Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
Yep, if you want a good example of how sad it has become, grab the new Katy Perry song "California Gurls" and open it into your wave editor of choice, and have a look at just how badly compressed, clipped and grossly distorted the waveforms are for a million selling record these days. It's nothing new of course, the same was being done with Madonna, Brittany Spears etc. That's not the fault of measurements, of course, but of people who aren't using their ears. However, if you would like a good average "perceived loudness" scale, you might consider the K-number scale as promoted by Bob Katz. It is really quite well-correlated with perceived level and an increasing number of mastering houses are using it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#122
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On Nov 23, 5:19*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Not only that, but all the advancements in audio engineering have been made for consumer equipment. If the big name manufacturers had to survive on what they make and sell to the pros, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. So, don't brush off us consumers as a thorn in your sides. If it weren't for us, you would be out of business..... Pardon me, but you're wrong about that. Almost all the real advancements in audio engineering started out in the professional end of the business. Things like: Magnetic tape recording AC bias for magnetic tape recording Condenser microphones (invented for the phone company, the pro-est of the pro) Dynamic microphones (ditto) Transistors (ditto) Digital audio (ditto) Vacuum tubes, arguably The only things I can think of off the bat that were invented primarily for consumers a Acoustic suspension loudspeakers Dome tweeters Practical electrostatic loudspeakers Compact discs Compact discs are a big one, of course, but look at the first list, and I think the real milestones are there. Peace, Paul |
#123
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
PStamler wrote:
On Nov 23, 5:19 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: Not only that, but all the advancements in audio engineering have been made for consumer equipment. If the big name manufacturers had to survive on what they make and sell to the pros, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. So, don't brush off us consumers as a thorn in your sides. If it weren't for us, you would be out of business..... Pardon me, but you're wrong about that. Almost all the real advancements in audio engineering started out in the professional end of the business. Things like: Magnetic tape recording AC bias for magnetic tape recording Condenser microphones (invented for the phone company, the pro-est of the pro) Dynamic microphones (ditto) Transistors (ditto) Digital audio (ditto) Vacuum tubes, arguably The only things I can think of off the bat that were invented primarily for consumers a Acoustic suspension loudspeakers Dome tweeters Practical electrostatic loudspeakers Compact discs Compact discs are a big one, of course, but look at the first list, and I think the real milestones are there. Peace, Paul Yes.....You're right. I think I was thinking of where the money comes from. We consumers provide the money that finances most of the research. |
#124
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
In comp.dsp PStamler wrote:
On Nov 23, 5:19*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: Not only that, but all the advancements in audio engineering have been made for consumer equipment. If the big name manufacturers had to survive on what they make and sell to the pros, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. So, don't brush off us consumers as a thorn in your sides. If it weren't for us, you would be out of business..... I have thought before about how much High-Performance computing, that is, the fast machines we have available now for a few hundred USD, is made possible by the mass purchasing of ordinary people and companies. Pardon me, but you're wrong about that. Almost all the real advancements in audio engineering started out in the professional end of the business. Things like: Magnetic tape recording AC bias for magnetic tape recording Condenser microphones (invented for the phone company, the pro-est of the pro) Dynamic microphones (ditto) Transistors (ditto) Digital audio (ditto) Vacuum tubes, arguably But it is the mass production of such that makes them affordable. -- glen |
#125
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
In comp.dsp PStamler wrote: On Nov 23, 5:19 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: Not only that, but all the advancements in audio engineering have been made for consumer equipment. If the big name manufacturers had to survive on what they make and sell to the pros, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. So, don't brush off us consumers as a thorn in your sides. If it weren't for us, you would be out of business..... I have thought before about how much High-Performance computing, that is, the fast machines we have available now for a few hundred USD, is made possible by the mass purchasing of ordinary people and companies. Pardon me, but you're wrong about that. Almost all the real advancements in audio engineering started out in the professional end of the business. Things like: Magnetic tape recording AC bias for magnetic tape recording Condenser microphones (invented for the phone company, the pro-est of the pro) Dynamic microphones (ditto) Transistors (ditto) Digital audio (ditto) Vacuum tubes, arguably But it is the mass production of such that makes them affordable. -- glen Its kind of like saying that sick people are responsible for all the advancements in drugs we have seen in the last 100 years or so. If it weren't for the sick people, there would be no need for the drugs. But, I still get this ridiculous picture in my head of a bunch of sick people working away in the research labs far into the night....:^) |
#126
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
In comp.dsp Bill Graham wrote:
(snip, regarding funding for audio products) I have thought before about how much High-Performance computing, that is, the fast machines we have available now for a few hundred USD, is made possible by the mass purchasing of ordinary people and companies. (snip) Its kind of like saying that sick people are responsible for all the advancements in drugs we have seen in the last 100 years or so. If it weren't for the sick people, there would be no need for the drugs. But, I still get this ridiculous picture in my head of a bunch of sick people working away in the research labs far into the night....:^) Well, that is one way to say it. But companies do tend to work harder on drugs that will be used by rich people, and less on those needed by poor countries. Then, after the patents expire, generics affordable by most people are produced. As for audio, I would say that high-quality microphones are one place where there isn't much drive from the consumer side, and you can see that in the prices. On the other hand, the improvements in cassette tapes, especially high bias and metal, I believe were consumer side driven. Pros could afford to run the tape fast enough, consumers needed high quality at low speed and narrow tracks. -- glen |
#127
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
Mike Rivers wrote: On 11/21/2010 8:54 PM, Randy Yates wrote: That's a pretty sad state of affairs for pro audio, don't you think Scott? "Pro Audio" doesn't call the shots. It's the suppliers of program material to the consumers that do. They're the ones who can do things that earn them more money. All the engineer can do is either follow instructions of those paying him and stay in business, or follow his heart, conscience, and good taste and get a little less, or less profitable, work. That is life as I know it, and what all others who do similar tech work tell me. Older timers than I tell me that it was also that way when they were young. Nothing has changed, technology serves the market and the market makers. Not only that, but all the advancements in audio engineering have been made for consumer equipment. IME most of the most important advancements in audio engineering first saw the light of day in professional equipment. For example, digital audio was used by professionals for audio production for the better of a decade before it was acessible to consumers. Consumer audio lived on hand-me-downs from communications and motion pictures for decades. If the big name manufacturers had to survive on what they make and sell to the pros, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. Not at all. People who are sucessful in business scale their businesses to the needs and scale of their markets. Just because a market is smaller doesn't mean that the people who serve it are necessarily in financial trouble. Numerically and economically, high end audio and audio production are similar-sized markets. So, don't brush off us consumers as a thorn in your sides. If it weren't for us, you would be out of business... It is true that if there are no consumers, then there is no need to produce. But the relationship is symbiotic, because if there is no production, there is nothing to for the consumers to consume. |
#128
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"PStamler" wrote in message
On Nov 23, 5:19 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: Not only that, but all the advancements in audio engineering have been made for consumer equipment. If the big name manufacturers had to survive on what they make and sell to the pros, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. So, don't brush off us consumers as a thorn in your sides. If it weren't for us, you would be out of business..... Pardon me, but you're wrong about that. Almost all the real advancements in audio engineering started out in the professional end of the business. Things like: Magnetic tape recording AC bias for magnetic tape recording Condenser microphones (invented for the phone company, the pro-est of the pro) Dynamic microphones (ditto) Transistors (ditto) Digital audio (ditto) Vacuum tubes, arguably Excellent examples. The only things I can think of off the bat that were invented primarily for consumers a Acoustic suspension loudspeakers Dome tweeters Practical electrostatic loudspeakers Compact discs Also true, but there are explanations for these items. None of them were really as practical for professional use as the alternatives. For example, low efficiency speakers have only recently become practical at all for professional use because amplifier power was always too costly. The CD was impractical for professional use until CD-Rs became readily available and cost effective. Compact discs are a big one, of course, but look at the first list, and I think the real milestones are there. No doubt. For example, I don't think that a lot of people realize that vacuum tubes were pretty much a prerequisite for transmitting voice over RF (professional use), but not for receiving it (consumer use). |
