Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Article: Why We Need Audiophiles (Read 552416 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 23 Guests are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1175 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
Sure, it's just as soon as we involve recording and PAs into an environment we're introducing the limitations of our mics and PAs. You job as a sound reinforcement engineer is to minimize those distortions as much as possible and then shape whatever is left into something as pleasant as possible.


SR is interesting for me because my work involves a high proportion of acoustic sources. So, I can challenge myself to make the transition from live sound to reinforced sound as gentle and unobtrusive as possible. Then just for fun, we have a few electronic instruments with no acoustic sound of their own.

Quote
Of course, if we perfected mic and speaker technology to keep their distortions below audible thresholds, you'd be out of a job, the same way digital media and transistors have run most of the audio-quackery out of business.


I'm old enough that I'm pretty safe expecting to be retired before technological advancements like that eliminate my job. ;-)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1176 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I use cardioid pairs (e.g. Rode NT4) and various hypercardioid pairs composed of individual mics such as the Audix OM-6. My OM-6 pairs have the inner edges of their capsules nearly touching or bonded to each other with resilient material.  I use various included angles from 90 to 120 degrees depending on what sounds *right* to me.

Is there as much quackery surrounding vintage microphones as there is with, say, speaker cables?

Like I've read that when digital recording, some studios reverted to using vintage valve microphone amplifiers that they hadn't used since the 1960s. Is there any truth to this? Are 40 year old microphone designs actually that good? Or again, is this just bias built around people that think things with valves and Old ThingsTM in general are an audiophile panacea?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1177 –
Quote from: pdq on
Just out of curiosity, could you please describe "coincident micing"?


"Miking" is the preferred usage, to reflect pronunciation.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/studi...er2_mics5.shtml

"X-Y coincident pair: two cardioids mics aimed across each other at an angle between 90 and 135 degrees and less than 12 inches apart to recreate accurately the way a listener hears with directional cues. (A distance of more than 12 inches apart creates phase cancellation problems). This pattern is very useful for many situations, but it may not provide as wide a stereo image as some other techniques. The image, however, is extremely mono-compatible, and that is why it was very popular in the radio/television broadcast world."


The spacing adds time-stereo data that reinforces the amplitude-stereo data, which has limited separation between the channels. A cardioid mike has a (1+cosine theta) sensitivity pattern, so for coincident cardioids at 90 degrees, the maximum amplitude ratio is just 6dB. Widening the included angle to 135 degrees gives a 10dB ratio, if I remember correctly. Coincident miking requires figure-8 mikes to correctly capture the direction of sources - Google "Blumlein."

Quote
I use cardioid pairs (e.g. Rode NT4) and various hypercardioid pairs composed of individual mics such as the Audix OM-6. My OM-6 pairs have the inner edges of their capsules nearly touching or bonded to each other with resilient material.  I use various included angles from 90 to 120 degrees depending on what sounds *right* to me.


It would appear your recordings do offer excellent mono-compatibility, Mr. Krueger. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1178 –
Quote from: ShowsOn on
Is there as much quackery surrounding vintage microphones as there is with, say, speaker cables?


Good question. There are very expensive vintage microphones and there are very expensive contemporary microphones like say Neumann and Schoeps.  I have zero experience with any of the above, so I'll just keep my mouth shut.

About as close to expensive microphones as I've come are various mics in the $300-500 range. In general they seem to have been worth the extra bucks over competitive mics in the $150-300 range, but not dramatically so. Mics have non-sonic properties such as reliablity and abilty to take use and abuse, so at these price points the big picture is a bit fuzzy.  The most expensive mics I've ever made routine use of were DPA 4007, at about $1200 each. Fact is that if you want a measurement-grade mic that goes to 40+ KHz, that is still about what you pay.

Quote
Like I've read that when digital recording, some studios reverted to using vintage valve microphone amplifiers that they hadn't used since the 1960s.


There are enough studios around that someone someplace has done *anythng* you want to think of including wiring the whole place up with Monster cable. But as a rule, the big news in studios is moving down to using inexpensive mics in the $100-300 range incstead of the classic $1K and up mics that they used to use.  Price performance of mics has improved quite a bit and we now have oddities like the Rode NT1a that is a good sounding mic, and has about the lowest noise on the market, but is in the $250 range.

Quote
Is there any truth to this? Are 40 year old microphone designs actually that good?


AFAIK, most of the expensive mics I've actually seen being used were modern designs.

Quote
Or again, is this just bias built around people that think things with valves and Old ThingsTM in general are an audiophile panacea?


Running a recording studio has come under serious pricing pressure. Many are going to,  or have gone out of business. Most of the big company studios are gone, and have been replaced by a bunch of subcontractors who are hired by independent producers. And they are under the economic gun.  T

The replaceement of analog recorders with digital recorders and particularly PC-based DAWs has changed the economic picture greatly. Expensive equipment that required frequent expensive maintenance whas been replaced by modest opriced stuff that runs for years without adjustment or other technical attention, and sounds better as well.  Inexpensive consoles and in many cases the elimination of consoles with DAWs was another stop in making it possible for more musical people to do their own recording.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1179 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
The spacing adds time-stereo data that reinforces the amplitude-stereo data, which has limited separation between the channels. A cardioid mike has a (1+cosine theta) sensitivity pattern, so for coincident cardioids at 90 degrees, the maximum amplitude ratio is just 6dB. Widening the included angle to 135 degrees gives a 10dB ratio, if I remember correctly. Coincident miking requires figure-8 mikes to correctly capture the direction of sources - Google "Blumlein."


In my discussion of coincident micing I mentioned the use of hypercardioid mics, which provide additional separation for a given splay angle.  However, that turns out to be moot, because anybody who listens carefully to large group performnces in large venues knows that while there is a definate perception of space and air, there is almost no perception of a well-defined soundstage. 

The market for the recordings I make is not a bunch of dogmatic audiophiles who rarely if ever actually witness the performances they listen to while they are being recorded. Instead, my clientele is band and choir directors who are both performers at their events and spectators of other very similar events in the same venue and with similar groups of musicans. 

I often pick up my ideas about what my clients are looking for in their recordings by talking to the creme of the music directors - the judges. These people critically listen to 100's and thousands of groups performing in dozens of different venues. Many teach music at the undergraduate and graduate level.

What they are looking for is recordings that as closely as possible duplicate the experience of sitting where the judges sit, which is usually centered L-R and about 15-25 rows back, sometimes more. Coincidentally, this is probably the average of the distance that the audience sits at, and is considered by many to be the best seats in most houses.

Quote
Quote
I use cardioid pairs (e.g. Rode NT4) and various hypercardioid pairs composed of individual mics such as the Audix OM-6. My OM-6 pairs have the inner edges of their capsules nearly touching or bonded to each other with resilient material.  I use various included angles from 90 to 120 degrees depending on what sounds *right* to me.


It would appear your recordings do offer excellent mono-compatibility, Mr. Krueger. :-)


I don't record audiophile demonstration records. I record working tools.

My goal has always been reality-compatibility.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1180 –
im actually kinda surprised by the negativism towards this article. i am not in any way ruling out that he can tell the difference between a $2,600 cable and a $4,000 lol

i mean, i have really good hearing in most ways. i can safely tell the difference between tones pitched at ~ 1k hz that differ by 0.2hz, i'd like to think that i am really observant on details in music, and naturally im an audophile. i have no problem believing that this freak really has this good a hearing.

to me 320cbr well ripped with a later Lame codec (or vbr245) is of much lower quality than FLAC. on music that ive heard a few times i can abx a 320cbr rip from a flac rip in 100/100 cases. and im a poor bastard, i listen to most music through a sennheiser PC 161 for about $100 and through an unisolated soundcard from the french revolution.

i personally think that 256kbps cbr played on itunes is of really low quality, and i can clearly imagine someone having twice as good hearing as me, and to them its justified to be this rediculous. i also of course realize that to some it doesnt make enough of a difference, and a quality mp3 rip is well good enough.

i really agree and believe in this part of the article:
Quote
...that going from zero to 85 doesn't take a lot of effort or money, but going from 98.6 to 99.1 by swapping out a $2,600 AC power cable for a $4,000 one becomes a justifiable end


the thing is that i would never tell the difference from 98.6 to 99.1 wich is why i'd never pay $350,000 for a system even if i won $10 mil tomorrow.

