#unfortunately audible's audio quality is often... bad

[c0rrupt3dsp1r1t]

Binging VNAs that have Benny in them in order and hoping I'll soon get to one I actually own a physical copy of soon is such a feeling.

[ladystylestores]

OnePlus Bullets Wireless Z Review

The Bullets Wireless Z are the third pair of wireless earphones from OnePlus. A replacement to the excellent Bullets Wireless 2 from last year, the Bullets Wireless Z are meant to be a more affordable option, while matching the design and features of its predecessor.

The Bullets Wireless Z are the cheapest wireless set from OnePlus so far, with the US pricing being half what the Bullets Wireless 2 cost. In India, the Bullets Wireless Z costs a third of the Bullets Wireless 2 and half of the original Bullets Wireless. In fact, the INR1,999 price is the lowest anywhere in the world and makes the Bullets Wireless Z a particularly enticing purchase.

And it’s not just price reductions either as the Bullets Wireless Z also improves upon a few things compared to the models that came before them. They have the longest battery life, proper water-resistance, and a low-latency mode designed to work specifically with OnePlus phones.

We will be getting into all of the features and also all of the compromises that come with such drastic price reductions, so if you’re interested in getting a pair of these, make sure you read on before you click purchase.

Design

For the third time in a row, OnePlus has decided to stick with the neckband design despite the ever-growing popularity of truly wireless earbuds. Not that I am complaining – this style has its advantages, such as not having to worry about losing one of the earbuds, physical volume and playback controls, longer battery life, and not having to fumble with the case when you are done using them. The truly wireless earbuds may look cool but the neckband style is certainly more practical.

In the case of the Bullets Wireless Z, the design is nearly identical to that of the Bullets Wireless 2. They are so similar that since both our Bullets Wireless Z and Bullets Wireless 2 review units were black, we had to leave the label on our Bullets Wireless Z to differentiate them.

The only major difference between the Bullets Wireless Z and the Bullets Wireless 2 is that the latter uses metal construction for the earbuds while the former is entirely made out of plastic. This becomes obvious once you hold them but from just looking at them it’s hard to tell them apart.

The only other differences we noticed were the lack of the red rings at the back of the earbuds on the Bullets Wireless Z and that they were a couple of grams lighter than the Bullets Wireless 2.

Of course, if you have the Mint, Blue, or Oat version of the Bullets Wireless Z then they would be far easier to differentiate.

The nearly identical design isn’t a problem as the Bullets Wireless 2 were one of the better-built earphones, with a comfortable rubberized body that wasn’t too thick or heavy around your neck. The remote control on the left cable was also easy to reach and operate. The earbuds also snap together magnetically when you’re not using them and doing so deactivates them.

However, the design had some flaws, such as the soggy buttons on the remote and the tiny LED light that makes it annoying to check whether the earphones are charging or in pairing mode. The Bullets Wireless Z inherits these flaws as a result of its similar design.

New to the Bullets Wireless Z are sweat and water-resistance. The original Bullets Wireless claimed to be splash resistant but had no official certification and the Bullets Wireless 2 didn’t claim any ingress protection. The Bullets Wireless Z, meanwhile, have IP55 certificate so you can use them for workouts and around water.

The packaging has changed slightly for the Bullets Wireless Z. The box is wider now but oddly has fewer things inside. You get the earphones and a short charging cable but OnePlus no longer bundles the silicone carry case. Can’t say this is a big loss, as the carry case was always oddly cramped despite being an official accessory and occasionally resulted in the earphones inside being split apart from their magnetic lock, which caused them to power on and waste battery.

Overall, there’s not much here to complain about. As far as neckband style goes, the Bullets Wireless Z are a well-designed pair of earphones that look and feel better than what the price might suggest.

Comfort

The Bullets Wireless Z are superbly comfortable pair of earphones, just as the Bullets Wireless 2 were before it. The soft rubberized material for the neckband sits comfortably on your neck and the whole thing is light enough that after a whileyou barely notice they are there. The cables to the speakers are also long enough and don’t rub against your face.

The shape of the earbuds is also superbly done as it perfectly fits the contours of your inner ear. This could vary from person to person obviously, but I’ve always found the Bullets Wireless Z/2 earbud design to be almost custom-designed for my ear size and shape.

The silicone ear tips are also made out of wonderfully thick and supple material. The original Bullets Wireless had rather thin and unpleasant stock ear tips but OnePlus really upped its game with the Bullets Wireless 2 and it’s good to see the Bullets Wireless Z inherits those much improved ear tips as well. These are easily the best pair of silicone ear tips you’ll see in this price range and makes everything else in its class and even some several classes higher feel like recycled car door lining.

The advantage of having supple ear tips is that apart from being comfortable they also create a good seal in your ears. As someone with a slight but not insignificant mismatch in inner ear sizes, I often find some earphones to not fit well in one ear or the other but the default size that comes with the Bullets Wireless Z fits me like a glove with zero seal or leakage issue. They also block a fair bit of noise and are usable on a plane.

Having spent countless hours on the Bullets Wireless 2, I can confidently recommend the Bullets Wireless Z for anyone looking for a comfortable pair of in-ear earphones.

Features and specifications

This is one area where the Bullets Wireless Z are several steps behind the Bullets Wireless 2, as OnePlus axed several niceties to make the lower price.

Starting with the stuff that did make it – the Bullets Wireless Z supports Bluetooth 5.0. You can have your phone be in the next room and the connection holds fine even through thick brick walls. If you have a direct line of sight, you can go as far as the claimed 10m. I didn’t notice any drops or skipping during normal operation.

Unfortunately, OnePlus does not support pairing with multiple devices. This isn’t a Bullets Wireless Z issue, as the previous models didn’t do it, either. It does have a feature called Quick Switch that’s carried over from Bullets Wireless 2, which lets you quickly switch over to the last paired device by double-tapping the power/pairing button. It’s not as convenient as multi-device pairing but it’s useful to have nonetheless and better than nothing.

OnePlus made some severe cutbacks to the codec support on the Bullets Wireless Z. The Bullets Wireless had support for SBC and aptX while the Bullets Wireless 2 supports SBC, aptX, and aptX HD. Meanwhile, the Bullets Wireless Z only supports SBC and AAC. Codecs need licensing so cheaper headphones often tend to leave them out.

However, the impact that these codecs have on audio quality isn’t always cut and dry, meaning you aren’t necessarily gaining a lot by having certain codecs nor does it mean you automatically get bad sound if you don’t have them.

A lot of it comes down to the source that you are listening to and if it’s mostly compressed music then you aren’t going to notice any difference. It’s even hard to measure these differences sometimes, as even the basic SBC codec has enough bandwidth to fully reproduce the audible audio spectrum while having low enough noise floor and distortion.

The differences then come from how your source device processes the codec, as Android devices don’t handle AAC encoding as efficiently as Apple’s. Different codecs also have different latency, which is a much more impactful factor than the minor differences in audio quality. So the lack of aptX or aptX HD here might be a smaller deal than what one might assume.

What you are far more likely to notice is the change in driver configuration compared to the Bullets Wireless 2. The Bullets Wireless 2 featured a triple-driver design, consisting of dual Knowles balanced armature drivers and a 10mm dynamic driver. On the other hand, the Bullets Wireless Z has a single 9.2mm driver.

There’s a reason good speakers have multiple drivers with crossovers, as a single driver cannot handle all the frequencies, and it’s better to have multiple drivers dedicated to handling different parts of the audio spectrum. But low cost dictates compromises so single driver it is.

The Bullets Wireless Z do have an ace up their sleeve, and that is a low latency mode designed to work exclusively with OnePlus phones (OnePlus 5 or newer). This feature claims to bring the latency down to 110ms, which isn’t low in an absolute sense but lower than what Bluetooth audio latency generally is. The earphones automatically go into low latency mode when the Fnatic mode is engaged on the phone.

Unfortunately, as luck would have it, we didn’t have a OnePlus phone with us at the time of testing and OnePlus couldn’t send a device out in time. As and when we get the phone from OnePlus, we would update the review with our findings.

Another OnePlus specific feature is Quick Pair, which shows a prompt on a nearby OnePlus phone (OnePlus 5 or newer) when the earphones are in pairing mode. This is similar to the AirPods pairing method and was also present on the Bullets Wireless 2.

As with other OnePlus wireless earphones, the Bullets Wireless Z have no companion app of any kind, which means there are no options to adjust or software to update for this product.

Performance

The Bullets Wireless Z are decent-sounding earphones for the price. It lacks the refinement of the Bullets Wireless 2 but the new tuning should be more appealing to buyers in this price range.

The Bullets Wireless Z have a bass-driven sound typical of earphones at those prices. The sub-200Hz region has received a healthy boost but the mid-bass isn’t quite as exaggerated. This results in less body overall to the bass and just more rumble to the sound. It’s a slightly less refined way of adding bass as it just sounds like an overpowered subwoofer is playing in the room and makes the sound seem unbalanced.

Playing Better by Khalid had the bass just linger in the background with little decay, causing a constant rumble in your ears. Wow by Post Malone saw an unrelenting tsunami of low-end take over the entire track. Depending upon what your preference is, this could be desirable but there’s no denying that the bass tends to overwhelm the rest of the sound at times.

The bass also sounds like it was pushed a bit past what the drivers can handle comfortably. It is harder to emphasize the lower end of the bass compared to the mid-bass, which is why you usually see most of the emphasis in the mid-bass region. But the Bullets Wireless Z goes ham on the lower-end, which causes some audible distortion at times in the low-end, which seeps into the mids.

Bass aside, the rest of the frequency response is unremarkable. The mids are a bit recessed, as you’d generally expect for a more fun-focused sound, but not aggressively so that you would have a hard time hearing the vocals or the instruments. Vocals in tracks like Kanye West’s Black Skinhead come across loud and clear. The bite of the snare drum and Michael Jackson’s hushed vocals in Blood on the Dance Floor were also quite forward as they should be on this track.

The mid-range does seem to have some dips, however, as some vocals and instruments didn’t come out as well as others. Both the vocals and the electric guitar on Pneuma by Tool were under a layer of Vaseline.

Part of the reason why the instruments often feel toothless on the Bullets Wireless Z is the anemic top-end. A typical v-shaped sound would have a more exaggerated treble response but the Bullets Wireless Z dials it back way down for some reason, which rounds off some hot or particularly shimmery tracks but significantly clouds others. It’s not overly dark or muted but you miss out on some of the sparkle and it does roll off fairly quickly.

When seen as a whole, the overall sound signature can often be pleasant on most tracks. But the lack of detail in the mids and highs is almost always felt, and on tracks with heavy low-end, the rumble tends to make things a bit fatiguing. However, some people do prefer their music that way, so your mileage may vary.

As for imaging and soundstage, the Bullets Wireless Z do fine with the former, with good object placement and movement. Unfortunately, the soundstage is fairly congested and focused in the middle of the listening sphere.

Comparisons to the more expensive Bullets Wireless 2 are inevitable, especially considering how similar they look, which might cause some people to assume they sound the same but they don’t. The Bullets Wireless 2 are leagues ahead of the Bullets Wireless Z when it comes to the refinement of the sound. The bass has a nice punch to it without being overbearing. The mids are a bit recessed but not muddy and the high-end has actual air and sparkle to it. The soundstage is also so much more expansive with depth and dimensionality.

It’s just a more pleasing sound overall while also being technically superior and why I loved the Bullets Wireless 2 so much back when I reviewed it as there were hardly any products in that price range that sounded as good. Unfortunately, with the Bullets Wireless Z, OnePlus is clearly dealing with lesser quality hardware (and just lesser hardware, if you compare the driver count).

The company made the arguably correct decision to tune the drivers in a way that would be more pleasing to buyers in this price category while the more expensive Bullets Wireless 2 had a more mature and refined sound that not everyone can appreciate.

So while the Bullets Wireless Z don’t sound bad per se and are the best you can get in their price range, especially when compared to the turbid Realme Buds Wireless that cost just a bit less. But the Bullets Wireless 2 are still the superior choice for those who value audio quality above all else. Too bad they aren’t going to be on sale for long.

As far as the microphone quality is concerned, it is adequate for voice calls. The sound is a bit muted and not the clearest you’d hear, especially if you are coming from a wired headset, but is acceptable for a budget Bluetooth headset.

Finally, the latency when paired with an iPhone XR was also quite acceptable, both for watching videos and playing casual games. As mentioned before, I did not have a OnePlus smartphone at hand to test the low latency mode and that feature doesn’t work with any other device.

Battery

One reason to still stick to the cheaper Bullets Wireless Z over the Bullets Wireless 2 is the battery life. While the Bullets Wireless 2 were no slouch at 14 hours of continuous playback, the Bullets Wireless Z claim 20 hours. On top of that, OnePlus also claims that with just a 10-minute charge, you can get 10 hours of playback time.

To test the first claim, I looped my usual test track at a comfortable volume until the battery drained. The Bullets Wireless Z went on for just a few minutes over the 20 hour mark, which means OnePlus’ claim is right on the money. That much battery life could get you through any international flight, as and when flying becomes an option again.

As for the second claim, our Bullets Wireless Z actually managed to go on for a lot longer than 10 hours after a 10-minute charge. The reason for this is that OnePlus specifies a conservative 5V/600mA minimum charger to reach the advertised 10 hours claim. Since our charger was a lot higher than that, the earphones actually went on for around 13 hours. We expect most people to have chargers higher than 5V/600mA lying around so you’d easily be able to surpass OnePlus’s claim here. And for those wondering, a full charge takes around 50 minutes from flat.

All in all, solid battery life from the new Bullets Wireless Z.

Verdict

The Bullets Wireless Z are the best wireless earphones we have tested in their price range. They are well-designed, comfortable, and have quite a few convenient features. They also offer certified water-resistance, which is sure to assuage those who (still) go for a run or want to listen to music around water.

The sound quality is quite acceptable for the price. We have certainly heard better, most notably from OnePlus’ own Bullets Wireless 2, but not in this price range. For buyers on a budget, the audio quality on offer should be perfectly acceptable and even enjoyable.

The cherry on top is the battery life. While everyone and their cat are after truly wireless earbuds these days, there’s no denying that the neckband-style design still holds an advantage when it comes to practicality and the Bullets Wireless Z are a great example of that. And while 20 hours of playback is great, what’s truly impressive is the 10+ hours you can get out of just a 10-minute charge.

Overall, the Bullets Wireless Z are our favorite budget wireless earphones and we highly recommend them to anyone looking to shop in this price range.

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/2MdRnR9

[jessicakmatt]

Ask an Audio Engineer: The April Mix Tip Mailbag

Ask an Audio Engineer: The April Mix Tip Mailbag: via LANDR Blog

Mixing is tough. Sometimes the perfect sound can seem one tweak away, but it’s not always easy to know which tweak to make. It’s those moments that make you think “I wish I could just ask a pro.”

Luckily, LANDR’s senior audio engineer Al Isler loves to talk mixing. So we opened up our P.O. box to the LANDR community and asked you to send Al your most burning mix-related questions.

Here’s Al’s April answers to some of the excellent questions we received.

Questions about your own mixes? Send them to askanengineer@landr.com for a chance to have your question answered the next time Al reaches into the mixing mailbag.

How do I get that Tame Impala vocal sound?

—@jaymes_brass Bradley Jaymes Brass from Arkansas, USA

Artist name: Jaymes Brass DAW: GarageBand Genre: A mix of rock, R&B, soul, funk, smooth jazz and psych pop 

Hi. Thanks for this question. It forced me to finally go listen to some Tame Impala. I’ve heard so much about them but never took the time to check them out.

I did a bit of digging, but I wasn’t able to find a whole lot on what Kevin’s recording chain is for his vocals. I did find that he generally uses a Sennheiser MD421 microphone, which is a fairly good dynamic mic. Nothing particularly out of the ordinary or overly expensive.

What makes it noteworthy is that it’s not a large diaphragm condenser mic, which, according to internet myth, is usually considered to be a “necessity” when recording vocals. I personally find that dynamics are often overlooked, which is a shame because they can add so much character.

The first thing that stands out to me about Kevin’s vocals is that they sound very filtered. There’s not a lot of lows or highs, mostly just midrange. This is the hallmark of most dynamic mics, especially if you back off them a bit when singing to avoid proximity effect (that’s when a directional mic, like a cardioid pattern, gets bassier sounding the closer you get to it).

You can enhance this filtered effect with some additional EQ. Roll off the lows pretty aggressively, even up to 500Hz if necessary, and roll off some of the extreme highs above 8 or 10kHz. This will also let you seat the vocals pretty far back in the mix and still have them be audible.

Listening through the albums, I often found his voice reminiscent of John Lennon’s on the Beatles’ mid and late recordings.

John was known for effecting his voice a lot, sometimes singing through a guitar amp. I can’t be sure that this is what Kevin’s doing, but it could give a similar sound. So in addition to the EQ filtering, if you have some amp sim plugins try running the vocals through a relatively clean model like a Vox AC30 or a Fender Deluxe Reverb.

You may have to adjust the level going into the amp sim if it’s too distorted. Keep it pretty low so that you only get a slight bit of saturation. We’re going more for the inherent filtering effect rather than any kind of obvious overdrive or distortion.

The other thing to consider is the voice itself. Unfortunately, you can’t just go to the store and buy Kevin’s voice, but there’s some things you can try and replicate. He generally tends to sing in the upper register, which can give the voice a slightly strained and thin quality, in a good way. So you can try writing your vocal melodies in or near the upper range you’re able to sing. If necessary, you can even change the key of your song so that you’re singing where your voice has the best “Tame Impala-esque” character.

It also sounds like the vocals are double-tracked, which is another John Lennon favourite. So record two separate takes of your vocal part, making sure to perform the pitch and timing as similarly as possible. Then when you mix them together you’ll get a sort of randomized chorusing effect which will thicken up the sound without sounding overly effected. Play with the balance between the two tracks to get the optimal blend.

Lastly, he uses quite a bit of reverb with a long decay, as well as some delay. Keep the level of the delay fairly low, and time the repeats to the song. Something fairly quick like a 16th or an 8th note, depending on the tempo. And if possible try and use a tape-style delay.

Hope that helps!

Is there a perfect way to mix and master?

—@___jovanm Jovan Manuel from Puerto Rico

Artist name: Jovan M DAW: Logic Pro X Genre: Instrumental/Orchestral/Soundtrack/Electronic

The short answer is “no”. There are as many valid ways of mixing and mastering as there are people who do it.

However, I’m not advocating for complete relativism or the idea that any mix is as good as any other just because we’re all entitled to our opinion.

There is still a more or less objective, linear path towards quality and skill level when you’re starting out.

Learning about how to balance instruments and frequencies so that everything sits in pleasing proportion to everything else, creating aesthetically believable spaces for the instrumentation to exist in, or even just getting to hear how the huge variety of technical tools at our disposal can be used to enhance and complement the musical intention of the song rather than just effecting the sound for the sake of it, are all skills that only come with time and practice.

But these skills are the means to the end when it comes to mixing or mastering, not the end in itself. They should form a technical basis that is pretty much second nature and ultimately allows you to freely explore the creative side of what you’re working on.

Think of it like getting better at drawing: learning skills doesn’t force you to only create one “perfect” picture over and over again but instead frees you from the constraints of technical limitations and allows you to draw whatever you see in your mind’s eye.

Here’s where I feel that the path to improvement starts to branch out and becomes more about pursuing your vision of what makes a sonically engaging and musically supportive mix. It should seek to be as unique and identifiable as any other aspect of your personality.

At this point the “perfect” mix becomes more of an organic, infinitely adaptable expression of your artistic vision for that project at that time with those people, rather than some rigid, absolute ideal to either attain or fall short of.

What is a good way to disguise a bad mic?

—@andrewthe901 Andrew Foster from South Carolina, USA

Artist name: A9 DAW: Ableton Live Genre: RnB and rap

I’m not saying this sarcastically, but if possible, change the mic.

Ultimately, optimizing the source sound will only save you time, energy, frustration, and probably even money down the line when it comes time to mix. But bear in mind that the best mic is not always the most expensive. Oftentimes humble and fairly affordable dynamic mics can be a better choice than the much flashier hi-fi (and high priced) condenser mics that are normally associated with “professional” recording.

And even if an expensive name-brand condenser is ultimately the best choice, there’s always the option to rent one. If you’re well-rehearsed and ready to perform, renting even a ludicrously expensive mic for a couple of days should be within the reach of most budgets. All that to say that there’s no real reason you need to settle for a mic you know is bad, or rather, isn’t working well for the source.

But let’s explore this a bit further. Are you sure it’s the mic that’s bad and not something else?

Mics are there to record musical instruments, and if the instrument itself sounds bad or isn’t optimally tuned up then even the best mic in the world can only hope to give you a great sounding recording of a crappy sounding instrument. Which probably isn’t what you’re after…

Make sure that the instrument you want to record is sounding exactly how you want it to in the room. It’s where you should put most of your energy and effort.

You also need to be aware that the sound of whatever room you’re in can have a huge impact on the sound of the instrument, especially if you need to place the mic further back from the source. The comb filtering that can result from mic’ing instruments in a poorly treated room is next-to-impossible to fix after the fact.

So as much as possible treat the room you’re recording in. Even if it’s just hanging heavy blankets from mic stands or leaning mattresses against the wall, you’ll want to minimize the amount of reflections coming back into the mic. Using a less sensitive dynamic mic can also help in this situation, as it will sound more focused and pick up less of the room.

But if re-recording the part simply isn’t an option and you’re stuck with whatever sound you have then my advice is to just do whatever is necessary. Don’t be afraid of extreme processing or using unconventional effects or heaps of reverb and delay (which can hide a multitude of mistakes) in order to try and mask the less desirable aspects of the sound.

If you can’t make it sound “good”, then at least make it sound cool.

How can I make a flat mix fuller and make everything stick together better?

—@realsemifusa Nick Cassilly from Germany

Artist name: Semifusa DAW: FL Studio 20 Genre: Rap

This is a pretty broad question so I’ll go over a variety of things you can try.

One thing that can very quickly make a mix sound flat and lacklustre is to have too much processing on every channel.

Every process you apply to a sound degrades it in some way, so it’s always a case of ensuring that the positive aspects outweigh the negative. Make sure to continually A/B against the original sound to ensure that what you’re adding really is improving things and not just making them sound different.

Make sure to continually A/B against the original sound to ensure that what you’re adding really is improving things and not just making them sound different.

Another prime culprit of flat sounding mixes is too much or improperly applied compression. Lengthening the attack time of your compressor, especially on percussive material, lets the transients of the sound through unaffected which can help a sound breathe and feel a bit more natural and unconstrained.

In cases where the compressor doesn’t have a control for the attack time, or you like the sound of the faster attack but still want a more natural sound, you can explore parallel compression. What that means is that instead of placing the compressor as an insert effect and running the entire signal through it, you split your signal off using an Aux Send and route it to an Aux Track with the compressor on it and then mix that back in with the original. It’s exactly the same set-up as you would use to send a signal to a reverb or delay.

In fact, a lot of compression plugins have a “Blend” or “Mix” knob. This does pretty much the same thing as setting a parallel processing path. In which case just insert the compressor on the channel as you would normally and adjust the blend control to mix some of the uncompressed signal in.

This lets you maintain the natural dynamics of the original track, but you still get the benefits of compression, like increased density, movement, and level control.

Saturation can be another problematic process. A little bit of saturation judiciously applied can actually help increase the sense of depth and excitement in a mix, but too much of it can create a fatiguing and 2-dimensional mix.

Saturation adds harmonics to the sound, which creates additional energy that can quickly clutter up the space in a mix and obscure the sense of depth. However, just reducing or removing your saturation plugins might not always be enough. A lot of plugins that model vintage analog circuits (compressors, EQ’s, tape machines, etc) have saturation built in so that the harder your signal hits the input the more they saturate and eventually distort.

Observe proper gain staging practices throughout your mix. It will ensure that over saturation and distortion isn’t a problem.

But enough about what not to do. What are things you can do to actually add depth and liveliness to a mix?

If you aren’t already, think about your mix as a 3-dimensional space. There’s height (which I mostly associate with frequency), width (panning), and depth (delay and reverb). So if everything is feeling like it’s bunched up in the foreground of the mix, using reverbs and delays can help push things back in that 3-dimensional space.

Running multiple instruments into the same reverb puts them in the same sonic space, which gives a sense of cohesion to elements that may have been tracked separately in isolation. Just watch out that the extra energy from the reverb and delay tails doesn’t clutter up the mix and end up just replacing one problem with another.

Filtering the signal going into and/or out of reverbs and delays can help them to still be prominent without taking up too much room.

Another thing that can help “unflatten” a mix is some movement. Use volume automation to make elements of your track constantly move subtly forward and back throughout the mix to make it come alive.

For example, nudging up the drums by a dB during a fill, or having two melody lines do a sort of call-and-response by alternating their levels slightly is a great way to add some movement.

As to your question of how to make a mix fuller, it would depend on what’s making it “thin” to begin with. EQ, compression, reverb, or even adding more instruments or parts can all fill out the space, depending on what’s needed.

But another thing to think of is using processors on your mix bus, if you’re not already. Sometimes if a mix is lacking a bit of weight or air, it’s easier and often better to just put an EQ across the whole mix rather than trying to add it across all the individual channels.

Same can go for compression. A little bit of compression (err on the side of subtle, here) can help thicken and glue everything together nicely.

As a starting point, try an attack of 25-30ms and a release of 150-300ms (adjust them to fit the feel the track) and aim for about 2-3dB of gain reduction. If your compressor also has a high-pass filter in the sidechain try adjusting it somewhere between 100 and 200Hz. This will let the low end through without triggering too much compression, which can make the whole mix pump unnaturally. Hope there’s some good food for thought there. Thanks for the question!

Ask away!

Struggling with your mix? Get help! Send your questions by email (at askanengineer@landr.com) for a chance to have them answered in the next edition of #AskAnEngineer!

The post Ask an Audio Engineer: The April Mix Tip Mailbag appeared first on LANDR Blog.

from LANDR Blog https://blog.landr.com/ask-an-audio-engineer-april/ via https://www.youtube.com/user/corporatethief/playlists from Steve Hart https://stevehartcom.tumblr.com/post/184251049464

[infotainmentplus-blog]

Google Home Max review: Smart Sound makes the world go ’round The personal assistant you have in your phone isn’t going to live there forever. Companies like Amazon, Apple, and Google are increasingly looking to place that assistant strategically throughout your life so you’ll always have access to it. That all starts with the home. It didn’t take long after the launch of the Amazon Echo for Google to release its Google Home smart speaker. Then in September, Google announced two new Home devices — the affordable Home Mini and high-end Home Max. The Google Home Max is the most interesting of the two devices though, as it brings high-quality sound at a price that’s comparable to that of Apple’s HomePod. Is it worth the $399 price tag? Let’s find out. The setup process is easy. Once you plug it in, you’ll be prompted to download the Google Home app to complete the setup. From there, you can name the speaker to designate it to a certain area of the house. We’ll dig into the Google Home app later. For now, let’s address the hardware. This is a big speaker, measuring 13.2 x 7.4 x 6.0 inches. It obviously isn’t something you’re going to want to move very often. At 11.7 pounds, it isn’t that big of a deal if you need to move it into another room, but bringing it to a friends house might be a bit of an issue. Editor's Pick Google’s plan to take over the home starts with Google Home Mini Google is betting big on artificial intelligence, and it's doing a great job at making sure everyone has access to it. If you own an Android smartphone, you now have access to Google Assistant. If … The housing is made of the same plastic that you’ll find on the original Google Home and the smaller Home Mini, so it’s smooth to the touch and isn’t prone to fingerprints. However, the fabric on the front of the Google Home Max is unique — it’s what Google calls “acoustically transparent,” so it supposedly won’t hinder the way your music sounds. It also feels great, almost like a nice felt fabric compared to the slightly plastic-feeling bottom of the original Google Home. Behind the fabric is where you’ll find dual 4.5-inch woofers for pushing air along with two tweeters. The parallelogram(ish) shape of the speaker means it can be vertically or horizontally oriented. You’ll need to make sure to throw on the little bass pad included in the box to avoid scratching the bottom. This bass pad also helps absorb some of the rumble from the woofers so you won’t accidentally rumble your phone off the table. Although you can physically rest the speaker on any of its four sides, there are only two correct orientations because of the touch sensitive controls. If you place the speaker vertically with the touch sensitive controls along the left side, or horizontally with the touch-sensitive controls on the bottom, you’ll get a warning message telling you that the speaker is upside down. The overall design being very modern and minimal so that it fits in any part of the house. Along the back of the speaker sits the mute switch, a power input, USB Type-C input, and a 3.5 mm input. It’s clear Google paid attention to the speaker’s aesthetics, with the overall design being very modern and minimal so that it fits in any part of the house. Whether I have the speaker in my living room or the kitchen, it perfectly blends into its surroundings. I’m reviewing the white model, but you can get an even more discreet look by opting for the all-black color. Up top is a touch-sensitive section for controlling music playback, and it’s perfectly responsive whether I tap to pause/play music or swipe left/right to adjust volume. Unfortunately, there’s no skipping between songs or returning to a previous song unless you ask the Google Assistant. The Google Home Max has Bluetooth 4.2 and Chromecast built-in so you can stream your music to it easily, but the main way to interact with the speaker is with your voice. Using the hotword “Okay Google” or “Hey Google” lets you take advantage of the Google Assistant to control your music, but you can also ask it questions or control compatible smart home devices if you have any. Digging further into the Google Home setup you can customize your preferences, such as your preferred music streaming service, or even what kind of news stories you want to hear at the beginning of the day. One thing unique to the Max is the ability to connect two of them together for stereo sound. These are all features offered in every Google Home, but one thing unique to the Max is the ability to connect two of them together for stereo sound. If you’re able to buy two, this is definitely the way to go. If you’re looking for a multi-room audio solution, you can of course create groups that sync up a number of Google Home speakers together to play simultaneously. Google Assistant is great at some things, but not so great at others. Google Assistant is great at some things, but not so great at others. I’m not sure if it’s something in the way that I have my speakers set up, but when I tell the Home Max to put a song on repeat it lies to me. I get the confirmation message that the song will repeat, but when it’s over it moves right on to the next song. As the center of the smart home, you can tell it to stream Netflix or YouTube to a Chromecast or turn your light on or off (if you have compatible smart lights), but it’s a tad slow. Also when I wake up and ask Google about my day, it’ll tell me the weather and jump right into the podcasts that I picked out in the app no problem. But when I ask it when my next flight is, it can’t find one even though the event is clearly in my calendar app. It might be the smartest smart speaker, but that’s a pretty low bar to clear right now. Luckily, the Assistant (and therefore the usefulness of it in a speaker) is getting better every day as Google adds functionality to it. The biggest issue I have with the Google Home speakers is that after playing music and pushing the volume to a certain point, the microphones aren’t able to pick up my voice at all. I wanted to find out exactly how much of an issue this was, so I tested it in a semi-unconventional way. I put a post-it note on the floor every five feet. I then recorded myself saying “Hey Google” and played that from a speaker at five foot intervals: 5 feet, 10 feet, 15 feet, and 20 feet away, all while the speaker was playing the song “Havana” by Camila Cabello (my guilty pleasure) at four different volumes: 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. If the speaker registered my voice, it passed and got a check. If it didn’t, it got an X. You can see by the graphic that the Google Home Max definitely needs to do a better job at picking up voices so you’re not stuck yelling at the top of your lungs like I was. After pushing the volume to a certain point, the microphones aren't able to pick up my voice at all. On the bright side, the Home Max’s sound quality is great compared to other smart- and non-smart speakers. Because of its large size the speaker is able to push some air to add some bump to the bass, and though it isn’t what I would call “bass-heavy”, it’s definitely noticeable. In the song “Moon River” by Frank Ocean the low E string is a little too strong for my taste, but it gives the song some grittiness and never gets in the way of his vocals in the midrange, which is what counts. Related Google Home Max is the company’s smartest speaker, all thanks to Smart Sound It'd be accurate to call 2017 the year of the smart speaker, and judging by what we saw at CES 2018 this year might not be any different. Just about every manufacturer we can think … The bass pad also keeps the rumbling of the speaker from disturbing anything around it, and the Google Home Max also uses six internal microphones to detect in real time how much of its sound waves are being reflected off nearby surfaces, and it corrects for that. You won’t need to go into any EQ settings because the Google algorithm does it for you. Now, whether that lack of control is a good or a bad thing is up to you (since you can’t tweak it unless you go deep into the Google Home app), but I find it to at least be consistent. Wherever I put the speaker the lows aren’t affected. The slight emphasis in the lower frequencies will probably be a positive for most people because of its subtlety. It doesn’t overpower the mids at all and when paired with how loud this thing can get, so it’s perfect for powering your parties. That said, it sounded good even at low volumes and I ended up using it to play music in the background throughout the day as well. Vocals in the song “Generator ^ Second Floor” by Freelance whales were till plainly audible even with all of the other instruments joining in the during the chorus at around the 2:17 mark which includes plenty of thumping drums and bells ringing throughout. Speaking of the bells, one of my only issues regarding sound quality has to do with the high frequencies. It sounds like Google played it safe here and didn’t give them the same kind of emphasis as it did with the lows, which is understandable. When was the last time you heard someone say “Drop the bells”? There isn’t much noticeable distortion at max volume, but there also isn’t a ton of reverb to hi-hats and cymbals which can really help with the soundstage of your music. There are plenty of Bluetooth speakers you can choose from if you want something portable — many of them are good enough for home use as well. But the Google Home Max is different. I own the original Google Home and two Google Home Minis (thank you Black Friday deals), but besides setting timers while cooking, asking it basic math when I’m lazy, or setting alarms, Home speakers are not particularly useful. I definitely don’t use them to listen to music since the quality isn’t great. Whether it's just for background music while I work or listening to podcasts, the Home Max has woven itself into my life in a way no other Home products have. Still, I find myself constantly using the Google Home Max. Whether it’s just for background music while I work, streaming the latest apps video to my TV, or listening to podcasts, the Home Max has woven itself into my life in a way no other Home products have. Even though it sucks at hearing my voice, I have no problem saying that anyone who wants a smart speaker will love the Google Home Max. At $399 you’re getting a speaker that not only sounds good, but also gives you everything god that the Google Assistant has to offer. Just try not to yell at it too loudly. Buy now from Best Buy Buy now from the Google Store , via Android Authority http://bit.ly/2HJ1biD