I gave you a text and the output sometimes was incoherent and hard to understand :'( I don't feel I can trust you anymore :(!?
#[0] I noticed your optputs starting becoming worst than a couple of weeks ago... Why is that!?
#[0]
Please explain what modules are available in the Cherry Audio Voltage Modular Nucleus. and what each module do
Please re-write this text as bulletpoints for a presentation :
Compression is one of the most misunderstood and often misused techniques in the entire realm of audio engineering. Many use it simply because they feel they have to, with no particular regard or knowledge for what they are doing to the signal. This is an area to tread carefully because as well as being one of our most powerful tools, the compressor can be one of the most prone to destroying our mixes outright. I’m sure there’s a Spiderman quote to bring that concept home, but let’s stay on topic instead.
Compressors are, in essence, dynamic range reduction tools. Hence the name - they ‘compress’ the signal. They shrink the dynamic footprint of the source so that it becomes conducive to working within an arrangement. This allows us greater control over the level and dynamics of our mixes and ultimately allows for finer sculpting.
As well as controlling dynamic range, most compressors also allow us the ability to shape the envelope of the signal we are compressing. This is where the common ‘Attack’ and ‘Release’ parameters come into play. The attack effectively determines how long it takes a compressor, after the input has exceeded the threshold, to reach a set percentage of its final gain reduction value. The release works in opposite, determining how long it takes a compressor, after the input has dropped below the threshold, to reach a set percentage of its original gain value. This makes compressors great tone- shaping tools. They can help to affect how far forward or back in a mix the source will sit, how much it will breathe, how small its footprint will be in the mix and so forth. They help shape how quickly, and how aggressively the compressor acts upon the signal.
Now, you’re not reading this because you want a 101 on the basic functions of your garden-variety compressor. You want to know how to dial the thing, right? Allow me to first bore you with the self-indulgent, esoteric diatribe that most in my position feel tempted to unleash upon newcomers before actually moving onto the practically relevant information you actually want. Dialing compressors is somewhat of an art form, and it can take not only years, but decades to truly refine. Combining the inherently unique characteristics of different types of compressors with the permutable ways of dialing and sequencing them gives an astonishing amount of possibilities. You can rest assured that many more of those will sound ‘wrong’ than they do ‘right’. Picking which compressor to use on which source can at times be half the battle, so you will need to familiarize yourself with as many types of compressors as you can, and their respective tonal characteristics.
To start with, when listening to a signal prior to compression, you need to focus on the dynamic qualities of the signal. Work out what you can do with compression, and what’s best done via other avenues, such as volume automation, re-tracking, sampling etc. It helps to form an idea of how you want this element to sit within your mix - it will determine how you will ultimately dial your compression chain. Assuming we are using a garden-variety compressor with simple Threshold, Ratio, Attack, Release and Output Gain controls, we can proceed as such:
Dial up the Ratio fairly high. Anywhere from 8:1 on up should do. Set the Release & Attack to the fastest they will go. Lower the threshold until you’re compressing the signal quite heavily. What you have here is a compressor that’s acting much like a limiter. It’s not giving the signal very far to go, and with most compressors what you’re hearing now should sound god awfully bad. Good? Ok, let’s move on.
Start by opening up the Attack. This will determine the size of transients you allow through the compressor. If we’re compressing drums, you will generally find that you prefer slower attacks on direct tracks, when searching for punch. On vocals you might find anything faster than a quick/medium attack lets too many plosives and other distractions through. Essentially, the faster your attack, the more you stifle the transient content of the signal. And the slower the attack, the more natural, albeit less controlled it will sound.
Next you will want to set your release. The release is a fairly straightforward one as you want to ensure that your compressor has mostly released by the time the next phrase, drum hit, or whatever else has come into action. The shorter your release, the more you emphasize the resonant, sustained qualities of whatever it is that you’re compressing. The slower your release, the less of that sustained quality will jump up after the compression, and the more it will start to eat into the next transient. If your release is too short, you may emphasize pumping qualities in the signal, but if it’s too long you may eat into too much coming transient content. A good example to use here is to assume we’re dealing with a quick burst of double-bass drums. Most who have dealt with double-kick parts will know that they tend to jump out of the mix quite profoundly and need to be dealt with. Let’s say that for some reason volume automation isn’t an option and we’d rather our compressor deal with them. In this case what you would want to do is set the compressor so that it releases normally for the sparse single-kick parts, but come the double-kick stuff, the release will still be going through its motion by the time all the successive hits have come around. The effect here? The first kick hit (the down beat, which is helpful to emphasize) will be relatively normal, but every successive kick in the pattern will be ducked down in volume, and won’t jump out as much as it would otherwise. Presto! Volume automation with a release control.
After this you will want to balance your threshold and ratio controls until you find a happy balance for whatever it is that you’re compressing. A higher ratio will get you closer to limiting and will have a much more pronounced and aggressive sound. A lower ratio will be more gentle and transparent in nature, allowing you to get away with compressing more of the signal, albeit to a lesser degree. The rest is simply down to practice. The more you compress and the more you mix, the better feel you will develop for your compressors and what they are capable of. Above all, you will learn what to avoid doing, which is possibly the most important lesson of them all.
Naturally, you won’t always dial compressors in this manner. This was simply a case in point, where hearing a compressor working at extremes can help to illustrate what it’s actually doing to the signal, and how to best shape it. With experience under your belt, you will find that each of your compressors will have certain sweet spots, and you will be able to dial to those intuitively over time, much as you would dial a tone on a guitar amp. Rather than using one type of compressor for everything, and varying the settings considerably to suit, you will start to reach for different types of compressors, with sweet spots more attuned to what you are compressing from the outset. All of this is a factor of experience and time, and will develop in concert with your individual mixing personality.
#[0]
Please re-write this text as bulletpoints for a presentation :
Standard equalization practice is to isolate in your mind, as best as you can, where the problem zones lie. Once you’ve done this, you can go in with the appropriate equalizer and jog a tight peak boost around the zone where you felt the problem was. This has a two-fold effect. The first is that you will isolate specifically where the problem lies. The second is that you will have honed your hearing marginally and related it to real-world numbers. This will continue to help you throughout your career. Now that you have isolated a problem zone with your boost, you can then turn it into a cut. Cut only as much as you need to. The best way to find the sweet spot is by jogging the cut up and down, and also altering the center frequency left and right, until you can hear the artifact disappear. Practice this often, as it will become one of your most used techniques on virtually every project you ever do.
Consider what you could remove before you begin adding. Our goal is to ‘clean up’ the source so that it will be ready to work in concert with the rest of the mix. If it’s lacking a bit of body or sheen, then that can be easily fixed with a nice colorful boost or two, but the subjugation of unpleasant oddities and artifacts should come first.
At this stage, it’s worth dispensing with the myth that ‘equalization should only ever be done with the full mix running!’ The truth is that when you have several resonant overlaps and dozens of clashes all over the frequency spectrum from dozens, if not hundreds of unprocessed tracks running in concert, it’s hard to know up from down. Simplify. Make it easy on yourself, and start your journey by soloing the element you are working on at this part of the process. The true power behind attaining perspective is not exclusively in using EQs when the full mix is running, but knowing when to EQ in solo as well as EQing to balance something as part of a whole.
Contrary to popular thinking, the most powerful feature of your favorite equalizer is in fact the ‘bypass’ button. This ingenious feature gives you the ability to ensure that your processing has benefitted, rather than diminished the signal in a single press. It also encourages you to practice correct gain-staging, as the perceived volume of the processed signal relative to the unprocessed signal should be about the same. Use this feature regularly, as it will reveal the artifacts you’ve subdued in the original signal and ensure you haven’t followed the processing rabbit hole too far down.
When all is said and done, ensure that you listen to the track in context with everything else. Always try to maintain a global perspective rather than getting carried away with microscopic details. Cleaning up a track with surgical EQ is all good and well, but it won’t help you if that track doesn’t glue with anything else in the mix.
#[0]
Please re-write this text as bulletpoints for a presentation :
Standard equalization practice is to isolate in your mind, as best as you can, where the problem zones lie. Once you’ve done this, you can go in with the appropriate equalizer and jog a tight peak boost around the zone where you felt the problem was. This has a two-fold effect. The first is that you will isolate specifically where the problem lies. The second is that you will have honed your hearing marginally and related it to real-world numbers. This will continue to help you throughout your career. Now that you have isolated a problem zone with your boost, you can then turn it into a cut. Cut only as much as you need to. The best way to find the sweet spot is by jogging the cut up and down, and also altering the center frequency left and right, until you can hear the artifact disappear. Practice this often, as it will become one of your most used techniques on virtually every project you ever do.
Consider what you could remove before you begin adding. Our goal is to ‘clean up’ the source so that it will be ready to work in concert with the rest of the mix. If it’s lacking a bit of body or sheen, then that can be easily fixed with a nice colorful boost or two, but the subjugation of unpleasant oddities and artifacts should come first.
At this stage, it’s worth dispensing with the myth that ‘equalization should only ever be done with the full mix running!’ The truth is that when you have several resonant overlaps and dozens of clashes all over the frequency spectrum from dozens, if not hundreds of unprocessed tracks running in concert, it’s hard to know up from down. Simplify. Make it easy on yourself, and start your journey by soloing the element you are working on at this part of the process. The true power behind attaining perspective is not exclusively in using EQs when the full mix is running, but knowing when to EQ in solo as well as EQing to balance something as part of a whole.
Contrary to popular thinking, the most powerful feature of your favorite equalizer is in fact the ‘bypass’ button. This ingenious feature gives you the ability to ensure that your processing has benefitted, rather than diminished the signal in a single press. It also encourages you to practice correct gain-staging, as the perceived volume of the processed signal relative to the unprocessed signal should be about the same. Use this feature regularly, as it will reveal the artifacts you’ve subdued in the original signal and ensure you haven’t followed the processing rabbit hole too far down.
When all is said and done, ensure that you listen to the track in context with everything else. Always try to maintain a global perspective rather than getting carried away with microscopic details. Cleaning up a track with surgical EQ is all good and well, but it won’t help you if that track doesn’t glue with anything else in the mix.
#[0]
Please re-write the following text as bulletpoints for a presentation:
THE NEW YORK STYLE
The New York style is perhaps the easiest to identify because it features
a lot of compression that makes the mix punchy and aggressive, just like New Yorkers. In many cases, the compressed instruments—mostly the rhythm section—are even recompressed several times along the way. It seems that every New York engineer that I interviewed—even the trans- planted ones—had virtually the same trick, which is to send the drums (sometimes with the bass) into a couple of busses, send that through some compressors, squeeze to taste, and then return a judicious amount of this compressed rhythm section to the mix through a couple of channels. You can enhance this even further by also boosting the high and low frequencies (lots of boost in most cases) to the compressed signal (more on this “New York Compression Trick” in Chapter 7, Element 5: “Dynamics— Compression and Gating”). For an example of this, listen to any of the mixes that Ed Stasium (a proud practitioner of this method) has done, such as the Mick Jagger solo album She’s The Boss, or anything by The Smithereens or Living Colour.
#[0]
Please re-write the following text as bulletpoints for a presentation
Before we get into the actual mechanics of mixing, it’s important to have some perspective on how this art has developed over the years.
It’s obvious to just about everyone who’s been around long enough that mixing has changed over the decades, but the whys and hows aren’t quite so obvious. In the early days of recording in the 1950s, there really wasn’t mixing per se because the recording medium was mono and a
big date used only four microphones. Of course, over the years, record- ing developed from capturing an unaltered musical event to one that was artificially created through overdubs, thanks to the innovation of Selsync (the ability to play back off of the record head so that everything stayed in sync), introduced in 1955. The availability of more and more tracks from a tape machine begot larger and larger consoles, which begot computer automation and recall just to manage the larger consoles fed by more tracks. With all that came not only an inevitable change in the philosophy of mixing, but also a change in the way that a mixer listened or thought.
According to the revered engineer/producer Eddie Kramer (engineer for Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, KISS, and many more), “Everything (when I started recording) was 4-track, so we approached recording from a much different perspective than people do nowadays. My training in England was fortunately with some of the greatest engineers of the day who were basically Classically trained in the sense that they could go out and record a symphony orchestra and then come back to the studio and then do a Jazz or Pop session, which is exactly what we used to do. When I was training under Bob Auger, who was the senior engineer at Pye Studios, he and I used to go out and do Classical albums with a 3-track Ampex machine, three Neumann U47s, and a single mixer of three channels.
So with that sort of training and technique under my belt, approaching a Rock n’ Roll session was approaching it from a Classical engineering standpoint and making the sound of a Rock band bigger and better than it was. But the fact of the matter was that we had very few tools at our dis- posal except EQ, compression, and tape delay. That was it.”
English mixer Andy Johns, who apprenticed under Kramer and even- tually went on to equally impressive credits with The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Traffic, Van Halen, and others, goes a step further. “You know why Sgt. Pepper’s sounds so good? You know why Are You Experienced sounds so good—almost better than what we can do now? Because, when you were doing the 4 to 4 (bouncing down from one 4-track machine to another), you mixed as you went along. There was a mix on two tracks of the second 4-track machine, and you filled up the open tracks and did the same thing again. Listen to “We Love You” (by the Stones). Listen to Sgt. Pepper’s. Listen to Hole in My Shoe by Traffic. You mixed as you went along. Therefore, after you got the sounds that would fit with each other, all you had to do was adjust the melodies. Nowadays, because you have this luxury of the computer and virtually as many tracks as you want, you don’t think that way any more.”
And indeed, when more tracks became available and things began to be recorded in stereo (and now 5.1 or even beyond), the emphasis turned from the bass anchoring the record to the big beat of the drums as the main focal point. This was partially because typical drum miking went from just overhead and kick drum mics to the now common occurrence of a mic on every drum. The consoles could accommodate more microphone inputs, and there were plenty of tracks to record on. And because it was possible to spread out the drums over six or eight or even more tracks, you could concentrate on them more during the mix because you didn’t have to premix them along with the bass onto only one or two tracks.
People no longer thought of the drums as just another instrument equal to the bass. Now the drums demanded more attention because more tracks were used. At that point (approximately 1975), thanks to the widespread use of the then-standard 24-track tape deck, mixing changed forever. And, for better or for worse, mixing changed into what it is today.
Please re-write the following text as bulletpoints for a presentation
Before we get into the actual mechanics of mixing, it’s important to have some perspective on how this art has developed over the years.
It’s obvious to just about everyone who’s been around long enough that mixing has changed over the decades, but the whys and hows aren’t quite so obvious. In the early days of recording in the 1950s, there really wasn’t mixing per se because the recording medium was mono and a
big date used only four microphones. Of course, over the years, record- ing developed from capturing an unaltered musical event to one that was artificially created through overdubs, thanks to the innovation of Selsync (the ability to play back off of the record head so that everything stayed in sync), introduced in 1955. The availability of more and more tracks from a tape machine begot larger and larger consoles, which begot computer automation and recall just to manage the larger consoles fed by more tracks. With all that came not only an inevitable change in the philosophy of mixing, but also a change in the way that a mixer listened or thought.
According to the revered engineer/producer Eddie Kramer (engineer for Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, KISS, and many more), “Everything (when I started recording) was 4-track, so we approached recording from a much different perspective than people do nowadays. My training in England was fortunately with some of the greatest engineers of the day who were basically Classically trained in the sense that they could go out and record a symphony orchestra and then come back to the studio and then do a Jazz or Pop session, which is exactly what we used to do. When I was training under Bob Auger, who was the senior engineer at Pye Studios, he and I used to go out and do Classical albums with a 3-track Ampex machine, three Neumann U47s, and a single mixer of three channels.
So with that sort of training and technique under my belt, approaching a Rock n’ Roll session was approaching it from a Classical engineering standpoint and making the sound of a Rock band bigger and better than it was. But the fact of the matter was that we had very few tools at our dis- posal except EQ, compression, and tape delay. That was it.”
English mixer Andy Johns, who apprenticed under Kramer and even- tually went on to equally impressive credits with The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Traffic, Van Halen, and others, goes a step further. “You know why Sgt. Pepper’s sounds so good? You know why Are You Experienced sounds so good—almost better than what we can do now? Because, when you were doing the 4 to 4 (bouncing down from one 4-track machine to another), you mixed as you went along. There was a mix on two tracks of the second 4-track machine, and you filled up the open tracks and did the same thing again. Listen to “We Love You” (by the Stones). Listen to Sgt. Pepper’s. Listen to Hole in My Shoe by Traffic. You mixed as you went along. Therefore, after you got the sounds that would fit with each other, all you had to do was adjust the melodies. Nowadays, because you have this luxury of the computer and virtually as many tracks as you want, you don’t think that way any more.”
And indeed, when more tracks became available and things began to be recorded in stereo (and now 5.1 or even beyond), the emphasis turned from the bass anchoring the record to the big beat of the drums as the main focal point. This was partially because typical drum miking went from just overhead and kick drum mics to the now common occurrence of a mic on every drum. The consoles could accommodate more microphone inputs, and there were plenty of tracks to record on. And because it was possible to spread out the drums over six or eight or even more tracks, you could concentrate on them more during the mix because you didn’t have to premix them along with the bass onto only one or two tracks.
People no longer thought of the drums as just another instrument equal to the bass. Now the drums demanded more attention because more tracks were used. At that point (approximately 1975), thanks to the widespread use of the then-standard 24-track tape deck, mixing changed forever. And, for better or for worse, mixing changed into what it is today.
#[0]
Please re-write the following text as bulletpoints for a presentation
Before we get into the actual mechanics of mixing, it’s important to have some perspective on how this art has developed over the years.
It’s obvious to just about everyone who’s been around long enough that mixing has changed over the decades, but the whys and hows aren’t quite so obvious. In the early days of recording in the 1950s, there really wasn’t mixing per se because the recording medium was mono and a
big date used only four microphones. Of course, over the years, record- ing developed from capturing an unaltered musical event to one that was artificially created through overdubs, thanks to the innovation of Selsync (the ability to play back off of the record head so that everything stayed in sync), introduced in 1955. The availability of more and more tracks from a tape machine begot larger and larger consoles, which begot computer automation and recall just to manage the larger consoles fed by more tracks. With all that came not only an inevitable change in the philosophy of mixing, but also a change in the way that a mixer listened or thought.
According to the revered engineer/producer Eddie Kramer (engineer for Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, KISS, and many more), “Everything (when I started recording) was 4-track, so we approached recording from a much different perspective than people do nowadays. My training in England was fortunately with some of the greatest engineers of the day who were basically Classically trained in the sense that they could go out and record a symphony orchestra and then come back to the studio and then do a Jazz or Pop session, which is exactly what we used to do. When I was training under Bob Auger, who was the senior engineer at Pye Studios, he and I used to go out and do Classical albums with a 3-track Ampex machine, three Neumann U47s, and a single mixer of three channels.
So with that sort of training and technique under my belt, approaching
Please re-write the following text in bulltepoint form for a university presentation ::
The Fine Art of Listening
Any single action taken during a mix should be preceded by active listening. This is after all, what mixing is all about. Everything comes down to how well you hear the source, the judgment calls you make regarding the source, and how you put your tools into effect to mold the source into your vision of the whole.
Many younger and even seasoned engineers claim that they have trouble dialing equalizers and compressors - the bread and butter of mixing tools! If we were building a house, they would be our bricks and mortar. You certainly wouldn’t want a builder with no knowledge of brick-laying to build your house (unless you like to live on the edge, quite literally), so you most certainly don’t want to be the kind of engineer who fumbles their way through dialing the most essential of mix tools.
The solution is deceptively simple. You simply need to learn how to listen. If you can isolate the problem, and construct a solution, then the task of picking an appropriate tool and dialing it to purpose becomes amazingly intuitive.
#[0]
Please write the description of a 2 hour lecture about mixing. Take the following points into consideration :
- The main topic is "From Comments to improvements: How to transform an already good mix into something better"
- The lecture will hapen in a Recording STudio called DTH studios
- The lecture will consist in different cases when a mix was already in a good state, but where improvements were made to extend the quality of the mixing process
- The lecture will consider real life cases with real client situations.
- No special mixing knowledget is required to enjoy this lecture.
- Basic principles of mixing and mixing preparation will be discussed as well.
- Advanced techniques of equalization and compression will be discussed.
- Mix bus processing will also be discussed.
- The generes Pop and Rock will be the main focus of this lecture.
#[0]
Please re-write the following text in bulltepoint form for a university presentation ::
As a mix engineer, it’s crucial that you can make appropriate judgment calls when presented with output from your monitors. In an ideal world, the interaction would be directly between the source material and the engineer’s ears, but unfortunately this is never the case. There is always a monitoring system and physical environment in the way (at least until we work out a way to mix in an infinite room!).
One of the greatest problems younger engineers, with poor monitoring systems and environments face, is the question of whether an audible problem with a mix is actually a problem with the mix, or whether it’s a problem with the monitoring system or environment itself. Half the battle is not only fighting the mix, but also the environment that creates a veil between us and that mix.
Please re-write the following text in bulltepoint form for a university presentation ::
As a mix engineer, it’s crucial that you can make appropriate judgment calls when presented with output from your monitors. In an ideal world, the interaction would be directly between the source material and the engineer’s ears, but unfortunately this is never the case. There is always a monitoring system and physical environment in the way (at least until we work out a way to mix in an infinite room!).
One of the greatest problems younger engineers, with poor monitoring systems and environments face, is the question of whether an audible problem with a mix is actually a problem with the mix, or whether it’s a problem with the monitoring system or environment itself. Half the battle is not only fighting the mix, but also the environment that creates a veil between us and that mix.
Here are a couple of methods to circumvent this problem:
1. Invest in a good monitoring system! This is crucial, and constitutes the most basic need to form your work environment. Without the ability to hear accurate detail, you cannot mix with accuracy.
2. Invest in acoustic treatment! At a certain price point, acoustic treatment becomes much more important than the monitoring system in a room. Assuming we’re starting with a modestly decent playback system, we will have much more to gain by treating room flutter, modal and other coloration problems than simply spending more on monitors.
3. Reference as much as possible, and then some! The best way to learn the idiosyncrasies of your unique work environment is to listen to top-class mixes in it. Once you have a feel for how records ‘should’ sound in there, you will get a better feel for how to take your own mixes there naturally.
4. Listen to your work on other systems.
5. Balance low-end on headphones. Since no room is perfect, this can help an absolute ton under most circumstances – provided the headphones are of quality.
6. Invest in professional mastering. Mastering can help, within reason, to work through and attenuate mix flaws relating to poor working environments. Beyond this, you can cultivate feedback from the mastering engineer and take into account what to concentrate on improving next time.