[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns wrote:
One red flag here is your mention of "tiles"...

The Apollo heat shield, best I recall off the top of my head, was an alloy designed
to burn off through re-entry, with enough material to make it all the way down.
Similar heat shields were used with the Mercury and Gemini capsules. They were an
expendable, on-shot deal, as were the capsules. The solution was rather elegant,
too, all factors considered.

It was an ablative epoxy design... and the materials science that went into
it has since found a lot of industrial applications.

The STS (space shuttle) uses ceramic tiles with some remarkable thermal properties.
The tiled approach to heat shielding was required to keep the vehicle resuable.

Right. Ablative heat shields are of no use on a vehicle like that. However,
the technology that went into making extremely low density ceramics for the
shuttle tiles have since been applied to a lot of other things including some
new porous electret designs for microphones.

Interestingly, the folks in China are currently using white oak planking as
an ablative heat shield. It's a lot cruder and less uniform than the epoxy
stuff, but it's not as critical to manufacture.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k
Trevor wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
No, rec.audio.pro(duction) is what it is (about)

Is there a RFD showing the term ".pro" is actually short
for production rather than professional? And does it
really matter anyway? :-)

The ambiguity is quite possibly by design, but the .pro
IS a short for production, I've been hanging out here and
in nearby groups since 1993 and it has been mentioned
multiple times as the original intent. Look at the tree,
a .production and a .technology, one group for using the
stuff and one for repairing it .... O;-)

If memory serves, the FAQ says "production".

[Neil Gould]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k
Trevor wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
No, rec.audio.pro(duction) is what it is (about)

Is there a RFD showing the term ".pro" is actually short
for production rather than professional? And does it
really matter anyway? :-)

The ambiguity is quite possibly by design, but the .pro
IS a short for production, I've been hanging out here and
in nearby groups since 1993 and it has been mentioned
multiple times as the original intent. Look at the tree,
a .production and a .technology, one group for using the
stuff and one for repairing it .... O;-)

If memory serves, the FAQ says "production".

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/pro-audio-faq/

This may be helpful:

"Q1.1 - What is this newsgroup for? What topics are appropriate here, and
what
topics are best saved for another newsgroup?

"This newsgroup exists for the discussion of issues and topics related
to professional audio engineering. We generally do not discuss issues
relating to home audio reproduction, though they do occasionally come
up. "

--
best regards,

Neil

[Arny Krueger]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k
Trevor wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
No, rec.audio.pro(duction) is what it is (about)

Is there a RFD showing the term ".pro" is actually
short for production rather than professional? And
does it really matter anyway? :-)

The ambiguity is quite possibly by design, but the .pro
IS a short for production, I've been hanging out here
and in nearby groups since 1993 and it has been
mentioned multiple times as the original intent. Look
at the tree, a .production and a .technology, one group
for using the stuff and one for repairing it .... O;-)

If memory serves, the FAQ says "production".

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/pro-audio-faq/

This may be helpful:

"Q1.1 - What is this newsgroup for? What topics are
appropriate here, and what
topics are best saved for another newsgroup?

"This newsgroup exists for the discussion of issues and
topics related to professional audio engineering. We
generally do not discuss issues relating to home audio
reproduction, though they do occasionally come up. "


Sounds then like audio production, design and development related to
production, but most specifically not consumer home audio, etc.

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
:

The fact that the immediate
(paying) client performing the recording believes that the "particular
sound" was achieved and useful to him, does not change the facts that
there is no evidence that the final paying listeners noticed.

Kevin Aylward BS


Guess what? WE DON'T CARE! We have no control over the quality of the
playback equipment, the hearing range of the listener or the environment
they're listening in.

Might as well tell a visual artist to not use color because some people
will see their work in black & white.

The end result is dictated by the artist with the assistance and guidance
of the studio. I threw away the first two sessions of a recording
project and started over because *I* wasn't happy with the result. A
listener wouldn't have had any problem with the tracks I tossed. I don't
even like my work being downloaded as MP3's, they suck the life out of my
guitars, and while I recognize that's the current digital business model,
I'm not going to record with an SM-57 because it's good enough.

I think I've finally figured out you and Bill. Besides arguing just to
argue and having closed minds, neither one of you can understand the
artistic side of creating music. All you spout about are the specs and
argue about things that can never be quantified or measured because there
is no such thing as a Reference Human Ear. My ear is the only reference
that matters to me.

Sorry, Ty! And yes, I know I wasted my time again. :-)

Steve Hawkins

[hank alrich]

Steve Hawkins wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
:

The fact that the immediate
(paying) client performing the recording believes that the "particular
sound" was achieved and useful to him, does not change the facts that
there is no evidence that the final paying listeners noticed.

Kevin Aylward BS


Guess what? WE DON'T CARE! We have no control over the quality of the
playback equipment, the hearing range of the listener or the environment
they're listening in.

the "final paying listener" firstly, is unknown to us and also to Kevin,
and secondly, is not our customer. it is the artist's job to please that
listener and our job to please the aritist.

Might as well tell a visual artist to not use color because some people
will see their work in black & white.

The end result is dictated by the artist with the assistance and guidance
of the studio. I threw away the first two sessions of a recording
project and started over because *I* wasn't happy with the result. A
listener wouldn't have had any problem with the tracks I tossed. I don't
even like my work being downloaded as MP3's, they suck the life out of my
guitars, and while I recognize that's the current digital business model,
I'm not going to record with an SM-57 because it's good enough.

I think I've finally figured out you and Bill. Besides arguing just to
argue and having closed minds, neither one of you can understand the
artistic side of creating music. All you spout about are the specs and
argue about things that can never be quantified or measured because there
is no such thing as a Reference Human Ear. My ear is the only reference
that matters to me.

Sorry, Ty! And yes, I know I wasted my time again. :-)

Steve Hawkins


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"Steve Hawkins" wrote in message
5.250...

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
:

The fact that the immediate
(paying) client performing the recording believes that the "particular
sound" was achieved and useful to him, does not change the facts that
there is no evidence that the final paying listeners noticed.

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.


Guess what? WE DON'T CARE! We have no control over the quality of the
playback equipment, the hearing range of the listener or the environment
they're listening in.

So you don't care about the final result of your product. Says it all mate.

Might as well tell a visual artist to not use color because some people
will see their work in black & white.

Most can see in colour. Most cannot tell the difference between a $1000 mic
and a $9000 mic, so your analogy is false.

The end result is dictated by the artist with the assistance and guidance
of the studio. I threw away the first two sessions of a recording
project and started over because *I* wasn't happy with the result. A
listener wouldn't have had any problem with the tracks I tossed.

So, keep repeating what you do. Do you have Asperger's syndrome by any
chance?

Can't do a good job right first time? No such luxury for me when I design a
chip. Could cost the company $100k in costs and 3-6 months in schedule.

So, you like to waste your clients time, and also money if you charge them
for your messed up recordings. The listener would have been happy, yet you
throw away the work? I would say that you have a major living in this real
world.

I don't
even like my work being downloaded as MP3's, they suck the life out of my
guitars,

So you are simply not good enough at your craft to produce something that
the majority will listen.

and while I recognize that's the current digital business model,
I'm not going to record with an SM-57 because it's good enough.

So, unable to do a good job without a $9000 mic? Interesting, as 100000s of
others can.

I think I've finally figured out you and Bill.

So you claim.

Besides arguing just to
argue and having closed minds,

Making good music is not about using $9000 mics. I certainly have an open
mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.

neither one of you can understand the
artistic side of creating music.

The artistic side you say? Listen up dude, the artistic side is, now get
this, the music. Its the intricacies of the instruments on a Steely Dan
album and its music structures. Its not some "transparent, but with air and
firmness transcending the complete sonic experience that only a $9000 mic
can achieve" sort of bull****.

This is the fundamental problem with you "pro studio recorders", you think
achieving the best technical sound is the most important aspect of making
music. It isn't. The most important thing about recording music, is
dah...the music. You didn't say whether or not you are a musician, but I am.

I can understand your desire to raise your own status and importance, but
lets get this straight, its the musicians and the music writers where all of
the value lies. By and large, the quality of the recording, within reason,
is just not important, no matter how much you dudes delude yourselves that
you are important.

All you spout about are the specs and
argue about things that can never be quantified or measured because there

Regarding my mic claim, I have made no mention of specs at all. You guys
are still making this all up as you go along.

is no such thing as a Reference Human Ear. My ear is the only reference
that matters to me.

Yeah...

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.rosierox.com

[Bill Graham]

Doug McDonald wrote:
On 1/2/2011 7:15 AM, Kevin Aylward wrote:


"I was never told that the evidence for WMD in Iraq was fabricated"

No, but he read it in a report 3 months before the invasion.




And indeed, faked it was ... but what you don't say is that it was
faked by Saddam Hussein, and that nobody outside his extremely
close associates knew it. We didn't know it was faked, his generals
didn't know it was faked.

Doug McDonald

That's right. He was trying to convince the Iranians that he had them, and,
like all presidents, he couldn't do that without lying to the whole world.

[Bill Graham]

Frank Stearns wrote:
"Bill Graham" writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:
"Bill Graham" writes:

snips

life support systems, which are very costly. There was nothing
spectacular about the Apollo program. All the necessary technology
to accomplish it was already there. They could have just told GM,
"Build us a Caddy that will take us to the moon and back", and GM
would have said, "Show us the money, and you've got it." - "What
color would you like us to paint it."

Er, not quite.

At the time a lot of brilliant folks who believed in the project
(both the science and the politics) put in a lot of hours -- and
they did things so well that the nearly perfect success record
(except Apollo 1 and Apollo 13) gives the appearance now, in
hindsight, of "aw heck, it was so easy that even a car company
could have done it."

Jeez. C'mon. The devil -- and the exploration --- AND many of the
high-pay-back spin-offs -- were in the details at the time, and for
many years to come. Very little of Apollo was off-the-shelf in any
sense, or could even be custom-cobbled from parts in the skunkworks.

Very much of the program was new, ground up, and had lasting import
in many fields.

I nevert said it was going to be cheap. I said, "The technology was
already there." Sure, there were some details that required
development, but they knew it could be done. (like the heat
shielding tiles) But there were other ways to get around that, too.
(They could have refueled from an orbiting fuel tank just before
reentry, for example, and powered down gradually as necessary to
keep the temps down)

Seems as though you could do with a bit of historical and engineering
study on this topic.

One red flag here is your mention of "tiles"...

The Apollo heat shield, best I recall off the top of my head, was an
alloy designed to burn off through re-entry, with enough material to
make it all the way down. Similar heat shields were used with the
Mercury and Gemini capsules. They were an expendable, on-shot deal,
as were the capsules. The solution was rather elegant, too, all
factors considered.

The STS (space shuttle) uses ceramic tiles with some remarkable
thermal properties. The tiled approach to heat shielding was required
to keep the vehicle resuable.

As far as a powered earth descent... Sorry, but that's silly,
particularly if you're complaining about the expense in general. A
powered descent system, with an orbital refueling system, just added
a huge amount of complexity and money to the entire enterprise.

Both Apollo and the STS fall to earth, unpowered, for any number of
solid engineering reasons.

Frank
Mobile Audio

Again, I did not say it was cheap, or practical. I only said that the
technology was already there to do it. I have already mentioned that the
spin-off argument is faulty. You should enjoy spin offs from the
accomplishment of useful things, and not from ridiculous enterprises. We
should have sent robots to the moon. That was obvious in the 1960's, and it
is still obvious today.

[Bill Graham]

Neil Gould wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
I've owned a couple of professional recording studios in the past,
and recorded in numerous others that did own such a mic. In fact,
those that didn't own such a mic were the exception, and even
though my sample selection of studios was not random, I'd find it
illogical that it would be off by more than a factor of 1,000,
which would be required to support your assertions.

But the question still remains, - Why did they own them? Because
they yielded $9000 worth of recording sound, or because of one of
the other half dozen or so reasons? IOW, were they technically
really worth $9000? And, if so, just say, "Yes".

"Yes."

A mic is a tool, and a professional chooses tools based in part on
how they can reduce the effort to complete a job. As others have
written numerous times within this topic, this tool allowed them to
achieve a particular sound with less effort, making them technically
superior to options which would require more work or may not do the
job at all.

If that were true, I would buy one myself, but I am forced to doubt
it. However, at least you have stated the facts on which we can agree
to disagree, and, without calling me an idiot. - Thank you.

It wouldn't be true for you, Bill. You have no need for the sound of
that type of mic. You are not engaged in an occupation where you
would need to achieve that sound for other customers. There are
probably several other reasons why that kind of mic is not an
appropriate choice for you, as there are several reasons why that
kind of mic is not appropriate for my uses. Our needs or tastes don't
change the fact that there are situations where a $9,000 mic is the
best, most efficient tool for the job.

There may be, but I have yet to see them demonstrated. I cannot, however,
say that no such situations exist. But I will continue to doubt that they
do. I really believe that there is probably no one on earth who can actually
tell the sound of a $9000 mike from that of several that cost less than 1/3
of that figure. So I will continue to believe that technically, the mike is
not worth that figure, but is, in all cases, purchased for other than purely
technical reasons. But, since I have no way of proving this, I have to admit
that it is just my personal opinion.

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
:

"Steve Hawkins" wrote in message
5.250...

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
:

The fact that the immediate
(paying) client performing the recording believes that the
"particular sound" was achieved and useful to him, does not change
the facts that there is no evidence that the final paying listeners
noticed.

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.


Guess what? WE DON'T CARE! We have no control over the quality of
the playback equipment, the hearing range of the listener or the
environment they're listening in.

So you don't care about the final result of your product. Says it all
mate.

All it says to me is you either won't admit you're wrong or can't
comprehend the point.

Might as well tell a visual artist to not use color because some
people will see their work in black & white.

Most can see in colour. Most cannot tell the difference between a
$1000 mic and a $9000 mic, so your analogy is false.

You either won't admit you're wrong or can't comprehend the point.

The end result is dictated by the artist with the assistance and
guidance of the studio. I threw away the first two sessions of a
recording project and started over because *I* wasn't happy with the
result. A listener wouldn't have had any problem with the tracks I
tossed.

So, keep repeating what you do. Do you have Asperger's syndrome by any
chance?

Not to my knowledge, you've been showing serioous signs of clinical
psychosis though.

Can't do a good job right first time? No such luxury for me when I
design a chip. Could cost the company $100k in costs and 3-6 months in
schedule.

BFD, all you do is implement other peoples creative work. BTW, I been in
test equipmenrt design and manufacturing for 30 years; guys like you work
for me.

So, you like to waste your clients time, and also money if you charge
them for your messed up recordings. The listener would have been
happy, yet you throw away the work? I would say that you have a major
living in this real world.

Idiot, I'm the client.

I don't
even like my work being downloaded as MP3's, they suck the life out of
my guitars,

So you are simply not good enough at your craft to produce something
that the majority will listen.

I've been to your websites, your opinion matters nothing to me.

and while I recognize that's the current digital business model,
I'm not going to record with an SM-57 because it's good enough.

So, unable to do a good job without a $9000 mic? Interesting, as
100000s of others can.

Pay attention, we're talking about "final paying listeners" not $9K mics.

I think I've finally figured out you and Bill.

So you claim.

Besides arguing just to
argue and having closed minds,

Making good music is not about using $9000 mics. I certainly have an
open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.

neither one of you can understand the
artistic side of creating music.

The artistic side you say? Listen up dude, the artistic side is, now
get this, the music. Its the intricacies of the instruments on a
Steely Dan album and its music structures. Its not some "transparent,
but with air and firmness transcending the complete sonic experience
that only a $9000 mic can achieve" sort of bull****.

I like Steely Dan, but IMHO I find their recordings to be overly produced
and somewhat sterile sounding. Probably why they were never much of a Live
Band.

This is the fundamental problem with you "pro studio recorders", you
think achieving the best technical sound is the most important aspect
of making music. It isn't. The most important thing about recording
music, is dah...the music. You didn't say whether or not you are a
musician, but I am.

I hire studios, I don't work for them. Do you understand what an overtone
is? Do you have the slightest clue what happens when you pluck a note on
an acoustic guitar? Do you understand the differences between performing
in a studio vs. a live gig. Do you understand how all those things and
many more combine to be music? Don't answer, it's obvious you don't.

I can understand your desire to raise your own status and importance,
but lets get this straight, its the musicians and the music writers
where all of the value lies. By and large, the quality of the
recording, within reason, is just not important, no matter how much
you dudes delude yourselves that you are important.

And *your* reasons for fighting this futile battle are? All I've seen out
of you is intellectual masturbation. I guess Steely Dan wasted a lot of
money.

All you spout about are the specs and
argue about things that can never be quantified or measured because
there

Regarding my mic claim, I have made no mention of specs at all. You
guys are still making this all up as you go along.

Who's talking about $9K mics? I'm talking about "final paying listeners"
role in recording music.

is no such thing as a Reference Human Ear. My ear is the only
reference that matters to me.

Yeah...

Kevin Aylward BS

Glad you agree.

Steve Hawkins

[david gourley[_2_]]

Anahata put forth the notion
:

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 13:26:28 +0000, John Williamson wrote:

Marks all subsequent posts from Kevin Aylward to be ignored

Welcome to the club. If a few more do the same, the S/N ratio will
improve dramatically.


He just got out of my killfile. Now he's back, joining Mr. Graham (who
went there over a month ago).

Enough WAS enough.


david

[Frank Stearns]

"Bill Graham" writes:

powered descent system, with an orbital refueling system, just added
a huge amount of complexity and money to the entire enterprise.

Both Apollo and the STS fall to earth, unpowered, for any number of
solid engineering reasons.

Frank
Mobile Audio

Again, I did not say it was cheap, or practical. I only said that the
technology was already there to do it. I have already mentioned that the
spin-off argument is faulty. You should enjoy spin offs from the
accomplishment of useful things, and not from ridiculous enterprises. We
should have sent robots to the moon. That was obvious in the 1960's, and it
is still obvious today.

Bill, again, it appears that your take on the history here isn't quite complete.

The specific technology really _wasn't_ there, and had to be invented. Certainly,
things were built on what went before (a foundation from Mercury and a direct link
from Gemini), but in no way, no how, was Apollo off the shelf.

As far as spin-offs... I now vaguely recall something about some protests in the
mid-1970s regarding Apollo costs; enough so that the $24B spent on Apollo was
analyzed in depth by outside entities, perhaps the CBO.

7x direct payback was the number I remember, with a much larger number applied
indirectly. In the face of those findings the protests dimmed rather quickly. If you
have citations or documentation to the contrary I'd be curious to know about them.

Thanks,

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio
--

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:
One red flag here is your mention of "tiles"...

The Apollo heat shield, best I recall off the top of my head, was an
alloy designed to burn off through re-entry, with enough material to
make it all the way down. Similar heat shields were used with the
Mercury and Gemini capsules. They were an expendable, on-shot deal,
as were the capsules. The solution was rather elegant, too, all
factors considered.

It was an ablative epoxy design... and the materials science that
went into it has since found a lot of industrial applications.

The STS (space shuttle) uses ceramic tiles with some remarkable
thermal properties. The tiled approach to heat shielding was
required to keep the vehicle resuable.

Right. Ablative heat shields are of no use on a vehicle like that.
However, the technology that went into making extremely low density
ceramics for the shuttle tiles have since been applied to a lot of
other things including some new porous electret designs for
microphones.

Interestingly, the folks in China are currently using white oak
planking as an ablative heat shield. It's a lot cruder and less
uniform than the epoxy stuff, but it's not as critical to manufacture.
--scott

I believe the Chinese can make anything we make here in the West out of
bamboo, by children, for about 1/100th the cost.....

[Bill Graham]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k
Trevor wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
No, rec.audio.pro(duction) is what it is (about)

Is there a RFD showing the term ".pro" is actually short
for production rather than professional? And does it
really matter anyway? :-)

The ambiguity is quite possibly by design, but the .pro
IS a short for production, I've been hanging out here and
in nearby groups since 1993 and it has been mentioned
multiple times as the original intent. Look at the tree,
a .production and a .technology, one group for using the
stuff and one for repairing it .... O;-)

If memory serves, the FAQ says "production".

I always thought it meant, "prophylactic"....:^)

[Bill Graham]

Steve Hawkins wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
:

The fact that the immediate
(paying) client performing the recording believes that the
"particular sound" was achieved and useful to him, does not change
the facts that there is no evidence that the final paying listeners
noticed.

Kevin Aylward BS


Guess what? WE DON'T CARE! We have no control over the quality of
the playback equipment, the hearing range of the listener or the
environment they're listening in.

Might as well tell a visual artist to not use color because some
people will see their work in black & white.

The end result is dictated by the artist with the assistance and
guidance of the studio. I threw away the first two sessions of a
recording project and started over because *I* wasn't happy with the
result. A listener wouldn't have had any problem with the tracks I
tossed. I don't even like my work being downloaded as MP3's, they
suck the life out of my guitars, and while I recognize that's the
current digital business model, I'm not going to record with an SM-57
because it's good enough.

I think I've finally figured out you and Bill. Besides arguing just
to argue and having closed minds, neither one of you can understand
the artistic side of creating music. All you spout about are the
specs and argue about things that can never be quantified or measured
because there is no such thing as a Reference Human Ear. My ear is
the only reference that matters to me.

