"RPS" wrote in message
...
This is inspired by the recent discussion on possible replacement for
my Spendor BC1's (thanks for all the comments in that thread):

Many of you have commented on a speaker being more or less
neutral/accurate than others.

If you were not present at the original recording session, with good
memory, how can you judge the accuracy of the reproduction?

I mean, I can tell that Spendor, Proac, and Dynaudio are sounding
different, but don't I need to be familiar with the actual original
sound to judge which one is accurate or uncolored?

There are many experienced audiophiles in this forum and I would
appreciate all comments, theoretical as well as how you approach
auditions personally.

Raghu

I get the whole natural thing, I have recently invested in a great sounding
system and was not blown away instantly. Like a lot of the posters have said
it becomes apparent that you are more listening to a replicator than an
processor that alters the tonal qualities of the sound.

This can be a disappointment in some cases as you can hear EVERYTHING. A lot
of CDs that sounded great on my old micro system now sound awful and empty.
I believe some audio can be purposely mixed and mastered to sound better on
smaller systems? But on the other hand an revisiting a lot of my collection
some long forgotten (no so good sounding) albums came alive.

Horses for courses
EggKing

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:59:39 +0100, Ian Molton wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:58:12 GMT
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

They use measuring microphones, which are generally flat to better
than 1dB over the audio range, and are also supplied with an
individual calibration curve, so that even that small response error
can be calculated out.

where would I get one, and how much would it cost?

Bruel and Kjaer make arguably the best, and expect to pay anything up
to a grand for the commonly used 4133 model with accessories. A 1/2
inch capsule is probably the best compromise of dynamic range and
frequency response.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:59:39 +0100, Ian Molton wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:58:12 GMT
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

They use measuring microphones, which are generally flat to better
than 1dB over the audio range, and are also supplied with an
individual calibration curve, so that even that small response error
can be calculated out.

where would I get one, and how much would it cost?

Bruel and Kjaer make arguably the best, and expect to pay anything up
to a grand for the commonly used 4133 model with accessories. A 1/2
inch capsule is probably the best compromise of dynamic range and
frequency response.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , Ian Molton
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:09:28 +0100 Chris Morriss
wrote:


Now I've had to buy my own mic, I use a MUCH cheaper Behringer
ECM8000.

The price is right...

The response is good, but being an electret it is rather noisy.
Easily good enough for LS measurements though.

Ok, so given that, the next question is:

How do I fudge a 'phantom powered' XLR mic into the mic in on my PC ?

The currents required are quite small. Hence you might find a suitable box
of batteries will be cheaper and simpler than a mains-based design. Should
make it easier to avoid noise and hum problems.

Your *next* question will then be: How do I deal with the room acoustics?
;-

FWIW I have some B&K mics which I borrow from our research lab, and use
these for in-room measurements of speakers at home. These can be useful as
guides to the sound balance at a chosen listening position. But they
probably tell me more about the room than the speakers when I do this. To
measure the speakers I'd have to take them to the chamber at work. Even
then, the chamber is small, so not much use below 100 Hz or so.

People do not usually use measurement mics for recording purposes as they
tend to be too expensive and fragile. Also, as other have said, recording
engineers often choose a mic with particular 'characteristics' that they
like for various tasks. The 'imperfections' of the mic is then felt to give
a 'good' result. (Matter of judgement.)

If you just want to get an idea of the speaker performance in a room, a
reasonably calibrated mic and 1/3rd octave signals should be fine. However
if you want to understand the actual speakers, you'd need to use a chamber,
or do pulsed measurements, or an alternative that allows you to unscramble
the effects of the surroundings.

Also, if you want to understand why speakers that give similar in-room
responses still can sound different, you'd have to explore things like
speaker directionality patterns and their interactions with the room
acoustic. :-) For various reasons, a response that does not seem 'flat'
in a simple 1/3rd octave measurement may turn out to be preferred in
practice. Hence this info can be useful for reference purposes, but should
not be taken as meaning you have to get a 'flat response' from such
measurements for the system to be at its best.

The harder you look, the more details appear. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , Ian Molton
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:09:28 +0100 Chris Morriss
wrote:


Now I've had to buy my own mic, I use a MUCH cheaper Behringer
ECM8000.

The price is right...

The response is good, but being an electret it is rather noisy.
Easily good enough for LS measurements though.

Ok, so given that, the next question is:

How do I fudge a 'phantom powered' XLR mic into the mic in on my PC ?

The currents required are quite small. Hence you might find a suitable box
of batteries will be cheaper and simpler than a mains-based design. Should
make it easier to avoid noise and hum problems.

Your *next* question will then be: How do I deal with the room acoustics?
;-

FWIW I have some B&K mics which I borrow from our research lab, and use
these for in-room measurements of speakers at home. These can be useful as
guides to the sound balance at a chosen listening position. But they
probably tell me more about the room than the speakers when I do this. To
measure the speakers I'd have to take them to the chamber at work. Even
then, the chamber is small, so not much use below 100 Hz or so.

People do not usually use measurement mics for recording purposes as they
tend to be too expensive and fragile. Also, as other have said, recording
engineers often choose a mic with particular 'characteristics' that they
like for various tasks. The 'imperfections' of the mic is then felt to give
a 'good' result. (Matter of judgement.)

If you just want to get an idea of the speaker performance in a room, a
reasonably calibrated mic and 1/3rd octave signals should be fine. However
if you want to understand the actual speakers, you'd need to use a chamber,
or do pulsed measurements, or an alternative that allows you to unscramble
the effects of the surroundings.

Also, if you want to understand why speakers that give similar in-room
responses still can sound different, you'd have to explore things like
speaker directionality patterns and their interactions with the room
acoustic. :-) For various reasons, a response that does not seem 'flat'
in a simple 1/3rd octave measurement may turn out to be preferred in
practice. Hence this info can be useful for reference purposes, but should
not be taken as meaning you have to get a 'flat response' from such
measurements for the system to be at its best.

The harder you look, the more details appear. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Ian Molton" wrote in message


On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:09:28 +0100
Chris Morriss wrote:

Now I've had to buy my own mic, I use a MUCH cheaper Behringer
ECM8000.

The price is right...

The response is good,

I taped one to the side of a DPA 4006, aligned the fronts and measured the
frequency response of a speaker. The two response curves sat on top of each
other from about 50 to 15 KHz. The ECM 8000 has -3 dB points around 40 Hz
and 20 KHz. Above 10 KHz neither the 4006 nor the 8000 are perfectly flat,
and they're unflat a bit differently.

I also did some distortion measurement comparisons and they were too much
the same to talk about.

but being an electret it is rather noisy.

People say that but other people (like me) use them for recording and get
good results.

One thing for sure - the 8000 puts out a good strong output signal. Stronger
than most. Pop one onto a cable that had a live SM57 on it and you'll have
feedback, for sure.

In general, the quietest mics in the world aren't electrets but there are
lots of conventional condensers that are as noisy or noisier than the best
electrets.

IME the 8000's reputation for being noisy is at least partially based on the
fact that it does have a lot of output and it is a lot more omnidirectional,
especially above 10 KHz, than just about any other mic that most people have
real world experience with.

Easily good enough for LS measurements though.

One well-known guy who uses the ECM-8000 for development is Ken Kantor of
NHT fame.

Ok, so given that, the next question is:

How do I fudge a 'phantom powered' XLR mic into the mic in on my PC ?

Bag the mic input on the PC and get a cheap Behringer mixer with a
phantom-powered mic input or a cheap mic preamp like the Rolls MP13.

"Ian Molton" wrote in message


On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:09:28 +0100
Chris Morriss wrote:

Now I've had to buy my own mic, I use a MUCH cheaper Behringer
ECM8000.

The price is right...

The response is good,

I taped one to the side of a DPA 4006, aligned the fronts and measured the
frequency response of a speaker. The two response curves sat on top of each
other from about 50 to 15 KHz. The ECM 8000 has -3 dB points around 40 Hz
and 20 KHz. Above 10 KHz neither the 4006 nor the 8000 are perfectly flat,
and they're unflat a bit differently.

I also did some distortion measurement comparisons and they were too much
the same to talk about.

but being an electret it is rather noisy.

People say that but other people (like me) use them for recording and get
good results.

One thing for sure - the 8000 puts out a good strong output signal. Stronger
than most. Pop one onto a cable that had a live SM57 on it and you'll have
feedback, for sure.

In general, the quietest mics in the world aren't electrets but there are
lots of conventional condensers that are as noisy or noisier than the best
electrets.

IME the 8000's reputation for being noisy is at least partially based on the
fact that it does have a lot of output and it is a lot more omnidirectional,
especially above 10 KHz, than just about any other mic that most people have
real world experience with.

Easily good enough for LS measurements though.

One well-known guy who uses the ECM-8000 for development is Ken Kantor of
NHT fame.

Ok, so given that, the next question is:

How do I fudge a 'phantom powered' XLR mic into the mic in on my PC ?

Bag the mic input on the PC and get a cheap Behringer mixer with a
phantom-powered mic input or a cheap mic preamp like the Rolls MP13.

"struan" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:

SNIP


Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

Which is why, IMHO, it is unreasonable to use live music as a
reference for judging how close to accurate a systems reproduction
is.

In general that seems to be a pretty well-supported point.

Those of us who record our own, can differ.

With any given CD (assuming you weren't present at the recording)
the listener does not know how the information on the disc actually
sounds.

Obviously untrue if the listener is a LP bigot! ;-) These guys just know
what the information on the disc actually sounds like. ;-)

You may assume that, for example, a violin should sound like
a violin, but even ignoring the fact that individual instruments
sound different, you don't know if the information on a particular
recording is, by design or through incompetence, an exact replica of
the original sound.

I totally agree. Furthermore, if you go out of your way to make a nice
accurate recording of a violin, a lot of music lovers and engineers will
tell you it sounds dead and lifeless, or something like that.

"struan" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:

SNIP


Much of the current art of audio production is dedicated to getting a
preferred sound that may be nothing like the live performance.

Which is why, IMHO, it is unreasonable to use live music as a
reference for judging how close to accurate a systems reproduction
is.

In general that seems to be a pretty well-supported point.

Those of us who record our own, can differ.

With any given CD (assuming you weren't present at the recording)
the listener does not know how the information on the disc actually
sounds.

Obviously untrue if the listener is a LP bigot! ;-) These guys just know
what the information on the disc actually sounds like. ;-)

You may assume that, for example, a violin should sound like
a violin, but even ignoring the fact that individual instruments
sound different, you don't know if the information on a particular
recording is, by design or through incompetence, an exact replica of
the original sound.

I totally agree. Furthermore, if you go out of your way to make a nice
accurate recording of a violin, a lot of music lovers and engineers will
tell you it sounds dead and lifeless, or something like that.

In message , Ian Molton
writes
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:09:28 +0100
Chris Morriss wrote:


Now I've had to buy my own mic, I use a MUCH cheaper Behringer
ECM8000.

The price is right...

The response is good, but being an electret it is rather noisy.
Easily good enough for LS measurements though.

Ok, so given that, the next question is:

How do I fudge a 'phantom powered' XLR mic into the mic in on my PC ?



Have a look in the SSM2019 app note on the Analog Devices web site. I
use the same pre-amp (but using the older SSM2017 part) with my Mic. I
battery power the pre-amp from two Yuasa 12V batteries.

The output of the pre-amp goes straight into my soundcard (For use with
True-RTA) or into my HP FFT analyser.
--
Chris Morriss