The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Transient Response - One of my favorite subjects..... Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 22nd August 2007
  #31
Lives for gear
 
mtstudios@charter's Avatar
 

I like compression. I like the way it sounds. Some of my favorite records have used it as an effect. Chili Peppers records, Led Zep Records, Radiohead, the list goes on. I don't like when it is used on every instrument or when the mix is over compressed, but I do like it when it is used to extremes or not on certain parts.
Old 22nd August 2007
  #32
Gear Maniac
 
Stu Gutz's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Swedien View Post
Jim Williams........

Thanks Jim. You're a gasser!!!!

Bruce
It's the food he eats.
Old 22nd August 2007
  #33
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sutton View Post
"When compressors are outlawed only outlaws will have compressors"

hilarious! thumbsup


gregoire
del
ubk
.
Old 22nd August 2007
  #34
Lives for gear
 
The Listener's Avatar
And still we know nothing concrete about the way Bruce Swedien uses them... Ok, I understand that people like to share only what they want to... But this seems to be one of those subjects that Mr.Swedien systematically avoids clearing... Like - I don't like compression, it doesn't sound musical - but his records are loud enough and it was used subtly in the process and it was mentioned in some threads, but nothing specific that could be very useful to aspiring recorders / mixers... I know there is no recipe - but some useful advice about compressing approach from the master of audio who doesn't like it much - so he must have perfected the use when he needs it - would be very appreciated here.

best to all
Old 22nd August 2007
  #35
Deleted bd1be4f
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sutton View Post
Some of my favorite sounding records are from the Beatles, Rubber Soul, SGT.Peppers, and as I understand it they had the snot compressed out of them. So I don't think that it follows that compressors are inherently evil...........just dangerous in the wrong hands.
Exactly. Ringo's "exploding" cymbal sound was thanks largely to the compression that was used. They had Fairchild, Altec and EMI limiters they were using on those albums, and you can hear it.

There are many albums and recordings that would not sound the way they did were it not for the use of compression or limiting. I can think of many recordings where compression was used to achieve a specific sound that nothing else can achieve.

Compression is like anything else in audio production, namely it is a tool. And like other tools, it can be overused or abused. To assume that one needs to work only at the extremes (compression everywhere or no compression at all) is to miss the forest for the trees IMO.
Old 22nd August 2007
  #36
Lives for gear
 
studjo's Avatar
 

if you guys search you might find that lovely pic of Bruce's DBX compressors - well I never quite got what he's doing with those - but that's just me


Jo
Old 22nd August 2007
  #37
Viking
 
Bruce Swedien's Avatar
 

It’s All About The Music.....

It’s All About The Music.....

Here's how I really feel abot it....

When a technique or peice of equipment gets in the way of the music we have lost our opportunity to express ouselves with our recordings....

Try to think of it this way.....
_________________________________________________________________

Someone said this to me the other day: "Great art is clear thinking about mixed feelings..." That thought keeps coming back to me. Perhaps it is because I have always felt that I am an artist at what I do...

My pal John Klett said something very interesting to me the other day: “Don’t ever go for some piece of equipment just because it’s got a better number, or because people say this is the thing to do”. (I can't get his statement get out of my head either)

Think about this for a minute... “It is possible for the human ear to quickly analyze complex musical sources and sounds far more quickly and much more accurately than any known test equipment.”

How does this Phenomenon apply to Recording Equipment?
This fact has always been fascinating to me. I have talked to highly skilled technicians who will say that when you test music mixing consoles with very sophisticated test equipment, two different consoles will measure essentially the same, yet when you send the same musical sound source through these two mixing desks, our perception of the musical quality at the output of the two mixing consoles will be very different. In fact, I have found this same occurrence to be true when comparing all music recording equipment.

I believe this dilemma is a good example of the necessity for us to not place our confidence in either the objective or subjective schools of thought when it comes to judging music recording equipment. In this case what I mean by objective thought, is the comparison of sound equipment as an impartial and unbiased process. The word objective is defined as being characterized by honesty, justice and freedom from improper influence. By subjective thought, what I mean is that our analysis of such sound comparison as an intellectual or cerebral process.

