I just wanted to give everyone an update on the results of my little experiment. I found that by using varying distances you could drastically change the sound of anything safely, in a mono situation. Or, if you want to mic in stereo you can use a pair of mics for each side(4 in total l
). This is basically a way of pre-equing a track. A specific interruption of phase at a certain frequency to diminish the amplitude on the recorded track. Try it. It works, and once learned is easy and practical. Just use your ears to find what you dont like, then toss on some cans and use a little knowledge as a guide.
It also made for one hell of a demo to my assistant engineer. :D
(Dead Link Removed)
[ July 03, 2003, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Kurt Foster ]
Topic Tags
Comments
Again..even more to the point..... Why equalize with more ths
Again..even more to the point.....
Why equalize with more thsn one mic...period. Equalizers were invented to do just that...equalize the balance....or re-balance a part of the frequency response that was out of balance.
So If i'm placing two or more mics on a source its either to get a certain stereo picture (Tone & dynamic balance included) or as a mono part, to get a fuller part with more depth than can be gotten with one. I kind of cut to the chase, and each and every mic is more of an additive relavent part...each giving me a piece of the puzzel . I'm not adding a mic to fix the sound of another one. The first goives me (if we're talking mono) pretty much the "standard" sound that you'd get 90% of the time. Additional mics are to get me differrent "notes" as I call them....more of the fundemental, or harmonics, etc. Mastery of phase in this setting is absolutely essential....and after awhile you can become allergic to it. Hearing in this way is like EQing. Then you nadd in the characteristics of mic's. Dynamic/Condenser/Ribbon. Patterns ....ect. How all of these things interelate to give you a dynamic toolchest to record with little or no processing other than the mics and pre's and get great sounds.
Recorderman: This prettymuch pinpoints a big part of this expe
Recorderman: This prettymuch pinpoints a big part of this experiment for me. I don't have a multimillion dollar studio, and even if I did, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line right? What about eq's? I have my mackie, and a yamaha m1516, which is better than the mackie, but getting old. This is kinda what started the whole thread for me.
Here is the set up I'm gonna try.
The input on the topic here has gimme a lot of ideas.
try this:
2 mics of the same type
headset
acoustic guitar
1 mic in a good or perfect spot
2nd mic to be placed somwhere within 1 foot of the first mic, while listening to the cans.
Route each channel into one stereo subgroup.
Route one of your auxes into the channel input of the closest mic.
OR, get an old delay unit with a potentiometer feedback control, and patch that into the second mic.
Play with the position of one mic until you get a good sound. measure the distance, calculate the center frequency.
record a test with two mics, and a test with one mic only.
Take the track with only one mic, adjust with eq to the same frequency as you calculated for the first track.
Listen to which is nicer.
As for the delay, and auxes routing, that is just there so you can add some feedback to change the Q, or if you want to use one mic across the room(say 14 ft)you could add 10ms of delay to the closest mic to bring things together a little more.(I will be trying this within a week, if you're interested lemme know what you thought!)
just a few thoughts!
:) Regarding the "air band." Even the Mackie 24/04 vlz pro has
:) Regarding the "air band." Even the Mackie 24/04 vlz pro has an air band on each output channel. The 40khz setting on the Nightpro still has an effect up to the cut off for digital, it is just a different slope getting there, just uses that part of the slope, the 20khz setting extends lower still.
In analog, the 40khz which includes 20khz and 25k,30k etc. as part of the slope may create distortion, or beat frequency that may present itself an octave lower, heard it last night with multiple whistle screaming fireworks at the same time. The point trying to be made regarding these EQ's claiming little phase shift, is another claim "Test it on a scope and see for yourself" is it there or not?
I would much rather approach micing as per Recorderman, getting results without, or very little EQ at all.
Using placement and phase manipulation for EQ carries too many variables, the frequency may be fine once set for a particular sound, but others may bleed in and add drastic unwanted sounds.
--Rick
Steve, I think a couple of conclusions can be drawn from this t
Steve,
I think a couple of conclusions can be drawn from this thread-
1. The basic elements of your plan are compatible with reality, but be forwarned you may run into unintended consequences due to secondary factors.
2. There is no harm in going forward with your plan, in fact you may develop interesting techniques from your experiment.
I would also suggest that acoustic guitar may not be optimal for using this technique with, because players tend to move around and will mess up your careful calculations. Perhaps a fixed object like a guitar amp would be a better test subject.
All in all, I think it's great you posted your idea. It has resulted in a most fascinating thread. Please post back your results. Cheers, Doc
Li'l Dog, > it seems to me that what it boils down to is your
Li'l Dog,
> it seems to me that what it boils down to is your emulation scheme will work just fine as long as the source remains at an exact fixed location
I'm not sure what you mean by my emulation scheme. All I've been addressing is how stuff works, what phase shift does and whether it's harmful to the audio, what other factors are important in the sound of an EQ circuit, and so forth. I think Steve is the one who's been discussing ways to simulate EQ with mike placement. I've just been keeping things focused by explaining why mike placement and combining two mikes does more than just alter the frequency response.
I also described the time I tested two mikes and was able to make one sound just like the other by using EQ. That was not a "highly constrained situation." It was a real-world test that showed by starting with mikes that are similar in size and type, only a little EQ was needed to get the exact same result.
> in my particular case it's not going to stop me from lusting after gear that costs thousands just because in a highly constrained situation one can get a similar result with something cheaper.
That is not my point at all! Just because one device costs more than another does not means the more expensive device is better. Often, the cheaper device is better. This happens all the time with all products, not just audio gear. It costs no more to manufacture an EQ that uses one type of filter as an EQ that uses another. It takes only a few op-amps per channel to implement a decent EQ, and the actual filter type used is irrelevant to the cost. There may be other factors that distinguish one brand and model from another, but whatever those factors are they can be examined and understood.
> Now, would you next like to try and talk me out of getting some mini traps in favor of some empty egg cartons? :D
That's a very different case because MiniTraps can be shown through measurement and listening to be vastly superior to egg cartons. If you want to compare apples to apples you might question why Sonex or Auralex foam cost so much more than equivalent products from Foam by Mail. At least in that case the products are similar, they measure similarly, and they have a similar effect on the sound. In this case you'd be fair to ask why one product costs four times more than the other.
--Ethan
Doc, > when I am using the phrase "bigness" I don't mean bign
Doc,
> when I am using the phrase "bigness" I don't mean bigness in a spacial sense particularly, but more the way the word "big" was used in certain quarters in the early 90s
As you know, I'm "big" on keeping things we discuss clearly defined. So if I understand your comment, you're referring to a "big" guitar sound as being powerful because it has plenty of low end beef to make it solid sounding and not thin? That's a fine use of the word "big." It does not, however, explain how the bigness is diminished by putting the signal through another piece of gear that is otherwise transparent. What specifically changes?
--Ethan
RM, > This is not ment to sound condensending That never
RM,
> This is not ment to sound condensending
That never occurred to me for a moment. No need to walk on eggshells around me! I hope the same applies to my comments to you and others.
> Even if it doesn't fit into either some theoretical logic
That borders on magical thinking. If passing a signal through a device changes the sound - for better or worse - then that change can be measured and understood. I am not saying that all gear is equally transparent! Just that science and logic always prevail. If it were not for that pesky "theoretical logic" there would be no audio gear at all.
> Less components, larger cross-section of wire for the electrons to run down.
Often you can get much better results using more components. Here's just one example: In the past, equalizers used inductors which suffer from level-dependant distortion, ringing, and parasitic capacitance between the windings. All modern designs now use simulated inductors - where a capacitor, two resistors, and an op-amp do the same job as an inductor but with none of those problems. And for about 1/100th the cost! So in this case more components yield performance that is audibly and measurably superior, not to mention financially.
As for "larger cross-section of wire for the electrons to run down," it just doesn't work that way. All that matters for wire is its resistance, inductance, and capacitance. For line level signals, electrons don't benefit from a larger cross section of wire, unless that wire was already too small.
--Ethan
Duardo, > Have you actually tried out their equalizers? I
Duardo,
> Have you actually tried out their equalizers?
I have not.
> They really do sound very different than any other analog EQ I've ever heard
I can believe that. But whatever it is that makes them sound different can be easily measured and understood.
> as it was explained to me it was because there is so little phase shift in their designs.
I doubt that's it. This is exactly the kind of thing that can be easily tested by analyzing a signal before and after processing. I don't have a NightPro EQ to test, but surely someone does. This does not need to remain a mystery. Though I think manufacturers often want stuff like this to remain a mystery.
> what I think we debunked, is ... when we boost those frequencies the frequencies we can hear are affected.
Yes, that's it.
> I don't believe that they claimed otherwise.
The following, from the NightPro web site, borders on claiming that:
"The EQ3D allows users to control the spectrum all the way from 10hz to 40,000hz ... The 'Air Band' ... allows variable control of the highest end of the frequency spectrum. This patented technology provides a clarity and sense of intimacy to your mix.
What originally drew my attention was probably the magazine reviews where I first saw these claims. But I'm not here to bash any vendor, and I'm sure they make a fine product. However, it needs to be made very clear that when you twiddle a knob labeled "40 KHz" what you're really hearing are the changes made to frequencies well below that.
--Ethan
Steve, > I don't have a multimillion dollar studio This i
Steve,
> I don't have a multimillion dollar studio
This is a huge factor. Some folks have untreated bedroom studios, where poor acoustics make it impossible to experiment with mike placement - no matter where you put the mike it sounds terrible. In that case the best one can aim for is to find a place that sounds the least terrible. Others here are in major studios every day, where it's much easier to hear the results of trying different things.
It's not hard for me to see how different people using the exact same mike, preamp, and compressor could come to very different conclusions as to their quality.
--Ethan
Ethan, good point. I have been conducting these experiments in
Ethan, good point. I have been conducting these experiments in a room that is 96'x40'x14'.(the roof is a peak roof centered at 16' and edged at 12'.)I have hung tarps all around the edges, and roof, and have left the 100 year old hardwood floors exposed to the sound.
What I meant by not having a multimillion dollar studio was referenced more towards gear, as the acoustics are excellent.
Not being able to afford a neve or speck, or whatever, has forced me to come up with creative ways to get the same sounds. :c:
Steve, > 96'x40'x14' Yikes! > What I meant by not havi
Steve,
> 96'x40'x14'
Yikes!
> What I meant by not having a multimillion dollar studio was referenced more towards gear
Yeah, and it's always difficult to know who has what kind of room, gear, and experience when posting here. At least in your case, typical small room problems are not an issue!
--Ethan
Ethan, you defend your premises very well, which is part of what
Ethan, you defend your premises very well, which is part of what makes this thread so interesting. Even if I'm not 100% convinced of your point of view.
Let me shift the focus for a moment. Let's assume that it is theoretically possible to measure every phenomenon, and that magic is not valid. But just because a phenomenon is theoretically measurable does not mean that we are necessarily capable of doing so in a complete fashion. There may be variables that we, as yet, are not even aware of, so we may not even know what we are trying to measure.
By analogy, a Newtonian physicist was pretty sure he/she had all the tools at their disposal to measure real world events. The ideas of quantum mechanics and relativity, for instance, would not have even occurred to them. At least until they were technically able to get to the point where they could get measurements that were not explained by the newtonian framework.
It seems to me that to assume that we can fully measure or understand anything implies that we have reached the limits of knowledge - and no further discoveries will change the way we view what we are trying to measure. I'm not willing to sign on to that kind of conceit.
Clearly you know far more about what we actually know or don't know than I do, since you know a lot and I know squat. So while I'll easily concede that you are capable of making some damned fine measurements, I'm not willing to concede that they will ever be fully definitive.
As a related issue, at some point when evaluating gear, we enter the realm of aesthetics. And here I remain convinced that quantifiable data vis a vis aesthetics is a difficult path. We can measure a woman's physical dimensions, but have we captured a formula for beauty? Can we fully formulize a fat groove, or an unforgettable hook?
I know you have historically liked to frame these debates as science vs. magic. Maybe science vs. art is a more legitimate discussion.
LD, > Even if I'm not 100% convinced of your point of view.
LD,
> Even if I'm not 100% convinced of your point of view.
That's okay, and that's exactly why we discuss this stuff here!
> There may be variables that we, as yet, are not even aware of yet
We're not talking about quantum physics! Believe me, this is very simple stuff and everything that defines how audio gear works and sounds was established very long ago. As new technologies arrive there may be new types of artifacts to deal with. Like new types of distortion that surfaced when digital recording debuted. But the basics have never changed.
> so we may not even know what we are trying to measure.
As proof that this is not true, you can always use subtraction to see what, if anything, has changed. If you flip the polarity of a signal and combine it with the original, you can immediately tell exactly what has changed.
A lot of people don't like it when I bring up the placebo effect and the need for double-blind testing, but in truth this is often what makes people think one piece of gear is better than another. This came up a few posts back, about tweaking the guitar to perfection only to find it was the bass track being tweaked!
> we enter the realm of aesthetics ... Can we fully formulize a fat groove, or an unforgettable hook?
This is absolutely true. Fortunately, audio gear is much more mundane, much more predictable, and much simpler to understand.
> Maybe science vs. art is a more legitimate discussion.
Good point, but it's important to know where to draw the line. There is a lot of art in circuit design, computer programming, and other technical endeavors. But in that case the art is in coming up with a clever way to realize a circuit using fewer components, or a way to make a computer search or sort algorithm operate quickly. So while there is definitely art in the creation of a circuit design, I think it's a mistake to call the final result itself "art." Unless the front panel looks really cool. :cool:
--Ethan
I would like to make clear that I don't believe in magic, that I
I would like to make clear that I don't believe in magic, that I believe the scientific rigor is the best way to understand the universe around us, and that everything is measureable if one possesses the correct tools. I will also say that there is plenty of phenomena we don't yet have the tools to measure, and that we barely percieve as happening except in the most esoteric ways. I don't discount the existence of aliens or UFOs because proving a negative (ex. aliens do not exist) is very difficult, and would at the least involve exploring a reasonable sample area of the universe (a territory that many believe infinite in size).
That said, I think that running a signal through any gear introduces distortion at every turn, sometimes "good" distortion and sometimes "bad". It also introduces noise. so for me to say that putting a signal thru the shortest run can get the best results doesn't seem to be a stretch, or even a confession of believing in magic. :) Doc
Originally posted by Doc@BeefyTreats.com: I would like to make
Originally posted by Doc@BeefyTreats.com:
I would like to make clear that I don't believe in magic
If Doc doesn't believe in magic - than i have to assume it doesn't exist......
Dayam......... now i have to completely re-evaluate my entire view of the universe..... ;)
Rod
Doc, I agree with much of what you said, except audio gear is
Doc,
I agree with much of what you said, except audio gear is nowhere near as complex as the universe. :)
As I explained earlier, you can always subtract an original signal from a processed version to prove what, if anything, changed. While we can't disprove aliens or UFOs - or god, for that matter - we can use common sense and logic to examine the evidence and assess their likeliness.
> I think that running a signal through any gear introduces distortion at every turn
Agreed, and all I ask is to keep in perspective the amount of degradation. The quality of audio gear has increased enormously in the past 20 years, to the point that adding another device does not automatically mean a perceptible loss of quality.
What amazes me in these discussions is how rare it is for someone to point out the severe degradation you get from just one pass on even the finest analog tape recorder! :D
--Ethan
Despite the unkown forces of magic sonicism,(could that be pract
Despite the unkown forces of magic sonicism,(could that be practicing switchcraft? :D ) I won't burn anyone at the stake for doing things one way or the other, simply because of experience, but I do think that an open mind is key to expanding our own creativity, and as a result our own abilities. Instead of finding reasons why something isn't acceptable, let look at the reasons why it is. After all th more tools we have, the more tools we can use! :p :cool:
Hello all you Technical Wizards! This has become one of my favor
Hello all you Technical Wizards! This has become one of my favorite threads of all time, anywhere.
Did you see how I defined myself through the use of time and space? Neat huh...
Ethan, I'm amazed that you contend that running a signal through multiple sources should not in theory degrade or 'change' its sonic quality.For what its worth, I can tell just by hearing it when something has been added to a chain even when its in an 'idle' position.Maybe its the slight impedence build-up through the cables or the circuits being added....Maybe I'm simply crazed...(not a topic)...There is even a difference to me in the ORDER that devices are chained together.Its probably not measurable so I cannot provide a concrete scientific proof that this can be so ,other than my ears.
Like Recorderman, I too achieve the tonal balances through placement and deal with phase this very same way.Theres nothing in any test equipment that makes as strong a statement as listening in the cans to a source and making small movements of the mic to focus it.Theres that nirvanic point that leaves no doubt of the 'best' spot for the intended reproduction.When I take the time to do this on every instrument and vocal in a recording, the sonic glue is strong and the mix becomes a joy. These are the times that EQ is as far from my thoughts as could be.There is simply no need.I think that in the early days of recording, the engineers knew this, as there seems to have been a LACK of EQ in most studio pictures I've seen and articles I've read.So it seems to me that the premise that you can do more EQing with placement rather than turning a dial seems to be a relevant take on this subject.
Good to see the Recorderman back in his chair.
Davedog, I can't remember if you took part in my initial post, u
Davedog, I can't remember if you took part in my initial post, understanding phase(there's a link at the top of this thread), but I felt as if the idea seemed absurd to most here, and I almost lost interest. I took some time to think and I am glad that at least this time around, things seem to be more on the same page.
Sometimes I get these crazy ideas in my head, and I have to wonder ust how crazy I am!
Just the same, as sort of a training exercise for my assistant here in the stusio, I am goind to have a graphical chart made up. It will basically demonstrate how to eq in the same way as a graphic eq does. I am hoping that this will give us a much more tangible idea of micing and relevant distances.
If you, or anyone else here are interested in seeing this when finished, let me know and I'll send you a copy.
Steve.
Dave, > I'm amazed that you contend that running a signal thr
Dave,
> I'm amazed that you contend that running a signal through multiple sources should not in theory degrade or 'change' its sonic quality.
I never said anything like that! Obviously if you run a signal through an EQ or compressor it will change. Otherwise why even own those devices? And some devices do affect the sound in ways they're not supposed to. However, in theory gear should change only what you ask it to.
> I can tell just by hearing it when something has been added to a chain even when its in an 'idle' position.
If a device has an audible effect when bypassed, then there's a something wrong with the device.
> There is even a difference to me in the ORDER that devices are chained together.
Of course there is! Who said otherwise? Compressing then EQ'ing can sound different than EQ'ing then compressing.
> Its probably not measurable so I cannot provide a concrete scientific proof
Everything in audio is measurable.
--Ethan
Originally posted by Davedog: Its probably not measurable so I
Originally posted by Davedog:
Its probably not measurable so I cannot provide a concrete scientific proof that this can be so ,other than my ears.
Dave,
It is not physically possible for the ears to hear ANYTHING that cannot be measured with equipment. :eek: (Although it is possible to measure many many frequescies which the ears can never hear)
If you "hear" something and then cannot verify that - it must be the mind playing tricks.... phycho-acoustics is real.......
Think about it.
Happy Hunting
Rod
Ethan, I had no idea I was arguing a point with anyone when I me
Ethan, I had no idea I was arguing a point with anyone when I mentioned that I could hear a difference in how a chain is ordered.I dont recall anyone mentioning it and was simply adding it to the mix on this topic.
As for any devices being defective when being able to be detected in a chain when in 'bypass' mode, I never stated it had to be in 'bypass' but simply in 'idle'..ie no effect has been chosen but the device, such as an eq is 'in' yet not boosted nor cut.
This being my point to your suggestion that one eq or another regardless of price would suffice in a circuit to alter a signal. It would seem that the 'build quality' would effect this chain in a number of ways some good and some not so good...ie. the addition of noise etc.
While I entirely agree with you that theoretically, all equalization devices being equal(heheh), one should do the job as well as another, there are ,through the designs of each circuit ,a number a variables that cannot help but effect the output of a signal from device to device.
Can we agree on this point outside of theory?
> The Nighpro EQ's (which are analog) do I don't believe anyth
Why don't you believe anything from them? Have you actually tried out their equalizers? They really do sound very different than any other analog EQ I've ever heard, and as it was explained to me it was because there is so little phase shift in their designs.
I never debunked their "magic is in the air" claim...again, having heard their equalizers I believe it is true. What I don't believe, and what I think we debunked, is that we're actually hearing those "air" frequencies...rather, that when we boost those frequencies the frequencies we can hear are affected. I don't believe that they claimed otherwise.
-Duardo