From: ANDREW CARTER <>
>
> Hi all -
> If you are interested the BBC have just started an 8
> part series on sounds - past present and future to
> quote the blurb. Todays started with water and ended
> with the probable first animal to use sound for
> communication - Walt will be pleased they suggest a
> frog!
That's because they are land vertebrate centric. Frogs were way late in
the game. So, they are way wrong.
On land insects were probably the first to use sound in a organized way
for communication. In water their equivalents the same.
In vertebrates, fish use sound. Their lateral line system and other
sensor systems are vibration/sound pickups. Some appear to use sound
communication, they certainly deliberately produce sound.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:28:02 2005
Message: 16=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:01:54 -0400
From: Walter Knapp <>
Subject: Re: Audio Monitors for Editing
> From: Dan Dugan <>
> Powered is much nicer, electronic crossover, multiple amps,
> protection circuitry (accidents happen) all built-in.
Yes, that's what I've been thinking.
> Of course not. You want a subwoofer or two.
No, I don't, it would have to be one per channel to satisfy me. And
that's even more space needed. I'm not a fan of the mono subwoofer
compromise. And complete speaker setups that include the low range do a
better job than any of the subwoofer systems I've heard. Unfortunately,
subwoofers are popular making choices in complete speakers less.
I'd just build it all, but it's gotten a lot harder to buy quality
components. Than it was, say, in the 70's when I last built some. Which,
btw, I'm still using.
>>>Note that virtually none of us have mix rooms that are designed for the
>>>purpose. The acoustics are far less ideal. Which is why I do most
>>>critical work with headphones.
>
>
> OK for editing, but not for mixing, the spatial perspective is too
> different from speakers. Also the balance of bass is perceived
> differently on headphones. But I don't think you mix, anyway.
I'm well aware of this difference. I think it's more than just ok for
editing. Many of the details of the sound would be hard to pick out in
any conceivable speaker system I could assemble in this room. But,
because I also recognize the differences, I already have speakers (not
good enough ones), and am looking into coming up with something more
appropriate. To listen both ways.
It's looking like for the infrasound end I'll have no choice but
headphones, and they don't get all of it. Amazing how many folks argue
that double our actual frequency limit at the upper end is necessary to
hear the sound right, but ignore the opposite end. Even down into the
ranges of infrasound you don't hear at all, you can feel it, which
influences your perception of sound.
No, I don't mix per se. I stick pretty much with the output of a single
stereo mic setup at a time, getting everything from that. A purist sort
of approach. I do belong to the Phonography group, which, among other
things is mixing in nature recording. So I kind of follow along what
those folks are trying. I doubt many folks in nature recordists are
doing much mixing with their nature recordings. And, if mixing in nature
recording, I don't think it's going to be the rather restricted
discipline that it is in music with all the rules they have. Locked into
a specific sound in the output.
Walt
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:28:02 2005
Message: 15=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:42:52 +0200
From: jan.larsson <>
Subject: Re: Audio Monitors for Editing
Try to loan/hire the monitors and try them in the studio with material
you know well.
We usually avoid any active speakers. A speaker cabinet is just about
the worst place for an amplifier. Certain electrical components (like
larger caps and certain types of resistors) can be quite sensitive to
magnetic fields and then ... the whole cabinet is vibrating of sound.
And most electrical components (from IC:s to caps) have a physical
construction that make them quite sensitive to this.
So if detailed sound is important to you I think you should listen
carefully before you buy.
In my personal view the amplifier is more important than the actual
monitor. Its the amp that gives the ability to hear into the different
strands of sound. And it is the amp will (or will not) have the ability
to render details and control the monitor so it replays them. The
monitor itself only make the acoustic presentation and there are many
models on the market that is o.k. I always make sure I have the best
possible amp (and cables that electrically match the amp - good amp
manufacturers usually declare this) and make do with whatever monitors
are available.
2004-07-25 kl. 20.16 skrev Pablo Mazuera:
> Hello everybody,
>
>
> I've been looking for some good and cheap audio
> monitors these days because I want to edit some sounds
> and ambiences I did record.
>
> I went to SAM ASH store and I listened to the monitors
> they have and I like two of those:
>
> 1. Event TR-6 (Active)
> 2. Alesis M1 (Active)
>
> Wich one do you recomend me to edit this ambiences and
> sound efects? I want to have a wide frequency
> response in order to listen to all the details in the
> sound.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> PABLO MAZUERA
> MIAMI, FLORIDA
> USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|