That quote is simply provably wrong. BTW I forgot to mention that frequency smearing and spectral smearing are not possible in a linear system, creating new frequencies requires a non-linearity.
With ca 20% less mains supply, ESL63 output went down by 1.7dB.
The image below shows that the Bias voltage only influences Gain.
No sign of additional HF influence on the frequency range.
I think we can close this supposed mains supply effect as being non true.
Therefore no further action from my side.
Hans
The image below shows that the Bias voltage only influences Gain.
No sign of additional HF influence on the frequency range.
I think we can close this supposed mains supply effect as being non true.
Therefore no further action from my side.
Hans
Which is of course the expected result of that simple test.
Unfortunately, it doesn't cover what was discussed.
jn
They spot mic cymbals on classical recordings? IIRC your friend Kavi used big square diaphragm mics from Pearl (and all tube electronics) for his Grammy winning Water Lily recordings. Oh and BTW is even one of those mic you listed rated to 40kHz, by small I mean 1/4" or less several of the mics you listed are at a sweet spot where flat to 20kHz is about it.
Last edited:
I had a quick scan through it, many things he states aren't accurate (and I'm no expert), at one point he even admits not really understanding
It is a fact that CD is an older format, and that many serious listeners are using a higher sampling rate format. Of course, some recordings are OK in CD form, but generally it has been found that higher sampling rate formats can actually sound better, IF you can detect the difference. This includes our individual hearing-brain sensitivity, as well as the bandwidth of our tweeters. Most tweeters do not go much beyond 20KHz for practical reasons. However, both typical condenser microphones and tweeters often only roll off at 6-12dB/oct, but not much more. This tends to preserve much of the 'transient' waveform at high frequencies, and this is usually enough.
However, the 'brickwall' filters we are discussing, cause all kinds of problems, and we knew about many of these problems, even 40 years ago. We are addressing these problems with better 'brickwall' filters, (removing pre-shoot for example) and generally recording at much faster sampling rates and ultimately releasing the highest quality audio at these faster sampling rates.
If those of you here are not interested in anything beyond CD, just like many of you will never own a sports car, its OK, but the rest of us will go for the newer formats, and that should be OK with you as well.
However, the 'brickwall' filters we are discussing, cause all kinds of problems, and we knew about many of these problems, even 40 years ago. We are addressing these problems with better 'brickwall' filters, (removing pre-shoot for example) and generally recording at much faster sampling rates and ultimately releasing the highest quality audio at these faster sampling rates.
If those of you here are not interested in anything beyond CD, just like many of you will never own a sports car, its OK, but the rest of us will go for the newer formats, and that should be OK with you as well.
Last edited:
I'm nor defending 16/44 but I belive it can do really well. Can higher Fs and no_of_bits do better. Technically no doubt, audible... well... the jury is out on that one. Maybe a little. But the guy setting up the mics and doing the post-prod has way more impact than the Fs. Thats my view on it.
//
Please stick to the facts.
Polar plots were not at all discussed but only proposed by you.
A brick wall filter does not shift frequencies and varying the mains supply of an ESL63 does only affect overall Gain, just like turning down the volume that does not change the polar plot either.
Be like a man and admit those cases where you were wrong,
especially to those people who invest their time in experiments.
Hans
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott wurcer View Post
They spot mic cymbals on classical recordings?
Small is not just 1/4 inch. one inch or less is considered small diam. B&K measurement mics are used more and more often. Back in the Day --- B&K used to make a demo CD all using precision low distortion measurement mics. Kinda wasted on 16/44 CD though. But they did sound clear-er. A JC just pointed out.... roll off is gradual... such that even a 1 inch has significant output from its tight "flat" spec. with its gradual roll-off characteristics. But smaller is better for cymbals.
Recording Studio Microphones: The Ultimate Beginner's Guidehttps://ehomerecordingstudio.com › types-of-microphones
Small Diaphragm Condenser Mics The small diaphragm condenser mic specializes in recording instruments rich in high frequency detail, such as cymbals and acoustic guitar. Just as large diaphragm condensers use smaller diaphragms than dynamic mics… Small diaphragm condensers use diaphragms that are even smaller.
Dont want you to give anyone the idea new HD HiRez recordings others listen to are all with old Shure dynamics from yesteryear. Even though many here may have systems/speakers which makes it sound that way.
Better mics are being used today along with higher sampling rates etc. All more accurate IMO.
I dont know about new classical recordings though. Dont listen to classical if I can help it... Was raised listening to it. Enough already.
SOS mag -->
Re: mics for classical and jazz recording
Postby Sam Inglis » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:03 pm
I would imagine that 90 percent or more of professionally made classical recordings are done using small-diaphragm omni mics as the main pair, so my first thought is that you might want to invest in a good pair of omnis.
THx-RNMarsh
Originally Posted by scott wurcer View Post
They spot mic cymbals on classical recordings?
Small is not just 1/4 inch. one inch or less is considered small diam. B&K measurement mics are used more and more often. Back in the Day --- B&K used to make a demo CD all using precision low distortion measurement mics. Kinda wasted on 16/44 CD though. But they did sound clear-er. A JC just pointed out.... roll off is gradual... such that even a 1 inch has significant output from its tight "flat" spec. with its gradual roll-off characteristics. But smaller is better for cymbals.
Recording Studio Microphones: The Ultimate Beginner's Guidehttps://ehomerecordingstudio.com › types-of-microphones
Small Diaphragm Condenser Mics The small diaphragm condenser mic specializes in recording instruments rich in high frequency detail, such as cymbals and acoustic guitar. Just as large diaphragm condensers use smaller diaphragms than dynamic mics… Small diaphragm condensers use diaphragms that are even smaller.
Dont want you to give anyone the idea new HD HiRez recordings others listen to are all with old Shure dynamics from yesteryear. Even though many here may have systems/speakers which makes it sound that way.
Better mics are being used today along with higher sampling rates etc. All more accurate IMO.
I dont know about new classical recordings though. Dont listen to classical if I can help it... Was raised listening to it. Enough already.
SOS mag -->
Re: mics for classical and jazz recording
Postby Sam Inglis » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:03 pm
I would imagine that 90 percent or more of professionally made classical recordings are done using small-diaphragm omni mics as the main pair, so my first thought is that you might want to invest in a good pair of omnis.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
For something the size of the Quads is 1m not too close to measure? Toole says, measure in the far-field and scale the measure to 1m.
dave
Give that the speaker type you are testing show a rise in gain during a tone burst, as documented by tests included within a published paper, due to curvature based charge lateral shifts...why would you think a white noise steady state spectra would be capable of looking for that type of effect? It certainly would not have shown what was actually measured prior.
Granted, the test you did might be the only one you have the equipment for, but setting up and concluding that a test which has no possibility of seeing what was discussed, and then showing it as proof something does not exist..either you do not understand, or even worse, you are deflecting.
Why not just put them on a scale, weight them, then say that is proof?
When a poor choice of modulation is used, and then the upper sideband is excluded by a brickwall, the resultant output is the sum of the carrier(the average of the two initial frequencies), and the lower frequency. The resultant modulated stream has a new center carrier, as your plots show.
As to turning down the volume does not change the polar plot?? Please do not make up more strawman arguments, they are just really transparent..nobody has disagreed with the gain statement you made, so not sure what you were trying to prove.
As I said, lateral charge displacement caused by the delay lines and physical ring structure on the stators may conspire to alter the ring by ring gain in the exact same way measured and reported within that paper, and that will alter the polar directivity.
And, if it is a measureable effect that Richard reported on, the design solution is a trivial one. The actual manufacturing possibility would depend on quite a few things, such as the viscosity and wettability of the fluid used for the sheet conductivity... It is not clear if silk screening of the diaphragm surface, transfer printing, 2-D cnc style printing, or even a removal process such as plasma etching (not sure of the diaphragm integrity through that process) would be applicable.
Wow, such a technical jab... if you believe that is an adequate response to a technical discussion, I have a bridge to sell you.
Perhaps you would be better served by a reasonable technical discussion..please try.
jn
Last edited:
Nah. For what he decided he wanted to prove, near field was more than adequate.
Edit: I guess there is a slight possibility that if the ring structure is truly producing a spherical wavefront, there could be a change in the plot as one gets further from the panel.. To check that, one would need to do a scan of response vs distance, and repeat at a second bias voltage. If there is an effect, the hf would go a bit more planar as bias drops.
jn
Last edited:
I loved my Firewire Edirol — it died, i bought another but haven’t set that system up yet.. The way it did 192 was a bit unusual, Rob @ channelD had to do a work around in his software that didn’t work with the Edirol. When set to 192, lower bit recordings would play too fast. From what my tech could determine they use a custom FPGA as DAC.
dave
I totally agree, but who would not agree?
It wasn't different back in the 1940s -1950s, when Decca introduced the first FFSR and Olson did his bandwidth experiments. These are mainly seperated issues, sound quality of technical equipment and knowledge about the art to get the best recreation of a past sound event.
I assume that mediocre recording was not related to the musical/artistic performance, was it?