The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Ethan Winer on... Condenser Microphones
Old 5th September 2008
  #61
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
No, I'd have multiple microphones all set up to record at the same time, which is how Doug and I compared his TLM 103 to my 4033.

BTW, Grekim is a guy, seen in the photos partway down THIS page. Better edit your post quick because I'm about to email him a link to this thread. heh

--Ethan
Got it, I do have my questions on testing it that way with distance and room effect but that would be a bit OT. I will email you next week about it.

Glenn
Old 5th September 2008
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Martin Kantola's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6strings View Post
Right? It reads like Martin's trying to call in a Slutz mortar attack on Ethan's opinions. This thread should be locked and the OP given a swift kick in the ass.
Thank you for your comment, but this is not an attack. What Ethan says is supported by many, as noted he mostly represents the current standard and scientifically accepted truth. Or something like that. Have nothing but respect for Ethan AND his opinions, especially because they are so well expressed and explained.

I'm sorry if you think I did wrong by bringing up these questions to what has become an interesting discussion, at least in my opinion. Yes, I should have presented the material in some other way to avoid upsetting people to this degree, because that's not what I wanted. But I read his statements in the thread and thought they spoke for themselves so well, even out of context.

Martin
Old 5th September 2008
  #63
Lives for gear
 
Ben B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
I'd take a nice tape machine any day over "affordable" digital.

Anyone saying otherwise just hasn't really heard the differences.
Not everyone with experience with tape feels that way.

-Ben B
Old 5th September 2008
  #64
Gear Nut
 
memedesigner's Avatar
 

Two worlds perfectly collide. Wow!

From my musician perspective, an inspired studio engineer is the best engineer. If it's the frequency response charts that float his boat, great. If it's how a combination of gear treats his ears well, great. As long as the inspiration based on talent and expertise and fun is there.
Old 5th September 2008
  #65
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
If you read the thread Martin linked to you'll see that I listed several reasons that microphones cannot always be EQ'd to sound exactly the same. But if you think there's "more to" the sound of microphones than the known parameters of frequency response, noise, and distortion, I'd say the burden is on you to explain what else there is. Please be as detailed as possible! heh


--Ethan
that bastard child of a talking point: phase ? not sure what kind of distortion you are reffering to.
Old 5th September 2008
  #66
Lives for gear
 

You invited comments so..... I think Ethan is only seeing the "truth" that is convenient for him. All the things put to question are quite complex and cannot be proved or disproved easily. Take mic response, the non linearities in the phase response, distortion figures, resonant frequencies etc etc cannot be reduced to eq alone. You might get close with compensatory EQ A/Bing one voice at one note for one intensity, but is that conclusive? Not very scientific for someone who can do better....
Old 5th September 2008
  #67
Lives for gear
 
sdelsolray's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
This is the perfect answer. As I wrote above, warm and fuzzy terms mean nothing except to the person saying them. But the purpose of forums like Gearslutz is to spread information and knowledge. And that requires using words that mean the same thing to everyone.



Maybe fine for you, but not fine for me, or for the thousands of audio engineers who want to truly understand their craft! Taken to the extreme, that attitude is the same as suggesting people should drop out of school early, and vote for their president based on random throws of a dart. Or in the context of audio, turning knobs randomly hoping to get something good by chance. There's a word for that attitude: anti-intellectualism. heh

--Ethan
You conveniently did not address the main point of my argument - that the source and listener are factors of which and whom you are not taking into account. Now, if you want to remove those two from your analysis, that's just fine. Using test tones or white noise as sources and test equipment as the "listener" is certainly soemthing that you can do. Of course, any results will be limited to that setting.

Again, your false premise is that you assume you can apply those results to real sources and human listeners. Please demonstrate/explain how this premise is true.
Old 5th September 2008
  #68
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Kantola View Post
What Ethan says is supported by many, as noted he mostly represents the current standard and scientifically accepted truth.
I wish that were true. It's certainly not true among audiophiles where there's a strong anti-science bias.

Quote:
I should have presented the material in some other way to avoid upsetting people to this degree, because that's not what I wanted.
I'm sure face to face you're a very nice person who loves his kitty and all other animals. heh But you're not totally innocent here, and I still believe your intent was to ridicule as you've done at Harmony Central where your sig quotes me on microphone distortion as if it's the silliest thing you've ever heard.

I can defend myself very well on the science. And unlike many, if I'm wrong I'll gladly admit it. The only thing I cannot defend against are those who ignore the points I make and continue to toss insults. This post by TurboJets in the thread you linked to is a perfect example of someone who is very angry with me, and wants to make sure everyone sees his anger, yet he has nothing to refute my direct questions:

D/A A/D Converter. Essential?

I see this over and over here, at Harmony Central, and at plenty of audiophile type sites. You'd think I'd learn! heh

--Ethan
Old 5th September 2008
  #69
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdelsolray View Post
You conveniently did not address the main point of my argument - that the source and listener are factors of which and whom you are not taking into account. Now, if you want to remove those two from your analysis, that's just fine. Using test tones or white noise as sources and test equipment as the "listener" is certainly soemthing that you can do. Of course, any results will be limited to that setting.

Again, your false premise is that you assume you can apply those results to real sources and human listeners. Please demonstrate/explain how this premise is true.
I think you're confusing music and music appreciation which are art, versus audio which is a science. How people perceive things, and what makes you smile, are outside the realm of science. But what constitutes high fidelity with audio gear is very much science and can be tested using science methods.

If this is not what you're asking, again I ask you to please clarify.

--Ethan
Old 5th September 2008
  #70
Lives for gear
 
ssaudio's Avatar
 

Well, maybe you should learn

The way I see it you have made some very valid points that when taken in the proper context are perfectly understandable, non-contentious and the basis (at the very least) of a good conversation.

WTF others here are slavering on about is beyond me, because no-one has made a point that in any way relates to what you have actually said.
Quite why any audio engineer would want to rail against basic science as a tool so much is a mystery

Seems to me all this 'the ears know best' bollocks is a smokescreen for inadequacy

There's no doubt in my mind the OP is not here for the hunting
Old 5th September 2008
  #71
Lives for gear
 
Martin Kantola's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
But you're not totally innocent here, and I still believe your intent was to ridicule as you've done at Harmony Central where your sig quotes me on microphone distortion as if it's the silliest thing you've ever heard.
I gladly confess that I consider that quote you mention a classic to me. But there's also a deeper question in there, and that's what I'm here to discuss. My intent is not to ridicule. When it comes to audio, I'm a serious person. If you can't tell from my posts, that's too bad.

Sure, your statements can be considered provocative, depending on where one comes from, and naturally I guessed they would cause some reaction, and therefore get a discussion going. As I said, you are not alone in your camp either. But, I'm truly sorry if someone got hurt.

For the last time, I respect your point of view even if I don't always agree with you.

Martin
Old 5th September 2008
  #72
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Kantola View Post
I gladly confess that I consider that quote you mention a classic to me.
It is classic because it's true. If you offered something - anything! - to contradict it we'd have the basis for a discussion. But you never offered any evidence that I'm wrong. BTW, for the others, what I said was in the context of test gear being much more reliable than ears:

Quote:
Ears distort. A lot. Microphones distort only a little.
Hey, I like that. Maybe that should be my new sig. heh

--Ethan
Old 5th September 2008
  #73
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
There's not enough demand for really good quality to manufacture it in numbers that bring prices down significantly. The Aurora is the least expensive multichannel unit that uses something other than JRC4XXX opamps and a decent low jitter clock.
Part of the blame must be taken on the different clockings (44,1/48/88 and so on), because those require the manufacturers to add PLLs (which raise jitter).
I've done some more studio testing (as promised earlier) on my Aurora and it seems to be non transparent at 44.1kS/s and 192kS/s. Better at 192 though. At both settings some in the BT panel was like 10-12 correct in a row comparing before and after. I was surprised because my quick tests at home indicated transparency. I'm surprises because it measures so well. Thinking on doing some mods to it to see if it can be improved. Changing opamps, DC couple it.

Quote:
I know there is a lack of science in this. I don't have the equipment to measure these differences in an objective way. I've done enough tests to hear for myself and others, who have agreed - in blind tests - about these findings. But I don't think you're actually contradicting this. I agree that anything below 90db doesn't matter. But I don't think "affordable" converters today posess this level of accuracy. If they were transparent like this, mixing the original signal with the one that made a round trip through the ADDA wouldn't put out a very audible differential signal between 20Hz and 20Khz.
Digital filtering may be one answer. The Aurora for example has some non symetrical filters (probably to get down latency for studio work). Aliasing distortion that needs special test signals to be seen (working on such a test).


Quote:
As for microphones, there are resonances which build up and decay over time. If you filter these out, you take some of the wanted signal out inevitably.
Well not really since both the mic and EQ are minimum phase devices.


/Peter
Old 5th September 2008
  #74
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
Quote:
I'm sure face to face you're a very nice person who loves his kitty and all other animals. But you're not totally innocent here, and I still believe your intent was to ridicule as you've done at Harmony Central where your sig quotes me on microphone distortion as if it's the silliest thing you've ever heard.
Thats BS, Martin Kantola change your sig, dude!!!!!

Glenn
Old 5th September 2008
  #75
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
My problem with words like "musical" and "aesthetically pleasing" is they say nothing of use to anyone except the person saying them.
Agree!


Quote:
As I said before, you cannot have clean and colored at the same time. Pick one and stick with it.
Clean please! :-)



Quote:
Topology doesn't matter except as related to the final results. A Class A power amp can have distortion too soft to hear, but so can Class B or Class D.
I don't know of a low biased B amp or any D amp that has passed a rigorous BT but you don't need class A all the way though.


Quote:
It was established at least 20 years ago that all competent power amps sound exactly the same as long as they are not driven into clipping. Audiophiles hate that! But I have never seen one legitimate study that refutes this. Note the "competent" part - some audiophile gear is truly lame, like the "no negative feedback" junk you see at hi-fi shows.
Not so. Most amps do color audibly at low to medium settings. You just need a good method and set up. Swedish LTS has tested lots of gear thru the years and only a couple of amps have passed a blind test without detection. Amps are connected with a dummy load in a complete set-up and listening is performed at the signal before and after the DUT.

Actually it's hard to find audibly transparent audio gear. I will never give up though.


/Peter
Old 5th September 2008
  #76
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdelsolray View Post
Why must it mean anything, except the subjective impression of the listener? Your arguments are all based on a false premise - that the interpretation of sound can be distilled into four simple parameters. You fail to take into account two other major factors - the source and the listener. No doubt, scientific parameters can be devised for these two factors, but given the complexities of the performer and listener, I suspect it will be more than four.

It's just fine to not know something.
You don't really understand this whole objective/subjective thang, huh?

I can guarantee you that Ethan is not talking about the interpretation of sound. He's not talking about the message. He's talking about signal integrity.
Old 5th September 2008
  #77
Gear Addict
 
kittyboy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
You invited comments so..... I think Ethan is only seeing the "truth" that is convenient for him. All the things put to question are quite complex and cannot be proved or disproved easily. Take mic response, the non linearities in the phase response, distortion figures, resonant frequencies etc etc cannot be reduced to eq alone. You might get close with compensatory EQ A/Bing one voice at one note for one intensity, but is that conclusive? Not very scientific for someone who can do better....
I love Ethan, and he's been of great help to me personally with sound treatment, but I think his statement about mics and eq is silly, refuted well by the quote above.

Ethan, care to comment?
Old 5th September 2008
  #78
Lives for gear
 
JohnRoberts's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Kantola View Post
Great post JR, not only because I agree with you 100% but thanks for the fascinating comments on preamp differences! Clearly some designers have more knowledge about the details that makes a piece of gear sound sweet, and not only stay within basic tech specs.



Absolutely. That is, theoretically you will be able to measure it. Because otherwise it's just not there, right?

But would you say the current state of measurement technology can give us the whole truth when it comes to audio? In other words, are ears necessary anymore in audio design and equipment evaluation? In the old days, measurements were very basic, and ears played a bigger role. For some reason, vintage equipment seems quite appreciated in general. But the same if true for vintage cars.

Martin
Measurement equipment is always in a horse race with the gear it is trying to measure. Ideally you need the measurement noise floor and linearity to be at least 10dB better than what you're measuring to not introduce errors. By definition you can't press the SOTA and measure it too. While I don't want to put words in Ethan's mouth, I believe one of his primary points is that once linearity is down 80dB it is hard to claim "night and day" differences for it's presence or absence. While I agree in principle, not all distortions measurements are created equal, so a measurement made below full scale may not represent performance at nominal listening levels. I have actually discussed that point with Ethan, in other threads on this BB and IIRC he conceded the point. I repeat the presentation of his philosophy as bullet points without qualification is going to create controversy and not accurately represent his true position.
====

I did a lot of analog design work over the decades with a limited budget for test equipment. But a clever engineer can always get by. In some cases I modified existing test equipment, or rolled my own, in one case I cobbled together a THD analyzer with X db resolution, with a spectrum analyser with Y dB resolution to extend my measurement floor to almost X+Y. I had to run the THD analyzer 10dB below it's nominal level to keep from measuring it's distortion, but I did get another 20 to 30 dB measurement range.

For some tasks I made test gear that was not available at any price, until recently with computer generated files. I did a lot of design with dynamics processing (mostly companding NR but a few comps). I designed my own tone burst generator with a lot of control flexibility that allowed me to zero in on sundry transient artifacts caused by the real world limitations of finite attack/release in compressor gain elements. Trying to isolate those same artifacts with musical program or voice is very difficult and a matter of chance. After you get it sounding good with the worst case artificial stimulus you can throw at it, music is a cake walk.

Perhaps germane to this discussion, when designing dynamics processing where some error is always present, the ear is the final arbiter of whether approach A sounds better than approach B. Looking at oscilloscope waveforms is helpful to identify what is going on, and helpful to the designer in improving the design, but the waveform that looks the best is not always the waveform that sounds the best.

IMO intelligent design is the prudent combination of test equipment and audition, but I am very aware of the quirks and variability of human audition so I use it as a secondary proof or backup that you didn't make a mistake with objective test equipment. I have plenty of personal experience with a circuit that measured well but sounded like crap, but it was always because I measured the wrong thing, or the wrong way.

It takes a lot of experience to be able to gauge equipment by inspecting a data sheet. Most competitive gear should deliver GOP (good on paper) specs. A more likely error is consumers thinking 0.00001% is better than 0.001% , in 99.9999% of the cases audible differences are not on the data sheet.

Sorry if this is rambling but this is an old topic that has been hashed out multiple times.

JR
Old 5th September 2008
  #79
Lives for gear
 
wesarvin's Avatar
 

Ethan's a cool dude. Who else would take the time that he does to educate us about audio and acoustics. I'm not a great engineer by any means, but have gotten much, much better (to the point of competitive quality that rivals local engineers) through this site and others, and that knowledge has been augmented by Ethan's numerous articles on acoustics.

Grinding him on the slightest of logical fallacies is simply an unfair, childish, ridiculous attack against a fellow GS'er who's done more for this community than 98% of its posters. Does everybody get this kind of treatment? Martin...did somebody piss in your cornflakes?
Old 5th September 2008
  #80
I think one has to be very clear in his own mind about just what is being measured and how much -- or how little -- that can tell us about a given phenomenon.

I think one also has to be very clear about what is an objective measure and what is subjective.

In science, clarity of thought is everything.
Old 5th September 2008
  #81
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyboy View Post
I think his statement about mics and eq is silly, refuted well by the quote above. Ethan, care to comment?
If you read the entire thread(s) in context you'll see that I never said EQ can make one microphone sound just like another. I went out of my way to explain situations EQ cannot compensate for. Though I do think in the larger picture EQ alone can get pretty close for some sources. Of course, it depends on which two microphones are being considered.

For example, an SM58 will never sound like a Neumann U87 because the latter has a response well past 20 KHz where an SM58 cuts off pretty sharply after 10 KHz:



So you can boost 20 KHz all you want trying in vain to match the SM58 to the Neumann, but all you'll get for your effort is more preamp hiss.

This reminds me of the way politicians put words into the mouth of a competitor, and then challenge the competitor on what he never even said. heh

--Ethan
Old 5th September 2008
  #82
Lives for gear
 
Martin Kantola's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
If you offered something - anything! - to contradict it we'd have the basis for a discussion. But you never offered any evidence that I'm wrong.
Evidence? Don't know, but I'm certainly trying my best to make my point. Haven't you noticed already?

Never thought of this is terms of presenting evidence to try to prove someone completely wrong. Maybe you are absolutely right or at least onto something very important, maybe ears do distort a lot?

Just can't think of a way to measure that, and that's exactly why I find it difficult to believe this claim. How was this distortion measured? The other obvious question is; how come distortion in audio equipment is not swamped by the in-ear distortion?

Martin
Old 5th September 2008
  #83
Gear Maniac
 
RonCarlston's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post



So you can boost 20 KHz all you want trying in vain to match the SM58 to the Neumann, but all you'll get for your effort is more preamp hiss.

To compare 2 condensers, could you EQ a rode NT2 and make it sound like a CM7?
Old 5th September 2008
  #84
Lives for gear
 
Martin Kantola's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
In the 1970s and 80s I had a Tube U-47 which I eventually converted to FET when the VF14 tube wore out. I've never had or heard an M-147 so I have no opinion on that comparison. But if they sound different, then the difference can be easily explained using the four known parameters. Which is my entire point.
OK, so let's talk about your microphone before and after the conversion. I know some might say it's not even the same mike anymore, but that's not what I'm getting at here. What could be interesting to discuss is:

Were you able to either measure or hear a change in the sound as you replaced the tube with a FET? I know the difference might seem subtle, but we can't ignore that people pay thousands of dollars for subtle differences, and that endless discussions on GS are fed by these. The whole thing practically runs on it...

You see, if we can define the measurements that clearly show the possible differences between a tube and FET U47, we've come a long way. Trying to see things your way now; I can probably show that the FET overloads in a different manner, and that the noise spectrum is different maybe, but what else? Impedance matching with transformer is different I guess. Can we manage to gather all the important data that make the sound?

I understand your concept of the almighty four, but to put the theory into practical use we need to know what to measure in detail. All different kinds of distortion etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Good show Martin, this stuff needs to be discussed and understood much more IMO
Hope you really mean that, because then there's a least two of us...

Martin
Old 5th September 2008
  #85
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Kantola View Post
Evidence? Don't know, but I'm certainly trying my best to make my point. Haven't you noticed already?
What point are you trying to make with my quote in your sig?

Quote:
Maybe you are absolutely right or at least onto something very important, maybe ears do distort a lot?
Ears do distort a lot - this is very well known by audiologists!

Quote:
Just can't think of a way to measure that
It's tough to measure and express as a percent distortion, but the fact that ears have high distortion at loud levels is very well known, if not by you. heh

If I were to devise a test it would be a variation on normal hearing tests, where tones are presented and you identify at what level you can just barely hear them. But in this case I'd play 2,000 Hz and 2,100 Hz, and ask the subject at what point they hear the 100 Hz LF beat tone. Knowing the SPL level of the tones being played through the earphones, you could then come up with a distortion figure.

Quote:
how come distortion in audio equipment is not swamped by the in-ear distortion?
Because it happens mostly at high SPL levels. At lower levels ears are much more linear. Here's an easy test you can try for yourself to prove the effect:

If you have access to a glockenspiel (orchestra bells) play a minor third or major second somewhere in the top octave very loudly. That low frequency you hear is IM products generated inside your ear. I sometimes play percussion in a local orchestra, and it's easy to notice this. The people out in the audience don't usually hear it because they're much farther away, and the rest of the orchestra also masks the LF tones. But you'll hear it right at the bells even at moderately loud volumes.

--Ethan
Old 5th September 2008
  #86
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonCarlston View Post
could you EQ a rode NT2 and make it sound like a CM7?
I have no idea. When my friend Grekim and I get together to do a test, we'll use whatever microphones we have between us.

--Ethan
Old 5th September 2008
  #87
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Kantola View Post
Were you able to either measure or hear a change in the sound as you replaced the tube with a FET?
I didn't try to measure or hear a difference because by the time I made the FET conversion the tube had already been broken for a while.

Quote:
we can't ignore that people pay thousands of dollars for subtle differences
Yes, I agree that people pay a lot of money for things that I consider not valuable. Especially things like subtle tube and transformer distortion, which are easy to achieve in other inexpensive ways. But the purveyors of audio magic want people to believe, and a lot of people consciously choose to believe because it's easier than actually understanding the science.

You'll notice that, generally speaking, the people who actually design gear for a living and are successful at it, and who truly understand how gear works, do not believe in stuff like speaker wires or power conditioners or ultra high sample rates make a difference in sound quality. Think about that because it's very important!

Quote:
I can probably show that the FET overloads in a different manner, and that the noise spectrum is different maybe
Sure, but hopefully most people use their gear in the linear range, where distortion is low enough not to matter much. The big difference we all hear in gear is mainly frequency response IMO.

Quote:
but what else? Impedance matching with transformer is different I guess.
Yes, and John Roberts mentioned earlier microphone termination impedance. That does change the sound, but it's mainly an LF shelving change. This too is something I see people pay handsomely for, when they could achieve exactly the same effect with the EQ they already own.

Quote:
I understand your concept of the almighty four, but to put the theory into practical use we need to know what to measure in detail. All different kinds of distortion etc.
It's not that complicated. Really. Once you understand that those four parameters - and their subsets - define everything that matters with audio, the rest is downhill. THD is always accompanied by IM, and most gear distorts more or less the same with the higher order harmonics having lower amplitude. Yes, there's buzzy distortion and grungy distortion. But again, for gear operated in the linear range all of this stuff is pretty far down. Who cares what form the distortion is if the sum of all distortion is 80 or 100 dB or even more below the signal? Either way it's inaudible.

--Ethan
Old 5th September 2008
  #88
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Kantola View Post
Maybe you are absolutely right or at least onto something very important, maybe ears do distort a lot?
Google found this:

How Does the Inner Ear Generate Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions?

You have to pay for the full article, but the abstract makes the point well enough that this phenomenon is well known.

--Ethan
Old 5th September 2008
  #89
JWL
Lives for gear
 
JWL's Avatar
 

Interesting discussion. There is one point that has been touched upon in this thread, that I would like to bring into the foreground.

When we talk about music and audio, we tend to get bogged down in technicalities. We are all audio geeks after all, to some degree. We need science, because it helps us get good recordings.

The audiophile who pays $10k/foot for speaker wire is probably not buying a product that will measurably improve the sound of his system (unless his old speaker wires were paperclips duct-taped together...lol). However, the audiophile's EXPERIENCE of listening to the music will almost certainly be better..... if for no other reason than he knows he's listening to music through $10k/foot speaker wires!

It's a subtle but important distinction: scientific measurement of the phenomenon of music/audio on one hand, and the subjective EXPERIENCE of music within a consciousness are 2 different things. This is why the same person, at 2 different times in 2 different moods, can have 2 completely different reactions to the same piece of music.

As much as some of the audiophile snake oil annoys the heck out of me, at the end of the day I have to agree that, if it improves your listening experience, then it's valid.

But for me, it won't improve my listening experience unless I can actually hear the difference.....
Old 5th September 2008
  #90
Lives for gear
 
Jamzone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
At last, something of substance to comment on. heh



The problem I see with this position is that it puts forth the belief that there's some as-yet-unknown possibly magic property called "musical." The term "musicality" is common among audiophiles, but it doesn't mean anything because it's by definition subjective. Every day in the subwoofer section of the AVS forum, someone posts that they're looking for a "musical" sub. But what does that mean?

In the case of recording mediums, you can have clean or colored. You can't have both at the same time! The sound of analog tape is desirable to some, so the next step is to identify technically what causes that sound. As best I can tell this desirable quality is simply small amounts of distortion. That, and possibly head bump that adds oomph to the bottom and a slight HF roll-off that "warms" the sound. I can't imagine there's anything else at play, and my experience with tape sims and EQ have been positive as described in my article Gaining an Edge - with Subtle Distortion from Sound on Sound magazine.



Then you're not measuring everything that matters. Or you are trusting a manufacturer to report honestly the specs for their gear which may or may not be wise. More to the point, do you, Martin, have appropriate test gear? Have you ever actually measured audio gear at different frequencies and at different signal levels?



Agreed, and much of those other things have already been described in this thread and the one you linked to. But whatever is the difference between one microphone and another, it can be easily measured and then known. If you believe there is some quality that cannot be measured or expressed using the four known parameters, I'd love to hear more.

--Ethan
I've argued with a Genelec engineer when he was measuring the 8040 with sub vs 8050. He claimed that the only difference was the spl. But they certainly did'nt sound the same.

To even consider this is outrageous. The same goes for all gear...

By the way I've used Martins Mic's... They're outstanding! Many top notch producers in Sweden use them...

///Jamzone
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
burke111 / The Good News Channel
4
dannygold / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump