How much can you hear ?

PaulBrewer

I've been mucking about in my bedroom with Da Rig and as mentioned in another thread, can't hear a thing clearly below about 500 Hz .

How much can YOU hear ?

Is a 1dB change at 100Hz audible ?

Can you hear a .2 second change in reverb time within a mix ?

Can you hear a few degrees pan change ?

Does a 3db difference in compression come across ?

Not in Tullamore it doesn't !

progsound

Not as much as id like :cool:

henessjon

hum .. for me this is the real world

even if I could I wouldnt know it?

do you trust your ears ?

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I've been mucking about in my bedroom with Da Rig and as mentioned in another thread, can't hear a thing clearly below about 500 Hz .

How much can YOU hear ?

Is a 1dB change at 100Hz audible ?

Can you hear a .2 second change in reverb time within a mix ?

Can you hear a few degrees pan change ?

Does a 3db difference in compression come across ?

Not in Tullamore it doesn't !

Would those slight nuances make that much difference to the final outcome?

progsound

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Would those slight nuances make that much difference to the final outcome?

Yup - in the context of professional mixes anyways

PaulBrewer

henessjon wrote: »

hum .. for me this is the real world

even if I could I wouldnt know it?

do you trust your ears ?

I do!

But not the sound that's getting to them at the moment.

I'm thinking about building an Edit/Mix Room in Tullamore at the moment.

It will be an 'average' room 12' x 9' x 8' with some treatment designed by Munro Acoustics.

It'll be interesting to hear how good it turns out - or not!

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Would those slight nuances make that much difference to the final outcome?

Oh yes. I would argue they're not that slight.

There's a video of Trevor Horn about somewhere (perhaps on RecordProduction.com?) where says that if you can hear what's going on, you can't take risks.

If you can't hear what's going on then you are effectively guessing - and straight away you're at a disadvantage against a guy who can.

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Oh yes. I would argue they're not that slight.

There's a video of Trevor Horn about somewhere (perhaps on RecordProduction.com?) where says that if you can hear what's going on, you can't take risks.

If you can't hear what's going on then you are effectively guessing.

Thanks Paul and Prog,

Back to Bono Vox for me so.

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Thanks Paul and Prog,

Back to Bono Vox for me so.

Any of us can only hear what our ears can hear .... and can't really do anything about that.

However one can make improvements to that sound to get the most out of the lugs !

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Any of us can only hear what our ears can hear .... and can't really do anything about that.

However one can make improvements to that sound to get the most of the lugs !

Tell me more, I'm all ears (or not).

How do you mean Paul?

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Tell me more, I'm all or ears (or not).

How do you mean Paul?

Well, in my experience you mix to what you hear, not illogically.

So, if your ears are saying to you 'I can't hear the bass well' you turn it up (or EQ it) until you can. On a sub standard monitor/room setup this may not translate out of the room(or even that part of the room!)

Similarly if your room is 'too dead' you might add more reverb ... or less if a room is 'too live'.

But if you monitors and room are 'right' then the decisions you make aren't being coloured negatively by you room/monitors.

This kicks in from tracking onwards - all those small incremental adjustments one makes along the way are like tiny rudder adjustments on the Barge of Rock to keep you down the middle, instead of hopping off the bank.

So the 1dB here and there ARE important AND you can hear their impact in a well tuned system.

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Well, in my experience you mix to what you hear, not illogically.

So, if your ears are saying to you 'I can't hear the bass well' you turn it up (or EQ it) until you can. On a sub standard monitor/room setup this may not translate out of the room(or even that part of the room!)

Similarly if your room is 'too dead' you might add more reverb ... or less if a room is 'too live'.

But if you monitors and room are 'right' then the decisions you make aren't being coloured negatively by you room/monitors.

This kicks in from tracking onwards - all those small incremental adjustments one makes along the way are like tiny rudder adjustments on the Barge of Rock to keep you down the middle, instead of hopping off the bank.

So the 1dB here and there ARE important AND you can hear their impact in a well tuned system.

That makes perfect sense.

