That's a very good video, I enjoyed it. Lots of reminders on basic topics and some things to ponder. It's nice to be reminded about procedures we often just repeat without thinking. I liked the red eye photo example.
The techniques learning is the easy part. That's math... The original raw material, identifying, shaping, and knowing how all of the elements combine is the art part, the painting... And we have an additional hurdle to overcome: whether or not all the tiny massages we make on our mixes are not false perceptions from our monitoring environment. On top of that both our hearing and our eyesight constantly fool us, continually correct and refocus our attentions, and interpolate vast amounts of input, de-focusing what is and is not important.
But, that's what's fun about this, right? And that you are always chasing better
Edited by motown59 (01/14/1704:52 PM)
_________________________
kel
"I love what you guys are trying to do up there" ...from an audience member at one of my gigs. Gear: Fender Medium pick
i got a little project related to phase change vs various EQ slopes. should be done later today if everything works fine.
Originally Posted By: motown59
That's a very good video, I enjoyed it. Lots of reminders on basic topics and some things to ponder. It's nice to be reminded about procedures we often just repeat without thinking. I liked the red eye photo example.
The techniques learning is the easy part. That's math... The original raw material, identifying, shaping, and knowing how all of the elements combine is the art part, the painting... And we have an additional hurdle to overcome: whether or not all the tiny massages we make on our mixes are not false perceptions from our monitoring environment. On top of that both our hearing and our eyesight constantly fool us, continually correct and refocus our attentions, and interpolate vast amounts of input, de-focusing what is and is not important.
But, that's what's fun about this, right? And that you are always chasing better
right you are. once you master the strategy, the tactics become easier.
My EQ strategy is "do it before it's converted"....as afterward, it's nuance. If you think it's not--you're not following my number one commandment--thou shalt not raise OR lower perceived volume via a plug in.
This is why I refuse to use built in EQs. I'll USE the one that comes with the app--but not (for example) the "channel EQ" in Cubase. You NEED an output level so you can match the input.
Everything in mixing is relative volume....if cutting the bass (freq) ultimately thins the track but ALSO turns it down--9 times out of ten, turning it down alone will solve the balance issue without thinning it. Actually turning it down WILL in a way thin it--but not the same way.
So, my "eq strategy" is "less is more". I sense a common thread in my strategies.
My EQ strategy is "do it before it's converted"....as afterward, it's nuance. If you think it's not--you're not following my number one commandment--thou shalt not raise OR lower perceived volume via a plug in.
This is why I refuse to use built in EQs. I'll USE the one that comes with the app--but not (for example) the "channel EQ" in Cubase. You NEED an output level so you can match the input.
Everything in mixing is relative volume....if cutting the bass (freq) ultimately thins the track but ALSO turns it down--9 times out of ten, turning it down alone will solve the balance issue without thinning it. Actually turning it down WILL in a way thin it--but not the same way.
So, my "eq strategy" is "less is more". I sense a common thread in my strategies.
a lot of audio software these days have an 'auto-gain' feature where the main output volume stays constant as you tweak the EQ, compressor settings, etc
there's also plugins that can do live A/B comparison of plugin chains while maintaining constant volume. Magic A-B, Nugen Audio Mastercheck, Melda Production MCompare etc. all those work fine as long as you don't abuse them.
Yes--and the majority don't work well. It doesn't count to "only make it a little louder", which is what most of them do.
....and is a concept/technique that's FREE. Right now, with (likely) what you have. The difference is knowing and doing. And using the plug in version of the included EQ rather than the channel in some cases. Not something else to buy or download.
Yes--and the majority don't work well. It doesn't count to "only make it a little louder", which is what most of them do.
....and is a concept/technique that's FREE. Right now, with (likely) what you have. The difference is knowing and doing. And using the plug in version of the included EQ rather than the channel in some cases. Not something else to buy or download.
the workflow is faster and more zen with the dedicated volume matching plugins. i don't mind paying extra for the convenience. it's only money, right? lol
a lot of audio software these days have an 'auto-gain' feature where the main output volume stays constant as you tweak the EQ, compressor settings, etc
Originally Posted By: Popmann
Yes--and the majority don't work well. It doesn't count to "only make it a little louder", which is what most of them do.
i've tested Nugen Mastercheck. it's accurate to the tenth of decibel, as per the picture below. of course, one has to use loudness measurements like RMS or LUFS/LKFS and not peaks. it could be done with RMS/LUFS meters while soloing each tracks but it's more time consuming than using a dedicated plugin.
You think the "majority don't work well" is because they're less accurate that 1/10th of a DB? No--it's because that standards are one size fits all, and ALL....but, thing is--I'm glad you like it, it's better than nothing.
You think the "majority don't work well" is because they're less accurate that 1/10th of a DB? No--it's because that standards are one size fits all, and ALL....but, thing is--I'm glad you like it, it's better than nothing.
i don't understand what you're saying in the 2nd sentence.
You can't programmatically match perceived volume levels of varying types of program material. IE--a snare drum can't be matched by the same algorithm as a bass guitar....as a human vocal....not to mention that context of what processing is being done and WHY--the way you'd algorithmically match two tracks where you're applying a little EQ (to keep it on point) will be different than tracks where you're leveling a vocal--thus making 10+ DB difference in the RMS level--you functionally CAN'T match that on RMS--the uncompressed one will blow your speakers. You match on peak-you have to use a complicated peak algo--that takes a polling of the whole track's peak info and averages THOSE....because the one really loud peak in some bridge is irrelevant to the loudness.
....thus, you need to do it by ear but also need (probably) a trained ear to DO that. But, again....this IS better than nothing. Most of the auto offsets are better than nothing. Except FabFilter's. ProQ2 was functionally useless.
you said in a previous post those things were basically useless if they were not precise to the 1/10 of a dB.
I would not ever give some meter measurement of accuracy....for something meters don't generally hold more than clues to...isn't it more likely that you misunderstood what I was saying all together?
you said in a previous post those things were basically useless if they were not precise to the 1/10 of a dB.
I would not ever give some meter measurement of accuracy....for something meters don't generally hold more than clues to...isn't it more likely that you misunderstood what I was saying all together?
possibly. i'm not eager to spend time searching for that post.
anyway, all i was saying is that using those comparison tools is much faster than doing it with your DAW. and no more imprecise, like i mentioned.
took me the last couples of day to finally figure out that Peak values should not be used for volume comparison. it was a "ah-ah!" moment.
and RMS/LUFS meters are not perfect either, since they use the average of the last half-second or so. but it's more like the way the human ear function when it comes to loudness.
You can't programmatically match perceived volume levels of varying types of program material. IE--a snare drum can't be matched by the same algorithm as a bass guitar....as a human vocal....
yeah, i noticed that a sine wive at - 6dB sounds a lot quieter than a distorted guitar at the same volume.
Originally Posted By: Popmann
....thus, you need to do it by ear but also need (probably) a trained ear to DO that.
well, a i got a lot more time behind me than ahead. so i gotta cut corners. lol
Nice video -- could not apply some of the applications near the end ...WAV edits /Analyzer stuff ... but the rest re-affirmed what I use daily.. Taming vocals tonight & percussion == dipping where it works best ...
How did one master/mix for all those years -- without the plugins .. Still using my ears ( and the artist - when they sit next to your for mixdown )
Edited by C Jo Go*Crystal Studios* (02/20/1703:11 AM)
How did one master/mix for all those years -- without the plugins ..
oh, the 'plugins' were there, they were just made with electronic and electric component and housed in a metal boxes with knobs and whatnot.
you could heat your whole house only with the heat generated by the amps, compressors, mixers, etc and you could even pick up the korean radios right from Korea because of all the bloody cables and wires in the studio acting as a super antenna.
ah, the good old days! i'm glad they're safely behind us. lol
Registered: 05/26/02
Posts: 6738
Loc: East Hampton, NY
Quote:
oh, the 'plugins' were there, they were just made with electronic and electric component and housed in a metal boxes with knobs and whatnot.
Simply put, no. It's a common, and incorrect, notion that software emulations of hardware are the same thing as the hardware. To drive that point further, software "plugin" designers spend a lot of effort making the GUI closely resemble whatever piece of hardware it is that's being emulated. People will "look" at the visuals and get all giddy about how the software is the same as an expensive piece of hardware that they now can have for a "song". Of course, you can't mix with your eyes any more than you can taste with your ears.
Software is wonderful. It makes doing good audio work with far less invested in terms of space, money and even complexity possible for "the masses". In some cases, software is very close..."close enough" to the hardware it's emulating, *but the blanket notion that hardware's been "replaced" and is needless and/or somehow "outdated" is silly. It probably illustrates that the person making the claim has little-to-no experience with the hardware, or at least not enough to actually make the claim.
This is all sort of like the idea that "amp-sims" are as good as having a tube amp cranked, or that plugging a cheap mic into a DAW running "channel strip software" will get you to a Neumann+ Neve end result. Sure, it can work "OK", but it won't be "the same". Many many years ago, Tom Scholtz made a bunch of money devising and selling his "Rockman" to people who wanted to record guitars that sounded the way his did. It was a cool device for the time, if you were OK with having to also deal with enough white (and pink!) noise to be able to compete with a tropical rainstorm. Funny thing is, engineers and producers still wound up recording guitars "the old fashioned way", even when they wanted "the Boston sound".
Quote:
you could heat your whole house only with the heat generated by the amps, compressors, mixers, etc and you could even pick up the korean radios right from Korea because of all the bloody cables and wires in the studio acting as a super antenna. \:D
ah, the good old days! i'm glad they're safely behind us. lol
No. For many of "us" they may be, but for many of the people who can afford to choose what sounds best to them, and more importantly what will represent and support their profession and livelihood, they still choose "clubs and stone tablets".
_________________________ "anyone who believes that what they think is so important they will post political messages in a no-politics forum, only highlights their assholiness"
Computers and plug ins are convenient, and for the most part, sound good enough to do the job. But, given a voice, I'd have all analog comps, Lims and EQs going into a super clean A/D then into a computer, then sum & mix back through an analog board. My bank account says: 6 year old MacBook, Presonus mixer and Studio one DAW with absolutely no 3rd party plug ins.. And even then, all that stuff is better than I am..
_________________________
kel
"I love what you guys are trying to do up there" ...from an audience member at one of my gigs. Gear: Fender Medium pick
1. record something 2. listen to it 3. does it need anything? if so go to #5 4. Is it ok on it's own? go back to #1 and add "something else" to the strategy 5. does it need an EQ? How do you know? Review #2 If yes, then... 6. use an EQ...any EQ...and take out unwanted frequencies on individual tracks.leave all the rest alone. 7 repeat step #2 8. make a tuna sandwich
_________________________
kel
"I love what you guys are trying to do up there" ...from an audience member at one of my gigs. Gear: Fender Medium pick
You can't programmatically match perceived volume levels of varying types of program material. IE--a snare drum can't be matched by the same algorithm as a bass guitar....as a human vocal....
yeah, i noticed that a sine wive at - 6dB sounds a lot quieter than a distorted guitar at the same volume.
did some more research today in apparently, the new LUFS loudness standard (Integrated, Short term and Momentary) is/are better in this regard than the old RMS standard.
Quote:
As for RMS—RMS is much more useful for gauging the actual, longer term, levels of a given waveform, but RMS is only a measurement (or display) of signal voltage, so it doesn't really give us an idea of perceived loudness. Two music tracks measuring the same RMS values may not necessarily have the same perceived loudness because RMS does not take into account the psychoacoustic nature of apparent loudness as heard by the human ear, specifically that low, mid and high frequencies of the same level are not perceived as being the same loudness.
The (LUFS) loudness measurement (Integrated, Short Term and Momentary) specifically takes into account this aspect of human hearing perception of loudness and adjusts accordingly.
....watching now
Da Bears 
