Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Mr. Winer is incorrect on a number of points. If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would produce significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T. Mr. Winer's prejudices are obvious -- he works for a company that makes acoustic-treatment devices. I think you give Ethan far too little credit for his scientific objectivity. I've made the same types of measurements in the past using Earthworks omni's matched to +-.2 dB and found the exact same thing that Ethan did. The extent to which the ear/brain extrapolates, fills and compensates is very underappreciated. It very much discerns what it expects to discern. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: The fundamental problem with Ethan Winer's "explanation" is that it assumes not only that huge differences in tonal balance are produced by minor head movements, but that listeners make such minor movements during audition. I think it's more that TINY changes in tonal balance are perceived. We are just good at ignoring these spectral changes since they occur constantly. -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Ethan Winer wrote: and I explain it here in detail: http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html Hi Ethan, Your analysis here is consistent with your other impressive observations in the audio realm and demonstrate your very substantial understanding of the field. It may indeed explain some of the claims of audiophiles and is worthy of further study. However, it appears that many audiophiles suffer from a variety of perceptual defects some of which fall into the realm of blacks magic, witchcraft, alien abduction, psychoses, and various fields of pseudoscience. It would be most unfortunate if people misread your treatise as an endorsement of these types of quackery. You may want to have a disclaimer that your observations only apply to audiophiles that are capable of making rational judgments and have no absurd preconceived and unshakable notions as to how high-quality sound reproduction is achieved. jwvm |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
jwvm wrote:
hank alrich wrote: Walt wrote: Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences can do funny things. What pickups have that output impedance? -- ha The latest thing in cheapie microphones, electrets with no FET follower! Perfect for recording 16 Hz. organ notes and not much else. :-) Piezo guitar pickups, sans preamp? jak |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
hank alrich wrote: Walt wrote: Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences can do funny things. What pickups have that output impedance? -- ha The latest thing in cheapie microphones, electrets with no FET follower! Perfect for recording 16 Hz. organ notes and not much else. :-) |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
1 inch or less would put the issue to rest, however... Ethan?
When I get a chance I'll do that. It's not trivial for me because I have to drive to my company's factory an hour away where we have a special lab room set up, schlep my laptop and microphone, remove all the treatment, etc. However: People tend to sit where they're comfortable; I'd be willing to bet that most listeners can stand up, then sit down again multiple times, and the total peak-to-peak variation in the positions of their ears will be 1" -- probably less The response can switch from a peak to a null across a span of two quarter-wavelengths. For one inch that's a big change at 7 KHz. Also, both ears receive a wildly different response from the get-go just being six or seven inches apart. The new news are LP demagnetizes like the Furutech De Mag ($1,800) and Acoustic Revive ($2,995) D'oh! That's actually what I meant. Either way, CD demagnetizers or LP demagnetizers are equally ridiculous. Yet the reviewer heard a big difference anyway. What kills me with these reviews is the faux objectivity. Such reviews often start like this: "I wasn't expecting this thing to really do anything. In fact I HOPED it wouldn't work. But gosh darn it, not only did I hear a huge improvement, so did everyone else in the room." Can you say mass-delusion? :-) One factor that would need to be examined in this study, is the affect of there being two ears and thus two very different sound sources being mixed. I did address that: "We don't usually notice these changes when moving around because each ear receives a different response, so what we perceive is more of an average. A peak or deep null in one ear is likely not present in the other ear, and vice versa. And since all rooms have this property, we're accustomed to hearing these changes and don't even notice them. However, the change in response over distance is very real, and it's definitely audible if you listen carefully. If you cover one ear it's even easier to notice because then the frequencies missing in one ear are not present in the other ear." The amazing thing is how much time and effort is spent on very subtleties occurring in the signal chain, when transducers and acoustical effects are so much bigger ... Some folks will spend a zillion bucks on a sound system and then totally cut the budget for acoustic treatment of a big venue. I get this every day - "I just spent $12k on a bunch of high-end microphones and preamps, so I'm about out of cash. I know $400 isn't much to treat my control room, but that's all I have left. Can you help me?" it appears that many audiophiles suffer from a variety of perceptual defects some of which fall into the realm of blacks magic, witchcraft, alien abduction, psychoses, and various fields of pseudoscience. Agreed 100 percent. And not just audiophiles, but anyone who regularly "invests" in lottery tickets, buys most types of alternative medicine products, or prays for their favorite sports team to win. Thanks for all the comments folks. --Ethan |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
hank alrich wrote:
Walt wrote: Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences can do funny things. What pickups have that output impedance? Piezos are pretty close. You can tell the difference in sound between a 10M input and a 20M input with typical piezos. I hate piezos. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Ethan Winer wrote:
When I get a chance I'll do that. It's not trivial for me because I have to drive to my company's factory an hour away where we have a special lab room set up, schlep my laptop and microphone, remove all the treatment, etc. It would be really instructive to take measurements from the same positions with and without the room's normal treatment. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
I don't know how you would get the impression that Mr. Winer's article amounts to an endorsement of witchcraft. First of all, although he didn't elaborate, the delusionary mechanisms by which someone might practice witchcraft would be employed by 'audiophiles' hearing things which aren't there, these are shortcomings of human perception, not simply the domain of people not making 'rational enough judgements'. In fact rationalization is one of the mechanisms by which delusion is bolstered. We're all susceptible to the errors of judgement that are inherent in owners of human brains. While it's true that a reading a discourse on paredolia might help someone realize that he's not seeing jesus christ in his tortilla, when it comes to avoiding the use of logical fallacy, even the smartest among us spend years studying logic and still find themselves engaging in fallacy once in a while. And then we've got the whole problem of communal reinforcement, which Mr. Winer referred to as 'mass delusion'. It doesn't matter how smart or rational you are, if you are the type of person who really wants to 'get along' with others, or feels anxiety when more than one person disagrees with you, you are going to join in with the crowd proclaiming that the Emperor is infact wearing a fine suit, even if your rational mind is screaming about the error to your minds ear... In fact, it's the people who glean a rudimentary understanding of delusion that are more likely to be deluded, because they think they are smart enough not to be. It's a proven fact that people with post-secondary education are MORE likely to believe in the supernatural than those without. That's because well-informed, savvy people think they are immune to delusion or irrational behavior, but they are not. There is nothing in Ethan's article that suggests anything about audiophiles at all. My concern is that Ethan might want to characterize which audiophiles he is addressing. Clearly, his arguments would likely hold little sway with those who would spend $500 for a wooden knob or $1000 for a power cord. Audiophiles who maintain a reasonable degree of objectivity would be, I suspect, the people that Ethan is addressing. I have great respect for Ethan given that he is extremely talented both musically and technically. My only concern is that delusional audiophiles might somehow exploit his treatsie as justification for their rants and illogical "theories" regarding audio reproduction. As for one's level of education and belief in the supernatural, this is an audio production forum and so nothing more needs to be stated. In terms of irrational audio production and reproduction techniques, however, there are many absurdities and these are valid areas for discussion. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Scott Dorsey wrote:
hank alrich wrote: Walt wrote: Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences can do funny things. What pickups have that output impedance? Piezos are pretty close. You can tell the difference in sound between a 10M input and a 20M input with typical piezos. I can definitely hear the changes for the gooder up to about ten mgeohms, with pickups like the Baggs saddle in my mandolin. The K&K pickups seem to work just fine, sans special preamps (though they offer those, too), into ordinary instrument amp inputs (think Fender Blues Jr., etc.). I hate piezos. You need to hear the K&K stuff. -- ha |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
David Grant wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message... Mr. Winer is incorrect on a number of points. If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would produce significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T. Your aural perception and Ethan's data don't agree. This hardly makes ethan "incorrect"; for example, the conscious mind could have evolved to not notice any such spectral changes, and it's only when coupled with psychological factors that this change leads to perceived improvement. Or perhaps it's due to the "averaging" effect stereo hearing has which he mentioned. Or perhaps something else. Mr. Winer's prejudices are obvious -- he works for a company that makes acoustic-treatment devices. This arouses suspicion and encourages checking of results (someone should repeat the experiment and check results). This fact alone however doesn't necessitate that he's twisting the truth. I don't think it discredits him in any way - unless of course the data is fabricated. I'd certainly publish any such findings if I were in his business. Not all marketing is evil - just the dishonest kind. Besides which, Ethan offers FREE plans online to build absorbers as close as possible to those he markets, justifiably short the proprietary materials involved. Only those too inept or too lazy to run a saw and swing a hammer need be driven by his "marketing".. -- ha |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
|
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
|
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
|
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
In article NNZUg.46861$bf5.35059@edtnps90, says...
In article , says... David Grant wrote: "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message... Mr. Winer is incorrect on a number of points. If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would produce significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T. Your aural perception and Ethan's data don't agree. This hardly makes ethan "incorrect"; for example, the conscious mind could have evolved to not notice any such spectral changes, and it's only when coupled with psychological factors that this change leads to perceived improvement. Or perhaps it's due to the "averaging" effect stereo hearing has which he mentioned. Or perhaps something else. Mr. Winer's prejudices are obvious -- he works for a company that makes acoustic-treatment devices. This arouses suspicion and encourages checking of results (someone should repeat the experiment and check results). This fact alone however doesn't necessitate that he's twisting the truth. I don't think it discredits him in any way - unless of course the data is fabricated. I'd certainly publish any such findings if I were in his business. Not all marketing is evil - just the dishonest kind. Besides which, Ethan offers FREE plans online to build absorbers as close as possible to those he markets, justifiably short the proprietary materials involved. Only those too inept or too lazy to run a saw and swing a hammer need be driven by his "marketing".. Someone who doesn't OWN a suitable power saw, or even someone who does own a suitable power saw but doesn't want to uncessarily risk cutting his fingers off might decide to buy Mr. Winer's products rather than make them himself using the blueprints Mr. Winer generously provides to anyone for free. Your main point that Mr. Winer isn't engaging in any dishonest marketing is well taken, but to make that point, you needn't charactarize his customers as 'lazy' because that's simply inaccurate. And there's also the Bill Gates Dropping $100 Bill Factor. If Bill Gates drops a hundred dollar bill, it's in his best interests to not waste the time to pick it up because he can make more than $100 by working in the amount of time it takes to pick up the $100. I would suspect that many if not most of Mr. Winer's customers could make more money working during the time it would take to DIY Mr. Winer's products themselves. That's one of the main things that keeps capitalist economies chugging along. If rich people spent all their time personally manufacturing their toys they wouldn't have any time to devote to making themselves rich. Now you know why Mr. Trump doesn't roll up his sleeves and grab his hammer and saw whenever he wants a new yacht. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Chevdo,
I would suspect that many if not most of Mr. Winer's customers could make more money working during the time it would take to DIY Mr. Winer's products themselves. Indeed. Also, the traps I sell are quite a bit better than any of the DIY plans on my personal site. There's nothing wrong with DIY! But in many cases it's not as good as a well designed commercial product. --Ethan |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Chevdo,
Perhaps he could tell us who he was addressing and put the matter to rest? Nothing I can write will convince anyone who PREFERS to be irrational. And there are plenty of those! So the best I can aim for is to clearly present the facts as I see them, and hope to sway those sitting on the fence. There are a lot of those people too. I visit many audio forums and see people who love audio, and get an earful from both sides, but they don't know enough technically to determine which side makes more sense. So I guess I see my audience as rational people who want to learn what really matters and what doesn't about audio. The rest will never be convinced no matter how logical an argument is presented, and there's nothing anyone can do to educate them. --Ethan |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Bob,
It would be really instructive to take measurements from the same positions with and without the room's normal treatment. I do have measurements for those same two locations (plus several others) with bass traps in place. Unfortunately, we added ONLY bass traps, and not first reflection treatment too. That test was intended to compare bass traps versus EQ, and for anyone interested I wrote up the results he www.realtraps.com/eq-traps.htm Yes, some people really do believe that EQ is a valid substitute for bass traps. Not so much in the pro audio world anymore, but audiophiles and home theater folks want desperately to believe that a small electronic device can replace visually intrusive room treatment. If only... --Ethan |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ... Bob, It would be really instructive to take measurements from the same positions with and without the room's normal treatment. I do have measurements for those same two locations (plus several others) with bass traps in place. So put the graph from your comb filtering article comparing the two locations (4-inch-spaced) without treatment, next to a graph (with the same scales, superposition, etc) comparing the two locations with treatment. It would be interesting to see how (and if) treatment reduces the difference between positions. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
'mass delusion'. It doesn't matter how smart or rational you are, if you
are the type of person who really wants to 'get along' with others, or feels anxiety when more than one person disagrees with you, you are going to join in with the crowd proclaiming that the Emperor is infact wearing a fine suit, even if your rational mind is screaming about the error to your minds ear... In fact, it's the people who glean a rudimentary understanding of delusion that are more likely to be deluded, because they think they are smart enough not to be. It's a proven fact that people with post-secondary education are MORE likely to believe in the supernatural than those without. That's because well-informed, savvy people think they are immune to delusion or irrational behavior, but they are not. etc. I think fallacious reasoning / irrational thinking is natural for most everyone, but there exists in some people the capacity to understand in a more logical way. However, I think logical thinking must be nurtured, developed and reinforced. There are so many social forces working against those who try to maintain rationality so it's a constant struggle against both internal and external forces. Basically, human beans have a really wonderful ability to recognize patterns out of complex jumbles of information and noise, but sometimes, unfortunately, will assign great significance to patterns that can emerge as a result of projected meaning, that is, patterns that represent coincidences or chance as opposed to any substantive natural order, and that my friends is how superstition or irrational ideology is born. People's brains are also very good at short term prediction, but when we try to predict long term things we really get into trouble, which is why the rigors of science have developed and why computers with really nifty algorithms have become such a powerful and practical tools. Audiophiles are really no different from anyone else in this regard, and you have to admit that illogical thinking when it comes to audio is pretty harmless, perhaps with the exception of gross misrepresentation or deception in order to profit from somebody else's lack of knowledge or exposure to logic. Sklr |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
But the perception of improvement is not due to the
comb-filtering effect, it's the psychological processes in the "audiophile's" head. Over in the bass-guitar group I'm usually hanging around in, people will periodically say things like, "But, I really can hear a difference when I use Monster Cables!" Yes, okay, maybe you do -- but the important thing to remember is that "difference" does not automatically mean "improvement." It's just different. But the difference is always perceived as improvement, because they've been pre-conditioned by marketers, salesmen, and the amount of money they just spent to perceive it as "improvement." When I first experimented with relatively large gauge cables years ago, I could hear the difference between 18 gauge zip cord and the 10 gauge "monster" cables in conjunction with my passive Tannoys. Though slight, low end and the over-all volume was affected. When I changed power amps though, the amount of audible effect changed a little too, so it's an amalgam of factors, i.e. load, feed line, output circuit... I'll tell what I never could hear though and as a result, considered to be rather goofy, is when I met a local hot shot guitarists who said he could hear a difference in tone depending on which way a guitar cord is oriented. "See, if I reverse the direction of the cord... I always test my cords this way and mark them so I know which way sounds best." Yikes! I'm not the only one who has pointed out that among lead guitarists who play for a living, hearing loss is common, and guitar rigs are not exactly noted for their ability to render complex signals with a very high resolution. So it seemed silly, but harmless, don't you think? To me it's worth being tolerant with someone who says guitar gone is affected by with end is pointed which way because first of all, it makes me smile and second, he was a great guy and an incredible musician. For me, if you're interested in the technical side of things and really trying to quantify something then by all means explore it. Like, if you can subjectively perceive some curious or unexpected audio phenomenon, can you also measure it in some other way where another person can duplicate the set up and measure the same thing you're seeing on your test gear? I believe that there bound to be some interesting effects, psychoacoustic or process related that have yet to be quantified or modeled in a useful way, things are still perceivable by some people, but just haven't been sufficiently researched. I'd get a kick out of it, really, if someone actually quantified some ridiculous thing like cord direction and people who could hear it, though I think it's a natural thing for the learned to remain skeptical. Schy |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Or tweaking a channel on the mix board, everyone agrees they heard an improvement, only to find it was an unused channel when marking the recall sheets. I've had this happen a few times. Anybody here tweaked an empty channel or an unused send knob during a studio mix or live sound gig to satisfy a customers wishes, but to keep from messing up the mix? Personally, I'd never do anything like that. :-) Or how 'bout this one: Mix by committee... You are doing a live gig and it so happens that there are three or four really great engineers there, hob knobbing and not trying to impose, but each has their own idea has to how the mix levels & EQ should be, so there's a kind of compromise made and two or three guys do a little tweaking, but only move the knob a millimeter or even less so as to keep from upsetting the other guy. Skler |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would produce significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T. Hey, Try measuring it sometime... (e.g. with FFT software) I don't know about changing the listening position a few inches, but relatively early reflections can dramatically alter a speaker's response and if you move the speakers a little or the reflective surfaces around them, e.g. furniture, racks, gear, then the response will be affected. I've seen very deep mid range dips and peaks effected by comb filtering with near field monitors, stuff that you'd have to use pretty drastic settings on a parametric to duplicate. I think what happens is one becomes accustomed to certain colorations and after that it's just a relative thing; this is especially the case when you listen to a lot of pre-recorded material on reference monitors with a relatively fixed listening position and your brain becomes "calibrated" more or less with regard to the anomalies of a particular set up. Skler |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
D'oh! That's actually what I meant. Either way, CD demagnetizers or LP demagnetizers are equally ridiculous. Yet the reviewer heard a big difference anyway. Funny guy. This is a joke, right? There's no such thing as a CD or LP demagnetizer. Skler |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Skler wrote:
Funny guy. This is a joke, right? There's no such thing as a CD or LP demagnetizer. pantomime chorusOh yes there is!/pc http://www.musicdirect.com/products/...?sku=AFURDEMAG -- Anahata -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827 |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Skler wrote:
Or tweaking a channel on the mix board, everyone agrees they heard an improvement, only to find it was an unused channel when marking the recall sheets. I've had this happen a few times. Anybody here tweaked an empty channel or an unused send knob during a studio mix or live sound gig to satisfy a customers wishes, but to keep from messing up the mix? Personally, I'd never do anything like that. :-) ...snip.. Skler I frequently get requests for more [whatever] in the monitors, with a "thanks, that's better" before I even reach for the knob... ;-) Later... Ron Capik -- |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Skler wrote:
....snip.. Hey, Try measuring it sometime... (e.g. with FFT software) I don't know about changing the listening position a few inches, but relatively early reflections can dramatically alter a speaker's response and if you move the speakers a little or the reflective surfaces around them, e.g. furniture, racks, gear, then the response will be affected. I've seen very deep mid range dips and peaks effected by comb filtering with near field monitors, stuff that you'd have to use pretty drastic settings on a parametric to duplicate. I think what happens is one becomes accustomed to certain colorations and after that it's just a relative thing; this is especially the case when you listen to a lot of pre-recorded material on reference monitors with a relatively fixed listening position and your brain becomes "calibrated" more or less with regard to the anomalies of a particular set up. Skler Hot air! No, seriously ! The whole acoustic size and shape of the room will change with a degree or two of temperature change. Heck, just talking can cause a thermal cloud that will distort the entire sound field. ...and just think what the methane from a good fart could do! G Later... Ron Capik -- |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
One of the experiences that drove me out subjective testing was listening to
a variety of audiophile cables. On my initial listening, there were huge differences among, and these differences remained constant over an extended listening session. When I packed them up a few days later to return, there were no audible differences whatever. Whether or not these differences were "real", it's obvious that what I heard (or thought I heard) had nothing to do with comb filtering. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
In article ,
says... jwvm wrote: hank alrich wrote: Walt wrote: Note: with regard to music instrumint pickups I am willing to believe that cables can make an audible difference - 50 MegOhm output impedences can do funny things. What pickups have that output impedance? -- ha The latest thing in cheapie microphones, electrets with no FET follower! Perfect for recording 16 Hz. organ notes and not much else. :-) Piezo guitar pickups, sans preamp? Is this just residual piezo bashing? The impedence of piezo elements changes over a frequency range due to resonance and anti-resonance: http://www.efunda.com/Materials/piez..._impedance.cfm If impedence with piezo pickups is an issue, why when I plug my contact mics into the hi-z input on my mixer, it sounds the same as when I plug them into the regular inputs? This does not happen with dynamic mics, I have an old JVC mic I picked up at a thrift store that says it is rated as 10kohm, and it sounds a lot better, with a lower noise floor through the hi-z input. Piezos sound exactly the same. So what exactly is the point of harping over piezo impedence? BTW, a '16hz organ note' would be inaudible infrasound, so whoever wrote that isn't making much sense... |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
|
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
|
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
|
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
Ethan Winer wrote:
and I explain it here in detail: http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html Calling this comb filtering is somewhat of a misnomer. It is really about multisource/multipath interference. Comb filtering is a rather trivial special case wherein there are two sources and two paths with a single delay between them. While comb filtering is an easy to understand and particularly simple example of this kind of interference, what happens in a room doesn't generally produce comb like responses but rather _much_ more complex space, frequency and time dependant interference patterns as shown by your data. I mention this because I'm not sure whether it is a good thing or not to let "comb filtering" become the vernacular for the more general interference effect that room treatment deals with. I admit to a pedantic streak a mile wide. :-) Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
"Chevdo" wrote in message news:achVg.3448$H7.1563@edtnps82... In article , says... D'oh! That's actually what I meant. Either way, CD demagnetizers or LP demagnetizers are equally ridiculous. Yet the reviewer heard a big difference anyway. Funny guy. This is a joke, right? There's no such thing as a CD or LP demagnetizer. Yes there is, but since LPs and CDs are not magnetized, it doesn't do anything. Coil wire around a CD or LP, connect in series with a voltage source and on/off switch. Voila - you're switch is now a CD/LP magnetizer/demagnetizer. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
While comb filtering is an easy to
understand and particularly simple example of this kind of interference, what happens in a room doesn't generally produce comb like responses but rather _much_ more complex space, frequency and time dependant interference patterns as shown by your data. I admit to a pedantic streak a mile wide. :-) Then you won't mind my pointing out that 'comb like' should be hyphenated :-) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
In article ,
says... Ethan Winer wrote: and I explain it here in detail: http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html Calling this comb filtering is somewhat of a misnomer. It is really about multisource/multipath interference. Comb filtering is a rather trivial special case wherein there are two sources and two paths with a single delay between them. Really, well the Wikipedia article on comb filtering says: "In signal processing, a comb filter adds a slightly delayed version of a signal to itself, causing phase cancellations." Nothing about two signals and two paths with a single delay between them, but if you're so sure about that, why don't you go ahead and edit the Wikipedia comb filtering article, mention your edit on the discussion page, and see if it passes the test of not getting deleted by one of the dozens of over-qualified engineers who edit the signal processing pages on Wikipedia? By the way, I suspect your misunderstanding probably stems from a design of a reverb unit you may have perused, which use comb filters to produce the effect. While comb filtering is an easy to understand and particularly simple example of this kind of interference, what happens in a room doesn't generally produce comb like responses but rather _much_ more complex space, frequency and time dependant interference patterns as shown by your data. A chair in between an ear and a speaker induces a delayed portion of the signal to the ear. It's a comb filter. Yes, it's a complex one, as Mr. Winer's collected data indicates. The term 'comb filter' is as accurate as your term 'multisource/multipath interference', but the term 'comb filter' actually tells us what's happening to the signal as a result of the path interference. Not only is it an accurate term, it's a superior term. I mention this because I'm not sure whether it is a good thing or not to let "comb filtering" become the vernacular for the more general interference effect that room treatment deals with. Too late, it's already common vernacular. Mr. Winer didn't make it up. The sonic effects of objects impeding signals sent through air pressure has been referred to as 'comb filtering' for as long as I can remember. Seriously, you should've done a little Googling before posting this... I admit to a pedantic streak a mile wide. :-) In this case I think your pedantic streak has reached an extreme and become an obfuscation. The ignorance streak doesn't help much, either. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
"Skler" wrote in message ... If comb filtering were of the magnitude he claims (I've been listening to good systems in normal-to-deadish rooms for decades, and have never heard the large changes he posits), moving one's head even slightly would produce significant changes in timbre and imaging. IT DOESN'T. Try measuring it sometime... (e.g. with FFT software) I don't know about changing the listening position a few inches, but relatively early reflections can dramatically alter a speaker's response and if you move the speakers a little or the reflective surfaces around them, e.g. furniture, racks, gear, then the response will be affected. I've seen very deep mid range dips and peaks effected by comb filtering with near field monitors, stuff that you'd have to use pretty drastic settings on a parametric to duplicate. I think what happens is one becomes accustomed to certain colorations and after that it's just a relative thing; this is especially the case when you listen to a lot of pre-recorded material on reference monitors with a relatively fixed listening position and your brain becomes "calibrated" more or less with regard to the anomalies of a particular set up. Yeah, but he was saying that the huge changes in response are not particularly audible, even though they're easily measurable. Something which most of us have experienced; somehow our ear-brain system seems to minimize these differences. They don't go away, but they're not nearly as drastic as the measurements would lead one to believe. Somehow, and I don't have a clue how, our brains seem to compensate for the differences across much of the spectrum. Yes, when I move back a couple of feet from where I'm sitting the bass level changes drastically, but the mid/treble response seems to change only a little, compared to what the test equipment says it's doing. That's a good thing, because otherwise it would be utterly impossible for sound reproduction to work. Of course, a well-treated room sounds better and is much preferred for critical monitoring as well as listening for pleasure. But even within that well-treated room, small head movements should be causing a lot more changes in perceived frequency response than they actually do. (Want an idea of how drastic the measured response is? A couple of months ago, in class, I was running 700Hz tone through a guitar amp with a microphone about 6" from the grille. A student was walking around in the room, several feet away. I watched the VU meters jump up and down some 6dB as he did so. Reflections from his body changed the response at that frequency that much, even though the student-to-microphone distance was at least ten times the microphone-to-sound-source distance. And he was behind it.) Ears and brains, in combination, do some very clever stuff. Much of which we don't understand yet. Peace, Paul |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
"Ron Capik" wrote in message
... Hot air! No, seriously ! The whole acoustic size and shape of the room will change with a degree or two of temperature change. Yeah, buddy. Last Sunday at Yom Kippur services, about an hour into the evening the rabbi's stand-mounted microphone suddenly started ringing quite badly. Nobody had changed any of the settings. (They couldn't; the sound booth was locked. Bad idea.) What had happened: a couple of hundred people sitting in the room, breathing out water vapor. The humidity in the room had increased significantly. Whoo-hoo, feedback. Peace, Paul |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
I found the holy grail that explains audiophile beliefs
David,
So put the graph from your comb filtering article comparing the two locations (4-inch-spaced) without treatment, next to a graph (with the same scales, superposition, etc) comparing the two locations with treatment. It would be interesting to see how (and if) treatment reduces the difference between positions. Again, the treatment was not optimized to reduce comb filtering at mid and high frequencies. We aimed to improve only the bass frequencies. But to satisfy myself I just made an overlay comparing those same two locations with bass traps in place. As expected, the bass response was the much more similar at both locations, but the full-range response was almost as different as with no traps. However, I do have a graph already posted that adds to the discussion. This graph shows a single location with and without first reflection treatment: www.realtraps.com/rfz-response.gif And here's the full article: www.realtraps.com/rfz.htm --Ethan |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What are they Teaching | Audio Opinions | |||
Linux is dead...It doesn't even have a pulse. | Pro Audio | |||
HAHA I FIGURED OUT THE holy grail of distorted guitar micing | Pro Audio | |||
Best and Worst in search of the holy grail? | Audio Opinions |