70 replies to this topic

[murrmax]

do you fine tune your system by measurements or by ear??

After playing instruments in orchestra, bands, going to live gigs I trust my ears as to what things should sound like, also I've noticed at live gigs the sound dude(engineer) on the mixing desk is constantly changing things on the fly, by ear...and the best sounds always around where he/she's located;

trust you ears!?

Music is art after all...

Reference;

[Drizt]

Personally I think people are stumbling round in the dark if they dismiss measurements. Each to their own though.

[davidsss]

Settle down Drizt, he did say fine tune. Not everything is black and white you know (especially not after what happened at the G ).

DS

[mr-happy-pants]

Ooh, low blow David; low blow indeed!

[joz]

Don't worry about Drizt.
He has a thick skin,after all he is a Collingwood supporter.

[LogicprObe]

Measurements can help you quickly find why your ears are telling you something is amiss.

[JohnA]

in my current system, i used measurements to see what was happening in the room, then used them to get it as balanced as possible, them fine tune to my own taste with my ears as tools. After all, its my ears that have to enjoy the sound, not some microphone and software.

Is it perfect, hell no, do i like it, hell yes

[ehtcom]

Measurements can help you quickly find why your ears are telling you something is amiss.

But measurements destroy the sound.

[tuyen]

I fine tune by ear

For you Earle!

Edited by tuyen, 31 March 2012 - 09:12 AM.

[ehtcom]

I fine tune by ear

For you Earle!

I see you have found my secret. tuning by bacon mmmmmmmm

[Paul Spencer]

Gotta love that pic!

Earle is spot on. Measurements will ruin your sound. And to make it worse, you won't be able to call yourself an audiophile any more. Bragging rights gone my friend. It's a bad idea. Don't do it to yourself.

do you fine tune your system by measurements or by ear??

That depends on the tools at your disposal.

If the only tool you have is a hammer ..... your sound system is in trouble!
If the only tool you have is your wallet, then every step will involve either permission or forgiveness ... or divorce.

Music is art after all...

So how exactly do you use measurements to tune a recording or the creation of music? Rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway - YOU DON'T!

Don't confuse creation of the art, and production of the art, with reproduction. They are two separate things.

And in reproduction, we have two basic schools of thought:

1. Reproduction is primarily a science ... that might involve a little art
2. Reproduction is primarily an art ... that might involve a little science

I'm in camp 1. Doesn't mean I rule out the subjective, but I believe you will best get most of the way there with science, with some choices made also on the basis of preference ... and with tweaking and fine tuning partially by ear.

Recently I set up a bass horn in my room. I set it up first how I thought it would be set up, with measurements quickly. I ran it about 10 db hot, but it didn't sound right with the music on hand. So I changed it by ear until I had it sounding balanced. Then I measured it to see what the result was. Interesting. I had it running 18 db elevated! Cripes! And it sounded right with the pop/rock music I had going at the time. Then on a bass heavy track, I felt like I was about to smash the windows. Windows that rattle heavily around 20 Hz and a 20 Hz bass horn turned up ... as those guys driving down Lygon street will say "subwoofa, fully sick mate!"

I have to remind myself that most people here aren't designing their own stuff. In that case, the only thing you really need to measure is the bass in your room.

[gainphile]

trust you ears!?

Music is art after all...

Music is art, but transducers are electro-acoustic devices. Signal comes in, signal comes out.

Unfortunately the lack of standards in recording methods, means that the source nor the ears can be trusted.

[tuyen]

Since there are little to no standards in recording and mastering methods, one recording will sound great, while the next 3 may sound too shouty or not enough bass. Do you guys just accept and live with them? Even though with simple tone controls you could just up the bass or reduce the mids so it sounds much better to your ears on the system??

Edited by tuyen, 31 March 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[Paul Spencer]

tuyen, I find that really annoying but I try to make it as easy and quick as possible to adjust (usually just the bass level). The difference from track to track can be dramatic as you say.

[LogicprObe]

But measurements destroy the sound.

Depends how you act on them.

[tuyen]

I'm still waiting for one of these to pop up in the used market so I can provide the seller with my insultingly low ball offer in comparison to what they usually go for.

[murrmax]

Yes, what I meant was that we should trust our ears and not be masochistic about conforming to measurements rather than our perception of what the end result should sound like due to all the variables out of our control.

Since there are little to no standards in recording and mastering methods, one recording will sound great, while the next 3 may sound too shouty or not enough bass

Certainly agree, it seems once you get into a high end set-up all is revealed. It's almost like you need settings for each artist, (in a perfect world anyway).

[Nada]

I wonder if there is a computer based software payer that has a superb equaliser and DSP's combined with a memory function that automatically sets the equaliser/volume/stero balance/ 2nd order distortion etc for any track thats been set up previously?

As well it should be able to scan all tracks digitally as a background function and then intelligently dial in setting based on the dayabase of the actual user settings.

Then it could do a meta-analysis across all users and establish a performance standard for recording engineer to use objectively.

[murrmax]

Recently I set up a bass horn in my room. I set it up first how I thought it would be set up, with measurements quickly. I ran it about 10 db hot, but it didn't sound right with the music on hand. So I changed it by ear until I had it sounding balanced. Then I measured it to see what the result was. Interesting. I had it running 18 db elevated! Cripes! And it sounded right with the pop/rock music I had going at the time. Then on a bass heavy track, I felt like I was about to smash the windows. Windows that rattle heavily around 20 Hz and a 20 Hz bass horn turned up ... as those guys driving down Lygon street will say "subwoofa, fully sick mate!"

That's sort of what I was trying to illude to, that the differences in the recording mean the measurements as far as fine tuning goes aren't that important,

[murrmax]

I wonder if there is a computer based software payer that has a superb equaliser and DSP's combined with a memory function that automatically sets the equaliser/volume/stero balance/ 2nd order distortion etc for any track thats been set up previously?

As well it should be able to scan all tracks digitally as a background function and then intelligently dial in setting based on the dayabase of the actual user settings.


Then it could do a meta-analysis across all users and establish a performance standard for recording engineer to use objectively.

Now that would be awesome!

[LogicprObe]

The best way to do it with DSP would be to dial in the speakers that the track was mixed and mastered on.
Problem is, a lot of studios build their own speakers into the walls.

[Paul Spencer]

That's sort of what I was trying to illude to, that the differences in the recording mean the measurements as far as fine tuning goes aren't that important,

Example. In my room I have a 15 db peak at 44 Hz. That is quite dramatic, and certainly not a matter of fine tuning. One time I had EQ out of the system and watched the movie "Shooter" with that room boost in play. Whoa! It gave every gunshot an exaggerated tactile quality that could be felt elsewhere in the house. Even over a year later that one time without EQ, I'd get comments. I have to admit it was fun. But if you get the base level right, get thing measuring well before taking specific soures into account, you can then adjust different music in a tone controls kind of way. Then, yes, it certainly is by ear, just like it is done in the studio, or at the mixing desk at a live event.

I wonder if there is a computer based software payer that has a superb equaliser and DSP's combined with a memory function that automatically sets the equaliser/volume/stero balance/ 2nd order distortion etc for any track thats been set up previously?

As well it should be able to scan all tracks digitally as a background function and then intelligently dial in setting based on the dayabase of the actual user settings.

Then it could do a meta-analysis across all users and establish a performance standard for recording engineer to use objectively.

I'd be happy with a setup where you could EQ each track and have settings remembered. Even better, have the EQ change as the system level changes (master volume), allowing for equal loudness contours and how they change with level. I've experimented with this with dynamic EQ filters, but they just don't do it right because they are applied dynamically rather than adjusting the EQ based on master volume level. So they actually can stuff up dynamics.

[Paul Spencer]

The best way to do it with DSP would be to dial in the speakers that the track was mixed and mastered on.
Problem is, a lot of studios build their own speakers into the walls.

And that is a good thing, taking out the dreaded SBIR out of the equation. Seems like it's the only effective way to do it.

[LogicprObe]

And that is a good thing, taking out the dreaded SBIR out of the equation. Seems like it's the only effective way to do it.

Sure, I only meant it was a problem DSPing it................unless you had measurements for the room and speakers.
That would be a real problem for all the sufdios that have gone or changed over time.

A lot of good music has been recorded on crap equipment over the years too!

[gainphile]

Since there are little to no standards in recording and mastering methods, one recording will sound great, while the next 3 may sound too shouty or not enough bass. Do you guys just accept and live with them? Even though with simple tone controls you could just up the bass or reduce the mids so it sounds much better to your ears on the system??

My standard is pink noise and I simply accept what's in the recording (or don't listen to).

High *Fidelity* means just that, to reproduce what is. Otherwise the system becomes a 'musical instrument' by itself and tint all recordings. Like photographs with incorrect white balance setting.

[Whatmore]

My standard is pink noise and I simply accept what's in the recording (or don't listen to). High *Fidelity* means just that, to reproduce what is. Otherwise the system becomes a 'musical instrument' by itself and tint all recordings. Like photographs with incorrect white balance setting.

So if the pink noise measures well that overrules whether the music sounds good?

[datafone]

Ears!

Predictable, I am

[Zammo]

So if the pink noise measures well that overrules whether the music sounds good?

From my perspective, yes. Gainphile's photography analogy is a good one. For instance, I wouldn't want a soft focus on all my pictures to make them all look "pleasant". I want to see my photographs warts and all, and simply need to try and take better pictures.

It doesn't mean a system that aims for neutrality/flat frequency response/high resolution/ etc. has to sound poor, but it will reveal the shortcomings of poor recordings. It's a trade off some are prepared to make, and hey....each to their own in this hobby.

[Paul Spencer]

My standard is pink noise and I simply accept what's in the recording (or don't listen to).

High *Fidelity* means just that, to reproduce what is. Otherwise the system becomes a 'musical instrument' by itself and tint all recordings. Like photographs with incorrect white balance setting.

So if they did a really bad job setting the tonal balance in the studio, not enough bass, mids and treble shrill, highly compressed ... you could just leave it like that and be high on fidelity, low on enjoyment.

Now let's take this system, that is in terms of reproduction, high in fidelity ... now let's factor in the ability to tweak the tone controls. Have we lost fidelity? No, but we have gained enjoyment.

A system will not suddenly hide the "warts" because you can adjust the tonal balance.

[murrmax]

From my perspective, yes. Gainphile's photography analogy is a good one. For instance, I wouldn't want a soft focus on all my pictures to make them all look "pleasant". I want to see my photographs warts and all, and simply need to try and take better pictures.

If you take photo's in RAW format then you can alter then without degrading the image quality and adjust things like colour to be more 'true to life or real', but using photoshops another question..

I am a purist but a lot of music produced is just unpalatable and some intervention is necessary to enjoy the music...

A lot of good music has been recorded on crap equipment over the years too!

Yep this is the problem with a lot of good music!

[Zammo]

If you take photo's in RAW format then you can alter then without degrading the image quality and adjust things like colour to be more 'true to life or real', but using photoshops another question..

I am a purist but a lot of music produced is just unpalatable and some intervention is necessary to enjoy the music...

Point taken, but I don't want to be adjusting tone/frequency range etc. for every different song I play. Who has time for that? I just want to sit down and listen to well recorded/mastered music. The poorly recorded stuff goes into the car or iPod where I can't tell the difference.

[Gruffnutz]

Surely this thread is why they invented switchable (tape) loops to put equalisers in...

Flat response for the good 'uns; EQ for the 'woofers'.

[bhobba]

IMHO the way to it is to go to live events and come back to your system and play back a recording of that event and use it to tune your system. What I have heard being done is going to practice sessions of a philharmonic orchestra that recordings are available for and returning to hear your system to see how close it gets. From what I can gather it is a very educational experience.

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

Personally I think people are stumbling round in the dark if they dismiss measurements. Each to their own though.

No one I know dismisses measurements - many however believe they only tell part of the story.

Thanks
Bill

[b.d]

do you fine tune your system by measurements or by ear??

After playing instruments in orchestra, bands, going to live gigs I trust my ears as to what things should sound like, also I've noticed at live gigs the sound dude(engineer) on the mixing desk is constantly changing things on the fly, by ear...and the best sounds always around where he/she's located;

I think a lot of us know what instruments should sound like and when something is not quite right, but getting a sense for when something isnt right, and being able to diagnose the problem as a phase/timing/`FR at exactly which frequencies are perhaps two different skills.

Funny you mention dudes at mixing desks constantly fiddling with knobs. I was watching a second rate DJ at an electronic music party last week doing what they always do, incessantly twiddling the knobs to ab-so-lutely no effect whatsoever. The guy couldnt go literally 5 seconds without massive twirls of this or that knob. Does my nut in, nearly took a video of it to show someone for a laugh. Wouldnt throw engineers in that basket though, these are seemingly guys little technical understanding of the hardware and without enough musical talent to actually produce music. Nice to play at being creative in front of a crowd guess.

[ehtcom]

So even though the original art (music) was created like this.



you guys are more than happy to turn it into this..



or even this...



IMO, the job of the "hifi" system is to reproduce the original recording, warts and all.

Cheers, Earle.

[LogicprObe]

The engineers and producers are often try to cover those blemishes with makeup like effects.
Modern digital recording allows perfect timing and copy/paste of perfect patterns into a loop resulting in very clinical tracks.
A lot of musos and their producers are going back to live tracking if they can afford it because of the human feel.

[JohnA]

So even though the original art (music) was created like this.



you guys are more than happy to turn it into this..



or even this...



IMO, the job of the "hifi" system is to reproduce the original recording, warts and all.

Cheers, Earle.

spot on


just sit back and enjoy the music people

[tuyen]

I think a better example is -

Would you guys would prefer to go to the movies with Scarlett looking like this -


or like this? Personally, my eyes would be much less fatigued and happy with some 'fine tuning'



IMO, understand and learn how to fix the warts = more pleasure!

Edited by tuyen, 01 April 2012 - 07:16 AM.

[ehtcom]

I think a better example is -

Would you guys would prefer to go to the movies with Scarlett looking like this -


or like this? Personally, my eyes would be much less fatigued and happy with some 'fine tuning'



IMO, understand and learn how to fix the warts = more pleasure!

Actually Tuyun, your comparison is flawed.
All those make-up mods are happening at the production level. A bit like a guitarist using effects pedals, or a vocalist using a vocoder (vocal harmonies).

Your local projectionist isn't applying the makeup, nor is your DVD/Blue-ray player.

Cheers, Earle.

Edited by ehtcom, 01 April 2012 - 07:25 AM.

[tuyen]

Yeah, sorry bad example. Just woke up and had her on my mind.

Would this be a better one?


That is happening at the 'projectionist' level? The effects added using controls from photoshop.

[ehtcom]

Yeah, sorry bad example. Just woke up and had her on my mind.

Would this be a better one?


That is happening at the 'projectionist' level? The effects added using controls from photoshop.

I'd be happy with either

Cheers, Earle.

[tuyen]

To be honest, me too.

I had a dream last night...

[murrmax]

This is how I see it - So even though the original art (music) was created like this.



The production version (warts and all) mixed, mastered, produced,




What you try to achieve with fine tuning on your system:

[Catostylus]

To be honest, me too.

I had a dream last night...

Either teach the bimbo how to handle a record properly or throw the ***** out.