US angry about Chinese markets...
in [Live Sound]
|
From: George's Pro Sound Co. on 8 Jul 2010 08:45 "Joe Kotroczo" <kotroczo(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:C85B9367.C4379%kotroczo(a)mac.com... > On 08/07/2010 13:56, in article > FbmdnaSB4OxhIajRnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "George's Pro Sound Co." > <bmoas(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> "Joe Kotroczo" <kotroczo(a)mac.com> wrote in message >> news:C85B85DD.C435D%kotroczo(a)mac.com... >>> On 16/06/2010 21:54, in article >>> lpGdnYRQYaSFsYTRnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "George's Pro Sound Co." >>> <bmoas(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> (...) >>>> and I find the sound of line arrays less natural than the sound or >>>> properly >>>> deployed point source systems >>> >>> George, in your other post you are saying that line arrays have the >>> "smoothest sweetest sound one can strive for." >>> >>> Make up your mind. >>> >> joe please look at the diffrence between the arrangment of the drivers in >> the kf900 series Vs the typical line array product >> the 900 stuff works, the others don't > > The KF900 is NOT a line array. The KF900 is NOT an "articulated line > array". > Sorry Joe, that was the way EAW presented to Myself, Shaun Wexler, and Mike Gaster when we visisted the factory prior to its official roll out they have since created a new term for it I don't invent this stuff. I got it straight from the engineers at eaw argue with them I am happy to change what they told me and start using thier new marketing term George
From: Arny Krueger on 8 Jul 2010 09:46 "Joe Kotroczo" <kotroczo(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:C85B856A.C435C%kotroczo(a)mac.com > On 16/06/2010 13:11, in article > XIidnb-BhKPMLIXRnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "George's > Pro Sound Co." <bmoas(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > (...) >> the wall of sound was much closer to a "articulated line >> array" with a center vocal only point source >> which is the best most natural system imo. >> the articulated line array is also the most expensive >> and labor intensive Pa to deploy >> but it is the smoothest sweetest sound one can strive >> for. > > Eh? "Articulated" is a posh word for "curved". Articulated means that there are one or more number of joints in the middle. Example: an articulated bus. George's usage is correct.
From: Joe Kotroczo on 8 Jul 2010 11:05 On 08/07/2010 14:52, in article fqqdnQvaTdtiVKjRnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com, "George's Pro Sound Co." <bmoas(a)yahoo.com> wrote: (...) >> >> > Joe you can stop the argueing, I conceeded that eaw chose a new way to > describe the 900 series product since I visited the factory and spoke with > the engineers during its development, where they(the EAW design engineers) > called it a "articulated line array" I'll stop arguing. No point. But I can't help and marvel at the fact that you believed the bullshit those engineers were feeding you. Come on, the system has HF speakers at the top, MF speakers in the middle, and LF speakers at the bottom. -- Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com
From: Krooburg Science on 12 Jul 2010 15:32 On Jul 8, 5:45 am, "George's Pro Sound Co." <bm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Joe Kotroczo" <kotro...(a)mac.com> wrote in message > > news:C85B9367.C4379%kotroczo(a)mac.com... > > > > > On 08/07/2010 13:56, in article > > FbmdnaSB4OxhIajRnZ2dnUVZ_g-dn...(a)earthlink.com, "George's Pro Sound Co." > > <bm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> "Joe Kotroczo" <kotro...(a)mac.com> wrote in message > >>news:C85B85DD.C435D%kotroczo(a)mac.com... > >>> On 16/06/2010 21:54, in article > >>> lpGdnYRQYaSFsYTRnZ2dnUVZ_oGdn...(a)earthlink.com, "George's Pro Sound Co." > >>> <bm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>> (...) > >>>> and I find the sound of line arrays less natural than the sound or > >>>> properly > >>>> deployed point source systems > > >>> George, in your other post you are saying that line arrays have the > >>> "smoothest sweetest sound one can strive for." > > >>> Make up your mind. > > >> joe please look at the diffrence between the arrangment of the drivers in > >> the kf900 series Vs the typical line array product > >> the 900 stuff works, the others don't > > > The KF900 is NOT a line array. The KF900 is NOT an "articulated line > > array". > > Sorry Joe, that was the way EAW presented to Myself, Shaun Wexler, and Mike > Gaster when we visisted the factory prior to its official roll out > they have since created a new term for it > I don't invent this stuff. > I got it straight from the engineers at eaw > argue with them > I am happy to change what they told me and start using thier new marketing > term > George The KF900 series is NOT a good sounding system. It's dying a slow, painful death for a reason. Very few of them have been deployed because they didn't sound good. And the processing is far too complex. For someone who's such an "audio purist", it's puzzling that you would site the KF900 as superior technology. It requires so much processing to tame those boxes and steer the coverage that it's probably one of the MOST unnatural sounding systems I've ever mixed on. I've used 2 different implementations of the system and it was not what I would called pleasant. Loud? Sure. Does it throw far? Yes. Decent coverage? Yeah. Sound good? NO - especially in the near-field. Good riddance! EAW's KF760 line array sound MUCH better (especially with the new processor), throws just as far and requires a small fraction of the DSP power to sound good. - K
From: Joe Kotroczo on 14 Jul 2010 05:30
On 14/07/2010 05:41, in article i1jbld$3gi$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, "Denny Strauser" <dsdennysound(a)gmail.com> wrote: (...) > > I can understand all the points made in this thread. But, I detect more > personal animosity than honest & intelligent comparison. There is one word for the underlying problem: belief. Nobody can compare the sound of 2 systems short of putting them side by side, in the same room, with the same input signal. So we end up with people _believing_ that system X that they heard yesterday sounded better or worse than system Y they heard 2 weeks ago. But was it really the system, or was it the way it was set up or eq'ed, or the room, or they way the band was mixed? The only things we really can compare are the things that are comparable on paper: cost-effectiveness, weight, size, etc. And that we really don't need to discuss, the facts are all there, on paper. Trying to describe how something sounded at some point in the past is like trying to describe the taste of a meal one had 10 years ago. Very hard to get across to another person. Telling people that they are "wrong" because their beliefs are different from ones own is how most fights get started... Personally I'd love to be able to set up some MSL-3s and a a modern line array side by side and hear for myself. I currently believe a modern line array would win, but who knows, maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure George will believe that I'm wrong. But again this is purely belief, not knowledge. -- Joe Kotroczo kotroczo(a)mac.com |