4 Jul
2013
4 Jul
'13
7:36 p.m.
Hi folks,
Let me start out by saying that I don't intend for this to be a
"which is better" discussion. This is more of a "why?" discussion,
and, "what can you do with it which can't be done otherwise?"
discussion.
In reviewing the list of applications Gabbe used on the new album,
there is mention of an application used to visualize the mix. I got
to wondering.
A mix is purely an auditory medium, right? So, (and I'll play dumb
here) why do we need to visualize a mix?
Now, part of this is purely selfish, since I happen to be blind, and
so these visualization tools are not available to me. But, though I
understand the advantages of an onscreen mixer, or a mouse driven
interface, since, theoretically everything conveyed in an audible mix
is received by the ears, shouldn't it be enough to experience it,
perceive it, analyze it audibly?
Now, of course, I understand that deficiencies in speakers or
headphones, audio volume limitations, maybe even hearing limitations
are likely some reasons for using a visual method for analyzing an
audio medium, but are there others?
I also understand the idea that, if a tool is available, then it
should, be used, but is there something which can be achieved, in the
audio spectrum, which can only be achieved via the visual medium?
Just some thoughts.
Rusty
4 Jul
4 Jul
8:10 p.m.
Interesting points ... especially today, since I just got "elected" to
conduct a new concert band we're setting up here (for beginners ...
should be interesting). But, having done a bit of study about the role
of a conductor it really does bring the "audio only" question to the
forefront. And I'd not talking about the highly visible music we see
at rock concerts, etc.
As an audience member I find myself playing lots of attention to the
conductor as well as the physical movements of players: the tension in
the face of a cello player, the stance of a trumpeter, etc.
So, for live music ... yeah, the visual becomes quite important. But,
when we translate this to a recording, the visual is all but lost.
Even in a video recording, I get very little sense of the visual.
Maybe I need a much bigger screen?
I have decent vision, so I have no idea how this translates to a blind
person. I can only assume that other senses assume the role of sight?
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Rusty Perez <rustys.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
Let me start out by saying that I don't intend for this to be a
"which is better" discussion. This is more of a "why?" discussion,
and, "what can you do with it which can't be done otherwise?"
discussion.
In reviewing the list of applications Gabbe used on the new album,
there is mention of an application used to visualize the mix. I got
to wondering.
A mix is purely an auditory medium, right? So, (and I'll play dumb
here) why do we need to visualize a mix?
Now, part of this is purely selfish, since I happen to be blind, and
so these visualization tools are not available to me. But, though I
understand the advantages of an onscreen mixer, or a mouse driven
interface, since, theoretically everything conveyed in an audible mix
is received by the ears, shouldn't it be enough to experience it,
perceive it, analyze it audibly?
Now, of course, I understand that deficiencies in speakers or
headphones, audio volume limitations, maybe even hearing limitations
are likely some reasons for using a visual method for analyzing an
audio medium, but are there others?
I also understand the idea that, if a tool is available, then it
should, be used, but is there something which can be achieved, in the
audio spectrum, which can only be achieved via the visual medium?
Just some thoughts.
Rusty
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
**** Listen to my CD at http://www.mellowood.ca/music/cedars ****
Bob van der Poel ** Wynndel, British Columbia, CANADA **
EMAIL: bob(a)mellowood.ca
WWW: http://www.mellowood.ca
10:45 p.m.
Hi Bob,
That's not quite the direction I was going, but very interesting
nonetheless. I know people enjoy watching me perform--I play guitar
and sing, and am a looper/percussionist as well.
I am familiar with the concept of the "solo" face for guitarists. :-)
I would imagine that watching a person perform live must be just as
facinating as the music. People always comment on the visual aspects
of a musical performance, and sometimes I think it's meaningless, and
other times I don't, because it quite obviously is part of the
experience for most every one else.
Rusty
On 7/4/13, Bob van der Poel <bob(a)mellowood.ca> wrote:
Interesting points ... especially today, since I just
got "elected" to
conduct a new concert band we're setting up here (for beginners ...
should be interesting). But, having done a bit of study about the role
of a conductor it really does bring the "audio only" question to the
forefront. And I'd not talking about the highly visible music we see
at rock concerts, etc.
As an audience member I find myself playing lots of attention to the
conductor as well as the physical movements of players: the tension in
the face of a cello player, the stance of a trumpeter, etc.
So, for live music ... yeah, the visual becomes quite important. But,
when we translate this to a recording, the visual is all but lost.
Even in a video recording, I get very little sense of the visual.
Maybe I need a much bigger screen?
I have decent vision, so I have no idea how this translates to a blind
person. I can only assume that other senses assume the role of sight?
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Rusty Perez <rustys.lists(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi folks,
Let me start out by saying that I don't intend for this to be a
"which is better" discussion. This is more of a "why?" discussion,
and, "what can you do with it which can't be done otherwise?"
discussion.
In reviewing the list of applications Gabbe used on the new album,
there is mention of an application used to visualize the mix. I got
to wondering.
A mix is purely an auditory medium, right? So, (and I'll play dumb
here) why do we need to visualize a mix?
Now, part of this is purely selfish, since I happen to be blind, and
so these visualization tools are not available to me. But, though I
understand the advantages of an onscreen mixer, or a mouse driven
interface, since, theoretically everything conveyed in an audible mix
is received by the ears, shouldn't it be enough to experience it,
perceive it, analyze it audibly?
Now, of course, I understand that deficiencies in speakers or
headphones, audio volume limitations, maybe even hearing limitations
are likely some reasons for using a visual method for analyzing an
audio medium, but are there others?
I also understand the idea that, if a tool is available, then it
should, be used, but is there something which can be achieved, in the
audio spectrum, which can only be achieved via the visual medium?
Just some thoughts.
Rusty
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
**** Listen to my CD at http://www.mellowood.ca/music/cedars ****
Bob van der Poel ** Wynndel, British Columbia, CANADA **
EMAIL: bob(a)mellowood.ca
WWW: http://www.mellowood.ca
11:11 p.m.
Hello Rusty!
I didn't read the other replies, but here are a couple of thoughts.
1. Visual feedback can speed up work. Seeing is two-dimensional and
instantaneous. So you can see something quickly, whichlistening takes a while
to find.
2. Modern mixing techniques. Take a metal recording, you want the bassdrum at
exactly the same instant, that the bass is playing, so you can use compressors
and some other processing to great effect and maximum volume. The bass is
played live and so are the drums. For drums, there have been times, where
people used triggering of samples and then later corrected only the important
parts via MIDI quantisation. In all other cases it's a question of cutting
things out and moving them with precision.
3. Finding peaks and other annomalities in the frequency spectrum. You can
hear it, but again, it can be quicker to start from the visual image.
I'm sure there are more uses for all kinds of visualisation utilities. Some
more useful than others. Some of these things can be managed by ear easily,
others with difficulty and yet others might be managed by some clever
automated analysing software. But then a computer is sometimes not as good as
a human. It is fast, but it doesn't know much about difficult decisions. These
would have to be programmed. They could take up CPU and they might yield bad
results. Thus it's a question of which is more work: looking at it and doing
it that way from scratch or using an automated system and correcting the
errors. That's my take on it.
One last probable addition could be, that entering things on a keyboard,
together with the time limitation on sound, that I mentioned before, it takes
time, is prone to errors and typos. A mouse click in such instances is very
fast.
Warm regards and good luck in your quest for knowledge
Julien
----------------------------------------
http://juliencoder.de/nama/music.html
5 Jul
5 Jul
4:14 a.m.
A mix is purely an auditory medium, right? So, (and
I'll play dumb
here) why do we need to visualize a mix?
Eyes are better at some things than ears.
A regular example from some audiophile equipment forums... I won't
name names, but on one particular forum 'Just listen!' is used as a
panacea to dismiss any kind of scientific or objective discussion of
equipment.
The obvious response is, "Are you suggesting [Company name] take the
oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, multimeters and computers away from
their design engineers?"
Visualization can be quite useful, even in audio.
Cheers,
Monty
6:36 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Monty Montgomery <xiphmont(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Let's not forget the distinction between visualization and measurement. The
number of people (and we're talking about musicians/producers here) looking
at visualizations of audio and the number actually using the visualization
to measure something meaningful are, I imagine, very different. Measurement
is obviously invaluable when designing DSP algorithms etc. It is not
necessary *at all* in order to make music. Peak/clipping indicators are
pretty handy, but after that the returns diminish rapidly.
A mix is
purely an auditory medium, right? So, (and I'll play dumb
here) why do we need to visualize a mix?
Eyes are better at some things than ears.
A regular example from some audiophile equipment forums... I won't
name names, but on one particular forum 'Just listen!' is used as a
panacea to dismiss any kind of scientific or objective discussion of
equipment.
The obvious response is, "Are you suggesting [Company name] take the
oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, multimeters and computers away from
their design engineers?"
Visualization can be quite useful, even in audio.
Cheers,
Monty
8:21 a.m.
Visualisation is helpful for troubleshooting, if e.g. something does
sound distorted, then taking a look at a meterbridge could be
timesaving.
Phase correlation does ensure that the phases are ok for airplay.
However, visualisation isn't needed, but could be helpful.
For analog recordings measurements at least are needed for bias
calibration.
Regards,
Ralf
9:44 a.m.
Yes Ralf and J. your distinction between measuring and just
visualizing makes lots of sense to me. And Julien, I think you are
basically saying the same thing. A graphical tool may make it quicker
and easier to isolate problems and take measurements to improve audio
quality.
Monty, I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here.
I wouldn't say that anyone needs to throw away their measurement tools
when engineering equipment for best performance, but I have heard of
blind listening comparisons where audiofiles couldn't reliably tell
the difference between two given studio amplifiers, or between given
sets of speaker cables.
I recognize that "just listen" may be a trite way of dismissing valid
points, but isn't listening the primary goal here?
But I do agree with you that if using a visual representation helps
more quickly and accurately improve the auditory experience, then
that's a good thing.
Interesting stuff
Rusty
On 7/4/13, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
Visualisation is helpful for troubleshooting, if e.g.
something does
sound distorted, then taking a look at a meterbridge could be
timesaving.
Phase correlation does ensure that the phases are ok for airplay.
However, visualisation isn't needed, but could be helpful.
For analog recordings measurements at least are needed for bias
calibration.
Regards,
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
11:42 a.m.
Hello Rusty!
As you referred to me in the original post, I just figured I'd briefly
explain what I mainly use the analyzer for. It's as simple as me not having
a subwoofer or a reliable set of headphones for the bass. Neither my
monitors nor my studio heaphones have any noteworthy bass-response under
70hz or so, which is where most of my bass is usually. I have a set of
headphones that are of the "gamer-kind", which I've learned to use for
bass. So, what I do when mixing usually, is that I use the analyzer to
check the bass. I've learned through my time mixing my things just about
how I want it to sound, or at least the general idea. It's in no way any
substitute for the final mix and master (where I find enough systems to
listen to, and reliably mix the bass), but it's an easy way for me to keep
it in control while I'm doing the heavy work.
That's my use-case at least. :)
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Rusty Perez <rustys.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes Ralf and J. your distinction between measuring and
just
visualizing makes lots of sense to me. And Julien, I think you are
basically saying the same thing. A graphical tool may make it quicker
and easier to isolate problems and take measurements to improve audio
quality.
Monty, I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here.
I wouldn't say that anyone needs to throw away their measurement tools
when engineering equipment for best performance, but I have heard of
blind listening comparisons where audiofiles couldn't reliably tell
the difference between two given studio amplifiers, or between given
sets of speaker cables.
I recognize that "just listen" may be a trite way of dismissing valid
points, but isn't listening the primary goal here?
But I do agree with you that if using a visual representation helps
more quickly and accurately improve the auditory experience, then
that's a good thing.
Interesting stuff
Rusty
On 7/4/13, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
Visualisation is helpful for troubleshooting, if
e.g. something does
sound distorted, then taking a look at a meterbridge could be
timesaving.
Phase correlation does ensure that the phases are ok for airplay.
However, visualisation isn't needed, but could be helpful.
For analog recordings measurements at least are needed for bias
calibration.
Regards,
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
9:33 a.m.
I tend to view "visualization" mostly as "on-screen memory" - it is a
way
to avoid the user having to *actually* remember the state of (potentially)
thousands of different controls, by presenting them to him/her in a
relatively fast-lookup sort of way. did i solo that? what was the gain
level of that ? what processing am i doing with that signal? etc. etc.
there is nothing inherent to the task of recording and editing music that
requires a visual presentation, but doing without one when working with
anything but the simplest possible setup requires the user to constantly
remember a large amount of stuff - not always easy to do.
mixing consoles, besides actually doing signal processing, also serve this
purpose even though they do not (generally) provide any visualization of
waveform data or present a timeline.
3958
days inactive
3959
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Bob van der Poel -
Gabbe Nord -
J. Liles -
Julien Claassen -
Monty Montgomery -
Paul Davis -
Ralf Mardorf -
Rusty Perez