Frequency/Spectrum Display?

[djdarwin]

What is the device called that displays what how loud each frequency is?

There is always one that comes with software playback programs like winamp, windows media, quck time...

When you play a song through a program like the ones mentioned above you can see all the meters bouncing around...

I am looking to get one of these to analyze my frequencies as I am mixing. Is there a good one online that will be compatable with protools? Or a hardware one i could place in my chain?

Ive been bouncing down my song and then checking the meters in winamp. This is taking far to long.

What is the solution?

Glen?

Oh yeah... how the do i get that red (negative rep power) off my name? Thats not fair.. think chessrock fucked me up sometime last week.

[blueroommusic]

they're called frequency analyzers...many "mastering" suites have them

I don't know much about software for PT anymore though...sorry

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Darwin,

While I certainly appreciate your support and confidence in me, this is Homerecording.com, not Brother Glen's Traveling Salvation Show. It's unfair to you, me, and everyone else here to be singling me out. I am not always right, nor will everybody always agree with what I have to say. The second half of this post will be one of those examples where there will probably be a lot of disagreement with what I have to say. If you want to hire me as your personal tutor or engineering consultant, that's a different story, and that's not a free service. When conrtibuting to a public board like this one, I reserve the right to answer and to not answer those questions which I choose.

The device you're asking about goes by several names; sometimes its called a real-time analyzer or RTA, frequency analyzer, spectrum analyzer or FFT analyzer. And my advice is to just forget about it; you have zero need for it, are not ready for it, and it will hamper your ability to get the one tool that you really need; experienced and trained ears.

The best engineers in this business almost never use one for anything other than to impress their clients with the pretty dancing lights. Why?, Because they have no need for one; RTAs don't tell them anything that their ears do not already know.

Work on getting your ears trained, on listening to a mix like an engineer instead of as a fan; that's the #1 thing that'll get you on your way to good mixes. It's also the thing that will answer for you 75% of the questions you are asking on this board.

As far as the red and green chicklets, don't worry about it. They have little to no meaning on this board.

G.

[bennychico11]

http://www.rogernicholsdigital.com/inspector.htm

like Glen said, don't worry too much about it. What are you looking for when you analyze your frequencies? What's a good frequency supposed to look like?

The only time I use it is when troubleshooting something in the mix (ie. trying to locate a problematic frequency...like a high pitched squeal coming from a machine or something, or some low frequency problem caused by DC offset).

[chessrock]

Aw. Looks like DJ Darwin's got himself a little man-crush. How cute.

[djdarwin]

Thanks Glen for the advice...

Didnt mean to single you out Glen, but can you blame me? Your answers are top notch buddy. You responding to me still gives all the other Newbs material to read. Educates me Educates them.

Its all good. Ill leave your name out of my posts from now on.

But anyway...

I listen to my mixes every day. I tweak. I practice. I experiment. I try to train my ears to listen to exactly what that bass mids and highs are doing in my mix. Its what i have been doing for the past year.

Is wanting a free RTA bad. I dont think so. I look at the mixes from commercially released rap. 50, eminiem and the other big names. When i play their songs every meter on my winamp gets maxed out over and over again as the song plays. This happens on all songs on all CDs from this type of music.

When i play my mixed .wav in winamp I am always missing large chunks of the spectrum. With an RTA i could find what im missing faster then doing a bounce to check in winamp every time. RTA shows me i got no activity in the mids or the extreem highs then i know i got room to add a new guitar part or some new cymbols.

That was my theroy behind wanting one.

Is this wrong or a bad apporach?

I want a full/huge mix that fills all aspects of the Frequency spectrum.
You are right that my ears are not ready to hear that i need more in the highs or mids. Why cant i use a RTA to help?


Benny: Absolutely perfect. Just what i was looking for.

Chess: Always with the smartass comments. Part annoying. Part humorous. All motivational.

[bennychico11]

Originally Posted by djdarwin

Is this wrong or a bad apporach?
Why cant i use a RTA to help?

nope, completely wrong approach. and if my giving you the link has pointed you down that path, then someone give ME negative rep for that.

don't ever try comparing the frequency content of your mixes with that of a professionally recorded mix. I understand your train of thought in thinking that you'll get a similar sound if you put some EQ on the master fader and boost accordingly to get a matching spectrum. That's not how mixing works...period. If that were true every engineer would be doing that by now. There are so many other variables in the mix and in the instrumental content (not to mention room response) you are using that no two mixes will ever sound/look the same.
At this time is when I agree 100% you should forget mixing with your eyes and use the ears.

I look at the mixes from commercially released rap. 50, eminiem and the other big names. When i play their songs every meter on my winamp gets maxed out over and over again as the song plays. This happens on all songs on all CDs from this type of music.

This has nothing to do with the frequency content in those mixes...it has to do with how the mix was mastered and what the producers told the mastering engineer to do. Everyone thinks louder=better and they strive to push their mix louder than the other guys...even if it clips a little bit. Ignore that approach. Look at an orchestral mix or a mix from back in the 70's and you'll find the dynamic headroom to be very very different than that of CDs today.
Read part 2 here if you're interested on more information about this.

[Farview]

Commercial CD's have been mastered and are so loud that they are overloading the RTA in winamp. Trying to get your mix to look like that is an excersize in futility. I really wouldn't put much faith in the RTA in winamp, it's there for show. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be calibrated test equipment. (which an RTA is)

[jmorris]

Originally Posted by chessrock

Aw. Looks like DJ Darwin's got himself a little man-crush. How cute.

Oh shit, my side hurts from laughing!!

[tarnationsauce2]

I agree that an RTA should only be used in the right context.
But should you need one, this is probably the best free one:
http://mdsp.smartelectronix.com/ffttools/

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Darwin,

No harm, no foul. Just don't want you to think that you can put up the bat signal and I (or anyone else, FTM) will come running every time .

You have good intentions with your idea behind looking for an analyzer, but frankly - with very ocasional exceptions like Benny mentioned - RTAs are simply not all that useful to someone with good ears.

And I personally take it further than that; I believe that the more one uses their eyes to do the job of their ears, the more they are cramping their ear's style. It's a cousin of that old truism that if you blindfold someone their hearing becomes more sensitive; take the blindfold off and the ears get less sensitive again. Sure, some things we do have to be done with the eyes, but 95% of the time, recognizing frequencies is not one of them.

The other 5% of the time is when one need to identify low frequency subharmonic buildup that may not be readily audible for some until it's too late, or those instances like Benny mentioned where there is just some problem frequency (or more often, combination of frequencies) that's like an itch you juct can't scratch because you can't quite seem to reach it. In those cases, an RTA can work like a backscratcher .

And yeah, Jay is right (as he usually is) in that the analyzer in Winamp is far more show than go; you really can't trust it to be that well calibrated for actual work.

Grab an RTA if you want. Just don't become to enamored of it or depend upon it for that many answers is my advice. Must better to let your ears do the heavy lifting there, IMHO.

G.

[timboZ]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

It's a cousin of that old truism that if you blindfold someone their hearing becomes more sensitive; take the blindfold off and the ears get less sensitive again. Sure, some things we do have to be done with the eyes, but 95% of the time, recognizing frequencies is not one of them.

That must be why my mixes come out better when I have all the lights off but the 2 lava lamps on behind me.

[BigRay]

read bob katz book, mastering audio. do the exercises in there daily, and soon you wont need any damn analyzer. train your ears.

Originally Posted by djdarwin

Thanks Glen for the advice...

Didnt mean to single you out Glen, but can you blame me? Your answers are top notch buddy. You responding to me still gives all the other Newbs material to read. Educates me Educates them.

Its all good. Ill leave your name out of my posts from now on.

But anyway...

I listen to my mixes every day. I tweak. I practice. I experiment. I try to train my ears to listen to exactly what that bass mids and highs are doing in my mix. Its what i have been doing for the past year.

Is wanting a free RTA bad. I dont think so. I look at the mixes from commercially released rap. 50, eminiem and the other big names. When i play their songs every meter on my winamp gets maxed out over and over again as the song plays. This happens on all songs on all CDs from this type of music.

When i play my mixed .wav in winamp I am always missing large chunks of the spectrum. With an RTA i could find what im missing faster then doing a bounce to check in winamp every time. RTA shows me i got no activity in the mids or the extreem highs then i know i got room to add a new guitar part or some new cymbols.

That was my theroy behind wanting one.

Is this wrong or a bad apporach?

I want a full/huge mix that fills all aspects of the Frequency spectrum.
You are right that my ears are not ready to hear that i need more in the highs or mids. Why cant i use a RTA to help?


Benny: Absolutely perfect. Just what i was looking for.

Chess: Always with the smartass comments. Part annoying. Part humorous. All motivational.

[kylen]

Well, well, well spectrum analyzer, eh?

Here's the free RTA I use and recommend, Voxengo SPAN:
http://www.voxengo.com/product/SPAN/
Unfortunately for you it's VST which Pro Tools can't use (I don't believe).

There's another one by Elemental Audio, now Roger Nichols owns it, for Pro Tools (not free - big surprise?):
http://www.rogernicholsdigital.com/inspectorxl.htm

I've got a Behringer DEQ2496 that has an RTA in it but even though it's 1/6 octave (specs) in reality I think the FFT size used is a little smaller than 1/6 octave so the resolution isn't what you would expect or need IMO.

What folks here are trying to tell you is get your skills and equipment together since you might seem a little overly-confident about the RTA fixing a lot of issues. I don't know what mixing/mastering equipment or monitoring or skills you're using to push your mixes into the "rap zone" that your using for reference. You're up against some pretty ferocious equipment though! Good luck.

Besides all that, back to the RTA. I use one daily to help judge sub, bass, lo-mids, hi-mids, treble when I can't hear it. I'm in an apartment so there are certain hours where I can only do setups and fine-tune at some other time when I can turn it up (still not too loud here, < 74dbSPL I'm sure). Then it's out to the F150 truck stereo for the final judgement. You do what you gotta do. Also there's at least 2 times a year when my eustachian tube blocks and my hearing isn't up to par - more info than you needed?

So if you had the RTA, what are you looking at? Using Voxengo SPAN as an example you're looking at upto 8K bands (16K FFT) of spectrum info and readouts, some of it dynamic, some of it static between 5Hz and 30KHz.

The RMS/PRMS readouts tell you where the average audio envelope sits in db relative to 0dbfs. This average envelope RMS db readout is meant to represent the average loudness of the audio you hear thru the air referenced as dbSPL. The PRMS is just the maximum or "peak" rms during the reference window - this accumulates over time until you click the readout to reset it and the average can build again. It's good to reset the readouts if you're looping over a passage fine tuning something.

Next the spectrum display can be set in a way that will either average the frequency display very slowly or allow it to respond very quickly and dance with the music. In slow mode the frequency display will build over time and you will see what shape the general spectrum holds. This can show you a general tilt such as 3db, 4db, 5db per octave or whatever your reference target is. This can show you where to set a lo/hi shelf, HP/LP or wide peaking EQ. Also you can find a resonance if you're not too good at sweeping - or if you're using a digital EQ with a cut but it doesn't seem to be doing anything (many can't cut gain accurately past a certain Q). Speeding up the spectrum allows you to easily see where peaks and transients are for an EQ cut or MB compressor if it's poking you in the eye (or ear!).

Lastly there's a peak hold where you can see the transient peak shape of your reference and your own mix to see how it stacks up. Peak hold can be infinite or you can let it fall periodically during different sections of a bar, measure, section or whatever you're monitoring.

The difference between RMS and Peak (not PRMS but Peak - you'll need peak metering for this like Roger Nichols now has...) is the dynamic range everyone is so interested in. It's the range of the average loudness to the fastest loudest transient. Kind of like the groove and the excitement found in the song but in terms of loudness. This range is the headroom of the music (the full scale digital headroom is something else but is always "usually" 0dbFS). The actual headroom of the music is what everyone from you and me to Bob Ludwig are slammin with our L2 Limiters (or whatever he's got out there).

But anyway, I'm real sure that your mixes are not going to match the commercial rap that has been mastered and crushed to about 4db of dynamic headroom. I'll bet the headroom on your mixes are 10-15db (?) This reference difference will probably throw off your mix decisions and certainly will look funny in an RTA (haha - it took me a while to say this). But after a long while you will begin to notice what a spectrum in an RTA means - if you want to go that way.

And that's all I have to say about that!

[bennychico11]

Originally Posted by kylen

The RMS/PRMS readouts tell you where the average audio envelope sits in db relative to 0dbfs.

well, not 0dbFS...but in reference to your studio standard which is usually much less than 0dBFS. For example, my RMS is usually around -20dBFS=0VU

This average envelope RMS db readout is meant to represent the average loudness of the audio you hear thru the air referenced as dbSPL.

again, depends on what you set your standard at (if anything). Some people don't reference a standard SPL. If you follow the K-System metering, you may....but home recording engineers may turn up/down their monitoring volume all the time, so the RMS reference can change.

[darkcubus]

good replies everyone. i've found it's best to avoid a spectrum analyzer and just use your ears. it's been my general understanding with home recording that the best thing to do is to take what you're listening to and try to balance the audio spectrum with your ears along with the tools you have available.

sonically pay attention to what's coming out of the speakers and aim for evenness. i've found, from constantly reading this board, evening out the frequency spectrum is key! use your ears and mentally visualize the spectrum in front of you and listen for the "even wall of sound" you hear in commercial albums.

listen for the "even wall of sound"! i've found some albums present a more noticeable "wall" than others where it sounds great and you can tell every frequency has been precisely adjusted to even the wall and preserve the quality of each instrument.

mentally visualize the seemingly vertical (to me anyway) wall of flatness and you will hear it.

use the tools you have available to manipulate it and make it even. basically listening for, and mentally visualizing what nice monitors advertise as having "a flat representation of the audio spectrum", so when manipulating it, you can hear and adjust towards an even, flat, spectrum of sound by carefully balancing everything during mixing.

i've found, when eqing, it's best to carefully listen to what's not needed from instruments to make room for other instruments. if needed of course. then carefully listening and boosting what's there afterwards to further even out the frequencies to further flatten the wall all while trying to maintain the best sound from each instrument. of course this is all done through constant trial and error of making sure the cuts and boosts sound ok all while realizing everything you do affects everything else.

but of course like everyone says it's best to have everything tracked and mixed well before having it professionally mastered.

your ears are the spectrum analyzer.

[chessrock]

Spectrum analyzers are just like mastering limiters or multi-band compressors.

They're extremely useful in the right hands (if you know how and when to use it).

But potentially disasterous in the wrong hands. Just like with anything else, really.
.

[kylen]

Originally Posted by bennychico11

well, not 0dbFS...but in reference to your studio standard which is usually much less than 0dBFS. For example, my RMS is usually around -20dBFS=0VU

True, I'm in the DAW box though so I have peak metering that I use that always references 0dbfs digital.

Originally Posted by bennychico11

again, depends on what you set your standard at (if anything). Some people don't reference a standard SPL. If you follow the K-System metering, you may....but home recording engineers may turn up/down their monitoring volume all the time, so the RMS reference can change.

Yes my SPL floats all over the place so I constantly have to take that into consideration when listening. But my dbm signals (which is what my metering uses) always stay around K-12 to K-20 depending. That way I'm always ready to print something and run out to the car or if I get lucky and can turn up the monitoring to where I like it. My dbm and dbSPL aren't tied together like some of you folks probably have. So I watch the RMS metering and keep the SPL meter handy.

[kylen]

Originally Posted by chessrock

Spectrum analyzers are just like mastering limiters or multi-band compressors.

They're extremely useful in the right hands (if you know how and when to use it).

But potentially disasterous in the wrong hands. Just like with anything else, really.
.

chessrock - I'm thinking you wouldn't be caught dead with one of these things! Otherwise you might get a knock on your door about 3am from Southside and a Tommy gun...

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by kylen

chessrock - I'm thinking you wouldn't be caught dead with one of these things! Otherwise you might get a knock on your door about 3am from Southside and a Tommy gun...

Nah, I'm actually with chessrock on this one.

I have several different RTAs myself, including most of them recommended in this thread. They're just like any other tool, they have their jobs and their uses. It's just that IMHO those uses are rare specialty jobs and only for those operators who really know how to use them in those jobs. The irony is those that really know how to use them are usually those who need them the least.

And, BTW, Tommy guns are so 1930s. We use MP-10s these days just like everyone else .

G.

[masteringhouse]

A spectrum analyzer can be useful to help find problematic frequencies until your ears are trained better. However, don't fall into the trap of trying to match one song to another (similar to programs like Har-Bal). There's far too many variables for this to work with pro results.

In addition to spectrum meters there are also phase meters that are actually another nice thing to have if they are included with the package.

Once your critical listening skills become sharpened there will be little or no need to rely on these.

offtopic:

I'm glad to see that Glen is on the case. Also the usual crew (Benny, Farview, Ryan, Chessrock, John, etc.) Their input to this forum has been extremely valuable. I'm finding less of a need to help monitor audio BS since much of my input would be redundant, though I still like to drop in on occasion. This forum has really grown-up from when I first started posting and has become a great source for budding engineers.

Keep up the great work dudes!

[chessrock]

I'm a lot friendlier to the idea of spectral analyzers than most on this board.

I honestly couldn't do without them. Sometimes my ears get a little tired, or they just lose all perspective and they need a little visual help to confirm what they might be hearing or not hearing.

Let's say I'm dialing in sounds for a heavy guitar track, and there's some spike up there in the high mids that's just shredding my ear drums. If I track a sample of it and have a look at it on the graph, I can instantly tell where the offending range is. Usually somewhere around 2-3 khz, and if it's higher than that, then we probably have some problems that need to be addressed before we proceed, etc.

Also, when I de-ess vocals, I generally use a MB-compressor ... and since everyone's sibilant range is a little different, I can generally pull up the graph and have a look at where that particular vocal's sibilant range is at with pin-point accuracy, and then dial that in to the MBcomp.

When sound-checking, I sometimes pull it up and have a look for where the peaks are on the kick drum, and compare it with any peaks that might appear on the bass guitar track. If they're both spiking pretty heavily at 80 hz, for example ... then I might want to have a listen for potential conflicts.

From there, if it sounds fine, then I don't worry about it. But if I hear something that seems to lend credence to what I saw on the spectral graph, then I might chime in and mention something. Hey Mr. Bass player ... where do you envision your instrument's roll in the mix? Heard more than felt? Featured or complimentary? etc. And just work on adjusting the tone from there if you think there might be some conflicts with what the kick is doing.

When mixing, I might have a peak at it to figure out some possible danger zones. Like if I want to add some high end to the mix, where do I start? Well, looking at the graph, I know there are a lot of cymbal crash transients popping up all over the place around 4-5 khz ... so I might want to proceed with caution and try a high shelf a little farther up from that range, so as to avoid danger on the cymbal crashes. That kinda' thing.

.

[SonicAlbert]

The only thing I think is a little wrong in this thread is the concept of "use your ears not an RTA", which is correct but implies that you use either one or the other. How about using an RTA *and* your ears? Why diss a tool that can be so helpful? There's no reason why a person can't use *both* their ears and an analyzer.

It's another tool in the arsenal. Of course you don't want to "mix with your eyes" based solely on what you are seeing on an analyzer. But at the same time, an RTA can be a great help in locating problem frequencies quickly and maybe calling attention to something that might otherwise be overlooked.

I own the Elemental Audio Inspector XL, a great program, and I also use the Behringer Ultra-Curve 2496 (one of the best units they make). The 2496 has a bunch of different metering and I keep that unit on the master buss when mixing, switching between the Peak/RMS meters and RTA analyzer. It's really nice to have that instant reference, I wouldn't want to be without it.

[djdarwin]

Originally Posted by chessrock

I'm a lot friendlier to the idea of spectral analyzers than most on this board.

I honestly couldn't do without them. Sometimes my ears get a little tired, or they just lose all perspective and they need a little visual help to confirm what they might be hearing or not hearing.

Let's say I'm dialing in sounds for a heavy guitar track, and there's some spike up there in the high mids that's just shredding my ear drums. If I track a sample of it and have a look at it on the graph, I can instantly tell where the offending range is. Usually somewhere around 2-3 khz, and if it's higher than that, then we probably have some problems that need to be addressed before we proceed, etc.

Also, when I de-ess vocals, I generally use a MB-compressor ... and since everyone's sibilant range is a little different, I can generally pull up the graph and have a look at where that particular vocal's sibilant range is at with pin-point accuracy, and then dial that in to the MBcomp.

When sound-checking, I sometimes pull it up and have a look for where the peaks are on the kick drum, and compare it with any peaks that might appear on the bass guitar track. If they're both spiking pretty heavily at 80 hz, for example ... then I might want to have a listen for potential conflicts.

From there, if it sounds fine, then I don't worry about it. But if I hear something that seems to lend credence to what I saw on the spectral graph, then I might chime in and mention something. Hey Mr. Bass player ... where do you envision your instrument's roll in the mix? Heard more than felt? Featured or complimentary? etc. And just work on adjusting the tone from there if you think there might be some conflicts with what the kick is doing.

When mixing, I might have a peak at it to figure out some possible danger zones. Like if I want to add some high end to the mix, where do I start? Well, looking at the graph, I know there are a lot of cymbal crash transients popping up all over the place around 4-5 khz ... so I might want to proceed with caution and try a high shelf a little farther up from that range, so as to avoid danger on the cymbal crashes. That kinda' thing.

.

ChessRock:

Nice contribution. That was exactly what i was looking for. That is exactly how i would use my RTA.

I can hear that the bass and the kick are masking eachother and dont sound "just right." I can cut and boost where ever i want and it will make a difference but im not practiced enough to know exactly freq to cut and boost to make it sound perfect.

Thats where the RTA comes in. I can see where the Kick peaks and where the bass peaks and cut and boost accordingly. Maybe this wont cause my mix to "sound the best" but it gives me a great starting point to work from.

I wasnt planning on boosting or cutting while just staring at my RTA but more or less using it as a point of refference to work off of.

Ears are much more important than the eyes, but why not use the tools available to help your ears out a little right?

Hell... if chessrock does then i better right?

Just some clarification. Glen doesnt support this, but is this wrong?:

Using the RTA on the mix to locate "blank" or "missing" spots in your "Wall of sound." Just like chess said, you can identify where there is room for more high end or whatever. Got room for cymbols in your "wall of sound" why not add them right? I want my RTA to show me a full mix, a full wall of sound before i compress/master.

Is this wrong?

Keep in mind this is hip hop and if you dont got a loud wall of sound you got nothing. Period.

[mshilarious]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

In addition to spectrum meters there are also phase meters that are actually another nice thing to have if they are included with the package.

Oooh I do like my phase meter. Even though I mostly just look at the 1-dimensional version, Wavelab has a really cool XY graph that is like one of those Media Player visualizations. It helps add ambiance since I don't have a lava lamp

I don't mind the spectrum meter either, it comes in pretty rainbow colors

Working on microphones and such, I live and die by the FFT. Couldn't function without it. But that has little to do with mixing.