[Gary Eickmeier]

One of the old audio chestnuts is Floyd Toole's "Circle of Confusion," which
says that we can't be sure about our speakers because they were developed
using recordings that were made using speakers as the reference, and so on,
so how do we know where we're at in the process? I hope I have stated that
right.

Anyway, I do not edit or equalize "to" any speakers in particular, because I
am just using my little computer speaker system and relying on my
microphones for the basic sound quality. This has always paid off, because
whenever I have attempted some improvements in EQ it has proven to not be an
improvement to the natural sound from my Audio Technicas. No, they are not
DAPs, but they are good.

So the question is do you equalize to your monitors or do you just use them
to listen to the content and set levels and balances and layers and leave
the fidelity alone?

Gary Eickmeier

[Trevor]

On 20/07/2016 1:30 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
One of the old audio chestnuts is Floyd Toole's "Circle of Confusion," which
says that we can't be sure about our speakers because they were developed
using recordings that were made using speakers as the reference, and so on,
so how do we know where we're at in the process? I hope I have stated that
right.

An old concept that ignores the fact that most speakers for some time
now are based on superior measurement technology, and those that are
solely based on one persons listening tests almost invariably suit only
a smaller number of listeners.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 20/07/2016 6:39 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 20/07/2016 1:30 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
One of the old audio chestnuts is Floyd Toole's "Circle of Confusion,"
which
says that we can't be sure about our speakers because they were developed
using recordings that were made using speakers as the reference, and
so on,
so how do we know where we're at in the process? I hope I have stated
that
right.

An old concept that ignores the fact that most speakers for some time
now are based on superior measurement technology, and those that are
solely based on one persons listening tests almost invariably suit only
a smaller number of listeners.

Trevor.


I am happy I know that my recoding studio monitors are reasonably good
fidelity and suited to their job. I also have a reasonable understanding
of how they relate to other speakers, to recorded live sund, and to real
live sound.

The monitors I use for editing are different again, and the monitors I
use for my limited level of mastering are way superior fidelity to the
previously mentioned ones. As these are likely hugely better than those
of any clients, or their audience, I also have to appreciate how these
translate to 'average' speakers, and car audio systems.

geoff

[Frank Stearns]

"Gary Eickmeier" writes:

snips

So the question is do you equalize to your monitors or do you just use them
to listen to the content and set levels and balances and layers and leave
the fidelity alone?

Step 1 is knowing what the room is doing (and we're not talking about a simple 1/3
octave plot here -- energy, time, frequency: knowing what all are doing, their
interaction, and the appropriate treatments, will be key).

Otherwise, if something is out of whack (and rest assured it will be unless the room
has been properly designed and treated) the monitors themselves are effectively
meaningless, in terms of making any mix decisions.

Step 2 is selecting monitors based on a long list of compromises, and then still
maybe having a second and third pair for sanity checks.

Step 3 is taking your stuff out of house for listening, and bringing other stuff in
house for listening. And, a parallel step is getting out periodically to listen to
purely acoustic music in a good room (no damned mics or speakers ANYWHERE) to
continually refresh your ears as to what real sound is like.

If you're pretty good with a lot of experience, in a pinch you can "translate" bad
monitoring into good monitoring inside your head, but it's tiring. Much better to be
in a good room. Being able to do such a translation, though, is built on having
spent time in good rooms and time with instruments and voices directly, no
transducers between your ears and the source.

For some genres of pop music, none of this really matters. You just make it very
loud with steep-valley EQ and knuckle-dragging droolers who like that kind of stuff
are thrilled. But if it's something a little better, you'll want a little better
sonics...

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[John Williamson]

On 20/07/2016 10:02, Frank Stearns wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" writes:

snips

So the question is do you equalize to your monitors or do you just use them
to listen to the content and set levels and balances and layers and leave
the fidelity alone?

Step 1 is knowing what the room is doing (and we're not talking about a simple 1/3
octave plot here -- energy, time, frequency: knowing what all are doing, their
interaction, and the appropriate treatments, will be key).

Otherwise, if something is out of whack (and rest assured it will be unless the room
has been properly designed and treated) the monitors themselves are effectively
meaningless, in terms of making any mix decisions.

Step 2 is selecting monitors based on a long list of compromises, and then still
maybe having a second and third pair for sanity checks.

Step 3 is taking your stuff out of house for listening, and bringing other stuff in
house for listening. And, a parallel step is getting out periodically to listen to
purely acoustic music in a good room (no damned mics or speakers ANYWHERE) to
continually refresh your ears as to what real sound is like.

If you're pretty good with a lot of experience, in a pinch you can "translate" bad
monitoring into good monitoring inside your head, but it's tiring. Much better to be
in a good room. Being able to do such a translation, though, is built on having
spent time in good rooms and time with instruments and voices directly, no
transducers between your ears and the source.

For some genres of pop music, none of this really matters. You just make it very
loud with steep-valley EQ and knuckle-dragging droolers who like that kind of stuff
are thrilled. But if it's something a little better, you'll want a little better
sonics...

Well said that man.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 7:03:39 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/19/2016 11:30 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Anyway, I do not edit or equalize "to" any speakers in particular, because I
am just using my little computer speaker system and relying on my
microphones for the basic sound quality. This has always paid off, because
whenever I have attempted some improvements in EQ it has proven to not be an
improvement to the natural sound from my Audio Technicas.

So the question is do you equalize to your monitors or do you just use them
to listen to the content and set levels and balances and layers and leave
the fidelity alone?

Strangely enough, although every speaker has its characteristic sound,
once you get to using speakers that are reasonably smooth and can
reproduce the full range of frequencies present in your recordings, AND
your acoustic space isn't making a good speaker inaccurate, you can use
those speakers as a reliable reference.

If you're getting good results without mucking with equalization of the
overall mix, that's nothing to worry about. When you record something
that you want the whole world to hear, it's worth taking it to an
experienced mastering engineer rather than messing with it yourself.

Since most of your work is pretty straight from mic to recorder, you
aren't using EQ to make things fit together in a complex mix. When
working with equalizing individual tracks, it's useful to listen to the
mix on a couple of different speakers to be sure that you aren't going
to lose a track when the mix is played on a speaker that can't handle
its frequency range well.

Very good point. I bring some of my mixes to work, to hear hoe cheap Dell computer speakers handle the sound. A bit too much bass, they distort, so I'd rather be a bit bass shy, since everyone listens to music with cheap computer speakers! Besides, man created a Tone control, then Bass & Treble controls, then Bass, Midrange & Treble controls, then multi-band Equalizers. Who needs a "perfect" balance?

Jack

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

So the question is do you equalize to your monitors or do you just use them
to listen to the content and set levels and balances and layers and leave
the fidelity alone?

Equalization doesn't fix room problems. It can hide some room problems in
a single location.

A good argument can be made for one or two poles of equalization in the
low octave (well below the Schroeder frequency), but any more than that
is just asking for trouble.

Fix the room and the speakers, don't try to hide problems with equalization.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

So the question is do you equalize to your monitors or do you just use
them
to listen to the content and set levels and balances and layers and leave
the fidelity alone?

Equalization doesn't fix room problems. It can hide some room problems in
a single location.

A good argument can be made for one or two poles of equalization in the
low octave (well below the Schroeder frequency), but any more than that
is just asking for trouble.

Fix the room and the speakers, don't try to hide problems with
equalization.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Thanks to everyone. Very interesting. Toole's Circle of Confusion should
really include trying to mix for all kinds of speakers and playback systems.
But you probably know the market for any particular recording. As for
familiarizing yourself with acoustic music every once in a while, of course
you do that every time you go out and record, right? Which brings us to the
other major quandary about recording, which is being able to monitor your
microphones and rough mix on location. I do it more by eye than ear, because
there is no monitoring room and headphones can't tell you enough about the
stereo you are getting. I just rely on microphones that I know and place
them where I know the pickup pattern will "see" the right area.

Gary Eickmeier

[[email protected]]

I do it more by eye than ear, because
there is no monitoring room and headphones can't tell you enough about the
stereo you are getting. I just rely on microphones that I know and place
them where I know the pickup pattern will "see" the right area.

Gary Eickmeier

high isolation headphones can be helpful in the field but not with the stereo image

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
I do it more by eye than ear, because
there is no monitoring room and headphones can't tell you enough about the
stereo you are getting. I just rely on microphones that I know and place
them where I know the pickup pattern will "see" the right area.

high isolation headphones can be helpful in the field but not with the stereo image


Monitors matter 100%. If you don't have good monitoring, you can't make
accurate equalization decisions, you can't make accurate microphone placement
decisions, you can't tell if the conductor's podium is squeaking or the
bass amp is too close to the wall. Without good monitoring you have nothing
but guesses.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

As long as there's a Mount Everest of energy
between 2-4kHz in the things, that's all that
"matters".. bwa ha ha HA HAAAAH!!


86 thread..

[JackA]

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 2:55:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
As long as there's a Mount Everest of energy
between 2-4kHz in the things, that's all that
"matters".. bwa ha ha HA HAAAAH!!


86 thread..

I do hope you are enjoying your Barbie & Ken mastered CDs!

Jack

[JackA]

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 8:36:37 AM UTC-4, wrote:
I do it more by eye than ear, because
there is no monitoring room and headphones can't tell you enough about the
stereo you are getting. I just rely on microphones that I know and place
them where I know the pickup pattern will "see" the right area.

Gary Eickmeier

high isolation headphones can be helpful in the field but not with the stereo image

Speakers come in handy for detecting out of phase conditions. It's is tough to do with headphones!

Jack

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/21/2016 5:33 PM, JackA wrote:

Speakers come in handy for detecting out of phase conditions. It's is tough to do with headphones!

Really? When listening on headphones, if there's too much out-of-phase
material (I'm talking about phase between left and right channels of a
stereo signal, not between two mics on a guitar) it sounds like your
face is going to tear down the middle.

The best way to detect out-of-phase anything, if you can't hear it, is a
"mono" switch. Listen for what goes away.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/21/2016 5:33 PM, JackA wrote:

Speakers come in handy for detecting out of phase conditions. It's is tough to do with headphones!

Really? When listening on headphones, if there's too much out-of-phase
material (I'm talking about phase between left and right channels of a
stereo signal, not between two mics on a guitar) it sounds like your
face is going to tear down the middle.

The best way to detect out-of-phase anything, if you can't hear it, is a
"mono" switch. Listen for what goes away.

Please stop saying "phase" when you mean "polarity."
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/21/2016 7:31 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Please stop saying "phase" when you mean "polarity."

Out of polarity at the same volume and with the same content will go
away when combined to mono. Out of phase material when combined in mono
will partially go away.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 5:56:09 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 7/21/2016 5:33 PM, JackA wrote:

Speakers come in handy for detecting out of phase conditions. It's is tough to do with headphones!

Really? When listening on headphones, if there's too much out-of-phase
material (I'm talking about phase between left and right channels of a
stereo signal, not between two mics on a guitar) it sounds like your
face is going to tear down the middle.

The best way to detect out-of-phase anything, if you can't hear it, is a
"mono" switch. Listen for what goes away.

So, you have two speaker, side-by-side. Follow we?
When there BASS in the song, shared between the two stereo channels, the L&R speaker cones both simultaneously move in and out. Okay?

So, we invert one channel, okay?

Now, we create a condition with air pressure, where one cone is moving out while the other moves in. What do we hear? That's correct, lack of bass, and other oddities.

Now, with headphones, assuming they are isolated (closed back), no longer SHARE the same air, so it makes it near impossible to detect out of phase.

Granted, one [Stereo] song I found in usenet (yet to appear on CD), it did sound a bit odd, I did what I could to digitally enhance. I get to work, and, boy, with speakers, it sounded even worse. So I invert one channel and it sounds much better.

Granted, we may be talking two different conditions, phasing and inversion. I do apologize, if so.

Actually, good point, Mike. Early on, Koss introduced Stereo headphones, but on them they offered a Mono switch, so you could hear how congested Mono sounds, like a bad head cold, with Stereo mixes. I understand it helped sales and made others believe in stereo mixes.

Jack

p.s. Whoops, I haven't even posted, and I do see Scott below. Okay, we'll call it "polarity". I guess you really can't change "phase" of music, maybe with stereo, advancing or retarding one (L or R) stereo track.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I do it more by eye than ear, because
there is no monitoring room and headphones can't tell you enough about
the
stereo you are getting. I just rely on microphones that I know and place
them where I know the pickup pattern will "see" the right area.

high isolation headphones can be helpful in the field but not with the
stereo image


Monitors matter 100%. If you don't have good monitoring, you can't make
accurate equalization decisions, you can't make accurate microphone
placement
decisions, you can't tell if the conductor's podium is squeaking or the
bass amp is too close to the wall. Without good monitoring you have
nothing
but guesses.
--scott

Er... well... heh - I am severely limited in my mike placement anyway, due
to the live event and sight lines and the wishes of the maestro. I just
place my stereo pair (MS, usually) up in the first row center, connect it up
through an existing XLR feed to the sound and lighting board desk at the
back and sit there with my Zoom H6 and start the recorder. The last concert
of the season I decided to try some surround sound, so I connected an
additional pair in the back right near my position. It worked, but I think
the surround could be better.

Gary

[JackA]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 3:52:41 AM UTC-4, Geoff wrote:
On 20/07/2016 6:39 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 20/07/2016 1:30 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
One of the old audio chestnuts is Floyd Toole's "Circle of Confusion,"
which
says that we can't be sure about our speakers because they were developed
using recordings that were made using speakers as the reference, and
so on,
so how do we know where we're at in the process? I hope I have stated
that
right.

An old concept that ignores the fact that most speakers for some time
now are based on superior measurement technology, and those that are
solely based on one persons listening tests almost invariably suit only
a smaller number of listeners.

Trevor.


I am happy I know that my recoding studio monitors are reasonably good
fidelity and suited to their job. I also have a reasonable understanding
of how they relate to other speakers, to recorded live sund, and to real
live sound.

What is "sund"?

What screen resolution do you like for doing audio work?

Jack


The monitors I use for editing are different again, and the monitors I
use for my limited level of mastering are way superior fidelity to the
previously mentioned ones. As these are likely hugely better than those
of any clients, or their audience, I also have to appreciate how these
translate to 'average' speakers, and car audio systems.

geoff