Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Differences in sound quality between recordings (Read 8524 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Differences in sound quality between recordings

I realize that there are probably a ton of variables here but i'm gonna try this one out anyway.  I'm not talking about the Loudness Wars or things like original master recordings. What is it that makes one recording.(subjectively) better than another, even in the same genre?  It's all subjective, so my use of 'better' is meant in that sense.  No ABX is implied.  I'm speaking of different recordings of different material.

Is it that some engineers are better at it than others and might not notice that a kick drum is buried or that the whole things sound muddy? "Better" might be that they hear with more accuracy or they have more training (or both)?

Is it that some studios have more precise equipment?

Is it that time is money in the studio and some bands pay more for it than others? (i assume it costs more to have your stuff done at Abbey Road Studios than Duck's Breath Mystery Theater)

Does the sound of an album usually take shape in the mixing or the mastering?

Do we need to take original master recordings into this? I have some original master recordings that just sound kinda muddy to me. Queen's stuff comes to mind.  Original masters don't seem to be a guarantee, though it's probably the best quality version of a given album. Right?

Some of it might be style.  Alice in Chains records 'badly' deliberately. The genre isn't called Grunge by chance and the album is named Dirt., so i'm assuming the muddy sound is by design.  Metallica has always buried the bass in the mix (no bad Cliff Burton jokes implied  ) but that's in part because the bassist just follows the same lines as the rhythm guitar. .

Since we have multiple threads of "What CD sounds best/worst in your collection" i'm hoping we need not get into "it's all personal opinion so it can't be answered."

What are your thoughts on this, those of you whom have far more experience in the studio than i? (i saw a mixing console once. It was turned off.)

.Thanks.
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #1
Yes, some engineer are better at mixing than others. It's that simple. To my way of thinking, what makes bad recordings sound bad is untamed shrill peaks in the harshness range around 2 to 4 KHz, and poorly adjusted bass that's either too thin or too boomy. Getting the bass right is especially difficult, even for good mix engineers.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #2
Yes, some engineer are better at mixing than others. It's that simple. To my way of thinking, what makes bad recordings sound bad is untamed shrill peaks in the harshness range around 2 to 4 KHz, and poorly adjusted bass that's either too thin or too boomy. Getting the bass right is especially difficult, even for good mix engineers.

--Ethan

Why is it difficult? Is it more difficult with some instruments and in some situations?
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #3
One reason is less-than-optimal monitoring.  Room interactions with a loudspeaker are usually most prominent in the low frequencies (standing waves, boundary reinforcement, resonances, etc.), and if the control room has not been designed and treated to provide an even response at and around the mix position, there can be huge variations in the lower frequencies, making it extremely difficult to "get a handle" on what's going on in the bass.

Ethan can explain this in much greater detail, or you could even visit his website.
"Not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably no."

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #4
There are several steps that affect "quality" to a large degree.

1. Placement and selection of microphones. Typically one or a couple of microphones are used to represent the acoustic output of a vocal or instrument. This is a large modification (subsampling) of the "actual" output. Large possibilities for tailormade sound.

2. Application of analog and digital processing (equalizing, digital reverb, compressor/limiter, distortion...)

3. Mixing of the channels into a stereo mix. Making something more audible, other things less.

4. "Mastering" of that stereo mix, where any global sound processing tool may be used to make the mix "stand out" or for giving each track in an album a common "sound".


Listen to an ABBA record of the 70s, then a Britney Spears single. Both done by very professional people, knowing exactly what they want and using top-notch equipment. The sound is quite different. In both cases, producers and sound engineers contribute a lot to the "sound", it is not only differences in artists voice, instruments used and composition.

There is obviously a potential problem with the feedback control path: if sound engineers alter the sound a lot using their ears, that sound modification will only be as good as their monitor equipment. Most studios have several smaller and bigger studio monitors. Some do a lot of measurement and acoustic/digital treatment to have a very neutral sound. Others dont. Some producers listen to their final mix using specially selected "bad portable radios" under the philosophy that if it sounds ok there, it will sound good everywhere.

-k

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #5
Why is it difficult? Is it more difficult with some instruments and in some situations?


One problem is that the radiation pattern of some instruments is directional, in that they radiate different frequency bands in different directions. A violin, for example, sounds screechy when miked from above, which is why so many recordings  of massed violins have a buzz-saw quality. This can be solved by backing off the mics and recording natural room reverberation, but for various reasons that isn't always done. Or the mic feed can be equalized for a more natural balance.

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #6
Josh and knutinh thanks. I learned something from both of those posts.

Josh: I did not know that about violin. I used to take violin lessons until my teacher discovered she was a lesbian, got a divorce and left town. I'm happy for her that she discovered that but i think i may have one of the best/worst "why i stopped studying an instrument" story that i've ever heard.  Your comment about the mass violins might explain why i don't really like the sound of violins in symphonies but i love them in small groups, as you find in a lot of Baroque style music. 

knutinh: Is is it the case that instruments that have uh...pickups?... are generally plugged directly into the mixing board or are these miked as well so that the room is picked up for them too?


edit: the word i'm looking for is "miked", not "miced", though i'd swear i've heard some recordings where the sound indicated that mice were certainly involved in the process.  :")
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #7
knutinh: Is is it the case that instruments that have uh...pickups?... are generally plugged directly into the mixing board or are these miked as well so that the room is picked up for them too?

edit: the word i'm looking for is "miked", not "miced", though i'd swear i've heard some recordings where the sound indicated that mice were certainly involved in the process.  :")

A guitar player often feels that his/her amplifier and loudspeaker is a part of the instrument. They use its frequency response and distortion and feedback to shape the sound in various ways. Consequently, the sound engineer will place one or more microphones in front (or back) of that loudspeaker to try and capture the sound. Needless to say, there are various "schools" and what angels, distances and types of mics will do the job best (a recent article in JAES had measurements I think).



If the microphone is placed sufficiently close to the sound source, the sound of the source will usually overwhelm any sound contribution from the room.


I see sound recording as a creative process (art), just like musicianship: anything is legal, and there is an infinite box of "tools" to use. This is in contrast to the playback equipment that (in my eyes) should just generate sound in a predictable, referenced manner. Making a record is (and should be) a lot more complicated than choosing and setting up a stereo system :-)

-k

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #8
Is it that some engineers are better at it than others and might not notice that a kick drum is buried or that the whole things sound muddy? "


I'm under the impression that if an important instrument like a kick drum is buried in a commercial recording, that this was intentional.

I should point out that differences among playback equipment are so great that one system's playback of a given recording might show the kick to be buried, and another might show it to be overbearing.

Quote
Better" might be that they hear with more accuracy or they have more training (or both)?


The engineer is usually the servant of the producer and A&R person. The engineer's opinions about what sounds right is generally very subordinate to that of his administrative superiors, no matter who they may be.

Quote
Is it that some studios have more precise equipment?


I've never been in a recording studio that would likely be used to make first through third class recordings that had equipment that was so bad that I felt that the production of a good recording was impossible.

Quote
Is it that time is money in the studio and some bands pay more for it than others? (i assume it costs more to have your stuff done at Abbey Road Studios than Duck's Breath Mystery Theater)


The time/money balance is very important. Which is better, a craftsman like job of tracking and mixing in a mid-priced studio where your $100,000 gets you a lot of time by competent but not famous people, or the same amount of money spent at a  *name* studio where everybody including the venue are famous but only a little time is available for the price?

The market has spoken, the big time  big name studios are dying like flies.

Quote
Does the sound of an album usually take shape in the mixing or the mastering?


It is not an either/or situation.  You can't make a silk purse out of a hog's nose but you can come close if you're willing to put forth the effort.  (Speaking to the metaphor, a pigs nose has allegedly been used to make a fair facsimile of a silk purse by some clever technologists.)

Quote
Do we need to take original master recordings into this? I have some original master recordings that just sound kinda muddy to me. Queen's stuff comes to mind.  Original masters don't seem to be a guarantee, though it's probably the best quality version of a given album. Right?


There are roughly an infinite number of ways to remix a given set of tracks. Some will sound more clear to some people who use certain playback systems.

Quote
Some of it might be style.  Alice in Chains records 'badly' deliberately. The genre isn't called Grunge by chance and the album is named Dirt., so I'm assuming the muddy sound is by design.  Metallica has always buried the bass in the mix (no bad Cliff Burton jokes implied  ) but that's in part because the bassist just follows the same lines as the rhythm guitar. .


This is all about taste and style. Yours. Theirs.

Quote
Since we have multiple threads of "What CD sounds best/worst in your collection" I'm hoping we need not get into "it's all personal opinion so it can't be answered."


You asked the question. That sort of defines the best answer.

Quote
What are your thoughts on this, those of you whom have far more experience in the studio than i? (i saw a mixing console once. It was turned off.)


Ironically, a lot of music that you buy today may have never come even close to a mixing console.

The better funded artists today often choose to have their own studios.

I've recently posted on a well-known recording forum that smart recordists probably don't have a mixing console, and nobody even bothered to disagree.

This is the decade of the DAW. The DAW can be a superior replacement for everything between the mic and the loudspeaker.

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #9
Josh: I did not know that about violin. I used to take violin lessons until my teacher discovered she was a lesbian, got a divorce and left town. I'm happy for her that she discovered that but i think i may have one of the best/worst "why i stopped studying an instrument" story that i've ever heard.  Your comment about the mass violins might explain why i don't really like the sound of violins in symphonies but i love them in small groups, as you find in a lot of Baroque style music.


That's a funny story. If you're interested, there's a great illustration in Frank Toole's book, Figure 3.3, that shows the frequencies radiated by a violin at various angles. Unfortunately, I can't do the illustration justice in words, it's one of those things that has to be seen. But, from the caption: "It is clear that no single microphone location can capture a totally balanced spectrum and that a reflective room -- like a concert hall or recording studio -- plays an important role in allowing all of the sounds radiated in all directions to blend. The common practice of placing microphones above the violin section has been blamed for making them sound strident. Note the 2500-5000 Hz beam of sound [from the top of the violin]." I'm not sure how this affects the sound of massed violins in a concert hall, with its abundant reverberation, as opposed to a closely miked recording, though. Toole refers to a paper that might answer the question: Meyer, J. (1972). "Directivity of the Bowed Stringed Instruments and Its Effect on Orchestral Sound in Concert Halls," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 51, pp. 1994-2009.

"The directional characteristics of sound radiation were investigated for violins, violas, cellos, and contrabasses. Each instrument group has a nondirectional characteristic in its lowest frequency range except the contrabass. At higher frequencies, there are regions of preferred radiation, which change their direction and anglewidth with frequency. These results suggest that different seating arrangements for the strings would be optimum for different concert halls and different styles of musical compositions. The European seating system is optimum for the radiation of the cellos; it has the advantage that the sound character of the first and second violins may be distinguished by the audience, but the sound of the second violins has no brilliance. The American system makes the second violins sound as good as the first violins, but it is difficult to distinguish both groups in contrapuntal passages of classical symphonies. The sound of the cellos is poor and without clarity. The validity of these findings is confirmed by measurements in concert halls, and they have been used for guidance in changing the seating arrangement of an orchestra to improve the instrumental balance with successful results."

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=yes&ref=no

Another paper which has a bearing on the issue:

"Tonal Effects of Classical Music Microphone Placement

"The spectrum of a symphonic band playing in a concert hall was measured in the audience seating area. It was also measured close to the band, in several locations typically used for recording. These measurements were repeated with an orchestra. In general, the spectrum measured close to the performers had more high-frequency energy than the spectrum measured in the audience area. This situation leads to over-bright recordings if flat-response microphones and loudspeakers are used. Suggestions are offered to remedy the problem."

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11768

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #10
"This situation leads to over-bright recordings if flat-response microphones and loudspeakers are used. Suggestions are offered to remedy the problem."
IMO the "problem" is rather that a recording engineer can not soundwise please both the conductor/musicians who are always close to the source and people who are used to listening from a larger distance. The distant sound isn't necessarily the one intended by the conductor. Most conductors have enough decision power to enforce more distant sounding recordings if they really wanted.
The market has spoken, the big time big name studios are dying like flies.
The consumer market has spoken, where cheap often is more important than quality. Large recording budgets are history but many producers still would like to record in big name studios. Many big studios that survive are often also offering audio for film/video facilities, an area where budgets are still somewhat higher.
I've recently posted on a well-known recording forum that smart recordists probably don't have a mixing console, and nobody even bothered to disagree.
Does your definition of mixing console include a mixing control surface with external audio processing ? I find (creative) mixing with just a DAW and a mouse similar to playing the piano with only one finger. If speed is low on your priority list, it might be doable.

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #11
I've recently posted on a well-known recording forum that smart recordists probably don't have a mixing console, and nobody even bothered to disagree.
Does your definition of mixing console include a mixing control surface with external audio processing ? I find (creative) mixing with just a DAW and a mouse similar to playing the piano with only one finger. If speed is low on your priority list, it might be doable.

Inserting a digital effect is infinitely faster than patching cables through external gear. Not to mention the huge amount of digital effects, which allow for a lot of creativity. If you want to have your fingers on buttons there are midi controllers that let you do that, while using digital effects.
We can debate about the bads of modern recordings, but mixing or producing music in general has never been as convenient as today with as many possibilities.
But we would probably agree that, also because of this accessibility, there is a lot of cheaply made stuff (in various aspects) that is somehow "good enough". Right down to (but not limited to) the loudness/compression issue. I remember how my mind was blown when I learned that making home made songs as loud as those made by professionals was simply a matter of throwing a limiter on them and crank up the dBs, which only takes 10 seconds. Did that 10 seconds of work made my songs sound great? No. Did it make them sound better than Jay-Z's Kingdom Come? Maybe. 

Continuing, but more to the topic I'd say one problem when making good sounding recordings is compromising. (It's been mentioned, but perhaps needs to be specified.) It's a challenge to make a song sound good on various systems and environments. It has to sound good on your hi-fi, your car, your phone, your clock radio speaker etc. So what they do is they make it sound OK on all of those, but not really great on any of those. Just take speakers vs. headphones: I fail to see, for example, how, with certain music, you can have the proper spatial image on both [assuming you don't compensate with the panning]. For other systems the limitations are usually related to frequency.. for example, low bass will not be heard on small speakers, which can lead to adding additional harmonics, which was perhaps not part of the musician's initial plan. These compromises add up and you can end up with a less than great sounding album. Of course, goes without saying: good sounding is a matter of personal preference and personal listening equipment/environment.
Also goes without saying that music with different target audiences will get different kinds of compromises.

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #12
Continuing, but more to the topic I'd say one problem when making good sounding recordings is compromising. (It's been mentioned, but perhaps needs to be specified.) It's a challenge to make a song sound good on various systems and environments. It has to sound good on your hi-fi, your car, your phone, your clock radio speaker etc. So what they do is they make it sound OK on all of those, but not really great on any of those.


I am wondering if at some point music files will contain several versions of the track, each tailored to a class of playback devices/situations. Artficial bass enhancement and perfect downmixing to mono for alarm clock radio player. Super-flat frequency response with bass extending to 16 Hz, great spatial accuracy but we-don't-care-how-it-mixes-down-to-mono, and huge dynamic range for high-end system in a quiet room. Significant dynamics compression for a car or other relatively noisy place. Cross-feed for headphones, etc.
Ceterum censeo, there should be an "%is_stop_after_current%".

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #13
Continuing, but more to the topic I'd say one problem when making good sounding recordings is compromising. (It's been mentioned, but perhaps needs to be specified.) It's a challenge to make a song sound good on various systems and environments. It has to sound good on your hi-fi, your car, your phone, your clock radio speaker etc. So what they do is they make it sound OK on all of those, but not really great on any of those.


I am wondering if at some point music files will contain several versions of the track, each tailored to a class of playback devices/situations. Artficial bass enhancement and perfect downmixing to mono for alarm clock radio player. Super-flat frequency response with bass extending to 16 Hz, great spatial accuracy but we-don't-care-how-it-mixes-down-to-mono, and huge dynamic range for high-end system in a quiet room. Significant dynamics compression for a car or other relatively noisy place. Cross-feed for headphones, etc.

I for one would like to see a stereo track that sounds like the musician/sound engineer would like it to sound in an ideal world using ideal playback equipment. Then record management could get to add metadata setting up playback-side compression/clipping/... to make it N dB louder.

-k

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #14
IMO the "problem" is rather that a recording engineer can not soundwise please both the conductor/musicians who are always close to the source and people who are used to listening from a larger distance. The distant sound isn't necessarily the one intended by the conductor. Most conductors have enough decision power to enforce more distant sounding recordings if they really wanted.


Interesting. I have heard a conductor say that he wishes everyone could hear what he does from the podium.

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #15
I for one would like to see a stereo track that sounds like the musician/sound engineer would like it to sound in an ideal world using ideal playback equipment. Then record management could get to add metadata setting up playback-side compression/clipping/... to make it N dB louder.

-k


Me too. But of course that would require some kind of standard processing in the playback equipment. It seems to me too that recordings of acoustic music should include a calibration level for use both in high fidelity playback and to allow proper loudness compensation and compression to be applied if the listener desires.

In the meantime, separate releases would seem to be the only option.

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #16
I am wondering if at some point music files will contain several versions of the track, each tailored to a class of playback devices/situations. Artficial bass enhancement and perfect downmixing to mono for alarm clock radio player. Super-flat frequency response with bass extending to 16 Hz, great spatial accuracy but we-don't-care-how-it-mixes-down-to-mono, and huge dynamic range for high-end system in a quiet room. Significant dynamics compression for a car or other relatively noisy place. Cross-feed for headphones, etc.


Probably as close to that as we can easily get would be a collection of the individual tracks, plus maybe some MIDI tracks that could be applied to a synth of the users choosing and parameters of the users choosing.

If you rummage about you  may be able to find some archives that purport to be the tracks that were used to mix some recognizable songs.

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #17
I realize that there are probably a ton of variables here but i'm gonna try this one out anyway.  I'm not talking about the Loudness Wars or things like original master recordings. What is it that makes one recording.(subjectively) better than another, even in the same genre?  It's all subjective, so my use of 'better' is meant in that sense.  No ABX is implied.  I'm speaking of different recordings of different material.

Is it that some engineers are better at it than others and might not notice that a kick drum is buried or that the whole things sound muddy? "Better" might be that they hear with more accuracy or they have more training (or both)?

Is it that some studios have more precise equipment?

Is it that time is money in the studio and some bands pay more for it than others? (i assume it costs more to have your stuff done at Abbey Road Studios than Duck's Breath Mystery Theater)

Does the sound of an album usually take shape in the mixing or the mastering?

Do we need to take original master recordings into this? I have some original master recordings that just sound kinda muddy to me. Queen's stuff comes to mind.  Original masters don't seem to be a guarantee, though it's probably the best quality version of a given album. Right?

Some of it might be style.  Alice in Chains records 'badly' deliberately. The genre isn't called Grunge by chance and the album is named Dirt., so i'm assuming the muddy sound is by design.  Metallica has always buried the bass in the mix (no bad Cliff Burton jokes implied  ) but that's in part because the bassist just follows the same lines as the rhythm guitar. .

Since we have multiple threads of "What CD sounds best/worst in your collection" i'm hoping we need not get into "it's all personal opinion so it can't be answered."

What are your thoughts on this, those of you whom have far more experience in the studio than i? (i saw a mixing console once. It was turned off.)

.Thanks.


Yes.

Tim

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #18
I've recently posted on a well-known recording forum that smart recordists probably don't have a mixing console, and nobody even bothered to disagree.
Does your definition of mixing console include a mixing control surface with external audio processing ?


Depending on the scale of the control surface and how it is used, but generally yes.

You seem to be describing this:

A software-based mixing console system

Which I would definitely  call a mixing console

Quote
I find (creative) mixing with just a DAW and a mouse similar to playing the piano with only one finger. If speed is low on your priority list, it might be doable.


Mixing with a DAW and a mouse seems pretty awkward until you get comfortable with non-linear editing.  Once I got the hang of it, I can be so much more productive working nonlinearly  than I could possibly be were I working in real time.  Live sound *has* to be done in real time, but I obtain what most people agree are the far better mixes with a DAW.

Trying to play a piano with one finger seems awkward until you realize that a great deal is done with MIDI these days, and that often involves working a note at a time.

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #19
I may add that nowadays most DAWs and other creation/editing software can be controlled by midi hardware (digital mixers, knob controllers...). Add to this also touch screens and other handy tools and you don't have any more the "toying with a mouse" feeling.

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #20
Mixing with a DAW and a mouse seems pretty awkward until you get comfortable with non-linear editing.  Once I got the hang of it, I can be so much more productive working nonlinearly  than I could possibly be were I working in real time.  Live sound *has* to be done in real time, but I obtain what most people agree are the far better mixes with a DAW.
Interesting. In my vocabulary editing and mixing are quite different tasks and I completely agree that DAW's made editing a lot faster and more flexible.
For me a mixing console should be capable of user manipulation of several parameters (level, EQ etc.) at the same time (which IMO isn't possible with just a mouse). Mixing automation software allows for redo and tweaking so mixing doesn't have to be "real time". For some reason you seem to link non-DAW mixing to linear, which is only true for non-automated mixing consoles. Have I misread something?

I've recently posted on a well-known recording forum that smart recordists probably don't have a mixing console, and nobody even bothered to disagree.
I'm tempted to disagree, but it depends in which context you used it. Can you elaborate or give an URL ?

Trying to play a piano with one finger seems awkward until you realize that a great deal is done with MIDI these days, and that often involves working a note at a time.
It took me many years to learn to play the piano with 10 fingers and I remain convinced that it is superior to single finger playing.
Try writing forum postings with only one finger

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #21
Try writing forum postings with only one finger

Often forum posts read like they were only written with one finger. Guess which finger.

I feel like my original question has been answered, aside from "Is it that some studios have more precise equipment?"  Is the idea that "similar amps performing within spec will sound the same" in the consumer world, apply equally to the pro audio equipment world as well (i'm speaking of pro sound cards, recorders and consoles, not mikes and other mechanical devices)?  My gut reaction is yes, but i've stopped trusting my 'experience' after posting here for a week. Arnold suggested that in Post #9 but not implicitly.
Music lover and recovering high end audiophile

 

Differences in sound quality between recordings

Reply #22
Mixing with a DAW and a mouse seems pretty awkward until you get comfortable with non-linear editing.  Once I got the hang of it, I can be so much more productive working nonlinearly  than I could possibly be were I working in real time.  Live sound *has* to be done in real time, but I obtain what most people agree are the far better mixes with a DAW.


Interesting. In my vocabulary editing and mixing are quite different tasks

They are. For example, there is really no such thing as editing in live sound. The time line is what it is - real time. There are cues of course, but not quite the same thing.

However, editing happens a lot in non linear mixing.


Quote
and I completely agree that DAW's made editing a lot faster and more flexible.


Also, mixing.

Quote
For me a mixing console should be capable of user manipulation of several parameters (level, EQ etc.) at the same time (which IMO isn't possible with just a mouse).


I take it then that you are unfamiliar with mixing using envelopes. I can edit a number of envelopes, each of which affect different parameters such as pan and eq parameters. I edit them a point at a time, but they are applied concurrently.

Quote
Mixing automation software allows for redo and tweaking so mixing doesn't have to be "real time".


Automaton is still based on the idea that things happen in real time.

With nonlinear editing, real time is only mandatory for reviewing one's work in total.

Quote
For some reason you seem to link non-DAW mixing to linear, which is only true for non-automated mixing consoles. Have I misread something?


I see any editing or mixing that happens in real time as being "linear". The time base is linear and progresses at the same speed as real time. In nonlinear editing time and speed are just numbers.