mike_mccue


I am interested in reading Chapter 10.

As recently as just a few months ago I was asked to justify statements I made about equalizers such as Sonitus FX EQ. I have stated that it has very slight yet audible phase cancelling artifacts but that I still think it was an excellent and very usable FX choice.

A couple of guys, Brundlefly and DrewFX made some passing comments that suggested that what I said probably wasn't accurate. I wasn't accurate.

At some point I became aware of articles written by Mr. Winer that explain why it is impossible to expect to be able to hear any phase shifting caused by EQ systems. I learned the phase artifacts I was listening too were actually part of the recording and not added by the EQ system at all.

I never thanked Drew or Brundlefly for suggesting I go a bit further with this... but I am thankful.

I think Chapter 10 is going to cover the explanation about EQ and phase shift as well as a bunch of other stuff I still hope to understand better and I thank Mr Winer for making information such as this so freely available.

best regards,
mike

I may not be deserving of any thanks, but I very much appreciate your sentiments here for a number of reasons.

Aw, come on Bit, was that an actual quote?! 'acoustic treatment is a waste of time'? I find it hard to believe that Danny said that, unless it was taken out of context!

At least quote me correctly if you're going to question whether my quotation of someone else is accurate! 


What I attributed to Danny was: "science in the audio field is a waste of time".

But I admit that it was not a verbatim quote. Here is the actual text:

Science TO ME in the audio field is a waste of time. If you choose to be a scientist, stay out of the audio field with your teachings because all you do is confuse the common folks that just want to learn how to put out good music.

I would never intentionally mis-quote someone or take their comments out of context in order to twist their words. I hate when people do that.


I do suspect that Danny was indulging in hyperbole to stress his point, though. I doubt that he is really anti-science. He's certainly got to be happy that other people are enthusiastic about both science and music, in order for them to provide him with ARC and SONAR and 1176 emulations and humbuckers to begin with. All invented by scientifically-inclined musicians.

He's certainly got to be happy that other people are enthusiastic about both science and music

I'm one of those.  I'm happy to benefit from the fact that many people have designed some great stuff through their knowledge.

I'm glad that there are many can use those things with great skill, enough to create great sounds too.

I like basic facts I like myths to be dispelled I like to learn about things, I don't like becoming so pre-occupied with the science that I become a nerd.

Nerds are great I just have no desire to become one.

I can understand now where Danny was coming from.  It's is what I suspected was happening before Mike started on his single-minded and stubborn obfuscation routine.  ARC clearly does enough, as Mike clearly pointed out in his descriptions of what it is actually capable of, for Danny to take from there in order to make the good decisions that are apparent in the music he creates, the output I've provided him with in the past and is most strikingly apparent in the skills transferred to people he has schooled.

That was kind of the answer I was asking about and I can see now where that possibility is indeed occuring in real terms as well as understanding the reasons why that would be the case.

Similar to the analogy I already put forward it is tuning the car up enough for him to win races.  It also clearly demonstrates that a skilled operator is still required for best results, and no amount of room correction is going to compensate for a lack there while the reverse may indeed still be true at least to a great extent.

Having arrived at the idea that this is the point Danny was trying to make against a scoffing background noise, I actually think it is a good point to make.  And again he shows he can still produce the goods against a backround of a few nulls and unwanted energy peaks flapping around the place.

Looks like Danny and I have had some miscommunication. I'll try to clear it up.  When I said "...throw this post out" I was referring to my post.  Meaning: you are free to ignore what I said since I don't have any reference to back it up. I never meant that anyone should throw out what Danny has said. Danny has made lots of valuable contributions here. Just because I have a different opinion on ARC, doesn't mean I think he should be ignored. No way, no how. Sorry if it came across like that.
 
Now when Danny said:

 
Danny Danzi

But I never once mentioned or implied you were close minded.
 

With all due respect (which is an overused phrase that too often means no respect but I actually mean it, and I respect Danny) when Danny says this to me: "My instincts tell me based on your forceful post that you'll decline anything I'd have to offer...so that's fine too." (see above for the context) That statement does imply that you think my mind will be closed to anything you have to say. I'm not sure how that could be interpreted otherwise.  I'll just say that I'm fully willing to listen to anything that is well thought out. And Dannys posts always seem to be very well thought out. I've gotten Danny's PM of how he suggests to set up ARC and since I was planning on running some tests with it again for some research purposes, I'll follow them to a T.
 
A bit more about my ARC history. A few years ago at the AES convention, I heard the Genelec room correction system. It was intriguing, particularly since the demo was given in a side convention room and was a pretty lousy sounding room. They ran the correction and whaddya know, the system sounded really good. So that was my intro to auto room correction software.
 
Flash forward a while and my workplace is getting all new computer setups for those of us in the creative fields--art, animation, audio, etc. Part of it was that the visual artists were getting color correction systems for their displays and I was asked if there were similar setups for audio. By that time I had heard all about ARC and I said that was the way to go. And I got it.
 
My room isn't tip-top, but it's decent. There is one particularly nasty resonance that I'd like to take care of, and so far no amount of bass trapping has done it. One experiment that I did involved bringing in 4' x 8' x 3' of OC703 (so... about 96 cubic feet. For comparison, your typical 2' x 4' x 2" OC703 panel is 1.33 cubic feet) of extra absorption on top of what I already had. It helped a little, but the bad resonance was still there. So I thought ARC might give it a go. (and that much 703 wasn't practical for the day to day studio operation, anyway)
I ran the calibration, took lots of measurements. Listened back. It was different. Not necessarily an improvement. I put on all my reference tracks and found out that I couldn't hear anything in them that I couldn't hear without ARC. And the nasty resonance was still there, ARC couldn't tame it. I lived with it for about a week, doing very extensive listening tests, and decided it wasn't helping. I can't say that it was hurting, but it just wasn't helping.
 
I have no doubt that Danny and other ARC proponents get better mixes when running ARC. In my case, maybe there's something wrong with my setup. Or the mic. Or my ears. I've done more research on various room correction methods, and that's why I'm planning on doing more with ARC. I have some questions about it that some other experiments with it might answer.
 
Finally, I apologize if I've been insulting. That is so very not my intention here.

You know, I think my room is the sort of room that could really benefit from ARC.

It's not big enough to do any serious trapping, I've got a couple of side panels up in the mirror position, a bigger panel on the front wall and a few bits of foam in one "corner" 

The room size WILL I know cause problems, as it's 10' x 10' by 9' high

I need to get a ceiling cloud up, and then see what ARC can do with it.

Translation to other systems IS slowly improving, but not the extent that I can't afford to NOT check my mixes.

I want to be where Danny is and KNOW that if it sounds good through your monitors, it'll sound good 'mostly' everywhere else.

 

Science TO ME in the audio field is a waste of time. If you choose to be a scientist, stay out of the audio field with your teachings because all you do is confuse the common folks that just want to learn how to put out good music. At the end of the day, a good end result talks, boolsh!t walks. I
-Danny

 
I couldn't agree more, and I consider myself to be fairly technically adept.  Scientific measurement will never be a substitute for a good trained ear. I can't tell you how may venues I've been to where the house system and acoustic treatment were done by an audio consultant and the overall sound was simply awful.  


The fallacy is that "science" is able to fully measure what humans are able to perceive.  Physicists have mathematically proven that there are 11 dimensions, and we have no way to experience or measure them....or maybe we do on some subliminal level.  Gimme 11-D sound or give me death!    

Yo Bristol, you so square!  Maybee it would sound better in metrics?

It sounds (pun intended) like you might be a perfect candidate for Arc since your other options are limited.  It would be interesting to see what you think about how it works in such an environment.

@

jsaras



 The fallacy is that "science" is able to fully measure what humans are able to perceive.  

You might want to do a little research before you post something like that. 

Bit: I meant to make a mention of that quote to James as I saw he mis-quoted there. I knew what you meant when you posted that...and you found the correct thing. :) To answer that, yeah, you're right, I'm not anti-science at all. Jonbuoy described my feelings about it when he said: "I like basic facts I like myths to be dispelled I like to learn about things, I don't like becoming so pre-occupied with the science that I become a nerd."

That said, I AM a nerd but not to the point to where I can watch a bunch of intelligent men talk about the science of recording when in MY mind, it's all about what my ears hear, ya know? Like all this metering stuff...I've seen so many posts about meters and K system etc....gimme a meter that tells me I'm not clipping and leave me alone. LOL!!

I swear man, that's how I feel. There are just so many things to ME that involve science to where they can actually turn a person off from wanting to really get involved in this. Men like you can do both. You're not only super intelligent but you have the attention span to dive into this stuff and suck it up like a sponge. I can barely read an owners manual without saying "let me at this baby...I'll crash and burn and have fun at it!"

So yeah man, I'm definitely not anti-science...I just don't like it to consume me like "theory" in music. I have so many friends that are so consumed by theory, they analyze a progression before they even attemtp to play anything. I'm not saying that's wrong, but I like to listen to something and sing what my heart feels instead of saying:
 
"ok, we're playing in this key and then we go here and here. This means we can use this mode and that mode and.."

You get the idea. I just don't enjoy this when so much science is involved that you live the science more than the craft and it takes away from the fun/experimental/ears factor. Sort of like Bob Katz book...you gotta really have an attention span to read it and get something out of it. Me, tell me the do's and don'ts, then lemme at this stuff! I don't care who created the wheel or what happened in olden times..lol..just let me at this thing, teach me how to operate in certain situations and let my ears do the rest, ya know? :)

Steve: I too am sorry for any miscommunication...it was never my intent. I sincerely hope the stuff I gave you makes a difference with ARC if you didn't do the correction that way. If you have any problems or questions, feel free to pm me...and the offer stands...if I'm ever remotely close to you or anyone else, I swear as God is my witness, I'll gladly come and hang out and do the correction for you if you'd allow me to. I travel quite a bit so you never know where I may end up. :) Good luck with it and my apologies for our miscommunications.

Alegria: Thank you for that...it means a lot. If I made you think about something, that's enough for me! Hahaha! I listen and read you too man...and learn/think as well. So we all help each other really. I come off as a wind-bag that is in the know with certain things, but man, I'll never close myself off from anyone that wants to share and teach me their ways. So I'll keep bringing it if you do! :)

Jonbuoy: Yeah, that's exactly how I was hoping people would take to what I've said. We're so on the same page, I had this smile on my face reading your post like a lil kid that just won a shopping spree at Toyz R Us. :) Whatever this thing does...warts and all, it works. That's really all I can say. Like for example, and this is a bit off topic, but it's one of those anomalies that *I* can't explain.

I have a Z06 Corvette as you know. It came stock with 385 Hp off the showroom floor. If you dynacomp a car that supposedly has said HP, it usually comes out to way less. We dyna'd mine at 384.6 which was a real surprise. Most of the cars in my year came out to 340 hp. My cousin got a newer Z06 that came stock with 405 HP. When we dyno'd his, it came out to 362. Newer car (by 3 years) better technology, probably way more precise, better science but for some reason, my lil first generation of the model which was advertised for less HP literally had more. We of course both ruined our cars putting on gadgets to get more HP out of them, but that's a story for a different thread. LOL!

My point in saying that is, sometimes there are just weird things that happen and even when things look to be correct or even incorrect, they work better than science may explain even if there are obvious warts. There's no question in my mind that people will find a million things wrong with ARC if they really test it out.

Why it works for me the way it does, I have no clue. Why I can start a mix at one of my 2 studio's and then bring that mix home to my house and hear the exact same stuff, I have no idea. How it's made an incredible difference in a 12x12 room loaded with stuff that looks like a lil music store with guitars hanging off the walls, a big screen tv, drums, boards and every little space filled in this room to where my chair barely fits, I have no idea either. LOL!!

My room in my house is absolute garbage for audio and I'll admit to that. It looks like Van Halen's old practice pad minus all the beer cans and cig butts all over the floor. LMAO!! But man, everyone that comes here mentions how great everything sounds and what's even more weird, whatever gets mixed here sounds the same everywhere just like my studio's.

The weird thing about both of my studio's...I have all the room tuning they both could have. Bass traps, all the ugly stuff I hate, foam...you know how that stuff looks. I STILL could not mix things right in either of my two rooms. Both were built to recording studio specs for the dimensions that were chosen. I went to an acoustic architect for my main room and the same guy built the new studio I just got involved with.

He excels in studio builds and has been building them for 30 years. But I still wasn't happy until I ran ARC in both of them. I even tried the room analysis thing where I hired a tech to come out and do the room and I had a Rane eq for each set of monitors. Though that helped incredibly well, it didn't help as much as ARC did. So how can I not brag about it? Then I take into account that it helped me in my crap man cave at the house...and well, it was just this incredible experience that I couldn't shut up about.

In the new studio, we have bass traps there. Before ARC, you couldn't sit in the back of the room without hearing insane bass to where the mix no longer sounded like anything you'd want to release. We have client couches there and well, you always want to make an impression no matter where they sit or stand. Once we ARC'd the room, that stopped and you could literally enjoy the mix from the back of the room. It's not like it is when you sit at the console, but man, I'm talking 100% difference just because we added ARC. So it's definitely doing something...or maybe just correcting the monitors in a better way. Whatever it is, honest I'd be lost without it...that's for sure.

jsaras: Hahaha you know I'm with you there! I think we're all a little techy though....I don't mean to play it off like I'm a dope or I don't embrace science. The fact of the matter is, some of it intimidates me...the other thing is, well, I just like using my ears and getting right down to business without the theories and additional jargon that can go with it. But whatever works for a person whether it be self-analysis, Ethans book or additional services, ARC, Ergo or the correction that comes with JBL's (which failed miserably for me by the way) it's best to use what we feel comfortable about and tell the tales the way we live them while explaining what we did to get these great results. :)

-Danny

I don't believe in music theory, I'm waiting until it's a proven fact.