Ethan Winer

drewfx1
1. Can they answer challenging questions, or do they just repeat what they said or refer you to someone else's writings?
 

I never duck questions, and I can always back up what I say. When Audyssey claims to reduce ringing, and improve the response for all seats, I run tests and publish the results. I never rely on opinion alone. I always explain how and why, and avoid blanket statements with nothing to back them up.

I indeed agree with you here, and give you much respect and credibility for it. In a way, I was sort of indirectly complimenting you.  But I also wanted to raise the issue in general of whether people making claims are willing or able to back up the claims they make, and how to determine someone's credibility.

And in your case, you don't seem too concerned that I might run some objective tests and prove you wrong. I wonder why that is?

drewfx1
Now given that I'm too cheap/can't justify the ETF SW Ethan used in his Audyssey tests, I'm thinking some white noise & (slowly) swept sine waves will work for frequency response testing, but what about ringing?

I now use Room EQ Wizard, which is better than ETF and is also free. Google will find it for you, and this article explains much more than my previous articles that used ETF for the examples:
 
Room Measuring Primer
 
--Ethan
 

Thanks! I'll take a look at that.

+1 on room eq wizard. I have used it for years. It's great and very easy to use.

Totally understood, Drew. But even if you do the test, and the results are bad, are you getting good results from ARC or do you believe it's just one of those tools that work for some, fail for others? If the flat line was a bit optimistic and you found flaws, does it matter if your sound is still consistent everywhere and it doesn't take you 2 weeks to do a mix? LOL! See, that's my whole point really.

I also get where you're coming from when you mention ears, science art etc. My point there is, is it necessary to know about the science part if something just works and you can go back to using your ears while not worrying or caring what is scientifically happening? Ok, some care about that stuff and want to know every little detail. I get all that. :)

For example, I like to think of myself as a fairly credible audio engineer. But there are some things you might ask me that are theory based, science based or more technical that I wouldn't even try to answer because I simply do not know. The reason I may not know is because I probably felt that particular subject was not something I felt would do much for me for what I'm interested in as far as audio goes.

That said, I know some of that is important in the grand scheme of things and can make a difference. However, if I don't know about these things and am still achieving good results that are working on a large scale...does it all really matter?

Like, if I were to bury my head in some of the stuff I've seen you talk about on here, it would probably take me a good 5 years to be able to understand some of it. You come out with some answers to things that totally blow me away...and I mean that in the most respectable way. But for a guy like me that has the attention span of a flea when something doesn't pique my interest, the whole science part just kinda bores me. I would think that the lab work I do in the engineering field would get me closer to what *I* need from it moreso than the science part, don't you? Like I mentioned before about guys talking about meters for 4 pages. Sure, I've calibrated my meters etc, but that's the extent of it. I see if I'm peaking or I make adjustments if I HEAR something that sounds like peaking even if my meters are reading ok.
 
I'll be the first to admit I'm probably the garbage man of audio engineers. LOL! I'll never claim to be anyone that is better than anyone else...but I can hang fairly well to where I and several clients have been satisfied with my work even though I have a grade 5 mentality. Just recently, a pretty big star produced an album for a friend of mine. I was called in to mix the album. The star was a bit skeptical since he had never heard of me and wanted to hire some of his people. The friend of mine said "no, you have to let this guy do it...trust me, you'll love his work."

So I talked to this star dude and told him what I was about, what I planned to do and how I planned to mix the record. He flew from Cali to my studio so we could work together. I had everything mapped out and presented him with a finished product just to show him what *I* would have done as the producer/engineer. He sat and listened to the whole thing without saying a word. When it was done, he looks at me and says "who are you dude, and why haven't I heard of you!?" I showed him some of the stuff I had done for other "stars" as well as who I've worked with, who I know etc. He called me "our best kept secret", smiled, shook my hand and said "will you be available for April? I'm starting my album then, are you interested?"

He changed just about NOTHING in my mixes other than we adjusted a few instrument levels here and there. No eq curves altered, no effects taken away, no effects added, he said everything sounded exactly like he would have done it and was just in awe of the job I had done. Maybe he was lazy and because I did the work, he didn't want to? There is that possibility. But 2 weeks later, I get a call from him and will start recording his album in April. :) Why the secrecy? I'm not one that ever name drops publicly or even on my site. I don't need the business that bad to have to do it that way. Word of mouth is fine by me. :)

My point? I'm just a normal dude that dropped out of college after 6 months....I took a few courses on audio at studio's that offered classes, they sucked, I barely learned a thing, bought some gear, set it up, learned either by trial and error or reading manuals until I learned what I was looking for, and here I am. I can't tell you the science of a meter, a transformer, how a room reflects sound, how to build a pre-amp, how to fix electrical problems, what some of these recording techniques people talk about mean, why converters work the way they do, what truncates and why, 32 bit float, 64 bit mix engines...I'm clueless!

But ask me how to record something, how to polish a turd or make a mix sound 100% better....I'll tell ya that one every time. :)

-Danny

Danny Danzi
I can't tell you the science of a meter, a transformer, how a room reflects sound, how to build a pre-amp, how to fix electrical problems, what some of these recording techniques people talk about mean, why converters work the way they do, what truncates and why, 32 bit float, 64 bit mix engines...I'm clueless! But ask me how to record something, how to polish a turd or make a mix sound 100% better....I'll tell ya that one every time. :)

There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone can't be interested in everything, and the skills needed to design and repair gear are totally unrelated to the skills needed to use gear. Some people care about one more than the other, and some people care about both equally (like me). But it wouldn't take you five years to learn the science behind audio gear. This is exactly what my book addresses. Of course, it would be wasted on someone who doesn't care to know, and again that's fine. However, it seems to me that people on both sides of the "science" debate want to know the truth about what affects audio fidelity. It's just that beliefs sometimes get in the way.
 
--Ethan

I'm on both sides. I'm a mechanical engineer by trade so naturally love all the science behind it. I'm obsessed with things technical. I love it.

I also love to make my music sound great and study like crazy to become as good as I can be with recording.

I think you can do both. I don't think you need to do both. Each to their own I guess.

Danny Danzi


Totally understood, Drew. But even if you do the test, and the results are bad, are you getting good results from ARC or do you believe it's just one of those tools that work for some, fail for others? If the flat line was a bit optimistic and you found flaws, does it matter if your sound is still consistent everywhere and it doesn't take you 2 weeks to do a mix? LOL! See, that's my whole point really.

Well, part of it is just curiosity. But really it's that when Ethan mentioned the difficulties in EQing out nulls and ringing, it occurred to me that ARC seemed to imply that it was doing an excellent job for itself, so there's a bit of a contradiction there.

And since there seems to be some disagreement between the "acoustic treatment is the only real solution" and "ARC is more than good enough" camps, I believe in just doing a test to see how good ARC is doing. Though I respect that you personally may get excellent results in your environment just using ARC, I'm not going to buy the argument that (in all cases) ARC alone is just exactly enough - i.e. "Every benefits from some correction, but no more than this is necessary". If you think you're getting better results since you started using ARC, how do you know you wouldn't do even better with acoustic treatment that might conceivably solve problems that ARC can't?

I also get where you're coming from when you mention ears, science art etc. My point there is, is it necessary to know about the science part if something just works and you can go back to using your ears while not worrying or caring what is scientifically happening? Ok, some care about that stuff and want to know every little detail. I get all that. :)

I would use the metaphor of driving a car - you don't need to know much about what's going on under the hood to be a good driver. But not knowing doesn't make you better, either. But if you're just a driver and don't ever need to be a mechanic, there may be little or no benefit in learning more than you already do. And your time might well be better spent just doing what you're doing.

But though I know you personally wouldn't do this, Lord knows there are some who will get into an argument with someone more mechanically inclined, and then start lecturing them about how "The squirrels on a treadmill in the engine compartment make the car go. Everyone knows this!". A lot of technical arguments get started when someone brings up "the squirrels" and one of us feels compelled to point out that there's some misconception about just exactly how things work. And unfortunately, a lot of these arguments go on and on and/or get ugly - because no one is willing to just open the hood and take a look and see what's there, one way or the other.

Dave King
Simply a "plug" for my friend Ethan whose book is coming out this Spring: 
http://www.ethanwiner.com/book.htm 

Drew and Danny on the same thread.  It doesn't get better than this for me anywhere.

How I get what is presented here is there is a reference standard for room correction be it by physical means or to some extent rectification by a software solution such as ARC.  Whatever science will declare as 'correct' may be all well and good, tangible, quantifiable, provable and all the rest but it still requires a person sitting in that corrected space with a great deal of skill to interpret what he/she is hearing in a way that translates to the great majority of listeners.

I've heard much of Danny's work and one thing that strikes me is the consistency it seems to display so it seems fair to assume even if there are some deviations from 'correct' in Danny's or any other skilled mixing engineers environment much of the requirement to achieve a repeatable result that interprets well is going to be down to the skill in interpreting where he is into the sound of the final production in a way that pleases the most.

So I'm thinking again on a car analogy, the engineers can design the greatest race car ever to grace the track, but if another team has a car with a few quirks in it's make up there's nothing to stop a great driver like Danny, who lets say actually thrives on what some might call the lesser cars foibles, winning races in it.

Am I reading that right?  Is this where the art crosses over into the science?

Whatever Danny is doing it seems to work for me every time whereas somebody with a 'correct' listening environment can still be well wide of the mark.   I'm concluding from this that whatever ARC is doing it is suiting Danny's MO to a tee and I doubt if there is any test that is able to work out the how and why of that.  If there is I'd certainly want to hear about it.

Thanks for your input too Ethan, I'm pretty much a devotee of your work as well.  You've certainly saved me more than the price of your new book over the years...

I set up a bass trap in my living room? The next morning, when I came out, I discovered that I had captured Jaco Pastorius!

Jonbouy


Drew and Danny on the same thread.  It doesn't get better than this for me anywhere.

How I get what is presented here is there is a reference standard for room correction be it by physical means or to some extent rectification by a software solution such as ARC.  Whatever science will declare as 'correct' may be all well and good, tangible, quantifiable, provable and all the rest but it still requires a person sitting in that corrected space with a great deal of skill to interpret what he/she is hearing in a way that translates to the great majority of listeners.

I've heard much of Danny's work and one thing that strikes me is the consistency it seems to display so it seems fair to assume even if there are some deviations from 'correct' in Danny's or any other skilled mixing engineers environment much of the requirement to achieve a repeatable result that interprets well is going to be down to the skill in interpreting where he is into the sound of the final production in a way that pleases the most.

So I'm thinking again on a car analogy, the engineers can design the greatest race car ever to grace the track, but if another team has a car with a few quirks in it's make up there's nothing to stop a great driver like Danny, who lets say actually thrives on what some might call the lesser cars foibles, winning races in it.

Am I reading that right?  Is this where the art crosses over into the science?

Whatever Danny is doing it seems to work for me every time whereas somebody with a 'correct' listening environment can still be well wide of the mark.   I'm concluding from this that whatever ARC is doing it is suiting Danny's MO to a tee and I doubt if there is any test that is able to work out the how and why of that.  If there is I'd certainly want to hear about it.

Thanks for your input too Ethan, I'm pretty much a devotee of your work as well.  You've certainly saved me more than the price of your new book over the years...

You rule Jon! That's exactly how I feel about it also. Thanks for that well thought out comment. Yeah it is nice to have Drew with us. I like when he posts even though at times he can intimidate the hell out of me. LOL!!
 
I've heard guys with all the proper room correction fall flat on their faces the same as I'm sure you have. How this thing is helping me, I have no clue. It's true that we need to have some knowledge as to what goes on behind the desk and of course no one will ever love all of our mixes or instrumentation choices.
 
However, for the most part, eveyone should be able to enjoy a mix "for what it is, not what they feel it should be" to where there aren't blatant sub low issues from there being too much bass, or being bass light, mid congested, harsh high end etc. As long as none of that is an issue in a mix, I won't even comment on someone's tune unless it's a friend that wouldn't mind my subjective opinion. A good mix is a good mix...even if I'm not down with the instrument choices. But you can't run from sound misrepresentation, frequency masking or a mix that just doesn't sound like it has all the right stuff due to a person not being able to hear all the right stuff..
 
I figure it like this, ARC worked wonders for me at my house, at both of my studio's and I bring it with me when I go and work in other studio's. It's never let me down. I'm sure it's not perfect but whatever it IS doing, it's making an incredible difference for me to where I never second guess myself. If you can mix a tune in 4-8 hours and come back the next day and may have to just mess with a few levels here and there, that's success in my opinion. It's rare for me to ever have to adjust frequencies in something. It's usually a few levels here and there.
 
Before ARC, I could work on a mix for a month and still not be happy. What I think burns me up the most is when people just cry fowl about it when they have never physically used it. I don't care about what graphs and stuff tell a person...did they use the freakin' software and have it fail on them or not? That's the bottom line. And, if it DID fail on them...I want to know about the procedure in which they did the correction. I'm batting 1000 with this thing and everyone that's used it and set it up like I've told them to have had great results accept for one dude. It may not be perfect, but it sure has been for me. If you or anyone else likes the stuff I do, they can give me half the credit...but the other half definitely has to go to ARC. :) Thanks for the kind words brother.
 
-Danny