That got figured out, we even had a cable manufacturer lined up. The demo used 50 cent VCSEL's and an integrated GaAs PD and TIA wouldn't that be a way to go for audio? The VCSEL interface is really easy since they only take 1-2mA drive you can just use a single high speed gate.
The AES-3 standard is pretty well fixed. But these days we use Dante over the ethernet backbone now found almost everywhere. What of course is fun is watching the cost comparison between that and a shielded twisted pair copper cable with balancing transformers on each end. (Anyone care to guess which method is more reliable?)
Well top of the line transformers are $100.00 each in quantity. The cable is $90.00 per 1,000'. Fiber is a bit cheaper but finding ways to go from audio to fiber and back of any quality is way more.
You win the prize!
Back to the "top end"
What often gets ignored is the capture method. Close micing is the norm now, not much normal attenuation of the top end before the signal is generated. A violin close miced and not "toned down" can be a pretty screechy thing.
Another contributor is the style of mic used. The most common mic in the cabinet today is the condenser mic, a diaphragm of material that vibrates according to the air pressure or velocity that reaches it. However the physics of the thing are that there are major resonances in the higher frequencies of its response, these are usually damped, but that is where they occur. In contrast, the ribbon mic uses a technique that has no hf resonances, its are in the bottom end, a typical example would be 5 hz.
To me this is what I often hear as the "zippy" nature of much of the recordings made. I tend to prefer what many people call dull recordings, but are often I feel more accurate.
Anyway, something to ponder.
Cheers
Alan
What often gets ignored is the capture method. Close micing is the norm now, not much normal attenuation of the top end before the signal is generated. A violin close miced and not "toned down" can be a pretty screechy thing.
Another contributor is the style of mic used. The most common mic in the cabinet today is the condenser mic, a diaphragm of material that vibrates according to the air pressure or velocity that reaches it. However the physics of the thing are that there are major resonances in the higher frequencies of its response, these are usually damped, but that is where they occur. In contrast, the ribbon mic uses a technique that has no hf resonances, its are in the bottom end, a typical example would be 5 hz.
To me this is what I often hear as the "zippy" nature of much of the recordings made. I tend to prefer what many people call dull recordings, but are often I feel more accurate.
Anyway, something to ponder.
Cheers
Alan
There is a lot of variation in the HF response of different condenser mics. A Schoeps CMC641 set can sound lovely in the highs, but it't not cheap. Smaller diaphragm helps, too, in general with condensers for HF performance. On the other hand, the better sounding ribbons, e.g. Royer R-122 (also not cheap), usually have a bi-directional pickup pattern. They sound nice and smooth, but can pick up some room reflections or other sounds from the back that may or may not be wanted. Anyway, there may be more to mic choice than basic type.
edit: Of course, when we make these kind of choices, they are essentially "effects box" choices. Whatever we choose, it will have a sound different from the other choices.
Last edited:
For timing signals it says 30-50picoseconds but check also section 5.3 for deglitching techniques. (see also sections 4.2 to 4.5 for noise power)
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1461109/1/PMmoreira_PhD_Final-signed%5B1%5D.pdf
femtoseconds
http://epaper.kek.jp/e06/PAPERS/THPPA01.PDF
femptosecond stability and some serious power pulses
https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/ica07/PAPERS/FOAA02.PDF
Sub-Picosecond
http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/1807.pdf
commercial sector, picoseconds
https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/icalepcs2009/papers/wep064.pdf
George
George- are you hardwired into Google? That was fast.
Mark- one interesting conundrum is that the output of a condenser microphone wave is at it peak at the maximum displacement of the diaphragm. The output of a ribbon or dynamic microphone is as the diaphragm passes through "zero" at maximum velocity. Mixing the output of both types on a single source may not sound like you would want.
Should we use dynamic mikes for dynamic speaker and condensers for ESL's? Or should they be reversed? Absolute phase is a thing but what is correct when there is a 90 degree difference between microphone types?
Mark- one interesting conundrum is that the output of a condenser microphone wave is at it peak at the maximum displacement of the diaphragm. The output of a ribbon or dynamic microphone is as the diaphragm passes through "zero" at maximum velocity. Mixing the output of both types on a single source may not sound like you would want.
Should we use dynamic mikes for dynamic speaker and condensers for ESL's? Or should they be reversed? Absolute phase is a thing but what is correct when there is a 90 degree difference between microphone types?
Piling audio on top of network protocols when not necessary is typical technology creep. Makes everyone feel good and adds about 1000 more places for it to fail. Job security for the few who know how to troubleshoot it. Wait until someone figures out how to infect it with ransomware.
Using North Hills transformers seems like overkill, but its still a small small part of one of your projects.
Particle velocity vs. particle displacement never thought of that, no easy way to make the outputs equivalent.
Scott, you the deserve a copy of the handbook for sound engineers. That was for me the source of wisdoms like this. Tried to see how many pecunia's on the webs, but found free download in stead!
https://www.google.nl/search?q=hand...efox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=fgfKV763Jcur-Qbu8I_QBA
Still, very worth your while to buy the hard copy as a present to yourself for all the good things you did only today but which went unnoticed as habituary.
https://www.google.nl/search?q=hand...efox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&ei=fgfKV763Jcur-Qbu8I_QBA
Still, very worth your while to buy the hard copy as a present to yourself for all the good things you did only today but which went unnoticed as habituary.
Last edited:
There are multiple questions here. Regarding multiple mics on one instrument, it often doesn't sound like you want (or need) for various reasons. It is an complex optimization problem in a multi-dimensional space. Usually, some trial and error is required. Phase is often an issue because mics may be placed at different locations and distances, and pointed at different parts of an instrument. If you think phase may be an issue, you can try one of these and see if it does something helpful for you: Little Labs
Regarding matching mics to speakers, records are commonly recorded with various different fundamental types of mics all on the same record, and are mixed on studio monitors, most often of the near-field type. Mastering setups are more revealing and the listening distance is greater, but that's not necessarily more optimal for mixing, although it could be in some cases. If you want to hear what the music was intended to sound like you might want a system similar to one of those. Because of all the different mics, I don't think there is a more direct answer to your question.
On another note, we have engineer types here who are interested in accuracy of reproduction. Some are interested in reproductions that are limited to accurate documentation of acoustic performances. Some don't seem to like the idea that the sound has been messed with in any way by engineers that could alter the sound of the original performance. Of those, I'm not sure they realize how few recordings are or ever could be practically untouched by what amounts to effects boxes. Should we call them engineerophiles?
Let's just say the recorded music oeuvre is a simulacrum bearing little or no resemblance to the live performances, an entity onto itself. That being said there is great enjoyment there.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.