Print

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

[compasspnt]

As Peter and John know so well, we must always be careful what we ask for...

[Level]

Old news Andy...but I am happy you are finding different uses for your tools. This IS engineering.
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/25136/1832/?SQ= 914a00de25fdf444d2db6895f9c65359#msg_25136

[Jack Schitt]

****** wrote on Sun, 02 October 2005 09:04

Poyser - Oxford Dear John, The other day I wrote a highly illuminating post for this thread from the perspective of analogies of musicial instrument's and musical form then applying them to the technical aspects under discussion. It reinforced Terry's point's and underlined their limitation's. However..... I declined from posting it, when it was ready, because I reasoned thus......   This guy is disagreeing.. With Terry, one of the most accomplished engineers around. And This guy is disagreeing.. With John, one of the finest mixing engineers around. Now, although I wondered deeply about what a Cubase SX RME studio was.. I reasoned..... Why should I bother posting here. It will be more trouble than it is worth. They will MAKE A MONKEY out of anybody who does. I believe this was wisdom from above..... Especially in the light of subsequent post's...... Trolling and Thread Stirring are completely out of hand........... However... I am shocked, literally stunned, to read......... That not content with having allowed others to MAKE A MONKEY OUT OF YOU....... You now.... Are attempting..... To..... MAKE A MONKEY OUT OF YOURSELF! Think this through deeply..... You will see what I mean...... God Bless! P

I had/have no idea who that guy is. Names and resumes were not included in the sig. If he wants to remain behind door number 3 for whatever reason so be it but without ID how can you expect people to bow down before him?

With all do repect to this gentleman and his talents, I fail to see why a question and discussion is so offensive to you. You were not involved in any of it. With major rooms dropping like flies Prima Donna attitudes don't seem to fit the situation. I claim no great knowledge of audio but I'm trying to learn. However, 'because so and so said so' even if its dead nuts accurate is not the end of learning its the beginning of learning. Understanding why something works is more important than just knowing it works if you hope to apply and build on it and just maybe advance your own knowledge. If this forum is just a mutual admiration society there is nothing here for me and I will move on.

[Tim Gilles]

We're all pretty small and stupid in the face of God.

Anybody around here doing much comparative shopping should re-asses their yardstick.

Being able to laugh about it keeps ya from getting too crazy in the day to day.

If you must judge a man... judge him by your estimation of his INTENTIONS... not his PRESENTATION...

The ability to do stuff like that is what has purportedly elevated us from the...


MONKEYS.

Best regards to all,

Tim "Rumblefish" Gilles

[J.J. Blair]

John Sorensen wrote on Sat, 01 October 2005 12:02

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.

I am a longtime owner of one of the first frequency dependent compressor/expanders, the BSS DPR901, which they wisely called a "dynamic equalizer".

Quote:

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

Wait.  Am I in JJP's forum again?

[PP]

[timrob]

To be fair to Denny. I've read several of his posts and they aren't typically agrumentative. I didn't read his initial post as be argumentative either. You are coming down awfully hard on the guy and he didn't even start this preposterous thread.

After reading some of the other posts from the guy who started this thread, I can understand the frustration of guys like John and Terry.

I've never met either of them, but I have deep admiration for their work(John and Terry that is). I'm here because of them and others like them who take time to share their earnestly gained wisdom.

A lot of confusion stems from people using terms like 'spikey'.
How many different scenarios would you be able to describe as 'spikey'?

The other confusion in this thread seems to come from an understanding of the difference between Dynamic range and Dynamics.
So while EQ might be able to alter Dynamic Range in terms of level, it doesn't change the dynamics of the track.

I'm probably stepping into a massive pit here.

Fletcher and Munson probably have something to say about the perceptual aspects of how EQ plays into this whole scenario.

Someone break out the smelling salts... No, we're gonna need more than that...

Wait a minute they actually wrote down some stuff that we might be able to learn from.

Of course, some feel that Books are evil and can't be bothered to memorize a few basic terms.

Peace

[CCC]

timrob wrote on Sun, 02 October 2005 23:21

After reading some of the other posts from the guy who started this thread, I can understand the frustration of guys like John and Terry.

To be fair to Terry - my name doesn't belong in the same sentence with his, nor can my minute accomplishments or skills realistically be equated with what he's done.

Other than that I appreciate your understanding with respect to the level of frustration that has bubbled to the surface...again....argh, blargh...<flinch flinch>....must wipe froth from mouth...

[Eric Bridenbaker]

Peter's comments with regards to the forum representing a knowledge base that is not to be found anywhere else ring very true.

This is indeed a fact to be thankful for.

Taking stock of things, I must point out that "Perception" is a part of the title of the thread, indeed opening, and perhaps encouraging conversation beyond "this is how an eq works, this is how a compressor works".

One can go to a lot of places to find out how a EQ works, how a compressor works, and it's something that in all probability is within the grasp of most here.

Please correct me if i'm off... but is this what Andy was really asking for in starting the thread? Could it be that the answers sought were more of a subjective working nature than those of a standard definition.  

This is perhaps more in line with the unique perspective that the group here has to offer.

So, I see absolutely no problem with the initital idea behind the thread, actually finding it to be quite an insightful question. There are a few great answers to be found in the first few posts, and it definitely got people thinking.

I wonder if "Compression and its effect on the Perception of Frequency Response" would have garnered the same type of discourse.

Best Regards,
Eric

[compasspnt]

Eric Bridenbaker wrote on Sun, 02 October 2005 19:13

...Andy was really asking for in starting the thread...more for some subjective working experience than it was for a standard definition.   I feel this is actually more in line with the unique perspective that the group here has to offer. So, I have absolutely no problem with the initital idea behind the thread, I actually thought it to be quite insightful. There are a few great answers to the question right in the beginning. And it got a few people thinking...

I agree Eric.  I thought Andy's comment was well thought out.  And after some of the posts/responses (including Andy's) on the other non-Massenbergian threads recently nearby, I wanted to encourage that type of thought over the blind opposition to known theorems which we had been seeing from some.  Hence my simplistic post regarding VOLUME being the progenitor of effect.  Reasonable comments on subjects such as these may well lead to experimentation from which we all may learn something.


Not to get Poyserian here, but...

One evening an old man told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.
He said, "My son, the battle is between 2 ‘wolves’ inside us all.

One is Evil.
It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

The other is Good.
It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather:
"Which wolf wins?"

The old man simply replied, "The one you feed."

[timrob]

 

Right on!!!

[PP]

[timrob]

Certainly, all you say is true. Forgive me if I don't quote it entirely.

Volume and Tone are certainly two sides of the same coin.

FWIW, I've been a practicing musician for about 28 years, so I definitly understand where you're coming from on that.

I think Denny was just trying to refute the idea of EQ as a Dynamics processor. I'd have to agree with him on that.



Taking your example further...

We have this Bosendorfer that is not all that loud. If I boost somewhere between 2k and 10k to help it cut through a mix, I have altered its Volume and Tone in a specific way.

But have I changed the Dynamic content of what was recorded?

IMLE, I'd have to say no.

A portion of the sound has been raised in volume, but its relative dynamic flow has not been changed.

Am I completely out the window on that?


I've only been at this for 20 years and I'm just a nit on a pimple of a flea compared to the likes of Terry Manning.
But, If I haven't figured out the difference between EQ and Dynamics processing, maybe it's time to flip burgers or something.

Best Regards

[PP]

[timrob]