john curl said:
He doesn’t have a clue.
He is using a lot of words and trying to hide his incompetence.
Cheers
Stinius
alansawyer said:
alansawyer said:
alansawyer - what sort of bug exactly has landed in your briefs??
you've basically explained that you "hear no differences" by what you said above. this is akin to saying that based upon your driving you see no difference between you Lexus (pick any common production automobile) and a NASCAR machine, isn't it?
in terms of the price discussion, there are two parts to it, the price and what it does - we've been talking about what it does. how much it costs is a business issue that while one could discuss isn't really a factor in this forum, generally speaking.
as far as the schematics go, I don't think you have really read this thread at all - based upon what I read in the thread I am pretty sure that I could come scary close to duplicating the circuitry by merely reading it. that plus a bit of internet searching would yield a whole lot of other "supporting information".
imho, ur far too adamant and somewhat misinformed as to what information JCurl has either directly or indirectly provided in this thread... btw there was a somewhat lengthy discussion on why the box was milled and not welded...
for the record I wouldn't plunk down 10grand for a preamp either, but maybe that's how and why I got into the business in the first place?
_-_-bear
Some people just can't take criticism, or a cheap shot, but I am expected to 'smile' for some reason.
Please don't take 'cheap shots' personally, I certainly can't afford to do so, or I would be reduced to 'tears' a good deal of the time. 
For those of you who thought that audio can be interpreted by dB and ppm, here is the series of articles from your absolutely trusted JAES:
H. Møller (Briiel & Kjaer), Multidimensional Audio: Pts 1-3, May, June, August 1979
Please read and shut up
H. Møller (Briiel & Kjaer), Multidimensional Audio: Pts 1-3, May, June, August 1979
Please read and shut up
GIVE PEACE A CHANCE
Whats with the fighting?
I'm on this post like a junky, because I love audio (its music that I love, but I love to hear it reproduced the "best way possible"), and I want to learn more electronics. Arnt the rest of you? I have more knowledge on the mic end, and would like to share.
Placed for what? If your good, you place the mics so the instrument fits in the mix (works in the song). Its not about getting a real life piano sound, or most pop recordings wouldnt be putting the mics 8" over the hammers(or 1 inch over the snare drum) And some of these recordings sound very good.
Everything you listen to on your "stereo" is artificial and manipulated, more or less, usually more. (almost as bad as a movie). It is not like being at a live performance and never will be. And IMO should not be. Do your trombones drasticlly change tone when the player swings it around, almost taking an eye out when the horn is pointed right at you? You would call this a lousy recording, but live it can be exhilerating.
As soon as you put a mike up your changing the sound, even recording a live string quartet (I used to do this). And if you ask 10 good recording engineers where to put the 1 stereo mic youl get 10 different answers. The differance between them and you guys is they will agree to disagree and call it preferance (becuase they will all "sound good"). You guys just keep disagreeing because "I can hear the differance" or "the equation (sim) says this is better". When you guys (and me some day I hope) get to this level, and this attention to detail, there becomes no better or worse, it becomes preferance.
Remember we are all part of this small fraternity, and remember how small it was before the internet.
Whats with the fighting?
I'm on this post like a junky, because I love audio (its music that I love, but I love to hear it reproduced the "best way possible"), and I want to learn more electronics. Arnt the rest of you? I have more knowledge on the mic end, and would like to share.
Placed for what? If your good, you place the mics so the instrument fits in the mix (works in the song). Its not about getting a real life piano sound, or most pop recordings wouldnt be putting the mics 8" over the hammers(or 1 inch over the snare drum) And some of these recordings sound very good.
Everything you listen to on your "stereo" is artificial and manipulated, more or less, usually more. (almost as bad as a movie). It is not like being at a live performance and never will be. And IMO should not be. Do your trombones drasticlly change tone when the player swings it around, almost taking an eye out when the horn is pointed right at you? You would call this a lousy recording, but live it can be exhilerating.
As soon as you put a mike up your changing the sound, even recording a live string quartet (I used to do this). And if you ask 10 good recording engineers where to put the 1 stereo mic youl get 10 different answers. The differance between them and you guys is they will agree to disagree and call it preferance (becuase they will all "sound good"). You guys just keep disagreeing because "I can hear the differance" or "the equation (sim) says this is better". When you guys (and me some day I hope) get to this level, and this attention to detail, there becomes no better or worse, it becomes preferance.
Remember we are all part of this small fraternity, and remember how small it was before the internet.
Thanks for your input, cbdb.
I was amazed at the live vs recorded presentation at CES that the clarinet could not be recorded properly with the mike set-up they used. Everything else recorded OK.
I was amazed at the live vs recorded presentation at CES that the clarinet could not be recorded properly with the mike set-up they used. Everything else recorded OK.
alansawyer said:
For those who are interested in knowing what wholesale prices of aluminum are like : Here
Overhere, the businesses that sell to private individuals easily charge up to 5 times as much.
The smallest wholesale plate size is 80" x 40", if you start building multiple chassis you'll find out that such a size isn't as intimidating as it may sound.
It seems to me that many engineers from the 50's knew where to put mikes much better than those guys that are doing it today. Could be that limited technology and post processing options made them work and listen harder. Than, if one takes some of those records and remaster them with good ear and todays technology you get Malcolm Addey's Mosaic jazz remasters which sound awesome and are miles away from most of today's recordings.
Anyway, there really are many wonderfully recorded albums from those years and there are very few excellent recordings today. So, is quality recording (due to modern technology options and lack of audience interest) becoming lost art? 🙁
Anyway, there really are many wonderfully recorded albums from those years and there are very few excellent recordings today. So, is quality recording (due to modern technology options and lack of audience interest) becoming lost art? 🙁
Attachments
I agree wholeharted to that. I think it was becoming a lost art. Hearing about the activities of some good recording engineers (Keith 'JJ' Johnson, Bernie Grundman and others) at the AES and RMAF last year makes me believe it is slow turning around. These guys get fed up being misused to record stuff that mainly sound loud and compressed.
Some time ago I managed to get a pristine copy of an LP of Paul Simon's Graceland LP from, IIRC, 1986 and the exact same CD. I assume they were made from the same master: the arrangements are the same, the liners are the same, they sound the same and their serial numbers differ by 1.
Play the CD and the LP and there is very, very little difference between the two, with the CD sounding just a bit cleaner.
I then located 4 other versions of one track on that record that had been brought out in 1992, 1998 and 2006. Each sounded progressively worse, louder, less dynamics. So, if you would play that 2006 CD track against the 1986 LP wou would want to burn your CD player. But the 1986 CD could easily hold its own.
My conclusion is that CD technology often gets blamed for somebody else's incompetence or downright sloppyness.
Jan Didden
Some time ago I managed to get a pristine copy of an LP of Paul Simon's Graceland LP from, IIRC, 1986 and the exact same CD. I assume they were made from the same master: the arrangements are the same, the liners are the same, they sound the same and their serial numbers differ by 1.
Play the CD and the LP and there is very, very little difference between the two, with the CD sounding just a bit cleaner.
I then located 4 other versions of one track on that record that had been brought out in 1992, 1998 and 2006. Each sounded progressively worse, louder, less dynamics. So, if you would play that 2006 CD track against the 1986 LP wou would want to burn your CD player. But the 1986 CD could easily hold its own.
My conclusion is that CD technology often gets blamed for somebody else's incompetence or downright sloppyness.
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Thanks for that Jan, it is very interesting.
I have several tracks of various songs duplicated on different CD's that one would expect to be the same. As they are several years apart it will be interesting to see whether they have been remixed/altered. It simply never occurred to me that they were other than direct digital images of the same data.
I will go and look them up now. It is also possible to look at the WAV files to see what has changed but thatwill be a labourious task.
alansawyer said:
I used Audacity (free) to look at the waves. The progressive compression and loudness rather hits you in the face. Not subtle. Be sure to set the vert scale to dB rather than linear, though.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.