| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Analog summing
I recently heard about the SPL MixDream from an engineer who couldn't say
enough good things about it. When they A/B'd mixes with this against digital summing he claimed that everyone in the room could easily hear a significant improvement: more depth, space ,etc. I personally don't see what you get from the active summing from the SPL http://www.spl.info/index.php?id=131&L= vs. a passive solution like this: http://www.rollmusic.com/folcrom.php Seems to me that if SPL is making the sound better it's got to be that the analog circuitry is adding something which is euphonically pleasing, more than just plain summing. I'm also a bit sceptical about the whole argument that digital summing adds errors somehow. I don't think there's a DAW out there with less than 32bit floating point summing, and you're not going to get a lot of rounding errors from that. I'm not disputing what people claim to hear, just their reasoning about why it sounds better. Am I missing something here? Sean |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
I'm not disputing what people claim to hear, just their reasoning
about why it sounds better. Am I missing something here? Sean yes, audiophoolery is alive and well even among pros. Mark |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Mark" wrote in message
... I'm not disputing what people claim to hear, just their reasoning about why it sounds better. Am I missing something here? Sean yes, audiophoolery is alive and well even among pros. Well, until I have a chance to do my own A/B comparisons I'm not ready to dismiss other's claims about what they hear. My own interest in mixing out of the box is simply that I work way faster on a board with knobs that I can with a mouse. Maybe a good control surface would solve that problem, and maybe not. Sean |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... "Mark" wrote in message ... I'm not disputing what people claim to hear, just their reasoning about why it sounds better. Am I missing something here? yes, audiophoolery is alive and well even among pros. Well, until I have a chance to do my own A/B comparisons I'm not ready to dismiss other's claims about what they hear. What others claim to hear is not the real problem, after all you cannot hear exactly the same as them, so no A/B comparison you can do can allow you to dismiss their claims of what they hear. The real problem as I see it is what others "claim to hear", without the slightest proof that even *they* can really hear a difference. And far more common, claiming something that IS actually different, is necessarily superior just because they say it is. The latter being the sole reason many still think vinyl or tape is actually a superior medium to digital, rather than simply one that sounds different in a way *they* prefer. No matter how many times you say they are entitled to *prefer* whatever they like, they still find it necessary to claim digital storage is actually technically inferior. All they really manage to prove is their techncal ignorance though. Trevor. |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
"Mark" wrote in message ... I'm not disputing what people claim to hear, just their reasoning about why it sounds better. Am I missing something here? Sean yes, audiophoolery is alive and well even among pros. Good point. That is all I need to do to my precious tracks-convert them to analog, put them through a box that by definition must further degrade them at least in a technical sense, and then convert them back to digital again. And again. And again. Well, until I have a chance to do my own A/B comparisons I'm not ready to dismiss other's claims about what they hear. Until the comparisons are done with adequate controls, I see no reason NOT dismiss them out of hand. It takes no brains at all to do comparisions without proper level matching, time synchronization, and bias controls. If you do things that way, then the results are worse than useless, as in highly misleading. Fact is that it is almost impossible to do a mix two different ways and obtain results that are so close in terms of mixing, that they are worth the trouble to try to compare to hear differences among good equipment. They are going to sound different for perfectly human reasons. Next! It's time to un-suspend disbelief. The guy shot a big wad on equipment so of course he has to like the results. My own interest in mixing out of the box is simply that I work way faster on a board with knobs that I can with a mouse. Time to get some good nonlinear editing software and learn how to use it. Maybe a good control surface would solve that problem, and maybe not. Editing in real time is a monumental time waster. Obviously, I have no other choice when I mix live sound, but when I'm working with recordings there's no excuse for me to waste time that way. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Sean Conolly" wrote in message "Mark" wrote in message ... I'm not disputing what people claim to hear, just their reasoning about why it sounds better. Am I missing something here? Sean yes, audiophoolery is alive and well even among pros. Good point. That is all I need to do to my precious tracks-convert them to analog, put them through a box that by definition must further degrade them at least in a technical sense, and then convert them back to digital again. And again. And again. Well, until I have a chance to do my own A/B comparisons I'm not ready to dismiss other's claims about what they hear. Until the comparisons are done with adequate controls, I see no reason NOT dismiss them out of hand. It takes no brains at all to do comparisions without proper level matching, time synchronization, and bias controls. If you do things that way, then the results are worse than useless, as in highly misleading. Fact is that it is almost impossible to do a mix two different ways and obtain results that are so close in terms of mixing, that they are worth the trouble to try to compare to hear differences among good equipment. They are going to sound different for perfectly human reasons. Next! Well, may be easier to compare than you think. If all of the envelope curves are in the DAW then you can just add the routings to the summer, match your gain levels, and use source switching to the monitors to flip back and forth on the fly. This is still not a scientific comparison but since they're going for subjective results it's good enough to see if there's an obvious difference. It's time to un-suspend disbelief. The guy shot a big wad on equipment so of course he has to like the results. The owner runs this as a real business with multiple tracking rooms and a full time staff, and the rule he states is that any gear like this has to give him at least a 10% audible improvement or it gets returned. Buyers remorse is not an issue. I'm inclined to believe that they simply liked what the extra circuitry was doing to the sound. That still doesn't rule out the possibilty that they heard better results simply because they expected to. I'm not (yet) willing to accept the basic premise that there's a fundamental problem with digital summing. My own interest in mixing out of the box is simply that I work way faster on a board with knobs that I can with a mouse. Time to get some good nonlinear editing software and learn how to use it. Maybe a good control surface would solve that problem, and maybe not. Editing in real time is a monumental time waster. Obviously, I have no other choice when I mix live sound, but when I'm working with recordings there's no excuse for me to waste time that way. LOL! If I could work as fast as real time I'd do a back flip. The three or four minutes it takes to print the mix track is nothing compared to the time it takes to dial in the tracks, and for me the real waste of time is investing too much time on EQ's and levels before I hear what the whole mix sounds like. Much like a live performance, I can set those on my board far faster than I can on a screen with a mouse, so the sooner I can shift my work to the board the sooner I can get done. The only downside is that I can't store and recall everything later, which is part of my interest in using a control surface. Sean |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
On Jan 17, 7:57 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Editing in real time is a monumental time waster. Obviously, I have no other choice when I mix live sound, but when I'm working with recordings there's no excuse for me to waste time that way. This really nails it for me. Mixing "with a mouse" is so obviously superior to handling physical knobs I don't understand why everyone doesn't agree. :-) I once watched a ProTools mix session where the pro mix engineer used a control surface. Due to a Wave file render error not worth explaining, one of the tracks dropped suddenly in volume by 20 dB. I watched in amusement as the mix engineer tried repeatedly in vain to counter the instantaneous reduction using a physical slider. I had to contain myself not to scream, "Just use your mouse to draw the friggin' volume change already!" --Ethan |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Sean Conolly" writes:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message Various snips Well, may be easier to compare than you think. If all of the envelope curves are in the DAW then you can just add the routings to the summer, match your gain levels, and use source switching to the monitors to flip back and forth on the fly. This is still not a scientific comparison but since they're going for subjective results it's good enough to see if there's an obvious difference. I went around and around with analog summing myself for a few years. Sometimes it was marginally "better", sometimes not. But then I either made or was introduced to some techniques that made a noticeable difference (for the better) with digital mixing, and in the aggregate outperformed (IMO) analog summing. This is with PT 7.4 and 8; I understand that earlier versions had some serious arithmetic shortcomings. And other digital systems have their supporters and detractors. - layered convolution reverbs; even the same send sent to two instances of the same 'verb, but with different settings. Modern CPUs can now easily handle this. - a very long reverb, on the order of 8-10 seconds, but at a very low level. (sometimes not; depends on material) - 25 hz steep highpass filter as the first insert on every digital channel (unless the channel is one of the room omnis in a pipe organ recording). Remember, in a way analog does such high pass work "naturually" whereas digital will pass all the subsonic junk, and that might cause problems downstream with, say, compressor thresholds and even your monitor chain. - as a last resort, put narrow, shallow notches in the mix bus top end as needed to tame any perceived edge or bite. These few things, particularly the high pass, will help. By comparison, analog summing to me now sounds murky and sometimes dull. This might be just what you need at times, but for the kind of work I do. heard better results simply because they expected to. I'm not (yet) willing to accept the basic premise that there's a fundamental problem with digital summing. I agree; modern algorithms do seem to work fairly well. My own interest in mixing out of the box is simply that I work way faster on a board with knobs that I can with a mouse. Time to get some good nonlinear editing software and learn how to use it. Indeed. I was dragged kicking and screaming to PT by a client and with a dozen simultaneous projects, it became a necessity. I now can frequently use the luxury of walking away for days or weeks and then come back to *exactly* where I left off, and then have a fresh, unbiased review of the mix, and make any final little tweaks I might like. Maybe a good control surface would solve that problem, and maybe not. Maybe. In my case, I've completely moved over to the "dark side". I am continually delighted by the mix precision and mix "transparancy" I can get simply by using a mouse to change a gain line. But, I also have a 37" central monitor with another 22" to the right and a 19" to the left. Can't imagine doing this on a single screen. To my further delight is the ability to automate *everything*. And not just because I can, but because sometimes, with live recording (my main gig), there's just a lot of crap to deal with. With a good digital rig, program it once and forget it; with an (affordable) analog rig, you've got to do it each time (other than perhaps level) -- say, doing a swept up and back down hipass to kill a wump in the hall, or maybe a variable-depth notch to get rid of the deaf guy in the house with the watch alarm that's beeping 3 times a second at 6.5 KHz. These are both things I had to do in recent mixes. Best yet, I don't have to remember or document any of this -- it's all there, it all comes back next time I open the project. And all I have to do is give a quick glance at the automation lines to see what all was done. LOL! If I could work as fast as real time I'd do a back flip. The three or four minutes it takes to print the mix track is nothing compared to the time it takes to dial in the tracks, and for me the real waste of time is investing too much time on EQ's and levels before I hear what the whole mix sounds like. So don't use them; do your EQ by mic choice and placement. Alternately, you can usually save processing settings and recall them by name. You can use templates as well to get you started with a digital mix very, very quickly. Understand, though, that I am sympathetic. I was railing about many of the same things at one time. the sooner I can get done. The only downside is that I can't store and recall everything later, which is part of my interest in using a control surface. Well, there you go. This is what got me through the door to digital mix, and has kept me there. The complexity of some of the mixes is more than daunting to think about while in analog land. But the ultimate measure is the end product: my clients seem delighted, and I have been generally pleased, to have such fine and rich tools available. But like anything, they can be overused. Generally, from myself and in watching others, initially learning in the analog realm has really helped keep the digital sound "real". Even though the transition might be frustrating at first, have faith in (and give thanks for) your analog background. Good luck with it, Frank Mobile Audio -- |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
- 25 hz steep highpass filter as the first insert on every digital channel (unless the channel is one of the room omnis in a pipe organ recording). Remember, in a way analog does such high pass work "naturually" whereas digital will pass all the subsonic junk, and that might cause problems downstream with, say, compressor thresholds and even your monitor chain. I have seen unwanted DC offsets that can cause the problems you mention, and yes a hi pass filter is a good idea. Mark |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Fact is that it is almost impossible to do a mix two different ways and obtain results that are so close in terms of mixing, that they are worth the trouble to try to compare to hear differences among good equipment. They are going to sound different for perfectly human reasons. Next! Well, may be easier to compare than you think. If all of the envelope curves are in the DAW then you can just add the routings to the summer, match your gain levels, and use source switching to the monitors to flip back and forth on the fly. This is still not a scientific comparison but since they're going for subjective results it's good enough to see if there's an obvious difference. Anybody who expects obvious differences between good digital summing and good analog summing has suspended disbelief in the basic principles of analog and digital audio. It's time to un-suspend disbelief. The guy shot a big wad on equipment so of course he has to like the results. The owner runs this as a real business with multiple tracking rooms and a full time staff, and the rule he states is that any gear like this has to give him at least a 10% audible improvement or it gets returned. Buyers remorse is not an issue. OK, so you have suspended more than a little disbelief yourself. I'm inclined to believe that they simply liked what the extra circuitry was doing to the sound. The extra circuitry is supposed to be waaay better than that! I'm reading in vendor-supplied documentation about op amps with +/- 30 volt rails, +28 dBu max output, , -1 dB @ 200 KHz, 125 dB dynamic range, and nonlinear distortion more than 100 dB down. It's not quite 24 bit digital, but it is well into the realms of sonic transparency. That still doesn't rule out the possibilty that they heard better results simply because they expected to. I'm not (yet) willing to accept the basic premise that there's a fundamental problem with digital summing. Frankly there was a fundamental problem with digital summing back a decade or two. Top-of-the-line software like Pro Tools was mixing with not enough bits, and there was a real possibility of audible issues at times. But that was then and this is now. My own interest in mixing out of the box is simply that I work way faster on a board with knobs that I can with a mouse. Time to get some good nonlinear editing software and learn how to use it. Maybe a good control surface would solve that problem, and maybe not. Editing in real time is a monumental time waster. Obviously, I have no other choice when I mix live sound, but when I'm working with recordings there's no excuse for me to waste time that way. LOL! If I could work as fast as real time I'd do a back flip. Since there's a need to review the entire mix, probably more than once, there's no chance of doing a good job from start to finish in less than several times real time. However, if you make effective use of nonlinear editing, you can cut your full passes at the entire program down by a lot. If you're doing every trial mix in real time, then all of that time can be cut way down. The three or four minutes it takes to print the mix track is nothing compared to the time it takes to dial in the tracks, and for me the real waste of time is investing too much time on EQ's and levels before I hear what the whole mix sounds like. It is the investment in getting eq and levels right that can be improved. I don't know what length reasult it takes you several minutes to print, but for me that would be the over an hour of finished product @ 24 tracks. This is done using good modern computing but not utterly high end stuff. The other thing I can say that the good old learning curve can provide some pretty amazing improvements in productivity. There are jobs that I've been mixing weekly for over six years. Almost all of the experimentation ended years ago, and I don't need to listen to everything to know what it is. I can do a lot just by eyeball, and the job time is only fraction of what it was, and for a better-sounding product. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Ethan Winer" wrote in message
On Jan 17, 7:57 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Editing in real time is a monumental time waster. Obviously, I have no other choice when I mix live sound, but when I'm working with recordings there's no excuse for me to waste time that way. This really nails it for me. Mixing "with a mouse" is so obviously superior to handling physical knobs I don't understand why everyone doesn't agree. :-) I once watched a ProTools mix session where the pro mix engineer used a control surface. Due to a Wave file render error not worth explaining, one of the tracks dropped suddenly in volume by 20 dB. I watched in amusement as the mix engineer tried repeatedly in vain to counter the instantaneous reduction using a physical slider. I had to contain myself not to scream, "Just use your mouse to draw the friggin' volume change already!" Yes, I'd like to see someone try to fly a fader as fast as one of those step level changes that can inadevertantly happen when you push the wrong button at the wrong time. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
Sean Conolly wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Sean Conolly" wrote in message "Mark" wrote in message ... I'm not disputing what people claim to hear, just their reasoning about why it sounds better. Am I missing something here? Sean yes, audiophoolery is alive and well even among pros. Good point. That is all I need to do to my precious tracks-convert them to analog, put them through a box that by definition must further degrade them at least in a technical sense, and then convert them back to digital again. And again. And again. Well, until I have a chance to do my own A/B comparisons I'm not ready to dismiss other's claims about what they hear. Until the comparisons are done with adequate controls, I see no reason NOT dismiss them out of hand. It takes no brains at all to do comparisions without proper level matching, time synchronization, and bias controls. If you do things that way, then the results are worse than useless, as in highly misleading. Fact is that it is almost impossible to do a mix two different ways and obtain results that are so close in terms of mixing, that they are worth the trouble to try to compare to hear differences among good equipment. They are going to sound different for perfectly human reasons. Next! Well, may be easier to compare than you think. If all of the envelope curves are in the DAW then you can just add the routings to the summer, match your gain levels, and use source switching to the monitors to flip back and forth on the fly. This is still not a scientific comparison but since they're going for subjective results it's good enough to see if there's an obvious difference. It's time to un-suspend disbelief. The guy shot a big wad on equipment so of course he has to like the results. The owner runs this as a real business with multiple tracking rooms and a full time staff, and the rule he states is that any gear like this has to give him at least a 10% audible improvement or it gets returned. Buyers remorse is not an issue. I'm inclined to believe that they simply liked what the extra circuitry was doing to the sound. That still doesn't rule out the possibilty that they heard better results simply because they expected to. I'm not (yet) willing to accept the basic premise that there's a fundamental problem with digital summing. My own interest in mixing out of the box is simply that I work way faster on a board with knobs that I can with a mouse. Time to get some good nonlinear editing software and learn how to use it. It's not a given that mixing goes more rapidly and effectively using mice and computers than it does in real time using a console. Editing is not mixing, and there, computers are certainly more facile than razor blades and little pieces of tape. Maybe a good control surface would solve that problem, and maybe not. Editing in real time is a monumental time waster. Obviously, I have no other choice when I mix live sound, but when I'm working with recordings there's no excuse for me to waste time that way. LOL! If I could work as fast as real time I'd do a back flip. The three or four minutes it takes to print the mix track is nothing compared to the time it takes to dial in the tracks, and for me the real waste of time is investing too much time on EQ's and levels before I hear what the whole mix sounds like. Much like a live performance, I can set those on my board far faster than I can on a screen with a mouse, so the sooner I can shift my work to the board the sooner I can get done. The only downside is that I can't store and recall everything later, which is part of my interest in using a control surface. Sean -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
Sean Conolly wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message ... I'm not disputing what people claim to hear, just their reasoning about why it sounds better. Am I missing something here? Sean yes, audiophoolery is alive and well even among pros. Well, until I have a chance to do my own A/B comparisons I'm not ready to dismiss other's claims about what they hear. My own interest in mixing out of the box is simply that I work way faster on a board with knobs that I can with a mouse. Maybe a good control surface would solve that problem, and maybe not. Agreed. I don't know if the summing is really an issue; I rather suspect that it is not today (although some earlier Pro Tools versions clearly did not do it properly). However, since it's so easy to do it in the analogue domain, and I like and demand the analogue interface, I don't see any reason to bother NOT doing in the analogue world along with the rest of the console. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
On Jan 18, 2:46 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
It's not a given that mixing goes more rapidly and effectively using mice and computers than it does in real time using a console. Editing is not mixing, and there, computers are certainly more facile than razor blades and little pieces of tape. Yes, editing and mixing are different. But I still find mixing faster, and easier, and more fun, with on-screen envelope automation. Of course, easier and more fun are subjective. It also helps enormously to have two or more large video screens. If I had only one display, I'm sure mousing around in SONAR would be more of a chore. --Ethan |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
In article ,
Ethan Winer wrote: On Jan 18, 2:46 pm, (hank alrich) wrote: It's not a given that mixing goes more rapidly and effectively using mice and computers than it does in real time using a console. Editing is not mixing, and there, computers are certainly more facile than razor blades and little pieces of tape. Yes, editing and mixing are different. But I still find mixing faster, and easier, and more fun, with on-screen envelope automation. Of course, easier and more fun are subjective. It also helps enormously to have two or more large video screens. If I had only one display, I'm sure mousing around in SONAR would be more of a chore. Well, the advantage of using a DAW and a console at the same time is that you can use both realtime fading AND on-screen envelope automation at the same time. So you can use each for what they are most convenient for. I don't like the on-screen automation, I get the feeling that if I need something like that then I didn't cut the track properly in the first place. But plenty of folks do, and it's available if you do and you don't have to use it if you don't. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
I guess it's time to weigh-in on this thread. Whether it's tracking,
mixing, or shipping a performance live to a hundred million listener/viewers, I cannot sufficiently explain the synergism of "riding levels" with faders. It doesn't matter to me if the summing is digital or analog, as long as I can grab a knob and let something almost magic take place. Before there were linear faders, successful soundmixers were characterized as "having a good fist (or wrist)". This meant there was some kind of ear-brain-muscle connection that allowed them to keep things under control without the help of leveling devices like compressors and limiters. After a few decades of mixing, I noticed that my hand was making small adjustments of the vocal mics without my conscious attention to the levels. For example, some voices tend to get louder after a breath. Somehow I heard the breath and automatically adjusted for the level change. When these tweaks take place upstream of the leveling device, a very commercial "smoothness" is the result. I simply can't imagine NOT using a fader to accomplish a truly refined mix. -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
On 2011-01-20 said: I guess it's time to weigh-in on this thread. Whether it's tracking, mixing, or shipping a performance live to a hundred million listener/viewers, I cannot sufficiently explain the synergism of "riding levels" with faders. It doesn't matter to me if the summing is digital or analog, as long as I can grab a knob and let something almost magic take place. That's a big part of what's being missed by folks who never really got comfortable in that world. IT's a relationship between what the ears hear and what the hand does, no vu meters needed even because you've already gainstaged properly. Audio is *not* a visual medium. iT's about the sound, and there are times that I"ve been able to make as rOy says, "something magical" come out of those boxes. I don't think that would have been possible with a mouse, as it was happening right now, not a multi-tracked performaance to be mixed later. After a few decades of mixing, I noticed that my hand was making small adjustments of the vocal mics without my conscious attention to the levels. For example, some voices tend to get louder after a breath. Somehow I heard the breath and automatically adjusted for the level change. When these tweaks take place upstream of the leveling device, a very commercial "smoothness" is the result. I simply can't imagine NOT using a fader to accomplish a truly refined mix. I can't either, and these are characteristics I listen for and automatically handle, because they're just wired into my brain. THEy were wired in there when I was a young man, as ROy notes, mixing on consoles with rotary faders instead of sliders. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Ethan Winer" wrote in message ... On Jan 18, 2:46 pm, (hank alrich) wrote: It's not a given that mixing goes more rapidly and effectively using mice and computers than it does in real time using a console. Editing is not mixing, and there, computers are certainly more facile than razor blades and little pieces of tape. Yes, editing and mixing are different. But I still find mixing faster, and easier, and more fun, with on-screen envelope automation. Of course, easier and more fun are subjective. It also helps enormously to have two or more large video screens. If I had only one display, I'm sure mousing around in SONAR would be more of a chore. --Ethan Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy accidents, spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. It has revolutionised turd polishing too. Without all that potential millions of turd providers would be forced to occasionally stumble upon something half-way inspired, by accident, but turd can be sterilised to death nowadays and is perfectly recallable. On the positive side, the music has never looked better and the mouse-jockeys have never had so much fun. Nobody listens to it anyway. Predrag |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Richard Webb" wrote in message ... Fred writes: RIght, but the "look" of it isn't what I'm after. I'm after the sound. Screw what it looks like! The first time I heard a client saying after a take: "Now let's see how it sounds", I knew this wasn't going in the right direction. It didn't take long before I could no longer find comfort in the fact that I was spending billable hours correcting what the clients perceived as mistakes by watching the irregularities of the waveform on the screen. Predrag |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message
