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
EQ in mastering? Dynamics Plugins
Old 15th November 2009
  #151
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I've been a pretty serious musician for 31 years and mastering for 15 at no time have I ever thought "what note is that" while mastering, or mixing for that matter.

Music is not about knowledge anyway, it's about connection. Knowledge is what we learn as a musician to then forget about it, to be in the moment. This whole mastering argument is too biased toward the cerebral. It's not going to make anyone more in the moment to be thinking about notes. I would no more hang that chart on my wall than hang the circle of fifths, or the modes, and feel like it was a beautiful picture, or useful in some way.

We don't master notes or even collections of notes, we master music, in record form, and at the smallest, singles. The smallest fraction of any single is still more complex than a bass note jumping out.

And I'd wager plenty that a poll of professional MEs (charging more than $10 a track on HarBal) would show ...

1. listening, rms/peak metering
2. listening, rms/peak, and frequency analysis metering
3. listening, rms/peak, frequency metering and considering root note values

in the order.


Bias the poll for years of experience, top 10 name reputation, and unit sales ... and the result would be more dramatic.
Old 15th November 2009
  #152
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammyp View Post
.....so knowledge of your charts allows you to get down to 31 hz with a fine Q and cut without taking more bottom than is neccesary!
Fixing a bass with a tight notch is twisting the bass AND everything else in the mix pretty violently. While the "trouble" might dissapear pretty much, just about everything will probably start to suck.

How knowledge of charts will help anyone to the better in such scenarios is beyond my imagination. Even the piccolo flute might have been recorded flat down to zero Hz.


Best Regards
Patrik
Old 15th November 2009
  #153
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
I've been a pretty serious musician for 31 years and mastering for 15 at no time have I ever thought "what note is that" while mastering, or mixing for that matter.
No, but you do think, on a regular basis: "There's a resonance at 400 Hz." Or "It seems to be lacking something in the 5K region". Or you wouldn't be a mastering engineer.

Now think back to being a musician and knowing nothing about frequencies. How did you connect the dots? How did you get from here to there? Of course it's all about connection NOW, but put yourself back in that time.....

In the beginning it HAD TO BE intellectual, for the beginner has to start somewhere. The "internalizing" that you refer to is what musicians call "muscle memory". The equalizer is your musical instrument and after at least 10,000 hours of practice you are considered an expert. Your ear-to brain-to hand coordination has become so intuitive that you don't even realize what you're thinking internally; that's when "muscle memory" takes over.

It has to be intellectual for the beginner. When it becomes muscle memory it ceases to be intellectual. Don't argue with aids that help the beginner get his feet on the ground. You paid your dues as a musician by practicing and you had to start somewhere. You pay your dues as a mastering engineer by practicing, and having some theory to back up your understanding is the important beginning intellectual connection to a lifetime of success as a practicing mastering engineer.

Talking about how we learn and learning how to teach are also skills and I think I've done a pretty good job of expressing concepts on the printed page that you (or we) may scoff over as practicing engineers----but these concepts have helped thousands of people to understand a job that's been shrouded in mystery for far too long. Words on the page of an educational book, by their nature take on an "intellectual" slant and they have to be studied first, then internalized, and finally become part of second nature. That's how we all advance. Frankly I'm tired of defending your idea that "you're being too intellectual" when TEACHING is the point here. By the time you get past the learning process you learn to live in the moment, you've made your "connections", but everyone has to start somewhere.

You can become a GOOD audio engineer without having any technical knowledge of how the equipment works and the theory. And there are many practicing engineers without any technical knowledge at all. But I don't think you can become a GREAT audio engineer without also understanding some of the important theory behind the equipment. We can argue that point, but no one that I know discounts the importance of education.

When you argue against the ideas presented here, you're not being anti-intellectual, you're being anti-education.

Do you learn more from a book or from an apprenticeship? Answer: Irrelevant. You have to have both! Can you teach yourself how to mix and master? Answer: You may be able to, but end up with some very strong gaps in your knowledge. School is important. Practice is even more important. And I'm still learning. How about you?
Old 15th November 2009
  #154
Lives for gear
 

But Bob I think the hole in your educational push here is that the most effective use in EQ in mastering usually does not concern musical frequencies but instead correcting for things like room resonances and other equalizers applied by other engineers or the players themselves.

If anything understanding note fundamentals and harmonic series would teach you what _not_ to touch with the EQ.

I think everyone working with music ought to know about how music works and I have a copy of your Carnegie chart a few feet from my mix position.

But it's folded up and I never refer to it when using an equalizer. I use it for orchestration!
Old 15th November 2009
  #155
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spicemix View Post
But Bob I think the hole in your educational push here is that the most effective use in EQ in mastering usually does not concern musical frequencies but instead correcting for things like room resonances and other equalizers applied by other engineers or the players themselves.
I don't think that's a hole, it's an equal benefit. If you learn what the 1.2 kHz band sounds like you can apply that knowledge forever, just as much to a resonance as to the notes played by the musicians. "Oh, I hear that resonance, it sounds like 400 Hz". And when sweeping, if you're not exactly sure, at least you'll start in the 400 Hz region and sweep down a bit and then up a bit while listening. It is a form of "near-perfect pitch" and knowing what a band sounds like relates to pitch centers of room resonances as well as notes that are played. Eventually it becomes muscle-memory and it especially helps when you're doing sound reinforcement and hear feedback!

I was NEVER advocating that you should keep the Carnegie Chart at your side while working, in general. I'd rather see it at your bedside :-). But it is useful for beginners education on the fundamental ranges of the musical instruments as expressed in frequency language for those who only know note language. No one is telling you to run to the chart to look up the frequency in most situations.*

----------------
* except for the rare case of one-note bass, where it becomes part of another method for finding the frequency, if it proves faster or better for you!
Old 15th November 2009
  #156
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrikT View Post
Fixing a bass with a tight notch is twisting the bass AND everything else in the mix pretty violently. While the "trouble" might dissapear pretty much, just about everything will probably start to suck.

Best Regards
Patrik
Yes, a minimum phase equalizer that looks like the grand tetons in the bass region will probably suck (due to the phase shifts, especially with such narrow-band settings). But a real good, high resolution linear phase equalizer becomes quite invisible to the ear and only takes down the offending note without the phasey artifacts.

If you're mixing you have an advantage. You can take down the note without any interaction with the other instruments and the tone. But in mastering we have to use an equalizer most times (when we can't get them to remix). By the way, excessive bass resonances (especially below 70 Hz) are becoming far more common these days with project studios using small speakers to mix.

BK
Old 15th November 2009
  #157
Gear Maniac
 

I agree with Bob..some of you are making very uneducational friendly statements....

as for me; i know 41 is handy to low E on bass guitar, which makes my low E - 82...i know A440 is getting to the top of my vocal range, i know that 1k is high B on my guitar and my guitar is out of range much above that....

i like these little landmarks, i'd like more in my mind's ear -they help me as a player, a player who's running FOH on stage at many gigs, and while mixing!

these little freq/mind/ear connections help one become faster and more efficient in musical environment!

if anyone wants to stay ignorant...i guess you're welcome to it...
Old 15th November 2009
  #158
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
Yes, a minimum phase equalizer that looks like the grand tetons in the bass region will probably suck (due to the phase shifts, especially with such narrow-band settings). But a real good, high resolution linear phase equalizer becomes quite invisible to the ear and only takes down the offending note without the phasey artifacts.
I would probably choose the minimum phase method any day because it still sounds so much more musical to me (sucks in a far more acceptable way to my ear). But then it could very well be something else than a notch at the trouble part that I would find usable for the grand total.

I think it is being mentioned so rarely on forums like these that mastering is a lot more about processing the whole while listening to the whole and not processing details while listening to only them.

The original poster of this thread is probably way more close to doing an acceptable work than he's actually aware of.


Best Regards
Patrik
Old 15th November 2009
  #159
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
When you argue against the ideas presented here, you're not being anti-intellectual, you're being anti-education.

If I disagree with your opinion on learning note values I'm "anti-education"? Wow ...

Q: What's the most efficient and musically useful form of education? That's the point I'm making.

The answer begins with self-knowledge. We all have a bias plus preferences.

For example, I'm an intuitive person, and I react emotionally to the energy balance in music as much as I think about the imbalances. The last thing I want to do is think any more than is necessary to meet the technical requirements. And no clients ever tell me the key, or asks me to fix the Ab ... that's all in the mix, at best. So why bother with it as I work on track 3 and make it flow with tracks 2 and 4? If I know what 1.5 k or 400 sounds like, and I ONLY found it by boosting or cutting that range of eq and remembering the feel of that waveform energy, that would be just as good as a chart with root values and a photo of a keyboard. That's my personal approach.

Bob you're a different type of person ... the type of person who likes to make everything formal and structural. You enjoy it. You find security and power in the structuring and codifying of the beautiful abyss which is music. Okay, fine. That's why you argue for this approach, why you write a book, etc. From your K monitoring 'system' to this chart emphasis, you have a bias towards the codified ... and that's a very personal bias I need you to understand. It's not objectively right or good for say, any more than half of us, maybe a lot less. Those who work as you do like your ideas and your approaches. Others of us find it somewhere between unnecessarily formal ... to distracting.

So I'm saying it's not wrong to be in any camp, but it's wrong for you to say that your ideas are "education" and mine or another's are "anti-education". If your approach is potentially distracting it can still be educational, but why learn the wrong things? If I want to learn Real Estate I can hone up on design costs for recent upgrades, and it might be useful in suggesting a price, but knowing the market and having a feel for the right price for this one home as a whole is much more useful.

As a novice engineer I looked at the chart for about ten minutes and it was not something useful. It was annoying actually as it has nothing to do with music. What was useful to me was matching the vocabulary I tended to use to suit what freqs were actually in question in a mix. I identified the numbers by the words that I used to describe what I heard and said to to myself. Then what was truly useful was learning to listen to others and interpret their vocabulary. To use their words with them and know what they meant. So that now I have any and all vocabularies on hand. This is very handy with a client, any client. And it has nothing to do with notes and charts.

I will not make music about pieces. Music is about emotions and large things that are interacting with each other, not small things and root note numbers. Music is personal, vocabularies are personal, charts are math class. So a more personal and flexible approach beats a codified one IMO. A flexible approach is more musical. A chart is structural and too idealized.

I would argue that developing a vocabulary and learning the ability to relate to other people's different vocabulary is far more important the thing to learn, than these simplistic and generally distracting charts. Learning is important of course, and I'm learning everyday thank you very much ... but learning the wrong thing for how we work is a real waste of time that can be damaging to the way we process information.

So not everyone will relate, or SHOULD relate to your personal approach as a way to be a better engineer.


Bottom line, your need to codify is a form of personal security, not an objective form of education for the masses. I'm hardly "anti-education".
Old 15th November 2009
  #160
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
If the note system was better you would see it everywhere. Bill Putnam would have put it on his consoles.

I know this is a losing battle, but the number one job-skill in mastering is to learn how to identify frequencies, by ear, in Hertz.


DC
Old 15th November 2009
  #161
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Even Bob agrees that Dave's IBIS is a novel idea that's actually distracting. If that's the case, then that's the case.


Client: I want a little more balls in this as compared to the mix, and not too bright in the mids.

No Client: I want a little more second harmonic on the bass guitar E, and not too bright in the second octave above Middle C.
Old 15th November 2009
  #162
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrikT View Post
I would probably choose the minimum phase method any day because it still sounds so much more musical to me (sucks in a far more acceptable way to my ear). But then it could very well be something else than a notch at the trouble part that I would find usable for the grand total.
The Linear/Minimum phase thing is interesting. Intuitively, I understand that linear phase should be desirable, but sonically I pick minimum every time.

I've been experimenting with a D/A built without the common linear-phase oversampling filters and I think there is something positive to getting rid (or at least minimizing) of pre-ringing.

Quote:
I think it is being mentioned so rarely on forums like these that mastering is a lot more about processing the whole while listening to the whole and not processing details while listening to only them.
It's another job-skill that hardly gets mentioned: the ability to hear the whole thing, just as the audience will hear it. To allow yourself to not focus on minutia while at the same time not missing out on details.

Quote:
The original poster of this thread is probably way more close to doing an acceptable work than he's actually aware of.
Yes.


DC
Old 15th November 2009
  #163
Mastering Moderator
 
Riccardo's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Brian we have all understood by now you and Bob have different opinion and approaches.
Please move on and leave this uncalled for bickering behind.
You have a vision of music making and engineering that may differ from Bob's and that is fine, we are all different. DC has yet different opinions and approaches from yours and Bob's. Not the end of the world. Readers can enjoy looking at several different ways of living, engineering or music making and yet have their own personal preferences.
Crossing the lines doesn't help furthering the conversation.
Old 15th November 2009
  #164
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riccardo View Post
Please move on and leave this uncalled for bickering behind.
Responding to "you're anti-educational" with an in-depth analysis/comment was not meant to be bickering. If anything Bob's post was personal and against forum rules. I'm fine with that as long as I can respond.
Old 15th November 2009
  #165
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I believe that frequency recognition is very dependent on your previous musical experience. If you are coming from a background as a musician it even depends on the instrument. For those with an engineering background it may be a more technical viewpoint.

In the group of students that I work with when we initially start ear training I will ask them how they percieve a given range of frequencies. Most will start out with terms like "sizzly" or "boomy" and then relate those terms into a given octave range. Some associate colors with ranges, some notes, vocalists will often associate a tension in their throat or body resonance to a range. For years I've played guitar and often found myself fingering chords or notes on a bass trying to determine a range when I was starting out.

The only invalid method is that which does not produce the correct or consistent results.
Old 16th November 2009
  #166
Mastering Moderator
 
Riccardo's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
Responding to "you're anti-educational" with an in-depth analysis/comment was not meant to be bickering. If anything Bob's post was personal and against forum rules. I'm fine with that as long as I can respond.
It wasn't against forum rules as it was not personal nor a personal attack.
If you still don't get it after all those years I am sorry. There are different people with different opinions and yours is a good as others. Bob's post was clearly about his way of looking at things, not personally attacking you.
Over

Please carry on.
Old 16th November 2009
  #167
Lives for gear
 
Piedpiper's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
Responding to "you're anti-educational" with an in-depth analysis/comment was not meant to be bickering. If anything Bob's post was personal and against forum rules. I'm fine with that as long as I can respond.
I thought your post was refreshingly on point, as well as very insightful. That is, until you indulged heavily in the very thing you were taking Bob to task about. Obviously, you are very passionate about your art and how and why you do it, as well as very articulate. That does not make you an authority on what is the best way, as you have continually and loudly been proclaiming, despite your denouncing it in Bob, where, frankly, I found much less evidence of it. I don't think Bob has been shoving his method down anyone's throat. He appears to me to be simply offering the knowledge of a tool that may well be useful to many aspirants. As they say in AA, take what works and leave the rest. I believe your points have been well spoken to, especially in your last long post. I just wish you could have articulated the first half of that sooner rather than railing against what sounded like the voice of reason to me.

My sense is that, as usual, profound success is a matter of the integration of complimentary opposite values. Rather than shooting between these opposites and succeeding in fulfilling neither value, the balance must magically embrace both extremes. How you get there is up to you.

BTW, I have been a professional musician for over 40 of my 49 years and am known for my unusually emotive playing as well as my thoughtful analysis in an educational context, not to mention sound engineer.

All the best,

Tim
Old 16th November 2009
  #168
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piedpiper View Post

BTW, I have been a professional musician for over 40 of my 49 years and am known for my unusually emotive playing as well as my thoughtful analysis in an educational context.


Tim
As was your thoughtful post!

If every time someone offered a new or alternative method of looking at the audio world, everyone else ridiculed him, there would be no progress.

BK
Old 16th November 2009
  #169
Lives for gear
 
24-96 Mastering's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
If every time someone offered a new or alternative method of looking at the audio world, everyone else ridiculed him, there would be no progress.

BK
Ridicule is counter-productive, no doubt. But without provision to allow criticism and the possibility of falsifiability (where applicable) for claims made and theories presented, there is no progress either. It's a thin line, but personally, I think this discussion is well within boundaries.
Old 16th November 2009
  #170
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Tim I stated very clearly there is no best way. Look again. Discussing why one approach or another might be more useful or more efficient, is fair game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
If every time someone offered a new or alternative method of looking at the audio world, everyone else ridiculed him, there would be no progress.
There has been no "ridicule", there has been discussion of the relevance of root notes memorization when analyzing a field of layered energy (music). And a discussion of the basic relevance of instrument roots as a way to approach internalizing the frequencies (seems like adding an extra step to many).
Old 16th November 2009
  #171
Lives for gear
 
Piedpiper's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
Tim I stated very clearly there is no best way. Look again. Discussing why one approach or another might be more useful or more efficient, is fair game.
Absolutely. And again, I was very impressed with your beautiful exposition of the different approaches. But in addition to that, despite yourself, your posts are rife with authoritarian proclamations of what is better or what music is about, what it's not, etc.. I'd rather not go to the trouble of pulling quotes from your posts.

IMHO, it is obvious that the magic of music is served by knowledge and expertise, which can be served by referencing frequencies to pitches in certain specific situations. What's the big deal with that? GS is filled with either/or arguments out the wazoo that can never be resolved from a point of view that demands things to be black or white. IMHO, things must be both black and white or it ain't much fun for me. Saying categorically that the musicality will be destroyed by looking at a graph is just as ludicrous as saying that the only way you can possibly take care of such a situation as that presented in Bob's video is by using the method he used. It reminds me of all the threads that go on and on about whether the microphone or the preamp is more important, or how it's neither because quality gear doesn't matter, it's all about the experience of the engineer, as if they're mutually exclusive.

And before we wind out for another 5 pages on the fine points brought up here, I just want to say that I'm likely not to stay around for it if it does. Having said that, I'm glad I hung in there long enough to see your last longer post.
Old 16th November 2009
  #172
Lives for gear
 
Piedpiper's Avatar
...and while you're forgiving yourself for the above, you can forgive me for being on the edge of indulging in the same. IME, it's remarkably elusive to communicate cleanly and non-hypocritically. You have my sympathies.
Old 16th November 2009
  #173
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Brian,

I have been watching your post get more and more edgy and combative especially when communicating with BK. As I said in a previous post I use to read all your replies because you had some great things to say but lately they are all becoming negative and hyper agitated and I am wondering why? Just some concern from a fellow Ohioan. You can PM me off list if you want to.

Back on Topic

I have Bob's chart framed on my wall and do use it on occasion to help me determine what frequencies are giving me problems by knowing the note I need to work on.

I tend to master by listening to the music presented to me and not to individual pitches of individual instruments in the mix unless I am having problems with particular note. Music is a communicative art and I want to get the total picture of the material and not worry about all the things that go on to giving it its "sound".

Early on in my mastering career I did a lot of listening to what each band of eq did to the mix I was mastering and was able, with some practice, to know exactly what frequency in Hertz was having problems and how to correct it. It is something every mastering engineer should be able to do if they want to do a good job in an efficient manner. The use of RTAs is another way to accomplish the same thing but I think the ear approach is better overall.

What ever way you use it is all about the music and how it sounds that is important.

Where I sometimes get confused is with electronic music or music that is not played on conventional instruments. I did some mastering for a composer of some of his music that I was completely unfamiliar with. He sent it in on tape with no notation as to the playback speed. I used 7.5 ips for playback and the music sounded OK but was somewhat bass heavy. I did the mastering and sent it to him and I got back an email saying that all the pitches were one octave too low and I realized that the tape he sent me was at 15 ips not 7.5 ips. He kinda liked the music that slow but he liked it even more when the tape deck was running at the right speed. I guess I should not have guessed at the speed but things did not sound all that suspect and it was mostly electonic or musique concrète and was something that I was not at all familiar with.

Good discussion that has gotten somewhat off topic but I have had fun reading all the different viewpoints so I guess it is a good topic.

I guess we all have to remember that the music is the main thing that draws us all together and how we approach the mastering of it can be different but it is the final results that really matter.
Old 16th November 2009
  #174
Craneslut
 
Brad Blackwood's Avatar
 

Verified Member
IMO, whether newbie or experienced engineer, anything that causes one to focus on anything other than listening is a hindrance.
Old 16th November 2009
  #175
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
Music is not about knowledge anyway, it's about connection. Knowledge is what we learn as a musician to then forget about it, to be in the moment. This whole mastering argument is too biased toward the cerebral. It's not going to make anyone more in the moment to be thinking about notes. I would no more hang that chart on my wall than hang the circle of fifths, or the modes, and feel like it was a beautiful picture, or useful in some way.
Historical perspective (not judgement!):

Ornette Coleman on musical notation: "Chords are just names for sounds, which really need no names at all, as names are sometimes confusing."

Maynard Ferguson on Ornette Coleman: "Musically uneducated. He's got bad intonation, bad technique. He's trying new things but he hasn't mastered his instrument yet."

SB
Old 16th November 2009
  #176
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I have no beef with Bob even if there is disagreement until he

1. makes arguments while saying he's above arguing, and then threatens to leave when countered as a way to manipulate a response from the moderator or other members. Or ...

2. claims that professing his preferred approach is educational and to disagree with it's relevancy is to be anti-education!


Again, if there was an international poll of pros the note-value folks would be in a small minority. I can't believe this is even a discussion, honestly.

Bob's book clearly gives some younger people the sense he speaks for the craft. So there is a need to speak up for common sense and common practice in those of us who don't see the point in putting the chart "by the bed" or by using the K monitoring system, or any other codified approaches.
Old 16th November 2009
  #177
Lives for gear
 
Piedpiper's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caput View Post
Historical perspective (not judgement!):

Ornette Coleman on musical notation: "Chords are just names for sounds, which really need no names at all, as names are sometimes confusing."

Maynard Ferguson on Ornette Coleman: "Musically uneducated. He's got bad intonation, bad technique. He's trying new things but he hasn't mastered his instrument yet."

SB
Very interesting.

I'm not sure I made it clear in a former post that IMHO, being very thoughtful about my music has never gotten in the way of playing exceptionally emotively. To the contrary, it has expanded my sense of relationship, which, to me, is what music is all about, in as many ways as can be experienced. That's my particular angle, and it need not be anyone else's, but it definitely serves me.
Old 16th November 2009
  #178
Lives for gear
 
Piedpiper's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
I have no beef with Bob even if there is disagreement until he

1. makes arguments while saying he's above arguing, and then threatens to leave when countered as a way to manipulate a response from the moderator or other members. Or ...

2. claims that professing his preferred approach is educational and to disagree with it's relevancy is to be anti-education!


Again, if there was an international poll of pros the note-value folks would be in a small minority. I can't believe this is even a discussion, honestly.

Bob's book clearly gives some younger people the sense he speaks for the craft. So there is a need to speak up for common sense and common practice in those of us who don't see the point in putting the chart "by the bed" or by using the K monitoring system, or any other codified approaches.
For starters, as I said before, I'm glad that you got to the point of your elucidations of different basic approaches, so I think this discussion has been very useful. And you continue to bring out good points, for which I'm thankful. But even prior to Bob's post that you elude to in your first point here, my perception is that your responses harbor aggressiveness, which then solicits defensive reactions, and then we waste a lot of energy in escalating defensiveness under the guise of a technical discussion. My own feeling is that it's worthwhile to work extra hard at keeping clean. One way to do that is be open to recognizing my shadows, especially when others are pointing them out to me. For me, your points have been well made. It's just that, IMHO, there's other stuff mixed in that has contributed to muddying the waters.
Old 16th November 2009
  #179
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrikT View Post
Fixing a bass with a tight notch is twisting the bass AND everything else in the mix pretty violently. While the "trouble" might dissapear pretty much, just about everything will probably start to suck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
Yes, a minimum phase equalizer that looks like the grand tetons in the bass region will probably suck (due to the phase shifts, especially with such narrow-band settings). But a real good, high resolution linear phase equalizer becomes quite invisible to the ear and only takes down the offending note without the phasey artifacts.
Indeed Bob. However, with a very narrow band compressor {Like Waves C1} and a decent RTA to tell you exactly where the offending frequency is, you get the best of both worlds. Only when the offending note comes in the mix, it is dipped downwards by compression leaving everything else virtually untouched

That's just one of the many uses I have for the RTA, Bob. I know you think I am crazy, but you should try it, just don't write that in your next book :-)

Regards,
Old 16th November 2009
  #180
Gear Nut
 

It seems to me that all BK was saying is that it helps to actually know what you're doing.
41Hz is always 41Hz, it was 41Hz yesterday and will be 41Hz tomorrow.
You're perception of it and how it relates to other frequencies in any given context can alter, even slightly, from day to day.
There's nothing 'unmusical' about the numbers.
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
gainstages / Mastering forum
9
mittebewohner / So much gear, so little time
8

Forum Jump
Forum Jump