New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by analogsurviver

Although commendable, dynamic headphones are the least likely to suffer from crosstalk in cables. This was a nice attempt to demonstrate, once again, that cables do not matter. Which is ANYTHING that can be said about electrostatics. Historically, the cables did get a bit better with electrostatics - but first models were THE models how NOT to connect electrostatics. Jecklin Float Electrostatic - early model  Second incarnation of Jecklin Float Electrostatic - now at least...
Yes.  And it is not - nor will remain - an unrealisable goal. Binaural recording, reproduced over earspeakers (not headphones ) , properly processed, preferably/mandatory with personal HRTF of the listener taken into account, supported by a good subwoofer  ( system - there may be more than a single sub required ) - once gone that far, it will be easier to understand WHY I insist so much on frequencies above 20 kHz to be properly recorded and reproduced. I am doing this -...
I agree there is easier to assure the 3D reproduction over headphones than over speakers. It is always about the "crosfeed" - one way or another.There was at least one serious attempt at solving this problem : http://www.polksda.com/However, listening on the centre axis between the two stereo speakers restrictions still applies. Being on the wrong side of the Atlantic, I have not been able to audition any Polk SDAs - yet...
Good starting point : http://www.scribd.com/doc/44298994/Leo-L-Beranek-Acoustics#scribd
Interesting - I NEVER saw any advertisement(s) on the Korg Audiogate website ( selections on the PC ? ) . Nt for any headphones - and certainly not for contact treatment products. BTW - contact treatment stuff comes from military - they can hardly risk a glitch in electrical transmissions - as quite a few pilots of then new fly by wire system incorporated in the then new F-16 had to pay for that experience with - life...  There were software, etc, glitches too - but plain...
True. Yet we can sense the sound well below 12 Hz - sound pressure levels have to be very high in those low frequencies for us to perceive  -  and the efficiency of normal cone woofers drops off to nothing just below 20 Hz in most cases. For really deep and palpable bass, there is only one subwoofer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_woofer  http://www.rotarywoofer.com/ 
Well, I can not stash a real piece of hardware into a computer , click the mouse and miraclously it will turn up in the home of anyone interested to listen ? I  present the easiest way to hear the differences among 44.1/16 and better resolutiuon(s)  - and if this is for you tangential diversion, fine with me. I do not advocate the five figures DACs - but not $50 ones either. 
Oh - compared to music heard live, to live mic feed, I should not be able to tell - instantly - which recorder is better ?
I wish you had the access to the High Quality version (requires Korg DSD capable DAC or MR series DSD recorder in order to authorize the software in High Quality - free is only Light Load version, which sounds considerably worse )http://www.korg.com/us/products/audio/audiogate3/page_6.phpYou can change playback resolution of PCM from 192/24 down to 44.1/16 - during the playback.  Even in Light Load version, there should be no problem to hear the deterioration of SQ as one...
No, I do not deny the potential effects of expectation bias. That is why try to "employ" as many people not "electronically scientifically affected" - utterly incapable of any expectation bias of whatever origin. They simply say which is the closest to the real thing - end of story. It is NOT fun to listen to, switching among while recording, to : 1. Mike feed2. Recorder A3. Recorder B I try to get the levels as equal as possible - but not at the cost of having to record...
New Posts  All Forums: