spectrum analysers high end

[Ravian]

hi, all

i have a question about the natural roll off of the high end of the spectrum.

i have mixed a song and looked at the analyzer (rme analyzer)
and i see there is a roll off...oke...and the analyzer show's me peak's and valley's.. but when i limit the mix add dither bounce the track to a 16 bit wav file. I play the track in windows media player and i see the spectrum is smooth there are no random peak's any more every thing seems to flow with the rhytm.and the strange thing is when i mixed the song the freq. when'd till 16 Khz.and now it flows up till 20 Khz. when i play a wel mixed cd i also see this.
i also played the track on other media players, and with the same outcome.

so i was thinking could it be the dither ???
so i looked at the analyzer with the dither on the mix ....but it was not the same as with the bounced version....

Does some one here can give me a anwser...

thnx in advance.

Ravian.

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by Ravian

hi, all

i have a question about the natural roll off of the high end of the spectrum.

i have mixed a song and looked at the analyzer (rme analyzer)
and i see there is a roll off...oke...and the analyzer show's me peak's and valley's.. but when i limit the mix add dither bounce the track to a 16 bit wav file. I play the track in windows media player and i see the spectrum is smooth there are no random peak's any more every thing seems to flow with the rhytm.and the strange thing is when i mixed the song the freq. when'd till 16 Khz.and now it flows up till 20 Khz. when i play a wel mixed cd i also see this.
i also played the track on other media players, and with the same outcome.

so i was thinking could it be the dither ???
so i looked at the analyzer with the dither on the mix ....but it was not the same as with the bounced version....

Does some one here can give me a anwser...

thnx in advance.

Ravian.

ummmm.... what does it sound like?? Nobody is going to judge your music on what an analyzer looks like while it is playing. Pretty pictures flapping about is all well and good - but in mastering a better rule to stick to is:
Use your ears.

For me RTA's are only useful in mastering for honing in on a particular note or frequency that for some reason I'm not able to hone in on as quickly without the help of a visual aid. After that - there's really not any reason to look at them. Obviously ymmv - but the vast majority of ME's I'm aware of either leave the spectrum analyzers off or don't bother looking at them.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[MASSIVE Master]

I have a feeling the Windows RTA is designed to be pretty - Not accurate.

[Ravian]

it is not that i spend my time looking at the RTA the whole day.
i just noticed it. when i turned on my RTA..
always ears before I 's

PS: it sounds good.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

I have a feeling the Windows RTA is designed to be pretty - Not accurate.

Me thinks the same!

A "real" SPA will also show different results depending on the settings.


/Peter

[Edward_Vinatea]

I have one on {RTA} in every mastering session. IMHO - those MEs who have been analyzing spectrum earlier in their mastering careers would see things a bit different than those who rely 100% on what they hear. A RTA is not going to make anyone a ME - but it helps understand the changes being done to the source material a lot better than without one. It may also help smooth out excessive high peak transients, achieve a bit extra loudness {on some material} and other practical uses that are a bit OT. However and on topic now - a 'WMP' RTA is inaccurate and unreliable and I suspect the reason is/was bad reverse engineering.

Best regards,

[Ravian]

Originally Posted by Ravian

hi, all

i have a question about the natural roll off of the high end of the spectrum.

i have mixed a song and looked at the analyzer (rme analyzer)
and i see there is a roll off...oke...and the analyzer show's me peak's and valley's.. but when i limit the mix add dither bounce the track to a 16 bit wav file. I play the track in windows media player and i see the spectrum is smooth there are no random peak's any more every thing seems to flow with the rhytm.and the strange thing is when i mixed the song the freq. when'd till 16 Khz.and now it flows up till 20 Khz. when i play a wel mixed cd i also see this.
i also played the track on other media players, and with the same outcome.

so i was thinking could it be the dither ???
so i looked at the analyzer with the dither on the mix ....but it was not the same as with the bounced version....

Does some one here can give me a anwser...

thnx in advance.

Ravian.

sorry guy's if i did not make my self clear......but i did not use the WMP RTA. but the RME RTA. for the mix and after the mix. and with the same RTA the 2 had a diffrent outcome. hope this clears it up.

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea

I have one on {RTA} in every mastering session. IMHO - those MEs who have been analyzing spectrum earlier in their mastering careers would see things a bit different than those who rely 100% on what they hear.

Why on earth wouldn't you rely 100% on what you hear? Your client has no idea how pretty the analyzer looks!

If there is any generalization that can be made on the visual spectrum of music it is 1/f.

Fractal Geometry Panorama


DC

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by dcollins

Why on earth wouldn't you rely 100% on what you hear? Your client has no idea how pretty the analyzer looks!

For the same reason YOU wouldn't rely mastering on someone else's room and 'your client' knows the sound of it even less.

I really hope I didn't offend your professional sensibility with my post - that's something I'd never want because I know you did one of my all time favorite albums from The Police and I assume by the way you responded without the aid of a RTA which is the norm in most mastering studios.

But I've never said that you can master with RTA alone, you still need to trust your ears first - if that was the interpretation then I hope this clarifies my position on the issue.

If there is any generalization that can be made on the visual spectrum of music it is 1/f.

Can you come up with a better example than pink noise?

Regards,

[MASSIVE Master]

Can you come up with a better example than pink noise?

??? The Voss/Clarke studies are several genres of music from all over the world. All exhibiting something resembling 1/f. Not pink noise...

I (and I assume many others) just can't comprehend the RTA as a useful tool unless something else (like a crossover failing) is terribly wrong... No RTA is going to tell me to make a 1/2dB cut at 2.5kHz or if a recording sounds muddy. And if there's enough energy to cause a *visual* deviation, then I'd damn well better be able to hear it.

Sure, if there's VDO whine, it can tell me precisely where it is - But it's not like I need it to tell me it's there. And I'm not going to have it dictate how I handle it - I'm going to do what sounds best/most transparent by ear.

I'll start using a RTA to tell me what something sounds like around the time I start licking paint to find out what color it is.

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

??? The Voss/Clarke studies are several genres of music from all over the world. All exhibiting something resembling 1/f. Not pink noise...

Hi Massive - the truth is I didn't bother to check the link. But as you know 1/f is pink noise {Sorry for using Wikipedia - it's just for those who don't know - not you}. At a quick glance - I don't think using that theory of musical correlations is a good example for what it is we use the RTA for in real mixing or mastering situations. That's my POV on Collin's argument.

I (and I assume many others) just can't comprehend the RTA as a useful tool unless something else (like a crossover failing) is terribly wrong... No RTA is going to tell me to make a 1/2dB cut at 2.5kHz or if a recording sounds muddy. And if there's enough energy to cause a *visual* deviation, then I'd damn well better be able to hear it.

It tells me Massive, believe me it does and I am not imaging it either. There's usually lots of density at around 2.5k when you hear it and need to dip some of that {or between 250 and 450Hz for muddiness}. The main thing and we both strongly agree here is that you need to use your ears to make the right amount of cut or boost. You also need good monitoring system for that {Or at least intimate knowledge of the room you are in}

I'll start using a RTA to tell me what something sounds like around the time I start licking paint to find out what color it is.

That's too bad you feel that way. But don't dismiss it so rapidly. Just my 2 cents.

Best regards,

[MASSIVE Master]

That's too bad you feel that way. But don't dismiss it so rapidly. Just my 2 cents.

I've been using RTA's for 30 years. Nothing rapid about it. If I'm shooting a room, it's the handiest thing around. If my hearing is all screwy due to a bad cold or something and I'm having a hard time zeroing in on frequencies, I might have a glance at it. I just don't need to look at something to tell me what something sounds like.

I don't look at gain reduction meters either. Nor VU meters for the most part as long as my chain is calibrated. I'll have a look here and there to reinforce what my ears are telling me - Otherwise, they're just meters...

[jdg]

i just drove to the store and back, and i didn't even look at the road once! thank god for that odometer. i didn't find the fuel gauge that useful tho.

[MASSIVE Master]

Going with the automative analogy -- If you don't know where you are, a GPS on the dash is pretty handy.

If you know where you are, it's pretty useless.

[Edward_Vinatea]

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

I've been using RTA's for 30 years. Nothing rapid about it. If I'm shooting a room, it's the handiest thing around. If my hearing is all screwy due to a bad cold or something and I'm having a hard time zeroing in on frequencies, I might have a glance at it. I just don't need to look at something to tell me what something sounds like.

Indeed nothing rapid about that Massive. Thanks for sharing that -- thumbsup

EDIT: Love your GPS analogy.

Kind regards,

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by jdg

i just drove to the store and back, and i didn't even look at the road once! thank god for that odometer.

Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master

Going with the automative analogy -- If you don't know where you are, a GPS on the dash is pretty handy.

If you know where you are, it's pretty useless.

And if you not only know where you are, but where you need to get to, and how best to get there (and which routes to avoid)... totally useless.

[Edward_Vinatea]

I need GPS help myself right now as I have no idea of where I am standing on anymore. Last time I looked I was at a mastering forum then suddenly I am reading stuff from Car Talk with Click and Clack.

Whoever doesn't love a good clown should be banned from this site.

Regards,