• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

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.
Lots of ribbons are very even off axis. They do have nulls having a figure 8 pattern. Ribbons in most are pretty narrow horizontally. Like with speakers the pattern is going to make it hard to figure out what is optimum with the likely answer being it depends upon conditions being recorded.
 
?? 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?
It most definitely is. I also think it is a bass ackwards way to achieve it for the most part. If microphones were flat in response with a few available directional patterns you could do the rest with DSP to get the sound you like. I might be simplifying it somewhat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j_j
The question is spherical mean gain vs. frequency in this case. It can help shape off-axis sounds in a very useful fashion. Or sometimes do poorly instead.
 
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.
Breaking the circle of confusion on microphones would be very complex. There is the aspect of frequency response, which could be standardized as neutral. But microphones are also directional in their sensitivity, like a cardioid speaker operating in reverse.

With a multi-microphone AND multi-speaker array in theory you could create a transfer function between a microphone and playback system that could simulate different microphones. But in the real world with stereo speakers and single mics, you can’t really simulate a microphone via processing due to the directional nature.
 
Breaking the circle of confusion on microphones would be very complex. There is the aspect of frequency response, which could be standardized as neutral. But microphones are also directional in their sensitivity, like a cardioid speaker operating in reverse.

With a multi-microphone AND multi-speaker array in theory you could create a transfer function between a microphone and playback system that could simulate different microphones. But in the real world with stereo speakers and single mics, you can’t really simulate a microphone via processing due to the directional nature.
There are commercially a few systems now that let you buy a basic decent quality microphone and it has built in DSP in interfaces to simulate the sound of various well known microphones. It works if you keep similar diaphragm sizes. While not exact a LDC mimicking via EQ another LDC can be pretty close. You need to start with an SDC for SDC microphone simulation. You also need to use a cardioid for cardioids and omnis for omnis. If the size is near the same the directionality will be quite similar and you are left with FR. I'm no expert in microphone design and there likely are other factors, but these can get you rather close. There are also multi-pattern microphones which some of the modeling systems use. I wouldn't say it is perfect, but it isn't bad.

Here is one such system.
 
It most definitely is. I also think it is a bass ackwards way to achieve it for the most part. If microphones were flat in response with a few available directional patterns you could do the rest with DSP to get the sound you like. I might be simplifying it somewhat.
I do understand where your going but in the big picture I thought we just accepted the fact that even the best mic's all sound slightly different, just like speakers. That being the case, mic's are chosen to fit the need with patterns and FR taking into consideration? But in a more perfect world that approach would be a great alternative.
About all I really know about mic's is next to nothing. ;)
 
A long time ago I drank a liter of Pepsi a day. Now I can’t stomach one sip of any soda.

Whereas after decades of only drinking diet soda - I now can't stand the full fat stuff. It's like drinking syrup.
I knew it was a bad idea to even mention this. :facepalm:
But just like a cold beer, sometimes there's nothing quite so good and thirst quenching as a freezing cold A&W Root Beer, or even a "real sugar" Pepsi Cola, not that high-fructose corn syrup sweetened crap. :p
 
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.
We can already do it. Feed the actual music from both bits of gear being compared into a good ADC and compare using deltawave. Or compare the output of a piece of gear from the file input to it.

It has been done here numerous times. What it shows us is that kit that measures transparent in Amir's tests is also transparent with music. But it is not a good way to provide consistent test results showing the different forms of noise and distortion.
 
We can already do it. Feed the actual music from both bits of gear being compared into a good ADC and compare using deltawave. Or compare the output of a piece of gear from the file input to it.

It has been done here numerous times. What it shows us is that kit that measures transparent in Amir's tests is also transparent with music. But it is not a good way to provide consistent test results showing the different forms of noise and distortion.
I guess I forgot to mention the analyzer to be specifically apx555 which I don't think can accept music but only sine waves which it itself generate.
 
I guess I forgot to mention the analyzer to be specifically apx555
Why?

And as I stated above, it is not a good way to analyse the gear and find out how good it is and why. It is only a way to answer the uneducated who say "I don't listen to sine waves". for that reason - it is unlikely to happen.

