Old 04-28-2010, 11:39 AM   #1321
VortexOfShit
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason View Post
I had noticed some of the instruments I have in soundfonts mix, and accept reverb very graciously.
...and others do not

Another technique I've found useful is EQ'ing the instrument sends to the global reverb. As I posted above, after I have created and balanced the BDV mix, and fine-tuned the global reverb or other global effects to sound just right -- and checked for transferability on other systems -- I try not to touch them, as I know they sound right. By EQ'ing the instrument sends, I can avoid tweaking the global reverb, and potentially damaging the BDV "foundation".

So say my BDV mix sounds great and I really like the way the reverb supports the crack of the snare with just the right amount of presence/sustain in the mid-highs. I've then added a guitar and made sure it sounds great on it's own. But when I add send some of the guitar to the reverb, the reverb amplifies the pick-noise (in a similar freq range as the snare) and spashes it all around the "room".

Obvious choice #1: cut the guitar in the pick-noise range, but that weakens the sound of the guitar on it's own.

Obvious choice #2: tweak the reverb to cut the mid-highs, but that weakens the snare and I end up with both a compromised snare and guitar.

What I end up doing is to channel the guitar reverb send through an EQ, where I cut the pick-noise frequencies before sending onto the global reverb. Now I have the best of all worlds. Good sounding BDV. A tasty global reverb with great support for the snare. Good guitar sound on it's own, with support from that tasty reverb but without the pick-noise splash.

There's another advantage with this approach, to my ears, that is versus having a separate reverb on the guitar. Everything gels together a bit better, I think because they're fundamentally going through the same reverb and sound more like they're in the same room.

..ant
VortexOfShit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 12:02 AM   #1322
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VortexOfShit View Post
...and others do not


..ant

No doubt, LOL! Some soundfonts aren't very good. But the two I use most, the Merlin Vienna, and SYNTHGM.SF2 seem to have been done really well. I can take decent midis from around the web... run them through these soundfonts and have a backing track so fast it's wild.

Problem is, tracks I play or sing myself... I can't get to the same quality standard. Very frustrating. Now clearly any playing technique problems, or singing issues are all my own. But the tone and "engineerability" of just the basic sounds, I haven't figured out. Hence the analysis of the soundfonts, as the works so well, and so fast, it's both intriguing and embarassing.

flmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 10:01 AM   #1323
VortexOfShit
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason View Post
Looking at the waves of the soundfonts in a soundfont editor showed me they had minimal (and depending on the instrument, other than drums) or no real transients and were "perfectly" compressed. I.e. the sustain portions were quite even or flat....So's... figured that doing the same when feeding my own handiwork to the 'verb might work. Seems to at times.
Are you adding compression on the primary track or the reverb send?

Sounds like you're saying the more compressed, less dynamic soundfonts with fewer transients seem to handle reverb well. While transients on tracks you've recorded are causing the reverb to sound "reflectory".

But what if you want to preserve transients in your original track, and still get an aggressive reverb without the reflectory "splash"?

I haven't tried this but perhaps I can build on the idea of doing EQ on reverb sends and also do some dynamics manipulation on the reverb sends.

So I have the original track, which I leave dynamic with transients in place. Then I send some to a muted track where I do a little EQ and a good amount of compression before sending onto the reverb.

I'll give it a try, but I'm imagining this will allow me to add a good amount of reverb that gives a lot of support (volume/presence/body) to the track without having the tell-tale signs of reverb in obvious reflections off of the transients. I'm also guessing I could put a lot more compression on the reverb send than I normally would as you're not really hearing that crushed track - it would be muted - you're just hearing the reverb applied to it, combined back with the original dynamic track.

I could be completely wrong and the opposite effect occurs - the reverb becomes even more obvious. Won't know until I try it.

..ant
VortexOfShit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2010, 03:15 PM   #1324
Captain Damage
Human being with feelings
 
Captain Damage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lowell, MA, USA
Posts: 271
Default

I think you're looking at it backwards. Some reverb plugs just sound more splashy/pingy/reflecty/whatever than others. The peculiarities of a particular soundfont may mask this tendency. Find a reverb that sounds good with your most transient sounds. It'll sound good with your compressed soundfonts too.
Captain Damage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2010, 02:25 AM   #1325
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

[QUOTE=VortexOfShit;499707]Are you adding compression on the primary track or the reverb send?

Sounds like you're saying the more compressed, less dynamic soundfonts with fewer transients seem to handle reverb well. While transients on tracks you've recorded are causing the reverb to sound "reflectory".
[/]

Exactly. For example, synth and string sounds will take a lot of long plate reverb quite nicely without the cluttering of tails. "Homegrown" guitar and vocal tracks get the cluttery tails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VortexOfShit View Post
But what if you want to preserve transients in your original track, and still get an aggressive reverb without the reflectory "splash"?

I haven't tried this but perhaps I can build on the idea of doing EQ on reverb sends and also do some dynamics manipulation on the reverb sends.

So I have the original track, which I leave dynamic with transients in place. Then I send some to a muted track where I do a little EQ and a good amount of compression before sending onto the reverb.
Been testing this idea the past few days. The results have been encouraging. For example, applying NY Compression to the main vocal track, but on the reverb send, squashing it totally. In one case, setting up a gate to open slowly and trim of the leading transient some helped. Of course one could also ride the fader on the send, or I suppose, use a look ahead compressor (or a sidechain comp and delay the main signal slightly).


Quote:
Originally Posted by VortexOfShit View Post
I'll give it a try, but I'm imagining this will allow me to add a good amount of reverb that gives a lot of support (volume/presence/body) to the track without having the tell-tale signs of reverb in obvious reflections off of the transients. I'm also guessing I could put a lot more compression on the reverb send than I normally would as you're not really hearing that crushed track - it would be muted - you're just hearing the reverb applied to it, combined back with the original dynamic track.

I could be completely wrong and the opposite effect occurs - the reverb becomes even more obvious. Won't know until I try it.

..ant
Can't hurt to try it. I've found it to be an interesting arrow to add to my quiver of techniques. Isn't the magic "professionalizer" or "talentizer" plugin (LOL!), but another solution to have handy.
flmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2010, 02:31 AM   #1326
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Damage View Post
I think you're looking at it backwards. Some reverb plugs just sound more splashy/pingy/reflecty/whatever than others. The peculiarities of a particular soundfont may mask this tendency. Find a reverb that sounds good with your most transient sounds. It'll sound good with your compressed soundfonts too.
No doubt.

However, for guitar tracks, I have yet to find a software 'verb that sounds and behaves like the spring reverb in an old Fender Pro Reverb I had, that allows for (for lack of a better description) EVH "Panama" style palm muting that sounds decent. (You know, 'verb that fills in the space between notes nicely.

For me personally that's a crucial thing as I learned to play with said reverb mixed in with a JCM-800 back in that era and my whole style of playing and timing that kind of music relies on the 'verb working that way. Trying to find it in digital with amp sims so I don't have problems with the neighbors, LOL!

In general I find ITB 'verbs to be lacking in this way to even whatever 'verb is in cheap guitar amps like Marshall MG30DFX's and such.

Might be heresy in these parts to say it, but a good reverb can make the sound, or cure (or cover) a lot of problems/sins. Next to a good performance I've often thought it might just be one of the most crucial issues.

Of course that's a separate problem from say vocals or other percussive instruments and mixing as a general topic.

Last edited by flmason; 05-02-2010 at 02:39 AM.
flmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 09:59 AM   #1327
VortexOfShit
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Damage View Post
I think you're looking at it backwards. Some reverb plugs just sound more splashy/pingy/reflecty/whatever than others. The peculiarities of a particular soundfont may mask this tendency. Find a reverb that sounds good with your most transient sounds. It'll sound good with your compressed soundfonts too.
Good point. I think what's worked for me is tuning the reverb during the build of the bass-drum-vocal (BDV) mix. As I mentioned, these elements are very revealing of the "goodness" of the reverb. If the reverb sounds good on these, it tends to be good in general. The snare helps tune the reflectivity, the bass/kick helps tune the room rumble/mudiness, and the vocal helps tune the "trueness" of the reverb, i.e., a more realistic/natural sounding 'verb (as that's usually what I'm going for).

On reverb I think it's easy to focus on the transients and splashy/pingy effects, and forget about the overall shape. My experience is that later when I build the rest of the mix, I find this clutter or swirl that I've described as being "inside" the reverb. Cleaning it up and getting it right during the BDV mix -- and trying to leave it alone afterwords -- has worked pretty well so far and saved me a lot of time/frustration later.

So I had a chance to try out my suggestion this weekend - to do some dynamics processing on the reverb sends for a guitar. It was a guitar part that had some nice pick noise that I wanted to keep, but it was a little too obvious when it hit the reverb, so I could not push the 'verb as far as I wanted.

I tried out a compressor and it had some good points. But what I ended up doing was inserting a transient shaper instead -- the excellent BitterSweet free plugin. I really cranked down the transients - much more than I would do on the primary guitar track. On the reverb send I practically eliminated the pick sound. And this did exactly what I had hoped. I was able to push the reverb quite a bit more, giving the guitar more presence and body without the 'verb becoming obvious.

It's not a technique I would use until I had fully tuned the reverb first and was happy with it on BDV.

..ant
VortexOfShit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 05:34 PM   #1328
JHughes
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Too close to Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,554
Default

Sounds like you have this reverb thing figured out. I'll bet your mixes sound a whole lot better now!

Don't forget too you can compress/eq the sends to the reverb, and/or you can compress/eq the reverb itself for a different effect.
JHughes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 09:40 PM   #1329
odingalen
Human being with feelings
 
odingalen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1
Default WOW

I'm only on page three of this thread, and I just had to post a huge thanks to Yep..
odingalen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 12:58 AM   #1330
ringing phone
Human being with feelings
 
ringing phone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 169
Default

Just an aside here:

Been listening to a lot of home recordings on soundclick and what not...all the stuff around the traps...anyway...one fair comment I think is that what makes a home recording sound like ass is the vocal.

As I said, I've been listening to a lot of home stuff and time and time again I hear pretty decent instrumentation...but the vocal sounds amatuerish - it usually sounds poorly recorded or the singer just can't sing...or a combo of both.

You can hear a terrible sounding room, bad mic technique, poor eq choices or just a terrible voice with bad performance skills. You can hear them trying to hit the notes...trying to oomph into the next push...you can see what they are thinking and trying to do, but they just can't pull it off.

A bad vocal just makes everything else suck really. When there's no conviction then a bad voice is going to sound basically embarrassing. You couple this with terrible lyrics and awkward phrasing and it's just awful. A bad voice with conviction and balls can work, but it doesn't work the other way.

So, that's my observation. A second observation is that a lot of songs people are making just aren't enjoyable. There's so many people out there just regurgitating their favourite genres...poorly...or stuck in some kind of nostalgic trip where they are recording songs that suffer from some kind of dated sound that may be fond in their mind because that's the sound of their youth or something. I hear these 30 or 40 track home recordings and I think, shit, this has been done to absolute death before, don't you have any desire to move on from 80's hair metal love ballads? Don't you see that you're just operating in your own comfort zone and producing trash that became a bit of a joke a long time ago? Anyway, I don't mean to trash people for their music selections. Fair is fair...you can do what you want. It just seems a waste to me to sound so generic...and soundclick, the home of the home recordist, is full of this kind of stuff. Emulating your heroes is nice...I suppose everyone sounds a bit derivitive at some stage...

Anyway...WDYRSLA? This is what I have noticed recently in my home recording listenings...I've heard a lot.
__________________
nothing to see here
ringing phone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 02:00 AM   #1331
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VortexOfShit View Post
Good point. I think what's worked for me is tuning the reverb during the build of the bass-drum-vocal (BDV) mix. As I mentioned, these elements are very revealing of the "goodness" of the reverb. If the reverb sounds good on these, it tends to be good in general. The snare helps tune the reflectivity, the bass/kick helps tune the room rumble/mudiness, and the vocal helps tune the "trueness" of the reverb, i.e., a more realistic/natural sounding 'verb (as that's usually what I'm going for).

On reverb I think it's easy to focus on the transients and splashy/pingy effects, and forget about the overall shape. My experience is that later when I build the rest of the mix, I find this clutter or swirl that I've described as being "inside" the reverb. Cleaning it up and getting it right during the BDV mix -- and trying to leave it alone afterwords -- has worked pretty well so far and saved me a lot of time/frustration later.

So I had a chance to try out my suggestion this weekend - to do some dynamics processing on the reverb sends for a guitar. It was a guitar part that had some nice pick noise that I wanted to keep, but it was a little too obvious when it hit the reverb, so I could not push the 'verb as far as I wanted.

I tried out a compressor and it had some good points. But what I ended up doing was inserting a transient shaper instead -- the excellent BitterSweet free plugin. I really cranked down the transients - much more than I would do on the primary guitar track. On the reverb send I practically eliminated the pick sound. And this did exactly what I had hoped. I was able to push the reverb quite a bit more, giving the guitar more presence and body without the 'verb becoming obvious.

It's not a technique I would use until I had fully tuned the reverb first and was happy with it on BDV.

..ant
Interesting points. I'll definitely be tracking Bittersweet down. Been looking for a transient shaper of some sort to try out. Something that I can direct at what I'm wanting to modify, rather than trying to force other tools into the role.

Though, I have to believe this is more of a digital reverb issue, as opposed to analog. (Or maybe analog equipment just generally smooths some of this out?) As these sorts of tools weren't around in the "old days", LOL!
flmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 02:09 AM   #1332
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringing phone View Post
Just an aside here:

Been listening to a lot of home recordings on soundclick and what not...all the stuff around the traps...anyway...one fair comment I think is that what makes a home recording sound like ass is the vocal.

As I said, I've been listening to a lot of home stuff and time and time again I hear pretty decent instrumentation...but the vocal sounds amatuerish - it usually sounds poorly recorded or the singer just can't sing...or a combo of both.

You can hear a terrible sounding room, bad mic technique, poor eq choices or just a terrible voice with bad performance skills. You can hear them trying to hit the notes...trying to oomph into the next push...you can see what they are thinking and trying to do, but they just can't pull it off.

A bad vocal just makes everything else suck really. When there's no conviction then a bad voice is going to sound basically embarrassing. You couple this with terrible lyrics and awkward phrasing and it's just awful. A bad voice with conviction and balls can work, but it doesn't work the other way.

So, that's my observation. A second observation is that a lot of songs people are making just aren't enjoyable. There's so many people out there just regurgitating their favourite genres...poorly...or stuck in some kind of nostalgic trip where they are recording songs that suffer from some kind of dated sound that may be fond in their mind because that's the sound of their youth or something. I hear these 30 or 40 track home recordings and I think, shit, this has been done to absolute death before, don't you have any desire to move on from 80's hair metal love ballads? Don't you see that you're just operating in your own comfort zone and producing trash that became a bit of a joke a long time ago? Anyway, I don't mean to trash people for their music selections. Fair is fair...you can do what you want. It just seems a waste to me to sound so generic...and soundclick, the home of the home recordist, is full of this kind of stuff. Emulating your heroes is nice...I suppose everyone sounds a bit derivitive at some stage...

Anyway...WDYRSLA? This is what I have noticed recently in my home recording listenings...I've heard a lot.
No doubt vocals is a weak spot for me. Perhaps any real instrument track, as opposed to say a synth or a high quality soundfont. At least with the synths and a good soundfont, the tracking issues are pre-solved so to speak.

With vocals, it seems to me, the mic, and what I hear in my ears/head when singing acapella in a room are two entirely different things. Example, was trying to cover a Cure tune as a soundtrack to a slide show for some gals I've know my whole life... thought I could do it just sitting around singing... pulled up a mic... must've recording it 8 times. Every take sucked, LOL!

Seems to be another case of the mic and what our ears hear being different.

What baffles me about it, consider some song like Beasty Boys "Girls"... sounds like some young guys talking trash, right... but yet it really sounds "pro" too. Granted that's a crappy description of what I mean... but try it. Try to sound like those guys on that track.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6otiLxT34DQ

Same sort of wondering where some Green Day tracks are concerned. Here's a couple of classic examples:

Minority:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p07rqho0tco

Basket Case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUTGr5t3MoY

Moreso Minority than Basket Case. Basket Case sounds a little more polished with regard to the vocal track.

With all the different singers and bands there have been in the last say, 50 years of so... is it that all of these folks that were singers just had genetically better voices for recording?

Yes, there are the Bob Dylans and Neal Youngs, etc. (But even they, in a way, sound "pro", despite the sound they aimed at or were stuck with, if you follow.)

Seems to me it's a two part problem, naturally. One part singer, one part processing. In this case I think the processing may be the easier part to solve, that is if there's no hope for a voice that just sucks.

In any event, I do wonder if there's some techniques that can salvage or at least help mediocre to el-suck voices like my own. Not that I plan on a great singing career, but when I have a song idea or want to cover some tune, would be nice if it wasn't complete crap, LOL!

As for folks being stuck on a genre. Chances are good the grew up hearing, had wished to be stars of that genre... and it's taken them their whole lives to figure out how those sounds were done.

Heck, I'm 47 and still trying to find those sounds. (Call it, case in point, LOL! Geez, I though the POD was supposed to solve that problem, LOL!)

Last edited by flmason; 05-04-2010 at 02:16 AM.
flmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 02:44 AM   #1333
fifthcolumn
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 59
Default

i agree on the vocals thing,...

the problem with recording yourself, is that you have an idea of what you want to sound like in your head,.... but not necessarily what you actually sound like.

I've started working with a bunch of young mc's and the hardest thing to do is to tell them to stop trying to sound like someone else as the thing with trying to sound like someone else is that you're voice might not naturally be able to do what superstar x can do. superstar x is doing all that stuff naturally, and if you try and copy it, you sound like you're trying to copy it, and on the stressful passages it really comes out. its real stupid, they're drinking more and smoking more to get lower voices which just makes me want to facepalm,... and then slap them.

so i dont think that people generally have better recording voices,... sure someones voice might have a more pleasant sound, but at the the same time, that old drunk chainsmoker in the corner if he can hold a note and sings from the heart without trying to sound like joe cocker, chances are you're gonna hear something special. i've seen a few of those guys pick up a guitar and belt out layla without trying to sound like clapton and they were all great performances if they sang as themselves.

just think of all the greats that didnt have the most heavenly of voices, and yet they used what they had to full effect,... dylan, cocker, q-tip, b-real, louis armstrong, joplin,.... its an endless list.

the point is, either be objective when listening back to your own stuff or find someone who is not afraid to do it for you.

and once you have a decent performance the processing is really minimal to get it sounding great,.... provided you've picked the right mic of course. which is probably the most important step after getting a good performance,... i mean if michael jackson rocked an sm7, and zach dela rocha uses an sm58 to record,... that kind of tells you how vital it is to get a mic that sounds right on the source.
fifthcolumn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 12:12 PM   #1334
GregHolmes
Human being with feelings
 
GregHolmes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 399
Default

I believe anyone can learn how to sing, if they are willing to listen, critique, and change. Some people can do that for themselves, but most will need a teacher.

Most importantly, you need to find your own voice before you copy anyone else.
__________________
Greg Holmes | play:GregHolmes.com | work:GHServices.com
GregHolmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 05:27 PM   #1335
ringing phone
Human being with feelings
 
ringing phone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 169
Default

Yeah maybe anyone can learn...but from my experience most home recordists are terrible singers, for all the reasons mentioned above. And it's a big part of why their home recordings sound like ass. All the gear...but that one little thing...vocals...no idea.
__________________
nothing to see here
ringing phone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 12:44 AM   #1336
Lowell Mather 5150
Human being with feelings
 
Lowell Mather 5150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringing phone View Post
Yeah maybe anyone can learn...but from my experience most home recordists are terrible singers, for all the reasons mentioned above. And it's a big part of why their home recordings sound like ass. All the gear...but that one little thing...vocals...no idea.
I wouldn't limit this remark to "most home recordists,"...There are many terrible "vocalists" who sell albums courtesy of sex appeal, auto tuning, and merely those who like to buy what is "current."

I got to see Boston perform with Brad Delp before he passed away and it was an amazing show. A truly amazing vocalist with an almost operatic range. Instead of pointing out his musical strongpoints I'd like to contrast this with one of my favorite guitar players who never really sang his stuff on the tours I saw him...Joe Satriani. I love Joe's instrumental stuff, but I don't like his stuff where he is the vocalist...Joe Satriani is no home recordist unless Hamm and Campitelli, etc., mean nothing to you. SO this statement, "And it's a big part of why their home recordings sound like ass"....doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but at the same time it makes perfect sense if the quote is applied correctly. If I listen to Joe Satriani vocals on "Not of This Earth" I hear someone who is not confident and not at all comfortable doing what he is doing - which is an awesome guitarist sounding like he is either being forced to do something he doesn't want to do, or doing something is terrified to do - that said, Joe's all instrumental CD's post Not of this Earth have a much better continuity. Confidence is huge, whether you are Neil Young, David Lee roth or Brian Wilson. That said, there are certainly hundreds of "home recordists" as you call them who can wipe the floor with the current "cream of the crop" of vocalists. That said, I think Satch did with what he had to do at the time, stepped up to the plate and the guy sings in key - but as we know that's not enough in today's day and age.

That said, I really like this thread and feel the current string of posts has thrown its momentum out of whack, regardless of whether or not Yep had something to say. The guy started this thread of his own volition and goodwill and people are needlessly hijacking it for their own needs. And yeah, specifically flmason, I note you citing EVH's tone and all other things being equal the gear is more important - I have a proposal - You record an "I'm The One" guitar track, then I will, then we'll compare them in a separate thread that you create - this is no slight, only a suggestion. Not only that, it may help you and others find a tone you are looking for.
Lowell Mather 5150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 12:52 AM   #1337
Lowell Mather 5150
Human being with feelings
 
Lowell Mather 5150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 348
Default Rhetorical wonderings

Yep,

Considering high passing/hi pass, what are your thoughts on the evolution of this techique say from, the sixties up to 1994 - I'm speaking in terms of individual tracks, but also the stereo mix could be relevant. After I started researching and mixing more, it seems like some guitar tracks in particular are high passed rather liberally - others, judiciously, especially when the guitar is out front. But even when the guitar is out front, it seems like some guitar tracks (I'm talkin Van Halen 1984, i.e. Drop Dead Legs)are barely high passed. I know the material as a whole is relevant, but when it comes time to hi pass, if it all, no matter what instrument, what has been the evolution in terms of the technique from the time periods I proposed.
Lowell Mather 5150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 08:17 AM   #1338
ringing phone
Human being with feelings
 
ringing phone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell Mather 5150 View Post
I wouldn't limit this remark to "most home recordists,"...There are many terrible "vocalists" who sell albums courtesy of sex appeal, auto tuning, and merely those who like to buy what is "current."
Fair enough...but this thread is specific to why do your home recordings sound like ass
__________________
nothing to see here
ringing phone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 05:30 PM   #1339
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregHolmes View Post
I believe anyone can learn how to sing, if they are willing to listen, critique, and change. Some people can do that for themselves, but most will need a teacher.

Most importantly, you need to find your own voice before you copy anyone else.
Yeah I agree with this. Or at least, most amateur singers could sound a LOT better than they do. People who put a ton of effort into practicing their instrument and tweaking sounds and shopping for gear often put shockingly little effort into improving their singing voice.

And the vocal is definitely the most important part of any song. The band can never sound better than the vocal track. If the vocal sounds weak, hesitant, nasal, muffled and tuneless, then nobody's going to hear anything else-- the whole track sounds crippled.

And contrary to popular theory, most of the singers on the charts are actually quite good singers (even if they were hired for their looks). Yes, Christina Aguilera comps 100 takes, and yes, it's auto-tuned, but that's to perfect an already great performance. People point to stuff like that as evidence that singing on modern pop records is all studio trickery but then ignore that their favorite technical metal band comps 100 takes of guitars and layers six tracks of every part and so on (or whatever).

Watch Pink's performance from the grammys, or any of the live shows on cable TV or whatever: sure, the songs might be kind of dumb, and yes, these people are often selected for their looks and not just for their talent, and yes, they enjoy the benefit of a million-dollar processing (and probably auto-tune), but if you took them offstage and immediately handed the same handheld live mic to your average garage-band singer it would be an embarrassment.

the reason I did all the stuff at the beginning about trusting your gear is exactly to put a stop to all the mental excuse-making that holds people back. When I encourage you to stick your best mic in front of your best speaker and try to get a reasonably accurate-sounding recording of your favorite CD (which you can, I guarantee), that's a nice way of saying that the mic is not the problem.

There is a lot of ego-protecting that goes on in these kinds of discussions: pros with million-dollar studios watching their business evaporate lash out that the cheap gear revolution and call mackie mixers "shit on a stick" or whatever, and amateurs who have maxed out the credit cards on fancy preamps smugly join them. Budget amateurs, meanwhile (often the same who are quick to deride expensiver gear as placebo-effect waste of money) lament that pop stars are just hired for their looks and made to sound good with fancy machines.

My point is not to make anyone feel bad, it's that the ego-protection is holding you back. It's not just the hours and dollars wasted on trying out a bajillion different plugins, it's the mental erosion of your focus on and confidence in what's important.

It's amazing how much further you can get by putting one foot in front of the other, than by thinking, arguing, and experimenting with the best ways to get there.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 05:57 PM   #1340
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell Mather 5150 View Post
Yep,

Considering high passing/hi pass, what are your thoughts on the evolution of this techique say from, the sixties up to 1994 - I'm speaking in terms of individual tracks, but also the stereo mix could be relevant. After I started researching and mixing more, it seems like some guitar tracks in particular are high passed rather liberally - others, judiciously, especially when the guitar is out front. But even when the guitar is out front, it seems like some guitar tracks (I'm talkin Van Halen 1984, i.e. Drop Dead Legs)are barely high passed. I know the material as a whole is relevant, but when it comes time to hi pass, if it all, no matter what instrument, what has been the evolution in terms of the technique from the time periods I proposed.
I honestly have no idea.

Home stereos and transmission medium (especially the shift from AM to FM radio, and then the move from LP/cassettes to CD) have generally expanded the frequency and dynamic range available to most listeners, and production techniques have tended to follow suit, but only a little (up until the recent "loudness wars" reversal, anyway).

For reasons described in detail up-thread, a super-extended frequency spectrum tends to become self-defeating past a certain point: extreme low-frequencies have a way of robbing headroom and mucking up the speakers and room acoustics, while extreme high-frequencies tend to exaggerate hash, hiss, and digital artifacts on the playback system, often producing a more veiled, LESS clear sound.

Moreover, most musical instruments don't really use or benefit much from frequencies at the extremes of human hearing. High C is what, like 8kHz or something? And a bass guitar bottoms out at somewhere around 35Hz, I think, and even then sounds practically atonal at the fundamental. I mean, try tuning anything to 35Hz pure sine wave and see where that gets you.

As for individual instruments, it's impossible to say anything. You might record he exact same player, guitar, and amp, with the exact same settings, using an AKG 414 mic pointed straight at the speaker cone and 6" back from the grill, and I might record the same with an SM57 shoved right in the grill off-axis, and we're going to have massively different frequency profiles without even touching an eq.

Which is exactly why it's pointless to say "for best results, cut guitar by 4dB at 200Hz" or "to sound like Eddie Van Halen, cut X by Y".

The recipe for recording guitar (or anything) is simply: get the guitar/amp sounding as close as possible to the way you want it to sound, then select the most appropriate available mic and placement for the sound you're after, then use eq to compensate for the stuff you were unable to correct with the amp sound or mic placement, then use additional effects or processing as necessary at mixdown to achieve the most flattering and enjoyable balance of sounds.

Not sure if that answers your question, but that's what I got.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 06:13 PM   #1341
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
I got to see Boston perform with Brad Delp before he passed away and it was an amazing show.
I had the privlige (or horror) of having Brad Delp stand 2 feet behind my rig, clap and politely say great job between songs for the entire set I played. I can't stress enough how totally star struck, yet scared $hitless I was. I still have a brown spot in those pants.

However, one reason for the extreme stress is I had just watched him do his soundcheck, playing Longtime an hour earlier live and as-is (was opening for his band). That man had a voice that was truly amazing, hands down. He must be a dream to record in the studio, you can easily hear it in the general tone of his natural voice.

By the way, he was one of the most sincere, modest and nicest rock stars I have every had the pleasure of speaking to. RIP. Sorry if OT.

Karbo
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 05-05-2010 at 06:20 PM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2010, 09:35 PM   #1342
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell Mather 5150 View Post

That said, I really like this thread and feel the current string of posts has thrown its momentum out of whack, regardless of whether or not Yep had something to say. The guy started this thread of his own volition and goodwill and people are needlessly hijacking it for their own needs. And yeah, specifically flmason, I note you citing EVH's tone and all other things being equal the gear is more important - I have a proposal - You record an "I'm The One" guitar track, then I will, then we'll compare them in a separate thread that you create - this is no slight, only a suggestion. Not only that, it may help you and others find a tone you are looking for.
Just curious, what do you mean by "I'm the One". Is that a song?

I've got about 60 experimental tracks on Soundclick. All the guitar-centric ones are about one thing really. Trying to get a "great" classic rock/hard rock/hair band era type tones going... in the box, no real amps. All failures in my opinion. All because the equipment or my lack of understanding don't make the right tones, which in turn crushes any creativity I have.

Having, back in the 80's spent years and tons of money trying amps, guitar, effects, etc. with real analog, and the early digital boxes, I really don't need confirmation of what I'm saying about the equipment having great effect. Heck any spectrum analyzer can show that a fuzz box has a greater effect on tone that anything you can do with your fingers, LOL!

It's not even really a question, it's a assertion... "Objective measures will quantifiable demonstrate that equipment can have a greater effect on tone and timbre than playing techniques."

The "Tone is all in the fingers" religion flies in the face of objective measurement I do believe. It strikes me as a sort of 70's "vibrations" or "other planes of existence" sort of thing.

Certainly not someone that has to say, produce TV commercials and needs a sound track with a certain style and tone done, can tolerate. He needs a skilled musician with the right equipment to make the sound he needs... on a budget and schedule. And it does get done.

I'm essentially trying to cut through the "magic tone mumbo jumbo" and get down to what the objective, technical facts are and how they can be applied, same as any other skilled trade.

The 70's style mumbo jumbo goes along with marketing of albums. You know, stuff like "Jimmy Page is into the occult...eeeeewww EEEEE eeeeew" (sound of theremin, LOL!) (The one place I'd switch my viw on this is vocals... can't go out and get a replacement voice box, LOL!)

But people, artists especially, seem to like to believe such things.

(And in my life, friend who bit off on the whole thing.. I.e. rock and roll rebel, drugs, etc. ended up on occasion killing themselves with drugs, or attendant car wrecks etc. In fact that whole myth the industry perpetuated of "do you own thing, make fortune, while smashing up hotel rooms" etc. misled an entire generation.

Let's face the facts, especially at this date, being successful in the media, if you aren't a David Geffen, means a *lot* of go-along-to-get-along, who you know, who you blow, politics to survive. Just the opposite of the "complete personal freedom with mega wealth" that I thought it represented as a kid. So I for one would like to see all the myths exposed from top to bottom.

Just as an example, look at some of the name dropping that goes on. From the outside it looks like an industry of power holders and wannabes. But no different than any "glamour" industry really. More wannabes than spots. Supply exceeds demand. You can even see that in say, airline piloting. The stats are really telling. I recall reading, "average income of all actors is $3,000" yet we've all seen the names at the top. And heck, folks are encouraged to work for free in the early part of their careers in the recording biz. That's all certainly a far cry from the "individual freedom" artistic myth. Only way you can be free, is to be set well enough no one can affect you. A starving artist needing a recording contract, that is not.)

As for citing examples, don't know how else to make points. Especially since my tracks suck totally. For many reasons. Not the least of which at present is that the economy has bit my tail and everything I own is packed up but a mic or two, headphones and a soundcard. Not much I can do when survival is becoming an issue.

So I'm up for the "challenge" (LOL!) but it will have to wait, and I can't say how long. Sadly. (Story of my life, sadly.) Have been through same with other folks though. Bottom line is, I simply have to keep digging and learning. And...(LOL!)... invest in some better monitors.

As for folks "hijacking" the thread. Well, recording covers tons of ground. I don't see how folks couldn't or wouldn't eventually seek help and solutions with their particular issue. It's inevitable that different paths are going to arise. Heck every book on the topic has "chapters" right? And chapters pertain to specific topics or issues, that's why they are chapters.

Unfortunately, a bulletin board doesn't really allow that sort of organization within one thread (that I know of?)

Anyway, it is a thread, not someone's personal backyard or property, so with all due respect to all the effort Yep has expended, really, what's wrong with people getting into specifics?

If that isn't allowed, really, how is it any better than buying "Mixing for Dummies" or whatever. I.e a one way dialog.

So, that all said, sure, soon as I get life resettled, and a reasonable recording environment set up per the early parts of this thread (and my 8 or so guitars, 2 keyboards, bass and mics unpacked and set up, LOL!) I'm certainly up for a collaborative effort. But it may be some time. I may actually end up homeless before it's over.

In the mean time, I'm going to try and learn all I can. Which will generally involve a lot of questions, that yes, will typically involve commercial examples that illustrate some of the points I may have trouble articulating without an example present.

Anyway, bottom line for me is that, despite having the aspirations as a young guy, now as a oldster this will at best be a lifelong hobby. So not having to worry about "playing the game" I actually have the freedom to say what I'm really thinking.

Unfortunately the equipment (i.e. things like Reaper, and all that goes with it) became affordable to me so late in the game, that the party has long been over, LOL!

I can remember as a kid saying, "If I could just scrape together $10K I could outfit the band and have a PA system..."

Now that 10K can get you so much recording capability it's obscene, but the golden age is over.

For me the POD really represented the end, as it represents the "canning" of a a set of tones now considered "classic" or whatever.

In short, the ground floor days are long, long gone.

But, still an interesting hobby.

And with that, I'm gonna pull out a mic now, and try and figure out why my vocals suck!

Last edited by flmason; 05-05-2010 at 09:57 PM.
flmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2010, 08:56 PM   #1343
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason View Post
...Anyway, it is a thread, not someone's personal backyard or property, so with all due respect to all the effort Yep has expended, really, what's wrong with people getting into specifics?...
There is nothing wrong with specifics, and I certainly don't own this thread, but I do think there is a certain usefulness to topicality. This thread is really, really long, and unless you're willing to go through some hundreds of pages of text, it's not a good place to look for advice on guitar gear.

I wager it would be more useful for people reading this thread not to have it devolve into a debate on guitar gear, and that it would be more useful for people who care about guitar gear to read through an easily searchable and relevant thread on the topic than to dig through this monster.

I mean, why not have ongoing pages devoted to conflicting opinions on the best bow rosins for string instruments, or the best ratios or metallurgy for horn coatings,or the best action/responsiveness/material for kick drum beaters and pedals? Because those topics are certainly debated as endlessly as guitar tone. But they have little to do with why your recordings sound like ass.

I suspect it would be more useful for everyone to start a "why does your guitar tone sound like ass" thread, and there to explore all the ins and outs. My guess and my hope is that this thread's usefulness is for those who LIKE their guitar sound, for example, but who are still unsatisfied with their recordings.

In any case, you are certainly free to post whatever you like. I'm not trying to be the thread-Mom, just trying to keep things on-topic.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 01:51 AM   #1344
electro_harmonix
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cologne, Germany
Posts: 8
Default

From me: Yes to yep.
I'm a guitarplayer and the specific guitardiscussions are boring me. This thread is unique, guitar-microphone-ampsimulation-evh threads are many out there. Please keep this thread clean (as possible).
electro_harmonix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 09:04 AM   #1345
Smurf
Human being with feelings
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason View Post
Anyway, it is a thread, not someone's personal backyard or property...
I fully understand your view in your response, but there are always exceptions, and I feel that this thread is / was one of them.

I say let yep be the "mom" of this thread so it can get back on track...just an IMHO....
__________________
Yep's First 3 Years in PDF's
HP Z600 w/3GHz 12 Core, 48GB Memory, nVidia Quadro 5800, 240GB SSD OS drive, 3 480GB SSD Sample/Storage drives, 18TB External Storage, Dual 27" Monitors
Smurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 09:40 AM   #1346
RHGraham
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 90
Default

"Anyway, it is a thread, not someone's personal backyard or property.."

I see it as a person who was willing to take the time, and make a huge effort to share and help by writing about expirience that can only really be had by doing, and is priceless.

So it's a respect issue, IMO, and frankly, you aren't showing much of any.
__________________
Randal
RHGraham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:01 PM   #1347
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RHGraham View Post
"Anyway, it is a thread, not someone's personal backyard or property.."

I see it as a person who was willing to take the time, and make a huge effort to share and help by writing about expirience that can only really be had by doing, and is priceless.

So it's a respect issue, IMO, and frankly, you aren't showing much of any.
Well, frankly, you're wrong.

Seems to me, everything from source to playback systems is involved in this field of endeavor and so just about anything is a fair topic to discuss.

Go back and read some of the side tracks about all sorts of issues that have occured. This thread is what 75+ pages long? That in itself is testimony to all the issues and side issues that exist.

Bottom line is, it's what the mods say that goes, so yes, you are entitled to you "IMO" and so am I. But neither of us are the judge and jury here.

In the end the goal is what's important. Getting to the truth, tossing the marketing BS. Life is short. Such misdirections cause a lot of wasted life.

This in an industry in I heard no less than Robert Plant say, "This is the most contrived industry on the planet". If Plant doesn't know, I don't know who does. Suffice to say, at least I'm in good company with my assessment.

Last edited by flmason; 05-07-2010 at 11:53 PM.
flmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:09 PM   #1348
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
There is nothing wrong with specifics, and I certainly don't own this thread, but I do think there is a certain usefulness to topicality. This thread is really, really long, and unless you're willing to go through some hundreds of pages of text, it's not a good place to look for advice on guitar gear.

I wager it would be more useful for people reading this thread not to have it devolve into a debate on guitar gear, and that it would be more useful for people who care about guitar gear to read through an easily searchable and relevant thread on the topic than to dig through this monster.

I mean, why not have ongoing pages devoted to conflicting opinions on the best bow rosins for string instruments, or the best ratios or metallurgy for horn coatings,or the best action/responsiveness/material for kick drum beaters and pedals? Because those topics are certainly debated as endlessly as guitar tone. But they have little to do with why your recordings sound like ass.

I suspect it would be more useful for everyone to start a "why does your guitar tone sound like ass" thread, and there to explore all the ins and outs. My guess and my hope is that this thread's usefulness is for those who LIKE their guitar sound, for example, but who are still unsatisfied with their recordings.

In any case, you are certainly free to post whatever you like. I'm not trying to be the thread-Mom, just trying to keep things on-topic.
Have to admit, I'm still baffled at this reaction from some corners.

Well, clear me up here Yep. If it's about why recordings don't sound pro... doesn't that cover everything from tone production to reproduction systems?

And don't tone production systems include those topics?

So yes, I guess rosin and metallurgy count. It's all about the final result.

And well, for me personally, the vocal track and the guitar tracks are the most problematic ones. (Probably for many), so they seem like fair game.

To my ears, listening across a spectrum of popular music, seems to me much of the "big guitar sound" and the "big vocal sound" are in fact... recording studio techniques.

I often have used Blink 182's "All the Small Things" as an example. Specifically because there is no virtuosity in it. Rules out the "tone in the fingers" issue you'd have with say an SRV or EVH track. You could teach a 12 year old those changes... but no straight up guitar/amp combo I've ever encountered sounds like the opening two chord blasts in that recording.

Seems like it's *got* to be production and/or layer, composition. (At the very least bass+guitar.)

So straighten me out. Exactly what are the bounds as you see them, because I'm seeing the whole process, end to end, as the bounds. And that naturally has a lot of rabbit holes to explore. Each and every instrument or track seems to have a history and bag of tricks of it's own, to be sure. And certainly any producer (not me obviously, I'd be lucky to rise to "hack", LOL!) might have an interest in all those things.

As far as the guitar tone issue. I think we've touched on it in several places. The guitar tones many associate with classic recording thereof are anything but the same sound that comes out of their equipment, and further if the sound coming out of their equipment *is* what they want, the recording and playback technology seldom transcribes it accurately.

And all that is before we get into techniques like doubling, layering etc.

Seems to me it's all fair game, no?

And at 75+ pages, how can this not eventually get into specific sub-topics, I mean really? With a due respect.

Anyway, I'll let it drop, as my primary issue there was more the platitude "it's all in the fingers", which is patented bunk for many genres. It's a platitude for bumper stickers. It's easy to show equipment > fingers where tone itself is concerned. Just walk over and flip the main circuit break to OFF. There's the sound you are *really* making. And my god, if the of The Edge isn't an effects-centric thing then I don't know what is, LOL!

Geez, if it's all in the fingers, then I guess we don't need equalizers, the only knob on a Neve console should be the faders... oh but wait! Amplitude is most definitely in the fingers, so don't need those either, LOL! (FWIW old time bluegrass folks did it that way. Everyone around one mic, soloist stepped in a bit when he/she needed to be louder.)

Second issues is simply the marketing of equipment is full of BS on top if it all too. (Favorite example... POD says on the box "Ultimate Recorded Tone for Your Guitar". Hmmm... guess that makes it fair game for a thread on recording. [humor intented] )

Lastly that there *are* most definitely formulas. Maybe not specific settings, but definitely formulas. Any given genre can be called a formula. Geez, Nashville has some of the longest running formulas going, true? Can a genre not be defined by it's "formulas" and the engineers and producers that know what those are? (Seems to me the same guys turn up over and over again as one digs around.)

That aside, you'd mentioned distortion on vocals. Gave it a try. Have to admit, guitar stomps don't seem to do any good. Is/are there popular distortion devices for that use? (Or is this also out of bounds? Have to say, at this point, I'm not sure. Think we should start some separate theads for each "track"? If so what belongs here exactly at this point. I mean the earliest parts of the thread covered the recording generics?)

Everything I've tried ends up in "busted AM radio" sound territory rather quickly.

Last edited by flmason; 05-07-2010 at 11:50 PM. Reason: Sorry... 35+ pages, not 75+
flmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 12:37 AM   #1349
cerberus
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: memory
Posts: 633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
just trying to keep things on-topic.
agreed, and thank you yep. i didn't read the entire thread, but i'm sure it won't hurt
for me to remind the group that one should always monitor their mix through a dither.
cerberus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 03:11 AM   #1350
gtrdrt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yep View Post
...I'm not trying to be the thread-Mom...
Who else's SUV are we gonna pile into for a ride to the discussion???
gtrdrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 03:12 AM   #1351
IIRs
Human being with feelings
 
IIRs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sheffield, UK.
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cerberus View Post
i'm sure it won't hurt
for me to remind the group that one should always monitor their mix through a dither.
nonsense.
IIRs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 03:17 AM   #1352
cerberus
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: memory
Posts: 633
Default

dither theory is like gravity theory. are you seriously questioning whether it works?
cerberus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 03:23 AM   #1353
gtrdrt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason View Post
...FWIW old time bluegrass folks did it that way. Everyone around one mic, soloist stepped in a bit when he/she needed to be louder...
I sometimes think it would be great if we went back to that technique. First we gotta figure out where to strap the Marshall stacks to the guitar players though.

C'mon. It'll be fun.
gtrdrt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 03:42 AM   #1354
IIRs
Human being with feelings
 
IIRs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sheffield, UK.
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cerberus View Post
dither theory is like gravity theory. are you seriously questioning whether it works?
No, I am questioning the need to monitor through it.

Most people are monitoring through 24 bit converters nowadays. If you add 16 bit dither noise you are pointlessly raising the noise floor with no benefit whatsoever. Adding 24 bit dither noise would be correct strictly speaking, but seeing as the level of this noise (and the errors that it reduces) are well below the noise floor of even 24 bit converters, I simply don't believe it makes any audible difference whatsoever.

In practise the only time you ever need to worry about dither is when going down to 16 bit for a CD.
IIRs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 03:56 AM   #1355
cerberus
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: memory
Posts: 633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IIRs View Post
I simply don't believe it makes any audible difference whatsoever.
i think that is a big reason why you will find noted engineers claiming that analog processing is "better".

don't you get that we are the only "major" industry who thinks that
30 year old technology is a holy grail? imo, maybe if we just started
doing things correctly, a lot of other problems would sort out themselves.
cerberus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 04:40 AM   #1356
IIRs
Human being with feelings
 
IIRs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sheffield, UK.
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cerberus View Post
i think that is a big reason why you will find noted engineers claiming that analog processing is "better".

don't you get that we are the only "major" industry who thinks that
30 year old technology is a holy grail? imo, maybe if we just started
doing things correctly, a lot of other problems would sort out themselves.
You are quoting me out of context. I am specifically stating that when going from 32 bit float to 24 bit integer there is no audible difference when adding 24 bit dither noise.* I suggest you try some blind listening tests if you don't believe me.

* Adding 16 bit dither noise would most certainly not be doing things correctly!
IIRs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 04:51 AM   #1357
cerberus
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: memory
Posts: 633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IIRs View Post
You are quoting me out of context. I am specifically stating that when going from 32 bit float to 24 bit integer there is no audible difference when adding 24 bit dither noise.* I suggest you try some blind listening tests if you don't believe me.

* Adding 16 bit dither noise would most certainly not be doing things correctly!
i think we could agree that 32 float is not more than 23 bits deep, ever.

but in reaper we are going from a 64 bit (float) signal to a 24 bit (fixed) hardware. my blind tests
that are applicable to my work in reaper indicate without question that there -can- be
an audible difference between truncating to 32(float) or 24 bit vs. dithering to 24 bit. ymmv.

but we still need to consider that there may be further processing in the reproduction
chain which we cannot predict, so errors we don't hear could get amplified and become
painfully obvious to the end user. that is why i think it pays to always dither correctly.
cerberus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 05:15 AM   #1358
IIRs
Human being with feelings
 
IIRs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sheffield, UK.
Posts: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cerberus View Post
but we still need to consider that there may be further processing in the reproduction
chain which we cannot predict
We are talking about monitoring, right? So probably straight to the DAC, no? Any further digital processing ITB would break the dither anyway...

Its possible that you simply have better ears / monitors than I do. But it is my understanding that 24 bit converters only really provide about 20 bits of true dynamic range, ie: approx 120dB. So I am happy to conclude that I can't hear the difference because it is buried at least 12 dB below the noise floor of the converters.

"24-bit digital audio has a theoretical maximum dynamic range of 144 dB, compared to 96 dB for 16-bit; however, current digital audio converter technology is limited to dynamic ranges of ~120 dB because of 'real world' limitations in integrated circuit design."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth
IIRs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 05:50 AM   #1359
cerberus
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: memory
Posts: 633
Default

i think that dynamic range is a canard here, not relevant to my abx tests where dynamic range was exactly the same, but
the difference i hear could be from the vastly increased precision, accuracy and therefore fidelity. i.e. the difference between
a dithered signal that technically has infinite precision (like analog), or a truncated one which is mathematically less precise.

dynamic range was the way digital was sold. we can't say it has "more precision" than analog (which
has infinite precison) so we had to tout dynamic range... despite this, a soundblaster is not considered "better"
than a studer by many respected engineers'. but perhaps in theory it could be if it were used correctly (assuming
the converters have integrity) .

i think if i asked my clients "would you like a classic studer sound? or a classic soundblaster/adat sound?" we can predict the
answer might fall with the "analog vibe, please". so imo we should pay close attention to those sorts of real world observations,
all of who work with daws can take advantage of their capacity... and unlike some daws that force a truncation which the user
is helpless to thwart, reaper is up to the task.

many users do not do high precision work, and it may not mean much to them; but if we are going to compare digital
to analog, imo we should try to get our daws to do accurate maths. this is a controversial matter, because if i am correct, it means
a change of work habits for most userss... but imo, our attentiveness here may help us to reach our artistic and commercial goals faster and easier.

Last edited by cerberus; 05-08-2010 at 06:13 AM.
cerberus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2010, 06:06 AM   #1360
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geetardirt View Post
I sometimes think it would be great if we went back to that technique. First we gotta figure out where to strap the Marshall stacks to the guitar players though.

C'mon. It'll be fun.
LOL!

Guess we could use those little $49.00 jobbies Marshall makes as a novelty to put on your desk or whatever.

Seriously though, if we're not eventually going to get into specifics on a genre and instrument level, what's left?

Is it perhaps time to just lock the thread and call it done?
flmason is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.