

MR, you write: "The center imaging from stereo is not always going to provide the depth and concentration of singular sounds that can be handled by having the extra centre speaker which is time aligned and controlled seperately".

I think the centre imaging from stereo can do exactly that. Just switch to mono, if you still can (my receiver does not have a mono switch, but my pre-amp does).

If the system is set up properly for stereo, then mono sounds are heard to come from right between the two speakers, and there is no difference between that and a real, single source, in what you can hear or measure. It is a physical, interference effect; not an illusion; it is physically the same pressure waves reaching your ears in either case. It will not sound any different to people with hearing loss, either. You could rig up microphones in place of ears and with all the test gear in the world - there IS no difference between a mono sound reproduced by one speaker or two. The qualification is ..."provided the phasing is correct". That is easy to fix with two speakers; more difficult with three.

So I stick with my anti-centre position. That is not political! And it is all theory. I know in practice you won't hear what people are saying without a centre speaker in 5.1.

Jan,

"In a projection system you ask for an acoustically transparent screen" Thanks for that. I wonder how that works. Like a reflective speaker grille, perhaps. Kegger told me something similar, before, but I think he mentioned a hole in the screen. Of course, you could have an invisible center speaker, I suppose. That is what stereo can do....

I have seen some Verve and Mercury Living Presence CD reissues on a stand in a record shop. I'll take a closer look. I think they said they mastered at 24 bit. They had a lot of tempted jazz titles.

But, going right back to base on this thread, you may hear reverberations and room size, but, in stereo, you are only hearing them either (a) as if from a forward-facing box; (b) from your own listening room; (c) some combination of the two.

Re the jazz suites, as I wrote on another thread a while back, they got me into Shostakovich; I bought a disc purely because it was an available DVD-A title. I know that might be a shocking confession to some.... There is some ballet music, too on the disc; from "the Bolt". the titles suggest satire, and politics; I would have to see the ballet, or read some more, to know. The humour in there is great and totally surprised me. I had always, incorrectly, had S. filed mentally under "worthy". He is the opposite, quite brilliant.
 

Marc C
Unregistered guest
Guys,

I know this is not the deepest of questions, but what would be a good speaker I can really crank the sh*t out of? I have an appreciation of a good pair of monitors, will probably have some, and understand the Spendor 3/5 is the cat's meow. But what would be a good full-ranger (I'm morally opposed to subwoofers) that gets down to the octaves, and that I can listen to all my UFO, Cream, and Who on after a really lousy day?

I figure this question might be up Kegger's allie, in that I know he likes full-rangers as well.

I hate to dumb-down the thread, but I need the Old Dogs' on this.

Respectfully,

Marc

P.S. If Bush wins again, we deserve WWIII.

P.P.S. SACDUDE - very sorry to hear what happened. But to echo everyone else's sentiments, glad you and your lady were not there.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 760
Registered: Aug-04
"The center imaging from stereo is not always going to provide the depth and concentration of singular sounds that can be handled by having the extra centre speaker which is time aligned and controlled seperately."

Firstly, the above statement is in consideration of a surround recording. Secondly, I obviously need to explain myself better. Controlling the center is a useful addition to music and movies in the surround realm because few record in the same manner and to the same levels. To control the center without also applying those conditions to the mains also IMO is a great asset in surround sound - that cannot be achieved if relying soley on stereo imaging.

If the need to control the center does not fall into "hearing the original recording" well that just means the original recording didn't suit my ears.

I listen to a lot of two channel stereo sans the sub, and in direct source mode. It is truly wonderful with the right recordings. But I am yet to hear a stereo recording that excites my senses a much as the good hi-res surrounds do.

" know in practice you won't hear what people are saying without a centre speaker in 5.1.
"


You will if you disconnect the center and say "no center" in the receiver's (or players) set up. The information is then passed to the mains.

My head hurts - brick walls are hard!

 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 526
Registered: Dec-03
Rantz,

" I thought you were going to think I had gone completely mad"

..........WELL.....YEAH..OK!

Mrs. Barnes will testify that it happened years ago....................

If you "OD's" remember, I did get a DVD-A player months, gave a listen to multi-channel and thought it was interesting. But I think Ghia said it best, it was more of a GEE-WHIZ kind of reaction. Don't get me wrong, I love 5.1 for cinema. But for music, you all know where I stand. It has always been 2 channel for me, even before I discovered the MAC sound. And yes, it IS different from any other amp I have ever owned or heard. They just sound..........right.

I'm going to go crawl around the floor some more..................report back later!

Cheers!

PS Has anyone noticed Ghia is busy listening to music, and not posting? She's trying to figure out how it suddenly got so good..................You go Ghia! Enjoy. LOL!!!!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1581
Registered: Dec-03
rick you guys asked me the same awhile back to.

"wheres keg" yes i was listening to music.
and building amps! lol.
..................................

JOHN:

sorry I still disagree and agree with mr. rantz.

In my experience the center image for 2 speakers
is not as rock solid as a dedicated center channel.

so in my oppinion a center is needed.
"not just because the recording has info there"
to me you can do more and easier with a center speaker!

when your tring to put info in the two front speakers
for the center and the info for themselves then the speakers can become
clouded and difficult for them to do both. so a dedicated center takes that
away and leaves the the two outer speakers to do their thing.
to me that makes more sense than the front two trying to do both.
it's just easier.

then if you factor in the people who are not sitting in the center,
2 speakers does nothing for them. you need 3 to get the seperation
and localization.
................................

john the screen jan has mentioned is excactly what
i was talking about.
it's perferated "not enough to effect image" so the sound comes through.



 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2203
Registered: Dec-03
Thanks Kegger; thanks Mr Rantz.

I have stereo and 5.1; I have never heard the phantom center or had a chance to compare the same thing in two or three front channels. I had not thought of choosing "no center" in set-up. I will do that before I keep on at this.

But we still have many music-orientated people thinking the whole 5.1 development is a waste of time and money for their purposes, and "stereo rules". They probably think they are banging their heads against a brick wall, too, MR!

Rick says, if I understand, "5.1 for movies and stereo for music". but that is a result of what the engineers put on the discs. No?

Marc, it is hardly possible to dumb down this thread. If I had the money I'd get some Quad ESLs. You would probably be pleased what they would do for Cream. By the way, I see there is a nice 5.1 DVD-A of "Tommy" by The Who....

But, come on, you are a "stereo rules" guy, too. Can you not explain the purist's viewpoint to the surround afficionado?

I used to have a moral objection to the active sub, but life is too short for war with people who just like the sound of volcanoes erupting. The sub is like the TV; you can always turn it off. Peace in our time. Each to his own sauce.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 527
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger,

So if I understand correctly, if I ever go to tubes with the Spendors, I'm going to need some BIG TUBE power?

So what are you waiting for????? BUILD ME A MONSTER!!!!!!! LOL!
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 761
Registered: Aug-04
Kegger

May the force be with us! We all know what happened to the dinosaurs!

Rick

I think we are all mad.

Okay, you're still in search of good stereo sound I see. Better invest in a good set of kneepads!

I agree, the 'Gee whiz' thing rings true in recordings such as DSOTM and Pink Robots - a lot of fun for sure, but after many, many hours of hi-rez surround listening I can honestly say I'm hooked.

When Mrs Barnes yells from the kitchen, "Ricky, are you crawling around on the floor again," you are listening in surround. It's part of the natural scheme of things. Why do you think Hitler lost the war? He issued his troops with helmuts that only allowed stereo hearing. The shape prevent rear surround sound so they were easily ambushed. Think about it!

 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 762
Registered: Aug-04
John A

I knew that comment would elicit a worthy retort - the fact is I really did bang my head on the brick wall when I was moving the centre speaker :-) But, somehow it just seemed apt for inclusion.

Now - about your views on subs - omygosh!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1582
Registered: Dec-03
RICK:

"Kegger,

So if I understand correctly, if I ever go to tubes with the Spendors, I'm going to need some BIG TUBE power? "

well gobs might be everstating it, but i'd say at
least somewhere around 60-80 watts would suffice!

which probably means a stereo amp of 30 to 40 monoblocked
so a pair would be in order. maybe a pair of st-70's mono'd!
that would give you about 70 a channel,that should work!

and sound darn good! IMO
 

Classical 1
Unregistered guest
OK - fuel for the fire. I think center channels are over-rated. Start throwing!!!
On another topic - as I'm rather bored this week, I've been surfing a lot of audiophile forums, and came upon one that amazed me.
This guy has friends who swear that "massaging" the soft cones of his Polk speakers he makes the hi-freqs sound smoother! REally! Have any of you ever heard of such a thing? Claims that, by gently rubbing soft terrycloth over the cones they "age" better (I think that was his word) and smooth out. Well, I can't do that with the Paradigms, but I have some soft-domes as surrounds in Florida - and was wondering. . .
Anything to take my mind off the coming weeks wrangling with station managers!!!
Crisp and cold here - but it's still good that I just hook up my laptop to the cell phone and surf away on the deck, or a nearby favorite restaurant overlooking the Rockies. My sister will move in here for the winter soon (an avid skier) so I will get out of her way and head for winter-sailing grounds. And more work. . .
Later. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1583
Registered: Dec-03
OH I FORGOT!

LONG LIVE THE SUB!!!!!!
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 267
Registered: Mar-04

quote:

This guy has friends who swear that "massaging" the soft cones of his Polk speakers he makes the hi-freqs sound smoother! REally! Have any of you ever heard of such a thing? Claims that, by gently rubbing soft terrycloth over the cones they "age" better (I think that was his word) and smooth out.



When they're done do they each have a smoke? :-)

Seriously, that's the first I've heard of this. Maybe I'll try it tonight when I get home. Will have to first stop at the liquor store and pick up a bottle of wine though.

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2204
Registered: Dec-03
A single-malt whiskey with an equal volume of water, which must be a room temperature, is a tried and tested way of improving the perceived sound quality from any set of loudspeakers. Under some circumstances, a gin and tonic can be just as effective, as long as there is not too much ice. Wine is good, too. Beer tends to cause interruptions in the programme.

In all cases, take care not to spill any on the speakers themselves.

Active subs leave me shaken, but not stirred.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1584
Registered: Dec-03
well the only thing i can think of that massaging the speakers would do.

would be to speed along the breakin period on a new set of speakers.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1585
Registered: Dec-03
good stuff john.

but I prefer my whiskey chilled over ice.

dammit we disagree again! lol

but you guys like your beer warm to, don't yu?

rantz how do you prefer?
 

Classical 1
Unregistered guest
The old "speed-up" trick, eh, Kegger? I thought so! And John - please! - NOT an equal amount of water, at least not with good 12-year old Scotch! A splash, yes, but half-and-half, shudder!
Rick Barnes - the man to whom I gave the brass cones swears that you are correct. He put them under his Marantz CD player and after due thought and probably a lot of Coors (his favorite beer) he told me that the sound is "fuller and cleaner." OK - my ears are getting old, I guess!
Now that the J-24 has been put away for the winter, some nuts want me to go out on Dillon reservoir for an "icicle race." I told them they're crazy. It's bad enough up here, having to race most days in a shorty wet suit. The lake is so cold that falling in is not an option, but a torture. But there are no sharks!
I shall tell my associate in Florida to ready the surround speakers for old Scotch and new massages, eh, John A?
More later. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1586
Registered: Dec-03
MARC C:

"I know this is not the deepest of questions, but what would be a good speaker I can really crank the sh*t out of? I have an appreciation of a good pair of monitors, will probably have some, and understand the Spendor 3/5 is the cat's meow. But what would be a good full-ranger (I'm morally opposed to subwoofers) that gets down to the octaves, and that I can listen to all my UFO, Cream, and Who on after a really lousy day? "

both jan and i have suggested in simular posts to
checkout dj supply stores.
they carry efficient, large power handling, larger speakers
made for sound reinforcment. "they get loud"

otherwise a good jbl or klipsch with larger drivers (I prefer 12" or bigger)
"no comment ghia!"
will do the job just fine!


 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 763
Registered: Aug-04
Sam Cougar Bourbon or an ice-cold full strength XXXX



or two




or three





or fore





ro vife






or sifth






rehe's ot su, gekker!






ret's dink to hi-revs suffound!





ard a vice swine tis gad okashunly tooo!




done u stink?
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


"Why do you think Hitler lost the war? He issued his troops with helmuts that only allowed stereo hearing. The shape prevent rear surround sound so they were easily ambushed. Think about it!"




Uh, Hitler never thought anyone would be to the rear of his troops. Forward, ever forward!
















"LONG LIVE THE SUB!!!!!!"





I agree. Coppocola, mortadella, porchetta, provlone, and Parmigiano with some veggies. The Best!!!!!!













" ... 'massaging' the soft cones .... "


There is no response to that.


















" ... at least somewhere around 60-80 watts would suffice!"


Not to argue with Kegger but it obviously depends on what type of music you listen to, how loud you want to play, the size of the room and
the real "peak power" of the amp. 60 watts is only three dB more than 30 watts. The Spendors appear to have a more forgiving impedance than the LS3/5a's and I've run the Rogers off "40 watts" for years. A nice MC240 would do the trick, Rick.








" ... but what would be a good speaker I can really crank the sh*t out of?"




"If I had the money I'd get some Quad ESLs."







John!? If I had the money I'd also buy the Quads and the room they want, but ... you only crank the %*#! out of ESL's once!





" .... UFO, Cream, and Who ... "




I don't know what you want to spend or how much room you have but the BEST sound I've heard for Clapton et al is a Klipschorn (driven by McIntosh, natch). At 104 dB you can get the volume you want with 20 watts. The amount of volume the Horns can produce in a normal room is stuff teen age boys wet dreams include. I've mentioned on this forum driving the Horns with an Advent table radio (4 watts) to more than loud levels. The actual Horns, however, are a corner loaded speaker that REQUIRES two full sharp corners, preferrably on the long wall. You then, for best effect, use a Cornwall as the phantom center channel. The wiring is simple and has been included in a post I placed on this forum a while back. (The demonstration that accompanied the paper was the first to exploit a phantom center for stereo use, John. It is a landmark piece of audio history.) The most logical next choice is the Klipsch La Scalla or Belle Klipsch. These use the same components as the Horn but are a self enclosed twice folded horn as opposed to the triflod of the true Cornerhorn. This leaves out about 1/2 octave at the bottom but can easily cover 99% of what you will have on a rock recording. (When it runs out of frquency response a speaker "doubles" the signal and produces the next octave above. So if you try 25Hz with the LaScalla it can't do it, but it will do 50Hz at 102dB with 1 watt.) But all three of these speakers can make your pantslegs shake from the SPL they can generate. If you can't find what you want from these three speakers you will best look to the professional market. No matter what you choose they will be large to get the max volume for unwinding purposes. (The Klipsch Cornwall is the easier speaker to find on the used market but I never could find the appeal of the Cornwall. It uses different components than the top three speakers and was designed not with the best sound in mind but how Paul Klipsch could make a speaker out of one sheet of plywood with no salvage. The common impression of the Cornwall among most I sold with was it was good for calling geese in the fall migration.)
















"But, going right back to base on this thread, you may hear reverberations and room size, but, in stereo, you are only hearing them either (a) as if from a forward-facing box; (b) from your own listening room; (c) some combination of the two."














John! Put down the glass. You are drinking the KoolAid again. Think, man, THINK!!!!!
You really don't buy that line about a box with holes do you? Everytime I read someone using that analogy I am astouded at their 1) lack of knowledge; B) their level of self conviction in the face of all truths; 3-a) their level of trying to get me to buy their propoganda; or D mkII) all of the above and then some piled on top!











Please tell me what happens if, using my Janos Starker three track as an example, the micrphones are anything but a unidirectional design. Place one multidirectional microphone at the rear of the studio to capture ambience. That feed is mixed down into the stereo mix with the feed from two multidirectional mics that are above the instruments and your speakers have to reproduce what they are fed. The signal contains any number of in phase and out of phase signals that are a representation of the original signal. Play this in a typical room which will provide its own ambience and you have a sound that is closer in approximation to the original than anything Dolby matrix can produce. And by giving a worthy engineer the right to decide what amount of ambience should be included to represent the original there is never more or less than that amount when played back in stereo. Whereas with multichannel the user, who is only making adjustments to suit their taste, not reality, can add and subtract amounts until they are "happy" with the sound. And given what I have heard from too many multichannel reacordings the engineers use the additional channels as a playground for taking out their frustration that they didn't have the inspiration for a DSOTM. But that doesn't stop them from trying to make Shostakovich meet Pink Floyd.









Multichannel - Bah! Ptttooie!!!!!











I want the real thing or not at all!

























Proceed.







 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 528
Registered: Dec-03
.....OH YEAH, I can see it now. My lovely bride comes home to find me crawling around the floor, rubbing my speaker cones with a terry cloth towel..............................

My next post would be from the "funny farm" in between Thorzine cocktails and Shock Therapy.

And we thought WE were nuts? This guy could definitely hang out with us! LOL!
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 764
Registered: Aug-04
"I want the real thing or not at all!"

John, Rick, Kegger, Sem, Classical1?????????



Try Russell Morris!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1587
Registered: Dec-03
jan: not to differ from you!

"Not to argue with Kegger but it obviously depends on what type of music you listen to, how loud you want to play, the size of the room and
the real "peak power" of the amp. 60 watts is only three dB more than 30 watts. The Spendors appear to have a more forgiving impedance than the LS3/5a's and I've run the Rogers off "40 watts" for years. A nice MC240 would do the trick, Rick. "

I would agree 40 watts a channel could push the spendors enough
to listen to them. and an st-70 at 35 could also.
but if i was looking to get tube power for them,
I'd look for 60-70 watts.

maybe that's how I should of posted it.

and you could get 2 st-70's plus rebuilds for the same or less then
the mac MC240 would cost yu.

that's how I was thinking. not to mention that beautiful midrange
we both enjoy from those st-70's. could really give you something!


 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 529
Registered: Dec-03
Proceed????









NO................







I'll have a................................









MCINTOSH instead.............................













Thank you!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1588
Registered: Dec-03
here's some question's for yu!

if mr. rantz and myself "plus others" like surround/center channels
and subs while others may not.
does that make someone right and someone wrong?

if some people prefer 2 channel over others does that make them wrong or right?

can someone like one over the other regardless of
it doing something "correct"
because they like what they hear and they are not wrong for doing so?

is their a proper way for someone to listen to music?

does it matter if one is not concerned with imaging
as long as they appeciate what they listen to?

is eq or imaging or clear or analog any more important to all listeners?

does it matter what you listen to/on/for as long as you listen and appreciate?
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


"A single-malt whiskey with an equal volume of water"



There is no response to that.





Kegger, as you can plainly see from Rick's last post he has been to the mountain and he doesn't want to return to "ordinary" HiFi. Mac or death!
(Well, maybe just Mac or a rather severe paper cut. We don't need to get carried away here.)



 

J, Vigne
Unregistered guest

I hope Ghia has not needed medication due to setting up the Dual.



 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Kegger - The question before us is : If someone says something is a fact based on what they feel is "darned good" information; when that fact is later found to be based on obviously forged information should the teller be fired?

Who's doing something right and who's doing something wrong? There is no such thing in the privacy of your own home. Unless of course you are growing 100 plants for entertainment enhancements. That could still get you in some trouble.



 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1589
Registered: Dec-03
jan i'm not following you.

"Kegger - The question before us is : If someone says something is a fact based on what they feel is "darned good" information; when that fact is later found to be based on obviously forged information should the teller be fired? "

my feelings are pretty much audio is oppinion and
very little if any facts are prevelent.

so unless you are refering to someone elses statement
I don't know what you mean.

as I rarely state something to be fact. so I guess maybe that's
what I take issue with, others putting there view accross as fact
or the right way to do it.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 530
Registered: Dec-03
Kegger,

There is no right or wrong! You buy your ticket. You choose your destination. What you learn along the journey is up to you.

Jan,

Given a choice, I'll take the paper cut, but will always go with Mac's in the future. Now I know how Moses felt when we came down from the mountain.

Don't worry about Ghia, she's one sharp lady, she'll be just fine.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 765
Registered: Aug-04
I think Ghia is just too busy to report in. Building a large home extension to accomodate a prehistoric monolithic amplifier can take up a lot of one's time.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
Sorry, I got obtuse. Rick states it correctly. If you like what you are hearing then you should have no one tell you you are hearing or thinking incorrectly. If you decide along the way, by suggestion or happy circumstance, there is another truth to be found, i.e. paper in oil capacitors, then you have the right to search for a new truth. Just don't let anyone drag you there kicking and screaming.


Rick - Could the burning bush have been lit by a Sony reciever trying to drive a 4 Ohm load?



 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1590
Registered: Dec-03
sounds good jan and rick agreed.


and i'm not sure if it was a sony but maybe an
akai, but might have been a sony though.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 531
Registered: Dec-03
...........PREHISTORIC MONOLITHIC AMPLIFIER..........................Ok-I can happily live with that.........so could you if you gave one a listen............LOL!

Jan,

I'll have to ponder the burning bush and Sony.............I'm a little busy rubbing my cones at the moment!
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 767
Registered: Aug-04
"Rick - Could the burning bush have been lit by a Sony reciever trying to drive a 4 Ohm load? "

Could the burning bush have been lit by a Kerry supporter trying to drive home his point?
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 768
Registered: Aug-04
Rick

As I have mentioned previously, I'm glad I haven't had a chance to listen. What I don't know can't hurt me (LOL!)
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2205
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

"You really don't buy that line about a box with holes do you?"

No, I have in mind an opera box; you, the listener, are in it, it is open at the front, closed at the back, and all the sounds of the performance and the hall, with its reverberations, come only from in front of you. It ain't natural, and the seats are priced out of reach of the common man, anyway. But stereo can reproduce that, sure.

At a normal performance of anything, the sound comes to you from all around. Except maybe in the open air. Even then, you get wind, insects, traffic, barking Old Dogs etc.

Your listening room has its own sonic signature and is most unlikely to be the same size and shape as even a very small concert hall.

So we need "surround sound" to recreate the sound of the real thing; the experience of being there, at the performance.

If that is what we want.

OK, cancel the water. No ice, either, thanks!

Cheers.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


"Could the burning bush have been lit by a Kerry supporter trying to drive home his point?"


If it was they were merely trying to shed some light on the subject.




"So we need "surround sound" to recreate the sound of the real thing ... "


The appropriate comment here would be, "What you mean "we", Kemosabe?"




 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 770
Registered: Aug-04
It's a shame we get to choose our leaders from such a short list. Our general election is this coming weekend and we get to choose between "The Man Of Steel" and "The Man Who Breaks Taxi Driver's Arms".

Sounds like a no brainer doesn't it?
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

"...........PREHISTORIC MONOLITHIC AMPLIFIER.........................."


Shouldn't that read, " ........ PREHISTORIC STEREOLITHIC AMPLIFIER ......"?






"I have in mind an opera box; you, the listener, are in it, it is open at the front, closed at the back"




John, if you can tell me one recording you have in your collection that was recorded with the microphones placed in just such a position I might start to agree with you on that one point. But I don't believe I own any recordings that were made with the mics positioned to pick up sound in that way. Studio recordings are one thing but a symphony or chamber piece is not recorded with mics stuck in the corners of the hall.
If you would take my question and answer what I proposed as the more realistic mic set up then you would see the folly of your placement of microphones or ears or whatever. You changed the subject and I know you don't like it when that is done to your argument. Take three mics placed in a LOGICAL fashion as I described and tell me what you get on the mix down that your speakers have to reproduce.




 

Marc C
Unregistered guest
Guys,

Thanx! What can I say, after listening to music through a boombox all my life, I essentially have more quality cranking to do. Am pretty familiar with the Klipsch lineup - heard they were a bit bright - but will run something warm through 'em.

Considered DJ stores, but most DJ setups I've heard make your ears bleed - not in the good way (if there is a good way) - but glaringly bright. But will still investigate.

Speaking of libations - guess who participated in a "focus group" for 2 hours discussing potential new blended scotches that may hit the market ("yes, that bottle looks like it's for a scotch-drinker") and then sampling the top three? Yes - yours truly. I walked out with a nice buzz, $125, and half a sandwich. Yes, this dog's butt does catch the occasional ray of sunshine...
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2208
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

"You changed the subject and I know you don't like it when that is done to your argument. " It was not my intention to change the subject, and if I did it unintentionally, and it drew attention away from your argument, then I apologise. You are quite correct about my not liking this treatment, myself!

My point is even more simply stated: loudspeakers in front of you cannot give you sound from behind you, or at the side of you. There is a lot to say about where to put microphones, how many, and what sort to use, but no microphone placement can give sound from around you when the signal is reproduced from speakers placed in front of you. Unless you count reflections from the walls of your listening room, like Mr Bose, and the KEF KIT.

If I have missed a point, please be patient. This thread is fun to surf on, but let us try keep a space for a sustained argument.

To repeat:


At a normal performance of anything, the sound comes to you from all around.....

So we need "surround sound" to recreate the sound of the real thing; the experience of being there, at the performance.

If that is what we want.


If it is not what we want, then there is no basis for a discussion; it is all a question of individual preference.

I am trying to find a path between "anything goes" solipsism (remember the hippie slogan "if it feels good, do it"?) and the iron hand of the absolutist who insists there is only one way, and he/she (the latter if a Nun) alone knows it.

In my view, this is a serious general issue.

Not wishing to change gear yet again, but get back right on track, here are three multichannel discs which, in my opinion, re-create the sound of the recorded performances more accurately than could ever be done in stereo.

• The Sixteen. Spem in Alium. Coro. (4.0) My nomination for the best recording, ever, apart from a few clumsy edits.

• London Mozart Players. Vivaldi Four Seasons etc. Naxos. (5.0)

• Orebro Chamber Orchestra. Mozart Flute Concerti. Naxos (4.1; says "5.1" on the box).

Jan, could you nominate say three stereo recordings for which the claim could be made that they re-create the sound of the recorded performances more accurately than could ever be done in with multichannel?

I would love to give them a try. Isn't this a way to make some headway here?

PS I have not got into the excellent thread "Rate you hi-res discs here" because it is about what music people like, not recording and sound quality. These are completely separate issues.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2209
Registered: Dec-03
MR,

I have no particular grudge against taxi drivers. Just try to stay in the Commonwealth, please.... Otherwise there is no defence against everything being run by politicians. Since they all seek power, they are unfit to represent people who do not. Which is most of us. I speak as a common man.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2210
Registered: Dec-03
Marc,

Consider KEF Reference Model 207, or KEF Q7 (cheaper). There is also a Q11 for US only, don't know why.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 771
Registered: Aug-04
John A

He who breaks taxi driver's arms wishes not to stay in the Commonwealth. However, the man named "The Man Of Steel" by Mr Bush does. On the political compass, Jan would side with the arm-breaker and Rick would root for Superman.



BTW - I could not for the life of me consider you as a common man - more of a rarer breed methinks :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2211
Registered: Dec-03
Mr Rantz,

He who breaks taxi driver's arms wishes not to stay in the Commonwealth. However, the man named "The Man Of Steel" by Mr Bush does.

When you enter the polling booth, MR, duty will speak clearly to you, I am sure, and, afterwards, taxi drivers throughout Australia will then be able ply their trade in peace. We need to stick together in these troubled times.

Just to be sure you do not waver, I suggest not watching "Ned Kelly" until after the election. Mind you, Ned seemed keen on appealing to Victoria herself for justice (hard to come by in the territory named after her, in the 1870s), and would probably have broken taxi drivers' necks, instead. As always, it is not clear who is on which side.

I assure you that I am a common man. Just not the common man. There are many of us, and different common men have different ideas. Long may it be.

Jan would side with the arm-breaker Yes, I am afraid so. The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

No worries, mate.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2212
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

At least we agree on Quad ESLs. Marc would be OK, he could go on using them, they go into overload protection. Wish they could be used to broadcast the US presidential race. No offence. It matters, I know...
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 532
Registered: Dec-03
Careful John!

In your last few posts you mentioned her (the nun) and Hell. You are going to get it all started up again. It's been nice and peaceful, but you had to bring it up.

As to the taxi drivers, obviously you haven't ridden in one in New York City. Enough said on that.



Hey Sister, wanna help me rub my cones?
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 772
Registered: Aug-04
John A

I have always considered myself a thoughtful and dutiful citizen. Politics are a necessary evil and I know the future of our country is relying on good people like myself to weigh the options very carefully. I have already begun this process:


eeny meenie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 773
Registered: Aug-04
"Hey Sister, wanna help me rub my cones?"

Rick - again, too close for comfort :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2213
Registered: Dec-03
My Rantz,

I have already begun this process:
eeny meenie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Wonderful! I agree. They are all politicians, that's the problem. Keeping a Head of State who isn't, seems only common sense, to me. Heredity will throw up the power-hungry and corrupt now and again, but electing people does it every time.

Personally I would have voted for Ned Kelly. Great film, really. I wonder where he would be on the political compass.

Rick,

No offence. Yes, careful. Those sisters know more than they let on, you know.
 

Classical 1
Unregistered guest
Excuse me, gents, but I'm a bit confused (not uncommon for me). Did one or both or all of you either grow up in a Catholic orphanage, or attend Catholic schools? You so often refer to "nuns," that I wonder.
Tonight's VP debate should be good - both are skilled Pit Bulls, and better at debate than their respective "bosses." Eeny meenie? Well, not here in our country! Nearly everyone I contact regularly by e-mail has formed a rather solid position - unlike so many elections in years past. My associate down in Florida says everybody feels under the magnifying glass, after the 2000 fiasco, so I should get there just in time for the Final Push. My "official" residence is there, for tax reasons, so I'll be going to use the machines that are getting so much attention, and so many challenges.
Strange, to know that this message goes out on digital phone service to Florida, then is routed out from there on our mini-server at the office. I don't understand how it works, but our office-guru set it all up, as I need Internet service wherever I go. Have a cell phone for that very reason - can hook into the Dell 8600 and the backup 1100. Do any of you, by chance, use the wireless "hot spots?" I've done it several times, mostly in airports or Starbucks restaurants. Has always worked flawlessly for me, with very low-cost charges - and sometimes free.
By the way, yes, I have heard the Shostakovich jazz suite - and liked with some reservations. I'm not always sure that music of his generation touches me as much as does the music of say, Mozart of Haydn - to each his own, I guess. But after a stressful day, I need dissonance like another hole in the head. The "moderns" I leave for weekends or slack weeks when I can listen and learn without outside pressures.
More later. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2214
Registered: Dec-03
Having re-read that last post, I must make clear that I am not advocating return to hereditary monarchy. Even I am not that reactionary. The big advantage of elected politicians is that we can get rid of them. I think I remember a veteran of the UK Left, Tony Benn, had a simple list of four questions for all who hold political office.

How did you obtain your position of power?
What are you going to do with it?
Who are you accountable to?
How can we get rid of you?

I can't help thinking Jan will readily identify with Ned Kelly, as I did. Sorry to keep on. The more I think about that movie, the more I like it. Will definitely watch it again.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Marc - The current Klipsch line is a far cry from the originals designed by Paul himself. The Klipsch line went for 30+ years with only minor variations to the products due to changes in technology and the source of the drivers upgrading to suit manufacturing needs. The line up of Horn, Belle, LaScalla, Cornwall and Heresy stayed unchanged from the mid 60's to the mid 90's. The original Cornerhorns were designed in 1946, when a 15 watt tube amp was high power, and remain in the line today with only minor variations from the original product.
If you look at current, new speakers you will find a different sound than what Klipsch started with. But that is true of many speaker, and amplifier, manufacturers whose name is used to sell a product the original designers wouldn't recognize or endorse.
The Klipsch line I described is still on the bright side of neutral though less than what I have heard from the curent line up. But that seems to be a typical "sound" when you get into speakers that have a higher than normal efficiency. Dome tweeters and unloaded (as opposed to horn loaded) woofers have a limit to how efficient they can be. It is not impossible to find a "conventional" speaker that will have more than a 92dB sensitivity but that is the point where you usually make the jump to a horn for its added ability to play loud. So the answer to your question must be based on how loudly you want to play your music to unwind. With sufficient amplifier power you can get awfully loud with a 92dB speaker. More than enough to break any lease I have ever had. Though if the neighbors are there helping you unwind, probably not enough to get the police called. With 104db Horns the neighbors are likely to call the police especially if they are in the same room.
So how loud is loud to you?



 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2215
Registered: Dec-03
Classical 1,

Do any of you, by chance, use the wireless "hot spots?". I do. I have made a few posts here from all sorts of places; airports, hotels, cafés. We even have our own, at home, and we can send iTunes through it, to the stereo. When we have roaming broad-band wireless networks, everywhere, like cell phone networks, a lot of things will be different.

I was surprised to discover Shostakovich is not at all dissonant. Qt No 6, C minor, 1960, for example; heard it for the first time yesterday. Really good, and about war and the abuse of power, alledgedly. Written partly in Dresden, still in ruins at that time.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2216
Registered: Dec-03
Sorry, that should be Qt No 8. No. 6 is good, too. They all are. Also, for "Orebro Chamber Orchestra" please read " Swedish Chamber Orchestra". It was recorded in Orebro. My mistake.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


When voting in Florida, I get the impression that asking for a "paper trail" is akin to walking out of the restroom with toilet paper stuck to your shoe. Jeb is still at his games. Sorry, Rick, but I thought George was less than honorable when, as Governor of Texas, he accepted $16 million from former business associates and then gave many of them political appointments; but, Jeb is in a different class of political slime. And, as little as I thought of the job Bushie did as Governor, Rick Perry has proved the old "be careful what you wish for" idiom.
It is merely a fact that nuns are pervasive.
As a life long Democrat I have a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter. But he was one of our more ineffective Presidents because he wasn't a "politician" in the sense of fitting into the world of Washington, D.C. The professional politicians tended to run over him and he found opposition within his own party.
I've seen "Ned Kelly" and thought his politics to be mostly admirable but found Mr. Jagger less so.



 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1591
Registered: Dec-03
while I would agree the older klipsch speakers are something to behold.
the refernce series of todays klipsch are fine speakers.

the internel wiring and parts used are actually of higher quality
then those of yesteryear.

and the drivers used in the reference series are exceptional.

If you want them to take a beeting though you still need to
stay with the upper half of the new line.

also like jan said speakers of about 92db sens is
where you start
to seperate the lines of "loud" speakers.

a lot of the jbls are in their two but they have some soso lines of speakers
so you need to be careful what your getting.

The s312 line "not s312II" was a very nice speaker.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest



John - You have again avoided my question.


"I have in mind an opera box; you, the listener, are in it, it is open at the front, closed at the back"


....


" .... if you can tell me one recording you have in your collection that was recorded with the microphones placed in just such a position I might start to agree with you on that one point."

Then you posted ...

"If I have missed a point, please be patient. ...
To repeat:
At a normal performance of anything, the sound comes to you from all around.....
So we need "surround sound" to recreate the sound of the real thing; the experience of being there, at the performance.
If that is what we want.
If it is not what we want, then there is no basis for a discussion; it is all a question of individual preference.
I am trying to find a path between "anything goes" solipsism (remember the hippie slogan "if it feels good, do it"?) and the iron hand of the absolutist who insists there is only one way, and he/she (the latter if a Nun) alone knows it.
In my view, this is a serious general issue.
Not wishing to change gear yet again, but get back right on track, here are three multichannel discs which, in my opinion, re-create the sound of the recorded performances more accurately than could ever be done in stereo.
The Sixteen. Spem in Alium. Coro. (4.0) My nomination for the best recording, ever, apart from a few clumsy edits.

London Mozart Players. Vivaldi Four Seasons etc. Naxos. (5.0)

Orebro Chamber Orchestra. Mozart Flute Concerti. Naxos (4.1; says "5.1" on the box).

Jan, could you nominate say three stereo recordings for which the claim could be made that they re-create the sound of the recorded performances more accurately than could ever be done in with multichannel?"






I will nominate my recordings that permit me a feeling of the original experience when I have a bit more time.
For now, John, can you tell me of a recording made in an opera box?
Is the sound coming from behind you the only criteria you have for me to feel a "re-creat[ion of] the sound of the recorded performances"?

I don't mean to be peevish about this, what you want from your system is your personal choice and we are arguing a point that has little resolution, but you seem to be mounting a rather didactic argument where I feel the "memory" of the experience is recreated as effectively, if not more so, by the emotional recall of an event. That is sufficient for my satisfaction that I was there. My position calls for a recollection (and recreation) of events I am familiar with from my personal experience. As such, Classical 1's description of fishing for trout in Colorado lets me recall the times when I went with my father to fish in the Big Thompson Canyon not far from where Classical 1 is probably wading in cold, rushing water being careful not to step on a slippery smooth stone on the river bottom. My experience of hearing a cello and piano in a live space is recalled by the Starker recordings. I can "feel" the space the perfomance occurred within. And part of that recollection comes from the reflections off my room's walls of the original reflections that occurred during the recording. They combine to make something more than the individual pieces and I can imagine the space Starker sat in. While this doesn't place me in the original space, neither have I yet been fully transported to Carnegie Hall by a multichannel recording. Have you?





 

Classical 1
Unregistered guest
Ah, yes, the Big Thompson - good trout there! I'm going through my yearly angst - wanting warm sailing weather, and hating to leave Colorado!
Sorry, John A - I did not mean to imply that all of S. is dissonant - but parts surely are! At least to my not-well-trained ears. However, I grant you a point here - he's a lot better than many of his peers: Berg, Messiaen (sp?) and Bartok, for example.
J Vigne - I KNOW that you've read Molly Ivins' books? I am strongly urging everybody to read "Shrub" and others. These will give you a further look into what Mr. Vigne discusses, and probably disgust you as well!
Paper trails in "Flaw-duh" as many locals pronounce it - ah, yes - our poor state is so used to flim-flam guys that another instance of fraud is often received as: "ah? really? Hmmm" I again urge all of you to read Carl Hiaasen's books - his latest is a best-seller, "Skinny Dip." He skewers about everybody in a state that sorely needs skewering! And a very fine writer!
More later. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2218
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

Thanks. If I have avoided your question, I assure you it is by accident, not design.

" .... if you can tell me one recording you have in your collection that was recorded with the microphones placed in just such a position"

Which position?

Ah, I see, in an opera box. No, the point is, if the speakers are in front of you, that is where the sound comes from. On playback. This is not sufficient to give your the sound of a real performance (except in the open air etc.) The microphone placement has to take into consideration where the speakers will be, on playback. If the engineer knows there will be only two speakers, and playback will be in stereo, the best he can do, without using room reflections, is to give you the sound you would have heard if you had been witnessing the performance from a box, open at the front, allowing sound in from the front, and not from the back. This can be pretty good, but cannot be like being there, unless you were there in a box.

That is a restriction on recreating the original sound.

"For now, John, can you tell me of a recording made in an opera box? "

No. My point is that any sort of stereo recording can only give you the sound you would have heard from within one. And that's with the best microphone placement.

"Is the sound coming from behind you the only criteria you have for me to feel a "re-creat[ion of] the sound of the recorded performances"? "

No, of course not. It is not a sufficient condition. But it is a necessary condition; except for recording of a performance in the open air etc., and if one is not to rely on room reflections.

"...neither have I yet been fully transported to Carnegie Hall by a multichannel recording. Have you? "

No.

Sound from behind, and from the side, is part of the experience of being there. I am sure that is part of what you heard in the 1812 and the Leningrad from the Dallas symphony orch.

Surround sound can give you sound from behind and from the side; it can supply a necessary part of recreating the experience of being there, and this is a part that stereo cannot provide.

There are many other necessary conditions, and some surround recordings make things much worse, I agree.

Surround sound has the capacity to deliver one part of the experience of being there that stereo cannot deliver, by its very nature.

In contrast, there is nothing that stereo can do that surround sound cannot do, too; the engineer has 2.0 at his disposal within, say, 5.1.

I would beam you "Spem in alium" if I could. I know a shop where it can be bought over the counter. Tallis wrote that to be performed all around the listener. 4.0 can give you that. Stereo cannot, unless you rely on reflections and your listening room is the size of a cathedral. It is, perhaps, an extreme case, but the same applies to all other performances in a real space larger than the listening room in which the speakers are located.

WE also have to consider the fact that some people like opera boxes, and, in fact, will pay a premium to hear things from within one.

But real sound comes from all around.

It is still that simple, in my opinion.

Questions addressed...?
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 533
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

As you eagerly await tonights debate, ponder this take on the war on terrorism. If I was "W" I would hire some of the boys to blow up a few Budweiser plants. Make it look like Osama's turds did it. The next morning every major news network will be showing live video of 4 million bass boats churning accross the Atlantic. They will be filled with Rednecks along with their hunting dogs, coolers, rifles and shotguns. Where are you gonna hide now Osama?
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 774
Registered: Aug-04
Classical 1

"Eeny meenie? Well, not here in our country! Nearly everyone I contact regularly by e-mail has formed a rather solid position - "

The same goes for me here in Aus - I think you realise my comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I am just making sure. I'd hate y'all to think I was that narrow. But it would not surprise me if fifty percent of the people in our country are! If only voting here was not mandatory.

And beware of the Nun - be very aware :-)

John A

Are you referring to the Jagger "Ned" or the Ledger "Ned"? If it is the latter then I agree with you. But while the storyline may have close to the political truth of the times, I believe a few liberties were taken in defining Ned's character. He was surely as much a rogue as he was a victim.


 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Rick - I think that is a terrific idea though I have friends from the St Louis area who probably still work for Auggie. In South St. Louis the aspiration was to work for Busch, the Post Office or the railroad. Many who chose the railroad found themself out of work by the 80's and so narrowed their goals to one of the other two.


John- More later but I have to apologize for my ignorance. Here in Dallas people buy box seats not for the aesthetic quailities but so they can be seen by those beneath them.



 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 534
Registered: Dec-03
.................CHENEY VS. EDWARDS..............

Doesn't seem fair does it? Kind of like turning a BADGER loose on a WEASEL!
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 407
Registered: Apr-04
This business of placing speakers on the floor has some merit. I've been testing the stands vs Rick's floor (upright, tilted) vs Jan's floor (sideways, tilted). In both instances of floor placement, the sound is significantly "better" in that the range is greater, the imaging is better, the sound is fuller/bigger than the stand placement. I didn't have any issues with voices feeling out of place.


Notes
Speakers: B&W CDM NT - 7 ft apart
Listening Position: 9 ft from speakers with 9 ft behind listening position to back wall
Floor placement: 1" wood blocks under front of speakers
Isolation: None

Songs:
Talking Heads - Once in a Lifetime
Suzanne Vega - Caramel
Jack Johnson - Cocoon
Miles Davis - Israel
India Arie - Ready for Love & Always in My Head
Cowboy Junkies - Sweet Jane
Johnny Cash - Folsom Prison Blues
Tift Merritt - Good Hearted Man
Ry Cooder - Mambo Sinuendo
Janes Addiction - Ocean Size

In nearly every instance, the presentation when the speakers were on their sides was preferred. The only exceptions were several songs that sounded boomy/muddy, including "Sweet Jane" and "Caramel". For those songs plus "Israel" I preferred the presentation of the speakers in the upright position. Israel did not sound boomy but I thought the upright position provided more clarity and detail in the instruments.

For speaker stands, I'm thinking of getting maple butcher blocks from a kitchen supply store to place each speaker on and use cones to tilt them. Any thoughts on this? Would the cones cut some of the muddiness of the speakers when they are on their side?

Surround system still unconnected (hidden message - Mac rules!) .......will try to have it back together by November 2, release date of Aimee Mann DVD. :-)
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Here are some nominations for stereo recordings that capture, for me, the sense of being at a performance.
The first is "The Weavers at Carnegie Hall",

http://www.epinions.com/musc_mu-417731?sp=imed

this recording has long been held in the highest regard as capturing the sense of being in the audience with all the sounds of the performance space present on the recording other than audience applause coming from behind the listener. It even has a sense of height, something stereo is not supposed to be able to accomplish.


Then there are:


At least 50% or more of any recording made by Mercury, Columbia, RCA, Capitol, EMI or Bluenote when three track recordings were the norm in the early days of stereo. More recently the recordings from Dorian, Wilson, Reference, and Chesky all tried to capture more than just a performance. The direct to disc LP recordings of the 70's and 80's often found more than just music in the record grooves. All these labels went back to minimal microphone techniques that placed an emphasis on capturing the space where the music occurred. A perennial favorite of the HiFi shops is "Jazz at the Pawnshop" which contains the ringing of cash registers and the trays of glasses being jostled around the space of the club. Due to the microphone placement a well set up system uses the phase relationships of the signals to often place sounds well out in front and to the side of the speakers. Phase shifts in the signals can create a soundfield that comes from the two front speakers and can be placed any where, roughly within a circle around the speakers, and into the room's space except behind the listener. I used to use a recording of Kraftwerk that electronically brought the sound around the speakers in a 360 degree trip that, as it came to the front of the space, often had clients leaning back to get away from the sound. As far as live recordings I have a Greatful Dead live recording, "Reckoning", which gives an excellent presentation of being in the audience at a live event. Presently the discs done by "Stereophile" and "HiFiNews" all try to capture the sound of the space and not just a performance.
That may sound like a lot of recordings but I had 50 years of discs to work with. The multichannel engineers have only been at this a few years, kinda.
I guess you and I still have a basic disagreement about what works for each of us, John. You seem to want all room reflections eliminated because they add something that I don't understand. To me the room reflections are something I work with because I can't eliminate them completely. And what is being reflected is the information from the recording, nothing else. You say, "The microphone placement has to take into consideration where the speakers will be, on playback"; but, if the recording is a stereo recording where else would the speakers be but in front of the listener? To me it doesn't seem hard to imagine that a microphone placed in the hall to gather information within the hall would be able to present that information back to the listener. Those in phase/out of phase sounds will be in the listener's room and the room's reflections of those sounds (and no others) will create a space that is recognizable as a larger space than a living room.
It is, to me a matter of what is left out of the sound that can make it more effective than when those sounds are there but not well done. The emotions that a good two channel recording can evoke are far more effective at bringing me to a space that I recognize as not my living room than most of what I have heard from multichannel. I find it not that different from watching a film noire with evocative shadows in black and white vs. "C.S.I." or "Law and Order" on TV with surround sound. Watch the thirties version of "Frankenstein" or "Dracula" and compare the feeling to a more contemporary version with its emphasis on gore. There is more than just good story telling that makes the classic films work. And the new versions too often rely on the "gee whiz" factor.
So if there are multichannel recordings that are excellent, I am all for that. As I have said before, the recordings I have heard that are good multichannel recordings are few. Those extra channels seem to give an engineer too many options. And I have not been transported to anywhere but my room any more, and most often less, than when I listen in stereo only. From what I read it is possible to fool the listener into a sense of "being there" with the very finest equipment and recordings. I also understand it is possible to send a man to the moon. If it stays a rarified situation that obtains this level of performance the future of multichannel is bleak. And I will be there, in the end with my two channels of music. Lord, I feel old!



 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Ghia - Glad to hear you're stll alive. How did you make out with the Dual? Did you find a copy of the Herb Alpert?

I would suggest that a large cone placed under the platform would significantly change the boominess of the speakers. Get a fairly thick cutting board so the speaker face ends up about 3" or so off the floor. I think the PlastiTak helps at the rear of the speaker and then I used the two pennies PlastiTak'd to the board (I used marble) to raise the speaker off the board slightly at the front.
Rick, what do you think?



 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 535
Registered: Dec-03
Ghia,

Glad to see you on the right track. Don't change a thing, except, move your listening position in to 5' away , and tell me what you think.........

Cheers!

On to the debate-report back later
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 408
Registered: Apr-04
Jan,

I ended up making out with Mr. B and didn't get time to play with Dual. Plus, I was afraid of Dual. lol

Will try again this weekend since it seems like a weekend kind of thing. But, will get your gauge back to you this week.

Onto the debate!
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 775
Registered: Aug-04
"Watch the thirties version of "Frankenstein" or "Dracula" and compare the feeling to a more contemporary version with its emphasis on gore. There is more than just good story telling that makes the classic films work. And the new versions too often rely on the "gee whiz" factor.
"


Jan,

Not wishing to alter the theme of your post, but I will state that I agree with your above statement with the exception of "Bram Stokers Dracula" - the version with the Count played by the amazing Gary Oldman. The surround sound was mostly subtle, having a great influence on the mood of the film and then more prominent in the dramatic moments. It's a shame the current brand of producers are intent in creating films with emphasis only (as you say) on gore and/or special effects and seem to think that we don't want or deserve any substance.

"As I have said before, the recordings I have heard that are good multichannel recordings are few."

Finally, we have an admission of sorts :-)

I know you are directing your post to John A, but I'll add my bit anyway. I do not doubt that the stereo you hear would surpass the audio quality of the stereo I hear, given your level equipment and expertise however, the sound I hear does have, I believe, a reasonably good quality: clarity, seperation, depth, good definition in highs, mids and blah blah blah. And with good quality recordings, I too can get very involved in stereo listening and like it immensely.

I don't know how many multi channel recordings you've heard and on what equipment, and I don't think for a moment that you would not have had it set up correctly, but this, along with equipment, is where I believe some people do not do hi-res surround justice.

However, I believe, that well recorded/engineered hi-res multi-channel music suprasses stereo for my enjoyment levels. I am well over the ghee whiz factor and I still find the depth and spaciousness an added benefit to my musical appreciation. I am not talking about definition - this, of course, is present in both stereo and multi but, from all the information I have been reading, the future of multi-channel is far from bleak.

Whether or not MC puts me in the studio or on the stage, or puts me there or places them in my room or puts us all in the toilet, doesn't matter to me - I am not that fanatical - just so long as I can sit back and let the sound I hear put a smile on my face and make my feet wanna start tapping.

All Dogs,

We are fortunate to live in countries where we have choices and we can exchange opinions about all sorts of subjects without fear of having our heads blown off. And all of us here, participating in this home audio forum have a common link: a love of music and a quality of sound.

That's why I like those who participate in the old dogs group whether often or occassionaly, we have our opinions and our disagreements are are only jocular.

Except we do need to do something about you Mac owners. Come on - crawling on the floors, tilting speakers back, wooden platforms (gotta be maple), brass cones (Kegger will agree that any metal would do), PlastiTak-ing pennies to the floor. Look, it's okay, we understand. We really do. But look, when they come please don't put up any resistance - they will only be there to help you.

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2219
Registered: Dec-03
Just to say well done, MR, I wondered why Jan mentioned Jagger. I was banging on about the Ledger one:
Ned Kelly (2003).

I agree with you; a few liberties taken with the historical accuracy (so Mrs A tells me; and she has read Carey's "The true story of the Ned Kelly gang"). But I found the broad picture very convincing. In my time I have met so many jumped-up, self-important little crooks in positions of authority; the Victoria police seemed to depict them very well. And I loved the Kellys. They had their own morality, and strong convictions. Family values, I think. The same reason I was cheering for the Corleones in The Godfather. The collision of different systems of morality always engages me and makes me think, and enjoy. The perfect antidote to van Helsing which had no spark of interest for me, wasn't going anywhere, was disrespectful, lurid, exploitative, and unmitigated b******s. IMHO.

I am not a very sophicticated movie-watcher, I readily admit! It is like music, please give me a beginning, a middle, and an end.

I just loved the whole ambience of Ned Kelley 2003.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 536
Registered: Dec-03
When I was a child ......................




I




had a fever.....................


My hands felt like two...................



No wait...............


Daisy.....Daisy........give me your answer......










DO........





I'm half...................................



What did he mean................................










Jan?
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2220
Registered: Dec-03
Jan,

Here in Dallas people buy box seats not for the aesthetic quailities but so they can be seen by those beneath them.

Sublime. I always wondered why people pay extra for worse sound, and to be distanced from the music. I am sure it is the same everywhere!

Watch Rattle conduct if you want to see total and immersion and engagement with the music. Can't see him in an opera box.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2221
Registered: Dec-03
I have to leave for work in a short while and concede Jan that round, on points. But I shall be bouncing out of my corner next round.

As I have said before, the recordings I have heard that are good multichannel recordings are few. Those extra channels seem to give an engineer too many options

I agree completely. A repeated failing is presenting a sort of audio magnifying glass, which moves, for singers, solists, etc.; they get bigger and smaller all the time. It can be done, and is done, with stereo, but 5.1 seems to tempt engineers even more with such effects. One of the best recordings I have heard recently is Berstein conducting NY Philharmonic performing Copland, an early 60s LP.

MR,

You sum up beautifully. I think we should maybe take stock of people's positions on "music always sounds better in stereo".

Where I agree completely with Jan is that if recording engineers do not know where to put microphones, and listeners do not know where to put speakers, and neither of those knows nor cares what the other thinks and intends, then MC gives us a whole, glorious new world of things to get horribly wrong.

I tried a Mac on Saturday. With fries. Wherever I put the speakers, there was still too much salt.

Those amps aren't for the likes of us, MR, with our Marantzes and NADs. They are the audio equivalent of the opera box. Trouble is, I am persuaded, and want one.

Sorry to make terse responses to interesting and persuasive posts, written with care.

I would love to hear that demo of sound coming from behind, but in reality only from two channels in front. I do think it has to rely on room reflections. When you begin to stir in differences in rooms, though, then that, too, is probably a reason for wondering what many people are actually getting from surround sound.

In terms of "being there", of course, if that is what we want. Or in terms of the performers "being here". They are quite different objectives, and require different recording techniques. I wonder how many recording engineers even think about how things will be played back, and why.

At least these days. "How old I feel". Amen to that.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 776
Registered: Aug-04
John A

" The perfect antidote to van Helsing which had no spark of interest for me, wasn't going anywhere, was disrespectful, lurid, exploitative, and unmitigated b******s. IMHO.
"


Yeah, I agree totally, but I do like Kate :-)

Also watched "The Day After Tomorrow" last night. Now is that after today or is it to be tomorrow perpetually? And what happened? How is Mexico going to cope? And if the ice thaws will cholera kill off all the remaining inhabitants? Good computer graphics but just another sleeper!


"Watch Rattle conduct"

Which reminds me of one of the funniest movie moments ever. Don't recall the name of the film but it was the one in which Norman Wisdom became the conductor when pushed on stage with the fairy-floss stick stuck to his hand. Pure joy that was!

Rick,

That's right - let it out. It always stems from blocking out a horrible childhood event.

Ghia,

"I ended up making out with Mr. B and didn't get time to play with Dual."

So it seems you're not a true audio afficionado after all :-)



 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2222
Registered: Dec-03
Good, strong points, as always, MR.

Where we are, The Day After Tomorrow does not come out until The Week After Next. Or possibly the other way around. I have promised the family it will be a treat. I imagine it will check out the sub., and we can play spot-the-goof. When you have a plot that is written as a vehicle for special effects, there is only trouble. Loved the gratuituous Russian ship, with its precious vial of penicillin.

One could apply the line about The Titanic:

"Waiter, I know I ordered ice, but this is ridiculous".
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Larry King: "Ann Richards, was Dick Cheney more impressive than George Bush was last week?"

Ann Richards: "Yes, but that isn't a very steep hill to climb."

That says it all.

I call it a draw with Cheney scoring points for not having a cardiac attack on stage and Edwards not looking like he was in the principle's office.

I'd totally forgotten they had redone Mr. J's performance with a decent actor. The movie came and went quickly here in Dallas. We are not a city that likes movies about the type of people the forum won't let me spell out but they are people that think system of governance and systems of thought should be challenged every now and then and are willing to throw something heavy, and possibly lit on fire, through a few windows to make that point. So we don't watch movies about those kinds of people here. Unless there's a football game involved.



I don't feel the amount of money spent on a system or the "level" of equipment has much to do with whether you can enjoy the music. I still think I could probably live with nothing more than a Tivoli Table Radio. So whatever you own I always assume you chose it because, at least at one time, you enjoy what it does. I therefore don't believe whether I have Mac or you have this or that should matter to what we percieve.
My disagreement with multichannel, in its present state, is what I feel it has promised and what it has delivered and what that portends for the future of not only surround but the music we will be able to purchase.


"Whether or not MC puts me in the studio or on the stage, or puts me there or places them in my room or puts us all in the toilet, doesn't matter to me - I am not that fanatical - just so long as I can sit back and let the sound I hear put a smile on my face and make my feet wanna start tapping."

Maybe I'm reading more into the concept of surround formats because I had to come up with a rationale for all the various devices I sold through the years that tried to do essentially what multichannel is now promising. Whether it was CD-4, bucket brigade digital delay or early Dolby the manufacturers always stressed the idea of bringing the sound of the concert hall into your home. What they wanted the customer to believe was they had a method to capture some sound of the performance that had been left out of every recording ever made until they came up with their brilliant idea. If you bought their product, they promised you would hear what you heard in the concert hall and the experience would be "just like being there". And it never was and the products disappeared after awhile.
If the experience of multichannel is just to make you happy then it can easily resolve that requirement by producing more DSOTM's. That recording suits MC well and benefits from the conversion. But my Shostakovich, Bucky Pizzarelli or Eric Clapton doesn't put me or the performer anywhere we've not been before. If the intention of MC is, as I believe it is, to bring me closer to "being" at the performance or the performers "being" in my room, I can't see where the concept has been fulfilled. I find myself no where that I can't get to without the extra channels. I can enjoy the experience, that is one thing. It can make my toe tap and my face smile but that is all together different from bringing the performers closer to me.
So we can give it points for being able to play music well. But does it live up to what the public has been promised for the past thirty years? I think not.
If surround can't do something better than stereo, why bother?
To take my device of the classic films a step further let's say we are watching "Dracula". The effect of the line is not improved by hearing from behind me, "I don't drink ... wine."
In "Frankenstien" echoes from the sides and behind me do not alter my reaction to, "It's ALIVE!" In mono those words have more impact than they possibly could in surround because your attention is focused on the meaning of the words. This is where suround fails me in film and in music. (If you have not seen Pierce Brosnan in "Evelyn" please give this film a try. The story is told simply with good characters and a firm grasp on the story line. There are no explosions, no effects, most of the film is in mono and yet it is a movie I'll remember far longer than "The Hulk".)
Film aside (I still like the effects of a good movie), music can be made cheaper by bad surround. By that I'm not arguing whether MC can please someone but whether "pleasing" someone should be the only objective of the music industry. Compact Disc pleased enough people that it became the predominant format due to its convenience. That alone did not make it any better than LP's at making music. (I'm not arguing LP's are better; but, just that CD's are at the least no better than LP's at their basic function.) CD's eliminated (for the most part) the noises of LP's but that did not make CD's better at making music. To make music better than LP's or tapes, CD's would have to bring you closer to the real performance. That is the promise of MC and that is where it fails the test. Where CD's made music more convenient but not better than LP's, if MC can make music no more accessible than stereo then there is no reason for it other than the gee whiz factor of the occassional DSOTM. If what makes you smile is that MC is different than stereo then there is no reason for MC to exist.
The classic question in audio is, "Is it better or just different?" How many audio components have been traded away because there was something different available. I know of several pieces of McIntosh that were traded for no more than something different. If MC is just more of what stereo can achieve there is no reason for MC other than to let the music and audio industry dictate what we will buy. From the track record of these two industries I have little faith that they are going to have my best interest at heart. I think we all have agreed on that long ago.
The message MC gives to the bean counters is "more of the same". Why improve when no one cares? If improvement is not the requirement then what is the goal? To make something different? That's rather easier, by comparison, than making something better. An acceptance of MC as something we will pay more for means we will pay more for anything different. I tried long ago to stop paying for something that was merely not what I already had. So unless MC can produce on the promise I believe it offered us then I do think the future of MC, as a step forward, is bleak. As a marketing device its future couldn't look better.


