Hi, is it correct that the following two scenarios give the exact same result? (digital audio signal) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (apply fx) -> (result) (digital audio signal) -> (apply fx) -> (record) -> (playback) -> (result) regards Tom

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 04:12:12PM +0200, tom(a)trellis.ch wrote: In both cases the (record),(playback) pair cancels out, so the result should be the same.

If the bass player recording with comp & eq also *hears* that, as opposed to hearing it without compression... then perhaps they'll play "better" and it'll be easier to mix.

HTH, -Harry PS: There's a lot of studio guides that mention slightly compressing a monitor mix to artists.. I find it interesting to read about the settings, and wether to send some reverb or not too.. :)

And there is nothing that assaults ones ears more than someone who thinks he has to have a room thumping bass line, sets it so the axe and drums are about +20 db, then runs it all thru a fast compressor, "ducking" the rest of the music in time with the bass. I had the pleasure of mixing for KISS back in the later '70's, when they were fairly new, and had stopped into KIVA-TV on a steamy labor day and offered to do a few hours of music for Jerry's Kids as they weren't due for the next show, someplace in Texas till the next evening. I purposely set the axe and drums to be maybe 3 db above the rest of it. I taped about 5 minutes of it as it went to air and invited Gene to come listen on our cheap control room monitor when that set was over, which he did intently for about 4 minutes without a comment, but as the tune was winding down he said that was the best "amateur" recording he had heard so far. Our compressor at the time was one of the best, a CBS Labs Audimax. It kept us legal, but it took a well trained ear to detect that it was actually doing anything. I was so impressed by its general invisibility that every place I went for the next 30 years soon had one of those replacing whatever the latest sound wrecker was installed by some gung ho previous "engineer". When I took the position at WDTV, I was in the GM's office 2 days later pleading for money to go buy a used one, the then brand new DBX-165 that had been installed 3 weeks earlier pumped and breathed so bad I compared it to the bedroom sounds from the night before. The girl that did all the CG work said it reminded her of why they spelled sex es ee ex, because no one could spell uh, uh UH, UH ,UGH,UGHHHHaaaw. Strange, the things an old fart remembers. :) Today the only other compressor I'd bolt into the audio rack would be an Orban. But weld a cover over the controls so the Program Director can't try to "make it louder". He'll make it louder yes, and get you cited for overmod, and cost your station 5 points in the next ratings book because ears get tired of that crap quickly & the dial gets turned to something less obnoxious, a death sentence in a multi-station market. BTDT. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene> US V Castleman, SCOTUS, Mar 2014 is grounds for Impeaching SCOTUS _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

On Fri, August 22, 2014 17:39, Harry van Haaren wrote: this is an interesting side-aspect indeed that goes beyond the generic rec/play/fx fx/rec/play question. Having the musician hear processed audio doesn't mean it has to be recorded with FX though. It asks for a tight system (i.e. the delay/latency of the processed audio is below the threshold of what is acceptable by player). I think what is sent to the musician must no be necessarily be the same that is being recorded.

On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 15:37 +0800, Brad Campbell wrote: Sometimes the psychologically effect does help, but in general this is a mistake. Drawing a picture large and making it smaller for the release usually is better than drawing a picture small and enlarge it for the release. That does only work, if you are within one scale, your music is based much on clock of keys. If not, the result likely is terrible, reverb or feedback delays could be disastrous.

On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 15:37 +0800, Brad Campbell wrote: Sometimes the psychologically effect does help, but in general this is a mistake. Drawing a picture large and making it smaller for the release usually is better than drawing a picture small and enlarge it for the release. That does only work, if you are within one scale, your music is based much on clock of keys. If not, the result likely is terrible, reverb or feedback delays could be disastrous.

On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 21:27 +0200, Lieven Moors wrote: Pardon, you are right, a good musician is unable to play her/his instrument without effects for the monitoring, especially when interfering with long reverbs and delays, it's much easier to sing or play an instrument. It's common practise to add reverb and delay to help singers and instrumentalists to get aware of their mistakes and to help them to do a better job. My notes are completely wrong and it's absolutely good to add intensive time related effects to the monitoring. It can't harm by delay to add some notes from the 1/4 bar before to the next ones. My apologies. Now I remember all professional studios and musicians do that smart trick, they add as much effects as possible to the monitoring. Don't forget to add much distortion to the guitar, it covers mistakes when playing scales and allows beginners to play much faster. Later you simply do the mix without the distortion, delay, reverb, the result likely is amazing.