Spectrum Analyzers. Great tool!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really only use spectrum analysis after I already know there's a problem and I want to narrow down the possibilities. An RTA is also useful when mixing live music to help identify exact feedback frequencies, which is kind of a similar use. But it takes experience to properly interpret the display.

The solution to ear fatigue is to take breaks and keep sessions short.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
I really only use spectrum analysis after I already know there's a problem and I want to narrow down the possibilities. An RTA is also useful when mixing live music to help identify exact feedback frequencies, which is kind of a similar use. But it takes experience to properly interpret the display.

The solution to ear fatigue is to take breaks and keep sessions short.
Click to expand...
That's an excellent example of a great way to use it. That's good advice for listening fatigue, too. Although, a lot of people don't even realize when listening fatigue is occurring. Took me awhile to grasp the phenomenon. When I was a bit younger, I thought my ears were indestructible! lol
 
I'm absolutely happy with problem solving - but how on earth can you have a baseline that applies to every song? It's impossible. What about the bass heavy songs, or the ones with tons of 70s disco sizzle, and those with male voices compared to female ones - these would never be mixed to the same spectral content. Pick any song from any decade and they're spectrally different. You can't adjust these styles to fit a common mix point. Perhaps with EDM it will work, but it certainly won't with different forms of rock. There will be bits that mustn't be pushed, and others that need it.
 
rob aylestone said:
I'm absolutely happy with problem solving - but how on earth can you have a baseline that applies to every song? It's impossible. What about the bass heavy songs, or the ones with tons of 70s disco sizzle, and those with male voices compared to female ones - these would never be mixed to the same spectral content. Pick any song from any decade and they're spectrally different. You can't adjust these styles to fit a common mix point. Perhaps with EDM it will work, but it certainly won't with different forms of rock. There will be bits that mustn't be pushed, and others that need it.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly not sure how this has gotten so lost on you, bro. A. At no time did anyone say that there is one curve that provides a baseline to every song or genre. You've misunderstood something. The concept of EQ matching is your hangup. That's not at all how it works. Here's how it actually works one more time.

Step one, choose a popular recording that you're aiming for and use it as your target reference. Whatever that song is, it will supply a unique curve when you look at it with a spectrum analyzer. A bass heavy song will obviously reflect more energy in the low end frequencies. When you put one on a 70's disco song or any other song, it will reflect a unique curve for that particular song. EQ matching plugins essentially take a snapshot of the curve for whatever song you're using as the reference. They map out the frequencies and levels of the reference. The goal from there is to match the curve in your mix to the unique curve of your reference.

In Izotope's "Tonal Balance" plugin, they supply an array of preset curves in multiple genres that you can choose as your reference. They analyzed thousands of songs across all of those genres to establish a relatively common curve for each genre. Still not one single baseline for all mixes. I wan't to clarify for you once more, nobody ever said that. Ultimately, I prefer to choose a specific reference track that I want my mix to sound similar to and use the curve for that unique reference for my target.

If this doesn't clear it up for you, then I don't know what will. Perhaps you should research it or even try it before forming your conclusion.
 
Nope - I'm happy with my thoughts on it, and I'm not remotely interested in trying to find somebody else's curve to mimic - and even thought I record lots of show tracks that are as close as I can get to the originals, the original has vocals which will be prominent, and mine won't, so I suppose I could remove the vocals in Spectral layers and then see the visual result and mimic it, but I think that's hardly sensible. I understand your idea, and it just is NOT a way I'll ever use myself, or promote to anyone else. I just n' get my head around the mixing by visual approach. I push that fader until that source sits well. I'll drift in that chuffy guitar rhythm till it does it's job, but no more. With this weird system you're promoting - if you had say hi-hats and a rhythmic synth sound in the same space - you could get the curve with either fader having prominence. Mixing is about ears, and if your ears are not good enough, maybe it's not a good substitute. I bet I could mimic any response curve with a terrible mix. I do think that as a tool to check for oddities it could be useful but following somebody else's response curve is, to me, something I'm never going to do.
 
rob aylestone said:
Nope - I'm happy with my thoughts on it, and I'm not remotely interested in trying to find somebody else's curve to mimic - and even thought I record lots of show tracks that are as close as I can get to the originals, the original has vocals which will be prominent, and mine won't, so I suppose I could remove the vocals in Spectral layers and then see the visual result and mimic it, but I think that's hardly sensible. I understand your idea, and it just is NOT a way I'll ever use myself, or promote to anyone else. I just n' get my head around the mixing by visual approach. I push that fader until that source sits well. I'll drift in that chuffy guitar rhythm till it does it's job, but no more. With this weird system you're promoting - if you had say hi-hats and a rhythmic synth sound in the same space - you could get the curve with either fader having prominence. Mixing is about ears, and if your ears are not good enough, maybe it's not a good substitute. I bet I could mimic any response curve with a terrible mix. I do think that as a tool to check for oddities it could be useful but following somebody else's response curve is, to me, something I'm never going to do.
Click to expand...
Well, to be honest, I would never take an opinion serious coming from someone who is completely biased against the process and has never researched it or tried it. Your "thoughts" on it aren't even based on the actual technique, so they're not really useful in this discussion. Furthermore, this is not "my idea." The techniques are common amongst many professionals. It's not something I just came up with. You have distorted every single point being made with logical fallacies based on your inaccurate interpretation. I'm beginning to think that your participation in this discussion is purely for the purpose of being argumentative. This is evident by your relentless insistence that ANYONE ever suggested it should be used instead of your ears. The main point of the entire thread was that they are useful to aid in training your ears as a reference.

It's painfully obvious that you don't even understand the process or how it's applied. You're going to give focus to whatever elements you choose to emphasize before the process of eq matching. In most cases you'll often be emphasizing the same elements that the track you're referencing does. That being said. it's not like anyone should expect an exact replica of the sound, although often times it does work out to be extremely close. Point is, it can get you in the ballpark when used appropriately, AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH, NOT IN PLACE OF, YOUR EARS.

In any event, I find no value in your opinion as it is not in the least bit objective and is quite narrow minded if you ask me. Entertaining an idea doesn't mean accepting it, but you're not even objective enough to entertain the actual points being made. You're distorting the points being made into straw man arguments that feel you have a valid argument against. You might as well be arguing with yourself. So, with that being said. I would really appreciate it if you would refrain from further comments on this thread. Of course, it's a public forum and you can keep commenting if you want to. But, you'll just be making a circular argument that isn't even relevant to the discussion. I.E.. you basing your entire argument off of something nobody ever said or suggested. I don't feel you have anything productive to add to this discussion. In fact, I think your ill informed views on the matter are rather counterproductive. People can decide for themselves if the techniques are helpful for them.

I would again stress to anyone reading this that you completely ignore Rob's advice on this matter, as he is completely inexperienced in the technique and application. These techniques may or may not help you to improve your sound. But, don't take it from someone who's never even tried it. You wouldn't take shooting advice from someone who has never held a gun. Don't take advice on spectral analysis and spectral shaping from someone who can't even acknowledge the techniques being recommended and has never tried them or even entertained the possibilities. I assure you that many seasoned veterans, and well known engineers use and recommend these techniques. I promise you that the awesome staff over at Izotope knows better than Rob does.
 
How the hell did a simple conversation about spectrum analyzers (a simple tool you can either choose to use or not choose to use and certainly don't NEED to get your mix done) get to this point? Amazing and entertaining....and another example of how people have GREAT difficulty taking in a different opinion....or widening their thought "spectrum". (See what I did there?) (yeah...ok...I'll stop)

NOT TAKING SIDES HERE......just want to say that Rob has given me some great advice in years past and it might be a little tough to think of him as giving outright bad advice. Just saying. Not saying anyone here is giving bad advice.

Mick
 
Mickster said:
How the hell did a simple conversation about spectrum analyzers (a simple tool you can either choose to use or not choose to use and certainly don't NEED to get your mix done) get to this point? Amazing and entertaining....and another example of how people have GREAT difficulty taking in a different opinion....or widening their thought "spectrum". (See what I did there?) (yeah...ok...I'll stop)

NOT TAKING SIDES HERE......just want to say that Rob has given me some great advice in years past and it might be a little tough to think of him as giving outright bad advice. Just saying. Not saying anyone here is giving bad advice.

Mick
Click to expand...
I'm sure Rob has some great experience and some great advice in many areas. This just isn't one of those areas, as he himself has admitted and illustrated with his comments. When you're to a point of arguing just to argue against points that nobody even made, that's not an effort to make a positive contribution to the conversation. That's not an attempt to add anything substantive to the discussion. That's just being a dick. Personally, I wouldn't even begin to offer advice about anything I had no experience in or even a desire to gain any understanding or experience. Clearly, Rob and I are at opposite ends of this spectrum!
 
Confident people are ok with saying...."hey if that's how you feel....cool!" We just disagree".

I've read every word of this thread......(holy crap).....and you've made your point and opinion known....and Rob has made his point and opinion known. I personally don't see a complete right or wrong. Obviously you do. Ok. No need to get warm under the collar because you can't get him to agree with you.

As The Beatles never wrote.......

There Will Not Be an Answer......Let It Be.

Mick
 
Mickster said:
Confident people are ok with saying...."hey if that's how you feel....cool!" We just disagree".

I've read every word of this thread......(holy crap).....and you've made your point and opinion known....and Rob has made his point and opinion known. I personally don't see a complete right or wrong. Obviously you do. Ok. No need to get warm under the collar because you can't get him to agree with you.

As The Beatles never wrote.......

There Will Not Be an Answer......Let It Be.

Mick
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with confidence. I take no issue with anyone who disagrees with me. I do take issue with someone offering negative advice about something they aren't remotely educated about. This is why I stress that those who don't have an opinion should find out on their own first hand. Rob didn't simply give his opinion and leave it at that. In fact, he misrepresented the points being made by others, and therefore made many comments that would be completely misleading. No, this is shear arrogance and borderline narcissism. It amounts to him actively trying to sabotage the discussion over his narrow minded, uninformed view of the topic. I'm happy to "let it be" just as soon as he stops posting misleading comments that have nothing really to do with the point.
 
I'm happy to let it go - but remember, I never never take advice from hundreds of 'professionals' using a technique I consider flawed. I agree. Lets for get it an move on - but, there is no evidence it is anything other that opinion. I can live with that, but this is also why I urge caution when aurally unskilled newcomers accept opinion as a rule. That seriously worries me. Of course - if it works for you, shout loud and clear, but equally I am just making sure that we do not all take it as good practice and some kind of standard, that is all. For every well known music producer who uses this system, there will be others who deride it. It's not arrogance, it's balance, experience and serious doubts over a flawed technique (BUT - that's my interpretation) - if the mix is good, if the punters love it, and it makes you money - it's brilliant for your music. That I'm clear on. I however, won't ever be mixing with it. When you pull up at my house in a Rolls Royce and deliver a decent 'I Told You So' - we'll shake hands and laugh about it.


Enough from me - I've got forehead bruises from the wall.
 
rob aylestone said:
I'm happy to let it go - but remember, I never never take advice from hundreds of 'professionals' using a technique I consider flawed. I agree. Lets for get it an move on - but, there is no evidence it is anything other that opinion. I can live with that, but this is also why I urge caution when aurally unskilled newcomers accept opinion as a rule. That seriously worries me. Of course - if it works for you, shout loud and clear, but equally I am just making sure that we do not all take it as good practice and some kind of standard, that is all. For every well known music producer who uses this system, there will be others who deride it. It's not arrogance, it's balance, experience and serious doubts over a flawed technique (BUT - that's my interpretation) - if the mix is good, if the punters love it, and it makes you money - it's brilliant for your music. That I'm clear on. I however, won't ever be mixing with it. When you pull up at my house in a Rolls Royce and deliver a decent 'I Told You So' - we'll shake hands and laugh about it.


Enough from me - I've got forehead bruises from the wall.
Click to expand...
Just can’t help yourself, can you? I’ve noticed that a lot of your responses are rambling and half nonsense. Let me summarize your comments here. “I’ve never even heard of this process until today and I’ve never tried it, but you should listen to my advice based on zero experience, even though you’re asking for advice on basketball and I’m giving you advice about football .”

Again, I have every confidence in the world that the brilliant minds at Izotope know better than Rob the narcissist at Homerecording.com.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top