Sir TtT, I can now answer one of your questions

[E-Stat]

Have you heard the HPS-4000 system, or the Klipsch theatrical system?

Empirically, I can now answer "yes". Let me preface my comments by saying that I appreciate your industry video insight and have learned quite a bit regarding the nuances involved with the video standards and specifically, how the Blu-Ray committee operates. FWIW, my thoughts on video have never differed from that of yours. With audio, however, we seemingly live on different planets.

I wish to continue to voice my enthusiasm over the video miracle that is Avatar. In the past three weeks, I've seen it twice in Liemax (Mall of Georgia outside Atlanta, Jordan Crossing outside Salt Lake City) and just this weekend, in "mere" 3D at the Paradiso Cinema in Memphis. The larger Liemax screen definitely adds to the realism in that I find myself completely immersed in the picture. With the standard screen, I was aware that I was watching a rectangular projection with black space around it. In all cases, however, the sound was particularly good for theatres. I tried to discover exactly what the two recent IMAX theatrical screens were using, but couldn't find anything. I did, however, find a reference to exactly what I heard in Memphis found here.

The 10.2 system most certainly could be characterized as clean, exceptionally flat in response and thoroughly capable of providing the 93 db peaks (as measured at my seat) without a trace of any strain. There is no question that it is quite good at delivering subterranean response at very high levels. I cannot say that I have heard better quality at any theatre elsewhere. Even the *real* IMAX theatres I've attended in Atlanta, Huntsville, Cape Canaveral, Washington, Las Vegas, Dallas, Myrtle Beach, Nashville, Fort Worth, Chattanooga (and probably a couple other cities I can't remember at this time) didn't provide better sound quality than the new Klipsch system in Memphis.

Having said that, the musical performance was lackluster. I have the Avatar soundtrack and know it well. While one cannot entirely compare the full movie soundtrack to the musical score, there are sections in the movie that consist of music only. The movie begins with "You don't dream in cryo" and ends with Leona Lewis' theme. There is simply no comparison to what I heard with the Klipsch system and what I hear at home. There is no danger that one would ever confuse the theater system with live. Despite the twelve channels, the musical presentation is flat and lifeless. There are the front channels and there are the rear and side channels. Powerful and clean, yes - but the image sticks to the screen and never fools you into believing that there is an orchestra or Leona singing in front of you. With my main music system, however, there is a natural ease and transparency that far transcends the theatre experience. You not only hear Leona singing, but you hear her breath and the full emotion of the piece comes through. The image floats in front of you in a way that QSC class H amps and massive horn speakers can never convey. Harry Pearson's system can make all the walls in the room completely disappear (not only the with MC system, but the separate and higher resolution two channel as well) - while the image of theatres sticks strictly within the room.

Theatre systems have come quite a way and provide a wonderful audio experience when viewing movies. They cannot, however, fool you to thinking that the performers are in your very room performing in the way that the highest resolution audio systems are capable of doing. Truly I say this not to bash or slam you or the industry - my earnest wish is that as a recording professional that you take a fresh look at what is truly possible with audio reproduction. I am confident that in time, such will be the case.

rw

[audio amateur]

Isn't there a price difference here between your U-1s and a pair of the main channels from the Klipsch system? Also, I'm guessing your soundlabs could not reach the SPLs that the klipsch speakers could without compressing as much. These theater speakers are a tradeoff between absolute SQ, SPL capability and being reasonably priced. Whereas your U-1 are meant for 2c hannel listening, and are focused on delivering exactly what is on the recording, cost no object.
Now i could be wrong about the price of a pair of them horns, they could be just as expensive as the U-1 if not more.
I'm not trying to bash your system either, I would absolutely love to hear it one day. But you're comparing apples and oranges a little no?

[E-Stat]

Also, I'm guessing your soundlabs could not reach the SPLs that the klipsch speakers could without compressing as much.

Clearly, just as a pickup truck has a greater storage capacity than my S2000!

But you're comparing apples and oranges a little no?

Not according to Terrance! Regarding the ability to float a voice with high resolution:

"Even my cheapest MC system can do what you describe with complete and total ease... Anything a good two channel system can do, and good MC can do equally or better."

There you have it. Even my cheap MC system should trounce the stats with their ability to create realism. Guess what? They don't even come close. He continues to overstate the performance envelope of the sonic equivalent of a pickup truck vs. a Ferrari Italia. This coming from a professional recording engineer who knows the live unamplified musical event?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Clearly, just as a pickup truck has a greater storage capacity than my S2000!


Not according to Terrance! Regarding the ability to float a voice with high resolution:

"Even my cheapest MC system can do what you describe with complete and total ease... Anything a good two channel system can do, and good MC can do equally or better."

There you have it. Even my cheap MC system should trounce the stats with their ability to create realism. Guess what? They don't even come close. He continues to overstate the performance envelope of the sonic equivalent of a pickup truck vs. a Ferrari Italia. This coming from a professional recording engineer who knows the live unamplified musical event?

rw

And you continue to understate what you have never heard. In order to comment on a particular system, you have to actually hear it. Audio requires the ears(as opposed to the mouth) and brain to make a qualitative comparison between systems. That is very difficult when you are sitting on your big butt in another state just blowing smoke from afar.

Floating a voice realistically requires that the speakers have excellent phase characteristics, low in distortion, and a exceptionally flat frequency response in the presence region. Whether we are talking electrostatic panels or cones and domes. My cheapest system(ya noticed that I listed no price here) is a timed aligned two way phase correct speaker system that is just as capable of creating stable and realistic phantom images as a electrostatic panel is. Obviously they will sound different from a electrostatic panel, but different does not equate to better. Better is in the ears of the listener, not in the technology itself. While I will be the first to admit that electrostatic speakers have some very unique qualities, they are not the end all of all speaker designs.

Since you and I listen to music two different ways, and the same music from two different periods of time, it is a no brainer that we do not share the same love of speakers. There are certain properties you like in a speakers, and there are certain properties I like. While I love the midrange of electrostatics, the fact that they compress at high volumes, and are dynamically limited in the bass region makes them unsuitable for the kinds listening I do. The size of the most electrostatics are a problem as well, as most of the listening I do is in multichannel.

I have neither named the components in my cheaper system, nor have I named its price tag. You with zero information about the system (and the room it sits in)and yet you state that your e-stats as head and shoulder better than my system. This is why I cannot take your audio snobbery seriously. If it ain't two channel, or built around mega buck amps and electrostatic panel, it is not good enough. That is a whole pile of bull, and anyone with experience listening to a wide variety of speakers at different price points can attest to that. I have always been told that when listening to speakers, use your ears first, and your mouth last. You seem to have this completely backwards.

[E-Stat]

And you continue to understate what you have never heard.

Read the topic again. We're talking about the Klipsch theatre system I heard on Saturday.

In order to comment on a particular system, you have to actually hear it.

That's the raison d'etre for this post Sparky. I have heard the incredible Klipsch theatre system that you seem to think is pretty good. (probably have before, but couldn't document it) Do you remember saying this?

"You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field. Have you heard the HPS-4000 system, or the Klipsch theatrical system?"

The answer is YES. Been there and wasn't impressed. Next.

Floating a voice realistically requires that the speakers have excellent phase characteristics, low in distortion, and a exceptionally flat frequency response in the presence region.

The characteristic to which I refer is not limited to electrostats - just higher resolution gear than theatre systems with their limited quality components and cabling. The Nola Grand Reference and Scaenas are not stats, but have incredible resolution especially when driven by stuff beyond a pro QSC amp.

The size of the most electrostatics are a problem as well, as most of the listening I do is in multichannel.

The discussion is theatre systems vs. high resolution home systems, not limited to stats. The big Nolas and Scaenas have far higher dynamic punch (albeit for a price) and don't sound like sound reinforcement gear.

I have neither named the components in my cheaper system, nor have I named its price tag.

And? Do you have a point to make? I refer to your comment that any good MC system can compete with any two channel system. Right-ty-o! If you read my comments again, notice the word "my" in italics.

You with zero information about the system (and the room it sits in)and yet you state that your e-stats as head and shoulder better than my system.

Wherever did you read that? It is heads and shoulders over the Klipsch theater system for sure.

This is why I cannot take your audio snobbery seriously. If it ain't two channel, or built around mega buck amps and electrostatic panel, it is not good enough.

Your inability to read what I've said is why I cannot take your superiority complex seriously.

You seem to have this completely backwards.

You seem to have trouble reading. I described the experience I had in Memphis.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Read the topic again. We're talking about the Klipsch theatre system I heard on Saturday.

And you still want to make that comparison to a home system? Rediculous!

That's the raison d'etre for this post Sparky. I have heard the incredible Klipsch theatre system that you seem to think is pretty good. (probably have before, but couldn't document it) Do you remember saying this?

The Klipsch system is a pretty good THEATRICAL system, and I would not compare it to a home speaker system. That would be retarded.

"You really cannot make this statement without actually listening to all of the theaterical sound system in the field. Have you heard the HPS-4000 system, or the Klipsch theatrical system?"

The answer is YES. Been there and wasn't impressed. Next.

Here is some cake, woopeee

The characteristic to which I refer is not limited to electrostats - just higher resolution gear than theatre systems with their limited quality components and cabling. The Nola Grand Reference and Scaenas are not stats, but have incredible resolution especially when driven by stuff beyond a pro QSC amp.

Want more cake?

The discussion is theatre systems vs. high resolution home systems, not limited to stats. The big Nolas and Scaenas have far higher dynamic punch (albeit for a price) and don't sound like sound reinforcement gear.

This kind of discussion is stupid, and I said so the last time we visited this issue. Now if you still want to walk down this apples and oranges path, go ahead.

And? Do you have a point to make? I refer to your comment that any good MC system can compete with any two channel system. Right-ty-o! If you read my comments again, notice the word "my" in italics.

We are not going to agree on this, so there is no point in kicking a dead horse.

Wherever did you read that? It is heads and shoulders over the Klipsch theater system for sure.

Duh, you sure have a penchant for stating the obvious.

Your inability to read what I've said is why I cannot take your superiority complex seriously.

Whatever.....

You seem to have trouble reading. I described the experience I had in Memphis.

rw

Great for ya. Meaningless in the grand scheme of things when you go in with a prejudiced mind

[Feanor]

...

"Even my cheapest MC system can do what you describe with complete and total ease... Anything a good two channel system can do, and good MC can do equally or better."

There you have it. Even my cheap MC system should trounce the stats with their ability to create realism. Guess what? They don't even come close. He continues to overstate the performance envelope of the sonic equivalent of a pickup truck vs. a Ferrari Italia. This coming from a professional recording engineer who knows the live unamplified musical event?

rw

Modest as my 2 ch system is, my MC is even more modest. However, based on that, I insist that an MC can do what a stereo cannot. And that is create the illusion that you are in -- inside -- a real space. Yes, the MC might be imperfect in this regard but much less so than the stereo.

But does this mean my modest MC "trounce" my slightly less modest stereo? Not hardly: for music at least, the stereo wins hands down. Its resolution, transparency, and shear accuracy so beat the MC that there is not question which I want to listen to (as opposed to watch). But this is a matter of quality of components. I'm sure you'll agree that HP's MC set up goes a long way towards redressing quality balance vs. your "cheap", (like I believe that), MC system.

On the other hand when it comes to movies -- or opera -- I'm not so sure I prefer my stereo. We viewed Don Giovanni on Sunday and it was great in 5 channel sound -- something about the applause coming from behind us, etc.

Wonderful production BTW ...

[E-Stat]

However, based on that, I insist that an MC can do what a stereo cannot. And that is create the illusion that you are in -- inside -- a real space. Yes, the MC might be imperfect in this regard but much less so than the stereo.

True, but I find offsetting factors. I've heard the same Telarc disc played on virtually identical EMM Labs players on HP's two systems and find that while the MC does impart more sense of space (as he emphatically states in his reviews as well), the main system can do things the Maggie system cannot. Ideally, he would have an MC version of the Scaena system. Unfortunately, the additional three channels of the same gear would run another $200k or so. And for someone who has a vast library of music stretching back decades, only some of the collection would ever benefit. Therein lies the rub for me. I think the MC experience is great but does not trump the musical content.

On the other hand when it comes to movies -- or opera -- I'm not so sure I prefer my stereo. We viewed Don Giovanni on Sunday and it was great in 5 channel sound -- something about the applause coming from behind us, etc.

I feel the same about watching Cirque du Soleil videos where the musical quality is not important. Indeed, you are placed in a larger space with the natural ambience.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Isn't there a price difference here between your U-1s and a pair of the main channels from the Klipsch system? Also, I'm guessing your soundlabs could not reach the SPLs that the klipsch speakers could without compressing as much. These theater speakers are a tradeoff between absolute SQ, SPL capability and being reasonably priced. Whereas your U-1 are meant for 2c hannel listening, and are focused on delivering exactly what is on the recording, cost no object.
Now i could be wrong about the price of a pair of them horns, they could be just as expensive as the U-1 if not more.
I'm not trying to bash your system either, I would absolutely love to hear it one day. But you're comparing apples and oranges a little no?

He is comparing apples and oranges. Theatrical speakers have a particular job that is completely different from a home audio speaker. To compare the two is stupid and illogical, and I have stated this before. It is asinine to walk into a theater full of horn loaded speakers, and compare that experience to sitting at home in front of two large panels. While the e-stats would trump these theatrical speakers in clarity and smoothness, the theatrical speakers would blow the e-stats out of the room in the areas of dynamics and bass extension.

You don't go to a Chinese restaurant looking for a great burger, and thus you should not walk into a theater expecting to hear the level of clarity and smoothness you get from a home audio system.

[E-Stat]

...and thus you should not walk into a theater expecting to hear the level of clarity and smoothness you get from a home audio system.

Finally! Why was that so difficult for you to admit?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Finally! Why was that so difficult for you to admit?

rw

It wasn't difficult to admit, that is why I said you cannot make the comparison in the first place grandpa! A theatrical system has a different job than a home audio system. So different the two cannot be compared. I have said this at least four times, and yet your pea brain cannot get its cells around that.

[E-Stat]

It wasn't difficult to admit, that is why I said you cannot make the comparison in the first place grandpa!

Your retraction of two other comments to the contrary so noted.

rw

[atomicAdam]

You don't go to a Chinese restaurant looking for a great burger

Actually, I've had some pretty good hamburgers in Chinese restaurants, though I didn't go looking for them.

[poppachubby]

Actually, I've had some pretty good hamburgers in Chinese restaurants, though I didn't go looking for them.

Oh so you're the guy who eats those, I always wondered why Chinese restaurants have them on the menu.

[audio amateur]

Oh so you're the guy who eats those, I always wondered why Chinese restaurants have them on the menu.

lol, it's like here in england, they serve stuff like fries and other completely non-chinese foods and you always wonder who would go to a chinese restaurant to eat that?

[E-Stat]

Actually, I've had some pretty good hamburgers in Chinese restaurants, though I didn't go looking for them.

Must require large chopsticks!

rw

[Rich-n-Texas]

Actually audio amature, I think with this post:

Isn't there a price difference here between your U-1s and a pair of the main channels from the Klipsch system? Also, I'm guessing your soundlabs could not reach the SPLs that the klipsch speakers could without compressing as much. These theater speakers are a tradeoff between absolute SQ, SPL capability and being reasonably priced. Whereas your U-1 are meant for 2c hannel listening, and are focused on delivering exactly what is on the recording, cost no object.
Now i could be wrong about the price of a pair of them horns, they could be just as expensive as the U-1 if not more.
I'm not trying to bash your system either, I would absolutely love to hear it one day. But you're comparing apples and oranges a little no?

You ruined or at least temporarily changed the landscape that E-Stat was trying to paint because it forced him to reply with this:

Clearly, just as a pickup truck has a greater storage capacity than my S2000!

Not according to Terrance! Regarding the ability to float a voice with high resolution:

"Even my cheapest MC system can do what you describe with complete and total ease... Anything a good two channel system can do, and good MC can do equally or better."

There you have it. Even my cheap MC system should trounce the stats with their ability to create realism. Guess what? They don't even come close. He continues to overstate the performance envelope of the sonic equivalent of a pickup truck vs. a Ferrari Italia. This coming from a professional recording engineer who knows the live unamplified musical event?

rw

Seems to me the original spirit of E-Stat's opening post was lost, and had you stayed out of it, maybe Sir T would've reacted differently, at least in the beginning.

Sometimes it's best to let the heavyweights duke it out and the rest of us take what we need or want from what remains. Just my opinion though.

[audio amateur]

Sometimes it's best to let the heavyweights duke it out and the rest of us take what we need or want from what remains. Just my opinion though.

Ssup Rich?
Yeah, you're probably right...

[E-Stat]

Yeah, you're probably right...

Actually, I welcome other commentary. Has this um - discourse been childish? It is a shame that it has had to be so.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, I welcome other commentary. Has this um - discourse been childish? It is a shame that it has had to be so.

rw

You could have stopped it at any time.....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Empirically, I can now answer "yes". Let me preface my comments by saying that I appreciate your industry video insight and have learned quite a bit regarding the nuances involved with the video standards and specifically, how the Blu-Ray committee operates. FWIW, my thoughts on video have never differed from that of yours. With audio, however, we seemingly live on different planets.

I wish to continue to voice my enthusiasm over the video miracle that is Avatar. In the past three weeks, I've seen it twice in Liemax (Mall of Georgia outside Atlanta, Jordan Crossing outside Salt Lake City) and just this weekend, in "mere" 3D at the Paradiso Cinema in Memphis. The larger Liemax screen definitely adds to the realism in that I find myself completely immersed in the picture. With the standard screen, I was aware that I was watching a rectangular projection with black space around it. In all cases, however, the sound was particularly good for theatres. I tried to discover exactly what the two recent IMAX theatrical screens were using, but couldn't find anything. I did, however, find a reference to exactly what I heard in Memphis found here.

The 10.2 system most certainly could be characterized as clean, exceptionally flat in response and thoroughly capable of providing the 93 db peaks (as measured at my seat) without a trace of any strain. There is no question that it is quite good at delivering subterranean response at very high levels. I cannot say that I have heard better quality at any theatre elsewhere. Even the *real* IMAX theatres I've attended in Atlanta, Huntsville, Cape Canaveral, Washington, Las Vegas, Dallas, Myrtle Beach, Nashville, Fort Worth, Chattanooga (and probably a couple other cities I can't remember at this time) didn't provide better sound quality than the new Klipsch system in Memphis.

Having said that, the musical performance was lackluster. I have the Avatar soundtrack and know it well. While one cannot entirely compare the full movie soundtrack to the musical score, there are sections in the movie that consist of music only. The movie begins with "You don't dream in cryo" and ends with Leona Lewis' theme. There is simply no comparison to what I heard with the Klipsch system and what I hear at home. There is no danger that one would ever confuse the theater system with live. Despite the twelve channels, the musical presentation is flat and lifeless. There are the front channels and there are the rear and side channels. Powerful and clean, yes - but the image sticks to the screen and never fools you into believing that there is an orchestra or Leona singing in front of you. With my main music system, however, there is a natural ease and transparency that far transcends the theatre experience. You not only hear Leona singing, but you hear her breath and the full emotion of the piece comes through. The image floats in front of you in a way that QSC class H amps and massive horn speakers can never convey. Harry Pearson's system can make all the walls in the room completely disappear (not only the with MC system, but the separate and higher resolution two channel as well) - while the image of theatres sticks strictly within the room.

Theatre systems have come quite a way and provide a wonderful audio experience when viewing movies. They cannot, however, fool you to thinking that the performers are in your very room performing in the way that the highest resolution audio systems are capable of doing. Truly I say this not to bash or slam you or the industry - my earnest wish is that as a recording professional that you take a fresh look at what is truly possible with audio reproduction. I am confident that in time, such will be the case.

rw

To make this last statement is arrogant as hell. One would have to assume that another is NOT taking a fresh look at something just because it does not conform to the desires of another. Just more fresh BS from a arrogant golden eared audiophile.

Here is another one of your stupid apples and oranges comparison. You are comparing a soundtrack, crafted as a whole to a film score that is mixed with other elements in mind such as the dialog and effects, something the soundtrack does not have. You do not know if the soundtrack is derived from the same master as the film score. You do not know what electronics that were involved in the recording and mixing of either, and yet you want to make a comparison of something that happen in a theater to that of what happens in your listening room. I thought you were smarter than this, but I guess not.

[E-Stat]

To make this last statement is arrogant as hell.

Do you think that the Klipsch theatrical system sounds like live, unamplified music?

Here is another one of your stupid apples and oranges comparison. You are comparing a soundtrack, crafted as a whole to a film score that is mixed with other elements in mind such as the dialog and effects, something the soundtrack does not have.

It is a shame you have forgotten how to read! Let's review what I actually said and see if you can u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d. Here' s what I said specifically about that topic:

"I have the Avatar soundtrack and know it well. While one cannot entirely compare the full movie soundtrack to the musical score, there are sections in the movie that consist of music only. The movie begins with "You don't dream in cryo" and ends with Leona Lewis' theme. There is simply no comparison to what I heard with the Klipsch system and what I hear at home."

Is there any part of that you don't understand? I thought you were smarter.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Do you think that the Klipsch theatrical system sounds like live, unamplified music?

Nope, but I do not think electrostatics have that quality either, no speaker does IMO.

It is a shame you have forgotten how to read! Let's review what I actually said and see if you can u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d. Here' s what I said specifically about that topic:

"I have the Avatar soundtrack and know it well. While one cannot entirely compare the full movie soundtrack to the musical score, there are sections in the movie that consist of music only. The movie begins with "You don't dream in cryo" and ends with Leona Lewis' theme. There is simply no comparison to what I heard with the Klipsch system and what I hear at home."

Is there any part of that you don't understand? I thought you were smarter.

rw

And I thought you were smarter making such a stupid comparison in the first place. If one can not entirely compare, then why do it in the first place? Duh!

You still don't know if the same master was used for the theatrical mix and the soundtrack. My experience tells me it likely was not, which makes any comparison invalid from jump street.

Your entire post is wasted time.

[E-Stat]

You still don't know if the same master was used for the theatrical mix and the soundtrack. My experience tells me it likely was not, which makes any comparison invalid from jump street.

So the engineers took the studio recording of Leona Lewis and screwed it up? That's what your experience tells you! If that is true, then those engineers must be incompetent idiots. All they had to do was roll the cut during the end titles.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So the engineers took the studio recording of Leona Lewis and screwed it up? That's what your experience tells you! If that is true, then those engineers must be incompetent idiots. All they had to do was roll the cut during the end titles.

rw

Man, your statements just get more stupid as they go along. Who said they screwed it up?

You don't mix a CD soundtrack the same way you mix a film score. You have elements in the film score that you have to balance against that you do not have in a CD score. My dog pepper could figure this out.

Your arrogance is sickening, your uneducated prognostications are even worse.