Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 08:21:33 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

LMAO !

They were nuts.

The numbers aren't that difficult to do and may surprise ya'.

Chris Hornbeck
"Shi mian mai fu"

The value as of 1991 (for the charge on the electron) is 1.60217733 (49)
x 10¯19 coulombs.

http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/...on-charge.html

So a gain stage operating at 1mA would have 6.25 x 10^15 electrons
passing through it per second.

That's 1940 times more 'equivalent resolution' than perfect 24 bit
192kHz sampling. Not much granularity there !


Graham

one side note is that, it is my feeling, that I dont think a lot of people
share, that you really need more mics than mic pre's. Part of this feeling
comes from the fact that most of the recorded work I like was made through the
same mic pre's from the smae console. So i just look for something i like in
general and maybe one other thing that works better with certain kinds of mics.
I more concerned about the output and loading issues for the micrphones than
whether it's tube or solid state.

There's a lot of great gear out there, but if it's so wonderful I wonder where
all the good sounding records are. It just shows it's not the gear, and I'm not
taking a swipe at anyone in particular, but rather noting that it seems this
industry is way too wrapped up in what they think they need to own to make a
good recording.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:05:55 GMT, John La Grou wrote:

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:57:48 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
(in article ):
sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)

Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
face.

Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

What adjectives to you prefer, since I have no lab to test these
things in. The top end on the Forsell sounded more liquid somehow, a
bit softer, the detail ever so slightly more blurred sounding. To me.

Al

Al,

Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).

You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked on
for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.

My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.


Ann Noble at U.C. Davis has developed an industry standard "sensory
wheel" that most reviewers follow when describing subtle (or not so
subtle) qualities of wine.

http://www.winepros.org/wine101/sensory_guide.htm

Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, and others have offered similar directions in
developing a common language for describing audio qualities. It's
easier with wine in that you're comparing to known physical
properties. Describing audio adds another layer of subjectivity.

JL


My mic pre has a pleasingly impish quality with hints of pumpkin and
tobacco.

Al

On 08 Dec 2004 21:47:40 GMT, (Fill X) wrote:

one side note is that, it is my feeling, that I dont think a lot of people
share, that you really need more mics than mic pre's. Part of this feeling
comes from the fact that most of the recorded work I like was made through the
same mic pre's from the smae console. So i just look for something i like in
general and maybe one other thing that works better with certain kinds of mics.
I more concerned about the output and loading issues for the micrphones than
whether it's tube or solid state.

There's a lot of great gear out there, but if it's so wonderful I wonder where
all the good sounding records are. It just shows it's not the gear, and I'm not
taking a swipe at anyone in particular, but rather noting that it seems this
industry is way too wrapped up in what they think they need to own to make a
good recording.


It's the same thing with musical instruments. There are a ton of
great guitars being manufactured nowadays but I'm not hearing a lot
more great guitar music. There are a lot of well-heeled hobbyists out
there who like to own nice gear but that doesn't mean they know how to
produce good music with it.

Al

I've got a very old JoeMeek VC-1 here that I would characterize as slutty,
with a bit too much color and a faint whiff of stale barroom but satisfying
in a organic sort of way.

;O)

DJ


"play-on" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:57:48 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:22:14 -0500, play-on wrote
(in article ):
sweet ( P ) Pronunciation Key (swt)

Pleasing to the senses; agreeable: the sweet song of the lark; a sweet
face.

Pleasing to the mind or feelings; gratifying: sweet revenge.
Having a pleasing disposition; lovable: a sweet child.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

What adjectives to you prefer, since I have no lab to test these
things in. The top end on the Forsell sounded more liquid somehow, a
bit softer, the detail ever so slightly more blurred sounding. To me.

Al

Al,

Sweeter tells me you like it (presuming you like sweets).

No, I sold it.

You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked
on
for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.

My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more
aggressive,
focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.

I don't see a term like "bright" being any more or less informative
than "sweet" though.

Al

In article writes:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

That's probably me, but I hate speakers and microphones much more.
Only live music is any good at all.

Even if you can't hear the vocals, or the flute player, etc.?

With real live music, you can hear the vocals or the flute player.
If you can't, either it means the group of musicians isn't very well
balanced (something they can fix) or you're listening to a version of
"live" that's been modified by a sound engineer with bad taste or
technical (or testicle) problems.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:45:19 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

The value as of 1991 (for the charge on the electron) is 1.60217733 (49)
x 10¯19 coulombs.

http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/...on-charge.html

So a gain stage operating at 1mA would have 6.25 x 10^15 electrons
passing through it per second.

That's 1940 times more 'equivalent resolution' than perfect 24 bit
192kHz sampling. Not much granularity there !

The potential issue, as I (poorly, no doubt) understand it, is not
in granularity of collector current, but rather in granularity of
base signal current. And DC values aren't really relevant anyway.
Also, I think the results should be independent of frequency.

What's interesting should be the number of injected electrons or
holes for a typical modern device at typical modern currents at
signal levels near the noise floor. You're probably a better
authority than I about what some good talking values might be
for those three numbers.

For convenience, maybe we could start with defining signal level
as -134dBu minus 6 dB for balanced input, for a working level
of -140dBu. Nice round number.

Next, how much base signal current does this cause in a typical
modern device at typical modern operating points?

Thanks for your thoughts,

Chris Hornbeck
"Shi mian mai fu"

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:39:16 -0800, play-on
wrote:

And better is good.

"Better" is subjective.

Subjective is good.

Ah, the circle of life,

Chris Hornbeck
"Shi mian mai fu"

Scott Dorsey wrote:

That's probably me, but I hate speakers and microphones much more.
Only live music is any good at all.

Even if you can't hear the vocals, or the flute player, etc.?

With real live music, you can hear the vocals or the flute player.
If you can't, either it means the group of musicians isn't very well
balanced (something they can fix) or you're listening to a version of
"live" that's been modified by a sound engineer with bad taste or
technical (or testicle) problems.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )


YEA,
I'm for a mic on the singer only, an old Bogen 35 watt amp and two 12"
speakers. All for the purpose of hearing the singer at a volume that mixes
well with the surrounding instruments. Probably no more than 70db, 80db tops.

See, that way the musicians will have to mix on stage and that's good. If the
crowd fills up or gets louder, someone in the band turns the amp up a notch.
If the band gets to loud for the room, you tell 'em to turn down. It's feeling
the emotion of the music and not the sheer volume beating your eardrums to
death.



--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-

In article writes:

The problem with having your own vocabulary is that it is useless for
describing stuff to other people.

This is why you find so many producer/engineer, product/artist, or
artist/engineer teams that stick together for a long time. After a few
projects, when the artist says "can we make the tambourine sound like
warm milk and cookies here?" and the engineer knows what to do, that's
teamwork.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

I prefer direct coupling myself.


Graham

I like both, though the only time I tried to couple the outputs through caps,
by the time i got really good polypro caps big enough, I almost might as well
bought a transformer g!

But seriously, I would not want to live without either option in the racks...

You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked
on
for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.

My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.

I don't see a term like "bright" being any more or less informative
than "sweet" though.

Al

Well for me, sweet is a taste thing (which I totally don't get because I
don't usually hear with my tongue) and bright sound refers to a lifted area
of high frequencies.

To Wander, there is a human condition in which the senses are cross wired. I
forget the term, but read a great book on it call "The man who tasted
shapes." The condition is called synesthesia. I read the Cytowic book and
found it quite fascinating.

€ Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses - Second Edition by Richard E.
Cytowic
€ Synaesthesia: Classic and Contemporary Readings by John E. Harrison
€ Synaesthesia: The Strangest Thing by John Harrison
€ A Mango-Shaped Space by Wendy Mass
€ The Mind of a Mnemonist: A Little Book About a Vast Memory by Aleksandr
R. Luria
€ Phantoms in the Brain : Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by V. S.
Ramachandran

Anyway, I'm talking about bright from an auditory perspective rather than a
visual/light perspective. I try to use the terms in context with more
specifics, frequency ranges, for example. "A thicker upper bass or lower
midrange" for example. And if they give me the word count, maybe add "brings
out more chest tone."

Choosing the right words is one of the most difficult parts of the review
process.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 07:04:24 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:



You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked
on
for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.

My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.

I don't see a term like "bright" being any more or less informative
than "sweet" though.

Al

Well for me, sweet is a taste thing (which I totally don't get because I
don't usually hear with my tongue) and bright sound refers to a lifted area
of high frequencies.

To Wander, there is a human condition in which the senses are cross wired. I
forget the term, but read a great book on it call "The man who tasted
shapes." The condition is called synesthesia. I read the Cytowic book and
found it quite fascinating.

€ Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses - Second Edition by Richard E.
Cytowic
€ Synaesthesia: Classic and Contemporary Readings by John E. Harrison
€ Synaesthesia: The Strangest Thing by John Harrison
€ A Mango-Shaped Space by Wendy Mass
€ The Mind of a Mnemonist: A Little Book About a Vast Memory by Aleksandr
R. Luria
€ Phantoms in the Brain : Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by V. S.
Ramachandran

Anyway, I'm talking about bright from an auditory perspective rather than a
visual/light perspective. I try to use the terms in context with more
specifics, frequency ranges, for example. "A thicker upper bass or lower
midrange" for example. And if they give me the word count, maybe add "brings
out more chest tone."

Choosing the right words is one of the most difficult parts of the review
process.

It's virtually impossible to choose words that every person will
relate to, because different people have different sensual biases.
Some people are visually oriented, some kinesthetically, some by taste
or smell, etc.

Al


Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:39:12 -0800, play-on
wrote:
Hi Ty, I've visited your excellent site many times. You have an
advantage in that you are able to audition and compare so many
different pieces of gear. At the time I owned the Forsell all I could
compare it to was the Great River or a Mackie board.

I don't think Ty was talking about Forsell vs GR or whatever. I think
he was telling you, by example, to learn what language to use in doing
a description of preamps, etc.

At least that's the way I took it. 2c.
Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org

On 8 Dec 2004 18:26:18 -0500, (Mike Rivers) wrote:

With real live music, you can hear the vocals or the flute player.
If you can't, either it means the group of musicians isn't very well
balanced (something they can fix) or you're listening to a version of
"live" that's been modified by a sound engineer with bad taste or
technical (or testicle) problems.


Or (all too often) you are sitting in a room so bad that even good
musicians can't fix it. Or a bad spot in the room.

Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org

Gord wrote:

Is there a global difference between top-of-the-line tube preamps and
top-of-the-line solid state preamps that can be put into words? I know
that all preamps are different, but if a recording (in my case, live
in-the-studio local pop/rock bands) was done through a variety of
great tube pres, ie. Vipre, Fearn, Pendulum, Tab-Funkenwerk, etc.,
what kind of difference could I expect in my recording processes and
finished products vs. doing the same recordings with a variety of
great solid state preamps, ie. Neve, API, GML, Great River, etc.?


you might find out if you buy my TAB/Telefunken V76m preamp, which is still on
Ebay for 20 hours #3863756738 ;-)


regards

Peter