"SSJVCmag" wrote ...
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

A comprehensive set of measurements might include 1/12
octave frequency response (120 points per set) measurements
on 10 degree intervals in 3-dimensional space. I think
that's 155,520 points.


Which sounds daunting until you think of how that'd easily be
represented in
a color 3D graphic.

BOSE does this to some degree.

LOL :-) Perhaps you meant the Bose marketing gerbs?

Ty Ford wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:57:07 -0400, Bob Cain wrote
(in article ):



Richard Crowley wrote:


Hint: Annonymous reviews are not useful.

Neither are attributed ones. Talking about mics is like
dancing about architecture. What pedigree qualifies one for
the job?

Gimme accurate and comprehensive measurements any day.


Bob



Knowing Bob the way I do, I'll only take mild offense at his statement 'cause
I don't think he was aiming for me.

Right. Just displaying my bias against subjective
evaluation of something which doesn't even have a meaningful
consensus vocabulary. (It's much like describing the
differential taste of various butterscotch concoctions.) I
can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what
measurement can, despite any experience he might have
listening to some of them on some source material.

The limited number of things that can actually be conveyed
with word boils down to very little and we are left mainly
with "I like it" or "I don't like it". I have a hard time
understanding how any particular individual's opinion on
that can be given a lot more weight than any other's. Hell,
individual hearing responses almost certainly vary as much
as those of microphones and are highly sensitive to
listening level. Finally, with listening a reviewer is
limited to evaluating the output of a speaker in an
idiosyncratic setting which itself is far less ideal in most
every way than is a microphone.

This criticism applies, of course, to review of many things
other than microphones.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Why would anonymity appeal to you? Without knowing whose opinion I'm
reading, how do I know how to weight it?

For example, I've read comments from people around here, then listened
to the items they were describing. From that I've been able to
determine who has tastes and ears similar to my own. I've also
discovered that certain people seem to hear the world in a MUCH
different way than I do. I read their comments in a different context.

Further, I've discovered that the people who seem to like raving the
most are usually the people who know the least. The person jumping up
and down about the new MicLone Cheeperstill Deluxe is usually comparing
it to his next best mic: the battered SM57 he bought at the pawn shop.

Obviously opinions from relative newbies are valid, but I like to know a
little about the writer's background so I know what (s)he means by "best
mic I've ever heard!" g

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

"Zigakly" wrote in message
...

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Neon Sound" wrote ...
"SSJVCmag" wrote ...
And a BIG revenue-producer advertising boon for Zsoundz!
You are So clever I could just ****...

And your problem is what, exactly? They guy has to pay for the
hosting of the site. The few cents he gets per hit probably
doesn't
even come close to paying the bills.

The next time you pick up a recording technology magazine, and it
has
absolutely no advertising, feel free to come back and rebuke him.

Last time I looked recording technology magazines weren't
soliciting free editorial content which they then re-published
without attribution.

Ok, here's your .025 cents for contributing, less a processing fee of
$15,
that will be $14.99975 for the privaledge of being attributed to your
precious review.

I like the fact that it's anonymous. Just wipe off the abusive posts
and
keep it open I say.

"Bob Cain" wrote:

I have a hard time understanding how any particular individual's
opinion on that can be given a lot more weight than any other's.


The "how" is history and comparison. In fact, Ty's reviews are an
excellent example of exactly that in my case.

I read some of Ty's reviews of mics I know well. His observations were
consistent with my own. I then went and listened to items he described
that I hadn't heard before, and, again, found that my own impressions
were quite similar to his. That suggests that my listening habits and
preferences are similar to his, so his reviews should have merit for me.
Whether or not they would for someone else depends on their tastes and
habits.

I've also gone through the same exercise with some other people here,
and found that they enjoy things I wouldn't listen to without a gun to
my head. Guess how I weight *their* reviews?

Attribution may not be much use if you don't know the reviewer, but it's
great if you do.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
Why would anonymity appeal to you? Without knowing whose opinion I'm
reading, how do I know how to weight it?

The advantage of anonymity is that some people might be willing to make
some statements anonymously that they wouldn't be willing to make in
public. For example, I am on NDA by a couple microphone manufacturers
about some interesting stuff that I can't talk about. And if I mention
A&S McKay much more, they'll probably threaten to sue me again. So you
will not, for example, see any Recording magazine review of the new
Chinese "Oktava" microphones with my name on it.

This is countered by the fact that, if I did post anonymously with enough
information, people would probably know it was me. And if I posted
anonymously without enough information, nobody would know it was me and
so they wouldn't pay too much attention to the review.

For example, I've read comments from people around here, then listened
to the items they were describing. From that I've been able to
determine who has tastes and ears similar to my own. I've also
discovered that certain people seem to hear the world in a MUCH
different way than I do. I read their comments in a different context.

Precisely. This more than outweighs any additional ability to speak
freely that anonymity might provide.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Bob Cain wrote:

I can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what measurement can,
despite any experience he might have listening to some of them on some
source material.

I have no ability to hear measurements, and I have found no real
correlation between the specs I read for mics and the results these mics
give me. I can understand what Ty says about the way a mic sounds to
him.

The limited number of things that can actually be conveyed
with word boils down to very little and we are left mainly
with "I like it" or "I don't like it".

And the sound of a measurement is...??

I have a hard time
understanding how any particular individual's opinion on
that can be given a lot more weight than any other's.

Then listen to the man's work and decide for yourself. People who use
these tools nearly everyday and get outstanding results have often been
able to inform me about the usefullness or not of many different audio
tools.

--
ha

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:02:34 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article ):

Bob Cain wrote:

I can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what measurement can,
despite any experience he might have listening to some of them on some
source material.

I have no ability to hear measurements, and I have found no real
correlation between the specs I read for mics and the results these mics
give me. I can understand what Ty says about the way a mic sounds to
him.


I think I somehow try to use language that transcends the typical
communicational problems. I also have found that comparison without claiming
one is better than the other seems to help as a way of explaining what a new
mic sounds like.

When I started reviewing that way it raised some eyebrows. Publishers were
concerned that I'd be dissing one mic or the other. I told them that I wasn't
going after the "this good, that bad" angle as much as I was using the
relatively known aspects of one mic as a point of comparison. I was hoping
that, as a reader, if you knew A and I communicated about how B was different
than A, that it would help the reader vector in on what B was. It seems to
have worked.

As Scott Dorsey (Thanks, btw, Scott) mentions, he knows my preferences and
has constructed a Dorsey-Ford offset filter. Being the handy guy he is,
perhaps he can do that for anyone. ...and "The
Dorsey-Ford-Semantic-Review-Filter" was born.

Regards,

Ty

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

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:29:51 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote:

As Scott Dorsey (Thanks, btw, Scott) mentions, he knows my preferences and
has constructed a Dorsey-Ford offset filter. Being the handy guy he is,
perhaps he can do that for anyone. ...and "The
Dorsey-Ford-Semantic-Review-Filter" was born.

*This* is why I read the newsgroup.

Thanks to all,

Chris Hornbeck

*This* is why I read the newsgroup.

Should have included "Because it's Godardian!"
Arf.

Chris Hornbeck

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

I hate to say it, but I have never actually seen truly
comprehensive measurements on any microphone. And I have
made a lot of microphone measurements over the years.

A comprehensive set of measurements might include 1/12
octave frequency response (120 points per set) measurements
on 10 degree intervals in 3-dimensional space. I think
that's 155,520 points.

No, that's not enough. I want impulse response at each of those
positions.
Waterfall plots at 10-degree intervals would make me happy, I think.
--scott

I would want some measurement of the mic's dynamic linearity, so take those
measurements at different SPL's as well. I'm certain that the non-linear
dynamics of mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it anywhere.

My posts here are anonymous.

And in that context, you might consider how much
credibility and general street cred is given here,
in an established forum, to an anonymous Google
poster.

FWIW; 's all i'm sayin'.

A rose by any other name (or none at all) would smell as sweet. I call them
as I see them. Anyone experienced enough to make a thorough, concise,
intelligible review probably isn't lying. The usual caveats apply as well
of course, but name recognition isn't important to me. In fact I marginally
discredit anyone who posts personal information publicly unnecessarily. (no
offense to those who do)

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:42:53 -0400, Zigakly wrote
(in article ):

I guess that since now ANYONE can afford a condenser mic, ANYONE can
also
review them.

ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you
suggest
that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was
paid or
not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be
the
right one for the job?

Please show me in any of my reviews where I make that sort of
pronouncement
without caveats.

I never said you did. My point is that if you put your name on that AT2020
review and the other guy's name on your review, it doesn't make either
review more or less valid on its face. If the two reviews are side-by-side
but unattributed, anyone that can't determine which is the more competent
analysis shouldn't be making a purchase decision based on reviews, anonymous
or not. I don't imply that you shouldn't be paid for your work, but it's
not the fact that you're being paid that makes your reviews credible.

BTW, what do you do for a living?

Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
name-dropping...

"Zigakly" wrote ...
Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
name-dropping...

Perhaps you could start with your own?
Many of us have reservations about people who hide behind
aliases, whether consciously or subconsciensously.

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:42:53 -0400, Zigakly wrote

ANYONE can also judge how much credibility the reviewer has. Do you
suggest
that EVERYONE should buy equipment based on whether the reviewer was
paid or
not? Is a Ty Ford recommendation a guarantee that the product will be
the
right one for the job?

See, I often disagree with Ty about microphones. In fact, I think most of
the time I disagree with Ty about microphones. But I know how I disagree
with him, and when I see a review with his name on it, I start out with
some basic knowledge of how my attitudes differ from his. This just comes
from a decade of reading Ty's reviews.

If Ty's reviews were anonymous, I wouldn't know this. I might read
partway
through one, read his comparison with a 77DX and discount the rest of the
review completely, if I didn't know it was Ty and know that he has a very
different notion of how aggressive a vocal sound ought to be than I do.

Because I have this basic knowledge of Ty's biases (or maybe my biases
with respect to his), I find his reviews very useful. If I didn't have
it,
if I didn't know the reviewer, if the review was anonymous so I had no
baseline, I wouldn't find the review useful at all, no matter how good it
was.

When I do microphone reviews, I try very hard to explain my basic biases
and what I tend to like and why. And I try to do comparisons with other
microphones that people might have. This is, however, a lot of work and
takes up a lot of column space. You can't really do it completely and
often you can't do it at all.
--scott

Maybe the reviewers need reviewing...

I think in this regard you're somewhat spoiled by the rappore you have with
Ty. Because of it you can take more advantage of his work than a typical
review. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation of reviews on such a
casual basis as the website in question. There are many aspects to mics
that don't require such fine detail and assurance of accuracy. If user
reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Zigakly" wrote ...
Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
name-dropping...

Perhaps you could start with your own?
Many of us have reservations about people who hide behind
aliases, whether consciously or subconsciensously.

I'm not hiding, but I'm not waving my dick around either. I consider the
unnecessary publication of personal information to be irresponsible. If I
lose points for that, so be it.

hank alrich wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:


I can't see how a reviewer can begin to convey what measurement can,
despite any experience he might have listening to some of them on some
source material.


I have no ability to hear measurements, and I have found no real
correlation between the specs I read for mics and the results these mics
give me.

That's because there are no standards for comprehensive
testing which even private testers can apply. If there
were, and one could find the results for the various mics
then the correlation would begin to happen and they would be
much more accurate than what can be accomplished with verbage.

I've done quite a lot of (accurate) frequency response
characterisation of things I have on hand and have come to
feel I can tell a good deal from a good set of data. (By
frequency response I mean the complex response which yields
the time domain aspects as well via things like the STFT
which gives a watefall plot.)

We know that what comes from the manufacturers is minimal
add copy and that, of course, correlates with very little.

I can understand what Ty says about the way a mic sounds to
him.

You've apparently learned his vocabulary and can do some
correlation with your own experience. Still, there really
isn't all that much that can be said about the wide and
detailed differences among them. Too much information
compression.

The limited number of things that can actually be conveyed
with word boils down to very little and we are left mainly
with "I like it" or "I don't like it".


And the sound of a measurement is...??

That's the point. A comprehensive procedure that would
disclose a great deal about mic performance could be
established but hasn't. I think David Josephson was heading
such a standards committee but I've not heard what came out
of it.

I have a hard time
understanding how any particular individual's opinion on
that can be given a lot more weight than any other's.

Then listen to the man's work and decide for yourself.

I'm not sure which work you refer to.

For me, even a discography wouldn't help much because his
vocabulary is idiosyncratic as is every reviewer's. To get
anywhere with reviews I'd have to do as you have, get
instances of the things he (or anyone who does it) has
reviewed and compare his verbage with my own impressions but
if one has that option, what is the point of reading reviews?

People who use
these tools nearly everyday and get outstanding results have often been
able to inform me about the usefullness or not of many different audio
tools.

To be sure. I'm just skeptical about effectively describing
in language the more esoteric and subjective aspects of
complex widgets like transducers. Especially when
transducers have to be cascaded to get at something to describe.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Ty Ford wrote:

As Scott Dorsey (Thanks, btw, Scott) mentions, he knows my preferences and
has constructed a Dorsey-Ford offset filter. Being the handy guy he is,
perhaps he can do that for anyone. ...and "The
Dorsey-Ford-Semantic-Review-Filter" was born.

LOL! :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Zigakly" wrote in message



I would want some measurement of the mic's dynamic
linearity, so take those measurements at different SPL's
as well. I'm certain that the non-linear dynamics of
mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it
anywhere.

Nonlinear performance of mics is generally a nit compared to
the nonlinear performance of speakers.

This is not to say that a highly sensitive mic placed close
to a loud source can't clip its internal electronics.
However a lot of mics that have that exposure, have built-in
attenuators.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 01:34:08 -0400, Zigakly wrote
(in article ):

When I do microphone reviews, I try very hard to explain my basic biases
and what I tend to like and why. And I try to do comparisons with other
microphones that people might have. This is, however, a lot of work and
takes up a lot of column space. You can't really do it completely and
often you can't do it at all.
--scott

Maybe the reviewers need reviewing...

I think in this regard you're somewhat spoiled by the rappore you have with
Ty. Because of it you can take more advantage of his work than a typical
review. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation of reviews on such a
casual basis as the website in question. There are many aspects to mics
that don't require such fine detail and assurance of accuracy. If user
reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.

I'd like to think that my approach to reviews is NOT typical and that's what
makes them work better. Lord knows I try. one mag I write for made a point of
telling its new reviewers to "Look at Ty's stuff. Do it that way."

At least you know where I'm coming from. At least you know I'm not a shill
filling the web with BS. I'm talking about two different things here.
Firstly, the pure shilling for companies; the hyping of their stuff or
dissing of competition's wrapped in casual semantics and tossed out as
anecdotal info. This happens all the time.

Secondly, the actual language used in these messages and their sheer
abundance. "These mics are the BOMB, man!" Which tells the reader pretty much
nothing. A lot of marketing hype makes it's way to the net this way. Throw
enough of it up there, though, and soon you'll start believing an Oktava is
actually a viable alternative to a Schoeps.

But back to your question, "Useful?" Consider the source. Anonymity disallows
you to consider the source. In a blacked out gay bath house you might not
care who's tugging on your dick. (Does that still go on?) If you're tugging
on your own dick in the dark or in the studio, it doesn't matter so much
because you're already a legend in your own mind.

When you're actually charging people to make good recordings, it behooves you
to put your dick in your back pocket, put your best **** up and know what to
do with it.

Scatalogisms notwithstanding, I hope you get my point.

Regards,

Ty Ford








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

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 01:17:19 -0400, Zigakly wrote
(in article ):

Please show me in any of my reviews where I make that sort of
pronouncement
without caveats.

I never said you did. My point is that if you put your name on that AT2020
review and the other guy's name on your review, it doesn't make either
review more or less valid on its face.

I beg to differ. The FCC license on my wall is smirking as well.

If the two reviews are side-by-side
but unattributed, anyone that can't determine which is the more competent
analysis shouldn't be making a purchase decision based on reviews, anonymous
or not. I don't imply that you shouldn't be paid for your work, but it's
not the fact that you're being paid that makes your reviews credible.

It speaks to my credibility. Any hoo haa can post on the net. Getting paid to
write a good review is something entirely different. Of course there's added
value there.

BTW, what do you do for a living?

Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
name-dropping...

Oh PLEEEEASE! Wash your hands before and after you type something like that
again. And while you're at it, send out monagrammed tissues so we can all
wipe the spew from our screens and keyboards after reading your last line.

Oh I get it, you're into provoking (which is different and less interesting
that being provocative). Try rec.audio.provoke, it's a more challenging read.

Ty Ford



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

I would want some measurement of the mic's dynamic
linearity, so take those measurements at different SPL's
as well. I'm certain that the non-linear dynamics of
mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it
anywhere.

Nonlinear performance of mics is generally a nit compared to
the nonlinear performance of speakers.

This is not to say that a highly sensitive mic placed close
to a loud source can't clip its internal electronics.
However a lot of mics that have that exposure, have built-in
attenuators.

I was refering to a compressive or expansive characteristic at various
frequencies, well short of the mic's max SPL. Measurement mics are chosen
for their linearity, so they can act as a comparison base, whether the
speaker is consistent or not.

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 01:34:08 -0400, Zigakly wrote
(in article ):

When I do microphone reviews, I try very hard to explain my basic
biases
and what I tend to like and why. And I try to do comparisons with
other
microphones that people might have. This is, however, a lot of work
and
takes up a lot of column space. You can't really do it completely and
often you can't do it at all.
--scott

Maybe the reviewers need reviewing...

I think in this regard you're somewhat spoiled by the rappore you have
with
Ty. Because of it you can take more advantage of his work than a
typical
review. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation of reviews on such
a
casual basis as the website in question. There are many aspects to mics
that don't require such fine detail and assurance of accuracy. If user
reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.

I'd like to think that my approach to reviews is NOT typical and that's
what
makes them work better. Lord knows I try. one mag I write for made a point
of
telling its new reviewers to "Look at Ty's stuff. Do it that way."

At least you know where I'm coming from. At least you know I'm not a shill
filling the web with BS. I'm talking about two different things here.
Firstly, the pure shilling for companies; the hyping of their stuff or
dissing of competition's wrapped in casual semantics and tossed out as
anecdotal info. This happens all the time.

....and is easily recognized by the discerning reader. Practice up by
reading Mackie's website.

Secondly, the actual language used in these messages and their sheer
abundance. "These mics are the BOMB, man!" Which tells the reader pretty
much
nothing. A lot of marketing hype makes it's way to the net this way. Throw
enough of it up there, though, and soon you'll start believing an Oktava
is
actually a viable alternative to a Schoeps.

....again easily recognized.

Both marketing hype and incompetence are evident, and should be taken into
account, but where a reviewer seems genuine enough, it can offer handy info.
Should you consider it cast-in-stone? No, but for example if a reviewer
cites a weakness in a mic you're considering, and you test for that weakness
to find it is there, it doesn't matter what the reviewer's name is or
whether they were paid.

If someone has the experience and expertise to find such flaws as well as
exceptional characteristics on a consistent basis, then they certainly
deserve to be paid, and it's not like an anonymous review site is going to
put them out of business.

But back to your question, "Useful?" Consider the source. Anonymity
disallows
you to consider the source. In a blacked out gay bath house you might not
care who's tugging on your dick. (Does that still go on?) If you're
tugging
on your own dick in the dark or in the studio, it doesn't matter so much
because you're already a legend in your own mind.

When you're actually charging people to make good recordings, it behooves
you
to put your dick in your back pocket, put your best **** up and know what
to
do with it.

"It looks just like a Telefunken U47" "With leather?"

I think the comparison between browsing amateur reviews of microphones to
fondling male genetalia in the dark is a bit much. What's wrong with
renting a mic that's well-regarded among anonymous reviews?

Scatalogisms notwithstanding, I hope you get my point.

I sure hope I do, or else I'll have to wear a condom for the next retort. I
might get hearing aids!

[ba-dum tshhh]

"Zigakly" wrote in message

I would want some measurement of the mic's dynamic
linearity, so take those measurements at different SPL's
as well. I'm certain that the non-linear dynamics of
mics is a major issue, but I've never seen data on it
anywhere.

Nonlinear performance of mics is generally a nit
compared to the nonlinear performance of speakers.

This is not to say that a highly sensitive mic placed
close to a loud source can't clip its internal
electronics. However a lot of mics that have that
exposure, have built-in attenuators.

I was refering to a compressive or expansive
characteristic at various frequencies, well short of the
mic's max SPL.

I think you'll find that your first challenge is finding a
speaker that is clean enough to point the finger at the mic.

Measurement mics are chosen for their
linearity, so they can act as a comparison base, whether
the speaker is consistent or not.

Let's distinguish between linear response in the frequency
domain and linear amplitude response. Measurement mics need
to be linear in the frequency domain, but they don't
necessarily need to have especially linear amplitude
response or handle really high acoustic levels, not that the
better ones don't.

Please show me in any of my reviews where I make that sort of
pronouncement
without caveats.

I never said you did. My point is that if you put your name on that
AT2020
review and the other guy's name on your review, it doesn't make either
review more or less valid on its face.

I beg to differ. The FCC license on my wall is smirking as well.

So you're saying the other review with your name on it becomes more valid?
Would it actually get published, spelling errors and all, just because your
name is on it? Somehow I suspect an editor would send it back along with a
"get well" card.

If the two reviews are side-by-side
but unattributed, anyone that can't determine which is the more
competent
analysis shouldn't be making a purchase decision based on reviews,
anonymous
or not. I don't imply that you shouldn't be paid for your work, but
it's
not the fact that you're being paid that makes your reviews credible.

It speaks to my credibility. Any hoo haa can post on the net. Getting paid
to
write a good review is something entirely different. Of course there's
added
value there.

