Has anybody tried mixing with pink noise?
Tags
Comments
The thing is, if one instrument has too much of a frequency or i
The thing is, if one instrument has too much of a frequency or if many instruments share the same frequencies, you'll get very poor results with that technique.
In iZotope Ozone, there is a pink noise reference available in the match features of their EQ. What it does is, it analyse the song content and generate an EQ curve to make the song be closed to a pink noise frequency response. I often use it when I don't have much time and the customer wants to leave with a mix but most of the time I prefer their 6db guide reference. You can set how hard the EQ is, I leave it default at 10%.
pcrecord, post: 454569, member: 46460 wrote: The thing is, if on
pcrecord, post: 454569, member: 46460 wrote: The thing is, if one instrument has too much of a frequency or if many instruments share the same frequencies, you'll get very poor results with that technique.
In iZotope Ozone, there is a pink noise reference available in the match features of their EQ. What it does is, it analyse the song content and generate an EQ curve to make the song be closed to a pink noise frequency response. I often use it when I don't have much time and the customer wants to leave with a mix but most of the time I prefer their 6db guide reference. You can set how hard the EQ is, I leave it default at 10%.
Thanks
Then to answer your question, no, that's not something I've ever
Then to answer your question, no, that's not something I've ever tried.
I DO, however, often turn the monitors down completely and then gradually increase the volume until the mix is just barely audible. This can help you pinpoint what's sitting on top of the mix, I find that useful.
I'll have to watch the video, and who knows, maybe even try it someday, but I can say going in, it seems counterproductive to me - unless I were trying to make a bricked recording where everything is maxed out into a big steaming zero dynamics pile.
To each his own I suppose, but that seems strange to me too.
i won't be so kind as dvdhawk was. this rates right up there wit
i won't be so kind as dvdhawk was. this rates right up there with some of the stupidest things i have ever heard of.
if you know how to record correctly....... :rolleyes: when you set you faders at unity, the mix should be pretty close to "there" already. this is a remedy for mixing tracks that were improperly recorded in the first place. this whole DAW look at a screen to mix AUDIO thing is getting out of hand. but what to expect from a ewwtube video anyway? i mean, who are these guys? :ROFLMAO:
dvdhawk, post: 454574, member: 36047 wrote: I DO, however, often
dvdhawk, post: 454574, member: 36047 wrote: I DO, however, often turn the monitors down completely and then gradually increase the volume until the mix is just barely audible. This can help you pinpoint what's sitting on top of the mix, I find that useful.
To add to Dave's excellent technique, I do this all the time including mixing in mono using cubes. Works excellent for me.
I've heard of it, seems to have popped up in the last year or so
I've heard of it, seems to have popped up in the last year or so and is making the rounds of "how to" videos. I have never done it myself, though. According to what I've seen and read about this mixing technique, it's for getting an initial static mix, not for final mixing; and using a mono pink noise track - the theory being that you bring all the tracks up to sit just barely above the PN, and this is supposed to give you your first static mix. At last That's the theory, anyway....
I approach getting a static mix the same way that my RO colleagues have already mentioned - which, if tracks were recorded properly to begin with, it's not difficult to just bring them all up to roughly the same levels, and go from there with tonal or reduction changes.
This pink noise technique seems to be kinda convoluted to me, and, I'm thinking that it could fatigue your ears faster, too. But, I can't really comment on whether it works or not without trying it.
I'm not as quick to shut down new ideas as some other people I know are, those who have a tendency to knock things just because they are new ideas, or because it's something they've never done.
I'm willing to learn about - and try - any new method or approach that might beneficial.
Just because an idea is new, and is something we've never done before doesn't automatically disqualify it... at least it doesn't for me, anyway.
I do know one thing for sure.. ALL technology and methods start the exact same way... And that is, one or two people either ask themselves or each other: "So.., I wonder what would happen if we ....?"
IMHO.
-d.
DonnyThompson, post: 454618, member: 46114 wrote: This pink nois
DonnyThompson, post: 454618, member: 46114 wrote: This pink noise technique seems to be kinda convoluted to me, and, I'm thinking that it could fatigue your ears faster, too.
Most EQ plugins comes with spectrum analysers these days. Instead of refering to a pink noise one could just do it visually on the analyser.
In any case, I'd rather listen to the song to mix without that kind of boundaries...
Understand...I'm not saying this is a good method. I honestly ha
Understand...I'm not saying this is a good method. I honestly have no idea if it is or isn't, because I've never done it. But I can say that over the course of my engineering career, I have been pretty good about keeping an open mind to all sorts of ideas.
I honestly can't understand how a concrete opinion can be formed about something if it hasn't been tried.
I'm sure if we go back through recording history, there would be all kinds of examples where new ideas were attacked and attempted to be shot down before they were even experimented with:
"Why would you want to put a mic directly on a kick drum?"
"Why in the world would anyone ever want to introduce intentional distortion into a recording by overdriving a preamp"?
"What do you mean you want to record hotter than 0db on the tape machine?"
"Who in the world would ever think that sending a guitar through an oscillating filter would be a good idea?"
"Hold on a second... You're saying you want to decrease the dynamic range intentionally?"
"Who in their right mind would ever think that we need more than one track to record to?"
"You mean you WANT to overdrive the tube stage of the compressor?"
So many things we don't even really think about now, that we use every single day in the studio, all
started out with someone who had an idea, and despite sceptics and nay-sayers, decided to do them anyway. That's the base foundation of all technology, whether it's in the studio, the health care industry, or going to the moon. The "what ifs?"
I'd rather people keep experimenting and trying new things -whether they end up working or not - than to sit complacent with the certainty that anything worth doing has already been done.
IMO.
-D.
all that said, the question posed would be, is the overall quali
all that said, the question posed would be, is the overall quality of recorded music better now than it was say 70 years ago? i don't think all these new techniques used are improving the state of the art. they are a substitute for creativity. you don't need to have any talent other than the willingness to watch a video and click a mouse. the democratization of producing audio has degrade the art. sh*t! just record it and then listen. set the levels where you think they should be. it's not rocket science but there aren't any magic bullets either.
Technology and sound quality has improved by massive leaps and b
Technology and sound quality has improved by massive leaps and bounds. Every year it gets better and better sounding to me.
However, I think a particular musicianship and our method to how we created music before the DAW, has changed the way music touches us as individuals, humans today. Especially if we are from the Baby Boomer generation. We (Baby Boomer generation) is likely the last generation of 100% human art.
To help me get past that judgemental process I work very hard to separate personal taste when making sound decision opinions. If that makes any sense lol!
Today's music sounds awesome to me. Today's pop songs on the other hand, pretty boring for the most part.
What happened is all intertwined around computers. Computers are not helping us be human.
I guess with quality rising, ear training is more and more impor
I guess with quality rising, ear training is more and more important. Mixing a pile of noise from a 4 tracks would not need a lot of effort.
But to me having more complex and complete content means more things to consider and more decisions to make. So technics from the old age may not work as well today.
Having that said, there is no shortcut to capturing good tracks which was the force of early recordings.
Having 2000 plugins at hand and 100 mixing technics ain't gonna fix bad mic placement and room accoustics and instrument quality and tuning etc... ;)
I've done a band this weekend. At mixing time, i just rose the faders and did panning and the band went WOW.. That's a part of the pay right there !
It took me 2 hours setting up the drum mics, choosing preamps and doing levels on my kit prior of their arrival tho...
the only time i struggled with the noise level of analog was wit
the only time i struggled with the noise level of analog was with semi pro recorders. four tracks on a TEAC 3340 or worse a potty studio aren't four tracks on a 1/2" or 1" AMPEX. night and day. those machine have 70 dB s/n ratios or better. anyone who can't record something with a decent s/n level with machines that do 70 db or better probably shouldn't be recording or mixing.
a lot of the late 50's/ early 60's records were recorded on multiple two track machines. that's where the pro standard for a 1/8th inch track originated. bass and drums on track 1 instruments on track 2. bounce a mix of 1 &2 to one track of a second machine and use the last track for vocals. mix it to a mono full track 1/4" machine.
this method of recording fascinates me. it is a simpler process with fewer steps of degradation (to my ear) and with careful mic placement and techniques (utilizing nulls inherent with LDC and ribbon mics) and by mixing several elements as they are recorded, it did less damage to the content. it's really just a matter of how and when it's mixed and of course it takes several musicians who can play a song all the way through without clams (i/e talent).
i submit that 3 or 4 generations of tape are no more harmful than 40 tracks of A to D and subsequent D to A, along with the degradation the plugs and DAW 2 busing would introduce. a lot of people assume because it's digital there is no loss or degrading of a signal but that's really not the case. all processing degrades the audio. straight wire with gain is the holy grail.
OK, so I finally sat down and watched the video, in the interest
OK, so I finally sat down and watched the video, in the interest of being open minded, although I was admittedly skeptical going in. And as advertised, the prevailing assumption of the technique is that all instruments should be equally present in the mix. The pink noise masks it out until it reaches a threshold where it's just barely audible.
Several things: (as it seems to me)
- Nope. I strongly disagree with the premise.
- There's no way that helps someone who knows how to get a balanced mix without it.
- Pink noise in = pink noise out.
- That might work for that kind of electronica, it would be of no value for anything with layers, dynamics, and any space or subtlety between the instruments and vocals.
- You could achieve the same result by turning down the volume and finding the threshold of sound on each track.
- You could achieve the same result by soloing each track and adjusting its volume to hit the same predetermined level on the Main meters.
- Any of those techniques would be at home in one of those books with the words, "- for Dummies" in the title.
I do the low-volume test because I care about what element(s) are sitting on top of the mix. For the work I do, EVERYTHING should not be equal at the top. Whether I'm mixing a recording, or a live band, I don't want every instrument competing with the lead vocal. The spotlight is almost always on the lead vocal(s). Kick, snare, and bass provide the foundation and everything else is in a supporting role. But more importantly, it's an art form, there is no - "add equal parts of everything" recipe for music.
Again, YMMV. Don't shoot the messenger.
dvdhawk, post: 454636, member: 36047 wrote: Any of those techniq
dvdhawk, post: 454636, member: 36047 wrote: Any of those techniques would be at home in one of those books with the words, "- for Dummies" in the title.
dvdhawk, post: 454636, member: 36047 wrote: there is no - "add equal parts of everything" recipe for music.
i love it!
A very intelligent and concise explanation. I respect that you h
A very intelligent and concise explanation. I respect that you had an open mind and that you at least explored it ...and that was all that I was trying to say in my post above...to make an informed decision, instead of knocking a theory just because we're not familiar with it.
There have probably been more ideas and "methods" that have not worked over the years, than those that have; but there's only one way to determine whether a new idea will work - or not - and that's to explore it. ;)
IMHO
-d.
stupid is as stupid does. i don't need to eat sh*t to know it ta
stupid is as stupid does. i don't need to eat sh*t to know it tastes like sh*t.
you have consistently posted some of the best recordings here and i respect your abilities and opinion on many things Donny but on topics of this nature, i truly believe this kind "open mindedness" has been a key cause of what i view as the cheapening of our craft.
i have observed over the past 15 years, the eroding of the art of recording. from cheap rack crap pre amps that run on a 9 volt power supply (regardless of polarity) claiming to be "just as good as the pre amps in studio consoles thousands more" to computers, OS systems and software that is only usable for a few years until it is obsolete, to the idea that there are "new ways" to do production where you don't have to know what the f*&k you are doing and the really big lie, that digital audio is superior to analog.
the truly sad thing is these operations have run the REAL pros in the community out with low overhead in sub par rooms and cheap rates. i can't tell you how many ads i see in CraigsList for what is claimed to be "Professional Recording" only to learn on deeper inspection, it's a sh*tty little basement home studio with dirty deteriorating 2" egg crate foam on the walls, 6 foot ceilings in a way too small CR with crappy monitors, not much of a live room if any and a computer DAW with VST's, "vintage plugs" and a handful of ASIAN mics.
meanwhile the real studios and good engineers and rooms that have been here for years are going belly up because they can't or won't work for what the "SCABS" (who come and go like fleas) are charging. then to add insult to injury, these morons think they can become another Dave Pensado by posting a EWW-TUBE video of some bullsh*t technique.
imo, this whole self recording, self publishing thing has been a horrible thing for music in general. there's no filters anymore. no one willing to tell someone "No, this sucks". everyone is too concerned about hurting someones feelings and no one wants to be responsible for stifeling anothers creativity. but if you see a dog in your yard getting ready to lay a big fat steamer on your walkway, wouldn't you chase them off?
sometimes it's kinder to tell someone the truth. you don't let the blind drive, why encourage someone who's abilities, hearing or aesthetics / taste sucks? maybe we should direct a little of that concern to preserving an art form for the good of all, including the consumers of our work?
it is probably too late, the genie is already out for the bottle but i really think the state of our industry would be way better off if those in the know would have actually stood up and called bullsh*t on this stuff 15 years ago.
Kurt Foster, post: 454649, member: 7836 wrote: i don't need to e
Kurt Foster, post: 454649, member: 7836 wrote: i don't need to eat sh*t to know it tastes like sh*t.
This is worth a brown one ! (in canada)
Kurt Foster, post: 454649, member: 7836 wrote: it's a sh*tty little home studio with foam on the walls
Home studio facebook groups are crowded with these studios; stuck in a bedroom corner with beautifull spiky grey foamy walls.
But when one guy wants advice and you tell him to not buy foam 100 others are offended !!
So to me the worst thing is, it became the celebration of lowfi.
With the last band I recorded, the signer was again 'offended' because I told the band they could do better by recording the song a second time. (not 5 times, only 2 come on!!)
Good thing I didn't tell him he was off pitch half of the time !! ;)
''Cheap is good'' never was my modo and hopefully never will...
pcrecord, post: 454650, member: 46460 wrote: Good thing I didn't
pcrecord, post: 454650, member: 46460 wrote: Good thing I didn't tell him he was off pitch half of the time !! ;)
an engineer that worked for me once told a singer, "Let's do it again, you were a little off key there". the guy asked "What part?"and she replied, "The parts where you moved your mouth". lol.
I'll call that bullsh*t right there, Kurt. It's almost like you
I'll call that bullsh*t right there, Kurt. It's almost like you're deliberately ignoring Donny's overarching point. Nothing innovative was ever done by following the templates of the past. Les Paul was a pioneer. The seminal recordings of our generation (Sgt. Pepper, Are You Experienced?, Dark Side of the Moon, to name a few I know you can relate to) broke the mold. Running a tape backwards, putting your thumb on the reel to get a flanging effect, multiple tape loops, singing through a Leslie, all of those things were unheard of - until someone tried it. To doggedly cling to the past and do everything exactly the same way, forever, is about as groundbreaking as mixing to pink noise. We'd still be recording on wax cylinders, because nobody can do the punch cards fast enough for the Sperry Univac.
I'm glad you didn't sell out and go down a path you don't believe in. I totally respect that. But dumping on another creative person for being open minded, seems like the definition of cynical. I'm on record as saying I think mixing with pink noise is a waste of time, that at best, delivers paint by numbers results that wouldn't benefit anyone with an actual ear. But if someone else wants to experiment, or in this case, just concede that someone else might want to consider trying it, why would I care?
Art is not born out of dogma or cookie cutters, which is exactly what I think is wrong with the pink noise method in the first place. Experimentation is a good thing. Of course it's not always going to be successful, or even necessarily have any merit at all, but stagnant sucks too.
Here's a little something to watch:
Beatles and George Martin at Abbey Road in 1994
dvdhawk, post: 454659, member: 36047 wrote: Here's a little some
dvdhawk, post: 454659, member: 36047 wrote: Here's a little something to watch:
Beatles and George Martin at Abbey Road in 1994
Yes, that's an interesting video. Non-FB users try this link.
It is a technique that is worth exploration, if only to satisfy
It is a technique that is worth exploration, if only to satisfy our curiosity and challenge us to remain open to new ideas. Personally, I can see some situations where it can be helpful, but certainly wouldn't consider it the best course for all projects.
I was first exposed to the idea by the Eddie Bazil article in SOS Magazine a few years ago:
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mixing-pink-noise-reference
dvdhawk, post: 454659, member: 36047 wrote: I'll call that bulls
dvdhawk, post: 454659, member: 36047 wrote: I'll call that bullsh*t right there, Kurt. It's almost like you're deliberately ignoring Donny's overarching point. Nothing innovative was ever done by following the templates of the past. Les Paul was a pioneer. The seminal recordings of our generation (Sgt. Pepper, Are You Experienced?, Dark Side of the Moon, to name a few I know you can relate to) broke the mold. Running a tape backwards, putting your thumb on the reel to get a flanging effect, multiple tape loops, singing through a Leslie, all of those things were unheard of - until someone tried it. To doggedly cling to the past and do everything exactly the same way, forever, is about as groundbreaking as mixing to pink noise. We'd still be recording on wax cylinders, because nobody can do the punch cards fast enough for the Sperry Univac.
I'm glad you didn't sell out and go down a path you don't believe in. I totally respect that. But dumping on another creative person for being open minded, seems like the definition of cynical. I'm on record as saying I think mixing with pink noise is a waste of time, that at best, delivers paint by numbers results that wouldn't benefit anyone with an actual ear. But if someone else wants to experiment, or in this case, just concede that someone else might want to consider trying it, why would I care?
Art is not born out of dogma or cookie cutters, which is exactly what I think is wrong with the pink noise method in the first place. Experimentation is a good thing. Of course it's not always going to be successful, or even necessarily have any merit at all, but stagnant sucks too.
Here's a little something to watch:
Beatles and George Martin at Abbey Road in 1994
dvdhawk, post: 454659, member: 36047 wrote: I'll call that bullsh*t right there, Kurt. It's almost like you're deliberately ignoring Donny's overarching point. Nothing innovative was ever done by following the templates of the past. Les Paul was a pioneer. The seminal recordings of our generation (Sgt. Pepper, Are You Experienced?, Dark Side of the Moon, to name a few I know you can relate to) broke the mold. Running a tape backwards, putting your thumb on the reel to get a flanging effect, multiple tape loops, singing through a Leslie, all of those things were unheard of - until someone tried it. To doggedly cling to the past and do everything exactly the same way, forever, is about as groundbreaking as mixing to pink noise. We'd still be recording on wax cylinders, because nobody can do the punch cards fast enough for the Sperry Univac.
I'm glad you didn't sell out and go down a path you don't believe in. I totally respect that. But dumping on another creative person for being open minded, seems like the definition of cynical. I'm on record as saying I think mixing with pink noise is a waste of time, that at best, delivers paint by numbers results that wouldn't benefit anyone with an actual ear. But if someone else wants to experiment, or in this case, just concede that someone else might want to consider trying it, why would I care?
Art is not born out of dogma or cookie cutters, which is exactly what I think is wrong with the pink noise method in the first place. Experimentation is a good thing. Of course it's not always going to be successful, or even necessarily have any merit at all, but stagnant sucks too.
Here's a little something to watch:
Beatles and George Martin at Abbey Road in 1994
i've seen it. and i'm all for in innovation. on second consideration the technique might be helpful setting the levels of tracks to the same point, but why would any one want to do that? like you said, it falls in the realm of mixing for dummies and imo, we shouldn't encourage dumbness. show me a "new technique" that actually does something better than the tried and tested methods and i'm all for it. This however is just plain stupid.
That was a fun read (y). gotta try that turn it right down to
That was a fun read (y). gotta try that turn it right down to see whats on top trick ,
I think Im lucky Ive been around for 50 yrs now .
On the other hand , if i was 15 yrs old I might be enjoying todays music .
Feeling pretty blessed that I found RO about 10 yrs ago . You guys are great with your experience , wisdom , banter and common sense
Thank you :cool:
ronmac, post: 454664, member: 24337 wrote: It is a technique tha
ronmac, post: 454664, member: 24337 wrote: It is a technique that is worth exploration, if only to satisfy our curiosity and challenge us to remain open to new ideas.
I don't need to be challenged but I like new ideas when they seem good.
I respect anyone who want to persue this but the only way I'm gonna use a spectrum analyser while mixing is to check if there is a buildup in some frequencies..
My ears do not need the fatigue of a pink noise for one minute.. They are busy enough making music sound good for other ears ;)
OMG, the last time I used Pink Noise was setting up a large PA s
OMG, the last time I used Pink Noise was setting up a large PA system, letting er rip and the next thing the top floor of the Edmonton Forum hotel went into a shake rattle and roll rage lol! Shit shaking all over the place didn't sit well with the kitchen either! Ah... good times it was.
I'm with Marco on this. Fun reading all about this but I ain't going there lol!
all in fun of course.
:D
audiokid, post: 454812, member: 1 wrote: I use foam and traps. W
audiokid, post: 454812, member: 1 wrote: I use foam and traps. Why is foam a bad thing?
I should have explain further.. I'm in a few facebook home studio groups.. Every week there is a few asking about foam and many another who post a pics with his wall full of 1 inch thick foam ceilling to floor.
So here I am re-phrasing it :
Using thin foam alone is bad ! thin foam only affect higher frequencies (1-2k and up) Most small rooms will go more unbalanced if only foam is used.
I recommand people to start with bass traps (DIY is so simple) 4'' x 2' x 4' with roxul or others on walls and/or in gobos. Such bass traps will affect frequencies down to 150hz.
I did have a room with foam who gave too much 300 to 500hz on everything until I removed some foam and added bass traps...
What I say is: IF YOU don't know anything about acoustics, don't use foam. If you know what your are doing, you don't really need my advise anyway, right ? ;)
Disclaimer : I'm not a pro acoustic specialist and I'll be glad to be corrected and learn more about this craft..
pcrecord, post: 454819, member: 46460 wrote: I should have expla
pcrecord, post: 454819, member: 46460 wrote: I should have explain further.. I'm in a few facebook home studio groups.. Every week there is a few asking about foam and many another who post a pics with his wall full of 1 inch thick foam ceilling to floor.
So here I am re-phrasing it :
Using thin foam alone is bad ! thin foam only affect higher frequencies (1-2k and up) Most small rooms will go more unbalanced if only foam is used.
I recommand people to start with bass traps (DIY is so simple) 4'' x 2' x 4' with roxul or others on walls and/or in gobos. Such bass traps will affect frequencies down to 150hz.I did have a room with foam who gave too much 300 to 500hz on everything until I removed some foam and added bass traps...
What I say is: IF YOU don't know anything about acoustics, don't use foam. If you know what your are doing, you don't really need my advise anyway, right ? ;)
Disclaimer : I'm not a pro acoustic specialist and I'll be glad to be corrected and learn more about this craft..
(y)
The thing that really gets me is that people now seem to make ch
The thing that really gets me is that people now seem to make choices based on advice given on the net, without any research, or understanding. The notion that studios MUST have foam slapped everywhere, and that X product is good, Y product isn't - but no understanding of why? People don't experiment anymore. Microphones really annoy me now. For me, I think it's looking at your mic box, Lookin at the people and instruments you need to record, and then picking the most appropriate ones - but we constantly get asked which mic is 'Best', sometimes 'best for everything' other times it's best for a piano, or a guitar or something which is a bit better - but everyone DOES want a dummy's guide, and frankly they cannot have it. Our circumstances are all different. I understand Kurt's dislike of simulations of older equipment, but bit by bit, my studio has had less and less of the rack's contents wired up, and the electronic versions do it for me well enough that I have lost the need for the real thing. The only bit of old gear I have hung on to is a Yamaha DSP-1 - the first reverb processor they did that modelled real spaces - dates from the 80s when I bought it new. I keep it for Munster Cathedral - a simply wonderful programme - and this product was designed for the hi-fi enthusiasts with L/R front and rear with a surround channel too and feeding that back into the system is very realistic, 30 years later. My reel to reels, my DATs and studio mixers are gone, and so has all the outboard that the collectors paid over he odds for. My 100% in the computer system produces better results than the old stuff. I think that the critical things now are the room acoustics. Microphones sound different, and I don't find that product from one country is better or worse than another now. China, Australia, East and West Germany and Russia, the Scandinavian countries, and of course America produce both good and bad equipment. I really believe that quality no longer requires a link to specific brands. The 'quality' sounds that the bigger studios run professionally churn out are down to people and skills NOT the equipment. Too many people equate cost with quality and that is NOT a reliable method.
A Chinese 50 quid microphone could easily hold it's own against a 2000 Neumann if somebody skilled deployed the cheap one, and a pillock had the expensive one - we see this all the time. EQ is seen somehow now as bad when it is used to mellow down a bright mic, yet adding a bit of top end to a European expensive 'warm' mic is fine? I have yet to find any unusable Chinese mics. The ones with too much 'sizzle' can work wonders on dull cymbals for instance. I had some STC/Coles collectors mics which I sold for a nice profit on Ebay when I finally decided that their tone signature really didn't work for me any more. A combined ribbon/moving coil with the elements switchable sounded period/old/historic/special acording to the history books and the audiophile fraternity - but to my ears, with a bit of age deterioration, they were just dull. I bought all kinds of Chinese and American mics and always have something now that does the job.
I like to think I have an open mind - I listen and I make my own mind up. I don't say other views are wrong - everyone is free to do what they want. I just wish people would use their ears. What does it sound like - then change things. Remember the old egg box days? Universally laughed at - but if you really needed to take the top edge off, to let the mids and lows pass through untouched - then they would be a perfect tool for that job, wouldn't they? We used to listen to where humps in the frequency response of a room were, then do the maths and design a trap - now we buy a kit? and accept it's design frequencies as the ones we need? This is all madness - over damped dull rooms that are rotten to speak in, let alone play in.
Bring back the ears, ban generic advice, stop recommending certain products unworkable by most. Somebody can afford an SM57, just - and they get told that quality recordings require a Micro Gefell or similar - it's just stupid.
Using pink noise in what way?
Using pink noise in what way?