...and, gotta love the refrain (-; , as we've already allowed, that's just the Q of the frequency domain transfer. Since you didn't use an LPf, not only is the transfer free of pre-echo, but also the Q of the time domain(*) transfer has been applied to the sigma. It's a bit like dark energy causing more cosmic torque than should be possible, if based on what we can see.
"toodle pip,"
Andrew
(*) ...or however one should categorize the
Logged
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2010, 06:20:38 PM »
| dcollins wrote on Mon, 08 February 2010 18:08 |
I've tried all the Google language tools and nothing seems to help here.
|
Turn the screen over and close your eyes.
Logged
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2010, 06:30:01 PM »
| dcollins wrote on Mon, 08 February 2010 18:08 |
| Andrew Hamilton wrote on Mon, 08 February 2010 04:58 |
...and, gotta love the refrain (-; , as we've already allowed, that's just the Q of the frequency domain transfer. Since you didn't use an LPf, not only is the transfer free of pre-echo, but also the Q of the time domain(*) transfer has been applied to the sigma. It's a bit like dark energy causing more cosmic torque than should be possible, if based on what we can see.
"toodle pip,"
Andrew
(*) ...or however one should categorize the
Logged
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2010, 06:40:18 PM »
| dcollins wrote on Mon, 08 February 2010 18:08 |
| Andrew Hamilton wrote on Mon, 08 February 2010 04:58 |
...and, gotta love the refrain (-; , as we've already allowed, that's just the Q of the frequency domain transfer. Since you didn't use an LPf, not only is the transfer free of pre-echo, but also the Q of the time domain(*) transfer has been applied to the sigma. It's a bit like dark energy causing more cosmic torque than should be possible, if based on what we can see.
"toodle pip,"
Andrew
(*) ...or however one should categorize the
Logged
www.serifsound.compremastering for CD and DVD-A. Featuring FTP load in and delivery as well as analog tape transfers.
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2010, 01:53:04 AM »
| Andrew Hamilton wrote on Wed, 10 February 2010 10:40 |
it reminds me of the curious gravitational effects that are observed by astronomers who maintain that all of the objects that are visible out there can not account for all of the perceived gravitational forces. Ergo, there must be a kind of Dark Matter and Dark Energy which is also afoot.
|
Totally agree... (off topic) In theory, our night sky shouldn't be dark either, given the number of stars out there & the duration they've been emitting light, alone, into the universe. Paradoxically, I still find it amazing that we can see the stars at all, given their distance and the inverse square law (albeit our sun is but an average sized star). (I raised this at a meeting of the Astronomical Society of Victoria a few yrs ago & it was dismissed as being 'outside the scope of this discussion'). (on topic) Yes simply knowing an EQ's Q factor is still only one "dimension". (as with some on a another forum claiming that EQ's are all the same if they measure the same THD & S/N figures when compared with matched freq curves). In any case, I also appreciate the fact that the NSEQ-f here is black.
Logged
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2010, 10:08:54 AM »
| Andrew Hamilton wrote on Tue, 09 February 2010 18:40 |
... I'd venture that the big change in the female vocal heft noticed from a very small boost at 30 cycles was more to do with the (un/)masking created by the phase shift introduced by the tweak...
|
Care to elaborate on how phase shift causes unmasking?
Logged
« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2010, 01:46:34 PM »
This thread kinda makes me not want an NSEQ. Is that wrong?
Logged
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2010, 08:50:43 PM »
| Bonati wrote on Wed, 10 February 2010 12:46 |
This thread kinda makes me not want an NSEQ. Is that wrong?
|
It's an amazing, musical sounding EQ, esp with the Forssell mod. I use mine all day every day, as do many other MEs. JT
Logged
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2010, 11:35:48 AM »
| Adam Dempsey wrote on Wed, 10 February 2010 00:53 |
In theory, our night sky shouldn't be dark either, given the number of stars out there & the duration they've been emitting light, alone, into the universe.
|
What would that light be reflecting off of to illuminate the night sky?
Logged
« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2010, 12:11:27 PM »
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 11 February 2010 16:35 |
| Adam Dempsey wrote on Wed, 10 February 2010 00:53 |
In theory, our night sky shouldn't be dark either, given the number of stars out there & the duration they've been emitting light, alone, into the universe.
|
What would that light be reflecting off of to illuminate the night sky?
|
Cue Theremin.
Logged
« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2010, 03:12:36 PM »
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 11 February 2010 10:35 |
| Adam Dempsey wrote on Wed, 10 February 2010 00:53 |
In theory, our night sky shouldn't be dark either, given the number of stars out there & the duration they've been emitting light, alone, into the universe.
|
What would that light be reflecting off of to illuminate the night sky?
|
The answer is not that simple. With all the light energy that is been produced, just the radiation should be large enough to illuminate the Milky Way, no need for objects reflecting. Just the same as radio waves don't need a physical support to exist, same with light. If the universe was static, night would be very bright. The reason (I've not invented it, generations of physicists have sweated on the subject, and finally, only recently (1990's) have produced an answer that suits both theory and observations (the basis for a model to be validated, until the next discovery ruins it  ). The reason is that the universe is expanding faster than the wavefront of light energy coming from the Big Bang, so the light energy density decreases with distance and time. The residual luminosity is so low that we call it night.
Logged
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2010, 07:30:18 PM »
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 11 February 2010 12:50 |
| Bonati wrote on Wed, 10 February 2010 12:46 |
This thread kinda makes me not want an NSEQ. Is that wrong?
|
It's an amazing, musical sounding EQ, esp with the Forssell mod.
I use mine all day every day, as do many other MEs.
|
Used it again yesterday. Probably about 50% of projects.
Logged
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2010, 07:34:52 PM »
| Geoff Emerick de Fake wrote on Fri, 12 February 2010 07:12 |
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 11 February 2010 10:35 |
| Adam Dempsey wrote on Wed, 10 February 2010 00:53 |
In theory, our night sky shouldn't be dark either, given the number of stars out there & the duration they've been emitting light, alone, into the universe.
|
What would that light be reflecting off of to illuminate the night sky?
|
The answer is not that simple. With all the light energy that is been produced, just the radiation should be large enough to illuminate the Milky Way, no need for objects reflecting. Just the same as radio waves don't need a physical support to exist, same with light. If the universe was static, night would be very bright.
The reason (I've not invented it, generations of physicists have sweated on the subject, and finally, only recently (1990's) have produced an answer that suits both theory and observations (the basis for a model to be validated, until the next discovery ruins it ).
The reason is that the universe is expanding faster than the wavefront of light energy coming from the Big Bang, so the light energy density decreases with distance and time. The residual luminosity is so low that we call it night.
|
Yes I think I first read this in Paul Davies' 'The Last Three Minutes' or John Gribbin's 'The Case of the Missing Neutrinos'.
Logged
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2010, 11:48:15 PM »
| zmix wrote on Wed, 10 February 2010 10:08 |
| Andrew Hamilton wrote on Tue, 09 February 2010 18:40 |
... I'd venture that the big change in the female vocal heft noticed from a very small boost at 30 cycles was more to do with the (un/)masking created by the phase shift introduced by the tweak...
|
Care to elaborate on how phase shift causes unmasking?
|
While English is not their first language, I think you will see that I am not smoking something (too strong for me, that is...); http://www.springerlink.com/content/y8865v6511m2672t/Their experiment is rather similar to what I am describing. I honestly don't know for a fact if what I am suggesting here is balderdash or brilliant, but I _do_ know that when I cut or add only half a dB to a sensitive center frequency on an eq that a complex signal is passing through (as in a channel of an entire mix) - and not all cf's are equally sensitive on a given recording, obviously - there can be more of an effect than should have occurred from the tiny boost, or cut, itself. Therefore, if it's not the frequency change, isn't the only parameter left, the
Logged
www.serifsound.compremastering for CD and DVD-A. Featuring FTP load in and delivery as well as analog tape transfers.
|
|
|
|
|
