[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 08:37:21 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 4, 6:30=A0pm, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/4/2011 2:35 PM, ScottW wrote:



Now I'm not saying that some people can't hear well above 20kHz, but
I've never meant anyone who could prove it.

All you need is me and a time machine.

I DID test using a signal generator, a good quality HP one, and
an AR3a speaker. I really could hear very clearly, strongly,
to 22 kHz, and weakly to 23. Some others could too.

I wonder if that classic tweeter really has low enough distortion at
those frequencies to be useful for such a test.

ScottW

Not really. I read an article somewhere that actual audiometry tests are the
only sure way of checking hearing response above about 16KHz. Of course, to
check whether one can hear to 16 KHz (well, 15,750 Hz, actually) all one need
do is get near an NTSC TV with the back off! 8^)

I used to be really annoyed by the horizontal flyback transformer "singing"
as I worked on TVs in college. Haven't heard that piercing sound for years
now. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the fact that most modern
digital TVs don't have high-voltage flyback circuits at all because they
don't use CRTs, and even if they do, they would no longer be 15,750 Hz. But a
lot has to do with age. The last time I had a hearing test (~5 years ago) I
could barely hear 15 KHz and 16 KHz, not at all. My hearing is probably worse
than that now. Interesting thing about HF loss with age. You don't really
notice it and it doesn't seem to change one's perspective with regard to
music. Must be some psychoacoustical phenomenon going on there.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 19:24:35 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 4, 2:35=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

But we still don't have proof that DBTs are reliable for audio, we just
assume they are because they work so well for other kinds of bias-control=
led
testing.

To the contrary, we have proof that nothing *except* DBTs are reliable
for audio.

bob


Really, how do we prove that? With DBTs?

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 11:17:39 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
For instance, I can design an all transistor amplifier and get all
of the component values right, and yet ruin the design sonically, just by
choosing the wrong kind of component. A high gain stage might call for
33,000
Ohm resistor. OK, fine. I'll use a 33,000 Ohm resistor. But if I choose a
carbon composition resistor instead of a metal film, that high gain stage
will be noisy. The maths and physics I used to design that amplifier didn't
predict that, and if I build TWO such amps, one with metal film resistors
and
one with carbon comp resistors, they'll sound different and anyone will
instantly tell them apart in a DBT!

Yes, you're right, if you use YOUR math and physics, as you
described you did.

But, no insult intended, your math and physics are rather
incomplete. The math and physics describing the non-ideal
behavior of resistors is rather much richer than that, and
has been for half a century and more. To your point: both
the observed behavior of various resistor formulations
such as carbon composition, carbon film, metal film and
so on is something that was well known and well understood
by bachelor degree level EE's graduating in the early 1970's.

I graduated in the 1960's, but that's neither here nor there. I'm trying to
make a point about how component choice can affect amplifier performance. I
realize that there are tools available today that a designer can use which
does take all of those things into consideration. There is also the
experience of the designer at work here. No competent designer is going to
use carbon comp resistors in an audio circuit these days, nor are they going
to use tantalum caps to couple between stages but some cheap mass-market
electronics were still using aluminum electrolytics to couple audio stages,
and not too long ago either (don't know about today). Heck the ubiquitous
Sony PCM-1610, 1620, and 1630 family of digital processors which were used
almost exclusively in the early days of CDs to master them, were full of
aluminum electrolytic capacitors between (741 op-amp) filled stages.

Had a more complete physical and mathematical model been
used in your design from the get go, the final properties
of the circuit, such as the noise, would have been far
more acccurately predicted.

Of course it would.

Further, once built and even before listeing, the detailed
noise properties of the circuit will have been easily
measurable, along with many other easily quantifiable and
trivially measurable properties far beyond the usual simple-
minded and largely irrelevant measures such as frequeny
response, THD, and simple broadband S/N.

Agreed.

But to indict the entire realm of audio "maths and physics"
based on what really is a very limited understanding of
the actual math and physics that are widely practiced in
professional engineering realm (admittedly, a fraternity
that is not as well represented in the realm of high-end
audio designers as eslewhere) is, well, ineffective.


Nobody's "indicting" anything. What you mischaracterize as a "limited
understanding of the actual math and physics that are widely practiced in the
professional engineering realm.." is, in reality, only an extreme, almost
hyperbolic example of how component choice "could", conceivably affect the
performance of a decent amplifier design.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 08:33:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

A high gain stage might call for 33,000 Ohm resistor.
OK, fine. I'll use a 33,000 Ohm resistor. But if I
choose a carbon composition resistor instead of a metal
film, that high gain stage will be noisy.

You're joking, right? Nobody is using carbon composition
resistors these days.

No, I'm not joking. I was using an extreme case to make a
point, and that SHOULD be obvious to even the most casual
observer. Of course, nobody uses carbon comp resistors
any more, but if one did use them throughout an amp
design, that amp would sound different from one using
metal film resistors.

That is a claim that I have personally falsified. In almost every case a
properly operating carbon comp resistor in audio gear causes no audible
difficulties, either on the grounds of noise or nonlinear distortion. I have
actually replaced every carbon comp resistors in a number of audio
components (amps, preamps) and listened to and measured the differences.

Same
thing with capacitor selection. If my design called for
a a series of coupling capacitors capacitor in the
signal path and I used tantalum capacitors in those
spots instead of a some kind of low DA film capacitor
like a polypropylene or a mylar film capacitor, the amp
circuit is going to sound different than it would had I
used the low DA types of capacitors.

Same story. I even had a well-known capacitor dielectric
maven whose named rhymed with bung send me some good and
bad capacitors to try in some projects. The so-called
bad capacitors were simply not the part that long
accepted wisdom said should be used in the application.
The good capacitors were film capacitors but in actual
use there was no measuable or audible benefit as
compared again to what long accepted wisdom said should
be used.

IOW, Walt sent you some tantalums (or maybe some
aluminum) electrolytics and some Polypropylenes?

He sent me Hi-K ceramics and and polypropylenes to be used as coupling
capacitors.

Tantalums shouldn't be used in audio circuits for a
number of reasons,

This is false. Tantalums cause no audible or measurable problems provided
they have appreciable DC voltage across them. IOW they work well in audio
components with single-ended power supplies.

DA is important in sample-and-hold circuits and afew
other applications. The fallacies associated with audio
enthusiast misunderstandings of DA have been explained
well by well-known and highly regarded experts such as
Robert Pease of National Semiconductor.

I know that he disagrees with Mr. Jung et al on this
issue, but blind tests between two Hafler preamp kits,
many years ago, one wired per the factory, and the other
wired with "Wondercaps" in place of the factory supplied
capacitors, showed conclusively that the "Wondercap"
wired Hafler sounded much cleaner than the one wired with
the factory caps.

I know of only listening tests whose results were contrary to that. Probably
just another poorly-done single blind (i.e., defective double blind)
evaluation.

In fact its hard to find measurable differences in that situation, let alone
audible ones.

That and an experience where I replaced
the Mylar film caps with "Wondercaps" in my Magnaplanar
Tympani 3Cs (the ones with the eight panels) showed me
conclusively (as far as I'm concerned) that Jung was
correct about capacitor sound.

The hidden agenda in upgrades like this is that the capacitance of the
capacitors and other traditional parameters such as ESR no doubt changed.
The ESR of parts like these are calculated into a well-done crossover
design. In the case of one well-known anecdote relating to Maggies, the
original parts were not soldered in, but the replacements were.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 11:17:39 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

But, no insult intended, your math and physics are rather
incomplete. The math and physics describing the non-ideal
behavior of resistors is rather much richer than that,
and has been for half a century and more. To your point: both
the observed behavior of various resistor formulations
such as carbon composition, carbon film, metal film and
so on is something that was well known and well
understood by bachelor degree level EE's graduating in the early
1970's.

It was known to me in the early 1960s, when I was just barely a teenager,
and had not graduated from High School, let alone university.

I graduated in the 1960's, but that's neither here nor there.

At lot depends on your experience and contining education since then.

I'm trying to make a point about how component
choice can affect amplifier performance.

Obviously, you lack actual reliable and scientific hands-on experiments.

When I was 13-14 I was doing parts upgrades on amps and preamps and
measuring and doing reliable listening tests of the results. I had a rich
stash of very high quality parts from the military suplus markets.

I realize that there are tools available today that a designer can use
which does take all of those things into consideration.

You were just singing a vastly different song.

There is also the experience of the designer at work here.

I see no evidence of that.

No competent designer is going to use carbon comp
resistors in an audio circuit these days,

That's because they are largely unobtainium. Carbon comp resistors went the
way of the dodo bird and LPs in the early 70s, if memory serves.

nor are they going to use tantalum caps to couple between stages

That's because regular electrolytics are so much better, now.

but some cheap mass-market electronics were still using
aluminum electrolytics to couple audio stages, and not
too long ago either (don't know about today). Heck the
ubiquitous Sony PCM-1610, 1620, and 1630 family of
digital processors which were used almost exclusively in
the early days of CDs to master them, were full of
aluminum electrolytic capacitors between (741 op-amp)
filled stages.

So what? There's zero evidence that electroltics cause audible problems when
appropriately used, which includes in and across the signal path.

Had a more complete physical and mathematical model been
used in your design from the get go, the final properties
of the circuit, such as the noise, would have been far
more acccurately predicted.

Of course it would.

Doing so has been commonplace for decades.

Further, once built and even before listeing, the
detailed
noise properties of the circuit will have been easily
measurable, along with many other easily quantifiable and
trivially measurable properties far beyond the usual
simple-
minded and largely irrelevant measures such as frequeny
response, THD, and simple broadband S/N.

Agreed.

But to indict the entire realm of audio "maths and
physics"
based on what really is a very limited understanding of
the actual math and physics that are widely practiced in
professional engineering realm (admittedly, a fraternity
that is not as well represented in the realm of high-end
audio designers as eslewhere) is, well, ineffective.

Nobody's "indicting" anything.

Really?

What you mischaracterize
as a "limited understanding of the actual math and
physics that are widely practiced in the professional
engineering realm.."

One hidden benefit of the use of modeling software is that the detailed
properties of the components become part of the model when the Bill Of
Materials is typed in.

is, in reality, only an extreme,
almost hyperbolic example of how component choice
"could", conceivably affect the performance of a decent
amplifier design.

The idea that one has to go to extremes to have a good sounding audio
compoent is just another audiophile myth.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

On Mar 4, 6:30 pm, Doug McDonald
wrote:
On 3/4/2011 2:35 PM, ScottW wrote:



Now I'm not saying that some people can't hear well
above 20kHz, but I've never meant anyone who could
prove it.

All you need is me and a time machine.

I DID test using a signal generator, a good quality HP
one, and an AR3a speaker. I really could hear very
clearly, strongly, to 22 kHz, and weakly to 23. Some
others could too.

I wonder if that classic tweeter really has low enough
distortion at those frequencies to be useful for such a
test.

Most likely it does. Dome tweeters are just another flavor of direct
radiator, and their nonlinearity goes down with as the excursion of the
diaphragm goes down as frequency rises. Dome tweeters with 0.5 % (-46 dB)
or less nonlinear distortion above resonance are pretty common.

Check this out:

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/suppor...pe=3&docid=569

On page 4 we have "96 dB/1 m (Distortion raised 20 dB)"

Note that above 200 Hz, distortion is generally at least 45 dB down.

I chose a "Professional Monitor" only because this type of speaker is
frequently specified to this level of detail.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:34:34 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 11:17:39 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

But, no insult intended, your math and physics are rather
incomplete. The math and physics describing the non-ideal
behavior of resistors is rather much richer than that,
and has been for half a century and more. To your point: both
the observed behavior of various resistor formulations
such as carbon composition, carbon film, metal film and
so on is something that was well known and well
understood by bachelor degree level EE's graduating in the early
1970's.

It was known to me in the early 1960s, when I was just barely a teenager,
and had not graduated from High School, let alone university.

I graduated in the 1960's, but that's neither here nor there.

At lot depends on your experience and contining education since then.

I've been a design engineer, analog applications engineer for National, PMI,
Signetics, etc.


I'm trying to make a point about how component
choice can affect amplifier performance.

Obviously, you lack actual reliable and scientific hands-on experiments.

When I was 13-14 I was doing parts upgrades on amps and preamps and
measuring and doing reliable listening tests of the results. I had a rich
stash of very high quality parts from the military suplus markets.

Me too. I designed and built my first tube amp (using 6V6s) when I was 14.

I realize that there are tools available today that a designer can use
which does take all of those things into consideration.

You were just singing a vastly different song.

No, you were interpreting what I said to comply with your own agenda. I said
nothing of the kind.

There is also the experience of the designer at work here.

I see no evidence of that.

I'm not talking about ME, I'm talking about those who design amps. Please do
try to keep up...

No competent designer is going to use carbon comp
resistors in an audio circuit these days,

That's because they are largely unobtainium. Carbon comp resistors went the
way of the dodo bird and LPs in the early 70s, if memory serves.

Except LPs didn't go that way. In spite of your willful, active ignorance of
the subject. LP hasn't gone away at all.

nor are they going to use tantalum caps to couple between stages

That's because regular electrolytics are so much better, now.

Yes, they have improved. non-polarized film caps are still better for audio
purposes.

but some cheap mass-market electronics were still using
aluminum electrolytics to couple audio stages, and not
too long ago either (don't know about today). Heck the
ubiquitous Sony PCM-1610, 1620, and 1630 family of
digital processors which were used almost exclusively in
the early days of CDs to master them, were full of
aluminum electrolytic capacitors between (741 op-amp)
filled stages.

So what? There's zero evidence that electroltics cause audible problems when
appropriately used, which includes in and across the signal path.

You've obviously never listened to early CDs. Of course it wouldn't surprise
me to find that you didn't (don't?) notice the distortion.

Had a more complete physical and mathematical model been
used in your design from the get go, the final properties
of the circuit, such as the noise, would have been far
more acccurately predicted.

Of course it would.

Doing so has been commonplace for decades.

Further, once built and even before listeing, the
detailed
noise properties of the circuit will have been easily
measurable, along with many other easily quantifiable and
trivially measurable properties far beyond the usual
simple-
minded and largely irrelevant measures such as frequeny
response, THD, and simple broadband S/N.

Agreed.

But to indict the entire realm of audio "maths and
physics"
based on what really is a very limited understanding of
the actual math and physics that are widely practiced in
professional engineering realm (admittedly, a fraternity
that is not as well represented in the realm of high-end
audio designers as eslewhere) is, well, ineffective.

Nobody's "indicting" anything.

Really?

What you mischaracterize
as a "limited understanding of the actual math and
physics that are widely practiced in the professional
engineering realm.."

One hidden benefit of the use of modeling software is that the detailed
properties of the components become part of the model when the Bill Of
Materials is typed in.

Not so hidden.

is, in reality, only an extreme,
almost hyperbolic example of how component choice
"could", conceivably affect the performance of a decent
amplifier design.

The idea that one has to go to extremes to have a good sounding audio
compoent is just another audiophile myth.

And you'd certainly know, wouldn't you, especially given your agenda here.

[ Both of you: please stop pushing at each other. -- dsr ]

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:34:34 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

but some cheap mass-market electronics were still using
aluminum electrolytics to couple audio stages, and not
too long ago either (don't know about today). Heck the
ubiquitous Sony PCM-1610, 1620, and 1630 family of
digital processors which were used almost exclusively in
the early days of CDs to master them, were full of
aluminum electrolytic capacitors between (741 op-amp)
filled stages.

So what? There's zero evidence that electroltics cause
audible problems when appropriately used, which includes
in and across the signal path.

You've obviously never listened to early CDs.

You should know better. I think you're just being gratuitously insulting (as
the moderator noted).

I owned one of the first CDP 101 players sold in the SE Michigan area. At
one time I owned *every* CD title that was being sold by the largest chain
in town. I scoured the largest record stores throughout the midwest when I
was building my CD collection in the early days. I still have an operational
CDP 101 at my disposal, and know exactly how it sounds and performs on the
bench.

What I immediately perceived that the vast majority of CDs provided the best
listening experience available, even when played on the primitive players of
the day.

By then we'd been ABXing for years and knew that the capacitor paranoia that
was relatively new at the time was based on fear, not science.

Of course it wouldn't surprise me to find that you didn't (don't?) notice
the distortion.

It wasn't there. Both objective measurements and reliable listening tests
failed to find it.

What is interesting to me is that eliminating capacitors from the audio
chain is currently being done and with audible benefits, but not for the
reasons that high end audiophiles have been obsessing about for years. And,
its being done in the lowest cost products.

It turns out that due to space constraints, output coupling capacitors can
cause sonic problems in portable music players. The root cause is the use
of battery power which provides a single-ended power supply unless there is
considerable additonal complexity and expense. Eliminating the resulting
voltage offsets is usually done with large-value coupling capacitors due to
the low load impedance presented by most modern headhones and earphones. One
of the sonic benefits of the sub-$30 Sansa Clip as compared to far more
expensive products is the fact that it uses an active reference voltage
source to eliminate output coupling capacitors, thus preserving flat low
frequency response, low source impedance and low distortion down to the
lowest audible frequencies.

AFAIK there has never been a reliable published report that showed
improvements or even changes in real-world conventional home or audio
production grade audio gear due to capacitor upgrades.

The idea that one has to go to extremes to have a good
sounding audio compoent is just another audiophile myth.

And you'd certainly know, wouldn't you, especially given
your agenda here.

I only know what I read in reliable sources, hear via reliable listening
tests and measure on my test bench. The people in the industry that I listen
to are AES Fellows and people whose system designs have sold in the
100,000s. If you wish you can cite the hype we hear from salesmen, but
their credibility is not the same.

Many people are beginning to notice that even though doing reliable
listening tests and comprehensive bench tests is easier and being done by
more people than ever, confirmation of the fantastic claims of the high end
capacitor paranoids have never been supported, let alone been proven.

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 3/7/2011 7:46 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:


I owned one of the first CDP 101 players sold in the SE Michigan area. At
one time I owned *every* CD title that was being sold by the largest chain
in town. I scoured the largest record stores throughout the midwest when I
was building my CD collection in the early days. I still have an operational
CDP 101 at my disposal, and know exactly how it sounds and performs on the
bench.



I too still have a CDP101 that plays disks, with a little nudge to the drawer.

It still sounds fine. But, caveat, at my age my hearing is dead at 14 kHz.


But, in an off-topic note ... let's talk speakers. Now there are real
differences!

I wonder why they are not more discussed!

Doug McDonald

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:14:24 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

On 3/7/2011 7:46 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:


I owned one of the first CDP 101 players sold in the SE Michigan area. At
one time I owned *every* CD title that was being sold by the largest chain
in town. I scoured the largest record stores throughout the midwest when I
was building my CD collection in the early days. I still have an operational
CDP 101 at my disposal, and know exactly how it sounds and performs on the
bench.



I too still have a CDP101 that plays disks, with a little nudge to the
drawer.

It still sounds fine.

Interesting. I refused to review one after listening to it for several days
when they first came out. I thought it sounded awful. I remember telling a
friend that if this was the "promise" of CD, I wanted no part of it. The
first CD player that I thought sounded OK (and, in fact, was the first one I
owned) was the little 14-bit, top-loading Philips/Magnavox CD-100 (I still
think it was one of the best built and the prettiest, by far). It actually
sounded very decent. Can't say the same for many of the early CDs, though. I
still remember a recording of Strauss' "Alpine Symphony" on DGG with Von
Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic. I still think that it is the worst
sounding recording I've ever heard. PERIOD!

But, caveat, at my age my hearing is dead at 14 kHz.

That doesn't matter as much as most people think, in fact, it doesn't matter
much at all. Older people who still have decent hearing (I.E. don't need
hearing aids) still seem to perceive music as they did when they were
younger. I know that I do and so do my sexagenarian audiophile friends.

But, in an off-topic note ... let's talk speakers. Now there are real
differences!

I wonder why they are not more discussed!

1) Everybody knows that speakers are probably the most flawed of all audio
components.

2) Since no two brands/models sound alike, people tend to make decisions
about what aspects of speaker performance are important to them and tend to
focus of those. Listener A might be all about the midrange, listener B might
buy only mini-monitors because they "approximate" an ideal point-source and
tend to image best. Listener C might prefer a clean, sweet treble. Listener D
might be a bass freak. Others might prefer only dipoles, some prefer cones,
some electrostatics, others prefer horns (for their flea-powered SEAs). There
are probably as many different interpretations of what sounds good in a
speaker as there are interpretations of what makes a good pizza.

Since speakers are such a personal choice, it's a lot like discussing food
likes and dislikes. How does a guy who hates broccoli discuss that with
people who think that broccoli is just fine? There's no arguing taste. In
fact, the argument between audiophiles here about amplifiers or DACs or CD
players is not about which amplifier or DAC or CD player sounds best, but
rather it's between those who are convinced that amplifiers, DACs and CD
players all sound different and those who are just as adamant that they all
sound alike. The vinyl argument is not between which turntable, which arm,
which cartridge, or which phono-stage sounds best, but rather it's between
those who like records and find them a viable and rewarding musical
experience and those who have consigned the phonograph and the records that
play on it to the scrap heap of technology and who feel that records and
record players have no place in the modern audio world.

Speakers don't seem to fit in either camp. I've never heard anyone assert
that all modern speakers sound the same, nor have I heard anyone assert that
any particular speaker type be sacrificed on the alter of obsolescence,
either. Ergo, there's nothing for the regular players who post here to argue
about.

I'll go on record as having said that the best sounding speakers (I.E. the
most transparent) that I've ever heard are the current Martin-Logan CLXs.
They are the closest to totally disappearing as a sound source of any speaker
I've ever encountered - and by a long shot! To bad that a pair of them cost
22 grand and that they need so large of a room due to their imposing physical
size (they also need a pair of subwoofers below 50 Hz, too, but that's
another story).

[KH]

On 3/11/2011 12:14 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/7/2011 7:46 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

snip

I too still have a CDP101 that plays disks, with a little nudge to the drawer.

It still sounds fine. But, caveat, at my age my hearing is dead at 14 kHz.


But, in an off-topic note ... let's talk speakers. Now there are real
differences!

I wonder why they are not more discussed!

Maybe because speakers really *do* sound different, so they're not as
much fun to argue about? :-)

I think such discussions would prove interesting, although mayhap we're
a minority. Here in Phoenix Az, 4th largest city, we now have 2 (3 if
you count two locations of one company) high end stereo shops left.
That's it. When I decided last year to upgrade my venerable B&W Matrix
802's, my local demo options were *real* limited. Have to go to
southern Cal to have any real variety. I'm very happy the the Wilson
Sophia 2's that I purchased, but I have a real thing for the Andra -
visually - sure would've been nice to be able to compare.

Keith

[Kele]

On Mar 11, 5:27=A0pm, KH wrote:
On 3/11/2011 12:14 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:

But, in an off-topic note ... let's talk speakers. Now there are real
differences!

I wonder why they are not more discussed!


About your speakers discussion - personal preference=85
A friend of thirty years has always preferred a system=92s sound that,
to me, is absolutely too bright and steely. I don=92t live near him
now, but found he just replaced his speakers with Klipsch. No offense
to Klipsch, but to me they will be another bright speaker IMO.
Apparently, my friend hears with rolled off highs compared to me. And
compared to me, my brother thinks my system is a little bright; he
prefers what I feel is too plump & mellow of a sound profile. It=92s
pretty interesting. I have a feeling that generally woman do not like
bright sounding stereo systems. People really are tuned differently.
Speakers, having a huge impact on the overall sound of a stereo
system, are something no one can choose for someone else. I listened
to a pair of reviewer-raved speakers in a high end stereo salon.
Where=92s the base!? The speakers measures nearly flat; should be
correct then? OMG is my hearing skewed!? Is that what I should
strive for!? The treble energy heard from a LIVE instrument isn=92t the
same as global boosted treble. Sometimes I think that=92s what bothers
me with some =93bright=94 speakers. That and slow base.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:14:24 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

On 3/7/2011 7:46 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:


I owned one of the first CDP 101 players sold in the SE
Michigan area. At one time I owned *every* CD title
that was being sold by the largest chain in town. I
scoured the largest record stores throughout the
midwest when I was building my CD collection in the
early days. I still have an operational CDP 101 at my
disposal, and know exactly how it sounds and performs
on the bench.



I too still have a CDP101 that plays disks, with a
little nudge to the drawer.

It still sounds fine.

Interesting. I refused to review one after listening to
it for several days when they first came out. I thought
it sounded awful. I remember telling a friend that if
this was the "promise" of CD, I wanted no part of it.

I am remined of my CDP 101 by my 60" Mitsubishi HDTV. Give it some good
video and it looks wonderful, but give it some video that lacks resolution
and it looks pretty sad. The CDP 101 was very impressive with the many
well-mastered discs that came out at the same time, but there were these
other discs that made you wonder why anybody ever bothered. I was prepared
to expect the best by some live recordings that I had heard on a PCM-F1. The
most questionable performance aspect of the CDP 101 was a very gentle
roll-off above 12 KHz, due to the use of analog brickwall filters. Compared
to what phono cartrdiges do, it was a nit.

The
first CD player that I thought sounded OK (and, in fact,
was the first one I owned) was the little 14-bit,
top-loading Philips/Magnavox CD-100 (I still think it was
one of the best built and the prettiest, by far). It
actually sounded very decent.

In reality the CD-100 was a true 16 bit player courtesy of 4X oversampling.
While I've done technical testing of several CDP 101s, I've never had an
operational CD-100 to work with. The extant technical tests of the day are
very skimpy, but they do suggest that it was capable of true 16 bit
performance.


Can't say the same for many
of the early CDs, though. I still remember a recording of
Strauss' "Alpine Symphony" on DGG with Von Karajan and
the Berlin Philharmonic. I still think that it is the
worst sounding recording I've ever heard. PERIOD!

This recording was made in 1981, and apparently released on CD several
times., the most recent Cd release being dated 1993.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:31:20 -0800, Kele wrote
(in article ):

On Mar 11, 5:27=A0pm, KH wrote:
On 3/11/2011 12:14 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:

But, in an off-topic note ... let's talk speakers. Now there are real
differences!

I wonder why they are not more discussed!


About your speakers discussion - personal preference=85
A friend of thirty years has always preferred a system=92s sound that,
to me, is absolutely too bright and steely. I don=92t live near him
now, but found he just replaced his speakers with Klipsch. No offense
to Klipsch, but to me they will be another bright speaker IMO.
Apparently, my friend hears with rolled off highs compared to me. And
compared to me, my brother thinks my system is a little bright; he
prefers what I feel is too plump & mellow of a sound profile. It=92s
pretty interesting. I have a feeling that generally woman do not like
bright sounding stereo systems. People really are tuned differently.
Speakers, having a huge impact on the overall sound of a stereo
system, are something no one can choose for someone else. I listened
to a pair of reviewer-raved speakers in a high end stereo salon.
Where=92s the base!? The speakers measures nearly flat; should be
correct then? OMG is my hearing skewed!? Is that what I should
strive for!? The treble energy heard from a LIVE instrument isn=92t the
same as global boosted treble. Sometimes I think that=92s what bothers
me with some =93bright=94 speakers. That and slow base.


All due respect, I don't think it's a hearing issue. I haven't found that
rolled-off high-frequency hearing has anything whatsoever to do with
someone's preference for "brightness". I know that a lot of people associate
brightness with highs above 10 KHz, but it really isn't. The brightness
region is between 5 and 8 KHz, and most folks can hear those frequencies just
fine. The people I have known who liked things very bright and steely seem to
me to be associating that sound with eliciting more detail from the music.
Obviously, many don't agree, but if that's what they think real music sounds
like (or even if it's what they WANT real music to sound like), that's their
prerogative, I guess.

The "goals" of high-fidelity have changed a lot since its inception.
Originally, it was "the closest approach to the original sound". Now it's
more "Whatever sounds good to me." That's fine too, but if one's goal is the
former, rather than the latter, then one must constantly "re-calibrate one's
ears" to the reality of real music played in real space. If one does that,
one can generally tell when one's stereo system has wandered too far afield
in one direction or the other. I strongly suggest to audiophiles that they
hear as much real, live, unamplified music as possible. Now, I'm not saying
that some individuals, after undertaking such an exercise, won't still prefer
the overly bright or overly bottom-heavy and boomy sound of their own systems
over the reality of a live performance, and that's fine. But if your goal is
really "high-fidelity", an occasional reality check will help you avoid the
excesses that characterize a lot of stereo systems these days (again unless
of course, you WANT those excesses).

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:31=3DA0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:

=3DA0 On Feb 25, 6:32=3D3DA0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski=3DA0 Sebasti=
an.Kalisze=3D
wrote:
=3DA0 Scott wrote:

=3DA0 On Feb 16, 5:20=3D3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" =
wrote:
=3DA0 "Scott" wrote in message
=3DA0 On Feb 15, 5:31=3D3D3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" ar...@hotpop=
..com=3DA0=3D
wrote:
=3DA0 "Harry Lavo" wrote in message

=3DA0 Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
=3DA0 grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
=3DA0 least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
=3DA0 very unreal. =3D3D3D3DA0Using the SACD version. =3D3D3D3=
DA0And the
=3DA0 culprit....the preamp. =3D3D3D3DA0 Audio Research SP6B v=
s. Onkyo
=3DA0 P301. =3D3D3D3DA0So much for big-box store electronics.
=3DA0 I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
=3DA0 movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
=3DA0 move it in my listening room and list=3D3D3D3D en to it c=
hime,
=3DA0 if I want the true live experience.
=3DA0 Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
=3DA0 possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
=3DA0 speakers that are well-configured for the room.
=3DA0 The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
=3DA0 claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
=3DA0 brought into question by the hi=3D3D3D3D gh end audiophil=
e
=3DA0 comments on this thread.-
=3DA0 Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
=3DA0 mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
=3DA0 No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing t=
o reac=3D
h the
=3DA0 conclusion that I've provided.
=3DA0 Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you* reac=
hed
=3DA0 completely eroneous conclusions.
=3DA0 Well, I don't see those conclusions being erroneous at all.
=3DA0
=3DA0 Interesting consclusion given the fact that they are eroneous.

Fact? Or you assertion? Don't confound facts and your assertions, ple=
ase!

Assertions of fact. No confusion on my part.

Not fact, but just your conslusions. Conclusions which are often based on=
=20
mistaken assumptions (as shown below).


=3DA0 The
=3DA0 primary conclusion in question was that the clocks on DSOTM we=
re
=3DA0 recorded in a dead studio space but the fact is they were reco=
rded
=3DA0 individually in various clock stores.

So? The primary conslusion was the they were close miked and probably
recorded in rather dead space. The conclusion seems pretty right.

But it is actually clearly wrong. several clock shops is pretty far
from being the same as an acoustically dead studio space.

Well, you were provided with factual information to the contrary.=20
Information backed by (basic) physics (see below).

[...snip...]
=3DA0 Yikes. Arny, the album was
=3DA0 recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hard=
ly dea=3D
d
=3DA0 there.
=3DA0 Wchich one?
=3DA0
=3DA0 I said spaces which is a plural. Why are you asking which one =
which =3D
is
=3DA0 singular?

So may I rephprase: Which ones?

studios 1,2 and 3.

Which is not the case based on the very description presented on the Abbe=
y=20
Road webpage, esp. the studio 3.

You can read up on the subject at the Abby Road
studios website.

I did.

But first you might want to read up on the basics of
concert hall acoustics and anechoic chambers so you don't make the
mistake of confusing an excellent concert venue for orchestral music
with an acoustically dead space.

Mistaking anechoic chambers and acoustically dead studios noted.
Mistaking concert and recording venue noted.

Sorry, Scott, but the mentioned terms all have estabilished meaning in th=
e=20
audio engineering. So, yes, venue could be 'too dead', 'quite dead', 'ver=
y=20
dead', etc. Ridiculing that won't help.

Example quote: "For my open baffle speaker designs a room becomes too dea=
d=20
when its RT60 falls below 500 ms". This is direct quote from Siegfired=20
Linkwitz when he talks about room acoustics. He is the man (one of the=20
two) behind Linkwitz-Riley crossover (things used in vast amounts of audi=
o=20
equipment in the wild), designer of loudspeakres, etc. I think, we could=20
safely assume that Dr. Linkwitz knows the terminology...


=3DA0 Kind of funny that we have this interesting article from one
=3DA0 Jon Atkinson on this recording.
=3DA0http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/
=3DA0 " since I recorded an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same=
time =3D
that
=3DA0 the Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the albu=
m did =3D
an
=3DA0 excellent job of preserving the characteristic sound of the =
studio
=3DA0 with which I had become so familiar. Yet when I first listen=
ed to =3D
the
=3DA0 CD layer of the reissue, it didn't sound like Abbey Road at =
all. T=3D
he
=3DA0 sonic subtleties that identify the recording venue and its u=
nique
=3DA0 reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed over. They we=
re the=3D
re
=3DA0 on the SACD, so some investigation was called for."
=3DA0 But what has echo chamber to studio itself begin dead or not?=
Echo
=3DA0 chamber is part of the audio processing chain. Instruments ar=
e not
=3DA0 played there -- miked or prerecorded track is played via spea=
ker(s)=3D
in
=3DA0 the chamber and picked up by mike(s) there.
=3DA0
=3DA0 We are talkng specifically about the use of the echo chamber o=
n DSOT=3D
M.
=3DA0 That is not an acurate description of how the echo chamber was=
used =3D
on
=3DA0 that recording.

How you know all uses of the chamber in the recording?

I did my homework.

So now present the facts (no conslusions, but basic facts) you found doin=
g=20
that homework. As for now you're only saind "nope", "no", "not", etc=20
without actually backing it.


That in one case
they recorded a man running around the chamber doesn't mean they didn=
't
use the chamber other ways. Especially the whole album heavely used t=
hen
state of the art processing.

really? do tell us about the processing Alan Parsons used on DSOTM. Do
tell us what other ways the echo chamber was used in recording DSOTM.

I won't do your homework. The facts are such, that DSoM was heavely=20
processed (one of the most processed "high rank" recordings of its time).=
=20
The fact is that it was heavely multi track recorderd as well. If you=20
assert, that echo chamber was never included in the processing chain=20
except that one particular use, present material to back it up, please.


[...snip...]
As funny as confusing an acoustically dead studio space with multiple
clock shops?

Acoustically dead studio space is not anechoic. That's the estabilished=20
nomenclature. You might not like it, but it's there and if you wan't to=20
have a meaningful dicussion you have no other option, but to accept it.

And then, I've actually shown that nothing prevents typical clock shop=20
from being pretty dead acoustically.



=3DA0 And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your expert=
ise as=3D
a
=3DA0 recordist was "DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, whi=
ch are
=3DA0 generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." =3D3DA0=
=3D3DA0 o=3D
oops.....=3D3D
=3DA0 .
=3DA0 Arny's conslusions are generally right. Oooooops...
=3DA0
=3DA0 No they are consistantly wrong as shown by actual facts about =
the
=3DA0 recording of DSOTM.

Which facts? Would you be so kind to present some?

I already did. If you didn't get them the first time why should I
expect you to get it the next time?

Nope, you presented your conclusions coming from your misunderstanding of=
=20
the terminology, as well as misreading Abbey descritptions. And, as we al=
l=20
know, a conslusion based on false (mistaken) premise is not a fact.


=3DA0 Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the stud=
io.=20
Th=3D ey
=3DA0 were recorded in various clock shops individually. Do you kn=
ow of =3D
any
=3DA0 clock shops that are acoustically dead?
=3DA0 Yes, most are oooooops.
=3DA0
=3DA0 Not even close. Feel free to show us an example. Tell us what =
clock
=3DA0 shop has so much absorbtive material on the walls that the spa=
ce is
=3DA0 actually a dead acoustic space.

I've shown in another post.

Nope. you have shown no such thing.

Absorbitive material is not good for mid-low
frequencies.

Sure it is.

Sure?

It's "good" for absorbing acoustical energy at all
frequencies provided the material is thick enough.

The problem is that for low frequencies the material won't be thick enoug=
h.

this is basic
knowlegde in the world of room acoustics. Oooops.

Nope, it's only your misconception, not basic knowledge in the world of=20
room acoustics. The real basic knowledge in the world of room acoustics i=
t=20
that thickness of the material must be non neglible compared to wave=20
length. I'll leave calculating 100-400Hz wave lengths as a little homewor=
k=20
assignment to you.


"Corrugations" clocks on the wall form is. Then the rest of
furniture (which typically includes soft one) does the trick.

No it doesn't. At best it will provide some crude diffusion.

Nope. Check wave physics 101 first, please. This is in fact the very same=
=20
physics which make CD, DVD, and similar optical media players work at all=
=20
(only the wave is of different kind, being acoustic not electromagnetic).
Then, as an additional effect clock boxes provide sound traps. For more,=20
see below.

But a
difuse acoustic field is hardly a dead acoustic space. Oooooops. You
really need to do your homework on room acoustics if you are going to
discuss them here.

I did some time ago



=3DA0 Dead acoustic spaces generally cost
=3DA0 lots of money to build (anechoic chambers and the like)

I've explicitly I do not equate dead space with anechoinc.

Sorry but you don't get to make that determination. You are not the
arbitrator of room acoustics terminology.

Neither are you. And it's you who equate anechoic with just 'pretty dead'=
=20
or 'basically dead', contrary to the terminology used in the field.


Anechoic is
extremely dead.

Seriously? "extremely dead?" Are we having a "Princess Bride"
flashback? Dead is dead.

See above. You're creating your own terminology. A terminology in=20
disagreemens with what specuialists in the field use.

Again, after Dr. Linkwitz: "...a room becomes too dead when its RT60 fall=
s=20
below 500 ms". 500ms RT60 is quite far away from anechoic. Oooooooops

Moreover I explicitly stated what I consider dead space.

Yeah and Steven Wright mentioned having an intense argument with a
roulette wheel dealer over what he considered to be an odd number.
Does not matter how explicitely you state misinformation. It is still
misinformation.

I didn't state a misinformation. I only clarified what I mean (and what=20
Arny meant talking about dead studio space, since what both I and Arny us=
e=20
is a common terminology) as I saw that your understanding of the term=20
might be off from how it's typically uinderstood in the field.

The terminology is established.

Indeed.

Your consideration is
irrelevant.

It's enough for me that it's in agreement with terminology used in the=20
field


=3DA0 so do tell us
=3DA0 how they haphazardly happen more often than not in clock shops=
of al=3D
l
=3DA0 things. all the clock shops I've been in (and I have actual be=
en in
=3DA0 one in London no less) have fairly reflective walls that they =
use to
=3DA0 hang clocks which themselves have fairly reflective surfaces. =
so do
=3DA0 tell us about these acoustically dead clock shops that are mor=
e comm=3D
on
=3DA0 than not.

Rather densely packed space.

Why would you assume that about the clock shops Alan Parsons recorded?

Why would you assume the contrary? I'm just describing typical clock shop=
=20
in your typical European city. Or, could you point to particular shops=20
where Parsons did his recordings (and demosntrate that the're not typical=
=20
clock shops in a typical Western city)?

Lot of little corners and "corrugations"

Which does next to nothing to actually deadening a sound space as the
term dead is actually used in room acoustics.

It does when those boxes disminsions are close to quarter-wave length.


=3DA0 I think you are making a pretty wild claim here that ignores
=3DA0 the basics of room acoustics.

Nope. My claim is pretty well supported by room acoustics physics.

references please.

Check any wave physics 101 handbook.

I recomend to you reading about such basic concepts like wave=20
interference. Esp, what happens to a wave reflecting from a corrugated=20
area with depth being close to quarter it's length. All in all it's=20
absortion rate of 0.5 in the range of wavelenghts for which evenly=20
distributed corrugation sizes are close to quarter wave dimensions.

Absorbtive material is good for mid-high and high frequencies.

This is the second time you have repeated this error in fact.
saying it twice doesn't make it so.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anechoic-chamber-2

"Free-field conditions can be approximated when the absorption by the
boundaries of the room approaches 100%. To reduce sound reflected by
the boundaries to a minimum, the absorption coefficient must be very
high and the surface areas of the boundaries should be large."

Reread the last sentence. Then (re)read the fragment from the very page=20
you quoted (but you didn't mention):

"In order to achieve large surface area, a wall construction is used that=
=20
includes wedges of sound absorptive material, the base of which is usuall=
y=20
between 8 =C3=97 8 in. (20 =C3=97 20 cm) and 8 =C3=97 24 in. (20 =C3=97 6=
0 cm), and the length=20
of which is usually 3 to 5 ft (0.9 to 1.5 m). These wedges resemble=20
stalagmites and stalactites and absorb about 99% of incident sound energy=
=20
over most of the audio-frequency ranges."

All of this is of course a description how to create anechoic (extremely=20
dead) space, not some 'pretty dead'.

Below that
wall filled with cabinets of various sizes with holes of various size=
s is
quite good absorber.

Reference please.

See above. It's basic physics.

Room is considered prettey dead if it's RT60 (reverberation time down to=20
-60dB) is below 0.2-0.3s. Mind, that typical living room RT60 is about=20
0.6s. To get such time for your typical (living or clock schop) room one=20
needs an absortion rate of only 0.16. As demonstrated above, abosortion=20
rate is much higher. Absortion rate of about 1/3 is good enough to get=20
RT60 down to 0.25s.

Finding the equation for estimating RT60, as conceived about 120 years ag=
o=20
by Wallace Sabine is left as an excercise to the reader.


The same wall is good diffusor for mid-high frequencies.

But diffusion does not make a space acoustically dead.

But at higher frequencies the available soft furniture is enough (as=20
material is thick enough for those).



=3DA0 Again let's look at your
=3DA0 assertions as quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to=
sound
=3DA0 like it is entirely =3D3DA0possible with the CD version, mid=
-fi elec=3D
tronics
=3DA0 and speakers that are well-configured for the room." "What i=
s know=3D
n
=3DA0 for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, w=
hich a=3D
re
=3DA0 generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No ex=
perien=3D
ced
=3DA0 recording engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the m=
ic
=3DA0 configuration from the actual recording session) to reach th=
e
=3DA0 conclusion that I've provided."
=3DA0 Nothing strange or wrong with that.
=3DA0
=3DA0 Other than the fact that the conclusion reached was painfully
=3DA0 incorrect?

Fact? The fact is it was generally correct!

I suppose if one doesn't understand the difference between an
acoustically dead studio space and mulitple clock shops.

As noted above, acoustically dead studio is pretty never anechoic. You=20
should not derive your understanding of matters based on mistaken=20
understanding of the terminology actually used in the field.


[...snip...]
=3DA0 mastering does matter. doing your homework does help in chos=
ing th=3D
e
=3DA0 better masterings.
=3DA0 Doing your homework does help understand the matters discusse=
d, lik=3D
e how
=3DA0 echo chambers are utilised, for example.
=3DA0
=3DA0 That is a fine example and had you done your homework you woul=
d have
=3DA0 known better than to post information about it that was irrele=
vant t=3D
o
=3DA0 how the echo chamber was actually used in the recording of DSO=
TM.

See above. One particular use doesn't preclude other uses.

Feel free to cite the other documented uses.

Nope, it's now your job to prove that the chamber was not used in any=20
other way...


=3DA0 DSOTM has not been a very good reference for you so far on t=
his
=3DA0 thread.
=3DA0 You're trying to turn the discussion in irrelevant side matte=
rs, li=3D
ke
=3DA0 how many remasters of DSotM are there.
=3DA0
=3DA0 No I am responding to and correcting misinformation. Much like=
I am
=3DA0 doing in this post with the misinformation you have added to t=
he
=3DA0 thread.

Could you, please, show what misinformations I've added?

I did

No, you did not. You only presented your conclusions based on your,=20
unrotunately wrong uderstanding of the terms and their actual meaning (ho=
w=20
it's actually understood by the experts in the field) and on forgetting=20
some wave physic.

rgds
\SK
--=20
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--=20
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 18, 6:28am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:

On Mar 2, 9:31am, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote:
Scott wrote:


On Feb 25, 6:32am, Sebastian Kaliszewski Sebastian.Kalisze wrote:

Scott wrote:

On Feb 16, 5:20am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message
On Feb 15, 5:31am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
very unreal. Using the SACD version. And the
culprit....the preamp. Audio Research SP6B v s. Onkyo
P301. So much for big-box store electronics.
I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
move it in my listening room and list en to it chime,
if I want the true live experience.
Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.
The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
brought into question by the hi gh end audiophile
comments on this thread.-
Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach the
conclusion that I've provided.
Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you* reached
completely eroneous conclusions.
Well, I don't see those conclusions being erroneous at all.

Interesting consclusion given the fact that they are eroneous.

Fact? Or you assertion? Don't confound facts and your assertions, please!

Assertions of fact. No confusion on my part.

Not fact, but just your conslusions. Conclusions which are often based
on mistaken assumptions (as shown below).

The
primary conclusion in question was that the clocks on DSOTM were
recorded in a dead studio space but the fact is they were recorded
individually in various clock stores.

So? The primary conslusion was the they were close miked and probably
recorded in rather dead space. The conclusion seems pretty right.

But it is actually clearly wrong. several clock shops is pretty far
from being the same as an acoustically dead studio space.

Well, you were provided with factual information to the contrary.
Information backed by (basic) physics (see below).

No I wasn't. you did not provide any such factual information nor did
you back it with any physics.

[...snip...]
Yikes. Arny, the album was
recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead
there.
Wchich one?

I said spaces which is a plural. Why are you asking which one which is
singular?

So may I rephprase: Which ones?

studios 1,2 and 3.

Which is not the case based on the very description presented on the
Abbey Road webpage, esp. the studio 3.

It is the case if one understands the basic terminology of room
acoustics. I provided references to that terminology with a link to a
well written article on room acoustics. Until you can provide
references that trump the ones I have provided you don't really get to
rewrite the books and articles on the subject that hold court.


You can read up on the subject at the Abby Road
studios website.

I did.

But one does have to have a basic understanding of room acoustics and
the terminology used for describing room acoustics to understand that
the description of the three studios clearly is not one of an
acoustically dead studio space. This is getting old. Please provide
some sort of reference to support your assertions that trump my
references.
Just sayin it don't make it so.



But first you might want to read up on the basics of
concert hall acoustics and anechoic chambers so you don't make the
mistake of confusing an excellent concert venue for orchestral music
with an acoustically dead space.

Mistaking anechoic chambers and acoustically dead studios noted.

No mistake was made. I offered an excellent reference to the meaning
of acoustically dead space. you have offered nothing to refute that.
Again, just sayin it don't make it so.


Mistaking concert and recording venue noted.

Really? Again you might want to take this issue up with Abby Road
Studios themselves.
"Studio One is the world's largest purpose-built recording studio. The
space can easily accommodate a 110-piece orchestra and 100-piece choir
simultaneously. Studio One's acoustic is as famous as the location,
offering a supremely warm and clear sound, perfect for numerous types
of recording, from solo piano to large orchestras and film scores. The
live area also has two spacious isolation booths. A Steinway D concert
grand and a celeste are also available.

The size of Studio One also makes it a very attractive venue for live
music events."
http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio1/

We have pretty much reached to point where your arguments rise to the
level of John Cleese in the Monty Python sketch called the argument.
Clearly according to the folks at Abby Road studios Studio one is both
a fine recording venue as well as concert venue. where do you think
most classical recordings are made? I'll give you a hint, concert
halls. Sorry but you have dipped into the utterly obsurd here.




Sorry, Scott, but the mentioned terms all have estabilished meaning in the
audio engineering. So, yes, venue could be 'too dead', 'quite dead', 'very
dead', etc. Ridiculing that won't help.

Example quote: "For my open baffle speaker designs a room becomes too dead
when its RT60 falls below 500 ms". This is direct quote from Siegfired
Linkwitz when he talks about room acoustics. He is the man (one of the
two) behind Linkwitz-Riley crossover (things used in vast amounts of audio
equipment in the wild), designer of loudspeakres, etc. I think, we could
safely assume that Dr. Linkwitz knows the terminology...

That's nice. but it doesn't support anything you have said. a less
lively room is a more dead room relatively speaking but that does not
make a room a dead room per se. An anechoic chamber is a dead room by
definition. anything with more reverb is a less dead room.



Kind of funny that we have this interesting article from one
Jon Atkinson on this recording.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/
" since I recorded an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time that
the Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album did an
excellent job of preserving the characteristic sound of the studio
with which I had become so familiar. Yet when I first listened to the
CD layer of the reissue, it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. The
sonic subtleties that identify the recording venue and its unique
reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed over. They were there
on the SACD, so some investigation was called for."
But what has echo chamber to studio itself begin dead or not? Echo
chamber is part of the audio processing chain. Instruments are not
played there -- miked or prerecorded track is played via speaker(s) in
the chamber and picked up by mike(s) there.

We are talkng specifically about the use of the echo chamber on DSOTM.
That is not an acurate description of how the echo chamber was used on
that recording.

How you know all uses of the chamber in the recording?

I did my homework.

So now present the facts (no conslusions, but basic facts) you found doing
that homework. As for now you're only saind "nope", "no", "not", etc
without actually backing it.

you should consider taking your own advice. I already have provided
links in previous posts. You can go back and check. I'm pretty tired
of repeting myself as it is.
If you have something specific to say about the recording then say it
and we can go from there.



That in one case
they recorded a man running around the chamber doesn't mean they didn't
use the chamber other ways. Especially the whole album heavely used then
state of the art processing.

really? do tell us about the processing Alan Parsons used on DSOTM. Do
tell us what other ways the echo chamber was used in recording DSOTM.

I won't do your homework. The facts are such, that DSoM was heavely
processed (one of the most processed "high rank" recordings of its time).

Well how about doing what you demand of me and support your assertions
with references. My position was and is that the assertion that the
recording was done in an acoustically dead studio space and then
artificial reverb was added later is simply not true. I have clearly
debunked the assertion that it was recorded in an acoustically dead
studio space. as for the artificial reverb.. here is a quote fromt he
recording engineer.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...n_parsons.html
Any effects created before 1975 were done with either tape or echo
chambers or some kind of acoustic treatment. No magic black boxes!



The fact is that it was heavely multi track recorderd as well. If you
assert, that echo chamber was never included in the processing chain
except that one particular use, present material to back it up, please.

I have not made any such assertion. you might want to read what I have
written more carefully. Now if you want to discuss other uses of an
echo chamber in the recording of DSOTM please cite specific tracks and
we will discuss them.



[...snip...]
As funny as confusing an acoustically dead studio space with multiple
clock shops?

Acoustically dead studio space is not anechoic. That's the estabilished
nomenclature. You might not like it, but it's there and if you wan't to
have a meaningful dicussion you have no other option, but to accept it.

Sorry but I am going with the literature on room acoustics over your
word. If you feel you have any references in the literature that
trumps whT I have already provided then please present it.
Otherwise...just sayin it doesn't make it so.


And then, I've actually shown that nothing prevents typical clock shop
from being pretty dead acoustically.

But I have. They are called reflective surfaces and every clock shop I
have ever been in is filled with them. of course the real irony here
is that the particular piece we are talking about is pretty rich with
reverb. Is it your position that Alan Parsons went to the trouble of
deadening the various clock shops in which he recorded the clocks and
then later added the reverb in the mix?


And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your expertise as a
recordist was "DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." ooops.....

Arny's conslusions are generally right. Oooooops...

No they are consistantly wrong as shown by actual facts about the
recording of DSOTM.

Which facts? Would you be so kind to present some?

I already did. If you didn't get them the first time why should I
expect you to get it the next time?

Nope, you presented your conclusions coming from your misunderstanding of
the terminology, as well as misreading Abbey descritptions. And, as we all
know, a conslusion based on false (mistaken) premise is not a fact.

You mean like my misreading of Studio one being both a recording
studio as well as a concert hall where they tell us that Abby Road
studio one is a good venue for recording as well as live concerts?


Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the studo. They
were recorded in various clock shops individually. Do you know of any
clock shops that are acoustically dead?
Yes, most are oooooops.

Not even close. Feel free to show us an example. Tell us what clock
shop has so much absorbtive material on the walls that the space is
actually a dead acoustic space.

I've shown in another post.

Nope. you have shown no such thing.

Absorbitive material is not good for mid-low
frequencies.

Sure it is.

Sure?

Yes I am sure.



It's "good" for absorbing acoustical energy at all
frequencies provided the material is thick enough.

The problem is that for low frequencies the material won't be thick enough.

So you are personally running around the world making sure that there
is such a limiit on thicknesses? Really?


this is basic
knowlegde in the world of room acoustics. Oooops.

Nope, it's only your misconception, not basic knowledge in the world of
room acoustics. The real basic knowledge in the world of room acoustics it
that thickness of the material must be non neglible compared to wave20
length. I'll leave calculating 100-400Hz wave lengths as a little homework
assignment to you.

It's about 11 feet. although if it is against a reflective wall we are
talking 5 1/2 feet. I suppose you live in a universe where this can
not exist?



"Corrugations" clocks on the wall form is. Then the rest of
furniture (which typically includes soft one) does the trick.

No it doesn't. At best it will provide some crude diffusion.

Nope. Check wave physics 101 first, please. This is in fact the very same
physics which make CD, DVD, and similar optical media players work at all
(only the wave is of different kind, being acoustic not electromagnetic).
Then, as an additional effect clock boxes provide sound traps. For more,
see below.

If you care to provide any legitimate references that support your
assertion that crude diffusion will make a room acoustically dead as
such a term is used in room acosutics then pleae provide a link. Just
sayin it don't make it true. you demand such references from me and I
actually come up wih the goods.



But a
difuse acoustic field is hardly a dead acoustic space. Oooooops. You
really need to do your homework on room acoustics if you are going t=
o
discuss them here.

I did some time ago

Where? Where is the reference? You have provided no links.





Dead acoustic spaces generally cost
lots of money to build (anechoic chambers and the like)

I've explicitly I do not equate dead space with anechoinc.

Sorry but you don't get to make that determination. You are not the
arbitrator of room acoustics terminology.

Neither are you. And it's you who equate anechoic with just 'pretty dead'
or 'basically dead', contrary to the terminology used in the field.

But i provided a varifiable reference that discusses the terminology.
again if you have a reference that trumps mine then provide it.
Otherwise all you offer is opinion stated as fact.




Anechoic is
extremely dead.

Seriously? "extremely dead?" Are we having a "Princess Bride"
flashback? Dead is dead.

See above. You're creating your own terminology. A terminology in
disagreemens with what specuialists in the field use.


See what above? Your opinion stated over and over again? I have read
the literature on the subject and provided you with a link to such
literature that supports my assertions.


Again, after Dr. Linkwitz: "...a room becomes too dead when its RT60 fall=s
below 500 ms". 500ms RT60 is quite far away from anechoic. Oooooooops

He is talking specifically about the use of his speakers. Jeez. He
certainly is not talking about the studios at Abby Road. So yeah,
oooops.



Moreover I explicitly stated what I consider dead space.

Yeah and Steven Wright mentioned having an intense argument with a
roulette wheel dealer over what he considered to be an odd number.
Does not matter how explicitely you state misinformation. It is stil=
l
misinformation.

I didn't state a misinformation. I only clarified what I mean (and what
Arny meant talking about dead studio space, since what both I and Arny use
is a common terminology) as I saw that your understanding of the term
might be off from how it's typically uinderstood in the field.

And yet I, unlike you, have provided a reference from literature on
room acoustics to support "my" use of the terminology.



The terminology is established.

Indeed.

Your consideration is
irrelevant.

It's enough for me that it's in agreement with terminology used in the
field

Prove it. I have offered my proof. Your turn




so do tell us
how they haphazardly happen more often than not in clock shops of all
things. all the clock shops I've been in (and I have actual been in
one in London no less) have fairly reflective walls that they use to
hang clocks which themselves have fairly reflective surfaces. so do
tell us about these acoustically dead clock shops that are more common
than not.

Rather densely packed space.

Why would you assume that about the clock shops Alan Parsons recorded?

Why would you assume the contrary? I'm just describing typical clock shop

Please cite a typical clock shop.
Here are some images randomly chosen of various clock shops. Clearly
they are not acoustically dead spaces
http://search.aol.com/aol/image?qclo...v_tcomsearch50

in your typical European city. Or, could you point to particular shops
where Parsons did his recordings (and demosntrate that the're not typical
clock shops in a typical Western city)?

You have yet to show that a "typical" clock shop in any city is
acoustically dead. I have now offered a link that randomly shows
various clock shops. the first 10 are anything but acoustccially dead
spaces but quite obviously fairly reverberant spaces due to all the
reflective surfaces. Again I bring the goods and you bring opinion
stated as fact.



Lot of little corners and "corrugations"

Which does next to nothing to actually deadening a sound space as the
term dead is actually used in room acoustics.

It does when those boxes disminsions are close to quarter-wave length



I think you are making a pretty wild claim here that ignores
the basics of room acoustics.

Nope. My claim is pretty well supported by room acoustics physics.

references please.

Check any wave physics 101 handbook.

I have. You are wrong.



I recomend to you reading about such basic concepts like wave
interference. Esp, what happens to a wave reflecting from a corrugated
area with depth being close to quarter it's length. All in all it's
absortion rate of 0.5 in the range of wavelenghts for which evenly
distributed corrugation sizes are close to quarter wave dimensions.

I suggest you visit some clock shops!


Absorbtive material is good for mid-high and high frequencies.

This is the second time you have repeated this error in fact.
saying it twice doesn't make it so.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anechoic-chamber-2

"Free-field conditions can be approximated when the absorption by the
boundaries of the room approaches 100%. To reduce sound reflected by
the boundaries to a minimum, the absorption coefficient must be very
high and the surface areas of the boundaries should be large."

Reread the last sentence. Then (re)read the fragment from the very page
you quoted (but you didn't mention):

Your point?



"In order to achieve large surface area, a wall construction is used that
includes wedges of sound absorptive material, the base of which is usually
between 8 C397 8 in. (20 C397 20 cm) and 8 C397 24 in. (20 C397 60 cm), and the length
of which is usually 3 to 5 ft (0.9 to 1.5 m). These wedges resemble
stalagmites and stalactites and absorb about 99% of incident sound energy
over most of the audio-frequency ranges."

All of this is of course a description how to create anechoic (extremely
dead) space, not some 'pretty dead'.

Bottom line is it completely supports my assertions and refutes yours
and yet you are now citing it as support? fact is it states an
anechoic chamber is an acoustically dead space and visa versa and it
shows it being done with absorbtive material, something you claim
absorbtive material is not good for doing. Oooooooooops.



Below that
wall filled with cabinets of various sizes with holes of various sizes is
quite good absorber.

Reference please.

See above. It's basic physics.

Show me a reference.


Room is considered prettey dead if it's RT60 (reverberation time down to
-60dB) is below 0.2-0.3s. Mind, that typical living room RT60 is about
0.6s. To get such time for your typical (living or clock schop) room one
needs an absortion rate of only 0.16. As demonstrated above, abosortion
rate is much higher. Absortion rate of about 1/3 is good enough to get
RT60 down to 0.25s.

Well we were talking about studio spaces were we not? and we were
talking about the claim that DSOTM was recorded in a studio space that
was acoustically dead, not "pretty dead" but dead. Now go back to the
abby Road Studios webpage and do tell me which of those studios as
they stand are either acoustically dead as in an anechoic chamber or
(lets allow you to move the bar and ignore the original claim) even
pretty dead as you descibe a "pretty dead" room.



Finding the equation for estimating RT60, as conceived about 120 years ago
by Wallace Sabine is left as an excercise to the reader.


The same wall is good diffusor for mid-high frequencies.

But diffusion does not make a space acoustically dead.

But at higher frequencies the available soft furniture is enough (as
material is thick enough for those).



Again let's look at your
assertions as quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound
like it is entirely possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics
and speakers that are well-configured for the room." "What is known
for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced
recording engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
configuration from the actual recording session) to reach the
conclusion that I've provided."
Nothing strange or wrong with that.

Other than the fact that the conclusion reached was painfully
incorrect?

Fact? The fact is it was generally correct!

I suppose if one doesn't understand the difference between an
acoustically dead studio space and mulitple clock shops.

As noted above, acoustically dead studio is pretty never anechoic.

Or more accurately studio spaces are almost never acoustically dead as
the term is actually used in descriptions of room acoustics.

You
should not derive your understanding of matters based on mistaken
understanding of the terminology actually used in the field.

Unlike you I have actually provided a reference that explicitely
states what is an acoustically dead space. It's an anechoic chamber by
definition. If you want to argue with my reference then please at
least cite a better one that explicitely talks about what is and is
not an "acoustically dead space."

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Scott wrote:
On Mar 18, 6:28am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:

[...]
On Mar 2, 9:31am, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote:
Scott wrote:
The
primary conclusion in question was that the clocks on DSOTM were
recorded in a dead studio space but the fact is they were recorded
individually in various clock stores.
So? The primary conslusion was the they were close miked and probably
recorded in rather dead space. The conclusion seems pretty right.
But it is actually clearly wrong. several clock shops is pretty far
from being the same as an acoustically dead studio space.
Well, you were provided with factual information to the contrary.
Information backed by (basic) physics (see below).

No I wasn't. you did not provide any such factual information nor did
you back it with any physics.

I have. See below.


[...snip...]
Yikes. Arny, the album was
recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead
there.
Wchich one?
I said spaces which is a plural. Why are you asking which one which is
singular?
So may I rephprase: Which ones?
studios 1,2 and 3.
Which is not the case based on the very description presented on the
Abbey Road webpage, esp. the studio 3.

It is the case if one understands the basic terminology of room
acoustics. I provided references to that terminology with a link to a
well written article on room acoustics.

You have provided link to simple explanation of anechoic chamber. Link to
wiki-type service. You have attacked others for using similar type
sources. So, please, be consistent, at least.

Until you can provide
references that trump the ones I have provided you don't really get to
rewrite the books and articles on the subject that hold court.

I have. See below.


You can read up on the subject at the Abby Road
studios website.
I did.

But one does have to have a basic understanding of room acoustics and
the terminology used for describing room acoustics to understand that
the description of the three studios clearly is not one of an
acoustically dead studio space.

Reread the description of Studio 3...

[...]
But first you might want to read up on the basics of
concert hall acoustics and anechoic chambers so you don't make the
mistake of confusing an excellent concert venue for orchestral music
with an acoustically dead space.
Mistaking anechoic chambers and acoustically dead studios noted.

No mistake was made. I offered an excellent reference to the meaning
of acoustically dead space. you have offered nothing to refute that.
Again, just sayin it don't make it so.


Mistaking concert and recording venue noted.

Really? Again you might want to take this issue up with Abby Road
Studios themselves.
[repeated studio 1 description snipped]
http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios/studio1/

But why you insist on studio 1, while it is least likely to be used for
the dicussed recording.

[irrelevant attack snipped]
Sorry, Scott, but the mentioned terms all have estabilished meaning in the
audio engineering. So, yes, venue could be 'too dead', 'quite dead', 'very
dead', etc. Ridiculing that won't help.

Example quote: "For my open baffle speaker designs a room becomes too dead
when its RT60 falls below 500 ms". This is direct quote from Siegfired
Linkwitz when he talks about room acoustics. He is the man (one of the
two) behind Linkwitz-Riley crossover (things used in vast amounts of audio
equipment in the wild), designer of loudspeakres, etc. I think, we could
safely assume that Dr. Linkwitz knows the terminology...

That's nice. but it doesn't support anything you have said. a less
lively room is a more dead room relatively speaking but that does not
make a room a dead room per se. An anechoic chamber is a dead room by
definition. anything with more reverb is a less dead room.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...revtim.html#c3

Some quotes from the above link:

"The optimum reverberation time for an auditorium or room of course
depends upon its intended use. Around 2 seconds is desirable for a
medium-sized, general purpose auditorium that is to be used for both
speech and music. A classroom should be much shorter, less than a second.
And a recording studio should minimize reverberation time in most cases
for clarity of recording."

"0.3s - 'Dead' sound, difficulty hearing in back, loss of bass in back"


[...]
That in one case
they recorded a man running around the chamber doesn't mean they didn't
use the chamber other ways. Especially the whole album heavely used then
state of the art processing.
really? do tell us about the processing Alan Parsons used on DSOTM. Do
tell us what other ways the echo chamber was used in recording DSOTM.
I won't do your homework. The facts are such, that DSoM was heavely
processed (one of the most processed "high rank" recordings of its time).

Well how about doing what you demand of me and support your assertions
with references. My position was and is that the assertion that the
recording was done in an acoustically dead studio space and then
artificial reverb was added later is simply not true. I have clearly
debunked the assertion that it was recorded in an acoustically dead
studio space. as for the artificial reverb.. here is a quote fromt he
recording engineer.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...n_parsons.html
Any effects created before 1975 were done with either tape or echo
chambers or some kind of acoustic treatment. No magic black boxes!

Funny, you use the quite talking about using echo chambers

The fact is that it was heavely multi track recorderd as well. If you
assert, that echo chamber was never included in the processing chain
except that one particular use, present material to back it up, please.

I have not made any such assertion. you might want to read what I have
written more carefully. Now if you want to discuss other uses of an
echo chamber in the recording of DSOTM please cite specific tracks and
we will discuss them.

Please decide on something. First you fight any statement that echo
chamber was used for something other than those "steps in echo chamber
recording" and then this...


[...snip...]
As funny as confusing an acoustically dead studio space with multiple
clock shops?
Acoustically dead studio space is not anechoic. That's the estabilished
nomenclature. You might not like it, but it's there and if you wan't to
have a meaningful dicussion you have no other option, but to accept it.

Sorry but I am going with the literature on room acoustics over your
word. If you feel you have any references in the literature that
trumps whT I have already provided then please present it.
Otherwise...just sayin it doesn't make it so.

See above, see below. Chceck basic physics.


And then, I've actually shown that nothing prevents typical clock shop
from being pretty dead acoustically.

But I have.

You didn't, as you ignored wave physics.

They are called reflective surfaces and every clock shop I
have ever been in is filled with them. of course the real irony here
is that the particular piece we are talking about is pretty rich with
reverb. Is it your position that Alan Parsons went to the trouble of
deadening the various clock shops in which he recorded the clocks and
then later added the reverb in the mix?

He didn't have to deaden anything. Close miking plus shop acoustics
(small, packed room, with fetures i've already extensively discussed) did
their job.


And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your expertise as a
recordist was "DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." ooops.....

Arny's conslusions are generally right. Oooooops...
No they are consistantly wrong as shown by actual facts about the
recording of DSOTM.
Which facts? Would you be so kind to present some?
I already did. If you didn't get them the first time why should I
expect you to get it the next time?
Nope, you presented your conclusions coming from your misunderstanding of
the terminology, as well as misreading Abbey descritptions. And, as we all
know, a conslusion based on false (mistaken) premise is not a fact.

You mean like my misreading of Studio one being both a recording
studio as well as a concert hall where they tell us that Abby Road
studio one is a good venue for recording as well as live concerts?


Again, what has Studio one to DSoTM?

[...]
It's "good" for absorbing acoustical energy at all
frequencies provided the material is thick enough.
The problem is that for low frequencies the material won't be thick enough.

So you are personally running around the world making sure that there
is such a limiit on thicknesses? Really?

I don't have to. Carpets, draperies, courtains have rather limited
thickness. Thickness below 1/10 wave length is considered insignificant.


this is basic
knowlegde in the world of room acoustics. Oooops.
Nope, it's only your misconception, not basic knowledge in the world of
room acoustics. The real basic knowledge in the world of room acoustics it
that thickness of the material must be non neglible compared to wave20
length. I'll leave calculating 100-400Hz wave lengths as a little homework
assignment to you.

It's about 11 feet. although if it is against a reflective wall we are
talking 5 1/2 feet.

Nope. Wave length is wavelength regardless of being against reflective wall.

I suppose you live in a universe where this can
not exist?

"Corrugations" clocks on the wall form is. Then the rest of
furniture (which typically includes soft one) does the trick.
No it doesn't. At best it will provide some crude diffusion.
Nope. Check wave physics 101 first, please. This is in fact the very same
physics which make CD, DVD, and similar optical media players work at all
(only the wave is of different kind, being acoustic not electromagnetic).
Then, as an additional effect clock boxes provide sound traps. For more,
see below.

If you care to provide any legitimate references that support your
assertion that crude diffusion will make a room acoustically dead as
such a term is used in room acosutics then pleae provide a link. Just
sayin it don't make it true. you demand such references from me and I
actually come up wih the goods.

Nope. it's not crude diffusion, it's (destructive) interference of
reflections. Besides, diffusion works betters on corrugations in the order
of full wave length and longer (i.e. from 4 times bigger upwards)

Again, read how em-wave (light) is being modulated by surface of
CD/DVD/BlueRay disc. Little tip: disc surface is full of peaks and valleys
1/4 wave deep

This is all wave physics 101. This is how such things like optical media,
antennas as well as sound (And any other wave) reflection and transmission
on media boundaries works.

[...]
Dead acoustic spaces generally cost
lots of money to build (anechoic chambers and the like)
I've explicitly I do not equate dead space with anechoinc.
Sorry but you don't get to make that determination. You are not the
arbitrator of room acoustics terminology.
Neither are you. And it's you who equate anechoic with just 'pretty dead'
or 'basically dead', contrary to the terminology used in the field.

But i provided a varifiable reference that discusses the terminology.
again if you have a reference that trumps mine then provide it.

I have. That you're ignoring it is not my problem.

Otherwise all you offer is opinion stated as fact.

Nope, it's estabilished terminology. It was you who tried to ridicule that
by claims that one can't be "somewhat dead".


Anechoic is
extremely dead.
Seriously? "extremely dead?" Are we having a "Princess Bride"
flashback? Dead is dead.
See above. You're creating your own terminology. A terminology in
disagreemens with what specuialists in the field use.


See what above? Your opinion stated over and over again? I have read
the literature on the subject and provided you with a link to such
literature that supports my assertions.

Nope, you've provided link to source with quality similar to wikipedia.
You've attacked others about using such sources. So, please, be consitent.



Again, after Dr. Linkwitz: "...a room becomes too dead when its RT60 fall= below 500 ms". 500ms RT60 is quite far away from anechoic. Oooooooops

He is talking specifically about the use of his speakers. Jeez. He
certainly is not talking about the studios at Abby Road. So yeah,
oooops.

See the other quote. Ooooooops.

[...]
The terminology is established.
Indeed.

Your consideration is
irrelevant.
It's enough for me that it's in agreement with terminology used in the
field

Prove it. I have offered my proof. Your turn


See above.


so do tell us
how they haphazardly happen more often than not in clock shops of all
things. all the clock shops I've been in (and I have actual been in
one in London no less) have fairly reflective walls that they use to
hang clocks which themselves have fairly reflective surfaces. so do
tell us about these acoustically dead clock shops that are more common
than not.
Rather densely packed space.
Why would you assume that about the clock shops Alan Parsons recorded?
Why would you assume the contrary? I'm just describing typical clock shop

Please cite a typical clock shop.
Here are some images randomly chosen of various clock shops. Clearly
they are not acoustically dead spaces
http://search.aol.com/aol/image?qclo...v_tcomsearch50

That link does not work.


in your typical European city. Or, could you point to particular shops
where Parsons did his recordings (and demosntrate that the're not typical
clock shops in a typical Western city)?

You have yet to show that a "typical" clock shop in any city is
acoustically dead. I have now offered a link that randomly shows
various clock shops. the first 10 are anything but acoustccially dead
spaces but quite obviously fairly reverberant spaces due to all the
reflective surfaces. Again I bring the goods and you bring opinion
stated as fact.

Your link does not work. But here are some which hopefully do:

http://www.google.pl/imgres?imgurl=h... =1912&bih=956

http://www.google.pl/imgres?imgurl=h... 1912&bih=956

http://www.google.pl/imgres?imgurl=h... 1&um=1&itbs=1

http://www.google.pl/imgres?imgurl=h... 1912&bih=956


Lot of little corners and "corrugations"
Which does next to nothing to actually deadening a sound space as the
term dead is actually used in room acoustics.
It does when those boxes disminsions are close to quarter-wave length


I think you are making a pretty wild claim here that ignores
the basics of room acoustics.
Nope. My claim is pretty well supported by room acoustics physics.
references please.
Check any wave physics 101 handbook.

I have. You are wrong.


Nope, I'm right. (Re)read about interference between direct and reflected
wave, and it's effects. Read about what happens when the wave is
reflected (reflected without phase reversal which is the case when
reflecting from higher impedance media boundary) from two surfaces 1/4
wave length apart (like peaks and vallyes in CD grove, or a wall with a
piece of furniture 1/4 wave thick).


I recomend to you reading about such basic concepts like wave
interference. Esp, what happens to a wave reflecting from a corrugated
area with depth being close to quarter it's length. All in all it's
absortion rate of 0.5 in the range of wavelenghts for which evenly
distributed corrugation sizes are close to quarter wave dimensions.

I suggest you visit some clock shops!

I did. They're rather small and densely packed.


Absorbtive material is good for mid-high and high frequencies.
This is the second time you have repeated this error in fact.
saying it twice doesn't make it so.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anechoic-chamber-2

"Free-field conditions can be approximated when the absorption by the
boundaries of the room approaches 100%. To reduce sound reflected by
the boundaries to a minimum, the absorption coefficient must be very
high and the surface areas of the boundaries should be large."
Reread the last sentence. Then (re)read the fragment from the very page
you quoted (but you didn't mention):

Your point?

See below.



"In order to achieve large surface area, a wall construction is used that
includes wedges of sound absorptive material, the base of which is usually
between 8 C397 8 in. (20 C397 20 cm) and 8 C397 24 in. (20 C397 60 cm), and the length
of which is usually 3 to 5 ft (0.9 to 1.5 m). These wedges resemble
stalagmites and stalactites and absorb about 99% of incident sound energy
over most of the audio-frequency ranges."

All of this is of course a description how to create anechoic (extremely
dead) space, not some 'pretty dead'.

Bottom line is it completely supports my assertions and refutes yours
and yet you are now citing it as support? fact is it states an
anechoic chamber is an acoustically dead space and visa versa and it
shows it being done with absorbtive material, something you claim
absorbtive material is not good for doing. Oooooooooops.


Bottom line is that this absorbitve material surface is corrugated "a
little" bit (it has peaks and valleys 3 to 5ft deep).
As there is still significant acoustical impedance difference between air
and absorbtive foam, without those corrugations there would be too much
reflected sound energy.


Below that
wall filled with cabinets of various sizes with holes of various sizes is
quite good absorber.
Reference please.
See above. It's basic physics.

Show me a reference.

It's basic physics. Do you also need a reference that Earth is not flat?


Room is considered prettey dead if it's RT60 (reverberation time down to
-60dB) is below 0.2-0.3s. Mind, that typical living room RT60 is about
0.6s. To get such time for your typical (living or clock schop) room one
needs an absortion rate of only 0.16. As demonstrated above, abosortion
rate is much higher. Absortion rate of about 1/3 is good enough to get
RT60 down to 0.25s.

Well we were talking about studio spaces were we not? and we were
talking about the claim that DSOTM was recorded in a studio space that
was acoustically dead, not "pretty dead" but dead. Now go back to the
abby Road Studios webpage and do tell me which of those studios as
they stand are either acoustically dead as in an anechoic chamber or
(lets allow you to move the bar and ignore the original claim) even
pretty dead as you descibe a "pretty dead" room.


Reread description of Studio 3. The read text from the link provided.


[...]
Again let's look at your
assertions as quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound
like it is entirely possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics
and speakers that are well-configured for the room." "What is known
for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced
recording engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
configuration from the actual recording session) to reach the
conclusion that I've provided."
Nothing strange or wrong with that.
Other than the fact that the conclusion reached was painfully
incorrect?
Fact? The fact is it was generally correct!
I suppose if one doesn't understand the difference between an
acoustically dead studio space and mulitple clock shops.
As noted above, acoustically dead studio is pretty never anechoic.

Or more accurately studio spaces are almost never acoustically dead as
the term is actually used in descriptions of room acoustics.

There are dead as the term is actually used in audio enineering terminology.

"And a recording studio should minimize reverberation time in most cases
for clarity of recording" - quote from the link provided above.


You
should not derive your understanding of matters based on mistaken
understanding of the terminology actually used in the field.

Unlike you I have actually provided a reference that explicitely
states what is an acoustically dead space. It's an anechoic chamber by
definition. If you want to argue with my reference then please at
least cite a better one that explicitely talks about what is and is
not an "acoustically dead space."

Nope, you have provided conviniently trimmed quote from a same kind (and
quality) source you attacked others for using. Apply same standards to you
and to otheres.



To summarize, as I'm tired of explaing that black is black and white is
white and Earth is not flat, so this is my last post in this thread...

* Rooms with RT60 at or below 0.3s are described as acoustically dead --
this is estabilished terminology.

* Not large rooms (as typical clock shop would be) have shorter RT60 than
large rooms with same wall (and floor and ceiling) acoustic reflectance --
for a simple reason that in smaller rooms sound undergoes more reflections
in the same period of time.

* Wave reflecting from corrugated surface with corrugation depths in range
of 1/4 wave length undergoes significant destructive interference and is
significantly absorbed by the material on the other side of the surface
(this is called impedance matching).

* As the surface has different corrugations which act on different wave
lengths absorbtion won't be 100% but it dosn't need to. 30% absobrion rate
is enough to make clock shop sized room acoustically dead (accoring to
widely accepted definition of acoustically dead).

* Hence, the claim the clocks in DSoTM were not close miked in generally
acoustically dead rooms is hard to defend

* Alan Parson himself claimed that before 1975 echo chambers vere used as
effects in recordings


rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[MecheslavF]

õîòü ñåðî, äà ñáîéëèî. è ñåðî, äà íîñêî.