The most important parameter of all: overall system integrity

[watchnerd]

Not a good measure, too simple. The "pleasure centers" are not homogeneous and, usually, inhibitory neurons outnumber excitatory neurons in most cortex.

I'm far from a neuro scientist, so I'll have to take your word for it. What's your alternative?

 

[watchnerd]

Precisely. Since recording and mastering technology works to a very high standard, well beyond virtually all playback systems, there is plenty further to extract.

Uh..what?

For all the power of digital production, the beginning of the chain begins with microphones, which are transducers (like speakers and cartridges), with all the flaws of the genus.

Go microphone shopping some time, listen to the vast differences.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I'm far from a neuro scientist, so I'll have to take your word for it. What's your alternative?

I do not have one. Who does?

 

[fas42]

Uh..what?

For all the power of digital production, the beginning of the chain begins with microphones, which are transducers (like speakers and cartridges), with all the flaws of the genus.

Go microphone shopping some time, listen to the vast differences.

Yes, they are transducers - but their job is infinitely easier than on the other side: they only have to capture a snapshot of what is real; the other lot have to attempt to mimic that reality, from an imperfect copy.

The microphones may differ, but they all pick up huge amounts which are typically lost in most replay; the first thing I always notice in listening to other systems is that there is so much missing, whole chunks of what I know is on a particular recording is essentially inaudible, masked by the low level blurring of the playback.

Differences are fine: I can listen to a classic track from the late 50's, and it's rich with golden honey overtones from the recording technology used then - doesn't stop the detail being heard, and the enjoyment in the listening ...

 

[watchnerd]

I do not have one. Who does?

Apparently @fas42 has one, called 'system integrity'.

 

[watchnerd]

Yes, they are transducers - but their job is infinitely easier than on the other side: they only have to capture a snapshot of what is real; the other lot have to attempt to mimic that reality, from an imperfect copy.

If microphones all sound different, with published frequency response deviations, with published dynamic range deviations, with different field patterns, how can they possibly be infinitely easier?

 

[March Audio]

Yes, they are transducers - but their job is infinitely easier than on the other side: they only have to capture a snapshot of what is real; the other lot have to attempt to mimic that reality, from an imperfect copy.

The microphones may differ, but they all pick u...

That is nonsense. I will be posting another thread some microphone comparisons.

From your comments you have obviously never looked at mic specs let alone listened to the differences.

 

[fas42]

Apparently @fas42 has one, called 'system integrity'.

No, system integrity gives you 100% invisible speakers, which you can "measure" by noting whether you can hear the driver. Note the usual practice of checking whether a driver is working, by putting your ear next to it? Well, boys and girls, that method fails when you get convincing sound ...

 

[fas42]

If microphones all sound different, with published frequency response deviations, with published dynamic range deviations, with different field patterns, how can they possibly be infinitely easier?

Sounding different is not the same thing as picking up fine detail - and the latter is what's critical to creating a strong illusion. Personally, I find it remarkable how recordings at the very beginning of the gramophone era have so much information on them - the crudeness of the transducers didn't seem to get in the way of capturing subtle aspects of what was going on, and high quality playback makes this clear to hear.

What I do find bizarre is that it is almost impossible to find distortion information on microphones - for something which is supposedly "measurable" - well, no-one goes to the trouble of doing so, it seems ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

No, system integrity gives you 100% invisible speakers, which you can "measure" by noting whether you can hear the driver. Note the usual practice of checking whether a driver is working, by putting your ear next to it? Well, boys and girls, that method fails when you get convincing sound ...

I've read some rather incredible things from you Frank. So now you are saying with a system you have optimized you can put your ear right next to a driver, and it has disappeared so completely you'll be unable to tell if it is working. This really is some balderdash. Incredible, great heaping levels of misinformation, and impossibility. Do you really expect people to believe this?

 

[fas42]

I've read some rather incredible things from you Frank. So now you are saying with a system you have optimized you can put your ear right next to a driver, and it has disappeared so completely you'll be unable to tell if it is working. This really is some balderdash. Incredible, great heaping levels of misinformation, and impossibility. Do you really expect people to believe this?

Haven't you been reading, Dennis? I've been saying this very thing ever since I started posting on forums, years ago ... I use the term 100% invisible many times, and that's exactly what you get: 100% means 100%.

This is precisely what happened 30 years ago, and it floored me - at the time I couldn't believe it any more than your reaction now - but, there it was ...

Not impossible ... just, the brain accepts the illusion so completely that it refuses to acknowledge that the driver is the source.

 

[Nightlord]

I've read some rather incredible things from you Frank. So now you are saying with a system you have optimized you can put your ear right next to a driver, and it has disappeared so completely you'll be unable to tell if it is working. This really is some balderdash. Incredible, great heaping levels of misinformation, and impossibility. Do you really expect people to believe this?

Depends on what speaker you have....

Try detecting if all tweeters are playing on this:

(Carlsson OA-2212)

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Apparently @fas42 has one, called 'system integrity'.

Yes, that is his parameter but there is no way to measure it.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Sounding different is not the same thing as picking up fine detail - and the latter is what's critical to creating a strong illusion. Personally, I find it remarkable how recordings at the very beginning of the gramophone era have so much information on them - the crudeness of the transducers didn't seem to get in the way of capturing subtle aspects of what was going on, and high quality playback makes this clear to hear.

What I do find bizarre is that it is almost impossible to find distortion information on microphones - for something which is supposedly "measurable" - well, no-one goes to the trouble of doing so, it seems ...

How would you measure the distortion of a microphone?
Firstly you would need a microphone known to have no distortion picking up the same sound at the same point to compare your test item to
Comparing input to output is a lot easier on all other parts of the chain - with microphones less so.

 

[RayDunzl]

Firstly you would need a microphone known to have no distortion

How would that one have been measured?

 

[Nightlord]

How would that one have been measured?

How about using a principle needing no measurement to be proved free of distortion in the audio range... Like detecting the sound waves in the air by way of laser interferometry or similar?

 

[Thomas savage]

A temporary reply ban has been issued to @fas42 .

 

[Blumlein 88]

Depends on what speaker you have....

Try detecting if all tweeters are playing on this:

(Carlsson OA-2212)

Frank is saying you couldn't detect any of them.

 

[Blumlein 88]

How about using a principle needing no measurement to be proved free of distortion in the audio range... Like detecting the sound waves in the air by way of laser interferometry or similar?

I think they are called piston phones or something like that. A tube with a piston mechanically driven to know what wave it is creating and the microphone capsule in the other end of the tube. There are various other methods. For instance some planar speakers can measure with quality mics below .1% as can a few normal tweeters. So how much of that .1 % is mic and how much speaker? We don't know, but we know both are somewhere below that level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_microphone_calibration

Okay pistonphones for low frequencies and more involved, but doable procedures at higher frequencies.

 

[March Audio]

Sounding different is not the same thing as picking up fine detail - and the latter is what's critical to creating a strong illusion. Personally, I find it remarkable how recordings at the very beginning of the gramophone era have so much information on them - the crudeness of the transducers didn't seem to get in the way of capturing subtle aspects of what was going on, and high quality playback makes this clear to hear.

What I do find bizarre is that it is almost impossible to find distortion information on microphones - for something which is supposedly "measurable" - well, no-one goes to the trouble of doing so, it seems ...

Except of course, they dont.