Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Andy Simpson wrote:

(2) Yes, in most recordings - which are unlistenable - multiple microphones are used in close proximity in order to artificially generate 'clarity'. The side effects (as you noted) are massively exagerated (but uncontrolled) dynamics, confusion, etc and these problems are much worse simply because the microphones used are bad enough at distance but terrible close. Almost as bad is where a single pair of the same usual condenser microphones are situated at 'audiophile' distance, where there is no dynamcs or clarity and recorded at the highest possible bandwidth. At least there is less distortion but still the same class of problem.

Interesting that you omitted in your response the “insultingly-extended HF”. I feel it one of the biggest problems as luck of “transients from distance” people foolishly substrates with a presents of bogusly-supplemented and artificially-presented HF.

Andy Simpson wrote:

(3) I would be interested to read your post on 'clarity'. However, I again restate that clarity is information and in sound information is time-domain (perfection). However, from my research, this 'perfection' comes partly from a place which you have not considered yet - at least not directly - which I will get to later.

In my article about 'clarity' I did not give any recipe of 'clarity' but debated that currently dominating definition of audio 'clarity' is a synthetic, industry-contrived idiocy.

Andy Simpson wrote:

(4) Regarding my association between dynamic freedom and horn-loading - this will be addressed (as mentioned above) in due course. There is no direct radiator which can match the best horn-loaded - but you know this. Of course, implementation is everything.....

I would not buy it “as is”. Implementation is everything but… there are many different aspects of dynamic. As I have written before I recognize not one phrase “dynamic” but at least 4 different aspects of dynamics. I would not say that horn-loading is by it’s nature excel in all aspects of dynamics. It is not to mention that there is expressed dynamic and perceived dynamic…

Andy Simpson wrote:

(5) To my way of thinking, it would make little sense creating a microphone whose transfer function depends on source loudness. If we are talking about the non-linearities of the ear (which I think we are) then I aim to make the microphone (& speaker) linear and let the ear be non-linear at playback (ie. playback at performance SPL, where the ear will react properly to the SPL).

The point was not to fight with non-linearities of the ear but to mimic the way how brain proposes the heard. For instance sound, relatively slow traveling in space will reach first microphone sooner than the second and it will be a constant delay. If the microphone #2 has an electro-magnetizing filed, electro-damping and active load then it would be possible to pre-stricture the microphone #2’s characteristics to be optimum for registering the signal of the very given amplitude. Sure, they all are juts fantasies…

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site