My definition of Ambience

[PeterSt]

So, this time I won't call myself "controlversial" as such, and merely through to come up with a definition - or recognition of it, determined by mere technical means.
Btw, I knew I had a small chat about similar, which was this : The next level in SQ;

The "$$" mention in there was about quite something else, but expecially combining with what I use today (Orlino Speakers) I now see the light and merit.

First off, call me thick; I mean, why do people often ask to play something live (at auditions and such) ? Well, I guess they want to perceive some ambience. Or how it works out once it should be there, like with a live performance (though recorded). Also, it is clear to me, and maybe not to me only, that something like the XXHighEnd/NOS1 combination incurs for the more leightweighted playback; Don't get me wrong, because all I refer to is the better means of playback which removes "illegal" low frequencies. So, NOS1 does nothing, XXHighEnd tries its best, and next we may require some more "body" than we are used to. Is that justified ?

It depends.
Let's first look at some weaker proof, but which I will use anyway : Controversial post and new Setting. So, this recent topic tells me that nobody gets even close to what I now can perceive here. Not agreed ? then you had to post in there I'm afraid. But no need, because I (still) think I know a few things, and what I now can do with low frequencies is unheard. Literally. And sorry.
And to keep in mind please : the speakers/system I have been using for the past 5 years were regarded the best by many (almost all) who auditioned here, especially in the bass department. So, what I have here now is nowhere close even the slightest to that. NO-WHERE. And ok, I can't describe this anyway, so everybody will say "oh well". One 100% promise : don't you ever think you have any bass as such, no matter how low your speaker goes.

Thus, the last link referred to a simple XXHighEnd settings-change which is even very familiar to many. To all (that I can see) it doesn't do a thing, as it did not with my former speakers. Fine. But here it is the difference between a hand-held fire cracker and a 911 explosion. PeterSt, good for you man.
Yea.

But what it brings me, and the reason for this topic, is the sudden recognition of how "ambience" emerges. And no, I am not talking about the Pawnshop idiocy, but how ambience exists in everything. Thus also studio recordings.
And did I not promise that (see first link) ...

Now (and this is in aftermath for me), suppose you went to this live concert. Make it in a hall. What do you actually hear in there ? I think, outsize the buzz of people talking, this is a kind of roar. Very low frequency roar. It is the hall talking to you, and the larger hall may talk at lower frequencies than the smaller (studio) one. Of course this is nothing different from how in our rooms the low frequencies emerge from our speakers, those anechoically (outside etc.) going to e.g. 35Hz while in our room they make 25Hz of it.

In between the lines and not sure how it works, and only knowing that it works : for these speakers this does not apply (at all). So, at very close distance (like a few cm up to a meter or so) I measure the lowest frequency for its relative SPL. More in-room this only gets higher (read : for the same relative SPL the lowest frequencies drop out). Never mind this for the real merits, but I think this is not so normal. To me, the fact that the room does not make the frequencies lower, it tells something like the room not being at work at all. And this again is very much related to the subject (because it allows to perceive the ambience of the recording room better).

Now first a bit how music has started to sound :
Each hit on a base drum up to a floor tom, receives a more or less crazy umpf which can't come from anywhere in your perception. Only heavily tuned up bass (woofers) could somewhat do it, but it would colour as hell. This does not. What you actually hear is a large dose of hall and then the kind that turns into the lower frequencies compared to the fundamental. So, base drum is hit at (virtual) frequency X, and the hall in the room makes that X minus Y.
Which room ? well, not mine. The one where the bass drum was recorded in, yes.

The above will be a mere weak explanation as how it sprung from my mind, and again you can say "oh well". Also you can easily say "I have that too my friend".
True.
And when I try to check these things by feeling the woofer's diaphragms, all I can feel is that there's indeed a very low frequency going on at the hits. Sadly, a sustained frequency as such is not in order with drums, and all you'll feel is the low "rumble" in aftermath of the hit; could just as well be normal.

Yesterday I played some live music and what I already noticed a week or two ago, is that the ambience of live music goes a bit crazy. I mean, when I am as far as perceiving studio recordings as sheer live, what about the real live recordings ? So I started to pay attention to what I actually heard, clearly "seeing" that it was not about audience voices or hand clapping.
The nature of it is a bit hard to describe, but without music playing (the artists changing guitars or whatever), envision a darker background rumble of a large space, which after closer thinking back on the music you just heard, just resembles the whole character of that band playing. But now the band does not play.

Finally coming down to the matters ... I again felt a woofer and was shocked. Excursion of undefined frequency was going on, and I'd say at almost higher excursion levels than any sub low bass playing. And part of my fun : I felt a similar movement as I felt earlier while such a low bass actually was playing. So, at that time I could not think other than "okay, complex bass", but I know now that what I actually felt was the response of the room over there on top of the bass frequency.

Of course, any new definition of "ambience" is not needed. But I now know where it happens : in the sub low frequencies which need to be treated in total freedom. So, put on a live recording taken in a larger hall. Play at reasonabvle levels like 85dBSPL. Feel your woofers in between (gapless) tracks. If you feel an excursion of something like 5mm to one side (1cm in total) you can consider yourself lucky to some extend. But I don't think it will happen at all. Of course this depends on the total woofer surface. So, if your 10"er makes these moves after all, don't forget to do the math for what happens when that 10" was 3x12". Any comparison is allowed of course, and you can count in your real sub woofers.
But unless you come to comparable air movement math and with the notice that it is quite fine to let your one 12" excurt 3cm if it can do it, you won't know by miles what I am talking about. Remember, normal 85dBSPL and not allowed to tune up the bass into colouring.

Anyway, all I tried to do was laying out where the real ambience comes from when it is to come through loudspeakers. For myself this is new and I don't think it can easily happen. Thoughts from others are welcome of course. I make up too many things anyway.
But don't think it is turntable rumble what I experience.

Peter

[BertD]

...especially combining with what I use today (Orlino Speakers) I now see the light and merit.

Are you not writing about the Orelino's? 

I guess I'll have to come over again pretty soon to experience those things you are talking about...

I am pretty close to the final revised crossover for those Orelino's, no worries, these will not take away any of the ambiance but merely cleaning your glasses so that you can see through clearly... 

Bert

[juanpmar]

Hi Peter, could you let us know some of those recordings you were using to test the woofer movements between songs?. To test it in our systems we should have, at least, the same recordings.

Juan

PS. Don´t get me wrong, I don´t see it as a competition between our speakers, on the contrary it seems to me a very interesting observation and a new way to perceive the ambience (and a way to "touch" it)

[PeterSt]

Hi Juan,

Your question is fully justified of course and I thought of it myself. Point is though : I only very recently found this myself and on recordings/albums you won't have for almost sure (because Dutch, Nits - Urk if you want to know). But it should be easy to run into many more ... however ... it is not easy at all to run into many more which will be commonly known; I just don't play the commonly known stuff often because it doesn't have my interest (read : it costs time while I have so few of that). But real life example :

Last week Bert was here and we both listened just before my prepared filter worked for the last time as intended, and I thought to put up an album Bert played for me when I heard the OrElino at his place for the first time; thought to let sniff Bert somewhat on the current achievement. So, started out with The Turtle Creek Chorale - Requiem and Five Anthems (Reference Recordings), Agnus Dei (track 09). This is played/sang at a very low level and is in a church.
Within 3 seconds (I am serious) Bert asks me to put on the next track. I did not understand and thought I had put up something stupid to listen to. Instead Bert told me "hey, *you* have ambience here !" ... and so he knew enough within those few seconds.

Bert, if I am lying I am sure you will jump in.

And this was before I was able to pull out that even more crazy bass and lows with XXHE settings which happened 3 days ago ...

Anyway, since this is a possibly more known recording I could play it again, feel the woofers during those first few seconds and let you know.

One other notice which may be a bit premature :
Not from the last three days, but from a week ago when my filter was still OK (and hus without the XXHE new settings) I set myself to the "definition" that older recordings don't have any of this. So, not the Deep Purple's, not the Led Zeppelin's and not the Uriaha Heep's, to name a genre where it would be so nice to have it in there. Planned to try Nirvana's Nevermind, but ran into Massive Attack instead and that sure has it (to stay in the genre at a distance ). Anyway, this may tell that before some era - or the recordings just could not contain this sub low, or they could but it was filtered out because it can't be on LP. As I said, a bit premature. But by accident I was sorting out electronic music from before the 80's comparing that to the modern albums from today (our son had a school assignment about it) and in those pre-80's there is nothing of it. So, this is synths which can do it easily, but they apparently did not (think Tangerine Dream from back then). Today, all "ambient" without exception has sub low. Not that I knew that 2 months ago. Only Yello and the more explicit "sub low" ambient could show it, but at analyzing it this isn't even real sub low (won't go under 25Hz).

On the latter too I recall a session with Bert, he being sure that some Hatfield's End (also Dutch) album would go the lowest of it all, but it is very easy to be deceived and it really was not at all (27Hz maybe).
And no mistake, I would have said the same without really knowing now, which foremost is a matter of recognizing the frequency. This by itself is a completely different matter, because where we tend to think that we can only recognize the more higher frequencies (like 100Hz is easy) and the lower ones (like 23Hz) are only low sound, they really really are not. But they need to be "straight" or otherwise it goes into a dark airy sound only which your SPL meter sure will show, but which is not that intended 23Hz.

Before it gets lost in all my words, remember that this "ambience" is not about frequencies as such; instead it is about the most unregular excursions or maybe better put, long term reflections which may have met 24 walls before they hitted the microphone. You can feel them stack up with the reflections which hit only 6 walls yet. At least that is my idea about it.

So, playback time starts here. Will try that Requiem ...
Regards,
Peter

[PeterSt]

So this one : http://www.amazon.ca/Requiem-Anthems-Turtle-Chorale-Womens/dp/B00000159K

No "rumble" as such here at the start of track 09. But instead you may try the end of track 08 (Sanctus) where a few guys with paukes go wild; here you can easily feel how the reverberation in the church makes much more happen than the hits on the paukes.

Anyway track 09;

I am fairly sure a 32' organ pipe is at work here, although it is my opinion that this is not 16Hz (for 32') and not 32Hz either. So I don't know whether 48' exists, but if so it is that. The 32Hz is easily discernable later in the track.

Not much worth on the subject, but what I noticed in the beginning of this track (say first 30 seconds) that there's this constant nice frequency of something I'd say is 24Hz of the organ, but that this is always interrupted with the pauke hits (very softly hits). Remember, I am feeling the woofer(s). I can add that at these low voiced paukes they don't play in the woofers at all (but compare the end of track 08 when they do wildly because of church reverberation). So, seems a bit strange to me. Woofers are fed by a separate amp, so it's not that either. Cancellation in the church ? can't imagine that.

That's all for this one !
Peter

[juanpmar]

Thanks Peter, I´ll look for that Requiem although I´m not sure if I have it. However, as you explain it, it seems difficult to perceive the ambient frequency without confusing it with other frequencies. Anyway, I will try it to see if I can "touch" it.

Juan

[PeterSt]

I forgot : You can easily feel how one larger hit on a pauke lasts 5 seconds easily in that church.

[juanpmar]

I´ve found the album and I´ll test it when I return home in a couple of hours. Just to help me to understand it better, what does "pauke" mean?

Juan

[PeterSt]

Oops, I am sorry Juan. The translation says kettle drum, but I wonder. Anyway :
(standard instrument of a large orchestra)

[juanpmar]

Concentrated only on the first minute of the track 9 - Agnus Dei , from the album Requiem (Reference Recordings), this is what I perceived:

1 - Touching with my hand the 15" woofer I perceive the vibration from the first second to the second 39.

2 - From my listening position, from the first second to the second 10 I hear softly the kettledrums but I do not hear the low frequencies. At the same time I perceive a sense of space or "ambience" to an acceptable degree. Between the second 10 and the second 39 I hear the men choir in addition to the kettledrums, at this time the perception of ambience is very high and still I don´t hear the low frequencies. From the second 39 on, when the female choir enters, the space becomes shallower and flatter with the female vocalists more in front. The sense of ambience decreases significantly.

Relating 1 and 2 what I can see is how the ambience is perceived with more emphasis when the woofer is vibrating between the second 1 and the second 39. So I´d say that although the woofer vibration can´t be heard it contributes to form the ambience.

I should, however, experiment with some other live recording, perhaps also recorded in a church, without those low frequencies, just to see if the ambience is also correctly reproduced.

I would like also to point out something that has to do with the construction of my speakers and how they reproduce the ambience. I think it's a way, perhaps complementary, to address this issue .

This is an excerpt of the Von Schweikert VR- 9SE  manual:

"ACOUSTIC INVERSE REPLICATION
Additional research led to my further discovery that recording microphones encode the musical signal with their overlaying pickup response patterns. After making a series of recordings, using several different microphones, it was obvious during playback that the mics not only had tonal differences related to frequency response errors, but also created different types of imaging patterns. The perception of depth and space was not only dependent on the recording environment and mic placement, but also on the mic’s off-axis polar response. For this reason, I decided to engineer an adjustable ambience retrieval system radiating from the rear of the VR speakers, in able to recreate the space and depth heard in the concert hall when the spaced omni method of recording is used.

Thus, a correctly designed speaker system should project the inverse of the mic signal, acting as a decoder to translate the original sound field. I have termed my design for this decoding as Inverse Acoustic Replication, and the Virtual Reality series of designs was developed from several important concepts related to microphone pick-up patterns. These concepts are based on the consistent phase/frequency relationships in the polar response pattern of the mics, which was later reverse engineered into the VR speaker systems."


For a more complete information on how this speaker reproduce the "ambience", and only with the intention to give other perspective, I´d recommend to read the Technical Information starting in PSYCHOACOUSTICS
http://vonschweikertaudio.com/vr-9se-mk2-technical-information/

Juan

[Jud]

Yes, those are "kettle drums."  One of these is more formally known as a tympani.  (TIM-pun-ee.)

My go-to demo for the sort of live bass "rumble" you're talking about has always been the opening track of Keith Richard and the X-pensive Winos "Live at the Hollywood Palladium."

[PeterSt]

Hey Juan, great story.

That description of the VR made me think that the mic used in the recording possibly was not able to capture that low frequency (I still say 24Hz) together with the higher ones ? So, about the organ disappearing at each kettle drum hit.
Here, the organ is very much audible in that first 29 seconds and it really energizes the room.
I do this by heart now : What I don't see you writing is about the (by me perceived) 24Hz turning into 32Hz, which or happens after this 29 seconds, or maybe a "measure" later (and IIRC the 24Hz never reoccurs in the track). This is more of the "zzooming" tone like 32Hz already does it, with maybe the reference to our well known 50Hz (60Hz for US) which we hear more often.



Yesterday I tried to find some of the real thing for you (all) but I had to focus on some music of general interest. This is not so easy, and while I tried two albums I actually failed on it. I described what I heard anyway, just in case I would put it through to you. So, this latter I do not (you would not like the music IMO), but here is how I described the both anyway :


This is actually fairly nice background music. Can't hurt to obtain it. Synth resolution is sure there, but mostly not exploited.

Track 01 : 22 Hz to my estimation. Whole track is formed by it. Watch the evenness of the different low key notes. Hits are DC like.

Track 02 : Also a lower frequency but square. Melody will be still perceivale because of the higher frequencies implied by the squares.

Track 03 : Won't do much without the sub low. Fast gliding frequencies which I estimate on 10Hz (DC like) to maybe 30Hz.

Track 04 : Same as 01 but could be perceivable still. Audibly changes from 25Hz to maybe 60Hz or so. Melody is in the low end only.
Only interesting because it fills the room nicely. Otherwise much of the same.

Track 05 : Boring, should skip.

Track06 : No, I stopped.

Life is ...

Track 01 : Space ships and pure deepness. Great resolution. Notice though that the "pauke" (kettle drum) like sound is not low at all. The low starts at 2 minutes or so into the track. This gets more and more low and room filling. At some stage, when things start to fly all over, the low is getting more square and you will for sure perceive that (implying higher frequencies). More later into the track this square lower freq sound receives body of very low freq. and all starts to e very airy. It dominates the track.

Track 02 : Seems to start low but is not at all. 20 seconds into the track it starts to happen and hits imply 20Hz short blasts while the freq maybe is 40Hz and implies the melody (40Hz and 60Hz I'd say). When voices start to sound the real melody starts and seems to be 30Hz. In the mean time I feel something like 18Hz. This is the main melody of the track, hammering your stumache.

Track 03 : This is the only track from this album I have in my "Demo" Gallery and it is there for its suberb bass. That bass is still very firm and in 4 sections of this 20 minute track it reoccurs, each time a bit more firm than the previous time. First time is 2 minutes or so into the track. However, knowing a bit more today this really is not lower than 200Hz. Woofers hardly play a role here. But, at the second part the drums start, and *they* feel like 20Hz or so. Aha.
In the mean time (during this typing) I perceive low frequency roars with heavy impact. I'm always to late to catch it at the woofers. Then (7-8 minutes ?) the rototom part starts and the whole sound is influenced by LF hits on whatever it is. All new to me.

Track 04 : Seems worth nothing much. Untill the general female singing stops. Then the LF kicks in and remains dominating the track.

Track 05: No real melody here, but all about the sub low hits throughout. Interesting for me, but I may be the only one. Only towards the end some real profound small melody happens at maybe 30Hz.

Track 06 : The beginning of this track, funnily enough, produces more (very) low freq energy than I could feel. It sure was there, but to my belief nothing I could hear. Still I did.
Here I stopped.


Peter

[christoffe]

Low frequencies

this is an exerpt from
http://barefacedbass.com/technical-information/Huge-lows.htm
-Quote-
20Hz - 40Hz = rumble
These are the kind of lows that are felt more than heard and add a certain rumble and sense of scale to movie soundtracks, pipe organ music and some electronic music. The sub 30Hz realm is very much sound effects territory - explosions, thunder, et al. There is very little content in music below 30Hz so club systems tend to cut off at this point if not a bit higher, whilst live music systems as seen at major festivals / stadiums tend to cut off at 35Hz (which makes the systems a bit more efficient so you need less gear to reach a given SPL than with a system with a 30Hz cut-off). A low tuned bass guitar does have output below 40Hz but it takes a seriously potent speaker system to reproduce that at high SPL. Sub 40Hz output adds a certain size and weight to music. It is almost more felt than heard and is rarely perceived independently of higher bass output (because any low frequencies will have higher overtones). A good word for it would be rumble. A bad word would be boom (boom happens much higher up).
-Unquote-

A nice sample with an amazing deep bass is
http://www.amazon.fr/Fabuleuse-Histoire-Swing-Michel-Jonasz/dp/B000F39MI8/ref=ntt_mus_ep_dpi_7

Disque 2 - tune 2

Joachim

[PeterSt]

Hey Joachim,

That Jonasz could be a nice subject to talk through and I will try to get that album and see.

But let me tell you ... the more examples you all come up with like these (20-40Hz = rumble and such) the more personally me is going to change audio history;

Might it not be clear by now, those frequencies from, say, 23Hz and upwards are all the most discernable here, and I promise you it is not my ears. In addition, notice that I let run FFTs (they show the frequencies playing) and that these frequencies (up to some 16Hz as it is right now) perfectly show, PLUS that I can see that no harmonics are there hence when/that it is a nice sine playing. Keep in mind the importance of this, because it shows that no higher harmonics can fool me in thinking I perceive the low tone while actually it is a squarer one and I thus perceive the harmonics.

I say it again : It is really odd to notice that these very low frequencies really are perceived a such, and a downside : that when two completely different albums play a same frequency in pure sine fashion, they really sound 100% the same. And why not. They should. And so as I told elsewhere, it is very rare that more than one frequency plays in these very low registers, and thus it becomes profound how they become the very same over different albums. But if two albums would play a 1Khz sine, that also sounds exactly the same. And of course it should.
Luckily most "gag" (I call them by now) albums which explicitly utilize those very low frequencies (like under 25Hz) will not use a stupid sine but any (combination of) waveform(s) so they will not sound all the same. Besides that I'd say in 50% of times they let the frequencies glide and no album will utilize that in the same fashion.

About the rumble and your explicit reference to it :
Maybe I have not been clear enough; when I perceive that rumble, IT IS RUMBLE. So, if you read back you can see that I talk about no clear frequency at all. Thus rumble, not now from the more technical side of things and felt from the woofers. Also see my reference here and there to "DC like" with which I try to refer to one-time excursions, but "like" because they are built up with underlaying rumble of different occurence and level. The best "expression" I could obtain from the end of that Sanctus track is the kettle drums which are used so massively that the whole lot starts to form a longitudinal in that church back and forth bouncing pressure  wave. On the woofer you can feel the collisions happening and in realilty it sounds like thunder.

Anecdotical :
During the X-fi 2012 show we "discovered" that the Big Orelo speaker (4x15" in similar open baffle format) with one of the tracks we played could form such waves. This was about a lower frequency more square sound, and it let glide the frequencies used. This allowed the wave length to reach the length at the room precisely, once in the X seconds of the glide passing that exact frequency. This too emerged in back and forth thunder, and the audience dit not know what was happening to them. For me the sensation was that the whole room was moving back and forth, similar to yuo moving your head forward to the speaker and backward again. But your head does not move and I suppose the room did not either (but we played this at apporx 120dBSPL);
This too is sheer rumble as such, though made excessive through high SPL (same with the kettle drum example). Furthermore it is my thinking that back and forth bouncing sound waves imply a magnitude of lower frequency, just because of the misformed frequencies, and it will be similar to a speaker outputting more LF when in-toom than anechoically. In the end it is just distortion.

Remember my telling about those kettle drums not expressing in the woofers AT ALL when played at softer levels. And I don't see much reason for when hitting them harder the frequency getting lower. This, opposed to the end of that Sanctus track where those same kettle drums, and only those, create nothing else than sheer rumble with the woofers highly excurting and with indeed "rumble" as such felt. But all you really hear is church hall and things turning into a (meant !) mess.

Of course I can continue with this blahblah forever, but what excites me most is that now MY room does not do this at all. So 1. frequency is measured lowest close to the speaker and 2. nothing gets a mess no matter how loud whatever bass. And I say it again : At listening you just can not understand how this all keep on going 100% OK in the relative small room; That loud it can go without messing up.


But since I am trying to (re)write audio history anyway, let me now try to make up a technical reason of what really might be happening. Two things to keep in mind for the next blah :

1. Although closed or ported cabinets WILL imply distortion of the sound wave, I am NOT talking about that hereunder;
2. Even when a double bass (etc.) plays at 100dB continuously in my 12x8x3m room, there is no corner to be found where even the slightest standing wave happens.

So, in a closed cabinet, we can expect that the pressure waves have a forward character; the backward pressure ends up in the cabinet, is dampened in there depending on the caninet design, but anyway the pressure will be into the room. It can also be expected that the diaphragm plays more forward instead of in the middle on average. Pushes are merely forward and while the diver tries backward just the same, there it is dampened by the air pressure in the cabinet anyway. Ported designs will do the same, unless the port is as large as open space;

So what should happen is that with open baffle the forward pressure is as large as the backward pressure (count out the Orelino's specific design because then the story gets more complicated). Back and forth moving air is what we perceive for sound level and what our SPL meters can measure. However, since now the back and forth moving air is the same instead of forward only, the average of it is zero;

When this latter would be correct (and opposed to what is happening with a cabinet design), this does NOT energize the room. So what I'm actually saying is that if we'd put out our barometers we'd see no change in general air pressure, while with a cabinet design the air pressure would would rise (with the notice that the complement of it will reside in the speaker's cabinet).

Assumed I'm still on the right track, the cabinet would imply congested sound. Squeezed. The more loud we play, the more the sound will congest.
Not so when the air difference (average) pressure remains zero. Nothing congests and all remains "free sound".

When this would be the conclusion of how open baffle allows free sound, it is quite different from distortions not happening because of back chamber pressure. But now watch out :

I have forever and always been saying that distortion as such (no matter LF or higher F) implies standing waves. Now, I won't go into the explanation of that, but I for 100% assume this is the prequisite.
Next, I already don't perceive standing waves at all for over two years (the NOS1-USB removed the last little corner of it), so this would lead to the sort of conclusion that it may not be the now removed woofer distortion because of open baffle at all that implies that free sound. I could just be the zero-average sound pressure that does not congest the waves.

And to be honest, after writing this - all made up on the spot - "congest" sounds mighty opposite as "free" to me.

This latter makes me even think further, because a 2x "congested" 25Hz frequency will become 50Hz ... The louder you play the more congested it gets the higher the perceived frequency becomes.
I'm not sure I ever heard that per se because first the woofers must be able to put out that good wave form at sufficient SPL (which just means woofer surface without back pressure - period). And my previous speakers apparently did not, while these do. So how to test it.

Joachim, this was all not specifically addressed to you. However, we both know that you know a bit more about fine loudspeakers, and you know how my "old" system performed back in the days (say 3 years ago and a lot has changed for the better since anyway). So, you are amongst those who expressed that especially my "bass" was a sort of superb. But let me tell you (please), it was NO-THING. You just can't have the idea because it is an out of space thing.
And since you know me personally and will know a bit how I am and how I talk, you should be able to know what it means when I say "nothing" compared to what I have now.

Ok, sorry for a long post. I'm just too enthusiast I guess.
Peter

[christoffe]

Hi Peter,

thanx for this nice post, and I believe, it is time now that you give us a chance to participate with your enthusiasm via a small film on Youtube.

We are waiting eagerly.

Joachim