Hi Joshua_G,
Why?
Mostly because of the way you deal with other members and ideas. You seem to enjoy asking a question with the intent of stirring things up when you have no intention of learning or sharing. This is just my impression from reading many of your posts. The link to that other board was illuminating as well. Same behavior, similar responses from other members. I see a theme running there.
I do have a question for you though. Starting with this statement:
I have met many recording engineers over the years as my work put me in a support position for them. These engineers have run the entire range of personalities. I am curious about someone who claims to be a recording engineer because there is a very wide range here.
-Chris
Well, actually there are certain behaviors that trolls exhibit. Right now I am wondering about you.
Why?
Mostly because of the way you deal with other members and ideas. You seem to enjoy asking a question with the intent of stirring things up when you have no intention of learning or sharing. This is just my impression from reading many of your posts. The link to that other board was illuminating as well. Same behavior, similar responses from other members. I see a theme running there.
I do have a question for you though. Starting with this statement:
Okay, I'll bite. What type of recording engineer are you? What type of music do you normally work with, and what type(s) of consoles and recording devices do you use? Are you a Studer guy, or a Fostex guy?
I have met many recording engineers over the years as my work put me in a support position for them. These engineers have run the entire range of personalities. I am curious about someone who claims to be a recording engineer because there is a very wide range here.
-Chris
scott wurcer said:
Exactly.
Perhaps re-read what I said and suggested?
If the headphones are "revealing" as you indicate, perhaps they will also reveal other things. Some of which you may expect, and some of which may confound you. Again, I urge you to experiment at least at first in a non-scientific manner, just to see what you might hear or think you hear as the result of doing some (a reasonable range would make sense) of the things that you yourself think are not likely to A) make any difference and/or B) have a positive effect upon the sound.
These things include:
- caps
- critical resistors
- ps caps
- rectifiers (soft recovery?)
- power cords
- interconnects
- connectors
- blocks of heavy material on top of whatever it is
- mechanical decoupling/coupling your CD source... (surely you put some good AD opamps into that? No??)
- how about just swapping opamps in the analog section of ur CD player?? Pick any high performance, suitable ones.
- power filters/conditioners/isotransformers
- lotus blossoms sprinkled on the floor
- etc...
oh, let's not forget the green pens, the Tice clock and the CD demag tricks... Ok, skip the Tice clock.
But seriously, give it a whack with something that is fast, easy and meets the criterion here? Ok, don't quit on the very first pass... IF you find that it really does alter the presentation of the sound, maybe you have the gear to dig out a measured difference. That would be very good.
Worst case you find that you don't notice much change.
If that is the case, fine.
I suspect that you will find more change than you bargain for.
Will you give it a try?
_-_-bear
Bear,
There's an interesting irony in my case, in that I didn't even particularly like (and still don't) the guy who taught me a great deal about what can be heard. It was definitely not a case of following a guru-ish person that I admired. I resented both the specific person and the perceived attack on my long-held position that we knew everything that was important and all that remained to be done was a little dusting in the corners. (Yes, there are parallels to physics when they thought they knew everything...just before quantum mechanics blew their doors in.) But the 'little dusting in the corners' couldn't possibly uncover anything important.
No, I do not anticipate anything so drastic as a paradigm-changing discovery in audio. It's more a question of willingness to look in those dusty corners and being content with incremental improvements that can be achieved through parts selection and the like.
Face it, even a cheap '50s car radio can present the essence of the music, at least a good enough job for you to sing along. To improve on that is easy enough, but it's not a linear progression--it's asymptotic. The further you get along the curve--the closer to the sound of 'real music'--the smaller the improvements get. A little here, a little there.
Obviously, it's inconceivable to some here that those improvements might be found anywhere other than in what they know...but that portion of the floor has already been swept clean many times. Just how much cleaner can it get? Why not dust the tops of the door sills and pull the pillows off the couch searching for the dirt that's been ignored by those who only think in terms of vacuuming the ordinary places?
Grey
There's an interesting irony in my case, in that I didn't even particularly like (and still don't) the guy who taught me a great deal about what can be heard. It was definitely not a case of following a guru-ish person that I admired. I resented both the specific person and the perceived attack on my long-held position that we knew everything that was important and all that remained to be done was a little dusting in the corners. (Yes, there are parallels to physics when they thought they knew everything...just before quantum mechanics blew their doors in.) But the 'little dusting in the corners' couldn't possibly uncover anything important.
No, I do not anticipate anything so drastic as a paradigm-changing discovery in audio. It's more a question of willingness to look in those dusty corners and being content with incremental improvements that can be achieved through parts selection and the like.
Face it, even a cheap '50s car radio can present the essence of the music, at least a good enough job for you to sing along. To improve on that is easy enough, but it's not a linear progression--it's asymptotic. The further you get along the curve--the closer to the sound of 'real music'--the smaller the improvements get. A little here, a little there.
Obviously, it's inconceivable to some here that those improvements might be found anywhere other than in what they know...but that portion of the floor has already been swept clean many times. Just how much cleaner can it get? Why not dust the tops of the door sills and pull the pillows off the couch searching for the dirt that's been ignored by those who only think in terms of vacuuming the ordinary places?
Grey
I'll try it, I am about to modify one of JC's HCA 3500 amps, I will do it in a few stages and listen for a day or two between each.
I am no trained ear, but I can hear every change I have ever made to my equipment including cables, interconnects, incremental speaker movement, tilt, amps, preamps, crossovers. 128k vs lossless, wmp, vs itunes player, vs foobar, I can't tell you which is which in a bllind test but I can certainly hear differences switching between them.
Hang in there and watch for my results titled "changes I should not be attempting and the results I only think I noticed"
I should be finished in march or april 2020. right after I finish my (wifes) other projects and the difmaker challenge.
Matt
I am no trained ear, but I can hear every change I have ever made to my equipment including cables, interconnects, incremental speaker movement, tilt, amps, preamps, crossovers. 128k vs lossless, wmp, vs itunes player, vs foobar, I can't tell you which is which in a bllind test but I can certainly hear differences switching between them.
Hang in there and watch for my results titled "changes I should not be attempting and the results I only think I noticed"
I should be finished in march or april 2020. right after I finish my (wifes) other projects and the difmaker challenge.
Matt
I might lighten things up by describing my day so far. It might be slightly different from what you might think.
First, I hired Demain's Tech to work with me for approximately 4 hours, today. I am charged with repairing some microphone preamps that I originally designed for Dave Wilson Audio, decades ago. They have made dozens of recordings, but now they need some repair and refurbishing.
At the same time I was operating my HP 3563 Control Systems Analyzer and measuring 1 meter lengths of connecting cable for any differences between them. the analyzer can measure down to .001dB in theory, but I didn't find much to bother anyone with, up to 100KHz. I just wanted to see if Scott's inference about cable frequency had any merit with connecting cables. It doesn't appear to.
Toward the end of the day, I played a record originally recorded in 1971 at the Fillmore auditorium where I was in charge of the technical aspects of the recording for an feature film. This was done with a 16 channel Ampex 2" recorder that I knew well, as I worked for Ampex when this recorder was designed. So, the recording was partly my doing. It was played back by a CTC-Vendetta phono-line stage, designed entirely by me, played through a Parasound power amp with my name associated with it through WATT 1 speakers and a subwoofer designed by Brian Cheney, who I still share a warehouse with.
The tech then asked who made the speakers, as he was surprised how good they sounded. I said they were made by the same company that we were fixing the microphone preamps for.
Incestuous bunch aren't we?
PS The inside of the preamp is wired with BEAR's silver cable, the interconnect cable was made for me by AUDIOWOLF, and the speaker cables were Cardas, previously owned by Enid Lumley. OF course, BYBEE devices were on the inputs to the loudspeakers, and in the AC electronics for the preamp.
First, I hired Demain's Tech to work with me for approximately 4 hours, today. I am charged with repairing some microphone preamps that I originally designed for Dave Wilson Audio, decades ago. They have made dozens of recordings, but now they need some repair and refurbishing.
At the same time I was operating my HP 3563 Control Systems Analyzer and measuring 1 meter lengths of connecting cable for any differences between them. the analyzer can measure down to .001dB in theory, but I didn't find much to bother anyone with, up to 100KHz. I just wanted to see if Scott's inference about cable frequency had any merit with connecting cables. It doesn't appear to.
Toward the end of the day, I played a record originally recorded in 1971 at the Fillmore auditorium where I was in charge of the technical aspects of the recording for an feature film. This was done with a 16 channel Ampex 2" recorder that I knew well, as I worked for Ampex when this recorder was designed. So, the recording was partly my doing. It was played back by a CTC-Vendetta phono-line stage, designed entirely by me, played through a Parasound power amp with my name associated with it through WATT 1 speakers and a subwoofer designed by Brian Cheney, who I still share a warehouse with.
The tech then asked who made the speakers, as he was surprised how good they sounded. I said they were made by the same company that we were fixing the microphone preamps for.
Incestuous bunch aren't we?
PS The inside of the preamp is wired with BEAR's silver cable, the interconnect cable was made for me by AUDIOWOLF, and the speaker cables were Cardas, previously owned by Enid Lumley. OF course, BYBEE devices were on the inputs to the loudspeakers, and in the AC electronics for the preamp.
Ironhardware, please be careful. It is not easy to modify a 3500, without experience.
We found that the biggest problem was the main 47K feedback resistor that should be a .5W Holco ( of the old, non-magnetic kind) if possible.
Removing numerous extra caps on the power supply can help also, as well as high speed diodes in the driver circuit power supply.
We sold a small number of modified 3500's for $5,000 each to grateful customers about 10 years ago. I used one for a few years, until I accidently spilled coffee in it, while it was running.
I wish that I could afford the technicians to fix these amps, as I have several broken ones.
We found that the biggest problem was the main 47K feedback resistor that should be a .5W Holco ( of the old, non-magnetic kind) if possible.
Removing numerous extra caps on the power supply can help also, as well as high speed diodes in the driver circuit power supply.
We sold a small number of modified 3500's for $5,000 each to grateful customers about 10 years ago. I used one for a few years, until I accidently spilled coffee in it, while it was running.
I wish that I could afford the technicians to fix these amps, as I have several broken ones.
Now I know why I didn't hear from my tech today. . .
I have measured cables obsessively as well. On the instrument you won't see anything below several MHz. Perhaps more in a real world chain- commercial preamp to power amp - because of the interaction of the source impedance and the composite load impedance. I spent part of my day troubleshooting a Fluke attenuator test fixture, only to discover that its only accurate with a 10 Mohm input. Explains why it was so far off on 100K input impedance and in an unexpected way. A few hours off in left field again. Speaker cables between real amps and real speakers do produce measurable differences in the audio band and possibly audibly measurable differences.
All of the discussion about grounding and noise coupling is very significant in the cable issue and not measurable on the cable itself. Everything from the effective resistance and inductance of the shields to the distance between the cables connecting stereo channels in stereo boxes can influence the ingress of emi/rfi and that can affect the sound a lot.
I have measured cables obsessively as well. On the instrument you won't see anything below several MHz. Perhaps more in a real world chain- commercial preamp to power amp - because of the interaction of the source impedance and the composite load impedance. I spent part of my day troubleshooting a Fluke attenuator test fixture, only to discover that its only accurate with a 10 Mohm input. Explains why it was so far off on 100K input impedance and in an unexpected way. A few hours off in left field again. Speaker cables between real amps and real speakers do produce measurable differences in the audio band and possibly audibly measurable differences.
All of the discussion about grounding and noise coupling is very significant in the cable issue and not measurable on the cable itself. Everything from the effective resistance and inductance of the shields to the distance between the cables connecting stereo channels in stereo boxes can influence the ingress of emi/rfi and that can affect the sound a lot.
Hi Demian, thanks for letting me hire your tech, once in a while. I have had these mike preamps for a long time, and Dave Wilson is wanting them back (for some reason).
Still, Brian and I had fun trying different cables and noting what the analyzer did with them. While showing him, I was also learning how to use the analyzer more effectively. Unfortunately, we did not finish with the preamps and left one, almost 'shotgunned' with all of its active input devices removed.(darn, and they all measured OK, too!) I hope to get him back in a week or so, when you don't need him, and put everything back together. We had a lot of fun troubleshooting servos too, in another mike preamp. Still, a mystery, he can tell you about it, if you are interested.
Still, Brian and I had fun trying different cables and noting what the analyzer did with them. While showing him, I was also learning how to use the analyzer more effectively. Unfortunately, we did not finish with the preamps and left one, almost 'shotgunned' with all of its active input devices removed.(darn, and they all measured OK, too!) I hope to get him back in a week or so, when you don't need him, and put everything back together. We had a lot of fun troubleshooting servos too, in another mike preamp. Still, a mystery, he can tell you about it, if you are interested.
1audio said:
You will measure very diffrent HF EMI pickup (always) and also very different 'low frequency noise' (mains components), both especially dependent on real audio chain setup. Why nobody wants to take this serious? I know that different EMI pickup changes sound considerably. Instead of this reason, people try to explain by material differences etc. I am pretty sure the ***** secondary effects , not the real reason of sound difference.
I am pretty sure that the fact that anyone can change the cable is the case.
SY said:
I would absolutely agree, which is why they'll go under the aural microscope as soon as I have a place to open up my gear and do some soldering.
Jan: Regarding tunnels and lights, I had a very similar NDE. The tunnel, the light, the voices of my long departed loved ones. But they were all saying, "Quick! Cover up that light before he sees it and finds us!"
And regarding the Sousa band, could one make the case that uncorrelated additions are less detectable than correlated ones?
I just heard they turned off the light at the end of the tunnel to save energy
Stuart, Bear: With 'correlated' I meant correlated to the signal. The way that harmonic distortion is less easy to detect (because it is less objectionable) than for instance non-correlated IMD. Sorry for my sloppy terms.
BTW Did you try DiffMaker? Yesterday evening I listened to the difference tracks with the ceramic and the foil cap, as well as one of the sousa tracks. Interesting.
Jan Didden
Kovar again
John,
Not that I believe in the devastating effect of 'magnetic' resistors, but in the context of your disappointing experience with those NASA spec resistors (post 14406) , may I remind you that the Kovar leads of those resistors have paramagnetic properties.
john curl said:
John,
Not that I believe in the devastating effect of 'magnetic' resistors, but in the context of your disappointing experience with those NASA spec resistors (post 14406) , may I remind you that the Kovar leads of those resistors have paramagnetic properties.
Despite your impression, I have no intention to provoke others.
Between 1964 and 1974 I worked for the Israeli Broadcasting Authority. About 5 years I worked as a maintenance technician and about 5 years as a recording engineer. We recorded various types of music, including the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra, the Israeli Broadcast Orchestra (Arabic music), Israeli Folk singers and groups and rock bands. Most of the consoles were made by the Broadcasting Authority. The tape recorders were Ampex 1/4", 2 tracks, 15 ips. The only microphones I remember were Neumann condenser mikes. The Broadcasting Authority is a non-commercial, public service, funded by Israeli government, operating on a low budget. Thus, our choice of recording gear was limited. We had to produce the best possible sound with the gear we had. We could only dream about better gear (as much as today I dream about a better audio system, which I cannot afford).
Sounds good to me, Joshua. Audiowolf is the closest person to the recording process that I know personally, today. I made a number of recordings between 1970 and 1974 with my Ampex 15ips 2 track 1/4'' professional tape recorder. Mostly from the PA mikes, so I didn't get much mike placement experience, but I did get good recordings.
Nursing the 16 channel recordings through Hollywood's process of making a movie with it, was very challenging: I had to go from 16 tr to 6tr magnetic film then to 3 tr final film mix, and finally make a protection master magnetic film track.
I had to record the protection master from the original, backwards for several hours. Drove the techs nuts, but I got the right result.
Nursing the 16 channel recordings through Hollywood's process of making a movie with it, was very challenging: I had to go from 16 tr to 6tr magnetic film then to 3 tr final film mix, and finally make a protection master magnetic film track.
I had to record the protection master from the original, backwards for several hours. Drove the techs nuts, but I got the right result.
janneman said:
Ok, I'm not an expert in the matter of correlated vs. uncorrelated distortions. However, it would seem to me that uncorrelated distortions would (assuming we are talking about vanishingly low levels compared to the "signal") be more or less random noise and so would be very difficult to detect (as in, noticed as something wrong). Unless, of course, it is an especially agreedious type of horrific harmonic spectra.
The type of distortions that I am referring to, no matter what you call them, effect the overall presentation of sound reproduced in stereo. The effect is to render something "wrong" with one or more aspects of the presentation: the spatial, the tonal, some sort of lack of "naturalness"... the simplest example is some sort of "grain" or "edge" on the HF.
An example is where things are ok on say a quartet, but on a large choir with orchestra the image, the tone, the spatial characteristics go to hell as the level goes up and the complexity increases. (btw, on the latter, you'd not notice it that much unless you had a basis for comparison with a system that "held together" under these conditions.)
Are you familiar with the D.E.L Shorter (BBC) work and now the Gedlee Metric? Your comments lead me to think that perhaps not.
Again, it is the spectra of distortion that counts in the main, NOT the absolute level.
Also, what mechanism do you propose for the creation of non-correlated IMD in a normal (the usual that is) hi-fi system (or amplifier?)??
_-_-bear
Please read what 1audio and PMA just said if you won't listen to me. You can't pull cables out of the system and measure much of anything. In situ is all that matters.
bear said:
Bear,
This was discussed in the context of the Diffmaker files. My point was that audible differences between, say, capacitors or wires are 'correlated' with the music program. In contrast, mixing in a sousa band is totally 'uncorrelated' with the main music track, and as such would be (in my opinion) easier to detect than the cap/wire differences, all things like levels etc being equal.
I do realise that perhaps this is not the correct use of the word correlated/uncorrelated, but I assume that my meaning is understood.
I have been reading that Shorter work a long time ago, I don't remember the details, but I'll read up on it and on Earls work as well. Thanks for the hint.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.