In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Stephen changes his tune of denial, which makes things interesting enough to
reply to, ate least to the degree one last post.

And I suppose I'm suddenly interesting again.

"MiNE 109" wrote in message


Your definition doesn't mention sound either; it gives
electro-magnetic examples. Are semaphore flags signal? Traffic lights?

Heck yes. Most histories of the theory and development of signaling start
out with a system of semaphore towers in France ca. 1870.

This one starts a bit earlier:

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-A.../msg00155.html

notice all the electrically signaling methods that are included.

How does an equalizer work on semaphore? By bribing the relay operator
as in "The Three Musketeers"?

Microphones don't alter sound. They transform it into electrical
signal, however imperfectly.

Oh, GMAB.

Are you arguing that microphones *don't* transform sound into electrical
signal?

Anybody capable of critical listening who has listened to the
output of microphone(s), amplified as cleanly as possible, while standing
right in front of the performers knows that microphones alter the timbre of
the sonic signals they convert from the acoustic domain to the electrical
domain. If you want a real thrill put a bunch of different mics in front of
a performer, and compare.

The Stereophile Test CD1 is at least a decade old.

Here are some examples of how various microphones change the timbre of
acoustical signals:

http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/mictest/mictest.html

http://www.fxguidry.com/mictest1/

A microphone is well-modeled as a collection of equalizers, one for every
different direction that sound approaches from.

One reason why simple equalization doesn't do a perfect job of correcting
and simulating microphones is that at the point the equalizer is typically
introduced, there is only one composite signal, and not different signals
for different directions.

You can't model or undo the action of many distinct equalizers with just
one!

Therefore products like the Antares mic modeler are doomed forever to be
suboptimal and flawed.

The other problem is that the equalization introduced by microphones is
generally compromised by the fact that building acoustical equalizers is not
as well understood as the business of building electrical equalizers.

"Acoustic equalizers"? You mean those foam balls on microphones? Why do
you think they call them "acoustic" if not to distinguish them from
ordinary electronic equalizers?

Or do you mean that Shakti room harmonizer or Mpingo discs? Room
treatments? Rooms?