Welcome to No Limit Sound Productions

Company Founded
2005
Overview

Our services include Sound Engineering, Audio Post-Production, System Upgrades and Equipment Consulting.
Mission
Our mission is to provide excellent quality and service to our customers. We do customized service.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Q. What’s wrong with playing while wearing headphones?


Sound Advice : Recording




Mike Senior

It’s fine to use cans while recording if that suits the artist, but there are very good reasons to avoid them, particularly when working with singers.

It’s fine to use cans while recording if that suits the artist, but there are very good reasons to avoid them, particularly when working with singers.It’s fine to use cans while recording if that suits the artist, but there are very good reasons to avoid them, particularly when working with singers.



On Wikipedia, the musician Chris Thile is quoted as saying the following about the recording of How To Grow A Woman From The Ground (easily one of my favourite albums of all time): “Everything was tracked live, and I’ve decided never to record wearing headphones again unless I absolutely have to... because you’re in your own little world playing to a mix that no-one will ever hear but you. What’s the point?” I don’t get this. What’s wrong with headphones? I can see someone not wanting to overdub, but why not play with headphones? Surely he’s confusing overdubbing with recording with headphones?



SOS Forum post



SOS contributor Mike Senior replies: Actually, I don’t think he is confusing anything, and I also broadly speaking agree with him myself, for many reasons. What Thile is specifically saying here, as I see it, is that if he turns himself up in his own cans so he can better hear what he’s playing, for example, then he’ll likely undermine his normal musical impulse to project more strongly when his solo comes around. And that alteration in the normal balance of the performance may then have knock-on effects for the other players, and so on. The interactions that happen between expert acoustic performers is tremendously subtle, and based on their previous experiences of playing together. If you bring an ensemble into the studio and suddenly give them completely different balances than those they normally hear in rehearsal, then you’re asking for trouble — not just a less secure performance, but also a mix where the balances need masses more automation work to clarify.



But that’s not the only problem with headphones, by any means. For a start, for most musicians, the sound coming through the mic-plus-headphone chain will usually be a pale imitation of the acoustic reality they’re intimately familiar with, through hours and hours of practising, so when working on headphones they may find it difficult to control the tonal variables of the instrument with the same assurance they normally do. Then there’s the issue of monitoring latency to deal with in digital systems, which is often a problem in project studios — it’s not just a timing issue, either, because even the smallest monitoring latencies can trigger comb-filtering between the monitored signal and bone-conducted sound coming through the performer’s body, especially where brass/wind instruments and vocalists are concerned. And finally, separate headphone mixes can make natural communication between players rather tricky between takes, which makes refining arrangements and performances harder than it needs to be — and even if it doesn’t, for most people there’s something unnatural about communicating with people whose answers sound like they’re being beamed directly into your head!



To put it another way: what are the advantages of working without headphones? In my experience, it allows the technology to retreat into the background as far as the performers are concerned. They can play and interact the way they normally would during rehearsal, so their natural dynamics can be captured by the mics, and those same dynamics do half the mixing work for you. Now, clearly, project-studio recording sessions often have to diverge from that ideal for many practical reasons, so there’s no escape from using headphones in many situations. If you have a choice, though, I’d thoroughly recommend giving them a miss. If nothing else, think of the time you’ll save setting it all up!    



Monday, June 27, 2016

Q. How much impact can a CD transport have on sound quality?


Sound Advice : Maintenance




Hugh Robjohns



I’ve been looking for a compact CD transport [an audio CD Player with a digital output, usually with no on-board D-A converter] to hook up to my home-studio DAC and I’m surprised by how expensive they are — €1000 to €2000 isn’t rare and those aimed at rich-and-crazy audiophiles cost 10 times that. I can live with the idea of spending €1000 on a really nice DAC, or €2000 on really good speakers that will last the rest of my life, but shouldn’t it be entirely possible to make a decent CD transport for €250 or less? How much impact can a CD transport really have on sound quality (assuming there’s nothing wrong with the CD it’s playing)?



SOS Forum post



SOS Technical Editor Hugh Robjohns replies: Equipment prices in the audiophile market have always confounded and amazed me, but so too does your acceptance that a nice DAC should cost four times as much as a reliable disc transport! Have you ever really thought about what a CD transport has to do? A DAC is basically a little bit of etched silicon (albeit a cleverly designed one), glued onto a circuit board with lots of other little bits of silicon. Once these chips have been designed, the manufacturers can churn them out in the thousands for micro-cents, and the rest of the electronics are pretty cheap to build too. A lot of expertise is required to design a system in which all the elements come together in a way that achieves the desired level of performance, but we’re really only talking about good PSU design, effective grounding strategies, attention to clocking arrangements, and so on. It’s challenging, but it’s not rocket science!



Contrast that with a CD transport, which is, in my view, a miracle of intricate moving parts which need to be positioned precisely and continuously within fractions of a micrometre, with sophisticated servo-control circuitry, and elaborate digital processing systems! The data bumps pressed into a spiral within the CD have to be positioned under the laser beam and detector assembly at a very steady speed of around 1.4m/s (about 3mph, or walking speed!) and, since the bump spiral runs from inside to outside, the disc rotation motor has to vary its speed as the disc plays, from about 500rpm down to 200rpm, and that needs a sophisticated servo-control system.



The presence or absence of bumps within the disc is detected by a laser beam which is focused dynamically to a spot about 1.2 m across, and that laser beam has to be kept precisely aligned on the passing stream of bumps with the separation between adjacent spirals of just 1.6 m. Just to make things slightly harder, the spiral groove is probably also wobbling from side to side as the disc spins because the centre hole is probably slightly off-centre, and the horizontal plane of the bumps is probably also moving up and down too because the disc balance won’t be perfect either. So the laser focusing mechanism is continuously having to readjust the beam focus onto the moving surface. Consequently, the entire laser-beam generator and optical sensor assembly has to be motored across the surface of the disc while keeping the static laser beam precisely focused onto the moving spiral of microscopic bumps within the disc’s polycarbonate substrate.



If you scale these dimensions up a million times so that the bumps are about 1.2 metres wide — about the same as the width of the crash barrier down the centre of a motorway — the tracking servos in the laser assembly are performing the equivalent of flying a jumbo jet at three million miles an hour, while keeping the nose wheel aligned to within about 20cm either way directly above the central crash barrier as the motorway winds its way across the countryside.



So we are already talking about mind-blowing precision with unbelievably fast-moving targets — but it doesn’t stop here. The inevitable cyclical variations in the amount of power demanded by the tracking and focus servos can result in varying reference voltages in the digital, clocking, and analogue circuitry, if the transport’s power-supply system is not carefully designed. That can cause significant problems too, especially if the CD player has an on-board DAC. Prism Sound ran some fascinating tests in 1996 to find out why numerically identical CDs were perceived to sound different when played on various CD systems, and found that power-supply modulation problems played a significant role (www.prismsound.com/m_r_downloads/cdinvest.pdf).



If the tracking and focusing systems all work as they should, the photo-detector in the laser assembly will output an analogue signal with a varying brightness (light/dark) which represents the data pressed into the disc. That analogue signal is digitised (so the player needs an accurate word-clock generator) and passed to a decoder chip, which has to figure out how to unscramble the eight-to-fourteen modulation and CIRC encoding structures and pass the resulting binary data to an error-correction system.



When the CD format was designed, it was assumed that errors would be inevitable, so a powerful error-detection system was incorporated. Originally they expected short absences of data caused by pin-holes in the metal reflective layer (because the ‘sputtering’ technology wasn’t 100 percent reliable in the early 1980s), but it turned out that the real problems were caused by deep scratches and oily residues (fingerprints, marmalade...) on the disc, since these deflect the laser beam to a completely different part of the data stream.



In those cases, instead of a short gap in the recovered data stream the receiver gets continuous data, but sections of it are junk and don’t relate sensibly to the rest. Moreover, the beam deflections upset the tracking and focus servos in a major way, ultimately resulting in the familiar ‘stuck-groove’ effect we’ve all heard from scratched CDs.



When faced with such severe problems, the error-correction system can identify that there’s a problem, but the system isn’t powerful enough to correct it — the only option is to throw the confusing data away and take a guess instead: the error-concealment mode. Thankfully, audio tends largely to be cyclical, so a predictive approach to error concealment is surprisingly effective, and artifacts are usually fairly inaudible. Its failings become most obvious and dramatic on transient-rich and high-frequency components.



After all that, the (hopefully) accurate audio data is re-encoded into an S/PDIF signal and made available on an output socket for an external DAC, which has the relatively easy-peasy job of just turning it back into an analogue signal again.



DVD players have to work four times as hard as a CD transport because all the dimensions are smaller, and Blu–ray even more so! So it’s really quite astonishing that all that can be done for so little money, especially when you compare it with the cost of a high-end record turntable/pickup arm/cartridge or an open-reel tape machine, all of which employ, in comparison, very crude ‘tractor’ engineering!



As to the question, “How much impact can a CD transport have on sound quality?” the reality is that a poor transport could easily be making up large parts of the data if its tracking systems are not working well, forcing the error-correction system to give up and resort to concealing errors instead. The frustrating thing is that you’ll probably never know if it’s doing that because although the error-correction chips provide status flags to indicate how well they’re working, these are not usually brought out to the front panel for the user to see (other than in a few high-end and specialist machines).



A common problem is a susceptibility to mechanical and acoustical vibrations, which cause tracking and focus errors leading to uncorrectable data errors. There’s also the issue of power-rail fluctuation that I mentioned previously, and it may also have less than perfect clocking and so introduce interface jitter in the S/PDIF output. Of course, a good external DAC should be able to remove any interface jitter, but it can’t do anything if the data itself has already been corrupted through the use of error concealment.



The better-designed transports are designed to minimise these risks by using large, competent power supplies, to avoid any cross-interference between the different servo systems, the digital electronics and so on. They also have well-isolated and shock-mounted mechanisms so that mechanical vibration doesn’t affect the disc-reading process. The tracking and focus servos and all the associated mechanics and bearings are also of the highest standard and able to work quickly and accurately.



Different manufacturers use different mechanism designs, too. The original Philips idea uses a ‘swinging arm’ arrangement in which the laser assembly is mounted on an arm which pivots around a fixed post, tracing an arc across the CD much like a vinyl pickup arm. In contrast, many Japanese transports employ a ‘sled’ laser assembly in which the laser optics are moved along a couple of parallel rails. I’ve found the former to be far more reliable, because dust sticks to the rail lubrication in the latter, resulting in sticky ‘gummed-up’ regions at both ends of the sled’s excursion range over time, making longer discs unplayable towards the end. There are also different techniques used to keep the laser beam on track, with Philips again using a split-beam system, which seems particularly reliable.



So the cost of CD/DVD transports isn’t all that shocking, when you consider all that goes into them and all they have to do! When everything’s working well, the S/PDIF data from a cheap and cheerful transport will be identical to that from a properly engineered unit — that’s the beauty of digital audio. However, the problem comes when the going gets tough and the cheap transport fails to extract the disc information correctly. Its only option is to resort to making the data up through the concealment process, without telling you what it’s doing!



There are a lot of quite reasonable CD transports around in the $350-700 range, while a decent DVD or Bluray player should be able to generate good CD data too, because they work to even finer tolerances, and they all seem to have audio S/PDIF outputs capable of feeding an external DAC.    



Friday, June 24, 2016

Q. Why should reverbs be send effects?


Sound Advice : Miking




Mike Senior



Why do people put delays and reverbs on a separate track instead of putting it with the track that has the EQs and compressors? Do you have to do this?



SOS Forum post



SOS contributor Mike Senior replies: There are several reasons why it often makes sense to keep delay and reverb effects on separate tracks. The main thing is that it allows you to share the same plug-in effect instance between several recorded sounds, by sending from their different tracks to a separate effects track via the DAW software’s auxiliary sends system — the so-called ‘send-return’ configuration. This not only makes more efficient use of your computer’s processing power, especially where reverb is concerned (decent reverb effects can be extraordinarily CPU-hungry), but also allows you to implement global changes to an effect across the board with ease. Want a drier sound overall? Just turn down the reverb channel, leaving all your instrument balances otherwise as they were — assuming that you’re using the effect in its ‘wet only’ mode, as is the norm when using separate effects channels in this way.



In addition, though, having your delay or reverb effect on a separate track gives you much more control to customise the effect without changing the dry sound. Most reverb plug-ins do now have some EQ at least on-board, but if you want more surgical spectral control — or indeed some distortion, chorusing, or triggered ducking applied just to the effect tail — then it’s much easier to do that when the effect is on a separate track. In more creative electronic styles, this is a big plus point of the send-return approach.



Having said that, there are some occasions where I still insert delay or reverb effects directly into a track, rather than using them in a send-return configuration. Usually this is where I’m using super-short delays or reverbs to adjust the tone of a sound via comb-filtering, rather than trying to set up an effect tail. In that kind of situation, the effect usually has to be heavily tailored to the specific recorded source I’m processing, so it wouldn’t be much use for anything else in the arrangement, and I would want any further processing (or indeed sends to more traditional send-return effects) to be fed with that altered timbre, not the initial dry sound. So in that scenario the send-return configuration makes less sense.