DrWho Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 ---------------- On 2/2/2005 12:03:20 PM silversport wrote: ...intersting thoughts...I too believe that if it was REALLY the best thing out there...EVERYONE would be using it...that said...we are all trying to "hear" what we THINK the artist/musician/etcetera was sending ---------------- I wager that it's not more common because "EVERYONE" doesn't have a clue on how to use it. Compression and expansion aren't processes that can be preset and work for every recording, let alone every system and room. There are an infinite number of settings that will completely destroy the signal and only one or two that will improve the sound. Though it's a completely different debate, I would claim that our main goal is to maximize enjoyment, which doesn't necesarily mean maximizing accuracy. I would have a hard time purchasing khorns due to the fact that the music I enjoy most will probably sound awful on them. If going with a "less accurate" speaker means more enjoyment, then I'm all for the "worse" speaker. Really though, the "less accurate speaker" would be the "better speaker" in MY situation. I remember not too long ago, it was considered useless to implement studio toys in the PA realm. The use of compression and expansion for live shows is relatively a new and widely used practice. Studios have also moved into the realm of homes as powerful computers and computer based recording becomes more common. Implementing "professional" EQs and seperate power amps is also a fairly new trend as well. I notice Russ uses a "pro" amp in his system. Believe it or not, compression is another tool being implemented all the time in the home environment as well...the dolby digital format has a preset compression standard (low, med, high, and off) and is built into many recievers. There's also those TV's with the constant volume processes as well ("keeping those commercials quiet"). Expanding the dynamic range of the signal is a much less popular approach and that is why it's not being implemented in the home audio realm. For it to be successful, I think it would require the media to maintain an inaudible tracking signal...this however would require a redesign of the media and it would never be succesful enough to warrant the cost of changing it over. Perhaps on the next digital format after DVD it can be implemented. The consumer market is far more interested in bang for the buck. The reason there is no hugely succesful market for "home audio signal processors" is that it's expensive, extremely hard to use, high learning curve, and the majority of people don't even care about dynamic range. In fact, looking at all the compression built into the industry shows that people care more about a constant volume than anything else. Why waste money trying to market the opposite of what the industry wants? It makes complete sense that they only market to the engineers...no more learning curve, no expense is too much for the right sound, and they have the money for it. I don't see how you can claim an expander automatically degrades the signal path when they're already using a bunch of expanders further up in the chain. Making the last 1% of the signal chain "pure" isn't going to make much of a difference (that's not to say that you can't destroy the signal in the last 1%). If 20% of the signal path is going through expanders and compressors, then adding one more shouldn't be that big of a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 ---------------- On 2/2/2005 3:45:59 PM DrWho wrote: ---------------- On 2/2/2005 12:03:20 PM silversport wrote: ...intersting thoughts...I too believe that if it was REALLY the best thing out there...EVERYONE would be using it...that said...we are all trying to "hear" what we THINK the artist/musician/etcetera was sending ---------------- I wager that it's not more common because "EVERYONE" doesn't have a clue on how to use it. Compression and expansion aren't processes that can be preset and work for every recording, let alone every system and room. There are an infinite number of settings that will completely destroy the signal and only one or two that will improve the sound. Though it's a completely different debate, I would claim that our main goal is to maximize enjoyment, which doesn't necesarily mean maximizing accuracy. I would have a hard time purchasing khorns due to the fact that the music I enjoy most will probably sound awful on them. If going with a "less accurate" speaker means more enjoyment, then I'm all for the "worse" speaker. Really though, the "less accurate speaker" would be the "better speaker" in MY situation. I remember not too long ago, it was considered useless to implement studio toys in the PA realm. The use of compression and expansion for live shows is relatively a new and widely used practice. Studios have also moved into the realm of homes as powerful computers and computer based recording becomes more common. Implementing "professional" EQs and seperate power amps is also a fairly new trend as well. I notice Russ uses a "pro" amp in his system. Believe it or not, compression is another tool being implemented all the time in the home environment as well...the dolby digital format has a preset compression standard (low, med, high, and off) and is built into many recievers. There's also those TV's with the constant volume processes as well ("keeping those commercials quiet"). Expanding the dynamic range of the signal is a much less popular approach and that is why it's not being implemented in the home audio realm. For it to be successful, I think it would require the media to maintain an inaudible tracking signal...this however would require a redesign of the media and it would never be succesful enough to warrant the cost of changing it over. Perhaps on the next digital format after DVD it can be implemented. The consumer market is far more interested in bang for the buck. The reason there is no hugely succesful market for "home audio signal processors" is that it's expensive, extremely hard to use, high learning curve, and the majority of people don't even care about dynamic range. In fact, looking at all the compression built into the industry shows that people care more about a constant volume than anything else. Why waste money trying to market the opposite of what the industry wants? It makes complete sense that they only market to the engineers...no more learning curve, no expense is too much for the right sound, and they have the money for it. I don't see how you can claim an expander automatically degrades the signal path when they're already using a bunch of expanders further up in the chain. Making the last 1% of the signal chain "pure" isn't going to make much of a difference (that's not to say that you can't destroy the signal in the last 1%). If 20% of the signal path is going through expanders and compressors, then adding one more shouldn't be that big of a difference. ---------------- again - interesting comments - from someone who has never tried any compressor/expanders in his own home audio system.... theory is great..... but only so far... i DID hear problems in my humble system.... i am very open to new and different ways to improve the sound in my home.... that's why i kept trying different outboard processors in my playback chain... and ultimately - no "black box" that i inserted into the signal chain improved the sound.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dr. Who...Though I do not believe it was your intent...you insult a lot of people when you say it is too hard to use...I also feel that if its use was truly "better" than the powers that be would MAKE it work easier...4 weeks ago, I did not know how to configure HT...now it's not so bad...I am NOT saying that it is either good or bad, I am just saying that when improvements come along that are clearly BETTER that somehow the engineers will find a way to make it easy to operate...even for us idiots who find the proper way to operate such things beyond our capabilities... I do agree that we seem to maximize enjoyment SOMETIMES at the cost of accuracy...(...some audiophiles look for accuracy at any cost, even at enjoyment and I suspect that might be the cause for some lively discussion...just like this has...) Just my .02 Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSJ Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 ev speakers did not sell very well because they were expensive and not a lot of people had heard of them they did not advertise very much companies like kenwood and pioneer had a lot of big boxes filled with cheap made drivers for sale some of the old pioneers were good but only a few very expensive models evs dealer network was small they did not advertise much in magazines like sony and pioneer a lot of people buy speakers by what their eyes and what other people tell them instead of with what their ears tell them the eq boxes for the biggest ev was not to make up for a design flaw or choice it was to make up for flaws in the customers room it was an option piece and was not always needed it was not like the bose 901 box at all except that both were speakers for home use thank you for the pictures that was the line that mine came from mine were the large monitor type not the giant floorstander no one i knew that ever heard them had anything bad to say about them joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dr. Who: If the process were available, simple and add to the sound, everyone, so to speak would learn. Or the companies would make it simple. With the advent of the CD and its promised Dynamic range, people felt that they were not needed. With what is available to an Engineer today vs 25 years ago, it would be close to impossible for a company to fill all needs given what is done. EDITED That said, it is like those who wish no tone controls - " distorts the signal." But as noted above the first two paragraphs - with the one that you feel it's, to paraphrase, " off the discusion," you hit the nail dead on. It's your decision whether to implement EQ, Expanders, auto volume controls - I have strayed from what you said to include other things one can add - the "Companders" of the late 1960s and 1970s. It's your system, you set what you wish and I and no-one else has the right to tell you how to listen, what to add or delete or if YOU felt that listening while standing on your head because it increases blood flow is of only YOUR concern. We may or may not list our systems. We may or may not note all of our Education, on the job training, personal blood sweat and tears. Now, between the two of us, I believe we have 49 years of experience in Live Sound, Sound Theory, Physics, Mathematics, Recording studio and or Live Sound, etc..So there is hands on Recording, Mix-down, Producing and ability to understand the process. And, OPEN MINDS. My Posts and yours do not conflict, you brought the point back to where it belongs. To the system owner and their preference. It's too bad that the general public does not get to sit at 24, 48, 64, 72, etc. track Boardsand see the array of Units, EQs, software, harware, Expanders, Compession Units, Companders and the number of BUS's, controls on the Board, sliders, Faders, cough buttons, removin ten seconds of a guitar solo because there was an error and the Guitarist wishes to correct it. Then they would get an insight to some of the frustration when someone says a Recording Engineer just plays with a few Knobs. Your sig, my sig take a portion of what needs to be known and understood into account. We both agree that it is the owner/listener that dcides what and how to listen by employmant of Components or of not employing them. dodger - one that HAS a dbx Expander in my LP system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 ---------------- On 2/2/2005 4:28:27 PM JSJ wrote: the eq boxes for the biggest ev was not to make up for a design flaw or choice it was to make up for flaws in the customers room it was an option piece and was not always needed it was not like the bose 901 box at all except that both were speakers for home use ---------------- Thanks for clearing that up, Joe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coytee Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 To any and all that have read/participated in this thread, I'd like to make one comment crystal clear. I had absolutely zero thought/knowledge that my question would garner this much commentary. I had NO intents on starting any "cola wars" with the idea. Though I did not do a search, I've been lurking here for quite a while before registering and never noticed this subject brought up. I honestly figured the answer would be short, to the point and done with. Part of me feels a bit 'guilty' (for lack of better word) because I feel as though I've ripped open yet another can of cola wars. If and where an apology might be appropriate, please consider it rendered. Another part of me is really tickled at the amount of discussion and viewpoints that have been presented. As a matter of discussion, I SHOULD have asked wayyyyyyyy up there "what is our common definition of noise" and perhaps that might have ended this (or made it worse? ...yikes) Anyway, just for the record, when I am referring to the noise that my 3bx reduces, I'm referring to the 'tape hiss' kind of noise that might be on the recording. It will plain and simple, take that right out. Note, I tend to listen to 70's stuff, so perhaps more of my music has indigenous hiss that newer recorded stuff might not have? None the less, that specific flavor of 'noise' is what I refer to and ONLY that type of noise. If perchance this unit does other colorations to the sound (that my very unsophisticated ears don't comprehend) and that other coloration is what YOU are calling noise, then we are in fact talking in part about apples/oranges. None the less, there ARE times I listen to my system without any processing of any kind and I admit it sounds "different". Not necessarily worse, not necessarily better (to my ears), just different. since most of my listening is done when I am in fact out of the room working somewhere else in the house my wife & I are finishing ourselves, there could be FLATULENT noises coming across the speakers as noise and I'd not really notice them. I'd probably just mistake them for another drumbeat though preferably NOT a lengthy solo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSJ Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 http://www.srslabs.com/ProAudio_ProdHardware.asp this company makes good stuff i remember their first box about 10 years ago it was a hughes electronics design for the military this company got the technology from hughes ken pohlmann loved it it really is amazing even with just one mono speaker everything happens in the digital world so there is no noise that can really be measured because of what it does and how it does it they sold it for a while to the public but gave up parts of this circuit are in many many stereo tvs and other things made today it makes music and voices more hearable i wrote the company in the 1990s and got a nice letter and their spec sheets no noise with that unit none that could be measured anyway at one time only the military had access to this mostly for use in fighter planes joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 ---------------- On 2/2/2005 4:04:50 PM minn_male42 wrote: again - interesting comments - from someone who has never tried any compressor/expanders in his own home audio system.... theory is great..... but only so far... i DID hear problems in my humble system.... i am very open to new and different ways to improve the sound in my home.... that's why i kept trying different outboard processors in my playback chain... and ultimately - no "black box" that i inserted into the signal chain improved the sound.... ---------------- There is no difference to listening to recorded music in the studio and playing with the equipment there than bringing it home and listening at home. If anything, listening in the studio should be more accurate since the equipment and acoustics there are far superior to my home. Despite my experiences with such devices, I still don't feel either way as to their daily use during dedicated listening. I can see how it'd be beneficial and all that, but I'd rather not spend all sorts of time making it 10% better for just 3 minutes...my system at home is clean enough that I can get sucked into the music, but messy enough that it masks most every flaw. In the past, For the sake of my own understanding, what kind of settings were you using Russ when trying the equipment...or what kind of settings sounded the least worst to you? I have always found that for compression/expansion to work, that you will need to EQ the output again (there are also tricks where EQ'ing the input and the output seperately are beneficial too). In the studio, we have VST plugins for the computer that perform compression/expansion...which means no noise floor whatsoever. What other artifacts are you hearing besides the noise floor? What was the source material? I have a way totally overly compressed CD from Celldweller...I really enjoy the music, but even on a crappy system I get fatigued half way through any song. I think the dynamic range on it is like 3dB. If I can find the CD (i've been looking for a few months now), then I'll provide some samples of the compressed and uncompressed versions...perhaps those with the fancy DBX might run the song through their unit and record it too. The use of an expander or any kind of processor shouldn't be used if the recording was made correctly. "It's too bad that the general public does not get to sit at 24, 48, 64, 72, etc. track Boardsand see the array of Units, EQs, software, harware, Expanders, Compession Units, Companders and the number of BUS's, controls on the Board, sliders, Faders, cough buttons, removin ten seconds of a guitar solo because there was an error and the Guitarist wishes to correct it. Then they would get an insight to some of the frustration when someone says a Recording Engineer just plays with a few Knobs." When people complain about the engineers, I take it as my responibility to touch every knob with purposeful intention. There are too many mixers with good intentions that just turn and turn without purpose until things hopefully and magically come into focus. However, they end up using like 50 devices when they could have gotten by with 2. The more devices at your fingertips, the more opportunities to destroy the sound. Ironically, every engineer in the industry probably has minimalist intentions and yet there are so many crappy recordings...I think a lot of people are unaware of the huge onslaught of compromises made in the studio...even with some of the best recordings. That is why there is no such thing as an ideal studio...it basically becomes an artform of making the crap sound good...which totally gets away from the idea of accuracy. A lot of people like to argue that the purpose of home audio is to make it feel like you're at the concert. Of the concerts I've been to (both classical and rock), I personally enjoy the music coming out of the studio more. The reason I say compression/expansion is too hard to use is because there is no right way to do it. The basic concepts are simple, but the basic concepts aren't enough to effectively use the device. It's like painting...the technical aspects of painting aren't that hard, but there is an artform to it that cannot be spelled out. I would argue that years of experience with such a device would be required before one can claim to really know how to work it...and when the majority of the tweaking results in a degradation of sound, then the uneducated user dismisses it as a bad upgrade and feels no need to learn how it works better. (this is not to say that Russ doesn't know how to work them...im just stating this cuz i know it could come across that way). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 ---------------- On 2/2/2005 6:48:38 PM DrWho wrote: .....Despite my experiences with such devices, I still don't feel either way as to their daily use during dedicated listening. I can see how it'd be beneficial and all that, but I'd rather not spend all sorts of time making it 10% better for just 3 minutes...my system at home is clean enough that I can get sucked into the music, but messy enough that it masks most every flaw..... For the sake of my own understanding, what kind of settings were you using Russ when trying the equipment...or what kind of settings sounded the least worst to you? I have always found that for compression/expansion to work, that you will need to EQ the output again (there are also tricks where EQ'ing the input and the output seperately are beneficial too)..... ---------------- my system is almost painfully detailed and clean..... every flaw in the recordings and in my electronics seems to come through my KLF-30's... but conversely - every detail that the artist recorded is there also.... when i was experimenting with the various compressor/expanders... i tried to take the advice from some of my customers - less is more!!! i always started with the settings at zero or no effect.... and then slowly added expansion (or whatever effect)... sadly - even with settings at "zero" there was still a residual noise - it was the same when using the "bypass" switch...... unless the unit was removed from the circuit physically - there was a certain level of hiss that was noticible above the normal noise floor... another poster in this thread made the same comment earlier... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 what about besides the noise, or did you not get that far? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minn_male42 Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 as more of the expansion effect was applied, the music started to contain distortions..... most obvious on percussion instruments - cymbal overtones became very un-natural... the decay was also a problem - the cutoff was too abrupt.... i had a very hard time noticing these problems with my old klh model 17 speakers (like the old advents).... but it became much more apparent with my KLF-30's.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Russ: The more Expansion applied, the signal becomes higher as well. You reach a point of overloading, thus distortion. The peaks are in any Expander result in higher output. Unless you add a limiter. The low points are lower than the the basic input signal. That can be shown with a VU meter - digital or analogue or a multi-meter or singular ac/dc volt meter. Compressors, Expanders, Companders have been in use since at least 1971. Available for live sound, in Recording Studios, etc. I hve used them. I never did care for the early versions as, besides the board, I would make alterations in gain to try to avoid the "whoosh" when the vocalist had been singing and the band came in, or the reverse. As for my comments about the general public sitting at boards, the point is clear - let the general public that does not see the inner workings of a studio get a flavour of a Studio what the Engineer really does, the number of KNOBS, sliders, EQ on the Board, or, we'll make it simple, tone controls, PAN (L -R - or Centered,) Low frequency trim pots, means of compression: Multi-band, Envvelope, Mode, full Band, Mode, Compressor/ Limiter Gate, (but a few types) Types and brands of of Microphones, their placement etc.. Then add the Computer Effects available to the Engineer, to the musician, other hardware, Isolation of Instruments and on and on and on. THEN the public may have more Respect for Engineers. Now, I will be clear, I am not stating, inferring, implying, endorsing, giving credence to their Sound Effects and Compression plus what is described above and in use when wanted. These are NOT All of the choices a Recording Engineer has available. I am giving a brief, not all inclusive list and idea. This PARTIAL list of SOME of the things that may be added, can be an aid, a hinderance or a distraction, even for a few seconds to the 8 - 15 + knobs on the Board the Engineer utilizes. Then there the Board's sliders and either VU meters, or calibrated LEDs in addition to, and along with comments from the Manager, Producer, Company Execs etc.. Now the number of the people in the Control Both is limited. Who you ask to stand outside, could potentially make or break your future. If you do it with no tact, I don't care how good you are, Others will be found and used. One is employed, one can be dimissed. So all of these items a Recording Engineer may or may not use are in addition to "riding the Board" making subtle changes using all knobs and sliders as needed. The band also may ask for effects. No matter how hard you may try to KISS, things may be ordered and who is paying you? Walk out? Maybe in local studios, but you gain a rep and if you are a member of the Musician's Union, any Union representing Sound or Recoriding Engineers - you will hear: "You walked out, that was your decision." If the band does not mind, they will play the material to be recorded two or three times. That's one of the reasons different versions come about. The members may decide to add, change while in the studio. Can also lead to marathon sessions where you are in the studio 12 - 36 hours. I know. Or Record Company Execs may listen to something and order changes. Ask Paul Simon. "Sounds of Silence" whisch was originally recorded and meant to be Acoustical. He was on the Long Island Expessway when he heard the version Most of us know. Drums, 12 string electric guitar and other instruments were added. The song was released. A hit. A couple of albums later, the Original version was put on an album. But back to the topic. An Expander can be easy to use. Be aware of distortion, things actually sounding not natural, if that is your goal, how much to add - experience will teach you. As for the noise issue, READ THE SPECS, IT'S LISTED. Use good short cables It can be learned after reading the instructions to start. Now I hope all of this is clear, if not, look in your Yellow Pages for Recording Studios. Ask that if you paid, if you could take a short tour. And, not endorsing purchases, call 1-800-4700 for a Sweetwater Catalogue. Those answering have all been trained or have been in the business. You'll get a rough idea of what's available. Stating what is available or ideal, is not stating USE. Nor is it necessarily stating that it is good. I can still record, thus I would be remiss in not noting, or hoping the average person who thinks that Chief Recording and Recording Engineer just twists a few knobs - we can even make a Vocalist ho hits either sharp or flat notes sound in key. The difference between listening in a Studio and listening at home may include Mix-Down, the transfer to the medium process and the peron running it along with for LPs how new the cutter is, and whether the Mix for LP or CD,was taken from first, second or third generation masters with the Original the most accurate. Silversport, I am sorry that your comments were not noted as being correct. In any case the point is moot as the Consumer decides what to include or not. Russ you choose not. It is a personal decision and all of the descriptions, resentations and use thereof in all of this text lies with the Consumer as noted above. dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 dodger: I appreciate the mention...it's no problem though...some of you had a nice thread going and I "cut in." Sometimes you aren't acknowledged because others feel you "butted in" sometimes because others feel you don't have anything to contribute or they are just ignoring you (elitist) or maybe I just didn't add anything to the soup as it were...I was just stating my opinion from what I had read and my experience...you like it or you don't...no worries here. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 No Problem, Silversport: There are many times that a Newbie or someone with a lower post count are looked over. There are also some that bend over backwards to answer a question. Thanks again, You're Welcome and whatever. dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.