"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message


As he's redefined "sound" as "signal", I guess he's no longer
connected with audio at all.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

signal:

c : a detectable physical quantity or impulse (as a voltage,
current, or magnetic field strength) by which messages or
information can be transmitted.

Are variations in air pressure a detectable physical quantity or not?

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/signal

3. [n] an electric quantity (voltage or current or field strength)
whose modulation represents coded information about the source from
which it comes

End quote.

Typical denial of reality "debating trade" tactics.

Doesn't mention sound. Even if it did, equalizers don't work on sound.

Sorry Stephen, but just because you find a definition that isn't the same as
mine doesn't mean that the definition I presented isn't valid. I can find
other definitions for signal at the M-W site that are similar to the one you
presented, but they obviously don't invalidate the one I presented.

Stepehn, if you want to drag this one out with every debating trade trick in
the book, find another player. I'm out of this discussion with you unless
you can straighten out your act and find something interesting to say.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message


As he's redefined "sound" as "signal", I guess he's no longer
connected with audio at all.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

signal:

c : a detectable physical quantity or impulse (as a voltage,
current, or magnetic field strength) by which messages or
information can be transmitted.

Are variations in air pressure a detectable physical quantity or not?

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/signal

3. [n] an electric quantity (voltage or current or field strength)
whose modulation represents coded information about the source from
which it comes

End quote.

Typical denial of reality "debating trade" tactics.

I call it support.

Doesn't mention sound. Even if it did, equalizers don't work on sound.

Sorry Stephen, but just because you find a definition that isn't the same as
mine doesn't mean that the definition I presented isn't valid. I can find
other definitions for signal at the M-W site that are similar to the one you
presented, but they obviously don't invalidate the one I presented.

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

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

Stepehn, if you want to drag this one out with every debating trade trick in
the book, find another player. I'm out of this discussion with you unless
you can straighten out your act and find something interesting to say.

My horse has wings and flies.

Stephen

Sometimes the truth is boring.

Stephen

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

"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.

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

Oh, GMAB. 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.

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.

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?

"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.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"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.

You did say that microphones are equalizers.

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.

Don't those work on the electrical signal after the sound has been
transduced? Besides, the "acoustic equalizer" is an "acoustic *pressure*
equalizer".

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

Why bring snake oil into a technical discussion?

Anything that changes the frequency balance is an eq according to you.

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.

Of what?