Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Stereophile again!

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 4:06:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Today I received the February issue of Stereophile. A letter on page 11
had the title "not so nice magazine". The writer really took them to
task for their misleading reviews. I'm surprised that they printed it.


---MIKE---

More about : stereophile

Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:22:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

---MIKE--- <twinmountain@webtv.net> wrote:
> Today I received the February issue of Stereophile. A letter on page 11
> had the title "not so nice magazine". The writer really took them to
> task for their misleading reviews. I'm surprised that they printed it.

I suppose that will have to suffice for 'controversy' in audiophilia.
Meanwhile, I've been reading back issues of 'The Audio Critic'
(they're offering a deal on 19 back issuesat their website) -- bracing stuff!
My only question is why I haven't seen Peter Aczel on Usenet or WWW
audio forums -- his personality, ('tart' would be putting it mildly)
would seem a natural fit.




--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:27:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 2005-01-20 20:06:55 -0500, twinmountain@webtv.net (---MIKE---) said:

> Today I received the February issue of Stereophile. A letter on page 11
> had the title "not so nice magazine". The writer really took them to
> task for their misleading reviews. I'm surprised that they printed it.


Does not surprise me one bit for 3 reasons:

1. Stereophile has a great deal of journalistic integrity.
2. This will also help to generate some controversy.
3. If Stereophile does not do as the person accuses, they have no
issues with publishing the letter.
Related resources
January 21, 2005 10:31:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

twinmountain@webtv.net (---MIKE---) wrote:

>Today I received the February issue of Stereophile. A letter on page 11
>had the title "not so nice magazine". The writer really took them to
>task for their misleading reviews. I'm surprised that they printed it.
>
>
> ---MIKE---
Why are you surprised as it makes perfectly good sense to me? They
have taken quite a lot of heat recently regarding positive reviews of
snake oil or poorly performing products. One of the best ways to
counter this kind of publicity is to deny, deny, and deny these claims
while allowing others to comment.
The magazine can then point to this generous policy while appearing to
let the other side have their say. One only has to observe what the
magazine actually _DOES_ in print and not what they _SAY_ that they
do. As long as they continue their current policy without actual
change then their true motives remain perfectly clear IMHO. To me,
those motives are to cater to an audience that does not necessarily
care about what is real but would rather see, in writing, articles
that support their beliefs. At the same time the magazine continues
making lots of money from advertisers of said products. Profit is
certainly not a dirty word, but allowing positive articles about snake
oil or unproven products is dishonest at best.

Richard


Richard
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:33:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hell, I'm surprised that you read it. I grew tired of the "cancel my
subscription" type rants long ago!
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"---MIKE---" <twinmountain@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:cspkjf01sam@news4.newsguy.com...
> Today I received the February issue of Stereophile. A letter on
> page 11
> had the title "not so nice magazine". The writer really took them
> to
> task for their misleading reviews. I'm surprised that they printed
> it.
>
>
> ---MIKE---
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 3:24:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I had major issues with them 20 years ago respecting the people who were
doing their reviews.

I was particularly incensed by a featured review extolling the sonic
virtues of a LP recording of the tone poem Church Windows by Respighi.

The reviewer began by extolling the acoustic wonders of the performing venue
which on investigation turned out to be that of a local high school. The
ensemble of the orchestra, a horrible pick up scratchy band led by a non
entity and the biggest blooper of all; expressions of wonderment of the
colossal timbers of the featured "mighty" pipe organ which was obviously an
electronic abomination perhaps on loan from a local funeral parlor.

All this led to the inescapable conclusion that the reviewer (very prominent
at the time) knew nothing of the sound of a major symphony orchestra playing
in a respectable concert hall!

I am of the opinion that the recording at issue (made on a shoe string)
probably presented the performance pretty much as it actually sounded. If
the review had been cast from that prospective I would have let it pass.
But, to pretend that this pathetic venture into the world of sonic block
busters represented some sort of artistic and audio milestone was totally
out of place.

In protest I fired off a letter to Stereophile (which they published) and
canceled my subscription (which they accepted)

The above episode led to my disinterest in hi-end audio for two decades.