but i might be missing something here. what is it about the article that you react so strongly towards? is it the way they try to encourage people to by duckexpensive systems?

peace

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1181 –
@opis, you have made a number of claims that we are going to want backed up by specific examples and ABX logs. 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1182 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
The spacing adds time-stereo data that reinforces the amplitude-stereo data, which has limited separation between the channels. A cardioid mike has a (1+cosine theta) sensitivity pattern, so for coincident cardioids at 90 degrees, the maximum amplitude ratio is just 6dB. Widening the included angle to 135 degrees gives a 10dB ratio, if I remember correctly. Coincident miking requires figure-8 mikes to correctly capture the direction of sources - Google "Blumlein."


In my discussion of coincident micing I mentioned the use of hypercardioid mics, which provide additional separation for a given splay angle.


A degree of extra separation, yes, but coincident cardioids or hypercardioids still give what one veteran engineer, Tony Faulkner, has called "fat mono." You need to introduce a degree of physical separation between the angled capsules, as in the well-known ORTF technique, to give accurate mapping between the original positions of the sound sources and their perceived positions in the reproduced stereo image.

Quote
However, that turns out to be moot, because anybody who listens carefully to large group performnces in large venues knows that while there is a definate perception of space and air, there is almost no perception of a well-defined soundstage.


That may be your preference, Mr. Krueger, but it is not correct. Sit so that the subtended angle of the performing group is 60 degrees, the typical angle between stereo speakers and unless the hall is so reverberant that the critical distance is minimal, you will still perceive a well-defined image.

But this is beside the point: surely as a recordist who has proclaimed your belief in "accuracy,"  you want to record in such a manner that the soundsource directions are accurately preserved? BTW, as Blumlein defined in his 1931 patent, those soundsources _include_ the hall reflections.

Quote
My goal has always been reality-compatibility.


So how many of your recordings have been commercially released and sold on their merits. Mr. Krueger?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1183 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

Quote from: Stereoeditor on

The spacing adds time-stereo data that reinforces the amplitude-stereo data, which has limited separation between the channels. A cardioid mike has a (1+cosine theta) sensitivity pattern, so for coincident cardioids at 90 degrees, the maximum amplitude ratio is just 6dB. Widening the included angle to 135 degrees gives a 10dB ratio, if I remember correctly. Coincident miking requires figure-8 mikes to correctly capture the direction of sources - Google "Blumlein."


In my discussion of coincident micing I mentioned the use of hypercardioid mics, which provide additional separation for a given splay angle.


A degree of extra separation, yes, but coincident cardioids or hypercardioids still give what one veteran engineer, Tony Faulkner, has called "fat mono."
You need to introduce a degree of physical separation between the angled capsules, as in the well-known ORTF technique, to give accurate mapping between the original positions of the sound sources and their perceived positions in the reproduced stereo image.


I'm in favor of people having such preferences as they wish.

Including me! ;-)

Quote
Quote
However, that turns out to be moot, because anybody who listens carefully to large group performances in large venues knows that while there is a definate perception of space and air, there is almost no perception of a well-defined soundstage.


That may be your preference, Mr. Krueger, but it is not correct.



OK, folks, you heard it here. John Atkinson believes that some preference are correct and others aren't.

Quote
Sit so that the subtended angle of the performing group is 60 degrees, the typical angle between stereo speakers and unless the hall is so reverberant that the critical distance is minimal, you will still perceive a well-defined image.


I thought the goal was to create a listening experience that was true to preferred seats in a concert hall, not how someone thinks that stereo speakers are supposed to b set up.

Quote
But this is beside the point: surely as a recordist who has proclaimed your belief in "accuracy,"  you want to record in such a manner that the soundsource directions are accurately preserved?


Right, and if you ever listened to one of these choirs in the hall in which they performed from the prime seating location, you'd know that the choir does not subtend an angle of 60 degrees.

Quote
BTW, as Blumlein defined in his 1931 patent, those soundsources _include_ the hall reflections.


I've got no problems with that.

Quote
Quote
My goal has always been reality-compatibility.


So how many of your recordings have been commercially released and sold on their merits. Mr. Krueger?


Depends what you call commercially. I've been very clear about the commercial context in which I work, which means that for a variety of legal and practical reasons, my work is not available to the general public.

But, here's a big break for you, John.

You can download an excerpt of one of my recordings here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry636388

BTW, I would say that this recording has a little too much separation to be lifelike, but in an intensity-mode recording, controlling excess separation can easily be done.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1184 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

Quote from: Stereoeditor on

The spacing adds time-stereo data that reinforces the amplitude-stereo data, which has limited separation between the channels. A cardioid mike has a (1+cosine theta) sensitivity pattern, so for coincident cardioids at 90 degrees, the maximum amplitude ratio is just 6dB. Widening the included angle to 135 degrees gives a 10dB ratio, if I remember correctly. Coincident miking requires figure-8 mikes to correctly capture the direction of sources - Google "Blumlein."


In my discussion of coincident micing I mentioned the use of hypercardioid mics, which provide additional separation for a given splay angle.


A degree of extra separation, yes, but coincident cardioids or hypercardioids still give what one veteran engineer, Tony Faulkner, has called "fat mono."
You need to introduce a degree of physical separation between the angled capsules, as in the well-known ORTF technique, to give accurate mapping between the original positions of the sound sources and their perceived positions in the reproduced stereo image.


I'm in favor of people having such preferences as they wish.

Including me! ;-)


This is the point that I have trying to get you to comprehend, Mr. Krueger. You (and others) have been strenuously criticizing audiophiles in this thread for expressing a preference for reproduced sound that, in your opinion, is technically inaccurate. If you do so, it is illogical at best and hypocritical at worst for you to try to defend technical inaccuracy in the recordings you make on the ground that it is your preference.

If it is okay for you to prefer technically flawed sound, Mr. Krueger, then it also okay for audiophiles to do likewise. Conversely, if audiophiles are wrong to prefer technically inaccurate sound, then so must you be wrong, Mr. Krueger.

If there is a flaw in that logic, I would, of course, be grateful if someone could identify it.

Quote
Quote
Quote
However, that turns out to be moot, because anybody who listens carefully to large group performances in large venues knows that while there is a [definite] perception of space and air, there is almost no perception of a well-defined soundstage.


That may be your preference, Mr. Krueger, but it is not correct.


OK, folks, you heard it here. John Atkinson believes that some preference are correct and others aren't.


My apologies for your lack of comprehension, Mr. Krueger. The antecedent for "it" in my earlier message is not your preference but your recording technique of almost-coincident, angled cardioid or hypercardioid mikes.

Quote
You can download an excerpt of one of my recordings here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry636388


Thank you, Mr. Krueger. I will do so. I hope it is of better quality than the last recording of yours I heard, which even you admitted in an exchange on Usenet with Iain Churches, late of Decca in England, was significantly flawed.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1185 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Thank you, Mr. Krueger. I will do so. I hope it is of better quality than the last recording of yours I heard, which even you admitted in an exchange on Usenet with Iain Churches, late of Decca in England, was significantly flawed.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Well, John, you have heard one other recording with 5 closely spaced, but non-conincident hypercardoids.

-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1186 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
<SNIP>
anybody who listens carefully to large group performnces in large venues knows that while there is a definate perception of space and air, there is almost no perception of a well-defined soundstage. 
<SNIP>

That's my experience. Which suggests that the "audio hobby," whether techie, audiophile or audiophool, is getting disconnected from the interests of people who just want to listen to music, as "well" (meaning of "well" subject to some discussion) as possible.

Sean Olive's work demonstrating that, by and large, plain folk like their speakers as linear as possible, clearly relates to musical preferences. But the concern soundstage, maybe not so much?

If there is a disconnect, does it matter?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1187 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
here's a big break for you, John.

You can download an excerpt of one of my recordings here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry636388


I take my hat off to you, Mr. Krueger for posting this link. Me, I would have been a tad more circumspect, given the audibility of the background hiss, the rather scratchy quality in the upper midrange, and the depressed lower frequencies. Here is a link to a spectral analysis of the entire track: http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/sho....php/photo/2020 . The smooth rolloff below 500Hz is peculiar, while the spectral content below 100Hz is all noise.

Quote
BTW, I would say that this recording has a little too much separation to be lifelike...


"Too much separation"? Here is an X-Y 'scope analysis of the finale: http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/sho....php/photo/2021 . As I said, if you made this recording using almost-coincident, crossed cardioids or even hypercardioids, the result is really "fat mono." If you wish, I will apply some LF boost to the difference signal then rematrix to stereo, which, given the shelved-down lower midrange, might restore a more natural tonal balance and add some stereo "bloom."

And before I am criticized for not making my own commercial recordings available for similar analysis, you can download excerpts of some of my choral recordings at http://www.cantusonline.org/Store/mp3.html?category=events . (These are 190kbps MP3s - I have no connection with the administration of this site - but they will be good enough for rough and ready analysis.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1188 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Thank you, Mr. Krueger. I will do so. I hope it is of better quality than the last recording of yours I heard, which even you admitted in an exchange on Usenet with Iain Churches, late of Decca in England, was significantly flawed.


Well, John, you have heard one other recording with 5 closely spaced, but non-conincident hypercardoids.


Indeed I did, JJ, and as you know, I thought the results after processing, were very impressive regarding both accuracy and stability of image localization and spatial immersion. But there wasn't just amplitude information to be worked with; the array did space the capsules at a distance similar to that of the human head, which will prove beneficial.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1189 –
Stereo is a serious compromise, and I'm not convinced that one approach to this compromise is "right" or "wrong".

However, I think there is some justification for having recordings that sound a little "larger than life" - I think you need something to make up for the fact that you aren't actually "there", you can't see where the performers are, or see them playing - in fact visual cues are completely lacking.

We know that our subjective perception of any event is multi-sensory. Given that our hi-fi can only talk to one of our senses, maybe it should do ever more so than the real life event would?

Or as David Chesky put it (I may be misquoting!) "people prefer to see even a beautiful actress with a little make up on - that's what we do with audio too - people think they want pure raw recordings, but they like them far better when we put a little rouge on their cheeks".

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1190 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Indeed I did, JJ, and as you know, I thought the results after processing, were very impressive regarding both accuracy and stability of image localization and spatial immersion. But there wasn't just amplitude information to be worked with; the array did space the capsules at a distance similar to that of the human head, which will prove beneficial.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


There's a little graph in one of the books on multichannel audio that shows the time/amplitude tradeoff.

The knowlege has been around for some 75 years.

You'd think more people would use it.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1192 –
Quote
neither mics or speakers can accurately replicate live sound without  creating audible distortion. Which is entirely true: mechanically  transferring physical sound waves to electric impulses and from  electric impulses back to physical sound waves is not a process that we  have yet mastered (although, we have mastered every step in between  those two).

Quote
if we perfected mic and speaker technology to keep their distortions below audible thresholds, you'd be out of a job


the technology is not so far, remember :
An aproche to objective listening tests, KF Russel and PA Fryer,  AES preprint 1495  (1979)
Absolute listening test, PA Fryer and R Lee, AES preprint 1567 (1980)
Listening room influence on loudspeakers, J Salmi and K Weckstrom, AES preprint 1871 (1982), see also the Gradient experiment
It means that for more than 25 years now, a well engineered loudspeaker and a good omni mic can be "perfect" on axis.
We have only to solve microphone spatial capturing, speakers off-axis response and room interaction

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1193 –
Quote from: ShowsOn on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
A degree of extra separation, yes, but coincident cardioids or hypercardioids still give what one veteran engineer, Tony Faulkner, has called "fat mono."

Why does nearly every second post you make feature an argument from authority?


Interesting point.

I'm ROTFLMAO at Atkinson's critque of my high school choir recording.

We have this self-proclaimed subjectivist, who bases his entire critique on two plots made by test equipment. Yes, test equipment.

And, this is not a one-time event. We just saw the Stereophile review staff take a 180 degree turn in their review of the Harmonic Technology Cyberlight interconnects, once they became aware of John's measurements.

John's entire critique misses what I think is the most important issue of all, which is what did this choir sound like in the space where they performed, from the viewpoint of the most important listeners? 

I know, I was there. Were the voices scratchy? Well, it was during the winter cough and colds season in Michigan. Go figure!

One of John's critical points is absolutely ludicrous - being that the recording has no bass below 100 Hz.

How much bass below 100 Hz does one find in a high school choir singing a capella?  The answer is *none*. Most of the boys in this choir voice's have only started to change. And like most high school choirs, there really weren't a lot of boys.

But yet the recording has is in Atkinson's view a serious fault because it did not magically come up with bass that was not naturally present in the live performance?

LOL!

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1194 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
We have this self-proclaimed subjectivist, who bases his entire critique on two plots made by test equipment. Yes, test equipment.

John's entire critique misses what I think is the most important issue of all, which is what did this choir sound like in the space where they performed, from the viewpoint of the most important listeners? 

I know, I was there.


We have this self-proclaimed objectivist, who bases his entire argument on one subjective claim. Yes, one subjective claim.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
And, this is not a one-time event. We just saw the Stereophile review staff take a 180 degree turn in their review of the Harmonic Technology Cyberlight interconnects, once they became aware of John's measurements.


As I read it you it is not you having snapped and presenting Stereophile with its pants down, but they published it. Stereophile is also not a person. It did not take a 180° turn, but two statements, Fremer's and Atkinson's, were published.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1195 –
Quote from: ShowsOn on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
A degree of extra separation, yes, but coincident cardioids or hypercardioids still give what one veteran engineer, Tony Faulkner, has called "fat mono."

Why does nearly every second post you make feature an argument from authority?


Sorry, journalistic force of habit, to attribute out-of-the-ordinary usage. Ignore it if it bothers you.

The point I was making is that Arny Krueger's preferred miking technique is not accurate, in that original soundsource directions are not correctly mapped to the appropriate positions in the recorded stereo image. (For support of my statement, see the 'scope traces I linked to anther message in this thread.) Mr. Krueger has defended that inaccuracy on the grounds of preference, yet he has also strenuously criticized those who similarly express a preference for inaccuracy in reproduction. As I said, this is at best illogical and at worst hypocritical.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1196 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Indeed I did, JJ, and as you know, I thought the results after processing, were very impressive regarding both accuracy and stability of image localization and spatial immersion. But there wasn't just amplitude information to be worked with; the array did space the capsules at a distance similar to that of the human head, which will prove beneficial.


There's a little graph in one of the books on multichannel audio that shows the time/amplitude tradeoff.


Blumlein's realization that the ear/brain's use below 1kHz of phase difference to determine source direction could be replaced with amplitude difference was fundamental to stereo reproduction. But is the opposite the case? That the ear/brain's use above 2kHz of amplitude difference to determine source direction can be replaced by time-of-arrival difference? I don't know.

Quote
The knowledge has been around for some 75 years.

You'd think more people would use it.


I suspect that, other than for binaural systems, the use of predominantly time-based stereo data is tricky, with the difference between successful stereo image reproduction and a phasey, unstable mess being all too easy to get wrong :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1197 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
But is the opposite the case? That the ear/brain's use above 2kHz of amplitude difference to determine source direction can be replaced by time-of-arrival difference? I don't know.

No, for frequencies above roughly 1700 Hz the angle of a source can no longer be uniquely determined from the time difference, because there the wave length is smaller than the size of the human head.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1198 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
We have this self-proclaimed subjectivist, who bases his entire critique on two plots made by test equipment. Yes, test equipment.

John's entire critique misses what I think is the most important issue of all, which is what did this choir sound like in the space where they performed, from the viewpoint of the most important listeners? 

I know, I was there.



We have this self-proclaimed objectivist, who bases his entire argument on one subjective claim. Yes, one subjective claim.

Who might that self-proclaimed objectivist be? It is clearly not me, so your comment seems to be irrelevant.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1199 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I'm ROTFLMAO at Atkinson's critque of my high school choir recording.

We have this self-proclaimed subjectivist, who bases his entire critique on two plots made by test equipment. Yes, test equipment.


I don't understand why you are making a big point about my using test equipment, Mr. Krueger. Others might not be aware of this, but you do know, having referred to the fact on many occasions: I perform all the measurements that are included in Stereophile's  component reviews. I have a well-equipped lab and use it.

But I didn't "base [my] entire critique on two plots made by test equipment."  First I described what I heard while listening to your recording: "the audibility of the background hiss, the rather scratchy quality in the upper midrange, and the depressed lower frequencies."

It is clear, I would have thought, that these are descriptions of sound quality. ANd note that I said "lower frequencies," _not_  "low frequencies." _Then_, as this is HA, I proved technical support for those opinions, in the form of a link to spectral analysis of the entire excerpt: "Here is a link to a spectral analysis of the entire track: http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/sho....php/photo/2020 . The smooth rolloff below 500Hz is peculiar, while the spectral content below 100Hz is all noise."

Quote
John's entire critique misses what I think is the most important issue of all, which is what did this choir sound like in the space where they performed, from the viewpoint of the most important listeners? 

I know, I was there. Were the voices scratchy? Well, it was during the winter cough and colds season in Michigan. Go figure!


My use of the word "scratchy" referred to a coarse, rather "intermoddy," "buzzy" nature to the high frequencies, not to the singers themselves. Not having access to your recording chain, I can't investigate or substantiate further. As as this is HA, I don't see that I have to take your unsupported word that the recording accurately captured the choir's tonal balance.

Quote
One of John's critical points is absolutely ludicrous - being that the recording has no bass below 100 Hz.  How much bass below 100 Hz does one find in a high school choir singing a capella?  The answer is *none*. Most of the boys in this choir voice's have only started to change. And like most high school choirs, there really weren't a lot of boys.


You are conflating two statements of mine, Mr. Krueger, to construct a "debating trade" brick without straw. Note that my subjective observation concerned the "lower frequencies," not the "bass below 100Hz." The recording sounds "thin," which I suspect correlates with the lack of energy in the 150-300Hz region as revealed by the spectral analysis. You didn't identify the microphones specifically used on this recording, other than implying they were either cardioids or hypercardioids, but I suspect these mikes were actually intended for close use, where proximity effect would be assumed. When such mikes are used for distant pickup, you will get this rather threadbare tonal quality. It would help, therefore, if you did identify the mikes used.

Quote
But yet the recording has is in Atkinson's view a serious fault because it did not magically come up with bass that was not naturally present in the live performance? LOL!


That's not what I said at all, Mr. Krueger. My reference to the signal present below 100Hz was that it is all noise, in case anyone was fooled into thinking there were valid data present in this region. This noise measures somewhat high in level and is audible.The presence of LF noise is always a problem when distant-miking choirs, due to the lack of masking in this frequency region. In my own choral recordings, to which I gave a link, I actually spend more time tracking down the sources of things like AC noise than I do setting up my mikes :-( 

And you didn't address the major criticism I made of your preferred mike technique, which again was supported by a graph but was snipped in your response..

Quote
Quote
Quote
BTW, I would say that this recording has a little too much separation to
be lifelike...


"Too much separation"? Here is an X-Y 'scope analysis of the finale: http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/sho....php/photo/2021. As I
said, if you made this recording using almost-coincident, crossed cardioids or even hypercardioids, the result is really "fat mono."


[_No comment from Mr. Krueger._]


You defended your choice of a demonstrably inaccurate mike technique on the grounds that your prefer it, Mr. Krueger: "I'm in favor of people having such preferences as they wish...Including me! ;-)"

This is the point that I have trying to get you to comprehend, Mr. Krueger. You (and others) have been strenuously criticizing audiophiles in this thread for expressing a preference for reproduced sound that, in your opinion, is technically inaccurate. If you do so, it is illogical at best and hypocritical at worst for you to try to defend technical inaccuracy in the recordings you make on the ground that it is your preference.

If it is okay for you to prefer technically flawed sound, Mr. Krueger, then it also okay for audiophiles to do likewise. Conversely, if audiophiles are wrong to prefer technically inaccurate sound, then so must you be wrong, Mr. Krueger.

I am still waiting for you to show the illogic in that argument, Mr. Krueger. I suspect that I will be waiting a long time.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile