John Rumm wrote:

I find that surprising actually. I have often found that while much
"pop" is mixed in such a way as to sound at least "ok" on a wide range
of kit[1], full orchestral recordings can be very much more demanding
and revealing of strengths and weaknesses in equipment. The shear
dynamic range is one aspect, also unlike studio recordings, where the
sound stage can be assembled from multiple mics to place sounds wherever
the engineer thinks they sound best, there are defined positions for
many orchestral parts, which makes for a far more rigorous test of imaging.


[1] and in fact have some recordings that sound fine on average kit, but
start to sound decidedly ropey on better equipment!

Oasis - sounds great on a pub jukebox (preferably with the music
loud and listener intoxicated).

Sounds DREADFUL on my hifi.

BugBear

In article , bugbear
scribeth thus
Rob wrote:
On 30/06/2010 22:07, Bob Latham wrote:
In ,
tony wrote:
I'm quite happy to accept that I would not be suitable to offer much
advice regarding a product for classical listening. However, it would
be IMHO no worse than me buying a product based on your classical
evaluation of a product. For example, you use ESL63s I believe. I am
aware of their merits and I appreciate their clever design. Never the
less, they would be totally unsuitable for me, something would go bang
in a week and the last time I heard a pair I was expecting a sound on
the thin side with no deep bass, not a bit of it. What I heard shocked
me as it was the top end that I found difficulty with - I didn't think
there was any.

Its about one of the flattest speakers around and yes there is top as
well as very other audible frequency..

Do you mean they were "lacking in top"?...

That was my perception.


You have to sit bang on axis to get treble - then they sound just about
right IMO.

Yeah - they're the perfect speaker for a "bobby no mates"
hi-fi enthusiast, since two people can't use them at once;
the sweet spot is very perfect, but very small...

You used them much then?...

BugBear

--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , bugbear
scribeth thus
Rob wrote:
On 30/06/2010 22:07, Bob Latham wrote:
In ,
tony wrote:
I'm quite happy to accept that I would not be suitable to offer much
advice regarding a product for classical listening. However, it would
be IMHO no worse than me buying a product based on your classical
evaluation of a product. For example, you use ESL63s I believe. I am
aware of their merits and I appreciate their clever design. Never the
less, they would be totally unsuitable for me, something would go bang
in a week and the last time I heard a pair I was expecting a sound on
the thin side with no deep bass, not a bit of it. What I heard shocked
me as it was the top end that I found difficulty with - I didn't think
there was any.
Its about one of the flattest speakers around and yes there is top as
well as very other audible frequency..
Do you mean they were "lacking in top"?...
That was my perception.

You have to sit bang on axis to get treble - then they sound just about
right IMO.
Yeah - they're the perfect speaker for a "bobby no mates"
hi-fi enthusiast, since two people can't use them at once;
the sweet spot is very perfect, but very small...

You used them much then?...

Years ago, a friend at Uni who was also
info hi-fi had them.

BugBear

In article ,
bugbear
wrote:
Rob wrote:
On 30/06/2010 22:07, Bob Latham wrote:
In , tony
wrote:



You have to sit bang on axis to get treble - then they sound just
about right IMO.

Yeah - they're the perfect speaker for a "bobby no mates" hi-fi
enthusiast, since two people can't use them at once; the sweet spot is
very perfect, but very small...

I agree that the sweet spot for imaging, etc, tends to be very small.
Sometime too small to get both ears into at the same time! :-) However
the sound can also be pretty good away from that spot. So my experience is
that your spouse (or partner) can be happy to enjoy the music even sitting
to one side of this spot. Not ideal, though. This is a drawback of the
ESLs. I tend to agree that they are essentially the World's best
headphones. But with a bonus, though, of pretty good sound over a wider
area.

That said I've never found any other speakers that can image as well in
that spot. Certainly none that do so over a wider area in the same size and
shape of room. They may well exist, but I've not heard any.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"charles" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

[Snip]

BTW You (and others) might find it interesting to read Floyd Toole's book
"Sound Reproduction: Loudspeakers and Rooms" (Focal Press paperback). His
work is very good in this area.

