Can you recommend a low cost Spectrum Analyzer for EQ

[tonyoci]

I've read a lot of stuff about how to change eq on different instruments so they don't interfere with each other.

Problem is that those spectrum analysis pics they use always have these nice curves on the audio whereas mine are always up and down.

I use Sound Forge which has a spectrum analyzer. I don't find it so useful.

I also downloaded a bunch of free one's but none really worked.

So, any tips on a good spectrum analyzer or a combo eq/analyzer that is free or doesn't cost too much. I'm just a home user !!

Thanks

Tony

 

[MadAudio]

Your ears.

 

[AlexW]

Elemental Audio has a free one called "Inspector". Have you tried it yet?

 

[reshp1]

I second the Inspector by Elemental Audio. Their EQ's are pretty good and while not free, they are very affordable.

 

[tonyoci]

Thanks, I'll check it out, I may have seen it, I forgot to add I can only do DirectX not VST and I think it might be VST.

No idea why this was moved to recording techniques, this is not a recording issue it's a mixing issue.

Tony

 

[reshp1]

Thanks, I'll check it out, I may have seen it, I forgot to add I can only do DirectX not VST and I think it might be VST.

No idea why this was moved to recording techniques, this is not a recording issue it's a mixing issue.

Tony

Yeah, inspector is RTAS, VST, and Audiounits. That sucks. Maybe there's a wrapper available. It might be a little pricey, but there's tons of VST plugs and many are free.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

No idea why this was moved to recording techniques, this is not a recording issue it's a mixing issue.

No - it isn't a mix issue.... no one I know mixes with their eyes......

An SA is a tool that can be used at many points in the recording process to tell you a number of things, but it shouldn't be something you depend on - if it is then you aren't doing something right.

 

[tonyoci]

Blue Bear that's not really an answer is it ?

I am trying to test out a technique that is covered in many mixing articles where you create a unique EQ space for each instrument, that allows a lot more flexibility when you then mix them.

I really think this place so often forgets that it's the HOME RECORDING forum, not the I'm a total expert already forum.

Tony

 

[fraserhutch]

What problem do you have with Bear's answer?
He is giving you a perfectly reasonable explanation.

And this hits a bugaboo of mine:
<rant>
Yes, this is a home recording forum, and you (and I) are damn lucky to be getting advice from pros (of which Bear is one). Free advice, at that. It *is* a home recording forum, but I did not see anywhere that it is a "I'm a homerecorder, so that excuses me from doing things the right way, and don't try to tell me otherwise" forum. Proper principles apply whether you are a home recorder or a pro.

Homerecorders shouldn't have to settle for crap just because they're not "pro".
</rant>

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I am trying to test out a technique that is covered in many mixing articles where you create a unique EQ space for each instrument, that allows a lot more flexibility when you then mix them.

I'd like to see those articles, because it sounds like thy haven't the slightest idea what they're talking about. Spectrum analysis is a half-step away from useless for mixing in all but very specialized situations.

Yes this is the "home recording" forum, but being a rookie or a hobbiest is no excuse to pick up bad habits or to bypass tried-tested-and-true advce and techniques from folks who have already been down the path you are starting down.

The fact is, spectrograms aren't so easy to read in non-labratory situations like mixing an actual real-life song with moving spectrograms instead of snapshots of simple oscillators with single-order harmonics. Unless there is a HUGE equalizaton problem, you are not going to get peaks sticking out of the noisy curve like Pinocchio's nose.

Besides, it is much easer and faster to figure out and/or memorized the key frequency areas for most instruments. Just from the experience of mixing a single CDs worth of songs with a single equalizer, you'll already most likely already be familiar with the importance of frequencies like 80Hz, 250 Hz, 400Hz, 1.2kHz, 4kHz and 12kHz and what they mean to bass, drums, guitar, piano cymbals and vocals. Not only won't you need an analyzer for that, but it will be a lot longer and harder to figure that out with an analyzer than it will be just by using you ears.

However, if you're anything like most rookies to this racket, you won't believe either me or Bear or anyone else who tells you thins, and you'll just have to either A) find out the sad truth for yourself, or B) send yourself down a cul de sac of bad technique because you think that it's a lot "k3wl3r" ti watch the dancing lights than it is to do a good job.

In that case let me pander to your misgivings and say that you cn use VST plugins in the Sonic Foundry stuff using a wrapper called "VST-DX Wrpper 1.0", of which there is a free version available on their website for download. The only catch to the free version is that you can only use one wrapped VST plug at a time; if you want to use more than one at a time you have to buy the registered version. Just do a 'net search for "VST-DX Wrapper."

G.

 

[kylen]

This is not a spectrum or visual aid forum consequently that skill is not here. It does stir 'em up quite a bit so from that point of view is pretty entertaining!

I have all the spectrum analyzers mentioned here and many more - the one useful for DAW spectrum analysis is free VST Voxengo SPAN - it has enough resolution to do what you need. A fine eq for using spectrum to carve frequency with is non-free Voxengo GlissEQ. These are just tools - nothing more. You still have to decide while listening to what is rubbing the mix the wrong way, bad resonances, masking an instrument that should be prominent, muddying things, or if your arrangement just has too many of similiar freq instruments in the same spot at the same time. There are more thoughts on the topic here at this forum if you search for spectrum...

 

[kylen]

I really think this place so often forgets that it's the HOME RECORDING forum, not the I'm a total expert already forum.

Tony

BTW - I wouldn't really worry about who is pro here and who isn't. If you're doing stuff in a bedroom DAW studio by yourself without mentorship it simply takes a lot of time. Some of the stuff analog pros do just doesn't translate at all to DAW and visa vera - some of the stuff does work and is very helpful to stumble across here. Many pros like to pass the trade along - others think they own it and just like to bite your ankles. It's that way in many trades...no big deal.

Besides I just brought home the new "Wallflowers" CD and obviously no one used there ears on that - so pros aren't above making assinine decisions either!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Many pros like to pass the trade along - others think they own it and just like to bite your ankles...pros aren't above making assinine decisions either!

Aparently neither are hobbiests.

The decision to buy a Wallflowers CD, compounded by the decision to use that as a benchmark for production quality aside...do you really, truely believe that either Bruce or I really get as passionate about subjects like this because we get off hazing rookies? You really believe that is our motivation? If so, you are a bad a judge of character as you are a judge of how to spend your next thirteen bucks.

Let's cut to the chase on this subject. If someone doesn't have the memory to remember a half-dozen key frequencies and what they mean to the common instruments; if someone doesn't have the ability to take an EQ (graphic or parametric, it doesn't matter) and make a correlation between which knobs affect which sounds and what the little frequency label above each knob reads; if someone's ears can't distinguish between 200Hz and 400Hz; and if that someone can't do all these things after a few songs worth of mixing, then they are chasing the wrong hobby and no analyzer in the world will help them get a good mix any better than it would a "pro".

And if they can do those thing fine, then any need for an analyzer is obviated in all but the toughest of problems.

If this bites them in the ankles, steps on their toes, or even bites them in the ass, that's a shame. But it's not the motivation for it's being said. It's just laying down the harsh reality. Don't kill the newscasters for being honest.

G.

 

[kylen]

Aparently neither are hobbiests.

That's for sure!

...If so, you are a bad a judge of character as you are a judge of how to spend your next thirteen bucks.

I didn't really get that piece Glen - can you retransmit?

BTW I enjoy many of your posts and appreciate and understand much of what you say. The subject of spectrums is not one of those however - I think there's enough pro & con here for someone with any search skills to see where the differences are.

 

[kylen]

... if someone doesn't have the ability to take an EQ (graphic or parametric, it doesn't matter) and make a correlation between which knobs affect which sounds and what the little frequency label above each knob reads...

Here's something too I've found in DAW plugins - I'll bet it exists in analog gear also but I don't have any good stuf to measure. The control labels if not sometimes misleading are even inaccurate. One of the first things I do with a new tool is to run some pink noise thru it and see how the controls work in a 2-track nulling test and single track test. If I were to do this without using a spectrum analyzer I would be reduced to making a comment like - eq A has more character than eq B, with additional info from the spectrum I can say eq A has more character than eq B because the slopes are steeper, etc. Same thing with Multi-band compressors (pros don't use those right? haha neither do I - rarely *) compA has different character because the crossover is 12db/octave - instead of 36db/octave. I forgot to say - except in the case of pink noise (actually I've listened to this too) the ears, monitors, room, test tools, and db level are all involved in critical listening & testing.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I didn't really get that piece Glen - can you retransmit?

Ignore that one, kylen. That was an over-the-top dig on the money you spent on the Wallflowers CD. That whole thing was really rather inappropriate on my part.

But I'm sticking to my guns on the analyzer argument. I really don't see it as a matter of opinion any more than I see the question of the sun rising tomorrow as a matter of opinion. In some exceptional circumstances where no other tool - including one's ears - just aren't efficiently finding a problematic frequency or series of frequencies, a spectrogram can help. But those situations are few and far between.

As far as your example of testing gear parameters using pink noise and an SA, I'll agree with that completly. I'll also extend the uses to say that for an acoustic designer a quality generator/calibrated mic/analyzer combo is indispensable. But that'snot what this topic was about...at least not how I understood it. This topic was about the use of an SA as part of the mixing process. In that application I'll say that - with the occasional rare troubleshooting exceptions I stipulated to above - SAs are about as useful and necessary as silicone implants on a bull.

What I don't understand about that whole topic is why it is only in audio engineering/processing that such a device has attained such a mythological use. You don't find rookie videographers looking to use their video spectrum analyzers or vectorscopes as part of their video editing processing technique. You don't find newb digital photographers diving a damn about the brightness or color balance histograms that are part of every Photoshop-style package when they're processing their image for printing. You don't find apprentice chefs using gas chromatographs to analyze the ingredient or spice mix in the meal they're preparing.

They use their eyes and taste buds for all that stuff. Yet somehow many people seem to think that their ears need help from a technical analysis tool. I maintain now and (probably) 'till the day I die that such a tool is no more necessary or even adventageous in audio mixing than it is in video mixing, photography processing or cooking.

G.

 

[kylen]

Ignore that one, kylen. That was an over-the-top dig on the money you spent on the Wallflowers CD. That whole thing was really rather inappropriate on my part.

Haha - OK I get it - I don't care that's cool. I was surprised to find that this commercially produced CD was mastered to emulate the FM radio, first one I've heard that did that - and I've got tons of CDs that are simply too loud. My modus operendi is to pick up a few pop CDs regularly that reflect the current state of the art - I thought these artists wouldn't put up with anything but the best...haha joke on me. I was presently surprised to find a great sounding Ben Harper CD so that goes in the reference stack.

But I'm sticking to my guns on the analyzer argument. I really don't see it as a matter of opinion any more than I see the question of the sun rising tomorrow as a matter of opinion. In some exceptional circumstances where no other tool - including one's ears - just aren't efficiently finding a problematic frequency or series of frequencies, a spectrogram can help. But those situations are few and far between.

That's fine - and I don't want to talk you into it. I am presenting the poster with an alternative position. I am also presenting Voxengo Span, Behringer DEQ2496, and VOxengo GlissEQ as specific tools that I have found superior to other tools folks claim can help with spectral monitoring. I am saying there is a spectral signature that accompanies what your monitoring gives your ears. I am also saying that for the most part the spectral piece must accompany the aural piece - I've said this in other posts. In general it doesn't do much good to simply look at a spectrum (*) - your aural monitoring must give you the proper stimulus also!

As far as your example of texting gear parameters using pink noise and an SA, I'll agree with that completly. I'll also extend the uses to say that for an acoustic designer a guality generator/calibrated mic/analyzer combo is indispensable. But that'snot what this topic was about...at least not how I understood it. This topic was about the use of an SA as part of the mixing process

The original topic was about freq carving - which as you know is a whole other bag of skills - but if you plop a band-pass in there with gentle slopes and expect to get the full freq-carving experience you will be forever jaded as to it's potential affect on the mix. Whereas if you check your RTA and opt for a steeper slope band-pass, or even use a stacked LP/HP combo to create even steeper isolating slopes then it's easier to see how much affect the freq-carving might have. That is if you believe in extreme freq carving in the first place which is a whole other thread! That's the danger and beauty of freq carving with an spectrum analyzer, if you're watching you'll cut too much, if you're listening (and have monitoring/room to hear it properly) you'll cut it right - how much to cut and why does it sound the way it does - ears & rta answer it perfectly - IMO.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The original topic was about freq carving - which as you know is a whole other bag of skills - but if you plop a band-pass in there with gentle slopes and expect to get the full freq-carving experience you will be forever jaded as to it's potential affect on the mix. Whereas if you check your RTA and opt for a steeper slope band-pass, or even use a stacked LP/HP combo to create even steeper isolating slopes then it's easier to see how much affect the freq-carving might have. That is if you believe in extreme freq carving in the first place which is a whole other thread! That's the danger and beauty of freq carving with an spectrum analyzer, if you're watching you'll cut too much, if you're listening (and have monitoring/room to hear it properly) you'll cut it right - how much to cut and why does it sound the way it does - ears & rta answer it perfectly - IMO.

You know your subject and I respect your desire to provide assistance to those whith a point of view opposing mine. But it still seems to me that even in what you describe above that the RTA is redundant. One can hear the difference between the steep and gentle slopes. What's the point of seeing it? I'm temped to even flip that over and say that if one has to see it and can't hear it alone, that their skillset and ear training needs a lot of improvement including in areas where an analyzer just won't help.

I also find it intriguing that you left such an apparent opening in your statement when you said "if you're watching you'll cut too much, if you're listening (and have monitoring/room to hear it properly) you'll cut it right". That would seem to be something self-defeating to say. I'll assume that you're laying a debating trap for me . I'm happy to play along and step in it.

G.

 

[kylen]

But it still seems to me that even in what you describe above that the RTA is redundant. One can hear the difference between the steep and gentle slopes. What's the point of seeing it? I'm temped to even flip that over and say that if one has to see it and can't hear it alone, that their skillset and ear training needs a lot of improvement including in areas where an analyzer just won't help.

In the perfect monitoring situation I can see using a spectrum analyzer when you have too much work to do and have overworked your ears. Another way is to listen to your references often - or take breaks of course.

I also find it intriguing that you left such an apparent opening in your statement when you said "if you're watching you'll cut too much, if you're listening (and have monitoring/room to hear it properly) you'll cut it right". That would seem to be something self-defeating to say. I'll assume that you're laying a debating trap for me . I'm happy to play along and step in it.
G.

Nope - no traps! If you are in the perfect monitoring situation (or really good) and you're watching a spectrum - hehe your're crazy - I think you'll find the precision of an rta will cause you to cut more than you need (A/B it for a test) - unless you make the rta less precise (turn down the fir resolution). I don't think I could out-debate you as you Chicago guys have it together! But if you have less than great monitoring & ears & experience then you need a combination of many things - spectrum analyzer is one of the many things. Time and mentoring is another couple.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

But if you have less than great monitoring & ears & experience then you need a combination of many things - spectrum analyzer is one of the many things.

Nonsense... exactly what does "good sound" LOOK like??????