cgould said:
David Reaves said:
I don't quite follow how sounding identical to the original can be considered an "effect."
On second thought, perhaps in today's processing world where that is NOT the norm, it could be considered so!....
Kind Regards,
David
Aaaah... but if it really IS identical and transparent to the source, then what would be the purpose of using the unit? Even if it is doing subtle gain riding, and some subtle spectral balance then it's doing SOMETHING, which is an effect of some kind!
;-)
In audio processing, we're ALL distorting the audio characteristics in one way or another. If not with clippers, then we're distorting the dynamics in some desirable way to dynamically squeeze the audio fit an optimal range for a particular application.
That makes these units, by their nature, not transparent. They can be subtle to the ear, and not very perceptible by the humans without an A/B comparison, which
is what you mean by transparent. But the
effect the unit has on the audio is obvious enough that people buy it, and use it in their air chain! That is where I come from!
If it truly did nothing, then there would be no point to spending money on it!
Happy Friday, David
It's always fun chatting with you!
Regards,
-Cornelius
Cornelius,
I think we have a bit of a semantic disagreement going on here. I believe you are defining 'effect' as "any change to the original that a processor makes."
Under that definition, since yes, an Ariane sometimes makes changes, there is (shudder!!) an effect.
I, however, am describing "effect" more narrowly, as "any change to the original that a processor makes that can be heard as it happens" (IOW, "audible effect")
I also separate "function" from "effect." Function is what is intended (desired). Effect is what is heard (may or may not be desired).
The Ariane is an attempt to create the AGC function with as little audible effect as possible. Often, none.
I gave an NAB presentation a couple of years ago called "Separating Processing from its Effects." I don't know if you were there or not. The paper is online at <
http://www.translantech.com/NAB2006/Separating_Processing.htm> if you want to see where I'm coming from.
In my talk I discussed multiple aspects of human hearing that can be taken advantage of, to design ways to make automatic adjustments that are as sonically unnoticeable as possible. In other words, using technology to run processing algorithms that, while powerfully performing the desired functions, simultaneously steer AWAY from the idea of "effect." I'm sure you and many other engineers have considered the same thing. The difference is that one of our main techniques is to **aggressively seek opportunities to stop the process completely whenever possible,** a concept that results in letting the original material through unprocessed on a regular basis.
My thought is that if you can process without being noticed, there is, in effect, NO effect.
Or to put it more precisely, which I think is where you're headed, such little effect that it can be all but completely disregarded strictly as any audible effect (which, remember, may or may not be desired), but more as its pure control function. The processor is doing a lot, but going to great lengths to avoid making any action that is known to be audible, by removing dynamic action from the equation altogether, whenever possible.
Yes, sometimes you can hear a change when you press the A-B switch on an Ariane but as I said to one customer, if that's a problem, I promise to never tell your listeners where that switch is.
When all is said and done, keep in mind that roughly 90% of the time (depending on settings and material) the Ariane is doing **nothing.** It is VERY hard to hear the effect of "nothing."
Kind Regards,
David
