Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Listening to the details with Jack Joseph Puig
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 08. 2024
- Full video available exclusively on mwtm.org/jjp-p...
JJP demonstrates the subtle sonic differences between API, Neve and tube amplifiers, offering tips on how to listen critically when working with analog gear.
Enter the Puig Vault for a workshop with the esteemed Grammy award-winning engineer and producer Jack Joseph Puig! In this one-hour video series, JJP discusses the importance of analog equipment for imparting certain characteristics to audio. He shows us his astounding collection of gear, and chooses to focus on a few select pieces to convey his concepts. Running a Pro Tools session, JJP feeds stereo drum tracks to his rare ADR F769 Vocal Stresser and remarkable Fairchild 670 tube compressor. He encourages critical listening to the source material with and without the inserts, and describes in detail how and why the gear is affecting the signal in certain ways. He also compares the results of summing his stems digitally versus analog, through his custom-built summing mixer. Furthermore, he differentiates between the sonics of his Neve, API, and custom tube stereo buss transformers.
Full video available exclusively on mwtm.org/jjp-puigvault
Man, I'm so tired of people arguing that you cannot hear those things... thank you for lending your weight to the truth.
I really respect JJP's work, but that last statement is a testament of what's wrong with the recording industry.
Many of those guys who started out in the days of tape seem to lack a very basic understanding of how digital audio works. Maybe he can hear a difference between different sample rates, but that would just indicate a problem regarding the converters.
BTW: This is why I respect Bob Clearmountain so much. Even though he has been in this business for so long, he has always stayed up to date and is very well informed. In my opinion, it's his "no bullshit approach" that makes him seem so humble.
I'm sick of all this esoteric myths that have been hovering around for way to long.
Yeah, he once said something similar that made me scratch my head. He claimed that a plugin placed last on the insert chain in your DAW will make your track sound worse than a plugin placed first on the insert.
@@TGFalk plugin technology has come a long way though so maybe when he said it , it was valid?
At the end this is an industry and gears are more expensive so you know they are going to force to keep sending their stuff
This.
@@michaelcandido2824 He said it very recently.
mm yes the tubes really bring out the youtube audio file compression
Lmaooooo
I remember telling some friends about 12 years ago that I could hear dramatic differences between sample rates and they thought I was fooling myself. (plus I have some hearing issues in one ear) Critical listening is so important. Great video JJP !!
Blind test or it never happened buddy 😂✌🏽
@@thedayones4918 lololol 👍
I’ve learned to not underestimate what Jack is conveying. I made huge strides of improvement from one of his passing comments.
What was the comment? :)
@@mynameishessam He said it’s all about balance. At first I thought it was elementary but after thinking about it while mixing for a week or so, there was an epiphany
He’s right!
@@theleviathan89 Thank you for replying! :) I also recently learned that it's all about balance. And after approaching my mixes with that in mind they actually sound much cleaner!
When I saw that hat I knew he was going to say he can hear the differences between 48 and 41.
at a buffet, i personally sneak corndogs into the buffet so others can enjoy them. I hide 6 corndogs in my jacket pockets. it then, is a joy for me to see other patrons of the establishment eat my corndogs thinking they were part of the buffffff
I respect you for that.
We thank you for your kindness sir
what a kind gesture. I am going to try this with zucchini dip.
Not all heroes wear capes!
The crowd is going crazy.. crazy for corndogs..
The tube has less dynamic range, it is more compressed, that is why you hear it more on the low end of the volume. You do know that we are hearing it now on digital and it isn't even WAV level digital.
This
I mean you're playing a loop in protools at least try to play the same loop back to back. it's like 1999 over there.
Although I tend to go 48, it is true what you say about 44, it has some lo fi value that makes things musical. Or is it maybe because we got used to it in the late 80´s 90´s ?. In any caseI agree. I use 96 for high profile sound libraries, classical or soundtrack things, or for vital transfers of old tapes.
Wow. Guess i gotta leave 48 again.
Yes, 44.1 is definitely more musical than 48 on my phone's speakers when I listen to autostream quality Spotify...
He got more hardware than how many plugins I've got
Boss is back..always pleased to learn from the maestro...
the video is from a few years ago
Snake oil in my opinion.
96k , 88.2. Sure ;)
THE Erez Eisen??
WOW respect!!!!
He’s not wrong but it takes years and a
Patience to hear subtleties that can be huge if accumulated over many tracks.
absolute gold!
That last minute was even more cringey than the first five :D
I hope you aren’t any kind of a recording engineer.
I really respect and like JJP, but I also hope he gets some therapy very soon.
I am so glad to hear that JJP does not like 48khz. I thought I was missing something. I much prefer 44.1, sometimes less is more, like a 16 bit sampler, or recording in 16 bit verses 24, or 32 bit float, sometimes that punch and clarity and natural compressed sound comes out with 16bit. Tonally 48khz has always sounded a bit too much smiley face eq, too sugary and fizzily on the top end and too muddy in the low end, in relative broad terms.
Newby engineer question: If a CD is at 16 bit 44.1 hz, is it beneficial to record at 96k? I run a UA Apollo Quad...would it be beneficial to run a separate clock such as an apogee Big Ben?
Yeah record high quality and bring it down at your mix/master levels
I'll admit that I can't hear the differences of the various sample rates. I"m listening here on a pair of Kali LP6's so I could hear the differences between the Neve and the API but it's so subtle that I think it wouldn't matter. All the basic listener knows is whether or not they like it. Thanks for the video though. I'm looking forward to more with JJP.
I think of you were sitting next to him in the same room you could hear it. But through CZcams, no. But, I was able to hear it, though.
I do believe also that with the right musical teaching by the ear, you can tell the difference. It's like looking for faults when tuning a guitar. No offence, tried with a different sound card?
When i test on 32bit, 96k vs 44,1 with beyerdynamics i get clearer and more depth on 96. If it's a placebo, i don't know.
@@kentnewfence I haven't tried listening at different rates but I think the real problem is my poor damaged ears. I'm almost 67 and I've played a lot of loud rock shows. My right ear hasn't stopped ringing in 24 years. I manage to muddle through though.
What if I make the recording at 44.1 kHz and the whole mix I bounce it at 48, is it wrong? I haven't done it, but I want to know what would happen.
SO TRUE! I always have problems with 48 KHZ!
LOL,wtf was that?))
i dont know why you rarely see any videos that focus on critical listening skills and how to hear the difference. Mostly you are left to your own devices and discover by accident the differences.
As a former subscriber to MWTM I can tell you all of the JJP videos are gems.
Except this one maybe? Buy tubes and record on 44.1? Haven't heard more bullshit advice in awhile.
When he was starting speaking about sample rates, he lost all the appreciation I had for him. I highly doubt that anyone could recognize different sample rates in a blind test.
Yep me too..
Sometimes, music preference has to do with how sound rings in your skull; that's why everyone's musical tastes differ so widely.
I really hope that there is no sound ringing in my skull when I'm listening to music.
Awesome great music. So sound great audio
I hear a MASSIVE difference in plugins at 96k vs 48k so I stick with 96k. My outboard seems to like it better too
All plug-ins, or just ones that create a non-linearity? (comps, saturation etc.)
Lots of plugins will upsample even if you're at 48k. Personally I'll never move away from 48k.
@@johansugarev Good point. Those plugins that benefit from a higher sample rate to avoid aliasing will take care of that internally - at least that's what I would expect from a decent plugin in 2022. For the rest, especially analog, it just doesn't matter.
@@error8418 it matters for all plugins and devices, the higher your sample rate. The less aliasing you get. This applies to the recording process as well.
So much of what and how people hear is psychological and void of fact. The 48k thing is hilarious. I guarantee in a completely blind test he could not tell the difference. I would bet my life on it.
You'd be surprised man, some people can do wonderous things
To each their own, I’d say. If you don’t have a prob with 48k, I’d say go with it. I can’t tell the difference either.
However, some of these guys have really a developed “ear” that is surprisingly precise. I would not be shocked if he really could tell the difference!
I would bet alot of money, BUTTTTT interfaces can sound different because they may use different filters at diffrent samplerates etc. But that is situational, no one can hear diffrent samplerates or even tell a great mp3 from wav in double blind test.
Remember we’re listening to this through freaking CZcams compression/quality lol
It`s not about blind testing in music. There are many different tracks being played together and he said that when he has problems with a mix not coming together it`s always at 48khz. You can`t experience this by blind testing, but when you do this for so many years you can tell and hear if something is wrong and if you can exclude that there is not any other gear problem it sure can be the sample rate. And yes, it could be that his converters have a problem at that sampling rate so it doesn`t mean that 48khz is bad for every one.
Those shoes are AMAZING!!!
Short but quite informative and educative. thanks guys for putting this out. Thanks JJp love you
Just for anyone starting out - you don't need no Neve, nor API, nor tubes. Record at 48khz and focus on the music. Everything else is pure bullshit and snake oil.
Tube is "goodbye snare transients". API for a lifetime for funk rock.cAnd Neve for the Grit & Thick of course. Personally I only use tubes only sometimes on some jazz or soundtrackish stuff.
Love the Studio 🎙️ layout
Thank You!
Worst MWTM video so far, for sure.
I'm slightly curios of what the dislike count on this one would look like...
@@error8418 It was such a weak move from CZcams to hide the dislikes
Plot-twist: it’s one and the same audio-chain all along.
The only way to truly hear the difference would be sitting in the studio with Jack, or MWTM have the files available to download and listen in our own studio environment as Warren does at Produce like a Pro. I agree about listening to what hardware analog is doing, that is why there are so many shootout videos of hardware vs software.
I had an opportunity to trial a pultec clone DA/AD was the UA2192 and did a comparison with the UA pultec DSP-1 card. Both sounded identical except for the levels. To hear the changes the UA EQ +4, the pultec clone +1.5. So the pultec clone level output had little change only here and there, whereas the software UA pultec had increased level output. BTW this was 12 years ago, software plugins are way better now than back then at emulating perceived detail. But my understanding was, if you did this over 40-60 tracks in the software there would be an accumulation of level increase as apposed to the analog. So what is always relevant regardless is "perceived detail" without minimal increased level. Then the final Master bus will not need to be crushed, limited hard to have that "perceived loudness" to do that all you are doing is just turning up the volume level.
Ayyyy Dope. JJP.
the red shoes tho...
Yeah..sharp shoes like that are good for kickin' snakes in the ass, but I doubt if they help him mix records...;)
listening is key, yes
was that too hard to loop a 1 bar without the fill, so distracting
I'm sceptical about the 48k comment. However he's the one doing it for a living. Be interesting to see a double blind test on that though...
Don't know man... I agree with you
Yeah, plenty of fantastic engineers who know how to use gear exceptionally well but don’t have a good understanding on how it really works and say silly shit.
I wish these engineers would realise that when they say dumb, borderline-conspiratorial stuff like that, everything else they say is now clouded by it. Is this guy worth listening to? I have no idea anymore.
It's the equivalent of saying 720p is bad but 480p and 1080p are just golden 👌.
Just skeptical? His comment is pure bullcrap. 48k is the only sample rate that makes sense.
I like these videos
I always want him to have Alan rickman’s voice
I liked this video because I have almost maximum respect and admiration for JJP and always enjoy his insight and talks... BUT:
-the way in which those really very pushed & saturated examples were being played by his assistant (I presume?) was very distracting and painfully unprofessional, almost as painful as that lapel mic hand slap smashing through my headphones. A smooth back to back loop of the same section should not be such a voodoo achievement, nowadays!
-the sample rate part frankly goes off into very personal myth and bias and habit, rather than making actual technical sense, for a hundred various technical & logical reasons. Plus the perhaps more esoteric fact that those walls of gear all around him with their reflective surfaces and the heat they let out in the air probably contribute more changes to what one hears in that room than switching between 44.1 and 48 kHz ever could. Or should.
BTW even the dogs seemed to loudly disagree in the background!
😂
However, the shoes were top notch. Like Satan himself, mixing your record. At whatever sample rate he sees fit.
😈😉
Placebo feels so great tho 😆💖 mixing and music is just about feelings anyway. And I feel like 44.1 really impacts my bass sound in a lovely way compared to 48khz 😁 maybe it's bullshit I don't care
On a blind test, no one can tell the difference between these examples 😂✌🏽
Placebo feels so great tho 😆💖 music is about feeling you know
Absolutly right!
He is right. I play the same record on different sample rates and he's absolutely right! 96k sounds like a natural, rich and full. 88.2 starts to be a little bit bland in top end but still not bad. With 48k I hear much digital top end, very harsh and kind of dry sound and 44.1k seems like a little bit LPF 96k but definitely in a good way. Not so much harsh and digital top end like in 48k. And I can definitely hear that just playing my favourite tracks from Spotify which imo should be a reference tracks. To be honest I really didn't care too much for all those years. People who teach me the most about recording and mixing have their interfaces setup at 24bit/96k and about 256 buffer size samples so I use it since day one in my case, but Jack made me curious to check that in my particular case and I agree 100%. And 96k always works for me perfectly too. Maybe some converters gives you different and some not but I definitely agree with Jack in that case. For mr 96k, 88.2 44.1 and last and worse 48k. Placebo or not I have very similar feelings.
Sometimes JJP, things sound different, and not necessarily "better."
The epitome of Mr. Golden Ear.
He took all the wrong pills here.
My Neve hate 96Khz. She refuses it to sum
Love and respect his opinion, but at the same time he seems like he spends 20 minutes trying to pick the right spoon every morning before eating his cereal
Tube
I have a track that needs to get mixed. Is anyone here who wants to give it a try?
Yh lets work
Interesting comments at the end about 44,1k, 48k, etc.
I always preferred 44,1k too, working as an engineer for more than 15 years. Analog tape is a different discussion and game though.
96K FTW!
I mean you stuff gets converted to 48k when it hits the streaming service, why not do it for them? We no longer need two standards so 48k is the logical choice for anyone making music now.
I prefer 44,1k. What services do from there, is their business. I came up with CDs and the work flow around 44,1k. It also requires less file space. I guess it just works for me, and I don't hear significant improvements with other formats. In fact, 48k seems a bit flat or cold to me. However, I do use tape as well for saturation, etc..
@@highhizzle Any difference is in your head. The file sizes are almost the same. These days music is more likely to end up on a video or film than a CD so 48khz is just a no brainer. In any case, it doesn't really matter.
So JJP, I and many others are just imagining the differences... It's fair enough to have a different opinion or taste. But some of us prefer 44,1k because of the sound and work flow, regardless of what your preference and opinion is. To each his own. Find your own sound and work flow and don't worry about what others are doing.
I bet he couldn't tell the difference between 44.1, 48 kHz and even 96 in a blindest.
This is the stuff that people need more of, but too many men will die before telling all their secrets. But why??
Those shoes, yeesh
nop... sorry but no diference to me
This dude can't push his own start and stop button. Need an assistant for that? Pathetic.
The fuck was that
Dude needs a bigger room lol!
This is silly
JJP is a wizerd