Value yes, credibility no. We're obviously never going to agree on this
point, but here it is one more time from the top: The credibility of your
reviews is not a result of the fact that you are paid to write them. You
get paid because your reviews are credible. People can write credible
reviews without being paid to do so, and people can judge the credibility of
anonymous reviews to a reasonable degree to be of use to the discerning
reader.

That's my position, yours appears to be otherwise. No problem. Somehow
we'll get by.

BTW, what do you do for a living?

Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
name-dropping...

Oh PLEEEEASE! Wash your hands before and after you type something like
that
again. And while you're at it, send out monagrammed tissues so we can all
wipe the spew from our screens and keyboards after reading your last line.

Oh I get it, you're into provoking (which is different and less
interesting
that being provocative). Try rec.audio.provoke, it's a more challenging
read.

FFS... it's a perfectly valid point. I'm arguing that the credibility of an
anonymous review can be determined based on the content. To post my resume
to back that up would *undermine my entire argument*. Even if I didn't have
a policy of not disclosing personal information publicly, I would NEVER do
so under this sort of contradictory duress.

I have no intention of provoking anyone, but nor will I be coerced into
recanting my position. And I fail to see how having an opinion on this
matter should be so inflammatory in the first place, but hey, it's usenet,
we all roll the dice.

Arny Krueger wrote:

I think you'll find that your first challenge is finding a
speaker that is clean enough to point the finger at the mic.

You don't use a speaker, you use a spark gap and work backwards from
the response of the perfect impulse.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Zigakly wrote:

If user
reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.

Because unless I know something of the driver's habits and preferences I
have no idea how to take the review. Most newbie reviewer's have so
little knowledge of what factors influence a mic's performance, and how,
that I dont bother reading mic reviews unless they're by someone from
whom I've read enough reviews to understand their thinking about mics.
This means I do not bother with reviews from anonymous. Anonymous wrote
some great music, but isn't so sharp on mic reviews.

--
ha

Zigakly wrote:

"Richard Crowley" wrote...
"Zigakly" wrote ...
Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
name-dropping...

Perhaps you could start with your own?
Many of us have reservations about people who hide behind
aliases, whether consciously or subconsciensously.

I'm not hiding, but I'm not waving my dick around either. I consider the
unnecessary publication of personal information to be irresponsible. If I
lose points for that, so be it.

It has been proven right in this forum that you can imagine you can
hide, but you can't hide. There are some very sharp knives in the
drawer. When the chase wants cutting-to, it happens.

--
ha

Zigakly wrote:

My posts here are anonymous.

And in that context, you might consider how much
credibility and general street cred is given here,
in an established forum, to an anonymous Google
poster.

FWIW; 's all i'm sayin'.

A rose by any other name (or none at all) would smell as sweet. I call them
as I see them. Anyone experienced enough to make a thorough, concise,
intelligible review probably isn't lying.

I'm not aware of anonymous reviewers who fit that description. But I
don't go looking for anonymous reviewers, either.

The usual caveats apply as well
of course, but name recognition isn't important to me. In fact I marginally
discredit anyone who posts personal information publicly unnecessarily. (no
offense to those who do)

Some folks may not feel they have something to hide, or someone to hide
from.

--
ha

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

I think you'll find that your first challenge is finding
a speaker that is clean enough to point the finger at
the mic.

You don't use a speaker, you use a spark gap and work
backwards from the response of the perfect impulse.

OK, I'm hip to that approach for looking at frequency and
phase response. What about nonlinear distortion?

"hank alrich" wrote in message
. ..
Zigakly wrote:

"Richard Crowley" wrote...
"Zigakly" wrote ...
Wouldn't that be ironic if I tried to qualify my response by
name-dropping...

Perhaps you could start with your own?
Many of us have reservations about people who hide behind
aliases, whether consciously or subconsciensously.

I'm not hiding, but I'm not waving my dick around either. I consider
the
unnecessary publication of personal information to be irresponsible. If
I
lose points for that, so be it.

It has been proven right in this forum that you can imagine you can
hide, but you can't hide. There are some very sharp knives in the
drawer. When the chase wants cutting-to, it happens.

Which is why I don't pretend to be hiding, and why I don't make it any
easier for them. I've emailed several frequenters of this forum for various
reasons using emails from one of my domains, and by fingering them you get
my home address. Hell, one of my domains is my celphone number (the last
four digits spell a word associated with music production). Once I make
personal contact such as email, then I consider it proper to offer at least
that much, yet I still don't put my home addy in my sig.

hank alrich wrote:
Zigakly wrote:

If user
reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.

Because unless I know something of the driver's habits and preferences I
have no idea how to take the review. Most newbie reviewer's have so
little knowledge of what factors influence a mic's performance, and how,
that I dont bother reading mic reviews unless they're by someone from
whom I've read enough reviews to understand their thinking about mics.
This means I do not bother with reviews from anonymous. Anonymous wrote
some great music, but isn't so sharp on mic reviews.

THIS E-CLASS MERCEDES SURE IS A LOUSY CAR. IT WON'T BALANCE ON TWO
WHEELS AND MY ATTEMPT TO JUMP A SCHOOL BUS WITH IT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL.
ALSO THE CUPHOLDER IS INCONVENIENT. DON'T BUY ONE.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

I think you'll find that your first challenge is finding
a speaker that is clean enough to point the finger at
the mic.

You don't use a speaker, you use a spark gap and work
backwards from the response of the perfect impulse.

OK, I'm hip to that approach for looking at frequency and
phase response. What about nonlinear distortion?

Knowing the impulse response tells you a lot about nonlinear effects as
well. If you don't think that's enough, you can do calibrated sparks
of varying intensity.

A pistonphone is probably more effective, although using a pistonphone
with a non-omni capsule involves a lot of fudge factors.

Another trick is to use a plate that is electrostatically coupled to the
diaphragm, mounted in front of the capsule. This allows you to apply
signal to the microphone. The neat thing about it is that it allows you
to make any arbitrary measurements of the capsule+electronics system
without involving the microphone body.

With the various Chinese large diaphragm mikes it is very interesting to
compare the nearfield response with the response recorded with the
pistonphone and electrostatic methods. It's very clear that nobody is
actually engineering the grilles and bodies.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"hank alrich" wrote in message
. ..
Zigakly wrote:

My posts here are anonymous.

And in that context, you might consider how much
credibility and general street cred is given here,
in an established forum, to an anonymous Google
poster.

FWIW; 's all i'm sayin'.

A rose by any other name (or none at all) would smell as sweet. I call
them
as I see them. Anyone experienced enough to make a thorough, concise,
intelligible review probably isn't lying.

I'm not aware of anonymous reviewers who fit that description. But I
don't go looking for anonymous reviewers, either.

The usual caveats apply as well
of course, but name recognition isn't important to me. In fact I
marginally
discredit anyone who posts personal information publicly unnecessarily.
(no
offense to those who do)

Some folks may not feel they have something to hide, or someone to hide
from.

Some folks feel that they have nothing to gain by revealing information that
can enable or even invite abuse. They might even feel that any pressure to
post such information on usenet of all places is unfounded and perhaps even
a bit rude.

Once bitten, twice shy. That's all I have to say about that.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:09:30 -0400, "Zigakly" wrote:

Some folks feel that they have nothing to gain by revealing information that
can enable or even invite abuse. They might even feel that any pressure to
post such information on usenet of all places is unfounded and perhaps even
a bit rude.

I certainly meant no offense by my earlier post. Rather
a comment on credibility in this non-face-to-face world.

Once bitten, twice shy. That's all I have to say about that.

You obviously have your reasons. I've been lucky; not
everyone has been.

Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Knowing the impulse response tells you a lot about nonlinear effects as
well. If you don't think that's enough, you can do calibrated sparks
of varying intensity.

Calibrating a spark gap is a bit of a challenge in itself.
They are by no means flat. Smooth, maybe but they have a
whole lot less low frequency energy, usually not enough to
be usable above ambient, than they do high frequency energy.
Where it starts to roll off is a function of the spark gap
length among other things. Then there is the problem that a
spark just doesn't contain much energy to put the measuremnt
above any ambient noise.

The best way to get an impulse response is via a good
measurement (reference) mic using a swept sinusoid stimulus.
First you get the IR of the speaker and anything up to it,
then you can divide any subsequent microphone measurements
by that of the speaker to eliminate its effects.

Any such results will be relative to the performance of the
reference mic so it has to be pretty good.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
hank alrich wrote:
Zigakly wrote:

If user
reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.

Because unless I know something of the driver's habits and preferences I
have no idea how to take the review. Most newbie reviewer's have so
little knowledge of what factors influence a mic's performance, and how,
that I dont bother reading mic reviews unless they're by someone from
whom I've read enough reviews to understand their thinking about mics.
This means I do not bother with reviews from anonymous. Anonymous wrote
some great music, but isn't so sharp on mic reviews.

THIS E-CLASS MERCEDES SURE IS A LOUSY CAR. IT WON'T BALANCE ON TWO
WHEELS AND MY ATTEMPT TO JUMP A SCHOOL BUS WITH IT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL.
ALSO THE CUPHOLDER IS INCONVENIENT. DON'T BUY ONE.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

****, if a RAP veteran resorts to making an ass of himself like this, I must
be on to something.

That's a joke. I really don't care as much as y'all seem to. But at the
same time, lighten up.

"Bob Cain" wrote in message

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Knowing the impulse response tells you a lot about
nonlinear effects as well. If you don't think that's
enough, you can do calibrated sparks of varying
intensity.

Calibrating a spark gap is a bit of a challenge in itself.
They are by no means flat. Smooth, maybe but they have a
whole lot less low frequency energy, usually not enough to
be usable above ambient, than they do high frequency
energy. Where it starts to roll off is a function of the
spark gap length among other things. Then there is the
problem that a spark just doesn't contain much energy to
put the measuremnt above any ambient noise.

The best way to get an impulse response is via a good
measurement (reference) mic using a swept sinusoid
stimulus. First you get the IR of the speaker and
anything up to it, then you can divide any subsequent
microphone measurements by that of the speaker to
eliminate its effects.
Any such results will be relative to the performance of
the reference mic so it has to be pretty good.

This sounds like a pretty believable story. It describes a
procedure that could also shed light on the nonlinear
distortion question in a pretty direct fashion.

Got anything to report?

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:32:55 -0400, Zigakly wrote
(in article ):


"It looks just like a Telefunken U47" "With leather?"

I think the comparison between browsing amateur reviews of microphones to
fondling male genetalia in the dark is a bit much. What's wrong with renting

a mic that's well-regarded among anonymous reviews?

That's a great idea. I thought Dreamhire had closed, but apparently they are
open. The other issue is that mics sound different with different preamps and
who knows what the actual monitoring or acoustics issues may be....then can
the listener keep from being distracted by the brighter is better phenomenon


Scatalogisms notwithstanding, I hope you get my point.

I sure hope I do, or else I'll have to wear a condom for the next retort. I
might get hearing aids!

[ba-dum tshhh]

Thanks ladies and gent, he's at the club all week. Don't forget to tip your
waitress.

Ty Ford


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

Zigakly wrote:

"Scott Dorsey"...
hank alrich wrote:
Zigakly wrote:

If user reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a
similar degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.

Because unless I know something of the driver's habits and preferences I
have no idea how to take the review. Most newbie reviewer's have so
little knowledge of what factors influence a mic's performance, and how,
that I dont bother reading mic reviews unless they're by someone from
whom I've read enough reviews to understand their thinking about mics.
This means I do not bother with reviews from anonymous. Anonymous wrote
some great music, but isn't so sharp on mic reviews.

THIS E-CLASS MERCEDES SURE IS A LOUSY CAR. IT WON'T BALANCE ON TWO
WHEELS AND MY ATTEMPT TO JUMP A SCHOOL BUS WITH IT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL.
ALSO THE CUPHOLDER IS INCONVENIENT. DON'T BUY ONE.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

****, if a RAP veteran resorts to making an ass of himself like this, I must
be on to something.

That's a joke. I really don't care as much as y'all seem to. But at the
same time, lighten up.

It'd be difficult to lighten more upply than Scott did right there.

--
ha

Bob Cain wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Knowing the impulse response tells you a lot about nonlinear effects as
well. If you don't think that's enough, you can do calibrated sparks
of varying intensity.

Calibrating a spark gap is a bit of a challenge in itself.
They are by no means flat. Smooth, maybe but they have a
whole lot less low frequency energy, usually not enough to
be usable above ambient, than they do high frequency energy.
Where it starts to roll off is a function of the spark gap
length among other things. Then there is the problem that a
spark just doesn't contain much energy to put the measuremnt
above any ambient noise.

Right, and the radiation pattern isn't necessarily even either. BUT,
this is easy stuff to model mathematically and getting the fudge factors
from the basic physics isn't a problem.

The best way to get an impulse response is via a good
measurement (reference) mic using a swept sinusoid stimulus.
First you get the IR of the speaker and anything up to it,
then you can divide any subsequent microphone measurements
by that of the speaker to eliminate its effects.

Any such results will be relative to the performance of the
reference mic so it has to be pretty good.

This is popular but depends on absolute repeatability.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."