Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[j_j]

There's a whole lot to what you say here Jim, but hell will freeze over before I will drink diet soda. That's the most foul tasting crap I've ever tasted.

Yep. I've sworn off regular soda by necessity, oddly now that I have it also tastes pretty horrid.

"Diet Soda" has nothing whatsoever to offer, certainly not flavor. It's kind of like Buckfast or Malort, only sans alcohol.

 

[j_j]

* The research by Toole and Olive shows that most people prefer a neutral and accurate presentation ... IF THE TEST IS PERFORMED UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS.

It's not just those guys who assert this. We routinely "break" people who come and listen to stuff in our listening room. Yeah,they like it, they go home, they play their stuff, and start cussing. Some have cussed us out for "breaking" them.

Yes, our listening setup is very low distortion, very, very flat, and time coherent to a degree that you can only get with some very precise measurements.

Interestingly the only instruments involved are a decent measurement mike, a 24/96 ADC and DAC, matlab, and the device(s) under test. All tests are "in situ" tests that are made in the actual room, of course.

 

[antcollinet]

There's a whole lot to what you say here Jim, but hell will freeze over before I will drink diet soda. That's the most foul tasting crap I've ever tasted.

Whereas after decades of only drinking diet soda - I now can't stand the full fat stuff. It's like drinking syrup.

 

[AdamG]

You do realise that every tiny detail of the "complex auditory signals"** in recorded music HAVE been measured.... by the very microphone that was used to record them - otherwise they wouldn't be in the signal in the first place.

This wins the best damn answer I have ever read. Brilliant and simple. All the unmeasurable magic is measured and captured by the Microphone connected to the data storage device. Winner winner Chicken Dinner!

 

[JP]

Yep. I've sworn off regular soda by necessity, oddly now that I have it also tastes pretty horrid.

"Diet Soda" has nothing whatsoever to offer, certainly not flavor. It's kind of like Buckfast or Malort, only sans alcohol.

A long time ago I drank a liter of Pepsi a day. Now I can’t stomach one sip of any soda. Amazing how fast our tastes change if we’re strict about it for a short period of time. One to two months for me.

 

[Sal1950]

and time coherent to a degree that you can only get with some very precise measurements.

@j_j: Thru what means are you achieving this level of time coherent reproduction?
TIA

 

[Blumlein 88]

In addition to @MaxwellsEq 's comments:

You do realise that every tiny detail of the "complex auditory signals"** in recorded music HAVE been measured.... by the very microphone that was used to record them - otherwise they wouldn't be in the signal in the first place.

Yet we have measuring gear (such as the Analogue Precision analyser used by Amir) that are orders of magnitude better (more sensitive, lower noise, lower distortion, higher resolution, higher bandwidth) than the best studio mic.

I mean - hell - I can spend about £200 and get an E1DA cosmos ACD which is way better than the best studio mic, and perform my own measurements if I wish.

So, to answer your question, yes we do.

*******
** they are really not all that complex, in terms of modern electronics.

I've wondered how we might break the circle of confusion on microphones. Most people recording don't want a flat responding clear microphone. Most of those that "cut thru the mix" do so from upper midrange peaks (which are usually due to resonance and we know from speakers people hear resonances). So you typically get something hyped to cut thru the mix or dynamics that sort of cannot sound harsh. Yet among some of the long revered top quality microphones, mostly from European makers, those are much more accurate. It seems to me the right approach would be very accurate microphones and use processing if you want to accent certain things.

 

[Jim Taylor]

There's a whole lot to what you say here Jim, but hell will freeze over before I will drink diet soda. That's the most foul tasting crap I've ever tasted.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree! I only drink water, coffee, milk, and very rarely beer or wine. I haven't drank soda - diet or otherwise - for many years.

Jim

 

[Sal1950]

I've wondered how we might break the circle of confusion on microphones. Most people recording don't want a flat responding clear microphone. Most of those that "cut thru the mix" do so from upper midrange peaks (which are usually due to resonance and we know from speakers people hear resonances).

?? I'm confused, is this something we want to do?
Isn't the mic's sound part of the production teams decision on what final recording should sound like?

 

[Emlin]

I've wondered how we might break the circle of confusion on microphones. Most people recording don't want a flat responding clear microphone. Most of those that "cut thru the mix" do so from upper midrange peaks (which are usually due to resonance and we know from speakers people hear resonances). So you typically get something hyped to cut thru the mix or dynamics that sort of cannot sound harsh. Yet among some of the long revered top quality microphones, mostly from European makers, those are much more accurate. It seems to me the right approach would be very accurate microphones and use processing if you want to accent certain things.

I believe that different microphones with different tonalities are often used specifically in certain circumstances in order to give a particular effect. In the same way as a guitar pedal, say.

 

[j_j]

@j_j: Thru what means are you achieving this level of time coherent reproduction?
TIA

Part of it might be proprietary, but correcting each driver independently, using a constant delay crossover, and then some correction on top of that is how it's done.

It's also with very, um, abrupt crossovers, shall we say, not of the "octave" stuff

 

[Nuni]

That would simply tell you that your chosen source sounds like crap.
Accurate gear is just that, accurate to the source.

An interesting opinion. And what if you listen to the same source through different pieces of equipment and hear a distinct, (not a minute), difference?

 

[j_j]

I've wondered how we might break the circle of confusion on microphones. Most people recording don't want a flat responding clear microphone. Most of those that "cut thru the mix" do so from upper midrange peaks (which are usually due to resonance and we know from speakers people hear resonances). So you typically get something hyped to cut thru the mix or dynamics that sort of cannot sound harsh. Yet among some of the long revered top quality microphones, mostly from European makers, those are much more accurate. It seems to me the right approach would be very accurate microphones and use processing if you want to accent certain things.

The only problem is when the microphone pattern has a desired euphonic effect. That's why, I think,some very sharp pattern (at high frequency) ribbons are so popular in some circles, it cuts out the HF reflections much more accurately.

There is much more to discuss about this, but probably in its own thread.

 

[j_j]

An interesting opinion. And what if you listen to the same source through different pieces of equipment and hear a distinct, (not a minute), difference?

And, how, precisely, are these distinct differences placed into evidence.

I will say for DAC's,amplifiers, and the like, if there is ANY difference in a properly prepared test, something in the chain is broken or has interface problems.

Speakers, not so much, that's much more complicated, and this is not the thread to discuss radiation patterns.

 

[antcollinet]

An interesting opinion. And what if you listen to the same source through different pieces of equipment and hear a distinct, (not a minute), difference?

Then you should try again with a properly controlled blind comparison.

 

[TLEDDY]

I've wondered how we might break the circle of confusion on microphones. Most people recording don't want a flat responding clear microphone. Most of those that "cut thru the mix" do so from upper midrange peaks (which are usually due to resonance and we know from speakers people hear resonances). So you typically get something hyped to cut thru the mix or dynamics that sort of cannot sound harsh. Yet among some of the long revered top quality microphones, mostly from European makers, those are much more accurate. It seems to me the right approach would be very accurate microphones and use processing if you want to accent certain things.

^^^^^^^^
Totally agree! IF we assume flat response microphones, what we finally hear is the aesthetic of the recording engineer AND that engineer is similarly influenced/biased by the transducers (speakers) used to evaluate the adjustments and mix.

My opinion is that we are very fortunate to experience, utilizing our vaunted high-end systems, anything that actually resembles that which we could experience in actual attendance at the physical live performance!

Comments/observations welcomed!!

Tillman

 

[Petrushka]

^^^^^^^^
Totally agree! IF we assume flat response microphones, what we finally hear is the aesthetic of the recording engineer AND that engineer is similarly influenced/biased by the transducers (speakers) used to evaluate the adjustments and mix.

My opinion is that we are very fortunate to experience, utilizing our vaunted high-end systems, anything that actually resembles that which we could experience in actual attendance at the physical live performance!

Comments/observations welcomed!!

Tillman

Live performances mostly aren’t.

Even the Met uses wireless mics.

 

[raif71]

In addition to @MaxwellsEq 's comments:

You do realise that every tiny detail of the "complex auditory signals"** in recorded music HAVE been measured.... by the very microphone that was used to record them - otherwise they wouldn't be in the signal in the first place.

Yet we have measuring gear (such as the Analogue Precision analyser used by Amir) that are orders of magnitude better (more sensitive, lower noise, lower distortion, higher resolution, higher bandwidth) than the best studio mic.

I mean - hell - I can spend about £200 and get an E1DA cosmos ACD which is way better than the best studio mic, and perform my own measurements if I wish.

So, to answer your question, yes we do.

*******
** they are really not all that complex, in terms of modern electronics.

I suppose the next step is to use the recorded music with the tiny detail of "complex auditory signals" as an input to the analyzer instead of generated sine waves then feed to the audio gears (DUT) and from the output do analysis. I suppose future analyzer with advanced technology can use actual music as input.

 

[Doodski]

I suppose the next step is to use the recorded music with the tiny detail of "complex auditory signals" as an input to the analyzer instead of generated sine waves then feed to the audio gears (DUT) and from the output do analysis. I suppose future analyzer with advanced technology can use actual music as input.

That will be groundbreaking stuff.

 

[j_j]

I suppose the next step is to use the recorded music with the tiny detail of "complex auditory signals" as an input to the analyzer instead of generated sine waves then feed to the audio gears (DUT) and from the output do analysis. I suppose future analyzer with advanced technology can use actual music as input.

That's what any perceptual analysis already does. No harm in using actual music. Using actual music you can tell pretty quickly if any changes to the time/frequency space are actually audible.

It's nice, though, to have actual signal with a wide bandwidth.

OR you can just use an allpass sequence. Yeah.