| Products > Test Equipment |
| Looking for an audio analyzer |
| << < (11/16) > >> |
| ci11:
--- Quote from: ruairi on January 08, 2017, 04:55:31 pm --- Why are they different? --- End quote --- They are different because soundcards typically do not include DSPs for front-end signal processing, which are almost always implemented in high-end analyzers to improve accuracy. The incoming signal is scrubbed then passed onto 32-bit or higher-precision DSPs to do the processing in the digital domain. Soundcards may have analog "processing" but the intent is very different hence the design would have to follow suit. --- Quote ---This is not the case. I know many very famous engineers who never use headphones and who never check on the mains (lots of newer studios don't have mains and in older spaces they often sounded dreadful)." --- End quote --- If you are Al Schmidt or Ed Cherney, sure, you would probably skip not only headphones, but a few other steps because you have 40+ years under your belt. But if you were hired by Al Schmidt or Ed Cherney to assistant-produce at the board and you left a few glitches in a pricey session by not triple-checking before the talent got back on their private jet heading to their next gig, you'd be toast on the spot - guaranteed. Perhaps "engineers" only tracking and mixing on Yamaha NS-10s are the real reasons why recordings sound the way they do now, despite all the much better tools available in modern rooms. |
| ruairi:
ci11, There's no question that a high end analyzer has extras that a sound card does not, auto ranging being the most important, input impedance switching is another, on some units there are analog notch filters pre A/D. I don't really understand your point re dsp. Sure, the Apx555 has some tricks up it's sleeve to lower distortion in the analyzer section but typically analyzers are looking to digitize the signal with the least distortion, then analyze. My point is that you can do very real work with a sound card and software once you understand the principles involved. Would I prefer a real audio analyzer? Sure, but I can go very far with a sound card and REW. The O.P. will find the complexity of something like an A.P. daunting and will be limited by his understanding and technique until he has some experience measuring acoustically and electrically. I've measured power amps, very large SSL mixing consoles, many many 6 figure speaker systems and lots of audio hardware with an interface and free software. This is real work, in the field for professional clients. Let's not argue about your second point. I live in that world here in L.A. and work with engineers and producers all day long at every level from beginner to the top level. You paint a picture from a very different era. --- Quote from: ci11 on January 08, 2017, 05:12:50 pm --- --- Quote from: ruairi on January 08, 2017, 04:55:31 pm --- Why are they different? --- End quote --- They are different because soundcards typically do not include DSPs for front-end signal processing, which are almost always implemented in high-end analyzers to improve accuracy. The incoming signal is scrubbed then passed onto 32-bit or higher-precision DSPs to do the processing in the digital domain. Soundcards may have analog "processing" but the intent is very different hence the design would have to follow suit. Perhaps "engineers" only tracking and mixing on Yamaha NS-10s are the real reasons why recording sound the way they do now, despite all the much better tools available in modern rooms. --- Quote ---This is not the case. I know many very famous engineers who never use headphones and who never check on the mains (lots of newer studios don't have mains and in older spaces they often sounded dreadful)." --- End quote --- If you are Al Schmidt or Ed Cherney, sure, you would probably skip not only headphones, but a few other steps because you have 40+ years under your belt. But if you were hired by Al Schmidt or Ed Cherney to assistant-produce at the board and you left a few glitches in a pricey session by not triple-checking before the talent got back on their private jet heading to their next gig, you'd be toast on the spot - guaranteed. --- End quote --- |
| alex89:
--- Quote from: ruairi on January 08, 2017, 06:26:51 pm ---I've measured power amps, very large SSL mixing consoles, many many 6 figure speaker systems and lots of audio hardware with an interface and free software. This is real work, in the field for professional clients. --- End quote --- What is your interface of choice for such a job ? |
| ruairi:
I'm using a Prism Sound Lyra 1. In the interests of full disclosure I do some work with Prism's U.S. distributor, mostly bench repair work for the Maselec line of outboard gear. I've used a variety of interfaces in the past though. |
| ci11:
--- Quote from: ruairi on January 08, 2017, 06:26:51 pm --- There's no question that a high end analyzer has extras that a sound card does not, auto ranging being the most important, input impedance switching is another, on some units there are analog notch filters pre A/D. I don't really understand your point re dsp. Sure, the Apx555 has some tricks up it's sleeve to lower distortion in the analyzer section but typically analyzers are looking to digitize the signal with the least distortion, then analyze. My point is that you can do very real work with a sound card and software once you understand the principles involved. Would I prefer a real audio analyzer? Sure, but I can go very far with a sound card and REW. The O.P. will find the complexity of something like an A.P. daunting and will be limited by his understanding and technique until he has some experience measuring acoustically and electrically. I've measured power amps, very large SSL mixing consoles, many many 6 figure speaker systems and lots of audio hardware with an interface and free software. This is real work, in the field for professional clients. Let's not argue about your second point. I live in that world here in L.A. and work with engineers and producers all day long at every level from beginner to the top level. You paint a picture from a very different era. --- End quote --- I hope my points are helpful to address the OP's applications. These comments were intended to urge the OP - or anyone - to thoroughly understand their application needs and pro's can con's of each option before being lured into decisions based on a seemingly low entry threshold, be it price or complexity. Not many people discuss the real differences between soundcard-based solutions and current, purpose-built audio analyzers costing much more, probably because few think they could ever afford them so it is easy to deny their significance. But these differences are there not only for those who need them and are willing to pay for them, but help define or inspire future requirements for hardware and software developers, and they warrant discussion. Whether they are necessary is an individual decision, but the state of the art is moving forward, albeit slowly as they start bumping into limits imposed by physics. "I don't really understand your point re dsp" Attached are 2 pictures lifted from AP and R&S literature that describe the front-end processing of their analyzers. These have nothing to do lowering THD+N, that's something different implemented elsewhere. Compare their approach to soundcard-based solutions, and the difference is obvious. These circuits simply do not exist on soundcards or analog-based outboards. They help the user see better and analyze more. Again, perhaps this difference is not needed or justified, but the current capabilities are clear and deserve to be mentioned. Even if some aspiring developer writes this pre-processing for a Raspberry Pi and put the software on Github for free, a tracking analog notch filter setup and input protection is not a trivial add-on to a soundcard. The "picture I painted" is that of successful engineers who have a backlog of work because they deliver good results every time, on time and with no excuses or budget overrun drama becasue they run a tight ship. Many people don't want to or even need to work that way, today, yesterday or tomorrow in LA, Nashville or NYC. That's is not the point relevant to this discussion - the point is that headphones reveal more details that can easily be lost, and those details may point to problems that started somewhere else, and hence the need for better-performing instruments to chase after those root causes - if so desired. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |