something in never noticed in GX1 solo

since i have average hi-fi speakers and crappy headphones, i really have to focus to hear subtle details in music.

however, i just noticed that the first 8 seconds in GX1 solo are mixed differently from the rest of the track. at 9:00, the panning and eq is different. i suspect that he recorded the beginning separately.

which reminds me that i'd like to know the trick to how he mastered the track. to get that weird reverb and panning.

also, does anyone know what the recurrent paper-like sound effect is? is it just parasite noise or if you slow it down by 800% and play it backwards it says 'i am the resurrection of john lennon. hail lord satan'?

by the way, i miswrote the thread title

  On 5/26/2012 at 4:04 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i'd like to know the trick to how he mastered the track. to get that weird reverb and panning.

recorded via mic/s from the GX1's speakers i would imagine

  On 5/26/2012 at 4:13 PM, BCM said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 4:04 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

i'd like to know the trick to how he mastered the track. to get that weird reverb and panning.

 

recorded via mic/s from the GX1's speakers i would imagine

i didn't think of that. yeah, he probably used at least 2 mics and mixed the takes together.

actually the first seconds sound flatter space-wise. like only 1 mic was used.

ok, i just thought of this: some mics are placed right in front of the speakers, and some others take the room reverb.

i'm no sound engineer so i don't know if that's how it's done

"Prick!"

The whole track sound like it's recorded with mics in the room, but I hear no difference in sound at 9 seconds, other than the bass line changing just before the pads enter.

Also, check the drum beat at 7:48 here:

[media=]

fucking A @ stevie rocking the gx1!

  On 5/26/2012 at 4:30 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

ok, i just thought of this: some mics are placed right in front of the speakers, and some others take the room reverb.

i'm no sound engineer so i don't know if that's how it's done

i think this, and he mixes between the different inputs from the direct mics and the room mics

  On 5/26/2012 at 4:30 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

ok, i just thought of this: some mics are placed right in front of the speakers, and some others take the room reverb.

i'm no sound engineer so i don't know if that's how it's done

unless it was recorded in a large acoustical space, there is no 'reverb' in the room.

(edit: unless you are a dog, bat, UHF engineer, etc...)

Walter Murch disagrees with you

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:24 PM, oscillik said:

Walter Murch disagrees with you

then manfred schroeder disagrees with walter murch.

this is basic physics. there is no debate.

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:27 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:24 PM, oscillik said:

Walter Murch disagrees with you

 

then manfred schroeder disagrees with walter murch.

 

this is basic physics. there is no debate.

you even admit in your post above that there is such a thing as room reverb, to dogs, bats, UHF engineer, etc.

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:29 PM, oscillik said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:27 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:24 PM, oscillik said:

Walter Murch disagrees with you

 

then manfred schroeder disagrees with walter murch.

 

this is basic physics. there is no debate.

 

you even admit in your post above that there is such a thing as room reverb, to dogs, bats, UHF engineer, etc.

unless in a large acoustical space (yes, that is not a casual term and does indeed have definition), there is no appreciable reverberant sound-field at any frequency we are concerned with. what little reverb exists is above our hearing range and below the ambient noise floor. this is precisely the acoustical behavior distinction that separates (transition) a small acoustcal space (SAS) from a large acoustical space (LAS). reverb is a statistical behavior.

what is your contention with such basic physics.

here we go again...

shut it, elusive4, this thread was now about Stevie Wonder and his GX1 solo

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:21 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 4:30 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

ok, i just thought of this: some mics are placed right in front of the speakers, and some others take the room reverb.

i'm no sound engineer so i don't know if that's how it's done

 

unless it was recorded in a large acoustical space, there is no 'reverb' in the room.

 

(edit: unless you are a dog, bat, UHF engineer, etc...)

english is not my first language so that's discussing semantics.

sounds like a straight room recording to me with no direct ins being recording. And yeah i never noticed about GX1 solo how my balls fall into a black hole when i listen to it.

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:35 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:29 PM, oscillik said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:27 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:24 PM, oscillik said:

Walter Murch disagrees with you

 

then manfred schroeder disagrees with walter murch.

 

this is basic physics. there is no debate.

 

you even admit in your post above that there is such a thing as room reverb, to dogs, bats, UHF engineer, etc.

 

unless in a large acoustical space (yes, that is not a casual term and does indeed have definition), there is no appreciable reverberant sound-field at any frequency we are concerned with. what little reverb exists is above our hearing range and below the ambient noise floor. this is precisely the acoustical behavior distinction that separates (transition) a small acoustcal space (SAS) from a large acoustical space (LAS). reverb is a statistical behavior.

 

what is your contention with such basic physics.

I have no contention with basic physics, but with your wholly inaccurate claim that there is no reverb in a room.

(nulling) in a (null) thread

  On 5/26/2012 at 10:15 PM, Awepittance said:

sounds like a straight room recording to me with no direct ins being recording.

in this case, the first 8 seconds were processed differently. either the microphone wasn't at the exact same place than for the rest of the track, or the recording was processed differently during the mix. i don't know.

great track

  On 5/26/2012 at 4:04 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

at 9:00, the panning and eq is different.

gx1 is 9mins long?

  On 5/27/2012 at 2:09 AM, B1000 said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 4:04 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

at 9:00, the panning and eq is different.

 

gx1 is 9mins long?

@ 00:09 seconds is what they are talking about

  On 5/26/2012 at 10:19 PM, oscillik said:

I have no contention with basic physics, but with your wholly inaccurate claim that there is no reverb in a room.

yep. there is no appreciable 'reverb' in any room we are concerned with here - unless you are in a large acoustical space of which my original statement made clear. are you a dog, bat, etc?

hgow confident are you, oscillik? care to take push your makeshift attempt at debate one step further?

  On 5/27/2012 at 3:15 AM, elusive4 said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 10:19 PM, oscillik said:

I have no contention with basic physics, but with your wholly inaccurate claim that there is no reverb in a room.

 

yep. there is no appreciable 'reverb' in any room we are concerned with here - unless you are in a large acoustical space of which my original statement made clear. are you a dog, bat, etc?

 

hgow confident are you, oscillik? care to take push your makeshift attempt at debate one step further?

notice that I never made any mention of 'human noticable reverb', merely of there being reverb.

next you'll argue that infrared light doesn't exist because humans can't see it.