spectrum analyzer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Atipp
  • Start date Start date
A

Atipp

New member
I've heard a little about this, and here is how I thought I might use it. Correct me If I'm Wrong. Send a track through a "Spectrum analyzer"(?) like the cool dancing EQ displays on some home stereo's that show how much of each frequency band is present. Use this information to adjust each individual track so they all mix well and nothing is stomping on anothers frequencies.
My question is, Is this a logical idea or am I crazy? How do the big dogs get there frequencies to mesh? and finally, If this'll work then Would someone recomend some analyzer suggestions that don't cost $5000. I'd like to see one just like a stereo's that looks like VU meters across a graphic EQ If you can understand that.
Thanks
ADTSKS@Citlink.net
 
You need more detail than that,so that surgical cuts can be made rather than big gouges.Try this one.Its a free software frequency analyzer.For really low stuff,be sure and use the log scale for better resolution.
 
I've read posts by a couple of folks here who push using frequency analyzers as a big help in mixing. And I certainly wouldn't presume to argue with them if it is a method that they find helpful in mixing.

But my strong gut feeling is you have to mix with your ears, not your eyes. Personally, I haven't found the visual graphs to be that useful compared to critical listening.

The one exception would be to get help in locating the existence of strong sub-sonic or ultra-sonic artifacts that lie beyond the range of normal hearing.
 
Some people I believe miss the point entirely when they say "just use your ears," "let your ears be the judge," and that sort of thing. No disrespect to them, but I almost get the feeling that they believe people are going to turn off their monitors once they start using these things. :)

The idea is that you're able to use two of your senses instead of just one. Things you might start noticing on the spectrum analyzer, visually, can alert your ears to start focusing in that region for possible deficiencies or exaggerations. Just as things you think you are hearing can be that much more significant after they are confirmed visually.

Not to mention that you're using more of your brain, so you're actually thinking more efficiently and getting an even better perception of the music when you learn to use both your ears and eyes together.

With respect to Little Dog and the rest of the "use your ears" camp, I do think your ears should be the final arbiter. :) Like if your ears and eyes don't agree on something, by all means go with what your ears tell you. But by no means is it an either/or proposition. They should work in symbiosis, ideally.
 
I knew we'd stir up Chessrock on this one!:D

As I tried to say, I've got no problem with anyone, especially experienced engineers, using all the tools at their disposal. I'm hardly pushing becoming a Luddite here!

But, since we all agree that developing one's ears is the paramount skill in mixing or mastering, I'm only wondering if we introduce too much visual information too soon in the process, does it become a crutch or even a hindrance for someone trying to learn to hear? Even staring intently at all those waveforms scrolling across the screen can be a distraction to concentrated listening, at least in my case. I know I try to force myself to listen at least once all the way through a tune with my eyes closed.

How about this analogy: music notation. No one would deny the incredible value of visual notation in music, but how often have we met a classically trained musician who is so reliant on the printed page that they could not even play "Happy Birthday" without a sheet in front of them? And would be afraid to even try! This is a case of an over-reliance on the visual hindering the development of the ear.

As you can hopefully see, I'm more interested in a discussion than a fight on this one (hard as that may be to believe!)

Hey, but I'll freely admit that perhaps I'm just an old dinosaur (albeit, a Pro Tools one) soon to be an anachronism, while all you young mammals out there are scurrying around stealing my eggs! :D
 
I think the visual cues can help in training the ear by helping the novice to know "where" to listen and calling attention to things that they aren't picking up audibly, yet. Kind of like having someone point out something you don't detect, but after it's pointed out, then you can hear it.
 
Hey, when did we all agree that developing your ears was the paramount skill? I can't imagine all of US agreeing on anything.
-kent
 
Ok,here's where I am on this.I got convinced on frequency analyzers when I saw how they could help me jigsaw the competing low freqs on kick, bass and snare.For example,I learned the last session with my band's drummer that the strong energy content on his kick was 57-62 Hz.I sure didn't know that just with my ears!And I was then able to be more surgical with my use of EQ than gouging out great hunks of spectrum for an instrument to sit in.
 
Well, as i said, i have an open mind on this and am interested in the points you are raising. Clearly this is a technique which many of you have found valuable, and it would be the height of hubris for me to disparage it out of hand.

In my own method of working (I do have the Waves PAZ analyzer) it is not something I would tend to reach for very often, as I find listening to be just as effective and, for me, faster - but there have been occasional times where it has been useful to me.

My fear remains that it would become something of a crutch, and that, even with the best intentions, might be used as a substitute for listening skills. I don't know too many "old school" engineers who use it very much, but that in itself doesn't make it wrong.

Maybe it's like calculators. I grew up far enough back where it was still considered a useful skill to be able to perform basic arithmetic calculations in your head. It's amazing the looks of astonishment I get from cashiers, etc. when I can instantly tell them that 4x47=188. It's not hard, if you know enough to think of it as (4x50)-(4x3). I still think there is value in that kind of skill, but younger folks armed with calculators on their watches and cell phones might disagree, and think of it as something akin to knowing Morse Code.

So, yeah, I think that KNOWING what 80hz sounds like is still useful. (And I'm not a shill for Dave Moulton, although he's a great guy!) If you are using an analyzer as a tool to train your ears, then great! But that implies you are using it so that soon you won't HAVE to use it, doesn't it?

Or maybe my generation and it's way of mixing is on the way out, and a whole new style of visual-assisted mixing will become the norm. Maybe. But I'll still find it a little sad if the Bob Ludwigs of the world who, because of their magnificent ears, can have a song mastered by the time it finishes playing, become a vanishing species.
 
littledog said:
My fear remains that it would become something of a crutch, and that, even with the best intentions, might be used as a substitute for listening skills.
Click to expand...

Actually, I finished mixing a tune the other day while I was talking to my girl friend on the phone. :) No monitors, just the SA.

It sounded like shit, so there goes that theory. :) :)
 
First rule of mixing (with or without frequency analysis): mute the girlfriend!:D
 
littledog said:
First rule of mixing (with or without frequency analysis): mute the girlfriend!:D
Click to expand...

Good advice even when you're not mixing. :D
 
or if you can't mute her, carve out 8-10db @1-3k. No need for a spectrum analyzer to find the irritability area.
 
you know, littledog.. I have to say.. I know a lot of classically trained folks.. and a lot of them are dodes.. but I dont know ANY that choke on happy Birthday!!! They are without exception better musicians than non-classically trained musicians, experience and the like being equal.

THAT being the analogy.. I'd say an analyzer would improve my game! I might go try it, if it's like learning to read music!

xoox
 
camn said:
you know, littledog.. I have to say.. I know a lot of classically trained folks.. and a lot of them are dodes.. but I dont know ANY that choke on happy Birthday!!! They are without exception better musicians than non-classically trained musicians, experience and the like being equal.
Click to expand...

It's not so much untrained or well-trained, but where the emphasis is. One of the various things I've done over the years is teaching classically trained pianists and vocalists to learn to improvise, usually in a jazz or pop context.

For many of them, it is like learning a new language. Some of the most basic concepts that any neophyte jazz musician would know are completely foreign to them. Sadly enough, on occasion that included what in my world would be considered the most basic ear training.

There was a time when classical musicians were expected to be able to improvise, but with the advent of Romantic Music in the 19th century, for some reason, those expectations disappeared, perhaps because of the increased technical demands on the performer.
 
its true.. I know those guys.

But your comparison of a Jazz musician to a classical musician is like comparing someone who uses an Analyzer WITHOUT monitors to someone who uses monitors WITHOUT an analyser (like me.) To be Fair.. you should compare a Jazz musician WITH classical training (like Wynton) to a Jazz Musician WITHOUT classical training (I cant think of one...)

clearly..

xoxo
 
I use the SpectR-Pro by Brainstorm.

to my recollection, it is less than $100, and it has helped me get the mud tones out of my mix.

and it also helps me figure out where the crossover point should be when I'm using a multi-band compressor on my main buss in sonar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top