Papanate wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

It is well known that static phase shifts in allpass filters are not
audible. It is only the ill-informed that persist in the daft idea that
this isn't the case.

Kevin, are you seriously contending that a guitar based phaser effect is not
audible?

Another hint: it's not just dark in there, the rumbling from intestinal
peristaltic activity can obscure potenitally audible differences between
a guitar with phaser and without phaser. No ****.

--
ha

John L Rice wrote:

After that life will be all flowers, happy bunnies and kittens for you.

And when you rip their heads off and turn them inside out, they make nice
slippers, but only if you stop taking your meds.

Ty Ford

Ty . . . I think I remember seeing you in the padded cell next to mine . .
.

But you guys got to eat meat. Some of the others were ripping heads offa
tofu.

--
ha

On Sat, 28 May 2005 02:02:32 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

But you guys got to eat meat. Some of the others were ripping heads offa
tofu.

Not my fault. They made me do it. I swear.

Chris Hornbeck
"I didn't think this would happen again,
with or without my best intentions" -Liz Phair,
"**** and Run" from _Exile in Guyville_
Mean blues; not for the faint of heart.

"hank alrich" wrote in message . ..
BobG wrote:

All these studio guys have it easy. Nice sound proof control room,
expensive board with gobs of headroom, expensive flat playback
speakers. Me, I'm a live sound guy.

Plenty of live sound experience right here, both SR and recording,
sometimes both at once.

--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement


I wouldn't know nuthin' about it.... ;-)

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote...
BobG wrote:

All these studio guys have it easy. Nice sound proof control room,
expensive board with gobs of headroom, expensive flat playback
speakers. Me, I'm a live sound guy.

Plenty of live sound experience right here, both SR and recording,
sometimes both at once.

I wouldn't know nuthin' about it.... ;-)

Are those _your_ sandbags? g

--
ha

"hank alrich" wrote in message .. .
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

"hank alrich" wrote...
BobG wrote:

All these studio guys have it easy. Nice sound proof control room,
expensive board with gobs of headroom, expensive flat playback
speakers. Me, I'm a live sound guy.

Plenty of live sound experience right here, both SR and recording,
sometimes both at once.

I wouldn't know nuthin' about it.... ;-)

Are those _your_ sandbags? g


I borrow all of my holdin' back....

You should of checked your phaser design or your hearing. One or both
were
defective.
John L Rice
================
By this I think you mean that the output of the 'phaser pedal' should
soud different from the input signal. It IS a sound effect, right?
However, in the box, the phase shifted signal is added to the input
signal to produce nulls at multiples of 180 degrees. I don't know if
electrical engineers are expected to know the block diagram of guitar
sound effects, or if recording engieers are supposed to either. Anyway,
if you listen to the phase shifted signal BEFORE IT WAS ADDED TO THE
INPUT SIGNAL, I would expect it would soud 99.99% the same as the input
signal, and I think this is what Kevin said. Now back to you John....
what could have been defective..... other than the communication of the
test setup......

"BobG" wrote in message
oups.com...
You should of checked your phaser design or your hearing. One or both
were
defective.
John L Rice
================
By this I think you mean that the output of the 'phaser pedal' should
soud different from the input signal. It IS a sound effect, right?
However, in the box, the phase shifted signal is added to the input
signal to produce nulls at multiples of 180 degrees. I don't know if
electrical engineers are expected to know the block diagram of guitar
sound effects, or if recording engieers are supposed to either. Anyway,
if you listen to the phase shifted signal BEFORE IT WAS ADDED TO THE
INPUT SIGNAL, I would expect it would soud 99.99% the same as the input
signal, and I think this is what Kevin said. Now back to you John....
what could have been defective..... other than the communication of the
test setup......


Agreed BobG, seemed to be a communications issue I believe. Of course a
third possibility is that I'm defective. I could give you a list of issues .
.. . . .


--
John L Rice

what I noticed most when I started buying
and using them to replace my Mackie board was the details of the room
and mic that weren't apparent previously
==================================
This is good.... Just tell me what mic was used, and what nice preamp
was used, and now we have a set of equipment KNOWN by one person to
sound better than 'a mackie preamp' I think they make several models.
Maybe we'd better pin that down too. Now if we can get one or two ther
recording engineers that have access to this same equipment, and they
too say "obvious difference", then we are getting somewhere. We need to
see what specs are diff in the cheap preamp. However, if two or three
other people listen to this same equipment, and can't hear a
difference, then we are back at square one. Hey Hank A... do you have
access to a mackie preamp? Can you hook up a mic and an expensive
preamp and report back if you can heara difference? (I'd like to know
what to listen to to hear it... hi hat? Grand piano? Brass? Strings?
Can you only hear a difference with an acoustic source on the mic? Do
we all assume that any synth will also have electronics at least as
inferior in sonic quality as a mackie mic preamp, and therefore all
electronics instruments will be indistinguishable in the test of mic
preamps?

BobG wrote:
what I noticed most when I started buying
and using them to replace my Mackie board was the details of the room
and mic that weren't apparent previously


This is good.... Just tell me what mic was used, and what nice preamp
was used, and now we have a set of equipment KNOWN by one person to
sound better than 'a mackie preamp' I think they make several models.
Maybe we'd better pin that down too. Now if we can get one or two ther
recording engineers that have access to this same equipment, and they
too say "obvious difference", then we are getting somewhere. We need to
see what specs are diff in the cheap preamp. However, if two or three
other people listen to this same equipment, and can't hear a
difference, then we are back at square one. Hey Hank A... do you have
access to a mackie preamp? Can you hook up a mic and an expensive
preamp and report back if you can heara difference? (I'd like to know
what to listen to to hear it... hi hat? Grand piano? Brass? Strings?
Can you only hear a difference with an acoustic source on the mic? Do
we all assume that any synth will also have electronics at least as
inferior in sonic quality as a mackie mic preamp, and therefore all
electronics instruments will be indistinguishable in the test of mic
preamps?


You're kidding, right? Most of this already lives in the memory of
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro


On a somewhat related subtopic: Despite their well-known limitations
WRT gain staging, EQ, etc. the post-preamp electronics in a Mackie mixer
are good enough to facilitate hearing the differences between the sound
of the internal preamps and that of standalone preamps. While it may
seem a bit out of place to some, fronting a Mackie Mixer with a Millenia
or a Great River is worth trying.

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

On a somewhat related subtopic: Despite their well-known limitations
WRT gain staging, EQ, etc. the post-preamp electronics in a Mackie mixer
are good enough to facilitate hearing the differences between the sound
of the internal preamps and that of standalone preamps. While it may
seem a bit out of place to some, fronting a Mackie Mixer with a Millenia
or a Great River is worth trying.

I have provided SR for some small and very high quality acoustic acts
where only a few inputs a single stage mon mix was required, and done
that with the MP2-MH and the GTQ2 feeding a mackie 1202. The result was
admirable in the ears of the performers and also to the audients.

One need only audition Tonebarge's RAP CD mixes to understand that even
an original 1604 can deliver a hell of a mix from line sources. It's
enough to make one want to shut up and try to learn to mix.

--
ha

BobG wrote:

Hey Hank A... do you have
access to a mackie preamp? Can you hook up a mic and an expensive
preamp and report back if you can heara difference? (I'd like to know
what to listen to to hear it... hi hat? Grand piano? Brass? Strings?
Can you only hear a difference with an acoustic source on the mic?

Bob, I been yakking here a while and there's way too much of me at
Google. But yes, I have a Mackie 1202 and some significantly better mic
pres, and honestly all it takes to hear differences is my own speaking
voice and the likes of an ordinary dynamic mic and headphones, even
running the good pre outs through the Mackie to feed the phones. It is
not a subtle difference. Specs-peckers swinging aside, I always come
back to saying it's a sense of the reality of the source, a sense
three-dimensional reality, that is the difference. I am as curious as
anyone to understand exactly what specification or combination of specs
reflects this capability.

That said, of all my contemporary audio devices, none have repaid their
purchase price as many times as has my lowly 1202.

Do we all assume that any synth will also have electronics at least as
inferior in sonic quality as a mackie mic preamp, and therefore all
electronics instruments will be indistinguishable in the test of mic
preamps?

Heard any of Tonebarge's mixes on the RAP CD's? Give the man line level
inputs and an original 1604 and watch him kick ass on mixes done with
millions of dollars worth of kit. Mind you, he doesn't use the EQ or the
Mackie preamps. He tracks with a small number of some of the most costly
preamps in the world. Given his results I don't think we need to be
overly afraid of feeding synths to some Mackies, though I might like to
feed them first to an Evil Twin just for fun.

--
ha

Hank, could be you just don't like the sound of NJR4560 opamps. Your
hearing simply confirms the distortion present in this opamp design.
Yes, Kevin, real world measurements do reflect the quality problems of
this "not ready for prime time" opamp even if you can't hear them.

If there are other doubting thomases out there, try putting some of
these into some of your favorite sounding gear, you will not like the
change.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades