51m0n

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1334703547' post='1620168'] All that proves is that some numpty has either wasted his money or got paid a silly amount of money to put his name to a product. Auralex supplies the likes of Shure,Technics and numerous other companies (and NASA!) that aren't going to be suckered quite as easily - these aren't endorsees, they're customers. [/quote] And customers like Nassa buy products based upon empirical data. [quote name='icastle' timestamp='1334703547' post='1620168'] Hard sell? Is that what it's called when someone doesn't agree with a minority who decide to swim upstream? [/quote] Hard Sell being marketing in general. Reread my posts, I dont say it cant work anywhere, I dont say it wont work anywhere, I merely suggesting that [i]this[/i] particular product doesnt seem to have any hard and fast data available for where and when it works best/worst. Most companies producing that kind of kit (Aurallex included, but also RealTraps, GIK acoustics and many others) produce data sheets of how their kit changes things in the room. Can you point me to the published test results for this particular item? Nasa, you can be sure, wouldnt use Auralex without data sheets to study. I've said I can see some cases when it will work very well, and others where I cant.

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1334699481' post='1620103'] And you did all that without mentioning compression! Spot on mate, especially 'There may well be situations where the difference is profound and not what is wanted.' Te thirst for 'sonic perfection/control/purity' means it may simply not sound so good to the punters. Good, emotionally satisfying sound often sits at the interface of multiple acoustic imperfections after all [/quote] Ha! That cant be true or more punters would rate the multiple acoustic imperfections that make up my bass playing

Yeah good point

[quote name='lurksalot' timestamp='1334700626' post='1620121'] I have to argue with this , In a past life I raced karts , and one thing it taught me was , if you have ANY related kit or tools , take them with you , you will never know when you need it. Every circuit I raced was different for gearing , carburation , tyres and wing settings in the same way every room you play has different acoustics. I grant you that performance on a track is objectively measured with a stopwatch , but if you have tools that may just help find the sound that suits the room why leave them at home I carry all sorts of connectors, adaptors, leads and converters in a kit bag everywhere , the amount of times that they help smooth the set up , or show is minimal , but on one occassion if I hadn't carried a spare power amp the PA would have been down. While I don't suggest you carry spare everything, sometimes the bit of kit at the back of your van just saves the day [/quote] Because last time you went you took the device, measured its effect and found it to be negligable or detrimental, so it is rendered unnecesary this time. Room acoustics and staging dont tend to change often.

Lets be clear, I am sure it has an effect, but unless you are on an very resonant stage (its a bigger word than boomy, so it must be better, right ) I think that probably the distance from the boundaries of the room will probably have more effect on your overall sound for the punters. 'Coupling' is caused by reflection off a nearby surface, contact isnt necessary, but the distance from the surface is important, since certain distances from the surface will cause the reflected sound to be out of phase with the direct soudn at frequencies that are important to us bassists. This is comb filtering, and its the bane of anyine trying to create loud bass efficiently. If you get your rig right against the back wall and on the floor you will get a theoretical 6db boost due to coupling, within a foot or so of either boundary and you are still getting useful coupling. Move further away and the results are bad until you are over 8 feet away. Its all down to wavelengths of given frequencies and so forth. I fully intend to make my own one of these to see if I can measure a difference at some point, but it will be a while as I'm snowed under right now. I would think the advantage to having one under you rig if your rig is upstairs and you want to save the family from hearing it could be very large though. Clearly that would present a significant barrier to energy, however small, travelling from the rig and resonating the floor/joists/ceiling causing a relatively quiet volume to be loud downstairs. So I fully accept that on a resonant stage or very resonant floor controlling the direct radiation of energy could prove to be very helpful. I'm just not entirely convinced of its application in the same room on a concrete floor so much. But there are bound to be cases where it does help, and probably very few where it really makes things worse. So the "I always use it" brigade are unlikely to be far wrong much of the time. Personally I get my 410 up as close to head heigth as I can (yup top cones at eyeline if possible), I need less volume to hear it loudly in the mix that way, and the sound is genuinely more of what I want when I do this.

Well its not that it wont work, its by how much and in what conditions it works best. There may well be situations where the amount it changes the output in the room and/or on stage are so negligable that carrying the extra kit isnt worth it. There may well be situations where the difference is profound and really great. There may well be situations where the difference is profound and not what is wanted. It may be that it always works as intended and is the best thing ever. No one on here knows which of these is the case, no one has doen any measurement to try and find out, and Auralex (not dissing the company at all here by the way) aren't saying anything other than its the best thing ever and you would be mad not to always be using it. Which is hardly surprising. I'm positive it works to some degree some of the time, almost everyone seems to be of that opinion who has tried it for a while, but the questions still stand. And as for endorsees proving something is worth having, I give you.... [url="http://www.essentialsound.com/wooten-musiccord-pro-power-cord/index.htm"]Mr VW and his amazing Power Lead[/url] So lets not ever let ourselves get carried away wih the hard sell please! (Having said which I own some auralex products so I'm not having a go at the company or its marketing specifically).

Its entirely measurable wjether or not it works, and where though. Someone can download some free acoustic measuring software, a=do a couple of frequency sweeps, with and without and compare the results. Do it in a few known rooms/stages.

Excellent stuff Shep, really interesting to see how people are creating such complex textures on the fly live. Fair does my head in imagining trying to get that deep into that aspect of it live. You're all nutters, well done

One, Two One, Two One, Two..... Threeeeeeeyyaaahhhhhh!

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1334402003' post='1615672'] [color=#222222]It seems to me that there is an awful lot of justification going in this thread. For example, Silldx mentioned that the engineer at a recording session didn’t use the best mic to record the vocalist so that he could get a better live performance by allowing her to play her keyboard at the same time. His mate then piles in and says this was, in fact, an inspired choice and gave some spurious reason that her voice is somehow better suited to the lesser mic. This, of course, is b0110cks – the engineer was forced to compromise and didn’t use the better mic for practical reasons.[/color] [color=#222222]If you are trying to get to gigs on public transport or you have a hairdresser’s car that you can’t carry any gear in, then a pod seems a practical solution, as is carrying one bass in a gigbag. If you then work out how to get the best out of it you may then manage convince yourself that you got the pod because it is better than the amp it attempts to imitate, rather than the real reason, which is that you didn’t want to have to lug a heavy amp around![/color] [/quote] No I said this:- [quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1334335926' post='1614861'] Not a problem, especially with Kit's voice, a large diaphram condensor is going to tend to get very spikey with the strident upper mid range on her voice, an SM58 may well be exactly the right tool to dial a little of that out. Good call again IMO. Shame he didnt have a third ribbon to try on her voice [/quote] And I said it for a very very good reason. I've heard the result of Kit's voice being recorded with an AKG C414, a classic high quality large condensor mic, and its very very strident in the upper mids, far too much. I had to do an awful lot of vaery careful work on her voice to make it sound big and natural and not so peaky. This was as a result of the mismatch of the mic used to record her voice, it simply isnt suited to that kind of mic. One of my first comments to Kit about this was that I would love to hear her voice captured with a quality ribbon mic, or a really good dynamic, both would help in this area. As would a pucker tube mic possibly, but I've never used one on a female vocalist so I'm not sure 100%. Her response was that the best her voice has ever sounded on a recording was when it was tracked with a ribbon - so I know I'm not making this up to justify something, its a happy accident IMO. An sm58 is not often considered a great vocal mic for the studio these days, but you would be amazed at how many great vocals are made with its close cousin the SM7, (closer to an SM57 as it goes, but still in that ballpark). How about that little known album Thriller by some wannabe Michael Jackson? It is absolutely possible that an SM58 bcould sound better on certain voices than an LDC. Not always, but sometimes, and Kit actually happens to have a voice where that is the case IMO. Marti Pello of Wet Wet Wet fame liked the sound of a Sennheiser e845 on his voice, more than any fancy LDC that he had at his disposal. Its not b0110cks, its a fact, if you knew much at all about tracking you would have stopped to think about that possibility before making that comment., I'm done here, bye.

Bastards!

How would they know exactly?

Buy a big box, stick the right label on the side and use it to rack mount a POD in the back. No one at your gigs would be any the wiser, and you'd need to move less weitgh, not be troubled by the vagiaries of valves (age, temp etc etc). The OP was about whether or not the sound pf digital modelling passed muster live. The show is a different thing, where wearing the right trainers, having the right tatoos and hairdo count as much as having the right names on the pile of heavy boxes you carried through the door. People all say that none of that matters as much as putting on a great show, but they just aren't able to do the show without the big heavy boxes. I like running a real rig at a gig, mainly because I like the resultant control I get over stage volume for me, and I like all the flashing lights, and the snoby name, and mainly the sound of my gear. But I could provide FOH with as good a sound using a digital modelling system if that floated my boat. There is no reason why anyone couldnt at all.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334360569' post='1615329'] If there is nothing to a gig except sound, then it is an utter failure as a live performance. [/quote] None of which has anything to do with whether the sound was manipulated by pastie warming kit or not...... It has absolutely no relevance at all to the OP or any of the posts I made either. You could have the finest all tube gear in the world in the best acoustic space ever, with an absolutely up for it audience and be the worst communicator on an instrument ever, the result would be a very poor gig experience for the punters. Or you could be down the Dog and Merkin with a POD device and rock like a God, and totally blow the punters away with your brilliant live gigging skills. The punters wouldnt give a ,monkeys what you used if it sounds good and you can get them into it.

Excellent link to explain Fletcher Munsen curves, I can never find one that nicely put, great post!

Not at all. If its a digital device then it becomes analogue via a DAC. Its the same regardless of what goes into the DAC, the output from reading a CD, the output form a digital delay, the output from a modelling device. The DAC doesnt care. At the source there is nothing more to it than waveforms, whether you then amplify them to mind crushing ear compressing levels or not is irrelevant. At the source all you have is a waveform, that is all that sound is. Anytime you produce too much low to low mid on stage you make life hard for Mr FOH. Every mic on the stage will pick up the bleed, and that can cause him a hard time to control. Anything below 200Hz is omnidirectional and every mic can pick up those frequencies. I'm not saying it always causes immense issues, I'm saying if it werent there it would be easier for Mr FOH. There are all sorts of cab configurations that can cause more issues down there, we both know it has nothing to do with the speaker diameter, or even sealed vs unsealed (granted sealed tends to less low bass), a fridge chucks out plenty of energy at 80Hz for instance.

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1334329175' post='1614710'] [i]That is a series of components doing what they naturally do in order to create an output. That's different to a programme in a system where the components are versatile telling something how it should behave. Natural sounds wasn't quite the right wording, I can't think of a better one though. The manipulation that happens inside non-digital units is manipulation of the sound (and there's no way of avoiding that, everything you do affects the sound from the way you pick a string to the hat you're wearing when you listen to it). The manipulation that happens in digital units is manipulation of components to make them manipulate the sound.[/i] I don't find that the tone of a digital unit gets lost because of the scoop, I honestly can't tell you why it does because I'm basing this on my experience (both of using and listening) rather than any knowledge of how the innards work. The scoop was just an example of what I mean by the sound can be ok on it's own and still get lost in a mix. I don't hate modelling and my band's new album has a lot of modelling on it (I think 3 of the 4 guitar tracks were modelled rather than using the guitarist's Mesa) so I'm definitely not saying that it sucks and you'll never get a good tone blabla, but I prefer the sound of a proper amp. Like I said, the convenience of a modelling unit like a POD or plugins in the studio are obvious to anyone with half a brain. I'm not trying to state my opinion is fact either, I know some people find they can get the tone they want from a modeller when no amps have been able to provide it. It's all just my opinion. In the studio, postFX can be used and a modelled amp can sound fantastic! It's just live, I've never seen or heard a modelling amp that sounds right in a mix (though mostly that's guitarist's modelling amps and I'm a fan of valve amps on guitar and I've not heard your band Nigel so nothing personal ) I agree with Charic's post above. I'm sure it's within the laws of physics for a program to make speakers move in the exact same way that a normal amp would, I just don't think we're quite there yet. When we are, I'll be happy to jump on the bandwagon, I think the convenience and versatility of modelling units is undeniably far superior to actual amps. [/quote] This is utter nonsense. I suppose you can hear the ones and noughts going past your speakers in a hifi with a decent CD player then? The DAC turns the ones and noughts from the samples back into analogue waves, they arent spikey, they are smooth. Some very clever software goes into doing this. Same applies equally to digital modelling devices, digital fx, DAC's in mastering studios, DAC's in studios that interface the output of the DAW to the actual speakers in the room. By the time you hear it its the same stuff, its sound. The way its generated is irrelevant. Whether you use resistors and capacitors to filter sound, or apply maths to digital representations of that sound to achieve the same thing is utterly irrelevant. You still just hear the sound. Digital stateful saturation modelling is getting incredibly cool now, and sounds lovely. Check out the Thrillseeker LA compressor by Bootsy, has some really brilliant filtered stateful saturation that can enhance the signal in sublte colourful ways. Love his stuff! You either like the resultant sound of the processing or not. There is no reason on earth for it to be harder to get a good sound from a digital modelling device than an actual amp. What is 'missing' (and good riddance from a sound engineers POV) is stage volume from cabs being turned up to 11 by guitarists and bassists.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1334313815' post='1614244'] We did some live studio recording with Ash Evans at his studio a couple of weeks ago [i](He was first to record Noah & the Whale, and Mumford & Sons, and has since worked with Emmy the Great, Sparkadia, and ASH to name a few. He is 1/3 of the band [url="http://http//soundcloud.com/emperoryes"]Emperor Yes[/url], does live sound for Three Trapped Tigers and CLARK and was responsible for setting up the [url="http://houseofstrange.wordpress.com/"]House of Strange[/url].). [/i]His approach is very quick and dirty. Hardly gives a sh*t about equipment (he has so good stuff though) and mic placement (as long as everything is phased properly). His philosphy is that the performance is everything, and that sound is a bit of an illusion, you can make a good performance sound great with reasonable sound quality, but the best sound quality can't make up for a poor or under-energised performance. On his desk he had an original Roland Space Echo. I said 'WOW! Those are very sought after' He said it's a piece of sh*t that takes 15 minutes after powering up to make remotely usable, and thinks free digital plug ins for delays are way better. He didn't care what amps our guitarist used as long as they were reasonably quiet - tried an old Vox (too noisy) went with a little Fender combo that was newish and just threw a mic in front of it. No pissing about. Told the four violinists to use their pickups, the mics only recording was poor, the pickups and a mic sounded so much better. He really liked the POD sounds I had so he just got me a big monitor and a tiny 4 channel mixer to play through in the room but the signal went strainght to the desk from the POD. Dums miced very simply (bass and snare miced with two Coles for overheads. Set them up and left them, no messing.) All this straight onto Logic Pro. I've heard the recording completely unmixed and the sounds are lovely. We are all delighted. Can't wait for the mixed versions. [/quote] Nice looking vibey studio mate, bet it went swimmingly! Assuming the chap knows his beens regarding his kit and setup, and used his ears to check the sounds he was printing to disc then I bet its going to be perfectly possible to produce a fantastic sounding end result. To be honest the less mics you use on a kit the better, if you want a natural sound to it. Unfortunately we tend to be conditioned to hearing ultra processed drums these days. [quote name='silddx' timestamp='1334314479' post='1614267'] One funny thing was he put this large mic in front of Kit but she was having problems seeing her keys properly, it was also very heavy and the mic stand couldn't handle the weight and it started drooping a little bit. Kit asked if there were any alternatives, he said yeah, we can sling a SM58 in front of you. She asked if there would be a difference and he replied that her voice might not sound as lovely, but what the f***, if the great mic is inhibiting her performance, we'll use the Shure, and that's what we did. Still sounds lovely. [/quote] Not a problem, especially with Kit's voice, a large diaphram condensor is going to tend to get very spikey with the strident upper mid range on her voice, an SM58 may well be exactly the right tool to dial a little of that out. Good call again IMO. Shame he didnt have a third ribbon to try on her voice [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1334317393' post='1614363'] But I assume that you were not playing in a large room thru a PA with an audience present?? The music you produced went straight to disk where it could be manipulated by the engineer. I recognise the playing the rancid, foetid note bit - I used to hate recording studios! [/quote] I dont get your points about this. I mixed the last Kit Richardson EP, and the raw bass sounds were excellent to work from, there was absolutely nothing missing or in any way lacking that I would expect to have been there had they been the result of mic'ing an amp. I did nothing to the bass that I wouldnt normally do to an amped or DI'ed bass track. The results speak for themselves IMO. If you know how to program digital kit well and its decent quality stuff you have a very high chance of making a decent sounding result. Live is if anything a better environment to use digital modelling than in the studio. In the studio you have absolute acoustic control, and can therefore do wonderful micing experiments like the one you suggested, if you feel it will make you happier. Or you can keep it really simple and use a single mic, or you can use modelling, whatever works best. Live you are giving Mr FOH a hard time the more onstage volume you have, so digital modelling makes even more sense.

Well no, a laptop will always filter out your low end, say anything from 250Hz and down on most of them. But if you really are good you can leave the suggestion of the bass somewhere above there, and your brain will help fill in a lot of the info you need to hear the bass line withion the tune. Doesnt work so well on super dub bass sounds mind, but anything with a bit of mid info, or a transient that can be made loud enough in that environment but not so loud that it detracts from the bass sound in a better listening environment can work..

You have to know yourlistening environment very well, and especially its shortcomings, which is the really hard bit to figure out.

Fair point. In that case Victor Wooten endorses a mad expensive totally hocus power cable too, cant have a bass rig without a $3000 dollar cable for power from the wall to the rig now can you! And interconnects made of platted silver leprechaun ponytails...

Stop pulling his leg! That was an Ampeg one off 32x10 they made to look very cool at a NAMM show or for some dodgy cockrock band way back when. If Wayne actually has that rig he needs a flat bed and a forklift to get it to a gig, and he'll need to knock a wall down to get it into the Dog and Pony on the highstreet for the soundcheck

Oh boy, welcome to mixing Are you listening to your mix at very different levels late at night vs first thing in the moring? Fletcher-Munsen curves mean your hearingworks very differently at different volumes. Other than that, well sound engineering is a skill all about compromise, the trick is knowing what is 'right'. I'd strongly advise regularly A/Bing your mix against a commercially released CD track with production you like, and literally use that for a levels 'template' throughout the process. Just be sure to match the overall volume of the CD track and the track you are working on, no A/B is worth a damn if there is a volume difference as well.

[quote name='seashell' timestamp='1334231259' post='1612872'] Beat me, Daddio, eight to the bar. .. or don't people tend to say that any more? [/quote] Only in fetish clubs....

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1333913846' post='1608222'] True, but it's VERY rare to be in an orchestra that has percussion including said 'bass' drum AND a drum kit, so it's very rare that such a distinction is needed... Personally, I think you're right though. The drum on a kit should be referred to as a 'kick' drum. Also makes things easier when you're labelling up the PA and/or recording desk because you can have 'bass' and 'kick'... To conclude. Drummers are idiots! [/quote] Last gig I saw had a concert band with full kit and orchestral bass drum, and a full set of timps too. The difference in sound is unreal, an orchestral bass drum really desevers the name [b]bass[/b], its 'kin [i]HUGE[/i] compared to a namby pamby kick drum, the orchestral drum wasnt even going through the PA, and it dominated the room. Tone, instead of timbre, which is just a 'better' word for it - so there! "Compression kills dynamics" - no it doesnt, not ever, thats like saying "guns kill people" - they dont people (mis)using guns kill people, like people mis-using compressors kills dynamics. Usually stated by people who have absolutely no idea whatsoever about how compressors work, what they sound like, how to really set one up etc etc. Boils my p*** dry in moments. And relax.......