| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio Discussions » Simpson Microphones thread. (46 posts, 3 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 2 (46 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  The elusive “absolute tone”...  Breeze......  Playback Listening  Forum     24  227810  07-28-2005
  »  New  Tweeter for Vitavox S2. High-sensitively ribbons?..  Correction: Townshend Ribbon and sensitivity....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     64  816667  10-19-2006
  »  New  The best audio system: my secrets are partially out...  Kin-Dza-Dza's review.......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  27777  07-06-2007
07-10-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Andy Simpson
Posts 42
Joined on 10-21-2007

Post #: 26
Post ID: 7790
Reply to: 7787
Suggested topics of investigation
 Romy the Cat wrote:

 Andy Simpson wrote:

Romy - as it turned out, the 'crapped off bass' that you refered to was in part due to the consumer pre-amp I was using.

I attach an mp3 from a recent session where I recorded using a DAV BG1 into Mytek stereo96 converters. In making the recording with the upgraded mic-amp & converter I noticed immediately that the bass went much lower.

The mic-amp/converter upgrade was a direct result of my customers telling me that their own recordings made with my microphones were far better than my samples (they had similar complaints to yours).

This recording was monitored live in the hall with the orchestra at performance SPL via a pair of Mackie SRM450 speakers and was quite close to the actual sound.

Andy, come on,

was it a joke or you are serious? Are you trying to present this Sound as something that has any more or less proper bass? I do not know at witch level of your recording/mastering chain it came to you but this Sound has absolutely revolting bass – juts a pieces of syntactic rubber garbage, sorry to say it. Also, it was incredibly boring play of Tchaikovsky IV. You shell not record music like this.

Rgs, Romy the Cat


Romy, I would suggest the following topics of investigation:

1. Psychoacoustics
2. Auditory masking
3. Equal loudness contours of human hearing
4. Recording, mixing & mastering procedure & signal chain of your reference recordings
5. The interaction of all of the above

Best regards,

Andy
07-10-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 27
Post ID: 7791
Reply to: 7790
Well, it is very much not there, sorry…

Andy,

I think you are looking from a slightly wrong perspective. Those topics of investigation are fine but they have nothing to do with the subject of our conversation. You present yourself as a scientific person and I presume that all topics of investigation are incisive with your expertise and experience.   What we are talking about here is not about reasons but about results. The recording that you demonstrated is wrong result. I have no idea if it is your microphones, amps, A/D   possessors or whatever you use but the result is; in my view is way below, the level what it would make send to talk about the equal loudness contours and psychoacoustics. I am sorry to say it but somebody shell say you what it is instead kissing you ass and passing to you stupid compliments – you can get it enough from you other friends.

The recoding you demonstrated (besides of being extremely bad play) has extremely wrong bass – the bass is what you ask me to comment. The bass is too loud – obviously you EQed it as it does not exist as this. Also, the texture of the bass is horrible – it sponge and has a strong and very repulsive rubber signature. Listen the end of the Their movement – was it an orchestra or some kind of Casio $150 electronic keyboard?

Rgs, The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-09-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Andy Simpson
Posts 42
Joined on 10-21-2007

Post #: 28
Post ID: 8208
Reply to: 7791
Some further clips
These clips may be more to your tastes, or may cause you to be violently sick - I have no idea, but still I expect to learn something from any feedback.

Early music clip A

Early music clip B

Jazz clip A

Jazz clip B

and also:

choir/organ clip A

With the 'and also' I separate into different microphone amp classes, for interests sake.

Andy
09-10-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,571
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 29
Post ID: 8210
Reply to: 8208
What are you aiming for?
Andy, I will say right away that I am not at all set up to "exploit" online music, but this comes across to me as "clean" and  "noise free", with some nice spacial effects, basically devoid of harmonics, and not much in the way of expresion.  Is this me or you?

Best regards,
Paul
09-11-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Andy Simpson
Posts 42
Joined on 10-21-2007

Post #: 30
Post ID: 8224
Reply to: 8210
Is it you or me? A very interesting question....
 Paul S wrote:
Andy, I will say right away that I am not at all set up to "exploit" online music, but this comes across to me as "clean" and  "noise free", with some nice spacial effects, basically devoid of harmonics, and not much in the way of expresion.  Is this me or you?

Best regards,
Paul


Hi Paul,

This is by far the most sensible question I have heard in a long time. Also, thanks for listening.

I would ask by what do you judge the harmonic content/expression?

I would guess that by harmonics, you may possibly mean 'harmonic distortion'?

If, like Romy, you have developed an advanced reproduction system, and if like Romy, you 'tune' the system to suit your ear, you run the danger of developing a system specifically for the recordings you like.

For example, if you particularly favour the famous Mercury Living Presence recordings, to tune the system for 'ideal' performance according to these recordings would in no small part be in compensation for the fairly drastic time-domain distortion (diaphragm resonance) of the u47/c12/m49 type microphones popular at the time, which shows itself not only in spectral terms but more significantly in timbre. (This is to say nothing of the enormous harmonic distortion of the tube amps, transformers, tape, vinyl, etc).

While these old recordings have a lot in their favour, they should sound almost unlistenable at performance SPL due to the various distortion, especially on the 'ideal' horn system.

More specifically, you cannot avoid having tuned your system to the direct-radiator microphones, which are all that have been available until I began development a relatively short time ago.

I would assume that anybody in here is well familiar with the difference in sound quality between the direct-radiator and the horn-loaded speaker. To my ear this is a very obvious class difference.

Given speakers designed soley for flat frequency response (ie. not tuned by ear) the first thing I would expect you to notice is that my recordings can be differentiated from direct-radiator recordings in exactly the same way as with speakers - a feeling of dynamic freedom.

Given (horn) speakers tuned soley for 'ideal sound quality' on reproduction of direct-radiator recordings, I would expect a critically over-damped system, since the direct-radiator microphones are relatively critically 'under-damped'.

In the course of my work I have found that in the case of critically over-damped systems (especially direct-radiator with very stiff ferrofluid), the extra 'dynamic freedom' in the recordings actually causes the recordings to sound relatively 'muted', as the lack of distortion highlights the mechanical over-damping (which is suited to 'taming' mechanically resonant microphones).

Or, perhaps we are simply talking about equal loudness effects?

These recordings are calibrated for direct comparison with the source at same SPL - they were monitored that way. If we reduce the listening level 20dB we can expect a perceived loss of HF/detail/harmonic content/etc.

Did you try the recordings at realistic performance levels?

Andy
09-11-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,571
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 31
Post ID: 8225
Reply to: 8224
Perfect Sound Forever
Andy, when I said I am not set up to exploit internet "music", I meant just that; I cannot and therefore did not run your samples through my main payback system, although even that might or might not have done justice to your samples according to your own sense of end-to-end equalibrium/continuity, at least based on your response.  Actually, I just listened with what I had and gave you my immediate impressions, which were as I said.  By "harmonics", I mean that notes played by instruments have characteristic tonal/timbral signatures that include both a primary frequency and also various attendent "rider" frequencies that vary considerably in amplitude.  For whatever reason (perhaps my limited playback capabilities), I found the samples somewhat "stripped" or "bleached" of these harmonics as I recognized them live.  As far as "expression", this is hard to describe in binary code, but I'll try to slide one in by saying it is the varibles in sound worked by the performer him/herself, like timing and inflection, which we percieve both consciously and unconsciously in music, just as in speech.  Again, the computer system is lacking, but I can usually get expression in the truck, from my clock radio, etc.  Whether any of what I did/didn't perceive has anything to do with microphones, I have no idea, nor do I presume to so much as hazard a guess in that direction.  I saw your query and answered off the cuff, taking the sound at face value, so my remarks were "detached" from considerations other than just what I did/didn't hear from the samples, whatever the reasons.

Hence the question you include in your header. I am perfectly willing to accept that my playback is poor enough to make the absence of the cited-as-absent traits mea culpa.

I do find your observations about the "sacred" microphones very interesting, however.  I have had a few chances to hear playback from tracks gotten via different "classic" microphones, and it was "instructive", to say the least.

Best regards,
Paul S
09-12-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
tuga


Posts 174
Joined on 12-26-2007

Post #: 32
Post ID: 8227
Reply to: 8224
Hearing, not listening?
The Realistic Painter

"Completely true to nature!" - what a lie:
How could Nature ever be constrained into a picture?
The smallest bit of Nature is infinite!
And so he paints what he likes about it.
And what does he like: he likes what he can paint!

Nietzsche

--

Hello Andy,

I think your approach to audio leaves out the very important fact that recording (and reproduction) are very limited and that sound monitoring and reproduction goals are not one and the same.
For this reason, the pursuit absolute neutrality (focusing more on the 'physical' aspects of the sound) will do little in the way of recreating a performance, since a recording is nothing more than a synthesized version of the original event. I would describe this neutral sound as a skeleton with little or no flesh, therefore lifeless.

Cheers,
Tuga


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes
09-12-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Andy Simpson
Posts 42
Joined on 10-21-2007

Post #: 33
Post ID: 8228
Reply to: 8225
Further thoughts

 Paul S wrote:
Andy, when I said I am not set up to exploit internet "music", I meant just that; I cannot and therefore did not run your samples through my main payback system, although even that might or might not have done justice to your samples according to your own sense of end-to-end equalibrium/continuity, at least based on your response.  Actually, I just listened with what I had and gave you my immediate impressions, which were as I said.  By "harmonics", I mean that notes played by instruments have characteristic tonal/timbral signatures that include both a primary frequency and also various attendent "rider" frequencies that vary considerably in amplitude.  For whatever reason (perhaps my limited playback capabilities), I found the samples somewhat "stripped" or "bleached" of these harmonics as I recognized them live.  As far as "expression", this is hard to describe in binary code, but I'll try to slide one in by saying it is the varibles in sound worked by the performer him/herself, like timing and inflection, which we percieve both consciously and unconsciously in music, just as in speech.  Again, the computer system is lacking, but I can usually get expression in the truck, from my clock radio, etc.  Whether any of what I did/didn't perceive has anything to do with microphones, I have no idea, nor do I presume to so much as hazard a guess in that direction.  I saw your query and answered off the cuff, taking the sound at face value, so my remarks were "detached" from considerations other than just what I did/didn't hear from the samples, whatever the reasons.

Hence the question you include in your header. I am perfectly willing to accept that my playback is poor enough to make the absence of the cited-as-absent traits mea culpa.

I do find your observations about the "sacred" microphones very interesting, however.  I have had a few chances to hear playback from tracks gotten via different "classic" microphones, and it was "instructive", to say the least.

Best regards,
Paul S

Hi Paul,

Perhaps I can send you a CD of the tracks in question? - the files linked above are CD format .WAV files if you can download & 'burn' to CD? Does your main system play CDs?

Regarding expression, harmonics (& or harmonic distortion) I do not doubt your observation for a second - nor question the validity.

However, if you can usually get 'expression' from recordings via the playback systems you mentioned, I would look to the recordings themselves.

For example, almost all recordings available today have severe distortion, which in most cases is to some extent intentional. Compression, for example, is routinely applied (for example, DG have hardly had a recording without compression EVER - I have this first hand from their chief engineer of 18 years).

The mastering industry is also routinely applying 'transparent limiting' to 'raise the level' by 'a few dB', for classical music.

Also, regarding expression & harmonics, would you expect to be able to have 'real performance' expression at anything less than real performance SPL?

At least according to equal loudness effects, I would expect not, but this is your term so perhaps I am wrong.

Regarding the 'classic' microphones, you need only look to the monitoring of those who describe the microphones as 'classic', and to their monitoring habits (low volume, often near-field) to begin to understand how the very distortions of the microphones are welcome 'compensation' for these monitoring habits.

Andy

09-12-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Andy Simpson
Posts 42
Joined on 10-21-2007

Post #: 34
Post ID: 8230
Reply to: 8227
The Seventh Chanel of Macondo.
 tuga wrote:
The Realistic Painter

"Completely true to nature!" - what a lie:
How could Nature ever be constrained into a picture?
The smallest bit of Nature is infinite!
And so he paints what he likes about it.
And what does he like: he likes what he can paint!

Nietzsche

--

Hello Andy,

I think your approach to audio leaves out the very important fact that recording (and reproduction) are very limited and that sound monitoring and reproduction goals are not one and the same.
For this reason, the pursuit absolute neutrality (focusing more on the 'physical' aspects of the sound) will do little in the way of recreating a performance, since a recording is nothing more than a synthesized version of the original event. I would describe this neutral sound as a skeleton with little or no flesh, therefore lifeless.

Cheers,
Tuga


Hi Tuga,

I have no argument here.

My main test procedure is to set up the monitors either side of the source and match playback SPL for direct blind comparison.

If the blind listening subjects cannot tell which is real and which is not, then I can ask no more.

The rest is up to the suspension of disbelief mechanism and is outside of my field.

Andy
09-12-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 35
Post ID: 8231
Reply to: 8230
The Seventh Channel of Macondo
 Andy Simpson wrote:
Not recreate the performance but only the mechanical stimulus at the ear….
Well, if my project with the Macondo 7th Channel will go successfully then I would very battle this notion of “stimulus for the ears”. The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-12-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Andy Simpson
Posts 42
Joined on 10-21-2007

Post #: 36
Post ID: 8232
Reply to: 8231
Details?
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 Andy Simpson wrote:
Not recreate the performance but only the mechanical stimulus at the ear….
Well, if my project with the Macondo 7th Channel will go successfully then I would very battle this notion of “stimulus for the ears”. The Cat


Is this 7th channel physical or conceptual?

Or are you talking about a physically coupled vibration system? (will you strap a servo-woofer to your chest?).

Andy
09-12-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,571
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 37
Post ID: 8233
Reply to: 8228
A vs. B vs. Time
Well, you can count me among those who are perennially frustrated by all the unnessary stupidy that goes into most recordings, that's for sure, although I have several hundred records that I would like to keep for the perfromances that somehow survived the processing.

I do have redbook CD playback in my main system, as soon as I fix the short in my DAC, but I have always in the end preferred LPs, despite their very obvious flaws, not to mention the tedious playback rituals.

Of course I would like "better recordings", including better monitoring, in the rote, physical sense.  The weird thing is that some of the best performances I have on on VERY obviously "compromised" recordings, and some of the "best sounding"  recordings are MT of musical content.

Please do not think I am a "musical versus accurate" guy, because I absolutely have no problem with "accuracy" that includes the music.  In fact, I think I prefer it.  But what I just keep coming back to is that the Music has to be there as a first consideration, meaning I am not so sure that close attention to raw data end to end will necessarilly result in music.

I have been involved in some "live versus recorded" trials that I found more interesting for social reasons than for any ultimate conclusions one might draw from them about music.

The most "realistic" sound "reproduction" I have ever heard was many years ago at a Stereophile show in Los Angeles.  They had hired a classical guitarist to wander around the show.  I heard the guy at one point playing some Bach around the corner, but when I rounded the corner he wasn't there.  What was there was Mark Levinson's stacked Quads playing high-speed tape via one of his modified Studers.  I seem to recall he had used one of Bob Fulton's mics; but Time has a way of changing everything.

Best regards,
Paul S
09-13-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
tuga


Posts 174
Joined on 12-26-2007

Post #: 38
Post ID: 8245
Reply to: 8230
Monitoring environment.
 Andy Simpson wrote:
Hi Tuga,<BR><BR>I have no argument here.<BR><BR>My main test procedure is to set up the monitors either side of the source and match playback SPL for direct blind comparison.<BR><BR>If the blind listening subjects cannot tell which is real and which is not, then I can ask no more.<BR><BR>The rest is up to the suspension of disbelief mechanism and is outside of my field.<BR><BR>Andy


Andy,

I was thinking if it wouldn't be more efficient if you were to monitor the recording in a "controlled" environment.

Isn't it possible that you are duplicating/superimposing room acoustics during your monitoring (affecting bass assessment and overall balance)?

Best,
Tuga


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira Pascoaes
09-13-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Andy Simpson
Posts 42
Joined on 10-21-2007

Post #: 39
Post ID: 8246
Reply to: 8233
Science vs conjuring
 Paul S wrote:
Well, you can count me among those who are perennially frustrated by all the unnessary stupidy that goes into most recordings, that's for sure, although I have several hundred records that I would like to keep for the perfromances that somehow survived the processing.

I do have redbook CD playback in my main system, as soon as I fix the short in my DAC, but I have always in the end preferred LPs, despite their very obvious flaws, not to mention the tedious playback rituals.

Of course I would like "better recordings", including better monitoring, in the rote, physical sense.  The weird thing is that some of the best performances I have on on VERY obviously "compromised" recordings, and some of the "best sounding"  recordings are MT of musical content.

Please do not think I am a "musical versus accurate" guy, because I absolutely have no problem with "accuracy" that includes the music.  In fact, I think I prefer it.  But what I just keep coming back to is that the Music has to be there as a first consideration, meaning I am not so sure that close attention to raw data end to end will necessarilly result in music.

