On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 22:27:43 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:52:08 -0800, Andy Evans

It is really easy to reveal sounds in a recording that are otherwise
masked. You give a little twist to one of the eq pots on the desk. It
is like magic.

Much depends on what you mean by "masked" If the instrument
you are trying to bring forward is indistinct due to poor separation,
then "a little twist to one of the eq pots on the desk" is the worst
possible solution. A sensible engineer would probably choose a
different microphone is an improved position.

Iain



No, what I mean is that whatever changes you make to the frequency
response, particularly the reasonably narrow changes you can make with
a paragraphic eq, will tend to bring an instrument forwards, making
obvious (or even audible) something that was previously just there in
the mix.

The fact that one system makes things audible that aren't obvious on
other systems doesn't mean that the system is better - probably quite
the reverse.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Andy Evans" wrote in
message
oups.com
You fall for the trap, by assuming a REPRODUCTION system
has
any relation to a CREATION system

No trap, just a straw man argument. As a gigging musician
I'm quite aware of the difference, in fact I believe a 10
year old child would be.

The more subtle point is whether you are able to accept
that:

a) musicians can distinguish between a Stradovarius and a
practice violin in a live context, and that is their
identical goal in a recorded context SHOULD THEY BE
INTERESTED IN THIS. I say this because some musicians are
indifferent to recordings because the bulk of their sound
input is live music and additionally because if they want
to look at details in a work they read the score.

Other factors:

Virtually no recording of a musician sounds to him like he sounds to himself
when he is playing.

The subtleties of making music and the subtleties of reproduction fidelity
are mostly two very different things.

Musicians can also quite easily run through music they
know in their head.

So can many non-musicians. That is what tunes are, a sequence of notes that
are easier to remember and run through your head than a random collection of
notes.

So as musicians we're pretty weary of
the "I know a musician who listens on his kitchen radio,
which shows that musicians don't understand reproduction"
kind of anecdotes.

Sorry about that, I guess the truth hurts.

b) no reproduction is perfect, and some flaws are more
objectionable to some listeners than to others.

Agreed.

In particular musicians, as above, are sensitive to timbre
and tone and can easily prefer a system with less than
perfect frequency response to one with dull and wooden
tone.

I would say that musicans are more sensitive to a note being the right note,
than the tone with which that note is played. They have to be that way if
they ever expect to comfortably play different makes and models of the same
basic instrument, play in rooms with different acoustics, or play an
instrument like an electric guitar, synth or pipe organ that can render the
same note umpty-dump different ways.

As has been said many times, timbre is one of the
SET qualities.

IME mostly bad timbre, particularly if the music is non-trivially complex.

Question of preference here.

Yup, preference for mud versus preference for sand on the beach and not in
the water.

Don't get me wrong, I can get into the idea of a SET as a MI amp. Hifi? A
whole 'nuther thing!

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.fi
"Trevor Wilson"
wrote in message ...


**We're discussing REPRODUCTION systems, not CREATION
systems. BIG difference. SETs distort whatever was
created.

You are conveniently overlooking the fact that most SET
amplifiers fill a room
with music at 1W, with sensitive speakers.

At that level, the THD is 0.1%.
This is inaudible.

That's all fine and good as far as it goes, which isn't very far.

Most of the SETs I heard at HE2005 were driving compact speakers, even
mini-speakers with no more than 90 dB/w sensitivity. The rooms were
well-upholstered. 1 watt doesn't go very far under that set of conditions.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 22:27:43 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:52:08 -0800, Andy Evans

It is really easy to reveal sounds in a recording that are otherwise
masked. You give a little twist to one of the eq pots on the desk. It
is like magic.

Much depends on what you mean by "masked" If the instrument
you are trying to bring forward is indistinct due to poor separation,
then "a little twist to one of the eq pots on the desk" is the worst
possible solution. A sensible engineer would probably choose a
different microphone is an improved position.

Iain



No, what I mean is that whatever changes you make to the frequency
response, particularly the reasonably narrow changes you can make with
a paragraphic eq, will tend to bring an instrument forwards, making
obvious (or even audible) something that was previously just there in
the mix.


Consider what it does to the leakage, and then try it.
The results may well be different to what you might expect.

The ""a little twist to one of the eq pots on the desk" is the
thing you try last, when you are sure that all other "downstream
factors" are correct. One of my mentors, Arthur Lilley, hardly
ever touched an equaliser (sometimes he used to roll
off a little LF) He was a master of orchestral set up, and knew
which microphones to use in which positions to get the results
that were expected.

Iain

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:40:49 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 22:27:43 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:52:08 -0800, Andy Evans

It is really easy to reveal sounds in a recording that are otherwise
masked. You give a little twist to one of the eq pots on the desk. It
is like magic.

Much depends on what you mean by "masked" If the instrument
you are trying to bring forward is indistinct due to poor separation,
then "a little twist to one of the eq pots on the desk" is the worst
possible solution. A sensible engineer would probably choose a
different microphone is an improved position.

Iain



No, what I mean is that whatever changes you make to the frequency
response, particularly the reasonably narrow changes you can make with
a paragraphic eq, will tend to bring an instrument forwards, making
obvious (or even audible) something that was previously just there in
the mix.


Consider what it does to the leakage, and then try it.
The results may well be different to what you might expect.

The ""a little twist to one of the eq pots on the desk" is the
thing you try last, when you are sure that all other "downstream
factors" are correct. One of my mentors, Arthur Lilley, hardly
ever touched an equaliser (sometimes he used to roll
off a little LF) He was a master of orchestral set up, and knew
which microphones to use in which positions to get the results
that were expected.

Iain



Come on Iain, please try to follow. I'm not saying that this is how I
would adjust a mix to bring an instrument out. What I am saying is the
when you have errors, particularly sharp ones, in frequency response,
the result is often that you hear stuff on a recording that isn't
normally evident.

The bit about the eq on a desk is just to say that it is very easy to
illustrate the phenomenon this way.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**Iain has stated that valve amps constitute the vast majority of high
end
amplifier sold in his country. Of course, he can't provide any actual
proof of that. I can tell you that it is easy enough to locate a bunch
of
valve amps (in one location) here in Australia. I would expect that it
is
easier in the UK. What, with all that crappy weather and all.

Poor memory fails you again, dear Trevor. You will really have to stop
that lead solder sniffing. It really is softening your brain.

I quoted a Swedish high end dealer who told me that the top 5%
of high end audio systems sold in *Scandinavia* are valve/tube
based systems. This is not in fact news, as sales in top end
systems have been at this level for over two years now.
I did not use the phrase "vast majority". Please check
before you misquote so blatantly.

**Here are your precise words:

---
" As I mentioned to Trevor (a fact which he could not accept)
here in Scandinavia, the top 5% of high end audio sales are totally
dominated by tube audio."
---

You have yet to provide any evidence to justify this statement, except an
alleged conversation with someone in the business.

Do I need to spoonfeed you, Trevor? Do the research yourself.
Buy some Danish or Swedish audio journals in which the matter is
discussed frequently. You will find an interesting btreakdown of figs
by maker, cost and topology.

If you had a better knowledge of geography, you would know that
Scandinavia is not a country, but a group of countries, formed long
before
the EU was even thought of. Its member states are Sweden,
Norway, Finland and Denmark.

**I am aware of this.

Being the gentleman I am, I will not jump up and down in apoplexy
as you are prone to do, swear and shout "Liar" Instead I will smile,
and think "Poor old Trevor. Once again he is so hot and bothered that
he misunderstood a simple statement in his own language".

**I repeated your words, verbatim. There is not much to misunderstand. I
do, however, admit to substituting 'countries' with 'country'.

True. There was not much to misunderstand., but still you managed to do so,
just as you have with posts from Keith and Andre.

Nice to see that you have managed to make a post without invective and
shouts of "Liar"

Iain

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:40:49 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 22:27:43 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:52:08 -0800, Andy Evans

It is really easy to reveal sounds in a recording that are otherwise
masked. You give a little twist to one of the eq pots on the desk. It
is like magic.

Much depends on what you mean by "masked" If the instrument
you are trying to bring forward is indistinct due to poor separation,
then "a little twist to one of the eq pots on the desk" is the worst
possible solution. A sensible engineer would probably choose a
different microphone is an improved position.

Iain



No, what I mean is that whatever changes you make to the frequency
response, particularly the reasonably narrow changes you can make with
a paragraphic eq, will tend to bring an instrument forwards, making
obvious (or even audible) something that was previously just there in
the mix.


