Ableton Forum

^ naw, it's not digressing. There's good info in the thread.

There are different uses and styles in using them.
Honestly, I've been trying most of my years to take the science out of mixing and mastering as much as possible.

knotkranky wrote:^ naw, it's not digressing. There's good info in the thread.

There are different uses and styles in using them.
Honestly, I've been trying most of my years to take the science out of mixing and mastering as much as possible.

full on amen!!!

that is what i try to say, don't make a sience out of something, that has zero to do with sience.

H20nly wrote:a better word of advice... argue all you want. Your opinion is worth defending but knock off the dumb shit about how many posts he has. For the focal point of your discussion it has no bearing and trying to knock him for it is like calling a kid with glasses four eyes. Its the refuge of the weak. Don't point out the obvious if it has nothing to do with your debate. George W. Bush used to do that and he's a moron. The only people that agree with that way of thinking are guilty of thinking that way.

Make your point but keep the locker jock "put downs" in your speedos and save em for the keg party.

omg boys... stop whining. it wasnt even meant offending in the beginning but just because of his short and empty posts. just with that one sentence "get a life" it was meant offending, but he was the one provocating me, so wtf?

i think i should open a new thread to get back to my topic...

you provoked me and I did the same lame routine back at you. you instantly turned into a dick with the insults. you're the one that started being a dick, it's all right here in black and white. and trust me, my life is better than yours.

the part of your post regarding techno was completely retarded, I hope that was another troll post on your behalf. if not, I LOL at your idiocy.

paq wrote:

H20nly wrote:a better word of advice... argue all you want. Your opinion is worth defending but knock off the dumb shit about how many posts he has. For the focal point of your discussion it has no bearing and trying to knock him for it is like calling a kid with glasses four eyes. Its the refuge of the weak. Don't point out the obvious if it has nothing to do with your debate. George W. Bush used to do that and he's a moron. The only people that agree with that way of thinking are guilty of thinking that way.

Make your point but keep the locker jock "put downs" in your speedos and save em for the keg party.

omg boys... stop whining. it wasnt even meant offending in the beginning but just because of his short and empty posts. just with that one sentence "get a life" it was meant offending, but he was the one provocating me, so wtf?

i think i should open a new thread to get back to my topic...

paq, start a new thread and stop arguing with the king, otherwise you will never get anywhere, as you can see.

sub funk - pick yourself off, dust off your twat and get on with life. you want to continue a flame war with me? you're just making an ass of yourself.

you agree with paq's assertion about techno and linear view for high frequencies?

josephjobling wrote:spectrum analiser

Less known peripherals Clive Sinclair cooked up in his spare time?

It sounds like paq is getting 2D spectrograms and sonograms confused here.

If this "Foobar" is a sonogram visualizer, as one of his posts seemed to indicate, then a linear calculation of the visualization often will be preferred. For example if you're wanting to look at wide range of the frequency spectrum all at once in a sonogram then you are going to want a linear view because a logarithmic visualization would make the high frequency bands too close together to distinguish without zooming in on them.

I never use spectrograms or sonograms for mixing, but I do use them for sound design and audio restoration. In the case of sound design where you want to isolate certain partials but you still need to see/hear the fundamental it makes it a pain to have to keep zooming in and out, so a linear visualization is very helpful in that case.

I know this a little far afield, but it seems like this disagreement is because two people are talking about two different forms of spectral analysis visualization.

that makes complete sense.

damn you and your peace making posts!!

stringtapper wrote:if you're wanting to look at wide range of the frequency spectrum all at once in a sonogram then you are going to want a linear view because a logarithmic visualization would make the high frequency bands too close together

thats my point. i dont know what i am mixing up.. may be... i know it as spectrogram. like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrogram

stringtapper wrote:I never use spectrograms or sonograms for mixing, but I do use them for sound design and audio restoration.

yes thats my intention. now i sometimes (if im curious enough) render the sound piece and load it up in foobar to look at.but there really must be a vst for this i think . of course i tried google... but the only one i found was the schwa spectro.

SubFunk wrote:a word of adwise, don't argue with tone deft he is the king.

SubFunk wrote:

paq wrote:

H20nly wrote: a better word of advice... argue all you want. Your opinion is worth defending but knock off the dumb shit about how many posts he has. For the focal point of your discussion it has no bearing and trying to knock him for it is like calling a kid with glasses four eyes. Its the refuge of the weak. Don't point out the obvious if it has nothing to do with your debate. George W. Bush used to do that and he's a moron. The only people that agree with that way of thinking are guilty of thinking that way.

Make your point but keep the locker jock "put downs" in your speedos and save em for the keg party.

omg boys... stop whining. it wasnt even meant offending in the beginning but just because of his short and empty posts. just with that one sentence "get a life" it was meant offending, but he was the one provocating me, so wtf?

i think i should open a new thread to get back to my topic...

paq, start a new thread and stop arguing with the king, otherwise you will never get anywhere, as you can see.

@ paq Read this whole post... then tell me it wasn't a better word of advice

Someone else needs to take their own "adwise".

@ Stringtapper Nice.

paq wrote:

stringtapper wrote:if you're wanting to look at wide range of the frequency spectrum all at once in a sonogram then you are going to want a linear view because a logarithmic visualization would make the high frequency bands too close together

thats my point. i dont know what i am mixing up.. may be... i know it as spectrogram. like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrogram

There is some conflation going on in that Wiki page. Most of the pictures on that page are indeed of spectrograms, but more specifically they are sonographic spectrograms (i.e. they show three elements [frequency, amplitude, & time] in a 2D visualization).

Not all spectrograms are sonograms. Live's Spectrum plugin is an example of the standard two-element spectrogram (frequency and amplitude).

paq wrote:

stringtapper wrote:I never use spectrograms or sonograms for mixing, but I do use them for sound design and audio restoration.

yes thats my intention. now i sometimes (if im curious enough) render the sound piece and load it up in foobar to look at.but there really must be a vst for this i think . of course i tried google... but the only one i found was the schwa spectro.

Izotope RX is the best app I know of for using sonographic spectral analysis for sound design. Absolute tops in my book for restoration as well.

stringtapper wrote:There is some conflation going on in that Wiki page. Most of the pictures on that page are indeed of spectrograms, but more specifically they are sonographic spectrograms (i.e. they show three elements [frequency, amplitude, & time] in a 2D visualization).

Not all spectrograms are sonograms. Live's Spectrum plugin is an example of the standard two-element spectrogram (frequency and amplitude).

Ending with "-gram", a spectrogram specifically means the output of the tool, not the tool itself. Compare this to a visual EEG reading (electroencephalogram) made with an EEG machine (electroencephalograph), or the representation of a seismic event (seismogram) made with a measuring device (seismograph).

Keeping this in mind, and also that these "grams" are indeed representations of events which advance in time (time being represented as one axis of the "gram") the term "spectrogram" is usually also understood specifically as a representation of spectral content advancing in time.

The type of analyzer we have in Live, showing a realtime view of the spectral content with a given fallback time for the individual bands, is usually just called a "spectrum analyzer" in everyday audio speak to avoid confusion

Nokatus wrote:

stringtapper wrote:There is some conflation going on in that Wiki page. Most of the pictures on that page are indeed of spectrograms, but more specifically they are sonographic spectrograms (i.e. they show three elements [frequency, amplitude, & time] in a 2D visualization).

Not all spectrograms are sonograms. Live's Spectrum plugin is an example of the standard two-element spectrogram (frequency and amplitude).

Ending with "-gram", a spectrogram specifically means the output of the tool, not the tool itself. Compare this to a visual EEG reading (electroencephalogram) made with an EEG machine (electroencephalograph), or the representation of a seismic event (seismogram) made with a measuring device (seismograph).

Keeping this in mind, and also that these "grams" are indeed representations of events which advance in time (time being represented as one axis of the "gram") the term "spectrogram" is usually also understood specifically as a representation of spectral content advancing in time.

The type of analyzer we have in Live, showing a realtime view of the spectral content with a given fallback time for the individual bands, is usually just called a "spectrum analyzer" to avoid confusion.

Thanks for the clarification. I've found there to be a lack of clarification regarding definitions in this area with some software.

Case in point: in Max/MSP there is an object called spectroscope~ which is a visual object that gives spectrographic feedback based on a signal. In the inspector preferences for this object there are two graphic options: "Spectrogram" and "Sonogram." The "Spectrogram" option is exactly like Live's Spectrum, a 2D visualization of frequency and amplitude. The "Sonogram" setting is the kind of three-element visualization shown on the Wiki page paq linked.


Regardless, the main point is that Spectrum is one type of visualization and what paq was talking about is another.

stringtapper wrote:Regardless, the main point is that Spectrum is one type of visualization and what paq was talking about is another.

Yep. And yeah, I've noticed the randomness in the naming, too. It's like there are mainly two types of spectrum visualization available in audio software: sonogram and spectrum-something-random. Spectrograms, spectrographs, spectroscopes, spectrum analyzers, spectral somethings, and so on.

Ooooh, sonogram and scope modes for Live's analyzer would be the tits, by the way