[Refer to number 10 of this series.]
As a teenager, I was reluctant to try to build my own speaker cabinets because of the convincing advertising and promotional material by speaker manufacturers.
But at this point I feel that I can very readily design speakers that will vastly outperform anything presently on the market.
While I have certain ideas for dynamized transducers (speaker/microphones) that I will build from scratch, there is much that can be done if the reader is able to obtain microphone transducers in sufficient quantity.
Factory speakers are made with wood not because it provides optimal sound, but because it is inexpensive, easy to work with, and fits the traditional sense of what furniture should look like.
Your favorite artists are recording their instruments and voices with standard mics as you see in stage performance or condensor mics that have their own power supply.
To hear most accurately the sound they create you need speakers that use transducers as similar as possible to the ones in their microphones. And as heavy as those mics are, your speakers should mount those mic transducers in something heavier than wood.
You may want to replicate the cylindrical shape of the mics in your speaker design. Lead pipe as used for plumbing would give a rough and affordable approximation of a microphone cylinder. Or you might compromise on the shape and mount the elements in a massive flat panel of, say, granite, or steel.
By selecting parallel or series wiring, you can readily ensure that your transducer array operates in the appropriate range of 4-16 Ohms.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Vol. I No. 20
The reader may question my assertion that in the era of digital audio, music is dead.
Popular music is always more or less a trend, a movement, a style, a feeling, an attitude. If the most impassioned and inspired artists suddenly lose that passion and inspiration, music is dead not only for them, but for their fans and their fellow artists who emulated them.
I refer first to Talking Heads in this context because in their case the contrast between their albums skirting the onset of the digital audio era is so great that you have the sense that they were aware of the significance of this change.
The group that called itself Digital Underground whose song Humpty Dance became a hit at that time seems also to have understood to some degree the significance of the new technology.
They presumably felt that the new technology did not lend itself to serious musical art, and instead saw how by creating very gimmicky music with clownish and obscene aspects they could at least profit from the new paradigm.
You don't have to agree with the left-wing politics of the Clash to see and hear the intensity of this band from their formation through 1982 or so. In 1983 the band collapsed like a tire blowing out on the interstate. Mick Jones was kicked out of the band. Joe Strummer's father died. There is a picture of the new-edition Clash circa 1985 playing unamplified instruments on the street.
Popular music is always more or less a trend, a movement, a style, a feeling, an attitude. If the most impassioned and inspired artists suddenly lose that passion and inspiration, music is dead not only for them, but for their fans and their fellow artists who emulated them.
I refer first to Talking Heads in this context because in their case the contrast between their albums skirting the onset of the digital audio era is so great that you have the sense that they were aware of the significance of this change.
The group that called itself Digital Underground whose song Humpty Dance became a hit at that time seems also to have understood to some degree the significance of the new technology.
They presumably felt that the new technology did not lend itself to serious musical art, and instead saw how by creating very gimmicky music with clownish and obscene aspects they could at least profit from the new paradigm.
You don't have to agree with the left-wing politics of the Clash to see and hear the intensity of this band from their formation through 1982 or so. In 1983 the band collapsed like a tire blowing out on the interstate. Mick Jones was kicked out of the band. Joe Strummer's father died. There is a picture of the new-edition Clash circa 1985 playing unamplified instruments on the street.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Vol. I No. 21
In numbers 3 and 13 of this series I mention Variable Intensity Sound-on-Film recording. From my reading on the subject, VISOF appears to have been invented by three German researchers who called themselves the Tri-Ergon Company.
The Fox Motion Picture Studios in Hollywood developed their own version of VISOF and used it for a few years, but they abandoned VISOF in favor of another sound-on-film technology when they merged with a company that used the other system.
I first became attracted to VISOF because it seemed to illustrate an alternative way for music to be amplified, or to clarify how music can be amplified.
Consider the record of a music performance on film, consisting of a sequence of varying shades of transparency and opacity. (Film lingo calls these varying 'densities.') As a vinyl record has impressions of the varying travel of a needle, VISOF has impressions of the varying brightness of a bulb.
When this film record is played back, a bulb called the exciter lamp shines through the film and its light, modulated by the varying densities, impinges on a photoelectric transducer.
What initially struck me about this process years ago is that by varying the brightness of the exciter lamp, you can clearly visualize how the playback sound can be made louder or softer.
This was something of a revelation for me, inasmuch as I had initally started my research in audio electronics for the purpose of learning exactly how it was possible to take a given piece of music or musical signal and make it louder.
The Fox Motion Picture Studios in Hollywood developed their own version of VISOF and used it for a few years, but they abandoned VISOF in favor of another sound-on-film technology when they merged with a company that used the other system.
I first became attracted to VISOF because it seemed to illustrate an alternative way for music to be amplified, or to clarify how music can be amplified.
Consider the record of a music performance on film, consisting of a sequence of varying shades of transparency and opacity. (Film lingo calls these varying 'densities.') As a vinyl record has impressions of the varying travel of a needle, VISOF has impressions of the varying brightness of a bulb.
When this film record is played back, a bulb called the exciter lamp shines through the film and its light, modulated by the varying densities, impinges on a photoelectric transducer.
What initially struck me about this process years ago is that by varying the brightness of the exciter lamp, you can clearly visualize how the playback sound can be made louder or softer.
This was something of a revelation for me, inasmuch as I had initally started my research in audio electronics for the purpose of learning exactly how it was possible to take a given piece of music or musical signal and make it louder.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Vol. I No. 22
There are four David Bowie LP's that really resonated with me. I have just learned that these are available as audiophile re-issues on a label called RYKO ANALOGUE.
If the reader has never heard David Bowie's best records in all-analog version, you are in for a dramatic revelation. Because the music is so shocking, I suggest the following sequence to follow.
First, listen to Hunky Dory (RALP 0133) because it is for the most part very personal and personable - you might be inclined to say sentimental in the case of some songs.
Next, check out Ziggy Stardust (RALP 0134). Personable but more theatrical.
Third, Aladdin Sane (RALP 0135). I loved the piano on 'Aladdin Sane', the simple punk guitar style of 'Panic in Detroit'.
Lastly, The Man Who Sold the World (RALP 0132). This record is extremely heavy rock. You might need the gradual lead-in provided by the other three records. This record in particular could be thought of as 'music to go crazy to,' which in my case is exactly what I did. Don't do drugs while listening to it.
In the context of these four records, I have to reference Transformer, by Lou Reed, which David Bowie helped him with. It dates from the same period ('70-'73). Get RCA VICTOR LSP-4807 or AFL1-4807. I would be leery of AYL1-3806 (1980) as it is too close to the digital processing era.
While I mention Lou Reed, let me refer you to The Velvet Underground and Nico. This record had tremendous cult popularity when I was a young adult. Avoid any recent re-issues. There are many vintage versions, some selling for hundreds of dollars.
[It goes without saying that if the RYKO LP's are digitally processed versions, they are completely worthless musically. Get the vintage LP's instead. I recommend the Goldmine Record Album Price Guide for reference.]
If the reader has never heard David Bowie's best records in all-analog version, you are in for a dramatic revelation. Because the music is so shocking, I suggest the following sequence to follow.
First, listen to Hunky Dory (RALP 0133) because it is for the most part very personal and personable - you might be inclined to say sentimental in the case of some songs.
Next, check out Ziggy Stardust (RALP 0134). Personable but more theatrical.
Third, Aladdin Sane (RALP 0135). I loved the piano on 'Aladdin Sane', the simple punk guitar style of 'Panic in Detroit'.
Lastly, The Man Who Sold the World (RALP 0132). This record is extremely heavy rock. You might need the gradual lead-in provided by the other three records. This record in particular could be thought of as 'music to go crazy to,' which in my case is exactly what I did. Don't do drugs while listening to it.
In the context of these four records, I have to reference Transformer, by Lou Reed, which David Bowie helped him with. It dates from the same period ('70-'73). Get RCA VICTOR LSP-4807 or AFL1-4807. I would be leery of AYL1-3806 (1980) as it is too close to the digital processing era.
While I mention Lou Reed, let me refer you to The Velvet Underground and Nico. This record had tremendous cult popularity when I was a young adult. Avoid any recent re-issues. There are many vintage versions, some selling for hundreds of dollars.
[It goes without saying that if the RYKO LP's are digitally processed versions, they are completely worthless musically. Get the vintage LP's instead. I recommend the Goldmine Record Album Price Guide for reference.]
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Vol. I No. 23
"Digital audio is worse than you think it is."
Reader, my subject matter for this entry prompted me to record the above expression.
I once came across in my reading a mention that there at one point existed in ancient China a machine that could record and playback sound. It was said to have been a box which was used by government and military to relay messages. It was presumably a cylinder which took an impression from a cone-and-needle, similar to Edison's invention in the 1800's.
Consider for a moment the way this ancient invention and its Edisonian update function. Sound from the voice vibrates the cone, and the needle imprints the wax surface of the moving cylinder. During playback, the impressions in the wax cause the needle to vibrate more or less exactly as it did when the voice was vibrating it.
Consider how the cone and needle, held by a carriage upon the wax surface, can vibrate in any number of ways that will imprint the wax and later be reproduced. The sound of the speaker's voice, which in its richness, depth, and character of tone will move the air in all sorts of directions, in three dimensions, will move the cone, and hence the needle, similarly. And these movements in every direction will substantially be reflected by corresponding impressions in the wax - and thus will be reproduced in playback.
We all know how scientists, engineers, and technicians love their math. Both conceptually - for example on a blackboard or a graph - and also as actual output from test equipment such as oscilloscopes and oscillographs, they regard and deal with sound as a merely linear phenomenon. They neglect or forget all movement of the needle in that third dimension - up and down - which cannot be represented on a graph.
This is why I say that digital audio is worse than you think. It is a poor, intermittent estimate of the sound considered as merely two-dimensional, which entirely and completely neglects to represent any sound vibration in the third dimension.
Reader, my subject matter for this entry prompted me to record the above expression.
I once came across in my reading a mention that there at one point existed in ancient China a machine that could record and playback sound. It was said to have been a box which was used by government and military to relay messages. It was presumably a cylinder which took an impression from a cone-and-needle, similar to Edison's invention in the 1800's.
Consider for a moment the way this ancient invention and its Edisonian update function. Sound from the voice vibrates the cone, and the needle imprints the wax surface of the moving cylinder. During playback, the impressions in the wax cause the needle to vibrate more or less exactly as it did when the voice was vibrating it.
Consider how the cone and needle, held by a carriage upon the wax surface, can vibrate in any number of ways that will imprint the wax and later be reproduced. The sound of the speaker's voice, which in its richness, depth, and character of tone will move the air in all sorts of directions, in three dimensions, will move the cone, and hence the needle, similarly. And these movements in every direction will substantially be reflected by corresponding impressions in the wax - and thus will be reproduced in playback.
We all know how scientists, engineers, and technicians love their math. Both conceptually - for example on a blackboard or a graph - and also as actual output from test equipment such as oscilloscopes and oscillographs, they regard and deal with sound as a merely linear phenomenon. They neglect or forget all movement of the needle in that third dimension - up and down - which cannot be represented on a graph.
This is why I say that digital audio is worse than you think. It is a poor, intermittent estimate of the sound considered as merely two-dimensional, which entirely and completely neglects to represent any sound vibration in the third dimension.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Vol. I No. 24
The following is from a letter to Mr. Tim Neely, author of the Goldmine Record Album Price Guide.
If you will, allow me to point out an area of record differentiation which your guide does not address but which I believe is very essential to the sound of the record.
Let me refer to Fleetwood Mac's Rumours LP as an example of this issue. I believe it is the case that nearly every song on this record became a Top 40 or Top 10 hit in 1977 or 1978. I was very moved by many of these songs on the radio and also on an 8-track copy of the album which my visiting cousins had brought to my house.
Around 1988 or so I visited a friend and played his copy of the LP and the music on that occasion did nothing for me. I was really puzzled at this and disappointed.
What I now believe is that his copy of Rumours was, despite having the same number as the original and early pressings of the LP in the late 70's, a version which had been fed through a digital signal processor before or during the cutting process.
I have read that in the stamping of coins, a given set of molds only has a limited lifespan before it will not produce impressions that are deep and clear enough. Presumably the same is true of recording stampers. The stamping plant needs to produce new stampers from time to time.
Apparently, as the CD era dawned, it became routine to use digital signal processors in the signal path between the master tape and the stamper as it is being cut.
Due to straitened circumstances I have been and remain unable to perform examinations of record grooves by microscope myself. But I think I know what to look for. Because every sonic impulse on a digitalized record occurs at and only at those moments when samples are taken, by adjusting the magnification properly you should be able to identify perfectly regular 'steps' or levels - perfectly regular in the sense that they occur at identical intervals according to the sampling frequency.
Note that for recent LP's that may have been processed with megahertz-rate equipment, you will need to use greater magnification to identify these regularly spaced beats or pulses.
Your guide mentions that in the 2 years or so since the 4th edition you had seen "countless articles about the resurgence in vinyl." I believe I may have been somewhat responsible for this: in late 2004 I posted an item to the users' forum on kournikova.com titled Digital Audio Is Not Music! in which I pointed out that regardless of how fast the sampling rate, there are an equal number of instants between each sample when the digital system is non-functional.
In practice this means that when a sample is not being reproduced the digital system presumably 'rings' - or buzzes as the case may be - in idleness until the next sample occurs. Under even greater magnifications this too should be observable under the microscope.
My hope is that if you validate these observations, you will share your insight with others and the process of distinguishing vinyl by whether it has or has not been digitalized can begin to be developed and recognized. (Conclusion of letter excerpts.)
I urge interested readers who are able to make use of high quality microscopes to look for the features of digital processing I refer to here.
If you will, allow me to point out an area of record differentiation which your guide does not address but which I believe is very essential to the sound of the record.
Let me refer to Fleetwood Mac's Rumours LP as an example of this issue. I believe it is the case that nearly every song on this record became a Top 40 or Top 10 hit in 1977 or 1978. I was very moved by many of these songs on the radio and also on an 8-track copy of the album which my visiting cousins had brought to my house.
Around 1988 or so I visited a friend and played his copy of the LP and the music on that occasion did nothing for me. I was really puzzled at this and disappointed.
What I now believe is that his copy of Rumours was, despite having the same number as the original and early pressings of the LP in the late 70's, a version which had been fed through a digital signal processor before or during the cutting process.
I have read that in the stamping of coins, a given set of molds only has a limited lifespan before it will not produce impressions that are deep and clear enough. Presumably the same is true of recording stampers. The stamping plant needs to produce new stampers from time to time.
Apparently, as the CD era dawned, it became routine to use digital signal processors in the signal path between the master tape and the stamper as it is being cut.
Due to straitened circumstances I have been and remain unable to perform examinations of record grooves by microscope myself. But I think I know what to look for. Because every sonic impulse on a digitalized record occurs at and only at those moments when samples are taken, by adjusting the magnification properly you should be able to identify perfectly regular 'steps' or levels - perfectly regular in the sense that they occur at identical intervals according to the sampling frequency.
Note that for recent LP's that may have been processed with megahertz-rate equipment, you will need to use greater magnification to identify these regularly spaced beats or pulses.
Your guide mentions that in the 2 years or so since the 4th edition you had seen "countless articles about the resurgence in vinyl." I believe I may have been somewhat responsible for this: in late 2004 I posted an item to the users' forum on kournikova.com titled Digital Audio Is Not Music! in which I pointed out that regardless of how fast the sampling rate, there are an equal number of instants between each sample when the digital system is non-functional.
In practice this means that when a sample is not being reproduced the digital system presumably 'rings' - or buzzes as the case may be - in idleness until the next sample occurs. Under even greater magnifications this too should be observable under the microscope.
My hope is that if you validate these observations, you will share your insight with others and the process of distinguishing vinyl by whether it has or has not been digitalized can begin to be developed and recognized. (Conclusion of letter excerpts.)
I urge interested readers who are able to make use of high quality microscopes to look for the features of digital processing I refer to here.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Vol. II No. 1
I just finished listening to the song by Chicago called "Old Days." This was on an FM 'oldies' station. I happen to know that these major market oldies stations play digital hard drive versions of the classic songs. If an oldies or classic rock station in your area plays LP's or 45's and has an all-analog signal path to the transmitter, you are in the very small minority.
There is a tendency to believe that a blind comparison 'listening test' ought to reveal obvious or readily apparent distinctions in the sound of a given song played in a digital version versus an all-analog version. In fact the situation is otherwise: you have failed to evaluate the nature of these differing audio systems if you believe the difference in the sound is so subtle that they should be subjected to a head-to-head comparison. In other words, you are not listening to and evaluating those aspects of the sound that make the two systems so different. Making these comparisons well and intelligently is not something any person can do immediately. It is a process of study and contemplation to estimate and to recognize the differences.
The version of "Old Days" I just heard was vastly, enormously different from the one I remember. The original, all-analog version was very much modulated - tones and volume and richness varying smoothly and heavily throughout the song, so that the ending builds to a climax that occurs like a revelation. This digital version is so lacking in that quality that it can be quite adequately described in one word: boring. [I recommend Chicago IX, PC 3390 (LP). If your version doesn't sound great, it's probably digital.]
There is a tendency to believe that a blind comparison 'listening test' ought to reveal obvious or readily apparent distinctions in the sound of a given song played in a digital version versus an all-analog version. In fact the situation is otherwise: you have failed to evaluate the nature of these differing audio systems if you believe the difference in the sound is so subtle that they should be subjected to a head-to-head comparison. In other words, you are not listening to and evaluating those aspects of the sound that make the two systems so different. Making these comparisons well and intelligently is not something any person can do immediately. It is a process of study and contemplation to estimate and to recognize the differences.
The version of "Old Days" I just heard was vastly, enormously different from the one I remember. The original, all-analog version was very much modulated - tones and volume and richness varying smoothly and heavily throughout the song, so that the ending builds to a climax that occurs like a revelation. This digital version is so lacking in that quality that it can be quite adequately described in one word: boring. [I recommend Chicago IX, PC 3390 (LP). If your version doesn't sound great, it's probably digital.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)