ORIGINAL: DaneStewart

Can anybody offer a brilliantly concise summary of all this for us?

Don't crush your mixes.

UnderTow

Interesting video, Rod. Thanks for posting the link.

OT (sorta)- What cable is best to hang yourself with, the curly sears kind or the fat monsters? And you need some uber expensive analog gear too because jumping off of a CD just isn't going to give you the depth you need for this operation.

ORIGINAL: mark s

Perhaps he was pointing out he could find resistance from one end of the same conductor to the other end with an ohmmeter

That is how I read it (and I can't see any other way to read "Try an Ohmeter on that cable. It should read very, very close to zero, yet not absolute zero."). Are you sure you got his point?

UnderTow

you can master like babic within minutes / and so on...personally sometimes i wonder where all your confidence in yourself comes from - i dont wanna be cocky - but actually sometimes you act like you were bob katz and quincy jones in one person...

Its done and I will send it to you if you like. You decide.

Hi UnderTow,

Either you are being disingenuous as to the point of my post or you are missing my point. You don't seem stupid so I guessed you were being disingenuous. If you genuinely did not see my point, I apologize.

Apology accepted. There is an old piece of advice that recommends assuming misunderstanding rather than malice. If you look at my posts, I said "possibly mistaken" because I found it impossible to deduce exactly what you were claiming.

These devices use dynamic convolution to measure frequency response, distortion etc at different input signal levels.

No, that is not correct. Dynamic convolution is not a measurement process. It is the process that is used to produce a result that mimics the same result as the sampled equipment would have.

Just read the manual, it clearly explains to turn off all dynamic processing when IRing a compressor to measure it's non-linearities.

I did exactly as you suggested. Yes, it says to "turn off all dynamic...." for one step of the characterization process. This doesn't have anything to do with the issue we are disagreeing about --- see point #1 below.

----------------------

Two points about the manual:

1) What is going on in the processing when dynamic convolution is being used is studiously avoided other than to say that it is a "proprietary process." What is instead described, among other things, is how to obtain the data that this instrument utilizes.

One of several potential confusion factors is that they are trying to separate out the various characteristics of many different types of equipment by making several different types of measurements which are then combined in ways that they don't bother to explain. For example, and as they say if I recall correctly, a compressor has spectral characteristics even when it's "off." These are measured separately.

You have to know what the objective is to understand what they are doing; otherwise you could get a completely erroneous impression.

2) There is more than one section to this instrument. For example, there is an EQ section and a compressor section. The compressor section has both a sampled part and a classical part. You can use one or the other of the latter. This is perhaps what led you to claim that after all is said and done, it uses an ordinary compressor. Well, it can, but it doesn't have to.


From reading the manual, you are not going to get a good picture of what dynamic convolution is and how it is used. I recommend that you read Michael Kemp's (Sintefex Audio) description:

http://www.sintefex.com/docs/appnotes/dynaconv.PDF

I believe that you will find that my claims are supported here about what dynamic convolution actually is and how it can be used. The user's manual is NOT a good substitute for this paper despite the fact that the manual covers a specific piece of equipment because it contains no details of dynamic convolution.


Now there are those who say that compression cannot be modelled very well by dynamic convolution; that is probably true. This isn't about how well it does it; it is about what one could do to attempt to model it. Because it doesn't work so well for heavier compression, these folks may very well be fiddling with the results and using the other characterization data to modify them. I often do the same with my own IR's.

Regards,
Dave Clark

Achtung, watchin' this friggin' thing gives me a headache. Does this guy think he invented this stuff? This music, is not!!!!

ORIGINAL: mark s
These, simple resistance vs. reactance or impedance, are not the same PHENOMENON and, my point was impedance or reactance cannot be measured with an ohmmeter: which was what was being insinuated in the original post.

Not the way I read it.

UnderTow

I can't. :-)

No, I just have a sense of asthetics that equates Boston to Wierd Al... I liked them both... for a few minutes.

I'll stick to my opinion on this one.

At least I bought the 2 Boston albums when they were new releases...

and once owned a Rockman. :-)

very best,
mike

ORIGINAL: HumbleNoise

ORIGINAL: John

you can master like babic within minutes / and so on...personally sometimes i wonder where all your confidence in yourself comes from - i dont wanna be cocky - but actually sometimes you act like you were bob katz and quincy jones in one person...

Its done and I will send it to you if you like. You decide.

I'd personally love to hear what you came up with.

Me too

John, it is easy to copy someone else's mastering when you have the final result to mimic. It is much harder to come up with those final results "in a vacuum". Even if your "mastering" is indistinguishable from the example, it doesn't really prove anything.

UnderTow

ORIGINAL: John

Well maybe you're right. All I did was stick it in my normal mastering template and go from there. The plugs I use for my stuff are all in the template and I turn on the ones I think will do the best job. Funny it was that simple to do. Yes I did an A B of the results. I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to. After all what would be the point. And no they are not the same. Mine is better. LOL

Hehe. :) For the record, I'm not saying you are no good at mastering. I'm just saying that this particular exercise doesn't really prove anything. :)

UnderTow

like most things, i'm sure there's brilliant mastering jobs, and then, just getting the job done.
most material, if reined within certain parameters, will probably be passably playable on any system. rendering difficult material, or creating a sonic masterpiece, would be another matter.