[Rwp] EQ, frequencies, spectrum analizers?

[Chris Belle]

Yeh, good spectrum tools would certainly be useful.
perception of energy levels is different depending on harmonic content 
and such,
what looks good might sound louder or softer depending on a number of 
factors so the last test is always the human ear and brain.


On 1/31/2016 12:17 PM, Juan Bello wrote:
> very interesting perspectives, guys. I always wondered how  you would
> get on by with this stuff. Everyone on the pro field does tell me too
> that it's all about the hearing and ears, highly important to have
> refference tracks for mixing so you know what you like versus what you
> are working on. Of course, I did the classic hearing test with the js:
> tone generator effect and found I could go from around 24 to around
> 17500 on my monitors. They being the Yamaha hs5 ones, apparently are
> not the best but at least good enough for this home room. A spectrum
> analizer with text results would have been very Handy, either .
>
> 2016-01-31 10:51 GMT-05:00, Chris Belle <cb1963 at sbcglobal.net>:
>> very true.
>> Well, I guess in that case, if you don't have any spectrum stuff you are
>> stuck using cans.
>> Fortunately, I have managed to keep things under control enough to make
>> it work, I have a pretty good room,
>> not perfect, but I spent a lot of money to get my two rooms as good as I
>> could.
>> My main problem is that I'm on a major street, so
>> these guys that think
>> everyone needs to hear their bass a half mile away are
>> a major contributor to distopia sonically, to say the least, but
>> if I get rich, I'm going to move out in the sticks,
>> to built studio version 2.
>> if i make it that far.
>> ha.
>>
>>
>> On 1/30/2016 2:16 AM, Justin wrote:
>>> thing is, while that works in most situations, what if the problem
>>> frequency is beyond the range of your hearing, either because it's
>>> sub-sonic or just too high to hear, particularly if you're recording
>>> at high sample rates or if you're just getting on in years.
>>>
>>> Plus spectrum analysers can provide a quick fix if you're using less
>>> than ideal equipment or working in a less than ideal listening
>>> environment.
>>>
>>> For example, if you're in a bad acoustic environment, frequencies may
>>> sound problematic that actually aren't because of standing waves,
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> On 30/01/2016 05:13, Chris Belle wrote:
>>>> I just use what ever material I want to fix.
>>>> Something that is muddy or has a problem frequency.
>>>> If you make a narrow q,
>>>> For instance  something like
>>>> re-eq,
>>>> then you set the q down low to something like 0.5 and then exagerate
>>>> the frequency
>>>> by tturning up the gain to a high value.
>>>> Then   you sweep the frequency up and down.
>>>> Any place you hit which has an abundance of a frequency will really
>>>> sonically stick out.
>>>> So then you can find your center point and pull it down to taste.
>>>> Nothing like using your ears.
>>>>
>>>> On 1/29/2016 6:46 AM, Juan Bello wrote:
>>>>> hi list.
>>>>>
>>>>> I finally got everything going again with this computer, including
>>>>> nice recording equipment so am all set and probably overly excited!
>>>>> But today the question is about mixing, and EQ. There is a very
>>>>> interesting article on Sonic scoop that talks about subtractive EQ.
>>>>> that is, you take out some evidently probelmatic EQ bands to improve
>>>>> the sounds of individual instruments. They suggest using a spectrum
>>>>> analizar but also a plug in that is able to isolate that problematic
>>>>> band so you can compare and ocntrast differences. Apparently boosting
>>>>> certain bands helps exaggerate or better identify the problema, and
>>>>> they also suggest starting with an EQ sweep, a term I am probably no
>>>>> too familiar with. So, now that i got that all of the way, what are
>>>>> recommended ways to do this from an accesible standpoint?
>>>>>
>>>>> also, is there a frequency, square or shine wave generator i can use
>>>>> to do the classic hearing test with the monitors i have?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thankful for all the list has done. I didn't find anything related
>>>>> when searching the archives, so this is why I am asking all of this
>>>>> pretty basic stuff.
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RWP mailing list
>>>> RWP at bluegrasspals.com
>>>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RWP mailing list
>>> RWP at bluegrasspals.com
>>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RWP mailing list
>> RWP at bluegrasspals.com
>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp
>>
>