Sir TtT, I can now answer one of your questions

[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

[E-Stat]

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

I am in 100% agreement when you did exactly that when I pointed out the obvious superiority in resolution with the best home systems!

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?"

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am in 100% agreement when you did exactly that when I pointed out the obvious superiority in resolution with the best home systems!

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?"

rw

The problem is that you had to point that out. You don't go into a theater expecting the sound system to mimic what you hear at home. Plain and simple. For you to even make this comparison is wacky and illogical.

[E-Stat]

You don't go into a theater expecting the sound system to mimic what you hear at home. Plain and simple. For you to even make this comparison is wacky and illogical.

It was your comparison, senior. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, it is you who attempted to defend theatrical systems (huh?) - for which you now say is a retarded thing to do!

"Wow E, I am surprised that you found IMAX's audio to be just mediocre...The real IMAX has the 8 story screen, the 14,000 watt worth of power, and two surrounds as opposed to the common array of speakers. It uses the basic 5.1 channel setup with a front height channel the fake IMAX does not have. I have found the real IMAX sound system to be head and shoulders above the typical theater sound system."

Presumably, now you would say it is not fair to compare a theatrical system with a high resolution home system since the home systems trump them in clarity and smoothness. We agree 100% !

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It was your comparison, senior. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, it is you who attempted to defend theatrical systems (huh?) - for which you now say is a retarded thing to do!

"Wow E, I am surprised that you found IMAX's audio to be just mediocre...The real IMAX has the 8 story screen, the 14,000 watt worth of power, and two surrounds as opposed to the common array of speakers. It uses the basic 5.1 channel setup with a front height channel the fake IMAX does not have. I have found the real IMAX sound system to be head and shoulders above the typical theater sound system."

Presumably, now you would say it is not fair to compare a theatrical system with a high resolution home system since the home systems trump them in clarity and smoothness. We agree 100% !

rw

Okay bozo, where in this sentence did I say this system was comparable to any home system. Let's see......no where. I said comparable to a typical theater sound didn't I.

I said if you walk into a theater expecting it to sound like a home audio system, you are stupid. I still say that, nothing has changed. If you want to keep beating this horse, more power to you.