Sorry, Ty! And yes, I know I wasted my time again. :-)

Steve Hawkins

I have no idea what the "specs" of a $9000 mike are. I don't record. (Well,
hardly ever) My only interest in music is, "the artistic side". So I am
forced to think that there is something wrong in your evaluation of me, at
the very least.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
This may be helpful:

"Q1.1 - What is this newsgroup for? What topics are appropriate here, and
what
topics are best saved for another newsgroup?

"This newsgroup exists for the discussion of issues and topics related
to professional audio engineering. We generally do not discuss issues
relating to home audio reproduction, though they do occasionally come
up. "

Yep, "professional". But as I said the RFD is really the place to look since
FAQ's are written well afterwards by people who may not even know the
original RFD.

HOWEVER as I said, does it really matter since most people who post or read
Usenet groups NEVER read either!

Trevor.

[hank alrich]

Steve Hawkins wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
:

"Steve Hawkins" wrote in message
5.250...

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
:

The fact that the immediate
(paying) client performing the recording believes that the
"particular sound" was achieved and useful to him, does not change
the facts that there is no evidence that the final paying listeners
noticed.

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.


Guess what? WE DON'T CARE! We have no control over the quality of
the playback equipment, the hearing range of the listener or the
environment they're listening in.

So you don't care about the final result of your product. Says it all
mate.

All it says to me is you either won't admit you're wrong or can't
comprehend the point.

That's clearly a "both/and", not "either/or".

Might as well tell a visual artist to not use color because some
people will see their work in black & white.

Most can see in colour. Most cannot tell the difference between a
$1000 mic and a $9000 mic, so your analogy is false.

You either won't admit you're wrong or can't comprehend the point.

The end result is dictated by the artist with the assistance and
guidance of the studio. I threw away the first two sessions of a
recording project and started over because *I* wasn't happy with the
result. A listener wouldn't have had any problem with the tracks I
tossed.

So, keep repeating what you do. Do you have Asperger's syndrome by any
chance?

Not to my knowledge, you've been showing serioous signs of clinical
psychosis though.

Can't do a good job right first time? No such luxury for me when I
design a chip. Could cost the company $100k in costs and 3-6 months in
schedule.

BFD, all you do is implement other peoples creative work. BTW, I been in
test equipmenrt design and manufacturing for 30 years; guys like you work
for me.

So, you like to waste your clients time, and also money if you charge
them for your messed up recordings. The listener would have been
happy, yet you throw away the work? I would say that you have a major
living in this real world.

Idiot, I'm the client.

I don't
even like my work being downloaded as MP3's, they suck the life out of
my guitars,

So you are simply not good enough at your craft to produce something
that the majority will listen.

I've been to your websites, your opinion matters nothing to me.

and while I recognize that's the current digital business model,
I'm not going to record with an SM-57 because it's good enough.

So, unable to do a good job without a $9000 mic? Interesting, as
100000s of others can.

Pay attention, we're talking about "final paying listeners" not $9K mics.

I think I've finally figured out you and Bill.

So you claim.

Besides arguing just to
argue and having closed minds,

Making good music is not about using $9000 mics. I certainly have an
open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.

neither one of you can understand the
artistic side of creating music.

The artistic side you say? Listen up dude, the artistic side is, now
get this, the music. Its the intricacies of the instruments on a
Steely Dan album and its music structures. Its not some "transparent,
but with air and firmness transcending the complete sonic experience
that only a $9000 mic can achieve" sort of bull****.

I like Steely Dan, but IMHO I find their recordings to be overly produced
and somewhat sterile sounding. Probably why they were never much of a Live
Band.

This is the fundamental problem with you "pro studio recorders", you
think achieving the best technical sound is the most important aspect
of making music. It isn't. The most important thing about recording
music, is dah...the music. You didn't say whether or not you are a
musician, but I am.

I hire studios, I don't work for them. Do you understand what an overtone
is? Do you have the slightest clue what happens when you pluck a note on
an acoustic guitar? Do you understand the differences between performing
in a studio vs. a live gig. Do you understand how all those things and
many more combine to be music? Don't answer, it's obvious you don't.

I can understand your desire to raise your own status and importance,
but lets get this straight, its the musicians and the music writers
where all of the value lies. By and large, the quality of the
recording, within reason, is just not important, no matter how much
you dudes delude yourselves that you are important.

And *your* reasons for fighting this futile battle are? All I've seen out
of you is intellectual masturbation. I guess Steely Dan wasted a lot of
money.

All you spout about are the specs and
argue about things that can never be quantified or measured because
there

Regarding my mic claim, I have made no mention of specs at all. You
guys are still making this all up as you go along.

Who's talking about $9K mics? I'm talking about "final paying listeners"
role in recording music.

is no such thing as a Reference Human Ear. My ear is the only
reference that matters to me.

Yeah...

Kevin Aylward BS

Glad you agree.

Steve Hawkins


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

Steve Hawkins wrote:

I didn't see your original post Steve, only this reply from hank.


Do you understand what an overtone
is? Do you have the slightest clue what happens when you pluck a note on
an acoustic guitar?

ROTHLMAF, and I mean this seriously.

Don't answer, it's obvious you don't.

I am pretty stunned by your reply here Steve. I suppose you missed my other
posts.

I think this is truly one of those "you're trying to question your grannies
ability to suck eggs" sort of thing.

Without going to your crutch of Wikipedia, please reply with the derivation
of partial differential equation of a vibrating string, and outline how it
would be solved. Then do the same for the circular membrane. Then explain
from the solution, why the overtones of a drum are not harmonics, and then
list what the first 4 overtones are as a ration to the fundamental. Hint: do
you know what Bessel functions are? Then, explain why a horn has an
exponential flare, and produce the partial differential equation that
describes such a horn. Using your solution to said exponential flare, derive
the formula for the horn cut-off frequency. Then show from first principles
the acoustic impedance presented to a circular piston.

Then go to http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/focus.htm and show me your
derivation of my ultrasound beamformer equations.

Steve, some of us have actually done this for real. Not simply read a few
bits and pieces from the paperback "Audio for Dummies".

Once you are done with that, go to my General Relativity tutorial and
identify where I lost the minus sign in my derivation of the Riemann
Curvature Tensor at http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/reimann/reimann.html. I
never got around to seeing where my error was, but no doubt your superior
knowledge of calculus and differential equations will put me right.

Steve, you have just no idea of my background, you're now embarrassing
yourself.

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[Scott Dorsey]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Without going to your crutch of Wikipedia, please reply with the derivation
of partial differential equation of a vibrating string, and outline how it
would be solved.

Note that in the case of something like a guitar, this sort of model is
extremely simplistic and really doesn't describe what is going on. The horn
isn't so bad; you can use a transmission line model (and Harry Olson's book
has a nice description of it), but even those models come apart eventually.

In the case of the guitar which is made of nonuninform, anisotropic material
and has a lot of pieces that are excited by that simple first order plucked
string, it gets a lot more complicated. There are more resonant modes than
you can imagine.

Folks out there ARE doing FEM modelling of guitars and sadly they aren't
getting very far. If they were, someone would be able to make an Ovation
that sounded like a guitar.

Steve, some of us have actually done this for real. Not simply read a few
bits and pieces from the paperback "Audio for Dummies".

The problem is that it's very easy to make a rough model but when you start
attempting to refine it you will very quickly discover just how oversimplified
it really is.

Steve, you have just no idea of my background, you're now embarrassing
yourself.

Frankly, a math model is no use at all unless you can actually validate the
model fidelity. So the fact that you are an expert in making mathematical
models of physical systems does not necessarily imply you understand somewhat
more sophisticated physical systems themselves.

In the case of musical instruments, a lot of the job also involves trying to
figure out what "fidelity" really means and how far away you can get away
from nominal behaviour before it's a problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Without going to your crutch of Wikipedia, please reply with the derivation
of partial differential equation of a vibrating string, and outline how it
would be solved.

Note that in the case of something like a guitar, this sort of model is
extremely simplistic and really doesn't describe what is going on.

I agree. But the point I was making is that Steve seems to have deluded
himself that I have no knowledge, when all evidence suggests that, on these
particular points, Steve would appear only to have just the basics, yet is
attempting to insinuate that I am the one that is "clueless". He was
insinuating that I would be so inept as to not know the harmonic expansion
of a plucked string! I don't believe he was looking any deeper, as his posts
show a general lack of any higher level details.

Sure, I don't have much experience in placing mics on sticks when recording
choirs, but that is a way tiny part of the sound/electronics applied to
sound field, of which I have a quite a lot of.

The horn
isn't so bad; you can use a transmission line model (and Harry Olson's book
has a nice description of it), but even those models come apart eventually.

What I found interesting when I actually studied the equation solution of
the horn, non-uniform transmission line some 30 years ago, was that it is
the area not the flare shape itself that needs to be exponential, but the
x-y profile. It is the exponential area that is a profile that keeps the
velocity constant for all frequencies reasonably away from the cut-off
frequency. Naively ones notes the profile is exponential, but in principle,
one could use some other shape for the x-y profile, so long as the area is
exponential.

Other interesting snippets, just for Steve, is that, although the horn acts
as as acoustic transformer, and allows for a much louder sound, the bell on
a trumpet is not for that purpose. It is "end correction" to keep the thing
in tune by making its overtones closer to harmonics.

In the case of the guitar which is made of nonuninform, anisotropic
material
and has a lot of pieces that are excited by that simple first order plucked
string, it gets a lot more complicated. There are more resonant modes than
you can imagine.

Folks out there ARE doing FEM modelling of guitars and sadly they aren't
getting very far. If they were, someone would be able to make an Ovation
that sounded like a guitar.

Again, I agree. In general it is very difficult to do accurate, full
modelling of sound systems. Yes, there are a few acoustic modelling systems
out there. Some are noted at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physica...ling_synthesis

Steve, some of us have actually done this for real. Not simply read a few
bits and pieces from the paperback "Audio for Dummies".

The problem is that it's very easy to make a rough model but when you start
attempting to refine it you will very quickly discover just how
oversimplified
it really is.

Steve, you have just no idea of my background, you're now embarrassing
yourself.

Frankly, a math model is no use at all unless you can actually validate the
model fidelity. So the fact that you are an expert in making mathematical
models of physical systems does not necessarily imply you understand
somewhat
more sophisticated physical systems themselves.

I don't claim to me an expert in mathematical modelling of physical systems,
but I do know somewhat more than a novice. Modelling, in general, is an
interest of mine. e.g. my www.anasoft.co.uk

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[Scott Dorsey]

Kevin Aylward wrote:
The horn
isn't so bad; you can use a transmission line model (and Harry Olson's book
has a nice description of it), but even those models come apart eventually.

What I found interesting when I actually studied the equation solution of
the horn, non-uniform transmission line some 30 years ago, was that it is
the area not the flare shape itself that needs to be exponential, but the
x-y profile. It is the exponential area that is a profile that keeps the
velocity constant for all frequencies reasonably away from the cut-off
frequency. Naively ones notes the profile is exponential, but in principle,
one could use some other shape for the x-y profile, so long as the area is
exponential.

You don't necessarily want to do that, actually. You _want_ an impedance
discontinuity at the end of the tube, because you want to create standing
waves inside the tube. The bends in the tube, combined with the discontinuity
at the end, affect the system response and that is where the basic tone
comes from. You can alter the relative lengths of each section and change
the flare and alter the levels of each of the individual harmonics.

This is actually discussed in Harry Olson's "Music, Physics and Engineering"
and the simple transmission line model does very well predict the actual
tone of the instrument.

Other interesting snippets, just for Steve, is that, although the horn acts
as as acoustic transformer, and allows for a much louder sound, the bell on
a trumpet is not for that purpose. It is "end correction" to keep the thing
in tune by making its overtones closer to harmonics.

This also, yes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

Kevin Aylward wrote:
The horn
isn't so bad; you can use a transmission line model (and Harry Olson's
book
has a nice description of it), but even those models come apart
eventually.

What I found interesting when I actually studied the equation solution of
the horn, non-uniform transmission line some 30 years ago, was that it is
the area not the flare shape itself that needs to be exponential, but the
x-y profile. It is the exponential area that is a profile that keeps the
velocity constant for all frequencies reasonably away from the cut-off
frequency. Naively ones notes the profile is exponential, but in principle,
one could use some other shape for the x-y profile, so long as the area is
exponential.
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

Kevin Aylward wrote:
The horn
isn't so bad; you can use a transmission line model (and Harry Olson's
book
has a nice description of it), but even those models come apart
eventually.

What I found interesting when I actually studied the equation solution of
the horn, non-uniform transmission line some 30 years ago, was that it is
the area not the flare shape itself that needs to be exponential, but the
x-y profile. It is the exponential area that is a profile that keeps the
velocity constant for all frequencies reasonably away from the cut-off
frequency. Naively ones notes the profile is exponential, but in
principle,
one could use some other shape for the x-y profile, so long as the area is
exponential.

You don't necessarily want to do that, actually. You _want_ an impedance
discontinuity at the end of the tube, because you want to create standing
waves inside the tube. The bends in the tube, combined with the
discontinuity
at the end, affect the system response and that is where the basic tone
comes from. You can alter the relative lengths of each section and change
the flare and alter the levels of each of the individual harmonics.

You must be referring to instruments here, so yes, an exponential wouldn't
do much for them. I was actually referring to flared horns on speaker
cabinets, where generally, one wants to get an accurate representation of
the input, well, not unless its a guitar speaker.

Acoustics is quite difficult compared to electronics. Most of electronic
design is lumped components. Spice nowadays is extremely good for that. 3D
is a real bugger to handle.

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[Arny Krueger]

"Kevin Aylward" wrote in
message

What I found interesting when I actually studied the
equation solution of the horn, non-uniform transmission
line some 30 years ago, was that it is the area not the
flare shape itself that needs to be exponential, but the
x-y profile. It is the exponential area that is a profile
that keeps the velocity constant for all frequencies
reasonably away from the cut-off frequency. Naively ones
notes the profile is exponential, but in principle, one
could use some other shape for the x-y profile, so long
as the area is exponential.

Please check the patents and papers of Earl Geddes for some of the more
mathematical and insightful solutions to the problems of designing acoustic
waveguides.

He also has a web site - www.gedlee.com, if memory serves. He tells me that
production of his Summa line of waveguide-centric loudspeakers is lagging
demand by about 4 months, and he means that in a good way.

[Bill Graham]

Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Without going to your crutch of Wikipedia, please reply with the
derivation of partial differential equation of a vibrating string,
and outline how it would be solved.

Note that in the case of something like a guitar, this sort of model
is extremely simplistic and really doesn't describe what is going on.

I agree. But the point I was making is that Steve seems to have
deluded himself that I have no knowledge, when all evidence suggests
that, on these particular points, Steve would appear only to have
just the basics, yet is attempting to insinuate that I am the one
that is "clueless". He was insinuating that I would be so inept as to
not know the harmonic expansion of a plucked string! I don't believe
he was looking any deeper, as his posts show a general lack of any
higher level details.
Sure, I don't have much experience in placing mics on sticks when
recording choirs, but that is a way tiny part of the
sound/electronics applied to sound field, of which I have a quite a
lot of.
The horn
isn't so bad; you can use a transmission line model (and Harry
Olson's book has a nice description of it), but even those models
come apart eventually.

What I found interesting when I actually studied the equation
solution of the horn, non-uniform transmission line some 30 years
ago, was that it is the area not the flare shape itself that needs to
be exponential, but the x-y profile. It is the exponential area that
is a profile that keeps the velocity constant for all frequencies
reasonably away from the cut-off frequency. Naively ones notes the
profile is exponential, but in principle, one could use some other
shape for the x-y profile, so long as the area is exponential.

Other interesting snippets, just for Steve, is that, although the
horn acts as as acoustic transformer, and allows for a much louder
sound, the bell on a trumpet is not for that purpose. It is "end
correction" to keep the thing in tune by making its overtones closer
to harmonics.
In the case of the guitar which is made of nonuninform, anisotropic
material
and has a lot of pieces that are excited by that simple first order
plucked string, it gets a lot more complicated. There are more
resonant modes than you can imagine.

Folks out there ARE doing FEM modelling of guitars and sadly they
aren't getting very far. If they were, someone would be able to
make an Ovation that sounded like a guitar.

Again, I agree. In general it is very difficult to do accurate, full
modelling of sound systems. Yes, there are a few acoustic modelling
systems out there. Some are noted at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physica...ling_synthesis

Steve, some of us have actually done this for real. Not simply read
a few bits and pieces from the paperback "Audio for Dummies".

The problem is that it's very easy to make a rough model but when
you start attempting to refine it you will very quickly discover
just how oversimplified
it really is.

Steve, you have just no idea of my background, you're now
embarrassing yourself.

Frankly, a math model is no use at all unless you can actually
validate the model fidelity. So the fact that you are an expert in
making mathematical models of physical systems does not necessarily
imply you understand somewhat
more sophisticated physical systems themselves.

I don't claim to me an expert in mathematical modelling of physical
systems, but I do know somewhat more than a novice. Modelling, in
general, is an interest of mine. e.g. my www.anasoft.co.uk

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

Most good guitar players know how to force nodal points on their strings by
touching the string at the second, forth, fifth or octave points. So in
general, guitarists are pretty cognizant of the harmonics of their strings.

[Scott Dorsey]

Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

You don't necessarily want to do that, actually. You _want_ an impedance
discontinuity at the end of the tube, because you want to create standing
waves inside the tube. The bends in the tube, combined with the
discontinuity
at the end, affect the system response and that is where the basic tone
comes from. You can alter the relative lengths of each section and change
the flare and alter the levels of each of the individual harmonics.

You must be referring to instruments here, so yes, an exponential wouldn't
do much for them. I was actually referring to flared horns on speaker
cabinets, where generally, one wants to get an accurate representation of
the input, well, not unless its a guitar speaker.

The whole point of the thread was modelling musical instruments.

Speaker horns are comparatively easy because you have actual objective
measures of quality. Your weighting on the different measurements may be
different than mine because of personal tastes; I can live with restricted
bass more readily than poorly controlled bass, and I will pick wider dispersion
in most cases over narrower dispersion with poorer off-axis response. But
the measurements are there and they are good.

There's good psychoacoustic research out there on what makes a good speaker
good, and what measurements correlate to what sounds. That changes; the
recent paper from Vanderkooy on just how inaudible midrange group delay really
is came as a shock to a lot of speaker designers.

Instruments, though, are a totally different ball game. I can measure what
happens when you adjust the various lengths of tubing in a cornet, for
instance, and where the partials move around to. One can predict it quite
accurately mathematically. But actually correlating that with "good cornet
sound" is difficult.

With a complex instrument like a guitar it gets exponentially more difficult
too. There is also a much wider variation of acceptable sounds due to
varying taste also.

Acoustics is quite difficult compared to electronics. Most of electronic
design is lumped components. Spice nowadays is extremely good for that. 3D
is a real bugger to handle.

Traditionally for a lot of simpler things, we have created electrical
analogies to mechanical systems and used network analysis to model
mechanical systems as lumped-sum constants. This works great for something
like a freshman dynamics class mass-spring system. It works okay for
something like a simple plucked string (and if you look inside some of the
Moog string modules you'll find a direct electrical implementation of the
plucked string model in lumped-sum form), but it kind of falls apart when
you start trying to analyze systems like guitars.

This doesn't mean that it's not worth continuing to try to refine models,
but it does mean that berating people on Usenet for questioning the fidelity
of such models is probably not going to win you any friends here.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

You don't necessarily want to do that, actually. You _want_ an
impedance
discontinuity at the end of the tube, because you want to create
standing
waves inside the tube. The bends in the tube, combined with the
discontinuity
at the end, affect the system response and that is where the basic
tone
comes from. You can alter the relative lengths of each section and
change
the flare and alter the levels of each of the individual harmonics.

You must be referring to instruments here, so yes, an exponential wouldn't
do much for them. I was actually referring to flared horns on speaker
cabinets, where generally, one wants to get an accurate representation of
the input, well, not unless its a guitar speaker.

The whole point of the thread was modelling musical instruments.

I don't see that that was the case at all. I certainly saw no reason to
assume that that the $9000 mic thread change was restricted to musical
instruments. A poster made a generic comment implying that I did not
understand the analysis of a plucked guitar string. I took this to refer to
the nature of modelling sound generators and receivers in general.

Speaker horns are comparatively easy because you have actual objective
measures of quality. Your weighting on the different measurements may be
different than mine because of personal tastes; I can live with restricted
bass more readily than poorly controlled bass, and I will pick wider
dispersion
in most cases over narrower dispersion with poorer off-axis response. But
the measurements are there and they are good.

There's good psychoacoustic research out there on what makes a good speaker
good, and what measurements correlate to what sounds. That changes; the
recent paper from Vanderkooy on just how inaudible midrange group delay
really
is came as a shock to a lot of speaker designers.

I have no idea of this paper, but I that I have been quite familiar with the
concept for 30+ years that, that by and large, static phase shifts are not
audible. The ear/brain is pretty much a frequency analyser. So, I have to
say that I would be somewhat stunned today, if people have an alternative
view, which was experimentally proved false many years ago. Maybe I am
missing something here, is this "group delay" referred to here just the
normal derivative of phase for relatively small phase shifts, or is it
referring to lengths of delays more appropriately named "echo".

The "phase shift is audible" nonsense has been going on way before I first
came acquainted with the concept. I remember doing a simple test around 1980
when I designing/building a "phaser" pedal. For reference, a phaser pedal is
a device that creates a sweepable frequency notch filter, but achieves this
by mixing a straight signal with a variable phase delayed signal, usually
generated from an all-pass filter, hence the name. The name "phaser", though
is really a bit of a misnomer, because one can't here the phase shift
itself. One just has to have a go at listening to the phase shifted path on
its own, at various control voltage settings, to confirm that static phase
shifts can not be detected by the ear.

The key bit is that multiple source phase shifts, when added, generate
frequency response variations, and it is these frequency responses that are
audible, not the individual phase shifts. If the above paper is referring to
the effects of two speakers (e.g. hf and lf via x-overs) being feed signals,
or heard at a listening sum point of the two speakers, with differing "group
delays" , i.e. different phase shifts, then one might, in principle, expect
some auditability in that the frequency response will be different.

However, if phase shifts are dynamically changed, then sure, one now has a
phase modulator, that will produce a frequency spectrum modulation on the
signal, obtained from our aforementioned Bessel functions, similar to FM
modulation.

I am aware of some pathologically, deliberately constructed static phase
shifts that can be detected, but this is not really relevant to general
passive speaker/microphones systems in general use.


Instruments, though, are a totally different ball game. I can measure what
happens when you adjust the various lengths of tubing in a cornet, for
instance, and where the partials move around to. One can predict it quite
accurately mathematically. But actually correlating that with "good cornet
sound" is difficult.

With a complex instrument like a guitar it gets exponentially more
difficult
too. There is also a much wider variation of acceptable sounds due to
varying taste also.

For me, the differences in the sound of an electric guitar itself, is not
really worth bothering about in general. I would say that, out of the
several million guitars sold each year in the us and uk, only a minority
really goes about comparing the tone before they buy. I bought my last 2
guitars via internet, un heard. One a custom built Carvin and the other an
Epiphone John Connolly, both having a white glossed maple neck, which was a
key requirement of mine.

However, I do note that my 1987 Gibson Employer does not have what I would
call a great tone. Its noticeably a little dead in sustain. But this is a
bit of an exception. Ironically, it probably the guitar of mine that's
"worth" the most.


Acoustics is quite difficult compared to electronics. Most of electronic
design is lumped components. Spice nowadays is extremely good for that. 3D
is a real bugger to handle.

Traditionally for a lot of simpler things, we have created electrical
analogies to mechanical systems and used network analysis to model
mechanical systems as lumped-sum constants. This works great for something
like a freshman dynamics class mass-spring system. It works okay for
something like a simple plucked string (and if you look inside some of the
Moog string modules you'll find a direct electrical implementation of the
plucked string model in lumped-sum form), but it kind of falls apart when
you start trying to analyze systems like guitars.

Interestingly, though, in game programing, to create water effects, they,
apparently, solve the Navier-Stokes equations in real time. So 3D modelling
is making some inroads

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[Scott Dorsey]

Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

The whole point of the thread was modelling musical instruments.

I don't see that that was the case at all. I certainly saw no reason to
assume that that the $9000 mic thread change was restricted to musical
instruments. A poster made a generic comment implying that I did not
understand the analysis of a plucked guitar string. I took this to refer to
the nature of modelling sound generators and receivers in general.

This whole thread has been about modelling musical instruments for some
time now, and diverged substantially from the original flaming. Various
people have been discussing musical instruments. You made a comment to
the thread which everyone presumed was about music instruments, and that
comment was extremely ill-informed in that context.

Because you made this extremely ill-informed statement, that poster made
a comment implying that you had absolutely no clue about the complexity
of modelling instruments. I would tend to agree that, since you seemed
to be posting in a thread about modelling instruments and you were making
remarks that seemed to imply that this was trivial to do, that you did
indeed seem lacking in that regard.

Now I realize that it is possible that you have been using a non-threaded
newsreader and that it is possible that all of these threads have been
clumped together, so you may not actually have realized what you were
replying to. However, your lack of a proper newsreader really does not
seem to excuse you from keeping track of what is going on.

There's good psychoacoustic research out there on what makes a good speaker
good, and what measurements correlate to what sounds. That changes; the
recent paper from Vanderkooy on just how inaudible midrange group delay
really
is came as a shock to a lot of speaker designers.

I have no idea of this paper, but I that I have been quite familiar with the
concept for 30+ years that, that by and large, static phase shifts are not
audible. The ear/brain is pretty much a frequency analyser. So, I have to
say that I would be somewhat stunned today, if people have an alternative
view, which was experimentally proved false many years ago. Maybe I am
missing something here, is this "group delay" referred to here just the
normal derivative of phase for relatively small phase shifts, or is it
referring to lengths of delays more appropriately named "echo".

It's just the normal derivative of phase. Delay is a different issue
entirely.

the "phase shift is audible" nonsense has been going on way before I first
came acquainted with the concept. I remember doing a simple test around 1980
when I designing/building a "phaser" pedal. For reference, a phaser pedal is
a device that creates a sweepable frequency notch filter, but achieves this
by mixing a straight signal with a variable phase delayed signal, usually
generated from an all-pass filter, hence the name. The name "phaser", though
is really a bit of a misnomer, because one can't here the phase shift
itself. One just has to have a go at listening to the phase shifted path on
its own, at various control voltage settings, to confirm that static phase
shifts can not be detected by the ear.

They can be detected by the ear, but it takes a whole hell of a lot of it.
You can look, though, at something like the brickwall filters in the PCM-1610
where you have literally tens of thousands of degrees per octave, and even
at high frequencies it's audible. The resulting ripple is a big deal.

So, the issue becomes to quantify how much is actually audible in what
situations, and John Vanderkooy did a paper in the JAES not too long ago
making some good guidelines.

This is a big deal for horn speaker folks to say the least. Though of course
you still have cancellation issues with multi-driver systems unless you have
good control of phase over the crossover regions, which is what a lot of
people in the past have mistaken for audibility of group delay itself.

I am aware of some pathologically, deliberately constructed static phase
shifts that can be detected, but this is not really relevant to general
passive speaker/microphones systems in general use.

It can be, in that there are some high-Z mechanical resonances in some of
these systems which exhibit audible ringing. Yes, the ringing is strictly
speaking a side-effect of the phase shift even though it's the ringing that
is audible and not the phase shift itself.

For me, the differences in the sound of an electric guitar itself, is not
really worth bothering about in general. I would say that, out of the
several million guitars sold each year in the us and uk, only a minority
really goes about comparing the tone before they buy. I bought my last 2
guitars via internet, un heard. One a custom built Carvin and the other an
Epiphone John Connolly, both having a white glossed maple neck, which was a
key requirement of mine.

The poster to whom you replied was talking about acoustic guitars. In
the case of electrics, as you point out, the modelling of the guitar becomes
much easier since it's mostly one solid slab... but then you have the
modelling of the amplifier and then of the amplifier-guitar acoustical
interactions. This seems like one of the more simple systems to model
effectively, but unfortunately none of the commercial cabinet simulators
actually sound all that great. It gets better every day, mind you.

However, I do note that my 1987 Gibson Employer does not have what I would
call a great tone. Its noticeably a little dead in sustain. But this is a
bit of an exception. Ironically, it probably the guitar of mine that's
"worth" the most.

Instruments are weird. Not everybody likes the same thing either.

I once worked with a band whose guitarist had a horrible Sears electric
guitar with a neck that was not properly reinforced. Objectively it was
a pretty awful guitar and would not meet the basic standards of staying
in tune which you would consider a requirement for any decent guitar.
However, this fellow played it while constantly flexing the neck back and
forth to bend his notes, and he got a marvelous sound out of it. Go figure.

Traditionally for a lot of simpler things, we have created electrical
analogies to mechanical systems and used network analysis to model
mechanical systems as lumped-sum constants. This works great for something
like a freshman dynamics class mass-spring system. It works okay for
something like a simple plucked string (and if you look inside some of the
Moog string modules you'll find a direct electrical implementation of the
plucked string model in lumped-sum form), but it kind of falls apart when
you start trying to analyze systems like guitars.

Interestingly, though, in game programing, to create water effects, they,
apparently, solve the Navier-Stokes equations in real time. So 3D modelling
is making some inroads

It's a weird world and as compute power gets cheaper it just keeps getting
weirder.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kevin Aylward[_4_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

The whole point of the thread was modelling musical instruments.

I don't see that that was the case at all. I certainly saw no reason to
assume that that the $9000 mic thread change was restricted to musical
instruments. A poster made a generic comment implying that I did not
understand the analysis of a plucked guitar string. I took this to refer
to
the nature of modelling sound generators and receivers in general.

This whole thread has been about modelling musical instruments

Not to me. The first I was aware that anyone was discussing modelling at all
was when a poster insinuated that I did not understand what happens when a
guitar string was plucked:

is? Do you have the slightest clue what happens when you pluck a note on
an acoustic guitar?

The view was that this that poster had initiated this change of thread
content with me.

Before this, I see no mention of anything to do with modelling by anybody
else. It is all 9 grand mic stuff. However, I did already note that I did
not see the post where the above was originated, it was in someone else's
reply. So, it may be that there are other posts on modelling instruments,
but I have seen none of those, if they do in fact exist.

the "phase shift is audible" nonsense has been going on way before I first
came acquainted with the concept. I remember doing a simple test around
1980
when I designing/building a "phaser" pedal. For reference, a phaser pedal
is
a device that creates a sweepable frequency notch filter, but achieves
this
by mixing a straight signal with a variable phase delayed signal, usually
generated from an all-pass filter, hence the name. The name "phaser",
though
is really a bit of a misnomer, because one can't here the phase shift
itself. One just has to have a go at listening to the phase shifted path
on
its own, at various control voltage settings, to confirm that static phase
shifts can not be detected by the ear.

They can be detected by the ear, but it takes a whole hell of a lot of it.
You can look, though, at something like the brickwall filters in the
PCM-1610
where you have literally tens of thousands of degrees per octave, and even
at high frequencies it's audible. The resulting ripple is a big deal.

Possibly, for exceptional phase shifts, almost approaching delay. Its not
really relevant to the phase shifts of conventional passive filtering
though.

I don't really want to say much on high order filters at 22khz, but for
double this, it would be hard work to convince me that it makes a
difference.

So, the issue becomes to quantify how much is actually audible in what
situations, and John Vanderkooy did a paper in the JAES not too long ago
making some good guidelines.
This is a big deal for horn speaker folks to say the least. Though of
course
you still have cancellation issues with multi-driver systems unless you
have
good control of phase over the crossover regions, which is what a lot of
people in the past have mistaken for audibility of group delay itself.

Yes, one needs to ensure that hp(s) + lp(s) = 1

I am aware of some pathologically, deliberately constructed static phase
shifts that can be detected, but this is not really relevant to general
passive speaker/microphones systems in general use.

It can be, in that there are some high-Z mechanical resonances in some of
these systems which exhibit audible ringing. Yes, the ringing is strictly
speaking a side-effect of the phase shift even though it's the ringing that
is audible and not the phase shift itself.

Yes. It should also be noted that overshoot, by itself, does not mean that
one can hear it. A transient pulse to an all pass filter produces overshoots
in the time domain. One can also easily demonstrate that adding up sine
waves and noting that that wave shape in the time domain changes
significantly as the phase of the components are altered, but no audible
change is heard.

The key idea, is that the ear basically analysis in the frequency domain.
Obviously the ear/brain has mechanisms that depend on when events occur, as
in being able to know when one sound changes to another. My view is that its
not the actual phase shift that is detected even at "tens of thousands of
degrees per octave", but just the delay that automatically accompanies such
phase shifts. I don't know what work has been done on this.

Kevin Aylward B.Sc.
www.kevinaylward.co.uk
"Live Long And Prosper \V/"

[Sam Trenholme]

This whole thread has been about modeling musical instruments

Not to me. The first I was aware that anyone was discussing modeling at all
was when a poster insinuated that I did not understand what happens when a
guitar string was plucked:

I am going to have to side with Kevin here. Looking back at the thread,
we had someone make the ridiculous statement that you need a $9000
microphone to make a compelling recording. During the resulting flame
war (which went too far, with accusations of Asperger's syndrome and
psychosis before it calmed down), it drifted in to a discussion about
acoustic instrument modeling. I don't think any previous discussion in
the thread that may or may not have been about acoustic modeling was
relevant after the inevitable Usenet top drift.

- Sam

--
#Sam Trenholme http://samiam.org -- Usenet user since September 1993#
######## My email address is at http://samiam.org/mailme.php ########
# The following script works around an annoyance in the Nano Editor #
cat | awk '{a=a $0 "\n";if($0 ~ /[a-zA-Z0-9]/){printf("%s",a);a=""}}'

[Scott Dorsey]

Sam Trenholme wrote:
This whole thread has been about modeling musical instruments

Not to me. The first I was aware that anyone was discussing modeling at all
was when a poster insinuated that I did not understand what happens when a
guitar string was plucked:

I am going to have to side with Kevin here. Looking back at the thread,
we had someone make the ridiculous statement that you need a $9000
microphone to make a compelling recording.

No. Nobody ever, ever made that statement.
It's good to see you here, though, Sam.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sam Trenholme]

No. Nobody ever, ever made that statement.

I'll take your word for it. The good news is that is my upstream is
free, doesn't require registration, and has a really good spam filter.
The bad news is that they don't have the huge article retention the
for-pay upstream Usenet feeds have, so I didn't see the beginning of the
thread.

It's good to see you here, though, Sam.

Yeah, it's good to be back and to see this place is still around. I
thought a couple of years ago that rec.audio.pro was dead and everyone
went to Gearslutz because groups.google.com just shows a bunch of spam
here; thankfully, I was wrong.

- Sam

--
#Sam Trenholme http://samiam.org -- Usenet user since September 1993#
######## My email address is at http://samiam.org/mailme.php ########
# The following script works around an annoyance in the Nano Editor #
cat | awk '{a=a $0 "\n";if($0 ~ /[a-zA-Z0-9]/){printf("%s",a);a=""}}'