Jump to content

The PWK no-BS Tribute Thread


Chris A

Recommended Posts

When I listen to stories about Paul Wilbur Klipsch (PWK) and read his articles, I feel I've gotten to know him. However, it seems as though his no-BS approach to audio reproduction sometimes seems to get lost on the forum. Some here imply that his technical contributions are now passé, especially his technical articles.  But when I read his articles I get a totally different view.  Perhaps the biggest single point is that audio reproduction was for him a discipline - one which coordinated use of engineering with good listening.  It seems to me that this web site should tribute his spirit and approach to audio.

The intent of this thread is not to highlight what he found in his technical investigations, but rather to highlight his no-BS attitude and maybe chuckle to ourselves when arguing a point elsewhere.  Here we will focus on identifying underlying assumptions and belief systems that fuel our arguments.

 

Chris

 

225quot_bs_button_black.jpg?height=240&w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the above in mind, I'd like to share an idea that allows us to look at our audio beliefs dispassionately and at 50,000 ft distance: the idea of a "meme", What is a "meme"? It boils down to "whatever is passed on by imitation. Imitation includes any kind of copying of ideas and behavior from one person to another". The intent here is to present audio belief systems or "meme-plexes". Several ideas come to mind. Enclosed, you will find a rather infamous article written by an audiophile magazine author - Peter Aczel. What he writes, he obviously uses language to elicit an emotive response, but, since we are all big folks around here, "...we can take it..." without flaming.

1. The Cable Lie

2. The Vacuum Tube Lie

3. The Anti-Digital Lie

4. The Listening-Test Lie

5. The Feedback Lie

6. The Burn-In Lie

7. The Bi-wiring Lie

8. The Power Conditioner Lie

9. The CD-Treatment Lie

10. The Golden Ear Lie

The 10 Biggest Lies of Audio.pdf

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a few that I'll tell on myself:

 

a) The "horn vs. direct radiator argument", i.e., direct radiators are inferior to well designed horn-loaded loudspeaker system. FM and AM distortion is much, much higher in direct radiators, and you can't EQ out this type of distortion.

 

b ) The "anti-flat frequency response argument', i.e., speakers shouldn't use flat frequency response as a prime measure of design goodness, rather they should be graded on low distortion figures and uniform polar coverage.

 

c) The "you can't test it at home" argument, i.e., you need an anechoic chamber to test your new speaker designs. [Deleted--testing and rebalancing your loudspeaker system at home after installation is the only way to achieve hi-fi, IMO.  But it took me time using a measurement rig with a calibrated microphone to enable me to understand why this is true.  But note that anechoically balanced loudspeakers are the next best thing.]

 

d) The "good loudspeakers don't necessarily need the world's best drivers" argument, i.e., PWK prided himself on NOT using the most expensive drivers. Good drivers can reduce AM and harmonic distortion, but not FM distortion.

 

e) The "controlling the polars" argument, i.e., you want to control the energy input into the room to be as unchanging as possible as a function of its frequency, something arrived at independently by several leading audio engineers by doing a lot of tests with people.

 

f) The "put the speakers in the corners" argument, i.e., the belief that the best stereo soundstage can be achieved by placing your loudspeakers in the corners of your listening room. This assumes that the space between the corner-placed stereo speakers is free of obstructions and reflectors.

 

g) The "less crossovers used-the better" argument, i.e., the belief that the fewer number of drivers used in a loudspeaker design -- for home use-- the better the design, while maintaining low distortion.

 

h) The "distortion is bad" argument i.e., any measurable distortion in loudspeaker design should be minimized, but modulation distortion (AM and FM) is particularly objectionable, due to its non-harmonic nature. The problem is, most people don't even know how to test for this type of distortion, but there are standard Klippel procedures to test for the various kinds of distortion.

 

Note that all of these ideas were shared by Paul W. Klipsch over the years and Roy Delgado Jr. in JAES, ASA, "Dope from Hope" articles, etc. and by direct communications with just about anyone who would listen. These are pretty important and, as it turns out, dangerous, ideas for those that tend to follow the typical audiophile memeplexes, addressed above in Aczel's article.

Other audiophile memes to follow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More...and some that I don't necessarily adhere to:

 

i) The "use the long dimension of the room to place your speakers in the corners" argument.

[EDIT (17 Apr 2021)--This is a historical artifact by PWK that was brought on by I believe two different causes: 1) The large time misalignments of the tweeter-->midrange and midrange-->bass bin of the Heritage loudspeaker series that require the listener to back away from the loudspeaker in order to achieve a better resolution of the time misalignments between the loudspeaker's "ways", and 2) in the era before surround sound arrays of loudspeakers (5.1, 7.1, Atmos, etc.), the only way to achieve a wider "listener envelopment" ("LEV" in Toole's terminology) was to set the flanking left and right loudspeakers as wide as possible, even to the point of using a center fill loudspeaker--like a Belle or La Scala.  In the current era of surround sound and time aligned loudspeakers, the requirement for wide spacing the front left/right loudspeakers is no longer a requirement, but perhaps a desired substitute for a surround sound (5.1) array, while continuing to use time-misaligned loudspeakers, (such as the Klipsch Heritage series).]

 

j) The "use a blended center channel" argument, i.e., for those rooms where the distance between the front speakers is so great that there exists a hole in the middle of the stereo image. [EDIT (17 Apr 2021)--See comment i), just above

 

k) The "more efficient speakers have less distortion" argument, i.e., the argument empirically argued by PWK.

 

l) The "you don't need a subwoofer when listening to two-channel" argument. [EDIT (17 Apr 2021)--This is a holdover from the early days of direct radiating subwoofers that introduce large amounts of harmonic and modulation distortion.  The solution is to employ low-distortion horn-loaded subwoofers having blended crossover with the stereo front loudspeaker bass bins.  There is actually a large amount of extreme low frequency energy present in many stereo music recordings that require the use of subwoofers.]

 

m) The "you need a separate HT setup from your 2-channel rig" argument.

 

n) The "speaker spike" or "speaker stand" argument, i.e., speakers need spikes or stands underneath them to sound better.

 

o) The "ideal listening room" argument, i.e., that there exists an ideal ratio of width x length x height in proper listening rooms.

 

p) The "nothing can sound better than my xxx speaker" argument (Beranek's Law).

 

q) The "PWK meant to say this..." argument (ipse dixit).

 

r) The "use the best electronic components to produce the best electronic design" argument.

 

s) The "XXX brand is bad because yyy said so" argument (Appeal to Authority).

 

t) The "that couldn't sound good because of [some apparent exception]" argument (Accident).

 

u) The "if it costs considerably more, then it must sound considerably better" argument. (Appeal to Money).

 

v) The "Bigger is Better" argument (as applied to loudspeakers).

 

More to follow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

w) The "less is more" argument, especially applied to signal path and gain stages. [EDIT (17 Apr 2021)--This is a holdover from the analog-only days where any added components in the signal chain introduced noise.  In today's digital signal processing (DSP) world, as long as the signal is in the digital domain, any number of components can be daisy-chained in the signal path as long as the signal remains in the digital domain, and conversions from digital to analog to digital to analog again are typically not audible (A-B testing).]

 

x) The "X amplification type is superior to Y amplification type" argument. [EDIT (17 Apr 2021)--This is the typical "class A" is better than class AB or class D argument.  This is also another argument for/against amplifier feedback.  See Nelson Pass' article "Audio Distortion and Feedback" for more information on this subject.]

 

y) The "high-end turntable" and cartridge argument, i.e., expensive, fussy turntables and cartridges are required to "hear everything" on a record.

 

z) The "X CD player is better than Y CD player" argument, when talking about using digital output streams like HDMI into a DAC in a separate preamplifier. [EDIT (17 Apr 2021)--The only real difference in players is perhaps USB bus jitter .]

 

aa) The "using X component is better than using Y component" argument.

 

ab) The "it's better to test in-room than in a chamber" argument, i.e., speakers can be balanced better in-room.

 

ac) The "acoustic damping panels are required in-room" argument. [EDIT (17 Apr 2021)--This is generally true for the areas just around the loudspeakers in order to suppress early reflections (less than 5 milliseconds from the direct arrivals from the loudspeakers).]

 

ad) The "anything other than a regular rectangular room is a bad listening room" argument.  [EDIT (17 Apr 2021)--This is more often true than not for canted walls/ceilings.]

 

ae) The "I can hear down to X Hertz on MY subwoofer(s)" argument, actually, this is a variation of the "Golden Ears" argument.  [EDIT (17 Apr 2021)--For subwoofers that have very clean output with low harmonic distortion levels, localization of low frequency energy below ~50-60 Hz is not possible in home hi-fi-sized rooms.]

 

More to come...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

af) The "electronics affect the sound more than anything else in your setup" argument, i.e., this is the converse argument of the oft-used rule of thumb: "put your money into your speakers" heuristic.

 

ag) The "shape of the horn cross section should match the shape of the room" argument.

 

ah) The "music subwoofer vs. HT subwoofer" argument, i.e., there are subs that should be used with 2-channel systems that are more "musical" and other subs that should be used for HT that, well, shouldn't.

 

ai) The "subwoofer bass is better when you can hear it and feel it, too" argument, i.e., harmonic distortion in subwoofers sounds better.

 

aj) The "there are speakers that sound better playing X music" argument, e.g., "R&R speakers", "background music speakers", etc.

 

ak) The "nice looking speakers are better than ugly speakers" argument, the converse argument is also seen on the forums from time to time, but very rarely.

 

al) The "Alnico driver magnets sound better than other magnet types" argument (ignoring the introduction of driver shorting rings).

 

am) The "turntable arms that look cool perform better" argument.

 

an) The "moving magnet cartridges are inferior to moving coil cartridge" argument.

 

ao) The "old X amplifiers sound better than today's amplifiers" argument, "X" can include Marantz, McIntosh, Pioneer, etc.

 

ap) The "old 'X' turntables sound much better than old 'Y' turntables", i.e., "X" can be Thorens, etc.

 

aq) The "you can hear the difference between turntables costing 'X' vs. TTs costing less" argument, especially when played through speakers of lesser sound reproduction accuracy.

 

ar) The "folded horns don't sound as good as straight horns" argument.

 

as) The " 'X' horn design produces higher distortion than 'Y' horn design [without testing both to see which one is better]" argument.

 

at) The "we can hear super-harmonics if they are on top of harmonics that we can hear" argument, i.e., the 20KHz+ super-tweeter argument.

 

au) The "considering human hearing (including hearing processing) properties isn't important to factor in when we design and test speakers" argument.

 

av) The " 'X' speaker design type sounds much better than 'Y' speaker design type especially when playing 'Z' type of music" argument, i.e., "X can be line arrays, electrostatics, planar dynamic, dome type, etc.; "Z" can be R&R, classical, acoustic, etc.

 

More to come...

Edited by Chris A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

aw) The "I don't really need a horn-loaded subwoofer in my room" argument.  Arguments include - "my room isn't very big", "I really get enough with [direct-radiating subwoofer 'X' in MY room", "I don't listen to music or movies that require that lf capability", "horn-loaded subs aren't as 'musical' as direct-radiating subwoofer 'Y'", etc.

 

ax) The "there's nothing wrong with your speaker--it's all in the room/amplifier/acoustic treatments]" argument.

 

ay) The "my 'X' speaker sounds as good as your 'Y' speaker" argument, i..e., without listening to both speakers in the same room under the same conditions, with each listener asked to rate the same performance attributes.

 

az) The "speaker 'X' sounds better than speaker 'Y', but only in my room" argument, i.e., without listening to both speakers in the same room under the same conditions, with each listener asked to rate the same performance attributes.

 

ba) The "never put your speakers in the corner" argument, i..e., without listening to both speakers in the same room under the same conditions, with each listener asked to rate the same performance attributes. [There are reasons to pull speakers out of the corners, but all of these reasons result in significantly reduced in-room bass performance below ~100 Hz from those speakers.]

 

bb) The "everybody knows that blind-blind listening tests can't be trusted" argument. i.e., this is a variation on the "Listening Test Lie" - item 4, above, but restated here for emphasis on how memes can be used in conjunction with other [untested] memes to discourage real inquiry.

 

bc) The "unbalanced (RCA) cables are superior to balanced (XLR) cables" argument. Experience shows that the use of balanced cables, even relatively inexpensive cables, significantly decrease common mode noise vis-à-vis unbalanced (RCA) cables. This especially includes power noise (e.g., 50/60 Hz and harmonics)--even over short distances.

 

bd) The "I'm right because it's cheaper to implement" argument.  This is the inverse of the "it's better because it costs more" argument.

 

be) The "I've got to have 100+ dB of noise floor or dynamic range" argument (for DACs and ADCs). While nice to have, the use of unbalanced cabling and connectors, poor source material, noise in real recording and listening rooms, and low-level analog input cables, such as TT inputs, esp. MC inputs, negate this performance level in real systems.

 

bf) Vinyl sounds better than CDs.

 

bg) SACDs sound better than CDs.

 

bh) SACDs sound better than DVD-As.

 

bi) Analog sounds better than digital, another way to state the "Anti-Digital Lie" found at the top of this thread.

 

bj) Passive crossovers sound better than active crossovers, especially if the active crossover is digital.

 

bk) "You can't listen to horns on-axis" fallacy.

 

bl) "You don't understand Klipsch speakers as much as I do" meme.  Variations include: recording engineering, room acoustics, amplifiers, passive crossover design and electric circuits, electrical grounding, etc.

 

bm) "You can substitute direct-radiating woofers for horn-loaded bass bins" meme. This is the inverse argument of the "Must use horn-loaded bass" meme.

 

bn) "Bigger speakers aren't needed to sound better" meme, actually the opposite of the "big speakers sound better" meme.

 

bo) "It's better to stay married than to have big speakers" meme. [Well, maybe this one isn't a meme after all...]

Edited by Chris A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Commentary: As you might see, the enumerations seen here tend to all have one property in common - "don't try it out for yourself--just listen to me". PWK was said to have designed and marketed his Heresy design because someone said to him, well, "wouldn't that be heresy if you did that?...".

 

The type of arguments found here can suck the life out of our own inquisitiveness and make us all like the folks in the Orwellian "1984"--watching a very large TV screen with "Big Brother" addressing his obedient audience.  It's okay to challenge anyone's memes...but do it tactfully please, since we are all human.

 

Chris

Edited by Chris A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

More...

 

bp) [...maybe it will come to mind...]

 

bq) "mp3's sound better than CDs" meme, actually a variation on the "vinyl sounds better...".

 

br) "He can't be right [in whatever opinion he expressed...] because we don't like him" meme.

Variations include:

"Oh, you're a Jubilee owner! [so therefore we won't listen to you because of that...]",

"You don't own Klipsch Heritage...[so we won't listen to you]",

"Oh, you don't own tubes, do you? [so we will reject anything that you say about amplifiers]",

"You own Bose?...",

"You're not a member of our [insert name of clique], so we mustn't listen to you", etc.

 

bs) [A tribute to PWK: "...I 'recalibrate my ears' frequently at live concerts, and I urge our clients, factory workers, salespeople, and engineers to do the same." NOTE: PWK wasn't talking about amplified-music concerts.

 

bt) "You should always match the speaker's country of manufacture with an artist from that same country" (Thanks Fini, I liked that one.)

 

bu) "Owning tubes is a hobby...[i.e., not a burden]",

 

Variations include:

"Your [tube amplifier reliability problems] must be something other than unreliable tube amplifier designs."

"You don't like the sound of a SET tube amplifier [even though the amplifier is clearly distorting to produce that 'magic sound']?"

 

bv) The "bass modulation distortion isn't audible" (so you can use direct radiator bass bins without hearing any modulation distortion) meme.

 

bw) "Amplifier second harmonic distortion sounds pleasing" meme (Please refer to the relevant Nelson Pass article for an explanation of this.)

 

bx) "I can run my [small speakers] on milliwatts!" meme (refer to Nelson Pass article).

 

by) "Magic rocks work! Everything sounds better now" [That is, the placebo effect in full living color...] [Countless variations include just about anything that is found in strange "audiophile shops" at very high prices.]

 

bz) "Tube microphonics? What's that?"

 

Variations include:

"You just have to used to the fact that tube amplifiers have 20 dB(A) higher noise floor than any SS amplifier."

"High output impedance amplifiers aren't a problem with high efficiency Klipsch speakers", etc.

 

ca) "Class D or class T amplifiers sound much better than SS Class AB amplifiers" [see Nelson Pass Article.]

 

;)

Edited by Chris A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget what PWK thought about the most important single thing there was and is in audio reproduction:

Without well engineered source material, whatever follows doesn't matter.

He said that to me, and I have found it to be the most profound truth in our hobby. For me, I've boiled it down even futher "I'd rather listen to well engineered source material on a car radio than crap on the finest system money can buy."

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, Dave...but I'd call that "truth" instead of "meme". I believe that it's a corollary on "GIGO".

:D

EDIT: I like what this guy said...

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/music/33633-great-audiophile-recordings-albums-3.html#post389465

Edited by Chris A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took a look. Generally in agreement, but I leave the discussion at "produced," which to philosophy is where one leaves the road to sonic realism and towards entertaining.

Many great albums and experiences would not exist without "production." Good with that. However, "accuracy" on these will always be rather difficult to quantify as it's a stickey wicket to determine "accuracy" of a record of an event that did not happen.

I won't go on about that, as I realize it may not make sense to a lot of folks. However, it's quite clear to me. While I love all kinds of great music and enjoy many highly produced recordings, the thrill only comes with couple of mikes with nothing between them and the storage medium but a preamp and placed where my ears want to be in a great acoustic space recording extraordinary musicians performing celestial compositions.

Not so much to ask...and PWK is smiling! His dissatisfaction with conventional record production was profound. In many ways, I could say the brief time I spent with him completely formed my attitude from that day on. While pleased to meet him, I did not come as a worshipful apprentice to his thoughts...but I left that way.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't go on about that, as I realize it may not make sense to a lot of folks. However, it's quite clear to me. While I love all kinds of great music and enjoy many highly produced recordings, the thrill only comes with couple of mikes with nothing between them and the storage medium but a preamp and placed where my ears want to be in a great acoustic space recording extraordinary musicians play celestial compositions.

Not so much to ask...and PWK is smiling!

One of my favorite recordings, which I listen to many time a week, is a 1958 recording of Respighi's Ancient Dances and Airs for Lute, Antal Dorati conductor. A Mercury Living Presence recording (I only have the CD). It was made with three mics, three tracks. The restored the original tube gear to make the transfer to the digital domain. The recording is incredibly involving.

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kewl, Bruce. Wouldn't it be awesome if they'd provide a high res digital version of the three channel original? I thought most of the Living Presense stuff was two mikes, but I now recall that you are correct. They were working from the Western Electric experiments cited by PWK in his papers and recommendations for a center channel.

Might be even better as a Tape Project issue in three channel R2R.

One can only fantisize...

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always felt that this forum was generally science based, with a somewhat liberal tolerance of thermionic gear. Huh?

No problem here. Mr. Paul is the original BS button man.

There are loads of Klipsch Heritage fans who are tube amp fans, also. I don't think one should make alot of the argument of SS vs tubes. A quality amp of either build will sound fabulous. Among the listening rooms at the Hope factory is one with a tube amp. I've heard it myself.

Klipsch builds speakers to sound good. That's it. I'm a romantic. The idea of tube amps, which were the only kind of amps in existence when Mr. Paul started out, has a particular cool factor, to me. But, as I said, I'm a romantic AND easily entertained.

Makes sense to me that SS amplification would be needed for precision in the lab. The world loves convenience. Fine with me. In later years, Mr. Paul had SS amplification in his own home.

Klipsch sells some speakers equipped for bi-wiring, if desired. I don't think it would be my cup of tea, but if it makes someone happy, more power to them.

IMO Klipsch is pretty tolerant of us tube-head eccentrics, as long as we take our medicine, stay away from sharp things and don't break anything [:P]

I mean, who else is left to channel Mr. Paul with a good amplifier of (nearly) 5 watts! [;)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Quote

bs) [Well...a tribute to PWK: "...I 'recalibrate my ears' frequently at live concerts, and I urge our clients, factory workers, salespeople, and engineers to do the same."] (NOTE: And PWK wasn't talking about amplified music concerts...)

 

Recently, I attended a performance of the Dallas Symphony, this time in a new public school facility fine arts venue (more on this later). I've gotten to be a bit of an asocial personality when it comes to my personal time since going to events such as this basically eats up an entire day when all is said and done. But I figured that this was important to do what PWK urged: to periodically recalibrate my ears by listening to live (as in "not amplified") music performance.

 

MansfieldPAC-Gallery-5.png

 

 

Usually, I go to these events with low expectations, and then remember them as pleasant entertainment. On this occasion however I came back thinking about the experience based on my tinkerings with my at-home listening room acoustics. PWK was right in that we need to keep our ears calibrated. But in this instance several items were apparent:

 

So I began looking around the venue for clues to why I was missing the liveness of the performance, and then I began to see some things that I hadn't noticed before:

 

  • The symphony sounded very quiet, especially the violins, violas, and cellos: overall I would guess the average SPL at my listening chair was in the 55-70 dB© region. I was seated about 75-100 feet from the front of the stage, slightly to the left of center looking squarely at the first violins.
  • Because of that low average SPL at my listening position, it was difficult to stay focused on the performance quality, instead the tendency for me was to look around on stage at the various performers and equipment, the venue architecture, etc., the backs of other people heads while they scratched, others not paying attention to the music and looking about, etc. I compensated for these distractions by simply closing my eyes to listen as if I were at sitting in my listening chair home, and then it hit me...
  • The soundstage in front of me wasn't that wide--perhaps 35-40 degrees subtended angle--and the solo instruments were difficult to localize in 3-D space. I attributed some of this to being halfway back in the lower seating area. But the degree to which I couldn't hear localized instruments (even trumpets) was a bit of a surprise.
  • The sound of the strings was the opposite of "steely", rather they sounded very harmonious and cohesive and the musical attacks sounded very "live".
  • The percussion cymbals, chimes, and other hf sounds penetrated the veil of quietness that seemed to rule the performance. This was the only part of the performance that said "wake up" to me, but it was still very subtle compared to my home listening room experience.

So the bottom line takeaway for me was: TANSTAAFL - "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". The auditorium suffered miserably from the fact that it was a "Swiss army knife" design - trying to be everything to everyone. I would not recommend that venue for anything except loud brass ensembles and electrified rock-and-roll band concerts.

  1. The ceiling in this venue was very tall - probably half again taller than I would have otherwise expected. The reflective panels on the ceiling were also very, very high, and looked to me that they should be at about 2/3s the height that they were located.
  2. The side walls of the venue were smooth - i.e., no diffusers were present (in fact, I found out from my wife that the walls were actually partitions that could be rolled back to significantly increase the seating space on each side of the stage front--something that I'd not seen before.
  3. The orchestra was positioned as far forward on the stage as possible, even to the point that the conductor and soloists had to walk between the first and second violins diagonally from the front of the stage to get on-off the stage. The stage seems too deep and narrow. The conductor was off centerline to the right on stage in order to accommodate the full length of the first and second violin sections to his left.
  4. The balcony far behind my seating position was closed off with heavy curtains of a velour type (that obviously ate all sound reflections) - but this was very, very high above my seating position.
  5. The flying line array speakers on each side of the stage area were 2x too high and separated too widely - such that all I heard was the left-side array during announcements by the director.
  6. The PA sound was garbled by sound reflections with 100+ ms delays, which interfered with speech intelligibility badly even though the venue was otherwise very dead acoustically.

See what happens when you "recalibrate your ears" and start listening critically?

 

Here is a picture of the regular venue in which the Dallas symphony usually plays, which is probably the most delightful listening experience that I've ever had:

 

inside-eugene-mcdermott-concert-hall-160

 

This is what I learned: good venue acoustics make or break great orchestras.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outstanding write up, Chris. I've been saying for years that acoustic music of all kinds isn't just about the performance, but about the space it takes place in. I refer to this as "acoustic space/time event."

I place mikes when I record to make the most of the space when it's excellent and minimize the impact when it isn't. A great space is simply required for the best experience.

The "mothership," as we used to call that reflector at the Meyerson, is lowered to about half way down the organ show pipes for pure orchestral recordings. I have measured over 90 db from the orchestra alone...so "loud" is quite possible from this band!

BTW...the acoustics at the Church of the Annunciation in Lewsville are even better, IMHO. I'll be there, with any luck, this Sunday evening as it's my old parish and they asked me to come record their "Festival of Lessons and Carols." It's free, and you can expect some seriously fine organ and choir.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW...the acoustics at the Church of the Annunciation in Lewsville are even better, IMHO. I'll be there, with any luck, this Sunday evening as it's my old parish and they asked me to come record their "Festival of Lessons and Carols." It's free, and you can expect some seriously fine organ and choir.

Dave

Thanks for the heads up Dave.... I may venture up to Lewisville for this festive occasion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the acoustics at the Church of the Annunciation in Lewsville are even better, IMHO. I'll be there, with any luck, this Sunday evening as it's my old parish and they asked me to come record their "Festival of Lessons and Carols." It's free, and you can expect some seriously fine organ and choir.

It says that it starts at 7:00 at this location. Maybe I can cut loose on Sunday and hear it: I'm in the mood for a re-try on the live music ear-recalibration thing. Google maps says it's a 54 minute drive from my abode.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...