• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Mix Engineer

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia

astr0b0y

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
273
Likes
201
Location
Melbourne Australia
Interesting stuff - didn't know Lewis and the boys were putting together this kind of content. Or is Awave not the producer of the videos?
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,834
Likes
16,496
Location
Monument, CO
Ages ago I was talking with one of the Columbia mastering engineers and showed him a review in an audiophile rag (probably TAS at that time). The reviewer was raving about how whatever it was he was reviewing conveyed the space of the hall etc. in the recording and he could tell it was such and such a place.... Best I knew, the track the reviewer was raving about was recorded in a studio. The engineer laughed and said yeah, that was all added later, dry from the studio, reverb and "space" added at the mastering board.

I've long said many folks would be shocked at what happens between mic and final release. Loved the whole "straight wire with gain" minimalist period when they didn't want extra devices in the signal path, neglecting the few millions already there.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
I think it conflicts with the notion that people cannot judge sound if the 'test' is 'sighted' - or maybe not. I can't help but wonder whether there is really much difference between the 37 vocal compressors he uses; whether it really matters what mic pre-amp he's using; whether it couldn't all be done digitally and sound exactly the same.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
I don't think there are digital models for all the analog gear everyone uses.
No, but does that analogue gear really make a difference? And if so, is it making the mix better, or just slightly different? The lesson of audio science is supposed to be that people hear what they want to hear - even recording engineers (about 49 minutes into the programme is the embarrassing bit - although it's all embarrassing really).
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
No, but does that analogue gear really make a difference? And if so, is it making the mix better, or just slightly different? The lesson of audio science is supposed to be that people hear what they want to hear - even recording engineers (about 49 minutes into the programme is the embarrassing bit - although it's all embarrassing really).

I see your point, but believe it goes a little too far.

From the listeners side, in a discussion with someone recently who complained good gear lacks air, space and a 3D quality his wonderful SETs provide. I told him those SETs were creating that. He said I had never heard good gear. He sent me three examples of recordings with good spatial content. One was a Chesky of which it was true. Two were skillfully processed highly artificial studio albums and once drenched in the space giving sound of SET sounded real to him. I pointed out how there was no possible real 3D by the nature of those two other recordings.

Though not a pro doing it for a living, doing my own recordings was highly instructive. It drove home the idea people have no idea how tremendous levels of processing go on in recordings of the last generation of time. It is so much that thinking a hundred miles of power wire from the power station are fixed by the last two meters of your special power cable seems much more plausible than to think the supreme purity of your system is important to get pristine sound quality from 99.999% of all recordings done in the last 20 years.

So saying the lesson of audio science is even recording engineers hear what they want to hear (which I actually agree with) is a too global and not the only lesson. There are real things people can and do hear, but too many miss when they have crossed the line into gray areas and further into areas where human perceptual differentiation is effectively impossible. It is related to the idea end line listeners know natural good sound quality when they hear it. The idea is a joke which keeps on giving. It keeps on giving because once you unknowingly cross that line the only limit to what you think is possible is your imagination.

How can you pick the most natural and accurate DAC by listening to a recording which at different times had complex varied compression applied at three different times along the way. Plus EQ 4 different times, plus limiting, plus sidechaining of various special effects and started life as a 24 channel multi-miked studio bit of music with many layers of dubbing on top. And 99% of available recordings are not even close to as simple as what I just described.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,384
Location
Seattle Area
No, but does that analogue gear really make a difference? And if so, is it making the mix better, or just slightly different? The lesson of audio science is supposed to be that people hear what they want to hear - even recording engineers (about 49 minutes into the programme is the embarrassing bit - although it's all embarrassing really).
In the case of dedicated effect/processing analog boxes, they obviously do. This is different than people who use a few analog system. Benefits of that system can be debated. That's not the case of this specific post production house.
 

tomelex

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
990
Likes
572
Location
So called Midwest, USA
You would think what you said is obvious, but once folks feel like they have special hearing and skills, there is no getting in the way of their fantasy. The recording and mix engineer decide what they think you will like, yes they can do some good work making instruments sound more real over recordings, they get credit for that, but it is in the end a recording, played back over an unrealistic (especially if stereo) sound replication system, that one should not attribute too much realism too. SET sound, for some, adds some interest to the two channel system. In no way is it super accurate, but many find it simply more musical a rendition of two channel recording playback, musical means they like the sound of the SET processing.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
From the listeners side, in a discussion with someone recently who complained good gear lacks air, space and a 3D quality his wonderful SETs provide. I told him those SETs were creating that. He said I had never heard good gear. He sent me three examples of recordings with good spatial content. One was a Chesky of which it was true. Two were skillfully processed highly artificial studio albums and once drenched in the space giving sound of SET sounded real to him. I pointed out how there was no possible real 3D by the nature of those two other recordings.
Also, competent playback produces "air, space and a 3D quality". Using a particular technology, like SETs, may help one get some of those qualities which are encoded in the recording come through more easily, but it's still the recording that's supplying the acoustic. When you can listen to a 1945 recording of a big band powering at full rev's, and pick up the subtle nuances of what the musicians are doing, and the echo clearly defining the location of the drum kit, way at the back of the room - it has to be a mighty clever amplifier to work out exactly what to do to create that 'effect'.