This is, as you can see, two sides of the same coin. I think when it comes to equipment comparison, it really goes far deeper than that. To me it really involves our basic instincts and emotions.

The reason I am making such a big point of this one issue is that I see a good number of people in our industry who take equipment manufacturers specification statements at face value.

I don’t mean to infer that equipment manufacturers specification statements are deliberatly falsified. Not at all. It’s the fact that there are so many ways to interpret a technical statement that we absolutely must reserve the right to make an evaluation with our own needs, abilities and emotions as part of the process.

Please don’t let the printed page totally influence your judgement when it comes to evaluating music recording equipment. The specificatons that a manufacturer states as to how his equipment will perform is merely a starting point from which we will select what equipment we want to consider. After we make the initial choice about what equipment we want to assess, we must listen to it with our ears and our hearts and make the final evaluation with our instincts. Making equipment choices must be a very instinctive and personal process.

We must develope a willingness to follow our instincts. Gut reactions translated to music recordings are the most believable. This may be more true in our work than in any other field of endeavor. If we have good instincts to begin with, we must learn to listen to that little voice in the back of our heads, or behind our belly buttons, or
wherever it resides and do what it tells us is right.

And that also means whether to use compression or not to use compression.....

If you analyzed all the frequencies and combinations of frequencies in the tone of a few notes from a violin, and then wrote a program for a computer to indicate that sound exactly, could you tell from the resultant computer print-out what kind of a violin it was? The human ear can discern such subtlies almost instantaneously.

The human ear can tell from exclusively subjective means, much more quickly and accurately than any known test equipment. It's like the old musical intrument makers. They didn't measure, they just listened. Stradivarius didn't have a computer. Perhaps his violins would not have been as wonderful sounding if he had had a computer.
_________________________________________________________________

Bruce Swedien
Old 22nd August 2007
  #38
Deleted bd1be4f
Guest
Some excellent points, Bruce.

It ties into one of my personal favorite quotes from Louis Armstrong--"If it sounds good, it IS good". And to that end, I'm a big believer in using whatever tools one sees fit to use to achieve the desired result. If it happens to be compression, so be it. If not, that's fine too.
Old 22nd August 2007
  #39
Lives for gear
 
soundbarnfool's Avatar
 

Finally, someone quoted Satchmo!
Old 22nd August 2007
  #40
Testing results would be more informative if they were complete and not fudged. Unfortunately, even specs are spun these days. When I did product reviews for REP magazine I would run complete Audio Precision plots and they would publish all of them. Yes, that pissed off a couple of manufacturers.

A picture is worth a thousand words...

Static specs printed with words are not "the rest of the story". Seeing a THD vs frequency plot tells a larger story than a .01% THD at 1k hz. So does a crosstalk vs frequency and a noise vs frequency plot. An FFT plot tells much more than a THD+noise spec. Avoiding "A" weighting also avoids spec padding. Reference points for specs can also skew measurements. Just using DBV instead of dbu will buy you a couple db better performance on paper.

For many manufacturers, spec padding has become an art form, it's about the marketing, not a search for the truth. If it was, AP or D-Scope plots would be presented in full. Besides a few companies like Rane Corp, one rarely ever sees full plots of performance, it's as if specs are an afterthought just to let prospective buyers know it's not all snake oil.

One thing is for sure, similarities between pieces start to fall away when one gets into the details of measurements which will reveal why they sound different even if basic printed word specs are similar. Truth is, they are not similar when one digs a little deeper. They reflect what the ear is telling us. Unfortunately, most of us never put this together simply because the tests are incomplete.

The last thing gear makers want is a knowledgable and informed buyer, hence the lack of information about their products. The press is no help either with most modern product reviews stating; "I used it, I liked it, go buy it". Most of these "reviews" read like they are from the manufacturer's press release.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Old 22nd August 2007
  #41
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Swedien View Post
We must develope a willingness to follow our instincts. Gut reactions translated to music recordings are the most believable.



The whole post, but especially that.
Old 23rd August 2007
  #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Transients = reality = the ultimate audio gimmick.

Perhaps it's not too popular because it's hard to get and retain. It's much easier to strap a compressor across and let it ride. I call that the easy way out. Seems the fashion of the day supports this. It's much easier to let the compressor mix your music.

Compressors are the crutch of music. How many can get a great blend/mix without one anymore?

Bruce can.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
So you would not use a 2-bus compressor, such as the Roll Super Stereo, or maybe a Pendulum, on a mix bus as part of an analog summing chain?

The marketing hype is that they add "glue" to a mix. Sounds like you are saying more like mud.

The reason I am asking is that I really don't want to buy one if I can good results without one. So far I am mixing entirely ITB and use compression on the final stereo mixdown mainly to beef up the track and raise the level A BIT (not much above -14 DBFS RMS average, I use metering set to K-System 14.)

What about using a limiter? Basically the same thing with a very high ratio. I use UAD-1 precision limiter to catch peaks, but boost only enough to get the RMS into the range I want to match the remaining tracks.
Old 24th August 2007
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondjim View Post
So you would not use a 2-bus compressor, such as the Roll Super Stereo, or maybe a Pendulum, on a mix bus as part of an analog summing chain?

The marketing hype is that they add "glue" to a mix. Sounds like you are saying more like mud.

The reason I am asking is that I really don't want to buy one if I can good results without one. So far I am mixing entirely ITB and use compression on the final stereo mixdown mainly to beef up the track and raise the level A BIT (not much above -14 DBFS RMS average, I use metering set to K-System 14.)

What about using a limiter? Basically the same thing with a very high ratio. I use UAD-1 precision limiter to catch peaks, but boost only enough to get the RMS into the range I want to match the remaining tracks.
I never use a compressor on the stereo buss. Sometimes I'll patch one in to listen, then it's out again. It always sounds worse. No compressor can retain the details I'm striving to keep. They all are a low pass filter. The first thing I do if I audition one is to raise the threshold to +20 db and just listen to the change in the sound. My cymbals loose their definition. The tick of the stick attack is gone. The Hi in my Fi is affected. My job is to retain as much excitment of the mix as I can.

That means no compressors.

I will sometimes use a peak limiter in mastering to raise levels up a bit and pound down a couple of spikes. I don't listen to marketing hype, I listen to what my ears are telling me. Dynamics are a very important aspect of music, one not to be so easily dismissed.

If you don't believe me on this, maybe you will believe Mr. Swedien.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Old 24th August 2007
  #44
Viking
 
Bruce Swedien's Avatar
 

Sounds so good..... makes you want to HURT yourself!!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_simpson View Post
What are you listening on these days Bruce? Westlakes?

The question of monitoring is far more critical than people might think. It would be interesting to hear your take on the subject.

Andy
Andy and All......

Here is my MONITORING AMPLIFIERS AND SPEAKERS these days...

Matched Pair of - Westlake Audio Lc3w12 Monitor speakers

1-Genelec Subwoofer Monitor speaker-model-7071A

4-Electrocompaniet Model AW-180 - Monitor Amplifiers

This system sounds so good..... makes you want to HURT yourself!!!!!

Bruce
Old 24th August 2007
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Swedien View Post

Stradivarius didn't have a computer. Perhaps his violins would not have been as wonderful sounding if he had had a computer.
_________________________________________________________________

Bruce Swedien

Interesting thought.
Old 24th August 2007
  #46
Lives for gear
 
mtstudios@charter's Avatar
 

If I am looking for advice on a piece of gear (mic, compressor, mic pre). I would look to a conglomerate of experienced engineers for filtering, not only rely on stats from a specific manufacturer. Then draw my own conclusion. Word of mouth is a more trusted source than any stat.
Old 24th August 2007
  #47
Lives for gear
 
JohnRoberts's Avatar
 

To make my subjective observation about the subjective vs. objective analysis, this sounds reminiscent of "Golden Ears" (subjective) and "Meter Readers" (objective) debate. Both terms were used to pejoratively describe the other camp.

I am not comfortable with the statement that subjective listening is more accurate than objective measurements. Detractors of using objective benchmarks, ignores that there are surely personal variations between our soft machinery. I won't go so far as to suggest that red to me looks different than red to you. There is much general agreement between our perception of beauty (insert favorite pin-up girl here), but also huge variation in what we personally gravitate to or settle for. (That sounds a little cruel, but in all things thresholds of acceptable vary, not to mention are complex and altered by Ethyl).

I recall the good old days, of RE/P magazine revealing the King's nakedness and if objective measurements don't describe some sonic character, it just means the proper measurement is not being used. There are still some pretty rigorous European magazines, last I checked.

I believe I originally offered this in a LTE back in the '80s but my belief, still true today, is that any sonic characteristic or artifact that can be reliably identified by a controlled (double blind) listening test, can be measured with some (objective) test. If this mechanism can be accurately measured, it can be controlled by the designer and optimized, if an optimal value doesn't exist it can be varied (with a knob) subject to personal tastes.

Dynamics processing is rich with many unspecified (but measurable) characteristics. That's why some have so many knobs, and still don't give access to all possible variables. I mulled over a design approach decades ago that could mimic the sundry popular models, by loading a list of some 10-15 presets. Back then it wasn't a viable approach due to infancy of digital processing, prohibitive cost, and likely TMI for mass market customers (note the market success of one knob compressors). Today with low cost DSP and nice plug in interfaces, this product concept is almost academic.

Sorry, if I'm rambling. I believe products can be objectively characterized, but interpretation of those objective measurements requires much experience and effort. Simply listening to a box, will quickly point what they have done wrong, while subtle improvements will be harder to parse out, especially for untrained listeners. I don't claim every sonic characteristic has a standard measurement a button push away. I had to roll some of my own measurements back when I was more active designing gear. I just argue that it all, can be measured if there is will to do so.

JR
Old 24th August 2007
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 

John, Which side of the brain should we be using?
Old 24th August 2007
  #49
Lives for gear
 
JohnRoberts's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrox247 View Post
John, Which side of the brain should we be using?
I wrote a longer response but the board ate it... short version, both if possible.

We hear with both ears but one may dominate whether you are listening emotionally or analytically.

There are techniques to involve more of our noggin where we verbalize or write out, problems we are working on. Perhaps verbalizing or writing about what we hear, may serve a similar function.

There may be research into this, but I haven't studied it.

JR
Old 25th August 2007
  #50
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRoberts View Post
...note the market success of one knob compressors...

also note the SONIC success of one knob compressors thumbsup.


gregoire
del
ubk
.
Old 25th August 2007
  #51
8070
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Swedien View Post
Andy and All......

Here is my MONITORING AMPLIFIERS AND SPEAKERS these days...

Matched Pair of - Westlake Audio Lc3w12 Monitor speakers

1-Genelec Subwoofer Monitor speaker-model-7071A

4-Electrocompaniet Model AW-180 - Monitor Amplifiers

This system sounds so good..... makes you want to HURT yourself!!!!!

Bruce

Hi Bruce!

This is a little off topic...but i read in an interview somwhere, this statement:

"The first thing you have to remember is to try to preserve the polar response of the sound source. "

Can you expound on this a bit? What are you meaning when you say 'polar response'... can you share your method of doing this?

Thanks Bruce,

D.
Old 25th August 2007
  #52
Lives for gear
 
andychamp's Avatar
I recently had the luxury of recording a bass player without compression.

The man must have been 50+ years old and been doing this for a living for at least 25-30. He brought a bass and amp that were easily 20 years old and not one note happened that he did not intend to.
He knew his equipment and his songs inside out.

If all musicians that I work with were this competent, I'd gladly use less compression.
But it's a sad fact that, besides creative considerations, sometimes you just have to compress.
Old 25th August 2007
  #53
Deleted bd1be4f
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by andychamp View Post
But it's a sad fact that, besides creative considerations, sometimes you just have to compress.
Not only that, but the idea that compression in and of itself is somehow a bad or undesirable thing is misplaced, anymore than saying that EQ is a bad or undesirable thing. They're just tools, nothing more, nothing less, it's all in how you use them.

First, there is no reason compression has to kill or eliminate transients. A longer attack time will let most if not all of the initial transients of a signal through unaffected, but can still be useful in shaping a sound in certain ways.

That said, I would also contend that preserving all transients in every signal is not necessarily a desirable thing, either. Not every track in a recording should be up front, and sometimes compressing a track to tame the transients is just the trick to get it to sit back in a mix and allow other elements to be more prominent. Then there are times you want to crush the transients because it gives you a certain sound or effect that you're looking for.

Then there's analog tape. Anyone who has worked in analog knows all about tape compression, which rounds out transients naturally and acts as a compressor in and of itself. Yet most people find it to be a pleasing type of compression, but there is compression taking place nonetheless.

Then there's using mic techniques for natural compression. A mic placed right next to a drum will have far more attack and transient response than a mic placed 10 feet away from the drum. In this case, the air in the room is acting as a compressor, and the more air between the mic and the source, the less pronounced and more rounded the transients are.

Then there's the natural compression human hearing has, where the louder a sound is, the more compressed it is by the ear. This explains why some mixes can sound great and cohesive when cranked up in the monitors, but fall apart at lower volumes.

There are all kinds of compression with audio, none of which are inherently bad or wrong. It is like any other tool, it's all in how you use it.
Old 25th August 2007
  #54
Lives for gear
 
beyarecords's Avatar
 

Hi Bruce and All,

Quote:
Originally Posted by andy_simpson View Post
The question of monitoring is far more critical than people might think. It would be interesting to hear your take on the subject.
Of course monitoring is only as good as the environment in which it is in. Bruce, would it be possible for you to expand on your methodology for using the 'ATTACK Wall' and 'Quick Sound Field'? Have you worked on any projects in the last few years where you have not employed its usage?
Old 25th August 2007
  #55
Viking
 
Bruce Swedien's Avatar
 

My pal Uzo and Slutzers All.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyarecords View Post
Hi Bruce and All,



Of course monitoring is only as good as the environment in which it is in. Bruce, would it be possible for you to expand on your methodology for using the 'ATTACK Wall' and 'Quick Sound Field'? Have you worked on any projects in the last few years where you have not employed its usage?

--
Peace & Love

Uzo
My pal Uzo and Slutzers All.....

Here' a little bit about the "Attack Wall"....

Here’s something about “Tube Traps” that you may find interesting... I am very excited about this intriguing recording room acoustical treatment. In essence, this new theory creates a reflection-free listening zone for music recording and mixing. The concept was perfected by my friend Arthur Noxon of Acoustic Sciences Corporation.

It’s called “The Attack Wall”.The “Attack Wall” is a free-standing wall that surrounds the monitor speakers. I think we could call this speaker position, “Mid-Field” monitoring. It acoustically loads the monitor speakers, and causes them to play as if they were actually mounted into a wall. This gives the monitor speakers increased acoustic effeciency.With an array of Studio Traps behind the listening space, the “Attack Wall” makes a 100% acoustically ’dead’ space. This creates a reflection-free zone for music mixing and recording.

I have found that with the "Attack Wall", no monitor EQ is necessary. With good monitor speakers, you hear smooth, linear sound. The low end is exceptionally clean and articulate. One of the additional advantages of the "Attack Wall" is it’s portability. It can be moved from place to place with a great deal of predictability and reliability. To me... that's hot!!!!

Here's a bit about something different but equally important...

Over the years I have been very fussy about the volume levels that I use in the control room. I have always tried to observe the American OSHA sound exposure standards.

I like to test my mixes at a variety of volume levels, and on a variety of different speaker systems. This will make sure that the mix will sound good anywhere. If a mix sounds good at a low SPL, it will sound great at higher levels..... Save your ears, we only get two!!!

For both recording and mixing I currently use Westlake Audios Lc3W-12 speaker systems. Glenn Phoenix of Westlake Audio called me one day and said that he had just finished a new speaker design. He suggested that I give it a serious listen. I was a bit skeptical at first about trying any new music-mixing speaker, but I should have known better than to underestimate Glenn when it comes to an audio-design issue.

Glenn brought a pair of his new speakers to the studio, so I could check them out. When I sat down at the console to listen, I was absolutely amazed! I have never heard speakers with more points of sound-source definition in the left-to-right panorama. In addition, the low end is spectacular! The scale of the soundfield is flawless.

To me, the mixing phase of my music projects is very personal and can get a bit intense. Mixing is the last phase of a project where I can make an artistic contribution to the sonics of the music, so the speakers are extremely critical to the success of the project.

Of course, any discussion of hyper-fidelity loudspeakers would be incomplete without an in-depth look at the amplifiers that drive those loudspeakers, and the wire or cable, that connect the amplifiers to the speakers, and the wire, or cable that connects those amplifiers to their source. In most cases that source would be the monitor output of an extremely high quality mixing desk.

Here’s an interesting little story that explains how I found the monitor amplifiers that I have used for music mixing for the past few years.

Early one morning, my good friend Trond Braaten called me from Fredrickstad, Norway and said that in a week he would be coming to the USA and he was going to hand carry on the plane, a very heavy Norwegian made power amplifier that was going to change my life! I thought to myself, “Yeah, sure.” Up to that point in time, all I knew about Norway could be summed up in four words! “Beautiful Boats, and SALMON!”

I Iearned something. Don’t ever underestimate the Norwegians!

A few days later Trond arrived on my doorstep, huffing and puffing, carrying an obviously extremely heavy box.(They don’t call Trond Braaten the “Norwegian Sherpa” for nothing! - “Sherpa” - Means mountain-climber from northern India, able to carry very heavy objects great disances”)

That heavy box contained a power amplifier that did change my life! I stared at the lettering on the box, and thought. “Electrocompaniet, Holy Cow! What a name! Almost impossible to pronounce.”

We hooked up the amplifier to my speakers. Great sound! Trond was right, my studio life has not been the same since! Wonderfully musical sounding amplifiers! Those amplifiers go with me to every recording project.

Just for the fun of it.....

Here are the standard monitoring settings that I use for all my sessions. To set these values I normally use my Simpson [Type 2] SPL Meter. Or a Radio-Shack Sound Level Meter Catalogue #33-2050....

A-Mid-field monitoring - > Westlake Audio Lc3W-12s....
(Placed on top of meter over-bridge of mixing desk.)

1- To adjust the Westlake speakers for an SPL level of approximately 93 SPL -(Sound Pressure Level).

a-Set SPL meter.

1-'A' scale(OSHA).
2-speed-'slow'(OSHA).
3-range-90.

b-Play wide-range complex program material.
1-Set playback for +3 buss peaks on VU scale.

2-Observe SPL results. (+3 buss peaks = 93 SPL peaks)

c-Make mark on monitor level control.....

Note: This will result in a good loud level for mixing Popular music. It can be used for a total listening time of 4 hours of mixing per day. When I mix at this level for 2 and 1/2 hours and then take a 30 minute break, I don’t experience any ear fatigue when using my Westlake Lc3W-12’s.

Note: If lower record buss levels are to be used, adjust SPL resultant peaks accordingly.
e. g.-If absolute '0' VU buss peaks are to be recorded, then add 3 db of monitor level before marking the monitor level control.

B-Near-field monitoring - > Auratones....
(Placed on top of meter over-bridge on mixing desk.)

1-To adjust the Auratone speakers for an SPL level of approximately 83 spl.

a-Set SPL meter.

1-'A' scale(OSHA).
2-speed-'slow'(OSHA).
3-range-80.

b-Play wide-range complex program material.
1-Set playback for +3 buss peaks on VU scale.

2-Observe SPL results. (+3 buss peaks=83 SPL peaks)

c-Make mark on monitor level control.
Note: This will result in a good Auratone level for mixing Popular music. It can be used for a total listening time of 8 hours of mixing per day. If lower record buss levels are to be used, adjust SPL resultant peaks accordingly.

e. g.- If absolute '0' VU buss peaks are to be recorded, then add 3 db of monitor level when marking the monitor level control.

Do not monitor at extremely high speaker levels. You should be able to carry on a conversation in the control room while you are mixing. If you have to shout to be heard, turn down the speaker level. You will only get one set of ear drums in your lifetime, treat them like the precious things that they are. Who knows, they might be worth a million dollars some day. Go easy on your ears. Permanent hearing loss can occur very quickly in a control room, especially with some of the new, super high-powered monitor systems in use in modern studios today.

Once in awhile I love to blast it and listen at dance club speaker volume, but I don't do it very often...

Bruce Swedien
Old 26th August 2007
  #56
Lives for gear
 
beyarecords's Avatar
 

Hi Bruce,
I thank you so much for your in depth reply, you have made my week!
Old 27th April 2008
  #57
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Swedien View Post
It’s called “The Attack Wall”.The “Attack Wall” is a free-standing wall that surrounds the monitor speakers. I think we could call this speaker position, “Mid-Field” monitoring. It acoustically loads the monitor speakers, and causes them to play as if they were actually mounted into a wall. This gives the monitor speakers increased acoustic effeciency.With an array of Studio Traps behind the listening space, the “Attack Wall” makes a 100% acoustically ’dead’ space. This creates a reflection-free zone for music mixing and recording.
Hi Bruce,

How critical is it that the nearfields be mounted between the top/bottom tube traps thus creating the baffle/soffit? Would you get similar results of you just had the nearfields on stands in front of the absorption all... especially nearfields that have a rear-firing passive radiator?

Thanks
Old 23rd June 2010
  #58
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Swedien View Post
Andy and All......

Here is my MONITORING AMPLIFIERS AND SPEAKERS these days...

Matched Pair of - Westlake Audio Lc3w12 Monitor speakers

1-Genelec Subwoofer Monitor speaker-model-7071A

4-Electrocompaniet Model AW-180 - Monitor Amplifiers

This system sounds so good..... makes you want to HURT yourself!!!!!

Bruce
Yes, it does. Man, this system sounds awesome! Thanks to the attackwall for a great deal. Bruce's room sounds incredible!

I still remember first hearing the original 2-track of Billy Jean on that system in his control room. My jaw hit the floor in like 2 milliseconds! Why can't we all be Bruce Swedien and have his studio?
Old 23rd June 2010
  #59
Gear Maniac
 
Osse_87's Avatar
 

To my experience, compression is an invaluable tool when trying to do something actually interesting out of poor musicianship.

I'm experiencing general opposition against compression in this thread, which leads me into thinking that there are two kind of groups posting in this thread(among the opposition).

1. It's the real badass guys who records amazing artists/musicians who actually knows how to deal with and perserve the tone/transient response desired.

2. It's the people who actually don't know WHAT compression can bring to the table, it might be becouse of lack of experience with compressors, or lack of talent when it comes to producing/recording music.

I'm livin in the world with poor musicianship(to some extent), and compression and other techniques literally saves my ass at the end of the day becouse it partially gives ME the ability to affect the feel of the instruments played, I can shape the feel of the source like you can shape clay on a potter's wheel.

But offcourse, it takes talent, and it takes experience to be able to do it correctly.

I also experience conservatism and that people perfer the "old" records made in the past, which gets me into thinking that they actually doesn't live in the present situation and doesn't give the tools of today a chance.

Thank you UBK for a lot of good points, I agree with a lot of what you say even tho you might not agree with me
Old 18th December 2012
  #60
Here for the gear
 

Great explenation and philosophy.

[QUOTE=Bruce Swedien;1444669]Transient Response



I very much agree with you. Your explenation was very knowledgable and very insightful _________________________________________________________________
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump
Forum Jump