"Van Helsing" was a piece of crap!!!



 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


I guess I got confused and thought "Groundhog Day" had been remade into "The Day After Tomorrow". First "Ned Kelly" now this. I've got to start paying more attention. Oh, well.





"I ended up making out with Mr. B and didn't get time to play with Dual."

"So it seems you're not a true audio afficionado after all :-)"

No, my friend, Ghia still qualifies as an audio afficianado. She just may not qualify as an old of a dog as we are.




 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Ghia - Might I suggest you massage the Dual's gimbals. I understand that helps things out.



 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1592
Registered: Dec-03
well i believe mr. rantz and myself have the same view.

we were not promised that mc would create a feeling of being
their or it being here so that does not factor into our liking or
disliking of the format.

niether of us care if it does.

we enjoy the "more music feeling" of being surrounded.
when a good rendition "in our oppinion" is produced.

and to me surround sound is a must for an action flick or scifi.
when your sitting their watching a scary movie and all of a sudden
a quick sound comes from behind you or to the side it can make you jump!
that is the type of thing surround does for me in movies.
the sound coming from where you would expect the sound to come from
based on what is going on in the movie. that makes it more
realistic for me!

 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest


Kegger - Surround can stay in movies. My gosh, what would "The Hulk" be without surround sound?
If "Evelyn" is not your cup of tea, try "The Cooler". Another movie with no need for special effects.

I'm not arguing that you guys shouldn't enjoy what you like. More than two channels just hasn't got me excited yet. I'm hoping it will sometime soon.



 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 777
Registered: Aug-04
Well, fine Jan, but you did not quite give an accurate response as per what I stated:

"However, I believe, that well recorded/engineered hi-res multi-channel music suprasses stereo for my enjoyment levels. I am well over the ghee whiz factor and I still find the depth and spaciousness an added benefit to my musical appreciation. I am not talking about definition - this, of course, is present in both stereo and multi but, from all the information I have been reading, the future of multi-channel is far from bleak.

Whether or not MC puts me in the studio or on the stage, or puts me there or places them in my room or puts us all in the toilet, doesn't matter to me - I am not that fanatical - just so long as I can sit back and let the sound I hear put a smile on my face and make my feet wanna start tapping."


Where the recording puts you or puts the performers sounds like an art critic raving over a painting as far as I am concerned, because unless you can hear the exact live performance followed directly by the MC or stereo recording of that exact performance then no one can possibly know how right they got it. And even if that was possible, no one can even prove as to how true the original performance was recorded - could one memorize every nuance of sound in the performance to be able to testify to the accuracy of the recording? I seriously doubt it.

If one really prefers what they hear in MC over the same recording in 2C but they don't believe it or either format puts them there at the the original performance then must MC still be considered a failure? And how is one supposed to "be there" or "have them in my room" when the recording was done in the studio?

One can only assume if one's recording sounds close to the original. If one feels one's recording puts one in the hall or studio or even at Woodstock then well and good, happiness will prevail if that is what is important to one.

But, again, to me it's the music!

And if MC can put a bigger smile on my face than the same 2C recording then it's a bl00dy big success as far as I'm concerned. :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1593
Registered: Dec-03
I've seen both eleven and the cooler, really liked the cooler.

I do agree with you a good movie does not half to have great special
effects or surround sound.

but to me most can at least be enhanced by surround.

I really like your last statemeant jan.

also some movies aren't that great but if you add the surround and
effects can make them watchable.

It's that movie that has everything that would be incredable.
yu know one that has a great story,directed well, acted well,
great score with awsome video and sound now that would be something,
still searching for it! lord of the rings "all 3"
come pretty close.



I would like to put in a quality surround type movie
and have you here mine. one that allways comes to mind
is lost in space. a decent movie but the surround is incredable.
 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 778
Registered: Aug-04
Kegger

I agree. No one promised me anything either!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1594
Registered: Dec-03
rantz I think that is where me, you, jan, and john a.

have our BIG diffrences in what we look for with our music!

 

Silver Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 779
Registered: Aug-04
Kegger, to me a recording will either satisfy my senses or it won't. Worrying about where they put the darn mike or whether or not they didn't use a channel in the MC mix or whatever is not going to change anything. It will either be good, bad or somewhere in the middle.

And often we are all different in whether we like what we hear. I am going to hire that "Lost in Sapce" you keep mentioning. The sound (I chose DTS 5.1)in Day after Tomorrow was good, but not Earth shattering if you'll forgive the pun. I expected better.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1595
Registered: Dec-03
I generally prefer dts over dolby digital myself.

It kinda surprises me the new "old" versions of the starwars are
dolby digital. but at least they are ex.
yu know the new ones that just came out.

dts es descrete movies are generally amazing sounding. "when played on 7.1"

yes the first half hour of lost in space is very intense, a workout
for the whole system. then it gets into the story line but
keeps up the good sound quality. i believe it's dolby digital 5.1 also.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 409
Registered: Apr-04
MR wrote:
Except we do need to do something about you Mac owners. Come on - crawling on the floors, tilting speakers back, wooden platforms (gotta be maple), brass cones (Kegger will agree that any metal would do), PlastiTak-ing pennies to the floor. Look, it's okay, we understand. We really do. But look, when they come please don't put up any resistance - they will only be there to help you.

This has less to do with Mac than it does with having bookshelf speakers. I believe you have floor standers so this probably isn't as relevant for your system (except now you may want to take them off the stands, lol). For those with bookshelf speakers, this is an experiment to try even if you don't have a Mac.

So it seems you're not a true audio afficionado after all :-)

Just know how to prioritize every once in awhile! lol

Jan,

I agree, debate was pretty much a draw. Except Mr. Edwards point of administration lies and distortion was underscored by Mr. Cheney's outright lie that he has not tried to link 9/11 & Saddam Hussein. There is empirical evidence to the contrary, including campaign video and political talk show appearances. And, based on video shown this a.m., Mr. Cheney also lied about the debate being the first time he had ever met Mr. Edwards. Lies, lies and more lies. There is a pattern of deception to be found if you pay attention.
 

Silver Member
Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 410
Registered: Apr-04
For those with bookshelf speakers, this is an experiment to try even if you don't have a Mac.

Or, if there's a possiblity you've been blessed with a small degree of insanity.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 268
Registered: Mar-04
Great taste....less filling....

Sheeeeesh, just enjoy the beer. No one is right, no one is wrong. Mug or stein? Who the hell cares!! Sometimes I feel like a lager, sometimes a stout....sometimes just a glass of water. Deal with it.
 

Classical 1
Unregistered guest
Lady and gentlemen: I find your continuing argument over how or whether to get "accurate sound" very interesting. It can't be done - unless. Well, even then it's problematic - to say the least.
I do not have an "upscale" stereo system - nor do I wish to spend the money for Krell, MacIntosh, etc., equipment. That said, I do have a private system for enhanced musical enjoyment.
I make it a point to attend "live" concerts in as many cities as possible on my cross-country tours. Then - once I've heard an orchestra, chamber group or chorus that I especially like (such as a favorite - Chanticleer) THEN I try to find the same number recorded by the same group. Even if the disc came from a different hall, the memory of having heard that group "live" is rekindled whenever I hear the recording.
I can't deal with "accurate," because I don't know what that means, other than possibly to have a setup that gives sound without too much bass or treble emphasis - or major distortion.
This little "hobby" of mine keeps up my musical interest, and gives me a ton of memories every time I insert a CD into the Denon.
Here in Colorado, I have Paradigm Studio 20 speakers, an Onkyo receiver, and Denon 2200 player. In Florida, I have another 2200, a pair of Paradigms (sorry, model escapes me, but they're larger) and a large Sony receiver. No, not the top end, but they make rather nice music.
I don't have "surround" in Colorado, but do in Florida, using some Polk RTi4 speakers (actually bought at local "garage" sale) for surrounds. Paid only $100 for the pair - a bargain, I guess.
Now, with this equipment in mind, my chances of getting truly "accurate" sound are minimal - but it's good enough, and I get lost in the music, not in the speaker-sound or whatever.
Actually, I often prefer the sound in the Toyota mini-van! Don't know what they put in, but it suits me fine as I drive along I-70, or whatever.
Again - it's the music, and as often as possible, a group and piece that I've heard "live" in the past.
More later. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2223
Registered: Dec-03
Classical 1,

"THEN I try to find the same number recorded by the same group...."

That is the way to do it, I think.

But surely it still helps if it is a good recording, so you are less distracted by irrelevant differences between what you hear now and what you heard then.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us