"MiNE 109" wrote in message
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?
Not necessarily. In fact it is generally hoped that foam balls are sonically
transparent at important voice frequencies.
Why do you think they call them "acoustic" if not to distinguish them from
ordinary electronic equalizers?
I never said that the equalizers of different kinds should not be
distinguished from each other. Neither did I say that the various means of
signaling should never be distinguished from each other.
However, just because we distinguish them doesn't mean that their functions
can't overlap or be similar, or work together.
A classic example of different kinds of equalizers working together would be
electrical and bass roll-offs that are built into many microphones to
compensate for acoustical bass boost due to the proximity effect.
Or do you mean that Shakti room harmonizer or Mpingo discs?
Why bring snake oil into a technical discussion?
Room treatments? Rooms?
Acoustic equalizer in room meet compensating acoustic equalizer in the form
of room treatment. Bass traps would be an example of that.