John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#9,501
scottjoplin said:
That's what makes it fun, and people like space and merrill who habitually misrepresent what people say and situations, I wonder whether they know even that they're doing it half the time, but, as you say, none of it really matters and.......... no one gets hurt
Click to expand...
I've asked you before & you failed to produce any evidence of your claim about me - I'm asking again - care to point out an example to back up your assertion?

If you fail to do so I would ask you to desist from this.
 
#9,502
Bill,
Interesting, but presumably unintended implications.
 

Attachments

  • BillQuoteRePMA.jpg
    BillQuoteRePMA.jpg
    70.3 KB · Views: 271
#9,503
Are you so forgetful? Others aren't, I can't be bothered to go trawling back over stuff to provide you with evidence of what you and others already know, what's the point? Coming over all innocent doesn't cut it anymore. It doesn't matter....space will probably get a bee in his bonnet too, again he knows what I'm talking about.
 
#9,504
Hang in there Markw4 and 99, but I just can't put the energy into attempting in proving the 'unprovable' i.e. whether I hear differences that I talk about, whether Jack Bybee knows what he is doing, etc. I am just going to keep going, and report in when something comes up that I feel might be shared with others.
 
#9,507
john curl said:
How can we PROVE something like 40KHz response is MANDATORY? We can't, and don't have to, but John Meyer and I have been working with 40KHz response microphones for the last 45 years. Where have you been, PMA? Mark Levinson too, and George Quellet of Stellavox. Just check out B&K 1/2" microphones or their equivalent. Is that bandwidth totally necessary always? Of course not, only just IF you want the most accurate reproduction.
Click to expand...

And those mics are almost never used in a recording studio. This is the gold standard in studios for almost 70 years. Freq response graph at bottom.

https://en-de.neumann.com/u-87-ai#technical-data

Most engineers will filter out anything not in the instruments range. Why keep noise below 100hz in a recording of a female vocal? And the best filters are microphones.
 
#9,509
Most microphones have other useful characteristics. For example, RIBBON microphones are very often used for human voice. Why? Other microphones are directional, or more convenient to operate than B&K omni mikes, but Crystal Clear did many, many recordings with B&K 1/2" mikes, as have several others.
 
#9,513
john curl said:
Most microphones have other useful characteristics. For example, RIBBON microphones are very often used for human voice. Why? Other microphones are directional, or more convenient to operate than B&K omni mikes, but Crystal Clear did many, many recordings with B&K 1/2" mikes, as have several others.
Click to expand...

More convenient to operate? I take it your recording experience is very limited. Ribbons ARE directional, figure 8 pattern and I've never seen one used on vocals. And u87 have multiple patterns including omni. It's the inaccuracies that make studio microphones special that's why they have so many. John, stick to talking about designing electronics, and let the recording engineers tell people about recording.
 
#9,516
I said it looked like there were unintended implications. Bill asked about it, so guess I needed to clarify.

In addition, I do not expect Bill to say it meant that PMA should be embarrassed. It just struck me as odd since I don't recall Bill ever criticizing (the ideas of) PMA. Of course, that only means I don't recall.
 
#9,519
Jakob2 said:
I see, i should have expressed myself better ; what i meant was, that if you belong to the group that have better listening abilities _and_ is interested in better audio reproduction quality then it more likely to find you in a special interest group like diyaudio.
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean, but still not sure I agree. However this is most definately a beer level conversation now 🙂




Can´t dispute that, but wanted to point out that imo the "extremity" isn´t the problem. I follow these discussions since the mid 1980s and the argumentation pattern have been more or less the same. The basis for stating the nonaudibility of some effects is and was always the thresholds of hearing and while neglecting the probability nature of these so-called thresholds (which are in fact anything else than thresholds 🙂 ) everything allegedly violating the threshold rule was considered as being "extreme" .
Click to expand...
Yeah, I feared this argument had been going on for even longer than I had realised. Until I joined here I had managed my adult life in blissful ignorance of the tribalism around this particular point and the total inability to reach any form of common understanding. Makes Brexit seem easy to negotiate!


The important part would be the "can or cannot hear something" because that is reduced to the "cannot" if only negative results are accepted.
So, does it make sense (from an objective viewpoint) to demand controlled "blind" tests if only negative results are accepted?
Click to expand...
I agree with you on that. I just don't know how to break the circle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom