Archive through October 06, 2004

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 757
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:30 am:

"Except the centre channel. It does more harm than good. "

John A - No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, okay but only occassionally!

I have a couple of DVD-A's (eg: Rod Stewart - It Had To Be You) where the voice emphasis is too much on the center. Before the B&W LCR was in the shelf below the display panel. It made the voice (in Stewart's and a few other recordings) seem to come from near floor level.

I have now re-positioned it above and slightly behind the display and the difference is sensational. The voicing problem with RS has disappeared also and now sounds right.

Aesthetically, it does not look so good which is the reason I haven't done this since getting the display and spending more dollars on the glass and chrome cabinet. I have improvised with the center on a stool behoind the display. Mrs R is yet to see and pass judgement.

Relevant Product Info

Gold Member

Username: John_a

Post Number: 2200
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:35 am:

Kegger,

We've been here before!

"i truly love what the center channel adds."

What does it add that could not have been put in the centre of a stereo image?

And... where do you put the darned speaker - in front of the monitor, or behind it? If it is above or below, it is not in the centre, is it? I tried mounting my centre speaker above the screen when I did a projector trial. It sounded like the dialogue was coming from above the actors, who were skilled ventriloquists. The sound engineeers could use that arrangement to get height at the front, the axis between the stereo virtual centre and the real centre. But they don't.

It seems to me the centre must have been invented by people who did just did not know about stereo, or, more likely, who thought the customer would not believe that stereo works. So people like Jan, who know that it does, write off surround sound as a gimmick. They have a good point. This is where we started, with this thread.

Am I missing something here?!

Gold Member

Username: John_a

Post Number: 2201
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:54 am:

By the way there is a 2003 Stereophile review of the Quad ESL-989. Just ignore the gratuitous first two paragraphs; it settles down and is very good when the reviewer stops writing about himself. Why do those guys have to start by preening themselves like that...?

Wish those speakers were not so darned expensive.

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 758
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:55 am:

"Am I missing something here?!"

Yes, John, I think you are. I DO understand centre action from stereo imaging. In fact most of my Hi-rez surround recordings actually do that but most add that prominent sound to the centre channel as well because it enhances that image to the point where the recoding engineer wants us to concentrate in particular. As I said in the previous post, I thought they had overdone Stewart's voice on the center channel but have changed my mind after re-positioning the speaker.

The center imaging from stereo is not always going to provide the depth and concentration of singular sounds that can be handled by having the extra centre speaker which is time aligned and controlled seperately. I think in action movies, this become much more apparent and useful. It is also an advantage to differences in peoples hearing abilities.

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1580
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:57 am:

i don't know john maybe it's your center channel.

but right now "and allways has been" my center is on top of
my entertainment center a little over a foot above the tweeters
in my main speakers. then the center is angled down to ear height at
my listening position. for my setup it works great.
voices sound like they are coming from the center of my tv,
"which is at the my ear height"

to me with a proper setup center channel i get the sounds in the center
to be more localized to the center then what a pair of stereo speakers do.

whn i'm running surround and their is dialouge at
the center and the right or left side of the screen it's more seperated
and less distacting to tell where the person is who is talking. "you just know"

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 759
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:00 am:

Kegger

..............YEP!.............

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 02:06 am:

John - In a projection system you ask for an acoustically transparent screen and place the center speaker behind it at whatever height you require.

Playing a CD of a Mercury Living Presence recording today on the 6200 & 3/5a's was enough to convince me how much I need multichannel. The recording is "Janos Starker plays Boccherini-Bach-Vivaldi-Corelli-Locatelli-Valentini". Cello and piano. The technical description in the "liner notes" reads, "Both the Italian Cello Sonatas and the Bach "Sonata in G minor" were recorded in Studio A of Fine Recording in New York on three-track, half-inch tape, using three Telefunken 201 microphones." Recording dates are 1963 and 1967.
The entire recording had a sense of space that provided all the ambient information of a live performance just shy of the candy wrappers and coughs coming from behind me. Reflections registered off the side and rear walls of the studio and gave my living room the feel of a large space with an instrument being played within.
The Mercury recordings are legendary, along with several other labels from the 60's, as being a reference point of simplicity and precision in the early years of Stereo recording techniques. The amount of sound that is captured on these recordings should be enough to convince most of the true path to realistic reproduction of music. If that is what you are trying to achieve. Even the mono recordings that I have from these labels have a sense of depth and placement of instruments within the space.
If the microphones capture it, it should be replayed by the speakers. And in this case it is. Nothing I have heard from signal processing has been as satisfactory as this simple recording.
But, of course, then came "Sgt. Pepper" and multitrack. Curse you, Lennon!!!

John & Classical 1 - Have either of you heard Shostakovich's Jazz music and Ballet suites?

Rick - I'll give your sugestion a try. I wouldn't have thought you wrong about your asessment of the 6100 other than I have always described the sound of any piece of Mac as just that. McIntosh is a line that seems to transcend, or possibly just ignore, the idea of tube and transistor sound, certainly their solid state doesn't sound like anyone else's I have come across. But Mac is Mac, it is a sound that is unlike other audio components and is, to me, just more like music without any debate about what technology is better.

But I still love my Mac tubes.

Gold Member

Username: John_a

Post Number: 2202
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:44 am:

Kegger, My Rantz,

I know you both know what you are talking about, and respect your opinions and your judgement. My argument is not with you, and is not very practical, now; I am grumbling about the people who designed in the centre channel into 5.1 in the first place. Now that the centre channel is there on the recording, we have to reproduce it, and you can't just turn it off to compare.

MR, you write: "The center imaging from stereo is not always going to provide the depth and concentration of singular sounds that can be handled by having the extra centre speaker which is time aligned and controlled seperately".

I think the centre imaging from stereo can do exactly that. Just switch to mono, if you still can (my receiver does not have a mono switch, but my pre-amp does).

If the system is set up properly for stereo, then mono sounds are heard to come from right between the two speakers, and there is no difference between that and a real, single source, in what you can hear or measure. It is a physical, interference effect; not an illusion; it is physically the same pressure waves reaching your ears in either case. It will not sound any different to people with hearing loss, either. You could rig up microphones in place of ears and with all the test gear in the world - there IS no difference between a mono sound reproduced by one speaker or two. The qualification is ..."provided the phasing is correct". That is easy to fix with two speakers; more difficult with three.

So I stick with my anti-centre position. That is not political! And it is all theory. I know in practice you won't hear what people are saying without a centre speaker in 5.1.

Jan,

"In a projection system you ask for an acoustically transparent screen" Thanks for that. I wonder how that works. Like a reflective speaker grille, perhaps. Kegger told me something similar, before, but I think he mentioned a hole in the screen. Of course, you could have an invisible center speaker, I suppose. That is what stereo can do....

I have seen some Verve and Mercury Living Presence CD reissues on a stand in a record shop. I'll take a closer look. I think they said they mastered at 24 bit. They had a lot of tempted jazz titles.

But, going right back to base on this thread, you may hear reverberations and room size, but, in stereo, you are only hearing them either (a) as if from a forward-facing box; (b) from your own listening room; (c) some combination of the two.

Re the jazz suites, as I wrote on another thread a while back, they got me into Shostakovich; I bought a disc purely because it was an available DVD-A title. I know that might be a shocking confession to some.... There is some ballet music, too on the disc; from "the Bolt". the titles suggest satire, and politics; I would have to see the ballet, or read some more, to know. The humour in there is great and totally surprised me. I had always, incorrectly, had S. filed mentally under "worthy". He is the opposite, quite brilliant.

Marc C

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 06:42 am:

Guys,

I know this is not the deepest of questions, but what would be a good speaker I can really crank the sh*t out of? I have an appreciation of a good pair of monitors, will probably have some, and understand the Spendor 3/5 is the cat's meow. But what would be a good full-ranger (I'm morally opposed to subwoofers) that gets down to the octaves, and that I can listen to all my UFO, Cream, and Who on after a really lousy day?

I figure this question might be up Kegger's allie, in that I know he likes full-rangers as well.

I hate to dumb-down the thread, but I need the Old Dogs' on this.

Respectfully,

Marc

P.S. If Bush wins again, we deserve WWIII.

P.P.S. SACDUDE - very sorry to hear what happened. But to echo everyone else's sentiments, glad you and your lady were not there.

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 760
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 07:07 am:

"The center imaging from stereo is not always going to provide the depth and concentration of singular sounds that can be handled by having the extra centre speaker which is time aligned and controlled seperately."

Firstly, the above statement is in consideration of a surround recording. Secondly, I obviously need to explain myself better. Controlling the center is a useful addition to music and movies in the surround realm because few record in the same manner and to the same levels. To control the center without also applying those conditions to the mains also IMO is a great asset in surround sound - that cannot be achieved if relying soley on stereo imaging.

If the need to control the center does not fall into "hearing the original recording" well that just means the original recording didn't suit my ears.

I listen to a lot of two channel stereo sans the sub, and in direct source mode. It is truly wonderful with the right recordings. But I am yet to hear a stereo recording that excites my senses a much as the good hi-res surrounds do.

" know in practice you won't hear what people are saying without a centre speaker in 5.1.
"

You will if you disconnect the center and say "no center" in the receiver's (or players) set up. The information is then passed to the mains.

My head hurts - brick walls are hard!

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 526
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 09:30 am:

Rantz,

" I thought you were going to think I had gone completely mad"

..........WELL.....YEAH..OK!

Mrs. Barnes will testify that it happened years ago....................

If you "OD's" remember, I did get a DVD-A player months, gave a listen to multi-channel and thought it was interesting. But I think Ghia said it best, it was more of a GEE-WHIZ kind of reaction. Don't get me wrong, I love 5.1 for cinema. But for music, you all know where I stand. It has always been 2 channel for me, even before I discovered the MAC sound. And yes, it IS different from any other amp I have ever owned or heard. They just sound..........right.

I'm going to go crawl around the floor some more..................report back later!

Cheers!

PS Has anyone noticed Ghia is busy listening to music, and not posting? She's trying to figure out how it suddenly got so good..................You go Ghia! Enjoy. LOL!!!!

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1581
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 09:48 am:

rick you guys asked me the same awhile back to.

"wheres keg" yes i was listening to music.
and building amps! lol.
..................................

JOHN:

sorry I still disagree and agree with mr. rantz.

In my experience the center image for 2 speakers
is not as rock solid as a dedicated center channel.

so in my oppinion a center is needed.
"not just because the recording has info there"
to me you can do more and easier with a center speaker!

when your tring to put info in the two front speakers
for the center and the info for themselves then the speakers can become
clouded and difficult for them to do both. so a dedicated center takes that
away and leaves the the two outer speakers to do their thing.
to me that makes more sense than the front two trying to do both.
it's just easier.

then if you factor in the people who are not sitting in the center,
2 speakers does nothing for them. you need 3 to get the seperation
and localization.
................................

john the screen jan has mentioned is excactly what
i was talking about.
it's perferated "not enough to effect image" so the sound comes through.

Gold Member

Username: John_a

Post Number: 2203
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 11:03 am:

Thanks Kegger; thanks Mr Rantz.

I have stereo and 5.1; I have never heard the phantom center or had a chance to compare the same thing in two or three front channels. I had not thought of choosing "no center" in set-up. I will do that before I keep on at this.

But we still have many music-orientated people thinking the whole 5.1 development is a waste of time and money for their purposes, and "stereo rules". They probably think they are banging their heads against a brick wall, too, MR!

Rick says, if I understand, "5.1 for movies and stereo for music". but that is a result of what the engineers put on the discs. No?

Marc, it is hardly possible to dumb down this thread. If I had the money I'd get some Quad ESLs. You would probably be pleased what they would do for Cream. By the way, I see there is a nice 5.1 DVD-A of "Tommy" by The Who....

But, come on, you are a "stereo rules" guy, too. Can you not explain the purist's viewpoint to the surround afficionado?

I used to have a moral objection to the active sub, but life is too short for war with people who just like the sound of volcanoes erupting. The sub is like the TV; you can always turn it off. Peace in our time. Each to his own sauce.

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 527
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 11:05 am:

Kegger,

So if I understand correctly, if I ever go to tubes with the Spendors, I'm going to need some BIG TUBE power?

So what are you waiting for????? BUILD ME A MONSTER!!!!!!! LOL!

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 761
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 11:07 am:

Kegger

May the force be with us! We all know what happened to the dinosaurs!

Rick

I think we are all mad.

Okay, you're still in search of good stereo sound I see. Better invest in a good set of kneepads!

I agree, the 'Gee whiz' thing rings true in recordings such as DSOTM and Pink Robots - a lot of fun for sure, but after many, many hours of hi-rez surround listening I can honestly say I'm hooked.

When Mrs Barnes yells from the kitchen, "Ricky, are you crawling around on the floor again," you are listening in surround. It's part of the natural scheme of things. Why do you think Hitler lost the war? He issued his troops with helmuts that only allowed stereo hearing. The shape prevent rear surround sound so they were easily ambushed. Think about it!

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 762
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 11:18 am:

John A

I knew that comment would elicit a worthy retort - the fact is I really did bang my head on the brick wall when I was moving the centre speaker :-) But, somehow it just seemed apt for inclusion.

Now - about your views on subs - omygosh!

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1582
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 11:27 am:

RICK:

"Kegger,

So if I understand correctly, if I ever go to tubes with the Spendors, I'm going to need some BIG TUBE power? "

well gobs might be everstating it, but i'd say at
least somewhere around 60-80 watts would suffice!

which probably means a stereo amp of 30 to 40 monoblocked
so a pair would be in order. maybe a pair of st-70's mono'd!
that would give you about 70 a channel,that should work!

and sound darn good! IMO

Classical 1

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 11:43 am:

OK - fuel for the fire. I think center channels are over-rated. Start throwing!!!
On another topic - as I'm rather bored this week, I've been surfing a lot of audiophile forums, and came upon one that amazed me.
This guy has friends who swear that "massaging" the soft cones of his Polk speakers he makes the hi-freqs sound smoother! REally! Have any of you ever heard of such a thing? Claims that, by gently rubbing soft terrycloth over the cones they "age" better (I think that was his word) and smooth out. Well, I can't do that with the Paradigms, but I have some soft-domes as surrounds in Florida - and was wondering. . .
Anything to take my mind off the coming weeks wrangling with station managers!!!
Crisp and cold here - but it's still good that I just hook up my laptop to the cell phone and surf away on the deck, or a nearby favorite restaurant overlooking the Rockies. My sister will move in here for the winter soon (an avid skier) so I will get out of her way and head for winter-sailing grounds. And more work. . .
Later. . .

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1583
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 11:46 am:

OH I FORGOT!

LONG LIVE THE SUB!!!!!!

Sem

Silver Member

Username: Sem

New York
USA

Post Number: 267
Registered: Mar-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:12 pm:

quote:
This guy has friends who swear that "massaging" the soft cones of his Polk speakers he makes the hi-freqs sound smoother! REally! Have any of you ever heard of such a thing? Claims that, by gently rubbing soft terrycloth over the cones they "age" better (I think that was his word) and smooth out.

When they're done do they each have a smoke? :-)

Seriously, that's the first I've heard of this. Maybe I'll try it tonight when I get home. Will have to first stop at the liquor store and pick up a bottle of wine though.

Gold Member

Username: John_a

Post Number: 2204
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:45 pm:

A single-malt whiskey with an equal volume of water, which must be a room temperature, is a tried and tested way of improving the perceived sound quality from any set of loudspeakers. Under some circumstances, a gin and tonic can be just as effective, as long as there is not too much ice. Wine is good, too. Beer tends to cause interruptions in the programme.

In all cases, take care not to spill any on the speakers themselves.

Active subs leave me shaken, but not stirred.

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1584
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:47 pm:

well the only thing i can think of that massaging the speakers would do.

would be to speed along the breakin period on a new set of speakers.

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1585
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:50 pm:

good stuff john.

but I prefer my whiskey chilled over ice.

dammit we disagree again! lol

but you guys like your beer warm to, don't yu?

rantz how do you prefer?

Classical 1

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:04 pm:

The old "speed-up" trick, eh, Kegger? I thought so! And John - please! - NOT an equal amount of water, at least not with good 12-year old Scotch! A splash, yes, but half-and-half, shudder!
Rick Barnes - the man to whom I gave the brass cones swears that you are correct. He put them under his Marantz CD player and after due thought and probably a lot of Coors (his favorite beer) he told me that the sound is "fuller and cleaner." OK - my ears are getting old, I guess!
Now that the J-24 has been put away for the winter, some nuts want me to go out on Dillon reservoir for an "icicle race." I told them they're crazy. It's bad enough up here, having to race most days in a shorty wet suit. The lake is so cold that falling in is not an option, but a torture. But there are no sharks!
I shall tell my associate in Florida to ready the surround speakers for old Scotch and new massages, eh, John A?
More later. . .

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1586
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:18 pm:

MARC C:

"I know this is not the deepest of questions, but what would be a good speaker I can really crank the sh*t out of? I have an appreciation of a good pair of monitors, will probably have some, and understand the Spendor 3/5 is the cat's meow. But what would be a good full-ranger (I'm morally opposed to subwoofers) that gets down to the octaves, and that I can listen to all my UFO, Cream, and Who on after a really lousy day? "

both jan and i have suggested in simular posts to
checkout dj supply stores.
they carry efficient, large power handling, larger speakers
made for sound reinforcment. "they get loud"

otherwise a good jbl or klipsch with larger drivers (I prefer 12" or bigger)
"no comment ghia!"
will do the job just fine!

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 763
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:24 pm:

Sam Cougar Bourbon or an ice-cold full strength XXXX

or two

or three

or fore

ro vife

or sifth

rehe's ot su, gekker!

ret's dink to hi-revs suffound!

ard a vice swine tis gad okashunly tooo!

done u stink?

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:26 pm:

"Why do you think Hitler lost the war? He issued his troops with helmuts that only allowed stereo hearing. The shape prevent rear surround sound so they were easily ambushed. Think about it!"

Uh, Hitler never thought anyone would be to the rear of his troops. Forward, ever forward!

"LONG LIVE THE SUB!!!!!!"

I agree. Coppocola, mortadella, porchetta, provlone, and Parmigiano with some veggies. The Best!!!!!!

" ... 'massaging' the soft cones .... "

There is no response to that.

" ... at least somewhere around 60-80 watts would suffice!"

Not to argue with Kegger but it obviously depends on what type of music you listen to, how loud you want to play, the size of the room and
the real "peak power" of the amp. 60 watts is only three dB more than 30 watts. The Spendors appear to have a more forgiving impedance than the LS3/5a's and I've run the Rogers off "40 watts" for years. A nice MC240 would do the trick, Rick.

" ... but what would be a good speaker I can really crank the sh*t out of?"

"If I had the money I'd get some Quad ESLs."

John!? If I had the money I'd also buy the Quads and the room they want, but ... you only crank the %*#! out of ESL's once!

" .... UFO, Cream, and Who ... "

I don't know what you want to spend or how much room you have but the BEST sound I've heard for Clapton et al is a Klipschorn (driven by McIntosh, natch). At 104 dB you can get the volume you want with 20 watts. The amount of volume the Horns can produce in a normal room is stuff teen age boys wet dreams include. I've mentioned on this forum driving the Horns with an Advent table radio (4 watts) to more than loud levels. The actual Horns, however, are a corner loaded speaker that REQUIRES two full sharp corners, preferrably on the long wall. You then, for best effect, use a Cornwall as the phantom center channel. The wiring is simple and has been included in a post I placed on this forum a while back. (The demonstration that accompanied the paper was the first to exploit a phantom center for stereo use, John. It is a landmark piece of audio history.) The most logical next choice is the Klipsch La Scalla or Belle Klipsch. These use the same components as the Horn but are a self enclosed twice folded horn as opposed to the triflod of the true Cornerhorn. This leaves out about 1/2 octave at the bottom but can easily cover 99% of what you will have on a rock recording. (When it runs out of frquency response a speaker "doubles" the signal and produces the next octave above. So if you try 25Hz with the LaScalla it can't do it, but it will do 50Hz at 102dB with 1 watt.) But all three of these speakers can make your pantslegs shake from the SPL they can generate. If you can't find what you want from these three speakers you will best look to the professional market. No matter what you choose they will be large to get the max volume for unwinding purposes. (The Klipsch Cornwall is the easier speaker to find on the used market but I never could find the appeal of the Cornwall. It uses different components than the top three speakers and was designed not with the best sound in mind but how Paul Klipsch could make a speaker out of one sheet of plywood with no salvage. The common impression of the Cornwall among most I sold with was it was good for calling geese in the fall migration.)

"But, going right back to base on this thread, you may hear reverberations and room size, but, in stereo, you are only hearing them either (a) as if from a forward-facing box; (b) from your own listening room; (c) some combination of the two."

John! Put down the glass. You are drinking the KoolAid again. Think, man, THINK!!!!!
You really don't buy that line about a box with holes do you? Everytime I read someone using that analogy I am astouded at their 1) lack of knowledge; B) their level of self conviction in the face of all truths; 3-a) their level of trying to get me to buy their propoganda; or D mkII) all of the above and then some piled on top!

Please tell me what happens if, using my Janos Starker three track as an example, the micrphones are anything but a unidirectional design. Place one multidirectional microphone at the rear of the studio to capture ambience. That feed is mixed down into the stereo mix with the feed from two multidirectional mics that are above the instruments and your speakers have to reproduce what they are fed. The signal contains any number of in phase and out of phase signals that are a representation of the original signal. Play this in a typical room which will provide its own ambience and you have a sound that is closer in approximation to the original than anything Dolby matrix can produce. And by giving a worthy engineer the right to decide what amount of ambience should be included to represent the original there is never more or less than that amount when played back in stereo. Whereas with multichannel the user, who is only making adjustments to suit their taste, not reality, can add and subtract amounts until they are "happy" with the sound. And given what I have heard from too many multichannel reacordings the engineers use the additional channels as a playground for taking out their frustration that they didn't have the inspiration for a DSOTM. But that doesn't stop them from trying to make Shostakovich meet Pink Floyd.

Multichannel - Bah! Ptttooie!!!!!

I want the real thing or not at all!

Proceed.

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 528
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:34 pm:

.....OH YEAH, I can see it now. My lovely bride comes home to find me crawling around the floor, rubbing my speaker cones with a terry cloth towel..............................

My next post would be from the "funny farm" in between Thorzine cocktails and Shock Therapy.

And we thought WE were nuts? This guy could definitely hang out with us! LOL!

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 764
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 01:46 pm:

"I want the real thing or not at all!"

John, Rick, Kegger, Sem, Classical1?????????

Try Russell Morris!

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1587
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 02:00 pm:

jan: not to differ from you!

"Not to argue with Kegger but it obviously depends on what type of music you listen to, how loud you want to play, the size of the room and
the real "peak power" of the amp. 60 watts is only three dB more than 30 watts. The Spendors appear to have a more forgiving impedance than the LS3/5a's and I've run the Rogers off "40 watts" for years. A nice MC240 would do the trick, Rick. "

I would agree 40 watts a channel could push the spendors enough
to listen to them. and an st-70 at 35 could also.
but if i was looking to get tube power for them,
I'd look for 60-70 watts.

maybe that's how I should of posted it.

and you could get 2 st-70's plus rebuilds for the same or less then
the mac MC240 would cost yu.

that's how I was thinking. not to mention that beautiful midrange
we both enjoy from those st-70's. could really give you something!

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 529
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 02:28 pm:

Proceed????

NO................

I'll have a................................

MCINTOSH instead.............................

Thank you!

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1588
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 03:34 pm:

here's some question's for yu!

if mr. rantz and myself "plus others" like surround/center channels
and subs while others may not.
does that make someone right and someone wrong?

if some people prefer 2 channel over others does that make them wrong or right?

can someone like one over the other regardless of
it doing something "correct"
because they like what they hear and they are not wrong for doing so?

is their a proper way for someone to listen to music?

does it matter if one is not concerned with imaging
as long as they appeciate what they listen to?

is eq or imaging or clear or analog any more important to all listeners?

does it matter what you listen to/on/for as long as you listen and appreciate?

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 03:37 pm:

"A single-malt whiskey with an equal volume of water"

There is no response to that.

Kegger, as you can plainly see from Rick's last post he has been to the mountain and he doesn't want to return to "ordinary" HiFi. Mac or death!
(Well, maybe just Mac or a rather severe paper cut. We don't need to get carried away here.)

J, Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 03:40 pm:

I hope Ghia has not needed medication due to setting up the Dual.

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 03:48 pm:

Kegger - The question before us is : If someone says something is a fact based on what they feel is "darned good" information; when that fact is later found to be based on obviously forged information should the teller be fired?

Who's doing something right and who's doing something wrong? There is no such thing in the privacy of your own home. Unless of course you are growing 100 plants for entertainment enhancements. That could still get you in some trouble.

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1589
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 04:22 pm:

jan i'm not following you.

"Kegger - The question before us is : If someone says something is a fact based on what they feel is "darned good" information; when that fact is later found to be based on obviously forged information should the teller be fired? "

my feelings are pretty much audio is oppinion and
very little if any facts are prevelent.

so unless you are refering to someone elses statement
I don't know what you mean.

as I rarely state something to be fact. so I guess maybe that's
what I take issue with, others putting there view accross as fact
or the right way to do it.

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 530
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:08 pm:

Kegger,

There is no right or wrong! You buy your ticket. You choose your destination. What you learn along the journey is up to you.

Jan,

Given a choice, I'll take the paper cut, but will always go with Mac's in the future. Now I know how Moses felt when we came down from the mountain.

Don't worry about Ghia, she's one sharp lady, she'll be just fine.

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 765
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:20 pm:

I think Ghia is just too busy to report in. Building a large home extension to accomodate a prehistoric monolithic amplifier can take up a lot of one's time.

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:24 pm:

Sorry, I got obtuse. Rick states it correctly. If you like what you are hearing then you should have no one tell you you are hearing or thinking incorrectly. If you decide along the way, by suggestion or happy circumstance, there is another truth to be found, i.e. paper in oil capacitors, then you have the right to search for a new truth. Just don't let anyone drag you there kicking and screaming.

Rick - Could the burning bush have been lit by a Sony reciever trying to drive a 4 Ohm load?

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1590
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:31 pm:

sounds good jan and rick agreed.

and i'm not sure if it was a sony but maybe an
akai, but might have been a sony though.

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 531
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:41 pm:

...........PREHISTORIC MONOLITHIC AMPLIFIER..........................Ok-I can happily live with that.........so could you if you gave one a listen............LOL!

Jan,

I'll have to ponder the burning bush and Sony.............I'm a little busy rubbing my cones at the moment!

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 767
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:43 pm:

"Rick - Could the burning bush have been lit by a Sony reciever trying to drive a 4 Ohm load? "

Could the burning bush have been lit by a Kerry supporter trying to drive home his point?

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 768
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:45 pm:

Rick

As I have mentioned previously, I'm glad I haven't had a chance to listen. What I don't know can't hurt me (LOL!)