Does anyone else run there HT sans center speaker?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not aware of any full range horns. Most I see are three way designs with each driver having a decidedly different radiation pattern and profoundly more moving mass at the low end. Especially since most horns are supplemented by direct radiator woofers at the bottom. The discontinuity at the crossover points is electrically evident as a saddle in the impedance curve and changes in phase.

You have never heard of the Klipschorn? It is a full range horn design.

You seem to think that all horns are exactly alike, and exhibit the same characteristics. Not all horns are made by JBL or Klipsch.

Have you heard Klipsch's new top of the line speaker?

How about Sunny Cables horn loaded speakers.

How about Acapella Audio or AvanteGarde designs?

How about any of TAD horn loaded speakers?

How about the many custom studio designs out there?

The point I am trying to make to you is you have not heard enough of the current implementation of hybrid cone/horn loaded technology that does not sound horn like, exhibit a saddle in the impedance curve, or changes the phase at the crossover.

Do you know of any studio class microphone that isn't a full range condenser design?

Yes, it is called the ball by Blue Microphones. It is a dynamic design with a frequency response of 35-16khz, and a dynamic range of 162db. Another is the Heil sound PR-40 dyanamic microphone with a frequency response of 28-18khz.

It is for the same reason that I prefer a single driver solution especially for wide band instruments like a piano.

Single drivers especially electrostatics have one big deficiency, total output and sensitivity. They make good music speakers, but are not so good for hometheater application where the SPL go well into the 100+db region.

Would you care to cite an example?

Doug Sax's custom design. Authur Mendell custom designs which are my favorite because he uses beryllium drivers behind the horns. These are not horn loaded speakers you will find in any high end shop, but perfect examples of hybrid horn loaded designs that could easily keep up with electrostatic designs note for note.

To each his own.

rw

Exactly!

[Woochifer]

Indeed it's ideal to have a system with a center speaker, but in my experience you MUST make sure that the center channel is a sufficient match with the mains. The importance of the center speaker is a sliding scale.

For example, if you just insert any old speaker into the center channel and it severely mismatches with the mains, then you're much better off going without the center speaker.

Best case scenario is that you use three identical speakers up front. Perfect match and a seamless front soundstage if the speakers are positioned correctly. The horizontal center speaker is a compromise by necessity back when TVs were bulky boxes that took up the entire middle of the room. But, with most TVs now flat panels, wall mounting the TV now allows for the use of three identical speakers across the front.

[E-Stat]

You have never heard of the Klipschorn? It is a full range horn design.

Oh, I have most certainly heard K-Horns. I'll pass on their honky midrange and limited range at the frequency extremes. If you re-read my post on the topic of coherency, you'll find that I am talking about single driver systems, not three way speakers with three decidedly different drivers with three decidedly different radiation patterns and multiple sets of crossovers that further reduce their ability to sound as one.

You seem to think that all horns are exactly alike, and exhibit the same characteristics. Not all horns are made by JBL or Klipsch.

I find all multi-way speakers share the same challenges when the topic is coherency due to obvious reasons.

Have you heard Klipsch's new top of the line speaker?

I thought the K-Horn was that model. The Avant-Garde is very clean sounding with excellent resolution whose bass sounds like it belongs to a completely different speaker. That is the discontinuity I hear with virtually all multi-way horn/direct radiator hybrids.

The point I am trying to make to you is you have not heard enough of the current implementation of hybrid cone/horn loaded technology that does not sound horn like, exhibit a saddle in the impedance curve, or changes the phase at the crossover.

My complaint for the better ones is not that they share the honky, metallic sound of Altec and Klipsch horns, but to point out the obvious discontinuity between the dissimilar drivers. Play solo voice, piano or guitar and you'll hear what I'm referring to.

Yes, it is called the ball by Blue Microphones. It is a dynamic design with a frequency response of 35-16khz, and a dynamic range of 162db. Another is the Heil sound PR-40 dyanamic microphone with a frequency response of 28-18khz.

Are you aware of any recording labels that use these? Do you notice these are also full range designs? Why do you think that is the case? Shoeps and Neumann has dominated the recording industry for decades.

Single drivers especially electrostatics have one big deficiency, total output and sensitivity. They make good music speakers, but are not so good for hometheater application where the SPL go well into the 100+db region.

Indeed, it takes lots of radiating area and power to provide high output. As for me, I have zero desire to go "well into" the hearing damage range you prefer. As an aside, I always wear earplugs or sound deadening ear buds when I work in the yard for the same reason. I overwhelmingly choose quality over quantity. If you recall, we differed a while back during a conversation about two channel vs multi-channel systems. I continue to aver that one must necessarily compromise the quality of a MC system unless one has a huge multi-hundred thousand dollar budget. Naturally, had I access to an astronomical budget, I would choose Ray Kimber's idea of doing it right:

RMAF Show

More coverage-scroll down a bit

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Oh, I have most certainly heard K-Horns. I'll pass on their honky midrange and limited range at the frequency extremes. If you re-read my post on the topic of coherency, you'll find that I am talking about single driver systems, not three way speakers with three decidedly different drivers with three decidedly different radiation patterns and multiple sets of crossovers that further reduce their ability to sound as one.

It is obvious you have NOT heard the new K-horns. Again, your comments are outdated. The horn hybrids I had custom made for my studio are a 4 way horn/cone hybrid. It has two different drivers (only the bass driver is a cone), it does NOT have 4 different radiation patterns on each horn, it was designed so that each radiation pattern remains exactly the same all the way through crossover point with no beaming whatsoever. The crossover system was expressly designed so that the speaker DOES sound like one. While you are entitled to you opinions (that are outdated at best), they do not reflect the current crop of horn hybrids that are out there. It is okay to love the design you chose, but you do not have to $hit on other designs because of that love.

I find all multi-way speakers share the same challenges when the topic is coherency due to obvious reasons.

Challenges can be overcome, especially when they are well understood. Coherency has nothing to do with a specific design, or the fact that one uses just one driver. It can be achieved in many different designs, and over multiple drivers if the system is well designed and matched. To say only one design is capable of coherence is disingenuous.

I thought the K-Horn was that model. The Avant-Garde is very clean sounding with excellent resolution whose bass sounds like it belongs to a completely different speaker. That is the discontinuity I hear with virtually all multi-way horn/direct radiator hybrids.

Yeah well electrostatics don't do deep bass at high levels without tremendous amounts of distortion.

My complaint for the better ones is not that they share the honky, metallic sound of Altec and Klipsch horns, but to point out the obvious discontinuity between the dissimilar drivers. Play solo voice, piano or guitar and you'll hear what I'm referring to.

A good horn hybrid design does not have discontinuities between drivers. I have played plenty of piano, solo and guitar through mine, and I don't hear any of the issues you bring up. I think you are painting a fine painting with a sweeper truck.

Are you aware of any recording labels that use these? Do you notice these are also full range designs? Why do you think that is the case? Shoeps and Neumann has dominated the recording industry for decades.

Shoeps and Neumann don't dominate any more, and the world of recording extends beyond just audio only applications.

My studio uses these, and yes I notice they were full range NON condenser microphones as well.

Indeed, it takes lots of radiating area and power to provide high output. As for me, I have zero desire to go "well into" the hearing damage range you prefer. As an aside, I always wear earplugs or sound deadening ear buds when I work in the yard for the same reason. I overwhelmingly choose quality over quantity.

I prefer headroom, not hearing damage. Headroom is where your choice fails. You do not have to choose quality over quantity. You can have both.

If you recall, we differed a while back during a conversation about two channel vs multi-channel systems. I continue to aver that one must necessarily compromise the quality of a MC system unless one has a huge multi-hundred thousand dollar budget. Naturally, had I access to an astronomical budget, I would choose Ray Kimber's idea of doing it right:

RMAF Show

More coverage-scroll down a bit

rw

This comment is pure BS. It does not require a multi hundred thousand dollar budget to get high quality MC sound. I must say I wouldn't spend ten thousand dollars on a high quality two channel system that already distorts the original recordings spatial perspective. That would be a compromise as well in my book. No matter how much you spend on a two channel system, it cannot equal the spatial accuracy that a very good multichannel system can give you.

Ray Kimber's setup is old school. You can get 5 TAD speakers or Thiel CS3.7, and Krell or California Labs amplification and get great sound for far less than $504,000+ dollars. His system would not even fit in most peoples rooms, and is not realistic for home applications period.

[E-Stat]

It is obvious you have NOT heard the new K-horns.

New K-Horns? No. Stuffing speakers in a corner doesn't do much for imaging.

Again, your comments are outdated. The horn hybrids I had custom made for my studio is a 4 way horn/cone hybrid. It has two different drivers (only the bass driver is a cone)...

A four way speaker using only two different drivers? So, the upper three range horns are all identical? OK! Pointing out why single drivers are inherently more coherent is not $hitting on other designs.

Challenges can be overcome, especially when they are well understood. A little snobbish huh?

My observations are the same against models like the Genesis 1, Nola Grand Reference and Scaena. Each of those has wonderful dynamics and frequency extension, but does not match a full range electrostat to these ears for absolute coherency. YMMV.

Yeah well electrostatics don't do deep bass at high levels without tremendous amounts of distortion.

When one listens at normal levels, that points becomes moot.

A good horn hybrid design does not have discontinuities between drivers. I have played plenty of piano, solo and guitar through mine, and I don't hear any of the issues you bring up. I think you are painting a fine painting with a sweeper truck.

To each his own.

I prefer headroom, not hearing damage. Headroom is where your choice fails.

Then I'll disregard your previous comment "where the SPL go well into the 100+db region." You either go well into that SPL region or you don't. I certainly don't nor have any desire to.

You do not have to choose quality over quantity. You can have both.

Such is relative.

This comment is pure BS. It does not require a multi hundred thousand dollar budget to get high quality MC sound.

Complete the concept. You must necessarily compromise quality until that level (in my experience) for having to split the amplifier and speaker budget by more than half for a five channel system vs. a two channel one. I have a modest five channel HT system which works fine for that medium. For music, however, I would rather choose better components over more channels. Obviously, your preference is different.

No matter how much you spend on a two channel system, it cannot equal the spatial accuracy that a very good multichannel system can give you.

That's great theory when you completely forget the concept of a musical library. I listen to my music, not concepts. About 1% of the library I've built over the past forty years happens to be MC. Even if the majority of my multi-miked recordings were MC, your comments would not apply because the image would still be artificially created. OTOH, I have heard many true MC Telarc recordings and they do sound nice. But I'm not one of those audiophiles who only listens to a handful of "spectacular" recordings.

You can get 5 TAD speakers or Thiel CS3.7, and Krell or California Labs amplification and get great sound for far less than $504,000+ dollars.

Yes you can if your prefer those speakers.

His system would not even fit in most peoples rooms, and is not realistic for home applications period.

Using Twelve Pro Stats driven by 10 kW of power is certainly not necessary for a home environment. Four of them for the front using smaller versions for the rear would be perfectly adequate.

rw

[audio amateur]

I love how these arguments go nowhere:-) How bout some more beer talk?

[BadAssJazz]

Best case scenario is that you use three identical speakers up front. Perfect match and a seamless front soundstage if the speakers are positioned correctly. The horizontal center speaker is a compromise by necessity back when TVs were bulky boxes that took up the entire middle of the room. But, with most TVs now flat panels, wall mounting the TV now allows for the use of three identical speakers across the front.

You read my mind, Woochifer.

I was just considering my next speaker set upgrade and I'm thinking about going with 6 of the same model monitors and a sub for a 6.1 setup. What I haven't decided is which monitors to get. I could stick with the Silverline Audio brand, since I'm familiar with their performance and I love their look...or I could go in another directions. Decisions, decisions...

By the way, if anyone has blackmail photos of Santa caught in a compromising position with his elves, can you send it to me? I'd really like to get these for Christmas, http://www.aaudioimports.com/ShowPro...p?hProduct=145 but I don't think Santa will bring it to me on account of my being more naughty than nice this year.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

New K-Horns? No. Stuffing speakers in a corner doesn't do much for imaging.

Funny, the new K-horns do not have much of a problem with imaging when I heard them. Have you ever heard of a false corner?

A four way speaker using only two different drivers? So, the upper three range horns are all identical? OK! Pointing out why single drivers are inherently more coherent is not $hitting on other designs.

No the horn sizes are different, but the drivers are the same.

A single driver may be more coherent in a single range, but not at all frequency ranges. Electrostatics are power hungry and inefficient, they beam at high frequencies, are placement fussy, and imaging is narrow. What they do give you is a great midrange, and for some folks, that is all they really want.

My observations are the same against models like the Genesis 1, Nola Grand Reference and Scaena. Each of those has wonderful dynamics and frequency extension, but does not match a full range electrostat to these ears for absolute coherency. YMMV.

Then you argument is based on personal choice and that is it basically.

When one listens at normal levels, that points becomes moot.

Normal levels are based on individual perspectives, not an established standard.

To each his own.

Exactly!

Then I'll disregard your previous comment "where the SPL go well into the 100+db region." You either go into that SPL region or you don't. I certainly don't.

That's your choice. Since a 110 piece orchestra can get that loud live during short peaks, I would hope my speaker could duplicate that. A short peak of 105db is not going to damage anyone's hearing.

Such is relative.

Many things are.

Complete the concept. You must necessarily compromise quality until that level (in my experience) for having to split the amplifier and speaker budget by more than half for a five channel system vs. a two channel one. I have a modest five channel HT system which works fine for that medium. For music, however, I would rather choose better components over more channels. Obviously, your preference is different.

Better components is a relative concept. Your better is not my better obviously. I have two 7.1 systems in my house, and I don't believe I had to compromise a dime to get great sound. A person that thinks two dimensionally believes that you have to make compromises that are so severe that good sound could cannot be achieved at a reasonable cost for a multichannel system. That is silly and narrow minded.

That's great theory when you completely forget the concept of a musical library. I listen to my music, not concepts. About 1% of the library I've built over the past forty years happens to be MC.

Such a dichotomy. You spend all of this money on two channels systems in the name of coherency, yet the system compromises the accuracy of the performance from a spatial perspective. You rob Peter to pay Paul, interesting trade off. You may ignore the concept in the name of listening to the music, but that does not take a thing away from the concept. Your argument is personal, but not exportable.

Yes you can if your prefer those speakers.

Exactly!

Using Twelve Pro Stats driven by 10 kW of power is certainly not necessary for a home environment. Four of them for the front using smaller versions for the rear would be perfectly adequate.

A four channel surround system still has spatial compromises when considering it is widely understood that it takes three front speakers to minimally map a front soundstage. Two speakers only work well from a central spot exactly in between them. Move slightly off axis, and your soundstage accuracy completely disappears. Any phantom images between those two speakers are still subject to a 3db dip in the frequency ranges between 1-4khz, no matter how good the speakers are. A dedicated speaker is always better than a phantom image, especially when heard slightly off axis. Two channel systems are for one person only, which means that only one can appreciate it, and for two it is a compromise for both parties. If you are the only one listening, great, but I think having the audience in a live recording clapping in front of me instead of two the sides, and/or rear is a little disconcerting for me. Having ambience emanate from behind the speakers instead of behind me is as well. Concept on not, spatial accuracy is just as important as any other parameter for audio listening.

rw[/QUOTE]

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I love how these arguments go nowhere:-) How bout some more beer talk?

They do go nowhere because it is based on personal preference, not some elevated standard of performance or accuracy.

[E-Stat]

Funny, the new K-horns do not have much of a problem with imaging when I heard them. Have you ever heard of a false corner?

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?

and imaging is narrow. What they do give you is a great midrange, and for some folks, that is all they really want.

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.

Then you argument is based on personal choice and that is it basically.

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.

Normal levels are based on individual perspectives, not an established standard.

No disagreement there. Thirty square feet of panel provides exceptionally low distortion bass at the non-damaging levels I prefer.

That's your choice. Since a 110 piece orchestra can get that loud live during short peaks, I would hope my speaker could duplicate that.

If you sit in the pit or row "B". That's not where I ever chose to sit.

A short peak of 105db is not going to damage anyone's hearing.

Here again, if that's what you enjoy, go for it !

That is silly and narrow minded.

We have very different frames of reference.

Such a dichotomy. You spend all of this money on two channels systems in the name of coherency, yet the system compromises the accuracy of the performance from a spatial perspective.

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.

...but that does not take a thing away from the concept. Your argument is personal, but not exportable.

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?

Move slightly off axis, and your soundstage accuracy completely disappears. Any phantom images between those two speakers are still subject to a 3db dip in the frequency ranges between 1-4khz, no matter how good the speakers are.

Our speaker experience is quite different with respect to music. I use a center channel with the HT.

BTW, I see Telarc now uses the Sanken 100 kHz condenser. Didn't think they would go backwards.

rw

[E-Stat]

They do go nowhere because it is based on personal preference, not some elevated standard of performance or accuracy.

Yet you feel the need to dive in and attempt to "correct" me. Go figure. ???

rw

[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.

[pixelthis]

A system without a center is great, kinda like a car with three wheels.
Not so bad on stereo, etc, but most of teh sound from a movie comes from the
center.
Dont have one and the electronics kinda spreads the sound around, like so much mustard.
This "talking" between the fronts is the center info being portioned out.
Now wheres the beer?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yet you feel the need to dive in and attempt to "correct" me. Go figure. ???

rw

Yes there was a need when your comments attempt to put one speaker technology over another. Go figure that!

[E-Stat]

Yes there was a need when your comments attempt to put one speaker technology over another. Go figure that!

You have your opinion and points of reference and I have mine which are very different than yours. Regardless of speaker technology, I find that full range transducers of any design - dynamic, ribbon, electret, ionic, electrostatic - whatever are inherently more coherent than blending multiple drivers of any sort to act as one.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[E-Stat]

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.

A flat response to 25hz at what amplitude? Without a measurement chart, your comments are pretty meaningless.

In room response around 80 db.

Let's also note there are zero recordings done with a single microphone.

Those are called monophonic recordings.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If I were you, I would not "gather" this at all.

Excellent. Most of recorded music offers ZERO benefits on an MC capable system.

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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?

In room response around 80 db.

That is what I thought.

Those are called monophonic recordings.

In other words, no spatial cues that you love so much.

And NONE of them have crossovers and multiple transducers.

And none of them are used as reproduction devices either.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[pixelthis]

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.