R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 21 
 on: November 17, 2017, 12:20:01 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by soapfoot
My life got a lot easier (and my recordings got a lot better) when I ditched any illusion of (or aspiration for) "accuracy," and began to just listen and choose the subjectively best option.

The entire goal of recording is good sound. I am confident in my ability to use discretion, experience, and judgment to make that determination. I don't need any number or specification as a cosigner.

 22 
 on: November 17, 2017, 11:52:10 am 
Started by klaus - Last post by jaykadis
You misunderstand. The "accurate" microphone's job is to present to the ear what it would have received as input if it had been where the microphone was placed.

Unfortunately we also need a loudspeaker to deliver that stimulus to the ear so we're screwed regardless of how good the microphone gets at its job.

 23 
 on: November 17, 2017, 05:30:17 am 
Started by klaus - Last post by Timtape
The human auditory system is far from perfect, but in fact that does not matter because what we perceive is interpreted by the brain into "hearing" incorporating the system's imperfections. The "accurate" microphone's job is simply to present to the auditory system a minimally altered representation of what an ear would have heard had it been in the place of the microphone.

Not that I'm aware of. Mics normally output relatively flat. The human ear's response is not flat. It  has a special response a la the Fletcher Munson curves.  If mics responsed like the ear they would have a pronounced wide band peak centred  around 3 kHz and would sound overly midrange to us. But to take account of this fact, there are "weighting curves" incorporated in sound level meters which approximate how humans perceive sound levels and can be more realistic in some measurement situations.

Mics dont take the place of the ear. 





 24 
 on: November 16, 2017, 02:15:21 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by jaykadis
I envision a transducer that quantizes the air movement and force exerted at the molecular level, integrating the individual contributions in the device itself. Materials like graphene might make such a transducer possible, for instance. Thus the digitization becomes part of the transduction itself rather than a subsequent measurement. Clearly, this does not currently exist.

No argument about loudspeakers - they suck no matter how much money you throw at them.

 25 
 on: November 16, 2017, 12:47:08 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by Jim Williams
Any digital based microphone design is limited by the front end that does the electrical conversion of sound pressure waves into an electrical signal. The digitizing comes after, not before the transducer.

Once encoded into an electrical signal, whether analog or digital the problems begin, not end. Then the rest of the system gets to do its destructive influence and removal of any reality that was originally preserved. Speakers are the worst offenders, none of them can approach the THD specs of a well designed microphone. Stick 5~10% THD on top of a low THD signal and it's a wonder we can discern any quality left at all.

In the end, electrical based audio reproduction sucks in it's ability to preserve the "moment". Until something else comes along, it's all we have right now besides the live experience.

 26 
 on: November 16, 2017, 11:05:44 am 
Started by klaus - Last post by jaykadis
The human auditory system is far from perfect, but in fact that does not matter because what we perceive is interpreted by the brain into "hearing" incorporating the system's imperfections. The "accurate" microphone's job is simply to present to the auditory system a minimally altered representation of what an ear would have heard had it been in the place of the microphone. Microphones that create a distinctly imperfect representation are sometimes preferred for musical purposes while those that come closer to transducing the air pressure and velocity changes at the point of measurement into electrical signals would be considered to be more "accurate". Both approaches have their uses.


I am still waiting for a true digital microphone that can convert bulk molecular motions into an electrical signal.

 27 
 on: November 16, 2017, 04:15:33 am 
Started by klaus - Last post by Timtape
I did not write the "rough" part.

Quite. The "rough" comment was written on another audio forum, coincidentally by a repairer and servicer of microphones.

Quote from: klaus
But what I wrote about mics being rather primitive simulations of how we pick up sound, I stand by that. Our ears are sophisticated organs with an ability to discern and process highly complex signals of varying intensity and frequencies with incredibly high resolution, without smear, and three-dimensionally.

 Yes F. Alton Everest (1989) referred to hearing as "that marvellous sense" and went into detail as to its amazing complexity and ability, while also mentioning some of its limitations.

But as alluded to earlier, a mic is in a way just the equivalent to the mechanical parts of the  human ear: eardrum, hammer, anvil, stirrup, cochlea perhaps. Just like those human parts, a microphone doesnt pretend to  "discern" or "process" sound. It doesnt need to.  We the human listener do that mental interpreting when the signals from the ears reach our even more amazing brains.

Quote from: klaus
Given the choice, wouldn't we all prefer to hear the original source and not the miked copy?

Of course, not to mention actually being there at the live performance and seeing it all before our eyes. I'm greatly looking forward  to being at this year's live Messiah performance with soloists, combined choir and orchestra at our local university's fine  auditorium. Nothing like it.

But  again, where is the evidence that the reproduction from top mics - even from some  cheaper mics- is "relatively primitive"? I welcome it.

 28 
 on: November 15, 2017, 11:37:34 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by klaus
I did not write the "rough" part. But what I wrote about mics being rather primitive simulations of how we pick up sound, I stand by that. Our ears are sophisticated organs with an ability to discern and process highly complex signals of varying intensity and frequencies with incredibly high resolution, without smear, and three-dimensionally.

Given the choice, wouldn't we all prefer to hear the original source and not the miked copy?

That is not to say that mics are useless. They make up for some of their deficiencies with euphony: enhance or suppress aspects of the original sound, then sprinkle fairy dust over it (ELA M251, U47, etc. etc.)

 29 
 on: November 15, 2017, 10:28:48 pm 
Started by klaus - Last post by Timtape
 When someone says that the response of even today's highest fidelity mics is "rough as hell" or that today's mics are "primitive" I ask:

1. Compared to what?
2. What evidence do you have for those claims?
3. How  did (or would) you go about testing those claims?

Tim

 30 
 on: November 15, 2017, 12:51:37 pm 
Started by MikeRivers - Last post by Jim Williams
Will it log on and do social media all by itself? I'd love to see a troll fight between devices.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10