Hi George;

I was wondering if you are using analog EQ on the way into the DAW these days, with the thought that it will likely stay digital to completion.

BTW, I've been enjoying The Well, the past year or so. Terrific mixes...

Terry

hi Terry,

i pretty much always use some kind of analog processing in front of my conversion to dig. if i'm anticipating deep compression it becomes more and more important to do this compression in the analog domain instead of in digital, as in general every 6dB of dig make-up gain is more one bit of resolution lost.

George

AHA .... maybe that's part of the reason I have such a hard time liking dynamics plugins. EQ's are far easier to like as a plugin then dynamics imho.

Would I dare say that EQ wise, one can asume plugins can co-exist along side hardware but that plugin dynamics are still very much chasing hardware ?

Well, I haven't heard all of them (I mean, there are hundreds of them, aren't there?) but I'd have to say that right now dynamics plugs fall short.

George

Hi George,

Thanks for sharing your time...

I totally agree with this. I only like a couple of dynamic plugs.

I was wondering of how you aproach your EQ'ing in terms of outboard gear vs plugins. Do you use the plugs for all around coloring of your tracks and then use the outboard EQ for your mix or submixes? Is it a matter of time in studio that makes you use plugs instead of outboard (patching, settings etc. etc.)?
Is it beeing a matter of taste now that you can work with your own Massenburg Design Works?

Regards,
Pupo

Hello. What are your thoughts about using analog outboard gear at Mixdown in a DAW set-up??
Thanks Mr. Massenburg.

Hi George :

I don't understand. How does make-up gain in a compressor plug-in result in loss
of resolution ? Where is the resolution lost ?

Thanks

Sorry for the intrusion, but his is my loose interpretation of GML statement:
6db is the amount of dynamic range you get for every bit.
the original, recorded signal is using it's determined (fixed) amount of bits at each sample, once it goes in to the Plugin, you end up adding more information to the original signal even though you are not going any "louder" than the original peaks.........................Joaquin.

bump?

wow. that's pretty confusing.

let's start again.

think about what you do when you "compress" a signal. what you're doing is first adding some gain, then evaluating the signal level and reducing the gain when the signal rises above some set "threshold". right? so, think about that stage where you add gain; it doesn't come from nowhere...you're bringing up low level signals. in a digital word there's only so much there. in fact, every time you add 6.0206dB of gain, you're shiifting the digital word one bit left. what goes into bit 0 at the far right of the word? zero. there's no more resolution there.

anyway, if you (like me) are compressing 24dB or more you're reducing your dynamic range by 4 bits.

get it?

George

YES Sir!!
now, what would the benefits in reducing your dynamic range out of the box?
...I probably should just think some time before making the question...but, I wanted to thank you right away............................Joaquin.

What sort of things do you apply that much compression to?

gm?
c'mon. you're pulling our leg, right?
No way your compressing things that much.
If so, give us an example. Show me the album and the track and my very next purchase will be one of your compressors. Absolutely swear it will. Might take me a while to save up that much admittedly, but I've heard a ton of your records and never heard heavy compression.

would the same logic apply to a dynamics processor with double internal precision, which is so common today, 48 or 64 bit?

absolutely not. you're confusing conversion resolution with processing resolution. once you've converted at 24 bits you can't squeeze any more bits out of it, in spite of what some manufacturers want you to think. oh, and by the way, very few converters out there really have useable, measurable resolution down to the 24th bit. furthermore, many of the manufacturers that claim it can't measure it.

George

Would It be correct to asume that when using Hardware compression as an Insert, or send and return configuration, I would get whole new "words", with full resolution for my signal thru the AD??...I believe that that's correct, but, what are your thoughts on using Analog Hardware in a Daw setup??
How would the Gain structure in a Equalizer plugin differ with the one in the Compressor plugin?...would we have the same resolution loss??
Thanks for your time. Appreciate your patience....................Joaquin.

which converters out there have true 24 bit resolution?

Actually, if I remember correctly, in an interview in the old REP Magazine (I really miss that one) George mentions that on the Joshua Judges Ruth record that everyone raves about, he used 20db or more of gain reduction on Lyle Lovett's lead vocal!!

GML Compressors Rule!!

ohh yes he does ;-) Try one of them GML 8900 Comps and you´ll know why you do not hear it ! I bet nearly every Linda R record George has done there´s at least 24db compression on her voice... heh

Kind regards

Peter

gm,
Do you compress in multiple stages or all at once? It sounds like the mic is in the back of Lyle's throat! Looks like I won't be getting any Christmas gear this year, I gotta keep saving!

i don't know whether you can prove that any converter can get "true 24 bit resolution". you can demonstrate artifacts so many dB down, and you can measure overall noise and distortion.

geez, i don't know...perhaps one should use one's ears?

George

Do you have brand preference? I've been looking for a good pair of these "ear" units. I'm quite sure they are the bottleneck in my recordings. I've heard the British ones are good. Chinese ones are good for the money...but, really crappy compared directly the the German models. Even though science would dictate otherwise, I hear the older units yeild better results.

heh

Hi George,

It is true that the "Ears" and the "Feelings" influenced by sound have to rule all decisionmaking. Given that the "ears" and "feelings" are so imporantant to people's ultimate enjoyment of sound, some may find the following linked whitepaper both relevant and interesting.

I fell that a "multidisciplinary approach" by entire teams of qualified specialists is required to better understand the human beings response to sound. Ironically, this suggested approach is often met with bitter resistance from "certain" quarters who claim to be scientists.

In the following linked paper the researchers explain "the natural environment, such as tropical rain forests, usually contains sounds that are extremely rich in HFCs over 100 kHz. From an anthropogenetic point of view, the sensory system of human beings exposed to a natural environment would stand a good chance of developing some physiological sensitivity to HFCs."

We now have commercially available speakers that reach high frequencies in the 100kHz range and we also have microphones such as the new 100kHz Sanken mic.
The availibility of these mic and speaker technologies should make it easier for reaserch teams to construct proper multidisciplinary test suites.

In addition, in the following paper you'll see that the researchers point to the fact that "[i]t is widely known that the upper limit of the audible range of humans varies considerably." You'll also see other examples of high frequency gear as well as some citations to respected audio equipment designers such as Rupert Neve.

For example, the linked paper points out that "artists and engineers working to produce acoustically perfect music for commercial purposes are convinced that the intentional manipulation of HFC above the audible range can positively affect the perception of sound quality (Neve 1992)."

And the researchers findings are summarised in their conclusions which state: "Psychological evaluation indicated that the subjects felt the sound containing an HFC to be more pleasant than the same sound lacking [i]n HFC."

Given that 100kHz speaker systems and 100kHz mics are now upon us, it is worthwhile and now feasible to construct other test suites on the entire human system utilizing a "multidisciplinary scientific approach" along the lines of the following paper.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

I'd be curious to see other people's comments about this study, and see if any of them have any ideas of how the human tests conducted by teams of qualified multidisciplinary experts might be improved upon.

In addition, I'd like to see people's suggestions and ideas of what the "Digital Sound Roadmap" or specific steps an "Digital Sound Action Plan" for the future might contain of how we could improve digital sound quality.

The scientific paper shows that it is *all about* human's ears and human feelings, areas which are too often overlooked, or worse, feelings and ears are even "derided" in certain constricted circles. I'm glad there are people in the world like GM with the integrity to remind us to notice our feelings and use our ears.

I'll second the suggestion to try the GML-8900. Yes, you can do 24 dB of compression or peak limiting and have it survive quite nicely.

Residual circuit noise alone will destroy any possibilities of achieving 24-bit resolution, to say nothing of real-world converter performance. Them's "marketing bits!"

Looks like a lot of us will be buying GML pres and compressors while he is here!
Im looking to get one soon. Of course it will be my last purchase for my studio then Im done buying. LOL

If you buy one, you'll probably get addicted and need to have a rack full of GML gear.

Cheers.

ahhh..the ubiquitous "use your ears" answer....

You mentioned that very few converters out there really have useable, measurable resolution down to the 24th bit. Since they all claim 24 bit resolution, in your experience, which ones are part of the few that actually do?