"RPS" wrote


snippage


I think this is true, especially at my budget. I have heard great
American speakers but nothing I could think of buying. However, some of
my formerly English-camp friends have switched to Dynaudio.


You're American?

Don't **** about then - avail yourself of a pair of Mr Lansing's K2's.......

(Sell a kidney or rob people if you have to!)



Biwirable speakers are much better than non-biwirable ones.

Interesting you don't say "biwired" but just "biwirable". Presumably
because if somebody has taken the trouble make them biwirable, they
might also have taken the trouble to do other things right??


Good thinking (well spotted on the grammar, btw) - the same goes for a real
wood veneer. Not a guarantee, of course......


Anyway, do you have any advice on my original query (posted in another
thread): I have a 20+ yr old Spendor BC1 pair. Have been quite happy
with it but would like to find out what would be candiates to make a
meaningful upgrade ("one" step up) and what would be the budget for
such an upgrade in today's market? My short list to audition, drwan up
from others' suggestions, includes Proac, Dynaudio as well as Spendor's
own S6 (although it is in the process of being replaced by S6e).


Dynaudio? - They would be perfect if they had Focal drivers! ;-)

Can't comment on the Spendors as I have no experience, but follow the other
posters advice and get a selection of candidates HOME to try them out -
nowhere else will do. (If you want Brit speakers that have most of my
criteria covered add Bowers & Wilkins to your list and climb as far up their
tree as funds will allow.....)

"RPS" wrote in message

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

You can't. Furthermore the audio production steps that follow the original
recording session can change the sound some more. Typically, the microphones
used for recording are NOT neutral.

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral microphones
known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors, positioned at
the same location in the room where the instrument and mic were, when the
recording was made. The results were remarkably lifelike.

"RPS" wrote in message

This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

You can't. Furthermore the audio production steps that follow the original
recording session can change the sound some more. Typically, the microphones
used for recording are NOT neutral.

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral microphones
known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors, positioned at
the same location in the room where the instrument and mic were, when the
recording was made. The results were remarkably lifelike.

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral
microphones known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors, positioned
at the same location in the room where the instrument and mic were, when
the recording was made. The results were remarkably lifelike.

Yes. And I'd say one of the best sources is a good 'fruity' male voice.

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say, many top
notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral
microphones known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors, positioned
at the same location in the room where the instrument and mic were, when
the recording was made. The results were remarkably lifelike.

Yes. And I'd say one of the best sources is a good 'fruity' male voice.

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say, many top
notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:22:32 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:


The main thing when auditioning a new speaker is this - if on first
hearing, you say "wow, that sounds great" then walk on by. That is not a
neutral speaker.

I remember my first hearing of a Quad electrostatic. I had been
expecting great things and I was frankly disappointed, it didn't really
seem to be much of anything. No booming bass, no fizzing highs. But on
further listening I realised that all that stuff was there, just not
overstated. It was clean.

In general, I'd tend to agree. However I must admit that my first chance to
hear the Quad 63's caused me to be stunned by just how good they were in
the space of just the first few minutes! :-) To me at that time, their
quality was immediately apparent in terms of sheer clarity and
'naturalness'. I was no longer listening to loudspeakers, I was listening
to the music. :-)

Above said, though, I had already spent many years listeing to the 57's,
and various other speakers, and already loved the 57's. So I was already
probably 'primed' to hear/identify the relevant differences. In addition,
at the time I'd just been having to listen to Linn Isobaraks (which I do
not like at all) for an hour, so the 63 came like a breath of fresh air
after that! ;-

Slainte,

Jim

For me also the quality started to ooze through in just a few minutes.
It was just that first instant that was sort of disappointing. I just
wish I had room for a pair.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:22:32 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:


The main thing when auditioning a new speaker is this - if on first
hearing, you say "wow, that sounds great" then walk on by. That is not a
neutral speaker.

I remember my first hearing of a Quad electrostatic. I had been
expecting great things and I was frankly disappointed, it didn't really
seem to be much of anything. No booming bass, no fizzing highs. But on
further listening I realised that all that stuff was there, just not
overstated. It was clean.

In general, I'd tend to agree. However I must admit that my first chance to
hear the Quad 63's caused me to be stunned by just how good they were in
the space of just the first few minutes! :-) To me at that time, their
quality was immediately apparent in terms of sheer clarity and
'naturalness'. I was no longer listening to loudspeakers, I was listening
to the music. :-)

Above said, though, I had already spent many years listeing to the 57's,
and various other speakers, and already loved the 57's. So I was already
probably 'primed' to hear/identify the relevant differences. In addition,
at the time I'd just been having to listen to Linn Isobaraks (which I do
not like at all) for an hour, so the 63 came like a breath of fresh air
after that! ;-

Slainte,

Jim

For me also the quality started to ooze through in just a few minutes.
It was just that first instant that was sort of disappointing. I just
wish I had room for a pair.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral
microphones known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors,
positioned at the same location in the room where the instrument and
mic were, when the recording was made. The results were remarkably
lifelike.

Yes. And I'd say one of the best sources is a good 'fruity' male
voice.

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I've made minimalist recordings using some of the most neutral
microphones known, along with a very neutral recorder.

I then played the recording back through my studio monitors,
positioned at the same location in the room where the instrument and
mic were, when the recording was made. The results were remarkably
lifelike.

Yes. And I'd say one of the best sources is a good 'fruity' male
voice.

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:54 -0400
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

Out of interest, how are the 'response curves' for various speakers
made? do they just use a super-linear microphone, or is there some other
technique used, perhaps measuring harmonics?

I'd like to be able to make profiles of various speakers, so it would be
interesting to see how its done...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.