Re: [LAD] Digital Effects

[Federico Galland]

> For Vocals, the reverb is distracting and stops me from concentrating on 
> micromanaging my voice (which is not great to start with and could use 
> all the help it can get).

It probably also thickens the timbre of your voice as an appropiate room 
acoustics would do, wouldn't it?

>For particularly challenging material a double 
> Scotch helps too, reinforcing the distracting aspect of the reverb.

Haha.

> For my instrument parts reverb or echo multiplies the tiniest of 
> mistakes and therefore I concentrate a lot harder on not making them, 
> leaving the actual playing to motor memory. My motor memory plays a lot 
> better than my conscious process.

Tuning time domain effects to the tempo of the song has a huge impact for me 
too. It really reinforces the rhythm for me (I've agreed on this with many 
friends).

I plass the bass guitar, and my instrument is quite crappy, but I always peak 
compress it, even for studying. A long attack time (circa 100ms) and a somewhat 
longer release (circa 250ms) lets the onset of the plucking go through 
(saturating my speaker just a little bit) before compressing the whole thing, 
making the sound thicker. If I need to go for a fast part, I lower the release 
time a bit.
I feel I improved my playing a lot since I started doing this. It also helps 
when playing with drummers who play loud.

A side effect on this is that your ears and brain get tired quicker of the 
drowning bass sound.



___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Digital Effects

[Brad Campbell]

On 22/08/14 23:57, t...@trellis.ch wrote:

On Fri, August 22, 2014 17:39, Harry van Haaren wrote:


If the bass player recording with comp & eq also *hears* that, as
opposed to hearing it without compression... then perhaps they'll play
"better" and it'll be easier to mix.



this is an interesting side-aspect indeed that goes beyond the generic
rec/play/fx fx/rec/play question.
Having the musician hear processed audio doesn't mean it has to be
recorded with FX though. It asks for a tight system (i.e. the
delay/latency of the processed audio is below the threshold of what is
acceptable by player).
I think what is sent to the musician must no be necessarily be the same
that is being recorded.


I'm a musician. I also do a lot of recording.

One thing I told years ago by a gnarled old recording engineer was 
always put plenty of reverb into the vocalists monitor. I took this 
on-board and while I always record may parts as dry as is practical, I 
always have plenty of FX in the monitor. I find it makes me sing better 
and play better/cleaner.


I've analysed this a lot over the years and I can see two reasons.

For Vocals, the reverb is distracting and stops me from concentrating on 
micromanaging my voice (which is not great to start with and could use 
all the help it can get). For particularly challenging material a double 
Scotch helps too, reinforcing the distracting aspect of the reverb.


For my instrument parts reverb or echo multiplies the tiniest of 
mistakes and therefore I concentrate a lot harder on not making them, 
leaving the actual playing to motor memory. My motor memory plays a lot 
better than my conscious process.



___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Digital Effects

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 16:39 +0100, Harry van Haaren wrote:
> I'll add a note that if looping the playback output, using the 1st
> option the FX must constantly processes. Option 2 has the FX "recorded
> in", which means the FX chain doesn't use CPU.

Unfortunately this is a very important advice!

Assumed the digital effects are part of the studio in the box, the
computer's horsepower seems to be much too important.

Currently I make a song using a digital LFO controlled bandpass from 19"
gear, Qtractor insert out -> sound card ADAT to analog -> analog in
digital effect analog out -> analog to ADAT sound card -> Qtractor
insert in. Assumed I could use all ADAT channels, I would use more
external digital effects. JFTR, for me the computer's horsepower isn't
an issue, but external digital effects often are much better than the
available Linux plugins. YMMV!

On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 13:36 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I had the pleasure of mixing for KISS back in the later '70's

I remember 15 years ago there were a few fashions, it was chic to e.g.
use "The Boiler" ( http://www.ridgefarmindustries.com/bprod.htm . I
suspect that at the same time the visual vintage design was used for
computer plugins too. It's strange that they until today tend to use
faked old gear, make vintage looking GUIs and often they use real old
gear. No successful Rockband comes without Orange amps, Vox AC30 etc.,
unfortunately they produce their Rock music, often recorded in old
analog studios, using real Mellotrons etc., in the same way all the
mainstream pop music is produced.

Using less compressors, or at least carefully using the compressors
would be welcome. When I was young I had not the money to buy or build
compressors myself, later compressors were available and nowadays I try
to work without compressors again, that's the luxury we have, if we
don't make a living from music and audio engineering. When I learned
audio engineering one of the most important rules was: If people are
able to hear the compressor, you didn't use it correctly.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Digital Effects

[tom]

:)
/me likes anecdotes

On Fri, August 22, 2014 19:36, Gene Heskett wrote:

> And there is nothing that assaults ones ears more than someone who thinks
>  he has to have a room thumping bass line, sets it so the axe and drums
> are about +20 db, then runs it all thru a fast compressor, "ducking" the
> rest of the music in time with the bass.
>
> I had the pleasure of mixing for KISS back in the later '70's, when they
> were fairly new, and had stopped into KIVA-TV on a steamy labor day and
> offered to do a few hours of music for Jerry's Kids as they weren't due
> for the next show, someplace in Texas till the next evening.  I purposely
>  set the axe and drums to be maybe 3 db above the rest of it.  I taped
> about 5 minutes of it as it went to air and invited Gene to come listen
> on our cheap control room monitor when that set was over, which he did
> intently for about 4 minutes without a comment, but as the tune was
> winding down he said that was the best "amateur" recording he had heard
> so far.
>
> Our compressor at the time was one of the best, a CBS Labs Audimax.  It
> kept us legal, but it took a well trained ear to detect that it was
> actually doing anything.  I was so impressed by its general invisibility
> that every place I went for the next 30 years soon had one of those
> replacing whatever the latest sound wrecker was installed by some gung ho
>  previous "engineer". When I took the position at WDTV, I was in the GM's
>  office 2 days later pleading for money to go buy a used one, the then
> brand new DBX-165 that had been installed 3 weeks earlier pumped and
> breathed so bad I compared it to the bedroom sounds from the night
> before. The girl that did all the CG work said it reminded her of why they
> spelled sex es ee ex, because no one could spell uh, uh UH, UH
> ,UGH,UGaaaw.
>
>
> Strange, the things an old fart remembers. :)
>
>
> Today the only other compressor I'd bolt into the audio rack would be an
> Orban.  But weld a cover over the controls so the Program Director can't
> try to "make it louder".  He'll make it louder yes, and get you cited for
> overmod, and cost your station 5 points in the next ratings book because
> ears get tired of that crap quickly & the dial gets turned to something
> less obnoxious, a death sentence in a multi-station market.  BTDT.
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett
> --
> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
> soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt
> (Author)
> Genes Web page 
> US V Castleman, SCOTUS, Mar 2014 is grounds for Impeaching SCOTUS
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>
>


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Digital Effects

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 22 August 2014 11:35:34 t...@trellis.ch did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On Fri, August 22, 2014 16:35, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 04:12:12PM +0200, t...@trellis.ch wrote:
> >> is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same
> >> result?
> >> 
> >> (digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) ->
> >> (result)
> >> 
> >> 
> >> (digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) ->
> >> (result)
> > 
> > In both cases the (record),(playback) pair cancels out, so the
> > result should be the same.
> 
> Ok.. consequently if a mixing person says, "i'm recording the bass with
> compression and eq, it just makes a better overall mix compared to
> applying after recording" it can be looked at as rubbish (in the
> digital domain).
> 
> Thanks,
> Tom
> 
And there is nothing that assaults ones ears more than someone who thinks 
he has to have a room thumping bass line, sets it so the axe and drums are 
about +20 db, then runs it all thru a fast compressor, "ducking" the rest 
of the music in time with the bass.

I had the pleasure of mixing for KISS back in the later '70's, when they 
were fairly new, and had stopped into KIVA-TV on a steamy labor day and 
offered to do a few hours of music for Jerry's Kids as they weren't due 
for the next show, someplace in Texas till the next evening.  I purposely 
set the axe and drums to be maybe 3 db above the rest of it.  I taped 
about 5 minutes of it as it went to air and invited Gene to come listen on 
our cheap control room monitor when that set was over, which he did  
intently for about 4 minutes without a comment, but as the tune was 
winding down he said that was the best "amateur" recording he had heard so 
far.

Our compressor at the time was one of the best, a CBS Labs Audimax.  It 
kept us legal, but it took a well trained ear to detect that it was 
actually doing anything.  I was so impressed by its general invisibility 
that every place I went for the next 30 years soon had one of those 
replacing whatever the latest sound wrecker was installed by some gung ho 
previous "engineer". When I took the position at WDTV, I was in the GM's 
office 2 days later pleading for money to go buy a used one, the then 
brand new DBX-165 that had been installed 3 weeks earlier pumped and 
breathed so bad I compared it to the bedroom sounds from the night before.  
The girl that did all the CG work said it reminded her of why they spelled 
sex es ee ex, because no one could spell uh, uh UH, UH ,UGH,UGaaaw.

Strange, the things an old fart remembers. :)

Today the only other compressor I'd bolt into the audio rack would be an 
Orban.  But weld a cover over the controls so the Program Director can't 
try to "make it louder".  He'll make it louder yes, and get you cited for 
overmod, and cost your station 5 points in the next ratings book because 
ears get tired of that crap quickly & the dial gets turned to something 
less obnoxious, a death sentence in a multi-station market.  BTDT.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 
US V Castleman, SCOTUS, Mar 2014 is grounds for Impeaching SCOTUS
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Digital Effects

[tom]

On Fri, August 22, 2014 17:39, Harry van Haaren wrote:
>
> If the bass player recording with comp & eq also *hears* that, as
> opposed to hearing it without compression... then perhaps they'll play
> "better" and it'll be easier to mix.
>

this is an interesting side-aspect indeed that goes beyond the generic
rec/play/fx fx/rec/play question.
Having the musician hear processed audio doesn't mean it has to be
recorded with FX though. It asks for a tight system (i.e. the
delay/latency of the processed audio is below the threshold of what is
acceptable by player).
I think what is sent to the musician must no be necessarily be the same
that is being recorded.

>
> HTH, -Harry
>
>
> PS: There's a lot of studio guides that mention slightly compressing a
> monitor mix to artists.. I find it interesting to read about the settings,
> and wether to send some reverb or not too.. :)
>

Thanks, i have to read up in one of these guides :)


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Digital Effects

[Harry van Haaren]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 3:12 PM,   wrote:
> is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same result?
> (digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) -> (result)
> (digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (result)

I'll add a note that if looping the playback output,  using the 1st option
the FX must constantly processes. Option 2 has the FX "recorded in",
which means the FX chain doesn't use CPU.

Of course, this "advantage" of 2 has a disadvantage: you can't change the
FX settings anymore, and certain time varying FX like Flangers and
Phasers might not "line-up" if the speed of the Flanger doesn't match
the loop duration.

(new mail just in from Tom:)
> "i'm recording the bass with compression and eq, it just makes a better 
> overall mix compared to
applying after recording" it can be looked at as rubbish
Yes totally: assuming the audio the player hears is identical
regardless of settings: musicians generally perform slightly
differently if they hear a compressed version of their instruments
sound.

If the bass player recording with comp & eq also *hears* that, as
opposed to hearing it without compression... then perhaps they'll play
"better" and it'll be easier to mix.

HTH, -Harry

PS: There's a lot of studio guides that mention slightly compressing a
monitor mix to artists.. I find it interesting to read about the
settings, and wether to send some reverb or not too.. :)
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Digital Effects

[tom]

On Fri, August 22, 2014 16:35, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 04:12:12PM +0200, t...@trellis.ch wrote:
>
>> is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same
>> result?
>>
>> (digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) ->
>> (result)
>>
>>
>> (digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) ->
>> (result)
>>
>
> In both cases the (record),(playback) pair cancels out, so the
> result should be the same.
>

Ok.. consequently if a mixing person says, "i'm recording the bass with
compression and eq, it just makes a better overall mix compared to
applying after recording" it can be looked at as rubbish (in the digital
domain).

Thanks,
Tom


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Digital Effects

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 04:12:12PM +0200, t...@trellis.ch wrote:

> is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same result?
> 
> (digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) -> (result)
> 
> (digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (result)

In both cases the (record),(playback) pair cancels out, so the
result should be the same.

-- 
FA

A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Digital Effects

[gordonjcp]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 04:12:12PM +0200, t...@trellis.ch wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same result?
> 
> (digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) -> (result)
> 
> (digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (result)
> 
> regards
> Tom

Only if the recording and playback process are exactly lossless.

-- 
Gordonjcp MM0YEQ

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

[LAD] Digital Effects

[tom]

Hi,

is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same result?

(digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) -> (result)

(digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (result)

regards
Tom

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev