|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.30.248.240
In Reply to: Reverse polarity problem? posted by Steve Eddy on March 2, 2007 at 09:06:49:
I would tend to phrase it as "a compression at the microphone diaphragm results in a compression at the ear." Speakers and their crossovers can make this a jumble, so considering only one driver is iffy.One runs the risk, when reducing the polarity issue to those terms, of inspiring the over-thinkers among us to begin conducting thought experiments with respect to drum heads or harp strings--a soundmind favorite--whereby so many are led astray.
Much simpler to simply say, "Play it the way it sounds best," assuming your system lets you hear it.
BTW, I've never even heard of the two channels of an LP being out-of-phase with each other. I find the inclusion of the switch to solve that "problem" a hoot. Is that for real, or did Mikey goof?
Meanwhile, I hear polarity on nearly all recordings, not just simply-miked ones.
Follow Ups:
I would tend to phrase it as "a compression at the microphone diaphragm results in a compression at the ear." Speakers and their crossovers can make this a jumble, so considering only one driver is iffy.
Well yeah, but still, to get compression at the ear, the lousdpeaker cone or diaprhagm must be moving outward. And the question at hand concerned the ideal and which direction the lousspeaker cone or diaphragm must be moving relative to the microphone diaphragm.
At least that's what MF seemed to be talking about. I wasn't entirely sure so thought I'd ask here.
One runs the risk, when reducing the polarity issue to those terms, of inspiring the over-thinkers among us to begin conducting thought experiments with respect to drum heads or harp strings--a soundmind favorite--whereby so many are led astray.
Wasn't intending to reduce the whole polarity issue to those terms. Was just looking at it in a simplified, ideal sense is all.
Much simpler to simply say, "Play it the way it sounds best," assuming your system lets you hear it.
Won't argue with that. :)
BTW, I've never even heard of the two channels of an LP being out-of-phase with each other. I find the inclusion of the switch to solve that "problem" a hoot. Is that for real, or did Mikey goof?
I don't think MF goofed. He seemed to be getting the dope straight from the designer.
Meanwhile, I hear polarity on nearly all recordings, not just simply-miked ones.
You have my sympathies. :)
se
Well yeah, but still, to get compression at the ear, the lousdpeaker cone or diaprhagm must be moving outward. And the question at hand concerned the ideal and which direction the lousspeaker cone or diaphragm must be moving relative to the microphone diaphragm.Well, yeah, but still, what about the speaker that because of its crossover design has its tweeter out-of-phase to its woofer? Or, I should say, it's out-of-phase at some frequencies but not others. Quite a mess, phasically speaking, so I rely on the "at the ear" formulation. Gets awfully messy awfully fast otherwise. ;-)
Wasn't intending to reduce the whole polarity issue to those terms. Was just looking at it in a simplified, ideal sense is all.
Understood. Didn't mean to imply that it was you doing the reducing. On the basis of the things you quote (haven't seen it myself) I'd say it's a good bet you have a clearer understanding of the issue than Mikey.
I don't think MF goofed. He seemed to be getting the dope straight from the designer.
To me this becomes a trust issue. If said designer is exercised enough to include a switch to solve a non-existent problem, do I trust him to handle the more mundane design chores well? Kinda sorta like, given our experience with the post office, do we really want the gummint in charge of health care? ;-)
You have my sympathies. :)
Thanks, don't need 'em. Audioquest makes extremely nice yet affordable banana plugs. ;-)
George, he's playing your song.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: