Boray's listening challenge II: VSPlanet vs. HomeRecording. Your honour is at stake!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boray
  • Start date Start date
Yeah, I know Blue Bear, but I found an Avatar I want to use, so I need to get my post count up. This seemed a good way to do it while staying on topic.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
Light said:
You wanna know why speaker modeling (and mic modeling and anything else modeling) NEVER works. Because you can not use an EQ with out introducing phase issues, and you will never recreate the phase issues introduced by the crossovers and processing of the speakers. Your ears notice this stuff, even if your mind doesn’t do so consciously.

You wanna know why speaker modeling is a BAD idea. Because it DOES NOT MATTER what your speakers sound like, as long as they can handle the volume you need them to put out. What matters is how well you KNOW what your speakers sound like. Then you can know how you mixes will translate. Change the sound of your speakers (whether by getting new speakers or "modeling" a new sound) will require months of relearning your speakers.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

I agree to the first part. You can never exactly emulate another speaker using any method. That's why it's called simulation and not emulation.

The second part, well, I dissagree ;) (Are you surprised). The fist mix I did on my new monitors sounded good on other systems right away. And then I had been using my old speakers for 16 years. Most people think that their old stereo IS rather flat responding (I thought so too), but it isn't... All speakers frequency responses are different. That is why you get the best mixes on a flat responding speaker because it's an average of all other speakers.

But thank you very much for a serious post!
 
sonusman said:
What cracks me up is that he could have just went from minidisk into the computer and avoided a D/A/D conversion!!! :) But I jest! :D

So then this "test", that is supposed to "prove" something, is material that has gone through multiple a/d/a conversions, as well as originally tracked to a format that uses data compression! Now THAT is indeed very scientific!!! A study of how NOT to perform a critical listening test. But I jest!!! :D

Ed

My minidisk has a bunch of other equipment on top of it... The real bottleneck is the souncard/computer anyway...

This is not a scientific proof, it's a contest that is just for fun. So far it has been very funny! ;) And the choice of microphones and placement has more to influence the result than an extra D/A/D conversion anyway.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
The points I noted have nothing to do with MP3 -- they are mix quality issues.......

What mp3s did you listen to?

/Anders
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Lack of definition, lack of depth, poor clarity, no sense of imaging at all.... same as I noted a few times before........

The points I noted have nothing to do with MP3 -- they are mix quality issues.......

So what you are saying here is that a bunch of extra conversions, compressing and uncompressing with 3 different destructive compression algorithms doesn't do anything bad for definition, depth, clarity and stereo imaging.... THAT is exactly what is degraded by doing something like that... What a contradiction!
 
It's easy to spot a badly balanced mix, despite the format it's delivered on, moron..........
 
...Keep goin' Boray, hundred more you'll get your custom avatar... :p
 
Hey, it changes my audio sounds...
You guys must listen to it...

Here's the (Proof1.mp3)...

:D
 

Attachments

And here's another proof...
(Proof2.mp3)

You realy want to hear it boys...
:D
 

Attachments

Boray said:
... All speakers frequency responses are different. That is why you get the best mixes on a flat responding speaker because it's an average of all other speakers...

A flat speaker is NOT the best option. A speaker which you are familiar with is the best option. This may be a flat speaker, or it may be speaker which is not flat. Just look at how many great mixes have been done with Yamaha NS-10s, which are about as far from flat as any speaker out there. All great mixers will tell you the most important thing with monitors is that you know them.

I use Mackie HR 824s (I used to use NS-10s, but they gave me a headache), and it is my knowledge of them which helps me make mixes which translate. I know, for instance, that the transient response is rather slow (something which an EQ can not recreate, by the way). This means that if the kick drum has not got enough attack, I don't want to compress it as much as I would with NS-10s (or more precisely, what I am hearing will sound less compressed than it would have with NS-10s). I also know that my Mackies have an extended bass response, which means I have to be careful about the bass when I am mixing. I know these things because I have spent several months learning the sound of my speakers. If I had not done this, I would be having issues with my mixes. But, because I am familiar with my monitors, I am happy with my mixes, and my clients are happy with my mixes.

Most importantly, I spend my time worrying about music, and not my monitors.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
By the way, these are the same reasons you want to listen to a familiar CD when ever you start to work. Your ears do not hear the same way everyday. By listening to a familiar mix, you can figure out what your ears are hearing that day.

Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
AND THE CONTEST IS OVER. I WILL RETURN SHORTLY WITH THE RESULTS!
 
The correct answer is:

A=3, B=2, C=1, D=4.

In other words, this is the order:

* Original
* Alesis simulating the DUX
* The DUX
* Alesis
* DUX simulating the Alesis


The results of the competition was:

VSPlanet.com: 0 points (0 contestants)
HomeRecording.com: 0 points (0 contestants)

Winner of the CD: Nobody

Thanks everyone for participating!

/Anders
 
you're an idiot.

why do you even care if people here believe you?
obviously, you think it works for you, so great. let it work for you. people here have different things that work for them.

just let it be.
 
bleyrad said:
you're an idiot.

why do you even care if people here believe you?
obviously, you think it works for you, so great. let it work for you. people here have different things that work for them.

just let it be.

I don't care and I obviously don't use this myself. I just wanted to come up with a better method and share it as a compensation for my old method that wasn't very good. I think that this new method probably is the best EQ technique there is if you want to get more flat responding stereo speaker without having so much influence from room acoustics. I've provided a new improved method. If you want to use it, that's up to you. If you want to call me an idiot, that's your problem. I don't think I have adviced anyone (even in the old thread) to use this. I have just provided the methods.

/Anders
 
Boray said:
The results of the competition was:

VSPlanet.com: 0 points (0 contestants)
HomeRecording.com: 0 points (0 contestants)

Winner of the CD: Nobody
There ya go..... shows EXACTLY how much interest people have in your crap, either here or at the Planet.......

:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top