Quantcast
FFT Analyzers not relevant? - Page 3 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
FFT Analyzers not relevant?
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #61
Lives for gear
 
MASSIVE Master's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Look - I don't know how many ways I can put this. If I hear something and the meter is saying something completely different, I have a gear issue. Something is whacky, out of calibration, frotzed out, whatever. But I'm not going to let a meter decide where I'm going to make a cut. If I can't zero in on something and I can use a RTA to help, that's fine. But the meter isn't going to tell me if something sounds the way I want it to sound. A meter isn't going to tell me if the guitars in a mix sound like an ex-girlfriend screaming in my ear. A meter might tell me where the peaky frequency is in a sibilant passage - But the meter isn't going to dictate how I decide to correct it.

We can accept the fact that you feel the need to use meters in this way. We wish that you would accept the fact that most of us don't. And we don't need to hear some hogwash about how we just "don't understand how to use it" or the RTA's we use "aren't the right ones" or whatever other interesting and unusual beliefs you have. Just get over it. Use the damn meter - None of us are telling you not to. But lay off on those of us who would rather just use our ears. I could use a HUD to drive a car too - But I'd rather just look through the windshield.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
10 FFT thread starts
20 same old arguments
30 goto 20

40 Anyway; for corrective surgery with assistance from the eyes, I find spectrum editors (often found in restoration tools) to be vastly more precise than looking at RTA's.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #63
Lives for gear
 
Virtalahde's Avatar
 
Verified Member
13 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Edward, Edward. All this topic contains is you trying be the one that knows it all, telling everyone not using an RTA is seriously compromising the workflow. And when you post examples that clearly show the unprocessed examples are the best (I find your sudden turn in "mix2 is unprocessed, I was wrong" rather amusing), you go into full boo-hoo mode.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #64
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtalahde ➡️
Edward, Edward. All this topic contains is you trying be the one that knows it all, telling everyone not using an RTA is seriously compromising the workflow. And when you post examples that clearly show the unprocessed examples are the best (I find your sudden turn in "mix2 is unprocessed, I was wrong" rather amusing), you go into full boo-hoo mode.
Well, it wouldn't be this clogged if there was respect for what I have to say in the first place. The fact that I didn't know that the mix I processed was number one, doesn't change anything AND still proves my point, which is what you are trying to disprove. The reduction of the sibilance is so subtle, you need to have good monitors or a RTA to hear/see it. Case in point.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #65
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea ➡️
Mix 2 which is the one with less sibilance. Let's just end it here.
Hello Edward. This test has come and bitten you on the arse. I don't understand why you persist in arguing with everyone! Just let it be.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #66
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben F ➡️
Hello Edward. This test has come and bitten you on the arse. I don't understand why you persist in arguing with everyone! Just let it be.
This isn't about nb comps, is about RTA's and sibilance./ Read all posts before making irrelevant comments.

EDIT: As I said before, I have submitted a few tests in the past. The only way to prove anything on this forum. Doesn't anybody wish that everybody did this? I mean on anything. Even if one claims that x gear sounds better than y? why not make a sample and prove it. I guess it's asking too much because talk is faster and cheaper.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #67
Lives for gear
 
MASSIVE Master's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
- Spectrum editors are wonderful.

Still - I'm sure that Lupo doesn't examine everything in a spectral editor - I imagine that if he hears something that a spectral editor might be used to correct, he'd open it up and go to town on it.

Just like with the RTA -- I can open up a spectral editor and potentially take a cough out of an otherwise wonderful classical recording - But I don't need the spectral editor to tell me that there's a cough in there.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #68
Gear Maniac
 
fader8's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea ➡️
As I said before, I have submitted a few tests in the past. The only way to prove anything on this forum.
Thank you Edward. That indeed makes all this very clear. It hadn't occurred to me until you said that. It's regretful that whatever you've experienced has now motivated you to feel you have to prove something. To whom, I'm not sure. Perhaps yourself.

The spirit of any public forum like this is to share ideas in open discourse. It shouldn't matter whether the contributor is a seasoned professional or an interested amateur. That shouldn't be the measure we use to parse out respect. It's not about what we know or how we do our jobs. It's about sharing our passion for the craft and exchanging ideas. That's where the wealth lies.

With regard to working a sample, if you have a sibilant or otherwise track that isn't already mastered and ripped from a CD, that you would actually be interested in hearing about various techniques and discussing them like adults, then by all means go ahead. I'm sure many here would find it an interesting and thoughtful activity. But I can't condone an exercise that's architected to just satisfy your need for self gratification. It's not productive, and I might go as far to say that it isn't very civil either.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #69
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master ➡️
Not on a bet -- Spectrum editors are wonderful.

Still - I'm sure that Lupo doesn't examine everything in a spectral editor - I imagine that if he hears something that a spectral editor might be used to correct, he'd open it up and go to town on it.

Just like with the RTA -- I can open up a spectral editor and potentially take a cough out of an otherwise wonderful classical recording - But I don't need the spectral editor to tell me that there's a cough in there.
Then you wouldn't object proving your point by reducing the sibilance from MIX 2 {no RTA, of coruse}, would you? This can show everybody how acute your hearing is. But, I bet you're going to ignore this as usual.

OK, I am retiring for the evening now. I can only expect more respectful posts from some world class mastering guy calling me this or that because they can't see how is it that a RTA can help place a narrow band compressor exactly where a band problem is and kill or reduce sibilance more accurately than his golden ears. Fine by me. Just remember, these posts are forever. So, think hard before you post something and if you could just submit your own version of that mix 2 example with sibilance reduction, no RTA guidance, you'll earn my respect and I will always make respectful discussions with you.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #70
Gear Maniac
 
fader8's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master ➡️
Not on a bet -- Spectrum editors are wonderful.
Indeed they are! As is spectral resynthesis. They've pulled my ass out of a few scrapes. Besides, they're just downright fun!
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #71
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea ➡️
Castle mastering, why waste such a great opportunity to show what's inside that magnificent castle of yours? Seriously, somebody show me the golden ears. Please, enlight me and download mix 2, reduce sibilance.
actualy i got more important things to do...
i dont know how you make your living , but i get paid for sound not for posts
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Virtalahde's Avatar
 
Verified Member
13 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea ➡️
The reduction of the sibilance is so subtle, you need to have good monitors or a RTA to hear/see it.
The point of any processing in mastering is to make the sound translate well to various playback systems. If you were trying to reduce sibilance, it didn't do anything for a very basic, small home stereo system. Instead it made things worse.

Looking at your website, what are you monitoring at? The musicmasteringonline page has a picture of a console and a pair of NS10's along with a pair of Alesis monitors or something like that. Either way, the monitoring doesn't look like anything you could do proper mastering work on. If that's not the environment you work at, then please share your monitoring chain with us. It's the most important tool, afterall.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Edward: the spectrum editor comment was first and foremost for you! I know that John etc already use it. Since you love RTA, you'll most probably find spectrum editors to be a blast.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MASSIVE Master ➡️
Still - I'm sure that Lupo doesn't examine everything in a spectral editor - I imagine that if he hears something that a spectral editor might be used to correct, he'd open it up and go to town on it.
Exactly! Do actually often run RTA too, since it's easier than not with the RME software's totalyzer.Have a dedicated screen for metering. It's turned off unless I want to check a specific event. It's also placed at 130' angle to the sweet spot forward direction, so I won't see it while hearing, even if the monitor happen to be on. All that to avoid looking at the RTA..


There's is one thing though, that I wish more people would use the RTA for. TV type beep at 15kHz and similar. There's so many records around with annoying levels of tones up there that it makes me wonder if enough ME's actually hear that high. If they don't, having an RTA around to warn about beeps probably wouldn't hurt.


Attached is a spectrum cookie I drew in an album. Notice the linear scale. It's a noisy part in an abstract eletronic piece, the letters sounds like weak modulation of the noise. Don't think it would be possible to see that on RTA.
Attached Thumbnails
FFT Analyzers not relevant?-circular_fft_3.jpg  
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #74
Lives for gear
 
ONDRAY's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Analyzers are just as much harmful as they MAY be useful. When a started long ago, I was in love with these things, they are great LEARNING tools and great to nail down a GENERAL problem area quickly. However, in the past few years I have found that using these (except for phase scopes) have made things harder then to just listening and tweaking until it sounds good. I

I find that looking at these things takes your focus out of LISTENING when your eyes are glued to the screen trying to adjust the problem visually.

In a profession that the product is SOUND, listening should really be the only tool needed. But I won't lie I do use it once in a blue moon when I'm loosing my mind or have worked to many hours, it sets me on the right path.

PS: this thread is ridiculous,.. Why don't we all just use Assimilators and have the analyzers do the mastering if they're so accurate.


.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #75
kjg
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ONDRAY ➡️
Analyzers are just as much harmful as they MAY be useful.
I have to agree with that. The visual element can be so distracting. Like with frequency response curves on a plugin interface.

Don't look at it! Go by ear.
Same goes for all those dancing lights. It distracts very easily.

regards,
Klaas-Jan
Closed

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 56 views: 7054
Avatar for Reptil
Reptil 16th April 2005
replies: 700 views: 248238
Avatar for seby
seby 1 hour ago
replies: 16 views: 5785
Avatar for electricsky
electricsky 16th February 2012
replies: 76 views: 12841
Avatar for scandal
scandal 7th March 2021

Forum Jump
Forum Jump