|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 22, 2020 5:18:10 GMT -6
Well, an easy test would be to sum a mono mix!
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 20, 2020 16:47:20 GMT -6
Can’t check the video now but that’s probably normal. A reactive load needs a way to react. Weber Mini Mass has some kind of dummy magnet assembly that works like a speaker without the cone, and it definitely buzzes. Don’t know about the Suhr.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 20, 2020 16:08:23 GMT -6
I've been dealing with this distorted sound running my Swart AST into the Suhr Reactive Box. I talked about it a bit in the Iridium thread, because I thought it might have been an issue with that. But I actually think the distortion is coming from the Suhr. At first, I wasn't sure if it was just the way a line level amp into a cab IR sounds or not. Now I'm pretty certain something is amiss. Here is a sample. Listen to the hair of the note. Sounds harsh and unpleasant. drive.google.com/file/d/1tmMoqfH4gkrHrlS4P1kHKSKoz5Mjbroz/view?usp=sharing I've been googling a bit, and found this thread where a guy is dealing with the exact same thing. The very first post has a sample, and it's EXACTLY the distortion I'm hearing on my rig. www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/suhr-reactive-load-ir-issues.1876644/Unfortunately load boxes and attenuators are often like this, in my experience. FYI not sure if it shows on the desktop (I’m on mobile) but Husky is John Suhr himself.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 19, 2020 17:13:23 GMT -6
But the summing box needs a panning law. Or if it has none, which would be most usual I think, you need to disable it in your DAW, which WILL change the mix. This is what has skewed this kind of test on "other forums". Is that even if things are panned only hard right, left or center? Hard left should mean everything on one side and nothing on the other no matter the pan law? I truly don't know this stuff, so that is just how I thought it would be.. That’s especially true if things are hard panned! Stuff on the sides will have a different volume than stuff in the center. Different DAWs have different pan laws and you can even change them (at least in Logic Pro which is what I use). You need to know what happens when you hard pan tracks in the DAW and in the su mming box. Here’s a quote from Steven Slate: “ I've shocked owners of hardware mixer boxes when they realize that the extra "width" they experienced was because their hardware pan law was 4.5 and the workstation was 3! ”
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 19, 2020 15:51:14 GMT -6
If anyone on the forum had a somewhat clean sounding summing box and could export one mix with that and one with digital summing this could be settled once and for all. With LCR panning to avoid differences in pan law and no random reverbs my guess is that it would prove digital and clean analog summing to be extremely similar, but I would love to be proven wrong. But the summing box needs a panning law. Or if it has none, which would be most usual I think, you need to disable it in your DAW, which WILL change the mix. This is what has skewed this kind of test on "other forums".
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 18, 2020 11:45:10 GMT -6
Re. Analog summing, many people were fooled by the change in panning laws when routing the mix to the hardware units. You need to be aware of the panning law of your daw and that of the external hardware (if any!).
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 18, 2020 2:48:58 GMT -6
I was going to say Dolby A and Maag. If those don’t work for you maybe the problem is with the capture of the source? Try the Clariphonic and a Pultec as well (I like the Rule Teq one). Oh and maybe the Hammer EQ.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 16, 2020 15:27:22 GMT -6
So if I read this correctly, the big selling point is that it approximates a big Pro Tools system. Everything is monitored/routed/recorded in one app (Luna) with no “discernible” latency. I think that is pretty cool.
In my case, when recording I use the zero-latency RME mixer (Totalmix) and have to juggle that with Logic. With Luna, everything will happen there with no latency. Only one mixer.
Did I get this right?
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 16, 2020 12:42:22 GMT -6
Well, don’t forget that UAD works closely with Softube. And they have just released Console Fader, which is a very badly integrated product on most DAWs...
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 14, 2020 16:17:11 GMT -6
That’s one of the best looking mics I’ve ever seen! Congratulations!
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 14, 2020 11:58:18 GMT -6
I haven’t got deep into it but it seems people go as far as putting a speaker inside a guitar and playing a sweep. I just started reading about it a couple days ago but it seemed complicated. Maybe I’ll give your method a try. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 14, 2020 10:46:02 GMT -6
Can’t argue with the results and that’s all that matters. However, I think you are creating an IR of a match EQ. That’s the bottleneck of the process, isn’t it? It would be better to skip that step, at least theoretically. However, it might complicate the capture too much for maybe not a huge difference in the results.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 14, 2020 10:21:20 GMT -6
I’m glad to see it works. In the studio, I’ve used acoustic guitar IRs when mixing live tracks that had piezo acoustic guitars with great success.
I think the weak link of your process is the matching EQ. It seems like it would be a lot better to capture the impulse response of the actual instrument. I have never tried this but I’ve reas stuff about people banging the guitar bridge without strings and recording that.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 12, 2020 7:39:29 GMT -6
In the context of load mismatch, problem Same for tube life. It’s essential to remember that the amp is working very hard if it’s dimed and plugged into an attenuator.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 12, 2020 4:01:21 GMT -6
I've never seen load mismatch be a problem in lower power tube amps. 100W+ with higher voltages and currents, maybe. The problem is that attenuators and load boxes encourage you to abuse the amps in ways you wouldn’t if there’s a speaker attached to them making your ears bleed :-)
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 11, 2020 8:39:08 GMT -6
Yes but it happens all the time at all volumes. Whatever “damage” the room inflicts to your low end is always there, independent of the listening volume.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 11, 2020 8:36:20 GMT -6
The lack of DDP use is very frustrating. It’s not expensive to do, and it’s a standard. The mind boggles when places like Discmakers take them for replication, but NOT for short run duplication. I don’t think a DDP is ever anything other than 44k1/16?....so useless for MFIT and other requests for higher resolution master submissions. A DDP is one disc-long wav file at 44.1-16, plus the necessary metadata and codes that point to the beginning, end and gaps of the songs. Just like a CD.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 11, 2020 3:28:57 GMT -6
The DDP is only for CD manufacture. I’ve never seen it used for anything else. Come to think of it, it’s probably used to create bwav but I know nothing about digital broadcast formats.
If anything, it’s a convenient repository for all the song metadata.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 11, 2020 3:21:34 GMT -6
hmm well there has to be a better way to do distribution. How are bigger labels doing it then? When I create a DDP and other various things for the Label what do they use to get their content on streaming services? Because I don't think they would be using something like that. I bake the ISRC codes into everything and they send me the codes to do that. I just don't know what they do after that. Which seems to be the main issue here. Not sure what you want to improve here. Does it suck to enter song names when uploading songs? A little bit. But there are loads of info that you need to provide for each song. Are you talking major-major labels? If not, they will be using Distrokid, CD Baby, Tunecore most likely.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 11, 2020 3:20:11 GMT -6
That’s exactly what I said (broken link and all) WAV files have no standard for embedded data, only broadcast wav. No digital aggregators support broadcast wav. It’s simply not used. Furthermore, any embedded data will be discarded in the submission process. When you upload the files for distribution, that is when metadata is created for the digital services. hmm well there has to be a better way to do distribution. How are bigger labels doing it then? When I create a DDP and other various things for the Label what do they use to get their content on streaming services? Because I don't think they would be using something like that. I bake the ISRC codes into everything and they send me the codes to do that. I just don't know what they do after that. Which seems to be the main issue here. Not sure what you want to improve here. Does it suck to enter song names when uploading songs? A little bit. But there are loads of info that you need to provide for each song.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 11, 2020 2:25:15 GMT -6
ISRC are not embedded in WAV files. Only on CD (which requires specialized software to read) and on the formats delivered to digital distributors by the aggregators, which I suppose differs between services. I just found some extra info here: www.soundonsound.com/forum/viewtopic.phpI don't think that is true. A normal way yes but a bwav can hold a lot a meta data. That's the point of a bwav. That’s exactly what I said (broken link and all) WAV files have no standard for embedded data, only broadcast wav. No digital aggregators support broadcast wav. It’s simply not used. Furthermore, any embedded data will be discarded in the submission process. When you upload the files for distribution, that is when metadata is created for the digital services.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 10, 2020 15:37:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 10, 2020 7:10:52 GMT -6
ISRC are not embedded in WAV files. Only on CD (which requires specialized software to read) and on the formats delivered to digital distributors by the aggregators, which I suppose differs between services. I just found some extra info here: www.soundonsound.com/forum/viewtopic.php
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 10, 2020 7:07:28 GMT -6
There is a difference in perception due to the Fletcher Munson curves of our hearing, but not a physical difference. The cancellations are still there.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Jan 9, 2020 17:02:30 GMT -6
What I meant to say is that volume is irrelevant when evaluating room effects. There’s no “safe” volume that will not “excite” room modes. If a cancellation is there, it exists at all volumes. That’s basic physics. I’m no physicist though!
|
|