Attributions Are Not Boundaries.
The terms Mathematician, Physicist and Engineer, when applied to an individual, are not mutually exclusive attributions; e.g., Tinker or Tailor, Soldier or Sailor, Rich Man or Poor Man, Beggar Man or Thief; are alternative attributions that may apply to the same individual. For those gifted with mental acuity, there are no bounds except a lifetime of chosen pursuits. Math and Science, both Theoretical and Applied, may coexist within such intellectual endeavors, although the focus on details may be narrowed in order to accomplish a particularly mission in a timely fashion. Some university graduates hold degrees or have majored in branches of all three domains. They may be also referred to as Professional Students, Teachers and/or Professors as well.
Regards,
WHG
The terms Mathematician, Physicist and Engineer, when applied to an individual, are not mutually exclusive attributions; e.g., Tinker or Tailor, Soldier or Sailor, Rich Man or Poor Man, Beggar Man or Thief; are alternative attributions that may apply to the same individual. For those gifted with mental acuity, there are no bounds except a lifetime of chosen pursuits. Math and Science, both Theoretical and Applied, may coexist within such intellectual endeavors, although the focus on details may be narrowed in order to accomplish a particularly mission in a timely fashion. Some university graduates hold degrees or have majored in branches of all three domains. They may be also referred to as Professional Students, Teachers and/or Professors as well.
Regards,
WHG
How so? Are you claiming that the recording process is so artificial that we should all just use flat on-axis speakers and trust the recording/mastering engineers in total? Even in
- the absence of consistent recording standards
- acknowledgement that recording process often uses artificial conditions with inherent tonal accuracies
- rooms all differ
- flat on axis speakers have different radiation patterns that can as a result sound tonally different in the same room.
- simply miced stereo recordings have to physically have this tonal inaccuracy (how can they not?)
- recording engineers don't consciously acknowledge this effect and have no standard eq goals for adjusting a mix to compensate
You've been beating on me for years now on the boards with what I see your message as above, and I've tried to counter with facts but then when we don't agree you often counter with the following. If you don't want personal defensiveness, please tone down the rhetoric:
- "Hopefully everyone else gets it. "
- "I did see what you didn't understand"
- "You are the one who needs to defend your point or at least have some support of it."
- "I'm not sure why you have such trouble with the concept"
- "DDF, is there any recording made where this HRTF issue exists? I figure you must have a library full of it b/c you keep referring to your theory"
Again, are you even trying to understand my point? If so, give me something more to work with than "this isn't an issue, the recording engineers fix it all".
Again, I'm all ears.
Dave
Last edited:
You chest beat with claims of what you have done DDF, yet you state things that defy all evidence to be true about things you apparently haven't done. If you feel like I'm beating you up, it's b/c your position doesn't make sense on a factual or logical level. It's nothing more with me. You always go to the "I am experienced" argument, that just means you don't have a good argument. Every high school kid knows that and I've tried not to throw it in your face again. Come with facts, not unrelated experiences you have.
I've mentioned several times in this thread why this isn't an issue to start with, but you never try to argue against those point. Everyone in the recording industry knows that mics don't pick up some absolute sound of the instrument. At least not when you play them back anyway we can. Even in the post you are quoting I mention "why"--the mic is not capturing the natural sound. Check out the Recording Hacks' site for microphone responses and you'll see part of the reason "why". You could also just look at the cal file on your measurement mic--a mic made to be flat. That's really just the tip of the iceberg, but that negates the argument straight off. It's definitely more complicated than that for all the reasons I keep mentioning in the thread that you seem to ignore and more.
I've got your point from the get go. It's just that your point defies all logic and ignores the facts. In some idealized world, no doubt there would be an issue, but I mentioned early on it's not our reality. We don't live in an ideal world. I say read Toole, pick your poisons, and move on. Even in this ideal world, if you got the mono center to work with your method, everything else would be wrong. It's such a bizarre thing to be hung up on. I have no trouble with EQing b/c in a sense there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. You should like what you hear. If not, fix it with whatever means available. You don't have to trust or believe anyone. The fact remains that what you are hearing is not the original event, you don't know what the original event sounded like, and you are not going to eq the recording and make it sound like the original event. It's just a bad idea straight off. I have no problem with you liking an EQ curve that resembles an HRTF inspired one. It just has nothing to do with an HRTF problem.
Sorry if I seem rough, it just drives me nuts. I just don't understand why you have such trouble with this and why you'd try to spread YOUR view when all evidence disagrees with you.
Oh, and please stop trying to skew my view, clip every quote, etc... It doesn't bode well for your position, rationale, intellect, or manner. Read what I write/wrote and try to counter it logically, agree with it if you can't, or stop trying to post on the subject. So far you haven't come up with a logical argument. It's past closing time. If you have evidence to counter the facts, bring it. If not, I think accepting the facts would be better for everyone involved. Surely you agree. You can't just make an issue up and expect someone to refute it to your satisfaction. You won't catch me doing it.
Dan
I've mentioned several times in this thread why this isn't an issue to start with, but you never try to argue against those point. Everyone in the recording industry knows that mics don't pick up some absolute sound of the instrument. At least not when you play them back anyway we can. Even in the post you are quoting I mention "why"--the mic is not capturing the natural sound. Check out the Recording Hacks' site for microphone responses and you'll see part of the reason "why". You could also just look at the cal file on your measurement mic--a mic made to be flat. That's really just the tip of the iceberg, but that negates the argument straight off. It's definitely more complicated than that for all the reasons I keep mentioning in the thread that you seem to ignore and more.
I've got your point from the get go. It's just that your point defies all logic and ignores the facts. In some idealized world, no doubt there would be an issue, but I mentioned early on it's not our reality. We don't live in an ideal world. I say read Toole, pick your poisons, and move on. Even in this ideal world, if you got the mono center to work with your method, everything else would be wrong. It's such a bizarre thing to be hung up on. I have no trouble with EQing b/c in a sense there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. You should like what you hear. If not, fix it with whatever means available. You don't have to trust or believe anyone. The fact remains that what you are hearing is not the original event, you don't know what the original event sounded like, and you are not going to eq the recording and make it sound like the original event. It's just a bad idea straight off. I have no problem with you liking an EQ curve that resembles an HRTF inspired one. It just has nothing to do with an HRTF problem.
Sorry if I seem rough, it just drives me nuts. I just don't understand why you have such trouble with this and why you'd try to spread YOUR view when all evidence disagrees with you.
Oh, and please stop trying to skew my view, clip every quote, etc... It doesn't bode well for your position, rationale, intellect, or manner. Read what I write/wrote and try to counter it logically, agree with it if you can't, or stop trying to post on the subject. So far you haven't come up with a logical argument. It's past closing time. If you have evidence to counter the facts, bring it. If not, I think accepting the facts would be better for everyone involved. Surely you agree. You can't just make an issue up and expect someone to refute it to your satisfaction. You won't catch me doing it.
Dan
Last edited:
Yes, it sounds like you get it from your last post. The first ones didn't come of that way to a few of us, but I'm glad we are on the same page.
Cheers!
Dan
You might enjoy JGH's recordings over a series of mics, on the stereophile test disc. I understand your point, and this recording clearly makes strong evidence of the different sounds of various mic types.
However, I don't believe this invalidates my position. I also believe your position has been entirely inconsistent, harassing me in the past for not believing 'flat on-axis playback' is the be all-end all and yet now stating eq what ever you like to your heart's content, to support your position here.
I'm sorry you're frustrated that we don't agree as you slowly learn and evolve your position to one more nuanced (and ironically aligned more with mine) but I'm not sorry that after trying civil discourse with you again, this is the last time I'll reply to your posts. Please, pretty please, don't reply to my posts any more, for both our sakes?
However, I don't believe this invalidates my position. I also believe your position has been entirely inconsistent, harassing me in the past for not believing 'flat on-axis playback' is the be all-end all and yet now stating eq what ever you like to your heart's content, to support your position here.
I'm sorry you're frustrated that we don't agree as you slowly learn and evolve your position to one more nuanced (and ironically aligned more with mine) but I'm not sorry that after trying civil discourse with you again, this is the last time I'll reply to your posts. Please, pretty please, don't reply to my posts any more, for both our sakes?
The facts do not align with your position. My position hasn't changed--yours has and it's getting closer to the truth. Anyone reading this knows that too (barring you apparently). It was always obvious to me that people listened to the recordings and manipulated them in many ways before they come to market. I keep getting deeper into thought of why yours doesn't make sense b/c you continue to argue for yours without a real defense. It was obvious that it didn't make sense when you first stated it. We already had a boatload of data on the fact that it didn't. Just read Dr. Toole's book.
I'll explain further: Even if you find some perfect mic, what becomes the perfect position? Take a guitar, is it over the sound hole, the 12th fret, 3ft away, 12 feet away and off to the right, over the shoulder of the player, etc...? The sound is radically different at each location. Just watch a singer when they sing into the mic. They aren't trying to replicate their voice through the speaker--they are trying to get all the little unpleasantries to not show up at the output and accentuate their strengths. Decent ones even try to control their dynamics with position and distance. Lennon reportedly waved his hand to reduce captured sibilance. Anyway, this is ignoring the polar effects of the mic and room. It's perhaps not as simple as audiophilia(sp?) would like to believe. It almost seems the more technical your mind, the harder this is going to be to mesh with your works, but recording is an art. The fact is, the goal is almost never natural when capturing/mixing/mastering a recording anyway. Their might be an instance where it is, but I don't know of it. Even with classical they'll try to enhance it. I bet some audiophile recordings claim to, and maybe some nature recordings might, but is there anyway to know that they actually do?
I don't really care that we don't agree(I think we are both use to it)--it's that you spread something that doesn't make sense that bothers me and can't defend it. Barring part of you, I doubt anyone reading this is still on the HRTF compensation in stereo loudspeakers bandwagon. I can't imagine(not another Lennon reference) how anyone could be, but I'm willing to answer any questions that might exist.
Dan
I'll explain further: Even if you find some perfect mic, what becomes the perfect position? Take a guitar, is it over the sound hole, the 12th fret, 3ft away, 12 feet away and off to the right, over the shoulder of the player, etc...? The sound is radically different at each location. Just watch a singer when they sing into the mic. They aren't trying to replicate their voice through the speaker--they are trying to get all the little unpleasantries to not show up at the output and accentuate their strengths. Decent ones even try to control their dynamics with position and distance. Lennon reportedly waved his hand to reduce captured sibilance. Anyway, this is ignoring the polar effects of the mic and room. It's perhaps not as simple as audiophilia(sp?) would like to believe. It almost seems the more technical your mind, the harder this is going to be to mesh with your works, but recording is an art. The fact is, the goal is almost never natural when capturing/mixing/mastering a recording anyway. Their might be an instance where it is, but I don't know of it. Even with classical they'll try to enhance it. I bet some audiophile recordings claim to, and maybe some nature recordings might, but is there anyway to know that they actually do?
I don't really care that we don't agree(I think we are both use to it)--it's that you spread something that doesn't make sense that bothers me and can't defend it. Barring part of you, I doubt anyone reading this is still on the HRTF compensation in stereo loudspeakers bandwagon. I can't imagine(not another Lennon reference) how anyone could be, but I'm willing to answer any questions that might exist.
Dan
I am neither so inexperienced or fullish to believe that the recording chain is not full of choices and errors and compensations. Your insistence that I don't is now beyond bordering on harassment.
However, I do recognize that unless you equalize accordingly, a center image of the same tape capture will sound tonally different than hard pan left or right, or a center channel.
There's nothing more that can be said. For real last time that I respond.
Dave
No one over doubted your point(?) with panning. It just doesn't matter. Everyone can hear that. These people are professional listeners--but that doesn't even matter.
I have to admit I think it's funny you think I'm harassing you. It's not true, but it's funny. SOOO left field. Never did I imagine that from you. I don't even state your claimed harassment. It's all in your head--both harassment and the necessity of HRTF compensation in loudspeakers. Look, I don't mean to upset you. Take a deep breath. You always get this way when you discuss with me. Put me on your ignore list and move on. I have you on mine at PE, just forgot to do it here.
Peace,
Dan
I have to admit I think it's funny you think I'm harassing you. It's not true, but it's funny. SOOO left field. Never did I imagine that from you. I don't even state your claimed harassment. It's all in your head--both harassment and the necessity of HRTF compensation in loudspeakers. Look, I don't mean to upset you. Take a deep breath. You always get this way when you discuss with me. Put me on your ignore list and move on. I have you on mine at PE, just forgot to do it here.
Peace,
Dan
Last edited:
Wow, I realize this is a DIY site but I'm surprised no one mentioned the dirt-cheap speakers* he designed for Pioneer (his signature is on the connection plate) that have received many super-positive reviews all over the net the past year, by hobbyists and professionals, and one of the very few budget speakers that don't exhibit the irritating in-your-face sonic signature many other brands provide in the form of "tinkly" fatiguing highs and boomy/thumping bass. I know many dislike the use of subjective descriptions but the Pioneers are quite warm sounding, and to me reminiscent of classic Advents and KEFs. Despite that "boring" 
old-skool sound, they are regularly back ordered. And the tube-based device used in the floorstanders to help control internal standing waves is pretty cool IMO.
* personally I think from an R&D standpoint, less expensive speakers are more interesting to design (and read about! :^)) than no-holds-barred models because the less pricey gear requires careful decisions as far as choice of materials & components and using clever but affordable means to produce good sound
old-skool sound, they are regularly back ordered. And the tube-based device used in the floorstanders to help control internal standing waves is pretty cool IMO.* personally I think from an R&D standpoint, less expensive speakers are more interesting to design (and read about! :^)) than no-holds-barred models because the less pricey gear requires careful decisions as far as choice of materials & components and using clever but affordable means to produce good sound
Typically, recording engineers use more than one speaker system, and while they may mix on one main system, they spot check on several others. Then the product goes to "mastering" where a "mastering engineer" further mucks with the sound and makes the entire album sound very much similar... in case it wasn't before. And presumably get rid of any glaring issues than can be handled.
Typically.
_-_-bear
Typically.
_-_-bear
Dan, I have been asking for you to do this for a long time now, so now, finally, thank you.
I know many dislike the use of subjective descriptions but the Pioneers are quite warm sounding, and to me reminiscent of classic Advents and KEFs. Despite that "boring"
Personally I think from an R&D standpoint, less expensive speakers are more interesting to design (and read about! :^)) than no-holds-barred models because the less pricey gear requires careful decisions as far as choice of materials & components and using clever but affordable means to produce good sound
These do look quite decent, especially for the money. Why aren't more audio products designed to give value?
Everything today seems to be either about silly style (Ipod docks of every shape imaginable) or faux high-end where outrageous BOM costs replace design competency.
I guess there's no market for Volkswagen products.
Have to build our own.
David S.
By the way, Andrew and I joined KEF the same week and shared an office for a number of years. I'd like to say I taught him everything he knows but its just as likely the opposite...
He could have waited and his perceptions might have changed ; Were creatures of habit for sure! The boom and fizz was created to fudge the equal loudness contours and help move boxes in a retail atmosphere , after that it becomes habituation .
Of course thats the beauty of it ; you can't please everyone , so go ahead and listen to whatever " house curve" ( built in or otherwise ) floats your boat .....
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.