Curious about Neumann Mikes EQ

[mbanstendig]

I am curious about the newer Neumann Mikes and their EQ linearity.

My question:

Has the EQ been smoothed out without affecting their great dynamic qualities?

The old time famous/infamous Neumann mikes, which were the preferred Mikes for a good part of the last century, used by the big, great Audio recording firms like Mercury, etc., all had a huge spike in the 1200 to 2000 hz range that has to be filtered out (by using EQ) for accurate timbre in playback. This aberration exists in an enormous amount of the greatest old recordings by the greatest classical artists, many of which recordings are, amazingly, revered as great hi fi achievements.

And that spike was truly large and very hearable, if one has an ear trained in EQ aberrations and adjustment.

I got the impression (which I could not verify) that those old, revered model mikes are still being sold. But Neumann has many new models.

Has there been progress in EQ linearity without affecting the, actually truly great dynamic-subtlety characteristics of those old mikes?

Thanks,

Mark

[Rad]

There's no immediate connection between how linear a mic is and how good it sounds.
For example, there exist calibration mics that are as linear as it gets (+/- 0.5 dB off the zero line and 20Hz-40,000Hz) but nobody uses them for recording because they sound sterile and unmusical.
As it has been pointed out before in this forum, mic frequency charts say very little about how good a mic is.
And I think we all agree that the point of studio recording is to get aesthetic, not necessarily accurate sound. Otherwise we'd have to record electric guitars direct, throw out any Marshall stack in the world and get rid of any and all tube technology, just as an example.
Your concept that slight rises in the mic characteristics "had to be eq-ed out for accurate timbre reproduction" puzzles me too.
I am not aware of any engineer using Neumanns having to eq things out for accurate reproduction. In many cases a slight midrange boost is actually desirable when recording vocals. Each mic has an optimal application and vocals seem to be what Neumann mics are in general very good in, so I see no contradiction here.

[aitikin]

Is your post asking more about classical recordings than more contemporary music? If so, than yes, often times people use a more sterile frequency response, the Schoeps CMC6 "mikrofones" are very much on the line in their frequencies and are widely considered to be some of the best microphones for classical. The Neumann TLM 170 is also very flat response and a great classical microphone.

One thing to keep in mind, just because a mic has a "flat" response, doesn't mean that it's better for classical. A choice of a different mic is kind of like playing in a different hall, sure, your tone won't change all too much, but it will definitely change. Sometimes sound warmer, sometimes not so much, some halls are better suited to Jazz, some are better suited to Gregorian Chant, some mics are better used for orchestra, some are better for jazz, some are better for none of the above. Take a look at the SM57. It's a well known standard, but good God I'd never want to use them on an orchestra.

[mbanstendig]

I am not exactly ignorant here.

The Anstendig Institute has been researching sound from the practical view of what exactly do we consciously hear, for 35 years, with respected people working with us, advising us, and doing the listening. It has many papers on EQ.

I also worked with some of the best ears in the musical world at the Juilliard School of Music for 10 years, 5 of them as a conducting major, and also in Europe with the best. And I worked with great instrumentalists and singers and know exactly how they sounded, as well as what a perfectly balanced orchestra with its players playing at a high level of perfection of tonal delivery and orchestral balance sounds like. For 5 years, I heard Jean Morel at Juilliard produce just exactly that, and in a great Hall at the old, original, pre-Lincoln Center building.

Those things differ greatly in the outside world. That does not mean that there isn't a right and a wrong. It just means that most people don't know what they are.

Halls differ annoyingly in this world. Most are bad. A very few are good....not really because the Hall has such great characteristics, but because the performers and the audience hear the same thing, so when the performer adjusts his/her tone to suit the sound that they hear (and all the good ones do adjust their tone/touch to the sound they hear) the audience then hears exactlywhat they hear. Unfortunately, in most halls the audience does NOT hear what the performers hear. And from that point things go truly awry.

