Using a Spectrum Analyzer

  • Thread starter Thread starter BluMusic
  • Start date Start date
B

BluMusic

New member
HiYa All ~ As I have stated when I first joined this forum, I am in all honesty 80% musician & 20% Engineer. So maybe I've climbed the ladder a tad bcuz in the beginning I only considered myself 10% engineer (recording).

As a Testament to many of you here, I've learned more about Recording & Mixing on this Forum than any other source of knowledge. Having said that, I belong to many forums on different topics of interest and currently, this is the only forum I belong to that I can't contribute usable information. I just don't know enough yet and that bothers me. I don't just wish to take & not give but it is what it is. I'm not lazy at all, I buy the products I use, I don't pirate anything (sorry) and I read the material(s) provided but many times such as why I'm writing this today, I can't make sense of what is being explained.

In Cubase SX3, I'm trying to learn how to make a nice respectable mix of my original music. I have a few things going against me at the moment. For one, because of circumstance, I'm playing & recording through Cans. Although a very nice pair but Cans NTL, what I notice is, when I place my final mix in the house or car cd player, it's always too much bottom end but when I pull down the low ends on the kick and on the bass guitar, it sounds horrible through the cans. I don't have a realistic barometer of what it shoudl sound like.

I don't have an acoustically sound room to play in nor do I have a sound-proof room for recording vocals or the acoustic guitars even though I do have excellent mics. I play everything live including the drums & bass, which is a 5-string fretless.

So I'm reading the Manual for Cubase and I come across the Spectrum Analyzerand I'm reading this and not making any sense of what it is suppose to offer me or how to actually use it. The way it is written seems to be more for those who already know what & how. Can someone point me to where I can get a better understanding of this tool and how it would apply to my projects?

Thanks All
 
I think a lot of folks are in the same boat. I don't have a great listening environment either. I do a lot of mixing in headphones :mad:. I'm still waiting for the funds to buy some good monitors and treat my room.

As far as the spectrum analyzer . . . it's a good visual tool. But that's it. It's visual. And a tool. Never a replacement for your ears. But not a bad place to go for an overview of your audio landscape. Izotope (the folks that do "Ozone" mastering software) has a decent free guide, which might offer some guidance (pdf link). Their discussion of the Ozone spectrum analyzer starts on page 21. It's not Cubase, but it should provide some good pointers that apply generally.
 
As Kevin Lowe says, spectrum analyzers are tools and 'never a replacement for your ears'.

I have never used a spectrum analyzer and learning the ins and outs of using them correctly is, in my opinion, only going to distract you from the job at hand which is making music.

I can read music --- but slowly, not even close to sight reading. I would rather brush up on that than learn a spectrum analyzer. Or learn my second instrument, which in my case is bass guitar, better than I know it now.

You say you're '80% musician, 20% engineer' and that's about the right proportion to be able to get your ideas down in a competent form for others to listen to and enjoy. You need to be careful with what you try to pack into that 20% and, for me at least, learning to read spectrum analyzer displays is a time intensive activity that I may or may not get around to someday.

That being said, I'm always careful to use a brickwall filter at 30Hz or 35Hz to kill any subsonic garbage that's sure to drag my mix down and do mysterious things to all the dynamics processing --- you should probably do this too.


.
 
Only time I use one is to check the very low frequency range (that my speakers don't reproduce well) on instruments that don't have anything down super low, like acoustic guitar for instance... to check for the occasional "environmental rumbling" that can creep into recordings. If it's there I'll filter it out but I don't want to use a filter unless I have to. There are a lot of good realtime spectrum graphs that are good for that... like those in N-track's EQ, Reaper's, Ozone's, as well as the snapshot 3-D type that some apps like Wavelab have.
 
Last edited:
I started off using a spec analyzer and quickly learned that your ears are the best tool you have for analyzing your music. Headphones of course aren't going to give you a good response as far as mixing goes. Do you have a hifi you can route it through? Or some computer speakers? They'd be better than headphones. As far as a spec analyzer goes, if your looking for something better than Cubase's, check out Voxengo Span. It's good and it's free, which makes it even better. :)

BluMusic said:
I don't pirate anything (sorry)
Click to expand...

...and no need to apologise for that. This community tends to frown on piracy, so it's all good :)
 
XLR said:
Only time I use one is to check the very low frequency range (that my speakers don't reproduce well) on instruments that don't have anything down super low, like acoustic guitar for instance... to check for the occasional "environmental rumbling" that can creep into recordings. If it's there I'll filter it out but I don't want to use a filter unless I have to.
Click to expand...

Where have I heard this before?

Oh yeah.

I my reply right above yours.

Get to know your frequency references --- the 30Hz to 35Hz range IS the 'environmental rumble' range.

I recommended brickwall filtering because those frequencies contain nothing even remotely musically useful. And your policy of 'don't want to use a filter unless I have to' will come back to bite you. You are assuming that the spectrum analyzer you are using is not only up to the job but is accurate in that low subsonic range. I use a HPF on every track I mix and get much cleaner, clearer results because of it.

In this digital world where low lows can be accurately reproduced it brings a whole new question to the mixing board --- just because even the most modest gear is able to capture those frequencies, do they really help our recordings?

I say no.


.
 
ssscientist said:
...I use a HPF on every track...
Click to expand...
Depends what sources and recording environments you're working with I suppose, and the problems you have to deal with. I only rarely have issues with LF noise and prefer to avoid EQ in general unless absolutely necessary. If I take a file of a well recorded acoustic instrument and apply a highpass filter using a fairly transparent EQ such as Waves Linear or the Audiometrics PLPar I can hear a slight degradation in the sound quality of the file overall even when the filter is set below the instrument's freq range. So yeah, I'll only use it if I have to. YMMV.
 
I fiddled with an anal spec to help me EQ carve for mixing. It was a bit of a help but I soon found that it became a hinderance rather than a help as I'm not fast or clever enough to flip flop between it & the task at hand.
 
Whoa - looks like I asked the right people. So from what I'm reading, since I am dealing with the equipment I currently have, making use of the Analyzer may be beneficial once (and a big once) I learn the ins & outs of this. Not certain and as soon as I finish writing this, I'm going to check this out but I was wondering if I pull out one of the installed compositions Cubase has contained in this package, could I basically assume the balances are pretty much on point and follow that lead on some of my projects?

I'll state this another way .. Does Cubase offer any Templates contained in SX3 that are setup for the purpose of giving you a good balance of your music?

As for what I have for monitoring, my L/R out is going into a Home Stereo system with four speakers, L & R (Front) and L & R (Rear) The bookshelf style speakers are not quality imo they came from a Surround Sound system we bought for our TV Surround Sound System that I replaced with JBL bookshelf Speakers.

What I think is a good sound coming from them turns out strangely weak in one area or another. For example, I want to create a Ringtone for my Cell Phone and I got it sounding what I thought was great until I uploaded it to Phonezoo.com and on there, it sounded horrible. The drums sounded like I was banging garbage cans and there was WAAAAAYYYYY too much verb that I could hear coming from those bookshelf speakers. So now, I'm totally confused about the bottomline.

Last point, before I bought Cubase SX1 and then SX3 I recorded all my music using an Atari Computer and everything was midi until I recorded the guitar parts live during the mixdown. I know, WHAT?!?!? Totally stupid way of doing it but I worked it out and believe me, the songs were fantastic. Point is, the bass, drums, keys, horns and every other instrument contained were well balanced and seemingly ready for air play. No matter what component I played those CDs on, it sounded professional. But now that I'm basically recording everything Audio in Cubase and not using Midi at all, I'm having headaches. When I first started working with Cubase, I recorded midi and then mixed it down to audio from there but since I play mostly Live Bass - Live Drums (midi capable) - vocals and acoustic guitar .. doing Audio from start to finish is much easier.

The relationship between the Bass & Drums is one of my biggest problems and the recordings I get with my acoustic guitars is weak as all hell even though I have very expensive condensor mics for that purpose. I probably need to build a sound room for the acoustic guitars, BTW, I have a beautiful 5 string acoustic fretless Bass by Michael Kelly for sale if anyone is interested.
 
BluMusic said:
As for what I have for monitoring, my L/R out is going into a Home Stereo system with four speakers, L & R (Front) and L & R (Rear) The bookshelf style speakers are not quality imo they came from a Surround Sound system we bought for our TV Surround Sound System that I replaced with JBL bookshelf Speakers.

The relationship between the Bass & Drums is one of my biggest problems and the recordings I get with my acoustic guitars is weak as all hell even though I have very expensive condensor mics for that purpose. I probably need to build a sound room for the acoustic guitars,
Click to expand...

As far as what you're monitoring your music on you said it yourself --- it's a home system. Home systems are made to make music, all music, sound better than it really is. Studio monitors are meant to let you hear your music as it REALLY is, warts and all. Invest a few hundred dollars in a set of good nearfield monitors and a few weeks listening to your past mixes, your favorite CDs and getting to know how they sound in general.

The second quoted part above is important too. If you know where the specific problems are in your mixes, DO NOT look at spectrum analyzers as a shortcut to solving your mix problems. If you have a talent for mixing it will show within a few months work --- your mixes will become smoother, better balanced and will translate to other systems better than they have in the past. There is no substitute for hard work and it IS hard to do good mixes. A truly good mix is something beautiful to behold --- and 6 good mixes can look 6 different ways on a spectrum analyzer.

I don't have a 'sound room' for acoustic guitars, just the right small diaphragm condenser microphone and the experience to know how to get a good sound out of my instrument. Whether you have microphones or not, you might want to give a try to these ---

www.naiant.com/studiostore/microphones.html

And that 'ringtone' test is not one that anyone should ever use --- there are too many wildcards in the process of turning an audio file into a ringtone for that ever to be a valid way to judge a mix.


.
 
I use Waves PAZ Analyzers for REASSURANCE when I'm making critical cuts - particularly in the low end since I don't have a trustworthy sub.

As for headphone monitoring, if you have a pretty flat pair (I have a pretty good pair of Audio Technica's) you can get away with them to an extent. I'd never do a COMPLETE mix through headphones only but I DO use them to check for certain things.

Then again some of my methods are unorthadox. I'm one of the few people I know who can get away with soloing a track for EQ & compression... ;)
 
ssscientist said:
As far as what you're monitoring your music on you said it yourself --- it's a home system. Home systems are made to make music, all music, sound better than it really is. Studio monitors are meant to let you hear your music as it REALLY is, warts and all. Invest a few hundred dollars in a set of good nearfield monitors and a few weeks listening to your past mixes, your favorite CDs and getting to know how they sound in general.

Best sentence I've read in a long time. Funny as it is but setting up a Stage system for a small or large club and working with a 128 ch PA Mixer with Subs - crossovers - Floor Monitors and the works, and I'm your guy because I understand live music. But getting a nice Studio recording is a whole nother World entirely. I would never have thought I'd have so many issues with this. What I hear on a Brand Cd compared to mine is light years away. I've worked with Compression EQs Limiters and the like but still nowhere close to what pleases me.

The second quoted part above is important too. If you know where the specific problems are in your mixes, DO NOT look at spectrum analyzers as a shortcut to solving your mix problems. If you have a talent for mixing it will show within a few months work --- your mixes will become smoother, better balanced and will translate to other systems better than they have in the past. There is no substitute for hard work and it IS hard to do good mixes. A truly good mix is something beautiful to behold --- and 6 good mixes can look 6 different ways on a spectrum analyzer. As you said B4, learning Spanish seems easier than this but I'm committed in getting it down

I don't have a 'sound room' for acoustic guitars, just the right small diaphragm condenser microphone and the experience to know how to get a good sound out of my instrument. Whether you have microphones or not, you might want to give a try to these ---

www.naiant.com/studiostore/microphones.html

And that 'ringtone' test is not one that anyone should ever use --- there are too many wildcards in the process of turning an audio file into a ringtone for that ever to be a valid way to judge a mix.
Click to expand...

For all who are true recording engineers, this must be a laughing matter to read from some do-it-yourself fool who goes out & buys hundreds of dollars worth of software, studio mixer. condensor mics, etc for the purpose of cutting out the middleman so to speak. I write excellent music but lacking in the drive to simply putting together a nice demo and allowing some Producer to take it from there. My problem is, I've done the Touring thing for years and it was fun but I'm done with that. I don't even get all that excited about playing out anymore. What I truly enjoy now is writing music and the fact that I'm good at many instruments. So my plan is to take the Steely Dan route where I can compose my music, master it, press it and shop it to retail outlets. In the city I live in, I know I can get airplay. I'm sort of hoping the product sells itself. All of that is a great plan but getting a good quality recording isn't as easy as I once thought. I don't have issues with noise or static filtering through my cans or speakers. Due to years of stage play, I've learned how to shield my pickguard (underneath) to reduce hum, buzzing and all sorts of nasty little sounds that you can pretend is a part of the music. Also in my home setup, I'm basically patching direct into my Mixer. The less amount of patches the better. Even the Drums are a Roland V-Session Kit that I've granted 2-chs to. The Fretless Bass (solid body) however 1st goes into an outboard Pre-Amp then into 2 chs. <--- I get nothing but a stupid muddy sometimes hollow sound from it regardless of how I adjust & re-adjust.
I have too many balances to deal with on the Bass.

First there's the controls on the body. One controls the front PU - another controls the Back PU and another controls the overall tonality between the two. Then there's the Pre-Amp settings which I'm still playing around with.
SO I generally throw the Bass pickups Full Open. On the Pre-Amp I have Volume - Bass - Mid - High - Presence - with an additional toggle for high FQ and Low FQ. Then out from that into the Board which of course has besides the Volume Slider, a 4-Band EQ. So as I've said, the correct balance within these settings is still up in the air for me because I can't seem to get a nice clean, punchy, distinct full flavored sound. It's either Muddy or it's Hollow sounding. Within Cubase, all i tend to use on the Bass Ch is Compression.

I wish I could upload a taste of what it all sounds like so you can hear it but even that probably won't sound like it does through my cans. Is there a place for me to do that here ? If so, how big is allowed in terms of mins. ?
 
dachay2tnr said:
Just to add... you can get comments on your mixes in the mp3 clinic forum, but this site does not host any files. You'll have to post them somewhere else and link to them.
Click to expand...

Got it, I actually have a site .. so that should be fine. I wonder however if it will sound the same on the net as it does in my setup? I guess I'll find out
 
BluMusic said:
I wonder however if it will sound the same on the net as it does in my setup? I guess I'll find out
Click to expand...

Should sound the same on the net through your setup as it does playing from your computer through your setup. As far as I'm aware, the net doesn't process audio in any way. It just downloads the audio file to your computer and plays it. If you are using the net with a different sound system, then it will sound like whatever it sounds like through that sound system.
 
Of course, there is the dreaded mp3 conversion :(( . Other than that, nothing should change...
 
As everyone said, just putting it on the internet won't change anything. :D Only when you upload to some music playing website like SoundClick or MySpace (which is terrible) will they actually change your MP3 to fit within their size/bandwidth limits.

Best bet is to use a site that doesn't care about the quality of your MP3, and won't change it in anyway. Like your website, or if you want:

www.lightningmp3.com

Just a simple MP3 file upload site (that doesn't do anything to your MP3).
 
Eh...thanks for that. Somebody just sent me to Soundclick which is turning out to be much more of a headache than I intended...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top