Ethan Winer

the JCF "Latte" converters. I'm sure you can tell which is which as long as you can see the product labels. Anytime you want to come up to Foxboro with an "M-Box" and shoot it out with some "iZ" converters I'll make the arrangement for you. Hey, last time I went there, so now it's your turn to come here. That way I can control the test and switching etc, and be sure you don't know which is which by sight. You said you sometimes visit this area, so it'd be great to have you over. Drinks and dinner are on me. Bring as many converters as you'd like, and I'll have my wife switch so neither of us knows which is which. Then it will be a true DBT. And bring a CD of music you know well, so you won't be dependent on unfamiliar music I happen to have here. --Ethan

I even showed my mother the difference in a blind test and she heard it plain as day. If she can hear it, anyone can hear it. I definitely believe you, but this means either the Presonus is broken, or something else is going on with the way you switch the A/D/A in and out. Again, if you had to do five generations of A/D/A before you could hear any change, that's at odds with what you now report, that even mom hears it after only one generation. --Ethan

Dan, if you're ever in my area please let me know and we'll arrange a visit. The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that's all it is. The difference was likely due more to comb filtering and small movements than the difference between analog and digital. Indeed, you were right the first time when you compared multiple A/D/A generations. That at least is a more scientific way to test this. If your Firepod loses lows so badly you can tell on an electric guitar track, why couldn't you tell after five passes with a full mix having a bass track? This is why I'm sure your guitar comparison is flawed. I don't have your Presonus Firepod so I can't speak to its quality. Maybe you had something else inadvertently switched in, or out, when you switched from digital to analog. Or maybe the low latency was adding subtle distortion that would have gone away with a longer setting. But I have $100 that says if you come here and let me test you blind using my very old Delta 66, you will not be able to tell whether it's in the path or not. --Ethan

...as long as they spend several thousand on "room treatment" so they can hear why $100-/channel converters suck balls. Okay, let's do the math. An M-Audio Audiophile sound card costs about $100 for two channels and is audibly transparent. So that's $50 per channel. My definition of audibly transparent means you can record audio through it and not hear any change when played back. By "you" I mean me, and the OP, and Fletcher, and everyone else reading this. If two channels isn't enough M-Audio has their 8-in/out rack-mount Delta 1010 for $500, but the "breakout cable" version costs only $200. So now we're down to $25 per channel for audio clarity that's as good as needed. It doesn't have to be M-Audio either - there are plenty of other brands and models in this price and quality range. I agree with you 100 percent that all home studio size control rooms need plenty of bass traps and other acoustic treatment to hear accurately. Of course, they also need good speakers. Good acoustic treatment can be had for only a few hundred bucks if someone is willing to put in the effort to research what is needed, then buy the materials and make their own. Buying high quality commercial treatment is more like $1,000 and up, and $3,000 isn't uncommon for really good results. But they should spend that much on speakers too! As I see it, the following is a reasonable allocation of funds to make a one-person project studio that's good enough that the only limitation is that of the engineer and not the gear or monitoring. Assuming a decent size room in a quiet part of the house: Computer: $2 to $3k Speakers: $2 to $3k Room treatment: $1 to $3k Small format mixer for mic pres and monitor control: $500 to $1,000 8-input Delta 1010t: $200 Software such as SONAR or Logic etc including basic plug-ins: $700 Microphones: $500 to $5,000 Accessories like mic stands and cables: $500 --Ethan

at what point does the expense outweigh the returns? Around $100 per channel IMO. --Ethan

don't make it random. There are ways to calculate the placement of different sizes of wood so that you get even, predictable diffusion. Exactly. Also see my video All About Diffusion, about halfway down the list on the RealTraps Videos page. --Ethan

My budget is about $1000 ... Ethan, if you read this, I like what I've read about your products but it's too expensive for me. Not a problem! I often send people to GIK when they're on a budget. I'm good friends with Glenn Kuras, and he has "bang for the buck down" down to a science. --Ethan

Get rockwool slabs, mount in frames (likely wood, I dont have much in the way of metalworking tools), wrap in some fabric, put across corners, as shown in the realtraps site? Yes, that will help a lot. --Ethan

RealTraps are supposed to be good and the company head, Ethan, often posts here. Thanks for the plug. As it happens I just posted a new video showing how my partner Doug treated his basement home studio: The Ultimate Home Studio --Ethan

Folks, Fletcher is hardly a hack! He and I may disagree on the science some times, but Fletcher is a very talented recording engineer. I've been to his studio and heard his work, and it's outstanding. Fletcher is also one of the funniest people I've ever met. --Ethan

. I don't disagree, and I was careful to point out in my article that we didn't even try to assess the microphones for recording music. I did record music with that Nady microphone a few times and it was "fine." But again I don't disagree with your main premise when "best" is the goal. In the context of the OP, I got the feeling $9,000 or even $2,750 is out of the question. --Ethan

why are they so pricey? Simple - because some people are willing to pay that much. 20 years ago you had to pay a lot to get a good microphone. Today they're a commodity item. I recently compared ten small-diaphragm condenser microphones ranging in price from $40 to almost $2,000, and the $40 Nady had a similar response as the most expensive model. I won't say they're identical, but if you're not made of money it's a great value. In fact, most of the microphones had very similar responses. For large diaphragm microphones you can't go wrong with anything from audiotechnica. --Ethan

with a higher ratio, things will be compressed flatter. With an infinite ratio, all compressed signal will be pushed to the same level. Yes, but one very important thing is missing from this discussion - release time, and to a lesser extent, attack time. I see compressors as serving two distinct needs: 1) As an automatic volume control to avoid overs, while affecting the sound as little as possible. 2) As an effect where the pumping sound and added sustain are the goal. For 1) you'll use a fast attack to avoid overs even on fast transients, but a slow release so the volume doesn't go up and down constantly which is what makes the pumping sound. In this case you could have 30 dB of gain reduction and never actually hear the compressor working. For 2) you want a fast attack and a relatively fast release. The faster the release time, the more aggressive the effect. "Aggressive" in the sense that distortion at low frequencies increases when both times are set fast. --Ethan

Sorry, not one of those things you listed has any useful acoustic properties. Why not just get materials that are known to work well? Rigid fiberglass is not that expensive. More here: Acoustics FAQ --Ethan

IMO, it's a usefull tool for forcing you to recognize the way that different chord inversions work together. Good point, and agreed. Though I'd rather see them just teach about inversions and not have to learn to actually read figured bass. --Ethan

Did you have to write out the figured bass notation, too? No - thankfully! I'm not a big fan of figured bass because it's not relevant today. Sort of like learning Latin. Yeah, yeah, I know Latin is useful - if you plan to enter spelling bees or go on Jeopardy. --Ethan

Particularly when you get to 4 tone chords. It all becomes very relative and tricky to figure out what chord you are looking at... Then I get further confused by the whole sus 2nd, add 2nd, or add 9. chord substitutions, passing tones the 'five of the five' etc.... This is exactly why I posted that music. Go ahead and print it out, then post (somehow) your best analysis of the chords at each quarter note. If we go back and forth a few times I guarantee you'll come out knowing more about this stuff than you started with. --Ethan

I second Ethan. Music theory is not some strange distant science but rather a pattern of musical trends and ways in which different pitches and different chords interact. I decided to put my scanner where my mouth is, so to speak. Here is the Back Chorale I mentioned earlier (175 KB GIF file) : Bach Chorale #8 Analyzing this piece was one of the most productive homework assignments I ever had in music school. The task is to identify every chord, understanding that the chords change at each quarter note. There are passing tones on many of the eight note beats, but they don't count for this assignment. So anyone who wants to learn harmony - and I mean really learn harmony - should download and print this out, then write the chord names (in pencil!) over each quarter note chord cluster. I wonder if I should start a new thread inviting folks to write the chords they hear at each beat, and upload their version for critique and further discussion? --Ethan

I don't trust my own judgement as to what sounds best, and I'm hoping someone might explain in easy to understand language how that all works. The following is not what you're asking, but it's the right answer anyway. Forget about automatic harmony generators and spend some time learning music theory. Learn to write proper harmony the old fashioned way. Learn about voice-leading. Study half a dozen Bach chorales (No. 8 is my favorite). The effort spent doing that will be 100 times more valuable than learning how to work the buttons on your harmonizer. --Ethan

somewhere between 1 and 2dB I agree is likely the limit absolute best case. This depends a lot on the acoustics of your listening environment. In a room that's treated properly to absorb all first reflections, you can hear much smaller changes in level, EQ, and panning than in an untreated room. I regularly make 0.5 dB adjustments in level and EQ, but this was not the case (years ago) before my room was well treated acoustically. --Ethan

Is it possible to define these terms with science or math? No, because "warm" is a subjective term, not a scientific term. Often it's a lack of high end, and especially less energy in the irritating harshness range around 2 to 4 KHz. You can also get some "warmth" by adding distortion, as diy guy said. Here's my take on this stuff: http://www.ethanwiner.com/edge.html --Ethan

It was Ethan Winer that pointed out that the bands in a graphic EQ are not shelving filters. Indeed, and I stand by that statement. --Ethan

He also does not understand that a 15-band graphic EQ is not a shelving equalizer. No. Some of these steps might be useful to a hobby job of mastering, but you have a pretty skewed method, overall. E.G., I don't know a single ME who would try to use a graphic eq for mastering.

Phil, Right. As I always say, "Small room ambience is always bad ambience." --Ethan

I just tested the low frequency response of my room using the Sonar project on the real trap web site. Damn, my room is terrible! Some frequencies just a few hertz apart have drastically different amplitudes. I will certainly be buying some more acoustic treatment very soon. There you go. Actually, those test tones are part of my secret plot to take over the world and cover every available surface with bass traps. --Ethan