Do you like an A/D converter with 150dB dynamic range?
DigitalSignal
dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it might be useful because it can
eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?
Carey Carlan
news:1160440048.7...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
> dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it might be useful because it can
> eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?
Broaden the question. Is there ANY electrical processor with 150 dB S/N?
Isn't that into the realm of supercooling to eliminate thermal noise?
150 dB is about 1,000,000,000,000,000:1 ratio from loudest to softest.
hank alrich
> I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
> dynamic range, say 150dB.
Respectfully, I think you are unclear on the concept. We already have
ADC's with theoretical 144 dB dynamic range, which cannot be realized
due to the physical linmitations of the analog world in which these
devices must operate.
> I thought it might be useful because it can
> eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?
Hunh?
--
ha
Chevdo
says...
>
>DigitalSignal wrote:
>
>> I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
>> dynamic range, say 150dB.
>
>Respectfully, I think you are unclear on the concept. We already have
>ADC's with theoretical 144 dB dynamic range,
In other (actual question-answering) words, yes, there is a market.
Eeyore
hank alrich wrote:
I think he's getting at the idea that you wouldn't need a mic pre. Of course
you'd lose all the fabulous colourations these can offer !
Graham
Eeyore
Chevdo wrote:
There isn't yet a product though !
Graham
Chevdo
rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com says...
The 150dB figure was one the original poster arbitrarily mentioned
as an example of a 'very high dynamic range'. The statement "I wonder if there
is amarket for an audio A/D converter with a very high dynamic range, say
150dB" refers as much to a 144dB product as a 150dB product, due to
modification induced by the word 'say'. Therefore, the product he was asking
about DOES exist.
>Graham
>
>
Chris Hornbeck
>The 150dB figure was one the original poster arbitrarily mentioned
>as an example of a 'very high dynamic range'. The statement "I wonder if there
>is amarket for an audio A/D converter with a very high dynamic range, say
>150dB" refers as much to a 144dB product as a 150dB product, due to
>modification induced by the word 'say'. Therefore, the product he was asking
>about DOES exist.
At room temperature?
Chris Hornbeck
Chevdo
chrishornbe...@att.net says...
yes, the product exists at room temperature.. it is a solid, not a gas. And
since hank already discussed the inability to realize 144dB dynamic range after
the signal comes out of the digital device, you are simply wasting my time,
right?
Arny Krueger
message
news:1160440048.7...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Seems like a great idea if ears, mics, speakers and rooms could be found to
exploit it.
Eeyore
Chevdo wrote:
Actually, you're wasting *our* time since there is no source capable of a 150dB
dynamic range anyway !
120-130 dB would be very credible indeed.
And don't even get me started on threshold shift.
Graham
Eeyore
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "DigitalSignal" <digitals...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message
>
> > I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter
> > with very high dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it
> > might be useful because it can eliminate the needs for
> > multiple-gain front end. Any comments?
>
> Seems like a great idea if ears, mics, speakers and rooms could be found to
> exploit it.
Well, there you go !
I'd be very happy with 120 dB for sure.
Graham
Chevdo
rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com says...
No you are wasting my time even more than Chris did, since this is now the
THIRD time that has been mentioned when it only needed to be mentioned once.
Since nobody has contradicted it, you're doing nothing more than sloganeering.
And since it's a fact, there's no need for you to use what is probably your
usual method of argumentation - argument by repetition.
>And don't even get me started on threshold shift.
>
I'd rather not get you started on anything that will waste more of my time.
Eeyore
Chevdo wrote:
> In article <452B1555...@hotmail.com>,
> rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com says...
>
> >And don't even get me started on threshold shift.
>
> I'd rather not get you started on anything that will waste more of my time.
You seem to be impervious to education.
You'll go far I'm sure !
Graham
darkAvenger
There is a high noise problem caused by aimless posting.
DigitalSignal
I am sorry for the confusion I created. By 150dB dynamic range I mean
an A/D converter that can practically detect a large signal as high as
a few volts, and within the same time period it can detect a signal as
small as a few nano volts. To further clarify, when I say "within the
same time period", it does not necessarily mean at the exact same
sample points.
Say if we sample a frame of signal with 1024 points. The first a few
hundred points have magnitude as high as a few volts while the last a
few hundred points can go as low as a few nano-volts. This is how I
define the dynamic range. The question is: do you see a market for this
kind of A/D converter?
We do not talk about theoretical dynamic range. For a 24bit A/D
converter, the theretical dynamic range is 6.02 dB/bit * N bits =
144dB. This definition is not very useful. We all know a 24bit A/D
usually has only 110dB dynamic range due to various analog limitation.
I really appreciate your comments.
D.S.
Chris Hornbeck
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You seem to be impervious to education.
>
>You'll go far I'm sure !
Don't encourage them. The Combatative High Entropy
Verbal Discussion Obfuscator is an alpha release of
proto-military software into a civilian newsgroup,
which *just* skirts Geneva conventions.
It doesn't really learn but rather make learning
by others difficult. It's the newest terror weapon,
but still in alpha. Or maybe not...
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
Paul Stamler
> Say if we sample a frame of signal with 1024 points. The first a few
> hundred points have magnitude as high as a few volts while the last a
> few hundred points can go as low as a few nano-volts. This is how I
> define the dynamic range. The question is: do you see a market for this
> kind of A/D converter?
>
> We do not talk about theoretical dynamic range. For a 24bit A/D
> converter, the theretical dynamic range is 6.02 dB/bit * N bits =
> 144dB. This definition is not very useful. We all know a 24bit A/D
> usually has only 110dB dynamic range due to various analog limitation.
The same issue applies to a putative 150dB converter. Let's say full-scale
is 1V; 150dB below that is, if my arithmetic is correct, about 31.6nV. In a
20kHz bandwidth, that is the thermal noise (at room temperature) of a 3 ohm
resistor. In practical audio, there aren't sources that low except, perhaps,
untransformed ribbon microphones. So a converter with those specs would be
way overdesigned for any real-world signal it would ever be likely to be
asked to convert.
Peace,
Paul
Bob Cain
Sure would be if it could be done.
You would, however, lose the ability to match the mic with the "right"
preamp for it. :-)
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
ABacon
>Verbal Discussion Obfuscator is an alpha release of
>proto-military software into a civilian newsgroup
I'm going to keep that in the drawer for future use on other forums.
TIA for the ammo.
Arny Krueger
message news:452B159B...@hotmail.com
I'm obviously a cheap date. 100 dB dynamic range above 20 dB below normal
background noise levels in the studio and listening room, would be fine with
me. It seems so achievable - now show me a commercial recording that
actually does it!
Agent 86
>
> In other (actual question-answering) words, yes, there is a market.
There's obviously a market for Monster cable and ART preamps, so in that
respect, why not?
Whether there's any practical application is another matter altogether.
Agent 86
Hell, a lot of manufacturers publish power ratings without bandwidth or
distortion numbers, frequency response without tolerance. Just don't
mention that the testing was done in the "icy cold of space."
Scott Dorsey
Sure, if it sounds good.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
The way to get that sort of dynamic range isn't to extend the _bottom_ of the range, but to
extend the _top_. A front end that can handle a kilovolt is easy.
Arny Krueger
news:eggcq0$rmk$1...@panix2.panix.com
>
> The way to get that sort of dynamic range isn't to extend
> the _bottom_ of the range, but to extend the _top_. A
> front end that can handle a kilovolt is easy. --scott
But, will it have really low noise? Don't high voltage devices tend to be
noisier?
Scott Dorsey
>news:eggcq0$rmk$1...@panix2.panix.com
>>
>> The way to get that sort of dynamic range isn't to extend
>> the _bottom_ of the range, but to extend the _top_. A
>> front end that can handle a kilovolt is easy. --scott
>
>But, will it have really low noise? Don't high voltage devices tend to be
>noisier?
It doesn't have to have low noise. It just needs to have 150 dB between the noise floor and the
clipping point. The noise floor could be a couple volts and you would still have 150 dB of dynamic
range. Of course, it would be useless for audio, but it would have great numbers on the data sheet.
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> news:eggcq0$rmk$1...@panix2.panix.com
>>>
>>> The way to get that sort of dynamic range isn't to
>>> extend the _bottom_ of the range, but to extend the
>>> _top_. A front end that can handle a kilovolt is easy.
>>> --scott
>>
>> But, will it have really low noise? Don't high voltage
>> devices tend to be noisier?
>
> It doesn't have to have low noise. It just needs to have
> 150 dB between the noise floor and the clipping point.
OK.
> The noise floor could be a couple volts and you would
> still have 150 dB of dynamic range.
Correct my off-top-of-head calculation if it is wrong, but wouldn't it take
like a million volts to get 120 dBV?
That would be about 60 million volts for 150 dB over 2 volts.
I've played a little with making high voltage, and I found that even a mere
100,000 volts is hard to make, clean.
Scott Dorsey
>> still have 150 dB of dynamic range.
>
>Correct my off-top-of-head calculation if it is wrong, but wouldn't it take
>like a million volts to get 120 dBV?
>
>That would be about 60 million volts for 150 dB over 2 volts.
Right.
>I've played a little with making high voltage, and I found that even a mere
>100,000 volts is hard to make, clean.
The projection TV guys have it down reasonably well. But I am using this
as an extreme example, of course.
hank alrich
> Chevdupe wrote:
>
> >The 150dB figure was one the original poster arbitrarily mentioned as an
> >example of a 'very high dynamic range'. The statement "I wonder if there
> >is amarket for an audio A/D converter with a very high dynamic range, say
> >150dB" refers as much to a 144dB product as a 150dB product, due to
> >modification induced by the word 'say'. Therefore, the product he was
> >asking about DOES exist.
> At room temperature?
And hey, what's 6 dB anyway...
The product does not exist. Let Chevdupe run the math.
--
ha
hank alrich
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> >You seem to be impervious to education.
> >
> >You'll go far I'm sure !
>
> Don't encourage them. The Combatative High Entropy
> Verbal Discussion Obfuscator is an alpha release of
> proto-military software into a civilian newsgroup,
> which *just* skirts Geneva conventions.
>
> It doesn't really learn but rather make learning
> by others difficult. It's the newest terror weapon,
> but still in alpha. Or maybe not...
>
> Much thanks, as always,
>
> Chris Hornbeck
LOL!, and so apt.
--
ha
hank alrich
> DigitalSignal wrote:
> > I wonder if there is a market for an audio A/D converter with very high
> > dynamic range, say 150dB. I thought it might be useful because it can
> > eliminate the needs for multiple-gain front end. Any comments?
>
> Sure would be if it could be done.
>
> You would, however, lose the ability to match the mic with the "right"
> preamp for it. :-)
>
>
> Bob
While y'all like to jest about that, I posit that were y'all pro
photographers you'd think nothing of selecting an aoppropraite filter
for a given shot _if you actually knew what the hell you were doing_. If
you hadn't the experience to select filters appropriately, you'd make
jokes about those who do have that insight.
--
ha
Carey Carlan
news:eggke6$fu3$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>That would be about 60 million volts for 150 dB over 2 volts.
>
> Right.
So correct me. I understood that each 10 dB was 10x the power. So 150 dB
would be adding 15 zeroes behind the number. I'm off by 7 orders of
magnitude?
hank alrich
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > Arny Krueger> wrote:
>
> >>That would be about 60 million volts for 150 dB over 2 volts.
> >
> > Right.
>
> So correct me. I understood that each 10 dB was 10x the power. So 150 dB
> would be adding 15 zeroes behind the number. I'm off by 7 orders of
> magnitude?
Don't you just hate it when that happens? Just be glad it's not at the
grocery checkout counter.
--
ha
Arny Krueger
news:Xns9858B2496...@140.99.99.130
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
> news:eggke6$fu3$1...@panix2.panix.com:
>
>> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>> That would be about 60 million volts for 150 dB over 2
>>> volts.
>>
>> Right.
>
> So correct me. I understood that each 10 dB was 10x the
> power.
Hmm, let me check my work. 20 dB is 10x the voltage.
I figured that 150 dB was 140 dB which is 10**7 the voltage + 10db which is
about 3.x times the voltage
2*6*10**7 = 60 x 10**6 volts = 60 million volts.
> So 150 dB would be adding 15 zeroes behind the
> number.
The number is volts, not watts(power). So, its like adding 7.5 zeros behind
the voltage number which was 2.0 ("a couple of volts"
> I'm off by 7 orders of magnitude?
yup. You're thinking power(watts) not voltage(volts).
Carey Carlan
news:0ISdnda8H6VnhrHY...@comcast.com:
>> So correct me. I understood that each 10 dB was 10x the
>> power.
>
> I figured that 150 dB was 140 dB which is 10**7 the voltage + 10db
> which is about 3.x times the voltage
>
> 2*6*10**7 = 60 x 10**6 volts = 60 million volts.
>
> The number is volts, not watts(power). So, its like adding 7.5 zeros
> behind the voltage number which was 2.0 ("a couple of volts"
>
> yup. You're thinking power(watts) not voltage(volts).
Right, I was. Still a helluva surge.
Assuming a 1000 ohm circuit
2 volts yield 2 x (2 / 1000) = 0.004 watts
Add 150 dB
60 million volts into 1000 ohms is 3.6 trillion watts (60,000 amps)
Where would you find a 60 million volt 60,000 amp circuit in real life?
The Large Hadron Collider?
Carey Carlan
news:1hmzxuu.1gvyb7o1h5ux3wN%walk...@thegrid.net:
>> So correct me. I understood that each 10 dB was 10x the power. So
>> 150 dB would be adding 15 zeroes behind the number. I'm off by 7
>> orders of magnitude?
>
> Don't you just hate it when that happens? Just be glad it's not at the
> grocery checkout counter.
Unless it's in my favor...
Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
>While y'all like to jest about that, I posit that were y'all pro
>photographers you'd think nothing of selecting an appropriate filter
>for a given shot _if you actually knew what the hell you were doing_. If
>you hadn't the experience to select filters appropriately, you'd make
>jokes about those who do have that insight.
That's a particularly good analogy, because photography has
perzactly the same issues of dynamic range capture, and has
dealt with them in the same ways as sound recording, including
both compression (film gamma) and gain-staging (aperture/exposure
time).
Like sound recording, dynamic range was manipulable (cause it
*had* to be) since the earliest days. And like sound recording,
the "ideal" of verbatim reproduction of the original dynamic
range is forever (?) limited by intended playback conditions.
140 dB is the ratio between my commute to and from work, with
a couple sidetrips, and the distance to the Sun. We're just
not built right to really understand these big numbers. Prolly
a good thing, otherwise there'd never be a Defense budget.
And that's doing us so much good these days.
Bob Cain
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>> You would, however, lose the ability to match the mic with the "right"
>> preamp for it. :-)
>>
>>
>> Bob
>
> While y'all like to jest about that, I posit that were y'all pro
> photographers you'd think nothing of selecting an aoppropraite filter
> for a given shot _if you actually knew what the hell you were doing_. If
> you hadn't the experience to select filters appropriately, you'd make
> jokes about those who do have that insight.
While the analogy may be apt in principle, I simply don't believe that
the subtlety of mic/amp interaction can withstand what Ethan showed us
with his measurements which I can personally corroborate. A
speaker/room induces such radical coloring in comparison (with such
great variations within and across situations) that it just isn't
believable that the mic/pre effect can be much more than placebo.
It's like expecting a photographic filter to be effective in a room
with various color light sources on a three foot overhead grid.
Blind pre shootouts have not borne out the great distinction among
them that is claimed.
Paul Stamler
> While the analogy may be apt in principle, I simply don't believe that
> the subtlety of mic/amp interaction can withstand what Ethan showed us
> with his measurements which I can personally corroborate. A
> speaker/room induces such radical coloring in comparison (with such
> great variations within and across situations) that it just isn't
> believable that the mic/pre effect can be much more than placebo.
>
> It's like expecting a photographic filter to be effective in a room
> with various color light sources on a three foot overhead grid.
Bob, I don't think the one result (Ethan's) justifies the conclusion you
draw from it. The same argument would suggest that the huge variations in
room response from one spot to another would swamp the differences between a
Martin and a Kay guitar, or a good reed and a blown reed on an oboe. After
all, those room variations apply to real instruments as much as they do to
recorded sound.
Measurements like these (which aren't new, of course) are useful in the
context of demonstrating the effects of room treatment, but if you take them
*too* seriously, you'll walk away concluding not only that it's impossible
to record and reproduce music at all, but that it's impossible to listen to
it.
Peace,
Paul
hank alrich
> hank alrich wrote:
> > Bob Cain wrote:
> >
> >> You would, however, lose the ability to match the mic with the "right"
> >> preamp for it. :-)
> >>
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> > While y'all like to jest about that, I posit that were y'all pro
> > photographers you'd think nothing of selecting an aoppropraite filter
> > for a given shot _if you actually knew what the hell you were doing_. If
> > you hadn't the experience to select filters appropriately, you'd make
> > jokes about those who do have that insight.
>
> While the analogy may be apt in principle, I simply don't believe
I see. So it's a religious thing with you. This isn't about "belief";
this is about getting better audio results.
> that
> the subtlety of mic/amp interaction can withstand what Ethan showed us
> with his measurements which I can personally corroborate. A
> speaker/room induces such radical coloring in comparison (with such
> great variations within and across situations) that it just isn't
> believable that the mic/pre effect can be much more than placebo.
If one cannot deal with a variety of rooms one had best hang by the test
bench.
> It's like expecting a photographic filter to be effective in a room
> with various color light sources on a three foot overhead grid.
You're overlooking "_if you actually knew what the hell you were
doing_". Nothing personal, but we're not talking about being ruled by
parameters that are often manageable by mic selection and placement.
Here's an idea: point your camera at the sun! Hey, what other choice
could you possibly have? Please, Bob...
--
ha
George Orwell
The always arrogant but mostly wrong Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> While the analogy may be apt in principle, I simply don't believe that
> the subtlety of mic/amp interaction can withstand what Ethan showed us
> with his measurements which I can personally corroborate. A
> speaker/room induces such radical coloring in comparison (with such
> great variations within and across situations) that it just isn't
> believable that the mic/pre effect can be much more than placebo.
>
> It's like expecting a photographic filter to be effective in a room
> with various color light sources on a three foot overhead grid.
>
> Blind pre shootouts have not borne out the great distinction among
> them that is claimed.
Too bad all too common experience contradicts your idiotic assessment.
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
> A. Einstein
That idiotic quote, which you have fabricated, and attribute to Einstein, has about as much depth as piss on a flat rock, as does virtually everything that you have to say.
Bob Cain
> I see. So it's a religious thing with you. This isn't about "belief";
> this is about getting better audio results.
And that isn't about "belief"? C'mon, Hank. :-)
>
>> that
>> the subtlety of mic/amp interaction can withstand what Ethan showed us
>> with his measurements which I can personally corroborate. A
>> speaker/room induces such radical coloring in comparison (with such
>> great variations within and across situations) that it just isn't
>> believable that the mic/pre effect can be much more than placebo.
>
> If one cannot deal with a variety of rooms one had best hang by the test
> bench.
Not sure what you mean here.
>
>> It's like expecting a photographic filter to be effective in a room
>> with various color light sources on a three foot overhead grid.
>
> You're overlooking "_if you actually knew what the hell you were
> doing_". Nothing personal, but we're not talking about being ruled by
> parameters that are often manageable by mic selection and placement.
Sorry, again I don't follow your point. Mine is simply that the
subtle spectral variation of many of the things in the chain,
including pre's, if they are above an easy to achieve level of
competency, cannot be significant in the real world of speakers** and
rooms. Many a reputation hangs on convincing people otherwise (that
"they know what the hell they are doing") and those kinds of stakes
hardly make for objectivity (or in more than a few cases, honesty.)
**If you've ever measured the spectra of two speakers of the same
manufacture and viewed them without smoothing you know that there is a
also remarkable variation there in the detail.
Of course mic selection and placement have an important effect, some
mics and places have large rejection and enhancement bands of similar
significance to what goes on with speakers and rooms. Pre's don't.
ADC's don't.
OTOH, I've never seen anyone here stake a claim on what mic was used
on a recording (unless they are looking at a picture), much less what
pre.
From the excellent recordings of the past and from what listeners are
happy to accept in a production or in its reproduction I just don't
find it plausible that the importance placed on minor shit and on
having "mastered" it and its fine distinctions is really meaningful in
the end even if it were possible (which is a stretch all by itself.)
> Here's an idea: point your camera at the sun! Hey, what other choice
> could you possibly have? Please, Bob...
Whoosh.
At any rate, I know neither of us is going to convince the other about
this and I hope we can agree to disagree in a friendly way.
Sam
Scott Dorsey schreef:
Hi,
Here's one we prepared earlier for you, wheter it sounds good depends
on your Mic...
http://www.stagetec.com/stagetec/e_nexus_komponenten_analog_xmic.htm
Don Pearce
A joke, yes? Anyone can claim a huge dynamic range if they are allowed
to wind the volume control up and down - that isn't what it is all
about. Also it is really easy to get low noise if you short the input,
and that isn't what it is all about either. This is fake specmanship
at work. Do Not go here.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
hank alrich
> Sorry, again I don't follow your point. Mine is simply that the
> subtle spectral variation of many of the things in the chain,
> including pre's, if they are above an easy to achieve level of
> competency, cannot be significant in the real world of speakers** and
> rooms.
It is this simple: put up the lesser pre. Listen to the room. How much
room can you hear through it? Now put in the better preamp. There will
be a hell of a lot more room there for you to hear. That room needn't
swamp the differences in pres at all. It's up to us to get the mics
properly chosen and into place in order to deal with the room, the
instrument, the player, the arrangement, and so forth. The fact that we
must record in rooms is not a reason to avoid preamps that offer more
detail.
Specs are pretty easy to come by. Witness Mackie, et all. Fine specs,
but when one puts the tools into professional practice and the testing
conditions are no longer idealized to obtain good specs, the results are
less satisfying, and the work takes much longer.
It's actually quite illuminating to listen to Tonebarge's work, realize
that he mixed it all on a 1604, and take into consideration his refusal
to use either the Mackie pres, except for a specific effect that happens
when one plugs a Strat right into that, or the Mackie EQ, and that the
cost of his preamps would make a decent downpayment on the house that Ty
wants in California. Do you think a guy who is price-sensible, has a
long history of terrific professional work, the chops to deliver those
kinds of mixes via a Mackie and some ADAT's, the ears to hear the kinds
of detail differences that allow one to do that level of work, and the
monitoring rig to match, is going to spend a relative fortune on his
preamps if it didn't make a difference?
If I could get from a cheap pre what I can get from my good ones I would
not have spent the money for the good ones.
Would you apply your opinion to monitoring systems, too? It really
doesn't matter what is the speaker as long as it passes sound? Gonna be
swamped by the room anyway...
A Mackie pre is like a mostly dirty window with a few clear spots. If
what one wants to see is in the clear spot, nifty, If not, oh well...
--
ha
Kurt Albershardt
>
> I don't follow your point. Mine is simply that the subtle
> spectral variation of many of the things in the chain,
> including pre's, if they are above an easy to achieve level
> of competency, cannot be significant in the real world of
> speakers** and rooms.
OK, so speaker and room improvements are often a better investment for
most folks. This does not mean that one can not hear the differences
between preamps on a given set of speakers in a given room.
Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
These, and Hank's, comments are getting very close to something
important that gets almost caught and almost missed every time
this kinda thing comes around.
It's gotta be something about what we human beans are, and the
relation between the real world outside and the real world
inside.
They're two very, very different things, is all I know.
Very much thanks to all, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
Chris Hornbeck
<chrishornbe...@att.net> wrote:
>These, and Hank's,
Should have included "and Paul's" which I also took
strongly to heart.
Surprisingly interesting topic, much thanks to all,
Chris Hornbeck
hank alrich
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> >Bob Cain wrote:
> >> I don't follow your point. Mine is simply that the subtle
> >> spectral variation of many of the things in the chain,
> >> including pre's, if they are above an easy to achieve level
> >> of competency, cannot be significant in the real world of
> >> speakers** and rooms.
> >OK, so speaker and room improvements are often a better investment for
> >most folks. This does not mean that one can not hear the differences
> >between preamps on a given set of speakers in a given room.
> These, and Hank's, comments are getting very close to something
> important that gets almost caught and almost missed every time
> this kinda thing comes around.
Yer giving me too much credit.
> It's gotta be something about what we human beans are, and the
> relation between the real world outside and the real world
> inside.
> They're two very, very different things, is all I know.
The room is just another part of what we record. Unless one takes the
shove-the-mic-in-the-instrument appraoch, trying to eliminate all
ambience, ambience is a largely manageable contribution. Mic choice and
position are the tools to work with that, and I often prefer the room to
artificial reverberation added in post. Better preamps and mics help
resolve detail, giving a better picture of lower level stuff, including
ambience.
This reminds me of something Bob Smith told me while we were hanging at
the Great River booth, talking about mics and pres. To demonstrate one
of the differences between lesser and greater mics, he sets up a little
table with a metronome in the foreground, a wind-up watch behind that,
and a small computer fan, running, in the background. He tracks that
with the cheap mic, and then with a Schoeps.
He then plays these back to his students. They don't see the setup; they
only get to hear the results. He first plays the cheap mic track, and
asks them what they hear. Right off they nail the metronome. He asks
them what else they hear. They answer, "Noise". Then he plays them the
Schoeps track. Right off they hear the metronome, and right after that
they hear the ticking of the watch. When he asks if they hear anything
else, they say, "There's some kind of rumbling in the background".
While the differences in preamps are generally less dramatic, it is just
a question of degree. The Schoeps through a Great River is much more
satisfying than through a Mackie.
--
ha