Headphone effect

[Winston OBoogie]

Abbey is a stickler for exactitude and details. And since this is a technical forum, details matter. He's caught me out several times and I've been glad of his corrections. It saves me looking as dumb as I really am.

 

[GeorgeToledo]

I am happy to fall on my own sword when I have made errors, and I attempt to do it quickly.

Abbey seems to be continuously arguing a point totally orthogonal to the initial statement he has chosen to focus on. If the initial scope of my point was about low end proximity with singers and directional mics, then arguing about omni is outside of that scope, yes? No matter how many times I seek to reasonably clarify the scope of that initial point, Abbey chooses to continue to argue against a point I never made. It is fine by me to suggest that it may be bizarre for a singer to sing into an omni mic with polarity flipped, but it will be for different reasons than proximity effect becoming subtractive as they approach the mic and monitor through headphones.

 

[JohnRoberts]

If someone states “stop contacting me”, continued contact by the other party is harassment. It may not be viewed as such on this site, but it remains an arguable viewpoint.

The rules here are "link to rules" . To save you the trouble of looking it up, here is the forum rule that applies

Personal attacks as well as general hateful comments (regarding race, religion, gender, sex, etc...) will not be tolerated.

I suspect we all could be a little more courteous (me included) but this discussions seems to involve more heat than light.

JR

 

[GeorgeToledo]

Yes, number 4, precisely. Thanks for posting that. This is the rule Abbey was violating.

Prior affiliations can be a strong thing but wrong is wrong. Responding to a post with personal jabs like “name dropping” is only going to fuel a flame war mentality. By that post, the conversation had already veered into willful obtuseness.

When a member has been told they have literally invented a different argument in their own mind than the issue being specified, repeatedly, and they simply refuse to take that for a reasonable answer, there is no other reasonable recourse than to tell them to stop communication. When Abbey continues to strain to misrepresent a point well past that, starting a new thread, ignoring private communication, things escalate into misuse of moderator privilege.

We all can have bad days, and it is obvious to me that Abbey had a lack of reading comprehension with the initial statement. No one is perfect, even an anonymous guy who invokes a famous studio as an attempt to gain credulity.

Then Abbey refuses to take clarification because- after their slagging- conversation took a terse path. I get it.

I am glad to see there is an explicit rule here against the initial slagging from him that kicked it off.

 

[john12ax7]

I would need to re-read things, but I think the original issue was that there was a real or implied notion that cancellation was a result of proximity effect. What Abbey was trying to point out was that cancellation was strictly a result of signals being out of phase, proximity effect was not a necessary condition for this to happen.

Can we all agree that:

1) Directional mics exhibit proximity effect, omni mics do not

2) Cancellation is a result of out of phase signals combining.

3) 1) and 2) are independent of each other, one is not necessary for the other.

 

[GeorgeToledo]

https://groupdiy.com/threads/the-modern-desk-console-in-2021.77995/page-4#post-996443
So let’s follow along.

When a singer is singing into a cardioid mic, and there is decreased low end from flipping phase, what is the source of this low end decrease? It is the proximity effect being inverted.

Why doesn’t this pertain to omni? No inversion of the proximity effect.

Other perceptual effect from flipping omni? Outside of the purview of my comment.

 

[Gold]

Why doesn’t this pertain to omni? No inversion of the proximity effect.

Correlation is not causation. Just because the phenomena is noticeable with proximity effect and not noticeable without proximity effect doesn’t mean it is caused by proximity effect.

 

[shabtek]

what is going on here?

there is more going than proximity effect and polarity inversion--accoustic and psychoaccoustic phenomena and the talents' reaction are all variables and all relative...calm down

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes, number 4, precisely. Thanks for posting that. This is the rule Abbey was violating.

perhaps in your judgement, but opinions vary. I posted the rules to advise you about your behavior.

Prior affiliations can be a strong thing but wrong is wrong. Responding to a post with personal jabs like “name dropping” is only going to fuel a flame war mentality. By that post, the conversation had already veered into willful obtuseness.

nice use of "flame war" you did read the rules

When a member has been told they have literally invented a different argument in their own mind than the issue being specified, repeatedly, and they simply refuse to take that for a reasonable answer, there is no other reasonable recourse than to tell them to stop communication. When Abbey continues to strain to misrepresent a point well past that, starting a new thread, ignoring private communication, things escalate into misuse of moderator privilege.

again opinions vary, perhaps if abbey altered your posts or deleted your account without explanation, that would be abuse of his moderation tools. So far I hear technical arguments from him, no moderation "privilege" has been used.

We all can have bad days, and it is obvious to me that Abbey had a lack of reading comprehension with the initial statement. No one is perfect, even an anonymous guy who invokes a famous studio as an attempt to gain credulity.

now you are making an actual personal attack against Abbey... stop that immediately. He is fluent in audio and physics.

Then Abbey refuses to take clarification because- after their slagging- conversation took a terse path. I get it.

I am glad to see there is an explicit rule here against the initial slagging from him that kicked it off.

I had to look up "slagging" since I didn't know what you meant... Apparently it is British slang for censure or disapproval. There seems to be a lot of that going around both ways...

Please stop your personal attacks. Stick to science if you have any to support your opinions.

Don't make this a bigger distraction than it already is.

JR

 

[GeorgeToledo]

gold, yes other psychoacoustic phenomena may result, but I was speaking specifically on the phenomena which results with directional mics and proximity effect, hence the setting of scope by excluding any phenomena that happens with omni in the original brief parenthetical side point.

If an artist is approaching a mic, expecting bass response to increase and it is decreasing, it can be quite clear to get to the bottom of it. I have found it a useful thing to be aware of, and also to be aware of the fact that an omni pattern does not exhibit this particular phenomena. An artist can usually easily quantify that there is a lack of bass in their headphones, or that it lessens with proximity. Anyone conducting a session should be aware this is a sign of inverted polarity in the chain.

If omni is inverted polarity while the artist is monitoring, there cannot be discussion of the proximity effect becoming less as they approach the mic, because proximity effect only occurs with directionality.

My initial remark on this, originally in context of an entirely different topic (consoles features), was scoped to specific phenomena by that exclusion of omni. What I have had to read from Abbey, over and over, is that he wants to argue about a point outside of that scope.

 

[Gold]

gold, yes other psychoacoustic phenomena may result, but I was speaking specifically on the phenomena which results with directional mics and proximity effect, hence the setting of scope by excluding any phenomena that happens with omni in the original brief parenthetical side point.

The phenomena you maintain is only present with proximity effect is also present with omni mics. Just because in one case it falls above the threshold of audibility and in the other case it falls below the threshold of audibility doesn’t mean the same phenomena isn’t at work. Trying to separate the case of proximity effect versus no proximity effect is a logical error. Correlation is not causation.

 

[olhsson]

Analog headphone mixing affects performance the least but ditching the headphones and monitoring with a loudspeaker affects it even less! To me, that demonstrates that latency is not really the issue, it's the comb filtering! I did an experiment with some kids in a vocal class, and we found they all sang the best with none of their own voice in the headphones! Unfortunately, most experienced vocalists haven't the confidence to record that way.

 

[Bo Deadly]

monitoring with a loudspeaker affects it even less!

Just curious but how do you monitor with a loudspeaker without getting feedback?

 

[rock soderstrom]

I agree with @olhsson.
This is also a reason why many singers sing with only one can on their ears. So they can hear themselves directly to the backing track, which many, including myself, find more natural.

 

[PermO]

Just for fun we formed a band with two session musicians, our drummer and guitarist and we used the live room to practice and at some point decided to multitrack all our practice sessions.
Everybody in one room with monitors on a minimum level.

The sound we got from those sessions !

Yes, you'll have some crosstalk, I don't think I really mind a bit of crosstalk, it's just "harmonicly correct jitter"

Some people use racks full of heavy gating for livework, I never liked that sound, I never gate anything, I just make it sing.

 

[PermO]

Just curious but how do you monitor with a loudspeaker without getting feedback?

Behringer FBQ1000

Sorry, couldn't help it

 

[Banzai]

I ask the identity of who I am talking to, you refuse to communicate on terms that give culpability for your loaded statements.

Who is in charge of abbey here? I will also add that there was no visible moderator tag at the start of recent interaction.

No one is perfect, even an anonymous guy who invokes a famous studio as an attempt to gain credulity.

Sorry, but is Abbey (or anyone else here) supposed to know who you are?

 

[john12ax7]

I've also found it easier to sing while monitoring with speakers. Feedback is not a problem. The issue you do want to be aware of is the bleed into the vocal mic.

 

[Bo Deadly]

I've also found it easier to sing while monitoring with speakers. Feedback is not a problem. The issue you do want to be aware of is the bleed into the vocal mic.

Bleed? No, I think I mean feedback. You sing into the mic, it comes out the speaker and into the mic and out the speaker and around and around and so on. How does that not affect the recording? I guess it could be like singing in the shower but without the standing waves.

 

[john12ax7]

Bleed from the other instruments. With speakers your vocal track recording will now also have the music on it as well.

You don't need to monitor the live vocal through the speakers.