|
Post by svart on May 25, 2016 8:02:46 GMT -6
To me, the entire concept that a $149.00 LA2A plug in is just as good as the $3,500.00 hardware is the biggest snake oil of all. It is the result of the decline of overall music industry income and good graphical user interfaces, not some magical modeling revolution. There is no other industry in the world making a claim that a product that costs 96% less than another is just as good, or even "gets you almost all the way there".The ITB mixing trend is economic, not based on quality. And it is perpetrated by peddlers to fools who don't understand that hardware was used in the tracking phase of the so called "itb mixes", where most of the sound was sculpted. Let's face it, who wouldn't rather have a Neve and SSL console with the tracking and mixing done with hardware outboard patched in? We justify inferior substitutes because we cannot afford the real thing. Preach it, brother!
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 25, 2016 8:06:38 GMT -6
If you guys notice in my posts, I usually recommend a couple of brands that cost between $150 and $350, nothing wacky or pseudo scientific. . Above that cost you can still hear some differences, but I've found the law of diminishing returns kicks in around that price point. Considering the amount of time and money we spend on details, it might even be worth it for the peace of mind, but that's not at all why I pay attention to cabling, I've heard important differences between interconnects, (analogue and digital), and power cords, so I trust my ears and move on without dwelling on it.
Not bragging, but i've heard things a few world class Grammy award winning engineers and producers have missed on occasion, and I boldly had to stand my ground in the face of someone I respected who knew much more than me. They sheepishly acknowledged it, eventually. So I really do trust my ears if I notice something. I still need a lot of training in audio engineering though. I barely have a clue compared to some of the great producers and engineers I've been reading about in gear magazines, and some of the really talented cats right here.
Ragan, when I get a chance, I'll dig up an article or two, and send it your way, no time this minute. Also, when you asked "am I doing something wrong", the answer is no. What does happen is we've trained our ears to listen for many nuances, but need training to notice other things too. I've had audiophiles say, do you hear the "...", and I'l say no, not really. A couple of weeks pass, and I notice the "...", and I say damn, that's been there all along and I never noticed.
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 25, 2016 8:13:22 GMT -6
As an engineer who's job it is to focus on cables, transmission lines and signal integrity...
There is NO such thing as directional cable.
If currents can flow one direction through a transmission line, they can flow the other way in the exact same way..
let me show you the logical fallacy that is "directional cable"..
What is a sine wave?
It's a waveform defined by having a positive and negative repetitive cycle.
Now, what does that have to do with cables?
In most applications, the sine is zero crossing, due to the AC coupling inherent in most guitar amps, effects and other gear that is present to protect the gear from DC offset.
This means that the sine is going positive AND negative in relative currents..
In other words, the currents are flowing in BOTH directions along the cable, thus proving that direction-ality is FALSE.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 25, 2016 8:19:19 GMT -6
To me, the entire concept that a $149.00 LA2A plug in is just as good as the $3,500.00 hardware is the biggest snake oil of all. It is the result of the decline of overall music industry income and good graphical user interfaces, not some magical modeling revolution. There is no other industry in the world making a claim that a product that costs 96% less than another is just as good, or even "gets you almost all the way there".The ITB mixing trend is economic, not based on quality. And it is perpetrated by peddlers to fools who don't understand that hardware was used in the tracking phase of the so called "itb mixes", where most of the sound was sculpted. Let's face it, who wouldn't rather have a Neve and SSL console with the tracking and mixing done with hardware outboard patched in? We justify inferior substitutes because we cannot afford the real thing. The D/A conversion is the worst part of any digital chain by far [so now] I don’t go through any. I feel like I’m sonically gaining something by never coming out [of the box]. – Andrew Scheps (U2, Justin Timberlake, Green Day) ”
I wouldn’t be [mixing in the box] if it weren’t that for me at this moment my mixes sound better. When I started to send mixes [that were done in the box] to the clients and all I got back were normal mix notes, I knew that this would work. – Andrew Scheps (Beyonce, Ziggy Marley, Black Sabbath) ”
I am painfully aware of my legacy of quotes referring to mixing using analog equipment. That is how I mixed. For years. I was an evangelist for it; as much for the ergonomic, visceral workflow as the sonics. Now I mix ITB. It’s a completely different way of working. I still love mixing and try and make every mix I do super exciting and musical. – Andrew Scheps (Kid Rock, Our Lady Peace, Josh Groban) ”
But you're right.. he still records everything through his amazing preamps and gear. Which is why I am focusing on all tracking equipment. The recall of a mix ITB is the ultimate convenience. I also can't buy 4 eqp1a's, and 4 1176's, hell I can't afford 4 WA76's!
...you're quoting this guy right? Heh, heh... I think this part of his quote is really the most telling though, "When I started to send mixes [that were done in the box] to the clients and all I got back were normal mix notes, I knew that this would work." In the end, the general population probably won't know the difference between an ITB and an outboard mix, especially if the heavy lifting is done on the way in. The ergonomics can have positives from both directions though. The ease of recall from ITB and the tactile feel of hardware are probably the biggest deciding factors for how these guys are working. If this guy needs to pull up a hundred recalls for Bey, ITB is the only way to go if he wants to get other work done.
|
|
|
Post by kilroyrock on May 25, 2016 8:21:09 GMT -6
That picture is my new background, holy moly.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 25, 2016 8:24:58 GMT -6
I gotta pass on this story, I'm not sure if it relates to the topic, but it might, sideways.
I was 23 when my mother passed. I went to stay at my dad's home that year to keep an eye on him. I had the bottom half of the two family house. I met a smart, pretty girl, 21 years old. She moved in, and we were together for almost six years, we moved to Manhattan that year. Prior to moving in with me, she lived with her parents. So she was used to her mom picking up after her. She dropped a pair of dirty white socks on the floor, and they were smack in he middle of the doorway between the living room and kitchen, so you passed by a hundred times a day. I decided to wait and watch, because she didn't pick them up that day. Now I swear, two weeks later the socks were still there. Think on that for a minute.
I sat her down and had an honest discussion about it, pointed to the socks, and she became one of the best homemakers I've ever known, but it took that jolt of a reality check.
So the moral of the story is, just because we don't see it, or hear it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 25, 2016 8:37:09 GMT -6
Since Mr. Sheps loves his plugs so much, maybe he might consider donating one of his racks to the Butler Foundation for the Struggling Home Recordist.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,967
|
Post by ericn on May 25, 2016 8:41:35 GMT -6
Since Mr. Sheps loves his plugs so much, maybe he might consider donating one of his racks to the Butler Foundation for the Struggling Home Recordist. Those racks are his retirement plan!
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 25, 2016 8:45:16 GMT -6
That picture is my new background, holy moly. I like both Paul's places better. unit7 and nobtwiddler. ...guess we're going off topic though.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on May 25, 2016 8:59:43 GMT -6
Well no, of course not. It's the number of steps and the resolution at each step adding up.
That would seem similar to the argument we should all work at 44.1 or 48 since it's ending up there anyway. Sticking to my analogy with film, shoot large format negatives and keep at a larger size until final stage, you get higher end quality. Shoot standard 35mm and print small before duplicating, you've duplicated a low-res image.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 25, 2016 9:23:29 GMT -6
If you guys notice in my posts, I usually recommend a couple of brands that cost between $150 and $350, nothing wacky or pseudo scientific. . Above that cost you can still hear some differences, but I've found the law of diminishing returns kicks in around that price point. Considering the amount of time and money we spend on details, it might even be worth it for the peace of mind, but that's not at all why I pay attention to cabling, I've heard important differences between interconnects, (analogue and digital), and power cords, so I trust my ears and move on without dwelling on it. Not bragging, but i've heard things a few world class Grammy award winning engineers and producers have missed on occasion, and I boldly had to stand my ground in the face of someone I respected who knew much more than me. They sheepishly acknowledged it, eventually. So I really do trust my ears if I notice something. I still need a lot of training in audio engineering though. I barely have a clue compared to some of the great producers and engineers I've been reading about in gear magazines, and some of the really talented cats right here. Ragan, when I get a chance, I'll dig up an article or two, and send it your way, no time this minute. Also, when you asked "am I doing something wrong", the answer is no. What does happen is we've trained our ears to listen for many nuances, but need training to notice other things too. I've had audiophiles say, do you hear the "...", and I'l say no, not really. A couple of weeks pass, and I notice the "...", and I say damn, that's been there all along and I never noticed. I just meant am I doing the null test incorrectly because if I'm not, then anything else is irrelevant to me personally. As for high end power cables, like I said, the jury is out with me because I don't even understand what they're claiming. I want to know that first.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 25, 2016 9:28:18 GMT -6
Null testing: the subtle differences that can affect total sound can be indistinguishable without the right test gear. Many low level (sub-110dBFS) artifact differences (hum, total noise floor) will appear to null, and you certainly can't hear them in a null test by themselves, but will be clearly and obviously different when observed with the right tools. Noise floor as example, sometimes this is an obvious clarity difference. Can you elaborate on this? If there's a difference in noise floor and its more than 110db down, is that not the equivalent of standing in a rock concert and trying to hear an ant crawl across the floor? I honestly don't know. I'd like to know more about null testing, if there's more to know. But if we're talking noise floor differences that are more than 110db down, do you really think that's what people mean when they say "oh man, _______ cables is so much more punchy and the low end and really open up top!"?
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 25, 2016 9:29:11 GMT -6
I can't fathom using $200 power cables with all my gear. Probably $5k in additional expense right there.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 25, 2016 9:43:06 GMT -6
Try one or two primary pieces Jesse. Like a power amp or a tube preamp. I usually add things like power cords one at a time, so it adds up, but isn't really expensive one at a time. I can relate though, my stereo system has some sweet cables, my recording gear is mostly stock, or I switched from the $5 cord to a $15 cord I had sitting around. I would like to switch out the cords to my powered speakers, but can't afford to.
Ragan, I'll send you some info, just can't dig it up right now. Recently some new machines were invented that revealed distortions that were previously undetectable. It proved CD's are more distorted than vinyl, even though vinyl of course has its own distortions.
When Swurveman said, ""To me, the entire concept that a $149.00 LA2A plug in is just as good as the $3,500.00 hardware is the biggest snake oil of all. It is the result of the decline of overall music industry income and good graphical user interfaces, not some magical modeling revolution. There is no other industry in the world making a claim that a product that costs 96% less than another is just as good, or even "gets you almost all the way there".The ITB mixing trend is economic, not based on quality. And it is perpetrated by peddlers to fools who don't understand that hardware was used in the tracking phase of the so called "itb mixes", where most of the sound was sculpted.
Let's face it, who wouldn't rather have a Neve and SSL console with the tracking and mixing done with hardware outboard patched in? We justify inferior substitutes because we cannot afford the real thing.
I thought of Steven Slate. he can "prove" to you in every test known to man that you can't tell the difference between his plugins and what they're emulating. So, is he right, or is he missing something?
I'd say the testing method delivers the results he likes. Give those people being tested a couple of days alone with the plug and the hardware, and they'd pick out the difference 99% of the time.
* Ragan, you use some hardware, right? If it can be proved you can't tell the difference, why use hardware? Not busting chops, I'm just following a line of logic and I'm curious how you think about that.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on May 25, 2016 10:05:55 GMT -6
Null testing: the subtle differences that can affect total sound can be indistinguishable without the right test gear. Many low level (sub-110dBFS) artifact differences (hum, total noise floor) will appear to null, and you certainly can't hear them in a null test by themselves, but will be clearly and obviously different when observed with the right tools. Noise floor as example, sometimes this is an obvious clarity difference. Can you elaborate on this? If there's a difference in noise floor and its more than 110db down, is that not the equivalent of standing in a rock concert and trying to hear an ant crawl across the floor? I honestly don't know. I'd like to know more about null testing, if there's more to know. But if we're talking noise floor differences that are more than 110db down, do you really think that's what people mean when they say "oh man, _______ cables is so much more punchy and the low end and really open up top!"? Example: when I looked at my old converters noise floor in loop mode versus my new, the difference was about 12dB average, but for single frequencies (power line harmonics) the difference could be 35dB, no single frequency higher than -113dBFS, with 4kHz noise (nice ear sensitive region) being -130dBFS and -142dBFS respectively. With the lower noise floor, while tracking I more clearly hear the residual noise floor of any input source, whereas the higher noise floor is enough to make for a vague generalized noise floor in which it's almost impossible to distinguish any individual sources contribution. One reveals distinct qualities, the other no discernible qualities. Sure, these are converters, so there's more going on, but it's as apples to apples as possible in that regard, sampling rate and bit depth. I could pass the same program audio through both units DA back to AD, and the result would effectively null on most test equipment (resolution), and certainly to the ear (damn that's quiet). They would sound a bit different to the ear.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 25, 2016 10:49:59 GMT -6
Try one or two primary pieces Jesse. Like a power amp or a tube preamp. I usually add things like power cords one at a time, so it adds up, but isn't really expensive one at a time. I can relate though, my stereo system has some sweet cables, my recording gear is mostly stock, or I switched from the $5 cord to a $15 cord I had sitting around. I would like to switch out the cords to my powered speakers, but can't afford to. Ragan, I'll send you some info, just can't dig it up right now. Recently some new machines were invented that revealed distortions that were previously undetectable. It proved CD's are more distorted than vinyl, even though vinyl of course has its own distortions. When Swurveman said, ""To me, the entire concept that a $149.00 LA2A plug in is just as good as the $3,500.00 hardware is the biggest snake oil of all. It is the result of the decline of overall music industry income and good graphical user interfaces, not some magical modeling revolution. There is no other industry in the world making a claim that a product that costs 96% less than another is just as good, or even "gets you almost all the way there".The ITB mixing trend is economic, not based on quality. And it is perpetrated by peddlers to fools who don't understand that hardware was used in the tracking phase of the so called "itb mixes", where most of the sound was sculpted.
Let's face it, who wouldn't rather have a Neve and SSL console with the tracking and mixing done with hardware outboard patched in? We justify inferior substitutes because we cannot afford the real thing.
I thought of Steven Slate. he can "prove" to you in every test known to man that you can't tell the difference between his plugins and what they're emulating. So, is he right, or is he missing something? I'd say the testing method delivers the results he likes. Give those people being tested a couple of days alone with the plug and the hardware, and they'd pick out the difference 99% of the time. * Ragan, you use some hardware, right? If it can be proved you can't tell the difference, why use hardware? Not busting chops, I'm just following a line of logic and I'm curious how you think about that. No sure, I'm with you. Yes, if we're talking real proof, I would have to admit that I was fooling myself in preferring my hardware. Now, in this case, it's not even very close. I've tested myself every way I can think of (ABX being the best) and I always pick the hardware. And they certainly don't come close to nulling, of course. I can put the Harrison EQ plug, the LA3a plug and an 1176 plug (UAD) on my vocal and then put the hardware versions on a duplicate track and switch back and forth and the difference is comical. It's not splitting hairs, it's blatant. Again though, I don't implicitly trust my ears or brain so I still test myself from time to time, especially when I want to sell something to free up funds and I'm wondering if I can get by with the plugin versions (like with the pair of EQP-Wa's that I print my mixes through). The hardware always wins for me, blind or otherwise. This, to me, is a vastly different scenario than taking a $200 cable and running audio through it and doing the same with a Hosa cable and having them null.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on May 25, 2016 10:59:37 GMT -6
Schepp's OB: ah,, didn't he already sell all that stuff to a place in Great Britain ? I thought I saw that referenced at PT Xpert about 2 month's ago ?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on May 25, 2016 11:07:32 GMT -6
Hardware/software. I'm finishing mixes on an album project, vocals had light compression on way in, and DAW had series dbx/LA-2 type compression set up which seemed to do the job. As mixes honed in, I started feeling like there were still too many small dynamics variations, even with the sometimes large metered gain reduction. The GUI seems to lie at times. I ended up with those bypassed, and an outboard dbx-ish type on the vocal, never hitting more than 2dB and generally hitting nothing, dynamics are now controlled. Don't know what it proves, other than the PITA of hardware recalls in this case still appears to be the more effective path. For this job....
|
|
|
Post by ragan on May 25, 2016 11:09:48 GMT -6
Can you elaborate on this? If there's a difference in noise floor and its more than 110db down, is that not the equivalent of standing in a rock concert and trying to hear an ant crawl across the floor? I honestly don't know. I'd like to know more about null testing, if there's more to know. But if we're talking noise floor differences that are more than 110db down, do you really think that's what people mean when they say "oh man, _______ cables is so much more punchy and the low end and really open up top!"? Example: when I looked at my old converters noise floor in loop mode versus my new, the difference was about 12dB average, but for single frequencies (power line harmonics) the difference could be 35dB, no single frequency higher than -113dBFS, with 4kHz noise (nice ear sensitive region) being -130dBFS and -142dBFS respectively. With the lower noise floor, while tracking I more clearly hear the residual noise floor of any input source, whereas the higher noise floor is enough to make for a vague generalized noise floor in which it's almost impossible to distinguish any individual sources contribution. One reveals distinct qualities, the other no discernible qualities. Sure, these are converters, so there's more going on, but it's as apples to apples as possible in that regard, sampling rate and bit depth. I could pass the same program audio through both units DA back to AD, and the result would effectively null on most test equipment (resolution), and certainly to the ear (damn that's quiet). They would sound a bit different to the ear. I get what you're saying about noise masking and that's certainly relevant but I'm just curious about the balanced cable thing. If two cables pass audio and that audio nulls in the DAW, are you saying that noise floor differences undetectable by the DAW and below the entire scale of the DAW meters are going to be audible? And are you of the opinion that that kind of difference is what people mean when they say expensive brand X sounds better?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 25, 2016 11:18:38 GMT -6
Man, I love Ragan's and EmRR's post, the "like" button was sorely inadequate.
I understand and can appreciate that you'd be skeptical Ragan, but many testing methods can be so misleading, so I listen carefully and judge from that. I remember the exact same kind of discussion with audiophiles regarding jitter, they swore on their mother's grave digital was digital, numbers were numbers, so they just couldn't or wouldn't wrap their heads around jitter, and the feeling higher levels of jitter produced. Now it's a common thing to pay attention to. It's not always an audible thing, sometimes it's a feeling thing.
I'd bet the interconnects I was reviewing would null in a test and yet, on one I listened 75% less time than the other, and I never realized it until a month later when I checked my log.
If I ever dismantle my system for a week or two, I'll send you some power cords to try.
If I could describe what I've experienced when comparing a stock and a high end power cord, typically I hear an improved bass, tighter, the lowest notes are more tuneful, less boomy, the background gets blacker, and sometimes depth perception is better, where the soundstage is more 3D. Sometimes power cords just make little difference though. Remember, I tried two power cords I was given, one made no discernible difference, and one was like like my system took steroids, way more muscle and definition.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on May 25, 2016 11:25:21 GMT -6
Example: when I looked at my old converters noise floor in loop mode versus my new, the difference was about 12dB average, but for single frequencies (power line harmonics) the difference could be 35dB, no single frequency higher than -113dBFS, with 4kHz noise (nice ear sensitive region) being -130dBFS and -142dBFS respectively. With the lower noise floor, while tracking I more clearly hear the residual noise floor of any input source, whereas the higher noise floor is enough to make for a vague generalized noise floor in which it's almost impossible to distinguish any individual sources contribution. One reveals distinct qualities, the other no discernible qualities. Sure, these are converters, so there's more going on, but it's as apples to apples as possible in that regard, sampling rate and bit depth. I could pass the same program audio through both units DA back to AD, and the result would effectively null on most test equipment (resolution), and certainly to the ear (damn that's quiet). They would sound a bit different to the ear. I get what you're saying about noise masking and that's certainly relevant but I'm just curious about the balanced cable thing. If two cables pass audio and that audio nulls in the DAW, are you saying that noise floor differences undetectable by the DAW and below the entire scale of the DAW meters are going to be audible? And are you of the opinion that that kind of difference is what people mean when they say expensive brand X sounds better? Well, I find similar low level yet non-(DAW)metering audible differences when repairing equipment for folks too. Response and phase can be exactly the same, noise floor or harmonic contribution can be the only difference I can measure way way down. I can't say it's THE difference in audiophool land, but those things are part of the mix regardless. That's why it's so hard to sort out. Like MJB, I do feel there is a trained memory/recognition aspect to hearing, and agree there are things one begins to recognize over time, yet probably not recognize immediately in an ABX. I use Spectrafoo Complete and also have an Audio Precision test set, both can show me weird things not apparent on any DAW metering I've ever seen. I was beta testing a piece of transformer coupled equipment once which had loading switches for the input and output transformers. I could measure no frequency or phase difference for any setting, only gain changes. When level matched, each had a definite effect on sonics, and one loaded condition in particular could give the illusion that a ride cymbal was either turned slightly up or slightly down.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on May 25, 2016 11:29:05 GMT -6
many testing methods can be so misleading, so I listen carefully and judge from that. I try to keep a healthy paranoia about my testing methods and knowledge too, the more you know, the more ways you see it can be done incorrectly. Then provided specs all start to look really inadequate if not downright slanted. Was it Pro Audio Review that used to always have data from an Audio Precision with every review? I appreciated the attempt.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 25, 2016 11:29:35 GMT -6
EmRR wrote: "I was beta testing a piece of transformer coupled equipment once which had loading switches for the input and output transformers. I could measure no frequency or phase difference for any setting, only gain changes. When level matched, each had a definite effect on sonics, and one loaded condition in particular could give the illusion that a ride cymbal was either turned slightly up or slightly down. "
Dang.
|
|
|
Post by Shannon on May 25, 2016 11:40:33 GMT -6
Pepper just sold one for about that much... Yes he did I went through it for the customer, although it was a very very nice 67 ...........
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 25, 2016 12:02:52 GMT -6
Everything in audio and music can get weird. I use Fender Heavy picks. They come in many colors, the Classic are supposed to be "exactly the same". But the red, white and blue color feels a little stronger and more comfortable. The white and the tortoiseshell are next most comfortable, the other colors less so. I've wondered why, is the multi-color one different in some small way, I don't know, it's not supposed to be, but my fingers tell me it feels better.
Details matter in our business, no matter how small, it can be significant in particular situations.
|
|