[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[PStamler]

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

[Bill Graham]

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.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

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

[Bill Graham]

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....:^)

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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).

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Mike Rivers]

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

[Mike Rivers]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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?

[Mike Rivers]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[dave a]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[[email protected]]

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?




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[PStamler]

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

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

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

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

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

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

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
--

[Mr.T]

"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.

[Mr.T]

"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.

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Bill Graham]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Bill Graham]

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?

[Mr.T]

"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.

[Mr.T]

"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.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

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

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

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

[John Williamson]

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.

[Chris Bore]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."