Print

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

[Jerry Tubb]

Gold wrote on Thu, 07 August 2008 07:35

Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 07 August 2008 01:43 maybe someone could do an aftermarket plastic veneer? Perhaps it would be better to take a mallet to the face plate to mimic a steel pan. That way you would only have to tap the faceplate to know what note you're working on.

Made me laugh Pablo Oro!

Funny, some of the switches on my Sontec do have a distinctive pitched Dinggg to them, not unlike tapping a tone bar with a mallet.
But I haven't measured the pitch............. yet.

I think a solution for the on-going Ibis faceplate graphics dilemma... neither note names or frequencies, perhaps alien hieroglyphics ala roswell, or better yet just plain dots.

Anyway don't have a dog in this hunt since I've never used an Ibis.

Always enjoy reading DC's frothy comments about Key -vs- Hertz.

JT

[dcollins]

Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 07 August 2008 09:25

Always enjoy reading DC's frothy comments about Key -vs- Hertz.

I should probably give up on this topic.

Good charts, and matched spectra are what you want.

"I see you have the machine that goes 'ping.'"


DC

[masterhse]

I think that approaches toward EQ would be a very interesting topic on its own.

There are times when certain notes will "resonate" in a mix. Being able to identify not only the note, but its relationship in the song can be more helpful and quicker for problem resolution than knowing the absolute frequency value and determining intervals through calculations. Also choosing fixed values for these frequencies and being able to grab them while still thinking in a musical way helps. It might be interesting taking DH's philosophy a step further and having an interface like a piano keyboard where you could "latch" a key to the frequencies that you wanted along with separate controls for pitch bend to "tune" the keyboard and another for bandwidth/type. At other times the problem calls for a more traditional approach where all of this is useless.

Personally I like to play both Country and Western.

[dave-G]

Sorry for continuing the topic-tangent...  

The note-markings on this EQ have always been a put off for me.  Different strokes, I guess.. but seems like sweeping a narrow-Q'ed EQ around would always be both faster and more precise than figuring it out musically ... and avoids the pitfalls mentioned above.  Of course, you could do as much with an Ibis, I'm merely 'incredulating' about the idea of figuring out the musical note then dialing it in.

Next up: compression threshold/gain or VU meters legended from "pianissimo" to "fortissimo"

(((ping)))

-dave

[masterhse]

dave-G wrote on Fri, 08 August 2008 07:47

but seems like sweeping a narrow-Q'ed EQ around would always be both faster and more precise than figuring it out musically ...

See that's the thing though. While I don't profess to have perfect pitch, I do seem to have a fairly good knack of knowing a key or note from hearing it. Likewise one should develop the ability to know a frequency range from hearing it without having to sweep very much. I studied musical ear training before the later so there is no "figuring it out", it's likely even more natural for me. I would guess it's similar for other MEs coming from a musical background?

Different strokes, but ambidexterity gets the job done twice as fast.

[pong]

[Jerry Tubb]

dcollins wrote on Fri, 08 August 2008 05:04

Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 07 August 2008 09:25 Always enjoy reading DC's frothy comments about Key -vs- Hertz. I should probably give up on this topic. Good charts, and matched spectra are what you want.

Nope. (didn't we resolve this over in GS a few weeks ago?)

We're in agreement, that recognizing sound in Hertz by Ear, is the most direct, fastest, and superior scientific method for an audio engineer. And relying on "cheaters" impairs the development of this ability.

The question, is just how closely can you identify by ear in Hertz?

An octave, 1/3 octave, 1/10th octave? I'd think 1/3 octave should be close enough for most any EQ'ing situation.

It's the scientific approach of frequency recognition, somewhat analagous to perfect or relative pitch in music.

Some are blessed with the natural talent of frequency recognition, others gain it by experience, and yet others will never get it.

The musician hears the tone and says that's an A4,

The audio engineer hears the same tone and says that's 440Hz

Some of us MEs with a strong musical background have a foot in both camps... Both good frequency recognition and good pitch recognition. So we can't really resist using both methods.

If I were giving a young Engineer advice on which method to adopt as a base line, it'd be frequency recognition in Hertz by ear. The scientific method.

But it might also help him to learn the musical equivalents for better communication with the musicians on the other side of the glass.

Quote:

"I see you have the machine that goes 'ping.'" DC

Yes, some of the switches cause the faceplate to go ding with bell-like clarity... a humorous distraction.

JT

[minister]

dcollins wrote on Fri, 08 August 2008 05:04

Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 07 August 2008 09:25 Always enjoy reading DC's frothy comments about Key -vs- Hertz. I should probably give up on this topic.

Yes.

Eschew the pithy froth and you'll finally fit in at GS.  Which is what you want............

[Garrett H]

Those of you defending the notes obviously never owned an IBIS.  

It's not that we have trouble using the thing during the session... it's the HELL of documenting your settings.  

Let's see, on each band there are FOUR of the same note values.

So, if you jot down  +2 @ C#  you're actually writing:

+2 and any of four possibilities on this given band.  Hope you remember what it was...

[masterhse]

Garrett H wrote on Fri, 08 August 2008 15:19

Those of you defending the notes obviously never owned an IBIS.   It's not that we have trouble using the thing during the session... it's the HELL of documenting your settings.   Let's see, on each band there are FOUR of the same note values. So, if you jot down  +2 @ C#  you're actually writing: +2 and any of four possibilities on this given band.  Hope you remember what it was...

Actually I've owned an Ibis for some time. I document them by adding a number for the octave in a given band, e.g. C#1, C#2, etc.

Not so hard really ...

JT where is the GS thread (if you have it handy). I  missed this one. I also wanted to ask you being an experienced guitar slinger. Do you find yourself sometimes subconsciously forming chords with your left hand while determining the freq/key?

For those with synesthesia they should come out with a color coded EQs.

[cass anawaty]

masterhse wrote on Fri, 08 August 2008 21:13

Garrett H wrote on Fri, 08 August 2008 15:19 Those of you defending the notes obviously never owned an IBIS.   It's not that we have trouble using the thing during the session... it's the HELL of documenting your settings.   Let's see, on each band there are FOUR of the same note values. So, if you jot down  +2 @ C#  you're actually writing: +2 and any of four possibilities on this given band.  Hope you remember what it was... I also wanted to ask you being an experienced guitar slinger. Do you find yourself sometimes subconsciously forming chords with your left hand while determining the freq/key?

I'd say that's doubtful, but I'll bet he puts a strap on it occasionally and spins it around his neck a few times........

[masterhse]

Cass Anawaty wrote on Fri, 08 August 2008 16:28

I'd say that's doubtful, but I'll bet he puts a strap on it occasionally and spins it around his neck a few times........

I'll betcha JT can "play" an EQ with his teeth!

[masterhse]

I think that I've found the thread:

     http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/198899-freque ncy-note-2.html

Anyways as an odd coincidence yesterday while I was working with a Brazilian artist. On one of the tracks there was an uneven bass much like JT mentioned in the thread above. There was a particular note that was exceptionally loud and I mentioned to her "you mean the low G?" and she said "exactly". I think that if I had said "you mean 49 Hz?" she would have probably looked at me oddly and it would have taken a bit longer to deal with it. Funny how we could speak the same language even though I don't know Portuguese.

[Jerry Tubb]

masterhse wrote on Fri, 08 August 2008 15:48

Cass Anawaty wrote on Fri, 08 August 2008 16:28 I'd say that's doubtful, but I'll bet he puts a strap on it occasionally and spins it around his neck a few times........ I'll betcha JT can "play" an EQ with his teeth!

: ~ )  I always did like to put a little bite in my EQ curves.

But seriously, all I'm really saying is:

Frequency Recognition in Hertz by Ear ~ and ~ Pitch Recognition by Ear are two sides of the same coin.
An accute sensitivity and memory for specific sonic character.

One is the scientific approach, the other a musical approach.

Funny they both use the term Octaves.

Looking at an analyzer before reaching for an EQ knob is definitely cheating.

I think the funniest thing I read was when someone suggested playing "Free Bird" with the Ibis EQ.

Cheers - JT

[dcollins]

Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 08 August 2008 22:18

One is the scientific approach, the other a musical approach.

This is exactly the distinction I was trying to avoid!

Outside of one device, equalisers are labeled in Hertz, dB, Q, furlongs per fortnight, etc.

And it's not just a matter of convenience, these terms work for all kinds of music.  

Yes, there is a time when just one frequency sticks out, or is missing, but this whole chart system is lost on me.  And I've played guitar much longer that I've been a mastering engineer..........

Quote:

Funny they both use the term Octaves.

Absolutely, as the 1:2 ratio is very popular, whatever you call it.

Quote:

Looking at an analyzer before reaching for an EQ knob is definitely cheating.

And actually counter-productive for learning how to eq imo, but you sure hear a lot about it.

Quote:

I think the funniest thing I read was when someone suggested playing "Free Bird" with the Ibis EQ.

I don't get it.


DC

[masterhse]

dcollins wrote on Sat, 09 August 2008 02:50

I've played guitar much longer that I've been a mastering engineer..........

Wow, didn't know that about ya Dave! Cool. Seems like we can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting an axe grinder.

At the last Who show here in Philly PT blurted out before one of the songs "There's too many f*cking guitarists!".

At least he didn't say MEs.