It's a good example, Marty. I have recordings of Tetrao Urogallus (Swedish:
Tj=E4der) made with an average omni at a distance of about 2-3 meters. With
good loudspeakers or headphones one can easily hear a 3 sec long tone comin=
g
from it's chest (?) about 50 Hz.
Okay if people have poor replay equipment, as long as they know it - but ho=
w
can the average computer user know how poor his equipment is, when it says
"600 Watts" and "Sub-woofer" on the multi media package?
I just don't know what to accept! Next time I get a mail from a guy asking
"how many watts is a Telinga" - shall I be modern and answer "900 watts" an=
d
make him happy!
Or shall I try to educate this potential buyer, telling him that he's on th=
e
wrong track? It's almost like a father-son dilemma.
Klas.
At 13:33 2002-12-31 -0500, you wrote:
>At 12:25 PM 12/31/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>Klas Strandberg wrote:
>>
>> > Okay, I would personally make a choise here: I would go for the best
>> > recordings I could make, and then care only about the fans with equipm=
ent
>> > good enough!
>
>The classic dilemma, as I discussed with Professor Peter Paul Kellogg ca. =
1957,
>is in the commercial recording of the ruffed grouse booming. HI-FI or NOT=
>HI-FI?
>
>If you get a really good recording, as I have recently with my ME-67 at 20=
>ft with NO
>bass-roll off, and listen to the WAV on Bose Acoustimass speakers or on my
>Sennheiser headphones, you get better than 95% (I am guessing) of the ener=
gy
>below about 100 hz. Each beat of the grouse wing looks like you grabbed t=
he
>microphone diaphragm and jerked it out and then in for about a 20 ms .
>I can hear it I can record it I can play it,
>But on most computer systems, my users who want to learn birds, cannot
>reproduce it. The same was true of phonograph players in 1957. The recor=
d
>groves were just not far enough apart to give the needle much of a slow je=
rk.
>
>For listening on today's computer speaker systems, if I left the file that=
>way, my users
>might dispute there was ANY grouse sound at all. So, in the outgoing
>version, I have
>to emphasize the mid-range frequencies, so the users at least can hear the=
>accelerating
>beat PATTERN of the male grouse and know sort-of what to listen for every=
>spring. Their
>only recourse otherwise is to turn up playback the gain so the speakers
>distortion from lack
>of compliance produces audible overtones.
>
>my best regards,
>
>Marty Michener
>MIST Software Associates PO Box 269, Hollis, NH 03049 =
.com
>
>EnjoyBirds.com - Software that migrates with you. http://www.EnjoyBird=
s.com
>
>"And some rin up hill and down dale, knapping the chucky stanes to pieces=
>with hammers, like sae many road makers run daft. They say it is to see ho=
w
>the world was made." -- Sir Walter Scott, St.Ronan's Well, 1824
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>From Tue Mar 8 18:23:07 2005
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 17:21:50 +0100
From: Klas Strandberg <>
Subject: Re: Re: computer speakers
I just bought a new PC of a well known brand with good reputation. What I
like is that it's silent, the fan and the harddrive. The company that sold
it has a very good reputation, fully professional. I ought to be very conte=
nt.
With it came a "multi-media" audio set-up. On the box it says "hi-fi" and
"600 watts"! It also says it has a "sub-woofer" 10 - 100 Hz.
It's nothing else than fraud.
* At the most, the amplifier feeds 2-3 watts.
* The "sub-woofer" probably starts at about 70-80 Hz, not 10.
* "hi-fi" is out of the question,
Furthermore: Looking at the data for the sound card, those data are better
than the data of my professional sound card, 10 times more expensive.
and so on...
As soon as one manufacturer start telling lies, everybody else has to
follow. And the hi-fi report magazines don't protest, as they are afraid to
loose the incomes of advertizing.
Sometimes I think every naturesound recording CD should start with a series
of test signals "if you can't hear at least 10 tones on track one, your
equipment cannot give justice to this CD." At least that.
Worse: The same problems can be found on most of the more-to-come "surround
stereo" set-up's being sold, to be connected to your TV set. Okay, take a
look at an action video with helicopters and machine guns and it sounds big
and nice, all over the place. It's very impressive - but the average sound
quality is mostly poor. Here is lots of distorted high-frequencies + lots o=
f
distorted base, on top of it you sit in the middle of a strange multi out o=
f
phase stereo picture.
My "HQ" digital satellite system promises "CD-quality". It also provides me
with 19 channels of classical music. Fine. But the sound only resembles "CD=
"
quality, I mean, there is no noise and the sound is "hard". But it is also
full of high freq. distortion and synthesized sounds. Now and then it even
sounds as if someone is farthing in the back-ground...=20
On the other side, serious and concerned people on this list get worried
about ATRAC errors and spend 1500 dollars to get inherent noise down by 2
db.....=20
How can we preserve some kind of "quality" thinking, without being looked a=
t
as "hopelessly out of date"? I mean, in ten years only, "quality" will
probably be something very different from what we usually discuss here?
Is there another way than just being ridiculously stubborn?
Klas.
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|