I consider that it is actually impossible to record without some "3D information" getting onto the "tape" - there are always clues there, no matter how dry the engineer tries to make it, and a revealing system displays it out before one.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
Also, competent playback produces "air, space and a 3D quality". Using a particular technology, like SETs, may help one get some of those qualities which are encoded in the recording come through more easily, but it's still the recording that's supplying the acoustic. When you can listen to a 1945 recording of a big band powering at full rev's, and pick up the subtle nuances of what the musicians are doing, and the echo clearly defining the location of the drum kit, way at the back of the room - it has to be a mighty clever amplifier to work out exactly what to do to create that 'effect'.

I consider that it is actually impossible to record without some "3D information" getting onto the "tape" - there are always clues there, no matter how dry the engineer tries to make it, and a revealing system displays it out before one.


Nope you are completely off base here. The SET is creating these effects when none exists in the recording. I have described before using SS amps that display none of this. The recording does not have it. Put an SET or push-pull triode between source and SS amp input, and it all shows up just the same. There are no encoded qualities the SET gets better, because the SS amp wouldn't reproduce them if it were incapable. The SET is producing this effect.

I think you are also off base thinking 3D info gets on tape no matter what. You think that happens with a single microphone? The tremendous majority of recordings have only 1 microphone for most of the instruments and vocalists. The 1945 recording most likely had only one microphone for everything. How does 3D get onto that? The idea is a non-starter.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Nope you are completely off base here. The SET is creating these effects when none exists in the recording. I have described before using SS amps that display none of this. The recording does not have it. Put an SET or push-pull triode between source and SS amp input, and it all shows up just the same. There are no encoded qualities the SET gets better, because the SS amp wouldn't reproduce them if it were incapable. The SET is producing this effect.

I think you are also off base thinking 3D info gets on tape no matter what. You think that happens with a single microphone? The tremendous majority of recordings have only 1 microphone for most of the instruments and vocalists. The 1945 recording most likely had only one microphone for everything. How does 3D get onto that? The idea is a non-starter.
You did a single experiment, and you got a certain result. I have used a variety of systems, over decades and have got the results I mentioned. Without a SET or push-pull triodes being anywhere in sight. The information is on the recording, because when I change the recording the nature of the space perceived changes greatly, totally depending upon where and how the recording was done.

Our brains are highly trained to pick up clues about the location of things, we spend our whole lives using this ability. And a highly resolving systems allows all those clues to be apparent, and we interpret that to provide apparent locations for the sounds. The single microphone picks up all the echos which were created at the time of the 1945 recording, and that's enough information for our brains to decode; the image is very strongly layered front to back, any lateral location might be hard to argue, but one still gets a sense of some sounds not coming directly in front of one. What there is overwhelmingly a sense of, is that there is a big space behind the speakers where the musicians are performing, each in their own place.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Fas, you dont need a hifi, just continue using your vivid imagination.
Trouble is, my "vivid imagination" lets me down all the time :D - when I listen to other people's systems, and when mine hasn't been fiddled enough with - I have to keep stoking the fires of fantasy by imagining I'm using effective tweaks to get me there ...

;)
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
Trouble is, my "vivid imagination" lets me down all the time :D - when I listen to other people's systems, and when mine hasn't been fiddled enough with - I have to keep stoking the fires of fantasy by imagining I'm using effective tweaks to get me there ...

;)
You finally posted something that is true. However, I don't think you see the irony of that.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
You finally posted something that is true. However, I don't think you see the irony of that.
The irony, for me, is that nearly everyone still "doesn't get it" - I have come across systems that are competent; ones completely non-infected by any interaction from myself - and marvelled at their quality. Others have to, I've pointed to them understanding what I'm talking about - but the vast majority of audio people completely ignore the significance of this.
 

sofrep811

Active Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
253
Likes
319
This is an old thread, but I am amazed at the clarity and SQ I'm getting from my Audient iD14 Interface. Matched with several headphones--AT AD900X, Grado 325I, AKG K702, Beyer DT770 MODDED, and Shure SE315 in ear phones. Removed my well trusted Wavelength Brick out of the mix as it just didn't sound right. I could be doing something wrong, but for now I'll keep testing with ears.

**Apologies--I looked up "Audient" and this is the thread I got. Didn't want to start anything new over much ado about nothing.
 
Top Bottom