AR Live vs Recorded sessions, Opinions of people who may or may not have been there.

[genek]

Most of us actually think that the achievement of the sound of "lifelike" instrumentation in our home listening rooms is both a worthy intellectual pursuit (it probably is) and a viable commercial goal for some enterprising company (it most definitely is NOT). Most of us still think there is a stand-alone component "speaker market" and an "audio industry." There is not, not in any truly meaningful sense.

I can't speak for anyone else, but if I believed any of those things, I'd be out shopping instead of hoarding spare parts in a box under my desk.

[Steve F]

No matter how a speaker is set up, it has a specific job to do: reproduce the input as exactly as possible. ..... the job of the speaker is the same: reproduce the input as exactly as possible.

Howard Ferstler

No, it's not, Howard. Not anymore. The job of a speaker is to reproduce sound. Period. The "...as accurately as possible...." probably meant something way back when, but not in today's marketplace reality.

It's an appliance. A sound delivery appliance. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

Way back, when "accuracy" (whatever that ill-defined term might have meant--somewhat different things to different people, no doubt) was the goal, your statement of a hi-fi speaker's job was spot-on.

Not today, not to the vast majority of today's consumers, and I predict quite confidently, never again.

The job of a toaster is to toast. There is no standard of "accuracy" in toasting that is relevant to the way the user operates the appliance, other than the 'browning' dial be reasonably reflective of the degree of doneness that will result.

Same with today's speakers and today's consumers. The speaker needs to make sound reliably and sound 'good' (rich, vibrant, exciting, whatever term you prefer), but the standard of accuracy as defined in the 1950's-1970's mindset is long gone, never to return.

Steve F.

[speaker dave]

However, both Zilch and Toole basically dismissed the AR-3 demos as if their existence proved nothing. However, they proved plenty. They proved that a pair of speakers designed and built over 40 years ago were smooth enough, wide-bandwidth enough, and low enough in distortion to (at least with proper source material) sound essentially identical to a group of live instruments.

Just as the Edison demonstrations of a century ago "proved" that a wind up gramophone was "smooth enough, wide-bandwidth enough, and low enough in distortion to sound essentially identical to" the human voice. If people were fooled in both cases then either the gramophone was as good compared to its source material as the ARs were....or perhaps the test isn't as revealing as we think it is.

One point being overlooked is that one of the more difficult aspects of sound reproduction, the creation of a realistic soundfield that transports us back to the original recording venue, has been removed from the equation. To replay anechoic recordings of instruments back in large performance spaces really is, as Ken put it, a PA function. (Hopefully a smooth response, low distortion PA!) Note that the speakers are not creating a stereo sound field, the demonstration room is. Minimal crosstalk between channels would be as desirable as recording in a dry acoustic. The speakers become the new originating sources and all the room reflections that give us that sense of being in a concert hall are provided by...the concert hall.

Don't discount this as a large part of the magic of the demonstration. If the audience member's standard of comparison for reproduced sound is imperfect stereo creating an unrealistic soundfield in unsuitable home listening room, and they go to a concert hall and hear speakers reproduce well recorded individual instruments, it isn't surprising that the experience so far exceeds what they are used to that they proclaim it "indistinguishable".

I still think the AR and the others that have attempted this should get full kudos for the effort and bravery it takes to pull it off.

Another demo not yet mentioned was when KEF used a large number of model 105s to add the live sound of a pipe organ (located across town) to a symphony orchestra.

David

[Zilch]

Zilch, you appear to be a smart guy in some ways, and I continue to be amazed at how you are so opaque when it comes to the need for the recording to be made anechoically for use in a live-vs-recorded concert.

Zilch has come up with a few counter-examples, but those demos he holds up as counterpoints in no way at all managed the exactness and redults of the Villchur concerts.

You're missing the point: it's TRIVIAL -- anyone can do it, and many have, over the course of an entire century. You ascribe far more significance to LVR than it has ever warranted, and I am not the only one telling you so here. The Bose Wave Radio is NOT a stretch.

Your issue with Toole is that you believe his work undermines your core precepts, and it's far easier to fabricate cause to dismiss it than to reconcile the apparent discrepancies. I'll not replay these discussions; set your biases aside, and begin again at Page 1 with this alternative perspective.

I wonder if the fact that there are no manufacturers using this demo technique today indicates that they don't think their products can pull it off, or that they don't think their customer base cares whether speakers can fool them into thinking they're listening to original sound...?

They are; I just cited CES 2004. The show is not so grand as to attract your attention, is all....

[genek]

They are; I just cited CES 2004. The show is not so grand as to attract your attention, is all....

You're right, I did miss that reference. Were you there? How was it?

[Zilch]

You're right, I did miss that reference. Were you there? How was it?

If so, I missed that "show."

[genek]

If so, I missed that "show."

Darn.

[Zilch]

The idea proved that a pair of loudspeakers could accurately simulate the sound of a live ensemble, at least in the "listening rooms" that Villchur used.

Again, trivial, by today's standards.

Under other conditions (home audio playback) the upshot is that they could also do a fine job of reproducing the input just about anywhere else.

That was the intent of the stunt, yes.

Other than that, it is as up to date as many contemporary designs.

Not hardly.

However, nothing Toole (or Zilch) have come up with in their writings or commentaries dealt with any of those advances. They head off in another direction and the best any of the models they lionize could do is equal or somewhat refine what the AR-3 could already do. Is that a really significant advance over the past decades as Toole indicated in his book?

You don't get it, is all.

Both Zilch and Toole (man, it feels strange to lump those two together) basically dismiss the concerts as meaningless, but they were not meaningless at all. I wonder how many other speakers of that era could have done as well, or done as well in typical home-listening environments?

I continue to believe that if either Toole or Zilch were to acknowledge those concerts for what they were the upshot would be a serious undermining of what they consider important in modern loudspeaker design. No wonder they rate nothing more than a dismissal from them.

And all for ten bucks at my local thrift store....

[genek]

Indeed, regarding pop music there is a world of difference between the classiness of Sinatra, Count Basie, and Glenn Miller and today's pop fare.

A lot of today's popular music performers are quite good, actually, and I especially like the fact that some of them appreciate the standards enough to perform them along with their usual repertoire. I just wish someone was making better quality recordings of them.

[Zilch]

Of course, with different approaches to radiation angles, this hi-fi speaker situation is obviously a complex issue. My take on things is that wherever the listener is seated, the direct and reverberant field blend should be smooth, wide in terms of bandwidth, and low in distortion. The output may slope downward towards the treble somewhat (this also is a debatable topic), but whatever that output, it should be smooth.

The AR-3 did that and that ability was reflected in the Villchur sessions.

It didn't, and it wasn't accurate, either.

Yer makin' stuff up again....

[Zilch]

The Edison demos stand in contrast to what Villchur did - not to denigrate what Thomas accomplised. His audiences were impressed by just hearing anything at all, whereas the audiences in the LvR Villchur demos were in many cases seasoned audio buffs who were looking to spot differences.

Answered four months ago, your song is getting mighty old and tired:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...ost&p=78562

You are losing this "debate" and you know it.

Yup, Zilch = 5, Ferstler = 0

Your reverberant field runneth over.

[Zilch]

And you were just as wrong then as you are now. At least my "song" involves acknowledging what real people heard in the way of a fine demonstation of speaker accuracy. The best you can do is bad mouth a series of concerts you never attended.

Blather on, Howard; your purpose is clear, and it's obviously not happening in any substantive sense here....

[Zilch]

Hey, I am not the guy who is selling his goods on the internet and trying to make his mark. I am retired from the business and have no vested interest other than defending the integrity of people who have forgotten more about audio than you know or ever will know. My "purpose" as you call it is to do what I can to show you up for what you are, at least here on this site. Note that I only bug you here. I have no desire to go to any of the goofball sites you also occupy.

Indeed, and it's downright delusional.

Your vested interest is abundantly apparent to readers of this site.

When may we enjoy the opportunity of reading the "Howard Ferstler Blows his Nose" thread?

[You still haven't found the "Edit" button, obviously.... ]

[soundminded]

I think you give us too much credit. Most of us (myself included) take our opinions and our view of the audio world WAY too seriously. Most of us actually think that the achievement of the sound of "lifelike" instrumentation in our home listening rooms is both a worthy intellectual pursuit (it probably is) and a viable commercial goal for some enterprising company (it most definitely is NOT). Most of us still think there is a stand-alone component "speaker market" and an "audio industry." There is not, not in any truly meaningful sense.

But most of us are quite happy living in our little personal corner of the audio universe, blissfully unaware that we're a mere speck of dust in the vast expanse of reality.

That said, I love the sound of my 3a's and listen joyfully every day. So there.

Steve F.

Oh what a sorry day it is, what has the world come to. The day the music died has come and gone. Good-bye cruel world, I won't live in a world without music, I couldn't bear it. Good-bye! Good-bye! Good-bye!

I don't think most people know what real music sounds like. Genek does. I do. But how many people think that listening to a recording is actually listening to music? I have this most beautiful piano, a 1927 built Steinway M and what a magnificent sound it makes in the right hands. Can AR3 or AR3a duplicate it? Under the most contrived of conditions where the speaker and the piano are sitting out in the middle of nowhere with no close walls to reflect its sound maybe. But in the real world, in my home, not a chance. Nor the sounds coming out of the violins and violas played here every day. As for Bose, Zilch the best system Bose offers today cannot reproduce the highest octave of sound at all (I've heard it demoed in their store at a local mall numerous times) and if your hearing is not imparied and you can still hear it, it matters a great deal. Bose 901 had the same defect. Dr. Bose's theory must be that if you can't reproduce the top octave correctly, don't reproduce it at all.

I went to a high school orchestra concert (not out of choice) recently at a local high school. The auditorium had been refurbished at obvious great expense. I could almost hear the musicians over the sound system (boy would I have liked to have thrown a grenade under the amplifier that night.) Sometimes the orchestra actually played in tune. They thought they were really something. They were in fact so awful they didn't even know how bad they were. I was told afterwards that for a high school orchestra they were excellent, about as good or better than the NYC Citywide most of the best NYC orchestra high shool students aspire to play in. Well at least some of them showed promise but they have a lot of work ahead of them if they are ever going to become pro.

It's interesting that most concert pianists prefer the same model piano, the Steinway D Concert Grand. Now why do you suppose people would gravitate to a $90,000 piano when there is one that can play just as loud, the SD-10 made by Baldwin for only about $60,000. (In case you hadn't guessed....it's about the tone stupid.) Why would anyone build a $100,000,000 room for playing music to audiences when there are perfectly good sports arenas and even high school gymnasiums with PA systems already available and they hold far more people? Why would they keep trying to fix Lincoln Center's Fisher Hall after 45 years of failure at such huge cost, why don't they just give it up like most normal people have? What do they and the audiences that keep coming know that other people don't? Once upon a time I didn't know what fine wines tasted like. Most people will never find out. What passes for wine at most wine tastings has more in common with vinegar. And so one of life's cruel ironies is that now that I not only solved this problem but the technology to realize it exists, nobody wants it anymore. And so I will just have to content myself to enjoy it alone.

[Carlspeak]

Yes, I notice that when Zilch and I take a break this place gets absolutely dull. Well, it is not dull now.

No matter how a speaker is set up, it has a specific job to do: reproduce the input as exactly as possible. Now, whether this is being done in a living room with commercial recordings or doing it in an auditorium with master tapes, the job of the speaker is the same: reproduce the input as exactly as possible. Yes, we can debate directionality and all of that, and certainly in a home-audio environment dispersion qualities are going to have an impact. However, the net requirement anywhere is that the speaker be smooth responding, low in distortion, and decently wide in terms of bandwidth. The Villchur demos proved that the AR-3 had the cajones to do the work.

Sure, designs later down the road from the AR-3 did the home-audio job a bit better. (Taste will be involved here, of course, since some of the later technical advances might not be deemed "a bit better" by some listeners.) The dbx Soundfield model managed (at least when a pair was positioned correctly) to stabilize the soundstage and keep centered soloists centered. The Allison lineup (at least their three-way models) managed to find a way to minimize mid-bass suckout problems. And any number of systems (Allison, some AR units, some Ohm units, some dbx units, etc., and maybe even the Bose 901) managed to deal with midrange and treble dispersion in such a way that a pair of speakers could do a better job of simulating front-hall spaciousness and width in a home-listening space and with commercial recordings than the AR-3.

However, both Zilch and Toole (it almost makes me break out in hives to use their names together like this) basically dismissed the AR-3 demos as if their existence proved nothing. However, they proved plenty. They proved that a pair of speakers designed and built over 40 years ago were smooth enough, wide-bandwidth enough, and low enough in distortion to (at least with proper source material) sound essentially identical to a group of live instruments.

Zilch has come up with a few counter-examples, but those demos he holds up as counterpoints in no way at all managed the exactness and redults of the Villchur concerts.

Howard Ferstler

For those with access to Audiokarma.org, here's link to a thread on loudspeaker accuracy that has over 700 posts. Lots of opinions on what accuracy is there.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthrea...hlight=accuracy

[genek]

I don't think most people know what real music sounds like. Genek does. I do.

I gotta get some tickets before I start to forget. Unfortunately, I'm living in a cultural wasteland and there's nothing but Pops until the season starts in a couple of months.

Dr. Bose's theory must be that if you can't reproduce the top octave correctly, don't reproduce it at all.

If so, I actually agree with it. Missing is easier to ignore than bad.

Sometimes the orchestra actually played in tune. They thought they were really something. They were in fact so awful they didn't even know how bad they were.

They're high school students and they're making the attempt. Even if they never get there themselves, they'll end up knowing what it should have sounded like. Small victories.

Why would they keep trying to fix Lincoln Center's Fisher Hall after 45 years of failure at such huge cost, why don't they just give it up like most normal people have? What do they and the audiences that keep coming know that other people don't?

The Fisher family has already poked the board of Lincoln Center at least once this decade about maintaining the hall as "Avery Fisher Hall" in perpetuity per the terms of Avery's gift or lose what's left of the money. My theory is there's something else in Fisher's will, like "keep trying until you get it to sound right or Juliard loses the Strad."

As for enjoying the ultimate solution alone, you need to throw some parties.

[soundminded]

For those with access to Audiokarma.org, here's link to a thread on loudspeaker accuracy that has over 700 posts. Lots of opinions on what accuracy is there.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthrea...hlight=accuracy

How can you take a place seriously where people get excited over an "all Amerian 5" tube table radio or over a find of a bunch of old black and white 19" TV sets in a warehouse? Where the big question is; does the Pioneer HPM 100 measure up to the JBL 4312 or its clones? I gave up when a guy got furious that he bought a $10 powered subwoofer on e-bay and felt cheated because the power cord was frayed and it caused his circuit breaker to trip. He made such a stink about his lousy 69 cent power cord, in fact a whole essay about it that I called him a stupid ass. When the moderator came to his defense I told him he was a stupid ass too. When the old guy who owns the place came to their defense, I told him he was a stupid ass three. I spent the next ten or fifteen minutes cursing their ancestry going back fifteen generations as they scrambled desperately to delete my postings and cancel my access. It was the most fun I ever had at that web site.

I'm still waiting for your definition of what the perfect car should be Carl. How many passengers should it be able to carry? How much luggage or cargo? How fast should it be able to accelerate? What should its top speed be? How fast should it be able to decelerate? How many Gs should it be able to withstand cornering without losing its grip on the road? What color should it be? What if it had an all Chinese made 5 tube car radio?

[Zilch]

I spent the next ten or fifteen minutes cursing their ancestry going back fifteen generations as they scrambled desperately to delete my postings and cancel my access. It was the most fun I ever had at that web site.

Howard must be right; only a goofball forum would kick you out for that....

[soundminded]

Obviously, a live piano has a different radiation pattern from a pair of forward-aimed speakers, even if they have essentially perfect dispersion over the 180-degree forward angle. Even a speaker pair pulled out from the wall the proper distance, with each system having perfect 360-degree radiation (horizontally or even a combination of horizontally and vertically) cannot do the trick, because they cannot simulate the RP of the piano. Yep, you got it right there. In a closed space there will be sonic differences between the live sound and a recorded version.

However, if we are asking a pair of speakers (I prefer to have more than a pair, but for now lets stick with just two units) to do a decent job of reproducing the spectral balance, bandwidth, and low distortion of the source material (note that even the best source material will have distortion, bandwidth, and spectral-balance problems of its own) it might just be possible for that pair of speakers to pull it off. Of course, the very size of the listening room (as well as the limitations of the source material itself) will apply constraints that tell anybody but a doofus that the presentation does not sound exactly like live music. However, it can sound pretty good and certainly will be able to entertain and edify most listeners.

If you go beyond two channels and do some decent processing, and the room is decent and the source material is decent, too, and of course the listener sits in a reasonably proper location, well, then the result will be superior to what you can get with just two channels. However, it still will not sound exactly like live music and only a doofus would think that it did. Close, maybe, particularly if the ensemble is small, but still not a home run.

PS: Regarding fine wine, I am on Lipitor and Bystolic (the latter for blood pressure), so I must pass on wine and drink O'Doul's low-alcohol beer with my occasional Pizza slices. Note that my BP and cholesterol are both actually pretty good (125/65 both at home with my home tester and also at my cardiologist's offce, and have a total cholesterol number of 117 last time I was tested), and I work out on an elliptical trainer and lift weights regularly throughout the week. However, I have a congenitally weak heart valve (luck of the draw with that one) and so I have to keep my numbers really decent. The doc says I am pretty much holding my own, so it is time to do some more of my daily exercising.

PPS: sorry you do not like Baldwin pianos. My wife has a baby version in our living room that a piano-majoring friend of hers helped her pick you years ago. Seems to work OK.

Howard Ferstler

"PPS: sorry you do not like Baldwin pianos."

That's not what I said and not what I meant. I think I said that most performing concert artists prefer Steinways. But not all. Earl Wild likes the Baldwin SD-10. So does Marian McPartland the great jazz pianist. I own two Baldwin Acrosonic spinets myself. I picked the first one out when I was 12 years old to replace a German Dyson grand that was too large for our house. I picked out the Acrosonic on sound alone. It is the only spinet piano I ever heard that sounds like a grand piano and for anyone contemplating buying a spinet piano, I'd highly recommend listening to and playing on a few. I think you'd have to buy one used, I don't think they make them anymore. Like most Baldwins I've heard, they usually have a loud full rich tone, powerful bass, clear brilliant treble and the keyboard has a very fast action, faster than my Steinway. If there is one criticism of it that I think is valid it's that it's hard to play very softly on because its touch is so light.

In comparing Baldwins and Steinways, there is a distinct difference in their tone I've come to notice. I'd describe the Baldwins as colder. The Steinways have slightly more emphasis on the lower harmonics to my ears. This makes them more forward, warmer, and richer sounding. It may only be a matter of a couple of decibels but it is definitely noticable and characteristic. My own Steinway has this to a greater degree than most others I've heard. IMO this is a comparison of the two best piano makers in the world. Ironially, when Steinway first went into business, the competition he feared most wasn't Baldwin but Chickering. Bosendorfer is a great piano also but not quite the same as Steinway either. It has several extra notes in the bass which Carol Rosenburger used in her recording of Water Music or something like that on Delos (I've got it both on vinyl and CD.) The piano I don't like is Yamaha. It does not have the same bell like ringing tone that the ones I like have. Reportedly I've heard that they don't stand up well over time either. But for some reason, a lot of Jazz pianists like them. Many of Concord's jazz piano recordings were performed on Yamaha 400s and 500s. Dick Hyman likes that piano.

There was a book written a few years ago about the Steinway company and Steinway pianos I think as a celebration of the manufacture of their 500,000th piano. There are 12,000 parts in a Steinway piano and it takes over a year to make one. The hardest part is curving the wood for the right side of the case. Pianos are indirect radiators of sound unless you are in direct line of sight of the harp and sounding board in which case some of the sound may reach you directly. But most of it is radiated away from the listener unless you stick your head in it. In whatever direction you are in from a piano, the tone is pretty much the same, the relationship between the loudness of the fundimental with and among the harmonics is the same. The sound fills one end of a room and marks it as a powerful source with a magnificent tone. Those reflections even in a small room play a big part in that. By comparison, loudspeakers are mostly direct radiating point sources that beam their sound to an increasing degree as frequency increases for each driver. The sound that reaches the listener's ears sounds nothing like a real piano. It is a very pale and disappointing comparison no matter what speaker you buy or how much you spent. Few people seem to know and fewer yet seem to care.

I'd bet that over 99% of all companies that manufacture what they purport to be high fidelity loudspeakers do not own a piano to compare the sound that their products make playing recordings to the real thing in a real room even superficially. Good thing for them their market mostly doesn't seem to know or care either.

[genek]

But most of it is radiated away from the listener unless you stick your head in it. In whatever direction you are in from a piano, the tone is pretty much the same, the relationship between the loudness of the fundimental with and among the harmonics is the same. The sound fills one end of a room and marks it as a powerful source with a magnificent tone. Those reflections even in a small room play a big part in that. By comparison, loudspeakers are mostly direct radiating point sources that beam their sound to an increasing degree as frequency increases for each driver. The sound that reaches the listener's ears sounds nothing like a real piano.

Actually, I've always thought piano music from good speakers sounds quite a bit like a real piano...that I"m standing right in front of with my ears a foot from the harp or my forehead pressed up against the sounding board. It's envisioning it being 10-30 feet away from me that requires imagination.

[Carlspeak]

"PPS: sorry you do not like Baldwin pianos."

That's not what I said and not what I meant. I think I said that most performing concert artists prefer Steinways. But not all. Earl Wild likes the Baldwin SD-10. So does Marian McPartland the great jazz pianist. I own two Baldwin Acrosonic spinets myself. I picked the first one out when I was 12 years old to replace a German Dyson grand that was too large for our house. I picked out the Acrosonic on sound alone. It is the only spinet piano I ever heard that sounds like a grand piano and for anyone contemplating buying a spinet piano, I'd highly recommend listening to and playing on a few. I think you'd have to buy one used, I don't think they make them anymore. Like most Baldwins I've heard, they usually have a loud full rich tone, powerful bass, clear brilliant treble and the keyboard has a very fast action, faster than my Steinway. If there is one criticism of it that I think is valid it's that it's hard to play very softly on because its touch is so light.

In comparing Baldwins and Steinways, there is a distinct difference in their tone I've come to notice. I'd describe the Baldwins as colder. The Steinways have slightly more emphasis on the lower harmonics to my ears. This makes them more forward, warmer, and richer sounding. It may only be a matter of a couple of decibels but it is definitely noticable and characteristic. My own Steinway has this to a greater degree than most others I've heard. IMO this is a comparison of the two best piano makers in the world. Ironially, when Steinway first went into business, the competition he feared most wasn't Baldwin but Chickering. Bosendorfer is a great piano also but not quite the same as Steinway either. It has several extra notes in the bass which Carol Rosenburger used in her recording of Water Music or something like that on Delos (I've got it both on vinyl and CD.) The piano I don't like is Yamaha. It does not have the same bell like ringing tone that the ones I like have. Reportedly I've heard that they don't stand up well over time either. But for some reason, a lot of Jazz pianists like them. Many of Concord's jazz piano recordings were performed on Yamaha 400s and 500s. Dick Hyman likes that piano.

There was a book written a few years ago about the Steinway company and Steinway pianos I think as a celebration of the manufacture of their 500,000th piano. There are 12,000 parts in a Steinway piano and it takes over a year to make one. The hardest part is curving the wood for the right side of the case. Pianos are indirect radiators of sound unless you are in direct line of sight of the harp and sounding board in which case some of the sound may reach you directly. But most of it is radiated away from the listener unless you stick your head in it. In whatever direction you are in from a piano, the tone is pretty much the same, the relationship between the loudness of the fundimental with and among the harmonics is the same. The sound fills one end of a room and marks it as a powerful source with a magnificent tone. Those reflections even in a small room play a big part in that. By comparison, loudspeakers are mostly direct radiating point sources that beam their sound to an increasing degree as frequency increases for each driver. The sound that reaches the listener's ears sounds nothing like a real piano. It is a very pale and disappointing comparison no matter what speaker you buy or how much you spent. Few people seem to know and fewer yet seem to care.

I'd bet that over 99% of all companies that manufacture what they purport to be high fidelity loudspeakers do not own a piano to compare the sound that their products make playing recordings to the real thing in a real room even superficially. Good thing for them their market mostly doesn't seem to know or care either.

I believe Lang Lang plays a Steinway on his latest CD of Chopin's Piano Concertos. I have the recording. It's wonderful.

You can also view him here playing a portion of the concerto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hCXcQ0j5R8

[soundminded]

I reviewed this recording in my first record-review book, "High Definition Compact Disc Recordings," published by McFarland back in 1994. (This was actually my second book, with the first one dealing with A/V in the home.) At that time, I was working towards quantity instead of quality (the book has over 1400 reviews, shoehorned into 258 pages), and so the reviews (including that of the Rosenberger release) were by necessity shorter than they should have been.

Incidentally, recording engineer John Eargle reviewed the book in audio magazine and rather liked it. I had even spotted a defect in one of his own recordings that were reviewed, and he acknowledge the problem in his review. My second review book, "The Digital Audio Music List" (A-R Editions, 1999), was twice as long but had half as many reviews, with each more comprehensive than what I did with the earlier book. Consequently, they were generally more informative than those in the first attempt. (The second book listed the names of the recording engineers, also, which the first one unfortunately failed to do.) The later book also had a 68-page introduction that discussed why recordings sound like they do and what can be done to make them sound better on home audio rigs.

Anyway, below is a reprint of the short review I wrote on the Rosenberger release:

"Water Music of the Impressionists" (short piano pieces by Ravel, Liszt, Debussy and Griffes) Carol Rosenberger, piano: Delos CD-3006. This recording has a very realistic and reverberant stage perspective, with the piano sounding fairly close (it also may sound a bit diffuse on some systems). If your hi-fi rig can generate the required high levels, the piano sounds as if the instrument is literally in your listening room. If you have a system with a good subwoofer, you may find that just a bit of hall rumble will be audible on this 1979 recording, copyrighted in 1983.

I wish I could have re-reviewed this release for the second book or even reviewed it again for one of my "The Sensible Sound" record-review columns later on, but I never got around to it. The recording was engineered by Stanly Ricker, by the way, and was an early Soundstream job.

Howard Ferstler

I'll probably dig this one out and listen to it in the next few days since I haven't heard it in a number of years. The CD version has two discs so there's more to it. As I recall I enjoyed it very much which probably explains why I bought the cd when it came out. I did that a lot, duplicating vinyl on cds for my favorite recordings.

[speaker dave]

My father was a part time piano tuner for many years. It augmented the meager income he made as a book editor for Howard Sams (of photofact fame).

I used to pester him about pianos: "Who makes the best piano, dad? Is it Steinway? Is it Bosendorfer?"

"Oh, they all make a good piano", he would reply noncomitally. I finally pinned him down one day with the question again. His response was that he saw pianos in such a range of conditions, from falling apart with mice nests inside to lovingly cared for, that condition was much more important to him than brand. A good piano could be pulled into tune (and would hold a tune), had a reasonably well regulated action, hammers not beat to the end of their life, an unsplit sounding board, etc.

I have a George Steck (defunct New York brand from about 1900) that has lived an easy life and sounds good to me. I played my fathers/stepmothers Baldwin a month ago and felt that the hammers were well grooved and the action a bit sluggish. Still, I know it made a lot of music and gave a lot of pleasure over its life.

Regards,

David

[speaker dave]

Oops, I should have mentioned that it is a Baldwin.

Howard Ferstler

Looks like a handsome piano. Baldwins are well regarded.

If pianos were smaller I wold collect them like Hi Fi gear! I've always hankered for a Chickering, for no particular reason that I've seen some beautiful ones. When I was at Snell, Mason & Hamlin was around the corner (Haverhill Mass.). We used to steal woodworkers from them and them from us.

Regards,

David

[Zilch]

I also forgot to mention that we purchased it about 25 years ago. Before that she had a Baldwin Spinet.

No problem, Howard; your forgetfulness and inability to find the "Edit" button keeps you right up there on the front page at all times....