Consider what it does to the leakage, and then try it.
The results may well be different to what you might expect.

The ""a little twist to one of the eq pots on the desk" is the
thing you try last, when you are sure that all other "downstream
factors" are correct. One of my mentors, Arthur Lilley, hardly
ever touched an equaliser (sometimes he used to roll
off a little LF) He was a master of orchestral set up, and knew
which microphones to use in which positions to get the results
that were expected.


Come on Iain, please try to follow. I'm not saying that this is how I
would adjust a mix to bring an instrument out.

I find your unorthodox use of terms a little confusing, Don.
I recording parlance, "a mix" is either a live show (say a concert)
or a multitrack mix-down.

In straight stereo recording the term "balance" is used.

What I am saying is the
when you have errors, particularly sharp ones, in frequency response,
the result is often that you hear stuff on a recording that isn't
normally evident.

If you are working on a "mix" i.e. a multitrack already recorded to
tape or hard-disk then what you suggest is one of the alternatives
open to you.

If you are working on a straight stereo balance, then, as I said earlier,
there better ways to solve the problem.

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**Iain has stated that valve amps constitute the vast majority of high
end
amplifier sold in his country. Of course, he can't provide any actual
proof of that. I can tell you that it is easy enough to locate a bunch
of
valve amps (in one location) here in Australia. I would expect that it
is
easier in the UK. What, with all that crappy weather and all.

Poor memory fails you again, dear Trevor. You will really have to stop
that lead solder sniffing. It really is softening your brain.

I quoted a Swedish high end dealer who told me that the top 5%
of high end audio systems sold in *Scandinavia* are valve/tube
based systems. This is not in fact news, as sales in top end
systems have been at this level for over two years now.
I did not use the phrase "vast majority". Please check
before you misquote so blatantly.

**Here are your precise words:

---
" As I mentioned to Trevor (a fact which he could not accept)
here in Scandinavia, the top 5% of high end audio sales are totally
dominated by tube audio."
---

You have yet to provide any evidence to justify this statement, except an
alleged conversation with someone in the business.

Do I need to spoonfeed you, Trevor?

**Nope. You could supply some evidence to support you statement though.

Do the research yourself.
Buy some Danish or Swedish audio journals in which the matter is
discussed frequently. You will find an interesting btreakdown of figs
by maker, cost and topology.

**We don't get any of that stuff over here.


If you had a better knowledge of geography, you would know that
Scandinavia is not a country, but a group of countries, formed long
before
the EU was even thought of. Its member states are Sweden,
Norway, Finland and Denmark.

**I am aware of this.

Being the gentleman I am, I will not jump up and down in apoplexy
as you are prone to do, swear and shout "Liar" Instead I will smile,
and think "Poor old Trevor. Once again he is so hot and bothered that
he misunderstood a simple statement in his own language".

**I repeated your words, verbatim. There is not much to misunderstand. I
do, however, admit to substituting 'countries' with 'country'.

True. There was not much to misunderstand., but still you managed to do
so,
just as you have with posts from Keith and Andre.

**LOL!


Nice to see that you have managed to make a post without invective and
shouts of "Liar"

**You're still a liar. You just haven't lied (to me) in the last few days.
I'm certain it won't be long, before you lie or misreprepresent my position
very soon. It's all you do.

Trevor Wilson




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**Iain has stated that valve amps constitute the vast majority of high
end
amplifier sold in his country. Of course, he can't provide any actual
proof of that. I can tell you that it is easy enough to locate a bunch
of
valve amps (in one location) here in Australia. I would expect that it
is
easier in the UK. What, with all that crappy weather and all.

Poor memory fails you again, dear Trevor. You will really have to stop
that lead solder sniffing. It really is softening your brain.

I quoted a Swedish high end dealer who told me that the top 5%
of high end audio systems sold in *Scandinavia* are valve/tube
based systems. This is not in fact news, as sales in top end
systems have been at this level for over two years now.
I did not use the phrase "vast majority". Please check
before you misquote so blatantly.

**Here are your precise words:

---
" As I mentioned to Trevor (a fact which he could not accept)
here in Scandinavia, the top 5% of high end audio sales are totally
dominated by tube audio."
---

You have yet to provide any evidence to justify this statement, except
an
alleged conversation with someone in the business.

Do I need to spoonfeed you, Trevor?

**Nope. You could supply some evidence to support you statement though.

Do the research yourself.
Buy some Danish or Swedish audio journals in which the matter is
discussed frequently. You will find an interesting btreakdown of figs
by maker, cost and topology.

**We don't get any of that stuff over here.


If you had a better knowledge of geography, you would know that
Scandinavia is not a country, but a group of countries, formed long
before
the EU was even thought of. Its member states are Sweden,
Norway, Finland and Denmark.

**I am aware of this.

Being the gentleman I am, I will not jump up and down in apoplexy
as you are prone to do, swear and shout "Liar" Instead I will smile,
and think "Poor old Trevor. Once again he is so hot and bothered that
he misunderstood a simple statement in his own language".

**I repeated your words, verbatim. There is not much to misunderstand.
I
do, however, admit to substituting 'countries' with 'country'.

True. There was not much to misunderstand., but still you managed to do
so,
just as you have with posts from Keith and Andre.

**LOL!


Nice to see that you have managed to make a post without invective and
shouts of "Liar"

**You're still a liar. You just haven't lied (to me) in the last few days.
I'm certain it won't be long, before you lie or misreprepresent my
position
very soon. It's all you do.

Come on Trevor. Pull yourself together, you are like a hysterical
schoolgirl, caught with her knickers down.

I make a wonderful Beef Wellington, and can produce ten
witnesses to prove that is no lie.

Let's have a bit of civility and common sense from you.
Pretend you are British:-)

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**Iain has stated that valve amps constitute the vast majority of
high
end
amplifier sold in his country. Of course, he can't provide any actual
proof of that. I can tell you that it is easy enough to locate a
bunch
of
valve amps (in one location) here in Australia. I would expect that
it
is
easier in the UK. What, with all that crappy weather and all.

Poor memory fails you again, dear Trevor. You will really have to
stop
that lead solder sniffing. It really is softening your brain.

I quoted a Swedish high end dealer who told me that the top 5%
of high end audio systems sold in *Scandinavia* are valve/tube
based systems. This is not in fact news, as sales in top end
systems have been at this level for over two years now.
I did not use the phrase "vast majority". Please check
before you misquote so blatantly.

**Here are your precise words:

---
" As I mentioned to Trevor (a fact which he could not accept)
here in Scandinavia, the top 5% of high end audio sales are totally
dominated by tube audio."
---

You have yet to provide any evidence to justify this statement, except
an
alleged conversation with someone in the business.

Do I need to spoonfeed you, Trevor?

**Nope. You could supply some evidence to support you statement though.

Do the research yourself.
Buy some Danish or Swedish audio journals in which the matter is
discussed frequently. You will find an interesting btreakdown of figs
by maker, cost and topology.

**We don't get any of that stuff over here.


If you had a better knowledge of geography, you would know that
Scandinavia is not a country, but a group of countries, formed long
before
the EU was even thought of. Its member states are Sweden,
Norway, Finland and Denmark.

**I am aware of this.

Being the gentleman I am, I will not jump up and down in apoplexy
as you are prone to do, swear and shout "Liar" Instead I will smile,
and think "Poor old Trevor. Once again he is so hot and bothered that
he misunderstood a simple statement in his own language".

**I repeated your words, verbatim. There is not much to misunderstand.
I
do, however, admit to substituting 'countries' with 'country'.

True. There was not much to misunderstand., but still you managed to do
so,
just as you have with posts from Keith and Andre.

**LOL!


Nice to see that you have managed to make a post without invective and
shouts of "Liar"

**You're still a liar. You just haven't lied (to me) in the last few
days.
I'm certain it won't be long, before you lie or misreprepresent my
position
very soon. It's all you do.

Come on Trevor. Pull yourself together, you are like a hysterical
schoolgirl, caught with her knickers down.

I make a wonderful Beef Wellington, and can produce ten
witnesses to prove that is no lie.

Let's have a bit of civility and common sense from you.
Pretend you are British:-)

**I treat people as they deserve to be treated. As soon as you cease acting
like a lying, supercilious prat, I will treat you as if you are not a lying,
supercilious prat.

I won't be holding my breath.

Trevor Wilson