I have been involved in some "live versus recorded" trials that I found more interesting for social reasons than for any ultimate conclusions one might draw from them about music.

The most "realistic" sound "reproduction" I have ever heard was many years ago at a Stereophile show in Los Angeles.  They had hired a classical guitarist to wander around the show.  I heard the guy at one point playing some Bach around the corner, but when I rounded the corner he wasn't there.  What was there was Mark Levinson's stacked Quads playing high-speed tape via one of his modified Studers.  I seem to recall he had used one of Bob Fulton's mics; but Time has a way of changing everything.

Best regards,
Paul S


I will gladly send you a CD - should you fix the short in your DAC, please let me know. Anybody else unable to download/burn the recordings linked above please feel free contact me for a CD.

I don't think we can entertain the usual kind of 'musical VS accurate' debate to any advantage, since clearly if we approach the poles of either we will find logical contradiction.

However, subjective system tuning is dictated by the recordings used for the tuning - which is almost never accepted or even mentioned by system tuners.

It seems an unspoken assumption among speaker designers that the microphone is beyond reproach.

It may well be that many of the unpleasant attributes, tuned out by many a horn-system tuner, were in fact a sign of correct reproduction of unpleasant recordings.

In my subjective work, I tend to get more positive response from those listening on horn-loaded speaker systems which have not been 'tuned' by ear but to 'flat' measurement. In fact, the more 'ideal' a system sounds with conventional direct-radiator recordings, the less chance it will bring any positive qualities out of a better mechanical performance recording, as the 'ideal' performance is a result of counter measures taken to reduce issues of the recording quality.

Regarding your description of a 'realistic reproduction' experience, this is very interesting and quite to the point.

The most significant aspect to this test is the expectation bias.
 
You see the player, know of the presence of the player, and therefore expect the player to be the source of the sound, regardless of any evidence from the ear to the contrary.

RCA, in the 1930s if I recall correctly, made much of similar tests with orchestra.

For these tests they gathered an audience to watch an orchestra performance and the orchestra 'mimed' along to playback which was being transmitted live from elsewhere.

Apparently, the audience were 'amazed' that they were 'fooled' 'by the speakers'.

Expectation bias, fueled in the most powerful way - visually - renders the test worthless.

Had RCA simply blind-folded the audience and given a randomly selected programme alternating between the real orchestra and the reproduction it is likely, if not certain, that the result would have been total failure. (The fact RCA found it necessary to employ a conductor with a volume control to propery execute the dynamics of the orchestra is clue enough to this - indeed, this is typical of a direct-radiator recording, despite the horns in playback).

This is a conjuring trick, not science, but I'm quite sure you intended to imply that, so please forgive me for spelling it out.

Andy
09-13-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Andy Simpson
Posts 42
Joined on 10-21-2007

Post #: 40
Post ID: 8248
Reply to: 8245
The difference between 'the same' and 'equally real'
 tuga wrote:
 Andy Simpson wrote:
Hi Tuga,<BR><BR>I have no argument here.<BR><BR>My main test procedure is to set up the monitors either side of the source and match playback SPL for direct blind comparison.<BR><BR>If the blind listening subjects cannot tell which is real and which is not, then I can ask no more.<BR><BR>The rest is up to the suspension of disbelief mechanism and is outside of my field.<BR><BR>Andy

Andy,

I was thinking if it wouldn't be more efficient if you were to monitor the recording in a "controlled" environment.

Isn't it possible that you are duplicating/superimposing room acoustics during your monitoring (affecting bass assessment and overall balance)?

Best,
Tuga


Tuga,

This is a good point and forces me to explain further.

In recognition of the limitations of the pursuit, my first goal of reproduction is not to reproduce exactly an audio event that is indistinguishable from the real audio event.

Not only is this essentially impossible, but it is also essentially impossible to test.

My primary goal is to reproduce something that is indistinguishable from a real event.

In other words, I expect my blind-test subjects to recognise the difference between the real source and the reproduction, but I do not aim for them to know which is the real source.

For example, if we take the case of reproducing a violin, if the reproduction is somewhat spectrally different to the real violin, I would expect the subject to perceive this as two different violins.

Given ideal frequency domain matching between the two, if the subject can pick one as real and the other as reproduction, the test is a failure.

Similarly, in the case of the incorrect ratio of direct-to-indirect sound (reverb), if the source is perceived as real, the extra reverb will likely simply be perceived as just that - extra real reverb.

My work has lead me to the conclusion that mechanical error in transducers is the primary form of unacceptable distortion, and that only mechanical performance equal to or better than the ear will guarantee that the reproduction will be perceived as a real source.

Direct-radiator microphones OR direct-radiator speakers do not qualify and so introduce mechanical distortion which is noticeable to the ear, causing whatever reproduction to appear unreal.

Andy
09-15-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
CO
Posts 37
Joined on 11-18-2005

Post #: 41
Post ID: 8281
Reply to: 8248
Recording of playback and phase issue.
Hello Andy,

I like your recordings although i am listening on headphones which i normally do not use. My Main setup is not operational right now.
They do sound clean, clear and dynamic.

Can you let us hear a recording of the live vs playback? This would be very interesting i think. How educated are these people sound wise that they cannot tell the real from playback? I'm also curios as to what kind of horns you are using to fool them.

Also what distances are you using for mics to source ? are they right in front of the people that undergo the test ?
Are the musicians completely quiet before the jury is seated and blindfolded not to give away the reverberation of the venue?

It seems like my VLC player is reversing the polarity incorrectly. It sounds more spacious and less in your face, less harsh when i reverse the polarity on this player.
On two other players it sounds better in the regular position (these can not be flipped though)
Never tested it on headphones and did not know it was so apparent.. Perhaps because of the flat phase resp of the ribbon mics that it is so obvious ?

Do you always respect absolute polarity?

Regards,

Collin
09-19-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Andy Simpson
Posts 42
Joined on 10-21-2007

Post #: 42
Post ID: 8335
Reply to: 8281
Absolute polarity?
Hi Collin,

 CO wrote:
Hello Andy,

I like your recordings although i am listening on headphones which i normally do not use. My Main setup is not operational right now.
They do sound clean, clear and dynamic.


If you get your main setup operational, please post your impressions and perhaps we will see differences. I would generally consider the headphone as a direct-radiator, so if your main setup is horn you should hear greater performance there.


Can you let us hear a recording of the live vs playback? This would be very interesting i think. How educated are these people sound wise that they cannot tell the real from playback? I'm also curios as to what kind of horns you are using to fool them.


Next time I have the chance I'll try to remember to make a recording of the recording. I have done similar things on occasion, simply to illustrate that there is no fundamental loss in perceived resolution where acoustic impedance is maintained.

With regards to my testing, I use a pair of Mackie SRM450 speakers, which are portable, reliable and designed for 'flat' frequency response (not tuned to taste). They sound horrible with conventional recordings.

For choirs, orchestras & large sources, the speakers are located either side of the source/stage, so that the approximate height of the speaker is similar to the height of the source.

There are occasions where the 130dB @ 1m is not enough headroom (large room + loud orchestra), but for less extreme sources these are not too bad.

I also use these in the workshop or outdoor and they are more effective on smaller sources.

For example, piano, voice, guitar, drums, tambourine, etc will usually sit between the speakers and the comparison will be made with the speaker-height approximately the same as the height of the source. This kind of test has the best success rate.

In the workshop, the listening subjects tend to be anybody who happens to be around at the time - friends, family, musicians, engineers, etc.

On location, the tests are far less comprehensive and the subjects are anybody who is not playing at the time.


Also what distances are you using for mics to source ? are they right in front of the people that undergo the test ?
Are the musicians completely quiet before the jury is seated and blindfolded not to give away the reverberation of the venue?


Usually the microphone pair is setup where the subjects are seated or close by, so that the distance is similar. In the case of the location testing, this is rarely so formal as to require total silence between stimuli, and is not so critical as you might think in the larger venues.


It seems like my VLC player is reversing the polarity incorrectly. It sounds more spacious and less in your face, less harsh when i reverse the polarity on this player.
On two other players it sounds better in the regular position (these can not be flipped though)
Never tested it on headphones and did not know it was so apparent.. Perhaps because of the flat phase resp of the ribbon mics that it is so obvious ?


I have not listened to the recordings with reversed polarity - I will try it when I have the time.

I would expect that if you are sensitive to exact polarity, the improved mechanical performance would most likely make this more obvious, but since the sources in question are not particularly asymetrical (unlike the trumpet/trombone/etc), I would not expect a drastic difference in perception.

Also, the Model A is not a ribbon mic.


Do you always respect absolute polarity?


By design yes, but consciously in a recording situation no. I assume that polarity is maintained without checking!

Andy
10-23-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Andy Simpson
Posts 42
Joined on 10-21-2007

Post #: 43
Post ID: 8611
Reply to: 8335
The subject of 'Excessive HF' and implications
fiogf49gjkf0d

Romy,

In response to your response to what I did not say but implied....I decided to put the question here instead, where the light of enquirey might shine upon several different facets of investigation.

Firstly, I'm still interested to know if you are able to run your system 'flat'?

I would guess that the more discerning ear would have great difficulty with flat presentation of the abominations that pass for recorded music - both from now & the past.

For example, the majority of professional microphones have huge problems in the range (>5k) you describe.

In the workshop & on location I use quite brutal PA type speakers, which are 106dB/w/m horns on the top.

These are designed for 'flat' response and while though they do not come particularly close (to flat) they are not designed to compensate for upper-register distortions in microphones.

When I listen to direct-radiator recordings I find the results extremely harsh, dirty, fatiguing & compressed if I listen above a very low level.

If I had equalised or damped these 'aggressive' speakers to best suit the average conventional recording, I would certainly find my own recordings to be 'excessively dull' via the same treatment.

When I first prototyped a horn-loaded microphone, I was amazed to find that these 'aggressive' speakers were actually capable of sounding both soft & hard according to source - in other words, it was not the speakers that sounded aggressive but that they were reproducing the aggression of the source distortion in all previous cases.

By this, I mean to imply that I would expect you to have better results with my recordings if your system was run flat.

Andy

10-23-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 44
Post ID: 8616
Reply to: 8611
Flat over 10kHz?
fiogf49gjkf0d
Andy, I do not think that my system runs “flat” in the way how you understand it. It is with 2db precession flat up to ~10K approximately and then it rolls off quite aggressively. In fact, I very much intentionally try to not even know about the objective flatness of my playback over 10K. There are many reasons why.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-24-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Andy Simpson
Posts 42
Joined on 10-21-2007

Post #: 45
Post ID: 8617
Reply to: 8616
Aggressive roll-off?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
Andy, I do not think that my system runs “flat” in the way how you understand it. It is with 2db precession flat up to ~10K approximately and then it rolls off quite aggressively. In fact, I very much intentionally try to not even know about the objective flatness of my playback over 10K. There are many reasons why.


I'd be interested in those reasons. Also, how aggressive roll-off?

Having said that, there is a big difference between roll-off at 5-6k and at 10k, so I'd say this is not so critical as when I thought you were rolling off at 5-6k.

Can you run it 'flat' - did you ever try?

Andy
10-24-2008 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,049
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 46
Post ID: 8621
Reply to: 8617
A whole another subject.
fiogf49gjkf0d

Andy,

I do not know how aggressive roll-off on obsolete values as I never cared to calibrate my analyzer/microphone above 10K. Well, it was calibrated a few years back but I never trusted to it as I do not see needs for above 20K lineriarity from listening position. Be advised that I am talking about reproduction not about recordings.

Yes, I did try to run the playback flat in 2001-2002, it was minus 1dB at 20kHz. I think I have now minis 6-8dB at 20kHz, but those number are not firm. You, when we talk about running flat at 20kHz then the first question become not “how flat?” but by “virtue of what?”. In many case the problems that we subjectively hear at 20kHz are not overly excessive amount HF but the pure quality of HF. The question is: can you produce at necessary quality let say above 12kHz? If you do (and very few truly can) then you can drive HF much harder with no negative consequences. With my playback my tweeters do very well, my HF amp is optimized for HF as radical I ever seen (air-cap filter, single stage RF amp direct-coupled via very fact core to HF optimized ribbon), however my electricity is not good for HF. At the good electricity day I might drive tweeter much herder, but this is whole another subject…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 2 of 2 (46 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  The elusive “absolute tone”...  Breeze......  Playback Listening  Forum     24  227810  07-28-2005
  »  New  Tweeter for Vitavox S2. High-sensitively ribbons?..  Correction: Townshend Ribbon and sensitivity....  Horn-Loaded Speakers Forum     64  816667  10-19-2006
  »  New  The best audio system: my secrets are partially out...  Kin-Dza-Dza's review.......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  27777  07-06-2007
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts