Book Review of Howard ferstler's Book
Steve Zipser
Florida State University librarian Howard Ferstler has written a book
about audio that has about as much to do with audio reality in the '90s
as bell-bottom pants and "Laugh-In"; High Fidelity Audio/Video Systems is
about as dated and uninformative a how-to book on hi-fi as I've ever
read.
And it gets even better!!!!!
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?101
Enjoy!
Zip
Tony Loban
your product lines and you call him a 'blithering idiot', i'll
be sure to remind everyone that you have cited him as an
authority.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Marc Blank
z...@sunshinestereo.com says...
He hasn't changed a bit, has he?
- m
Arny Krüger
"Steve Zipser" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.131f69fae...@news.mia.bellsouth.net...
> From Corey Greenberg of Stereophile:
>
> Florida State University librarian Howard Ferstler has written a
book
> about audio that has about as much to do with audio reality in the
'90s
> as bell-bottom pants and "Laugh-In"; High Fidelity Audio/Video
Systems is
> about as dated and uninformative a how-to book on hi-fi as I've
ever
> read.
>
> And it gets even better!!!!!
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?101
Here are some questions, Zip.
We know that Corey was quite a bit younger when he wrote this.
Do you think Corey would write the same thing with just as much
"attitude" today?
Do you think he wrote this "all by himself"?
Do you think that there is a possibility that "Prevailing wisdom"
at Stereophile colored what he wrote?
RatzohRizzoe
>about audio that has about as much to do with audio reality in the '90s
>
>as bell-bottom pants and "Laugh-In"; High Fidelity Audio/Video Systems is
>
>about as dated and uninformative a how-to book on hi-fi as I've ever
>read.
>
>And it gets even better!!!!!
You're a truly sick puppy.
CHartm7505
> You said, "Do you think he wrote this "all by himself"?
I don`t know, perhaps you should ask Howard personally, if he wrote that
book of his "all by himself". Also, what "Prevailing wisdom"(your quote), do
you think Stereophile had at that time, that would have "colored" his writing?
Just curious to see what all these assumptions are all about, that`s all.
Regards,
Charles.
Howard Ferstler
>
> In article <MPG.131f69fae...@news.mia.bellsouth.net>,
> z...@sunshinestereo.com says...
> >
> >
> > Enjoy!
> > Zip
> He hasn't changed a bit, has he?
I believe that if you are going to draw some conclusions about
this particular book, you ought to read it. After all, The
American Record Guide, Fanfare, College and Research Library
News, and Music Library Association Notes all gave it exemplary
reviews, and unlike Stereophile, they were not desperately trying
to hold off an attack on their little empire. Note, however, that
it is O/P and the newer, The Home Theater Companion book is
considerably bigger and much better, anyway. Interestingly, the
later book is nowhere near as polemical as the earlier one was.
Note also that Stereophile printed my rebuttal to Mr. Greenberg's
review in the March, 1992 issue. I think it is considerably
better than the review itself, although Mr. Atkinson did allow
himself to get in a last word at the end. Anyway, is that
rebuttal also in the Stereophile archives. Seems like if Mr.
Atkinson is going to be fair, he would put it right there with
Corey's so-called review.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> >Florida State University librarian Howard Ferstler has written a book
> >about audio that has about as much to do with audio reality in the '90s
> >
> >as bell-bottom pants and "Laugh-In"; High Fidelity Audio/Video Systems is
> >
> >about as dated and uninformative a how-to book on hi-fi as I've ever
> >read.
> >
> >And it gets even better!!!!!
Perhaps he is just a man who is intellectually overextended,
while at the same time we have to admit that he is also rather an
accomplished salesman. This is proof positive that it is possible
to be both clever and stupid at the same time.
Howard Ferstler
Nexus 6
<tony_...@email.com> wrote:
>okay, zip, the next time that greenburg takes a dump on one of
>your product lines and you call him a 'blithering idiot', i'll
>be sure to remind everyone that you have cited him as an
>authority.
Damn that Corey!
<grin>
His unpredictability makes his wiritng interesting.
Nexus 6
======================
"No more miracles
Loaves and fishes
Been so busy
With the washing of the dishes"
Michael / Lisa Ayotte
It seems a little farfetched to ask this group to actually read what it
is lambasting, since most so freely offer their audiophile wisdom on
products they likely haven't heard. Why read your book when we can rely
on the review? Apparently Stereophile felt it wasn't expensive enough,
thus no Class A rating.
FYI, Stereophile did archive your rebuttal.
Mike Ayotte
Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> Marc Blank wrote:
> >
> > In article <MPG.131f69fae...@news.mia.bellsouth.net>,
> > z...@sunshinestereo.com says...
> > > From Corey Greenberg of Stereophile:
> > >
> > > Florida State University librarian Howard Ferstler has written a book
> > > about audio that has about as much to do with audio reality in the '90s
> > > as bell-bottom pants and "Laugh-In"; High Fidelity Audio/Video Systems is
> > > about as dated and uninformative a how-to book on hi-fi as I've ever
> > > read.
> > >
> > > And it gets even better!!!!!
> > >
Marc Phillips
>>okay, zip, the next time that greenburg takes a dump on one of
>>your product lines and you call him a 'blithering idiot', i'll
>>be sure to remind everyone that you have cited him as an
>>authority.
>Damn that Corey!
>
><grin>
>
>His unpredictability makes his wiritng interesting.
>
Unfortunately his unpredictability and his interesting writings have been MIA
since about 1994.
But I truly enjoyed re-reading Corey's thorough dissection of that blight on
the audio world, Howard Ferstler. Thanks, Corey, JA, and Zip!
Boon
Marc Phillips
>Why read your book when we can rely
>on the review? Apparently Stereophile felt it wasn't expensive enough,
>thus no Class A rating.
>
No, in fact Corey's review stressed the fact that $23.50 was WAY too expensive
for such a meager offering.
>FYI, Stereophile did archive your rebuttal.
And I tried to read it, but I feel asleep by the third word in the second
sentence.
Boon
Nexus 6
Phillips) wrote:
>Nexus 6 said:
>
>>>okay, zip, the next time that greenburg takes a dump on one of
>>>your product lines and you call him a 'blithering idiot', i'll
>>>be sure to remind everyone that you have cited him as an
>>>authority.
>
>>Damn that Corey!
>>
>><grin>
>>
>>His unpredictability makes his wiritng interesting.
>>
>
>Unfortunately his unpredictability and his interesting writings have been MIA
>since about 1994.
He seemed to gothrough some sort of high end backlash thing
a while back. His Sphile stuff always seemed to be on two
levels - the best-bang-for-the-buck type outlook, and a gee
whiz attitude toward some of the really pricey stuff. His
irreverence did seem to tame down a bit after leaving
Sphile, but not entirely.
I had occasion to read his first review for Sphile some
months ago, and almost couldn't finish I was laughing so
hard - it must have been quite a shock to the regular
readership of the day to open the new mag and find this bull
in the high end china shop.
>
>But I truly enjoyed re-reading Corey's thorough dissection of that blight on
>the audio world, Howard Ferstler. Thanks, Corey, JA, and Zip!
I hadn't seen that one in a while, and was howling so loud
over re-reading it that my cat vanished under the bed and
would not come out for hours.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
"RatzohRizzoe" <ratzoh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000224180636...@ng-de1.aol.com...
> >Florida State University librarian Howard Ferstler has written a book
> >about audio that has about as much to do with audio reality in the '90s
> >
> >as bell-bottom pants and "Laugh-In"; High Fidelity Audio/Video Systems is
> >
> >about as dated and uninformative a how-to book on hi-fi as I've ever
> >read.
> >
> >And it gets even better!!!!!
>
You forgot to sign this one, Tony
Arny Krüger
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20000225084610...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
So what's the story? Written at too high of a level, or you've just
been having too much sex? ;-)
Howard Ferstler
>
> Mr. Ferstler:
>
> It seems a little farfetched to ask this group to actually read what it
> is lambasting, since most so freely offer their audiophile wisdom on
> on the review? Apparently Stereophile felt it wasn't expensive enough,
> thus no Class A rating.
>
So I have heard. However, is it right there with the review?
Anyway, several record-review and music periodicals, as well
as one technical journal, gave the book good reviews. I
personally feel that it is inferior to the later The Home
Theater Companion book.
Howard Ferstler
Tony Loban
\(Sunshine Stereo\)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>You forgot to sign this one, Tony
yeah, but then again, i didn't write it, either, asshole.
Marc Blank
says...
> Marc Blank wrote:
> >
> > In article <MPG.131f69fae...@news.mia.bellsouth.net>,
> > z...@sunshinestereo.com says...
> > > From Corey Greenberg of Stereophile:
> > >
> > > about audio that has about as much to do with audio reality in the '90s
> > > as bell-bottom pants and "Laugh-In"; High Fidelity Audio/Video Systems is
> > > about as dated and uninformative a how-to book on hi-fi as I've ever
> > > read.
> > >
> > > And it gets even better!!!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Enjoy!
> > > Zip
>
> > He hasn't changed a bit, has he?
>
> I believe that if you are going to draw some conclusions about
> this particular book, you ought to read it. After all, The
> American Record Guide, Fanfare, College and Research Library
> News, and Music Library Association Notes all gave it exemplary
> reviews, and unlike Stereophile, they were not desperately trying
> to hold off an attack on their little empire. Note, however, that
> it is O/P and the newer, The Home Theater Companion book is
> considerably bigger and much better, anyway. Interestingly, the
> later book is nowhere near as polemical as the earlier one was.
>
> Note also that Stereophile printed my rebuttal to Mr. Greenberg's
> review in the March, 1992 issue. I think it is considerably
> better than the review itself, although Mr. Atkinson did allow
> himself to get in a last word at the end. Anyway, is that
> rebuttal also in the Stereophile archives. Seems like if Mr.
> Atkinson is going to be fair, he would put it right there with
> Corey's so-called review.
>
> Howard Ferstler
>
Actually, I was referring to the idolatry of Allison gear and the fact
that you seem some years behind when it comes to audio/video matters.
- m
Howard Ferstler
Allison speaker systems are proven to be sonically of very
high quality. Even some of the subjectivist crowd agrees
with that. Also, many of the concepts that are taken for
granted these days were originally researched by Roy
Allison, who published JAES papers on the subjects.
I am interested in just how I am "some years behind when it
comes to audio/video matters." Just because my The Home
Theater Companion Book was published in 1997 does not mean
that it is not up to date in some important areas (OK, it
has nothing on DVD-A or MP3), nor does it mean that I
personally have not kept up with trends that are meaningful
in this area.
I would like to read some specifics, when it comes to your
judgment about my A/V competence.
Howard Ferstler
Tony Loban
\(Sunshine Stereo\)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
zipser scrawled:
>You forgot to sign this one, Tony
why don't you just 'bust' me by tracking the header, sherlock?
you have been strangely silent on the subject since you
announced the 'bust', peckerhead, what gives?
your silence merely confirms your error, you jerk.
Howard Ferstler
> But I truly enjoyed re-reading Corey's thorough dissection of that blight on
> the audio world, Howard Ferstler. Thanks, Corey, JA, and Zip!
Too bad you cannot read the positive reviews of that same book in
Fanfare, The American Record Guide, College and Research Library
News, and Music Library Association Notes. Written mainly by
musicians and record reviewers, plus one physics PhD.
For a counterpoint opinion of Ferstler's talents, read Ralph
Glasgal's review of the later, The Home Theater Companion book
at:
HTTP://www.ambiophonics.org/ferstler.htm
Other reviews of that book appeared in The Audio Critic, Fanfare,
The Sensible Sound, and Audio.
Hopefully, since you do not seem up to reading the books
themselves, at least you will read more than one review.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> "Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> news:20000225084610...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> > Mike Ayotte said:
> >
> > >on the review? Apparently Stereophile felt it wasn't expensive
> enough,
> > >thus no Class A rating.
> > >
> >
> too expensive
> > for such a meager offering.
> >
> >
> second
> > sentence.
> So what's the story? Written at too high of a level, or you've just
> been having too much sex? ;-)
Possibly too much drink.
Howard Ferstler
Marc Phillips
>> But I truly enjoyed re-reading Corey's thorough dissection of that blight
>on
>> the audio world, Howard Ferstler. Thanks, Corey, JA, and Zip!
>
>Too bad you cannot read the positive reviews of that same book in
>Fanfare, The American Record Guide, College and Research Library
>News, and Music Library Association Notes. Written mainly by
>musicians and record reviewers, plus one physics PhD.
But no one with any real experience with high-quality stereo equipment. How
fitting.
>For a counterpoint opinion of Ferstler's talents, read Ralph
>Glasgal's review of the later, The Home Theater Companion book
>at:
I don't think enough of you to go to such an effort.
>Hopefully, since you do not seem up to reading the books
>themselves, at least you will read more than one review.
I prefer to read books that offer some kind of reward to the reader. Sorry,
your books do not do that.
Boon
Arny Krüger
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> Howard Ferstler said:
>
> >> But I truly enjoyed re-reading Corey's thorough dissection of
that blight
> >on
> >> the audio world, Howard Ferstler. Thanks, Corey, JA, and Zip!
> >
>
> >Too bad you cannot read the positive reviews of that same book in
> >Fanfare, The American Record Guide, College and Research Library
> >News, and Music Library Association Notes. Written mainly by
> >musicians and record reviewers, plus one physics PhD.
>
> But no one with any real experience with high-quality stereo
equipment. How
> fitting.
That would appear to be a presumption of yours, Marc.
Marc, to prove that you are not just posturing dogmatically, please
name the authors of those reviews and list the audio equipment that
they have experience with.
Marc, if you can't do this, then it is clear that you are making
this up as you go along.
Marc Phillips
>> >> But I truly enjoyed re-reading Corey's thorough dissection of
>that blight
>> >on
>> >> the audio world, Howard Ferstler. Thanks, Corey, JA, and Zip!
>> >Too bad you cannot read the positive reviews of that same book in
>> >Fanfare, The American Record Guide, College and Research Library
>> >News, and Music Library Association Notes. Written mainly by
>> >musicians and record reviewers
>plus one physics PhD.
>>
>> But no one with any real experience with high-quality stereo
>equipment. How
>> fitting.
>
>That would appear to be a presumption of yours, Marc.
Of course it is, although it seems a fairly prevalent trend that musicians tend
to own crappy stereo systems.
>Marc, to prove that you are not just posturing dogmatically, please
>name the authors of those reviews and list the audio equipment that
>they have experience with.
>
>Marc, if you can't do this, then it is clear that you are making
>this up as you go along.
If you're asking whether or not I do extensive research into every fact I state
on this NG, no I do not, and neither do you. That's why you get caught lying
all of the time. I haven't lied yet on this NG. But since Howard finds the
High End a bane to his existence, and that he not only doesn't own any quality
audio equipment, but he consistently criticizes those who do, it seems that it
would be reasonable to state that those who agree with him also do not have
high-end equipment.
No, Arny, I'm not making this up as I'm going...I'm using the power of reason,
which so often seems to elude you and Howard.
Boon
Arny Krüger
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.compost> wrote in message
Actually, it is difficult for me to remember when you have
documented a claim using an outside source.
>That's why you get caught lying all of the time.
Hardly. "lying" is just what people claim when they can't come up
with anything specific.
>I haven't lied yet on this NG.
If I started pointing them out...
> But since Howard finds the
> High End a bane to his existence, and that he not only doesn't own
any quality
> audio equipment, but he consistently criticizes those who do, it
seems that it
> would be reasonable to state that those who agree with him also do
not have
> high-end equipment.
I guess that in your world, however things might seem to be to you
in some instant is a "fact".
Using that obviously self-centered and dishonest "standard", it
would be easy for you to say that I am a "liar".
> No, Arny, I'm not making this up as I'm going...I'm using the
power of reason,
> which so often seems to elude you and Howard.
Just about any reasonable person would look at this little dance
that you just did and say:
"Marc is lying out his @$$" and knows he has been caught".
You act like you are omniscient and think you are the measure of all
things.
You presume.
Your are your own authority.
You lie, first to yourself, and then to the rest of us.
It's such a waste, because you could accomplish many of your goals
by honest means. But it just might be a little work.
Jacob Kramer
<fer...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>For a counterpoint opinion of Ferstler's talents, read Ralph
>Glasgal's review of the later, The Home Theater Companion book
>at:
Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?
--
"The dream of reason produces monsters."
--Goya
Marc Phillips
>Actually, it is difficult for me to remember when you have
>documented a claim using an outside source.
Show me where I have documented a claim where I didn't.
>>That's why you get caught lying all of the time.
>
>Hardly. "lying" is just what people claim when they can't come up
>with anything specific.
>
No, people are pretty specific when they prove you are a liar.
>>I haven't lied yet on this NG.
>
>If I started pointing them out...
>
Go ahead. Start. Any time now, Arny. I'm waiting.
>I guess that in your world, however things might seem to be to you
>in some instant is a "fact".
>
Here's a fact...you have a poor grasp of the English language. The proof is in
the above sentence.
>Using that obviously self-centered and dishonest "standard", it
>would be easy for you to say that I am a "liar".
I've seen it with my own eyes. It is well-documented by many other people on
this forum.
>Just about any reasonable person would look at this little dance
>that you just did and say:
>
>"Marc is lying out his @$$" and knows he has been caught".
>
No, any reasonable person would say:
"Arny is certainly the pot calling the kettle black,"
or:
"Marc just made the observation that Howard was unable to come up with an audio
writer who gave his book on audio matters a decent review. He only quoted
musicians and music reviewers."
Where is the lie?
>You act like you are omniscient and think you are the measure of all
>things.
>
I do not. I'm the first to admit when I've made a mistake, and I've done so on
this forum. Can you say the same?
>You presume.
>
We all do. I can go through one day of your posts and point out presumption
after presumption, and I started doing so this evening and you went ballistic.
Your anger was only hiding your embarrassment at once again being revealed as a
moron...I presume.
>Your are your own authority.
>
That's why I often seek the advice of others on this forum.
>You lie, first to yourself, and then to the rest of us.
>
Prove it. Quit making it up as you go along.
>It's such a waste, because you could accomplish many of your goals
>by honest means. But it just might be a little work.
>
One of my goals is to get you off this NG for good so we can start talking
seriously about audio and music. If I start applying myself, are you saying I
will succeed?
I'd rather just make you my bitch.
Boon
Arny Krüger
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> Arny said:
>
> >Actually, it is difficult for me to remember when you have
> >documented a claim using an outside source.
>
> Show me where I have documented a claim where I didn't.
That's just it, as rule you don't document your claims.
>
> >>That's why you get caught lying all of the time.
> >
>
> >Hardly. "lying" is just what people claim when they can't come up
> >with anything specific.
> >
>
> No, people are pretty specific when they prove you are a liar.
>
> >>I haven't lied yet on this NG.
> >
> >If I started pointing them out...
> Go ahead. Start. Any time now, Arny. I'm waiting.
I did. You lied about the people who gave Ferstler's book a good
review by claiming that none of them had any experience with high
end equipment.
> >I guess that in your world, however things might seem to be to
you
> >in some instant is a "fact".
> Here's a fact...you have a poor grasp of the English language.
The proof is in
> the above sentence.
Here is a fact, you don't write perfect sentences either. I
docuemented that quite clearly last night.
> >Using that obviously self-centered and dishonest "standard", it
> >would be easy for you to say that I am a "liar".
> I've seen it with my own eyes. It is well-documented by many
other people on
> this forum.
Tht's your self-deception. You are confused about "facts" versus
"opinions". You think that whenever I say something that you
disagree with, I'm lying.
> >Just about any reasonable person would look at this little dance
> >that you just did and say:
> >
> >"Marc is lying out his @$$" and knows he has been caught".
> No, any reasonable person would say:
>
> "Arny is certainly the pot calling the kettle black,"
Given that you seem to think that I'm a liar, if both the "pot" and
the "kettle" are black, then you are admitting that you are a liar.
> or:
> "Marc just made the observation that Howard was unable to come up
with an audio
> writer who gave his book on audio matters a decent review. He
only quoted
> musicians and music reviewers."
That's it not what you said.
Nice attempt at revisionist history.
> Where is the lie?
In black-and-white on RAO.
> >You act like you are omniscient and think you are the measure of
all
> >things.
> I do not. I'm the first to admit when I've made a mistake, and
I've done so on
> this forum. Can you say the same?
Absolutely.
> >You presume.
> We all do. I can go through one day of your posts and point out
presumption
> after presumption, and I started doing so this evening and you
went ballistic.
Hardly Marc. You were caught making a claim that you obviously had
no way to back up. You are now trying to put up a smoke screen.
> Your anger was only hiding your embarrassment at once again being
revealed as a
> moron...I presume.
Finally, you tell the truth: you presume and thing you know.
> >Your are your own authority.
> That's why I often seek the advice of others on this forum.
You should have done that here!
>
> >You lie, first to yourself, and then to the rest of us.
> Prove it. Quit making it up as you go along.
I did, and you continue to try to lie your way out of the traps you
are now in.
> >It's such a waste, because you could accomplish many of your
goals
> >by honest means. But it just might be a little work.
> One of my goals is to get you off this NG for good so we can start
talking
> seriously about audio and music.
Marc, the main reasons why you can't talk seriously about music and
audio lie within you.
> If I start applying myself, are you saying I will succeed?
It might make things more interesting.
>I am saying that I'd rather just make you my bitch.
As if you could do such a thing.
Marc Phillips
>> >Actually, it is difficult for me to remember when you have
>> >documented a claim using an outside source.
>>
>> Show me where I have documented a claim where I didn't.
>
>That's just it, as rule you don't document your claims.
NAME A CLAIM I HAVE NOT DOCUMENTED. It's very simple, Arny. Just saying it is
so doesn't make it so. You should know that from your ABX testing, and if you
don't, a lot of people should get their money back.
Most of what I say on this NG is based upon my own experiences, therefore
proper documentation is meaningless. That's the difference between normal
people and drones like yourself, Arny...we rely upon our own perceptions. It's
Nature's Way. But tell me where I have made an unsubstantiated claim, Arny.
Don't say "all the time," or "I've already said" or some disgusting bullshit
like that. All you have to do is back up what you say. Why do you find that
so difficult? Because you are a liar and a hypocrite? That's the growing
consensus, after all.
>I did. You lied about the people who gave Ferstler's book a good
>review by claiming that none of them had any experience with high
>end equipment.
I did no such thing. I said that it figures that Howard would quote good
reviews on his book about audio equipment from sources that do not write about
audio equipment, just music. Where is the lie?
>Here is a fact, you don't write perfect sentences either. I
>docuemented that quite clearly last night.
You did no such thing. I can talk about my "interest," which means my
attention span, or I can talk about my "interests," which are the things with
which I'm interested. Either word is correct. I stand by the choice I made.
Besides, no, every one of my posts is not grammatically perfect. I do not use
a spell checker. Sometimes I post late at night, when I'm tired, and I'm prone
to mistakes. Sometimes I post without wearing my glasses, like I'm doing right
now, and I make mistakes that way. But if I catch it, I correct it with a
subsequent post, which I have done in the past. If someone else catches it, I
admit it, like I have done in the past. Face it, Arny...you are wrong in this
case, and you're the one who is lying, because you can't admit you were wrong.
If you were right, I'd admit it. It would certainly make me the bigger man,
anyway.
BUT I STAND BY MY SENTENCE. It is grammatically correct. Case closed.
>Tht's your self-deception. You are confused about "facts" versus
>"opinions". You think that whenever I say something that you
>disagree with, I'm lying.
And no one on this NG has ever caught you in a lie. Wasn't that just one?
DOCUMENTED.
Besides...show me where we have disagreed about audio matters and I have called
you a liar. It hasn't happened, therefore you are the liar.
DOCUMENTED.
Besides, I ignore your audio-related posts...not because I disagree with them,
but because I find them irrelevant.
>Given that you seem to think that I'm a liar, if both the "pot" and
>the "kettle" are black, then you are admitting that you are a liar.
>
Again, your comprehension level is staggeringly low. No, Arny, that means that
others would consider you a hypocrite for accusing someone else of grammatical
and spelling errors. It has nothing to do with me or what I think. Go back
and re-read it. Several times.
>> "Marc just made the observation that Howard was unable to come up
>with an audio
>> writer who gave his book on audio matters a decent review. He
>only quoted
>> musicians and music reviewers."
>
>That's it not what you said.
That is exactly what I said. But as I have just proven, your level of reading
comprehension is suspect.
>Nice attempt at revisionist history.
"Hardly." I just proved you wrong.
>> Where is the lie?
>
>In black-and-white on RAO.
Answer the question. Stop making this up as you go along.
>> I do not. I'm the first to admit when I've made a mistake, and
>I've done so on
>> this forum. Can you say the same?
>
>Absolutely.
Is that to be followed with "But I never have made a mistake?" Please. Tell
that to Jennifer Burton.
> We all do. I can go through one day of your posts and point out
>presumption
>> after presumption, and I started doing so this evening and you
>went ballistic.
>Hardly Marc. You were caught making a claim that you obviously had
>no way to back up. You are now trying to put up a smoke screen.
>
"Hardly." Go back and re-read what I wrote. I left enough to the reader's
imagination so that I would not be "lying" or making false presumptions. You
made false presumptions and decided to accuse me of lying based on your false
presumptions, rather than what I actually said. Go back and re-read it.
Several times.
>> Your anger was only hiding your embarrassment at once again being
>revealed as a
>> moron...I presume.
>
>Finally, you tell the truth: you presume and thing you know.
I'm glad you picked up on that. That was the point, Arny. We all presume.
And I presume you're a moron. There, I said it. Does it make me a liar? No.
I am basing an opinion on a perception, which is what we all do.
>> That's why I often seek the advice of others on this forum.
>
>You should have done that here!
Where? And for what? I was right 100%, and it's all there in print. Go back
and re-read it. Several times.
>> Prove it. Quit making it up as you go along.
>
>I did, and you continue to try to lie your way out of the traps you
>are now in.
>
Once again, you are wrong, and you have proved nothing. I have proved you are
wrong in this post, among others. Go back and re-read this post. Several
times.
>> One of my goals is to get you off this NG for good so we can start
>talking
>> seriously about audio and music.
>
>Marc, the main reasons why you can't talk seriously about music and
>audio lie within you.
Arny, I write seriously about music and audio in Ultimate Audio and Perfect
Sound Forever on a regular basis, and for Rock and Rap Confidential and
Addicted To Noise occasionally. Therefore you just made another false
assumption. I talk about audio and music seriously all the time on this very
forum. Unfortunately I am too often sidetracked by false claims made by both
you and Howard. That is the only time it becomes difficult to contribute
worthwhile posts to this NG, and most of the others feel the same. If you
left, topical posts would increase, I presume.
>> If I start applying myself, are you saying I will succeed?
>
>It might make things more interesting.
>
>>I am saying that I'd rather just make you my bitch.
>
>As if you could do such a thing.
>
Already have.
Boon
Howard Ferstler
> Most of what I say on this NG is based upon my own experiences, therefore
> proper documentation is meaningless. That's the difference between normal
> people and drones like yourself, Arny...we rely upon our own perceptions.
So do people who claim to have seen Elvis or space aliens.
Howard Ferstler
Marc Phillips
>> Most of what I say on this NG is based upon my own experiences, therefore
>> proper documentation is meaningless. That's the difference between normal
>> people and drones like yourself, Arny...we rely upon our own perceptions.
>
>So do people who claim to have seen Elvis or space aliens.
>
What a cop-out, Howard. What are people expected to do? Get the meaning of
life from reading your books? Or from the results of Arny's ABX testing?
You reveal more about your "intellect" with every passing post. And it doesn't
look good.
Boon
Howard Ferstler
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:58:13 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >For a counterpoint opinion of Ferstler's talents, read Ralph
> >Glasgal's review of the later, The Home Theater Companion book
> >at:
> Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?
Change of pace, said Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> But since Howard finds the
> High End a bane to his existence,
I have no problems with high-end audio in principle. I think it
is a great thing. However, I do have problems with scam
operations that I believe are ruining the high-end audio
business.
and that he not only doesn't own any quality
> audio equipment,
What that I own do you have problems with, and why? I am asking
"why," because it is assumed that you have had experience with
some of the brands/models that I own, and you can pinpoint their
deficiencies. As I have noted, the wires and amps that I own all
sound like the other amps and wires that I own. I assume that it
is unlikely that they all have the same audible defects, so I
have concluded that they all have no audible defects. That leaves
speakers, surround processors, CD players (I do not believe you
even know what kind of players I have), subwoofers, and video
gear.
but he consistently criticizes those who do, it seems that it
> would be reasonable to state that those who agree with him also do not have
> high-end equipment.
Could it be that they just behaved in a sensible manner when
shopping for their equipment?
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> "Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> > Howard Ferstler said:
> >
> > >> But I truly enjoyed re-reading Corey's thorough dissection of
> that blight
> > >on
> > >> the audio world, Howard Ferstler. Thanks, Corey, JA, and Zip!
> > >
> >
> > >Too bad you cannot read the positive reviews of that same book in
> > >Fanfare, The American Record Guide, College and Research Library
> > >News, and Music Library Association Notes. Written mainly by
> >
> > But no one with any real experience with high-quality stereo
> equipment. How
> > fitting.
>
> That would appear to be a presumption of yours, Marc.
>
> name the authors of those reviews and list the audio equipment that
> they have experience with.
>
> this up as you go along.
From what I gather, Ralph Glasgal's system is pretty spectacular.
So is Karl Nehring's and I assume that Mike Riggs has a pretty
decent installation, as does Peter Aczel. They all liked the
third book, although Aczel was unsettled by some parts of it. Al
Fasoldt, who praised my third and fourth books in Fanfare, is the
audio writer for the magazine, and I assume he has a nice set up.
Mike Silverton, who reviewed my first book, also has a
spectacular system. It is highly likely that John Eargle, who is
the primary engineer for Delos Records and who has written a book
on speaker design and several other books on recording, praised
my second book in a review in Audio magazine. I assume he has a
good system.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard Ferstler said:
>
> >> But I truly enjoyed re-reading Corey's thorough dissection of that blight
> >on
> >> the audio world, Howard Ferstler. Thanks, Corey, JA, and Zip!
> >Too bad you cannot read the positive reviews of that same book in
> >Fanfare, The American Record Guide, College and Research Library
> >News, and Music Library Association Notes. Written mainly by
> >musicians and record reviewers, plus one physics PhD.
> But no one with any real experience with high-quality stereo equipment. How
> fitting.
From what I gather, Ralph Glasgal's system is pretty spectacular.
So is Karl Nehring's and I assume that Mike Riggs has a pretty
decent installation, as does Peter Aczel. They all liked the
third book, although Aczel was unsettled by some parts of it. Al
Fasoldt, who praised my third and fourth books in Fanfare, is the
audio writer for the magazine, and I assume he has a nice set up.
Mike Silverton, who reviewed my first book, also has a
spectacular system. It is highly likely that John Eargle, who is
the primary engineer for Delos Records and who has written a book
on speaker design and several other books on recording
technology, has a good system. He praised my second book in a
review in Audio magazine.
> >For a counterpoint opinion of Ferstler's talents, read Ralph
> >Glasgal's review of the later, The Home Theater Companion book
> >at:
> I don't think enough of you to go to such an effort.
So, you only read what you want to read. You have made up your
mind about Ferstler, and there is no point in hearing any ideas
that might run counter to what you now believe.
> >Hopefully, since you do not seem up to reading the books
> >themselves, at least you will read more than one review.
> I prefer to read books that offer some kind of reward to the reader. Sorry,
> your books do not do that.
How could you know this if you did not read them?
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
Elvis almost certainly is not alive, and it is unlikely that
space aliens have bothered to visit earth. We would not be worth
their trouble.
Getting back to audio. I assume that you have a pretty strong
vested psychological interest in the mythology that surrounds
certain high-end products and product categories. So, I imagine
that wishful thinking has a great deal to do with your supposed
"experiences" with hardware.
Howard Ferstler
Marc Phillips
>From what I gather, Ralph Glasgal's system is pretty spectacular.
>So is Karl Nehring's and I assume that Mike Riggs has a pretty
>decent installation, as does Peter Aczel.
If they do, then I take back what I said. But if I may offer a word of
suggestion, Howard...I thought your "rebuttal" to Corey's article was a bit too
tame and restrained...it felt like you were bringing a pocket knife to a
gunfight. Notwithstanding the possibility that you didn't want to get down and
dirty with CG or JA, I'd feel more comfortable about the points you made if you
said them with a little more fire and conviction. Just as we rile you and get
you on the defensive here, and you show a spark of life, you should have done
so in your more public persona.
In an attempt to be totally honest and fortright with you, Howard, I do find
your writing to be dry and uninvolving (much like the sound of Allison
speakers). If you railed against the inconsistencies of the High-End with the
fervor you think you do, you might sell more books.
>So, you only read what you want to read. You have made up your
>mind about Ferstler, and there is no point in hearing any ideas
>that might run counter to what you now believe.
No, against my better judgment, I am delving more and more into Ferstler. I
have seen nothing so far to suggest my initial impressions were incorrect. But
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, Howard, and if you don't
like what I find, then you'll just have to accept it. It will be MY opinion,
just as it yours that the High End is a scam.
>How could you know this if you did not read them?
>
You won't be able to say that for very long.
Boon
Marc Phillips
>I have no problems with high-end audio in principle. I think it
>is a great thing. However, I do have problems with scam
>operations that I believe are ruining the high-end audio
>business.
Once again you have failed to name specific products. I have no interests in
acting upon your recommendations, but what about newbies? Don't you owe it to
them? You at least owe it to yourself if you desire a modicum of credibility.
>What that I own do you have problems with, and why? I am asking
>"why," because it is assumed that you have had experience with
>some of the brands/models that I own, and you can pinpoint their
>deficiencies
Like I've said in another post, I find Allison speakers to be dry and
uninvolving, about on the same level as Boston Acoustics and Polk. Not
complete shit, mind you, but far from the best. I find Carver amps to be
lacking in any sort of finesse or grace...they're all about power, with no
respect to grace or musicality. They sound unrefined. I've owned AR products
in the past (AR11 speakers and an ES-1 turntable) and I liked them, but I think
I've done much better since then. I don't like the AR-3a speaker...it has
boomy, undefined bass, and a rolled-off treble. The midrange is okay, though.
I don't know if you actually own a pair or not, but you've certainly championed
them in your writings.
> As I have noted, the wires and amps that I own all
>sound like the other amps and wires that I own.
Which don't sound anything like SETs, which I've mentioned to you before, or
something like a Krell, an Audio Research, or a Mark Levinson, or like my Naim
or my Aloia. Mid-fi equipment does sound the same, Howard...it only differs in
the bells and whistles. That may be generalizing, but that has been my
experience. The finer stuff does not sound the same.
>but he consistently criticizes those who do, it seems that it
>> would be reasonable to state that those who agree with him also do not have
>> high-end equipment.
>Could it be that they just behaved in a sensible manner when
>shopping for their equipment?
>
That would be another gross assumption.
Boon
Marc Phillips
>> >> Most of what I say on this NG is based upon my own experiences,
>therefore
>> >> proper documentation is meaningless. That's the difference between
>normal
>> >> people and drones like yourself, Arny...we rely upon our own
>perceptions.
>> >So do people who claim to have seen Elvis or space aliens.
>
>> What a cop-out, Howard. What are people expected to do? Get the meaning
>of
>> life from reading your books? Or from the results of Arny's ABX testing?
>> You reveal more about your "intellect" with every passing post. And it
>doesn't
>> look good.
>Elvis almost certainly is not alive, and it is unlikely that
>space aliens have bothered to visit earth. We would not be worth
>their trouble.
I agree. That doesn't mean we're right. And it certainly has nothing to do
with the point I was making.
>Getting back to audio. I assume that you have a pretty strong
>vested psychological interest in the mythology that surrounds
>certain high-end products and product categories. So, I imagine
>that wishful thinking has a great deal to do with your supposed
>"experiences" with hardware.
You assume and you imagine. Try telling the truth, for once.
Boon
Howard Ferstler
> Once again you have failed to name specific products.
To prevent you from contacting all of the companies that I might
list, and suggesting to each of them that they line up and sue
me. The tweakos will do what they can to slam anybody who is a
threat to your religious attachment to audio (the Amazon reviews
showed that), and so I certainly will not put myself into a
position to be hit below the belt any more than I have.
I have no interests in
> acting upon your recommendations, but what about newbies? Don't you owe it to
> them? You at least owe it to yourself if you desire a modicum of credibility.
If they read my books, magazine essays, and reviews, and then use
their heads, I think they will get the message. One of the first
things I suggest is use of the level-matched, quick-switchover
comparison technique, rather than the unplug/plug/listen
technique, or even worse, the single-presentation method. Doing
really valid comparisons would all by itself probably be enough
to solve the mythology problem that is infecting high-end audio.
> Like I've said in another post, I find Allison speakers to be dry and
> uninvolving, about on the same level as Boston Acoustics and Polk.
What in the world does "uninvolving" mean? How do you get
"involved" with speakers. Sounds almost weird. And I rather like
both the Polk and BA speakers, too.
Interestingly, I believe the three companies you noted are among
the few who go to the trouble to build their drivers themselves,
to insure that in-house performance parameters are adhered to.
Allison did this, even though his was actually a fairly small
company. His drivers were not the usual domes and cones, either.
Not
> complete shit, mind you, but far from the best. I find Carver amps to be
> lacking in any sort of finesse or grace...they're all about power, with no
> respect to grace or musicality. They sound unrefined.
This is mumbo jumbo.
I've owned AR products
> in the past (AR11 speakers and an ES-1 turntable) and I liked them, but I think
> I've done much better since then. I don't like the AR-3a speaker...it has
> boomy, undefined bass, and a rolled-off treble. The midrange is okay, though.
> I don't know if you actually own a pair or not, but you've certainly championed
> them in your writings.
The system has been out of production for two decades. I once
owned a pair. They did intentionally tilt downward in the treble.
It was a good thing, given the nature of the software of the era.
The downward tilt still works for a lot of classical material,
even in CD form. I think they are still viable speakers, although
the lack of liquid cooling puts them at risk if rock-music types
get hold of them.
> > As I have noted, the wires and amps that I own all
> >sound like the other amps and wires that I own.
> Which don't sound anything like SETs,
I should imagine so.
which I've mentioned to you before, or
> something like a Krell, an Audio Research, or a Mark Levinson, or like my Naim
> or my Aloia. Mid-fi equipment does sound the same, Howard...it only differs in
> the bells and whistles.
I am curious about what it is that makes so many different
products all sound wrong, but still identical. Sounds like the
manufacturers are all in collusion to produce the same kind of
mid-fi sound. That in itself shows great skill. Are you saying
that all those mid-fi outfits simply lack the expertise to get
high-end sound out of their amps, or are you saying that they are
experts, but that they intentionally skew the performance of
their hardware, in order to cater to the tin-eared whims of the
mainstream consumer?
That may be generalizing, but that has been my
> experience. The finer stuff does not sound the same.
Because in many cases it has problems. In most cases, however,
the differences involve the overexcited and fantasy-related
imaginations of their proponents and owners. Much of high-end
audio is driven by myth. That is what is wrong with it.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
But if I may offer a word of
> suggestion, Howard...I thought your "rebuttal" to Corey's article was a bit too
> tame and restrained...it felt like you were bringing a pocket knife to a
> gunfight. Notwithstanding the possibility that you didn't want to get down and
> dirty with CG or JA, I'd feel more comfortable about the points you made if you
> said them with a little more fire and conviction. Just as we rile you and get
> you on the defensive here, and you show a spark of life, you should have done
> so in your more public persona.
"Never get into a nasty debate with an editor in his own
magazine" is an old saw that people with inclinations to complain
should remember. If I had gone at Corey in a really vindictive
manner, John would not have printed the letter. There was a fine
line there that I had to be careful not to cross over.
People who write hypercritical letters to editors should always
remember this. Of course, on RAO, you can say what you please,
but I should note that this is not the case with, say, RAHE,
which is why so many silly posts are rejected. The same thing
happens with print-medium magazines.
> >So, you only read what you want to read. You have made up your
> >mind about Ferstler, and there is no point in hearing any ideas
> >that might run counter to what you now believe.
> >How could you know this if you did not read them?
> You won't be able to say that for very long.
I do hope that you attempt to read a decent cross section of my
stuff, and not just one or two items. I cover a lot of ground,
and the essay themes and product-review categories vary
considerably. My The Sensible Sound essays began in issue 63
(Apr/May, 1997), and my product reviews began to show up in issue
65 (Sept/Oct, 1997). There are several dozen of them, now, and
the further along I got, the more elaborate my commentary essays
become.
There is also the July/August, 1999 essay on woofers and bass in
Audio magazine that Dave Weinberg and I did. Also available are
essays in the April and December, 1995 issues of Stereo Review,
as well as in the October, 1990 issue. If you find an essay that
you have philosophical problems with, I assume that you will be
able articulate your disagreement beyond simply saying that I am
"uninvolving."
Howard Ferstler
Stephen McElroy
> To prevent you from contacting all of the companies that I might
> list, and suggesting to each of them that they line up and sue
> me.
Howard, move to England. You'll find the libel laws more advantageous there.
Stephen
Marc Phillips
>> Once again you have failed to name specific products.
>To prevent you from contacting all of the companies that I might
>list, and suggesting to each of them that they line up and sue
>me.
That never even occurred to me. In fact, there have been quite a few products
in the High End that have not held up to scrutiny and have failed (Tice TPS
clocks, for example, and the infamous Belt tweaks). If you had named some of
these, I would have agreed. However, if you had mentioned tweaks that I have
personally used and found to be valuable, then yes, I would have objected
strenuously. Besides, who other than Bose is known for suing after getting bad
reviews? The worst that happens is that someone pulls their advertising.
>The tweakos will do what they can to slam anybody who is a
>threat to your religious attachment to audio (the Amazon reviews
>showed that), and so I certainly will not put myself into a
>position to be hit below the belt any more than I have.
But unless you are more specific about what products are scams, no one will
take you seriously. In a court of law, you'd never even make it to the stand
to plead your case.
>I have no interests in
>> acting upon your recommendations, but what about newbies? Don't you owe it
>to
>> them? You at least owe it to yourself if you desire a modicum of
>credibility.
>If they read my books, magazine essays, and reviews, and then use
>their heads, I think they will get the message.
They'll certainly know what you like...but I thought you maintained a certain
amount of pride in exposing fradulent practices? Your audience will certainly
want to benefit from your experience. If you're vague, then they'll feel let
down. I know I would.
>One of the first
>things I suggest is use of the level-matched, quick-switchover
>comparison technique, rather than the unplug/plug/listen
>technique, or even worse, the single-presentation method.
But I think the average guy reading your book is unprepared to do that. Since
your books are usually meant to be introductions to each topic, you have to
assume your readers know nothing about level-matching or SPL meters or
switching boxes, and they would probably scoff at the idea that they need to
purchase such items or possess such knowledge before putting together a
satisfying system. I was certainly able to put together a musically satisfying
system without the tools you mention...I relied upon recommendations from
knowledgeable people, and then I listened for myself with my own two ears. I
believe that's all most people need to do.
>> Like I've said in another post, I find Allison speakers to be dry and
>> uninvolving, about on the same level as Boston Acoustics and Polk.
>
>What in the world does "uninvolving" mean? How do you get
>"involved" with speakers
You know exactly what I mean. If you don't know what it is to get involved
with a piece of music, then you have no right to write books about it.
>And I rather like
>both the Polk and BA speakers, too.
Like I said...they're not bad...there's just many speakers that are much
better.
>Interestingly, I believe the three companies you noted are among
>the few who go to the trouble to build their drivers themselves,
>to insure that in-house performance parameters are adhered to.
Many high-end speaker manufacturers do the same.
>I find Carver amps to be
>> lacking in any sort of finesse or grace...they're all about power, with no
>> respect to grace or musicality. They sound unrefined.
>This is mumbo jumbo.
No, this is over your head. Or your ears, at least.
>I don't like the AR-3a speaker...it has
>> boomy, undefined bass, and a rolled-off treble. The midrange is okay,
>though.
>> I don't know if you actually own a pair or not, but you've certainly
>championed
>> them in your writings.
>
>The system has been out of production for two decades.
They brought them back just recently for a limited run, with "upgraded specs."
They still sounded dated. Of course, I was referring to the fact that you've
mentioned the AR-3as as being all the speaker you'll ever need.
>> > As I have noted, the wires and amps that I own all
>> >sound like the other amps and wires that I own.
>
>> Which don't sound anything like SETs,
>
>I should imagine so.
Don't imagine. Hear for yourself.
>I am curious about what it is that makes so many different
>products all sound wrong, but still identical.
That's a surprisingly naive statement. I would think that if you spent a
little more time investigating this, the answer would become clear to you.
>Are you saying
>that all those mid-fi outfits simply lack the expertise to get
>high-end sound out of their amps, or are you saying that they are
>experts, but that they intentionally skew the performance of
>their hardware, in order to cater to the tin-eared whims of the
>mainstream consumer?
I'm saying that they're businessmen, and that they're competing in an open
market full of consumers who have subjective expectations as to audio
performance.
>That may be generalizing, but that has been my
>> experience. The finer stuff does not sound the same.
>Because in many cases it has problems. In most cases, however,
>the differences involve the overexcited and fantasy-related
>imaginations of their proponents and owners. Much of high-end
>audio is driven by myth. That is what is wrong with it.
And you still haven't come up with anything other than your own opinions to
support that, and that's why no one takes you seriously.
Boon
Dr. B. J. Feng
> Howard said:
> >> Once again you have failed to name specific products.
Marc,
I think you're partially wrong here. Howard has come out and specified
products (and categories of products) that he considers scams.
Examples: any high-end interconnect, any high-end spkr cable, high-end
power cords, upper-echelon high-end amps/pres/turntables/etc.
Remember, Howard's view seems to be that a product is a scam if
it is priced much higher than other products that perform similarly,
ala Krell versus Bryston versus Adcom.
John F.
Howard Ferstler
>
> Arny said:
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Show me where I have documented a claim where I didn't.
> >> >
> >> >That's just it, as rule you don't document your claims.
> >>
> >> NAME A CLAIM I HAVE NOT DOCUMENTED
>
> >experience with high end equipment seems like a good starting place.
> I claimed that it figured that Howard would mention good reviews solely from
> non-audio magazines about his book on audio.
The third book, The Home Theater Companion, got a good review in
Audio magazine (Mike Riggs), The Audio Critic (well, Aczel was a
but skeptical about some things, but he generally liked the
book). With nearly all the books that were reviewed in music
magazines, the reviewers (Silverton and Fasoldt, for sure) were
among the magazine's audio-column writers. Fasoldt also gave the
latest book, The Digital Audio Music List, a great review in
Fanfare, and he also raved about the third book. The second book,
High Definition Compact Disc Recordings, got a great review by
John Eargel in Audio, and Eargle is an audiophile to say the
least. I mean, he has written a book on speaker design, and
several others on recording techniques and technology, and he is
the chief engineer for Delos Records.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> But unless you are more specific about what products are scams, no one will
> take you seriously. In a court of law, you'd never even make it to the stand
> to plead your case.
I did do this once on RAO, and I also have done one or two
columns in TSS that outlined certain criteria for spotting scams.
Look them up. My comments on RAO caught me all sorts of flack.
Hence, my disinclination to not post stuff like that any more.
> >If they read my books, magazine essays, and reviews, and then use
> >their heads, I think they will get the message.
> They'll certainly know what you like...but I thought you maintained a certain
> amount of pride in exposing fradulent practices?
My biggest feeling of pride comes when someone employs
level-matched, quick-switching techniques and discovers the truth
for themselves.
Your audience will certainly
> want to benefit from your experience. If you're vague, then they'll feel let
> down. I know I would.
Which is why you should do your own quick-switching,
level-matched comparisons.
> >One of the first
> >things I suggest is use of the level-matched, quick-switchover
> >comparison technique, rather than the unplug/plug/listen
> >technique, or even worse, the single-presentation method.
> But I think the average guy reading your book is unprepared to do that.
If he is prepared to spend $400 on cables and $5000 on a stereo
amplifier, he owes it to himself to do the comparisons. It is not
an expensive or complex process. Some specifics will be in an
upcoming TSS article of mine, but I have also noted some details
on RAO. Funny that you missed them, because some people
complained that I explained them too many times as it is.
I was certainly able to put together a musically satisfying
> system without the tools you mention...I relied upon recommendations from
> knowledgeable people, and then I listened for myself with my own two ears. I
> believe that's all most people need to do.
Provided they do so in a way that allows for valid comparisons.
The technique I outlined was less tedious than a DBT, which is
why I mentioned it at all. It is not perfect, but it is a far cry
from the unplug/plug/listen technique, or from what Arny calls
the single-presentation method.
> >> Like I've said in another post, I find Allison speakers to be dry and
> >> uninvolving, about on the same level as Boston Acoustics and Polk.
> >What in the world does "uninvolving" mean? How do you get
> >"involved" with speakers
> You know exactly what I mean.
No I do not. If the music is right, someone can become quite
involved with what they hear on a table radio or in their car.
Indeed, if you have driven much, you see people becoming very
involved with car music all the time. Involvement with music is
no big deal, which is why music is so nice.
If you don't know what it is to get involved
> with a piece of music, then you have no right to write books about it.
Right. However, I believe that most of what you are talking about
involves people becoming psychologically "involved" with their
audio systems and not with the music.
> >And I rather like
> >both the Polk and BA speakers, too.
> Like I said...they're not bad...there's just many speakers that are much
> better.
I have found that comparing speakers is very difficult, even when
you set them in side-by-side pairs in your own listening room,
and then either listen to each pair long term or do quick
switching. (I outline the pitfalls in many of my loudspeaker
reviews for The Sensible Sound.) Trying to spot which one is best
this way is still very tricky. Is this how you do it?
If you do it by listening at one dealer or one person's home and
then go listen to another system at another dealer or another
person's home, all bets are off.
> >I find Carver amps to be
> >> lacking in any sort of finesse or grace...they're all about power, with no
> >> respect to grace or musicality. They sound unrefined.
> >This is mumbo jumbo.
> No, this is over your head. Or your ears, at least.
Well, I am pretty bone headed. Give me a clue as to how an amp
can embrace musicality. Even more importantly, give me an idea of
how an amp can have grace.
> >I don't like the AR-3a speaker...it has
> >> boomy, undefined bass, and a rolled-off treble. The midrange is okay,
> >though.
> >> I don't know if you actually own a pair or not, but you've certainly
> >championed
> >> them in your writings.
> >The system has been out of production for two decades.
> They brought them back just recently for a limited run, with "upgraded specs."
A still earlier "reissue" was the AR-303. Hirsch compared that
model to the original in Stereo Review a few years back. A good
friend of mine owns both. (Indeed, the pair of AR-3a models that
Hirsch used as a reference belonged to my friend.) I have
Hirsch's curves on both, too, and also curves run by AR. I have
also listened to both in the same room.
Anyway, I find it interesting that AR has come up with a new
version of a speaker that my friend Roy Allison, working with
Chuck McShane many years ago, helped to design.
> They still sounded dated. Of course, I was referring to the fact that you've
> mentioned the AR-3as as being all the speaker you'll ever need.
Speakers these days are liked if they are flat responding,
particularly if the listener's taste runs toward pop music. The
AR-3a had a downward sloping response toward the treble. The
slope extended all the way from the bass upward in frequency. The
AR-303 (partially designed by Ken Kantor), although a flatter
system, was really not all that much more bright sounding than
the 3a. The sloping response of the 3a worked well with a lot of
classical material (which, if you attend a lot of live concerts,
you will realize is generally recorded too bright to begin with),
but it is not a speaker that pop-music lovers would care to
snuggle up to.
> >I am curious about what it is that makes so many different
> >products all sound wrong, but still identical.
> That's a surprisingly naive statement. I would think that if you spent a
> little more time investigating this, the answer would become clear to you.
No. I mean what kind of designed-in qualities would make a group
of dissimilarly designed, but still distorting amplifiers all
sound identical? How could this be pulled off?
> >Are you saying
> >that all those mid-fi outfits simply lack the expertise to get
> >high-end sound out of their amps, or are you saying that they are
> >experts, but that they intentionally skew the performance of
> >their hardware, in order to cater to the tin-eared whims of the
> >mainstream consumer?
> I'm saying that they're businessmen, and that they're competing in an open
> market full of consumers who have subjective expectations as to audio
> performance.
What kind of characteristics are they designing into those
cheaper amps? I mean, the high-end group says that those amps
have distortions that often render them unlistenable. Why would
the mid-fi manufacturers want to build amps like that? You would
think that they would want to build neutral-sounding amps. Funny
also that those amps usually have pretty good specifications and
that even cheap receivers often have exemplary measurements.
> >That may be generalizing, but that has been my
> >> experience. The finer stuff does not sound the same.
> >Because in many cases it has problems. In most cases, however,
> >the differences involve the overexcited and fantasy-related
> >imaginations of their proponents and owners. Much of high-end
> >audio is driven by myth. That is what is wrong with it.
> And you still haven't come up with anything other than your own opinions to
> support that, and that's why no one takes you seriously.
No one, or just the excitable fringe elements on RAO and on the
subscription lists of Stereophile and The Absolute Sound, and
other magazines of that type?
Howard Ferstler
Marc Phillips
>> >>
>> >> Show me where I have documented a claim where I didn't.
>> >
>> >That's just it, as rule you don't document your claims.
>>
>> NAME A CLAIM I HAVE NOT DOCUMENTED
>Your claim that none of the people who reviewed Howard's book had
>experience with high end equipment seems like a good starting place.
I claimed that it figured that Howard would mention good reviews solely from
non-audio magazines about his book on audio. I did not say that no one
mentioned had a decent stereo.
You lose, Arny. You are a liar. That is my last response to you.
Boon
Marc Phillips
I know that Howard condemns entire product categories. I've asked him several
times to mention specific products that he has found to be "scams," and he
always declines, saying things like he doesn't want me to act upon his
recommendations, or he doesn't want to be sued.
My point is that Howard doesn't point out specific products because he has not
heard any. He has a history of condemning things with which he has no
experience (i.e. high-quality analog rigs). If he had mentioned that Kimber
Black Pearl loudspeaker cable sounds no better than Radio Shack zip cord, and
that he had done extensive listening tests and came to that conclusion on his
own, I'd respect that.
But he hasn't done anything like that, has he?
Boon
Sandman
Howard Ferstler <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote
> There is also the July/August, 1999 essay on woofers and bass in
> Audio magazine that [deleted] and I did.
...thus ensuring the ensuing demise of Audio....
:-)
Sandman
Arny Krüger
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.compost> wrote in message
> Arny said:
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Show me where I have documented a claim where I didn't.
> >> >
> >> >That's just it, as rule you don't document your claims.
> >>
> >> NAME A CLAIM I HAVE NOT DOCUMENTED
>
> >Your claim that none of the people who reviewed Howard's book had
> >experience with high end equipment seems like a good starting
place.
>
> I claimed that it figured that Howard would mention good reviews
solely from
> non-audio magazines about his book on audio. I did not say that
no one
> mentioned had a decent stereo.
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=590141267
Howard Ferstler wrote:
>Too bad you cannot read the positive reviews of that same book in
>Fanfare, The American Record Guide, College and Research Library
>News, and Music Library Association Notes. Written mainly by
>musicians and record reviewers, plus one physics PhD.
Marc Phillips wrote on 2/26/2000:
"But no one with any real experience with high-quality stereo
equipment. How fitting."
> You lose, Arny.
The facts bear me out.
>You are a liar.
The facts bear me out.
>That is my last response to you.
Hit and run, eh Marc?
SirJurksaLot
entire life here writing the dumbest posts I have ever read. He makes Singh
and Zipser look like geniuses, and he makes Krueger look like Sir Isaac Freakin
Newton.
>Subject: Re: Book Review of Howard ferstler's Book
Howard Ferstler
> Marc,
>
> I think you're partially wrong here. Howard has come out and specified
> products (and categories of products) that he considers scams.
>
> Examples: any high-end interconnect, any high-end spkr cable, high-end
> power cords, upper-echelon high-end amps/pres/turntables/etc.
>
> Remember, Howard's view seems to be that a product is a scam if
> it is priced much higher than other products that perform similarly,
> ala Krell versus Bryston versus Adcom.
Krell has recently come out with a stereo amplifier that has
600 wpc into 8 ohms and costs $13,000. Now, exactly what is
the purpose of this amplifier? Compared to the Bryston and
Adcom versions, I mean. More power? Exactly how much power
do we need? I mean, a really serious enthusiast would biamp,
anyway, and if he did that with doubled up Adcoms or
Brystons, he would match the Krell's power and still come
off cheaper.
There are other amps in similar or close to similar price
categories that do even less than the Krell does. At least
it has a lot of power.
Then we have any wires or interconnects (the reader may
supply the brand names) that cost more than twenty or thirty
bucks for a typical speaker run or one-meter connector.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
Did you read the article?
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> I know that Howard condemns entire product categories. I've asked him several
> times to mention specific products that he has found to be "scams," and he
> always declines, saying things like he doesn't want me to act upon his
> recommendations, or he doesn't want to be sued.
>
> My point is that Howard doesn't point out specific products because he has not
> heard any. He has a history of condemning things with which he has no
> experience (i.e. high-quality analog rigs). If he had mentioned that Kimber
> Black Pearl loudspeaker cable sounds no better than Radio Shack zip cord, and
> that he had done extensive listening tests and came to that conclusion on his
> own, I'd respect that.
>
> But he hasn't done anything like that, has he?
I have compared rather long runs of 16- and 18-gauge lamp
cord to 4-foot sections of 12-gauge stranded, and heard no
differences. (Well, with 24-feet of 18 gauge, I thought I
could hear some subtle differences up top with a pink-noise
source, but no differences with music.)
Now, if you can come up with a rational explanation of why
the Kimber wire would sound better than (or even different
from) 4 feet of 12-gauge stranded, I might see your point. I
mean, just what kind of sound-improving miracle can the
Kimber pull off? Just how "corrupt" can 4 feet of 12-gauge
stranded sound? Remember, with a quick-switching comparison,
it sounded identical to the cheap stuff, both with music and
pink-noise inputs.
I made a point of comparing the short, thick stuff to really
long runs of cheap lamp cord (in contrast to the high enders
who compare two different high-end wires and hear huge
differences in an unplug/plug/listen comparison), and if
what the high-end guys say is true, you would think that I
would have heard at least *some* differences between the
junk wire and the short/thick wires.
Howard Ferstler
Jms ent
>Krell has recently come out with a stereo amplifier that has
>600 wpc into 8 ohms and costs $13,000. Now, exactly what is
>the purpose of this amplifier? Compared to the Bryston and
>Adcom versions, I mean. More power? Exactly how much power
>do we need? I mean, a really serious enthusiast would biamp,
>anyway, and if he did that with doubled up Adcoms or
>Brystons, he would match the Krell's power and still come
>off cheaper.
>
>There are other amps in similar or close to similar price
>categories that do even less than the Krell does. At least
>it has a lot of power.
So, first you say the Krell is a scam, and then what? Not as much of a scam as
some other amplifiers that cost as much. So are there degrees of scam, or is it
absolute; i.e., this is a scam or this is not a scam?
Arny Krüger
"Jms ent" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000228093624...@ng-da1.aol.com...
IMO, Howard seems to miss the point that you seem to be trying to
make, and that is that an expensive audio component is not a scam if
it is sold as what it is when it is delivered and put into use.
Brian L. McCarty
boon...@aol.compost wrote on 27/2/00 16:16:
> My point is that Howard doesn't point out specific products because he has not
> heard any. He has a history of condemning things with which he has no
> experience (i.e. high-quality analog rigs).
Some things have such inherent flaws that they easily can be condemned
without listening to them. Records and turntables are a case in point; no
matter how "high quality" the format is clearly several steps behind CD's.
> If he had mentioned that Kimber
> Black Pearl loudspeaker cable sounds no better than Radio Shack zip cord, and
> that he had done extensive listening tests and came to that conclusion on his
> own, I'd respect that.
Likewise, knowing that science has failed to prove any audible difference in
cables, an opinion like this would be fraudulent.
Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
Zippie SOCKPUPPETS http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
Arny Krüger
"Brian L. McCarty" <opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote in message
news:B4DFA7DB.CDED%opera...@worldjazz.com...
> in article 20000227191615...@ng-fz1.aol.com, Marc
Phillips at
> boon...@aol.compost wrote on 27/2/00 16:16:
>
> > My point is that Howard doesn't point out specific products
because he has not
> > heard any. He has a history of condemning things with which he
has no
> > experience (i.e. high-quality analog rigs).
>
> Some things have such inherent flaws that they easily can be
condemned
> without listening to them. Records and turntables are a case in
point; no
> matter how "high quality" the format is clearly several steps
behind CD's.
>
> > If he had mentioned that Kimber
> > Black Pearl loudspeaker cable sounds no better than Radio Shack
zip cord, and
> > that he had done extensive listening tests and came to that
conclusion on his
> > own, I'd respect that.
>
> Likewise, knowing that science has failed to prove any audible
difference in
> cables, an opinion like this would be fraudulent.
>
Of course, that is a false claim. Science has proven audible
differences in audio cables.
What science has not found is reliably audible inherent differences
in audio cables that can't be explained by science.
Science can find unreliable audible differences in audio cables.
Science can find reliable difference in audio cables that are not
inherent in the cables or their physical properties.
These last two items are often called "illusions" and "placebo
effects".
The problem arises when people claim the existence of audible
differences between cables that can't be explained by science, or
try to explain audible differences using science in ways that are
not appropriate. Cardas "Golden Mean Stranding" might fit in that
category.
Science is capable of identifying effects that it can't currently
explain, but audio cables don't seem to be that way.
Howard Ferstler
>
> How does this clown Ferstler have time to write books, when he spends his
> entire life here writing the dumbest posts I have ever read. He makes Singh
> and Zipser look like geniuses, and he makes Krueger look like Sir Isaac Freakin
> Newton.
You seem upset, and also seem to feel that I have not
written any books, due to some kind of problem with my time.
Your outlook is understandable, particularly if you yourself
are inherently lethargic in terms of your mental faculties,
and blessed with a rather slow-responding intellect. Fast
writing obviously mystifies you.
Anyway, regarding the dumbness of my posts (because it is
pretty clear that you have not read any of my published
materials), if you can list some specific complaints, or
point out some areas where I am in error, possibly we can go
over them in detail.
You seem to feel that you are knowledgeable enough to spot
my errors, and I want to see if possibly you can get me on a
path that would incorporate a proper point of view.
Howard Ferstler
Tony Loban
<fer...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Speakers these days are liked if they are flat responding,
>particularly if the listener's taste runs toward pop music. The
>AR-3a had a downward sloping response toward the treble. The
>slope extended all the way from the bass upward in frequency.
The
>AR-303 (partially designed by Ken Kantor), although a flatter
>system, was really not all that much more bright sounding than
>the 3a. The sloping response of the 3a worked well with a lot of
>classical material (which, if you attend a lot of live concerts,
>you will realize is generally recorded too bright to begin
with),
>but it is not a speaker that pop-music lovers would care to
>snuggle up to.
howard, as i recall, one of the causes of the 'sloping'
frequency response of the 'ar 3a' was the fact that the woofer
was a bit more efficient than the other drivers, particularly
the tweeter. ar solved this problem, first in the 'ar-lst' and
later in the 'ar 10pi' through the use of auto-former matching
of driver efficiency.
now, one may argue that (given recording techniques and the
playback equipment of the day)a sloping frequency response was a
pleasing and even desirable trait. however, the inability of the
speaker to have a more neutral spectral balance was a serious
flaw. in my mind, the 'ar-lst' was the first 'high accuracy' ar
loudspeaker.
btw- of the 'pre ar-lst' products, i found the 'ar 5' to be more
listenable than the '3a'. ymmv.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard writes:
> >Krell has recently come out with a stereo amplifier that has
> >600 wpc into 8 ohms and costs $13,000. Now, exactly what is
> >the purpose of this amplifier? Compared to the Bryston and
> >Adcom versions, I mean. More power? Exactly how much power
> >do we need? I mean, a really serious enthusiast would biamp,
> >anyway, and if he did that with doubled up Adcoms or
> >Brystons, he would match the Krell's power and still come
> >off cheaper.
> >
> >There are other amps in similar or close to similar price
> >categories that do even less than the Krell does. At least
> >it has a lot of power.
> So, first you say the Krell is a scam, and then what?
Well, Carver's super amp some years back, and amps that are
in the same price category as the Krell, and of course any
wires and cables that cost more than a couple of dozen
bucks.
Not as much of a scam as
> some other amplifiers that cost as much. So are there degrees of scam, or is it
> absolute; i.e., this is a scam or this is not a scam?
Well, the term "scam" makes it all sound so "cheap" and low
class. So, what do you think a $13,000 amp is supposed to do
in a typical home-listening room that a $2500 amp (or even
two $2500 amps, doing biamp work) cannot do? Highlight any
"special features" such an amp might have.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> IMO, Howard seems to miss the point that you seem to be trying to
> make, and that is that an expensive audio component is not a scam if
> it is sold as what it is when it is delivered and put into use.
Agreed. If the company says in their advertising, or the
sales clerk says prior to the sale (or if the product
reviewer says in his supposedly manufacturer-approved
review) that the product is no better performing than items
that cost considerably less, but that it has an intrinsic
worth that is beyond considerations of basic performance
(visual style, fit and finish, or prestige value that
indicates that the purchaser is wealthy), then I suppose
that no "scam" is involved.
Are the companies who produce the really upscale components
ordinarily that candid?
Howard Ferstler
dave weil
Jacob Kramer wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:58:13 -0500, Howard Ferstler
> <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >For a counterpoint opinion of Ferstler's talents, read Ralph
> >Glasgal's review of the later, The Home Theater Companion book
> >at:
>
> Why are you referring to yourself in the third person?
>
Would you rather that he use the royal plural?
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Marc Phillips wrote:
> >
> > Howard Ferstler said:
> >
> > >> But I truly enjoyed re-reading Corey's thorough dissection of that blight
> > >on
> > >> the audio world, Howard Ferstler. Thanks, Corey, JA, and Zip!
>
> > >Too bad you cannot read the positive reviews of that same book in
> > >Fanfare, The American Record Guide, College and Research Library
> > >News, and Music Library Association Notes. Written mainly by
> > >musicians and record reviewers, plus one physics PhD.
>
> > But no one with any real experience with high-quality stereo equipment. How
> > fitting.
>
> From what I gather, Ralph Glasgal's system is pretty spectacular.
> So is Karl Nehring's and I assume that Mike Riggs has a pretty
> decent installation, as does Peter Aczel. They all liked the
> third book, although Aczel was unsettled by some parts of it. Al
> Fasoldt, who praised my third and fourth books in Fanfare, is the
> audio writer for the magazine, and I assume he has a nice set up.
> Mike Silverton, who reviewed my first book, also has a
> spectacular system. It is highly likely that John Eargle, who is
> the primary engineer for Delos Records and who has written a book
> on speaker design and several other books on recording
> technology, has a good system. He praised my second book in a
> review in Audio magazine.
This is a mistake easily made. Many professionals have very average systems. You
would think that, for instance, people like Al Kooper and Sir George Martin would
have great systems. But they are on record as saying that they don't have anything
out-of-the-ordinary. Now the fact that they eschew high-end isn't an indictment
of said high-end, just a reflection of personal preference.
Oh wait, you probably don't even know who Al Kooper is. And BTW, Sir George
actually was the producer for a little pop group when he wasn't producing classical
music.
>
>
> > >For a counterpoint opinion of Ferstler's talents, read Ralph
> > >Glasgal's review of the later, The Home Theater Companion book
> > >at:
>
> > I don't think enough of you to go to such an effort.
>
> So, you only read what you want to read. You have made up your
> mind about Ferstler, and there is no point in hearing any ideas
> that might run counter to what you now believe.
He's just ripping out a page from the "Howard Ferstler Personal Vision Handbook,
ed. #10." You can find this in your local library under the "Books That *Should*
Be Banned" section. I hear that John Gray wrote a very nice introduction.
>
>
> > >Hopefully, since you do not seem up to reading the books
> > >themselves, at least you will read more than one review.
>
> > I prefer to read books that offer some kind of reward to the reader. Sorry,
> > your books do not do that.
>
> How could you know this if you did not read them?
Because you claim to write differently there than here. This undermines your
entire credibility with some because of the slippery slope that you tread.
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
No, but he tried to pick up the April issue...
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> > I know that Howard condemns entire product categories. I've asked him several
> > times to mention specific products that he has found to be "scams," and he
> > always declines, saying things like he doesn't want me to act upon his
> > recommendations, or he doesn't want to be sued.
> >
> > My point is that Howard doesn't point out specific products because he has not
> > heard any. He has a history of condemning things with which he has no
> > experience (i.e. high-quality analog rigs). If he had mentioned that Kimber
> > Black Pearl loudspeaker cable sounds no better than Radio Shack zip cord, and
> > that he had done extensive listening tests and came to that conclusion on his
> > own, I'd respect that.
> >
> > But he hasn't done anything like that, has he?
>
> I have compared rather long runs of 16- and 18-gauge lamp
> cord to 4-foot sections of 12-gauge stranded, and heard no
> differences. (Well, with 24-feet of 18 gauge, I thought I
> could hear some subtle differences up top with a pink-noise
> source, but no differences with music.)
So comparing two types of cheap "wires" gives you the right to extrapolate? I
don't think so.
>
>
> Now, if you can come up with a rational explanation of why
> the Kimber wire would sound better than (or even different
> from) 4 feet of 12-gauge stranded, I might see your point. I
> mean, just what kind of sound-improving miracle can the
> Kimber pull off? Just how "corrupt" can 4 feet of 12-gauge
> stranded sound? Remember, with a quick-switching comparison,
> it sounded identical to the cheap stuff, both with music and
> pink-noise inputs.
I belive that you said that you could detect slight differences with pink noise. Am I
wrong about that?
>
>
> I made a point of comparing the short, thick stuff to really
> long runs of cheap lamp cord (in contrast to the high enders
> who compare two different high-end wires and hear huge
> differences in an unplug/plug/listen comparison),
Name examples of those who have excluded zip cord in their comparisons.
> and if
> what the high-end guys say is true, you would think that I
> would have heard at least *some* differences between the
> junk wire and the short/thick wires.
That short/thick wire is $4 a foot "wire." It's still a cheap interconnect by any
standard.
Give it up Howard. You lose.
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> "Dr. B. J. Feng" wrote:
>
> > Marc,
> >
> > I think you're partially wrong here. Howard has come out and specified
> > products (and categories of products) that he considers scams.
> >
> > Examples: any high-end interconnect, any high-end spkr cable, high-end
> > power cords, upper-echelon high-end amps/pres/turntables/etc.
> >
> > Remember, Howard's view seems to be that a product is a scam if
> > it is priced much higher than other products that perform similarly,
> > ala Krell versus Bryston versus Adcom.
>
> Krell has recently come out with a stereo amplifier that has
> 600 wpc into 8 ohms and costs $13,000. Now, exactly what is
> the purpose of this amplifier? Compared to the Bryston and
> Adcom versions, I mean. More power? Exactly how much power
> do we need? I mean, a really serious enthusiast would biamp,
> anyway, and if he did that with doubled up Adcoms or
> Brystons, he would match the Krell's power and still come
> off cheaper.
Why not do a little research into the power supply regulation and the type of
amplifier mode that it runs in (which class.)
> There are other amps in similar or close to similar price
> categories that do even less than the Krell does. At least
> it has a lot of power.
Stated even more accurated, a lot of "available" power.
>
>
> Then we have any wires or interconnects (the reader may
> supply the brand names) that cost more than twenty or thirty
> bucks for a typical speaker run or one-meter connector.
Unfortunately you haven't heard or seen any of them.
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> > Once again you have failed to name specific products.
>
> To prevent you from contacting all of the companies that I might
> list, and suggesting to each of them that they line up and sue
> me. The tweakos will do what they can to slam anybody who is a
> threat to your religious attachment to audio (the Amazon reviews
> showed that), and so I certainly will not put myself into a
> position to be hit below the belt any more than I have.
So you are afraid of someone doing the very same thing that you do here, which is
"hit below the belt."
>
>
> I have no interests in
> > acting upon your recommendations, but what about newbies? Don't you owe it to
> > them? You at least owe it to yourself if you desire a modicum of credibility.
>
> If they read my books, magazine essays, and reviews, and then use
> their heads, I think they will get the message. One of the first
> things I suggest is use of the level-matched, quick-switchover
> comparison technique, rather than the unplug/plug/listen
> technique,
Oh really? You suggest this? I didn't know that...
> or even worse, the single-presentation method. Doing
> really valid comparisons would all by itself probably be enough
> to solve the mythology problem that is infecting high-end audio.
>
> > Like I've said in another post, I find Allison speakers to be dry and
> > uninvolving, about on the same level as Boston Acoustics and Polk.
>
> What in the world does "uninvolving" mean? How do you get
> "involved" with speakers.
This is a telling statement.
> Sounds almost weird.
Yes, I guess it would to you.
> And I rather like
> both the Polk and BA speakers, too.
No doubt.
>
>
> Interestingly, I believe the three companies you noted are among
> the few who go to the trouble to build their drivers themselves,
> to insure that in-house performance parameters are adhered to.
This is another one of those "slurs" and "hitting below the belt." What possilbe
justification do you have for slighting the abilities of the major driver manufacturers
to produce a uniform product? Do you have any facts that a company like FIFA
can't maintain "in-house" parameters?
>
> Allison did this, even though his was actually a fairly small
> company. His drivers were not the usual domes and cones, either.
Apparently, even *he* farmed out some production according to what you or
someone else recently wrote here.
>
>
> Not
> > complete shit, mind you, but far from the best. I find Carver amps to be
> > lacking in any sort of finesse or grace...they're all about power, with no
> > respect to grace or musicality. They sound unrefined.
>
> This is mumbo jumbo.
No it's not. It's a statement based on observation. Of course you wouldn't know
anything about that.
>
>
> I've owned AR products
> > in the past (AR11 speakers and an ES-1 turntable) and I liked them, but I think
> > I've done much better since then. I don't like the AR-3a speaker...it has
> > boomy, undefined bass, and a rolled-off treble. The midrange is okay, though.
> > I don't know if you actually own a pair or not, but you've certainly championed
> > them in your writings.
>
> The system has been out of production for two decades. I once
> owned a pair. They did intentionally tilt downward in the treble.
> It was a good thing, given the nature of the software of the era.
> The downward tilt still works for a lot of classical material,
> even in CD form. I think they are still viable speakers, although
> the lack of liquid cooling puts them at risk if rock-music types
> get hold of them.
Now *this* is bullshit. You're more likely to fry those speakers with classical
music reproduced at realistic levels, especially those with high dynamic ranges like
Delos discs. Don't forget that much rock music is pretty compressed. All it would
take is one crescendo to do the trick.
>
>
> > > As I have noted, the wires and amps that I own all
> > >sound like the other amps and wires that I own.
>
> > Which don't sound anything like SETs,
>
> I should imagine so.
Unfortunately, "imagine" is all you can do. Don't forget your own admonitions to
those who haven't read your works.
>
>
> which I've mentioned to you before, or
> > something like a Krell, an Audio Research, or a Mark Levinson, or like my Naim
> > or my Aloia. Mid-fi equipment does sound the same, Howard...it only differs in
> > the bells and whistles.
>
> I am curious about what it is that makes so many different
> products all sound wrong, but still identical.
It's a shame that you aren't curious about the claims of those advancing high-end
stuff.
> Sounds like the
> manufacturers are all in collusion to produce the same kind of
> mid-fi sound. That in itself shows great skill. Are you saying
> that all those mid-fi outfits simply lack the expertise to get
> high-end sound out of their amps, or are you saying that they are
> experts, but that they intentionally skew the performance of
> their hardware, in order to cater to the tin-eared whims of the
> mainstream consumer?
>
> That may be generalizing, but that has been my
> > experience. The finer stuff does not sound the same.
>
> Because in many cases it has problems.
So you say. Shame that you don't "know" for sure.
> In most cases, however,
> the differences involve the overexcited and fantasy-related
> imaginations of their proponents and owners.
God forbid that someone should get excited about music or gear.
> Much of high-end
> audio is driven by myth. That is what is wrong with it.
Ever read the fable of The Fox and the Grapes?
Arny Krüger
"Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:38BA9DA0...@mailer.fsu.edu...
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> > IMO, Howard seems to miss the point that you seem to be trying
to
scam if
> > it is sold as what it is when it is delivered and put into use.
>
> Agreed. If the company says in their advertising, or the
> sales clerk says prior to the sale (or if the product
> reviewer says in his supposedly manufacturer-approved
> review) that the product is no better performing than items
> that cost considerably less, but that it has an intrinsic
> worth that is beyond considerations of basic performance
> (visual style, fit and finish, or prestige value that
> indicates that the purchaser is wealthy), then I suppose
> that no "scam" is involved.
I'd go further than that. If no false claims are made, then IMO the
people selling the product are "clean"
> Are the companies who produce the really upscale components
> ordinarily that candid?
IME, many seem to play by the rules I suggested.
They say they have a fine product, they deliver a fine product, and
yes, it costs more than the minimum product that sounds just as
good. There may be tangible benefits that are not related to sound,
and there may be intangible benefits.
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> > But unless you are more specific about what products are scams, no one will
> > take you seriously. In a court of law, you'd never even make it to the stand
> > to plead your case.
>
> I did do this once on RAO, and I also have done one or two
> columns in TSS that outlined certain criteria for spotting scams.
> Look them up. My comments on RAO caught me all sorts of flack.
> Hence, my disinclination to not post stuff like that any more.
>
> > >If they read my books, magazine essays, and reviews, and then use
> > >their heads, I think they will get the message.
>
> > They'll certainly know what you like...but I thought you maintained a certain
> > amount of pride in exposing fradulent practices?
>
> My biggest feeling of pride comes when someone employs
> level-matched, quick-switching techniques and discovers the truth
> for themselves.
Why would *you* have pride in this. You've "appropriated" this technique as your
own. I did this kind of comparison in the 80s. I'm sure that others have done it well
back in the shadows of audio time. You're a little late for the party Howard.
>
>
> Your audience will certainly
> > want to benefit from your experience. If you're vague, then they'll feel let
> > down. I know I would.
>
> Which is why you should do your own quick-switching,
> level-matched comparisons.
Yes, and you should too. Except include some of your "scam" products.
>
>
> > >One of the first
> > >things I suggest is use of the level-matched, quick-switchover
> > >comparison technique, rather than the unplug/plug/listen
> > >technique, or even worse, the single-presentation method.
>
> > >> Like I've said in another post, I find Allison speakers to be dry and
> > >> uninvolving, about on the same level as Boston Acoustics and Polk.
>
> > >What in the world does "uninvolving" mean? How do you get
> > >"involved" with speakers
>
> > You know exactly what I mean.
>
> No I do not. If the music is right, someone can become quite
> involved with what they hear on a table radio or in their car.
> Indeed, if you have driven much, you see people becoming very
> involved with car music all the time. Involvement with music is
> no big deal, which is why music is so nice.
Boonie, he's right here. He *doesn't understand.
I will say though that he's right about involvement on levels other than high-end.
I've made that point myself. I find Pet Sounds much more involving on a cheap
system or a car radio than with the DCC Analogue Mastered Vinyl or Remastered
CD on a high-end stereo.
>
>
> If you don't know what it is to get involved
> > with a piece of music, then you have no right to write books about it.
>
> Right.
Glad you agree. (Yes, Howard, I know you were being sarcastic as am I.)
> However, I believe that most of what you are talking about
> involves people becoming psychologically "involved" with their
> audio systems and not with the music.
You're wrong. It's the music that ultimately matters to many of the high-end folks,
at least judging by what they write here and based on conversations that I've had
with them. I don't discount, however, the satisfaction that one gets from owning
expensive and impressive-looking gear though. Even you Howard are subject to
that, by your own admission.
>
>
> > >And I rather like
> > >both the Polk and BA speakers, too.
>
> > Like I said...they're not bad...there's just many speakers that are much
> > better.
>
> I have found that comparing speakers is very difficult, even when
> you set them in side-by-side pairs in your own listening room,
Uh oh, I feel another epiphany coming. I must warn you though that Ivor T. has
already come up with that one <g>
>
> and then either listen to each pair long term or do quick
> switching. (I outline the pitfalls in many of my loudspeaker
> reviews for The Sensible Sound.) Trying to spot which one is best
> this way is still very tricky. Is this how you do it?
Comparing speakers, especially speakers with different sonic goals, is actually
pretty easy. You fix on the "house sound" pretty quickly. It's actually easier than
comparing cables or amps.
> If you do it by listening at one dealer or one person's home and
> then go listen to another system at another dealer or another
> person's home, all bets are off.
By Marc's description, and by the way that most people do it, this is an unlikely
scenario, especially when you're talking about using that techique exclusively.
>
>
> > >I find Carver amps to be
> > >> lacking in any sort of finesse or grace...they're all about power, with no
> > >> respect to grace or musicality. They sound unrefined.
>
> > >This is mumbo jumbo.
>
> > No, this is over your head. Or your ears, at least.
>
> Well, I am pretty bone headed.
True.
> Give me a clue as to how an amp
> can embrace musicality. Even more importantly, give me an idea of
> how an amp can have grace.
Try comparing a boombox to your system (do a little output wiring since you're
so handy with a soldering iron) and you'll be on your way.
dave weil
dave weil wrote:
>
>
> Stated even more accurated, a lot of "available" power.
"Accurated?" OMG!
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > My biggest feeling of pride comes when someone employs
> > level-matched, quick-switching techniques and discovers the truth
> > for themselves.
> Why would *you* have pride in this.
I always have pride in the human species when one of its
members exercises its intellect.
I'm sure that others have done it well
> back in the shadows of audio time. You're a little late for the party Howard.
Given how little the procedure is done, compared to the
popular unplug/plug/listen technique that you yourself say
that you have been using recently, as well as compared to
the single-presentation technique, I see nothing wrong with
me re-introducing the idea. It is surprising how many people
here seem unsettled by level matching and quick switching.
I mean, many of them will come up with some interesting
excuses about ABX testing (too much stress, too rushed,
etc.). However, those excuses are pretty lame when we are
talking about just level matching and doing the switchovers
quickly.
> > If you don't know what it is to get involved
> > > with a piece of music, then you have no right to write books about it.
> > Right.
> Glad you agree. (Yes, Howard, I know you were being sarcastic as am I.)
Where have I written books about music? Even my
record-review books do not deal with music, as music.
> > and then either listen to each pair long term or do quick
> > switching. (I outline the pitfalls in many of my loudspeaker
> > reviews for The Sensible Sound.) Trying to spot which one is best
> > this way is still very tricky. Is this how you do it?
> Comparing speakers, especially speakers with different sonic goals, is actually
> pretty easy. You fix on the "house sound" pretty quickly. It's actually easier than
> comparing cables or amps.
I disagree, particularly if they have "different sonic
goals," which I assume means that they would have different
radiation-pattern characteristics and location requirements.
Speakers can quite literally get in each other's way when
comparing. This is particularly true if you are comparing
models that are to be placed against the wall with models
that are designed to be pulled out from the wall (one pair
will have to be in a position to partially block the other
pair), or comparing two models that both have ultra-wide
dispersion and must be placed right next to each other to
keep their soundstages reasonably close together. In some
cases, this kind of placement is impossible.
In addition, the lateral displacement that is going to exist
with two similar pairs being compared (unless you place one
speaker pair on top of the other, which causes sonic
problems of its own) also makes it difficult to compare
soundstaging and sweet-spot imaging qualities.
However, with amps all you need to do is level match, set up
a quick-switch box rig, and feed the box's output to the
same pair of speakers. With wires, you do not even need to
level match.
Because the same speakers are being used, it is quite easy
to spot any claimed differences in imaging, soundstaging,
etc. when comparing wires and wires and amps and amps.
> > If you do it by listening at one dealer or one person's home and
> > then go listen to another system at another dealer or another
> > person's home, all bets are off.
> By Marc's description, and by the way that most people do it, this is an unlikely
> scenario, especially when you're talking about using that techique exclusively.
This means that the opinions he has and that others have are
the result of some pretty extensive listening comparisons
with a pretty large variety of speakers and other
components. This is tedious to do at most dealers, and would
involve some serious logistic problems if it were done in
one's home.
I think that the most wide-ranging "comparisons" that people
do involve listening to most products in different
locations.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > Then we have any wires or interconnects (the reader may
> > supply the brand names) that cost more than twenty or thirty
> > bucks for a typical speaker run or one-meter connector.
> Unfortunately you haven't heard or seen any of them.
There is nothing to "hear" from wire, unless there is
something wrong with it. I have experienced the transparency
that four feet of 12-gauge stranded can exhibit, and if you
can come up with some theoretical or practical-experience
data on why such wire would have audible problems, I would
like to hear about it.
Note that with my ancillary hardware the above wire sounded
identical to 24 feet of 16-gauge lamp cord. Because
ancillary hardware can vary, I suggest that people do their
own quick-switching comparisons. In my opinion, they will
come up with the same results that I did.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > I have compared rather long runs of 16- and 18-gauge lamp
> > cord to 4-foot sections of 12-gauge stranded, and heard no
> > differences. (Well, with 24-feet of 18 gauge, I thought I
> > could hear some subtle differences up top with a pink-noise
> > source, but no differences with music.)
> So comparing two types of cheap "wires" gives you the right to extrapolate? I
> don't think so.
I think that any rational person will conclude that four
feet of 12-gauge stranded wire will not be in a position to
color the sound. It is ludicrous to think otherwise. Since
it sounded identical to 24 feet of 16-gauge stuff, I think
we can assume that wire is wire.
> > Now, if you can come up with a rational explanation of why
> > the Kimber wire would sound better than (or even different
> > from) 4 feet of 12-gauge stranded, I might see your point. I
> > mean, just what kind of sound-improving miracle can the
> > Kimber pull off? Just how "corrupt" can 4 feet of 12-gauge
> > stranded sound? Remember, with a quick-switching comparison,
> > it sounded identical to the cheap stuff, both with music and
> > pink-noise inputs.
> I belive that you said that you could detect slight differences with pink noise. Am I
> wrong about that?
With the 18-gauge (not 16-gauge) wire, I thought I could
hear just a little difference up top with the noise.
Measurements taken by Fred Davis on wire of that kind
(compared to 12-gauge stranded) indicate that there would be
subtle resistance and inductance differences that might be
audible with certain kinds of signals. No difference with
music. The 16 gauge was identical to the 12 gauge with all
source material.
Note that Davis also has measured a large number of
super-premium wires, in addition to the different weight
lamp-cord-style versions (the details can be found in his
June, 1991 JAES article, as well in a piece he did in Audio
in July, 1993), and the super stuff was not particularly
super.
> > I made a point of comparing the short, thick stuff to really
> > long runs of cheap lamp cord (in contrast to the high enders
> > who compare two different high-end wires and hear huge
> > differences in an unplug/plug/listen comparison),
> Name examples of those who have excluded zip cord in their comparisons.
Other than what Davis, Aczel, Greiner, and Villchur have
done, I do not recall ever reading a report on wire (in
print or on the Internet) that involved comparing a high-end
item with standard-weight lamp cord. The comparisons done in
the high-end press, if comparisons were done at all, usually
involved comparing two high-end types.
> > and if
> > what the high-end guys say is true, you would think that I
> > would have heard at least *some* differences between the
> > junk wire and the short/thick wires.
> That short/thick wire is $4 a foot "wire." It's still a cheap interconnect by any
> standard.
>
> Give it up Howard. You lose.
The short, thick wire I used was 35 cents a foot. Again,
just how would such wire color the sound?
Howard Ferstler
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > > I have compared rather long runs of 16- and 18-gauge lamp
> > > cord to 4-foot sections of 12-gauge stranded, and heard no
> > > differences. (Well, with 24-feet of 18 gauge, I thought I
> > > could hear some subtle differences up top with a pink-noise
> > > source, but no differences with music.)
>
> > So comparing two types of cheap "wires" gives you the right to extrapolate? I
> > don't think so.
>
> I think that any rational person will conclude that four
> feet of 12-gauge stranded wire will not be in a position to
> color the sound.
Why not? A wire can be tailored to offer different resistance, impedence, and
inductance curves. So obviously, your statement as stated is incorrect.
> It is ludicrous to think otherwise. Since
> it sounded identical to 24 feet of 16-gauge stuff, I think
> we can assume that wire is wire.
I think not. Have you measured any high-end "wire" to see if it might differ from
garden variety wire? I didn't think so.
>
>
> > > Now, if you can come up with a rational explanation of why
> > > the Kimber wire would sound better than (or even different
> > > from) 4 feet of 12-gauge stranded, I might see your point. I
> > > mean, just what kind of sound-improving miracle can the
> > > Kimber pull off? Just how "corrupt" can 4 feet of 12-gauge
> > > stranded sound? Remember, with a quick-switching comparison,
> > > it sounded identical to the cheap stuff, both with music and
> > > pink-noise inputs.
>
> > I belive that you said that you could detect slight differences with pink noise. Am I
> > wrong about that?
>
> With the 18-gauge (not 16-gauge) wire, I thought I could
> hear just a little difference up top with the noise.
Therefore, your statement above is incorrect. Identical is a very specific term. No
gray area there...
>
> Measurements taken by Fred Davis on wire of that kind
> (compared to 12-gauge stranded) indicate that there would be
> subtle resistance and inductance differences that might be
> audible with certain kinds of signals. No difference with
> music. The 16 gauge was identical to the 12 gauge with all
> source material.
>
> Note that Davis also has measured a large number of
> super-premium wires, in addition to the different weight
> lamp-cord-style versions (the details can be found in his
> June, 1991 JAES article, as well in a piece he did in Audio
> in July, 1993), and the super stuff was not particularly
> super.
But apparently it was different...Now maybe you could read some articles with
Ray Kimber and Bruce Brisson where they discuss some "extra-ordinary"
explanations about certain effects. And then use your highly technical background
to debunk those claims.
>
>
> > > I made a point of comparing the short, thick stuff to really
> > > long runs of cheap lamp cord (in contrast to the high enders
> > > who compare two different high-end wires and hear huge
> > > differences in an unplug/plug/listen comparison),
>
> > Name examples of those who have excluded zip cord in their comparisons.
>
> Other than what Davis, Aczel, Greiner, and Villchur have
> done, I do not recall ever reading a report on wire (in
> print or on the Internet) that involved comparing a high-end
> item with standard-weight lamp cord.
I have done just that.
So your statement is false, both the original *and* the rebuttal.
> The comparisons done in
> the high-end press, if comparisons were done at all, usually
> involved comparing two high-end types.
Please name some specifics. I think you're talking off the top of your head.
>
>
> > > and if
> > > what the high-end guys say is true, you would think that I
> > > would have heard at least *some* differences between the
> > > junk wire and the short/thick wires.
>
> > That short/thick wire is $4 a foot "wire." It's still a cheap interconnect by any
> > standard.
> >
> > Give it up Howard. You lose.
>
> The short, thick wire I used was 35 cents a foot. Again,
> just how would such wire color the sound?
Depends on what color the wire is <g>.
By the way, please give us your measurements of that wire.
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> dave weil wrote:
>
> > Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > > Then we have any wires or interconnects (the reader may
> > > supply the brand names) that cost more than twenty or thirty
> > > bucks for a typical speaker run or one-meter connector.
>
> > Unfortunately you haven't heard or seen any of them.
>
> There is nothing to "hear" from wire, unless there is
> something wrong with it. I have experienced the transparency
> that four feet of 12-gauge stranded can exhibit, and if you
> can come up with some theoretical or practical-experience
> data on why such wire would have audible problems, I would
> like to hear about it.
I have only listened to boomboxes. Therefore I know how transparent they are.
There *can't* be anything better. And I refuse to find out.
dave weil
Marc Phillips wrote:
>
>
> >Here is a fact, you don't write perfect sentences either. I
> >docuemented that quite clearly last night.
The first sentence is an incorrect sentence. Incorrect use of punctuation. Incorrect
tying of clauses.
And two of the above sentences are "incorrect." But not inappropriate in this
forum.
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> > Most of what I say on this NG is based upon my own experiences, therefore
> > proper documentation is meaningless. That's the difference between normal
> > people and drones like yourself, Arny...we rely upon our own perceptions.
>
> So do people who claim to have seen Elvis or space aliens.
I *have* seen Elvis. Saw him live back in October. Talked with him. Gave him
a Righteous Brothers album. Gave his wife Cait a Skeeter Davis album.
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > > My biggest feeling of pride comes when someone employs
> > > level-matched, quick-switching techniques and discovers the truth
> > > for themselves.
>
> > Why would *you* have pride in this.
>
> I always have pride in the human species when one of its
> members exercises its intellect.
I think you need to go to the gym.
>
>
> I'm sure that others have done it well
> > back in the shadows of audio time. You're a little late for the party Howard.
>
> Given how little the procedure is done, compared to the
> popular unplug/plug/listen technique that you yourself say
> that you have been using recently, as well as compared to
> the single-presentation technique, I see nothing wrong with
> me re-introducing the idea. It is surprising how many people
> here seem unsettled by level matching and quick switching.
I haven't seen *anything* that supports your contention that people are "unsettled."
For my part, I have NEVER said that it wasn't a useful technique. I've just asked
that you follow your own advice.
> I mean, many of them will come up with some interesting
> excuses about ABX testing (too much stress, too rushed,
> etc.). However, those excuses are pretty lame when we are
> talking about just level matching and doing the switchovers
> quickly.
And I don't think that anyone has categorically said that the technique isn't
useful. Just that you should follow your own advice *and* that most consumers
probably won't be inclined to pick up the ole soldering iron. The technique itself,
which you only recently discovered, is considered by many to be a useful piece
in the puzzle.
>
>
> > > If you don't know what it is to get involved
> > > > with a piece of music, then you have no right to write books about it.
>
> > > Right.
>
> > Glad you agree. (Yes, Howard, I know you were being sarcastic as am I.)
>
> Where have I written books about music? Even my
> record-review books do not deal with music, as music.
THAT'S PRECICELY THE POINT. Although we should more properly say
"your writings" than your books. You seem perfectly willing to make judgements
about the importance of musical reproduction, all the while taking music completely
out of the equation. Astounding.
>
>
> > > and then either listen to each pair long term or do quick
> > > switching. (I outline the pitfalls in many of my loudspeaker
> > > reviews for The Sensible Sound.) Trying to spot which one is best
> > > this way is still very tricky. Is this how you do it?
>
> > Comparing speakers, especially speakers with different sonic goals, is actually
> > pretty easy. You fix on the "house sound" pretty quickly. It's actually easier than
> > comparing cables or amps.
>
> I disagree, particularly if they have "different sonic
> goals," which I assume means that they would have different
> radiation-pattern characteristics and location requirements.
That's what makes it so easy to compare them. They sound totally different. It's
much easier to compare SoundLab electrostatics and Advents than Advents with
ARs.
>
>
> Speakers can quite literally get in each other's way when
> comparing. This is particularly true if you are comparing
> models that are to be placed against the wall with models
> that are designed to be pulled out from the wall (one pair
> will have to be in a position to partially block the other
> pair), or comparing two models that both have ultra-wide
> dispersion and must be placed right next to each other to
> keep their soundstages reasonably close together. In some
> cases, this kind of placement is impossible.
Are you seriously telling me that you couldn't set up some electrostatics and listen
and then set up your Allisons and listen and *not* be able to make some
judgements on the differences between the musical presentation of the two
Systems??!!?? If not, then you *really* are incompetent when it comes to sound.
>
>
> In addition, the lateral displacement that is going to exist
> with two similar pairs being compared (unless you place one
> speaker pair on top of the other, which causes sonic
> problems of its own) also makes it difficult to compare
> soundstaging and sweet-spot imaging qualities.
Hey, sounds like you're spouting the Linn party line here. Congratulations Howard!
> Because the same speakers are being used, it is quite easy
> to spot any claimed differences in imaging, soundstaging,
> etc. when comparing wires and wires and amps and amps.
Nice change of subject. We're talking about speaker comparisons though.
>
>
> > > If you do it by listening at one dealer or one person's home and
> > > then go listen to another system at another dealer or another
> > > person's home, all bets are off.
>
> > By Marc's description, and by the way that most people do it, this is an unlikely
> > scenario, especially when you're talking about using that techique exclusively.
>
> This means that the opinions he has and that others have are
> the result of some pretty extensive listening comparisons
> with a pretty large variety of speakers and other
> components.
Quite right. And he confines his comments to those speakers that he's actually
heard.
> This is tedious to do at most dealers,
Sometimes it's tedious and sometimes it's easy. It's also tedious to build a
switch-box too, especially for someone not skilled in audio construction. So
what?
> and would
> involve some serious logistic problems if it were done in
> one's home.
>
The only logistics is moving speakers around. Yes, we do that all the time.
>
> I think that the most wide-ranging "comparisons" that people
> do involve listening to most products in different
> locations.
You are wrong. Simple as that.
Howard Ferstler
> > I mean, many of them will come up with some interesting
> > excuses about ABX testing (too much stress, too rushed,
> > etc.). However, those excuses are pretty lame when we are
> > talking about just level matching and doing the switchovers
> > quickly.
> And I don't think that anyone has categorically said that the technique isn't
> useful. Just that you should follow your own advice *and* that most consumers
> probably won't be inclined to pick up the ole soldering iron.
Well, I assume that serious audio buffs (the kind who are
willing to drop hundreds of dollars on wires and maybe
thousands of dollars on an amp) just might know a bit about
soldering irons. Then again, you may be right; many of those
big spenders probably haven't a clue about basic electronics
and the use of basic tools. They just read the tweak
magazines, and think that they are becoming experts on the
mysteries of hi-fi sound.
Also, I have followed my own advice, and have satisfied
myself about wires and amps. (Again, it strikes me that 4
feet of 12-gauge stranded wire ought to be pretty clean, and
if six different-brand amps all sound identical, my
assumption is that is because they all have inaudible
distortion.) In any case, whether or not I go all the way
and check out the super-expensive stuff has nothing to do
with the viability of my suggestion, or its usefulness for
other individuals, particularly those who are planning to
spend hundreds of dollars on wires or thousands on amps.
By the way, you have a bad habit of turning these
discussions into debates about my personal behavior, rather
than the viability of what I say when it comes to other
people finding out for themselves about the sound of amps
and wires.
The technique itself,
> which you only recently discovered, is considered by many to be a useful piece
> in the puzzle.
I knew about this a long time ago. I just decided to
describe it to people here (again, if you had read my
earlier books, you would know), and was astounded that it
seemed like such a breakthrough procedure to some people. A
formal article about the procedure(s) will be in an upcoming
issue of The Sensible Sound.
> > Where have I written books about music? Even my
> > record-review books do not deal with music, as music.
> THAT'S PRECICELY THE POINT. Although we should more properly say
> "your writings" than your books. You seem perfectly willing to make judgements
> about the importance of musical reproduction, all the while taking music completely
> out of the equation. Astounding.
Not at all. There need be no correlation between music and
the reproduction of sound or the simulation of large-room
sounds in small-room spaces. What has the aesthetics of
music to do with the actual reproduction of sound?
Audio hardware is frequently considered by audio buffs to be
a musical instrument. It is not.
> > > Comparing speakers, especially speakers with different sonic goals, is actually
> > > pretty easy. You fix on the "house sound" pretty quickly. It's actually easier than
> > > comparing cables or amps.
> > I disagree, particularly if they have "different sonic
> > goals," which I assume means that they would have different
> > radiation-pattern characteristics and location requirements.
> That's what makes it so easy to compare them. They sound totally different. It's
> much easier to compare SoundLab electrostatics and Advents than Advents with
> ARs.
Sure they sound different. One reason (not the only one, but
one reason) that they often sound so different is that the
items being compared cannot both occupy the same place at
the same time. Set the Advents and electrostatics up so that
they can be compared properly, and the two pairs will be in
a position to interfere with each other. You cannot put one
pair in front of the other. Incidentally, when Floyd Toole
compared speakers at the NRC in Canada, and now at Harman,
he had (and has) a special turntable system rotate them into
identical positions with each switchover.
> > Speakers can quite literally get in each other's way when
> > comparing. This is particularly true if you are comparing
> > models that are to be placed against the wall with models
> > that are designed to be pulled out from the wall (one pair
> > will have to be in a position to partially block the other
> > pair), or comparing two models that both have ultra-wide
> > dispersion and must be placed right next to each other to
> > keep their soundstages reasonably close together. In some
> > cases, this kind of placement is impossible.
> Are you seriously telling me that you couldn't set up some electrostatics and listen
> and then set up your Allisons and listen and *not* be able to make some
> judgements on the differences between the musical presentation of the two
> Systems??!!?? If not, then you *really* are incompetent when it comes to sound.
Using the unplug/plug/listen with speakers can get you into
as much trouble as the same technique when comparing amps
and wires. I use both techniques when reviewing speakers, by
the way. Of course, not having read any of my speaker
reviews, you would not know this.
> > In addition, the lateral displacement that is going to exist
> > with two similar pairs being compared (unless you place one
> > speaker pair on top of the other, which causes sonic
> > problems of its own) also makes it difficult to compare
> > soundstaging and sweet-spot imaging qualities.
> Hey, sounds like you're spouting the Linn party line here. Congratulations Howard!
I believe that Linn rejects comparisons for other reasons.
Note that as I stated before, I use both the
single-presentation method and the quick-comparison method
when reviewing speakers, and sometimes even use the
unplug/plug/listen technique.
> > > > If you do it by listening at one dealer or one person's home and
> > > > then go listen to another system at another dealer or another
> > > > person's home, all bets are off.
> > > By Marc's description, and by the way that most people do it, this is an unlikely
> > > scenario, especially when you're talking about using that techique exclusively.
> > This means that the opinions he has and that others have are
> > the result of some pretty extensive listening comparisons
> > with a pretty large variety of speakers and other
> > components.
> Quite right. And he confines his comments to those speakers that he's actually
> heard.
Well, even I have listened to speakers in different
locations, at different homes and at various dealers. I just
do not attempt to definitively judge them when I do so. My
reviews of speakers are all based upon what I have heard an
measured in my own listening rooms.
> > This is tedious to do at most dealers,
> Sometimes it's tedious and sometimes it's easy. It's also tedious to build a
> switch-box too, especially for someone not skilled in audio construction. So
> what?
Comparing from dealer to dealer, or even from room to room,
is asking for trouble. If you build a switch box, you can
avoid some of that trouble.
> > and would
> > involve some serious logistic problems if it were done in
> > one's home.
> The only logistics is moving speakers around. Yes, we do that all the time.
You have to get them to the house. Moving them around in the
same room is no big deal. Hauling them from a dealer to the
house is something quite different, particularly if they are
big, heavy, high-end models.
> > I think that the most wide-ranging "comparisons" that people
> > do involve listening to most products in different
> > locations.
> You are wrong. Simple as that.
So, you work with dealers to let you bring assorted speakers
home to audition and compare?
You feel that other audio buffs do that kind of thing on a
regular basis, too? They listen to some 100 pounders at a
dealer, and then arrange to have them temporarily set up at
their home. They then hear another pair of different
speakers at another dealer, and then them arrange for those
units to be shipped to the house, too. Then, they carefully
compare those speakers to each other, and perhaps to what
they already have on hand at home, and then they arrange to
have the loser (or losers, in case neither does the job)
carried back to the dealer or dealers. And they keep doing
this until they get the speakers of their dreams. Yeah,
sure.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > dave weil wrote:
> >
> > > Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >
Logic would dictate that a boombox is going to have inferior
sound. One only need look at the driver sizes and their
configuration to see that. However, only a real true
believer would be suspicious of 4 feet of 12-gauge stranded
wire for a speaker hookup.
Howard ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > Marc Phillips wrote:
> > > Once again you have failed to name specific products.
> > To prevent you from contacting all of the companies that I might
> > list, and suggesting to each of them that they line up and sue
> > me. The tweakos will do what they can to slam anybody who is a
> > threat to your religious attachment to audio (the Amazon reviews
> > showed that), and so I certainly will not put myself into a
> > position to be hit below the belt any more than I have.
> So you are afraid of someone doing the very same thing that you do here, which is
> "hit below the belt."
How is that? The reviews often stated things about what I
supposedly said that in actuality I did not say at all. They
also often completely turned around what I said. (You would
not be aware of this, having not read the book.) Where have
I done something like that?
I have said that logically it makes no sense to think that
some super wire would sound better than 4 feet of 12-gauge
stranded. I stated that it is unlikely that six
different-brand amps would all have identical audible
distortions, so it is likely that they have no audible
distortions at all. Because of this, I have stated that
overkill amps and wires are a waste of money. Nowhere did I
fabricate any data or turn around anyone's comments.
Note also that I have indeed listed some specific products
in the past, and pretty clearly noted the price limits for
assorted product categories. I caught a lot of flack for
that.
> > Interestingly, I believe the three companies you noted are among
> > the few who go to the trouble to build their drivers themselves,
> > to insure that in-house performance parameters are adhered to.
> This is another one of those "slurs" and "hitting below the belt." What possilbe
> justification do you have for slighting the abilities of the major driver manufacturers
> to produce a uniform product? Do you have any facts that a company like FIFA
> can't maintain "in-house" parameters?
It's Vifa, I believe. And although such companies can build
drivers to specifications dictated by a speaker-system
assembler, those specifications cannot exceed the technology
limits that the driver manufacturer itself stuck with. While
using outsourced drivers will certainly work, I believe that
a company that builds its own drivers certainly shows more
of a determination to adhere to their own, often very
special in-house performance parameters than a company that
cannot build drivers at all and hires out the work.
> > Allison did this, even though his was actually a fairly small
> > company. His drivers were not the usual domes and cones, either.
> Apparently, even *he* farmed out some production according to what you or
> someone else recently wrote here.
As they ran out of money, they started having the woofers
made elsewhere. The tweeters and midrange drivers continued
to be made in house.
> > Not
> > > complete shit, mind you, but far from the best. I find Carver amps to be
> > > lacking in any sort of finesse or grace...they're all about power, with no
> > > respect to grace or musicality. They sound unrefined.
> > This is mumbo jumbo.
> No it's not. It's a statement based on observation. Of course you wouldn't know
> anything about that.
Observation no doubt based upon the unplug/plug/listen
technique, or the single-presentation method.
I don't like the AR-3a speaker...it has
> > > boomy, undefined bass, and a rolled-off treble. The midrange is okay, though.
> > > I don't know if you actually own a pair or not, but you've certainly championed
> > > them in your writings.
> > The system has been out of production for two decades. I once
> > owned a pair. They did intentionally tilt downward in the treble.
> > It was a good thing, given the nature of the software of the era.
> > The downward tilt still works for a lot of classical material,
> > even in CD form. I think they are still viable speakers, although
> > the lack of liquid cooling puts them at risk if rock-music types
> > get hold of them.
> Now *this* is bullshit. You're more likely to fry those speakers with classical
> music reproduced at realistic levels, especially those with high dynamic ranges like
> Delos discs. Don't forget that much rock music is pretty compressed. All it would
> take is one crescendo to do the trick.
What "fries' speakers are inputs with long-term averages
that are high. That is what we will find with a lot of pop
and rock music, where the loud and soft passages are only a
few dB apart and because the peak levels are set high, the
average in between is correspondingly high.
Classical music will often have much higher dynamic peaks
than pop material, but those peaks do not fry drivers (they
may cause mechanical damage, though). The overall average
level of a classical piece with wide dynamic range (Romantic
Era and a lot of modern stuff) will be considerably lower
than a rock recording with the same listener-controlled
dynamic peaks, because with rock the lower-level signals
will not be as far down in volume below the peaks.
Therefore, the average level of the rock stuff will be
higher, and that is what fries voice coils.
Interestingly, for unclipped sound, you may need less power
with rock music than you need with classical, but the
average levels with that same rock music will be higher than
it is with typical classical. So, even though the pop music
will have higher average levels, the classical will require
more amp power, in order to be able to deal with the
occasional big peaks. Again, not all classical music is this
way.
> > which I've mentioned to you before, or
> > > something like a Krell, an Audio Research, or a Mark Levinson, or like my Naim
> > > or my Aloia. Mid-fi equipment does sound the same, Howard...it only differs in
> > > the bells and whistles.
> > I am curious about what it is that makes so many different
> > products all sound wrong, but still identical.
> It's a shame that you aren't curious about the claims of those advancing high-end
> stuff.
Like I should be curious about the claims made by people who
have recently seen Elvis or talked to space aliens? Note
that I am not skeptical about ALL high-end claims. Just the
obviously hyperbolic stuff.
> > In most cases, however,
> > the differences involve the overexcited and fantasy-related
> > imaginations of their proponents and owners.
> God forbid that someone should get excited about music or gear.
Excited, yes. Overexcited to the extent that they
temporarily hang their brains on a clothes rack, no.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > I think that any rational person will conclude that four
> > feet of 12-gauge stranded wire will not be in a position to
> > color the sound.
> Why not? A wire can be tailored to offer different resistance, impedence, and
> inductance curves. So obviously, your statement as stated is incorrect.
Well, Dave, tell us how you would tailor four feet of
12-gauge stranded speaker wire to behave erratically enough
to audibly influence the sound of speakers. I mean, you say
it can happen, so I am curious about what is involved.
> > It is ludicrous to think otherwise. Since
> > it sounded identical to 24 feet of 16-gauge stuff, I think
> > we can assume that wire is wire.
> I think not. Have you measured any high-end "wire" to see if it might differ from
> garden variety wire? I didn't think so.
Fred Davis has, and I have his assorted graphs. Some were
even reprinted in my third book. It differs, but the way it
differs is inconsequential. I never said that premium wire
would not measure differently. I just said that the measured
differences would not add up to much. I will note that he
measured wires in 10-foot lengths. In the four-foot length
that my 12-gauge stranded wire came in, the measurement
artifacts he found would be all but impossible to detect.
> > > I belive that you said that you could detect slight differences with pink noise. Am I
> > > wrong about that?
> > With the 18-gauge (not 16-gauge) wire, I thought I could
> > hear just a little difference up top with the noise.
> Therefore, your statement above is incorrect. Identical is a very specific term. No
> gray area there...
I do not recommend using 18-gauge wire in 24-foot or longer
runs, even though with musical program material it sounded
the same as the thick, short stuff. You got me there, Dave.
Eighteen gauge is probably not a good idea with long runs.
Pretty sharp of you.
> > Measurements taken by Fred Davis on wire of that kind
> > (compared to 12-gauge stranded) indicate that there would be
> > subtle resistance and inductance differences that might be
> > audible with certain kinds of signals. No difference with
> > music. The 16 gauge was identical to the 12 gauge with all
> > source material.
> >
> > Note that Davis also has measured a large number of
> > super-premium wires, in addition to the different weight
> > lamp-cord-style versions (the details can be found in his
> > June, 1991 JAES article, as well in a piece he did in Audio
> > in July, 1993), and the super stuff was not particularly
> > super.
> But apparently it was different...Now maybe you could read some articles with
> Ray Kimber and Bruce Brisson where they discuss some "extra-ordinary"
> explanations about certain effects. And then use your highly technical background
> to debunk those claims.
Those guys are trying to sell wire. They market mumbo jumbo,
in order to snag customers. The thing that I find offensive
is that they almost certainly have done blind comparisons,
so they indeed know exactly what they are doing.
Perhaps you should look up Fred's JAES paper on wire. He
used some Kimber wire in those comparisons, by the way,
along with quite a few other exotic, and often very
expensive brands.
> > > Name examples of those who have excluded zip cord in their comparisons.
> > Other than what Davis, Aczel, Greiner, and Villchur have
> > done, I do not recall ever reading a report on wire (in
> > print or on the Internet) that involved comparing a high-end
> > item with standard-weight lamp cord.
> I have done just that.
Pick out some people who do not have a vested interest in
selling their wire.
> > The comparisons done in
> > the high-end press, if comparisons were done at all, usually
> > involved comparing two high-end types.
> Please name some specifics. I think you're talking off the top of your head.
Nearly every cable/wire review manages to do something like
this. If not, they just do the single-presentation method,
and then croon about the sound of the wires.
> By the way, please give us your measurements of that wire.
Fred actually measured a section of some even cheaper
12-gauge stranded that I got from Home Depot (25 cents a
foot that stuff was) and he said it measured just like...
wire. Sounded like the other wire I had, too.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> howard, as i recall, one of the causes of the 'sloping'
> frequency response of the 'ar 3a' was the fact that the woofer
> was a bit more efficient than the other drivers, particularly
> the tweeter. ar solved this problem, first in the 'ar-lst' and
> later in the 'ar 10pi' through the use of auto-former matching
> of driver efficiency.
> now, one may argue that (given recording techniques and the
> playback equipment of the day)a sloping frequency response was a
> pleasing and even desirable trait. however, the inability of the
> speaker to have a more neutral spectral balance was a serious
> flaw. in my mind, the 'ar-lst' was the first 'high accuracy' ar
> loudspeaker.
Actually, they could have gotten flat response, but Roy even
had the level control on the 3a configured so that his idea
of a viable curve for music listening in home-audio
environments was below the maximum settings of the tweeter
and midrange controls. However, the woofer was indeed more
efficient that the other drivers, and their lack of liquid
cooling put the other drivers at a disadvantage in the
power-handling department.
AR-LST achieved its flat abilities more because of the use
of four tweeters and four midrange drivers, than because of
the autotransformer. There were five available slopes with
the autotransformer's control, and I believe that the second
from the bottom setting was the one Allison recommended for
proper balance in a home listening environment. (Same as the
AR-3a.) Flat was one click down, and the top setting
actually gave a slightly rising response toward the treble.
The 10pi (which appeared after Allison left the company) had
liquid-cooled tweeter and midrange drivers, which obviously
increased their maximum outputs. I do not believe that
system had an autotransformer.
> btw- of the 'pre ar-lst' products, i found the 'ar 5' to be more
> listenable than the '3a'. ymmv.
Roy claimed that they were identical sounding from 50 Hz on
down, although the driver impedances were indeed different.
(The mechanics of the tweeter and midrange were almost
identical with both systems, however, and the 8-ohm versions
of the AR-5 were created to work with the AR-5s 8-ohm
woofer.)
I believe that when Hirsch reviewed the AR-5, he thought it
sounded quite different from the 3a. Roy had a letter to the
editor published in Stereo Review because of that, and
Hirsch offered a rebuttal. Who knows who was correct? I
never had a chance to compare the systems, myself.
Howard Ferstler
dave weil
dave weil wrote:
Ooops, clearly, here's a case of me committing the same attribution crime that has
been inflicted upon me recently:
That should not read "Marc Phillips wrote" but "The one from Detroit that shall remain nameless
wrote:"
dave weil
> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >
> > > dave weil wrote:
> > >
> > > > Howard Ferstler wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Then we have any wires or interconnects (the reader may
> > > > > supply the brand names) that cost more than twenty or thirty
> > > > > bucks for a typical speaker run or one-meter connector.
> > >
> > > > Unfortunately you haven't heard or seen any of them.
> > >
> > > There is nothing to "hear" from wire, unless there is
> > > something wrong with it. I have experienced the transparency
> > > that four feet of 12-gauge stranded can exhibit, and if you
> > > can come up with some theoretical or practical-experience
> > > data on why such wire would have audible problems, I would
> > > like to hear about it.
> >
> > I have only listened to boomboxes. Therefore I know how transparent they are.
> > There *can't* be anything better. And I refuse to find out.
>
> Logic would dictate that a boombox is going to have inferior
> sound. One only need look at the driver sizes and their
> configuration to see that.
Oh, but I don't know that. I've never heard the effect of a 12 inch woofer. I would
imagine that it's too big to be accurate because I've heard what *I* consider
"accurate" and transparent sound emanating out of my boombox. Therefore, any
thing bigger is going to be "wrong."
> However, only a real true
> believer would be suspicious of 4 feet of 12-gauge stranded
> wire for a speaker hookup.
I for one am not "suspicious" of the above. It does a perfectly "adaquate" job.
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > > I think that any rational person will conclude that four
> > > feet of 12-gauge stranded wire will not be in a position to
> > > color the sound.
>
> > Why not? A wire can be tailored to offer different resistance, impedence, and
> > inductance curves. So obviously, your statement as stated is incorrect.
>
> Well, Dave, tell us how you would tailor four feet of
> 12-gauge stranded speaker wire to behave erratically enough
> to audibly influence the sound of speakers. I mean, you say
> it can happen, so I am curious about what is involved.
I don't know. Why don't you ask Mr. Davis, who:
"has also has measured a large number of
super-premium wires, in addition to the different weight
lamp-cord-style versions (the details can be found in his
June, 1991 JAES article, as well in a piece he did in Audio
in July, 1993), and the super stuff was not particularly
super."
Apparently all "wires" don't measure the same, now do they?
>
>
> > > It is ludicrous to think otherwise. Since
> > > it sounded identical to 24 feet of 16-gauge stuff, I think
> > > we can assume that wire is wire.
>
> > I think not. Have you measured any high-end "wire" to see if it might differ from
> > garden variety wire? I didn't think so.
>
> Fred Davis has, and I have his assorted graphs. Some were
> even reprinted in my third book. It differs, but the way it
> differs is inconsequential.
And you know this exactly how?
> I never said that premium wire
> would not measure differently. I just said that the measured
> differences would not add up to much.
According to you. One wouldn't think that .01V differences in interconnects would
make much difference either.
> I will note that he
> measured wires in 10-foot lengths. In the four-foot length
> that my 12-gauge stranded wire came in, the measurement
> artifacts he found would be all but impossible to detect.
And you know this exactly how?
>
>
> > > > I belive that you said that you could detect slight differences with pink noise. Am I
> > > > wrong about that?
>
> > > With the 18-gauge (not 16-gauge) wire, I thought I could
> > > hear just a little difference up top with the noise.
>
> > Therefore, your statement above is incorrect. Identical is a very specific term. No
> > gray area there...
>
> I do not recommend using 18-gauge wire in 24-foot or longer
> runs, even though with musical program material it sounded
> the same as the thick, short stuff. You got me there, Dave.
> Eighteen gauge is probably not a good idea with long runs.
> Pretty sharp of you.
Just pointing out an inconsistancy in your language Howard.
>
>
> > > Measurements taken by Fred Davis on wire of that kind
> > > (compared to 12-gauge stranded) indicate that there would be
> > > subtle resistance and inductance differences that might be
> > > audible with certain kinds of signals. No difference with
> > > music. The 16 gauge was identical to the 12 gauge with all
> > > source material.
> > >
> > > Note that Davis also has measured a large number of
> > > super-premium wires, in addition to the different weight
> > > lamp-cord-style versions (the details can be found in his
> > > June, 1991 JAES article, as well in a piece he did in Audio
> > > in July, 1993), and the super stuff was not particularly
> > > super.
>
> > But apparently it was different...Now maybe you could read some articles with
> > Ray Kimber and Bruce Brisson where they discuss some "extra-ordinary"
> > explanations about certain effects. And then use your highly technical background
> > to debunk those claims.
>
> Those guys are trying to sell wire. They market mumbo jumbo,
> in order to snag customers.
Well then, why don't you do some research and "debunk" the mumbo-jumbo
using your extensive technical background instead of just calling explanations
that you haven't even read "mumbo-jumbo." Sounds like what you're accusing
"us" of (whoever *we* are.)
> The thing that I find offensive
> is that they almost certainly have done blind comparisons,
> so they indeed know exactly what they are doing.
And they might have very well found differences. Who knows? This is an
unsupported statement.
>
>
> Perhaps you should look up Fred's JAES paper on wire. He
> used some Kimber wire in those comparisons, by the way,
> along with quite a few other exotic, and often very
> expensive brands.
I will when you look up the Stereophile articles that refer to high-end cable
manufacturers explaining their philosophies. The $40 that I'd have to spend to
get that article should buy you the correct number of back issues.
>
>
> > > > Name examples of those who have excluded zip cord in their comparisons.
>
> > > Other than what Davis, Aczel, Greiner, and Villchur have
> > > done, I do not recall ever reading a report on wire (in
> > > print or on the Internet) that involved comparing a high-end
> > > item with standard-weight lamp cord.
>
> > I have done just that.
>
> Pick out some people who do not have a vested interest in
> selling their wire.
Me for instance. I don't even have a typical buyer's need to defend his purchase
since I didn't purchase any of the $10K worth of connectors, both interconnects
and speaker cables.
>
>
> > > The comparisons done in
> > > the high-end press, if comparisons were done at all, usually
> > > involved comparing two high-end types.
>
> > Please name some specifics. I think you're talking off the top of your head.
>
> Nearly every cable/wire review manages to do something like
> this. If not, they just do the single-presentation method,
> and then croon about the sound of the wires.
Examples? Sources?
>
>
> > By the way, please give us your measurements of that wire.
>
> Fred actually measured a section of some even cheaper
> 12-gauge stranded that I got from Home Depot (25 cents a
> foot that stuff was) and he said it measured just like...
> wire. Sounded like the other wire I had, too.
And how does that compare to say 12 gauge MIT wire, or Discovery Cable,
or any other esoteric "wires?" What is the optimum measurement of "wire?"
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> dave weil wrote:
>
> > > I mean, many of them will come up with some interesting
> > > excuses about ABX testing (too much stress, too rushed,
> > > etc.). However, those excuses are pretty lame when we are
> > > talking about just level matching and doing the switchovers
> > > quickly.
>
> > And I don't think that anyone has categorically said that the technique isn't
> > useful. Just that you should follow your own advice *and* that most consumers
> > probably won't be inclined to pick up the ole soldering iron.
>
> Well, I assume that serious audio buffs (the kind who are
> willing to drop hundreds of dollars on wires and maybe
> thousands of dollars on an amp) just might know a bit about
> soldering irons. Then again, you may be right; many of those
> big spenders probably haven't a clue about basic electronics
> and the use of basic tools. They just read the tweak
> magazines, and think that they are becoming experts on the
> mysteries of hi-fi sound.
When they actually listen, then they do. They certainly don't become experts on
what you or I find important in hi-fi sound.
>
>
> Also, I have followed my own advice, and have satisfied
> myself about wires and amps.
No you haven't. You've taken a way too narrow statistical sample and incorrectly
extrapolated a conclusion.
> (Again, it strikes me that 4
> feet of 12-gauge stranded wire ought to be pretty clean, and
> if six different-brand amps all sound identical, my
> assumption is that is because they all have inaudible
> distortion.)
Or indistinguishable distortion. An imortant distinction.
> In any case, whether or not I go all the way
> and check out the super-expensive stuff has nothing to do
> with the viability of my suggestion,
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
> or its usefulness for
> other individuals, particularly those who are planning to
> spend hundreds of dollars on wires or thousands on amps.
>
> By the way, you have a bad habit of turning these
> discussions into debates about my personal behavior, rather
> than the viability of what I say when it comes to other
> people finding out for themselves about the sound of amps
> and wires.
No, it's a good habit. Most of what I find despicable about you is personal
behavior, not your "theories" about "hi-fi" per se.
For the record, I agree with you that people should listen for themselves. I also
agree that a quick-switching comparison *can* be part of the equation.
>
>
> The technique itself,
> > which you only recently discovered, is considered by many to be a useful piece
> > in the puzzle.
>
> I knew about this a long time ago. I just decided to
> describe it to people here
You actually described suddenly trying out the technique after years of non-quick
switching. You laid it all out a few months ago in your tome about changing your
evaluation technique.
> (again, if you had read my
> earlier books, you would know), and was astounded that it
> seemed like such a breakthrough procedure to some people.
Which people?
> A
> formal article about the procedure(s) will be in an upcoming
> issue of The Sensible Sound.
Please don't try to patent the technique.
>
>
> > > Where have I written books about music? Even my
> > > record-review books do not deal with music, as music.
>
> > THAT'S PRECICELY THE POINT. Although we should more properly say
> > "your writings" than your books. You seem perfectly willing to make judgements
> > about the importance of musical reproduction, all the while taking music completely
> > out of the equation. Astounding.
>
> Not at all. There need be no correlation between music and
> the reproduction of sound or the simulation of large-room
> sounds in small-room spaces. What has the aesthetics of
> music to do with the actual reproduction of sound?
I'm not even going to attempt to describe how ludicrous I find this statement.
> Audio hardware is frequently considered by audio buffs to be
> a musical instrument. It is not.
It is a tool, just like a hammer. Some people find ergonomically designed
hammers to be useful, while others just find them awkward. There is no one perfect
hammer for everyone. No objective standard.
>
>
> > > > Comparing speakers, especially speakers with different sonic goals, is actually
> > > > pretty easy. You fix on the "house sound" pretty quickly. It's actually easier than
> > > > comparing cables or amps.
>
> > > I disagree, particularly if they have "different sonic
> > > goals," which I assume means that they would have different
> > > radiation-pattern characteristics and location requirements.
>
> > That's what makes it so easy to compare them. They sound totally different. It's
> > much easier to compare SoundLab electrostatics and Advents than Advents with
> > ARs.
>
> Sure they sound different. One reason (not the only one, but
> one reason) that they often sound so different is that the
> items being compared cannot both occupy the same place at
> the same time.
This is one of the conerstones to Linn's objection to comparing two different
speaker systems in the same room. Along with driver interaction from the benign
(non-playing) pair.
> Set the Advents and electrostatics up so that
> they can be compared properly, and the two pairs will be in
> a position to interfere with each other. You cannot put one
> pair in front of the other. Incidentally, when Floyd Toole
> compared speakers at the NRC in Canada, and now at Harman,
> he had (and has) a special turntable system rotate them into
> identical positions with each switchover.
Yes Howard, this is old news. That's why by definition you have to set up each
speaker in theoptimum room position to properly evaluate it. Which means that you
have to rely on "audio memory" to help you out. And I find it pretty easy to
remember the important points even after 10 minutes. According to you, it
would be impossible. I disagree.
>
>
> > > Speakers can quite literally get in each other's way when
> > > comparing. This is particularly true if you are comparing
> > > models that are to be placed against the wall with models
> > > that are designed to be pulled out from the wall (one pair
> > > will have to be in a position to partially block the other
> > > pair), or comparing two models that both have ultra-wide
> > > dispersion and must be placed right next to each other to
> > > keep their soundstages reasonably close together. In some
> > > cases, this kind of placement is impossible.
>
> > Are you seriously telling me that you couldn't set up some electrostatics and listen
> > and then set up your Allisons and listen and *not* be able to make some
> > judgements on the differences between the musical presentation of the two
> > Systems??!!?? If not, then you *really* are incompetent when it comes to sound.
>
> Using the unplug/plug/listen with speakers can get you into
> as much trouble as the same technique when comparing amps
> and wires. I use both techniques when reviewing speakers, by
> the way.
According to you, you wouldn't be able to do *any* comparison without some
elaborate turntable setup. So I guess those observations are invalid.
> Of course, not having read any of my speaker
> reviews, you would not know this.
>
> > > In addition, the lateral displacement that is going to exist
> > > with two similar pairs being compared (unless you place one
> > > speaker pair on top of the other, which causes sonic
> > > problems of its own) also makes it difficult to compare
> > > soundstaging and sweet-spot imaging qualities.
>
> > Hey, sounds like you're spouting the Linn party line here. Congratulations Howard!
>
> I believe that Linn rejects comparisons for other reasons.
As well. Once again, you take one thing and hold it as exclusive. The above is only
*one* of their objections, not the only one. And I never claimed that it was.
>
> Note that as I stated before, I use both the
> single-presentation method and the quick-comparison method
> when reviewing speakers,
Which in your setup results in invalid conclusions based on what you've written.
> and sometimes even use the
> unplug/plug/listen technique.
More bad reviewing according to Howard Ferstler.
>
>
> > > > > If you do it by listening at one dealer or one person's home and
> > > > > then go listen to another system at another dealer or another
> > > > > person's home, all bets are off.
>
> > > > By Marc's description, and by the way that most people do it, this is an unlikely
> > > > scenario, especially when you're talking about using that techique exclusively.
>
> > > This means that the opinions he has and that others have are
> > > the result of some pretty extensive listening comparisons
> > > with a pretty large variety of speakers and other
> > > components.
>
> > Quite right. And he confines his comments to those speakers that he's actually
> > heard.
>
> Well, even I have listened to speakers in different
> locations,
But not *any* high-end ones except for a single Magnapan model that I think
you mentioned.
> at different homes and at various dealers. I just
> do not attempt to definitively judge them when I do so. My
> reviews of speakers are all based upon what I have heard an
> measured in my own listening rooms.
Note that *I* haven't quibbled with your reviews. However, when I don the skin
of Howard Ferstler, I have to criticize your reviewing methods as inadequate and
ineffectual.
>
>
> > > This is tedious to do at most dealers,
>
> > Sometimes it's tedious and sometimes it's easy. It's also tedious to build a
> > switch-box too, especially for someone not skilled in audio construction. So
> > what?
>
> Comparing from dealer to dealer, or even from room to room,
> is asking for trouble. If you build a switch box, you can
> avoid some of that trouble.
You still run into the speaker/room interaction problem that you mentioned above.
In several showrooms, I had access to the old ADCOM speaker switching box,
which was used by several vendors and I heard plenty of speaker shootouts. I
even participated in a Linn approved audition for the buyers at Speaker's Corner
in Kiel Germany when I was trying to sell them some Allisons (they bought based
on the terribly inaccurate method of having to haul speakers in and out of a room
desined specifically for single speaker demonstrations.)
>
>
> > > and would
> > > involve some serious logistic problems if it were done in
> > > one's home.
>
> > The only logistics is moving speakers around. Yes, we do that all the time.
>
> You have to get them to the house.
No shit. Or already have them at the house. Many of us have several pairs of
speakers. Many of us have interested friends that like to schlepp their speakers
around to comare them with other friends speakers.
> Moving them around in the
> same room is no big deal. Hauling them from a dealer to the
> house is something quite different, particularly if they are
> big, heavy, high-end models.
Which is why I applaud those high-end dealers that allow home demos. There are
plenty of them around.
>
>
> > > I think that the most wide-ranging "comparisons" that people
> > > do involve listening to most products in different
> > > locations.
>
> > You are wrong. Simple as that.
>
> So, you work with dealers to let you bring assorted speakers
> home to audition and compare?
There are plenty that do, especially for valued customers. Some offer a 30 day
trial period. You can even do this with most major factory mail order dealers.
> You feel that other audio buffs do that kind of thing on a
> regular basis, too? They listen to some 100 pounders at a
> dealer, and then arrange to have them temporarily set up at
> their home.
Yes, when they are considering the purchase of an expensive speaker system,
many of them insist on it.
> They then hear another pair of different
> speakers at another dealer, and then them arrange for those
> units to be shipped to the house, too. Then, they carefully
> compare those speakers to each other, and perhaps to what
> they already have on hand at home, and then they arrange to
> have the loser (or losers, in case neither does the job)
> carried back to the dealer or dealers. And they keep doing
> this until they get the speakers of their dreams. Yeah,
> sure.
No, it doesn't quite work like that. You work out a short list of speakers that
interests you and you do listens at the dealer and at home. I maintain that you
can actually listen to speakers at different times and get a pretty good measure
of their differences, especially in different environments. And it's certainly possible
to find flaws several months down the road after extensive live-in time. That's
part of the deal. Many times it takes weeks if not months to fully evaluate a
roduct, as you probably know. That's why we also rely on reviewers who have
done some long-term testing to fill in the blanks.
Of course, you have very little experience in dealer interaction and purchase
(especially with high-end stores) so I'm not surprised that you're ignorant about
how the purchase process works for those that don't buy mid-fi stuff from
Best Buy by reading brochures and Consumer Reports.
Tony Loban
<hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
howard ferstler wrote, in response to dave weil:
>Those guys are trying to sell wire. They market mumbo jumbo,
>in order to snag customers. The thing that I find offensive
>is that they almost certainly have done blind comparisons,
>so they indeed know exactly what they are doing.
----snip----
do you think that some of the wire makers might be in the grip
of placebo effects(self-placeboization?)?
several years ago, i read about the adventures of one of the
smaller wire makers. while his theories seemed pretty wacky, the
guy clearly put a lot of effort in developing his wires. don't
you think he would have 'wanted' to hear the 'improvements' his
efforts made, to the point of being able to do so in all but a
true dbt?
while i tend to agree that the wire controversy is a tempest in
a teapot, perhaps not all wire makers are manipulators cast in
the mold of the infamous noel lee.
does being a true believer get one off the hook regarding
charges of 'scam artistry'?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
dave weil
Howard Ferstler wrote:
> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > Howard Ferstler wrote:
> >
> > > Marc Phillips wrote:
>
> > > > Once again you have failed to name specific products.
>
> > > To prevent you from contacting all of the companies that I might
> > > list, and suggesting to each of them that they line up and sue
> > > me. The tweakos will do what they can to slam anybody who is a
> > > threat to your religious attachment to audio (the Amazon reviews
> > > showed that), and so I certainly will not put myself into a
> > > position to be hit below the belt any more than I have.
>
> > So you are afraid of someone doing the very same thing that you do here, which is
> > "hit below the belt."
>
> How is that?
We are referring to your accusations of "scamming" that you throw out here on
RAO. This has nothing to do with your books, even though you repeatedly try to
make it that. You yourself have said that you don't use that kind of language or
antagonizing approach in your books.
> The reviews often stated things about what I
> supposedly said that in actuality I did not say at all. They
> also often completely turned around what I said. (You would
> not be aware of this, having not read the book.) Where have
> I done something like that?
Right here on RAO. You just called Krell "scammers." And Carver too.
>
>
> I have said that logically it makes no sense to think that
> some super wire would sound better than 4 feet of 12-gauge
> stranded. I stated that it is unlikely that six
> different-brand amps would all have identical audible
> distortions, so it is likely that they have no audible
> distortions at all. Because of this, I have stated that
> overkill amps and wires are a waste of money. Nowhere did I
> fabricate any data
No, you called people "thieves," which is what a scammer is by definition.
> or turn around anyone's comments.
>
> Note also that I have indeed listed some specific products
> in the past, and pretty clearly noted the price limits for
> assorted product categories. I caught a lot of flack for
> that.
Yes you did. And you have recently shown that your original comments were
unfounded as you have since admitted that there might be certain $7K and above
speakers that might be appropriate for certain uses.
>
>
> > > Interestingly, I believe the three companies you noted are among
> > > the few who go to the trouble to build their drivers themselves,
> > > to insure that in-house performance parameters are adhered to.
>
> > This is another one of those "slurs" and "hitting below the belt." What possilbe
> > justification do you have for slighting the abilities of the major driver manufacturers
> > to produce a uniform product? Do you have any facts that a company like FIFA
> > can't maintain "in-house" parameters?
>
> It's Vifa, I believe.
You are correct. I was thinking soccer.
> And although such companies can build
> drivers to specifications dictated by a speaker-system
> assembler, those specifications cannot exceed the technology
> limits that the driver manufacturer itself stuck with.
Which has nothing to do with your statement, "Interestingly, I believe the three companies you noted
are among the few who go to the trouble to build their drivers themselves, to insure that in-house
performance parameters are adhered to" which
implies that they can't go "out-of-house" to assure quality control of their specs.
> While
> using outsourced drivers will certainly work, I believe that
> a company that builds its own drivers certainly shows more
> of a determination to adhere to their own, often very
> special in-house performance parameters than a company that
> cannot build drivers at all and hires out the work.
That's not true. It's called economy of scale. It's not practical for every speaker
manufacturer to produce their drivers in-house. Allison is a good example of a
company that had to borrow extensively to produce the facilities to do the
building in-house and look what happened to them. Perhaps they are a good
example of what happens when you try to be too ambitious.
You know, Radio Shack doesn't make their wires either. Should that be a strike
against them?
>
>
> > > Allison did this, even though his was actually a fairly small
> > > company. His drivers were not the usual domes and cones, either.
>
> > Apparently, even *he* farmed out some production according to what you or
> > someone else recently wrote here.
>
> As they ran out of money,
This shows that you don't really know what happened. They didn't "run out of
money," they had their loans called back. while technically they "ran out of money,"
it wasn't in the normal sense of the word. It would be as if the bank called you up
tomorrow and said, "Mr. Ferstler, we've decided that you need to pay the balance
of your mortgage by April 1st. If not, we're foreclosing." At least, that's how I
understand it.
> they started having the woofers
> made elsewhere.
So therefore, they are no better than the rest I suppose.
> The tweeters and midrange drivers continued
> to be made in house.
>
> > > Not
> > > > complete shit, mind you, but far from the best. I find Carver amps to be
> > > > lacking in any sort of finesse or grace...they're all about power, with no
> > > > respect to grace or musicality. They sound unrefined.
>
> > > This is mumbo jumbo.
>
> > No it's not. It's a statement based on observation. Of course you wouldn't know
> > anything about that.
>
> Observation no doubt based upon the unplug/plug/listen
> technique, or the single-presentation method.
Oh but there is doubt. I don't think that Marc has specified his listening methods.
>
>
> I don't like the AR-3a speaker...it has
> > > > boomy, undefined bass, and a rolled-off treble. The midrange is okay, though.
> > > > I don't know if you actually own a pair or not, but you've certainly championed
> > > > them in your writings.
>
> > > The system has been out of production for two decades. I once
> > > owned a pair. They did intentionally tilt downward in the treble.
> > > It was a good thing, given the nature of the software of the era.
> > > The downward tilt still works for a lot of classical material,
> > > even in CD form. I think they are still viable speakers, although
> > > the lack of liquid cooling puts them at risk if rock-music types
> > > get hold of them.
>
> > Now *this* is bullshit. You're more likely to fry those speakers with classical
> > music reproduced at realistic levels, especially those with high dynamic ranges like
> > Delos discs. Don't forget that much rock music is pretty compressed. All it would
> > take is one crescendo to do the trick.
>
> What "fries' speakers are inputs with long-term averages
> that are high. That is what we will find with a lot of pop
> and rock music, where the loud and soft passages are only a
> few dB apart and because the peak levels are set high, the
> average in between is correspondingly high.
I think that you're wrong here. Most speakers can handle plenty of continuous
power, it's the occasional transient peak that takes out most speakers. Even a
speaker that "only" handles 70 watts continuous has plenty of reserve for material
that has little dynamic range. Metallica at 30 watts average is loud. But it probably
won't damage a speaker. A Delos disc at 30 watts average would be loud, *and*
have possible damaging peaks due to the wide shift in dynamic range.
I'm snipping the rest of the discussion because I think it's clear that there are
dangers with both types of music.
>
> > > which I've mentioned to you before, or
> > > > something like a Krell, an Audio Research, or a Mark Levinson, or like my Naim
> > > > or my Aloia. Mid-fi equipment does sound the same, Howard...it only differs in
> > > > the bells and whistles.
>
> > > I am curious about what it is that makes so many different
> > > products all sound wrong, but still identical.
>
> > It's a shame that you aren't curious about the claims of those advancing high-end
> > stuff.
>
> Like I should be curious about the claims made by people who
> have recently seen Elvis or talked to space aliens?
Are you interested in Elvis or space aliens? If so, then, yes, I'd think that you
would be interested in debunking the specific claims of people like that, especially
since you consider yourself "an advocate."
> Note
> that I am not skeptical about ALL high-end claims. Just the
> obviously hyperbolic stuff.
>
> > > In most cases, however,
> > > the differences involve the overexcited and fantasy-related
> > > imaginations of their proponents and owners.
>
> > God forbid that someone should get excited about music or gear.
>
> Excited, yes. Overexcited to the extent that they
> temporarily hang their brains on a clothes rack, no.
You mean like you do when you discuss Allison?
Tony Loban
<hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
tony loban wrote:
----snip----
>however, the inability of the
>> speaker to have a more neutral spectral balance was a serious
>> flaw. in my mind, the 'ar-lst' was the first 'high accuracy'
>ar
>> loudspeaker.
howard ferstler responded:
>Actually, they could have gotten flat response, but Roy even
>had the level control on the 3a configured so that his idea
>of a viable curve for music listening in home-audio
>environments was below the maximum settings of the tweeter
>and midrange controls. However, the woofer was indeed more
>efficient that the other drivers, and their lack of liquid
>cooling put the other drivers at a disadvantage in the
>power-handling department.
my recollection is that the flattest response was acheived with
the mid range set to 'normal' and the tweeter set to max. even
then, there was a certain 'darkness' to the overall balance.
ferstler continued:
>AR-LST achieved its flat abilities more because of the use
>of four tweeters and four midrange drivers, than because of
>the autotransformer. There were five available slopes with
>the autotransformer's control, and I believe that the second
>from the bottom setting was the one Allison recommended for
>proper balance in a home listening environment. (Same as the
>AR-3a.) Flat was one click down, and the top setting
>actually gave a slightly rising response toward the treble.
the 'lst' as you know, was capable of flat power response due to
it's multiple mid and high frequencies, wheras the '3a' was not
even capable of flat on-axis response. there was more going on
than just maximum output capabilities-the autoformer allowed the
efficiency of the woofer to be matched to the other drivers.
ferstler:
>The 10pi (which appeared after Allison left the company) had
>liquid-cooled tweeter and midrange drivers, which obviously
>increased their maximum outputs. I do not believe that
>system had an autotransformer.
my recollection is that the '10pi' used an autofomer to allow
control of the woofer output level-that was the key improvement
over the '3a', imo.
loban wrote, in the earlier post:
>> btw- of the 'pre ar-lst' products, i found the 'ar 5' to be
>more
>> listenable than the '3a'. ymmv.
ferstler:
>Roy claimed that they were identical sounding from 50 Hz on
>down, although the driver impedances were indeed different.
>(The mechanics of the tweeter and midrange were almost
>identical with both systems, however, and the 8-ohm versions
>of the AR-5 were created to work with the AR-5s 8-ohm
>woofer.)
>
>I believe that when Hirsch reviewed the AR-5, he thought it
>sounded quite different from the 3a. Roy had a letter to the
>editor published in Stereo Review because of that, and
>Hirsch offered a rebuttal. Who knows who was correct? I
>never had a chance to compare the systems, myself.
my recollection is that ar's official position was that the '3a'
had a 1/3 octave advantage in bass extension but was otherwise
identical.
imo this is a classic case of trusting measurements over
subjective listening results. imo, the 'ar 5' was a more
listenable speaker, being free of the upper bass 'muddiness'
that afflicted the '3a'. perhaps this was a case of the 'ar 5'
being more amplifier friendly than the lower-impedance '3a'.
Tony Loban
<nex...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
tony loban:
><snip>
>
>>my recollection is that ar's official position was that
the '3a'
>>had a 1/3 octave advantage in bass extension but was otherwise
>>identical.
nexus 6:
>
>That was their position.
>
loban:
>>imo this is a classic case of trusting measurements over
>>subjective listening results. imo, the 'ar 5' was a more
>>listenable speaker, being free of the upper bass 'muddiness'
>>that afflicted the '3a'. perhaps this was a case of the 'ar 5'
>>being more amplifier friendly than the lower-impedance '3a'.
nexus 6:
>
>The 3a could be made to sound a little less muddy, primarily
>by getting it off the floor, where most owners installed it.
>I have used them in a large room, on 12" stands, and sat a
>good distance away. They were also pulled out from the rear
>wall. This, IMO, improved the overall balance of the
>speaker.
yes, off the floor and away from walls made both the '3a' and
the '5' sound their best, imo. i still preferred the '5'.
nexus 6:
>My personal favorite from around that time was the little
>AR4ax, especially if the level control and caps are
>replaced.
i never heard a 'modified' 'ar 4ax', but in stock form, i recall
prefering the 'ar 7'.(there was a 2-3 year overlap in
production, as i recall).
imo, the real 'dog' of the line was the 'ar 2ax'-it embodied
everything that was 'wrong' with ar speakers: muddy, soggy,
dark, muted and not very smooth at the same time.
Nexus 6
<tony_...@email.com> wrote:
<snip>
>my recollection is that ar's official position was that the '3a'
>had a 1/3 octave advantage in bass extension but was otherwise
>identical.
That was their position.
>imo this is a classic case of trusting measurements over
>subjective listening results. imo, the 'ar 5' was a more
>listenable speaker, being free of the upper bass 'muddiness'
>that afflicted the '3a'. perhaps this was a case of the 'ar 5'
>being more amplifier friendly than the lower-impedance '3a'.
The 3a could be made to sound a little less muddy, primarily
by getting it off the floor, where most owners installed it.
I have used them in a large room, on 12" stands, and sat a
good distance away. They were also pulled out from the rear
wall. This, IMO, improved the overall balance of the
speaker.
My personal favorite from around that time was the little
AR4ax, especially if the level control and caps are
replaced.
Nexus 6
======================
"No more miracles
Loaves and fishes
Been so busy
With the washing of the dishes"
Nexus 6
<tony_...@email.com> wrote:
>In article <ee4mbs0t8p99p2fjk...@4ax.com>, Nexus 6
><nex...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
<careful snippage>
>>My personal favorite from around that time was the little
>>AR4ax, especially if the level control and caps are
>>replaced.
>
>
>i never heard a 'modified' 'ar 4ax', but in stock form, i recall
>prefering the 'ar 7'.(there was a 2-3 year overlap in
>production, as i recall).
I recall that model also. It is only that a number of
AR-4ax's came across my bench in serious need of
rehabilitation, and one owner gave me carte blanche to
experiment, which I did, and carried that experience over
into rebuilding more of them. For $20 a pair in the used &
abused market, $25 in parts, and some time, they can be a
decent little pair of speaks for a garage, basement, or
office, as long as the listening is utterly non-critical.
>
>imo, the real 'dog' of the line was the 'ar 2ax'-it embodied
>everything that was 'wrong' with ar speakers: muddy, soggy,
>dark, muted and not very smooth at the same time.
That speaker remains a true dog - the midrange drivers
distorted easily, and were crossed over too low, muddying up
the sound. They are a bitch to repair, and I say that from
experience. My advice to anyone who still has them is to
strip out all of the drivers and toss them, then install new
wofers, seal up the cab, and turn them into boomin' bass
boxes.
Jms ent
>> So, first you say the Krell is a scam, and then what?
>
>Well, Carver's super amp some years back, and amps that are
>in the same price category as the Krell, and of course any
>wires and cables that cost more than a couple of dozen
>bucks.
>
>Not as much of a scam as
>> some other amplifiers that cost as much. So are there degrees of scam,
>or is it
>> absolute; i.e., this is a scam or this is not a scam?
>
>Well, the term "scam" makes it all sound so "cheap" and low
>class. So, what do you think a $13,000 amp is supposed to do
>in a typical home-listening room that a $2500 amp (or even
>two $2500 amps, doing biamp work) cannot do? Highlight any
>"special features" such an amp might have.
I think you miss the point entirely. Such "flagship" products are common in any
industry. They are meant to demonstrate a company's ultimate capabilities and
enhance its image. People who can afford to buy such things are pretty much
aware of this, and buy these items for their looks,exclusivity and overkill
performance. Those are the "special features" you are asking about. Just
because this is of no interest to you(or me) does not make these products
scams.By your definition any product that doesn't "perform" better than one
that costs less is a scam. But you have narrowed the definition of
"performance" to technical performance. Others have different criteria. Given
your reasoning, the entire luxury goods market is a scam. So do you think that
these items are also scams?
Rolex watches-not as accurate as a Timex
B&O stereo systems-low performance/dollar ratio
Any Mercedes, BMW, or Jaguar
AudioMaven
Who said Rolex watches are good? They're living on past reputation.
Myles Astor
Publisher
Ultimate Audio magazine
www.ultimateaudio.com
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu wrote:
> You seem to feel that you are knowledgeable enough to spot
> my errors, and I want to see if possibly you can get me on a
> path that would incorporate a proper point of view.
So Howard (assuming your lack of response to any of the postings I have
made to you in the past couple of days doesn't mean you have me
killfiled), how come you say you now want such help when I tried to
help you by submitting your TAV essay to the editing process that all
Stereophile copy undergoes, you respond by calling the copy editor who
performed the analysis a "jerk," "full of crap," and now a "flunky"?
This hardly seems a healthy response to constructive criticism.
--
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Howard Ferstler
>
> In article <38BA97BF...@mailer.fsu.edu>,
> hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu wrote:
> > You seem to feel that you are knowledgeable enough to spot
> > my errors, and I want to see if possibly you can get me on a
> > path that would incorporate a proper point of view.
> So Howard (assuming your lack of response to any of the postings I have
> made to you in the past couple of days doesn't mean you have me
> killfiled),
Open your eyes. I have responded to a number of them. Note
that I again do NOT give you permission to post the
deconstruction job, nor do I give you permission to mail
copies to individuals.
Because you are basically a mean-spirited person, I suppose
you will do it, anyway.
how come you say you now want such help when I tried to
> help you by submitting your TAV essay to the editing process that all
> Stereophile copy undergoes, you respond by calling the copy editor who
> performed the analysis a "jerk," "full of crap," and now a "flunky"?
I did not name names. You did that, probably in order to
make it look like I am specifically picking on your guy.
Now, you have brought this man into the fray. Jesus, John,
the essay appeared weeks ago. You could have let it rest.
Are you bored? Haven't you got some Stereophile work to do?
You are behaving like a man with a personality defect.
> This hardly seems a healthy response to constructive criticism.
You are not interested in constructive criticism, John. You
are fighting for your turf.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> And I find it pretty easy to
> remember the important points even after 10 minutes. According to you, it
> would be impossible. I disagree.
Which is one reason that you think wires sound different
from each other.
> > Using the unplug/plug/listen with speakers can get you into
> > as much trouble as the same technique when comparing amps
> > and wires. I use both techniques when reviewing speakers, by
> > the way.
> According to you, you wouldn't be able to do *any* comparison without some
> elaborate turntable setup. So I guess those observations are invalid.
How would you know? You have never read any of my speaker
reviews to see how I put my comparisons to work.
> Note that *I* haven't quibbled with your reviews. However, when I don the skin
> of Howard Ferstler, I have to criticize your reviewing methods as inadequate and
> ineffectual.
Interesting that you can say this when you have yet to read
any of my reviews.
Howard Ferstler