Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
if one can't afford proper room treatment is using an RTA in the aux
channel a viable solution for someone with a small home studio with no ambitions other than making good sounding dream pop recordings. all of my music has live drums, bass, guitars, keys, percussion, reeds, and sometimes real strings. i've never used an RTA, but sometimes peaple complain that my trax are a little bottom heavy. i play bass, BTW... tia, mac |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:46:12 -0800 (PST), mcnews
wrote: if one can't afford proper room treatment is using an RTA in the aux channel a viable solution for someone with a small home studio with no ambitions other than making good sounding dream pop recordings. all of my music has live drums, bass, guitars, keys, percussion, reeds, and sometimes real strings. i've never used an RTA, but sometimes peaple complain that my trax are a little bottom heavy. i play bass, BTW... tia, mac Depends what you mean by proper room treatment. There are some keys to a good sound. Make sure you don't have areas of flat wall facing each other. Stand things against walls - useful things like racks of equipment, books etc. If the room sounds too bright, a rail of coats can tame it nicely. You don't really need an RTA. Put an omni mic in the centre, start it recording and clap your hands. You now have a heap of information about the room. You can apply filters and measure the RT60 time in various bands; that will tell you how to balance further treatments. If you are lucky Ethan Winer will pick up this thread and give you some good advice - this is his area of expertise. Now, your recordings. Do they sound bass-heavy to you? If they do, then balance them better. If they don't, then turn up the bass on your monitors; that will make you mix the bass a bit lighter. Listen to your mixes in as many places as you can - the studio, at home, in cars, your friends' house, on boom boxes etc. Be critical and decide if they are right, or what is wrong. Then you can go about fixing it. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
mcnews wrote:
if one can't afford proper room treatment is using an RTA in the aux channel a viable solution for someone with a small home studio with no ambitions other than making good sounding dream pop recordings. all of my music has live drums, bass, guitars, keys, percussion, reeds, and sometimes real strings. No. i've never used an RTA, but sometimes peaple complain that my trax are a little bottom heavy. Then the RTA will tell you that they are a little bottom heavy, which is something you already know. i play bass, BTW... That might explain why your tracks are a little bottom heavy. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
On Jan 25, 8:46 am, mcnews wrote:
if one can't afford proper room treatment is using an RTA in the aux channel a viable solution No. If you know how to interpret the display (which is very difficult when displaying music) you can tell if there are frequency ranges that are likely to be too weak or too prevalent in your mix, but you already know that. There's a recent flood of tools for "room correction" that add some equalization to your monitoring chain to flatten out frequency response at a single listening position or come up with an average for several spots, but these work only if you're listening in exactly the right spot. The best thing to do is fix at least the worst low frequency problems in your room, then listen to your mixes on different speakers and make adjustments based on your listening. Or do the best you can, then turn the mix over to a competent and properly equipped mastering engineer. Though this isn't a perfect solution, they're pretty good at recognizing and repairing misleading monitor information. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
On 2008-01-25, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Then the RTA will tell you that they are a little bottom heavy, which is something you already know. RTA? Some form of analyser as opposed to corrector? "Room Time Analyser" at a guess? I've wondered in live mixing, standing in the middle of a church so challenging acoustics and noisy punters (OK, they're singing), how much bass guitar to use. I sometimes wonder if my own ability to hear bass notes isn't always good, or if maybe all that mass of standing singing audience is soaking it up a bit. I can understand loss of upper hearing, and despite cisplatin chemotherapy I think I do well at about 13kHz now. I can no longer hear faulty computer monitors or cat scaring devices which is in some ways a blessing. I hope that loss of that range isn't too much of a problem for mixing though have wondered if I should eq it out a bit in case something nasty happens up there that I can't hear but my audience can. Can you lose lower end too? I've been known to ask other audience what they think of the level of the bass guitar in my mix. So far it's been OK. - Richard -- _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
Mac,
The correct solution is to treat your room, especially with bass traps. I imagine you already know that. If you're on a tight budget there's still plenty you can do. For example, plastic bags of fiberglass from the hardware store stacked up in corners are effective if unsightly. Much more is in my Acoustics FAQ: http://www.ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html --Ethan |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
"Richard Corfield" wrote in
message nal.littondale.dyndns.org I've wondered in live mixing, standing in the middle of a church so challenging acoustics and noisy punters (OK, they're singing), how much bass guitar to use. Turn the bass up until you can just start feeling it in your chest and gut. The final adjustment should be determined by consulting this chart: (1) Contemporary - Set levels to OSHA limits, and then add more as the Spirit moves. (1) Charismatic - who is OSHA? (3) Blended - back it off quite a bit (4) Traditional - what are you doing with a bass guitar? :-) I sometimes wonder if my own ability to hear bass notes isn't always good, or if maybe all that mass of standing singing audience is soaking it up a bit. I face similar challenges and concerns. I think the biggest challenge is to get the vocals and rhythm to cut through all the masking due to congregational singing. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
In article . littondale.dyndns.org,
Richard Corfield wrote: On 2008-01-25, Scott Dorsey wrote: Then the RTA will tell you that they are a little bottom heavy, which is something you already know. RTA? Some form of analyser as opposed to corrector? "Room Time Analyser" at a guess? Real time analyzer. Until the seventies, a spectrum analyzer usually required a fairly slow operation with swept filters that moves across the band. But in the seventies, analyzers that could handle it in realtime with multiple notch filters (and later with FFT systems) came available. I've wondered in live mixing, standing in the middle of a church so challenging acoustics and noisy punters (OK, they're singing), how much bass guitar to use. I sometimes wonder if my own ability to hear bass notes isn't always good, or if maybe all that mass of standing singing audience is soaking it up a bit. Move around the room. The problem with low end is that standing waves will mean the low end sounds dramatically different in different places. EQ can't help this, but getting a sense of where it's a problem and where it isn't can help a lot. I can understand loss of upper hearing, and despite cisplatin chemotherapy I think I do well at about 13kHz now. I can no longer hear faulty computer monitors or cat scaring devices which is in some ways a blessing. I hope that loss of that range isn't too much of a problem for mixing though have wondered if I should eq it out a bit in case something nasty happens up there that I can't hear but my audience can. I would think it would be a severe problem, but get someone to back you up and see if THEY think it is a problem. Can you lose lower end too? Yes, but not as easily. I've been known to ask other audience what they think of the level of the bass guitar in my mix. So far it's been OK. That's all you can do. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
On 2008-01-25, Arny Krueger wrote:
Turn the bass up until you can just start feeling it in your chest and gut. I'll suggest an investment in industrial subwoofers forthwith ;-) The final adjustment should be determined by consulting this chart: (1) Contemporary - Set levels to OSHA limits, and then add more as the Spirit moves. (1) Charismatic - who is OSHA? (3) Blended - back it off quite a bit (4) Traditional - what are you doing with a bass guitar? :-) ROTFL! Who's OSHA? Health'n'Safety? I sometimes wonder if my own ability to hear bass notes isn't always good, or if maybe all that mass of standing singing audience is soaking it up a bit. I face similar challenges and concerns. I think the biggest challenge is to get the vocals and rhythm to cut through all the masking due to congregational singing. Same here really. I'm glad I'm not the only one. - Richard -- _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
On 2008-01-25, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I can understand loss of upper hearing, and despite cisplatin chemotherapy I think I do well at about 13kHz now. I can no longer hear faulty computer monitors or cat scaring devices which is in some ways a blessing. I hope that loss of that range isn't too much of a problem for mixing though have wondered if I should eq it out a bit in case something nasty happens up there that I can't hear but my audience can. I would think it would be a severe problem, but get someone to back you up and see if THEY think it is a problem. Phooey! How well do older people do at mixing? I wonder if it's worth getting it tested one day. I used to have really good range and was one of the few in the office who did hear the faulty monitors, but then again I'm still here. It's no scuba diving either :-( so I went skiing instead :-) - Richard -- _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
In article . littondale.dyndns.org,
Richard Corfield wrote: On 2008-01-25, Scott Dorsey wrote: I can understand loss of upper hearing, and despite cisplatin chemotherapy I think I do well at about 13kHz now. I can no longer hear faulty computer monitors or cat scaring devices which is in some ways a blessing. I hope that loss of that range isn't too much of a problem for mixing though have wondered if I should eq it out a bit in case something nasty happens up there that I can't hear but my audience can. I would think it would be a severe problem, but get someone to back you up and see if THEY think it is a problem. Phooey! How well do older people do at mixing? I wonder if it's worth getting it tested one day. I used to have really good range and was one of the few in the office who did hear the faulty monitors, but then again I'm still here. It's no scuba diving either :-( so I went skiing instead :-) Some do well and some do poorly; I think it's a matter of learning to adjust to deficits as much as anything else. I know a lot of PA guys who have no top end, though, and pump the treble up until it's screechy and unlistenable for everyone else. Yes, you should get tested, and then you should get tested again, say once a year. If you make it to the AES show, the guys from the House Ear Institute will test you for free. Note that none of the standard tests go above 8 KC, because going higher than that requires compensating for the differences in ear structures between different people and it becomes more expensive. But if there is a severe enough problem, it'll show up below 8 KC too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Note that none of the standard tests go above 8 KC, because going higher than that requires compensating for the differences in ear structures between different people and it becomes more expensive. Hmmm ... I always thought it was based on the religion of "important for speech" discounting all other aural pleasure. But if there is a severe enough problem, it'll show up below 8 KC too. Interestingly the most likely place for early impulse noise damage is 6 kHz and falls smack dab in the gap between spot checking at exactly 4000 Hz and exactly 8000 Hz. Anyway, it was a different rant I had on my mind, namely that one should not confuse hearing threshold with frequency response of hearing and that one needs to understand the concept of recruitment and the fact that signal at neighboring lower frequencies add as a bias that facilitates audibility. It is the latter effect that is the cause of people seemingly being able to hear above what their threshold graph suggests that they are good at. But it is a nuisance to talk to the house staff during the intermission and hear them saying "Ah, the bell is chiming, they (the audience) are coming back in" ..... --scott Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
Some people like, some people dislike Har-Bal. I can tell you that it might
be a good tool for you to study commercial audio EQ's. You can load a commercial song in Har-Bal. Once loaded it will visually show you to average/peak/RMS of the song. You can then load one of your recordings into Har-Bal. As you compare the 2 recording you can "see" if you bottom end is too much. Then you could go back to the recording and fix the problems in the mix. Har-bal will also help you with the 13K+ areas. You will be able to "see" what you have done. It will show you if there is information above 13K, but unfortunately, it will not tell you if it's music or hiss, or whatever. A client came in the studio the other day asking me to tell him what was wrong with some songs he had recorded in another studio. I loaded one of his recordings into Har-Bal. It was an older studio with an older engineer. As I loaded the song I could show the client that for some reason, the whole top end above 9K was completely null. I mean DB! I knew why, because I heard some tape hiss - even in the 8K-9K area. What a terrible way to deal with noise! I could also show him the room nodes fingerprint that was superimposed into his recording. Oh yea about Har-Bal, the "doc's" for this software are totally wrong. Pure bologna. I can't believe how this guy does not know more about mastering audio than he does, because his software is really good for fixing room nodes, and other EQ problems. Load and listen to as many commercial songs in the style like you are trying to do. Like Ethan says, fix the room. And everyone will say then fix the mix. A cheaper way is to just load you song and a commercial track into a DAW. Solo back and forth between the two. Does you bass sound louder? If so, how much louder? Room nulls are a common cause of bass problems. Max Arwood "mcnews" wrote in message ... if one can't afford proper room treatment is using an RTA in the aux channel a viable solution for someone with a small home studio with no ambitions other than making good sounding dream pop recordings. all of my music has live drums, bass, guitars, keys, percussion, reeds, and sometimes real strings. i've never used an RTA, but sometimes peaple complain that my trax are a little bottom heavy. i play bass, BTW... tia, mac |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
On 2008-01-26, Peter Larsen wrote:
Anyway, it was a different rant I had on my mind, namely that one should not confuse hearing threshold with frequency response of hearing and that one needs to understand the concept of recruitment and the fact that signal at neighboring lower frequencies add as a bias that facilitates audibility. It is the latter effect that is the cause of people seemingly being able to hear above what their threshold graph suggests that they are good at. But it is a nuisance to talk to the house staff during the intermission and hear them saying "Ah, the bell is chiming, they (the audience) are coming back in" ..... What kind of bell do you use? I've only ever encountered mechanical ringing ones that are relatively low frequency, at least relative to the 8kHz or above. Maybe there was a buzzer in one place I went to, but that was quite low too. - Richard -- _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
Richard Corfield wrote:
On 2008-01-26, Peter Larsen wrote: ... talk to the house staff during the intermission and hear them saying "Ah, the bell is chiming, they (the audience) are coming back in" ..... What kind of bell do you use? I've only ever encountered mechanical ringing ones that are relatively low frequency, at least relative to the 8kHz or above. Maybe there was a buzzer in one place I went to, but that was quite low too. That venue uses a classic 3" doorbell, quite modest and high in pitch, it is in the front of the house where people drink coffee during the intermission, ie. outside the hall and was masked by the audience clatterchatter. Wimmen hear such stuff better and I was talking with one quite near the stage. No point in trying to reach the coffee serving in time when camping right next to the stage ...so I was just chaatting with the staff. Also the ringing probably was masked by my own voice ... - Richard Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
RTA
Peter Larsen wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Note that none of the standard tests go above 8 KC, because going higher than that requires compensating for the differences in ear structures between different people and it becomes more expensive. Hmmm ... I always thought it was based on the religion of "important for speech" discounting all other aural pleasure. Nope, it's based on economics and the religion of diminishing returns. But to be honest, speech perception is very important, and your insurance company probably doesn't care about your other aural pleasure. But if there is a severe enough problem, it'll show up below 8 KC too. Interestingly the most likely place for early impulse noise damage is 6 kHz and falls smack dab in the gap between spot checking at exactly 4000 Hz and exactly 8000 Hz. Yup. That's because so many things make sound in that range, so we are exposed to a lot of it. Anyway, it was a different rant I had on my mind, namely that one should not confuse hearing threshold with frequency response of hearing and that one needs to understand the concept of recruitment and the fact that signal at neighboring lower frequencies add as a bias that facilitates audibility. It is the latter effect that is the cause of people seemingly being able to hear above what their threshold graph suggests that they are good at. This is true, but this is a whole other set of hearing problems which require different tests than the simple threshold test. A lot of hearing deficits, and most minor ones, just result in a threshold shift. Others do result in linearity changes. And yes, increased overall level can make it easier to hear lower level sounds because of the effect you describe. But it is a nuisance to talk to the house staff during the intermission and hear them saying "Ah, the bell is chiming, they (the audience) are coming back in" ..... In the US, it's more common to dip the house lights for the five-minute call. Maybe because we have more deaf audience members... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |