Members blue2blue Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Oh, yeah, I've added the tiniest bit of 'tape hiss' along with 'tape saturation' with a plug in, before... so I guess my analog-board-noise plug idea isn't all that novel (and -- I didn't google -- it may have already been done)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 I didn't have a plug-in for this! SAW+, at the time, had no plug-ins!! I actually recorded tape hiss from a blank cassette, sick person that I am. Should I patent this idea? Or keep referring to it as the Ken Power Dither Technique? Look, anything to get out of my day job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Actually I was being half whimsical and half serious. White noise has soothing powers; ask anyone who gets lulled to sleep by the sound of surf or rain, or the dentists who use white noise for pain reduction. I sometimes think that the small amount of hiss contributed by analog summers may be what people perceive as sounding "better." I dunno...I'm still of the opinion that a good bridge & chorus triumphs over all technology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Originally posted by Anderton Actually I was being half whimsical and half serious. White noise has soothing powers; ask anyone who gets lulled to sleep by the sound of surf or rain, or the dentists who use white noise for pain reduction. I sometimes think that the small amount of hiss contributed by analog summers may be what people perceive as sounding "better." It may be ONE thing that people perceive as sounding better. I already spent about 27 pages in another thread trying to explain what it is that I personally perceive sounds better. And it ain't just hiss. I understand the point about white noise and I think it might have some validity, but I do wish people would quit focusing on "artifacts" as an explanation for why some still prefer analog mixing: "Oh, it's the noise." "Oh, people are used to the way analog distorts so they like it." Never that there might be artifacts in ITB mixes that people DON'T like. Or that there may be some aspects of analog that are still technically superior. I'm not gonna get into another 27 pages. But just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators MrKnobs Posted October 30, 2006 Moderators Share Posted October 30, 2006 Originally posted by Anderton Actually I was being half whimsical and half serious. White noise has soothing powers; ask anyone who gets lulled to sleep by the sound of surf or rain, or the dentists who use white noise for pain reduction. I sometimes think that the small amount of hiss contributed by analog summers may be what people perceive as sounding "better." I dunno...I'm still of the opinion that a good bridge & chorus triumphs over all technology I agree with both your points! Good song sung with passion by a good singer is 95% of the battle. Well, unless it's a dance tune... About the white noise: as you probably know, I'm in the highway noise business. Pavements are often grooved or tined to allow for water runoff and prevent skidding in wet weather. But the old method of evenly spaced grooves creates a tone or "whine," which, due to the standard distance between grooves creates a tone around 1 kHz which is right in the hot spot of human hearing and very objectionable. So, these days new roads are being either tined with random spacings to more closely approximate white noise or, in some cases, tining is being eliminated entirely by carpet dragging fresh concrete to create a surface with good friction and water runoff without the need for grooves. On asphalt pavement (the black stuff), new open graded pavements have around 20% air voids and are thus water permeable and don't need grooving. They allow water to run right through without collecting on the surface, and are very quiet as well. These pavement shift the peak noise frequency from around 1kHz down to around 200Hz which is less objectionable. Terry D. P.S. At work we mix in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Videodrone Posted October 30, 2006 Author Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Free plug-in to add noise: http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Originally posted by Anderton Actually I was being half whimsical and half serious. White noise has soothing powers; ask anyone who gets lulled to sleep by the sound of surf or rain, or the dentists who use white noise for pain reduction. I sometimes think that the small amount of hiss contributed by analog summers may be what people perceive as sounding "better." I dunno...I'm still of the opinion that a good bridge & chorus triumphs over all technology Back in the day, we thought the same but we called it "the mosh part". Interesting, none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Originally posted by Lee Flier I already spent about 27 pages in another thread trying to explain what it is that I personally perceive sounds better. I'm not gonna get into another 27 pages. But just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Originally posted by Lee Flier It may be ONE thing that people perceive as sounding better. I already spent about 27 pages in another thread trying to explain what it is that I personally perceive sounds better. I musta missed that...could you go over that again? Never that there might be artifacts in ITB mixes that people DON'T like. Or that there may be some aspects of analog that are still technically superior. I guess some people feel that there are less artifacts in digital (or at least, we've been bludgeoned into thinking that way by marketing companies?)? I dunno. But there's clearly aspects of analog that are still superior, or people would have abandoned all thoughts of analog ages ago. But since we keep talking about summing, tubes, Pulteqs, Manleys, depth, wide soundfields, etc., it's clear that analog still has quite a bit out there that people like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members franknputer Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Originally posted by Anderton As to Live, an important subtlety is that quality goes down as soon as its stretching engine kicks in. For "mission-critical" Live projects where fidelity has to the best possible, I stretch the original loops in a different program to Live's project tempo using the highest possible stretch quality (e.g., the iZotope algorithm in Sonar, or use Rex or Acidization), then bring those loops into Live. Because Live doesn't have to do any stretching, the sound quality is much better. I wrote an article about this for Sound on Sound, can't remember the issue but it was about Live techniques and appeared within the last six months or so. If you're referring to the one I think you are, that was vol. 21 issue 8. That was the 1st copy of SOS I've purchased, partly because of that article (and finally because there was a TON of other good stuff in there!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Originally posted by UstadKhanAli I guess some people feel that there are less artifacts in digital (or at least, we've been bludgeoned into thinking that way by marketing companies?)? I dunno. But there's clearly aspects of analog that are still superior, or people would have abandoned all thoughts of analog ages ago. But since we keep talking about summing, tubes, Pulteqs, Manleys, depth, wide soundfields, etc., it's clear that analog still has quite a bit out there that people like. It's true, there are fewer artifacts in digital. It's just that "few" doesn't mean "none" and they are different from the artifacts analog has, therefore there are some specific ways analog is still superior and it would be nice to address those, that's all. That doesn't mean "digital sucks" or anything of the kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 It'd be interesting to start a separate thread about these digital artifacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 We already had one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Originally posted by Lee Flier It's true, there are fewer artifacts in digital. It's just that "few" doesn't mean "none" and they are different from the artifacts analog has, therefore there are some specific ways analog is still superior and it would be nice to address those, that's all. That doesn't mean "digital sucks" or anything of the kind. When you overload an analog circuit, it fails gradually. If you think about as a vertical scale, there would be a very small region between the top of clean reproduction and the bottom of outright overload. In that small no-man's land, the periodic artifacts happen in way that many people seem to find not just acceptable, but attractive. When you overload a digital circuit, there is no gradual area. It works right up to the limit, then fails traumatically. Sort of like the difference between a slow leak and a blowout. My .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Well, okayyy, here we go!! I think what you are saying is true of the distortion, Billster, but there are other artifacts in digital to consider as well, such as the reshaping of the frequencies, perceived depth, and the altering of the stereo soundstage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Not going there Ken. I'm mixing my entire disc ITB. I like my box, and I can accept whatever else is in the box there along with the music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted October 30, 2006 Members Share Posted October 30, 2006 Originally posted by UstadKhanAli Well, okayyy, here we go!! I think what you are saying is true of the distortion, Billster, but there are other artifacts in digital to consider as well, such as the reshaping of the frequencies, perceived depth, and the altering of the stereo soundstage. And let's not forget "corrective jitter" -- a certain converter and clock maker's apparent "advanced science" secret weapon... (I LOVE the way that company uses quotes from respected but not necessarily technically together producers to make the thoroughly unscientific claims for use of their external clock in situations where it will almost certainly increase jitter. Really makes me want to buy their products -- as the kids would say -- not.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted October 31, 2006 Members Share Posted October 31, 2006 > As I said: "Analog devices are processors, no doubt about that, and some people like the sound of that processing while others don't." Part of that processing is an undeniable amount of hiss and distortion. Both are an inherent part of analog technology: Noise because electrons bump into each other as they run around, and distortion because semiconductors are not perfectly linear. There's no getting around that, so it's hard to imagine that they don't influence people's perception of analog sound quality. Similarly, there are unavoidable artifacts in digital technology which I believe colors people's perception of digital sound qulaity. Some people prefer the sound of analog processing, some prefer the sound of digital processing, but both are altering the signal. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted October 31, 2006 Members Share Posted October 31, 2006 Of course, we're also demonstrating looping here! The column in Keyboard was inspired by my "ITB" thread of a couple months back, and now people who read the column are posting in an ITB thread in this forum, which will probably inspire me to write something else...ad infinitum. And people wonder how come I never run out of topics to write about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted October 31, 2006 Members Share Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by Anderton Some people prefer the sound of analog processing, some prefer the sound of digital processing, but both are altering the signal. Period. Only one is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted October 31, 2006 Members Share Posted October 31, 2006 I'm the man in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 31, 2006 Members Share Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by Anderton As I said: "Analog devices are processors, no doubt about that, and some people like the sound of that processing while others don't." Part of that processing is an undeniable amount of hiss and distortion. Both are an inherent part of analog technology: Noise because electrons bump into each other as they run around, and distortion because semiconductors are not perfectly linear. There's no getting around that, so it's hard to imagine that they don't influence people's perception of analog sound quality. Sigh. I think I already acknowledged all that was the case, but it still doesn't address what I said. I was responding to this: "I sometimes think that the small amount of hiss contributed by analog summers may be what people perceive as sounding 'better.'" If that were really all there was to it, we could all just add some noise or a tape hiss plugin to all our mixes, and even have some going in the background while listening to our favorite ITB releases, and everything would be just fine and dandy. That doesn't "fix" things for me as you implied that it might. Adding noise can be a helpful aid during mixing and it can add some "cool factor" in its own right to leave it in a mix on certain tracks (and in fact many of my own recordings already have enough amp noise and the like to more than do the job anyway), but it doesn't address the issues I spent 27 pages trying to explain. So I don't guess spending any more time trying will do any good either! I'm going to sleep! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted October 31, 2006 Members Share Posted October 31, 2006 Originally posted by Anderton Of course, we're also demonstrating looping here! The column in Keyboard was inspired by my "ITB" thread of a couple months back, and now people who read the column are posting in an ITB thread in this forum, which will probably inspire me to write something else...ad infinitum. Ahh I knew it when I saw you'd written that article - that other thread was just trolling for free material! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 31, 2006 Members Share Posted October 31, 2006 So, Lee, are you saying that all we have to do is add a little hiss to our ITB mixes and everything would be just fine and dandy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Videodrone Posted October 31, 2006 Author Members Share Posted October 31, 2006 Hi, After a few more day in my studio I really notice a big difference (in a good way) by keep the master at 0DB. I loaded up some older Cubase SX3 project which I know sounded great and I noticed that because the meters were so large that I was mixing quieter and keeping that master closer to 0 than in Ableton... hense the perception of better audio quality. In Ableton Live 5 is there anyway I can make the meters longer? If no, does that change in Live 6? I do know if you click a fader and hit DEL then it will return to 0db and also while your holding a fader it will show you the db number in the bottom right of the screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.