Philharmonic Audio - 3-way open back ML-TQWTs designed by Dennis Murphy

[Swerd]

Do you remember when rock bands started turning the sound up louder and louder? Legend goes that it was back in the days of Grand Funk Railroad. I remember hearing a story about their manager. He discovered that whenever he had the sound engineer turn the sound up really loud, the kids in attendance would leave the concert in a state of euphoria. It's not that the music was so spiritually uplifting. It was a physiological state of euphoria caused by the sheer sound volume hitting their bodies for an extended period of time.

I have a distinct memory of Grand Funk Railroad – and it isn't good. I heard them once and only once, back when I was a senior in college at UNC in the spring of 1970. They appeared on campus as part of a big music show that occurred each year in May a week or two before final exams.

They were terrible, and painfully loud.

And yes, the kids in attendance were in a state of euphoria. I always thought it was due to something they smoked before going. In fact, that may have been the first time I wondered if smoking dope really did cause brain damage. It also made me realize that it was time I graduated and got out of there because the place had been taken over by young morons who thought GFRR was actually good.

They were not the only band to discover playing loud had an effect on the crowds. Probably each band that became popular in the 1960s discovered that.

And then we had the Greatful Dead. Some of the things they worked on in the 60's and 70's have been refined and are still being used in live sound today.

The Dead were opposite of bands like GFRR. Not only did they play well, they invested money and effort to find out just how to set up a good sounding PA system at large outdoor show.

And if i could figure out how to add photos i would post some of the "wall-of-sound" photos.....

Find a suitable photo online, such as the one below.
Right click on the photo, and select Copy Image Location.
Click on the Insert Image button above AH's message entry box, and paste in the info you just copied.

 

[Gordonj]

The Dead were opposite of bands like GFRR. Not only did they play well, they invested money and effort to find out just how to set up a good sounding PA system at large outdoor show.

Find a suitable photo online, such as the one below.
Right click on the photo, and select Copy Image Location.
Click on the Insert Image button above AH's message entry box, and paste in the info you just copied.

Ahhh... Thank you so much!

And yes what the Dead did for live sound lives on.

Gordon

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Ahhh... Thank you so much!

And yes what the Dead did for live sound lives on.

Gordon

Oh, yeah, now see, I don't consider that "live" music. They are just music amplified out of a bunch of speakers.

Music coming from my Phil3 and ATI amps sound much better.

 

[Nuance AH]

hold on caffeine attack, that should read 106-114db ( bass rolls, trombones, piccolo's), I was thinking about pneumatic drivers for some weird reason. Carry on.

Haha, that makes more sense.

Do you remember when rock bands started turning the sound up louder and louder? Legend goes that it was back in the days of Grand Funk Railroad. I remember hearing a story about their manager. He discovered that whenever he had the sound engineer turn the sound up really loud, the kids in attendance would leave the concert in a state of euphoria. It's not that the music was so spiritually uplifting. It was a physiological state of euphoria caused by the sheer sound volume hitting their bodies for an extended period of time.

Just found this bit of crazy information: The title of LOUDEST rock band on record was held by a British Punk band called Gallows at 132.5 decibels breaking MANOWAR's previous record of 129.5 decibels.

That's a cool tidbit of information. Thanks for sharing that.

I've heard good things about the SQ of Dead albums and performances, but I've never seen them (too young).

 

[jcunwired]

I attended more Grateful Dead concerts than I care to admit to, I can attest that their stadium/concert hall sound was very pleasing.

The worst concert I ever attended was the Pixies at a new outside venue prior to changes necessary to make the place acoustically pleasing. It was a nightmare of white noise.

I also spent many years as a sound engineer for friends and our local theater. For my rock band friends, I didn't do it for the music - nuff said While bluegrass is not a pleasing genre for me, those opportunities to work with the likes of the Country Gentlemen were great, I gained a lot of expertise due to being able to actually hear what was going on. A couple of other well known folk, blues and new age musicians were also a joy to work with and a great opportunity, but I now deeply regret all of those rock concerts. Free beer and babes just wasn't worth it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Free beer and babes just wasn't worth it.

Get outta here!

Hand in your man card!

 

[cpp]

but I now deeply regret all of those rock concerts. Free beer and babes just wasn't worth it.

I also must agree somewhat. My ears paid the price, but the beer and babes well I married one of those babes 35 years ago

 

[jcunwired]

LOL! OK, maybe I should have preceded that statement with "In retrospect...". Back then it was definitely worth it. Oh man was it ever!

My wife is too young to have accompanied me on the R&R circuit at the time. She got the old and washed out me.

 

[Gordonj]

Oh, yeah, now see, I don't consider that "live" music. They are just music amplified out of a bunch of speakers.

Music coming from my Phil3 and ATI amps sound much better.

I actually prefer live recordings over most studio work only because you can now start hearing how the band pulls of the live musician part of their work. Also because that is my world. The live recordings today are light years better then what they used to be mainly due to the flexibility of the mic splits and digital recording capabilities, etc.

