Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's  (Read 4473 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2017, 02:10:36 PM »
With all of you here, I would pose the question as to what is considered "warmth" in recording sound.  It seems typical for you all to mention it when talking about specific equipment and combinations (preamps, mics, etc.).  But I have read several contradicting statements to such.  Without mentioning names or instances, I've heard the V2 & V3 described as warm or transparent.  The same for several other popular preamps.  Maybe this is also a "my ear vs your ear" concept, but do we know if there is any real consensus on this site with the descriptor words used for preamp sound qualities?  I would like to see a post, if not already out there, that has links to a handful of recordings which exhibit clear examples of warmth, transparency, accuracy, etc.  That would be a nice starting  point for developing subjective agreement on sound. 
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2017, 03:08:10 PM »
It's totally impossible to measure equipment by your subjective evaluation that any particular recording chain is a more accurate representation of something you heard hours or days or years earlier.  You simply can't evaluate sound on playback in reference to live sounds that occurred in the past.  Your brain can't do that.  Try mixing a record sometime and see how you make EQ adjustments every day you sit down and work on it.  Why does your brain do that?  I dunno, but it does.  It just doesn't really remember exactly how it sounded yesterday when you "finished" it, so it wants you to make more changes.  Or maybe you heard something you "didn't hear yesterday".  Sure you heard it yesterday; your brain just didn't pay attention because it was focusing on something else.  Your audio gear remembers just fine though and will play it back the exact same way, unless you change the gear or move the furniture around or something.

I reject the entire concept that "what we do" is somehow different from what everybody else does with audio equipment.  It's the same, other than some interesting problems in microphone selection and placement.  But to an amplifier, it's exactly the same.

In fact, you are handicapped in that you can't effectively monitor your recordings because you can't isolate yourself from the acoustic source to a sufficient degree.  An engineer in a studio control room can monitor a direct feed or send that same signal through any given chain (compression, ADA, etc.) and get an immediate A/B comparison.  You can't do that at a concert (unless you have a remote truck), but you can pretend that your subjective impressive of playback at a later time is a closer representation to what you heard, when the reality is it's what you would like to remember that you heard.

Further, it is easily demonstrable that if you want an accurate reproduction of what you heard you should always use binaural omnis and the flattest pair of reference headphones you can find.  But you don't want to do that, because you want to pretend that wook next to you wasn't yelling "Freebird" the whole concert, so you use hypercardioids that minimize that crap.

But your ears didn't minimize the wook, they heard him just fine.  It's just that the extremely powerful DSP that is your brain conditioned itself to ignore him (or the AC noise or the PA hum or whatever), but on playback your brain just can't quite manage the same trick because it lacks the same spatial cues.  So you use a hypercardioid and pretend it's more "accurate".  No it's not, it's more "euphonic".

Which is fine, I would do the same thing.  I wouldn't pretend that accuracy was my goal though, because it's not.  I want to make a recording where I like to listen to the finished product.  So I'll use any tool that gets that job done; EQ, compression (maybe multiband), reverb, multiple channels, etc. and I won't care if it's "accurate" or not.  But I do know the difference.

But we aren't even talking about microphones, we are talking about amplifiers and converters, which have the dumbest job in the world:  signal out equals signal in, maybe with some amplification, and with necessary bandwidth-limiting in the converters and supplying some DC power to your microphones by the amplifier.  That's it.  That's all.  If you want your amplifiers to do something else, well now you have an effects box inside your amplifier.  Which is also fine, but let's not pretend that is accuracy either.

And why "trust your ears"?  Odds are that your ears suck.  We are a bunch of middle-aged men who have been to too many loud concerts.  I would trust a seven year old girl's ears before I would trust anybody here, because they can hear lots of things that we simply can't anymore.

Offline kindms

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4074
    • The Breakfast
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2017, 06:35:44 PM »
And why "trust your ears"?  Odds are that your ears suck.  We are a bunch of middle-aged men who have been to too many loud concerts.  I would trust a seven year old girl's ears before I would trust anybody here, because they can hear lots of things that we simply can't anymore.


this! Above needed some love. too true which is why i tend to ask my wife for critiques. classically trained musician with ears that are actually still good. and she pulls no punches

AKG414 XLS/ST> TCM-Mod Tascam HDP2
Musichall Mambo > VR-2's

Offline DATBRAD

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2098
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2017, 06:47:06 PM »
Having run 460s arguably as long or longer than any active member on this forum, I'll add my .02 about preamps used with them. Warm preamps tend to bring out the best qualities in these mics "to my ears" over those more transparent sounding. Now, my ears are by no means a benchmark for objective comparisons, I'm just stating how things sound to me. I felt that way in 1994 when I first started using 460s, and after experiments with other front ends over the years since has only reinforced the opinion I initially developed of these mics. So, to the OP, seek ways to try different preamps, and running directly into recorders as well. Let your own preference decide.[snip]

I started off reading the post above thinking this was a totally reasonable conclusion of the thread.. that was until I got to the part below. 

Quote
By mathematical specs alone, a note played by a trumpet at the same amplitude and pitch as a French horn should sound identical. Same for a note played by a violin versus a cello. Using the measurement tools that report specs, there would be no difference between any two instruments of the same type (strings/strings or woodwinds/woodwinds) playing the same note at the same pitch and amplitude. It's easy to dismiss the opinions of someone's ears, which explains why contestants in singing reality shows that cannot hear that they are singing off key are so pissed when they are told the truth.

No offence, buta this totally incorrect and completely off base.

Really? Please explain why you say that. Would you consider results of test recordings using the mathematical technique called the Fourier Transform as getting to the meat of what the brain processes from sounds hitting the inner ear? Since this depth of measurement isn't on gear specs, wouldn't you agree that currently published specs are limited in what they can describe?
AKG C460B w/CK61/CK63 or Beyerdynamic M201TG>Luminous Monarch XLRs>SD MP-1(x2)>Luminous Monarch XLRs>PMD661(Oade WMOD)

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2017, 07:48:18 PM »
A Fourier transform on the sustain of any instrument would reveal its unique series of overtones, which is a big part of the timbral difference of instruments.  Added to that are the AD and R portions of the ADSR curve, together with sustained inharmonic sounds like breath noise, mechanical noises from things like keywork, bow scrape, etc., etc.  But even if you analyze only the sustain you'll be able to place a natural sound within its family of instruments, if not the instrument itself, simply by the order and relative strength of its overtones.

This doesn't have much to do with specs, but if you consider that a series of overtones is always a multiple of a fundamental, then you can simply study the behavior of a simulated fundamental (a sine wave) in considering how distortion will impact amplifier accuracy.

You can then study intermodulation distortion if you like (it tends to be pretty well correlated with THD, if the circuit is working properly), but on a single note from a single instrument you won't get much, because the IMD products will all be in the harmonic series (they are sum-and-difference tones, so for example 1+2=3 and 3-1=2, all in the harmonic series of 1).  If you have two or more notes (or inharmonic tones), then the IMD will appear as a new tone.  Again, you can study this simply with two sine waves and the result can be directly extrapolated to more complex series of tones (which you can also model if you like).

And then you can apply Fourier theory to learn that even sources like noise (bow scrape, breath, etc.) are all really just very complex series of individual sine waves, and you'll understand that also directly correlates to the distortion performance of the amplifier.

There are a few other things you can study like bandwidth, noise, transient response, jitter in an ADC; all have a directly understandable impact on amplifier performance with more complex series.  You don't always (or ever) see those in specs, but you can measure them in a bench test without much fuss.

Does anybody really think the DR680 is going to beat a V3 in those parameters?  As I said, based on my personal experience in component selection and circuit design, ADC dynamic range tends to be a good proxy for overall performance.  That is because not too many people will spend a lot of money on an expensive ADC chip only to pair it with a terrible PLL circuit, noisy power supply, or dreadful analog buffer stage.  That would be penny and pound foolish.  There may be some exceptions to that rule-of-thumb, but I highly doubt Mike Grace is one of them.

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3521
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #35 on: January 25, 2017, 08:54:49 PM »
And why "trust your ears"?  Odds are that your ears suck.  We are a bunch of middle-aged men who have been to too many loud concerts.  I would trust a seven year old girl's ears before I would trust anybody here, because they can hear lots of things that we simply can't anymore.


this! Above needed some love. too true which is why i tend to ask my wife for critiques. classically trained musician with ears that are actually still good. and she pulls no punches
QFt to both of you. I've been to an audiologist and know how much hearing loss I have, and after close to 2,000 loud rock concerts I'm not surprised.

Perfectly stated Jon. Both the short quote above and really your entire synopsis of "what we do" and how it gets listened to and what we are going for anyway. We are not reproducing reality, we are capturing a digital representation of an electro-acoustical (mechanical) event and then reproducing it electronically, which can introduce more sonic changes,  then presenting an illusion of the event for human ears to process via a playback system which can further introduce more sonic changes.

I'm totally with you on binaural. I wish we had never stopped bringing our Sennheiser binaural's (MKE2002) to GD shows after we bought "better" microphones. Each and every one of the binaural shows has more spatial accuracy than any 20 of the C422 recordings. Of course, as you say, we aren't seeking spatial accuracy as much as something we can playback on our car stereos.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 07:32:44 AM by rocksuitcase »
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG461/CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline rocksuitcase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3521
  • Gender: Male
    • RockSuitcase: stage photography
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2017, 09:34:17 PM »
With all of you here, I would pose the question as to what is considered "warmth" in recording sound.  It seems typical for you all to mention it when talking about specific equipment and combinations (preamps, mics, etc.).  But I have read several contradicting statements to such.  Without mentioning names or instances, I've heard the V2 & V3 described as warm or transparent.  The same for several other popular preamps.  Maybe this is also a "my ear vs your ear" concept, but do we know if there is any real consensus on this site with the descriptor words used for preamp sound qualities?  I would like to see a post, if not already out there, that has links to a handful of recordings which exhibit clear examples of warmth, transparency, accuracy, etc.  That would be a nice starting  point for developing subjective agreement on sound.
Chris, I think your original idea and questions have been pulled way out of where you asked from. For the part I played in the mini thread jack I apologize.
Then to provide some answer to your concept:
Warmth and Transparency are tough to describe audiologically, as that is all individual experience. As mentioned upthread, from a pre-amp design pov, Doug Oade does a good job explaining it in terms of the circuit modifications they do:
http://www.oade.com/
Quote
The Marantz PMD 661MKII Concert MOD upgrade rebuilds the XLR inputs using high speed, low noise and very low distortion op amps that dramatically improve fine detail and clarity. The result is a very detailed, open 3D soundstage. Components are selected by ear to optimize detail and imaging for recording all types of music where transparency is needed. (Edit- i.e transparent)

The Marantz PMD 661MKII Warm MOD upgrade rebuilds the XLR inputs using high speed, low noise and very low distortion FET op amps that dramatically improve fine detail and clarity. the Warm MODs preamp chips use FETs so they sound very much like a tube preamp with the warm sound that offers a fat rounded bass tone, a sweet silky high end and the expansive soundstage found in high end tube circuits. Components are selected by ear to optimize detail and imaging for recording all types of music when a warm tone is needed.
I bolded the parts which are relevant to your questions.
Hopefully others can link to some good examples.
music IS love

When you get confused, listen to the music play!

Mics:         AKG461/CK8|Beyer M 201E
Recorders:Marantz PMD661 OADE Concert mod; Tascam DR680 MKI

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #37 on: January 25, 2017, 11:49:09 PM »
With all of you here, I would pose the question as to what is considered "warmth" in recording sound.  It seems typical for you all to mention it when talking about specific equipment and combinations (preamps, mics, etc.).  But I have read several contradicting statements to such.  Without mentioning names or instances, I've heard the V2 & V3 described as warm or transparent.  The same for several other popular preamps.  Maybe this is also a "my ear vs your ear" concept, but do we know if there is any real consensus on this site with the descriptor words used for preamp sound qualities?  I would like to see a post, if not already out there, that has links to a handful of recordings which exhibit clear examples of warmth, transparency, accuracy, etc.  That would be a nice starting  point for developing subjective agreement on sound.
Chris, I think your original idea and questions have been pulled way out of where you asked from. For the part I played in the mini thread jack I apologize.
Then to provide some answer to your concept:
Warmth and Transparency are tough to describe audiologically, as that is all individual experience. As mentioned upthread, from a pre-amp design pov, Doug Oade does a good job explaining it in terms of the circuit modifications they do:
http://www.oade.com/
Quote
The Marantz PMD 661MKII Concert MOD upgrade rebuilds the XLR inputs using high speed, low noise and very low distortion op amps that dramatically improve fine detail and clarity. The result is a very detailed, open 3D soundstage. Components are selected by ear to optimize detail and imaging for recording all types of music where transparency is needed. (Edit- i.e transparent)

The Marantz PMD 661MKII Warm MOD upgrade rebuilds the XLR inputs using high speed, low noise and very low distortion FET op amps that dramatically improve fine detail and clarity. the Warm MODs preamp chips use FETs so they sound very much like a tube preamp with the warm sound that offers a fat rounded bass tone, a sweet silky high end and the expansive soundstage found in high end tube circuits. Components are selected by ear to optimize detail and imaging for recording all types of music when a warm tone is needed.
I bolded the parts which are relevant to your questions.
Hopefully others can link to some good examples.

Thanks.  I don't mind the hijack because I am typically learning from it, and I'm just happy to see others taking their time and energy to help out.  But, I'm glad you came back to my questions.  I will look up some shows using these two different MOD recorders and hopefully be able to identify the differences.  I would still love to get a few glaring examples from some of you.
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Offline MakersMarc

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Gender: Male
  • Dust of long dead stars is what we are.
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2017, 10:38:34 AM »
Apologize as well, I way hijacked this thread.  :facepalm:

The above snippet from Doug Oade really does a nice job of describing the sound it seems you are looking for. As I may have mentioned, a used warm mod (or new) is a great way to start figuring out what sound you like...i find it plenty warm but also detailed enough. Best of luck!
Mk4v/41v>Nbob kcy x2>nbox platinum/Naiant PFA/Naiant IPA>Oade warm mod Marantz 661 x2/Sony pcm m10x2

Offline Wiggler

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2017, 11:02:20 AM »
Apologize as well, I way hijacked this thread.  :facepalm:

The above snippet from Doug Oade really does a nice job of describing the sound it seems you are looking for. As I may have mentioned, a used warm mod (or new) is a great way to start figuring out what sound you like...i find it plenty warm but also detailed enough. Best of luck!

I thought it was great to see a glimpse of the old MakersMarc the one that would say things like the AD2K sounds like a wire.  You used to be a real firecracker in your younger years.  ;D

Offline MakersMarc

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1478
  • Gender: Male
  • Dust of long dead stars is what we are.
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2017, 11:34:33 AM »
 8)
Mk4v/41v>Nbob kcy x2>nbox platinum/Naiant PFA/Naiant IPA>Oade warm mod Marantz 661 x2/Sony pcm m10x2

Offline ~Jon Stoppable

  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2392
  • Gender: Male
    • Naiant Studio
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2017, 12:03:53 PM »
If you are looking at modifications that involve, say, swapping opamps, you should find the following to be true: assuming that the new devices are appropriate for the circuit in which they are installed (this is a fairly broad brush here), then in a valid comparison (that is, not two completely different shows, or the same shows with different mics, or the same show same mics but different locations, etc., but same mic same stand same show split to different recorders) the differences should be small.

That's not to say that the difference is zero or undetectable (although it could be), but if you are looking to correct some perceived deficiency in a microphone, a good EQ is a much better tool for that as it can make several orders of magnitude more change than only a preamp.  And that's significant, because differences between microphones can be quite large.  So if you for some reason feel like you should have used Schoeps vs. AKG (or vice versa), an EQ will get a *lot* closer to the other brand than a change in a preamp circuit.

That won't help you get from one polar pattern to the other though. That can only be done by using one of several multi-coincident microphone techniques that let you attain multiple polar patterns in post-processing.

And the good news is that good EQs are free these days--but if your hobby is spending money that will probably not appeal.

Offline CorFit Chris

  • Trade Count: (3)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
  • Gender: Male
    • InsideOut Recording & Promotions
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2017, 12:26:37 PM »
After spending some time listening to several recordings of various MODs, I definitely understand what is considered "warm" sound.  It is with I was thinking it was.  I enjoy it, but likely as a change of pace from time to time, or when mixing with a 2nd pair of mics.  While it is smoother and may be easier on the ears, I definitely feel it isn't necessarily as "accurate" as the sound in the venue.  That can be a pro or a con.  Some easy ways to hear the differentiation is to listen to shows with the UA-5 Oade warm mod vs concert mod.  I think I would pick up a UA-5 Oade warm mod if one came available.  Wouldn't be a large investment and would allow for experimentation in my typical venues and genre.  I wouldn't want to mod my dr680 because I would be stuck with that characteristic whether I wanted it or not.  Regardless of the type of external preamp, I do feel that most all of them add a certain power and drive to recordings that otherwise aren't there with the recorder alone.  That is something I desire.  Maybe I just need to learn how to better post process and create a set of EQ standards for different sound.
LMA: https://archive.org/details/@corfit
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/orithris
Mics: AKG 460 (ck61 & ck63) | Studio Projects C4 (cards & omni's) | CA-14 cards | SP-SPSM-9
Recorders: Tascam DR-70d  |  Tascam DR-60d  |  Tascam DR-2D
Preamp: CA Ugly
Camera: GoPro Hero 4 Silver

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2017, 06:42:42 PM »
The other route to pursue is to see how close you can get to the characteristic sound of using the device by manipulation of the resulting file (be that characteristic "warm" or otherwise).  EQ is so powerful because it can, as Jon mentions, do more to modify the sound in a specifically directed and powerful way to make one mic sound more like another than a preamp swap would, but also because it can specifically target problems such as minimizing problematic resonances and tailor problematic frequency ranges.  Say you find the stereotypical AKG "sizzle" to be a nuisance (perhaps somewhat aggravated by the signal chain you are using).  Find the frequencies contributing to the sensation of "too much sizzle" and carefully adjust them so they aren't quite as prominent, but with care so as to avoid introducing unwanted perceptual changes affecting the general frequency range which surrounds the resonance.  The even somewhat more artistic side has some parallels with visual complementary color theory in that one can also learn to adjust complementary frequency ranges in entirely different regions of the spectrum which perceptively affect the original area of interest.  This takes listening skill and lots of playing around time to develop, but all powerful tools require skill before they can be used responsibly.

Thinking about what "warm" means in terms of sound, or what "transparent" or "brittle" or "muddy" or "spitty" means, can help in developing a sort of wordless mental assessment for describing these kinds of timbre aspects.  Especially in combination with playing around with EQ.  Does "warm" just mean strong bass and less emphasized treble?  Does a carefully sculpted lower treble have anything to do with it?  Does mid-range manipulation have more of an effect on "clarity" than chopping off bass and boosting treble?

What I'm suggesting here is this- If you find a Oade warm-mod UA5 (or whatever) and use it and hear a difference in comparison with another preamp, you are presented with a great potential learning opportunity.  Try to manipulate each file afterwards so that it sounds like the other.  Try to get close as possible.  In doing that you will hone your EQ application and other skills.  You'll also begin to get a feel for what is more easily manipulated to sound similar and what is not easy or even impossible.  Some of that is tied to the knowledge of what can be done and how to go about doing it, but a lot of it will come from trial and error playing around, learning the tools, learning to understand what you are hearing, what to listen for, and finding trends, basic relationships, and the like.
EQ is only one aspect, albeit the most powerful and easily learned.  Compression perceptually affects tone as well as dynamics.  Transient modification is fancy targeted compression.  Tube emulation is an easy route to make things sound "warm", "transformer-ish", "phat", etc.  Exiters or other harmonic generators  "air" and "sparkle".  All technically introduce distortions- good sounding euphonious distortions if tastefully applied.  Technically the original sound has already been distorted by simply recording it.  Don't worry too much about trashing some sort of magical signal purity. Gear specifications help determine the measurable accuracy of throughput and are the way to gauge signal purity, and the appropriate place for that is in initial selection of the gear (which is not to say ears should be excluded from that process).  But by contrast, this is the point where the maxim "Use your ears" applies fully!  At this point it we are fully in the realm of artful manipulation in pursuit of good sound.

Regardless if you want to do that kind of thing on a regular basis or not, if at all (I already hear the counter argument- "I don't want to have to do any of that stuff to my recordings"), that kind of knowledge provides a deeper awareness of the nuts and bolts of how sound and hearing works, what can and cannot be manipulated easily, and dispels much of the mystery surrounding the "sound of gear itself".  I may not choose to not invest the time to do that kind of stuff on a particular recording, but I have a better idea of what I can do, how much effort it takes, and can make an informed decision on what is appropriate.. and I won't hesitate to EQ it.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11124
  • Gender: Male
Re: Preamp pairing with AKG 461's and 463's
« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2017, 08:34:54 PM »
My apologies for further derail, but with respect to DATBRAD I'd like to further clarify the bits below.  Jon's post above explains much of this in a technical sense, but I'll try to do so from a somewhat less technical perspective-

[snip] By mathematical specs alone, a note played by a trumpet at the same amplitude and pitch as a French horn should sound identical. Same for a note played by a violin versus a cello. Using the measurement tools that report specs, there would be no difference between any two instruments of the same type (strings/strings or woodwinds/woodwinds) playing the same note at the same pitch and amplitude. It's easy to dismiss the opinions of someone's ears, which explains why contestants in singing reality shows that cannot hear that they are singing off key are so pissed when they are told the truth.

No offence, but this totally incorrect and completely off base.

Really? Please explain why you say that.

We all know from experience that the same note played by a trumpet, French horn, violin and cello do not sound identical.  But it can also be explained why that is so, in a mathematical sense, quite precisely. Accurately enough in fact, that we can go on to fully synthesize versions of those sounds which can be convincing emulations the real thing.  If you can't accept that, you must at least acknowledge that we can get close. Close enough that most would people would agree on what instrument is being simulated.  I'm not talking about sampling.  That's recording and playback manipulation of recorded sounds and can be completely convincing when done well.  I'm talking about fully synthesizing a sound, and to be able to do that (or rather to design the machine which does it) a mathematical understanding of the characteristics of the sound to be emulated is required.  Jon mentioned a number of those characteristics including the time-envelope aspects of a sound commonly simplified into Attack, Decay, Sustain, and Release components, as well as noise components such as resinous bow scratching, plucking noise, fingering noises, and other mechanical noises, but the primary characteristics of the timbre of a sound are described by the relationship of the harmonics above the fundamental.  If not for the harmonics, a snippet of sustained sound cut out of an imaginary recording of all those instruments (cutting out a snippet mid-note avoids time envelope and most of the noise variables) would sound like a characterless sine wave as you suggest.  And a characterless sine wave or some other basic wave shape is the typical starting point of synthesis (additive synthesis anyway) onto which various harmonics can be added with various levels relationships until the timbre of the sound is close to that of the original instrument.

Check out this video- https://youtu.be/yYf9ij7S5Zs?t=5m.  It's simply the first that came up in a search, but the link starts at the point where the narrator shows plots of the different harmonic makeup of the sound produced by several instruments playing the same note.  These plots represent mathematical measurements which correlate directly with the characteristic timbre of each instrument.  Rephrasing your first line I was disagreeing with, these are mathematical specs alone, which when plotted, visually describe why a note played by a trumpet at the same amplitude and pitch as a French horn do not sound identical.  Using the measurement tools that report specs, there is an obvious, quantifiable difference between any two instruments, even two of the same type (strings/strings or woodwinds/woodwinds) playing the same note at the same pitch and amplitude.

To dive deep, consider that digital recording and reproduction is at it's most basic mathematical core based upon the decomposition of sound into a vast number of numeric values, and reconstruction of the original analog waveform by a huge number of overlapping sine waves-  a sufficient amount of them that the result is indistinguishable from the analog input waveform within the bandwidth limits of the system.


Quote
Would you consider results of test recordings using the mathematical technique called the Fourier Transform as getting to the meat of what the brain processes from sounds hitting the inner ear?

No. Yet the scope of that question greatly exceeds what were talking about here (and I think hints at the disconnect). We're no where near what happens in brains and ears here, we're just talking about a signal passing through an amplifier in a recording chain. And once the problem is broken down to that level we have excellent mathematical measures of the accuracy of how well a components output reflects what is fed into it.  What happens once the sound leaves the speaker is a whole 'nother ball of wax and way more complex, both before it reaches the eardrum and far far more so afterwards.


Quote
Since this depth of measurement isn't on gear specs, wouldn't you agree that currently published specs are limited in what they can describe?

The capability for measuring far far beyond the capability of all human senses exists.  There is some problem in correlating human perception with the appropriate measurements, but that problem is rapidly disappearing.  Unfortunately, the practical problem is that for the perceptual qualities which we can match closely to the appropriate measurement,  manufacturers don't have much motivation to provide truly meaningful specs which can be compared in a straightforward way.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.266 seconds with 37 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company