Hi Bill,
So what you're saying is basically that unless there is an AES paper on any subject, it can't be considered common knowledge.
I can't interprete this world we're living in that way, no matter how much I'm actually agreeing with you regarding the difference between fact and opinion.
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 17:26 |
Hello Thomas,
Tomas Danko wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 09:56 | We already know that subtle analog distortion can make a stereo sound come out to sound wider.
|
What? Who knows this? I have never seen an AES paper on this subject in my life. Is this another example of posting an opinion as fact?
|
If you distort the S channel in an M/S configuration, you can yield the effect of a widened stereo image due to exxaggerated higher frequency content that differ between left and right.
No AES paper on this? Ask the question in the mastering forum and I think you will find a lot of people claiming this to be their empirical experiences. Without the M/S scenario, a multi-mic'ed drum kit with the stereo overhead mic pair cranked up through hot gain and compression could also render something similar.
It is a possible occurence within the analog domain, whereas ITB you only make the same material louder until you clip it. I hope I do not need an AES paper to prove that.
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 17:26 |
Quote: |
We also know that background noise can help to gel things in the mix, through masking.
|
I have read a BBC study that linked tape noise to perceived high frequency response, but never anything about noise being the glue that holds a mix together. Another opinion.
|
I'm surprised there are no AES papers stating that if you put quiet sounds beneath louder ones, at a certain point the louder individual sounds will not come out as much as separate sounds popping out of nowhere. There surely must be one.
Some people love tape hiss. At work we place carefully constructed ambient "noise" backgrounds together with reverberation into the real time 3D space mix that happens in a computer game, so that a lot of impact sounds and other louder sources won't sound as if they just triggered out of nowhere. It makes it easier to create a lot of the louder sound effects and getting away with the illusion of a cohesive world.
I chose the word "gel" to convey this, as I have seen many other engineers do in order to communicate this effect.
It's the same thing when you place a synth pad sound tucked under the other sounds, it fills up the gaps as you know.
With crosstalk all the way back in the most quiet background, and how all sorts of sounds will get the treatment of other sounds in the mix (ie effects, equalization etc) it could be seen as a free bonus that just happens. Not that it's nearly as apparent in comparison, but one could make a parallel to mic bleed and the benefits of that come the mixing session.
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 17:26 |
Quote: |
Furthermore, we also know we can get a euphonic bonus due to built-up cross-channel leakage in an analog mixer. When cranking up a signal through compressors and what-not, it can become a real parameter to consider.
|
Again, conjecture. There is not a shred of fact to this statement. I have never read an AES paper that stated that increased cross talk was desirable in an audio circuit. Please back up your statement.
|
There may not be an AES paper about crosstalk being desirable, but IIRC there should be AES papers stating that noise and distortion artefacts can be perceived as euphonic. And things add up, as you know, so why not include crosstalk into that equation?
Bill Mueller wrote on Thu, 09 October 2008 17:26 |
Quote: |
And a lot of people are still running their DAW tracks very hot. We know very well how detrimental that can be to audio quality.
|
Absolutely! Here we agree. However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with OTB summing. Just do as Terry has taught now for four years and lower your gain.
Quote: |
But perhaps those issues are merely scratching the surface on the differences between ITB vs OTB.
|
I will state the simple fact yet one more time. If you invert and sum your ITB mix and your OTB mix and they perfectly cancel, son yer trippin' if you think one sounds different than the other. If they don't and you can get a double blind study to confirm that the OTB mix is discernibly better, than you have the basis for an enhancement scheme. Very valuable information or more bunk.
Best regards,
Bill
|
What running DAW tracks hot has to do with OTB summing is that near 0 dB or even hotter OTB summing will NOT sound as bad (within reason of course) as compared to running an ITB mix hot. In other words, one potential reason for people prefering OTB mixing could be because they've tried ITB with hot levels. I'm sorry if I didn't manage to express myself clearly.
If you have read some of my posts in numerous other threads you will find that I am a big believer and borderline evangelist when it comes to null tests. If it cancels perfectly, I am at ease. I don't trip like that.
I have read a recent study (albeit small) that included blind listening where the majority prefered the OTB mix. I have, however, to say that the entire test and it's methods were found wanting to say the least. (I'm afraid the exam papers are in Swedish but just for sake of reference:
http://dalea.du.se/theses/?itemId=3129)
I agree with you that a properly implemented A/B comparison between matched ITB vs OTB mixes and the rests you get after performing a cancel/null-test would be very interesting and enlighting to say the least.
Since it's probably not evident in this post, I just wanted to let you know that I always appreciate your efforts towards debunking and separating facts from opinions regardless if I'm the one in the line of fire.
Sincerely,
Danko