Guest Anonymous Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 haha you know it! dragon no longer hangs around here, actually he had a lot of good info to share, but he just didn't gel or somethign Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popbumper Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I agree wholeheartedly that it is "all about the ears". However, people generally like to choose a reference by which to measure absolutes - in this case physics and science - to help them better comprehend and understand something that is not easily translated, otherwise. A calibrated tool is far easier to accept than a "variable ear". Take for example the auditions of "American Idol" - in SO many cases, individuals spout off about how their friends and relatives THINK they have a great voice - as do they, and then the truth comes out. The results are AWFUL, and these folks walk away in dejection, thinking that they have somehow been cheated. Are these contestants tone deaf? Perhaps. The judges HEAR these folks sing, evaluate it, and make a decision. While the judges do NOT have "calibrated ears", they nonetheless possess a good "sense" of tonal balance, and what sounds "right". Are they wrong? Would an electromechanical evaluation system do a better job of weeding out the "good and bad" from one another? Do some folks have bad "tuning"? Since we all possess ears of different "hearing capacity", then there is really no way any one of us can be an authority on "what is best". A McDonalds hamburger tastes 400 different ways to 400 different people, no matter how subtle the difference in perception. Conclusion: Like what you like, share your experiences, don't be surprised by differences in opinion, don't try to argue your perceptions to the death, and experiment to find what is best for YOU. One man's meat is another man's mush. Popbumper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 poper I know what I like, I am trying to learn what is a good value, what makes agood improvement to my ssytem, what corrects the problems, without buying everything to hear it, I can't audition every fat guy on Idol, I have to rely on objective information... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popbumper Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Colin: Please don't misunderstand me, this was not a criticism in any way - which I why I said "share your experiences". Heck, I would be clueless if I could not draw from others experiences and expertise. I was simply stating that the "uncalibrated human ear" is a poor measurement tool (from an "absolute" standpoint), and science cannot always tell us "what is right". Enjoy your trip discovering the best audio experience - I do! Popbumper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 yeah, popbummer dude, I know, I was simply simply stating that the "uncalibrated human ear" IS a wonderful "measurement tool! Besides it IS the absoute one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 ---------------- On 1/20/2005 12:37:31 PM Colin wrote: poper I know what I like, I am trying to learn what is a good value, what makes agood improvement to my ssytem, what corrects the problems, without buying everything to hear it, I can't audition every fat guy on Idol, I have to rely on objective information... ---------------- even though we all use the objective information, we use the info that is given to us right? i mean i personally would rather listen to an amp rather than to use that same amp and hook it all u and test it with a TEF adn plot out the nyquist points and then read from there.... that kind of ocjective information (i think) should come well after you have demo'd a piece of equipment and you are trying to narrow down between 2 or 3 pieces, if that makes sense? thats what my original point was, that you find something you like with that objective information and if that holds water then you demo it then from there, if so desired, then use instruments like an spl or tef to further help a descion to be made Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popbumper Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Hehehe - I *wish* I could say my uncalibrated human ear was a wonderful test tool, but somehow the ravages of time and the abuse of a close proximity tweeter at my left ear with car stereo in my 20's left a remarkable, er, "deficit" that I remain with this day. Oh, to have that back, not to mention the gift of presbyopia (40+ age loss of vision accomodation). Such is life!! Popbumper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 OK. Let's start at the beginning: MYTH 1, Analogue is better than digital One of the items listed here is "Supposed theory (ST) Two Forms: Analog gear has unlimited bandwidth and/or resolution" and "Digital is unnatural and sounds 'digital' " My Two Cents: Hmmmmm........... I wonder how many audiophiles who hold this view are aware of the current state (at least the last 20 years or more) of quantum physics where theory suggests that it is very likely time itself may come in "bits" (ie: digital). Newton may have been a brilliant mathematician and scientist, way ahead of his time, however he also had to deal with the knowledge limitations of his time. It's quite probable that time does not "ebb & flow like a river" (Newtonion theory)(analog concept). In other words, the whole world is "digital". Just something to think about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Al, You earned this comment...that was succulent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Klappenberger Posted January 21, 2005 Author Share Posted January 21, 2005 J.4 You WOULD have to remember that! Al K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinlr Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 ---------------- On 1/20/2005 6:00:42 PM artto wrote: OK. Let's start at the beginning: MYTH 1, Analogue is better than digital One of the items listed here is "Supposed theory (ST) Two Forms: Analog gear has unlimited bandwidth and/or resolution" and "Digital is unnatural and sounds 'digital' " My Two Cents: Hmmmmm........... I wonder how many audiophiles who hold this view are aware of the current state (at least the last 20 years or more) of quantum physics where theory suggests that it is very likely time itself may come in "bits" (ie: digital). Newton may have been a brilliant mathematician and scientist, way ahead of his time, however he also had to deal with the knowledge limitations of his time. It's quite probable that time does not "ebb & flow like a river" (Newtonion theory)(analog concept). In other words, the whole world is "digital". Just something to think about ---------------- Very interesting about light. That would turn everything on its ear. Here's some more food for thought. Ever noticed that in beginning calculus we are always talking about infinitely small little blocks of area. Integrate it and we no longer have little blocks under the curve - we have a smooth fit. So we start with digital and turn it into analog for the answer because we made the blocks so small that they all fit perfectly under the curve. Ever notice that calculus never discusses that the tiny blocks, no matter how small, are still blocks - or are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 ---------------- On 1/21/2005 7:11:11 PM richinlr wrote: Here's some more food for thought. Ever noticed that in beginning calculus we are always talking about infinitely small little blocks of area. Integrate it and we no longer have little blocks under the curve - we have a smooth fit. So we start with digital and turn it into analog for the answer because we made the blocks so small that they all fit perfectly under the curve. Ever notice that calculus never discusses that the tiny blocks, no matter how small, are still blocks - or are they? ---------------- Nah, dude - "everyone" knows that the little blocks are now tiny little vibrating strings... DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 ---------------- On 1/21/2005 7:11:11 PM richinlr wrote: Here's some more food for thought. Ever noticed that in beginning calculus we are always talking about infinitely small little blocks of area. Integrate it and we no longer have little blocks under the curve - we have a smooth fit. So we start with digital and turn it into analog for the answer because we made the blocks so small that they all fit perfectly under the curve. Ever notice that calculus never discusses that the tiny blocks, no matter how small, are still blocks - or are they? ---------------- I've had a lot of problems swallowing the whole calculas thing because the concept on which it is based is fundamently flawed. Nevertheless, we still use calculus because it's an almost perfect approximation and works well enough for real life situations...there are times when the math breaks down and doesn't work, but that's what creating new math is for We all grow up learning non-euclidian geometry, but there are completely different sets of math out there that will contradict each other, but each are consistent within themeselves (which is the criteria given for a math system to be considered true). Ironically, the contradicting systems of math all work in real life...just that some work better than others in different situations. I think it's interesting to correlate the integral with digital audio. The only problem with the analogy is that digital audio doesn't have infinetly small "blocks." However, there is a point at which those blocks should be smaller than the human ear can detect...well small enough such that the derived analog signal is so close that you can't hear a difference. I was reading an old mixing textbook the other day and it was talking about how our ears create combination tones. Basically, the ear will combine any two tones such that you hear an additional two (so 4 total). You hear f1, f2, f1+f2 and f1-f2. So if you have a flute producing overtones at 30kHz and 35kHz, then your ear creates another tone at 5kHz...if our digital medium or speakers aren't able to capture the ultrasonic frequencies, then we aren't going to hear that extra 5kHz tone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinlr Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 ---------------- On 1/21/2005 8:05:54 PM DrWho wrote: I was reading an old mixing textbook the other day and it was talking about how our ears create combination tones. Basically, the ear will combine any two tones such that you hear an additional two (so 4 total). You hear f1, f2, f1+f2 and f1-f2. So if you have a flute producing overtones at 30kHz and 35kHz, then your ear creates another tone at 5kHz...if our digital medium or speakers aren't able to capture the ultrasonic frequencies, then we aren't going to hear that extra 5kHz tone. ---------------- As an old flute player, I have consistently noticed that no recording or system ever really gets a flute to sound as intense as it really does when you are in the same room with a person playing a flute. Flutes really are loud and intense. Perhaps the difference tones created by the overtones are a fundamental part of that intensity. The 5kHz tone is certainly in the range that would make a significant contribution to the overall SPL of a flute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinlr Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 ---------------- On 1/21/2005 7:19:29 PM D-MAN wrote: ---------------- On 1/21/2005 7:11:11 PM richinlr wrote: Here's some more food for thought. Ever noticed that in beginning calculus we are always talking about infinitely small little blocks of area. Integrate it and we no longer have little blocks under the curve - we have a smooth fit. So we start with digital and turn it into analog for the answer because we made the blocks so small that they all fit perfectly under the curve. Ever notice that calculus never discusses that the tiny blocks, no matter how small, are still blocks - or are they? ---------------- Nah, dude - "everyone" knows that the little blocks are now tiny little vibrating strings... DM ---------------- Huh? I must be thick here or missed something along the way - I've read your response a few times but, for the life of me, cannot fathom the meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 richinir: My point exactly. Same thing with a drum cynbal. You need about maybe 4 or 5 more drivers, each one running at 1/5th the volume so that you have the same power output but you are moving more air. This will give you the added presense of the flute. It takes a musician to really create the ultimate speaker. The K-horns reproduce just fine with the bass and bass drums but the midrange and high end need to push more air period. Output DB is only one measurement and does not represent itself properly when a live band is in your living room. Play the recording, then have the live band play the same song. Not even close. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinlr Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 ---------------- On 1/22/2005 10:13:00 AM JJKIZAK wrote: richinir: My point exactly. Same thing with a drum cynbal. You need about maybe 4 or 5 more drivers, each one running at 1/5th the volume so that you have the same power output but you are moving more air. This will give you the added presense of the flute. It takes a musician to really create the ultimate speaker. The K-horns reproduce just fine with the bass and bass drums but the midrange and high end need to push more air period. Output DB is only one measurement and does not represent itself properly when a live band is in your living room. Play the recording, then have the live band play the same song. Not even close. JJK ---------------- As always - go and listen to live music - no system in the world, no matter the cost, ever gets close. One of the reasons I like my little Klipsch RB-25's is that, somehow, they manage to hint at that intangible 'edginess' that live music has. The RB-15's & RB-35's do not have the RB-25's magic. After years of listening, I am in TOTAL agreement with PWK - the music is in the midrange and if the midrange ain't perfect there isn't any music. And that is why I was disapointed when I heard RF-7's playing music that was well recorded (Sheffield) and very familiar. Don't get me wrong - at first I was absolutely bowled over by the RF-7's but two female vocal tracks on a single Sheffield CD wound up putting me off. Both of these tracks are noticeably better on my Eminent Technology LFT-VIII's. And I won't give that up. So I have to keep looking... Haven't heard K-horns in a LONG time - maybe they CAN do it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 ---------------- On 1/22/2005 10:13:00 AM JJKIZAK wrote: richinir: My point exactly. Same thing with a drum cynbal. You need about maybe 4 or 5 more drivers, each one running at 1/5th the volume so that you have the same power output but you are moving more air. This will give you the added presense of the flute. It takes a musician to really create the ultimate speaker. The K-horns reproduce just fine with the bass and bass drums but the midrange and high end need to push more air period. Output DB is only one measurement and does not represent itself properly when a live band is in your living room. Play the recording, then have the live band play the same song. Not even close. JJK ---------------- Ummm...SPL is actually a measure of how much air is moving. Adding more drivers doesn't move more air because each driver is going through less excursion. 5 drivers moving 1/5 the distance is like 5sa x 1/5ex = 1v whereas one driver is still 1sa x 1ex = 1v (sa = surface area; ex = excursion; v = volume air moved). The only thing adding more drivers will do is introduce a lot of comb-filtering effects. I suppose you could claim each driver is moving 1/5 the distance, thus reducing frequency modulation distortion, but I think the new distortions would mask that...especially in our rooms (outside wouldn't be as big of a deal). In my time spent in the studio, I have found that it is much harder to capture the sound of the kick and toms versus that of the cymbals. But once you convert the mix from 192kHz down to 44.1kHz, the cymbals instantly start sounding awful. At 20kHz you're only getting two samples for the frequency versus 1,000 samples at 44Hz (I think I did the math right). There are also different recording methods that may or may not make the cymbals sound awful. What particular recordings are you listening to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 "Calculus is fundamentaly flawed"? LMFAO, tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.