Quantcast
Waves PAZ Analyzer... Filling in the gaps..... - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Waves PAZ Analyzer... Filling in the gaps.....
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #31
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum ➡️
What are they trying to tell us here? What does "consistently significant" regarding a "measurment tool" mean.
What they are trying to tell you is that if from time to time there is some energy shifted to the anti-phase info area, that's pretty normal. Use your common sense, there are effect units that inherently generate plenty of phase issues. But, it really becomes an issue if during a long period of time most of the energy is anti-phase information, meaning that the audio you are analyzing for the most part is out-of-phase.
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #32
Gear Addict
 
jordanstoner's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
General statement: There is nothing inherently wrong with two signals which do not have a coherent or even correlated phase relationship. Even two same signals with an inverted phase relationship is not necessarily a "problem" - if it was intended to be that way and the loss of the resultant combined signal when summed to mono is not a concern.

Now for three statements that should end the back-and-forth bickering of all visual tools on every thread, ever:


If it sounds good, then who cares how it looks?

If it sounds bad, and you feel this tool helps you make it sound better, then great. That's assuming that the presence of this additional display tells your brain to make adjustments above and beyond what your ears alone tell your brain to do - and the result is more pleasing to your brain and your ears, not necessarily your eyes.

If it looks good but sounds bad, then just relax and enjoy the visuals. It'll take your mind off of the crap you're hearing.
Old 11th February 2009 | Show parent
  #33
Gear Maniac
 
fader8's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum ➡️
What a sad display of utter lack of basic engineering knowledge. The manual is really hard to read without getting angry. The display of decorrelated signals appears to be totally arbitrary. The established terms for these problems are "correlation vs coherency" which Waves doesn't even mention. What are they trying to tell us here?
I have to admit that I've always been puzzled why they would bother to combine panning and phase in the same meter display. It's like some kind of bizarre sofabed. Neither a good sofa, or a good bed!

I don't get Waves sometimes. They're capable of absolutely brilliant things, but sometimes they release the darndest stuff. Fills up the bundles, I guess.
Old 12th February 2009 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
MASSIVE Master's Avatar
 
Verified Member
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea ➡️
But seriously, Massive can swear that he has no fear..ehm.. bias against these little analysis tools on a long rant while using his life-changing and enlightening examples {You should write a book of your own: "Mastering with your Ears for Dummies, Mechanics, Cooks and Painters too" heh} but yet, you make a point of being opposed to their use by the mere act of posting on every RTA or tool analysis related thread telling OPs to just use their ears! Pretty hypocritical if you asked me.
I think you should get a dictionary and look up the definition for "hypocritical" -
Quote:
Well, I am considering never coming back to this site.


Don't start a poll about that...

Quote:
I thought it would have real professionals on board.
It does. We're just tired of being harassed by the same person over and over and over. Enough is enough.
Quote:
I don't need this constant harassment by the same group of members. Enough is enough.
Alrighty then.

Ed, I don't know if you've noticed, but these things tend to be "almost all of us" vs. "You." You accuse us of being hypocritical (although that still confuses me, because I'm truly convinced that you don't understand the definition of the word), you try to make it seem as if you have some magical connection to - a RTA. A meter that shows frequencies. If you don't like the way that almost all of us feel about it, then just leave it alone maybe. You're not the first person to rely on a visual tool - You won't be the last. We don't really care. Go write a diatribe to EQ (or whatever that magazine was) arguing about those last few paragraphs posted earlier here. I'd bet they'd print it, and I'd bet there would be a long list of people disagreeing with you in the following issue.


But now, as usual, in your typical passive-aggressive manner, you've made this thread a "personal" thing and most of it will probably be deleted. Congratulations once again - I'm sure you have the record.
Old 12th February 2009 | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 
Verified Member
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea ➡️
In my opinion, the only way there is going to be an end to the "bickering" over RTAs and other analysis tools is when the Mods put their foot down and send a clear message that posting "use your ears only" comments are irrelevant, unwanted and OFF TOPIC! For crying out loud, let the OP get his answer from members who really understand what analyzers do and how they work.
Hi Edward,

I quoted from a reputable magazine that actually summarised the use of RTAs quite well. People don't have to agree with you all of the time, and from what I can see YOU are the one that can't deal with it. None of us really care if you use an RTA or not- seriously. It's not off topic. It's just an opinion. If I may quote again:

"Analysis tools give us useful data, but it is only data, not knowledge about the audio. So, in the final analysis, the ears remain the best and most important source of knowledge about whether something sounds good. But data can be seductive, and people sometimes come to rely more on what they think meters are telling them than on what their ears tell them. That becomes a problem if someone is not metering the appropriate information or if the quantitative data supplied by a meter does not map well to the most closely related perceptual attribute. For instance, level meters mostly give representations that are of the power in a signal. But loudness is a perceptual attribute that does not map directly to signal power as shown on a typical meter. Or the problem may be as simple as not metering the right parameter.

In any event, meters are best treated as supplements to what we hear. If there is a discrepancy between the two, further inquiry may be in order. But it is foolish to assume that the meters must be “right” and that you aren't hearing correctly."
Closed

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 9 views: 1982
Avatar for GearGeek
GearGeek 23rd July 2005
replies: 5 views: 3945
Avatar for 3rdeyeKnight
3rdeyeKnight 12th July 2007

Forum Jump
Forum Jump