Marvel

Dave You are making, for want of a better term, simple recordings. Four channel surround. Given that, you can afford to use 24/192. I know studios using DAWs, and they end up with 50-80+ tracks. They have been able to stream 24/96 data off the hard drives, but (if I wanted to do the math) I doubt they could do the 24/192 data with that many tracks. The new Pro Tools can, but with great hardware assist and even more money. I don't mean to say that your recordings are easy to make BTW, but compared to all the work that goes into what Griffinator is doing in a studio environment, the setup is easier. Steinberg isn't at this point going to code Cubase to do above 96k, but it is a part of Nuendo ($1200). Sonar only does to 96K as well. So other than your inexpensive N-Track, most software is over $1k to be able to handle the 192k material. Can't wait to hear feedback (no pun intended) on your demonstrations at your place. Marvel

Jammin' Jersey has some 2404H for $175 each right now (used of course). That would make a pair pretty cheap. I certainly appreciate how Klipsch has made speakers that sound as good as they do with the components they use. If you upgrade everything, you go broke, even if it does sound better! Marvel

Here's a question for all, and since it has been mentioned here before, I'll ask again. I have an almost mint LP of Dire Straits Brothers in Arms album. It sounds simply fantastic to me, and although it is a rock album, has acoustic instruments on it. But it was done in '82 on a Sony digital multitrack. Anyone else have the LP and care to comment? Griff, There's the rub. We still have to do the best we can with the tools and final release media we can. Maybe record the highest quality (24/192 or higher) we can, downsample and relese it. When better playback systems are here, re-release the product. That is what all the digital remastering craze is all about, but we know that the product isn't necessarily better -- just more convenient. I have heard of many technical folks who say that although there can be differences, today it is not hard to design a good software SRC. That could be used as an excuse to accept what you have, or it could be true. Programming is over my head, there's too much math. I have worked with engineers (EE), who would sit and stare for hours at a whiteboard full of calculus, and finally go "Oh, this needs to be..." reach up and change something. I appreciate the hard work that goes into it. Nowadays, there is no need for totally hardware based SRCs. It's far better to have it in software, because you can always update with ease (relative to updating hardware). Our company had hardware products also, and now they collect dust because it was too hard to update. I agree with Dave that more money doesn't always mean better quality. Marvel

Dave, I'll answer that one, at least from my perspective. I have some classical recordings that sound very good to me. One is a '93 RCA Red Label DDD at Abbey Road, of a Schuuman Symphony. A Berlioz work, that I don't remember the label (I'm at work). Maura O'Connell -- Celtic/Nashville, w/Bela Fleck, Mark O'Connor, Jerry Douglas -- lots of acoustic instruments as well as electric. Of course I have a cheap CD player, JVC of some vintage, so the source electronics could be masking the CD a lot. I admit it. Moving from the JBL 4311 pair to the Heresy IIs seems to have made an improvement, but mostly in dynamics. I haven't hooked the JBLs back up to make another comparison. I don't really listen to much real rock music. The "it" I had mentioned in my earlier post, was acoustic bass, acoustic guitar, sax, trumpet, percussion. The ProTools mix was good. I could send you the CD if you would want to hear it. Marvel

Dean, I did some studio work for friends of mine in the early '70s. The studio did 24 tracks at 30ips. You go through a lot of tape that way! There is incredible headroom at 30ips, as well as at 24/192. Compression probably wouldn't enter into it much. Still, getting that onto a Redbook CD means something has to go. Lynn, Thanks for the post. I'm probably living in ignorant bliss for having a lot of commercial CDs that I think sound very good. We always do until we hear something better I guess. Marvel

jgatty, I know that one of the forum members has VMPS subs. John Albright has them along with a pair of LaScallas and Heresies. It is a nice sounding system, and hopefully he will post with some more details and description for you. The lat time I heard his system, he had four LS. Marvel

Almost went right past it, but a hearty welcome to Lynn Olson. Is that an Ariel or ME2 in your avatar? I would love to hear the amps described on the Nutshell website. Griff, I'm not trying to argue with you. I just understood that the AI3 analogue inputs will only give you up to 48K out on the lightpipe. Am I wrong about that? If you only use that for your input, then you are stuck, no matter what the dbx strips will do. It wasn't meant as a put down. I see you and Dave as doing two different kinds of recording, and Dave mentioned a problem with the higher samplerate. TOO MUCH data. If you are runnign a studio, you are probably going to have way more tracks than he does, and it will get very hard to stream that much data off the drives if done at a higher sample rate. The idea is to learn and share information, not to diss anyone. Marvel

I see some issues here. At this point, CDs are still 44.1k, yet you would want to use 48k? Or, you think that is all you really need? Griff is stuck, if you will permit my use of the phrase, with an interface that will only do up to 48k, no matter what the rest of his system will do. DATs, ADATS, video recorders have that as their max sample rate. Dave would still like to figure out if ultrasonic frequencies have any impact on recorded audio, so the LP filter idea is reasonable, but there must be more to it than the quality of the filters. I have a friend whose last two albums were done with Pro Tools, which version I don't know. They are mostly acoustic, and are simply stunning. I don't agree with the whole Pro Tools argument, but it is hard to argue with how good it can sound, even on CD. A question I would have is would it sound even better to hear it mixed at 192K? Are these the main questions right now (since Griff brought up 48K issue)? 1. Is it just the quality of the filters on the ADC and DAC? 2. Do we really require more than a 48K sample rate. 3. Can we test for whether or not ultrasonics affect the audio we hear? Marvel

Dave, That TMBG file was encoded into a flash file -- could very well be why it sounds the way it does. Mucho compression! This might explain fini's sense of humour as well. Next we'll be listening to the Firesign Theater. Marvel

Not a forum for anyone specifically selling Klipsch. People do post things form sale on occasion. Ebay is where most people find things, and sometimes for very good prices. I found someplace where people did reviews of speakers, and under Heresy IIs some guy had found a pair at a garage sale for $23. You just have to pick what you are willing to spend and go from there. I think I have mine crossed at 80Hz, and for me it works well. They have bass on their own, just not the slammo kind. Marvel

Dave, Since interfaces can make or break the tools you use, I might be worthwhile to also check out Vegas and/or Cubase. While most people only think of Vegas as a video editing app, there are lots of studios now using it for just doing audio. Again, it will only do 24/96. If you get Vegas +DVD, you get a full AC-3 encoder with it as well as SFs DVD Architect. Cubase SX/SL is another of my favorites, but only does 24/96 as well. My favorite one though is Samplitude (now at vers. 7.1). http://www.samplitude.com/de/sam.htm More tracks than you will ever need, and a very good sounding audio engine/summing buss. It WILL do 24/192. This software is nice, but the pricetag goes right along with it, at close to $1k. You can download the demo. It just won't save projects, etc. Way more elegant than Sonar. Marvel I think that subsonic and ultrasonic frequencies do influence how music sounds to us, but I don't know that you can quantify it in a real/definable way. The monitor/tv issue is a real problem for a lot of people. I'm not sure how high my hearing goes these days, but probably not as high as I think it goes.

Milton, I currently have some Heresy IIs, a present from my son, coupled with an older Velodyne CT8 (yup -- 8 inch speaker) sub (a present from my brother-in-law). It sounds very smooth, and extends the bass just a bit for my smaller living room. I don't have an HT setup, but would think the earlier Heresies and the Sunfire would be nice. Do you already have some or are you looking at a pair? Seems the easiest thing would be to try them. Either you like them or you don't. Just enjoy them! Marvel BTW, my son uses a Yamaha receiver with his Heresies, with JBLs as rear channels. HE likes it, although I think he might have liked to keep the pair he bought for me.

Griff, He already answered with what he uses -- the newest WaMi Rack -- 192x. http://www.esi-pro.com/ And uses N-Track for his software. As I recall, mostly uses Royer ribbon mics. Dave, I don't know why you can't delete more than two tracks at once. You certainly can in Sonar (limited to 96k), and I thought you could in CEP as well, but I only had the demo on my PC right after 2.0 came out. For what it's worth, my system is comprised on an ADAT XT (20 bit), Alesis Studio 32 mixer, Tascam DA 30 MKII DAT, M-Audio Audiophile 2496 Sound Card, and other assorted goodies. I haven't decided on the software yet, as this is also an extension of my video editing setup, which is a dual Athlon 1.4Ghz running Win2k and Adobe Premier 6.5. I mostly use some AKS C1000S mics, but still use some RE16 mics on occasion. My 1/4" four track TEAC 3340S doesn't get much use these days, but earlier tapes I've done are excellent on this rather small format. Marvel

Leo, There was a test some folks did a few years ago with one of the Panasonic DAT recorders, where they took a recording, copied to another deck of the same model. Copied back again ... They then did tests comparing the original with the fitfth generation copy. Most people could not tell the difference (I'm not saying there wasn't a difference, they just couldn't tell). The interesting thing was they were using the analog ins and out to make the transfers. One would have thought there would have been a big difference in the end. I agree that a copy, going through any electronics should be degraded somewhat. Dave, Thanks for the rundown on your hardware/software. Did I tell you of a friend of mine who works at the Edison Historical site in New Jersey? They have recorded on Edison's original equipment, with current talent.They are then transfering to CD. Would be nice to transfer to 24/192 for archival sake, or until the medium is there for common playback. I could get their number if you would like. N-Track is really good, but I have a hard time with the interface. It is hard to beat for the price though. I just noticed this weekend that Sonar only goes to 96k. Marvel

Dave, Great thoughts here. Can you give us a rundown of your hardware? I know you like to record at 24/192, or at least 24/96. What soundcard or A/D do you use, and is your software totally homebrew or do you use off the shelf software, i.e., Cool Edit Pro will do 24/192? BTW, I just learned last month that Adobe bought Syntrillium's assets, and has done some kind of remake of CEP, released as Adobe Audition. I admit that I think the ultrasonics make a difference, but I am also one who isn't driven crazy just listening on cheap computer speakers (some of the time). I probably listen at levels around 80db, and the days are long past when I would listen to a couple of hours a day. The days are too short and I'm doing too many other things. Marvel

I couldn't agree more Scooterdog. Marvel

From the above comments, I believe you guys are right about the pin layout and not the biasing. Marvel

Where do the studies show that ultrasonics behave different than what we consider audio frequencies? Wave theory doesn't necessarily change as the frequency goes up. This fits with Dave saying he listens to electronic music on CD. It makes so much sense, as most electronic music (rock included) does not use any acoustic instruments. Acoustic guitars more often than not use either magnetic pickups or piezo pickups, and they certainly reproduce more of the fundamental as opposed to the fundamental + harmonic content. That's what makes an acoustic guitar sound like an acoustic guitar. Plug in a piezo and you really can't tell much difference from a $150 Epiphone and a $3000 Martin. Put them in front of a mic and the difference is obvious. I can imagine what voices would sound like with a piezo pickup. Oh, perhaps early crystal mics? Now I remember. I didn't give ambiguous information about Neve consoles. Maybe just not complete. They have been superb for more than their wide bandwidth, but it was something Neve himself commented on. The wide bandwidth makes a huge difference. The resolution given by using a higher sample rate is a plus in every case, the only drawback is file size and throughput on the playback system (and record system). It is a trade off that Sony/Philipps made when coming up with the Redbook spec, given the technology of the times. Early brickwall filters were awful and introduced artifacts of their own. Using a higher samplerate means you can make a smoother/better lp filter. We all win. It is really no different than our fellow Klipschers who say they can only hear up to 12k, but can still hear a difference in speakers whose response is far higher. Marvel

---------------- On 8/2/2003 2:07:18 AM nicholtl wrote: Very true guys...infact, even the fastest G4's were never quite as fast as their pentium counterparts. Weird then, is it that in all the ads and spec sheets, for photoshop, quake arena, and all those tests, that the dual processor G4's seemed to best the fastest pentium 4's at the time (2.6 ghz or something). wonder how that is? once the G5 is released late august...we shall see... ---------------- Because you can lie with numbers. The Steinberg forum has a great thread going about how Apple turned off hyperthreading on the dual Xeon test box, to make the G5 test faster. Mac users are part of a cult and don't even know it. It doesn't matter if the computer is any good, it is a Mac. It's the attitude that stinks, not the computers themselves. Marvel

You may have a hard time getting higher than 400Hz out of the cab no matter what driver you use. As I recall from other posts here, the many folds make it hard for the higher frequencies to exit the horn. The LS even has a hard time getting past 400Hz very well. Marvel

If you look on the Triode Electronics tube data page at the 807 tube, they indicate that other than the basing (I think they mean biasing), the curves are the same for the 6BG6-G tube. They have links to a 75 watt AB2 amp using the 6L6 or 807. This could point you in the right direction. 6SN7 phase splitter/driver. Marvel

Did she dent the dust cap in the center of the speaker? I can't imagine you could dent the cone itself, as it is a ceramic.metallic material. If it is a dent in the dust cap, it won't/shouldn't change the sound. Just won't look as nice with the grill off. Marvel

Although my wife and I are far from musical snobs, we attend the local symphony every year. After one of the concerts, my wife spoke to one of the symphony employees (spokesman/pr) about how wonderful it is to hear live music, and how seeing the performance helps you appreciate it more than just hearing it. He told her that part of that is because most people listen on systems with three inch speakers. My wife said "we don't have three inch speakers." He then asked, "What do you have, Klipsch?" That would have been encouraging, but he then said he had a Bose system. LOL Marvel

I'm going to blather off the top of my head on this, so take with a grain of salt. It would seem the Nyquist theorem is totally accurate as long as you are dealing with a single sine wave, no harmonics or overtones. As soon as you have even a single acoustic instrument, say a guitar, the waveform becomes ever so complex and difficult to reproduce accurately. Yes? Rupert Neve's older analog consoles had bandwidth out the wazoo, easily past 50k, and I was thinking over 100k, but I can't find the interview (been trying to throw away old magazines, and always regret it at some point). To some golden ears, that high bandwidth worked its way through the chain somehow to where you could tell the difference on the final recording. The problem is, most equipment being used today doesn't even come close to that. What Dave is doing is putting as little between the mic and the signal as it is recorded, and the payoff becomes outstanding. I know my 16 input mixer doesn't have the bandwidth needed, but for $1100 how could it. Can most people tell the difference? Nope, but Dave is now ruined because he CAN tell the difference. If he had only stuck with using a cheap Fostex cassette deck and crummy tape to record with we wouldn't have these discussions. I have friends who are doing their recordings at 16/44.1 because they don't see the need. I think they are losing out, but I can't convince them otherwise. Perhaps if they could come listen to Dave's setup, they might change their minds. Marvel

"I'd forgotten about SQ encoded cassettes. I am not entirely certain that a few discrete 4 channel cassette decks weren't built and set off the initial home studio movement... Seems logical." Dave, Do you mean that decks were made for home use but were quickly picked up as a low cost studio medium? Seems logical to me as well. I just went straight to a 4 track reel to reel. I don't have any surround tapes though, as I mostly used it for production work with overdubs. A friend of mine has a video disc player that uses a stylus, and not a laser for signal pickup. If you think a four channel disc will show signs of wear quickly this is far worse. I can't remember just how it works. I think it was marketed by RCA. Marvel