Login / Register
 
Waves PAZ Analyzer... Filling in the gaps.....
Closed
Subscribe
BC_Music
Thread Starter
#1
9th February 2009
Old 9th February 2009
  #1
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 8

Thread Starter
BC_Music is offline
Waves PAZ Analyzer... Filling in the gaps.....

*FOREWARNING* I am a newbie when it comes to mastering...

As shown here, I'm trying to fill in the gaps on my stereo mix:

Waves PAZ Analyzer... Filling in the gaps.....-stereomixhelp.jpg Name: StereoMixHelp.jpg Views: 4383 Size: 179.1 KB ID: 109656" style="margin: 2px" />

That's about it, really. If I'm leaving any information out, please let me know.

EDIT: I've taken professionally mastered tracks and analyzed them and they have no gaps...
Gomez
Verified Member
#2
9th February 2009
Old 9th February 2009
  #2
Gear addict
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: London U.K.
Posts: 328

Verified Member
Gomez is offline
Mastering with your ears would be a good start. Making a "flat line" on the analyzer won't mean you mix will sound good.
BC_Music
Thread Starter
#3
9th February 2009
Old 9th February 2009
  #3
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 8

Thread Starter
BC_Music is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomez View Post
Mastering with your ears would be a good start. Making a "flat line" on the analyzer won't mean you mix will sound good.
Well, I've gotten it to the point where it sounds good, but I just want it to be uniform.

Oh, and thanks for the quick reply!!
#4
9th February 2009
Old 9th February 2009
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Delta Heavy's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: London
Posts: 604

Delta Heavy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC_Music View Post
Well, I've gotten it to the point where it sounds good, but I just want it to be uniform.

Oh, and thanks for the quick reply!!
forget the analyzer and use your ears

its music, not a colouring in book
#5
9th February 2009
Old 9th February 2009
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,644

audio ergo sum is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC_Music View Post
Well, I've gotten it to the point where it sounds good, but I just want it to be uniform...
Why in Gods name! Make it INTERESTING! These holes mean nothing. It means that there is no mono signal in left and no mono signal in the right channel.

Stop using these plugins for the next five years! Use your ears. Compare your mixes with reference mixes WITH YOUR EARS! Your beginner years are the key. If you start with these habits, you will never train your ears to the level of proficiency.

I personally find the PAZ meter useless. The classic tools are phase-osci and ppm meter. Learn to use those first. PAZ is crap and unintuitive, especially the phasescope.
BC_Music
Thread Starter
#6
9th February 2009
Old 9th February 2009
  #6
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 8

Thread Starter
BC_Music is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post
Why in Gods name! Make it INTERESTING! These holes mean nothing. It means that there is no mono signal in left and no mono signal in the right channel.

Stop using these plugins for the next five years! Use your ears. Compare your mixes with reference mixes WITH YOUR EARS! Your beginner years are the key. If you start with these habits, you will never train your ears to the level of proficiency.

I personally find the PAZ meter useless. The classic tools are phase-osci and ppm meter. Learn to use those first. PAZ is crap and unintuitive, especially the phasescope.
Understood...
#7
9th February 2009
Old 9th February 2009
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Yiannis's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Crete
Posts: 505

Yiannis is offline
What you see wrong it doesn't mean that it has to sound bad.

so as everyone says,use your ears.
MASSIVE Master
Verified Member
#8
9th February 2009
Old 9th February 2009
  #8
Lives for gear
 
MASSIVE Master's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago (Schaumburg / Hoffman Est.) IL
Posts: 3,022
My Recordings/Credits

Verified Member
Send a message via AIM to MASSIVE Master
MASSIVE Master is offline
Quote:
As shown here, I'm trying to fill in the gaps on my stereo mix:
If there's something wrong with a mix - YOUR mix - fix the mix.

Why would you do it any other way?

But as mentioned - You're not working for your eyes here...
__________________
John Scrip - Massive Mastering, LLC - www.massivemastering.com

Spoon-feed a newb some answer and he'll mix for a day -
Get him to *think* about it and figure it out for himself and he'll mix for a lifetime --- JS
#9
9th February 2009
Old 9th February 2009
  #9
Mixing-M.E.
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 937

Edward_Vinatea is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC_Music View Post
*FOREWARNING* I am a newbie when it comes to mastering...

As shown here, I'm trying to fill in the gaps on my stereo mix:

Attachment 109656

That's about it, really. If I'm leaving any information out, please let me know.

EDIT: I've taken professionally mastered tracks and analyzed them and they have no gaps...
Those gaps are only indicating the lack of energy distribution in the stereo field. Nothing more. Notice that your stereo position display does show other instruments' frequencies as being hard panned on both directions. And, that your mix also contains lots of anti-phase information. In short, there is nothing wrong with those "gaps" if the mix sounds like it has a good stereo image. Keep also in mind that what you are showing in that picture is just slice of time and things may change quickly. If you need to separate some instruments a bit more in the mix, for example electric guitars, now you know where to pan them.

Regards,
__________________
Edward Vinatea
Audio Engineer
----------------------------
[IMG]http://*************************/images/Edward_V_20_Year_200pix.gif[/IMG]
#10
9th February 2009
Old 9th February 2009
  #10
Gear nut
 
Jarp2600's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Apeldoorn, NL
Posts: 137

Send a message via MSN to Jarp2600
Jarp2600 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Those gaps are only indicating the lack of energy distribution in the stereo field. Nothing more. Notice that your stereo position display does show other instruments' frequencies as being hard panned on both directions. And, that your mix also contains lots of anti-phase information. In short, there is nothing wrong with those "gaps" if the mix sounds like it has a good stereo image. Keep also in mind that what you are showing in that picture is just slice of time and things may change quickly. If you need to separate some instruments a bit more in the mix, for example electric guitars, now you know where to pan them.

Regards,
I'd actually trust my ears for that too... :'')
#11
9th February 2009
Old 9th February 2009
  #11
Mixing-M.E.
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 937

Edward_Vinatea is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarp2600 View Post
I'd actually trust my ears for that too... :'')
Sure, why not. It's never a bad idea ---

Regards,
#12
10th February 2009
Old 10th February 2009
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,644

audio ergo sum is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Those gaps are only indicating the lack of energy distribution in the stereo field. ...
Not true.
Regarding "lack of energy distribution"
What is then the opposite, "presence of energy distribution"?
pretty meaningless mumbo jumbo IMO.
MASSIVE Master
Verified Member
#13
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #13
Lives for gear
 
MASSIVE Master's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago (Schaumburg / Hoffman Est.) IL
Posts: 3,022
My Recordings/Credits

Verified Member
Send a message via AIM to MASSIVE Master
MASSIVE Master is offline
I'm in no way trying to argue here and I'm typing in a calm, soothing manner.

We don't have a "bias against analysis tools" here - We (well, many of us) just don't use them for what people think we use them for / as companies market them.

No chef I know will chemically analyze a soup to find out if there's too much salt in it - He'll taste it. He's not going to send a dipping oil to the lab to find out if he put enough garlic in it - He'll dip a chunk of bread in it and taste it.

If he chooses to find out exactly how much salt he used in the soup to make it taste the way it does, he could certainly have it analyzed to find out precisely how much salt there is in that particular batch of soup -- But knowing "how much" salt there is isn't going to make it taste any different to the person eating the soup.

No painter I know will make a graph to figure out how many square inches of red paint he used on a painting vs. how many square inches of blue. He'll take a step back and look at the painting to see if the colors are to his preference.

If he'd like to, he can scan the painting and select different colors and find out what percentage of the area any particular color takes up in the painting. But knowing that percentage isn't going to tell him if the painting looks the way he wanted it to.

The chef isn't starting his day out by trying to make a soup with precisely 50mg of sodium per 8 fl oz. He's trying to make a good soup. The painter isn't trying to make a painting with precisely 93.7 square inches of red coverage and 142 square inches of blue. He's trying to put what's in his head on to the canvas.

So the budding "rookie" chef gets some soup to go and has it analyzed for sodium content -- He is going to make a soup from completely different ingredients in a different kitchen and he has a different skills than the chef who made the original soup. Is knowing how much salt there is in that soup going to make him a better chef? Absolutely not. Is it going to guarantee that his soup won't suck horrifically and cause everyone who eats it to wind up in the hospital? Definitely not. Knowing how much salt is in there is just that - Knowing how much salt is in there.

The budding art student studies the painting of the seasoned artist and finds out that he used 93.7 square inches of red paint in a particular painting that he really likes. So, with a completely different set of paints, in a room with perhaps inaccurate lighting, he makes a painting while concentrating on hardly anything else except making sure that his painting also has 93.7 square inches of red (not the same red, as the lighting is different - and not in the same shapes or with the same style as the artist, of course - but what else would you expect?). Is matching that particular coverage of that particular color going to guarantee that the budding art student will make a painting is detailed and visually stimulating as the seasoned artist?

No one here is "scared" of meters. No one is afraid of losing their jobs to - to meters (?) God, it's actually hard to type that without laughing out loud. We embrace technical advances.

In the grand scheme, we're not the chefs - We're the chef's buddy who gets a taste of the soup after the chef has been slaving in the kitchen all day, tasting the soup over and over as he makes it. Once he thinks it's a great soup, we get a little sample of it and say "it could use a pinch of salt" -- Or we just add some preservatives while trying to change the taste as little as possible, package it up and send it out to the canning plant.

The more I think about it, if I made soup and someone came in and started distilling it to find the sodium content, I'd probably look at him funny. Unless his job was to analyze the content to put it on the nutrition label...

We're also not the artists. We're the artist's friend who walks in after he's been working on a painting for months and we either have an emotional attachment to the painting, or we might say "maybe we can tone that red down a little bit." Then we carefully package a bunch of his paintings and help hang them in a gallery in a way that makes his show a little "cooler" to someone who's never seen those paintings before. He's seen them hundreds of times. We've never seen them. He has his favorites - we might have a suggestion on putting "this" painting next to "that" painting because they look good next to each other - Or because they don't look anything like each other and the contrast between them creates a unique visual tension that the artist just might not notice after having worked on all of them for so long.

The same thing goes with sound. I couldn't give a rat's rear end how much 2.5kHz a meter tells me is there. If there's too much, I'm going to knock it down a notch. I don't care what the RMS levels are - If it's too squished, it's too squished. Some recordings will sound "too squished" at -15dBRMS. Some will sound pretty good up to -10dBRMS.

I don't need a meter to tell me where it sounds "squished" -- And I'm not going to apologize for that.

We're not trying to get people to "not use tools" -- We're trying to relate the simple fact that they should concentrate on using the tools that really matter.
#14
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 544

flatfinger is offline
Ben F
Verified Member
#15
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,181

Verified Member
Ben F is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatfinger View Post
For the OP ,
The fools over at Electronic Musician ignored the complete folly that are analysis tools at published this article


Electronic Musician explains metering and analysis programs | What metering and analysis programs are and how to use them to avoid audio problems
And summarised it well:

"Analysis tools give us useful data, but it is only data, not knowledge about the audio. So, in the final analysis, the ears remain the best and most important source of knowledge about whether something sounds good. But data can be seductive, and people sometimes come to rely more on what they think meters are telling them than on what their ears tell them. That becomes a problem if someone is not metering the appropriate information or if the quantitative data supplied by a meter does not map well to the most closely related perceptual attribute. For instance, level meters mostly give representations that are of the power in a signal. But loudness is a perceptual attribute that does not map directly to signal power as shown on a typical meter. Or the problem may be as simple as not metering the right parameter.

In any event, meters are best treated as supplements to what we hear. If there is a discrepancy between the two, further inquiry may be in order. But it is foolish to assume that the meters must be “right” and that you aren't hearing correctly."
__________________
Studios 301
#16
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,644

audio ergo sum is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatfinger View Post
Dear OP ,
Please accept an apology from me. This forum has a serious bias against analysis tools . ....
Analysis tools are great, at times when they are important.
BUT since when is Waves PAZ an analysis tool?
It is an indicator at best that can point in a general direction, sometimes in the wrong direction.
It's by no means a tool for professional requirements.

An analysis tool can measure, not only chase jaggy colored lines over the screen...
#17
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,644

audio ergo sum is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatfinger View Post
...bias against analysis tools ...
A "position meter" like in PAZ by definition is no analysis tool but rather an illustration of a shaky concept of psychoacoustics.
The perceived position of the signal is calculated from empiric listening tests and is very blurry, frequency dependent, signal dependent, subjectively different etc.

In short:
The "position meter" in PAZ is an indicator, claiming objectivity in a purely subjective situation, potentially misleading, and no analysis tool.

It is impossible to make a measurement for perceived position in a stereo image.

In audio there are only two basic parameters that matter before the psychoacoustical processing:
-time
-level

only a tool that measures those or it's derivates (phase, frequency...) is an analysis tool.
#18
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,644

audio ergo sum is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatfinger View Post
For the OP ,
The fools over at Electronic Musician ignored the complete folly that are analysis tools at published this article
You completely missed the point of this thread. The OP wanted to match his audio to the view, to make two lines of which he didn't know what they mean to look straight, even though the sound to him was ok.

How is that analysis?
kjg
#19
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #19
kjg
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2008
Location: Amsterdam, NL
Posts: 937

kjg is offline
The OP got a few serious reactions to his question, most of which made sense. I think this is already more then he could expect with a question like that. A lot of responses where saying to let go of this "tool"(which paz is not; it is a toy), and go by ears. This is very important advice especially for a newbie. Sure, (good) analyzers can be useful, but only if you understand enough of what you are doing to interpret their data in the first place. If your understanding is that the gaps should be filled... You probably better just learn to listen and mix in the first place.

A few jokes were made as well. So what?

You do realize he was asking a question similar to: "My mix sounds great, but when I zoom in in Wavelab, there are still quiet bits in the waveform!
How do I get rid of all the quiet bits in between the peaks?

To the OP: Please understand that music exists in time. The changes from one moment to another make it what it is. Changes in melody, rhythm, color etc, in musicians terms.
For the engineer the changes are changes in air pressure (sound in air) or voltage (recorded sound), and changes in spectral content. "Filling in the gaps" would mean you try to make the changes from moment to moment as small as possible. Ultimately this would mean striving for a continuous signal, instead of music!

with kind regards,
Klaas-Jan
#20
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,644

audio ergo sum is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjg View Post
...Ultimately this would mean striving for a continuous signal, instead of music!...
It is the natural progression in the evolution of mankind.
1000 years ago we had Gregorian chants.
Today we have Metallica's "Deaf whatever"
In maybe 100 years there will be 0 dBFS white noise...
(and Gearslutz will discuss the choice of preamp for the white noise)

Until we realize, that the gaps make the music, it might be too late.
It's the equivalent of the final state of a star, the black hole, everything compressed to the maximum.
MASSIVE Master
Verified Member
#21
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #21
Lives for gear
 
MASSIVE Master's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago (Schaumburg / Hoffman Est.) IL
Posts: 3,022
My Recordings/Credits

Verified Member
Send a message via AIM to MASSIVE Master
MASSIVE Master is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjg View Post
You do realize he was asking a question similar to: "My mix sounds great, but when I zoom in in Wavelab, there are still quiet bits in the waveform!
How do I get rid of all the quiet bits in between the peaks?
I actually get those. "Wow, it's nice and loud and it sounds great but it looks like you left some headroom in there - Do you think you could use it to make it louder?"
#22
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #22
Mixing-M.E.
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 937

Edward_Vinatea is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post
Not true.
Regarding "lack of energy distribution"
What is then the opposite, "presence of energy distribution"?
pretty meaningless mumbo jumbo IMO.
If you've never heard of the term "energy distribution" is because I made it up. But seriously, Massive can swear that he has no fear..ehm.. bias against these little analysis tools on a long rant while using his life-changing and enlightening examples {You should write a book of your own: "Mastering with your Ears for Dummies, Mechanics, Cooks and Painters too" } but yet, you make a point of being opposed to their use by the mere act of posting on every RTA or tool analysis related thread telling OPs to just use their ears! Pretty hypocritical if you asked me. When an OP asks how these tools should be used, what they should look for or what a certain parameter means, the same group of individuals arrive to oppose using the tool and acting up in concert they all strive to derail the thread. They give absolutely no information regarding the topic and what's worse, the OP ends up more confused than when he started the thread or worst it gets closed all together. Well, I am considering never coming back to this site. I thought it would have real professionals on board. I don't need this constant harassment by the same group of members. Enough is enough. And FWIW, "gaps" in the stereo field are very different from gaps in the frequency spectrum. Finally, I've always said that one needs to use their ears to do anything with a RTA and that is a "50/50 kind of deal". Never have I ever said that it should be done without a meaningful amount of time spent observing how mix frequencies behave on the frequency spectrum over time.
Sunbreak Music
Verified Member
#23
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Sunbreak Music's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 520

Verified Member
Sunbreak Music is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatfinger View Post
Perhaps they are a little paranoid about all the technical advances that have come along in the last several years .
.
I'm guessing you're new to all this, otherwise you'd realize that the mastering field is known for some of the most empirical minds in the audio profession. I doubt there are many who don't test everything that comes in their studio in one fashion or another--so that there's as much of a finite expectation as can be when using the gear.

While I'm sympathetic to people's limitations, there's no reason to "dumb down" the advice to placate their feelings. If you, based on your experience, have a differing opinion, please chime in. But spare us the blanket remarks.
__________________
Cass Anawaty, Mastering Engineer
Sunbreak Music, LLC
High Resolution Stereo Mastering
www.sunbreakmusic.com
#24
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,644

audio ergo sum is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
If you've never heard of the term "energy distribution" is because I made it up. ...
Energy distribution in a stereo field does not exist. There is no "stereo field", except the one your brain creates, processing the audio that enters the ears.

Therefor it is nonsense to talk about energy distribution in a stereo field.
All there is before the ears is level (call it energy if you want), either electric or sound pressure, in two channels. That's it.
#25
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #25
Gear addict
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 347

Neon Heart is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by BC_Music View Post
*FOREWARNING* I am a newbie when it comes to mastering...

As shown here, I'm trying to fill in the gaps on my stereo mix:

Attachment 109656

That's about it, really. If I'm leaving any information out, please let me know.

EDIT: I've taken professionally mastered tracks and analyzed them and they have no gaps...
Everything on the outer side of the "right" and "left" are phase issues (no good, but you'll hardly manage to eliminate them all in a dense mix).
so they don't indicate that there is something "hard panned", thus you don't have a gap.

you'll actually get information on this in the manual.
__________________
"OK. So I have owned the DL4 3 times. The first time it was stolen so I had to buy another. The second time I realized that it always sounded like plastic so I sold it on Ebay.
The third time I thought I missed it so I bought it again and after two days again realized that it always sounds like plastic so I returned it." Scott Stone
#26
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #26
Mixing-M.E.
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 937

Edward_Vinatea is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post
Energy distribution in a stereo field does not exist. There is no "stereo field", except the one your brain creates, processing the audio that enters the ears.

Therefor it is nonsense to talk about energy distribution in a stereo field.
All there is before the ears is level (call it energy if you want), either electric or sound pressure, in two channels. That's it.
I think your mind is way too "empirical" .
#27
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,644

audio ergo sum is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neon Heart View Post
Everything on the outer side of the "right" and "left" are phase issues (no good, but you'll hardly manage to eliminate them all in a dense mix).
...
Sorry, but that is nonsense. That is an example, why this "tool" does more harm than good.

If you eliminate the "phase issues" your signal will be mono.

PAZ is a tool that nobody needed except the accountants in Waves.
#28
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #28
Gear addict
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 347

Neon Heart is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum View Post
Sorry, but that is nonsense. That is an example, why this "tool" does more harm than good.

If you eliminate the "phase issues" your signal will be mono.

PAZ is a tool that nobody needed except the accountants in Waves.
I disagree.

check your favourite commercial record with it.
hard panned sounds are at 10 and 3 o'clock (EDIT 11:27 PM: correct is 11 and 2 o'clock) on the line of "left" and "right" in the display.
you'll hardly have much information in the anti phase areas (there will be a bit usually but often there is as much as nothing.)
so you say that when there's no information in the "anti-phase" area, the record is mono? complete bullshit.
#29
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #29
Lives for gear
 
KrisNY's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 509

KrisNY is offline
Pop your favorite tune into your DAW and put the PAZ analyzer on it. Should be some gaps!
#30
11th February 2009
Old 11th February 2009
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,644

audio ergo sum is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neon Heart View Post
I disagree.

check your favourite commercial record with it.
hard panned sounds are at 10 and 3 o'clock on the line of "left" and "right" in the display.
you'll hardly have much information in the anti phase areas (there will be a bit usually but often there is as much as nothing.)
so you say that when there's no information in the "anti-phase" area, the record is mono? complete bullshit.
No, that's not what I meant. Let's try a different way.
What are the "phase issues" you were talking about?

http://www.waves.com/Manuals/Plugins/PAZ.pdf
In these examples, the ears do not hear a disturbing ‘out-of-phase’ sound. For us to hear an out-of-phase sound,
there generally needs to be a consistent opposite polarity over a period of time, which the meter will show.
The Stereo Position Display analysis takes this into account. Still there will be occasional fast spikes in the antiphase
region, and you can ignore them if they are not consistent, especially if you know you are using stereo delay or
similar effects. You might be really bothered if the energy in the out-of-phase region is consistently significant
compared with the energy of the ‘in-phase’ region.

I'm actually only bothered by the utter lack of basic engineering knowledge. The manual is really hard to read without getting angry. The display of decorrelated signals appears to be totally arbitrary. The established terms for these problems are "correlation vs coherency" which Waves doesn't even mention. What are they trying to tell us here? What does "consistently significant" regarding a "measurement tool" mean. Nobody knows what this "tool" actually displays. This tool is BS.
Closed Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
edIT / Mastering forum
16
elambo / Music Computers
8
gusegruv / Music Computers
5
garbagelarge / Low End Theory
8
jazzy655 / Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production
2

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.