#129
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
Yes.....You're right. I think I was thinking of where the money comes from. We consumers provide the money that finances most of the research. But much of that money flows indirectly, and through professional use. Sure, Bell Labs (long the largest audio R&D lab) was ultimately paid for by people who paid telephone bills, and the business users of the telephone only had businesses because of consumers in the final analysis. But Bell labs was first and directly the servant of the phone company. |
#130
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/24/2010 1:43 AM, PStamler wrote:
Almost all the real advancements in audio engineering started out in the professional end of the business. Or The Telephone Company g -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#131
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/24/2010 6:25 AM, Dick Pierce wrote:
Most of the "research" for the consumer market was, well, market research. Exactly! Find out what the consumers want to hear, then give it to them with both barrels. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#132
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in
message But it is the mass production of such that makes them affordable. Affordable is a relative term. For the longest time professional equipment was relatively pricey, and it was those high prices that created a market for new technology before it became truely low cost. But compared to the predecessor technology, the new technology was cost-effective, even at the higher prices. |
#133
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
On 11/24/2010 1:43 AM, PStamler wrote: Almost all the real advancements in audio engineering started out in the professional end of the business. Or The Telephone Company g Was the phone company an "or" or an "and" or a part of the same thing? |
#134
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/24/2010 7:26 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
IME most of the most important advancements in audio engineering first saw the light of day in professional equipment. For example, digital audio was used by professionals for audio production for the better of a decade before it was acessible to consumers. This is true with recording equipment, but then consumers never were all that enthusiastic about recording beyond copying their LPs to cassettes to play in their cars. CDs, on the other hand (remember, they're digital) were quickly embraced by consumers before they ever dreamed of being able to record them at home. And for the first 10 years or so, most CD source recordings (what we call "masters" today) were analog because studios couldn't afford the digital equivalent to their multitrack, and even 2-track recorders. Even when projects were delivered to the pressing plant in PCM format on videocassette, editing was done on analog tape. It was the AdLib and similar computer audio cards (the SoundBlaster was second generation) that finally brought the cost of computer based digital recording to the neighborhood recording studio. Before that, it took a $5,000 box from Yamaha to record 2 digital tracks on the PC's disk drive. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#135
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Dick Pierce wrote:
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: On the other hand, the improvements in cassette tapes, especially high bias and metal, I believe were consumer side driven. Pros could afford to run the tape fast enough, consumers needed high quality at low speed and narrow tracks. Well, I would disagree strongly. The consumers did not perceive ANY "need" for high-bias and metal tapes until AFTER the products were introduced to the market. And the research that went into the tape formulations themselves was not at all driven by the consumer market, it wasn't even driven by the audio market: it was driven by the requirements of high-speed data recording for computer and scientific use. Note also that the CrO2 and metal formulations that were popular in the consumer market never really made it into the professional market. This was because the poorer linearity was a big deal, and the lower noise really wasn't. I would go so far as to say that for the last 40 years, many audio "innovations" were not driven by either pro or consumer audio "needs," but were, in fact, hand-me-downs from other disciplines. This is sadly true. Serious fundamental research on audio, though, can be found in the BSTJ well into the 1950s. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#136
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Mike Rivers wrote:
This is true with recording equipment, but then consumers never were all that enthusiastic about recording beyond copying their LPs to cassettes to play in their cars. CDs, on the other hand (remember, they're digital) were quickly embraced by consumers before they ever dreamed of being able to record them at home. This sort of brings up what I would consider the only significant technology to come out of the consumer audio world: 2-channel stereo. Most of the experimental and cinema work on stereo was done with three channels. When home tape recording became available, it soon became relatively simple to add a second head and make staggered-head stereo recordings.... it was really quite a craze and it caused a small boom in the popularity of stereo without which the stereo LP might not ever have been developed. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#137
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/24/2010 3:25 AM, Dick Pierce wrote:
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: On the other hand, the improvements in cassette tapes, especially high bias and metal, I believe were consumer side driven. Pros could afford to run the tape fast enough, consumers needed high quality at low speed and narrow tracks. Well, I would disagree strongly. The consumers did not perceive ANY "need" for high-bias and metal tapes until AFTER the products were introduced to the market. And the research that went into the tape formulations themselves was not at all driven by the consumer market, it wasn't even driven by the audio market: it was driven by the requirements of high-speed data recording for computer and scientific use. Most of the "research" for the consumer market was, well, market reserch. I would go so far as to say that for the last 40 years, many audio "innovations" were not driven by either pro or consumer audio "needs," but were, in fact, hand-me-downs from other disciplines. THX and the whole surround sound movement is one obvious example of an innovation that was not a hand-me-down. I'm sure the group can think of others. |
#138
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
dave a wrote:
THX and the whole surround sound movement is one obvious example of an innovation that was not a hand-me-down. I'm sure the group can think of others. I'm not sure I would consider THX an innovation in any way. And the current surround-sound movement started out in the pro audio world with cinema systems (of somewhat doubtful imaging), and only later wound up in the consumer audio world with 5.1 discrete systems (of doubtful imaging). Of course, there WAS that consumer push toward quadrophonic back in the seventies but that didn't go anywhere (mostly since most of the systems sold and most of the source material was pretty awful). --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#140
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On Nov 24, 6:45*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message On 11/24/2010 1:43 AM, PStamler wrote: Almost all the real advancements in audio engineering started out in the professional end of the business. Or The Telephone Company *g Was the phone company an "or" or an "and" or a part of the same thing? Part of the same thing -- or rather, for a long time it was the whole thing. They did, after all, develop the condenser microphone (as an improved telephone transmitter) and the dynamic microphone, and electrical recording (which they developed in order to make recordings of long-distance telephony, so they could test improvements in the technology). Also digital audio (developed for telephone use; the first practical application was the "Sigsaly" communications system used as a direct line between Roosevelt and Churchill during World War II). Also one of the most important sound-movie systems. For a long time Western Electric and Bell Labs pretty much were the game for professional audio equipment, until RCA and Ampex came along. Peace, Paul |
#141
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
In comp.dsp Dick Pierce wrote:
(after I wrote) On the other hand, the improvements in cassette tapes, especially high bias and metal, I believe were consumer side driven. Pros could afford to run the tape fast enough, consumers needed high quality at low speed and narrow tracks. Well, I would disagree strongly. The consumers did not perceive ANY "need" for high-bias and metal tapes until AFTER the products were introduced to the market. And the research that went into the tape formulations themselves was not at all driven by the consumer market, it wasn't even driven by the audio market: it was driven by the requirements of high-speed data recording for computer and scientific use. It is likely true that they originated from computer use, but adapting to audio use had to be done by someone, at some cost. As I remember some of this, part of it was Philips' requirement that audio cassettes, originally for voice recording, keep the narrow track and slow speed to stay compatible. Then BASF, with the patent for CrO2, got people interested enough to drive the development of cassette decks to support high bias, but for patent reasons the tapes were expensive. Then others developed the cobolt-doped ferric oxide, as a compatible but cheaper, especially without the BASF patent, tape. In addition, there was the development of Dolby B, C, and dbx, to squeeze the signal into the available space with reasonable frequency response and noise. For pro-audio use, the obvious answer is faster tape and wider tracks, and pretty much that is what they did, as far as I know. For patent reasons that wasn't allowed for cassettes. (I even remember the L-cassette, ELCA, a larger version of the Compact Cassette, with wider and faster tape.) Most of the "research" for the consumer market was, well, market reserch. It seems to me that there was consumer demand for something that would record at least as good (frequency respone and noise) as good vinyl LPs, and cassettes did that. For metal tape, that may have been especially market research driven. Everyone "knows" that metals are strong. We buy metal wrenches and tableware because we know that it will last longer than plastic. So it must also be better for audio, right? Many tape players have a switch for metal, though the equalization is the same as for type II tapes, though that isn't always marked. It is the ability to market the feature that counts. I would go so far as to say that for the last 40 years, many audio "innovations" were not driven by either pro or consumer audio "needs," but were, in fact, hand-me-downs from other disciplines. That is true in many cases, and likely here, too. There is still the cost of adapting the technology. For one, tape optimized for storing digital data is not at all optimal for analog data. Not having followed it all that closesly at the time, I believe that pro-audio went to digital recording at about the time that consumer cassette audio was being improved. We had the digitally mastered vinyl LPs, and home high-bias tape to make copies (for car use, obviously). -- glen |
#142
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
In comp.dsp Arny Krueger wrote:
(snip, I wrote) But it is the mass production of such that makes them affordable. Affordable is a relative term. For the longest time professional equipment was relatively pricey, and it was those high prices that created a market for new technology before it became truely low cost. But compared to the predecessor technology, the new technology was cost-effective, even at the higher prices. OK, to get back to digital, I believe that the development of cheap TTL chips was through the demands of the computer industry. We got TTL chips that could build digital clocks, and other simple logic devices, because industry was buying millions of them. That is economy of scale, though driven by industry, not consumers. If technology has both an industry and consumer use, the economy of scale for the consumer use can easily drive the price down for the industrual use. One of the stranger ones is the adaptation of the 8mm video tape to data storage. The economy of scale from the consumer end allowed for more affordable data storage than systems developed only for the computer storage market. Also, DDS tape, back adapted from the audio DAT technology. -- glen |
#143
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On 11/24/2010 9:37 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dick wrote: ...snip... I would go so far as to say that for the last 40 years, many audio "innovations" were not driven by either pro or consumer audio "needs," but were, in fact, hand-me-downs from other disciplines. This is sadly true. Serious fundamental research on audio, though, can be found in the BSTJ well into the 1950s. --scott As a side note, the BSTJ [1922-1983] is now on line http://bstj.bell-labs.com/ Though I understand there may be some copy quality problems. Later... Ron Capik -- |
#144
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... That's not the fault of measurements, of course, but of people who aren't using their ears. Actually not using their ears, not using visual aids, and not caring in any case! MrT. |
#145
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"glen herrmannsfeldt" wrote in message ... (I even remember the L-cassette, ELCA, a larger version of the Compact Cassette, with wider and faster tape.) But not well enough to remember it was called the "Elcaset" apparently :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elcaset MrT. |
#146
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
In comp.dsp Bill Graham wrote: (snip, regarding funding for audio products) I have thought before about how much High-Performance computing, that is, the fast machines we have available now for a few hundred USD, is made possible by the mass purchasing of ordinary people and companies. (snip) Its kind of like saying that sick people are responsible for all the advancements in drugs we have seen in the last 100 years or so. If it weren't for the sick people, there would be no need for the drugs. But, I still get this ridiculous picture in my head of a bunch of sick people working away in the research labs far into the night....:^) Well, that is one way to say it. But companies do tend to work harder on drugs that will be used by rich people, and less on those needed by poor countries. Then, after the patents expire, generics affordable by most people are produced. As for audio, I would say that high-quality microphones are one place where there isn't much drive from the consumer side, and you can see that in the prices. On the other hand, the improvements in cassette tapes, especially high bias and metal, I believe were consumer side driven. Pros could afford to run the tape fast enough, consumers needed high quality at low speed and narrow tracks. -- glen Yes. I think the relationship is similar to that of auto racing to consumer vehicles. A lot of the adevancements in automotive engineering came about by the people who had to push them to speeds in excess of 175 MPH. And these advancements trickled down to the consumer level. Today, I am driving a car that sold new for less than 20K, but has gone for over 150 thousand miles with only one minor failure that cost less than $50 to fix. To me, that is astounding. In my youth, you couldn't go anywhere without seeing a half a dozen cars stuck on the side of the road with their hoods raised. Today, such a thing is almost unheard of. |
#147
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message Mike Rivers wrote: On 11/21/2010 8:54 PM, Randy Yates wrote: That's a pretty sad state of affairs for pro audio, don't you think Scott? "Pro Audio" doesn't call the shots. It's the suppliers of program material to the consumers that do. They're the ones who can do things that earn them more money. All the engineer can do is either follow instructions of those paying him and stay in business, or follow his heart, conscience, and good taste and get a little less, or less profitable, work. That is life as I know it, and what all others who do similar tech work tell me. Older timers than I tell me that it was also that way when they were young. Nothing has changed, technology serves the market and the market makers. Not only that, but all the advancements in audio engineering have been made for consumer equipment. IME most of the most important advancements in audio engineering first saw the light of day in professional equipment. For example, digital audio was used by professionals for audio production for the better of a decade before it was acessible to consumers. Consumer audio lived on hand-me-downs from communications and motion pictures for decades. If the big name manufacturers had to survive on what they make and sell to the pros, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. Not at all. People who are sucessful in business scale their businesses to the needs and scale of their markets. Just because a market is smaller doesn't mean that the people who serve it are necessarily in financial trouble. Numerically and economically, high end audio and audio production are similar-sized markets. So, don't brush off us consumers as a thorn in your sides. If it weren't for us, you would be out of business... It is true that if there are no consumers, then there is no need to produce. But the relationship is symbiotic, because if there is no production, there is nothing to for the consumers to consume. Yes. Most companies that survive for any reasonable period of time don't just sell lots of widgets, but also cut some of their profits off to maintain a lab somewhere in the back where they try to develop a better widget. If they don't, then its only a question of time before their competition develops a better one and drives them out of business. But in pro electronics, the consumer's needs seem to change. They don't sell the same stuff today that they sold 30 years ago. I think the digital revolution has changed the needs and expectations of the consumers as well as making things possible that weren't possible 30 years ago. |
#148
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message Yes.....You're right. I think I was thinking of where the money comes from. We consumers provide the money that finances most of the research. But much of that money flows indirectly, and through professional use. Sure, Bell Labs (long the largest audio R&D lab) was ultimately paid for by people who paid telephone bills, and the business users of the telephone only had businesses because of consumers in the final analysis. But Bell labs was first and directly the servant of the phone company. Yes. But there is an example of where the pro's paid for the local housewifes' telephone conversations. Even when I was a little kid, I was annoyed at the phone company for letting local calls go untimed without any extra charge. My friends mom used to talk all day for basically, nothing. Even when she could look out the window and see the person she was talking to. Even at that age, I realized that the long distance callers in the business world were paying for all that meaningless talk. |
#149
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/24/2010 6:25 AM, Dick Pierce wrote: Most of the "research" for the consumer market was, well, market research. Exactly! Find out what the consumers want to hear, then give it to them with both barrels. Even that's better than the way Detroit did it. They decided what cars they wanted to build, and then hired Madison Avenue to convince the buying public that that's what they wanted. It took the Japanese to come along and find out what the buying public wanted first, and then build it. I believe that's what drove our car companies out of business. Sometimes, when I read the Musician's Friend catalog, I think the audio equipment manufacturers are making the same mistake. |
#150
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Dick Pierce wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: On 11/24/2010 6:25 AM, Dick Pierce wrote: Most of the "research" for the consumer market was, well, market research. Exactly! Find out what the consumers want to hear, then give it to them with both barrels. Well, not exactly: it's more a case of find out what the market wants to sell them, make them want it, and then give iut to them with both barrels. Exactly. This is what I was talking about when I said it was what drove our automobile manufacturers out of business.. I hope the audio equipment manufacturers don't make the same mistake. Don't give the public what it wants....Make them believe that what you want to build is what they want through Madison Avenue hype. |
#151
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
wrote:
On 2010-11-24 (ScottDorsey) said: dave a wrote: THX and the whole surround sound movement is one obvious example of an innovation that was not a hand-me-down. I'm sure the group can think of others. I'm not sure I would consider THX an innovation in any way. I'm not sure I would. NOt just is it not an innovation, but the average doofus isn't going to set it up right anyway. HEll the most quad was to most rednecks was a speaker for every room in the mobile home. Most folks can't even get stereo right. HOw many stereo systems to we hear where the speakers are wired out of phase, or placement is weird? Yes. To me, the first step in "true stereo" is to buy a decent headset. Then, you have to drive each earpiece with two totally seperated channels of sound. Stereo TV would have to do the same. You need a TV set for each eye, and drive each one with a different camera with their lenses 2-1/2 inches apart. Anything else is just BS. |
#152
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Bill Graham wrote:
Yes. To me, the first step in "true stereo" is to buy a decent headset. Then, you have to drive each earpiece with two totally seperated channels of sound. That's not stereo, that's binaural. Different idea altogether. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#153
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: Yes. To me, the first step in "true stereo" is to buy a decent headset. Then, you have to drive each earpiece with two totally seperated channels of sound. That's not stereo, that's binaural. Different idea altogether. --scott Oh. Well then, I don't know the difference. To me true stereo would be what you normally hear. IOW, if you put a dummy seated front and center in Carneige Hall, and put a microphone in his left ear and record whatever that mic picks up on the "left" channel. and another mike in his right ear, and record that on the "right" channel, and then deliver those two channels to my ears via two transmission channels and my stereo headset, then I am getting as near as is possible what I would be hearing were I to fly to New York and buy a ticket to Carneigy Hall and sit front and center for the real performance. And to me, it doesn't get any better than this. If this isn't "true stereo" then what is? |
#154
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Bill Graham" wrote in message ... This is what I was talking about when I said it was what drove our automobile manufacturers out of business.. I hope the audio equipment manufacturers don't make the same mistake. Don't give the public what it wants....Make them believe that what you want to build is what they want through Madison Avenue hype. It's worked pretty well for Apple! MrT. |
#155
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
"Bill Graham" wrote in message ... Yes. To me, the first step in "true stereo" is to buy a decent headset. Then, you have to drive each earpiece with two totally seperated channels of sound. That's not stereo, that's binaural. Different idea altogether. Oh. Well then, I don't know the difference. To me true stereo would be what you normally hear. IOW, if you put a dummy seated front and center in Carneige Hall, and put a microphone in his left ear and record whatever that mic picks up on the "left" channel. and another mike in his right ear, and record that on the "right" channel, and then deliver those two channels to my ears via two transmission channels and my stereo headset, then I am getting as near as is possible what I would be hearing were I to fly to New York and buy a ticket to Carneigy Hall and sit front and center for the real performance. And to me, it doesn't get any better than this. If this isn't "true stereo" then what is? Dummy head binaural recordings have been done for decades, but never really caught on. I don't think the average classical music listener wants to use headphones all the time, and dummy head recordings don't work well with normal speakers, or pop music production methods. (Sort of like 3D movies that have been done for half a century, and they are still trying to push the idea as something new. But wearing glasses is still the same drawback for many, whether colored, polarised or LCD shutter) MrT. |
#156
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
In comp.dsp Bill Graham wrote:
(snip) Oh. Well then, I don't know the difference. To me true stereo would be what you normally hear. IOW, if you put a dummy seated front and center in Carneige Hall, and put a microphone in his left ear and record whatever that mic picks up on the "left" channel. and another mike in his right ear, and record that on the "right" channel, and then deliver those two channels to my ears via two transmission channels and my stereo headset, then I am getting as near as is possible what I would be hearing were I to fly to New York and buy a ticket to Carneigy Hall and sit front and center for the real performance. And to me, it doesn't get any better than this. If this isn't "true stereo" then what is? As previously noted, it is called binaural recording. -- glen |
#157
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
In comp.dsp Mr.T MrT@home wrote:
(snip) Dummy head binaural recordings have been done for decades, but never really caught on. I don't think the average classical music listener wants to use headphones all the time, and dummy head recordings don't work well with normal speakers, or pop music production methods. (Sort of like 3D movies that have been done for half a century, and they are still trying to push the idea as something new. But wearing glasses is still the same drawback for many, whether colored, polarised or LCD shutter) Yes, but with the popularity of portable MP3 players, it might just be about time, as, it seems, 3D movies are catching on, and maybe 3D home video. -- glen |
#158
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
In comp.dsp Mr.T MrT@home wrote: (snip) Dummy head binaural recordings have been done for decades, but never really caught on. I don't think the average classical music listener wants to use headphones all the time, and dummy head recordings don't work well with normal speakers, or pop music production methods. (Sort of like 3D movies that have been done for half a century, and they are still trying to push the idea as something new. But wearing glasses is still the same drawback for many, whether colored, polarised or LCD shutter) Yes, but with the popularity of portable MP3 players, it might just be about time, as, it seems, 3D movies are catching on, and maybe 3D home video. I can buy a pair of "glasses" here for a couple of hundred pounds or so which have two LCD screens and some oprical gimmickry where the lenses would be, which plug into the video output of an MP4 player. It shouldn't be too hard to build them to take a different input to each screen for full "in your face" 3D. "Eyephones", anyone? -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#159
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
On Nov 25, 7:52*am, John Williamson
wrote: glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: In comp.dsp Mr.T MrT@home wrote: (snip) Dummy head binaural recordings have been done for decades, but never really caught on. I don't think the average classical music listener wants to use headphones all the time, and dummy head recordings don't work well with normal speakers, or pop music production methods. (Sort of like 3D movies that have been done for half a century, and they are still trying to push the idea as something new. But wearing glasses is still the same drawback for many, whether colored, polarised or LCD shutter) Yes, but with the popularity of portable MP3 players, it might just be about time, as, it seems, 3D movies are catching on, and maybe 3D home video. I can buy a pair of "glasses" here for a couple of hundred pounds or so which have two LCD screens and some oprical gimmickry where the lenses would be, which plug into the video output of an MP4 player. It shouldn't be too hard to build them to take a different input to each screen for full "in your face" 3D. "Eyephones", anyone? -- Tciao for Now! John. Look up iGlasses. They demonstrated 3D in glasses to me in 2001, using a Philips TriMedia processor to render 3D from normal flat video. Chris ====================== Chris Bore BORES SIgnal Processing www.bores.com |
#160
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro,comp.dsp
|
|||
|
|||
dBFS
Bill Graham wrote:
Oh. Well then, I don't know the difference. To me true stereo would be what you normally hear. IOW, if you put a dummy seated front and center in Carneige Hall, and put a microphone in his left ear and record whatever that mic picks up on the "left" channel. and another mike in his right ear, and record that on the "right" channel, and then deliver those two channels to my ears via two transmission channels and my stereo headset, then I am getting as near as is possible what I would be hearing were I to fly to New York and buy a ticket to Carneigy Hall and sit front and center for the real performance. And to me, it doesn't get any better than this. If this isn't "true stereo" then what is? True stereo is a system specifically designed to provide an accurate and clear stereo image which extends beyond the speakers when played on a 2-speaker system arranged as an equilateral triangle with the listener's head. Alternately a three-speaker system can also be considered stereo but the geometry gets a little different. The idea is that the wavefront is recreated more or less. Recordings made in stereo must be played back with this system; if played back on headphones there is a severe hole in the middle. Binaural systems attempt to recreate the pressure of sound in the ears rather than recreating a wavefront. They work very well, but recordings made this way can only be played back in headphones. If played back on speakers, they become mush. If you are interested in binaural recording, check out John Sunier's website, the Binaural Source. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
manipulate 24 bit audio to increment amplitude by 1 dBFS | Tech | |||
Line Input Level for 0 dBFS? | Pro Audio | |||
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? | Pro Audio | |||
dBfs scales, EBU r68 or DIN ? | Pro Audio | |||
Classical program ff = ?dbFS | Pro Audio |