For people who understand the technology, or for those prepared to put just a little effort in to understand how/why the measurements work, using test tones (not only sine waves) is the best way to analyse gear.
 
Why?

And as I stated above, it is not a good way to analyse the gear and find out how good it is and why. It is only a way to answer the uneducated who say "I don't listen to sine waves". for that reason - it is unlikely to happen.

For people who understand the technology, or for those prepared to put just a little effort in to understand how/why the measurements work, using test tones (not only sine waves) is the best way to analyse gear.
+100 on this.

I cringe every time someone brings up the old you are just testing it with sine waves you need to know how it performs with music.
1722584252638.png
 
I do understand where your going but in the big picture I thought we just accepted the fact that even the best mic's all sound slightly different, just like speakers. That being the case, mic's are chosen to fit the need with patterns and FR taking into consideration? But in a more perfect world that approach would be a great alternative.
About all I really know about mic's is next to nothing. ;)
Well consider the old Calrec Soundfield microphone. After the recording was done, you could select any directional pattern, change the aim in any direction. Not just horizontally, but vertically as well. That still might not let you emulate every possible other microphone, but you could get far with that and some DSP. So while we just accept what is, it could be different.

The music biz is about getting a good enough sound right now and without worrying too much about theoretical perfection. That won't change for a long time, but it could change one day.
 
Especially when sinewaves loads amplifiers harder than music ( crest factor anyone ) and does not mask distortion products like music does so it's easier to hear problems :D

Admittedly for more complex interaction Multitone tests are your friend and the special IMD signals sometimes used .

But its not magic .

You just have to stop anthropomorphizing hifi its not "musical" or have feelings or memory .

An amplifier are just producing a varying voltage right now it just have amplitude and frequency and phase , no 3D soundscape or PRAT in sigth :)
 
..and level-matched? How closely, if at all?

Plenty of room for the Clever Hans Effect in that process. But at least you made an effort, to your credit.

Another interpretation of this non-agreement is that your interpretation of the graphs is not as sophisticated as you think. And were the graphs full Spinorama? When senior researcher Dr Sean Olive reads 'the graphs' of two speakers, and predicts what would be your preference in a controlled listening setup at his facility, he says he has not yet been wrong when the visitor (without training in what to listen for) undergoes a controlled listening test. Perhaps he just knows what to look for in the graphs, and knows what graphs to look at.

cheers
Perhaps.

The argument of highly technical analysis, since wave, o- scopes, audio sonic complexities and so on are - I agree critical for equipment and in this case speaker R&D. Not so much for listening. For me data is highly useful for determining the characteristics and (potential) performance. We can argue all day about the ear being fooled but what of it? Educating my ear would help me appreciate the equipment more. I'm already hearing everything though I may not understand the whats or whys but training my ear will only make me more knowledgeable not aurally improved. I'm sure that's blasphemy to some but I've seen in other forums this using a sledgehammer to kill a fly philosophy. That is let's make the simple so complex that it must be truth.

I totally buy the importance of testing to give clarity and thus eyes open choice through education. But the signal shouldn't have to be tweaked going from speaker to speaker.

Signal in signal out. Like someone above said the sine waves tell you what's going on. All of that stuff isn't for our ears but fodder for the brain to digest. My ears aren't being "fooled". Musical enjoyment shouldn't come with a Bell Tone test to be able to enjoy it.

I tested speakers side by side with one clean source. I'm sure that will be argued. They stood or fell based on that. No judgment of make, price, design, placement etc. The music sounded true or didn't. And honestly the music was already altered in the recording and mastering process so I suppose my adjective "true" is meaningless. I withdraw the subjectivity.

Even the musical score is going to vary based on many variables - conductor, hall, instruments and even talents. So what is heard in one performance could be altered in another. So much so that one loudspeaker is best for the quick tempo of the first symphonic section but isn't for the fading allegro of the last. There's a thought electronic speaker swapping based on best passage performance. :D

I suppose at day's end we push away from the table and say - that's good enough.
 
I tested speakers side by side with one clean source. I'm sure that will be argued. They stood or fell based on that. No judgment of make, price, design, placement etc. The music sounded true or didn't. And honestly the music was already altered in the recording and mastering process so I suppose my adjective "true" is meaningless. I withdraw the subjectivity.

There's nothing wrong with a completely subjective decision for your own stuff, but then it's only valid for you. Of course, that's what matters, perhaps. You just can't extend that observation.
 
I tested speakers side by side with one clean source. I'm sure that will be argued. They stood or fell based on that
Totally fine by me, as long as this is for your sole, personal enjoyment and no family members have to listen to, or co-fund, your choices.

However, this also means you are not in a position to let others know how good a piece of kit sounds (because it may sound awful to them). Nor can you offer your opinion to some other buyer, since you may well be wrong. You can't realistically expect your opinion to be of any value on this or any other forum, since, after all, it is just your opinion.
 
There's nothing wrong with a completely subjective decision for your own stuff, but then it's only valid for you. Of course, that's what matters, perhaps. You just can't extend that observation.
Completely agree.
 
Totally fine by me, as long as this is for your sole, personal enjoyment and no family members have to listen to, or co-fund, your choices.

This is absolute nonsense. Who co-funds another's musical listening? My household isn't dictatorial. I don't force others to listen to my music.
However, this also means you are not in a position to let others know how good a piece of kit sounds (because it may sound awful to them). Nor can you offer your opinion to some other buyer, since you may well be wrong. You can't realistically expect your opinion to be of any value on this or any other forum, since, after all, it is
[sic]


Your comments apply to every opinion and (unsupported) advice given on ASR (and any other forum). Especially since data is not opinion. Even your feelings here are just an opinion. So do they apply? You chose to go down that path. Further we can all be wrong and data can be misinterpreted. Be careful that horse you're on might buck and thumbs up however many won't make for any softer landing.

Also without credentials and qualifications, of which I'm honest to say I have none, even technical advice is suspect. Not that someone has to list their CV. Before feathers get ruffled I know there's very knowledgeable people here. I'm applying that statement to all of my readings not just here.

You also can't realistically expect your "opinions" to be of any value here or elsewhere either since they are your personal views. I respect them as such but leave them at that.

Thanks for your feelings.
 
Last edited:
Your comments apply to every opinion and advice given on ASR (and any other forum). Especially since data is not opinion. Even your comments here are just an opinion. So do they apply? Especially since you've chosen to go down that path. Further we can all be wrong and data can be misinterpreted. Be careful that horse you're on might buck and thumbs up won't make for any softer landing.

I wouldn't call his comments an opinion. If you mostly base your recommendations on your own personal bias cocktail, then their value will be a complete coin toss in the hands of others. If people trust your advice, the impacts might be skewed towards a positive scenario, solely because you "pass the expectation bias on" so to speak, but it's still a highly unpredictable and volatile exercise.

If a person complains about the bass being bloaty in their setup, one advice might be to do some REW measurements. If it shows a nasty standing wave at the listening position, there's lots of additional advice to be given, that has a good chance of either remedying or lessening the situation.

Another "advice" could be to replace you interconnects with something much more fancy and expensive. And yes, the expectation bias you get from spending all that money and installing those lovely looking cables in your system might be strong enough to make you ignore the actual standing wave. But only for a while. A standing wave doesn't just go away and expectation bias doesn't last forever. Then you can try to follow other types of similar "advice", but in the end you'll just be stuck in a loop of gratification and let-down. The problem will never really be solved.

And yeah, more often than not this type of "advice" seems to be given in an attempt at fixing a completely imaginary issue. I guess you could argue that since both the problem and the solution is imaginary, but a positive outcome is perceived, then no real harm is done. Indeed the gratification from purchase/ownership and the subsequent tinkering and emotional attachment is what appears to be the main driving force behind this hobby. Effective solutions and reality checks are more of a footnote.

And I get it. There's not much pride of ownership to be had if your audio gear doesn't do something magical. A simple tool designed to reproduce audio is no fun :D
 
This is absolute nonsense. Who co-funds another's musical listening? My household isn't dictatorial. I don't force others to listen to my music
When a member of a household spends money on product A (let's say a fancy interconnect cable), they have removed the opportunity for another household member to spend that money on product B (let's say a higher quality holiday lodging).

 
Back
Top Bottom