On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:54 -0400
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

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

Out of interest, how are the 'response curves' for various speakers
made? do they just use a super-linear microphone, or is there some other
technique used, perhaps measuring harmonics?

I'd like to be able to make profiles of various speakers, so it would be
interesting to see how its done...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:42:24 +0100, Ian Molton wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:54 -0400
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

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

Out of interest, how are the 'response curves' for various speakers
made? do they just use a super-linear microphone, or is there some other
technique used, perhaps measuring harmonics?

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.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:42:24 +0100, Ian Molton wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:03:54 -0400
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

An STC or Coles 4038 is a good mic for the recording. As you say,
many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

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

Out of interest, how are the 'response curves' for various speakers
made? do they just use a super-linear microphone, or is there some other
technique used, perhaps measuring harmonics?

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.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

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?

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"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?


You can't.

I would put that slightly differently. :-)

I'd say that you can make judgements upon the accuracy or neutrality of
the
reproduction, but have to accept that such judgements may not always be
reliable. :-)


OK, I'll qualify that (if it makes you happy) to: 'You can't, with any
degree of certainty.....'


My experience is that some speakers give me a sound that seems to me much
more like the sound I hear when I go to concerts. I am talking here of
'classical' music, listened to in various venues, on a number of
occasions,
over many years.

This does not necessarily mean, of course, that the speakers *are* more
accurate, just that they sound more accurate to me, using my own
experience. Since I want a sound that seems to me close to what I think I
hear when at a real concert, or when listening to real human voices, this
seems to me to be a reasonably adequate method for my purposes.


Coming through loud and clear. - Agree entirely, but it reinforces my own
view that one man's 'accuracy' is another man's 'coloured'....

I have no problem with the term 'accuracy' when it is used to describe the
way electronic/electro-mechanical devices handle a signal, but AFAIAC it
falls on it's arse when it reaches the speakers and gets out into the room.
Then we are most definitely in the domain of the human ear and whatever
psychoacoustics may or may not apply.



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?


Yes, of course, how else will you know?

Well, you need to have some familiarity with the types of sounds involved.
However this may not mean you had to be present for that specific concert.
Just work on a statistical basis, having visted that venue many times and
grown accustomed to how it tends to sound when people play the works you
are listening to. Then extend that to a number of venues. If the speakers
give a 'convincing impression' for many venues and items of music you have
some familiarity with, that seems a fair approach to me.


The OP is mentioning 'the actual original sound' which implies a degree of
specificity - generally, it is important that an audio system portrays the
sound of, say, a piano in a way we recognise and 'agree with', but when it
comes to, say, a sackbut or shamisen we (many of us, that is) will have
little to go on other than whether or not we simply *like* the 'sound'. The
temptation to tell anyone forget 'accurate' - concentrate on 'nice' is
always strong.....

;-)

(Interesting to see that one or two of the worst 'accuracy tub thumpers'
hearabouts are finally managing to get some of the dots joined up.....)

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"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?


You can't.

I would put that slightly differently. :-)

I'd say that you can make judgements upon the accuracy or neutrality of
the
reproduction, but have to accept that such judgements may not always be
reliable. :-)


OK, I'll qualify that (if it makes you happy) to: 'You can't, with any
degree of certainty.....'


My experience is that some speakers give me a sound that seems to me much
more like the sound I hear when I go to concerts. I am talking here of
'classical' music, listened to in various venues, on a number of
occasions,
over many years.

This does not necessarily mean, of course, that the speakers *are* more
accurate, just that they sound more accurate to me, using my own
experience. Since I want a sound that seems to me close to what I think I
hear when at a real concert, or when listening to real human voices, this
seems to me to be a reasonably adequate method for my purposes.


Coming through loud and clear. - Agree entirely, but it reinforces my own
view that one man's 'accuracy' is another man's 'coloured'....

I have no problem with the term 'accuracy' when it is used to describe the
way electronic/electro-mechanical devices handle a signal, but AFAIAC it
falls on it's arse when it reaches the speakers and gets out into the room.
Then we are most definitely in the domain of the human ear and whatever
psychoacoustics may or may not apply.



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?


Yes, of course, how else will you know?

Well, you need to have some familiarity with the types of sounds involved.
However this may not mean you had to be present for that specific concert.
Just work on a statistical basis, having visted that venue many times and
grown accustomed to how it tends to sound when people play the works you
are listening to. Then extend that to a number of venues. If the speakers
give a 'convincing impression' for many venues and items of music you have
some familiarity with, that seems a fair approach to me.


The OP is mentioning 'the actual original sound' which implies a degree of
specificity - generally, it is important that an audio system portrays the
sound of, say, a piano in a way we recognise and 'agree with', but when it
comes to, say, a sackbut or shamisen we (many of us, that is) will have
little to go on other than whether or not we simply *like* the 'sound'. The
temptation to tell anyone forget 'accurate' - concentrate on 'nice' is
always strong.....

;-)

(Interesting to see that one or two of the worst 'accuracy tub thumpers'
hearabouts are finally managing to get some of the dots joined up.....)

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
As you say, many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

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

Absolutely, and nothing necessarily wrong in that. After all, a photo
doesn't always capture a scene better than a painting.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
As you say, many top notch studio mics haven't got a flat response.

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

Absolutely, and nothing necessarily wrong in that. After all, a photo
doesn't always capture a scene better than a painting.

--
*I went to school to become a wit, only got halfway through.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Ian Molton" wrote in message

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?


The most common models in general use are shown on these web pages:

http://www.behringer.com/02_products...M8000&lang=eng

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/eawsia/microphones.html

http://www.core-sound.com/dpa4006.html