That still doesn't rule out the possibilty that they heard better results simply because they expected to. I'm not (yet) willing to accept the basic premise that there's a fundamental problem with digital summing. The fundamental problem with digital summing is that there's no fundamental problem. Unlike acoustic or analog summing, digital summing is accurate, reasonably free of artefacts. Some people, however, prefer the artefacts inherent in analog summing, especially when dealing with larger number of channels/instruments in the mix. Noise affects our perception of sound and seems to be indispensable regardless of technology. Otherwise it wouldn't have to be added to pristine digital signals at every stage of processing, including summing. Distortions color the sound. Some of them are perceived as more pleasing to the human ear than others. Analog summers, including analog consoles, all offer different packages of subtle distortions, hence the differences in sound. Some of the best brains in the industry have been engaged in creating software plug-ins that are supposed to emulate certain types of distortions, so there's obviously a need for them in the digital world too. Subtle phase anomalies/distortions between channels, in particular, help create false sense of space/depth, especially in low frequencies. While it's a non-issue in the digital world, it is difficult to fully avoid phase anomalies with analog technology, even when all electronic components are new. Sometimes it's a blessing in disguise. There's no big mystery. Analog summing offers relatively complex packages of subtle artefacts that are in many cases desirable, but still without an equivalent, at least as complete packages, in the form of digital processing. Predrag |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message
... Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy accidents, spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. It is so good to know that involving visual information goes so far way towards eliminating the right brain from the process that painting, drawing and sculpture are no longer considered to be creative arts. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Richard Webb" wrote in
message ... tHen you've the lady singer who gets louder after each breath intake, as you noted, and a guitar player whose levels are usable but at times not as consistent as they should be. sO your right hand ride gain on the vocalist, whilst your left rides gain on Mr. guitar, and a good listening experience is had by all. I don't run a lot of live sound nowadays, but when I do I get fairly ruthless with the compressors. They get applied in inverse proportion to the performers ability to control their levels - ranging from no compression for the really good players to merciless crushing for the truly clueless. I'll ride the faders some, but I'm not going to spend the whole show trying to be the human powered compression appliance. I guess it's good that I don't run sound more than I do. Sean |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message ... Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy accidents, spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. It is so good to know that involving visual information goes so far way towards eliminating the right brain from the process that painting, drawing and sculpture are no longer considered to be creative arts. You're making it hard for me, Arny. There's a difference between "involving" and "increasingly relying on", but if I insist on such subtleties I'd deny that you've made a point... everybody knows how important it is to you... and I'd question your reading comprehension too... Nah... you're right. Drawing perfect circles and squares is definitely creative art. Just like recording weekly church services. Predrag |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
On 1/20/2011 5:14 PM, Sean Conolly wrote:
"Richard wrote in message ... tHen you've the lady singer who gets louder after each breath intake, as you noted, and a guitar player whose levels are usable but at times not as consistent as they should be. sO your right hand ride gain on the vocalist, whilst your left rides gain on Mr. guitar, and a good listening experience is had by all. I don't run a lot of live sound nowadays, but when I do I get fairly ruthless with the compressors. They get applied in inverse proportion to the performers ability to control their levels - ranging from no compression for the really good players to merciless crushing for the truly clueless. I'll ride the faders some, but I'm not going to spend the whole show trying to be the human powered compression appliance. I guess it's good that I don't run sound more than I do. Sean Did you make any effort to give a clue to the clueless? I've found that some are truly interested in learning and are appreciate the hints. I loved working with those acts. I worked in a venue where I'd see the same acts every few months, so we could build a dialog. Some acts say "**** off" and they'd get the respect and attention to detail they'd, ummmm, earned. Hey, if they're truly clueless shouldn't someone at least try to give them a clue? Later... Ron Capik -- |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
In article ,
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote: People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. Yes. It's damn easy to mouse out some excitement!! It has revolutionised turd polishing too. Without all that potential millions of turd providers would be forced to occasionally stumble upon something half-way inspired, by accident, but turd can be sterilised to death Amen. I guess to some extent, engineers have always had turd polishing as part of our repertoire. But tools like Autotune, copy/paste & computer editing have allowed countless people to record their singing that really shouldn't be. On the other side of the coin, there are more people who want to record ; It's a challenge, like attacking a difficult crossword puzzle - can I actually make this lead vocal slightly acceptable? On the positive side, the music has never looked better and the mouse-jockeys have never had so much fun. Nobody listens to it anyway. Nice post. David Correia www.Celebrationsound.com |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message ... Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy accidents, spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. It is so good to know that involving visual information goes so far way towards eliminating the right brain from the process that painting, drawing and sculpture are no longer considered to be creative arts. You're making it hard for me, Arny. No, just pointing out the rather huge flaws in your claim. There's a difference between "involving" and "increasingly relying on", Why should anybody become involved or rely on yet another trip down an intellectual rabbit hole? Nah... you're right. Drawing perfect circles and squares is definitely creative art. Just like recording weekly church services. Please stop being so predictable! It almost makes reading your posts a waste of time. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
Roy W. Rising writes:
I guess it's time to weigh-in on this thread. Whether it's tracking, mixing, or shipping a performance live to a hundred million listener/viewers, I cannot sufficiently explain the synergism of "riding levels" with faders. It doesn't matter to me if the summing is digital or analog, as long as I can grab a knob and let something almost magic take place. doesn't it give you the heebie jeebies just thinking about entering the remote truck to find instead of faders and knobs one of those newfangled mix on a tablet pc systems? Just picture it, a projected half million viewers, a large ensemble on stage and things have changed at the last minute from what was expected, and now you get to fly this whole thing and create something listenable for everything from cheap tabletop televisions to home theater systems with a touchpad. tHen you've the lady singer who gets louder after each breath intake, as you noted, and a guitar player whose levels are usable but at times not as consistent as they should be. sO your right hand ride gain on the vocalist, whilst your left rides gain on Mr. guitar, and a good listening experience is had by all. But, with your touchpad, you touch this channel, move the virtual slider, touch this channel, back and forth ya go. eeeeew Regards, Richard .... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message ... Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy accidents, spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. It is so good to know that involving visual information goes so far way towards eliminating the right brain from the process that painting, drawing and sculpture are no longer considered to be creative arts. You're making it hard for me, Arny. No, just pointing out the rather huge flaws in your claim. There's a difference between "involving" and "increasingly relying on", Why should anybody become involved or rely on yet another trip down an intellectual rabbit hole? Nah... you're right. Drawing perfect circles and squares is definitely creative art. Just like recording weekly church services. Please stop being so predictable! It almost makes reading your posts a waste of time. You jumped to the gun, wrote something stupid and bent over. Now you're hurt and digging yourself deeper. I agree that it's predictable, but it's your call. Predrag |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
Fred writes:
Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy accidents, spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. YEah that it does. We're subjected to more people who couldn't bother with the basics, i.e. learn to play your instrument before you book studio time. It has revolutionised turd polishing too. Without all that potential millions of turd providers would be forced to occasionally stumble upon something half-way inspired, by accident, but turd can be sterilised to death nowadays and is perfectly recallable. rIght, but we can't be politically incorrect and tell people with minimal talent that they should choose another vocation, or hobby even. After all, we gotta be warm fuzzy and "inclusive" right! On the positive side, the music has never looked better and the mouse-jockeys have never had so much fun. Nobody listens to it anyway. RIght, but the "look" of it isn't what I'm after. I'm after the sound. Screw what it looks like! Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
On 2011-01-20 said: Then you've the lady singer who gets louder after each breath intake, as you noted, and a guitar player whose levels are usable but at times not as consistent as they should be. sO your right hand ride gain on the vocalist, whilst your left rides gain on Mr. guitar, and a good listening experience is had by all. I don't run a lot of live sound nowadays, but when I do I get fairly ruthless with the compressors. They get applied in inverse proportion to the performers ability to control their levels - ranging from no compression for the really good players to merciless crushing for the truly clueless. I'll ride the faders some, but I'm not going to spend the whole show trying to be the human powered compression appliance. I guess it's good that I don't run sound more than I do. Right, I"ll strap a compressor across the channel of the truly clueless, but we're not talking big changes here, just something you find yourself doing subconsciously for those little tics that would be noticeable if left in, but aren't really enough for you to really bother with strapping a piece of gear across the channel, especially if dynamics processsing is limited. THe most needy of it get it first of course, but sometimes that's going to take all you've got grin. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
On 2011-01-20 said: Fred writes: RIght, but the "look" of it isn't what I'm after. I'm after the sound. Screw what it looks like! The first time I heard a client saying after a take: "Now let's see how it sounds", I knew this wasn't going in the right direction. It didn't take long before I could no longer find comfort in the fact that I was spending billable hours correcting what the clients perceived as mistakes by watching the irregularities of the waveform on the screen. Yep, doesn't surprise me. That's why I work in the niche I do, I don't get asked if I have autotune, or I can't just paste that chorus in the others because the singer can't get it right and we coaxed a good partial take out of him/her. IF they need to do that with tracks I record for them I already got paid and handed it over to them to take to another facility. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
Predrag Trpkov wrote:
"Ethan Winer" wrote in message ... On Jan 18, 2:46 pm, (hank alrich) wrote: It's not a given that mixing goes more rapidly and effectively using mice and computers than it does in real time using a console. Editing is not mixing, and there, computers are certainly more facile than razor blades and little pieces of tape. Yes, editing and mixing are different. But I still find mixing faster, and easier, and more fun, with on-screen envelope automation. Of course, easier and more fun are subjective. It also helps enormously to have two or more large video screens. If I had only one display, I'm sure mousing around in SONAR would be more of a chore. --Ethan Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy accidents, spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. It has revolutionised turd polishing too. Without all that potential millions of turd providers would be forced to occasionally stumble upon something half-way inspired, by accident, but turd can be sterilised to death nowadays and is perfectly recallable. On the positive side, the music has never looked better and the mouse-jockeys have never had so much fun. Nobody listens to it anyway. Predrag Love it, Predrag! -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message ... Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy accidents, spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. It is so good to know that involving visual information goes so far way towards eliminating the right brain from the process that painting, drawing and sculpture are no longer considered to be creative arts. They are not generally considered musical art, a few dynamic sculptures aside. There's a reason blind people usually hear better than sighted folks. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
david correia wrote:
In article , "Predrag Trpkov" wrote: People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. Yes. It's damn easy to mouse out some excitement!! It has revolutionised turd polishing too. Without all that potential millions of turd providers would be forced to occasionally stumble upon something half-way inspired, by accident, but turd can be sterilised to death Amen. I guess to some extent, engineers have always had turd polishing as part of our repertoire. But tools like Autotune, copy/paste & computer editing have allowed countless people to record their singing that really shouldn't be. On the other side of the coin, there are more people who want to record ; It's a challenge, like attacking a difficult crossword puzzle - can I actually make this lead vocal slightly acceptable? On the positive side, the music has never looked better and the mouse-jockeys have never had so much fun. Nobody listens to it anyway. Nice post. I second that emotion. His post is a lot more entertaining than plenty of music currently being produced. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
Roy W. Rising writes:
levels" with faders. It doesn't matter to me if the summing is digital or analog, as long as I can grab a knob and let something almost magic take place. Couldn't agree more... however, where I've been lucky (in being pushed by one client in particular with whom there is much mutual respect) is that I've been doing the equivalent of "level riding with faders" when I manipulate gain lines with a mouse. And many of my moves are subtle, just like they were with faders. (BTW, screw the DAW capturing mouse moves on a pictograph fader. Yeech!! If that's your disdain, I'm with you completely. Instead, go directly to the automation control lines and learn the tricks to making moves there. That's a 100 times more precise, satisfying, and way less fatiguing.) Somehow, I've managed to now get that same visceral feeling from nudging a gain line as I used to get from touching faders (or even round knobs). I still love the feel of an old Quad-Eight or SSL, don't get me wrong, but I've been able to transfer that feel. And the glories a - that stupid machine remembers the magic; it is in fact REPEATABLE magic (should I need to revisit the mix for whatever reason); - if, on reflection two weeks later that mix wasn't as magical as we all thought because the intensity of the moment was compensating for something, I can adjust those pieces of magic that were slightly out of whack. Then I wind up with truly timeless magic. - and ALL the magic, all the nuance, all the seemingly infinite little tugs and tweaks and nudges are all there, for later complete and perfect recall so that (a) I can see why this mix really worked or (b) FIX something that I overlooked (or make some minor improvement) without the dread associated with resetting a ton of outboard gear (or any non-automated settings). I step right back into the magic simply by reopening a project file, rather than by staring at my setup notes or even photographs while trying to reset everything "just so". In fact, the single biggest advance with a DAW might be the ability to set aside a project and come back much later, when you have fresh ears and a fresh mind, and pick up _exactly_ where you left off. (And you might be interleaving a dozen projects in this way. Occasionally, the change from one thing to another will actually help clarify some other project.) Before there were linear faders, successful soundmixers were characterized as "having a good fist (or wrist)". This meant there was some kind of ear-brain-muscle connection that allowed them to keep things under control without the help of leveling devices like compressors and limiters. Indeed! Seems that I can now do this with gain lines, and 7 times out of 10 I'll do a move there rather than rely on a compressor. After a few decades of mixing, I noticed that my hand was making small adjustments of the vocal mics without my conscious attention to the levels. For example, some voices tend to get louder after a breath. Somehow I heard the breath and automatically adjusted for the level change. When these tweaks take place upstream of the leveling device, a very commercial "smoothness" is the result. Absolutely! I simply can't imagine NOT using a fader to accomplish a truly refined mix. And this is where I've gone the other way. Great things can be done with either method; to me (as one who for a long while grumbled about using a mouse), the DAW method has the advantage of relentless memory (NOT always a good thing, I will freely acknowledge! w) The trick comes from knowing what to do and what not to do, with either method. And this is where those who were schooled in analog have an advantage. What might have seemed like limitations at various points along the way were actually valuable guardrails to protect the music. But when you can use that aesthetic with the newer tools, I think you could do the same remarkable things you always did in analog. And you'd do so with a new freedom that once past the awkwardness, you'd be thrilled to have. YMMV; just don't completely give up on it. For the year of my transition I almost did -- more than once -- but am so glad now that I did not. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
On 2011-01-20 said: snip Couldn't agree more... however, where I've been lucky (in being pushed by one client in particular with whom there is much mutual respect) is that I've been doing the equivalent of "level riding with faders" when I manipulate gain lines with a mouse. And many of my moves are subtle, just like they were with faders. (BTW, screw the DAW capturing mouse moves on a pictograph fader. Yeech!! If that's your disdain, I'm with you completely. Instead, go directly to the automation control lines and learn the tricks to making moves there. snip still love the feel of an old Quad-Eight or SSL, don't get me wrong, but I've been able to transfer that feel. And the glories a - that stupid machine remembers the magic; it is in fact REPEATABLE magic (should I need to revisit the mix for whatever reason); - if, on reflection two weeks later that mix wasn't as magical as we all thought because the intensity of the moment was compensating for something, I can adjust those pieces of magic that were slightly out of whack. Then I wind up with truly timeless magic. INdeed, but there again, you learned the craft before you had all these tools, and have control of the process, instead of the process controlling you. I'm also sure that if you were mixing for a live broadcast, gotta get it right now, that you'd also prefer your hardware controls, or at least a control surface. This is also why I do what I do and encourage folks to take the project after capture to somebody who utilizes those tools effectively. WHen the original Yamaha came out with snapshot automation a friend of mine bought one in his studio. Once the two old blind men old farts got it figured out we liked it for a couple of projects we were working with, least gave us a starting point. At the mixing stage of a multitrack project I"ll usually find myself a good mouse jockey who also understands the old ways if I"m babysitting the project through that point, and take full advantage of the capabilities a daw offers. But, when it's for the money right now, I want my physical controls. Having said that, there are folks I"ve used on a mix only once, because the process gets in the way of getting the work done. Regards, Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"hank alrich" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message ... Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy accidents, spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. It is so good to know that involving visual information goes so far way towards eliminating the right brain from the process that painting, drawing and sculpture are no longer considered to be creative arts. They are not generally considered musical art, a few dynamic sculptures aside. So what? The claim was made that "visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process" There's a reason blind people usually hear better than sighted folks. I may be foolish but I think that there's a reason why I can mix and record so much better when I can actually see the performers. I work in one venue where I'm over 100 feet from the performers. If I hold up my arm and stick up my thumb, it completely obscures one or two performers. I work in a number of other venues where I mix and/or record from close enough to smell the performer's perfume. Guess where I do my best work? We've already had the same person who allowed that visual information is a detriment to creativity admit that his real problem with what I do is that he feels that one of the genres of music that I work with is totally and completely non-creative at any level. I think this says it all. He obviously can't relate to anything but his own narrow experience and bigotry. He could easily feel the same about some of the genres that you work with. I could be wrong but I think that audio production is actually a multi-media activity, even when the end product may be entirely compsed of just sound. And, unlike our narrow-minded correspondant, I think that all genres of music and vocal expression are worthy of our most creative and professional efforts. Southern gospel and Blue Grass aren't my mostest favorite cups of tea, but I still tackle gigs involving them with the same creative effort and enthusiasm as anything else. It's music! |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
wrote in message ... On 2011-01-20 said: Fred writes: RIght, but the "look" of it isn't what I'm after. I'm after the sound. Screw what it looks like! The first time I heard a client saying after a take: "Now let's see how it sounds", I knew this wasn't going in the right direction. It didn't take long before I could no longer find comfort in the fact that I was spending billable hours correcting what the clients perceived as mistakes by watching the irregularities of the waveform on the screen. Yep, doesn't surprise me. That's why I work in the niche I do, I don't get asked if I have autotune, or I can't just paste that chorus in the others because the singer can't get it right and we coaxed a good partial take out of him/her. IF they need to do that with tracks I record for them I already got paid and handed it over to them to take to another facility. You're lucky. I could never afford the real estate that would match the level of equipment I had and was daydreaming about owning just a modest remote truck for years, even before the mice and the associated madness took over. It combines two things I love: recording live music and travelling. Sadly, and this is a proven fact, in this small, pretzel-shaped country of four and a half million people, one can't keep paying the bills running a remote truck, let alone return the investment. Predrag |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Analog summing
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "hank alrich" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Predrag Trpkov" wrote in message ... Increasing reliance on visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process. No happy accidents, spur of the moment things. People tend to make everything in the mix tidy, free of noises, free of human imperfections and perfectly proportional... It's boring to listen to, but progress has its price. It is so good to know that involving visual information goes so far way towards eliminating the right brain from the process that painting, drawing and sculpture are no longer considered to be creative arts. They are not generally considered musical art, a few dynamic sculptures aside. So what? The claim was made that "visual information certainly goes a long way towards eliminating the right brain from the process" No, that's only a part of it, pulled out of a context in order to distort its meaning. This is not a decent thing to do, but you have never been able to control that urge of yours, to make a point at all costs. There's a reason blind people usually hear better than sighted folks. I may be foolish but I think that there's a reason why I can mix and record so much better when I can actually see the performers. I work in one venue where I'm over 100 feet from the performers. If I hold up my arm and stick up my thumb, it completely obscures one or two performers. I work in a number of other venues where I mix and/or record from close enough to smell the performer's perfume. Guess where I do my best work? We're discussing mixing with the mouse and computer screen, as the predominant user interface in a modern recording studio. Stop shifting the subject. Nobody has heard your musical achievements anyway. What you consider your best work is meaningless. You keep sabotaging interesting discussions on studio production with clueless counterclaims and, when pushed to substantiate, your entire "expertise" eventually reverts to your epic experience in recording weekly church services. Please, please, pretty please, respect your limits and stop polluting the newsgroup. We've already had the same person who allowed that visual information is a detriment to creativity admit that his real problem with what I do is that he feels that one of the genres of music that I work with is totally and completely non-creative at any level. I think this says it all. He obviously can't relate to anything but his own narrow experience and bigotry. He could easily feel the same about some of the genres that you work with. I could be wrong but I think that audio production is actually a multi-media activity, even when the end product may be entirely compsed of just sound. And, unlike our narrow-minded correspondant, I think that all genres of music and vocal expression are worthy of our most creative and professional efforts. Southern gospel and Blue Grass aren't my mostest favorite cups of tea, but I still tackle gigs involving them with the same creative effort and enthusiasm as anything else. It's music! You've made a fool of yourself again and now you're trying to cover it up by spewing loads of BS. Deja vu. Predrag |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Analog Summing Mixers | Pro Audio | |||
| Analog Summing Mixers | Pro Audio | |||
| analog summing vs. digital summing | Pro Audio | |||
| for the analog summing crowd - what are you using to AD your stereo mix? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
