Scott wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:31=3DA0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
=3DA0 On Feb 25, 6:32=3D3DA0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski=3DA0 Sebasti=
an.Kalisze=3D
wrote:
=3DA0 Scott wrote:
=3DA0 On Feb 16, 5:20=3D3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" =
wrote:
=3DA0 "Scott" wrote in message
=3DA0 On Feb 15, 5:31=3D3D3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" ar...@hotpop=
..com=3DA0=3D
wrote:
=3DA0 "Harry Lavo" wrote in message
=3DA0 Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
=3DA0 grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
=3DA0 least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
=3DA0 very unreal. =3D3D3D3DA0Using the SACD version. =3D3D3D3=
DA0And the
=3DA0 culprit....the preamp. =3D3D3D3DA0 Audio Research SP6B v=
s. Onkyo
=3DA0 P301. =3D3D3D3DA0So much for big-box store electronics.
=3DA0 I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
=3DA0 movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
=3DA0 move it in my listening room and list=3D3D3D3D en to it c=
hime,
=3DA0 if I want the true live experience.
=3DA0 Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
=3DA0 possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
=3DA0 speakers that are well-configured for the room.
=3DA0 The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
=3DA0 claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
=3DA0 brought into question by the hi=3D3D3D3D gh end audiophil=
e
=3DA0 comments on this thread.-
=3DA0 Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
=3DA0 mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
=3DA0 No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing t=
o reac=3D
h the
=3DA0 conclusion that I've provided.
=3DA0 Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you* reac=
hed
=3DA0 completely eroneous conclusions.
=3DA0 Well, I don't see those conclusions being erroneous at all.
=3DA0
=3DA0 Interesting consclusion given the fact that they are eroneous.
Fact? Or you assertion? Don't confound facts and your assertions, ple=
ase!
Assertions of fact. No confusion on my part.
Not fact, but just your conslusions. Conclusions which are often based on=
=20
mistaken assumptions (as shown below).
=3DA0 The
=3DA0 primary conclusion in question was that the clocks on DSOTM we=
re
=3DA0 recorded in a dead studio space but the fact is they were reco=
rded
=3DA0 individually in various clock stores.
So? The primary conslusion was the they were close miked and probably
recorded in rather dead space. The conclusion seems pretty right.
But it is actually clearly wrong. several clock shops is pretty far
from being the same as an acoustically dead studio space.
Well, you were provided with factual information to the contrary.=20
Information backed by (basic) physics (see below).
[...snip...]
=3DA0 Yikes. Arny, the album was
=3DA0 recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hard=
ly dea=3D
d
=3DA0 there.
=3DA0 Wchich one?
=3DA0
=3DA0 I said spaces which is a plural. Why are you asking which one =
which =3D
is
=3DA0 singular?
So may I rephprase: Which ones?
studios 1,2 and 3.
Which is not the case based on the very description presented on the Abbe=
y=20
Road webpage, esp. the studio 3.
You can read up on the subject at the Abby Road
studios website.
I did.
But first you might want to read up on the basics of
concert hall acoustics and anechoic chambers so you don't make the
mistake of confusing an excellent concert venue for orchestral music
with an acoustically dead space.
Mistaking anechoic chambers and acoustically dead studios noted.
Mistaking concert and recording venue noted.
Sorry, Scott, but the mentioned terms all have estabilished meaning in th=
e=20
audio engineering. So, yes, venue could be 'too dead', 'quite dead', 'ver=
y=20
dead', etc. Ridiculing that won't help.
Example quote: "For my open baffle speaker designs a room becomes too dea=
d=20
when its RT60 falls below 500 ms". This is direct quote from Siegfired=20
Linkwitz when he talks about room acoustics. He is the man (one of the=20
two) behind Linkwitz-Riley crossover (things used in vast amounts of audi=
o=20
equipment in the wild), designer of loudspeakres, etc. I think, we could=20
safely assume that Dr. Linkwitz knows the terminology...
=3DA0 Kind of funny that we have this interesting article from one
=3DA0 Jon Atkinson on this recording.
=3DA0http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/
=3DA0 " since I recorded an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same=
time =3D
that
=3DA0 the Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the albu=
m did =3D
an
=3DA0 excellent job of preserving the characteristic sound of the =
studio
=3DA0 with which I had become so familiar. Yet when I first listen=
ed to =3D
the
=3DA0 CD layer of the reissue, it didn't sound like Abbey Road at =
all. T=3D
he
=3DA0 sonic subtleties that identify the recording venue and its u=
nique
=3DA0 reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed over. They we=
re the=3D
re
=3DA0 on the SACD, so some investigation was called for."
=3DA0 But what has echo chamber to studio itself begin dead or not?=
Echo
=3DA0 chamber is part of the audio processing chain. Instruments ar=
e not
=3DA0 played there -- miked or prerecorded track is played via spea=
ker(s)=3D
in
=3DA0 the chamber and picked up by mike(s) there.
=3DA0
=3DA0 We are talkng specifically about the use of the echo chamber o=
n DSOT=3D
M.
=3DA0 That is not an acurate description of how the echo chamber was=
used =3D
on
=3DA0 that recording.
How you know all uses of the chamber in the recording?
I did my homework.
So now present the facts (no conslusions, but basic facts) you found doin=
g=20
that homework. As for now you're only saind "nope", "no", "not", etc=20
without actually backing it.
That in one case
they recorded a man running around the chamber doesn't mean they didn=
't
use the chamber other ways. Especially the whole album heavely used t=
hen
state of the art processing.
really? do tell us about the processing Alan Parsons used on DSOTM. Do
tell us what other ways the echo chamber was used in recording DSOTM.
I won't do your homework. The facts are such, that DSoM was heavely=20
processed (one of the most processed "high rank" recordings of its time).=
=20
The fact is that it was heavely multi track recorderd as well. If you=20
assert, that echo chamber was never included in the processing chain=20
except that one particular use, present material to back it up, please.
[...snip...]
As funny as confusing an acoustically dead studio space with multiple
clock shops?
Acoustically dead studio space is not anechoic. That's the estabilished=20
nomenclature. You might not like it, but it's there and if you wan't to=20
have a meaningful dicussion you have no other option, but to accept it.
And then, I've actually shown that nothing prevents typical clock shop=20
from being pretty dead acoustically.
=3DA0 And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your expert=
ise as=3D
a
=3DA0 recordist was "DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, whi=
ch are
=3DA0 generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." =3D3DA0=
=3D3DA0 o=3D
oops.....=3D3D
=3DA0 .
=3DA0 Arny's conslusions are generally right. Oooooops...
=3DA0
=3DA0 No they are consistantly wrong as shown by actual facts about =
the
=3DA0 recording of DSOTM.
Which facts? Would you be so kind to present some?
I already did. If you didn't get them the first time why should I
expect you to get it the next time?
Nope, you presented your conclusions coming from your misunderstanding of=
=20
the terminology, as well as misreading Abbey descritptions. And, as we al=
l=20
know, a conslusion based on false (mistaken) premise is not a fact.
=3DA0 Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the stud=
io.=20
Th=3D ey
=3DA0 were recorded in various clock shops individually. Do you kn=
ow of =3D
any
=3DA0 clock shops that are acoustically dead?
=3DA0 Yes, most are 
oooooops.
=3DA0
=3DA0 Not even close. Feel free to show us an example. Tell us what =
clock
=3DA0 shop has so much absorbtive material on the walls that the spa=
ce is
=3DA0 actually a dead acoustic space.
I've shown in another post.
Nope. you have shown no such thing.
Absorbitive material is not good for mid-low
frequencies.
Sure it is.
Sure?
It's "good" for absorbing acoustical energy at all
frequencies provided the material is thick enough.
The problem is that for low frequencies the material won't be thick enoug=
h.
this is basic
knowlegde in the world of room acoustics. Oooops.
Nope, it's only your misconception, not basic knowledge in the world of=20
room acoustics. The real basic knowledge in the world of room acoustics i=
t=20
that thickness of the material must be non neglible compared to wave=20
length. I'll leave calculating 100-400Hz wave lengths as a little homewor=
k=20
assignment to you.
"Corrugations" clocks on the wall form is. Then the rest of
furniture (which typically includes soft one) does the trick.
No it doesn't. At best it will provide some crude diffusion.
Nope. Check wave physics 101 first, please. This is in fact the very same=
=20
physics which make CD, DVD, and similar optical media players work at all=
=20
(only the wave is of different kind, being acoustic not electromagnetic).
Then, as an additional effect clock boxes provide sound traps. For more,=20
see below.
But a
difuse acoustic field is hardly a dead acoustic space. Oooooops. You
really need to do your homework on room acoustics if you are going to
discuss them here.
I did some time ago
=3DA0 Dead acoustic spaces generally cost
=3DA0 lots of money to build (anechoic chambers and the like)
I've explicitly I do not equate dead space with anechoinc.
Sorry but you don't get to make that determination. You are not the
arbitrator of room acoustics terminology.
Neither are you. And it's you who equate anechoic with just 'pretty dead'=
=20
or 'basically dead', contrary to the terminology used in the field.
Anechoic is
extremely dead.
Seriously? "extremely dead?" Are we having a "Princess Bride"
flashback? Dead is dead.
See above. You're creating your own terminology. A terminology in=20
disagreemens with what specuialists in the field use.
Again, after Dr. Linkwitz: "...a room becomes too dead when its RT60 fall=
s=20
below 500 ms". 500ms RT60 is quite far away from anechoic. Oooooooops
Moreover I explicitly stated what I consider dead space.
Yeah and Steven Wright mentioned having an intense argument with a
roulette wheel dealer over what he considered to be an odd number.
Does not matter how explicitely you state misinformation. It is still
misinformation.
I didn't state a misinformation. I only clarified what I mean (and what=20
Arny meant talking about dead studio space, since what both I and Arny us=
e=20
is a common terminology) as I saw that your understanding of the term=20
might be off from how it's typically uinderstood in the field.
The terminology is established.
Indeed.
Your consideration is
irrelevant.
It's enough for me that it's in agreement with terminology used in the=20
field
=3DA0 so do tell us
=3DA0 how they haphazardly happen more often than not in clock shops=
of al=3D
l
=3DA0 things. all the clock shops I've been in (and I have actual be=
en in
=3DA0 one in London no less) have fairly reflective walls that they =
use to
=3DA0 hang clocks which themselves have fairly reflective surfaces. =
so do
=3DA0 tell us about these acoustically dead clock shops that are mor=
e comm=3D
on
=3DA0 than not.
Rather densely packed space.
Why would you assume that about the clock shops Alan Parsons recorded?
Why would you assume the contrary? I'm just describing typical clock shop=
=20
in your typical European city. Or, could you point to particular shops=20
where Parsons did his recordings (and demosntrate that the're not typical=
=20
clock shops in a typical Western city)?
Lot of little corners and "corrugations"
Which does next to nothing to actually deadening a sound space as the
term dead is actually used in room acoustics.
It does when those boxes disminsions are close to quarter-wave length.
=3DA0 I think you are making a pretty wild claim here that ignores
=3DA0 the basics of room acoustics.
Nope. My claim is pretty well supported by room acoustics physics.
references please.
Check any wave physics 101 handbook.
I recomend to you reading about such basic concepts like wave=20
interference. Esp, what happens to a wave reflecting from a corrugated=20
area with depth being close to quarter it's length. All in all it's=20
absortion rate of 0.5 in the range of wavelenghts for which evenly=20
distributed corrugation sizes are close to quarter wave dimensions.
Absorbtive material is good for mid-high and high frequencies.
This is the second time you have repeated this error in fact.
saying it twice doesn't make it so.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anechoic-chamber-2
"Free-field conditions can be approximated when the absorption by the
boundaries of the room approaches 100%. To reduce sound reflected by
the boundaries to a minimum, the absorption coefficient must be very
high and the surface areas of the boundaries should be large."
Reread the last sentence. Then (re)read the fragment from the very page=20
you quoted (but you didn't mention):
"In order to achieve large surface area, a wall construction is used that=
=20
includes wedges of sound absorptive material, the base of which is usuall=
y=20
between 8 =C3=97 8 in. (20 =C3=97 20 cm) and 8 =C3=97 24 in. (20 =C3=97 6=
0 cm), and the length=20
of which is usually 3 to 5 ft (0.9 to 1.5 m). These wedges resemble=20
stalagmites and stalactites and absorb about 99% of incident sound energy=
=20
over most of the audio-frequency ranges."
All of this is of course a description how to create anechoic (extremely=20
dead) space, not some 'pretty dead'.
Below that
wall filled with cabinets of various sizes with holes of various size=
s is
quite good absorber.
Reference please.
See above. It's basic physics.
Room is considered prettey dead if it's RT60 (reverberation time down to=20
-60dB) is below 0.2-0.3s. Mind, that typical living room RT60 is about=20
0.6s. To get such time for your typical (living or clock schop) room one=20
needs an absortion rate of only 0.16. As demonstrated above, abosortion=20
rate is much higher. Absortion rate of about 1/3 is good enough to get=20
RT60 down to 0.25s.
Finding the equation for estimating RT60, as conceived about 120 years ag=
o=20
by Wallace Sabine is left as an excercise to the reader.
The same wall is good diffusor for mid-high frequencies.
But diffusion does not make a space acoustically dead.
But at higher frequencies the available soft furniture is enough (as=20
material is thick enough for those).
=3DA0 Again let's look at your
=3DA0 assertions as quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to=
sound
=3DA0 like it is entirely =3D3DA0possible with the CD version, mid=
-fi elec=3D
tronics
=3DA0 and speakers that are well-configured for the room." "What i=
s know=3D
n
=3DA0 for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, w=
hich a=3D
re
=3DA0 generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No ex=
perien=3D
ced
=3DA0 recording engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the m=
ic
=3DA0 configuration from the actual recording session) to reach th=
e
=3DA0 conclusion that I've provided."
=3DA0 Nothing strange or wrong with that.
=3DA0
=3DA0 Other than the fact that the conclusion reached was painfully
=3DA0 incorrect?
Fact? The fact is it was generally correct!
I suppose if one doesn't understand the difference between an
acoustically dead studio space and mulitple clock shops.
As noted above, acoustically dead studio is pretty never anechoic. You=20
should not derive your understanding of matters based on mistaken=20
understanding of the terminology actually used in the field.
[...snip...]
=3DA0 mastering does matter. doing your homework does help in chos=
ing th=3D
e
=3DA0 better masterings.
=3DA0 Doing your homework does help understand the matters discusse=
d, lik=3D
e how
=3DA0 echo chambers are utilised, for example.
=3DA0
=3DA0 That is a fine example and had you done your homework you woul=
d have
=3DA0 known better than to post information about it that was irrele=
vant t=3D
o
=3DA0 how the echo chamber was actually used in the recording of DSO=
TM.
See above. One particular use doesn't preclude other uses.
Feel free to cite the other documented uses.
Nope, it's now your job to prove that the chamber was not used in any=20
other way...
=3DA0 DSOTM has not been a very good reference for you so far on t=
his
=3DA0 thread.
=3DA0 You're trying to turn the discussion in irrelevant side matte=
rs, li=3D
ke
=3DA0 how many remasters of DSotM are there.
=3DA0
=3DA0 No I am responding to and correcting misinformation. Much like=
I am
=3DA0 doing in this post with the misinformation you have added to t=
he
=3DA0 thread.
Could you, please, show what misinformations I've added?
I did
No, you did not. You only presented your conclusions based on your,=20
unrotunately wrong uderstanding of the terms and their actual meaning (ho=
w=20
it's actually understood by the experts in the field) and on forgetting=20
some wave physic.
rgds
\SK
--=20
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--=20
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)