The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #91  
Old 08-02-2017, 08:04 PM
FrankHudson FrankHudson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
Ha that's pretty funny

On the serious side here is a modern studio specifically designed around some interesting vintage gear. And while not for everyone, it is interesting.

at about 16:00 he makes some interesting observations of some of the differences in technique between a modern recording and vintage recording and there is a bit of music also

Really enjoyed that video, thanks for posting it!

Really made me think about less being more sometimes. All to easy to add just one more thing or process to "make it better."
__________________
Parlando - Where Music and Words Meet
-----------------------------------
20th Century Seagull S6-12, S6 Folk, Seagull M6
'00 Guild JF30-12, '01 Martin 00-15, '07 Parkwood PW510
Epiphone Biscuit resonator, Merlin Dulcimer, and various electric guitars, basses....
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-03-2017, 08:10 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 11,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran Guidry View Post
I think it's pretty well established that this is not a realistic expectation, and with digital audio double blind testing is not logistically challenging, the tools are available and free to anyone who is already recording audio.
Actually " not realistic" is not "well established", particularly in "audio testing" .
Unfortunately you are confusing audio testing with medical group testing results analysis ( where it has been established that bias on part of the person conducting the tests and analysing the results has a " Possibility" of influencing the outcome of the "evaluation" of the results. BUT that has literally nothing to with the logistics of how audio blind tests are conducted.
In audio testing no . Actually what has been established in the field of "audio testing", is that single blind testing can be very effective in evaluating differences So in terms of what I was "actually talking about", it is a perfectly realistic and reasonable expectation.

I did not say ABX was logistically challenging. I was observing that for "audio testing" it holds marginal value if any over blind testing ( with the caveat that the software you linked, does allow one to do blind testing by themselves, which is why I stated " Yes the link for the ABX test software is helpful thanks "

ALSO NOTE:
I see that I left out ABX in my last sentence and realize that might be confusing what I was attempting to say.
It should have read : So while ABX blind testing is no doubt a very good exercise and I would encourage it, it may not quite be the panacea be all to end all, that some believe it to be.

Here is another good link and an excerpt excerpt:http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_index.php This sight has numerous very informative tests


A "blind test" is a method of testing in which the people being experimented on have no idea about what they're getting. This test method prevents results from being influenced by any prior information. In the field of Audio, blind tests truly highlight what a listener is able to hear.

In the so-called ABX blind listening test, the listener has access to three sources: A and B are the references, X is the mystery source. X can be A or B. When the listener says that X is A, and that X is actually A, it doesn't prove anything yet: flipping a coin achieves the same result half of the time anyway. This is why we provide the listener with many trials to determine if the number of correct answers is statistically significant.


Quote:
The kind of detailed comparison I'm talking about can't be done across different samples. Besides the focus issue, audio memory is too transitory.
Exactly what I was saying we agree


Quote:
Since we're talking about someone evaluating equipment for their own recording efforts, if the person is unable to listen critically to a comparison, either due to lack of experience or hearing issues or both, how will they evaluate their recordings? How will they know when they have the magic microphone and the perfect preamp? What do you suggest as a solution?

Fran
That's sort of a good question and one would assume that taking the time to learn to listen critically is probably the solution. As far hearing issues obviously they can only evaluate what they can hear (if it is significant high end loss they may never be able to hear (SOME) of what the better mic's may bring to the table) non the less learning to listen critically in the range they can hear again would seem to be the logical solution. But in neither of those cases case is ABX going to make a difference over single blind .

Obviously there is no "magic" mic or preamp. There are only mediocre , adequate , good, better, and excellent. And ultimately the determination of these is subjective . Which returns us to the OP for which the answer is " it depends"
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...


KevWind at Soundcloud

Last edited by KevWind; 08-03-2017 at 05:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-03-2017, 11:01 AM
Ty Ford Ty Ford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1,333
Default

"Since we're talking about someone evaluating equipment for their own recording efforts, if the person is unable to listen critically to a comparison, either due to lack of experience or hearing issues or both, how will they evaluate their recordings? How will they know when they have the magic microphone and the perfect preamp? What do you suggest as a solution?

Fran"

'Persactly!!! There's another problematic issue. If you wrote the song or have been singing it over a long period of time, you know the words. You can hear them when they are buried deeply in a mix. As a result, you have a tendency to not mix the vocals loud enough so that others who don't know the lyrics can actually hear them.

in another example of "What Happened There?" I'm reminded of the first Pure Prairie League LP. I don't know the history of that LP, but the HF are way too bright. How Come? It almost sounded like a dolby tape was not decoded.

Regards,

Ty Ford
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-03-2017, 12:41 PM
Timothy Lawler Timothy Lawler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
here is a modern studio specifically designed around some interesting vintage gear. And while not for everyone, it is interesting.

at about 16:00 he makes some interesting observations of some of the differences in technique between a modern recording and vintage recording and there is a bit of music also

That was fantastic.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-03-2017, 12:47 PM
ac ac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,610
Default

Brings a question to mind: There's probably no standard, but shouldn't recording engineers be required to post hearing test results . . . say, maybe yearly? Maybe this should be required in the industry standards--if there are standards for this industry. Likely there are none as it seems to be as much art as technical knowledge.

Ears and their critical position in the recording chain never occurred to me until looking through this thread. I suspect recording artists never think about this or that who ever is doing and mixing their recordings might be in fact handicapped by hearing loss as the their years progress.

I wonder how often something like this happens in the recording industry? Someone becomes famous for recording/mixing the Beatles, for example, 30 years later they've lost a significant portion of their hearing--as will happen to most people--but they still work and produce because they are famous, and no one notices the changes in what they produce over time because the changes are so gradual.

There must be some controls in place. Otherwise, I suppose it's just up to the singer/artist themselves to complain that they feel a final mix sounds "off".

Anyway, after all the talk of the equipment and various levels of cost and perfection, the most critical equipment--the human ear--seems to get a pass with no further testing or controls needed.

I'm suddenly seeing the entire recording industry through new eyes, or maybe new ears! :-)

Great posts in this thread. I realize now that I personally don't really need to worry about the highest end equipment. My ears are not bad, but after seeing my test results, I know they are not even close to what they were when I was 25. I've lost a lot of the high frequencies, especially at low volumes.

I can't imagine what my final mixed version of anything would sound like to a teenager with good ears after I compensated at the mixing board to make it sound good to my damaged ears. Perfect for me--not so much for a consumer, for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-03-2017, 03:56 PM
jim1960 jim1960 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ac View Post
Brings a question to mind: There's probably no standard, but shouldn't recording engineers be required to post hearing test results . . . say, maybe yearly? Maybe this should be required in the industry standards--if there are standards for this industry. Likely there are none as it seems to be as much art as technical knowledge.
I really hope that's an attempt at humor.
__________________
Jim

2017 Circle Strings 00 bastogne walnut/sinker redwood
2015 Circle Strings Parlor shedua/western red cedar
2009 Bamburg JSB Signature Baritone macassar ebony/carpathian spruce
2004 Taylor XXX-RS indian rosewood/sitka spruce
2002 Taylor 814ce Limited cocobolo/sitka spruce (for sale in classified section)
1988 Martin D-16 mahogany/sitka spruce


SoundCloud link
Spotify
YouTube
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-03-2017, 05:12 PM
runamuck runamuck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,539
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ac View Post
Brings a question to mind: There's probably no standard, but shouldn't recording engineers be required to post hearing test results . . ..
The tests results are shown in the quality of their mixes, I believe. If their mixes aren't good they wouldn't last long.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-03-2017, 05:59 PM
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ac View Post
Brings a question to mind: There's probably no standard, but shouldn't recording engineers be required to post hearing test results . . . say, maybe yearly? Maybe this should be required in the industry standards--if there are standards for this industry. Likely there are none as it seems to be as much art as technical knowledge.

...
This reminds me of the stories about Leo Fender and the degree to which his designs got brighter as he got older and his ears lost HF sensitivity.

Fran
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-04-2017, 04:27 AM
ac ac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,610
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1960 View Post
I really hope that's an attempt at humor.
No attempt at humor. Serious questions that came to my mind from the thread.

A lot of thinking out loud, of course, but as I've thought about it more I realize music is far too subjective for there to be any standards for anything. The final product is art. So whoever is in the production chain is part of the art process--although almost all the credit usually goes to the primary artist.

Practically though, if I were a professional artist making millions, and my famous recording producer was 70 years old, for example, I might want to know just how well can he/she still hear?

On the other hand, if you are such an artist and you are always satisfied with the final mix the person produces, then that's that. Even if the studio producer was 90% deaf, it wouldn't matter. All that matters is the final product and how satisfied the original artist is---or maybe how many units sell.

There may come a time when a professional in this industry hearing declines, as happens with virtually everyone as they age. They will need to rely more an more on all the knowledge they have gathered over the years and pay greater attention to sound input and output levels---or finally, trust someone else for that final listen to confirm what they've produced. That final thing requires ears that can hear well--at least I would think so.

Like athletes past their prime, a professional can still be better than 99.9% of the average public for some years. Eventually, some top athletes do other things, often related to sports, but sometimes not.

Our physical bodies have limits and some types of work is more sensitive and reliant on physical capabilities than others. Until this thread, it just didn't enter my head that the physical attribute of hearing is what it is all about. I was swimming in my head in the ocean of technical info everyone was providing and really enjoying all the discussions--learning a lot.

Then the comment about hearing came . . . . and I realized my lack of knowledge of all things recording becomes minor in light of my age and decreasing ability to hear.

So while I wrote related to those in the field of recording and how this could affect them--not their knowledge--but application of all that knowledge in the final listening test, I was mainly reflecting on a bit of my own despair that regardless of equipment, I was lacking the "key" element of hearing needed to assure anything I did was actually enjoyable to anyone other than myself.

I do think someone with years of technical knowledge and long experience with known equipment could likely continue to produce at a high level using their technical experience, knowing what their equipment was capable of, etc.

This is not a perfect analogy, but Beethoven produced and directed long after he was deaf. Skill and experience is not thrown out the window when hearing fails.

But starting to record and mix later in life, like so many of us on the forum, without good hearing, that's another story. I'll can still try and still enjoy the process and using decent equipment, but I may now ask for more opinions on my final mixes than I would have before reading this thread. I don't make my living relying on my ears--and for me--that's a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-04-2017, 07:48 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 11,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ac View Post
I was mainly reflecting on a bit of my own despair that regardless of equipment, I was lacking the "key" element of hearing needed to assure anything I did was actually enjoyable to anyone other than myself.
It depends entirely on the extent of hearing loss . If it is the prototypical age related loss of the high frequencies (depending on range, if it is 14k and up for example ) it may not really have a significant effect on being able to play, record, and even mix music with good success.
Note also that the hearing loss discussion was more about not being able to hear a difference in only what better mic's might bring to table in the high end,
Which in no way would prevent being able to hear a difference and or the equality through the rest and bulk of the frequency range. Same thing with mixing.


Quote:
I do think someone with years of technical knowledge and long experience with known equipment could likely continue to produce at a high level using their technical experience, knowing what their equipment was capable of, etc.
A really good example is the George Martin & Son... Re-mix of Beatles music for the soundtrack for "Love" the Cirque du Soleil's Las Vegas show,
He was reported to have had high end hearing loss when mixing that album.





Quote:
But starting to record and mix later in life, like so many of us on the forum, without good hearing, that's another story. I'll can still try and still enjoy the process and using decent equipment, but I may now ask for more opinions on my final mixes than I would have before reading this thread. I don't make my living relying on my ears--and for me--that's a good thing.
Again it depends on how bad the loss is the bulk of the music is from about 200 Hz to about 14kHz
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...


KevWind at Soundcloud
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 08-04-2017, 01:02 PM
jim1960 jim1960 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ac View Post
No attempt at humor. Serious questions that came to my mind from the thread.
It seemed like you were taking a skill that results from a wealth of knowledge and experience and boiling it down to one variable: hearing. Your followup post was more realistic, so there's no need for me to ramble on too long about the issue. Suffice to say, I don't know any musicians who would weight the results of a hearing test above the product someone produces on a regular basis when it comes to choosing a mixer/producer. If a person's hearing loss was so significant as to be detrimental to their mixes, it would be obvious in the mixes.
__________________
Jim

2017 Circle Strings 00 bastogne walnut/sinker redwood
2015 Circle Strings Parlor shedua/western red cedar
2009 Bamburg JSB Signature Baritone macassar ebony/carpathian spruce
2004 Taylor XXX-RS indian rosewood/sitka spruce
2002 Taylor 814ce Limited cocobolo/sitka spruce (for sale in classified section)
1988 Martin D-16 mahogany/sitka spruce


SoundCloud link
Spotify
YouTube
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=