Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 4:27:45 GMT -6
That’s pretty cool, I hadn’t thought to measure preamps... I mostly chose coloured/non-transparent outboard gear for my mastering chain (cos that's what most of my clients seem to want), so one of the first things I did was go through each piece and measure what it was doing frequency wise, just so I knew what I would need to do to get back to "really flat" again if needed. It's a good exercise! I also measured the vinyl chain (with a pink noise test tone record) to do the same thing, so I can use the EQs in their original manner, to "equalise" the frequency graph back to flat. It's always good to have a baseline to measure tweaks against etc.
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Jun 24, 2019 8:47:17 GMT -6
My TG2 gives about a 1dB slope rise from 5k to 20k. That seems likely. The Q Clone is not very high res when it comes to the graph it provides, so 1db still looks pretty flat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 9:58:47 GMT -6
Yeah that was zooming right in with a Pink Noise source, with SPAN (3dB slope to get it back "looking" flat again).
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Jun 24, 2019 12:30:40 GMT -6
At the risk of sounding like an old fart(which I'm not) old school engineer(also not that). Who cares. Long as it sounds good and does what you want, its the right tool. If it doesn't in that moment. Use a different one. So yes...as you said. Use your ears but could use Blue Cat Audios analyzer(free) and run pink noise into it and see what it does. I knew I’d get a “use your ears” comment. Just as sure as if you ask about a guitar pedal someone will say "it's all in the hands."
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 24, 2019 12:37:21 GMT -6
Why do you want to analyze what your hardware devices are doing? What's the purpose? Aside from it just being an interesting experiment?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 24, 2019 12:45:28 GMT -6
That’s pretty cool, I hadn’t thought to measure preamps... I mostly chose coloured/non-transparent outboard gear for my mastering chain (cos that's what most of my clients seem to want), so one of the first things I did was go through each piece and measure what it was doing frequency wise, just so I knew what I would need to do to get back to "really flat" again if needed. It's a good exercise! I also measured the vinyl chain (with a pink noise test tone record) to do the same thing, so I can use the EQs in their original manner, to "equalise" the frequency graph back to flat. It's always good to have a baseline to measure tweaks against etc. You do understand that you can't really equalize out the effects of a hardware device in the chain and that an analysis of the frequency response curve doesn't tell the whole story, especially when you're talking about the effects of transformers and the like on the signal, since there are a number of things that an EQ analysis won't tell you, right? So you can't really use EQ to "get back to flat."
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 26, 2019 0:18:19 GMT -6
Seemed a little confusing at first read, but I get what you are saying. It’s interesting because my tape deck right now is typically +/-2dB or more in the main parts of the frequency range, so it’s a dramatic change in sound, usually in a good way. But if I use a little EQ with plugin I can match its EQ shape to the source. For mastering this would be great, because let’s say you got the whole song dialed perfectly, but want some beefier lows that tape gives you. So you bounce to tape and back, bass is now good but the +/- 2dB curve changed the whole thing, maybe it’s not worth keeping? But then you have a plugin that can correct it, now its maybe is worth keeping?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 26, 2019 13:08:31 GMT -6
Seemed a little confusing at first read, but I get what you are saying. It’s interesting because my tape deck right now is typically +/-2dB or more in the main parts of the frequency range, so it’s a dramatic change in sound, usually in a good way. But if I use a little EQ with plugin I can match its EQ shape to the source. For mastering this would be great, because let’s say you got the whole song dialed perfectly, but want some beefier lows that tape gives you. So you bounce to tape and back, bass is now good but the +/- 2dB curve changed the whole thing, maybe it’s not worth keeping? But then you have a plugin that can correct it, now its maybe is worth keeping? As they say, Ears, not Eyes. If it sounds good it is good.
Adjusting EQ won't "correct" things like altered harmonic balance or phase based phenomena. The idea of using EQ to "match the sound" is often erroneous for this reason. It can be nice to know what you response curve is doing, especially for mastering, but it's not everything. OTOH, using your example, a part of the sound of tape is the head bump, which is measured as a boost.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jun 26, 2019 13:17:37 GMT -6
Care to explain why? It doesn't seem like a physical impossibility, and digital EQ can do many things that analog EQ can't.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 26, 2019 17:14:46 GMT -6
Care to explain why? It doesn't seem like a physical impossibility, and digital EQ can do many things that analog EQ can't. It would be a lot easier if I could draw you a picture or get screen shots of a scope trace, but I'll try.
EQ does not act on individual harmonics, it works across frequency ranges. Things that affect the harmonic content generated by a circuit affect the balance of the individual harmonics to each other. EQ doesn't - it just affects the balance between relatively broad frequency ranges, not the amounts of second, third, fourth, etc harmonics to each other.
You can't EQ an oboe to sound like a trumpet, or even a clarinet, because each retains its distinctive harmonic signature, even through the EQ. It's the same thing with transformers, circuits driven into nonlinear operating ranges (the obvious example being clipping, but that's an extreme case), many compression circuits, etc, etc, etc. It's why you can't EQ an SM57 to sound like a U47 - or a U47 to sound like a C12.
Even if you did have an EQ that was precise enough to pick out individual harmonics of a given note it wouldn't have the same effect on another note because the individual harmonics of the new note would be at different frequencies.
Does that help?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 26, 2019 18:10:35 GMT -6
Thats a pretty good explanation. And it makes sense in that if something is revoiced, it now sounds different. So when you try to match it back to the original sound, it can get there but its really trying hard to be something its naturally not. (Can average person do a pee wee herman voice? probably) But if you follow and go along with what it naturally wants to be, seems to work better. And no way can the original get EQ'd to that new place and win. This is pretty relevant to me right now, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 26, 2019 19:44:33 GMT -6
Think about it this way. When you reverse a 550A from boost to cut the same components are in the circuit, only reversed. So the EQ transfer function is exactly inverse. But... you have two trips through the unit, and it will not be a perfect undoing, because all of the THD added has been added twice.
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Jun 29, 2019 18:25:45 GMT -6
Why do you want to analyze what your hardware devices are doing? What's the purpose? Aside from it just being an interesting experiment? For me, it's a little bit interesting experiment, but also an interest in seeing if I can get one piece of gear to do something similar to what a different one is doing and then needing to know what to do to get there, if that makes sense. So, for example, I like the resonant HPF on my Warm 273EQ and often will run bass through it to get that combination of hpf and boost at the cutoff frequency. However, sometimes I'm not super crazy about the way it affects the signal in other frequency ranges/find it a bit grainy for the part I am going for. Until analyzing it, I didn't know exactly how much of a boost it was giving at that frequency, how tight a Q, how sharp a rolloff below that point, etc. Now that I know that, I can use a dedicated EQ or digital EQ to do just the resonant HPF without the other effects I sometimes don't really want. Similar thing for my tape echo. It sounds great but sometimes I don't want the full drastic EQ effect it imparts. By chaining that with a curvebender and analyzing, I was able to figure out what I need to do on the curvebender to get the tape echo eq relatively flatter. Conversely, I also figured out how to mimic the Tape Echo EQ much more easily with the curvebender if I want the opposite (the eq effect without the echo/saturation itself). etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 29, 2019 19:18:21 GMT -6
Why do you want to analyze what your hardware devices are doing? What's the purpose? Aside from it just being an interesting experiment? For me, it's a little bit interesting experiment, but also an interest in seeing if I can get one piece of gear to do something similar to what a different one is doing and then needing to know what to do to get there, if that makes sense. So, for example, I like the resonant HPF on my Warm 273EQ and often will run bass through it to get that combination of hpf and boost at the cutoff frequency. However, sometimes I'm not super crazy about the way it affects the signal in other frequency ranges/find it a bit grainy for the part I am going for. Until analyzing it, I didn't know exactly how much of a boost it was giving at that frequency, how tight a Q, how sharp a rolloff below that point, etc. Now that I know that, I can use a dedicated EQ or digital EQ to do just the resonant HPF without the other effects I sometimes don't really want. Similar thing for my tape echo. It sounds great but sometimes I don't want the full drastic EQ effect it imparts. By chaining that with a curvebender and analyzing, I was able to figure out what I need to do on the curvebender to get the tape echo eq relatively flatter. Conversely, I also figured out how to mimic the Tape Echo EQ much more easily with the curvebender if I want the opposite (the eq effect without the echo/saturation itself).etc. etc. So exactly why do you need the numbers? Do you hear with your eyes?
If you're ever going to develop your crtitical listening you need to give up the visual crutch and learn to trust your ear.
As far as the echo box goes, without knowing what it actually is, you need to understand that just knowing what the frequency curve is won't give you the whole story, as a good deal of the tone likely comes from the harmonic distortion it generates which probably has more to do with the actual tonality than the frequency curve. You also need to understand that you can't use EQ to add on what isn't there in the first place, which is often the case with tape echos that have not been maintained properly (which most have not, these days.) And if you try to mimic the response curve of the unit with EQ you're missing a good deal of what makes a tape echo sound like tape. And a good part of the tone of the tape echos I've used is the compression effect that happens when you hit the tape hard.
If your tape echo is a quality unit and you find it imparting a "drastic EQ" it probably needs service.
And why would you want to take a lot of effort to get a piece of gear mimic another piece of gear when you have the original gear? Seems a waste of time and effort to me.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 29, 2019 22:49:31 GMT -6
For me, it's a little bit interesting experiment, but also an interest in seeing if I can get one piece of gear to do something similar to what a different one is doing and then needing to know what to do to get there, if that makes sense. So, for example, I like the resonant HPF on my Warm 273EQ and often will run bass through it to get that combination of hpf and boost at the cutoff frequency. However, sometimes I'm not super crazy about the way it affects the signal in other frequency ranges/find it a bit grainy for the part I am going for. Until analyzing it, I didn't know exactly how much of a boost it was giving at that frequency, how tight a Q, how sharp a rolloff below that point, etc. Now that I know that, I can use a dedicated EQ or digital EQ to do just the resonant HPF without the other effects I sometimes don't really want. Similar thing for my tape echo. It sounds great but sometimes I don't want the full drastic EQ effect it imparts. By chaining that with a curvebender and analyzing, I was able to figure out what I need to do on the curvebender to get the tape echo eq relatively flatter. Conversely, I also figured out how to mimic the Tape Echo EQ much more easily with the curvebender if I want the opposite (the eq effect without the echo/saturation itself).etc. etc. So exactly why do you need the numbers? Do you hear with your eyes? If you're ever going to develop your crtitical listening you need to give up the visual crutch and learn to trust your ear. As far as the echo box goes, without knowing what it actually is, you need to understand that just knowing what the frequency curve is won't give you the whole story, as a good deal of the tone likely comes from the harmonic distortion it generates which probably has more to do with the actual tonality than the frequency curve. You also need to understand that you can't use EQ to add on what isn't there in the first place, which is often the case with tape echos that have not been maintained properly (which most have not, these days.) And if you try to mimic the response curve of the unit with EQ you're missing a good deal of what makes a tape echo sound like tape. And a good part of the tone of the tape echos I've used is the compression effect that happens when you hit the tape hard. If your tape echo is a quality unit and you find it imparting a "drastic EQ" it probably needs service.
And why would you want to take a lot of effort to get a piece of gear mimic another piece of gear when you have the original gear? Seems a waste of time and effort to me.
I get that...but not all of us are screaming at clouds lol. I think I want to know so I can make it repeatable without having to wonder what the hell I used. I get what you’re saying, but it’s a convenience thing...I mean who wants a price of gear with 10 unlabeled knobs. They label them for convenience. And confidence.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 29, 2019 23:16:03 GMT -6
So exactly why do you need the numbers? Do you hear with your eyes? If you're ever going to develop your crtitical listening you need to give up the visual crutch and learn to trust your ear. As far as the echo box goes, without knowing what it actually is, you need to understand that just knowing what the frequency curve is won't give you the whole story, as a good deal of the tone likely comes from the harmonic distortion it generates which probably has more to do with the actual tonality than the frequency curve. You also need to understand that you can't use EQ to add on what isn't there in the first place, which is often the case with tape echos that have not been maintained properly (which most have not, these days.) And if you try to mimic the response curve of the unit with EQ you're missing a good deal of what makes a tape echo sound like tape. And a good part of the tone of the tape echos I've used is the compression effect that happens when you hit the tape hard. If your tape echo is a quality unit and you find it imparting a "drastic EQ" it probably needs service.
And why would you want to take a lot of effort to get a piece of gear mimic another piece of gear when you have the original gear? Seems a waste of time and effort to me.
I get that...but not all of us are screaming at clouds lol. I think I want to know so I can make it repeatable without having to wonder what the hell I used. I get what you’re saying, but it’s a convenience thing...I mean who wants a price of gear with 10 unlabeled knobs. They label them for convenience. And confidence. Yes, repeatability can be a very important thing. That's why god created china markers in various colors.
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Jun 29, 2019 23:32:09 GMT -6
For me, it's a little bit interesting experiment, but also an interest in seeing if I can get one piece of gear to do something similar to what a different one is doing and then needing to know what to do to get there, if that makes sense. So, for example, I like the resonant HPF on my Warm 273EQ and often will run bass through it to get that combination of hpf and boost at the cutoff frequency. However, sometimes I'm not super crazy about the way it affects the signal in other frequency ranges/find it a bit grainy for the part I am going for. Until analyzing it, I didn't know exactly how much of a boost it was giving at that frequency, how tight a Q, how sharp a rolloff below that point, etc. Now that I know that, I can use a dedicated EQ or digital EQ to do just the resonant HPF without the other effects I sometimes don't really want. Similar thing for my tape echo. It sounds great but sometimes I don't want the full drastic EQ effect it imparts. By chaining that with a curvebender and analyzing, I was able to figure out what I need to do on the curvebender to get the tape echo eq relatively flatter. Conversely, I also figured out how to mimic the Tape Echo EQ much more easily with the curvebender if I want the opposite (the eq effect without the echo/saturation itself).etc. etc. So exactly why do you need the numbers? Do you hear with your eyes?
If you're ever going to develop your crtitical listening you need to give up the visual crutch and learn to trust your ear.
As far as the echo box goes, without knowing what it actually is, you need to understand that just knowing what the frequency curve is won't give you the whole story, as a good deal of the tone likely comes from the harmonic distortion it generates which probably has more to do with the actual tonality than the frequency curve. You also need to understand that you can't use EQ to add on what isn't there in the first place, which is often the case with tape echos that have not been maintained properly (which most have not, these days.) And if you try to mimic the response curve of the unit with EQ you're missing a good deal of what makes a tape echo sound like tape. And a good part of the tone of the tape echos I've used is the compression effect that happens when you hit the tape hard.
If your tape echo is a quality unit and you find it imparting a "drastic EQ" it probably needs service.
And why would you want to take a lot of effort to get a piece of gear mimic another piece of gear when you have the original gear? Seems a waste of time and effort to me.
Actually, I do have mixed sensory experience with sound and vision. I have synesthesia and my brain thinks almost totally in images when it comes to sound. So, to me, knowing what a sound "looks" like on a scope or eq graph may not represent what it actually looks like to me, but it does help me understand what is happening in a way that might not be the same for you. I hear eq differences as a color and shape, primarily, but it does not look like an eq curve at all. This is how all my guitar pedals were designed. Visually, by listening. And yes, of course, the tape echo has a lot going on that is not the eq curve. However, it is quite interesting to me to see that curve and know how to create it in other ways because sometimes I want something like it that is not as severe or is just sort of like it without being literally that. I don's see how it's a bad thing to see what is happening there. It certainly is not in full repair (it's a 60s Dynacord and sounds a bit wobbly) but I would not dare "fix" it because it runs properly and sounds great for what i want it to do. However, the unit literally also has an EQ stack that causes the curve in dry mode as well. It has a single tone knob on each of its 4 inputs that are something like a big muff type eq as I have learned by looking at the graph and turning the knobs. Why would it be bad to know this? I don't really see why you're against it. You'd prefer I just bumble around guessing at EQ points for who knows how long to figure out what it is (probably less accurately) instead of actually seeing what is going on?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 30, 2019 12:13:35 GMT -6
So exactly why do you need the numbers? Do you hear with your eyes?
If you're ever going to develop your crtitical listening you need to give up the visual crutch and learn to trust your ear.
As far as the echo box goes, without knowing what it actually is, you need to understand that just knowing what the frequency curve is won't give you the whole story, as a good deal of the tone likely comes from the harmonic distortion it generates which probably has more to do with the actual tonality than the frequency curve. You also need to understand that you can't use EQ to add on what isn't there in the first place, which is often the case with tape echos that have not been maintained properly (which most have not, these days.) And if you try to mimic the response curve of the unit with EQ you're missing a good deal of what makes a tape echo sound like tape. And a good part of the tone of the tape echos I've used is the compression effect that happens when you hit the tape hard.
If your tape echo is a quality unit and you find it imparting a "drastic EQ" it probably needs service.
And why would you want to take a lot of effort to get a piece of gear mimic another piece of gear when you have the original gear? Seems a waste of time and effort to me.
Actually, I do have mixed sensory experience with sound and vision. I have synesthesia and my brain thinks almost totally in images when it comes to sound. So, to me, knowing what a sound "looks" like on a scope or eq graph may not represent what it actually looks like to me, but it does help me understand what is happening in a way that might not be the same for you. I hear eq differences as a color and shape, primarily, but it does not look like an eq curve at all. This is how all my guitar pedals were designed. Visually, by listening. And yes, of course, the tape echo has a lot going on that is not the eq curve. However, it is quite interesting to me to see that curve and know how to create it in other ways because sometimes I want something like it that is not as severe or is just sort of like it without being literally that. I don's see how it's a bad thing to see what is happening there. It certainly is not in full repair (it's a 60s Dynacord and sounds a bit wobbly) but I would not dare "fix" it because it runs properly and sounds great for what i want it to do. However, the unit literally also has an EQ stack that causes the curve in dry mode as well. It has a single tone knob on each of its 4 inputs that are something like a big muff type eq as I have learned by looking at the graph and turning the knobs. Why would it be bad to know this? I don't really see why you're against it. You'd prefer I just bumble around guessing at EQ points for who knows how long to figure out what it is (probably less accurately) instead of actually seeing what is going on? Very interesting. Synesthesia, eh? That certainly puts a different "light" on things!
I remember those old Dynacords. They certainly are a somewhat quirky sort of tape echo, kinda like a Klemt Echolette but different. What are the heads like?
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Jun 30, 2019 12:44:26 GMT -6
Actually, I do have mixed sensory experience with sound and vision. I have synesthesia and my brain thinks almost totally in images when it comes to sound. So, to me, knowing what a sound "looks" like on a scope or eq graph may not represent what it actually looks like to me, but it does help me understand what is happening in a way that might not be the same for you. I hear eq differences as a color and shape, primarily, but it does not look like an eq curve at all. This is how all my guitar pedals were designed. Visually, by listening. And yes, of course, the tape echo has a lot going on that is not the eq curve. However, it is quite interesting to me to see that curve and know how to create it in other ways because sometimes I want something like it that is not as severe or is just sort of like it without being literally that. I don's see how it's a bad thing to see what is happening there. It certainly is not in full repair (it's a 60s Dynacord and sounds a bit wobbly) but I would not dare "fix" it because it runs properly and sounds great for what i want it to do. However, the unit literally also has an EQ stack that causes the curve in dry mode as well. It has a single tone knob on each of its 4 inputs that are something like a big muff type eq as I have learned by looking at the graph and turning the knobs. Why would it be bad to know this? I don't really see why you're against it. You'd prefer I just bumble around guessing at EQ points for who knows how long to figure out what it is (probably less accurately) instead of actually seeing what is going on? Very interesting. Synesthesia, eh? That certainly puts a different "light" on things!
I remember those old Dynacords. They certainly are a somewhat quirky sort of tape echo, kinda like a Klemt Echolette but different. What are the heads like?
Yeah, it's sort of hard to explain...but also useful...and also sometimes a pain in the ass. I wish I was a more skilled visual artist. I could probably paint it or something. Anyway, yeah I have a couple of the old Dynacord Super 65s. They have a really interesting sound, I think. Very "dreamy" and diffuse, but sit well in a mix. Very pleasant saturation as well, if you want it, and I sometimes use the unit dry for that kind of thing. They are multi-head with 3 playback heads and a "reverb" mode as well as two speeds. I like using heads 1+3 a lot and doing a couple passes for a bit of an ADT-ish effect. Heads seem to be in fine shape. One of them is more like a backup unit/source of parts maybe down the road if disaster strikes.
|
|
|
Post by audioscape on Jul 2, 2019 20:47:18 GMT -6
Totally OT sorry, but Synesthesia has always been a HUGE fascination of mine...
Since the effect(s) seems to differ fairly drastically for each individual, I oft wonder if what I see in my head while listening to/using a piece of gear or mixing is actually synesthesia? I've always told myself it's not simply because I equate synesthesia to some type of hallucinogenic experience; what I see is nothing like that.
Mostly happens when using/dialing in a compressor ;-)
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Jul 2, 2019 21:38:33 GMT -6
Totally OT sorry, but Synesthesia has always been a HUGE fascination of mine... Since the effect(s) seems to differ fairly drastically for each individual, I oft wonder if what I see in my head while listening to/using a piece of gear or mixing is actually synesthesia? I've always told myself it's not simply because I equate synesthesia to some type of hallucinogenic experience; what I see is nothing like that. Mostly happens when using/dialing in a compressor ;-) That's interesting that it mostly has to do with compression. Anyway, I wouldn't say that it's a generally hallucinogenic experience for me, although on a couple occasions I have literally seen a kind of pink-orange color creep into the edge of my actual vision when playing a modulated deluxe memory man. For some reason that is the color that particular effect has for me. Some people do have a type of synaesthesia where they literally see colors and shapes in their vision. For me, it's more like a "mind's eye" experience. I can "see" it, but it doesn't interfere with my regular eyesight. I also have what is called the number form version to an extent. That is when numbers appear in space compared to one another. For some reason I have this very strongly with days. For instance, Monday is to the right of Tuesday for me and the days proceed right to left for some reason. However Months and Years are the opposite direction. January is left of February. 1995 is left of 1998, etc. This actually makes me terrible at mental.math because my brain tries to essentially hop around in some sort of numberline-like visual fashion if you ask me to add something. It's very slow because I basically don't have a purely abstract number concept. The same is sort of true for sound in a way, so I don't really experience pure sound. But this actually seems to be a benefit. However it does make me super hate some records because they "look" terrible to me. The Soft Bulletin and most Steely Dan albums are good examples of that problem.
|
|
|
Post by askomiko on Jul 3, 2019 2:43:26 GMT -6
Fascinating stuff. I think Sibelius was quoted saying that C-major is red, D yellow, and F was green for him.
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Jul 3, 2019 18:08:10 GMT -6
Fascinating stuff. I think Sibelius was quoted saying that C-major is red, D yellow, and F was green for him. That's interesting. I don't have that experience, myself, but I know some people do. For me it's like...harmonic content (like different instruments' timbre and overtones) rather than pitch that makes a difference.
|
|
|
Post by nudwig on Aug 27, 2019 16:37:13 GMT -6
Thankful for you guys reminding me about Q Clone. Going to have a pair of 1081's to play with tomorrow on this project I'm working on. Figure I might as well grab some curves while I'm printing through them.
|
|
|
Post by audioscape on Aug 27, 2019 17:27:15 GMT -6
Totally OT sorry, but Synesthesia has always been a HUGE fascination of mine... Since the effect(s) seems to differ fairly drastically for each individual, I oft wonder if what I see in my head while listening to/using a piece of gear or mixing is actually synesthesia? I've always told myself it's not simply because I equate synesthesia to some type of hallucinogenic experience; what I see is nothing like that. Mostly happens when using/dialing in a compressor ;-) That's interesting that it mostly has to do with compression. Anyway, I wouldn't say that it's a generally hallucinogenic experience for me, although on a couple occasions I have literally seen a kind of pink-orange color creep into the edge of my actual vision when playing a modulated deluxe memory man. For some reason that is the color that particular effect has for me. Some people do have a type of synaesthesia where they literally see colors and shapes in their vision. For me, it's more like a "mind's eye" experience. I can "see" it, but it doesn't interfere with my regular eyesight. I also have what is called the number form version to an extent. That is when numbers appear in space compared to one another. For some reason I have this very strongly with days. For instance, Monday is to the right of Tuesday for me and the days proceed right to left for some reason. However Months and Years are the opposite direction. January is left of February. 1995 is left of 1998, etc. This actually makes me terrible at mental.math because my brain tries to essentially hop around in some sort of numberline-like visual fashion if you ask me to add something. It's very slow because I basically don't have a purely abstract number concept. The same is sort of true for sound in a way, so I don't really experience pure sound. But this actually seems to be a benefit. However it does make me super hate some records because they "look" terrible to me. The Soft Bulletin and most Steely Dan albums are good examples of that problem. That is absolutely, stunningly interesting..... I know exactly what you mean, oddly enough. I think it's a hard phenomena to quantify in words... very difficult. And yes, oddly enough it happens when dial in compressors. It's like I can "see" the envelope in my "mind's eye" as you said, it's not like I'm seeing it with my actual eyes as a hallucination. It's somehow "above my head" but I can "see' right into it. Fast attacks look crunched up and very nasty looking, while slower attacks look smooth.... it's SUPER hard to explain but I definitely sense something extra-sensory going on.... The human brain is something special indeed.... ANYHOW, back on track. Apart from an actual quality scope/hardware analyzer, I do quite like DDMF's Plugindoctor for testing the FREQ response and harmonics of analog gear. I've never really used it for plug-ins except for times when we're debugging a hardware piece and I want to see what the dev's using SPICE, etc. are doing in their emulations. Most are very boring when analyzing them compared to the hardware which is infinitely more complex in every way, hahaha.
|
|