-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Well if they wouldn't sound (even more) like crap when taken out of the corner, then they might be more popular. If you recall Paul envisioned using them in a three channel system with a Belle in the middle. BTW, I saw a $20k model in Stereophile that abandoned the folded horn corner design. Is that the one to which you referred to earlier?
So based on this comment the answer would be no you haven't heard the latest K-Horn. Reciting old out of date comments referring to earlier K-horn models does not count as a listen to the current version.
And the answer to the last question is no, but you can throw that model in as well.
Quote:
The faceted array design of the Sound Labs provides your choice of radiation angles. Mine is a 90 degree design that sounds pretty much the same across that wide stretch. You can also choose 22 or 45 degree designs for use with arrays. The cost no object "old school" array Ray Kimber used was three 22 degree units per side. As for me, I find flat response to 25 hz and extension to above 20 kHz sufficient for my purposes. Admittedly, below that their response nose dives. Perhaps your definition of the midrange differs from mine.
A flat response to 25hz at what amplitude? Without a measurement chart, your comments are pretty meaningless.
Quote:
As are everyone's arguments. Pick the choice of compromises you find best. Again, you'll note there are zero multi-way microphones at the other end of the transduction chain. The benefits are identical.
Let's also note there are zero recordings done with a single microphone. This kind of argument is useless. Just like with drivers, certain microphones work better for certain purposes. Some microphones don't do bass that well, and some are better at high than others. There is zero evidence that having a speaker that mimics the response of a microphone will have any more advantages than speakers that don't. Microphones are hung in free space, speakers are not. Microphones are not usually placed near room surfaces, speakers often are.
Quote:
No disagreement there. Thirty square feet of panel provides exceptionally low distortion bass at the non-damaging levels I prefer.
'I prefer' is the basis of your entire argument.
Quote:
If you sit in the pit or row "B". That's not where I ever chose to sit.
Wrong! I recorded that level sitting in the middle of Boston's Symphony Hall, not row B
Quote:
Here again, if that's what you enjoy, go for it !
We have very different frames of reference.
You have a penchant for stating the obvious.
Quote:
Not just coherency. Transparency. Transient response. Soundstage height as well as width. I find the minimally miked classical recordings from the 50s, Telarcs, Sheffields, Reference Recordings, Windham Hill, etc all provide a very natural representation because the spatial cues are on the recording. That's why I have spent considerable effort with speaker placement and room treatments. The bigger question remains that I don't limit my musical choices by the choosing only gee-whiz recordings. I get the other benefits with ALL my music.
Once again, electrostatic do not corner the market in transparency, transient response, or sound stage height. There are non electrostatics that do this well too.
As far as personal taste, it is not exportable, and please do not make assumptions that people only listen to gee whiz recordings. All the record companies you mention are not the only ones that record spatial cues. A good recording is a good recording, no matter who produces it. These guys are not the only ones.
Quote:
Agreed. My enjoyment comes from the music, not the gear. I gather then you completely dispense with listening to any music recorded prior to what ten years ago?
If I were you, I would not "gather" this at all.
Quote:
Our speaker experience is quite different with respect to music. I use a center channel with the HT.
I use a center channel whenever it is recorded, whether it is music or movies. I this day and time thinking the use of a center channel is strictly for HT is old fashion and ridiculously backwards thinking.
Quote:
BTW, I see Telarc now uses the Sanken 100 kHz condenser. Didn't think they would go backwards.
I guess this information would be relevant if Telarc was the only Record label in existence.
-
Final comments - feel free to have the last word
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
So based on this comment the answer would be no you haven't heard the latest K-Horn.
Correct. A sixty year old design is a sixty year old design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
A flat response to 25hz at what amplitude? Without a measurement chart, your comments are pretty meaningless.
In room response around 80 db.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Let's also note there are zero recordings done with a single microphone.
Those are called monophonic recordings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
This kind of argument is useless. Just like with drivers, certain microphones work better for certain purposes.
And NONE of them have crossovers and multiple transducers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Wrong! I recorded that level sitting in the middle of Boston's Symphony Hall, not row B
Such is not typical in my experience. Never been to that hall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Once again, electrostatic do not corner the market in transparency, transient response, or sound stage height. There are non electrostatics that do this well too.
Indeed. I answered your question as to why I chose the speakers I did. They combine ALL those characteristics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
A good recording is a good recording, no matter who produces it.
Now it is your turn for pointing out the obvious. If you recall, the context was your pointing out than only a MC recording can get the spatial relationships right. I don't disagree. I'll repeat. First of all, throw out 100% of all multi-tracked recordings because their image is artifice, regardless of the number of channels in the final mix. What remains, however *nice* , is an infinitesimally small subset of all recorded music. I optimize my system for the library, not a handful of cool recordings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
If I were you, I would not "gather" this at all.
Excellent. Most of recorded music offers ZERO benefits on an MC capable system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
I guess this information would be relevant if Telarc was the only Record label in existence.
Only one of the finest. You never answered the question as to which labels use your $200 Blue dynamic microphone. Over their many condenser designs at that.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Correct. A sixty year old design is a sixty year old design.
Not if that design has been improved over that 60 year period. Ever heard of improve drivers? Non resonant horn materials?
Quote:
In room response around 80 db.
That is what I thought.
Quote:
Those are called monophonic recordings.
In other words, no spatial cues that you love so much.
Quote:
And NONE of them have crossovers and multiple transducers.
And none of them are used as reproduction devices either.
Quote:
Such is not typical in my experience. Never been to that hall.
It is pretty typical for large scale works. I have recorded that level during recording sessions in Seattle, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, London, and at many scoring sessions in large scoring stages in Hollywood.
Quote:
Indeed. I answered your question as to why I chose the speakers I did. They combine ALL those characteristics.
And so do many non electrostatic speakers.
Quote:
Now it is your turn for pointing out the obvious. If you recall, the context was your pointing out than only a MC recording can get the spatial relationships right. I don't disagree. I'll repeat. First of all, throw out 100% of all multi-tracked recordings because their image is artifice, regardless of the number of channels in the final mix. What remains, however *nice* , is an infinitesimally small subset of all recorded music. I optimize my system for the library, not a handful of cool recordings.
Again, your assumptions are completely wrong. A multi track recording can consist of five microphones, one for each space you are covering. A three mike Decca tree setup covering an orchestra with two stereo microphones placed on the left and right side near the rear of the auditorium can sound just as natural as a two microphone setup. Quite a few MC recordings are done this way. This way preserves that natural arrival of the instruments to the microphones, and does not require the use of a panning device to create artificial imaging. Your dismissal of multi track recording shows a lack of understanding in how to achieve a natural sounding recording, or what constitutes multi tracking.
Multi track means nothing more than more than one track. All stereo music is recorded with more than one track - so everything uses a multi track system, including two channel minimalist recordings.
I also optimize my system for the library, and not just a handful of cool recordings. My system is optimized to handle both two channel and multichannel. Can that be said about yours?
Quote:
Excellent. Most of recorded music offers ZERO benefits on an MC capable system.
Wrong again. All recordings can be accurately played back on any MC system, as a MC system can play back ALL recordings including multichannel from SACD, DVD-A, and Bluray disc. Can a system with only two speakers do the same? No it cannot. I prefer a system with the flexibility and accuracy to play ALL recordings, whether they are mono, stereo, 5.1 or 7.1. A two channel system cannot accomplish this.
Your benefits are misplaced. The benefit is the flexibility of support of ALL recordings no matter how many channels, something that a two channel system cannot approach because it is limited to just two channels.
Quote:
Only one of the finest. You never answered the question as to which labels use your $200 Blue dynamic microphone. Over their many condenser designs at that.
I do not market the Blue Ball, so the use of "your" would be incorrect.
Does a label have to use it for it to be legitimate to you? Labels don't record music, audio engineers do. The proper question would be what audio engineer uses it or has, and I can state that Shawn Murphy, Chuck Ainly, Elliot Scheiner, Alan Parsons, Leslie Ann Jones, and John Newton have all used it. Shawn Murphy was the guy who brought the microphone to me.
Telarc is no more. It is toast as a company as of this year. It was one of many good record companies in the world. I would say 2L and Surround Records are at the same level as Telarc was in terms of production quality.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by harley .guy07
Well if this keeps going we are going to have to add a special forum thread for beer talk. I'm all about it since I enjoy the hops and think its a good thing to do when listening to good music on a good system.
About the center channel issue I am on the fence with this one. I think if your speakers have spot on imaging which electrostats seem to have if set up properly I could see where the need for a center channel may not be necessary especially if your mains are capable of bringing out the extra information given from the processor. But if your system does not have spot on imaging and your seating position is not directly in the sweet spot then i would say a center would be a must.
hERES WHAT a "beer tasting" party winds up like in my neighborhood.:1:
|