How Many Of You Have Eq I.q?

[boingoman]

I'm leaning towards "possible, but unconfirmed to me that it can be heard."

Glen- this doesn't need to have anything to do with the Haas effect, really, and would be much more noticeable on sources with more gradual slopes.

As you said, the peak of the wave happens at the same time, no matter what. What makes me consider the possibility is related to what NYM said about silence.

Consider this:
Say you and I are mixing a project. We have a synth pad that swells from -30db to 0db over a period of ten seconds. Say I am hard of hearing, and can't hear anything below -20db. You will hear the sound beginning at -30db, but I won't hear it until it hits -20db. I will perceive the sound as starting later.

So the effect can be achieved with a single track. Granted, this is an extreme example.

I haven't experimented to see if I can hear this using tracks with sharper attacks, but I can see how it might be possible to make it work, especially with two tracks that occupy some of the same range, like kick and bass. Slightly lowering the volume of the bass might let the kick mask some of the bass guitar's attack, the result would be the bass track seeming to move forward in time slightly, and could perhaps compensate for the bass being slightly ahead of the beat.

It would seem to be a technique with limited use, because you couldn't radically change the volume without changing the mix, as I see it.

Whether or not it works, like I said, is unproven to me.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm leaning towards "possible, but unconfirmed to me that it can be heard."
...
Consider this:
Say you and I are mixing a project. We have a synth pad that swells from -30db to 0db over a period of ten seconds. Say I am hard of hearing, and can't hear anything below -20db. You will hear the sound beginning at -30db, but I won't hear it until it hits -20db. I will perceive the sound as starting later.

I agree in that I'm not saying it's impossible. But it's certainly something that a) I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around, and b) I've not noticed in the studio. Now, I'm not saying that I'm infallable by any measure; it's possible that I just haven't figured it out yet and that it's just a subtle effect that I have not noticed yet. I would just like to understand the mechanism behind it (that just how I am, which can definitely be a double-edged sword .) And so far the "explanations" have veen very generalized, sounding as though they could be talking about other things as well, and the data that has been presented have not fit the known numbers very well.

As far as your example of a synth pad, yeah I can understand that perfectly. But a ten-second-long envelope is an extreme example. I understand that you probably chose that to illustrate the point very easily, and that's OK. But when we start moving into the realm below one second - which is where we're talking when were talking about psychoacoustic effects - it gets more complicated and there are other effects to consider as well, it seems to me.

If I understand the theory correctly - that shortening the envelope on the decay end in order to frontload the audible energy towards the attack - then in theory if we had a rim hit on a snare (high attack, fast decay, short envelope) that occured simultaneously with a hit on the snare skin (softter attack, longer decay, longer envelope), the rim hit would sound as if it occured slightly ahead of the skin hit. And, if that difference were in the realm of 5ms or more, then Hass would indeed come into play and make the rim hit sound psychoacoustically louder at the same time.

Is this combo effect something that I have just not noticed (in which case I should be beating myself upon the head and shoulders with a baseball bat for being so deaf after all these years to have never noticed...something more than one person on this forum would be happy to help me with )?

And to further that example, let's say through some pretty heavy volume reduction and even possibly some EQ (or even gating?) we manage to reduce the length of the snare envelope to be equal to that of the rim hit.That would theoretically then psychoacoustically advance the skin hit to match the rim hit in timing. But by then we'll have taken so much energy out of the skin hit that we will have effectly killed it and buried it under the rim hit. And on top of that, the loudness of the rim hit would psychoacoustically decrease because Haas is no longer in play. In effect, we have now aligned the two sounds together, yet at the same time served to lower the volume of both. This sounds contradictory.

Perhaps if RDMS (or somebody else familar with the technique) could be generous enough to find the time to throw together a quick 2-second before and after sample audio clip if this volume/timing effect in action along with a detailed description of the recipe used for the change, it'd go a long way to helping out.

Not that I deserve such coddling treatment, but I am now fascinated with this discussion as I'm sure others are as well, and maybe we could all learn something from it.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

Wow, I came in late

The first diagram posted though, it isn't going to be directly comparable to a waveform in a DAW, because DAW tend to scale waveforms such that it would appear to be the same slope, but with less amplitude, with "silence" in between, even though strictly speaking that doesn't occur until the wave drops below resolution.

Anyway . . .

I think more explanation is required by RDMS, especially to the extent that EQ is then used to control volume. Even with the understanding that EQ (non-linear phase) is a timing effect, that's a bit tough to grasp.

 

[boingoman]

As far as your example of a synth pad, yeah I can understand that perfectly. But a ten-second-long envelope is an extreme example. I understand that you probably chose that to illustrate the point very easily, and that's OK.

Exactly right.

But when we start moving into the realm below one second - which is where we're talking when were talking about psychoacoustic effects - it gets more complicated and there are other effects to consider as well, it seems to me. G.

I will readily admit to not knowing what I'm talking about in those areas, and that I'm just speculating, and like many of us just wing it while mixing.

It does seem as though it is worth discussing, as another factor involving envelope shaping along with compression and eq which could affect a mix in a way that many people wouldn't think about, at least consciously. For example, I have heavily compressed synth pads or other sounds and then had to redo my volume fades for the reason I described above- the now-compressed sound becomes audible too early, or stays audible too long. But I never thought about the process or it's implications on a conscious level.

 

[boingoman]

I think more explanation is required by RDMS, especially to the extent that EQ is then used to control volume. Even with the understanding that EQ (non-linear phase) is a timing effect, that's a bit tough to grasp.

This is my take, perhaps he will correct me if I'm wrong:

1) Reduce volume of track to affect perceived timing

2) Use eq to boost parts of track that don't affect the perceived time change.


Seems pretty radical to me, and it also seems the same thing could be accomplished by adjusting the envelope any number of ways. It also seems as though one's range of volume changes and eq choices would be pretty limited. If you cut a snare track's volume by 3db, and then boost a bunch of freqs to compensate, I think I'd start over and try just cutting a few to see if I could achieved the same thing.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Wow, I came in late

No problem showing up late, babe; just as long as you brought beer...we're running low this far into the thread .

G.

 

[LeeRosario]

wow man, is it just me or does this thread (therefore involving it's creator) feel like an attempt to show off? As opposed to the honest intent of sharing communal information?

 

[masteringhouse]

wow man, is it just me or does this thread (therefore involving it's creator) feel like an attempt to show off? As opposed to the honest intent of sharing communal information?

If so, I'm not sure that it was very successful.

Hey MS where's the beer?

 

[Middleman]

wow man, is it just me or does this thread (therefore involving it's creator) feel like an attempt to show off? As opposed to the honest intent of sharing communal information?

Er, yeah. I was thinking the same thing.

 

[mshilarious]

If so, I'm not sure that it was very successful.

Hey MS where's the beer?

The house drink here is Blue Hawaiis

 

[RDMSstudio]

wow man, is it just me or does this thread (therefore involving it's creator) feel like an attempt to show off? As opposed to the honest intent of sharing communal information?

Interesting point that. Given that there is a general reluctance to accept that changing a track's volume can influence the percieved tightness of two tracks I would say that any attempt to show off would have been deemed a failure.
On that particular subject (showing off), is the sharing of information
that is not generally known to be avoided? Surely the point of a forum such as this is to expand peoples knowledge of the art. If we are to confine ourselves to inane and smart alec responses, who learns? If I knew everything about audio myself why would I be on this forum?

My aim with this thread was to get people thinking about the other aspects of EQ besides those generally considered or known. In that sense I have at least got people thinking about sound in different ways. To disagree involves putting forward an explanation of why, so grey matter has been stirred.

Sorry if I upset anyone with earlier comments but I felt people were getting too technical as opposed to practical. Has anyone actually tried this with a mix that sounded very loose? Can anyone say they have tried this with their hearing as opposed to their screens?

I am well aware of all the acoustic phenomina stated in rebuttal. My explanation may have been poor but I am not confused as to the specifics.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

My explanation may have been poor but I am not confused as to the specifics.

Well because you're explanation was poor, the rest of use are confused as to the specifics, which is why we're asking for a better explanation.

If you can't provide it, you'll have to excuse a bunch of experienced engineers for being skeptical about something claimed without substantiation on the Internet.

G.

 

[LeeRosario]

Interesting point that. Given that there is a general reluctance to accept that changing a track's volume can influence the percieved tightness of two tracks I would say that any attempt to show off would have been deemed a failure.
On that particular subject (showing off), is the sharing of information
that is not generally known to be avoided? Surely the point of a forum such as this is to expand peoples knowledge of the art. If we are to confine ourselves to inane and smart alec responses, who learns? If I knew everything about audio myself why would I be on this forum?

My aim with this thread was to get people thinking about the other aspects of EQ besides those generally considered or known. In that sense I have at least got people thinking about sound in different ways. To disagree involves putting forward an explanation of why, so grey matter has been stirred.

Sorry if I upset anyone with earlier comments but I felt people were getting too technical as opposed to practical. Has anyone actually tried this with a mix that sounded very loose? Can anyone say they have tried this with their hearing as opposed to their screens?

I am well aware of all the acoustic phenomina stated in rebuttal. My explanation may have been poor but I am not confused as to the specifics.

Well, I get what you're saying man. I'm not on a mission to bust any balls here.

I guess just question the succession of your points. I could of sworn the thread was EQ related at first.

Also, I'm just really having a hard time understanding at exactly what stage you would want to use this timing trick? Mixing? Mastering? I can't think of a situation where I would want to lower something to make it fall in time.

So like glen mentioned before me, probably a better explination is really in order.

But if I had to express my opinion on the matter and the idea of it, it seems to me that the concept of lowering something in the mix to make it "fit" in tempo is strictly pyschoacoustic and extremely individual to each person's perceptions.

I would expect a bass track that's slightly out of tempo to sound a little more in time if it's in-tempo rhythm guitars or kick track cover it up. But of course, there are better ways of getting that timing issue fixed in the mix.

 

[masteringhouse]

Ok, getting back on topic.

Some other alternative uses for EQ other than those listed in the poll:

1. Used to control dynamic processors via sidechain
2. Used to create pseudo-stereo from a mono source via comb filtering
3. Used in a feedback chain to selectively reduce or increase a frequency-based issue (e.g. de-essing without a compressor)
4. Noise reduction
5. Multi-band processing (compression, expansion, etc.)
6. Adding/reducing depth (discussed earlier in the thread)
7. Separating instruments that occupy the same frequency range via complimentary EQ (kinda like poll option 2)
8. Help remove feedback in live situations
9. Balancing bad room acoustics
10. An effect (wah, telephone, etc.)

Please add more ...

 

[LeeRosario]

Ok, getting back on topic.

Some other alternative uses for EQ other than those listed in the poll:

1. Used to control dynamic processors via sidechain
2. Used to create pseudo-stereo from a mono source via comb filtering
3. Used in a feedback chain to selectively reduce or increase a frequency-based issue (e.g. de-essing without a compressor)
4. Noise reduction
5. Multi-band processing (compression, expansion, etc.)
6. Adding/reducing depth (discussed earlier in the thread)
7. Separating instruments that occupy the same frequency range via complimentary EQ (kinda like poll option 2)
8. Help remove feedback in live situations
9. Balancing bad room acoustics
10. An effect (wah, telephone, etc.)

Please add more ...

That sums them all

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That sums them all

And tell me again, guys, which one of those 10 techniques or purposes does not fall under the description of the first poll option, "to change the way something sounds"?

G.

 

[Stefan Elmblad]

I'd like to add something we should never forget. Not long ago, people thought the Earth was flat, and the sun moved around it. Theories widely acclaimed by experts and scientists gets ripped up all the time. The subjects in this thread has not been solidly proven, but not either 100% proven against.

I say maybe. Maybe it works. Don't forget to keep an open mind, in music and in life.

 

[masteringhouse]

And tell me again, guys, which one of those 10 techniques or purposes does not fall under the description of the first poll option, "to change the way something sounds"?

G.

Oh agreed, changing the volume changes the way something sounds. Way too ambiguous.

(By changing the volume, I meant with a fader not an EQ).

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'd like to add something we should never forget. Not long ago, people thought the Earth was flat, and the sun moved around it. Theories widely acclaimed by experts and scientists gets ripped up all the time. The subjects in this thread has not been solidly proven, but not either 100% proven against.

I say maybe. Maybe it works. Don't forget to keep an open mind, in music and in life.

True, but there is a difference between science and pseudoscience. Audio engineering is an art based upon science, not a black art based upon pseudoscience. It's one thing to make a claim that Saturn revolves around Peoria, Illinois; it's another thing to not offer any basis in data or even explanation for that claim and, worse, to further ignore conflicting data proffered by fellow scientists that ask how the new claim jives with the data that indicates that Saturn in fact revolves around the Sun. This is audio engineering, not UFOlogy.

This is also the Internet, a.k.a. the land of the inverse signal-to-noise ratio; heavy filtering must be applied .

G.

 

[LeeRosario]

I'd like to add something we should never forget. Not long ago, people thought the Earth was flat, and the sun moved around it. Theories widely acclaimed by experts and scientists gets ripped up all the time. The subjects in this thread has not been solidly proven, but not either 100% proven against.

I say maybe. Maybe it works. Don't forget to keep an open mind, in music and in life.

I like the way you think, man