I prefer Flanders & Swan's "Song of Reproduction" - "I had a little
gramophone .......

That's one F&S track that must have escaped me. Thanks!

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

In article ,
Java Jive wrote:
At one time, I and some friends used to frequent music, particularly
folk, festivals quite a lot, and the sound was regularly so **** poor
that we came to the conclusion that most sound-men were actually deaf,
through listening to too much loud music in their lives!

Hearing sensitivity and being able to produce a good sound balance ain't
really related.

--
*Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"John Moppett" wrote in message ...
Paul D Smith wrote:
...snip...

Dear Bill,

You clearly missed the episode of "The Archers" where a waiter, attempting to chat-up one of the younger regulars, gave the
explanation for loud music in pubs and clubs.

If it's quiet, people buy a pint and chat. If it's loud, they can't chat so drink up and buy another pint.

This was not in "The Bull" I hasten to add.

Paul DS.

Surely the whole point that Bill is trying to make is that musicians record music to be played back in the same way, not to be
misrepresent ed by boosting the bass. I suspect that very amall proportion is catually recorded with grossly exaggerated bass!

Minor TV channels need a DOG to reinforce their identity
Pirate FM stations need exaggerated bass, ya know wat i mean?
Maybe FM receivers should be shipped with de-emphasis at the bottom end as well as the top?

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:24:39 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 at 14:34:44h +0100, BugBear declared:

Highlight: "94% of DAB listeners thought DAB sound quality was at least
as good as FM;"

If one is listening on a 1 inch loudspeaker on an FM radio made in the PRC,
(with compulsory broken telescopic antenna) then it probably is difficult
to tell the difference.

Update on my DAB situation - the plumber brought round a portable DAB
set which worked, as people here suggested and proved the woman in the
local electrical shop wrong (this side of town anyway)

However it was quite unimpressive compared to a decent FM portable or
Freeview. Hard to tell if it was the signal or the tiny speaker, or of
course both. The top end sounded quite "crisp" to the extent of being
quite artifical, and the bottom end - well there wasn't one.

On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:57:28 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


So for example, you may not know what some things sound like until you hear
them, and then recognise them. Taking imaging as an example, I was
initially stunned when I first heard realistic imaging by a stereo system
of a broadcast from acoustics I had repeatedly sat and listened in.

For me this came from the wonderful BBC. Praise be to them. As a student I
used to go to concerts at their various venues like BH, Maida Vale, St
Johns. Often hearing something live during the day and then hearing it
rebroadcast later on R3. On the early stereos I had the sound at home was
good, but it was only when I used better systems (particularly speakers)
and a decent room I discovered that the stereo imaging could indeed, give a
clear perception of depth and 'solid' location with good
broadcasts/recordings that really did faithfully convey the acoustics you
heard at the venues. Once you hear this it is amazingly clear. But it can
be very elusive to get at all unless you have excellent (in this respect)
speakers *and* a decent listening room arrangement.

Yes a stereo may sound good while playing records but hearing the
difference (or lack thereof) of a real orchestra and a quality
recording of same is illuminating.

Mind you, the acoustics of some venues can be crap too.

On Jul 3, 1:20*pm, Albert Ross wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:57:28 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Mind you, the acoustics of some venues can be crap too

When I was about thirteen I went on a school trip to the theatre.
During the interval I used the word acoustics whilst talking to the
boy next to me, and was overheard by the (freeloading) PE teacher's
wife in the row behind.. She asked me what I'd said so I repeated it.
Somehow she misunderstood, and later complained to her husband that I
was using 'bad language in a loud voice.' I was carpeted the next day
and asked to repeat what I'd said.
"Gordon was wondering what the board hanging under the ceiling just in
front of the stage was for, and I said I thought it would be to
improve the acoustics." The head looked at me quizically, and
foolishly I added "So that the sound from the stage would reflect down
to the audience sir."
"Yes yes boy," said the head, putting his cane back in the cupboard
unused. "I am fully conversant with the word 'acoustics'." To the PE
teacher standing near the door he added, "But it seems your wife
isn't, Mr Clarke."

I suspected old Clarkey would be after getting his own back so I got a
note off mum excusing PE until the end of term.

Bill

Bill