Can you recommend a low cost Spectrum Analyzer for EQ

[SouthSIDE Glen]

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.

Bruce hit the nail on the head there. It just doesn't make sense that if a person has problems with "hearing" (be it in monitoring quality, ear training, or ear fatigue) that an RTA is going to do one bit of good to improve their situation. There is no way that one can tell how something sounds by looking at a spectrogram. It's really just as simple as that.

And again I reiterate it doesn't take any great amount of experience to be able to "outgrow" any need to "mix by eye". One doesn't have to be a "pro" by any stretch of the imagination. Spend one hour with a multitrack session and an EQ and one should have a good idea of the general frequency areas and what they sound like. Certainly after a CD's-worth of mixing, one should have the basics down and memorized pretty well. It's simply not hard.

G.

 

[kylen]

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

We went round about this on the last spectrum thread. To you sound doesn't look like anything in an rta and it never will - that's fine by me.

For me I can see the signature of what I am hearing - sub-bass, bass, mids, treble using SPAN and DEQ2496. I can see the general slope of the mids as well as bass and treble roll-off. I can set the averaging such that the envelope is apparant or nasty peaks or resonances are revealed - the same ones I am hearing only I don't need to sweep for them I can see where they are and tame them to any degree I wish. Hear and see is what you do with a spectrum analyzer in audio. Even at whisper volumes I can make the connection between what I hear in my Event ASP8s and what the spectrum shows. Some rtas, while very detailed (Adobe Audition, Sound Forge, Inspector), aren't really very musical in real-time and don't allow me to see a signature that connects to what I hear.

 

[reshp1]

Things I find SA useful for.
1. finding specific frequencies/ringing/feedback etc to notch out.
2. seeing very low frequency rumble that I can't hear (or my monitors can't reproduce) on non-bassy sources, so I can highpass.

That's pretty much it. I've tried to use it to determing frequency content of a track so I can scoop it out other tracks, but I've always found that difficult to judge visually.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

We went round about this on the last spectrum thread. To you sound doesn't look like anything in an rta and it never will - that's fine by me.

For me I can see the signature of what I am hearing - sub-bass, bass, mids, treble using SPAN and DEQ2496. I can see the general slope of the mids as well as bass and treble roll-off. I can set the averaging such that the envelope is apparant or nasty peaks or resonances are revealed - the same ones I am hearing only I don't need to sweep for them I can see where they are and tame them to any degree I wish. Hear and see is what you do with a spectrum analyzer in audio. Even at whisper volumes I can make the connection between what I hear in my Event ASP8s and what the spectrum shows. Some rtas, while very detailed (Adobe Audition, Sound Forge, Inspector), aren't really very musical in real-time and don't allow me to see a signature that connects to what I hear.

Well - I certainly agree to disagree with you Kylen.... but I simply don't buy your last paragraph at all.... what you're saying implies that you can EQ by RTA alone, which is completely ridiculous. You can't tell a good mix from a bad mix via RTA. Period. The bad mix would have to be skewed tremendously to be seriously visible - and you'd hear such an anomalie long before a scope tells you.... and as Glen alluded to, if one doesn't, then they need more ear training.

Sound is about audio perception, an RTA is a tool that can be useful in certain aspects, but ONLY as an adjunct to the EAR.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I just keep picturing somebody using a vectorscope to set the color balance on their video image instead of using the video monitor and LOOKING at the picture, or a chef sending a piece of their food through a gas chromatograph to analyze it's content instead of TASTING it. Both of those ideas are just plain silly. The idea of using an RTA to check one's sound instead of actually LISTENING to it is equallly silly. I see (or hear or taste ) nothing to indicate why it should be otherwise.

There is nothing in the uses you guys have described that you use RTAs for that one needs an RTA to accomplish, that cannot be accomplished 99% of the time by using one's ear. And again, I'm not talking golden ears or seasoned pros (though you'll be extremely hard-pressed to find a single seasoned pro that uses an RTA for those purposes with any kind of frequency whatsoever.) I'm talking someone with a self-trained ear of only a few sessions of practice.

The one situation that comes the closest to legitimate is reshp's IDing of low freq rumble that is outside the accuracy of the monitors. But even that I have some trouble with. Let me ask you reshp, how do you know its rumble and not legit signal?

Both of you guys, kylen and reshp, are good and knowledgable guys. That only makes it that much harder to understand why you guys need to support your ears with a visual crutch that - just like a healthy person using a crutch - can only slow you down. Let me ask one more honest question of you two: have you tried going cold turkey on the RTA? I'd be willing to bet that before you knew it, you'd be making you mixes just as good and as fast without one and that you'd wonder why you ever thought you needed it. Unless the pretty lights are a visual form of nicotine...

G.

 

[David Katauskas]

This might do the trick...and it's free.

http://www.voxengo.com/product/SPAN/

 

[gullfo]

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

Abbey Road by The Beatles

 

[kylen]

Well - I certainly agree to disagree with you Kylen.... but I simply don't buy your last paragraph at all.... what you're saying implies that you can EQ by RTA alone, which is completely ridiculous. You can't tell a good mix from a bad mix via RTA. Period. The bad mix would have to be skewed tremendously to be seriously visible - and you'd hear such an anomalie long before a scope tells you.... and as Glen alluded to, if one doesn't, then they need more ear training.

Sound is about audio perception, an RTA is a tool that can be useful in certain aspects, but ONLY as an adjunct to the EAR.

OK - now we're gettin somewhere, thanks Blue Bear. I've tried to use the phrases like listen & see, use your ears, etc. This is good the way you've put it - "...ONLY as an adjunct to the EAR." Exactly. It is exactly this. If you find an RTA that dances to the music you may see what I mean, then again you may not - that's why I mentioned the 2 I can use for this. Other RTAs that I mentioned and even the one in Ozone3 don't let me get very far, other folks that like them will say - what's wrong with that guy? I just can't make them dance...

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing when you say "you can't tell a good mix from a bad mix". I can sometimes tell a bad balance by watching the rta and listening, I guess that's the same thing. I can most definitely hear the bad balance with my eyes closed too - using more tools doesn't change the fact that there's a bad balance. Why use one tool over another, that's the point I don't - it's always monitoring and spectrum together, unless I close my eyes or turn off the spectrum. I mentioned in another thread on this that the spectrum can take over if you let it - other folks have said this also. The eyes want to fight for decision making and can cause you to stop listening a bit...a distraction in the worst case. Kind of like my wife reciting the "Honey-Do" list while I'm trying to rebalance something...

Concerning freq-carving and spectrums the GlissEQ has a spectrum in it that can be exported to other instances of GlissEQ in other tracks so you can see an average of the track spectrum and move tracks around in the freq space for clarity. Same as if doing it using the ears. What I mentioned earlier is that if you use a spectrum to carve then it is really important to A/B and let the ears make a decision (as always) because you have much more detail in the spectrum and can carve too much - I don't want everything to sound like a Steely Dan record!

 

[reshp1]

The one situation that comes the closest to legitimate is reshp's IDing of low freq rumble that is outside the accuracy of the monitors. But even that I have some trouble with. Let me ask you reshp, how do you know its rumble and not legit signal?

G.

Well when I'm recording myself and an acoustic guitar, I can assume it's not legit, but I see your point. If I assume a source never has low frequency content, why wouldn't I just highpass it anyway? I dunno, laziness I guess. With the finding the right frequency to notch, I suppose I could do it completely by ear. But a SA is a tool and gets me in the right ball park quicker, of course final tuning is done by ear. I wouldn't say a SA is essential in any situation, but it's a tool (or I guess a crutch depending on your perspective). I'm not hurting my sound by using it, since I don't use it for subjective decisions (which I agree should ALWAYS be made by ear), so if it saves me time... why not?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

so if it saves me time... why not?

Well, if it works for you and actually saves you time, then whow an I to complain, right? The worst thing one can do to someone who is happy is to make them unhappy for no good reason.

I guess I just can't see how one who has mixed, say, five or more three minute songs with a couple of instruments and maybe a vocal or two, can't 99% of the time already recognize to within +/- an octave approximately where a problem frequency lies without having to look at a spectrogram. I also can't see how watching a spectrogram before sweeping in with an EQ is faster than sweeping in with an EQ alone.

I guess I'm just dense that way and will never understand. Just when I thought I was perfect... J/K!!!

G.

 

[kylen]

I just keep picturing somebody using a vectorscope to set the color balance on their video image instead of using the video monitor and LOOKING at the picture, or a chef sending a piece of their food through a gas chromatograph to analyze it's content instead of TASTING it. Both of those ideas are just plain silly. The idea of using an RTA to check one's sound instead of actually LISTENING to it is equallly silly. I see (or hear or taste ) nothing to indicate why it should be otherwise.

You're gonna give me nightmares with this visual! Remember the RTA is an "Adjunct" to listening!

There is nothing in the uses you guys have described that you use RTAs for that one needs an RTA to accomplish, that cannot be accomplished 99% of the time by using one's ear. And again, I'm not talking golden ears or seasoned pros (though you'll be extremely hard-pressed to find a single seasoned pro that uses an RTA for those purposes with any kind of frequency whatsoever.) I'm talking someone with a self-trained ear of only a few sessions of practice.

I've got all kinds of uses - crossover slopes, track nulling to test plugin differences, ensuring I haven't notched too deeply or not deeply enough (precompression repair), there are even ways to judge dynamics. It slices, it dices, it spins around on the floor! Haha - I don't want to overstate the importance of the RTA - it's just another crutch, I mean tool! Someone started the thread asking about using a spectrum to carve. Someone said you can't, I said you can here's a couple of tools. No big deal. The fact is you have to use your ears - you don't have to use an rta. It's just that since I work in a DAW and this is 2005 and there are all sorts of cool balancing tools available I've tried out quite a few and am familiar with them. I think much of the fine experience on this particular forum is OTB so there aren't the tools available maybe or most folks don't feel the need.

Both of you guys, kylen and reshp, are good and knowledgable guys. That only makes it that much harder to understand why you guys need to support your ears with a visual crutch that - just like a healthy person using a crutch - can only slow you down. Let me ask one more honest question of you two: have you tried going cold turkey on the RTA? I'd be willing to bet that before you knew it, you'd be making you mixes just as good and as fast without one and that you'd wonder why you ever thought you needed it. Unless the pretty lights are a visual form of nicotine...
G.

I got started with the Heathkit color organ! My first RTA...
I agree - you have to try different approaches and turn off the rta from time to time - especially when judging final balance. Some folks turn on the vacuum cleaner, others stand in the hallway, some turn it down real low, and up real loud! My final test is in the F150 drivin to the Pony Keg

 

[reshp1]

I guess I just can't see how one who has mixed, say, five or more three minute songs with a couple of instruments and maybe a vocal or two, can't 99% of the time already recognize to within +/- an octave

+/- 1 octave is 1/2 to 2 times the problem frequency. If my frequency occurs at 200Hz, that means sweeping 100Hz to 400Hz, if it's at 1K, that means sweeping 500Hz to 2K. So yeah, I think I'd be able to find that problem frequency faster with a SA. And it's not like it's one or the other either, I'm using both my ears AND my eyes to find the problem as fast as possible.

EDIT, sweeps are in log scale, so I guess my argument for having to sweep more frequencies for a higher problem signal is somewhat moot.

 

[asulger]

Well when I'm recording myself and an acoustic guitar, I can assume it's not legit, but I see your point. If I assume a source never has low frequency content, why wouldn't I just highpass it anyway? I dunno, laziness I guess. With the finding the right frequency to notch, I suppose I could do it completely by ear. But a SA is a tool and gets me in the right ball park quicker, of course final tuning is done by ear. I wouldn't say a SA is essential in any situation, but it's a tool (or I guess a crutch depending on your perspective). I'm not hurting my sound by using it, since I don't use it for subjective decisions (which I agree should ALWAYS be made by ear), so if it saves me time... why not?

Without hi-jacking this thread (it about used up it's usefulness, anyway) I have a question about that low stuff you are seeing in a spectrum graph on a guitar recording:
A low E is about 82 hertz, F one octave up is about 174 hz. If you play them together there will be an apparent beat of 10 Hertz. (174 - (82 * 2))
I assume this is what you are seeing in the spectrum graph. Should it be chopped out with a high pass filter? I think the result is lacking something (using my ears!)

 

[kylen]

If I'm reading you right asulgar I think the beat you're referring to modulates the existing tones and doesn't create a subsonic. Am I all wet here?

 

[reshp1]

If I'm reading you right asulgar I think the beat you're referring to modulates the existing tones and doesn't create a subsonic. Am I all wet here?

yes, that's correct. The 10 Hz you are refering to is the resulting periodic constructive and destructive interference caused by . It's not actually a frequency in the signal, but a periodic oscillation of the envelop (amplitude) of the existing E and F notes. Unless you ran it through an AM receiver, you shouldn't see 10Hz

 

[tonyoci]

Blue Bear and others,

I am happy to have your opinion but this happens a lot around here. This thread is asking for recommendations on a Spectrum Analyzer, it's not asking for opinions on whether a SA is a useful tool. I would like to use one to try and figure that out for myself. Too many times around here (and many other forums) people jump into discussions with answers that really don't answer the original question (which is fine with me) and then seem to get upset if they are called on it.

I don't know you at all, but I do know the guy who does the mixing in the local recording studio here in town, he's the one who recommended reading these articles and taking a look at this technique. He wasn't saying it was the answer to my prayers, but knowing my background he thought it would be interesting. Sorry, but at this point I'm old enough to make my own decisions.

Your post was clearly made in a confrontational way, you could have given an explanation of why this is not a good technique as you did later, instead you use the passive-agressive approach.

So I ask you this, if eyes are not allowed in music I assume you mix totally with your eyes closed ? No looking at the mixer or screen or mixing software ?

Oh yeah and the best music I've ever seen is that Shania Twain video . . . . . . . .

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

So I ask you this, if eyes are not allowed in music I assume you mix totally with your eyes closed ? No looking at the mixer or screen or mixing software ?

What a silly thing to say......... not a single person reading Glen's or my own comments would have interpreted what we said in that way.....

 

[tonyoci]

Well firstly you need to look out for those smiley faces.

Secondly nothing in my original question really needed to be answered with - no one I know mixes with their eyes - I asked for recommended Spectrum Analysis tools so your answer was kinda silly really

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Too many times around here (and many other forums) people jump into discussions with answers that really don't answer the original question

Because often in life the right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer. My apologies for trying to steer you clear of a mistake. You are right, you are old enough to make your own mistakes. But you should also be old enough to recognize when someone ahead of you in the path says "watch out for that dog poop" that it's probably a good idea not to willingly step in it just to see for yourself.

So I ask you this, if eyes are not allowed in music I assume you mix totally with your eyes closed ?

Actually, yes I do. Of course one has to have their eyes open to edit waveforms and look at control positions, but to equate that with using one's ears only to judge sound quality is a red herring. To the point, it is a regualr part of my routine to set a mix point, play it back, loop it even, close my eyes, focus my ears and listen. Absolutely. That is the best, fastest and most accurate analyzer of all of them.

Look, tony, do what's in your heart. If that means playing around with analyzers, then knock your socks off and play with them until you've squeezed every bit of knowledge out of them that you can by all means. All I recommend is that you remember the voices of those who have been there already, with no motive other than to try and teach you good technique, and try to use the analyzer as a temporary training device and not as a piece of production equipment. You'll come out the other end a far better engineer for it.

Sometimes I just wish Fourier had gone into horticulture instead of mathematics...

G.

 

[reshp1]

Well firstly you need to look out for those smiley faces.

Secondly nothing in my original question really needed to be answered with - no one I know mixes with their eyes - I asked for recommended Spectrum Analysis tools so your answer was kinda silly really

While this thread did get a little outta hand, I agree with Bruce's intentions. Just because he didn't answer your question directly doesn't mean he wasn't trying to help. For example, if you asked people to recommend a mixer, when you actually wanted a control surface, you'd want people to tell you that right? Well in a round about way, I think this was the general idea behind "you don't need a spectrum analyzer."