Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rnicklaus]

What are the thoughts on why the printed mixes don't show the differences that Steve Albini heard?

[Extreme Mixing]

Hard to believe that Steve Albini was too shy and intimidated by peer pressure to say "Hey, are you guys on crack, or what?", if the low frequency loss was so profound.

Steve

[bblackwood]

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 17:52

What are the thoughts on why the printed mixes don't show the differences that Steve Albini heard?

First question would be:
- if the differences don't show up on further transfers (even through very good ADC's), then who cares? The final release in 99.99% of all records will be digital anyway...

Unless I'm missing something...

[Tidewater]

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 18:52

What are the thoughts on why the printed mixes don't show the differences that Steve Albini heard?

I said I would not speculate on motivations, and be quiet.



M

[rnicklaus]

Extreme Mixing wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 15:58

Hard to believe that Steve Albini was too shy and intimidated by peer pressure to say "Hey, are you guys on crack, or what?", if the low frequency loss was so profound. Steve

He may well have - the people who were there will need to give their take on that.

Was the rough mix test blind is one question...  

[Ron Steele]

Quote:

electrical wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 14:33 I heard the low-end problem plain as day. I heard it despite all the drunken/boorish chatter in the room, and despite my suspicion that such a problem (if it existed at all) was being overstated by some engineers. I was flabbergasted when we polled the listeners about whether "the problem" was there or not, and there was not unanimity in the affirmative. To me, being as honest as I can about my thinking and perceptions, it was unmistakeable. Granted, I was the only person in the room who listens to tape every day, and also the only person in the room who doesn't listen to digital playback regularly. I have no doubt that I could identify the Pro-Tools playback in these initial tests 100 percent of the time. I would like to have been able to try that test.

With all due respect Steve, you may have just managed to hang a dark cloud over the outcome of this event.  Your comment regarding the "drunken/boorish" chattering crowd in the room  is an extremely unfair characterization of the professionals that showed up to listen, and a huge disappointment at the very least.

Unless of course i am misinterpreting this statement?

Nobody questioned or argued with you when you mentioned you felt the presence of the elephant in the room. The "drunken/boorish" chattering crowd clearly respected your opinion and thoughts, are they not entitled to theirs?


Also, no where did Gannon or I in our initial posts in this thread, say or imply you were apart of the majority when you posed the question on the low-end. We said you posed the question, and no hands in the room went up.

[rnicklaus]

bblackwood wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:01

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 17:52 What are the thoughts on why the printed mixes don't show the differences that Steve Albini heard? First question would be: - if the differences don't show up on further transfers (even through very good ADC's), then who cares? The final release in 99.99% of all records will be digital anyway... Unless I'm missing something...

The bottom octave? - Sorry, couldn't resist.

[The Resonater]

Perhaps there was also some low end loss going into Nuendo, which would somewhat minimize the differences of the files once they were in that format.  That would seem a relatively logical conclusion, no?  And probably not totally unexpected.

[The Resonater]

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 00:08

Was the rough mix test blind is one question...

Yes, good question...was the original rough mix comparison a blind test or was everyone aware of which was which during that test?

[rnicklaus]

The Resonater wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:11

Perhaps there was also some low end loss going into Nuendo, which would somewhat minimize the differences of the files once they were in that format.  That would seem a relatively logical conclusion, no?  And probably not totally unexpected.

Could be... BUT one would think it would have been heard on the first playback.  Like, "Hey, that's not what went in".

[Ron Steele]

Quote:

R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 00:08 Was the rough mix test blind is one question... Yes, good question...was the original rough mix comparison a blind test or was everyone aware of which was which during that test?

If you mean the initial test concerning the low-end, it was not listened to blind.

[rnicklaus]

Ron Steele wrote on Sat, 19 November 2005 16:38

Quote: R.Nicklaus wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 00:08 Was the rough mix test blind is one question... Yes, good question...was the original rough mix comparison a blind test or was everyone aware of which was which during that test? If you mean the initial test concerning the low-end, it was not listened to blind.

Did anyone at the test have a problem with the sound of the Nuendo playback before the blind tests, if you recall?

[Jules]

IMHO successfully "printing" sub harmonic data onto digital, namely PT is an art in itself. Without monitoring PT a/d & d/a of the 2" at the time of actually recording to the 2", the process is going to involve some sort of 'guesswork' or "assumption" as to how it will turn out once transferred, right?

You can kick, pound your fists on and shove a pinball machine until the tilt light comes on ... why not do what ya gotta do with 2" and PT transfers to make your ears happy (boost 50hz on the playback cards, add Phoenix plug ins whatever) and move on? Develop a method that you like.

Perhaps a little more 'sound engineering' from the sound engineers?

[The Resonater]

Ron Steele wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 00:38

If you mean the initial test concerning the low-end, it was not listened to blind.

Ron,

It's easy for us to be armchair quarterbacks on Monday morning complaining about the game.  So, know that we do appreciate all the time and effort put in by everyone at the test.

I'm surprised that the initial low end test was not conducted blind, because it is only through blind tests that we can remove bias and emotions.  Steve is an admitted analog fan and in that light, his being apparently the only person in the room who heard the loss of low end "as plain as day" seems as though it *could* have to do with bias and emotion.  Nor should Steve be apologetic if that were true.  We all have preferences and we like to think that our preferences are *right*.  I'm not suggesting that this was the case, but it's an odd coincidence if it weren't at least partly involved.

I'm glad that you felt that at least the tests were not spoiled by a rowdy crowd preventing anyone from coming to any conclusions there.  The way Steve put it, you kind of have this picture of beer guzzling guys being loud during serious listening tests, and obviously, that's not how you saw it.  So, I'm glad to know it wasn't a total drunken windy-city sprawl...

[maccool]

Mixerman, are you short?

I am short, and very sensitive to low frequency sound.

WTF?

Bear with me, I'm looking for a way into this...

I have followed this process with interest.  MM's assertion should be repeatable and testable.  The Chicago Test attempted this.  I have much admiration for the principals who brought the Test about.  But, methinks the slanging match has only just started.

Just to state the premise again;  Mixerman asserts that a transfer of audio from 2" tape to ProTools loses something at the lowest audible frequencies, the bottom octave. I hope I have that right.

Although the test files have yet to be posted, we do have some initial responses to the Chicago Test here on the REP, and at best they are inconclusive.  The assessments of the the sounds seem to be totally subjective.  AE #1 hears one thing, AE #2 hears something else.  This in itself is not surprising.  Surprising is the fact that nobody has addressed this element of the audition chain.  Some say that they can hear the low frequency loss, others say they can't.  Surely it is not difficult to measure the frequencies of the two recorded sources?  Given two source audio progammes, one reference microphone, and one frequency analyser, the physical attributes of each audio programme can be measured and compared. Once you introduce the real-live ears of people, then you introduce a whole other set of variables; you introduce subjectivity.

What the fuck was I talking about.....?

Oh yeah!  Now I remember.  I'm a short-arse, and I have a problem with low frequencies.

I don't think that this is a psycho-acoustic thing, I think that it's a physiognomic acoustic thing.  It's about how we're built.

For a long time I thought it was just me.  Wherever I was, listening to music, live or recorded, there was (and still is) too much bass.  For me, the way most folk have the bass just walks roughshod over all the good stuff.

And then, I had a conversation with and old friend of mine who is a first-class FOH soundman.  He has much experience with a band who were, are, very big in Japan.  He wasn't in the least surprised when I said that I find most concert sound to be too bass-heavy. It was he who told me that it's because I'm short.  When mixing his band in Japan he has a default bass level in mind on account of the generally short stature of the audience.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but I don't think that any rigorous conclusions can be drawn from the Chicago Test if those conclusions are based (no pun intended) solely on the ears of the attending AE's.  I have no gripe with the AE's, and they will doubtless tell it like they hear it, but those ears (good as they are) are uncalibrated.  If you're a short-arse like me you may hear a bass loss.  If you're  a longshanks, you may not.  And there you go, another minefield.

Whatever the outcome may be, my thanks to those who made this happen, and I hope that some good will come of it.