I can prove, here in our studio, that a great amount of the old classical recordings all have, not a small, but a rather large EQ spike around 1200-1600 HZ. And that this spike is wrong, is hearable, and changes the timbre markedly, and that reducing/removing it, via ”program EQ“ improves everything about the recording and also improves the experience.

However, those same recordings, evidently made with prized Neumann Mikes of the time, do have other qualities, especially in their dynamic tracking of delicate subtleties in the finest musical performance, which made choosing them a worthwhile trade off....one which the knowledgeable of the time knew about. That is history.

I am familiar with and subscribe to the beliefs held here by many that it takes a lot of things, not just one, to make a good recording, etc., etc., etc.

I asked a simple question:

Are the more recent Neumann mikes flatter, without losing their other great characteristics?

That second phrase would be the crucial one! I would appreciate it if I could get a knowledgeable reply from actual hands on experience and testing/measuring, without the philosophizing.

I am sorry if I wasn't clear that I was asking solely about the EQ characteristics of the Mikes.

Mark

[mbanstendig]

BTW, that anomaly was hardly only on classical music.

I just heard, and am still watching, episodes from the sitcom ”Little House on the Prairie“. I adjust the program EQ on everything I listen to, no matter where in the house. When I switched from modern, decently flat-adjusted news channels or three to the sitcom, there was that peak in the ca 1200-1600 range. I had to substantially adjust it and the sound came ”into focus“ so to speak.

Those sitcom episodes were from 1976 and 1977.

I don't know about anyone on these boards. But I hear those peaks and also other unevennesses across the main hearable spectrum. Loud and clear.

Mark

[Rad]

The answer to your question is: if you want an answer "without the philosophising," go to the Neumann website

www.neumann.com

which has all the frequency charts you are interested in.

As regards your self-proclaimed "institute", by now I am well familiar with your concept that somehow you have the real knowledge about sound but somehow invariably end up being misunderstood by 99.99% of the respected audio professionals who are the music industry.
In any case, I know of no professional physicist who would agree with your theory of "vibrations" you discussed last time (and that, also in a markedly unprofessional language having nothing to do with the terminology of physics).

Your posts remind me that somewhere I read that a major European Academy of Sciences had recently started issuing a bulletin called "Charlatans in science" containing a list of fake research articles and its authors. I think it would be useful to start issuing something like that in the US. Then we'd probably see entities like the Anstending "institute" disappear pretty fast.

[mbanstendig]

I appreciate the URL.

I hadn't thought to contact Neumann themselves. And I honestly thought that a discussion of the Neumann mike trade-offs, which were well known back then, might have interested some people here.

In fact, I am sure Neumann will be happy to tell me about their newer product characteristics if I got in touch with them. And I am sure they are aware of the characteristics about which I inquired.

Sad that you cannot read differing views without becoming so abusive about them.

Thanks again for the URL.

Mark

[mbanstendig]

I find this post, quoted below, offensive in the extreme.

The “Institute” is not self proclaimed, but has been federal and State accredited as a “research and educational“ non-profit Institute since 1978 after full examination and has withstood all Federal and state scrutiny since.

The materials of photographic focusing of cameras are long-tested true science, with affidavits of their accuracy by just those european Academies of Science to which you refer, such as the World's leading optical Institutes in Germany and appeared in leading Photo magazines such as US Camera. And every post on audio was personally proofed and okayed by the institute's technical advisor, Mitchell A Cotter, who was probably the foremost person in audio, who manufactured some of the best built, most respected components ever made, and who also personally took part in the acoustics studies of Davies Hall. And the institute's other technical advisor was and still is Dr Sao Win, who was one of the leading exerts in laser technology of the last half century. Dr Win has designed and made the most respected phono pickup cartridges of the last three decades as well as top phono turntables and loudspeaker systems.

Your vitriol with regard to The Anstendig Institute is nasty, insulting and gives the impression of being an expression of your own personal disagreement with concepts that evidently contradict things you do in your own work. It is out of place on discussion forums, where a certain interest in different well-thought-out and tested points of view are usually welcomed.

Your attack on the language used in The Anstendig Institute's papers shows that you did not even read the descriptions of the institute provided in our papers: that the aim of the institute is to put our research into everyday English that can be understood by the layman, and not cloak our writings in scientific jargon, with which most people are not familiar.

I can assure you that the institute has used top of the line HP and other Spectrum analyzers and other such top scientific apparatus in our work, during times when such instruments were rare. And we have the printed-out diagrams that support out findings regarding EQ and other such topics.

The question on this thread is in regard to a well-known anomaly that has been present in the audio recording world for half a century.

Your lack of patience with the question is out of place and seems to display an ignorance of the problem.

I thoroughly resent your post and its tone.

Mark



The answer to your question is: if you want an answer "without the philosophising," go to the Neumann website

www.neumann.com

which has all the frequency charts you are interested in.

As regards your self-proclaimed "institute", by now I am well familiar with your concept that somehow you have the real knowledge about sound but somehow invariably end up being misunderstood by 99.99% of the respected audio professionals who are the music industry.
In any case, I know of no professional physicist who would agree with your theory of "vibrations" you discussed last time (and that, also in a markedly unprofessional language having nothing to do with the terminology of physics).

Your posts remind me that somewhere I read that a major European Academy of Sciences had recently started issuing a bulletin called "Charlatans in science" containing a list of fake research articles and its authors. I think it would be useful to start issuing something like that in the US. Then we'd probably see entities like the Anstending "institute" disappear pretty fast.

[aitikin]

Your vitriol with regard to The Anstendig Institute is nasty, insulting and gives the impression of being an expression of your own personal disagreement with concepts that evidently contradict things you do in your own work. It is out of place on discussion forums, where a certain interest in different well-thought-out and tested points of view are usually welcomed.

First off, I'm sorry, but I busted out laughing when I read that. Forums/online messageboards have always been a place where people express their beliefs and disagreements, usually more volatily than those expressed in this thread (although, your defensive post is getting close). If you want proof of this, look as far back as the old time Debian forums where about 1/3 to 1/2 the answers to any given post was, "RTFM (Derogatory term of any kind)!!!"


Your attack on the language used in The Anstendig Institute's papers shows that you did not even read the descriptions of the institute provided in our papers: that the aim of the institute is to put our research into everyday English that can be understood by the layman, and not cloak our writings in scientific jargon, with which most people are not familiar.

That's all well and good, but what happens when someone knows the scientific jargon? Are you just trying to say Anstendig is merely there for translation?


The question on this thread is in regard to a well-known anomaly that has been present in the audio recording world for half a century.

This is the post that I find the most outrageous. You obviously are either mistaken, or don't know the meaning of the term anomaly, so here's the definition courtesy of the New Oxford American Dictionary:


anomaly |əˈnäməlē|
noun ( pl. -lies)
1 something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected : there are a number of anomalies in the present system | a legal anomaly | [with clause ] the apparent anomaly that those who produced the wealth were the poorest | the position abounds in anomaly.
2 Astronomy the angular distance of a planet or satellite from its last perihelion or perigee.

Therefore, an anomaly would have to be something outside the norm, when you yourself stated that it was the norm. Furthermore, about 2/3 of the microphones out there try to recreate the sound of Neumanns by using that same "spike" (more often referred to as a bump as it rarely is just a pure spike).


Your lack of patience with the question is out of place and seems to display an ignorance of the problem.

Maybe I have a total ignorance here, but I don't see this as a problem. You and the Institute you are with find that it's more appealling to take out the bump, while we (the majority of recording people) find it more appealling not to.

This, like oh so many other things in this world that we live in, is a situation of disagreement that cannot be resolved. It's like sticking a vocal person from the far right of politics and one from the far left of politics in the same room and expecting them to be completely civil. It doesn't work.

You're coming here stating an opinion as the blanket fact. Rad's doing similar, but he's a (very small (1 in 10,000)) margin of error. I think the number of people who would agree with you, Mark, is probably closer to 1 in 1,000, but I don't think it'd be worth spending the time and money on a study to see if that plays out. If your institute does, I'd be happy to see the results (preferrably with the scientific jargon, but either way works for me).

[michaelhoddy]

Are the more recent Neumann mikes flatter, without losing their other great characteristics?

No. They're different. Many of them are still not flat in frequency or time-domain response, and while the replacement of transformers in many of the mics by transformerless circuitry may have made them somewhat more linear, it has not, in the opinion of many, made them sound "better."

My issue with this whole line of thought is that it's get all worked up over one aspect of the recording and playback process, but completely miss the cumulative effect that EACH step has on both frequency and time-domain response. I will avoid dropping my classical music experience for a moment, and try to address what I think are the other issues:

1. Any hall, good, bad or indifferent, is not linear in its frequency response. Most of the "good" halls are decidedly non-linear, both in terms of direct field response, early reflections, and reverberant field. Any non-free field apart from an anechoic chamber, by nature does not have a singular impulse response, which means that it does not have a flat time-domain response, which also means that it will not have a flat frequency response due to constructive and destructive interaction in the time domain.

2. As discussed, microphones are often not linear in response. Neither are mic preamps or many digital converters.

3. Recording technology, digital or analog, has already been extensively discussed as to its pros and cons in terms of linearity.

4. Playback systems are very often decidedly non-linear.

5. Even with a very flat, expensive playback system, I see an awful lot of the high-end listening crowd almost totally neglect the impact of room acoustics on their playback systems. I've seen a lot of very expensive speakers in untreated, gyp-board, rectangular rooms.

6. The addition of "program EQ" may correct frequency response to some extent, but it almost always does it at the expense of phase coherency, which is equally important to sonic accuracy.

So there are a lot of other variables in play here that, in my opinion, are completely missed. You can't go after one or a couple without addressing the others, some of which (especially on the playback side) are beyond control. And, as has been alluded to, as much as non-linear response CAN sound bad, it can also sound quite good. And "flat" response does not necessarily always sound good.

[mbanstendig]

Then you don't believe that EQ anomalies disturb anything in sound.

I and those I know do.

We have also spent 35 years demonstrating that. Have you?

And if it is simply a little disagrteement, why didn't someone simply say how the EQ on those mikes changed or not?

Doesn't anyone know?

And why was I so defamed, including the institute?

Even when there is clear scientific well-known proof of something, like the equal loudness curves of Fletcher and Munson, the audio community still ignores it. Seemingly because it would be a lot of trouble doing anything about it.

And in this industry, where there is as good as no standardization in sound, levels, EQ, and more basics, it seems truly ridiculous for anyone to have attacked the Anstendig Institute as it and I has been attacked.

But so far, I have been disappointed here at the Sweetwater forums because I have not learned much from anyone first hand but unproveable theory and assumptions here....and from mostly professionals.

I am in the wrong place, obviously.

Mark



First off, I'm sorry, but I busted out laughing when I read that. Forums/online messageboards have always been a place where people express their beliefs and disagreements, usually more volatily than those expressed in this thread (although, your defensive post is getting close). If you want proof of this, look as far back as the old time Debian forums where about 1/3 to 1/2 the answers to any given post was, "RTFM (Derogatory term of any kind)!!!"



That's all well and good, but what happens when someone knows the scientific jargon? Are you just trying to say Anstendig is merely there for translation?



This is the post that I find the most outrageous. You obviously are either mistaken, or don't know the meaning of the term anomaly, so here's the definition courtesy of the New Oxford American Dictionary:



Therefore, an anomaly would have to be something outside the norm, when you yourself stated that it was the norm. Furthermore, about 2/3 of the microphones out there try to recreate the sound of Neumanns by using that same "spike" (more often referred to as a bump as it rarely is just a pure spike).



Maybe I have a total ignorance here, but I don't see this as a problem. You and the Institute you are with find that it's more appealling to take out the bump, while we (the majority of recording people) find it more appealling not to.

This, like oh so many other things in this world that we live in, is a situation of disagreement that cannot be resolved. It's like sticking a vocal person from the far right of politics and one from the far left of politics in the same room and expecting them to be completely civil. It doesn't work.

You're coming here stating an opinion as the blanket fact. Rad's doing similar, but he's a (very small (1 in 10,000)) margin of error. I think the number of people who would agree with you, Mark, is probably closer to 1 in 1,000, but I don't think it'd be worth spending the time and money on a study to see if that plays out. If your institute does, I'd be happy to see the results (preferrably with the scientific jargon, but either way works for me).

[aitikin]

You have had your question answered, my first post on this topic was that mics like the TLM170 are much more flat. If you need that in layman's terms, like the institute thinks everyone does, that means that the TLM170 does not have said bump. Your opinion is backed up by your ears, mine by mine. It just so happens that my opinion is more consistent with the industry, which, in case you've forgotten, an industry is a part of an economy. If you're saying that the industry should do something because your institute finds it to be true, than you obviously haven't taken economics. The general public, who are massively ignorant towards most things audio are happy with this that or the next thing, so the industry as a whole gives them it. That's economics.

I'm sorry sweetwater, I didn't mean to keep feeding the trolls. I'll leave this thread now...


Then you don't believe that EQ anomalies disturb anything in sound.

I and those I know do.

We have also spent 35 years demonstrating that. Have you?

And if it is simply a little disagrteement, why didn't someone simply say how the EQ on those mikes changed or not?

Doesn't anyone know?

And why was I so defamed, including the institute?

Even when there is clear scientific well-known proof of something, like the equal loudness curves of Fletcher and Munson, the audio community still ignores it. Seemingly because it would be a lot of trouble doing anything about it.

And in this industry, where there is as good as no standardization in sound, levels, EQ, and more basics, it seems truly ridiculous for anyone to have attacked the Anstendig Institute as it and I has been attacked.

But so far, I have been disappointed here at the Sweetwater forums because I have not learned much from anyone first hand but unproveable theory and assumptions here....and from mostly professionals.

I am in the wrong place, obviously.

Mark

[mbanstendig]

Michael, I agree with you.

You say basic, essential related things, with which I would always agree.

I was not asking for an evaluation. Just a statement of fact re linearity. I know very well that linearity does not alone a great recording make! And those old Neumanns still were the best mikes around, even with the spike. Just about everyone from that time knew that. And the spike can easily be filtered out, if one wants to (which I do).

I just wanted to know if Neumann fixed the spike? Your post answers that quesion perfectly and I thank you for it. Also, your basic comments on the characteristics of the mikes with changed EQ also is more than apropos to the topic.

I truly appreciate it.

And, while I knew the rest, I also appreciate your effort in stating a truly important way of viewing the role of mikes in recording. It is something that can hardly be repeated too often.

Your post was the kind of post I had expected.

Once more,

Many thanks,

Mark


No. They're different. Many of them are still not flat in frequency or time-domain response, and while the replacement of transformers in many of the mics by transformerless circuitry may have made them somewhat more linear, it has not, in the opinion of many, made them sound "better."

My issue with this whole line of thought is that it's get all worked up over one aspect of the recording and playback process, but completely miss the cumulative effect that EACH step has on both frequency and time-domain response. I will avoid dropping my classical music experience for a moment, and try to address what I think are the other issues:

1. Any hall, good, bad or indifferent, is not linear in its frequency response. Most of the "good" halls are decidedly non-linear, both in terms of direct field response, early reflections, and reverberant field. Any non-free field apart from an anechoic chamber, by nature does not have a singular impulse response, which means that it does not have a flat time-domain response, which also means that it will not have a flat frequency response due to constructive and destructive interaction in the time domain.

2. As discussed, microphones are often not linear in response. Neither are mic preamps or many digital converters.

3. Recording technology, digital or analog, has already been extensively discussed as to its pros and cons in terms of linearity.

4. Playback systems are very often decidedly non-linear.

5. Even with a very flat, expensive playback system, I see an awful lot of the high-end listening crowd almost totally neglect the impact of room acoustics on their playback systems. I've seen a lot of very expensive speakers in untreated, gyp-board, rectangular rooms.

6. The addition of "program EQ" may correct frequency response to some extent, but it almost always does it at the expense of phase coherency, which is equally important to sonic accuracy.

So there are a lot of other variables in play here that, in my opinion, are completely missed. You can't go after one or a couple without addressing the others, some of which (especially on the playback side) are beyond control. And, as has been alluded to, as much as non-linear response CAN sound bad, it can also sound quite good. And "flat" response does not necessarily always sound good.

[mbanstendig]

[QUOTE=aitikin
I'm sorry sweetwater, I didn't mean to keep feeding the trolls. I'll leave this thread now...[/QUOTE]

Trolls?

Actually, not necessarily a bad word. Though he didn't mean it well.

But that seems to be par for the course on Sweetwater.

Mark

[Tarktones]

But so far, I have been disappointed here at the Sweetwater forums because I have not learned much from anyone first hand but unproveable theory and assumptions here....and from mostly professionals.

I am in the wrong place, obviously.

Mark

With regards to the negativity:

I say this with all due respect and I'm just trying to elaborate on why you're not received well by some of us. I've made efforts to bite my tongue and not resort to putting down you or your institute which you obviously have worked long and hard on and have much passion for.

I, much like Rad, have a decidedly bad temperament toward things that I'd consider foolery. So I can understand his lack of respect for your work as it's a sentiment I share. However I'll strive to be not so offensive as I have a problem with the ideas you're promoting and nothing against you personally.

I mean no disrespect to you directly because as misguided as I feel you may be, you obviously believe in the ideas you write about which sets you apart from scammers who exploit people who buy into crazy ideas for profit (people like Sylvia Browne). I wouldn't question your character in that way and you're obviously a talented photographer of a high caliber.

As far as credibility, there are institutes for reflexology and homeopathy as well but these are, by all scientific measure, false principals. The fact that they're institutes doesn't make them any more or less valid. The rest of the medical world stands up to peer reviewed scrutiny of professionals where these fields are full of papers much like your institute's. Papers that involve non-technical and rather philosophical sounding language and do not clearly define research goals and methods.

These areas mirror in the medical community what your institute represents to audio engineers. You're right, there are a lot of professionals here. And this is a board where we share info, experiences and insights about recording. Your posts rarely have anything to do with recording audio but rather strange questions that we would consider irrelevant (especially in the heat of a session) and usually miss the point entirely. Imagine asking medical professionals what kind of seasoning you should put on your tofu to prevent you from contracting malaria. You'd accuse them of being closed minded when they tell you tofu doesn't prevent malaria and getting frustrated they didn't help you pick a seasoning. That's kind of where we're at here.

As far as we're concerned, if it sounds good it is good. I LOVE gear with all types of non-linearities to it. As does the rest of the industry; we need it. Could you imagine if guitar amps were linear? If all those great tube preamps were sterile? It just wouldn't work. Even when you EQ those old recordings you're inducing phase issues with it. To your ears, that sounds good. To mine, that bump sounds just fine.

With regards to the Neumanns:

That frequency bump is a sonic characteristic, not an anomaly. It's highly sought after in many microphones and that extra bump is right where the intelligibility of human speech lies so even on sub-par recording media it helped retain integrity of the content as well. As Michael pointed out and I mentioned again above, EQing it later will add phase issues. I don't care if there's an EQ bump on a microphone; if it's someplace I was going to add EQ later, that's probably why I picked that microphone. It isn't perfect.

[Smithcok]

HAHA

Regardless of anyone's stance on this thread, that sentence:
I, much like Rad, have a decidedly bad temperament toward things that I'd consider foolery
was hilarious haha.:banana: :banana:

As for my position, I would not consider the Neumann spectral characteristic an anomaly.

[mbanstendig]

Tarktones,

I have lived my life with most people feeling the way you do. I can live with your viewpoint. I probably agree less with it than you do with my views. But I know my views are odd and unknown to many.

I do appreciate your noticing the conviction I possess about my views. They are what I live by, not unsuccessfully and quite happily.

You mention my photos, which, if one studies them, are on quite a high level, scientifically as well as artistically and encompass just about every form of photography.

I would have liked it even more, if you had at least given tacit nod to my musical credentials, since I made it through what were and still are viewed as the most difficult and demending disciplines with Morel at Juilliard (teacher of James Levine and many other famous conductors), Nadia Boulanger (generally viewed as the most demanding of all and teacher of more famous composers than anyone ever), Herbert von Karajan, and many more. You simply couldn't be a charlatan with those people and had to have a high level of sonic discrimination to get through their classes and school exams.

At least my views could be taken seriously.

We differ completely regarding those spikes in those old Neumann mikes. IMO, if they do not bother you, you really do not know how a well produced singer's voice should sound. I have had enough great singers and musicians and composers as close friends, and attended most of their lessons, and studied voice and instruments myself with the best to know that those spikes add a quality to their sound that is absolutely wrong.

And, on the other side of the coin, any phase anomalies added by EQ do not ruin the sound the way those spikes do.

I think your dislike of The Anstendig Institute's views is because you have not studied them thoroughly. They are firmly based in known and accepted knowledge, especially the knowledge of the realities of comparison of sensory stimuli (sound, taste, images, etc.). For example, the idea that direct comparison in soudn is impossible and inaccurate comes from understanding of the realities of focusing of optical lenses, which are thoroughly researched scientific knowledge which was done around the time the first ground glasses were made. The optical industry knows it well, but keeps quiet about it.

For this question about mikes, I was presented with vague statements about linearity or lack of it, and mike models, without saying if they were the old models I asked about (I don't remember those model nubers) and then given exactly the same principles laid out which were given and insisted on in my first thread on these boards, almost like a broken needle on a record. Those repetitive insistings that there are many many other things than what I asked about that make a great recording are obvious and annoying to hear over and over. They are also not quite true, because one single bad link in all those chains can wreck everything. And a really bad spike in a frequency range in which our hearing is extremely sensitive (as with those old Neumann Mikes), is one of those things, for my ears. And, re the first discussion, a poor digital system that cannot capture all the nuances of finest music makes all other stages worthless for someone who can hear and experience those nuances, not to mention perform them, which, being a trained performing artist, I can.

The constant mention of scientific method, etc, implies I haven't a clue of what scientific method and terminology is. I mentioned enough respected people's names, with whom I have quite provably worked, to put that to rest. You don't work years on end with Mitch Cotter or Sao Win and setup and test for them their top models as they invent them if you are a technological or scientific flake. And they won't write for the institute you work in, if that institute were not believable.

I have as little patience with much of what passes for science in audio over the last half century as you have for my views.

But I don't bash your views. I just stick by mine. And I asked simple, straightforward questions and was answered with lecturing on how I was asking aboutthings of little importance to good sound, instead of just answering. (Of course, in the first discussion, some replied at length about devices they had never even used.)

I really do appreciate your elegance and self control in your last post. I hope you appreciate mine.

Ever best

Mark

[Tarktones]

I really do appreciate your elegance and self control in your last post. I hope you appreciate mine.

Ever best

Mark

I most certainly do, Mark. I'm hoping we can all just get along. :)

[mbanstendig]

We probably could get along.

Except that I now really have little to get along about.

I lived nearly 72 years without these forums and will probably live the rest of a long, healthy life with very little need to partake.

Thanks, though,

Mark

[mbanstendig]

It is short sighted to speak of “science” with regard to sound reproduction, which is one of the youngest of all so-called sciences.

Up to little more than a century ago (that is only 100 years plus), sound could never be repeated exactly the same way twice. Therefore any kind of scientifically valid comparison of sounds was impossible.

Yet comparisons were made....by exquisitely trained musicians, etc. It was the province of the “gifted” and extremely experienced.

But the world had not been sleeping all the time up to recordings. People as sensitive and thorough and logical as any modern scientist were observing and learning well. “The Tempo Indications of Mozart” by Jean-Pierre Mary, yale University Press, shows and proves an amazing precision and exactness in the tempo indications of Mozart, each indication only working well in an extremely narrow range of metronome markings. Somehow, Mozart knew and felt those speeds with a precision close to mechanical and with no variations for the same indication. And that was taught and drilled into students in those days.

Tea tasters, gourmets, perfume testers, etc., all knew how to do comparisons....and none of them were double blind testings, a la modern audio.

I don't need to go into how comparisons are possible in audio and how they have to differ completely with visual comparison possibilities and why. That is written in one of the papers of The Anstendig institute (more than one, actually, but especially here: http://www.anstendig.org/ABTesting.html). And it was old knowledge in this World, before any of us were born.

The point of the very young age of audio science has been made and needs now to be completed:

Modern audio science stems from the period after the WWII when audio components first began to improve from machines that wrecked records and tapes and wrecked most sound, to slowly developing machines that began to preserve what was captured on the records and tapes. That development occurred between the early 50s and the late 70s.

So, any kind of really decent, natural-sounding sound reproduction has only been possible for little more than three decades. And even that has been compromised by early digital, MP-3 and other dumbed down audio systems.

I was a part of that early development, in touch with and working and testing with some of the best.

But forget that:

Simply from the age of this “science” of which so much is argued here, it is really short-sighted to tout its terminology (much of which comes and goes over the decades, and much of which ignores truly Pathbreaking scientific research, like Fletcher Munson) and then use audio science as argument against carefully researched and tested conclusions of an actually very scientific institute like The Anstendig Institute, mainly because its findings differ with and contradict many opinions and ideas with which one makes a living.

The sound world out there is still a jungle. Wherever one goes, one hears little decent sound and most of anything decent is on the quiet side, since all anomalies tend to be less apparent when the volume is low and more apparent as the overall volume level increases. Broadway shows come to San Francisco, with amplification that is miserable and radically changes the overall volume level every five or ten minutes, changing the timbre every time. And that is respected, practiced audio science, probably using Sweetwater-sold devices. and on and on.

You are all in one of the youngest technologies today, which is based on controversial science findings that are little older, and which threw the baby out with the bath water not so long ago, when it began, in favor of a science that wasn't even there yet.

I do not envy you.

But there is much to learn on Anstendig.org for the open-minded.

Mark

By the way, I also studied with the pioneer of German electronic music, Professor Heinz Friedrich Hartig

http://anstendig.com/People/professor_hartig.html

in the Berlin Conservatory (Hochschule fuer Musik) in 1959, and was a close friend of his thereafter.

[JCM]

I wont get into the back and forth discussion going on. It always bores me when this happens. What I will tell you is that a friend bought a new U87 and we compared it with one I had bought in the '80s. The old one was smooth and natural sounding , the new one was much brighter and unnaturally hyped sounding.

[mbanstendig]

I wont get into the back and forth discussion going on. It always bores me when this happens. What I will tell you is that a friend bought a new U87 and we compared it with one I had bought in the '80s. The old one was smooth and natural sounding , the new one was much brighter and unnaturally hyped sounding.

Thanks a lot.

I can beoieve what you say.

Not because of technological improvements or such, but because of tendencies, described by The Anstendig Institute 20 or more years ago, to a brighter, greater high frequency emphasis due to what we called a massing of overyones in sound repro.

Not because mikes or technology became brighter, but because the people listening to sound repro become used to sound with a high frequency emphasis and tastes began to expect it.

Of course, this observation coincides with no other. So let's just leave it at the fact that what you say does not surprise me, because The Anstendig Institute already described a tendency towards brighter sound, with stronger high frequency emphasis. Not only in sound repro, but even in human voice production for other reasons, also described in our papers.

I very much appreciate your posting your experience.

Mark