Thanks Paul.

artvandulet

I've always thought that 3dB was the minimum discernible difference in volume.
Anything less, the average joe won't notice.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

artvandulet wrote: »

I've always thought that 3dB was the minimum discernible difference in volume.
Anything less, the average joe won't notice.

some peeps can hear 0.5 db changes or better - golden eared peeps .

but say you make 1 db boost at 100 hz on a kick drum ( maybe by a medium / narrow q boost at 80 hz )

and say later you do the same on the bass, and on the guitars

suddenly you have 3 or more db boost of 100 hz in the mix , and figuring out where and why is the issue

so being able to hear the change as you try to fix this ( assuming good room and monitors ) is all down to your ears.

also

i find plugin eqs need to be cut or boosted alot more than the hardware versions to get the same effect - anyone else notice this ?


now - all this aside - is there a case for mastering people and studio engineers to provide hearing certs to prospective clients to assure they are getting good ears ?
i mean studios list equipment and monitors etc out the ying yang - maybe they also need to certify their ears ?

krd

"Hearing" is very subjective.

There is a technical aspect; but hearing back what you've done alone in your bedroom by yourself... in front of other people, is a completely different experience.

Stuff that sounded crap can sound really good - and the stuff you put so much effort into can sound like crap.

It's like - as I'm learning - judicious use of EQ can make anything sound even and ready for play on the radio - but you loose that roughness - the surprises

Paul Brewer has a mountain to climb - everything he produces is like a porn film he's starring in. He doesn't want to expose himself. So Paul, keeps giving us soft porn instead of hardcore.

Paul....take off your underpants and show us your penis...I know it's not a pleasant site; but you've just got to do it. Otherwise; on your tombstone there'll be the epitaph: Paul Brewer lies here. Producer and engineer on countless forgettable Irish indie rock recordings. Let him lie in peace - as he never caused a disturbance in his entire life - let him continue in death .. to not disturb or leave a disturbance in his wake.

Paul.... stop hiding behind frequencies and dB.

dav nagle

krd wrote: »

"Hearing" is very subjective.



Paul....take off your underpants and show us your penis..

Interesting point

PaulBrewer

artvandulet wrote: »

I've always thought that 3dB was the minimum discernible difference in volume.
Anything less, the average joe won't notice.

We're not talking about the average Joe though are we ?

PaulBrewer

krd wrote: »

"Hearing" is very subjective.

There is a technical aspect; but hearing back what you've done alone in your bedroom by yourself... in front of other people, is a completely different experience.

Stuff that sounded crap can sound really good - and the stuff you put so much effort into can sound like crap.

It's like - as I'm learning - judicious use of EQ can make anything sound even and ready for play on the radio - but you loose that roughness - the surprises

Paul Brewer has a mountain to climb - everything he produces is like a porn film he's starring in. He doesn't want to expose himself. So Paul, keeps giving us soft porn instead of hardcore.

Paul....take off your underpants and show us your penis...I know it's not a pleasant site; but you've just got to do it. Otherwise; on your tombstone there'll be the epitaph: Paul Brewer lies here. Producer and engineer on countless forgettable Irish indie rock recordings. Let him lie in peace - as he never caused a disturbance in his entire life - let him continue in death .. to not disturb or leave a disturbance in his wake.

Paul.... stop hiding behind frequencies and dB.

You what ?

Are Aldi selling cheap wine again this weekend ?

PaulBrewer

DaDumTish wrote: »

is there a case for mastering people and studio engineers to provide hearing certs to prospective clients to assure they are getting good ears ?
i mean studios list equipment and monitors etc out the ying yang - maybe they also need to certify their ears ?

That wouldn't work as hearing naturally deteriorates over time - the most experienced people don't have the top frequencies that a 20 year old have..... but have the experience.

Take myself - a man of my age should be able to hear 14.5k. Luckily as I've been aware of minding my lugs I still can.

I'm sure there are many guys my who have 'worse' hearing than me who still make great records.

If only life was that simple ...

krd

PaulBrewer wrote: »

You what ?

Are Aldi selling cheap wine again this weekend ?

I don't shop at Aldi. Tesco had these little French beers on offer. I have sense enough not to drink Vin de Paintstripper.

henessjon

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Well, in my experience you mix to what you hear, not illogically.

So, if your ears are saying to you 'I can't hear the bass well' you turn it up (or EQ it) until you can. On a sub standard monitor/room setup this may not translate out of the room(or even that part of the room!)

Similarly if your room is 'too dead' you might add more reverb ... or less if a room is 'too live'.

But if you monitors and room are 'right' then the decisions you make aren't being coloured negatively by you room/monitors.

This kicks in from tracking onwards - all those small incremental adjustments one makes along the way are like tiny rudder adjustments on the Barge of Rock to keep you down the middle, instead of hopping off the bank.

So the 1dB here and there ARE important AND you can hear their impact in a well tuned system.

yeah trial and error pretty much how i work

but i dont know where to look 1st
or why

experience i guess


so 7-8 hours week maybe 40 weeks a year


expect a good mix 2020


:-) just messin

krd

PaulBrewer wrote: »

That wouldn't work as hearing naturally deteriorates over time - the most experienced people don't have the top frequencies that a 20 year old have..... but have the experience.

Take myself - a man of my age should be able to hear 14.5k. Luckily as I've been aware of minding my lugs I still can.

I'm sure there are many guys my who have 'worse' hearing than me who still make great records.

If only life was that simple ...

Beethoven was deaf.

That is actually true. In his last years he used to use a block of wood between his chin and the piano to feel the vibration of the music in his jaw.


Does much above 14.5K really matter. Apart from giving you a splitting headache if you listen to it for too long at a high volume.

As you get older - you don't completely lose the ability to hear higher frequencies. They just become quieter - for some people very quite. There could be the danger of mixing highs too high, if your ears are too blunt.


I'm not sure what range it is - but somewhere well below 10k - maybe even 5k is where all the interesting stuff is happening. I'm not sure what the range is - all I know is it's lower much lower than 10k. I'm not sure exactly where it is, something like the range most girls voices are in. Or the range a violin, being played smoothly, is in.

MilanPan!c

For my money, as long as your hearing isn't DAMAGED and as long as you're comfortable with your speakers and do sanity checks on a wide variety of speakers, when you first start mixing, you'll achieve very decent results.

Practice and experience will obviously help.

But c'mon, we all know "pros" that suck at some stuff and amateurs that get amazing results.

Being able to afford top gear won't help you mix, and as Robin Ball showed us, there's NOT a HUGE difference between a mix that costs over a hundred grand and a mix with costs in the hundreds, if the engineer is talented and gives a ****.

At the end of the day, no one will be listening to the mix in the same environment it's mixed in and only a TINY percentage of folks listen on proper speakers any more anyway.

A good mix in a reasonably flat room, with reasonably flat monitors, made with attention to detail and passion will ALWAYS trump a disinterested, but expensive mix in a PERFECT room.

There's no reason to NOT strive for perfection, but that's not REALLY what makes songs popular or a success. That comes from good songs, good performances and mixes with the right personality for the music.

IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO

PaulBrewer

MilanPan!c wrote: »

very decent results.

That wouldn't be acceptable for many I'm afraid.

It's the search for better than decent I and many others here are interested in.

henessjon

does anyone remember the flying lizards - money thats what i want


that was made in a bedroom as far as i remember so theres hope



:rolleyes:

Rockshamrover

henessjon wrote: »

does anyone remember the flying lizards - money thats what i want


that was made in a bedroom as far as i remember so theres hope



:rolleyes:

As somebody once said "better to have a good idea done badly than a bad idea perfected"

MilanPan!c

PaulBrewer wrote: »

That wouldn't be acceptable for many I'm afraid.

It's the search for better than decent I and many others here are interested in.

Honestly, 95% of what I hear on the radio I would class as decent.

Look here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/

Absolutely nothing on this list would I call more than decent.

Nothing SPECTACULAR!

There's VERY LITTLE that's actually better than decent. If everything was amazing, then pretty much nothing is amazing...if you get my point. So aiming at "my decent" isn't such a bad thing. And like I said, even a spectacular mix doesn't mean much, if the song is ****e.

I would say, for instance, that the first proper Arcade Fire album, funeral, wasn't made in an acoustically perfect space, but how many has it sold? That goes for 99% of indie music I'd guess. In fact... I've been in some world-class studios and they weren't perfect... good, absolutely, but not perfect.

So, maybe it's just word choice.

For comparison:

What would you consider to be your absolute best mix PB?

Is it online?

PaulBrewer

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Honestly, 95% of what I hear on the radio I would class as decent.

Ah right ....:rolleyes:

PaulBrewer

henessjon wrote: »

does anyone remember the flying lizards - money thats what i want


that was made in a bedroom as far as i remember so theres hope



:rolleyes:

Where it's made doesn't matter - there's no reason why a bedroom can't sound good.
By 'good' I mean facilitating work that translates outside of it. My point is if you can't hear what's going on you're guessing.

I don't enjoy that experience.


That Flying Lizards record was a load of cock !

MilanPan!c

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Ah right ....:rolleyes:

So you think all the stuff on the radio is spectacularly mixed?

Really?

I find that suprising. I honestly do.

Cause I think most of it is pretty damn same-y.

Hardly anything makes me sit up and go, "wow!, what a mix, that's special". Does the stuff you hear on the radio make you do that, all the time?

It's an honest question.

PaulBrewer

MilanPan!c wrote: »

So you think all the stuff on the radio is spectacularly mixed?

.

Where did I say that ?

MilanPan!c

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Where did I say that ?

You quoted me saying that I found the vast majority of stuff on the radio is only decent and rolled your eyes.

The implication being that what I said was ridiculous.

So if it's ridiculous that the majority is only decent than what's the logical opposing position, one that wouldn't be ridiculous from your perspective?

If you don't specifically say what you mean I can only guess

krd

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Where it's made doesn't matter - there's no reason why a bedroom can't sound good.
By 'good' I mean facilitating work that translates outside of it. My point is if you can't hear what's going on you're guessing.

I don't enjoy that experience.


That Flying Lizards record was a load of cock !

You're always guessing. "Hearing" is a funny thing. Your mood or level of fatigue can really effect how you "hear" something. Even having someone else in the room listening back can really effect how you hear something. Stuff I've done that I thought sounded awful at the time - months later listening back to it sounds good to me - and stuff that I thought sounded good at the time sounds terrible.

The real trick to good mixing may not be in the physical hearing - but in knowing how your ears are playing tricks on you.

Educated guess work.

And there are really important questions like; Yeah it sounds great on good monitors - but it sounds ****e on laptop speakers. Or what does it sound like played through a TV. Or a car stereo.

Something like Smiths albums - when I first heard them was on degraded C60s - The important parts of the mix always came through. Hearing them on CD was a bit of a shock - A lot of the 80s sound could be down to what sounded good on C60. All though it's Luddite to say it, some albums sounded way better on tape than vinyl or CD - The opposite is also true.

MilanPan!c

A lot of that has to do with things being "mastered for CD".

A lot of good records were ****ed by the transfer process... completely.

Shockingly, some of the most well loved CDs, by collectors, are some of the very first CDs, back before people tried to be clever.

A good example would be the Beatles Abbey Road Toshiba Black Triangle... just the master tape onto the glass master... no trickery.... and it sounds amazing.

Look at Arcade Fire, their newest CD master was ripped from VINYL.

http://www.arcadefire.com/vinyl/

[scratches head]

PaulBrewer

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You quoted me saying that I found the vast majority of stuff on the radio is only decent and rolled your eyes.

The implication being that what I said was ridiculous.

So if it's ridiculous that the majority is only decent than what's the logical opposing position, one that wouldn't be ridiculous from your perspective?

If you don't specifically say what you mean I can only guess

I guess your mistake was using the word 'decent' - one of the definitions of which is 'adequate'.

And that's, not unreasonably, what I thought you meant.

MilanPan!c

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I guess your mistake was using the word 'decent' - one of the definitions of which is 'adequate'.

And that's, not unreasonably, what I thought you meant.

And that is exactly what I meant.

Most mixes you hear are adequate but not special.

Do you not agree?

Now, adequate to be on the radio is def different to adequate to be a demo, etc., but adequate for the radio != spectacular, to me.

Do you think that most mixes on the radio are "special"... And if so, what station do you listen to? Cause I gotta change the dial.

PaulBrewer

krd wrote: »

You're always guessing. "Hearing" is a funny thing. Your mood or level of fatigue can really effect how you "hear" something. Even having someone else in the room listening back can really effect how you hear something. Stuff I've done that I thought sounded awful at the time - months later listening back to it sounds good to me - and stuff that I thought sounded good at the time sounds terrible.

The real trick to good mixing may not be in the physical hearing - but in knowing how your ears are playing tricks on you.

Educated guess work.

And there are really important questions like; Yeah it sounds great on good monitors - but it sounds ****e on laptop speakers. Or what does it sound like played through a TV. Or a car stereo.

Something like Smiths albums - when I first heard them was on degraded C60s - The important parts of the mix always came through. Hearing them on CD was a bit of a shock - A lot of the 80s sound could be down to what sounded good on C60. All though it's Luddite to say it, some albums sounded way better on tape than vinyl or CD - The opposite is also true.

I think I've addressed you first point previously -

"Any of us can only hear what our ears can hear .... and can't really do anything about that."

'Good' to me is 'truthful' (referring to the monitoring chain) so something that sounds good on those WILL sound good on a laptop.

The Smiths are my favourite band (with The Jam!)

PaulBrewer

Speaking of The Smiths ...

Mike Joyce is standing in for Marc Riley this evening at 7pm on BBC 6Music.

krd

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I think I've addressed you first point previously -

"Any of us can only hear what our ears can hear .... and can't really do anything about that."

'Good' to me is 'truthful' (referring to the monitoring chain) so something that sounds good on those WILL sound good on a laptop.

The Smiths are my favourite band (with The Jam!)

The Smiths is a very interesting case.

Morrisey's singing style deliberately muffles the high end. It's not an accident. It's not him being unable to "sing". He's going for a mid tone and the same with Johnny Marr's guitar. It's not Stephen Street either. Street goes for a brittle high end; Shed Seven, Blur. (Though Delores Riordan's voice sounds so much better with the high end (her personality) lopped off).

The crispiest thing Street ever did with the Smiths was last night I dreamt That somebody loved me.

The "Brittle" sound is all very well when you hear it first - it sounds "exciting" - It works really well on radio. It doesn't sound good on repeated listens. Morrisey's voice sounds soothing, because he muffles the high end. The same with Elvis - who Morrisey is copying - doing his Manchester Elvis.

The thing with Morrisey - you know when you've had a rough day, year, life.. you can put him on and he will not assault you with "suck my corporate rock cock" cutting high end. Morrisey is there for when you need him - haven't had a dream, in a long time, see the life I've had...


The Jam - too much high end. All the Mod cons, awash with annoying crispy reverbs.

PaulBrewer

All Mod Cons was recorded in 1978 - so the reverb options would have been real rooms, plates and springs .

What version have you heard? A recent reissue

progsound

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Honestly, 95% of what I hear on the radio I would class as decent.

Look here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/

Absolutely nothing on this list would I call more than decent.

Nothing SPECTACULAR!

A lot of the stuff on that list is top dawg your not going to get much better tbh if your refering to the artists being nothing spectacular then fair enough.

Of course everyones taste is different and music is so subjective but i would personaly be describing Eminem's latest mix as a little better than decent, certainly light years ahead of anything i could produce.

MilanPan!c

progsound wrote: »

A lot of the stuff on that list is top dawg your not going to get much better tbh if your refering to the artists being nothing spectacular then fair enough.

Of course everyones taste is different and music is so subjective but i would personaly be describing Eminem's latest mix as a little better than decent, certainly light years ahead of anything i could produce.

Honestly, I think that Eminem mix is pretty crap.

In my opinion of course.

I know it's subjective and yeah, my standards are very high, but so much sounds cookie cutter to me.

It's rare for me to hear a mix that isn't essentially a producer replicating his previous work, vs a producer/engineer working with the song to create a sound that compliments the artist.

Maybe I'm a snob... It's just my opinion afterall.

progsound

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Honestly, I think that Eminem mix is pretty crap.

In my opinion of course.

I know it's subjective and yeah, my standards are very high, but so much sounds cookie cutter to me.

It's rare for me to hear a mix that isn't essentially a producer replicating his previous work, vs a producer/engineer working with the song to create a sound that compliments the artist.

Maybe I'm a snob... It's just my opinion afterall.

I guess if we all had the same opinion music would be very dull

MilanPan!c

progsound wrote: »

I guess if we all had the same opinion music would be very dull

I think most pop music is already pretty dull, so.

progsound

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think most pop music is already pretty dull, so.

Depends im loving the resurgance of a lot of the dance/electro stuff coming back into charts. Calvin Harris ect its a welcome break from all the solo acts with an acustic guitar we suffered through the last few years now that was dull anyways back OT me thinks

krd

PaulBrewer wrote: »

All Mod Cons was recorded in 1978 - so the reverb options would have been real rooms, plates and springs .

What version have you heard? A recent reissue

90s reissue.

Spring or plate can be made to sound brittle with compression.

One mixing trick I have learned in Ableton. If I have a master, (an MP3, CD track), if there's highs there in mix, I can boost them and compress them separately from the mids and lows, till they're shrill and crispy. To do the trick by hardware - you'd need to feed the track into three different EQs; a low, a mid and a high. You put a compressor on the output of each one - and boost or drop to your taste. As long as frequencies haven't been completely removed, you can take a muddy recording and make it sound sharp. If you want to take it further, you can throw a stereo exciting reverb on top of the high output.

jtsuited

multiband compression? hardly a trick to be fair.

krd

jtsuited wrote: »

multiband compression? hardly a trick to be fair.

Yeah well it was a trick to me, until I learned how to it.

A simple question, most people hit early on in home recording; How do you unmuddy a mix. And the answers you get are "Oh you need to record everything through a €3,500 Snoggenspiele condenser mic, through an SSD desk, back out through a Knave console, out to a Shlitzenheizen DI box and back into the Knave. THE ONLY WAY. Forget about learning how to do it - come down to my studio with your band and I'll do it all for you. Forget about learning how to do it yourself - it takes 30 years to learn how to use a tone knob - you have to learn to "mix with your mind" - "

Then I do the Ableton tutorial a few months back (I've been avoiding DAWs like the plague up to recently) And there it was - a straight forward method to clarify a sound or a mix - no magic, just a method. Each time you practice the better you get. I could probably do it with a hardware portostudio, now I know how it's done.

And there are a few more "tricks" I don't know yet - but I will eventually. But the rubbish you hear from people is unreal. A kid comes on a board and asks "how do I do a mash up" and an arsehole comes on and says "Oh, you'll need an MPC and...a 303" and the arsehole has probably never seen either.

Jesus, it's like asking a tosser DJ for the name of a track, or a an Irish trad fiddler for the name of the tune, they've just played and they give that arsehole face look and say they don't know - and then you find out it's something as common as dish water. And they're just being cnuts. I swear, if I ask someone a question, in the flesh, and they prick me about like that again - I am going to give them one of the soundest most wholesome slap abouts they've ever had in their entire lives.

Now, anyone like to tell me how to deal with instruments' EQ ovelaps.

jtsuited

yeah tis true krd. The bullsh1t thrown at noobs is ridiculous regarding equipment on the inerwebs.

In saying that, multiband compression is dodgy pretty much all the time (depending on what style of music you work in though). If someone can get their mixes sounding good without the need for it, they'll be far better for it.

jtsuited

krd wrote: »

Now, anyone like to tell me how to deal with instruments' EQ ovelaps.

hi pass and lo pass stuff to the extreme and then work backwards.
simples.

MilanPan!c

jtsuited wrote: »

yeah tis true krd. The bullsh1t thrown at noobs is ridiculous regarding equipment on the inerwebs.

In saying that, multiband compression is dodgy pretty much all the time (depending on what style of music you work in though). If someone can get their mixes sounding good without the need for it, they'll be far better for it.

Lot's of those hot shot mastering guys seem to use the technique, if not the software equivalent.

I wouldn't use it on a full mix, but it's kinda cool on some instruments... for effect.