So right after my
Voodoo rant
I get an
email ad
from Waves
about their new SSL presets...
back to main turd
As to my view on the current marketing turds
out there -
here' one of my rants on the whole Waves campaign for various presets to their plugins. Plugins that if you used an Ilok are totally useless now.
OK... Now I'm gettin' pissed
There was a campaign a while back concerning some well known engineer (we'll call him Mr. Lord Sphagnum Moss who
seems like a great guy, great ears, great
nose, etc)... it stated that these particular plugins will make you a
muddafuddin star and your mixes as good as anything ever heard by
mankind.
Hmmm...
Now, I can see the greatness here. Green Day,
Ms. Crow
(
http://www.campchaos.com/videos/campchaos-goblin.mov or
http://www.campchaos.com/blog-archives/2006/05/napster_bad_good_or_goblin.html
)
But to think that having the particular EQ
setting
presets that were used with the particular mic, room, performer,
particular day,
post fellatio all nighter, is anything
more than interesting fodder for conversation is a bit misleading.
Anyone that works with any type of recording
for very
long realizes that making a record is a bit like the way Bob Ross
paints. I
recall reading a bio of him where the writer mentioned something like
[paraphrase] "many a MILF tried to buy the 'Paint like Bob' (
http://www.bobross.com ) kits,
only to find the 'happy trees' that they
painted
looked more like smashed earthworms".
Bob had thirty years of experience, sitting in
Alaska,
working a day job in the armed forces and painting 'cause he loved the
process.
His trees are happy 'cause he busted his ass for three decades. He
learned how
to effortlessly speak with his craft. He spent ungodly hours going over
and
over happy little trees.
To quote Butthead (watching a Stone Temple
Pilots video)
"It takes more than bears to make a great video Beavis" you can't
assume anything any particular person does in a certain situation will
be a
panacea. You can learn from it, fer sure, but to think this will really
help
anymore than as an academic exercise is pure nonsense.
It takes experience to really be able to go
into many a
situation and be even moderately successful. I've worked with many a
performer,
even within the same day, same song different take, each situation is
unique,
sacred, whatever. EQ settings are just a small part and they're never
the same.
At least not to a decent engineer that doesn't have marketing turds
stuck in
his ears...
That's what makes music great; and, if you
understand the
Quincy Jones concept -- (para-quote from
George Martin's book Making Music) " ...no matter how much you do your
homework, you have to leave enough room for the Lord to walk thru..." -- what makes great recordings vs crap.
So again, market BS will probably win out; good
luck to
Waves (I really wish they'd spend more time on fixing their dang
Winblows
drivers for their DSP accelerators).
Gee, and we haven't even touched on the actual
music,
song, performance. Think maybe that's
what made the hit? No, of course not.
The aforementioned 14yr old girl really only buys the latest Shakira
'cause they
used the Waves whiz-bang, MAKE YOU A
STA' MUDDERFUKKER presets...
No wonder most of the stuff released now
sucks...
Then a year later I see a
post concerning Why Audio Quality Matters
From here - Now go to this site and
watch the vid with your
pinky up - http://philoctetes.org/Past_Programs/Deep_Listening_Why_Audio_Quality_Matters
Here's an edited response to
them as I watched this:
Ok... this is so full of it....
For instance the comments about 39:00 in to the vid.... talking
about "3 dimensions..." and such with "panpots..."
Aural localization is based as much on head related time domain
reflections - not amplitude alone. If one were able to put any type of
meter (PPM, VU, etc...) on ones ears, a point source in an anechoic
chamber at a 45d angle to the front of the listener would show
fairly the same amplitudes - the brain localizes primarily by the
time difference that each ear "hears"
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference -
"Experiments conducted by Woodworth
(1938) tested the duplex theory by
using a solid sphere to model the shape of the head and measuring the
ITDs as a function of azimuth for different frequencies. The model used
had a distance between the 2 ears of approximately 22-23cm. Initial
measurements found that there was a maximum time delay of approximately
660μs when the sound source was placed at directly 90° azimuth to
one
ear. This time delay correlates to a sound input with a frequency of 1500Hz. The results concluded that
when a sound played had a frequency less than 1500Hz the wavelength is greater than the time delay between
the ears. Therefore there is a phase difference
between the sound waves entering the ears providing acoustic
localisation cues. With a sound input with a frequency closer to 1500Hz
the wavelength of the sound wave is similar to the natural time delay.
Therefore due to the size of the head and the distance between the ears
there is a reduced phase difference so localisations errors start to be
made. When a high frequency sound input is used with a frequency
greater than 1500Hz, the wavelength is shorter than the distance
between the 2 ears, a head shadow is produced and ILD provide cues for
the localisation of this sound."
Other studies have
suggested even higher intervals for ILD emulation in stereo recording
when combined with IAD (interaural level difference) especially when
determining the sound stage and distance to the emulated object.
Then there's the Haas Effect (from
wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedence_effect ) -
The Haas effect is a psychoacoustic effect related to a group of auditory
phenomena known as the Precedence
Effect or law of the first wave front. These effects, in conjunction with
sensory reaction(s) to other physical differences (such as phase
differences) between perceived sounds, are responsible for the ability
of listeners with two ears to accurately localize sounds coming from
around them.
When two identical sounds (i.e.,
identical sound waves of the same
perceived intensity) originate from two sources at different distances
from the listener, the sound created at the closest location is heard
(arrives) first. To the listener, this creates the impression that the
sound comes from that location alone due to a phenomenon that might be
described as "involuntary sensory inhibition" in that one's perception
of later arrivals is suppressed.
The Haas effect occurs when arrival
times of the sounds differ by up
to 30–40 ms. As the arrival time (in respect to the listener) of
the
two audio sources increasingly differ beyond 40 ms, the sounds
will
begin to be heard as distinct; in audio-engineering terms the
increasing time difference is described as a delay, or in common terms as an echo.
The Haas effect is often used in public address systems to ensure that the
perceived location and/or direction of the original signal (localization)
remains unchanged. In some instances, usually when serving large areas
and/or large numbers of listeners, loudspeakers
must be placed at some distance from a stage
or other area of sound origination. The signal to these loudspeakers
may be electronically or otherwise delayed for a time equal to or
slightly greater than the time taken for the original sound to travel
to the remote location. This serves to ensure that the sound is
perceived as coming from the point of origin rather than from a
loudspeaker that may be physically nearer the listener. The level of
the delayed signal may be up to 10 dB louder than the original
signal
at the ears of the listener without disturbing the localization.
The Haas effect also explains why it is
possible to simulate a complete complex audio field from only two sound
sources in stereophonic and other binaural
audio systems. It is also utilized in the generation of more
sophisticated audio effects by devices such as matrix decoders in surround sound technologies, such as Dolby Pro Logic.
For a time in the 1970s, audio engineers
used the Haas effect to
simulate that a sound was coming from a single speaker in a stereo
sound system, when it was actually coming from both. This was to
compensate for the fact that a sound coming from a single speaker would
be 3 dB lower in volume than a sound coming from both. This
technique
has problems if the stereo sound is mixed to mono, as a comb
filter
effect would occur. Also, the aesthetics of sound mixing changed to
exclude the use of solo instruments emanating from a single corner of
the sound field in most popular recordings.
< style="font-style: italic;">The effect is named after Helmut Haas
who described the effect in his doctoral dissertation "Über den Einfluss eines Einfachechos auf
die Hörsamkeit von Sprache" to the University of Göttingen,
Germany. An English translation was published in December, 1949 as The
Influence of a Single Echo on the Audibility of Speech.[1]
Using just a pan pot [alone] is a poor representation of stereo
imaging...
(I recall reflecting planes placed in some control rooms being called
"Haas kickers" - they since fell out of vogue...)
And I wonder if they even know what the effect of tangential error was
on the turntable they used, let alone any ELF modulation due to
turntable motion. A DC-coupled Lissajous pattern would show that...
Dang - a lot of what they talk about here is not correct in a strict
scientific sense.
As to hearing all these differences between digital vs analog, There's
a guy at Linear Tech, and actually (see
below)
As to Level Wars, discussed at 31:00, please note my Turn it up
Mudderfudder
- the reasons for high RMS levels, look at my article.
- as to his statement about radio - I was a broadcast engineer, we'd
get MASSIVE FINES from the FCC if we peaked over 102% modulation.
then later I sent:
Wow... There was so much partial/misinformation in that Dec 6th session
that I failed to finish my train of thought about the Linear Tech guy....
There was an FAE I met during the design of one of my products (http://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawam3/pat6208266.pdf)
that worked at Linear Technology Alan Rich - the company that makes a
lot of the
semiconductors like those in the products your panel used.
If I recall he mentioned that he was one of the first few FAE's , he
mentioned how tough it was to get in.
He mentioned that during the interview process, the candidate is
presented with a large schematic of one of their IC's and has to walk
the interviewer through the circuitry.
So years later, I was working on a design for Lane Poor, a well
recognized manufacturer of very high end pick ups. We were looking for
a replacement to an Analog Device product, an opamp that became scarce.
I called Alan and mentioned my dilemma. He said that in fact LT had
some fairly high quality opamps but he also mentioned that for most
audio applications, the Analog Device products were superior to the
ones LT offered - and not in a voodoo sense, actual measurable
parameters that
are typical in audio product topologies.
I mentioned that yes indeed I had seen and heard (very subjective as to
anyone's perception so I rarely go by that) what I thought was a
discernible difference. In fact electrically it seemed he was right.
Now way back when, there was a guy named George Massenburg, the
inventor of the modern parametric EQ, based somewhat on
Sallen-Key/state variable filters. At
the time everyone including Alan Rich's friend Walter Jung (a well
known engineer in his own right) dismissed George's claim as to being
able to have a
fully parametric EQ with constant Q.
But indeed George did it. And it became very useful for audio
production. Even Walter eventually included it in his now
famous Opamp Cookbook series.
Anyway, during the conversation about opamps, I asked Alan if he ever
met anyone that really, really could pass blind tests as to sound
quality. He mentioned that one time, he was present during a listening
test where Walter Jung was able to tell the difference in an opamp
silicon die packaged in ceramic vs one packaged in epoxy (the typical
IC
package technology you see used for most semiconductors)
He was at a loss to explain it, as am I. Maybe it was possible, maybe
there were other factors in the blind test that contributed to this.
For instance most of the audiophile - golden ears tests are conducted
in a very limited scientific way - typically, the zillions of things
that can affect inter-equipment coupling are ignored, and in my
opinion, render these tests totally useless.
Again I implore you to read, my market turd rants: http://www.ajawamnet.com/ajawamnet/marketturd.htm .
Put it up for discussion.... put it in the hands of these experts. I
would love to see one, just one deny that even the most technically
horrible recording cannot have value if the art is truly there. Look at
Michelle Shocked's story.
Look at Tone Loc.
Then also look at what's really important.
Take the recording of the most technically stupendous recording, judged
by all these golden ears, and compare that to Yo Yo Ma sitting in front
of them playing Mozart.
Now you get the picture - read my State of the Music Biz debate/article
a few times....
The human - the music itself. Not the feeble attempt at timeshifting
performances...
back to main turd