Richard Smith
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 3:31:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Christine Allison" <christinea@att.net> wrote in message
news:ct43kl01lrp@news1.newsguy.com...
>I had major issues with them 20 years ago respecting the people who were
> doing their reviews.
>
> I was particularly incensed by a featured review extolling the sonic
> virtues of a LP recording of the tone poem Church Windows by Respighi.
>
> The reviewer began by extolling the acoustic wonders of the performing
> venue
> which on investigation turned out to be that of a local high school. The
> ensemble of the orchestra, a horrible pick up scratchy band led by a non
> entity and the biggest blooper of all; expressions of wonderment of the
> colossal timbers of the featured "mighty" pipe organ which was obviously
> an
> electronic abomination perhaps on loan from a local funeral parlor.
>
> All this led to the inescapable conclusion that the reviewer (very
> prominent
> at the time) knew nothing of the sound of a major symphony orchestra
> playing
> in a respectable concert hall!
>
> I am of the opinion that the recording at issue (made on a shoe string)
> probably presented the performance pretty much as it actually sounded. If
> the review had been cast from that prospective I would have let it pass.
> But, to pretend that this pathetic venture into the world of sonic block
> busters represented some sort of artistic and audio milestone was totally
> out of place.
>
> In protest I fired off a letter to Stereophile (which they published) and
> canceled my subscription (which they accepted)
>
> The above episode led to my disinterest in hi-end audio for two decades.
>
> Richard Smith

I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording
media, (what will be better than CD?) and loudspeaker design, (better
drivers and DSP EQ), the high end is mostly about hype and myth.

Amps and preamps have been able to reproduce cleanly for decades, CD's are
producing exact copies of the master tape or whatever media the record
company uses, so what's left? Speakers! Truly the most important problem
to be solved is how to get the speakers to work in any given room without
adding significant distortion and without drastic changes in the way a given
recording was intended to sound, especially a live concert.

YMMV
January 26, 2005 6:15:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording
> media, (what will be better than CD?)

re-Recordable solid state storage media of a density which will allow me
to carry data of CD resolution with the form factor of a USB flashdrive.
100 CD's worth of storage would be a good start, but I'm not greedy and
would buy something with 50 CD's worth of density. Oh yeah, a price of
about $35.00 would be nice. :-)

michael
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 3:45:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

> I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording
> media, (what will be better than CD?) and loudspeaker design, (better
> drivers and DSP EQ), the high end is mostly about hype and myth.>

Until someone discovers a new principal of transduction we are going to be
stuck with very imperfect sound reproducers.

I would like to point out that my remarks concern only music produced by
acoustic instruments playing music cast in the western art music form. I
recognize that these remarks are possibly non-applicable to most popular
music being performed today. Accordingly my views are almost certainly
meaningless to the needs of most.

That said I feel that without a doubt what the hi-end needs is to embrace
multi-channel recording and playback. As far as I am concerned, if I want
to hear a convincing recreation the sound of a symphony orchestra I have
only to play a good DVD with a DTS track and I am there. The weight and
texture of the bass, the sonic signature of the instruments and the ambiance
of the recording venue are frequently reproduced with startling immediacy!

It's a rare classical CD which has proper weight in the bass registers.

I speak with a bit of authority here. My daughter and my wife are concert
flute players. My other daughters boy friend is an accomplished
saxophonist. We have frequent visits by instrumentalists who frequently
pass their time by concretizing in my home. When I am home I experience at
least 4 hours of live acoustic music per day!

I am a subscriber to the Met Opera and frequently attend symphony orchestra
concerts and organ recitals. With all this I think that I know what live
acoustic music sounds like.

Shortly after I cancelled my Sterophile subscription I had the misfortune of
attending as a guest, one of Sterophiles Hi-End shows (in midtown
Manhattan.) After spending 4 hours listening to a variety of systems from
"budget" to almost six digits my wife and I agreed that not one single one
of them sounded even vaguely musical! Most could be described as HORRIBLE.
I can recall stumbling into a demo room where a live guitarist was playing.
After the screeching scratching, booming we had been suffering all afternoon
what a relief.

My present multichannel home set up featuring Definitive Tech Bi-polars is
"musical". I am dammed sure it's not "accurate" I am positive that it
modifies the sources acoustic venue and violates most of the Hi-End
dictates... BUT its MUSICAL and I don't care!

Isn't that the whole purpose of the exercise?

Richard Smith
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 3:49:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"michael" <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ct720q021lp@news3.newsguy.com...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>> I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording
>> media, (what will be better than CD?)
>
> re-Recordable solid state storage media of a density which will allow me
> to carry data of CD resolution with the form factor of a USB flashdrive.
> 100 CD's worth of storage would be a good start, but I'm not greedy and
> would buy something with 50 CD's worth of density. Oh yeah, a price of
> about $35.00 would be nice. :-)
>
> michael

When I said better, I was speaking of sound quality, but certainly there is
a case to be made for improved portability. Personally I would miss the
cover art.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 4:32:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Christine Allison" <christinea@att.net> wrote in message
news:ct9dk50vv0@news2.newsguy.com...
>> I'm still convinced that aside from possible improvements in recording
>> media, (what will be better than CD?) and loudspeaker design, (better
>> drivers and DSP EQ), the high end is mostly about hype and myth.>
>
> Until someone discovers a new principal of transduction we are going to be
> stuck with very imperfect sound reproducers.
>
No arguement there.

> I would like to point out that my remarks concern only music produced by
> acoustic instruments playing music cast in the western art music form. I
> recognize that these remarks are possibly non-applicable to most popular
> music being performed today. Accordingly my views are almost certainly
> meaningless to the needs of most.
>
> That said I feel that without a doubt what the hi-end needs is to embrace
> multi-channel recording and playback. As far as I am concerned, if I want
> to hear a convincing recreation the sound of a symphony orchestra I have
> only to play a good DVD with a DTS track and I am there. The weight and
> texture of the bass, the sonic signature of the instruments and the
> ambiance
> of the recording venue are frequently reproduced with startling immediacy!
>

Multichanel systems are becoming, (if not already) the dominant systems
people are buying. Maybe not those who consider themselves to be
highenders. It's coming for sure, even SP has a Home Theatre magazine.

> It's a rare classical CD which has proper weight in the bass registers.
>
I don't know if many people have the capability to reproduce it, if it were.

> I speak with a bit of authority here. My daughter and my wife are concert
> flute players. My other daughters boy friend is an accomplished
> saxophonist. We have frequent visits by instrumentalists who frequently
> pass their time by concretizing in my home. When I am home I experience
> at
> least 4 hours of live acoustic music per day!
>
> I am a subscriber to the Met Opera and frequently attend symphony
> orchestra
> concerts and organ recitals. With all this I think that I know what live
> acoustic music sounds like.
>
> Shortly after I cancelled my Sterophile subscription I had the misfortune
> of
> attending as a guest, one of Sterophiles Hi-End shows (in midtown
> Manhattan.) After spending 4 hours listening to a variety of systems
> from
> "budget" to almost six digits my wife and I agreed that not one single one
> of them sounded even vaguely musical! Most could be described as
> HORRIBLE.

They do seem to have a wierd dichotomy in claiming to represent the high end
but their reviewers seem to gush over stuff that anybody looking for
accurate reproduction would never own.

I do have to ammend some earlier comments on their speaker measurements of
speakers. Apparently they do them better than I thought, indeed they do
them as well as anybody from what I am told by an authoritative source.
Thanks Tom.

> I can recall stumbling into a demo room where a live guitarist was
> playing.
> After the screeching scratching, booming we had been suffering all
> afternoon
> what a relief.
>
> My present multichannel home set up featuring Definitive Tech Bi-polars is
> "musical". I am dammed sure it's not "accurate" I am positive that it
> modifies the sources acoustic venue and violates most of the Hi-End
> dictates... BUT its MUSICAL and I don't care!
>
> Isn't that the whole purpose of the exercise?
>
Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you for
reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that
produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for
different things.

IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded better than those that don't
have it.

You might wish to augment those Def Tech's with a good subwoofer and then
see how that bass sounds.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 10:11:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

> Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you for
> reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that
> produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for
> different things.>

After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is that
every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If that
is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more accurate then
another? In the ideal situation would be a direct wired connection
providing the aural and tactile information directly to the listeners nerve
circuits. This would impart exactly what the mike heard. Everything
outside of that is an approximation.

I think this is where the entire notion of "accurate" music reproduction in
the home falls flat. It's impossible to achieve. I have recordings of my
wife and daughter playing the flute in my listening room. When played back
these recordings don't have the richness and complexities of the actual live
playing.

That's why I say the Definitive Tech's are musical. They produce a pleasing
approximation of what the actual musical event sounded like. With the
addition of ambiance tracks this approximation becomes even more convincing.

Some DTS movie soundtracks reproduce with great (figurative and literal)
impact. I think that's because they capture the ESSENCE of the musical
happening but not the actual event it's self.

>
> IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded better than those that
don't
> have it.>

That's really not true. The response should smoothly slope downward into
the treble It's the presence of peaks in the response that's the killer. A
5 db or higher peak/null grossly effects the coloration of a given speaker
and badly distorts the program source.

If you stop to think of it flat response differs from the way we hear
things. When she is playing in a symphonic ensemble my daughters piccolo
sounds very loud. However it's actual output is less then that of a string
bass. The fact of the matter is that from the standpoint of frequency we
don't hear things in a liner fashion. A 32 foot organ pipe needs a powerful
blower to sound as load as a hi pitched pipe blown by a few cubic inches of
air per second. Since perceived loudness is logarithmic it becomes obvious
that it is very difficult to properly trannsduce into a remote listening
environment.

> You might wish to augment those Def Tech's with a good subwoofer and then
> see how that bass sounds.>

One year ago I sold my fourth and last sub woofer. It was a big SVS
cylindrical affair that could produce meaningful output to 16hz. This
monster had been proceeded by a Velodyne, Definitive-Tech and an Infinity.

The one generalization I can make is that it is extraordinarily difficult to
match the sub to the mains. I found that the gain in response was plagued
by some many other issues that (on balance) made it not worth it.

My present Definitive Techs each have a powered woofer/subwoofer section
incorporated into the cabinetry. The reason I bought this model (2002TL) is
that the bass is psudo transmission line loaded. If you know much about
woofers this is the best (short of a real TL) to deal with the out of phase
backwave.

The results speak for themselves powerful bass to 25 hz and meaningful
response to about 22. More importantly, when properly set up the bass is
beautifully smooth, controlled and integrated.

Richard Smith
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 2:00:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Christine Allison wrote:
> > Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases
you for
> > reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system
that
> > produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look
for
> > different things.>
>
> After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is
that
> every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If
that
> is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more
accurate then
> another?

Because they define accuracy differently than you are using the term
here. From the point of view that you quote, accuracy means, "fidelity
to the recording." It's the job of the person making the recording to
capture, as best he can, the ambience of the live event. Assuming he
does, an audio system should preserve that, as much as possible. (And
if he doesn't, there's no hope of putting it back.)

> In the ideal situation would be a direct wired connection
> providing the aural and tactile information directly to the listeners
nerve
> circuits. This would impart exactly what the mike heard. Everything
> outside of that is an approximation.
>
> I think this is where the entire notion of "accurate" music
reproduction in
> the home falls flat. It's impossible to achieve. I have recordings
of my
> wife and daughter playing the flute in my listening room. When
played back
> these recordings don't have the richness and complexities of the
actual live
> playing.

There are probably a lot of reasons for that, but one of them is surely
that your audio system is not as attractive as either of the women in
your life!
>
> That's why I say the Definitive Tech's are musical. They produce a
pleasing
> approximation of what the actual musical event sounded like.

No, they don't. What they actually do is evoke in you the sensation
that you are listening to AN actual musical event. Unless you were
there, you have no idea what THE actual musical event sounded like.
Plus, you've already contradicted this point twice: First, when you
noted that THE event differs, depending on where you sit. And second,
when you complained that your system COULDN'T reproduce the actual
musical event when the actual musical event had just played right in
front of you.

One thing you are right about is that there is no necessary correlation
between technical accuracy, as I defined it above, and the evoking of
the sensation that you are listening to an actual musical event. It's
quite possible that for many listeners, a less accurate system will do
a better job of promoting what the lit-crit folks call "a willing
suspension of disbelief." But you should also be aware that there is
research (see references to Floyd Toole earlier in this thread) that
finds that most people do indeed prefer speakers which are more
technically accurate.

> With the
> addition of ambiance tracks this approximation becomes even more
convincing.
>
> Some DTS movie soundtracks reproduce with great (figurative and
literal)
> impact. I think that's because they capture the ESSENCE of the
musical
> happening but not the actual event it's self.

It may also be because they are accompanied by video, which will
certainly add to any sense of realism.

bob
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 7:05:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cteg6s01240@news4.newsguy.com...
> Christine Allison wrote:
>> > Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases
> you for
>> > reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system
> that
>> > produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look
> for
>> > different things.>
>>
>> After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is
> that
>> every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If
> that
>> is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more
> accurate then
>> another?
>
> Because they define accuracy differently than you are using the term
> here. From the point of view that you quote, accuracy means, "fidelity
> to the recording." It's the job of the person making the recording to
> capture, as best he can, the ambience of the live event. Assuming he
> does, an audio system should preserve that, as much as possible. (And
> if he doesn't, there's no hope of putting it back.)
>
No, not exactly, the man is absolutely correct. My Maggies sound more like
my preferred seat than do any Martin-Logans, given any particular recording
and its captured ambience.
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 7:06:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Christine Allison" <christinea@att.net> wrote in message
news:cte2oh0l09@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you
>> for
>> reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that
>> produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for
>> different things.>
>
> After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is that
> every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If that
> is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more accurate
> then
> another?

Bravo! Here is an individual who knows what he/she is talking about. That's
exactly why the "layman" (read: non-audiophile) finally gets a subscription
at a preferred location and keeps it. You don't have to buy into wires,
cables (and a lot of chazzerei; see http:stillfree.com, if necessary) to
know this is indeed the case. The Hi-Fi systems one auditions in stores and
then finds acceptable at home IS the one you keep. Perhaps improvements come
along and the hobbyist dabbles around to see whether or not they add to,
detract from, or make no difference in mimicking the sound heard from this
preferred seat in a given hall.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 3:25:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Christine Allison" <christinea@att.net> wrote in message
news:cte2oh0l09@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Depends on your point of view. If you want something that pleases you
>> for
>> reasons unrelated to accuracy, you get it. If you want a system that
>> produces sound from your recorded media that is accurate, you look for
>> different things.>
>
> After concert going for five decades one thing I have discovered is that
> every seat in the house provides a different musical prospective! If that
> is the case how can anyone claim that one Hi-Fi system is more accurate
> then
> another? In the ideal situation would be a direct wired connection
> providing the aural and tactile information directly to the listeners
> nerve
> circuits. This would impart exactly what the mike heard. Everything
> outside of that is an approximation.
>
> I think this is where the entire notion of "accurate" music reproduction
> in
> the home falls flat. It's impossible to achieve. I have recordings of my
> wife and daughter playing the flute in my listening room. When played
> back
> these recordings don't have the richness and complexities of the actual
> live
> playing.
>
> That's why I say the Definitive Tech's are musical. They produce a
> pleasing
> approximation of what the actual musical event sounded like. With the
> addition of ambiance tracks this approximation becomes even more
> convincing.
>
> Some DTS movie soundtracks reproduce with great (figurative and literal)
> impact. I think that's because they capture the ESSENCE of the musical
> happening but not the actual event it's self.
>
>>
>> IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded better than those that
> don't
>> have it.>
>
> That's really not true.

You missed the part about MY EXPERIENCE? IME speakers with flat FR sound
better.

The response should smoothly slope downward into
> the treble It's the presence of peaks in the response that's the killer.

The 2 work hand in hand IMO. I want flat FR with a nice smooth rolloff off
axis.

A
> 5 db or higher peak/null grossly effects the coloration of a given speaker
> and badly distorts the program source.
>
> If you stop to think of it flat response differs from the way we hear
> things. When she is playing in a symphonic ensemble my daughters piccolo
> sounds very loud. However it's actual output is less then that of a
> string
> bass. The fact of the matter is that from the standpoint of frequency we
> don't hear things in a liner fashion. A 32 foot organ pipe needs a
> powerful
> blower to sound as load as a hi pitched pipe blown by a few cubic inches
> of
> air per second. Since perceived loudness is logarithmic it becomes
> obvious
> that it is very difficult to properly trannsduce into a remote listening
> environment.

You aparently don't understand what I mean by flat FR. I mean a speaker
that produces the same spl for each frequency given the same electrical
input.

If the speaker produces one frequency louder with one watt of power than it
does others, it's not as good a a speaker that does.

>
>> You might wish to augment those Def Tech's with a good subwoofer and then
>> see how that bass sounds.>
>
> One year ago I sold my fourth and last sub woofer. It was a big SVS
> cylindrical affair that could produce meaningful output to 16hz. This
> monster had been proceeded by a Velodyne, Definitive-Tech and an Infinity.
>
> The one generalization I can make is that it is extraordinarily difficult
> to
> match the sub to the mains.

Then I believe you are doing it wrong.


I found that the gain in response was plagued
> by some many other issues that (on balance) made it not worth it.
>
> My present Definitive Techs each have a powered woofer/subwoofer section
> incorporated into the cabinetry. The reason I bought this model (2002TL)
> is
> that the bass is psudo transmission line loaded. If you know much about
> woofers this is the best (short of a real TL) to deal with the out of
> phase
> backwave.
>

In your opinion. I have a bass reflex sub that gives me all the bass I want
and doesn't over power the other sound from the mains.

> The results speak for themselves powerful bass to 25 hz and meaningful
> response to about 22. More importantly, when properly set up the bass is
> beautifully smooth, controlled and integrated.
>
> Richard Smith

Sounds like the same results I get with 2 sats and a sub.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 3:29:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

< Perhaps improvements come
> along and the hobbyist dabbles around to see whether or not they add to,
> detract from, or make no difference in mimicking the sound heard from this
> preferred seat in a given hall.>

During the age of LP records endless debates raged regarding the optimum
cartridge/arm combination. The English firm Decca London manufactured a
very iconoclastic cartridge in which the stylus jewel was mounted on a
vertical tube. Yes the transducing armature was perpendicular to the
record.

It goes without saying that such an arrangement guaranteed exact tracing of
the groove as it had been recorded by a recording head because they both
had exactly the same geometry.

I bought a Decca London fro Lyric Hi-fi and mounted it on a Rabco tangential
tracking servo controlled arm. In theory this arrangement should have
provided perfect transduction from edge to center.

For the debut of this combination I played the opening chorus of the
Harnancourt (sp) recording of the St. Matthew Passion. I was startled at
what emerged from my speakers! Without a doubt the reproduction of that
band was superior to anything I had heard up to that time and I suspect
better then anything I have heard to date.

Unfortunately that's the only good thing I can say about the Decca London.
It could not track it's way out of a paper bag was horribly fragile and
given to hum.

The point I am making is that one must select components that play
pleasingly MOST of the time. Not some temperamental engineering
extravaganza.

Richard Smith
February 6, 2005 1:31:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hi Michael & Richard,

>>> IME, speakers with flat FR have always sounded
>>> better than those that
>> don't
>>> have it.>
>>
>> That's really not true.
>
> You missed the part about MY EXPERIENCE? IME
> speakers with flat FR sound
> better.
>
> The response should smoothly slope downward into
>> the treble It's the presence of peaks in the
>> response that's the killer.
>
> The 2 work hand in hand IMO. I want flat FR with a
> nice smooth rolloff off
> axis.


The problem here is that you are both correct, but are
talking about different things. Michael is talking
about the anechoic frequency response of a speaker, and
Richard is talking about the in-room frequency response
of a speaker at the listening position. The response
of a "flat" speaker will not be "flat" at the listening
position, but, ignoring the peaks and dips caused by
the room modes, it will have a downward slope from the
low to high frequencies.

>> If you stop to think of it flat response differs
>> from the way we hear
>> things. When she is playing in a symphonic ensemble
>> my daughters piccolo
>> sounds very loud. However it's actual output is
>> less then that of a
>> string
>> bass. The fact of the matter is that from the
>> standpoint of frequency we
>> don't hear things in a liner fashion.

The Fletcher-Munson "Equal Loudness Contours" apply
only to our ears, not speakers and microphones. We are
recording the sound as it occurred, not as we heard it.
If it is reproduced as it occurred, we will hear it
correctly even though we don't have "flat" hearing.
That is, we also would have heard the original
performance with our "non-flat" ears. I believe the
Fletcher-Munson contours really only apply when we are
listening at a different SPL than what we would have
heard at the original performance.

Regards,
Tip
!