Is a recording microphone absolutely unequivocally 100% identical to what the human ear would hear in that same space? It feels like that is always assumed in discussions like this. What if a bit of key information is "lost" in the recording process? I guess I need to do more research. When I chase the very lowest distortion numbers all the way through, many times my system sounds less involving, and less "real" (acoustic instruments in an actual space, human voice, etc.), rather than more. And I quickly end up reverting back to less "perfect" solutions. Solutions of the "pleasing" type I guess, at least to a certain degree to find that "sweet spot".
To re-create concert hall acoustical field at home is technically impossible. The very lowest distortion numbers are nothing but technical challenge only. Ear tollerates very high nonlinear distortion with music signal.
Not even close. The mic has to be considered as part of the art.
The mike definitely should NOT be the same as the ear!
The task of the mike(s) and the amplifier and speaker is to reproduce the sound in the listening area as faithfully as posiible, add nothing, take nothing away.
Then it is up the ear to make sense of it all.
Jan
The task of the mike(s) and the amplifier and speaker is to reproduce the sound in the listening area as faithfully as posiible, add nothing, take nothing away.
Then it is up the ear to make sense of it all.
Jan
I kinda disagree about the mic: it's really the first sound shaping elements ( art related) in the chain.
Technology used ( ribbon, electrostatic, dynamic,...), directivity ( from figure of eight to omni with all intermediate step), if stereo the kind of couple used (Blumlein, MS, AB, XY, NOS, ORTF, etc,etc,...) all gives a different rendering.
Difficult to say which choice is faithfull to the event they are supposed to capture: it's really a matter of taste or vision you have of the event.
I ( and most engineer i worked with or were colleague) tend to think it's the most powerfull tone shaping tool at our disposal for acoustic instruments, way before eq, dynamic treatment or plain FX.
The other parts in the chain should not bring or take anything but... it's a fantasy.
Technology used ( ribbon, electrostatic, dynamic,...), directivity ( from figure of eight to omni with all intermediate step), if stereo the kind of couple used (Blumlein, MS, AB, XY, NOS, ORTF, etc,etc,...) all gives a different rendering.
Difficult to say which choice is faithfull to the event they are supposed to capture: it's really a matter of taste or vision you have of the event.
I ( and most engineer i worked with or were colleague) tend to think it's the most powerfull tone shaping tool at our disposal for acoustic instruments, way before eq, dynamic treatment or plain FX.
The other parts in the chain should not bring or take anything but... it's a fantasy.
Jan, thank you for taking your time out of retirement!
Keep them coming!
Keep them coming!
It's not. Definitely not.
It is the same as for pictures, a camera does not mimic our visual system. It's all an illusion. Very nice but an illusion nonetheless.
May i suggest you to read this ( very) short paper on the subject, i'm sure it'll help you to start your own research in a nice way ( it help to undersand why such comment as 'art related' are used too):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...EQFnoECBQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3XMCMAWW_Qmk7D-QjsyUYn
Harmonic Distortion is a parameter amongst others. Some other kind of distortions exists ( as soon as there is a difference between input and output there is a distortion mechanism at work).
If you read the paper you'll encounter eg angular distortion...
Good search.
Last edited:
When a recording played back in my living room makes me turn my head to SEE who is playing the instrument, that's what I am trying to achieve.
Closest I got to that was with a virtual piano played on Steinberg Cubase virtual studio software, so it was not even a recording.
I can recreate a live event only if I have visit the real thing up front. It's done by memory.
Closest I got to that was with a virtual piano played on Steinberg Cubase virtual studio software, so it was not even a recording.
I can recreate a live event only if I have visit the real thing up front. It's done by memory.
That exactly!
I’m often compelled to look at the artist on stage in front of me. One of those subjective impressions that determines how good is a reproduction system.
There is at least one proper standard for making objective measurements of subjective perception of audio: https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf
If you can't stand to measure with humans, you could also try: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.01467.pdf#:~:text=The data supports the finding,in the intermediate quality range.
If I were to guess, I'd say dynamic range. Whatever it is that the air impinges upon to convert into an electrical signal is going to have some mass, which means it'll start moving in response to the air moving "eventually".
Given that a mic is such a tool in the recording engineer's toolbox, one would think manufacturers would make them like a ratchet and socket set. Pick the capsule that fits what you want to do, snap it onto the body...
Exactly what a Neumann CMV3 was ( first ever condenser microphone, also known as 'the bottle'). The legacy kept on... and is still used.
I don't know if dynamic is lost within the recording process: some capsule withstand 140db+ spl without complaining.
In your given description of dynamic related issue JJasniew i would be more concerned by the effect on high frequency range.
The fact is as soon as there is some directivity involved (whichever it is) there is a mismatch with how our ears work.
I don't know if dynamic is lost within the recording process: some capsule withstand 140db+ spl without complaining.
In your given description of dynamic related issue JJasniew i would be more concerned by the effect on high frequency range.
The fact is as soon as there is some directivity involved (whichever it is) there is a mismatch with how our ears work.
Last edited:
I understand your disappointment Jan, but I think there's a gotcha in the approach that has to be dealt with before you can get satisfaction.
You're generous contribution is going out to a very wide-band audience after all and you are neither able to select who receives it or who replies.
Any school can deal with this by requiring some sort of admission test . . . . . . and in a classroom, the teacher can silence activity that goes off topic.
I wonder if it could work to give the thread starter some administrative power over his thread so that posts designed to drag the whole thing down can be removed by the OP , and at their discretion prevent further posts if the member persists in distracting or destructive posting.
Of course there will be some who overuse their power, but those who don't like it will be free to put threads by that member on their ignore list , and those who are into learning something from a serious discussion on a different thread will benefit from it.
Just a thought. What do you think?
Yes, it would be nice if everybody with "sounds better" claims would follow the methods used in that standard such as double blind testing and near-instantaneous switching.
@jan.didden,
Norman Crowhurst, aside from his very technical published works, did some entry level articles for curious people about those new high technology of his time.
This (historical) articles got me started on this long journey. I wish i could have thanked this man maybe an hundred times since then.
Don't let critics put you down. There is good and bad things from this thread to be taken. Popularization is not easy, thank you doing it... your way.
In 50 years someone would like to thank you introducing him/her to all this thanks to what you have written.
Ps:
Some of Crowhurst books can be found there, including one about feedback implementation:
http://www.tubebooks.org/technical_books_online.htm
Norman Crowhurst, aside from his very technical published works, did some entry level articles for curious people about those new high technology of his time.
This (historical) articles got me started on this long journey. I wish i could have thanked this man maybe an hundred times since then.
Don't let critics put you down. There is good and bad things from this thread to be taken. Popularization is not easy, thank you doing it... your way.
In 50 years someone would like to thank you introducing him/her to all this thanks to what you have written.
Ps:
Some of Crowhurst books can be found there, including one about feedback implementation:
http://www.tubebooks.org/technical_books_online.htm
Last edited:
Have you already defined "distortion" for your readers in a way they can intuit? Does it include linear distortion, particularly if its likely audible due to excess group delay?
IOW, what assumptions should people in this thread make about the technical level of the readership of the articles?
When you say "what the human ear would hear" you are missing a VERY important part of hearing: the brain! The ear itself does not hear anything, it only senses pressure. Hearing is the brain interpreting signals from the ear. One's hearing is nothing at all like a microphone measurement. A good example of this is the fact that we all live in reflective (indoor) environments, and can hear perfectly well in them. When there is a sound source like someone speaking, we perceive only one event: the spoken word(s). But in reality the sound is coming from the person talking AND it is reflecting off of all of the surfaces in the room and those additional signals are picked up by the ear. If you substitute a microphone for the ear and record a measurement of the soundfield you will have a total mess due to all of the different sound sources (direct sound and multiple reflections coming soon thereafter) that are picked up by the microphone's pressure sensing diaphragm. The ear+brain are able to ignore the later sounds that are similar to the direct sound (actually they are sort of combined or folded into the perception of the direct sound for the first 40 msec or so) and so you only perceive one event despite multiple stimuli coming to the system.