More precise mastering tool than Spectrum?

[PLacidBasilisk]

often when I get to the final stages of a project and I am testing my work on different speakers, checking that all the levels are working OK together, I feel like I'm missing part of the picture because Spectrum doesn't offer a precise enough view of the overall levels of each frequency.

Is it advisable to use some other method to check that everything is within a reasonable volume or should I just be training to use my ears better? What do the pros do?

[SubFunk]

learn to use your ears better.

and as an analyser i use peaks reveal.

the free bluecat one is not bad either.

but really train your ears better.

analysers make sense in certain very specific situations, but never as something to rely on for an overall judgement if it's a good or bad sounding mix.

an analyser is just a little helping hand (as i said before in a very few specific situations), but it can easy fool you, you can have a track showing a very nicely levelled frequency range, no phase issues at all, etc., etc. and it still can sound like utter garbage.

[mr.adl]

IK Multimedia offers a analyzer thing:
http://www.ikmultimedia.com/t-racks/mor ... einfo9.php

[locojohn]

often when I get to the final stages of a project and I am testing my work on different speakers, checking that all the levels are working OK together, I feel like I'm missing part of the picture because Spectrum doesn't offer a precise enough view of the overall levels of each frequency.

Is it advisable to use some other method to check that everything is within a reasonable volume or should I just be training to use my ears better? What do the pros do?

Try Voxengo SPAN - it's free and offers RMS level display as a bonus.

Andrejs

[timothyallan]

Pro's use their ears and their experience. Very seldom have I been in a mastering house where they look at a spectrum analyzer at all.

[SubFunk]

Pro's use their ears and their experience. Very seldom have I been in a mastering house where they look at a spectrum analyzer at all.

yep, i started to actually really hate them, because there is that shit trend for FOH engineers and PA instalments to use smaart http://www.rationalacoustics.com/pages/ ... ase_Status

and it sucks so badly, they start to rely on it and it sounds like shit, because the damn thing is showing them whatever is supposed to be 'good' and it just sounds so bad that you want to punch the FOH engineer. USE YOUR EARS!!!

i hate those damn things.

[locojohn]

Pro's use their ears and their experience. Very seldom have I been in a mastering house where they look at a spectrum analyzer at all.

yep, i started to actually really hate them, because there is that shit trend for FOH engineers and PA instalments to use smaart http://www.rationalacoustics.com/pages/ ... ase_Status

and it sucks so badly, they start to rely on it and it sounds like shit, because the damn thing is showing them whatever is supposed to be 'good' and it just sounds so bad that you want to punch the FOH engineer. USE YOUR EARS!!!

i hate those damn things.

I suppose you are talking about PA setup calibration. SMAART is far from perfection because it is based on an old principle of measuring SPL in a fixed number of points, which does not and cannot provide precise results. Acoustic Power (AP) measurement is a newer and much better alternative in this regard.

Regarding the remark that "pros" use their ears -- yes, let's assume that "pros" never look at spectrum analyzer information, though it is hard to believe for electronic/synthesized audio material. Anyway, it does not mean that non-pros should avoid using spectrum analyzer plugins, as spectrum analyzer will help to learn about and fix problems in their mixes. It is a good way to learn about frequencies and a good way to go as a general self-education.

BTW: Many "pro" mastering engineers use K-metering tools, which Voxengo SPAN provides.

Andrejs

[SubFunk]

well, analysers are used and can make sense, still i am in the boat of avoiding them as much as possible,

i personally see them as causing more harm and damage then helping.

but that is my personal opinion!

(even i use ones in a rare while one for a very specific problem)

and yes, voxengo's span and peaks reveal are good tools.

[timothyallan]

Pro's use their ears and their experience. Very seldom have I been in a mastering house where they look at a spectrum analyzer at all.

yep, i started to actually really hate them, because there is that shit trend for FOH engineers and PA instalments to use smaart http://www.rationalacoustics.com/pages/ ... ase_Status

and it sucks so badly, they start to rely on it and it sounds like shit, because the damn thing is showing them whatever is supposed to be 'good' and it just sounds so bad that you want to punch the FOH engineer. USE YOUR EARS!!!

i hate those damn things.

I suppose you are talking about PA setup calibration. SMAART is far from perfection because it is based on an old principle of measuring SPL in a fixed number of points, which does not and cannot provide precise results. Acoustic Power (AP) measurement is a newer and much better alternative in this regard.

Regarding the remark that "pros" use their ears -- yes, let's assume that "pros" never look at spectrum analyzer information, though it is hard to believe for electronic/synthesized audio material. Anyway, it does not mean that non-pros should avoid using spectrum analyzer plugins, as spectrum analyzer will help to learn about and fix problems in their mixes. It is a good way to learn about frequencies and a good way to go as a general self-education.

BTW: Many "pro" mastering engineers use K-metering tools, which Voxengo SPAN provides.

Andrejs

Why is it so hard to believe? Synthesized music contains the same frequencies rock music does, or classical for that matter.

[locojohn]

Pro's use their ears and their experience. Very seldom have I been in a mastering house where they look at a spectrum analyzer at all.

Why is it so hard to believe? Synthesized music contains the same frequencies rock music does, or classical for that matter.

This is not the question of belief. It's a question of common sense. Yes, there's a table/graph of acoustic instruments and frequencies that they occupy for that matter, and they teach this stuff in a sound engineering schools/courses. Working daily at the console you learn a lot about these instruments every day so you are indeed able to recall this information by heart. But this does not apply to a series of arpeggiated chords of a sampled complex waveform polyphonic synth, or, even more so if part of audio that causes problems is actually inaudible. Just think a little bit.

Andrejs

[timothyallan]

Andre, as you are mentioning using graphs to figure out how to eq things, I'm going to assume you may have not been producing for a lengthy amount of time. Frequencies are frequencies. If I hear an oboe throw out a G#, it's the same frequency range of the G# (of the same octave) my Virus TI makes. Timbre isn't an issue.


Edit: Oh, and I should mention to the OP that spectrum is great for analyzing if you bump the resolution up and resize it.

[locojohn]

Andre, as you are mentioning using graphs to figure out how to eq things, I'm going to assume you may have not been producing for a lengthy amount of time. Frequencies are frequencies. If I hear an oboe throw out a G#, it's the same frequency range of the G# (of the same octave) my Virus TI makes. Timbre isn't an issue.

Timothy, I don't want to spend time arguing with you whether timbre really matters. Depending on the tuning of a particular instrument and also on your hearing abilities, you may well be having problems comparing the G#3 note of a cello with a G#3 note of a male vocal.

I provided a specific example of a complex polyphonic synth line. Say, there are two chords with 9 notes total, short enough to make the exercise a bit more difficult. Question is whether you will be able to guess the frequencies of these notes by sound just so easily?

Andrejs

[swishniak]

Timbre isn't an issue.

Edit: Oh, and I should mention to the OP that spectrum is great for analyzing if you bump the resolution up and resize it.

uh - timbre totally matters - especially when you're eq-ing. compare a frequency spectrum analysis of middle c on a trumpet to that of a sine tone. alot more information in there.

but good point on re-sizing the spectrum.

[timothyallan]

Sort of.... You're talking overtones and harmonics, the fundamental is the same in all of them... usually. Of course your strategy is going to be different when eq'ing different timbres, I was more talking about hearing them.

As for the 400hz thingy, I wouldn't have any issue hearing 400hz out of a vocal, a piece of steel bending, a cello or an african bongo. The OP probably needs a spectrum view for learning and comparing. I don't 'need' one for anything really unless I need to get a brief overall picture, and to check < 30hz or above 19kHz. Mastering engineers certainly don't 'need' one and could probably tell you the frequency range of absolutely anything you send them within 1/3 of an octave, that's their job.

I'd love to continue this, however my current mastering job has just finished rendering and I'm on the clock! ta ta

[ChiDJ]

What SubFunk and TA said.