Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Forget all Those wannabes, here's the real deal.


Recommended Posts

I recently stumbled across this lady on one of those u-tube journeys. Wow She's been through hell with

addiction and mental health problems but has managed to come out the other side with her monstrous

talents intact.

 

Or if you like cranking it to eleven and getting in the "blue zone" try this, other wise I guess it's back to the

Perry Como records.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, 207 views and one reply. I hope my reference to "wannabees" was not misconstrued; think those auto-tune queens

Taylor, Britany and Kylie M. Anyway, it would seem the Gibson Forum is not jumping to it's feet for a standing O for Beth Hart.,

no wonder she is struggling to reestablish her career.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently stumbled across this lady on one of those u-tube journeys. Wow She's been through hell with

addiction and mental health problems but has managed to come out the other side with her monstrous

talents intact.

 

Or if you like cranking it to eleven and getting in the "blue zone" try this, other wise I guess it's back to the

Perry Como records.

To my taste, Beth Hart performs fantastic live in the first link. I think that Jeff Beck neither plays tasteful, nor his tone fits song and style. He is simply out of place.

 

For the studio version in the second link, Beth's voice is overcompressed and badly equalized. I also think that Joe Bonamassa's playing is rather misplaced.

 

Hmmm, 207 views and one reply. I hope my reference to "wannabees" was not misconstrued; think those auto-tune queens

Taylor, Britany and Kylie M. Anyway, it would seem the Gibson Forum is not jumping to it's feet for a standing O for Beth Hart.,

no wonder she is struggling to reestablish her career.

Autotune or other pitch quantizers are used by clueless, ignorant sound engineers who sadly make up the vast majority nowadays. :angry: Next to no artist would need pitch correction if a proper, purely analog and so absolutely latency-free monitoring was provided. When recorded by a blockhead at the controls, no vocalist is able to intonate correctly. Most of the technicians don't care for plain physics, and even most of the lecturers at academies don't. They simply aren't aware of the facts. #-o

 

I think that Beth Hart deserves the best musicians as well as the best producers, but even very gifted artists haven't all the luck they were in need of... [unsure]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capmaster

 

Thanks for your technical knowledge, After 35 years as a road grader operator and two hearing aids, I'm afraid

the subtleties of degrees of compression and equalization are beyond me.

 

I agree that Beck seemed to be at the Kennedy Center for name recognition purposes only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capmaster

 

Thanks for your technical knowledge, After 35 years as a road grader operator and two hearing aids, I'm afraid

the subtleties of degrees of compression and equalization are beyond me.

 

I agree that Beck seemed to be at the Kennedy Center for name recognition purposes only.

In my opinion, Jeff Beck and Joe Bonamassa are very skilled, awesome guitar players. However, no one can pass every challenge with distinction, and sometimes it is alleviating to realize that top players are just human, too.

 

It is just a bit sad for Beth Hart, although it is damn difficult to play lead guitar on the level she is singing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my taste, Beth Hart performs fantastic live in the first link. I think that Jeff Beck neither plays tasteful, nor his tone fits song and style. He is simply out of place.

 

For the studio version in the second link, Beth's voice is overcompressed and badly equalized. I also think that Joe Bonamassa's playing is rather misplaced.

 

 

Autotune or other pitch quantizers are used by clueless, ignorant sound engineers who sadly make up the vast majority nowadays. :angry: Next to no artist would need pitch correction if a proper, purely analog and so absolutely latency-free monitoring was provided. When recorded by a blockhead at the controls, no vocalist is able to intonate correctly. Most of the technicians don't care for plain physics, and even most of the lecturers at academies don't. They simply aren't aware of the facts. #-o

I think that Beth Hart deserves the best musicians as well as the best producers, but even very gifted artists haven't all the luck they were in need of... [unsure]

 

I've sung through monitoring systems from nice all analog studios to cheap digital home project set-ups, into everything from pro level to cheap headphones, through everything from pro studio mics to road-weary SM57s. I had no problems "intonating correctly." I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

 

Yes, Beth Hart is the real deal.

 

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take Perry Como any day of the week, or any of the clean from day "1" folks out there!!!

 

 

Doesn't leave many to choose from

 

This has always been a massive problem for musos.

 

T Graham Brown wrote this song; he like Beth Hart also suffers from Bipolar. As you can see in

both cases having to take psychotropic drugs can cause weight gain which in this day of video

everything can be a career killer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally dont care how many or little drugs a person might take. I just decide whether I like their music or not.

 

I always try to remember just how much great music from the past would have been a bit rubbish had they not been on drugs. Drugs get a bad rep but they're responsible for loads of good sh t.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sung through monitoring systems from nice all analog studios to cheap digital home project set-ups, into everything from pro level to cheap headphones, through everything from pro studio mics to road-weary SM57s. I had no problems "intonating correctly." I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

 

Yes, Beth Hart is the real deal.

 

P

I speak about the mislead use of post-digital routing of monitoring signals for performing artists, causing comb filtering in the ear canal of the vocalist, string, wind instrument or mouthdrum player through absolutely unavoidable digital latency. Most engineers don't even know about it, think musicians do perform that bad since they weren't that good, others engineers do it correctly by accident, only a few get it right due to knowing what doing.

 

This is today's reality. A friend of mine is professional studio service technician, Dr of Physics and educated keyboard player as well. He earned his money for his studies doing audio recording and mixing for TV and cinema productions, often over hundred tracks and up to eight different ambience reverb settings in realtime. Talking to him about the forcible requirement of pre-digital monitoring for the performing artist several years ago, he told me that over 99% of the audio studio professionals don't know or think about the reality of physics. However, in the German TV and cinema production scenes of Berlin-Babelsberg and München-Geiselgasteig they know about it.

 

I spent 1600 EUR for outboards only in order to provide up to four artists in realtime their own voice pre-digital, and all the other signals post-digital. I knew before I would have to spend this money on monitoring, and I knew and still know why.

 

The last three decades taught me that there may be some psychology getting around with musicians as a recording engineer, but you always have to rule your system and must never be ruled by it without even knowing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I speak about the mislead use of post-digital routing of monitoring signals for performing artists, causing comb filtering in the ear canal of the vocalist, string, wind instrument or mouthdrum player through absolutely unavoidable digital latency. Most engineers don't even know about it, think musicians do perform that bad since they weren't that good, others engineers do it correctly by accident, only a few get it right due to knowing what doing.

 

This is today's reality. A friend of mine is professional studio service technician, Dr of Physics and educated keyboard player as well. He earned his money for his studies doing audio recording and mixing for TV and cinema productions, often over hundred tracks and up to eight different ambience reverb settings in realtime. Talking to him about the forcible requirement of pre-digital monitoring for the performing artist several years ago, he told me that over 99% of the audio studio professionals don't know or think about the reality of physics. However, in the German TV and cinema production scenes of Berlin-Babelsberg and München-Geiselgasteig they know about it.

 

I spent 1600 EUR for outboards only in order to provide up to four artists in realtime their own voice pre-digital, and all the other signals post-digital. I knew before I would have to spend this money on monitoring, and I knew and still know why.

 

The last three decades taught me that there may be some psychology getting around with musicians as a recording engineer, but you always have to rule your system and must never be ruled by it without even knowing.

 

Maybe I'm being hopelessly dense here; it could happen. But let's say I'm singing to a digitally-recorded acoustic guitar. At what point in the signal chain can you monitor that guitar so that it's not "post-digital?" I may be even more confused by "comb filtering in the ear canal of the vocalist." Why would my ear canals create more of a comb filtering effect with recorded music than they do with the sounds in the room I'm sitting in? Same ear canals, same opportunity for relections mixing with direct sound and other reflections inside my ear canals. I'm missing something here.

 

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being hopelessly dense here; it could happen. But let's say I'm singing to a digitally-recorded acoustic guitar. At what point in the signal chain can you monitor that guitar so that it's not "post-digital?" I may be even more confused by "comb filtering in the ear canal of the vocalist." Why would my ear canals create more of a comb filtering effect with recorded music than they do with the sounds in the room I'm sitting in? Same ear canals, same opportunity for relections mixing with direct sound and other reflections inside my ear canals. I'm missing something here.

 

P

First, this is about what a vocalist will hear during the performance of her/his own, and just only that, but keep in mind that exactly this determines how the performance will be. You can't actually listen to anything previously recorded pre-digital, and this won't matter anyhow. However, it is crucial for the performance during recording.

 

Humans are accustomed to hear their own voice through both mouth via air through their ear canals, and through their skull to the tymapani together in a natural realtime interference. So this is what's natural for us and is the benchmark for controlling our own voice. This is similar when playing instruments that make our skull vibrate like violins or wind instruments.

 

In case you want to monitor your own voice while performing, the entire monitoring path has to mimic that. Best thing to do this is putting a microphone close up to the forehead and routing this signal as fast as only analog can do to your ear canal, and you will hear yourself like your nature would allow for.

 

Anti-aliasing filters take a certain amount of time to produce the desired signals in both directions of domain changes, no matter if A/D, D/A or sample rate conversions. This delay through A/D and D/A conversions called latency will cause a phase shift proportional to the frequency. In case of setting a natural level via headphones through an A/D/A chain instead of purely analog, the fastest (!) of these would make you hear virtually nothing of your own voice at about 250, 750, 1250, 1750 and so on Hertz, and will provide a 6 decibel peak at 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 and so on Hertz. In case the latency is larger, let's assume twice the amount, the notches due to cancelling will shift to 125, 375, 625, 875 and so on Hertz, and the peaks will be at 250, 500, 750, 1000 and so on Hertz.

 

This interference's frequency response in a linear drawing with frequency in the lateral and level in the vertical axis looks like a comb, hence the name comb filter.

 

It is obvious that such an interference causing cancellings and peaks like a flanger gone stuck fouls up the artist's control over her/his actual performance in both intonation and dynamic.

 

This is on principal valid e. g. for violins and wind instruments, too, just with different microphone positions and air runtimes which cause different interferences and perceived frequency characteristics humans are acquainted with.

 

But don't worry, most recording engineers also don't know. Instead of setting up appropriate monitoring signal paths for artists, they use Autotune or the like pitch quantizers and compressors afterwards or even during the recording process, and there is no artist to blame for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't find her anything special or unique sounding..but thanks for posting.

 

Theres a lot of really good musicians out there that are obscure.

The whole natural "line of process" that allows the best or most beautiful sounding to the top (ie where the public can hear them) is highly corrupted these days.

It is manipulated & controlled. (You can apply that to journalism and news as well)

 

Here is a blues singer that is excellent and probably barely scrapes by a living (singing here with Eric johnson).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...