I think the reason he old producer cried ( it was in the corner of his eye ) is I named recordings that were great . They were his . He told me of how he had convinced Maria Calas to record something she felt was not her . He said she never would be more able . If she objected it would not be released ( Macbeth ? ) . These days there is no proper rehearsal and sometimes not in the same continent when doing it , he said . People flying off to a press meeting and dropping a planed piece of music . He said we were recording music properly for the first time in the 1950's and felt it was history in the making . After that it was just a product . This came about because I insisted a Sansui SR 222 turntable would not do justice to B&W 801's . The 801's and Quad 405 came free from work. CD was already the medium so LP' were other than work so he had to pay . The old Dual 704 would have suited him . We had one and it would have been cheap . I think nothing was bought . For a profit of $20 and my integrity intact that was OK . I suspect nothing was bought because he was walking on air . He told me he was virtually unknown in the company in latter years . I phoned them up recently ( EMI archive ) . The thought Peter Andre . I suspect it was one generation back . No Oz accent either .
I have a beer with DDG sleeve notes writer about once a month . He knows almost as much as a sound engineer , espeailly microphones . I will service a TD 124 for him soon . Interesting he should use that and Quad 57's . He is a children's book writer these days .
So now we learn we have people on this forum who are not of Mother Earth, but seem to be aliens ...
That makes Sy Fy a Man in Black.
How exciting . The only Roswell thing I heard that tickled my imagination was that the transistor came form it . The more interesting claim was we jumped 800 years by knowing it . We often enjoy science fiction . For once in our domain .
My research says we were on the way long before 1947 ( 1927 ) . The more sensational claim was Intel had stuff to copy .
A further claim is that Bell will not release the original samples of transistor as they were not germanium . They were slithers of chip . To fake some germanium is no big deal . Slithers of chip , really ?
I often debunk conspiracy theories . This was one .
Okay, my curiosity and interest has been stirred by the somewhat aggressive reaction to my comments about that clip - so, I will suck up and digest the audio from the video, using some software tools and see what sort of interesting things I can find ...
The big picture is very simple: people enthusiastic about audio want playback to sound like the "real thing": if one uses even relatively crude recording devices to record live sound vs. recording playback of recorded live sound it's virtually always very easy to pick which is which; if the playback that's being recorded in a clip is really working properly then it should be quite hard to pick that it's "only playback" ...
The big picture is very simple: people enthusiastic about audio want playback to sound like the "real thing": if one uses even relatively crude recording devices to record live sound vs. recording playback of recorded live sound it's virtually always very easy to pick which is which; if the playback that's being recorded in a clip is really working properly then it should be quite hard to pick that it's "only playback" ...
Not at all simple. Not very big either, or even a picture.
Probably true though. Sleeve notes of CDs with origins in vinyl certainly seem to acknowledge concern for authenticity. Nobody wants their music tampered with. What everybody wants is the original release.
Some may want the original release to sound like some creepy out-of-body artist-in-my-room thing, and I guess the audiophile contingent may be a dominant cadre in this sect, but not all audio enthusiasts are weirdos.
Frank,
The audio from the video is pointless. Even if microphones were placed at sweet spot it would be pointless to analyze looking for "real" sound".
For basic mixing session, picking levels and basic panning are possible, even in what seems like rather repulsively cramped booth. In respects to EQ it is doing very little to what was tracked.
Mastering mixes for EQ in such a studio would be unlikely.
Once again, find the finished product listen/analyze before grading.
Suck up a measurement microphone, measure some of the magical transformations you've hacked up and see what interesting things turn up when inspected with some software tools.
Definitely record speakers playing music from various locations in room a playback/listen on phones, and be amazed by the horror of it all.
A quick post ... that Bob Katz video is going to be very, very useful - originally I didn't listen all the way through, I'd had enough at about 2/3rds. I now have the audio in WAV format and can play with it, and have discovered a very interesting behaviour going on: at the end of the clip, just after 14 mins the clip ends with a long slab of the track, as one continuous piece. During this section a very discernable variation, for want of a better term, occurs, which to me is very obvious - which I can thoroughly investigate, should tell me a lot.
Can anyone pick what I'm talking about ...?
Can anyone pick what I'm talking about ...?
My recent project was a SE valve amp that I hoped would allow video and other stuff to work better for me . Slightly euphonic and showing layers . It does that and does not make the sound worse . The big deal is it sounds like a slightly off centre voice coil when using low grade signals through that amp ( high resolution , distortion is reasonably low ) . My main speakers have no voice coil , they show it that way also . The other effect is listening through a tissue paper curtain . Interestingly 78's don't do this . In fact if in good condition one imagines the missing HF , bass is often very good albeit with some boom . The TV version of our BBC Radio 3 is rather good ( radio via TV ) . I am told MP3 is not the correct name for the system used . My old Quad FM 3 is less exaggerated on sibilance . Other than that TV R3 is not too bad and better than my nothing special DAB radio . The tissue paper effect is still noticeable albeit not so obvious . My TV is in fact a Panasonic top of the range PVR . It up-scales normal TV to a good standard . I suspect the audio got some attention as it has moments of excellence . The Talented Mr Ripley on the PVR is well above good real cinema . That is the wallpaper effect is gone ,it has better depth and reality for want of better words . Dolby surround reminds me of people who were employed to jump out at us when the Ghost Train at the fair . Save your money Mr Ghost Train owner , it doesn't work . Hafler works and is cheap . Anyone have a Hafler ciruit to run off the preamp ? As simple as possible . Should just amplify the difference signal L to R . Then present it in anti-phase between two rear speakers that are in-phase with the front ? With some though a few other tricks no doubt . If you have never heard Hafler through 4 high grade speakers it can be a moving experience . As far as I know it is accurate . 4 Magneplanars I would suggest as workable . The rears can less sophisticated mid range panels if engineering of such is possible .
Hafler seemed to make clicks on records easier to cope with . Doing the same using a Dolby processor asking for a simple matrix was worse than simple stereo in the past ! That says something we might have guessed I suppose ? I suggest how the clicks appear is a representation of general degradation I would call bleaching of detail . The Hafler way says the two seemingly identical things are not identical at all . DSP is difficult if small things are ignored ( nS ) . Thankfully the obsession of digital engineers seems to be small things . As I said somewhere else if we are using digital anyway why not use DSP .
Hafler seemed to make clicks on records easier to cope with . Doing the same using a Dolby processor asking for a simple matrix was worse than simple stereo in the past ! That says something we might have guessed I suppose ? I suggest how the clicks appear is a representation of general degradation I would call bleaching of detail . The Hafler way says the two seemingly identical things are not identical at all . DSP is difficult if small things are ignored ( nS ) . Thankfully the obsession of digital engineers seems to be small things . As I said somewhere else if we are using digital anyway why not use DSP .
Frank,
The clip ends with long slab of track mixed into audio for video. Notice the camera panning and moving all over the place without variation in music.
Get yourself a measurement microphone and teach yourself something useful.
Simple 40 Watt Power Amplifier
In another thread I was told off for calling a Douglas Self/Sinclair amp a modified HC Lin circuit . The amp above is approximately a Lin circuit . Looking at it I wonder if the original is rather good ? Having a bit of current to drive the VAS seems no bad thing . I wonder if like bootstrapping a good idea has been forgotten ? The bootstrap CCS to a VAS is not without virtue . Keep crossover distortion low , IM low and THD reasonable . Who knows ? DIN 45500 to 10 watts would be OK . I am sure that could be bettered . Lin was 2 % THD 6 watts circa 1957 ?
The 68 pF VAS cap could be split . Feed the output into the VAS double cap node . Who knows , the already reasonable 10 kHz performance might be asked to be good to 20 kHz ? The open loop gain is low . It doesn't mean it has to be a bad performer . It could even have feed forward correction . The Quad 405 is said to be both a feedback and feed forward amp . The feedback being rather important and seldom stressed .
In another thread I was told off for calling a Douglas Self/Sinclair amp a modified HC Lin circuit . The amp above is approximately a Lin circuit . Looking at it I wonder if the original is rather good ? Having a bit of current to drive the VAS seems no bad thing . I wonder if like bootstrapping a good idea has been forgotten ? The bootstrap CCS to a VAS is not without virtue . Keep crossover distortion low , IM low and THD reasonable . Who knows ? DIN 45500 to 10 watts would be OK . I am sure that could be bettered . Lin was 2 % THD 6 watts circa 1957 ?
The 68 pF VAS cap could be split . Feed the output into the VAS double cap node . Who knows , the already reasonable 10 kHz performance might be asked to be good to 20 kHz ? The open loop gain is low . It doesn't mean it has to be a bad performer . It could even have feed forward correction . The Quad 405 is said to be both a feedback and feed forward amp . The feedback being rather important and seldom stressed .
Last edited:
Having spent hours in a room with real musicians rehearsing, you do not want the real thing at all.
The dynamic range of drums is way to high for domestic playback. Compression is essential
as far as I'm concerned, this quest for the real thing is the biggest trap in audio. you just want music to sound pleasant.
did it occur to anyone that the studio crew involved in the production of that CD never intended it to sound like the real thing, and not because they couldn't?
Unprincipled relativistic utilitarianism is all well and good, however 'the real thing' is central to the accuracy of a reproduction system.
In Oxford it was two doors up where the orchestra rehearsed . Oxford Town Hall is not a good sound . All my recordings sounded better than the real place . I used the conductor's position to get that . However one piece of music defeated the buildings reluctance . The musicians also defeated their talent as if on some very dangerous drug , not one wrong note or timing . It was the most stunning musical experience of my life . The music built from nothing and seemed to have more pure sound that any hi fi or PA . This extract is pale although almost note for note identical ( texture also ) . It was so warm and brilliant ( sparkle ) . Hot for want of a better word . Love the magician ? I guess so .
Barenboim - "El amor brujo" (Danza ritual del fuego) Falla - YouTube
Last edited:
Yes that was one of the silliest theories I ever saw, as if we had known nothing about solid state physics before the saucer crash etc.
I hear they did have some nice cables though
I love to unpick conspiracy theories . Not going to the moon . How could the USSR not say anything if true ?
UFO's . The RAF thought they might be the Soviets . When the USSR stopped so did the RAF investigations . Nothing unusual .
Philadelphia experiment . Too often the place they went to was another port . A bit odd it wasn't dry land if transported in time . Doubtless it was a high energy experiment . Doubtless they were sick bunnies if exposed to that . I suspect it even did what it was supposed to do a little . Problem is it still showed up on radar .
Roswell to cover up Supersonic testing when the USSR equivalents were unknown . Resolved after Korea .
John Titor . The laser beam/ LED in a tube showing total internal reflection . Not light bending due to time travel . Even with a low grade photo it is a tube . This photo is a little less clear than the one I saw . To say we couldn't do it in photo shop is the next point , we could . Anyway, if the light bends why not the structure bent and distorted ? Outside perhaps if fired through a window . They missed a trick with that one .
I forgot . Thermite in the Twin Towers . Not required as the materials are already there in the right proportions . That took me 5 minutes when I first saw it . Very sad anyone said that .
Hey Ho
John Titor Archive: Interview with a time traveler (images), page 1
Last edited:
Do you actually believe that the end section is 'clean' audio mixed in with the video clip? If so, then that 'pure' audio is some of the poorest ever done!
Cameras have AGC, they constantly adjust the volume to suit, and there are numerous videos on the net where there appears to be no or very little "variation in music", with movement. I have done videos in a similar, relatively primitive way, and I hear exactly how that video comes across!
Hmmm, no-one has commented on what I'm after, I still need to do some close examination of the waveform to see if I can identify the characteristics that my ears are noticing ...
That's, why you have a volume control. You adjust to suit ... your mood, your desire to "rock out", etc. My personal experience is that once a system is producing "good sound" that the volume control is of no relevance to getting an "optimum" level - I can vary true output over a range of, say, 40dB, and subjectively the music doesn't change - I'm just nearer or further away from where the action is -- in other words, just like it is with live, acoustic sounds.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.