REL Quake

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, didn't mean to question your figures Paul, just thought everyone would want to be enlightened as to the depth to which a mole of peas would cover America. :)

Mushy peas on the other hand... Now that's a frightening thought....

Dunc

P.S. - One mole = Avogadro's number = 6.02 x 10^23.
 
Avocados are tasty. Peas are not. Therefore I suspect peas have a low avocado number. I could be wrong though.

Dunc
 
i can think of no better thing than for america to be covered with a 9 mile depth of mushy peas. thank you for cheering my day up with that.
cheers


julian
 
Would only take the overweight yanks a couple of hours to get through that lot Ju. God Imagine the flatulence, all those ample arse cheeks vibrating in unison, ought to be heard workldwide and measured on the richter scale :)
 
oh and by the way bub most studio monitors are used to make things sound good on pathetic factory fit car radios and boom blasters. hardly a glowing recomendation for the quality of studio monitors eh?
cheers


julian
 
julian2002 said:
oh and by the way bub most studio monitors are used to make things sound good on pathetic factory fit car radios and boom blasters. hardly a glowing recomendation for the quality of studio monitors eh?
Click to expand...

Is that the best thing that you can come up with? Pathetic.
 
p, james deals with the liver so i'd think you'd have something a bit more serious than a bunch of grapes to worry about if what was dangling out your arse was connected to that organ.
 
So, studio monitors must be crap because they are good enough to allow the engineer to, er, engineer an acceptable sound into the recording when played back on a ghetto blaster?

Is that your argument? Have you been drinking?
 
As I understand it studio monitors are used by engineers as only part of the process, very good for listening to what they've recorded, but every studio I've ever been in had a whole variety of speakers so they can find what they consider to be the best compromise. I've never heard your ATC's so I can't really comment on what they sound like, I imagine that with your set up you can hear every squeak and scrape on the recording, do you hear what the producer intended though?
 
bub, nowhere have i said that studio monitors are crap. i just said that some studio monitors are used as analogies of car radios and boom boxes. what i was implying, was that the statement 'studio monitors are better than hi-fi speakers' was crap. utter crap in fact. as always it depends on the speaker in question and the listeners preference - 2 things that seem to escape your grip everytime you start talking in absolutes.
 
lordsummit said:
As I understand it studio monitors are used by engineers as only part of the process, very good for listening to what they've recorded....
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, I use mine to listen to what has been recorded by others.

There is a myth that speakers can somehow be "too good" to listen to music with. This is complete nonsense put about by the domestic "hi-fi" industry, in an attempt to justify some pretty woeful loudspeakers. As long as the rest of your system is up to it, monitors are the logical way to go, IMO.
 
Yeah james but studio monitors are not designed to sound musical, they are designed to show whats on the recording warts and all, hifi transducers (with all their unbalanced flaws)on the other hand are designed to sound good at all volumes and to more importantly make music. Studio monitors just make your ears bleed at high volume, they are also designed to sound revealing sitting on a shelf in a treated room, oh and to be listened to in the nearfield at high volume with tweeters at ear level, it's no wonder yours only sounded good once on **** , Hifi speakers also sound good at low volumes, create expansive sound stage, and tend to gel better in most rooms without treatment than monitors. Funny thing is some prefer your way, some prefer the other, there is no right and wrong, my bass and low mid, and distortion problems? you mentioned may make the sound better for you, but maybe mine sounds better to me with the inadequqacies, afterall I bought it this way, having said that I am very open minded and wouldn't discount something until I had tried it, and I also offer advice to people based on what they want, which may not be something I would choose, but it's not my money.

:)
 
analoguekid said:
Yeah james but studio monitors are not designed to sound musical, they are designed to show whats on the recording warts and all, hifi transducers (with all their unbalanced flaws)on the other hand are designed to sound good at all volumes and to more importantly make music. Studio monitors just make your ears bleed at high volume, they are also designed to sound revealing sitting on a shelf in a treated room, oh and to be listened to in the nearfield at high volume with tweeters at ear level, it's no wonder yours only sounded good once on **** ...
Click to expand...
First: What do you think is on the recording?? It's music, FFS! Therefore when played back thru monitors, it sounds like music.

Second: When I heard the ATCs off Mana, they were being fed from a ML No 39 CD processor, so that might have had something to do with it. They were also in Jack Lawson's shop: a place where I have never heard a good sound, ever.

Third: Monitors do not 'make your ears bleed' any more than any other speaker at high volume.

You really need to have a proper, no talking, listen this Friday.
 
Every time we try so talk about something usefull, for instance sujestions how to help Penance, this guys go back to iron framed glass and ugly monitors, FFS... :bub:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top