Homerecording VS EQ

[DigitMus]

I stumbled across this:

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=250354

 

Anyone feel like addressing it? (Craig?, the author?) :poke:

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Mixsit wrote in homerecording.com's forums: Crap 'phase' info in EQ mag Unbelievable. "To avoid phase issues, the first step is to record everything in phase." "This occurs through proper mic placement and adhering to the 'Three to One Rule' : When using multiple mics.. blah blah blah..." Jeff Anderson and is this Dr P. T. Cilham? This is as it stands in the article. It's wrong on about nine different levels. It is not corrected later in the article. Hello?

 

 

Am I missing something? What's wrong with that?

[DigitMus]

Just to clarify - I was not suggesting the OP at the HR forum was in the right. I was merely calling it to the attention of Craig et.al., hoping someone might help straighten them out over there. I would have taken them on myself, but somebody snagged the issue out of my studio, so I don't have the original article for reference.

 

Scott

[Jeff da Weasel]

I'm not at all seeing the problem with the original statement in EQ. On what basis does this guy think it's incorrect?

 

Since I don't really give a {censored} enough to go over and look, perhaps you can ask for us.

[Gus Lozada]

Does the guy know what "phase" is?

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

Does the guy know what "phase" is?

 

 

That's what I was thinking. I mean, it is Home Recording, so maybe they're not used to working with multiple mics and don't understand what phase relationship is all about.

 

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.

[Gus Lozada]

 

That's what I was thinking. I mean, it is Home Recording, so maybe they're not used to working with multiple mics and don't understand what phase relationship is all about. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.

 

 

Word

 

(note to self: hell, does Jeff mean that it is possible to record more than one mic at the time?? gotta read EQ then...)

[MikeRivers]

The trouble with the trade magazines today (at least the free ones in the US) is that the articles are too short. They want a lot of articles about a lot of different things, to attract a lot of readers. The theory is that more people will find an article or two of interest that way. More readers means more advertising dollars.

 

When I first started writing for Recording in 1996, I told the editor at the time that I thought articles were too short and that I'd write for him if he gave me enough space to cover a subject as thorougly as I thought was reasonable, even if it meant splitting an article into two or three issues. He agreed. The editorial staff now wants 1200 to 1500 words maximum no matter what. Maybe one of these days they'll publish my 4000 word review of the NTI Digilyzer and readers will learn about channel status bits and what they can tell you about why something isn't working. Oh, but that was 5 years ago. Now everything digital always works.

 

Electronic Musician is the same way, though EM is using their web site for supplemental information. I just wrote a review for EM with a 1300 word print version and about 4500 word web version, but at least I can explain on the web what I toss out as facts in print.

 

I figure that a review should tell the reader more than he can get from reading the manufacturer's ads and web info, and to do that, you need to explain what you observed and what's right or wrong about it. .

[Jeff da Weasel]

So how is that pertinent toward this article, Mike? Did I miss something?

[John Sayers]

 

"This means that if one mic is three inches from a guitar cab, the second mic should be a least nine inches from that mic."

 

 

I agree with the general idea of checking phase when using multiple mikes but I do question that statement.

[UstadKhanAli]

That's the so-called 3:1 mic rule, and that seems to be stated correctly.

[philbo]

>>>"To avoid phase issues, the first step is to record everything in phase."

 

"This occurs through proper mic placement and adhering to the 'Three to One Rule' : When using multiple mics.. blah blah blah..."

 

"This means that if one mic is three inches from a guitar cab, the second mic should be a least nine inches from that mic."

 

 

I don't get it...

 

The issue with that is... what? In what way is this info wrong? Or is it just too basic, and has no new interest for you? I guess I'd fall into that category myself, but there are a lot of newbies who would find this info relevatory.

 

BTW, this appears to be a fairly ancient thread - - I mean, Stephen St. Croix has been dead for some time now.

[Beck]

It has nothing to do with that bbs. Homerecording is just the name of the forum. The ratio of people that know what they

[Anderton]

Why don't these people write in to the mag with these supposed errors, and why they're wrong, so we can correct them? It's not like we're hard to find. And no, I don't know what's so wrong...people refer to the 3:1 thing as wrong, but don't say why.

 

EQ has no problem printing corrections, but we need to actually be corrected first

[flatfinger]

I just wrote a review for EM with a 1300 word print version and about 4500 word web version, but at least I can explain on the web what I toss out as facts in print.

 

 

That's interesting! I have noticed a dearth of indepth articles ( except for SOS , Bless them for there keeping the archive up!!).

 

Most Anything that you record thats complex is going to be the sum of many sinusoidals and there WILL be phase cancellations because of all the various numerous wave lengths involved.

 

i like to keep this quote from a SOS article in mind ......

Combining complex 'out of phase' signals does not necessarily lead to complete cancellation. In fact, in the real world, it rarely, if ever, does so.

 

There was a four pager over there where everyone had there slide rules out , discussing( ok, arguing) every minute subtle detail about phase, kinda weird. Move the mic or mic's around , find the sweet spot , push record already!

[MikeRivers]

 

So how is that pertinent toward this article, Mike? Did I miss something?

What's with Mr. Grumpy this morning? Take the red-eye to NY last night? Since when is pertinence a requirement for posting?

 

Forum posters often try to second-guess the solution when they don't know what the real problem is. I sometimes try to second-guess the problem, and that's what I did here. The problem isn't that the writer doesn't know what he's talking about (maybe he doesn't - it's not clear just what he knows from this short piece), it's that he didn't give a complete and thorough explanation of what he was talking about. My guess is that given another 500 words, he could have made it clear why there are "phase problems" and it would be obvious to the reader how to avoid (or even take advantage) of them.

[MikeRivers]

 

I agree with the general idea of checking phase when using multiple mikes but I do question that statement.

This is a single-value example of the "three-to-one rule." Would a reader know that if one mic was 4 inches from the source that there should be no other mic closer to that mic than 12 inches? I dunno.

 

The three-to-one "rule" is based on a difference in amplitudes (an inverse square law thing) between the output of the two mics that yield sufficiently shallow dips in the comb filter so that the frequency response of a microphone isn't badly buggered. The 3:1 ratio is a calculation that is based on omni mics (that's the part that's left out of nearly all articles on the subject except for mine) and it's more like a 2:1 rule for cardioids, and something completely different for bi-directionals, and hypercardioids.

 

That's why it isn't much of a rule, but readers like rules, and writers like to state rules because it makes them sound authoritative.

[Jeff da Weasel]

I sometimes try to second-guess the problem, and that's what I did here.

 

Ah. See, I didn't get the context of what you were saying there (as in, why the length of the article would pertain to phase relationship).

 

Here's a different question, though: does EVERY article need to assume that the reader is starting from point one, and has ZERO prior knowledge, thereby requiring all the remedia discussion?

 

I, for one, would not read a magazine in which I had to skip through a ton of "recording 101" info to get to the meat of the subject. I'd prefer getting shorter (more concise) articles that were very focused.

 

That's just me. Maybe you'd like to read "War and Peace" every time you want to learn about using multiple mics.

[MikeRivers]

 

Here's a different question, though: does EVERY article need to assume that the reader is starting from point one, and has ZERO prior knowledge, thereby requiring all the remedia discussion?

I often wonder about that myself. There was a time when you didn't. It was fair to assume that anyone reading the magazine would have a reasonable technical background and wouldn't require basic explanations. But things are different today.

 

First off, most readers come from a music background rather than an engineering background and have never learned the fundamentals. Mention "phase" and they think about that button that may or may not be on their mixer or mic preamp.

 

Second, most of today's gear has a mix of technologies. Someone who can explain a mic preamp circuit doesn't necessarily have the background to know about how a filter is implemented digitally.

 

One of the things that a couple of the trade magazines are doing now is using their web page as a source of supplemental information. For example, if I were writing a review of the GT ViPre, I'd mention the input impedance switch in the short version of the article because I think that's a key feature of the product. If the reader knew what that was all about or was just happy to know that it was one more switch he had for modifying the tone of a microphone, he could go on from there. But if he wanted to know why he might want a selectable input impedance and what he might expect to hear when he turned the knob, he could go to the web page where he'd find a discussion of microphone loading and perhaps information of specific mics and how they responded to different loads.

[blue2blue]

 

I agree with the general idea of checking phase when using multiple mikes but I do question that statement.

 

 

First, I have read the thread but I haven't read the article.

 

 

Seems to me the 'problem' with that quoted statement is in the context...

 

When double miking a guitar cab you may very well WANT odd phase effects.

 

 

The author would have been on a lot more clearly solid ground if he had used a drum miking example -- since this is the primary place where the 3-to-1 rule of thumb has traditionally been invoked.

 

 

_____________

 

 

If it makes anyone feel any better, I've read grossly inaccurate statements in a number of magazines.

 

In the May 2007 Electronic Musician, well-known recording/keyboard writer Jim Aikin "corrected" a reader who had written in to complain about an Aikin article in a previous edition that claimed there was no relationship between sample rate and latency (among other inaccuracies). Aiken chided him, saying, "'there is no direct relationship between sampling frequency and system latency" -- and editor Steve Openheimer compounded the error by aggreeing with Aikin that "latency is not related to sampling rate."

 

Which anyone who understands the basics of digital recording should either know or quickly be able to figure out is simply not true.

 

And it took YET ANOTHER letter -- complete with elementary common sense logic and some supporting basic sampling math -- to get them to retract that obviously incorrect info.

 

Pretty freakin' amazing, I thought.

[Anderton]

Regardless of the statement in question (and I've asked the author to respond), the thing that amazes me is that people somehow have the feeling that Printed Things should not be subject to the fact that humans make mistakes. Planes show up late, people go to jail for crimes they didn't commit, you misunderstand something your girlfriend said on the phone, the New York Times prints retractions, movies have continuity errors...but by golly, magazines -- which are put out on an excruciatingly tight schedule by a very limited number of underpaid people -- are supposed to be immune to human error, and if an author makes an error, the editors are supposed to always be able to catch that error.

 

Now think about an average issue of EQ. There are thousands of statements that could be factually inaccurate or accurate, from whether "DX-7" has a hyphen or not (it doesn't) to elaborations on the 3:1 mic rule. There are also many more statements that might benefit from further explanation, although you have to draw the line somewhere ("A mic is a transducer that converts sound waves to electricity. A transducer is a device that converts one form of energy into another. Energy is neither created nor destroyed so some it may be lost as heat. Heat is caused by...") Sometimes errors of omission are treated as errors of commission. It's like the people who feel a feature that's missing in software is a "bug." It's not a bug, it's a missing feature. There's a difference.

 

So the magazine has maybe 3 -4 errors in an issue, and as a result someone proclaims on a forum (that has nothing to do with the magazine) how "That magazine is crap! The editor knows nothing! What morons!" (This, of course, is presumably from someone who has never made a mistake in his life and is therefore perfectly qualified to sit in judgement of all those who have strayed from perfection )

 

What this person apparently doesn't realize is that ALL publications make errors. Period. This is why they print corrections and letters to the editor. There is a mechanism to make sure that any inaccuracies are brought to the readers, and it mystifies me why people don't take advantage of that. The only rationale I can think of is that if magazines DIDN'T make mistakes from time to time, that would undermine someone's feeling of superiority, so in a way, they would prefer that "authoritative" sources be doubted in order to make themselves look better. Or something like that...I'm not a shrink

 

It's like that thread in Pro Sound Web that commented on my phrase-by-phrase normalization technique. The guy who talked about what a horrible article it was and how the technique would destroy dynamic range didn't know the meaning of the word "phrase" from a musical standpoint and didn't understand how normalization works. Then there were people who said normalization is a form of compression, which of course it isn't, and that you should never normalize to 0, which is true some of the time but not all of the time; it depends to a large part on the audio engine the software uses. None of them ever wrote to the magazine or mentioned anything in EQ's forums, which would have been the appropriate venue to correct an "error"...assuming of course that someone's motivation is to help the world understand technology better, not self-aggrandizement.

 

No one ever did show an error in the article, either, other than blindly repeating things like "You shouldn't normalize! Normalizing is bad!" The only substantive correction was someone pointing out that you shouldn't normalize to 0 (which I never said you should do anyway) if you're going to be using additional DSP and if you're using Pro Tools, because the plug-ins go out through a 24-bit bus. To me, though, that doesn't negate the article: It adds additional useful information for those who use Pro Tools. And it showed someone was more into advancing the state of the art and HELPING OTHERS than stroking his own ego.

 

It's so easy to criticize, but apparently, it's far more difficult to do so constructively.

[spikemullings]

The only rationale I can think of is that if magazines DIDN'T make mistakes from time to time, that would undermine someone's feeling of superiority, so in a way, they would prefer that "authoritative" sources be doubted in order to make themselves look better. Or something like that...I'm not a shrink

 

Maybe not but I think you correctly identify the psychological nature of the issue here. In my very limited experience of recording/audio forums there is an alarming amount of neurotic posting about technology which I guess behaviourists would characterise as essentially oedipal. There seems to be a need to destroy competing ideas in a bid to either win approval from the authority figures or to try to topple them (or sometimes of course, both at the same time). One doesn't want to take this too far, and I suppose a forum is like any other community but it must be right that this need to aggressively proclaim one's mastery of the technology (or perhaps more accurately the technos) is essentially neurotic (in the clinical sense) and borne of insecurity.

 

If you carry this through to its oedipal conclusion then it leads you consider that some people must have a pretty unhealthy relationship with their gear

[Jeff da Weasel]

If you carry this through to its oedipal conclusion then it leads you consider that some people must have a pretty unhealthy relationship with their gear

 

The unhealthy relationship is with themselves, which is then manifested through the gear.

 

It's a much easier situation to blame lack of talent, lack of knowledge, lack of drive, lack of success, on the wrong gear or the improper use of gear.

 

You can make great records with {censored} gear. It's much easier (and more common) to make {censored} records with great gear.

[UstadKhanAli]

A lot of people like to tear others a new one because it makes them feel like they are somehow superior and, so they hope, make it look that way in a public forum. Soon after, these threadds become a giant dogpile, with others saying, "Oh, hey, these magazines are rife with mistakes. My Gawd, I can't even read any of 'em without cringing at all the mistakes."

 

To me, they come off like a bunch of twits...I mean, not a single person has satisfactorily explained why the quote is a "mistake". But hey, never mind facts or logic or context, let the insults fly!!

 

Maybe if I cop a know-it-all attitude like that, I can drum up more business at Blueberry Buddha Studios. Maybe I can keep popping off at people and say, "Oh, yeah, these people don't know what they're talking about. How can they even publish a magazine like that?" and I'll tear into everyone who voices a comment so I can seem superior. It'll be great. It'll be my new marketing strategy.

[strathound]

Interesting discussion. I do have a NEWB question about all of this. In this specific example, is there technology out there today to detect in-phase / out-of-phase mics without having to resort to superstition and old wives tales? I mean, if I'm doing this at home, are there tools that make this discussion obsolete for entry level folks like myself? I understand if you are recording the next U2 album, you'd better understand this stuff. But I'm recording my daughter's rendition of "Kitty Goes Poopoo" and want it to sound nice for the grandparents (ok, I'm exaggerating, but you get the point).