And while i know you love you Phil3's and ATI amp (s) i would bet that if you heard some of these rigs on tour or being installed in venues today you would be very impressed with the sound quality that they are putting out even comparing to yours.

Covering my head in preparation for the storm that is about to fall from the sky.....

Gordon

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Covering my head in preparation for the storm that is about to fall from the sky.....

Gordon

Not on this thread.

No, no, no,no, no.

This is a class act thread all around.

 

[Gordonj]

Not on this thread.

No, no, no,no, no.

This is a class act thread all around.

Then be nice to me on my other response under amps.... (giggle)

Gordon

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Then be nice to me on my other response under amps.... (giggle)

Gordon

Fine. If I must.

 

[jcunwired]

I actually prefer live recordings over most studio work only because you can now start hearing how the band pulls of the live musician part of their work. Also because that is my world. The live recordings today are light years better then what they used to be mainly due to the flexibility of the mic splits and digital recording capabilities, etc.

And while i know you love you Phil3's and ATI amp (s) i would bet that if you heard some of these rigs on tour or being installed in venues today you would be very impressed with the sound quality that they are putting out even comparing to yours.

Gordon

At even the non-professional level (a bazillion $ in gear) very nice live recordings can be produced in the digital realm. I've only helped out a few times but the results were impressive.

I've been eagerly awaiting my Phil 2's, I'm a fan of live recordings as well and I think the open back design and midrange of Philharmonic speakers will be quite the treat - in fact, it's one of the reasons for my choice.

I'd swear Dennis has said the same somewhere, but I can't seem to find a statement to that effect.

 

[Gordonj]

At even the non-professional level (a bazillion $ in gear) very nice live recordings can be produced in the digital realm. I've only helped out a few times but the results were impressive.

I've been eagerly awaiting my Phil 2's, I'm a fan of live recordings as well and I think the open back design and midrange of Philharmonic speakers will be quite the treat - in fact, it's one of the reasons for my choice.

I'd swear Dennis has said the same somewhere, but I can't seem to find a statement to that effect.

I am starting to put together a new system and I was considering the Phil's as well. Not sure of 2 or 3 yet....

I wonder if Dennis will deliver out to wine country in Va?

Gordon

 

[monkish54]

I am starting to put together a new system and I was considering the Phil's as well. Not sure of 2 or 3 yet....

I wonder if Dennis will deliver out to wine country in Va?

Gordon

Do you have a subwoofer or plan to get one?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I am starting to put together a new system and I was considering the Phil's as well. Not sure of 2 or 3 yet....

I wonder if Dennis will deliver out to wine country in Va?

Gordon

If there's wine, I'll deliver.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If there's wine, I'll deliver.

I knew you were going to say that!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I am starting to put together a new system and I was considering the Phil's as well. Not sure of 2 or 3 yet....

I wonder if Dennis will deliver out to wine country in Va?

Gordon

Can't go wrong with either.

But it is a "dilemma" isn't it?

On one hand, the Phil2 is probably the best deal - has the same tweeter & midrange as the Phil3 & $1K less! The $1K could be used for dual subs - like.....oh........I don't know.......the 18" passive subs from CraigSUB for $500 each? (okay, somebody can slap me if you want for obsessing over passive subs)

On the other hand, if this is the "last pair of speakers you will ever buy" (as Siegfried Linkwitz would say ), getting the "flagship" is very tempting.

I say get the Phil2 + dual subs (Grant..........yes your name IS Grant .......would say Rythmik FV12 ).

 

[Gordonj]

Do you have a subwoofer or plan to get one?

Well, since I want good extension and impact I am considering a sub as well and that all of course depends on which mains I go with. If I remember the Phil 2's do not have the extension that the 3's have. If I go with the 3's I would hold off on any sub due to the 3's extension. I am just an impact/low end freak so I want it to be right or it will drive me nuts (but it has to be musical at the same time)

Such demands...

Oh and it truly will be for music only.

Gordon

 

[Gordonj]

Can't go wrong with either.

But it is a "dilemma" isn't it?

On one hand, the Phil2 is probably the best deal - has the same tweeter & midrange as the Phil3 & $1K less! The $1K could be used for dual subs - like.....oh........I don't know.......the 18" passive subs from CraigSUB for $500 each? (okay, somebody can slap me if you want for obsessing over passive subs)

On the other hand, if this is the "last pair of speakers you will ever buy" (as Siegfried Linkwitz would say ), getting the "flagship" is very tempting.

I say get the Phil2 + dual subs (Grant..........yes your name IS Grant .......would say Rythmik FV12 ).

Well said! It is a big dilemma! So I am just taking my time and "chewing" on everything. I am not going to be driving the system hard for when i am purely listening but i still want the extension. So a well tuned sub or two would get me the control that I want in the low end with out having to drive things.

And..... i also like the idea of not being dependent on a sub if I could pull it off. I worry that i start listening with out the sub and i want more low end control and i wind up spending the money on a sub any way...

Beat head on wall now

Gordon