touchscreen daw interfaces dont offer tactile feedback

saw this today:

and I thought to myself:

that's really not how I want to control my DAW.  I mentioned this a bit in the comments section of tonebenders episode 2 (check it out!) but I want to go into more detail here.

First of all, I get why random access control surfaces are probably the future - the ability to implement custom interfaces that are not tied to dedicated knobs and sliders is a powerful concept - but the fact of the matter is that finger access is never going to be as fast and accurate as mouse access for fast, sample-accurate and detailed editing tasks.

it also doesn't seem like you'd get the same "feel" as you would with a hardware controller if you're doing fingertip mixing.  All of these "pictures under glass" offer only visual feedback when you manipulate them, which IMO takes you out of the process of manipulating sound.

It also reminded me of this little rant I came across a while back - which very eloquently details the ways in which our hands manipulate the world and receive feedback, while pointing out that the touchscreen interface concept basically breaks that concept by refusing to give tactile feedback.  It forces us to use our eyes to see if we did anything and to measure the degree by which we've done those things.

We can close our eyes and turn a knob or move a fader, and instinctually feel the degree to which we've moved those things.  This is an important concept in manipulating audio, and all of these touchscreen interfaces break that concept.

I'd personally much prefer to see a system that looks like a flat tablet, but actually has a grid of actuators that pop up tactile feedback (much the way a refreshable braille reader does), and have that give feedback.  Maybe it could also be both touch and pressure sensitive, so that it could move with your hands as you manipulate the interface.

I think that would end being more useful for audio specific tasks, and as an interface in general.  Our hands currently aren't getting any feedback from our screens. 

A new podcast-launch of the Tonebenders

So I've gone off and joined/started a sound design podcast called Tonebenders with a couple of great guys - Dustin Camilleri (@pulsetrain) and Timothy Muirhead (@azimuthaudio and azimuthaudio.ca).

Tim has already written an excellent blog post describing how it all came together and how to subscribe - so go read that, subscribe to the podcast, and jump over to tonebenders.net and leave a comment.

thanks!

quad miking dual MS update

So instead of running more controlled experiments with regards to my quad setup, I ended up with a quick and dirty dual MS rig out in the field this past week.

The rig consisted of a pair of schoeps CMC6 bodies with the Fig 8 capsule and the hypercardiod capsule making up the front portion, and a Line Audio CM3 rigged up for the rear M all inside of a big rycote blimp.  The schoeps mics went straight into a 744t 1-2, and the CM3 went through a sound devices M1 and into the 744t channel 3. 

The obvious compromise in this setup was the fact that all three capsules weren't exactly coincident on the vertical plane, and since the idea was to use the figure 8 mic as the S to decode both the front and the rear M mics, I was interested to see how well this configuration held up to scrutiny.

The whole rig fit into the rycote blimp very well, and when I took it out of doors the blimp still provided great wind protection to all three mics, since non were very close to the edges.  I generally monitored the schoeps rig decoded, but sometimes listened to all three mics in mono.

I took this rig to a local hospital to record ambiances for a documentary that we are working on.  I came back with about 3 hours of recordings from a half-day all access shoot, and got some really killer stuff (including a real live surgery).

Back in the studio, I decoded and evaluated.

I protools I decided to align all three tracks and mute them.  From there I sent the Schoeps MK41 (supercardiod) to bus 1 prefader, the Schoeps  MK8 to bus 2 and bus 4 prefader, and the CM3 to bus 3 prefader.

I then set two stereo aux inputs up - a front one fed by bus 1-2 and out to LR, and a rear one fed by bus 3-4 and out to LsRs - both with Waves S1 Imagers on them set to decode MS.

I was shocked at how good it all sounded.  Maybe some of the best recordings I've made in my life.

Imaging was spectacular throughout, the balance of direct to reverberant sound was excellent, and that $150 CM3 played so nice with the crazy expensive schoeps rig you'd never guess the price of that thing.  I didn't find the time differential between the CM3 and the schoeps MK8 capsules to present much of a decoding problem, probably because most of my sources were ambient and were sending as much reverberant sound to the mics as they were direct sounds.

Summing all three decoded mics to mono caused zero issues.  Summing this rig to mono effectively removes the Fig 8 mic from the sound, leaving only the sum of the schoeps mk41 and the Line Audio CM3.  Given that they were both aimed in opposite directions and recording ambient sources, the non-time alignment didn't do anything particularly strange or phasey.  It's possible that time aligned capsules would lock together even more tightly, but  the 2 inch or so differential was insignificant in this specific setup.

This is without question a killer rig to take into situations where you need to capture lots of surround ambiances while on the move.  I think I still prefer the spaced mic technique sound to this one when I have to luxury of setting it up and not having it change the vibe of the ambiance I'm recording, but honestly I only prefer that technique over what I got here a little bit.  Things didn't feel as "narrow" as they did in my initial dual MS test, and the use of the same fig 8 on both ends really locked the image down tight from front to back.

Color me impressed.  As I go through and edit the recordings more closely I'll find a couple of nice bits to post up of both the front and read decoded recordings.

-----

update: here are some choice decoded sounds from the shoot:

impromptu voiceover mic shootout

During a session this past week a voice talent friend of mine named Nick Alexander happened to have his set of Neumann TLM 103s with him for a different project.

We had a moment after the session was over to grab some random copy and run a quickie shootout.

First I set up our standard AT4050, Nick's TLM103, and my DIY Austin Ribbon Mic with the three membranes as parallel as I could get them. 

With the mics set, I had Nick stand about 8 inches away and centered up so that we could get the most fair test of the three at the same time.  I'd typically mic a voiceover slightly closer than we did here - though Nick did lean in near the end and work some proximity effect.

We read some random copy both in a regular and kind of laid back style, and then a bit more in a louder, more upbeat style - and we were joking around a bit throughout.  I kept rolling as we had a casual conversation for a minute or so after reading from the script.

All of the mics ran into a rack of John Hardy M1 preamps.  The ribbon mic went through a cloudlifter as well in order to better match the impedance to what the M1s offer and to help match the gain to the much hotter output of the condensers.

Here's a photo of the preamp settings that matched up the outputs.  The 4050 is channel 1, the TL103 is channel 2, and the Austin Ribbon (post cloudlifter) is channel 3:

Both the 4050 and the TLM103 had very similar output levels, and the ribbon was still 15 db or so softer than them even after the cloudlifter pre-boosted its signal by 20 db.

so given all of the setup, here's are the final recordings (downloadable via soundcloud)


 after a couple of listens, here are my thoughts:

The ribbon mic was its own beast - pretty thick and wooly and the p-pops would actually flutter  rather than pop.  In my opinion that recording would need a good bit of work to really fly.  Mostly just handling all of the low end that was masking a lot of the rest of the spectrum.  The mic kind of smoothed out the transients in a different way than the other two did, and kind of had a natural analog compression to it, which I liked.

Both the 4050 and the TLM103 are very good sounding mics and very smooth across the frequency spectrum.  The TLM103 is not quite as bright as the 4050 but I certainly wouldn't rate the 4050 as harsh in any way.  In fact, I'd probably say that the 4050 was the most detailed of the three - which really showed through when Nick was rustling the pages of his script a bit.

The 4050 makes a recording that cuts through music with less manipulation, while the TLM103 makes a recording that likes to stand alone a little more.

I thought both mics flattered Nick's voice and worked with both reads well.

quad miking techniques and listening test

In anticipation of an upcoming quad sound library for echo | collective, I've been looking to build a specific quad kit for recording ambiances. 

I ran some tests to help in purchasing decisions that I'd like to share.  To hear everything properly, you'll need a DAW, an MS decoder and a surround setup.  Files are downloadable here.

I really like quad for surround ambiances - four mic perspectives really does give a very cool spacial perspective to ambiances, and for film work they drop into bgfx tracks seamlessly while leaving the center channel open and clear for dialogue and foley.

The biggest question I needed to answer before upgrading the kit was: is it better to run dual ORTF, spaced pair, or dual MS to get the most natural sound?

Each setup has its plusses and minuses outside of the pure sound of the setup, but I chose to evaluate the pure sonics first, and then use that as the jumping off point for any further decisions. 

The main thing I was interested in was in seeing how the imaging would work for sounds that move around within the ambient field.  If a bird or person or whatever moves from front left to rear right, I want the clearest imaging of that movement I can get.  Of particular interest to me is the way the different setups track movement from L to Ls or from Rs to R, as this is the trickier movement to track realistically.

I chose to use four Audio Technica 4050s to conduct the test, primarily because  I have access to four of these mics, and secondly because the AT4050 can switch from cardioid to figure 8, so that meant that I could objectively evaluate the setup on its own merits without having to compensate for listening to different mics for the diff setups.  

I also chose to record in our warehouse because I wanted to test these arrays in a reverberant space with a moderate noise floor, since that'll be the primary type of ambiance that I intend to record.

My methodology was a follows:

1. set up the mic array
2. run all 4 channels direct into a 788t, and set the preamps to 3 oclock.
3. no highpass, no pads, no limiters.
4. suspend a string on a mic stand directly above or in the center of the array.  This string will be used to keep me exactly equidistant from the array as I move around it.
5. record a pass of walking in a circle around the array while holding the string
6. record a pass of walking the same circle while counting
7. record a pass of walking the same circle while jingling some chimes
8. stop and setup the next array

 -----------------

First up was the dual ORTF array.

ORTF is defined as two capsules about 17cm (6.69 inches) apart and angled 110 degrees from one another. 

110 degrees adds up to 440 total degrees, so adhering to that standard would end up with the wide 100degree  front and rear angles and a more narrow 70 degree angle between the L and Ls and the R and Rs (if all capsules are equidistant from one another)

Since I was so concerned about tracking from front to rear and back, I decided to narrow the angles a bit and go with a more symmetrical four corner design.  here's the difference:

In the recordings, I found this setup to be very natural sounding, and to have the benefit of being relatively compact.  If I were using small diaphragm condensers I'd be able to pack a rig like this into a large blimp or a pair of blimps.  I could also custom build a square framed mic mount that could just pop on top of a single mic stand in an indoor environment.

Tracking around the room seemed to be very stable with this setup, if a little compact sounding.

--------

The second setup was a spaced pair.  

I left the angles of the mics at 90 degrees and set the mics themselves 6 feet apart at the corners of a square. 

In my final evaluation, this was easily my favorite sound.  the ambiance was super wide, yet the tracking across the various speakers was superb, and far more defined than the other, tighter arrays.  I could really feel where I was in the room, and at no point did I feel any holes or dropouts. 

If I have total control over a quad environment, this is going to be the way that I will record. 

-------

The last setup was dual MS. 

 I ran each M at 180 degrees from one another, and kept them relatively close to each other. 

After running the test, I came across this photo, which showed a dual MS setup sitting comfortably inside of a single blimp.

In that setup the rear M channel is slightly offset, so if you'd like to approximate that sound with my test, just decode the rear portion using the S from the front portion (discarding the rear S channel I recorded)

Here's what my setup looked like:

Upon listening, I found the dual MS setup to be the least satisfying.  The fridge in the room kicked on during this test, but I felt that after decoding it sounded even noisier than what the fridge added. 

The pattern was also super tight, and it was more difficult to track movement around the room from the distance that I was walking it. 

The dual MS rig is clearly the most convenient, but also the least impressive sounding of the three setups I tested. 

-------

In the end, I encourage you to pull down the files and listen to them to make your own assessments.  

After hearing the tests I opted for a quad cardioid approach rather than a dual MS one, and if I control things to the degree that I'd like, I'll be spreading those mics out very wide within the rooms that I'll be recording.

Quad four corners is probably the most cumbersome to setup, and it's impossible to do it stealth style, which is a shame because it yields what is to my ears the best overall results.  It'll be my default for quad nature recordings though, and for interiors where I have control over mic positions. 

When I need to have a smaller footprint the narrower four corners is a nice substitute for public space recording, and proper wind protection is probably achievable. 

I'm a little bummed that the dual MS didn't stack up better because that's by far the most convenient rig to put together (3 channels and it fits in one blimp), but I suppose that's why we do the tests.  :)

In the future I may run one more test where I place the mics in the corners of the room and walk the same circle inside of the mics instead of outside of the array. 

enjoy!

Who can wear the "sound designer" title?

This is an age old debate, and it's not specific to our industry - but a recent question on Social Sound Design by Jay Jennings kind of re-spawned the debate.  "What makes you think you're a sound designer?"  or as it's implied, "what have you done that gives you the right to take that title within the industry?"

In lieu of just answering in short form there I felt like I'd take the opportunity to go more in-depth with my own perspective.

Initially, my thought is that discussions about titles are discussions about language.  The fundamental questions behind the question is: what are you trying to communicate with your title, and to whom, and for what purpose?

To preface this: in my opinion the title of "sound designer" has kind of devolved into a similar place as the title of "graphic designer" or really any adjective + "designer" 

The best of the best take those titles, and a whole legion of hacks take those titles as well.  Its why reels and credits have become so important.

Just because someone designed something doesn't make that person a designer, but the fact will remain that the person did design that one thing.  If that person designs lots of things, at some point that person will move across the broad grey area that separates novices from masters.  Many people will take the title of designer after the first thing they designed though, not after they've truly created their first masterpiece.

All this dilution reduces the level of meaning that the title itself holds.  There are no pre-qualifications or trade guilds that police who gets to use the title of "sound designer" and who cannot.  This is not a title like "doctor" - or even "nurse" for that matter.  There are no standards, there is no board that can strip you of your title, and just printing the title on your business card or email sig or resume won't get you very far.

So with that said, my perception of the basic skillet a quality sound designer would have includes things like:

• field recording - including mic technique, signal flow, monitoring, etc
• data management and metadata fundamentals
• sync sound editorial
• creative manipulation of sounds with eq, compression, delays and distortion
• creativity in manipulating dynamic range
• creative use of synthesis
• a developed personal aesthetic
• the ability to communicate and defend creative decisions
• the ability to accomodate the creative vision of others

It's a tall list, and none of the things on it are easy or could be learned entirely in a year.

Of course not everyone that prints "sound designer" on their card can do all of those things well, and some of the things that really bring a person to the next level of sound design are not on that list.

I'll also note here, that generally titles can be pretty confining. They set up boundaries that imply both things that we do and things that we don't do.   My current business card implies zero about my ability to produce and edit copy, shoot video and timelapses, program websites, do public speaking, etc.

It also only peripherally implies things about my ability to cast, record and edit voices, mix for broadcast, and other more directly audio related things.

Its assumed that the titles we give use to describe ourselves are shorthand, but it's also assumed that it's shorthand for the most important thing that we do within the context of our jobs. 
-------------

So with that in mind lets get back to the underlying language questions about the title, and what my opinion of the answers should be.

First off: what am I trying to communicate with a title?

Going back to the "doctor" comparison, in the US, the title of M.D. means that you spent years in an accredited college attaining your bachelor's degree, and in school you learned anatomy, biology, chemistry, and other fundamentals of medicine.  You then went to med school and spent even more years learning the craft.  Once you've performed to the standards set by those institutions, you then enter into a medical residency program where you essentially act as an apprentice under other practicing and experienced doctors.  Once that process is complete you've applied for and acquired a license to practice in your state. All of this is implied with the M.D. title and the purpose of this title is to communicate these qualifications to the world in a standardized and uniform way.

I think that in the case of "sound designer" I'm not really trying to communicate a very specific skillset, and I'm certainly not going to be able to communicate any specific level of experience. 
I think that all I can realistically hope to communicate to a stranger with the title of "sound designer" is that I work in audio, that I do some sound editorial, and that I think that I'm being creative when I work.  To assume any more than that from the title would lead one to some misjudgements about people pretty quickly given how many people do take up the title these days.


Secondly: to whom am I communicating?

Generally speaking, professionals of any kind are utilizing their titles to communicate with everyone they come into contact in a professional context.  This includes clients and prospective clients, peers, vendors, management, etc. 

Given the wide array of people that I'm communicating with here, I really just have to try and lay a basic groundwork with the limited number of words I have available to use in a title.  My email sig and business card are not the place to get into a detailed analysis of what I can and can not do.

Thirdly: why am I trying to communicate this with my title?

Medical doctors utilize their titles to shorthand all of the credentials listed in the previous question.  This leads their clients to give them a baseline assumption of credibility that they can diagnose and cure many physical illnesses that they may be approached with.  The standardization of the titles in the medical profession has gone a long way towards improving the art and science of medicine.

Sound is not nearly as noble or dangerous a profession, and as such those types of standards aren't really as in demand.  The question of why designers of any kind utilize titles at all is kind of interesting. 

In my case, I use my title in context with my coworkers.  I'm generally the sound design guy, another guy is the lead composer, the boss does mixing and biz dev, and the new guy is still in the process of defining his niche within that dynamic.  This is not to say that I'm the only one that can do sound design in the shop (I'm not) nor is it to say that I can't do things like mixing and biz dev (I can). 

I think it also gives another level of insight into what I can do when I'm working with clients outside of the context of design.  If all I've done for this client is cut voices and they grab my card where it says "sound designer," they may think of me when its time to make cool noises near the end of the project.

---------

In the end, we're not defined by the titles we assume because titles are confining.  They're a shorthand, a means to an end, and we use them despite the fact that we're always learning new things, doing different things, and evloving our perspectives.

--------

for more thoughts on this, check out the second half of ep 56 on lets make mistakes, where  Mike and Katy struggle with the same issue in the web design world.  I don't think they came to any real conclusions there, but if nothing else it shows that audio people aren't the only ones who struggle with the whole title thing.  :)

fun with dopplers

here's  a quickie tutorial I just did with regards to how I use the Waves doppler plugin to make bys out of steady onboard vehicle recordings.  In this case I used the onboards that I recorded of my motorcycle a few weeks back.

Structurally, the concept draws heavily from Charles Deenan's 100 whooshes in 2 minutes tutorial on designingsound.org

The main change I made to his process was to really work the ins and outs of each by using the faders.
 
Some things I didn't really discuss, but you can see how they would work are the fact that you can make stylized whooshes with this technique as well.  That 100 whooshes post goes into great detail on that, though my preference is to go a little more focused than what Charles does.  For example, I'll  substitute a bunch of bow waves  and streams running, and get a bunch of underwater waves going on.  

In the vid I'm using a controller instead of a mouse to move the faders (so that I can move several simultaneously)and I'm performing the moves in real time.

skip the first 15 seconds or so.  Vimeo seems to have a pause glitch in there.



My two wishlist items for doppler would be an option to make it stop at the end of the path, and 96k support.