Speaker Characteristics and Why?

[E-Stat]

Are you assuming that mimimal miking could NOT have occured in those 1000+ entries?

Actually, I find a few cases. Call it 1%. Which supports my original observation. It makes perfect sense that he would choose what works best with the lion's share of the content - generic pop music.

Are you also assuming that is his entire body of work?

By all means, please do substitute data for any of your speculations.

One can gather from that breathe of time that he has used quite a number of recording, mixing, mastering, and monitoring equipment. I know I have in the last 25 years.

How does that demonstrate that he has extensive experience with the many, many high performance tube products that are available today? You are the master of speculation. Don't tell me, don't tell me - you're close buddies with him as you are with John Curl.

rw

[PeruvianSkies]

Translation: I don't even know myself. Sometimes I get so caught up in twisting what people say around, I confuse myself.

You are getting a big greenie for that one, whoooo.

[E-Stat]

How do you know the breathe of exposure, have you talk to him? I know I have.

Great. Now tell us specifically which tube amp(s) and preamps he has auditioned using exactly what speaker(s). Provide us the depth of your knowledge of him. We're all ears.

I think a person with 1000+ gigs and more than 30 years doing his thing would trump anything you have accomplished in audio. I think that goes for Ainley and Scheiner as well.

There is a fundamental concept that you completely miss. For some odd reason, you believe that such accomplishments automatically mean that he spends extensive time auditioning ALL of the highest quality amplifiers on a regular basis. Why do you believe that? Have you ever seen a collection of hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment at his house (as I have on numerous occasions with my reviewer friends)? Tell us about it. What system does he use? Surely, you must have intimate details to be so sure of his judgment. Can you provide any facts?

How many Grammy's have you won?

Do you honestly believe there is any connection - whatsoever - between the quality of a recording and that award? Do you hold "Use Somebody" by Kings of Leon to be a statement of the highest quality of the recording art? How about "Not Ready to Make Nice" by the Dixie Chicks? Do they rival the efforts of Reference Recordings. Telarc, Windham Hill, Sheffield, Everest, Wilson, et. al. ? Is that what you believe? On second thought, that might be unfair to pick just any Grammy Award. Surely, you have some specifics in mind. Tell us about say two or three that are representative of his work. We'd be curious as to what they are and why you think they represent the state of the recording art.

rw

[PeruvianSkies]

Great. Now tell us specifically which tube amp(s) and preamps he has auditioned using exactly what speaker(s). Provide us the depth of your knowledge of him. We're all ears.


There is a fundamental concept that you completely miss. For some odd reason, you believe that such accomplishments automatically mean that he spends extensive time auditioning ALL of the highest quality amplifiers on a regular basis. Why do you believe that? Have you ever seen a collection of hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment at his house (as I have on numerous occasions with my reviewer friends)? Tell us about it. What system does he use? Surely, you must have intimate details to be so sure of his judgment. Can you provide any facts?


Do you honestly believe there is any connection - whatsoever - between the quality of a recording and that award? Do you hold "Use Somebody" by Kings of Leon to be a statement of the highest quality of the recording art? How about "Not Ready to Make Nice" by the Dixie Chicks? Do they rival the efforts of Reference Recordings. Telarc, Windham Hill, Sheffield, Everest, Wilson, et. al. ? Is that what you believe?

rw

Nothing like painting yourself into a corner is there? Too bad everyone else sees it now. Going back on topic....

Does anyone have opinions regarding the speaker characteristics of Thiels?

[Mr Peabody]

I know what you have written here, and there is no mention of any studio mixing experience, no mastering experience, and no recording experience. The only experience you have mentioned is your sit in the chair and listen experience.

NO, you are wrong, I have much more than "sit in the chair", my posts show that where needed. Not all of us try to boast and turn every post we write into a resume and name dropping affair. Because most of us are intelligent enough to make convincing statements without bringing up we know who or did what to some how validate or substantiate what we have said. Most of us do not have inferiority complexes that we have to stoop to your tactics. That's why you haven't read everybody's business.

I haven't seen any evidence that your experience trumps theirs. As a matter of fact, I haven't seen anyone mention that they are an audio engineer except myself. I haven't read about anyones vast experience with recording, so it would stand to reason that an audio engineer would have more access to different equipment than most here. They interact with different kinds of microphones with different sonic and capture characteristics, different kinds of amplification systems, different kinds of instruments and monitoring systems, most know acoustics pretty well, and quite a few are extremely well versed on both analog and digital technology. I haven't seen anyone claim that vast spectrum of experience and interaction - at least not on this board.

I haven't seen any evidence that your or their experience trumps mine, now that you mention it. Being an audio engineer and a $5 bill might get you a cup of coffee but it don't mean much to me. I'm sure you haven't been to every studio in the world or even the U.S. to know what gear is there. The reason one might not use tubes is in one word, maintenance. Tubes are expensive to be replaced, pay to have some one to replace them, the heat factor, down time when maintenance is needed, tubes would burn out quicker in a studio with the continuous hours of use, none of which have to do with the sound quality.


Now you know these kinds of stupid foolish statements don't faze me one bit, and if you don't know this, you should now.

That was simple free mental health advice. Don't make me call Dr. Phil

[Mr Peabody]

I haven't heard many Thiel, based on what I've heard they have more of a sweet presentation, some may use the term "musical". The sound as I remember was balanced but not a speaker with a lot of bass slam. I liked Thiel's sound but for personal use like a bit more dynamics.

[PeruvianSkies]

I haven't heard many Thiel, based on what I've heard they have more of a sweet presentation, some may use the term "musical". The sound as I remember was balanced but not a speaker with a lot of bass slam. I liked Thiel's sound but for personal use like a bit more dynamics.

Mr P.

Once again, your analysis is pretty much spot-on with what I experienced as well. I was only asking because a former co-worker was inquiring as he saw a set on Audiogon and was asking my opinion of them for Jazz music.

They are the Thiel 2.4's, which are the exact speakers that I heard awhile back in a very good 2-channel setup. My experience was that they seemed to lack a lot of the low end punch, but demonstrates a very sweet and sweeping sound, I still think for the price though that he could snag a slightly more well-rounded speaker, especially for Jazz. I think he will be missing out on some of the low-end presence.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, I find a few cases. Call it 1%. Which supports my original observation. It makes perfect sense that he would choose what works best with the lion's share of the content - generic pop music.

So, you picked that percentage out of clean air or what?

By all means, please do substitute data for any of your speculations.

Sorry, don't speculate on things like this. I wouldn't make the comments I do if I didn't know for sure.

How does that demonstrate that he has extensive experience with the many, many high performance tube products that are available today? You are the master of speculation. Don't tell me, don't tell me - you're close buddies with him as you are with John Curl.

rw

I am going to respond to this stupid comment as best I can. When I wrote for Surround Sound Magazine, I did a story on him. I spent three hours interviewing him on the various things he has done, and the variety of equipment he uses. When I recorded concerts for the LA symphony, I took the projects to him for mastering, and got a chance to see the different types of equipment he uses to master. When I did my own recording projects with my church, I took it to him for mastering because of the previous great team work we had done before. He is also a yearly speaker at our local AES meetings, and which I have heard much about the equipment he uses, and how he uses them. Is he a close buddy, nope, but we have had quite a few business and basic interactions over the years, which make me far more able (with credibility) to know what he did than you.

As far as the John Curl remark. How stupid is it that you go over to another website, mention no name, no dates, no specifics at all, and expect him to make a connection. This has more to do with your stupidity, than it has to do with my connection to him.

Now you on the other hand are totally speculating, and assuming, which is what you do so well.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Great. Now tell us specifically which tube amp(s) and preamps he has auditioned using exactly what speaker(s). Provide us the depth of your knowledge of him. We're all ears.

All ears and no brains. I think it is stupid for you to ask me exactly what specific equipment he has used, that is not necessary, but it does give you an opportunity to dismiss what i have said. Sorry, not falling for that bait. Specifics are not necessary, and a lot of time beyond your scope of understand anyway.

There is a fundamental concept that you completely miss. For some odd reason, you believe that such accomplishments automatically mean that he spends extensive time auditioning ALL of the highest quality amplifiers on a regular basis. Why do you believe that?

I don't think I said that. You are putting words in my mouth.

Have you ever seen a collection of hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment at his house (as I have on numerous occasions with my reviewer friends)?

No, he has millions of dollars worth of equipment in his studio. And yes, I have seen it.

Tell us about it. What system does he use? Surely, you must have intimate details to be so sure of his judgment. Can you provide any facts?

His system is custom made. Within his studio, he can patch an input to various kinds of processing and amps designed to create a certain effects. Among those amps are high quality custom tube designs he does himself. When I asked him why he doesn't use those amps for his standard playback system, he says they color the sound, and that all tube amps color the sound to some degree. I heard the same comments from Chuck Ainley and Elliot Scheiner. So I would think that a person who actually designs his own tube amps can tell me more about their effects on sound than some arm chair listener who has never designed one.

Do you honestly believe there is any connection - whatsoever - between the quality of a recording and that award? Do you hold "Use Somebody" by Kings of Leon to be a statement of the highest quality of the recording art? How about "Not Ready to Make Nice" by the Dixie Chicks? Do they rival the efforts of Reference Recordings. Telarc, Windham Hill, Sheffield, Everest, Wilson, et. al. ? Is that what you believe? On second thought, that might be unfair to pick just any Grammy Award. Surely, you have some specifics in mind. Tell us about say two or three that are representative of his work. We'd be curious as to what they are and why you think they represent the state of the recording art.

rw

Each recording is taken on its own merits. You don't compare different recording made in different studios by different engineers with different artists. This is the stupidity of your statement.

Bernie reputation among audio circles is well known and well established. You as a arm chair listener are neither. So to attempt to discredit him to build an argument shows the weakness of your argument. All one has to do is read the interviews he has done, and it would be clear he has done more than you, has more experience in audio than you, and has had far more exposure to different equipment than you do, so it is not necessary for me to defend is reputation.

Since you have a previous history of circular arguments, I know when to hold them, when to fold them, and when to not waste my time continuing them.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That was simple free mental health advice. Don't make me call Dr. Phil

Since you are no psychiatrist, you can keep your free mental advice for yourself. I have no need for it.

You have never recorded a single thing. Probably never even been in a studio. Never have touched a single slider on a mixing board, and probably have never placed a single microphone anywhere. You are in no position to talk about anything recording related except what you hear in your chair after the fact.

As far as the rest of your BS, keep it. It probably helps you to feel better about yourself.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Mr P.

Once again, your analysis is pretty much spot-on with what I experienced as well. I was only asking because a former co-worker was inquiring as he saw a set on Audiogon and was asking my opinion of them for Jazz music.

They are the Thiel 2.4's, which are the exact speakers that I heard awhile back in a very good 2-channel setup. My experience was that they seemed to lack a lot of the low end punch, but demonstrates a very sweet and sweeping sound, I still think for the price though that he could snag a slightly more well-rounded speaker, especially for Jazz. I think he will be missing out on some of the low-end presence.

I am going to say this on this post as well. Claiming that you are MPSE, AES, and SMPTE certfied when you are not is fraud plain and simple. A poster on Blu ray.com did this, and found himself in very hot water. It would take nothing for me to have a rep from the Motion Picture Sound Editiors come here and embarrass the hell out of you for this juvenile joke. And that goes for SMPTE as well.

[Geoffcin]

This kinds of post doesn't belong here. Let's just all chill out and settle this off the boards like gentlemen.

[E-Stat]

So, you picked that percentage out of clean air or what?

I viewed the list and counted based upon the labels and content. There is virtually no classical content outside of soundtracks.

Sorry, don't speculate on things like this

Fine. Then demonstrate that the linked list is incorrect.

I am going to respond to this stupid comment as best I can. When I wrote for Surround Sound Magazine, I did a story on him. I spent three hours interviewing him on the various things he has done, and the variety of equipment he uses. When I recorded concerts for the LA symphony, I took the projects to him for mastering, and got a chance to see the different types of equipment he uses to master. When I did my own recording projects with my church, I took it to him for mastering because of the previous great team work we had done before. He is also a yearly speaker at our local AES meetings, and which I have heard much about the equipment he uses, and how he uses them. Is he a close buddy, nope, but we have had quite a few business and basic interactions over the years, which make me far more able (with credibility) to know what he did than you.

The irony is that if you really knew the answers to my simple question, the results would be shorter than your non-answer.

As far as the John Curl remark. How stupid is it that you go over to another website, mention no name, no dates, no specifics at all, and expect him to make a connection.

Apparently you think he is an idiot who doesn't remember if he had ever modified Onkyo gear. I don't share your low opinion of him.

Now you on the other hand are totally speculating, and assuming, which is what you do so well.

Yet another non-answer to what most folks would consider a simple question.

rw

[E-Stat]

Specifics are not necessary, and a lot of time beyond your scope of understand anyway.

Yet another non-answer. You continue to demonstrate that you have no clue.

I don't think I said that. You are putting words in my mouth.

Yet another dodge. Instead of a direct answer like " He's heard the Audio Research 610T, VTL Siegfrieds, Atma-Sphere MA-2s, etc.", you babble on about what you think occurs. I understand completely what happens when you don't know the answer.

No, he has millions of dollars worth of equipment in his studio. And yes, I have seen it.

Great. So tell us all the various tube components that you assert he must have heard in order to form his opinion. Is that question beyond your comprehension?

His system is custom made. Within his studio, he can patch an input to various kinds of processing and amps designed to create a certain effects. Among those amps are high quality custom tube designs he does himself.

Ah, he is an electronics hobbyist. Perhaps he should try what is available in the market instead.

So I would think that a person who actually designs his own tube amps can tell me more about their effects on sound than some arm chair listener who has never designed one.

So, the designer of this $70 kit must necessarily understand the state-of-the-art in all tube electronics because he can make one? Are you serious?

Each recording is taken on its own merits. You don't compare different recording made in different studios by different engineers with different artists. This is the stupidity of your statement.

Yet another dodge. Why is it that you cannot think of a single recording of the 1000+ listed that does something special and tell us why you think that is so? That's not a trick question!

Bernie reputation among audio circles is well known and well established. You as a arm chair listener are neither.

Fine, so educate us oh knowledgeable one. Give us actual data on which your opinions are based instead of empty rhetoric.

All one has to do is read the interviews he has done, and it would be clear he has done more than you, has more experience in audio than you

I see. Again, obviously you have no idea whatsoever. You continue to use the "Argument from Authority" fallacy without having any substance on which to base it.

, and has had far more exposure to different equipment than you do, so it is not necessary for me to defend is reputation.

Then tell us about it oh knowledgeable one! Such would be an easy task for someone who really knows the answer. You pen hundreds of words which communicate a simple truth: You really don't know (that's where all your speculations come into play), but you assume that he really has! Honestly, I didn't expect you to provide even an inkling of an answer to very simple questions. Just like when you had your tantrum over the simple question "So, what cabling do you use?". It is just amusing to see you pontificate and when your hand is called, you fold.

rw

edit: Follow this page and see if you can find the word "tube". How about here ? Having any luck?

Indeed, there are interviews with him that provide insight. Listen to this one. I agree with a lot that he says.

"It isn't about natural with pop music"

Exactly. Harmonic integrity and the ability to recreate the natural space of acoustic music isn't critical for pop music. He goes on to talk about hearing lots of recordings and compares that to viewing art in museums across Europe. After a while, you figure out which recordings stand out. While I don't relate to rap music, at about 4:00 in the interview, he speaks of maintaining his own memory of sound references:

"There's something that it does that makes it exceptional. You have that in your mind now"

I can most certainly relate to that concept. When I think of a natural sounding recording of piano, I think of Liz Story's .Wedding Rain album on Windham Hill. Here you have an analog recording of her Steinway using two mikes with no compression, limiting, etc. I have heard her live (unamplified, of course) at Woodruff Hall and understand the live element. If asked, I could provide several examples of similar references. I was taken aback that as a recording engineer, you cannot relate to that concept and readily provide your own examples.

[PeruvianSkies]

One would think that someone with such vast knowledge and expertise, especially with 'custom made' equipment would be willing to share a picture or two.....

How about those speaker characteristics?

[Geoffcin]

Let's just keep our distance guys. I've had enough excitement for today.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

One would think that someone with such vast knowledge and expertise, especially with 'custom made' equipment would be willing to share a picture or two.....

How about those speaker characteristics?

What my system looks like is not any of your business, and never will be. If showing my system is the criteria for credibility, then there would be a lot of people that were not credible including yourself.

[Pat D]

So which tubes (and appropriately matched speakers) were chosen as the representative for ALL tube gear used to make this determination? Using which priorities? Using indifferent cabling? I find it a bit amusing to declare a single all-encompassing answer. As for Bernie, his vast mastering background is largely with multi-miked popular music, not minimally miked acoustical music. That factor alone could steer your preference. A list of his many projects is available online.

rw

No one is pretending anyone has heard all the tube gear in the universe (why limit it merely to the planet?). But since you have raised the point about all tube gear, please show us any tube preamp and amp that are as accurate as a Bryston amp and preamp.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/mea...n_bp6_cseries/

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...ryston_4b_sst/

[hifitommy]

i once tried a bryston pre and it was lifeless. otoh, i bought a used arc sp3a1 that upset the applecart.

dc to daylight freq response, unparalleled dynamics, imaging and soundstaging, plus true coloration to sounds. it made me re-evaluate my conception of tubed components and made it clear to me why someone buys ARC or VTL equipment and all through an adcom 555II!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

i once tried a bryston pre and it was lifeless. otoh, i bought a used arc sp3a1 that upset the applecart.

dc to daylight freq response, unparalleled dynamics, imaging and soundstaging, plus true coloration to sounds. it made me re-evaluate my conception of tubed components and made it clear to me why someone buys ARC or VTL equipment and all through an adcom 555II!

It seems to me that DC is 0hz, and the ARC SP3A1 starts at 10hz, not quite DC. What exactly is lifeless when describing audio?

My next question would be, what if I were using a condenser microphones with a high quality SS mixing desk, could I trust that a tube pre-amp or amplifier will sound neutral to the source, or will it add a tube like characteristic to the sound? If the entire recording path was non tubed, will a tube based reproduction device(s) change that sound quality? How about if it was an all digital recording path with a combination of condenser and dynamic microphones? Will it represent these types of recordings neutrally, or will it change the sound to something more "warm" and "life like?"

Just askin....

[theaudiohobby]

i once tried a bryston pre and it was lifeless. otoh, i bought a used arc sp3a1 that upset the applecart.

dc to daylight freq response, unparalleled dynamics, imaging and soundstaging, plus true coloration to sounds. it made me re-evaluate my conception of tubed components and made it clear to me why someone buys ARC or VTL equipment and all through an adcom 555II!

Whatever works for you, your preference does not impact the question above though. Also, it seems to me that you started out with the wrong conception, whatever it was.

[hifitommy]

well STT, dc to daylight is of course a euphemism for very wide freq response. why didnt you challenge the daylight spec?

all in good natured fun. but the s.o.t.a. in ss and tubes is showing both ss and valve sound to be converging to a narrow margin.

the sp3a1 isnt exactly new but certainly was one of the early convergences. its 'tubeness' is very low in character. it shocked me how unlike tubes it sounds. as for your reference to the condenser mike, i say it reveals what is there in the source, condenser mike or tube driven ribbon.

i mourn the fact that i let my beloved rogers LS3/5As out of my fingers. those speakers revealed a completely different acoustic to nearly every cut i played which is logical as many records individual cuts are recorded differently. paired with this arc preamp i am quite sure that characteristic would be even more obvious.

yes the rogers were colored in the midbass (my spendor s3/5s, their descendant, dont have that bump nor the slightly compressed highs of the t27) but they rendered the voice and acoustics exceedingly well (quatre preamp and specto-acoustic p202 amp at that time).

[hifitommy]

audhob:

the common idea is that tubes are warm and fuzzy. juicy at the bottom, sweet at the top. not very well extended in either direction. that may be wrong but its common. hearing the arc for the first time in my system was revelatory. quite unlike the scenario i just related.

i dont buy components as sound effects but for lifelike reproduction within financial limitations.

[Mr Peabody]

What if E-stat does present a brand of tube gear he feels is more accurate, what does that prove? It would be more interesting to know if you PatD or theaudiohobby have actually heard any tube gear. And to read Sir T's post I have to wonder about him as well. Some examples would be nice, that way we know what you refer and can be on the same page. That doesn't say much for any of you who argue a point with no basis. There are some tube gear that still sounds stereotypical with lush coloration but there is also some tube gear that is very accurate.

I have good examples of both in Krell and Conrad Johnson. CJ is doing incredible things with their more current gear. My CT-6 preamp is amazing in bringing the best of both sounds to the presentation. It's able to walk a bass line like not much else I've heard in either tube or solid state. Krell does good bass but it sounds technical, no sense of rhythm or pace. The CJ gives me that sense as well as adding textures to the sound, more micro and macro dynamics. How can the Bryston be accurate when it lacks those same characters as in the Krell. I can see when trying to mimick a master where technical might be preferred but when people are listening to a recording they want it to sound like music. Music played by humans typically reflects rhythm and pace. My power amps use EL-34's so I know there are tube power amps with tighter grip. I admit I have not heard any tube gear to this point to transient better than the Krell. A kettle drum into my Dyn's are startling with Krell. When I play my bass guitar the notes are not taught and clean like with the Krell or Bryston, their are harmonics. The harmonics are shown better by some tube gear.

There also should be a concensus of what the base of "accurate" is. Are you talking accurate to a recording of an instrument, such as Sir T, or, are we talking accurate to what the instrument actually sounds like if you were standing there listening. If it's the former as Sir T, then you'd have to believe all recording equipment is equal in it's ability as Sir T. I happen to know that's not true. Any one who goes through there music library has to understand there are some big differences.

[theaudiohobby]

What if E-stat does present a brand of tube gear he feels is more accurate, what does that prove?

That there is tube gear out there thats measurebly more accurate than a number very good and measurebly accurate SS hardware. Given the current discussion, that's not a bad point to make.