Print

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

[CCC]

Phil wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 19:40

Perhaps I lack the skills to express myself clearly, but, whether I do or not, I'm going to wish you all well, and let the conversation continue without me. Honestly, I tire quickly of these discussions simply because they never seem to accomplish anything. It may be the difference in our individual makeup -- some understand instinctively, some understand on an intellectual level, and maybe that makes internet communication more difficult.

Yep. Notwithstanding the fact that we have frequency dependent dynamics processors, as mentioned already, the fact is that a compressor is different than an equalizer. If one don't know why this is, then - well - how do we phrase this delicately - one may be somewhat confused. The tendency for people to be confused is not so bad. The tendency for people to flat out insist on remaining confused in spite of all rational input - that's the downfall of this forum. Ironic that this is the fate of the forum bearing the name of perhaps the most knowledgeable and sophisticated mix engineer in history.

The end.

[Jack Schitt]

Eric Bridenbaker wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 10:29

Denny, if this helps, consider something like a guitar track that sounds good, but has the occasional low end spike, which jumps up about 3db on a peak meter, and sometimes higher on a VU. Vocal tracks can also contain these low end plosives. Taking out some bottom tames these, and the meters are no longer spiking (which is in part why the track can be raised in the mix). The overall dynamic range of the track has changed. I see your point about the fact that the low end frequencies, while reduced in level may still have the same dynamic content (relative to themselves), but it's the overall response that really counts. The same technique applies when mastering engineers filter out some of the subs, to make the whole mix tighter and louder. In practice, the phase response is usually changed when eq is used, and this in itself is can be enough to change the overall dynamic response as the frequency interaction as a whole has been altered. Linear phase eq's also exibit slight timing anomolies, but behave in a manner more in line with what you are saying. Best Regards, Eric

I see where you are going with this. By bringing the frequencies that are exaggerated back in line with the rest you open up additional head room for the overall level to be raised. That I get. In that context OK.  

What you are describing is balancing the frequency spectrum to optimize average db level before clipping. In that sense yes I suppose it is a form of dynamics reduction.  In the context of the original post the term 'spikey' to me suggested random hits were problematic. (ie loud campared to rest of track) This would not suggest an EQ issue to me as the basic tone should not be changing that much short big variation in playing dynamics which takes us back to needing that compressor, not EQ. I would bet if the description was 'present' instead of 'spikey' most of this discussion would have happened.

Thanks Eric

[Jack Schitt]

John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 15:02

Phil wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 19:40 Perhaps I lack the skills to express myself clearly, but, whether I do or not, I'm going to wish you all well, and let the conversation continue without me. Honestly, I tire quickly of these discussions simply because they never seem to accomplish anything. It may be the difference in our individual makeup -- some understand instinctively, some understand on an intellectual level, and maybe that makes internet communication more difficult. Yep. Notwithstanding the fact that we have frequency dependent dynamics processors, as mentioned already, the fact is that a compressor is different than an equalizer. If one don't know why this is, then - well - how do we phrase this delicately - one may be somewhat confused. The tendency for people to be confused is not so bad. The tendency for people to flat out insist on remaining confused in spite of all rational input - that's the downfall of this forum. Ironic that this is the fate of the forum bearing the name of perhaps the most knowledgeable and sophisticated mix engineer in history. The end.

Thanks for sharing... I think everyone involved knows the difference between EQ and compression. If you would like to call someone out, do it. We are all grown ups here. Veiled innuendo and condescending commentary while clever, serves no purpose, contribures nothing to the discussion and only serves to hasten the forum demise you fear.

[timrob]

Phil wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 13:40

Perhaps I lack the skills to express myself clearly, but, whether I do or not, I'm going to wish you all well, and let the conversation continue without me. Honestly, I tire quickly of these discussions simply because they never seem to accomplish anything. It may be the difference in our individual makeup -- some understand instinctively, some understand on an intellectual level, and maybe that makes internet communication more difficult. And J.J. - careful with that "D" word. It makes threads go on for 31 pages, you know. I'm off to eat junk food, drink beverages, and watch The Speed Channel.

Phil your explanation makes perfect sense.

[timrob]

John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 14:02

Yep. Notwithstanding the fact that we have frequency dependent dynamics processors, as mentioned already, the fact is that a compressor is different than an equalizer. If one don't know why this is, then - well - how do we phrase this delicately - one may be somewhat confused. The tendency for people to be confused is not so bad. The tendency for people to flat out insist on remaining confused in spite of all rational input - that's the downfall of this forum. Ironic that this is the fate of the forum bearing the name of perhaps the most knowledgeable and sophisticated mix engineer in history. The end.

With all due respect...
Frankly, I think it is posts like this that do more harm to the forum than any other. This should be a free discussion, but this adds nothing.

BTW, The confusion is not whether a compressor is the same as an EQ or not. Obviously not. The confusion is in how EQ effects dynamic range. I believe I said that I can see how it can.

[CCC]

Denny W. wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 21:55

Thanks for sharing... I think everyone involved knows the difference between EQ and compression. If you would like to call someone out, do it. We are all grown ups here. Veiled innuendo and condescending commentary while clever, serves no purpose, contribures nothing to the discussion and only serves to hasten the forum demise you fear.

Ok then Denny - "EQ is a dynamics processor in perceptual terms" is wrong - but your post #94286 is succinct and correct. So I agree with you.

The original poster continually compares apples to monkeys, which then leads to lengthy dissertations that spin on for page after page resolving nothing.

I also agree that I'm an incorrigible smart-ass who really needs to find another hobby besides taking pot shots at posts that I find silly. If you can recommend a hobby, or perhaps a 12 step program, I'd be interested in hearing about it. As far as the demise of this forum goes, I think that's long since past.

[CCC]

timrob wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 22:24

John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 14:02 Yep. Notwithstanding the fact that we have frequency dependent dynamics processors, as mentioned already, the fact is that a compressor is different than an equalizer. If one don't know why this is, then - well - how do we phrase this delicately - one may be somewhat confused. The tendency for people to be confused is not so bad. The tendency for people to flat out insist on remaining confused in spite of all rational input - that's the downfall of this forum. Ironic that this is the fate of the forum bearing the name of perhaps the most knowledgeable and sophisticated mix engineer in history. The end. With all due respect... Frankly, I think it is posts like this that do more harm to the forum than any other. This should be a free discussion, but this adds nothing. BTW, The confusion is not whether a compressor is the same as an EQ or not. Obviously not. The confusion is in how EQ effects dynamic range. I believe I said that I can see how it can.

With all due respect I think that you're wrong. I think that the harm done to this forum is done by the handful of people who harp incessantly about their improbable perspectives and general misconceptions and by those people who fall for it. Re read the original post or the lines of reasoning under the lamentable 'sampling rate debate', 'what kind of program sounds better on digital', or the recent attempts at resurrecting this tripe on the Lavry forum. Free discussion is great, if it makes any sense or meets at least a liminal standard of knowledge. So as for what I add to the discussion - I add the smart assed voice in the back of the room that says that 'this sucks'. I tend to say things like this because as I alluded to above, I'm an incorrigible smart ass, and the topics that get the most attention on this forum do, in an objective sense, suck.

EQ affects dynamic range in a very static way. It's not as coarse as a fader move. It's a static gain reduction within a range of frequencies. tell me what your conception of compression is, and see if it lines up with this definition of EQ. It probably won't, because the effect of EQ on dynamics is static. The effect of compression on dynamics is,....well....dynamic. It's different. Sorry, but if we all knew the difference then what are we talking about?

[Jack Schitt]

John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 17:35

Denny W. wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 21:55 Thanks for sharing... I think everyone involved knows the difference between EQ and compression. If you would like to call someone out, do it. We are all grown ups here. Veiled innuendo and condescending commentary while clever, serves no purpose, contribures nothing to the discussion and only serves to hasten the forum demise you fear. Ok then Denny - "EQ is a dynamics processor in perceptual terms" is wrong - but your post #94286 is succinct and correct. So I agree with you. The original poster continually compares apples to monkeys, which then leads to lengthy dissertations that spin on for page after page resolving nothing. I also agree that I'm an incorrigible smart-ass who really needs to find another hobby besides taking pot shots at posts that I find silly. If you can recommend a hobby, or perhaps a 12 step program, I'd be interested in hearing about it. As far as the demise of this forum goes, I think that's long since past.

Sorry John, I made a bad assumption on your intent on this one. You know what happens when you assume. It is I who must assume the role of thread jack-ass.

[timrob]

John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 16:46

timrob wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 22:24 John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 14:02 Yep. Notwithstanding the fact that we have frequency dependent dynamics processors, as mentioned already, the fact is that a compressor is different than an equalizer. If one don't know why this is, then - well - how do we phrase this delicately - one may be somewhat confused. The tendency for people to be confused is not so bad. The tendency for people to flat out insist on remaining confused in spite of all rational input - that's the downfall of this forum. Ironic that this is the fate of the forum bearing the name of perhaps the most knowledgeable and sophisticated mix engineer in history. The end. With all due respect... Frankly, I think it is posts like this that do more harm to the forum than any other. This should be a free discussion, but this adds nothing. BTW, The confusion is not whether a compressor is the same as an EQ or not. Obviously not. The confusion is in how EQ effects dynamic range. I believe I said that I can see how it can. With all due respect I think that you're wrong. I think that the harm done to this forum is done by the handful of people who harp incessantly about their improbable perspectives and general misconceptions and by those people who fall for it. Re read the original post or the lines of reasoning under the lamentable 'sampling rate debate', 'what kind of program sounds better on digital', or the recent attempts at resurrecting this tripe on the Lavry forum. Free discussion is great, if it makes any sense or meets at least a liminal standard of knowledge. So as for what I add to the discussion - I add the smart assed voice in the back of the room that says that 'this sucks'. I tend to say things like this because as I alluded to above, I'm an incorrigible smart ass, and the topics that get the most attention on this forum do, in an objective sense, suck. EQ affects dynamic range in a very static way. It's not as coarse as a fader move. It's a static gain reduction within a range of frequencies. tell me what your conception of compression is, and see if it lines up with this definition of EQ. It probably won't, because the effect of EQ on dynamics is static. The effect of compression on dynamics is,....well....dynamic. It's different. Sorry, but if we all knew the difference then what are we talking about?

John, I'll agree that those posts you reference have gone on far too long and Yes, I have been suckered into joining that discussion to some degree. I'm personally used to a more moderated listserv type discussion group that has a more specific topical structure. Even in those it takes a while to figure out who's full of it and who isn't. The original poster does seem to have a knack for stirring up controversy. Though, I get the feeling he is truly trying to understand things. There are others who appear to be trolling around looking to escalate the controversy.
I like to give some people the benefit of the doubt until I know for myself what I'm getting in to. Then it becomes a choice whether to participate or not. I haven't been around here long, so I suppose it will take everyone time to figure out if I'm full of it or not. I try not to fuel the flames too much, but I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade. Obviously, You have no problems there either.

Perhaps I responded too harshly. I'm willing to admit that.

In any case, we don't typically use EQ to raise or lower dynamic range. The tools for that are compressors and expanders. (And Limiters if for some reason you don't include them in with compressors.) So, in the end, I guess I'm with you...What the heck were we talking about again?...  

[Eric Bridenbaker]

Phil wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 14:40

It may be the difference in our individual makeup -- some understand instinctively, some understand on an intellectual level, and maybe that makes internet communication more difficult.

This is one of the main reasons I think for some of the threads going the way they have.

If only the right and left brains could meet in the middle.... oh wait they do. They just speak slightly different languages.  

I suppose misinterpretation is inevitable whenever one attempts to reconcile the perception and subjectivity of the aural experience with the logic and science of the equipment.

Those who have committed to a field that demands an understanding of both sides must make every effort to bridge the gap.

The good news is, for the most part, we are trying to do just that.

Best Regards,
Eric

[Tim Gilles]

John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 15:02

Ironic that this is the fate of the forum bearing the name of perhaps the most knowledgeable and sophisticated mix engineer in history.

John... I looked all over this forum for about an hour and I can't see my name ANYWHERE!

Did someone take it down?

Tim "Rumblefish" Gilles

PS. On a similar absurdist note... Check out this link if ya REALLY wanna see somebody get the concepts of Eq. and Compression snoggled.


http://www.recording.org/ftopic-30855-days0-orderasc-0.html

Not for the faint of heart.

[Andy Simpson]

John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 22:35

Ok then Denny - "EQ is a dynamics processor in perceptual terms" is wrong -

So EQ cannot change your perception of dynamics? Ever?

-

Monkeys to apples? Compression = monkeys, EQ = apples?

Are you into genetics?

Andy

[CCC]

andy_simpson wrote on Sun, 02 October 2005 11:11

So EQ cannot change your perception of dynamics? Ever?

I don't doubt that it changes your perception of dynamics.

andy_simpson wrote on Sun, 02 October 2005 11:11

Monkeys to apples? Compression = monkeys, EQ = apples? Are you into genetics?

Of course the difference between monkeys and apples is patent. We evolved from monkeys. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden apple. Totally different inquiries into the origin of humans. We need Poyser to wade in and illuminate this subject I think.

[PP]

[CCC]

****** wrote on Sun, 02 October 2005 14:04

You now.... Are attempting..... To..... MAKE A MONKEY OUT OF YOURSELF! Think this through deeply..... You will see what I mean......

Fabulous comeback.

I knew taking the name Poyser would not be in vain.